Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Monk and Greater Trip

Rules Questions

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Does a monk still need to get Combat Exp to get Greater Trip even though he already possesses Imp Trip?

Yes. This is one of the many ways Pathfinder has screwed over the Monk class.

In D&D 3E, "Greater" and "Improved" Trip were one feat, Improved Trip. And monk got it at level 6 w/o needing any of the pre-reqs at all. Now monk can't possibly get the same benefit by level 6, even if he could meet the pre-reqs, which is impossible without obscenely high rolls/point buy or making himself even more gimped than a normal monk.

Well... that's crap.

Look into the maneuver master if your really wanting the greater maneuver feats

Fastmover wrote:
Well... that's crap.

If you're just coming in to PF from 3E, some other notes:

- Fast Movement is now land speed only. So once everyone is getting buffed with Fly, it's completely irrelevant.

- Imp. Natural Attack does not work with unarmed strike. It just doesn't! Stop asking why!

- You can no longer attach natural attacks to the end of a flurry as 2ndary natural attacks. Any other character using TWF with unarmed can do so just fine, however.

- Tumbling is now suicidally hard. Don't even bother trying to play as a skirmisher.

Among other nerfs. PF beat the monk up pretty badly, if the class were a person, it'd be in a persistent vegetative state right now.

And if you are coming from 3E, then you probably already knew monk was the worst core class in that system....

Sorry, I wish it weren't so. I love the thematical elements monk represents, but you just have to look to other classes and re-fluffing if you want to be a "monk" and also be competent in PF.

Silver Crusade

While I agree about some of the monk nerfs, saying a well-built PF monk is not competent is absolutely wrong. My two previous monk characters have since become Chuck Norris synonyms in our group.

The core monk is really weak, but the options added later - notably Qinggong and style feats - make it a potent(ially awesome) party member.


Yeah, I'll second that the archetypes seem a good bit stronger. Maneuver Masters, Martial Artists, and Master of Many Styles all look like they'd be much more competent than the average Monk. With the core Monk, I think the only really easy combat maneuver to advance to Greater would be grappling; all of the others would require power attack or combat expertise. It will only help so much, but at least there are some core Monk weapons (flurry friendly) that would support maneuvers: Sai (Sunder, Disarm), Kama (trip), and Nunchuck (disarm).

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Monk and Greater Trip All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.