You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion.Oh, I guess that's why I had a miserable time with my monk then. Proably also why I'm still banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to make the monk I actually want to play feel like a monk and still function.
>:(
Mikaze's comments about the monk class are among my favorites because she has a clear vision of the monk based on history and fiction. Her frustration is that the abilities of the Pathfinder monk class do not fit the non-Pathfinder image of a warrior monk. (This is not Paizo's fault. They inherited the monk's flaws from D&D.)
A high-strength monk that sacrifices all his other attributes (and the abilities that need those attributes) for an inhuman strength works. A high-dexterity monk that focuses on tripping opponents works as long as the GM provides opponents that can be tripped. A high-defense little-offense monk can survive, but the other party members complain about him being useless. Those are the only workable core-monk options for a campaign that challenges the party in combat. Successfully playing a monk who mastered the martial arts for the love of them requires an archetype.
Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).
Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.
Meh, countering other classes really doesn't matter to be quite frank. I just am upset about the fact that the monk class can barely utilize its mobility to its full potential when other pouncing classes can. Perhaps that's all that have to change in order for the class to feel like it's good. Maybe Full attacks should be changed opposed to monks. It just seems to me that full attacking and not full attacking is a huge difference DPR wise.
@The Equalizer
I'm glad that you expressed that you think everyone on the forums are idiots. However, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people on the forums are people that actually care about the game they play and want to see it improved.
Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).
Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.
We are speaking in generalities. We know every class has its moments, but the monk has a hard time finding those moments, but we have gone over this before.
To be fair a monk can do decent damage, but it either suffers at doing damage, or its defenses suffer, unlike the other combat classes that can get good defenses(normally AC) and still make monsters cry.Depends on how you define decent. I was like you before I built my DPR model in the belief that monks if focusing on it can do decent DPR. Maybe if the monk was made rolling or high point buys 20+.
I tried to do an elite array strength monk, grabbing all the DPR increasing feats. Without blowing ki, a monk is doing around half the DPR of a similar elite array core fighter with a greatsword. Which is also less than a similar elite array pouncing druid.
If you blow ki every round (assuming haste stacks with ki) while full attacking, you can get to similar levels of DPR with a pouncing druid. You are still nowhere near where the THF is.
My builds besides the monk aren't even hyper optimized, an easy way to increase DPR for the THF is to grab a falchion and to grab the feat critical focus. Which I didn't even bother to model.
For the monk I took every feat a strength monk can increase DPR, including dragon style, dragon ferocity, weapon focus, improved critical. I got rid of PA because in the model it became a net DPR loss at high levels.
Gave the monk a monk's robe and the highest AoMF it can afford. I may be understating the monk's DPR a bit because I guess if stunning fist lands early in the full attack it can bump up the monk's DPR. (but since this is a strength monk a BBEG only needs like a 2 to save against the stunning fist) However, this is a pretty optimized strength monk, I don't even think there are any DPR increasing feats left to take. (at least at level 11 where I made the cut off)
Here is what I mean.
If the monk is doing enough damage to get anyone's attention his AC is normally low enough to get hit more often than it would like. This is especially true of the core monk. If the monk has a really high AC he either will struggle to hit and/or struggle to do enough damage to get anyone's attention, and since he is not doing enough damage, and he is hard to hit it is reasonable that an intelligent monster will move on to another target(party member)There are some monk archtypes that are good, so I am not saying the monk can never work. I am also of the belief that I should not have to use an archtype to play a class if I don't have a high level of system mastery. What if my GM say CRB only?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is, and it is stated many times in this and other threads, is what is the monks role. Numerous responses say I couldn't create the monk I wanted to play, I have never had that problem. In the standard four people with complaints want the Monk to have the role of fighter, I've always veiwed it replacing the rogue, situationally good at combat but able to do many other things for the party. I rmember my enlarged monk in CoTCT keeping a swarm of Grey Maidens tied up by tripping/combat reflexes allowing the rest of the party to kill them off. If the developers want to redo the monk that is fine but I think a consensus of what people want the monk to do before changing. I think people may be just as unhappy with full BAB, magical enhancements for unarmed strikes but loose a sve a two and a bunch of immunities. IMHO
Way back when, that was actually what the monk was classed as. In AD&D 1e, the monk was a thief subclass alternative. They stayed that way up until in 2e when for, whatever reason, they got shifted over to being a cleric subclass (archetype might be the better term.)
And then 3e came along and...well...they tried to go back to the ideas of the 1e monk. They tried. And ever since then it has been an issue of try, and try, and try. But in a system where the traditional 4 person adventuring party has had its composition switched (used to be fighter, cleric, wizard, thief, now its much, much more flexible) means the monk needs refocusing. As it is, they are 3rd string melee, 3rd string scout, with archetypes and good system mastery, you can compete for the 2nd string slots.
That is where many, many forum members issues comes in, at least from what I've noticed/read/inferred.
The problem is, especially for people new to the game, the monk is counter-intuitive. What do I mean by that, you ask?
What do you think of when you say martial artist or monk? It is Bruce Lee, or David Carradine, or Chuck Norris, or Chow Yun-Fat, or Jackie Chan . . . it is for me. Slim and fast, with good muscle builds and well-toned bodies (but not body-builder levels of stacked and ripped muscles), who are (generally speaking) wise in the interaction of human beings and the ways of the world.
That eliminates Bruce (he was ripped) and Chuck (also ripped).
But not Jackie, Chow, or David for muscle. However, Jackie isn't wise and Chow isn't slim.So the Monk you need is David Carradine (even if he isn't the one you want.)
Watch Kung Fu, he is the Monk you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is, and it is stated many times in this and other threads, is what is the monks role. Numerous responses say I couldn't create the monk I wanted to play, I have never had that problem. In the standard four people with complaints want the Monk to have the role of fighter, I've always veiwed it replacing the rogue, situationally good at combat but able to do many other things for the party. I rmember my enlarged monk in CoTCT keeping a swarm of Grey Maidens tied up by tripping/combat reflexes allowing the rest of the party to kill them off. If the developers want to redo the monk that is fine but I think a consensus of what people want the monk to do before changing. I think people may be just as unhappy with full BAB, magical enhancements for unarmed strikes but loose a sve a two and a bunch of immunities. IMHO
I think the monk should be the best at fighting unarmed.
I think it should be able to bypass DR using RAW
I also want the class abilities to synergize better, and I want MAD to have less of an impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, especially for people new to the game, the monk is counter-intuitive. What do I mean by that, you ask?
What do you think of when you say martial artist or monk? It is Bruce Lee, or David Carradine, or Chuck Norris, or Chow Yun-Fat, or Jackie Chan . . . it is for me. Slim and fast, with good muscle builds and well-toned bodies (but not body-builder levels of stacked and ripped muscles), who are (generally speaking) wise in the interaction of human beings and the ways of the world.
That eliminates Bruce (he was ripped) and Chuck (also ripped).
But not Jackie, Chow, or David for muscle. However, Jackie isn't wise and Chow isn't slim.So the Monk you need is David Carradine (even if he isn't the one you want.)
Watch Kung Fu, he is the Monk you want.
Bruce was ripped, but he was not big. If you have an 18 or higher in strength. you are probably the size of a football player or the bigger pro wrestlers
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That eliminates Bruce (he was ripped) and Chuck (also ripped).
But not Jackie, Chow, or David for muscle. However, Jackie isn't wise and Chow isn't slim.So the Monk you need is David Carradine (even if he isn't the one you want.)
Watch Kung Fu, he is the Monk you want.
Bruce Lee was well-muscled, but nowhere near body-builder levels. There is a difference between ripped and over-muscled (see professional wrestlers for the later). Chuck norris was also solidly built, but once again not in the same league with Cena and crowd.
I wouldn't say Jackie isn't wise . . . have you seen him in the latest installment of the Karate Kid?
And certainly Yun-Fat Chow was, at one time, relatively slim. Still picture of Chow in Bullet-Proof Monk.
MA
Isn't the concern over requiring a full attack to flurry a bit of a red herring? To get full iterative attacks for any other class, you have to use a full attack option.
Except for a barbarian or druid using pounce, or one of the fighter archetypes (I forget which) that can attack with two weapons after moving. Or anyone using that new shirt from UE that gives you an extra move action (so you can move and attack 1/day).
MA
Bruce Lee was well-muscled, but nowhere near body-builder levels. There is a difference between ripped and over-muscled (see professional wrestlers for the later). Chuck norris was also solidly built, but once again not in the same league with Cena and crowd.
Man, when I first saw the Master of Many Styles archetypes, I decided to try and make a character that resembled Bruce Lee (I'm a big fan!), then I realized it wasn't very good and still suffered from many of the monk's problems. I gave up the idea. Do you think a full-BAB MoMS could work? It'd still suffer from poor enhancement options, but would perhaps be capable of actually hitting its enemies.
Who knows... Maybe John Cena is an optimized Monk? High Str, Mediocre Dex, Low Cha, terrible at fighting, but somehow still has legions of vocal fans. Sounds about right to me.
I wouldn't say Jackie isn't wise . . . have you seen him in the latest installment of the Karate Kid?
Or most of his chinese movies, such as Police Story. Actually, even in his comedic roles he often displays wisdom.
And certainly Yun-Fat Chow was, at one time, relatively slim. Still picture of Chow in Bullet-Proof Monk.
Is there any rule for character weight? Does it affect her abilities in any way? No? So it doesn't really matter if a monk is fat or not.
Mikaze's comments about the monk class are among my favorites because she has a clear vision of the monk based on history and fiction. Her frustration is that the abilities of the Pathfinder monk class do not fit the non-Pathfinder image of a warrior monk. (This is not Paizo's fault. They inherited the monk's flaws from D&D.)
Not meaning to knock Paizo, but they inherited the paladin's flaws too and they fixed them - almost too well. Dreamscarred Press inherited the soulknife's scores (he was the one melee class that the monk could look down on in 3.5) and they fixed them.
A high-strength monk that sacrifices all his other attributes (and the abilities that need those attributes) for an inhuman strength works. A high-dexterity monk that focuses on tripping opponents works as long as the GM provides opponents that can be tripped. A high-defense little-offense monk can survive, but the other party members complain about him being useless. Those are the only workable core-monk options for a campaign that challenges the party in combat. Successfully playing a monk who mastered the martial arts for the love of them requires an archetype.
I hate to say it, but this is optimistic. A high strength monk focussing on damage output will still deal less damage than a fighter, and have a far worse AC. A high-dex monk will be able to hit (barely) if you pay the heavy feat tax, and will have an AC comparable to a fully armoured character, but odds are on that you can forget actually inflicting any damage. A monk focussing on maneuvers will struggle to do anything much once you get to high level.
I think the problem is, and it is stated many times in this and other threads, is what is the monks role. Numerous responses say I couldn't create the monk I wanted to play, I have never had that problem. In the standard four people with complaints want the Monk to have the role of fighter, I've always veiwed it replacing the rogue, situationally good at combat but able to do many other things for the party. I rmember my enlarged monk in CoTCT keeping a swarm of Grey Maidens tied up by tripping/combat reflexes allowing the rest of the party to kill them off. If the developers want to redo the monk that is fine but I think a consensus of what people want the monk to do before changing. I think people may be just as unhappy with full BAB, magical enhancements for unarmed strikes but loose a sve a two and a bunch of immunities. IMHO
You must have bveen playing a different CotCT game to me, my monk with combat reflexes and Snake Style rarely got the opportunity to dish it out with multiple strikes. Mainly because mook fights were dealt with by fireball from the magus...and that was playing a monk as party scout, only it didn't really make much difference because there were so few traps (or even locked doors) I felt as if I was playing a redundant role.
Watch Kung Fu, he is the Monk you want.
I agree, but other people want other types of monks. I would prefer changes that allow for a variety of monk builds all of which are viable. As is the monk cannot do a David Carradine.
Isn't the concern over requiring a full attack to flurry a bit of a red herring? To get full iterative attacks for any other class, you have to use a full attack option.
Do they suffer a reduced attack bonus if they abandon TWFing and just attack with one weapon on one attack action? Yep, that's why there's such an emphasis on FoB, the effective penalty for NOT using it.
See, what makes a weapon good is not the base damage, it is, in order: Static bonuses (including enhancement), threat range, threat multiplier, special effects, damage dice. The best weapon for a TWFer is a kukri. Monk's unarmed strike is a red herring, it's gimped by low threat range and lack of enhancement.I'm in general agreement with Dabbler, but I'd like to clarify. I think this priority list is probably appropriate for two-weapon fighting weapons… big-two handers can have a slightly different priority… base damage begin one of them depending on the character concept.
Two-handers get strength bonus x 150% damage, that boosts the static bonus to damage nicely. Priority one on my list fulfilled.
So, you have a three chances of hitting at 40% each in a flurry, plus two more at 15%, if you spend a point of ki.
Where is this Rapid Stunning feat? I can't find it in the PRD.
1. Actually it doesn't. Minimum damage is as high as most DR of equal level.
The problem I have found in practice is that when you really need it is in the CR+2-4 fights. Then you face a level of DR that can shut you down.
2. What percent of success is good enough? 20% to 25% seems more than reasonable to me as a goal, considering that means 1 out of every 4 to 5 times you use it, your enemy loses a round (or worse, later on) in addition to taking damage.
I agree, the 22.5% was good enough - but that was attacking the weakest possible enemy for your CR. What happens when you face something tough where you NEED stunning fist? Something with decent AC, DR and a good Fort save?
It costs pretty much nothing to attempt the stun, but it changes the battle when it works.
The monk has a problem, but the problem is often overstated when people forget the moments where the monk shines.
These things don't happen enough, due to inability to attack, but they do happen.
Yes, they do happen. Why, in my monk's 14-level career, it happened...once. That's it. And for that one time it worked, my monk was shut down completely and unable to contribute in around half-a-dozen encounters. In fact my monk's stunning fist actually worked four times in all that career. On one of those occasions it was a game-changer. Otherwise...meh.
Do you think Stunning Fist needs to be revamped/reimagined/reexplored, or is it fine the way it is?
The problem with stunning fist is that it is at the end of the hit/damage/DR snowball. If the monk can hit more reliably, get damage through AC, then it suddenly improves a great deal. Another reason for Wis-to-hit is that it makes your choice stat wisdom, which improves the stunning fist DC. That one occasion I mentioned above? the target would have passed his save on a '3'. I only hit with a natural '20'. It was pure fluke. So I would say, fix the monk's other problems and I think stunning fist will fix itself.
Might be a 3.5 feat I am remembering wrong, Dabbler.
MA
Design Manager
|
Monk's have very limited usefulness, particularly in stricter gaming environments. A monk built on a 20 point buy following standard WBL guidelines is generally going to either have very low damage, low AC, or have a variety of class features that are virtually useless because you dumped Wisdom.
Many people have had good experiences with the monk. In fact, all of the most vocal people talking about the issues with the monk love the class and are so vocal specifically because they want it to be a fully functional, intuitive class. As it stands it's a class with a mish-mash of class abilities, few of which are complimentary, and a clunky mechanic for dealing damage that specifically doesn't mesh with his movement capabilities, drastically decreasing his ability to even land a blow when he's not full attacking.
I personally love the idea of the monk, but can clearly see that his execution is flawed. If I'm rolling stats and get a good spread, I'll play a monk.
Hope y'all don't mind if I take advantage of the willingness to discuss monks, but I'm coming in late to the game, having only just started playing PF a month ago and last having played when AD&D 2ed was the rage, and having spent the majority of my time with AD&D 1ed as well as red/blue/green boxes...
I've seen mention of brass knuckles and how they looked good for a bit until they were changed by errata. I'm gathering they allowed a monk to add enhancement bonuses to UAS but then were changed... not to? I guess? Anyone enlighten me as to what happened?
I've enjoyed the monk class over the years in various iterations and am enjoying the discussion of late. And this popcorn is delicious.
The brass knuckles allowed him to use the damage that his fist did at first. As an example a monk does 2d6 at 12th level so that is what the monk would do. The errata makes it so that the brass knuckles only do the damage listed on the weapons table.
The brass knuckles allowed him to use the damage that his fist did at first. As an example a monk does 2d6 at 12th level so that is what the monk would do. The errata makes it so that the brass knuckles only do the damage listed on the weapons table.
Don't forget they were a LOT cheaper to enchant than the Amulet of Mighty Fists, as well. Same price as a single weapon, in fact.
MA
|
Design Manager
|
The brass knuckles allowed him to use the damage that his fist did at first. As an example a monk does 2d6 at 12th level so that is what the monk would do. The errata makes it so that the brass knuckles only do the damage listed on the weapons table.Don't forget they were a LOT cheaper to enchant than the Amulet of Mighty Fists, as well. Same price as a single weapon, in fact.
MA
Which is why they were errata'd, since no monk who could enchant a pair of Brass knuckles would intentionally spend more money just to give up his neck slot and have less versatility.
Can't have items out there that make an item in the Core Rulebook obsolete....Which I don't agree with, because I think everyone who was using the Amulet of Mighty Fists before (namely druids, summoners, and a select group of rangers and clerics) would keep right on using it. It was a clarification that only hurt the monk and did absolutely nothing else.
OK, just using the CRB, here are some important differences between Monks and Fighters/Barbarians:
1.) Stunning fist- how is that not useful? (If it works)
2.)Evasion and Improved evasion- come on, this is very useful. How many times have you as a fighter wanted to strangle your party thief when he smugly announces " I didnt take any damage from that fireball!"
3.)Slow fall- quite useful for those pit traps the rogue didnt find.
4.)Purity of body/Diamond body- immunity to poison and disease? Ask an assasin or master poisoner how annoying poison immunity is.
5.)Wholeness of body- self healing is always a plus.
6.)Abundant step- a melee class with a natural dimension door ability? Sweet.
7.)Diamond soul- SR too, seriously? How can anyone think a monks defenses are weak?
8.)Quivering palm- used to be one of their scariest abilities. I guess you have to try an build up the save DC to make it nasty now...but still.
9.)Timeless body- ok most of us dont really take time/age into account. But still cool for RAW.
10.)Empty body- Natural etherealness too? Come on, how is that not cool and a potential live or die difference maker too?
I think most people have conveniently "forgotten" all these extra abilities. If you want a damage monster/tank, play a fighter or barbarian. And then, when they come (and they will), enjoy all those times when YOUR abilities are next to useless and YOU are getting abused by special attacks or intelligent opponents.(spells, poisons, pit traps, etc) Then maybe you will look more fondly on and with greater awareness of how a monk can shine in the right situations.
From what I can tell, the healing is pitiful with Wholeness of Body. SR also works with friendly casters, a bit of a doubleedged sword. Slow Fall's very situational, though I do like it for fluff.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.
I think most people have conveniently "forgotten" all these extra abilities. If you want a damage monster/tank, play a fighter or barbarian. And then, when they come (and they will), enjoy all those times when YOUR abilities are next to useless and YOU are getting abused by special attacks or intelligent opponents.(spells, poisons, pit traps, etc) Then maybe you will look more fondly on and with greater awareness of how a monk can shine in the right situations.
I was about to answer this post, then I noticed the amount of words I'd have to type... I'll let Master Arminas take this one.
I'll just say that SR is horrible. Especially for a class with good saves.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.
But does the Paladin in question have a better offense while punching things?
To be fair a monk can do decent damage, but it either suffers at doing damage, or its defenses suffer, unlike the other combat classes that can get good defenses(normally AC) and still make monsters cry.Depends on how you define decent. I was like you before I built my DPR model in the belief that monks if focusing on it can do decent DPR. Maybe if the monk was made rolling or high point buys 20+.
I tried to do an elite array strength monk, grabbing all the DPR increasing feats. Without blowing ki, a monk is doing around half the DPR of a similar elite array core fighter with a greatsword. Which is also less than a similar elite array pouncing druid.
If you blow ki every round (assuming haste stacks with ki) while full attacking, you can get to similar levels of DPR with a pouncing druid. You are still nowhere near where the THF is.
My builds besides the monk aren't even hyper optimized, an easy way to increase DPR for the THF is to grab a falchion and to grab the feat critical focus. Which I didn't even bother to model.
For the monk I took every feat a strength monk can increase DPR, including dragon style, dragon ferocity, weapon focus, improved critical. I got rid of PA because in the model it became a net DPR loss at high levels.
Gave the monk a monk's robe and the highest AoMF it can afford. I may be understating the monk's DPR a bit because I guess if stunning fist lands early in the full attack it can bump up the monk's DPR. (but since this is a strength monk a BBEG only needs like a 2 to save against the stunning fist) However, this is a pretty optimized strength monk, I don't even think there are any DPR increasing feats left to take. (at least at level 11 where I made the cut off)
Well there is your problem, the fixation on DPR.
While offensive monks can be made (and more options still remain in 3.5, so you might have to convince your dm to allow these sources to bring the monk up for pf) they are a mobile defensive class that wins by attrition. Not with fantastic DPR, unless much of your flurry hits and your opponent doesn't have good DR. Against non DR foes, I have always seen them perform well. PF may push DR, but not everything has it so the monk is not weak by default, but hindered by certain types of opponents.
Monks do great against oozes (lol), animals and wizards/sorcerers. They can also skirmish giants to death without worry of being caught, for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.
Although the beholder has been removed by paizo, they are also countered by monks, which are save causing ranged touch opponents to the monk (had a few beholder vs monk fights recently).
OK, just using the CRB, here are some important differences between Monks and Fighters/Barbarians:
All of these come up in debate, and the people that are the most vocal are people that like the monks. With that out of the way
1.) Stunning fist- how is that not useful? (If it works)
The "if it works" is part of the problem. The monk has to do damage, and then the monster has to fail the save. That is not a formula for success.
2.)Evasion and Improved evasion- come on, this is very useful. How many times have you as a fighter wanted to strangle your party thief when he smugly announces " I didnt take any damage from that fireball!"
Monk's have a high reflex normally so they probably won't fail anyway. With that aside AoE spells are not that scary. Even if you get hit by one you won't get taken out by one in most situations.
3.)Slow fall- quite useful for those pit traps the rogue didnt find.
This ability is very circumstantial, just like many of the other things the monks has. Most of us want something that is less circumstanscial
4.)Purity of body/Diamond body- immunity to poison and disease? Ask an assasin or master poisoner how annoying poison immunity is.
The monk's defense has never been doubted, but the monk would likely have made the save anyway. Assassins also suck. Also even if you fail a save against poison they can be removed by low level spells.
5.)Wholeness of body- self healing is always a plus.
The healing is inadequate, and it takes a standard action. In short it is not good for in combat healing, and for out of combat healing most parties have healer with cure spells or wands.
6.)Abundant step- a melee class with a natural dimension door ability? Sweet.
The monk can't attack or do anything else after using it without a feat. In short is basically good for running away.
7.)Diamond soul- SR too, seriously? How can anyone think a monks defenses are weak?
SR is a trap. It not only blocks the bad guys spell, but it blocks the party's buffs. If you don't want it in the way you need a standard action to shut it down. I can see a monk bleeding out, and then dying because his SR block the cure spell. I trade SR away when I can.
8.)Quivering palm- used to be one of their scariest abilities. I guess you have to try an build up the save DC to make it nasty now...but still.
The same issues as stunning fist, and by this level monsters have really good saves.
9.)Timeless body- ok most of us dont really take time/age into account. But still cool for RAW.
It is generally a nonfactor. Most campaigns end well before anyone takes aging penalties.
10.)Empty body- Natural etherealness too? Come on, how is that not cool and a potential live or die difference maker too?
This is not bad, but not a neccessity. You might not ever use it.
I think most people have conveniently "forgotten" all these extra abilities. If you want a damage monster/tank, play a fighter or barbarian. And then, when they come (and they will), enjoy all those times when YOUR abilities are next to useless and YOU are getting abused by special attacks or intelligent opponents.(spells, poisons, pit traps, etc) Then maybe you will look more fondly on and with greater awareness of how a monk can shine in the right situations.
If someone is getting abused by special attacks that is a player issue, not a class issue. Barbarians can get excellent saves, as an example. The monk however is constantly fiddling his thumbs. This is not just theorycraft, but testimony from the board's more knowledgeable posters.
We want the monk to be useful on a regular basis, not in circumstantial situations.
I don't think you have read the links I posted earlier, but they are good reads. Nothing you have posted is new.
From what I can tell, the healing is pitiful with Wholeness of Body. SR also works with friendly casters, a bit of a doubleedged sword. Slow Fall's very situational, though I do like it for fluff.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.
Wholeness really can be good, it's daily, you don't have to drink a potion, buy the potion, get someone to use a spell slot on healing for you.
Can shut down the old hp bleeding or similar effects, can be used to recover after falling on spikes (take some damage, but you want to heal, not climb out injured).
Wholeness works with the slow fall, and works with the idea of monks being about defence and attrition. Held off a lot of attacks, did some grapple or flanking, got a bit injured, okay, heal up a bit and move on.
OK, just using the CRB, here are some important differences between Monks and Fighters/Barbarians:
1.) Stunning fist- how is that not useful? (If it works)
If it works, which is if you hit, and only if they fail their save...lotta ifs and hitting is one of the monk issues right now...
2.)Evasion and Improved evasion- come on, this is very useful. How many times have you as a fighter wanted to strangle your party thief when he smugly announces " I didnt take any damage from that fireball!"
No one debates that the monk has some nice static defenses like this, but honestly, the rogue stole this trick from 1e monks when they were the only ones who had it.
3.)Slow fall- quite useful for those pit traps the rogue didnt find.
Ok, for so those times when a ring of feather falling/item of flying aren't handy and falling huge distances is an issue this might come in handy. Or it might just shave a few d6's off what the DM is rolling for your damage.
4.)Purity of body/Diamond body- immunity to poison and disease? Ask an assasin or master poisoner how annoying poison immunity is.
Reference #2 above.
5.)Wholeness of body- self healing is always a plus.
This isn't self healing. At level 7 a paladin is healing 3d6 hp as a swift action + removing conditions, compared to the monks 14 points as a standard action at level 7, and they can do it without impacting their offense or defense, which with a monks limited ki pool (assuming you max wisdom out, at level 7 your looking at a ki pool of 10 or so, 2 ki per heal) the monk cannot. And it only gets worse from there. As it is written, it is a 1e ability no one bothered to update to PF yet.
6.)Abundant step- a melee class with a natural dimension door ability? Sweet.
Yep, and at level 13 you can use it to do something besides kill yourself in combat. Nothing like
"I teleport beside him.""Ok, his turn.."
"What? Were is my standard action?"
"You teleported, it ate the rest of your turn."
"Well, $#%#%#"
After level 13 when you can pick up Dimensional Agility it gets more useful.
7.)Diamond soul- SR too, seriously? How can anyone think a monks defenses are weak?
While SR is strong, this is not one of the monks stronger points, they already have good saves (debatably the 2nd or 3rd best in the game) and in serious fights, SR can screw you as much as help you. It isn't like it doesn't apply to your allies spells as well.
8.)Quivering palm- used to be one of their scariest abilities. I guess you have to try an build up the save DC to make it nasty now...but still.
Yes, except building up the DC like you suggest makes a build that can't actually land a hit to use it...might have an issue there..
9.)Timeless body- ok most of us dont really take time/age into account. But still cool for RAW.
Yes, cool factor. That counts. I still use the Qiggong Monk archetype to trade it every chance I get. Monks need all the help they can get.
10.)Empty body- Natural etherealness too? Come on, how is that not cool and a potential live or die difference maker too?
If the situation gets to the point its etherealness or die, at those levels, etherealness is probably needed because you are not contributing enough, which is many, many people (myself included) issue with the monk. I love the class, It just needs to be less grab bag, more focused and the abilities need to be far less corner case utility.
I think most people have conveniently "forgotten" all these extra abilities. If you want a damage monster/tank, play a fighter or barbarian. And then, when they come (and they will), enjoy all those times when YOUR abilities are next to useless and YOU are getting abused by special attacks or intelligent opponents.(spells, poisons, pit traps, etc) Then maybe you will look more fondly on and with greater awareness of how a monk can shine in the right situations.
Ok, I haven't played a monk that worked like you described since the 1e version. That was a long, long time ago. The closest I have gotten was with seriously optimizing and cherry picking feats, and an extremely generous point buy. I'm not sure what kind of game your playing in, but in the ones I tend to play in, there isn't a single situation that has come up and anyone at the table said "Damn, I should have rolled a monk, they would be awesome for this."
And that is why there are threads asking for monk fixes and buffs. Because I know at the table I usually play at, between me and my friends, we do say that about the other classes (well, except rogue, but that is a whole nother thread.)
*EDIT: Ninjad by wraithstrike. Curse you you shadowy terror!!! =)
An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
No, it is not daily and i certainly would prefer to drink a potion instead of wasting two Ki points.From what I can tell, the healing is pitiful with Wholeness of Body. SR also works with friendly casters, a bit of a doubleedged sword. Slow Fall's very situational, though I do like it for fluff.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.
Wholeness really can be good, it's daily, you don't have to drink a potion, buy the potion, get someone to use a spell slot on healing for you.
Can shut down the old hp bleeding or similar effects, can be used to recover after falling on spikes (take some damage, but you want to heal, not climb out injured).
Wholeness works with the slow fall, and works with the idea of monks being about defence and attrition. Held off a lot of attacks, did some grapple or flanking, got a bit injured, okay, heal up a bit and move on.
Ha ha, of course, ERROR. Trying to keep a lot of monks in mind, when I'm talking about monks. It takes ki points to do this. Perhaps 3.5 did it better, hahahaha.
OK, just using the CRB, here are some important differences between Monks and Fighters/Barbarians:
1.) Stunning fist- how is that not useful? (If it works)
First, you can only attempt one stunning fist a round, and it is wasted if you miss or the target saves.
Second, you have to hit, and hitting with a monk is the first problem because of (a) MAD and (b) late acquisition for increased cost to enhance unarmed strikes. When not using flurry of blows a monk has medium BAB with nothing to improve it. When the monk flurries, he is restricted to the TWF-lite style of flurry with no options. His attack bonus is constantly behind any martial class, even before you get to THEIR special abilities . . . and if the monk isn't a martial class what is it?
Third, you have to deal damage, and if the target has DR that is a problem if you are using unarmed strikes. You cannot afford a +3 amulet of mighty fists until 14th level . . . when was everyone else bypassing cold iron and silver?
Fourth, even if you hit, and deal damage, the target gets a save. A save that negates the ability completely.
2.)Evasion and Improved evasion- come on, this is very useful. How many times have you as a fighter wanted to strangle your party thief when he smugly announces " I didnt take any damage from that fireball!"
Evasion is very nice, and so is improved. Two of the best things about the monk as written.
3.)Slow fall- quite useful for those pit traps the rogue didnt find.
Highly situational ability. Even without slow fall, you can use acrobatics to reduce the damage from a fall into a pit . . . and slow fall doesn't protect you from anything at the bottom (like spikes, for example).
4.)Purity of body/Diamond body- immunity to poison and disease? Ask an assasin or master poisoner how annoying poison immunity is.
Another good aspect of the monk . . . but the paladin also gets disease immunity, in addition to smite evil, a divine bond, spells, lay on hands, mercies, and the absolute best saves in the game with divine grace. Without being as MAD as the monk, while having larger BAB and Hit Die, and lacking only a good Reflex save. Druids get immunity to poison, plus shape-shifting, 9th-level spells, animal companion, and a host of other abilities.
5.)Wholeness of body- self healing is always a plus.
Spend 2 ki (out of pool equal to one-half your monk level + your Wisdom modifier) in order to heat 2 hit points per monk class level as a standard action. Really? You get more bang from a potion. The paladin heals a LOT more as a swift action when he heals himself. Even the barbarian can pick a rage power to heal that does more than the monks.
6.)Abundant step- a melee class with a natural dimension door ability? Sweet.
It would be very cool, since a monk can do it as a move action . . . sort of. It still ends his turn, and costs 2 ki to activate. And he cannot carry anyone with him. If it had the Dimensional Agility feat built in it would be great. As it is, so-so.
7.)Diamond soul- SR too, seriously? How can anyone think a monks defenses are weak?
Diamond soul is a double-edged sword. It takes a standard action to raise or lower, which means helpful spells from allies have to roll to get through your SR in combat. Hope you aren't unconscious and bleeding out and need that heal spell.
8.)Quivering palm- used to be one of their scariest abilities. I guess you have to try an build up the save DC to make it nasty now...but still.
Once per day, and a successful save negates the ability for no effect.
9.)Timeless body- ok most of us dont really take time/age into account. But still cool for RAW.
And it really means nothing, just like Tongue of the Sun and Moon. Cool, I get tongues twelve levels after everyone else did. Wow, the game stops in three levels and I take no penalties for aging . . . how old am I again . . . twenty-four. Yeah, for fluff it is great, but in-game, it has almost zero effect.
10.)Empty body- Natural etherealness too? Come on, how is that not cool and a potential live or die difference maker too?
For three ki. It is a cool ability that you get at 19th level that lets you walk through walls. Spellcasters have been doing this since 13th level.
I think most people have conveniently "forgotten" all these extra abilities. If you want a damage monster/tank, play a fighter or barbarian. And then, when they come (and they will), enjoy all those times when YOUR abilities are next to useless and YOU are getting abused by special attacks or intelligent opponents.(spells, poisons, pit traps, etc) Then maybe you will look more fondly on and with greater awareness of how a monk can shine in the right situations.
A defensively oriented monk is a very difficult opponent to pin down, no question. The problem is, if you are so oriented, you aren't going to be hitting often and you aren't going to be doing much damage when you do. And in Pathfinder, offense greatly exceeds defense. You will get hit eventually, you will fail a save eventually. And when you do, the monk simply cannot take the damage that gets through over the time-frame you have to spend nickel-and-diming your opponents to death.
Don't get me wrong, a well-built monk with high ability scores is a fearsome opponent, especially in the hands of someone who thinks outside the box. But, if build on a level playing field with other classes (using point buy), the monk is simply stretched too thin to be GOOD at anything, he winds up being medicore or poor at everything. A bard outfights the monk the majority of the time. A bard.
MA
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Gods! Ninja'd by twelve posts! I must be slowing down in my old age.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
Yes, groups who don't have a dedicated healer interesting enough don't take as much damage.
They also tend to avoid the mental and tactical pitfall of "Ha, who cares if I provoke 3 AoO's from the giants, let me charge both of them, I'll live and the cleric can patch me up"
Sorry, but I've DMed to many groups, played in to many groups, and been the healer in to many groups to fall into that logic trap. People get cautious when they don't have a healer on tap. It is similar to a MMORPG, the party may keep going when the healer goes AFK, but the tank pulls smaller groups, and they aren't blitzing through.
you do seems to be very loyal :)Ha ha, of course, ERROR. Trying to keep a lot of monks in mind, when I'm talking about monks. It takes ki points to do this. Perhaps 3.5 did it better, hahahaha.No, it is not daily and i certainly would prefer to drink a potion instead of wasting two Ki points.From what I can tell, the healing is pitiful with Wholeness of Body. SR also works with friendly casters, a bit of a doubleedged sword. Slow Fall's very situational, though I do like it for fluff.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.
Wholeness really can be good, it's daily, you don't have to drink a potion, buy the potion, get someone to use a spell slot on healing for you.
Can shut down the old hp bleeding or similar effects, can be used to recover after falling on spikes (take some damage, but you want to heal, not climb out injured).
Wholeness works with the slow fall, and works with the idea of monks being about defence and attrition. Held off a lot of attacks, did some grapple or flanking, got a bit injured, okay, heal up a bit and move on.
For monks, absolutely.
Gods! Ninja'd by twelve posts! I must be slowing down in my old age.
MA
Man, and I didn't expound on certain areas because I was sure you would. Man...
Jeez, that is 3 of us who have said pretty much the exact same thing in regards to one post...I wonder if there is a trend...
An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
Yes, groups who don't have a dedicated healer interesting enough don't take as much damage.
They also tend to avoid the mental and tactical pitfall of "Ha, who cares if I provoke 3 AoO's from the giants, let me charge both of them, I'll live and the cleric can patch me up"
Sorry, but I've DMed to many groups, played in to many groups, and been the healer in to many groups to fall into that logic trap. People get cautious when they don't have a healer on tap. It is similar to a MMORPG, the party may keep going when the healer goes AFK, but the tank pulls smaller groups, and they aren't blitzing through.
:D Yep.
Once, runelords, had to take a castle of ogres. No healer, not envious of the task. So we broke out the crossbows, took cover and took the ogre rock throwers on the wall from 200+ out over 10+ rounds.Thinking.
Monks get heavy crossbow proficiency, and can be more mobile than most. Only bow cav is more mobile outside of magic, and that requires a lot of feats to do well and the horse can kark it.
An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
The groups I am in don't act foolish just because a healer is around. We also don't use dedicated healer aka healbots. We have people capable of healing. The last time someone tried to use a healbot they were bored to death. I don't understand the envy. Drop 750, get a wand of cure light wounds, kill the enemy quickly and you might not even have to heal.
PS:If by dedicated healer you did not mean healbot then I misunderstood you.
I don't think I've seen anyone say Monk's Defense sucks, really. But the Paladin arguably has as good or better defense and better offense.But does the Paladin in question have a better offense while punching things?
What level do you want the Paladin? Let me know and I will post him.
MA
An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
The groups I am in don't act foolish just because a healer is around. We also don't use dedicated healer aka healbots. We have people capable of healing. The last time someone tried to use a healbot they were bored to death. I don't understand the envy. Drop 750, get a wand of cure light wounds, kill the enemy quickly and you might not even have to heal.
PS:If by dedicated healer you did not mean healbot then I misunderstood you.
I'm guessing by dedicated healer he meant cleric. The whole spontaneous cast curing spells and channel energy makes them viable healers even if it isn't their main focus.
I'm guessing by dedicated healer he meant cleric. The whole spontaneous cast curing spells and channel energy makes them viable healers even if it isn't their main focus.An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
The groups I am in don't act foolish just because a healer is around. We also don't use dedicated healer aka healbots. We have people capable of healing. The last time someone tried to use a healbot they were bored to death. I don't understand the envy. Drop 750, get a wand of cure light wounds, kill the enemy quickly and you might not even have to heal.
PS:If by dedicated healer you did not mean healbot then I misunderstood you.
Clerics also do well in combat so I don't see how having one around makes people get hurt more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why all the monk hate? Because hate is so much easier than love!
After all, if we didn't have all this hate then we wouldn't go around stabbing people all the time!