You ignore a couple things Ciretose, like that part of your damage is subject to energy resistance, the most common kind at that.
And yes, potentially your monk can hit for more. So can any monk now so does that mean the monk doesn't need a to hit adjustment? The fighter is far more reliable, especially once you go non core and swap out one little feat for Furious Focus (totally forgot to put the fighters feats in there. Here they are: power attack, iron will, weapon focus(greatsword), cleave, improved initiative, weapon specialization (greatsword), lightning reflexes, lunge, vital strike, greater weapon focus (greatsword), toughness, improved critical (greatsword)) so he doesn't get the penalty on the first swing. All of a sudden he can stay on a target with few issues at no penalty to hit.
And I know it is a page or two back, but go look at the comparison between your monk and actual monsters at CR 9 and 10. Against the averages it isn't to bad, but against actual monsters it isn't as good.
So yes, I do still see the gap there. It may not be as big as the one there is now, but it is still there. More than the monk vs the other full BAB classes? Dunno. Having to think about a 2 weapon ranger lol, haven't played a non archery ranger in a long, long time. And I am guessing that we don't want a comparison between the monk and an archer.
OK, here's a paladin build for DPR comparison:
** spoiler omitted **...
Nifty. And...stunning attempts are limited by level. Again, there is a reason I think the goals need tweaked. If we keep the goals as they are now, it would be better to aim for a monk fix more in line with rogues and bards. Well. Rogues anyway.
Which is the problem. If making them a full on martial class is not doable, the only other 3/4 BAB non casters are...the rogue. Ninja if you count alternate classes. Um...um...yep. So, yes, I do think the ideas we had are a good start, but the goals that were set don't even things up. They close the gap, but it is still there.
I have just edited the DPR stats for my monks with extra ki-based attacks, vs AC 24. They are in the 60-70% of the paladin's DPR when he isn't smiting, which I think is OK.
The paladin can beat down the average CR10 foe (from the basic stats) in three rounds, even without his weapon bond or using any buffing spells.
The monk (either one) can blow ki and manage it in four, even assuming he gets stunning fist in successfully on one round does not adjust this up too far, though it probably saves the monk and his lower hit points from taking too much damage back that he loses.
Edit: the monk can use Crane Style to shorten this, probably, it depends on the foe. But even with stunning, the enemy will take no less than three rounds to go down. So we aren't challenging the damage dealers at their thing, but we can hold our own in a fight. I call this win-win.
I'm happy to say that I can't see the higher stunning chances as broken in the light of this. Wis-to-hit is alive and kicking :D
|
If you want the Devs to consider any changes, you have to set realistic goals for cap.
I explained in detail what the monk can do that the fighter (and this paladin) can't do.
If you raise the bar, there is zero chance this will get implemented and we are all wasting our time.
Also, I miscalculated the DPR of the Fighter (Sword and board) and monk.
Fighter is 52.8
Monk (tank) is 36.8
Options that you have to burn every encounter just to stay in the DPR ballpark are not options ciretose.
|
|
What are the percentages of success on stunning fist for each build.
I would say use the flurry number rather than the base number. Yes it is higher, but I would say about 1/2 the time the monk will be getting a +2 from either charge or flanking (sometimes both...) so it seems more reasonable to me.
So for my tank monk will hit %70 against AC 24 (7 or higher)
Against High fort, save is 19 vs 13 (6 or higher, 25%) for 17.5% or around 1 in 6ish.
Against Low fort is 19 vs 9 (10 or higher, 50%) for 35% or 1 in 3.
Check my math, as I've shown it needs to be checked :)
|
|
Options that you have to burn every encounter just to stay in the DPR ballpark are not options ciretose.
You get 10 a day at this level and can only use it once per round. 11 for most of the builds. You are attempting stunning more often than you are not at this level.
If we are counting any of the Magus arcane pool boosts, we are counting it.
|
|
Options that you have to burn every encounter just to stay in the DPR ballpark are not options ciretose.
Unless you are questioning the 36.8 in which case I will point out the monk is does an average of 16 damage on a hit, has 4 attacks without burning ki, the first two hit 70% (7 or better) and the last two hit 45% (12 or better).
70% of 16 is 11.2, x 2 is 22.4
45% of 16 is 7.2 X 2 is 14.4
Total is 36.8
If I burn a ki it goes to 47. But I didn't if that is what you are thinking I did.
Edit: Didn't calculate in Crits, if anyone wants to give me the math on that it would go up a little.
If you want the Devs to consider any changes, you have to set realistic goals for cap.
A monk that can hit on a par with a fallen paladin is a reasonable bar. You may disagree, but this is actually where most 3/4 BAB classes are going to be hitting too.
I explained in detail what the monk can do that the fighter (and this paladin) can't do.
Which is why the paladin is a fair comparison because he can do a lot of things the monk cannot do, and both are MAD. Both have comparable saves and immunities. The monk has a lot of cool abilities, the paladin has spells. The monk can run fast and has lots of skills, the paladin has the ability to heal the party (and himself, though that advantage over the monk may change, so I discount it here). The monk has stunning fist, the paladin hits harder. The monk has wisdom to AC, the paladin has armour and more hp.
The paladin has a more restrictive code and smite evil over the monk, and that's the primary difference.
I'd say this monk change was bang on target for being balanced among the combat classes.
If you raise the bar, there is zero chance this will get implemented and we are all wasting our time.
The bar was a good guideline, but with more work we've gone beyond that now. The whole point of the bar was to make sure we didn't 'break' the monk by making it too good, and looking at the figures these changes do not make the monk too good.
The devs do not want to implement changes that are insufficient to lift the monk out of the broken sink as badly as they do not want to overpower the monk. Make changes that are not enough and you are back where we started with disaffected fans.
I'd say at the moment that either monk I presented is pretty much able to do their job now. They are not so good at it that they are broken. It's a viable set of options to present to the devs. You may feel it overpowered, but as we originally declared this was an exercise to present a suite of options. The devs can pick which ones they feel are not broken at the end of the day, and I am sure they will.
The paladin can do many things outside of combat as well. He has lay on hands, spells, etc, and we purposefully skipped smite. So...yes, I'd say the paladin is 3-4 times as useful as the monk. If your wanting to keep the monk below every martial, I'm not sure I see the point of comparing to the martial classes. It seems like we should be comparing to the only other 3/4 BAB non caster, the rogue. Except the monk isn't a skill monkey, and the rogue has issues of its own right now.
I'm just trying to figure out what your goal is Ciretose. Fix the monk, bring it up on par with other classes, most likely the martial classes as they have the best similarity in roles? Just boost it to where it becomes a viable 5th but not 4th party member? Or something different?
And from what my math is coming out, it looks like the ranger will be looking at +18-19 to hit dual wielding vs non favored enemies for 1d6+6-9 depending on how you stat him, with either 4 attacks and rend or 5 attacks. Of course, he has a much broader and useful variety of adventuring skills (great scout) along with the animal companion or boosting the party depending on bond selection, plus his spells. And against his favored enemies it gets better. Of course, I will cheerfully admit I am not the greatest at twf rangers, I build them as archers, and I'm leaving archery out of this cause it just makes the monks lack of ranged offense look bad.
I want to see the monk fixed, I just think that for that to be the case he needs to be a viable option in a 4 man party. That means somewhere in the neighborhood of a fighter/paladin/ranger/barbarian in usefulness to the party. And before you say it...yes, two of those classes can do things other than fight. They get neat tricks to. And those tricks help people other than themselves. The other two are pretty much kings of non specialized DR. The monk needs his place, but if he is going to be viable, he needs to be in the race.
|
|
I'm just trying to figure out what your goal is Ciretose. Fix the monk, bring it up on par with other classes, most likely the martial classes as they have the best similarity in roles? Just boost it to where it becomes a viable 5th but not 4th party member? Or something different?
My goal is to come up with a solution the Devs will consider implementing.
The post above says where SKR is at, and I think he is more open to change than Jason.
They value the high saves, immunity, movement, etc, more than you do. And I largely agree with them. In my experience playing monks, the ONLY issue I've had being useful was when I couldn't hit.
Stepping on the toes of the martial classes for DPR is a non-starter for the Devs, and I don't blame them.
So to sum up, my Tank build (the only change being replacing Damage boost to unarmed with enhancement bonuses) has a DPR of 36.8 with a stun rate of 17.5% against high save and 35% against low...If my math is correct.
Not bad, that's just over the high limit of my wis-to-hit monk burning ki, save that they have better chances of stunning.
Now looking at the magus again: +3 Scimitar +17/+12 (1d6+11/18-20/x2)
He'll boost his weapon entering the fight, and two-hand it for +19/+14 (1d6+16/15-20/x2). Vs AC 24 that's a DPR of 80%/55% for 1.35 hits x 1.3 criticals x 19.5 average damage = 34.2225.
Alternatively, he could use spell combat to buff in round #1 so he could be at: +17/+12 (1d6+13/15-20/x2) for 1.15 hits x 1.3 crits x 16.5 = 24.6675 plus a buff spell.
That's with just one of his buffs.
Round #2 the magus could add hasted assault for +19/+19/+14 (1d6+16/15-20/x2). That gives us 2.15 hits x 1.3 crits x 19.5 = 54.5025. So the magus is now soundly beating not just the monk but the paladin as well in DPR, with just two swift-action buffs and two points of arcana - and he can hold at this for another four rounds without spending any arcane pool if he chooses.
Round #3-5 the magus kicks in arcane accuracy, for +4 from his intelligence bonus to hit. He then employs spell combat, one-handing his scimitar so he is only hitting at +21/+21/+16 (1d6+13/15-20/x2). That's 2.45 hits x 1.3 crits x 16.5 = 52.5525 DPR plus a spell.
So if you wanted to avoid going past the DPR a 3/4 BAB class could turn out, I think we both definitely succeeded.
Stepping on the toes of the martial classes for DPR is a non-starter for the Devs, and I don't blame them.
I'm in agreement, even with stunning fist working frequently the monks are coming in DPR ranges of 26-37 compared to a low martial DPR of around 50, a target even the magus hits relatively easily.
Ciretose, I know you don't like the implications of wis-to-hit, but I'd say we've nailed it for damage output with or without stunning. The main effect of stunning fist is NOT that it makes the target more vulnerable, it's that it stops the target killing the monk.
|
|
First round is way behind all of our monks DPR with a buff.
Second round he has spent two arcane points to get ahead on DPR.
For two Ki points (roughly equivilent in value) the tank monk adds 11.2 DPR.
So on average, the Magus is doing 79.2 over two rounds at the cost of 2 arcane pool.
The Tank monk is doing 94.8 over those same two rounds, plus stun chance if he uses that.
Without the crit calculation.
And your Magus still has a 21 AC going into round 3.
|
|
@Dabbler I agree 100% that both fixes found the sweet spot for damage I was looking for.
It isn't that I don't like your build. It is worrying what abuse could come in the hands of an exploiter.
I feel like mine has less loopholes.
But honestly, I still think this is the most useful monk discussion in years on the boards. Hopefully the devs still check in even if they are done with us :)
AC 25 with a shield spell, the first buff, so his AC is on par with the monk's. He's then churning out 52 DPR plus a spell effect from round #3 on ward, or 58 without the spell effect.
Spell effect can be shocking grasp for arguments sake, 17.5 damage x 90% concentration check x 90% touch attack (he's got +18 melee touch, a fair guess is 90% chance to hit) x 1.05 crit = 14.88375 so 67 aprox on round 3.
Monk on round three hits 147 damage, magus hits 146 damage. How close is that? On the nail over a three round CR-equivelant encounter, assuming both blow a boost each round.
@Dabbler I agree 100% that both fixes found the sweet spot for damage I was looking for.
It isn't that I don't like your build. It is worrying what abuse could come in the hands of an exploiter.
I understand that...but I cannot see what is there to exploit, even when we push the limit.
I feel like mine has less loopholes.
That's cool, but you haven't shown me the loopholes. Try as I might, all I can think of is that the only possible exploit might be a wild-shaping druid using a monk dip and some feat that allows natural weapons to be monk weapons. I can't even see this as that broken, given that a druid going the wild-shape combat monster route is going to push strength up anyway; at most they'll gain a small boost to hit for a loss of spell-casting and a feat. If their strength is so bad that it makes a huge difference, their damage output will not be great anyway.
Other classes...well maybe an inquisitor with Crusader's Flurry would get something out of it, but again that's a fringe case and they are giving up casting levels to get it. Clerics, they can get Guided Hand anyway without losing out on spell-casting, so no effect there.
One thing to remember that is if you dip just one level of a 3/4 BAB class, you immediately lose +1 BAB for your level. So to gain wis-to-hit will immediately cost you +1. It's a gain if you are a massive wis-based caster, but you are losing out on the casting to achieve this which kind of defeats the object of being the caster.
I guess what I am saying is that while this will have an effect, I can't see it being a broken effect given what you trade for it.
But honestly, I still think this is the most useful monk discussion in years on the boards. Hopefully the devs still check in even if they are done with us :)
I agree, and it's a testimony to civilised (if sometimes heated) discussion.
|
|
And he spent another pool point...
I think what we are actually seeing is the Tank monk is right there with the Magus when we make the changes (either of ours), lagging painfully when we don't.
I think with the changes either of us made, the Monk becomes competitive, which was the goal.
We both like our versions better, but we reached the goal either way :)
|
|
@Dabber, what are your stunning fist numbers.
That and dip class are my main concerns.
Edit: This is where bringing in the exploiters would be useful. Anyone got an RD signal :)
Edit 2: Remember that although you lose +1 bab, you would gain much more to attack bonus if you are a wisdom based caster with a low strength, you would get +2 to all saves, wisdom added to AC if you decide to go unarmored, basically TWF, stunning fist AND a bonus feat.
I'm just trying to figure out what your goal is Ciretose. Fix the monk, bring it up on par with other classes, most likely the martial classes as they have the best similarity in roles? Just boost it to where it becomes a viable 5th but not 4th party member? Or something different?
My goal is to come up with a solution the Devs will consider implementing.
The post above says where SKR is at, and I think he is more open to change than Jason.
They value the high saves, immunity, movement, etc, more than you do. And I largely agree with them. In my experience playing monks, the ONLY issue I've had being useful was when I couldn't hit.
Stepping on the toes of the martial classes for DPR is a non-starter for the Devs, and I don't blame them.
No, I am not trying to say overpower the monk, but right now it doesn't fit into any of the categories that classes get typed as, and it has no place to shine because other classes can do everything the monk can, and usually do it better. Self healing? Paladin has lay on hands that is a swift action for more healing plus status removal. Oh, and it can be used on others, or used to channel. Teleporting? Every single arcane caster in the game can do that. Fight unarmed? Sure, but every single martial class can do it better. Kill with a touch? Most casters don't even have to touch you to make you save or die. Stun lock? Well, casters can just take you out of a fight on a failed save, don't have to roll to hit, oh, and it lasts for more than one round. DR? Most classes get some form of DR. Either through magic or class abilities. Some get DR that can't be bypassed by anything. SR? Every single caster has access to protection from spells, they can share it out, and on top of it all, they can do it in a manner that doesn't gimp you all the time when you need a buff in combat. Moving fast? By the time it comes into play, parties have access to fast travel magic, flight, and a variety of other ways of covering distance. Moving faster in combat? Again, a spell covers it, and it is considered one of the staple buffs of the game.
No, all that isn't a rant in favor of getting rid of monks. It is a rant in favor of picking a niche for them like every other class has and making them excell at it instead of saying that every class can overshadow you in some area, and usually in a way that benefits the whole group, not just themselves. If the monk isn't a martial class, then it needs something outside of combat it can do that isn't already done by someone else better than the monk can do. If they are a martial class, they need to be able to shine under the right circumstances, just like the other martial classes.
And no, having a neat grab bag of abilities that don't synergize well, are barely usable in the adventuring day due to a limited resource pool, and can be duplicated or exceeded by any number of classes is not a reason to say "but the monk will step on (xyz class here)'s toes. They already step on a monks toes, maybe sharing the spotlight would be good?
Ok, now that I got that out of my system, I know how some folks are about ranting so I spoilered it...
Ok, so we say that the 35ish DPR is good enough for the monk, what else do they bring to the table, or should bring to the table that they currently don't. Paladins, rangers, magi, inquisitors, rogues, alchemists, summoners, clerics, druids, bards, cavaliers, and oracles all bring something to the table besides or in addition to DPR.
What should the monk bring, or how can we focus and improve his non combat utility if his combat utility needs to stay that far behind the martial classes?
|
|
I appreciate the spoiler tag.
They move at double the speed of everyone else, they stun between 10 and 25%, they laugh at touch attacks, poison, disease...they have 4 skill points a level and no armor check penalties...
As someone who has pissed off more than one DM with a quivering palm on the BBEG, I think the monk does quite well...when they can hit.
We also agreed in principle on the wholeness of body adjustment, which will give them a lot more healing. And if we make Spell resistance only toward hostile spells, we are in great shape IMHO.
And he spent another pool point...
I think what we are actually seeing is the Tank monk is right there with the Magus when we make the changes (either of ours), lagging painfully when we don't.
I think with the changes either of us made, the Monk becomes competitive, which was the goal.
We both like our versions better, but we reached the goal either way :)
The magus build Dabbler posted is actually kinda sub par, but that is neither hear nor there. Plus with spell strike and at 10th level multiple pearls of power his DPR will be through the roof.
@Dabber, what are your stunning fist numbers.
That and dip class are my main concerns.
Edit: This is where bringing in the exploiters would be useful. Anyone got an RD signal :)
Edit 2: Remember that although you lose +1 bab, you would gain much more to attack bonus if you are a wisdom based caster with a low strength, you would get +2 to all saves, wisdom added to AC if you decide to go unarmored, basically TWF, stunning fist AND a bonus feat.
Well, the main folks who would look at wis to hit as a good thing are the wisdom casters. Druids wouldn't really go for it, if they want to melee they have wild shape and strength for that.
Clerics have access to Guided Hand, which allows for wisdom to hit with a deities favored weapon, so it turns into a question of can they afford to lose the caster level just for being able to use unarmed strikes and monk weapons better over spending two? I think feats. Most likely not, although I could see some clerics certainly choosing that route (Irori anyone?) but It doesn't really give them something they don't already have access to.
Inquisitors is where it starts to get tricky. An inquisitor can use any weapon they want, so it turns into a question of does any monk weapon/unarmed do better for an inquisitor than one they already have access to. Inquisitors can do melee or ranged equally well, but the monk doesn't really have access to ranged weapon of the monk type excepting shurikens, so for a ranged inquisitor it isn't great except as a viable way to ditch the need for armor all together. Then they can add Wisdom to init and AC, and in melee they have a solid option of just kicking folks in the teeth. But they can sorta do that already, so I don't see it being worth trading out the increase in judgement strength, casting level, spells known, bane rounds, or the skill points (4 base for monk vs 6 for inquisitor.) For a melee inquisitor, I'd have to run the numbers to be sure, but considering what they lose on judgement strength and spell casting, I don't see it being worthwhile them restricting themselves to less damaging options than what they otherwise have access to. Of course, that being said, with judgements to equalize that, the numbers need running, since out of all of these, the inquisitor and the monk share a very, very similar role and so it is possible it can be an issue.
Really though, I think Wisdom to Hit for monks specifically for their unarmed strikes and monk weapons is fine. Those are subpar to par choices for the classes that can get the most out of it, and it requires a dip that delays some class features, and even in a full 20 level game means losing out on your capstone.
I appreciate the spoiler tag.
They move at double the speed of everyone else, they stun between 10 and 25%, they laugh at touch attacks, poison, disease...they have 4 skill points a level and no armor check penalties...
As someone who has pissed off more than one DM with a quivering palm on the BBEG, I think the monk does quite well...when they can hit.
We also agreed in principle on the wholeness of body adjustment, which will give them a lot more healing. And if we make Spell resistance only toward hostile spells, we are in great shape IMHO.
I hope you actually read it lol.
Yes they move fast, but towards higher levels that is less of an issue. Poison/disease is only an issue if you have no cures around and bad saves or luck, 4 skills points is edging towards to the norm these days (rangers, bards, inquisitors have 6, cavaliers, barbarians, alchemists, gunslingers, druids, oracles have 4, the rogue has 8 and the remaining 8 of 19 have 2, with 3 of those being Int based casters) and many of those have more useful or versatile skill lists.
Yes, quivering palm and stunning are nice when they work. The problem is spells do the same or better, with far more reliability.
As for touch AC, yes the only thing that gives monks a run for the money there is arcane casters. Of course, monks tend to run dead last for flat footed AC so that is a trade off.
And I suppose that is part of the problem as I see it. Any of the classes except monk is generically solid. They can be flexible to fit a variety of campaign styles, have abilities that are far less situational, and overall you have in combat and out of combat utility both. I am aware a good part of that is due to the sheer amount of casters we now have, but even among non full casters many of them have more versatility. I don't think a monk should be the go to class every campaign. But it would be nice to know they weren't a subpar option most campaigns. Boosting their self healing, altering their SR, upping their hit helps some with that, but it doesn't change the fact they have a limited amount of adventuring stamina (ki pool, stunning fist, no fallbacks besides hitting stuff) and in most cases their uniqueness requires depleting limited resources at a rapid rate, unless you strip away even more magic item slots just to have some longevity outside of a 10 minute adventuring day.
|
|
And at higher levels they get dimension door (and spell resistance), which combined with a feat means dimension door into stun/quivering palm.
Seriously, I've played monks from first on up and the only issue I've ever had was hitting and/or overcoming DR.
In the build I posted, I actually have a lot of options in the build (grapple, disarm) in addition to just hitting. Not that it is PvP but I would crush the paladin (assuming I'm not evil) and give the fighter a run for it's money.
I think you are undervaluing the little things that monks get.
I think you are over-valueing maneuvers myself. At 10th level and above I found them lacklustre and often was unable to employ them effectively except in corner cases. Stunning fist has to be effective enough to save the monk when he is in combat, if damage output is this low. I'll look over maneuvers later, because they are harder to adjudicate.
Let's look at that CR10 set of stats again:
HP 130
AC 24
Attack 18/13
Damage 45/33
Ability DC 19/13
Saves 13/9
Now compare to monk #1, with AC27. Assuming a melee-oriented foe, from the stats given this creature will hit the monk 60% of the time with it's main attack and 35% with a secondary attack. That's an average of 21.375 assuming it's damage is spread evenly between the two.
Monk #1 has 73 hp, so this creature will kill the monk inside four rounds quite comfortably. If the monk blows ki on defence that drops the chances to 40% and 15%, cutting approximate DPR to 12.375. However the monk cannot spend ki every round of the encounter. On a four encounter per day average, he's limited to 2 points per fight and 2-3 stunning fist attempts per fight. That would mean he could last as long as round #5, given standard odds.
The creature has 130 hp, so it will take the monk's 27 DPR five rounds to beat it. Using ki offensively does not significantly change this.
In a straight slugging match, the monk dies. If he spends his ki defensively, the monk survives to round #5 with just 5hp left. At this stage the foe has 130 - (26.73 x 4) = 23.08. Odds are decidedly in the monster's favour for winning this fight, it really hinges on the initiative or a quirk of the dice.
Factoring stunning fist, the monk has an 80% chance of hitting with a DC22 stunning fist, and the creature's good save is +13. So 80% chance to hit and 40% chance to fail gives us 32% odds over a maximum of three attempts. That's good odds the the monk will get a success. On average, a 96% chance of getting a loss of one round's attacks on the monk, which means by round #5 the monk will be on (.96 x 21.375) + 5 = 25.52 hp. This is just enough to survive to round #6. The monster will take a little more damage on average when stunned, but not a very significant amount.
So stunning fist here works more than you would like, but it actually works only just enough to ensure the monk wins the fight in 5 rounds. Given that the paladin demolishes this same monster in under 3 rounds without smiting, as does the magus, I can't see stunning fist as being broken for working 32% of the time and being the only thing that enables the monk to beat this monster at all.
Maneuvers
=========
Now this monk has Improved Grapple and Improved Trip, so these are viable options. Unfortunately they are not guaranteed to work: If the monk grapples, they may pin the enemy or it may still attack them and do damage before they pin it and can deliver damage, assuming it can be grappled at all.
Trip will work to reduce damage taken by forcing the enemy to get up if he's tripped, but if the monster only delivers one large attack per round, that won't cripple his damage output, assuming he can be tripped.
In short, the maneuvers are corner cases that could allow the monk to win without blowing ki or stunning fist attempts...or they could be inapplicable. For that matter so could stunning fist, but it's rare to find something that cannot be tripped, stunned or grappled.
Snake Fang
==========
This might save the monk without stunning fist, it all depends on the creature you are fighting. If it misses a couple of attacks then the monk gets in some AoOs. These are at +18, so with 75% chance of hitting and 9 average damage, the monk will deal an extra 6.75 damage on average. How many the monk will get depends on the creature, though. If the creature misses the monk only when he spends ki (most likely) then it doesn't do quite enough damage to tip things in the monk's favour.
Summation
=========
The paladin is guaranteed a win in 3 rounds. The monk is not guaranteed a win at all unless stunning fist can get in a certain success out of three attempts, and even then the monk takes 4-5 rounds to win. Thankfully, it pretty much does.
|
|
One problem. The Paladin's movement is 20 and the monk is 50 with spring attack.
Improved disarm spring attack for the cheese. If only I had taken deflect arrows :)
If we want to take our builds into the field, I'd be fine with a play test thread with your Magus, Krigare's fighter, my tank monk and a player to be named later in a module or AP encounter.
|
|
One object or one spot of difficult terrain and he does.
The monk is and isn't hurt by not getting full attacks. He can go for staggered or sickened at 10th level rather than stunned. With a paladin this is easily fixed, but now we are in cat and mouse.
The thing about the monk is you don't realize how many little goodies you have until you play one. It isn't like other martial classes where you are generally looking to close and kill. You have more options with movement to get to more of the board, and different things you can do when you get there.
It is a really fun class to play strategically. With this fix, I think they will always have something available.
Like I said, I am willing to playtest the build. I think with just the fix I added I'm in good shape.
I know Paizo will never do it... But would it be too much if monks had full BAB?
I can't see it being much more powerful than a TWFing Ranger. Monks would have better defense, but overall, lower damage and AC. And it doesn't have animal companions or spells either.
I know Paizo will never do it... But would it be too much if monks had full BAB?
I can't see it being much more powerful than a TWFing Ranger. Monks would have better defense, but overall, lower damage and AC. And it doesn't have animal companions or spells either.
They should have full BAB. Flurry is essentially the TWF chain on top of full BAB as is. Why they drop to 3/4 with a move or charge (think flying kick) is beyond me.
Also, although I agree that it's cool to try spring disarms and such these tactics are less fun in party vs. monsters/enemy party situations that comprise the overwhelming majority of actual combats. If the unbuffed paladin is putting down a monster every three rounds while the monk is slowly trying to disable a monster with hit and run tactics over 6 or 7 rounds then one of the following occurs
1) the barbarian finishes his first target early and rage/lance/pounces your target, finishing it for you. Your monk then feels silly for trying spring disarms while the other classes are doing the real work.
2) The enemy you're hit-and-running sees where this game is headed and switches up to an easier-to-kill target and charges the archer or sorcerer or something. Now that PC is in trouble and the rest of the party is giving you the hairy eyeball for not pulling your weight.
Really, there's no reason why a monk shouldn't be putting out almost as much DPR as the non-smiting paladin if not just AS much. Remember, that paladin gets all sorts of amazing extras on top of his DPR too.
It is what it is, and these are the cards on the table. And comments on the build, or if you like post a counter build making the switch to full BaB for the monk at 10th level and compare the the builds.
The build I posted earlier in this thread was full BAB. It was pretty much identical to MA's as far as I can tell. The differences in DPR and AC were a function of different point buy allocation and itemization.
|
|
However if the monk stuns the monster and then everyone else gets to finish the monster, the monk is the hero.
Similarly if the wizard in the back gets ambushed and the monk is the only one with enough movement to get to him and engage what is attack him (or to get around the mooks to the caster in the back...)
The monk does things that are useful, beyond dealing damage. We've seen with the bonuses both Dabbler and I incorporated into the monk that the core only monk keeps pace with the buffing magus posted with regards to DPR, before adding in stunning to consideration.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of improvement.
|
|
It is what it is, and these are the cards on the table. And comments on the build, or if you like post a counter build making the switch to full BaB for the monk at 10th level and compare the the builds.The build I posted earlier in this thread was full BAB. It was pretty much identical to MA's as far as I can tell. The differences in DPR and AC were a function of different point buy allocation and itemization.
Sorry, I missed it. My bad.
What were the outcomes of DPR and on the guidelines?
It is what it is, and these are the cards on the table. And comments on the build, or if you like post a counter build making the switch to full BaB for the monk at 10th level and compare the the builds.The build I posted earlier in this thread was full BAB. It was pretty much identical to MA's as far as I can tell. The differences in DPR and AC were a function of different point buy allocation and itemization.Sorry, I missed it. My bad.
What were the outcomes of DPR and on the guidelines?
It's all back on page 4. Everyone's in the guidelines as far as I can tell. The only reason I think monks didn't get straight up full BAB from the get go was that they're supposed to be a 3/4 class for purposes of feat access. If you look at when flurry adds extra attacks, for instance, they kick in at the exact levels a 3/4 class would have enough BAB to pick up the equivalent TWF feats. I think the easiest solution is just to give monks full BAB for US and monk weapons so they don't lose out on +hit when moving.
One problem. The Paladin's movement is 20 and the monk is 50 with spring attack.
We aren't fighting them against one another, and the paladin can do some stuff the monk cannot as well. What we ARE doing is comparing how well a paladin not using smite measures against a monk for DPR. In most other things, if anything the paladin has the versatility (spells) and power (smite) advantage.
The reason for comparing them is that they are bother heavily loaded with special abilities, and both have alignment restrictions.
Improved disarm spring attack for the cheese. If only I had taken deflect arrows :)
If they were fighting one another, that would be appropriate (if the paladin forgot to buy a locking gauntlet that is). They aren't. The CR10 creature may have natural weapons, which is why maneuvers are so situational.
If we want to take our builds into the field, I'd be fine with a play test thread with your Magus, Krigare's fighter, my tank monk and a player to be named later in a module or AP encounter.
Why don't we do what we did in the other thread? Line 'em up and see what they can do vs some CR10 encounters, we can each pilot our monk designs against the encounter and explain how we would take it on, and what we can do. Then we can take in the non-monks - the magus, the paladin etc - and show what they can do and how they would handle it. If you want to throw in some encounters from an AP then by all means do so.
Also, although I agree that it's cool to try spring disarms and such these tactics are less fun in party vs. monsters/enemy party situations that comprise the overwhelming majority of actual combats. If the unbuffed paladin is putting down a monster every three rounds while the monk is slowly trying to disable a monster with hit and run tactics over 6 or 7 rounds then one of the following occurs
Actually, this need not be so bad a thing if the monk can tie down a powerful foe for this length of time time while the party grind through other enemies. Then the monk can be said to be doing their bit, even if it isn't in killing things.
The problem with the monk, to date, is that doing this even on CR-level foes is beyond the monk's ability to deliver. If the monk can do it on CR+2 foes, then it's viable and so is the monk.
Then is doesn't matter if the barbarian jumps in and finishes him, and if you can tie the foe down then they can't charge somebody else.
Really, there's no reason why a monk shouldn't be putting out almost as much DPR as the non-smiting paladin if not just AS much. Remember, that paladin gets all sorts of amazing extras on top of his DPR too.
So does the monk, and those things while they barely save the monk in one-on-one really cripple foes fighting the whole party. A lucky-shot stunning fist reduced a CR+4 encounter to a three-round walkover for our party one time.
I'm happy with the monk hitting on a par with the un-smiting paladin, and doing less DPR thanks to less overall damage potential. As long as he is doing enough to contribute, as long as his tricks can work, this is fine.
Another thing to bear in mind is, we haven't compared a DR foe yet. If the non-smiting paladin was striking a foe with DR10, his damage output would drop to around the monk's if the monk used the DR-bypass ability that has been suggested.
Note that a standard CR-appropriate encounter for a single monk is a monster with a CR of the monk's level -4 (Since 4 of those are appropriate for 4 characters).
So if you're going to see if they're viable in 1-on-1 fights with monsters, that should be CR6 monsters (4 CR 6 monsters = CR 10 encounter which is standard for a party of 4 level 10 characters).
Of course you could do harder, but for a standard 10th level party encountering 4 CR 10 creatures is a CR 14 encounter (off the charts for difficulty). How well you perform against standard encounters might not be the most important thing, since most parties blast through them.
Four 10th level character vs four CR8 monster is designated as a "hard" fight, so maybe if you're going to do one-on-ones do them vs a CR8 monster?
|
|
@Dabbler - I think the monk I posted (and the monk you posted for that matter) can do what a monk should do at the level they are at.
Relative to the paladin they are more mobile both with speed (and remember I was using a dwarf, so I started with a 20) and skills (what is the ACP on full plate?
Both our monks would contribute well to a party of 4 (any party of 4) and that is the goal.
The monk I posted was doing 36.2 damage, without calculating in crits, 47 with a ki point. You monks were in the same ballpark. Both had the same AC (or higher) as the paladin regularly and much higher touch AC. Saves were comparable...the monk and the paladin could be on the same field and neither would be aquaman.
@ciretose: To avoid dipping problems with Dabbler's Wis-to-hit, the bonus could be restricted to be no bigger than the number of monk levels the character has (similar to the Canny defense Int bonus of the Duelist).
If Wis-to-hit is an alternative to Str then the monk might start out using Str and switch to Wis when he gets more experienced.
|
|
That could work, but now you are adding more complicated mechanics...not to mention now his monk sucks at low levels.
My swap is actually less words by page count, does as much damage as his and doesn't go over goal for stunning fist success.
I personally think that is the fix for hitting and DR, and I think we could sell it as a fix to the Devs as it meets all of the criteria they set.
In my head I'm already trying to rethink wholeness (I like the 1d6 for every two levels or having it be cure light/mod/serious/heal for self only at appropriate levels) and getting Spell Resistance changed to hostile only (or at least to be lowered as a swift action)
@Dabbler - I think the monk I posted (and the monk you posted for that matter) can do what a monk should do at the level they are at.
I agree, I think we are both comfortably in the sweet spots we set for ourselves.
Relative to the paladin they are more mobile both with speed (and remember I was using a dwarf, so I started with a 20) and skills (what is the ACP on full plate?
Paladins do things monks do not do too. Monks are meant to be mobile, paladins are meant to be healers, I regard them as balancing out. I think the paladin has the edge, but he also has more restrictions.
Both our monks would contribute well to a party of 4 (any party of 4) and that is the goal.
Definitely.
The monk I posted was doing 36.2 damage, without calculating in crits, 47 with a ki point. You monks were in the same ballpark. Both had the same AC (or higher) as the paladin regularly and much higher touch AC. Saves were comparable...the monk and the paladin could be on the same field and neither would be aquaman.
My monk was hitting on 26-27 DPR +7 per extra attack (crits included) whether from Snake Fang or ki. Damage was light, but DR10 could be bypassed in my design, and stunning fist on the CR10 target was at 32% success per hit.
I agree, both work in a party context.
@ciretose: To avoid dipping problems with Dabbler's Wis-to-hit, the bonus could be restricted to be no bigger than the number of monk levels the character has (similar to the Canny defense Int bonus of the Duelist).
If Wis-to-hit is an alternative to Str then the monk might start out using Str and switch to Wis when he gets more experienced.
I don't see dipping as a problem, Liam. The wisdom-to-hit bonus is limited to monk weapons and unarmed strikes. To use any non-monk weapon would require a feat to make it a monk weapon, and then you are also dropping a level in order to take the ability. To cap it off, Channel Smite and Guided Hand give a cleric wis-to-hit with their deity's favoured weapon anyway.
Of the other wis-based classes, druid would need a feat and lose out on a level of spell-casting. If it's a druid focussed on wild-shaping his strength could be higher than wisdom anyway.
The only other possibility I can think of would be the Inquisitor.
Then if you DO dip a level of monk from any spell casting class, you lose out on +3/4 BAB right at the outset as well as a level of spell-casting.
I'm just not seeing the abuse, myself. Plus, this would nerf the monk at low level.
Note that a standard CR-appropriate encounter for a single monk is a monster with a CR of the monk's level -4 (Since 4 of those are appropriate for 4 characters).
We used CR10 monster stats as a yardstick, as that's a tough one-on-one fight for a level 10 character.
Four 10th level character vs four CR8 monster is designated as a "hard" fight, so maybe if you're going to do one-on-ones do them vs a CR8 monster?
Er, no. Level 10 party should have an average encounter vs a CR10 creature. A hard encounter is CR12, a BBEG fight against CR13-14.
Edit: Can't edit my post for some reason. What I wanted to point out was that my monk's DPR was significantly less than Ciretose's, and the odds of stunning fist significantly more. I regard these as balancing out, myself.
We used CR10 monster stats as a yardstick, as that's a tough one-on-one fight for a level 10 character.
No, it's more than tough (at least it's assumed to be, though proper preparation and optimization can make it just "tough"). A CR 9 monster is "epic" for a 10th level character. CR 10 isn't even on the chart.
Four 10th level character vs four CR8 monster is designated as a "hard" fight, so maybe if you're going to do one-on-ones do them vs a CR8 monster?Er, no. Level 10 party should have an average encounter vs a CR10 creature. A hard encounter is CR12, a BBEG fight against CR13-14.
I think you misread me. Four 10th level characters (a standard APL 10 party) vs four CR8 monsters (a CR12 encounter, as four monsters is monster CR+4) is a hard encounter (CR 2 higher than APL). Thus, for a single 10th level character, a single CR8 opponent should be about equally hard (assuming both teams have about as good teamwork, though that would depend on the monsters in question).
So if you're doing the fights with the assumption that the monk/test character has aid from three other party members, CR 10 is an average encounter. But in a one on one with neither side getting aid a CR 8 monster is a "hard" encounter.
Since most on these threads are veteran players and used to playing on "hard mode" I understand if you do it against stronger opponents, just remember that isn't the type of fights the game is designed around.