Monks (that I've seen) have some of the highest AC and saves in the game, along with multiple defensive abilities, immunities, and escape options.
What exactly is making them so supposedly fragile? I'm just not seeing it.
Fragile? I think everyone agrees the a monk has every good defenses, if built to survive. RD every post you have made is the opposite of what we are saying. I am about to go the route of ToZ and start asking for quotes. I think you are misreading what is being said.
Actually my monk wasn't a front liner, I made him to be a skirmisher. Remember that I took dodge, mobility and spring attack. That's not to say he would do a flurry here or there but I didn't design him to just stand there and trade blows.Monks (that I've seen) have some of the highest AC and saves in the game, along with multiple defensive abilities, immunities, and escape options.
What exactly is making them so supposedly fragile? I'm just not seeing it.
I tend to see much the opposite. Monks who have some of the lowest AC in the game barring excessive point buys and loads of magic items (or having a buff-b%*!~ following them around to cast defensive spells on them). My biggest complaint with monks that people declare as "good monks" is they look like they'd keel over in a stiff breeze.
That's actually what my problem with Shallowsoul's monk was. At 10th level he had less than 60 HP and a 25 AC as a front-liner (no ranged capability at all). His contribution to a party in any 10th level game I've been involved in would be making sure the monsters weren't hungry enough to eat the rest of the party.
Thanks for posting a specific answer, and no I am not being sarcastic.
<goes back into lurking mode for now>
Most classes are essentially useless every other round of combat. A rogue double moves to get into flanking position, a spellcaster's target beats the DC of a "save negates" spell, a fighter misses his attacks, etc.
This is par for the course.
I am sure that every other round(50%) is a big exaggeration.
Were you not just complaining about the commoner example use earlier by another poster<--Rhetorical question.
I wasn't trying to impress you or anyone else for that matter. The purpose of the build wasn't to impress but to show that the class does and can contribute to a party.I've seen your monk. I wasn't impressed, and other posters have gone into great detail as to why it fails to meaningfully contribute (being melee focused with no ability to survive in melee being a major problem).
The problem here is that you claim that it can meaningfully contribute anyway, but don't define what contribution is to you (it certainly isn't hitting ACs more often than not or not dying). Perhaps the discussion can move on when you answer that question, and explain why you feel the monk is doing his job. Until then, we're stuck in this loop.
The word "impress" was not the main subject.
The point he was making was that he did not see how you monk was meaningful contributor, and he was asking you to dispel/counter the criticism made against your build.
SS, I am sure you are not stupid, and therefore understood the intent. That is why when you argue semantics people accuse you of dodging the question.
Now that I have explained the intent of Aratrok's post-->bump
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fragile? I think everyone agrees the a monk has every good defenses, if built to survive. RD every post you have made is the opposite of what we are saying. I am about to go the route of ToZ and start asking for quotes. I think you are misreading what is being said.Monks (that I've seen) have some of the highest AC and saves in the game, along with multiple defensive abilities, immunities, and escape options.
What exactly is making them so supposedly fragile? I'm just not seeing it.
I've been mistaken from time to time, but I don't make stuff up, Wraith. You should pay more attention as, clearly, some people think monks have such a "low survivability" as to "keel over in a stiff breeze," even going so far as to say that it is "the most common complaint [about monks]."
Actually, the most common complaint is about their low survivability.
Many of the theory-crafted builds I've seen on the board sacrifice defense for DPR numbers. I'm not certain I'd like to play such a build, though.
I tend to see much the opposite. Monks who have some of the lowest AC in the game barring excessive point buys and loads of magic items (or having a buff-b@&!* following them around to cast defensive spells on them). My biggest complaint with monks that people declare as "good monks" is they look like they'd keel over in a stiff breeze.
Fragile? I think everyone agrees the a monk has every good defenses, if built to survive. RD every post you have made is the opposite of what we are saying. I am about to go the route of ToZ and start asking for quotes. I think you are misreading what is being said.Monks (that I've seen) have some of the highest AC and saves in the game, along with multiple defensive abilities, immunities, and escape options.
What exactly is making them so supposedly fragile? I'm just not seeing it.
I've been mistaken from time to time, but I don't make stuff up, Wraith. You should pay more attention as, clearly, some people think monks have such a "low survivability" as to "keel over in a stiff breeze," even going so far as to say that it is "the most common complaint [about monks]."
Actually, the most common complaint is about their low survivability.Many of the theory-crafted builds I've seen on the board sacrifice defense for DPR numbers. I'm not certain I'd like to play such a build, though.I tend to see much the opposite. Monks who have some of the lowest AC in the game barring excessive point buys and loads of magic items (or having a buff-b@&!* following them around to cast defensive spells on them). My biggest complaint with monks that people declare as "good monks" is they look like they'd keel over in a stiff breeze.
Fair enough. Ashiel knows monks have good defenses. He is referring to the AC of a monk built for offense. I know that because of his other post. That is basically what the Bearded Ben is also saying. The monk can be built to attack well, or be very hard to kill, but it seems to be hard to build one that does both barring an extremely high point buy like my first monk had.
I don't agree with mplindustries, and I doubt Dabbler would either if he were here and posting.
PS:I am glad you provided quotes. :)
|
"Dugan Stoneknuckles" 10th level Dwarven Monk (20 point buy)
Str:16
Dex:14
Con:14
Int:12
Wis:22
Cha:5
AC: 28 (34 if Ki is spent)
32 ( vs Giants)(36 if Ki is spent)
HP: 10d8 + 10
Spd: 50
CMD: 22 (24 when being Grappled)
CMB: +13 (+15 when Grappling)
Traits: Quain Martial Artist (+1 damage when using Unarmed Strikes),
Fort: +11 (+2 vs spells, spell like and Poison)
Ref: +11 (+2 vs spells, spell like and Posion)
Will: +15 (+2 vs spells, spell like and Posion)(+2 vs Enchantment spells and effects)
Attack: Flurry: +14/+14/+9/+9 Spend a Ki Point for another +14: 2d6 + 6
Kamas: +12/+12 Spend Ki Point +12: 1d6 +3
Feats: Mobility, Dodge, Extra Ki, Stunning Fist DC: 21 10/day (Fatigued & Sickened), Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), Spring Attack, Iron Hide, Improved Natural Armor, Disorienting Maneuver, Improved Grapple
Ki Pool: 10
Abilities: Darkvision 60ft, Evasion, Improved Evasion, Fast Movement, Still Mind, Flurry of Blows, Unarmed Strike, Maneuver Training, Ki Pool (Magic & Lawful), Slow Fall 50ft, Purity of Body, High Jump, Defensive Training, Greed, Hatred, Hardy, Stability, Stonecutting, Weapon Familiarity, Wholeness of Body,
Skills: Acrobatics: +15, Climb: +3, Escape Artist: +15, Perception: +19, Sense Motive: +19, Stealth: +15, Swim: +3.
Items: Belt of Giant Str +2, Headband of Inspired Wisdom +2, Bracers of Armor +4, Cloak of Resistance +2, Masterwork Cold Iron Kama, Masterwork Silver Kama, Monk’s Robes, Amulet of Mighty Fists +2,I decided to drop the +1 from Int and put it in Wisdom which increased the DC on Stunning Fist, Will save, Skills, Ki Pool and AC. He also dropped Combat Expertise since he doesn't qualify anymore. Picked up more feats and decided to go with Disorienting Maneuver to pick up that extra +2 to attack when I successfully tumble through an enemy's space followed by an extra bonus when I flank.
I changed the skills around a bit and the other two feats I took helped his AC to go up by two.
I'm still playing with this build a bit so I may...
AC with Ki should be 32 not 34.
Edit: Ki Pool should be at 13.
I don't agree with mplindustries
For the record, I don't have a horse in this race or my own opinion on the monk's survivability or damage output. I was referring to the fact that any time Shallowsoul's monk build was brought up, people talked about how fragile he was--too few HP, too little HP, etc.
I don't agree with mplindustriesFor the record, I don't have a horse in this race or my own opinion on the monk's survivability or damage output. I was referring to the fact that any time Shallowsoul's monk build was brought up, people talked about how fragile he was--too few HP, too little HP, etc.
I was not saying I never agree with you. I was saying that I think monks can be hard to kill.
PS:It also seemed RD took your post as a shot against all monks. Now we can remove your name from the list RD created. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with mplindustriesFor the record, I don't have a horse in this race or my own opinion on the monk's survivability or damage output. I was referring to the fact that any time Shallowsoul's monk build was brought up, people talked about how fragile he was--too few HP, too little HP, etc.I was not saying I never agree with you. I was saying that I think monks can be hard to kill.
PS:It also seemed RD took your post as a shot against all monks. Now we can remove your name from the list RD created. :)
Thank you for defending me with truth Wraithstrike. I appreciate that greatly. And I maintain my position as well. Monks that people declare can actually contribute (such as actually being able to hit and/or damage meaningfully with their martial arts) always seem to have absolutely horrible defenses. Defenses that may at very high levels begin to look decent, but looking at their build you realize they had a truly horrible survival chance at low levels (perhaps the biggest flaw of trying to show a build at only a high level, which is why I usually try to provide a few snapshots of a build at key levels when I'm presenting something).
If at 1st level you have a 15 AC or less as a class who is expected to engage in melee combat then you are a dead man from where I'm sitting. If at 10th level your AC is 25 then you're a dead man from where I'm sitting. If you can only reliably deal 3-5 damage at 10th level every other round as someone who relies on attack you're not only a dead man from where I'm standing but you're a waste of space as well, and the only reason you're on this adventure and getting a share of loot that could be better invested in making those who contribute better is because it's a game and your group is metagaming.
It would be like in Fellowship of the Rings when Frodo volunteers to take the ring to Mordor, only let's twist this little adventuring party.
1) You have my sword.
2) You have my bow.
3) You have my axe.
4) You have my wooden spoon.
"Wait, what?" Everyone remarks, turning to see Milly the cook arrive on the scene. "Er, wait, you want to come and defend Frodo and take on the Dark Lord?" Elron asks. "Absolutely! I packed everything that I would need for our adventure. My wooden spoon, teddy bear, and lucky whistle" she responds. "Er, wait...Milly, I think..." Aragon begins lightly. "Oh, and I don't know how to use a bow, but I demand an equal share of any arrows we find so I can throw them at enemies or poke them with them", at which point Frodo jumps up and says "Oh come off it woman, I'm a little hobbit who regularly falls on my duff with an addiction to talking rings but even I'm not this useless".
Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.
I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.
Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
There should be a 3PP feat that allows for it.
There should be a 3PP feat that allows for it.Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
Is it a feat or the Chosen of Colonel Sanders trait?
Is it a feat or the Chosen of Colonel Sanders trait?There should be a 3PP feat that allows for it.Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
That depends. Does the companion need to take it or the PC? If the companion, that's an Additional Traits feat anyway.
That depends. Does the companion need to take it or the PC? If the companion, that's an Additional Traits feat anyway.Is it a feat or the Chosen of Colonel Sanders trait?There should be a 3PP feat that allows for it.Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
Not like I wouldn't take Additional Traits on my animal companion anyway. Some traits are sexy, and +1 to two different saving throws is pretty decent for a feat. I suppose having a companion that could pop out of the game and make the GM some Chicken for your good GM Jenkins, I could spare one of those +1s. :P
Not like I wouldn't take Additional Traits on my animal companion anyway. Some traits are sexy, and +1 to two different saving throws is pretty decent for a feat. I suppose having a companion that could pop out of the game and make the GM some Chicken for your good GM Jenkins, I could spare one of those +1s. :PThat depends. Does the companion need to take it or the PC? If the companion, that's an Additional Traits feat anyway.Is it a feat or the Chosen of Colonel Sanders trait?There should be a 3PP feat that allows for it.Because everyone knows that animal companions and minions just can't buy GMs chicken wings.I would think that if they are doing significantly more damage than you, then you can focus on other things instead of damage. If the monk in question focused on helping the rest of the party increase their DPR (flanking, maneuvers, buying the GM chicken wings, whatever), then he's still contributing to the combat and everyone should be happy. I see it only as a problem when the players think the game is a competition rather than a cooperation. To me it would be like the quarterback getting upset that he isn't getting as many interceptions as some of the other players. Find your role and fill it as well as you can.Its only an issue if you are playing with other people who are doing significantly more damage than you.Actually it becomes a problem when you are told that your build sucks because it didn't have DPR in mind when it was built and that does go on in the boards.If it bothers you, just skip past it.
Being mechanically capable of reaching this number you don't like is a valid requirement for some people. They are very much allowed to talk about things like that, and nothing stops you from ignoring it.
+2 initiative, +1 will, -1 reduced armor check penalty from barding, and a bonus to perception, diplomacy or intimidate are all sweet things for an animal companion to possess.