When both sides are moving ranger is ontop actually. They have full bab vs monks 3/4. So on turns where they move the monk would lose 2 attack at lvl 8, another 1 at 9. I don't know how you've proven your point either.
Medium armor is +6 btw. Light is 4. its almost always like that because you have one good armor and the rest of the list is meh. AC is an awful measure of strength too, because you have to invest so much to keep it viable against bigger foes. The monk likely won't be dealing the same damage, especially if he dumped some stats to get that 16 wis. If the monk wants to enchant his fist he's giving up the slot to use an amulet of natural armor.
A monk dex is 14 wis 20 by lvl 8
A ranger dex is 14 by lvl 8Monk ac is +7
Ranger ac bonus is +2 if you put medium armor which is atleast +5 thats 7 armor bonus total
Than you can start adding in magical bonus's and they stay tied in Ac bonus until the monk turns lvl 10 or gets a stat boosting item than the monk takes over in AC and the ranger loses at lvl 8. So far not enough to say monk is better but enough to say equal.
Monk is probably slightly ahead on AC, I'll grant you.
Ranger gets d10 vs monk d8 which is a matter of 1 hit poimt per lvl depending on how you roll. I don't consider 1 hp to be a breaking point maybe I am wrong. Still not enough to say ranger is better.
Means the ranger can drop two points of con and devote them to strength and be equal on HP, or else it negates the advantage in AC the monk has by the ranger being able to take more punishment.
When did rangers get a +1 to hit for moving, and yes rangers get +2 more skill points so let them be a skill monkey. Altnought until someone shows me how a rangef gets +1 att for moving than I've proven my case 3 or 4 times over that rangers and monks are equal. Also not a reason to say rangers are better melee than monks
At 8th level, if both move the monk is on +6 BAB and the ranger on +8.
I make that:
Attack: Ranger is ahead by better strength and better weapons. That's before we factor in favoured enemies.
AC & hit points: Even. Monk has better AC, ranger has better hp.
Skills: Ranger is ahead.
Saves: Monk is ahead.
Other abilities: Ranger wins hands down with spells, animal companion etc.
I make that 1/5 to the monk and 3/5 to the ranger, with one tie.
|
Well... I'll try to respond to what you said Dark Immortal.
Monks have full BAB for twf, but they don't have much to improve on their attack or damage so I don't know why they would hit more or for more damage. Where are you getting that? Using Monk weapons doesn't make their hit or damage any better directly. Helps enhancement though, but no more than anyone using a single weapon gets and not that far ahead of twf. Saves money on the AoMF though.
I don't recall saying (and if I did I sure as heck mistyped because it was not my intent) that monks hit more often or better than any other purely martial class. The intent of whatever I said was that compared to the 99% of monk arguments about how they cannot hit, no matter what they do- weapons are never considered since any martial with TWF using a weapon has the same chance of hitting as a monk in a flurry if I am not mistaken. The differences that show up are in feats like weapon focus, and passives like the rangers favored enemy or a fighters weapon groups. Beyond the additional boosts, a monk can have a full bab, with TWF and a full weapons list of enhancements while being just as strong as a typical strong melee guy. Unless every other martial class gets some other ubiquitous bonus to hit, then the monk using a weapon is really not miles behind or even steps behind someone else trying to hit. Again, I am saying only if they are using a weapon. Maybe I am wrong and rangers, paladins, and fighters have another +5 on most things (fighters actually get that from weapon groups) but I don't hear the same arguments about paladins being terrible combatants because they can't hit anything and a monk should be 2 points behind one if they were using a weapon, but have more attacks....
They are mobile, and they can use maneuevers to help. They however can't move and hit much(if at all) and manuevers quickly fall behind. Aid Another is a meh bonus and gets worse becuase it doesn't scale. "Don't worry guys, i can't actually kill anything. But look! I can give you a +2 to attack!" thats not a very good way to live life I don't think.
Is there anyone who can move, and full attack just fine without a problem beyond a quadruped Eidolon, certain wild shaped druids, specific animal companions, mounted characters (I think) and a specific type of barbarian? As far as I know, everyone who wants to move around and attack at the same time is stuck with a single attack a round. A monk and ninja have the options of spending a swift action and ki to get two attacks in that round. Again, if there are a lot of martial classes and variants that easily move and full attack, I honestly don't know what they are or have missed them, and yeah, I'd concede that maybe the monk is really sub par if so many others can do that and they can't. But I don't think that's the case. We're just describing normal combat limitations for everyone, and in this case, pointing out how the mobile monk and ninja are actually better in these areas (which aren't so limited but are still specific).
ps. I have a monk that can't hit often or hard. He's entirely built for combat, though. He's built around aid another and defensive abilities. Being able to give +2 ac to multiple allies or +6 ac to a single ally in an emergency while being able to offer some out of combat healing if there is down time while and taking up the tank role (due to good ac and self healing that's sort of free). He also can take hits for others (useful with self healing) and gives adjacent allies aoo's when they are attacked. He's near useless trying to punch someones lights out, but I don't think he is useless in a fight or that it's boring. Maybe he will be later on. I don't know since the character is new. But on paper, mechanically, it doesn't sound weak or lame. But maybe it's all a matter of opinion on that.
There is also a very big difference between stacking casters and fighters. Fighters have one trick, hitting things. Casters have many choices, you can have 4 wizards who do entirely different things.
I thought that argument would happen. That's why I prefaced it with 'wizard = win' or 'magic = no argument'. It wouldn't matter what type of casters were in the party or the situation or any form of circumstance that exist. By default of there being a caster, win is coming and it will be on the party with the caster or multiple casters side. While I can imagine several scenario's off the cuff, where stacking casters in a real game gets silly and pointless, there are just too many arguments against it to bother trying to point out anything to the contrary. I don't mean this to be condescending or against you. But it's a foregone fact on these boards that magic is the ultimate win condition and from what I have read, every argument that doesn't agree with that, has lost. I don't feel like losing so I'll concede the point to you now. ^_^
Most of us here would love it if monk didn't require so much system mastery to make awesome and do what its supposed to(whatever that is). I don't know if anyone will argue with that.
Yeah. I understand. I think they are ambiguous (like rogues) as to what they are actually supposed to do. But I do feel that they are better served in the capacities I mentioned above (skirmishers, secondary fighters, backups, etc) but don't specialize in specific roles as easily as an optimized rogue (rogues simply have way more options). However, Ultimate Combat and the archetypes have opened up so many doors for monks in how you can play them in combat roles and out of combat that I feel the class is more robust but the base is still a bit too generalized with no obvious direction. This makes it hard to make it good at whatever you want it to be good it.
But like any class, how useful they are will entirely depend on who else is in the party. Obviously, a spellcaster is supposed to be useful, no matter how many other spellcasters are in the same party, purely because magic is supposed to win, arbitrarily, at anything and everything. But that aside, in a arty of five, is the third bard a 5th wheel? How about the 4th barbarian or ranger? While you get some cool perks for stacking up, there's a point where bringing another optimized beat stick to the table doesn't really do anything for the group and you're just as useless because things are dead before it's your turn, or nobody is effective because there is too much of the same thing that you (and others in the party made just like you) are weak to.
Not sure if this one is Pun Pun level notoriety or not, but wasn't there this one all Barb party that did stupidly well in spite of being all the same class?
They hit about as often as any full martial doing two weapon fighting but technically may hit moreso if they are using a monk weapon and focused on flurrying when they make those attacks (the assumption being they have high strength).
Yeah, you totally said that monks hit about as much if not more so, and related it to using a monk weapon. The thing is Barbarians Rage, Rangers have Favored Enemy/spells/Animal Companion, Paladins Smite, and Fighters have passive +1's. Most 3/4 classes do have a way to boost themselves too; Inquisitors Judgements, Druid wildshape, Magus arcane pool/spells, Alchemist extracts/mutagen, Clerics have spells(divine power!). Rogues and Monks are the odd ones out who don't. At best Monks have a ki pool to add one attack, but they never get more attacks otherwise and certainly not to hit.
Several characters have the power to move and attack actually. Oracles and Magus(blade dash and a revelation or 2). The thing is monks have 3/4 BAB and depend on getting that flurry off, and they really suffer for not. While full BAB classes are still full BAB and can usually hit hard even if its just once. Ninjas and rogues also suffer for not being able to, and are very mobile themselves.
Are you refering to archon style in your post? Thats not a monk feature. Its a feat anyone can get, monks get it easier, but you can actually dip MoMS or Unarmed fighter to get a lot of prereqs out of the way. Monks also don't have a self heal do they? Fluff wise he sounds fun to roleplay though!
My highest level Ranger builds are at 10, but he's a 2H warrior (well one is an archer).
It probably wouldn't take me all that much effort to bump it up 3 levels and swap to TWF-ing though.
I will just leave this here.
Lvl 1-20 builds and DPR for monk, fighter, twf fighter, rogue, twf rogue, barbarian, paladin.
I will just leave this here.
Lvl 1-20 builds and DPR for monk, fighter, twf fighter, rogue, twf rogue, barbarian, paladin.
can you make a summay or the builds? is too much information to compute it at once @_@
edit: It surprise me how low iste DPR of the paladin afther low-mid levels. You said he is not smitting but have have him no self-buff on himself nor is he using his weapond bond?
These are standard Two-Hand Power attack builds, or dex based TWF rogue or str based twf fighter. The monk is two handing a temple sword.
You are correct on the paladin. He is not using any spells/bonds/buffs, as I only include DPR from buffs that can be kept up for the entire adventuring day.
I have some other rough sheets which include various combinations of these buffs, however the variables get large quickly.
So the Paladin is a sort of control as a warrior would have very similar DPR and I just hope that others will understand as I do that spells + bond will make him competitive while smite when used will make him pull ahead.
|
|
They hit about as often as any full martial doing two weapon fighting but technically may hit moreso if they are using a monk weapon and focused on flurrying when they make those attacks (the assumption being they have high strength).Yeah, you totally said that monks hit about as much if not more so, and related it to using a monk weapon. The thing is Barbarians Rage, Rangers have Favored Enemy/spells/Animal Companion, Paladins Smite, and Fighters have passive +1's. Most 3/4 classes do have a way to boost themselves too; Inquisitors Judgements, Druid wildshape, Magus arcane pool/spells, Alchemist extracts/mutagen, Clerics have spells(divine power!). Rogues and Monks are the odd ones out who don't. At best Monks have a ki pool to add one attack, but they never get more attacks otherwise and certainly not to hit.
Ok, thanks for pointing it out. What I meant was that monks get 7 attacks a round when flurrying, eventually. They also can spend ki to get 8 attacks a round. The additional attack should allow them to hit as much as anyone else even if they are a full martial. Not moreso. I was incorrect there. I don't know the ACTUAL math for it, but +18 base versus +20 base isn't a huge difference except when determining if you hit or miss at all. Having an entire additional attack at +18 base should be enough to compensate for the 2 point difference that any pure martial would face if they were TWFing since they all would have a +18 when doing so. The comparison of a monk in terms of accuracy INITIALLY should be in regards to TWF builds, imo since that is effectively what their fighting style requires in order to be effective as an offensive combatant. That's a major class feature.
The 3/4 classes with boosts are just making up the difference in base attack to martials, though, right? So they are in the same boat in that they don't have a bonus on top of the perfect attack bonus. ie, they are going from +15 to +19 or +20 once buffed, making them as good as a fighter in terms of hitting. But the fighters and other dedicated combatants are at +20 and getting smaller or more situational bonuses from there. Any buffs they receive beyond that just are gravy.
A monk has roughly the same hit chance as a 3/4 class after buffs- assuming the monk is using their combat strength, flurry of blows. Using flurry isn't something special or rare...just like any fighter making their second or third attack in a round isn't special or rare..it's something most people set themselves up to do and is not something that should be argued is a special situation only for the monk to do but which everyone else can do just fine. Everyone can, if they try, perform the full attack action and therefor do a flurry, twf, or full bab action. Sometimes they can't but that's the truth for everyone.
The main difference is when you cannot perform a full attack and the -2. A monk then becomes 3/4 bab. This isn't terrible. It's just not a pure combatant but an average one when it cannot flurry. They can make up for this by taking an extra attack ANYWAY by using ki and a swift action. This should narrow the margin of missing to being almost as likely as that of a pure martial hitting or missing. Yes, they use a resource to do it, but so what? It's an option and it's a resource they can use in several other ways as well allowing for versatility in a variety of situations. I argue the ki pool is on par with favored enemy bonuses...situationaly useful for a ranger and limited uses for a monk. This balances out over the course of many encounters, I feel.
Yes, 6-8 uses of ki per day may not be a lot, but you only need to get an extra attack when you're stuck on a standard action. Not every round. You only need the bonus ac when you're trying to hold the line against a swarm or big bad hard hitting brute. Not every round. Most combats are short anyway, so you should get 3 different fights of ki use before you start running low or on empty, assuming you're finding a need for it per battle. Then there are the out of combat uses for it. Also, the argument about damage reduction seems to never consider that a monk with any ki stored ignores various degrees of DR. But whatever. We'll keep pretending like anything with any DR automatically mitigates 90% of monk damage for the sake of argument (I know it's not your argument but it is that of many others).
I admit this: Everyone else, even those who are 3/4 classes have moves that let them hit HARDER, which, I feel allows them to outpace the monk in damage on a per hit bases, and probably in terms of dpr, too. But I *know* that monks don't do terrible dpr...a well built one can certainly do respectable damage, per hit, per round, but is not a dpr champ. What they get instead is stunning fist and the list of debuffs that come with it, along with the quivering palm, etc. In this way, they can contribute quite well (mostly against humanoids, I admit) to a combat. Yes, other people can get the same feats like punishing kick, touch of serenity, but monks get literally, many times more uses out of these feats. They get several bonus feats, like other pure martial classes, as well. No, they don't get the most, but they make up for this with a nice skill set. They lag in terms of no spells to utilize and I feel the ki pool covers other class features (like favored enemy or armor training) so in this regard, I'll grant that rangers, paladins and the like are better. The monk, on the other hand IS more defensive (though they compete with a paladin here) due to their saves and passives.
When you take an HONEST look at the class, it should be clear that monks are not designed to be as offensive as the rest but that they are capable of still being relevant threats via damage. But they aren't designed to compete for the top spots, just to be average to above average in terms of damage output. They have some combat maneuvers they can do well, though anyone with training could, monks are no different in that regard. They're a full martial class when it comes to those maneuvers, making them better at them than non full martial classes. They seem a more self preservationist or survival based martial class capable of sticking it out in a fight and over raw adventuring easier than others. If I had to say what they were, they are a 3.5/4 bab class with notably less damage than full progression fighters and some 3/4 dpr classes.
Several characters have the power to move and attack actually. Oracles and Magus(blade dash and a revelation or 2). The thing is monks have 3/4 BAB and depend on getting that flurry off, and they really suffer for not. While full BAB classes are still full BAB and can usually hit hard even if its just once. Ninjas and rogues also suffer for not being able to, and are very mobile themselves.
Ok, so out of all of the classes, there are a maybe 4 archetypes and 3 actual classes who can move and get more than one attack in a round. Cool. The monk is among them. Better than being a rogue, or ranger or any of the (much longer list) of classes and archetype that never get that option without some sort of external help.....I fail to see why this is a bad thing for the monk to have or why, by default of the monk having it, the monk is considered a worse class because it can do a nice thing but can't do a ton of damage when it does. The monk can generally always do contributing damage (nothing spectacular) and on a more or less defensively designed character, this is just gravy. But the fact they can do it with stunning fists (and have plenty left to use) and the like is actually really good, not really bad. I guess it would be better to remove the option to move and make more than one attack from the monk? *scratches head*
Are you refering to archon style in your post? Thats not a monk feature. Its a feat anyone can get, monks get it easier, but you can actually dip MoMS or Unarmed fighter to get a lot of prereqs out of the way. Monks also don't have a self heal do they? Fluff wise he sounds fun to roleplay though!
Yeah, I was. :) And I know anyone can take it, but it is easier for monks. The feats were designed, obviously, with monks in mind and master of many styles more specifically. While it is a specific archetype, it gives monks a lot of flexibility and options and...power, that they didn't have before. The same is true of several monk archetypes. They aren't terrible fighters, on paper. In practice, I have not seen them to be bad either. I would be irked that they weren't doing tremendous damage, but as I pointed out, they don't seem designed to be top damage dealers anyway, so it's ok. As long as a monk can do 'decent' damage and hit fairly often, they should be a valuable member of whatever group they happen to be in, filling various combat roles as needed and various out of combat roles as well, all with a reasonable focus on mobility, defense and survival.
And yes, my monk plans on going brawler to get all the wonderful fighter perks on top of the monk stuff. And monks get Wholeness of Body at level 7. It costs 2 ki to heal monk level in hp as a standard action. By taking drunken master (as well as master of many styles and sacred mountain and the proper feats) I'll have an ac that rivals whatever the top unbuffed AC's seem to be (I'm assuming 46-52 ac at high level before buffs is good) and can drink alcohol to regain ki (eventually as a swift action). This essentially means free healing, though I might get totally %$%^&faced before healing up to full. But with such a good AC and being built to tank, I can keep the party protected with +2 passive ac against one foe, then bodyguard anyone being attacked for another +4 (total +6) and anyone who is hit I can redirect the attacks to me and then deflect one. This all provokes aoo's from all adjacent allies and If, after all is said and done I have to use harms way or get hit myself, I can then sit on my high ac, use wholeness of body, and take a swig of alcohol to replenish the ki...repeatedly.
The ac bonuses to allies eventually increases to +6 and +8 but that may be outside of the scope of PFS since they cap around level 12 and I am not sure I'll have the additional feats to get super optimized by then. Still, it's obnoxious, fun, and thematic in that it's a pure support monk. The fact that a monk can be made into such a role, and effectively, does imply that with some work (system mastery), playing to the classes strengths and creativity, the class can certainly perform very well (like any other good performing class of any type). Obviously, using the heal skill to heal allies during downtime is only situationaly useful when there is a healer, but when there isn't, it might be a life saver. Obviously, in a group of high ac players all optimized for shield bashing and and cavaliers of the dragon who aid each other, I'd be a 5th wheel. In a group filled with casters who all have defensive buffs and tons of healing, I'd have to play the tank role instead of protector role. But these things can happen to anyone in any given game. Rogues become the only front line fighters because nobody wanted to play a paladin, ranger or fighter....but the group only consists of two rogues, a cleric, oracle and sorcerer.
Ultimately, I understand that OFFENSIVELY, the monk is not the best. So?
Defensively, they're pretty darn good. Maybe not the best. Maybe they are. I dunno. But mine can hit or break 50 ac and there isn't a point in going much beyond that, so whether or not it is the best *really* is irrelevant. Being immune to poisons, diseases (mine won't be thanks to drunken master) and having amazing saves and the ability to heal itself (even if not for a lot) strike me as powerful defensive tools above and beyond what armor class provides, allowing a monk to stay in any possible scenario longer than other characters could. Though, I feel the paladin may even be better than the monk here. I don't know. As a defensive class, I think the monk is fine. Most arguments cover the offensive aspects.
Monk doesn't get multiple attacks while moving. He can only spend a ki point to add one attack to a flurry. Wholeness of body doesn't heal that well, and it doesn't even come close to healing enough incombat to be worth a standard action.
Being tanky is a wierd place to be in game. If someone isn't hitting hard and can't be hit its likely a monster will turn to the squishy rogue. No agro mechanics, but I'd love to see a monk roleplaying yelling at the monster to taunt him. Hitting things and controlling the field do a lot though.
Healing is cheap btw, you can just buy healsticks. Infernal healing is your friend!
Holy walls of text Batman! Let me respond point by point:
Unless every other martial class gets some other ubiquitous bonus to hit, then the monk using a weapon is really not miles behind or even steps behind someone else trying to hit.
Rage, Weapon Training, Favored Enemy, Smite, Gun Training, Challenge, Judgment, Spell Combat, Mutagen. Also half of those, and the bard, can also self buff with spells. So yeah, the monk lags a couple miles behind everybody else in combat, exet maybe the rogue.
Is there anyone who can move, and full attack just fine without a problem beyond a quadruped Eidolon, certain wild shaped druids, specific animal companions, mounted characters (I think) and a specific type of barbarian? As far as I know, everyone who wants to move around and attack at the same time is stuck with a single attack a round.
Not everyone loses something between 1 to 5 bab when they have to move either. Heck TWF users gain 2 to their attac when they move since they don't take the TWF penalty during that round.
A monk and ninja have the options of spending a swift action and ki to get two attacks in that round.
No they can't that can only be used on a full attack and doesn't stack with haste, so if there is any buffing at all everybody can get that extra attack.
yeah, I'd concede that maybe the monk is really sub par if so many others can do that and they can't.
Well, that was easy. But I'll continue anyway
Being able to give +2 ac to multiple allies or +6 ac to a single ally in an emergency while being able to offer some out of combat healing if there is down time while and taking up the tank role (due to good ac and self healing that's sort of free).
Unless you're using some feat I can't remeber, Aid Another is a standard action, so you can only give a +2 AC to a single ally, and then you don't attack. You can't offer out of combat healing to anyone, not with Wholeness of Body. If you're using the Heal skill or a wand ANYONE could do the same thing. Sort of free means it isn't. Considering Ki pools usually aren't very large, it's actualy pretty expensive for how little it heals.
Ok, thanks for pointing it out. What I meant was that monks get 7 attacks a round when flurrying, eventually. They also can spend ki to get 8 attacks a round. The additional attack should allow them to hit as much as anyone else even if they are a full martial.
Any TWF can get 7 attack eventually. 8 with a low level spell.
I don't know the ACTUAL math for it, but +18 base versus +20 base isn't a huge difference except when determining if you hit or miss at all.
That difference in base is amplified by most martials having more strengt then the more MAD monk, any of the to hit enhancers stated above, better and cheaper enchantments if the monk is unarmed and probably a couple more factors I'm forgetting right now. So it's ore like +6 to +8 in difference. Much bigger difference ain't it?
The main difference is when you cannot perform a full attack and the -2. A monk then becomes 3/4 bab. This isn't terrible. It's just not a pure combatant but an average one when it cannot flurry.
No, the monk reverts to +15, the others are still at +19(using your own nunbers)
They can make up for this by taking an extra attack ANYWAY by using ki and a swift action.
Yes, 6-8 uses of ki per day may not be a lot, but you only need to get an extra attack when you're stuck on a standard action.
See, you think the monk works because you haven't actually read the freaking class.
What they get instead is stunning fist and the list of debuffs that come with it, along with the quivering palm, etc. In this way, they can contribute quite well (mostly against humanoids, I admit) to a combat.
Yes if you enemy rolls a three on his save, it can be very useful, but ask anyone who has played amonk after, I don't know, 7th level? 10th? Around there the save DC for your stunning fist start to really be something most enemies can shrug off.
Ok, so out of all of the classes, there are a maybe 4 archetypes and 3 actual classes who can move and get more than one attack in a round. Cool. The monk is among them.
I guess it would be better to remove the option to move and make more than one attack from the monk?
Why, no, if the had that option it would be very bad indeed to take it off. If only they had that option...
|
|
@VM
I have read the class. I am not a master of the class. Please do not assume that because I got something (or more than one something) wrong, that I just did not read it at all. I merely misunderstood. I would like to hope that I am allowed to make honest mistakes.
If everyone gets 8 attacks when they TWF due to a low level spell, does this mean the monk gets 9 or, because the monk is bad they still only get 8 and are just doing a poor job of emulating others now? I am guessing on the later. =/
So, I was apparently wrong about the monk in terms of it being a good class, at least offensively. Your point by point caught a mistake I made which I had been using as a basis for my arguments.
Is a paladin who is not smiting or a cavalier who is not challenging or a ranger who is not facing down a favored enemy *really* that far ahead of everyone who is TWFing- or, specifically the monk? When they use their powers, they are very good, but many are circumstantial and not always available or not always smart to use on every encounter. Paladins don't have infinite smites, for example. The monk can flurry every single combat, usually.
You are right, the monk never has full bab at any point. His attacks are either 3/4 or penalized. He can't get around it.
But there seems to be so much of an issue with the 3/4 attack bonus anyway that I am starting to wonder if that shouldn't be removed entirely for simplicity's sake. From what I can gather, if you have 1/2 atk bab, you don't fight...ever. You sit back, use magic and touch spells. If you have full bab, you fight...even if you can cast spells, you stop, sit in the catapult, and wait to be flung into the thick of danger (I'm exaggerating). And if you have 3/4 attack, you have to also have magic or some class feature that turns you into someone who is catapulted into the heart of the enemy army or you ignore that aspect of your class and focus purely on spellcasting and buffing or something, like a summoner can.
These seem to be the main things I have taken away from the arguments when it comes to this debate (and others like it). To hit and damage are the most important things if you're dealing with any form of combat..this applies even to the bard. Anyone not aiding to hit or damage shouldn't be in combat. They should be casting spells that do what spells do...usually ones that aid in to hit or damage (buffs and damage spells).
Stunning fist has some hefty prerequisites to be such a bad feat.
Any non-monk getting the feat is nearly level 10. At which point, as you've said, it is useless. This implies that the monk not only is a bad class, but the feats they get are patently bad, too. This just makes them worse. Dodge, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, Snatch Arrows, Mobility, etc. Maybe I am jumping the gun.
The DC of stunning fist is 10 + 1/2 character level + wis mod. Any character taking the feat as early as possible who is not a monk has a DC 14+ stunning fist at level 8 with no wisdom bonus. They could also have up to a dc 18 stunning fist if they had an 18 wisdom score. I took the liberty of checking the fort saves of the first 15 or so monsters listed under CR 8 for some random sampling. In order, the fort save bonuses were: +10, +6, +11, +15, +12, +12, +6, +8, +9, +11, +9, +9, +11, +9, +11. I then check some others....it's all in the same ballpark. I then skipped up to CR 12 and there are several with +14 to +17 on the fort saves, and then a long host with +11 to +13.
So, the reality I came up with was that there is roughly a 50% chance for stunning fist to work on a character with a good wisdom score (16+ but 16 is low for a 'good' score). The monsters, in reality need to roll 6-9 to fail depending on the monster since the average of the numbers I put above came out to a +10 bonus on fort saves. So depending on the monks wisdom modifier and feat selections depends on if that save is making it on an 8 or a 12. Spells seem to work the same way. DC's don't seem to operate all that much differently for them. A similar spell of the same level, with a specialist casting it with the same stat using spell focus ends up with almost the exact same DC....see below.
Example: 10th level monk with 22 wisdom and stunning adept has a DC of 10(base) +5(level) +6(wisdom) +2(feat) for stunning fist. This is a DC 23 stunning fist save. It's high enough that roughly half of the monsters that are two CR's above it, will only make or fail the save about half the time. This means that if he were fighting things appropriate to his level, his stunning fists should be favoring him almost all of the time and he could afford to reduce his wisdom or get rid of the feat and still keep around a 50% or better at stunning. I did not go through every monster to make sure my math was right. But I feel that skimming 30+ between multiple CR's and selecting arbitrarily and randomly was good enough.
Therefor, I personally fail to understand why people claim that after level 7 stunning fist is worse as monster fort saves climb beyond approach. I checked. They were not only within reach, they were capable of being exceeded, readily so at that.
Sure, not every monk has a high wisdom. But those monks probably are not using stunning fist, using it on low fort targets, or using it and just hoping the monster does, in fact, roll that 3. Just so you know, I was prepared to be proven wrong when I checked. But this time, I don't think I am.
So the monk isn't the best guy for killing a monster in a few rounds. The monk has to take much more time to kill something. Offense is not their strong point. Any other way a mnk contributes to a party is emulated by others, quite readily, and often, if not always, completely and patently better in every respect.
So does this mean that every other class has multiple features of the monk? Or is there room for a monk to fill gaps that other classes can't fill? I mean, do fighters and paladins, have a tendency to be highly mobile and stealthy? Is it reasonable to play a monk, if we are assuming that there are no realistic or frequent enough situations where something the monk can do is not going to be covered, completely? And..is that likely? Does every party have access to the entire monk skillset, monk combat options, and special ability features as well as the ac and mobility aspects in some ready to go fashion that doesn't require premeditating and preparation? These are honest questions, not challenges. From how it sounds, maybe there is no purpose beyond RP to ever pick the monk. I still disagree there but I am waiting to be proven wrong. See the questions directly above ^.
If monks are the slowest option for defeating something in combat (presuming the unarmed wizard with 7 str can still do it faster- again, exaggeration), does the monk bring ANYTHING to the table that isn't just flat out available to everyone, easily? I mean, slow fall, self healing, amazing saving throws, decent hp, immunity to just about everything and built in spell resistance to boot...no items needed, no ki pool needed to be expended. This all sounds like a group of features designed to make sure that the character never dies to anything. So that long, drawn out fight might actually be long and drawn out because the monk *looks* hard to kill (again, I know someone is going to point out that spell resistance sucks, and even if it is good, the monks is not, and that saving throws are great, but not on the monk because they are only starting at the highest and that possibly is not good enough to let it survive, and then evasion is hardly a notable class feature either, even with a high ref save, let alone the immunity's to disease and poison being irrelevant and all combined on a single character without the need to do anything beyond being the proper level....). But if all of that sounds bad...I seriously want someone to prove me wrong (again). I've been proven wrong they aren't good offensively. Now I want that same proof that as a defensive character, they are just as useless....
Otherwise, I'm inclined to think that they have a lot of potential and probably can excel at surviving the worst the game has to offer. In which case, killing something in a fraction of a round probably isn't as important to any monk character if they, personally, have time available.
FINALLY- there is a trait that makes aid another bonuses increase by 2, and a feat (archon style) that lets you target a single enemy and give all adjacent allies +2 ac against that enemy. The style chain eventually removes all penalties from you, lets you redirect an attack from the target to yourself, and allows the entire group of affected (but not adjacent- I need to recheck on that) allies to get an aoo against the targeted enemy (if he's within range) if you're hit by his attack. Bodyguard uses up an aoo to give you an aid another action specifically for giving an ally +2 ac if they are being attacked and adjacent to you. Hopefully, you can see where this is going...especially since there are halfling racial feats that compound this nonsense even more. Wholeness of body is terrible healing. I completely agree. I was beyond disappointed when I read it. But, being a monk, if I try to attack, I'll just stab myself due to my accuracy (even if I am not using a weapon) so spending a standard action to heal when I am hit is better than spending it to be even less useful (Sorry if that sounded spiteful, bit was just my way of saying monks can't hit anything, because they don't have a measurable attack bonus). It's also healing the healers don't have to waste on me (again, if the monk isn't valuable, it's better to spend resources healing people who are- though, I contend that this monk might actually be valuable due to his feat selection, I'm probably wrong but who knows). And yeah, I am planning on using the heal skill. Sure, anyone can do it. But will everyone be doing it? I just played PFS last week and we had NO healing....at all. Eventually, someone decided to play a healer instead of their normal character because we had..again..NO healing. I couldn't use the heal skill like I wanted because the GM's had an issue with the adopted trait which meant I didn't have the traits I intended, in order to get it as a class skill. Whatever. I've played in higher level games (6-9) where there was no healing besides the occasional potion. So, clearly, there are games out there without any sort of healers in the party and where nobody has a wand to heal and nobody bothers with the heal skill. If we assume that because anybody can do it that you or I shouldn't bother with it, that same mentality could apply to everyone you're playing with and nobody would ever have things like..well, healing. Can a monk do these things better than someone else. Probably not. But, in my case, I feel it is better than what one would expect. Being a drunken master gives me Drunken ki. I can store up to 3. It lasts an hour or until used. I just have to drink a tankard of strong drink or ale and it gives me 1 drunken ki. Therefor, I can drink two tankards, and heal myself up to my monk level, use the heal skill on multiple allies twice in the same day for a total of 2x level in hp healing to allies via the heal skill. In a fight, I eventually get to drink as a swift action, and with the right magic item(s) can have infinite alcohol at my command. This makes healing in combat even more efficient, as I steadily get more drunk. Again, it's sort of free healing done in an awkward way. My charisma is beyond terrible so getting UMD is probably a bad idea. Moreso with the few skill points gained due to low int as well (int is fighting for str to go beyond 10). He's not an optimization machine, though I wouldn't mind finding some ways to spruce him up. The character seems extremely fun and actually useful- despite being a monk. The plan is that the actual experience will prove me right.
Edit:
Sorry for the long wall of text. I tried to break it up and shortened much of the post...*sigh* Why do I type so much?
On the Stunning Fist thing, a 50% chance of success is not good at all. Maybe if it weren't limited per day, or you could throw out a "Flurry of Stuns" (which you can't, since it's limited to 1 per round) it'd be worth it with a 50% success rate, but a 1/2 level + stat DC doesn't work on a class whose DC determining stat isn't their primary stat (which is either Dex or Str for Monks).
|
I don't play PFS, but I do play Paizo APs.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've fought completely humanoid creatures (i.e. "PC races"). There is one I've played with a bunch of Monstrous Humanoids, but they have other things to make up for their lack of resistance to combat maneuvers, not least among them spell-like abilities and a number of immunities and resistances to other things.
So, the first encounter in book 1 of Curse of the Crimson Throne is entirely made up of Humanoids (Gaedran Lamb and his cronies) plus a croc and a shark maybe.
Then the badguys in "All the Worlds Meat". Also all humans/humanoids. Then Eels End, again, all Humanoids (with the exception of spiders). Trinia? A humanoid. The dead warrens? Almost all Humanoids with the exception of the Otyugh.
In other words, with the exception of about 3 monsters, the bulk (read, 90%) of the encounters are humanoids.
Shall I continue, or can you concede that the bulk of the encounters in most of the AP's are in fact humanoids?
If the enemy is prone, blinded, and sickened the Monk took 3 turns (and two uses of Stunning Fist) doing so. Was everyone sitting there with their thumb up their ass while the Monk was taking all these actions?You should actually take the time to, y'know, READ before you mouth off on something by the way. Monk is being compared to full BaB classes because every other martial frontliner (which it has been claimed the Monk is) has full BaB and at least d10 hit dice.
Taken right out of the description of the class:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
That hardly sounds like a "frontliner" to me. Just because someone makes that claim doesn't make it true. Maybe if you actually took the time to, u'know, READ before you mouth off.....
I don't play PFS, but I do play Paizo APs.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've fought completely humanoid creatures (i.e. "PC races"). There is one I've played with a bunch of Monstrous Humanoids, but they have other things to make up for their lack of resistance to combat maneuvers, not least among them spell-like abilities and a number of immunities and resistances to other things.
So, the first encounter in book 1 of Curse of the Crimson Throne is entirely made up of Humanoids (Gaedran Lamb and his cronies) plus a croc and a shark maybe.
Then the badguys in "All the Worlds Meat". Also all humans/humanoids. Then Eels End, again, all Humanoids (with the exception of spiders). Trinia? A humanoid. The dead warrens? Almost all Humanoids with the exception of the Otyugh.
In other words, with the exception of about 3 monsters, the bulk (read, 90%) of the encounters are humanoids.
Shall I continue, or can you concede that the bulk of the encounters in most of the AP's are in fact humanoids?
So based on your playthrough of ONE AP (what I assume are encounters in it, since in my search through my bundles of PDFs I can't find "All the world's meat" or any of the others as titles of AP sections or even as standalone adventure modules), you assume that all APs are made up of human encounters?
So let's run through Serpent's skull right quick:
Cannibal fight in book 1
"Freedom fighters" and assassins in book 2.
Nothing yet in book 3 or 4, unless Serpentfolk count (and they're not humanoids).
Carrion Crown:
Fight with people as the first encounter.
OPTIONAL angry mob in book 2 (optional in that you don't have to fight them, just disperse them).
None I can recall other than a single boss fight in book 3.
Not sure after that, but I expect the trend persists throughout.
That hardly sounds like a "frontliner" to me. Just because someone makes that claim doesn't make it true. Maybe if you actually took the time to, u'know, READ before you mouth off.....
Indeed it doesn't.
And yet people claim he is.
Which is what people keep saying he can do well.
Which is what I was disputing.
Which you would have gathered had you read the thread like I told you to do.
Of course he's a bad "hit and run" character too since he only has 3/4 BaB, but that's beside this particular point.
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.That hardly sounds like a "frontliner" to me. Just because someone makes that claim doesn't make it...
But they don't play like that is the thing. In order to be even somewhat effective, the Monk needs to be full attacking all the time, or otherwise they lose +1 to +5 to their attack. If you want the monk to be a skirmishing class, they need to be able to do effective things on a standard. They can't- as pointed out in the thread, stunning fist's difficulty to connect is a real problem, and maneuvers are quickly outstripped by the much faster scaling CMD.
If you wanted to make the monk a skirmisher, you would give them full BAB, buff stunning fist (or give them something like stunning fist) so the enemy doesn't get two outs, and allow them to always treat enemies as flat footed. It would make combat maneuvers a lot more competitive at higher levels, allows them to be incredibly accurate (They're never going to be anywhere near as damaging as even a fighter if you go this route, so let them be able to be really accurate).
It still nowhere near enough to make them even competitive on the ranger- dead is still the best condition- but it makes them closer to the skirmisher that you want them to be.
Hell, just adding Spring Attack to their Bonus Feats list at an earlier level and making Vital Strike or summat usable with it would go a long way towards making a "skirmisher" a viable build. Because it's not for ANY class as the game is currently. After iteratives come in it's a very stationary game.
Really the closest you can get to a skirmisher is a Dragon/Snake/Panther Master of Many Styles (which I'm pumped to start playing here soon. Yay for friendly GMs and rebuilds!) which does pretty good with the whole "Provoke, counterattack. Oh, you missed? B$*#! eat another hit. Now take another 'un." thing.
Here's another thing that pisses me off about the "pseudo full BaB" thing. While Flurry effectively makes you fight at Full BaB -2...it doesn't do jack for Feat prerequisites and scaling Feats (like Power Attack).
|
|
So, let's take my thoughts on the class and plug them in to the role:
Quote:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities.
--
So, part of being able to overcome the most daunting perils means not dying. You could fire a rocket launcher or a nuke and remove the most daunting peril before it knows you exist (every class not called monk). But that is only one way of overcoming that situation. Besides dealing the most damage or save or suck, there are other aspects of the game and of combat. Like not dying to crap. Can the monk do this well? It seems like it to me.
Striking where least expected and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities sounds a lot like flanking, stunning fist, and an ability to get into those useful positions. I would argue the assumption is that the monk is always flanking, whether someone is setting up a flank or not- just by default of the variety of movement options they have to force a flank all on their own. I think the monk fits this.
Ki strike further adds to this concept.
Quote:
Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
If I have to explain how a monk is good at this, then I'm done. Yes, Dimension Door could be better for them (like being able to act once they finish using it, or even getting a bonus for striking or stunning after doing so).
Since we know monks can do 'ok' damage (nothing great) are they really not living up the role as described or are people arguing that they fail at doing what the class is designed to do? Should this type of class have a fighters base attack, bonuses in combat comparable to favored enemy, weapon training or smite? That doesn't seem like it fits the described role.
But they can't hit anything if they're not full-attacking, and don't do even mediocre damage if they're only attacking as a standard (2d8+ a few mods, woo). Full attacks will always be the better choice than moving away and making a standard action if you can help it.
Basically the monk runs into the problem that they can move, or they can do mediocre damage. When the reality is that they should be able to do both in one turn. They should get the mobility, and a good mechanic that works off of that mobility. Currently they don't. That's the problem with the monk. It wants to be one thing- a skirmisher- but everything they get pushes them away to be another thing- a frontline fighter. No other class has this problem, the fighter is frontline and has the abilities to go with it, the ranger is either frontline or a ranged skirmisher, and have the features to go with it. The barbarian is a raging murderbeast- supported by features-, the druid/cleric/wizard is god- supported by their spellcasting.
Basically what I'm saying is that the monk is schizophrenic and disorganized, and all we want is to unify the mechanics so they fit one role or another.
Ultimately, I understand that OFFENSIVELY, the monk is not the best. So?
So what use are they to a party of adventurers, then? If they can't make an attack a foe will notice, then they may as well not be there just as soon as the enemy works that out. The foe ignores them and beats up the rest of the party.
They aren't even the best class defensively, either - the paladin is.
P.S. If you think these stats should be a different way tell me because I'm going to be reposting this stats over and over for further bases, and who knows maybe these stats could eventually tell me that the ranger is not equal to the monk but better.
Ranger can dump charisma as far as the monk, and bag an 18 strength.
So, the first encounter in book 1 of Curse of the Crimson Throne is entirely made up of Humanoids (Gaedran Lamb and his cronies) plus a croc and a shark maybe.
Then the badguys in "All the Worlds Meat". Also all humans/humanoids. Then Eels End, again, all Humanoids (with the exception of spiders). Trinia? A humanoid. The dead warrens? Almost all Humanoids with the exception of the Otyugh.
In other words, with the exception of about 3 monsters, the bulk (read, 90%) of the encounters are humanoids.
Shall I continue, or can you concede that the bulk of the encounters in most of the AP's are in fact humanoids?
I played the monk I posted above through CotCT from start to finish. Yes, at low level she did OK. Not outstanding, but OK.
Once we started fighting things with DR, or decent defences, or not humanoid above 5th-6th level, she started to flag behind the rest of the party. That's basically from book 2 onward. When humanoids showed up, she did OK some of the time, but by 10th she was starting to struggle even then.
Stunning fist I pulled off a total of six times for the entire adventure - three of them in one encounter when the DM has a spate of lousy luck. Several fights I was down to being able to do nothing but provide flanking bonus.
Taken right out of the description of the class:
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.That hardly sounds like a "frontliner" to me. Just because someone makes that claim doesn't make it...
Doesn't sound like anything the monk can do as well as a ranger, barbarian or even a rogue can, either.
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils
That's a very vague statement, how do monks do this? They have good saves and decent AC (maybe) but that's about all you can say about their ability to do this.
striking where it's least expected
How? Basic stealth is there, but that's all. As for 'striking' they don't do that very well, do they? A rogue's sneak attack is better suited for this.
and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities.
What enemy vulnerabilities? What powers do monks have to overcome any vulnerabilities? They can bypass a few forms of DR and that's it, and even then it's no more than any other class can do at that level.
Fleet of foot
Check, they can run fast.
and skilled in combat,
I think we have established that even the other 3/4 BAB classes have an edge over the monk in this department, rogue excepted.
monks can navigate any battlefield with ease,
If they pump Acrobatics and dexterity, and take the right feats, and drop any pretence of inflicting damage, then yes, they can do this almost as well as a paladin when he casts grace.
aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
How? They turn up and do what to help, exactly, that a commoner couldn't do, ie aid another or provide a flanking bonus.
|
|
Going through the boards, I have seen much in regard to fixing monks and comments that they are under-powered, but I don't think I have been able to divine any info into why people have this opinion.
So I ask- what is wrong with the Monk class in comparison to the other base classes?
The fact that they're a MAD class is certainly a problem. Less of a problem at higher point builds I suppose. I can't even imagine playing a Monk with a 10 point buy.
The other issue, which I have personal experience with, is that at higher levels it seems like most GMs use more big monsters, and a lot less medium humanoids. The Monk's preferred opponent is a medium biped, preferably one without DR. If the game you're in is going to be all about giants & dragons, that's not an environment that a Monk excels in.
What Monks do have is a lot of mobility, a lot of skill points, and a high likelihood of being able to pull of maneuvers. Sure, you're not going to do as much damage as other classes, but you're not useless. A lot of it's going to come down to what sort of game your GM is running.
Oh, Enlarge Person is your best friend.
Best moment in the game that I played a monk in was when I managed to grapple and pin a Mummy. :D
|
|
I don't play PFS, but I do play Paizo APs.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've fought completely humanoid creatures (i.e. "PC races"). There is one I've played with a bunch of Monstrous Humanoids, but they have other things to make up for their lack of resistance to combat maneuvers, not least among them spell-like abilities and a number of immunities and resistances to other things.
So, the first encounter in book 1 of Curse of the Crimson Throne is entirely made up of Humanoids (Gaedran Lamb and his cronies) plus a croc and a shark maybe.
Then the badguys in "All the Worlds Meat". Also all humans/humanoids. Then Eels End, again, all Humanoids (with the exception of spiders). Trinia? A humanoid. The dead warrens? Almost all Humanoids with the exception of the Otyugh.
In other words, with the exception of about 3 monsters, the bulk (read, 90%) of the encounters are humanoids.
Shall I continue, or can you concede that the bulk of the encounters in most of the AP's are in fact humanoids?
So based on your playthrough of ONE AP (what I assume are encounters in it, since in my search through my bundles of PDFs I can't find "All the world's meat" or any of the others as titles of AP sections or even as standalone adventure modules), you assume that all APs are made up of human encounters?
So let's run through Serpent's skull right quick:
Cannibal fight in book 1
"Freedom fighters" and assassins in book 2.
Nothing yet in book 3 or 4, unless Serpentfolk count (and they're not humanoids).
Carrion Crown:
Fight with people as the first encounter.
OPTIONAL angry mob in book 2 (optional in that you don't have to fight them, just disperse them).
None I can recall other than a single boss fight in book 3.
Not sure after that, but I expect the trend persists throughout.
That hardly sounds like a "frontliner" to me. Just because someone makes that claim doesn't...
No, I'm not basing it off only 1 AP I only provided those as a baseline. The first book in Crimson Throne is chock full o humanoids, and just because you can't find the All The Worlds Meat in Crimson Throne doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means you can't find it.
I have played in over 30 PFS adventures, I have played Crimson Throne and Runelords. Other than the EXCEPTION one or two monsters, the VAST...no, check that VAAAAAAST majority of encounters I have faced are humanoids. They are weak against being tripped, grappled, dirty tricked, disarmed, bull rushed, and repositioned.
In short sir, they are very very likely to be pwned by a full BAB CMB monk.
|
|
Ultimately, I understand that OFFENSIVELY, the monk is not the best. So?So what use are they to a party of adventurers, then? If they can't make an attack a foe will notice, then they may as well not be there just as soon as the enemy works that out. The foe ignores them and beats up the rest of the party.
They aren't even the best class defensively, either - the paladin is.
P.S. If you think these stats should be a different way tell me because I'm going to be reposting this stats over and over for further bases, and who knows maybe these stats could eventually tell me that the ranger is not equal to the monk but better.Ranger can dump charisma as far as the monk, and bag an 18 strength.
So, the first encounter in book 1 of Curse of the Crimson Throne is entirely made up of Humanoids (Gaedran Lamb and his cronies) plus a croc and a shark maybe.
Then the badguys in "All the Worlds Meat". Also all humans/humanoids. Then Eels End, again, all Humanoids (with the exception of spiders). Trinia? A humanoid. The dead warrens? Almost all Humanoids with the exception of the Otyugh.
In other words, with the exception of about 3 monsters, the bulk (read, 90%) of the encounters are humanoids.
Shall I continue, or can you concede that the bulk of the encounters in most of the AP's are in fact humanoids?
I played the monk I posted above through CotCT from start to finish. Yes, at low level she did OK. Not outstanding, but OK.
Once we started fighting things with DR, or decent defences, or not humanoid above 5th-6th level, she started to flag behind the rest of the party. That's basically from book 2 onward. When humanoids showed up, she did OK some of the time, but by 10th she was starting to struggle even then.
Stunning fist I pulled off a total of six times for the entire adventure - three of them in one encounter when the DM has a spate of lousy luck. Several fights I was down to being...
The sheer hyperbole in this reply is so stunning in the sheer amount you throw around that its ludicrous.
so Monks "can't" hit....or is it that they are just not as good at it as a 4/4 BAB guy?
You completely neglect to mention that Monks get full BAB on CMB's, and that sets up the 3/4 BAB for future hits.
I guess other 3/4 BAB classes "cant" hit either??
I like how I've also already seen the "OK, you CAN make an effective monk, but it requires system mastery to do..." argument already in this thread at least once.
And that is what it comes down to in the end, again.
Never mind that to build pretty much any optimized class you need a degree of system mastery as well.
|
|
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
Striking where its least expected:
Fast movement, add to that with Ki pool. (allows for flanking)
High Jump, add to that with Ki pool.
Slow Fall.
Full BAB when doing CMB, might want to read about how to bullrush.
Excellent Acrobatics, and can spec that. Can other classes do this? Sure, but combine the acrobatics to go through enemy squares without provoking (or take Panther Style and provoke all flippin day) and be where the enemy doesn't want you.
Let alone Qing Gong powers.
Taking advantage of Enemy Vulnerabilities:
Fast Movement.
Readied actions (other classes can do this too, but still, you insist they cant do this)
Full BAB on CMB (so does your beloved Ranger, Fighter, Barb, Pally)
Stunning Fist
Qing Gong abilities
Fleet of Foot:
We covered this already, but think on this: with Long Jump the difficulty to long jump is essentially 1 per 1 foot. At level 10, with 1 point per level in Acrobatics, a mediocre +2 in the stat, Lesser Ring of Jumping, Boots of Springing and Striding, and spending a Ki point a Monk can essentially jump 50 feet + the roll of a d20, up to their normal movement.
Need to get to the other side of the battlements to fight the archers? Monk.
Get me a fighter or barbarian (not specced towards jumping/acrobatics) who can do THAT.
Skilled in Combat:
Full BAB on CMB
Essentially free 2wf during flurry
Flurry
Unique weapon choices which can add to your CMB
Qing Gong abilities which can aid in combat
Aiding Allies wherever they are needed most:
High AC and Mobility as free feat choice when granted
Add to AC with Ki
Fast Movement
Full BAB on CMB to reposition/bullrush/overrun
Good flank partner because even disarmed they still threaten
Full BAB on CMB to trip/disarm/sunder
Full BAB on CMB to grapple (maybe you don't need to KILL everything, a hostage etc.)
See, its not that they "CANT" do what you think they can.
I dont think anyone here is arguing that Monk is the end all be all of combat.
I dont think anyone here will even come close to admitting that with fighter archetypes and rage powers that most times a Barb or Fighter isn't the better choice between the classes.
What I do think is that because most people are dismissive of a solid class that the Monk often gets overlooked. As a 5th wheel party member, Monks are great fun and really do fit in extremely well.
They are like that company BASF...they don't make the things you use, they make the things you use better.
The problem here is, once again, you have a buttload of guys all writing off the Monk as weak gimped lousy class that totally sucks because it can't solo encounters like other optimized classes can, and thus it is a horribly broken and horrible choice to play, and they refuse...steadfastly REFUSE to admit that Monks contribute equally well in many situations.
he sheer hyperbole in this reply is so stunning in the sheer amount you throw around that its ludicrous.+
Hyperbole? On the internet? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!! WE ALL KNOW EVERYTHING IN THE INTERNET SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS LITERALLY AS POSSIBLE!
(See what I did there?)You completely neglect to mention that Monks get full BAB on CMB's, and that sets up the 3/4 BAB for future hits.
I guess other 3/4 BAB classes "cant" hit either??
But all those other classes (except Rogues) have more out-of-combat utility, better overall versatility and some way to buff themselves and others.
Monks have average skill points (although they do have a nice selection of class skills) and are so MAD that investing in Int is not really viable. Gunslingers, Barbarians and Cavaliers make better skill monkeys than Monks. And all those classes are MUCH better in combat too.The Pseudo Full BAB thing is overcomplicated and unnecessary. Not to mention it means Monks, who are supposed to have awesome mobility, are punished even more than other martial classes if they ever decide to move 10ft or more.
I like how I've also already seen the "OK, you CAN make an effective monk, but it requires system mastery to do..." argument already in this thread at least once.
And that is what it comes down to in the end, again.
Never mind that to build pretty much any optimized class you need a degree of system mastery as well.
You can make an effective commoner, expert and warrior too. I'd still not recommend playing those classes.
The argument is that building and playing a Monk requires a lot more of system mastery to be still less effective than any oother half-decently optimized martial class. Monks have pretty good defenses (although I think not only Paladins, but Clerics, Druids, Inquisitors and even Magi have better defenses than Monks)Noone is saying Monks are unplayable! What we are saying, is that they are very underwhelming, and considerably less effective than other classes designed to fulfil similar roles.
No, I'm not basing it off only 1 AP I only provided those as a baseline. The first book in Crimson Throne is chock full o humanoids, and just because you can't find the All The Worlds Meat in Crimson Throne doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means you can't find it.
You threw it out there like it was a separate adventure or something, I looked for it in the titles, not the contents. Sue me.
I have played in over 30 PFS adventures
That's nice but we're talking about Adventure Paths if you'll recall.
I have played Crimson Throne and Runelords. Other than the EXCEPTION one or two monsters, the VAST...no, check that VAAAAAAST majority of encounters I have faced are humanoids. They are weak against being tripped, grappled, dirty tricked, disarmed, bull rushed, and repositioned.
In short sir, they are very very likely to be pwned by a full BAB CMB monk.
And I've played/run Carrion Crown and Serpent's Skull and given a quick glance through Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, and to a lesser extent Skull and Shackles to see what their encounter make-up was like.
The vast. Sorry "VAAAAAAST" majority of encounters in all except Kingmaker (which is mostly Humanoids until middle of book 2, start of book 3 I believe) are monster encounters. Most of the time not even Monstrous Humanoids, just magical beasts, undead, and what have you.
Council of Thieves sorta kinda teeters on the brink, I only read the first book of that one. My guess is that the further you get from the original APs the less they rely on human encounters and the more they rely on "This cool new beasty we added just for this AP".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dude shares his experience of struggling with his monk.
Gets accused of hyperbole.
:(
And his complaint about Stunning Fist working six times across the entire campaign went ignored too.
Wonder if I should even bother sharing my own experiences. (spoiler warning: They weren't pleasant)
Seriously guys, this isn't some conspiracy to make monks look bad. The people with complaints love monks.
It would just be nice if the monk class loved us back.
Fleet of Foot:
We covered this already, but think on this: with Long Jump the difficulty to long jump is essentially 1 per 1 foot. At level 10, with 1 point per level in Acrobatics, a mediocre +2 in the stat, Lesser Ring of Jumping, Boots of Springing and Striding, and spending a Ki point a Monk can essentially jump 50 feet + the roll of a d20, up to their normal movement.Need to get to the other side of the battlements to fight the archers? Monk.
Get me a fighter or barbarian (not specced towards jumping/acrobatics) who can do THAT.
At level 10 a Barbarian can just get so angry that he grows wings and gains a fly speed.
Fleet of Foot:
We covered this already, but think on this: with Long Jump the difficulty to long jump is essentially 1 per 1 foot. At level 10, with 1 point per level in Acrobatics, a mediocre +2 in the stat, Lesser Ring of Jumping, Boots of Springing and Striding, and spending a Ki point a Monk can essentially jump 50 feet + the roll of a d20, up to their normal movement.Need to get to the other side of the battlements to fight the archers? Monk.
Get me a fighter or barbarian (not specced towards jumping/acrobatics) who can do THAT.
So the monk who bought that gear and specialized in acrobatics and put all his points into acrobatics is going to jump better than the barbarian and fighter who didn't do anything towards it? Yeah... I'm okay with that. By level 10 casters have overland flight though and can share fly with the party and boots of flying are a thing though. Assimar can get flight in a level with one feat prereq. Jumping is for those suckers who listen to gravity.
At level 10 a Barbarian can just get so angry that he grows wings and gains a fly speed.
You ever get so mad you just grow wings and fly at someone with a greataxe? I know I've seen it.
If there's one thing that monks are actually really good at, it's jumping, a level 10 monk with 14 DEX and maxed out ranks in Acrobatics actually has a +37 jump check before any gear or spending a Ki point, if he spends a ki point it goes to +47 (or +57*).
The 57 is if the +20 untyped bonus from spending a ki point stacks with the + Monk Level bonus, though it probably doesn't as they're both from the High Jump class feature and untyped bonuses from the same ability don't stack.
Of course by level 10 most martials can usually just drink a potion of fly if they need to get somewhere.
I'd have to say they DO stack, because of the different verbiage used. One is 'adds his level' while the other is a '+20 bonus'
Think about that, if they didn't stack it would mean a level 20 monk could gain no benefit at all from the ki point use.
Now where this gets amusing, is that said Monk would only need to roll over an 8 to jump further than he can move in a single move-action.
I think they mean bonus' of the same type don't stack unless specifically specified as stackable.
|
|
Fleet of Foot:
We covered this already, but think on this: with Long Jump the difficulty to long jump is essentially 1 per 1 foot. At level 10, with 1 point per level in Acrobatics, a mediocre +2 in the stat, Lesser Ring of Jumping, Boots of Springing and Striding, and spending a Ki point a Monk can essentially jump 50 feet + the roll of a d20, up to their normal movement.Need to get to the other side of the battlements to fight the archers? Monk.
Get me a fighter or barbarian (not specced towards jumping/acrobatics) who can do THAT.
So the monk who bought that gear and specialized in acrobatics and put all his points into acrobatics is going to jump better than the barbarian and fighter who didn't do anything towards it? Yeah... I'm okay with that. By level 10 casters have overland flight though and can share fly with the party and boots of flying are a thing though. Assimar can get flight in a level with one feat prereq. Jumping is for those suckers who listen to gravity.
At level 10 a Barbarian can just get so angry that he grows wings and gains a fly speed.You ever get so mad you just grow wings and fly at someone with a greataxe? I know I've seen it.
Because now we have started comparing a 3/4BAB class to full casters now...gotcha.
Half casters can fly by level 10 too. It's a 3rd level spell for cryin' out loud.
Not Overland Flight, granted, but Fly still trumps even the best Climb and Acrobatics scores every time.
Y'know the more I think about it the more I think the Monk should be revamped as a 6 level caster. He's already kinda a semi-4 level caster sometimes.
I love the concept of the frontline Monk but either making him a 4-level caster frontliner ala Paladin/Ranger or going whole hog on the caster/melee hybrid deal would be best.
That's the main issue more than anything, the design of the class is...unfocused is the best word I believe.
|
|
Ultimately, I understand that OFFENSIVELY, the monk is not the best. So?So what use are they to a party of adventurers, then? If they can't make an attack a foe will notice, then they may as well not be there just as soon as the enemy works that out. The foe ignores them and beats up the rest of the party.
They aren't even the best class defensively, either - the paladin is.
Wow. I'm not sure there is anything to say based on the nature of the opinion here. I know that I disagree about as firmly as I ever have disagreed with anyone, though. What use is a person who cannot kill, kill, kill? So, someone completely incapable of killing but entirely able to heal, protect, assist, etc, is by default- useless to a party of adventurers...
It's entirely about offense and drawing agro as though this were some form of mmo. Not only would I refuse to play in a game like that (I'd rather go online and play an mmo then) but it's not even a realistic approach to designing a party. When I have 9 fighters with 5 dex, and 22 str and 4 con, wear no armor, and give opponents bonuses to hit them and to damage but in return do bonus damage back and have bonuses to hit I'm thinking that I'd maybe be better off in some other group, since these guys can do only one thing- attack!
I played my PFS monk in multiple campaigns and it's TERRIBLE....and I mean it, at offense. But the party absolutely benefited from him. My damage, while pitiful, added up. I didn't always hit. The game was realistic. You know, enemies had this thing called armor class. Even the rangers in our group missed because of it.
My monk has hp and AC, too. Guess what? He used them. Someone else could have been hit but it was my monk instead. I know, anybody can do this- but it seems that by your argument here that these are totally irrelevant since a common could easily and effectively to JUST as well, and make the monk look bad while doing it.
I'm more than willing to concede a point or argument when I am wrong. But this is not one of those times. Offensive contribution is *not* even remotely a requirement for being useful to a party on a character by character bases. You may PREFER that everyone who joins your parties have some offensive capacity, but that is by no means a necessity, just like healing isn't. A group of martial characters or people who fight -at all- is not even needed.
I've seen party's and heard of parties of all sorts of characters who operated in several unique ways. An all rogue party of burglars with low strength or only enough to carry gear, yet who were all wonderfully effective in their adventures.
I'll stop here because I can do nothing else BUT think of example after example, after example of both real life, experienced, hypothetical and hearsay where offense was never a factor or never needed in an entire party....let alone on specific characters. And here, you're trying to tell me it somehow is a requirement.....uggh. I've even played online mmo's where there was no way to fight or perform combat and the games were fun and fine...and sophisticated, too. In short, I find your argument patently wrong and baseless.
As to the paladin being the best defensively, are you saying that the paladin alone is the better class defensively? In which case, out of all of the 15-30 or so classes in the game and all the archetypes, the monk is 2nd and because he is not first he sucks at defense? I know people on these boards WOULD answer that question with a 'yes' (and that's SO annoying and biased) but I am asking because I don't know what you are basing your statement on.
Or are you saying that the Paladin stands out as the best defensively and after the paladin, there are tons of other classes who are still superior to monks in defense and that, at best, the monk *might* come out average?
Because if you're placing the monk in the top 5, then even beginning to argue that he's not one of the best defensive classes in the game makes everything you say sound biased and not worthy of further consideration since that is exactly what everyone is doing when they are trying to prove how the monk is terrible at offense- when they list out all of the classes who are better offensively. I'll throw out five classes who were specifically mentioned in this thread and probably on this same page as proof and an example: fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, magus....
PS. The bad guys were unable to beat up on the rest of the party today after 12 hours of gaming because my monk, while dealing pitiful to no damage (low strength) was able to support the party and 'help when/where needed'. It was easier for my monk to do it than another class, even if other classes could eventually do it. The ease came specifically, from being a monk, too. But whatever. I guess being living proof that counters some of these arguments is, at best, a super corner case and an anomaly of rolls and GM fiat, exclusively. *insert rolled eyes smiley here*
Rynjin, have you seen Ashiel's revised monk? It's basically what you're looking for, if you're willing to go with psionics.
Re: the High Jump bonuses stacking or not, I'd certainly allow them in a game I ran, though I fear the official ruling would come down with them not stacking.
All this jumping talk makes me wish that high jumping was easier, now if a Monk of that level could jump 60-80 feet straight up in the air with a move action and still have a standard action to hit a flying enemy with a stunning fist or grapple that would at least be pretty freaking cool.
I have taken a gander at it. It looks good, but not QUITE what I'm looking for. Psionics is fine but it's more of an expanded version of the Monk's spell-like abilities rather than an actual caster.
Hey, you know what, I don't even have to pick between them. Split 'em into two classes, a "Mystic" and a "Martial Artist". One has 3/4 BaB and D8 HD, some of the Monk's abilities, and 6 level casting, whereas Martial Artist (or whatever. "Ascetic", maybe?) has full BaB, d10 hit dice, all of the Monk's physical skills, and some extra Ki goodies.
Maybe I should work on that some time.
And yeah jumping needs work. Mythic jump stuff should be default a high check or an ability like High Jump IMO.
What might be cool would be a "reverse Slow Fall" in place of High Jump. Essentially whatever your Slow Fall distance is is your base jump height (capping out at 100). Gives a bit of extra oomph against flying creatures, but more importantly is unbearably badass.
|
|
No, I'm not basing it off only 1 AP I only provided those as a baseline. The first book in Crimson Throne is chock full o humanoids, and just because you can't find the All The Worlds Meat in Crimson Throne doesn't mean I'm wrong, it means you can't find it.You threw it out there like it was a separate adventure or something, I looked for it in the titles, not the contents. Sue me.
I have played in over 30 PFS adventuresThat's nice but we're talking about Adventure Paths if you'll recall.
I have played Crimson Throne and Runelords. Other than the EXCEPTION one or two monsters, the VAST...no, check that VAAAAAAST majority of encounters I have faced are humanoids. They are weak against being tripped, grappled, dirty tricked, disarmed, bull rushed, and repositioned.
In short sir, they are very very likely to be pwned by a full BAB CMB monk.
And I've played/run Carrion Crown and Serpent's Skull and given a quick glance through Council of Thieves, Kingmaker, and to a lesser extent Skull and Shackles to see what their encounter make-up was like.
The vast. Sorry "VAAAAAAST" majority of encounters in all except Kingmaker (which is mostly Humanoids until middle of book 2, start of book 3 I believe) are monster encounters. Most of the time not even Monstrous Humanoids, just magical beasts, undead, and what have you.
Council of Thieves sorta kinda teeters on the brink, I only read the first book of that one. My guess is that the further you get from the original APs the less they rely on human encounters and the more they rely on "This cool new beasty we added just for this AP".
The first two books of Legacy of Fire is FILLED with Gnolls, and the third book is fairly heavy with gnolls and humans as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Dark Immortal I'm assuming what he meant that without the enemy feeling that the monk is a threat, it's logical for a creature to ignore them and go after the mage that's been harassing them or the archer that's been hurting them. Assuming that said creature isn't a humanoid or that this isn't early game, in which case a monk would control enough with combat maneuvers to irritate the person into attacking him.
It's isn't drawing aggro in an MMO sense either. Assuming a sentient intelligent adversary, taking out the biggest threats first only makes sense (it's what a party of PCs would do, after all). So after a couple of rounds, why would they attack your monk who not only is hard to hit, but isn't that big of a threat?
Also, I'm confused by the point you tried to make with your third sentence, since you basically described a paladin who's bad at attacking, who people would still find use for.
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't play a monk. What they're saying is that you shouldn't play one and expect to be as effective as the other classes (if those other classes are built properly, and I'm gonna ignore archetypes since I'm sure there's a juicy, juicy combination there just waiting to be found for the monk, ignoring the Zen Archer who I believe is very effective just from looking).
And yeah jumping needs work. Mythic jump stuff should be default a high check or an ability like High Jump IMO.
What might be cool would be a "reverse Slow Fall" in place of High Jump. Essentially whatever your Slow Fall distance is is your base jump height (capping out at 100). Gives a bit of extra oomph against flying creatures, but more importantly is unbearably badass.
That's close to what the Cloud Step feat would be if it didn't have the lame 1/2 your slow fall speed cap.
Nobody is saying that you shouldn't play a monk. What they're saying is that you shouldn't play one and expect to be as effective as the other classes (if those other classes are built properly, and I'm gonna ignore archetypes since I'm sure there's a juicy, juicy combination there just waiting to be found for the monk, ignoring the Zen Archer who I believe is very effective just from looking).
Actually what we're trying to do is figure out how to make the monk as effective as other classes assuming that they're at the same level of optimization. In a ideal world, every class would be equally powerful while fulfilling different niches. Dark Immortal has been saying that the monk is a skirmisher, and he's right there, it's the classes intended design, but that not how it usually works out in play.
Yes, a high-op monk, particularly a Maneuver Monk, can be relevant in a low-op party facing a lot of humanoids, but they still run into the problem that they have difficulty applying the best status condition- dead.