I was going off of the original topic I guess (or maybe a tangent?). But it seemed to me that at least in that post that Dark Immortal was saying that the monks could put their AC to use for the benefit of the party, and I was simply expanding upon that.
And isn't the Zen Archer good at applying deadness to others?
I was going off of the original topic I guess (or maybe a tangent?). But it seemed to me that at least in that post that Dark Immortal was saying that the monks could put their AC to use for the benefit of the party, and I was simply expanding upon that.
And isn't the Zen Archer good at applying deadness to others?
Zen Archers are pretty good at killing, but they're also one of the least "monk-like" monk archetypes, since it's an archer instead of a martial artist. It's rather telling that most of the best ways to make a mechanically effective monk involve getting as far away from monk fluff as possible, like using weapons.
|
You can block a passageway and force a monster or intelligent enemy to have to get through you to reach the allies behind you. You can provide soft cover to ranged attacks, and while you don't have to hit anything very hard, you can stun things (once you hit, of course) and also have plenty of non-combat uses. Today, for example, the party thought I was a rogue...and called me such until someone pointed out that I wasn't a rogue and couldn't disarm traps. I did all the scouting, and most of the trap detection. Had we had a rogue (like we did three sessions ago) I don't do that stuff. I watch his back since I can stealth and offer some combat support if things go bad- or can run to reach allies quicker to let them know what's going on. And yeah, I can stealth faster, in general, once certain levels are reached. While our fighters were busy dispatching side threats or key threats, I was off occupying side threats or key threats (whichever they weren't dealing with). Being acrobatic, I tumbled into flank at nearly every opportunity, though this gets way harder later on, it's not a big deal with the good ac a monk can get (but it's safe to assume that every class can get a 46-55+ ac without much effort from what I gather). I fail a tumble and take the aoo and am not likely to be hit.
Yeah, my stunning fist failed, but it won't always fail. And yes, I definitely missed several times. But so did our fighters. I definitely did not deal the most damage but in all of my adventures with my monk, to date, I've been useful and reliable as a party member, even when there were others- including specialist classes, who could do something I could do. I have yet to feel useless except that one time where we fought in darkness...that was a pain and even then I was among the last to fall.
The monk strikes me as self sufficient. He doesn't have to buy a wand of cure light wounds and then put ranks in umd in order to heal himself. His healing isn't great, and could use a boost, but he can heal himself.
The monk doesn't need to invest in two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, greater two weapon fighting and boots of speed or movement speed enhancers- yes, anyone and their mom, including the wizard is going to get their 8 attacks a round with feat and item investments. The monk doesn't have to spend feats or items to get any of these things. They come free.
Monks are said to suck at combat maneuvers, but it says in the rule book it says they have maneuver training. I just reviewed the fighter class and maneuver training and I didn't see anything in the fighter class stating that they got some additional bonus for performing them. As far as I can tell, Maneuver training is the same thing as being a fighter performing a combat maneuver. But monks are cited as being 'ok' at performing them, at best. The rules even state that a stunned target gives you a +4 to your cmb against them. Stunning, when I last looked, was something monks got to do without having to pay for it (ie, they get stunning fist for free).
People say fighters are stronger, but we can argue that a monk could choose to put their high stat in strength, too. The fighter uses a weapon and does better damage because of it. A monk can grab one, including a monk one, and net more attacks per round because of it and get the same bonus to hit. The fighter gets passive boosts to damage and accuracy that add up. The monk doesn't. The fighter and other martial classes win here as they have means, even if specialized or circumstantial, to deal more damage- sometimes a lot more.
So we know they aren't the best (or even in the top) for best damage dealers and that they aren't supposed to be.
So back to the issue, can they be great defenders? Are they self reliant skirmishers? My personal experience says yes. I've only played two monks and one is new, but in each case they have performed some things similarly- mainly being able to not die easily, explore surprisingly well, fight effectively, cover ground that is inaccessible or difficult to navigate barring magic, etc.
I think, if the idea of them being an effective or decent skirmish type or defensive type class holds any water, that maybe building them to that goal would reveal insights that have been overlooked. I'm just spit-balling though as I'm not entering this debate claiming all knowledge or any hard truths (though a few have been uncovered).
I do somewhat agree and feel like the class is 'a mess' with a wide open selection of features that makes it difficult to navigate what, exactly, you are supposed to do with them since it isn't all apparently obvious how it works together..if at all. Many features are seemingly disparate but with the focus being on survival and mobility, they all actually make a lot more sense. They're still a bit of a stretch, though.
The monk is not a strong calss and all that but To be fair, your choise made your monk that way.
Your build favored defense over damage (snake style, combat expertise, dodge, a dex based build)
And yet with all that the party paladin had 2 points of AC on me. God forbid what my AC would have been like had I not done so.
other times you make choises taht just can not compete with a heavy damage dealer (Snake sidewind, agile maneuver, weapon finesse without an agile weapon)
You mean I should have gone for the traditional shaolin priest that's a 600lb gorilla in a robe? I hate that concept. With an agile amulet I got to deal the same damage as him anyway. The only thing that could have changed this is a weapon build using a two-handed temple sword, and given how my attacks sucked Power Attacking would probably have nerfed my attacks into insignificance anyway.
Particulaty you do not need agile manuever to make trip and disarm attempts, you could had spared improved grapple, combat expertise and agile maneuver altogheter.
Yet Improved Grapple was all that kept this character afloat at 4th-5th level. Without it I would have been struggling at an even earlier stage. I can't see how I could improve my offensive ability - Snake Fang gave me masses of extra attacks, after all. Dragon Style could have given me +4 damage on a strength-based build, at the cost of a lot of feats, and that's about it.
So if I'd gone for a strength build I could have done a little more damage per hit, been no better off at hitting, and had a much worse AC to go with my much lower hit points. I think that actually this would have overall reduced my chances of survival.
Wall of text incoming.
You can block a passageway and force a monster or intelligent enemy to have to get through you to reach the allies behind you.
Assuming of course, it's a 5ft/5ft passage way, and the creature can't overrun you
You can provide soft cover to ranged attacks, and while you don't have to hit anything very hard,
A fighter or a paladin with a shield can do that too, and they hit harder than the monk with their attacks
you can stun things (once you hit, of course)
Sure, but hitting, and then hoping that the stun sticks is a problem, it should be one or the other not both. Especially if you only get a small number of uses per day.
and also have plenty of non-combat uses. Today, for example, the party thought I was a rogue...and called me such until someone pointed out that I wasn't a rogue and couldn't disarm traps. I did all the scouting, and most of the trap detection.
Yes you can scout, but so can the ranger, and the ranger can track better, and has access to more skills.
Had we had a rogue (like we did three sessions ago) I don't do that stuff. I watch his back since I can stealth and offer some combat support if things go bad- or can run to reach allies quicker to let them know what's going on. And yeah, I can stealth faster, in general, once certain levels are reached.
Again, a high dex archer ranger can stealth just as well, sure he can't move quite as fast as you- except he gets tree stride for very close to instant teleportation if he's nearby a tree.
While our fighters were busy dispatching side threats or key threats, I was off occupying side threats or key threats (whichever they weren't dealing with).
You can do this with any other class as well, and if you're engaging with mooks, you can probably take them down faster than the monk can.
Being acrobatic, I tumbled into flank at nearly every opportunity, though this gets way harder later on,
The thing is, it shouldn't be that hard, as it's something that they need to get in order to be somewhat effective.
It's not a big deal with the good ac a monk can get (but it's safe to assume that every class can get a 46-55+ ac without much effort from what I gather). I fail a tumble and take the aoo and am not likely to be hit.
Actually, getting 46-55 AC is incredibly difficult to get, and is prohibitively expensive and is something that you have to be specializing in order to get, which usually reduces your damage output to minimal, particularly against threats that have abilities that bypass AC anyway.
Yeah, my stunning fist failed, but it won't always fail. And yes, I definitely missed several times.
Sure, I don't have a problem with it missing, I just have a problem with it being gated with multiple points of failure- reduce it either to a hit, or a save, not both.
But so did our fighters. I definitely did not deal the most damage but in all of my adventures with my monk, to date, I've been useful and reliable as a party member, even when there were others- including specialist classes, who could do something I could do.
Sure, but there are things that those specialist classes can do that you can't. Why can't the monk have it's own niche that does things that aren't encroached by other classes- things that it's so damned good at that while other classes could technically do it, they are far inferior to the monk when doing it.
I have yet to feel useless except that one time where we fought in darkness...that was a pain and even then I was among the last to fall.
This is subjective, and I'll respond as such- playing in a high-op game as a maneuver monk, I have felt useless as it was impossible for me to hit the incredibly high CMDs, and the damage that I was putting out was barely a fraction of the monster's top HP.
The monk strikes me as self sufficient. He doesn't have to buy a wand of cure light wounds and then put ranks in umd in order to heal himself. His healing isn't great, and could use a boost, but he can heal himself.
First, use infernal healing, not CLW. Second, yeah he can heal himself, but it's a pittance, spends a very large portion of his very limited resources to do this. The resources mind, that allow him to pass any sort of DR. So he has problems there.
The monk doesn't need to invest in two weapon fighting, improved two weapon fighting, greater two weapon fighting and boots of speed or movement speed enhancers- yes, anyone and their mom, including the wizard is going to get their 8 attacks a round with feat and item investments. The monk doesn't have to spend feats or items to get any of these things. They come free.
Sure, but they have to drop a whole lot more into other items in order to be somewhat competitive. And if they didn't get that built into their flurry of blows, they'd be unplayable.
Monks are said to suck at combat maneuvers,
Untrue, they're the best at combat maneuvers. It's just that combat maneuver suck as you get to higher levels because CMDs skyrocket to the point of being unhittable.
Stunning, when I last looked, was something monks got to do without having to pay for it (ie, they get stunning fist for free).
Limited times per day, two points of failure and against 1 enemy, whereas a wizard can drop a Stinking Cloud and do the same thing in an area, with only 1 point of failure.
People say fighters are stronger, but we can argue that a monk could choose to put their high stat in strength, too.
This is in fact what most optimizers say to do
The fighter uses a weapon and does better damage because of it. A monk can grab one, including a monk one, and net more attacks per round because of it and get the same bonus to hit. The fighter gets passive boosts to damage and accuracy that add up. The monk doesn't. The fighter and other martial classes win here as they have means, even if specialized or circumstantial, to deal more damage- sometimes a lot more.So we know they aren't the best (or even in the top) for best damage dealers and that they aren't supposed to be.
Sure, but they're not the top at anything is the problem- there should be something that they can do better
So back to the issue, can they be great defenders?
Kinda, but a paladin can definitely get better. And a high level barbarian can outright ignore up to 10 points of damage.
Are they self reliant skirmishers? My personal experience says yes.
A skirmisher isn't something that should be slugging it out- it's fast in, quick strike down to fully take the creature out and leave. Monk's can't do that, they don't get that big burst of damage that skirmishers should be getting. If they got a damage booster along the lines of sneak attack, then they'd be a much better skirmisher
I'll give you exploration, but the wizard can start doing that at level 5. Hard to kill is something that the monks are, but isn't something that should be a draw to the class, besides there are classes that are harder. I fully disagree with you on monks being able to fight effectively- they can do it, but I wouldn't call it particularly effective. And covering ground not easily accessable barring magic isn't exactly a strong point, considering that if you have a prepared spellcaster, they'll be able to let you fly pretty quickly..
I've only played two monks and one is new, but in each case they have performed some things similarly- mainly being able to not die easily, explore surprisingly well, fight effectively, cover ground that is inaccessible or difficult to navigate barring magic, etc.
I think, if the idea of them being an effective or decent skirmish type or defensive type class holds any water, that maybe building them to that goal would reveal insights that have been overlooked. I'm just spit-balling though as I'm not entering this debate claiming all knowledge or any hard truths (though a few have been uncovered).
People have built defensive type classes and they can be effective at preventing any sort of hits from reaching you, but the monk doesn't have the proper moveset to play as a skirmisher. They get the speed, but they can't capitalize on it, which they need to do if they want to be a skirmisher.
Mostly, monks are Combat Maneuver machines, and building one as such will actually be able to keep you relevant and a little bit longer than a straight damage style character.
I do somewhat agree and feel like the class is 'a mess' with a wide open selection of features that makes it difficult to navigate what, exactly, you are supposed to do with them since it isn't all apparently obvious how it works together..if at all. Many features are seemingly disparate but with the focus being on survival and mobility, they all actually make a lot more sense. They're still a bit of a stretch, though.
We're not saying that the monk is entirely a bad class, or unfun to play all the time, if you go in realizing that the monk is a mess. Hell, it's my favorite class to play, and it's that particular reason that I want to make it better so it's competitive past level 10, where CMDs start getting out of control and the maneuver master monk becomes a lot more obsolete.
The sheer hyperbole in this reply is so stunning in the sheer amount you throw around that its ludicrous.
Oh so YOUR experiences playing the same AP were different to MY experience playing it so my opinion doesn't count and yours does? Note that you don't REFUTE anything I said, merely sneer and throw generalities and accusations.
so Monks "can't" hit....or is it that they are just not as good at it as a 4/4 BAB guy?
MAD means they don't have as high a hitting stat, and their full BAB is restricted to full round attacks with sucky weapons in the worst combat style, so yeah.
You completely neglect to mention that Monks get full BAB on CMB's, and that sets up the 3/4 BAB for future hits.
You completely ignore that maneuvers suck over 10th level, and are situational below that. Can't disarm natural weapons, can't trip flying creatures, etc.
I guess other 3/4 BAB classes "cant" hit either??
The rogue hits as well as the monk, and the rest all hit better with their self-buffs.
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.
Maybe because it's true. You can make an effective monk, but you have to play the system like hell to keep up with even a moderately optimised {insert any other class here} - if everyone optimises to the same extent, you are stuffed.
And that is what it comes down to in the end, again.
Yep, it does. Because it's true. The monk is an underpowered class, poorly organised and with no real key ability or direction to it.
Never mind that to build pretty much any optimized class you need a degree of system mastery as well.
...But less than for the monk. Fighter, grab a big weapon, follow the Power Attack tree, and you have it made. Wizard, just get a good Int and spam those spells. Monk really forces you to know the system well just to keep up with an unskilled player.
Striking where its least expected:
Fast movement, add to that with Ki pool. (allows for flanking)
Can't flank as well as the rogue - and I already mentioned flanking.
High Jump, add to that with Ki pool.
Useful for one level, then if it's needed the wizard can cast fly.
Slow Fall.
Depressingly pointless ability. Featherfall works better.
Full BAB when doing CMB, might want to read about how to bullrush.
Want to read up on how all the maneuvers suck at high-level? At low level they work - on medium-sized humanoids.
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.
Exactly - monks can't do anything along these lines that another character of another class can't do, and in many cases do it better.
Let alone Qing Gong powers.
Yes, the qinggong is a decent archetype, but it just shows up how disorganised the core monk is.
Taking advantage of Enemy Vulnerabilities:
Fast Movement.
What, run away from them? More seriously, this doesn't take advantage of anything - it puts you where you need to be, but if it's needed there are spells that do it better. If the party buffs with haste (and a lot do) then it's of no advantage whatsoever beyiond that which other classes can achieve.
Readied actions (other classes can do this too, but still, you insist they cant do this)
Quote where I said monks cannot ready actions, please? A monk can ready an action as well as anyone, it's just they revert to 3/4 BAB when they do, which makes it less effective than anyone else's if it's an attack.
Full BAB on CMB (so does your beloved Ranger, Fighter, Barb, Pally)
Yes, but they get to add their 'special' abilities on top - favoured enemy, weapon training, rage, & smite evil. Plus, as mentioned maneuvers are pretty situational and rarely work above around 10th level against anything but mooks.
Stunning Fist
Are you serious? Read up above - six success with this between levels one and thirteen. Six. Sure it was great when it worked, but it seldom worked.
Qing Gong abilities
Qinggong is only one archetype, and it shows up how disorganised the core monk's abilities are.
Fleet of Foot:
You might have been too busy in apoplexy to notice that I conceded this one. Of course, a wizard casting fly overcomes all these issues way easier, or even just drinking a potion of the same.
Get me a fighter or barbarian (not specced towards jumping/acrobatics) who can do THAT.
Any of the abiove can match a monk not specced for such with a potion of jump, or levitate, or fly, depending on level. Sure, it's useful, sometimes, but it's not going to overcome the monk's other issues.
Skilled in Combat:
Full BAB on CMB
See comment on maneuvers above.
Essentially free 2wf during flurry
ONLY 2wf during flurry, you mean. No option to not TWF, and only in full round actions.
Flurry
Utterly incompatible with all thoat snazzy mobility.
Unique weapon choices which can add to your CMB
Monk weapons suck, martial weapons get many of the same bonuses but on better weapons.
Qing Gong abilities which can aid in combat
Because the core monk is too weak.
Aiding Allies wherever they are needed most:
High AC and Mobility as free feat choice when granted
How does that help allies?
Add to AC with Ki
How does that help allies?
Fast Movement
How does that help allies? Other than getting to them when they are in trouble.
Full BAB on CMB to reposition/bullrush/overrun
Maneuvers that rarely work unless at lower levels against medium sized humanoids.
Good flank partner because even disarmed they still threaten
...but are not as good as a full-BAB class, or even a 3/4 BAB class INCLUDING the rogue. At least when the rogue hits he doesn't just tickle!
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.)
Maneuvers that rarely work unless at lower levels against medium sized humanoids.
See, its not that they "CANT" do what you think they can.
...they just can't do it well enough to make a real difference.
I dont think anyone here is arguing that Monk is the end all be all of combat.
Agreed! The problem is, they aren't second rate, they are third rate - just above un-buffed full casters, in fact.
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.
It depends what you want to do. Monks have some great features, but lack in offensive ability - ANY offensive ability, not just hitting things. That's the problem.
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.
Except they are not even good for that. Seriously, you can add just about any class to a party and it brings more to the party than the monk does. These threads are out there, where this was demonstrated again and again, by the numbers and all.
They are like that company BASF...they don't make the things you use, they make the things you use better.
No, they don't! BARDS do that, they inspire every member of the party to do things better - fight, craft, whatever - monks just run around.
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.
Just not anything like as many as any other class. That's what we're complaining about.
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.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.
In other words, you intuitively disagree but haven't engaged your reasoning intelligence yet, but you will when it comes to refute this statement, but not when it comes to assessing it? That's OK, it's only human to do so. I did the same once. And I too had some fun playing monks - but it was tough being the butt of the rest of the party's jokes, and not being able to do what a monk SHOULD be able to do.
I love the monk, I just want him to be less hard work and frustration.
Monks are not Martials.
Martials are not casters.
Casters are not skirmishers.
Monks ARE skirmishers. (Just like Rogues!)
What, exactly, is the role of a 'skirmisher'?
Rogues have always been categorised as skill-monkeys, which monks are not.
Skirmisher is often described as a mobile warrior, and barbarians are great mobile warriors. Monks are not - they get the mobile bit, but when they use it their 3/4 BAB lets them down badly. Rogues have skills and sneak attack, but that's more of a scout/assassin role. Monks aren't really good at that either.
I think you're just trying to invent a definition to avoid the fact that monks are meant to fight, can't do a lot except fight, and suck at it compared to other classes intended to fight.Therefore monks are neither casters nor martials.
Please, people, try comparing apples with, oh I dont know, apples maybe. NOT Saturn-V rockets.
Hi Dabbler,
Skirmisher is the classification applied to these classes BEFORE skills were ever introduced to the game. "Skill-Monkey" is a third edition term applied to classes with high numbers of skill points which, of course, could be applied only after skills (and skill points) were added to the game. Sorry to burst your bubble but there have been skirmishers longer than there have been "skill-monkeys".
As for the history of the Idiom, I believe it originated in Gygax's book "Mastering the Game", released just prior to the release of second edition.
The role of the Skirmisher is to support the other characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the last round of monk-uselessness-fever struck the forums at the beginning of last year and everyone was calling for a rewrite or a clarification of FOB, I began doing my research and preparing for this next round of M-U-F syndrome (Monk-uselessness-fever).
Over the last year I have run AP's for two Monk characters. When they tried to play their characters like a Martial class, they failed to fulfill that role. So...yes, you are correct in that they are not as good as fighters, barbarians, paladins and cavaliers at being fighters, barbarians, paladins and cavaliers.
I submit that this is so because they ARE NOT fighters, barbarians, paladins and cavaliers. Make sense?
In further anticipation of this newest outbreak of M-U-F syndrome, I approached one of my DM friends about personally playing a monk in a Jade Regent game he was starting. And so, I crossed to the players side of the screen for the first time in ten years just to arm myself for this argument.
I built a monk with a moderate strength (14), high dex (16) and moderate wisdom (14).
I then acquired the Snapping turtle style feats as I increased in level.
My role in the party has developed into a scouting partner for our rogue and a combat partner for our barbarian. Additionally, my PC has the best defenses in the party making me the go to guy for distraction, delaying tactics and high-speed shifts to our battle strategy. My party has even said that my character posesses as much battlefield presence as our barbarian in that I can shape the battle by quickly responding to enemy when he suddenly appears where we did not expect him. I may not do as much damage as the barbarian, but I am better than she is at blunting an enemy push as I am much more difficult to hurt than she is.
Stop playing them like martials and start playing them as a support class (as they were always intended to be) and they will shine.
Best of Luck,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
So... How exactly is the monk a support class? He can has high AC but intellegent mobs won't attack creatures that aren't hurting him. He can have good maneuvers but those fall out of play when the monsters show up, and many humanoids are still out right immune to a few(trip vs. flying, disarm vs. natural attacks). They don't have much room for int in a point buy so not many skillpoints, and scouting is probably one of the most boring parts of the game. Roll a few times to see whats going on. He can't do battlefield control, he can't hurt things, he can move around but not do much while he's doing so, and he doesn't have class features that help him make other people better. The guy can be a hindrence becuase he has to be lawful. Why would I pick him over a ranger for instance?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is something perverse about the suggestion that the martial artist class shouldn't be played as martial.
There is also something exceedingly snide about the suggestion that people complaining about the monk are suffering some sort of "syndrome".
Paizo didn't fix Flurry of Blows because of imagined issues. They have stated that they know the monk has problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is something perverse about the suggestion that the martial artist class shouldn't be played as martial.
There is also something exceedingly snide about the suggestion that people complaining about the monk are suffering some sort of "syndrome".
Paizo didn't fix Flurry of Blows because of imagined issues. They have stated that they know the monk has problems.
Quite. Heck, the revisions they posted even came with a rider that there might well be further changes inbound, if the current upgrades weren't enough. Not to mention a couple of SKR's comments in the past that the monk is broken on such a fundamental level that there really is no way to do a quick fix.
Oh there are ways to do quick fixes. It's just that it would piss off a lot of people who assume the Monk is balanced (and a few even think it's overpowered already! I just don't get some people)
It really depends on what one means by a fix. There are definitely quick ways to address the Monk's hitting issues and/or MAD-ness. Something as simple as allowing Brass Knuckles to still do unarmed strike damage, using the Guided/Agile enchants to cut down on MAD, and the Quigong archetype to trade out a lot of the less-than-great class features helps a lot. However, It's hard to fix stuff like the conflict between fast movement and Flurry of Blows, and honestly a lot of the Quigong trades are only good because they're weak-to-okay abilities replacing near-useless ones.
Would making the monk full bab or making it so that they can flurry after moving make them overpowered?
I don't full BAB would make them overpowered, since they already count as full BAB for Flurrying and manoeuvres as it is. The only thing it would really boost is their ability to hit after moving, and their ability to qualify for feats with a BAB pre-requisite.
Being able flurry after moving would probably need some kind of restriction/limitation, like costing a ki point. Being able to move and full attack is a powerful ability.
True, but can't barbarian already do that with Greater Beast totem? I would say either keep them at 3/4 BAB and allow them to flurry (or some kind of reduced flurry) or give them full BAB and/or some kind of spring attack vital strike class feature.
Fighter Combat Maneuvers vs. Monk Combat Maneuvers.
I would like to take a moment to dispel the notion that Monks are as good as Fighters at Combat Maneuvers.
He cannot get any Greater (Maneuver of Choice) feat until level 9 due to the +6 BAB requirements on each of them. He may chose to get a variety of random Improved (Maneuver of Choice) feats at level 6 as a bonus feat, however, if he did not take Combat Expertise at a lower level, he will never be able to get the Greater feat. It should be noted that Combat Expertise is basically a feat tax for a Monk, because they have no practical reason to ever use the feat. It is just not a good option 90% of the time due to their low accuracy. In terms of effectiveness, you can get around the lack of a Greater (Maneuver of Choice) Feat for Improved Trip by taking Vicious Stomp, but that is ONE bandaid feat for ONE combat maneuver.
Since a Monk cannot get any Greater (Maneuver of Choice) feat until level 9...I'd like a quick refresher, what level is it that Combat Maneuvers start becoming less effective at? It's right around then, isn't it?
IN SHORT: a Fighter is potentially +6 better on CMB across 20 levels with Combat Maneuvers, and can have more effective combat maneuvers at MUCH lower levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stop playing them like martials and start playing them as a support class (as they were always intended to be) and they will shine.
THANK YOU! EVERYTHING MAKES SENSE NOW! WE ARE SO BLIND! IT'S NOT THAT MONKS ARE FLAWED! WE SIMPLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO PLAY!
Don't make me laugh...
How exactly do Monks offer "support" to other classes? They can't buff allies, they can't heal, they don't excel at social encounters, they can't debuff enemies, they don't have that many skills, they can't craft magic items and they surely can't flank/aid-another any better than any other melee class.
They can make decent scouts... Except Inquisitors, Rangers, Rogues, Ninjas, Bards, Magi and even Barbarians can do it better... Not to mention Full casters. but let's keep those out of the dicussion to keep it fair.
What they can do (poorly), is deal damage. Except they're locked in TWFing, which is a pretty weak combat style. And to make things even worse, unarmed strikes are subpar weapons no matter the damage die used.
At most, he has good defenses, so his allies don't have to worry about him dying too often, but that's the same contribution you get by not having the Monk there in the first place.
Characters with poor defensive options may be limited because they won't be helping for long... But characters with poor offensive options (such as Monks) are even worse, because if all they do is suvive, they might as well not be there in the first place.
Post your Monk build, sir, enlighten us. Show us how to create an effective Monk. After all, you were supposedly really successful even with a mere Str 14.
I'm sure you're much better than all of us at building/playing Monks, and whatever success you had with your character is in no way related to your GM going easy on you and/or your party working extra hard to compensate for your flawed class design.
Hi Dabbler,
Skirmisher is the classification applied to these classes BEFORE skills were ever introduced to the game. "Skill-Monkey" is a third edition term applied to classes with high numbers of skill points which, of course, could be applied only after skills (and skill points) were added to the game. Sorry to burst your bubble but there have been skirmishers longer than there have been "skill-monkeys".
As for the history of the Idiom, I believe it originated in Gygax's book "Mastering the Game", released just prior to the release of second edition.
That I didn't know - but then if we are referring back to 1st ed, the 1st ed monk was a VERY different class to the 3rd ed monk! In first ed you could move and attack in the same round, and that monk had a lot more attacks than any other class. Fighters FEARED the monk in first ed!
Or to put it another way, the 1st ed monk and rogue may have been skirmishers, but this monk isn't that monk and this rogue isn't that rogue. Rogues became skill-monkeys and monks became...something else, but not really an effective skirmisher.
Stop playing them like martials and start playing them as a support class (as they were always intended to be) and they will shine.
You mean they won't suck as badly as they do in the martial role, as long as you don't expect them to do anything much. A rogue does this much better, because he has sneak attack so his attacks will count a whole lot more when flanking. A rogue has a clear role of his own, too. In fact, any of the martial classes or 3/4 BAB classes can do this level of "support" better. To sum up, monks can pretend to do a support role, and not die because the enemy ignores them, but they still aren't pulling their weight in the party, they are just staying out of harms way more.
Sorry, but I tried using my monk as a "support & scout" and it worked passably...but a rogue or ranger would have done it better.
Would making the monk full bab or making it so that they can flurry after moving make them overpowered?
The latter might, the former wouldn't but would require very extensive rewriting. There are ways the monk could be made to work with minimal changes though.
A monk can be stronger than your build and that is the point. you can not make a charater not foused on doing damage and then complain that the character did not enough damage.
Damage wasn't the only problem, trust me on this. In fact damage out put was reasonable but ONLY if I could land the hits. Against mooks, I was OK. Against bosses with ACs getting toward 40, it was another matter.
If grappe is what is helping you to contribute to the party then why you did not take greater grapple and rapid grapple and feat like that?
Because by the point I could have taken the feat, grappling had started to fall by the wayside as we encountered more and more foes that you couldn't grapple. A monk can't get Greater Grapple until 9th level, and maneuvers start failing around 10th for fighters who took the feat at 6th!
You just are asking too much for a build: to be good at 3 diferent maneuvers, to have good defenses, and to do damage.
The maneuvers worked OK when we fought things they could work on. The problem was, we didn't run into them often enough. Not everything can be grappled, not everything can be tripped, not everything can be disarmed. If you concentrate on one maneuver, you will be out of hoc most of the time, hence why I picked three rather than one. I have to say at that time I also didn't appreciate how much maneuvers fall off in effectiveness - a lesson I learned the hard way.
I agree, I should have ditched at least one of the maneuvers for style feats earlier, and maybe skipped on Agile Maneuvers as well. Hindsight is wonderful. But this would not have significantly boosted by odds to hit by much, or my damage either. However, the other characters in that party were no better optimised. ALL of us made flavour-over-function decisions - the difference is, they could all function with that decision, my monk really struggled. The galling fact is that there weren't any decisions I could have made that would have made my monk realistically more functional. Maybe I could have taken Weapon Focus for an extra +1, or Improved Critical, but these would not have had a significant effect.
Fact is, when it comes to offences the monk is behind the curve. Every other class that has no spells has a 'special' to allow it to punch above it's weight, except the monk (sorry, but flurry of blows doesn't let the monk punch above it's weight, and nor does Stunning Fist). That's what they need - and no, I do NOT advocate "More DAMAGE!" as many accuse I and other monk-lovers of wanting.
Damage wasn't the only problem, trust me on this. In fact damage out put was reasonable but ONLY if I could land the hits. Against mooks, I was OK. Against bosses with ACs getting toward 40, it was another matter.You have a 13 level build, and unless i missed sometthing you have low wealth by your level Ac 40 is too much. What CR is that mosnter with AC 40 ayways?
Darned if I know the CR of it, but our GM was running Curse of the Crimson Throne, and the end encounter with Kazavon/Queen Ileosa and she was buffed to the gills (I don't think she was AC 40, but she was close to it - I know it was certainly over 37 because I reached that on several rolls). The paladin (smiting) and the ranger (archer) (favoured enemy, humans) were able to nail her, the Magus got some good shots in (buffed up as well), and the Oracle kept spamming attacks and debuffs. My contribution? Weeeeellll, no hits on maneuvers, no hits on attacks, although when she did manage to mind-control the paladin into attacking the ranger, I tripped him on the way past so I guess I did SOMETHING useful in the boss-fight beyond providing flanking.
Yes, we were behind on WBL, and the DM kept pushing time and material constraints on us. We had to rely on what we found, which was sufficient for the rest of the party, but strangely, no amulets of mighty fists or monk's robes were to be found. Fact is, they are rare items. I managed to get an amulet made by 12th level (thanks to the magus and a month of time to make it), which improved things no end - but to have a class so dependent on one item for effectiveness is a serious problem, IMHO.
There were a couple of other 'boss fights' where I was effectively useless as well. There were occasions I was able to shine, but they were very rare compared to the other PCs and usually involved facing mooks, or getting an amazing stroke of luck (drink potion of invisibility, abundant step behind horned devil, next round deliver stunning fist and inflict minimal damage - but they get a '1' on their save, after which the paladin slaughters them). I was running primarily as a scout and support, thanks to a decent intelligence score, but wasn't terribly good at it. Despite a great Perception score my main means of finding traps seemed to be to walk straight into them. I lost count of the number of times I had to be healed from being blind or insane from symbols - whoever said monks get good saves didn't face these DCs.
Maybe our GM was playing it tough...but no other PC suffered like mine. The paladin consistently smote to death anything in his way. The ranger was turned any attackers into a human pincushion. The oracle came the closest to my level a few times with some appalling roles, but even she was crippled by bad luck rather than by lack of phenomenal luck.
True, but can't barbarian already do that with Greater Beast totem? I would say either keep them at 3/4 BAB and allow them to flurry (or some kind of reduced flurry) or give them full BAB and/or some kind of spring attack vital strike class feature.
Yeah, Barbarians get Greater Beast Totem, but it comes with plenty of restrictions. Two other rage powers as prerequisites, and taking the Beast Totem line locks you out of taking any of the other totems.
On top of that, you can only move+full attack when you're capable of charging an opponent, and only when you're raging.The fact that even with all the limitations on it, Greater Beast Totem is widely seen as one of the best rage powers in the game should be a good indication of just how strong being able to move and full attack is.
The fact that even with all the limitations on it, Greater Beast Totem is widely seen as one of the best rage powers in the game should be a good indication of just how strong being able to move and full attack is.
I think it's more of an indication of how desperately martials need more mobility.
Pounce is incredibly useful, but not game breaking. Better let the martials be able to move and do their job than severely punish for moving 10ft.And let's no forget that no matter how powerful is a full attack, it'll never come close to high level spell casting. Yet, nobody says "hey, wizards should be unable to cast when they move". In fact, casters can move all they want and still cast twice.
BTW, "only during Rage" is as much as a limitation to Barbarians as "only while wielding a weapon" is to Fighters. Or "only with magic" is to Wizards.
The fact that even with all the limitations on it, Greater Beast Totem is widely seen as one of the best rage powers in the game should be a good indication of just how strong being able to move and full attack is.I think it's more of an indication of how desperately martials need more mobility.
Pounce is incredibly useful, but not game breaking. Better let the martials be able to move and do their job than severely punish for moving 10ft.
And let's no forget that no matter how powerful is a full attack, it'll never come close to high level spell casting. Yet, nobody says "hey, wizards should be unable to cast when they move". In fact, casters can move all they want and still cast twice.
Boils down to the same conclusion either way. Martials really, really want the ability to move + full attack,
BTW, "only during Rage" is as much as a limitation to Barbarians as "only while wielding a weapon" is to Fighters. Or "only with magic" is to Wizards.
Depends on the campaign/circumstances. Barbarians running out of rage rounds or running into conditions/effects that deny them their rage is certainly possible, even if it's not all that commom
BTW, "only during Rage" is as much as a limitation to Barbarians as "only while wielding a weapon" is to Fighters. Or "only with magic" is to Wizards.Depends on the campaign/circumstances. Barbarians running out of rage rounds or running into conditions/effects that deny them their rage is certainly possible, even if it's not all that commom
I hate to ask, but whats an example? Its probably not going to be rounds of combat because thats a lot of rounds of combat. 2+con +(2xlevel) is a lot! by level 10 thats easily more than 25 rounds.
Boils down to the same conclusion either way. Martials really, really want the ability to move + full attackThe fact that even with all the limitations on it, Greater Beast Totem is widely seen as one of the best rage powers in the game should be a good indication of just how strong being able to move and full attack is.I think it's more of an indication of how desperately martials need more mobility.
Pounce is incredibly useful, but not game breaking. Better let the martials be able to move and do their job than severely punish for moving 10ft.
And let's no forget that no matter how powerful is a full attack, it'll never come close to high level spell casting. Yet, nobody says "hey, wizards should be unable to cast when they move". In fact, casters can move all they want and still cast twice.
Indeed. My point is that Pounce is not as powerful as the designers feared when they made 3.X, but only being capable to make a single strike after moving is a severe limitation.
BTW, "only during Rage" is as much as a limitation to Barbarians as "only while wielding a weapon" is to Fighters. Or "only with magic" is to Wizards.Depends on the campaign/circumstances. Barbarians running out of rage rounds or running into conditions/effects that deny them their rage is certainly possible, even if it's not all that commom
Sames goes for the Fighter and Wizard. Fighters can be disarmed and Wizards can run out of spell. What I mean is that the whole Barbarian class revolves around Rage. Pretty much ALL they can do is limited by Rage. Rage is their main ability! It's what they do! If they run out of Rage, they have bigger problems than not being able to Pounce.
So "only during Rage" is not an extra limitation, it's just an ability that is limited by the resource used by the class. It's kinda like saying my gaming time is limited by electricity... It's not an extra limitation to PC games, because the PC itself is limited by electricity. Do you see what I mean?
And as Mr.Sin said, it doesn't take long for Rage rounds to become plentiful. Especially since encounters tend to be shorter at high levels.
By 8th level, it's pretty easy to have over 20 rounds of rage... Which is enough to allow the use of 4 or 5 per combat. With feats and/or favored class bonus, it's pretty easy to have over 30 rounds.
And that's using a 15pt buy.
The fact that even with all the limitations on it, Greater Beast Totem is widely seen as one of the best rage powers in the game should be a good indication of just how strong being able to move and full attack is.I think it's more of an indication of how desperately martials need more mobility.
Pounce is incredibly useful, but not game breaking. Better let the martials be able to move and do their job than severely punish for moving 10ft.
And let's no forget that no matter how powerful is a full attack, it'll never come close to high level spell casting. Yet, nobody says "hey, wizards should be unable to cast when they move". In fact, casters can move all they want and still cast twice.
Spells of 4th level or higher requiring a full round action would be a fine house rule
|
|
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.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.
In other words, you intuitively disagree but haven't engaged your reasoning intelligence yet, but you will when it comes to refute this statement, but not when it comes to assessing it? That's OK, it's only human to do so. I did the same once. And I too had some fun playing monks - but it was tough being the butt of the rest of the party's jokes, and not being able to do what a monk SHOULD be able to do.
I love the monk, I just want him to be less hard work and frustration.
I did intuitively disagree once I comprehended that you were arguing that attack/offense/damage was the only thing that mattered. I know, factually, that this is not the case. History can support me, generals can support me. Waiting out a siege isn't about how many of the enemy troops you can kill (although you can certainly kill some and make them feel they are losing more than they will gain). Castle walls weren't all designed to deal damage to the approaching enemy (although some were made into death traps to disorient or trap foes for later killing).
If combat was so purely about offense, as you have stated, then this game and many others like it would probably not have features like damage reduction or armor. And it may sound like I am being snide or exaggerating but hearing you say 'if you can't make an attack worth noticing...'
If you can't get to the other party members because the caster in the middle keeps putting up protective barriers- you kill the caster. Doesn't matter if he never hurt you or your team *at all*. If you keep dropping the enemy fighters, you're clearly better but not by so much that you aren't taking a few licks- but the enemy healer keeps healing them back to their feet, and it's now the 4th time and you're close to dying, you probably should work on killing that healer- whether or not he/she ever made an attack or took an offensive action, whatsoever.
These obvious- common sense, and maybe to some, extreme examples are the counters to your statement (if my super long reply from before was not good enough). I did respond, and not just intuitively (as you suggested). Since I provided thoughtful responses thereafter. But here are more.
If you had said, maybe, 'intelligent enemies are less likely to go after a melee character who is not actually proving to be a threat making them , in all probability, less successful at contributing to a fight due to being unable to utilize their defenses effectively to the benefit of others' I'd say, SURE! I can see that. I can agree with that. It's logical and makes sense and I KNOW it makes sense. But you didn't really say that or anything to that effect. With what you posted (and maybe it wasn't your intent) the buck stopped at 'offense = only combat option'.
Just because most people get emotional and immediately stop thinking doesn't mean I do. I can think and be enraged. I've got good con and above average int, ya know. Plus that feat that let's me stay in control during my rages or 'intense emotional states'.
Also, so many builds assume certain feats- weapon focus, power attack..mostly, if not always just power attack. It seems the only feat for optimizing. Playing a caster? Get power attack. Playing a healer? First feat should be power attack.
I get it. Some feats (power attack) are pretty critical to making the DPR olympics and being relevant.
So can't we argue that monks should take Archon Style and Archon Diversion *if* we can agree that their defenses are actually pretty good?
Forget them being the best because someone is going to cherry pick a single example (probably) and because a single example *might* be better, it must invalidate the argument. So if we agree monks have a pretty good defense instead, why can't we assume optimized builds that recognize this use the feats that make them more relevant to a party?
Why aren't there more bodyguarding monks or paladins then? I have yet to see the arguments go this way and I believe that there is room for them too. Especially since we are trying to explore what monks are actually good at and how to make it relevant.
@Mikaze You are right, of course. What do you think the monk actually can do well? I am still not swayed, by any argument yet, that they are good at nothing (besides combat maneuvers). Until someone can prove me wrong (or right) I think that the class certainly has some strengths (ability to survive, defense) and that those strengths are relevant. If we can optimize those features there is probably a more playable class hidden in there than people think.
I hate to ask, but whats an example? Its probably not going to be rounds of combat because thats a lot of rounds of combat. 2+con +(2xlevel) is a lot! by level 10 thats easily more than 25 rounds.BTW, "only during Rage" is as much as a limitation to Barbarians as "only while wielding a weapon" is to Fighters. Or "only with magic" is to Wizards.Depends on the campaign/circumstances. Barbarians running out of rage rounds or running into conditions/effects that deny them their rage is certainly possible, even if it's not all that commom
Well, if you're already fatigues/exhausted, you can't go into a rage. Then there's stuff like the Calm Emotions spell.
Now, I'll freely concede that your average mid-high level barbarian in an average mid-high level campaign usually won't need to worry about running out of rage rounds. I just think it bears pointing out that Rage is a limited resource. That can especially be important the campaign style/encounter design results in more or longer than average battles. Or you might be using a character like a mounted barbarian, who burns through rage rounds twice as fast if he wants to buff his mount up too.
Really, my only point was that if you wanna keep the monk somewhat balanced against other martials, any move+full attack ability would probably need to be about as restricted/limited as something like Greater Beast Totem.
|
|
Wall of text incoming.
Assuming of course, it's a 5ft/5ft passage way, and the creature can't overrun youYou can block a passageway and force a monster or intelligent enemy to have to get through you to reach the allies behind you.
A lot of a monks CMD can come from dodge bonuses. They also add their wisdom. Most monks have some combination of reasonable wisdom and dex, even if not high. Assuming a monk is built like any typical melee class, they'll have high strength and ok to solid dex. The monk AC bonus applies to CMD as well and goes up to +5 which is enough to make up for the missing bab that any other martial gets. It actually seems like a monk might have a lightly higher CMD than average with the addition of wisdom, or the use of ki to make it 'spike'.
After testing several PFS stat build options, I am more convinced of my argument in terms of stat selection. I had problems making a high str monk with low wis and dex. In some instances, con was lower for stupid strength amounts (closer to 20). But I found that lowering the initial strength score and shoring up the con stat left me plenty of room to push it very high (18 or so) at level 4 while possibly pumping another stat. 16 dex and 14 wisdom were easily attainable, even with an 18-20 str on a human. Despite being MAD, in regards to CMD, the lowest bonus the monk would have at level 20 is 10+15+5+7 and that is assuming one level 4 increase only and no items. A fighter of the same level has 10+20+6. I assume the fighter picks con more than dex. It is also safe to assume a fighter might grab a bit of additional dex and get the +7 instead of a +6 (the last numbers come from stats).
The CMD of a fighter and a monk appear to be virtually identical.
Does this change as they classes acquire gear? I don't see it but I am too tired to check. :)
you can stun things (once you hit, of course)
Sure, but hitting, and then hoping that the stun sticks is a problem, it should be one or the other not both. Especially if you only get a small number of uses per day.
Agreed. Though, small # of uses is questionable. Stunning fist 10x a day doesn't strike me as a small number of uses. But then, if you have to hit first, then make them fail a save, you're probably right.
Again, a high dex archer ranger can stealth just as well, sure he can't move quite as fast as you- except he gets tree stride for very close to instant teleportation if he's nearby a tree.
Had we had a rogue (like we did three sessions ago) I don't do that stuff. I watch his back since I can stealth and offer some combat support if things go bad- or can run to reach allies quicker to let them know what's going on. And yeah, I can stealth faster, in general, once certain levels are reached.
Just because a class is better at something doesn't mean it'll always be there to show you up. A monk in a party doesn't have to also be in a party with a ranger, a paladin and a fighter as the other martials and then there is one cleric or wizard and the monk. Every group doesn't always have all of those bases covered in such a way that a monk is just space waiting to be shown up. The party with a fighter, ranger, cleric, Sorceror and monk doesn't make the monk useless. The monk can support either melee class, protect the casters, or 'tank' (with superior defenses) and has the option of doing the exploratory thing. There is overlap when it comes to scouting and the like and the ranger is going to be better in general, especially with more skill points and more class skills and a chance to explore in favored terrain. But when the ranger can't go do that or you need someone to do it but have to have a martial stay behind or it's too dangerous to go out there- a monk is perfect for that sort of crap. They're more likely to make their saves against the darkness, resist that mummy rot if they happened to be hit in the first place, and that poisoned trap they triggered and inhaled isn't quite as big a deal for them. And if the enemy was a caster, they still had to break the spell resistance to get to the saves- and the monk isn't using gear to get these effects. Yes, they are likely trying to keep up in raw combat power with the 'better' guys but if you're smart and maybe playing the monk differently (to the strengths it does have) then can't you get gear to enhance your strengths or grant entirely new abilities like most non casters do? Fighters have no mobility. That's why flight (in any form) is a big deal. Monks can benefit from flight, but not as much since they can jump or fall pretty far and have access to gaseous form and dimension door. Yes, limited uses per day, but the magic items granting similar categories of effects have limited uses, too.
Now what gear would a monk get? I honestly don't know. I'm exploring that option because it may be valid. Heck, it may not be. Again, I don't know.
I think your other points that I didn't respond to were pretty accurate or enlightening or I just was neutral in regards to them. But these were the ones that I felt warranted the most response. Since I either really agreed or I don't and had to bring the counterarguments.
I must say I am enjoying this thread since, for the most part, I am learning a lot. I've read other monk threads and they are tireless drivel that typically just naysays the monk. This time, some people are pulling out good info and seem interested in admitting the bad AND the good, when it shows up. The class needs to be better, though. But how is it good, right now and where do those strengths lie in relation to other classes?
Someone said that 46-55 AC was really good ac. I know. My personal monk build gets that and I am not sure if I am optimizing for it or not. I only did cursory checks for gear to compliment his defenses. But maybe there really wasn't any more. I know I could have gotten it higher if I had been willing to sacrifice character flavor. But I know that most monsters can't hit that kind of AC making the build I am going for good enough. The build I am going for, if you don't already know, is one that protects others while using his own ac and defenses to do it. It also buffs allies to a degree.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did intuitively disagree once I comprehended that you were arguing that attack/offense/damage was the only thing that mattered.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.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.
In other words, you intuitively disagree but haven't engaged your reasoning intelligence yet, but you will when it comes to refute this statement, but not when it comes to assessing it? That's OK, it's only human to do so. I did the same once. And I too had some fun playing monks - but it was tough being the butt of the rest of the party's jokes, and not being able to do what a monk SHOULD be able to do.
I love the monk, I just want him to be less hard work and frustration.
You've singled it out as a point to attack without looking at anything else that's been said, because it seems the weakest point in our arguments. It's not, however, what we have actually said.
Offence is not all that matters, we've never argued it is, but it's like money in the real world: Not the most important thing you have, but you can't get by without it.
If you don't believe me, take a look at every single class except the monk, and it has a either a viable offence that acts as a force multiplier, spell use, or both. Problem the monk has, is he doesn't really have it without optimising like crazy, and even then it's barely adequate.
The monk can have decent defences, he doesn't need a boost there - though one fundamental problem he does have is that his AC is undermined if he goes for a strength-based build. He has OK skills, he doesn't need a boost there unless you insist he has to be a scout and not a combat-class, in which case he needs a whole lot more. He has a load of special abilities - many of them are crazy to have and work badly if at all, but he's got them nonetheless.
What he does NOT have is anything that lets him actually seriously effect the enemy when he runs into them. This is a problem, because he has no other way of effecting the outcome of any encounter he is in if he can't hit it in some way. It makes sense too, he's the martial artist guy, he's got this HUGE emphasis on unarmed strike damage and flurry of blows.
Reading the description of the monk, this guy is meant to be up-front, in the thick of it. Not necessarily a front-liner, but It's not going to go any other way with his mobility, and that means he needs some means of disabling the enemy or else to be pretty much invincible.
The monk's problems in this area are three-fold:
1) He's MAD as hell. He needs all the physical stats as much as any full BAB class, and he needs decent wisdom too to get his AC up and have a decent DC on his special abilities. One of his scores needs to be maxed out as his 'hitting' score, either dex or strength, or he ends up WAY behind the other full BAB classes. Why does he need to keep up with these? Because that's how the foe's AC is going to be factored. Can't hit them, and you can't hurt them.
2) The unarmed monk is UTTERLY dependent on one, single magic item for his effective offence. It's like having a fighter dependent on and proficient in just one, single, esoteric weapon. Without it, he just doesn't function (I know, I've tried). That one item is not only rare and expensive, it's gimped.
Combine these two factors, and the monk is behind on accuracy. Damage doesn't even come into it, if you can't hit, you can't do anything meaningful.
3) The monk lacks a 'thing' they can bring to the fight. Fighters have their weapon training, barbarians their rage, paladins their smite, rangers their favoured enemy. Even rogues have their sneak attack. Flurry of blows just brings the monk up to an accuracy base approaching the other combat classes, it isn't a 'thing' in and of itself - it's just lets the monk emulate the weakest combat style available to full BAB classes. Stunning fist is too restricted, and works too rarely to be reliable. Maneuvers are not it, they lose effectiveness against too many targets. Whatever we make it has to be thematic to the monk, but it doesn't have to be raw damage - there are plenty of classes dishing that out.
1) Give the monk wisdom bonus to hit instead of strength with monk weapons, unarmed strikes, and maneuvers. This cuts MAD down, and allows the monk to function with only one maxed out score just like every other class in the game, even the MAD ones. He's MAD on the ranger/paladin level now, rather than being a class of MADness of his own.
2) Change ki-strike to give an enhancement bonus to hit. +1 at 4th level, +2 at 7th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 13th and +5 at 16th. Now he can hit as accurately as everyone else, and isn't so utterly dependent on one magic item. It's still a good idea, as this enhancement bonus is only to hit, not damage, and has no special properties - but if he doesn't have it, he's not useless.
3) A special thing: get rid of the ki-strike DR bypasses. Replace them with a single ability at first level, letting the monk bypass one point of ANY DR or Hardness for every level of monk he has. Now he's the 'hurt anything' guy. Whatever he runs into he can hit, and it can't just ignore him. His damage isn't huge, but his stunning fist is a little more effective and he can reliably hurt things. Now he really CAN take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities and offer significant support to his friends. Plus, it's thematic with the martial artist that can shatter defences with his bare hands.
There are a lot of other things I would want to fix, but these three are the absolute musts to have the monk a viable class that is neither overpowered nor underpowered.
Well yes, and they have the abilities that ALLOW them to do so. Particularly, they have sneak attack that means that while they may hit only as often as the monk, when they do the target knows it. Fact is that the primary role of the rogue/ninja is that of scout, a clear non-combat role, while they have combat abilities to help them get by. The monk's stated role is in combat, whichever way you look at it.
Just a thought for a little patch for the monk....
How much would improve the monk if we change the Ki Point of +20 feet movement to a movement of 20 feets extra on that round? That way he can move and make full attack when he REALLY needs it.
Just a thought for a little patch for the monk....
How much would improve the monk if we change the Ki Point of +20 feet movement to a movement of 20 feets extra on that round? That way he can move and make full attack when he REALLY needs it.
Would let the monk burst, not sure how much a flurry is worth myself. It would definitely give them the whole skirmishing and mobile gig.
You mean spend 1 ki-point to move 20 feet as a swift action? It would certainly make the monk more able to skirmish, it wouldn't fix their primary issues of MADness, over-dependence on one magic item, and lack of a real, effective combat theme.
Certainly an improvement on the current situation, though.
You mean spend 1 ki-point to move 20 feet as a swift action? It would certainly make the monk more able to skirmish, it wouldn't fix their primary issues of MADness, over-dependence on one magic item, and lack of a real, effective combat theme.
Certainly an improvement on the current situation, though.
Yeah, basically this. I think is the more simple change to help on the flurry/ movement issue. That's one house rule I have thinking on for some time to help the monk.
Of course it doesn't help with many of the others problems. My group of play suffer much less the MAD issue because normally we use high powered arrays for the stats, and that really helps the monk. That does not help others groups out there, of course.
I'm going to preface this with the fact that the furthest I've gotten with my Monk so far is 4th level, but it seems to me that one of the major complaints is that the Monk can't move and use Flurry on the same turn. Couple this with the idea that the Monk should be a skirmisher, and the idea that the Monk should deal damage in a number of small attacks (versus a single Two-handed greatsword).
What I think would be a fair compromise would be to move Abundant Step forward in the leveling progression to level 6 (given that I'm not sure how this would affect game balance between classes). The mid-level Monk would then have the Dimensional Agility tree of feats; Dimensional Agility and Dimensional Assault would be available right away, with Dimensional Dervish available at/after 8th level, and Dimensional Savant available at/after 12th level (assuming 3/4 BAB). This allows the Monk to really fill the "skirmisher" role: setting up flanking for the party rogue/ninja or any other martial class, as well as helping to harry the enemy spellcasters.
Just my 2 cp...
Really, it effects all martial characters, but it does sting the monk harder with his higher mobility combined with 3/4 BAB on anything but a full attack (with dire weapons) - especially as he is meant to be a 'skirmisher'.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk can have decent defences, he doesn't need a boost there - though one fundamental problem he does have is that his AC is undermined if he goes for a strength-based build. He has OK skills, he doesn't need a boost there unless you insist he has to be a scout and not a combat-class, in which case he needs a whole lot more. He has a load of special abilities - many of them are crazy to have and work badly if at all, but he's got them nonetheless.
I agree there. I find they have rather quality defenses and there is little point to improving them further. And yes, going for a strength based build will certainly detract from the one strength the class does have, defense. Yes, the skills are fine. The abilities he has tend to wards defense and later on, the upper end powers seem to focus on emulating low to mid level, circumstantial magic. Those need to go.
I liked your ideas for changing the monk, though, I suspect a complete rewrite of the class or any changes that involve changing fundamental features will be a nightmare. Every archetype then has to be edited, redone completely or even removed. It can get problematic. ie, using wisdom to hit instead of strength means the sensei archetype must also be edited. Instead, it is probably better to use the existing features and apply a 'patch' to enhance them. I imagine that many monks archetypes will still need editing, regardless of how the class is modified.
I am ok with monks being MAD, actually. But I contend that they should be able to use that MADness for specializing in varying roles- not as a baseline for performing a single role.
Expanding the use of the ki pool and triggering many of the less useful powers (tongue of sun and moon) off of it seems like a better start.
Monks receiving a passive bonus to hit equal to half the amount of ki in their ki pool sounds interesting.
And a monk with X ki in their ki pool can stun a target they hit with their stunning fist attempt, without a save. This would apply, perhaps to all replacement abilities (touch of serenity, punishing kick, etc) from archetypes. Or, the DC of a stunning fist, touch, kick, increases by the amount of ki in the monks ki pool, but the monk doesn't have to hit the target to use these abilities, they instead are additional free actions as part of an attack action.
Either of these options would make the monks stunning fists type abilities FAR more useful.
By spending ki a monk can get additional benefits from various abilities that are otherwise lame. In essence, I am advocating the expansion of what the ki pool can do for a monk to keep the class as close to the way it is as possible but enhancing whatever aspect of the class we want or feel needs to be increased. This keeps the class from needing to be too heavily edited since all that is being edited is one ability- the ki pool features.
But a complete redesign works, too. I'm just throwing around my own off the cuff ideas. :)
I wonder:
What would be the consequences of giving monks free Spring Attack as a monk feature, and making it possible to combine with options like Vital Strike?
Very little, spring attack is over-rated, and Vital Strike is not as good for monks as it might first appear: 3/4 BAB for that attack on top of other monk problems hitting, and restricting access to the feat in addition to this (Vital Strike at 8th, Improved not until 15th). In reality, at 8th level the monk is getting less out of Vital Strike than any full BAB class with a greatsword would get at 6th.
It looks good, because the monk does roll some bigger damage dice at much high level, but that's more a symptom of the monk suffering a lack of any other means to increase damage than it is a strength.
I agree there. I find they have rather quality defenses and there is little point to improving them further. And yes, going for a strength based build will certainly detract from the one strength the class does have, defense. Yes, the skills are fine. The abilities he has tend to wards defense and later on, the upper end powers seem to focus on emulating low to mid level, circumstantial magic. Those need to go.The monk can have decent defences, he doesn't need a boost there - though one fundamental problem he does have is that his AC is undermined if he goes for a strength-based build. He has OK skills, he doesn't need a boost there unless you insist he has to be a scout and not a combat-class, in which case he needs a whole lot more. He has a load of special abilities - many of them are crazy to have and work badly if at all, but he's got them nonetheless.
No arguments here. Some of the monk abilities hail right back from 3rd ed, and were just not addressed in the way they work. A number of changes Paizo made that had nothing to do with the monk have ended up nerfing the monk.
I liked your ideas for changing the monk, though, I suspect a complete rewrite of the class or any changes that involve changing fundamental features will be a nightmare. Every archetype then has to be edited, redone completely or even removed. It can get problematic. ie, using wisdom to hit instead of strength means the sensei archetype must also be edited. Instead, it is probably better to use the existing features and apply a 'patch' to enhance them. I imagine that many monks archetypes will still need editing, regardless of how the class is modified.
Me too, which is why I focussed on ideas that would cause minimal disruption to archetypes. Having to just change the Sensei archetype is actually not too bad, but other changes I have looked at would have required far greater changes across the archetypes. I can understand Paizo's reluctance to go to far. That said the monk's issues are very extensive and do require some fairly extensive work, I don't see that smaller patches will work - although the idea of spending ki for the 20' move as s swift action is a good one.
|
|
1) Give the monk wisdom bonus to hit instead of strength with monk weapons, unarmed strikes, and maneuvers. This cuts MAD down, and allows the monk to function with only one maxed out score just like every other class in the game, even the MAD ones. He's MAD on the ranger/paladin level now, rather than being a class of MADness of his own.2) Change ki-strike to give an enhancement bonus to hit. +1 at 4th level, +2 at 7th, +3 at 10th, +4 at 13th and +5 at 16th. Now he can hit as accurately as everyone else, and isn't so utterly dependent on one magic item. It's still a good idea, as this enhancement bonus is only to hit, not damage, and has no special properties - but if he doesn't have it, he's not useless.
3) A special thing: get rid of the ki-strike DR bypasses. Replace them with a single ability at first level, letting the monk bypass one point of ANY DR or Hardness for every level of monk he has. Now he's the 'hurt anything' guy. Whatever he runs into he can hit, and it can't just ignore him. His damage isn't huge, but his stunning fist is a little more effective and he can reliably hurt things. Now he really CAN take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities and offer significant support to his friends. Plus, it's thematic with the martial artist that can shatter defences with his bare hands.
There are a lot of other things I would want to fix, but these three are the absolute musts to have the monk a viable class that is neither overpowered nor underpowered.
Somebody once suggested to me that the monk should get the WIS bonus to damage from unarmed and monk weapon attacks in addition to STR similar to the 3.5 swashbuckler getting an INT bonus to damage. This would let a monk focus on WIS, DEX, CON and not worry so much about STR. If you wanted a STR build, you would lose HP or AC but the extra damage might be worth it. I would put weapon finesse in the Monk's pool of bonus feats at first level and combat expertise at sixth level.
The KI strike progression that you suggest is a little better than the bonus to AC that monk's currently get. However, I would synch those together as an attack/defense adjustment. Your DR bypass per monk level is better than the KI strike DR bypasses. I would limit it to only unarmed or enhanced monk weapon (see below) attacks.
I would modify the monk's fast movement by allowing them to take half of the bonus movement in a round as extra tactical moves (the 5 ft. step). In other words, a monk with a 10 ft. bonus move could move 40 ft. and standard action or could take two 5 ft. steps and full round action or double move 80 ft. The extra tactical moves must be used together (in this case a 10 ft. move that does not provoke AoO), spring attack would not affect this.
I would also not only apply the monk's advance in damage to unarmed strikes, but also to one monk weapon (limited to weapons that have 1d6 damage or higher for a medium monk) at 6th, 12th,and 18th levels. I would call this "Enhance Weapon Damage(Ex)" or some other suitably inane name.
Andy