Zen Archer is clearly the best Monk Archetype. it can flurry from over 110 feet away with very few penalties.
well, an archery focused Sohei can get more attacks at much lower bonuses.
I posted a sohei that met all stated criteria at that point in the thread.
The criteria was changed to unarmed with no archetypes.
I've got my build meeting the new criteria and have requested people post hard numbers. Without hard numbers posted in advance it does not matter how good my build, the goalpost will be set higher.
Once again if you want to call me a liar come out and say it directly. The goal has been the same for every monk thread. I told you I said on page one BEFORE you posted your build that certain archetypes need not apply. Do YOU need a link to when myself and others made that statement, or will you keep pretending we did not that BEFORE you posted the build.
Forget all of that. The NEXT time you spew these lies I will just post a link to when we said certain archetypes are already decent. Then I will post the link to you build.
One of these took place before the other. That will show that all you was post a build agreeing with what we had already said. The goalpost were NEVER moved. They were set BEFORE you made your monk build.
Personally, I LOVE Ashiel's fix but I'd also like to see that as a second class akin to a "Ki Mystic" (not the archetype) alongside a more physical focused bareknuckle brawler character.
If I had to choose between the two though, yeah Ashiel's Psionic Monk thing would be great.
the first mythical records of Psychics i remember hearing of
were among a Bhuddist temple in Nepal when Bhuddism was young.
the monks could move small objects by thinking about it, and nowadays, the monks there allegedly swap their meditation CDs with their mind.
it is mostly done when tourists visit the temples as a bit of a parlor trick.
and those guys, were a type of monk.
and the goal of the majority of monk orders is to attain supernatural powers that make themselves better at their task. even the Xiaolin the PF monk is based off of.
and a lot of the Ki imbused strikes could be refluffed as manifesting touch powers through an unarmed strike.
the combat enhancements from serenity, could be flavored as psionic buffs.
|
Sighs. I don't move goalpost. I have been saying the same thing for the past few pages.....
If all you insist on number then we should go to level 10 because I have number for level 10 availible. I don't have that data on level 8 builds.
Your target numbers are AC 22 with a DPR of 80+
No problem I can meet that goal.
Now each attack has to be able to keep a target's attention even when dealing with DR. So getting 20000 attacks that add up to big number, but are negated by DR won't do you much good.
Your moving goalposts. The criteria laid out above was I had to forgo archetypes and use a specific means of attack (unarmed flurry).
Now your imposing a specific defense that is far more effective against the attack routine I am bound to than any other. If I was permitted weapon selection of choice, even without archetypes, I could bypass nearly everything except DR/-, while freeing up feats, dealing 100+ DPR and meeting every other number your requesting.
We could just as easily say the competing 2-handed barbarian or fighter build is fighting an opponent with crane wing and compare those numbers.
With all of this being said if you can't handle will and fort saves that will also be looked at. I chose those two because failing a will or fort save can take you out of the fight.
Having a 70 percent chance of passing one and a 60 percent chance of passing the DC for an ability used against you from an APL=CR level opponent should be possible. I prefer higher, but I think 60 is ok
I don't believe anybody has ever complained about saving throws being the monks weakness.
Mine are not the best given the costs of supporting the build limitations imposed, but they are not bad. Since I am already adjusting my build for level 10, I'll make sure I meet the 70% on primary save and 60% on secondary save.
For these numbers we will use the monster creation chart before we put the builds up again actual monsters. Passing the math test means nothing if you can't perform in the game.
See and you thought we were all about the numbers. :)
Yes.
I doubt it would be difficult to select monsters with strengths tailored to take advantage of the of the build limitations imposed.
Your moving goalposts.
At this point I'm not sure you even know what this means.
The criteria laid out above was I had to forgo archetypes and use a specific means of attack (unarmed flurry).
Now your imposing a specific defense that is far more effective against the attack routine I am bound to than any other.
A specific defense that shows up fairly often at the level you are building for. Using enemies without a common defense (which DR is) would be skewing the results.
If I was permitted weapon selection of choice, even without archetypes, I could bypass nearly everything except DR/-, while freeing up feats, dealing 100+ DPR and meeting every other number your requesting.
Which would defeat the entire purpose since a lot of what is in question here is the validity of an unarmed Monk.
The fact that you already say you can do better with weapons is very telling when it involves a class which was thematically and SUPPOSEDLY mechanically based around using unarmed strikes.
Which, funnily enough, at least one developer (SKR I think?) has said was PURPOSEFULLY MADE INFERIOR to weapon using combat.
We could just as easily say the competing 2-handed barbarian or fighter build is fighting an opponent with crane wing and compare those numbers.
Except a niche build using a specific combination of Feats only readily available to Monks (an uncommon NPC class) in no way mirrors the nigh omni-presence of DR in one form or another throughout the levels.
You are acting as if DR is some grand, rare, unexpected thing in this game. It's not. If your build cannot handle DR then it is not an especially good build.
Fair, trade out Vicious Stomp then while it's good it's mostly a gravy source of damage while doing your tripping the support elements still function without it, unless you could move something like agile maneuvers into a monk bonus feat slot I think that would be the best way to cram it in there.
Personally, pirahna strike is a bit uncommon for me to feel like including.
Here is the rest of him statted up for dumpstats. I'm not super strong on using ammo for DR purposes, as it stands he has 4k leftover to dedicate to that. We can always drop his bracers down 1 to get another 5k.
Race: Human
Classes: Monk10
Hit Points: 79
Alignment: Lawful Neutral
Speed: Walk 60 ft.
Languages: Celestial, Common
Stat Score Mod
STR 11 (+0)
DEX 24 (+7)
CON 14 (+2)
INT 13 (+1)
WIS 14 (+2)
CHA 7 (-2)
-------------------------- Skills --------------------------
Skill Total Rnk Stat Msc
Acrobatics 20 10.0 7 3
Acrobatics (Jump) 42 10.0 7 25
Escape Artist 20 10.0 7 3
Perception 15 10.0 2 3
Sense Motive 15 10.0 2 3
Stealth 20 10.0 7 3
-------------------------- Feats ---------------------------
Agile Maneuvers
Weapon Finesse
Combat Reflexes
Catch Off-Guard
Combat Expertise
Vicious Stomp
Imp Trip
Ki Throw
Greater Trip
Imp. Crit(Unarmed)
-------------------------- Combat --------------------------
Total / Touch / Flat Footed
AC: 26 / 23 / 19
Initiative: +9
BAB: +7/+2
Melee tohit: +7/+2
Ranged tohit: +14/+9
Fortitude: +12
Reflex: +17
Will: +12
Unarmed attack:
to hit: +15/+10
damage: 1d10+7
critical: 19-20/x2
Flurry of Blows:
to hit: +16/+16/+11/+11
damage: 1d10+8
critical: 19-20/x2
CMB: 17 (22 for trip)
CMD: 27 (31 vs trip)
------------------------- Equipment ------------------------
Name QTY LBS
Bracers of Armor +3 1 1lbs
Ring of Protection +2 1 0lbs
Belt of Incredible Dexterity +4 1 1lbs
Cloak of Resistance +3 1 1lbs
4000gp leftover for arrow/shurikens to buy for DR purposes.
Total weight carried:
Current load: Light
Encumbrance
Light: 38
Medium: 76
Heavy: 115
You are acting as if DR is some grand, rare, unexpected thing in this game. It's not. If your build cannot handle DR then it is not an especially good build.
Of the CR 10 monsters: bebilith, brachiosaurus, clay golem, couatl, fire giant, giant flytrap, guardian naga, rakshasa, red dragon (young), silver dragon (young), white dragon (adult)
5 do not have DR, and 6 have DR. It is hardly "rare".
the monk shouldn't be weighed against the 2HW pouncing Barbarian, let alone any 2HW Weapon or Archery Build
it should be weighed against similar builds such as
the 2WF Ranger
the 2WF Fighter
the 2WF Rogue/Ninja
the 2WF Cavalier/Samurai
the 2WF Paladin/Antipaladin
the 2WF Bard
the 2WF inquisitor
in other words
the monk should be compared to other melee 2WF builds
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
I disagree slightly here. S&B most definitely can also include TWF.
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.I disagree slightly here. S&B most definitely can also include TWF.
it can, but it requires many levels and a lot of system mastery to pull off, trading damage potential for defense and control. making it a completely different type of 2WF.
|
|
A specific defense that shows up fairly often at the level you are building for. Using enemies without a common defense (which DR is) would be skewing the results.
It seems we are not on the same page with what criteria we are expecting Artanthos to use, or not use. <---serious comment.
Personally I want to see a core monk 20 point buy with any the UM, Ultimate combat, and Ultimate magic books good for use , along with the CRB.
He can use any level between 8 and 13 with no more than 50% of WBL spent on any one item.
The initial goal did not include the stipulation, "while fighting an opponent with DR/-".
That was added afterwards.
Moving the goalpost.
This actually makes sense. There are some known flaws in the two-weapon fighting style. Specifically lower attack bonuses, MAD, and DR problems. Monks might actually do a little better here than normal, since they don't have off-hand attacks.the monk shouldn't be weighed against the 2HW pouncing Barbarian, let alone any 2HW Weapon or Archery Build
it should be weighed against similar builds such as
the 2WF Ranger
the 2WF Fighter
the 2WF Rogue/Ninja
the 2WF Cavalier/Samurai
the 2WF Paladin/Antipaladin
the 2WF Bard
the 2WF inquisitor
in other words
the monk should be compared to other melee 2WF builds
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
thank you Clifford. a proper comparison would be to other builds that utilize the exact same general type of fighting style.
it is improper to compare greatsword to dual wielding, because despite both being damage oriented, they are 2 very different ways of carrying out melee damage with different restrictions and very different sets of merits.
A specific defense that shows up fairly often at the level you are building for. Using enemies without a common defense (which DR is) would be skewing the results.The initial goal did not include the stipulation, "while fighting an opponent with DR/-".
That was added afterwards.
Moving the goalpost.
I would say that the stipulation of fighting CR appropriate foes includes dealing with DR, because over half of them have it.
It's like going to a driving test and them saying "Okay we're going to test your driving ability there will be no trick questions yadda yadda" and then when he says "Park in that space over there" you go "I was never informed of this! Moving the goalposts!".
Just because he didn't point out every exact rivet and screw holding the goalpost together from the start doesn't mean that when he points one out that means they've moved.
...You're using a CL 20 which implies you found a 20th level wizard willing to waste his time casting spells on your low leveled butt.
And frankly while the book includes rules for this chances are very very good a DM who isn't trying to give you a free pass to keep you from sucking because of the class you chose would look at you and tell you the 20th level spell casters are all busy with things far beyond the scope of your puny mortal affairs and put you on their waiting lists, check back in in 2-4 years.
Ah yes, DM fiat. The core rules say it can be done. I guess those same high level wizards don't waste days of their time making everyone's high level items either. This works just like going to see a doctor or any other skilled individual. If I want to buy something he has spent years making, like an MRI machine, its gonna cost a good deal more than if I want him to look at me in his office for 10 minutes. But people are greedy, so if I'm willing to pay him for his time, someone will do it.
If all the wizards in the world said no, demand would increase the price, but someone would still do it. The price is listed in the books, apparently these mighty wizards can spare 15 minutes a day to pay for casting a couple simple spells.
All you are asking for here is 15 minutes of their time and a couple of spell slots, which a wizard in town isn't going to be using all of anyway.
"In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn't guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells."
That would be a CL17 wizard, and he is maybe available.
You want to just "have access" to a CL20 wizard which is not even assured in the biggest city possible? Its a stretch. I wonder if UCamp addresses that at all.
Also you got your math wrong, greater magic fang is 7,500gp to permanency, not 2,500.
Ah, greater is the 7500. I'll rework the math tomorrow. As I said, you are looking for a CL 20, but you should be able to get at least a character that can cast 8th level spells, which is up to CL 16, or +4.
The problem with seeking outside help like this, is the other builds you are going up against can do the exact same thing. So while it might look better initially, if they do the same thing, its a net wash.
Even worse is the fact that you need a CL20 druid and a CL20 wizard for your buffs.
you can find a CL20th version in the form of a scroll or oil. much more easily than finding a 20th level caster
3rd level spell, xCL20th x25 GP for 1500 GP, 3,000 GP for an oil.
these can be bought in a metropolis fairly easily, even if you cannot find a 20th level caster
and 20th level casters are likely to trade consumables or provide spells to permanency, not because they don't have better things to do, but because they are bored and such a magical enhancement means they may have earned somebody to entertain them in a matter of years.
but if you don't want a CL20th druid for the buff, a CL20th summoner works too
and a sorcerer is a valid substitute for a wizard
I would say that the stipulation of fighting CR appropriate foes includes dealing with DR, because over half of them have it.
Woah woah woah. We never said we were fighting equal CR creatures. I thought we would fight 16 CR2 creatures for a total encounter of CR10.
This is sarcasm btw, just trying to lighten the mood a little.
Artanthos, while I am making a joke, I do not intend for you to take offense at it, and apologize in advance if you do.
Hey, I like that idea.
Let's do an encounter with like 18 Pugwampies. That adds up to about CR 10, doesn't it?
Ah, greater is the 7500. I'll rework the math tomorrow. As I said, you are looking for a CL 20, but you should be able to get at least a character that can cast 8th level spells, which is up to CL 16, or +4.The problem with seeking outside help like this, is the other builds you are going up against can do the exact same thing. So while it might look better initially, if they do the same thing, its a net wash.
Even worse is the fact that you need a CL20 druid and a CL20 wizard for your buffs.
One cannot use Permanency with Greater Magic Weapon, which is why it is very useful for fighting unarmed, but not so much for anyone else fighting with a weapon. In fact, there are really only a few spells you can use it with, in core.
The Greater Magic Fang Permanency combo really is a great balancing mechanism to the low damage normally seen in unarmed combat. I'm surprised more people don't try to use it.
I would need a 20th Druid, Ranger, or Summoner, and technically only a wizard capable of casting 5th level spells and caster level 11. The CL goes off the Greater Magic Fang spell, not the Permanency. That is an argument for another thread, however.
Caught you with my edit. Realized that seconds after posting...
I always forget domains give access to spells not normally available. You're right, CL20 growth druid and a CL11 wizard, in the same place. I also would not be surprised if CL20 druids didn't hang out in cities very often. What with their whole nature thing.
But that's all fluff and insignificant. All that matters is the book says even metropolis are not guaranteed to have what you need, which leaves it to GM fiat.
Accept a lower CL works just as well, and I can be "reasonably assured" a caster capable of casting 8th level spells is available in a metropolis. Which is up to CL 16 or +4, and works for our purposes here.
Its not ideal, but we can always refer to what lumiere said earlier and grab the spell 20th level spell in scroll form and ask the 15th to 16th level mage to cast it for us, paying him the usual price for spellcasting services.
Then you run into the dangerous issue.
"Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster.""If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."
Which, while unlikely to happen, at least has a 1/20 chance (from a nat 1) And with a CL16 doing it, has a 25% chance of failure. Which again, places having a Level 16 caster use a CL20 scroll for you in GM fiat territory.
|
|
I would say that the stipulation of fighting CR appropriate foes includes dealing with DR, because over half of them have it.Woah woah woah. We never said we were fighting equal CR creatures. I thought we would fight 16 CR2 creatures for a total encounter of CR10.
This is sarcasm btw, just trying to lighten the mood a little.
Artanthos, while I am making a joke, I do not intend for you to take offense at it, and apologize in advance if you do.
It comes close to something I was just thinking about.
A good source for encounter ideas would be published CR10 encounters drawn from PFS scenarios and APLs.
They include monsters, NPCs, and terrain. Some would involve multiple weaker opponents, others would involve single large foes.
They also allow the character an awareness of the environment that may allow usage of long duration buffs ahead of time, exactly as you would expect in a real game.
A random table of encounters would have to be drawn up and DM'd by a neutral 3rd party to prevent selections tailored to fit challengers.
Accept a lower CL works just as well, and I can be "reasonably assured" a caster capable of casting 8th level spells is available in a metropolis. Which is up to CL 16 or +4, and works for our purposes here.
Its not ideal, but we can always refer to what lumiere said earlier and grab the spell 20th level spell in scroll form and ask the 15th to 16th level mage to cast it for us, paying him the usual price for spellcasting services.
Then you run into the dangerous issue.
"Furthermore, if a spell has dangerous consequences, the spellcaster will certainly require proof that you can and will pay for dealing with any such consequences (that is, assuming that the spellcaster even agrees to cast such a spell, which isn't certain). In the case of spells that transport the caster and characters over a distance, you will likely have to pay for two castings of the spell, even if you aren't returning with the caster.""If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell's caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell's caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll's caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Activating a scroll is a standard action (or the spell's casting time, whichever is longer) and it provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does."
Which, while unlikely to happen, at least has a 1/20 chance (from a nat 1) And with a CL16 doing it, has a 25% chance of failure. Which again, places having a Level 16 caster use a CL20 scroll for you in GM fiat territory.
then you spend 3,000 GP on a CL20th oil instead.
now, the local 20th level druid hermit may not visit town often, but sometimes, he needs somebody to interact with, even if it is a prospective customer, and has a few personal needs he cannot acquire within the local wilds. such as a companion to provide him release for his pent up frustrations whether of the mind or of the flesh, someone to talk to, or someone to provide readily made tools to replace his ruined hunting kit that fell apart with age.
so to get the funds for these things, the druid may spend 3 days producing an herbal oil of a spell frequently desired by unarmed combatants to trade in batches of 10 at the end of the month to fulfill the need for hunting and survival tools, people to talk with his old and scruffy self, and generously tip some women of loose morals to fulfill his more carnal and bestial needs.
the monk shouldn't be weighed against the 2HW pouncing Barbarian, let alone any 2HW Weapon or Archery Build
it should be weighed against similar builds such as
the 2WF Ranger
the 2WF Fighter
the 2WF Cavalier/Samurai
the 2WF Paladin/Antipaladin
the 2WF Bard
the 2WF inquisitor
in other words
the monk should be compared to other melee 2WF builds
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves. Putting Monks into the same catagory as SAD classes when Monks are MAD is also a falacy. If anything, Monks should be compared to Rogues and Ninjas, maybe Bard though they get no spells, and not much else. Monk's are party rounders, performing actions during a turn other people could perform, but don't have to since the Monk has it covered. Expecting them to produce combat statistics on par with the above mentioned classes is asking unjustly from a class that simply wasn't designed to do it. It can be done with mucho tweaking, but is better put into the hands of the 4/4 BAB classes tailored for those tasks. Its a topic I've been trying to push for a bit now, as some people might know, that Monk's are their own niche, instead of trying to "round peg/square hole" them into other class' definitions.
Err, Inquisitors don't have full BaB.
And Monks AREN'T their own niche, that's the issue. They can't really do anything an equally built <Insert Class Here> couldn't do.
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves.
(Emphasis mine.)
Out of that list, Cavaliers have as many skill ranks (4 + Int) as the Monk, and both the Ranger and Inquisitor have more (6 + Int).
And Monks AREN'T their own niche, that's the issue.
^ What I'm trying to change is this thought. Everyone plays a Monk with the idea "I'm going to be an unarmored fighter" or "barbarian with fists!" or "Flurry with arrows like a ranger!" and never "I'm going to play this Monk as a *gasp* Monk."
Build a Monk to add onto what the party's Fighter is doing, what the Ranger is doing, or the Rogue is doing instead of trying to BE those classes. Every character only has so many actions in a round, so if the Fighter wants to do two things at once but can't, the Monk takes over the other, and vice versa.
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.
Says it perfectly, aiding allies wherever they're needed. They make great flank buddies with everyone, add additional damage to already weak foes, and use their MAD in the form of adding WIS to CMD (for a total of three stats) and AC (instead of just DEX)
Asking them to be just as good as Fighters, Rangers, etc. undermines those classes and puts Monk in a bad view when they don't perform. If all you want is DPR, make a Fighter, its why its there.
Monks aren't underpowered, they're usually just played wrong.
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves. Putting Monks into the same catagory as SAD classes when Monks are MAD is also a falacy. If anything, Monks should be compared to Rogues and Ninjas, maybe Bard though they get no spells, and not much else. Monk's are party rounders, performing actions during a turn other people could perform, but don't have to since the Monk has it covered. Expecting them to produce combat statistics on par with the above mentioned classes is asking unjustly from a class that simply wasn't designed to do it. It can be done with mucho tweaking, but is better put into the hands of the 4/4 BAB classes tailored for those tasks. Its a topic I've been trying to push for a bit now, as some people might know, that Monk's are their own niche, instead of trying to "round peg/square hole" them into other class' definitions.the monk shouldn't be weighed against the 2HW pouncing Barbarian, let alone any 2HW Weapon or Archery Build
it should be weighed against similar builds such as
the 2WF Ranger
the 2WF Fighter
the 2WF Cavalier/Samurai
the 2WF Paladin/Antipaladin
the 2WF Bard
the 2WF inquisitor
in other words
the monk should be compared to other melee 2WF builds
it shouldn't be compared to a 2HW, Archery, or S&B build because those fighting styles are completely different.
Flurry mimics 4/4 bab with the restriction of must use 2WF. so all the 2WF classes i mentioned are a fair comparison.
Monk, more skill points? their extreme MAD, and their lack of int synergy makes them horrible skill monkeys. plus 4+int isn't really a lot.
No spells, clearly not a caster
no real support abilities, not really a team player
what does that leave?
front line combatant
proof they are supposed to be on the front lines?
an ability that rewards them for standing still and slugging their foe called flurry of blows
the ki pool, which improves a melee weapon they are assumed to rely upon, and gives them options with said melee weapon
a scaling armor class bonus
a fast speed, clearly intended to allow them to close the gap and strike first.
the fact they have 2 circumstances that encourage them to fight in melee by mimicking 4/4 bab. flurry and manuever training.
clearly, though poorly executed, a monks role is front line combatant
I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves.(Emphasis mine.)
Out of that list, Cavaliers have as many skill ranks (4 + Int) as the Monk, and both the Ranger and Inquisitor have more (6 + Int).
I see Monks compared to Fighters more often than any other class, which is the comparison.
Flurry mimics 4/4 bab with the restriction of must use 2WF. so all the 2WF classes i mentioned are a fair comparison.
If it didn't mimic 4/4 BAB, no one would ever use it, especially since its nickname is Flurry of Misses anyway. This doesn't legitimize it since most 4/4 BAB can opt not use TWF and still have 4/4.
Monk, more skill points? their extreme MAD, and their lack of int synergy makes them horrible skill monkeys. plus 4+int isn't really a lot.
The normal comparison is "Fighters vs Monks" in most conversations, and INT's only real synergy with any class is arcane spellcasters.
No spells, clearly not a caster
Of course.
no real support abilities, not really a team player
Faster movement speed to get to enemy spellcasters faster, slow fall to dive into combat from hieghts without taking damage, evasion to avoid AoE from spellflingers, and unarmored AC to rival light and medium armored fighter/ranger. Ki pool to allow increased movement, increased AC, and additional attacks.
what does that leave?
front line combatant
proof they are supposed to be on the front
...
Of course they are, but they're not designed like a fighter/ranger/paladin, so they shouldn't be treated like them.
I see Monks compared to Fighters more often than any other class, which is the comparison.I can't agree with this since Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, Cavaliers and Inquisitors all have 4/4 BAB with bonus feats and abilities to augment. Monk's are support, hence higher skills, the lower 3/4 BAB and differing saves.(Emphasis mine.)
Out of that list, Cavaliers have as many skill ranks (4 + Int) as the Monk, and both the Ranger and Inquisitor have more (6 + Int).
if the monks purpose were skills or support
it would have at least gotten 2 of the following
a lot more skill points
some kind of spellcasting or manifesting ability
some cavalier style tactician ability
some kind of group buff akin to bardic performance
new uses for skills
int synergy of some kind
Says it perfectly, aiding allies wherever they're needed.
But they have nothing that helps them aid allies.
They make great flank buddies with everyone
So does another Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian on the field. EVERYBODY can flank.
add additional damage to already weak foes
Aforementioned Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian can do that too. But with more damage.
and use their MAD in the form of adding WIS to CMD (for a total of three stats) and AC (instead of just DEX)
Making them roughly as good in AC as a character wearing enchanted light armor if they're specced to even be a credible threat in combat.
Asking them to be just as good as Fighters, Rangers, etc. undermines those classes and puts Monk in a bad view when they don't perform. If all you want is DPR, make a Fighter, its why its there.
Asking him to be as good as any class expected to be in melee isn't asking much.
Monks aren't underpowered, they're usually just played wrong.
From what you're saying, "playing them right" involves doing everything another character could do, but with less solo contribution.
If that's not underpowered to you I think you need to rethink your definition of the term.
He can't do Support as well as the Support classes.
He can do Combat as well as the Combat classes.
He can't do Utility as well as the Utility classes.
He's a jack of all trades, credible contributor to none.
Faster movement speed to get to enemy spellcasters faster
And then glare at them impotently.
slow fall to dive into combat from hieghts without taking damage
Assuming there's a cliff face or something nearby.
And this is in any way a useful tactic at all.
evasion to avoid AoE from spellflingers
How is that a support ability again? It doesn't help anyone else.
and unarmored AC to rival light and medium armored fighter/ranger.
Assuming Bracers of Armor and a Ring of Protection are bought so they're still paying the same price or more for that AC.
Ki pool to allow increased movement
To what purpose?
increased AC
Yippee.
and additional attacks.
Which will probably miss too or do piddling damage since, as you say, they're not a credible combatant at all.
Says it perfectly, aiding allies wherever they're needed. They make great flank buddies with everyone, add additional damage to already weak foes, and use their MAD in the form of adding WIS to CMD (for a total of three stats) and AC (instead of just DEX)
Asking them to be just as good as Fighters, Rangers, etc. undermines those classes and puts Monk in a bad view when they don't perform. If all you want is DPR, make a Fighter, its why its there.
Monks aren't underpowered, they're usually just played wrong.
And what class can't provide a flank buddy or a little extra damage to weak foes? Oooo, wis to CMD, because CMD is such a needed stat (as opposed to AC, which monk's are always lacking).
Aid another actions? Inquisitors will do it better because they can pick the teamwork feats up.
Flanking? Rogue/ninja get sneak attack and other special things that happen with flank. What bonus does the monk get for flanking?
High cmd? Sort of. Not bad saves. Thats about what they bring. Oh, and faster movement...
Except the druid animal companion can do all that, and is probably equally as fragile.
Also, without diverting the thread, very few DM's will allow a pc monk to get a good shot at grappling a BBG Wizard. It's as rare as hen's teeth that a DM will let you do it without some defence intervening so it definitely falls into the 'Don't get your hopes up about doing this anytime soon' category of character abilities. Yes, you might get to grapple his underlings but don't expect to win a key fight with it.
Yet another reason to pay something else.
That's a pretty hateful DM, though there are probably no shortage of those.
So my last post got me thinking... here is a partially done up druid animal companion (large cat) at level 10.
I think he at least equals a core monk in combat contribution. Especially if we give him some barding, or an AoMF. Not to mention the druid can buff him up.
Str: 24
Dex: 18
Con: 17+1
Int: 2
Wis: 15+1
Cha: 10
Large
40ft movement
Init: 4+4=8
Fort: 6+4=10
Ref: 6+4=10
Wil: 3+3+2=8
AC: 21
Touch: 13
FF: 17
BAB: 6
Attacks: +13/+13/+13 PA: -2/+4
bite (1d8+7) PA: 1d8+11
2 claws (1d6+7) PA: 1d6+11
Special Attacks:
Pounce
Grab
Rake (1d6+7) PA: 1d6+11
5 Feats:
Improved Initiative
Armor Prof (Light)
Run
Power Attack
Iron Will
New suggestion. Lets build a combat focused animal companion of a druid, and see if a core monk can be more effective that the animal companion.
That's a pretty hateful DM, though there are probably no shortage of those.Also, without diverting the thread, very few DM's will allow a pc monk to get a good shot at grappling a BBG Wizard. It's as rare as hen's teeth that a DM will let you do it without some defence intervening so it definitely falls into the 'Don't get your hopes up about doing this anytime soon' category of character abilities. Yes, you might get to grapple his underlings but don't expect to win a key fight with it.
Yet another reason to pay something else.
After a certain level, its because he is flying/invisible/something else you can't do diddly about, not because the DM is a jerk.
I always thought it was a nice little 4th level spell that made Grapples utterly worthless against Wizards, not Flying or Invisibility (though those help a lot).
Also, without diverting the thread, very few DM's will allow a pc monk to get a good shot at grappling a BBG Wizard. It's as rare as hen's teeth that a DM will let you do it without some defence intervening so it definitely falls into the 'Don't get your hopes up about doing this anytime soon' category of character abilities. Yes, you might get to grapple his underlings but don't expect to win a key fight with it.
Yet another reason to pay something else.
and even then
the BBEG wizard's concentration modifier is likely so much higher than the Monk's CMB, that they can afford the cast while grappled. due to both having a higher level, and due to having a much higher intellect than any stat the monk has. plus combat casting and focused mind, make concentration even easier.
no way that monk is getting a 20 STR or 20 DEX
Wizard can easily get a 20 int
and with all the resources the monk invests on Dex/Con/Str/Wis
the wizard can get away with Int/Con/Dex for a lot cheaper, has a much higher starting Int than the monk's offensive stat. it is easier to augment concentration than unarmed CMB,
and due to the Higher Con, derived from less MAD, and the ability to dump 3 entire stats, STR, WIS, and CHA. the wizard has a lot more hit points than the monk, plus a lot of the wizard's other available defenses are much better than armor class at negating both attacks and manuevers.
Grapple the wizard? you just have to roll a 50% miss chance to see if you eliminate one of his 8 mirror images. in other words, a 1 in 18 chance of landing a grapple. and that is with both mirror image and displacement. both low level spells a wizard can afford to have up in multiple fights by 10th level. more in the case of a BBEG who doesn't care about resources.
Says it perfectly, aiding allies wherever they're needed. They make great flank buddies with everyone, add additional damage to already weak foes, and use their MAD in the form of adding WIS to CMD (for a total of three stats) and AC (instead of just DEX)
Asking them to be just as good as Fighters, Rangers, etc. undermines those classes and puts Monk in a bad view when they don't perform. If all you want is DPR, make a Fighter, its why its there.
Monks aren't underpowered, they're usually just played wrong.
And what class can't provide a flank buddy or a little extra damage to weak foes? Oooo, wis to CMD, because CMD is such a needed stat (as opposed to AC, which monk's are always lacking).
Aid another actions? Inquisitors will do it better because they can pick the teamwork feats up.
Flanking? Rogue/ninja get sneak attack and other special things that happen with flank. What bonus does the monk get for flanking?
High cmd? Sort of. Not bad saves. Thats about what they bring. Oh, and faster movement...
Except the druid animal companion can do all that, and is probably equally as fragile.
My Monk (currently never felled) has the highest AC of our Elven Paladin (who hits the deck almost every fight) and Dwarf Fighter (who tanks with his face), so "fragile" is speculative. "But the GM hits the Fighter/Paladin because they deal the damage." He stopped swinging at me when he found out he couldn't hit me.
Anyone can flank, but the Fighter is usually in the mix deep enough the Rogue/Ninja doesn't want to be near it, what with Alchemist explosions, Fireballs and baddy Cleaves going off. Monk and Rogue tag teams to pick off strays require two bodies, and no Arcane or Divine caster is going to take the Monk's place in the mess. No, Monk doesn't pull anything special, except the flank wasn't possible without him. And before someone says "The Rogue should just go in after the Fighter to flank with him." Most DMs eat alive anything squishy in the melee, so as soon as the Rogue gets in range, he'd be mauled before his next turn. Its what I would do as a DM.
Druid Animal companions are easily my second target for every baddy and his brother. Squish. Right after wizard familiars. Oh please do send him to attack.
I understand the frustration. I wish I had a 200+ DPR on my Monk with 300 HP and an AC of 50 too. If you don't want to play Monk in favor for something else, go for it. But I've never ever seen a Monk who enters combat and does absolutely nothing for 15 rounds, which seems to be the over all view of how Monks play.
After a certain level, its because he is flying/invisible/something else you can't do diddly about, not because the DM is a jerk.That's a pretty hateful DM, though there are probably no shortage of those.Also, without diverting the thread, very few DM's will allow a pc monk to get a good shot at grappling a BBG Wizard. It's as rare as hen's teeth that a DM will let you do it without some defence intervening so it definitely falls into the 'Don't get your hopes up about doing this anytime soon' category of character abilities. Yes, you might get to grapple his underlings but don't expect to win a key fight with it.
Yet another reason to pay something else.
Invis is one thing, flying is another. Unless you're in a wide open field with the sky above you, you're usually fighting a wizard in his dungeon, with wonderful walls to jump off of and a ceiling for the wizard to be restricted by. Doesn't Monk get +20 Acrobatics check and a running jump even standing still? As for mirror image, everyone, OP Fighter included, is hampered by that. Its not a slap in the face for just Monks, so I don't see how its Monk-hate specific.