Akusen's page

No, you are missing the point - the tactic itself is flawed.

I'm not missing the point. It would be ideal for the monk and not the rogue to stay, I agree. But you keep missing when I say that there are reasons the monk might need to be positioned elsewhere at the end of his turn. Combat does not happen in a vacuum. If you are always trying to optimize each individual exchange, rather then the overall flow of combat, then I can see why you have difficulty finding effective use out of monks.

I find that Actions are the most important currency in combat, followed by movement. And monks have the ability to eat up enemy actions and the movement to put themselves in advantageous positions WITHOUT spending actions.

Also, given Maneuver Training and the bonus feats(many of the maneuver related) the monk will, in general have a better bonus on maneuvers than on attack.

Did the monk survive those rogues because of dice rolls? Telling me it happened is not as important as telling me how it happened.

Through a combination of Higher AC, higher touch AC, flurry of blows, stunning fist and tripping. Most rounds, this left many of the rogues floored, the one with the anti trip talent stunned(after i figured out who he was), and me in position to take advatage of AoOs while positioning myself so as to be able to flurry without being flanked by more then two a round.

If you understand why I think the monk is weak, then you understand that the monk is ineffective in many situations. If you think a combat class that cannot fight in half the situations they find themselves in is not underpowered, all I can say is that I think you are thin ice.

I understand why YOU THINK the monk is ineffective. I don't find mine ineffective any more often than that fighter or wizard in the party does, or any of my other characters in other games.

At 3rd - 7th level this is true. Above 7th it starts to fall off, and by 10th level it's really tough to pull off as the CMDs of CR10 creatures tends to be too darn high to affect easily.

The CMD of a CR 10 red dragon is 5 over AC. Most of the monsters I checked were 4-6 over. Yeah, outsiders and fey with their deflection bonuses to ac jump more. But I fail to see how 4-6 over ac is 'too darn high'

So not much use fighting the BBEG then. The monk is relegated to the mook-fights which anyone can indulge in and win. That's not much of an accolade, is it?

Not in dispute, but it's precisely where they are lacking against monstrous and powerful foes that they need improvement. The wizard can wipe out the mooks with one spell, it's fighting the major foes that the monk needs help.

Maybe your version of 'mooks' is different then mine. Cause I don't see a ECL 10 wizard taking out say 6 CR 7 'mooks' with one spell. Even if they all stood waiting in a 30' burst.

I HAVE seen the monk stand toe-to-toe with 6 'mook' rouges that just cut the fighter down in no time though.

Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I do not think that you appreciate that I have arrived at my current stance from originally holding your own.

...and they have the ignominy of being the iconic unarmed fighting class having to use weapons to be in any way effective

OK then.

But are you really looking for the bulk of your damage from the base die? On average, the difference between a d4 and a d10 is only 3 points.

Why would the rogue forgo all his iterative attacks and be left as the sole recipient of the fury of the thing your attacking?

Lets say the rouge has a 65% chance of hitting. Next iterative attack would be at 40%. If he readies, he now has 75% chance to hit and does extra damage. If the monk trips the opponent with greater trip(not unlikely) the rogue now get an AoO, again at 75%, and still flanking. The Monk get his follow up attack, and for whatever reason, spring to a 'better' position. The rogue now receives the -10% fury of a prone opponent. Or possibly another AoO if they have combat reflexes at 85% and a single attack against him.

That certainly is less effective than the 65% and 40% attacks with no extra dice and no inconveniencing of the opponent.

Of course getting next to said caster is a whole different ball-game...and monks aren't really any better at that than any other class.

It's too bad they don't have all sorts of movement enhancing abilities...

any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses

And each layer is an action to put in place. many lasting only rnds per level. Do you just assume that the casters have pre cast then all at the most opportune moment for whenever the PC's walk through the door? What if they are early? What if the delay an extra 10 min, and the spells expire? Does your party regularly knowingly go against spellcasters without a few potions of see invisibility and the like, to counter the typical caster defenses?

That's all my time for responding for now.

I understand why you feel the monk is underpowered. I don't agree. Likely we will just have to agree to disagree on monks, and just have to agree that Pathfinder is a great game, whatever flaws it may have.

I don’t (and I presume other as well) see it that way. I see a highly mobile, highly resistant battlefield controller. Sure, on hard enemies, they can lack for damage a bit. But against the medium and soft ones, they make up for the low individual damage with stupid numbers of attacks. They can lack against the single or few monstrous opponents, but kick it against small to large humanoids. Especially multiple weaker ones.

Given that there seem to be as many that like the monk as don't, I will maintain that the class is not, in general, under powered or disjointed. But that perhaps play style, or campaign style might make them seem so.

Spring attack works just fine if the rouge readies an attack.

Also, monks CAN flurry with monk weapons. I don't see how they should have any more difficulty overcoming DR than a fighter.

Till tommorow..

I'm at work, so you only get a quick response.

Flanking:
Once again, a monk’s movement allows them to get to the best flanking position faster. With spring attack they can even do it without really leaving a tactically better position. And making sure the strikers can add their extra d6s is pulling weight.

In General

There are lots of classes that can be a 'lame duck' in the hands of unskilled players. Bad choices in feats can nerf most any class. Bad choice in spells can make your sorcerer/wizard next to useless. A rouge/bard that selects all skills that other party members have maxed is mostly redundant.

Lots of situations can make different classes crap. Just two off the top of my head. Unprepared spell casters are useless against golems. Unprepared fighters suck against swarms.

The question was how monks are useful. Not how are they useful in the hands of unskilled players. I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that most people here have at least a basic skill with the game.

Their 'return on investment', like every other character, breaks down to two basic questions. Did I enjoy playing this character? Did the other players enjoy play in a game with this character? If the answer to one or both is no, then they are not worth it. If yes to both, then does their relative power really matter?

I find ALL the characters do much better when the questions of what I can do vs. what you can do are put aside in favor of what we can do together. Games of one-ups-man ship get old fast.

Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do. You may surprise yourself with what classes can do if you drop the preconceive notions of what the 'should' do, and put an eye to what can they do with the other characters.

I've found that monks seem to excel at battlefield control. They can get into the backfield of enemies fairly easily. They stun, grapple and generally harry the softer enemies. Their maneuvers can cause even the hard enemies to eat up actions (trip, disarm) or take away advantage (disarm, sunder). Their defensive abilities are good at eating up attacks and spell that might have been directed against 'better' targets(because they are the one punching the spellcater in the face), and also mean that your spell casters don't often have to worry about catching them in an AoE. Their movement makes them great flanking buddies for rouges and ninja or even the fighters(every +2 helps).

I know, in the game I play a monk, that he doesn't dish out the most damage or get the most kills. I also know that the party is much more leary of entering a fight without him, than without any other party member.

Monks are not a force unto themselves. They are a force multiplier for the party, and a force mitigator for the enemy. But to be that, they HAVE to be use tactically. And not every player is suited to that kind of play.