Yesterday I played a fighter 1/monk 4 in Tower of the Last Baron. The adventure is AWESOME, and the DM (Silverhair) did a great job. All in all, I've never had so much fun being nearly useless!
Working off a 20-point-buy system for starting attributes, I attempted to optimize a human monk for tripping: Str 16, Dex 14, Wis 16; two +1 kamas; Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Combat Reflexes. My idea was that I'd use TWF in conjunction with the flurry of blows with the kamas to trip, then use Combat Reflexes to take AoO against enemies as they fell/got up. Unfortunately, that was a better idea in theory than it was in reality. We fought a bunch of 1st level guards; the party wizard cast enlarge on me, and the DM, a nice fellow, let me use my full CMB on a TWF flurry of trips.
Against three 1st level warrior guards (CR 1/2), I was very nearly killed. Tripping, even with a +12 bonus, fails a lot more often than you'd think, because the DC is set so high (16-Str mooks are DC 19; level-appropriate monsters are always untrippable). Then, counterattacking is more or less a guaranteed failure (+5 attack bonus), and by somewhat neglecting Dex to pump up Str, I ended up with a lower AC and not enough AoO to take advantage of a lot of the openings. Even when I did hit with an AoO, damage when enlarged was only 1d8+5, so 10-hp guards could most often take at least one blow and keep coming at me... and emphasizing Str, Dex, and Wis left me with a lower Con, which means those d8 HD really don't last all that long. Also, Wis bonus to AC for sure doesn't make up for no armor.
This playtest left me with several thoughts regarding the monk:
In short, I'm having fun playing a monk, but I fully expect him to be dead the first time he fights anyone over 1st level. Also, if I level up, there's no way I'll stick with monk, because that gives me nothing but the ability to jump around like a grasshopper... oh, and I won't get sick when I drink the water. Yay. I'm far better off sticking with fighter (for combat) or rogue (for skills) from now on, and relegating monk to the trash bin where it sadly belongs.
Didn't you two get my message, "Level up to 6th". You earned it. I also just sent an email. Let me know something.
Against three 1st level warrior guards (CR 1/2), I was very nearly killed. Tripping, even with a +12 bonus, fails a lot more often than you'd think, because the DC is set so high (16-Str mooks are DC 19; level-appropriate monsters are always untrippable).
Am I reading you correctly?
Are you saying that rolling a 7+ on a trip attempt is too high? (And from what I gather, you would have needed a 11+ if the opponents were "level appropriate." Is that fair?)
Note: I am not suggesting you are wrong. I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.
|
Against three 1st level warrior guards (CR 1/2), I was very nearly killed. Tripping, even with a +12 bonus, fails a lot more often than you'd think, because the DC is set so high (16-Str mooks are DC 19; level-appropriate monsters are always untrippable).Am I reading you correctly?
Are you saying that rolling a 7+ on a trip attempt is too high? (And from what I gather, you would have needed a 11+ if the opponents were "level appropriate." Is that fair?)
Note: I am not suggesting you are wrong. I just want to make sure I am understanding correctly.
His crappy rolls notwithstanding, he is a 5th level character who couldn't take out a bunch of 1st level scrubs. I watched the whole thing. It was sad.
Actually, the rogue in our group was the one who saved our a**es the most on Sunday...
His crappy rolls notwithstanding, he is a 5th level character who couldn't take out a bunch of 1st level scrubs. I watched the whole thing. It was sad.
Derek hit it on its head. If I'd not gone totally overboard making a trip-monster, and if the wizard had just kept color sraying the bad guys instead of taking pity and enlarging me, I'd have contributed nothing. As it is, if the DM applied my TWF and flurry penalties to tripping, I'd need an 11+ (13+ when not enlarged) against 1st level grunts. 5th level guys, I'd need a 15+ (17+ when not enlarged). Against an ogre, I'd need a 19+ (20 when not enlarged). When a 5th level monk would be very easily killed by a CR 3 ogre 19 times out of 20, there's something wrong.
Now say we get in a fight with a BBEG, maybe he's a 7th level fighter, with a Str 18. Say I don't flurry or do TWF, I just run up and try to trip him -- my only contribution to the fight, because I can't hit an armored oppenent with normal attacks. That guy is DC 26. I'm BAB +4, +1 for manuever training, +3 for Str, and +2 for improved trip = +10. I need a 16 or better to trip him, and get only one try per round. Meanwhile, he can make a single full attack that kills me. I use a ki point for an extra free attempt, and have a 44% chance (1-0.75*0.75) of contributing to the fight when I use all my capabilities, other than simply soaking up 2 attacks (which a commoner could do just as well).
Monks just are not viable combatants.
Would the ability to more freely expend your ki points be of use Kirth? That houserule helped mine ALOT without doing anything detracting from the game.
My feeling is that if ki can get spent that freely, it's best worked into the base mechanics (i.e., flurry of blows would give 2 extra attacks, etc.). That might work, especially if combat maneuvers get a lot easier.
But what I'd REALLY like is a monk that fits either of these ideas:
Jason has already said this won't happen.
Jason has already said this won't happen, either.
So, your suggestion, coupled with easier CMBs, is about the best we can hope for, as far as the monk goes.
There were really good fixes along those lines floating around, that ALSO never made it into the rules. Epic Meepo suggested allowing their successful maneuvers to also deal unarmed damage; and he recommended a revised flurry that would basically add a swift unarmed attack to your round... so a fast monk could move 60 ft., attack once with a kama, and also throw in an unarmed strike (or two unarmed strikes, by spending ki).
P.S. DM Silverhair pointed out that my build, crappy as it turned out to be, was actually illegal by the RAW, because Greater Trip has a BAB +6 prerequisite. So the monk is even WORSE than he seemed in playtesting. If that can be imagined.
5th level monk < 3 1st-level fighters. Sad.
5th level monk < 3 1st-level fighters. Sad.
To be fair, I would say that "5th level trip-attacker < 3 1st-level fighters". I think there are better things that you could have done with your feats if all you wanted to do was squish peons (e.g. Improved Natural Attack would give you an unarmed strike that does 2d6 damage, 3d6 damage when enlarged).
I'm planning on taking the Improved Grapple feats with my monk/sorcerer, but I'm pessimistic that he'll be able to grapple anything tougher than old ladies and children. Pathfinder combat maneuvers blow.
|
|
5th level monk < 3 1st-level fighters. Sad.To be fair, I would say that "5th level trip-attacker < 3 1st-level fighters". I think there are better things that you could have done with your feats if all you wanted to do was squish peons (e.g. Improved Natural Attack would give you an unarmed strike that does 2d6 damage, 3d6 damage when enlarged).
I'm planning on taking the Improved Grapple feats with my monk/sorcerer, but I'm pessimistic that he'll be able to grapple anything tougher than old ladies and children. Pathfinder combat maneuvers blow.
He needs to do something, the rogue is tired of carrying his weight...
j/k ;)
|
|
P.S. DM Silverhair pointed out that my build, crappy as it turned out to be, was actually illegal by the RAW, because Greater Trip has a BAB +6 prerequisite. So the monk is even WORSE than he seemed in playtesting. If that can be imagined.
5th level monk < 3 1st-level fighters. Sad.
Hogarth's idea isn't bad at all, especially since you have to drop one feat anyway. Jerry will just LOVE you doing 3d6+ when Sean enlarges you ;)
Hogarth, Derek,
I thought of that, but remember, with my low BAB, I can't actually hit an armored guy with regular attacks... no matter how much damage they cause. Tripping is hard, but try hitting an AC 18 (banded mail + shield) guard with your +5 total attack bonus (down to +3 when flurrying with TWF). Remember, every time I tripped a guy, I'd AoO him on the way down and on the way back up, and usually miss both times. If I wanted to be a better combatant, I should have been a barbarian with a greatsword and power attack. Or a rogue, for more skills, better AC and crits, and a sneak attack. Or a fighter. Or a bard, because then at least I'd have spells and buddy-support capabilities. Or a druid, because a pet is a better combatant than a monk.
Come to think of it, if I had taken the warrior NPC class, I'd still be a much better combatant in all respects. Play a monk only if your game requires you to win the 100-yard dash (oh, wait, a wizard with expeditious retreat can do that). Better yet, don't play a monk. Because they can't do anything that almost every other class can't already do better.
|
|
Hogarth, Derek,
I thought of that, but remember, with my low BAB, I can't actually hit an armored guy with regular attacks... no matter how much damage they cause. Tripping is hard, but try hitting an AC 18 (banded mail + shield) guard with your +5 total attack bonus (down to +3 when flurrying with TWF). Remember, every time I tripped a guy, I'd AoO him on the way down and on the way back up, and usually miss both times. If I wanted to be a better combatant, I should have been a barbarian with a greatsword and power attack. Or a rogue, for more skills, better AC and crits, and a sneak attack. Or a fighter. Or a bard, because then at least I'd have spells and buddy-support capabilities. Or a druid, because a pet is a better combatant than a monk.
Come to think of it, if I had taken the warrior NPC class, I'd still be a much better combatant in all respects. Play a monk only if your game requires you to win the 100-yard dash (oh, wait, a wizard with expeditious retreat can do that). Better yet, don't play a monk. Because they can't do anything that almost every other class can't already do better.
I actually don't mind monks sucking so much. Not a big fan of Shaolin types running around in my Midaeval fantasy...
Hogarth, Derek,
I thought of that, but remember, with my low BAB, I can't actually hit an armored guy with regular attacks... no matter how much damage they cause. Tripping is hard, but try hitting an AC 18 (banded mail + shield) guard with your +5 total attack bonus (down to +3 when flurrying with TWF).
Well, I'd suggest getting rid of TWF, for starters. But I agree that monks have a hard time hitting even without the TWF penalty. My sorcerer/monk is relying on:
-action points
-using Combat Reflexes + reach weapon to get some extra attacks
-using sorcerer bloodline claws instead of flurry of blows (for the moment)
Probably none of those things helps you.
If I wanted to be a better combatant, I should have been a barbarian with a greatsword and power attack. Or a rogue, for more skills, better AC and crits, and a sneak attack. Or a fighter. Or a bard, because then at least I'd have spells and buddy-support capabilities. Or a druid, because a pet is a better combatant than a monk.
Come to think of it, if I had taken the warrior NPC class, I'd still be a much better combatant in all respects. Play a monk only if your game requires you to win the 100-yard dash (oh, wait, a wizard with expeditious retreat can do that). Better yet, don't play a monk. Because they can't do anything that almost every other class can't already do better.
Yeah, that's pretty accurate.
I am mostly sure you did not mean it to come out as I took it, but I am not trying to be a RAW DM. I just believe if we are going to playtest the Beta, then let's do it as we are supposed to. Does that make me a RAW DM? How can we judge what is olay and what is smafuggled if we don't try things out.
Just my 2 cp.
|
|
I am mostly sure you did not mean it to come out as I took it, but I am not trying to be a RAW DM. I just believe if we are going to playtest the Beta, then let's do it as we are supposed to. Does that make me a RAW DM? How can we judge what is olay and what is smafuggled if we don't try things out.
Just my 2 cp.
Jerry, he didn't even come close to meaning it the way you took it. He just meant it as "Wow, monks suck even more than I thought". ;)
It is a little bit nerve racking trying to DM a couple of "Grognards". It just adds to an already unsure situation. I will try to not so nitpicky.
With that said it is intereting to see what the Monk can and cannot accomplish. A comment has been made on these boards that Paizo did a good thing in opening the playtest and a frustrating thing both. I believe HD made a comment about all of the various ideas that have been expressed here being a varied and wonderful experience. I am grateful to have been part of this experience.
I am mostly sure you did not mean it to come out as I took it, but I am not trying to be a RAW DM.
Understood, and I apologize for the misconception (Derek pegged it exactly). Absolutely nothing critical of your DMing was intended -- in fact, I've got to say you're doing a really fantastic job so far -- this is about the most fun I've ever had with a straight-out-of-the-box prewritten module.
I will admit to being a bit overwhelmed by the changes that Paizo has created in the game. It is a job for me to try to keep ahead of you two. You definitely keep me on my toes. Thank you for the compliment. Let's see if it lasts through this coming Sunday. It has the potential of being a case of "The fit hit the Shan".
OK, my monk found his niche today. What I did is to use acrobatics to move into position so as to provide flanking for the rogue. Then the rogue went to town with sneak attacks until the enemy died, while I flailed around uselessly, and occasionally -- through sheer luck -- tripped someone, so that the rogue could kill them when they got up. Now, this role could be more competently perfomed by another rogue, because then I'd have a higher Dex, more skill points, and I could sneak attack, too.
So if you want a mobile combatant, play a barbarian. If you want a flanker, play a rogue. And if you want a support character, play a bard.
How did you rebuild your monk? Did you get rid of TWF (which I think is pretty terrible for a monk)?
How did you rebuild your monk? Did you get rid of TWF (which I think is pretty terrible for a monk)?
Didn't rebuild, just stopped trying to be an effective combatant. Instead, I used the high movement speed coupled with Acrobatics to get into flanking position for the rogue. That's it. I'm a glorified cohort. I do exactly what any decent summoned monster I can do, except I can do it all day! If the bad guy turns around and attacks me, I run away... but that's usually not a problem, because, as Derek points out, rogues are super-killers at 5th-7th level.
And I successfully tripped the evil baron! (I rolled a 19!) I was all set to take my AoO when he stood up, but instead he took a 5-ft. crawl and then stood up, so I didn't even get that. D'oh!
How did you rebuild your monk? Did you get rid of TWF (which I think is pretty terrible for a monk)?Didn't rebuild, just stopped trying to be an effective combatant.
I thought you had to get rid of Greater Trip.
And I successfully tripped the evil baron! (I rolled a 19!) I was all set to take my AoO when he stood up, but instead he took a 5-ft. crawl and then stood up, so I didn't even get that. D'oh!
Crawling provokes attacks of opportunity. See page 138-9 of the PFRPG Beta.
I thought you had to get rid of Greater Trip.
Ah! Right you are. I swapped it for Toughness, so I wouldn't die quite so easily. For my 7th level feat, I took Improved Initiative, to get a head start on getting into position.
Crawling provokes attacks of opportunity. See page 138-9 of the PFRPG Beta.
I hadn't realized that. Water under the bridge. Not that it matters; I couldn't have hit him anyway.
As it is, if the DM applied my TWF and flurry penalties to tripping, I'd need an 11+ (13+ when not enlarged) against 1st level grunts. 5th level guys, I'd need a 15+ (17+ when not enlarged). Against an ogre, I'd need a 19+ (20 when not enlarged). When a 5th level monk would be very easily killed by a CR 3 ogre 19 times out of 20, there's something wrong.
I'm BAB +4, +1 for manuever training, +3 for Str, and +2 for improved trip = +10.
One positive thing to remember on this is when you leveled up, assuming you took Monk5, your flurry penalty decreased. While that doesn't affect your attacks so much (makes up for the lack of BAB at that level), your Maneuver bonus went up with the level. So you'd be up to:
BAB +4, +2 for maneuver training, +3 for Str, & +2 for improved trip = +11, +10 when flurrying (vs. +8 before).
This happens again at 9th level when then penalty goes away.
All that to say you will improve at a rate better than your level.
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
One positive thing to remember on this is when you leveled up, assuming you took Monk5, your flurry penalty decreased.
By taking a level of fighter instead, I increased BAB (better than a mere flurry penalty mitigation) and my Fort save, gained a bonus feat, more hp, and gave up nothing but a bonus for jumping. In fact, I will take fighter levels from now on (or maybe rogue levels, if my skills start to suffer too much). There is nothing in the rest of the monk's class progression that would ever make me want to sink more perfectly good levels into monk... Immune to disease? Cleric could remove disease a few levels ago, and better Fort save helps, too. Speak with plants? Yay. I'd rather have a decent attack progression. Better slow fall? A ring of feather falling is cheap, and better than any slow fall ability. In fact, as near as I can tell, monk is a 4-level class, and that only because I was curious to see how bad it really was.
In fact, as near as I can tell, monk is a 4-level class, and that only because I was curious to see how bad it really was.
Sadly, I've come to roughly the same decision with my monk. My first thought was to try Sorcerer 1/Monk 19. Then I realized that the last 7 levels of monk were pretty pointless (except for Ethereal Jaunt), so I thought I'd go for Sorcerer 1/Monk 12/Whatever 7. But then I realized that Dragon Disciple gives me basically everything that 8 levels of Monk does (except for some ki points and one extra unarmed attack at level 11). So now I'm thinking about Sorcerer 1/Monk 4/Dragon Disciple 7/Ranger 1/Eldritch Knight 7.
So in my mind I've gone from 95% monk to 20% monk. Sigh...
One positive thing to remember on this is when you leveled up, assuming you took Monk5, your flurry penalty decreased.By taking a level of fighter instead, I increased BAB (better than a mere flurry penalty mitigation) and my Fort save, gained a bonus feat, more hp, and gave up nothing but a bonus for jumping.
Actually that's just what I was pointing out - the flurry penalty drop is, most of the time, better than the BAB. This is because your CMB increases regardless of your BAB. So your CMB increases, plus the penalty drops. Or since you weren't applying the penalty, your CMB increases the same, and your flurry attacks increase the same (+1 BAB vs. 1 less penalty).
As for saves and bonus feat, two levels of fighter and two levels of monk are about the same for you at this point (+1 to all saves, 1 bonus feat).
Hit-points you're right, unless your favored class is monk, then they're the same. More skill points for monk. Though favored class fighter with + skill point vs. favored class monk with + hit point is about the same :)
Actually that's just what I was pointing out - the flurry penalty drop is, most of the time, better than the BAB. This is because your CMB increases regardless of your BAB. So your CMB increases, plus the penalty drops. Or since you weren't applying the penalty, your CMB increases the same, and your flurry attacks increase the same (+1 BAB vs. 1 less penalty).
I wasn't sure at first, but now I see what you're saying. In the special case where you're doing a flurry of maneuvers (trips, disarms, sunders), then you're better off with a monk level that reduces the flurry penalty instead of a full BAB level. I wouldn't necessarily call that "most of the time", though; for instance, you're worse off whenever you make a single attack.
I wouldn't necessarily call that "most of the time", though; for instance, you're worse off whenever you make a single attack.
I made a lot of single attacks yesterday, because as the designated "flank-guy," I was moving around a lot.
|
|
I wouldn't necessarily call that "most of the time", though; for instance, you're worse off whenever you make a single attack.I made a lot of single attacks yesterday, because as the designated "flank-guy," I was moving around a lot.
I still can't believe you almost left me alone against that golem. :P
I still can't believe you almost left me alone against that golem. :P
Sean could have just as easily summoned a fiendish gerbil into that square, and then I could have pranced off and picked flowers for all I would have influenced the combat after that.
|
|
I still can't believe you almost left me alone against that golem. :PSean could have just as easily summoned a fiendish gerbil into that square, and then I could have pranced off and picked flowers for all I would have influenced the combat after that.
Well, the fiendish gerbil MIGHT have been more helpful, come to think of it.
Maybe monks should get "craft: Belgian Ale" as a free class feature, so they aren't so worthless?
Maybe monks should get "craft: Belgian Ale" as a free class feature, so they aren't so worthless?
Holy Brewer (Ex): Monks gain a bonus equal to half their class level on Craft (brewing) checks pertaining to abbey ales, and to craft (distilling) checks involving Chartreuse liquouer.
Don't forget the creation of "Holy Mead". There must be "Holy Mead" at all conclusions of modules. It's in the Rules-As-Written.
See Jason, Monks suck...Fix them please. heh.
I always seem to save the day, guys! Start pulling your weight!!!
A wonderful new voice is heard from. Welcome!
Maybe monks should get "craft: Belgian Ale" as a free class feature, so they aren't so worthless?Holy Brewer (Ex): Monks gain a bonus equal to half their class level on Craft (brewing) checks pertaining to abbey ales, and to craft (distilling) checks involving Chartreuse liquouer.
It's *Profession* (Brewer) - don't deny yourself that high Wisdom modifier!
It's *Profession* (Brewer) - don't deny yourself that high Wisdom modifier!
No way, man. My abbey ales are craft-brewed, not spewed out by factories that just happen to have monks working in them.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Soooo...back to the topic at hand, do you have any proposed fixes that you're going to playtest next time to see if you're a more effective tripper? While I see the value in mentioning what didn't work, I think the impromptu solutions players/GMs come up with at the table are an equally valuable part of playtesting. What needs to happen to your PC to make it work?
|
|
Soooo...back to the topic at hand, do you have any proposed fixes that you're going to playtest next time to see if you're a more effective tripper? While I see the value in mentioning what didn't work, I think the impromptu solutions players/GMs come up with at the table are an equally valuable part of playtesting. What needs to happen to your PC to make it work?
He needs to build him as a spiked chain wielding fighter?
*ducks*
