So I've been re-reading the beta rules, and I really don't feel like monk's been improved much at all. Is this a common opinion? Are there plans for a change?
If not, I need to know why not, because it seems that all the other base classes have grown immensely in power, particularly classes like paladin or ranger which were already a full tier above monk. I like those changes, and in general, I feel very good about the life of a melee specialist in 3.5. But why is monk still so weak? Even the stances, though they help, just don't feel like they help enough.
The Good:
Scaling stunning fist!
Save-or-Sucks like scorpion style!
Increased number of attacks from flurry by spending ki.
The Bad:
Standstill is still more attractive than scorpion style.
Bab is still painful.
MAD seems worse, not better.
Must spend ki to overcome DR?
Relatively fragile
Mobility class that demands a full-attack to function.
Opinions and known changes in final would help me put this in better perspective, but right now, it remains the single most worrisome aspect of Pathfinder for me.
So I've been re-reading the beta rules, and I really don't feel like monk's been improved much at all. Is this a common opinion? Are there plans for a change?
If not, I need to know why not, because it seems that all the other base classes have grown immensely in power, particularly classes like paladin or ranger which were already a full tier above monk. I like those changes, and in general, I feel very good about the life of a melee specialist in 3.5. But why is monk still so weak? Even the stances, though they help, just don't feel like they help enough.
The Good:
Scaling stunning fist!
Save-or-Sucks like scorpion style!
Increased number of attacks from flurry by spending ki.The Bad:
Standstill is still more attractive than scorpion style.
Bab is still painful.
MAD seems worse, not better.
Must spend ki to overcome DR?
Relatively fragile
Mobility class that demands a full-attack to function.Opinions and known changes in final would help me put this in better perspective, but right now, it remains the single most worrisome aspect of Pathfinder for me.
I am contemplating a monk build that would allow me to control the battle space and either provide good cover to allied casters or wreak havoc on enemy archers and casters.
Human with a bonus to Strength.
Human Feat: Martial Weapon Proficiency - Longspear if in Eberron, Guisarme if you want to trip or Ranseur if you want to disarm.
Level 1 Monk Feat: Combat Reflexes
Level 1 Class Feat: Shall Not Pass
Level 9 Class Feat: Lunge
A monk’s attacks may be
with either fist or with elbows, knees, and feet. This means
that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.
With a reach weapon the Monk can threaten 10' and 5' as they can still kick when their hands are full; i.e. wielding a weapon. At level 9 Lunge pumps that up to 15', 10' and 5' meaning the monk effectively threatens a 35' diameter circle. Using Shall Not Pass the Monk can prevent any non-tumbler from moving through their threatened area. Follow that up with the Scorpion Style tree and the Monk can also hinder the movement of tumblers.
Fill out the rest of the feats as you see fit. Since the game I am thinking of will be set in Eberron I will have access to a feat that lets me Flurry with a Longspear so I would focus on that feat chain. In other settings you could focus on CMB - Disarming wands, spell component pouches and Holy Symbols from casters would be a nice way to disturb your opponents' back lines.
Note: To anyone who thinks this is a long and contrived way to get to what a spiked chain can do; all I can say is I am lactose intolerant and just can't handle that much cheese in my diet.
How is that better than a fighter with lunge, a spiked chain or the much under-loved Duom, and standstill? :: curious, not aggressive ::
I would find this in some respects a little more cheesy or strange than a spiked chain, but I certainly understand and empathize with your perspective.
I really don't want to accidentally let this devolve into an argument, so just take it all with some salt as I'm still missing information\bits of the changes to the system.
How is that better than a fighter with lunge, a spiked chain or the much under-loved Duom, and standstill? :: curious, not aggressive ::
I would find this in some respects a little more cheesy or strange than a spiked chain, but I certainly understand and empathize with your perspective.I really don't want to accidentally let this devolve into an argument, so just take it all with some salt as I'm still missing information\bits of the changes to the system.
The fighter can't used unarmed strikes, which are required for the Scorpion Style Tree, while wielding the chain, meaning they can't hinder enemies that don't provoke attacks of opportunity; a Monk can. Standstill isn't core while theoretically this build is - we won't know for sure if Shall Not Pass and Lunge made the final cut until August. The Monk gets a lot of abilities and bonuses - movement and saving throws - that a Fighter doesn't.
There is an old joke that the spiked-chain was put in the game to test DMs to see if they had the guts to ban something from the core rules. It is broken, unbalanced, illogical and doesn't fit with the rest of the weapons in the game. The Monk, however, is practically built to use a reach weapon as only the Monk can use a normal reach weapon in two hands and still threaten squares that fall inside of that reach.
There was some mention at the banquet about putting monk Flurry on the good BAB progression.
That sounded strange to think that if they take their time like everyone else, then they are stuck with the slower monk BAB, but if they go all fast and flurrious they not only strike more often but they also strike more accurately.
So maybe I misunderstood the post, or the poster misunderstood the announcement - but I guess that means at least there was something said about monk BAB.
There was some mention at the banquet about putting monk Flurry on the good BAB progression.
So maybe I misunderstood the post, or the poster misunderstood the announcement - but I guess that means at least there was something said about monk BAB.
What was said was very simply and abruptly, "Monks get full fighter attack bonus when flurrying." What exactly that means, I don't know.
My best guess is that the flurry penalty no longer drops at 5 and 9, but the monk gets full BAB when flurrying. This would put them 1 ahead through level 12, then 2 through 16, then 3 ahead through level 20. This would be the equivalent of a fighter dual-wielding essentially (with more attacks).
The Good:
I don't understand "scaling stunning fist", unless you're just re-iterating what they already had (which is awesome of course).
You missed "lots more feats!", admittedly at 10th+ levels - but "no high level abilities (BS)" was a common complaint. Plus Maneuver Training of course.
The Bad:
Monks *do not* have to spend Ki to bypass DR - they simply have to *have* Ki.
I don't see how they are more dependent on multiple ability scores than before, unless you mean for builds that ignored Wisdom before. I still consider this a strength, at least in the long run, as they *benefit* from multiple ability scores so much.
Fragility depends on the rest, but is possible yes.
Everything else I agree with.
We have heard that Paladin and Monk got the most changes, so prepare to be amazed when it gets previewed I imagine.
Argothe - nice build! I hadn't even thought of a "Lunge"ing monk.
You do have one problem (currently at least) - Shall Not Pass only works on opponents adjacent to you (w/in 5 feet). That got a lot of Flak during the playtest, so may have changed, but as it is you'll get all your AOO's, but can't stop the movement unless they're next to you.
Overall I found the Beta monk to be a perfect example of backwards compatibility with improved options. However, it's the *very* low level monks that have always had the most trouble, and they are mostly the same, from my experience.
Technically, actually, standstill was core as it was in the OGL\SRD. It may no longer be core, but that would mean that psionics are also no longer core, which would be an absolutely terrible loss of one of the few well-balanced components of 3.5. :: worries ::
Technically, actually, standstill was core as it was in the OGL\SRD. It may no longer be core, but that would mean that psionics are also no longer core, which would be an absolutely terrible loss of one of the few well-balanced components of 3.5. :: worries ::
Ahh, a fellow psionics lover.
You have made a friend for life!Also, monks rule! I don't know, I see their main problem is lack of BAB. I played a monk into epic levels and he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn compared to the orc barbar tank. When I created my own game world I had 3 monastic orders, one dedicated to the divine, one arcane, and one psionic. I believe that, dispite the feeling in 3.5 that monk was something you never wanted to multiclass with, the monk/caster prestige classes were usually the best way to go or at least the most fun.
I wish this idea was written into the core of the class but alas that would mean psionics as core which I fear even Paizo hasn't the testicular fortitude to follow through with.
I am a huge fan of the monk 2/psychic warrior N build, using the Tashalatora feat. Hits like three trucks tied together by loose twine.
I am a huge fan of the monk 2/psychic warrior N build, using the Tashalatora feat. Hits like three trucks tied together by loose twine.
Tashalatora? Please educate me.
I created a custom prestige class (that I unfortunately do not have on the computer with which I make this post or I would put it in spoiler) that merged what I thought where the overlapping points of monk and psywar and the cooler powers. Speed of Thought + Mental Leap + Up the Walls make for a very interesting monk. A monk with Psionic Lion's Charge can be pretty deadly as well. I called it Jade Fist as to work in my setting but it wasn't world specific. That monastic order was founded by Githzerai :O.
To your second question "Are there plans for change?" (from Beta to Final),
pretty much every post from Jason has clearly commented on that (Yes).
The time to analyze and discuss the Beta rules is long past, IMHO. It will all become clear soon enough :-)
If you look at the feedback for the Monk during the playtest, nearly all of it was along the lines of "this is nice, but not enough", so I would assume the Monk has in fact been upgraded beyond Beta, though how exactly (beyond Full BAB apparently applying to Flurries) I can't say until August (or at least the Monk Preview).
To your build: Shall Not Pass is clearly PRPG's implementation of Standstill (as per Beta), so using the 3.5 Standstill with PRPG seems to me like bypassing the spirit of Pathfinder. ...Certainly it's not a good basis upon which to assess the PRPG (Beta) ruleset.
But given the Monk's Maneuver Training, the Trip Feat Chain is certainly another viable way to achieve the same thing: ending opponent's Move Action (on the ground in this case). (SNP's main advantage as per Beta would seem to be no Weapon (/Unarmed) dependency, and applying to creatures immune to Trip)
Just because something is in the SRD does not make it core.
That just makes it OGL. I.e, Unearthed Arcana is clearly not "Core".
Psionics wasn't dealt with in either the PHB or DMG, which is what the PRPG Core Rule Book is intending to supplant.
From the sound of things, Psionics will be developed as part of an "Eastern" Campaign Setting expansion, and/or along with another planet in Golarion's "solar system". I think you will be fine using the 3.5 class (with obvious updates like HD upgrades/BAB correlation, skill consolidations, favored class bonus if you choose) until an official PRPG version is released. The other classes' power will probably be slightly more vis a vis Psionic classes compared to 3.5, but since you're obviously into optimization, that should just be a better challenge :-)
Argothe - nice build! I hadn't even thought of a "Lunge"ing monk.
You do have one problem (currently at least) - Shall Not Pass only works on opponents adjacent to you (w/in 5 feet). That got a lot of Flak during the playtest, so may have changed, but as it is you'll get all your AOO's, but can't stop the movement unless they're next to you.
Good catch Majuba. I missed that the feat only applied to adjacent squares as opposed to threatened squares. Hopefully this was changed in the final.
The Beta monk is an improvement over the 3.5 version, but there's still some work to be done.
Well, I considered it two steps forward (ki points, expanded list of monk bonus feats) and two steps back (grappling and tripping are much worse for monks).
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
The Beta monk is an improvement over the 3.5 version, but there's still some work to be done.Well, I considered it two steps forward (ki points, expanded list of monk bonus feats) and two steps back (grappling and tripping are much worse for monks).
I'm hoping that will be something that has changed to give monks fast and flurious maneuvers with full BAB plus feats.
The Beta monk is an improvement over the 3.5 version, but there's still some work to be done.Well, I considered it two steps forward (ki points, expanded list of monk bonus feats) and two steps back (grappling and tripping are much worse for monks).
How are grappling and tripping worse for Monks? Do you mean worse for the whole system or Monks specifically?
How are grappling and tripping worse for Monks? Do you mean worse for the whole system or Monks specifically?
(1) The 3.5 Improved Grapple and Improved Trip have each been split into feat chains in Pathfinder: Improved Trip, Greater Trip, etc. So a character needs double the feat outlay (which fighters can handle, but monks less so), and still gets only +2 to checks vs. +4 in 3.5.
(2) In the Beta, DC 15+CMB meant that my 6th level playtest monk was unable to trip 1st level warriors except on a lucky throw of the dice. Thankfully, that has changed in the final, with the introduction of CMD.
How are grappling and tripping worse for Monks? Do you mean worse for the whole system or Monks specifically?
Worse in general, but monks were major users of those two actions, in my experience. Also, monks used to be able to use grapple attempts or trip attempts with a flurry of blows, but combat maneuvers were changed to standard actions in the Pathfinder Beta.
If you want to get an idea of how bad a monk is, start with a bard -- which many believe to be a lame-duck class to begin with. Turn the bardic music and knowledge abilities into frills like jumping really high, and running really fast. Strip the entire spells list down to swift haste, swift shield, feather fall, and align weapon, and eliminate all other spells, and all higher-level spells.
Voila: you have a monk.
If that doesn't stop and make you think that maybe the entire class needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up, I don't know what else to say.
The monk needs some basic role it's trying to fill: every other class has a niche, but the monk is just a hodgepodge of random class features that someone thought "sounded cool."
(a) If a monk is supposed to be a Shaolin-style fighter, he needs full BAB and some flashy maneuvers.
(b) If he's supposed to be some spiritual self-perfectionist, then his defensive abilities should be a lot more useful, kick in a lot earlier in some cases (immunity to disease at a level when remove disease spells are a dime a dozen isn't really a feature worth writing home about), and scale a lot better (+ Wis to AC, +1/5 levels could maybe just be replaced with +1/level, to cut down on "dipping" and also keep the class playable at higher levels, for example).
(c) If he's supposed to be a mobile mage-killer, he needs things like air walk, true seeing, and dispelling/dimension locking strikes.
How are grappling and tripping worse for Monks? Do you mean worse for the whole system or Monks specifically?(1) The 3.5 Improved Grapple and Improved Trip have each been split into feat chains in Pathfinder: Improved Trip, Greater Trip, etc. So a character needs double the feat outlay (which fighters can handle, but monks less so), and still gets only +2 to checks vs. +4 in 3.5.
(2) In the Beta, DC 15+CMB meant that my 6th level playtest monk was unable to trip 1st level warriors except on a lucky throw of the dice. Thankfully, that has changed in the final, with the introduction of CMD.
1) As there is no opposed roll, bonuses are worth more. However, Greater Trip gives an additional +2, in addition to letting every ally in melee range attack your target.
2) B.S. - 14 Str warrior - DC 18. 6th level Monk = 6 + ~3dex/str + 2 feat (+2 weapon) = 11/13, needing a 5 or 7 to trip. Make them 6th level warriors with a 16 str - you need an 11. You certainly have a range you can roll and fail on an unlucky roll, but that's not the same thing, and was intentional. Auto-trip is silly.
|
|
Tashalatora? Please educate me.
It is a feat from Secrets of Sarlona which allows you to multiclass out of monk but allows certain monk abilities (I forget which precisely, but stuff like flurry) to scale by character level rather than class level. So you take a level or two of monk and then level something else, but you get most of the monk class abilities too. I built an NPC with this and it was quite fun.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
How are grappling and tripping worse for Monks? Do you mean worse for the whole system or Monks specifically?(1) The 3.5 Improved Grapple and Improved Trip have each been split into feat chains in Pathfinder: Improved Trip, Greater Trip, etc. So a character needs double the feat outlay (which fighters can handle, but monks less so), and still gets only +2 to checks vs. +4 in 3.5.
I would call this partly true and partly not, because the size adjustments for grapple have been radically reduced, which make these tactics far more viable against creatures larger than Medium. If your campaign is mostly people-centric in terms of enemies, it would be a ding, but monks have far better chances to trip/grapple/etc. vs. the vast array of bigger foes than they did before.
(2) In the Beta, DC 15+CMB meant that my 6th level playtest monk was unable to trip 1st level warriors except on a lucky throw of the dice. Thankfully, that has changed in the final, with the introduction of CMD.
Also true.
I would call this partly true and partly not, because the size adjustments for grapple have been radically reduced, which make these tactics far more viable against creatures larger than Medium. If your campaign is mostly people-centric in terms of enemies, it would be a ding, but monks have far better chances to trip/grapple/etc. vs. the vast array of bigger foes than they did before.
My experience with 3.5 monks was that I'd have Improved Grapple and Enlarge Person (from drinking a potion, say) -- that was a +9 bonus right there (+4 feat, +4 size, +1 Str), more than enough to make my monk King Poo of Snuggle Mountain even considering a -2 penalty for a flurry of blows. Now it's a +4 bonus, and your opponent gets to add a bunch of bonuses to his defense (Dex bonus, deflection bonus, luck bonus, etc.), and you can only make one grapple check. And that's setting aside the fact that monster BAB+Str generally scales up faster than monk BAB+Str, in my experience.
Boo.
2) B.S. - 14 Str warrior - DC 18. 6th level Monk = 6 + ~3dex/str + 2 feat (+2 weapon) = 11/13, needing a 5 or 7 to trip. Make them 6th level warriors with a 16 str - you need an 11. You certainly have a range you can roll and fail on an unlucky roll, but that's not the same thing, and was intentional. Auto-trip is silly.
Monk = 6 + 3 (Str) +2 (feat) -2 (flurry or TWF) = +9.
Mook = 15 + 1 (BAB) + 2 (Str) = DC 18. Needed a 9 or better (60%) against CR 1/2 mooks that were 5 levels lower than me. To straight-out attack them (AC 17 for chainmail and large shield), I needed a 12 or better (45% chance of success), so I was better off tripping.Against a 6th level warrior (CR 4) with 16 Str (DC 24), I'd've needed a 15 or better (30%) to trip.
Auto-trip IS silly, but to my mind, even odds (50%) against level-appropriate enemies -- after burning a feat for the privilege -- would be reasonable.
In any event, it's been fixed now, thankfully.
Against a 6th level warrior (CR 4) with 16 Str (DC 24), I'd've needed a 15 or better (30%) to trip.
Auto-trip IS silly, but to my mind, even odds (50%) against level-appropriate enemies -- after burning a feat for the privilege -- would be reasonable.
In any event, it's been fixed now, thankfully. Agreed, strongly
For the record... 15 or better on a flurry is a 51% chance of success. (Chance of failing both = .7*.7). So...
I do like the CMD calculation better. For "mooks" it'll be a bit easier, which is fine. For strong and dextrous boss-ish people it'll be harder, which is also fine.
Against a 6th level warrior (CR 4) with 16 Str (DC 24), I'd've needed a 15 or better (30%) to trip.
Auto-trip IS silly, but to my mind, even odds (50%) against level-appropriate enemies -- after burning a feat for the privilege -- would be reasonable.
In any event, it's been fixed now, thankfully. Agreed, strongly
For the record... 15 or better on a flurry is a 51% chance of success. (Chance of failing both = .7*.7). So...
I do like the CMD calculation better. For "mooks" it'll be a bit easier, which is fine. For strong and dextrous boss-ish people it'll be harder, which is also fine.
Recheck.
It's .6 x .6 = 64% chance of success.
Actually, since I was trying to hold off 3 mooks from the rest of my party (who had their hands full dealing with the BBEG), it was the stated chance for each of the first two, and a 0% chance for the third.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
I would call this partly true and partly not, because the size adjustments for grapple have been radically reduced, which make these tactics far more viable against creatures larger than Medium. If your campaign is mostly people-centric in terms of enemies, it would be a ding, but monks have far better chances to trip/grapple/etc. vs. the vast array of bigger foes than they did before.My experience with 3.5 monks was that I'd have Improved Grapple and Enlarge Person (from drinking a potion, say) -- that was a +9 bonus right there (+4 feat, +4 size, +1 Str), more than enough to make my monk King Poo of Snuggle Mountain even considering a -2 penalty for a flurry of blows. Now it's a +4 bonus, and your opponent gets to add a bunch of bonuses to his defense (Dex bonus, deflection bonus, luck bonus, etc.), and you can only make one grapple check. And that's setting aside the fact that monster BAB+Str generally scales up faster than monk BAB+Str, in my experience.
Boo.
Oh, I'll agree that it's less good against small foes, based on building yourself up to be a snugglepuss and using size to your advantage, but I think that's a limited-return game. It's not easy to get more than one grade of embiggening, and it's fairly subject to dispels since the easiest way to do it is with potions or (depending on your build) scrolls. I would say the older version is better especially at lower levels, where most enemies are medium or smaller and cheap buffs are at their maximum value.
It depends on the campaign - maybe the ones I've played in and DMed have a larger quantity of bigger foes. I think the new system is better at higher levels, when more foes will be bigger and enemy nerfs and debuffs will come a lot more frequently, enhancing the value of the "self-reliant" monk and their ability to power up in a way that is less vulnerable to enemies turning the tables.
Oh, I'll agree that it's less good against small foes, based on building yourself up to be a snugglepuss and using size to your advantage, but I think that's a limited-return game. It's not easy to get more than one grade of embiggening, and it's fairly subject to dispels since the easiest way to do it is with potions or (depending on your build) scrolls. I would say the older version is better especially at lower levels, where most enemies are medium or smaller and cheap buffs are at their maximum value.It depends on the campaign - maybe the ones I've played in and DMed have a larger quantity of bigger foes. I think the new system is better at higher levels, when more foes will be bigger and enemy nerfs and debuffs will come a lot more frequently, enhancing the value of the "self-reliant" monk and their ability to power up in a way that is less vulnerable to enemies turning the tables.
I have my doubts that grappling is worthwhile at higher levels against large foes as well. Why? Because either (a) those creatures are strong enough that their BAB+Str is outstripping the monk's BAB+Str(+4), or (b) those creatures are weak enough that the monk might as well just try to kill them with a flurry of blows rather than making one or two grapple checks per round. Not to mention that (c) grapple doesn't stop your opponent from making a full attack against you -- the "grappled" condition is not much more debilitating than the "entangled" condition; you'd probably be as well off throwing a tanglefoot bag and then attacking normally, in most cases.
I'll try an experiment with a 9th level monk against some CR 9 creatures and post the results.
The thing is, if we have a class whose main ability is tripping, grappling, etc. -- and if combat maneuvers are dicy at the start and scale to absurdly difficult -- what does that say about a class built on them?
Here's an example monk optimized for grappling:
And here are his opponents:
Ones that he could only affect with a natural 20 (even with a potion of Enlarge Person), I have marked with an exclamation mark (although note that he can't begin a grapple against the centipede or the roc at all, even when enlarged). I have also noted whether the monster has some anti-grapple ability.
He has a 50% or better chance of grappling 5 out of 19 monsters. Not too bad, although he'd probably be better off just punching some of those.
Actually, a 25% viability for a reasonably optimized build is below bad, and down into terrible by my standards. I hope Final is better about this.......
|
Here's an example monk optimized for grappling:
His Weapon Focus (unarmed) applies to his CMB checks when he's using his hands to make them (which would be basically all the time where grappling is concerned), and if he's got an amulet of mighty fists then he'd be getting the bonus from that as well.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Here's an example monk optimized for grappling:
Shouldn't CMB be 9+2+2+6 (the two grapple feats stack) = +19
Also, I'd probably swap WF (unarmed) for Improved Natural Attack (unarmed) to kick dmg from 2d8 to 4d6.
Still, the fundamental point stands - my guess that the monk's grapple tactics would be better at higher levels is mooted by two primary issues with the tough-to-grapple higher-level monsters:
1. They synergize size + str - it isn't just that they are much bigger than the monk, they are also much stronger. True, high-STR/low-DEX creatures like giants and dragons don't benefit from this as much as high-both monsters like devils and demons, but the point stands.
2. Lots of them cheat with special movement and can escape a grapple at will with Su abilities (though Sp abilities are a good deal more difficult to use when grappled now - less auto-concentrate).
Compare our basic 9th level grapple-monkey here against the six Paizo iconics released thus far:
AUTOMATIC SUCCESS: Seoni (CR 10), Kyra (CR 8), Lem (CR 8)
LIKELY (60%): Harsk (CR 11), Seelah (CR 13)
UNLIKELY (30%): Valeros (CR 14)
Admittedly, the iconics are hardly optimized.
And here are his opponents:
Well, there's a bit of a problem with your analysis in that you're comparing a monk solo against a creature intended to challenge a party of FOUR by itself.
Looking at the bonus bestiary for some reasonable solos for the Monk9:
CR6 Annis Hag, CMD 26
CR6 Giant Ant Lion (Lacewing), CMD 29
CR7 Dragonne, CMD 26
CR7 Water Naga, CMD 26
CR8 Lammasu, CMD 27
Better than 50/50 for all of these, though hardly automatic. Even using the CR9 list, adding the extra +2 for Greater Grapple pushes the "50/50 or better" list up by a couple of more creatures (androsphinx, frost giant, 10H hydra, and vrock) - so now 9/19 of the CR9 creatures are more likely than not to get grappled by the monk, and 3 more are at 45% - 12/19 CR9 creatures can be grappled 45% or more of the time.
While all of the other options the monsters have are still issues (yeah, grappling a 10H hydra suddenly seems like not such a great idea, and how to hold onto the teleporters, though again SLAs while grappled are no longer sure things - bone devil 75%, vrock 80%, avoral 60%, assuming the DC to cast while grappled is still 20), suddenly the raw numbers of "can you do it reliably?" seem a lot better.
He has a 50% or better chance of grappling 5 out of 19 monsters. Not too bad, although he'd probably be better off just punching some of those.
Adding in the second +2 for the second grapple feat makes a diff, and I wasn't including the +1 for EP.
Still, is the effect of grappling good enough to make it worth your while? Maybe, maybe not. Again, the tanglefoot bag is almost certainly just too good by comparison to almost everything (shoot, it's as good as enervation in a lot of ways), but if you have a rogue in the party to sneak attack the foe while you grapple it, it can be an excellent tag-team tactic.
Anyway, back to work!
Shouldn't CMB be 9+2+2+6 (the two grapple feats stack) = +19
Here's what my version of Greater Grapple says:
"Greater Grapple (Combat)Maintaining a grapple is second nature to you.
Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action."
Was there a later version that added an extra +2 bonus?
About Weapon Focus -- was it ever clarified what bonuses apply to CMB checks? It really isn't clear at all in the Beta rules. I hope you're right, though!
Well, there's a bit of a problem with your analysis in that you're comparing a monk solo against a creature intended to challenge a party of FOUR by itself.
Who said the monk was solo? Those are just some typical enemies a party of level 9 PCs might encounter.
if you have a rogue in the party to sneak attack the foe while you grapple it, it can be an excellent tag-team tactic.
The Pathfinder Beta version of grapple doesn't help a rogue sneak attack. :-(
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Shouldn't CMB be 9+2+2+6 (the two grapple feats stack) = +19Here's what my version of Greater Grapple says:
"Greater Grapple (Combat)
Maintaining a grapple is second nature to you.
Prerequisites: Improved Grapple, base attack bonus +6.
Benefit: Once you have grappled a creature, maintaining the grapple is a move action. This feat allows you to make two grapple checks each round (to move, harm, or pin your opponent), but you are not required to make two checks. You only need to succeed at one of these checks to maintain the grapple.
Normal: Maintaining a grapple is a standard action."Was there a later version that added an extra +2 bonus?
Seems like I had seen a second feat that stacked on top of Ipv Grapple that gave an additional +2. I don't have a copy of the rules so I can't say for sure, but I thought Greater Grapple was that. We'll have to wait and see for sure.
About Weapon Focus -- was it ever clarified what bonuses apply to CMB checks? It really isn't clear at all in the Beta rules. I hope you're right, though!
That was someone else who said that, and I don't recall seeing that.
Well, there's a bit of a problem with your analysis in that you're comparing a monk solo against a creature intended to challenge a party of FOUR by itself.Who said the monk was solo? Those are just some typical enemies a party of level 9 PCs might encounter.
My inference, my bad.
if you have a rogue in the party to sneak attack the foe while you grapple it, it can be an excellent tag-team tactic.The Pathfinder Beta version of grapple doesn't help a rogue sneak attack. :-(
That would be a bit on the lame side. I have played with the final version rules, but I'm pretty sure there is a fair amount of edition leakage during gameplay of 3.5/Beta/Final, since there's just one set of rules to pass around at the table and no take-homes, so I couldn't give you an exact answer (and probably shouldn't even if I could - it's the other Jason that's handing out the spoilers!).
|
|
Was there a later version that added an extra +2 bonus?Seems like I had seen a second feat that stacked on top of Ipv Grapple that gave an additional +2. I don't have a copy of the rules so I can't say for sure, but I thought Greater Grapple was that. We'll have to wait and see for sure.
It was mentioned in Seelah's writeup in connection with her Greater Sunder. All the Greater feats give an additional +2 as well as their other benefits.
About Weapon Focus -- was it ever clarified what bonuses apply to CMB checks? It really isn't clear at all in the Beta rules. I hope you're right, though!That was someone else who said that, and I don't recall seeing that.
I said it, and it's mentioned in the CMB rules in the Bonus Bestiary. "A combat maneuver is an attack and gains all the benefits (and penalties) a creature might gain on attack rolls from spells, feats, magic items and conditional modifiers."
Actually, a 25% viability for a reasonably optimized build is below bad, and down into terrible by my standards.
I was trying to be charitable. :-)
However, I would be willing to accept the argument that PFRPG grappling is intentionally weak (like 4e's "grab"), but then it's kind of a slap in the face to the monk to say "Hey! You're better than average at something lame! Congratulations!"
I hope Final is better about this.......
Me too!
Maneuvers get some new bonuses now! (paraphrased)
Score!
I'd like to rebuild the monk from the ground up on a paladin-like chassis: full BAB, two good saves with some sort of Wis-based self-perfection bonus (directly analogous to divine grace). Swap paladin immunities for monk immunities. Swap smite evil for flurry & related benefits. Swap armor & weapon proficiencies for unarmed strike & AC progression. Change ki pool to resemble spellcasting mechanic -- in short, monks would be half-casters, but use Wis instead of Cha. At the end of the day you'd have a playable monk with more options than the current one allows.
|
|
Finn's CMB for his grapple checks should more like 9 (monk) + 2 (Imp Grap) + 2 (Greater Grap) + 6 (Str) + 1 (WP: unarmed) + 1 (amulet of mighty fists +1) = +21. Which means...
01: 1 Androsphinx [CR 9], CMD: 30 (rake) 9 or better (60%)
02: 1 Avoral Guardinal [CR 9], CMD: 25 (dimension door at will) 4 or better (85%)
03: 1 Bone Devil [CR 9], CMD: 31 (greater teleport at will) 10 or better (55%)
04: 1 Delver [CR 9], CMD: 32 (possible acid damage) 11 or better (50%)
05: 1 Greater Air Elemental [CR 9], CMD: 42 (!) 20 only (5%)
06: 1 Frost Giant [CR 9], CMD: 29 8 or better (65%)
07: 1 Elder Stone Giant [CR 9], CMD: 31 10 or better (55%)
08: 1 Greater Earth Elemental [CR 9], CMD: 36 15 or better (30%)
09: 1 Hydra, ten-headed [CR 9], CMD: 28 7 or better (70%)
10: 1 Hydra, eight-headed cryo- or pyro- [CR 9], CMD: 25 4 or better (85%)
11: 1 Colossal Monstrous Centipede [CR 9], CMD: 45 (!) 20 only (5%)
12: 1 Spirit Naga [CR 9], CMD: 22 2 or better (95%)
13: 1 Nessian Warhound (hell hound) [CR 9], CMD 33 12 or better (45%)
14: 1 Night Hag [CR 9], CMD: 23 (etherealness) 2 or better (95%)
15: 1 Roc [CR 9], CMD: 41 (!) 20 only (5%)
16: 1 Triceratops (dinosaur) [CR 9], CMD: 33 12 or better (45%)
17: 1 Vrock (demon) [CR 9], CMD: 29 (greater teleport at will) 8 or better (65%)
18: 1 Yrthak [CR 9], CMD: 31 10 or better (55%)
19: 1 Zelekhut (inevitable) [CR 9], CMD: 22 2 or better (95%)
He actually has a 50% or better chance of grappling 13 of the 19 opponents here, and two more that he has a 45% chance of grabbing. It's actually not too bad. (I'm not sure about size issues, however.)
Indeed, those percentages sound better to me (e.g. better than 50% chance of grappling a triceratops after drinking a potion of Enlarge Person). And it gets even better with a few buffs like flanking, bardic music, etc.
Rock, rock on!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Indeed, those percentages sound better to me (e.g. better than 50% chance of grappling a triceratops after drinking a potion of Enlarge Person). And it gets even better with a few buffs like flanking, bardic music, etc.
Rock, rock on!
If this works the way it seems, it is actually a subtle but huge change that makes grappling vastly more likely for a PC. Compared to typical monsters (not including NPC spellcasters), PCs have vastly more access to buffing effects. Any of those buffs that add to attack rolls now add to grapple checks.
In addition, here is where the monk's mobility comes in, because if the monk can circle around to flank, he gets +2 to hit with a regular attack or +2 to a grapple check! For that matter, even on a charge attack (presumably a tumbling charge to avoid AoOs on the approach from those big/reach creatures) that's +2 to hit/grapple.
If we assume Finn has a friendly bard or cleric with aid + prayer in the party and moves for a flank or charge on his grapple check, his bonus goes up to +25 or more.
Ironically, however, enlarge person now has a minimal impat on grappling, aside from enabling you to grab creatures one size bigger than you normally could and do a little more damage. Why?
Because it gives you a +1 bonus for STR and a +1 bonus for size, but a -1 size penalty to your attack roll (and thus grapple check) - a net of only +1 to your grapple check (vs. the +5 it gave you (+1 STR, +4 size) in 3.5).
Check the Bonus Bestiary size table (compared to 3.5): Large +1 (+4), Huge +2 (+8), Gargantuan +4 (+12), Colossal +8 (+16).
Ironically, however, enlarge person now has a minimal impat on grappling, aside from enabling you to grab creatures one size bigger than you normally could and do a little more damage. Why? Because it gives you a +1 bonus for STR and a +1 bonus for size, but a -1 size penalty to your attack roll (and thus grapple check) - a net of only +1 to your grapple check (vs. the +5 it gave you (+1 STR, +4 size) in 3.5).
I disagree that size mods to attack rolls ever should enter into combat maneuver checks, because then they would directly undo the size mods to CMB -- in short, cancel out totally.
In which case, CMB = BAB + Str bonus, not BAB + Str bonus + size mod... and one would think it would simply be presented that way, if that were the intent.I think the size bonuses to CMB are intended to supercede the size modifiers to attack rolls, not simply cancel them out.
Because it gives you a +1 bonus for STR and a +1 bonus for size, but a -1 size penalty to your attack roll (and thus grapple check) - a net of only +1 to your grapple check (vs. the +5 it gave you (+1 STR, +4 size) in 3.5).
There's almost certainly some simple wording to the effect that those Size Modifiers are applied EXclusively to DIFFERENT attack rolls, not 'stacking' on the SAME roll. Unless Jason was hitting the crack pipe on the last editing stretch, I'd say that's practically certain to have been incorporated in this change.
I'm actually hoping the "Racial" modifiers non-Medium sized creatures get (under 3.5) are re-typed to actual Size Bonuses (Enlarge/Reduce thus nudging the Size Tier up/down rather than being a flat bonus to creature's "natural" +0 Size Bonus Modifier). This change also makes the change to Polymorph slightly less nerfed by not shifting advantages that are typed as Size Bonuses if using Enlarge Person into Enhancement Bonuses if using Large Animal/Monster forms.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Ironically, however, enlarge person now has a minimal impat on grappling, aside from enabling you to grab creatures one size bigger than you normally could and do a little more damage. Why? Because it gives you a +1 bonus for STR and a +1 bonus for size, but a -1 size penalty to your attack roll (and thus grapple check) - a net of only +1 to your grapple check (vs. the +5 it gave you (+1 STR, +4 size) in 3.5).I disagree that size mods to attack rolls ever should enter into combat maneuver checks, because then they would directly undo the size mods to CMB -- in short, cancel out totally.
In which case, CMB = BAB + Str bonus, not BAB + Str bonus + size mod... and one would think it would simply be presented that way, if that were the intent.I think the size bonuses to CMB are intended to supercede the size modifiers to attack rolls, not simply cancel them out.
Yeah, yer probably right. It would be kind of silly to add them to grapple checks, since they would in all cases precisely cancel out the 'size bonus to CMB'
Finn's CMB for his grapple checks should more like 9 (monk) + 2 (Imp Grap) + 2 (Greater Grap) + 6 (Str) + 1 (WP: unarmed) + 1 (amulet of mighty fists +1) = +21. Which means...
... that the (draconic) sorcerer 1 needs Str 12 to match the monk 9. True Strike is funny that way.
Most likely an abyssal sorcerer would have a higher strength to begin with. Let's say his starting stats were the same as Finn's monk - just switch Wis with Cha. Sor9 will give him an additional Str +2, resulting in Str 24. With BAB +4 that gives us CMB +11 without any feats. With a single spell that will become +31. Adding all the same buffs would just add insult to injury.
Or taking prestige classes into account, sorcerer 5 / dragon disciple 4 would have Str 26 and BAB +5. That will net a CMB +33 with a single spell.
Of course, this is mostly the fault of a broken spell.
Or taking prestige classes into account, sorcerer 5 / dragon disciple 4 would have Str 26 and BAB +5. That will net a CMB +33 with a single spell.Of course, this is mostly the fault of a broken spell.
I don't really think True Strike is particularly broken in this instance; grappling an opponent for a single round only to have him break out the next round is no big deal.
That said, I wonder how true strike would play, now that Power Attack has been capped by Str, if (a) casting was a move action instead of a standard action, and (b) the insight bonus was +1/caster level instead of a flat +20?
|
|
That said, I wonder how true strike would play, now that Power Attack has been capped by Str, if (a) casting was a move action instead of a standard action, and (b) the insight bonus was +1/caster level instead of a flat +20?
I've been using it like this in my games for a looooong time. Though I admit that I have it at 5 + caster level (max +20).
I've yet to have anyone complain. Quite the contrary, actually, I've had a few of my players mention that they didn't use the old True Strike because they thought it was broken.
I didn't use true strike because it was generally a waste of time...