Remember you can ALWAYS lower your own spell resistance at will (at least that was the case in 3.5), which means your allies can still effect you with spells--assuming you want them to.You still have to pick raised/lowered, though; it never acts as a selective filter. So if you lower it for a round for your allies, your enemies can affect you equally well until you have a chance to raise it again the next round ("Look, the cleric just healed him! Blast away, boys!").
Not to mention that it takes a standard action every round you want to keep it lowered.
Just remember: Monk AC, Monk Wis bonus to AC, Ki pool bonus to AC (+4), Dex bonus to AC, Dodge, Fighting Defensively, and Combat Expertise all stack into touch attack AC. Not to mention if you have a deflection bonus...It gets kind of ridiculous when you build a monk to be survivable. Especially when the only other classes you have in your party are rogues and mages. Just send the monk in behind enemy lines, AC up, and let your rogues go to work with the flanking bonuses. You may have more attacks per round than 1 rogue does, but you get 2 in the same party and they both do the 2 weapon fighting feats, chances are they will deal more damage (especially at high level) than you ever thought of doing.
The HD is not equal. The BAB is not equalThey are. Go back and read the SRD battle sorcerer again.
Well comparing a core Pathfiner monk to a Battle Sorcerer is not fair.
Remember you can ALWAYS lower your own spell resistance at will (at least that was the case in 3.5), which means your allies can still effect you with spells--assuming you want them to.You still have to pick raised/lowered, though; it never acts as a selective filter. So if you lower it for a round for your allies, your enemies can affect you equally well until you have a chance to raise it again the next round ("Look, the cleric just healed him! Blast away, boys!").
With the saves and stats a monk have that won't be much of a problem.
And the: "wait for a healing spell and then blast just the monk" won't happen that often. Area spells? There are more persons in a party than a the monk and foes might want to nuke more people than just the monk.
The HD is not equal. The BAB is not equalThey are. Go back and read the SRD battle sorcerer again.Well comparing a core Pathfiner monk to a Battle Sorcerer is not fair.
Yeah splat one splat the other, otherwise keep it core.
Yeah splat one splat the other, otherwise keep it core.
Well put, I'll remember that phrase.
True but in that case we also look through the unearth arcana for things that benefit the monk, not saying the battle sorcerer isn't a good choice, but at my table you won't get the bloodline stuff and the battle sorcerer stuff.
He could have just been comparing SRD to Pathfinder as Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD. Just a possibility.
Exactly correct. Using the battle sorcerer variant simply puts us on even footing in terms of BAB and hp, and reduces the sorcerer's spells known and spells/day, to make them more comparable to the monk's limited ki pool. In short, it allows us to make a closer comparison.
Go ahead and bring in any SRD stuff for the monk as well, it doesn't change the big picture. Or, if you insist on core-only, compare a fighter/sorcerer/eldritch knight to a monk. The monk still loses any way you look at it.
Now, if the claim is that the monk can be fun to play, that's fine and dandy. Or, if the claim is that the Pathfinder monk is better than the 3.5e monk, you'll get no argument at all. But if the claim is that a mid- to high-level Pathfinder monk is balanced with a spellcaster of the same level, then the answer is still "no." Which, as Dennis pointed out, is the paradigm that 3.0 was founded on. Pointing that out, although many people would like to make it taboo, just might be a help to a minority of others who also don't fully embrace that paradigm.
Kirth don't you ever really get tired of this? We get it, your poor melee characters will never measure up. Swallow the blue pill and wake up then.
Yes if you multi class and prestige class and twist the preztel you can make a sorcerer a monk. If you take the monk and twist in something else and add a prestige class you might not get a caster, but you can get a lot of good stuff out of it all the same.
If we stand two characters up in an arena back to back with no equipment, but the caster gets any spell he wants and full stat bonuses like he had bought the equipment, and doesn't have to memorize because he always has the exact spell needed, and cast no matter the lack of time to do it in, and the fighter didn't do anything to improve his saves, and and and and and...
That's not what this preview or game is about. Is the class good? Is it better than it was? Does it still have its flavor? Would you use it?
Then don't worry about the other guy and play your character.
I am very late commenting on the Monk preview.
That much is obvious.
he can stand still and whiff even more times than he did before.
The Monk will 'whiff' almost precisely as often as a two-weapon ranger does.
Quite a few examples of the variety of options the monk is capable of.
I'm glad you agree it's a highly versatile class.
Basically I am unimpressed. The monk can continue to duel the bard to see who wins the title of worst character to play.
I disagree.
Bards will go for that contest - with swift action songs, free maintenance, and casting while they're at it, they have plenty of actions left over. Monks have more important things to do than fight over a title though.
stuff
A) let's compare Pathfunder vs. Pathfinder or even better let's not compare at all. The monk is not as powerful as a full BAB charecter nor as powerful as a sorcerer. Jason said "the bard concept has never been one of raw power". It could be equaly true to the monk.
b) spellcasters are usually more powerful at higher levels as far as we know. What can we do? Houserule.c) We don't have the whole picture yet.
d) No use flogging a dead horse. I did it in the bard thread until I was blue in the face and then I changed my ways ;-) Honestly. It's not constructive.
|
Every time I read a thread that goes to the place this one has (which is pretty often these days), I am reminded of what my friend Joe said while we were beta testing 4th Edition: "The game is finally balanced. I hate it."
When I asked him to explain, he said (guru that he is) one of the wisest things I've ever heard to describe how D&D susses out: "Balance isn't fun. Careful imbalance is fun. If everyone in the party gets to be a special snowflake every round in every fight, pretty soon nothing seems special at all anymore. All of your victories are hollow because you're exactly the same as the guy to your left or right, with maybe a tiny flavor difference. Fun in a tabletop game comes when you've been written off as weak or small for sessions on end, only to be in the situation that turns you into a small god and watch everyone's jaws drop as they remember who you are."
There are a few quibbles I have with the argument, but overall I agree with it. Being good at everything all the time is boring as hell. I don't want to go three months between moments of glory, mind you, but I think that finding a good balance (ha!) of encounters to challenge and highlight the whole party, each in his turn, is the greatest difficulty and most rewarding goal of any GM.
With that said, I love the new monk. I still think they're too "Eastern mysticism" for my taste, but it's yards better than it used to be. (Again, for my personal purposes, I would have liked to see monk as a more generic punchy-fists warrior, like the defender class from Midnight). I'm still looking forward to Pathfinder, and I can't wait to run it at GenCon!
Jeremy Puckett
That's not what this preview or game is about. Is the class good? Is it better than it was? Does it still have its flavor? Would you use it?
Agreed...but I'd love to dicuss the things that really make monks unique. When people suggest that the monks are the fastest class or "the ultimate mage-killer" (without a qualification like "among the melee classes"), it's hard to keep quiet.
And if it turns out that there's nothing that makes the monk particularly unique, or if their unique abilities aren't very good? That's O.K.; monks are still fun to play, and the Pathfinder changes should make them even funner (full BAB for flurry of blows is an excellent start!).
Every time I read a thread that goes to the place this one has (which is pretty often these days), I am reminded of what my friend Joe said while we were beta testing 4th Edition: "The game is finally balanced. I hate it."
When I asked him to explain, he said (guru that he is) one of the wisest things I've ever heard to describe how D&D susses out: "Balance isn't fun. Careful imbalance is fun. If everyone in the party gets to be a special snowflake every round in every fight, pretty soon nothing seems special at all anymore. All of your victories are hollow because you're exactly the same as the guy to your left or right, with maybe a tiny flavor difference. Fun in a tabletop game comes when you've been written off as weak or small for sessions on end, only to be in the situation that turns you into a small god and watch everyone's jaws drop as they remember who you are."
Jeremy Puckett
Well put. My most well remembered times at the gaming table have not been when I was the star but when I was in the backdrop and had a chance to step up and everyone was reminded why I was there. I have a cleric who makes a habit out of being a background character for the group through most of an adventure but when the chips are down, and the out up for grabs they now look for him to do something anything to make the difference. That to me rocks. And frankly it has nothing to do with class balance. Most of his time was in 1st ed were a cleric was not at all powerful. But it has to do with the ability to contribute most fights and make the difference once in a while.
That's not what this preview or game is about. Is the class good? Is it better than it was? Does it still have its flavor? Would you use it?Agreed...but I'd love to dicuss the things that really make monks unique. When people suggest that the monks are the fastest class or "the ultimate mage-killer" (without a qualification like "among the melee classes"), it's hard to keep quiet.
And if it turns out that there's nothing that makes the monk particularly unique, or if their unique abilities aren't very good? That's O.K.; monks are still fun to play, and the Pathfinder changes should make them even funner (full BAB for flurry of blows is an excellent start!).
Funny thing is I'm not really sold on the new flurry of blows... but I'll try it before I knock it.
I think people get too tied up in giving the Monk more dex than it really needs. In the "Char-Op: Monk" thread I showed that it was rather easy to make a melee monk that could do damage like a fighter can. Mostly the trick is simply getting as many extra dice and points of damage you can over as many attacks as you can. The old flurry of blows, with it's constant bonuses at the top meant that while everyone else's chances of hitting slipped, the monk would continue to perform the same blow after blow.
With the new system I see several places where there could be questions of how things work, but until I see all the new rules I don't know if the "loopholes" I'm thinking of have already been covered. No point saying anything until I know.
Funny thing is I'm not really sold on the new flurry of blows... but I'll try it before I knock it.
Hmm. If we assume that the monk gets the equivalent of Improved TWF and Greater TWF at levels 6 and 11 respectively, then the full BAB flurry is +1 attack bonus better than the Beta flurry from levels 1-5, and it's even better from levels 6-10 (because the full BAB flurry has an extra attack or two, in addition to the +1 to attack).
At levels 11-16 (say), it's probably a toss-up with the advantage to the Beta flurry vs. high AC targets and the advantage to the full BAB flurry vs. low AC targets:
11: +9/+9/+4/+4/-1/-1 vs. +8/+8/+8/+3
12: +10/+10/+5/+5/+0/+0 vs. +9/+9/+9/+4
13: +11/+11/+6/+6/+1/+1 vs. +9/+9/+9/+4
14: +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2 vs. +10/+10/+10/+5
15: +13/+13/+8/+8/+3/+3 vs. +11/+11/+11/+6/+1
16: +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/-1 vs. +12/+12/+12/+7/+2
But then at level 17+ the full BAB flurry gets an extra +1 to attacks that makes it pretty clearly superior, IMO:
17: +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5/+0 vs. +12/+12/+12/+7/+2
You know the worst thing about being a low level monk? There's no "MW unarmed strike" - i.e. few cheap ways of increasing attack bonus.
With that in mind it's important to think about things like potions (or even scrolls if you're a rare high-int, high-cha monk) of bless, divine favor, and cat's grace/bull's strength.
good stuffs
Well put, however I don't regularly get up to level 17... But still +15/+15/+10/+10 is 15% more on the first two, and only 10% less on the second too, and that's if the monk can't spend a ki point to get another attack. If he can he could get +15/+15/+15/+10/+10... as opposed to the beta's +12/+12/+12/+12/+10...
Over all looks like math wise the full BAB for final is a better attacking solution. However at this point I have to agree with others when they say, "If the monk can do everything at Full BAB except standard attacks... why not move them on up to Full BAB progression (maybe with a non standard hit dice as opposed to the barbarian's large HD)?"
The only answer I have left would be feat access.
You know the worst thing about being a low level monk? There's no "MW unarmed strike" - i.e. few cheap ways of increasing attack bonus.
With that in mind it's important to think about things like potions (or even scrolls if you're a rare high-int, high-cha monk) of bless, divine favor, and cat's grace/bull's strength.
Potions of Magic Weapon/Greater Magic Weapon: Although they won't stack with the amulet of mighty fists, if the amulet grants an enhancement bonus, it is doable. The text of the spell specifically states that this affects a monk's unarmed strike.
Potions of Magic Fang/Greater Magic Fang: If you don't have a mage around, but instead a druid or ranger... The rules are screwy here, though, and I would argue that it enchants the "unarmed strike," which consists of all monk attacks.
You could argue that having MW gauntlets can give you the +1 to unarmed attack. I doubt a 16th of an inch of metal would diffuse the damage from a monk's attack, but it could certainly explain why the slickness of the metal could help bypass the enemy's armor.
You could argue that having MW gauntlets can give you the +1 to unarmed attack. I doubt a 16th of an inch of metal would diffuse the damage from a monk's attack, but it could certainly explain why the slickness of the metal could help bypass the enemy's armor.
More along the lines of "I have a slab of metal between my hand and the hard thing I'm hitting so I know I can hit just a bit harder and not break my hand/foot/head/whatever in the process".
I am just going to say that the single best thing about the gameplay of monks is that NOT MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, you are ALWAYS ARMED. Your DM can look at you and say anything except your dead, unconcious, blah, blah, blah and you still have your weapons on you. In order to be disarmed you have to be DIS-ARMED. If you are bound, escape artist/maneuver training/other feats can help you out. Monk allows for escape when it's just not possible.
You know the worst thing about being a low level monk? There's no "MW unarmed strike" - i.e. few cheap ways of increasing attack bonus.
Well, you can buy a masterwork weapon, of course.
Over all looks like math wise the full BAB for final is a better attacking solution. However at this point I have to agree with others when they say, "If the monk can do everything at Full BAB except standard attacks... why not move them on up to Full BAB progression (maybe with a non standard hit dice as opposed to the barbarian's large HD)?"
Good point. :-)
Kirth don't you ever really get tired of this? We get it, poor melee characters will never measure up. Swallow the blue pill and wake up then.
Yeah, I know. It's bad form to mention that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
|
Kirth don't you ever really get tired of this? We get it, poor melee characters will never measure up. Swallow the blue pill and wake up then.Yeah, I know. It's bad form to mention that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
Yeah, last time I mentioned to my queen that she was naked, I got a spanking.
Aaah, good times!
Kirth don't you ever really get tired of this? We get it, poor melee characters will never measure up. Swallow the blue pill and wake up then.Yeah, I know. It's bad form to mention that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes!
Yeah, sorry about that Kirth was a bit... malcontent that day.
However I would point out that a naked monk is just as good as one in clothing... maybe better... what's that Cha score? ;D
Yeah, sorry about that Kirth was a bit... malcontent that day.
That's OK -- no apologies needed. I sound like a broken record even to myself (but I keep trying anyway, because it seems like there's an awful lot of "ostritching" going on regarding that aspect of game design). Anyway, hopefully I'm no worse than, say, Beckett (AKA "clerics are servants of the gods and should therefore get full BAB and full access to the wizard spell list and all their spells should get a +20 divine bonus to the DCs, for starters...")
hehe, well it is quite possible that the designers are closer in opinion than you think, simply slightly stymied by the need to be compatible.
Part of the biggest issue I see with the "make it even" is magic really isn't supposed to be even. The idea of bending the laws of reality to your whim really does tend to suggest more power than swinging a sword in accordance with the laws of reality.
Part of the biggest issue I see with the "make it even" is magic really isn't supposed to be even. The idea of bending the laws of reality to your whim really does tend to suggest more power than swinging a sword in accordance with the laws of reality.
Yes. Gygax bent over backwards to compensate in 1e (well, equal parts actual compensation and simply hiding the issue behind smoke and mirrors) -- to the point of creating bizarre xp tables specific to each class, incomprehensible saving throw progressions, and an initiative system that actively impeded smooth game play (but which created yet another area in which casters could be thwarted). And even then, at 10th level or so the action shifted from adventuring to politics. 3e stripped all that away, making the issue far more apparent, and far more difficult to deal with.
|
|
According to this review monks now gain DR 10/chaotic on level 20. Seems a lot more useful to me than 10/magic.
According to this review monks now gain DR 10/chaotic on level 20. Seems a lot more useful to me than 10/magic.
Yes...although it raises the usual alignment DR question:
Why am I resistant to attacks from my buddies, but susceptible to attacks from my enemies? Shouldn't it be the other way around?
So according to those in the know, the PFRPG monk gets extra "off-hand" attacks at levels 8 and 15 (as opposed to a ranger who gets access to extra "off-hand" attacks at levels 6 and 11). I'm a bit disappointed by that, but I guess it's not terribly surprising.
Also, it sounds like they don't get much new stuff at high levels. Exceptions: quivering palm is 1/day, "greater TWF" (sort of) at level 15, and DR 10/chaotic instead of 10/magic at level 20. I'm not impressed, personally.
I'm not impressed, personally.
Agreed. They still basically lack any sense of a clear identity, and I can't imagine wanting to play a monk as opposed to a paladin, for example -- to name another fighting class with supernatural powers that has finally been brought up to where it should have been all along.
I'm not impressed, personally.Agreed. They still basically lack any sense of a clear identity, and I can't imagine wanting to play a monk as opposed to a paladin, for example -- to name another fighting class with supernatural powers that has finally been brought up to where it should have been all along.
Don't get me wrong; I'd gladly play a monk from level 1 to 8-12 (say). But after that point it's pretty slim pickings until level 19 (!).
The role of the monk is pretty clear:
- Monks are mammals.
- Monks fight ALL the time.
- The purpose of the monk is to flip out and kill people.
Can anybody who HAS the book comment on Vital Strike with Monks?
If it doubles base weapon damage, Monks seem like they'll rock out with this.
Not having official Full BAB was clearly alot about Feat Pre-Req's, but even with 3/4 BAB, this seems like a very good combo with just a little work (Enlarge + Improved Nat. Attack)
Can anybody who HAS the book comment on Vital Strike with Monks?
If it doubles base weapon damage, Monks seem like they'll rock out with this.
That would certainly allow them to synergize their speed and attacks a lot better... running up and missing someone once for 2d8 is pretty feeble, but if you have a chance to deal 6d8 on the off-chance you hit, that starts to look slightly more attractive (of course, by the time you're high enough level to do that, the sorcerer is calling in artillery divisions and close air support, but I'm not allowed to talk about that).
Can anybody who HAS the book comment on Vital Strike with Monks?
If it doubles base weapon damage, Monks seem like they'll rock out with this.
Not having official Full BAB was clearly a lot about Feat Pre-Req's, but even with 3/4 BAB, this seems like a very good combo with just a little work (Enlarge + Improved Nat. Attack)
But that's what irritates me: skipping out of the monk class and taking fighter or ranger levels instead allows you to qualify for those cool combat feats (like Vital Strike, Improved Vital Strike, etc.) quicker. Oh well.
If you took 4 levels of figter (or any other full bab class) you could qualify for Greter vital strike (bab16) and do 4x damage instead of 3x for that single attack.
See, this is the kind of stuff that's a turn-off for me. "If you take some levels in a different class, your monk can do something really cool!"
Sigh...