Is there a particular reason why monks don't get to choose Greater Trip etc. as bonus feats?
Because if they have to choose them as regular feats, they need to fulfill all prerequisites - which for Greater Trip/Disarm/Feint includes Int 13. It was nice to be able to ignore at least Int and Cha for monks.
It would especially make sense considering that Jason's sneak preview of the iconic monk had Greater Disarm (which he didn't qualify for).
Is there a particular reason why monks don't get to choose Greater Trip etc. as bonus feats?
Because if they have to choose them as regular feats, they need to fulfill all prerequisites - which for Greater Trip/Disarm/Feint includes Int 13. It was nice to be able to ignore at least Int and Cha for monks.
There was a post about a month ago on here asking a similar question and the response was that they (Paizo) wanted to give monks free combat maneuver feats but felt that if they wanted the improved versions they still had a few hoops to jump through. I'll see if I can find the exact quote but it would take some digging.
The point is to give ALL monks access to some of these iconic monk-friendly feats. If that means that the monk that wants to get all of those feats needs to pony up with an Int of 13, I'm okay with that. He's already got the baseline feats for free, which puts him ahead of most other classes as far as these feats are concerned. Not everything should be handed out to the monk for free though.
More specifically that applies to the prereq's, but it also applies the Greater X series of feats in general.
I don't like that at all.
Those are completely up the monk's alley. I mean, rangers get all the archery feats - and extremely early, too. Why not monks?
And the point is that monks already need a lot of ability scores for their mojo.
I could somewhat see needing the Int 13, perhaps. But it would also require Combat Expertise, pretty much completely negating the benefit of the bonus feat not requiring prereqs.
|
I could somewhat see needing the Int 13, perhaps. But it would also require Combat Expertise, pretty much completely negating the benefit of the bonus feat not requiring prereqs.
See I actually don't see the point of needing a 13 int for these. You get training in monk academy to learn how to trip people and then you build your combat prowess with continued usage in real combat. I would like to see a "monks can use 13 wisdom instead of 13 intelligence to qualify for XXX feats".
From a design point of view though, monks have to take a hit somewhere, they're almost too good as they are right now (the BAB progression is their largest weakness as I see it and even that's negated when using FoB), handing them more free feats sets them up to be almost too good to consider in the same magnitude as the other classes.
From a design point of view though, monks have to take a hit somewhere, they're almost too good as they are right now
Monks were always on the weak side, they got a boost now, but they're not too good.
I really dislike getting into the monk argument, because on the one side monks look really good on paper. They get tons of bonuses and special abilities and have at their disposal options that another class really can't emulate at all. The problem is, I have never seen them played successfully. In every situation I've seen, and I have seen a few played as well as playing a couple of my own, they come out as sub-par. They are never up-to-snuff in combat, which is really where they should excel, and out of combat they really don't pull their weight either. I hope the 3.Paizo monk modifications will help this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
I really dislike getting into the monk argument, because on the one side monks look really good on paper. They get tons of bonuses and special abilities and have at their disposal options that another class really can't emulate at all. The problem is, I have never seen them played successfully. In every situation I've seen, and I have seen a few played as well as playing a couple of my own, they come out as sub-par. They are never up-to-snuff in combat, which is really where they should excel, and out of combat they really don't pull their weight either. I hope the 3.Paizo monk modifications will help this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Wow. I remember a time when a game was played for fun and a clas was played for flavor. WHile I like the d20 system for the most part, posts and discussions like this drive me insane. Everything now is a quantified power equation. I agree some level of balance should be maintained to keep things fair and fun, but when power rankings become the rule of the day, it does make a sad statement.
|
I really dislike getting into the monk argument, because on the one side monks look really good on paper. They get tons of bonuses and special abilities and have at their disposal options that another class really can't emulate at all. The problem is, I have never seen them played successfully. In every situation I've seen, and I have seen a few played as well as playing a couple of my own, they come out as sub-par. They are never up-to-snuff in combat, which is really where they should excel, and out of combat they really don't pull their weight either. I hope the 3.Paizo monk modifications will help this, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
In our game group, there are two of us playing monks. While both are relegated to the back of the line, neither really stand out in combat. As melee combatants, going toe-to-toe with armed and armored adversaries, they aren't as tough as they could be. Their saves are good. But they don't really appear to have been examined like the other classes before Paizo released PRPG. A few points:
BAB: Monks are melee combatants. Give them fighter BAB progression. (Of course this renders moot the 'cool' bonus they get for Flurry (which, IMO, was seriously nerfed in the end).
HP: d8? Again, monks are melee combatants. Should have been d10.
Monk Weapons: *sigh* Talk about type-cast. All Paizo needed to do was say "Improved Unarmed Strike" = Monk Weapon and then go to the fighter weapon groups and either let the monk take the Monk Weapon group as its category for flurry / monk weapons OR in the alternative, train with any other fighting group. (Heck, as a bonus feat, monks could take on additional Weapon Groups as an option ala Unearthed Arcana.)
Given these three glaring omissions and no real logic shared as to why or why not, we're looking at house ruling them in full or in part.
Wow. I remember a time when a game was played for fun and a clas was played for flavor. WHile I like the d20 system for the most part, posts and discussions like this drive me insane. Everything now is a quantified power equation. I agree some level of balance should be maintained to keep things fair and fun, but when power rankings become the rule of the day, it does make a sad statement.
Sorry to bring your world to a screeching halt, dude. Fact is, playing the weakest character in a game is never fun, regardless of the flavor. Yeah, playing a monk is cool. Except when every pc and npc you come in contact with laughs at your combat prowess. Jackie Chan movies wouldn't be nearly so awesome if he was an incompetent fighter that everyone had to protect in every scene.
Wow. I remember a time when a game was played for fun and a clas was played for flavor.
I'm arguing flavour as much as balance. One of the big things monks do is do "unconventional" combat moves. Instead of just hurting people until they die, they disarm them, grapple them, trip them.... Sure, everyone can do that, but I always felt that this was what the monk was really made for.
Ergo, his training should enable him to be the best manoeuvre user there is.
WHile I like the d20 system for the most part, posts and discussions like this drive me insane. Everything now is a quantified power equation. I agree some level of balance should be maintained to keep things fair and fun, but when power rankings become the rule of the day, it does make a sad statement.
You see, stuff like that drives me insane. Well, not really, my insanity stems from other things - probably a lot to do with the voices I keep hearing all the time - but I don't like it when people say stuff like that.
Sure, power isn't everything. But flavour isn't everything, either.
I think that the classes should be able to pull their weight. They should be good at the things they're supposed to be good at. That's not always combat - a bard can't outfight a warrior or outcast a priest or arcanist, but still he can pull his weight - but we're talking about the monk here. Not Franciscan - Shaolin.
What kind of flavour is a character class that cannot do what it is supposed to do? The monk is not supposed to be a better fighter than the fighter in general - no one wants that - but he should be able to pull off all the funky manoeuvres a you see martial artists pull off all the time.
It's like having a healer class that is specialised in healing, except the cleric does it better.
"Dung" might be a flavour, but it should not be bottled and sold. ;-P
|
|
The monk is a fine character for low level play. It is only at high levels with magic item dependency for the non-magical classes that the monk becomes a weak choice. That is simply because the DM has to incorporate items for monks that appeal to many classes and the odds are the monk will not get every item thus making him seem weak.
For example, Bracers of Armor are often taken by rangers, barbarians, rogues,monks, wizards, sorcerers and druids . Rings of Protection are a choice for everyone. All of the physical stat boots can be taken by any class. The need to hit monsters with special materials takes the monk's most potent weapon, unarmed strikes, and renders it useless.
That being said, the monk has always occupied a weird role for combat. Not really a fighting class due to weak AC, BAB and Hit Dice.
Pretty good as a skill monkey. Many misc powers that help them evade spells. I would say a monk's role in combat is more of a skirmisher and caster immobilizer. With great speed, stunning fist, quivering palm and grapple, monks are perfect for wreaking havoc on wizards, sorcerers, druids and rogues. They are weak against fighters, paladins and barbarians due to weak AC, BAB and hit points by comparision. I thnk that this is a good role for monks to play in most games. Skirmishers should be tough but no match for heavy infantry.
The monk is a fine character for low level play.
I have to disagree. The monk's weak AC and low HP really cause it some problems at low level. Not to mention the fact that it suffers the most at low level from a weak attack progression. It doesn't receive boosts to bring it's attacks into line with the other classes until later in it's progression.
Sorry to bring your world to a screeching halt, dude. Fact is, playing the weakest character in a game is never fun, regardless of the flavor. Yeah, playing a monk is cool. Except when every pc and npc you come in contact with laughs at your combat prowess. Jackie Chan movies wouldn't be nearly so awesome if he was an incompetent fighter that everyone had to protect in every scene.
Trust me,I doubt anything I see or read here will bring my world to a halt, or even give me a good reason to pause. The game I am currently in is a group of 30 somethings who get together for fun. Not looking for god aweful power for our pc's. One guy plays a wizard with a gimp leg who must use his staff to walk. The monk is is half blind. Why? Not for extra feats, because they didnt take any. Not for some other twisted attempt at more power for powers sake. Because quirks like that add another aspect to the game. If for you it's all about just getting the next level for the next ability just so you have it, then I am sorry for you. If your group dictates that fun can only be had through power, and there can be no fun in weakness, then I feel sorry for you. When your character is litle more then then the stats and powers it has, much of the role playing is lost. I am sure this way of thinking will be attacked by the masses here, but its through the wall thought out balanced characters that we have found the most fun. In the end, I guess many groups develop different gaming styles. The fact that these differences exisist is enough to warrent the classes being set as they are in powers and abilities. Many of my thoughts on it go back to what was printed in the introductions in the 1st edition PHB and DMG; "Cleverness and imagination, with a bit of luck, will always prevail...wont they?".
When you are playing the game you should have fun, but when debating the monk you should assume the DM will not pull punches.
It is not just about power. It's about the fact that the monk does not really do anything to help the party. He has good defenses, but that helps the monk, not the party. The monk can be hard to kill(high saves, and immunities), but he does not do enough damage for me to care about him as a DM, if made by the average player. That means I focus my attention on the real threats.
He is not the tank.
He is not the skill monkey.
He is not healer, nor is he doing battlefield control
He is not the party face.
He is not a striker either.
The bard does not have a defined role either, but he can fill in other spots if needed and do it well enough to make some contributions, and when not filling in he is making the party better.
The monk is the 6th party member.
PS: I like the idea of the monk, but I don't like the way it was made. If someone plays a monk and I am a player I try to make sure all the bases are covered even if it means me multiclassing, that way he can have his fun and we can survive.
The monk...
...can flurry. More attacks than the typical fighter, for a higher base damage (at high levels), and at the same BAB. And he also has the possibility of having even more attacks (Medusa's Wrath, Ki additional strike).
...CAN bypass some DR since his Ki strike is considered magic/adamantine/lawful at higher levels.
...is especially impressive in acrobatics (+level, and his enhanced speed means another bonus) and manoeuvers (BAB is level here too). It means battlefield control since he can trip several opponents at the same time, and/or weave around the battlefield unharmed.
...isn't completely dependant on manufactured weapons to fight (how many times has your average fighter been imprisoned or his items removed for whatever reason?) - OK this is situational, but $h1t happens.
...has good saves/immunities/evasion abilities, thus allowing him to get in range of poisonous monsters or casters, for instance.
...is especially efficient against spellcasters.
I don't get it when people write that it doesn't hold a candle to the other melee types. It all depends on the character's choices (feats, tactics of choice, etc.) IMHO, the monk's favourite role is Striker, and Controller to a lesser extent.
The only drawback I see is the inability to strike flying BBEGs. However, this drawback is shared by the other melee types. And the monk can jump. And flurry with shuriken. And dim. door at high levels, too. What's not to like?
...is especially efficient against spellcasters.This is a damned lie, made all the worse because you actually believe it. They don't deal with illusions, flight, teleportation, contingencies, anti-melee auras (in fact, they particularly suck against them), invisibility, concealment, fear, or any of the other many ways casters make life horrible for melee.
They're okay against save-or-loses, and that's pretty much it.
Alright, I believe it. I also respect your insights since your posts in general tend to explain things in detail. Can you explain to me why the monk is less efficient than the non-magical fighter/barbarian/rogue/etc. in each of the magic effects you mentioned? Barring buffs and magic items, of course, since the monk can use some of these with the same efficiency than the other classes.
Monks do less damage than every other melee class and some classes for whom melee is an afterthought, and their one control ability is the ability to stun for one round, something casters do at level 1. Their one ability they can use on enemies is "Punch him in the face, possibly with a debuff attached" and many foes are face-punch-proof or hit so hard that the monk will die if he braves melee.
People say that they don't hold a candle to the other melee types because the whole point of being a melee type is to do damage in melee and not die in melee and monks are very bad at both.
Like all characters, a monk's abilities comes from the feats he happen to choose. Like the fighter and ranger, the monk has some bonus feats, and these allow him to use special manoeuvers with greater efficiency. OK, they can punch enemies and that's pretty all they do. However, I see several situations where the monk can out-damage a fighter of the same level. And not die at the same time. Although, and I see the light there too, their lack of AC or HP make them appear weaker than the regular fighting type.
Lastly, I agree that a face-punch-proof ability makes the monk seem useless. As I'm not buried deeply in the Bestiary or the Spells section of the rulebook, can you give me a couple examples of this ability?
Thanks.
The monk does less damage than those other characters, and is less likely to hit in the normal rolling-to-attack sense unless he can stand still and flurry. That makes him less efficient.
It is true that a monk does less damage in a single attack. However, I once played a monk, with a Barbarian level with which the GM allowed the "Pounce" Alternate Class Feature. With Improved and Greater Trip, that gave the character a good Battlefield Control with a good damage output. But I agree it's not 100% Pathfinder.
I'm eager to hear what situations you are talking about, since I've yet to come across any and have trouble conceiving of any unless the monk's saving throws are involved or you create a situation where running fast or falling without dying is really important.
The out-damage is from Flurry. We had a horde of Orcs surrounding us, and the monk damaged them quicker than the fighter. The not-dying is from evasion and diamond body, since he didn't die from poison, contrarily to the fighter (the cleric had already cast his last Neutralize Poison for the day - again, situational). And acrobatics, too, which saved my monk's life more than once.
Being a fire elemental or babau or the like. (Fire Shield does this.) DR X/impassable. (Stoneskin and Righteous Might do this, and come into play long before adamantine ki strike.) Anything that can only be attacked with readied actions or single attacks. (Ethereal Filchers/Marauders, for example. Not a common issue with spellcasters.) Any source of full concealment. (Many, many spells.) Simply being so much of a bad melee mofo that you shred d8 classes with mediocre AC and MAD issues. (Many, many monsters.)
Thanks for the examples. I agree with you about the fact that monks are MAD with mediocre AC (although, in low-levels, they can favor Dex, use Finesse, and get a better AC than a fighter of the same level).
With a little luck on the dice, my monk had almost the same HP our fighter had (we can write at length about the fact that 1d10 is better than 1d8, but dice are random and actual results can vary widely). There were several encounters where the monk was second-line when compared when the fighter, but he was roughly as efficient in general (and he didn't die, which is a vast improvement).
What I don't see is the difference between the monk and the other melee classes when dealing with the other creatures you mentioned. I could be wrong (again), but I don't see why the Fire Shield, DR, or concealment would be more efficient against a monk than another melee type.
Not to mention that there are spells to which an armored fighting type will have problems the monk won't (just from the top of my head: Heat Metal).
All this to justify my vision that monks aren't that bad as they are.
EDIT:
Fire elemental entry (PRD) says: "Creatures that hit a burning creature with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage as though hit by the burning creature and must make a Reflex save to avoid catching on fire." -- OK with your conclusion
Fire Shield entry (PRD) says: "Any creature striking you with its body or a handheld weapon deals normal damage, but at the same time the attacker takes [damage]" -- same as fighter
Since I appear to have skipped the OP's topic entirely...
Taking Greater Trip was a pain because I had to "sacrifice" a feat slot for something I'll never use (Combat Expertise). And Int 13 did cost me some points in the character's creation.
From a logical point of view, I'd vote for adding the Greater X feats to the monk's list of feats: Greater Grapple at level 6 (since Improved Grapple is available at first level) and Greater Bull Rush/Disarm/Feint/Trip at level 10. With the provision that they have the "Improved" feat beforehand, of course.
$0.02
EDIT: And perhaps a sufficient Intelligence, too, because I can see the reason behind Paizo's choice: as a Judo practitioner, I do see people with less intelligence not understanding the fine details of some manoeuvers. However, requiring Combat Expertise seems... too much.
Another way of doing this would be to give monks Combat Expertise for free, but force them to have the normal prerequisites for their feats. That's too far from RAW, though, and it would need too much tweaking for it to be practical.
mithril plate armor
Bwauh?
Louis, you're talking about anecdotal evidence where you had a monk who was as much barbarian as monk (which you can't even do RAW
Actually you can. Very much so. And I like that idea a lot, to bad my DM doesn't.
The monk...
...can flurry. More attacks than the typical fighter, for a higher base damage (at high levels), and at the same BAB. And he also has the possibility of having even more attacks (Medusa's Wrath, Ki additional strike).
...CAN bypass some DR since his Ki strike is considered magic/adamantine/lawful at higher levels.
...is especially impressive in acrobatics (+level, and his enhanced speed means another bonus) and manoeuvers (BAB is level here too). It means battlefield control since he can trip several opponents at the same time, and/or weave around the battlefield unharmed.
...isn't completely dependant on manufactured weapons to fight (how many times has your average fighter been imprisoned or his items removed for whatever reason?) - OK this is situational, but $h1t happens.
...has good saves/immunities/evasion abilities, thus allowing him to get in range of poisonous monsters or casters, for instance.
...is especially efficient against spellcasters.
I don't get it when people write that it doesn't hold a candle to the other melee types. It all depends on the character's choices (feats, tactics of choice, etc.) IMHO, the monk's favourite role is Striker, and Controller to a lesser extent.
The only drawback I see is the inability to strike flying BBEGs. However, this drawback is shared by the other melee types. And the monk can jump. And flurry with shuriken. And dim. door at high levels, too. What's not to like?
Monk outdamaging a fighter, really? Maybe a charop monk, but the average player wont do it. He also has no way to deal with all the damage reductions. IIRC he can take care of adamantine, lawful, and magic. Devils and anything with DR/Silver still mess him up.
Combat Maneuvers work well against medium creatures, and maybe the occasional large monster, but at higher levels my money is on the monster. No I have not done the math, but I dont think this has been fixed from 3.5, but then again the larger, stronger monster should be winning.
How is the monk going to get out of prison if he is tied up. When you tie someone up the DC to get out is 20 + your Combat Maneuver Bonus, and nat 20's dont automatically get you out if they dont meet the DC. Even if you get out of the chains or ropes you have to punch through the wall or the cell bars, but that will make a lot of noise. I am sure the guards wont just sit back and watch you escape.
Monk taking down casters is a myth. Maybe at low levels, but almost anyone can take a low level caster.
All melee types can use bows or crossbows including the monk so that should not be an issue.
Flurrying for 1d2 points of damage within 10 feet of someone is not practical at all.
It is true that a monk does less damage in a single attack. However, I once played a monk, with a Barbarian level with which the GM allowed the "Pounce" Alternate Class Feature. With Improved and Greater Trip, that gave the character a good Battlefield Control with a good damage output. But I agree it's not 100% Pathfinder.
Pounce makes any melee class look good. It was the prime reason why a barbarian did a ridiculous amount of damage in 3.5. Combined with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack and the fight might end in one round.
I'm eager to hear what situations you are talking about, since I've yet to come across any and have trouble conceiving of any unless the monk's saving throws are involved or you create a situation where running fast or falling without dying is really important.
The out-damage is from Flurry. We had a horde of Orcs surrounding us, and the monk damaged them quicker than the fighter. The not-dying is from evasion and diamond body, since he didn't die from poison, contrarily to the fighter (the cleric had already cast his last Neutralize Poison for the day - again, situational). And acrobatics, too, which saved my monk's life more than once.
Most fighters, like monks don't fail to many fort saves so either failing a fort vs poison is situational. Evasion is nice, but that lends to my argument of the monk having things that keep him alive, but dont do much for the party. Most BBEG's would kill the monk last since he is least likely to do anything worthy of attention.
What I don't see is the difference between the monk and the other melee classes when dealing with the other creatures you mentioned. I could be wrong (again), but I don't see why the Fire Shield, DR, or concealment would be more efficient against a monk than another melee type.
Fighter have feats to overcome DR. Barbarian hit harder so it does not matter as much. Paladin over the DR of evil creatures automatically. The Fire Shield issue can be taken care of with a reach weapon, but monks dont have any reach weapons unless they take feats, and they can't flurry with that weapon, nor use weapon finesse.
Heat Metal does at the most 2d4 points of damage, not a factor.
You need a fantastically large amount of wis and dex to out-AC the fighter even in PF (you need a total bonus between the two of +13 to match a fighter who fills out the max dex cap of mithril plate armor)And of course the fact that the monk move 4 times as far, can swim, climb, and jump. All of those mean nothing in comparison to your turtle in armor.
All that AC of yours makes you meat for touch attacks. Gee, the monk has 90% of his AC against those same touch attacks.
Everything has its pluses and negatives. Your idea of DnD which is playing a MMORPG with paper and pen will of course better fit your dirt origional tank with a big sword.
In my game which does not play like some computer game the faster monk just as much has his place. He moves. He gets to the enemy in one round and keeps his attention so your slower than dirt melee monkey doesnt get chewed down with 4 rounds of ranged attack. He saves against those Reflex based attacks that maul you and those Will saves that turn you to mush and convince you to beat on the cleric next to you that used to be your ally.
Oh and I was curious. What is your character going to do in the middle of the night? He going to sleep in that armor? Or if the party is attacked is he going to abandon his mates for the first 7 rounds of combat while he puts on his armor? I know what they monk will be doing. He will be running around being 100% effective.
Fighters move at full speed after level 7, and there is a feat that allows their Shield AC to count against touch attacks.
If your DM is a fan of night attacks the endurance feat works.
The Barbarian moves at 30, and can also take Endurance. He will probably be raging giving him a bonus to his will saves.
The paladin cares as much about saves as the monk does, and he cant move as fast as either of the above but when he gets there the bad guys start to hate life, at least for the next few seconds they still have it.
You people should not take this personally. We are just saying the monk is not all that good. The fighter is not great either, which is why I avoid both like the plague, but at least the fighter can tank at low levels and do decent damage.
Actually you can. Very much so.
No, no you can't. Monks are "any lawful" and barbarians are "any nonlawful". Since you can't have a lawful nonlawful character, you can't have a monk/barbarian.
...You need a fantastically large amount of wis and dex to out-AC the fighter even in PF (you need a total bonus between the two of +13 to match a fighter who fills out the max dex cap of mithril plate armor)And of course the fact that the monk move 4 times as far, can swim, climb, and jump. All of those mean nothing in comparison to your turtle in armor.
All that AC of yours makes you meat for touch attacks. Gee, the monk has 90% of his AC against those same touch attacks.
Everything has its pluses and negatives. Your idea of DnD which is playing a MMORPG with paper and pen will of course better fit your dirt origional tank with a big sword.
In my game which does not play like some computer game the faster monk just as much has his place. He moves. He gets to the enemy in one round and keeps his attention so your slower than dirt melee monkey doesnt get chewed down with 4 rounds of ranged attack. He saves against those Reflex based attacks that maul you and those Will saves that turn you to mush and convince you to beat on the cleric next to you that used to be your ally.
Oh and I was curious. What is your character going to do in the middle of the night? He going to sleep in that armor? Or if the party is attacked is he going to abandon his mates for the first 7 rounds of combat while he puts on his armor? I know what they monk will be doing. He will be running around being 100% effective.
Fighters move at full speed after level 7, and there is a feat that allows their Shield AC to count against touch attacks.
If your DM is a fan of night attacks the endurance feat works.
The Barbarian moves at 30, and can also take Endurance. He will probably be raging giving him a bonus to his will saves.
The paladin cares as much about saves as the monk does, and he cant move as fast as either of the above but when he gets there the bad guys start to hate life, at least for the next few seconds they still
I dont play computer games, and unlike another D&D site we don't condone petty insults. If you want to debate then debate, but if you want to just insult people when they dont agree with you then this is not the site for you.
Hmmmm....
What to say that has not already been said?
I have only one experience playing a monk. Loved it though. Played him in a campaign filled with drow. He rocked, he rolled he ruled. He was nigh unstoppable as long as I didn't roll suckety saves and such (Which I did), and his ability to hit was more or less as good as the warrior in the group (well, paladin) in a regular round of combat, and this was with the beta rules, so no Full BaB while flurrying. He jumped, leaped, dodged avoided toutch attacks, laughed at poisons, since he was immune, and yes he also had a good AC! This is a possibility. Yes he had good stats, so did all of us. He had good hitpoints, thanks to favored class and Toughness and yes lucky rolls with the d8 also helped.
He was fun to play. And sadly he died. Not because he was mauled to death, burnt by elementals or fire shields. He died due to unlucky rolls... First a fairly steep save DC from a Horrid Whilting, and because of said spell he recieved massive damage ie. 50+ hp he had to make his 5+ fort. save. He failed, he died. Oh well. Can't beat unlucky rolls... My point is, if there is a such, if you apply your monk well, choose wisely feat-wise (hehe) you can be an asset to any party.
@ OP. Yes, he probably should have the Greater Thingies. That said, I don't see the big problem, (oh no! moving into item dependant area!)get a headband of int and wis whatzit, and get your 13 int if you're not there already, get Combat expertise (Could even help with that apparently lousy AC fer a bit (and since he never hits anyways the penalties he takes to hit doesn't matter anyway)) and later on Greater Thingies! It will take a while, but that's how it is with some things...
Oh! And if I sound snide or something like that, I apologize. My friends can attest that I have a bad sense of humour and I was merely trying to be funny.
Hmmmm....
What to say that has not already been said?
I have only one experience playing a monk. Loved it though. Played him in a campaign filled with drow. He rocked, he rolled he ruled. He was nigh unstoppable as long as I didn't roll suckety saves and such (Which I did), and his ability to hit was more or less as good as the warrior in the group (well, paladin) in a regular round of combat, and this was with the beta rules, so no Full BaB while flurrying. He jumped, leaped, dodged avoided toutch attacks, laughed at poisons, since he was immune, and yes he also had a good AC! This is a possibility. Yes he had good stats, so did all of us. He had good hitpoints, thanks to favored class and Toughness and yes lucky rolls with the d8 also helped.
He was fun to play. And sadly he died. Not because he was mauled to death, burnt by elementals or fire shields. He died due to unlucky rolls... First a fairly steep save DC from a Horrid Whilting, and because of said spell he recieved massive damage ie. 50+ hp he had to make his 5+ fort. save. He failed, he died. Oh well. Can't beat unlucky rolls... My point is, if there is a such, if you apply your monk well, choose wisely feat-wise (hehe) you can be an asset to any party.
@ OP. Yes, he probably should have the Greater Thingies. That said, I don't see the big problem, (oh no! moving into item dependant area!)get a headband of int and wis whatzit, and get your 13 int if you're not there already, get Combat expertise (Could even help with that apparently lousy AC fer a bit (and since he never hits anyways the penalties he takes to hit doesn't matter anyway)) and later on Greater Thingies! It will take a while, but that's how it is with some things...
Oh! And if I sound snide or something like that, I apologize. My friends can attest that I have a bad sense of humour and I was merely trying to be funny.
You sound like someone who had quite a pleasant experience, and I hate that massive damage rule. It's to easy to do that much damage, but that is another debate for another thread.
Edit: I just found out its an optional rule now.
He was fun to play. And sadly he died. Not because he was mauled to death, burnt by elementals or fire shields. He died due to unlucky rolls... First a fairly steep save DC from a Horrid Whilting, and because of said spell he recieved massive damage ie. 50+ hp he had to make his 5+ fort. save. He failed, he died. Oh well. Can't beat unlucky rolls... My point is, if there is a such, if you apply your monk well, choose wisely feat-wise (hehe) you can be an asset to any party.
...and maybe he shouldn't have died at all, with the Beta Rules for Massive damage.
Beta PRPG, page 141:
"If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save."
(as concerro pointed out above, now this is an optional rule, but the numbers are exactly the same - half your maximum hp, minimum 50)
I heavily suspect that at a level where you are the target of an Horrid Whilting spell, your Monk should have had more than 100 hp (if you rolled such good hp, anyway).
He was fun to play. And sadly he died. Not because he was mauled to death, burnt by elementals or fire shields. He died due to unlucky rolls... First a fairly steep save DC from a Horrid Whilting, and because of said spell he recieved massive damage ie. 50+ hp he had to make his 5+ fort. save. He failed, he died. Oh well. Can't beat unlucky rolls... My point is, if there is a such, if you apply your monk well, choose wisely feat-wise (hehe) you can be an asset to any party.
...and maybe he shouldn't have died at all, with the Beta Rules for Massive damage.
Beta PRPG, page 141:
"If you ever sustain a single attack that deals an amount of damage equal to half your total hit points (minimum 50 points of damage) or more and it doesn’t kill you outright, you must make a DC 15 Fortitude save."
(as concerro pointed out above, now this is an optional rule, but the numbers are exactly the same - half your maximum hp, minimum 50)
I heavily suspect that at a level where you are the target of an Horrid Whilting spell, your Monk should have had more than 100 hp (if you rolled such good hp, anyway).
He had 102 hp if I remember correctly, and he was only 11th lvl at the time... We had the misfortune to blunder into a wizards-college of sorts... Met the headmaster...
Well, he took something like 56 hp of damage... therefore.... R.I.P. :)
Edit: Yes, the rule is optional, but we use it ;-)
No, no you can't. Monks are "any lawful" and barbarians are "any nonlawful". Since you can't have a lawful nonlawful character, you can't have a monk/barbarian.
Actually you can. Very much so.
Monk Level X and when satisfied with it you change alignment to Neutral or Chaotic and add Barbarian Levels, no biggie there, you wouldn't even lose any monk abilities.
And of course the fact that the monk move 4 times as far, can swim, climb, and jump. All of those mean nothing in comparison to your turtle in armor.At what level? Because at the level where the monk can move four times faster, they're both wearing boots of flying that move at the same speed.
Anyhoo, other people covered the other stuff. Suffice it to say, monks are still a 3/4 BAB, d8 HP class whose main combat contribution is "I hit it in the face." That just doesn't work.
So your one of those players whose characters are just a sum of their magic items. How nice for you.
Like I said, go back to your video games. A decent DM wont let a fighter be superior all the time because he cannot be all the time. A fighter isnt wearing his armor 24/7. A fighter wont have his weapon in hand 24/7. A fighter wont be able to sneak up and scout and then attack. A fighter will have brains of mush from a will save and wont be getting out of the way for reflex saves.
Every class has good and bad points. A monk is at a disadvantage when a DM runs like some computer game where the fighter is always in his armor, always has his sword, where unsteady ground doesnt exist, or when he hands out magic items that turns players into flying superheroes.
What is wrong with you? Do you go around insulting everyone that does not agree with you in real life? His point is that many groups try to get the ability to fly at certain levels, and that the fighter is ahead more than the monk is. Nobody ever said other classes dont have bad points. Flying is not even that expensive. Even if you cant afford an item just get a few potions to carry around. If you have a point argue the point dont argue with the person. I feel like I am telling some kid how he should behave
"Like I said, go back to your video games."
I don't understand why discussing the game mechanic merits of a class is considered remotely "playing it like a video game", let alone a "Bad Thing".
Do you think Game Developers look at classes and decide they are right when they "feel right, roleplaying-wise"? I hope not... it would make for a very unwieldy game.
Since we are discussing the game mechanics changes that have been made to the Monk, it makes sense that we would focus on those game mechanics changes and how they relate to other game mechanics.
Finally, it's rather rude to label a gamestyle as inferior or a "Bad Thing". I like playing video games. I like playing Diablo style games sometimes. It pushes some buttons in the "kill things, take stuff, build a character" department.
This isn't bad, or even infantile. It's taste. Sometimes you are just in the mood for that.
To say that it's a "Bad Thing" to play that way is insulting to people who play that way, let alone the fact that you are trying to use it to insult the way another person plays, whether they are in fact playing that way or not.
For someone who has only recently joined the forums (at least, from this current ID), it's a bad idea to start mouthing off, even if you aren't trying to be a jerk on purpose.
Regarding the OP situation (and Monk value in general)...
I don't see adding access to the Greater feats as too much power for the class. Regardless if they are considered "good enough" or not, having easier access to the Greater maneuvers feats doesn't make them suddenly too good, and is extremely thematic.
.
If I were to add any further changes to the Monk to thematically and "role-wise" make him stronger... I'd allow for the Jumping bonuses to go MUCH higher (or rather, alter the height limitations for the Monk to allow much higher).
Basically, while he might not be able to fly, he could use a Jump check to go extreme ranges (within his speed of course) and attack people trying to fly out of reach. Since falling is automatic (requires no movement), and he has safe fall bonuses, he could survive the landing.
Yeah... kinda Final Fantasy Dragoon-ish ability, but it fits a mid-high level Monk thematically.
I'd allow for the Jumping bonuses to go MUCH higher
The monk already adds his level to his Acrobatics checks, has a higher base speed (giving more bonuses to the check), and can spend a Ki point to get +20. Without even considering magic items, a mid-level monk can have +60 to his checks. He is the best at this.
However, using the game mechanics as they are defined in Pathfinder (DC+4/ft), it is quite hard to jump high enough to grab an opponent flying at a reasonable altitude. For instance, with the aforementioned +60, the monk needs a natural 20 to reach a foe flying at 20 ft - and most BBEG will fly much higher than that.
Modifying those mechanics would mean nothing more than the enemy going higher before pelting the party. For example, should we halve the High Jump DC for the monks, the previous theoretical character would still need a natural 20 to reach a foe flying at 40 ft - a reasonable altitude for spell throwing.
Therefore, your proposal is interesting and stylish, but it wouldn't change things much. We will continue to try spells/ranged attacks/other flying means/fleeing like we did before.
...
Regarding the heated discussion: I think some players had characters who -like some of mine- had had a hard time when using realistic rules like "we don't sleep in heavy armor" when suddenly awakened by a horde of monsters, or "the king's guard threw you in the sewers sans your shiny items". Personally, that's why I tend to like the monk so much. And the druid, too (and perhaps the psionics as well).
Those players see the less visible advantages of playing a character not dependent on items to survive the day-to-day adventures. Others might not have had such a hard time/house rules/whatever, so they can concentrate on the purely mechanical description of the classes as they are written.
All of this is situational.
In my game which does not play like some computer game the faster monk just as much has his place. He moves. He gets to the enemy in one round and keeps his attention so your slower than dirt melee monkey doesnt get chewed down with 4 rounds of ranged attack. He saves against those Reflex based attacks that maul you and those Will saves that turn you to mush and convince you to beat on the cleric next to you that used to be your ally.The two times I've seen a monk try this (back in 3.0, but still), one ended up on death's door...the other well beyond the point of no return.
Charging the enemy, when the rest of the party is going to spend 1-4 rounds getting there, is the same as saying "I'd like to play another character", because if you do it more than once, there's a good chance you will be a few levels behind the rest of the party due to raise deads...