Monks - Why no greater combat bonus feats?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

GabrielMiller wrote:
concerro wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:
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 have already said you have missed the point completely. Maybe its my age. In older versions of the game this would never come up...

It's not just a numbers issue. There are always things the numbers don't show. The DM should account for what the party is playing and adjust so everyone has fun, but when debating an issue you can't assume the DM won't play the monsters to their full extent. In such cases the fighter falls hard soon after 7th level, and if we cared about numbers we would just take a druid and his animal companion, and fighters would probably never see the light of day. We only argue the effectiveness of the class according to the way the rules work. We can't everyone's playing style into account. If I were really in the D&D world there were things such as flying that I would make sure to get access too, assuming I were an adventurer and not a commoner that is.


GabrielMiller wrote:
If it offends someone that I call this style "video-game" because I feel it accurately reflects that style then I am sorry. It is not the game style I would want to play in, but to each their own and I wish you as much fun as you can have at the table.

Dude, I've been playing for a long time, too, and I think you got a bit out of line.

I am currently playing my first monk since Oriental Adventures (the REAL one, not the Lot5R version for 3.0). My observations:

AC is important for meele fighters. Due to more plentiful equipment options and feats, both the Paladin and the Fighter have better AC than I do.

HP's are important for meele fighters. Due to MAD, even though my rolls are good, the Gnome Druid has a good deal more HP than I do, to say nothing of the Pally and Fighter.

I now move at 40, so am the fastest in the party, and can get into crucial positions before the others. However, that usually leaves me holding the line for a round or two as the others catch up.

Situationally, I have gotten to the critical point first and changed the flow of the combat. I have also been dropped to negative HP more than the rest of the party combined (partially due to character decisions, but noticable).

I do actually outdamage the Fighter, who is still using a MW weapon, and the Pally (when he's not smiting) mostly due to FoB and a few lucky stunning strikes. However, this is still level 4.

Overall, I am a weaker meele fighter and a bit more fragile, but I diversified my skills to let me be 2nd to the rogue and great at perception. I am filling my niche, however small.

Now the kicker: I am playing my monk with the Vow of Poverty in a low-money campaign, and I have the Fiery Fist feat from PHB2. By all accounts, I should be optimized for meele, but I still end up taking too many hits. I can't imagine how normal monks get to high levels...


Just to echo Mr. Mirror, Mirror's experience, I'm also playing a monk (actually a Sorcerer 1/Monk 4). He's doing reasonably well as far as doing damage (although he uses a weapon, not an unarmed strike), but I've also noticed he's a bit lackluster when it comes to AC (even with Mage Armor) and hit points.

From my experience, the closest comparison to the monk is the TWF ranger:

  • full BAB + TWF = flurry, sort of
  • both get bonus feats on roughly the same schedule
  • lightly armored = mediocre AC
  • decent skills
  • a few minor spells, or spell-like abilities

The ranger is much more kick-ass against his favored enemies, though.


In haven't seen a full progression monk in action, but my 11th level cohort in the Second Darkness game I'm playing in is pretty scary. She's currently Monk 6/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3, with some feat dipping into Tome of Battle to net her the Cloak of Deception maneuver (which let's her gain greater invisibility four 1 round, once per encounter) and two stances, Child of Shadow (20% concealment if you move at least ten feat, can't be used to hide) and Assassin's Stance (increases her sneak attack by 2d6). She also has the Shadow Blade feat from ToB (add dex to damage for certain weapons, including unarmed strike) and Ascetic Rogue from Complete Adventurer. Oh and she also had Hamatulatsu from the Campaign setting. (We're both LE) Her unarmed damage is 1d10+9, +4d6 sneak attack when applicable, her AC is 27 normally (+7 Dex, +5 Insight, +4 Bracers of Armor, +2 Deflection) and can hit 37 if she takes total defense and Ki Dodge. In the last game during the ambush in book 5 she did 120 points of damage to a 7th level elf fighter with one full attack. Granted she hit every time and used the ki point to get an extra attack on her flurry, but ouch. He only had 70 hp to begin with. I laughed.


GabrielMiller wrote:
But when people start throwing around who is better this or that based on a set of rather boring parameters (and several have in this thread, I am not pointing at you) then it gets annoying.

This line of discussion came about because Paul Halcott took offense to the idea that the Monk could use a boost in a field that thematically makes sense for him. Because "it shouldn't be about numbers".

Honestly, I'm all for a freeflow game that doesn't need numbers to quantify everything. But that's not D&D, and quite frankly, it never was (it's always had a war simulation base).

I've played a no-stats roleplaying game before. Resolution was based on pure DM fiat deciding based on how well he liked your descriptions and interpretations.
It was fun.

It was not D&D.

.

D&D uses a d20 roll to resolve combat. The Monk has a lot of nice "ideas", but the game offers a lot of options that he's currently being held back from using.

While I understand the point being made: Don't focus everything on number crunching. I think using the current, available mechanics in game to give the Monk a further defined role isn't out of the question.

.
.

Regarding the Jump skill check:

I'm talking about ballooning out drastically the amount a Monk gains from his check. Instead of 1 foot per DC 4, make it 5 Feet per 5 DC like his long jump.
Between his bonuses, he could easily be hitting his max movement in a charge and be "flying kick"ing flying enemies.

A 10th level Monk would have an average Acrobatics roll of 10.5 (roll) + 13 (class skill maxed) + 10 (Monk level) + 12 (+30 speed) + 20 (Ki point) + Dex (probably at least +5 by then). That's around 70 for his average roll.

While a flying person might be "capable" of flying higher than that, he's getting away from short range spell attacks at that level (likely around 50' for a 10th level caster), and many creatures that might try flyby attacks won't be able to afford the movement needed to dive and climb properly at that range anymore.
Plus, leaping up and grappling a winged flyer so he is forced to fall and then using safefall to prevent damage on yourself only requires one attempt and then flying creature is now grounded with your allies.

Sure it might be "weird" having a Monk leap 70' straight up... but if anyone is going to go 'Wushu' it's the Monk, right?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Things are getting a bit heated here. I'd like to ask folks to keep their cool and discuss things politely.


Xum wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Xum wrote:


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.
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.

I think its comments like this that were at the root of the previous post about mmorpg with pen and paper. I could be wrong, but when I hear a line like this, it doesnt say the person wants to play a well rounded fleshed out plausable character. To me this says they want to mash abilities together for the sole purpose of the bonus you get. I dont think he was being insulting. he was stating the basic fact that in his group, the characters are more then just the sum of their stats. They are designed around concepts other then strict values of cost vs benefit. I guess what each person finds fun is kinda like beauty: its in the eyes of the beholder.


Kaisoku wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:
But when people start throwing around who is better this or that based on a set of rather boring parameters (and several have in this thread, I am not pointing at you) then it gets annoying.

This line of discussion came about because Paul Halcott took offense to the idea that the Monk could use a boost in a field that thematically makes sense for him. Because "it shouldn't be about numbers".

Honestly, I'm all for a freeflow game that doesn't need numbers to quantify everything. But that's not D&D, and quite frankly, it never was (it's always had a war simulation base).

I've played a no-stats roleplaying game before. Resolution was based on pure DM fiat deciding based on how well he liked your descriptions and interpretations.
It was fun.

It was not D&D.

.

D&D uses a d20 roll to resolve combat. The Monk has a lot of nice "ideas", but the game offers a lot of options that he's currently being held back from using.

While I understand the point being made: Don't focus everything on number crunching. I think using the current, available mechanics in game to give the Monk a further defined role isn't out of the question.

What I said was:

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.

How is that saying I took offense to the idea that a monk could use a boost? Its me saying this game was about more then just a collection of numbers. I never said the numbers were not there or that the numbers served no purpose. Actually, it was my understanding that it was partly because of how convoluted some of the numbers became in 1st and 2nd edition that they made the massive shift away from that to the d20 system. The concept of skills came later in its evolution. If you thought it sounded cool to have your fighter jump onto the table, run across it, then slice the monster as you jumped back off of it, thats what you did. No need to optimize numbers to see if it worked, because there were no numbers for it. the numbers were guides and tools. Not the end all be all they have become to some of the players today.

My statements were aimed at those who feel that every choice you make should be totally about how it effects your numbers. Worrying about how to squeeze every last drop of bonus out of every choice you make for your character. The thought that the character has personality seems to be lost. All that seems to matter is how t get the highest numbers possible.


paul halcott wrote:
Kaisoku wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:
But when people start throwing around who is better this or that based on a set of rather boring parameters (and several have in this thread, I am not pointing at you) then it gets annoying.

This line of discussion came about because Paul Halcott took offense to the idea that the Monk could use a boost in a field that thematically makes sense for him. Because "it shouldn't be about numbers".

Honestly, I'm all for a freeflow game that doesn't need numbers to quantify everything. But that's not D&D, and quite frankly, it never was (it's always had a war simulation base).

I've played a no-stats roleplaying game before. Resolution was based on pure DM fiat deciding based on how well he liked your descriptions and interpretations.
It was fun.

It was not D&D.

.

D&D uses a d20 roll to resolve combat. The Monk has a lot of nice "ideas", but the game offers a lot of options that he's currently being held back from using.

While I understand the point being made: Don't focus everything on number crunching. I think using the current, available mechanics in game to give the Monk a further defined role isn't out of the question.

What I said was:

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.

How is that saying I took offense to the idea that a monk could use a boost? Its me saying this game was about more then just a collection of numbers. I never said the numbers were not there or that the numbers served no purpose. Actually, it was my understanding that it was partly because of how convoluted some of the numbers became in 1st and 2nd edition that they made the massive shift away from that to the...

You can do those things now. The reason why there are numbers is that people want consistency, and they help keep some DM's in line. Not all of us were born with the gift of DM'ing, but with rules saying X is possible but Y is not it helps a lot. I think the number crunching is a side affect, and while many of us do it online, that does not mean we do it for a game. Monk do well in my games because I allow everyone to have fun, but that does not mean I dont see how gimped they are.

edit: I know the previous posts were not aimed at everyone, but just wanting to add that a little to it


GabrielMiller wrote:
completely. Maybe its my age. In older versions of the game this would never come up...

You're right, because in 1e if someone suggested your Monk wasn't tough, you would auto-kill him with quivering palm. When he asked about a saving throw, you could laugh and say, "Saving throw? Nope - just instant death. Sorry."

Early edition Monks were pretty squishy at low level, but soon as quivering palm came into play, they were awesome-sauce.

Once 3E came around, Monk's were still pretty squishy, but without the payoff later.

Age has got nothing to do with it.

As for the OP, I agree - Greater Trip as a bonus feat selection would have made PERFECT sense for a Monk. It's too bad, because Monk's should really be the best class for Combat Maneuvers, and they just aren't. Monk MAD is bad enough without needing to pump up INT too.

I'm just not sure what to do with Monks...I intend to take a closer look at them at some point...


Treantmonk wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:
completely. Maybe its my age. In older versions of the game this would never come up...

You're right, because in 1e if someone suggested your Monk wasn't tough, you would auto-kill him with quivering palm. When he asked about a saving throw, you could laugh and say, "Saving throw? Nope - just instant death. Sorry."

Early edition Monks were pretty squishy at low level, but soon as quivering palm came into play, they were awesome-sauce.

Once 3E came around, Monk's were still pretty squishy, but without the payoff later.

Age has got nothing to do with it.

As for the OP, I agree - Greater Trip as a bonus feat selection would have made PERFECT sense for a Monk. It's too bad, because Monk's should really be the best class for Combat Maneuvers, and they just aren't. Monk MAD is bad enough without needing to pump up INT too.

I'm just not sure what to do with Monks...I intend to take a closer look at them at some point...

I houseruled a couple of things so I dont have to hold back so much. The problem is not that a good monk can't be made, its that you really have to be a good builder to do it.


GabrielMiller wrote:


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.

That turtle in armour can swim, climb, and jump, too. A fighter wearing a mithral full plate loses the last bit of armour penalty on level 11. On level 7, he learns to move his full speed in the armour. If haste is involved (mithral full plate of speed, or maybe boots of speed), his speed isn't that far away from the monk's.


GabrielMiller wrote:


Oh and my monk is going to b-slap you like yesterdays lunch if anyone ever dares use improved disarm on you and take away that nice shiny sword you love so much.

Provided, of course, you manage to disarm him. It's anything but easy to disarm a fighter. They have strong BAB, usually good Str and Dex scores, spend money on rings of protection and magic swords, and get all those nice extra bonuses due to feats like weapon focus and from their weapon training ability.

And they can afford the necessary Int 13 and slots to get improved/greater disarm to defend against something like this (and, of course, do it to others)


paul halcott wrote:
My statements were aimed at those who feel that every choice you make should be totally about how it effects your numbers. Worrying about how to squeeze every last drop of bonus out of every choice you make for your character. The thought that the character has personality seems to be lost. All that seems to matter is how t get the highest numbers possible.

I find this insulting. There is a huge gap between "I don't ignore the rules" and "I am a min/maxing power gamer"

Getting on a high horse because you consider flavour but not rules is arrogant. Flavour should not be forgotten, that is true, but that doesn't mean you must ignore the rules. After all, the rules are there to be used. Otherwise we just go back to BC&I (Basic Cowboys & Indians), which is a lot cheaper than Pathfinder (you don't need to spend a cent) and faster to learn (because everybody already knows the rules).


Treantmonk wrote:

As for the OP, I agree - Greater Trip as a bonus feat selection would have made PERFECT sense for a Monk. It's too bad, because Monk's should really be the best class for Combat Maneuvers, and they just aren't. Monk MAD is bad enough without needing to pump up INT too.

See, this person gets me! It's good that you're here, (almost)everybody has gone so far off topic that they probably couldn't remember the actual topic if you held a gun to their head.

As much as some people hate it, Pathfinder is a game with rules. A lot of them. The core book has almost 600 pages. If that says "rules-light" to you, I fear your rules-heavy game books. Or should I say libraries.

And as much as some other people hate it, Pathfinder is not an off-line version of Diablo, or a simple board game.

Pathfinder is a mix. There is both fluff and crunch. Some people might not use both, but the game does, so both should make sense and mesh well.

And that's exactly what I was suggesting: A fix that would make sense both from a rules standpoint and from a flavour standpoint!

For many people, monks are those crazy kung-fu guys who will do all kinds of cool stunts to you, like taking your weapon from you, sweeping you off your feet, throwing you around, catching you in an inescapable lock, or push exactly the right pressure point to knock you out or paralyse you.

That stuff is handled in Pathfinder with combat manoeuvres, and for characters that want to be good at this sort of stuff, there's improved and greater (combat manoeuvre type) feats - the greater ones now being their own feats where they were part of the improved feats before.

Monks get the improved versions (which in 3.5 meant they could do extra stuff with those actions, but not in PF) as bonus feats, but not the greater versions. If they do want them, they need to take another feat they usually would probably never take and they need to have an Int of 13 - considering that monks already need decent scores in 4 out of 6 attributes to be on par with other classes who often just need 2 or 3, a fifth is just brutal.

So from the rules standpoint, it makes the class weaker, and not really good at what is supposed to be one of its very specialties.

From a flavour standpoint, it doesn't make sense, either. So they get special monk training where they learn to use default fighting techniques with greater proficiency and without leaving their own defense open to the enemy. But their monasteries will not teach them how to do more with those manoeuvres.


KaeYoss wrote:
paul halcott wrote:
My statements were aimed at those who feel that every choice you make should be totally about how it effects your numbers. Worrying about how to squeeze every last drop of bonus out of every choice you make for your character. The thought that the character has personality seems to be lost. All that seems to matter is how t get the highest numbers possible.

I find this insulting. There is a huge gap between "I don't ignore the rules" and "I am a min/maxing power gamer"

Getting on a high horse because you consider flavour but not rules is arrogant. Flavour should not be forgotten, that is true, but that doesn't mean you must ignore the rules. After all, the rules are there to be used. Otherwise we just go back to BC&I (Basic Cowboys & Indians), which is a lot cheaper than Pathfinder (you don't need to spend a cent) and faster to learn (because everybody already knows the rules).

Again, Never said ignore the rules. also, never said that the way the monk class is presented is perfect and couldn't possibly stand to be tweeked some. Check back over this thread and look at those who dismiss a class, any class, because the numbers dont crunch well enough. The ones who base there whole answer around a set of numbers and nothing else. The topic started as to why the class does not get greater combat bonus feats, then quickly spiraled down to numbers. Not rules behind the numbers. Just the numbers. I never mentioned rules. I mentioned the approach of letting a set of numbers rule your choices and oppinions. The concept that a class has no use if it has any aspect which could in any way be considered subpar for any reason, real or imagined, is what I questioned.

I have not forgotten either the rules nor the flavor. Many people here have commented on how the rules could make the 'spirit' of the class closer to the classic kung fu theater type monk so many people feel it was inspired by, and for the most part I agree with them. But what of those who view it all as just numbers to be crunched, and roll past the whole story aspect of the game, cause it just seems to get in the way?


Treantmonk wrote:
GabrielMiller wrote:

You're right, because in 1e if someone suggested your Monk wasn't tough, you would auto-kill him with quivering palm. When he asked about a saving throw, you could laugh and say, "Saving throw? Nope - just instant death. Sorry."

Early edition Monks were pretty squishy at low level, but soon as quivering palm came into play, they were awesome-sauce.

Once 3E came around, Monk's were still pretty squishy, but without the payoff later.

As for the OP, I agree - Greater Trip as a bonus feat selection would have made PERFECT sense for a Monk. It's too bad, because Monk's should really be the best class for Combat Maneuvers, and they just aren't. Monk MAD is bad enough without needing to pump up INT too.

1st ed monks were not that great really. First, the ability scores needed to qualify were (3)15's and an 11. Tough to get rolling 3d6. Then they were a d4 hd. No bonus to ac from Dex. no bonus to hit or damage from str. After 8th level, you had to find the one monk in the world that held the next leve up in exp and defeat him in single combat to advance. Eventually, you might make it to 13th lvl and get the quivering palm. Of course, it didnt work on opponets with more hit dice and it didnt work if they had more then 200% of your total hit points. Everything about it was just so limiting that I never personally saw anyone play one for long and enjoy it.

And I agree about how they should excel at the combat manouvers. While he can use some weapons, the empty handed marshal artist is how he presented mostHe should be better at the grapples trips and other classic kung-fu movie type stuff.


paul halcott wrote:
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.

Mine too!

paul halcott wrote:
Not looking for god aweful power for our pc's.

Nor mine.

paul halcott wrote:
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.

Sounds like fun. Just as long as nobody is playing a wizard who talks in his sleep...

paul halcott wrote:
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.

It's not about that for me at all.

paul halcott wrote:
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.

Nope, not me either.

paul halcott wrote:
When your character is litle more then then the stats and powers it has, much of the role playing is lost.

Agreed.

paul halcott wrote:
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.

Not attacking at all. In fact, I've agreed with every point you've made.

paul halcott wrote:
In the end, I guess many groups develop different gaming styles.

Understandably so, don't you think?

paul halcott wrote:
The fact that these differences exisist is enough to warrent the classes being set as they are in powers and abilities.

I don't really get your point here.

paul halcott wrote:
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?".

Well, now, that may be true, but cleverness and imagination would take Superman farther than it would take a crippled alcoholic hobo in some gutter somewhere.

Listen, it's not about being the most uber sheet of paper at the gaming table.

Well, OK, maybe for a few people it is, but most of us outgrow that very early and move on to better gaming experiences.

There are two totally different discussions here.

The discussion of roleplaying, flavor, fluff, and fun is a discussion about [b]what happens at the gaming table.[/i]

The discussion of game balance, class features, uberness vs. lameness, and who can kill what with how much ease is a discussion about [b]what happens away from the gaming table.[/i]

By "away from the gaming table" I mean this discussion takes places in the conference room at Paizo where the staffers sit around writing rulebooks. It takes place in minds and computers of those folks who write up adventure paths and other adventures for us to buy. It takes place in the minds of DMs all over the world as they put together encounters for their players to engage in their next gaming session. And it takes place in the minds of players as they plan a character who is fun to play and reasonably able to handle the challenges he will face in an arduous adventuring career.

And this discussion takes place here on the Paizo forums where players like us come to discuss those same issues, debating the skill and clarity of the Paizo staff, the adventure writers, and our own DMing and/or playing preferences.

Nobody here is saying that when we sit down at the gaming table our only concern will be killing the bad guys, taking their stuff, and leveling our uber character sheet up.

But some of us like to role-play our fun, fluffy, flavorful characters in a world where reasonable balance and equitable chances are enjoyed by all, and our debates here help us achieve that.


paul halcott wrote:


1st ed monks were not that great really. First, the ability scores needed to qualify were (3)15's and an 11. Tough to get rolling 3d6.

Way off topic - but difficult to qualify for ability scores was the joy of Unearthed Arcana's infamous "method 9" Paladin Cavaliers HO!


Treantmonk wrote:
Way off topic - but difficult to qualify for ability scores was the joy of Unearthed Arcana's infamous "method 9" Paladin Cavaliers HO!

Often refered to "Method 9 from outer space!" Ah, the good old days...


Quote:

......By "away from the gaming table" I mean this discussion takes places in the conference room at Paizo where the staffers sit around writing rulebooks. It takes place in minds and computers of those folks who write up adventure paths and other adventures for us to buy. It takes place in the minds of DMs all over the world as they put together encounters for their players to engage in their next gaming session. And it takes place in the minds of players as they plan a character who is fun to play and reasonably able to handle the challenges he will face in an arduous adventuring career.... (and much wise stuffs)

+10

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

GabrielMiller wrote:
So your one of those players whose characters are just a sum of their magic items. How nice for you.

Open your monster manual or bestiary. Look at CRs, then look at how many of those high-CR foes fly or cast spells.

It's not "fighter versus monk" so much as "the monk's special ability shuts off when he puts on the magical item that lets him participate at all." And, again, if the monk is supposed to hunt spellcasters, spellcasters get to fly. From about level 9 on, all of them have long-duration flight.

Quote:
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.

Here's a little secret: when monks don't have their stuff, they die just as badly against level-appropriate foes. They just use different stuff. They have stat-boosters and AC-boosters and mobility tools all over the place, just because CR-appropriate opposition demands it.

I also have to pick on this:

Quote:
or when he hands out magic items that turns players into flying superheroes.

If non-caster characters don't get those items to turn them into flying superheroes, they stop playing the game at all after a certain level. All-day flight is seriously a fifth-level spell; it's not even that high level.

KaeYoss wrote:

For many people, monks are those crazy kung-fu guys who will do all kinds of cool stunts to you, like taking your weapon from you, sweeping you off your feet, throwing you around, catching you in an inescapable lock, or push exactly the right pressure point to knock you out or paralyse you.

That stuff is handled in Pathfinder with combat manoeuvres, and for characters that want to be good at this sort of stuff, there's improved and greater (combat manoeuvre type) feats - the greater ones now being their own feats where they were part of the improved feats before.

I am fully with KaeYoss on this point (which kinda scares me). Why is the martial arts class not even in the same ballpark as fighters or barbarians for tripping or wrestling with people? It makes no sense to me at all.


A Man In Black wrote:
I am fully with KaeYoss on this point (which kinda scares me). Why is the martial arts class not even in the same ballpark as fighters or barbarians for tripping or wrestling with people? It makes no sense to me at all.

Isn't it obvious? The monk's role isn't being the best tripper or grappler. Or being the best melee damage dealer. Or being the best at surviving melee attacks. Or being the best skill-monkey. Or being as good at moving around as a wizard.

Uh...what was I talking about again?

Oh, right. The monk's role is threefold:

  • Run Really Fast.
  • Fall Slowly.
  • Have Good Saves.

(I'm kidding....I hope.)


paul halcott wrote:
Xum wrote:
Zurai wrote:
Xum wrote:


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.
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.
I think its comments like this that were at the root of the previous post about mmorpg with pen and paper. I could be wrong, but when I hear a line like this, it doesnt say the person wants to play a well rounded fleshed out plausable character. To me this says they want to mash abilities together for the sole purpose of the bonus you get. I dont think he was being insulting. he was stating the basic fact that in his group, the characters are more then just the sum of their stats. They are designed around concepts other then strict values of cost vs benefit. I guess what each person finds fun is kinda like beauty: its in the eyes of the beholder.

I love pen and paper, much more than any mmo. It would be a well rounded character. In fact I have an awesome BG stating that, and in the end, the stats are not really that good.

In fact I HATE things only done for stats, I play a Paladin in second edition for Gods sake, and they suck MAJOR.


paul halcott wrote:

What I said was:

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.

How is that saying I took offense to the idea that a monk could use a boost?

You are right, I'm sorry I misunderstood your post. I thought you were upset that we were having a discussion about the game crunch. Now I see that numbers crunch is a button for you (like misspelling of "Rouge" is for me).

I guess my appropriate response to that quote should have been: "I seriously doubt that anyone posting here plays like that, so don't get driven insane by the comments. This is rules discussion, which is primarily crunch. I would bet my last dollar that everyone who's posted in this thread so far actually plays the game like a roleplaying game when they are at the table, and not an MMO, despite the discussion about relative power."

.

Back to the original topic: any thoughts on changing the Monk's "High Jump" ability to allow 4x the height (basically like a distance jump)?

I seem to recall charge + unarmed strike = bonus damage Flying Kick style feats from a source someplace... that would mesh well with extreme height from jumping.


Kaisoku wrote:
I seem to recall charge + unarmed strike = bonus damage Flying Kick style feats from a source someplace... that would mesh well with extreme height from jumping.

I wish we could get Leap Attack as it was in BESM D20.

If you win init, you make a single att roll as part of a charge. If you hit, you add your jump bonus to your damage.

That's right, the BONUS. Oh yeah!


With a Monk being able to spend a single Ki point to get a +20 bonus to his jump, that'd be crazy! ... Crazy awesome!

But probably why it won't make it into the game (10th level had enough bonus to threaten death from massive damage, haha).


Yeah, no kidding. My 9th level monk can get up to a +64 bonus to jump checks, and that's without any magic items.


Kaisoku wrote:


Back to the original topic:

That's not the original topic. The original topic is "Why can't monks learn to be really good at disarming and stuff as part of their monk training?"

Kaisoku wrote:


any thoughts on changing the Monk's "High Jump" ability to allow 4x the height (basically like a distance jump)?

Hm... yes, actually. Make it a reverse slow fall:

"If you have something to push off, like a wall, the DC for a high jump is equal to height x2. If you have two walls (or trees or something like that) opposite each other, the DC for a high jump is equal to height.


KaeYoss wrote:
"If you have something to push off, like a wall, the DC for a high jump is equal to height x2. If you have two walls (or trees or something like that) opposite each other, the DC for a high jump is equal to height.

That's a good idea. It even put images in my mind of Tai Lung's escape (Kung Fu Panda) or the Kick Boots (Castlevania) - don't look at me that way, those are my son's toys.

Some less-than-happy poster would object that the current system is already allowing this... kind of.
1) if you have a wall nearby: do a high jump on it, take hold, then do another high jump from it.
2) if you have two walls: do several high jumps, not forgetting to take hold between each.
You'll need some ranks in Climb, though. And those would be several move actions, allowing the enemy to escape higher - and you to take falling damage :(


KaeYoss wrote:

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.

Let's add insult to injury and give greater versions to oracles as class abilities and the monks are stuck taking unused feats to qualify :)


Louis IX wrote:


That's a good idea. It even put images in my mind of Tai Lung's escape (Kung Fu Panda) or the Kick Boots (Castlevania) - don't look at me that way, those are my son's toys.

1. I'm always looking that way.

2. Liar liar pants on fire.
3. Megaman, too. At least Megaman-X. And Samus (from Metroid) has moves like this as well. Hm... Monks need the Space Jump. And can we get a Screw Attack feat?
4. Also, look at a killion* wuxia movies. It's a staple

Louis IX wrote:


Some less-than-happy poster would object that the current system is already allowing this... kind of.
1) if you have a wall nearby: do a high jump on it, take hold, then do another high jump from it.
2) if you have two walls: do several high jumps, not forgetting to take hold between each.
You'll need some ranks in Climb, though. And those would be several move actions, allowing the enemy to escape higher - and you to take falling damage :(

Yeah, I want that to be possible without multiple actions.

*killion: A number so big that it would kill you.


KaeYoss wrote:
killion: A number so big that it would kill you.

Seen a googolplex already?


Louis IX wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
killion: A number so big that it would kill you.
Seen a googolplex already?

A killion is a googolplex to the power of a googolplex, at the very least.

If a googolplex is defined as "1 followed by as many 0 as you can write before you get tired" (well, that was the original definition), the definition of a killion is "1 followed by a as many 0 as someone could write if he wrote really really fast and kept at it until well after at least two Ends of the Universe came to pass"


KaeYoss wrote:

A killion is a googolplex to the power of a googolplex, at the very least.

If a googolplex is defined as "1 followed by as many 0 as you can write before you get tired" (well, that was the original definition), the definition of a killion is "1 followed by a as many 0 as someone could write if he wrote really really fast and kept at it until well after at least two Ends of the Universe came to pass"

I like your definition better than wikipedia's. On the Adams-Pratchett's scale, it reaches 41... a near Turtle-like perfection ;-) I'll now stop writing nonsensical sentences about this and return to the topic, I promise.

0) see GM
1) increasing jump capabilities (which I'd like, even as a feat) : see rule 0
2) skipping prerequisites for Greater manoeuvers feats (which I'd like too) : see rule 0

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

KaeYoss wrote:
If a googolplex is defined as "1 followed by as many 0 as you can write before you get tired" (well, that was the original definition)

Huh? Googol and googol-plex are and have always been precisely defined. One googol is 10^100, and one googol-plex is 10^(10^100).


tejón wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:
If a googolplex is defined as "1 followed by as many 0 as you can write before you get tired" (well, that was the original definition)
Huh? Googol and googol-plex are and have always been precisely defined. One googol is 10^100, and one googol-plex is 10^(10^100).

And you could never write a googol-plex, there aren't enough particles in the universe, even if you reused the entire universe to do it every millisecond for a million trillion years.


tejón wrote:


Huh? Googol and googol-plex are and have always been precisely defined.

Not according to wikipedia and a couple of other sources.


Treantmonk wrote:

I'm just not sure what to do with Monks...I intend to take a closer look at them at some point...

How is it coming?


To be honest I kinda agree with the intelligence requirement for the greater combat feats flavorwise mostly, I dread seeing int 6 monks run around in my games doing all kinds of flashy maneuvers, but the monk needs several ability scores at a fairly high level which makes int 13 fairly hard to obtain with dice rolling or sacrifing much in other places with point buy.

two possible solutions :

1) drop int requirement to 10, for the feats to make them more accesible.

2) A change to point buy might mediate this somewhat I think at the cost of slightly more complicated character design :

Grant more points for point buy, but at the same time make it more expensive to increase abilities beyond 14 points.

up to 14 = 1 point per increase
from 14 up to 16 = 2 points per increase
from 16 up to 18 = 3 points per increase

Personally I tend towards giving 30 points using this method, but feel free to adjust as you see fit. (starting score 10)

* For ability scores rolled with dice mixing up point buy and rolling might be a good solution if this is a problem in your camapaign, for example :

roll 4d6 like normal but substract 1 point from every rolled score, and give the players 10 points to buy ability increases like above.
This is the way I like best. I like to roll stats, but gives a fair ammount of freedom to make well rounded characters.


The way I see it is that the monk is sort of your mixed bag of sweets. It's all good in theory, but there's not enough turkish delights in the box to go around.

He's stretched really thin. I think the best solution would be allow his wisdom to be more useful, perhaps, as suggested above, by making him substitute his wisdom for other attributes (dex for dodge, str for power attack, In for combat reflexes etc).

Frankly his flexibility won't expand much more, but he will have less reason (not 'no reason' just less) to spread himself so thin.

batts


I think monks need an all-around fix. I'd like the option to pursue either a CM style or the striking style.
For the first, no flurry but a constant full BAB for CMs, access to greaters, set bonuses to maneuvers (possibly particularly chosen ones), capping at combining 2 or more maneuvers into one action.
The second, I'd cut back on their maneuver bonues but add more striking options, maybe the choice between full attack flurry power and standard action massive damage.
As is, now and over the years past, they consistantly are exciting on paper and frustrating when played, barring intensive DM mollycoddling.


The Grandfather wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:

I'm just not sure what to do with Monks...I intend to take a closer look at them at some point...

How is it coming?

What.

51 to 94 of 94 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks - Why no greater combat bonus feats? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.