Hm, this is one to think on.
Perhaps they get their AC bonus sooner, but it still scales the same?
|
I have a monk player and she contributes each session with roleplaying.
I suppose on combat she is more prone to take a hit, but she has formed a special bond with our sorcerer who tags on a Mage Armor spell for her before going into danger. Combine that with a belt (converted from 3.5) that allows her to Enlarge self and our monk can be quite a combatant.
|
A feat that lets them retain their bonuses in light armor.
A gauntlet that doesn't add to damage, but can be enchanted while acting as their natural fist.
The biggest issue with monks is equipment. Armor is far below everyone else, and there is no way to get around this.
The monk's amulet is sort of a magic weapon, but costs more, takes up a valuable slot (the "natural armor" slot), and can only gain ehancement bonuses (keywords are usually the smarter ways to go).
They were balanced against other classes without taking into account their lack of availability to many good enhancements. Adding the two things would still not bring them up to the Pal/Fighter level, but would bring them much, much closer, and make them a more viable alternative.
I typically don't allow monks, as I feel they are OVERPOWERED.
They get more attacks than the warrior, unarmed does more damage than a weapon, plus they are immune to everything, get the 'good' save in EVERY category, walk through walls, etc.
Not sure why they need to be MORE powerful.
But I am open to contrary views.
:)
I cant tell if this is sarcasm, are you being serious? If so you are the first person I have ever heard of to ban monks for being overpowered (i have seen them once banned for flavor reasons).
Nothing. Monks don't need to be fixed.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I don't think they're broken. The big problem most people have with monks is that they're not as good at fighting as a fighter, which is correct, but that's not what they're supposed to be. Go make a fighter if that's what you want. Monks are best as skirmishers and wizard killers. Their mobility lets them easily get to enemy squishy spellcasters, then grapple/stunning fist/or simply flurry them into paste. Similarly, monks are great at clearing out the mooks to free your fighter from taking on the single strong, high AC boss.
The biggest problem the monk in our group has is Damage Reduction. Getting a ton of attacks that can't bypass DR is brutal. Allowing them to get some ability to bypass some DR would help a lot. The other issue is pricing on the amulet of mighty fists. The amulet is much more expensive than a comparable magic weapon and the amulet does not allow bypassing various DRs.
The above suggestion of gauntlets would help. Our GM let the monk in our group buy silver fist wraps to bypass the Silver DR.
Another issue is when they can't do full attacks their damage is horrible. I'm not sure how vital strike plus spring attack would work with a monk. Seems like it should be a good combination.
Another issue is when they can't do full attacks their damage is horrible. I'm not sure how vital strike plus spring attack would work with a monk. Seems like it should be a good combination.After 5th level, they are better off hitting with FoB, since a SpAtt/VS attack is at 3/4 BAB and FoB is at full.
I know... but they can't fury and move in the same round.
How many points are your characters built on?Monks do better on HIGH point campaigns, but still tend to lag vs a fighter. Honestly it is hard to say who would win a fight between a 20 monk and a 20 Fighter who specialized in unarmed strikes.
I was privy to the character comparison of a 20 Monk and 20 Fighter focused on a one-handed weapon and shield style of fighting. I unfortunately don't have the numbers on me, but the Monk ended up about 10 to 15 points higher on AC and had a better chance to hit the Fighter. I think the Monk was 18 to 20 to hit and the Fighter was only on 20s to hit the Monk. The conclusion was that the Monk gets crazy good once access to higher level magic items was permitted.
I'd like to see a monk in group combat as opposed to one-on-one. Fighters have incredible staying power in combat and with cleave and great cleave can lay waste to swatches of enemies.
I think Monks are good as is. I have one in the RotRL I'm running and he is doing fine.
Spring Attack and Disarm makes them very tricky!
They may have slightly lower AC than a Fighter but with Arcane help via Mage Armour etc. they are ok.
However, Saves are what it's all about in the end and they don't fail many. I'd take high saves vs high AC any day.
It's a meta problem. Replace the player and the monk is fine.
Seriously. The monk is pretty decent at what he's supposed to be decent.
The only thing I'd change would be to improve the bonus feat list to include Greater (combat manoeuvre) feats.
|
One thing I'd like to see is fixing their ki strike that treats their unarmed strikes as lawful for overcoming DR. Because, honestly, what monsters has DR X/lawful?? I just did a search in the PRPG Beastiary, and not a single creature has DR X/lawful. So, why give the monk lawful unarmed strike? Or am I just being naive?
One thing I'd like to see is fixing their ki strike that treats their unarmed strikes as lawful for overcoming DR. Because, honestly, what monsters has DR X/lawful?? I just did a search in the PRPG Beastiary, and not a single creature has DR X/lawful. So, why give the monk lawful unarmed strike? Or am I just being naive?
Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.
I like the idea someone had for different fighting schools. There may even be monks who are chaotic for example that focus on reckless, undisciplined fighting and strike as chaotic weapons instead of lawful.
Overall though my personal opinion is that monks are not underpowered. They serve a purpose and I imagine most casters who end up with a monk in their face would start screaming OP if this was an mmo.
If the Amulet of mighty fists was fixed, I think it would be awesome.
I play a Githzerai monk today, and he is VERY powerful, but I do understand that this happens because of his impressive Ability Scores, if not for it it would not be so good.
In the end I think they are good, but they do depend a lot on magical itens and Ability Scores, more than anyone else. And that is complicated.
|
|
Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.
Yah, good point. But I'm looking strictly at PRPG Beastiary. This essentially means the monk's ability to overcome lawful DR is next to useless.
Also, I believe the Slaads did not make the Beastiary because they (as well as other classics like beholders and others) are considered "Product Identity" by Wizard of the Coast, so are not part of the 3.5 SRD, thus not part of Pathfinder.
|
|
My problem with them has always been the fluff, not the mechanics. The eastern feel of the class clashes with the generally european-esque settings and feel of the other classes. This can be changed by making them more western (change their name to something like Brawler, change the fluff to make them a combat-versed peasant warrior), they're a little better.
If playing in an eastern feeling game, they're just fine. I think they've been a staple of D&D since the era of the Bruce Lee and Chuck Norris movies, but those kinds of movies don't resound with many who are younger than a certain age, say about 25 now. When they think of martial artists they immediately assume a different sort of genra than the action movies and thus the fluff doesn't seem to fit.
Mechanically, they seem perfectly balanced to me. I don't really see a reason the change their mechanics at all. They play keep up very well, IMO, and their increased speeds actually make them a very valuable part of the team. You have to think of them as more Rogue-like than Fighter-like to really see the beauty of their abilities though. They get compared so much though that no one really notices they have their own roll in a party. They add a paladin-like spiritualness and conscience to the group, a rogue-like skillfullness, and a barbarian-like determination. It really fits its own category.
Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.Yah, good point. But I'm looking strictly at PRPG Beastiary. This essentially means the monk's ability to overcome lawful DR is next to useless.
Also, I believe the Slaads did not make the Beastiary because they (as well as other classics like beholders and others) are considered "Product Identity" by Wizard of the Coast, so are not part of the 3.5 SRD, thus not part of Pathfinder.
Yeah, I figured that was the case but maybe they just didn't make the cut.
*shrugs*
|
|
Gray and Death Slaads do but they didn't make it into the Bestiary for whatever reason.Yah, good point. But I'm looking strictly at PRPG Beastiary. This essentially means the monk's ability to overcome lawful DR is next to useless.
Also, I believe the Slaads did not make the Beastiary because they (as well as other classics like beholders and others) are considered "Product Identity" by Wizard of the Coast, so are not part of the 3.5 SRD, thus not part of Pathfinder.
Yeah, I figured that was the case but maybe they just didn't make the cut.
*shrugs*
They are wizards property. Paizo has created Proteans to fill the void left in the Pathfinder-verse.
I find it really interesting that so many people are defending the monk here when in the tier list no one was defending them and they were consistently placed as the weakest class.
Personally, I don't mind the monk that much, but think there should be a couple tweaks.
For one, I like the idea of monk weapons scaling with their level like their fists. That way they don't need to get wierd work arrounds like the amulet and you could see the different weapons used.
Also I think their anti-dr needs to be buffed. I saw 1 3.5 mod where they ignored fractions of the DR (1/3 and later 2/3), and thought this was neat, though in practice it can result in some anoyance.
Full BAB and d10 would probably do it, really.
Perhaps also give them Vital Strike for free, or make it a choice between that and flurry. That's their biggest thematic flaw: they've got all this mobility, but hit like a gnat unless they just stand still.
Perhaps also give them Vital Strike for free, or make it a choice between that and flurry. That's their biggest thematic flaw: they've got all this mobility, but hit like a gnat unless they just stand still.
I can see the Vital Strike for free thing and even full BAB (they get it anyway when using flurry).
I think that their class level should be applied as their base attack bonus when qualifying for feats, in the vein of maneuver training. That would be pretty great.
EDIT: Hell, put that as a feat on my wish-list for APG.
I think I'd like to see more combat style feats. The ones that are in the core book are good, but really only capitalize on stunning the enemy. I'd like to see some other combat maneuver feats dealing with trip, grapple, disarm, and bull rush. Let the monk own combat maneuvers and make people have to worry about their CMD more. Otherwise, I like the monk. And Don't see problems with it. I do like scaling the dmg on monk weapons, but don't really see it as necessary. Still, it would be nice to see monks able to use weapons without having to give up that wicked damage.
|
|
Having a nicely defined role would help a lot. They probably should be really good at Combat Maneuvers, but the problem is that Combat Maneuvers aren't very good at higher levels.
They are much faster than most classes, but they can't really do anything with it.
One buff I was thinking of is spending 2 Ki to make a flurry of blows from full to standard action for the round.
Monks should also probably be the class that does all combat maneuvers really well at all levels.
|
|
They are much faster than most classes, but they can't really do anything with it.
Unless they are acrobats, in which case every 10ft increase to speed gives them another 5ft of movement in a tumble assuming they don't take the penalty. This makes them great for setting up flank situations with rogues, fighters with power attack, or with a full attacking meleer while avoiding attacks of opportunity themselves. It also makes them masters of difficult terrain.
All-in-all they're a very good asset to have in a given party.
They are wizards property. Paizo has created Proteans to fill the void left in the Pathfinder-verse.
Fill the Void. The Cerulean Void, that is.
Though I rather thing that they when a silly monster was taken away, they replaced it with a great one.
|
|
They are much faster than most classes, but they can't really do anything with it.
Unless they are acrobats, in which case every 10ft increase to speed gives them another 5ft of movement in a tumble assuming they don't take the penalty. This makes them great for setting up flank situations with rogues, fighters with power attack, or with a full attacking meleer while avoiding attacks of opportunity themselves. It also makes them masters of difficult terrain.
All-in-all they're a very good asset to have in a given party.
No they're not. I would always take another spellcaster or fighter over them instead. There's no room for them. They have to be able to do something other classes don't do well at all. Moving fast is great, but once he gets there, he can't do much about it. He doesn't have the HP or BAB to hang in a fight, and he can't capitalize with his great speed.
|
|
They're just supposed to be more interesting. Like, you can roleplay anything, and it can be fun talking it the "ancient wise ways", but you can do that with a cleric too, and probably far better. So what they really need is an interesting way to keep them strong.
I think someone in the thread hit on it; if they were reborn, they should be the masters of combat maneuvers. Give ways that at high level monk can add nasty keywords to all of their CM attacks, like stunned, disabled, maybe slowed, etc etc. They don't have the AC of the fighters/pallys (especially during the DND "sweet spot" levels of 5 to 14, I don't have high-level campaigns so I can't confirm or deny what happens at level 20), they don't have the damage output of... well anyone really (lowest damage output of any class?). They don't have hit points or BAB of dedicated melee. And they lose vital magic item slots (weapon, armor, and amulet slot if you assume that has to be Mighty Fist to get them some shot). And what do they get? A few daily "neat tricks", 2 skill points, and a little AC bump that both makes them require more stats and still doesn't come close to keeping up with heavy armor. Even outside of melee charisma/int have to be dumped for the Str/Dex/Con/Wis character, meaning they can't really influence NPCs or help do research like bards or rogues or pallys or clerics.
They just need a role, an advantage. Something that makes it so the whole party doesn't feel they have to protect them and that they deject from the team. And people love them, why shouldn't one of the most beloved classes in the game become one of the more viable useful choices as a class? They did it for the bard, the monk is more popular, they should do it for them too.
Players not trying to use them as fighters goes a long way. You try and be a front line fighter with a class that was never meant to do that and more often then not you die.
|
|
The monk is meant to fill a roll in the party that it sounds as if you specifically wouldn't like to play. You've given your opinion, not a fact, and I disagree. The speed is an incredible asset and something that no other class can really match. The ability to move through combat fluidly and with little detriment is an incredible ability NO other class can match. Just because you have a personal preference, that doesn't mean they're not a good class. I happen to think they're fine. 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, the skills, class abilities like evasion, and speed to maneuver in combat make them an incredibly valuable class. Just because they're not a tank doesn't mean they're not worth playing. If its not your playstyle, fine, but that doesn't mean they're a good class..
Players not trying to use them as fighters goes a long way. You try and be a front line fighter with a class that was never meant to do that and more often then not you die.
+1
At best, they're meant to be harassers like the rogue. They just do it in a different way.
|
|
All right, for amusement sake let's follow this path?
How are they harrassment like the rogue? The rogue's "combat role" is heavy damage output while trying to keep self hidden. Monks can't do that, they can't output any damage.
Monks can then move fast.. and then what? They're either closer or further away from the enemies, they haven't really annoyed the enemies either case.
They're not actuall good at the CM like they should be, since it's based on BAB, and their strength probably isn't on par with fighters/rogues because their stats are far more spread.
They can't rush forward and create a line, their AC sucks, generally speaking.
So what do they do in combat? They either stand up and try to do damage (like a fighter with bad AC and low damage output), which we all agreed doesn't work. Or they spring attack and move through, which allows them a whopping one attack.
Their speed is wasted in combat, occasionally they can out of combat sprint ahead and do something useful, but the circumstances where this helps are pretty rare.
You can try to make them not 100% suck, but you're going to be less effective than even an average-built rogue, and certainly far less effective than the melees.
So again I ask for the scenario where they can show their "effective" role in combat, since we agreed roleplaying anyone can do out of combat (though at least others have good out-of-combat skills to make NPCs more open to what they are saying).
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Monks are great at hunting down and eliminating non-melee threats. Archers, wizards, rogues, and monsters with similar traits. If you're fighting a rival adventuring party (or mixed group of monsters), I'd rather be on the party with a monk against one without.
I was privy to the character comparison of a 20 Monk and 20 Fighter focused on a one-handed weapon and shield style of fighting. I unfortunately don't have the numbers on me, but the Monk ended up about 10 to 15 points higher on AC and had a better chance to hit the Fighter. I think the Monk was 18 to 20 to hit and the Fighter was only on 20s to hit the Monk. The conclusion was that the Monk gets crazy good once access to higher level magic items was permitted.I have some major questions with this. First, given that PFRPG fighters are much, much butcher than 3.5, is this a PF or 3.5 comparison? Fighters now get many more options.
Second, would this be a FoB that had a better chance to hit, or a regular strike? Monks using mobility are denied their FoB.
Third, 10-15 pts more AC?? I would like to see this without a Vow of Poverty, because the highest I ever pushed a monk AC was with the Duelist PrC.
It was a Pathfinder Fighter, it was not counting Mobility into its AC, and there was no Vow of Poverty. It was strictly Pathfinder information, no 3.5 porting. There was a lot of high magic equipment going on. I think the Monk got the Bracers of Armor, Ring of Deflection, Amulet of Natural Armor, and so on. Like I said, I don't have the numbers right in front of me or I'd be happy to share. The person who ran the comparison, though, felt that Monks were intended to be high Strength and Wisdom and not put a good stat in Dexterity and that the notion did not fit the written rules. I just wanted to put this out for what it was worth to the other folks in the thread.
All right, for amusement sake let's follow this path?
This is going to be fun!
How are they harrassment like the rogue? The rogue's "combat role" is heavy damage output while trying to keep self hidden. Monks can't do that, they can't output any damage.
First of all, we didn't say they had to carbon copy a rogue's MO.
Second, the rogue doesn't do heavy damage.
Third: Keeping hidden is not really something all rogues do. And few do it well in combat (without magic support)
Fourth: Monks can output damage. Not much, but not nothing, either.
Fifth: Monks are about harassment. And boy, are they good at it.
Monks can then move fast.. and then what? They're either closer or further away from the enemies, they haven't really annoyed the enemies either case.
Sixth: Speed is great. Very versatile. Outrun slower allies when you need to get away from something. Cover great distances to enemies. Thought they had some more time until the foe was upon them? Well, before they knew it, they were face first in the dirt, their arm behind their back and their feet in a knot.
Seventh: Not everything is about everything, you know.
Eigth: "they're either closer or farther away from the enemies"? I'll let that stand on its own.
They're not actuall good at the CM like they should be, since it's based on BAB, and their strength probably isn't on par with fighters/rogues because their stats are far more spread.
Ninth: Read up on stuff. Inform yourself. THEN criticise.
Tenth: Their BAB counts as full for combat manoeuvres. Their stats are a bit lower, but they usually get some bonus for the manoeuvres.
Won't really help against warriors, but rogues? Clerics? Arcanists?
So what do they do in combat? They either stand up and try to do damage (like a fighter with bad AC and low damage output), which we all agreed doesn't work.
Eleventh: Why bring it up if it isn't really their MO?
Or they spring attack and move through, which allows them a whopping one attack.
Twelfth: Or they walk up to someone (and with walk, I mean run really really fast) and ruin their day.
Their speed is wasted in combat
Thirteenth: Not true.
You can try to make them not 100% suck, but you're going to be less effective than even an average-built rogue, and certainly far less effective than the melees.
Fourteenth: I've seen monks used to great effect
Fifteenth: I've used monks to great effects.
People fall on their dumb faces more often than not when the monk wants them to. Having a killion attacks for that sort of thing is quite useful. And then they get the s~#! beaten out of them by the other melee fighters, who now enjoy a hefty +4 bonus. And when they try to get up, the monk hits them again. And after all that, they only have one attack, because they needed to get up.
Fun fun fun.
Monks are great at hunting down and eliminating non-melee threats. Archers, wizards, rogues, and monsters with similar traits. If you're fighting a rival adventuring party (or mixed group of monsters), I'd rather be on the party with a monk against one without.
Oh yeah. You don't want to face a monk if you're an archer. One round you get a huge range penalty for attacking him, and the next he's right next to you.