Monks at low level


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters. This got me thinking of how it could be compensated in a campaign. Monk's increased movement and ability to stealth makes them a great scout. Carrying a quarterstaff, potions of shillelagh, and potions of mage armor(or having the party mage cast it on you every day) would be a great way of compensating here. I don't like the idea of buffing in combat because you're losing turns, not very good, but when you come into enemies stealthily, handwave your friends to slow down, danger is near, and pour the oil of shillelagh on your quarterstaff you are ready to start power attacking. At higher levels the quarterstaff could be dumped if your H2H damage gets better.

What do others think on this topic? Obviously this is more useful in wooded areas than in a desert, where there isn't many places to hide.


In the DPR olympics there are some restrictions that in actual gameplay you can get around.

Mage armor from an ally alone changes the defense of the Monk signficantly.

Also keep in mind that abilities like Stunning Fist are not taken into account in the DPR olympics.

If you get a source of mage armor (buy a wand - they're cheap, and give it to anyone in the party who can use it. 1 Hour duration), then you will find Melvin 1.1.2 very playable.

A Monk isn't the biggest powerhouse you can get - but Melvin's ending DPR actually wasn't bad. Less than the big-hit fighters and the Druid, but in line with the TWF rogue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Indeed a monk properly outfitted is pretty good. I just find it amusing that the class that seemingly needs the least gear is actually the most gear/spell dependent in pathfinder.


Kolokotroni wrote:
Indeed a monk properly outfitted is pretty good. I just find it amusing that the class that seemingly needs the least gear is actually the most gear/spell dependent in pathfinder.

LOL - very true!

Monks need very little "standard non-magical" gear. They don't wear armor or need the big greatsword.

However, once you get into magic gear, they are just as hungry as any other martial build, and their primary offensive boost is stupidly expensive making them very gold hungry indeed.


With some of the new feats in Pathfinder though, the monk can become quite formidable in my experience. Scorpion Style, Die Hard...these are some pretty neat feats that can turn a Monk who seems not so powerful to taking out a group or so of enemies quickly.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

grasshopper_ea wrote:
I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters.

Bear in mind, I think monks are so weak as to disrupt the game. That said, things monks can do which are not damage or not get hit by physical attacks:

  • Stun enemies
  • Sneak around
  • Be perceptive, both in the spotting things and noticing bluffs sense
  • Do the best subdual damage in the game among damage-dealing classes
  • Move in rough terrain, particularly if the terrain can be cleared with a jump
  • Grapple
  • Fight in circumstances where arms and/or armor are inappropriate or unavailable

    It's very hard to make these abilities matter at times and the monk is not necessarily the best at some of them, but it's not like the monk doesn't have things it can do.

    Quote:
    With some of the new feats in Pathfinder though, the monk can become quite formidable in my experience. Scorpion Style, Die Hard...these are some pretty neat feats that can turn a Monk who seems not so powerful to taking out a group or so of enemies quickly.

    Expectation failure. The monk is not the guy who takes out a group of enemies quickly. (And Diehard is a terrible feat which gets you killed.) The monk is the guy who knocks enemies for a loop before the rest of the party knocks them down. If you're expecting to take guys out, you're going to be disappointed. If you're expecting to always be able to set up a flank, to be able to stun enemies or stagger or fatigue enemies, or to be able to sit on someone who isn't very good at grappling, then you're probably going to be much happier.


  • A Man In Black wrote:
    grasshopper_ea wrote:
    I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters.

    Bear in mind, I think monks are so weak as to disrupt the game. That said, things monks can do which are not damage or not get hit by physical attacks:

  • Stun enemies
  • Sneak around
  • Be perceptive, both in the spotting things and noticing bluffs sense
  • Do the best subdual damage in the game among damage-dealing classes
  • Move in rough terrain, particularly if the terrain can be cleared with a jump
  • Grapple
  • Fight in circumstances where arms and/or armor are inappropriate or unavailable

    It's very hard to make these abilities matter at times and the monk is not necessarily the best at some of them, but it's not like the monk doesn't have things it can do.

    Quote:
    With some of the new feats in Pathfinder though, the monk can become quite formidable in my experience. Scorpion Style, Die Hard...these are some pretty neat feats that can turn a Monk who seems not so powerful to taking out a group or so of enemies quickly.
    Expectation failure. The monk is not the guy who takes out a group of enemies quickly. (And Diehard is a terrible feat which gets you killed.) The monk is the guy who knocks enemies for a loop before the rest of the party knocks them down. If you're expecting to take guys out, you're going to be disappointed. If you're expecting to always be able to set up a flank, to be able to stun enemies or stagger or fatigue enemies, or to be able to sit on someone who isn't very good at grappling, then you're probably going to be much happier.
  • Your right, I worded that incorrectly. Die Hard is bad?

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    ShijinModan wrote:
    Your right, I worded that incorrectly. Die Hard is bad?

    Okay, you get hit in the face by an ettin. You're at -3 HP. There are two possibilities.

    You don't have Diehard. You fall down, bleeding to death, and the ettin attacks someone else in the party with his second attack. If the party defeats the ettin, you get to live.

    You do have Diehard. You keep standing, at -3 HP, and the ettin hits you in the face for 19 damage. You die.

    Which do you prefer?


    A Man In Black wrote:
    ShijinModan wrote:
    Your right, I worded that incorrectly. Die Hard is bad?

    Okay, you get hit in the face by an ettin. You're at -3 HP. There are two possibilities.

    You don't have Diehard. You fall down, bleeding to death, and the ettin attacks someone else in the party with his second attack. If the party defeats the ettin, you get to live.

    You do have Diehard. You keep standing, at -3 HP, and the ettin hits you in the face for 19 damage. You die.

    Which do you prefer?

    You could jump up and stun him with stunning fist, then the party can kill him while he is stunned, and the cleric can heal you.

    Now that I think about it, the odds are that the monk wins initiative, and keeps stunning the Ettin so he stays locked down the entire fight, or I can grapple the Ettin. Monks are the supreme grapplers, or I can trip him or sunder his weapon.

    Just so MiB does not think I have lost my mind I am playing devil's advocate.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    wraithstrike wrote:

    You could jump up and stun him with stunning fist, then the party can kill him while he is stunned, and the cleric can heal you.

    Now that I think about it, the odds are that the monk wins initiative, and keeps stunning the Ettin so he stays locked down the entire fight, or I can grapple the Ettin. Monks are the supreme grapplers, or I can trip him or sunder his weapon.

    You're betting on the last attack being the one that knocks you negative, and that the turn the feat buys you is enough to save your life. Most of the time it just doesn't work like that.

    It's not a good bet for any class. It doesn't have anything to do with monks.


    "You may choose to act as if you were disabled, rather than dying. You must make this decision as soon as you are reduced to negative hit points (even if it isn't your turn). If you do not choose to act as if you were disabled, you immediately fall unconscious."

    So you could decide whether or not to fall in that situation.


    A Man In Black wrote:
    ShijinModan wrote:
    Your right, I worded that incorrectly. Die Hard is bad?

    Okay, you get hit in the face by an ettin. You're at -3 HP. There are two possibilities.

    You don't have Diehard. You fall down, bleeding to death, and the ettin attacks someone else in the party with his second attack. If the party defeats the ettin, you get to live.

    You do have Diehard. You keep standing, at -3 HP, and the ettin hits you in the face for 19 damage. You die.

    Which do you prefer?

    Playing DA here a minute:

    Ok the Ettin hits me I'm at -3 HP but I have the Diehard feat...

    I fall down anyways and roll that rather believable bluff check to look dead so he'll move on. At this point I either (provide I have enough monk levels) spend some Ki to abundant step back some place safer and next round spend Ki to heal, or I go straight to the spend Ki to heal. This is partly tactical -- if the Ettin is still right on top of me I'll probably not do something to draw attention back to myself (other than abundant stepping which doesn't provoke) so as to not go right back to getting hit.

    Now replace Ettin with a different monster to be sure at higher levels however that bluff is still rather believable (who doesn't look like they should be dead at -3 hp?) and the ability to continue taking actions after being knocked down *could* give you them means to get out of Dodge and do some healing without relying on the cleric running up and wasting his time getting you not dead in the middle of the fight.

    Still not optimum, but not as crappy of a situation.

    Diehard's usefulness isn't directly combat related... as MiB stated trying to fight on Diehard is going to get you killed -- however that doesn't mean it's a complete waste of space... like anything it takes intelligence to be useful however.


    Diehard:
    'I'm at -3 hp, but I'm up.':
    I don't fall prone, which is useful.
    I can Withdraw, and then heal up to rejoin the fight. (heal myself, move next to a cleric, potion, etc.)
    Possibly the enemy is also at low HP and I can finish him off before he gets another attack. (Sure that costs me a HP, but the enemy being dropped gives me breathing room)

    Basically, it gives me an extra 'Constitution' leeway in hit points to avoid sucking pavement and, thus, more leeway to deal with problems.

    It's situationally useful, but it's a situation that comes up reasonably often.


    William Timmins wrote:

    Diehard:

    'I'm at -3 hp, but I'm up.':
    I don't fall prone, which is useful.
    I can Withdraw, and then heal up to rejoin the fight. (heal myself, move next to a cleric, potion, etc.)
    Possibly the enemy is also at low HP and I can finish him off before he gets another attack. (Sure that costs me a HP, but the enemy being dropped gives me breathing room)

    Basically, it gives me an extra 'Constitution' leeway in hit points to avoid sucking pavement and, thus, more leeway to deal with problems.

    It's situationally useful, but it's a situation that comes up reasonably often.

    In the example MiB gave, I would be very careful about withdrawing from a creature with Reach. If he has attacks of opportunity left you very likely will die.

    I think Diehard can be useful. Worst case scenario you just fall down and act like you don't have it.

    However, if withdraw, abundant step, etc. are an option, you can pull back, heal yourself, and re-enter combat without needing the aid of another party member.

    However, as the above post shows, think very carefully about doing anything when your HP are that low.


    I was going to roll my eyes and say 'just tumble!' but I just checked the rules and good GOD did PF nerf tumbling out of reach!!

    A Large creature has a CMD of BAB + 16 or so? Compared to the flat DC 15 it used to be? Christ.

    I have a feeling my group may revolt at this rule alone.


    Let's also not forget that diehard requires a two feat investment and the first feat isn't all that useful for a monk unless you have a side job running messages between towns. and monks aren't exactly rolling in feats to the point they can devote two to something so situational. Better off picking feats that make it less likely you'll end up negative to begin with.


    William Timmins wrote:

    I was going to roll my eyes and say 'just tumble!' but I just checked the rules and good GOD did PF nerf tumbling out of reach!!

    A Large creature has a CMD of BAB + 16 or so? Compared to the flat DC 15 it used to be? Christ.

    I have a feeling my group may revolt at this rule alone.

    Um depends on the creature... Large only gets you a +1 size bonus.

    So if you have a large creature with str 24 and 6 BAB with a dex of 14 you have 7+6+2+1=16+10=26 CMD... that same creature is probably 8 hit dice and around challenge rating 7... so a 7th level monk with maximum acrobatics and a decent dex of 14 and nothing else will have a +12 to tumble pass that large creature which means he succeeds on a 14+... before he does anything to help himself, and having a Dex of 14 (for repetition).

    IF that same monk were to have Boots of Elvenkind (not a bad chance at that level) he would have +17 on that tumble check and succeed on a 9+.

    That's an unoptimized 60% chance of success.

    You grab 2 feats and you succeed on a 4+ and with a Dex of 16 put on top of that you'll get it on a 3+.

    Really not that bad.


    Sure, though it's a shock if you're used to +14 or more being autosuccess.

    Also, when we're talking about tactics to avoid dying, a 40% chance of getting killed horribly isn't very compelling.


    Abraham spalding wrote:


    ...snip...

    IF that same monk were to have Boots of Elvenkind (not a bad chance at that level) he would have +17 on that tumble check and succeed on a 9+.

    That's an unoptimized 60% chance of success.

    You grab 2 feats and you succeed on a 4+ and with a Dex of 16 put on top of that you'll get it on a 3+.

    Really not that bad.

    So you just devoted 4 feats out of the 4 you have at 7th level to running away better since you can't kill anything? That hardly seems worth it.


    William Timmins wrote:

    Sure, though it's a shock if you're used to +14 or more being autosuccess.

    Also, when we're talking about tactics to avoid dying, a 40% chance of getting killed horribly isn't very compelling.

    Look at it from the opposite direction too -- you will actually have a chance of getting those AoO's from monster's and rogue's movement now too.

    Besides if you are really worried about it you do still have the option of doing more to have a decent acrobatics check. It's not like we are talking about high end stuff here, that's just one item max ranks in one skill (that you probably want anyways) and a mid ranged Dex.

    angryscrub wrote:
    Abraham spalding wrote:


    ...snip...

    IF that same monk were to have Boots of Elvenkind (not a bad chance at that level) he would have +17 on that tumble check and succeed on a 9+.

    That's an unoptimized 60% chance of success.

    You grab 2 feats and you succeed on a 4+ and with a Dex of 16 put on top of that you'll get it on a 3+.

    Really not that bad.

    So you just devoted 4 feats out of the 4 you have at 7th level to running away better since you can't kill anything? That hardly seems worth it.

    IF you are that worried about the Acrobatics checks sure. IF you are comfortable with a 60%+ you devote nothing to it but the skill ranks and one item.

    Vastly different than "Auto success" but why should you auto succeed? You want to do that then withdraw -- carefully.

    Again I didn't say it was an optimal choice but it is one that can be made and if made you'll do good at what you choose to do.


    In 3.5e, if you really want to withdraw, you usually can. Or there were ways certain classes could guarantee the ability to withdraw.

    Now, there pretty much isn't unless you go through extraordinary lengths.

    I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but it's a big change. And it reduces the usefulness of certain strategies (like where I was originally going with 'Diehard is useful')


    Yeah, the old auto-succeed wasn't cool, but personally I've found the current DC mechanic to set the value too high for my tastes, so I've tweaked it in my games.

    But yeah, Diehard blows, especially since you have the staggered condition while under it's effects. If you got to keep using your whole turns I might actually condone it for some PC's.


    Withdrawing hasn't changed since 3.5. It still only gets you out of that first square... and to be honest most the time you tumble it's to get into position not out of it.

    However I do agree it's a change, however personally it's one I like. I thought it was odd that everyone simply tumbled and got out of any movement AoO's all the time just as it was odd that all spell casters automatically succeeded on Casting Defensively all the time.

    Again without trying you got about a 60% chance, which isn't a bad success rate for something you aren't trying at (much better than somethings you can try and with much poor chances of success), and if you do want to you can do much better... which fits the feel of the game more -- to me.


    grasshopper_ea wrote:

    I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters. This got me thinking of how it could be compensated in a campaign. ...more...

    If you are out for maximum DPR, you could do better then a monk. If you want a diverse class with a lot of odd options that can be all over the battlefield, the monk can be great.

    At first level, I would grab a Glaive - 1d10 damage, 3x crit, Str x 1.5 and REACH. As a monk, you threaten the squares close as well, This makes you the AoO master. It stays a very effective single attack for a long time. (unfortunately this does not work so well with another great ability - deflect arrows.)

    Put some ranks into Acrobatics and use the Total Defense (+6AC) and Attack Defensively (+3AC) options. Total Defense + Ki point = +10AC!

    Buy Pearls of Power for the casters in your party so you can get spells like mage armor, barkskin, or magic weapon/fang cast on yourself without taking up their spell slots. Try to be in a party with some casters who will buff you, debuff enemies, and work as a team. The party working as a team is important for the monk, perhaps more so then other classes. You have the ability to get right up to a rogue or most casters, and hit them with a trip, disarm, fortitude save to be stunned or worse. If they have a great fortitude, well let the caster dominate or at least slow them. If you are in a group where every combat is just a free-for-all with each player doing their own thing, play a different class.

    You movement abilities are HUGE, no matter what folks say. Being able to rip around the battlefield is a nice advantage when your speed starts to increase. Get Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack, and you can pull off some cool stuff.

    Perception, Stealth, and Acrobatics are great skills. Max them out. Knowledge, climbing, and swimming, are important when you need them.

    The party composition (or more importantly the players teamwork) is very important. The more I think about that, the more I'm convinced that there is something to monks only being able to be Lawful. There may also be some campaigns that are not really great for a monk. I'm DM'ing a campaign that is entering an "Against the Giants" phase (Runelords), and I must say, I'm not sure where a monk would fit in. In an "Against the Drow" campaign the monk would be great however.


    A Man In Black wrote:
    grasshopper_ea wrote:
    I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters.

    Bear in mind, I think monks are so weak as to disrupt the game. That said, things monks can do which are not damage or not get hit by physical attacks:

  • Stun enemies
  • Sneak around
  • Be perceptive, both in the spotting things and noticing bluffs sense
  • Do the best subdual damage in the game among damage-dealing classes
  • Move in rough terrain, particularly if the terrain can be cleared with a jump
  • Grapple
  • Fight in circumstances where arms and/or armor are inappropriate or unavailable

    It's very hard to make these abilities matter at times and the monk is not necessarily the best at some of them, but it's not like the monk doesn't have things it can do.

  • I'd like to and overrun to this list, MiB.

    It seems like a great way to get close quick without triggering an AoO, better than charge. There's a pretty good chance that the opponent will be knocked down too. Espcially if someone is trying to make an escape.

    Now the monk is behind the opponent and good flanking position.
    With the 'greater' version an AoO is triggered for anyone around, this may not be worth a whole feat but it is an option.

    edit...
    And it's better than spring attack, well better for gwtting there quick and sticking to the opponent anyway.


    Otsego wrote:
    A Man In Black wrote:
    grasshopper_ea wrote:
    I was reading the DPR olympics and the downfall of the monk in a straight DPR setting of either having lower defense or lower offense than other characters.

    Bear in mind, I think monks are so weak as to disrupt the game. That said, things monks can do which are not damage or not get hit by physical attacks:

  • Stun enemies
  • Sneak around
  • Be perceptive, both in the spotting things and noticing bluffs sense
  • Do the best subdual damage in the game among damage-dealing classes
  • Move in rough terrain, particularly if the terrain can be cleared with a jump
  • Grapple
  • Fight in circumstances where arms and/or armor are inappropriate or unavailable

    It's very hard to make these abilities matter at times and the monk is not necessarily the best at some of them, but it's not like the monk doesn't have things it can do.

  • I'd like to and overrun to this list, MiB.

    It seems like a great way to get close quick without triggering an AoO, better than charge. There's a pretty good chance that the opponent will be knocked down too. Espcially if someone is trying to make an escape.

    Now the monk is behind the opponent and good flanking position.
    With the 'greater' version an AoO is triggered for anyone around, this may not be worth a whole feat but it is an option.

    Overrun might work against humanoids, but when you start to deal with monsters the chances of that working are not so good. They are normally very strong without magic items, and they get bonuses just for being big. That is just off the top of my head.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    wraithstrike wrote:


    Overrun might work against humanoids, but when you start to deal with monsters the chances of that working are not so good. They are normally very strong without magic items, and they get bonuses just for being big. That is just off the top of my head.

    Right, but grapple and stun don't work in those cases either.

    Everything has a function, just need to find the right situation for said function.

    I've never been past level 13 in any D20 game. Are humanoids nonexistent at higher levels? Lots of posts have the same arguement, high levels are filled with multilegged, multiheaded behemoths of unstoppable power, just checking.

    Dark Archive

    Otsego wrote:
    wraithstrike wrote:


    Overrun might work against humanoids, but when you start to deal with monsters the chances of that working are not so good. They are normally very strong without magic items, and they get bonuses just for being big. That is just off the top of my head.

    Right, but grapple and stun don't work in those cases either.

    Everything has a function, just need to find the right situation for said function.

    I've never been past level 13 in any D20 game. Are humanoids nonexistent at higher levels? Lots of posts have the same arguement, high levels are filled with multilegged, multiheaded behemoths of unstoppable power, just checking.

    Around level 7 or so in my games, almost all monsters are at least large size if not larger. It's the same reason why fighters got owned later, because even with gear they have trouble with monsters bigger than they are.

    RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

    Abraham spalding wrote:
    I fall down anyways and roll that rather believable bluff check to look dead so he'll move on.

    In which case you are a monk and thus dumped cha and do not have Bluff as a class skills, so you probably don't do too well.

    Otsego wrote:
    I'd like to and overrun to this list, MiB.

    I skipped anything literally anyone can do.


    A Man In Black wrote:


    I skipped anything literally anyone can do.

    Wow. Ok my mistake.

    While we're at it, I posted some un-truths about overrun, mainly the fact that it provoks an AoO for anyone around and you will need the improved version to avoid AoO, oops calling myself out. That's what I get for posting at work (away from the books). I haven't memorized the entire genre yet.


    BYC wrote:


    Around level 7 or so in my games, almost all monsters are at least large size if not larger. It's the same reason why fighters got owned later, because even with gear they have trouble with monsters bigger than they are.

    I haven't got past lvl 2 yet in PF but AD&D had plenty of humanoid types at 7 and beyond. Maybe my memory is failing me, they say that's the second to go, can't remember the first.


    The whole humanoid enemy issue is just a DM thing. I love using NPC's for enemies. Heck, my BBEG was a bad MF'ing goblin with class levels in one game. The game that I'm playing in now, however, he uses tons of constructs, oozes, abberations, etc. The one I ran got to 13 or 14, the one my friend is running is around 8 currently. Just throwing it out there that you can't just make a blanket statement about what sort of enemies you should be fighting at late levels.


    SanguineRooster wrote:
    The whole humanoid enemy issue is just a DM thing. I love using NPC's for enemies. Heck, my BBEG was a bad MF'ing goblin with class levels in one game. The game that I'm playing in now, however, he uses tons of constructs, oozes, abberations, etc. The one I ran got to 13 or 14, the one my friend is running is around 8 currently. Just throwing it out there that you can't just make a blanket statement about what sort of enemies you should be fighting at late levels.

    True, but normally does apply


    grasshopper_ea wrote:
    What do others think on this topic? Obviously this is more useful in wooded areas than in a desert, where there isn't many places to hide.

    Aiel.


    I think it's perfectly alright to use enchanted monk weapons. since it's cheaper. Lighten weapon/improved lighten weapon may be helpful with both your melee & thrown weapons as well. I wouldn't mind wielding an oversize temple sword that does 3d6 damage. It might be better then power attacking (you only take -2). 1d3 shurikens are also nice or a d6 starknife w/o penalty for single throws and the extra range (20ft.). If I like it, I'd take rapid shot just to throw 2 Starknives per round.


    SanguineRooster wrote:
    The whole humanoid enemy issue is just a DM thing. I love using NPC's for enemies. Heck, my BBEG was a bad MF'ing goblin with class levels in one game. The game that I'm playing in now, however, he uses tons of constructs, oozes, abberations, etc. The one I ran got to 13 or 14, the one my friend is running is around 8 currently. Just throwing it out there that you can't just make a blanket statement about what sort of enemies you should be fighting at late levels.

    It really comes down to DM time usage, on average a DM has alot of stuff to manage on top of having their own life. Adding monsters just requires tagging a page in the bestiary while writing up npcs with class levels requires a lot more time invested.

    It's not to say some DMs won't do it but on average you'll run into more monsters than humanoids as you level to keep the extra work to a minimum. Also monsters tend to have a more epic feeling/ambiance to them than Gobbo the level 20 Goblin Archmage would.


    Alejandro Acosta wrote:
    I think it's perfectly alright to use enchanted monk weapons. since it's cheaper. Lighten weapon/improved lighten weapon may be helpful with both your melee & thrown weapons as well. I wouldn't mind wielding an oversize temple sword that does 3d6 damage. It might be better then power attacking (you only take -2). 1d3 shurikens are also nice or a d6 starknife w/o penalty for single throws and the extra range (20ft.). If I like it, I'd take rapid shot just to throw 2 Starknives per round.

    Edit: forget the starknife. Use a Chakram (martial). You get 1d8 damage, Crit x2 and 30 ft. range. It's a martial weapon so you can use it at first level. Stat priority also changes. Go with ++WIS>+DEX>+STR>CON>-INT>-CHA. I put WIS 1st to boost monk abilities (SF, AC, Ki). going with Mantis style.


    Generally the best defense in pathfinder is kill it, kill it dead, make it dead fast. Best way of preventing damage. Unfortunately the monk needs a list of feats to be good at this, or else to be stupidly lacking in defenses.

    If you go dex build your damage will suck until you get agile (at which point hope it doesn't get sundered because you'll suck until you find another weapon with agile). If you go strength your AC is horrible with a frontliner with a d8 HD.

    You can't get power attack or weapon focus at first level, very much go to's for melee's.

    Grapple becomes worthless once everyone starts carrying around rings of freedom of movement (pretty much a standard go to item. Freedom from movement impeding spells autofailure on enemy grapple checks? Yes please!)

    Overrun is ok but don't count on it. You won't beat a lot of creatures with it (flying etc).

    Trip is great but is negated by any ability to fly.

    disarm is defeated by a non magic item less than 100 gold.

    sunder is good but a monk won't be that great at it because of high hardness and the fact that they focus on multiple hits.


    Kolokotroni wrote:
    Indeed a monk properly outfitted is pretty good. I just find it amusing that the class that seemingly needs the least gear is actually the most gear/spell dependent in pathfinder.

    To be specialised and boosted in a certain way, the monk needs gear, but a naked monk can still flurry, has great saves and all his monk special abilities.

    So now we must introduce a party of monk nudists into our games, to show the players that cool heroes do not need to fixate on items.

    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks at low level All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.