Maybe I'm not clear on where *I'm* coming from on the monk side of things then if people are taking it for me saying the monk sucks.
I'm firmly in the camp of "the monk does things differently" for clarification here.
What my last few points were about is to counter the idea the the fighter will be ineffective in a grapple/unarmed compared to a monk.
I'm just putting the #'s out there to emphasize the disparity because it wasn't being all that challenged. A fighter will *always* out damage just about anyone (certainly monks in *most* circumstances) in just about any mode of combat.
I never contested the monk surpassing his defenses (ciretose's point), as I share that opinion. The monk *does* bring a LOT more defensive bang for the buck.
That's not the point that was made by Midnightoker, though. He was insisting that monks can out-grapple and be more useful in a similar build/concept/role/whatever.
I'm all FOR the camp of "but monks do other things well ..." but when someone comes in and starts throwing out nonsense, I call it BS.
Monks can contribute just fine ... out-damaging, or out maneuvering a fighter, however, are NOT arguments that hold water for me because the mechanics do not support such a claim. (Note: this is all by NO fault of the Monk mind you, Fighters are the BEST at ... well ... fighting.)
In that respect I am truly sorry for my spiteful language.
I have just heard "Monks arent any good" way too much. They (in my opinion) are effective in combat just in a different way.
You are absolutely right a fighter will out damage the monk if he specializes into it, as he should its his only schtick for Gods sake haha.
terribly sorry for the miscommunication. I do acknoledge that you had some very valid points in your counter.
I am sorry for arguing, this is a community of smart respectful gamers and I want to do my best to retain that.
The arguement I was stating I was trying to get at was every time someone says what the monk is effective at some ass clown has to say "well such and such can do that better". That is not always true and is often times false or misconstrued in my opinion. Yes Johnny Rainbow the swinging fist fighter is better with his fists, but the monk can do other things in combat that a fighter cant do, many things.
You are correct. My arguement against you was misinformed, the above is how I truly feel.
I am sorry for bringing my childish behavior into this forum.
But keep saying the fighter can't do "all the cool things" that a monk can, but...well, what cool things?
Combat maneuvers? With the fighter's feats, the fact that he can safetly drop wisdom and dexterity to get that 13 in intelligence, and how he can focus entirely on strength, no, he's better then the monk. He can even grab a guisarme or other tripping at reach weapon to help.
Skills? Which? Certainly the fighter as fewer skills then the monk, but what monk skills are the drastically important ones that the fighter misses out on? Climb? Nobody ever uses climb. Swim? Water breathing is hilariously easy to get, and besides that, even with zero ranks in swim, a fighter can swiftly make the take ten for it due to lowered ACP and high strength. Stealth? Congrats, you're a rogue that can't find traps, I'm sure the party will find you useful.
Movement speed? I've honestly yet to see that come up in a game. By the time the monk is moving significantly fast enough, fights require flight, which more or less destroy his fast movement.
His "awesome abilities?" Which ones? Which ones that matter? here we hit the "Flurry of Misses" again, a long list of abilities that don't actually do much. The fighter takes a bit more damage when he falls, ok, but that's not really that meaningful, especially when the fighter has more HP to soak it. He isn't immune to disease, except monks get that at about the same level clerics can remove disease, so that's not that big of a worry. Wholeness of body isn't even worth using. Diamond body? At level 11 fighters are already immune to most poisons due to their giganto fort saves - and even if they are hit with it, by level 11, poison ain't no thang at all.
That's why the monk is a Flurry of Misses. He has all these different abilities, and none of them are really all that useful.
But keep saying the fighter can't do "all the cool things" that a monk can, but...well, what cool things?
Combat maneuvers? With the fighter's feats, the fact that he can safetly drop wisdom and dexterity to get that 13 in intelligence, and how he can focus entirely on strength, no, he's better then the monk. He can even grab a guisarme or other tripping at reach weapon to help.
Skills? Which? Certainly the fighter as fewer skills then the monk, but what monk skills are the drastically important ones that the fighter misses out on? Climb? Nobody ever uses climb. Swim? Water breathing is hilariously easy to get, and besides that, even with zero ranks in swim, a fighter can swiftly make the take ten for it due to lowered ACP and high strength. Stealth? Congrats, you're a rogue that can't find traps, I'm sure the party will find you useful.
Movement speed? I've honestly yet to see that come up in a game. By the time the monk is moving significantly fast enough, fights require flight, which more or less destroy his fast movement.
His "awesome abilities?" Which ones? Which ones that matter? here we hit the "Flurry of Misses" again, a long list of abilities that don't actually do much. The fighter takes a bit more damage when he falls, ok, but that's not really that meaningful, especially when the fighter has more HP to soak it. He isn't immune to disease, except monks get that at about the same level clerics can remove disease, so that's not that big of a worry. Wholeness of body isn't even worth using. Diamond body? At level 11 fighters are already immune to most poisons due to their giganto fort saves - and even if they are hit with it, by level 11, poison ain't no thang at all.
That's why the monk is a Flurry of Misses. He has all these different abilities, and none of them are really all that useful.
Oh now I see what your talking about
A game void of realism where combat encounters are on level plains while standing still and attacking.
How could I have been so blind, when would a DM ever call you to make decisions on the fly or handle other challenges besides monsters...
the honest to goodness truth is those are only uneffective if the DM makes them unaffective. Which can be done for any class, if you have problem with finding abilities useless that is probably because the game your in makes the ability useless.
A fighter would take a considerable set back in a seafaring campaign with no heavy armor. What about a campaign where the enemies are intelligent and avoid letting the big guy with the weapon get close using teleportation or flight or dimension anchor ect.
arguing that abilities or skills are useless because you say no one uses them is completely untrue, otherwise why would they exist.
Don't be obtuse, I'm talking about games I've played. This "Heh, maybe if you actually play a game" is pedantic and irritating and goes nowhere.
So, we have a campaign where the enemies are intelligent and stop the fighter from sing teleportation and flight. Remind me again why they aren't also doing this to the monk? Or hell, remind me how they're stopping the fighter from using those two things in the first place, then let me know how the monk gets away free?
When your only defense is "DM fiat," the class ain't working. The fact that you need to fix something means that it isn't functioning properly.
Don't be obtuse, I'm talking about games I've played. This "Heh, maybe if you actually play a game" is pedantic and irritating and goes nowhere.
Its also irritating when you use hyperbole about the monk's abilities sucking.
I think you had it right when you said:
He's "Ehhhh kinda decent, fairly good if he specializes, though other classes will still be better" at everything.
If the monk is immune to poisons or disease, that's less party resources spent on curing poisons and disease.
And other classes will be better because they specialize better, no argument here. But this isn't a boolean problem, unless you consider anything but "super awesome specialized build" a failure.
You know ... on the extreme side of obstinate "but they suck!" there are points as well.
I mean, end of the day, things that the Professor points out are absolutely true - not even "in isolation" true, mind you. Just flat out true. Early on in the thread someone else did a run down of the "stuff that doesn't matter" in the class progression, so I won't really do it again.
That said, it doesn't mean that those things are fully useless, though. They are EASILY more impressive than every single thing on the Fighter's progression (essentially just more feats, better armor dex bonus, and more to hit/damage bonus, and that's ALL a fighter brings ... ever). They are all, however, unique.
The game is NOT played in isolation, however, and GM's calls and adjudication of scenarios will ALWAYS matter. Why say this? Because a "good" GM will realize he has a monk PC in the party and will provide instances for the monk to shine. Say, a poisoned air environmental trap ... no one can really deal with that all that well. Casters *maybe* can handle it with a Zone of Sweet Air or something (IF they prepared that spell only, though - not to mention if they ever even bothered to learn the dang thing in the first place). High fort types can *try* to rush through and look for an "off" or something for that area, OR ... you send in the monk ... because he's freakin' IMMUNE! Point being, there are ways for GM's to control and set the scene to let those "corner case" abilities become useful.
None of THAT, however, stops them from being underwhelming choices in the progression of monk (not to mention freakin' random in theme/tone in some cases ... Tongue of Sun and Moon I'm looking RIGHT at you, sucka!).
The class certainly *does* have it's share of flaws - none of us would have posted if it was not the case.
I'm just advocating for everyone to take a step or 2 backwards and tone down the all/nothing stance on the monk. It's neither an ostrich approach (head in the sand - nothing to see here it's great!), nor a condemnation (this class sucks - why bother!) approach that will help out here.
Personally, I'd like to see more particulars broken down from the side of detractors - you know the things that *are* too problematic.
On the other side (like mine) I'd say, we should try and look for alternatives to the problems presented by the detractors. It can't hurt, anyway, and can at least lead to some interesting house rules, IMO.
Of course, Dragonsong already is starting us in that direction.
|
Just been reading the 1e AD&D Monk. Those who hate the 'new' Monk are right to do so. 1e Monk is far superior.
My actually thought was, at what point does the number of rules, sub-rules,exceptions, and combinations render an RPG unplayable? I beginning to wonder if we aren't getting darn close! Taking many of the 'this class sucks' threads as a whole I think Paizo can save a lot of space in PF 2.0 by only including the Wizard as a class.
Sheesh.
reasonable stuff
Speaker, you are a gentleman and a scholar :D
|
|
What caster is that easy to get too. Even at 7th level they have mirror image and displacement. This is not one of those "wizard having the right spell again" things. I just have never seen a wizard not have those spells available if not up.
Sometimes the caster is a cleric or druid and they are not so creamy.PS: If the caster is there and you have a straight shot to him he deserves what he gets. I could just make a dex based fighter and get to him if it is that easy.
Mirror is minutes per level, Displacement is rounds per level. You aren't going to put these on in the moring, so you are using the first round to cast these?
The point is the monk can get to the caster and make them deal with the monk rather than hide behind meat shields casting at the rest of the party. If I force a caster to cast mirror image or displacement rather than fireball in the opening round, I'm helping. If they don't, I'm stunning.
By 6th level I've got 50 movement, 70 if I burn a ki point.
Rush the caster is standard operating procedure. The monk can get there sooner, and has a fort save based attack when he gets there.
Just been reading the 1e AD&D Monk. Those who hate the 'new' Monk are right to do so. 1e Monk is far superior.
You're kidding, right?
10 AC at level one with no Dex bonus allowed...
Trying gamely to Speaker. Particularly using the suggestions that folks have come up with in this thread. Who knows with this one and the other thread about martial arts styles for the upcoming supplement maybe some of our ideas will spur a reassessment/ rewrite or more options for the class.
Climb? Nobody ever uses climb. Swim? Water breathing is hilariously easy to get, and besides that, even with zero ranks in swim, a fighter can swiftly make the take ten for it due to lowered ACP and high strength. Stealth? Congrats, you're a rogue that can't find traps, I'm sure the party will find you useful.
Movement speed? I've honestly yet to see that come up in a game. By the time the monk is moving significantly fast enough, fights require flight, which more or less destroy his fast movement.
And yet for the majority of us who play un-optimized characters, with other un-optimized characters, and have fun doing so... these skills and abilities come up all the time. I'm in an 8th level group right now. Water Breathing is available sure, but it's no sure thing that it's been prepared when needed. A couple of characters have flight available to them, but not everyone all the time. And my Dwarven Inquisitor is almost built around the fact that he has Expeditious Retreat as a 1st level spell (woo, Dwarf in armor with 50' movement!). Guess what? Most Monks would be moving at EXACTLY the same speed as my character. So I know for a FACT that movement rate plays a part.
It's blanket dismissals like this that bring up all the "monk hate". Sure, everything that the Monk does CAN be done by others. There's no way to know for sure if they WILL though. And most importantly, if you can make a Monk, have fun playing the Monk, and contribute to the party (hint: you can)... it works!
And yet for the majority of us who play un-optimized characters, with other un-optimized characters, and have fun doing so... these skills and abilities come up all the time. I'm in an 8th level group right now. Water Breathing is available sure, but it's no sure thing that it's been prepared when needed. A couple of characters have flight available to them, but not everyone all the time. And my Dwarven Inquisitor is almost built around the fact that he has Expeditious Retreat as a 1st level spell (woo, Dwarf in armor with 50' movement!). Guess what? Most Monks would be moving at EXACTLY the same speed as my character. So I know for a FACT that movement rate plays a part.
It's blanket dismissals like this that bring up all the "monk hate". Sure, everything that the Monk does CAN be done by others. There's no way to know for sure if they WILL though. And most importantly, if you can make a Monk, have fun playing the Monk, and contribute to the party (hint: you can)... it works!
That's fine.
I have fun playing an alchemist!
But hey, here's the thing - I still recognize that alchemists need help. Monks need help.
You can like a class and have fun with it and still acknowledge that it needs work done. I mean hell, one of my favorite classes in 3.5 was the soulknife, one of the weakest classes in the entire system.
This seems to be something that people here are missing. You can like a class, agree that they can "contribute" to the party...and still also understand that they aren't contributing as much as they could or should, and that they could use some help. The monk class will not cry if you agree that it's not as good as it could/should be.
|
|
This seems to be something that people here are missing. You can like a class, agree that they can "contribute" to the party... and still also understand that they aren't contributing as much as they could or should, and that they could use some help.
The problem is there is disagreement on what "aren't contributing as much" actually means or refers to in game. Should they be doing damage like a fighter, a living missile weapon, a mook-cleaner, or moral support?
S.
I don't know where you get the idea that characters need to take out monsters by themselves.From the rulebooks. Level 12 monk is CR 11. Therefore he should be able to win against randomly chosen CR 11 monsters 50% of the time. He manifestly isn't.
Any class is going to have trouble with some of those monsters, but probably different ones depending on who they are. I did not build Facepalm to be a solo character, he is designed with a group in mind.And in a group he should be able to cancel out CR 12 monsters 50% of the time. Him not being a solo character (although I don't know what exactly being designed with a group in mind means in his case, except the assumption that he will be able to leech resources off others) is already taken into account by PF CR system, that makes his solo CR lower than his level.
CR is a balance of party vs the encounter, not one on one combat. If that were the cast all CR equal monsters would be 50/50 when fighting each other, but in one on one combat some monsters would flat out trounce another one most of the time.
A level 10 warrior is a CR 8, but a level 9 fighter which is also a CR 8 is more likely to win most of the time. Even a level 10 commoner is a CR 8, and it has almost no chance of winning in combat against either class.
A level 10 warrior is a CR 8, but a level 9 fighter which is also a CR 8 is more likely to win most of the time. Even a level 10 commoner is a CR 8, and it has almost no chance of winning in combat against either class.
Otherwise known as "CR ain't worth the paper it's printed on" in some circles.
;-)
Really, though - it's a guideline ... ONLY ever a guideline.
Mirror is minutes per level, Displacement is rounds per level. You aren't going to put these on in the moring, so you are using the first round to cast these?
The point is the monk can get to the caster and make them deal with the monk rather than hide behind meat shields casting at the rest of the party. If I force a caster to cast mirror image or displacement rather than fireball in the opening round, I'm helping. If they don't, I'm stunning.
By 6th level I've got 50 movement, 70 if I burn a ki point.
Rush the caster is standard operating procedure. The monk can get there sooner, and has a fort save based attack when he gets there.
If the DM puts the caster in an easy to reach spot he deserves to see him killed, monk or not.
I have played in games where I had easy access to a caster. I was playing a druid. I had my tiger grapple, and that was pretty much game, set, match. The issue of a monk being there(or in this case not) had nothing to do with it. The issue was an open direct line of effect to the caster.The DM was running an AP, and did not change the AP.
If I may jump in:
With every class the first question any player - new or old - asks themselves is "What can this class do? Why should I play this?"
First there's the roleplaying thing. Holy crap, I get to jump around and punch dudes out like <martial artist> that's awesome! I'm totally going to be a wise old kung fu master!
...First player trap, one that has existed for every character in every D&D edition: you spread your points out to much. The monk though, he encourages this. You need dexterity. You need wisdom. You need strength. You want constitution. The idea of focusing entirely on one stat isn't one that will come naturally to anyone who reads the monk and notes how many stats he uses.
So that's strike one.
Then you read the abilities and man do they sound cool. First up, I'm a kung fu master, and my unarmed damage just gets higher and higher, that's so awesome, I'm just going to punch everything!
...Except you won't do much to them because they have DR, and you can't pass that. Except you won't do much to them because you can't enchant your fists without a single item from another book that's quietly tucked into the weapons part, or by a) spending way more gold then everyone else and b) restricting your own access to your natural armor item (which you need).
You keep reading the abilities and, ok, check this out. I get flurry of blows because I'm just punching all the time, like that Fist of the North Star guy, and because I'm a kung fu master I move REALLY fast, way faster then everyone else.
...Thing is, full attacks can't be done after you move. A problem that has plagued 3e on the whole, and really something I desperately wish had been murdered in an alleyway. So the two defining things you see in a monk can't be used at the same time.
So that's strike three. We've barely cleared level 3.
Next is maneuver training, and ok, this one makes sense, you flurry when you stand still and use a maneuver when you move, sounds good!
...Except you already have meh strength due to MAD, and each maneuver takes two feats, and there's already all these other feats you want/need in order to properly punch things, so you aren't so hot at it.
Then as you hit the next few abilities another big problem comes in.
You get slow fall which is not so good as Feather Falll and can be replaced with a magic item.
You get High Jump which is not as good as flight, which everyone and their dad needs anyways.
You get Purity of Body, but by that level divine casters can easily quell diseases.
You get Wholeness of Body, but it barely heals anything.
This. This right here. Is the flaw of the monks. In 3.5 flurry of blows was nicknamed "Flurry of misses" because at it's heart it was a lot of small attacks that didn't do much and most didn't hit to begin with. That is the entire Monk philosophy - the class is based on a flurry of misses. Of having lots and lots of little class abilities that just don't really do anything.
So, why be a monk? To quote someone else from somewhere else:
"Because you want to be a great, powerful and wise kung fu master who can trip, grapple, stun, and disarm his way around the battlefield, moving faster than anyone else and kill casters so they don't threaten your teammates. You won't actually get to do it, but that's a separate issue."
I'm quoting the Prof here because (snark aside) there are some good critiques of Monk issues.
It's as good a place as any to see a "list" of sorts there itemized out.
So ... the question becomes how have these things been addressed by PF (if at all), and if they haven't been, what *could* address it?
EDIT: Quick afterthought here, but is anyone willing to post up a 1e monk breakdown by level? Or link somewhere that has such a thing? Honestly, it's another good place to look as, I *really* think it was a pretty cool class overall from what I remember of it.
|
|
If the DM puts the caster in an easy to reach spot he deserves to see him killed, monk or not.
I have played in games where I had easy access to a caster. I was playing a druid. I had my tiger grapple, and that was pretty much game, set, match. The issue of a monk being there(or in this case not) had nothing to do with it. The issue was an open direct line of effect to the caster.The DM was running an AP, and did not change the AP.
And having significantly more movement and an single attack he can make at the end of said movement that stuns casters means the monk is more likely to be able to get access to the caster and take him out, if that is what that battle requires.
If the DM sets up scenarios to make this harder, that is DM prerogative for that fight.
But I do have to say I am tired of all the "Perfectly prepared" caster discussion threads. I wonder how many people just play with DMs who don't check the spell list in advance...
I'm quoting the Prof here because (snark aside) there are some good critiques of Monk issues.
It's as good a place as any to see a "list" of sorts there itemized out.
So ... the question becomes how have these things been addressed by PF (if at all), and if they haven't been, what *could* address it?
I'm quoting the Prof here because (snark aside) there are some good critiques of Monk issues.It's as good a place as any to see a "list" of sorts there itemized out.
So ... the question becomes how have these things been addressed by PF (if at all), and if they haven't been, what *could* address it?
This is important. I think the pro-monk crowd feels like the monk is being attacked. That is not the case. We are just stating observations. The argument of "it takes a skilled player to make the monk work" is valid, but why should I have to wait until I become a good player to play a monk? What if I am a casual player who does not take the game seriously enough to learn the ins and outs like another player would? Should I be restricted the joy of playing the martial artist that I envision?
But keep saying the fighter can't do "all the cool things" that a monk can, but...well, what cool things?
Combat maneuvers? With the fighter's feats, the fact that he can safetly drop wisdom and dexterity to get that 13 in intelligence, and how he can focus entirely on strength, no, he's better then the monk. He can even grab a guisarme or other tripping at reach weapon to help.
Skills? Which? Certainly the fighter as fewer skills then the monk, but what monk skills are the drastically important ones that the fighter misses out on? Climb? Nobody ever uses climb. Swim? Water breathing is hilariously easy to get, and besides that, even with zero ranks in swim, a fighter can swiftly make the take ten for it due to lowered ACP and high strength. Stealth? Congrats, you're a rogue that can't find traps, I'm sure the party will find you useful.
Movement speed? I've honestly yet to see that come up in a game. By the time the monk is moving significantly fast enough, fights require flight, which more or less destroy his fast movement.
His "awesome abilities?" Which ones? Which ones that matter? here we hit the "Flurry of Misses" again, a long list of abilities that don't actually do much. The fighter takes a bit more damage when he falls, ok, but that's not really that meaningful, especially when the fighter has more HP to soak it. He isn't immune to disease, except monks get that at about the same level clerics can remove disease, so that's not that big of a worry. Wholeness of body isn't even worth using. Diamond body? At level 11 fighters are already immune to most poisons due to their giganto fort saves - and even if they are hit with it, by level 11, poison ain't no thang at all.
That's why the monk is a Flurry of Misses. He has all these different abilities, and none of them are really all that useful.
This argument is not directed at you, it's just that you cover most of the points being thrown at monks. So no disrepect.
When you get to higher level play, you have to deal with enchantment spells which the fighter is generally not well equipped to deal with. What happens when I (the DM) try the following? I dominate person you with optomized vampire sorcerors every round until fail your will save, (and you will unless you have mystical dice). After your dominated, have fun cleaving/vital striking/Full round attacking your freinds the wizard and the cleric while my sorceror kills the rest of your party. A failed will save can TPK the party, especially on a fighter.
OK, your a fighter vs my monk? What happens when I disarm you, take your weapon and continue to kick the crap out of with flurry of blows because I invested in a strong strenght modifer, my knuckles ensure that I am a little underneath you for damage/to hit, while my ac is near the 40's at level 12 because of my monk's robe and my ki point. And forget about touching my cmd, because unlike you, I add 3 stats to that+3/4 BAB to add to that which is greater then your 2 stats and full BAB.
I don't know how you guys play, but the monks that I play with are the most durable and ussually the most reliable members of the party. If I feel like an ass, and I want to TPK a party, I will use a monk with PC gold (cr=to level) that is roughly 2-3 levels higher then the party's APL (a tough challenge), and go to town on them.
Between evasion + reflex save, strong will saves, decent fortitude save, high ac, and a high touch ac, the highest cmd in the game, it is nearly impossible to take down a well built monk. SO what if they don't fly, drink a potion of fly, you have problems with dr? USE POWER ATTACK. If your to hit sucks, then have good strenght, spend your money wisely on things like brass knuckles and strenght belts. At higher levels, they get SR as an added layer of defense. This is a team game, so purchase a wand of mage armor, or get a pearl of power for your wizard/sorceror/witch/alcamist freind to cast mage armor on you. At later levels, you can get a ring of spell storing, and get shield cast on it, so that in a pinch your ac is that much higher.
Monk's are not easy to play, you have to be smart, and you have to be frugal. Honestly, this hate for monks from people who don't know how to play monks is really annoying.
BTW, due to the monk's high defensive nature, they are able to set off traps and not have to worry about it that much. THey have good reflex, good fort, godly will (only druids and some clerics have higher will saves). So all that talk about monk's being mobile and sneaky, but useless due to lack of disable device is kind of bunch because they can just set off the trap and most of the time not worry about the trap due to thier defenses.
With regards to skills, ok you can spend money on swimming stuff, and you can spend money stuff that will help you climb (or just fly). What about sense motive when people are lying to you? What about perception, the MOST SINGLE IMPORTANT SKILL IN THE GAME!
monks on average should be 3-4 to hit under a fighter/barbarian, but you have to account for the sheer number of attacks that are bieng used+TWF aka flurry of blows.
|
|
EDIT: Quick afterthought here, but is anyone willing to post up a 1e monk breakdown by level? Or link somewhere that has such a thing? Honestly, it's another good place to look as, I *really* think it was a pretty cool class overall from what I remember of it.
Even way back when the Monk wasn't seen as that great, Roger Moore did an article called "Giving Monks a fighting chance" in Dragon Mag. Not that I found the Monk in the 1e PHB was redundant. Seems like some things never change.
I do think that the 1e Monk was more interesting from a 'feel' point of view than the current version.
S.
The argument of "it takes a skilled player to make the monk work" is valid, but why should I have to wait until I become a good player to play a monk? What if I am a casual player who does not take the game seriously enough to learn the ins and outs like another player would? Should I be restricted the joy of playing the martial artist that I envision?
Probably, yes. Because I'm hard pressed to think of a game that uses classes where there aren't classes that are easier for a new player to start with and others that require a bit of experience with the system to get full enjoyment out of.
The argument of "it takes a skilled player to make the monk work" is valid, but why should I have to wait until I become a good player to play a monk? What if I am a casual player who does not take the game seriously enough to learn the ins and outs like another player would? Should I be restricted the joy of playing the martial artist that I envision?
Probably, yes. Because I'm hard pressed to think of a game that uses classes where there aren't classes that are easier for a new player to start with and others that require a bit of experience with the system to get full enjoyment out of.
The game already rewards systems mastery to a large extent. It does not also need a penalty on top of it by saying "this archetype sucks for you noob." That was a little extreme, but it is not far from the truth. I am not saying system mastery should not be rewarded, but I should be be denied to play a decent version of what I want because I am not a good player yet. Even a new player can run caster(any of them) or fighter pretty decently. The monk however is harder to me than both to run, and it requires more effort than it should take to run it well.
New players run a caster well? New to Pathfinder?
Casters take a special kind of OCD. They can run the gamut of GOD, to why is he here?
The right spell can rule the day but an inexperenced player can be overwhelmed by the number of choices available. Even "good players" make mistakes.
Pathfinder, really any game has a level of mastery to it. The more complex the game the greater the mastery.
New players run a caster well? New to Pathfinder?
Casters take a special kind of OCD. They can run the gamut of GOD, to why is he here?
The right spell can rule the day but an inexperenced player can be overwhelmed by the number of choices available. Even "good players" make mistakes.
Pathfinder, really any game has a level of mastery to it. The more complex the game the greater the mastery.
I was assuming the other players were helping him pick spells, but not telling him what to cast and when. As long as the player knows generally what a spell does he might be ok with the casting.
With a monk even if someone builds it for you it is hard to know what to do and when.Of course letting a player flail about without helping is always possible. It is what happened to me when I first tried 2nd edition.
I was assuming the other players were helping him pick spells, but not telling him what to cast and when. As long as the player knows generally what a spell does he might be ok with the casting.
With a monk even if someone builds it for you it is hard to know what to do and when.Of course letting a player flail about without helping is always possible. It is what happened to me when I first tried 2nd edition.
So they would help if the new guy played a monk. What would they do mock him for play a monk.
So they would help if the new guy played a monk. What would they do mock him for play a monk.I was assuming the other players were helping him pick spells, but not telling him what to cast and when. As long as the player knows generally what a spell does he might be ok with the casting.
With a monk even if someone builds it for you it is hard to know what to do and when.
Of course letting a player flail about without helping is always possible. It is what happened to me when I first tried 2nd edition.
In my personal situation they did not mock me for the classes I played, but nobody said don't to this because..... They just did not do anything. Some of them were newer also, but even the ones that new how to play never offered advice to any of us. I did not know better at the time, but looking back on it years later I never understood why they were so willing to let a party member die.
Now that I think about it again-->They probably did mock me when I was not around. I picked up Rifts pretty quickly. Maybe they thought I would steal the spotlight if I figured D&D out.PS:Most of my spotlight time in Rifts was just common sense/tactics, not a super character. I was also smart enough to know when to run away, which the group would rather die than do.
This was a silly little premise with 3.5 and it remains so with Pathfinder.So, the character of certain CR shouldn't be worth certain CR in your opinion? That's an interesting brand of anti-reason.
That's not at all what I said. If you go back and read my points you will easily see that is not what I said. I said that there is nothing that says a character should be able to handle an equal CR 50% of the time. It was silly premise then and it's still silly. The assumption does not take into account how the CR/EL system is supposed to work. It is based on a faulty premise so produces faulty results.
|
|
This is important. I think the pro-monk crowd feels like the monk is being attacked. That is not the case. We are just stating observations. The argument of "it takes a skilled player to make the monk work" is valid, but why should I have to wait until I become a good player to play a monk? What if I am a casual player who does not take the game seriously enough to learn the ins and outs like another player would? Should I be restricted the joy of playing the martial artist that I envision?
Same reason new players have trouble with casters, at least if they have DMs who read the rules. Casters are complicated, and most of the spells sound better than they actually play if you follow RAW.
New players who play casters have to learn just as much strategy to survive as a monk. Some would argue rogues are even harder, with the need to flank up close without the mobility.
This is important. I think the pro-monk crowd feels like the monk is being attacked. That is not the case. We are just stating observations. The argument of "it takes a skilled player to make the monk work" is valid, but why should I have to wait until I become a good player to play a monk? What if I am a casual player who does not take the game seriously enough to learn the ins and outs like another player would? Should I be restricted the joy of playing the martial artist that I envision?Same reason new players have trouble with casters, at least if they have DMs who read the rules. Casters are complicated, and most of the spells sound better than they actually play if you follow RAW.
New players who play casters have to learn just as much strategy to survive as a monk. Some would argue rogues are even harder, with the need to flank up close without the mobility.
That is a good point, but most people find it easier to learn something when they know what they are supposed to do. The issue with the monk is two-fold. You have to know what to do, and when. You also have to make the monk mechanically capable of doing it.
I have seen slightly bad players run a caster effectively, even if he lost a lot of efficiency. I have never seen a bad player run a monk well. They had fun, which I do think is important, but the DM should not have to adjust things to make a player not feel useless because of the class he chose.I would rather alter the class since it seems like a better solution in the long run. I think if we address the issues by either proving they are not as bad as people think they are, or suggesting solutions then the book for martial classes might bring the monk up a notch.
That's fine.
I have fun playing an alchemist!
But hey, here's the thing - I still recognize that alchemists need help. Monks need help.
You can like a class and have fun with it and still acknowledge that it needs work done. I mean hell, one of my favorite classes in 3.5 was the soulknife, one of the weakest classes in the entire system.
This seems to be something that people here are missing. You can like a class, agree that they can "contribute" to the party...and still also understand that they aren't contributing as much as they could or should, and that they could use some help. The monk class will not cry if you agree that it's not as good as it could/should be.
Apologies for the late response.
My problem with your post was basically "climb and swim checks never matter, mobility never matters." It's a particular attitude that gets my goat, because not everyone's game is the same. This is why I try (emphasis on try, not succeed) very hard not to state opinion or experience as fact. I guess I just wish others would do the same.
Well I made some suggestions, give them full BAB when using monk appropriate weapons, buffing wholeness of body, making all the maneuver feats easier to access, allowing feats to consolidate attributes making them less MAD.
BUT there is the question of the monks whole damage mechanic, which is TWF. Question, is the monk any more worse off than TWF rangers or rogues, combat-wise? If so why?
Edit - another question, is TWF a complex fighting style for new players, leading to similar problems with the monk?
|
In PF Organized Play, the terrain and mobility are very important, as most of the encounters are set up with this in mind. Most of the monks I have seen played do very well in this kind of environment.
You can never discount mobility in an encounter. My characters with a chance at it get UMD just to get longstrider from a wand. Even 10 extra feet can make a huge difference.
|
|
Well I made some suggestions, give them full BAB when using monk appropriate weapons
Perhaps the designers just don't want to "loose the D&D origins"? Monks historically & originally had the same attack matrix as a Cleric/Druid. Then again the game is 'Pathfinder', so I guess they can do whatever they like? Or at least perhaps it's one of those things that has been maintained as a legacy problem and will be addressed in PF 2.0?
I think PF is far enough removed from core 'D&D' that Paizo can make radical changes.
Musings,
S.
Well I made some suggestions, give them full BAB when using monk appropriate weaponsPerhaps the designers just don't want to "loose the D&D origins"? Monks historically & originally had the same attack matrix as a Cleric/Druid. Then again the game is 'Pathfinder', so I guess they can do whatever they like? Or at least perhaps it's one of those things that has been maintained as a legacy problem and will be addressed in PF 2.0?
I think PF is far enough removed from core 'D&D' that Paizo can make radical changes.
Musings,
S.
Well I also think the 3/4 BAB is an intentional limiting factor on what feats they can choose. It forces them to use bonus feats for things like improved trip, when a fighter of same level can qualify with his BAB. I don't think this is a bad feature, per say, but it needs to be limiting the feats to what is appropriate, and currently it might be too strict.
|
First I do not hate the monk but I do see flaws in the concept & design.
Monks in either the western or eastern tradition are supposed to eschew material posessions and live a life of simplicity and poverty. There are obvious examples in both reality & fiction that can contradict this statement but that is the general flavor. The monk does not work this way at all. Since high level monsters have uniquie weaknesses that the monk cannot exploit (i.e. good or evil aligned vulnerabilities, silver or cold iron weaknesses.), the monk is at an extreme disadvantage because their base damage at most levels does not let them overcome this weakness. Therefore they need material items. Monks should not need magic items because they should be both mentally and physically honed to perfection. The flaw with this concept is that D&D has always allowed magic items and therefore there is a chance that you may be better than you could be but there is no guarantee. When you have a class that does not readily meet this criteria it is hard to gage the class potential.
For example, a fighter gets a +1 magic sword, therefore his attacks, damage & feat options in combat increase alot. Maybe since he has that +1 sword the penalties for either Combat Expertise or Power Attack do not seem so bad. If he has a +1 shield or armor, he may be more willing to try cleave as an option. The monk does not have these built in advantages as class flavor. Luke Skywalker has his lightsaber, King Arthur has Excalibur, Conan had the Atlantean Broadsword. The monk really shouldn'r have a weapon like the Quarterstaff of Many Deaths because he should be a living, breathing weapon. In a material rewards based system it is tough to make an otherworldly character work. Now maybe if a monk could spend gold or another resource to unlock bonuses comparable to magic items it could work, especially if there were a random table like magic items so a monk could not just cherry pick the most powerful or adaptable bonuses it might make the monk a more viable character.
I don't hate my monk. I just hate when the DM has to coddle him.Maybe it's you.
I am lost on this one.
Well I made some suggestions, give them full BAB when using monk appropriate weapons, buffing wholeness of body, making all the maneuver feats easier to access, allowing feats to consolidate attributes making them less MAD.
BUT there is the question of the monks whole damage mechanic, which is TWF. Question, is the monk any more worse off than TWF rangers or rogues, combat-wise? If so why?
Edit - another question, is TWF a complex fighting style for new players, leading to similar problems with the monk?
Responses in random orders:
The rogue gets sneak attack, and the ranger gets his favored enemy bonus. If it is the guide variant it does not even have to worry about selecting the wrong enemy. It just chooses someone. Rangers also get to ignore the dex prereq, and pump their strength. On top of that they get to increase their magical weapon's powers.Monks do get brass knuckles now so maybe the monk needs a new review.
TWF is not complex, just feat hungry.
I agree that wholeness of body needs to be redone. MAD needs to be reduced, and they should have all the combat maneuver feats as feat choices.
|
I don't hate my monk. I just hate when the DM has to coddle him.Maybe it's you.
Maybe it's Mabelline.
I'll answer you seriously despite the possibility you're being insulting. Yes, when I rolled my first character as a monk in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, it could have been me. But after playing three other monks, in all level ranges, I think it is safe to say it is no longer me.
|
|
I don't hate my monk. I just hate when the DM has to coddle him.Maybe it's you.Maybe it's Mabelline.
I'll answer you seriously despite the possibility you're being insulting. Yes, when I rolled my first character as a monk in Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil, it could have been me. But after playing three other monks, in all level ranges, I think it is safe to say it is no longer me.
It was a cheap shot, my apologies.
That being said, 3.5 or Pathfinder monks. Worlds of difference IMHO.
|
|
You are right there. Only one was PF.
3.5 monk is tough, as you need one set of feats for low level (trip monkey (FTW) and a whole different skill set at higher levels, not to mention having to use a lot of non-core feats and ways to get the damn wisdom bonus AND an amulet...
Pathfinder monk fixed what I felt was "broken". Would other stuff be nice, sure, but then you risk outshining other classes at what they do best.
I've rarely had my DM have to "save" my monk, and certainly it is less often than with other classes. I have found myself running away more often with a monk than with other classes, but that is also because I've found myself isolated more often with a monk than other classes.
Responses in random orders:
The rogue gets sneak attack, and the ranger gets his favored enemy bonus. If it is the guide variant it does not even have to worry about selecting the wrong enemy. It just chooses someone. Rangers also get to ignore the dex prereq, and pump their strength. On top of that they get to increase their magical weapon's powers.Monks do get brass knuckles now so maybe the monk needs a new review.
TWF is not complex, just feat hungry.
I agree that wholeness of body needs to be redone. MAD needs to be reduced, and they should have all the combat maneuver feats as feat choices.
I would also assert that the other TWF types get the benefit of using high threat weapons and so their damage can be burst-y at times it does contribute to an over all increase of those builds as the flat top bonuses can go through the roof.
I love the suggestion of opening up all the combat maneuver feats for bonus feats for the monk. To clarify, are you speaking about including the greater versions as well?
To clarify, are you speaking about including the greater versions as well?
Responses in random orders:
The rogue gets sneak attack, and the ranger gets his favored enemy bonus. If it is the guide variant it does not even have to worry about selecting the wrong enemy. It just chooses someone. Rangers also get to ignore the dex prereq, and pump their strength. On top of that they get to increase their magical weapon's powers.Monks do get brass knuckles now so maybe the monk needs a new review.
TWF is not complex, just feat hungry.
I agree that wholeness of body needs to be redone. MAD needs to be reduced, and they should have all the combat maneuver feats as feat choices.
Yes. I had started working on a martial artist class(non supernatual based), which has the "greater" feats as options. I am now on version 2.3. The first version did too much damage, and was nothing more than a fighter that did not use weapons.
I would propose a charging or something... so fast movement gets a purpose..
after all that makes sense, I dont know how many movies and nonesense I have seen with flying kicks, punches or whatnot.
Maybe a boost to damage with a boost to stunning fist dc on a charge attack?
I know this wont solve all the problems haha but Its a small ability that doesnt make it the only option for the monk to perform in combat.
Because my stance on the monk is essentially then Anti-Bard (hinders opponents and resistances to almost everything) I would propose it continue on those lines.