i assume pf monks are based on the shaolin monks legend. why the heck are these guys not full bab? they literally spend these thier entire life praticing and studing combat, many though you could only attain enlightment through the mastery of pysical combat. while i agree they did not set out with the intent to conquier They might as well be called the asian (chinese) version of spartans.
Creative Director
|
Because, despite what lots of folks might think... monks are intended to be a defensive class, not an offensive one. They've got a LOT of defensive stuff; great saves, lots of AC boosts, immunities/resistances. The idea behind the monk is that he might not do damage as quickly as a full BAB class, but he'll be around longer to DO the damage because he's harder to kill.
The full BAB bit with flurry allows them to do better damage when they do their iconic thing, but prevents them from augmenting it with feats and other stuff as quickly as a normal full BAB class.
But anyway... yeah. It's because they perfect defense over offense, basically.
Mr. Fishy thinks that maybe it was the list of supernatural abilities.[balance]
Personally Mr. Fishy thinks Monks should come in three flavors, Full BAB [pugilist] with few special abilities, Medium BAB [vanilla] with a standard suite of powers and [Avatar] Slow BAB and a list of elemental or spirit powers. Ki Blast and Mind Tricks crazy mytic powers.
That way everyone gets the monk thats right for them.
Yoga Flame for the Win?
i assume pf monks are based on the shaolin monks legend. why the heck are these guys not full bab? they literally spend these thier entire life praticing and studing combat, many though you could only attain enlightment through the mastery of pysical combat. while i agree they did not set out with the intent to conquier They might as well be called the asian (chinese) version of spartans.
What James jacobs said above. And... they aren't training with the primary motive of "killing". As you mentioned, it's about enlightenment with a byproduct of violence :) The Monk is trained in a wide variety of other skills / areas as well which would detract from a focus on combat. The Spartan you mentioned had nothing else on his mind but perfecting the kill. Single minded, focused, perfect killers. Not so enlightened however.
Because, despite what lots of folks might think... monks are intended to be a defensive class, not an offensive one. They've got a LOT of defensive stuff; great saves, lots of AC boosts, immunities/resistances. The idea behind the monk is that he might not do damage as quickly as a full BAB class, but he'll be around longer to DO the damage because he's harder to kill.
The full BAB bit with flurry allows them to do better damage when they do their iconic thing, but prevents them from augmenting it with feats and other stuff as quickly as a normal full BAB class.
But anyway... yeah. It's because they perfect defense over offense, basically.
fair enough.
Mr. Fishy thinks that maybe it was the list of supernatural abilities.[balance]
Personally Mr. Fishy thinks Monks should come in three flavors, Full BAB [pugilist] with few special abilities, Medium BAB [vanilla] with a standard suite of powers and [Avatar] Slow BAB and a list of elemental or spirit powers. Ki Blast and Mind Tricks crazy mytic powers.
That way everyone gets the monk thats right for them.
Yoga Flame for the Win?
Sounds like time for some archtypes...
i assume pf monks are based on the shaolin monks legend. why the heck are these guys not full bab?
Because in AD&D they used the cleric attack table and the tradition has been propagated since then.
Because, despite what lots of folks might think... monks are intended to be a defensive class, not an offensive one. They've got a LOT of defensive stuff; great saves, lots of AC boosts, immunities/resistances. The idea behind the monk is that he might not do damage as quickly as a full BAB class, but he'll be around longer to DO the damage because he's harder to kill.
The full BAB bit with flurry allows them to do better damage when they do their iconic thing, but prevents them from augmenting it with feats and other stuff as quickly as a normal full BAB class.
But anyway... yeah. It's because they perfect defense over offense, basically.
My Halfling Monk is level 12 and with buffs and a total defense hits ~35 AC. Mobility makes it near 40 on AoOs from movement.
A little 2 foot boxer holds the line against Lamias and Stone Giants just fine in Rise of the Runelords.
edit: and don't even think about trying a combat maneuver on him.
I always thought of it in terms of the full BAB representing more concentrated and even haphazard blows than necessarily finessed ones. Monks are more about finesse. If you've ever seen these guys in real-life action, you see a lot of medium-power blows that connect fairly well, but few actual powerful single attacks (not that they don't use them). It's a different thing from a Viking with two hands on an axe haft, putting everything into a single, crucial slash.
If you read back through the 3.5 core books, they actually explain that the BAB does not really represent the actual number of attacks your character takes in a round, but is an abstract meant to represent your character's chances of connecting in battle.
Yeah, then there is the balance thing. In games - all games - all things are made equal.
One thing I never understood (and subsequently ignored) with my Monk is that Flurry Attacks are more accurate than a single attack. The only answer I came up with is that the Monk enters some sort of Zen trance and moves so quickly that he's better at hitting the enemy.
However, there are several Monkish feats that state "as a standard action, make a single melee attack" (Scorpion Strike, etc). My monk is deliberately focusing in order to slow an enemy, and he's less accurate than when he's swinging all crazy-like?
One thing I never understood (and subsequently ignored) with my Monk is that Flurry Attacks are more accurate than a single attack. The only answer I came up with is that the Monk enters some sort of Zen trance and moves so quickly that he's better at hitting the enemy.
However, there are several Monkish feats that state "as a standard action, make a single melee attack" (Scorpion Strike, etc). My monk is deliberately focusing in order to slow an enemy, and he's less accurate than when he's swinging all crazy-like?
This is what puzzles me the most. If I'm a monk I can make one single focused attack and have a lower chance to hit than if I go full-out swinging multiple times.
They should just use their Monk Level as their BAB when making unarmded strikes or fighting with special monk weapons not just when using flurry of blows.
+1
The 3/4 bab is really good for limiting them to there special style.
One thing I never understood (and subsequently ignored) with my Monk is that Flurry Attacks are more accurate than a single attack. The only answer I came up with is that the Monk enters some sort of Zen trance and moves so quickly that he's better at hitting the enemy.
However, there are several Monkish feats that state "as a standard action, make a single melee attack" (Scorpion Strike, etc). My monk is deliberately focusing in order to slow an enemy, and he's less accurate than when he's swinging all crazy-like?
This is what puzzles me the most. If I'm a monk I can make one single focused attack and have a lower chance to hit than if I go full-out swinging multiple times.
They should just use their Monk Level as their BAB when making unarmded strikes or fighting with special monk weapons not just when using flurry of blows.
This puzzled me as well, but I think:
Question: Why use a single attack instead of a flurry of blows?
Answer: because you only have a single action, or you want or need to combine your attack with a move action. It seems reasonable that if you need to move, you're not going to be in quite such a solid stance to attack.
Rather bizarrely, though, as you don't have to deliver the whole of the flurry (you might take out the opponent with the first blow), you could plausibly change to a move action part way through the action. I foresee arguments over whether that's legal - a fighter starting a full attack can change their mind after the first blow, but there's no change to BAB, so it doesn't matter.
I would accept the lower chance to hit because you had to move prior to attacking IF every other class had the same drawback. But only the monk has a lower chance to hit when he moves as opposed to when he doesnt. Furthermore if anyone should be penalized LESS for movement it should be the monk.One thing I never understood (and subsequently ignored) with my Monk is that Flurry Attacks are more accurate than a single attack. The only answer I came up with is that the Monk enters some sort of Zen trance and moves so quickly that he's better at hitting the enemy.
However, there are several Monkish feats that state "as a standard action, make a single melee attack" (Scorpion Strike, etc). My monk is deliberately focusing in order to slow an enemy, and he's less accurate than when he's swinging all crazy-like?
This is what puzzles me the most. If I'm a monk I can make one single focused attack and have a lower chance to hit than if I go full-out swinging multiple times.
They should just use their Monk Level as their BAB when making unarmded strikes or fighting with special monk weapons not just when using flurry of blows.
This puzzled me as well, but I think:
Question: Why use a single attack instead of a flurry of blows?
Answer: because you only have a single action, or you want or need to combine your attack with a move action. It seems reasonable that if you need to move, you're not going to be in quite such a solid stance to attack.
Rather bizarrely, though, as you don't have to deliver the whole of the flurry (you might take out the opponent with the first blow), you could plausibly change to a move action part way through the action. I foresee arguments over whether that's legal - a fighter starting a full attack can change their mind after the first blow, but there's no change to BAB, so it doesn't matter.
Except that your base attack is 3/4 and your flurry is exceeding that. It depends on your point of view - compared to the cleric, (which seems to be intended) you get a bonus to your attack when you don't move
Seeing as your CMB is equal to you monk level then use a Combat Maneuver to attack with move action. Like trip, move and trip then flurry next round. One you get greater trip you get to make AoO against the prone opponent as well. +4 to hit on prone then flurry the next round.
Seeing as your CMB is equal to you monk level then use a Combat Maneuver to attack with move action. Like trip, move and trip then flurry next round. One you get greater trip you get to make AoO against the prone opponent as well. +4 to hit on prone then flurry the next round.
A Treeantmonk Monk runs up, grapples, then flurries next round. Trip works just as well, though, in addition to granting you that free attack. More can be grappled than tripped, though.
Paladins get full BAB, lots of supernatural abilities and save boosts, and are also half-casters. I therefore started with the paladin chassis, and rewrote the monk as a full BAB class with supernatural abilities and half-casting ("ki powers"). Seems to be working out fine that way... at least people are willing to play them now!
in addition to granting you that free attack.
which free attack?
in addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?
AoO when the victim stands up
AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?
I was thinking the attack from Greater Trip when they go down, but that too.
AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?
I see. I was wondering if there was a way to take greater trip.
EDIT: bobson, how can you afford Greater Trip as a monk?
Because, despite what lots of folks might think... monks are intended to be a defensive class, not an offensive one. They've got a LOT of defensive stuff; great saves, lots of AC boosts, immunities/resistances. The idea behind the monk is that he might not do damage as quickly as a full BAB class, but he'll be around longer to DO the damage because he's harder to kill.
The full BAB bit with flurry allows them to do better damage when they do their iconic thing, but prevents them from augmenting it with feats and other stuff as quickly as a normal full BAB class.
But anyway... yeah. It's because they perfect defense over offense, basically.
The problem with that approach is, IMO, that combat in Pathfinder tends to be over rather quickly. After two to three rounds a lot of combat encounters are resolved and in that time the Monk will not have had time to contribute as much as most other classes would have. After all, Pathfinder is a group based game, and if one class focuses more on defense than others, it tends to lag behind the others in terms of how much it did the make the party survive.
OTOH, I game with a bunch of people who really love to make their characters as unhittable and invulnerable as possible. They also did very fine, because they simply were too difficult to take down for most monsters. In that setting the Monk works out better.
i assume pf monks are based on the shaolin monks legend. why the heck are these guys not full bab? they literally spend these thier entire life praticing and studing combat, many though you could only attain enlightment through the mastery of pysical combat. while i agree they did not set out with the intent to conquier They might as well be called the asian (chinese) version of spartans.
In Pathfinder? Sacred cow
In D&D in general, I dunno, I think the guys who created it are dead...
AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?I see. I was wondering if there was a way to take greater trip.
EDIT: bobson, how can you afford Greater Trip as a monk?
It's pretty hard, yes, but doable. I was just building on what voska66 posted without looking at it, though.
It's pretty hard, yes, but doable. I was just building on what voska66 posted without looking at it, though.AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?I see. I was wondering if there was a way to take greater trip.
EDIT: bobson, how can you afford Greater Trip as a monk?
Very curious about it. I think in fact that would have been nice have the feat as an at least high level bonus one.
It's pretty hard, yes, but doable. I was just building on what voska66 posted without looking at it, though.AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?I see. I was wondering if there was a way to take greater trip.
EDIT: bobson, how can you afford Greater Trip as a monk?
Very curious about it. I think in fact that would have been nice have the feat as an at least high level bonus one.
It's certainly doable - you just need to take one extra feat that probably won't help you (Combat Expertise), and have a 13 in what's normally one of the monk's few dump stats (Int). And you can't get it until 9th level instead of 6th.
Most monks won't bother.
AoO when the victim stands upin addition to granting you that free attack.which free attack?I see. I was wondering if there was a way to take greater trip.
EDIT: bobson, how can you afford Greater Trip as a monk?
Good point, I thought for some reason it was in the list of bonus feats at 10th. Makes sense that is should be. Too bad it's not. I think I'd house rule that one in though.
My Halfling Monk is level 12 and with buffs and a total defense hits ~35 AC. Mobility makes it near 40 on AoOs from movement.
A little 2 foot boxer holds the line against Lamias and Stone Giants just fine in Rise of the Runelords.
edit: and don't even think about trying a combat maneuver on him.
Why don't the enemies just ignore your character and attack those who are hurting them more?
James answer hits it spot-on...
But it makes me think that mechanical 'explanations' like this really CAN have a place in the rule books.
Especially for the upcoming 'Intro Set', giving a heads-up as to the class' roll MECHANICALLY as WELL AS 'fluff'-wise, just seems a good thing for players who are utterly new to the game, i.e. so they will be able to start their first character with a good idea as to over-all strengths/weaknesses, etc.
I don't know if both Wizards and Sorcerors will be in the Intro Set, but if they are, a suitable explanation of their strengths/ weaknesses/ playstyle would be helpful I think. Most new players probably expect them to exemplify their image of magic-users from fantasy fiction, film, etc, but the Vancian concept of prep vs. spontaneous doesn't really clearly exist outside of D&D, so laying it out clearly would be a good idea IMHO. Then again, only one of them could be included in the Intro Set.
But in other words, a run-down of strengths and weaknesses, along with a small summary of how their variable options can play out (Feats, Rage Powers, Bloodlines, etc) depending on player choice. Obviously this has to be done in broad strokes, but ANYTHING is helpful for new players IMHO. Ideally, new players have old hands helping them, but still it helps to have this type of thing printed alongside the class in the Player's Guide they have at home.
I don't know the role the rogue is supposed to play in combat. My playing experience is 1st ed, which, I recall, assumed a party of 6, and normally at least 2 fighters. The thief had few problems ducking out of sight and looking for an opportunity to back stab and it didn't matter if in some fights they never succeeded. In a party of 4, and the cleric somewhat scaled back (poorer armour) it seems they have to be more visible in combat, so more likely to get hit. Unless everyone knows exactly what to do, flanking puts them in the middle of the enemy, where no-one wants to be.
"My mastery of defense makes me neigh invulnerable! Come at me, giant!"
"Uh, you're doing diddly to the giant, so he steps over you and attacks the party that actually damages him."
A defensive character doesn't really work.
|
It seemed like the APG did some helpful things for the defensive fighter problem. I saw several feats and abilities that allow a character to boost his/her friends' defenses (the feat "Saving Shield" comes to mind), making a "tank" character viable without having to fall into the "taunt and DPS" formula that online games, and 4th Ed to a lesser extent, tend to do.
>Mr. Fishy trips the giant with an AoO.<
>Mr. Fishy starts talking<
>2 second delay<
HAHAHAHAH! Fool you have been deceived. My under whelming attack was a trick to make you underestimate me...HAHAHAHHAH
>lips continue to move for 2 more seconds<
>Mr. Fishy trips the giant with an AoO.<
>Mr. Fishy starts talking<
>2 second delay<
HAHAHAHAH! Fool you have been deceived. My under whelming attack was a trick to make you underestimate me...HAHAHAHHAH
>lips continue to move for 2 more seconds<
{calls up Pixar, attempts to sell script for }
>Starts talking<
>delay< Ahhh!!! Miss Kitty!!! Mr. Fishy's Old Foe!!!
>Mouth still moving<...............................................>Striking Pirahna Form< IGGGGIT
Unless everyone knows exactly what to do, flanking puts them in the middle of the enemy, where no-one wants to be.
They don`t have to know exactly what to do. You can tell them exactly what to do. Talking is a free action not tied to init order.
I do often find myself wishing that monks were built as a full BAB class with penalties to fight out of their style, rather than a 3/4 BAB class with a few full-BAB and full-BAB-ish cheats.
Since the monk is mostly going to fight with their style, you might as well make that rules simple and never worry about, for example, creating a feat clearly monk-flavored that no monk will ever have the BAB for (yes, I know that was later errata'd).
(yes, I know that was later errata'd).
Mistakes can happen and it's nice they fixed the BAB prereq. Too bad Cockatrice Strike cannot be used anyway (FULL ROUND for 1 attack, IF the attacks hit, fortitude save? seriously?)
Unless everyone knows exactly what to do, flanking puts them in the middle of the enemy, where no-one wants to be.They don`t have to know exactly what to do. You can tell them exactly what to do. Talking is a free action not tied to init order.
Point! Except my players (siblings) aren't great at telling each other what to do without annoying each other, so I don't encourage it. But that's a different problem. I guess what they need is an out-of-combat discussion of tactics. Is the rogue strategy basically flank from a relatively safe place (i.e. without another opponent too close) or are there smarter tactics?
I've actually found the Monk to be an excellent High-Mobile Defender for the non-melee types.
Giant moving to wail on your friend? With Spring Attack, you can run up, smack him in the jubblies and then position yourself just outside his attack range. When the Giant moves to counter, either through a Charge or Over-Run, you're a Class that uses your Class Level rather than your BAB for CMB and CMD. One Stunning Fist to the Knee-Cap via your Attack of Opportunity and that Giant is in trouble.
I had a lot of fun with the Monk in this style, Disarming and Stunning (as Tripped Targets tend to make the Ranged Brigade hate you after a while) and generally locking down anything that slipped past the front-line Melee Combatants.
Think back to the days of 1e. One of the main powers of the fighter class (and subclasses) was access to the best combat table in the game. Everyone else was relegated to a weaker one. And that included the cleric, envisioned as a knight of a religious order in those days.
The monk, being a reasonably skilled customer of his own, got onto the cleric's combat table in the DMG as a reflection of his skill in combat (though not to the truly superior level of the fighters). Thieves were yet a table behind the clerics, and the magic users another table behind that.
FULL ROUND for 1 attack, IF the attacks hit, fortitude save?
Don't forget, it must be a crit AND against a (dazed / flat-footed / paralyzed / staggered / stunned / unconscious) foe ;)
Why does their class description say nothing about their defensive nature? You can see why "lots of folks think" that Monks are an offensive class reading over the tone and flavor of the description in the core rulebook.The description may not say it, but many of the class abilities work that way. Self healing, immunity to poisons, all good saves, bonuses vs. mind affecting magics, and having a touch AC as high as their normal AC are all defensive abilities.
Don't forget immunity to disease, evasion & improved evasion, huge bonuses against falling damage, and moderate (+10) spell resistance.