And please don't get started on the whole "western warrior monk" thing. The Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights were indeed monks, but fought in armor with swords and shields. They did not have ki or practice true bare-handed fighting styles, other than basic unarmed defense. They would have been Paladins, NOT monks.
batman is a monk
SR is a double edged sword that is laughably easy for a wizard to bypass. just some feat taxes, maybe an alternative yet still common selection of race choice.
even if the monk has 'all good saves' his ability modifiers are rather low due to his multiple attribute dependancy, plus his gear costs much more than that of everyone else. his saves aren't as amazing as hyperbole makes them out to be.
the monk's armor class isn't anything special unless he overfocuses on defense to the point his offense fails horribly via Weapon fineese and agile manuevers. and his touch AC, while higher than that of most, can still be easily touched by a wizard.
SR is a double edged sword that is laughably easy for a wizard to bypass. just some feat taxes, maybe an alternative yet still common selection of race choice.
I find SR to be awesome once you start running into mid-high CR outsiders with at-will area or damage effects but don't have a CL equal to their CR. Tons of the demons/devils and others fall into this.
The monk is an interesting alternative to a fighter, but one that needs pages of class abilities to be the same power level of a fighter.The monk is every bit (and no more) an alternative for the fighter that a Rogue is.
My only real issue with the class is the fact that it doesn't fit. it is an obviously eastern flavored class shoved into a western setting.I didn't realize that there are still people out there working under the delusion that the default world for DnD is European.
I guess you got rid of Elementals (which are nothing like the Elementals from European myth), Druids and Bards (which are nothing like the Druids and Bards from European history), polytheism, most of the Beastiary (everything from puddings and oozes to Rakshasha on and on and on), Neutral planes of existence beyond the Astral, all the core non-human playable classes (none of which are as in European myths) and on and on and on.
how is that making a monk rad?
monks are sweet and rad because they can throw ninja stars and they aren't ninjas! and a batarang is most def a ninja star
how is that making a monk rad?
Because you are actually embracing what makes the class and concept unique. If it's just rules and stats it's not role-playing... it's just ROLL-playing. If that's the case then this thread was simply started to have people say "I love class features" and call it a day. I thought you we interested in exploring what's great about PLAYING a monk.
batman is a monk
Not debating. Also, batman was trained in the east (in some backstories).
i haven't seen a single high level wizard that hasn't taken the spell penetration line.
i have never seen a druid without natural spell
nor a swordsage without adaptive style.
|
I mean, look at the code of the Theravada Buddhist monks. Now ask yourself if any of your monk players have ever even heard of the Four Noble Truths.
And before this starts a debate over wether it's unreasonable to ask players to read up on things for their characters, remember that we GM's have to read whole adventures (that we bought ourselves), and that it'd take less than 15 minutes to read the Wiki entry.
I'd just like to see a monk player play a monk because it's "rad" to explore a new and interesting culture in the game, not because of a collection of class abilities and kung fu moves.
I can understand your point of view, but I don't think you will ask a player wanting to test a Witch or an Undead lord cleric to check on real books of witchcraft and black magic to see how real people explain the "mechanisms" behind these beliefs.
Players take their characters at first to feel cool, to have fun and to roleplay a character that will soon or later see a lot of development. I know people in my group who begin by wanting a capacity (heavy damage), then a style (savage, stupid but innocent), a role (heavy melee), a class (barbarian), then only think about how they can include this in the world they play in, and what kind of personnality build around this. These people are also great roleplayers. I don't care about people not fully understanding the true meaning and important beliefs from the real elements that inspired a class, if their character ends to be fun to play with and allows for nice roleplay sessions and drama.When I built my last character, I wanted a fat stinky hobo, the kind to puke on the ennemy, drink pure alcohol, lit a cigar with a finger and sob about how his life was broken when he became drunk and lame, but to favor peace and only break bones when negociation fails ; not a shaolin monk. It took an APG and Ultimate Magic to make it playable (my monk has 8 dexterity, 12 charisma, is of mature age and don't suck, go figure), and even though i never knew the "Four Noble Truths" before you spoke of them and I checked on Wikipedia, I don't think this alone makes my character uninteresting.
You can't reproach to your players to want something cool. If it bugs you that they don't know enough of the class' origins, feel free to tell them. And I had a player with a monk who played it ONLY to feel cool because he was in martial arts himself...
The monk is an interesting alternative to a fighter, but one that needs pages of class abilities to be the same power level of a fighter.The monk is every bit (and no more) an alternative for the fighter that a Rogue is.
My only real issue with the class is the fact that it doesn't fit. it is an obviously eastern flavored class shoved into a western setting.I didn't realize that there are still people out there working under the delusion that the default world for DnD is European.
I guess you got rid of Elementals (which are nothing like the Elementals from European myth), Druids and Bards (which are nothing like the Druids and Bards from European history), polytheism, most of the Beastiary (everything from puddings and oozes to Rakshasha on and on and on), Neutral planes of existence beyond the Astral, all the core non-human playable classes (none of which are as in European myths) and on and on and on.
Fair, but read my previous post and note that I do say I have no issues with people who play monks that obviously come from the parts of the world where they would be common.
Polytheism was common in europe, and I wont debate religion here. If the Greek gods proved their existence we'd still be worshiping them.
The Bestiary reflects the world, not just one part.
Bards are rather close to the european idea, and yes the druids are more like native american shaman.
Elves are common myth in france and england. Dwarves are NORSE, which means Germanic.
In the end all of DnD is based of the writings of J R R Tolkien. It was intended to be an english myth, as they had few of their own. All of the game stems from this, making a majority of it european. If you elect to play somewhere else that is your call, but you'd probably use a sourcebook, like the eastern one that will soon be out.
In the end all I can say about the Monk is "One of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong..."
|
In the end all of DnD is based of the writings of J R R Tolkien. It was intended to be an english myth, as they had few of their own. All of the game stems from this, making a majority of it european. If you elect to play somewhere else that is your call, but you'd probably use a sourcebook, like the eastern one that will soon be out.
Can you show me in any D&D campaign setting where Europe is?
I mean, look at the code of the Theravada Buddhist monks. Now ask yourself if any of your monk players have ever even heard of the Four Noble Truths.
And before this starts a debate over wether it's unreasonable to ask players to read up on things for their characters, remember that we GM's have to read whole adventures (that we bought ourselves), and that it'd take less than 15 minutes to read the Wiki entry.
I'd just like to see a monk player play a monk because it's "rad" to explore a new and interesting culture in the game, not because of a collection of class abilities and kung fu moves.
I can understand your point of view, but I don't think you will ask a player wanting to test a Witch or an Undead lord cleric to check on real books of witchcraft and black magic to see how real people explain the "mechanisms" behind these beliefs.
Players take their characters at first to feel cool, to have fun and to roleplay a character that will soon or later see a lot of development. I know people in my group who begin by wanting a capacity (heavy damage), then a style (savage, stupid but innocent), a role (heavy melee), a class (barbarian), then only think about how they can include this in the world they play in, and what kind of personnality build around this. These people are also great roleplayers. I don't care about people not fully understanding the true meaning and important beliefs from the real elements that inspired a class, if their character ends to be fun to play with and allows for nice roleplay sessions and drama.
When I built my last character, I wanted a fat stinky hobo, the kind to puke on the ennemy, drink pure alcohol, lit a cigar with a finger and sob about how his life was broken when he became drunk and lame, but to favor peace and only break bones when negociation fails ; not a shaolin monk. It took an APG and Ultimate Magic to make it playable (my monk has 8 dexterity, 12 charisma, is of mature age and don't suck, go figure), and even though i never knew...
You make a valid point, and I didn't mean to offend. It's simply monks are required to be lawful, and so (like the paladin) should have a code. Without such I feel the class is lessened.
And please don't get started on the whole "western warrior monk" thing. The Hospitallers, Templars, and Teutonic Knights were indeed monks, but fought in armor with swords and shields. They did not have ki or practice true bare-handed fighting styles, other than basic unarmed defense. They would have been Paladins, NOT monks.batman is a monk
No. Batman is a Batman: the only class having for prerequisite "being Batman."
The best part of playing a monk is when you write "swordsage" on your sheet.
Looks like I hit a vein. You are then saying that the setting is not Europe? You are correct, it is a world that takes from all parts of the world and it's history. I'm saying the monk does not fit with the general theme of the core book. They fit more so with an eastern setting, like the one that will be coming out soon. But I've said that before.
This debate goes nowhere. No one here will change their minds, not you or I. I'll leave you to your arguments. I only hope that someone may find my ideas interesting enough to put more thought into a monk, and the history that surrounds it.
And the norse bards were Skalds. There is an Archetype for them. It fit's well. The french bards are much more like DnD Bards. And music has been used in armies across the world to inspire and coordinate. The concept is universal.
|
|
All of the game stems from this, making a majority of it european.
Guess that rules out all the Fritz Lieber, REH, Moorcock, pulp lit, 70's kung-fu movie, and world mythology influence then.
D&D for me has never been Eurocentric. Monks, nagas, genies, pseudo-Egypt, wily shamans and medicine men, couatls, and the rest are as much a part of the game as knights and whatever.
And if older editions are the metric by which what is or is not a natural fit in the D&D/Pathfinder world(as if there is one monolithic world represented by the rules), then that means literal six-shootin' cowboys are part of it all too, ocnsidering on of them is a Greyhawk god.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are awesome for the following reasons.
1. MAD is just another way of saying that every stat that you increase makes your character better. (Does the fighter get an AC bonus when he bumps up his Wisdom? Didn't think so!)
2. They get a boost to their attack bonus when they make more attacks. (Let's see the fighter do that!)
3. Four skill points a level, baby!
4. They have full BAB with their combat maneuvers. (Most classes are worse when they attempt a combat maneuver, but not monks. They're the masters of disarming!)
5. They're really fast. (Can't stop what you can't catch!)
6. They have special class-specific weapons that nobody else can use. (Good luck with your greatsword, fighter--monks have shuriken and sais!)
7. Their weapon damage increases with level. (The fighter's stuck doing 2d6 damage throughout the game. The monk eventually goes up to 2d10--that's up to 20 damage per attack!)
8. With a prime stat of Wisdom and Perception as a class skill, they can see anything. (Rogues? Invisible wizards? You ain't got nothin' on a monk!)
9. They can make the most attacks in the game. (Nine in one round? Hells yeah!)
10. They can take a vow of poverty and get class bonuses. (They don't need no stinkin' magic items to fight!)
11. Bonus feats. (Hah! Read 'em and weep, fightard! Monks are stealing your show.)
batman is a monk
Batman may be a monk, but you know what Yoda is? That's right, a druid! And that's why sorcerers are the raddest class in the game.
The best part about being a monk is getting to take a snack break when I realize that we're fighting something that's larger than Medium and that's not wielding weapons.
monks are rad because if built right they are practically unhitable without a nat 20.
You tell 'em Lobolusk.
Don't take any guff from these swine.
this thread is for all things monk from the sweet sound of nun chucks hitting goblin skull to not having to wear armor and being able to punch red dragons in the eyes. drop a line and say why you think the monk is sweet
Many great jabs and praises for the greatest class of all time. But I feel I should weigh in as a veteran of the 3.0 monk (which I made a little less than a month before 3.5 came out and I lost 'leap of clouds'...)
Fallacy 1) Monks are MAD.
This is laughable. There is only one relevant stat that any monk needs...which ever one they want. Focus on it, ignore all others just as you would for any specialist class. A few points in the others won't help the class that much any way.
This allows a monk to be customized more so than any other class, because a wizard needs int, a monk doesn't need wis, just some of their abilities which a monk can choose not to focus on. With the other amazing defenses a monk gets...the ac buff from the wisdom (unless you focus on it. Is negligible)
Monks aren't MAD...they are MAI, Multi-Ability-Irrelevant. Meaning spreading all your points to be sub-par everywhere will leave you feeling exactly so.
Fallacy 2) Monks don't do 'good' damage.
If the only means a player has found to do damage with a monk is 'flurry' and 'unarmed strike', and believes this to be the pinnacle of the monk classes damage, I honestly feel bad for them. Someone far better at optimization than I wrote a guide. His name contains the word 'monk', check it out.
Fallacy 3) That monks aren't fun.
This one is simply a shocker. Go to Youtube and watch the myriad of videos on 'Parkour', than head over to 'Netflix' and watch 'Enter the Dragon'. Finally go to your game table with a bit of inspiration and try your monk and tell me your opinion of the classes 'fun factor' hasn't changed.
Which leads me to why monks are 'rad' other than the aforementioned 'greatest class of all time' bit. More so than any other class a monk has abilities which are not affected by stat scores and can be customized to make them truly unique. The monk's various styles are so much greater than the 2h, range, or twf templates that almost all fighters employ.
Fallacy 1) Monks are MAD.
This is laughable. There is only one relevant stat that any monk needs...which ever one they want.
Fallacy 2) Monks don't do 'good' damage.
Someone far better at optimization than I wrote a guide. His name contains the word 'monk', check it out.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Treantmonk's guide (which is no longer available) more or less opened with "Monks are incredibly MAD and need to focus as much as they can on strength."
Treantmonk's guide (which is no longer available) more or less opened with "Monks are incredibly MAD and need to focus as much as they can on strength."
Mmmmh I think your search-fu failed ;) You can still find treatmonk guide to monk
I've just read it it's not bad if you want to deal decent damage, but it's at the cost of the monk's "flavor"... Anyway monk make good NPC, players hate Monks BBEG 'cause of the high will save and disarm things... :p
Monks are rad because they make the DM tone down the encounters so he can do something.
|
I find Monks to be...useful.
In combat they are decent damage dealers, but rule when it comes to set ups and combos with follow ups. One on One vs a foe they may run into problems against high AC foes, etc. But working as a team they are a force multiplier when it comes to combat control.
Most Monks focus on Trip/Disarm. Both very excellent choices, especially when dealing with foes armed with specialized weapons.
Often working with the party's fighter/rogue/cavalier, etc they can turn the tide often in combat.
Point was proven to me when a monk went full tilt at an enemy caster (using his saves to survive the run down) and disarmed a wand of fireball to save the team from ongoing torment.
Much like the Ranger and the Rogue, they are a tactical choice when it comes to play style.
Don't expect them to be a beatstick like the Fighter, Cavalier, and Barbarian.
In that regard, they are "rad".
Treantmonk's guide (which is no longer available) more or less opened with "Monks are incredibly MAD and need to focus as much as they can on strength."Mmmmh I think your search-fu failed ;) You can still find treatmonk guide to monk
The guide itself doesn't load for me :U
|
Monks can catch bullets. Enough said.
So can Commoners. In fact, there was a thread that was made by someone worried about the fact Commoners could catch bullets.
Halfling Monks are rad becuase you can have a lot more uses of Stunning Fist a day and if you grapple something the chances of it getting free can be pretty slim.
All of the game stems from this, making a majority of it european.Guess that rules out all the Fritz Lieber, REH, Moorcock, pulp lit, 70's kung-fu movie, and world mythology influence then.
D&D for me has never been Eurocentric. Monks, nagas, genies, pseudo-Egypt, wily shamans and medicine men, couatls, and the rest are as much a part of the game as knights and whatever.
And if older editions are the metric by which what is or is not a natural fit in the D&D/Pathfinder world(as if there is one monolithic world represented by the rules), then that means literal six-shootin' cowboys are part of it all too, ocnsidering on of them is a Greyhawk god.
Yes!
Inspirational Quotes for any RPG
"Pathfinder's not medieval. It's the Wild West with swords and plate mail. It pulls in stuff from all over - Caine from Kung Fu, Celtic bards and druids, Vancian wizards, knight hospitallers with Biblical powers, Conan, Cugel the Clever, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser, demi-humans from Tolkien. These guys, all together in the same hodgepodge of a world, enter a very big hole in the ground to fight a zoo of monsters from mythology, folklore, sci-fi, Hammer horror movies, HP Lovecraft, kids' toys and Paizo’s fevered imagination.” - adapted from ENWorld poster Doug McCrae
~
“And why the heck not? Rigorous historical play can be fun, but that's usually not what we're about in these games. Letting our cleric of Bast and her kung-fu monk best friend go mano-y-mano with a high priest of Cthulhu for the broken shards of Excalibur in a back alley of Sanctuary while the city is under siege by an army of Barsoomian apes under the sorcerous command of Yyrkoon of Melnibone is just fun! “- trollsmyth
`
Yeah, I don't care about European historical analogies. If that were a mandate for Pathfinder's world/adventure design, I would quit out of boredom right quick. To me, the word "Europe" has no meaning when discussing Golarion.
|
+1Think Charles Atlas. You don't buy expensive equipment; you become the equipment.
You don't wear armor, but you still have armor THAT EVEN WORKS AGAINST TOUCH ATTACKS. You don't have to carry melee weapons, but you always have melee weapons, even if you are carrying things in both hands.
Poor Athyc was the most effective damage dealer in the first-level party until he ended up on the wrong end of a "one hit kill". The damage might not have killed a first-level fighter outright, but it could have.
EDIT: Plus a 12th level monk could disarm six opponents in one round. "Hah! You think you're gonna fight with weapons? I don't think so! Let's see how well you fight my way!"
10 move actions to retrieve the swords you're not holding.
9 Whacks to the monk.
If the monk has Greater Disarm (unlikely but possible in PFS, easier with 25-point buy), each weapon would be knocked 15' away from its owner. I did not build this character with 13 INT because it would mean dumping my CHA even further, but I am tempted to adjust the character now just to prove my point.
monks are rad because when buying equipment the list goes like
1.underwear---check
2. bathrobe----check
3.fist of fury-----check
4.cape-----check
5.boots-----check
6.sweet wolf/bear/tiger/eagle/whatever mask---check
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are rad because of their dark and awesome past...
Every monk has lost at least half a dozen close adventurer friends with inferior saving throws.