Why is the Monks so Fricking Rad?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Monks are awesome because:

They can go toe to chitinous toe with a rust monster and come out ahead.

They can Parkour through a dungeon.

They can speak in dubbed speech.

Really old, long bearded monks can single handedly take out an army.

They are even more dangerous when they are drunk or blind (or blind drunk).


Nuff said:
here


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Zen Archers are rad because if some fool has the audacity to come near you when you are shooting a million arrows a round, you can just smack him upside the face without having to draw a weapon like a derpy archer has to.

Liberty's Edge

Lobolusk wrote:
Valcrist wrote:
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

As a player of monk's and a fan of monks, I disagree.

Batman is a Facttotem or triple gestalt fighter/rogue/alchemist who is immune to fear, has every feat, and the most important resource of all....nearly unlimited gold.

On a serious note though involving wizards vs monks; can you cast defensively while in a grapple?

Liberty's Edge

Monks are rad because they can bamf into combat, knock everyone down, and steal the BBEG's shiny rod of importance and plot...

or they could just spinkick everyone in the face while wearing a cowboy hat and sporting a goatee.


Gravefiller613 wrote:

Monks are rad because just spinkick everyone in the face while wearing a cowboy hat and sporting a goatee.

And the spinkick is on fire.

In fact, monks are rad because more fire.


you CAN cast when grappled, but the chance is son tiny, you WONT

Monks are very tough IMO

BUT

at high level going first wins


if a monk gets his arma cut off he is still a killing machine! if the fighter gets his arms cut off he is a armless can of tuna that can only beg for mercy! if a wizard gets his arms cut off he is now a wierdo in a pointed hat and a star covered bathrobe. this is why monks are rad.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I hate this thread. It has no logical reason for being and brings nothing of any worth to the online community. Half of it is just sarcasm.

Personally, I just can't take silly players who want to play silly monks seriously*.

Always leads to trouble for the group. Got a player in a current game who is playing a Vow of Silence monk. Dumb git volunteers for guard duty and then doesn't warn everyone when something bad happens. Doesn't get an amulet of mighty fists or enchanted brass knuckles and then complains he can't hit anything. Follows the party around sneakily for the entirety of the first game without interacting or partaking in ANY story events (lots of spying and inter-kingdom intrigue), then stalls the game for two hours as he meets the party for the first time randomly on the road well into the game and we have to come up with a logical reason why we should trust him at all with our closely guarded secrets and not kill/arrest him as an enemy spy.

In a previous game we had a wear-rabbit monk (no joke) in the party who ran from everything like, well, like a scared rabbit.

God forbid someone want to play a blind monk!

I've come to the conclusion that people only play monks for the same reasons people play kender, to piss off everyone else in the party.

* Got nothing wrong with normal monks or normal players. They're awesome...sometimes.


Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. Just can't take silly players who want to play silly monks seriously*.

Always leads to trouble for the group. Got a player in a current game who is playing a Vow of Silence monk. Dumb git volunteers for guard duty and then doesn't warn everyone when something bad happens. Doesn't get an amulet of mighty fists or enchanted brass knuckles and then complains he can't hit anything. Follows the party around sneakily for the entirety of the first game without interacting or partaking in ANY story events (lots of spying and inter-kingdom intrigue), then stalls the game for two hours as he meets the party for the first time randomly on the road well into the game and we have to come up with a logical reason why we should trust him at all with our closely guarded secrets and not kill/arrest him as an enemy spy.

In a previous game we had a wear-rabbit monk (no joke) in the party who ran from everything like, well, like a scared rabbit.

God forbid someone want to play a blind monk!

I've come to the conclusion that people only play monks for the same reasons people play kender, to piss off everyone else in the party.

* Got nothing wrong with normal monks or normal players. They're awesome...sometimes.

I think you should be grateful that this dumbass isn't playing an Invoker or Enchanter.


LilithsThrall wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. Just can't take silly players who want to play silly monks seriously*.

Always leads to trouble for the group. Got a player in a current game who is playing a Vow of Silence monk. Dumb git volunteers for guard duty and then doesn't warn everyone when something bad happens. Doesn't get an amulet of mighty fists or enchanted brass knuckles and then complains he can't hit anything. Follows the party around sneakily for the entirety of the first game without interacting or partaking in ANY story events (lots of spying and inter-kingdom intrigue), then stalls the game for two hours as he meets the party for the first time randomly on the road well into the game and we have to come up with a logical reason why we should trust him at all with our closely guarded secrets and not kill/arrest him as an enemy spy.

In a previous game we had a wear-rabbit monk (no joke) in the party who ran from everything like, well, like a scared rabbit.

God forbid someone want to play a blind monk!

I've come to the conclusion that people only play monks for the same reasons people play kender, to piss off everyone else in the party.

* Got nothing wrong with normal monks or normal players. They're awesome...sometimes.

I think you should be grateful that this dumbass isn't playing an Invoker or Enchanter.

wait am I the dumbass? i take offence to that I play a serious monk,

i just get tired of all the bickering back and forth about monk this or monk that so the best way to not have that argument is to ignore it.and focus on why i personally like the monk i play dungeons and dragons not mathematics and dragons it is a role playing game for me not a math playing game. i pick a character type form a show or my crazy brain and try to fit them into the world of "dnd"
maybe i am crazy but i think to my self "would neil diamond make a sweet bard" or "what kind of character is the tick"
the whole point of fantasy is that it it is never a group of people get together and say "wait we already have a guy with a sword and a wizard you can't come on our quest" it is people thrown together form all classes not just 4 people one magic one sword one bow one cleric.

have you ever thought to your self man sully from dr quin medicine women is basically a ranger?


Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. It has no logical reason for being and brings nothin

.

Lol Wow have fun lighten up


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lobolusk wrote:

wait am I the dumbass? i take offence to that I play a serious monk,

i just get tired of all the bickering back and forth about monk this or monk that so the best way to not have that argument is to ignore it.and focus on why i personally like the monk i play dungeons and dragons not mathematics and dragons it is a role playing game for me not a math playing game. i pick a character type form a show or my crazy brain and try to fit them into the world of "dnd"
maybe i am crazy but i think to my self "would neil diamond make a sweet bard" or "what kind of character is the tick"
the whole point of fantasy is that it it is never a group of people get together and say "wait we already have a guy with a sword and a wizard you can't come on our quest" it is people thrown together form all classes not just 4 people one magic one sword one bow one cleric.

have you ever thought to your self man sully form dr quin medicine women is basically a ranger?

Didn't mean to offend anyone on this here forum. I'm talking about my own personal experiences with players who, though I don't much care for some of their characters, are usually very good roleplayers whose company I thoroughly enjoy.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Got a player in a current game who is playing a Vow of Silence monk. Dumb git volunteers for guard duty and then doesn't warn everyone when something bad happens.

Doesn't that rather, call into question the common sense of the other PCs, who didn't see a flaw in this plan?

At least tie a bell to him, or something.
A vow of silence doesn't forbid you from making any noise, just from speaking.
Hell, he could carry a talking oija board, make like Stephen Hawking.

"What's that , Po?"

DDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

"Hmmm, dog? Dinner?"

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

"Daschund?"

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

"Dan? Dancing?

GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

"Dang? Dang and blast it!"

EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

"Dange? Is that even a word?"

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrr!

"Danger? Is that what you're telling us? We're in danger? From where?"

<party explodes>


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
qutoes wrote:

Lol Wow have fun lighten up

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

because of this QUOTE:
"With my right foot I can knock out that knife, with my left, I can kick your nose. With this hand, I can poke out your eyes. With this, I can break your neck. Take a good look at my face. I'm an oriental."

Scarab Sages

Lobolusk wrote:
have you ever thought to your self man sully from dr quin medicine women is basically a ranger?

What about Sully, from Monsters, Inc.?

An eidolon?

Silver Crusade

Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. It has no logical reason for being and brings nothing of any worth to the online community. Half of it is just sarcasm.

Personally, I just can't take silly players who want to play silly monks seriously*.

The Vow of Silence monk isn't played seriously in your exemple, else he would have made a noise or a visible sign to warn for danger, exactly like the monk is totally allowed to do in the vow description.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.

I love this thread. It describes the gleeful joy of monk-dom that I wanted to have for the last character I played in a game. Unfortunately I am terrible with the rules and so all I ever did was "I hit it with my stick." But damn I wanted my character to be a badass whirling Marcus from Babylon-5 with a collapsible stick that kicks ass and has fun.

But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game. I get that. This attitude makes me not want to play at all, even with other supportive gamers at the table. (Maybe they're secretly hating me behind my back but put up with me just because I work at Paizo.)

But seriously, raining on somebody's thread because you don't think monks are super awesome? Why not just go to one of the many "monks suck and here's why" threads?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
qutoes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. It has no logical reason for being and brings nothin

.

Lol Wow have fun lighten up

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.

i agree the character has to fit into the party but it is a world of talking horses and badgers whose to say a monk can't put on a mask and wrestle stuff?

it is no weirder than a orc named peanutbutter who gets bored after 30 seconds and smashes down doors in a dress


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Gary Teter wrote:
But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game.

Not at all what I meant. I don't require players to optimize in order to game with me. However, I do ask that they consider their fellow players in the group during all stages of the game (including character creation) and not make negligent characters or otherwise be deliberately obtuse. I would think it common courtesy to say, for example, not make a undead heavy necromancer in a group where there is already a paladin (THAT is negligent character design).

Lobolusk wrote:

i agree the character has to fit into the party but it is a world of talking horses and badgers whose to say a monk can't put on a mask and wrestle stuff?

it is no weirder than a orc named peanutbutter who gets bored after 30 seconds and smashes down doors in a dress

If the game is meant to be silly and fun, I have no qualms about an orc named Peanut Butter, but if a game is meant to be serious and fun (such as our Dragonlance game with the wearbunny or the Intrigue spy game with the deliberately obtuse monk) than it can become something of a disruption.


Ravingdork wrote:
Gary Teter wrote:
But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game.
Not at all what I meant. I don't require players to optimize in other to game with me. However, I do ask that they consider their fellow players in the group during all stages of the game (including character creation) and not make negligent characters or otherwise be deliberately obtuse. I would think it common courtesy to say, for example, not make a undead heavy necromancer in a group where there is already a paladin (THAT is negligent character design).

but the whole point is that "chance" or what ever you want to call it has thrown this group together it is supposed to be random not every adventure is lord of the rings.

and monks are sweet because they can grapple with just a neck


Lobolusk wrote:


wait am I the dumbass? i take offence to that I play a serious monk,
i just get tired of all the bickering back and forth about monk this or monk that so the best way to not have that argument is to ignore it.and focus on why i personally like the monk i play dungeons and dragons not mathematics and dragons it is a role playing game for me not a math playing game. i pick a character type form a show or my crazy brain and try to fit them into the world of "dnd"
maybe i am crazy but i think to my self "would neil diamond make a sweet bard" or "what kind of character is the tick"
the whole point of fantasy is that it it is never a...

I don't think he was calling you a dumbass, but that the player in question who poorly implement their monk concept.

Also: *que crunch not mutually exclusive with fluff*

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Remember that scene in Babylon 5 where Marcus is in a bar and he says something like "I'll talk to the last person standing?" And then he clears the room by whirling and smacking and being badass? And then he discovers he's knocked every single opponent out, and now he has to wait for one to wake up so he can question them?

That's why monks are so fricking rad.

Silver Crusade

Lobolusk wrote:

but the whole point is that "chance" or what ever you want to call it has thrown this group together it is supposed to be random not every adventure is lord of the rings.

and monks are sweet because they can grapple with just a neck

This is still a game. And for everyone's fun, a party conveniently built to avoid direct internal conflict is recommended, even if no one is supposed to know each other from the beginning.


Snorter wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:
have you ever thought to your self man sully from dr quin medicine women is basically a ranger?

What about Sully, from Monsters, Inc.?

An eidolon?

No sully from Dr quin medicine women ( i am married) he has animal companion throws a tomahawk, lives out in the woods and his favored enemy is "united states Calvary"

sully


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Lobolusk wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Gary Teter wrote:
But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game.
Not at all what I meant. I don't require players to optimize in other to game with me. However, I do ask that they consider their fellow players in the group during all stages of the game (including character creation) and not make negligent characters or otherwise be deliberately obtuse. I would think it common courtesy to say, for example, not make a undead heavy necromancer in a group where there is already a paladin (THAT is negligent character design).
but the whole point is that "chance" or what ever you want to call it has thrown this group together it is supposed to be random not every adventure is lord of the rings.

If he talked to the GM and the paladin player in advance, than more power to them. Sounds like a great roleplaying opportunity.

However, I don't think you will find a paladin player ANYWHERE that would be too pleased to hear that another player snuck a undead heavy necromancer into the group. That means interparty conflict and game disruption is inevitable, plus one of the characters will have to go.

That's not roleplaying. That's being a deutsch.


Lobolusk wrote:

Monks are sweet because they can grapple with just a neck

Trying the picture this in my head.

404 internal server error.

reboot.

Shadow Lodge

Gary Teter wrote:
But seriously, raining on somebody's thread because you don't think monks are super awesome? Why not just go to one of the many "monks suck and here's why" threads?

This is exactly what frustrates me about many of these threads.

The assumption that everyone who plays the game needs to be an expert at the game and play uber optimized characters is poisonous. It is also generally wrong headed. The majority of groups I play in are filled with underoptimized players who do just fine. We have three oddball multi-classed characters in our game, a sorcerer, and a monk and everyone has a blast.

I don't have a problem with optimizing (I have put together more than one guide to help people build better characters), but this kind of BS doesn't help the game at all and just discourages new gamers.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
0gre wrote:


The assumption that everyone who plays the game needs to be an expert at the game and play uber optimized characters is poisonous. It is also generally wrong headed. The majority of groups I play in are filled with underoptimized players who do just fine. We have three oddball multi-classed characters in our game, a sorcerer, and a monk and everyone has a blast.

Precisely why I try to throw away what I know about the system when I DM.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

What BS might you be referring to 0gre? I don't believe anyone here has stated that underoptimizing is a bad thing.

Heck, in v3.5 I played an orc warlock who had a bunch of the 24-hour buff powers (like skill buffs, walk on water, spiderclimb, and speak with animals and the like).

He was a blast to play even though he was severely underpowered in combat when compared to a true sorcerer or wizard (or even to the invisible flying blasting warlocks that were so popular).


That's not roleplaying. That's being a deutsch.

being a german? you mean douche?

if they were good roleplayers this would happen they would set aside both differences, learn to rely on each others strengths and weaknesses, and find mutual understanding. then while the paladin slept the necormancer would murder him. i agree to a point we have all been in those games, where the character creation just caused issues and ruined it for every body.

Shadow Lodge

Ravingdork wrote:
qutoes wrote:

Lol Wow have fun lighten up

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.

WTF is 'negligent design'?

Most players I've gamed with sit down with a character sheet and think "I want to make this guy who does XXXX" and they flip through the book and find some feats they think will get them to XXX.

They don't scour the forums looking for optimal builds. They don't peel back the rules and look for stupid/ obscure hacks to try and squeeze out ridiculous things that the designers never planned on. They just read the rules casually and go from there.

Is that 'negligent'?

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

Maybe we could take the optimization/underoptimization stuff to another thread. I apologize for responding to it instead of just flagging and moving on,* but it touched a nerve. I wanted my monk to be a whirling fists-and-pike of doom and badassery, but just couldn't quite get it together to be effective.

I still love this thread. The sheer joy of monk-dom and awesome is a beautiful thing to behold.

*Yes, flag it and move on is for Paizo staff with moderator powers, too.

Silver Crusade

Gary Teter wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.

I love this thread. It describes the gleeful joy of monk-dom that I wanted to have for the last character I played in a game. Unfortunately I am terrible with the rules and so all I ever did was "I hit it with my stick." But damn I wanted my character to be a badass whirling Marcus from Babylon-5 with a collapsible stick that kicks ass and has fun.

But I guess some would have hated having me at the table since I can't hyperoptimize and therefore can't actually have fun with me in the game. I get that. This attitude makes me not want to play at all, even with other supportive gamers at the table. (Maybe they're secretly hating me behind my back but put up with me just because I work at Paizo.)

But seriously, raining on somebody's thread because you don't think monks are super awesome? Why not just go to one of the many "monks suck and here's why" threads?

I don't think that anyone at that game cared if you hyperoptimized or even optimized. We did want to make sure you were having fun too but unfortunately, first level, slow advancement... it's a long time before the monk can be super cool like that and without optimization, that makes it doubly so. Sadly, your monk had a very hard time just finding an opening with 3 other melee only characters(two of which are fairly optimized for one thing or another), a horse, an elk, and a couple of casters.


Jeranimus Rex wrote:
Lobolusk wrote:

Monks are sweet because they can grapple with just a neck

Trying the picture this in my head.

404 internal server error.

reboot.

picture it my friend picture it hard!

if every part of the monk is a weapon! then he can neck grapple that is why he is awesome! like sully


Gary Teter wrote:

Maybe we could take the optimization/underoptimization stuff to another thread. I apologize for responding to it instead of just flagging and moving on,* but it touched a nerve. I wanted my monk to be a whirling fists-and-pike of doom and badassery, but just couldn't quite get it together to be effective.

I still love this thread. The sheer joy of monk-dom and awesome is a beautiful thing to behold.

*Yes, flag it and move on is for Paizo staff with moderator powers, too.

i agree lets get on track! monks are sweet because they can jump off an altar and wrestle a albino crocodile!


0gre wrote:
Gary Teter wrote:
But seriously, raining on somebody's thread because you don't think monks are super awesome? Why not just go to one of the many "monks suck and here's why" threads?

This is exactly what frustrates me about many of these threads.

The assumption that everyone who plays the game needs to be an expert at the game and play uber optimized characters is poisonous. It is also generally wrong headed. The majority of groups I play in are filled with underoptimized players who do just fine. We have three oddball multi-classed characters in our game, a sorcerer, and a monk and everyone has a blast.

I don't have a problem with optimizing (I have put together more than one guide to help people build better characters), but this kind of BS doesn't help the game at all and just discourages new gamers.

Change "poisonous" to "infectious" or maybe "virulent" and I might agree. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but once it infects a group it tends to spread and unless everyone catches the fever, it can hurt the game.

I wouldn't want to play with a party full of envelope-pushers either, but I don't begrudge their pushing the envelope (if they aren't jerks about it) if that's what they enjoy.

I am sure that a very mechanically-focused player is just as miserable at a table full of light-hearted beer and pretzels folks. It would be Bizzaro-Gary. Finding the right crew is really important, folks!


Gary Teter wrote:

Remember that scene in Babylon 5 where Marcus is in a bar and he says something like "I'll talk to the last person standing?" And then he clears the room by whirling and smacking and being badass? And then he discovers he's knocked every single opponent out, and now he has to wait for one to wake up so he can question them?

That's why monks are so fricking rad.

But Marcus wasn't a monk, he was a ranger.

Brother Theo, on the other hand, was a monk. But all he and his monk friends ever did was scan through hours of security camera footage looking for a suspect.


SunshineGrrrl wrote:
Sadly, your monk had a very hard time just finding an opening with 3 other melee only characters(two of which are fairly optimized for one thing or another), a horse, an elk, and a couple of casters.

There's your problem. Elk are crazy OP in Pathfinder. I can't believe the GM would let one in the party. That's just inviting trouble and dissatisfaction. Hopefully, you've all learned your lesson.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Marcus was a member of the Rangers, but I bet if you stat him up, he's a monk. Possibly one with a vow of something or other.


if you were alone hiking in the woods and were attacked by a velociraptor

if you are a monk you don't care you can just punch your way to dinosaur doom!
but if you area fighter/wizard/rogue..what every you are on a day hike you didn't think to bring your equipment! you are on adventureing vacation! you just got eaten by dinosaurs! this is why monks rock

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Evil Lincoln wrote:
Change "poisonous" to "infectious" or maybe "virulent" and I might agree. There's nothing wrong with that style of play, but once it infects a group it tends to spread and unless everyone catches the fever, it can hurt the game.

I say poisonous deliberately because it is destructive. For example someoene posted a monk build a while back and the first reply was a dismissive "I stopped reading at 'Deflect Arrows'". This sort of elitist snobbery is discourages new people from posting to the forums and in a game group can cause new or casual players to leave the game.

Quote:

I wouldn't want to play with a party full of envelope-pushers either, but I don't begrudge their pushing the envelope (if they aren't jerks about it) if that's what they enjoy.

I am sure that a very mechanically-focused player is just as miserable at a table full of light-hearted beer and pretzels folks. It would be Bizzaro-Gary. Finding the right crew is really important, folks!

I totally agree, it's not optimizing I have a problem with, it's the dismissive and elitist attitudes many people who optimize seem to develop. Catch phrases like "Negligent Character Design" that presume everyone must have a certain level of optimization to participate are a pet peeve.


I think that "Negligent Character Design" is used to describe a character that is incapable of functioning with the group or as a part of the campaign setting. I have house rules against playing a lone-wolf, idiot, traitor, spoiled brat, psycho, etc. etc. I also have rules against excessive number crunching or rules exploiting. Bringing a character to the table who is going to disrupt play, destroy verisimilitude, or otherwise squelch the fun of others is unacceptable, regardless of optimization level.

But yeah, back to the topic.

Monks are awesome because they are always ready to do something original. Fighters are going to use their weapon, casters are going to cast, but monks can do anything.

A few years back I was playing the monk when the party was getting a beating from a beholder. The eye rays were tearing the party apart, and we were running out of options. Looking over by equipment list, I noticed that I had several large canvas sacks. I asked the GM if I could try to pull a sack over the beholder. "It's a real long shot, but you can try if you want..."
We decided to resolve it as a grapple.
I rolled a 20.
Followed by another 20.
Monks are freaking rad because they can bag beholders!

{As the presense of beholders and two d20 rolls for grappling indicate, were were playing under 3.5 rules, and it was my first character since AD&D. Due to some 3.5 balance issues, as well my own lack of knowledge of the game, that character soon fell behind, and I had a lot less fun then I could have. I see why people hated monks then (and in AD&D) but I think the rules now support the class.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Fergie wrote:
I think that "Negligent Character Design" is used to describe a character that is incapable of functioning with the group or as a part of the campaign setting. I have house rules against playing a lone-wolf, idiot, traitor, spoiled brat, psycho, etc. etc. I also have rules against excessive number crunching or rules exploiting. Bringing a character to the table who is going to disrupt play, destroy versilimatude, or otherwise squelch the fun of others is unaccaptable, regardless of optimization level.

Exactly. It's a whole 'nother issue than optimization.

Which is why I'm confused about everyone gettting all hot and bothered about optimization--it's not at all what I was talking about.


Fergie wrote:
I think that "Negligent Character Design" is used to describe a character that is incapable of functioning with the group or as a part of the campaign setting. I have house rules against playing a lone-wolf, idiot, traitor, spoiled brat, psycho, etc. etc. I also have rules against excessive number crunching or rules exploiting. Bringing a character to the table who is going to disrupt play, destroy versilimatude, or otherwise squelch the fun of others is unaccaptable, regardless of optimization level.

i agree getting off topic one of our older groups we had "peanutbutter" he was a orc in a dress who after 30 seconds would scream "peanutbutter bored" and kick down a door after another 30 seconds he would leave the party to the mercy of wehat every monster he had disturbed and kick down another door. then there was his kobold butler don't get me started on kobold butlers


Lobolusk wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
qutoes wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:

I hate this thread. It has no logical reason for being and brings nothin

.

Lol Wow have fun lighten up

Hard to lighten up when other players' characters either (1) get your character killed due to negligent design or (2) kills the suspension of disbelief with an extremely unusual and silly character.

Freedom to roleplay the way you want extends only to the extent that it doesn't interrupt fellow players' fun.

i agree the character has to fit into the party but it is a world of talking horses and badgers whose to say a monk can't put on a mask and wrestle stuff?

it is no weirder than a orc named peanutbutter who gets bored after 30 seconds and smashes down doors in a dress

your doors wear dresses too?


monks are so sweet that when they punch the fury is automatically added to any punch moniker.

if a monk is not wearing his shirt it is badass but if an fighter isn't wearing a shirt he is unarmored.

if the monk kills somebody it is alway way more bad ass because he just killed that dude with his bare hands not a giant kitchenknife


heck, i essentially played Gogo Yubari From Kill Bill Volume 1.


in the movies they give the person a sword and they say "stab them with the pointy end"

try stabbing somebody to death with your bare hands not so easy!

101 to 150 of 243 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why is the Monks so Fricking Rad? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.