agile manuevers and both weapon finesse, and power attack
That's kinda hard to pull off. PA requires STR 13, which might require more work on wrangling dump stats.
You will have exceptionally high defenses though, and you still benefit from +weapons just as much as other classes, so it's not a bad idea to grab.
You only ever need a Monk's robe for armor though, so that'll save you a fortune.
Nice, I hope that works out! One of the benefits of playing a monk with a bloodthirsty DM is that they can't really design encounters that play to your weaknesses, because you have defense from all corners.
Thanks for this thread Moox... now I want to try and play a high-level Monk. A lot of the most interesting Monk abilities really don't accrue until high levels (like Monk of the Lotus's Touch of Surrender @ 12, or Monk of the Four Wind's Aspect @ 17). I think a Zen Archer could be the highest damage archery build in the game, as well.
To the people who have said "I've seen all this before and have argued it down elsewhere..." I'm sorry that I didn't trawl through endless pages of posts just to make sure I'd never repeated anything said before. Maybe I said it better, in my own essayist manner. Or maybe I didn't, and I should have wasted an enormous amount of time tracking down your arguments and reading them. Next time I'll be sure to avoid writing anything, so as not to bore you.Sincerely,
-Moox
Moox a bit of constructive criticism, coming from an academic writers background here. If you want to be taken seriously and want the topic to be taken seriously.
A) Do the research. Yes it blows, yes its no fun, but when someone thread craps on you as is likely to happen; because they have the posts favorited that they will use to counter argue you you need to be prepared with your own counter argument. Otherwise you arent providing Proof (which this audience likes) just anecdotal experience and rehashing the topic rather than making a new rhetorical move dosen't help those of us who want to see the monk get love.
B) Sarcasm dosent help us take you or your view of the topic seriously, it kind of works against your stated purpose in the OP.
I am a monk lover, but I think all the "what about this" situations that people love to argue about is pointless. this argument is a lot like ford vs chevy. I think that chevys are the better than ford and i can give you plenty of real world examples to back it up. that being said my buddy sully really likes fords and he can do just the opposite, in the end i think it comes down to player prefrence . each class has it's pros and cons and each situation is different depending on dice rolls
Moox a bit of constructive criticism, coming from an academic writers background here. If you want to be taken seriously and want the topic to be taken seriously.
I can't tell you how important proper research can be to an argumentative essay. Especially in a world where the fields of research are as rich as RPG gaming.
It also helps inspire unique perspectives, and can shore up against traditional criticisms of the topic.
Can help silence some haters too, you can't ever silence trolls, but they're a special breed of hater.
Moox a bit of constructive criticism, coming from an academic writers background here...
When your opponent's criticisms are on the order of 'heard it all before, you're wrong', its silly to spend any amount of time attempting to refute them. You can't refute someone who doesn't bring an argument to the table. Sarcasm is exactly the right retort in that case.
When your opponent's criticisms are on the order of 'heard it all before, you're wrong', its silly to spend any amount of time attempting to refute them. You can't refute someone who doesn't bring an argument to the table. Sarcasm is exactly the right retort in that case.Patience, kind words and a thorough explanation as to how the argument being made is either more nuance or different from the ones in the past is appropriate too.
Sarcasm can lead to confusion and poisoning of the atmosphere.
I think so.
It's that series of tubes Al Gore invented right?
Moox a bit of constructive criticism, coming from an academic writers background here...When your opponent's criticisms are on the order of 'heard it all before, you're wrong', its silly to spend any amount of time attempting to refute them. You can't refute someone who doesn't bring an argument to the table. Sarcasm is exactly the right retort in that case.
Resounding agreement here. +100 to Ave Imperator, and thank you!
I'm glad my English degree didn't go to waste.-Moox
Then in effect you are not appealing for a "serious agrument"/discussion but in essence are in a different camp of badwrongfun than the troll you chose to feed by engaging in sarcasm.
*edit* - LT's response is smarter and better than mine was.
|
|
v
A SERIOUS ARGUMENT FOR THE MONK
You have it all wrong. Monks aren't weak because they don't have full BAB, can't deal good damage, and are seriously MAD (though those are contributing factors).
They are primarily considered weak because, unlike other classes, there is almost no synergy between any of their class abilities.
If you play the role of the skirmisher, your damage becomes near worthless as you drop to one attack per round. God forbid the beast your hitting has DR! The fight would take forever and likely end with you either running away or becoming lunch (a monster's single attack often out-damages your own).
If you stand there and flurry away with full base attack bonus, you still lose because you don't have the hit points and AC of a fighter and get chewed up too easily.
Your defenses are great (some of the best in the game I dare say), but they do little more than keep you alive. You still aren't much help to the party.
In the end, you'll be the lone survivor of a near TPK and the rest of your party will hate you for it (since your lack of able contribution likely led to their deaths).
If you play the role of the skirmisher... If you stand there and flurry away with full base attack bonus...
Monks aren't great for high-damage builds, but they are great at combat-maneuvers. A Monk can be a tier-one tripper, grappler, dirty-tricker, etc.
Combat-maneuvers may be less useful in late-game play, when Freedom of Movement can become ubiquitous - of course, by that stage, so does melee combat in general. I think you may be holding Monks to an unreasonably high standard.
In the end, you'll be the lone survivor of a near TPK and the rest of your party will hate you for it (since your lack of able contribution likely led to their deaths).
In Pathfinder, Monks can just as easily be secondary healers and even resurrect their party members. Being the lone survivor of a TPK isn't so terrible in that event.
Combat-maneuvers may be less useful in late-game play, when Freedom of Movement can become ubiquitousFoM has no affect on the majority of the combat manuevers a monk can do.
That is true - but, and I may be wrong here, it does interfere with grapple, and I think grapple is the only combat maneuver which makes concentration checks more difficult. Right?
Monks aren't great for high-damage builds, but they are great at combat-maneuvers. A Monk can be a tier-one tripper, grappler, dirty-tricker, etc.
Combat-maneuvers may be less useful in late-game play, when Freedom of Movement can become ubiquitous - of course, by that stage, so does melee combat in general. I think you may be holding Monks to an unreasonably high standard.
The problem with combat maneuvers is that you are often spending a standard action to inflict a condition on the enemy that can often be rectified with a move action. The action economy is against you (and that's assuming you even succeed). What's more, you've done no damage to help finish the fight!
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.
Trip the guy. He stands up.
Dirty Trick the guy. He laughs and ends the condition.
At most, you've prevented a full attack while not having made a real attack of your own.
Grappling can be real useful (such as when used against a spellcaster too dumb to prepare for it), provided you can get it to work, and provided the enemy doesn't have a bunch of goons to wail on you while you maintain the grapple (one of my friends lost his monk this way).
Even in ideal situations such as tripping a lone enemy and having him provoke from your allies, you are unlikely to get more damage than you would have if you had just stood there and full attacked. Makes you wonder what the point of it all was.
If he was a lone enemy with one primary weapon/item key to his strategy, than it has less to do with the monk being awesome and more to do with the GM being an idiot.
Lone bad guys don't last whether or not there is a monk in the party. That's just bad encounter design.
Bad guys with minions make combat maneuvers far less useful as it is wasted on easily killed mooks and the bad guy's likely too strong for your maneuvers to be reliable anyways.
What's more enemies with one powerful item that is the focus of their power/strategy can have that item taken away by most anyone. Don't need to be a monk to disarm or sunder.
In short, monks DON'T REALLY MATTER in the end.
I've never played a full-monk, but dipped many times one or two levels for WIS-to-AC, flurry of blows for many maneuvers per turn, evasion, deflect arrows, Combat Reflexes or other relevant feats. They have awesome features and depending on setting and playstyles, they can outshine a lot of people.
I run a Shoanti campaign these days, and you bet the monk in the group is feared in duels; duels with bare hands. No Fighter or unspecialized barbarian can keep up with that; and the monk/ranger of the party is always far-ahead of the party acting as a very fast moving stealthy scout.
Doesn't that prevent full attacks in all cases?Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.
Trip the guy. He stands up.
Dirty Trick the guy. He laughs and ends the condition.
Not only does it prevent a full attack, in the case of a disarm is allows the monk to take the weapon, a trip will make the target easier to hit in melee and provoke when they stand up, and with dirty trick you can give the sicked condition which lowers saves. But I'm pretty sure those are valuesless effects compared to FIGHTER SMASH!!!!!!!!!!!
I've edited my post above to address these issues.
In short, stopping a bad guy from making a full attack means little when you give up your own attacks to do so. You've gained no ground whatsoever! In fact, you've likely lost ground due to having to spend more actions than the enemy you tried to interrupt.
HINT: Monk still doesn't matter.
|
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.
Trip the guy. He stands up.
Dirty Trick the guy. He laughs and ends the condition.At most, you've prevented a full attack while not having made a real attack of your own.
Trip the guy with your first attack, FoB him while prone for a +4 to attack.
While he tries to stand up, disarm him with an attack of opportunity with still -4 to avoid it and take his nice, shiny weapon. Except if he got another one as shiny and magical he just hid because he likes it so much, repeat as previously.Also, Dirty Trick him and let the wizard/Witch use his best Save or suck spell or hex for fun.
Sure, it's no direct damage, but a nerfed with no good weapon level 11 raging barbarian is less dangerous than the same with 20 HP and all it's damage potential left.
You actually didnt address the issues. If an opponent has a vorpal sword and the monk disarms him, that is a valuable action. If the oppenent is an archer and the monk stops him from full attacking the cleric, that is a valuable action. If the monk can lower an enemies saves, thus making a spell more likely to effect them, that is a valuable action.
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.
Being unarmed, the monk ends up with the said weapon in hand. Weapons probably magical that can't be replaced with weapons just as efficient. It's a kind of debuffing.
Trip the guy. He stands up.
Then is not capable of full attacks or full round actions, and provokes an attack from the monk.
Dirty Trick the guy. He laughs and ends the condition.
Same as Tripping.
Even in ideal situations such as tripping a lone enemy and having him provoke from your allies or disarming him of his sole effective weapon, you are unlikely to get more damage than you would have if you had just stood there and full attacked. Also, this has less to do with the monk being awesome and more to do with the GM being an idiot.
Some games are not about damage or killing stuff without regard to what it is. There are games when you prefer not to kill certain enemies on the spot.
Lone bad guys don't last whether or not there is a monk in the party.
Enemies with one powerful item that is the focus of their power/strategy can have that item taken away by most anyone. Don't need to be a monk to disarm or sunder.In short, monks DON'T REALLY MATTER.
Well, PFRPG wasn't balanced for big single bosses, save when they are several levels ahead of the party or when the party is made weary before the fight.
I'll give you that; monks aren't powerhouses, but they can hold their own, and in different areas, as opposed to one-trick ponies.
Monks can certainly hold their own, Krimson. It's just that other classes can do anything the monk can do, only better, so why ever play a monk unless you are a masochistic roleplaying junkie? Might as well play a fighter who can do all those combat maneuvers, but do them better, more cheaply, and also tank or deal damage as needed.
A fighter isn't slowed by his armor. Give him boots of striding and springing and/or a haste spell and suddenly the monk's speed doesn't seems so great.
It's just that other classes can do anything the monk can do, only better, so why ever play a monk unless you are a masochistic roleplaying junkie?
Can you support that statement?
Monks can certainly hold their own, Krimson. It's just that other classes can do anything the monk can do, only better, so why ever play a monk unless you are a masochistic roleplaying junkie?
...and in different areas, as opposed to one-trick ponies.
Because you don't care about being the best?
Straw man.
It's not about being the best. It's about having balanced options.
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior. Therefore, is the monk really an option? Or just a joke?
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.
How many weapons do bad guys come with?
Most anything combat wise a Monk can do, a Fighter can do better. Fighters just don't get flurry of blows, but who cares? They have full BAB.
It's about having balanced options.
In whose mind is that what its about?
I don't have any problem with a level 20 Wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of the discrepancy.
Personally, I think the futile struggle to balance the classes is caused by video-game myopia.
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior.
Can you support that statement?
I'd be interested in a high mobility, high save/evasion, maneuver specialist. And then another, cause options suggest at least two.
And how come running over and tripping or disarming stopped being a valueless action?
|
It's about having balanced options.In whose mind is that what its about?
I don't have any problem with a level 20 Wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of the discrepancy.
Personally, I think the futile struggle to balance the classes is caused by video-game myopia.
I think it's caused by designers not realizing how bad the game was out of balanced, and then trying to balance it.
Balance is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. And don't pull out 4E. 4E's probably is they disguised abilities and powers to all be very similar. It's a noble attempt except the execution was not what players wanted.
People don't want absolute balance. But they do want relative balance. Okay my fighter can't fly with help. That's okay. But I expect my fighter to fight really well. In 3.5 the fighter easily got surpassed by CoDzillas, hence the problem with balance. There was no real reason to play a fighter at all. That type of imbalance needs to be removed from the game. When it's obvious and hurts the game, it needs to go. That's why wizards keep getting nerfed overall, although 3.0 system accidently made them strong with all sorts of things like weak saves for fighters, action economy, certain metamagic feats were out of control, etc.
The problem with monks is that they are still behind the curve compared to lots of melee classes as is. Lots of situational abilities do not make a good overall character. It's like Aquaman is really strong under water, except Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Flash, and Green Lantern are still better underwater. Less situationals, more flat out good things like BAB, better damage, easier ways to overcome DR, etc.
Most anything combat wise a Monk can do, a Fighter can do better.
Have a good reflex and will save?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you don't care about being the best?Straw man.
It's not about being the best. It's about having balanced options.
You asked why one would play a monk when other classes do things better. How is 'not caring about being the best' an invalid reason?
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior. Therefore, is the monk really an option? Or just a joke?
Is 'low' not an option on a fan?
|
|
And how come running over and tripping or disarming stopped being a valueless action?Because if it had value, then the monk would have value.
I'm sure people have brought up fighting against monsters before. Let's just create some monks and fighters, and have them fight other monsters. We know monks are solid against creatures of similar size, but they tend to have a lot of trouble against monsters with high CMDs.
I do not remember exactly what the design philosophy is, but isn't a 10th level character supposed to be able to handle a CR 10 monster on his own? Let's line up a few different CR10s, and let's have at it.
I tend to think a monk works as the 6th character. As the 5th, I rather have bard or magus, short of the obvious power classes like wizard, druid, cleric, etc. Being 6th to me means I rather have 5 other classes first, and I might want another class instead anyways based on the situation. They just are too situational for me to like all the time.
I think it's caused by designers not realizing how bad the game was out of balanced, and then trying to balance it.
Balance is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. And don't pull out 4E. 4E's probably is they disguised abilities and powers to all be very similar. It's a noble attempt except the execution was not what players wanted.
People don't want absolute balance. But they do want relative balance. Okay my fighter can't fly with help. That's okay. But I expect my fighter to fight really well. In 3.5 the fighter easily got surpassed by CoDzillas, hence the problem with balance. There was no real reason to play a fighter at all. That type of imbalance needs to be removed from the game. When it's obvious and hurts the game, it needs to go. That's why wizards keep getting nerfed overall, although 3.0 system accidently made them strong with all sorts of things like weak saves for fighters, action economy, certain metamagic feats were out of control, etc.
The problem with monks is that they are still behind the curve compared to lots of melee classes as is. Lots of situational abilities do not make a good overall character. It's like Aquaman is really strong under water, except Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter, Flash, and Green Lantern are still better underwater. Less situationals, more flat out good things like BAB, better damage, easier ways to overcome DR, etc.
Pretty much exactly right.
|
|
Because you don't care about being the best?Straw man.
It's not about being the best. It's about having balanced options.
You asked why one would play a monk when other classes do things better. How is 'not caring about being the best' an invalid reason?
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior. Therefore, is the monk really an option? Or just a joke?Is 'low' not an option on a fan?
The problem is that the monk is only on "low". The fighter can go "low" or be "medium". People who thinks the monk is bad all believe that.
It's spending the money on a fan that has lots of cool settings that don't get used a lot unless the circumstances are JUST right. Or getting a fan with less options, but more useful for everyday use.
The monk is weakly imbalanced. Other options are clearly superior.Can you support that statement?
I'd be interested in a high mobility, high save/evasion, maneuver specialist. And then another, cause options suggest at least two.
And how come running over and tripping or disarming stopped being a valueless action?
Ravingdork makes a valid point; other classes such as fighter and barbarian can end up having more bonuses than monks on combat maneuvers due to more focused ability scores and abilities. And that is true.
My point though, is that monks can flurry maneuvers. No one else can do that. They have a higher degree of adaptability at the cost of lowered damage potential. Is that enough to call them useless? Depends of the playstyle, I guess.
It's just that being the best at killing stuff fast and violently is the easiest, most efficient way to shine in this game, for most gamers. I know for I've long played barbarian-type characters. It's easy to shine when you kick arse.
But in the end, I repeat; it's all a matter of playstyle. The fact that people are arguing over said monk class proves that; some consider it fine to their playstyles, as others don't find it strong enough for theirs. And I think it's okay like that.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Disarm the guy. He picks up his weapon or draws out another.How many weapons do bad guys come with?
Most anything combat wise a Monk can do, a Fighter can do better. Fighters just don't get flurry of blows, but who cares? They have full BAB.
Most bad guys, since they have NPC wealth, DO have one weapon or item that is clearly better than their other options.
You sunder, disarm, or (for a worn item) steal it, whatever they have as a backup weapon is not likely to be as good. In addition, if they don't have a backup of the same type, any weapon-specific feats or abilities will not apply.
Even if they have one backup, same weapon type, not as good as the first but still serviceable (say, an ordinary, masterwork, or +1, depending on level), if you disarm, sunder, or steal that one, they are likely boned. Seriously, a bad guy might carry a backup sword or lance if he's clever or cautious, but carrying TWO identical backup swords or whatever is probably too paranoids for 99% of villains.
It's spending the money on a fan that has lots of cool settings that don't get used a lot unless the circumstances are JUST right. Or getting a fan with less options, but more useful for everyday use.
Because they have situational abilities as opposed to standard full attack/take it to the face abilities doesn't make them weaker. There is no way to quantify those abilities, so there is no way to say if they are balanced.
If I survive a fight because my will save is better then a fighters will save, how do you weight that?
If both the fighter and the monk are unarmed and unarmored but I am more of a threat, how do you weight that?
How much DPR is evasion worth?
How many points of AC is fast movement worth?
How many hit points is diamond soul worth?