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.
The Monk will have better Saves, more resistances/immunities, a higher touch AC, a higher movement speed, and more skill points than a CMB-fighter of the same level and resources. Those things have value - especially towards the middle/late game when hit-points alone are a poor shield, and you start running into a lot of "save-or-suck" spells.
If you narrow a question of utility finely enough then yes, the Monk is demonstrably less useful... but the min/max'd Fighter builds which are superior to Monks at Grappling are ultimately min/max'd. They have an in-built minimum. Monks have many fewer minimums than the meticulously tailored CMB-fighter.
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.
Except it isn't wholly unique to monks. Flurry is basically just TWF with your fists. The only real difference is STR to damage, which is minor. Any fighter with the TWF feat tree and disarm/trip weapons can do the same full attack, trip, disarm, dirty trick described above. And they could do it better because of cheaper weapon enhancements, bonuses for wielding disarm weapons, and weapon training.
|
You know what? I'll just make a list of things I believe I want the monk to have so it'll be on par with other classes. I certainly don't think it'll make it overpowered.
Full BAB. Jesus christ, just give this to them. Why make a silly rule like "when flurrying, use your monk level as BAB"?
d10. Since Paizo married the HD and BAB together, this will have to go up. It's only 1 extra HP per level. More is always good for HP.
Greater Maneuver feats added in bonus feats. Jesus christ, Paizo. You want monks to be good at these combat moves, but don't give them the tools? COME ON!
Ignoring size for maneuvers. I think this class and/or barbarians should get something that ignores or increases their own size when it comes to combat moves. I am not offended that a level 20 monk can wrestle down the tarrasque. Level 20 characters should be able to do some insane stuff.
Bypass DR. Paizo gave monks brass knuckles. Screw that. Let's just enchant the body or let them bypass DR WITHOUT ki. Isn't the point of having "perfect body" making the body into a vicious deadly weapon?
Lower SR as immediate action. This REALLY pisses me off. Monks getting SR is a good thing. Monks not getting buff spells easily because of SR is lame. I've played in a drow campaign before. It's amazing how quickly as players we cursed having SR once healing and buffing failed a few times. Once again, what's the point of having "perfect body" if the mechanics don't help that? Either immediate action, or another mechanic to let allies buff them easily.
Fast movement should not be an enhancement bonus. Jesus christ Paizo. You want them fast, but they can't increase speeds further? Just give it to them. Let the monk stack boots and monk speed. Somehow the barbarian knows how to use magic with their skill, but not a monk...
And those are just the obvious ones that I personally have issues with. I'm not sure of the way to allow flurry of blows and high movement. That could get broken if not thought out properly. I'm tempted to just say give it to them since barbarians get pounce now as a rage power, but it sure makes the fighter into a chump again. Not sure about this one.
Any fighter with the TWF feat tree and disarm/trip weapons can do the same full attack, trip, disarm, dirty trick described above. And they could do it better because of cheaper weapon enhancements, bonuses for wielding disarm weapons, and weapon training.
I don't understand - how is a fighter who has sunk his feats into the TWF feat tree and is using an enchanted disarm weapon better than a flurry'ing monk who is using an enchanted disarm weapon? Did you forget that monks can wield disarm weapons while flurrying?
They are primarily considered weak because, unlike other classes, there is almost no synergy between any of their class abilities.
I think you expect the wrong kind of synergy. The fighter, for example, has the kind of synergy that 90% of his abilities allow him to hit harder.
The monk, on the other hand, has the kind of synergy that it doesn't matter what the situation throws at them, they'll be able to do something useful.
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).
By your own admission (elsewhere on the forums), all skirmisher builds are inherently weak. Mobility builds simply don't pack the punch they need.
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.
Being 1hp/level behind a fighter on HP is not the end of the world. But in terms of AC, the monk wins in almost all cases. You have to build an AC fighter (sword-n-board style, with combat expertise) to compete with the monk's AC. Not to mention that the monk's AC also covers touch-AC.
I seriously think you're over-estimating the AC output of fighters compared to monks; but I'll be happy to see what you consider normal AC at various levels for fighters that are also built to matter to their party (i.e. damage power-houses).
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).
I think what you have here is hypothetical evidence, against which I only bring anecdotal evidence: namely that my monks have in numerous occasions prevented TPKs and (more commonly) been the only one able to save party members that are in over their head (when enemies sneak up from behind on the squishy casters, for example, then the fighter-types simply cannot dis-engage and save the casters fast enough - but my monk has done so plenty of times. Sure, you might think "a caster that gets that, deserves whats coming to him" - but the facts are that everybody (other than the monk) has times of vulnerability where they simply don't have options and need to rely on their party to help them.)
I think a good monk is possible. You just need to break out of some paradigms.
Strength, not wisdom, is your primary atribute.
Get a two handed weapon. Use it if you can't flurry with your fists for the extra damage. Quarterstaff is a monk weapon. You can also burn a feat or pick up a level of fighter. Reach polearms work wonders with your mobility, and because you can kick things in the face if they get too close.
Get darkvision. You're probably going to want to charge ahead of the party at some point, and being able to see the things in the dark helps.
On that note, be a dwarf. The one stat you don't need is charisma, and be honest, if you're doing point buy you're not starting with more than a 16 strength anyway. d8 +1 is as good as a d10. Also +2 to 90% of your saves plays up a monks strength.
You don't damage as well as a fighter, but you make a comparable meatshield. the reason is that a fighter is more likely to be taken out of the fight by a blown will save than Hit point loss.
Monk 4
STR 16
DEX 14
CON 14 (13+1 for 4th level)
INT 8
WIS 16
CHA 5
The AC of 16 isn't bad for a two handed weapon user(10 +2dex +3 wisdom +1 Dodge) Buy a pearl of power and give it to the party wizard and have him cast mage armor on you. What's really nice are the saves.
F +8 4 base +2 con +2 dwarf (what fort save isn't magic or poison?)
R +8 4 base +2 dex +2 dwarf (for anything i can think of except traps)
W +9 4 base +3 con +2 dwarf (and most likely +2 for still mind)
1st: Weapon prof. Guisarme (rename it something more monklike)
Monk 1: Combat reflexes
Monk 2nd: Dodge
3rd: Power attack.
Trip opponents that come near you. You draw an aoo... you're too far away for them to take it, free trip.
The AC of 16 isn't bad for a two handed weapon user(10 +2dex +3 wisdom +1 Dodge)
Thanks for the build! Your AC is actually even one higher; every 4 levels Monks get an unnamed Ex +1 to their AC and CMD.
The AC of 16 isn't bad for a two handed weapon user(10 +2dex +3 wisdom +1 Dodge)Thanks for the build! Your AC is actually even one higher; every 4 levels Monks get an unnamed Ex +1 to their AC and CMD.
You're not done yet AVE IMPERATOR:
A monk until level 8 should be using potions of mage armor (or have a friendly caster handy). The quarterstaff comes in very handy with the "shield of swings" feat (APG). And at 4th level you can start getting barkskin from the qinggong monk archetype.
You're not done yet AVE IMPERATOR
+1, thanks. :)
I think also you have to remember that different, people play different characters diffrent ways
Just curious how all of that dosen't apply to a low level monk as well? I mean if I am missing something let me know.When I'm not DMing I generally play rogues with a mobility/HTH focus and
I love having a monk in the party..."Hey Kato, what say we move across this battlefield without provoking
any AoO and flank some deserving enemy" ^5regarding entangling the fighter,
1. 30' move? (fighter in light armor?)
2. breaking free is a move action in itself
3. if you don't get out you have to make another reflex save
4. a fighter whose str=druid wis has a 50/50 chance of making the
check...hardly something I would assumeI think its gonna be at LEAST 2 rds unless he's at the edge.
Go Monks
All I'm going to say in this thread is that he has a point, at level one a monk still only has a 30ft movement. A barbarian already has 40, ill take the crazy barbarian over the monk at this level every time.
Edit: @nekogami: He appears to just be using the dirty trick maneuver, is his CMB high?
he did most of this before they even released the dirty trick manuever (back in 3.5)
It's interesting how much of the counter-monk argument appears to boil down to "well, a fighter could do that with items and then get more damage."
The ability to spend enormous amounts of gold just to have parity in a particular ability of the monk (speed, touch AC, etc) doesn't mean that those advantages are meaningless. Monks begin with these advantages; they don't have to work doubly hard to achieve them.
The monk can contribute in a number of ways, and can spend money on items other than boots of speed etc. Not all monks take the Vow of Poverty!
There's little that strikes more fear in my heart as a GM than a monk player with Mage Armor, a ring of protection, and Ki points for AC. I can't enspell the monk reliably, can't reliably hit with weapon attacks, and I can't even GET AROUND the monk because his/her CMD is too high!
It's pretty crazy. And fun for the player.
-Moox
So there are now two monk discussion threads, both of which are more or less talking about the same thing, and even making the same arguments (sometimes it's the same people, sometimes it's different.)
So I'll repeat the same question I had in the previous thread, before we start theory crafting characters, we have to figure out what constitutes PAR, or Baseline, or sufficient, or Minimum.
@LilithsThrall: I'm curious as to why CR-2 i a better source for comparison than @CR in a 1v1 PC-Monster fight.
I'll also mention that 4 lvl 10 characters of most any composition should be able to dispatch a CR10 monster in 1 to 3 rounds, so unless there's something else to keep the party interested, that specific encounter would be trivial.
I don't understand - how is a fighter who has sunk his feats into the TWF feat tree and is using an enchanted disarm weapon better than a flurry'ing monk who is using an enchanted disarm weapon? Did you forget that monks can wield disarm weapons while flurrying?
But you don't get the weapon if you disarm with a weapon. I thought people were saying monks grab it unarmed? So you lose that benefit.
First, a Level 10 character going one-on-one should be matched aganst a CR 8 creature. A party of four level 10 characters should be matched against a CR 10 creature.
Wait, in 3.5 a CR10 was an even match for a lv 10 character. Yet, in PF it isn't? Are PF characters weaker?
Monks are just fine, fun, and effective in real games. In CharOp wonkery, who knows, who cares? We've played a lot of APs with groups with a mix of optimizers and non-optimizers and guess what - it all comes out OK. Arguments like this are for people that don't actually play the game enough IMO.
By RAW, the average encounter for a party of 4 characters of X level is a monster of CR X.
Because I don't want to have to worry about buffs, etc., I want to compare to an average encounter for a single character of X level. That would be a CR X - 2 monster.
If that's true, my perspective just got rocked.
Where is that pretty significant tidbit of knowledge so I can read further?
This is more for me than for trying to justify the monks existence.
One day I'd like to write a guide that helps people know what numbers they should be aiming for when trying to accomplish various things, such as Combat Damage, Maneuvers, Skill Checks, DCs, Saves, CMD, etc. It'll be an ongoing project, but I hope to help people who want to play quirky off-beat things while not feeling irrelevant next to more traditional folk.
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.
Really?
See, I have a huge problem with a level 20 wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of non-discrepancy.
Personally, I think the hateful struggle against balancing the classes is caused by nerd revenge fantasies and tribal elitism.
|
|
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.
First, a Level 10 character going one-on-one should be matched aganst a CR 8 creature. A party of four level 10 characters should be matched against a CR 10 creature.
As for your challenge, before I consider agreeing to say "yes" to it, I want to know what you think the two (Fighter and Monk) should be compared on; saves? initiative? skills? movement? I, also, want to know if you've ever actually played a Pathfinder Monk (not a 3X Monk) in a campaign (that is, not just a one shot game).
I don't really have a horse in this race other than that I much prefer a character that is good all the time than a character that is okay at times, and great at others.
The main things I'm looking for in a monk is his ability to handle combat moves, his DPR, AC, saves, and items vs. 3-4 different monsters and NPCs. I think using A Man in Black's DPR rules are good.
I mainly asked people to do this since people should be debating things that can be measured, instead of theories and such. We can measure if a fighter or monk is better against a fire giant, against a land shark, a dragon, a NPC cleric, NPC wizard, on different terrains, and at different levels.
It's a lot of work, and I'm not really keen on doing it. But I think at the very least people should look at monk vs. different monsters/NPCs in a 1 vs. 1 setting first. Why? Because every character has to be able to take care of himself one way or another. Wizards need to have spells that can get himself out of a situation or disable the opponent or at very least hold the opponent off until help can arrive. A monk should have no problems with this. A well designed character should be able to handle most things by himself first. Then he can help the party by not sucking most of the time against various monsters and situations.
See, I have a huge problem with a level 20 wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of non-discrepancy.
+1, people under-rate how well done balance can bring a richness to gaming, and for some reason scoff at Video-games for that reason.
While some things are definably silly (the classic tank'n-spank of an MMORPG for example) That doesn't mean that all things are.
See, I have a huge problem with a level 20 wizard being objectively more powerful than a level 20 melee combatant. I like the verisimilitude of non-discrepancy.
+1, people under-rate how well done balance can bring a richness to gaming, and for some reason scoff at Video-games for that reason.
While some things are definably silly (the classic tank'n-spank of an MMORPG for example) That doesn't mean that all things are.
Ironically, last time I played WoW, it was no longer doing tank'n-spank. Fights were fun and incredibly varied, with different bosses having dramatically different techniques to beating them.
3.5 on the other hand seems the very definition of "Fighter stands in one place while the rest of the group concentrate on killing the monster" ;p
Man, if I could, I'd totally make D&D more like WoW in this respect.
I like the verisimilitude of non-discrepancy.Oh? It would feel more true and real to you if the person who can revise reality with a gesture was equally powerful with the person who is really strong and good at hitting people? How so?
Man, if I could, I'd totally make D&D more like WoW in this respect.
We have fundamentally different aims. I wish D&D was less like WoW. I respect your individual preference though, and hope your personal games are as WoW-like as you hope for.
Being 1hp/level behind a fighter on HP is not the end of the world. But in terms of AC, the monk wins in almost all cases. You have to build an AC fighter (sword-n-board style, with combat expertise) to compete with the monk's AC. Not to mention that the monk's AC also covers touch-AC.
I seriously think you're over-estimating the AC output of fighters compared to monks; but I'll be happy to see what you consider normal AC at various levels for fighters that are also built to matter to their party (i.e. damage power-houses).
Since you asked I see a normal AC (for a good tank) to be approximately 20 + character level. This is just a rule of thumb, though, as there's a little deviation at high levels.
I think you underestimate the problem with MAD. It's hard to get a high AC with a high Dex and Wis without sacrificing your stats elsewhere. In the end, no matter what you do, you are going to be below average (at best).
Oh? It would feel more true and real to you if the person who can revise reality with a gesture was equally powerful with the person who is really strong and good at hitting people? How so?
The first step to understanding will come when you realize wizards in myth and fiction are not "those who can revise reality with a gesture," and that warriors in myth and fiction are not merely "those who are really strong and good at hitting people."
less[/i] like WoW. I respect your individual preference though, and hope your personal games are as WoW-like as you hope for.
You want to eliminate strategy and tactics from fights and ensure every fight is just the fighter standing in place in front while everyone else attacks The Baddie until it reaches zero health?
Any fighter with the TWF feat tree and disarm/trip weapons can do the same full attack, trip, disarm, dirty trick described above. And they could do it better because of cheaper weapon enhancements, bonuses for wielding disarm weapons, and weapon training.I don't understand - how is a fighter who has sunk his feats into the TWF feat tree and is using an enchanted disarm weapon better than a flurry'ing monk who is using an enchanted disarm weapon? Did you forget that monks can wield disarm weapons while flurrying?
A Fighter drops his +4 sword to pick up a chair and beat you with it. That is a Monk flurrying with stolen weapons.
EDIT: It's more like a Fighter drops his weapon and stops attacking. A Monk can't flurry with non-Monk weapons.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering#TOC-Step-1-Determine-APL
Thanks for the link, and I started reading away. Also read http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/npc-classes/non-player-characters.
But now I am confused. In the Creating NPCs page there's a note by James Jacobs that says A 0HD with class levels and PC wealth is CR equal to his level. This is partly how Boss encounters are designed for APs by Paizo.
The post can be found both in the link above, and here:
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/general/nPCWealthIsLowerWhy&page=1#358
This new finding does create an interesting dynamic though. And I think the target CR for 1v1 combat should be CR-1. This is what would be considered an "average" encounter for that PC, with CR-2 being Easy. @CR is challenging, CR+1 is hard, CR+2 is epic.
Now this if for a soloing PC, or a PC with a small party of 3 or less.
A PC with a Party of 4 or 5, then the CR would be @CR for average, CR-1 for easy, +1 challenging, +2 for hard, and +3 for Epic. (Just as an aside, and Epic encounter is 3 Adult White Dragons @lvl10, that actually sounds pretty cool).
A Party of 6+ Has all of the above challenge ratings bumped up by 1.
I'm not sure what this exactly means for the purpose of figuring out baselines, but it was very enlightening.
@OP: I am still fairly new to this game, but from what I know and what I just read in your first post...I am sold! I especially appreciate your point about the defensive nature of the monk. I have a monk PC in our group and it seems like his is always the hardest to hit with weapons or spells.
Very nice post!
Have you ever played Pathfinder?
I don't understand - how is a fighter who has sunk his feats into the TWF feat tree and is using an enchanted disarm weapon better than a flurry'ing monk who is using an enchanted disarm weapon? Did you forget that monks can wield disarm weapons while flurrying?But you don't get the weapon if you disarm with a weapon. I thought people were saying monks grab it unarmed? So you lose that benefit.
Wait, in 3.5 a CR10 was an even match for a lv 10 character. Yet, in PF it isn't? Are PF characters weaker?
First, a Level 10 character going one-on-one should be matched aganst a CR 8 creature. A party of four level 10 characters should be matched against a CR 10 creature.
Yes, and it confuses me that PF characters can't beat a CR equal to thier level like 3.5 characters can.
i beleive the professor has a few interesting points.
i have a few others to add to that
Any RPG (even an MMO) has the following drawback in common. when you apply enough bonuses in your favor. you have effectively removed all signs of strategy. for both D&D and WoW, the majority of your bonuses come from your equipment. WoW especially. when you sufficiently overload in bonuses. you have replaced any sign of strategy with a cakewalk in it's stead. WoW alleviates this issue with the use of relative XP. with WoW, people will make fun of you if your gear score is not high enough at a certain level.
And at 4th level you can start getting barkskin from the qinggong monk archetype.
Damn. How much green tea do you have to drink before it does THAT?
An Epic level encounter for a solo character with PC wealth (CR equals lvl) should the be solo character's level minus 1 expressed as CR.
For a 10th level Monk, an epic encounter would be CR 9.
WoW especially. when you sufficiently overload in bonuses. you have replaced any sign of strategy with a cakewalk in it's stead.
I actually strongly disagree with this.
Mind you, I last played the game with Burning Crusade, but from what I understand from others that still play it, the following things by and large fit:
1) In PvP, gear is important, but class and skill more so. The classic argument here was the phenomenon (when I played) of rogues going out to kill people while being stark naked - and yes, killing other exceptionally skilled players, at that.
2) In PvE, gear is for beating a soft cap, tactics is what lets you beat bosses. Both are required. You won't kill a boss if you're still wearing level 1 gear, simply because you don't have enough life, defenses, or do enough damage; there is in essence a soft cap you have to beat. Some bosses put in an outright hard cap on things - if one boss does a whole lot of nature damage, the raid needs nature resist gear as a hard cap.
However.
It is tactics that beats the boss. If you had the best gear in the entire game for your entire raid, you'd still go down like chumps if you don't know how to fight the boss. And different bosses fight in different ways. The days of Everquest's tank'n'spank are long gone. Now you have bosses like the Big Bad Wolf from the twisted opera area of Kharazahn who randomly turns people into Little Red Riding Hood and chases them, or bosses like Kael'thas who has five different stages, or fights like C'thun where you have to constantly dodge environmental hazards and at point may even get eaten and have to help kill him from inside his stomach.
Legit, there's a lot of things about making fights fun and dynamic, about environmental hazards and terrain placement and new and interesting tactics, that people could learn from WoW.
...there's a lot of things...that people could learn from WoW.
BLASPHEMY!!!!
:P
...there's a lot of things...that people could learn from WoW.BLASPHEMY!!!!
:P
You jest, but at times I feel a lot of nerds take insult in the idea that they could learn anything, period.
The first step to understanding will come when you realize wizards in myth and fiction are not "those who can revise reality with a gesture," and that warriors in myth and fiction are not merely "those who are really strong and good at hitting people."Hah! Clearly we read different myth and fiction.
You want to eliminate strategy and tactics from fights and ensure every fight is just the fighter standing in place in front while everyone else attacks The Baddie until it reaches zero health?
No, like I said, I want it to be less like a video game.
in world of warcraft, the only time skill applies is PVP. and better gear can compensate for that.
in PVE, as long as you have a sufficient gearscore, you can kill a top tier raid boss while texting, drinking a mountain dew and eating a slice of cheesecake all at the same time.
and if the opponent you are facing is that skilled at world of warcraft. than he gave up several factors to gain that skill and is a sad, pathetic, elitist, excuse for a lifeless douchebag who likely lives locked in his mother's basement, supported financially by his mother, given all the free time in the world by his mother and doesn't have to do a single chore. but he is only that good at world of warcraft because he had all the free time in the world to specialize. and this is the required level of skill to gank the best geared pally with a naked rogue.
An Epic level encounter for a solo character with PC wealth (CR equals lvl) should the be solo character's level minus 1 expressed as CR.
For a 10th level Monk, an epic encounter would be CR 9.
Where would that be stated? This implies than an average encounter for the monk is a single CR 6 monster, challengin CR 7 and so on.
If that's the case, then interesting.
skill means nothing when you are walking around with the best gear in the game. you can literally kill top tier raid bosses while texting or eating cheesecake. heck, you can even do both and still kill said boss.
nitpick: Not everyone has the best itemization each and every time. I don't play, but I do hang out with my buddy during his raid night, he doesn't have best in slot for everything yet, but the other tanks in his guild are similarly geared, and they can't hold a candle to him.
In fact, those tanks are so bad, that there are several fights that he cannot heal (his offspec) because the tanks aren't good enough.
/nitpick
@Ave Imerator: Korgoth did pretty good too.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
1. Monks are not that mobile. They are slower and less maneuverable than people who can fly. That is a huge number of classes. They are also slower / not much faster than anything with a mount.
So really they are faster than:
unmounted paladins, fighters, barbarians (but only at some levels),rogues, and maybe clerics
But slower than:
wizards,bards, summoners, druids, sorcerers, mounted paladins, barbarians at some levels
2. Flurry is less preferable over other mellee options because 1) it is expensive...AotMF are super expensive, 2) monks need more diverse ability scores to avoid sucking 3) crits really boost damage and monks lack good crit options both because of their base weapon and because the crit feats depend on bab and monks have medium bab.
3. Monks have ok defenses. Not the best in the game. Paladins have better saves. They heal as a swift action a tons of times per day and have better ACs, especially when it counts. They also have more hit points. They get solid immunities. They can remove status afflictions. That is better than evasion.
4. Monks have a good debuff in stunning fist, but at no level is it the best. At low level, Color Spray is better, at high levels crit feats are better. Plus you really have to pimp wisdom to keep competitive. That comes at a cost.
Monks are like bards. They aren't the best at anything. But they have a little of everything.
skill means nothing when you are walking around with the best gear in the game. you can literally kill top tier raid bosses while texting or eating cheesecake. heck, you can even do both and still kill said boss.nitpick: Not everyone has the best itemization each and every time. I don't play, but I do hang out with my buddy during his raid night, he doesn't have best in slot for everything yet, but the other tanks in his guild are similarly geared, and they can't hold a candle to him.
In fact, those tanks are so bad, that there are several fights that he cannot heal (his offspec) because the tanks aren't good enough.
/nitpick
@Ave Imerator: Korgoth did pretty good too.
on WoW, the only way that any tank is losing any aggro at all is if he dies. even then, the DPS can easily play clean up.
WoW is the 'easy mode' of MMOs.
Some monk subclasses do gain the ability to fly.
Though subpoint 3 or argument 2 is definably something that hinders the monk. They should be able to qualify for feats using Full BAB, if only to make certain builds easier to make.
@Shuriken: Not in my friends case. And some bosses have mechanics that wipe aggro.
i guess i've only begun to experience wrath of the lich king content and my views may have been sullied by the easiness of burning crusade.
my blood elf mage is only lvl 72. and she just got there 3 hours ago.