No. CRs were always based on a 4 man group. CR 10 monster is standard encounter for 4 level 10 PCs.
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?
No, in 3.5 a party of 4 fighting CR equal to level is a easy encounter, you are expected to fight 4 of them each day.
You are expected to beat a encounter of your own level by yourself 50% of time because it is a even match.So if PF characters can't that makes 3.5 characters stronger.
@Shuriken: Oh I see.
That's an entirely different kettle of fish, and especially now with the most recent expansion.
From my understanding (and this is from second hand accounts/watching my friends play) The old content is toned down compared to the new stuff. In fact even some of the stuff from Wrath might not feel much of a challenge if any because it is no longer end game content, and is instead a stepping stone for you to eventually get to the content present in the new expansion. So long as you get your gear to move on to the next dungeons, you don't really need to spend much time in any one place for long.
Ever since its expansion cycle, WoW has had a habit of more or less abandoning its old content, and bumping the itemization to a point where it gets trivialized so that people aren't forced to spend too much time there, and instead get to the end game ASAP.
Hah! Clearly we read different myth and fiction.
We do?
I'm curious - what myth and fiction do D&D wizards replicate? In which story does a wizard become a flying invisible hydra that throws fireballs?
Incidentally, the first and foremost flaw in D&D is this - in myth and fiction, magic is a subset of the supernatural. In D&D, the supernatural is a subset of magic.
This, more then anything else, leads to problems.
No, like I said, I want it to be less like a video game.
I've already mentioned how WoW drastically draws away from tank'n'spank, and how 3.x follows tank'n'spank all the way. Do you have anything to add, or just more snippy comments?
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.
It takes a bit of extrapolation, but....
A 10th lvl character with PC wealth and stats has a CR of 10 (from the chapter on NPCs).
Four lvl 6 PC's has a CR of 10 (from Table 12-3).
Four lvl 6 PC's has an APL of 6, so a solo 10th lvl character has an "effective" APL of 6.
An epic encounter for an APL of 6 is 6+3, or 9.
A CR of 9 is, therefore, an epic encounter for a lvl 10 character.
If you want to test the "viability" of a class or build, then solo it against a class of equal level with NPC wealth or a critter with a CR equal to character lvl minus 1. If it does well, then it is perfectly viable. If not, then it isn't. You can also use this to determine appropriate encounters for solo campaigns. Happy to add some advice on that if interested.
It takes a bit of extrapolation, but....
A 10th lvl character with PC wealth and stats has a CR of 10 (from the chapter on NPCs).
Four lvl 6 PC's has a CR of 10 (from Table 12-3).
Four lvl 6 PC's has an APL of 6, so a solo 10th lvl character has an "effective" APL of 6.
An epic encounter for an APL of 6 is 6+3, or 9.
A CR of 9 is, therefore, an epic encounter for a lvl 10 character.
If you want to test the "viability" of a class or build, then solo it against a class of equal level with NPC wealth or a critter with a CR equal to character lvl minus 1. If it does well, then it is perfectly viable. If not, then it isn't. You can also use this to determine appropriate encounters for solo campaigns. Happy to add some advice on that if interested.
The idea that your useful against a CR equal encounter is that as you said Four level 6 PC's has a CR of ten, which means you will be fighting a couple CR 6 creatures and some lower ones that equal CR 10 when you are level 6, If you can't handle something equal to your CR then your in real trouble when your DM throws the CR 12-13 boss fight at you and your only targets are three cr 6 henchmen and the cr 8 boss.
Point is, for the majority of your career you will be fighting things with cr = to your level, and often cut off from being able to team up on it for one reason or another. So we measure how you do in that situation, If you win more often then not then your viable.
I hope that came across okay.
Edit: I know I said I wouldn't start in on this thread, but this post is more of a coming to terms on what par is discussion over actually arguing the monk so it being in this thread is forgivable.
The idea that your useful against a CR equal encounter is that as you said Four level 6 PC's has a CR of ten, which means you will be fighting a couple CR 6 creatures and some lower ones that equal CR 10 when you are level 6, If you can't handle something equal to your CR then your in real trouble when your DM throws the CR 12-13 boss fight at you and your only targets are three cr 6 henchmen and the cr 8 boss.
Point is, for the majority of your career you will be fighting things with cr = to your level, and often cut off from being able to team up on it for one reason or another. So we measure how you do in that situation, If you win more often then not then your viable.
I hope that came across okay.
Edit: I know I said I wouldn't start in on this thread, but this post is more of a coming to terms on what par is discussion over actually arguing the monk so it being in this thread is forgivable.
Comes across okay to me!
I do, however, disagree. Any particular character in a traditional 4 person party can only be expected to carry the weight of a quarter of the fighting. Insisting that they carry more than that in order to be "viable" is unrealistic.
What's more, an "epic" encounter is one that a character is supposed to win, if with some difficulty, so testing is much easier. Even a few defeats indicates that the build is underpowered. With equal CRs, there should be a 50/50 outcome, so even if the build loses 3 or 4 times in a row, you can't really tell anything about the build.
Comes across okay to me!
I do, however, disagree. Any particular character in a traditional 4 person party can only be expected to carry the weight of a quarter of the fighting. Insisting that they carry more than that in order to be "viable" is unrealistic.
What's more, an "epic" encounter is one that a character is supposed to win, if with some difficulty, so testing is much easier. Even a few defeats indicates that the build is underpowered. With equal CRs, there should be a 50/50 outcome, so even if the build loses 3 or 4 times in a row, you can't really tell anything about the build.
One quarter of the weight in a standard fight is one CR 6 monster.... It sounds like you agreed except where you said you didn't. I'm sorry you lost me.
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
Oh, actually I had that guy in one party I GM'ed for. The solution is to ignore him and his feeble attacks and focus on the people who can actually harm your villains.
Sorry, but the Monk is still pretty pathetic. He has excellent defenses, but those don't win the 2-3 round fights at high levels.
@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!
Always great to hear that I reached someone! It's true, isn't it? The monk just won't give up and die.
-Moox
Always great to hear that I reached someone! It's true, isn't it? The monk just won't give up and die.
-Moox
He also won't contribute much to the fight, compared to the rest of the party.
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.
This is blatently false. Have you played WoW? You also seem to think that tanks only have to mash the taunt button; this is not true at all.
The three big things in fights in WoW are timing, placement, and control. It's not just stand in place and tank, or stand in place and shoot. You're moving around a lot, the placement of both your team an the boss matters, things are constantly being added to the fight that need to be controlled, and you often need crackerjack timing on when you do things.
In fact, let's do this. Let's take a fight from WoW and see what we can learn from it on how to improve our D&D games.
Let's examine this.
First, movement. The tank is constantly moving around to keep Kil'jaden facing. As the stages advance, new things pop out that the group has to run towards (or away from). Meteors start to fall, meaning people have to be ready to move away from them when they see the signal. Some of his projectiles are avoidable...if you move. Overall though, this fight has relatively little movement compared to others.
Second is control. Kil'jaden is constantly summoning those small blue orbs that float around shooting people which need to be blasted out of the sky. Though you can't really see it, he also occasionally makes evil clones of raid members that need to be taken down.
Third is timing. See those dragons that pop in and out to breath on the players or summon shielding orbs? Those are other players. Part of this fight are devices that power up (the orb is ready!) that, when used, turn you into the dragon with a few spells needed to survive his attacks. That doesn't mean they'll just keep spawning, though - think of it as a time limit on top of needing to time it.
So, blah blah blah. What can we learn from this fight that we can bring into D&D to make a big boss fight more dynamic?
First off, changing terrain can make fights a lot more frantic and fun. Maybe stalactites are falling, maybe it is meteors plummetting, whatever - the idea is to make the fight dynamic by changing the battlefield and removing the "stand still and attackan" problem.
Secondly, single dude boss fights never work out well...so add more to it! Have enemies or monsters or what have you entering the fight after it starts that need to be taken down - low HP, high attack/damage baddies being summoned into the fight from an evil gateway, to make up an example. Or acolytes begin rushing in from rooms they hadn't explored. Heck, maybe the big bad has two or three luitenants or generals on hand to help him fight.
Thirdly, give your players cool and weird things they can do. In this video, they can turn into a dragon which is pretty dang cool! I know in one game I played in, we were defending some old forest ruins from evil neogi, when an artifact there imbued each of us with the power of nature to fend off their horrible machines, transforming us into something bigger and stronger (my kobold became a dragon). It was pretty rad!
Fourthly, scale your fights up. You may have heard about the tiers system. What's been found is that players mostly prefer tier 3, the game is roughly balanced around tier 4, but it goes all the way to tier 1. First, examine your players and how they work, how much damage they do, etc. Now work against that. Give your Big Boss way, way more HP then they should have, or a hefty amount of DR, or...you get the idea. Make sure there's stuff coming in and out of the fight so they don't all just beat up on him. The big variability here will be spellcasters - this is where the summoned monsters can really play a good role, in giving them something that isn't just spamming SOD's at the big bad hoping for a 1. Make sure the generals/luitenants have less HP then their master does, and maybe even consider having them do more damage too, to set up a vague hierarchy on what has to be killed and when.
Lastly, make the fight matter. Have stuff going on outside of the fight that pumps in. Friendly NPCs that are indirectly helping can be great at this. Play it into a fight for time (though you don't need to have an actual timer - what matters is that the players think there is ;). Remember, they always win either at the nick of time or just barely too late!). A fight that's purely mechanical, no matter how dynamic, will lose to a fight that has emotional investment.
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.
That's...randomly bitter.
Incidentally, nerds shouldn't throw stones at other nerds, because we all live in glass houses. In just these forums there were people complaining that D&D needs to be complex and that people should have to devote mass amounts of time to the game.
Not to go too much off-topic, but "naked Rogues ganking Paladins in full armor" was several expansions ago. The inflation of stats is so high by now, that this is not possible anymore. While a fully equipped Paladin may have had something like 10.000 HP at level 60, at level 85 it is more like 100.000+ HP. Weapon scaling has increased accordingly, but no amount of skill will make a naked Rogue with a lvl 1 dagger kill a fully equipped Paladin now, unless the Paladin player is asleep during the act.
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.
Aha! A cool-headed, well-reasoned response that responds to my points in order, albeit briefly. I thank you, John Spalding.
A reposte to your responses:
1. You make an excellent point here. Once flying becomes very common (in my experience, only around level 10 and up), the monk's speed does not make him the fastest or most maneuverable character that you could possibly have in an imagined universe. Even your point about Barbarians is valid, although the monk outdistances them at level 4. However, your argument, insofar as you seek to show the monk is inferior, is flawed in two ways:
Firstly, for most of the game flying is a limited resource. Spells run out. Wizards and others that use their spell slots to fly aren't doing many other useful things. Having a high speed is paramount, particularly because of who is doing the moving. In other words, a high speed is much more important for the monk than for the wizard, bard, summoner, druid, sorcerer, or witch. Man, I hope the sorcerer didn't waste a spells known slot on Fly without thinking long and hard. Also, the Monk can bust a Ki point for +20 to speed!
Secondly, mounts are not maneuverable anywhere but in the open (think carefully before playing a monk in Kingmaker), and maneuverability is not just a function of your speed but also your Acrobatics check. This is because of narrow corridors, Difficult Terrain, spells, and other effects such as Blindness. Of the melee combatants, the Monk is going to have the highest Acrobatics.
2. You once again make good points, but here I'm afraid you fell prey to a few short catch-phrases without really defining your meaning or responding to my article. Of course you are free to do as you please, but this means I have to now define and expand these terms.
Your 2-1). A monk using Flurry is not going to do as much damage as a fully-kitted-out fighter with TWF feats etc. I said as much in my original article didn't I? I believe that this is an intentional design flaw, as the Monk essentially gets all those feats FOR FREE. I believe that they are intentionally designed to be unable to pump those attacks and damages even higher, so that they are not overpowered and can use their feat slots for other interesting and powerful choices. Also, the monk can bust a Ki point for an extra attack at the highest bonus!
Your 2-2) Yup, they have a MAD problem. Also mentioned in my original article, although I now realize I didn't specifically respond to that point as I intended. It was meant to go into the "Master of Defense" section: Monks don't HAVE to put points into Wisdom or Dexterity. If they don't want to. Sure, you want to. But unlike other classes that DEPEND on an ability score, monks don't. Build a monk with 14's in Wisdom and Dexterity and see how high your AC and touch AC can go. You don't have to have all 18s in your important scores to have a powerful, useful, and effective character.
Your 2-3) Crit feats boost damage? I have to wait a little longer to take them? Okay, but who cares? Getting the highest possible DPR is not the goal here. The goal is to have GOOD damage, VERY good damage, while doing a whole bunch of other things. And a well-played monk will have good damage.
3) Paladins are strong on defense. Very strong. Yes, the defense specialist, the Paladin, will have certain defenses that are higher than a monk's. He won't get to stun, flurry, etc, but never mind that. The monk is STILL going to have certain defenses that are better, because they are the masters of the well-rounded defense! Let us compare:
AC: Paladins win. Heavy armor plus possibly riding feats, plus possibly spells etc. Nevertheless, the monk isn't going to be far behind when he spends a Ki point for +4 AC. What does "when it counts" mean? Me, I would use it to refer to the AoO, which if the Monk can't avoid with Acrobatics, hopefully his Mobility free feat can deal with.
Will and Fort saves: Paladins win again. Charisma bonus plus good saves in these categories means they are among the absolute toughest to harm in this manner. Go Pally! Of course, the Monks won't be far behind, since they get these as good saves too.
Ref save: Monks win! Paladins still get a Charisma bonus to help them out (and may even be superior at level 1), but for most of the game the monk is going to be far and away better at jumping out of the way. And Evasion helps a massive amount more against a Fireball (or many similar spells) than Lay on Hands does. Why? Because Lay on Hands can't make up the damage from a 10th-level fireball compared with the ability to passively take zero.
Hit points: Paladins win, but not by all that much. One die type plus the ability to heal earlier in the game. Impressive, but not spectacularly so.
Touch AC: Monks win by an insane amount. At level 10, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a Monk with a Touch AC 12 higher than the party Paladin. That's pretty impressive. In my experience, many of the worst spells and effects in the game are made against touch ac. A vital stroke in the monk's favor.
Flat-footed AC: Paladin wins if the Monk hasn't taken precautions against this, but it's not going to be as much of a difference as you might think.
Immunities: Are the monk immunities feeble by comparison to the paladin? I really don't feel this way, but I could possibly be wrong.
Running away: Monk wins. UNLESS you are a mounted paladin playing in a wide, empty stone hallway, or outdoors on a flat plain with no defining features. But the undeniably high base speed plus vastly better acrobatics means most of the time, when things go sour, the Monk has a better defense. Plus, greater maneuverability is a very powerful form of defense when you can position yourself around a corner, etc.
Your 4) Stunning Fist: "Not the absolute best" is not an argument. As I mentioned in the article, the ability to slip a very powerful debuff (in some cases it means death) into the middle of a flurry of damaging attacks is very powerful and useful. Can someone else do that without high-level critical feats and a lucky roll?
Monks get stunning fist for free, and let me tell you, it is intimidating. The need to pump Wisdom is there. You need to pump it for AC anyway. Other people are going to pump other things. There's no inherent problem with that unless you mean to bring up the whole MAD question all over again. In that case, I can only say that if the DC were based on Strength all the game-breakers would be playing Monk exclusively.
The fact that you say monks are like bards makes me very happy! It's true! Both classes are under appreciated but they get to share the spotlight in nearly every encounter. Parties that have one always seem to do better. They are there when you need them most.
I hope you feel that I've given your organized response my full thought. I respect your opinion, and I hope you take my attempt to convince you otherwise in stride. It's very refreshing to hear an argument that actually responds to my article.
Sincerely,
-Moox
He also won't contribute much to the fight, compared to the rest of the party.Always great to hear that I reached someone! It's true, isn't it? The monk just won't give up and die.
-Moox
Then this monk is a terrible player, it seems to me. I hope he's having fun, at least. But he might want to read a guide or two for playing a good monk.
-Moox
Not to go too much off-topic, but "naked Rogues ganking Paladins in full armor" was several expansions ago. The inflation of stats is so high by now, that this is not possible anymore. While a fully equipped Paladin may have had something like 10.000 HP at level 60, at level 85 it is more like 100.000+ HP. Weapon scaling has increased accordingly, but no amount of skill will make a naked Rogue with a lvl 1 dagger kill a fully equipped Paladin now, unless the Paladin player is asleep during the act.
Like I said, I last played during BC, where it was still possible.
Also, World of Roguecraft remains an entertaining watch even to this day ;)
Your 4) Stunning Fist: "Not the absolute best" is not an argument. As I mentioned in the article, the ability to slip a very powerful debuff (in some cases it means death) into the middle of a flurry of damaging attacks is very powerful and useful. Can someone else do that without high-level critical feats and a lucky roll?
Monks get stunning fist for free, and let me tell you, it is intimidating. The need to pump Wisdom is there. You need to pump it for AC anyway. Other people are going to pump other things. There's no inherent problem with that unless you mean to bring up the whole MAD question all over again. In that case, I can only say that if the DC were based on Strength all the game-breakers would be playing Monk exclusively.
To address shortly your Paladin "rebuttals", Paladins win by the simple fact that they don't need 3 1/2 stats to not suck at their job. MAD is a real problem, if you are playing with the standard 15 point buy system.
But address the quoted point, pumping Wisdom leaves you with the problem that now you suck at dealing damage, because you can barely hit your opponent and when you do, you do small damage. OR you can go the Strength Monk route, which is anti-iconic to what the Monk represents ( yeah, there are also some iconic examples of a strength based martial artist, but mostly iconic martial artists are renowed for their dexterity and mental fortitude ).
The Monk as it is now has huge problems in being comparably good to other classes.
He also won't contribute much to the fight, compared to the rest of the party.Always great to hear that I reached someone! It's true, isn't it? The monk just won't give up and die.
-Moox
Then this monk is a terrible player, it seems to me. I hope he's having fun, at least. But he might want to read a guide or two for playing a good monk.
-Moox
I'm sure that if your GM puts especially weak opponents before you, the Monk can kill some of them and feel like a huge contributor. Level appropiate CR's at the high levels? Not so much, unless it's one of the many badly designed monsters.
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
Oh, actually I had that guy in one party I GM'ed for. The solution is to ignore him and his feeble attacks and focus on the people who can actually harm your villains.
Sorry, but the Monk is still pretty pathetic. He has excellent defenses, but those don't win the 2-3 round fights at high levels.
Okay, so your objection stems at least partly from someone who focused too much energy on defense and failed to be creative in attacking. How can you ignore the monk who got up in the bad guy's face, can't be killed, and whose CMD is too high to get away from?
I don't really follow, but it sounds like this monk just wasn't trying. I've also had players who focus all their energy on defense and ignore what the party needs. I feel your pain there, but I don't feel it's a problem inherent to the monk, just inherent to a poor playstyle.
-Moox
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
Oh, actually I had that guy in one party I GM'ed for. The solution is to ignore him and his feeble attacks and focus on the people who can actually harm your villains.
Sorry, but the Monk is still pretty pathetic. He has excellent defenses, but those don't win the 2-3 round fights at high levels.
Okay, so your objection stems at least partly from someone who focused too much energy on defense and failed to be creative in attacking. How can you ignore the monk who got up in the bad guy's face, can't be killed, and whose CMD is too high to get away from?
I don't really follow, but it sounds like this monk just wasn't trying. I've also had players who focus all their energy on defense and ignore what the party needs. I feel your pain there, but I don't feel it's a problem inherent to the monk, just inherent to a poor playstyle.
-Moox
Because the Monk is not standing there alone. He's there with 3-4 of his friends, and while he feebly is whaling away at that enemy, secure in his knowledge that he cannot be harmed, he still isn't contributing well to the group effort, because the enemy can ignore him.
Meanwhile, the better balanced classes are taking care of said enemy, because they actually do hit and damage ( or outright eliminate, in the case of casters ) said opponent.
---
A question which I'd really like to get addressed by the "The Monk is fine!" crowd is this one: Why is it that every single new 3/4 BAB class Paizo has brought out after the core book puts the Monk ( and Rogue, but that is another beef of mine ) to shame? The Alchemist, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner and Ninja outright drink the Monks milkshake and laugh in his face afterwards.
This is either bad design by Paizo for the new classes, or the fact that they screwed up when porting the Monk over to the new Pathfinder rules, because they wanted to remain compatible with 3.5. Which, looking back, worked out fine for most classes but left the Monk ( and Rogue ) in the dust.
The fact that their new classes are all mechanically much more comparable to the higher end of the class power spectrum speaks, for me, to the fact that their design goals went fine for most core classes, but failed on the front of the Monk and Rogue.
Monk isn't a bad class per definition, it is rather well rounded but there is not really anything it can be optimized to do quite as well as another class can, the system rewards specialization, which the monks are a bit less suited for, they tend to do well for a character who rolls ability scores and rolled higher than average, if it is a pointbuy especially lower point buy the monk will lag behind a bit too much in an optimized party.
The amulet of mighty fists in a campaign where WBL is observed closely tends to be a bit too expensive for what it does, which further hurts it's ability to optimize.
Lastly it is a matter of perception, the monk is shoved forward as the ultimate bare hand fighter, which he is not, but rather a class that marries his martial ability with somewhat random abilities drawn from a wild variety of asian themes not all of which are per definition monkish, like increased movement, dimension door, epic jump and tongue of sun and the moon
I'd like to see a barehanded archetypes for a variety of classes, that can possibly be combined with monk as a multi-class, some feats that mimic monk abilities and a PrC that can be entered into from a variety of classes so you have some significant liberty to adjust your monk build to make it fit your expectations of what it should do
Oh, and before I get another "Your player just didn't know how to play the class" response, let me clarify:
I've had several players playing Monks during my stints as GM, in several campaigns. While one of those players ( I'll call him Player One ) is the type of gamer who will constantly screw up his build to the point where he might as well play accompanying music to the fight, because he won't contribute anyhow, the other player ( Player Two ) is the best min-maxer of our group and normally builds characters which dominate the fights the party gets into.
But even Player Two could not make the Monk good enough to be seriously important for the party. He was absolutely untouchable at the higher levels, with saves in the high twenties and a ludicrously high AC, but his offense was completely lacking in comparison to the other PC's ( well, without the Rogue, played by Player One I described above ).
In contrast, Player One played an Inquisitor in our last campaign and even with his normal sub-par character building skill the character rocked faces, just on the strength of the class alone. Just to put the difference between the Monk and the new 3/4 BAB classes into perspective once again.
Yar.
Just wanted to say that I've had pretty much the exact opposite experiences from magnuskn.
Personal view: Characters that barely contribute have always been due to either player negligence, inexperience, or players who actively choose to play characters (regardless of class) in a non-combative style. (edit: apparently this is not true for magnuskn. In which case, I am sorry, as I don't know what to say. My experience IS the exact opposite of yours. True, the Monk is not a class that just anyone can pick up and be good with... it does take some system mastery. Your experience is that even with this the monk is bad, and my experience shows the opposite: that monks are good.)
As for the monk itself? Like I've said: exactly the opposite experience. I recently played a monk (in a campaign that ended only a few weeks ago). He was a replacement for my original character who had died (technically not dead, but captured and turned evil). Note: my group is mostly made up of optimizers and powergamers; encounters with CR = APL+3 is average for us (and often easy), and we regularly face APL +4 and +5, survive, and even thrive (aka: kick ass and take names). Anyways, I bring in a Monk as a replacement character, and honestly: he kicked ass (his name was Vega).
While the rest of the group would spend 2-3 rounds taking care of "mooks", Vega would maneuver his way to the biggest, toughest, baddest looking foe, and more often than not, 1 round him. This was true for BBEG fights as well. Vega would speed around the BBEG's minions and challenge him (he was a LG, peaceful type, always giving intelligent foes a chance to repent and surrender before "showing them the error of their ways"), while the rest of the party started distracting and disabling his minions. (An aside: the DM would often bump up the power of the BBEG's and his minions as well, so that they would last longer, be tougher to beat, and leave a more memorable impression on us. I was NOT facing "weak" or "toned-down" opponents. Exactly the opposite. I was facing tougher than normal opponents). When the BBEG didn't relent, I brutalized him (literally, 1 round later, he was down and out).
There were often times when the player who is most known for optimization at our table would lean over to me and exclaim "Sweet Jesus! That's amazing!" and once even "You can do that!? Monks are OP!"
No 3.x material. No 3pp material. All Pathfinder. As we are trying to delve into the world of Golarion, we did have access to some of the campaign specific materials... "[race] of Golarion" books, the Faction Guide, and the Players Guide for the AP (yes, we were playing through an Adventure Path at the time). But material from those were sparsely used and given deep consideration first. This was primarily CRB and APG here.
The central focus to Vega was non-lethal combat. He distained killing, and would always non-lethal pummel an opponent until it got knocked out (unless the creature was exceptionally vile and showed no signs of being able to be redeemed. This was true mostly for undead, but there was also one particular hill giant we fought. FYI: Vega was modeled slightly after Ip man). Thus, among his feat selection was Enforcer, Persuasive, Skill Focus: Intimidate, Dazzling Display, Shatter Defenses, and Medusa's Wrath. He also had an Amulet of Mighty Fists: Merciful.
His saves were on par with the rest of the groups (and we did have a paladin with us as well), even though Vega did not wear a Cloak of Resistance. His AC and CMD was the highest in the group, and his Touch AC was miles above anyone else’s. His attack bonus was not the highest (the barbarian had that), but it was MORE than adequate to get the job done.
For the few rare times when the opponent had an AC that was difficult for even the barbarian to hit, that's when teamwork comes into play. We were a group, and we acted like one. We cooperated and played off each others strengths and weaknesses. And thanks to Enforcer and Shatter Defenses, once one hit landed, the rest became easier. Add in flanking, aiding, buff spells, debuff spells, and smart tactics... well, really. It's not always possible to act in perfect concurrence with each other (our enemies were intelligent too), but simply making the effort to try and do so often does do enough to turn the tide.
Just thought I'd share those thoughts.
~P
Hey pirate can I see the monk build your referring too? sounds awesome.
I'd be interested in the build, too. For comparison purposes.
Yar.
Hey pirate can I see the monk build your referring too? sounds awesome.
I'd be interested in the build, too. For comparison purposes.
Honestly, I'm reluctant to do so. If I put him up, even though I've already stated that we have minor access to some Pathfinder rules books that are not the CRB or the APG ([race]'s of Golarion, Faction Guide, [Adventure Path] Players Guide, etc), I fully expect (as I've seen it happen many, many times) to not only get torn apart, but for things like "Hey, this is an option from [insert non-CRB/APG title]! If you take that option away you actually suck. Thus: monks suck, and so do you! [rage], etc." to happen.
Which is why I usually avoid threads like this.
However, I think I might relent this time (I really hope things stay civil). What level are you looking at? Vega was a replacement character, so he actually started at 10th level, but I have him detailed at every level up to 19 (and no I'm not going to post every level, I have other plans for my free time today).
~P
Yar.
Hey pirate can I see the monk build your referring too? sounds awesome.I'd be interested in the build, too. For comparison purposes.Honestly, I'm reluctant to do so. If I put him up, even though I've already stated that we have minor access to some Pathfinder rules books that are not the CRB or the APG ([race]'s of Golarion, Faction Guide, [Adventure Path] Players Guide, etc), I fully expect (as I've seen it happen many, many times) to not only get torn apart, but for things like "Hey, this is an option from [insert non-CRB/APG title]! If you take that option away you actually suck. Thus: monks suck, and so do you! [rage], etc." to happen.
Which is why I usually avoid threads like this.
However, I think I might relent this time (I really hope things stay civil). What level are you looking at? Vega was a replacement character, so he actually started at 10th level, but I have him detailed at every level up to 19 (and no I'm not going to post every level, I have other plans for my free time today).
~P
For me the high levels, ( i.e. take your pick from between 16th to 19th ) are of interest, because the argument I've been making is that Monks are not relevant at those levels, compared to other classes. I think 16th or 17th level would be ideal.
|
For me the high levels, ( i.e. take your pick from between 16th to 19th ) are of interest, because the argument I've been making is that Monks are not relevant at those levels, compared to other classes. I think 16th or 17th level would be ideal.
Quivering Palm (one of the few true SoD moves left in the game), Spell resistance, and up to 9 attacks a round (ki point plus haste), and abundant step are very helpful in high level play.
Not to mention adamantine for free. This is before swapping slow fall for one of the Qinggong powers.
Monks are caster killers at high level.
For me the high levels, ( i.e. take your pick from between 16th to 19th ) are of interest, because the argument I've been making is that Monks are not relevant at those levels, compared to other classes. I think 16th or 17th level would be ideal.
Quivering Palm (one of the few true SoD moves left in the game), Spell resistance, and up to 9 attacks a round (ki point plus haste), and abundant step are very helpful in high level play.
Not to mention adamantine for free. This is before swapping slow fall for one of the Qinggong powers.
Monks are caster killers at high level.
Oh, yes, especially that Spell Resistance which kills you because your ally has to overcome it in the middle of combat to heal you and all those attacks which can't hit anything with a good AC. ^^
|
|
Oh, yes, especially that Spell Resistance which kills you because your ally has to overcome it in the middle of combat to heal you and all those attacks which can't hit anything with a good AC. ^^
For me the high levels, ( i.e. take your pick from between 16th to 19th ) are of interest, because the argument I've been making is that Monks are not relevant at those levels, compared to other classes. I think 16th or 17th level would be ideal.
Quivering Palm (one of the few true SoD moves left in the game), Spell resistance, and up to 9 attacks a round (ki point plus haste), and abundant step are very helpful in high level play.
Not to mention adamantine for free. This is before swapping slow fall for one of the Qinggong powers.
Monks are caster killers at high level.
You have a self healing ability and Channel energy isn't subject to spell resistance anywhere I can see.Your attack is the same as full BaB two weapon fighting without having to pump dex to meet the prerequisites.
I do agree that it would be nice to have spell resistance be able to change as a free action, but the detriment is far less than the advantage of having spell resistance of 10 + your level.
Yar.
As much as I do actually enjoy SR (healing and buffs can come from many sources other than spells or effects that allow for SR to stop it), Vega actually does not have SR (an archetype traded it out)... just FYI.
Also, it will be a bit before I post Vega (at 17th level, unless I am persuaded otherwise). My free time, alas, is not right now.
~P
You have a self healing ability and Channel energy isn't subject to spell resistance anywhere I can see.Your attack is the same as full BaB two weapon fighting without having to pump dex to meet the prerequisites.
I do agree that it would be nice to have spell resistance be able to change as a free action, but the detriment is far less than the advantage of having spell resistance of 10 + your level.
The self-healing is pretty low, although usable. And, yeah, if you have a class with you that can channel, the spell resistance becomes less of an issue. But that is less than certain nowadays.
The "is flurry good" question runs smack-dab into the "shouldn't Monks use dexterity as their high stat?" issue, which would take us into a whole other discussion.
Yar.
As much as I do actually enjoy SR (healing and buffs can come from many sources other than spells or effects that allow for SR to stop it), Vega actually does not have SR (an archetype traded it out)... just FYI.
Also, it will be a bit before I post Vega (at 17th level, unless I am persuaded otherwise). My free time, alas, is not right now.
~P
No problem, I am quite busy, too, writing down sources for a college assignment. ^^
|
|
You have a self healing ability and Channel energy isn't subject to spell resistance anywhere I can see.Your attack is the same as full BaB two weapon fighting without having to pump dex to meet the prerequisites.
I do agree that it would be nice to have spell resistance be able to change as a free action, but the detriment is far less than the advantage of having spell resistance of 10 + your level.
The self-healing is pretty low, although usable. And, yeah, if you have a class with you that can channel, the spell resistance becomes less of an issue. But that is less than certain nowadays.
The "is flurry good" question runs smack-dab into the "shouldn't Monks use dexterity as their high stat?" issue, which would take us into a whole other discussion.
Monks aren't going to stay and tank. If they are hurt they will have retreat like every other non-tank class, only further.
And the other question is in another soon to be 1000 post thread (the answer by the was is no).
Monks aren't going to stay and tank. If they are hurt they will have retreat like every other non-tank class, only further.
Since "tanking" doesn't work in Pathfinder, I think that is not what I was going for.
And the other question is in another soon to be 1000 post thread (the answer by the was is no).
Yet as far as flavor goes, they should. Technically it is a bad idea, though.
|
|
Monks aren't going to stay and tank. If they are hurt they will have retreat like every other non-tank class, only further.Since "tanking" doesn't work in Pathfinder, I think that is not what I was going for.
And the other question is in another soon to be 1000 post thread (the answer by the was is no).Yet as far as flavor goes, they should. Technically it is a bad idea, though.
Tanking is more "blocking". Someone has to keep BBEG off the arcane casters.
If you think of the monk less as Bruce Lee and more as old wise man who always seems to be able to dodge, it works fine.
I always thought of Bruce Lee as more like a fighter than a mystic warrior myself, so it wasn't an issue for me.
Monks aren't going to stay and tank. If they are hurt they will have retreat like every other non-tank class, only further.Since "tanking" doesn't work in Pathfinder, I think that is not what I was going for.
And the other question is in another soon to be 1000 post thread (the answer by the was is no).Yet as far as flavor goes, they should. Technically it is a bad idea, though.Tanking is more "blocking". Someone has to keep BBEG off the arcane casters.
If you think of the monk less as Bruce Lee and more as old wise man who always seems to be able to dodge, it works fine.
I always thought of Bruce Lee as more like a fighter than a mystic warrior myself, so it wasn't an issue for me.
No, actually I see the Monk very much more as Bruce Lee than the old mystic on the mountain, and am endlessly vexed by Paizos insistence on keeping the class tied to supernatural stuff and being lawful, but that is neither here nor there.
The Monk still cannot tank, as there is no support for taunting enemies. Well, until the Antagonize feat came out, and that one must be fixed first before it is even nearly balanced.
|
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
Monks get speed 60 by 9th.
Barbarians are only faster in the first 3 levels, they are equal for the next 3 and are slower after level 6.
Cleric of the travel domain are like the barbarians.
Most fly mechanics get you going at a set rate of speed (generally 60). Fly is also a 3rd level spell. Wiz and Witches get it @ 5th, Sor @ 6th, Alchem, Magus, Summ @ 7th. Clerics of the subdomain Azata and the Feather subdomain get it @ 5th. Not a huge load of classes. And only a number of times a day, and only for minutes a level. I have no idea why Bards is in this list as they do not get Fly as a spell.
Druids are a different beast (pun intended), but it is for a limited amount a day.
Mounted classes. All 2 of them (only considering the classes with mount as a feature). Not much to say. They are like Flyers...faster for a while but by 9th level the monk equals or exceeds the speed.
Maneuverability? Monk speed is always on, fly and mounts are inappropriate in some circumstances.
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.
I can agree with this generally.
I personally do not understand why AotMF is so expensive but assume it is a trade off. 2)I tend to build my monks with low str. IMO Dex and Wis are the most important stats for a monk. Attack can be traded to Dex, damage rolls can be enhanced in many ways. 3) yeah, I agree.
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
Paladins? Better over all saves? 2 good vs the monk's 3. Divine grace? They are a MAD class since Paladins need Str and Con along with their Cha. I would say they are closer than you think. A Pal will have a lower Wis score than a Monk, but it is mitigated by Divine Grace, so in the end equal. The Pal will have a better Fort save, but will definitely have a worse Ref. All in all they will be equal.
Wholeness of Body and Lay on Hands are fairly equal. Maybe a little in the Pals favour due to swift action, gained at such a low level, can de-buff and that it is fair expensive for monks to use WoB as their Ki is used for other things.
AC. i think this is closer than you think and maybe even in the Monk favour.
HP. 1-3 more a level, depending on builds.
Immunities? They both get them. I would not say either is better off than teh other.
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.
I can agree with most of this, just wanna add that as a monk you are pumping Wis anyway so cost is not a factor.
Sorry for the post length.
|
|
I have a 4th level monk of the sacred mountain. In a party of four, were the other players are a druid (who's new and cant effectively play a druid), a ranged ranger, and a rouge i have become the tank... luckily I saw this coming, so my two highest scores aren't str and wis, they are dex and wis. This dex-monkey of a monk also has weapon fineness, thus he can hit AND have a high ac. SO even thoe he can't push DPR like anyone else in the party, He still kicks ass, and chews bubblegum.
P.S. it would be nice if you cool min-maxers on this thread can give me some hints and tips to make him an even better tank, such ass magic items, feats, ect. instead of mindlessly bashing a class you've probably never actually played. my motto: Don't deny it, till' you try it!
P.S. it would be nice if you cool min-maxers on this thread can give me some hints and tips to make him an even better tank, such ass magic items, feats, ect. instead of mindlessly bashing a class you've probably never actually played. my motto: Don't deny it, till' you try it!
You might want to stop making assumptions.
Yar!
P.S. it would be nice if you cool min-maxers on this thread can give me some hints and tips to make him an even better tank, such ass magic items, feats, ect. instead of mindlessly bashing a class you've probably never actually played. my motto: Don't deny it, till' you try it!
Many feel that "min-maxer" is a very negative and derogatory term. Please be careful using it to refer to people.
On to the advice: please create a new thread in the Advice section, and I (and I'm sure several others) would be happy to give you some advice (though I'm sure there will be some who will give ineffectual advice, like stop playing a monk, but you’ll just have to ignore those people unless they give good supporting evidence to the contrary, and even then, it's your character and your game, not theirs).
^_^
EDIT: nevermind. I see you already did. *goes over to take a closer look*
~P
|
|
My bad, i didn't mean Min-maxer as anything derogatory. When i said "cool" i meant it, min maxing in my opinion, is just another challenge of RPGs. Making the best character you can to overcome tough challenges is fun.
P.S. it would be nice if you cool min-maxers on this thread can give me some hints and tips to make him an even better tank, such ass magic items, feats, ect. instead of mindlessly bashing a class you've probably never actually played. my motto: Don't deny it, till' you try it!
You might want to stop making assumptions.
In my defense I did say "PROBABLY". Most people theory-craft a class and if it doesn't live up to there expectations on paper, they never play it. That's just general human nature. This is not to say everyone who feels the monk is under-powered hasn't experienced the class first hand.
What I saw a lot in this topic is also people judging the class from other's experiences, observer point of view or obsolete/specific builds.
APG and UM have made the monk shine a lot, and it would be like saying the barbarian sucks just because the vanilla options weren't really salivating.
Uh, no. The Barbarian actually got some serious help with the APG ( and who knows what's in store for him with Ultimate Combat ).
The Monk did not, really. The Quing Gong Monk is slightly more viable, although it goes, flavour-wise, in the exact opposite direction of what I want from the class.
I am hoping that Ultimate Combat fixes some of the severe problems of the class and puts it on par with the other melee classes. Same for the Rogue.
I was actually the DM for the campaign Pirate was in and I can attest that his monk was far from useless. I never pulled any punches in the campaign that I ran, infact i typically ran with full HP, extra gear and an advanced template on the NPC's. Like Pirate said, it all boiled down to the party working together and playing off each others strengths.
I was actually the DM for the campaign Pirate was in and I can attest that his monk was far from useless. I never pulled any punches in the campaign that I ran, infact i typically ran with full HP, extra gear and an advanced template on the NPC's. Like Pirate said, it all boiled down to the party working together and playing off each others strengths.
Which is great. But my personal experience speaks to the contrary. When one of the players who normally is relatively bad at the technical aspect ofthe game outdamages the experienced players character by a 2-1 margin, then the blame lies quite a bit with the class mechanics.
---
And nobody took on my question why all the new 3/4 BAB classes are so much better than the Monk ( and Rogue ).
I was actually the DM for the campaign Pirate was in and I can attest that his monk was far from useless. I never pulled any punches in the campaign that I ran, infact i typically ran with full HP, extra gear and an advanced template on the NPC's. Like Pirate said, it all boiled down to the party working together and playing off each others strengths.Which is great. But my personal experience speaks to the contrary. When one of the players who normally is relatively bad at the technical aspect ofthe game outdamages the experienced players character by a 2-1 margin, then the blame lies quite a bit with the class mechanics.
---
And nobody took on my question why all the new 3/4 BAB classes are so much better than the Monk ( and Rogue ).
Sorry, what is your definition of better with respect to 3/4 BAB classes?
Also are you equating contribution to being the amount of damage done by a player in an encounter in order to determine the quality of the class?
Alchemists do an excellent job with damage and bombs, but it's situational. I don't see witches being combat power houses when compared to monks or rogues. Of course there is the Magus and the Oracle which do have some very good damage potential but i wouldn't say monks and rogues are wiped off the map because of them.
Yar!
And nobody took on my question why all the new 3/4 BAB classes are so much better than the Monk ( and Rogue ).
Honestly, I do not agree with that statement. That is why I'm not touching that question. However, if you are serious about that question, I suggest a separate thread focused specifically on that question (with all the posts and text in this thread, that one line can get easily overlooked, even with Sarrion and myself addressing it at the moment).
Also, you'll not have to wait much longer for Lv.17 Vega. I'm putting him into text format right now so as to be posted.
~P
While the rest of the group would spend 2-3 rounds taking care of "mooks", Vega would maneuver his way to the biggest, toughest, baddest looking foe, and more often than not, 1 round him. This was true for BBEG fights as well. Vega would speed around the BBEG's minions and challenge him (he was a LG, peaceful type, always giving intelligent foes a chance to repent and surrender before "showing them the error of their ways"), while the rest of the party started distracting and disabling his minions.
How is it possible to both move over to a foe and take him out in a single attack within one round unless he was far weaker than the monk?
Also, if you don't post your build, then there is no evidence of anything you said. I call shenanigans.
Yar.
Sorry RD, I should clarify: He would move up to the guy and RP/talk to it/challenge it, or if needs be, punch it once. The next round it would (usually) be down. It also happens that Vega would be in front, and the enemy (not knowing better) would charge him. Then he would (usually) easily 1 round them. (Also, it's FAR too late to edit that post).
Also, as I've mentioned already, I'm in the process of posting the character. Yes, at this very moment. I'm transferring him from a jpg to text so that we call all look at it.
Shenanigans indeed. ;P
~P
Yar.
Sorry RD, I should clarify: He would move up to the guy and RP/talk to it/challenge it, or if needs be, punch it once. The next round it would (usually) be down. It also happens that Vega would be in front, and the enemy (not knowing better) would charge him. Then he would (usually) easily 1 round them. (Also, it's FAR too late to edit that post).
Also, as I've mentioned already, I'm in the process of posting the character. Yes, at this very moment. I'm transferring him from a jpg to text so that we call all look at it.
Shenanigans indeed. ;P
~P
Great. I look forward to tearing it apart! :P
Just to be clear, you moved up, attacked once, and then likely full attacked. So...2 rounds, possibly with additional attacks from allies?
Cause if that's the case, that is FAR more common an occurrence (my groups regularly drop single tough enemies in a round or two regardless of party composition).