Monks: What is their "role?"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

451 to 500 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

GâtFromKI wrote:

Too bad togomor has also a nondetection effect, a potion can't possibly success the CL check (1d20+3 vs DC 30)... The only thing the monk did against Togomor weren't possible. huh.

See Invisible isn't a legal potion spell anyway.


ciretose wrote:

The monk is not as good in melee as a Fighter, or Barb, but he's close, right there with the ranger (Zen Archer for ranged, normal for TWF)

The monk isn't as sneaky as the rogue, but he's far closer than the above.

The monk is more mobile than all of the above, has better saves than all of the above, has lower base equipment costs than all of the above, and has specific abilities designed to counter casters that go up in quality as both classes improve in quality.

that's the whole point: the monk can probably compare with other useless NPC classes like fighter, barbarian or rogue. He's a little bit more sneaky than this and have a higher speed than that, whatever: he's still a fighter with high speed instead of high damage, his only meaningful way to interact with the world is to beat thing to death.

Since he has "specific abilities designed to counter casters", I ask the question again: what can he do against Togomor from AP 12?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

GâtFromKI wrote:
that's the whole point: the monk can probably compare with other useless NPC classes like fighter, barbarian or rogue.

That's a little harsh. The rogue has a decent, if inflexible, set of problem-solving tools, and the post-APG barbarian and monk are reasonably capable at beating level-appropriate foes until the big melee dropoff around 8-9.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:


that's the whole point: the monk can probably compare with other useless NPC classes like fighter, barbarian or rogue.

Is this the point where I say "go play 4E" or am I too early? :)


No, I think your timing is perfect... ;-)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

As long as you're not late. That would call for serious brain bleach.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
As long as you're not late. That would call for serious brain bleach.

Dude, where are you stationed that there are no decent girls/boys around?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

...Iraq.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
...Iraq.

At least the weather is nice, or...?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Clear, highs in the 130s, 30% chance of mortars.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Clear, highs in the 130s, 30% chance of mortars.

Ah, weather that calls for sunscreen and fortified umbrellas.. ;)


A Man In Black wrote:
That's a little harsh. The rogue has a decent, if inflexible, set of problem-solving tools, and the post-APG barbarian and monk are reasonably capable at beating level-appropriate foes until the big melee dropoff around 8-9.

They still have no more possibilities than any commoner, just higher numbers there and there.

And since "it would be wrong to give monk full BAB" or "it's perfectly fine for fighters to only be able to punch things in the nose, because otherwise they would step in playable class shoes", it won't change before long: there are the classes who have the possibility of a commoner, and the playable classes with actual abilities (and perhaps lower numbers there and there, who cares?).

Gorbacz wrote:
Is this the point where I say "go play 4E" or am I too early? :)

The "NPC-classes-edition"? No thanks.


A Man In Black wrote:


It's a dick move to do something you know bothers the other players, abusing the fact that they're too polite to gainsay you. It's a dick move to create a bunch of unnecessary interparty friction in-character. It's a dick move to make your GM bend over backwards to involve your character in the game without killing him/marginalizing him.

Why do we have a game where the simple act of choosing a class involves so many dick moves? Wouldn't it be better if the classes were better-balanced?

That's it. All my characters are paladins from now on!

Let the reign of tears and justice commence!


GâtFromKI wrote:


Gorbacz wrote:
Is this the point where I say "go play 4E" or am I too early? :)

The "NPC-classes-edition"? No thanks.

I'm imaginging you now as a small little furry humanoid thing that speaks and growls and snarls and is so tiny he has to type by running across the keyboard. Your massive red pupilless eyes and fuzzy floppy ears. The sun burns your eyes and the sound of even the faintest human voice causes you immense pain.

You are in this wretched form of un-life because a wizard did it for sins you committed against him while playing a game of souls, love and heartbreak.

The image is both comforting and hilarious. Though a touch sad. You were decent human being once despite any flaws you may have had. Certainly not the type who would be doing what they are doing now.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:


They still have no more possibilities than any commoner, just higher numbers there and there.

Oh, another one who missed the "This is D&D" sign.

Fortunately, the other tab in my browser tells me you've just found the forum where folks of similiar mindset dwell :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gworeth wrote:


Do you ever hear this: "Last night we were playing Pathfinder/D&D/insert RPG game, and I won!". *Shakes head*

To quote Chevy Chase: "I won D&D. And it was Advanced!" ;)


Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, another one who missed the "This is D&D" sign.

Yes, in D&D you play some stupid fighter who hit things.

Any ability which allow you to suggest, to teleport, to contact other planes, to speak with dead or to breath water is not RAI, incidentally. RAI, you play a fighter named Tog.

Hi Tog!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Oh, another one who missed the "This is D&D" sign.

Yes, in D&D you play some stupid fighter who hit things.

Any ability which allow you to suggest, to teleport, to contact other planes, to speak with dead or to breath water is not RAI, incidentally. RAI, you play a fighter named Tog.

Hi Tog!

I guess your arguments are some 40 years late then. It's a crying shame there was no Internet back in Gygax days...

Also, it seems like most folks are happy playing Togs, or having Togs in the party, because if they weren't, the game would go bottoms up in early 80s and we would be discussing GURPS or Runequest now.


Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Drizzt, Robilar and Caramon Majere sure weren't.


GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Raistlin would like to have a word with you...

Dark Archive

AManinBlack wrote:
See Invisible isn't a legal potion spell anyway.

Yes, I am aware of that now and should have been paying attention during that campaign. Stupid mistake. That said, if not that See Invisibile granting bit of treasure, than the PCs would have purchased another.

Like I said, I don't think the story proves anything. But I did find it fun. Maybe it livened someone's day.

GâtFromKI wrote:
Too bad togomor has also a nondetection effect, a potion can't possibly success the CL check (1d20+3 vs DC 30)... The only thing the monk did against Togomor weren't possible. huh.

Unfortunately, I do not believe that is how Nondetection works. However, I am aware there is some debate on that subject and I come out on the more conservative side of that debate. I point you to other threads for the recap of those arguments, and readily invite additional evidence.

.

And no, Mordenkainen, Bigby, Melf and all that lot were not, to my knowledge, an all wizard party so much as the elevated characters who adventured with fighting types. Robilar's betrayal was so keen because he was a companion. Good example, though, since the Grayhawk group were actual player characters at one time.

.

Finally, I did remember another role that monks are quite suited to: urban/social encounters. Which is to say, the speed of response and low equipment demands place monks at a considerable advantage when I run encounters that demand a bit of decorum from the PCs. You do not come armored and armed before the court of the king, for instance, and you had best bet that known wizards and clerics are parted from their staves and symbols at the Grand Duke's gala. There are even places where you earn a fine or an arrest for openly wearing armor and wandering down the street. And class issues! The rights of nobility to carry the arms and spell components of their station. None of these circumstances influence the effectiveness of the monk.

But these are rare circumstances, and my players have consistently favored more armed and suspicious places and attitudes where they may guard themselves more appropriately.


Dabbler wrote:
mdt wrote:

Jesus,

Why do these threads always devolve into Caster God/Melee Dung discussions?

They don't, they devolve into arguments of hyperbole situations that never actually happen postulated by people that as far as I can tell don't actually play the game, they just sit around and crunch numbers and make posts about how everyone that doesn't agree with them is stupid.

Against this is ranged the experiences of the people who do actually play the game and illustrate their points with anecdotes and examples.

Me, I go with the players.

:)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
mdt wrote:

Jesus,

Why do these threads always devolve into Caster God/Melee Dung discussions?

They don't, they devolve into arguments of hyperbole situations that never actually happen postulated by people that as far as I can tell don't actually play the game, they just sit around and crunch numbers and make posts about how everyone that doesn't agree with them is stupid.

Against this is ranged the experiences of the people who do actually play the game and illustrate their points with anecdotes and examples.

Me, I go with the players.

If I were to take seriously a quarter of the conversations on theorycrafting, I'd be so disgusted with D20 style play, I'd go back to Storyteller.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

They're in a Secret Society of casters only, but they don't adventure together. They doing a caster only pary. Once. It ended badly. Most of them are leading organizations in thier own right.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On a slight side note, about the 'always having the right spell', I've noticed that this does not happen if the GM follows 3 simple guidelines.

1) Go over the character sheet with a fine tooth comb, make sure the spells are valid, correct, and actually were given out in game. This is not saying players cheat, it's saying they make mistakes, and catching them is the way to avoid that.

2) Have the player make up a list of 'prayed for' or 'memorized' spells for various situations. For example, default wandering the wilderness list, default underground list, default in city list. As many as they want to make up. Then enforce that list unless they tell you BEFORE a combat or spellcasting situation comes up that they are changing their default. I've found this makes the 'just right spell at just right time' not happen as much, and it restores some of the versatility of the spontaneous casters.

3) Don't play with dicks (seriously, people who try to powergame and disrupt the game, just kick them to the curb as hard and fast as you can).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dammit, I was expecting some witty comeback from GâtFromKI and got nothing. Sadpandaface now.


Gorbacz wrote:
Dammit, I was expecting some witty comeback from GâtFromKI and got nothing. Sadpandaface now.

Do you expect blood from stones as well?


ProfessorCirno wrote:
LilithsThrall wrote:

Vigorous motion has a DC of 10 + spell level = 14 for your bard.
The bard's concentration check is 1d20 + his level (10). That means that if the bard rolls less than 14, he'll fail his concentration check.

You don't actually know how math works, do you?

The bard has to roll a 4. Not a 14. If the DC is 14 and he adds 10 to his roll, he needs to roll a 4.

LilithsThrall also seemed to forget that you add your key ability modifier to Concentration checks. Which means that if this 10th level bard has so much as a +3 Charisma, he cannot fail his Concentration check at all versus the DC. Which means that the bard - who can easily have a 16 Charisma while naked and unbuffed - casts his dimension door with 100% certainty, and rescues the party from the collapsing cave-in-thing, which is apparently being treated like a monster, and somehow sneaks up on the party, and somehow gets a surprise round 'cause it's apparently in combat with them and is making initiative checks and such, and the bard and the rest of the party apparently are caught unaware, and are apparently hosed by this non-existent hazard (seriously cave-ins and collapsing is covered under the rules and it doesn't work like this), except the monk.

Honestly, Prof. Cirno and GâtFromKI are just intelligent, and are actually making good arguments. LillithsThrall is doing the opposite, as are a few other posters (but Lillith's springs to the forefront).

Also, Lillith's, a club is 1d6 damage, not 1d4, an 1d6+3+strength is an average of 6.5 per swing, as opposed to 1d10+3 which is an average of 8.5 per swing, or in other words, 2 points of difference.

If I was recruiting for my group, I'd take a magus any day of the week. If I had to choose between a magus and a monk, the monk would need to be bribing pretty damn hard to get a spot on that team, and even then that's assuming I'd be willing to put my neck on the line for his bribery, since apparently monks are damn good at running away and leaving the party to die by falling rocks.


Ashiel wrote:
Honestly, Prof. Cirno and GâtFromKI are just intelligent, and are actually making good arguments.

Err...

You're going to far! I can bear the "small little furry humanoid thing" and other things, but nobody is allowed to claim I'm intelligent.

I challenge you to a children's card game!

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
If I was recruiting for my group, I'd take a magus any day of the week. If I had to choose between a magus and a monk, the monk would need to be bribing pretty damn hard to get a spot on that team, and even then that's assuming I'd be willing to put my neck on the line for his bribery, since apparently monks are damn good at...

A question on the habits of other gamers.

At least a few comments have been made with regard to what character one would prefer to have in the party. Magus over Monk, in this instance. My question is how often this choice is actually in anyone's control? Do your groups commonly build characters independently or as a group? Has anyone actually attempted to persuade another player from playing a monk in their game? It has never come up for me, and the Monk players I have had have always enjoyed playing a Monk and had no problems integrating with the team.

Ashiel wrote:
Honestly, Prof. Cirno and GâtFromKI are just intelligent, and are actually making good arguments.

The passions of the thread run high. There's a lot of truth to what both say, it is just very tempting to respond to the brusque tone of each rather than the substance behind their words.


Gorbacz wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Drizzt, Robilar and Caramon Majere sure weren't.

Drizzt is a caster. Last I checked, rangers cast spells. Now it of course downplays this most of the time, but if you stat Drizzt as a ranger, he'll have spellcasting options. Likewise, in two D&D-endorsed video games, Drizzt has made an appearance complete with spellcasting to augment his impressive martial skill.

You'll notice that in Treantmonk's guide about rangers actually lists their versatility as a reason to choose them instead of a Fighter. They can fight almost as well as a Fighter, get 6+Int modifier skills, an animal companion, better saves, AND spellcasting.

Kegluneq wrote:

A question on the habits of other gamers.

At least a few comments have been made with regard to what character one would prefer to have in the party. Magus over Monk, in this instance. My question is how often this choice is actually in anyone's control? Do your groups commonly build characters independently or as a group? Has anyone actually attempted to persuade another player from playing a monk in their game? It has never come up for me, and the Monk players I have had have always enjoyed playing a Monk and had no problems integrating with the team.

With 100% honesty, my group tends to make whatever we want to make. Occasionally we'll do some sort of themed party, such as all-caster, all-martial, all-psionics, all-clerics, etc. The majority of the time, we just make what ever is appealing to us at the time.

I've had a lot of the core classes come through my games time and time again. That includes monks. I've seen some monks who were successful in their adventuring careers. However, every class can be successful. A well played warrior (the NPC class) can be successful as well, as can adepts, and so forth.

It's just virtually every other class has something that it can either bring to the table better, or brings more to the table. As a martial class, the monk falls behind Barbarians, Cavaliers, Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers (several of which are more versatile in and out of combat than the Fighter is, such as the Ranger). As for the 3/4 BAB classes, they are lacking in options that make up for their martial disparity, and I'd rather have a bard, cleric, druid, magus, eldritch-knight, summoner, or alchemist. They fail completely at anything resembling a full-caster role.

Likewise, monks are very self-centered as a character class. Everyone likes to talk about monks and teamwork, but as far as teamwork goes monks are one of the absolute worst classes in terms of teamwork. Monk abilities are virtually all self-buffs, while most monks still have to rely on others for staples to keep them moderately effective (for example, most monks will want their party's wizard to burn a 1st level slot of mage armor for them at low levels, which creates a drain on the wizard for the monk to be acceptable). This is not how a support class operates.

A monk cannot heal others (no Mr. Miagi lay on hands for you), they cannot grant their buffs to others, they cannot teleport others, etc. Comparative to any other 3/4 class except rogue, everyone else has something they can do to actually support. Bards get great skills (even with a low Int) and spells such as Haste or Heroism, abilities like Inspire Courage, and similar things that make them good while making their allies good too (while also being able to backup heal via wands, craft magic items, and fight decently well). Magus is kind of like the fighter/wizard, and can likewise buff himself while buffing his party (haste, etc). Druids get an animal companion who can run interference and help protect the squishy members, while bringing summoning and such. Summoners are good at this too. Alchemists bomb, fight, and buff party members. Inquisitors have good skills, and lots of out of combat utility. Clerics and Oracles can buff, summon, fight, heal, raise the dead, turn or control undead, and heal people between fights.

GâtFromKI wrote:

Err...

You're going to far! I can bear the "small little furry humanoid thing" and other things, but nobody is allowed to claim I'm intelligent.

I challenge you to a children's card game!

I accept your challenge. *pulls out assortments of multicolored cards*

Screw the money, I have rules. :P


TarkXT wrote:
There's no weakness about the argument. It's a dick thing to do. Weak class or not it's not up to another player to tell another player what to play. There's no reasonable way to tell someone that you don't want to play with them because you hate the numbers on their sheet.

So, if a fellow player wanted to play a Commoner, you'd have no objections whatsoever, either OOC or IC to the choice? And if somebody objected, you'd call the objector the dick, not the guy who decided to play a Commoner?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Drizzt, Robilar and Caramon Majere sure weren't.

Drizzt is a caster. Last I checked, rangers cast spells. Now it of course downplays this most of the time, but if you stat Drizzt as a ranger, he'll have spellcasting options. Likewise, in two D&D-endorsed video games, Drizzt has made an appearance complete with spellcasting to augment his impressive martial skill.

.

He's not that much of a caster given that he's multi-classed with barbarian and fighter in most of the published builds. I certainly would not put him in the same category as full casters.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Drizzt, Robilar and Caramon Majere sure weren't.

Drizzt is a caster. Last I checked, rangers cast spells. Now it of course downplays this most of the time, but if you stat Drizzt as a ranger, he'll have spellcasting options. Likewise, in two D&D-endorsed video games, Drizzt has made an appearance complete with spellcasting to augment his impressive martial skill.

You're right! He's the only caster in his Icewind Dale group, and he's the one who does the teleporting, scrying and you know, being God.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
see wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
There's no weakness about the argument. It's a dick thing to do. Weak class or not it's not up to another player to tell another player what to play. There's no reasonable way to tell someone that you don't want to play with them because you hate the numbers on their sheet.
So, if a fellow player wanted to play a Commoner, you'd have no objections whatsoever, either OOC or IC to the choice? And if somebody objected, you'd call the objector the dick, not the guy who decided to play a Commoner?

This is an honest question. If I decide to make a character, I don't look for things that are going to bring the group down. Sure, it might be funny to play a wizard with an 8 Intelligence, but as a player I feel like I have a measure of responsibility to my fellows when I play. D&D is not a single player game. If I want to try and make an 8 Int wizard work in Neverwinter Nights for the PC, that's entirely great and awesome, 'cause it's a single player game.

If I want to play an 8 Int wizard in tabletop, there are other people who are going to be relying on me to a point. Truly, it is the GMs that do not coddle their players are the kind to run games you will need to work together and solve problems together. If you have a coddling GM, then perhaps the ability to solve problems or function as a team is lessened, because you may succeed anyway.

But, I surely wouldn't play an NPC class or play something horribly against its strengths (like the 8 Int wizard) without at least discussing it with my fellow players first, and GM second, because at the end of the day it's my fellow players who are going to be dealing with my character and who are going to have to rely on my character - not the GM.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
Likewise, monks are very self-centered as a character class.

True enough. And if there is one thing I would damn the monk's present design for, it is most certainly this.


see wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
There's no weakness about the argument. It's a dick thing to do. Weak class or not it's not up to another player to tell another player what to play. There's no reasonable way to tell someone that you don't want to play with them because you hate the numbers on their sheet.
So, if a fellow player wanted to play a Commoner, you'd have no objections whatsoever, either OOC or IC to the choice? And if somebody objected, you'd call the objector the dick, not the guy who decided to play a Commoner?

If it was someone other than the GM, then yes.

To expand on this if I were a fellow player and had such concerns I'd bring them to the GM not to the player. I have no authority over what he plays, I cannot tell him how or what he should play. I can ask what he is playing or doing with his character in relation to my own to help me build towards a better team if it's what I desire but I cannot force him to make any mechanical decisions based upon my opinions of balance. If he asks "What should I play?" I can give him some advice. Beyond that any decisions he makes based upon fun are his own.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
GâtFromKI wrote:

Oh, I though Mordenkainen, Bigby etc were in a party of casters-only. My mistake. Or maybe it wasn't D&D.

Drizzt, Robilar and Caramon Majere sure weren't.

Drizzt is a caster. Last I checked, rangers cast spells. Now it of course downplays this most of the time, but if you stat Drizzt as a ranger, he'll have spellcasting options. Likewise, in two D&D-endorsed video games, Drizzt has made an appearance complete with spellcasting to augment his impressive martial skill.

You're right! He's the only caster in his Icewind Dale group, and he's the one who does the teleporting, scrying and you know, being God.

Personally I feel like Drizzt would have been better statted out as a Fighter, at least when reading the Homeland novel. His father was a weaponsmaster, and he too has a gift for the martial arts. His panther is an onyx figurine and not an actual animal companion (though I believe they later made an option of taking an onyx figure as an animal companion - wonder where they got that idea :P).

The fact is, of course, that rangers cast spells. Ergo if Drizzt is a 4th level or higher Ranger, then Drizzt casts spells too - or at least has the option of doing so. Now, nobody said that Drizzt was some sort of archmage, but the criteria for what was being noted was that rangers do get spellcasting. It's noted as one of their pros in Treantmonk's ranger guide because honestly it's a pretty nice feature.

Spellcasting is a feature that gives rangers more versatility both inside and outside of combat (they get spells such as longstrider, entangle, barkskin, resist energy, spike growth, wind wall, summon nature's ally I-IV, pass without trace, delay poison, alarm, healing spells, bear's endurance, cat's grace, owl's wisdom, neutralize poison, remove disease, freedom of movement, nondetection, and tree stride, and a few other situational ones), which is more than the monk does. The problem, of course, is that the ranger is also a solid first-tier melee and ranged combatant with their d10 HD, +1/HD base attack, good Fort and Ref saves, and sport 6 + Int modifier skill points, an animal companion, and a variety of spiffy class features including spellcasting.

Basically, a ranger cannot out damage a Fighter, but comes with more versatility built in. During the levels the Fighter begins to outpace the ranger in terms of offensive prowess, the ranger begins gaining spellcasting and grabs his animal companion.

Before anyone says this is off topic, I'm officially comparing the ranger as both a lightly armored frontliner and party support, and in virtually every instance the ranger is winning out. When monks get poison immunity, rangers have been able to cast Delay Poison for 4 levels, and can cast it on other party members (allowing ample time to use the Heal skill and an antitoxin to get a +9 vs poison if the duration of the poison is still ongoing). By 10th level not only can the ranger make himself AND others immune to poison for 7 hours, but he can also remove poison entirely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Geez... that damned Drow can ruin anything, even a conversation about MONKS!


Nephelim wrote:
Geez... that damned Drow can ruin anything, even a conversation about MONKS!

Yeah because obviously Drizzt is to blame for rangers being versatile and having spellcasting options. /sarcasm

Haters gonna hate I guess.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
... (a great deal of good things) ...

I generally compare the Monk to the Ranger as well. And in general, the only things that the Monk has over the Ranger is improved movement and somewhat more Combat Maneuver potential.

Which is precisely why I want more ki powers and the cost of all the monk's tricks dropped to one. And even then, I only want ki-powers over casting because I like that the class features are all [Ex] and [Su].


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:
Kegluneq wrote:
Why then is it so important to demonstrate that wizards are always and forever superior to the monk? Or is it an effort to 'prove' that the monk is an objectively inferior class in every circumstance? Please, help me understand, because the notion of the monk being flexible appears to render some of you apoplectic. My calls for constructive commentary go unanswered, and the point of this thread is being lost behind the honey-trap of "casters uber-alles".

And is precisely why it's essentially an easy troll for people. And why I'm going to abandon the argument. The caster/martial disparity thread is losing steam so they find an easy target to pummel. If this were an argument about say, the validity of paladins out of combat, we'd get the exact same tiresome arguments. And yes, they are tiresome.

So I'll go back to my general heckling humor now with TriOmegaZero.

Also, Paladins have options out of combat. They have an animal companion which can give them a leg-up in certain situations, including tracking (since technically your horse can help track stuff). Likewise, they receive a number of wonderful spells, which combined with their already impressive Lay on Hands gives them a surprisingly decent method of healing. They also access lesser restoration at 4th level, allowing them to heal ability damage and other ailments. Let's not forget create water, detect poison, and protection from evil. They also get several nice buffs (such as bull's strength, divine favor), sport one of the most broken spells from the APG, and resist energy, remove disease, remove curse, dispel magic, remove paralysis, remove blindness/deafness, greater magic weapon, discern lies, break enchantment, death ward, dispel chaos, dispel evil, neutralize poison, restoration, and can even cast holy sword (allowing them to turn any dinky piece of wood into a +5 holy instrument of destruction).

Gotta love 'em. :)

ALSO!

Rangers and Paladins can qualify for item creation feats, and most builds will have enough feats to allow them to comfortably do so without breaking their builds. This means they can craft their own Wondrous Items, or perhaps even pickup Craft Arms & Armor, Brew Potion, or Craft Wand, as needed.


Kegluneq wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
... (a great deal of good things) ...

I generally compare the Monk to the Ranger as well. And in general, the only things that the Monk has over the Ranger is improved movement and somewhat more Combat Maneuver potential.

Which is precisely why I want more ki powers and the cost of all the monk's tricks dropped to one. And even then, I only want ki-powers over casting because I like that the class features are all [Ex] and [Su].

That's true to a point. However, rangers get longstrider at 4th level, which increases their speed to 40 ft, and most rangers will probably wear mithril breastplates at the heaviest, which means in the long term speed isn't really much of an issue for rangers. Rangers can also acquire animal companions like druids do, which gives them the option to grab a mount, and mounts always win the race against monk speed (no pun intended). This is doubly so when you are dealing with Small sized rangers, as the biggest argument against mounts is usually the issue of size. Small sized characters can ride on their mounts even in dungeons because they take up normal space, and it's a fact that the die-size of your weapon doesn't mean as much as the modifiers behind it. This is especially nasty with a ranger because they can full-attack with a bow while riding at full-speed (go-go Mongolian archers), but also pretty devastating when you have a lance.

Likewise, mounts have access to horseshoes of the zypher and horseshoes of speed, or similarly themed variations for stuff like riding dogs which allow them to move through the air using their land speed or increase their already fast speed by +30 ft, and are surprisingly inexpensive.

EDIT: Also monks don't have more combat maneuver potential than rangers. Rangers get access to Freedom of Movement, which means they auto-win on grapple checks at higher levels, so they are harder to pin. Likewise, they have a perfect BAB and good rangers also have a good mixture of Strength and Dexterity. Rangers also have proficiency with weapons such as the guisarme and ranseur, allowing them to pull off disarms and trips via a reach weapon, and can apply their weapon's enhancement bonus to the check.

The ranger can also wear armor spikes and carry a shield without ruining his class features, which allows for additional enhancements and protective wards. If at the very least a ranger can wear a fortification buckler to shrug off critical hits and sneak attacks, but can also have an arrow-deflecting one as well.

Finally, let's not forget that the ranger's animal companion can help. The monk can grapple at the most one person per round. The ranger will - more often than not - be able to at least compare to the monk in terms of combat maneuvers and also has an animal companion (eventually who can be under the effects of Animal Growth via the ranger's class spells) to grapple or trip things as well.


Mounts and Ladders equal sad ranger.


Andy Ferguson wrote:
Mounts and Ladders equal sad ranger.

My horse has a +5 bonus to climb, thank you very much. :P

Of course, the ranger could just cast jump on his mount, or get his mount some sweet horseshoes of the zypher, or just outright carry his mount (potion of enlarge person + ant haul = my little pony) up the ladder.


Ashiel wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
Mounts and Ladders equal sad ranger.

My horse has a +5 bonus to climb, thank you very much. :P

Of course, the ranger could just cast jump on his mount, or get his mount some sweet horseshoes of the zypher, or just outright carry his mount (potion of enlarge person + ant haul = my little pony) up the ladder.

What kind of ladders is your GM using in his games that can hold an 800 lb man (200 lb man enlarged) and a 1200 lb horse, plus gear for man, plus gear for horse. That's well over a ton of weight. They're made out of titanium laced polycarbide steel?


mdt wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Andy Ferguson wrote:
Mounts and Ladders equal sad ranger.

My horse has a +5 bonus to climb, thank you very much. :P

Of course, the ranger could just cast jump on his mount, or get his mount some sweet horseshoes of the zypher, or just outright carry his mount (potion of enlarge person + ant haul = my little pony) up the ladder.

What kind of ladders is your GM using in his games that can hold an 800 lb man (200 lb man enlarged) and a 1200 lb horse, plus gear for man, plus gear for horse. That's well over a ton of weight. They're made out of titanium laced polycarbide steel?

Well it depends really. Most mounted builds use a small rider, which means you're dealing with medium creatures while enlarged. Likewise, we have stuff like rope/silk-rope, and so forth, which could be used to lift the mount up or down. Levitate works.

Why do most mounted builds use small riders? To avoid pitfalls such as the GM putting you in narrow areas where your mount either has to squeeze into or can't get into at all. It also solves most of the issues with getting around. This is doubly true if your mount is something a bit exotic, like a giant ferret or a giant bat (giant bats are fun mounts because they have a 40 ft. fly speed and good maneuverability).

Dark Archive

Small or medium, ladders or no, the point is clear: the monk's advantages are extraordinarily focused and somewhat narrow over its closest competitor.

I entered this thread because I have a new Rise of the Runelords campaign with a player playing a monk and I wanted to see if opinions toward the monk had changed much since Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat dropped. But, at the indulgence of the OP, would it be fair to say we've beaten this subject to death? I am at a loss for where to go next.


... But a monk on a horse... that would be, like, really fast!

451 to 500 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks: What is their "role?" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.