Well, I've been toying with a fun idea, just to spite a good friend/DM of mine. He HATES monks. Despises them, more than the good ol' 3.5 clerics. It's not even a rational hate. Too many LN jerks played monks in his past or something. Anyway, he needs a tank, and I'm his go-to guy for role fills. I tell him, I'm making a monk tank.
Here's how it's going: Level 10 / 60,000gp budget. Stats = 72 + 3d4 (got lucky and rolled 12, while DM was watching, so no funny business). The optimal "tank" build I've found took a good amount of consideration... The build had to be built one level at a time with careful feat selection.
In the end, I created Rikon the Bastard: Fighter 2/Monk 8. He has 30 AC that can be pumped on up a bit through circumstantial bonuses/ki point expenditures. He has 108 hp, and a total of 9 feats (that's only 1 less than a fighter of 10th level).
This is just the initial planning stages... I may be able to tweak the AC a tad bit higher, but we'll see. Due to the mobility of the Monk class and the awesome controlling aspects, I look forward to testing out this highly-tuned monk tank.
--Edit: I should note that this monk is being built solely with core PF rules, though the GM is allowing backwards compatible rules... I wanted to see what the best I could do out of just the one book--
I had a monk in 3.5e that was built around defense. His stats were very close to what you have going, with a'course huge saves. He ended up dying, but that was because he had a 7 INT, and he did something that out of character I knew was an awful idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, monks function best as a 5th party member, after the basics have been covered by other characters. They can usually assist the rogue in sneaky stuff, and usually fight side-by-side with the fighter on the front lines.
I would see them best as a 8th or 10th character. After you have a Fighter, a Ranger, a Cleric, a Wizard, a Druid, a Bard, possibly a Paladin, another Wizard of a different specialization, maybe a Rogue, possibly an alchemist, summoner, witch, oracle, inquisitor, a psion, psychic warrior, barbarian, and Magus. The monk makes a really great guy if you have all those other classes covered, I'd say.
EDIT: Also, before anyone thinks I'm joking or putting down the monk, I'm not. I really do believe every last one of those classes come first. The main reason is because for frontliners, Fighter + Ranger + Barbarian do it better, and most of the hybrid casters do it very well as well (magus, cleric, druid, oracle, inquisitor, etc). Ranger or Bard can cover skillmonkery while covering additional roles. As far as support goes, the divine + arcane + bard has that covered. For fighting evil the paladin is your man. Furthermore, the majority of those classes can swap easily between melee and ranged and support in buffs, healing, damage, and often times tanking, and many of them are highly mobile.
Lots of magic items, I bet.That goes without saying.
I would see them best as a 8th or 10th character.That's mean.
And with APG and UC options, I'd probably take a monk before a fighter.
I haven't got UC yet. However, there wasn't a whole lot in APG that I saw that would make me take a monk over a Fighter; especially if you have anything resembling spellcasters in the party (who can protect you from various mind-raping attacks). Without even dipping into archtypes they are better in melee, better at range, have better AC, and can eventually ignore most to all of their penalties for being in armor, and they're better at stuff like combat maneuvers pound for pound, etc.
I'd need to see something very impressive to sway my opinion - but it could indeed be swayed. I have what you might call a persuadable mind. I don't go into a conversation looking to be right, I go looking for truth, and should I find that truth is not as I perceived it before, I will accept it as my mistake. However, my scrutiny is great, and I will dissect and tear apart anything in my quest for truth, until I am sure it is as close to free of logical inconsistencies as possible.
EDIT: However, monk is a great dipping class for a lot of things. A fighter can dip monk to get a quick +2 to all saves, a few bonus feats, improved unarmed strike, and so forth. A druid can dip a level of monk and make with the kung-fu grizzly, enjoying a free improved grapple, unarmed strikes, wisdom to AC, +2 to all saves. Two levels of monk grabs another +1 to all saves and evasion.
His role is to take Zen Archer (APG) and arrow to death anything from range (flurry of blows with a bow!), while being impossible for the enemy's ranged attacks to deal with (since he's got awesome touch AC and saving throws).
I don't think that anyone doubted the effectiveness of the zen archer, it's the one kind of monk that the majority of the forum community agrees on being good.
UC really give monks a boost to edge in on the fighter.
For Example:
The second feat in the dragon style chain (Dragon Ferocity) grants you bonus damage to all unarmed attacks equal to half your strength bonus. BAM
The third feat in the tiger style chain (Tiger Pounce) allows you to penalize AC rather than attack rolls when power attacking and lets you move half your speed each round as a swift action.
-Mind you, you can't be in multiple styles at once, so you can't combine those two abilities (unless you are a master of many styles, which gives up flurry.)
Then there is the martial artist, who gives up ki for so, so much more. for example they can take fighter feats, just as long as they apply to monk weapons or unarmed strike. BAM
Play one if you want to be really, really busy in combat
from the off you get two attacks, and rapidly get 3 and 4
as your attacks often have some CMB to them, that adds more time
.....then the 5th level paladin wades in, rolls a 3, and its your turn to have 3 or 4 attacks again!
UC really give monks a boost to edge in on the fighter.
For Example:
The second feat in the dragon style chain (Dragon Ferocity) grants you bonus damage to all unarmed attacks equal to half your strength bonus. BAM
The third feat in the tiger style chain (Tiger Pounce) allows you to penalize AC rather than attack rolls when power attacking and lets you move half your speed each round as a swift action.
-Mind you, you can't be in multiple styles at once, so you can't combine those two abilities (unless you are a master of many styles, which gives up flurry.)
Then there is the martial artist, who gives up ki for so, so much more. for example they can take fighter feats, just as long as they apply to monk weapons or unarmed strike. BAM
That sounds pretty nice actually.
Reach weapons aren't comparable to being anywhere on the battle mat in less than a round of time. Paladin mounts and Barbarians can't match monk move speed except at low levels.
You're right. They're way, way better. They're defensive as well as offensive and can be used to dominate with combat maneuvers. Likewise, by the time that the monk is much more mobile than other warriors, the warriors have their methods of moving about relatively unhindered as well. Monks still cannot fly, and they still have the normal issues of having to deal with moving past people. Reach weapons make that worse. Movement also removes a lot of their martial capability.
That being said!
I do believe that staff-monks can be quite amazing in the same way that staff-fighters can be amazing. The caveat is that monks don't need Dex as much, don't need double slice, and automatically get all the benefits of the TWF feats without the requirement (though the lack of two weapon rend hurts). That makes monks with staffs pretty darn scary in terms of raw damage potential at low levels, and by dipping 5 levels of fighter and wearing some gloves they can get another +3 to hit and damage on every attack.
The biggest issue I see with the argument versus flight is that in places where fly cannot be easily used, such as inside dungeons, neither does having a lot of movement typically help you. In such instances it is very easy for enemies to "run interference" as it were and play defense.
Likewise, I just don't easily see a time where I'd rather have a few more spaces of land-based movement speed versus actually being a good combatant. Likewise, with the exception of the zen-archery monk, a melee built Fighter can still competently engage in battle with a longbow with only a minor feat investment (point blank, precise, rapid, deadly aim, manyshot, leaves you plenty of room for virtually every melee feat you're going to need, especially since 90% of melee feats needed begin and end with the words Power and Attack).
Likewise, I just don't easily see a time where I'd rather have a few more spaces of land-based movement speed versus actually being a good combatant. Likewise, with the exception of the zen-archery monk, a melee built Fighter can still competently engage in battle with a longbow with only a minor feat investment (point blank, precise, rapid, deadly aim, manyshot, leaves you plenty of room for virtually every melee feat you're going to need, especially since 90% of melee feats needed begin and end with the words Power and Attack).Five feats is only a minor feat investment?
Yep. For a Fighter it is. Even without any of them, a good composite bow and your high base attack can make up the difference most of the time. Especially when you get those amazing gloves. :3
Take a forest as one example where large land movement is better than fly (unless you're flying -above- the tree line which takes you out of combat - unable to both see or attack the enemy on the ground). The fighter may be great and awesome and all that, but if an enemy Rogue or the like drops out of the trees next to the party Wizard, the fighter may not have the move to get to the wizard immediately whereas the monk will.
The DCs for flying aren't particularly harsh or anything, but ok, let's go with a forest. So the monk basically is going to run across the ground, around trees and such, and get to this wizard who is supposedly standing out in the open and ready to get grabbed. Is there something preventing the Fighter from just grabbing his +1 bow and filling the stupid-wizard full of arrows before taking a 5ft step behind cover to block LoS?
I dunno. I guess we'd need to run some scenarios and see how it goes. I'm just basing my stuff off a lot of different scenarios I've seen play out over the years of 3E's existence.
I never said monks were bad. Just that I'd rather have virtually any other class on the team instead. Virtually every secondary fighting class such as cleric, druid, magus, bard, inquisitor, and so forth is more useful in more situations, and has an easier time with adapting to different situations than a monk because most can fight adequately while also bringing skills and/or spellcasting abilities along with them. Meanwhile I find Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Cavalier, and Ranger to be better non-magical combatants. In a larger party, I'd probably want an extra spellcaster or two as well, to pass out buffs or do additional crowd control.
Well, a lot of it (as always) is going to come down to the GM. For example, your GM may not consider the problem of trees affecting ranged weapons in the forest.
The vast majority of the games I participate in, I'm participating as a GM. I love forest encounters because I find them exciting and I love trees and such as cover and obstacles. It makes it more tactical to use them for LoS and LoE, and so forth. I play it strait, and that is STILL what I'm basing my posts on.
Ok, so assuming that the enemies will take cover as often as possible (and hopefully the party will do the same), are prone to using ranged weapons (including splash weapons) when possible, and work semi-tactically, exactly what would change the scenario so much?
What I'm asking is, in what way does following the rules for cover and such somehow invalidate the use of ranged weapons or tactical movement, other than "run up to them an hit them!"?
Trees work both ways. If the archer can't shoot them, then they can't shoot the archer. If they come out of cover to attack, the archer can do the same or shoot them, or while he has them pinned down, the party's melee can safely approach to put down the threat. The archer might move about and get to a better position where he can get LoS/E more efficiently (tactical movement), or might look for a fallen tree, stump, or log to get cover without giving cover.
Likewise, running into combat willy nilly can get you hurt bad. Especially if you're dealing with the threat of traps. You see an enemy and you run 300 feet in one round to get to them and happen to trigger random doomsday trap #7, now you're in trouble and your party has to try and catch up.
To grab a phrase from the KotoR guide, "Force Jump" is really cool for Jedi Guardians to leap into the fray. The problem is now the rest of your party is playing catch up while you're all alone. :P
Trees work both ways. If the archer can't shoot them, then they can't shoot the archer.So? The enemy isn't trying to shoot the fighter. That's not his goal.
So what is the enemy trying to do if not kill party members? If the Fighter has cover, the rest of the party can more than likely find a nice juicy tree to hide behind. Could even be hiding behind the Fighter and his nice fat armor class, soaking up that wonderful +4 AC for soft cover, while they move forward or whatever. If the enemy isn't shooting, then the party can move up while the archer can fire at anyone who comes out to attack them.
I mean, it sounds like there would have to be something really, really, reeeeeaaaaally specific to make a problem for every class 'cept monk.
EDIT: Likewise if they're not trying to kill the party members by shooting, or even if they are, the Fighter can lead the assault, moving up 30-40 ft per round in heavy armor while carrying a shield and taking a Total Defense to get a +4 to AC vs incoming attacks, while everyone behind him does whatever everyone behind him does. Or they could all move up 30 ft every round and ready an action to move full speed if someone lobs a fireball or similar.
A monk is a different flavor of rogue. It is a combat scout, it's job is to get to the vulnerable hard-to-reach target before the plodding tanks get there. It's MUCH more dangerous in a frontal assault than a Rogue is.
This is one I'm playing in Serpent's Skull: Rameej Theggar
The party consists of a Witch (Parrot familiar), Summoner with cat-like Eidolon, and a Druid with a Panther magical companion.
There's always someone to cast Mage Armor on me. This may be the only Pathfinder party in the world with more uses for multiple Amulets of Mighty Fists than it has for magical weapons.
So far - I have clambered up cliffs, dropped several mooks, and played "Wrestle The Guy In Robes".
As a Hungry Ghost Monk, I spend ki like water. I love the Punishing Kick ability because it's "damage + shove" - it lets me run up, kick a bad guy and shove him 5 feet into some nasty terrain effect, or into close combat range with the two cats. I liken this to kicking the bad guy into the wood chipper.
I am so getting the druid a wand of feather step so I can ignore difficult terrain. I'm probably taking Deflect Arrows at 6th and Step Up at 7th.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I described the scenario earlier in this thread. I won't go through the trouble of typing it all over again when you can just scroll back.So what is the enemy trying to do if not kill party members?Trees work both ways. If the archer can't shoot them, then they can't shoot the archer.So? The enemy isn't trying to shoot the fighter. That's not his goal.
Fair enough. I don't really care enough to go find it, so I'll bow out of this sub-discussion here. As noted previously, I believe monks can be played effectively (I've seen my 13yo brother play a very effective Expert when he was 12). I just believe that the party would more often than not be better off with virtually any other support class.
There were some feats in the Oriental Adventures handbook that were very monk friendly. Most of them were martial arts feats. One was choke hold, which allowed you to force a DC 10 + 1/2 HD + strength (IIRC) modifier or your pinned foe falls unconscious. Another was Flying Kick (or maybe it was Jump Kick, I forget) but essentially it allowed you to deal double damage on a charging unarmed strike. Another was roundabout kick, which allowed you another unarmed strike at your highest attack bonus whenever you confirmed a critical hit with an unarmed strike.
Those were at least fun and good.
Trees work both ways. If the archer can't shoot them, then they can't shoot the archer. If they come out of cover to attack, the archer can do the same or shoot them, or while he has them pinned down, the party's melee can safely approach to put down the threat. The archer might move about and get to a better position where he can get LoS/E more efficiently (tactical movement), or might look for a fallen tree, stump, or log to get cover without giving cover.
Likewise, running into combat willy nilly can get you hurt bad. Especially if you're dealing with the threat of traps. You see an enemy and you run 300 feet in one round to get to them and happen to trigger random doomsday trap #7, now you're in trouble and your party has to try and catch up.
To grab a phrase from the KotoR guide, "Force Jump" is really cool for Jedi Guardians to leap into the fray. The problem is now the rest of your party is playing catch up while you're all alone. :P
Well, part of the trick with Monk's speed is that he can close the distance on an archer or someone rather fast. The other part is that in combat he can tumble/climb/stealth/crawl/move through difficult terrain/whatever at speeds that normal enemy must achive through magic. It makes him a good reaction force against an enemy who gets a jump on you from a presumably safe place. Rogue spider-climbing with a crossbow? Monk can occupy him before the party buffs up. Enemy at the other side of the moat? He can get there and likely get back as needed (since lvl 5 he doesn't need maneuvering space for jumping). Assuming the enemy is already somewhat prepared and has the mobility spells running already the monk can engage in battle before his party caster(s) need to cast the same on him and thus frees them to do something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would see them best as a 8th or 10th character. Other stuff
Wow, that's harsh.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think the monk is all that great. I've put my nerd-glasses on and have done the math to show that a fighter can out-monk a monk in unarmed combat. I used monks of several different levels compared to fighters of equal levels and ability scores, and then generated a spreadsheet simulating 200 attacks (a 10-AC spread against every possible outcome on a D20). The fighter's AVERAGE damage was always higher. The secret to the fighter's unarmed combat success is the fighter-only feats, Weapon Training, and eventually Weapon Mastery. So I'm under no illusion that the monk makes a good primary melee combatant.
HOWEVER, I still don't believe that the monk is that bad that it should only be played in the unlikely event that you have a 10-player group. The last time I was a player (admitedly it was pre-Pathfinder), our monk's increased movement saved the party's collective hiney on many occasions. Our DM had the annoying habit of having 1 or 2 badguys run for help, usually around a corner, so the monk was the only one that was quick enough to chase them down. Also, a monk can be defensive in ways the fighter can't (immunity to disease and poison, etc.), so they make a decent wall for the spellcasters to hide behind.
Once the primary roles are filled (tank, healer, trapfinder, artillery), the party's survival is not in question (at least not more than normal), there is no reason not to have fun with a support class like a monk or bard (yes, I know bards can heal, I still think of them as support). Not everyone needs to be a specialist. Also, if I'm playing a non-standard race, I actually prefer monks, becuase I don't care if the town marshall wants to disarm me before letting me into the city.
OP: Hopefully you've gotten the point: monks are support melee with high mobility.
That being said, the class is actually quite good, given one condition: you know what you are building. Being able to avoid trap feats, going down the right feat chains, buying the right magic items, knowing the direction you are taking your monk is very important, as while they can do many things, trying to be good at all of them leads to having an "underpowered" character.
Maybe it would be helpful to discuss these in more detail.
As someone with limited monk experience, it seems to me that these aren't that self-evident or intuitive. For instance, one would think maneuver feats would be great for a monk, but they seem like a trap.