Monks: What is their "role?"


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Their role is to be annoyingly named when someone wants to talk about the cloistered religious type that doesn't know kung-fu.


Tharg The Pirate King wrote:

I was told by a GM that a monk cant deal the dmg that fighter can do. So I decided to be an arse and created a 3.5 monk that realied on FEET only. I used feats that increased jump/dmg with legs/kicks and charge and created a monk who at level 6 was doing minimim 50dmg per hit with no magical items. The fighter in group could barely deal 30dmg a hit and he was lucky to get that.

Then it is the Fighter's player not your monk that was the issue.

A Fighter can easily deal 30/hit at lv 6.
Look, Power Attack (go for 5 so you hit still since you are charging), Leap Attack, 2 handed, 18 Str = 2d6 +6 + 20 = 7 +26=35/hit.
Yes, it only works on a Charge for that amount.
But one dip in Barbarian for pounce and so you full attack.
Meaning you can move and full attack, heck add some magic items (like a +1 weapon for +1 hit/dam or Str item) to boost it more.

I'm wondering the build of that Fighter.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I could make one (and only one) change to the Monk class - to increase its utility and its flavor, and make it more unique, it would be this.

The Monk's fast movement bonus (and any movement bonus gained from spending ki) is added to their 5' step distance for the purpose of making a full attack or flurry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Rice wrote:
Ashiel wrote:


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, because I don't care if the town marshall wants to disarm me before letting me into the city.

I'm actually mostly in agreement here. I was just being honest when I said I would rather have almost any other class as an additional wheel on the vehicle. You mentioned the bard. The bard is an EXCELLENT 5th wheel. He has a good mixture of spells, including buffing, healing, and battlefield alteration, and some save or suck spells (like charm person, irresistible dance, etc), makes a fairly solid backup combatant and an excellent archer, can cover virtually every knowledge skill, comes ready for stealth and skillmonkery and has spells to back it up, and of course there's inspire courage (which makes the whole party better). So compared to the bard, why would I want a monk who is self-centric and offers less in almost every major field?

Replace Bard with Ranger? Same deal. Excellent melee combatant, out of combat utility, skill monkey, and even gets a little minion who runs faster than most people who can run interference.

How about druid? Party buffs, decent combatant, decent blaster, spams summons, can heal, can battlefield control, and can even be stealthy and/or handle a variety of party skill needs.

Paladin? Solid combatant, solid AC, better saving throws, more immunities, has buffs that benefit the whole party, can self-heal in ways that make the monk poo his panties in envy, can heal others, and has a variety of useful spells, including some like restoration at lower levels than usual. He also gets a mounted minion that makes him awesome, and can full-attack while moving on said mount. Hotcakes!

Fighter? Now we have a second guy who can run around at full speed in heavy armor and kill people. He can block attacks and swap from melee to ranged at ease. More DPS basically means less incoming threats as Fighters can effectively focus-fire enemies down in short order. Also gives more targets for our Wizard to use Haste on.

Barbarian? Like Fighter except more mobile and with some spiffy tricks.

Cleric? Second Tier martial class, good armor, good Hp, full spellcasting, the ability to heal or produce undead meatshields left and right, summon angels, summons monsters, has great saves, and excellent full party buffs like Bless, Prayor, and amazing single-target buffs like the almighty Deathward and Mind Blank. Also has fairly solid battlefield control spells, and Silence.

Sorcerer? More dakka. If the rest of the party is already covered, the sorcerer can focus on whatever the sorcerer likes with his spells known, and spam battlefield control and/or AoE effects liberally. Nasty when paired with another primary caster, as dropping multiple AoE control spells in the same round can put stuff into some serious lockdown.

Wizard? See sorcerer but with more out of combat utility. If your core-caster is also a wizard, they can share spells to diversify both of them, and can pick opposed schools.

Oracle? See sorcerer + cleric.

Inquisitor? Kind of their own deal, but I'd still take 'em.

Alchemist? This is our AoE DPS right here, and he's a good skill monkey, can party buff, and is a surprisingly decent melee combatant as well when you use mutagens plus potions. Multiclass barbarian and you got speed, brawn, and brains. Yes please.

Summoner? See druid + bard - heals.

Witch? See wizard, but add in excellent debuffs like Misfortune and Evil Eye to make enemies eat save or die spells like they were part of their balanced breakfast.

Cavalier? Haven't played with 'em much but hey, they're first tier martial, a pet, and some spiffy class features.

So after all of that was covered, I'd totally take a monk. Just I feel like every other class would be more useful in more situations because they are innately more well-rounded than the monk, more useful to the team in terms of buffing and bringing stuff to the table than the monk, and most of them are also excellent combatants when they need to be, which most monks have to really work hard to be (Str for Dmg, Dex + Wis for AC, Con for HP, at cost of skills and such) which makes them less useful at other things, while relying on others for their much needed buffs.

Zen Archer is an exception. I'd totally grab one of those for extra DPS.


Starfinder Charter Superscriber
AdAstraGames wrote:

If I could make one (and only one) change to the Monk class - to increase its utility and its flavor, and make it more unique, it would be this.

The Monk's fast movement bonus (and any movement bonus gained from spending ki) is added to their 5' step distance for the purpose of making a full attack or flurry.

I honestly think that would make monks pretty awesome.

I think monks 'role' would be 'secondary combat with skills'. They're not fantastic, but Pathfinder has done a lot to make them better, especially as time goes on and we get more releases with monk bonuses.

So far, though, monks in our campaigns seem to fill the same roll as that one guy in horror films- you know, the guy who always is the 1st to die so you know things just got serious. :P That's mostly due to either bad choices or bad luck. (One monk got swallowed whole by 3 different monsters- once twice in the same battle) That was also in 3.5, though. I assume a Pathfinder monk would fair better.


Ashiel wrote:
Zen Archer is an exception. I'd totally grab one of those for extra DPS.

Zen Archer's are very cool. I'm playing an Empyreal Sorcerer/Zen Archer build right now. I can armor myself with mage armor all day, and still have a few 1st level spells available to pump gravity bow out myself during the adventuring day. By 3rd monk level, I can get into melee and provide a distraction by providing flanking on enemies and flurrying arrows as needed.


mdt wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Zen Archer is an exception. I'd totally grab one of those for extra DPS.
Zen Archer's are very cool. I'm playing an Empyreal Sorcerer/Zen Archer build right now. I can armor myself with mage armor all day, and still have a few 1st level spells available to pump gravity bow out myself during the adventuring day. By 3rd monk level, I can get into melee and provide a distraction by providing flanking on enemies and flurrying arrows as needed.

Very nice. I think what's really cool about the Zen Archer is you're basically using the two-weapon fighting line with a longbow. You can easily hit 8 attacks per round that way just with haste alone, and it works great because you can totally afford to use flurry of blows constantly, rather than trying to run down a foe and hope they let you use flurry. :P

Also, good idea on the sorcerer. A little self-buffing can go a good long way with the monk, and it sounds like it helps a lot. Plus, the sorcerer dip means you can use wands and such if you need to fall back to pretending to be a dedicated caster. ^.^

On a side note, back in 3.5 my tabletop group "fixed" the monk. We basically took Psychic Warrior powers whole cart and dumped them onto the monk (as in we took psywarrior power points, power progression, power list, and slapped the whole thing on the 3.5 monk with no change in his abilities). Went from sucky to actually a good class. It's amazing what a little self-buffing and mystical energy can do to a guy. :P

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
On a side note, back in 3.5 my tabletop group "fixed" the monk. We basically took Psychic Warrior powers whole cart and dumped them onto the monk (as in we took psywarrior power points, power progression, power list, and slapped the whole thing on the 3.5 monk with no change in his abilities). Went from sucky to actually a good class. It's amazing what a little self-buffing and mystical energy can do to a guy. :P

Making the Monk psionic is a pretty common fix from what I've seen. I wanted to try stapling the Healer class spellcasting to the 3.5 monk and make a combat medic, but never got around to it.


One word Mutt


Ashiel wrote:
On a side note, back in 3.5 my tabletop group "fixed" the monk. We basically took Psychic Warrior powers whole cart and dumped them onto the monk (as in we took psywarrior power points, power progression, power list, and slapped the whole thing on the 3.5 monk with no change in his abilities). Went from sucky to actually a good class. It's amazing what a little self-buffing and mystical energy can do to a guy. :P

Back in 3.5, this made sense. The Psychic Warrior was the only thing of any value that came out of the psionic rules and it made a much better monk than the monk did.

I think a lot of people don't realize just how much has changed between the 3.5 monk and the PF monk, though. They keep thinking the monk sucks when what they actually mean is the 3.5 monk sucks.


Ashiel wrote:


Very nice. I think what's really cool about the Zen Archer is you're basically using the two-weapon fighting line with a longbow. You can easily hit 8 attacks per round that way just with haste alone, and it works great because you can totally afford to use flurry of blows constantly, rather than trying to run down a foe and hope they let you use flurry. :P

Plus, at level 3 you stop provoking from making ranged attacks. Add onto that the fact that as a monk you still threaten even while making ranged attacks, and you have good saves and AC, and you end up with a character that is a great ranged person that isn't hosed if some other melee guy can close with him. And, with the speed boosts, he can get away and still fire his bow, if need be.

Ashiel wrote:


Also, good idea on the sorcerer. A little self-buffing can go a good long way with the monk, and it sounds like it helps a lot. Plus, the sorcerer dip means you can use wands and such if you need to fall back to pretending to be a dedicated caster. ^.^

Yep. I tried doing it with the APG, but it just made the Monk more MAD. Ultimate Magic solved the issue with the Empyreal Sorcerer, allowing him to use Wisdom for casting stat instead. That actually makes a ZA Monk a regular SAD class (Wisdom, with dex being a secondary stat). And the ability to cast from wands and scrolls is a nice addition.

I'm considering taking a few levels of Arcane Archer when I hit 10th level (I'll hit +6 BAB at 9th level, 2 levels sorcerer, 7 levels Monk) in order to pump up my caster level. I only need about 4 or 5 levels and then go back to Monk to pick up more flurry ability. Still undecided on that, I'll lose flurry rating, but pick up BAB, hit dice, some nice archery abilities, and spell casting levels.


I think monks have come along very well since they were released in core. I think these days it's somewhat foolish to discount them entirely. Heck even a group that desires a Bard above all else will likely end up being quite happy with the Sensei in their group talking like Mr. Miyagi.

The style feats in particular strike me as excellent additions that cna add a lot fo versatility and flavor to monks.


What are the roles?

To me the roles are melee, ranged, control, and buff/debuff. I can see a monk fitting any of these roles depending on how you build the monk and what archetype you pick.

If you define the roles differently like 4E does that changes things. I don't think 4E roles work in Pathfinder though. The classes in 4E are what make those roles work. They are designed around being that role. Where as Pathfinder you have roles and you build you character to fill that role. You class doesn't define that.


With the right builds, a monk can be a tank, a damage dealer or a supporter. There's no single role it has to fill.


Vendis wrote:
Being able to avoid trap feats, going down the right feat chains

Quoting this again for clarification.


Hudax wrote:
Vendis wrote:
Being able to avoid trap feats, going down the right feat chains
Quoting this again for clarification.

"trap" is an optimization term used to refer to abilities, sklls, or feats that seem appealing at first but in practice are little more than deadweight. For example the Mystic Theurge is regarded by many to be a "trap" because while it at first appears quite potent the difficulty of getting into it and the long time for any of its abilites to pay off means that players are generally better off focusing on one clas than trying to get into it.


Just like Vanilla Ice said so well,

the monks role is thus "If there is a problem...yo I will solve check out these beats as my DJ revolves it"

I personally tend not to focus on "roles" I tend to play my character
and do what I can to help the party. plain and simple.

If there is a dragon... I punch it, if a kobold I grapples it. a princess I save it. a flying monster dinosaur? I hit it in the face with nunchucks.

just have fun dont get so caught up in "roles" not every wizard has to cast fireball
and not every fighter has to get hit with a troll axe.


TarkXT wrote:
Hudax wrote:
Vendis wrote:
Being able to avoid trap feats, going down the right feat chains
Quoting this again for clarification.
"trap" is an optimization term used to refer to abilities, sklls, or feats that seem appealing at first but in practice are little more than deadweight. For example the Mystic Theurge is regarded by many to be a "trap" because while it at first appears quite potent the difficulty of getting into it and the long time for any of its abilites to pay off means that players are generally better off focusing on one clas than trying to get into it.

I know what a trap is. I want to know what feats are monk traps.

Defining viable roles first requires defining what is inviable. (Edit: from an optimization standpoint.)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

Monk damage depends on maximizing strength, monk's belt, enlarge person to get large monk damage, power attack, buffs to increase to hit, haste for extra attacks, and the extra attack you get by using ki (I was a hungry ghost monk so I had the ability to use ki virtually every round).

At the end of the second darkness AP I was playing, I was a level 16 Monk with an attack line of +30/30/30/30/25/25/20/20/15 with damage of 4-32+28 (+12 from str, +10 power attack, +5 enhancement, +1 trait) holy with haste/heroism/ki/enlarge person buffs active.

I was actually more interested in how you built your monk, not what buffs you got.

Vendis wrote:
looking for clarification on trap options

Well, first off, not using a temple sword (in two hands, for Power Attack) unless you have a clear plan on what you want to do with unarmed combat is suboptimal.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Monks punch things in the ding-ding.


cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.

Is this optimal?


Hudax wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Is this optimal?

Not if you are on the receiving end :P


A Man In Black wrote:
Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:

Monk damage depends on maximizing strength, monk's belt, enlarge person to get large monk damage, power attack, buffs to increase to hit, haste for extra attacks, and the extra attack you get by using ki (I was a hungry ghost monk so I had the ability to use ki virtually every round).

At the end of the second darkness AP I was playing, I was a level 16 Monk with an attack line of +30/30/30/30/25/25/20/20/15 with damage of 4-32+28 (+12 from str, +10 power attack, +5 enhancement, +1 trait) holy with haste/heroism/ki/enlarge person buffs active.

I was actually more interested in how you built your monk, not what buffs you got.

The basis of the build is the same as any other melee - max STR. Contrary to belief, monk does not need DEX or high WIS, though higher than average values in those stats are good.

Armor class takes care of itself through usage of mage armor (I used a wand with umd at low levels), some method of getting barkskin (which qigong monk can get at 4th level; I had my alchemist cohort use a 2nd level spell to reuse a 20th level barkskin potion over and over), and other buffs (I had an alchemist cohort, so I could get shield). The new ultimate combat line of crane feats makes this even more true.

The value that monks get is a crap ton of feats - they basically get improved unarmed strike, two weapon fighting, double slice, improved two weapon fighting, and greater two weapon fighting free. On top of that, they get feats at 1st, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 14th and 18th. They don't get the weapon focus/specialization feats of a fighter, but if you add in the free feats, they actually have the same amount of feats as a fighter.

Contrary to what people may think about two weapon fighting, it can do the most damage at high levels (especially against foes with lower AC), because while a two handed weapon fighter could crank out 60 damage per hit, he is capped at 5 attacks per round. The monk I built had 9 attacks - 11 when medusa's wrath kicked in. There were a number of times I did more than 300 damage in one round.

And the value of high base damage means you get the most out of being big. The reason I listed enlarge or other growth spell buff is that monk's get a lot out of their base damage going up a step or two. The high base damage also makes vital strike useful.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anburaid wrote:
Hudax wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Is this optimal?
Not if you are on the receiving end :P

HOW DO YOU LIKE MY CROTCH TO FIST STYLE!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anburaid wrote:
Hudax wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Is this optimal?
Not if you are on the receiving end :P

Enjoy your broken hand.


Irori wrote:
Anburaid wrote:
Hudax wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Is this optimal?
Not if you are on the receiving end :P
Enjoy your broken hand.

Oh cmon! Not all of us can will our balls to harden into adamantine!

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
TarkXT wrote:
Anburaid wrote:
Hudax wrote:
cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Is this optimal?
Not if you are on the receiving end :P
HOW DO YOU LIKE MY CROTCH TO FIST STYLE!

Please excuse Wimp-Lo. He has been trained wrong on purpose, as a joke.


Arrrrrrr

Don't suppose yar ever Stunning Fisted yourself by-accident? Trust me, t'ain't pretty ....

yarrrrrrrrrr


cfalcon wrote:
Monks punch things in the ding-ding.
Hudax wrote:
Is this optimal?
Anburaid wrote:
Not if you are on the receiving end :P
TarkXT wrote:
HOW DO YOU LIKE MY CROTCH TO FIST STYLE!
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Please excuse Wimp-Lo. He has been trained wrong on purpose, as a joke.

Actually, the frightening thing is, there's actually an order of monks, extant today, that have that as a fighting maneuver. Seriously. Also, they're quite successful. In arena fights. I wish I were joking.

...
...
...
... Man, when you've worked at a bookstore you read some of the most disturbing things... (note, not read the whole book, but I'd sold enough copies to read the back cover and a bit of the forward)

(I wish I had more information to give, but I don't recall either a) the book - a verified biography - or b) the order. I'll try to find more information at some point)

EDIT: wikipedia is my friend.
Polly, Matthew (2007). American Shaolin: Flying Kicks, Buddhist Monks, and the Legend of Iron Crotch : an Odyssey in the New China. Gotham. ISBN 9-781-59240262-5.

Here's a link to the Amazon.com page to order it.

Book Description:
Growing up a ninety-pound weakling tormented by bullies in the schoolyards of Kansas, young Matthew Polly dreamed of one day journeying to the Shaolin Temple in China to become the toughest fighter in the world, like Caine in his favorite 1970s TV series, Kung Fu. While in college, Matthew decided the time had come to pursue this quixotic dream before it was too late. Much to the dismay of his parents, he dropped out of Princeton to spend two years training with the legendary sect of monks who invented kung fu and Zen Buddhism.

Expecting to find an isolated citadel populated by supernatural ascetics that he’d seen in countless badly dubbed chop-socky flicks, Matthew instead discovered a tacky tourist trap run by Communist party hacks. But the dedicated monks still trained in the rigorous age-old fighting forms—some even practicing the “iron kung fu” discipline, in which intensive training can make various body parts virtually indestructible (even the crotch). As Matthew grew in his knowledge of China and kung fu skill, he would come to represent the Temple in challenge matches and international competitions, and ultimately the monks would accept their new American initiate as close to one of their own as any Westerner had ever become.

Laced with humor and illuminated by cultural insight, American Shaolin is an unforgettable coming-of-age tale of one young man’s journey into the ancient art of kung fu—and a funny and poignant portrait of a rapidly changing China.

Apparently this is real. So, yeah.
EDIT: although it is worth noting that I'm not sure this has been independently reviewed (as in confirmed from an outside source).

Irori wrote:
Enjoy your broken hand.
TarkXT wrote:
Oh cmon! Not all of us can will our balls to harden into adamantine!

No, but apparently we can turn them into iron! I know you can do it, if you just believe in yourself!

(Note, it actually only says "crotch" not any particular part of the anatomy, so I can't say for sure, but still).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Tacticslion should post more often on this board.

Agreed.

Grand Lodge

Bomanz wrote:
I got caught taking advantage of my "tools" last night. My wife cried :(

You didn't try "just warming up to see if everything works before starting on an approved job"?


A Man In Black wrote:
And with APG and UC options, I'd probably take a monk before a fighter.

a) May I ask why? I'm not being sarcastic.

b) Monk before a fighter, does that mean you think fighter is a good class? Again, I'm not being sarcastic.

A Man In Black wrote:


Temple Swords and the something-or-another of the Mountain archetype do a lot to bring monks up to par for raw damage and physical defense, if you just want to stab people. Hungry Ghost or Weapon Adept contribute a surprising amount of damage. This pretty much just fights like a fighter, wailing on people with a sword. [...]There's also an Enforcer > Shatter Defenses > Medusa's Wrath unarmed build [...]I'm pretty sure Zen Archers can also keep up, although that's just from eyeballing things.

Temple sword isn't a Light Melee Weapon so the monk can't use it in both hands when flurry, I'm I right?

As for good Archetypes it would be interesting to focus on the core Monk. Paizo just seems to have given up on some of the core classes link monk and fighter and solves the issue with dissatisfied fans by creating Archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sayer_of_Nay wrote:
[...] but I'm still having trouble grasping just *what* it is the monk is supposed to be doing in the grand scheme of things. In a way, this feeling extends to the other hybrid classes, but for me the monk is the most elusive.

+1

To sum it up: It doesn't really have a purpose.

It's the class that suffers mostly from MAD.
It doesn't have any social skills, (low on charisma).
It doesn't have as many skills or class skills as a rogue, ranger or bard.
It's not a great scout since it can't boost dex the same way a rogue, bard or a ranger can. Even a druid might be a better scout.
It can't find or disarm traps as well as a rogue
It can't hurt anything well except critters.
It doesn't have sneak attack damage as the rogue so it can't rely on weapon damage
It doesn't have buffs, spells and skills as the bard.
It doesn't have spells as a bard, druid or a cleric.
It has a problem dealing damage and a problem hitting foes.
It has a really great problem dealing with DR and the solution is expensive (an amulet of Mighty Fists +3 costs 45,000 gp and the amulet takes up a slot. A +3 weapon costs 18,000 gp and no slot.)
It's far from the best Support class.
It's speed is highly overrated

As for Combat Maneuvers. from Treantmonk's Guide to Monks:

Improved Grapple: If you are going to use Combat Maneuvers - this is the one you want. Grapple is one of the only CM where you can take the "Greater" version without Combat Expertise (which you don't want, and wouldn't qualify for even if you did), so this is a primary option.

So he can grapple, but he is no disarm or trip master. And at higher levels most if not all Combat Maneuvers are pretty useless in boss fights. Sure you can grapple a spell caster but they can always use dimension door or still spell or buff them self with freedom of movement (or whatever).

As for the monk's weakness, BigNorseWolf sums it up pretty good in another thread:
The hate for the monk comes from the fact that its two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other. The class is all about mobility, but you... have to stand still to do any damage. "

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Zark, I'm not being sarcastic (me, sarcastic? perish the thought), but have you read UC (and APG for that matter)?


Gorbacz wrote:
Zark, I'm not being sarcastic (me, sarcastic? perish the thought), but have you read UC (and APG for that matter)?

It would be nice to talk about the core monk.

The archetypes are better than the core version? That says it all.

But please go ahead and tell my what the UC and APG changed. no snark intended.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Zark wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Zark, I'm not being sarcastic (me, sarcastic? perish the thought), but have you read UC (and APG for that matter)?

It would be nice to talk about the core monk.

The archetypes are better than the core version? That says it all.

But please go ahead and tell my what the UC and APG changed. no snark intended.

You didn't answer my question.


Read AP. Reading UC.


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Zark wrote:


Temple sword isn't a Light Melee Weapon so the monk can't use it in both hands when flurry, I'm I right?

Well, even though its not a light melee weapon, its got the monk feature, meaning it can be used with flurry. So you are still making the same amount of attacks with it. Not sure why you would need two, though that seems to be what shang gou are about (which is what I thought the temple sword was originally).

Edited for sensicality


2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
Zark wrote:
Temple sword isn't a Light Melee Weapon so the monk can't use it in both hands when flurry, I'm I right?

He didn't say one in each hand, he said use the temple sword "in two hands". That is, use the rule that allows a non-light one-handed weapon to be used with two hands. There is nothing in the flurry rules that prevents you from wielding a single weapon in both hands.

Now, the objection here is that in a flurry, you only get to add the standard strength bonus, not one-and-a-half, even if you use two hands. And that's true. But he qualified this by saying "for Power Attack". As the rules are written, your Power Attack damage bonus does go up 50% if you're using both hands on the temple sword, even in a flurry. So, if you make a flurry with a single temple sword held in both hands, you get the one-for-three exchange rate on to hit for damage with Power Attack on all your flurry attacks.


A monk/psychic warrior, using the DSP psionics for Pathfinder, is pretty darned awesome.

Otherwise, the Pathfinder monk could have done with full BAB, but that aside is very playable and very useful as is.


@ see and @ Anburaid. I'm not sure either of you are right so I've hit the FAQ button. Even if you are right I'm, just like Sayer_of_Nay, still having trouble grasping just *what* it is the monk is supposed to be doing in the grand scheme of things.

Regardless BigNorseWolf is still correct. The monk's "two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other".

When moving more than 5 feet he can't flurry or use his monk level in place of his base attack bonus, except when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. And his Combat Maneuver Bonus will probably be worse than a full BAB class. A barbarian with or without Strength Surge will be better. True, a monk can do a lot of cool stuff a barbarian can't, but the barbarian can do a lot of cool stuff a monk can't do. Like killing monsters; charge and full attack; etc.

And with Agile Maneuvers a rogue, or at least a dex ranger, would match the Monk's CMB and both are great scouts. Even a dex bard could come close.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Zark wrote:
But please go ahead and tell my what the UC and APG changed. no snark intended.

APG added a worthwhile monk weapon (temple sword) and a bunch of just-plain-better archetypes (Hungry Ghost, something-or-another of the Mountain, Zen Archer, I guess Weapon Adept but it's not anything too special). UC adds a ton of short, outrageously great basically-monk-only fighting styles.

A non-core monk murders dudes and also does other stuff, while a fighter does not. I would not take a core monk over anything else, though.


PRD wrote:


A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.

Is there something in an archtype that ignores this?


A Man In Black wrote:
stuff

Thanks for the info :-)

The part: " I would not take a core monk over anything else, though." still adress a problem. Paizo won't fix the core version of some of the more problematic classes.


Jon Otaguro 428 wrote:
I had my alchemist cohort use a 2nd level spell to reuse a 20th level barkskin potion over and over), and other buffs (I had an alchemist cohort, so I could get shield).

By RAW this can't be done.

If I'm wrong, tell me how it was done. I may have missed some new Feat or archetype.


Kryzbyn wrote:
PRD wrote:


A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
Is there something in an archtype that ignores this?

No. That applies absolutely fully. Just remember the damage bonus from Power Attack is not a Strength bonus, and the rule there is about Strength bonuses.


see wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
PRD wrote:


A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands.
Is there something in an archtype that ignores this?
No. That applies absolutely fully. Just remember the damage bonus from Power Attack is not a Strength bonus, and the rule there is about Strength bonuses.

Ahh I missed that, thanks.


Zark wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
stuff

Thanks for the info :-)

The part: " I would not take a core monk over anything else, though." still adress a problem. Paizo won't fix the core version of some of the more problematic classes.

And they won't. That's something I think we're all going to have to just get over. The developer's have moved on. They're giving powerful archetypes to the classes that really need it and decnt/ok/equivalent archetypes to the rest.

We won't see any major changes like what would be required unless they make a Pathfinder 2.0


Strategic selective combatant.

Monks' mobility allows them to quickly reach weak enemies, or to get advantageous positioning.
Monks' offense allows them to deliver okay damage and deliver status effects via special attack options.
Monks' defenses allow them to resist status effects or unusual attack forms (such as touch attacks).

This all tells me that a Monk's build is designed primarily for taking out everyone except brutes and other melee focused foes, in a fast blitzkrieg style offense. In essence, they are shocktroopers.

Their secondary role is as a source of tactical advantage for melee types... like a "warrior's assistant" who can quickly and reliably set up a flank, or divide enemy forces.


Malignor wrote:

[...]

This all tells me that a Monk's build is designed primarily for taking out everyone except brutes and other melee focused foes [...]

This will be their undoing, muahahaha

TarkXT wrote:

And they won't. That's something I think we're all going to have to just get over.

I won't and this will be their undoing muahahaha

101 to 150 of 533 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monks: What is their "role?" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.