|
First off, I want to say that this thread isn't meant to debate the usefulness of the monk; I'm not interested in reading an endless stream of "monks are underpowered," or the like. If you only want to comment on how much monks suck, please move along.
That being said, I will say that I've never played the class. I never really understood what the class was for? What is their role? How exactly do they contribute to a group of adventurers?
Having just picked up the Ultimate Combat book, I've seen a lot of neat things there for monks, and unarmed combat in general, 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.
as a Real Life martial artist, i see the monk as a control character. kenpo jujitsu(a type of martial arts) relies on disabling you opponent. an actual discription from a real martial art technique is (when someone is choking you)to pin the arms (grapple) strike the throat(dirty trick/stunning fist), which could kill the person, strike the eyes(dirty trick/stunning fist) and knee the groin(dirty trick), elbow smash the face (unarmed strike). so if you use that as a basis for what a martial arts type character would be, as you can see it would be a disabling support type character.
if you care only about damage then a monk is not the way to go. but if you are a more group focused type of player, a monk is (in my opinion) the best support class there is.
Fabricate doesn't do anyone a painter - skills do. The spell can speed the proces up to polaroid, but without painting skills the product will be crappy.
Fabricate
School transmutation; Level sorcerer/wizard 5
Casting Time see text
Components V, S, M (the original material, which costs the same amount as the raw materials required to craft the item to be created)
Range close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target up to 10 cu. ft./level; see text
Duration instantaneous
Saving Throw none; Spell Resistance no
You convert material of one sort into a product that is of the same material. Creatures or magic items cannot be created or transmuted by the fabricate spell. The quality of items made by this spell is commensurate with the quality of material used as the basis for the new fabrication. If you work with a mineral, the target is reduced to 1 cubic foot per level instead of 10 cubic feet.
You must make an appropriate Craft check to fabricate articles requiring a high degree of craftsmanship.
Casting requires 1 round per 10 cubic feet of material to be affected by the spell.
|
However, I would rather establish my credentials by stories of my gaming. This spring I played a Pathfinder alchemist. The setting was a small colonial city and after we reached fifth level by eliminating the illegal slave trade, my alchemist decided to become the foremost maker of magic arms and armor in the city. Actually, the only maker. (And the GM did allow an alchemist to use Craft Magic Arms and Armor like any other spellcaster.) Alas, the city had a metal shortage, because no-one dared explore deeper into the continent to find ore. So my alchemist researched the few libraries in the city, took ranks in Craft(mineral assaying), Knowledge(geology), and Profession(prospector) and led the party on an expedition to find ore. We found tin and established a mining town. We also found a lost civilization, but that is another story.
In addition, my wife, who roleplays more than me, solved the Linguist problem. Her character took ranks in Linguistics and declared that she would name the languages learned later, when the character needed to learn a new language.
Ha! Superb story! A man after my own heart! I am corrected, though to be truthful most of my retort was not directed at thee. And blindness is not the same as a dubious premise.
This case, however, and your other experience strengthens my point. Even you must admit that your skill-heavy prospector and schemes for magic item creation would be so much wasted effort in a great many campaigns. Unless the DM designs scenarios with your character's strengths and interests in mind, you will have wasted those points and come out looking quite dim.
I would go so far as to theorize that the primacy of casters under d20 rulesets has remained so strong because they are the characters with the greatest ability to adapt to the widest variety of GM styles. That and the tendency toward "1 encounter per day" which favors going nova over more sound and planned out strategies.
Anti-wizard countermeasures tend to look insufferably crude and contrived, and some players take that sort of thing personally.
"What do you mean the entire castle is an anti-magic zone? You're trying to screw over my character!"
"But the Viscount is extraordinarily paranoid! And an avowed atheist whose son was killed by a witch!"
"You're trying to screw over my character!"
But the same scenario reversed, where only a wizard has agency and all other classes are rendered inert, hardly warrants a blink anymore.
"Only a master of sin magic can reach the keys at the end of each test."
"I suppose that makes sense."
"None of you are wizards."
"But there's that one NPC guy in the last town, right? We will get him."
Whence this bias? I suppose it is an artefact of this sort of fiction and drama, but even still it doesn't help one whit. Fly was mentioned up-thread, and another thread has touched on the relative hatred this spell garners. But consider! In a grand test of a monk PC's skills -- lets say his temple-monastery's vertical corridor of traps and narrow handholds that the monk must ascend to prove their mettle -- an unprincipled or unthinking DM might permit a wizard with fly to simply bypass all the challenges ... and then the counterargument I have often seen leveled is that it is the DM's fault for not considering the wizard's strengths during scenario design!
Naturally, my present group is less prone to this sort of double-standard rhetoric and all the better for it, but I think that since playing "stronger" or "higher tier" classes is roughly equivalent to "winning" for a certain class of player, when one of that class of player plays a wizard and experiences a set-back they are more likely to cry foul than if they experience a setback while playing, say, a monk.
Hence the poor image of the monk.
How can the monk serve this role without being the last man standing? As a GM, I prefer to avoid having almost all the party fallen, because that is no fun for the inert characters. How does a monk help others escape? My monk took Improved Grapple to try this role, but we had been fighting monsters much stronger than him, so the grapples lasted only one turn. Monsters with high CMDs are awfully common.
My wife, when she was GM for the campaign, did ambush the party in the night. Our 7-member 6th-level party had had an uneventful day traveling, so everyone had full spells and hit points, but the fighters sleep without armor. None were on watch in armor when three owlbears attacked. They got mauled as they fought. My monk also awoke and fended an owlbear away from the spellcasters. He fared better, but this was more a case of pulling his weight than of saving the party, since he could barely damage an owlbear.
I second LilithsThrall.
Off the cuff, I feel this preference favors more fragile classes. If the whole party were to play wizards, your preference for not killing them would likely lead to your pulling-punches. If a single survivable monk or Max-HP-and-Invulnerable Barbarian were part of this party, their role would be significantly affected. This is not necessarily a bad thing -- I'll admit, I've always wanted to do an all wizards game -- but it turns one of the strengths of the monk into a waste of character-sheet.
In a class with so few defined strengths, that is unfortunate.
In the case of the night-ambush by owlbears, would you have fared better as a fighter or a wizard? Was your performance negatively affected by being a monk, or positively? I am willing to bet that even at level 6 being a monk gave you more options for dealing with the beasts. Moving 40 to 50 feet a round certainly must have been nice.
Plus, with their AC of 15, you had trouble injuring them? I'll grant their CMD is high, but I'm just going to presume you meant "I could barely damage them before they cut me to ribbons". That I can completely agree with. Low AC vs. low AC fights can do that. Use more ki to raise AC? More dirty tricks?
A monk's role is to take advantage of situational opportunities.
This is one of the best descriptions yet!
Versatility is always at the expense of specialisation, sadly.
|
|
Are you serious?
I don't know any other tabletop RPG in which anyone would say "this character is very versatile : he's a fighter with high speed instead of high damages". D&D is the only one system in which a fighter with two or so weak special abilities is considered versatile.
And your conclusion is: the fact that I say that monks don't have any versatility proves that I've never played with any other system?
Quite serious. But you are taking all of this too seriously. Relax, have some tea. And that's not my conclusion at all.
If your thesis is, indeed, "monks are fighters with two or so weak special abilities" than that is something I have missed in the midst of everything else. What I have seen are a variety of arguments targeted at the weak points of d20 rules in general as opposed to monks in specific. Examples: skills are weak and/or useless, casters always superior, etc.
What you have argued vigorously with these points is that the statement "monks are versatile" is false. I retort that this is a matter of scenario design, and that the most common approaches to scenario design minimize the strengths of monks by artificially supporting the tactics and strengths of casters and the like.
Honestly, if we are to have an orderly discourse here we've reached the end of the road unless someone wants to begin defining terms. You are talking about one sort of "versatility" and I see now that I am talking about another.
Your conclusion is so illogical that I don't really know what I can respond to you. Probably you'll have some other stupid ad personam fallacies to say anyway.
My thoughts on your experience was an observation about the form of your argument, nothing more. And that observation in no way supported my points. Honestly, the fact that you refuse to engage with my points is in much poorer faith than my idle musings if you are going to be grumpy about it.
My conclusion, once more, was that scenario design is king and ultimately dictates what is "balanced" or not. I find the monk to be a touch weak, but ultimately well designed to survive and thrive in a wide variety of circumstances. This contrasts with more specialized classes. And when DMs run games that permit the clever monk player to scout, plan their encounters, take advantage of terrain and even retreat (an option I find rarely available or explored in printed scenarios) than the monk's strengths show.
With painting skills and without the fabricate spell, the result will also be crappy; except if you spend years on your painting, any level 1 or 2 commoner will have enough money to buy it.You need both to create anything worth mentioning : the skill and the spell. You can easily access to the skill while being a caster (everyone has skills), you can't easily access to the spell while being a skill monkey.
Irrelevant we're talking about monks.
No, it never happens; or maybe, once in some campaign.In my experience, HP run out faster than spells. Seriously, look at the average damages per rounds of creatures, compare with the number of spells of a caster. Past level 3, if the wizard doesn't have spells left, the martials don't have HP left.
And anyway, let's say that it happens once.The caster understand his mistake and learn rope trick. The situation you're describing can't happens more than once, we can as well ignore it.
Also irrelevant we're talking about monks not casters.
IAnd your conclusion is: the fact that I say that monks don't have any versatility proves that I've never played with any other system?
All it proves to me is that you're here for the sake of being proven right. On the internet. There's no other reason for this you want people to acknowledge fully that casters are god, non-casters are less than worthless and we're fools for believing otherwise. In the end it gains you nothing.
To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands. He does not need to cast a spell, nor does he need ot put it in a spellbook or commit it to memory or carry around the poo of various fuzzy animals. The monk is.
|
|
To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands. He does not...
Yes! This precisely.
To date your only argument is "a caster can do it better" so let me throw you a bone. With the expenditure of any necessary resources a caster can in fact fo anything the monk can do they can expand on this and evne make magic items. However, the monk does not spend resources, from the day he turns monk til the day he dies he will always have that speed, always have those good saves, always have those immunities, and always have the ability to carve solid stone with his bare hands.
Here let me quote myself quoting someone else.
you don't need to cast all day long to rock the cazbah. you just need to cast when necessary. a combat encounter in 3.5 is usually done by the 4th round IMO so you might really only need to cast 2 spells... maybe. you start preparing spells that do heavier effects then a one-shot xd6 [element] or start comboing two spells together.
you start preparing scrolls for situational spells like "stone to flesh" and keep a wand of "knock" or "unseen servant" around... just in case.
your spell list suddenly becomes extremely versatile, especially if you keep a few slots open for later study when you know better what you're going to be doing that day.
you're flying, turing invisible, changing shape, bypassing all sorts of terrain without a care in the world, etc...
and the fighter is stuck swinging his sword. all. day. long.
the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.
the "caster is limited" is a myth once you realize you don't need to cast spells all day long. you just need to cast them when they matter.
If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.
Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.
But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.
|
|
And again, the scenario design problem is that DMs make it far too easy for casters to cast spells "when they matter" and then escape their present troubles. It's too easy to design one-room fights or one-encounter-a-day stories. This biases everything toward casters. They never need marshal their power for "the right moment" because we only have four hours or so at the gaming table ... the right moment has to come right now and good night.
|
If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.
But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.
Good job with falling into Cirno's "Wizards vs else" discussion trap there, have fun :)
Good job with falling into Cirno's "Wizards vs else" discussion trap there, have fun :)
ARGH! It's sticky! WHY IS IT STICKY!
|
|
Then more to the point. We've concluded thus far that:
1. Monks do not strike as hard as dedicated fighters, but they can generate appreciable attack and damage.
2. Monks have unparalleled mobility in the absence of dramatic magical enhancement.
3. Monk ki tricks are useful but could use a little more oomph (well, I think the thread as a whole has concluded this)
4. Monks have useful skills but will never compete with Ranger, Bard and Rogue.
5. The Monk's role is to be as water, flowing to fill the vessel they are placed within, adapting and exploiting the weaknesses and flaws of their enemies/scenarios.
Would it be presumptuous to boil my previous arguments down to a point six?
6. The more terrain, complication, and circumstance complicate an engagement, the more opportunities exist in that engagement for the monk to shine.
So, a 6 by 6 room with two doors and no features pretty much always favors other classes, but change that to a cliffside, the inner workings of a great engine, etc. and the monk's utility improves considerably.
It's made of honey! Soon you'll be COVERED IN BEES!
Except you do need to cast them.
To pick one example off the top of my head, assuming the enemy has triggered an ambush - a cave in - coming down on you. The monk can run out of the way in one round. The wizard will require two (a round to cast his spell - assuming he can cast his spell with the rocks coming down on his head - and a round to run).
Isn't there a force field barrier spell for this purpose?
Yes, there is.Second: Quicken Expendious Retreat (same speed as a monk). In 3.5, there was a 1st level Swift spell that gave it for 1 rdm but quicken works too.
Or Burrow (just dig through)
Or Fly + move (60 feet is equal to monk)
Or Gaseous Form and walk.
Or Teleport/Dimension door
No wizard requires 2 rds.
|
|
I didn't engage because I though someone else would explain why you're plain wrong.
...
I did respond, but it's irrelevant since "we're talking about monks not casters".
...
I have to concede: if we ignore every class because they are irrelevant when talking about the monk, then the monk is the only one who can do something.
...
Why do you talk about feather fall? The only classes with innate feather fall is the witch. Arguably the sorcerer and the bard. Since it's irrelevant because "we're talking about monks not casters", nobody has innate feather fall. And I don't know what you're talking about.
...
Petulant, aren't we?
Look, by the terms of the debate you are having, the monk is already dead. You've beaten him to death. Congratulations.
I am quite the fan of the bard, but the bard does not do everything the monk does just as the monk does not do everything the bard does. I am actually a fan of just about every class in Pathfinder.
So let me put it to you this way, GâtFromKI: what do you want from the monk? You seem married to a particular brand of Pathfinder, so within the Pathfinder you play and you like what role would you want the monk to play and what would it take to get there?
The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.
They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.
They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.
I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.
Except you do need to cast them.
To pick one example off the top of my head, assuming the enemy has triggered an ambush - a cave in - coming down on you. The monk can run out of the way in one round. The wizard will require two (a round to cast his spell - assuming he can cast his spell with the rocks coming down on his head - and a round to run).
This is already being covered for how laughable it is. Wether it's a movement spell, a teleportation spell, or a spell that outright deflects the rocks, wizards have plenty of options.
If you don't have the spell to begin with, either because you don't know, don't have it in your spellbook,than the point is moot.
Casters are the lords of preptime which in and of itself is a superpower.
But we're digressing here. Point being is a monk does not rely on flammable spellbooks or a small list from a very vast list of very specific options to function and a round without molestation to make them function. The monk is.
This is a) laughably untrue, and even if it was, b) the whole point.
You need to go out of your way and set up situations specifically targeting the wizard. You don't need to do that to the monk.
And again, the scenario design problem is that DMs make it far too easy for casters to cast spells "when they matter" and then escape their present troubles. It's too easy to design one-room fights or one-encounter-a-day stories. This biases everything toward casters. They never need marshal their power for "the right moment" because we only have four hours or so at the gaming table ... the right moment has to come right now and good night.
Did you even read my post? Wizards have way more staying power then just one fight. One fight can be as little as two spells - and unless you're level 1, wizards have more then that.
Here's the problem - wizards are always in "the right moment" because there is a spell for every moment - and the best spells are the ones versatile enough to BE the spell for every moment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.The monk's role seems to be the guy who keeps on keeping on when things go pear shaped.
They have a host of abilities to protect them from odd things, good saves, decent skill list and the need to pump almost all of there stats.
The best laid plans seldom survive first contact with the enemy.
Except with GMs who habitually take things easy on the party.
You're right - that's why it's best to have a class to help you survive first contact rather then desperately try to pick up the pieces when you fail.
I mean under this logic, you could make a class that does only two things - it's permanently invisible and undetectable, and can raise the dead and heal. It can't attack or do anything else, just those two. That class would really save your bacon if you ever get hit with a TPK! Somehow, I don't think it's a very good class.
I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.
No class can do that. So if you are a person who always wants the safe choice, taking the class with a host of abilities that ensure that you can keep going is probably best for you.
|
|
the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".
|
the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".
Yup.
How do you beat a power wizard?
Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.
the only way to shut up someone who tells you that a wizard is the best class in the game, is to force them to release their spell list. a printed spell list takes the "i have the ability to see into the future" bs out of their argument. if you talk purely in terms of arbitrary stats or preconceived situational circumstance then a caster will win every time. but in actual practice it dosent work out very well. i laugh at wizards who look at their character sheets and go " i dont have that prepared".Yup.
How do you beat a power wizard?
Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.
So you beat wizards by specifically shaping the game directly around them?
You're making my arguments for me!
No class can do that. So if you are a person who always wants the safe choice, taking the class with a host of abilities that ensure that you can keep going is probably best for you.I think most people would rather a class that ensures things don't go pear shaped.
I mean under this logic, you could make a class that does only two things - it's permanently invisible and undetectable, and can raise the dead and heal. It can't attack or do anything else, just those two. That class would really save your bacon if you ever get hit with a TPK! Somehow, I don't think it's a very good class.
So you're saying that this is the best class ever?
the party of 6 10th level adventurers is ambushed with a cave-in
Surprise Round: The monk (having a super high Perception check), makes his surprise roll and detects the ambushers just before they trigger the cave-in. He starts running.Round 1: The ground starts violently rocking
*the Bard (who didn't put his high attribute in Wisdom and, so, fails his Perception check) and everyone else (except those who made their Perception check) act. Everyone else moves to touch the caster. If the Bard were to attempt to cast his spell now, he'd have a 20% chance of failing his concentration check. But, he's not attempting to cast his spell now. He's waiting til the next round when everyone is touching him.
*The Monk is now 120ft away
Why isn't anyone near the Bard?
Why is the Monk ditching the party?
With the touch AC, high saves, speed, mobility, stunning and combat maneuvers monks make amazing mage killers.
If you want to look at this profile its a monk I'm playing in a game right now who's damn near impossible to hit, and a grapple monster.
|
|
This is already being covered for how laughable it is. Wether it's a movement spell, a teleportation spell, or a spell that outright deflects the rocks, wizards have plenty of options.
...
This is a) laughably untrue, and even if it was, b) the whole point.You need to go out of your way and set up situations specifically targeting the wizard. You don't need to do that to the monk.
...
Did you even read my post? Wizards have way more staying power then just one fight. One fight can be as little as two spells - and unless you're level 1, wizards have more then that.
Here's the problem - wizards are always in "the right moment" because there is a spell for every moment - and the best spells are the ones versatile enough to BE the spell for every moment.
I did read your post. If I was unclear, I do not accept this argument as wholly valid.
Which gets back to the peculiar bias I mentioned before. When I introduce circumstances that are sub-optimal to casters, somehow I am picking on them. When I introduce circumstances sub-optimal to everyone else, it is proper and normal. Why is that?
And you are again basing your argument on perfect spell access and higher level wizardry. Wizards have the potential to cast any spell, and there exist spells for just about every circumstance in print. But I am perpetually asked to accept that all hypothetical wizards will have to ability to add any spell they wish to their spellbooks, and to accept that hypothetical bards or sorcerers have acquired exactly those spells perfect to each moment. I don't question that a strong toolbox may be assembled, but why is the argument always parsed in absolute terms? And why is it when I run games where wizards jealously guard their powerful spells instead of xeroxing off copies for anyone who forks over some gold I am accused of not playing in the spirit of the game or "intentionally going after the caster classes".
No, I am afraid I don't accept that the wizard will always have all of the spells to survive and dominate the encounters thrown at them. In the dominant notion of "one-encounter a day, stop as soon as the wizard feels uncomfortable, the bad guys never press their advantages," this is undoubtedly so. But I believe that is an artefact of bad scenario design. I don't know what spells a wizard will take at level 5 that will allow them to take on every encounter in a day (at least when I run things) and I am skeptical that each and every wizard will always have just the spell combination to help them get through a whole day of encounters.
Now, perhaps with the support of monks, fighters and the other characters of that ilk ... if you add that premise in your argument becomes much more palatable to me. But I do not accept that in all circumstances the wizard or bard is superior to the monk.
Make them give a copy of their prepared spells to the DM before the game.
So you beat wizards by specifically shaping the game directly around them?
You're making my arguments for me!
Oh come now. He means forcing the wizard to actually stick to a single spell list during game instead of the dubious practice of "memorizing" the right spell while game is going on. I can't believe you didn't understand that.
And perhaps that is where this thread is coming apart. I am content to say that the monk is a bit weak, but also that I have a clear idea of its role. I happen to like the monk's role.
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".
|
|
It never fails to amaze me how Cirno finds the time to discuss games he even isn't playing.
In the interests of good form, it is entirely possible that he has merely failed to update that page recently.
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.