Then why are you all comparing the monk class to the fighter and no other?
1) Fighter is considered a solid baseline class, neither dangerously above-curve nor in need of help. (Well, there are people that would say each of those things, but in geneal.)
2) Fighter is the class that is probably most mechanically similar to the monk.3) Fighter is a class that can choose to pursue many of the same ends as a monk.
4) Fighter is a broad class - you can make a fighter such that the list of unique pros and cons compared to a monk is a shorter list than if you were to use some other class.
5) Fighter is the easiest full-BAB melee class to math; other martial classes are in a loosely similar place (Fighters may actually be more anemic than the other full-BAB classes), but most of them are more conditional, which requires judgment calls about how to count things like Smite Evil. Most martial classes will outdo a fighter when all of their abilities are "on", but they're not, and figuring out how to reckon that is harder and more subjective and bias-prone than just using a fighter.
6) Any connection that monk has to "priest" or "thief" classes is purely historical, and doesn't reflect the role of the monk in pathfinder. Comparison to a rogue would likely flatter a monk, since rogue is the only martial class considered more anemic than the monk; comparison to any divine caster would completely humiliate the monk, on top of being quite difficult because the features are so dissimilar.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And then came Pathfinder. In many respects, the Pathfinder Monk is a step backwards again; gone is the idea of the monk having multiple attacks at his highest attack bonus. He's no longer unique, instead sharing two-weapon fighting with the fighter, ranger, rogue, and bard. Pathfinder (and Paizo) had some cool ideas, and overall they did a decent (not great, but decent) conversion of the monk. But then they went and powered up everything else and left the monk behind in the dust.
You know what would have made sense? Rather than up-gunning the unarmed strike every couple of levels, they should have taken a leaf out of the original monk's book: add +1 damage per two levels to both armed and unarmed strikes. Leave the base damage for unarmed strike at 1d6.
Then why are you all comparing the monk class to the fighter and no other?
Fighter is a good yardstick, but you can use the paladin, ranger and barbarian as well. Whether you are using barbarian rage, paladin's smite, ranger's favoured enemy or fighter's weapon training makes few odds, though: all of these give roughly equivelant bonuses to attack and damage - paladin's are best, but most limited in use; ranger's next, but limited in targets, barbarian and fighter have no limitations in target, barbarian has limited uses.
It's just easiest to use the fighter as the yardstick. You can see that all of these combat classes have their 'thing' that gives them an edge. For the monk it's flurry of blows, unarmed strike and stunning fist ... but that basically is not as good as any of the others: flurry of blows is (under current ruling, pending further discussion) a second rate TWF which all of the other classes can do; unarmed strike is OK but too darned expensive to enhance; stunning fist - well does any other class need to enhance their weapons to an extra +1 in order to use their 'special ability' with them.
I'm meh about the +2, as stated above, but it does bother me that the monk has no good "one solid blow" options, ONLY the flurry. Maybe there outta be some bonus feat options like the 3.x Decisive Strike alternate class feature (at monk lvl BAB, I guess)? But that's a seperate concern in my mind.
That +2 to hit is worth +4 to damage, if you think about it. Not only are you not wasting attacks, you are improving the ones that you make - FoB does not have that option.
I made some suggestions here, one of which is a feat to allow the monk to expend ki to make an attack that is resolved as a touch attack, which solves the 'one good strike' problem.
Then why are you all comparing the monk class to the fighter and no other?
I made a comparison of the monk to many other 3/4 BAB classes on March 14 in a thread called Monk Flurry mark II. My phrasing was poor and my comparison sank like a granite submarine. And, though the thread died before anyone caught my mistake, I said that the 3.0 monk did not have flurry of blows. Really the flurry was there, but its heading was in italics rather than boldface so I missed it.
Let me repeat my comparison in better words.
The 3/4 BAB classes have a way of battling in close combat almost as well as the full BAB classes, even if only temporarily and at the cost of limited resources. They compensate for the lower BAB with a built-in trick. The cleric has buff spells, such as Divine Favor and Bull's Strength. The alchemist has mutagens and extracts. The bard has Inspire Courage and a few spells. The magus has Arcane Pool and a few spells. The rogue has Sneak Attack and usually combines high dexterity and Weapon Finesse. And the monk has the least subtle of the methods: he flurries at full BAB.
These compensating mechanics don't simply compensate. They encourage teamwork and enable versatility. The cleric could have cast Bull's Strength on his fighter friend instead of himself. The bard with Inspire Courage boosts her companions along with herself. When the rogue flanks for a sneak attack, the ally on the other side of the opponent benefits, too. The alchemist I played last year gave his allies infused extracts to buff themselves at will. The monk also has full BAB on combat maneuvers, so the monk could become a trip specialist. Archetypes such as Maneuver Master signifcantly aid the monk in taking advantage of his compensation mechanics.
But what does flurry of blows give the monk? It conflicts with two of his other signature abilities, fast movement and Stunning Fist. A monk must stand still to flurry, so fast movement is wasted that turn. And Stunning Fist can be used only once per round, declared before the attack roll, so extra attacks don't help it and the -2 penalty hurts it. Worst of all, it offers no clever opportunity for teamwork.
When we compare the monk to the fighter, the monk looks similar but weaker. Master Arminas and Dabbler have proposed variants that correct the weakness. However, when we compare the monk to the other 3/4 BAB classes, the monk is downright disappointing. Those classes were designed for teamwork and versatility. The monk wasn't.
Exactly, Mathmuse, well stated.
Weslocke, monks are a martial class. They (and the rogue/ninja) alone out of the 3/4 BAB classes don't have spells or extracts. The rogue bypasses this with sneak attack; he isn't meant to hit as often a pure martial class, but when he does and his sneak attack comes into play, it is like each one of his attacks has a directed fireball added atop of it, only with no elemental resistances.
The Rogue/Ninja also have twice the skills points of the monk, and Trapfinding. They are often called skill-monkeys, but they are both skilled martial classes.
The Monk, on the other hand, is meant be a skirmisher, a light-fighter that darts in and out of combat with grace and agility; but his class abilities are exactly the opposite. To flurry, he can't move more than 5'. Stunning a target lasts until the start of his next turn, so it does little good to stun as part of a standard attack (at higher levels, yes, there are other effects a monk can use that last longer). His BAB drops by up to 3 points when he makes a standard attack.
Monks do get lots and lots of attacks: seven, plus one if he spends ki, and maybe two more if he has the feat Medusa's Wrath and successfully stuns his opponent. A TWF-fighter or ranger or paladin or barbarian can get seven attacks, eight if hasted. And their attack bonus isn't just 5 points higher than the monk, it is often 11 points or more higher because of their class abilities and higher Strength scores (most are less MAD than the monk).
Fighter: +5 BAB, +4 weapon training, +1 greater weapon focus, plus any difference in Strength. Dueling gloves add another 2.
Barbarian: +5 BAB, +4 from Rage, plus their higher Strength.
Ranger: +5 BAB, +2-10 from Favored Enemy, plus their higher Strength.
Paladin: +5 BAB, +Cha from Smite Evil, plus their higher Strength.
Usually, a monk's FIRST attack sequence (even with flurry of blows) is equal to the pure martial classes THIRD attack. And they get blown away in the damage department, unless you perfectly optimize your monk.
Monk's aren't casters. They don't have the skill points, class skills, and class features to be true skill monkeys. They are a martial class, at heart, and they cannot hold a candle to other martial classes. That is the problem with monks.
Master Arminas
I will preface this by saying that I feel Master Arminas is correct.
The Problem is that Monk is perpetually trapped between two extremes: The 3/4 BAB class (Rogue, Bard, Cleric) that uses its special abilities to change the nature of the fight, and the Full BAB Meatshield. Half the class features are designed to take hits and hit back in interesting ways (Immunities and Flurrying). The other half are designed to move quickly and change the nature of the fight.
That's one of the big issues with monk as a whole right now: It's a class built of trade-offs, none of which pan out in favor of the class.
Do you want to flurry? Don't move. Want to make use of your massive movement and disruption abilities? Don't flurry. And Stunning Fist is going to be consistently unreliable due to the requirement that you hit with an attack roll, and then the target needs to fail it's fortitude save. Just like disintegrate, two different required rolls means much larger chances of being ineffective.
What is needed, is a way to marry the Movement and abilities with the ability to fight. The closest thing to that was the Sohei, which made the compromise work through Mounted Combat and flurrying with a two handed weapon for all your attacks, or a bow if that was your preference. And now Sohei's going to be broken to bits if the RAW for Flurry of Blows actually changes.
If Monk is not supposed to be balanced against Fighter and the other Full BAB classes, then lets can a bunch of the fighting class features and turn it into a disruption based class like Rogue or Bard.
If it IS supposed to be balanced against Fighter, then lets give it the staying power to actually balance that way. Just please, please no more trade-offs, half-measures, and nerfs.
In the original post, glandis said,
Also, one of my favorite D&D monk characters back in the day wielded a pair of sai: one enchanted with fire-based stuff, and one with cold-based stuff. I always played him as getting half his flurry-strikes with fire, and half with cold. It frankly never occured to me to flurry with just the cold sai vs. a (say) fire elemental - that just wasn't the way flurry worked. My monk had flexibilty over the flaming-sword wielding paladin, but against the right (or wrong, depending on how you look at it) opponent, yeah, he was less effective. And, he was Master of Fire and Ice! I mean, that's more important than some average damage calculation, right?
Anyway, I wanted folks to know where I'm coming from, but I'm not looking to re-debate all that's gone before. I want to express what I like about the Flurry/TWF connection.
Short version It boils down to "I VASTLY prefer the flavor it gives the monk."
I played only one monk in D&D 3rd Edition, the pregenerated first-level iconic monk Ember. She was running and jumping so much that I don't remember her ever using flurry of blows.
In Pathfinder, as my 5th-level ranger leveled up to 6th level he wanted both Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple for his clever plan against the villain (he was a lawful good gnome and loved clever plans to save the day), so he multiclassed to monk. He already had Two-Weapon Fighting from his ranger combat style and a matched set of +1 shortswords, so he never used flurry. And when he finally acquired monk weapons, he picked up a pair of kamas out of habit.
Thus, I have no attachment to flurrying with only one weapon. My monk ranger instead loved to be able to melee fight with unarmed strike as he held his longbow in his other hand.
Later, when in-game events forced my gnome monk ranger to hold the front line for the party, I read up on how to make him a better melee combatant, especially Treantmonk's Guides. I learned that the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style was a bad choice for a ranger: a two-handed weapon could do as much for the ranger as dual wielding and was less expensive in gold and feats and -2 penalties. On the other hand, the flurry of blows was better for a monk because it multiplied his Strength bonus to damage by 2 instead of 1.5 and worked nicely with shuriken. But it required a high Strength monk to make the best of it.
And by the math, a monk dual wielding a flaming sai and a frosty sai gets 2 times the elemental damage as anyone wielding a single flaming weapon, but at twice the weapon cost and a -2 penalty, so it almost balances. A monk hitting twice with one flaming weapon under the 3.5 flurry rules would get twice the elemental damage at the price of one weapon and a -2 penalty, so it overbalances in favor of the monk.
Two-Weapon Fighting monks favor monks with high Strength and lots of expensive weapons. Sturdy dwarves fit the class well. Alas, that wasn't my image of a nimble monk wearing peasant clothes and armed with only her cloth-wrapped hands and a staff from my D&D 3.0 days. My gut instinct based on books and movies thinks that a dextrous halfling should be a great monk. And by the rules my gut instinct is wrong.
The flavor of Flurry of Blows does not work for me. At this point, all I want are clear rules. If declaring Flurry of Blows to be Two-Weapon Figthing makes the rules simpler, then I am for it. But the developers have to rewrite a lot of bad wording before it makes the rules clearer.
The Monk, like the Rogue, is designed to do his most damage when he's fighting cooperatively with someone else.
For the Rogue, that involves flanking.
For the Monk, that involves the Monk putting some debilitating effect on the bad guy while somebody else does the heavy damage.
If that was the intent, they should have dropped the feat Stunning Fist and gone back to a modified version of of the old AD&D monk. Something like this:
Stunning Fist (Ex): Whenever a monk successfully confirms a critical hit with his unarmed strikes, the creature struck will be stunned until the start of the monk's next turn unless it successfully makes a Fortitude saving throw against a DC equal to 10 plus one-half the monk's level plus the monk's Wisdom modifier.
Multiple successful stunning fist attacks by a monk in a single round increase the amount of time the creature remains stunned by 1 round for each additional successful attack. (I.e., a monk confirms three critical hits against a creature, who fails two saving throws. The creature is stunned for two rounds, the stun ending at the start of the monk's turn on Round 3.)
Master Arminas
Darkwing: At this point in time, Mathematically, the monk is extremely hindered in the role that is listed. They are most certainly Fleet of Foot, but Skilled in Combat is not something that applies. Compare to the list Master Arminas made of all the other "Skilled in Combat" classes.
Mathematically, Monks do not have the attack or damage bonuses needed to qualify. Monks simply cannot hit accurately compared to any other fighting class, and do not have the bonus damage to make it stick. And this potential change to the Flurry of Blows RAW makes it worse.
In fact, if you read the wording of the three roles you listed, it reads that Monks and Fighters should be very similar. It also reads, due to the language, that Monks and Rogues should be rather similar. Sadly, neither is the case.
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
That is good fluff, but in practice it is not executed so well.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What do you mean by they will find interesting ways to bring that style into play?At the pure description level, rather than "my first swing is a 24, my next is a 17, my next is a 21 . . . ", I'd hope to hear "I swing the glaive at his body - 24 hits, right? So I use the rebound from that hit to swing the haft at his knee - 17 misses? - and spin the glaive in my hand for an overhead strike at his head - 21 . . . "
If your player gives you 'My first swing is a 24, my next is a 17, my next is a 17,' he will give that to you regardless of whether you inflict this ruling on him, and if a player gives you a juicy description of how he's attacking, he'll do it whether he's flurrying with one weapon or two. No mechanic can magically make players more descriptive.
Every time I look over my CRB for new character options i flip past the monk page and go "hmm this would be cool", only to realize during the research phase its usually something a fighter with their 1908320218 feats can do just as well.
also another 3/4 BAB class people haven't mentioned is the amazing inquisitor, with their nice spells, judgements, free teamwork feats, bane, domain power, and high skill points they easily outshine both the monk and rogue imo (and melee cleric cause yea, cleric melee).
For the Monk, that involves the Monk putting some debilitating effect on the bad guy while somebody else does the heavy damage.
Only problem is, the fighter can do it better. Sad but true.
Mathematically, Monks do not have the attack or damage bonuses needed to qualify. Monks simply cannot hit accurately compared to any other fighting class, and do not have the bonus damage to make it stick. And this potential change to the Flurry of Blows RAW makes it worse.
The problem is that if you just read the stat blocks, they look like they should have the attack and damage. It's only when you start factoring magical weapons, other class features and critical hits that you suddenly realise how out-classed the monk is.
BTW, sorry to plug this, but I put some ideas together here for fixes to the monk that can be easily implemented without a "1.5" release.
Doesn't the nerf this would give on FoB make the Magus's combination of Spell Combat and Spellstrike even more broken, it is like stealing the monks central class feature and then making it better (especially at lower levels)?
Doesn't the nerf this would give on FoB make the Magus's combination of Spell Combat and Spellstrike even more broken, it is like stealing the monks central class feature and then making it better (especially at lower levels)?
Makes you wonder what, exactly, the monk class if meant to do, yes.
I certainly believe this rule change nerfs the monk. But I disagree that the fighter is the model for being good at combat. The fighter is good at one particular form of combat (park the fig in one place for half an hour and roll dice). The monk is good, well, moderately acceptable, at another form of combat.
If you mean maneuvers, forget it. The fighter is way better at them than the monk, because he can use his full BAB with reach weapons that can apply them and be enchanted to +10.
I certainly believe this rule change nerfs the monk. But I disagree that the fighter is the model for being good at combat. The fighter is good at one particular form of combat (park the fig in one place for half an hour and roll dice). The monk is good, well, moderately acceptable, at another form of combat.If you mean maneuvers, forget it. The fighter is way better at them than the monk, because he can use his full BAB with reach weapons that can apply them and be enchanted to +10.The reach weapon is great if the enemy is near the fighter (within two hexes).
The monk can apply combat maneuvers to someone across the battle mat.
Regardless, I'm not saying that the monk is one of the most powerful classes in the game. He needs to not be nerfed, but he's been nerfed repeatedly since CRB came out (I'm thinking in particular of the ruling that the monk can't make an attack at the end of a dimn door unless he takes a feat).
Yeah, but the fighter can then make the most of combat patrol and AoO everyone within thirty feet of him. Add haste and he's as good as the monk or better in every area that counts.
I agree, the monk needs to NOT be nerfed rather than the constant beat-down he gets.
I certainly believe this rule change nerfs the monk. But I disagree that the fighter is the model for being good at combat. The fighter is good at one particular form of combat (park the fig in one place for half an hour and roll dice). The monk is good, well, moderately acceptable, at another form of combat.If you mean maneuvers, forget it. The fighter is way better at them than the monk, because he can use his full BAB with reach weapons that can apply them and be enchanted to +10.The reach weapon is great if the enemy is near the fighter (within two hexes).
The monk can apply combat maneuvers to someone across the battle mat.
Regardless, I'm not saying that the monk is one of the most powerful classes in the game. He needs to not be nerfed, but he's been nerfed repeatedly since CRB came out (I'm thinking in particular of the ruling that the monk can't make an attack at the end of a dimn door unless he takes a feat).
That is not a new rule. That was always the case many people just read the part of DD that allowed you to teleport, and did not read the part that takes your actions away.
That is not true. Casting the spell is a standard action which means the caster would still have his move action left if not for the spell.
The monk does not use "casting time", but it still required a move action. The spell says "After using this spell, you can't take any other actions until your next turn. ".
That pretty much means what it says, and the monk ability says "as if using the spell dimension door.", which means you have the limitations of the spell.
Even if the verbage was "After casting this spell.." the limitation would still be there because Abundant Step is requiring you to pretend like you are using using the spell, except for where it is otherwise indicated.
The move action for the caster is stepping through the door. Actually, the move action for the monk would be stepping through the door as well.
The caster does not have to step anywhere, anymore than an ally that he is taking with him does. The spell is a teleportation spell. Like I said there is no move action involved.
That is just stuff you are making up. If it was a rule then it would have to be stated, and there would need to be a specific rules exception allowing an ally or an unconscious one to take a move action when it was not his turn.
The gate spell creates a portal you have to walk through. This spell does not.
The gate spell creates a portal you have to walk through. This spell does not.
... even though it sounds like it should from the description of the spell (shrugs) that's the way it's always been, though.
The spell does not say it is a door. That is just the name of the spell. You can not find one quote that says it is a door.
The spell also say You instantly transfer yourself from your current location to any other spot within range.
"Instantly" does not allow time for move actions so that also kills your argument.
Just so you know it is not flavor text.
Duration instantaneous
Instantaneous: The spell energy comes and goes the instant the spell is cast, though the consequences might be long-lasting.
In short as soon as you cast the spell you are teleported.
edit:Like I said if the spell allowed for your buddies to take move actions out of turn it would need to be stated.
The gate spell creates a portal you have to walk through. This spell does not.... even though it sounds like it should from the description of the spell (shrugs) that's the way it's always been, though.
I am confused by what you are saying.
edit:clarification
The gate spell creates a portal you have to walk through. This spell does not.... even though it sounds like it should from the description of the spell (shrugs) that's the way it's always been, though.I am confused by what you are saying.
edit:clarification
Sorry, what I meant was: "I know what it says and what it does, but it sounds like it should create a doorway you step through - even though I know it doesn't and never has."
Did you remember to compute that the unarmed fighter can use Brass Knuckles without losing out on damage while the monk cannot?
The monk is not meant to be a DPR machine, and DPR is a fighter's main thing so I would expect for him to come out ahead.
As far as the Fafhrd it makes sense that someone who focuses in only one weapon would be better than someone who trains with two weapons, which is represented mechanically by taking feats. I do think that allowing for both weapons to have access to Focus & Specialization is a good idea though, but nerfing Training is just trying to make everything exactly the same.
If a GM allowed me to apply weapon focus and weapon spec to two weapons when TWF'ing I would go with two different weapons. Weapon training can keep whatever DPR advantage it has since I can now overcome different DR types if I use two different weapons.
The martial artist monk archetype gets access to fighter feats, and in a two handed weapon comparison he was behind the fighter also, and I am sure that martial artist with access to fighter feats does more damage than the Sohei does.
The Martial Artist would ONLY beat the Sohei if neither side didn't use Power Attack under the old rules. This is because the Sohei would be using a large two handed weapon (most likely anyway) and would get the Power Attack Bonus for doing so for all his attacks. The Martial Artist could only get 1 handed Power Attack Bonus for all his attacks.
Under the New Rules, Sohei can't use their two handed weapon for all their attacks, and thus gets shafted pretty hard.
How far ahead in your opinion should a the fighter be ahead of other classes since that is his main thing for your group?
The monk is not meant to be a DPR machine, and DPR is a fighter's main thing so I would expect for him to come out ahead.
I agree in principal, but unarmed combat is meant to be the monk's main thing. If the fighter can beat the monk unarmed then something is very seriously amiss.
The monk is not meant to be a DPR machine, and DPR is a fighter's main thing so I would expect for him to come out ahead.I agree in principal, but unarmed combat is meant to be the monk's main thing. If the fighter can beat the monk unarmed then something is very seriously amiss.
Not really. I don't see the monk as the unarmed fighting champion. I just saw it as his best way to deal damage supposedly.
I say supposedly because with the cost of AoMF I am more likely to go with TWF and two weapons.
Damage is not the only reason to not play a class. People also shun fighters and they are good at damage. The monk's damage is not bad, and if the monk and fighter do the same damage, but the monk gets more skill points then why play a fighter?
I would not take away from the fighter. I would give something to the monk.
The monk is not meant to be a DPR machine, and DPR is a fighter's main thing so I would expect for him to come out ahead.I agree in principal, but unarmed combat is meant to be the monk's main thing. If the fighter can beat the monk unarmed then something is very seriously amiss.Not really. I don't see the monk as the unarmed fighting champion. I just saw it as his best way to deal damage supposedly.
I say supposedly because with the cost of AoMF I am more likely to go with TWF and two weapons.
We still agree that something is seriously amiss, though.