| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monk's ki pool is wonky too. Let us compare it to barbarian rage, bardic performance, or the paladin's powers:
Barbarian Rage: 4+Con mod in rounds, +2 rounds per level after 1st
Bardic Performance: 4+Cha mod in rounds, +2 rounds per level after 1st
Monk Ki Pool: 1/2 monk level+Wis Mod
Paladin: Smite evil (until dead or the paladin rests), up to 7 times per day; lay on hands 1/2 paladin level+Cha mod
Now, most uses of ki last for a single round, and a monk can have (around) 17 or so uses at 20th level. Some of his powers cost 2 or 3 points of ki to use.
By that same level, a barbarian can rage for at least 42 rounds and a bard can perform for 42 rounds (not including Con or Cha mod, respectively). Using better rage powers or bard songs doesn't cost these classes double or triple the per round cost; they just get rounds.
Paladins have two limited abilities: smite evil and lay on hands. Lay on hands is identical (well, Cha instead of Wis) to ki pool in uses per day. Eventually the paladin can heal himself 10d6 points of damage as a swift action for one use; monks can use wholeness of body for 2 ki points to heal a number of hit points equal to his level (hmmm; 20 vs. 10d6; 2 ki points vs. one use; not too balanced there, methinks). In addition, the paladin can heal others as a standard action; the monk cannot.
BUT, paladins also get smite evil. They can only use it seven times a day, but it has a duration of until the targeted smited is dead or the paladin rests. Wow, yes, those 17 ki points in the pool are really looking over the top powerful.
But the monk can't even use all 17 points. His ki strike (being able to count his unarmed strikes as magical, lawful, and adamantine) requires that he retain one point in the pool. ALL of his ki powers (with the exception of empty body) are either swift actions or standard actions and last just one round.
So, for a swift action, a monk can: (a) get one extra attack when using flurry of blows, (b) get a +4 dodge bonus for one round, (c) increase his speed by +20 feet for one round, or (d) get a +20 bonus on acrobatics checks made to jump for one round. Since they are all swift actions, he can only get one.
As a standard action, a monk can (a) heal 2 hits per monk level for 2 ki, or he can (b) dimension door as per the spell for 2 ki.
As a move action, a monk can spend 3 ki points to become ethereal for 1 minute.
Don't you kind of get the feeling that the monk has been deliberately gimped when compared to barbarian rage or bardic performance? Or even a paladin's powers?
See, this is just representative of the problems most of us monk fans have with the class. It feels like the designers and developers threw it together at the last minute and never play tested it, or had anyone on staff that likes monks and was willing to argue for the class.
Instead, we get statements that 'unarmed strike is too strong, so a monk can't have an easier means of enchanting it', 'all good saves is too powerful so a monk should be easier to hit', '90-feet movement, plus unarmed damage, plus Spring Attack, plus Vital Strike is BROKEN', and others, while no one on high ever addresses the real problems.
Master Arminas
I would also add some general criteria to a redesign.
Spellcasting vs BAB
Full caster gets 1/2 BAB
2/3 Caster gets 3/4 BAB
1/2 caster or less gets Full BAB
I would be inclined to have HD follow the same pattern, but bump Fighters up to the d12 to help them keep their edge as primer front line combatants.
That means the Monk and Rogue get full BAB.
The Cleric, Druid and Oracle get 1/2 BAB. This would necessitate removing/changing the spells that benefit their melee attacks, and/or designing a new class to take advantage of casting those spells (A 3/4 BAB class with 6 levels of spells with a modified Cleric list could be pretty cool, as well as a class better designed to offensively use the Druid's shapeshifting feature, though I wouldn't take that away from them either).
I know some groups play whole sessions without picking up dice and that's cool, but for my 18 years of play, I've spent more session time in combat than anything else. Everyone needs a valid role and that needs to be more clearly defined in the design process.
|
My issue with monk is simple. Devs claim it is a defensive class when in reality it isn't. All of the defensive capabilities just don't scale well as you get into higher levels vs higher CRs
What's worse is that the D&D and PF systems favor offensive play more than defensive play, design, and character builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm, I think monks are great, perhaps better than fighters. But I liked skilled and favor fast charaters.
So considering 8th level 2WF fighter vs 8th level monk,pure core from a design perspective for a fighter to recieve all the benfits that are granted flurry from he would need to burn 4(TWF ITWF Double Slice and quickdraw) feats. As well as have high dex. He does get a +1 to hit and damage with weapon training. The monk on the other hand is doing 1d10 damage per hit. So not considering exotice weapon proficiencies he will likely be doing a little more damage from base melee weapon damage. Ranged will damage will go to the fighter.
The monk is ahead 2 bonus feats at this level, these bonus feats are limited compared to general combat feats, with the exception that they need not worry about prequistes which isn't really that big.
At this level a monk can move faster base save allotment is almost doubled 10 vs 18, bravey and still mind are almost equal at +2 each. Monk has evasion, Ki, slow fall, immmune disease and can heal himslef 8 with 2 ki, without wisdom a monk will have 4 at this level. Stunning Fist, can also be a very usefull skill.
So considering a twf or a monk I would choose a monk. I do think that some people undervalue their movement speed, as well as their mobility. They can reach places a fighter would have trouble with base speed alone, not considering ki speed boost. Even something as simple as climbing rope or jumping to avoid a hazard favors a monk.
|
Hmm, I think monks are great, perhaps better than fighters. But I liked skilled and favor fast charaters.
So considering 8th level 2WF fighter vs 8th level monk,pure core from a design perspective for a fighter to recieve all the benfits that are granted flurry from he would need to burn 4(TWF ITWF Double Slice and quickdraw) feats. As well as have high dex. He does get a +1 to hit and damage with weapon training. The monk on the other hand is doing 1d10 damage per hit. So not considering exotice weapon proficiencies he will likely be doing a little more damage from base melee weapon damage. Ranged will damage will go to the fighter.
The monk is ahead 2 bonus feats at this level, these bonus feats are limited compared to general combat feats, with the exception that they need not worry about prequistes which isn't really that big.
At this level a monk can move faster base save allotment is almost doubled 10 vs 18, bravey and still mind are almost equal at +2 each. Monk has evasion, Ki, slow fall, immmune disease and can heal himslef 8 with 2 ki, without wisdom a monk will have 4 at this level. Stunning Fist, can also be a very usefull skill.
So considering a twf or a monk I would choose a monk. I do think that some people undervalue their movement speed, as well as their mobility. They can reach places a fighter would have trouble with base speed alone, not considering ki speed boost. Even something as simple as climbing rope or jumping to avoid a hazard favors a monk.
There is one weapon property that will shut out the monk in this example. "Agile"
All the TWF needs to take is the weapon finesse feat, have the agile property "considered a +1 bonus" and he can add his dex mod to the damage so he doesn't even need to invest in his strength score.
|
|
I do think that some people undervalue their movement speed, as well as their mobility. They can reach places a fighter would have trouble with base speed alone, not considering ki speed boost. Even something as simple as climbing rope or jumping to avoid a hazard favors a monk.
Why is speed a factor in combat? As long as you are sporting a 30 or 40 ft movement then anything above that is just overkill. It would be great for Spring Attack but Paizo already screwed that up by not allowing Vital Strike and Spring Attack to stack so unless you are fighting low level creatures then it's kind of pointless.
If Pathfinder had the "minion" option that 4th edition has then the Monk would be great as minion control, or like I said above: you are fighting creatures way below your level that one hit would kill them.
|
As with so many of these discussions, it very much depends on the level at which you are doing the comparison. A class that works well up to perhaps 10th or 12th level will be perfectly usable in PFS play, and in a lot of home game settings as well. When I see classes being compared using 20th-level builds that doesn't tell me much about how well the character would work on the way up to 20th level, which is where most of the time will be spent.
Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.
Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all.
People can number crunch and theory craft all they want, but when it comes to game time, the dice decide everything anyway. If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.
Yeah yeah, "percentages" and all that jazz. Having a higher percent chance of doing something doesn't mean squat if your rolls suck that game.
Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y. Most GMs (and other players) hate power-gamers anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.
Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all.
People can number crunch and theory craft all they want, but when it comes to game time, the dice decide everything anyway. If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.
Yeah yeah, "percentages" and all that jazz. Having a higher percent chance of doing something doesn't mean squat if your rolls suck that game.
Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y. Most GMs (and other players) hate power-gamers anyway.
You, I really hate when some self-righteous poster decides to advise the rest of us to give up our 'power-gaming ways' and just play the class for flavor. I have played monks, quite often, I will have you know. I have played monks since 1st edition back in '86. I will continue to play monks, given the opportunity to do so. Pointing out the problems with the class and suggesting solutions to them is not 'power-gaming' but rather a means of correcting imbalance within the game itself.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's look at a lower level, then. Someone suggested 8th. Fine.
Fighter: +11 attack bonus (+8 BAB, +1 weapon focus, +1 greater weapon focus, +1 weapon training, +2 weapon enhancement, -2 two-weapon fighting). Wields two short shorts for 1d6+5 damage (+2 enhancement, +1 weapons training, +2 weapon specialization), 19-20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 8.5 points of damage--17 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +11/+11/+6/+6.
Monk: +8 attack bonus (+6 BAB when he flurries or not (just works out that way at 8th), +1 weapon focus, +1 amulet of mighty fists). Hits with unarmed strike for 1d10+1 damage (+1 enhancement), 20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 6.5 points of damage--13 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +8/+8/+3/+3.
The numbers get worse when Strength is added. Heavy forbid that the fighter actually use a Two-Hand Weapon for a higher attack bonus AND greater damage. And the same is true with the monk against the ranger (favored enemy), paladin (smite evil), and barbarian (rage).
Master Arminas
Agile would benefit both classes equally, both builds favor throwing weapons.
Speed, what happens if there is difficult terrain or a climb check required. Something as simple as a steep slope dc 0 would favor a monk or another character with fast movement. since you clim at 1/4 of your movement and can increase the DC to climb at 1/2 your movement. Base speed 30 versus 50 or 70 with Ki. Take for instance something like darkness it is similiar based on movement speed. 15ft speed or 35, without accrobatics checks. Also something as easy as blindness, also triggers effects based on movement speed. Difficult terrain can also hinder movement dramatically
Both builds in theory require a single tactic involving 2 parts, base(move up to the enemy) the opponent and full attack. Monk classes would favor the first. Both builds would favor throwing weapons as a full attack if they couldn't base the enemy.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
There is one weapon property that will shut out the monk in this example. "Agile"
All the TWF needs to take is the weapon finesse feat, have the agile property "considered a +1 bonus" and he can add his dex mod to the damage so he doesn't even need to invest in his strength score.
You know the monk can get the agile property too, don't you?
In fact, he gets it earlier than the fighter.
You can skip getting a +1 on your amulet of might fists, and go straight for a weapon ability (like agile), so it'll only cost the monk 5,000 gp.
The fighter meanwhile has to buy two +1 agile weapons, for a cost of 16,000 gp.
There is one weapon property that will shut out the monk in this example. "Agile"
All the TWF needs to take is the weapon finesse feat, have the agile property "considered a +1 bonus" and he can add his dex mod to the damage so he doesn't even need to invest in his strength score.
You know the monk can get the agile property too, don't you?
In fact, he gets it earlier than the fighter.
You can skip getting a +1 on your amulet of might fists, and go straight for a weapon ability (like agile), so it'll only cost the monk 5,000 gp.
The fighter meanwhile has to buy two +1 agile weapons, for a cost of 16,000 gp.
And all it does is aleviate the need for Strength; it keeps the same exact base difference in attack rolls, assuming equal Dexterity for both. But the Monk needs Dex and Wis and Con, where the Fighter needs just Dex and Con (both with agile weapons). Meaning the Fighter is liable to, once again, have a higher ability score modifier on his attacks and damage.
And makes both characters absolutely reliant on a magic item that can be dispelled or sundered or rendered useless in an Anti-Magic field.
Master Arminas
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Okay, let's look at a lower level, then. Someone suggested 8th. Fine.
Fighter: +11 attack bonus (+8 BAB, +1 weapon focus, +1 greater weapon focus, +1 weapon training, +2 weapon enhancement, -2 two-weapon fighting). Wields two short shorts for 1d6+5 damage (+2 enhancement, +1 weapons training, +2 weapon specialization), 19-20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 8.5 points of damage--17 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +11/+11/+6/+6.
Monk: +8 attack bonus (+6 BAB when he flurries or not (just works out that way at 8th), +1 weapon focus, +1 amulet of mighty fists). Hits with unarmed strike for 1d10+1 damage (+1 enhancement), 20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 6.5 points of damage--13 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +8/+8/+3/+3.
The numbers get worse when Strength is added. Heavy forbid that the fighter actually use a Two-Hand Weapon for a higher attack bonus AND greater damage. And the same is true with the monk against the ranger (favored enemy), paladin (smite evil), and barbarian (rage).
Master Arminas
I hate to sweat the details, but I have two problems:
1. Why does the fighter have two +2 weapons? That would cost him 16,000, almost half his wealth at 8th level. If you're building him the balanced way (25% on weapons) he should only have one +2 weapon, or even better a pair of +1 weapons and a nice ranged option.
That's going to drop his attack routine to +10/+10/+6/+6, and his average damage down to 7.5, 15 on a crit. Only 2 over the monk on attack and 1 over on damage. That's not bad.
2. You're giving the fighter his weapon training, the barbarian her rage, the paladin her smite, and the ranger his favored enemy, but you're not letting the monk spend any ki?
His full attack should be +8/+8/+8/+3/+3.
With regard to stats and stat buys, I think fighters tend to favor low buys 10 pt 15pt but equally every character the could focus on a sole ability, where a Monk I think favors multiple stats. For instance the TwF would need a dex of 15 and eventually a dex 17 and 19. So based on a 16 to get a +1 dex at 4th for ItwF. At 10 point buy I would choose 14 dex 14 wis and 12 str instead of 10 point stat buy investment on dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, let's look at a lower level, then. Someone suggested 8th. Fine.
Fighter: +11 attack bonus (+8 BAB, +1 weapon focus, +1 greater weapon focus, +1 weapon training, +2 weapon enhancement, -2 two-weapon fighting). Wields two short shorts for 1d6+5 damage (+2 enhancement, +1 weapons training, +2 weapon specialization), 19-20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 8.5 points of damage--17 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +11/+11/+6/+6.
Monk: +8 attack bonus (+6 BAB when he flurries or not (just works out that way at 8th), +1 weapon focus, +1 amulet of mighty fists). Hits with unarmed strike for 1d10+1 damage (+1 enhancement), 20/x2 threat range. Average damage, sans Strength, is 6.5 points of damage--13 on a critical hit. Full attack routine is +8/+8/+3/+3.
The numbers get worse when Strength is added. Heavy forbid that the fighter actually use a Two-Hand Weapon for a higher attack bonus AND greater damage. And the same is true with the monk against the ranger (favored enemy), paladin (smite evil), and barbarian (rage).
Master Arminas
I hate to sweat the details, but I have two problems:
1. Why does the fighter have two +2 weapons? That would cost him 16,000, almost half his wealth at 8th level. If you're building him the balanced way (25% on weapons) he should only have one +2 weapon, or even better a pair of +1 weapons and a nice ranged option.
That's going to drop his attack routine to +10/+10/+6/+6, and his average damage down to 7.5, 15 on a crit. Only 2 over the monk on attack and 1 over on damage. That's not bad.
2. You're giving the fighter his weapon training, the barbarian her rage, the paladin her smite, and the ranger his favored enemy, but you're not letting the monk spend any ki?
His full attack should be +8/+8/+8/+3/+3.
1. He is spending less than 25% of his wealth on a single weapon. Two-weapon fighting is costly and I, personally, would never build a Fighter using TWF. The cost in weapons and Dex is simply too high. If it were a 'normal' fighter (i.e. a Two-Hand Weapon fighter which is the majority of the builds I have seen), the attack bonus would be 2 points HIGHER, he could well afford a +2 weapon, AND he would gain 1.5x Str bonus on his attacks, pushing his average damage up, up, and away. The only reason I did a TWF'er is because some folks are protesting that you comparing Two-hander's to monks is apples and oranges.
2. Hmmmm? Does fighter weapon training have daily limits? Does favored enemy? Nope, neither of those classes are restricted in the number of times per day. Barbarians and paladins are. Barbarians have 18+Con rounds of rage per day, while paladins of this level have 3 smites, each of which last until the target is dead, or the paladin rests. An 8th level monk has 4+Wis ki points. Yes, he can get the extra attack, or he can heal himself for 8 points of damage, or he can boost his speed to 70', or he gain a +20 bonus on his jump checks. He can't do all of these things in a single round, and he spends them much faster than either a barbarian or paladin.
Master Arminas
With regard to stats and stat buys, I think fighters tend to favor low buys 10 pt 15pt but equally every character the could focus on a sole ability, where a Monk I think favors multiple stats. For instance the TwF would need a dex of 15 and eventually a dex 17 and 19. So based on a 16 to get a +1 dex at 4th for ItwF. At 10 point buy I would choose 14 dex 14 wis and 12 str instead of 10 point stat buy investment on dex.
Which is exactly why two-weapon fighting Fighters are uncommon. If you want to TWF, you go Ranger, which ignores the Dex prerequisites for the TWF feat chain. The investment in a 19 Dex is just too onorous a burden for most fighters.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was curious as to why people think that matters. Why should all melee classes be equally effective in melee (albeit via differing methods of excelling)? This seems frequently assumed, but I haven't seen many arguments for it.
If you don't want equivalence, play a commoner. I don't advocate that classes all get 'equivalence' in power, they should get equivalence in spotlight time. Each class has a role that they should be able to fulfil, and as I've demonstrated, the monk cannot fulfil their role.
What the number crunchers more seem to want, is a fighter that has the ac of full plate+enchanted shield ac, while unarmoured, and the damage of a two handed fighter/barb done via their limbs.
No. What we want is a class that can do it's stated role. I don't want to up the AC of the monk, it's good enough as is (it's on par with a ranger or barbarian). The damage I don't want to be equivelant to a fighter or raging barbarian, I just want them to be able do inflict some damage. I want them on par with a barbarian not raging, a ranger not fighting his favoured enemy, a paladin not smiting.
Is that too much to ask?
So considering 8th level 2WF fighter vs 8th level monk,pure core from a design perspective for a fighter to recieve all the benfits that are granted flurry from he would need to burn 4(TWF ITWF Double Slice and quickdraw) feats.
Yes, but he gets much more out of those feats too. He gets to use TWF with any weapons he likes, not a select group of crap ones. Most of the weapons he selects have greater threat ranges, and that can matter a lot. Not sure why you are including Quickdraw, it's not a feat that sees a huge amount of use, and in the majority of situations it gives no benefit. Let's call it three feats for the majority of situations.
As well as have high dex. He does get a +1 to hit and damage with weapon training. The monk on the other hand is doing 1d10 damage per hit. So not considering exotice weapon proficiencies he will likely be doing a little more damage from base melee weapon damage. Ranged will damage will go to the fighter.
Depends on which weapons your fighter is using, but higher threat range wins over greater damage potential. Also you forgot Weapon Specialisation which adds another +2 to damage for the fighter, and Greater Weapon Focus, for another +1 to hit over what the monk can get. So we are +2 to hit and +3 damage up on the monk. Starting with, say, short swords, the fighter is now ahead on damage: 1d10 for the monk, 1d6+3 for the fighter, with the fighter at +2 to hit and double the threat range.
Then there's magic. The fighter is paying 20% less than the monk for any weapon enhancements. Then he can get mithral or cold iron weapons in addition which will bypass some DR, while the monk gets...DR/magic.
Fighter is DEFINITELY ahead at this point.
The monk is ahead 2 bonus feats at this level, these bonus feats are limited compared to general combat feats, with the exception that they need not worry about prequistes which isn't really that big.
Agreed.
At this level a monk can move faster base save allotment is almost doubled 10 vs 18, bravey and still mind are almost equal at +2 each. Monk has evasion, Ki, slow fall, immmune disease and can heal himslef 8 with 2 ki, without wisdom a monk will have 4 at this level. Stunning Fist, can also be a very usefull skill.
Yes, the monk is better in terms of defences against non-melee attacks. However the fighter likely has greater AC and better hit points. The monk is likely behind on stats too, he has to consider three or four ability scores, the fighter is concerned with just two or three.
So considering a twf or a monk I would choose a monk. I do think that some people undervalue their movement speed, as well as their mobility. They can reach places a fighter would have trouble with base speed alone, not considering ki speed boost. Even something as simple as climbing rope or jumping to avoid a hazard favors a monk.
Compared to this, they are not going to be able to fight as effectively: lower attack bonus, lower damage output, lower AC, lower hit points. They seem to have traded all four factors a melee class needs to be good at in order to run, jump, climb ropes, run fast and make saving throws.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.
They sure have a lot of class ability text. However, MOST OF IT IS S*#&. And are you seriously comparing Monk class abilities to full (or even 2/3) spellcasting? For real?
Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all....Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y.
"Real Roleplayers" was merely wrong and stupid in 1982, it's downright insulting today. Stormwind Fallacy aside, I came to play a kung fu badass, why are you giving me Chris Farley in Beverly Hills Ninja?
...If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.
Seriously? That's one your arguments? "Monks don't suck if they roll all 20ies" is your defense of the Monk class?
How does a monk/ranger or monk/fighter multiclass stack up against a straight monk for combat potential?
How does a monk/ranger or monk/fighter multiclass stack up against a straight monk for combat potential?
They win. Monk with five levels of fighter may lose an attack but is stacking up weapon specialisation on his strikes and weapon training too (+1 to hit, +3 to damage beats the monk's upgraded dice, or he could just rack them into weapons and still win on number of actual hits). The greater BAB will help. Monk/ranger with the pure monk as favoured enemy just wipes the floor with him. Both have more hit points and better BAB than the pure monk.
How does a monk/ranger or monk/fighter multiclass stack up against a straight monk for combat potential?They win. Monk with five levels of fighter may lose an attack but is stacking up weapon specialisation on his strikes and weapon training too (+1 to hit, +3 to damage beats the monk's upgraded dice, or he could just rack them into weapons and still win on number of actual hits). The greater BAB will help. Monk/ranger with the pure monk as favoured enemy just wipes the floor with him. Both have more hit points and better BAB than the pure monk.
I'm inclined to go with ranger for the skill points and flavor. Fighter is obviously more customizable though. Which do you think is better? This is probably my next character concept.
I specifically did not give either the fighter or the monk any feats just compared the two classes. If I had done so I would of gave the monks some bonus feats. Or some monk weapons, as far as quickdraw it is needed for multiple thrown weapons, which the monk gets for free.
These build antics get funny where on party will give someone feats and the other no feats same with gear.
I general I would favor monk weapons with the ability of trip and disarm feats as his bonus feats. With Agile Manuevers in the place of his first feat so with 3 feats.
If both classes were custom made I would definately go with a monk, we would have a kama and a sai. I ready an action to disarm the fighter, take his first hit and follow up with a flurry(ki attack)to do a series of manuevers. Disarm, Disarm,if either one failed I would do Disarm. If neither failed I would follow with trip, if the trip suceeded stunning fist.
The fighters CMD would be around for the first attack 22 (weapon training) 20 if he charged, for disarm the monk CMB would be at +8 +2feat +2 weapon +2 dex +1 masterwork, at total +15 against the readied action. Note grapple would demolish a THF. The following rounds cmb would lower to +13. With the exceptions of the AOO's the fighter would make picking up his weapon and standing up. Which may provoke some more disarms at the CMB+15.
I would imagine the best manuever build would be sensai and lorewarden. a wisdome dex build, that gets cmb/cmd gains.
|
|
I specifically did not give either the fighter or the monk any feats just compared the two classes. If I had done so I would of gave the monks some bonus feats. Or some monk weapons, as far as quickdraw it is needed for multiple thrown weapons, which the monk gets for free.
These build antics get funny where on party will give someone feats and the other no feats same with gear.
I general I would favor monk weapons with the ability of trip and disarm feats as his bonus feats. With Agile Manuevers in the place of his first feat so with 3 feats.
If both classes were custom made I would definately go with a monk, we would have a kama and a sai. I ready an action to disarm the fighter, take his first hit and follow up with a flurry(ki attack)to do a series of manuevers. Disarm, Disarm,if either one failed I would do Disarm. If neither failed I would follow with trip, if the trip suceeded stunning fist.
The fighters CMD would be around for the first attack 22 (weapon training) 20 if he charged, for disarm the monk CMB would be at +8 +2feat +2 weapon +2 dex +1 masterwork, at total +15 against the readied action. Note grapple would demolish a THF. The following rounds cmb would lower to +13. With the exceptions of the AOO's the fighter would make picking up his weapon and standing up. Which may provoke some more disarms at the CMB+15.
All a fighter has to do is have a locked gauntlet and his weapon won't go anywhere. Also you assume that the fighter is just going to stand there. A fighter with a reach weapon and the lunge feat will never allow you more than one attack each round.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isnt part of being a monk having cool ki-like powers, being able to dance around through combat kicking things and generally shrug off attacks which would fell a lesser person? I dont really understand why the classes need to be balanced with respect to combat - isnt the style worth something?
No. Style and flavor should be purely aesthetic. It shouldn't matter if I'm supposed to kill with a sword, axe, or hammer beyond aesthetics, for example. Clearly making sword, axe, or hammer superior at the primary role all three fill is an error for gameplay.
It seems to me that many of the people declaring monks to be underpowered are still actually seeing them used in play. So presumably the people playing them are getting what they want.
My younger brother has a fascination with playing NPC classes such as Warrior, Expert, and Adept. He sometimes gets permission to play them in groups alongside PC classes. No one is arguing that any of those classes is anywhere near on par with PC classes. By their very design, they are not supposed to be on par with them (in fact, every 2 NPC levels is considered to be worth 1 PC level when determining things like CR).
I wonder whether the 'monk furore' is a function of a segment of the fan-base expecting combat-balanced classes when that isnt actually a terribly important part of the design philosophy being followed. (Not that I have any inside information as to what the design philosophy actually is).
It just seems to me that 'class X is underpowered' is often put forth as something obviously wrong and I'd be curious what the justification is for striving for class balance?
Because they all fight.
What TriOmegaZero said.
Here's a quick rundown here. There are exactly 3 classes in the core game that don't get spells. That's Fighter, Rogue, and Monk. There are exactly 3 of those 3 classes which are widely considered underpowered by the 3.x/PF community when compared to their peers. Fighters are roughly on par with Rangers/Paladins/Barbarians in terms of martial capability, Rogues are inferior to Rangers and Ninjas, Monks exist as martial characters but barring some archtypes (at least one Paizo broke themselves so it doesn't work anymore) aren't even on the radar when compared to other martials.
Both Monks and Rogues are the only classes in the game that possess a 3/4 BAB that aren't at least medium casters (alchemist, bard, magus, summoner) or full-caster (cleric, druid, oracle), and many of them get high level spells in lower level slots, effectively negating the entire point of them being lesser casters (way to go Paizo, thanks much, good show, way to balance it out, yeah). However, Rogues and Monks get basically nothing in return. I mean, they get some class features but everybody gets some class features. Worse yet, in many cases, the Monk's class features are counter intuitive, don't even work (in the case of the recent nonsense concerning Flurry of Suck), or exist solely to try and get what other classes get without class features.
For example, monks get a +X AC bonus and wisdom to AC, but cannot wear armor or shields. This class feature is a lie. Most classes possess the ability to wear armor. Even light armor trumps monk AC bonuses for most levels, including 20th level monks (you can hit +11 AC in light armor while getting your full Dex mod to AC regardless of class, while a monk with a +8 Wisdom can hit +13 AC with their class feature).
Monks are often heralded as anti-magic characters, but don't really get abilities that help with that. Their extra speed doesn't stack with common buffs like haste or expeditious retreat, so Barbarians are actually faster than monks when it matters. They can't full attack after moving, so their flurry of blows is pretty useless if the enemy doesn't want to stand and trade blows with them. And so on, and so forth. Their saving throws are nice, but are comparable or even shamed by their other alignment restricted peers the Barbarian or Paladin, and they're still vulnerable to lots of spells that will remove them from battles. Stuff like that.
To be considered balanced, those without spellcasting need to be clearly and greatly superior in non-spellcasting types of fields. Thing is, that's rarely the case. Fighters come the closest, as they are more or less superior in terms of sheer raw damage if built for archery or dual-wielding (and 2 handers, if you're using an archtype and are 20th level) but because the lack sorely in most every other facet of their adventuring careers are often considered underpowered. Rogues are similar, as they are upstaged by multiple classes, such as Ranger and Bard. Worse yet, both of these classes have spells which make them excel beyond the rogue, and are better combatants than the Rogue; because Sneak Attack kind of sucks (it's very easy to completely negate, even accidentally; which makes a Bard w/ Inspire Courage a better combatant than a Rogue w/ Sneak Attack, especially on a team).
Monks suffer a lot of these problems, but often are laughed at by even their other non-caster underpowered peers like Fighters, Rogues, and Fighter/Rogues, because monks don't even have one thing they do exceptionally well, and unlike Bards, aren't even very good generalists. They're not that great at dealing damage, they're not that sturdy/resilient, they are terrible at providing battlefield presence to protect allies, they aren't very good at locking down enemy casters (unless those casters would be easily locked down by another fighty-class as well), lack team support or utility that other 3/4 or even 1/1 BAB classes posses, etc.
The absolute best monk fix I've ever seen in the history of the 3.x system was, ironically, the simplest monk fix as well. We took the 3.5 monk as-is (Pathfinder was not out yet) and slapped the 3.5 psychic warrior power progression on them whole-cart (same PP progression, same power list, same powers known, etc) and just ran with it. The monk became good. About as good as a psychic warrior. I once commented that it was sad that the monk could basically be given the spellcasting capability and main feature of another class entirely and still not overpower it. Incidentally, it also fit with the theme of monks, as psionics is an excellent system to represent mana/ki/chi/qi/prana/mystical energy, and allowed you to build monks who had different specializations instead of all monks everywhere being the same.
"On top of yonder mountain lives the elven mist dancers. It is said they can fade from view and even walk on water. They have long been rivals of the orcish thunderfists, who can use their spiritual power to grow to be twice their size and hit with the force of a charging horse!"
So which monk Archtypes aren't considered grand failures? Well before Paizo got crazy and decided to break the Zen Archer into literal unfunctionality, the list included Zen Archer and Qi Gong monk. Zen Archer basically makes them exceptionally good archers who shoot tons of arrows and rely only on 2 ability scores, and Qi Gong monk turns them into pseudo-spellcasters who burn a power point reserve to cast spells (ki points to spells), no longer making them a non-caster, and emulating the psionic monk concept without actually having the mechanical grace and efficiency as actually just making them a psionic monk.
There ya go. J<(^-^)>|=
EDIT:
It just seems to me that 'class X is underpowered' is often put forth as something obviously wrong and I'd be curious what the justification is for striving for class balance?
Gameplay primarily. Like it or not, people tend to prefer to be relevant. Classes that are underpowered either are not used, or are used in an attempt at flavor, which is not something that should be punished. For example, if you want to be a non-magical warrior with a sword, most will point you towards the Fighter or Barbarian, not the warrior NPC class. Wanting to be a skilled martial artist who trains diligently to unlock hidden potential shouldn't mean actually having less potential than the other players.
There's also the pain of system mastery nonsense. It's not cool to pick the dud character because you're new. It's also not fun when you pick a character because he's supposed to do X, but the guy next to you picked a character to do Y, but also does X, Z, and A better than you too. I personally don't have a problem with playing with folks playing stronger PCs (I once played a human fighter next to an ogre Fighter, and I was like "Sweet, we have an ogre on our team") but some people get a bit upset about it. It's often not even an attitude problem, but a matter of fun. Fun for the player and the GM. In some cases, I'm not really thrilled when players insist on playing a core monk without extensive system knowledge, because I know they'll be re-rolling soon (no joke here, I dislike the idea of having to purposefully pull back on the throttle with badguys and such to keep a monk PC alive, because I feel it's dishonest and shouldn't be necessary).
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
And all it does is aleviate the need for Strength; it keeps the same exact base difference in attack rolls, assuming equal Dexterity for both. But the Monk needs Dex and Wis and Con, where the Fighter needs just Dex and Con (both with agile weapons). Meaning the Fighter is liable to, once again, have a higher ability score modifier on his attacks and damage.
And makes both characters absolutely reliant on a magic item that can be dispelled or sundered or rendered useless in an Anti-Magic field.
Master Arminas
Which is why I didn't bring up agile as an argument for the monk (I was merely refuting shallowsoul's claim that agile works against the monk).
And besides, all high-level characters are reliant on magic items that can be dispelled or sundered or rendered useless in an anti-magic field. :P
1. He is spending less than 25% of his wealth on a single weapon. Two-weapon fighting is costly and I, personally, would never build a Fighter using TWF. The cost in weapons and Dex is simply too high. If it were a 'normal' fighter (i.e. a Two-Hand Weapon fighter which is the majority of the builds I have seen), the attack bonus would be 2 points HIGHER, he could well afford a +2 weapon, AND he would gain 1.5x Str bonus on his attacks, pushing his average damage up, up, and away. The only reason I did a TWF'er is because some folks are protesting that you comparing Two-hander's to monks is apples and oranges.2. Hmmmm? Does fighter weapon training have daily limits? Does favored enemy? Nope, neither of those classes are restricted in the number of times per day. Barbarians and paladins are. Barbarians have 18+Con rounds of rage per day, while paladins of this level have 3 smites, each of which last until the target is dead, or the paladin rests. An 8th level monk has 4+Wis ki points. Yes, he can get the extra attack, or he can heal himself for 8 points of damage, or he can boost his speed to 70', or he gain a +20 bonus on his jump checks. He can't do all of these things in a single round, and he spends them much faster than either a barbarian or paladin.
Master Arminas
1. PRD Sez:
You're spending 48% of your wealth on weapons. That's legal (you're not spending over 50% on any one item), but it's not balanced. If you're argument is "an unbalanced fighter easily outclasses a balanced monk" I rescind my complaint :)
2. The ranger's favored enemy isn't limited per/day, but it's entirely subject to GM fiat whether it comes into play (not fighting orcs today? Too bad!). Ditto for the Paladin's smite (though certainly evil creatures are easier to come by). The monk may have fewer uses of his ki pool per/day, but he doesn't depend on external forces to make those points work. The extra attack from ki deserves to at least be mentioned, otherwise it looks like you're stacking the deck against the monk to prove your point (which I don't think you mean to do).
EDIT: PS, The Iconic Fighter is a Two-Weapon Fighter :)
I don't really know, there sometimes seems to be a very MMO style EVERYTHING MUST BE BALANCED idea going around. I'm perfectly happy with my games and my players and we have fun. No one really seems to over shadow anyone else because they take their turns.
The concept of game balance predates MMOs by quite a bit.
A long while ago I posted a topic asking "what use are monks anyway?"
I had people falling over themselves telling me how great their monks where, and how much more they could do than the other classes.
Have things really changed that much?
EDIT: PS, The Iconic Fighter is a Two-Weapon Fighter :)
Most of the iconics well and truely suck. I have NEVER seen a person playing a Fighter wielding two weapons at the same time. They have always been sword&board, two-handed, or archery.
Master Arminas
Thanks for the comments. I don't understand the gritty bits of the arguments for and against, but the perspective is a little clearer to me.
I'm inclined to go with ranger for the skill points and flavor. Fighter is obviously more customizable though. Which do you think is better? This is probably my next character concept.
Fighter works better, with Ranger your fighting style just isn't going to synergise well with the monk's flurry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A long while ago I posted a topic asking "what use are monks anyway?"
I had people falling over themselves telling me how great their monks where, and how much more they could do than the other classes.Have things really changed that much?
Don't get me wrong here: the monk has a large number of things about the class that could be a lot better, and make the class a true martial-mystic hybrid character on par with the other martial classes.
That being said, I played monks in 3.5, I have built and run monk NPCs in Pathfinder. If the player behind the character knows exactly what he is doing, doesn't get diverted by any new shiney feats, and stays precisely on course, he can build a good, solid character with the existing monk class that can contribute to most fights.
The problem with that is, of course, that if the player isn't very experienced and he just wants to play a Kung-fu fighter, he is liable to fall into one of dozens of traps that will neuter him in short order. I have seen players say that 'monks don't need Hulk-level Strength, they depend on Dexterity and Wisdom', and two game sessions later they want to change characters. Because although it should work (going by films and modern myth), it doesn't.
I have built and played monks for a quarter of century now. I know how to build to my strengths and wring out every last bit of juice from the character that I can. Yet even then, I am lucky to be just par with unoptimized fighters, rangers, barbarians, paladins, cavaliers, samurai, and anti-paladins. It shouldn't be that difficult or time-consuming to build a solid character; the classes need to be more balanced against each other.
Yes, I have heard the arguments for years. Monk's have to be weaker because they can't have their weapons taken away or stolen or sundered or disarmed! Monk's can do things out of combat that fighters can't. Monk's can't be affected by spells, they have evasion, they never fail a saving throw. Monks have the highest AC and no one can even touch them.
All of those are false. At it's heart, at it's core, Pathfinder (and D&D before it) is about combat. Defeating the evil critters and making the world a better place for (demi-) humanity. The new archetypes that Paizo introduced help, certainly, but they also lead to new traps that players fall into. Remember Sean K. Reynolds and the whole vow of poverty thing? By his own words, they want to put sub-optimal choices out there, and if you aren't on the ball and sharp, you can easily fall victim to their traps.
In a way, I believe that SKR sees monks as a sub-optimal choice. I don't know if he does, but I believe it. And he wants to (in my opinion) keep it as a sub-optimal choice until we, the players, just give up and he doesn't have to write any more stuff about our monks.
I could be wrong. I hope that I am wrong. But I haven't anything that tells me the developers and designers have the least desire to correct the flaws in this class. Instead we get fixes in the forms of feats and archtypes that don't fix anything.
Look, monks can be one of the coolest classes outside of a pure caster. But mechanically, they are weak. Can a good, experienced, veteran player have fun anyway? Sure. Do new, inexperienced, first-time players get caught in the hidden traps and flaws and walk away saying that class sucks? Yes. All the time.
Come on, fellows. All we want is a good class. Is that really too much to ask?
Master Arminas
|
First, if we are discussing issues, discuss actual issues.
AC does not lag.
A first level monk with a 16 wis, 12 dex and dodge (bonus feat) has a 15 AC, Same as a Melee ranger with a 12 Dex in a chain shirt. Better, actually since is the monks touch AC and it has no armor check penalty. By 4th it is better than scale mail, by 8th it is better than Chain mail…and this is assuming you don’t get any wisdom boosting items, which of course you likely would. You can put your armor enhancements on bracers of armor for the same cost as you would armor with none of the armor check or movement issues that come with armor. Monks generally start off with comparable armor to Rangers and Barbarians and by 10th level are up there with fighters and Paladins.
The issue isn’t defense. The monk is either the best defensive class in the game, or tied with the Paladin. The issue isn’t even really damage, as I agree with the OP that they shouldn’t out damage the true martial classes.
The issue is if a monk is using the iconic weapon (unarmed) they can’t enhance those weapons in the same way other classes. Amulet of Mighty Fist caps at +5 and takes a slot, specifically because it isn’t a monk specific item.
Give monks a way to enhance their fists in a similar fashion to other classes (or at least raise the “to hit” ability) and 95% of the “problems” are solved.
What monks run into that is a legitimate problem is they can’t get the same bonuses to hit on unarmed strike. This was “addressed” with brass knuckles, then taken away.
Simply adding a way to do this, be it a monk only item to avoid multi-limb cheese inherent with the AMOF, or my personal suggestion of making it a monk ability to be able to meditate and spend X gold in incense, etc…to perform a ritual to improve your unarmed attacks, monks need to have the same access to enhancement other classes have.
Hopefully this can be addressed soon.
I specifically did not give either the fighter or the monk any feats just compared the two classes. If I had done so I would of gave the monks some bonus feats. Or some monk weapons, as far as quickdraw it is needed for multiple thrown weapons, which the monk gets for free.
Fighter's class features ARE his feats, and he gets a much better selection of them than the monk does, especially with regard to hitting and damaging. Ignoring them is basically saying "A monk can beat a gimped fighter, almost." You end up failing to prove much.
These build antics get funny where on party will give someone feats and the other no feats same with gear.
The thing to do is give them the feats and gear they are likely to have if they are working toward damage output, the thing we are trying to compare.
I general I would favor monk weapons with the ability of trip and disarm feats as his bonus feats. With Agile Manuevers in the place of his first feat so with 3 feats.
But the fighter has access to many of the same weapons or else better ones. I mean, why mess with TWF and kama when you can take a guisarm, and trip with reach?
If both classes were custom made I would definately go with a monk, we would have a kama and a sai. I ready an action to disarm the fighter, take his first hit and follow up with a flurry(ki attack)to do a series of manuevers. Disarm, Disarm,if either one failed I would do Disarm. If neither failed I would follow with trip, if the trip suceeded stunning fist.
The fighters CMD would be around for the first attack 22 (weapon training) 20 if he charged, for disarm the monk CMB would be at +8 +2feat +2 weapon +2 dex +1 masterwork, at total +15 against the readied action. Note grapple would demolish a THF. The following rounds cmb would lower to +13. With the exceptions of the AOO's the fighter would make picking up his weapon and standing up. Which may provoke some more disarms at the CMB+15.
That's the way I would do it, too, but it is feat-intensive - you can't get both Improved Trip AND Improved Disarm at that level without Combat Expertise, so you need Int as well as Str/Dex/Con/Wis. You can drop Str if you invest in Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers, but then you've lost a load of feats.
However, the fighter may not play ball. If he has Quickdraw as you initially suggested , and backup weapons (even if they are mundane) then disarm doesn't achieve much. I would build the fighter with good dex and str and use a guisarm to trip at range, and have some back-up weapons ready. You attack, and I trip as a readied action before you can reach me. I can match you in maneuvers with all my bonus feats, and my CMD is on a par with yours, as is my CMB. If you disarm me, I draw and strike with my spare weapons (probably scimitars).
|
|
Thanks for the comments. I don't understand the gritty bits of the arguments for and against, but the perspective is a little clearer to me.
It's really simple, and I'll use some extreme examples to try and drive the point across.
Player A and Player B both want to play fighters. So they take fighters. Player B out of flavor decides to use whip to do damage. Player B wants to role-play, so he sets 12 for all scores except for CHA, which is maxxed out (I'm not going to do this math, it's not important). Player A optimizes and picks falchion, and sets scores as needed (STR, then CON, and some DEX). GM warns Player B that this isn't a good idea, but Player B says "I can role-play anything".
After 5 levels, Player B realizes he can't do damage since the whip doesn't do lethal damage for armor bonus greater than 3 or natural greater than 1. Player A slaughters monster after monster after monster. Player B stars to get frustrated because his feats were all social type feats like Skill Focus (Diplomacy), Alertness, Cosmopolitan. Player A has taken the standard feats like Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Furious Focus, etc. Player B doesn't have as many skill points as the bard player, and so the social interaction part he's not as good as either.
What happens is basically Player B doesn't realize his choices are bad, and has suffered for it. RPGs especially are not friendly to new players. System mastery is needed often just to make certain a character does not turn out to be marginalized or worse, dragging the party down.
My example is trying to present Player B thinks all of these feats will help his character, but unless applied properly, they hinder. Monks have tons of abilities, but most of them are very marginal or extremely specific in focus (Slow Fall for example).
PF by default design, requires characters to be a certain power level or death results. But it's sometimes hard to tell where the traps are to avoid. Lots of rogues and monk fall into the trap of being a stealth defensive character that has SKILLS! Or that 1d6 damage with Weapon Finesse with a rapier is still good at level 4. It's a mix of the class's weakness, combined with lack of system knowledge that leads lots of players down to ruin.
A new PFS player in my area claimed he knew the game really well, but created a dwarf ranger that uses TWF with a 10 CON AFTER racial bonuses. He put his build points into 16 DEX because he "didn't want to wait until level 2 to get Combat Style". He also uses 2 dwarven waraxes in each hand (1H weapons). He's died twice, and is now terrified of being in the front lines, and the character is basically abandoned to my knowledge.
EDIT: PS, The Iconic Fighter is a Two-Weapon Fighter :)Most of the iconics well and truely suck. I have NEVER seen a person playing a Fighter wielding two weapons at the same time. They have always been sword&board, two-handed, or archery.
Master Arminas
Really? Fighters are one of the few classes that actually pull of the dual-wielding thing and make it not suck. In fact, it's arguably the most damaging melee specialization a Fighter can do, that doesn't require you to be a 20th level 2 handed fighter. It is at its pinnacle with a double weapon (though that truly isn't a pair of weapons, so much as a single weapon that you may declare the TWF special attack).
Given the feat investment, and requirements for tons of +hit and +static damage to make dual wielding worth it, Fighters are about all that's good at it. However, the iconic Fighter is also a dumb Fighter, because dual-wielding means specializing in your dual-wield weapons. Using a longsword/short sword is factually worse than 2 short swords, or even 2 longswords, due to Weapon Training/Specialization. Of course, we also know who's always on the verge of death in all the PF Artwork don't we? There's probably a reason for that. Bad fighters are bad. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF by default design, requires characters to be a certain power level or death results. But it's sometimes hard to tell where the traps are to avoid. Lots of rogues and monk fall into the trap of being a stealth defensive character that has SKILLS! Or that 1d6 damage with Weapon Finesse with a rapier is still good at level 4. It's a mix of the class's weakness, combined with lack of system knowledge that leads lots of players down to ruin.
However, it's relatively easy to make an effective fighter by following your intuition for what will work: weapon with a lot of listed damage, Power Attack and feats with 'weapon' in them. That isn't the case with the monk - even the rogue can be effective with flanking, his rapier and his sneak attack, no matter his choice of feats. Monk requires skill to be even situationally effective.
Really? Fighters are one of the few classes that actually pull of the dual-wielding thing and make it not suck. In fact, it's arguably the most damaging melee specialization a Fighter can do, that doesn't require you to be a 20th level 2 handed fighter. It is at its pinnacle with a double weapon (though that truly isn't a pair of weapons, so much as a single weapon that you may declare the TWF special attack).
Sword & board with TWF is just awesome in damage output. Use Shield Mastery and a heavy, bashing spiked shield and you will out-damage just about anything on a full attack.
EDIT: PS, The Iconic Fighter is a Two-Weapon Fighter :)Most of the iconics well and truely suck. I have NEVER seen a person playing a Fighter wielding two weapons at the same time. They have always been sword&board, two-handed, or archery.
Master Arminas
Really? Fighters are one of the few classes that actually pull of the dual-wielding thing and make it not suck. In fact, it's arguably the most damaging melee specialization a Fighter can do, that doesn't require you to be a 20th level 2 handed fighter. It is at its pinnacle with a double weapon (though that truly isn't a pair of weapons, so much as a single weapon that you may declare the TWF special attack).
Given the feat investment, and requirements for tons of +hit and +static damage to make dual wielding worth it, Fighters are about all that's good at it. However, the iconic Fighter is also a dumb Fighter, because dual-wielding means specializing in your dual-wield weapons. Using a longsword/short sword is factually worse than 2 short swords, or even 2 longswords, due to Weapon Training/Specialization. Of course, we also know who's always on the verge of death in all the PF Artwork don't we? There's probably a reason for that. Bad fighters are bad. :P
The reason I never see TWF fighters is because of the extremely high Dex requirements. 15 for TWF, 17 for ITWF, and 19 for GTWF. Yes, you can get these with a 13 Dex and +6 belt, but then you lose access to the feats if you lose the belt. The agile weapon property helps, in that allows a fighter to concentrate on one Stat, but it only applies to weapons that can be finessed; so no double-sword, double-axe, or dire flail. No twin long swords, falcatas, or scimitars. Some people might go for this type of character, Ashiel, but I have never seen one in person.
In fact, balanced switch-hitters (to use Treantmonk's phrase) are the most common type of Fighter I see. They have the feats to take some archery, haul around a bow and arrows for range, then switch their great sword, greataxe, falchion, what-have-you that they invest the REST of their feats when the enemy closes.
If someone REALLY wants to play a TWFer, he normally goes ranger. In my own experience. Heck, even our Rogue's normally stay away from a deep investment in TWF, just grabbing the first feat for use on full-sneak-attacks.
Of course, that just might be in my game, and could well be relatively uncommon elsewhere.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, if we are discussing issues, discuss actual issues.
AC does not lag.
A first level monk with a 16 wis, 12 dex and dodge (bonus feat) has a 15 AC, Same as a Melee ranger with a 12 Dex in a chain shirt.
I could rest my case here. Notice that with more investment than the Ranger wearing light armor, the monk has only parred with the Ranger. The monk has had to invest a 16 Wisdom, and 12 Dexterity. The ranger, 12 Dexterity. The ranger also has an option to use a shield (there's another +2 AC right there). The ranger in turns beats monk in combat ability (hit/damage), HP (yay HP), utility (more skills, more spells), and party support (more spells, class features, and so forth of a party friendly variety). Monk loses. Ironically, the monk loses by trying to PAR with the Ranger. In light armor no less. The only edge that the monk has against this hypothetical ranger in crappy gear is that the monk's Wisdom to AC applies vs touch attacks. Woopti-friggin'-doo.
Better, actually since is the monks touch AC and it has no armor check penalty. By 4th it is better than scale mail, by 8th it is better than Chain mail…and this is assuming you don’t get any wisdom boosting items, which of course you likely would. You can put your armor enhancements on bracers of armor for the same cost as you would armor with none of the armor check or movement issues that come with armor. Monks generally start off with comparable armor to Rangers and Barbarians and by 10th level are up there with fighters and Paladins.
Here's another funny bit. Notice that by 4th it's better than "scale mail" which is the worst medium armor possible (it is the poor man's AC at 1st level) and is counting the monk's Dex modifier and Wisdom modifier. The monk would have to be 12th level to match the 1st level Ranger in a suit of chain mail with the same stats as the previous example (Dex +1, Wis +4, Monk +2 = 17 vs Dex +1, Armor +6 = 17). Still counting no shields. Of course, the monk's Wisdom and Dex could have gone up. From 12 and 16 to 14 and 18 costs 8,000 gp. Incidentally buying +2 armor is... 4,000 gp. Er, yeah. Good show monk. Way to really shine your AC.
The issue isn’t defense. The monk is either the best defensive class in the game, or tied with the Paladin. The issue isn’t even really damage, as I agree with the OP that they shouldn’t out damage the true martial classes.
Pfft. The monk is maybe on par with the Barbarian in terms of defensive abilities. I'm not really even sure about that though. Paladin is definitely the most defensive, as the Paladin rocks AC, saves, and tons of outright immunities to very bad things. Incidentally, Paladins do so while also being very party friendly with their abilities, and being decent martial characters as well (actually being able to hit and damage stuff effectively, and slaughtering evil thingies).
The issue is if a monk is using the iconic weapon (unarmed) they can’t enhance those weapons in the same way other classes. Amulet of Mighty Fist caps at +5 and takes a slot, specifically because it isn’t a monk specific item.
Agreed. In fact, limiting to unarmed strikes only would be enough, I think. Doesn't even need to be monk specific.
Give monks a way to enhance their fists in a similar fashion to other classes (or at least raise the “to hit” ability) and 95% of the “problems” are solved.
What monks run into that is a legitimate problem is they can’t get the same bonuses to hit on unarmed strike. This was “addressed” with brass knuckles, then taken away.
The laundry list is longer, but that's not a bad start.
Simply adding a way to do this, be it a monk only item to avoid multi-limb cheese inherent with the AMOF, or my personal suggestion of making it a monk ability to be able to meditate and spend X gold in incense, etc…to perform a ritual to improve your unarmed attacks, monks need to have the same access to enhancement other classes have.Hopefully this can be addressed soon.
Agreed.
|
|
@Ashiel
The two skill point difference is negated by not having any armor check penalty.
And more importantly, the monk isn't wearing any armor. Buffs like mage armor become much more useful when you don't start with any armor bonus.
Unless you get bracers of armor of course, which functionally cost the same as armor enhancements.
And yes, scale mail is a low AC medium armor. It also has movement penalties on top of the armor check penalties. Could you go mithral? Sure? Is it better to be able to get the same effect and spend gold elsewhere? Yup.
Add to that best saves, immunities, etc...
The rest we agree on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason I never see TWF fighters is because of the extremely high Dex requirements. 15 for TWF, 17 for ITWF, and 19 for GTWF. Yes, you can get these with a 13 Dex and +6 belt, but then you lose access to the feats if you lose the belt.
Like I said, TWF is the melee version of archery (Str priority, Dex secondary, damage prime). For example, 15, 15, 14, 10, 10, 7 is a 15 point buy not counting ability mods. That's plenty. You can even hit Str 17 at 1st level if you have a +2 Str, or hit Dex 17 immediately if you have a +2 Dex. There's no need for a +6 stat item off the bat because you can't take the greater versions of TWF until higher levels anyway.
By exceptionally high levels, your base stat + inherent modifiers ensure you will never lose your feats. Before then, common cheaper +stat modifier items that boost dexterity slightly are enough to qualify for your feats as needed. Honestly, Dex 27+ is easy for a high level Fighter in a group with a Mage, and just expensive otherwise. Hitting the Dex 19 by higher levels for greater TWF isn't a thing at all.
Meanwhile, the reason it works for Fighters is due to Weapon Training + Specialization, which gives up to a +6 hit/damage to your favorite weapon(s) which you are using for TWF, then toss another +2 to hit (focus) and +4 (specialization), bringing you to +8/+10 with either weapon, or +6/+10 when using the TWF special attack.
Add in a double weapon (such as a staff) which is 2 handed and you get 1.5* strength modifier on damage (which does not go away when using the TWF special attack) and better returns on power attack (full PA on main hand attack due to it being a 2 handed weapon and full PA/2 on off hand, giving you a +18/+9 damage at 20th level), which leaves you at +0/+28 on main hand and +0/+19 on off hand damage when including Power Attack.
You offset the to hit penalties best, and add enough static damage to make the extra attacks worth it. Toss in some speed weapons (one extra attack from each weapon, doesn't stack with haste) and you can land up to 9 attacks per round with a pretty solid damage base.
The agile weapon property helps, in that allows a fighter to concentrate on one Stat, but it only applies to weapons that can be finessed; so no double-sword, double-axe, or dire flail. No twin long swords, falcatas, or scimitars. Some people might go for this type of character, Ashiel, but I have never seen one in person.
Well it's a build that typically requires people to put more effort into it. TWF requires a of synergy and feat investment, and understanding of what your goal is. It's a damage dealing build, and unlike archery you still have the horrible prospect of trying to get an enemy to stay still while you whack-a-mole, which has been melee's worst problem since 3.5 when they nerfed haste (in 3.0, due to Haste which everyone and their neighbor used at high levels, you could move and full attack every round, eliminating the need for Pounce to make viable melee characters).
In fact, balanced switch-hitters (to use Treantmonk's phrase) are the most common type of Fighter I see.
Not surprising, because Switch Hitters are far simpler and easier to manage. For one, they require exceptionally few feats to be decent, which leaves them with tons of other feats to round out things like defenses. All you need for a good switch hitter is Power Attack and maybe Furious Focus. Everything else is gravy (gloves of dueling gives you +6 to hit with your melee weapon, +5 to hit with your ranged weapon, or vice versa as desired, then bracers of archery if you desire). Gives you more versatility in exchange for lower damage potential, which is in my opinion a definite win for the Switch Hitter (because there are just too many instances where you will not fight on your terms).
IMHO, dual wielding is still not very impressive, but Fighters are arguably the best at ignoring or overcoming the biggest drawbacks, and it definitely looks frightening in terms of sheer damage potential by mid to high levels. I have seen such Fighters before, but they are rare. One of my friends played such a Fighter, with some help, in a game I was also playing in (he was incidentally an orc using a double axe, which gave him a nice +4 strength to help balance his Str/Dex in a desirable fashion) and was our professional damage dealer (and business was good). His PC and my PC made a pretty nice team. I was playing a wise and charismatic mystic jedi-monk thingy, and he was playing a slobberknockin' double-weapon beefcake. Great team all around.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are utility fighters. They have more tricks than a standard Fighter does, and at times, more than a Paladin, Barbarian, Cavalier, or Ranger does too. More tricks = slightly lower BAB. Same rule rings true for spell-casting classes.
Simple Solution: Play a class for flavor, not numbers. This is a Role-Playing Game, after all.
People can number crunch and theory craft all they want, but when it comes to game time, the dice decide everything anyway. If the rolls go well, a monk can easily out perform a fighter. Heck, a wizard with a quarterstaff could out perform a fighter too if his rolls are good, I've seen it happen.
Yeah yeah, "percentages" and all that jazz. Having a higher percent chance of doing something doesn't mean squat if your rolls suck that game.
Bottom line, just play a class you enjoy, not because they could solo a tarrasque by level X with build Y. Most GMs (and other players) hate power-gamers anyway.
RP won't keep you alive*, and while the dice gods can always end your character, it is always better to play with the odds than against them which is what the monk does.
*Well it can, but that is mostly GM Fiat, which can't be counted on in a discussion on the boards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel
The two skill point difference is negated by not having any armor check penalty.
Not for long. The check penalty there is only a -2. The lack of MAD the monk sports just to try and tie a poorly built individual in armor class can be put to better use. For example, the only stats a monk doesn't rely on are Int and Cha, making them dumpy. Ranger can happily sport 15, 15, 14, 10, 10, 7 if he wanted, and be none the worse for it, and beat the monk's AC (2 dex + 4 armor = 16 AC, beats monk AC). The extra dex means the check penalty is only -1 (effectively, since the higher +1 offsets some of it). More skill points means more than just investing in Str/Dex based skills, as it allows you to be better rounded in ways the monk cannot easily hope for.
For example, dumping some ranks into Linguistics is nice if you want to speak a few extra languages. Useless in combat, but good for roleplaying situations, reading exotic underground markings (pairs nicely with that Knowledge:Dungeoneering), and so forth. Or Diplomacy. Or Sense Motive. Whatever you like, really. Cuts down the need to spend your favored class bonus on rounding out your characters skills, so you can put it into HP a bit more if you like (supplementing your net +20 HP gain over the monk).
And more importantly, the monk isn't wearing any armor. Buffs like mage armor become much more useful when you don't start with any armor bonus.
Entirely true. Potions of mage armor are nearly required for monks. Unfortunately they can't get shield in potion form. This is the best trick monks have at low levels, hands down. With a 14 Dex and Wis, they can pull an 18 AC for 1 hour. That matches a 14 Dex ranger in Chainmail, but without the check penalty or speed penalty (at the cost of 50 gp/hour). Having your party's mage cast it is a mixed blessing, since every mage armor used on your monk could have been an enlarge person used on the ranger... :P
Unless you get bracers of armor of course, which functionally cost the same as armor enhancements.
Unfortunately they kinda suck for their cost, for anyone who can use armor, which is literally everyone except monks.
And yes, scale mail is a low AC medium armor. It also has movement penalties on top of the armor check penalties. Could you go mithral? Sure? Is it better to be able to get the same effect and spend gold elsewhere? Yup.
Why go mithral though? Why would you want mithral scale mail? Just going to chain mail (150 gp) negates it. Mwk makes the check penalty no so bad. Mwk tools (50 gp) offset much of the rest. For less than the cost the monk will inevitably end up dumping to keep up with normal equipment, the ranger can effectively eliminate the drawbacks of his check penalty, while still being solid in multiple venues, and being helpful to the party.
Thing is, it's not just the ranger. Most classes are better than monks. Hell, I'd argue that BARDs are better than monks at things commonly considered monkish (barring actually slapping people with their fingers). They have the same BAB any instance where the monk cannot flurry, which is literally any instance that your opponent isn't at ground zero and eating your face, to-hit bonuses are roughly equal when flurrying, better when not flurrying, bards have better damage (inspire courage adds like +5 to hit and damage, and has the added benefit of working for the whole team), and bards are harder to hit than monks because they can merrily prance about in light armor (up to +11 AC by high levels), while also poofed up in various defensive spells and/or trinkets (many of which they likely crafted themselves). Couple this with tons of skill points, great party support, and lots of problem solving options.
Add to that best saves, immunities, etc...
When people say monks have the best saves, they basically mean "Monks have a 10-30% chance to save over the worst save of most other classes". Effectively, it would be akin to a Paladin having a +2 bonus to their Reflex save, that eventually reaches +6 over 20 levels. In essence, their saves aren't much better than every Ranger, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Alchemist, Magus, etc. It's nice but not even half as good as Divine Grace, and probably not even as good as Superstitious.
Some of their immunities are kind of nice, but aren't really helping their overall picture IMHO. Like I said before; the best monk fix I've ever seen was the whole 3.5 monk (immunities, speed, wisdom to AC, everything) sewn together with the Psychic Warrior's power list (the whole power list, power progression, and powers known, the whole thing) and it turned out good. Not overpowered. Just good. Like what the monk was always meant to be. Not quite as awesome as dedicated martial characters most of the time, arguably better when using their spiritual power (read buffs and stuff), and you had a lot of leeway with how you made them (you could make everything from chameleon-powered ninja monks to Master Roshi monks who learned to shoot energy blasts from their hands, to Shaolin "spears don't pierce me" monks, to crazy Cthulu "tentacles of forbidden knowledge doom monks").
I've just been very unimpressed by monks. The best monks I've ever seen are usually those who have exceptionally high stats (like back when my group used to roll our stats, and you had that one guy who rolled the three 18s and made that monk who seemed equally awesome to the rest of the party). I've never found them very good on the standard scale though. Milage may vary I suppose. I try to explain my experiences using the actual rules and explain the hows and whys though; to avoid confusion or misinformation.
The rest we agree on.
Agreed again. This is a good look for us. :P