That's very true, YRM. As it stands, the monk is situationally useful, while the fighter is always useful. At the end of the day the monk's big problem is still hitting their target and overcoming DR. In your game you have a friendly druid willing to solve that problem with buffs, but that is not a solution. It just highlights that the class cannot carry itself.
At the end of the day, after all their acrobatics and athletics, to be truly effective the monk has to attack and damage a foe. As it stands, they have real problems doing this as effectively as any other combat class.
All in all I think the monk does fare quite well.You mean as long as he doesn't have to fight anything challenging, Liam is fine. If there is anything that can challenge any of those fighters, it will challenge Liam more. A LOT more.
A CR6 creature should have:
70 hit points
AC 19
Attack of +8 to +12
Inflict 18-25 damage
Good saves of +9 and poor saves of +5
A primary ability with a DC16 save and a secondary ability with a DC 11 save.If Liam doesn't get very lucky, he's dead.
[...]
Compare this to Ulfen, who can hammer this thing flat in three rounds while barely sustaining a scratch, whether it sees him coming or not.
No surprise there. Of course Ulfen should fare better, because fighting is all he can do.
Liam would be stupid to take on a CR6 monster on his own.Now I did randomly look up some CR 6 monsters and I don't think that Ulfen can just hammer them flat so easily:
Hag, Annis:
Will probably attack from within a fog cloud she created (she has Blind fight), so she has good chances to surprise Ulfen and will be not hit so easily.
Furthermore she has two grab attacks and grapple +19, so I suspect she gets hold of Ulfen in her first round which means he won't be able to use that falchion anymore. So he'll probably draw a dagger to fight on which means less damage (one handed, light weapon, no weapon focus, no weapon specialization, no weapon training). Suddenly Ulfen fights at +12/+7 with 1d4+4 damage... And the Hag has DR 5/bludgeoning. Maybe he better has to use his fists...
Liam has Blind fight, too, might escape being grappled, or escape from the grapple and he can ignore the DR.
I still don't expect him to win against the Hag, but I expect him to (out)match the fighter's performance.
Demon, Babau:
He will use darkness, so the fighter won't see anything. Again. I do seem to draw monsters not easily to be hammered flat...
He has DR 10/cold iron, so the falchion+2 won't help Ulfen much (although his high damage will, of course).
Liam will have to pull out that cold iron Kama, losing 1 point of dmg on average. Granted, Ulfen still does more damage than Liam, but not so much anymore (16 vs. 11 per hit). He has slightly better chances to make the reflex roll to avoid the acid damage.
But still I don't think that either Ulfen or Liam are able to take up a Babau one on one. Or one on two if the Babau happens to succeed in summoning another one...
Giant, Wood:
He will probably snipe Ulfen from afar with his mwk longbow. Ulfen has no chance to force melee combat with his speed of 20 feet (compared to 40).
Liam might catch up to the giant or better run away with his higher movement.
Rhinoceros, Woolly:
Yep, I think this can be easily hammered flat by Ulfen. But why should you do that? Ok, probably because it has been summoned by some evil caster. Hmm, Liam would try to grapple the caster instead. Outmaneuvering the Rhino should be possible for him and maybe he was able to reach the caster before he summoned the Rhino in the first place (movement + stealth).
Lamia:
Deep slumber, DC 14, 1x/day, Charm monster, DC 15, 3x/day, suggestion, DC 14, 3x/day.
One of these will get the fighter before he can hammer the lamia flat, I think. Especially as the lamia might soften up his will save by draining wisdom before (probably disguised) using a touch attack. After the initial draining the Lamia might get some distance between itself and the fighter with its move of 60 feet (the fighter might not even get a hit placed due to being surprised). Even Liam would have to use ki to outrun it.
Shambling Mound:
Ugh, two grab attacks per round again. Just like the Hag above. Say goodbye to those falchion attacks again. Ok, he's not as good as grappling as the Hag, so Ulfen might kill him first. Still, probably no straightforward hammering to death, again.
Clockwork Soldier:
The DR 5/adamantine is no problem for Ulfen's high damage whereas it's a big problem for Liam. The CMD 31 will prevent Liam's combat maneuvers easily and it cannot be stunned.
But then its move is 30 feet, so while Ulfen can't outrun it, Liam can. And those two halberd attacks at +18/+13 with lots of damage (it is a large halberd) might kill Ulfen, too.
Oh and it can disarm and grapple, too.
To summarize: CR 6 monsters are a challenge for a party but for one character alone they are typically much more than a challenge, regardless of character class. Liam at least can escape grapples evade darkness and run away.
Have those monsters just been situational? Probably not.
...stuff about tactical situations...
I agree totally. Thanks, YRM, to give a wider perspective than just toe-on-toe fights with simple monsters.
As far as DR everyone is aware of:
Weapons with an enhancement bonus of +3 or greater can ignore some types of damage reduction, regardless of their actual material or alignment. The following table shows what type of enhancement bonus is needed to overcome some common types of damage reduction.
DR Type Weapon Enhancement Bonus Equivalent
cold iron/silver +3
adamantine +4
alignment-based +5
Is there some reason an AoMF doesn't apply to this?
|
Monks got around the cost issue of AoMF by getting a weapon instead. Then Paizo said FoB is TWF, which means monks cannot use their magic weapon for all attacks.
This means the monk has to use different bonuses for each attack of FoB, which is a total pain in the ass to calculate (1st attack, weapon, 2nd attack, kick, 3rd attack, weapon again, etc). This also means the monk has to get 2 weapons to use his signature class ability without the weapon/kick/weapon penalty, or pay for AMoF. Guess what, two +5 weapons are STILL cheaper than one +5 AoMF.
AoMF isn't really designed for a monk. It's for a wild shaped druid with like 5+ attacks.
Liam ap Talwig: Is your CMD off for both your 6th and 12th level builds? Shouldn't it be BAB, not level, in figuring CMD? Maneuver training only lets you figure CMB as level=BAB, CMD still uses your normal BAB, right?
That would put your 6th level CMD at at 26 (28 grapple/trip) and your 12th level CMD at 38 (40 trip, 42 grapple).
Your 12th level build should have +4 initiative.
You've got no enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes? Or your kama? Bold move. Incorporeal foes will be your worst enemy.
Master Arminas
Liam ap Talwig: Is your CMD off for both your 6th and 12th level builds? Shouldn't it be BAB, not level, in figuring CMD? Maneuver training only lets you figure CMB as level=BAB, CMD still uses your normal BAB, right?
That would put your 6th level CMD at at 26 (28 grapple/trip) and your 12th level CMD at 38 (40 trip, 42 grapple).
Your 12th level build should have +4 initiative.
You've got no enhancement bonus to your unarmed strikes? Or your kama? Bold move. Incorporeal foes will be your worst enemy.
Master Arminas
Oops, you are right, CMD should use normal BAB (stupid rule, though, to have maneuver training only affect CMB).
Forgot to change the initiative for the belt.
Doesn't the ki pool (magic) count for incorporeal foes, too? If not, I should fix that.
Thanks!
Maybe monks should get a spell like ability to enchant their unarmed attacks with magic fang and upgrading to greater magic fang at x levels. Their caster levels equal to their monk levels. Maybe cost 1 ki per cast.
This and similar ideas have been proposed.
Is there some reason an AoMF doesn't apply to this?
AoMF is not a weapon. The devs have pretty much said that AoMF (and greater magic fang) do not allow you to bypass DR as weapons do.
@Liam
Darkness is not a be-all and end-all, if the fighter has a sunrod, it's gone because Darkness now only reduces light levels, it does not utterly negate light.
Grappling isn't the be-all and end-all either: Weapon training adds to CMD, and a grappled fighter can still hit you. Hard. It's a problem for the two-handed fighter, because he needs both hands, but not for any of the others.
I agree some foes there would wipe the floor with both monks and fighters. The monk would do better against a few, the fighter would do better against most - especially those with DR: his massive damage will get through it easier than the monk's.
My point remains that the monk has on the whole a bigger problem than the fighter.
I reiterate: I do not believe the monk has to inflict DPR on the fighter's level to be effective. He does, however, need a boost to hit targets so that he has a chance of having his other abilities kick in. A weapon that enhances unarmed attacks that isn't capped as the AoMF is would be one option. A means of enhancing the to-hit chances is the other option. The monk's unarmed damage scales adequately with level, it's the chances to hit that need boosting.
Until the monk can do this, he's an also-ran in any fight.
@Dabbler
Magical darkness as per the Hag's spell won't be canceled by a mundane light source like a sun rod.
Weapon training doesn't add to grapple CMD, it only adds to disarm. True, a grappled fighter can hit the grappler. But not with a two-handed weapon and I was talking about the two-handed fighter build (the point of comparing concrete builds was to have fixed advantages and disadvantages to compare). And the grappler would usually pin the grappled opponent next round to prevent him from hitting back.
I'm not so sure about the monk having bigger problems than the fighter with the opponents I gave. I did give several arguments where he would have advantages.
Not to be misunderstood: I wouldn't say no to the monk getting a hit bonus like you suggested in place of ki pool qualities. And I'd like the monk to have full BAB to reduce book keeping and mistakes (like I did with the CMD). A little more ki would be welcome as well and clarification of flurry and abundant step to work like they should. +4 SR at level 11 for 1 ki. The greater combat maneuvers as bonus feats at level 10. On top of that an increasing 5 foot step for the mobility. All in all quite small changes (except for the 5 foot step).
That should suffice to make the monk shine, don't you think?
I think we are closer to the same wavelength here. The monk can act, but less directly than the fighter. Ultimately, though, he needs to attack and do damage. What he has gimped is weapon enhancement for the unarmed strike. I can understand why this ism as unlike a conventional weapon unarmed strike scales in damage. Unfortunately this leaves the monk lacking in a bonus to hit that his contemporaries all have easy access to, and he lags far enough behind them that it's a problem to his other abilities.
Regarding Darkness:
This spell causes an object to radiate darkness out to a 20-foot
radius. This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step, from bright light to normal light, from normal light to dim light, or from dim light to darkness.
So if anyone walks into an area of darkness with a sunrod, then it will provide not normal light (as it would normally do) but dim light. Not good, but certainly not helplessly blind.
b
And here ladies and gentlemen is why a comparison is completely useless. Everyone plays differently. A large part of your games are combat. Some games are 50/50, some are even swayed more towards non-combat.
Well actually a large number of games I have observed are also largely combat based. Many AP's are also heavily influenced by combat. Generally speaking combat is very important.
A fighter more "useful"? How? If it's not combat, all a fighter does and stand there and wait for combat. Take a dungeon crawl (I know, I know "situational, doesn't count"), who's going to be in front the fighter or the monk (out of just those two)? The fighter with his higher AC and HP, or the monk with his higher saves, his higher perception, slow fall, and evasion?
You have yet to list something the monk is bringing to the table that could not be done better by someone else.
The other thing is that the monk is not doing anything I can't do with another class.
I keep hearing this, so here's my question: What can a fighter do you can't do with another class? Name the class that can't damage the bad guy? How many classes have full BAB? A Paladin, Barbarian, and Ranger, all have full BAB (to just use CRB), heck the monk technically has a full BAB when two-weapon fighting. And all those classes actually contribute something out of combat. Do see what I'm saying now? You compare the Monk to the Fighter, the Rogue, the Barbarian, and the Wizard, but you only compare the Fighter to the Monk. Of the two, the fighter is the one that has the most redundant skills, not the monk.
I will put it this way-->Who does the monk replace in a 4 man party?
I think we are closer to the same wavelength here.
For sure. The thing I wanted to examine and show in this thread is that the monk's non-damage skills are often underrated and have to be taken into account when looking at the whole picture.
The monk can act, but less directly than the fighter.
And this is fine. Because he can act more indirectly than the fighter.
Ultimately, though, he needs to attack and do damage. What he has gimped is weapon enhancement for the unarmed strike.
Agreed. I just don't agree that this cripples the monk such as to make him unplayable and that his other features don't count or are just situational. When encountering the monsters I cited above they would help the monk a lot. Different situations, of course, but the monk had a skill for most of them.
Regarding Darkness:
...This darkness causes the illumination level in the area to drop one step...So if anyone walks into an area of darkness with a sunrod, then it will provide not normal light (as it would normally do) but dim light. Not good, but certainly not helplessly blind.
I think you forgot the rest of the spell description:
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.
Sunrods count as nonmagical sources of light I'd say (otherwise they would have another price tag) or at most as cantrip. So, no, they won't help against magical darkness.
Many AP's are also heavily influenced by combat. Generally speaking combat is very important.
For Pathfinder that is my observation as well. But even there combat is not everything, there is roleplaying as well, exploring and scouting, and when combat cannot be avoided, being able to choose when and where the combat will take place and against whom, is important. For these tasks, the monk is far better suited than the fighter.
The other thing is that the monk is not doing anything I can't do with another class.
That's not the point. The point is that the monk can do a bunch of things, no other class can do.
I will put it this way-->Who does the monk replace in a 4 man party?
That certainly is a good question. The reason for that is that the classic classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) are so specialized that they are not easily replaced. I think the same question could be raised for the bard, actually.
But depending on your campaign, I'd suggest replacing the rogue (in that case the monk would probably have to learn disable device, but won't be able to disarm magic traps, a feature unique to the rogue - and therefore no better replaceable by a bard), or the fighter (the party would need to adapt their combat tactics and fight more intelligently) or even the wizard. He might even replace the cleric if the fighter gets replaced by a paladin.Examples: in our current party we have a paladin (lvl 6), a rogue (lvl 6), a cleric (lvl 5)/wizard (lvl 1) and a monk (lvl 5)/sorcerer (lvl 1, just a dip to fit the background). No real wizard and we are faring fine, so far. So, the monk has essentially replaced the wizard.
Another example: in our Dark Sun campaign lasting for many years, where we played up to level 12+, we had a rogue, a druid/psionic, another rogue and a wizard. No fighter there and Athas is a harsh world.
To summarize: while the classic roles of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard are clear cut and helpful for beginners, it is certainly possible to have parties which lack one of these roles or fulfill it just partly and still have fun with the game :-)
That's not the point. The point is that the monk can do a bunch of things, no other class can do.
It kinda is the point because what is the monk doing that matters that no other class can do on a consistent basis.?
I am basically saying the monk is not needed as much and is therefore less valuable.
The bard can put out decent damage, and he makes the party better. Most of the monk's abilities only make the monk better.
The ranger and bard can also replace the rogue. The rogue is not even the 4th man anymore in many parties. The ranger out scouts hims, and out damages the rogue.
I am sure your monk is not replacing a wizard or sorcerer. Just to be clear doing taking over that class's responsibilities and the party not dropping off is what I meant by replacing. If you had a 3.5 druid you could do with a fighter.
The druid was awesome(maybe a little too awesome) in 3.5.
What it boils down to is this. What class can I not use, and the party not really suffer for it. Most of the time the rogue and monk are the first ones to go if looking at it from an optimization standpoint especially if restricted to core.
My below TWF fighter holds his own, and it is not even a great build. It does respectable damage, has a decent perception score, and can make most swim and climb checks if they come up. I also have about 3000 gp for expendables.
TWF ARCHETYPE FIGHTER CR 11
Male Human Fighter 12
LN Medium Humanoid (Human)
Init +8; Senses Perception +20
--------------------
DEFENSE
--------------------
AC 26, touch 14, flat-footed 22. . (+12 armor, +4 Dex)
hp 95 (12d10+12)
Fort +12, Ref +11, Will +11
Defensive Abilities Bravery +3
--------------------
OFFENSE
--------------------
Spd 30 ft.
Melee +3 Kukri +22/+17/+12 (1d4+14/15-20/x2) and
. . +3 Kukri +22/+17/+12 (1d4+14/15-20/x2) and
. . Gauntlet (from Armor) +17/+12/+7 (1d3+5/20/x2) and
. . Unarmed Strike +17/+12/+7 (1d3+5/20/x2)
Ranged +1 Longbow, Composite (Str +5) +18/+13/+8 (1d8+7/20/x3)
Special Attacks Weapon Training: Blades, Light, Weapon Training: Bows
--------------------
STATISTICS
--------------------
Str 17/21, Dex 17/19, Con 12, Int 9, Wis 12/14, Cha 10
Base Atk +12; CMB +17; CMD 31
Feats Double Slice, Greater Two-weapon Fighting, Greater Weapon Focus: Kukri, Greater Weapon Specialization: Kukri, Improved Critical: Kukri, Improved Initiative, Improved Iron Will (1/day), Improved Two-weapon Fighting, Iron Will, Skill Focus: Perception, Two-weapon Fighting, Two-weapon Rend, Weapon Focus: Kukri, Weapon Specialization: Kukri
Skills Climb +9, Handle Animal +5, Perception +20, Ride +8, Survival +17, Swim +9
Languages Common
SQ Armor Training 3 (Ex)
Combat Gear +1 Longbow, Composite (Str +5), +3 Kukri, +3 Kukri, Arrows (40), Celestial Plate Armor; Other Gear Belt of Giant Strength, +4, Cloak of Resistance, +3, Headband of Inspired Wisdom, +2, Ioun Stone, Deep Red Sphere
Gold 2832
--------------------
SPECIAL ABILITIES
--------------------
Armor Training 3 (Ex) Worn armor -3 check penalty, +3 max DEX.
Bravery +3 (Ex) +3 Will save vs. Fear
Improved Iron Will (1/day) 1/day, re-roll a Will save.
Two-weapon Rend You deal an additional 1d10+(STR*1.5) if you hit with both of your weapons.
Weapon Training: Blades, Light +2 (Ex) +2 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with Light Blades
Weapon Training: Bows +1 (Ex) +1 Attack, Damage, CMB, CMD with BowsHero Lab® and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.
Your 12th level monk has stunning fist with a DC of 20. The average high save of a CR 12 monster is a +15. The low save is a +11. That means stunning fist is not likely to work.
On top of that that monk has a +16 when flurrying. The average AC is 27 meaning the monk is likely to miss even on its best attack.The monk also has an AC of 28 which is 2 ahead of a two weapon fighter. had it not been a two weapon fighter or one that I put real effort into the monk would not have the higher AC.
Saves are about even. The fighter has a higher fort save, but the monk has slightly better will and reflex saves.
The fighter secondary attacks are better than the monk primary attacks even when flurrying.
The monk has more skills, but the fighter has high enough skills with climb, and swim. Having enough gold to get buy expedables also helps. The fighter also has a higher perception(20 vs 18).
Yeah the monk has a +15 and 16 in two knowledge skills but someone dedicated to those skills can get the same bonuses by level 7 or 8 if not before then.
The monk's strategy is listed as being to grapple, but with only a +21 he can't expect that to work. Somewhere around level 10 monsters get really resistant to CMB based attack rolls.
Abundant step still requires you to have a mental image of the area,and going anywhere solo if often a bad idea. Considering how this monk is not made for combat he better not try that solo idea anyway.
It seems that the goggles of night are supposed to help the monk scout.
Stealth +23
Perception +18
Most monsters in the CR 11 to 13 range have a high enough perception that this monk has about a 50% chance to assuming only one check is needed.
Conclusion. The monk is not fighting anyone, and he is not scouting well enough to take the ranger or rogue's spot either. His knowledge checks are not up to par with any class wanting to do that either.
Now to be fair other than the fighter's(one I made) perception check he is not doing much outside of combat either other than survival checks. He can bring the pain during a fight though, and since that is his job he has earned his keep.
CR 13
I think we are closer to the same wavelength here.For sure. The thing I wanted to examine and show in this thread is that the monk's non-damage skills are often underrated and have to be taken into account when looking at the whole picture.
I agree, they are useful - the problem is, that the non-combat skills of rangers and rogues (and even paladins) are often MORE useful, and these classes are also more effective fighters than the monk.
The monk can act, but less directly than the fighter.And this is fine. Because he can act more indirectly than the fighter.
Ultimately, though, he needs to attack and do damage. What he has gimped is weapon enhancement for the unarmed strike.Agreed. I just don't agree that this cripples the monk such as to make him unplayable and that his other features don't count or are just situational. When encountering the monsters I cited above they would help the monk a lot. Different situations, of course, but the monk had a skill for most of them.
There are some situations where the monk will have problems being able to do anything at all, and that's my biggest issue with them.
The monk is ultimately a combat class, and the purpose of a combat class is to fight. When you fight, you have to hit the enemy and hurt them. This is where the monk is behind every other combat class - even the rogue has his sneak attack to override DR. The monk has zip. To me this is a big problem.
I think you forgot the rest of the spell description:
Nonmagical sources of light, such as torches and lanterns, do not increase the light level in an area of darkness. Magical light sources only increase the light level in an area if they are of a higher spell level than darkness.Sunrods count as nonmagical sources of light I'd say (otherwise they would have another price tag) or at most as cantrip. So, no, they won't help against magical darkness.
D'oh!
I will put it this way-->Who does the monk replace in a 4 man party?
Well he cannot replace the fighter, we have established that. He can, with a lot of work, replace the rogue and do the scouting. He can, with a lot of work, be an effective 'tank' by being all but unhitable.
I have no problem with the monk being a generalist who does a little of everything, but the way the class is constructed he cannot do enough of anything without really careful work to be effective. In a five-man party the monk can play the role of being wherever an extra pair of hands is needed, and this IS effective. But it just doesn't happen often enough to be actually useful.
I love the monk, conceptually the class is great. When they work, they are awesome. When.
Your 12th level monk has stunning fist with a DC of 20. The average high save of a CR 12 monster is a +15. The low save is a +11. That means stunning fist is not likely to work.
CR 12 with high save of +15 means 20% chance of staggering the opponent for 3-9 rounds, gaining 2 extra attacks per round and reducing the opponent to single attacks (which might get alleviated by vital strike or similar if he has that).
CR 12 with low save means a 40% chance. Stunning is another option if you'd like to disarm the opponent. Sickening him for 1 min is very nice, too, as it effectively increases your AC by 2 and lowers his saves by 2 (increasing those chances to 30% or 50%, respectively, for the next stunning effects).I think these chances are not too shabby (they are lowered by the chance to hit, of course). And there will be minions to be dealt with which have even lower chances. The BBEG won't be easily caught alone...
On top of that that monk has a +16 when flurrying. The average AC is 27 meaning the monk is likely to miss even on its best attack.
Don't forget his boots of speed which give him an additional attack and +17 when flurrying (of course, your party wizard might have haste and time to cast it, but then that depends on the wizard's build).
Even 16 vs. 27 is a 50% chance to hit. As I certainly won't attack the BBEG one-on-one there will be flanking bonuses, probably a prayer or other buffs, so we are looking more likely at a 70% chance to hit. And he has 3-4 (with boots of speed and ki) attacks with that chance.If the opponent is likely to be tripped the chances to hit can possibly be increased by another 20%, raising them to 90%.
The monk also has an AC of 28 which is 2 ahead of a two weapon fighter. had it not been a two weapon fighter or one that I put real effort into the monk would not have the higher AC.
With the boots of speed he as AC 29 and if necessary he can push this to AC 33 with ki. Of course you might build a fighter with higher AC but then he would probably be worse in some other aspect. So lets stick to comparing concrete builds.
Saves are about even. The fighter has a higher fort save, but the monk has slightly better will and reflex saves.
Agreed, the fighter has higher fort save but then the monk is immune to poison and diseases. He is more susceptible to death attacks, though.
Your fighter build does have good saves indeed. Nice! Being able to reroll that will save should be worth about +4 (depending on the roll to achieve), so I would say that the fighter's will saves are better than the monks except for enchantment where they are about equal.Reflex is about the same, although the monk has improved evasion.
All in all I agree that saves are about even.
The fighter secondary attacks are better than the monk primary attacks even when flurrying.
Indeed they are. Using the boots of speed they are the same, but undisputedly the fighter hits much better.
Average damage of your fighter ranges from 16.5 to 21.5 depending on whether the crits are confirmed vs. 14 of the monk, so your fighter deals up to 50% more damage if he hits (and he hits more often). Even more with the Two-weapon rend.Take away those Kukris from the fighter, though, and he will be much less effective. This is no easy thing, of course, and would need planning and preparation (or very high disarm skills). Intelligent opponents might try to target this, though.
The celestial plate armor (nice choice!) lets the fighter fly once per day which increases his mobility a lot and should make it comparable to abundant step and high jump. There will be situations where flying is better and situations where abundant step is better. Flying is restricted more (1/day).
The ranged attack abilities of the fighter are much better than the monk's who can only use a crossbow for much less damage.
The monk has more skills, but the fighter has high enough skills with climb, and swim. Having enough gold to get buy expedables also helps. The fighter also has a higher perception(20 vs 18). Yeah the monk has a +15 and 16 in two knowledge skills but someone dedicated to those skills can get the same bonuses by level 7 or 8 if not before then.
The skills of the fighter are not bad and his perception is great, though the monk's perception is not far behind.
I agree that someone dedicated to those knowledge skills can get the same bonuses earlier and the cleric will probably have knowledge (religion) anyway but I wouldn't wager on knowledge (history) as there are enough other interesting skills for the others to fill. In addition these skills might be useful while scouting when the cleric (or wizard) is not around. And if your group does contain someone concentrating on knowledge skills, the monk might invest in other skills instead. But I built that specific example assuming otherwise.The fighter has no stealth, so he cannot scout or assist the scout. No sense motive either.
The monk's strategy is listed as being to grapple, but with only a +21 he can't expect that to work. Somewhere around level 10 monsters get really resistant to CMB based attack rolls.
I agree that many monsters of CR 12 have high CMD, but there are still those that have values around 30, where grappling might work. But then I don't expect to only fight monsters but often to fight humans or humanoids. Taking your fighter as example (ok, he seems to be CR 11, not CR 12) has only CMD 31, so grappling would still be feasible. Even more so against casters.
Abundant step still requires you to have a mental image of the area,and going anywhere solo if often a bad idea. Considering how this monk is not made for combat he better not try that solo idea anyway.
Not just for solo actions which are feasible because he can get away with abundant step quite easily, but also for maneuvering in combat (useful even if RAW seems to mean that abundant step ends your turn, especially in combination with that ring of invisibility).
It seems that the goggles of night are supposed to help the monk scout. Stealth +23 Perception +18
Most monsters in the CR 11 to 13 range have a high enough perception that this monk has about a 50% chance to assuming only one check is needed.
Looking at randomly chosen monsters of CR 12 I found the following values: 19, 12, 25, 22, 31, 13, 24, so yeah, there are 3 with about 50% chance, 3 with better chances and one with very low chances to succeed. But then there are modifiers for distance, for example, so unless the monk tries to sneak just under the nose of these monsters, his chances should not be too bad.
Considering that the maximum stealth of a level 12 character would be at most 2, 3 or maybe 4 points better, requiring a Dex 22 or 26, it would be strange if only a character with heavily maximized stealth would be useful at scouting.Conclusion. The monk is not fighting anyone, and he is not scouting well enough to take the ranger or rogue's spot either. His knowledge checks are not up to par with any class wanting to do that either.
I think I have shown above that while the monk will not fight as good as the fighter he certainly can fight and that he can scout well enough.
Now to be fair other than the fighter's(one I made) perception check he is not doing much outside of combat either other than survival checks. He can bring the pain during a fight though, and since that is his job he has earned his keep.
No one said that the fighter has not earned his keep (especially not this build which I like). I'm just arguing that the monk earned his as well, as the things he can do in addition outweigh his lesser fighting skills. Just be creative.
Your 12th level monk has stunning fist with a DC of 20. The average high save of a CR 12 monster is a +15. The low save is a +11. That means stunning fist is not likely to work.CR 12 with high save of +15 means 20% chance of staggering the opponent for 3-9 rounds, gaining 2 extra attacks per round and reducing the opponent to single attacks (which might get alleviated by vital strike or similar if he has that).
CR 12 with low save means a 40% chance. Stunning is another option if you'd like to disarm the opponent. Sickening him for 1 min is very nice, too, as it effectively increases your AC by 2 and lowers his saves by 2 (increasing those chances to 30% or 50%, respectively, for the next stunning effects).
I think these chances are not too shabby (they are lowered by the chance to hit, of course). And there will be minions to be dealt with which have even lower chances. The BBEG won't be easily caught alone...
Actually, those are not the chances at all. Stunning fist requires three things:
1) Hit your target. The monk's lower chances to hit make failure at this stage significant (he's +6 behind warithstrike's fighter). At CR12, AC should be around 27, so Liam has a 50% chance of hitting with his stunning fist attempt.
2) Damage your target. Many foes at this level have DR, and DR which Liam likely cannot get past. So if his target has DR 10/good and cold iron, for example, he has to overcome it with his 2d8+5 attack. Getting a 6 or more on 2d8 isn't a big challenge, 53/64 = 86% success rate.
3) Fail it's save. Now our high save target fails 20% of the time, low save 40% of the time.
So for Liam attacking this target his chances are: 50% x 86% x 20% = 8.6% chance, or 17.2% with low save.
That's not so good. Doesn't mean that he shouldn't try, but he just cannot depend on it. At one stunning fist attempt per round, and three rounds being an average encounter, maybe once in a four encounter day his stunning fist will work.
This is one reason that I advocate some way of improving the monk's chances to hit and bypassing DR: the monk's other offensive abilities depend on it.
I will cheerfully admit that I haven't read the whole thread. I read the first 50 and last 5 posts.
But I have to say that I just don't really understand the point of alot of these type of threads.
Yes, the fighter is better than the monk at damage dealing and full armored greatness. He's supposed to be.
He is, after all, the F I G H T E R
----------------------------------------------------------------
I think most groups need (or at least do better with) a raw damage dealer. Be it fighter, paladin, or barbarian. But can your group make just as much use of a second one? What about a third?
Since you have a damage dealer, it might be better to trip or disarm the BBEG. Another armored brute might not be able to also get in close combat with the BBEG. What if you end up with 3 confused axemen? What if you need to run down a fleeing opponent. What if... etc.
I joined a group that already had a THF barbarian, archer paladin, melee EK, and a melee cleric. A heavily armored primary damage fighter would have had trouple keeping up with the rest of the group and been just another dps source (nothing special contributed). A disarming / tripping monk on the other hand added something the group did not already have. I could quickly and safely get to the wizard hidding behind the mooks then take away his staff, trip, and stun him. While the others were pounding on the evil knight, I disarmed him and ran away with his evil sword of awesomeness (he really wasn't very dangerous with his backup weapon). While the EK was casting fly and closing in (archer had been held), I jumped the chasm and pounded the archer into putty. But I wasn't king of the field either. I didn't do much to alot of the undead (but they didn't hurt me either). I almost died to the ooze that fell on me. It took me forever to beat down the dwarven defender that had maxd DR. But I had my time to shine and it wasn't as just another guy doing damage.
There are alot of situations where a fighter does better. There are also alot of situations where a monk seems to do better. In many many situations, one of each does better than 2 of either one.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't get to play nearly as much as I would like (real life sucks sometimes), but I haven't seen monks (after the first couple of levels) holding back the team or not pulling their own weight.
With one exception. Inexperienced players always seem to fail with the monk if they don't get alot of coaching. It is not a class for beginners even though beginners find the class description attractive.
You are correct (which is why I wrote "they are lowered by the chance to hit, of course" and that the chance to hit should be improved by flanking, tripping etc).
I did overlook the "has to be damaged" part of Stunning fist, though.
Maybe instead of (or in addition to :-) increasing the chance to hit the DC of Stunning fist should go up by 1 for every 5 levels?
The save DC of stunning fist is bad, I agree, but it isn't brokenly bad. Stunning fist will work more often if you can just hit and do damage more often, that's the crux of the monk's problem in combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but I just want to say that from personal experience, really fast movement is overkill and situational.
Movements of 30 to 50 actually do you just fine. Fast Movement is nice if you want to run up and attack creatures by yourself but I wouldn't recommend it. If you have a high melee group then the battles usually become a little tight grouped because your other melee guys aren't going to posses the movement that Monk's posses. Let's say you and your buddies have left a gig and everyone wants to go to Bob's house. Well you are on your motorbike well everyone else is riding in a car. You decide to speed up and get to Bob's house first. Well what's the point really? Bob has the key's to his house and he is riding in the car. You have all that speed from your motorbike but you are still restricted to going the speed of that car because you don't posses the keys to Bob's house.
You can do everything you need to do efficiently with a speed of 30 to 50.
|
Fast Movement is nice if you want to run up and attack creatures by yourself but I wouldn't recommend it.
...
You can do everything you need to do efficiently with a speed of 30 to 50.
Absolutely.
When the bridge gets washed out and the NPCs are being swept away by the current... being able to run fast and jump far would be of absolutely no use whatsoever.
When the enemy is making a surprise crossing of the border and the nearest command post with sufficient troops is 15 miles away... eh, just take your time getting there.
When the evil villain is fleeing the scene with the only antidote for the poison... well you can keep up with him so no need to be able to run FASTER and actually catch him.
Et cetera.
If your game is all about 'group A fights comparable group B' then no, no reason to run fast at all. Some games have different situations.
If your game is all about 'group A fights comparable group B' then no, no reason to run fast at all. Some games have different situations.
They do. Can't recall the last time I played one, though. The only one I came across in an AP was the race to save the flooding village in Rise of the Runelords - and that basically started 'when you arrive' with the speed you took having no material effect on the adventure.
You are correct in principal, but sadly those situations are so rare as to be easily ignored, and when they aren't there are the spells air walk, overland flight and teleport.
... You are correct in principal, but sadly those situations are so rare as to be easily ignored, and when they aren't there are the spells air walk, overland flight and teleport.
I don't think I have ever played in a campaign where situations like that didn't occur several times. And we didn't always have the correct spells prepared. Yes, there are usually other ways to handle a situation. But a monk would have been one of those valid ways.
Fast Movement is nice if you want to run up and attack creatures by yourself but I wouldn't recommend it.
...
You can do everything you need to do efficiently with a speed of 30 to 50.
Absolutely.
When the bridge gets washed out and the NPCs are being swept away by the current... being able to run fast and jump far would be of absolutely no use whatsoever.
When the enemy is making a surprise crossing of the border and the nearest command post with sufficient troops is 15 miles away... eh, just take your time getting there.
When the evil villain is fleeing the scene with the only antidote for the poison... well you can keep up with him so no need to be able to run FASTER and actually catch him.
Et cetera.
If your game is all about 'group A fights comparable group B' then no, no reason to run fast at all. Some games have different situations.
Well, it depends on how wide the river is. More than 90', and the monk cannot jump it (you can't jump further than your normal movement, right?). And that still leaves the rest of the part isolated on the far side. Oh, wait. If the monk is moving 90', that means the party is 18th level. And an 18th level party isn't even slowed down by a fast moving river with the bridges washed out.
And if the monk is the only one able to reach them, then sure. What about spells like sending? Cleric 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 5, so it should be available at 7th, 9th, and 10th level onwards. No range limit. "Hey commander dude. The Orcs of Mordor have crossed the river and are preparing to launch a surprise attack on Osgiliath. Just a heads up."
And teleport, dimension door, fly would not let you catch that evil villain with the poison? Or maybe the wizard could limited wish a cure. Or the cleric could cast delay poison. Lots of options here, man.
Master Arminas
|
|
/start rant
Monks would also improve if they didn't get all these little stupid restrictions.
Like fast movement is an enhancement bonus, so no boots, no Haste, no expeditious retreat off of a scroll/wand, etc. Monks are faster by only a little bit, but once magic and magic items are involved, monks are left behind actually. Lame.
Flurry of blows is now two-weapon fighting. So you need two weapons or else your math is off and your character not as effective. Lame.
Slow fall requires surfaces. Yes, the unarmored martial artist can't figure out a way to tumble and twist in mid-air like a cat to take less damage. He NEEDS a wall. Lame.
Unarmed strike is not a weapon. Or is it? Maybe we'll treat it as a weapon for X effects, but not Y effects, maybe on Z effects.
Can't wear armor at all. This made sense and wasn't an issue until Paizo printed Ultimate Combat. In that book they created the robes as light armor. It gives +1 armor bonus, as well as 0 armor check penalty. This means wizards, witches, and sorcerers (maybe other classes too), can have armor with 0 armor check penalty, meaning no drawback AT ALL. Which means they can spend the usual amount of money to get armor just as magical as fighters (fighter gets +4 full plate? I can have +4 robes!) This screws the monk because monk class features says ANY ARMOR makes them lose many of their class features. So those casters get cheap AC (the usual cost to enchant armor) as opposed to be much more expensive bracers of armor that a monk still needs (unless he gets monk robes). Another big FU to monks. Lame.
Flurry of blows and combat maneuvers use full BAB, but not other attacks...lame. And because Paizo married BAB to HD, we can't get full BAB with d8 HD. d10 HD wouldn't have broken monks, and can be argued that beings that dedicate their entire lives to physical and mental perfection should have d10 with all of their discipline and training. Lame.
Spell resistance. This is more the rules for spell resistance itself, but for a being who has mastered his own body, lowering SR as a free action or swift action would have been perfectly acceptable. Instead, they have to use a standard as all other creatures. Lame.
Can't get great combat maneuvers unless you have all the feats. Paizo says "oops, but we created an archetype for that!". Paizo could also have added new feats to the existing monk list. They did that for the ranger after all (a feat or two in APG was added to archery/TWF combat style IIRC). Especially even after Paizo created new combat maneuvers in APG. Lame.
I think I ranted about these before, but here they are again.
/end rant.
... You are correct in principal, but sadly those situations are so rare as to be easily ignored, and when they aren't there are the spells air walk, overland flight and teleport.I don't think I have ever played in a campaign where situations like that didn't occur several times. And we didn't always have the correct spells prepared. Yes, there are usually other ways to handle a situation. But a monk would have been one of those valid ways.
Which only goes to show how much adventures and experience can vary. Like all the monk's other abilities, it becomes situational (I am starting to hate that word).
@BYC
I agree. I think they made a lot of the restrictions because they didn't want the monk getting too good with buffs. Problem is they went the opposite way, the monk now basically plays second fiddle to anyone WITH a buff.
The way you make your monk sounds good, but we both know his fundamental problem remains: to hit & DR. You can minimise the former with the AoMF by sacrificing all special properties. The latter...there's not much you can do.
That's very true, YRM. As it stands, the monk is situationally useful, while the fighter is always useful. At the end of the day the monk's big problem is still hitting their target and overcoming DR. In your game you have a friendly druid willing to solve that problem with buffs, but that is not a solution. It just highlights that the class cannot carry itself.
At the end of the day, after all their acrobatics and athletics, to be truly effective the monk has to attack and damage a foe. As it stands, they have real problems doing this as effectively as any other combat class.
A problem that a Monk definitely has to overcome is the lower BaB, and Damage reduction.
However... real time experience has shown me that the fighter isn't always useful and the monk only situationally useful. Since I could act sooner, move faster, reach enemies that were tougher to reach, and pick my battles, I actually found that I was contributing more to our victories than the fighter.
Yes, he was powerful. Yes, he contributed.
But he also was "held", "dominated", "sunk to the bottom of a lake", "stuck on the wrong side of a chasm during a fight", "acted so low in the initiative order that half the battle was over by the time he started (at times)", "forced to double move to reach the foe he hoped would still be standing there fighting him next round".
I was put in a bad situation where I couldn't contribute two times in 19 levels. Both times were against higher level, well armored, well built fighters. (again, I'm not saying fighters suck) I couldn't get away from them in those instances and needed the group to save me.
But, that's no different than when the fighter was bleeding to death after being hit by two high damage touch spells that would have missed me.
Most of the time... just like the Monk has some "overkill" on his saves. Does he really need another +2 vs enchantment? Against most foes, no. Against a key badguy? It could be the difference between winning...
That is not a fighter issue.
CR 12 with high save of +15 means 20% chance of staggering the opponent for 3-9 rounds, gaining 2 extra attacks per round and reducing the opponent to single attacks (which might get alleviated by vital strike or similar if he has that).
CR 12 with low save means a 40% chance. Stunning is another option if you'd like to disarm the opponent. Sickening him for 1 min is very nice, too, as it effectively increases your AC by 2 and lowers his saves by 2 (increasing those chances to 30% or 50%, respectively, for the next stunning effects).
I think these chances are not too shabby (they are lowered by the chance to hit, of course). And there will be minions to be dealt with which have even lower chances. The BBEG won't be easily caught alone...
3 to 9 rounds? Actually it is 2 to 7 rounds, not that I am saying that is a bad thing to happen. It is also less than a 20 percent chance since you have to hit the opponent and the save has to be failed. It seems the chances are closer to 10%. You also have to bypass DR which may drop the percentage even lower.
Don't forget his boots of speed which give him an additional attack and +17 when flurrying (of course, your party wizard might have haste and time to cast it, but then that depends on the wizard's build).
Even 16 vs. 27 is a 50% chance to hit. As I certainly won't attack the BBEG one-on-one there will be flanking bonuses, probably a prayer or other buffs, so we are looking more likely at a 70% chance to hit. And he has 3-4 (with boots of speed and ki) attacks with that chance.
If the opponent is likely to be tripped the chances to hit can possibly be increased by another 20%, raising them to 90%.
I did not forget the boots, but they are not always on. I am assuming you would be conserving them like any other limited resource in case a monster that is 2+APL or higher comes up.
....he can push this to AC 33 with ki.
See my boots of speed comment.
Why would the kukris be taken away? I will also add that I have used the cestus(1d4/19-20), and unarmed strike(1d3) and still out damaged the monk. That monk was built to do damage also.
I don't intend for the fighter to stealth or use sense motive. That is what the other party members are for. When I want to fight and use other various skills I play rangers.
That does not mean that a fighter can not be made to do so, but it requires me to invest in things that don't help me do hit point damage, which is why I would opt for the ranger in such a case.
As for grappling casters, getting to them is not easy, and even then landing a blow is also difficult. Once you get past that they die easily even if you are using the warrior(NPC class). Of course that assumes the caster is a low BAB caster. If it is a druid or cleric you might get your butt kicked as a monk.
No one said that the fighter has not earned his keep (especially not this build which I like). I'm just arguing that the monk earned his as well, as the things he can do in addition outweigh his lesser fighting skills. Just be creative.
I understand you never said the fighter could not earn his keep. My point was that you know he can consistent and you know what you will get from a fighter.
As to that being creative thing, that normally requires a level of system mastery to make a monk effective, which is part of my issue with it. It is not that I think all monks suck. The problem is that more likely than not they do suck when put into play because are harder to build and play well than other classes.
PS:That fighter is not the two weapon archetype. I forgot to change that out after I modified it.
And if the monk is the only one able to reach them, then sure. What about spells like sending? Cleric 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 5, so it should be available at 7th, 9th, and 10th level onwards. No range limit. "Hey commander dude. The Orcs of Mordor have crossed the river and are preparing to launch a surprise attack on Osgiliath. Just a heads up."
And teleport, dimension door, fly would not let you catch that evil villain with the poison? Or maybe the wizard could limited wish a cure. Or the cleric could cast delay poison. Lots of options here, man.
Okay, just so I understand the argument: The fighter is better than the monk because the Wizard can teleport... Anyone else having a hard time following that logic? So in order for the monk fans to make a point, the monk has to be better than an entire party combined, while the fighter only has to be better than the monk... Wow
I took 5 minutes to whip up a monk just to see for myself, no real sense of posting it though given the above logic, you really can't argue that, but, my monk needed a 8 to hit the fighter, fighter only needs a 6, but the Monk could trip the fighter on 8 to trip him, and once he's on the ground the Monk only needs a 4 to hit him. All that assumes the monk doesn't fight defensively, they he'd need a 9 to hit, but the fighter would need an 8, and the fighter's first attack would be negated every round.
So how bad does that suck? A monk can trip the fighter on an 8 when the fighter gets up AoO, then when he attacks the monk crane style blocks it, and then gets another AoO (Crane Riposte), but then again, the Wizard can teleport, so all of that is irrelevant.
Jodokai: adventuring parties are fairly common, are they not? Normally 4-5 players each running a character? Now, are we talking about a monk and a fighter and NO ONE ELSE in the group; or are we talking about an adventuring party?
I thought the latter. And most adventuring parties (the ones that I have seen) have had either a Wizard or a Sorcerer or a Witch. Sometimes a bard, usually a cleric. Maybe a rogue or a druid.
Why would any party send out a single character (alone) to run 15 miles to the closest garrison when they use a sending spell?
Now, if you think we need to look at these character in isolation, fine. No outside support at all for either side.
Master Arminas
Okay, just so I understand the argument: The fighter is better than the monk because the Wizard can teleport... Anyone else having a hard time following that logic? So in order for the monk fans to make a point, the monk has to be better than an entire party combined, while the fighter only has to be better than the monk... WowAnd if the monk is the only one able to reach them, then sure. What about spells like sending? Cleric 4, Sorcerer/Wizard 5, so it should be available at 7th, 9th, and 10th level onwards. No range limit. "Hey commander dude. The Orcs of Mordor have crossed the river and are preparing to launch a surprise attack on Osgiliath. Just a heads up."
And teleport, dimension door, fly would not let you catch that evil villain with the poison? Or maybe the wizard could limited wish a cure. Or the cleric could cast delay poison. Lots of options here, man.
No, you don't understand the argument. The argument is that just about anything the monk does, another party member can either circumvent the need or do it better.
That does not make the monk's combination of abilities useless, a lot of us freaking love the monk, but that does not make us blind to the fact that the monk is not going to pull his weight without a lot of work, and even then it is going to really depend on the situation.
I took 5 minutes to whip up a monk just to see for myself, no real sense of posting it though given the above logic, you really can't argue that, but, my monk needed a 8 to hit the fighter, fighter only needs a 6, but the Monk could trip the fighter on 8 to trip him, and once he's on the ground the Monk only needs a 4 to hit him. All that assumes the monk doesn't fight defensively, they he'd need a 9 to hit, but the fighter would need an 8, and the fighter's first attack would be negated every round.
So how bad does that suck? A monk can trip the fighter on an 8 when the fighter gets up AoO, then when he attacks the monk crane style blocks it, and then gets another AoO (Crane Riposte), but then again, the Wizard can teleport, so all of that is irrelevant.
Great! You can beat a HUMANOID CR5 encounter. Now go fight a giant spider, or a dragon, or a trio of werewolves. The problem with the maneuvers is that they only work well on medium-sized or smaller humanoid assailants. The problem with Crane Style is that it only works against one attack. The problem with just hitting your foes...yeah, we covered that one.
Why would any party send out a single character (alone) to run 15 miles to the closest garrison when they use a sending spell?
Because the caster is not familiar with the target?
(Sending: "You contact a particular creature with which you are familiar")
No, you don't understand the argument. The argument is that just about anything the monk does, another party member can either circumvent the need or do it better.
You're right I don't, and even after you've explained it, I'm still baffled. A monk is useless, because there are certain classes that, if they've prepared the correct things, can do what a monk does. Is that you're argument? That part seems pretty straight forward, until we get to the second part of the argument where you say the Fighter is awesome because he can hit people. The two do not mesh. Let me break it out some:
1. The monk is not useful because certain other classes have abilites like the monk.
2. The Fighter is very useful because every class can do what the fighter does (damage enemies).
Justify it all you want in your heads, this is what you're saying.
As far as the crane style, the monk's mobility means you only get 1 attack. Monk moves back and redies an action. Baddie moves forward, Monk gets his attack, Baddie gets his attack, gets crane blocked, Monk attacks with AoO.
You want to add the party in there? Okay, I ask again what is easier, buffing a to hit bonus, or removing hindering spells from affected party memebers? Who's place can he take? The fighter's for one, maybe the Rogue's. A Monk sacrifices damage for not getting hit. His main job is to keep the baddies off the ranged and casters. They'll do the damage, the monk just has to tie them up. Since he's not getting hit as often (combination of AC, Crane Stance, high touch AC), it also frees up the healer to do some damage, oh and guess who has a self heal? Not a big one, but may give the cleric another round to cast Flame Strike instead of a cure-light.
Something else I found interesting when I created the monk, he had more hitpoints than the fighter above. When you actually create the character instead of just talking about it, you begin to see what I'm talking about when I say a fighter can't be all of those things at the same time.
Now look again at your fighter, with his Kukri's he's awesome, but take that away, with say a skeleton, and the monk has a better to hit bonus. Speaking of DR, the only reason the fighter has it and the Monk doesn't is because James Jacobs can't change the rulebook. If he could, the fighters would lose it too and be forced more often to use a non-signature weapon, so again, only the monk gets screwed. If you also take into consideration the Monk's increased mobility will allow him to Flank more, his 40' vertitical leap means he can be above more, and is less effected by rough terrian. Flaking and above the target: +3 to hit bonus, and the monk just caught up with the fighter's.
Which brings me to my next point: If you aren't playing PFS, and the GM allows the monk to be played the way we all know it was meant to be, the monk is even more viable. Give the monk a +3 Temple Sword and his to hit is bonus is only 1 below your fighters.
In a 4 man group, the easiest person to replace: The Fighter.
3 to 9 rounds? Actually it is 2 to 7 rounds, not that I am saying that is a bad thing to happen.
Oops, of course. Don't know why I had been thinking of 1d6+2 when I wrote that... Thanks.
Why would the kukris be taken away?...Stunning, disarm, sunder, thiefs in the night, not allowed to wear weapons in the king's presence, being taken prisoner, and probably a couple of other possible reasons.
I will also add that I have used the cestus(1d4/19-20), and unarmed strike(1d3) and still out damaged the monk.The cestus will only be 1d4+7 (no weapon specialization, no +3 weapon). The unarmed strike only 1d3+5 (same as cestus and no weapon training). Both are less than the average damage of 14 the monk does unarmed (or 12 if his monk's robe is taken from him).
The attack bonuses will drop by 5 (cestus) and 7 (unarmed) for the same reasons, resulting in +17/+12/+7(+ off hand attacks) for the cestus if using TWF. Still one point better than the monk, but only one. One less if forced to fight unarmed (which should be a really rare occasion).
Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.
Removed a post. Please don't make "popcorn" posts. They aren't productive at all.