
![]() |

I personally think that monks might be good in a 6 man party, but not even in a 5 man. I would take a bard, ranger, inquistor, or 2nd fighter over a monk. Monks just can't contribute as effectively as other classes. I'd replace rogues as the 4th as well.
Fighter/barbarian/cavalier - fighting type
Wizard/sorcerer - arcane type
Cleric/oracle/druid - divine type
Bard/ranger/inquistor/magus/summoner - rogue/utility type
5th is highly variable. I prefer a 2nd fighting type or a good melee medium BAB class to work with the main frontline character. In 3.5, I would have skipped the fighting type for another cleric/druid. In PF, it seems like the frontline character is a lot important than before (good job by Paizo on that one), since there was a healthy nerfing of clerics and druids as frontline classes.
Having played lots and lots of published adventures from Paizo, I have to say that out of the box, their stuff is balanced towards 4, and going to 5 really throws off that balance. And 15 point buys really makes APs balanced better than 20 points. Of course, going 15 means monks get screwed as usual.

Gignere |
Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.
When it comes to scouting, the AC is better than the monk. Most AC comes with low-light vision and scent. Basically auto detects invisible creatures. Is this fair no, but is it RAW, unfortunately yes.

![]() |

Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.
Not what I said at all, but go ahead and misinterpret me.
Let's see what I said
To be fair, the druid, even the nerfed druid from PF, is miles ahead of the monk.
Comparing them isn't remotely fair to the monk. The monk is better compared to rogues and fighters or another non-magic class.
And yes, magic makes that much of a difference.
So what I said is, quote, "the druid, even the nerfed druid from PF, is miles ahead of the monk".
I did not say what you believed I said.
Druid + pet overshadows a lot of classes, not just the monk. So don't feel bad about that. I'd take them over a rogue, possibly a bard, and over most spont casters.

Liam ap Thalwig |

Jodokai wrote:Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.When it comes to scouting, the AC is better than the monk. Most AC comes with low-light vision and scent. Basically auto detects invisible creatures. Is this fair no, but is it RAW, unfortunately yes.
Problem is, the AC will have very low intelligence, even if the druid invested in his AC's Int... So, he won't know what/why/where to scout, won't be able to interpret most things he sees, can't read, can't eavesdrop, will have problems opening doors and such, etc.
Doesn't sound like effective scouting to me at all...
Gignere |
Gignere wrote:Jodokai wrote:Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.When it comes to scouting, the AC is better than the monk. Most AC comes with low-light vision and scent. Basically auto detects invisible creatures. Is this fair no, but is it RAW, unfortunately yes.Problem is, the AC will have very low intelligence, even if the druid invested in his AC's Int... So, he won't know what/why/where to scout, won't be able to interpret most things he sees, can't read, can't eavesdrop, will have problems opening doors and such, etc.
Doesn't sound like effective scouting to me at all...
I really don't want to move into druid territory because a monk can't hold a candle to the druid but neither do many other classes.
However, a druid has at least a few ways to talk to the AC. It can wild shape into the same animal group as the AC and instantly can communicate with it.
It can cast Anthropomorphic Animal on the AC and the AC can now talk back, it can even read now, and has opposable thumbs to open the door + scent yadda yadda.
Another spell is improved mind link. But it is not fair to do this comparison because the druid is like a top of the line class and like another poster said the monk should be compared to the rogue/fighter,however I don't even agree with that. The monk shouldn't be compared to the fighter it is actually more of a rogue-like class to me, just less versatile. I think they even do comparable DPR but the rogue at least brings twice as many skills and more class skills.

Kydeem de'Morcaine |

... The monk shouldn't be compared to the fighter it is actually more of a rogue-like class to me, just less versatile. I think they even do comparable DPR but the rogue at least brings twice as many skills and more class skills...
Good point, I very much agree. The magus is best compared to a ftr/wiz. The ranger is best compared to a ftr/druid. Etc... So the monk is prob best compared to a ftr/rog.

YRM |
What I am saying is that YRM's monk was being carried by the rest of the group and he mistakingly thinks that the monk is balanced and valuable.
What's interesting is that we didn't have a pure fighter in our group, and he wasn't missed at all. The animal companion replaced the fighter.
If your premise is that I'm too stupid to realize that I played an ineffective character after gaming and GMing for decades, game designing professionally, winning miniatures tournaments, etc. Then your premise is not correct.
I'm not stupid.
If I played a monk for 5 years for one of the best DM's I'd ever met, a former marine and nuclear engineer, and my character was ineffective, I'd have dropped it, changed characters, agreed with the anti-monk folks whole heartedly...
But that wasn't the case. The monk was, through most of the middle levels, the best PC in the party and useful in all situations.
Around level 15, the casters passed up the monk yet, he was useful and effective until the campaign ended at level 19.
The character who was least useful in the campaign was the Dwarf who played a fighter/mix. His speed an inititiave and lack of flexibility to deal with other situations held him back a lot. That character had his great moments, but, far less effective overall.
The druid, for example, and the GM, didn't think it was very in-character for the druid to summon a deer and have it purposely trigger traps. But, even if he did, him wasting a spell slot to trigger a trap was more costly than me triggering it and taking 0 damage.
Not that it'd matter, you don't know me, you have no reason to trust what I'm saying, or that I have a strong grasp of strategy, tactics, and maximizing a PC. It's cool.
But I promise you if you asked any of the 6 other guys in the group, they'd tell you that the monk was never useless, never disposable, never baggage.
Even in the places where we did, admittedly, have skill overlap. So what? Maybe I'd make a perception check that the Druid failed or vice versa. That's a good thing.
You want two guys with mobility to set up flanks.
You want multiple chances to disarm a key enemy.
You want other ways to get to enemy soft targets besides the one spell per round your Wizard might use. If he uses a targeted spell to take out one enemy, it's another spell he can't use to clear the rest of the room.
Since the Monk can fill MANY roles, depending on the encounter, and where he acts in initiative order, the Monk can free up another class to be more efficient at what they do.
I didn't imagine all this. If the character had sucked, I'd tell you.
We tried 4E and there was a Gith Spellsword defender type or something who was completely ineffective in the group. The guy playing it is an IT Manager and former developer working at a hospital, he's not stupid either, but, the PC sucked and he asked if he could rebuild after 8 or so levels.
If the monk had sucked, I would have done the same thing. No biggie.
I'd be here, agreeing with you.
But the monk was definitely highly effective in almost every type of situation that the DM threw at us and, again, the guy is a decades long professional engineer who used to be a marine that specialized in small group tactics.
Not to say that you aren't a tougher DM but, my point is, we weren't in some group where we all gathered around one foe and beat on it in a 30x30 room that the DM didn't even plan out.
(which is probably why the monk was effective... the more you actually follow all the rules, such as time to don armor, large encounters and obstacles, the better the monk becomes)

Dabbler |

Dabbler wrote: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.
You still aren't getting it.
1) We are not saying the monk is useless. We are saying that the monk's usefulness to the party is situational rather than guaranteed.
There are situations where the monk's combination of abilities is very useful, but they are not inevitable in any adventure. In theory, the monk can go through an entire campaign as an also-ran. Making a monk shine takes a lot of skill. On the flip side, you will ALWAYS need: a damage dealing hit-taker, a stealthy scout and trapsringer, a healer, and a spell-caster in every campaign.
2) The monk's abilities are almost entirely duplicable by another class, who can not only do it but do it better than the monk.
In order to do any one thing adequately, the monk usually ends up nerfed in the other areas.
You can make a monk that does masses of damage, but ends up with a poor AC - and on top of that, still doesn't come close to matching the fighter in attacks and damage, who also has better AC and hit points.
You can make a monk a scout, and he will still not be as good as the rogue at scouting, and will probably be nerfed for dealing out damage as well, while the rogue always has his sneak attacks.
3) The monk is ultimately a combat class.
He just does not have the skill points and proficiencies to match the rogue as skills-monkey, and the only way he can do something to a foe is to fight it. Combat classes have to be able to take hits and deal damage. While you can make a monk with an awesome AC, he will then have problems being able to hit and damage things. Ultimately, he falls far behind all the other combat classes in this arena.
You say that every class can deal damage, and therefore by our logic the fighter is useless, but this is missing the point of the argument - it's not that the other classes cannot deal damage, but that the fighter can dish out more and consistently in any situation. The monk can deal damage, but the monk cannot deal anything like the damage a fighter can deal.
The fighter (or barbarian, paladin or ranger) have a combination of being able to hit, deal damage and take hits. In any adventure there will be a time when you need to deal damage, and that means a combat class will always be useful. While arcane casters, divine casters and skills-monkeys can all deal damage, their ability to do so is situational, while the fighter's is not. Hence the best way to dish damage is to have one of the full BAB combat classes in the party.
Each of them has their thing, their particular type of offence that is very effective - so does the monk, but his is NOT very effective, due to a combination of factors.
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.
There's a problem with this scenario. Monk moves back and redies an action. Baddie...ignores the monk and attacks somebody else. Monk moves in and hit Baddie. 3/4 BAB, poor enhancement and low damage means he barely notices. If he does notice, he turns around and full-attacks monk. Even if the monk can get him to chase, the monk still probably cannot hurt him.
Or if the monk runs away, he takes out a missile weapon and rapid-shots him.
Mobility works great if you can get the enemy to play your game and come to you, but why would they?
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?
The monk will ALWAYS need the buff, the fighter will not always need the heal. Ergo, removing hindering spells is more efficient.
Who's place can he take? The fighter's for one, maybe the Rogue's.
No, he cannot do either as well as those classes. He does not have the skill points to do all of a rogues job, although with some work he can do the most important parts of it adequately and be better at up-front fighting. He's not as good at flanking-fighting though.
He certainly cannot do the fighter's job; the only thing he matches or exceeds the fighter on is AC. Hit points, not likely; damaging the foe, not a chance.
If you made a fighter/rogue to do both jobs, they would be better at both then the monk. A monk trying to do this needs strength, dexterity, intelligence (for the skill points) and wisdom. A fighter/rogue needs strength, dexterity - he does not need wisdom save to boost his Will saves a little, and he does not need intelligence as much because he more skill points on average than the monk.
Yes, the monk brings some additional toys to the fight, but those toys don't actually effect the outcome that much.
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.
I fully agree this is how the monk SHOULD work, with the monk being the master of defence tying down foes - but there is a fundamental problem with it: If he cannot hit and damage the enemy as significantly as the casters, then the casters are the threat, and they will attack the threat and ignore the monk.
In short the monk needs a more effective means of attack for the enemy to sit up and take notice. His biggest problems in this arena are lack of enhancement and inability to bypass DR.
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.
I have been creating characters all through these threads. They have only upheld what I knew to be true.
A fighter cannot be all things at the same time, true, but a monk has a struggle being anything just once.
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.
Are you trying to argue that the monk isn't bad, it's just that the rules are wrong? O_o Even if that was the case the fighter can hack through DR with raw damage & weapon properties, and the monk cannot.
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.
Who is he going to flank with? I agree the monk can take more advantage of terrain features than the fighter can if they are there. However, as a fighter is up to +8 to hit ahead of the monk it's going to take more than +3 from flanking and above (if it's possible to do that) to even up the difference. Even if you do, you are still behind in the damage stakes.
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.
So basically the unarmed combat expert just has to become an armed combat expert, and ignore half the rules, and then he can be a second-rater? Anyway, in order to actually be effective with that temple sword he needs to make up for his crappy damage output. The only way to do that is to use his special abilities, like stunning fist. That requires the ki focus feature. Whoops, not a +3 temple sword, now a +2 ki focus temple sword.
What we are both agreeing here is that there are some mistakes in the rules. You are saying it is in how they apply to other classes, I am saying that the rules about the monk himself need tweaking.
In a 4 man group, the easiest person to replace: The Fighter.
...by a barbarian, cavalier, gunslinger, paladin or ranger. Not by a monk. You could replace the rogue in a party with a monk, just about, but it takes some skill, but there is no way the monk can match the other combat classes in their combination of defence and offence. The monk just does not have the offensive ability.

wraithstrike |

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.
That is not it. The fighter is useful because his talent is constantly being put to use, and he does it well. Consistently the fighter will be the best at this. Paladins and Rangers can out damage a fighter at certain times, but not all the time. With a monk he will consistently be behind everyone else.
In short one class is consistently ahead at something that needs to be done. The other class is consistently behind.
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.
Fighters can get high AC and deal damage. The fighter has to choose. Advantage Fighter.
How is the monk keeping anyone off of casters and ranged combatants?Give a fight a reach weapon, combat patrol, and other feats, and he does that better than the monk.
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.
My fighter just assumed average rolls, and that is what most online builds do when making comparisons. Of course if you roll anyone can get higher hp. Even a D6 character can get more hp than a d12 character in theory.
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.
The monk does not have a better to hit bonus, nor does it do more damage even when DR is factored in. James Jacobs is not the rules guy so of course he can't change the book, not that it matters. What is important is how things are.
Getting the +1 due to higher ground assumes you are standing on higher ground. Even if the monk is jumping and attacking in mid-air, if a GM would allow it he is now using medium BAB so he is still behind. Even if the monk flanks and the fighter does not which would not make sense the fighter still has a higher "to hit" bonus.Nobody is hating the monk. You would know that if you had read the entire thread. We want the monk to work, but by the rules it is hard to make it work, and it is not right for a person to need a high level of system mastery just to be able to play a martial arts character.
If the monk goes with the temple sword he still has to use two weapons for flurrying due to the "clarification" that nobody likes so he is still behind the fighter. Actually even if he is allowed to fluffy with the temple sword he is behind the fighter. Weapon training and the fighter feats keep him there. He is still not replacing the fighter unless you use a high point buy which is another thing I don't like.

wraithstrike |

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).
If my fighter had focused on those weapons instead of kukris was the assumed scenario. I was not saying he can just drop the kukris and pick up other weapons, and have the same effect.

![]() |

same damage with "each" hand = 1 feat
only one weapon/hand needed = cheaper gear
and others I am sure I forgotAnd if you compare the twf fighter archetype to the monk, the monk will easily get the better AC and touch AC.
Thought I'd Zero in on this:
Flurry works like TWF, and as per the recent rules clarification, its now known that you need two weapons to flurry with weapons, or half of them need to be with unarmed strikes.
I'm not sure I agree with you about the better AC, but he will have a better touch AC.
Finally, it is worth noting that the TWF builds are bottom tier combat builds; it takes a great deal of investment for small returns, and you're paying a fortune in weapon enhancements the more effective THF and Sword and Shield characters aren't.

Liam ap Thalwig |

Liam ap Thalwig wrote:Gignere wrote:Jodokai wrote:Yeah, an animal compainion is more effective than a monk. I think I'm done here. Good gaming all.When it comes to scouting, the AC is better than the monk. Most AC comes with low-light vision and scent. Basically auto detects invisible creatures. Is this fair no, but is it RAW, unfortunately yes.Problem is, the AC will have very low intelligence, even if the druid invested in his AC's Int... So, he won't know what/why/where to scout, won't be able to interpret most things he sees, can't read, can't eavesdrop, will have problems opening doors and such, etc.
Doesn't sound like effective scouting to me at all...I really don't want to move into druid territory because a monk can't hold a candle to the druid but neither do many other classes.
However, a druid has at least a few ways to talk to the AC. It can wild shape into the same animal group as the AC and instantly can communicate with it.
It can cast Anthropomorphic Animal on the AC and the AC can now talk back, it can even read now, and has opposable thumbs to open the door + scent yadda yadda.
Another spell is improved mind link.
Talking to the AC does not make it more intelligent.
Anthropomorphic Animal is not Core (and I'm not impressed with the quality of the expansion books at all but that's another topic), but more importantly it raises the Int of the animal to 3 (three). It can speak one language. No mention of reading. But the point is: it still has intelligence 3 (or maybe even something like 6 if the druid did raise it several times). So it will speak like someone with intelligence 3 (or 6), understand as much and comprehend as much.
You probably mean Companion mind link (I could not find improved mind link). Companion mind link needs line of sight and has a duration of 1 min/level.
So no, doesn't really help with scouting.

Dabbler |

Nobody is hating the monk. You would know that if you had read the entire thread. We want the monk to work, but by the rules it is hard to make it work, and it is not right for a person to need a high level of system mastery just to be able to play a martial arts character.
QFT. I would like to add for myself, we do not want the monk to be as good at dishing damage as the fighter. We DO want to see the monk improved to the point where he is at least as able as another combat class when not employing their 'thing' however.

Liam ap Thalwig |

Liam ap Thalwig wrote:If my fighter had focused on those weapons instead of kukris was the assumed scenario. I was not saying he can just drop the kukris and pick up other weapons, and have the same effect.
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).
Then I don't understand your argument. I said the fighter has problems if his kukris are taken away (because he is so heavily specialized in them). You replied "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's why I assumed you meant he would switch to the cestus when his kukris would be taken away somehow.
Dabbler |

The question of "What happens when your weapons are taken away?" is perhaps best answered by "Would you like to come and try it?"
It's a very rare circumstance in my experience that somebody gets disarmed, let alone losing their weapons any other way. Even if they were lost, most fighters carry spare (if mundane) weapons, as well as secondary weapons to deliver different types of damage. I do agree that it can happen, but it's rare. Also, while the fighter is best with his favoured weapons, he's still good without them.

![]() |

Quote: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.
ok so im assuming you're using a heavy style based monk? great then meet my fighter. reach weapon +I/G trip+ pin down+ and combat patrol+ combat reflexes. if you want to pick a pvp sinario to prove your point you will fail.
but this isnt a pvp game, its a game where you need to be able to kill monsters.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:Nobody is hating the monk. You would know that if you had read the entire thread. We want the monk to work, but by the rules it is hard to make it work, and it is not right for a person to need a high level of system mastery just to be able to play a martial arts character.QFT. I would like to add for myself, we do not want the monk to be as good at dishing damage as the fighter. We DO want to see the monk improved to the point where he is at least as able as another combat class when not employing their 'thing' however.
If the monk was rangerish or inquisitorish they would be better. Those classes do decent damage, and work well outside of combat, and they are not difficult to play and make.

wraithstrike |

wraithstrike wrote:Liam ap Thalwig wrote:If my fighter had focused on those weapons instead of kukris was the assumed scenario. I was not saying he can just drop the kukris and pick up other weapons, and have the same effect.
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).
Then I don't understand your argument. I said the fighter has problems if his kukris are taken away (because he is so heavily specialized in them). You replied "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's why I assumed you meant he would switch to the cestus when his kukris would be taken away somehow.
If you take away the fighter's things that he focused in of course he will be less effective.

Dabbler |

Dabbler wrote:If the monk was rangerish or inquisitorish they would be better. Those classes do decent damage, and work well outside of combat, and they are not difficult to play and make.wraithstrike wrote:Nobody is hating the monk. You would know that if you had read the entire thread. We want the monk to work, but by the rules it is hard to make it work, and it is not right for a person to need a high level of system mastery just to be able to play a martial arts character.QFT. I would like to add for myself, we do not want the monk to be as good at dishing damage as the fighter. We DO want to see the monk improved to the point where he is at least as able as another combat class when not employing their 'thing' however.
Agreed. The ranger is a good comparison in fact, with a lot of non-combat utility and a spectrum of varied powers. Where the comparison fails is that the ranger's abilities in and out of combat synergise well together. Take all of that way, and the ranger is still better offensively than the monk, and not much worse defensively.

Liam ap Thalwig |

great then meet my fighter. reach weapon +I/G trip+ pin down+ and combat patrol+ combat reflexes.
Great fighter built (I certainly like it) but probably quite different from the damage-optimized fighter the monk is continually compared against?
Even then: attacking that fighter with a grapple would still be a viable tactic. You would get an AoO from your reach weapon which my monk would try to avoid with ki. Grappling would be difficult as your fighter has taken improved grapple but combat patrol would not help as the monks attack would not be a 5 ft step nor a withdraw (and it would cost the fighter a full round action). As soon as the grappling success the reach weapon won't be useful anymore (needing two hands) and with greater grappling the monk could deal continuous damage. The fighter might escape, though, or revert the grapple due to being better suited for grappling.
We would have to see a concrete build for that. And then we could compare his DPR (and skills etc) to that of the sample monk as well. Otherwise we are comparing to the schroedinger fighter again.
but this isnt a pvp game, its a game where you need to be able to kill monsters.
Depends on the campaign whether it is monster-centric or human(oid)-centric. My Dark Sun GM used to say "humans make the best monsters" and right he was (IMHO). Fighting against some terror of the sands might be nice in-between but the game lived from conflicts with templars, elf tribes, wars between trading houses, fighting slavers, hunting defilers, protecting the veiled alliance, intrigues etc (and from discovering the history of Athas bit by little bit). All revolving around human (elf, mul, dwarf, halfling, half-giant, thri-kreen etc) opponents (the GM almost never needed the monster companion books...).
Much more interesting and rewarding than fighting monsters IMHO.Grappling and tripping works very nice in such a campaign. YMMV, of course, depending on your campaign.

Dabbler |

TheSideKick wrote:great then meet my fighter. reach weapon +I/G trip+ pin down+ and combat patrol+ combat reflexes.Great fighter built (I certainly like it) but probably quite different from the damage-optimized fighter the monk is continually compared against?
You miss the point there Liam - that if you want a maneuver specialising character, you are best off being a fighter, not a monk. I am willing to bet this fighter can still out-damage a maneuver oriented monk as well as being better at the actual maneuvers.
It's another case of: anything the monk can do, X can do better. In some cases X is a fighter, or a paladin, or a ranger, or a barbarian, or a rogue, or a caster, but the point is the monk brings little to the table save fast movement that another class cannot beat. Even then, if you want a mobile fighter a barbarian works better because he can hit and hurt at the end of his movement better than the monk.

Liam ap Thalwig |

Liam ap Thalwig wrote:You miss the point there Liam - that if you want a maneuver specialising character, you are best off being a fighter, not a monk. I am willing to bet this fighter can still out-damage a maneuver oriented monk as well as being better at the actual maneuvers.TheSideKick wrote:great then meet my fighter. reach weapon +I/G trip+ pin down+ and combat patrol+ combat reflexes.Great fighter built (I certainly like it) but probably quite different from the damage-optimized fighter the monk is continually compared against?
No, I don't Dabbler. Of course, I can build a better maneuver specializing character with a fighter with the current rules (and I do agree that this is something I would want' the monk to be better at) but I don't want to build a character who can do just that and nothing more (and has to wear armor on top). I like the abilities of the monk (fast movement; best unarmored AC, because I like to be unarmored; jumping, falling, abundant step, ki, saving throws, immunity do disease and poison, much better class skill selection, more skill points etc) and that's why I want to play a monk. The combination of all that.
That fighter might still out-damage a monk. To compare this and to see his drawbacks as well, we need a concrete example build. Then we can talk about advantages and disadvantages. Before that we are comparing with the schroedinger fighter.
It's another case of: anything the monk can do, X can do better.
That's simply the schroedinger fighter argument.
Let me put it this way: while anything the monk can do, X can do better, X cannot do better ALL things the monk does.That's what I tried to capture in this thread: comparing the whole picture. I started out by abstracting concrete features which are not directly comparable by giving them an abstract value (= number of feats they are worth) and compare the total value. That failed as most people ignored my argument and simply presented theirs which is why I introduced the cornet examples.

wraithstrike |

The monk can do things better than the fighter, but those are things that the fighter was not built to do anyway by its basic design. These same things are what the fighter leaves to other classes which perform those task better than the monk also.
Which goes back to the argument that if the monk is doing it someone else is doing it better.
Basically if the person playing the monk is happy at being 2nd fiddle 90% of the time at what it is trying to do then the monk is ok. Most players I have seen want to be really good(best at the table at their specialty) at something, whether it is damage, scouting, social skills, and so on.
If the monk is in a 5 man party he is not likely to be the best at anything, and if he is taking a spot in a four man party then the party is normally better off with another class.
Yeah corner cases can always come up, but they are called corner cases because they are rare enough that you can't really account for them. Even when they do come up most groups can deal with them without a monk. If that was not the case the monk would be a must have class. I guess I am saying most of us would rather know we have a class that is dependable(we get to be in the spotlight) most of the time, instead of in some rare unlikely circumstance.
In short if someone is comparing the monk to the fighter it will always go to the ability to fight.
If they want to say the monk has all around skills then the rogue, ranger and bard come into play, and they are better than the monk in most cases also.

Dabbler |

Dabbler wrote:It's another case of: anything the monk can do, X can do better.That's simply the schroedinger fighter argument.
That does not stop it being simply true.
Let me put it this way: while anything the monk can do, X can do better, X cannot do better ALL things the monk does.
I do know what you are trying to say, but what I am trying to point out is that the monk doesn't do any of those things - except run around very fast - better than anyone else could do them. The monk can be great in some circumstances, but those circumstances are not guaranteed.
I can totally get around the monk being a generalist and not being the best at anything, but being able to do more in breadth than in depth. But to do this the monk has to be able to do the other things he does well enough to make a difference.
Skills: the monk needs a decent investment in intelligence to have enough skills to take up the skills-monkey role, as well as some investment in feats or traits to provide extra skills. This will allow him to do ONE of the rogue's roles, that of trap-springer. The diplomacy/streetwise role is still beyond the monk.
Combat ability: The monk is insufficiently effective at either maneuvers or hitting and damage to be regarded as effective in all situations. He is not even as effective as a paladin not smiting or a ranger not fighting a favoured enemy. Even a rogue can take up a fully enhanced weapon and flank or surprise for sneak attack damage. The monk either cannot hit reliably, or cannot deliver sufficient damage per hit to be regarded as adequate at this. Further, their primary attack form, the unarmed strike, is unable to bypass DR with any regularity.
Other Abilities: If you want non-combat, non-skill utility, the monk has a grab-bag of abilities that don't help anyone but himself, and don't even do that very well. Half of them need feats in order to function properly at all.
That's what I tried to capture in this thread: comparing the whole picture. I started out by abstracting concrete features which are not directly comparable by giving them an abstract value (= number of feats they are worth) and compare the total value. That failed as most people ignored my argument and simply presented theirs which is why I introduced the cornet examples.
Because your argument foundered on the bad design of the monk. The monk is not customizable as other classes are - let me give you an example comparison, with the ranger:
A ranger chooses a combat style, which gives him a couple of free feats spread over several levels. What feats these are depend on what combat style he chooses, so he gets depth in that style.
The monk gains many more bonus feats than the ranger, but he does not have a style or focus with them. They are a grab-bag of 'whatever the devs felt appropriate' rather than being thematic. As such there is no depth to them - even at high level there are no 'Greater' options. It's like having five first level spells instead one each of first, second and third level spells: breadth, but no option for depth and power.
A ranger gets favoured enemy as his big offensive ability: He can spread the bonus out among several foes or concentrate most of it in one foe, it depends on the campaign how he can do so. Without his favoured enemy he can still dish out respectable damage if he has decent weapons.
The monk gets unarmed strike and flurry-of-blows as his offensive abilities. FoB only works with unarmed strike and monk weapons, and few monk weapons are frankly up to much. The monk is on 3/4 BAB as far as qualifying for feats is concerned, and for standard action attacks. His unarmed strike looks good on paper, but is unable to benefit from proper enhancement. The ranger does more DPR when not fighting his favoured enemy than the monk can inflict on a standard target when using his special combat ability.
A ranger gets favoured terrain, his hunter's bond, and spells. He can tailor all of these to his situation and his speciality.
The monk gets the same mismatch of special abilities regardless, he cannot tailor them, unless you call having to get a feat just to enable an ability to work properly tailoring.
The ranger gets 6 + int bonus skill ranks per level, focussed on hunting and survival skills.
The monk gets 4 + int bonus skill ranks per level, with no particular focus to them.
In summary, the ranger's abilities are all designed to make him the best at what he does, and effective enough to hold his own when not doing that. The monk doesn't have a speciality, and is less able to hold his own outside of it.
This is why monk archetypes are so much more useful than the core monk: they give the class the focus in ability that the original monk lacked.

![]() |

Note, one should NEVER play Core monk. Qinggong is better in every way. If you want to keep your Core monk ability at that level, keep it. Or trade it out for a ki power. Much more flexible with absolutely no drawbacks.
So Liam, by making Core only, you're actually hurting the monk. Especially once Ultimate Equipment is released, as I am highly certain that Paizo will release the handwraps that allows turns Flurry of Blows into the pre-clarification Flurry of Blows, as long as you don't use a magic monk weapon as well.

Dabbler |

Note, one should NEVER play Core monk. Qinggong is better in every way. If you want to keep your Core monk ability at that level, keep it. Or trade it out for a ki power. Much more flexible with absolutely no drawbacks.
...and this underlines the point: the core monk is not well designed.
So Liam, by making Core only, you're actually hurting the monk. Especially once Ultimate Equipment is released, as I am highly certain that Paizo will release the handwraps that allows turns Flurry of Blows into the pre-clarification Flurry of Blows, as long as you don't use a magic monk weapon as well.
We'll have to wait and see, I think.

![]() |

BYC wrote:Note, one should NEVER play Core monk. Qinggong is better in every way. If you want to keep your Core monk ability at that level, keep it. Or trade it out for a ki power. Much more flexible with absolutely no drawbacks....and this underlines the point: the core monk is not well designed.
BYC wrote:So Liam, by making Core only, you're actually hurting the monk. Especially once Ultimate Equipment is released, as I am highly certain that Paizo will release the handwraps that allows turns Flurry of Blows into the pre-clarification Flurry of Blows, as long as you don't use a magic monk weapon as well.We'll have to wait and see, I think.
Paizo could surprised us, but it would solve a lot of problems immediately by giving a fix in item form. Although it would be hilarious when GMs don't allow the item because it makes monks "too good".

![]() |

It would be nice, but I am not holding my breath. I had an idea for one here that wouldn't make the AoMF redundant but would fill the required gap.
Problem is that they have made a lot of feats and archetype available for monks, it's just none of them address the core of the problem.
I'm not sure what they can do to fix the foundation other than to create another archetype or rewrite the class. Either way, it would be obvious if that happened that Core monks are terrible and that no one should play them anymore.
Kind of like the ninja/rogue issue or samurai/cavalier.

Dracerthemagi |

if you want versatility the way is open.
Drogo (based on Khal Drogo from game of thrones)
Half-Orc
Barbarian level 2 Monk level 2 (with the martial artist archetype) ranger level 4 (with the Wild Ranger archetype)
In the end I have made a monk went at him every angle I could. He just can't do the smack smack that any other class can. BUT I had always figured barbarian and monk would make one sick ass combo but the damn game foiled my plans making monks Lawful and Barbarians Chaotic...
0_0 but that magical book ultimate combat realized my dreams. running around with improv weapons and a greatsword. Punching people when I rage or clawing and biting them. Totally the way a barbarian would fight. Hes to pissed off to care if hes doing "the most effective thing atm" He just wants to tear you apart 6 ways from Sunday.
Monk just can't do it with the base class. In my opinion when I saw the pathfinder book and slapped it down next to my 3.0-3.5 D&D books. It was much easier to understand there abilities. But did not really improve them like the other classes. They didn't really get anything "new". fighters basically got sexy ass armor bonuses and weapon feats that they didn't even have to take. In addition to still having more feats than anybody could wag a finger at.
Rogues got more *feat like* bonuses with there rogue tricks. Something I had only seen done in NWN2 and world of warcraft RPG. A solid improvement.
the list goes on but Monks sadly got the same stuff they always had, with some flavor to make it more Pathfinder like. With CMD and CMB coming into play. instead of just grapple vs Touch AC.
Monk = great role playing idea. But if you want to be the baddest SOB in town. May as well stick with Fighter. and if you want to be the skilled guy who could kick a few butts. Go with Rogue. Else wise Monk is just something I multiclass into so I get a couple good utility feats. Cuz lets face it improved unarmed combat is like road flares. You'll almost never need them. But you will look really cool when you do!

Dabbler |

Dabbler wrote:I'm not sure what they can do to fix the foundation other than to create another archetype or rewrite the class. Either way, it would be obvious if that happened that Core monks are terrible and that no one should play them anymore.It would be nice, but I am not holding my breath. I had an idea for one here that wouldn't make the AoMF redundant but would fill the required gap.
Problem is that they have made a lot of feats and archetype available for monks, it's just none of them address the core of the problem.
Actually, the monk's most fundamental problem comes down to their inability to hit things accurately. If you check my link above, that gives an item that can resolve the crappiness of the AoMF in one step.
As for the other issues, they are largely minor. It would be nice to fix them, but you could manage it with feats or items tailored to do so - provided they give a good return as well as fixing the problem. For example:
Swift Healing
You can heal yourself more swiftly than otherwise.
Prerequisite: Wholeness of Body class feature.
Benefit: You can heal yourself as a swift action, and to use wholeness of body only costs you one point of ki. You also gain +1 ki for every four levels of monk that you possess.

ReconstructorFleet |

Going to point out: The best you can get from a feat in terms of additional Ki, is +2 from one feat. I think that feat is powerful enough just by letting you use "Wholeness of Body" as a swift action. Can the additional Ki Bonus, but add another feat along the line that requires Swift Healing that gives you additional Ki as you level up.