actually no - that's definitifly not how probability works. You ignore the fact that same "group" can be hit more often, so you dont have 1 crit on average with a perfect dice. You have like 8 crits on 10 full attacks on average.
Actually I am correct. That 1 is no different than any other non-critting number since we are dicussing crits, and not just hitting.
Everything from a 1 to the 14 is basically a fail for the purpose of crits.
The discussion is not on 10 full attacks. It is 1 full attack.
As an example if I had a d20 in a vacumn I would never roll the same number twice with less than 20 rolls. Each number would be hit once. Now we know dice don't really roll like that due to various external factors however.
oh wow - what you just said SO wrong. Dont even know what to say:D
oh wow - what you just said SO wrong. Dont even know what to say:D
It makes perfect sense. You are trying to use probablity, which of course allows for the same thing to happen twice. I think we can agree on that.
If I roll a d20 I might get 4 20's in a row. I did that once, but nobody is going to expect it to happen because it is so unlikely.My scenario has been that you never get the same thing would to come up twice in a perfect situation since the math would be against it. In short if it is not mathematically likely to happen then it won't happen. It seems simple to me. :)
You are doing it wrong. That's not how math works - not at all:P
look at the post of Meophist.
I am sure it does. The chance of a particular group getting hit more than once is less than ideal.
Each group mathmatically has a 25% chance of getting hit each time the die are rolled. That means each group has a 12.5 percent chance of getting hit twice. However the the chance of any group getting hit twice are lot less than any group getting hit once.It is just like flipping a coin. The chances of getting head or tails twice if you flip the coin twice is only 25%.
The same math applies to the persistent metamagic feat because it gives you a higher chance of failure.
Alright, first, each group that you've defined(1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 15, 16 to 20) does have a 25 percent chance of being hit each roll. The chance of a particular single group being hit twice over the course of two rolls is actually 6.25 percent, not 12.5. To put it another way, there's a 25 percent chance of hitting the particular group the first time, and then there's another 25 percent chance of hitting the group again after you hit it the first time. This means you multiply the first 25 percent with the next 25 percent and you get 6.25 percent.
Correct. It is 6.25. 25% of 25 is 6.25.
Yeah in theory(real life) that is what happens, but most likely it won't happen, and if the least likely even does not take place there is at least one crit every round. <--That is all I was saying.
As an approximation 1 crit a round works. If you want exact results then probability should be used.
You are doing it wrong. That's not how math works - not at all:P
look at the post of Meophist.
Exact math was never the goal, only an approximation. That is why I said in a perfect world/dice. I understand the difference between probability, and ignoring the least possible outcome which is what I was doing.
Exact math was never the goal, only an approximation. That is why I said in a perfect world/dice. I understand the difference between probability, and ignoring the least possible outcome which is what I was doing.
Well, you aren't technically ignoring "the least probable outcome." The least probable outcome is 4 crits, which has a whopping 0.81% chance of occurring. What you are ignoring is the chance of going a round with no crits, which is a much more substantial 24.01%.
I get what you are saying, but an approximately 1 in 4 chance is a pretty significant possibility of a crit not landing in a given round. The same reasoning you are applying could be used to say that an event with 50.01% chance of occuring is going to happen because it is most likely, but I don't think anyone would be treating that as such a sure thing as is happening here.
|
good point. I think that crit fishing build posted a while ago would be great...plus I just got off the phone with the guy and he claimed he and the rogue could win easy even if we were in a 4' by 4' room.
If the room had no windows, he had darkvision, you didn't and you also didn't have any blind fighting stuff...maybe :)
Maybe..... If the monk beefed his strength....and took the greater sunder chain....and used spring attack + sunder on the fighter's weapon... which if he succeeds could easily break it in 1-2 hits (If the DM allows Adamantine, then he's adding insult to the pile of dead monks and rogues and I call BS shenanigans.) and then continues his spring attack + strike until the fighter fails a stunning fist save? Only soaking 1d3 + whatever with a crit chance of Who-cares every round and healing as needed. Assumes fighter only has one weapon. If fighter has a bow, break that too, or just take it away from him.
Alternatively, what is the win condition on this? First one to die loses? Kay, Monk takes the Run feat, and uses the run action get away from the fighter, so 450 feet/round barring Fleet. (Cause that would just make this silly.) In order to win, fighter must pursue, right? Monk runs until he finds a river of lava, or better yet, just a really wide river, (at least 80-90 feet wide) and jumps across. Then, through liberal uses of the run action, proceeds to hunt down and destroy every other mode of crossing in a 3-mile radius, forcing the fighter to try to cross using swim checks or by walking. The lava then turns him to ash due to 20d6 damage per round, and monk keeps him there via bull rushing, or Monk keeps him from crossing the river (having spent the several hours it took the fighter to catch up) by throwing dire wolverines at him. Hell, just standard wolverines will do. Also find a way to get the entire lizardfolk nation, who lives in a spot near the river, to attack him while he's swimming across.
Too far outside the box?
My point is that there's more to D&D than combat. If it comes down to a one-on-one death match that you CAN'T win in any conceivable fashion, change the circumstances so that you have an advantage that you can push. Hell, run all the way to town and inform the city guard that a mad-man has been chasing you day and night and that you need protection, then while they're slowing down the fighter, go to your buddies at the thieves guild who send their entire entourage after the fighter, tired of having lost so many of their number in previous pointless death-matches.
Wow, that kind of ran away from me. My point is that fighter wins following strict rules. So change them. I think I'm about to get yelled at for this, since my entire post seems to have gone entirely against the point of this thread.
Exact math was never the goal, only an approximation. That is why I said in a perfect world/dice. I understand the difference between probability, and ignoring the least possible outcome which is what I was doing.Well, you aren't technically ignoring "the least probable outcome." The least probable outcome is 4 crits, which has a whopping 0.81% chance of occurring. What you are ignoring is the chance of going a round with no crits, which is a much more substantial 24.01%.
I get what you are saying, but an approximately 1 in 4 chance is a pretty significant possibility of a crit not landing in a given round. The same reasoning you are applying could be used to say that an event with 50.01% chance of occuring is going to happen because it is most likely, but I don't think anyone would be treating that as such a sure thing as is happening here.
Ok, so " least probable outcome" was a bad choice of words. :)
The chance of crit not land is not 25% in this case. I just used the "group" example to try to get my point across. I think the odds are more like 76.0% of a crit landing if each one has a 30% chance of landing which is close to the 8 out of 10 posted upthead, which is not as good as I thought it would be.
The chance of crit not land is not 25% in this case. I just used the "group" example to try to get my point across. I think the odds are more like 76.0% of a crit landing if each one has a 30% chance of landing which is close to the 8 out of 10 posted upthead, which is not as good as I thought it would be.
Um... you might want to think on those numbers for a second. I said the chance of going a round without a crit is 24%. You are saying that I am wrong, and that the chance of getting at least one crit is 76%.
100-76=?
|
|
The chance of crit not land is not 25% in this case. I just used the "group" example to try to get my point across. I think the odds are more like 76.0% of a crit landing if each one has a 30% chance of landing which is close to the 8 out of 10 posted upthead, which is not as good as I thought it would be.Um... you might want to think on those numbers for a second. I said the chance of going a round without a crit is 24%. You are saying that I am wrong, and that the chance of getting at least one crit is 76%.
100-76=?
If anyone is just standing in front of the fighter taking a full attack. Which would be stupid.
The scenario has been clarified to include cover, meaning the monk can spring attack from around cover to use first quivering palm, and then the paralysis effect he gets with stunning fist, either of which would be game over.
Readied action = monk just doing shot on the run as the monk pops in and out of cover until the fighter moves, then spring attacks with stunning fists over and over until one works.
Then coup de grace with medusa's wrath for good measure.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if the fighter rolls a 5 on his save vs quivering palm, he ACTUALLY dies - the odds are roughyl equivalent.
If the fighter rolls the 15, the monk basically dies.
Except that with Imp. Great Fortitude the fighter gets one re-roll. The monk get's none, therefore the fighter is odds-on to win.
@Mort & Wraithstrike
In a full round attack the fighter would expect to get 1.2 critical hits - that's mathematical expectation, not real life expectation. He has a 24% chance of there being no crits, and a 76% chance of getting at least one crit, possibly more than one. It's not really relevant because three solid hits kills the monk anyway as cleanly as one crit, and in a full attack he would almost certainly hit at least three times.
As for tanglefoot bags and the like, both characters can use them, but the monk suffers more from restricted mobility than the fighter.
It's a silly contest, but there are core-wise no tactics that ensure the monk wins, or even has decent odds.
The chance of crit not land is not 25% in this case. I just used the "group" example to try to get my point across. I think the odds are more like 76.0% of a crit landing if each one has a 30% chance of landing which is close to the 8 out of 10 posted upthead, which is not as good as I thought it would be.Um... you might want to think on those numbers for a second. I said the chance of going a round without a crit is 24%. You are saying that I am wrong, and that the chance of getting at least one crit is 76%.
100-76=?
I misread your posts. :)
I thought you were saying there was only a 25% chance of landing a crit. Yeah I know it is obvious that you did not say that.PS:I blame Mort for trying to confuse me or something. :)
|
|
And if the fighter rolls a 5 on his save vs quivering palm, he ACTUALLY dies - the odds are roughyl equivalent.
If the fighter rolls the 15, the monk basically dies.Except that with Imp. Great Fortitude the fighter gets one re-roll. The monk get's none, therefore the fighter is odds-on to win.
Except the fighter doesn't hit the monk, outside of winning initiative, and the monk hits the fighter up to 20 times (that is how many stunning fists the monk has at 20th level, all of which can paralyze for 1d6+1 round) without the fighter getting an AoO.
If the fighter readies an melee, the monk pops out from behind cover to plink him with a bolt then retreats back behind cover in the same turn using shot on the run and the 90 feet of movement they get. Behind cover, no risk for charge or ranged, so they just need to stay back more than 30 feet.
If the fighter moves, spring attack and then back behind cover, again staying more than 30 feet away. Get cornered or in a wonky position, dimension door or go ethereal.
Unless the monk does something stupid, the fighter will only have one chance to hit the monk. If they win initiative.
Meanwhile with the build I posted the fighter had a 26 fort save every time I spring attack (up to 20 times...), and only re-rolls once a day.
Dare I ask, how would a Fighter 10/Monk 10 fare in this contest?
May I ask what might be considered a stupid queston?
Ciretose, how exactly does the monk know if the fighter is readying an action and for what he is readying that action for? He could simply be delyaing if he has a higher initiative, correct?
Master Arminas
|
|
May I ask what might be considered a stupid queston?
Ciretose, how exactly does the monk know if the fighter is readying an action and for what he is readying that action for? He could simply be delyaing if he has a higher initiative, correct?
Master Arminas
Very fair question that varies from GM to GM.
I could see that being metagaming, but I could also see it as if someone is preparing to immediately attack if anyone comes close, they would be doing something to get into that position. Presumably whatever they are doing takes up a move action, so if I were running I would let the player be able to tell the person was "ready" to do something.
If the fighter is just holding then the monk would still probably do the same thing until the fighter moved, at which point the monk would know it was safe to spring attack.
The key to the whole thing is being behind cover more than 30 feet away at the end of your turn. If you are too far to spring on a given turn, just position yourself for later.
It is a chess match at a certain point, so the monk could easily make a mistake and be in a vulnerable position. But if the monk doesn't lose initiative and plays smart, there is no reason they should be vulnerable to anything more than a fighter with a readied ranged attack.
So as I understand it, ciretose, your monk would be hiding behind full cover after his turn. That means he has no line-of-sight to the fighter. After the monk's turn, he has no idea what the fighter is doing (just as the fighter has no idea what the monk is doing). Since both Shot on the Run and Spring Attack are full-round actions, there's no way for the monk to see what the fighter is doing until he's already committed to one or the other.
The fighter can also take a 60'move at any time to come up right next to the monk...and the monk is going to provoke when he retreats, unless he can make that opposed Tumble check, which is even harder if he wants to keep his full move. Shot on the Run won't help against the AoO's either.
The monk has no capability of outmanuvering the fighter...his Spring Attack has to be a double move distance, not a single one, and 90' isn't enough.
Basically what would happen is that the fighter would just parse the field with double moves, end up next to the monk at some point, and AoO or trip him down. Trip weapon + BAB is +7 Advantage, Trip feat is +9. The monk will be on his back and unable to do anything.
And the range of shuriken is laughable. Anything over 10' away is suffering TH penalties, and he gets one shuriken when tossing on the run. Against DR 5? He'll run out of shuriken first.
Did they do away wiht the ability to do a partial charge on a ready action? Because that would also mess up the monk something fierce.
==Aelryinth
You can only partial charge if limited to a standard action (slow, surprise round, you're a zombie, stuff like that). It's not something you can just opt to do on a regular basis.
No comments on my amazing monk build? Are people just still speechless at how awesome it is? :)
|
|
If the fighter ends up next to him, the monk has three ways to get away, full retreat, abundant step, and ethereal.
Abundant step is the best, as it is a move action, meaning I can hit you, then dd away. No AoO since it is a supernatural ability.
And that attack is either quivering palm or paralyisis.
The monk has no capability of outmanuvering the fighter...his Spring Attack has to be a double move distance, not a single one, and 90' isn't enough.
The Monk's strongest ability is outmanuvering the figther.
Basically what would happen is that the fighter would just parse the field with double moves, end up next to the monk at some point, and AoO or trip him down. Trip weapon + BAB is +7 Advantage, Trip feat is +9. The monk will be on his back and unable to do anything.
This is actually the best possible situation for the monk. The fighter uses a double action to get right next to the monk. The monk can attack and get away without any possible counter-attack.
And the range of shuriken is laughable. Anything over 10' away is suffering TH penalties, and he gets one shuriken when tossing on the run. Against DR 5? He'll run out of shuriken first.
Which is why they would be coated with contact posion.
Having the fighter carry a number of nets seems like a good idea.
I was just thinking that having the monk carry a number of nets seems like a okay idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Net fight!
Except the fighter doesn't hit the monk,And if the fighter rolls a 5 on his save vs quivering palm, he ACTUALLY dies - the odds are roughyl equivalent.
If the fighter rolls the 15, the monk basically dies.Except that with Imp. Great Fortitude the fighter gets one re-roll. The monk get's none, therefore the fighter is odds-on to win.
Yes, he does. Monk Movement is 90', +20' for using ki. That's 110', when the monk needs to move at least 120' to start out of charge range of the fighter and end out of charge range of the fighter.
If there is terrain, the situation changes slightly in the monk's favour, but the monk still has to close with the fighter to hit him. If there is cover, the fighter can use it too. He doesn't have to make a Stealth check or anything.
If the fighter readies an melee, the monk pops out from behind cover to plink him with a bolt then retreats back behind cover in the same turn using shot on the run and the 90 feet of movement they get. Behind cover, no risk for charge or ranged, so they just need to stay back more than 30 feet.
What if the fighter, not being dumb, uses cover himself?
If the fighter moves, spring attack and then back behind cover, again staying more than 30 feet away. Get cornered or in a wonky position, dimension door or go ethereal.
Fighter can move and hold a readied action. Monk gets hit.
Unless the monk does something stupid, the fighter will only have one chance to hit the monk. If they win initiative.
Twice, if the monk fell for the fighter moving. In fact, if the fighter is smart, and uses cover, the 'run around and shoot' option stops working very fast. The monk is using a crossbow with 1d8 damage against DR5/- so he isn't going to achieve very much. The fighter could ready a Greater Vital Strike + Deadly Aim with a mighty composite longbow and shoot the monk whenever he appears for 4d8+19 - average 37 damage, four hits and a dead monk - and surround himself with caltrops so the monk's spring attack hurts him and slows him down even if the fighter does not have a readied action.
Even with Wholeness of body and a huge ki-pool the monk will lose a battle of attrition this way. If he decides to ignore the caltrops he now has a foot wound and half movement.
Alternatively the fighter could just stay behind cover with his falchion readied. The monk has to come to him eventually...
The monk has an advantage if there is the right amount of cover. If there is less, he's toast because he can't get enough between him and the fighter to stop a charge, or stop the fighter filling him with arrows. If there is more, he can't use his missile attack because the fighter can also use it, with a readied action to hit the monk when he shows.
Lets just say we all agree that the Fighter has a lot better DPR than both the Monk and the Rogue ,that was the original Question after all.
As for the Monks winning Chances: Pathfinder/D&D is a Dice Game.
With the given strategies the Monk could win 4 or 5 times in a row, because if he suceeds with stunning fist/quivering palm....BAAM Monk wins. Having to go through two saves and hitting first doesn´t change that..... a decent roll ....then two bad rolls from the fighter...Done.
Happens all the time.
Same goes for the fighters hits... but well, obbviously we're walking in circles:S
I already acknowledged that whole READIEDFALCHIONSTUNNINGBLINDINGCRITICALMASTERYCRIT-thing but even that doesn´t make the Fighter invincible and after all the "Monks suck Balls"
Threads lately it was important to get that noted.
I think a properly cheesed out ridiculously-unplayable-in-any-normal-game-blowing-through-poison-like-it's -water-coward monk could win about half the time.
The key is to not even bother trying to fight. Just toss out as many saves as possible and running and hiding whenever he closes and hoping for the law of large numbers to work its magic and lead him to fail.
Any tactics that involve the monk actually trying to fight, even just skirmishing w/ spring attack and cover, will require extremely high luck (fighter failing two fort saves in a row at the start of the fight) in order to win, and thus will itself never be won by "fighting." So rather than trying to fight, just toss out tons of fort saves, run away, rinse, repeat, and embrace the cheese.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Next week's argument: Bards are useless cause they can't deal damage!
I see that nobody has considered Master Strike:
Each time the rogue deals sneak attack damage, she can choose one of the following three effects: the target can be put to sleep for 1d4 hours, paralyzed for 2d6 rounds, or slain. Regardless of the effect chosen, the target receives a Fortitude save to negate the additional effect. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + 1/2 the rogue’s level + the rogue’s Intelligence modifier. Once a creature has been the target of a master strike, regardless of whether or not the save is made, that creature is immune to that rogue’s master strike for 24 hours. Creatures that are immune to sneak attack damage are also immune to this ability.Soooo with improved initiative etc, maybe fleetx2 for increased range, and cheese some intellect, you have the opportunity to kill him in one blow. Add poisons w/ high saves: Black lotus, deathblade, tears of death, purple worm poison, you could run away after 1 hit and watch him die w/in 4 or 5 rounds.
Thoughts?
The rogue never gets a chance to use Master Strike. The fighter can move as fast as the rogue and can mow rogue down with bow from a distance before the rogue get close. The rogue really needs concealment in this fight, they don't have it though.
Master Strike is only 1/day anyway. Fighter has a 1/day reroll on his fort and it's his best save; he's not going to fall to it. At least monk has stunning fist's paralysis and his psuedo-"poison use" (via immunity) to work with.
And rogue has to be within 30 ft to do much of anything, including Master Strike. If the Fighter really wanted to be mean, he could just buy smoke bombs. Rogue can't SA in concealment of any kind, and every option available to overcome that is either a non-core feat or a magic item, aside from Improved Precise Shot. If he's an archer rogue...I don't even need to waste time thinking that one over, wow is rogue screwed.
Basically the summary of the posts are fighter win if played normally against monk and rogue played normally.
I would say 90% win for the fighter.
Monk can win if played flawlessly against a normal fighter player, exploiting cover. Without cover monk is toast even played flawlessly.
"Can" in this case meaning he may have a 50/50 chance, but he is not doing it via damage.
If the fighter plays flawlessly as well, he will probably win but might end in a stale mate where both the monk and fighter is just hiding behind cover.
If they both use cover, it gets very complex. Essentially the fighter has to wander around with a readied action. The monk's movement can control when and how he engages the fighter, but when he does there is that readied action to deal with.
I would say that if it's a stalemate because the monk will not engage, then that's effectively a concession.
Conclusion fighter should win without magic items.
On the whole, I think it's 2/3 to the fighter and 1/3 to the monk.
I already acknowledged that whole READIEDFALCHIONSTUNNINGBLINDINGCRITICALMASTERYCRIT-thing but even that doesn´t make the Fighter invincible and after all the "Monks suck Balls"
Threads lately it was important to get that noted.
This is true, but the fighter is the odds-on favourite given the restrictions.
Note that 'contact poison' is going to be expended as soon as it strikes the skin of the monk. He's immune, but it's 'used up'. You don't get infinite uses of it on one weapon, either. Even if you rule it's not used up trying to affect the monk, it's gone after one UA hit...just like any other weapon.
Likewise, the shuriken have to do damage, if poisoned, to actually inflict it. With a single drink of Anti-venom, that's going against a +22 Fort save. He'll need to roll a nat 1 to fail any poison saves.
Also, Shuriken do d2 dmg. So unless that monk has an 18 Strength, he can't even DO damage to the fighter with shuriken.
The only thing he's got to worry about is the save or die effect of a hit...and the monk has to worry about that, too, and has a 75% chance of failure, base, with a +15 Fort save. x2. IF he makes both saves, he's only dazed and staggered, and STILL going to die.
The monk has a limited pool of ki. Doing abundant steps and ether jaunts sucks up ki like nobody's business.
Shame Supernatural Opportunist from 3.5 isn't around. Everytime the monk spends ki, it would trigger an AoO!
==
Note the Fort save situation only gets worse if magic is allowed. The fighter can boost his Con to the same extent the monk can his wis, and gets +5 to the save on top of it. The monk's chance of making the save against the Crits goes up to better then 50%, but the melee's AC explodes upwards into unhittable range for the monk.
==Aelryinth
Yes, he does. Monk Movement is 90', +20' for using ki. That's 110', when the monk needs to move at least 120' to start out of charge range of the fighter and end out of charge range of the fighter.
Actually a monk only has to move 35' and have cover to stop a charge. That's a total of 70' of movement, well under 90.
My question is, why does everyone assume that the monk has to be the one to attack? Maybe the monk will just stand 65' away and wait on the fighter to close. That way they can both stand there with readied actions and we just call it a draw.
Yes, he does. Monk Movement is 90', +20' for using ki. That's 110', when the monk needs to move at least 120' to start out of charge range of the fighter and end out of charge range of the fighter.Actually a monk only has to move 35' and have cover to stop a charge. That's a total of 70' of movement, well under 90.
My question is, why does everyone assume that the monk has to be the one to attack? Maybe the monk will just stand 65' away and wait on the fighter to close. That way they can both stand there with readied actions and we just call it a draw.
If they're both just standing off at range the fighter can start making longbow full attacks, while the monk doesn't have much in the way of a ranged game.
But that takes away most of the critical threat, does much less damage, and greatly increases chances for Spring Attacks.
Actually a monk only has to move 35' and have cover to stop a charge. That's a total of 70' of movement, well under 90.
Yes, he does. Monk Movement is 90', +20' for using ki. That's 110', when the monk needs to move at least 120' to start out of charge range of the fighter and end out of charge range of the fighter.
So the fighter stands more than sixty feet from cover, takes out his bow and he wins.
My question is, why does everyone assume that the monk has to be the one to attack? Maybe the monk will just stand 65' away and wait on the fighter to close. That way they can both stand there with readied actions and we just call it a draw.
Because the monk has no real ranged combat ability. For the investment of three feats the fighter can have a mighty longbow and be shooting for five attacks at 1d8+22* per hit, which is enough to kill the monk in one round if he's dumb enough to just stand there (with the 7 intelligence of Ciretose's build, he just may be).
Now, if the two reach a stalemate because the monk runs away, I think we can safely say that the monk has conceded the fight.
* +7 strength, +12 Deadly Aim, +3 Weapon Training. No weapon specialisation is assumed, just that this is the fighter's secondary weapon. If it was his primary weapon we're talking seven attacks, another +3 to hit and +5 to damage.
Just to add to the discussion: a fighter cannot ready to attack the monk >before< the monk hits him if he doesn't perceive him first. Meaning a high stealth monk can always get the first hit in - though readied actions of the fighter can target the monk for >after< being hit.
Yes, to have Stealth you have to have something to hide behind. A fighter standing out there 60' from cover of any sort is not someone you're going to sneak up on.
==Aelryinth
Smoke bombs. Stealth. Sorted.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, why would the wise monk bother fighting on a fighter's terms?
+7 strength, +12 Deadly Aim, +3 Weapon Training. No weapon specialisation is assumed, just that this is the fighter's secondary weapon. If it was his primary weapon we're talking seven attacks, another +3 to hit and +5 to damage.
And that's cool, but what ability is giving the fighter the power to reconfigure himself in the middle of the fight? Or look at the fighters presented above and tell me what you're taking away to get those extra feats. It's great to say what a fighter can do in theory but when you actually have to build it you'll see that unless the fighter can change feats mid combat there is a hole the monk can exploit. With the monk we're not talking about reconfiguring feats to adapt to the fighter we're just changing tactics.
Speaking of which I'm not talking about the monk running I'm talking about letting the fighter move to the monk.