Hi all,
I've been playing Pathfinder for several months now, but never posted here before. I recently did a bit of searching of these forums for some information regarding the Monk class, and while I didn't find quite what I was looking for, what I DID find surprised me enormously.
What I was looking for: According to the SRD, when your BAB reaches +6 and every five points thereafter (+11, +16 etc), you are allowed to use additional attacks with those bonuses, if you do so as a full-round action. i.e. If your BAB is 11/6/1 then you can make an attack with +11, an attack with +6 and an attack with +1, and that's your lot for the turn.
For Monks, I do understand that it's only the BAB shown on the chart for the Monk class level that's applied. What I'm not entirely sure of is: if an 8th-level Monk with BAB +6/+1 and Flurry +6/+6/+1/+1 uses Flurry for the round, does that seriously mean that they get six attacks, three with a +6 and three with a +1?
What surprised me: the enormous number of people complaining about the weakness of Monks. I've never actually played one, but from my perspective they seem to border on the grossly overpowered, rather than weak and difficult. Especially if my suspicions about the six-attacks-at-level-eight deal are correct, then surely anything with such an insane number of potential HARD hits is an incredible force to be reckoned with? It just seems like a bit of a leap in power to allow a whopping FOUR additional attacks at a mere level eight, climbing to a borderline ridiculous seven by only the 16th level. Ten attacks in a single round? That feels a bit off to me, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would complain about that being a weakness.
No, the extra attacks are already built into the flurry BAB table. At level 8, they get four attacks, two at +6 and two at +1, not six. At level 20, they cap out at seven attacks, not ten.
*snip*
So good points, and I think nobody is arguing that flurry is a weakness of the monks. I mean, it's the same as nobody argues that TWF for rangers is not a good thing.
1.) Monks have several stats that need tending to. Str (for damage), Dex (because they're front line combatants), Wis (To power their mystical abilities and AC) and Con (whatever's left, to not die basically). So while other classes can specialize, monks tend to be more deficient in certain areas.
2.) No armor, d8 HD, front line combatant. Even a rogue does better than a monk here. Even if you were looking to torpedo your chance of to hit and had an 18 wis, you'd still be 2 points behind a rogue in a chain shirt. I.e. Monk's get hit, all the time. This is a freaking tragedy and not at all how anyone's mental depiction of the puissant martial artist looks like.
3.) Enhancement bonuses to hit and damage are crazy expensive for the monk. They basically have to buy an amulet of mighty fists which costs more than a ranger pays for both of his weapons. If you needed to shore up your other weaknesses via magic, and thought you could save on magic weapons, nope. You pay more, because the item is designed (fair enough) for tentacled monstrosities with 8 natural attacks.
prototype00
*edit* Ah, and you were adding attacks onto the flurry of blows table. Missed that, yeah thats not right either.
The +1/+1 ARE the two additional attacks. Since the base attack progression and the flurry of blows are different, they give flurry its own column where the math has been done for us. :)
-1/-1 at first level is weak, but yeah by the time flurry out progresses your BAB, I think they are not. Why would an 8th level monk not flurry with a d10 damage?
Edit: ninja'd
{snip}
... and this is why the monk class needs an overhaul.
The reason the monk class has problems are summed up eloquently above. If you want to skimp on any of the four stats (strength, dexterity, constitution, charisma) you end up paying a serious feat tax.
The main problem, though, is that while other magic weapons cap out at +10 equivalent, the monk's unarmed strike caps at +5 equivalent with the amulet of mighty fists. Even with flurry of blows and your lower strength (or dexterity if you take Weapon Finesse) your attack bonus is going to be behind that of every other combat class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people on these forums believe the monk was meant to fill a design niche that it was never meant to fill. The monks were never intended to be combat machines, which is what a lot of members of these forums seem to think they were meant to be, as well as wish them to be.
When there's such a disconnect between what the expectations of a class are and what the class was actually meant to be, disappointment arises.
The non-standard way that they were meant to work in combat also exacerbates the problem. They have a different sort of damage potential than fighters, and are more like rogues in many regards than fighters.
They are the masters of mobility and defenses, as well as being support combatants. This is what they are intended to excel at and they do so in spades. They aren't meant to have anywhere near the damage output of the always-full BAB classes, and their damage style is more "many 'small' hits" than "one or two big ones", as it is with those full BAB classes.
Combine this with their very non-standard method of dealing with damage reduction and increasing damage, predominantly gaining large damage dice, and we have a very different class than big damage dealers. Just a note, this increase in damage dice is also meant to help with issues of multiple attribute dependency.
Those who see the monk as weak generally wish for it to be a great damage dealer with great mobility and great defenses and due to this desire to have cake and eat it too, the proposed "fixes" are overpowered and in many ways, unnecessary.
The monk is fine in actual play, and it can do many awesome things that the big damage dealers simply cannot do.
I must say, I agree, Cheapy. The monk has always filled a near-undefinable niche nearer the rogues dynamic than the fighters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lot of people on these forums believe the monk was meant to fill a design niche that it was never meant to fill. The monks were never intended to be combat machines, which is what a lot of members of these forums seem to think they were meant to be, as well as wish them to be.
You mean, effective?
When there's such a disconnect between what the expectations of a class are and what the class was actually meant to be, disappointment arises.
Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it's least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.
Monks are good defensively (except against getting directly pummelled), and fast, but how exactly do they take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities? Unless the enemy in question is vulnerable to getting kicked in the face, or is vulnerable to maneuvers, they can't. Even their stunning fist requires them to hit and deliver damage.
The non-standard way that they were meant to work in combat also exacerbates the problem. They have a different sort of damage potential than fighters, and are more like rogues in many regards than fighters.
The rogue is actually able to do a lot of things out of combat - in some ways, the rogue is NOT a combat class. The monk is much less versatile with less skills. The rogue is not a foe you can ignore in combat. The monk...
They are the masters of mobility and defenses, as well as being support combatants. This is what they are intended to excel at and they do so in spades. They aren't meant to have anywhere near the damage output of the always-full BAB classes, and their damage style is more "many 'small' hits" than "one or two big ones", as it is with those full BAB classes.
I agree, a monk can have an awesome AC. Exactly what they are meant to excel at other than running away is another matter. If you want to win the fight, you have to do something to the enemy.
Not many small hits: many attempts. Fewer actual hits, and if the target has DR even less actual damage. This is the problem with the monk. If they could hit the target and get past DR, then you would be correct, but these things are where the monk falls down badly.
Combine this with their very non-standard method of dealing with damage reduction and increasing damage, predominantly gaining large damage dice, and we have a very different class than big damage dealers. Just a note, this increase in damage dice is also meant to help with issues of multiple attribute dependency.
You mean they don't and indeed can't deal with DR other than to pray for good dice rolls.
Those who see the monk as weak generally wish for it to be a great damage dealer with great mobility and great defenses and due to this desire to have cake and eat it too, the proposed "fixes" are overpowered and in many ways, unnecessary.
I expect the monk to be able to deal damage reliably. I don't want awesome damage output, I want them to be able to actually hit their targets and overcome or bypass DR. Right now, with the state of play on the AoMF compared to weapons, they cannot. AoMF enhancement does not bypass DR the way magic weapon enhancement does. The only other way you can do it is with weapon properties, which leave the monk with lower attack bonuses than every other combat class because of the +5 cap on the AoMF.
The monk is fine in actual play, and it can do many awesome things that the big damage dealers simply cannot do.
The problem with all that, Cheapy, is that ultimately to succeed in combat you need to hit the foe, and the monk falls short of the hurdle. You can run around the battlefield, dodge attacks from foes, and it doesn't mean jack if they can just ignore you.
The monk can be excellent in certain situations against certain foes, but in other situations they can't achieve much. They can do some stuff the other combat classes cannot do, but these are not essential things that come up often.
What's your attack bonus and what kind of AC's were you hitting?
Wow, that's a lot of excellent replies in a very short time; I wish I could have responded sooner.
Thanks to everyone for clearing up a lot of things for me. The possibility that hadn't occurred to me was that Flurry is something used instead of a normal attack, rather than along with. That makes far more sense, making the Monk strong but not unbalanced.
In retrospect it also probably wasn't the best or most charming of ideas to introduce myself to these forums with a bit of whingeing, but you've all helped enormously. Thank you!
Both Monks and high level Druids can nulify casters in their own unique ways. Monks can use Stunning Fist, or Grapple (or both). A (very) high level Druid can just eat the caster (Swallow Whole!)
If a monk can get into position where he threatens a wizard or sorcerer or witch, yes, he can shut them down.
If they don't take a five-foot step and then cast. If they aren't flying. If they are flying while invisible. If they don't have mirror image or blur or displacement up.
Basically, before 5th level, a monk is REALLY good at shutting down wizards and sorcerers and witches. Of course, so are the full BAB classes (although they tend to shut them down by killing them in one or two attacks, but that is a different story).
Clerics and druids? No. They have good fort saves, so stunning fist is probably not going to work, they have more hit points, they can wear armor, the druid has an animal companion, . . . I could go on.
Remember, if you move, you get one attack. At medium BAB. One attack, vs. whatever miss chance that caster's spells give. If he isn't flying. Or invisible. And if he isn't, and if he is dumb enough NOT to take a 5' step and you get that attack of opportunity; well, you can't flurry on an AoO. So that attack is at your medium BAB again. One attack.
No, monks are not anti-casters. Unfortunately.
Master Arminas
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must be playing this game wrong.
For some reason, EVERY....let me repeat that EVERY Monk in any game I have been a part of (PFS, home brew, Adventure Path, etc) has had the highest AC, or at least the second highest AC.
Before buffage, before throwing in KI, before EVERYTHING...our monks have the sheer highest AC, EVERY time.
As such, I don't quite see the dire need for uber CON, since they never get hit....at least in my games.
Then you get to throw on things like deflect arrows, crane wing, and such, and NOW not only to they rarely get hit, when they do the hit gets negated.
But then, since I'm the only one saying this, I am obviously playing the game wrong.
**EDIT**
Now that I've read more of Dabbler's comments, let me also address the fact that in his view Monk's can't hit their opponent.
With its redonkulously high CMB, all the Monks...let me repeat thatALL the monks that I have seen in combat routinely pummel the bejeesus out of anything they want to.
Why, you might ask?
Because they don't just stand there going toe to toe with some huge giant armored freakazoid in a 5x5 square without ever moving or being tactically intelligent.
See, all the Monks I have play, and that I have seen played, routinely do things like Trip (having an enemy in the prone position ultimately ends up giving the monk a +8 bonus to hit...do THAT, BSF) or Mobility/Panther Style, or flank, or charge/flank together, or charge/flank/trip which provokes AoO and then when the bad guy stands up gets ANOTHER AoO...
Anyone that just walks up to BSF in full plate armor and starts batting him about the neck and shoulders not only deserves to lose combat, but they also deserve the amount of derision and hatred that Dabbler and the guys that think like him dish out.
But Monks who actually use half a brain and fight intelligently can and often stop fights more readily than just about any other class, with the exception of a 20th level God-Wizard.
But then, as I mentioned before, I play this game wrong.
PS, I also like rogues just fine too. And Bards...I find them easily the best class ever.
|
|
If a monk can get into position where he threatens a wizard or sorcerer or witch, yes, he can shut them down.
If they don't take a five-foot step and then cast. If they aren't flying. If they are flying while invisible. If they don't have mirror image or blur or displacement up.
Basically, before 5th level, a monk is REALLY good at shutting down wizards and sorcerers and witches. Of course, so are the full BAB classes (although they tend to shut them down by killing them in one or two attacks, but that is a different story).
Clerics and druids? No. They have good fort saves, so stunning fist is probably not going to work, they have more hit points, they can wear armor, the druid has an animal companion, . . . I could go on.
Remember, if you move, you get one attack. At medium BAB. One attack, vs. whatever miss chance that caster's spells give. If he isn't flying. Or invisible. And if he isn't, and if he is dumb enough NOT to take a 5' step and you get that attack of opportunity; well, you can't flurry on an AoO. So that attack is at your medium BAB again. One attack.
No, monks are not anti-casters. Unfortunately.
Master Arminas
Just out of curiosity, what would the BSF do with his full BAB against that awesome flying/displaced/invisible caster?
See...thats the thing...if the Monk cant hit that guy, I'd be willing to lay money on a full BAB guy also not being able to do squat about him either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Odds are he can't. Which is why the best caster killer is another caster.
Master Arminas
My experience has been that a Monk played by somone who understands tactical placement. (ie if i stand here, i can flip this guy, 5 foot step, drop kick that guy in the nuts, then flip this third guy)They do really well.
My lvl 10 monk hasted running like 90 feet could pretty much place herself on the battlefield wherever she wanted to, most spells the enemy cast didnt hav emuch effect due to saves and as one of the players above put it the redonkulously high CMB ment anyone not flying was tripped, and anyone Flying just got grappled.
From that game, enemy casters were not really an issue.. i think i put a lvl 13 priest into a pinky lock after our party witch dispelled freedom of movement.
The thing is, alot of the posts above seem to treat these discussions like characters act in a vacume. Your right the Monk cant deal with everything the Enemy casters can do. but if one of the PC casers removes his defenses.. well then he just gets choked to death.
If you dont try and make the class do something its not supposed to do it will work out fine, Ive enjoyed playing them and plan to again.
|
|
Just out of curiosity, what would the BSF do with his full BAB against that awesome flying/displaced/invisible caster?That's why I said, in core, anti-caster are druids, other casters, ranged characters, and then monks (who are probably more efficient for this task than BSF).
And until a few posts later, the conversation was about how Monks are not as good as a Full BAB.
Some of us believe otherwise, its a heresy, I know.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will say this: I have played monks since 1st edition. You remember, the class that topped out at 17th level? The one with 2d4 at 1st level and 1d4 each one after? That didn't get feign death until 5th level? I had a blast. He was my favorite character of all time.
But he was a little weak than the other AD&D PHB classes. So when the Dragon Magazine article He's Got a Lot to Kick About came out, my DM suggested that I convert my character to that monk. MUCH better. The slight changes and the increase to d6 hit die made the class much easier to play.
Kept giving my 2nd edition players the option to bring in that Dragon Mag monk, since I hated what they did in 2nd.
3rd edition rolled around, and it was a good news/bad new thing. Good news, we got d8s! Woo-hoo! Bad news, we lost a lot of those abilities that really made the monk in 1st. Good news, we had the same BAB as a Cleric and ALL good saves! Bad news, without limits on ability scores and magic bonuses becoming much more common, it overwhelmed the base bonuses rather quickly. Good news, we had the most attacks of anyone! Bad news, only when we stood still. Bad news, gone were the multiple d4s that were really fun to roll and boosted the average roll to a less random number. Instead we topped out at 2 dice, that progressed from 6s to 10s.
3.5 changed some more thing, and some of those changes were good. I like how did they did flurry for the monk. Finally, it started to work--and it was unique. Sure, some called it flurry of misses, and monks were still lacking all those flavorful powers from 1st edition, but it was a step in the right direction.
And then came Pathfinder. It's like we took a step forward and a step back. The class is schizophrenic, it moves fast and agile, but to get your attacks you have to stand in place. You have the BAB of a cleric, except when you flurry, but not on Attacks of Opportunity when you flurry. If part of your body is enchanted and not the rest, you've got to divide up your unarmed attacks. Or use an unarmed attack and a weapon, or two weapons. Or two weapons AND an unarmed attack. Shell out that gold, boyo. To make matters worse, while the monk remained about the same in terms of power, EVERYONE else (except the Rogue) got a huge boost. Fighters got weapons training. Ranger Favored Enemies and Paladin Smites got better. Barbarians got Rage Powers. And even Rogues got Rogue Talents to go along with their 10d6 single-target no save fireball sneak attack.
Yes, a clever, veteran player can build a monk in Pathfinder that can perform well. A novice cannot. A new player cannot. And if you make a mistake building the character, it will haunt you the rest of that character's career.
Can the Pathfinder monk as written be played well? Yes. Can he contribute meaningfully to a party? Yes. Does it depend entirely on the skill and knowledge of the player as opposed to a class that anyone can pick up and play out of the box? Yes.
I love monks. I've loved them since AD&D, with that cover of a thief (not rogue, THIEF) prying those gems out of the statue's eyes. I've played monks, I run games with monk players, and I will continue to do both. But the monk is not a class for a novice. Not as written. There are too many traps and too many things that are counter-intuitive, that have to be learned in game to work for a person who is not well experienced and cannot think outside of the box.
That is why some of us here keep trying to improve the monk, to make the monk better. So that it reaches the potential of that original 1st edition AD&D class as envisioned so long ago by Gary Gygax. Unfortuneately, it seems that every time the monk receives ANYTHING good, some official nerf comes along and takes it (and sometimes something else) away.
So we make our own. And we debate and we critique. And we do the best we can to fix the problems in our game, while hoping and wishing and praying that some developer, some where in Paizo, (are you listening, Mr. Mona?), will at long last fufil the promise of the class. And give us a monk that Kwai Chang Caine, or Bruce Lee, or Jet Li, or Iron Monkey, or Bulletproof Monk, or even Jackie Chan would be proud of.
So far, we are still waiting.
Master Arminas
See, all the Monks I have play, and that I have seen played, routinely do things like Trip (having an enemy in the prone position ultimately ends up giving the monk a +8 bonus to hit...do THAT, BSF) or Mobility/Panther Style, or flank, or charge/flank together, or charge/flank/trip which provokes AoO and then when the bad guy stands up gets ANOTHER AoO...
Which is all fine and dandy until you reach a creature you cannot trip. That huge dragon? too big to trip (no more than one size category bigger and you cannot trip it), can't disarm or sunder it (natural weapons) and good luck with grappling.
Maneuvers are good, but they depend on fighting the right type of foe. Too big, too many legs, natural weapons, and you can't do anything. When you fight something else, you need something to fall back on.
Anyone that just walks up to BSF in full plate armor and starts batting him about the neck and shoulders not only deserves to lose combat, but they also deserve the amount of derision and hatred that Dabbler and the guys that think like him dish out.
But Monks who actually use half a brain and fight intelligently can and often stop fights more readily than just about any other class, with the exception of a 20th level God-Wizard.
You are missing my point: The monk isn't impossible to play, but it's not easy or intuitive.
If you want to use maneuvers on that plate armoured fighter then here's a wake-up call: he can beat you. Full BAB, locking gauntlets or weapon straps and some interesting maneuver bonuses mean that plate-armoured fighter has a better CMD than you might think, and that shuts you down there and then.
Spring attack with stunning fist? Nah, his cloak of resistance and best save mean you are basically bouncing your knuckles off solid metal.
So what can you do as he ignores you and splatters your party, if you can't hit the guy and can't do maneuvers on him?
But then, as I mentioned before, I play this game wrong.
PS, I also like rogues just fine too. And Bards...I find them easily the best class ever.
I love 'em too. A lot more thought went into their design, and they have thematic abilities that work together, so even if they are not powerful they can be effective.
Now at anyone claiming that concealment effects such as blur or even invisibility will help, we have another feat called Blind-fight, and its chain. I know that these feats add up but they make it entirely possible for a monk to fight concealed creatures. A caster, on the other hand, usually won't be able to target the invisible enemy without casting spells, during which time the enemy caster has probably crippled the party with some of his own.
Blind Fight is good if you are attacked, but if you don't know what square your target is in, it's not a lot of help. Glitterdust or a bag of flour are more useful.
Now granted the only real solution for dealing with a flying caster is to attack with spells or ranged weapons but it's not like every single caster uses it. This might be viable with a Zen Archer monk but yes this is an area where core monks fall down in, along with all the other melee classes including shifter Druids. A wild-shaped druid will still have to chase a flyer down and make a single attack, often doing less damage than a monk would.
Actually most other combat classes have proficiency with bows other than crossbows, and that's enough with a couple of magic arrows to be able to cover the contingency. The monk doesn't get that much.
I will agree with you on this... monks certainly aren't for beginners to the game. They need to be built really well to be truly effective but if they are they can put most other melee classes to shame and/or effectively hunt down the majority of casters.
Agreed. Our point is that even then they struggle to keep up with other combat classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you can't hand a 1st level whatever to someone and they can't play it effectively(with a little coaching or reading on their part) then it requires to much system mastery. They may not be able to optimize, but they shouldn't be penalized either.
This is pretty much our gripe.
I have never seen an ineffective monk, only ineffective players and GMs. I say this because many of the gripes I see are easily addressed by GMs creating encounters appropriate for the players and the players playing characters that fit the campaign.
Monks can't normally trip dragons. Very true. How many dragons are the players running into? If there's so many that it's a common issue then the player has made a bad decision on focusing on tripping. If the player told the GM ahead of time that he wanted to build a tripping character and the GM said that it should work out just fine and then only throws Huge or larger creatures at the party, I would have to say the GM failed the player.
I just ran my players through Age of Worms. There were plenty of opportunities for every class to do well. A monk would have had plenty of times to use his flurry (and he would have hit). He could have used his stunning fist. He could have dealt consistent damage. He could have used combat maneuvers. He couldn't do it all the time but he could have done it well over half the time. I'm pretty sure that all the APs are designed with that in mind.
Monks that are played as pure front line fighters will die. Monks that are played as pure skill monkeys will find they can't do enough. Monks that are played to their strengths will do fine.
What about incorporeal creatures, Bob?
It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons, or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that cause no damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.
A monk's unarmed strikes (through the ki strike class feature) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of damage reduction; they are not actually magic weapons and as such an incorporeal creature is completely immune. Neither does an amulet of mighty fists make a monk's unarmed strike magical weapons. They provide an enhancement bonus, that overcomes DR/magic, but they are not magic weapons for any other purpose.
Incorporeal undead are fairly common opponents, but unless the monk is packing a +1 sai, or kama, or quarterstaff, then he is screwed. Even if he concentrates on his class feature of being an unarmed combat specialist with his unarmed strikes. Heck, by the rules as written, neither magic fang or magic weapon are considered magic weapons for this purpose. They, by their spell descriptions, do not actually make the natural attack or weapon magic; they provide an enhancement bonus on attacks and damage.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen an ineffective monk, only ineffective players and GMs. I say this because many of the gripes I see are easily addressed by GMs creating encounters appropriate for the players and the players playing characters that fit the campaign.
Actually you are saying what many of us have been saying - that the monk can work, but needs a lot of system mastery. Then you are putting the burden of the system mastery also onto the DM. How many other classes require this?
Monks can't normally trip dragons. Very true. How many dragons are the players running into? If there's so many that it's a common issue then the player has made a bad decision on focusing on tripping. If the player told the GM ahead of time that he wanted to build a tripping character and the GM said that it should work out just fine and then only throws Huge or larger creatures at the party, I would have to say the GM failed the player.
Problem is, Bob, that short of providing spoilers there's not many ways of doing this. The player wants a monk, and maneuvers are one of the monks best options (well, almost their only option actually). So the DM basically has to tell the player that they cannot have the character that they want.
Also, what about adventure paths? When I buy one it's to run 'out of the box' and that can't happen if I have to re-write the adventure to suit the characters.
Monks that are played as pure front line fighters will die. Monks that are played as pure skill monkeys will find they can't do enough. Monks that are played to their strengths will do fine.
So let's get this straight: they can't fight, can't do skills, can't cast spells, can't rely on maneuvers without a sympathetic DM. Their strengths as a combat class are...? As far as I can tell, it's run around and not get hit as often, while being unable to do much to the enemy.
What about incorporeal creatures, Bob?
It can be harmed only by other incorporeal creatures, magic weapons, or creatures that strike as magic weapons, and spells, spell-like abilities, or supernatural abilities. It is immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Even when hit by spells or magic weapons, it takes only half damage from a corporeal source. Although it is not a magical attack, holy water can affect incorporeal undead. Corporeal spells and effects that cause no damage only have a 50% chance of affecting an incorporeal creature. Force spells and effects, such as from a magic missile, affect an incorporeal creature normally.A monk's unarmed strikes (through the ki strike class feature) are treated as magic weapons for the purpose of damage reduction; they are not actually magic weapons and as such an incorporeal creature is completely immune. Neither does an amulet of mighty fists make a monk's unarmed strike magical weapons. They provide an enhancement bonus, that overcomes DR/magic, but they are not magic weapons for any other purpose.
Incorporeal undead are fairly common opponents, but unless the monk is packing a +1 sai, or kama, or quarterstaff, then he is screwed. Even if he concentrates on his class feature of being an unarmed combat specialist with his unarmed strikes. Heck, by the rules as written, neither magic fang or magic weapon are considered magic weapons for this purpose. They, by their spell descriptions, do not actually make the natural attack or weapon magic; they provide an enhancement bonus on attacks and damage.
Master Arminas
Then you buy what you need to buy. You don't have to spend that money on armor so buy a magic weapon. If you play a character that doesn't even attempt to adapt, then you will not play that character for long. Also, if you are in a campaign where there are a lot of incorporeal creatures and you have your heart set on a monk, then you need to consider if one of the archetypes might be better so you can use your weapons better than your fists.
Again, the APs don't seem to have so many incorporeal creatures that the monk becomes obsolete.
...which runs us back into the other problem: monk weapons suck, and there is no easy means of improving them.
I have never seen an ineffective monk, only ineffective players and GMs. I say this because many of the gripes I see are easily addressed by GMs creating encounters appropriate for the players and the players playing characters that fit the campaign.Actually you are saying what many of us have been saying - that the monk can work, but needs a lot of system mastery. Then you are putting the burden of the system mastery also onto the DM. How many other classes require this?
Every class requires this. If you want to play a caster, you need to select spells that appropriate to the game. If you are going up against primarily undead, then choosing mind-affecting spells would be a bad choice. If you are playing a game with a lot of planar hopping then you should build a character that is meant for that. The GM and player need to be on the same page. The burden of system mastery is on the GM's shoulders as much as the players'. We've seen enough issues pop up on the boards from GMs that need to spend more time with the books.
Monks can't normally trip dragons. Very true. How many dragons are the players running into? If there's so many that it's a common issue then the player has made a bad decision on focusing on tripping. If the player told the GM ahead of time that he wanted to build a tripping character and the GM said that it should work out just fine and then only throws Huge or larger creatures at the party, I would have to say the GM failed the player.
Problem is, Bob, that short of providing spoilers there's not many ways of doing this. The player wants a monk, and maneuvers are one of the monks best options (well, almost their only option actually). So the DM basically has to tell the player that they cannot have the character that they want.
Also, what about adventure paths? When I buy one it's to run 'out of the box' and that can't happen if I have to re-write the adventure to suit the characters.
I don't believe that for a second. Spoilers aren't needed at all. The GM should be able to give an overall view of the campaign and be able to tell the players in advance that some options may not be suitable.
As for re-writing adventures, if it's home brew, then it should have been written with the characters in mind already. If it's an AP then it shouldn't be a problem unless someone is playing something completely off the wall.
Monks that are played as pure front line fighters will die. Monks that are played as pure skill monkeys will find they can't do enough. Monks that are played to their strengths will do fine.So let's get this straight: they can't fight, can't do skills, can't cast spells, can't rely on maneuvers without a sympathetic DM. Their strengths as a combat class are...? As far as I can tell, it's run around and not get hit as often, while being unable to do much to the enemy.
That's not what I said. I said that the monk isn't meant to fill the role that many people try to put it in. It can fight, and I said as much. It can use skills, just not as many as other classes. If can use maneuvers but the player needs to make sure that he is using the right maneuver at the right time.
I have seen monks kick ass and take names. I have never seen a monk fail just because of the class. Some people can't play certain classes well regardless of their experience. I've been playing RPGs for decades and I still can't play an effective cleric, druid, or bard. That doesn't mean that the classes need work. It means that the classes aren't for me.
So, if I want to play a monk because I have visions of being an unarmed martial artist, a character who doesn't use weapons, I still have to get a weapon in order to be effective? And not just any weapon, but a magic weapon? Yes, at most levels a monk can easily afford to spend 2,000 gp on a magic weapon, but should a character who builds for his unarmed strikes HAVE to buy a weapon in order to have any chance of affecting these creatures?
No other class has to put aside their primary weapon in order to fight incorporeal creatures. The cleric's mace is probably going to be magical, the fighter's sword is magical, the ranger's bow is magical, the paladin's flail is magical, the rogue's daggers are magical, the barbarian's axe is magical, the sorcerer and wizard have spells; but the monk cannot use his primary weapon that he has invested his time and feats and skills towards improving.
Gee, thanks a lot.
Master Arminas
...which runs us back into the other problem: monk weapons suck, and there is no easy means of improving them.
You can improve them just like other weapons. This is also meant to be as a back up in most cases. If you want to do better with weapons, then you should build your character to be better with weapons. I can build an effective weapon-wielding monk. I'm pretty sure others can as well. It won't be as good as a fighter but it won't suck either.
One of the things with monk weapons that needs to be kept in mind is that they aren't meant to be big damage dealers. If you can connect often enough, you should be able to deal enough damage to be a problem for the enemy. If you are able to use your maneuvers, then you can be a bigger problem for the enemy.
So, if I want to play a monk because I have visions of being an unarmed martial artist, a character who doesn't use weapons, I still have to get a weapon in order to be effective? And not just any weapon, but a magic weapon? Yes, at most levels a monk can easily afford to spend 2,000 gp on a magic weapon, but should a character who builds for his unarmed strikes HAVE to buy a weapon in order to have any chance of affecting these creatures?
No other class has to put aside their primary weapon in order to fight incorporeal creatures. The cleric's mace is probably going to be magical, the fighter's sword is magical, the ranger's bow is magical, the paladin's flail is magical, the rogue's daggers are magical, the barbarian's axe is magical, the sorcerer and wizard have spells; but the monk cannot use his primary weapon that he has invested his time and feats and skills towards improving.
Gee, thanks a lot.
Master Arminas
It's a back up weapon in this case. Just like the fighter has a back up weapon, or has a ranged and melee weapon, the monk shouldn't put all his eggs in one basket.
So a monk needs a backup weapon for their fists and feet. What? Someones going to steal them?
Master Arminas
|
|
It seems to me that people who b*#+# about the Monk as a class continually change what they are saying to make it seem like they are right that Monks suck.
First it was being MAD...see Dabbler's first statement.
Then it was Monks have lousy AC...See Prototype's second point
Then it was that Monks need better magic weapons....see Dabbler's second statement.
Then its that Monks can't be effective...see Dabbler's third statement.
Then its "well, they CAN be defensive, but not good at combat!"...see Dabbler's next statement.
I can go on an on.
Someone will point out why a Monk sucks at this...we counter with a reason why that is case specific and not the whole, then they hit back with another specific specialized example. When their fall back argument of the full BAB guy not being able to also fight the flying displaced invis caster, they switch to a different argument altogether. Heck, now we have them even agreeing that with combat maneuvers and flanking (provided by the really good mobility Monks have) and charging, that Monks are pretty good. Unless its against ANOTHER specialized "you suck" encounter they can come up with.
The fact is, in MOST AP's, MOST campaigns, and MOST encounters, a Monk is just as good if not better than many other classes...and just like EVERY OTHER CLASS it comes down to whether a player knows how best to use the class or not. I have seen just as many BSF noobs screw up a first time adventure as I have Monks.
So, some people hate them, some people love them, and some are just ambivalent about it.
Its why we have Chocolate, Vanilla, and Rocky Road.
I simply think it does a disservice to Paizo, Pathfinder, and to anyone who is considering playing a class for people to just arbitrarily log on and hate on a class.
After all the statements in this thread, I'm willing to bet that the OP isn't going to play a Monk now, even if he does thing they are OK. After all, maybe he doesnt think himself capable of being advanced enough to do it right enough to be "effective".
