Well I guess I finally found a subject I think I know a little about. I've played probably a dozen different types of monks for the past decade with three different rules systems. After all it's no surprise I'm called "Monkplayer."
Pathfinder has done a good job of fixing several weaknesses with the monk when compared to 3.0 and 3.5. One of those is making Quivering Palm something that can be used daily instead of weekly. Another is Perfect Self is 10/chaotic instead of 10/magic.
One of the main and VERY effective abilities is improved stunning fists: sickened, staggered, blinded, etc. This is VERY effective at disabling a opponent while doing minimal damage.
Another is the damage dealt is slightly higher with 2D10 instead of D20.
in my opinion, the monk's strength lies in his/her defensive abilities. The monk has an excellent AC, saving throws, and numerous EX/SU abilities. If you know how to "build" a monk then it's very difficult for an NPC/monster to hit a monk with a weapon or spell. Believe me my GM's have been trying for years! :P
Now on to the offensive side of a monks ability and then I will tie these offensive/defensive comments together.
When you add the feat of spring attack and a maxed out acrobatics skill it's very effective as an offensive tactic to attack an opponent. However, the challenge is that their isn't any effective way to increase a monk's attack bonus when fighting unarmed (except feat Intuitive Attack). Why would a monk use monk weapons at 12th level and higher when they will do a lot more damage fighting unarmed? It's hard for a monk to hit any meaningfully difficult opponent because of not getting any bonuses to attack.
Several have mentioned that the monk is a niche fighting class. I agree with this but if the majority are playing the monk like a base fighter then shouldn't Pathfinder take this into consideration.
So what does Pathfinder need to do? Add a +1 to +5 to a monks unarmed strike like a weapon gets. Add the ability to do more damage per hit. Its''s VERY difficult to do more than 25-30 points of damage at the higher levels (14-20) per hit, when compared to a spell caster or fighter doing three times the damage or more. Also, at the levels many opponents have DR which means IF the monk hits he/she hardly does any damage.
I guess most fighters end their career with only one weapon used the entirety of their adventuring days too, yes?So a monk needs a backup weapon for their fists and feet. What? Someones going to steal them?
Master Arminas
Most . . . NO. But then, fighters do not have a specific weapon that is ONE OF THEIR CLASS FEATURES and is simultaneously their highest damage weapon. Still, a DM running a game with a fighter that has weapon focus (longsword), weapon specialization (longsword), greater weapon focus (longsword), and improved critical (longsword), should not be surprised when that same fighter sells the +4 mithril holy flail he put in there for the party of find because he knows it is the only weapon that will get through the archdemon's damage resistance at the end. The fighter doesn't care about that: he wants a longsword. Otherwise all those feats spent go to waste.
Sure, he might carry a dagger as a secondary light weapon (for use in grapples) and a bow for use at range (flying targets are common), but his weapon of choice is always that longsword. And no matter how powerful you make that flail or halbred, most players will turn it down or sell it. To a get a longsword that they want.
Now, for the monk, that signature weapon is his unarmed strikes. It starts off as good as any of this monk weapons, and eventually it gets better than a two-hand sword. He doesn't need a dagger, because unarmed strikes are light weapons and he can use them in a grapple. Or when he is grabbed, or in a tight space. He only gets three options for ranged weapons: crossbows, shurikens, and javelins, and he can only flurry with one of those. So most monks carry shurikens. The range increment sucks, the damage sucks, but at least he can put a hail-storm of them into the air if he needs to.
But no one spends gold on making them magic. Especially since they are destroyed as ammunition.
Like I said above, the MONK is the only class that is forced to set aside his primary, chosen weapons (his fists and his feet, his elbows, knees, and head; his unarmed strikes) and pick up something that he probably lacks weapon focus with, that does less damage, and that he has to WASTE gold on in order to effect one entire class of creatures at all.
Master Arminas
Monks are proficient with other weapons and can use most of them in a Flurry. Monks aren't required to use only unarmed strikes.
actually, remember the new clarification? If you use non-unarmed strikes you need 2 to flurry? Remember Jason and the others mentionibg Flurry was TWFing?
Yeah, so, you required to use Unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Perhaps we are not making the point very clearly, because we have been arguing the cases for so long the original summaries of the case are far behind and we assume have been read.
The monk has a lot of issues. I cannot answer for other posters, but the problems the monk has I've summed up many times in many threads:
1) Offensive Ability:
Unarmed strike lacks the essential enhancement to make it effective at hitting their target, bypassing DR & other effects. They can manage to do one, maybe, but not all at once. The cap on the AoMF and it's nature deprive the monk of many of the essentials of a magic weapon - like hitting incorporeal creatures, automatically bypassing DR, etc. You can take these properties but at a price of others the wielder of a conventional magic weapon does not have to worry about at an equivelant price.
On top of that, the alternatives for the monk other than unarmed strike are underwhelming. Most weapons monks have proficiency with are light, and damage is 1d6 20/x2. The only real exception is the temple sword, which is mediocre.
Now looking at the other combat classes, they all have a 'thing' that they apply to their weapons. Paladins smite, rangers have favoured enemies, fighters have weapon training, rogues have sneak attack. Barbarians have their rage, which while it does not apply directly to the weapon does give them a nice boost to attack and damage. Monks get flurry-of-blows (about as effective as TWFing, only more limited) and unarmed strike, which we have seen is seriously underwhelming.
Flurry of blows itself has issues, is it TWf or not? Is it full BAB or not?
Maneuvers are not really the answer, as there are many creatures maneuvers do not work on. Plus, if you want to build a dedicated maneuver master, you are better off selecting a fighter.
The monk as a combat class has serious problems actually doing anything to their foes comparable to that which other combat classes can manage. The bottom line is, a fallen paladin is better than the monk at hitting and damaging their target because at least he can pick up a decent weapon with full enhancement and hit with full BAB, and he's not as hampered by MAD.
2) Monk's are seriously MAD.
They need four decent scores to function effectively. If they skimp on one, or two, they have problems or they have to invest hugely in feats just to compensate. If a monk focusses on being good in one way, they pay for it in another way. For example, a monk with excellent dex and wis can have a top-notch AC, no doubt about it, but they have to pay a feat tax to be any good at hitting or maneuvers, and they can't inflict damage, and they can't take hits.
I suspect Prototype refers to monk builds where dexterity is sacrificed for strength, which bring their AC down hard, particularly at low levels.
Again, like the problems in attacking, overcoming the problem in one direction costs a price that exacts a toll elsewhere.
3) Contradicting Abilities
The monk has a lot of minor abilities that don't seem to make a lot of sense, especially with magic items and a party dynamic around them.
If a monk is supposed to hit and run, why do they have flurry of blows which requires them to stay still?
If wholeness of body is meant to heal the monk in combat, why does it take a standard action?
If abundant step is meant to get the monk to where they can hit hard and unexpected, why does it require a feat tax to do just that?
For a few examples. These are minor issues, but they bear mentioning because they do not compensate the monk for their other problems - if anything they exacerbate them.
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.
Yes, because the reasons you cite are also specific and situational. The monk's problems are very complex, I agree. Fact is, the monk does not have the ability to perform in all circumstances where other classes can, that is what we're trying to point out.
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.
Yes, because not only does the monk suffer from their own limitations, they also have the same fundamental limitations of other non-casters, that's what you are missing there.
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.
Monks are decent at maneuvers, but maneuvers are limited in scope - there are a great many things they do not effect, and the monk is not the best at them in any event. Charging? if you charge something you can trip or grapple or dissarm, maybe. otherwise you have 3/4 BAB and an inferior weapon. Flanking? Come on, rogues do it way better.
Unless its against ANOTHER specialized "you suck" encounter they can come up with.
You mean, until we point out the limitations of the situation you present or the fact that another class could do it better.
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
Can you explain what the monk brings to these games that is so good?
Damage? No, we covered that.Maneuvers? No, a fighter could do it better, and it's situational in any event.
Number of attacks? no.
AC? Well possibly, but how does that help much?
Skills? Rogues and rangers are better.
Run fast? yes, he can do that, but to what purpose?
I will not disagree that a well made, well played monk can do well - what I disagree with is that it is in any way easy, and that you don't constantly feel that you are running uphill trying to do that which would be so much easier to another class, had you chosen them. I fully appreciate that a monk is a generalist rather than a specialist, but to be effective a generalist has to hit a certain level at the things he is trying to do, and the monk doesn't hit that bar easily.
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.
I can give a fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin or rogue to a newb and they can play it effectively. I can give a wizard, bard, druid, sorcerer or cleric to a newb and they can make it work with a bit of trial and error. If I give them a monk, it's all down to luck.
So, some people hate them, some people love them, and some are just ambivalent about it.
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.
And here is where you are so very, very wrong. We don't hate monks - WE LOVE MONKS! I love their concept, I love their theme and I play them whenever I can justify it. The only problem is when I do I am constrained to a few specific design builds because they are the only ones that allow me to contribute effectively to the party.
It would be a great disservice to Paizo NOT to highlight where our experience of the game tells us that a part of their design is not working and doesn't do what they made it to do. In other threads SKR has recently stated that they (the devs) are very aware that there are problems with the monk class as originally designed, and it needs fixing.
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.
And how would he feel if we came here and told lies (not that I am accusing you of doing so, just that I would be doing so if I said other than I have done) despite our experience and misgivings, said how easy it was, and he played one, and it then sucked, and he realised that what we said just wasn't so?
Don't forget, monks can't benefit from armor and shield special abilities. That means that monks miss out on a lot of the neat abilities their buds can experience in addition to the same magic equipment the monk can normally wield.
I remember there being a prestige class that couldn't wear magic armor or wield magic weapons back in 3.5. The benefits gained by the class were substantially more powerful than the benefits gained by monks at higher levels. This should speak volumes about the matter.
Also, i'm troubled by the fact that the ninja is better at using Ki than the monk. (Ninjas even gain access to it earlier by a few levels!)
Changing a class would require an update to the Core rules, which means we all get to buy another book :(
I overcome many of the complaints (fighing incorporeal undead, AoMF)with home brew solutions like magical tatoos, and new Ki abilities/ Ki recharge methods.
If I find the monk struggling with his/her funds, I can always spike monk specific loot like magic temple swords and so on. Panthro's Numbchuku always fascinated me as a kid.
what are you missing? You're missing 1 extra health per level and an extra BAB every four levels if you're not full attacking on a character thats designed to be fast hit and run
Don't forget the lack of full enhancement on your primary weapon.