...and as stated, the defences/immunities are not much use if they do not come up. On the flip side, having to hit your enemy always comes up.
Thats actually quite a good idea wraithstrike. Talk to the DM, see what you can get for swapping out slowfall and the increasesin base speed if you don't want them. On out damaging the 2H fighter, I'm not sure if monks will necessarily outdamage them. However, I have seen certain monk builds average 30+ damage at level 9. That is assuming they hit with two out of three attacks. If they hit with three attacks, 50+ damage easily.
If they have sanctify ki strike and holy ki strike, damage goes higher against evil opponents. This is before any potions or buffs from spellcasters. If that is inadequate damage for a level 9 character then I concede the point that they will probably suck in your games. My advice is don't play them. Or, trade certain monk abilities for other abilities you want that fit the character you are trying to play. This is of course up to the DM.
Which is a lot like making your own archetype or monk variant. I've allowed it as a dm.
Be nice to have an official one. No, scratch that - archetypes and feats are not a fix, they are a bandage. Be nice to have a core monk that didn't need archetypes.
I'd play the core monk if in a pathfinder game. Lot of feats by which to go in plenty of different and strong directions.
First I've got to play a pally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and as stated, the defences/immunities are not much use if they do not come up. On the flip side, having to hit your enemy always comes up.
For me the defenses, saving throws and immunities are important points for the monk. I don't mind a reduction in DPR for that. Otherwise I'd play a fighter, not a monk.
Instead of making the monk deal more damage (I think the monk's unarmed damage is quite sufficient; maybe with the option of using Wis for dmg bonuses) I'd support the idea of improving the monk's hitting chance and go the route of special things like Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick and combat maneuvers.
And emphasize the mobility (short flurry ideas and similar; Abundant Step as move action) and ki in general.
I'd like to see monks as more debilitating classes in regards to offence, almost filling the role the old psion used to have.
Instead of making the monk deal more damage (I think the monk's unarmed damage is quite sufficient; maybe with the option of using Wis for dmg bonuses) I'd support the idea of improving the monk's hitting chance and go the route of special things like Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick and combat maneuvers.
And emphasize the mobility (short flurry ideas and similar; Abundant Step as move action) and ki in general.
I agree, the monk does adequate damage as such, the problem is the lack of special effects and enhancement to actually hit the thing they are fighting.
This is starting to bite me in a game I am in, where the party's magus is now hitting more accurately than my monk is when he is flurrying. The sword & board paladin is hitting slightly worse on a full attack but with better weapons (he rolled the worst set of stats of all of us, my monk had the best) and better on a single attack. All have comparable AC.
The Magus may be the problem in that they can easily be OP because they aren't balanced. The abilities of a fighter wizard, with none of the flaws of multiclassing. Someone will likely say something snarky about my comment, but from what I've read, I'm really opposed to them.
I'm skeptical of the Magus as well, although he does has a significantly reduced spell progression.
The Magus may be the problem in that they can easily be OP because they aren't balanced. The abilities of a fighter wizard, with none of the flaws of multiclassing. Someone will likely say something snarky about my comment, but from what I've read, I'm really opposed to them.
they are not op. They might seem that way on paper though. They are powerful though but they don't take over the game. They don't really have the abilities of a wizard either . They get less than half the spells and they are limited to verfy specific spells.
A quick way to dip in, without multiclassing and accruing the problems associated with the fighter/wizard option. Get around the casting in armour spell failure problem.
Yeah I see they get progressing armour proficiencies and no % spell failure. I see the fighter training, which really makes me laugh. Get spec and others (in time), without being a fighter, joy of joys.
Think we are getting off track.
|
A quick way to dip in, without multiclassing and accruing the problems associated with the fighter/wizard option. Get around the casting in armour spell failure problem.
Yeah I see they get progressing armour proficiencies and no % spell failure. I see the fighter training, which really makes me laugh. Get spec and others (in time), without being a fighter, joy of joys.
Think we are getting off track.
Says the "more than one sneak attack per round is ridiculous" and "there should be iterative casting based on BAB to help balance things" guy.
The class does not get to cast the wizard spells without ASF. It only applies to the magus spells.
Like any other arcane spellcaster, a magus wearing medium armor, heavy armor, or a shield incurs a chance of arcane spell failure if the spell in question has a somatic component. A multiclass magus still incurs the normal arcane spell failure chance for arcane spells received from other classes.
The fighter training is not until level 10.
I just wanted to clear up any misconceptions. It sounded you were trying to say someone could dip magus then go fighter-wizard to cast wizard spells without ASF, which would make the eldritch knight much better.
Says the "more than one sneak attack per round is ridiculous" and "there should be iterative casting based on BAB to help balance things" guy.A quick way to dip in, without multiclassing and accruing the problems associated with the fighter/wizard option. Get around the casting in armour spell failure problem.
Yeah I see they get progressing armour proficiencies and no % spell failure. I see the fighter training, which really makes me laugh. Get spec and others (in time), without being a fighter, joy of joys.
Think we are getting off track.
Was that 3.5 loyalist I got into that debate with about allowing multiple spells per round? I guess I will go check.
Yeah it was. I also accidentally found that sneak attack is too powerful thread.
I don't have any snarky comments. I just did not know both of those were from the same person.
The Magus may be the problem in that they can easily be OP because they aren't balanced. The abilities of a fighter wizard, with none of the flaws of multiclassing. Someone will likely say something snarky about my comment, but from what I've read, I'm really opposed to them.
The magus is just fine balance-wise, just like the psychic warrior from 3.5/Dreamscarred Press. He can't do everything a fighter or a wizard of the same level could do, but what he can do he can combine effectively to make it work. Certainly he can look overpowered next to the monk because his abilities work synergically, while the monk's do not.
Says the "more than one sneak attack per round is ridiculous" and "there should be iterative casting based on BAB to help balance things" guy.A quick way to dip in, without multiclassing and accruing the problems associated with the fighter/wizard option. Get around the casting in armour spell failure problem.
Yeah I see they get progressing armour proficiencies and no % spell failure. I see the fighter training, which really makes me laugh. Get spec and others (in time), without being a fighter, joy of joys.
Think we are getting off track.
One day you will get over this Gorb. Your fixation contradicts your statement today that you don't care about other groups. Sounds like you really do care how my groups (and a friend's group, and those that influenced him) do things. Yep, only one sneak a round from a rogue, and full round casting options for non full round spells. This is done elsewhere, oh no! (We also have facing, and d4 wizard/sorcerer hit die). Your complaints towards what has worked for other groups get us off topic.
To wraith, yep same guy, some in Australia and Singapore runs things a bit wacky, but we have a lot of fun.Back on the monk, equalizer was alluding to certain damaging monk builds pre-archetypes. In 3.5 there was the fiery fists and fists of iron feat choices, which worked off your stunning fist. So for some rounds during the day, you could pump out a lot of damage. Problem was, it was a lot like an invoker/offensive wizard, you can only let so many high damaging attacks out per day. In this case, then you were just back to being the monk as per usual. Equalizer has told me has seen it work over the long term in one game, which had an offensive monk, a defensive monk, a grappler monk and a warlock. Sounds intriguing to me.
Back on the monk, equalizer was alluding to certain damaging monk builds pre-archetypes. In 3.5 there was the fiery fists and fists of iron feat choices, which worked off your stunning fist. So for some rounds during the day, you could pump out a lot of damage. Problem was, it was a lot like an invoker/offensive wizard, you can only let so many high damaging attacks out per day.
The other problem was, you still couldn't hit much. The main problem with the monk is not the damage dealt if they hit, it's the size of the IF.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of game
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of game
Thing is it is all situational. You go up against one kind of foe, in one kind of situation, and the monk shines if he has the right feats. You go up against another foe in a different situation and he's useless. The fighter can always deal damage and perhaps more importantly, there is nothing the monk can do when actually engaging the enemy that the fighter cannot do better.
A fighter maneuver master can beat a monk maneuver master. A fighter damage dealer can beat a monk damage dealer. A mobile fighter even functions better than the monk in the monk's stated role, and an unarmed fighter is better at beating up enemies with his fists.
Now compare to the other combat classes, and ranger beats a fighter fighting his favoured enemies, a paladin beats him smiting evil, and a barbarian matches him dishing out damage to all and sundry.
The fall back for all combat classes is hitting and doing damage...except for the monk, where there is no fall-back.
Mm, I once made a knight that filled the role of a monk. Sword and board knight in light armour, with a lot of dash. So he could rush around, take down archers and mobile foes, challenge and come up secondary to take down something big. Not the type to sit there and trade blows, but boy could that guy move. Had good will and ref, but fort was poor. Ac was comparable to a slightly defensive monk (dex, shield, light armour, touch of dodge, bit of echantments). So yeah, almost made a monk by making a mobile foot-knight.
Just out of curiosity... Why is it that these discussions almost always end up comparing the Monk with a Fighter?
|
|
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of gameThing is it is all situational. You go up against one kind of foe, in one kind of situation, and the monk shines if he has the right feats. You go up against another foe in a different situation and he's useless. The fighter can always deal damage and perhaps more importantly, there is nothing the monk can do when actually engaging the enemy that the fighter cannot do better.
A fighter maneuver master can beat a monk maneuver master. A fighter damage dealer can beat a monk damage dealer. A mobile fighter even functions better than the monk in the monk's stated role, and an unarmed fighter is better at beating up enemies with his fists.
Now compare to the other combat classes, and ranger beats a fighter fighting his favoured enemies, a paladin beats him smiting evil, and a barbarian matches him dishing out damage to all and sundry.
The fall back for all combat classes is hitting and doing damage...except for the monk, where there is no fall-back.
Fighter will never move at 90 and catch the guy running. Fighter is much less likely to stunning fist said bad guy so the party can catch up. unarmed fighter will never do the damage a monk can easily do all the time. I see no sign of monks NOT stacking up well with a fighter, i think you've see too many sucky monks compared to super optimized fighters with perfectly picked gear.
|
|
Just out of curiosity... Why is it that these discussions almost always end up comparing the Monk with a Fighter?Because the fighter is the gold standard of martials. Rangers get companions and casting and their numbers change depending on what they're fighting. Paladins are the same. Barbarians have all sorts of weird rage powers that are hard to compare. Fighters, like monks, have the same numbers all the time.
Except they don't, gear and feat choices can make a HUGE difference.
Absolutely. You get given quite a lot from the class, but what feats you take will determine how great your monk is. You don't need system mastery either, just know your feats and get some idea of what works/check up people's builds.
They don't have the top bab, they don't get armour proficiencies, but there is a lot in the mix to add to your featy broth. Don't forget the pepper. Andrew understands the monk is an odd sort of stunning skirmisher. I think the monk is best in a mid to low magic setting/game. If it is high, everyone quickly has +3 everything just after the get-go, the near naked monk will have a problem stacking up. They can get around this by being a potion junky, but some don't like the micro-managing, they want the reliable magic items that are not potions.
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of game
The game does not have to be based around combat for a fighter to do well. That only happens when you have a player who only enjoys combat, and only prepares for it.
Fighter will never move at 90 and catch the guy running. Fighter is much less likely to stunning fist said bad guy so the party can catch up. unarmed fighter will never do the damage a monk can easily do all the time. I see no sign of monks NOT stacking up well with a fighter, i think you've see too many sucky monks compared to super optimized fighters with perfectly picked gear.
That running thing is a corner case. The fighter just pulls out his bow and shoots in the back anyway.
As to your other comment many monks are sucky because of the amount of system mastery needed to make one well.
As to unarmed damage comment. I disagree. Even using the martial artist archetype while it uses "sense weakness" the fighter is pretty close if not ahead.
Absolutely. You get given quite a lot from the class, but what feats you take will determine how great your monk is. You don't need system mastery either, just know your feats and get some idea of what works/check up people's builds.
This is system mastery.
I think the monk is best in a mid to low magic setting/game. If it is high, everyone quickly has +3 everything just after the get-go, the near naked monk will have a problem stacking up.
Do you consider the WBL chart to be mid or high fantasy?
Not sure of the abbreviation WBL. Pathfinder with magic item shops, crafting enabled and easy, spellcasters around with a high frequency is usually a high magic item setting. I don't run it that way, and I have played equalizer's games which were not high magic but it isn't always so simple. For instance...
I also played in a game of an absolute pathfinder guy, but he ran runelords as extremely low magic. No rolls for random treasure, no purchasing magic beyond the very low end, very low wealth/treasure. That was different, and it can go too far. If I'd played a monk I might have been sorted, except equalizer did, and got eaten by the greater barghest which he couldn't hurt. Hilarity!
WBL(Wealth by Level). In the CRB, and the DMG for 3.5 there is a chart that shows you how much wealth party members are expected to have at certain levels.
In the 3.5 DMG it is on page 135 IIRC.
For Pathfinder here is a link-->click me and search for Table: Character Wealth by Level
It is basically a guideline for how much weath(combination of value of magic items and gold pieces) each PC should have.
edit:I am really surprised to hear that. It is a very common term. There is/was a thread on here listing common terms/abbreviations. If I can find it I will post a link for it.
Ahhh I see. Yeah I remember the table. Never used WBL before. Setting and what dungeons/castles they crack determines their wealth corresponding to their level for my group. For example, the seventh level party cracked a wizard's dungeon last wednesday so they are rolling in wealth now. A new char will now get a bit more than if they hadn't but we don't use the table exactly.
Skyrim actually did this quite well. It has its level adjusted markets, but if you get into lich hunting early, you can get a lot of good stuff quick. Course, this is highly difficult.
The table is not a hard and fast rule. It is just the baseline that companies(PF and WoTC) used for the purpose of developing the game. I was asking you about it to see if you considered to be high or mid fantasy though due to a previous comment.
Absolutely. You get given quite a lot from the class, but what feats you take will determine how great your monk is. You don't need system mastery either, just know your feats and get some idea of what works/check up people's builds.
I think you will find that this: "just know your feats and get some idea of what works/check up people's builds" is what we call system mastery.
Here's the difference:
Fighter with good feat/equipment choices = awesome.
Monk with good feat/equipment choices = OK, in some situations astounding.
Fighter with bad feat/equipment choices = mediocre, but still effective.
Monk with bad feat/equipment choices = unplayable.
They don't have the top bab, they don't get armour proficiencies, but there is a lot in the mix to add to your featy broth. Don't forget the pepper.
Ah, that would leave you with...pepper. Armour is not an issue, but 3/4 BAB is when you combine it with sucky weapons and low enhancement. If you move, you won't hit anything. If you don't move...
As for the feats they get, these are all well and good but they just put you half-way up the ladder and no further, and even then you still have to know which feats to choose. If you want a maneuver master, you need the Greater feats, and these are unavailable.
Andrew understands the monk is an odd sort of stunning skirmisher.
That depends what you mean by skirmisher. I mean a character that can get into advantageous positions and apply force. The monk is in a bit of a bind here because he can go places but often do little when he arrives.
As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it.
I think the monk is best in a mid to low magic setting/game.
All this does is strip the monk of his only source of unarmed enhancement. Sorry, but this is a myth that the monk is able to get by without equipment, he is dependent on ONE expensive piece way too heavily.
If it is high, everyone quickly has +3 everything just after the get-go, the near naked monk will have a problem stacking up.
Actually he can take them to the cleaners on AC and afford to have the AoMF enchanted as an AoNA as well.
They can get around this by being a potion junky, but some don't like the micro-managing, they want the reliable magic items that are not potions.
I agree with this statement if no other.
Just out of curiosity... Why is it that these discussions almost always end up comparing the Monk with a Fighter?
Because both are combat classes and the fighter is the Gold Standard of combat classes.
Fighter will never move at 90 and catch the guy running.
No, he can whip his bow out and fill the guys back with arrows exerting himself a lot less in the process.
Running fast is one thing the monk can do better than anyone. Sadly, it doesn't achieve much save to separate the monk from the rest of the party.
Fighter is much less likely to stunning fist said bad guy so the party can catch up.
Sad thing is, neither is the monk; with 3/4 BAB and poor enhancement he isn't likely to hit anything very often without FoB, and even if he does the stunning fist isn't guaranteed as it works off a Fort save.
unarmed fighter will never do the damage a monk can easily do all the time.
Math would say otherwise. Sure the unarmed fighter is restricted to 1d3 damage, but consider:
At level 20 the monk is doing 2d10+strength+enhancement damage.At level 20 the fighter is doing 1d3+4 (weapon training) + 4 (Weapon Specialisation & Greater WS) + strength + enhancement.
Then the fighter hits more often, because he has +4 from weapon training and +2 from Weapon Focus & GWF, for a minimum +5 to hit over and above the monk. More hits = more damage.
I see no sign of monks NOT stacking up well with a fighter,
I can pretty graphically demonstrate the opposite. The fighter has better access to maneuver feats and more to the point, maneuver weapons. Weapon Training can add to CMB, and weapons can add to maneuvers too.
i think you've see too many sucky monks compared to super optimized fighters with perfectly picked gear.
Untrue. I've played very good monks, thank you, and the comparison just does not stack up. With a monk I have to fight and scrape for every inch, while a fighter gets it easy by comparison. Perhaps you have seen too many well-played monks and too many badly played fighters?
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of game
Good point Andrew. The encounter loyalist was referring to deatiled four level 11 characters. Three monks and one warlock. They saw the green dragon chewing down on the remains of some peasant girl. They all stealth to flanking positions with the exception of the defensive monk who charges the dragon. Dragon goes full round attack and hits with nothing. Fails its listen check and doesn't pick up his teammates. 2nd round of combat, it gets hit so hard that it collapses on negs. CR 13 dragon. AC 27 and 270 hp. The DM was rather surprised.
said some of the same things I did.
Not a coincidence.
The WBL table is in full effect in Paizo APs. Normally an AP will have a treasure value of WBL +20%, to account for overlooked treasure. Although the loot will in many cases be clustered towards the end of the individual AP module, when the party vanquishes the BBEG of the module.
I've done the calculations for Kingmaker and was surprised how much it adhered to these qualities.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is that they shine in some situations and if your game is based around nothing but "hit it hard, rinse, repeat" they will suffer. In many games i have been in they are incredibly versatile and make the fighters feel inadequit in anything but standing still trading blows, which are not the main focus of gameGood point Andrew. The encounter loyalist was referring to deatiled four level 11 characters. Three monks and one warlock. They saw the green dragon chewing down on the remains of some peasant girl. They all stealth to flanking positions with the exception of the defensive monk who charges the dragon. Dragon goes full round attack and hits with nothing. Fails its listen check and doesn't pick up his teammates. 2nd round of combat, it gets hit so hard that it collapses on negs. CR 13 dragon. AC 27 and 270 hp. The DM was rather surprised.
That is a terrible point actually which I countered rather easily.
Dragons have blindsense so it would still know they were coming. If they(monks) had no cover then they can't stealth anyway so that never happens if the rules are followed.
What dragon fights while surrounded?
I see rules being ignored, combined with badly played dragon, equals monk victory.
On top of that AC 27 is below the standard for a CR 13 monster.
If it takes that combination for the monk to have success you just scored a point against the monk.
said some of the same things I did.Not a coincidence.
Indeed it is not.
Mostly to Dabbler, but on the monk:
1) System mastery. Wouldn't system mastery by mastery of the whole system? There is a whole system other than the feats, knowing feats is not system mastery, it is knowing a fair bit and getting some info on one part of the system. You don't need mastery to play monks, just the basics and sound advice on feats.
2) "If you move, you won't hit anything. If you don't move..."
If a monk moves, they won't hit anything? Er, not in my experience. They can charge, they can spring attack, they can move and hit. Not everything has an ac of 40. Moving an attacking also doesn't mean a manoeuvre check will fail either.
If they don't move, they can flurry, they can put dodge and expertise to use.
3) "As for the feats they get, these are all well and good but they just put you half-way up the ladder and no further"
What ladder? A grappling monk can grapple, a monk with charge feats is good on the charge. They get a lot, they are good across a variety of "ladders" and if you really concentrate your feats, there is no half up the ladder about it.
4) "The monk is in a bit of a bind here because he can go places but often do little when he arrives."
The monk can't flurry the round after they arrive? They can't tie up opponents (grapple or defence), they can't move around and flank attack, then flurry? Speed is a wonderful asset.
5) "As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it."
Your experiences with stunning fist are not the same as everyone elses. How many times did you try to use it? Were you focusing only on opponents that had a good save against it? Lot of variables here. I've seen it used a fair bit (gmed for a few monks) and while it doesn't always work, I've seen it work more than once in seven levels.
6) "Sorry, but this is a myth that the monk is able to get by without equipment, he is dependent on ONE expensive piece way too heavily."
Amulet of mighty fists has never come up in my games. They haven't been in the loot, no one has rolled it. They can still hit, they can still damage. Their hands count as magical and other things as they level. Without the amulet, monks can indeed work, and do well.
7) "No, he can whip his bow out and fill the guys back with arrows exerting himself a lot less in the process." In long chase scenes, in engagements that go into cover and out of bow range, the monk is great at those. Good ol' base speed.
8) "Running fast is one thing the monk can do better than anyone. Sadly, it doesn't achieve much save to separate the monk from the rest of the party."
Except it also leads to a bonus to great leaps/jumping.
9) "I see no sign of monks NOT stacking up well with a fighter"
Grappler monks vs non grappling damage dealing fighters, e.g. two handers, e.g. sword and board with medium weapons.
Monks can move and keep at range, use magicla javelins, they have snatch arrows.
If the fighter does roll badly and gets their favourite essential weapon sundered/disarmed and taken, they don't fist fight monks so well.
10) "i think you've see too many sucky monks compared to super optimized fighters with perfectly picked gear."
Seen a fair bit of both. I like fighters, some friends like monks.
For the dragon story, it is speculation, but I think a round was missed in the story. Yep blindsense and all that, perhaps the monks stealthed to about 70, out rushes the defensive monk, dragon attacks one opponent does not flee for it senses one opponent, does nill, others charge, then dragons round, clearly doesn't flee, then they finish it off with all doing full. There is a piece of the story missing for sure, good call on the blind sense.
Fighter will never move at 90 and catch the guy running.That running thing is a corner case. The fighter just pulls out his bow and shoots in the back anyway.
Actually the running thing turns up quite often - or do all your enemies fight to the death? Or do you only face one BBEG?
Running after the guy and grappling him is what prevents him from getting away and warning his friends. Shooting one or two arrows at him won't stop him from that.
1. The monk requires more system mastery than other classes. I have yet to see a noob play a monk and do well. I have seen good player try monks and suck pretty badly at it. I have also seen the same complaints on other websites so I know it is not just me. Sometimes I hear a story of a monk doing something awesome it either rules were ignored or the player was really and/or using splatbooks.
2.You are taking that too literally. The point is that they don't hit often enough for a combat class.
3.The ladder to getting better at what you want to do. The monk grapples no better than any full BAB class designed to grapple. In short if the monk can do it so can another class.
4.Flurry is doing damage. That can be done better by other classes. Grappling has been discussed also. What exactly do you mean by defense?
No, they can't move and then flurry, not in the same round. Speed is ok, but it is not that great. 40 is often more than enough except for corner cases, and when it is needed there are ways to get it, other than being a monk.
5. Stunning does work sometimes, but not enough to be hailed as major feature. If it was that good people would take the feat for it.
6. How much damage, and how much are they hitting? Many enemies have more than DR magic at higher levels.
7. If an enemy is hurt bad enough to flee a full attack from a bow will likely put him down. No chase needed, and like I said if speed is needed there are ways to get it.
8. Jumping is not really special though. Non monks do it more than well enough to meet DC's.
9. The monk might be able to grapple the fighter. That is not a guarantee. Fighters however are not the only issue. Monsters get really high CMD's at higher levels, and trying to grapple one is a good way to get a brand new character sheet.
How many magical javelins does the monk have? On top of that if he is moving he is only throwing one of them.
A monk can snatch one arrow. The rest are still incoming.
Sundering is a corner case. If the GM does like to sunder then the fighter can take unarmed strike as a feat, and/or have guantlets(which come with some types of armor for free), the cestus, and brass knuckles. Many fighters also have backup weapons. Before all of a fighter's weapons are sundered the enemy will probably be dead, and that is assuming the rest of the party is occupied.
I did mention it was bad tactics to fight while surrounded.
Most monks with a high stealth have a high dex so doing enough damage to kill the dragon, much less hit it are still unlikely. I am assuming lucky rolls for the monks, and poor rolls for the dragon.
In any event the story is still not likely to happen under normal circumstances.
Fighter will never move at 90 and catch the guy running.That running thing is a corner case. The fighter just pulls out his bow and shoots in the back anyway.Actually the running thing turns up quite often - or do all your enemies fight to the death? Or do you only face one BBEG?
Running after the guy and grappling him is what prevents him from getting away and warning his friends. Shooting one or two arrows at him won't stop him from that.
No my NPC's don't always fight to the death, but the monk is far from the only person that can stop a fleeing enemy. The fighter is also not the only person shooting him in the back if party is not taking prisoners either. In short it will not just be 1 or 2 arrows.
It take a very contrived scenario for the monk's services to be needed.
If the bad guy has cover to run two then why are the caster's not cutting off his path with spells?
As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it.
Hmm, my 5th level monk (16 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Wis) has stunned at least three enemies in critical situations so far. A minotaur a priest and a fighter, IIRC. I don't know the levels of the priest and fighter but would estimate them at 3-5.
As for stunning, give me a break. I have a 7th level monk (20 Dex, 18 Wis, Weapon Finesse) who has thus far in his career from 1st level delivered a successful stunning fist precisely once - and that was at 5th level on a 1st level warrior. Stunning fist does not work if the target saves, and cannot work if you do not hit with it.Hmm, my 5th level monk (16 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Wis) has stunned at least three enemies in critical situations so far. A minotaur a priest and a fighter, IIRC. I don't know the levels of the priest and fighter but would estimate them at 3-5.
So the DC is 15.
The good save on a CR 5 monster has a +7 modifier. The poor save has a +3. Beefy monsters like minotuars (CR 4) tend to hit hard, and make the save against stunning fist. A cylcops which is a CR 5 bruiser type actually has +9 to its fort save and hits for
greataxe +11/+6 (3d6+7/×3)
power attack greataxe +9/+4 (3d6+13/×3)