Lack of Monk Gear in Ultimate Equipment

[Brain in a Jar]

KrispyXIV wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?

Needing three stats to maintain defensive and offensive viability is MAD.

In order to compensate for class weakness, you need to focus on Strength almost as much as a fighter does, and in order to remain defensively valid without armor, you need a good wisdom and at least a positive dexterity.

I'd like to stop here a moment to note that monks have a +5 AC bonus (what most other people would get from the enhancement on their armor) built right into the class. How about that? A similar mechanic for attacks would seem to be entirely reasonable, IMO.

Note that not needing Int and Charisma, and having them be dumpable, while ok for strictly stat related reasons, is terrible for people who like things like roleplaying. I can build a fighter with one good stat (strength), have positive dexterity and constitution, and not have to dump on my roleplaying stats. Why should all monks have to be stupid and unappealing to keep up?

Most classes focus on 2-3 stats.

What do Barbarians use?

Fighters?

Paladins?

A Monk isn't MAD. It's only MAD because you make it so.

You also don't need to dump Intelligence and Charisma into the negatives.

Dwarf Monk 15 points
STR 15
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 7

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

[Ninja in the Rye]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

A Monk isn't MAD. It's only MAD because you make it so.

You also don't need to dump Intelligence and Charisma into the negatives.

Dwarf Monk 15 points
STR 15
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 7

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

Low AC + Low HP = Dead?

[Varthanna]

...sigh.

I have nothing to add to the conversation that hasn't been said (and clearly not heard) about the issues with the Monk, and this item/revelation in UE only exacerbates the issue. Just adding my voice to the chorus, I suppose.

[Nicos]

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

Lets see, with those numbers at 4 level a fighter can have full plate for and have an AC of 20 and your monk will have and AC of 13.

[Lil B]

Nicos wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

Lets see, with those numbers at 4 level a fighter can have full plate for and have an AC of 20 and your monk will have and AC of 13.

That's not entirely accurate. They would have a +1 from class level, probably would have used the bonus stat to increase dex by 1, and most likely would have the dodge feat bringing the AC to 16. That is a touch 16 vs the fighter's touch AC of 10. Flatfooted not as good, but probably just as good as the rogue.

I'm confused why everyone is putting down spell resistance. It can be turned off temporarily for healing or buffing, maybe not a great idea mid-combat, but it's still possible.

[Brain in a Jar]

Ninja in the Rye wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

A Monk isn't MAD. It's only MAD because you make it so.

You also don't need to dump Intelligence and Charisma into the negatives.

Dwarf Monk 15 points
STR 15
DEX 12
CON 14
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 7

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

Low AC + Low HP = Dead?

At level 1 they have;

Dwarf
HP 11(8 HD + 1 favored class + 2 Con)
AC 15(1 Dex + +3 Wis + 1 dodge)

Human
HP 10(8 HD + 1 favored class + 1 Con)
AC 14(1 Dex + 2 Wis + 1 dodge)

At first you have to be careful. But once you can start using Potions of Mage Armor(50 Gold for 1 hour of +4 armor) you'll be fine. It's cheap and easy until you can afford decent Bracers of Armor.

[Nicos]

Lil B wrote:

Nicos wrote:

Brain in a Jar wrote:

Human Monk 15 points
STR 16
DEX 13
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 14
CHA 10

Is there anything wrong with those stats?

Lets see, with those numbers at 4 level a fighter can have full plate for and have an AC of 20 and your monk will have and AC of 13.

That's not entirely accurate. They would have a +1 from class level, probably would have used the bonus stat to increase dex by 1, and most likely would have the dodge feat bringing the AC to 16. That is a touch 16 vs the fighter's touch AC of 10. Flatfooted not as good, but probably just as good as the rogue.

True it is Ac 14 against AC 20. Now if the monk rise his dex then he is not rising his Str and that will hurt him heavily in DPR.

And, every feat the monk spend in the defensive is a feat he is not taking for ofsensive, And besides the fighter can take dodge too.

[ciretose]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks,

I think that if you want the monk to have the same hit percentages as a fighter, with the same damage potential, and all the other monk defenses that they get, you are going to be disappointed. Thats just not how we envision the monk as working in the game. Thats not to say we want the monk to be ineffective in combat just to fit a perceived roll, but dishing out huge amounts of damage has never been their primary focus.

All that said, we are aware of some problems with the class not performing to expectations and we will be looking to address those soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

We aren't seeking to get to martial hitting or damage. We are seeking to be competitive with rogue for making contact.

Your generic monk is going to have a 16 strength if they really throw points. Fighters and Rogues are going to go for 18 primary usually, if they can handle it.

Move that up or down, but it is safe to say the monk starts off -1 to hit with unarmed.

By 2nd level we become 2 behind, as most people pick up a masterwork weapon.

As we level, the monk falls further back each time you add a weapon enhancement. And unlike the rogue or primary fighter, the monk needs to spread the enhancements around.

So lets say we pick up an amulet of mighty fists. We can't afford it, wbl, until much later than other classes. And it takes up an amulet slot. A slot where we could put an amulet of natural armor, or other items. And it caps at +5.

So we are down with the 3/4 casters at this point, because we can't focus on our attack bonus like the rogue, and of course we are no where near competitive with the the Martial classes.

All of the 3/4 classes have way to enhance attack bonus. The inquisitor has judgments and bane, the Bard enhances everyone, clerics and druids have spells and/or shape change.

The monk can't focus on strength alone, as they need wisdom for armor and con since they are a d8 class that must get into the mix.

If the monk uses monk weapons, they have to enhance them just as much as any other class, but monk weapons start from a lower power level.

I don't want the monk to out damage martials. But they lag behind bards in ability to hit and do damage.

Bards.

Make enhancing unarmed strike more expensive. Fine. But now the cost is more than double, takes up a slot, and caps at half what other classes can get.

You can make a decent monk with weapons. The class is based around unarmed fighting, and that is not currently a competitive build.

[KrispyXIV]

ciretose wrote:

You can make a decent monk with weapons. The class is based around unarmed fighting, and that is not currently a competitive build.

I think this is the true crux of the issue. You can currently build an armed monk that isn't bad by any stretch; while full attacking, they're offensively reasonable and at a level that almost nobody should be disappointed with.

The issue is that you can't do that unarmed, which for the monk, feels wrong.

It would be nice if we could get acknowledgement that this is the primary issue most people see (if I am in fact correct in my assumption that this is everyone's primary issue?), and its been understood.

[ciretose]

KrispyXIV wrote:

ciretose wrote:

You can make a decent monk with weapons. The class is based around unarmed fighting, and that is not currently a competitive build.

I think this is the true crux of the issue. You can currently build an armed monk that isn't bad by any stretch; while full attacking, they're offensively reasonable and at a level that almost nobody should be disappointed with.

The issue is that you can't do that unarmed, which for the monk, feels wrong.

It would be nice if we could get acknowledgement that this is the primary issue most people see (if I am in fact correct in my assumption that this is everyone's primary issue?), and its been understood.

For me this is really the only issue.

All the other bellyaching was overstated, and taking two handed flurry away was, IMHO a good choice.

But by the time the monk is doing good unarmed damage at level 12, most players have a +3 weapon that does just as much average damage per hit, overcomes most basic DR and reliably hits better +3. Generally more. (+3 for the weapon, 2 points focused on primary attack while the monk needs to spread it out)

+5 is about 25% more likely to hit.

Looking at the build above, at 4th level that monk is probably dealing at -4 compared to a martial class (-1 bab, -1 weapon,-2 strength as they are getting close to 20 or at 20)

[master arminas]

Agree. The monk is, since 1st edition, the unarmed combat specialist. When anyone can outperform the monk, using items which only the monk class isn't allowed to use (brawling, mmm'kay), then something is wrong.

Master Arminas

[Ninja in the Rye]

master arminas wrote:

Agree. The monk is, since 1st edition, the unarmed combat specialist. When anyone can outperform the monk, using items which only the monk class isn't allowed to use (brawling, mmm'kay), then something is wrong.

Master Arminas

If the Brawling armor is still as shown in the preview then the unarmed monk is really better off just taking archetypes that trade out their unarmored features and wearing a light armor that has no armor check penalty.

[Tels]

Lil B wrote:

I'm confused why everyone is putting down spell resistance. It can be turned off temporarily for healing or buffing, maybe not a great idea mid-combat, but it's still possible.

Here's why people put SR down.

Spell Resistance wrote:

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

It takes a Standard Action to lower SR for 1 round. That means, if a Monk is unable to take a Standard Action (such as when paralyzed, or unconscious) he cannot lower his SR.

Remember, a Monk's SR is equal to 10 + his Monk level. So a 13th level Monk has SR 13. A caster has to roll 1d20 and add his caster level to overcome the SR.

Most enemy casters are going to be equal in level to the Monk, or higher, unless the caster is a Mook. That means most enemy casters are going to have a 50% chance, or greater, of overcoming the Monk's SR.

Spell Resistance applies to all spells, even ones you're allies cast. Many spells like Prayer, Haste, and other common buffs are subject to Spell Resistance. Since most allied casters will be equal in level to the Monk, only 50% of the buffs will make it through the Monks SR, unless he takes a standard action to lower his SR. That means a round or more that he won't be attacking, simply to get himself buffed.

In short, Spell Resistance hurts the Monk more than it aids him.

[Atarlost]

When the monk had two handed flurry armed monks were at the very back of the martial pack, but they were in it. They essentially got +1 to hit and damage if they weren't going for a ki focus weapon as compared to TWF and got 1 extra damage per 4 levels from power attack. In exchange they could not get two weapon rend so their window of superiority was limited, preventing the power attack advantage from ever becoming overbearing. They never came close to matching an equivalent fighter, barbarian, or cavalier. They could outdamage a nonsmiting Paladin unless he used weapon bond, but the Paladin has superior defenses. Only the ranger without favored enemy was threatened, and the archery builds still weren't.

That was about where the monk (and rogue) should have been in power terms. Back of the martial pack, but still in the pack and competing with the situational martials when they were in bad situations. No non-casting class should be worse at combat than an ex-paladin. Monks and rogues are, but monks flurrying two handed with temple swords were better.

[GM Kyle]

There's nothing broken about giving the Monk the ability to fill his natural niche role. If you didn't want the Monk to fight unarmed, there's no point giving him the improved unarmed strike ability with scaling damage. I want to play a bare fisted monk that can use his improved damage dice but not be hosed and forced into using suboptimal weapons and equipment. Amulet of Mighty Fists? No thanks, it doesn't afford me the same enhancement every other class gets by capping at +5, is more expensive (just because it can also enchane natural attacks) and replaces a vital neck slot. Bodywraps of Mighty Strikes? I still don't know why you're restricting me to +7, why not just give me the +10 like every other melee combatant can get? I don't mind the increased cost, but the +7 and restricting its uses is like being given a +1 longsword that works 1/4 of the time. While I agree items shouldn't fix the class, they can at least remedy the class while it takes a couple of years to fix.

I want a working Monk by Christmas that should be able to fill its niche role in bare fisted fighting. Hell, I'd also like a ki pool before level 4 since you thought it was cool to design the ninja to have one at level 2...

[SweetDee]

Evil Lincoln wrote:

If they "fixed" the monk with a single magic item release, I would still consider that a problem. No class in the game should be entirely dependent on an item to "function", least of all the monk.

doesnt this seem like a contradiction? right now a monk needs to have a monk robe and AOMF to be "on par" with other classes... so why would adding one more make a difference?

[Dabbler]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Folks,

I think that if you want the monk to have the same hit percentages as a fighter, with the same damage potential, and all the other monk defenses that they get, you are going to be disappointed. Thats just not how we envision the monk as working in the game. Thats not to say we want the monk to be ineffective in combat just to fit a perceived roll, but dishing out huge amounts of damage has never been their primary focus.

All that said, we are aware of some problems with the class not performing to expectations and we will be looking to address those soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

The problem, Jason, is not getting the same hit percentages and damage as a fighter. It's getting the same hit percentages and damage as a fallen paladin that we want to achieve...

You say that you don't want them to dish out damage as their main focus in combat, which is fine, but what DO you want them to do?

Maneuvers? Too limited on what they effect, and without access to Greater maneuvers at high level you have almost no chance of pulling off the maneuver. They are great against lower-CR foes, and they work at low level, but monster CMDs past 10th level start to escalate faster than the CMB of the monk.

Stunning fist? No, you have to hit and do damage for it to have a chance of working, so if the monk cannot hit and do damage...no stunning fist. I took a monk from 1st to 8th level before I got my first success in using stunning fist...

So tell us, what is the monk meant to be doing in combat, that doesn't involve hitting the enemy?

[magnuskn]

I'll make this short: Mr. Bulman, why is it that every 3/4 BAB class you have designed after the core book eats the Monks ( and the Rogues) lunch and drinks his milkshake? If the Monk were so well balanced that it only needs minor adjustments, why is it that Alchemists and Inquisitors can outdamage full BAB classes when they really get going... AND have six levels of spells? And that is not even mentioning the Oracle, which is a full caster with 3/4 BAB and huge customizability due to its Mysteries.
Hell, even the Ninja is flat-out better than the Monk and the Rogue.

In the face of what you obviously believe to be balanced classes when designing them from scratch, the discrepancies to the weak core classes becomes really glaring. That you apparently believe that the Monk should not be able to effectively be at the same level as other frontliners, when the new 3/4 BAB classes do just that is baffling.

[Bomanz]

Several people in the thread above have mentioned - erroneously - that the Monk as a class is a front line combatant.

Taken directly from the statement about the monks role:

PRD wrote:

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.

Striking where its least expected...NOT a front line combatant.

Taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities...NOT a front line combatant.
Fleet of foot, navigating the battlefield with ease...NOT a front line combatant.
Aiding allies wherever they are needed most...NOT a front line combatant.

[Bomanz]

magnuskn wrote:

I'll make this short: Mr. Bulman, why is it that every 3/4 BAB class you have designed after the core book eats the Monks ( and the Rogues) lunch and drinks his milkshake? If the Monk were so well balanced that it only needs minor adjustments, why is it that Alchemists and Inquisitors can outdamage full BAB classes when they really get going... AND have six levels of spells? And that is not even mentioning the Oracle, which is a full caster with 3/4 BAB and huge customizability due to its Mysteries.

Hell, even the Ninja is flat-out better than the Monk and the Rogue.

In the face of what you obviously believe to be balanced classes when designing them from scratch, the discrepancies to the weak core classes becomes really glaring. That you apparently believe that the Monk should not be able to effectively be at the same level as other frontliners, when the new 3/4 BAB classes do just that is baffling.

spelling errors aside, if you don't know the difference between burst damage and the "All day, err day" aspect of a fighter/full BAB class by now....

Inquisitors, Alchemists, Magus, and Summoners can all "NOVA" or "ALPHA" and just waste things. But it generally eats up their resources and requires a bit of prep before it happens....

and its is NOT the same.

[Bomanz]

Fact is, to some people, the Monk will NEVER be right.

The whole "system mastery required" argument is invalid, too. Sure it helps...but required?? Puh-leeze. Wizards are awesome, until a noob with no system mastery takes item creation feats and blasting spells without backing them up, as one of a multitude of examples.

I daresay the vanilla fighter and the vanilla barbarian are about the only 2 classes out of the CRB that don't require some prior knowledge and forethought into character creation to be optimized.

Just keep dissing the Monk, while I race mine around the battlefield whupping a$$ on just about everything I face, and barely taking a scratch to do so.

[magnuskn]

Bomanz wrote:

spelling errors aside, if you don't know the difference between burst damage and the "All day, err day" aspect of a fighter/full BAB class by now....

Inquisitors, Alchemists, Magus, and Summoners can all "NOVA" or "ALPHA" and just waste things. But it generally eats up their resources and requires a bit of prep before it happens....

and its is NOT the same.

And having the capacity to nova down opponents is something which most of those new classes have in abundance, coupled with a limited resource system. Given that it is likely that you will have one or two of them in a modern regular party, having the long endurance of a Fighter is almost useless, as the group will have to rest and recover after a few fights.

Nova'ing down enemies simply is in the design of all the new classes. What exactly does the Monk offer then? Running around really fastly doesn't do a hell of a lot when almost every combat is over in two rounds.

[SweetDee]

bomanz i think you misunderstand what most of the people are talking about.

first off what is a "front liner"? what does that term mean, lets set defined peramiters as to what that means.

i think a front liner is a character that can be in melee with a NPC and hold its own, atleast semi well. its not about armor class or DPR, but more about how well they can mitigate damage and harm the enemy.

now assuming my definition of a "front liner" is the same as other posters, then i agree monks are the weakest melee character. for many reason that have been stated in past threads. id be willing to bet MA or dabbler would be willing to post links for those short commings.

are they tanks, no

are they DPR machines, no

are the CMB masters,no

what are they? well we know they are a melee class and have no real team support, so we cant even lump them in with bards or rogues.

what the heck are they?

well... i can make a grapple master, that sucks at everything else.
i can make a trip master, that sucks at everything else.
i can make an archer, that sucks at everything else
i can make a mounted character, that sucks at everything else...

i mean they either have no focus (a core monk) or they are TOO FOCUSED because of an archetype that removes key abilities for cool narrowminded abilities.

now this isnt to say you cant make a cool monk, just that it will suck compared to other classes like a bard or barbarian.

[Mikaze]

I just wanted to play a good monk that felt like a monk. :(

[DJEternalDarkness]

Oh and as for gear in UE, I saw a bit in there, odds are I'll be allowing the brawler thing to be added to bracers of Armor, but it's my game, I'll do what I wanna!

[Dabbler]

Bomanz wrote:

Several people in the thread above have mentioned - erroneously - that the Monk as a class is a front line combatant.

Perhaps not, but the monk IS a combat class, and the bottom line of combat is be hit and hit back.

Bomanz wrote:

Taken directly from the statement about the monks role:

PRD wrote:

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.

Striking where its least expected...NOT a front line combatant.

OK, how does the monk achieve this? He has Stealth as a class skill, and a few class skills, and he can use his acrobatics and high jump ability to negotiate obstacles, and his movement is second to none, so he can appear where least expected, yes. However, how does he then strike? If he has moved he's down on 3/4 BAB. With lower stats and lower enhancement as well, he can't hit much when he gets to this unexpected position. He's also there ON HIS OWN as the rest of the party can't do this, so he needs that ability to defend himself, just as a front line combatant does.

That the monk can do this is questionable at the least - even using abundant step can't help here without a feat tax.

Bomanz wrote:

Taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities...NOT a front line combatant.

And how does he take advantage of enemy vulnerabilities? What powers or abilities does he have to do this?

None.

His only offensive options come down to hitting things, and we have already shown that this is where the monk is weak. So the monk cannot do this.

Bomanz wrote:

Fleet of foot, navigating the battlefield with ease...NOT a front line combatant.

Granted the monk can run around faster than anyone else, and he has Acrobatics to avoid AoO's.

Bomanz wrote:

Aiding allies wherever they are needed most...NOT a front line combatant.

And abilities focussed on aiding allies are....none. Again.

So of all the things the monk is listed at being able to do, one is ticked, one has a maybe and the other two each have a definite 'x' in the 'no' box. If we take your argument that the monk is not a front-line combatent

It gets worse, because a rogue can go further to fulfilling the monk's role than the monk can: A rogue can also strike where least expected (no special abilities but he has all the skills), he has sneak attack to take advantage of enemies, he can also navigate the battlefield albeit not as fast (boots of striding and leaping anyone?), and get their sneak attack if they flank with allies. So he has three ticks and a maybe against one tick and a maybe. Sad, isn't it?

Now if we want the monk to fulfil these roles, we need to:
1) Give them some means of striking foes to fix the first and second points.
2) Give them some means of aiding their allies for the last one. Actually being able to hit enemies would be a big step in this direction to.

So it all comes back down to being able to hit the target and get past DR. It's not so much the damage that is the issue, as I have stated many times, it's the accuracy and the bypassing of DR that matter.

[magnuskn]

Since I fear that this post will be gone with the deletion of the rest of that enormous derail, here once again, this time with a correct "Bulmahn":

Mr. Bulmahn, why is it that every 3/4 BAB class you have designed after the core book eats the Monks ( and the Rogues) lunch and drinks his milkshake? If the Monk were so well balanced that it only needs minor adjustments, why is it that Alchemists and Inquisitors can outdamage full BAB classes when they really get going... AND have six levels of spells? And that is not even mentioning the Oracle, which is a full caster with 3/4 BAB and huge customizability due to its Mysteries.
Hell, even the Ninja is flat-out better than the Monk and the Rogue.

In the face of what you obviously believe to be balanced classes when designing them from scratch, the discrepancies to the weak core classes becomes really glaring. That you apparently believe that the Monk should not be able to effectively be at the same level as other frontliners, when the new 3/4 BAB classes do just that is baffling.

[ciretose]

Tels wrote:

Lil B wrote:

I'm confused why everyone is putting down spell resistance. It can be turned off temporarily for healing or buffing, maybe not a great idea mid-combat, but it's still possible.

Here's why people put SR down.

Spell Resistance wrote:

A creature can voluntarily lower its spell resistance. Doing so is a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Once a creature lowers its resistance, it remains down until the creature's next turn. At the beginning of the creature's next turn, the creature's spell resistance automatically returns unless the creature intentionally keeps it down (also a standard action that does not provoke an attack of opportunity).

It takes a Standard Action to lower SR for 1 round. That means, if a Monk is unable to take a Standard Action (such as when paralyzed, or unconscious) he cannot lower his SR.

Remember, a Monk's SR is equal to 10 + his Monk level. So a 13th level Monk has SR 13. A caster has to roll 1d20 and add his caster level to overcome the SR.

Most enemy casters are going to be equal in level to the Monk, or higher, unless the caster is a Mook. That means most enemy casters are going to have a 50% chance, or greater, of overcoming the Monk's SR.

Spell Resistance applies to all spells, even ones you're allies cast. Many spells like Prayer, Haste, and other common buffs are subject to Spell Resistance. Since most allied casters will be equal in level to the Monk, only 50% of the buffs will make it through the Monks SR, unless he takes a standard action to lower his SR. That means a round or more that he won't be attacking, simply to get himself buffed.

In short, Spell Resistance hurts the Monk more than it aids him.

The counter to this argument is that by the time the monk gets SR they also have a fairly significant self-heal and/or escapability that saves them from having to use up more party actions.

Generally combat healing is crisis oriented, as you also lose the healers action for the round. If the monk can self heal or get out of the way, the cleric/other healer can do something other than heal that round. And SR is another level of potential spell failure on attacks against monks, when you combine it with the High Saves and resistances.

The fundimental issue is that an unarmed monk is far inferior to an armed monk, which is counter to the concept.

I was completely ok with the temple sword nerf, as it was hax to get TWF with a two handed weapon that added strength and a 1/2.

But the monk can't hit with unarmed strike, and they can't overcome basic damage reductions other classes can with unarmed strike.

The Amulet of Mighty Fists is more useful to bestiary creatures than the monk. It's cost would be acceptable if it didn't also take a slot, wasn't capped at +5.

As it stands, it costs 1000 gold more than enchanting two weapons, takes a slot, and caps at half what a weapon would cap at.

The only reason I can think of for the nerfs to the item come from classes that use the item other than monks.

[Dabbler]

Actually, the SR means that the monk cannot benefit from party buffs during combat. I think that is the biggest issue.

[wraithstrike]

Bomanz wrote:

Fact is, to some people, the Monk will NEVER be right.

The whole "system mastery required" argument is invalid, too. Sure it helps...but required?? Puh-leeze. Wizards are awesome, until a noob with no system mastery takes item creation feats and blasting spells without backing them up, as one of a multitude of examples.

I daresay the vanilla fighter and the vanilla barbarian are about the only 2 classes out of the CRB that don't require some prior knowledge and forethought into character creation to be optimized.

Just keep dissing the Monk, while I race mine around the battlefield whupping a$$ on just about everything I face, and barely taking a scratch to do so.

Everything you have said was invalidated in a previous monk thread. I have seen a noob play every class except for a monk at least decently well.

If someone is playing a monk it is required, unless the GM's goes into easy mode. While I do admit the noobs that I speak of did not have me GM'ing on hard mode I was not exactly handing out victories either.

PS:Those players that failed with the monk did at least decently well with other classes. It is hard to call it coincidence when the failure rate is 100%.

PS2:We also said in another thread that you were not shabby with the system. I am sure Dabbler or myself could build a decent monk, and do ok with it, but that does not mean the class does not have issues.

[ciretose]

Dabbler wrote:

Actually, the SR means that the monk cannot benefit from party buffs during combat. I think that is the biggest issue.

They can, if they don't have spell resistance up.

I agree I would prefer it be able to be up and down as a free action, but I don't want the main problem to be lost in the shuffle, as it seems Jason believes that we have become more of a nit picking b@*!# session than people with legitimate concerns.

I disagree with him (for most of us) but losing focus on the core issue may lose momentum for change further.

At worst, I see SR as an equal trade off. And I personally have found it very, very helpful.

[Cheapy]

Ciretose, can you PM me?