It's still a discussion of the rules. It's just about rules that a number of people think are arbitrary and wrongheaded.
I haven't decided where I fall on this whole thing, but I do think that a non-ZA monk has little going for it.
Monks can fall and take less damage.If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk?
MA
And heal, like, 10 hit points once or twice per day! No one else can do that without, like a healing potion or a 1st level spell! SPECIAL!!!
prototype00
|
Monks can fall and take less damage.If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk?
MAAnd heal, like, 10 hit points once or twice per day! No one else can do that without, like a healing potion or a 1st level spell! SPECIAL!!!
prototype00
Can't a ragin Barbarian get a rage power to heal?
Don't Barbarians get temporary hit points every time they rage?
When a barbarian rages, their Constitution score increases, so they also gain hit points. These are not temporary hit points and are lost when the rage ends.
There is also a rage power that lets a Barbarian heal.
Renewed vigor (Ex): As a standard action, the barbarian heals 1d8 points of damage + her Constitution modifier. For every four levels the barbarian has attained above 4th, this amount of damage healed increases by 1d8 to a maximum of 5d8 at 20th level. A barbarian must be at least 4th level before selecting this power. This power can be used only once per day and only while raging.
Compared to the monk healing.
Wholeness of Body (Su): At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal his own wounds as a standard action. He can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to his monk level by using 2 points from his ki pool.
The monk gets it later (7th level vs. 4th level) and it heals LESS (1d8+Con (your boosted Con modifier, since you have to be raging to use this) at 7th level vs. 7; 2d8+Con at 8th level vs. 8; 3d8+Con at 12th level vs. 12., 4d8+Con at 16th level vs. 16, and 5d8+Con at 20th level vs. 20). Both are standard actions, and the monk CAN use this ability more than once per day. At the cost of 2 ki for each use.
MA
Wow,
I try not to chime in on the monk threads without being helpful. But I used to play all monk all the time now I haven't touched the class in like a year. I am one of the few folks who don't think monks are MAD just not Awesome enough. But how I see it is a systematic design of items that are made for people who punch things but no the monk. I had better see an advanced monk guide or the monk will remain just a class that I used to know( gotye reference fully intended,)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue I have with brawling is we have been flat out told that to make an item that effects only unarmed strike and not natural weapons would break realism on how it could work. Then the go and do it anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main issue I have with brawling is we have been flat out told that to make an item that effects only unarmed strike and not natural weapons would break realism on how it could work. Then the go and do it anyway.
[SARCASM]But, Talonhawke. They said that about monk's getting things that would only affect their unarmed strikes. Monk's cannot use this, so everything is perfectly fine.[/SARCASM]
I agree with you, my friend.
MA
|
If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk? I mean, fighters have better hit points, get more feats, get access to fighter only feats, can wear armor without losing their class abilities, get neat things with weapon and armor training, and eventually auto-crit with their chosen weapon too.
MA
Monks have better saves (including the save that matters, Will), can teleport right out of the box, who cares about armor if their AC matches Fighters anyway, and can do things no Fighter will ever do all by itself. I'm not even going into archetype territory, hello Qinggong Monk.
Really, you're a "nerf Warlocks buff Paladin" class tribalist who is completely blind as to strengths of your beloved class and all you see are weaknesses. I'm not saying that Monks couldn't use a tweak or two, but that "Paizo Sexually Violates Monks by The Monk Advocacy Association feat. M. Arimas" record is sounding a bit broken by now.
Well, I wouldn't exactly call 12th level 'right out of the box', Gorbacz.
Tell me, Gorby, what do you see monks as? Are they martial characters who fight? Are they skilled characters? Are they skirmishers? WHAT ARE THEY?
Right now, in the Pathfinder game, they are jacks-of-all-trades that can contribute less to a party than a bard or a rogue. Unless you have a high level of system mastery and use every single resource Paizo has made available, monks pretty much fail. Which is why they keep getting these threads.
I didn't start this one, I only answered a question. And quite frankly, sir, if you don't like it, you don't have to read it. And you certainly don't have to respond.
MA
|
|
Their role is to be a weird toolbox of things which exists because legacy, backwards compatibility and imagine how many people would cry if Jason said "no Monks in PF". And supplemental books allow you to shape that toolbox into something that makes people go aaaah. Sure I'd prefer for archetypes and Style Feats to be in CRB, but then again it would be silly to have 40 pages of Monk-exclusive material in a 600 page book.
Yeah, they're a victim of backwards compatibility. Something's gotta give.
And c'mon, we're talking D&D. This game rewards system mastery at every level.
...gloves of dueling (15,000 gp), cloak of resistance +2 (4,000 gp), and a set of the new handwraps
Can you have both gloves and handwraps?
You know what? I'll let you do the monk.
Actually, you do the monk. You're the one making the point.
1d3 + 16 in unarmed damage (less whatever changes that result if the character can't use both gloves and handwraps) and, basically, NOTHING ELSE that the character can do. At two attacks, that's an average of 36 points per round if both hit. And virtually no skills or feats outside of those used to qualify for the unarmed fighting. Also, how effective is the fighter against something with, say, damage reduction (lawful), or with a paralyzing touch AC attack?
I'm asking because I don't really know.
Using your abbreviated monk stats (1d10 + STR, using the same girdle as the fighter) is an average of anywhere from 9 to 12 points per strike. They get what? Two or three strikes? That's 18-24 or 27-36 per round. Plus they have more skills than the fighter, plus more flexibility than the fighter, plus more special abilities than the fighter.
I get that you're frustrated. It's been made abundantly clear. But we've seen that frustration alienate other players, and even the very game designers you are hoping will address what you perceive as an imbalance.
My two cents, unrequested though it may be: if you want to play an Eastern style, quasi-mystic martial artist, play a monk. If you want to play a rough-and-tumble unsophisticated brawler who can throw a heavy punch and not much else, play a fighter. If you want to play a character optimized to maximize DPS output along a scaling curve...play World of Warcraft. Please. (Where, coincidentally, they will also soon have "underpowered" monks available for your gaming frustration.)
Every possible argument to make has now been made an uncountable number of times. Take a page from the monks you are championing/defending/pining for and take a moment of Zen to find your center, then roll with it. Or, if you absolutely don't trust the designers to fix things to your satisfaction, take up another RPG.
It is bodywraps, not handwraps. Sorry.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since it's descended into a Monk thread and I've been looking to vent...
As a fan of Monks, they've always gotten the short end of the stick. Always. The problem with (vanilla) Monks has always been they're not great at any one thing.
Their to-hit & damage are bad, even once you get past the MAD and realize you need to stack STR(or at least get an amulet with agile and stack dex instead). The Ki ability helps them a bit, but you never quite come out ahead, since most GM's I know view a 1 as more potentially devastating than a 20, despite RAW being just a missed hit. Plus more attacks, don’t mean more hits.
They used to be good grapplers, relatively speaking, with getting full BAB for it. Fighters had the feats on the monk though, but that was okay. They're fighters, they're the best at melee. Now they have this armor trait available to everyone with armor, which puts literally every full BAB or 3/4 BAB class ahead of the monk in grappling.
Monks can get relatively good AC, but they’re not the kings of it by any means. Since bracers of any real value are expensive, they don't get shield bonuses, headbands of wisdom are expensive, and if they want natural armor then they sacrifice AoMF and can't hit anything. More importantly to do so with feats, generally turns a Monk into a one trick pony; and all of those same feats can be picked up by a fighter without doing the same thing.
Monk's quasi-mystical abilities are cool, gotta love wholness & abundant step, but they've always been far more restricted than that of a true spell caster. In PF, the cost of Ki has only limited the monk's staying power compared to 3.5. Sure they may be able to "nova" now; boost their AC for a round, run a little faster, get that one extra attack... But the problem is, doing so reduces their ability to do anything else they could do. In 3.5, they couldn't do as much as a PF monk because they didn't have Ki... yet because most of his abilities run on it, he can't use them at all if he's burned through too much Ki already.
But wait, monks are fast! But they can't flurry if they want to be fast... And moving quickly in combat, while potentially useful in a number of situations, does very little in actual combat... short of running away. But they can fall from any height. Eventually. If they're alongside a wall. Yet a prepared wizard, spontaneous caster, or a class with UMD as a skill and a Feather Fall wand can do better, without the wall at that.
Really the only thing Monks they going for them are their good saves. But frankly, every other "good" feature eats away at the value of these: Imp. evasion reduces the value of their good ref since it matters less if they actually make the save, still mind reduces the value of their will saves since combined with a high WIS they more or less just confirm these checks, immunities to poisons and diseases reduce the value of their fort since you don’t even roll for these. Monks just don’t die from these things, and while useful, it’s also just sorta boring. More importantly, it encourages DMs not to use these on the monk, since they are known to be ineffective. If it's not working on the monk, just save him for last, it's not like he can do anything worthwhile. And the same could be said for AC specialized monk.
I still think monks are a cool concept, and to be fair to Paizo I love the flavor of many archetypes added to the class. Mechanically though, it's just seems like core monks are being made as the base zero-line for every other class, and aren't meant to be good at anything. It's like; they're the "hard mode" class that more experienced players take on as a burden to prove they can make something of it. And frankly, while that has some appeal, I don't think that's what the class should be.
Just My 2 cents.
|
Every possible argument to make has now been made an uncountable number of times. Take a page from the monks you are championing/defending/pining for and take a moment of Zen to find your center, then roll with it. Or, if you absolutely don't trust the designers to fix things to your satisfaction, take up another RPG
look this is a forums board, and as long as he doesnt break the terms of agreement for this board he can soap box as much as he wants.
im just going to say, i want to see 2 things fixed on my monk.
1. spring attack or charge working with vital strike
2. a couple static to hit numbers added to the monk OR a new item to take the place of AOMF. call it the super epic monk only item for all i care, JUST MAKE IT!!
those 2 changes would make me very happy.
I hear a lot about the AoMF sucking but has no one read the magic item creation section? According to the rules you should be able to make the amulet into a ring therefore be able to use two Rings of mighty fist and an AoMF giving you all kinds of options granted it would be very expensive.
I hear a lot about the AoMF sucking but has no one read the magic item creation section? According to the rules you should be able to make the amulet into a ring therefore be able to use two Rings of mighty fist and an AoMF giving you all kinds of options granted it would be very expensive.
DM required to craft custom items, many DMs do'nt let PCs do that.
Regardless, PF has this weird cap that everything is max +10 (bonus ability or Enhacement bonus) that designers put in place usually.
So that would limit that.
They are enhancement bonuses and would not stack with each other.
Like said they won't stack and their creation requires DM approval. Besides, the amulets seemingly don't go above +5, so if they *were* rings, you'd want one to be a +5(a 125k GP item) and the other to be one with up to + 5 in weapon properties(another 125k gp).
But the DM part's the catch. Cause either you'd have to convince your Wizard friend to convince your DM into allowing him to make the item, or convince said DM to let you find it somewhere. And explain to them why you need it to be a ring over an amulet. And why you need two of them as outlined. And that's assuming they allow homebrew items at all.
With the two though, you'd actually be on par with everyone else with a traditional magic weapon. It's not RAW, but hey, it just goes to show how a simple new item could balance the monk out quite a bit(even if it's a 250,000 gp cost solution). Too bad they haven't given us a good one yet.
Okay, I have *never* gotten into a monk thread. So forgive me if someone has already said similar things before.
Somewhere upthread stated that a monk should not outdamage a fighter in his specialized weapon. So if a fighter DOES specialize in unarmed fighting, shouldn't he outfight the monk?
If you are only focusing on the fisticuffs, yes, you can build a fighter that can outbrawl a monk. This is as it should be, because such a fighter will have spent a lot of his options and wealth on brawling, and thus won't be nearly as good at other forms of fighting, AND doesn't have all the semi-mystical stuff that monks do.
But... monks are better at brawling than ANYBODY that ISN'T specialized in it.
In short, if you want to play a brawler, play the specialized fighter. If you want to play a mystical character who focuses on self-enhancement, play a monk, and realize that you should be brawling as your combat style. If you are playing a monk because you want to be a brawler, you are going in the wrong direction.
I don't play monks, don't like monks, and don't have any intention of changing either of those two things even if Paizo puts out bracers of +100 monk awesome in their next book.
That said, it's starting to get sad watching the monk fans getting kicked while they're down. Solely for that reason I wish Paizo would give monks a little more love.
Okay, I have *never* gotten into a monk thread. So forgive me if someone has already said similar things before.
Somewhere upthread stated that a monk should not outdamage a fighter in his specialized weapon. So if a fighter DOES specialize in unarmed fighting, shouldn't he outfight the monk?
If you are only focusing on the fisticuffs, yes, you can build a fighter that can outbrawl a monk. This is as it should be, because such a fighter will have spent a lot of his options and wealth on brawling, and thus won't be nearly as good at other forms of fighting, AND doesn't have all the semi-mystical stuff that monks do.
But... monks are better at brawling than ANYBODY that ISN'T specialized in it.
In short, if you want to play a brawler, play the specialized fighter. If you want to play a mystical character who focuses on self-enhancement, play a monk, and realize that you should be brawling as your combat style. If you are playing a monk because you want to be a brawler, you are going in the wrong direction.
That was just a straight fighter, Derek Vande Brake. I wasn't even pulling out the unarmed fighter archetype. Sure, with weapons, fighters are supposed to out-fight anyone. And I would expect that unarmed, monks can at least compete with a fighter. But they can't.
The unarmed fighter archetype is automatically proficient with all weapons with the monk special quality . . . even exotic ones. Monks aren't.
The unarmed fighter archetype gains Weapon Training with unarmed strikes and monk weapons, boosting the difference between a monk's attack bonus and his to a minimum of +7.
They remain able to wear light armor. They have more hit points. They can take feats with a 'fighter-only' prerequisite.
Look, monks are unarmed combat specialists. They have been since 1st edition. That is what makes a monk a monk; being able to 'kung-fu' the dragon. But the developers keep moving OUR stuff to other classes, because 'no one should outfight the fighter'.
Simple fact is . . . no one can. We just want our own specialty where everyone can look at the monk and say, that is your niche. Like Paladins against evil, or Rangers against their favored enemies, or Rogues against the flat-footed.
Is that asking for too much? Back in 1st edition, the monk, even with a lower THAC0 and d4 hit die could compete with the fighter in damage. And the paladin. And the ranger. We aren't asking to be better than the fighter, but God knows we would like to be able to keep pace with the rest of the martial classes in our special class ability: fighting unarmed and unarmored.
MA
Darth Grall: Good rant. Just would like to add:
- Even their speed is useless; PF made it land speed only. Fly spell for fly 60 trumps whatever the monk can run any day of the week. At least in 3E, monk could get buffed with Fly and fly around super fast...
- Not only is feather fall a 1st level spell; it's also a 2200 gp ring anyone can easily get, or pay +50% to add to some other ring. So you could say Slow Fall is worth 2200 gp...except you need to be near a wall and it doesn't protect falls of any distance till level 20, so it's actually worth far less than 2200 gp...
- The "good saves" isn't real; either. Tons of classes get good fort and will, and reflex is largely unimportant unless your DM cheeses Dazing Spell a lot. Then there's the fact that monk's horrific MAD means you can't afford quite as high in ability scores, hurting the saves a bit along with the rest. Only class that really has great saves is paladin, IMO. After that, cleric, druid, bard, ranger...they're all about as good as the monk, not much weaker.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But the developers keep moving OUR stuff to other classes, because 'no one should outfight the fighter'.
Simple fact is . . . no one can.
Barbarians are pretty much allowed to beat the fighter at his own game these days, if the game in question is melee combat (and rangers and paladins have well-developed schticks where they are FAR ahead). I think there's something special about monks and suck.
Okay, I have *never* gotten into a monk thread. So forgive me if someone has already said similar things before.
Somewhere upthread stated that a monk should not outdamage a fighter in his specialized weapon. So if a fighter DOES specialize in unarmed fighting, shouldn't he outfight the monk?
If you are only focusing on the fisticuffs, yes, you can build a fighter that can outbrawl a monk. This is as it should be, because such a fighter will have spent a lot of his options and wealth on brawling, and thus won't be nearly as good at other forms of fighting, AND doesn't have all the semi-mystical stuff that monks do.
But... monks are better at brawling than ANYBODY that ISN'T specialized in it.
In short, if you want to play a brawler, play the specialized fighter. If you want to play a mystical character who focuses on self-enhancement, play a monk, and realize that you should be brawling as your combat style. If you are playing a monk because you want to be a brawler, you are going in the wrong direction.
That was just a straight fighter, Derek Vande Brake. I wasn't even pulling out the unarmed fighter archetype. Sure, with weapons, fighters are supposed to out-fight anyone. And I would expect that unarmed, monks can at least compete with a fighter. But they can't.
The unarmed fighter archetype is automatically proficient with all weapons with the monk special quality . . . even exotic ones. Monks aren't.
The unarmed fighter archetype gains Weapon Training with unarmed strikes and monk weapons, boosting the difference between a monk's attack bonus and his to a minimum of +7.
They remain able to wear light armor. They have more hit points. They can take feats with a 'fighter-only' prerequisite.
Look, monks are unarmed combat specialists. They have been since 1st edition. That is what makes a monk a monk; being able to 'kung-fu' the dragon. But the developers keep moving OUR stuff to other classes, because 'no one should outfight...
That *wasn't* just a straight fighter, MA, because it required significant choices of feats and wealth. Just because you didn't give him the archetype, doesn't mean you didn't make your example specialized for fighting unarmed.
I can certainly understand your plea for a niche that monks can call their own, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Bards are the same way - they don't really do anything as good as some other class can, their strength is in their versatility. In my opinion, the best way to beef up the monk isn't to make them the be-all-and-end-all of unarmed combat, but rather to give them more nonexclusive options to do a greater variety of things.
That *wasn't* just a straight fighter, MA, because it required significant choices of feats and wealth. Just because you didn't give him the archetype, doesn't mean you didn't make your example specialized for fighting unarmed.
I can certainly understand your plea for a niche that monks can call their own, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Bards are the same way - they don't really do anything as good as some other class can, their strength is in their versatility. In my opinion, the best way to beef up the monk isn't to make them the be-all-and-end-all of unarmed combat, but rather to give them more nonexclusive options to do a greater variety of things.
That was a straight fighter. No archetypes. Just your standard Core Rulebook Fighter. Who has another weapon in another weapon, and around six or seven feats left to spend. Now, it was a specific build of a fighter. And not a very optimized one (unarmed fighting is not often a selection you see a fighter make, after all).
I beg to differ on Bards. Bards are very highly valued members of a party. They are THE buffing specialists and they serve as wonderful 'faces' for the party. Remember, you are also affect along with your allies, so a combat-oriented bard is a pretty fearsome opponent. While retaining versatility.
Which brings us back around to the monk: when the bard is outclassing a martial class in melee, then something is wrong in Pathfinder-land. The Bard has more skill points, has better special abilities that serve a purpose, AND has a 0-6 level spell list that he can cast spontaneously!
And the monk? Can run real fast. Run, Forrest, RUUUUUUNNNNNNNN!
I'd like to be able to outfight a bard, thank you. As a martial character whose role is to be in combat.
MA
|
That *wasn't* just a straight fighter, MA, because it required significant choices of feats and wealth. Just because you didn't give him the archetype, doesn't mean you didn't make your example specialized for fighting unarmed.
I can certainly understand your plea for a niche that monks can call their own, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Bards are the same way - they don't really do anything as good as some other class can, their strength is in their versatility. In my opinion, the best way to beef up the monk isn't to make them the be-all-and-end-all of unarmed combat, but rather to give them more nonexclusive options to do a greater variety of things.
That was a straight fighter. No archetypes. Just your standard Core Rulebook Fighter. Who has another weapon in another weapon, and around six or seven feats left to spend. Now, it was a specific build of a fighter. And not a very optimized one (unarmed fighting is not often a selection you see a fighter make, after all).
I beg to differ on Bards. Bards are very highly valued members of a party. They are THE buffing specialists and they serve as wonderful 'faces' for the party. Remember, you are also affect along with your allies, so a combat-oriented bard is a pretty fearsome opponent. While retaining versatility.
Which brings us back around to the monk: when the bard is outclassing a martial class in melee, then something is wrong in Pathfinder-land. The Bard has more skill points, has better special abilities that serve a purpose, AND has a 0-6 level spell list that he can cast spontaneously!
And the monk? Can run real fast. Run, Forrest, RUUUUUUNNNNNNNN!
I'd like to be able to outfight a bard, thank you. As a martial character whose role is to be in combat.
MA
Agreed. Many bards (especially those of the dawnflower dervish variety)can easily match or outclass a monk in combat while buffing their party members without sacrificing their utility as a skill monkey, back-up caster, or party face. They can even have better AC and much superior accuracy if they know the fights coming and have a round or two to buff.
So, did you just bypass my post completely where I broke down the numbers for a 10th level fighter using unarmed strike? He attacks at +26/+21, dealing 1d3 + 16 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2). If he has Power Attack (and what fighter doesn't?) then his attack bonus is +23/+18, dealing 1d3 + 22 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2).
At the same level, the monk is doing 1d10 + Str + maybe another 2 from...
In fact I didn't see your post, so I'll go back and have a look.
...Okay, so you built a fighter fully specialized for damage dealing in detail, showed some big numbers, and then basically said "therefore it beats the example monk that I didn't bother to build".
Sorry, but at least do the full work if you want to make a point. Make a monk that uses every resource that would be available to him at the same level as that fighter, calculate the average number of attacks that would land against various 10th-level opponents, and the average damage that results from that number of hits compared to what the fighter can do.
Your argument against what I said was basically that monks have trouble landing hits. Prove that by building a good monk that's doing all he can to land hits but still can't do so, not by building a fighter who can hit things. The fact that your fighter can hit things does nothing to prove that the comparison monk cannot hit things, and your argument that a monk can't hit things gains nothing from posting proof that doesn't bother to illustrate how a monk can't hit things.
So, did you just bypass my post completely where I broke down the numbers for a 10th level fighter using unarmed strike? He attacks at +26/+21, dealing 1d3 + 16 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2). If he has Power Attack (and what fighter doesn't?) then his attack bonus is +23/+18, dealing 1d3 + 22 damage per hit (critical of 19-20/x2).
At the same level, the monk is doing 1d10 + Str + maybe another 2 from...
In fact I didn't see your post, so I'll go back and have a look.
...Okay, so you built a fighter fully specialized for damage dealing in detail, showed some big numbers, and then basically said "therefore it beats the example monk that I didn't bother to build".
Sorry, but at least do the full work if you want to make a point. Make a monk that uses every resource that would be available to him at the same level as that fighter, calculate the average number of attacks that would land against various 10th-level opponents, and the average damage that results from that number of hits compared to what the fighter can do.
Your argument against what I said was basically that monks have trouble landing hits. Prove that by building a good monk that's doing all he can to land hits but still can't do so, not by building a fighter who can hit things. The fact that your fighter can hit things does nothing to prove that the comparison monk cannot hit things, and your argument that a monk can't hit things gains nothing from posting proof that doesn't bother to illustrate how a monk can't hit things.
Others already have. I can post a 10th level monk build, but optimizing is something I don't often do. And I don't build hulking brute style monks, which is the primary means by which people even stay in the ballpark of the rest of martial classes.
That being said, if you still want a build, I will post one that I would play. Note on the fighter build above, there are still six open feats and money left unspent . . . and the damage could be even higher with a more traditional build. Spend those feats on archery and buy a bow and that build is set.
MA
Check this thread if you're interested in checking my work.
I believe I will, thank you.
...And I don't build hulking brute style monks, which is the primary means by which people even stay in the ballpark of the rest of martial classes.
Alright, that's a fair reason to not build one for your example, but it also may well be the reason why your monks can't keep up with your fighters. :P
Check this thread if you're interested in checking my work.I believe I will, thank you.
...And I don't build hulking brute style monks, which is the primary means by which people even stay in the ballpark of the rest of martial classes.Alright, that's a fair reason to not build one for your example, but it also may well be the reason why your monks can't keep up with your fighters. :P
Look at the examples of monks used in D&D and Pathfinder. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Yun Fat-Chow, David Carradine, Chuck Norris . . . characters protrayed by these gentlemen in film and television are almost certainly monks. Look at the film Bulletproof Monk. Wonderful flick that really shows what a monk should be.
How many of these legends of the screen are bulked up like professional weight-lifters, heavy-weight boxers, professional wrestlers, or NFL linemen? They are strong, but they do not emphasize strength over a balanced physique.
But to build a monk in Pathfinder and be successful, you have bulk up like John Cena or the Rock? Something is wrong with the equation if the 'right' monk is all about Strength and average Wisdom/Dex/Con.
Remember Mr. Miyagi? Not exactly a hulking brute was he. Strength is important to a monk, to be sure, no monk is a 90-lb. weakling (well, maybe some halflings or gnomes).
Master Arminas
There are also some instant-intimidation shenanigans that can work, but they don't come together until around 10th level. Before that, your damage is very poor, and even after that, they're very vulnerable to enemies they can't stun or intimidate.
Are you referring to Enforcer/Medusa's fist/Shatter Defenses?
Because it is the only way to guarentee you can do Medusa's fist.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk?
If you want to play the most bad-awesome unarmed dude out there, then play a fighter.
If you want all that is awesome about monks... then play a monk.
Are you hung up on the class-name or what?
*confused*
Look at the examples of monks used in D&D and Pathfinder. Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Yun Fat-Chow, David Carradine, Chuck Norris . . . characters protrayed by these gentlemen in film and television are almost certainly monks. Look at the film Bulletproof Monk. Wonderful flick that really shows what a monk should be.
How many of these legends of the screen are bulked up like professional weight-lifters, heavy-weight boxers, professional wrestlers, or NFL linemen? They are strong, but they do not emphasize strength over a balanced physique.
But to build a monk in Pathfinder and be successful, you have bulk up like John Cena or the Rock? Something is wrong with the equation if the 'right' monk is all about Strength and average Wisdom/Dex/Con.
Remember Mr. Miyagi? Not exactly a hulking brute was he. Strength is important to a monk, to be sure, no monk is a 90-lb. weakling (well, maybe some halflings or gnomes).
Master Arminas
The average PF fighter (based on PF iconic fighter Valeros, and various fighters pictured in adventure paths) isn't a hulking brute either, just fairly in-shape. You're more likely to see outright hulking on barbarians, but then again that's kind of expected of them.
I'm not saying that the monk what wants to hit things needs to be a hulking brute, just on-par, or close to it, with the physically fit fighter in Strength. I'm also not saying that the "right" monk is a Str-based one, I'm saying that a monk designed primarily to hit things and deal damage is (generally) a Str-based one. The Wis-based mystic and the Dex-based acrobat are no-less monks than the Str-based martial artist, they just can't be compared to the fighter because their jobs aren't just to pummel things, their jobs are to do mystic tricks and leap/tumble around the battlefield respectively.
And actually I'd personally avoid average Con on a Str-based monk. If your job is to be in melee you're going to want those hit points.
(Also, I'd consider most of those legends of the screen, in Pathfinder terms, to have been built with high point-buy. A fair number of them are balanced in managing to do both acrobatics and strength, but I'd say they got more to work with than your average 15 or 20 point-buy monk. They could afford Str, Dex, and Con all at once, essentially.)
To answer someone's question...
No. A fighter should not be the best at fighting in every form of fighting, all the time. Most of the game is combat, it's insane to have a single class outperform others at everything (yeah, casters...I know...). Fighters should certainly be pretty good at any form of fighting they want to train in, and definitely lay claim to be the best at various ways of fighting.
But he shouldn't be running roughshod over other specialized classes at their tiny little niches. Monk should be the best unarmed combatant. Paladin should be (and is) the best guy at slaying fiends. Cavalier should be the best mounted lancer.
Otherwise how is the monk even relevant? He certainly can't cast anything. He can't outperform or even perform evenly with a fighter in ANY form of combat. He's squishier, has worse AC (yes, it's lower), all for a whopping +2 skill points and good saves. Monk fails less % of will saves. Fighter has to roll less will saves because the enemy caster ****ing dies from his attacks much faster.
If you want to play the most bad-awesome unarmed dude out there, then play a fighter.
If you want all that is awesome about monks... then play a monk.
Are you hung up on the class-name or what?
*confused*
What we're upset with is that monk isn't good, and right properly fails as a versatile "jack of all trades" that some claim it to be.
Mechanically they're in the pits, and with each new pf book they've put them further out they've systematically reduced what they're good at. Now, some archetypes are steps in the right direction but at the core of things, the core iconic monk is left severly lacking in every role.
The last bastion of being a monk is the rp flavor, and frankly that's not enough for most people just to play a class. Especially, not when they're getting outshined in literally every role.
I just bs martial arts flavor into the attack descriptions of classes that actually function and call it a day. Like, technically my Viv. alchemist fights with claws and bite, but when he attacks, he's doing all sorts of spinning flipping kicks and headbuts and other awesome stuff. And roll attack and damage as it should be mechanically and shrug.
I'm just waiting for the day a DM says my flavor text is overpowered and nerfs it...
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you want to play the most bad-awesome unarmed dude out there, then play a fighter.
If you want all that is awesome about monks... then play a monk.
Are you hung up on the class-name or what?
*confused*
What we're upset with is that monk isn't good, and right properly fails as a versatile "jack of all trades" that some claim it to be.
Mechanically they're in the pits...
The last bastion of being a monk is the rp flavor,...
This has nothing to do with my question/ suggestion. Clearly you think the class is crappy and place zero value on the stuff that separates the monk from the fighter. So why not just play a fighter? Is the name of the class that important?
Edit: Maybe the "Unarmed Fighter" archetype should have been called the "Monk Fighter".
If fighters are good as monks at unarmed combat, then what is the point of playing a monk?If you want to play the most bad-awesome unarmed dude out there, then play a fighter.
If you want all that is awesome about monks... then play a monk.
Are you hung up on the class-name or what?
*confused*
My understanding is that the disconnect between how he (they) want it to be and how it actually is stems from this:
As a martial character whose role is to be in combat
I'm not convinced that's the monks role, but then again I don't think it's right to define party classes by party roles and especially not by combat ones. I, for one, like paying a mechanical cost for flavor elements, so my views aren't exactly normal round these parts.
Like you, I'm not sure why one can't build the kind of character monk fans are looking for now. Create a fighter specializing in unarmed combat who's devoted to irori (or similar) and spend his feats on monk-y things.
There are presumably some monk abilities you won't be able to replicate that way - the price assigned to those by the rules system is the difference in fighting prowess between a monk and an unarmed specialist fighter.
This has nothing to do with my question/ suggestion. Clearly you think the class is crappy and place zero value on the stuff that separates the monk from the fighter. So why not just play a fighter? Is the name of the class that important?
No, and I have seen people play fighters in PF as "Monks". But the fact stands that we have a whole class that's more of what we want flavor wise: the concept of flurrying, the bonuses to jumping, quivering palm, etc; all piecemealed together in an unfortunately unalluring package.
And it just seems poor design to have a class that's continually invalidated with new abilties.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As a martial character whose role is to be in combat
*shrug*
As far as I've seen, they do fine in combat, they just aren't 'King O DPR'.
Usually monk builds that work well are focused on tripping flipping, grappling, blinding, that plus all the cool mobility stuff generally gives them plenty of time to shine in combat. The problem is all people place value on in these threads is DPR. Any other metric or ability has zero value.
So if they place zero value on non-DPR stuff then they should play the class that does DPR well.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Usually monk builds that work well are focused on tripping flipping, grappling, blinding, that plus all the cool mobility stuff generally gives them plenty of time to shine in combat.But they aren't any better at those things than any other class, save possibly mobility.
I guess that depends on which other classes you are referring to. Most classes don't have the feats to focus on those things well, nor can they effectively combine them with something like flurry or spending Ki to get extra actions. Fighters have the feats, but they don't wind up particularly 'better' at it than the monks and they don't get all the other monk class features.
As a martial character whose role is to be in combat*shrug*
As far as I've seen, they do fine in combat, they just aren't 'King O DPR'.
Usually monk builds that work well are focused on tripping flipping, grappling, blinding, that plus all the cool mobility stuff generally gives them plenty of time to shine in combat. The problem is all people place value on in these threads is DPR. Any other metric or ability has zero value.
So if they place zero value on non-DPR stuff then they should play the class that does DPR well.
I'm with you. I like the monk as is, personally. Nonetheless, I think the root of the problem might not actually be at the mathematical "compare these builds" level at which it is usually discussed. How much dpr are high saves "worth"? What's the value of quivering palm? What's the "cost" of not being able to wear armor?
I suspect that a not insignificant part of the disconnect comes from a difference in design goals between the developers and those agitating for change. Hopefully the process of ironing things out will clarify those - in line with cheapy's (I think?) oft-stated request for the designers to state what they think the problems are which need attention.
As a martial character whose role is to be in combat*shrug*
As far as I've seen, they do fine in combat, they just aren't 'King O DPR'.
Usually monk builds that work well are focused on tripping flipping, grappling, blinding, that plus all the cool mobility stuff generally gives them plenty of time to shine in combat. The problem is all people place value on in these threads is DPR. Any other metric or ability has zero value.
So if they place zero value on non-DPR stuff then they should play the class that does DPR well.
A monk is a car that has a nice paint job and some nice extras, people would just like that car to have a decent engine in it, because, end of the day, all the nice extras in the world don't make up for a car that doesn't run properly.