Umm... the bonus for an 18 is +4 right? The very first monk build in the doc is an agressive monk w/an 18 str. His base, unarmed attack shows a +3 to hit? Shouldn't this be +4? then his flurry would be +3/+3?
Also I have a weapon master monk NPC in my campaign; other than the archetype choice nothing else is really optimized. She holds her own JUST FINE at first level so far (level 1) and the wizard had the bright idea of putting mage armor on her which gave her a better ac than the tank dwarf fighter, so I don't really see what the fuss is in all these threads.
Then again my experience with PF monks only goes to level 5 (after which my games seem to melt down for some reason). Perhaps I should keep reading the doc more religiously and see where the epic fail comes in at level 6 that suddenly makes them useless.
|
Umm... the bonus for an 18 is +4 right? The very first monk build in the doc is an agressive monk w/an 18 str. His base, unarmed attack shows a +3 to hit? Shouldn't this be +4? then his flurry would be +3/+3?
Also I have a weapon master monk NPC in my campaign; other than the archetype choice nothing else is really optimized. She holds her own JUST FINE at first level so far (level 1) and the wizard had the bright idea of putting mage armor on her which gave her a better ac than the tank dwarf fighter, so I don't really see what the fuss is in all these threads.
Then again my experience with PF monks only goes to level 5 (after which my games seem to melt down for some reason). Perhaps I should keep reading the doc more religiously and see where the epic fail comes in at level 6 that suddenly makes them useless.
Yep, you're correct. Missed that. I originally had him at a 16 str and didn't change it afterward.
That will be in the next day or two. Today is barbar and "Genero the Brash" generic monster. Then 6th, 11th, 16th, and 20th. Then assuming I have enough free time with class going on, I'll go back and fill in with other classes that others really want to see.
But here's the real rub, do your math, it doesn't really matter what the outcome is the Monks Suck crowd will still say Monks Suck, and the Monks are Fine crowd will still say Monks are Fine. There was a discussion about a fighter vs monk using average die rolls the monk beat all fighter builds but 1. The one the monk couldn't beat would be all but useless in anything but this particular fight, how many people do you think that convinced? I'd say roughly zero. I've tried to use the published Adventure Paths and their encounters to show that a monk has no trouble hitting things with the monsters presented, who do you suppose that convinced?I was a part of that other thread, too, and I'll try to sum up the thread since I can't seem to find it.
First of all, it was a thread about 1v1 pvp in a combat box at level 20… which is a bit silly, but it was what the OP of the other thread was interested in. I mean, half (if not more) of the monk's strengths don't contribute to a head-to-head cage match. Jodokai pointed this out very well in the other thread.
That being said, Jodokai was able to put together exactly one build that could consistently beat a good number of fighter builds. This one build from Jodokai pushed Wisdom and Dexterity pretty hard for the purpose of having good AC, good attack rolls, good saves, and a really, really, really strong Stunning Fist/Quivering Palm DC. It was a fort save DC so high that even most fighters would struggle to hit the DC with any consistency. The problem (that many of the other posters pointed out) was that he attained this high Wisdom by pushing wisdom as high as he could, then by making his character Venerable but using the Timeless Body monk feature to ignore the penalties to physical scores while enjoying the mental stat boosts. It's a tactic that works if you're building a level 17+ monk who starts venerable. The problem is that while playing level 1 - 16, either you're venerable -- which makes your physical scores trash, meaning its'...
Soooooooo, he built a Monk that worked by gaming the system then?
Wow, that's what many of the Monk crowd have been saying for awhile. Dabbler, Ciretose, Master Arminas, myself, etc, we can all make good Monks. But we all are also rules savvy and know how to get the bonuses from all over the place if necessary to make the Monk work.
New players have a lot harder time doing that.
Raniel is trying to see if new players have a harder time making effective Monks vs a new player making an effective character from a different melee class. But he wants to display the math as proof rather than "well in my experience" sayings.
Also Liam is correct in that tactics also have an effect, if the monk can get the drop of foes it can negate a full-attack of theirs, and this should be considered. [...]
Thanks! :-)
Why oh why do people think that fixing the monk, or that what those who want the monk fixed are hankering after, is to deliver damage on a par with the fighter?
What we want is for the monk to be relevant and able to contribute to the party dynamic. I'd like for the monk to hit more reliably and bypass DR because one of their main offensive abilities is Stunning Fist
I totally agree.
And don't forget maneuvers. I'd suggest a bonus of +1 per 4 levels or something like that on unarmed attacks (not damage) and maneuvers. Or have the monk add one point of his Wis modifier per monk level to unarmed attacks and maneuvers.
For getting through DR: maybe ignore 1 point of DR per 2 monk levels? At the cost of a ki point, maybe?
So, I figured, “let’s do this with maths!”I didn't make it much past the first post, and honestly I don't really plan on it, but doing it "by the math" is the major problem with the the "Monks suck" crowd. All they look at is math.
...and our anecdotal experience of playing monks, but that's not quantifiable. Math is quantifiable. When you have two people, one saying "monks have a problem" and the other saying "monks are overpowered" how do resolve the two? Maths don't lie.
What never seems to get taken into account is the unquantifiable things. Give me a numerical value for the usefulness of evasion. What percent of the time will the monk avoid damage that a fighter takes on the nose. Give me a number for how useful not having an armor check penalty at first level is. Tell me exactly how many AoO a Monk is able to avoid due to his mobility that a fighter or ranger can't avoid. Tell how many times a Monk will save his party by being able to Dimension Door, and how much being immune to poison helped him over the fighter. How many times was a monk able to bring himself back from 0 hit points with his healing, and what number does that equate to for comparison?
Actually you can, to a limited extent, quantify these things. Look at the list of monsters for a given CR, then see how many have these abilities, and how the monk and other classes would approach these monsters as a problem.
There are some things you can say, though. The monk's abundant step is unlikely to save anyone but the monk, as he can only take himself. Wholeness of body is no different to drinking a potion, and every adventurer should be carrying one, and so on.
The other problem is that when you compare the monk and fighter you look and say the fighter has a 20 to hit, the monk only has an 18 to hit, the fighter will hit 10% more often. That math seems easy and straight forward, however what it doesn't take into account is that the average enemy AC is 15, so in actuality both the fighter and the monk have a 95% chance to hit.
We have in the past compared CR appropriate foes so that the monk's DPR could be calculated next to the fighter's against a target, as well as his chances of delivering a stunning fist.
Also, that 95% chance to hit is not the whole story. Iterative attacks will have a significant effect when your attack bonus is this high, and in my experience the difference in to hit is never as easy as 20 to 18, more like 20 to 16.
But here's the real rub, do your math, it doesn't really matter what the outcome is the Monks Suck crowd will still say Monks Suck, and the Monks are Fine crowd will still say Monks are Fine.
Actually quite a few people in the "monks are fine" crowd have conceded after being shown the figures that the monk is not, in fact, fine.
There was a discussion about a fighter vs monk using average die rolls the monk beat all fighter builds but 1. The one the monk couldn't beat would be all but useless in anything but this particular fight, how many people do you think that convinced? I'd say roughly zero.
Of course not, that thread gave every advantage - cover, unlimited ammunition, etc - to the monk. Each side were modifying their builds to counter the other one constantly.
I've tried to use the published Adventure Paths and their encounters to show that a monk has no trouble hitting things with the monsters presented, who do you suppose that convinced?
Define 'no trouble' first. Is it possible to hit things? Sure, because a 20 always hits. The question is can you do so reliably, and get to inflict damage, and then have a significant effect? Is the monster in question going to kill you first? How does this stack up to, say, a fallen paladin, or a fighter?
These are questions this thread is trying to answer. From my work in other threads and personal experience, I know the monk has problems delivering hits reliably, and when he hits delivering significant damage through DR, and if those pull off getting something like stunning fist to work.
Look at the list of monsters for a given CR, then see how many have these abilities, and how the monk and other classes would approach these monsters as a problem.
I would suggest to not only look at monsters but at other character classes as enemies as well because monsters are not the only enemies (the adversaries in adventures in the groups I have played with typically have not been monsters but (demi-)humans).
The monk's abundant step is unlikely to save anyone but the monk, as he can only take himself.
That's true if saving s.o. means getting away (which is often quite important) but the ability might let the monk save others as well by letting him get somewhere where he can do something important to help them (like opening some door, getting at an important enemy, retrieving an important item etc.)
Wholeness of body is no different to drinking a potion, and every adventurer should be carrying one, and so on.
Potions get consumed though and are not replenished by resting 8 hours :-)
I'm assuming that the party not always has access to a potion shop.Actually quite a few people in the "monks are fine" crowd have conceded after being shown the figures that the monk is not, in fact, fine.
I concede that the monk is not fine but I'm certainly not of the opinion that the monk sucks. Actually I think there is a third crowd, or at least it is my position: "monks don't suck -- but they need some fine-tuning to become fine" (like fixing FoB to be like interpreted by most, abundant step shouldn't end the round, wholeness of body should be a swift action and some other details, and they should probably get a bonus to hit for unarmed attacks and maneuvers of something like +1 per 4 levels. I do not consider them MAD, though, but there is no need to discuss that here again :-)
The amusing thing, Liam, is that I am not really of the opinion that the monk sucks, although I do think some of his abilities do. I like the class, I play it when I can, and I can make it work (barely). It's just it's painfully weak design, and it feels as if there is a concerted effort sometimes to sideline the monk by letting every other class be better at being a monk.
My point about abundant step is that it only works as intended with a feat tax. How many class abilities do that? Only those for the monk.
The amusing thing, Liam, is that I am not really of the opinion that the monk sucks, although I do think some of his abilities do. I like the class, I play it when I can, and I can make it work (barely). It's just it's painfully weak design, and it feels as if there is a concerted effort sometimes to sideline the monk by letting every other class be better at being a monk.
My point about abundant step is that it only works as intended with a feat tax. How many class abilities do that? Only those for the monk.
Yes, I like the class, too. I did play a monk back in AD&D and now selected one as my first Pathfinder character.
I agree that some of the monk's class abilities have problems, like abundant step (I even tried to isolate this common complaint into its own thread) or wholeness of body being a standard action (and healing only 1 hp/level), but nonetheless I think they are still useful.
At least you can first execute a standard action and then make an abundant step (that's better than Dimension door). Actually I always interpreted abundant step being a move action as "not ending the round".
They are useful, and they look nice...until you see the toys the paladin, ranger, fighter, barbarian and even the rogue got to play with.
|
|
Okay, 1st level is mostly done. I haven't calculated out how long it would take for the different builds to take down Genero. But the Offensive monk didn't do too bad. He was middle of the pack. Now to stat out 6th and see how that works out for us.
Here is the link again if you need it. Monk by the Numbers
...and our anecdotal experience of playing monks, but that's not quantifiable. Math is quantifiable. When you have two people, one saying "monks have a problem" and the other saying "monks are overpowered" how do resolve the two? Maths don't lie.
They don't tell the whole story either, which is really my point. Please figure out the equation that tells me the advantage of having 4 skill points per level vice 2, on top of more class skills.
Actually you can, to a limited extent, quantify these things. Look at the list of monsters for a given CR, then see how many have these abilities, and how the monk and other classes would approach these monsters as a problem.
Except now we're back to anecdotal.
There are some things you can say, though. The monk's abundant step is unlikely to save anyone but the monk, as he can only take himself.
Unless he uses it to open a door from the inside, disarm the trap from the other side, get on top of the unscalable tower and drop a rope etc. What's the formula for those types of benefits?
Wholeness of body is no different to drinking a potion, and every adventurer should be carrying one, and so on.
Okay, now factor in Wholeness of Body is a swift action that doesn't provoke and a potion is two moves that does.
Of course not, that thread gave every advantage - cover, unlimited ammunition, etc - to the monk.
Well if cover is considered "every advantage" needed for a monk to defeat a fighter, I think that's proof enough Monks are fine. And we didn't use unlimited ammo. It was done with what a monk could carry.
Each side were modifying their builds to counter the other one constantly.
This isn't true at all. I used the very first Monk build presented the entire time. I used that build and I only used half of the monk's available feats. It was the fighters that continually had to rebuild.
As far as "gaming the system" I raised the two most important monk stats, DEX and WIS. Show anyone who's never played the game the monk, 9 out of 10 will tell you DEX and WIS are important for the monk.
No the monk Jodokai is talking about had to play perfectly no slip ups. Not one mistake of movement or stategy and had to use a crossbow to ping the fighter builds to death. There was one fighter build it couldn't beat because that build had an AC so high that the monk can only hit on a natural 20.
Not totally accurate. The monk won without ever using a single point of Ki. As I mentioned, the build also only used half its feats. There was TONS of room for error built in.
Again, I have no doubts that a purely mathematical answer will show a monk lagging behind the fighter because where the monk shines is in actual play, in the unquantifiable aspects like mobility allowing more flanking opportunities, and fewer attack of opportunities, like evasion, like 90' base speed, being able to jump 90' straight up or straight across.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wholeness of Body is a Standard Action, not Swift Action.
I'm currently reading through the thread at a rather sedate pace. Currently, I'm very much so enjoying myself and laughing at all the Schrodingery-doo going on. I'm on Page 5 at the moment, but I just got down to StreamOfTheSky's poisoner monk if that Bolded part I caught out of the corner of my is any indication of where he/she is going with it.
There are some things you can say, though. The monk's abundant step is unlikely to save anyone but the monk, as he can only take himself.Unless he uses it to open a door from the inside, disarm the trap from the other side, get on top of the unscalable tower and drop a rope etc. What's the formula for those types of benefits?
Monks can only disarm ordinary traps if they somehow decide to take disable, and make the DC. That situation is a cornercase at best. How many times do unscalable towers come up in actual games? You might have some guy with full plate who can't climbe to save his life, but by the time the monk gets dimension door climbing is a non-issue even for the full plate guy. This assumes a party of decent gamers however. I have ran games for new people(started at low levels, made it to the teens), and at no point is climbing an issue at that level. Even the worse(in my opinion) group could have handled that.
As for the monk's other abilities they are rarely useful if ever. Any time the monk has supposedly saved the day another class could have done so. I have yet to see anyone say "Man, I wish someone had taken a level in monk or played the monk class".
Any situation I see a party with a monk thanking the monk for escaping is normally a situation the party would not be in if another class had been chosen.
That is why I always ask what can I expect the monk to do?
Going back to your first example. If the monk can DD then so can the caster. Heck if a rogue was there he would have picked the lock and disabled the trap. A rope used to climb a wall makes the DC a 5. The highest DC for a wall without a rope and GM fiat is a 25. Nobody in a level 12 party can fly or teleport, except for the monk? I am not going to go with the theory that everybody can and should fly by level 10, but that a stretch for many groups well below level 13.
Sure this is just me, but when I chose 3rd level spells for my Wizard when he made 5th, I picked up Haste and Fly. But my GM also has this nasty habit of ambushing the party with Wolves and, funnily enough, the biggest Wolf or highest concentration is always right where my Wizard is. Odd how that works out.
I'm currently reading through the thread at a rather sedate pace. Currently, I'm very much so enjoying myself and laughing at all the Schrodingery-doo going on. I'm on Page 5 at the moment, but I just got down to StreamOfTheSky's poisoner monk if that Bolded part I caught out of the corner of my is any indication of where he/she is going with it.
Just please do realize, the "poisoner monk" I suggested was my earnest attempt, within the (incredibly stupid) rules bounding the level 20 deathmatch, to try and make the monk with the highest possible chance of winning that I could. I still thought Fighter was the clear favorite, but I wanted to try devil's advocate.
The resulting concept was downright cheesy and silly and a one-trick pony (coating the body all over and tons of shuriken with as many poisons as possible, hitting and running as the fighter approached, and hoping he fails some fort saves from sheer volume of them) of the highest order. Not only that, the sheer expense of the poisons and inability to do much other than get a foe to eventually fail some fort saves means that such a monk would be simply unplayably bad in any actual game.
That said monk could end up winning against the fighter with near 50-50 odds doesn't really prove much of anything.
I'm currently reading through the thread at a rather sedate pace. Currently, I'm very much so enjoying myself and laughing at all the Schrodingery-doo going on. I'm on Page 5 at the moment, but I just got down to StreamOfTheSky's poisoner monk if that Bolded part I caught out of the corner of my is any indication of where he/she is going with it.Just please do realize, the "poisoner monk" I suggested was my earnest attempt, within the (incredibly stupid) rules bounding the level 20 deathmatch, to try and make the monk with the highest possible chance of winning that I could. I still thought Fighter was the clear favorite, but I wanted to try devil's advocate.
The resulting concept was downright cheesy and silly and a one-trick pony (coating the body all over and tons of shuriken with as many poisons as possible, hitting and running as the fighter approached, and hoping he fails some fort saves from sheer volume of them) of the highest order. Not only that, the sheer expense of the poisons and inability to do much other than get a foe to eventually fail some fort saves means that such a monk would be simply unplayably bad in any actual game.
That said monk could end up winning against the fighter with near 50-50 odds doesn't really prove much of anything.
Haven't read your post yet, I'm taking my time to enjoy this thread. I particularly love Ciretose being stubborn about DDing in and attacking, despite the fact it can't be done. Or that he insists Wholeness of Body is an excellent use of actions and Ki.
Also, my absolute favorite though, is the pure metagame of the actions. No one knows that the enmey 'readied an action' all you see is he didn't act. Therefore, from the players perspective, you must, without metagaming, assume that he hasn't acted yet. You don't actually know each others initiative scores, so you don't actually know when each person will act. You can't just assume that because he hasn't acted yet, he's readied an action to attack.
But so far, everyone that is pro monk is acting under the premise of "If he readies an action, I'll just sit back and pepper him with ranged attacks until he does something else". Pure. Metagame. Cheese.
I'm honestly really surprised no one called anyone on it. So far, the Fighter fans didn't do much metagame. Mostly it's Flachion + switch hitter archer = autodeath to Monk. There's been slight variations because different people are posting under different assumed builds, but most of them have been consistently saying the same thing over and over. They also aren't metagaming either. If the Monk comes close, I kill him with my sword, if he stays far away, I kill him with my bow. Either way, I kill him.
[Edit] Also, once I saw the "is poison evil" thing, I immediately knew what you were doing and what the end result would be. My first thought that popped in my head was from a long time ago in 3.5 when a new Monk player decided to put contact poison on his fist to poison an enemy wizard. *Facepalm*
He was too-low of a level to be immune to poison, and forgot about that. So he applied the poison, and then failed his save and poisoned himself.
[Edit] Uhp, Mastar Arminas called Ciretose on it, so he completely ignores it and tries to say it's not metagame to 'just know' that he's got a readied action. Typical response really.
Saw the poisoner, I loved how 'in awe' everyone was about your amazing build :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...and our anecdotal experience of playing monks, but that's not quantifiable. Math is quantifiable. When you have two people, one saying "monks have a problem" and the other saying "monks are overpowered" how do resolve the two? Maths don't lie.They don't tell the whole story either, which is really my point. Please figure out the equation that tells me the advantage of having 4 skill points per level vice 2, on top of more class skills.
You need at least six skill-ranks per level to make a decent scout (Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Perception, Stealth are must haves, Escape Artist, Linguistics, Slight-of-Hand, Sense Motive and Swim are important additions), the monk has four, and there's your math right there. Two extra skill-ranks and a couple more class skills would make the monk a decent scout.
Actually you can, to a limited extent, quantify these things. Look at the list of monsters for a given CR, then see how many have these abilities, and how the monk and other classes would approach these monsters as a problem.Except now we're back to anecdotal.
No, anecdotal is when you start the argument with "In my experience..." while looking at actual monsters gives you a better grasp of the usefulness of abilities. Ki-strike (lawful) for example, you can tell it's not much use if you look through the Bestiaries and see that there are very few creatures with DR/lawful (strangely, there are not that many).
There are some things you can say, though. The monk's abundant step is unlikely to save anyone but the monk, as he can only take himself.Unless he uses it to open a door from the inside, disarm the trap from the other side, get on top of the unscalable tower and drop a rope etc. What's the formula for those types of benefits?
It's in the number of fourth level spells the part wizard can cast.
Sadly, every example you cite the wizard can 'do it better' at lower level. If the monk can't open locks or disarm traps the first two are moot and you are better off dimension door-ing the whole party. The 'unscalable tower' is unscalable for a reason, so better to teleport everyone to the top.
Wholeness of body is no different to drinking a potion, and every adventurer should be carrying one, and so on.Okay, now factor in Wholeness of Body is a swift action that doesn't provoke and a potion is two moves that does.
Oh I wish it WAS a swift action! It would be awesomely useful if it was a swift action! Sadly, it;s a standard action to use wholeness of body.
Of course not, that thread gave every advantage - cover, unlimited ammunition, etc - to the monk.Well if cover is considered "every advantage" needed for a monk to defeat a fighter, I think that's proof enough Monks are fine. And we didn't use unlimited ammo. It was done with what a monk could carry.
Not just cover, but cover where you needed it and completely open ground between the cover, so the monk can make most use of shot-on-the-run with a crossbow. How many monk players take that combo? Only ones metagaming for that ONE scenario.
Being able to build a monk that can win one specific scenario is not the issue. Building one that can make the most of many different scenarios, THAT's the issue.
Yeah, I decided to stop reading that thread when people started arguing that venerable age is a class feature. Timeless Body lets you ignore age penalties after you achieved it. I saw a number of times that people claimed it's not realistic to get to 20th level as a 20 year old, but they are then completely ignoring the fact that 17th level, the time you get Timeless Body is only 3 level lower. So those Monks are getting to 17th level before they accumulate any age penalties what-so-ever. Only after they've attained 17th level as a college freshmen, do they then go on to 20th and live to venerable age.
So, again, in order to play a Monk, you gotta game the system.
|
|
Just please do realize, the "poisoner monk" I suggested was my earnest attempt, within the (incredibly stupid) rules bounding the level 20 deathmatch, to try and make the monk with the highest possible chance of winning that I could. I still thought Fighter was the clear favorite, but I wanted to try devil's advocate.
Yeah, I kinda stopped at, "No magic items, because they come out in the wash." Well that and by the time that popped up, I decided I wanted to build everything myself. Some of the point of all this back and forth is the monk needs feats and magic items to catch up to the other classes' abilities without magic items.
The resulting concept was downright cheesy and silly and a one-trick pony (coating the body all over and tons of shuriken with as many poisons as possible, hitting and running as the fighter approached, and hoping he fails some fort saves from sheer volume of them) of the highest order.
Hey! Continuity Comics' ARMOR! If part of his armor is shiny, then it is either some throwing star, knife, or other implement of pointy doom! He is pretty much what the monk should be! Though it must be a pain to retrieve all those weapons he's thrown to reconstitute his armor after ever fight.
Dabbler there are some things that no matter how many times I say them, you refuse to acknowledge and continue on with your misconceptions. I'm going to try one more time to highlight the things you keep saying that just aren't accurate:
1. The monk I used only used half the feats a 20th level monk gets. Even if I did make a monk only usable for this fight, you have half your feats to be a "normal" monk. The fighter used ALL 21 feats just to survive.
2. I didn't design the monk for this fight. I didn't need shot-on-the-run and showed how I would do it without it. Everything was stuff I would take on most monk builds. It was the fighter not the monk that had to be designed specifically for this fight. The fighter.
3. A Fighter hits harder than a Ranger, A Druid casts better spells than a Ranger and has a better pet than a Ranger. A rouge has more skill points than a ranger, ergo Ranger is useless. You must agree with that statement. If you do not agree with that statement, then stop using that argument against the monk.
In closing, does anyone remember the old 90s arcade fighting games? They typically had 3 fighters, the big slow but strong guy, the small fast but weak guy, and the middle guy. The monk is the middle guy. Not as strong as the big guy, but faster, not as fast as the little guy, but stronger. It takes 2 or 3 classes to do what a Monk can do in 1. You can call that useless if you want, but I call that utility.
So I don't see where it takes 2 or 3 classes to replace the monk, a ranger can do everything a monk can and brings a literal pony.
So being psychic enough to have exactly the right spell at the time you need it once a day is equal to being able to do it 12 times per day...
And a Ranger's mobility isn't even on the same planet as the monk's.
|
So I don't see where it takes 2 or 3 classes to replace the monk, a ranger can do everything a monk can and brings a literal pony.So being psychic enough to have exactly the right spell at the time you need it once a day is equal to being able to do it 12 times per day...
And a Ranger's mobility isn't even on the same planet as the monk's.
Being able to pull out a wand for the situation you need is always nice...longstrider has a long duration so it isn't unreasonable to cast it on yourself preemptively. Same as a wizard that casts Mage Armor.
1. The monk I used only used half the feats a 20th level monk gets. Even if I did make a monk only usable for this fight, you have half your feats to be a "normal" monk. The fighter used ALL 21 feats just to survive.
Actually, my elf switch-hitter didn't use a handful of his feats to beat your monk. Specifically his iron will feats and ranged feats. Those were chosen as adventuring feats.
2. I didn't design the monk for this fight. I didn't need shot-on-the-run and showed how I would do it without it. Everything was stuff I would take on most monk builds. It was the fighter not the monk that had to be designed specifically for this fight. The fighter.
I said it in the other thread, and I'll say it again here. That elven switch-hitter build was an adventuring build I didn't get to play in an actual game... as in from level 1 up. I don't think your monk can succeed -- at least on the level as this fighter -- at that same game... Especially not when you take into account the Venerable age + Timeless Body piece of that build.
You need at least six skill-ranks per level to make a decent scout (Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Perception, Stealth are must haves, Escape Artist, Linguistics, Slight-of-Hand, Sense Motive and Swim are important additions), the monk has four, and there's your math right there. Two extra skill-ranks and a couple more class skills would make the monk a decent scout.
I don't agree with Knowledge (dungeoneering) as a must have. So even one extra skill-rank would be sufficient to make a decent scout, while two would be better. Getting two extra skill-ranks is no problem, though: just play a human monk and use the favored class bonus for skills. Another option would be an Int 12 (my characters tend to have an Int of 12+ anyway).
Granted, now the fighter might be 2 hp per level ahead (1 for his better HD and 1 if he uses the favored class bonus for hp, leaving him even more skill-starved). Still, just about one CR appropriate blast spell catching both the fighter and the monk in its area suffices to bring the fighter down to the monk's hp (1d6 per level for an average of 3.5 dmg per level where the fighter suffers half more than the monk, i.e. 1.75 dmg per level) due to evasion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being able to pull out a wand for the situation you need is always nice...longstrider has a long duration so it isn't unreasonable to cast it on yourself preemptively. Same as a wizard that casts Mage Armor.So I don't see where it takes 2 or 3 classes to replace the monk, a ranger can do everything a monk can and brings a literal pony.So being psychic enough to have exactly the right spell at the time you need it once a day is equal to being able to do it 12 times per day...
And a Ranger's mobility isn't even on the same planet as the monk's.
But where do all these wands come from? Not everyone plays in a world with magic shops.
Longstrider is a nice spell but even for a ranger of level 9 it only lasts 5 hours. And let's not forget that a ranger wearing medium armor has a movement of 20.
Don't get me wrong: I think the ranger is a great class and has some great spells. I just don't like it when the monk is made worse than he is (and I do agree that he needs a little love, but I think that a little love at the right spots would be fine).
That whole wand thing is tricky, though, because that's a setting or campaign specific restriction. Something to keep in mind, but not something anywhere near universally true.
I don't agree with Knowledge (dungeoneering) as a must have. So even one extra skill-rank would be sufficient to make a decent scout, while two would be better. Getting two extra skill-ranks is no problem, though: just play a human monk and use the favored class bonus for skills. Another option would be an Int 12 (my characters tend to have an Int of 12+ anyway).You need at least six skill-ranks per level to make a decent scout (Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Perception, Stealth are must haves, Escape Artist, Linguistics, Slight-of-Hand, Sense Motive and Swim are important additions), the monk has four, and there's your math right there. Two extra skill-ranks and a couple more class skills would make the monk a decent scout.
Granted, you could maybe get away with less but your're cutting it very tight, and it's better to have the leeway and be good at some things and not just passable. My point is, two skill-points (and some more class skills) would make a lot of difference in giving the monk more non-combat versatility and use for the party.
|
|
I don't agree with most scout builds that doesn't at least have a couple of the big 4 knowledges. In fact having all 4 would be ideal: nature, arcana, planes and religion. Does it matter what the scout see if he has no effing clue what he is looking at. Oh I see a skeleton, party thinks one 1/2 CR creature. Then when the party charges in the cleric screams holy sh*t it is a Demi Lich.
That makes a scout pretty damn useless, of course unless the scout metagames like crazy.
Who, us meta-game? Never!
Besides, that is what the headband of intellect is for. If you have the cash free, that is. Though you're probably already bumping Wisdom to shore up that Will Save. Might as well have the technician slot in some skills while he's tinkering around in your noggin'.
Yeah, I decided to stop reading that thread when people started arguing that venerable age is a class feature. Timeless Body lets you ignore age penalties after you achieved it. I saw a number of times that people claimed it's not realistic to get to 20th level as a 20 year old, but they are then completely ignoring the fact that 17th level, the time you get Timeless Body is only 3 level lower. So those Monks are getting to 17th level before they accumulate any age penalties what-so-ever. Only after they've attained 17th level as a college freshmen, do they then go on to 20th and live to venerable age.
To be fair... The monk was a dwarf, they have fairly long lifespans. And IME, adventurers gain levels at a crazy rate comparedto age.
And in my guy's "backstory," I described him as reaching level 20 fighting across the country side, then going into retirement, only to come out of it to "teach this punk kid fighter a thing or two about fighting smart (ie, cheap as hell:) )" for how he got to that point in his life. You don't have to hit 17, wait around till venerable, then get the last 3 levels. Just plain levelling to 20 and sitting on your ass in retirement for decades will work just as well.
So, again, in order to play a Monk, you gotta game the system.
Yup, definitely agreed there.
|
|
Okay, so the 1st and 6th level builds are up on the notes page and the base sheet. Tomorrow, after some sleep, I'll stat out the monsters at 6, 11, and 16. Then I should have up to 16th done by mid afternoon!
Then I'll collapse and consider 20th around this weekend. Though the work I've done today leaves me only really needing to buy level appropriate gear for everyone and stat out the monsters. The hardest part about the monsters is determining what special attacks and defenses are the most common at each level (i.e. DR, SR, flying, and the like).
I should be fully done come Monday. Then we can argue the results to our hearts content!
I understand Stream, what I was said was basically a summary of what I was reading. A lot of people seemed to think that any Monk, regardless of Race, would be able to hit level 17 before acquiring age penalties, but those last 3 levels could take between 50 and 500 years to gain, depending on the Race.
Does anyone have a link to Jodokai's monk build or does it not exist?
Does anyone have a link to Jodokai's monk build or does it not exist?
Does anyone have a link to Jodokai's monk build or does it not exist?Here it is!
I remember that silly PvP idea. I thought he made a monk for an actual adventure like Ciretose and Dabbler did.
I remember that silly PvP idea. I thought he made a monk for an actual adventure like Ciretose and Dabbler did.Does anyone have a link to Jodokai's monk build or does it not exist?Here it is!
He didn't actually make that Monk, SteamOfTheSky did and I believe Stream mentioned the Monk probably wouldn't actually make it to 20th level. It was designed specifically to kill a fighter, but was more of "I bathe in poison since I'm immune to it, and charge the fighter until he fails a save, and then run away".
Something Streaky didn't account for, is that this would, sort of, work fairly well. If I have 5 arms, and each arm has a poisoned weapon and each weapon's poison is the same poison, then that save becomes progressively harder to save against.
So lets say Generic Poison has a DC 15 Fortitude save. If I hit you 5 times against with 5 different poisoned weapons, each save DC increase by +2. So the first his is DC 15, the second is DC 17, the third is DC 19, the fourth is DC 21 and the fifth is DC 23.
The Monk Stream posted was covered head to toe in Poison for 2 Hands, 2 Knees, 2 Elbows, 2 shoulders, 1 head. For a total of 9 hits. Eventually, all 9 limbs would connect, and that final limb would have a +18 increase to the DC of the poison. So even a DC 10 poison would become deadly. Also, to make further saves against the poison, the DC increases as well. So if the Fighter makes all saves but the 9th blow, that 9th attack also has a +18 to the Save DC for secondary effects as well.
It sounds good in theory I guess, but a 33 fort save is not all that hard to make for a 20th level fighter, not that I want to get into a PvP dicussion.
Something Streaky didn't account for, is that this would, sort of, work fairly well. If I have 5 arms, and each arm has a poisoned weapon and each weapon's poison is the same poison, then that save becomes progressively harder to save against.
Never heard of that one before but reading on the SRD that it extends the duration and increases the save cumulatively, that's plain nasty... It suddenly gives monk's immunity to poison some serious weight imo.
It sounds good in theory I guess, but a 33 fort save is not all that hard to make for a 20th level fighter, not that I want to get into a PvP dicussion.
Sure, a 33 Fort save isn't hard, but the problem comes from that particular PvP was a no magic, Core only PvP. So a Fighter is going to top at around a 18 Fort save. Forcing a Fighter to make a DC 30 Fortitude save is going to be pretty hairy for him. Sure, he'll make it on a 12 or better, but that's less than a 50/50 chance he'll succeed.
However, this concept of a Monk also requires a GM to rule that apply posion to an unarmed strike doesn't set off the Posion itself. Sure the Monk is immune, but if I shoot a Monk with a poisoned crossbow bolt, the bolt is no longer poisoned because it entered his system. Applying Poison to the fist would do the same thing.
It sounds good in theory I guess, but a 33 fort save is not all that hard to make for a 20th level fighter, not that I want to get into a PvP dicussion.
The reason the build worked for that silly PvP discussion was the banning of all "magic items", because apparently they don't matter for two "martial classes" or whatever. So the fighter "only" would have 12 + nonmagical con mod fort save, or 14 + con mod if he took Great Fortitude (which he should). Poisons, on the other hand, are not magical, and thus by the stupid PvP rules, were legal. And can easily have DCs in the mid 20s or higher, so decent ods of working. And con poisons just make the next dose all the easier to get through.
And just to clarify: He would not charge or otherwise move to engage the fighter in melee unless the fighter was an archer build. If a melee fighter, he'd throw poisoned shuriken, then when fighter closed to melee, get in a poisoned stunning fist before teleporting far away as a move action or going ethereal and *waiting* for any poisons that got through to wear down the fighter.
The whole build was intended to prove the monk's kung fu was strong...by avoiding melee combat as much as possible. I did like how it actually made use of the various random monk class features that usually have no synergy at all, like the poison immunity, no age penalties, and teleporting and going ethereal. But above all else, it was a silly impractical build meant to game the silly impractical rules of that PvP set up for all it was worth.
EDIT: Ninja'd by Tels!
Looking interesting so far but i think you forgot to add the weapon training bonus to the two sword level 6 fighter his damage should be +6 not +4 (1 training 2 strength 2 spec 1 magic)
Okay, so the 1st and 6th level builds are up on the notes page and the base sheet.
I confess, I can perhaps build a stronger monk than these, going maxed-out Dex the way your offensive monk has maxed-out strength.
Okay, so the 1st and 6th level builds are up on the notes page and the base sheet.I confess, I can perhaps build a stronger monk than these, going maxed-out Dex the way your offensive monk has maxed-out strength.
Of course we can, but that's not the point. Dabbler, you, Mastar Arminas, myself, Ciretose, Lord Wraithstrike, we can all build Monks that work fairly well. Raniel admitted upthread that he mostly plays Wizards and, though he does play other classes on occasion, he isn't familiar with how to get the most bang for his buck out of those classes.
He's approaching these builds from the viewpoint of a new player. A new player might have played a Fighter before, and knows that Strength = Damage, and therefore take the same route for the Monk. Or maybe he talked with someone who half-recalled some guide on the internet about a Strength Monk and tried to build one of those. Maybe he's trying to build a Muscle Wizard.
Point is, these are supposed to reflect possible builds of players who aren't very familiar with the rules, and don't what feats he should and shouldn't take, but the feats that sound good when first read.
Two-Weapon Fighting feats, for instance, sound great when you first read them, so too do Vital Strike feats (which sound amazing!), but we, as experienced players, know those feats aren't the most optimal choices. Though that has never stopped me in the past from choosing them to fit my concept.
True, I was merely pointing out the possible short-comings.