Monk by the Numbers


Advice

301 to 333 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

That line for the 11th level character should have a belt of giant strength +4, not +2. The price is right, I just put in the wrong number.

MA


Why is the Monk the only one being Enlarged? Wouldn't they all benefit from being large size?

Why is the Monk the only one with his favored class bonus in hit points? Why is the Monk the only one with the Toughness feat? You should be keeping these things the same across the board.

How many spells is the wizard and cleric casting on the Monk? Are the other characters getting an equal amount of love and attention from the spell casters?

If you want a fair comparison, you should try to build them as close to the same as possible. The two-weapon Ranger should have the exact same stats as the offensive Monk. The two-weapon Fighter should have the bare minimum dex for two-weapon fighting feats and then pump Str. Although a finesse two-weapon Fighter seems reasonable too, but then it should be compared to the finesse Monk, not the strength Monk.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that your Monk is super optimized, but it is definitely more optimized than any of the competition.

Grand Lodge

Lord Twig wrote:

Why is the Monk the only one being Enlarged? Wouldn't they all benefit from being large size?

Why is the Monk the only one with his favored class bonus in hit points? Why is the Monk the only one with the Toughness feat? You should be keeping these things the same across the board.

How many spells is the wizard and cleric casting on the Monk? Are the other characters getting an equal amount of love and attention from the spell casters?

If you want a fair comparison, you should try to build them as close to the same as possible. The two-weapon Ranger should have the exact same stats as the offensive Monk. The two-weapon Fighter should have the bare minimum dex for two-weapon fighting feats and then pump Str. Although a finesse two-weapon Fighter seems reasonable too, but then it should be compared to the finesse Monk, not the strength Monk.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that your Monk is super optimized, but it is definitely more optimized than any of the competition.

The monk isn't the only one being enlarged. I've enlarged the barbar, and will be enlarging the ranger and sword and board fighter, as well. The Wis/Dex monk, the dex monk, and the two-weapon fighter are dex based, so they'd take a neg one to dex (their to hit stat), and a neg one to hit, in order to gain a +1 to str and a size category larger damage. I've yet to decide if it would be worth these three weapon finessers time to be enlarged. It should come out positive, just something in my gut said "no." I'll run the numbers and see if that helps.

I put the barbar's favored class into hit points and should probably get Toughness because he relies on HP more than AC. I focused on getting everyone the feats that would help them deal damage first off (e.g. weapon finesse for dex focused, two-weapon rend, etc). The sword and board fighter would have to forgo something to wedge toughness in. The others could get it, but I wasn't as worried since they had Con 14 and d10's for hit dice. I guess if you could convince me that a significant percentage of fighters will automatically take Toughness, as in pick in favor of Combat Feats, I'd be willing to rotate it in.

I got the impression that a good Con (14) and D10's was satisfactory and not at all "gimpy." The other impression I got was that D8's were "gimpy". I'd have to sacrifice else where to get a 14 Con, so Favored Class AND Toughness. Truth be told, with the Fighters, they can't really compete skill point wise anyway. I guess being happy with the three (plus one for human) would be fine and I could put the favored class point in HP. Though when I do, I refuse to even acknowledge any whinging about "why does the fighter only get 3 skill points and not 4 like the monk." Seriously.

Besides, I got the impression the monk was pretty much "damned if I do, damned if I don't." 4 skills is knocked because it isn't the Ranger's 6 or the Rogue's 8. Nor does the monk's skill list include a few key skills, like Knowledge (Dungeoneering). The Monk's D8's are deemed far inferior to the Ranger and Fighter's d10's and the Barbar's d12. So if I go up one way, I'm missing shoring up in the other. Even with Toughness, the monk is still using a valuable resource to equal his comrades in arms, not exceed them.

As far as spells are concerned, I've tried to limit what was available. I should have put in the notes what each PC gets. I include an appropriate level Pearl of Power if I'm expecting the wizard or cleric to provide a buff. I'll have to look, but I believe I had the Dex/Wis monk receive Greater Magic Weapon on his fists 11th. Beyond that, in combat spells are not assumed but can be extrapolated based on the +1 Attack, +1 Hit, and +1 damage lines.

The two-weapon ranger is all strength no dex, since he is qualifying for twf feat chain using combat style. The two-weapon fighter is all dex no strength and finessing, like the Dex monk. The sword and board fighter was a balance of strength and dex, to qualify for the twf feats organically (i.e. not with a dex belt), like the Dex/Wis (or "Maneuver") monk. The sword and board fighter and dex/wis monk raised one stat by level (dex), while raising the other (str or wis) by stat item. That mostly came out of my belief that relying on magic items to satisfy requirements is optimizing. My thinking in each build was "what do I want this one to do?". I wasn't thinking "okay, I've built an all strength monk, now I have to build an all strength melee." The only "thought" was that when it came to feats, the monk gets twf, itwf, gtwf, and double slice, so each of my twf full BAB classes should do the same. I didn't run the DPR numbers and then pick the most damaging combination (e.g. forgoing gtwf for two-weapon rend). However, you're at least the third person to complain that pushing dex hurts the fighter, so I will be changing it.

I wasn't setting out to force the fighters into a MAD situation. I wasn't trying to "gimp" or bring down the fighter. I was trying to make decisions without the benefit of advice, optimization boards, or build guides. The decision to balance strength and dex was one honestly come by and not an "anti-optimization" or "gimp" attempt. The decision on the fighters' stats was different than my decision not to limit the magic weapons to +1 and go energy abilities the rest of the way, and rely on Greater Magic Weapon to get a higher +X weapon. The GMW decision WAS an "anti-optimization" decision, as I feel this is not something the majority of players would do naturally, especially since a +X from GMW doesn't act like the +Y from a +Y weapon.

The other methodological change I'll be making is the way I handle DR. I'll show everyone beat DR with one weapon, and with two weapons (except for the barbar cause he's got just the one weapon). I will also show everyone failing to beat DR. Those three lines should give an even approach to the test.

As far as seperate comparisions, I won't do it. It has eaten enough time getting to this point. If folks can't look at the table and chose to see just the Ranger versus the Str Monk, or just the Dex monk versus the two-weapon fighter, that is on them. The data is there. If someone wants to get mad that data is presented all at once, I'm sure they would just find a reason to get mad if I produced 5 or more documents separating out the data into "comparable" builds.

I also noticed upstream someone mentioned something about these being run in games. I took that to mean 5 built PCs with actual players at an actual table rolling dice against CR appropriate encounters. That is playtesting. If I don't have time to sort out data that is coming from one DPR calculator, I sure don't have the time to run seven iterations of a game of five PCs at the benchmarks of 1st, 6th, 11th, and 16th. I just don't have the time to do meaningful data sets. And no, once each is not a meaningful data set. Try more like three times each, which would be 84 encounters, to account for the randomization of rolling dice. And let's face it running each PC with his four party members through three similar encounters at each of the benchmarks (7 PCs x 3 encounters x 4 levels) would be at the low end. How many times have folks berrated the Mythbusters for "only" doing 3, or 5, or 7 data points per test. But you want to take my builds and do that yourself? More power to you!


Let's just look at the Strength Monk and Ranger first.

Monk's stats:
Str 18 (16 + 2), Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Ranger's stats:
Str 18 (16 +2), Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 9

Now if you have already fixed this somewhere and I and missed it, I apologize, but the Ranger is short one point. His Wis should be 14 and his Cha 8. This will improve his Will save by one and he won't later need to put a point there to get his highest level spells. Basically his stats should be identical to the Monk's.

Next you should switch his Con and Dex. If it is a good idea for the Monk, then it is a good idea for the Ranger. This will help him with Ref, AC and other things and, as he already get's more skill points than any other class here, he can easily afford to put his favored class bonus in hit points to make up for a little less Con.

As for the Fighter. If you want to put the favored class point in skills, that's fine. Just switch his stats around to be like this:
Str 16, Dex 16 (14+2), Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8

For the two-weapon Fighter he should take the full two-weapon fighting chain of feats. He should still have extra feats for things like Iron Will and Toughness. For the sword-and-board Fighter he really should only take the first two-weapon fighting feat and ignore the rest. He has a shield for defence, he shouldn't try to go full shield and full two-weapon fighting. That is just too feat intensive. He should save some of his feats for defence since that should be what a sword-and-board Fighter is all about.

Finally, I didn't mean to suggest that you should do a different break down for comparisons between the builds. I only wanted to suggest that everyone try to compare apples-to-apples when doing their own comparisons. Sorry I phrased that badly.

I do appreciate that you put a lot of work into this. So I hope you will view the above as my attempt at constructive criticism and not just an attempt to dismiss your work.

Grand Lodge

Lord Twig wrote:

Let's just look at the Strength Monk and Ranger first.

Monk's stats:
Str 18 (16 + 2), Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 14, Cha 8
Ranger's stats:
Str 18 (16 +2), Dex 12, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 9

Now if you have already fixed this somewhere and I and missed it, I apologize, but the Ranger is short one point. His Wis should be 14 and his Cha 8. This will improve his Will save by one and he won't later need to put a point there to get his highest level spells. Basically his stats should be identical to the Monk's.

Next you should switch his Con and Dex. If it is a good idea for the Monk, then it is a good idea for the Ranger. This will help him with Ref, AC and other things and, as he already get's more skill points than any other class here, he can easily afford to put his favored class bonus in hit points to make up for a little less Con.

As for the Fighter. If you want to put the favored class point in skills, that's fine. Just switch his stats around to be like this:
Str 16, Dex 16 (14+2), Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8

For the two-weapon Fighter he should take the full two-weapon fighting chain of feats. He should still have extra feats for things like Iron Will and Toughness. For the sword-and-board Fighter he really should only take the first two-weapon fighting feat and ignore the rest. He has a shield for defence, he shouldn't try to go full shield and full two-weapon fighting. That is just too feat intensive. He should save some of his feats for defence since that should be what a sword-and-board Fighter is all about.

Finally, I didn't mean to suggest that you should do a different break down for comparisons between the builds. I only wanted to suggest that everyone try to compare apples-to-apples when doing their own comparisons. Sorry I phrased that badly.

I do appreciate that you put a lot of work into this. So I hope you will view the above as my attempt at constructive criticism and not just an attempt to dismiss your work.

I appreciate the criticism. It is necessary to this little endeavor. Without you guys pointing out outright mistakes like the Ranger's stats, or conceptual ones like the sword and board fighter's feat choices, I wouldn't be able to make this project produce results that are useable.

I like your logic on the Ranger's stats and will use it. I'm not sure why I didn't just replicate the stats from the offensive monk, particularly the Cha and Wis. The switch in dex and con was to give the Ranger more HP, though as you point out, he's got enough skill points that swinging the favored class bonus wouldn't matter.

One of the hard things to balance is seeing where things work in a logical manner, like the stats, and where they might stray the line into something only done by those with real system mastery. After all, the point was to try to build all of these PCs as someone new to the game would. The real problem is all my system mastery is borrowed. This is fine in that it is part of the point of the exercise. It hurts that I may not be going far enough to ensure all the characters are combat effective. So, I'm not skirting the line between combat-effective and optimized like I wanted.

Some of the problem may also come in running comprehensive enough numbers. I need to make sure I show the numbers relating to DR for example. Wraithstrike helped with the Medusa's Strike problem. The enlarged monk was one I spotted. I had extra gold when equipping the monk and figured "why not?". I then realized I should have a similar comparison, because if nothing else, the wizard was on hand to enlarge the other PCs in combat. But I figure it will take a while before I put this down and say "there! done! I ain't doing no more!"

Grand Lodge

I really shouldn't borrow trouble, I've got enough already, but should I somehow include miss chance into the calculation? It seems it would factor across the board. Everyone would take an equal amount of reduction in their DPR.

I still haven't dealt too heavily with maneuvers beyond putting the line in on percent chance to succeed. Is that enough? After all, not everyone has maneuvers, though I originally set out to make sure everyone could at least do one maneuver well (aka Great X feat). I haven't really built a Maneuver Master monk or fighter from Core.

Thoughts.


New players may not be as bad as you think. Probably someone else is teaching them the game and they'll have advise for the first few levels. Obvious low level pitfalls will be pointed out to them unless they're in a BB game where everyone including the GM is new.


Raniel Kavilion wrote:
But you want to take my builds and do that yourself? More power to you!

I thought we agreed to only run the test at a certain level, 13th or 15 IIRC. You should remember we already had DPR numbers. I think you also should have handed the other characters builds off to other posters. I did volunteer to do the fighter. I still am volunteering. I also listed potential pitfalls up front. The monk has not bypassed any of them.

It also seems there was some confusion on what you were trying to prove. As an example building a fighter as a secondary fighter is not something that I would expect in a real game.

If you want to continue this we can, but you might need to restate your goals.


And I will add, I still think that this idea has merit, and would be happy to help out. Like wraithstrike, though, I do not think that your 'secondary fighter' is a build anyone would realistically make. A second fighter may have a different focus than a front-liner, but that's not the same thing.

Grand Lodge

wraithstrike wrote:
Raniel Kavilion wrote:
But you want to take my builds and do that yourself? More power to you!

I thought we agreed to only run the test at a certain level, 13th or 15 IIRC. You should remember we already had DPR numbers. I think you also should have handed the other characters builds off to other posters. I did volunteer to do the fighter. I still am volunteering. I also listed potential pitfalls up front. The monk has not bypassed any of them.

It also seems there was some confusion on what you were trying to prove. As an example building a fighter as a secondary fighter is not something that I would expect in a real game.

If you want to continue this we can, but you might need to restate your goals.

Well, one of the issues that I've seen on having more than one person build the different classes is others then dismiss the efforts as "that isn't the class, it is your abilities to optimize." I felt that if one person did most of the heavy lifting and the rest helped proofread, there would be less room for such criticism. Besides most of the hard work is done. Now it is a matter of correcting some mistakes made on my part.

As far as what I'm trying to prove, it is a question of can the monk contribute to a party. The secondary fighter issue is not about the Fighter fitting the role of being a secondary vs. primary fighter* than does the monk and his two-weapon fighting work. The monk's flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. The devs are making decisions, building new rules items based on the "fairness" of how the monk's flurry stacks up against other two-weapon fighters. Statements have been made that monks at best compare to non-favored enemy fighting Rangers and non-smiting Paladins, and that comparison still doesn't see the monk coming out well.

As far as levels was concerned, I was aiming at capping it at 16th. Since I had to build past 1st, 6th, and 11th anyway, and the 11 to 16 stretch is around where most folks peter out, I figured I would run the numbers for each of those points to show the curve of the monk's performance as compared to the curve of the other classes' performances.

*On the issue of primary vs. secondary fighter, I'm not trying to water down the fighter to any level. I figured on making two-weapon fighters to match the monk's abilities of flurrying and having good AC. So I produced a sword and board and two-weapon fighter. It wasn't a matter of "bringing the fighter down" as replicating the basic attack mechanic. If the fighter is "gimped" becoming a two-weapon fighter, then maybe one of the problems with the monk is that he's a two-weapon fighter, even if the monk gets steadily increasing damage dice.

Liberty's Edge

Tels wrote:


(J/K Ciretose, I know we all contribute to those)

No worries :)

Liberty's Edge

You can make a competitive monk with weapons and archetypes.

It is very, very difficult to do so with an unarmed build, and even then with two equally skilled builders, the unarmed monk will lag significantly.

I'll take a challenge from anyone to build an unarmed combat focused monk from 1st through 10th vs another class, also built 1st through 10th. You take the monk, I'll take the other class.

20 pb, following WBL, using items purchased for price or personally crafted. We will compare them to each of the creatures in the bestiary of the CR at that level (one liners about if it is a good or bad match up)

I think the monk will start off fine and drift behind once they can't afford equal level gear.


Ciretose, don't forget Raniel is purposefully restricting himself to the Core Rule Book only because he wants to find out if it's the base Monk itself that is bad. We all know many archetypes are great, but he wants to find out just where, exactly, the Core Monk stands.


Raniel Kavilion wrote:
Well, one of the issues that I've seen on having more than one person build the different classes is others then dismiss the efforts as "that isn't the class, it is your abilities to optimize." I felt that if one person did most of the heavy lifting and the rest helped proofread, there would be less room for such criticism.

Well not really, because one person can rig it, and one person might be good at optimizing one class but another.

The fairest way is to throw it open and challenge all-comers to make their builds and then pick the best. That way, somebody is bound to be able to make a decent optimized X, and somebody is able to make a decent optimized Y, and you can compare them.

Grand Lodge

Dabbler wrote:
Raniel Kavilion wrote:
Well, one of the issues that I've seen on having more than one person build the different classes is others then dismiss the efforts as "that isn't the class, it is your abilities to optimize." I felt that if one person did most of the heavy lifting and the rest helped proofread, there would be less room for such criticism.

Well not really, because one person can rig it, and one person might be good at optimizing one class but another.

The fairest way is to throw it open and challenge all-comers to make their builds and then pick the best. That way, somebody is bound to be able to make a decent optimized X, and somebody is able to make a decent optimized Y, and you can compare them.

I am a little concerned this would just make it a matter of who can optimize best instead of a showing how someone without system mastery would approach the different classes. You make good points, though. So I'll agree, we should make it an open competition.

Should we set it at 11th level, that being when full BAB classes get the third attack? The monk's flurry would also benefit acting as a BAB of 11 at that point. Using wealth by level guidelines, no item larger than 1/3 total wealth, though no larger than 1/4 would be preferred. 20 point buy for stats as that is the Pathfinder Society Standard.

That just leaves the circumstances of the test. There will be four existing party members looking for a fifth. A frontline fighter, a healing/buffing cleric, a wizard focused on control with some ability to buff (haste and maybe a GMW at the beginning of the day), and a rogue who has a maxed acrobatics to tumble into flank and go to town with sneak attack. Out of combat, the rogue scouts and disarms traps (yay 8 skill points), though a second scout for the wilderness/above ground adventures would be helpful. Other out of combat roles will also be looked at. Points for your build filling a second role, when a similar build doesn't consider out of combat roles.

The assumption will be these folks face CR appropriate encounters at roughly 0-4 encounters per day when travelling overland and a metric ton when dungeon delving. The party is looking to keep combat to a short quick 30 seconds of terror (aka 5 rounds). So contribution to combat is a must.

Anything I missed?

Grand Lodge

I did think of one thing, I'd prefer Core Rulebook only as the whole point is about the mechanics of the classes. Adding more rules mechanics (feats, items, spells) would only mask the base problems.

Equally, this shouldn't be a winner take all. There should at least be acknowledge "best in combat", "best out of combat", "best alternate to damage (i.e. maneuvers)", and "Grand Champion (or best all-around)". Though I will say the best out of combat doesn't get to "contribute" to combat by slipping on his ring of invisibility and staying out of his teammates' way. Even if all you do is UMD a cure light wounds wand that keeps the frontliner up and allow the cleric to switch from healing to hitting, you've got to contribute to putting the enemy down.


If a lot of people are building, I suggest use core-only builds and non-core builds for those using non-core material - this will enlighten us over how classes have powered up with extra material.

11th level is fine, I would suggest also building at 6th too. These levels are in the 'sweet spot' where play is perhaps most challenging.


Raniel Kavilion wrote:


As far as what I'm trying to prove, it is a question of can the monk contribute to a party. The secondary fighter issue is not about the Fighter fitting the role of being a secondary vs. primary fighter* than does the monk and his two-weapon fighting work. The monk's flurry of blows is two-weapon fighting. The devs are making decisions, building new rules items based on the "fairness" of how the monk's flurry stacks up against other two-weapon fighters. Statements have been made that monks at best compare to non-favored enemy fighting Rangers and non-smiting Paladins, and that comparison still doesn't see the monk coming out well.

The fighter should go sword and board in this case. I don't remember if your build is or not. I would have to check it again. I will also state, that the monk can contribute, but it is difficult especially for newer players. I think the weapon based TWF'er will do more damage, but his AC won't be as high. He will be more reliant on quick kills or the crit based feats to makes things difficult for his opponents.

Quote:


As far as levels was concerned, I was aiming at capping it at 16th. Since I had to build past 1st, 6th, and 11th anyway, and the 11 to 16 stretch is around where most folks peter out, I figured I would run the numbers for each of those points to show the curve of the monk's performance as compared to the curve of the other classes' performances.

That works. Doing the specific comparisons at that level is a good idea. Doing them at every level would take more time than I think most of us have. I can push the ranger I used earlier out to level 16 when that time comes.

PS:In unrelated news I just found out this text box can be resized. :)


what about natural attack builds? There are several classes that offer natural attack builds.

Monk styles (w feral combat training) vs unarmed fighter, vs natural attack ranger would help a lot of people I think. To make them equal, they could be based off of catfolk with 'cats claws'...


Redchigh wrote:

what about natural attack builds? There are several classes that offer natural attack builds.

Monk styles (w feral combat training) vs unarmed fighter, vs natural attack ranger would help a lot of people I think. To make them equal, they could be based off of catfolk with 'cats claws'...

The idea is not to compare every possible build type with different classes. It is just to see how difficult it is for the monk to be useful most of the time compared to other classes.

Liberty's Edge

The question I proposed was what would you do in a combat vs an equal CR creature.

The argument some of us are making is that relative to other classes the basic unarmed monk becomes a spectator vs many equal CR creatures due to inability to hit and/or over come damage reduction in a reasonable way.

The only way to disprove this is to show a build that says it ain't so and challenge others to do the same with another class under the same restrictions.

If I was on the other side of the debate, I would take the monk. I have made monk builds in the past to show that defense is no issue, and that you can be strong defensively while still having a strength focused build.

But I can't make a monk that keeps pace offensively with any of the 3/4 BaB classes.

So prove me wrong.


I think the CR question is a valid one. Thing is, you don't just face equal CRs. You face anything up to CR+4 in some BBEG fights, and mooks at the other extreme.


I thought i would throw a core rulebook 5th wheel party member into the arena i doubt it is fully optimised but i think it will hold it's own

Elven Archer Bard:

Str: 12
Dex: 22 +1 lvls 4,8 +4 magic
Con: 12
Int: 14
Wis: 07
Cha: 16

Hp: 69
Ac: 28
Fort: +7 (+9 with heroism)
Ref: +16 (+18 with heroism)
Wil: +8 (+10 with heroism)

Skills (9/lvl favored class = skill points NOTE: +2 to all skills with heroism not included)
Perform Act 11 (17 = Bluff & Disquise)
Perform Dance 11 (17 = Acrobatics & Fly)
Perform Oratory 11 (17 = Diplomacy & Sense Motive)
Knowledge [all] 3 (19) [just to be clear thats 3 ranks in each skill]
Use Magic Device 11 (17)
Spell Craft 11 (16)
Perception 11 (14)
Stealth 3 (10)

Feats:
1 Point Blank shot
3 Precise Shot
5 Rapid Shot
7 Deadly Aim
9 Manyshot
11 Arcane Strike

Spells 6/6/5/4/3
Lvl 0 Detect Magic, Light, Mending, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Lullaby
Lvl 1 (6)Comprehend Languages, Silent Image, Cure Light Wounds, Expeditious Retreat, Grease, Alarm
Lvl 2 (5)Cure Moderate Wounds, Heroism, Tounges, Silence, Glitterdust
Lvl 3 (5)Dispel Magic, Haste, Tiny Hut, Cure Serious Wounds
Lvl 4 (2)Break Enchantment, Freedom of Movement, Neutralize Poison

82000

22400 Celestial Armor (+ 9 armor)
18500 +2 Seeking Long Composite Bow mighty +1 +12(x2)/+12/+7 1d8+10 (+6 to hit +3 to damage buffed)
08000 +2 Ring of Protection
09000 +3 Cloak of Resistance
16000 +4 Dex belt
01800 Efficient Quiver
06000 Lesser Metamagic rod of Extend x2

0700 for assorted arrows and supplies

Tactics
Can extend Heroism 6/day for 220 min durations so for the rogue, fighter and himself all day (using a higher level slot for the 6th one)
Can make any dc 30 knowledge check
27 rounds of inspire courage for a +3 to hit and damage
Eases the action economy of the mage by using haste
Adds a ranged character to the group
Serves as Party Face
Backup healer/condition remover

Grand Lodge

Dabbler wrote:

If a lot of people are building, I suggest use core-only builds and non-core builds for those using non-core material - this will enlighten us over how classes have powered up with extra material.

11th level is fine, I would suggest also building at 6th too. These levels are in the 'sweet spot' where play is perhaps most challenging.

So two leagues. Core-only and Non-Core builds. I'd argue that we stick with Paizo stuff and not include 3rd party.

6th and 11th level builds to show the sweet spot of when folks should just have got their shtick together and just before things stray into the truly crazy.


We never use 3rd party for these sort of things. PF strictly.

For the fighter the offensive twf fighter got in the low 60's in the DPR threads, and the shield version was in the low 50's so any 11th level build has to at least do better than that.

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:
I think the CR question is a valid one. Thing is, you don't just face equal CRs. You face anything up to CR+4 in some BBEG fights, and mooks at the other extreme.

Absolutely. But I think the point can be made with equal CR alone, demonstrating how problematic it is at even higher levels.

I would also be fine with going through an AP. I'm just not playing the "I pick the strawman" game that some posters love to play.


I don't even think running through an AP is needed. In the other thread we used various monsters, to get the point across. I also compared the monk's stealth and perception to monster's close to that CR level and to the other character. IIRC the barbarian had a higher perception. His stealth was lower, but I did not make him with the intention of being a scout either. :)


Agreed. I will do some builds over the weekend and post them up at 6th and 11th level.


ciretose wrote:

The question I proposed was what would you do in a combat vs an equal CR creature.

The argument some of us are making is that relative to other classes the basic unarmed monk becomes a spectator vs many equal CR creatures due to inability to hit and/or over come damage reduction in a reasonable way.

The only way to disprove this is to show a build that says it ain't so and challenge others to do the same with another class under the same restrictions.

If I was on the other side of the debate, I would take the monk. I have made monk builds in the past to show that defense is no issue, and that you can be strong defensively while still having a strength focused build.

But I can't make a monk that keeps pace offensively with any of the 3/4 BaB classes.

So prove me wrong.

Ciretose, I am sorely tempted to take you up on this challenge. Not that I think the monk can acutally win, but it would be fun to make a comparison.

If I were to make the monk, what would you make? What would be a reasonable set of stats? Meaning, how much should Cha be dumped? How about Int?

Should we make a new thread for this challenge?


Okay, just because I couldn't help myself and have created a monk from 1 to 7. Will probably be done with 8 through 10 later tonight.

Did anyone want to create another class from 1 to 10 to see how it stacks up?

Again, we might want to create a new thread if we do this.


We are only comparing(in depth) at certain levels. I would just go directly to level 11.


Is the Dazzling Display / Shattered Defenses combo considered too advanced for a new player? It's one of the best avenues of damage for a CRB Monk at higher levels(also the root of their real problem--not DR, undead/constructs). Intimidate is also a great way to help Stunning Fist land / prevent oneself from being hit, and is an excellent opening. Not to mention it's painfully easy to land, especially at higher levels, and even if you had CHA 7. Finding what to do while you move is much more difficult than dealing flurry damage, really. Whereas the THF will just charge and deal significant damage, the Monk has to start their turn close to the enemy. That is where the Monk really lags behind.

As an aside, I feel you need to cover what people can do on the Approach turn. THW Fighter will be able to charge for massive damage, which contributes significantly to their utility in combat. Meanwhile, TWF's usually want to spend the turn somehow setting up--throwing a Tanglefoot bag, Intimidating, a Combat Maneuver, whatever. An exception is found for Rogues.

The Maneuver / Trip Monk really isn't viable without non-core material against non-humanoid opponents, sadly. Fury's Fall, the Agile weapon property, Ki Throw, Maneuver Master, Tetori, Non-Core Weapons, et all are really what make that strategy stand out against prohibitively high CMDs. Nuking your Con or Dex for Greater Trip will also make you mighty fragile early on.

As always, this is the mantra for Monks: Haste + GMW + Mage Armor = Win. Otherwise, meh.

Liberty's Edge

Lord Twig wrote:
ciretose wrote:

The question I proposed was what would you do in a combat vs an equal CR creature.

The argument some of us are making is that relative to other classes the basic unarmed monk becomes a spectator vs many equal CR creatures due to inability to hit and/or over come damage reduction in a reasonable way.

The only way to disprove this is to show a build that says it ain't so and challenge others to do the same with another class under the same restrictions.

If I was on the other side of the debate, I would take the monk. I have made monk builds in the past to show that defense is no issue, and that you can be strong defensively while still having a strength focused build.

But I can't make a monk that keeps pace offensively with any of the 3/4 BaB classes.

So prove me wrong.

Ciretose, I am sorely tempted to take you up on this challenge. Not that I think the monk can acutally win, but it would be fun to make a comparison.

If I were to make the monk, what would you make? What would be a reasonable set of stats? Meaning, how much should Cha be dumped? How about Int?

Should we make a new thread for this challenge?

I'm willing to take any class. I prefer the other person pick so I can't be accused of cherry picking.

I'm fine with another thread.

301 to 333 of 333 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Monk by the Numbers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Advice