| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can the Monk just get it's own subforum? Please?
I'm not against the myriad of discussions. I'm all for it. But for us non-Monk fans, it's getting old clicking "hide" on multiple new threads each day.
I realize this is an exaggerated suggestion that will likely get flamed to oblivion, but felt it was worth bringing up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the disconnect is in the concept of "role." Versatility does not necessarily mean the ability to fill multiple "roles," but rather deal with a large number of disparate situations. The Monk has a weird grab-bag of abilities that can put to creative use. For example, they might not have Disable Device as a class skill (or the points for it), but they could teleport behind a locked door, or jump over a trap filled hallway, or just let things go off and trust in their saves and immunities to see them through. Those same abilities could be used for escaping from a monster, jumping over a chasm, or surviving long enough to grapple the enemy mage.
Are these enough to make the class equal to others? Are they sufficient to really earn the title "versatile?" Is it enough to justify their combat difficulties? That is what those other threads are trying to hash out. However, I hope this explains why some people claim the monk is "Versatile" even when it doesn't neatly fill any of the standard, defined roles.
Also...
Can the Monk just get it's own subforum? Please?
Eh. The forums go through phases. Someone starts a hot thread about a subject, it gets people thinking about it and they start their own threads. It will peter out eventually and we can switch over to another round of "Rogues are too weak" or "Martial/Caster Disparity" or something.
Besides, you KNOW it wouldn't be contained to the subforum. Or do you doubt the forum's ability to derail anything into a branch of the current hot dispute?
Mort; good points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are pretty versatile at using poison. Look ma, I got it all over my hands. That's okay dear, you are high enough level.
Also the examples you showed is just how a monk can fulfill the scouting role. Depending on how you categorize it that can be anywhere from 1 to 1/2 a role. Their other abilities still don't allow them to do a face or caster role (healing and arcane).
The whole point I am trying to make is that they don't fit neatly into the standard roles. They can't afford the stats or skill points to be a face, but Tongue of the Sun and Moon can make them a vital translator. They aren't perfect scouts, but high speed and several movement abilities can give them options another scout might lack. They aren't the best combatants, but their are times when their weird abilities like ki strike, SR, and high speed are just what is called for.
I'm not saying all this necessarily balances out on the whole, both in relation to level appropriate challenges or what other classes bring. That discussion is for the other threads. All I'm trying to say is that "they only fill 1 to 1/2 a role" is not necessarily a response to the claim "Monks are versatile," as they are working in different paradigms. Weird, random abilities may not help one fill a specific role or purpose, but they can be just the solution to weird, random scenarios that come up during an adventure. The claimed "versatility" is not necessarily in the ability to fill many roles, but in the ability to solve problem and deal with situations that might arise.
Yep, a good contribution Mort. They aren't always the best at what you want them to do, but they get a wide range of bonuses and abilities.
Flurry though, once you get some levels, mmm, 2d6 no penalties.
I've also messed with the proficiencies a bit, since Japanese themed monks have quite different proficiencies to the standard. Naginata, greatclub, that sort of thing. Course to give them better weapons they sacrifice a lot of proficiencies to get there. One monk fighter I know uses the guan dao.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the examples you showed is just how a monk can fulfill the scouting role. Depending on how you categorize it that can be anywhere from 1 to 1/2 a role. Their other abilities still don't allow them to do a face or caster role (healing and arcane).The whole point I am trying to make is that they don't fit neatly into the standard roles. They can't afford the stats or skill points to be a face, but Tongue of the Sun and Moon can make them a vital translator. They aren't perfect scouts, but high speed and several movement abilities can give them options another scout might lack. They aren't the best combatants, but their are times when their weird abilities like ki strike, SR, and high speed are just what is called for.
I'm not saying all this necessarily balances out on the whole, both in relation to level appropriate challenges or what other classes bring. That discussion is for the other threads. All I'm trying to say is that "they only fill 1 to 1/2 a role" is not necessarily a response to the claim "Monks are versatile," as they are working in different paradigms. Weird, random abilities may not help one fill a specific role or purpose, but they can be just the solution to weird, random scenarios that come up during an adventure. The claimed "versatility" is not necessarily in the ability to fill many roles, but in the ability to solve problem and deal with situations that might arise.
I beg to disagree, Mort. If your party needs a translator at 17th level (when the monk gains TotSaM), you are a pretty weird party. Especially since the bard, cleric, sorcerer, and wizard have had comprehend language since 1st level.
I have never seen a game which slowed to a grinding halt because our 17th level characters lack the ability to translate what someone says.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, a good contribution Mort. They aren't always the best at what you want them to do, but they get a wide range of bonuses and abilities.
Flurry though, once you get some levels, mmm, 2d6 no penalties.
I've also messed with the proficiencies a bit, since Japanese themed monks have quite different proficiencies to the standard. Naginata, greatclub, that sort of thing. Course to give them better weapons they sacrifice a lot of proficiencies to get there. One monk fighter I know uses the guan dao.
Depends on what you mean by no penalties. You get the standard -2 of TWF on attack rolls. You have to spend more money at a later date to gain enhancement bonuses. Unlike actual weapons, enhancement bonuses do not bypass any kind of DR except magic. And if you move, you cannot flurry; dropping your attack bonuses.
I consider all of those penalties of one sort or the other.
MA
I beg to disagree, Mort. If your party needs a translator at 17th level (when the monk gains TotSaM), you are a pretty weird party. Especially since the bard, cleric, sorcerer, and wizard have had comprehend language since 1st level.
Oh, I agree, it is highly, highly situational. While it is a little better than you say (I read "any living creature" as meaning it combines tongues, speak with animals, and some of speak with plants), I'm not trying to hold it up as an awesome ability. I was just using it as an example of the grab-bag nature of the monk, and how their assortment of abilities doesn't lend itself to specific roles so much as "has stuff he can do." He can't fill a proper "face" role, but has a random "face-like" ability that might (I emphasize "might") come in useful.
As I said, I'm not arguing that the Monk works out on the whole. I'm just saying that "cannot fill specific roles" and "versatile" are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Performance
I think I understand what Mort is saying, but I disagree that this makes the monk versatile. Monks are 'generalist' or 'jack of all trades' characters...except they aren't; casters can do that much better. The monk has some nice tricks, but most can be duplicated by a spell or item held by any character at all.
While the monk has a lot of useful tricks, there is not much the monk can do that another class cannot do better except run fast. While defensively strong, the monk brings little to the party that helps the party and not the monk alone. The monk's abilities have little synergy between them.
Class
To me, versatility is being able to make a class into the character you want. If I pick up a fighter, I can make that fighter into a swashbuckler, a tank, a maneuver master - basically, I can make them into the fighter I want. A paladin is less versatile but essentially I can make an archer, a knight, even a dex-based melee fighter as well. A ranger I have options for combat style and for selecting terrains, enemies and the like.
With the monk what do I have? Well there are the style feats, I can make a martial artist based on one of those styles, but ultimately the choice is down to being big and strong (strength, offensive) or fast (dexterity, defensive). If I go strong, I have to work the defensive feats to get my AC up; if I work dexterity I have to take Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers. Taking maneuvers is pretty much a done deal, as the monk has few offensive options.
In short, I don't have much wriggle-room to customize my monk, my feat choices are full of feat-taxes to compensate for other weaknesses that will otherwise cripple my character, and that to me means little versatility.
Role
Then there is the question of role. If I want to fill a standard role (one of the base four: scout, tank, caster, healer) adequately, I really have to pull out all the stops to go for it, and even then I won't do that role brilliantly, merely adequately.
To me, this is not a lot of versatility in role. A class with a versatile role can do a lot of different things (even if only one of them with any one design) easily. The monk does not do that.
I think I understand what Mort is saying, but I disagree that this makes the monk versatile. Monks are 'generalist' or 'jack of all trades' characters...except they aren't; casters can do that much better. The monk has some nice tricks, but most can be duplicated by a spell or item held by any character at all.
Sort of. I'm not saying that a Monk is a "jack of all trades," as it doesn't have enough to do any of those trades adequately. Rather, it has random abilities that are parts of a bunch of trades. It is like a Swiss Army knife with a fish scaler, a sewing needle, and geiger counter. One might argue it is "versatile" in that it has options for a wide variety of situations, which is what I think the people the OP was referring to meant when they said the Monk is "versatile." It isn't the perfect tool for a fisherman, a tailor, or a nuclear technician (read: tank, scout, face), but can do things related to all those fields.
Is the whole package worth it? Probably not. Would a tool with a more specific purpose be more generally useful? Absolutely. Is the Monk closer to being "schizophrenic" than "versatile?" In my opinion, yes. However, I would argue that a class that cannot adequately fill specific roles can still "versatile," even if the Monk specifically doesn't bring enough to properly earn that title. When I think of versatility I lean more towards the idea of dealing with various situations, not the ability to be built to a specific purpose. A character who could adequately deal with situations traditionally associated with scouting, tanking, and being the face could still be "versatile," even if it doesn't bring enough to fully fill any of those roles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.
The monk is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes. (Edit: inserted the required noun.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.The is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes.
He's Got a Lot to Kick About was the article from Dragon #53, reprinted in one of the Best of Dragon Compilations (I cannot remember which one). Great article and it was a lovely remastering of the class that fixed many of the flaws with the original 1st edtion Monk.
And I don't completely disagree with your assesment: monks are fun to play . . . when they contribute. The problems that I have seen arise are when people try to build them to match the 'traditional' view of a monk, emphasizing Dex and Wis. They quickly fall behind a rogue or bard in being able to hit their opponents and wind up doing far less damage in melee. Stunning fist is viable only if you hit, deal damage, and they fail their save. Since enhancement bonuses (via an amulet of mighty fists) do not automatically bypass DR based on enhancement (ala magic weapons), DR is a real pain for monks and can shut them down in short order.
That being said, if you are able to build a well-crafted monk, and if your DM pits you against a large number of humanoids (of Medium size) instead of Huge or Gargantuan critters with four or more legs, then a monk can do about as well as a Paladin fighting neutral enemies, or a Ranger vs. something he hasn't selected as his favored enemy. Or a bard, just about all the time.
Monks are a martial class: they are designed to fight. But there is a serious disconnect between what the class is supposed to be good at and what it actually is good at. And that gap gets wider with each and every release that gives other classes inroads into the signature monk combat style (unarmed combat), while denying the monk access to the same.
MA
He's Got a Lot to Kick About
That's the one! Yes, good times. :)
I don't know if DMs/players remember to enforce the armour penalty for Climb/Acrobatics/Swim/Whatever else but I like that the monk can fall in water in all his armour and not drown. I also like the cinematic visuals of the class-enhanced acrobatics.
I just got my character to lvl 4. I've yet to toy around with the not-infinite-but-still-extra-options introduced with the Ki Pool. Quite looking forward to that. Gonna need that +4 AC, I expect.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've found that monks seem to excel at battlefield control. They can get into the backfield of enemies fairly easily. They stun, grapple and generally harry the softer enemies. Their maneuvers can cause even the hard enemies to eat up actions (trip, disarm) or take away advantage (disarm, sunder). Their defensive abilities are good at eating up attacks and spell that might have been directed against 'better' targets(because they are the one punching the spellcater in the face), and also mean that your spell casters don't often have to worry about catching them in an AoE. Their movement makes them great flanking buddies for rouges and ninja or even the fighters(every +2 helps).
I know, in the game I play a monk, that he doesn't dish out the most damage or get the most kills. I also know that the party is much more leary of entering a fight without him, than without any other party member.
Monks are not a force unto themselves. They are a force multiplier for the party, and a force mitigator for the enemy. But to be that, they HAVE to be use tactically. And not every player is suited to that kind of play.
I've found that monks seem to excel at battlefield control. They can get into the backfield of enemies fairly easily.
This is true, monks are highly mobile.
They stun, grapple and generally harry the softer enemies.
Agreed, they can beat up targets that don't fight back too hard. What about the ones that do? A tactic I often use is to try and tie down leaders or champions until the rest of the party have dealt with other threats, but it's tough to do.
Their maneuvers can cause even the hard enemies to eat up actions (trip, disarm) or take away advantage (disarm, sunder).
If they can get the maneuvers to work outside the 'sweet spot' of 3rd-7th level. After that, maneuvers go downhill in usefulness.
Their defensive abilities are good at eating up attacks and spell that might have been directed against 'better' targets(but they are the one punching the spellcater in the face)...
If the enemy target them, if they can reach the enemy spell caster.
...and also mean that your spell casters don't often have to worry about catching them in an AoE.
This is true, it's one I have used a lot.
Their movement makes them great flanking buddies for rouges and ninja or even the fighters(every +2 helps).
getting flanking is not that hard for any class with Acrobatics; if you have to provide a flank to contribute, that is another way of saying they cannot pull their own weight unless you are a rogue.
I know, in the game I play a monk, that he doesn't dish out the most damage or get the most kills. I also know that the party is much more leary of entering a fight without him, than without any other party member.
Good for you. You clearly know how to make the best of the monk. But the argument has never been that the monk, in skilled hands, is ineffective - the problem with the monk is that the reward for the investment are not good, and that unskilled players quickly have a lame duck.
Monks are not a force unto themselves. They are a force multiplier for the party, and a force mitigator for the enemy. But to be that, they HAVE to be use tactically. And not every player is suited to that kind of play.
Not every situation and game allows it, either. If it doesn't happen, the monk unfortunately has no fall-back.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm at work, so you only get a quick response.
Flanking:
Once again, a monk’s movement allows them to get to the best flanking position faster. With spring attack they can even do it without really leaving a tactically better position. And making sure the strikers can add their extra d6s is pulling weight.
In General
There are lots of classes that can be a 'lame duck' in the hands of unskilled players. Bad choices in feats can nerf most any class. Bad choice in spells can make your sorcerer/wizard next to useless. A rouge/bard that selects all skills that other party members have maxed is mostly redundant.
Lots of situations can make different classes crap. Just two off the top of my head. Unprepared spell casters are useless against golems. Unprepared fighters suck against swarms.
The question was how monks are useful. Not how are they useful in the hands of unskilled players. I would assume (maybe incorrectly) that most people here have at least a basic skill with the game.
Their 'return on investment', like every other character, breaks down to two basic questions. Did I enjoy playing this character? Did the other players enjoy play in a game with this character? If the answer to one or both is no, then they are not worth it. If yes to both, then does their relative power really matter?
I find ALL the characters do much better when the questions of what I can do vs. what you can do are put aside in favor of what we can do together. Games of one-ups-man ship get old fast.
Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do. You may surprise yourself with what classes can do if you drop the preconceive notions of what the 'should' do, and put an eye to what can they do with the other characters.
One point: with spring attack, a monk only flanks with someone else for the monk's attacks, because he moves before and after his attack. He isn't there to provide that flanking bonus on his ally's turn.
MA
Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do. You may surprise yourself with what classes can do if you drop the preconceive notions of what the 'should' do, and put an eye to what can they do with the other characters.
I appreciate what you are saying, but I do not think that you appreciate that I have arrived at my current stance from originally holding your own. Looking at what the monk can do and you have a good highly mobile defender with a disjointed set at abilities that do not synergise with one another and no real offensive capacity over 10th level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t (and I presume other as well) see it that way. I see a highly mobile, highly resistant battlefield controller. Sure, on hard enemies, they can lack for damage a bit. But against the medium and soft ones, they make up for the low individual damage with stupid numbers of attacks. They can lack against the single or few monstrous opponents, but kick it against small to large humanoids. Especially multiple weaker ones.
Given that there seem to be as many that like the monk as don't, I will maintain that the class is not, in general, under powered or disjointed. But that perhaps play style, or campaign style might make them seem so.
Spring attack works just fine if the rouge readies an attack.
Also, monks CAN flurry with monk weapons. I don't see how they should have any more difficulty overcoming DR than a fighter.
Till tommorow..
I don’t (and I presume other as well) see it that way. I see a highly mobile, highly resistant battlefield controller.
At 3rd - 7th level this is true. Above 7th it starts to fall off, and by 10th level it's really tough to pull off as the CMDs of CR10 creatures tends to be too darn high to affect easily.
What you have to remember is that CMD and CMB both scale with level, but CMB is hard to add bonuses to, while CMD gets the bonus of deflection AC, size and multiple limbs.
Sure, on hard enemies, they can lack for damage a bit. But against the medium and soft ones, they make up for the low individual damage with stupid numbers of attacks.
So not much use fighting the BBEG then. The monk is relegated to the mook-fights which anyone can indulge in and win. That's not much of an accolade, is it?
They can lack against the single or few monstrous opponents, but kick it against small to large humanoids. Especially multiple weaker ones.
Not in dispute, but it's precisely where they are lacking against monstrous and powerful foes that they need improvement. The wizard can wipe out the mooks with one spell, it's fighting the major foes that the monk needs help.
Fighter - he can be very effective all the time.
Paladin - he can be effective most of the time and really shine with his smite.
Ranger - he can be effective most of the time and really shine against favoured enemies.
Barbarian - he can be effective at any time and really effective when he rages.
Monk - he can be effective some of the time.
Is it me or is there a discrepancy here? We just want the monk to have an effective combat option (not even very effective, just effective) against ALL foes, not just some of them.
Given that there seem to be as many that like the monk as don't, I will maintain that the class is not, in general, under powered or disjointed. But that perhaps play style, or campaign style might make them seem so.
Why do people think we don't love the monk? We do. Because we do, we play them. Because we play them we know they have problems, and we want to fix them.
Spring attack works just fine if the rouge readies an attack.
Why would the rogue forego all his iterative attacks and be left as the sole recipient of the fury of the thing your attacking? With the monk's better defences it makes a lot more sense for the monk to flurry and the rogue to Spring Attack.
Also, monks CAN flurry with monk weapons. I don't see how they should have any more difficulty overcoming DR than a fighter.
If they invest all their money in weapons and forego fighting unarmed, they can. Of course, monk weapons are pretty dire compared to fighter weapons so they won't do much actual damage and can't use their other attack form, Stunning Fist, without a ki-focus weapon, and they have the ignominy of being the iconic unarmed fighting class having to use weapons to be in any way effective...only low damage output, low crit chances and no stunning fist means they still aren't really effective.
I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.The monk is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes. (Edit: inserted the required noun.)
I think you really understand the monk. Their ability to counter spellcasters, or shrug off spells is one of their greater strengths. Sure a barb can cleave a wizard in twain, but can he pass a will save? The monk is fantastic at stunning poor wizards/spellcasters, unless it is high magic and they are sitting on a very amusing fort.
I think you really understand the monk. Their ability to counter spellcasters, or shrug off spells is one of their greater strengths. Sure a barb can cleave a wizard in twain, but can he pass a will save? The monk is fantastic at stunning poor wizards/spellcasters, unless it is high magic and they are sitting on a very amusing fort.I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.The monk is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes. (Edit: inserted the required noun.)
The problem with this strategy is simple: you can't stun what you cannot see, reach, or hit. Unless you are playing PFS, any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses that a monk simply has no method to counter. Of course, neither can the barbarian, fighter, ranger, paladin, or rogue. The best anti-caster is another caster . . . bar none.
Now, if--if--you can get in melee range, the caster is screwed . . . at low levels. Unless the caster antagonist in question is being run in an idiotic manner, no melee class is going to get close to him. Fly, greater invisibility, displacement, etherealness, mirror image, project image . . . the list goes on and on and on.
And shrugging off spells? That is a two-way street. Sure, you aren't as likely to be affected thanks to that spell resistance, but your allies are also less likely to buff or heal you. Unless you spend a standard action to lower it and a second to raise it.
No. Unfortunately monks are not caster-killers.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are playing PFS, any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses that a monk simply has no method to counter.
While I agree, I would expand this to "published adventures in general." Whether Paizo Adventure Paths or Wizard's 3e Modules, casters have not generally been set up this way(that is, to their full potential). Even at high level their set spells and tactics leave them with few long-term buffs running, rarely prepared to hide behind the more useful illusions, and are almost never out of reach (whether through flight or terrain). So, for published materials or adventures based on them, Monk make great caster-killers. The combination of SR and high saves makes the Monk well prepared to survive a spell or two, and the casters simply aren't prepared (in memorization, pre-buffs, or tactics) for a high speed, blitzing Monk set up to grapple or even just throw a Stunning Fist. That the Monk lacks true seeing or a flight speed doesn't really matter most of the time.
Run as written, this Monk would be a great killer for the vast majority of casters in published material. It only starts to fall apart when people start playing casters to their potential (or at least their INT/WIS scores). But then again, a lot of things fall apart at the far end of system. Honestly, every so often I wonder if I would not have an easier time enjoying the game if I didn't read and think about the system so much. A game where Monks make excellent caster killers would, frankly, be refreshing. Probably a lot easier to prep, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you are playing PFS, any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses that a monk simply has no method to counter.While I agree, I would expand this to "published adventures in general." Whether Paizo Adventure Paths or Wizard's 3e Modules, casters have not generally been set up this way(that is, to their full potential). Even at high level their set spells and tactics leave them with few long-term buffs running, rarely prepared to hide behind the more useful illusions, and are almost never out of reach (whether through flight or terrain). So, for published materials or adventures based on them, Monk make great caster-killers. The combination of SR and high saves makes the Monk well prepared to survive a spell or two, and the casters simply aren't prepared (in memorization, pre-buffs, or tactics) for a high speed, blitzing Monk set up to grapple or even just throw a Stunning Fist. That the Monk lacks true seeing or a flight speed doesn't really matter most of the time.
Run as written, this Monk would be a great killer for the vast majority of casters in published material. It only starts to fall apart when people start playing casters to their potential (or at least their INT/WIS scores). But then again, a lot of things fall apart at the far end of system. Honestly, every so often I wonder if I would not have an easier time enjoying the game if I didn't read and think about the system so much. A game where Monks make excellent caster killers would, frankly, be refreshing. Probably a lot easier to prep, too.
True enough, Mort. I said PFS play, however, because (according to what I have heard), the DMs are not allowed to change anything. For myself, if I buy a module and see a 13th level wizard as the main antagonist, and his tactics are wait until the PCs enter this 20-by-20 room and then use lighting bolts and cone of colds against them . . . I change it.
I run all my bad guys as smart. If they are evil, ruthless, and powerful enough to have gotten to their level of authority, they didn't survive by playing dumb. Sure, sometimes, I just have a fight that is a fight where our heroes beat the tar out of the bad guys. But not the main bad guys. THOSE fights are always remembered by my players. And often times, the villians will manage to get away, often despite everything my players will to try and stop them. Oh, their plans are ruined and the heroes saved the day again . . . but soon enough they are going to run into the 15th level lich of that 13th level wizard they just beat. And won't THAT be peachy?
MA
The problem with this strategy is simple: you can't stun what you cannot see, reach, or hit. Unless you are playing PFS, any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses that a monk simply has no method to counter. Of course, neither can the...I think you really understand the monk. Their ability to counter spellcasters, or shrug off spells is one of their greater strengths. Sure a barb can cleave a wizard in twain, but can he pass a will save? The monk is fantastic at stunning poor wizards/spellcasters, unless it is high magic and they are sitting on a very amusing fort.I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.The monk is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes. (Edit: inserted the required noun.)
This should not degenerate into a, spellcasters are far better than monks thread--that casters will always be ready, or invisible and immune to all that the monk can do. I do have to say though, they are indeed caster killers, and I say this, because I've seen them do it. Examples, shrug off spells (pass fort or will, reflex and take only a little damage), get in flurry/pursue/flurry, charge and grapple or stealth up and grapple then kill the spellcaster over multiple rounds while the party deals with the rest; disarm staves, trip leaving no chance for the wizard to escape, sunder precious fragile items, or my personal favourite, finish a spellcaster off that is running low on spells or that has got rid of their best stuff already trying to take down others. They are caster killers because I have seen it, and heard of others offing casters with monks. It doesn't always go according to plan however, and that is also a part of what I've seen.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i'll say it again. the only thing i want paizo to do, is allow vital strike chan and spring attack to work and a +3 to attack with unarmed damage that scales every 5 or 6 levels OR the masterwork fists idea, i really like that one.
they also need to fix the grapple rules, sorry paizo you really screwed the pooch on that one.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are caster-killers.
So are barbarians, fighters, rangers, and especially paladins. If a rogue gets the drop on a caster, that caster is toast. What these classes variously lack in defences compared to the monk, they make up for in offences that can overcome the caster's defences.
Fact is a wizard who finds himself next to a combat class, or in the sights of an archer, is basically dead meat without a host of protective buffs. Of course getting next to said caster is a whole different ball-game...and monks aren't really any better at that than any other class.
|
|
dabbler, i would disagree.
if you take into account archetypes, a tetori can do what no other class can as far as controling a caster. they have to burn through ki points like crazy but a tetori WILL kill any caster that he can get to and grapple in one round.
a vanilla monk i would agree with you dabbler, they are nothing great. but a tetori is basically designed to stop casters while being grapled.
and if the player has acess to all the expansion books, they get to keep abundent step with qinggong.
i have to admit, as much as i hate the grappling system, it is so much fun to grapple someone then DD 1000 feet up and powerbomb them to the ground.
I get what you are saying about the tetori, but not every monk is a tetori. The fact is many monk archetypes are actually quite good, but this only highlights the fact that the core monk is actually very bad, and so are some of the other monk archetypes...
At 3rd - 7th level this is true. Above 7th it starts to fall off, and by 10th level it's really tough to pull off as the CMDs of CR10 creatures tends to be too darn high to affect easily.
The CMD of a CR 10 red dragon is 5 over AC. Most of the monsters I checked were 4-6 over. Yeah, outsiders and fey with their deflection bonuses to ac jump more. But I fail to see how 4-6 over ac is 'too darn high'
So not much use fighting the BBEG then. The monk is relegated to the mook-fights which anyone can indulge in and win. That's not much of an accolade, is it?Not in dispute, but it's precisely where they are lacking against monstrous and powerful foes that they need improvement. The wizard can wipe out the mooks with one spell, it's fighting the major foes that the monk needs help.
Maybe your version of 'mooks' is different then mine. Cause I don't see a ECL 10 wizard taking out say 6 CR 7 'mooks' with one spell. Even if they all stood waiting in a 30' burst.
I HAVE seen the monk stand toe-to-toe with 6 'mook' rouges that just cut the fighter down in no time though.
Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do.
I appreciate what you are saying, but I do not think that you appreciate that I have arrived at my current stance from originally holding your own.
...and they have the ignominy of being the iconic unarmed fighting class having to use weapons to be in any way effective
OK then.
But are you really looking for the bulk of your damage from the base die? On average, the difference between a d4 and a d10 is only 3 points.
Why would the rogue forgo all his iterative attacks and be left as the sole recipient of the fury of the thing your attacking?
Lets say the rouge has a 65% chance of hitting. Next iterative attack would be at 40%. If he readies, he now has 75% chance to hit and does extra damage. If the monk trips the opponent with greater trip(not unlikely) the rogue now get an AoO, again at 75%, and still flanking. The Monk get his follow up attack, and for whatever reason, spring to a 'better' position. The rogue now receives the -10% fury of a prone opponent. Or possibly another AoO if they have combat reflexes at 85% and a single attack against him.
That certainly is less effective than the 65% and 40% attacks with no extra dice and no inconveniencing of the opponent.
Of course getting next to said caster is a whole different ball-game...and monks aren't really any better at that than any other class.
It's too bad they don't have all sorts of movement enhancing abilities...
any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defenses
And each layer is an action to put in place. many lasting only rnds per level. Do you just assume that the casters have pre cast then all at the most opportune moment for whenever the PC's walk through the door? What if they are early? What if the delay an extra 10 min, and the spells expire? Does your party regularly knowingly go against spellcasters without a few potions of see invisibility and the like, to counter the typical caster defenses?
That's all my time for responding for now.
I understand why you feel the monk is underpowered. I don't agree. Likely we will just have to agree to disagree on monks, and just have to agree that Pathfinder is a great game, whatever flaws it may have.
The CMD of a CR 10 red dragon is 5 over AC. Most of the monsters I checked were 4-6 over. Yeah, outsiders and fey with their deflection bonuses to ac jump more. But I fail to see how 4-6 over ac is 'too darn high'At 3rd - 7th level this is true. Above 7th it starts to fall off, and by 10th level it's really tough to pull off as the CMDs of CR10 creatures tends to be too darn high to affect easily.
We can't be looking at the same bestiary, according to mine a Young red dragon is AC22, but CMD 30 (34 vs trip). Taking your figures, though, that AC is what you are trying to hit with an enhanced weapon, remember; at 10th level that's a +2 or even +3 weapon (+1 or +2 for the monk's AoMF, but we'll leave that aside for now). That means the CMD is an effective 6-9 over AC (your figures) if you are not using your weapon to do the maneuver. If you started at 50% chance to hit, it's now down to 5%-20% chance to pull off the maneuver.
So do you try a grapple and probably fail? A trip and you might be able to use a weapon, so maybe slightly better odds - but wait, the red dragon (and many other creatures) has four legs, so actually even less. You can use your weapon to do a disarm, but not all monster have a weapon you can disarm.
So not much use fighting the BBEG then. The monk is relegated to the mook-fights which anyone can indulge in and win. That's not much of an accolade, is it?Not in dispute, but it's precisely where they are lacking against monstrous and powerful foes that they need improvement. The wizard can wipe out the mooks with one spell, it's fighting the major foes that the monk needs help.
Maybe your version of 'mooks' is different then mine. Cause I don't see a ECL 10 wizard taking out say 6 CR 7 'mooks' with one spell. Even if they all stood waiting in a 30' burst.
I HAVE seen the monk stand toe-to-toe with 6 'mook' rouges that just cut the fighter down in no time though.
Yeah, the monk can stand up to rogues with his killer AC and better mobility quite well. But then rogues aren't even a combat class, so that's not surprising. Frankly I confess I am surprised that the rogues took down the fighter, unless they had surprise. If they had surprise, though, they'd probably take down the monk too as he relies more on Dex for his AC and has less hp.
As for the quality of 'mooks' it does depend on the nature of them; at 10th level mooks could be anything from CR5 to CR8 (less higher CRs, more lower CRs). Some could be cleared by a nice empowered fireball (10d6 x 150%) and some would be tough enough or lucky enough to survive. In the case of rogues, with evasion they'd cope easily, but they are also more vulnerable to just splatting them with the big sword.
Try looking at each class for what it does do. Not what you think it 'should' do.
I appreciate what you are saying, but I do not think that you appreciate that I have arrived at my current stance from originally holding your own.
...and they have the ignominy of being the iconic unarmed fighting class having to use weapons to be in any way effectiveOK then.
But are you really looking for the bulk of your damage from the base die? On average, the difference between a d4 and a d10 is only 3 points.
It is indeed, which is why the increasing dice of the monk's is a red herring. What makes the real difference are the static bonuses, so let's look at where these come from:
Strength - you need to be strong to hit things. MAD means monks will rarely have the kind of strength needed to carry a lot of bonuses. If they do, some Styles can add nicely to this, but it's only going to compensate for MADness.
Class Features - barbarian rage, fighter weapon training, ranger favoured enemy and paladin smite all add a lot to base damage. No monk option.
Weapon Enhancement - the AoMF is behind the curve for this by 1-2 points all the way.
Weapon Properties - likewise, and the +5 cap means what you gain in damage you lose in odds to hit. Agile property can make a lot of difference, but loses you the ability to ever get past that DR/alignment.
The other area is Threat Range - and the monk's unarmed strike and monk weapons lose out here too, almost all have a threat range of 20/x2; the only exception is the temple sword with a whopping great 19-20/x2. Gosh.
The thing here is that the monk is meant to get multiple attacks to compensate for less damage per attack. Problem is this fails for two reasons - first, odds to hit are down on what the other combat classes can achieve, and second is DR the monk cannot bypass.
Lets say the rouge has a 65% chance of hitting. Next iterative attack would be at 40%. If he readies, he now has 75% chance to hit and does extra damage. If the monk trips the opponent with greater trip(not unlikely)
Why would the rogue forgo all his iterative attacks and be left as the sole recipient of the fury of the thing your attacking?
As al;ready demonstrated, this is a questionable statement.
the rogue now get an AoO, again at 75%, and still flanking.
If the monk is spring attacking, then there is no flanking bonus except for the readied attack.
The Monk get his follow up attack, and for whatever reason, spring to a 'better' position. The rogue now receives the -10% fury of a prone opponent. Or possibly another AoO if they have combat reflexes at 85% and a single attack against him.
That certainly is less effective than the 65% and 40% attacks with no extra dice and no inconveniencing of the opponent.
No, you are missing the point - the tactic itself is flawed. You are assuming the rogue stands there and the monk leaps in and out of the fight, which is crazy. Spring Attack is used to stay out of harm's way while still getting an attack in; the monk has better AC than the rogue so it makes more sense that the monk takes the heat and the rogue springs in and out. The rogue is only going to get one sneak attack a turn in either case.
The monk flurries at the target, using his full-BAB attacks as Trips - two or three are more likely to get a success than one. Once the target is down he can add in disarms or just kick the guy when he's down. THEN the rogue can either Spring Attack (if he is still up) in order to stay safe, or move in and stick him if he isn't. If he's down, he takes two AoO's on standing and can make only one attack - rogue sneak attacks from flanking (because both he and the monk are stood there) and the monk disarms if he can. He makes his one attack (or retrieves his weapon) and then both monk and rogue full-attack him - the monk trips again, the rogue sticks the knife in.
From what I have seen, Spring Attack is good for the monk if he takes Crane Wing to deflect a prepared attack. Otherwise, against a foe fighting someone else he is better off with flank & flurry. Spring Attack on someone already engaged is much better for the rogue because he is likely a bit more fragile and has sneak attack to make up the difference he otherwise loses.
Of course getting next to said caster is a whole different ball-game...and monks aren't really any better at that than any other class.It's too bad they don't have all sorts of movement enhancing abilities..
...like boots of striding and springing, boots of speed, cape of the mountebank...or spells like expeditious retreat, jump, levitate, fly, dimension door...
All those flash monk abilities look great until you realise that they can easily be replaced with equipment and/or spells and usually at a lower level than that at which the monk gets them.
any wizard/sorcerer/witch serving as the Antagonist is going to have multiple layers of defensesAnd each layer is an action to put in place. many lasting only rnds per level. Do you just assume that the casters have pre cast then all at the most opportune moment for whenever the PC's walk through the door? What if they are early? What if the delay an extra 10 min, and the spells expire? Does your party regularly knowingly go against spellcasters without a few potions of see invisibility and the like, to counter the typical caster defenses?
Well in the adventure paths I have run and played, most caster enemies are deeply embedded and use forewarning to prepare. If the party delays, they come looking for the party all buffed-up. If the party doesn't, they may if they have been stealthy catch the caster unprepared - and the fight in those cases is very short, regardless of party composition. If they come on to the caster when the caster is prepared, they generally have a tough fight on their hands, as the caster throws minions in the way and let's them have it with both barrels.
I understand why you feel the monk is underpowered.
That's nice to know!
I don't agree.
If you understand why I think the monk is weak, then you understand that the monk is ineffective in many situations. If you think a combat class that cannot fight in half the situations they find themselves in is not underpowered, all I can say is that I think you are thin ice.
Likely we will just have to agree to disagree on monks, and just have to agree that Pathfinder is a great game, whatever flaws it may have.
You got me there! Yes, I agree, it is a great game - I just want it to be even better by fixing the few parts that are not brilliant. That's why the monk stands out to me, you see: the rest of pathfinder is excellent, so the monk looks even worse by comparison.
I think you really understand the monk. Their ability to counter spellcasters, or shrug off spells is one of their greater strengths. Sure a barb can cleave a wizard in twain, but can he pass a will save? The monk is fantastic at stunning poor wizards/spellcasters, unless it is high magic and they are sitting on a very amusing fort.I haven't crunched the math or even played that often. In different campaigns I play a rogue and a monk. I'm thoroughly enjoying the monk and am much more satisfied with the PF monk than monks of any other permutation of AD&D I've encountered. (Way back when, there was an old Best of Dragon Magazine, Vol. I-don't-remember with an article rebuilding the monk class to make it considerably more palatable. That was my favorite Dragon article ever.)
I'm not sure about the monk being versatile on his own (I don't have any issue). However, I would argue that the monk ads versatility to the party:
The monk rules at dishing out subdual damage for taking captives alive. Want to interrogate the villain? Karate chop-chop.
Want to neutralize your dominated team mate without slaying her? Karate chop-chop. They don't need to line up a sneak attack with a sap to do it,either.The monk is also a great spell-caster disruptor. Using acrobatics to bypass guards, get adjacent and stun fist the fool. (Sure, provided you can perceive the caster and she's not flying. Even against an invisibly flying caster though, the monk has perception and enhanced acrobatics for jumping as class skills to somewhat mitigate those tactics.
Monk love here. In my party, I don't at all feel trumped by the other classes. (Edit: inserted the required noun.)
Why can't a barbarian or fighter pass a will save. Yeah I know they have weak base saves, but becoming decent at them is not that hard. The fact that people ignore them is a player issue. I am sure you remember my barbarian from the other monk thread. It had a will save that either equalled or bypassed the monk's.
Did the monk survive those rogues because of dice rolls? Telling me it happened is not as important as telling me how it happened.
Did the monk survive those rogues because of dice rolls? Telling me it happened is not as important as telling me how it happened.
Through a combination of Higher AC, higher touch AC, flurry of blows, stunning fist and tripping. Most rounds, this left many of the rogues floored, the one with the anti trip talent stunned(after i figured out who he was), and me in position to take advatage of AoOs while positioning myself so as to be able to flurry without being flanked by more then two a round.
If you understand why I think the monk is weak, then you understand that the monk is ineffective in many situations. If you think a combat class that cannot fight in half the situations they find themselves in is not underpowered, all I can say is that I think you are thin ice.
I understand why YOU THINK the monk is ineffective. I don't find mine ineffective any more often than that fighter or wizard in the party does, or any of my other characters in other games.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, you are missing the point - the tactic itself is flawed.
I'm not missing the point. It would be ideal for the monk and not the rogue to stay, I agree. But you keep missing when I say that there are reasons the monk might need to be positioned elsewhere at the end of his turn. Combat does not happen in a vacuum. If you are always trying to optimize each individual exchange, rather then the overall flow of combat, then I can see why you have difficulty finding effective use out of monks.
I find that Actions are the most important currency in combat, followed by movement. And monks have the ability to eat up enemy actions and the movement to put themselves in advantageous positions WITHOUT spending actions.
Also, given Maneuver Training and the bonus feats(many of the maneuver related) the monk will, in general have a better bonus on maneuvers than on attack.
Th problem with the monk is that they have the same problem as the rogue. Their attack bonus while moderately good is of course not on par with a barb or fighter who is trying to achieve the same thing. Even if the max the strength and go weapon focus unarmed. However,its not like the attack bonus of such a character is going to be so abysmal that they can barely hit anything. Monks would be like rogues in the sense that they tend to move around, slip into a flanking position. If their individual attack bonus isn't enough, synergize it up. The game is run with three to four pcs I assume. Have the monk and party rogue burnt a feat to take their flanking bonus higher to +4. Seen it done. In-game, the two pcs have this odd sort of tag-team going. They don't spam attacks every round but max the chance of hitting by delaying and getting the most they can from the situational bonus. If the the monk sucessfully trips, the situational bonus stacks even higher. Fiery fist, fists of iron, sanctify ki strike, holy ki strike... etc. Thats a very solid hard hitting monk. The problem is that they have only so many of it they can do per day. I knew two gamers whose favourite class was the monk. They tried every combination they could think of and those monks had their moments. None of them were great in every situation versus every opponent. Off the top of my head, there was the defensive monk(high AC) soak attacks, tie up certain opponents. The mobile monk (spring attack/ shot-on the run), moving and shooting or moving in close, hitting and then ducking away. They had a nasty habit of combining ki blast with the feat if normal ranged attacks didn't cut it. Hard hitters can't just stand there and go full-round attack. The monk of stun (stunning fist dc maxed out), maxed out dc of stunning fist. Combined with rapid stunning, potentially force two or even three fort saves in a round. Certain opponents are immune but certain opponents who are not immune and and have to make the save.... good luck. The Glabrezu may have an easy time passing a dc 25 fort save from a level 10 monk. If the monk forces it to make three such fort saves in a round, its chances of coming out unscathed are lower. Much lower. I remember there were other builds but can't recall at this stage. Night all. Catch you later.
Did the monk survive those rogues because of dice rolls? Telling me it happened is not as important as telling me how it happened.Through a combination of Higher AC, higher touch AC, flurry of blows, stunning fist and tripping. Most rounds, this left many of the rogues floored, the one with the anti trip talent stunned(after i figured out who he was), and me in position to take advatage of AoOs while positioning myself so as to be able to flurry without being flanked by more then two a round.
Yep, the monk was in his element against low-threat humanoid foes - that's where the monk is strongest.
I understand why YOU THINK the monk is ineffective. I don't find mine ineffective any more often than that fighter or wizard in the party does, or any of my other characters in other games.
If you understand why I think the monk is weak, then you understand that the monk is ineffective in many situations. If you think a combat class that cannot fight in half the situations they find themselves in is not underpowered, all I can say is that I think you are thin ice.
Because you only fight where they are strongest? When the party is fighting a purple worm or a large devil as a boss-fight, the monk is shut down, and there's nothing you can say that changes that. It's a combat class that can only fight in half the combats. A paladin that can't smite is still more dangerous than a monk against something the monk's maneuvers can't shut down.
No, you are missing the point - the tactic itself is flawed.I'm not missing the point. It would be ideal for the monk and not the rogue to stay, I agree. But you keep missing when I say that there are reasons the monk might need to be positioned elsewhere at the end of his turn. Combat does not happen in a vacuum.
Which was not stated in the original scenario, so why would I not? How the monk functions in a large combat depends on what is going on, but his best bet with multiple oponants is to either tie down a major foe or else assist and defend those less capable in combat.
I still can't see why the monk would need Spring Attack in those circumstances, though.
If you are always trying to optimize each individual exchange, rather then the overall flow of combat, then I can see why you have difficulty finding effective use out of monks.
No, I find their effectiveness fine when they are fighting foes their abilities can effect - it's when I have to go up against something with tough DR, large sized and with a CMD I can't touch that I experience frustration.
find that Actions are the most important currency in combat, followed by movement. And monks have the ability to eat up enemy actions and the movement to put themselves in advantageous positions WITHOUT spending actions.
Oh I am not disputing that a monk can trip a dozen orcs, and if you read some of my posts you will see I use this maneuver a lot. Don't work on purple worms, though.
Also, given Maneuver Training and the bonus feats(many of the maneuver related) the monk will, in general have a better bonus on maneuvers than on attack.
Oh he does. Shame maneuvers just don't work effectively on so many creatures as you go up the CR ladder.
Yeah, a deliberate design choice was made to make maneuvers very hard to pull off towards high CRs. Tsk tsk.
In 3.5 they are a lot more useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CMD just sky rockets way too fast. You could be a high strength fighter and still be struggling to lock in the sleeper hold. If the creature has high DR, sink a feat in water splitting stone and hammer blow. With those two feats, DR is no longer a major restriction. It is now a minor irritance.