I thought I'd share with you my build idea for a very unusual monk. Several things make this interesting, as the build can be generous with its stats and feats (I chose to have 13 Int and 4 feats that are poor in-combat feats, but instead allows him to be useful in any situation). It is certainly possible to focus more on dealing damage, or use the basic build (with 13 Int and 4 spare feats) to specialize in Combat Expertise and advanced maneuver feats.
Some things that I would like to highlight: the monk has the Improvisation feat (thus can use any untrained skill, and with a +2 bonus for skills without ranks). Additionally the monk has Inexplicable Luck, allowing him to get a +8 bonus to a single d20 roll a day (or +4 after the roll has been made). This can be useful in combat to nearly guarantee a hit, but out of combat this also means that any one skill check a day that the monk needs to make has a minimum of +10 feat-based bonus to the check. Given that the monk gets nice bonus for unranked skills, there is no need to splash 1 rank of skill points into skills, instead all 5 or 6 skill points a level (depending on whether the skilled racial trait is traded away) can be focussed on a few skills (such as acrobatics and perception).
Now to the corner stone of the build: the Monk of the Empty Hand can flurry anything. Any weapon, any object. This makes the monk a natural to use whatever best weapon your campaign or adventure happens to throw at you. Yes, the damage dice of the weapon do not apply (thus a 1d12 great axe becomes a 1d8/1d8 quarterstaff 19-20/x2 in the hands of the monk (once he has Improvised Weapon Mastery)). However the magical qualities of the weapon persist. It is important to realize several things:
1. Arguably a +1 great axe becomes the equivalent of a +1/+1 quarterstaff; the expected DPR calculations do not assume this is true.
2. At 11th level the monk can spend ki to grant his weapons magical qualities. The obvious go-to being "bane".
3. However, the addition of rings of ki mastery allow for considerably more options. Equipping 3 rings of ki mastery (one on a hand of glory) allows the monk to spend 1 ki to add +4 equivalent to the weapon (stacking). Or spend upto 3 ki to add a +6 equivalent. This is where the vorpal socks of bane come in.
4. This also means that the monk has a particularly easy time bypassing DR.
5. The "greater designating" (+4) property is usually limited to ranged weapons, but for 1 ki the monk can grant himself and all allies a +4 moral bonus to-hit and +6 moral bonus to damage for one round if he hits his foe. This is fantastic support for the entire party.
6. Finally, a particularly interesting interactions happen with the "furyborn" property: the enhancement bonuses granted from this property stacks with existing enhancement bonuses (up to +5) and lasts for an hour or until the foe is defeated. This is not subject to the furyborn property staying on the weapon, the monk can spend ki to make his teatray a furyborn teatray until he's hit enough to have a +5 teatray for the rest of the fight against a big baddie.
Vudran qinggong monk of the empty hand 13
LN medium humanoid (human)
Str 24 = 15 base + 2 racial + 3 levels + 4 item (belt of strength)
Dex 16 = 14 base + 2 item (snakeskin tunic)
Con 14 = 12 base + 2 item (pink rhomboid ioun stone)
Int 13
Wis 18 = 14 base + 4 item (headband of wisdom)
Cha 8
traits ?, ?
level 1 - fast learner, improvisation, dodge (bonus)
level 2 - improved disarm (bonus)
level 3 - defiant luck
level 4 - bark skin ki power instead of slow fall
level 5 - inexplicable luck
level 6 - improvised weapon mastery (bonus)
level 7 - crane style
level 8 -
level 9 - crane wing
level 10 - spring attack
level 11 - crane riposte
level 12 -
level 13 - extra ki
Init
HP 107
AC 37 touch 28 flat 27
CMD 46
fort 13 reflex 14 will 14
[ooc]8 base + 2/3/3 stat + 3 cloak
attack +18/+18/+13/+13 (1d8+7 19-20/x2)
[ooc]13 bab + 7 str - 2 flurry - 1 defensive
other
equipment (137,250 spent):
belt of strength +4 (16000gp)
headband of wisdom +2 (4000gp)
dusty rose prism (5000gp) (resonating)
wayfinder (500gp) (with ioun stone)
cloak of resistance +3 (9000gp)
snakeskin tunic (8000gp)
pink rhomboid ioun stone (8000gp)
monk's robe (13000gp)
ki mat (10000gp)
3x ring of ki mastery (3x 10000gp)
hand of glory (8000gp)
rod of balance (15000gp)
wand of mage armor (750gp)
10x potion of mage armor (500gp)
Expected DPR
By spending 1 ki point a round, grant weapon +3 bane property (or any other set of properties that total to a net +4 equivalent which stacks onto existing properties). The basic proposed use is spending that ki to grant your weapon +1 furyborn bane. Furyborn creates a lasting stacking +1 enhancement (up to +5). Once the furyborn limit is reached (approximately 3 rounds) I suggest spending 1 ki to grant the weapon the speed bane qualities. If haste is already present, then alternatives such as flaming frosty shocking bane or vicious holy bane can be considered.
Unmodified table leg 19.55
+1 furyborn bane candlestick 33.35
+5 speed bane tablecloth 72.25
Though I would suggest using the weak ("off-hand") attacks to do maneuvers such as trip and disarm. The expected DPR then becomes 62.475 and leaves the monk with 2 attempts to perform a maneuver.
If you're fighting something with incredible regen, DR, HP and the like, it could be possible to have time for a second furyborn enhanced weapon (or enhance both sides of a double-weapon). This would be unlikely in most situations, but occasionally such a scenario comes up. The theoretical expected DPR would be:
+5 greater designating cloak / +5 lantern 87.975
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2d10/19-20 dual wield able weapon that is lightSure, but I'd rather it be 1d10/19-20 with a +5 to hit.
LoreKeeper, if monks used their unarmed damage with a cestus, they would have a weapon that did 2d10/19-20 base. Before enchantment. So it could end up 2d10/17-20 with a +5 enhancement bonus and another +5 in weapon properties. Oh, dual wield able and usable in flurries. So full str mod on damage for all attacks.
Just a little bit overpowered you think?
Well, ok, little bit isn't exactly the term I'd use but hey, I'm trying to be flexible with the definition of overpowered here, as up thread there is a good example of how different people opinions can be on power level.
Mom, barring something changing since the last time I looked at it, fast learner only has 2 settings.
1 additional skill rank and hit point per level in a favor erred class
Or
The racial favored class bonus.
It isn't a combine them however you want feat, it just presents the bonus skill rank and hit point as one option instead of two.
Edit:
Still looking at the build, it looks interesting but double checking some of the rules involved before I weigh in on the build itself.
Mom, barring something changing since the last time I looked at it, fast learner only has 2 settings.
1 additional skill rank and hit point per level in a favor erred class
Or
The racial favored class bonus.It isn't a combine them however you want feat, it just presents the bonus skill rank and hit point as one option instead of two.
It is mix-n-match. You can chose the racial favored class bonus normally already, you don't need a feat for that. (Or how do you suppose the dwarven, elven, gnome, etc favored class bonuses are gained?)
Normally, you have three options for favored class bonus:
+1 HP
OR
+1 Skill Rank
OR
+1 racial alternate favored class bonus
Fast Learner condenses these into two options:
+1 HP and +1 Skill Rank
OR
+1 racial alternate favored class bonus
It does not present "+1 HP and +1 racial alternate favored class bonus" as an option.
Fortunately, this doesn't affect your build at all, because you didn't take Toughness so you can just replace Fast Learner with Toughness to get the same effect.
(Fast Learner is seriously a horrible feat. It's exactly like what Toughness would be if it only progressed as long as you don't multiclass and only put your favored class bonus into extra skill ranks, and if it didn't give the full +3 HP immediately at first level and had an Int 13 prereq and a Human prereq and if you didn't gain its full benefits unless you took it before taking any levels in your favored class. I mean, sure, it stacks with Toughness, but it's still Toughness with like six nerfs tacked on.)
Mom, barring something changing since the last time I looked at it, fast learner only has 2 settings.
1 additional skill rank and hit point per level in a favor erred class
Or
The racial favored class bonus.It isn't a combine them however you want feat, it just presents the bonus skill rank and hit point as one option instead of two.
It is mix-n-match. You can chose the racial favored class bonus normally already, you don't need a feat for that. (Or how do you suppose the dwarven, elven, gnome, etc favored class bonuses are gained?)
You misunderstand what I am saying.
Benefit: When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward.
It reads "When you gain a level in a favored class, you gain both +1 hit point and +1 skill rank instead of choosing either one or the other benefit or you can choose an alternate class reward." So, when you take a level in a favored class, you can get the alternate class reward as normal, or you can take the skill rank and hit point option. That is all it does. It doesn't allow for you to take a skill rank and an alternate reward, or (by way of other feats) two alternate class rewards. It just alters the hit point and skill rank options to include both.
I know, it's kind of a bummer, I thought the same as you at first till I went back and reread it with my rules lawyer mentality going.
hmmm... I've read up on the discussion. I'd say it is still up in the air (regarding Fast Learner).
Fortunately it doesn't matter much in this case. I picked the first four non-bonus feats without combat in mind - there are plenty of ways in which they could be picked to take the build in a particular direction.
Fast Learner (For a Single Classed build) is closer to dreamscarred press's open minded than it is to toughness. since the real bonus isn't the hit points, it's the skill points.
open minded is a pretty good feat for what it does. i'm not sure there are many builds that wouldn't take it if they had an extra feat to spare. for the price of having to qualify for combat expertise, a human fighter can be even more skill points ahead of their nonhuman counterparts.
it allows fighters to function better out of combat.
it's definitely better than another similar feat for half-humans in the ARG.
most builds probably want the hit points anyway. so a feat to tack on the skill points isn't too bad. and any "human-blooded" race can wheedle permission to take it from their DM in a home game if they want to play a more human blooded planetouched.
for the price of a 13 int and 2 feats, i could have a human fighter with 6 skill points per level. if i bump it up to 14. i could make that 7. i'm not quite in skill monkey territory yet, but now my human fighter can have some decent noncombat skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the idea is that if one takes toughness over this learner feat the choice can just always be skill point and the same effect of +1 HP and +1 skill point is achieved.
Yeah, exactly. You can rephrase Fast Learner as:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (This only applies to hit dice you gain after taking this feat, and even then only if you take them in your favored class, and even then only if you choose +1 skill point as your favored class bonus. Also, you must have at least 13 Int and count as human.)"
Whereas Toughness is:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (In addition, if you only have one or two hit dice, you still receive a full +3 hit points.)"
Fast Learner is strictly inferior to Toughness. If you're not taking Toughness, there's literally no reason to even consider taking it. And if you are taking Toughness... honestly, do you really need Fast Learner?
It's almost tempting to say, "Well, if you're already a human and you're already going to have 13 Int and you're already going to stay single-classed and you're already going to put your favored class bonus into getting more skill ranks, then isn't Fast Learner just as good as Toughness? Sure, it's no better, but it's not any worse, is it?" Unfortunately, it's still worse. If you take the feat in question at first level, then Toughness has the advantage of giving +3 hit points from the very start, which makes you much more survivable for the first couple of levels. But if you take the feat later than first level, Fast Learner doesn't realize your earlier hit dice exist, so it permanently provides a smaller bonus than Toughness.
So even under optimal conditions where all of Fast Learner's arbitrary constraints are satisfied without going out of your way at all, it's still worse. It can't even be "just as good" as Toughness even at the best of times. It's just worse.
I think the idea is that if one takes toughness over this learner feat the choice can just always be skill point and the same effect of +1 HP and +1 skill point is achieved.Yeah, exactly. You can rephrase Fast Learner as:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (This only applies to hit dice you gain after taking this feat, and even then only if you take them in your favored class, and even then only if you choose +1 skill point as your favored class bonus. Also, you must have at least 13 Int and count as human.)"
Whereas Toughness is:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (In addition, if you only have one or two hit dice, you still receive a full +3 hit points.)"
Fast Learner is strictly inferior to Toughness. If you're not taking Toughness, there's literally no reason to even consider taking it. And if you are taking Toughness... honestly, do you really need Fast Learner?
It's almost tempting to say, "Well, if you're already a human and you're already going to have 13 Int and you're already going to stay single-classed and you're already going to put your favored class bonus into getting more skill ranks, then isn't Fast Learner just as good as Toughness? Sure, it's no better, but it's not any worse, is it?" Unfortunately, it's still worse. If you take the feat in question at first level, then Toughness has the advantage of giving +3 hit points from the very start, which makes you much more survivable for the first couple of levels. But if you take the feat later than first level, Fast Learner doesn't realize your earlier hit dice exist, so it permanently provides a smaller bonus than Toughness.
So even under optimal conditions where all of Fast Learner's arbitrary constraints are satisfied without going out of your way at all, it's still worse. It can't even be "just as good" as Toughness even at the best of times. It's just worse.
You are so right. I don't think I ever noticed how bad that feat was before you pointed it out. :P
|
I think the idea is that if one takes toughness over this learner feat the choice can just always be skill point and the same effect of +1 HP and +1 skill point is achieved.Yeah, exactly. You can rephrase Fast Learner as:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (This only applies to hit dice you gain after taking this feat, and even then only if you take them in your favored class, and even then only if you choose +1 skill point as your favored class bonus. Also, you must have at least 13 Int and count as human.)"
Whereas Toughness is:
"For each hit die you have, you receive +1 hit point. (In addition, if you only have one or two hit dice, you still receive a full +3 hit points.)"
Fast Learner is strictly inferior to Toughness. If you're not taking Toughness, there's literally no reason to even consider taking it. And if you are taking Toughness... honestly, do you really need Fast Learner?
It's almost tempting to say, "Well, if you're already a human and you're already going to have 13 Int and you're already going to stay single-classed and you're already going to put your favored class bonus into getting more skill ranks, then isn't Fast Learner just as good as Toughness? Sure, it's no better, but it's not any worse, is it?" Unfortunately, it's still worse. If you take the feat in question at first level, then Toughness has the advantage of giving +3 hit points from the very start, which makes you much more survivable for the first couple of levels. But if you take the feat later than first level, Fast Learner doesn't realize your earlier hit dice exist, so it permanently provides a smaller bonus than Toughness.
So even under optimal conditions where all of Fast Learner's arbitrary constraints are satisfied without going out of your way at all, it's still worse. It can't even be "just as good" as Toughness even at the best of times. It's just worse.
Hell, I remember when Toughness was a flat out 3 HP extra and nothing else, then Improved Toughness came out and yet Toughness wasn't a prereq.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hell, I remember when Toughness was a flat out 3 HP extra and nothing else, then Improved Toughness came out and yet Toughness wasn't a prereq.
Because it was clearly intended as a replacement. :P
EDIT: What amuses me is I remember a time when people argued that 3.x Toughness was a good feat. Believing whole heartily that it was A-OK to have a feat that started "fair" and then got progressively worse when you gained levels to the point of absolute uselessness. I wondered if they just really didn't understand, or if it was fanboyism for all things printed.
You are so right. I don't think I ever noticed how bad that feat was before you pointed it out. :PNot even the feat that requires it really makes up for it. I'll have to point this out to my PFS player the next time I see him.
I've seen one instance where it's pretty awesome, and that was in Baldur's Gate based campaign I'm running. In homage to the 2E based Baldur's Gate, the option to gestalt certain classes in a retro-multiclassing sort of way was allowed (for all races, not just non-humans), with gestalted characters having to earn more XP to gain levels.
One of the NPCs in that game is a half-elf fighter/druid, who has chosen both as her favored classes and taken that feat. So every time she levels she gets +2 Hp and +2 skill points. It's rather amusing.
Of course, that is nothing more than a cute story, and has little to do with Pathfinder core. XD
Hm, in our roleplaying group the monk was the strongest character by far, he did the most damage of the group (twice as much as anybody else). He also had great saving throws, could take almost as much damage as our paladin and was always one of the first to strike. In our group of 5-6 players he did 50% of the whole damage of the group, he wasn't a weak build at all, he was the strongest by far (maybe we did something wrong :).
how did that happen? did everyone else roll poorly and the monk roll amazingly? because that sounds like attributes more than anything.
or was the monk fudging things?
any house rules in place?
or was it one of those multiclassed multiple archetyped abominations that used only a little of the monk?
Against low ac opponents, a pure monk can be really deadly. Cleave and great cleave can allow others to do as well as a monk in this situation, but all those dice sometimes favour a mid level monk from what I've seen nicknutria.
Archers will do more, but if the enemy closes they might get shut down for a while, and have to change weapons over. The monk keeps on flurrying, the other melee can get jealous (seen it!).
Truly monks are fantastic against mooks, skeletons, some golems and evokers/war mages and ray users. Ah, your spell did nothing, and he is now bashing your face in after covering such a distance to close, hahaha.
Hm, in our roleplaying group the monk was the strongest character by far,Pics or it didn't happen.
Things happen when they are not recorded. It isn't polite to call someone a liar.
Yes, the monk's ability to beat up things that can't fight is great, he does almost as well as a real combat class. However, not all encounters are of this type, and it would be nice to have a monk that could contribute effectively in a boss-fight...
Ha ha, you guys will never accept their ability to fight well, no matter how many dms say "no, I've seen them do great". "Their speed, saves and flurry work really well", you just can't accept a sentence like that. You are too stuck in the counter-position.
To Tri, the proof is sessions across multiple dms across multiple years. If you don't accept first hand testimony, ah well.
I have not seen it. You got details? Why would the melee guy have to change weapons as an example. If it was a reach weapon there are ways to make sure that is very hard to do. War mages are 3.5, and focusing on rays/evocation are also not good builds. Just to be clear I am assuming they don't have backup options. I can't credit the monk because anyone that gets past their(one trick pony casters) only option would own them
edit:I was responding to this post
Rays are fantastic against opponents with weak touch acs ("Look at my armour and my big shield, arrrrgh I am on fire!".
This isn't a weakness of the monk though.
i had a brawler with a martial artist dip who dealt nasty damage. but it was on overgeared brawler with relatively customized gear, with a few house rules. her defenses sucked though.
Ha ha, you guys will never accept their ability to fight well, no matter how many dms say "no, I've seen them do great". "Their speed, saves and flurry work really well", you just can't accept a sentence like that. You are too stuck in the counter-position.
To Tri, the proof is sessions across multiple dms across multiple years. If you don't accept first hand testimony, ah well.
Many GM's run the game differently and many times the GM allows rules to be broken for the "rule of cool", which is not bad, but it won't go over well in an actual discussion.
If you can show us a monk that consistently does well against a GM using optimal tactics, and not fudging(dice or tactics wise) then we shall be convinced, but there seems to always be a catch.
It not about being stuck. I was converted from disliking bards, but "it does well in my games" did work.
It can be dispelled so it is not really a good idea. This idea came up before.
The RAW does not allow AoMF to bypass DR. There are other threads on that however.
As for RAI we won't know until the monk revision.
I have been gone from the forums for a little while and now that im back I have noticed alot of hate towards the monk class. For those of you who for some reason think it is bad. Why? (More than just a simple answer give an example)
OK... 884 posts in. everybody has said everything they said before. TOZ has deja vue. Multiple people have linked to the last giant Monk thread. Wolfen probably regrets his OP. I have a headache even thinking about another 800+ post Monk thread. Or 900... did the last one go a thousand? And the circle of life continues.
If there was anything new, somebody have mercy and post a summary of anything new / interesting before my nagging subconscious voice forces me to read this whole thing on the theory that something new might have been said...
But let's not discourage anyone who has a story of a monk that did great! By all means if you have a monk success story, please post the monk and explain any specific details of the encounters. A lot of us are brainstorming rewrites for the class so any data that either 1) obviates the need for that or 2) shows how a rewrite could potentially be exploited would be most welcome.
I had an awesome warforged monk that kicked butt and took names. He had sucked with move silently checks(3.5), and died twice despite doing well on the hide checks.
I basically focused on offense and beat bad guys into the ground.
We fought an arrow demon, but being noobs we were lacking in experience and the GM was a vet, and now that I think about it he broke a few rules. Darn it. Anyway the demon would teleport to the end of a hallway, and fill us up with arrows. We ran to him so he teleported to the other side and shot up some more. He later summoner some demons that can make you nauseous, and they summoned more demons, which is also illegal, so we had to run away. I think we could have taken him otherwise.
I had very good stats.
Str 18
dex 14
con 16
wis 16
int 14
cha 11
Moral of the story:If the monk can keep his offense and defense he should be ok. <--Don't ask just go with it.
I had an awesome warforged monk that kicked butt and took names. He had sucked with move silently checks(3.5), and died twice despite doing well on the hide checks.
I basically focused on offense and beat bad guys into the ground.
We fought an arrow demon, but being noobs we were lacking in experience and the GM was a vet, and now that I think about it he broke a few rules. Darn it. Anyway the demon would teleport to the end of a hallway, and fill us up with arrows. We ran to him so he teleported to the other side and shot up some more. He later summoner some demons that can make you nauseous, and they summoned more demons, which is also illegal, so we had to run away. I think we could have taken him otherwise.
I had very good stats.
Str 18
dex 14
con 16
wis 16
int 14
cha 11Moral of the story:If the monk can keep his offense and defense he should be ok. <--Don't ask just go with it.
So what you're telling me is... roll well. And I bet Deflect Arrows gets a lot of mileage when the Arrow Demons come knocking.
So what you're telling me is... roll well. And I bet Deflect Arrows gets a lot of mileage when the Arrow Demons come knocking.I had an awesome warforged monk that kicked butt and took names. He had sucked with move silently checks(3.5), and died twice despite doing well on the hide checks.
I basically focused on offense and beat bad guys into the ground.
We fought an arrow demon, but being noobs we were lacking in experience and the GM was a vet, and now that I think about it he broke a few rules. Darn it. Anyway the demon would teleport to the end of a hallway, and fill us up with arrows. We ran to him so he teleported to the other side and shot up some more. He later summoner some demons that can make you nauseous, and they summoned more demons, which is also illegal, so we had to run away. I think we could have taken him otherwise.
I had very good stats.
Str 18
dex 14
con 16
wis 16
int 14
cha 11Moral of the story:If the monk can keep his offense and defense he should be ok. <--Don't ask just go with it.
It did help some, and the GM did roll well, but luckily I had team mates to share those arrows with. :)
The moral was not really anywhere in the story, but on a more serious note. If the PF monk could keep his current damage potential, and keep his high AC I think it would be ok. I don't mind the unarmed strikes being close to a fighter's DPR level as long as they are with unarmed strikes only. The fighter should however be allowed to change which weapons his feats apply to IMHO, such as weapon focus(dagger), but that is another discussion for another day.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ha ha, you guys will never accept their ability to fight well, no matter how many dms say "no, I've seen them do great". "Their speed, saves and flurry work really well", you just can't accept a sentence like that. You are too stuck in the counter-position.
To Tri, the proof is sessions across multiple dms across multiple years. If you don't accept first hand testimony, ah well.
And what about those of us who have the same breadth and depth of experience and have met nothing but failure and bitter frustration of a class that failed in its promise? YOU do nothing but dismiss it and assume a counter position.
Anecdotes are easy to come up with, because one bad class made and played well can be better than ten good classes made and played badly.
We, on the other hand, can back it up with the math and the mechanics:
FACT: the monk is the MADest class in the game. They can get a lot out of great stats, but you need great stats to begin with and without them you lag behind badly in stat scores that bbost hitting, abilities, hit points. To match the other classes in one area is to fail in others when using point-buy.
FACT: the monk's enhancement to hit lags behind that of other classes, costs more, and leaves the monk nerfed for getting through DR.
FACT: monks have d8 hit dice and 3/4 BAB when not flurrying, and unlike other 3/4 BAB combat classes have no means to boost this attack bonus.
FACT: monk weapons are sub-standard. Unarmed strike looks awesome until you try and actually use it on a high AC target and fail.
FACT: Many monk abilities are badly thought out and do not have any synergy with the classes role or with one another.
FACT: Monks are a combat class, they do not have the skill-points to be a skills-monkey without boosting intelligence.
What FACTs can you come up with to prove your point that monks are great? Very few, because mechanically, they aren't.
Rays are fantastic against opponents with weak touch acs ("Look at my armour and my big shield, arrrrgh I am on fire!".
This isn't a weakness of the monk though.
"Assissins appear behind the party, what are your flat-footed ACs?"
Monk dies.
People go overboard on how amazing the monks touch AC is, but forget that they have a sucky flat-footed AC with no Uncanny Dodge.
Out of curiosity, does a monk really need to get an amulet of mighty fists? Is it an option for a high level monk not to spend 125k on mighty fists and instead spend 15k to use permanency on greater magic fang on both fists?
One dispel magic and it's gone, plus it doesn't get past any DR but DR/magic, unlike standard enhancement.
Ha ha, you guys will never accept their ability to fight well, no matter how many dms say "no, I've seen them do great". "Their speed, saves and flurry work really well", you just can't accept a sentence like that. You are too stuck in the counter-position.
To Tri, the proof is sessions across multiple dms across multiple years. If you don't accept first hand testimony, ah well.
And what about those of us who have the same breadth and depth of experience and have met nothing but failure and bitter frustration of a class that failed in its promise? YOU do nothing but dismiss it and assume a counter position.
Anecdotes are easy to come up with, because one bad class made and played well can be better than ten good classes made and played badly.
We, on the other hand, can back it up with the math and the mechanics:
FACT: the monk is the MADest class in the game. They can get a lot out of great stats, but you need great stats to begin with and without them you lag behind badly in stat scores that bbost hitting, abilities, hit points. To match the other classes in one area is to fail in others when using point-buy.
FACT: the monk's enhancement to hit lags behind that of other classes, costs more, and leaves the monk nerfed for getting through DR.
FACT: monks have d8 hit dice and 3/4 BAB when not flurrying, and unlike other 3/4 BAB combat classes have no means to boost this attack bonus.
FACT: monk weapons are sub-standard. Unarmed strike looks awesome until you try and actually use it on a high AC target and fail.
FACT: Many monk abilities are badly thought out and do not have any synergy with the classes role or with one another.
FACT: Monks are a combat class, they do not have the skill-points to be a skills-monkey without boosting intelligence.What FACTs can you come up with to prove your point that monks are great? Very few, because mechanically, they aren't.
Rays are fantastic against opponents with weak touch acs ("Look at my armour...
Great post Dabbler. On a related note, one could say:
"FACT: If they aren't a combat class, they suck at that too." :P"Assissins appear behind the party, what are your flat-footed ACs?"
Monk dies.
People go overboard on how amazing the monks touch AC is, but forget that they have a sucky flat-footed AC with no Uncanny Dodge.
This was why I absolutely needed the 2 level dip in Barbarian, to keep the Dex/Dodge bonuses active. And great example by the way. One of my PCs got shot by an assassin during a game and rolled his Fortitude and succeeded, then went "She just Death-Attacked me? Why that cheeky..." (^.^)
Yeeep, back each-other up.
Dabbler, I've heard the love of facts before (I control the facts, I win, nyaaa nyaaa). The fact is, the pf monk gets a great deal, not much of which is concentrated on to hit or damage. They aren't swift killers if ac or dr is too high, that is one of the weaknesses. This doesn't mean they are useless, can't do anything or contribute.
You can give them more, or rather the designers can, but they are already pushing balance, as some have explained prior. Their saves are great, their movement is great, their bab and hit die are okay, they have class abilities, ki abilities, free feats and a steady escalation of their damage type and ac bonus with zero reliance on weapons or getting them enchanted. Which leaves plenty of money left over for aiding rp, or building a school to train more monks (oh no!).
Facts? Evidence? Ha ha, I too have a fondness for evidence, for examples and what experience has shown. I won't call people liars when they talk of their experiences, because their claims don't match my opinionated views. Which is why this thread has a far more pleasant (celebratory?) vibe about it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3s6?stories-of-success-about-monks
This above thread is pretty fun so far, and doesn't have an ugly tone. It isn't filled with angry people that chuck a wally when you disagree with them, or demand more evidence which they have no interest in accepting. Well, wallow in your desperate agitation that the monk is weak, praise each-other and pat your backs. I'm off to read of good times, and that monk characters as others attest, can lead to good fun and effective heroic times in-game.
Because the game should be about great experiences, having a lot of fun through fine characters, and sharing those stories later. The fixation on dpr and to hit is the opposite. A truly limited horizon for rpg players.
|
So, considering my post in that thread, why do you think I disagree that monks are a good class?
Edit: Linkified.
The thing is, the game still has rules.
And by the rules that are written, the Monk isn't doing too well in giving those great experiences.
|
|
I will say that when rolling stats a player can get very with his rolls and churn out some good numbers that can improve the monk.
I remember in one game we had a player roll out the following stats.
Str: 18
Dex: 16
Con: 16
Int: 11
Wis: 16
Cha: 12
After that he put the 12 in Int and the 11 in Cha. He then chose dwarf and ended up with the following.
Str: 18
Dex: 16
Con: 18
Int: 12
Wis: 18
Cha: 9
Now I know rolling stats like these don't happen every day but this character ended up being really cool.
You should see my friend's Ranger.
He rolled some pretty wicked stats for her.
Not as good as your Monk, but still pretty impressive.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeeep, back each-other up.
Dabbler, I've heard the love of facts before (I control the facts, I win, nyaaa nyaaa).
Aw, poor set-upon 3.5 Loyalist. Sadly, having the facts to back up your opinion is known widely as "being right" while to insist you are correct without facts to back you up is to have faith. To insist you are right when the facts completely undermine your position is known as "delusional."
The fact is, the pf monk gets a great deal, not much of which is concentrated on to hit or damage. They aren't swift killers if ac or dr is too high, that is one of the weaknesses. This doesn't mean they are useless, can't do anything or contribute.
They aren't killers at all, unless they are fighting targets well below their CR, or are in corner case situations. Unfortunately my experience AND the mechanics have found situations in which every other character could contribute, and the monk - MY monk - could not, and I am not the only one.
Not everything is about hit and damage, but outside hit and damage what can a monk do to a foe in a fight? Outside of a fight, they have more utility than a fighter, say, but less than a rogue or ranger - and both those classes can perform as well as if not better than the monk in combat.
You can give them more, or rather the designers can, but they are already pushing balance, as some have explained prior. Their saves are great, their movement is great, their bab and hit die are okay, they have class abilities, ki abilities, free feats and a steady escalation of their damage type and ac bonus with zero reliance on weapons or getting them enchanted. Which leaves plenty of money left over for aiding rp, or building a school to train more monks (oh no!).
I will not deny, defensively monks are almost as good as paladins...Who also have full BAB, healing powers, spells, and smite evil. They are slightly better than rangers, who get animal companions, spells and full BAB and d10 hit dice, and as many powers as the monk. So yes, actually I can say the monk needs a bit more to make them as effective as these other classes.
Sadly the monk's list of powers, while looking good, suffer from major disadvantages that either makes them barely useful or only useful in rare situations. Slow fall, still mind, wholeness of body, diamond body, diamond soul, timeless body, tongue of the sun and the moon and empty body are all of minimal usefulness, or available so late in the game after other classes gained better abilities that they really are not relevant.
The same is true of unarmed strike. Sure, the damage dice rise. But it's not true that the monk is free of weapons, because you can't punch somebody out of charge range (or in a place you cannot reach), and you can't hit dick without enhancement once it becomes commonly available to the martial classes. That means the AoMF, which costs way more than the weapon it replaces and is just as vulnerable and a lot rarer to find than a magic sword.
All the monk's AC bonus does is make up for the fact he can't wear armour. He still has to pay for an armour enhancement in bracers of AC if he wants a decent AC, though.
So if anything, he is paying out more for gear, to achieve less, so that monastery and those RP options will have to wait I am afraid.
Part of my frustration with the monk is precisely that it restricts my choices of equipment and feats in order to be mechanically somewhat effective that I feel it cramps my role-play choices.
Facts? Evidence? Ha ha, I too have a fondness for evidence, for examples and what experience has shown. I won't call people liars when they talk of their experiences, because their claims don't match my opinionated views. Which is why this thread has a far more pleasant (celebratory?) vibe about it:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3s6?stories-of-success-about-monks
This above thread is pretty fun so far, and doesn't have an ugly tone. It isn't filled with angry people that chuck a wally when you disagree with them, or demand more evidence which they have no interest in accepting. Well, wallow in your desperate agitation that the monk is weak, praise each-other and pat your backs. I'm off to read of good times, and that monk characters as others attest, can lead to good fun and effective heroic times in-game.
Yes, it is filled with moments when monks were able to do something. You know this really says something the opposite to what you are trying to say, though, don't you? Why do we need a 'monk saved the party' moment thread? Because those moments are rare, that's why. Reading that thread I see monks that had insanely good stats (three 18s), archetypes (we are saying the core monk needs a boost), corner case situations, and fluky luck. Forgive me, but I think this more proves my point about the monk being mechanically weak than not.
I too do not call people liars when they tell me of how great their monk did. This is because monks do not suck all the time, just in a far larger subset of encounters than other combat classes. There are times when they can shine. There are games that play to the strengths of a monk. A moment of luck can make a monk seem great. However, anecdotes are subjective, and mechanics are not, and the mechanics show that the monk is mechanically weak. You can't rely on insanely good luck to make a class work.
Because the game should be about great experiences, having a lot of fun through fine characters, and sharing those stories later. The fixation on dpr and to hit is the opposite. A truly limited horizon for rpg players.
Yes, I agree. But the problem here is that for every monk player that has had great experiences, there seems to be one or more who have had terrible ones. For every monk shining moment there seem to be many 'monk sucked' moments. For every monk that came out the hero, there are many monk baffoons - usually dead baffoons. It's hard to role-play a corpse and have fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My EXPERIENCE with monks of most sorts is that they have good "mook resistance", and is decent at mopping up remnants after a wizard has disabled them. But against a "live" enemy, who is at full capacity, and can strike back... not so much.
In a buff-heavy group, they get up to "ok". But in the same group, the actual martials get up to "amazing".
Sure, last session, the monk in our party did do some cool stuff. "Cool" not "efficient". And it made the GM chuckle to imagine the odd "critical hit deck" outcomes.
They are fun, but smacks of what I consider a "masochistic challenge" to play. Willingly limiting yourself to see if your system mastery and sense of tactics is enough to allow you to survive. Kinda like playing Dark Souls or some other hard game and not wear armor, just to see if you are a bad enough dude to get through.