| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Bearded Ben means a unarmed paladin.
Perhaps, but he said a punching Paladin. You can punch with a cestus, and since it is both Bludgeoning and Piercing, you can make it keen as well. I would draw up a cestus and heavy shield paladin (he can still cast while wearing a cestus, after all) and wind up spending a LOT less gp than a monk of equal level.
Damage would be only be 1d4 base, but with a greater enhancement bonus and possibly special abilities (holy, keen, etc), and a higher attack bonus, the paladin will probably still come out ahead while having a higher AC and saves, plus spells and other special ablities. And he would threaten a critical on a 17-20 with a keen cestus.
And then there is smiting if the opponent is evil. That just opens the distance between them even further.
MA
Clerics also do well in combat so I don't see how having one around makes people get hurt more.I'm guessing by dedicated healer he meant cleric. The whole spontaneous cast curing spells and channel energy makes them viable healers even if it isn't their main focus.An aside on healing and monks. I have noticed when a party has a dedicated healer, they use healing a lot, and have need to. If they don't have a dedicated healer, but more adequately fill other roles like attack and defence, skirmish or ranged support, there is less need of a healer.
The monk works very well in parties without dedicated healing. Whether they go hard and the monk flanks, or they go defence with 1-2 great hitters supported, the monk's healing is a great resource then. They are more self reliant. Everyone else breaks out their healing which they bought, the monk just uses a standard. I have even seen envy over this monk ability.
Groups I've played with and ran games for, they have moved away from dedicated healers/heal-bot clerics, and this is what we have found.
The groups I am in don't act foolish just because a healer is around. We also don't use dedicated healer aka healbots. We have people capable of healing. The last time someone tried to use a healbot they were bored to death. I don't understand the envy. Drop 750, get a wand of cure light wounds, kill the enemy quickly and you might not even have to heal.
PS:If by dedicated healer you did not mean healbot then I misunderstood you.
It doesn't always. But I have DMed for groups, and played in groups, where as soon as some poor cleric said "I'm a healer" the average tactical IQ at the table dropped like a rock. I'm always careful in combat, I remember back when getting brought back from the dead involved Con loss and therefore made it that much more likely to end up that way again. Old habits die hard. But I have seen it, and I have noticed a tendency in groups with a cleric to eat slightly more damage than those without, although that may just be the dice gods laughing at people.
When I look at the Monk's default class features I cringe a bit and then pretend that Qinggong is base to make myself feel better.
I was assuming the cleric was played well, and the players don't do what you just described. That is a player issue however, not a strength of the monk class. Players like yourself would do very well with a cleric since he will be contributing to the fight instead of healing people.
Much agreed wraithstrike. I'm all for bloody handed offensive clerics, or the my god is awesome, he has buffs!!! style of cleric, done well, they are amazing additions to a party. Much more useful (imo) than a cleric whose player has the attitude of "Ima hit a couple thingies with the mace then patch everyone up who did the heavy lifting, maybe toss a couple buffs out if I feel like it, cause Ima healer"
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
Chaos, that is also another issue with the monk class. I can't recall the last time I heard or read about someone looking at playing the base monk class. Its always <insert archetype here> monk, if not multiples, and yes, I know, that isn't entirely fair, but like you said, Qinggong seems to be the base 2.0, as there is no reason for any monk except a martial artist to take it, and even then the martial artist can get some (slight, and I do mean slight) usage from it.
|
Much agreed wraithstrike. I'm all for bloody handed offensive clerics, or the my god is awesome, he has buffs!!! style of cleric, done well, they are amazing additions to a party. Much more useful (imo) than a cleric whose player has the attitude of "Ima hit a couple thingies with the mace then patch everyone up who did the heavy lifting, maybe toss a couple buffs out if I feel like it, cause Ima healer"
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
Chaos, that is also another issue with the monk class. I can't recall the last time I heard or read about someone looking at playing the base monk class. Its always <insert archetype here> monk, if not multiples, and yes, I know, that isn't entirely fair, but like you said, Qinggong seems to be the base 2.0, as there is no reason for any monk except a martial artist to take it, and even then the martial artist can get some (slight, and I do mean slight) usage from it.
And some of use like the cleric that doesn't put damage first but we cannot die thank to the nice healing ability.
|
|
I think Bearded Ben means a unarmed paladin.Perhaps, but he said a punching Paladin. You can punch with a cestus, and since it is both Bludgeoning and Piercing, you can make it keen as well. I would draw up a cestus and heavy shield paladin (he can still cast while wearing a cestus, after all) and wind up spending a LOT less gp than a monk of equal level.
Damage would be only be 1d4 base, but with a greater enhancement bonus and possibly special abilities (holy, keen, etc), and a higher attack bonus, the paladin will probably still come out ahead while having a higher AC and saves, plus spells and other special ablities. And he would threaten a critical on a 17-20 with a keen cestus.
And then there is smiting if the opponent is evil. That just opens the distance between them even further.
MA
which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the difference
which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the difference
I disagree. Using brass knuckles to punch someone in the face still involves punching them in the face.
Andrew...
Yes, a paladin with just improved unarmed strike using his bare fist will have better offense. His BAB is better, odds are his Str is higher, and he gains access to offensive feats earlier (thanks to that full BAB) than the monk.
And yes, not all clerics put damage first, you'll note I also listed buffer clerics in there as well. If all the cleric is being used for is healing and soaking up damage, quite frankly he is being under utilized, as the class is much, much more than a healer, they always have been.
|
|
which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?
|
So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
Except the point WASN'T who is better UNARMED fighter but who could PUNCH better.
And some of use like the cleric that doesn't put damage first but we cannot die thank to the nice healing ability.Much agreed wraithstrike. I'm all for bloody handed offensive clerics, or the my god is awesome, he has buffs!!! style of cleric, done well, they are amazing additions to a party. Much more useful (imo) than a cleric whose player has the attitude of "Ima hit a couple thingies with the mace then patch everyone up who did the heavy lifting, maybe toss a couple buffs out if I feel like it, cause Ima healer"
Anyway, back to the topic at hand...
Chaos, that is also another issue with the monk class. I can't recall the last time I heard or read about someone looking at playing the base monk class. Its always <insert archetype here> monk, if not multiples, and yes, I know, that isn't entirely fair, but like you said, Qinggong seems to be the base 2.0, as there is no reason for any monk except a martial artist to take it, and even then the martial artist can get some (slight, and I do mean slight) usage from it.
We are not saying the cleric has to do damage. Even dropping battle control spells, summons, debuff spells, and other spells can help out in combat.
So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?
Why not? That's what Paizo did with RAW.
The Unarmed Fighter is given proficiency with all "monk" weapons (including exotic), all simple weapons, and all martial weapons.
The Weapon Adept Monk isn't given proficiency with most "monk" weapons, let alone simple weapons (and just forget about martial).
XD.
And this is just one reason why the Monk class (and many of the decisions made around it) continue to befuddle me...
|
|
Except the point WASN'T who is better UNARMED fighter but who could PUNCH better.So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
Wizard wins, he can have his golem do it. Same silly logic
A smiting paladin would do more damage, but otherwise a monk built for offense should do better. Now if the monk is built for defense the paladin might do better without smite.
With that aside the paladin does not have to have a better offense while punching(unarmed strikes) things. There is no reason to do so other than flavor.
In any event I suggest the martial artist monk for damage.
|
|
Wizard wins, he can have his golem do it. Same silly logicExcept the point WASN'T who is better UNARMED fighter but who could PUNCH better.So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
Umm...not silly. The question was monk vs paladin...but if you DID open it up to everyone, wizard or alchemist would win the punching contest.
Wizard wins, he can have his golem do it. Same silly logicExcept the point WASN'T who is better UNARMED fighter but who could PUNCH better.So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
Andrew, setting aside the silliness of whether using brawling aids such as brass knuckles or cesti or gauntlets is punching...
Even purely unarmed, the paladin will beat out the monk. He has a better base BAB, he can self buff his offense much better and more reliably than the monk, he access to unarmed attack buffs the monk cannot get without sacrificing far to many class features, and, to top it all off, he has defenses that put the monk to shame.
And unarmed is a sub-optimal choice for a paladin to contribute to the party. Hence, yes, there are those of us who would like to see the monk buffed.
|
|
Wizard wins, he can have his golem do it. Same silly logicExcept the point WASN'T who is better UNARMED fighter but who could PUNCH better.So you are going to prove who is a better unarmed fighter by giving them weapons.....and that is not at all dishonest?which is using a weapon, not "punching" at least be honest about the differenceThat word, it does not mean what you think it means. Your choice about which word.
"Punching" does not mean bare handed. You can punch someone with a boxing glove, brass knuckles, a punch dagger (hence the name), or even the hilt of a sabre
"Honest" does not mean "unable to distinguish between boxing and bare knuckle brawling."
Andrew, setting aside the silliness of whether using brawling aids such as brass knuckles or cesti or gauntlets is punching...
Even purely unarmed, the paladin will beat out the monk. He has a better base BAB, he can self buff his offense much better and more reliably than the monk, he access to unarmed attack buffs the monk cannot get without sacrificing far to many class features, and, to top it all off, he has defenses that put the monk to shame.
And unarmed is a sub-optimal choice for a paladin to contribute to the party. Hence, yes, there are those of us who would like to see the monk buffed.
Thats fine, if that is the point then go ahead and make it. the problem is when you make the point without honesty you don't really make a point at all. That said i do not think the paladin is really that much ahead unless we are talking about an evil opponent every time
I personally love the idea of the monk, but can clearly see that his execution is flawed. If I'm rolling stats and get a good spread, I'll play a monk.
I did.
I still got shut down in 1/4 of battles and was rendered unable to contribute.
This doesn't say sh*t about class balance. Yeah an optimized monk's DPR can also beat a fighter that chooses nothing but skill focus as feats, woohoo monk are AoK and totally balanced.Actually...with current optimization I'm not positive that a skill-focused fighter using unarmed strikes STILL doesn't beat out a monk in terms of DPR. I'm not really great with the numbers game, but I suspect that it's an uncomfortably close race regardless.
That subject has come up many times, numbers have been crunched, builds compared...Fighter wins. He wins not because he does more damage per hit. He wins because he hits.
for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.
Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons. You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons (except for a Sling and Shuriken... Do you really want to use those?). You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
Late-edit.
for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons. You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
Awful? Assuming no feats at all were taken to increase speed, the medium monk has a greater speed than the ogre (40 or 30 in medium armour) at 6, the unarmoured ogre is equaled at level 3. The troll (30) that loves to rend rip and tear, is surpassed in speed by the medium monk at level 3. Hill giants are the same speed as trolls, when monks are up to 6th, they are on 50. The focus on DPR, to call for them to have better than 3/4 bab, there is no recognition of how strong speed can be; and how easily monks become fine skirmishers. Especially when they negate a shot each round (or take the thrown weapon and throw it back).
Have you heard of deflect arrows? Snatch arrows? Monks get them so easily, use one of the bonus feats to get in--two and you have both. That is one ranged shot or thrown weapon attack per round, that they negate or can throw back. It doesn't matter what they would roll, it just doesn't work on you. They may then certainly take their second shot at you if they have it, ahh, you are a mobile dex monk, I see. Hmm, don't think that will work so well.
Skirmishing up giants can be quite easily done by monks. To use ogres as an example, yes, they too get javelins, but their dex is terrible and with deflect arrows it doesn't matter what the first one is, it misses, then next one, with its pitiful to hit just won't do well against a mobile monk's defences.
That speed, mmm mmm. A feat to negate thrown or a shot each round and monks can get it as a bonus? The monk is more than just a DPR bot, that isn't their real purpose and this is why their strength is their speed, their number of attacks (flurry requires a wise choice be made when to use it), their saves and how easily they get into the mess with arrows/thrown feats. No, they can skip around, throw the ranged, rush about, go into flank and then flurry opponents attacking other party members. That is how the monk is used. 3/4 bab, it just doesn't come up much for what I'm playing (levels 1-14 commonly). So they can miss a bit. So? What is wrong with some misses? Rogues miss too, high ac can frustrate them, bards and clerics put in unideal situations as well. Is it so bad to miss some shots? Flank and you make up your bab, take your time and use your environment. It doesn't have to be a damage race.
For winning with attrition, if you've got the tools and have only put the barest commitment of feats to the task, monks make great skirmishers. I've heard of a player on these boards that was rocking a returning javelin monk, and good luck to them!
Last note on speed, 40-50 is good, but there are some real sweet spots like 55-60 that can leave melee enemies really hanging while you attack via thrown (or bow if that is your thing, crossbow if you want to take rapid reload) and keep distance. They charge, they go full, you can keep them wasting actions chasing you with speeds like that (40-50 can suffice for a monk, but got to be careful, later you get 60 eventually). If they break out a bow and take a shot, that is okay if you have deflect arrows. Then rush back and close on the archer/thrower, for monks can counter non specialist archers quite well and speed again proves very helpful here.
Late-edit.for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons (except for a Sling and Shuriken... Do you really want to use those?). You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
Move back and throw, or hold, throw and move as they charge. Repeat if distance is being kept. Drag them away with a double move to increase distance if you so desire. If your speed is superior you have great power. Fight like a Scythian/Hun. The Huns loved the javs.
Run de-activates deflect arrows, so be careful of using more than a double-move.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Noone is disputting the monk's ability to run away. He's quite good at that.
But what happens to your party while you run around the giant? What happens to you after he's dealt with them?
Deflect Arrows? Snatch Arrows? Those feats are terrible, and nearly useless in all situatios, except, maybe, corner case scenarios.
Monks are pretty good at surviving. Great saves, a couple immunities, great movement speed... But all that means is that they get to bounce around the battlefiled, flailing theirs arms without any result. Best case scenario, he helps the rogue to get in flank position.
So the enemies simply ignore him, kill everyone else and go away... They don't even attack the monk... Why bother?
But all that means is that they get to bounce around the battlefiled, flailing theirs arms without any result.
This happened in an actual thread where we statted up a monk vs a barbarian. We had multiple opponents, single boss types, ambush monsters, and so on. I think the monk was comparable in about 1 or two fights, but in many fight the barbarian was ahead for usefulness. I made the barbarian, and it was actually my first time making one for PF. If someone with more familiarity had made it....
PS:We also assumed party support, and both the monk and the barbarian were the 5th party members.
Mikaze's comments about the monk class are among my favorites because she has a clear vision of the monk based on history and fiction. Her frustration is that the abilities of the Pathfinder monk class do not fit the non-Pathfinder image of a warrior monk. (This is not Paizo's fault. They inherited the monk's flaws from D&D.)Not meaning to knock Paizo, but they inherited the paladin's flaws too and they fixed them - almost too well. Dreamscarred Press inherited the soulknife's scores (he was the one melee class that the monk could look down on in 3.5) and they fixed them.
Paizo tried to fix the monk; for example, they added the ki pool. Sadly, that fix was not enough. I still blame D&D, because 3rd Edition's view of the monk was a mishmash that give not give a clear direction for improvement. Now Paizo developers are timid about major changes to the Core Rulebook. They did create some workable monk archetypes.
A high-strength monk that sacrifices all his other attributes (and the abilities that need those attributes) for an inhuman strength works. A high-dexterity monk that focuses on tripping opponents works as long as the GM provides opponents that can be tripped. A high-defense little-offense monk can survive, but the other party members complain about him being useless. Those are the only workable core-monk options for a campaign that challenges the party in combat. Successfully playing a monk who mastered the martial arts for the love of them requires an archetype.I hate to say it, but this is optimistic. A high strength monk focussing on damage output will still deal less damage than a fighter, and have a far worse AC. A high-dex monk will be able to hit (barely) if you pay the heavy feat tax, and will have an AC comparable to a fully armoured character, but odds are on that you can forget actually inflicting any damage. A monk focussing on maneuvers will struggle to do anything much once you get to high level.
I am frequently accused of optimism. One friend says I must have rose-colored cornea implants behind my rose-colored glasses and rose-colored contact lenses.
In this case, the optimism is because my wife and I are masters of teamwork. Either of us can organize a party of unoptimized characters to engage in information gathering, strategy, and teamwork and, therefore, function as effectively as a typical party of optimized characters. Thus, I have low requirements for the effectiveness of a character's abilities.
To inspire teamwork, I prefer my character directly helping other player characters--a cleric casting buffs, an alchemist handing out infusions, a ranger tracking a foe to lead the party to them, etc. This is what bothers me most about the monk. The class has few abilities that help other party members. Most of his perks are self only. I have to play archetypes such as Sensei.
Monks are pretty good at surviving. Great saves, a couple immunities, great movement speed... But all that means is that they get to bounce around the battlefield, flailing their arms without any result.
And this behavior does not inspire teamwork. If the monk could use his great movement speed and saves to rescue fellow party members, that would be entirely different.
An interesting thought experiment is how closely you could replicate the monk class with another class using feats, equipment, and spells, such that the character could do pretty much all the things you can count on a CRB monk to do. What would also be interesting is what the class would be able to do in addition. I don't know the answer, but it might be an interesting way to go, and provide some interesting builds for people who want to play a monk-like character.
I think that depends on what you want to be able to do on a consistent basis.
To be honest, I never had an issue with folks wanting to play a monk, but after spending a few months on this forum I would lean toward trying to talk them out of it until it changed somehow. I mean to read these threads makes it seem that regardless of what you try to do as a GM to make the monk fun for the player it would fail.
Well really it depends on how tactical you are as a GM, and how good the players are. If you are someone like Dabbler who knows the rules you can probably do well with a less tactical GM*, but if the GM does not do a lot of fudging(dice fudging or playing monsters dumber than they are) then you might be in for some disappointment, unless you don't mind not doing much. Some players also think they are not being attack when they play a monk because their defense is so good. The real reason is they are the lowest threat in most occasions, and the NPC has figured it out. They don't do well in my games because I don't do a lot of fudging. The player I had that always plays them knows they suck, but the last time we played I was using 3.5 and PF so he did not suffer as much as he would have.
*I think he only does ok with a more tactical GM from what I understand.
for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons. You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
Wouldn't the Giant just throw rocks? You can't deflect them.
To be honest, I never had an issue with folks wanting to play a monk, but after spending a few months on this forum I would lean toward trying to talk them out of it until it changed somehow. I mean to read these threads makes it seem that regardless of what you try to do as a GM to make the monk fun for the player it would fail.
If the monk character has above average ability scores (and I am talking 15+ in Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, along with 13+ in Intelligence), if your player knows the combat maneuver rules, and can stack bonuses from positioning (flanking, high ground, etc.), and your player is capable of thinking outside the box and trying new tactics when the ones he is using isn't working, a monk can be an enjoyable addition to the party.
But that isn't often the case. New players especially suffer if they try to play a monk, as well as those who cannot think on their feet and change tactics on a moment's notice.
MA
Wouldn't the Giant just throw rocks? You can't deflect them.for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons. You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
Most giants would. After missing a few times they would just charge the monk. I am sure the a giant's melee attack hurts more than javelins thrown by most monks.
Noone is disputting the monk's ability to run away. He's quite good at that.
But what happens to your party while you run around the giant? What happens to you after he's dealt with them?
Deflect Arrows? Snatch Arrows? Those feats are terrible, and nearly useless in all situatios, except, maybe, corner case scenarios.
Monks are pretty good at surviving. Great saves, a couple immunities, great movement speed... But all that means is that they get to bounce around the battlefiled, flailing theirs arms without any result. Best case scenario, he helps the rogue to get in flank position.
So the enemies simply ignore him, kill everyone else and go away... They don't even attack the monk... Why bother?
I'll dispute his ability run away. That move bonus that looks so cool on paper is pure enhancement. In every party I've ever played in the first buff to go off is haste. Now suddenly the monk is no faster than anyone else in the party and he's getting out distanced by the barbarian. He has to wait until 12th level before his supposed mobility advantage is even noticed on the battlefield.
This stuff about killing giants with javelins is equally silly. While the monk is busy doing 1d6+3 damage a round (assuming he hits) the giant will be busy turning the rest of the party into paste. Even in the case of some solo encounter, wild west style, monk vs giant showdown that takes place on an infinite rock-free plane, how many javelins can a monk throw before he runs out?
Awful? Assuming no feats at all were taken to increase speed, the medium monk has a greater speed than the ogre (40 or 30 in medium armour) at 6, the unarmoured ogre is equaled at level 3. The troll (30) that loves to rend rip and tear, is surpassed in speed by the medium monk at level 3. Hill giants are the same speed as trolls, when monks are up to 6th, they are on 50. The focus on DPR, to call for them to have better than 3/4 bab, there is no recognition of how strong speed can be; and how easily monks become fine skirmishers. Especially when they negate a shot each round (or take the thrown weapon and throw it back).for if you can't take them toe to toe, use some javs.Lol, c'mon now! How many times are you going to use this awful argument?
A Monk sees no bonus over any other 3/4 BAB class (including NPC classes!) with thrown weapons. You want to argue that he can keep outdistancing this giant or whatever, but you keep neglecting to remember thrown weapon range increments are small.
No Monk wins a fight of attrition with javs. The giant charges and smashes.
You mean he can run away. The other factors, like weapon effectiveness, they are very much against the monk. You see, he has to start at least two move increments away from the ogre/troll/whatever. If he doesn't, they will charge him. That cuts his weapon choice down to crossbow or sling. It won't be a heavy crossbow, and he'll need rapid reload for a light one.
So he shoots, and the giant comes after him (assuming it/they can't throw rocks, and if there are more than one he can't deflect both). It get's next to him but can't attack. Monk withdraws and double moves to get well ahead, but can't shoot. Monster chases. Once monk gets far enough ahead, he can shoot again - probably one round in two.
You will never take down a troll that way without acid or fire, and taking down any foe that way will take a very long time, require a lot of space, and you are probably only going to be able to take one at a time.
By the way, what are the rest of the party doing while this epic plink-plink goes on?
So what you really mean is that the monk can skirmish really well, in corner cases. In circumstances that the rest of use would recognise as typical skirmishing (attack, reatreat, etc) the monk is actually not as good as many other classes like a barbarian.
...They did create some workable monk archetypes.
Workable, yes, in that the archetypes work better than the core monk because they are more focussed. When you compare what they can do with what another class with the same focus can do, most of them actually start looking quite lame.
An interesting thought experiment is how closely you could replicate the monk class with another class using feats, equipment, and spells, such that the character could do pretty much all the things you can count on a CRB monk to do. What would also be interesting is what the class would be able to do in addition. I don't know the answer, but it might be an interesting way to go, and provide some interesting builds for people who want to play a monk-like character.
Just about every feature of the monk can be mimicked with equipment to a greater or lesser extent.
Boots of Speed or Boots of Striding and Leaping (movement)
Ring of Evasion (evasion)
Cloak of resistance (saves)
Cloak of the Montebank (abundant step)
Monk's Robe (unarmed strike, AC bonus)
etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?
As long as the Monk is contributing to the game and it plays different from other classes then I honestly don't see what the problem is.
Which actually is the problem. While the definition of contribute varies from person to person and table to table, more often than not, the monks contribution is being a warm body. Yes, DM's who fudge or set up or rework encounters to make the monk useful can skew that, but in certain settings (organized play for example) that isn't viable, and to do that, the DM has to set thing up so the fighter/barbarian/ranger/paladin/insert melee character here doesn't just show up the monk anyway. Everyone deserves a chance to shine, a player shouldn't require a degree in systems mastery and optimization just to have a chance to do so, and then only if the DM is setting up situations for him to.