I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.
No, it's comparing the monk to other classes in just landing hits. This is what drops the monk's DPR even with Dragon Style feat-tree and 2d10 base damage. You don't hit, you do no damage, end of. Lack of enhancement, MAD and inability to bypass DR are the principal causes.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?
Badly. I just ran a monk with great stats and I think reasonably well designed through Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I would say 1/4 encounters I was pretty much shut down in and unable to contribute anything. It worked OK up to around 7th or 8th level, and after that it was a case of having to be really lucky, and that didn't happen often.
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.
The problem is, he doesn't, neither in theory nor in practice.
As a combat class he can't reliably deliver attacks on target, or deliver enough damage to bypass DR. If he can up his damage it's generally at the expense of AC, so with d8 hit dice he doesn't last long.
As a scout he doesn't have all the skills, and not enough skill points without becoming MADer than he is already to function properly.
The monk IS very mobile, and can contribute through that on occasion, but not regularly and it was sidelined once other characters started flying.
|
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.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.
Alright, explain to me where exactly the problem comes into play during the game. Just saying the Monk doesn't measure up means nothing to me without some examples of situations where the Monk is essentially useless like a lot of people seem to think.
|
|
I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.No, it's comparing the monk to other classes in just landing hits. This is what drops the monk's DPR even with Dragon Style feat-tree and 2d10 base damage. You don't hit, you do no damage, end of. Lack of enhancement, MAD and inability to bypass DR are the principal causes.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?Badly. I just ran a monk with great stats and I think reasonably well designed through Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I would say 1/4 encounters I was pretty much shut down in and unable to contribute anything. It worked OK up to around 7th or 8th level, and after that it was a case of having to be really lucky, and that didn't happen often.
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.The problem is, he doesn't, neither in theory nor in practice.
As a combat class he can't reliably deliver attacks on target, or deliver enough damage to bypass DR. If he can up his damage it's generally at the expense of AC, so with d8 hit dice he doesn't last long.
As a scout he doesn't have all the skills, and not enough skill points without becoming MADer than he is already to function properly.
The monk IS very mobile, and can contribute through that on occasion, but not regularly and it was sidelined once other characters started flying.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
Monks can get crazy AC, a bit of overkill to be honest so I don't see why they can't relax on the AC a bit and work more towards their damage.
Perception and Stealth is really all you need to be a good scout and the Monk has not problem with those two skills. What more does he need to be a good scout?
The Monk performs just fine as a class. Complaining because the class doesn't hid a desired DPR mark is nonsense to be honest.
I think some of you just have your standards set a little too high.
So the ability to hide and see things is all the monk needs to be able to do? That would be fine if other classes didn't only do that, but other things as well.
Crazy AC? They can, sure, but they get less offense than a wet noodle.
Most of us are not complaining about what you think we are. The issue in so many cases that the monk is outclassed in every area by other classes. They have no niche. The one people think they have (unarmed combat) is a trap, they are behind on to hit, the ability to penetrate damage reduction, and enhancement options. It isn't that there is a magical DPR number, it is that there needs to be a DPR number. If you notice DPR comes up mainly in conjunction with penetrating DR, the other times are when comparing what is supposed to be the monks strong point, unarmed combat, between the monk and other classes to show how big the actual gap is.
You seem to think the monk is fine. Would you care to explain what makes you think this? Several of us have pointed out specific issues, and someone even provided links to long, long threads on these issues. So, please, explain exactly what all of us are missing.
I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.No, it's comparing the monk to other classes in just landing hits. This is what drops the monk's DPR even with Dragon Style feat-tree and 2d10 base damage. You don't hit, you do no damage, end of. Lack of enhancement, MAD and inability to bypass DR are the principal causes.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?Badly. I just ran a monk with great stats and I think reasonably well designed through Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I would say 1/4 encounters I was pretty much shut down in and unable to contribute anything. It worked OK up to around 7th or 8th level, and after that it was a case of having to be really lucky, and that didn't happen often.
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.The problem is, he doesn't, neither in theory nor in practice.
As a combat class he can't reliably deliver attacks on target, or deliver enough damage to bypass DR. If he can up his damage it's generally at the expense of AC, so with d8 hit dice he doesn't last long.
As a scout he doesn't have all the skills, and not enough skill points without becoming MADer than he is already to function properly.
The monk IS very mobile, and can contribute through that on occasion, but not regularly and it was sidelined once other characters started flying.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
Monks can get crazy AC, a bit of overkill to be honest so I...
Well, I think they're comparing it to the DPR of other martial classes. I once did some spreadsheeting to compare a CRB monk and to a CRB fighter while designing my own class revision. The answer seems to be that a flurrying monk comes in at about 33%-50% of the DPR of a full attacking two-weapon fighting fighter (not even the archetype, just a vanilla fighter with the appropriate feats from the core rulebook). This depends on the level of the characters and the AC of the target. Adding DR into the mix makes it work out even worse for the monk. I don't think the monk deserves to do DPR on par with the fighter but I would like to see him dish out something in the 66%-75% range. Plenty of other people have performed comparisons and drawn similar conclusions.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
It's NOT about DPR, it's about hitting and getting through DR. If the monk can hit and do damage reliably, he doesn't necessarily NEED high DPR. Problem is he CAN'T hit and do damage reliably. The DPR numbers are referred to as a reference for how poorly the monk does despite his 'awesome' unarmed strike damage and 'amazing' number of attacks.
It's about being able to hit at all with those attacks, and not roll five d20s, sigh and roll for the damage on one hit and then wince when the damage fails to get through DR and has no effect. Been there too often in games, sorry.
Monks can get crazy AC, a bit of overkill to be honest so I don't see why they can't relax on the AC a bit and work more towards their damage.
If you want a monk that can do damage, you need a high strength monk. If you are point-buying, this means losing out on Dexterity and Wisdom, where your AC comes from. So you are now the equivelant of a fighter in leather armour. Oh, and you need that amulet of mighty fists too, so you are now the equivelant of a fighter in leather armour with no amulet of natural armour. And d8 hit dice, do not forget.
So you have the HP of a rogue, worse AC than a rogue. Your damage output can be reasonable per hit, but you are still behind on attack bonus. So you hit as hard as a fallen paladin, with less hits, worse AC, worse hit points. Guess you have evasion and a better Ref save...whoopee.
If you focus on AC, I will grant you can get an AC close to a solid melee tank's. You can blow ki and probably exceed it, but you won't be able to do that every round of every combat. I wouldn't call monk AC crazy, though. It's good, but not better than the fighter or paladin can achieve except in touch AC (but then they get better flat-footed AC, so it kind of evens out).
Perception and Stealth is really all you need to be a good scout and the Monk has not problem with those two skills. What more does he need to be a good scout?
Disable Device to get through traps and locks is handy, unless you set them off/break them down but that isn't good for stealth is it? Acrobatics, Climb, and Swim will be needed to get to places you want to scout too. Then, when scouting, you need to know what you are looking for, so some Knowledge skills are pretty important, and Survival to follow tracks if you are in the wilds.
In other words, if you are doing more than sneaking ahead by a hundred feet to listen at a door or peer round a corner, you need a LOT more skills to be an effective scout. Now Rangers and Rogues have more skill points and more of the relevant skills are class skills for them, so they make better scouts. They do a lot of other things better than monks too. So if you want a useful scout, monks are not exactly top of the list. They are, in fact, only slightly ahead of the barbarian.
The Monk performs just fine as a class. Complaining because the class doesn't hid a desired DPR mark is nonsense to be honest.
The monk is a COMBAT CLASS. He is not a scout (not enough skills) and he is not a caster. He has to be able to hit things to do anything to them. He is mobile and can get to places, but what does that matter if her cannot do anything but bleed when he is there?
It's not even the DPR mark, however. It's the monk's ability to hit his targets that is really poor. He fails to do this because of MAD (he has to spread his attribute scores too thin, or if he doesn't nerf himself for damage, AC, or his monk abilities), combined with lack of enhancement (AoMF caps at +5 in combined enhancement and attributes, and is so expensive you lag +1 to +2 behind the other combat classes on which CRs are based). Even if he does connect, getting through DR is hard because you cannot make unarmed strike out of special materials, and you can't get the same enhancement as the other combat classes, and lastly your damage is awful.
Maneuvers suffer the same problems - enhancements available to other classes are denied the monk, MAD makes it hard to keep up your CMB, or to even consider getting Combat Expertise without which you have no access to Greater maneuvers which are all that can help you keep up with monster CMDs at higher levels.
Stunning fist is not an equaliser because you need to hit and do damage before you force a saving throw, and the monk has problems doing that. As I have said many times, I ran a monk up to 14th level with a total of FOUR successful stunning fist strikes in all those encounters. In 1/4 encounters my monk was shut down and unable to take any effective action whatsoever.
I think some of you just have your standards set a little too high.
Wanting a combat class that can be effective in a fight is not too much to ask, IMHO. If the monk had a means of hitting reliably and bypassing DR, it wouldn't matter that the DPR is low: you can then force a save vs stunning fist more often; you can use maneuvers to offset and discommode foes more reliably.
It is NOT about DPR. It's actually about being able to do anything at all.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
It's NOT about DPR, it's about hitting and getting through DR. If the monk can hit and do damage reliably, he doesn't necessarily NEED high DPR. Problem is he CAN'T hit and do damage reliably. The DPR numbers are referred to as a reference for how poorly the monk does despite his 'awesome' unarmed strike damage and 'amazing' number of attacks.
It's about being able to hit at all with those attacks, and not roll five d20s, sigh and roll for the damage on one hit and then wince when the damage fails to get through DR and has no effect. Been there too often in games, sorry.
Monks can get crazy AC, a bit of overkill to be honest so I don't see why they can't relax on the AC a bit and work more towards their damage.If you want a monk that can do damage, you need a high strength monk. If you are point-buying, this means losing out on Dexterity and Wisdom, where your AC comes from. So you are now the equivelant of a fighter in leather armour. Oh, and you need that amulet of mighty fists too, so you are now the equivelant of a fighter in leather armour with no amulet of natural armour. And d8 hit dice, do not forget.
So you have the HP of a rogue, worse AC than a rogue. Your damage output can be reasonable per hit, but you are still behind on attack bonus. So you hit as hard as a fallen paladin, with less hits, worse AC, worse hit points. Guess you have evasion and a better Ref save...whoopee.
If you focus on AC, I will grant you can get an AC close to a solid melee tank's. You can blow ki and probably exceed it, but you won't be able to do that every round of every combat. I...
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
this seems o be the part of the thread where the monk fans have to show a build to prove how good the monk can be.Then we can move on to the part where nothing was proven and arguments continue.
Actually we sometimes get from there to the "Oh, I didn't know that," phase followed by the "OK you may have a point phase."
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).
I think the difference is that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.
Except that to do anything, whether it be damage or combat maneuvers, hitting is a rather critical piece of the puzzle, and monks don't have area effect tricks to work with, they have to hit a specific target in order to do pretty much anything. That is where the problem comes in; no hits, nothing accomplished. For a class that is supposed to be able to do combat, that is a major problem.
EDIT: They don't necessarily need a boost in damage output, they just need a boost in being able to do something useful in combat against an evenly matched opponent. As it is, the core monk can pretty much forget about doing anything against anybody other than mooks that are lower level.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.
I see, so something like adding in a hit bonus to ki strike while scaling back on unarmed damage die increases. At least low damage is much, much less frustrating if it's at least reliable.
|
|
...I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.No, it's comparing the monk to other classes in just landing hits. This is what drops the monk's DPR even with Dragon Style feat-tree and 2d10 base damage. You don't hit, you do no damage, end of. Lack of enhancement, MAD and inability to bypass DR are the principal causes.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?Badly. I just ran a monk with great stats and I think reasonably well designed through Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I would say 1/4 encounters I was pretty much shut down in and unable to contribute anything. It worked OK up to around 7th or 8th level, and after that it was a case of having to be really lucky, and that didn't happen often.
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.The problem is, he doesn't, neither in theory nor in practice.
As a combat class he can't reliably deliver attacks on target, or deliver enough damage to bypass DR. If he can up his damage it's generally at the expense of AC, so with d8 hit dice he doesn't last long.
As a scout he doesn't have all the skills, and not enough skill points without becoming MADer than he is already to function properly.
The monk IS very mobile, and can contribute through that on occasion, but not regularly and it was sidelined once other characters started flying.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
Monks can get crazy AC, a bit of
How do Monks do against monster encounters?
It's a simple question that doesn't get answered. I don't care how much DPR the fighter has nor do I care how much DPR the Barbarian has. People do play classes because of what each and individual one can do, they are not worried about the DPR.
|
|
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.Except that to do anything, whether it be damage or combat maneuvers, hitting is a rather critical piece of the puzzle, and monks don't have area effect tricks to work with, they have to hit a specific target in order to do pretty much anything. That is where the problem comes in; no hits, nothing accomplished. For a class that is supposed to be able to do combat, that is a major problem.
EDIT: They don't necessarily need a boost in damage output, they just need a boost in being able to do something useful in combat against an evenly matched opponent. As it is, the core monk can pretty much forget about doing anything against anybody other than mooks that are lower level.
What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?
How do Monks do against monster encounters?
In practice, and I have experience to back this up, not very well. Between DR and high saves, they just can't do much against monsters of equal level once you get into the higher levels. You are generally forced to choose whether they will live or hit; doing both at the same time is extremely challenging, even for someone who has mastered the system.
I see, so something like adding in a hit bonus to ki strike while scaling back on unarmed damage die increases. At least low damage is much, much less frustrating if it's at least reliable.I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.
The problem with what you propose is that it just shifts the issue. A monk gets less static bonuses to damage, therefore hitting more will raise DPR, but not enough to justify reducing the damage dice.
What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?
Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.
...I think the problem is comparing the Monk to other classes with regards to damage.No, it's comparing the monk to other classes in just landing hits. This is what drops the monk's DPR even with Dragon Style feat-tree and 2d10 base damage. You don't hit, you do no damage, end of. Lack of enhancement, MAD and inability to bypass DR are the principal causes.
I think the real question is this. How does the Monk fair in actual encounters?Badly. I just ran a monk with great stats and I think reasonably well designed through Curse of the Crimson Throne, and I would say 1/4 encounters I was pretty much shut down in and unable to contribute anything. It worked OK up to around 7th or 8th level, and after that it was a case of having to be really lucky, and that didn't happen often.
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.The problem is, he doesn't, neither in theory nor in practice.
As a combat class he can't reliably deliver attacks on target, or deliver enough damage to bypass DR. If he can up his damage it's generally at the expense of AC, so with d8 hit dice he doesn't last long.
As a scout he doesn't have all the skills, and not enough skill points without becoming MADer than he is already to function properly.
The monk IS very mobile, and can contribute through that on occasion, but not regularly and it was sidelined once other characters started flying.
Hold on a tick.
What is this magical DPR number that Monks are supposed to be achieving? I see that DPR gets thrown out there a lot but what are we comparing it to? As long as the Monk is doing damage then I don't see the problem. Some people like to play a class because of what it is and what it has to offer, not because of the optimum DPR that it could have.
Monks can get crazy
You can find an exhaustive and exhausting thread about monks vs monsters here courtesy of Dabbler et al.
The short answer is this: monks are an "I hit it" class. They move fast so they might get to hit it first. They have good immunities so sometimes they might be less likely to be hit by "it" in return. But hitting it is really the only thing they do. (Ok, fine, they can trip it or grapple it too but you get the idea.) The problem is, as we're all pointing out, that monks are actually pretty bad at the "I hit it" role. Therefore, as you might expect, they don't work terribly well in monster encounters.
Of course "they don't work terribly well" implies a comparison to something else and that something else is paladins, barbarians, rangers, and fighters who all are all better at the "I hit it" game. This is also why we go through the trouble of using some math to figure out just how much monks are behind and how exactly they should or shouldn't be buffed to close the gap. This is also why you shouldn't just ignore DPR comparison calculations out of hand.
|
Once again, let us define terms.
1. The game is largely about turns. As in, what can you do on your turn and what can be done to you.
2. The monk doesn't need to outdamage any other full BaB class. This isn't a goal. The monk has other abilities, such as stunning fist, and flurry that could be used except for the fact that...
3. The unarmed monk is the worst hitting 3/4 BaB class, period, full stop. Enhancement costs are more than double, they can't focus on a single ability, they can't self buff, etc...
4. Other 3/4 BaB classes either have other things they can do on a given turn (cast spells for example) or have major boosts (sneak attack) or both (Magus, Inquistor and Bard). A few spell like abilities do not equal a 3/4 or full caster class
5. The monk is fine defensively, very good against casters, good enough against melee. No adjustment is needed here.
6. If the monk could reliably hit AND overcome damage reduction, Stunning fist would become appropriately useful, but not overpowered. But given they have the worst attack bonus of the 3/4 classes, have difficulty getting enhancement bonuses to unarmed attack, and have weak base weapons (monk weapons)...well, they can't do that reliably. Which is the problem.
So looking at this, if
a) A monk could hit on par with the other 3/4 BaB classes.
b) And could hit for a reasonable amount of damage to overcome Damage reduction.
We would then have a class that doesn't outshine the martial classes, but fills a role in the majority of encounters and rarely is stuck in the sidelines.
Currently, we have a combat class that is outshined offensively by the 3/4 BaB caster classes.
That is the source of the "hate"
That is the "problem".
|
|
What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.
I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
The problem with what you propose is that it just shifts the issue. A monk gets less static bonuses to damage, therefore hitting more will raise DPR, but not enough to justify reducing the damage dice.I see, so something like adding in a hit bonus to ki strike while scaling back on unarmed damage die increases. At least low damage is much, much less frustrating if it's at least reliable.I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. DPR is nothing but your chance of hitting multiplied by your expected weapon damage (which is reduced by DR). Monks have trouble hitting due to MAD, lagging enhancement (AoMF problem), and loss of flurry BAB when moving. They have trouble beating DR due to ki strike's ineffectiveness and lack of static damage bonuses (AoMF problem, no weapon spec/favored enemy/smite, no gloves of dueling, etc.). If you advocate increasing their hit chance or ability to bypass DR you're advocating raising their DPR (which I believe they need so no arguments there).I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.
I agree with you. In my personal revision to the class I ended up leaving damage die progression alone, added in a scaling +hit (not +damage) bonus to ki strike, allowed a monk's unarmed strike to be permanently enchanted for the equivalent cost of enchanting a double weapon, and rewrote ki strike to give more versatile DR penetration. All these changes worked out to give the monk about 66-75% of the DPR of the fighter which I feel is a fair trade off for all their nifty special abilities.
If someone feels like the damage penalties should be higher or lower, then it becomes a simple matter of tweaking the +hit bonus or the unarmed damage die size to target their DPR to whatever they feel is fair and appropriate.
What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
In practice a lot of them do. Remember, a monk's unarmed strike only gets past DR/magic. He gets Lawful ki strike at level 10 and, if you somehow make it that long, adamantine at level 16. So really you have no solution to three of the most common DR types (cold iron, silver, and good) if you actually want to fight unarmed. In practice, you end up carrying around a suitcase full of cold iron kamas, but of course you can't afford to have them enchanted (you bought the AoMF) and you're back to 1d6 damage, and your weapon focus feat is wasted and... you get the idea. Of course, not everything you fight has one of these DRs but they're common enough that you end up getting shut down and feeling useless a lot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that to do anything, whether it be damage or combat maneuvers, hitting is a rather critical piece of the puzzle, and monks don't have area effect tricks to work with, they have to hit a specific target in order to do pretty much anything. That is where the problem comes in; no hits, nothing accomplished. For a class that is supposed to be able to do combat, that is a major problem.
EDIT: They don't necessarily need a boost in damage output, they just need a boost in being able to do something useful in combat against an evenly matched opponent. As it is, the core monk can pretty much forget about doing anything against anybody other than mooks that are lower level.
Pretty much.
I think the difference it that I am not aiming at a target, and I want to avoid raising damage output. Increasing hits WILL increase DPR, of course, but that's not the object as far as I am concerned - it's just a nice side effect that might put the monk on the same field as the other combat classes.I see, so something like adding in a hit bonus to ki strike while scaling back on unarmed damage die increases. At least low damage is much, much less frustrating if it's at least reliable.
Oh it is. My suggestion for the minimal 'monk fix' is:
There are other things I'd like to see addressed, like the feat-tax on abundant step and the joke that is Wholeness of Body, but those are the big three. If there was a complete monk re-write I would do it like this.
How do Monks do against monster encounters?
It's a simple question that doesn't get answered. I don't care how much DPR the fighter has nor do I care how much DPR the Barbarian has. People do play classes because of what each and individual one can do, they are not worried about the DPR.
Been asked and answered many times, actually, and the answer is not so well in most cases.
Most monsters have decent CMD, so maneuvers are not so good to try if they will work at all (can't trip it if it flies, can't grapple if it's too big, can't disarm if it has natural weapons etc.).
If the monster has low AC, the monk can rely on a lot of hits to bring their damage potential up. If they have low AC and low Fort saves, then the monk's stunning fist is very effective. You only have to raise one of these to make it tough for the monk, though.
DR is the biggest issue. DR/magic is no sweat, but DR/material or DR/alignment are real problems. You can carry weapon blanches and oils, but they take time to apply. Typical encounters last only a few rounds, so spending 1/3 of the time buffing up when everyone else in the party is getting stuck in is a strike against you to begin with.
As I earlier said, I just ran a monk through Curse of the Crimson Throne from start to end. I had very good scores, highest a 17 and lowest a 14, so I figured strong enough to really work well, and with the intelligence to make a good monk-scout with some judicious traits.
It was often an exercise in frustration. Early levels were OK, but when the real fighting started I was constantly upstaged. Scouting and checking for traps was useful, as was opening doors, but there were so few traps it hardly seemed worth it.
The frustration really kicked in once we passed 9th level. We had a tough fight with a devil that left me completely sidelined. It was flying (though close to the ground) with a CMD I couldn't touch without a natural 20, an AC that was hard to reach, and it's DR 10/good and cold iron had my 1d10+2 unarmed strike completely downed. Only thing I could do was try and grapple and hope for a '20'...I didn't get one.
From that point forward, a lot of encounters had me at minimal performance. I managed to get some extra strikes in now and again from Crane Style, but not enough. Despite a good AC, as levels rose monsters hit me consistently - more consistently than I could hit them, and for more damage. Maneuvers become progressively less and less effective. I was pulling out all the tricks and stops to make the most of agility, speed, Acrobatics etc. just to stay alive, let alone DO something to the enemy. Others had to do that.
It was not a case of I was unable to do anything because the dice were unlucky, that I could live with. Nor was it case of having a poor build, although there were things that with hindsight I could have done a little better, there's not much room to maneuver. It was simply a case that nothing I could have had available as a pure monk was going to make a gnat's *** of difference. There were a few moments when with some gear and judicious use of abilities I pulled off some surprises - like drinking a potion of invisibility, using abundant step to flank a devil, and hitting him flat-footed the following round. A '20' on my first attack and a '2' on his save stunned him (one of very few successes, I will add) and he was easy meat for the rest of the PCs. But that's just the point, without really fluky luck, the monk...didn't work.
My sole contribution in the final boss-fight was tripping a member of our own party dominated into attacking another party member, in an eight-round battle.
So that's how well monks perform in combat: Passable in 3/4 encounters, useless in 1/4 encounters, able to do something good one time in a hundred thanks to pure luck.
|
|
In practice a lot of them do. Remember, a monk's unarmed strike only gets past DR/magic. He gets Lawful ki strike at level 10 and, if you somehow make it that long, adamantine at level 16. So really you have no solution to three of the most common DR types (cold iron, silver, and good) if you actually want to fight unarmed. In practice, you end up carrying around a suitcase full of cold iron kamas, but of course you can't afford to have them enchanted (you bought the AoMF) and you're back to 1d6 damage, and your weapon focus feat is wasted and... you get the idea. Of course, not everything you fight has one of these DRs but they're common enough that you end up getting shut down and feeling useless a lot.What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
So what's wrong with carrying a set of Cold Iron weapons for that possible, occasional fight against something with DR/Cold Iron?
From personal experience, the most used DR that we have encounter is DR/Magic. You can't base the functionality of a class based on the fact that it isn't going to be optimal against all creatures and all situations.
What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
It's not an assumption. DR becomes quite common as the game progresses, and starts appearing with regularity about the time 3rd level spells become available. It's not necessarily an immediate shutdown, but certainly it is noticeable, and by level 10, it does become big enough that it can be difficult for the monk to regularly contribute meaningfully. It's not just DR by itself, but the fact that the game really does emphasize offensive output, and the monk struggles considerably in this facet of the game. They can stick with moderate damage unarmed attacks that are next to impossible to get permanent enhancements to boost their to hit, or they can go with their other monk weapons that allow them to boost their to hit, but have a base damage of next to nothing, so that even after enhancement, they still aren't able to routinely bypass DR. Maneuvers are even worse as most of the time it's simply BAB & STR, with very limited ways to boost CMB, and most monks don't have super high STR, and only have full BAB when flurrying. They can boost both to hit and damage, but then they usually end up sacrificing AC and dex, making it less likely that they get to go first or that the monster will miss them, at which point it becomes a HP battle, and the monk loses that battle pretty much every time.
|
|
It's not an assumption. DR becomes quite common as the game progresses, and starts appearing with regularity about the time 3rd level spells become available. It's not necessarily an immediate shutdown, but certainly it is noticeable, and by level 10, it does become big enough that it can be difficult for the monk to regularly contribute meaningfully. It's not just DR by itself, but the fact that the game really does emphasize offensive output, and the monk struggles considerably in this facet of the game. They can stick with moderate damage unarmed attacks that are next to impossible to get permanent enhancements to boost their to hit, or they can go with their other monk weapons that allow them to boost their to hit, but have a base damage of next to nothing, so that even after enhancement, they still aren't able to routinely bypass DR. Maneuvers are even worse as most of the time it's simply BAB & STR, with very limited ways to boost CMB, and most monks don't have super high STR, and only have full BAB when flurrying. They can boost both to hit and damage, but then they usually end up sacrificing AC and dex, making it less likely that they get to first or that the monster will miss them, at...What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
At the end of the day it is an assumption. You don't know what creatures you are going to be facing unless your DM tells you ahead of time.
From personal experience, the most used DR that we have encounter is DR/Magic. You can't base the functionality of a class based on the fact that it isn't going to be optimal against all creatures and all situations.
I would agree, but with the monk it's a case of being largely ineffective against most high CR creatures and situations. No one is saying they need to be effective against everything all the time, but the majority of things the majority of the time is certainly not unreasonable to ask for. It doesn't have to be damage, necessarily, but they need something productive they can do most of the time, and right now, at higher levels, they simply don't have that.
At the end of the day it is an assumption. You don't know what creatures you are going to be facing unless your DM tells you ahead of time.
Assuming that you're going to be facing DR at higher levels is a pretty safe assumption in this game. You may not know precisely how often it will occur, but it will happen often enough that it is worth worrying about.
So what's wrong with carrying a set of Cold Iron weapons for that possible, occasional fight against something with DR/Cold Iron?
Two problems with this:
Monk weapons suck. For every other character, a +3 weapon, which they will have around 10th level, gets through this DR. +3 AoMF isn't going to happen until much later in your career. At 10th level, 1d6 damage with a cold iron weapon you can barely hit with isn't really contributing, it's a token gesture - especially as you cannot get your abilities to work with it. In comparison, a fighter (or ranger, or barbarian, or paladin) can carry a spare cold iron greatsword and get his abilities and feast (weapon focus, weapon specialisation and weapon training, favoured enemy, smite evil, rage) bonuses with it.
You just nerfed down your odds to hit. Again.
From personal experience, the most used DR that we have encounter is DR/Magic. You can't base the functionality of a class based on the fact that it isn't going to be optimal against all creatures and all situations.
You played below 10th level, then.
Above that point the other DRs start getting far more common, and boss-fights are CR+2-4 which means when you face the BBEG you are much more likely to run into it.
You can't afford to carry a holy weapon to get past DR/good, and applying weapon blanches and oils takes time, time you often don't have. Even buffs cannot be relied on because at 13th level your Diamond Body means anyone trying to buff you mid-fight has to make a caster level check to get it past your own defences.
You are correct in one case, though, that you cannot base the functionality of a class on it's effectiveness in only one corner case. The reason you are wrong about the monk is because the monk is often ineffective in a number of cases, where a combat class should not be ineffective. It's not as if he has special effectiveness in as many other circumstances that are not complete corner cases, because he simply doesn't.
|
|
So what's wrong with carrying a set of Cold Iron weapons for that possible, occasional fight against something with DR/Cold Iron?Two problems with this:
Monk weapons suck. For every other character, a +3 weapon, which they will have around 10th level, gets through this DR. +3 AoMF isn't going to happen until much later in your career. At 10th level, 1d6 damage with a cold iron weapon you can barely hit with isn't really contributing, it's a token gesture - especially as you cannot get your abilities to work with it. In comparison, a fighter (or ranger, or barbarian, or paladin) can carry a spare cold iron greatsword and get his abilities and feast (weapon focus, weapon specialisation and weapon training, favoured enemy, smite evil, rage) bonuses with it.
You just nerfed down your odds to hit. Again.
From personal experience, the most used DR that we have encounter is DR/Magic. You can't base the functionality of a class based on the fact that it isn't going to be optimal against all creatures and all situations.You played below 10th level, then.
Above that point the other DRs start getting far more common, and boss-fights are CR+2-4 which means when you face the BBEG you are much more likely to run into it.
You can't afford to carry a holy weapon to get past DR/good, and applying weapon blanches and oils takes time, time you often don't have. Even buffs cannot be relied on because at 13th level your Diamond Body means anyone trying to buff you mid-fight has to make a caster level check to get it past your own defences.
You are correct in one case, though, that you cannot base the functionality of a class on it's effectiveness in only one corner case. The reason you are wrong about the monk is because the monk is often ineffective in a number of cases, where a combat class should not be ineffective. It's not as if he has special effectiveness in as many other circumstances that are not complete corner cases, because he...
I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.
Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.
In practice a lot of them do. Remember, a monk's unarmed strike only gets past DR/magic. He gets Lawful ki strike at level 10 and, if you somehow make it that long, adamantine at level 16. So really you have no solution to three of the most common DR types (cold iron, silver, and good) if you actually want to fight unarmed. In practice, you end up carrying around a suitcase full of cold iron kamas, but of course you can't afford to have them enchanted (you bought the AoMF) and you're back to 1d6 damage, and your weapon focus feat is wasted and... you get the idea. Of course, not everything you fight has one of these DRs but they're common enough that you end up getting shut down and feeling useless a lot.What about their "to hit" versus the AC of creatures at specific CRs?Past level 5 or 6, monsters AC goes up much faster than a monk's hit bonus most of the time. And that doesn't count DR which can often turn a hit into what is functionally not a hit. Even when flurrying, and thus getting the full BAB, it can be tough to actually deliver any damage if you stick to your fists. If you choose one of the other monk weapons you can flurry with, it's a bit easier, but still tough.I see a big problem here. You are assuming most or all creatures the Monk is up against have DR that he can't bypass or has DR for that matter.
It's like talking about a spellcaster and comparing everything he goes against has SR or Immunities.
So what's wrong with carrying a set of Cold Iron weapons for that possible, occasional fight against something with DR/Cold Iron?
From personal experience, the most used DR that we have encounter is DR/Magic. You can't base the functionality of a class based on the fact that it isn't going to be optimal against all creatures and all situations.
From a player's perspective there's nothing wrong with it at all. In fact, it's exactly what you should be doing as a monk.
From a class design perspective, however, you're taking an already suboptimal damage dealer and making him even worse by forcing him to switch to an even more suboptimal weapon. Remember, once greatsword fighter guy gets his +3 greatsword he doesn't need to even think about DR silver/iron anymore. A monk's +3 AoMF costs 2.5x as much as greatsword guy's greatsword and by RAW I don't think its enhancement bonus even allows unarmed strikes to penetrate DR (there's a thread on this somewhere but I never saw an official ruling).
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,...
Lol, this is adorable. Because you've completely ignored my main criticism: RANGE INCREMENTS.
A Fire Giant is a CR10. That's something your monk might come up against, since you play generally levels 1-14 yeah? Let's go with that and look at the facts, shall we?- Javelins have a range increment of 30ft.
- Fire Giant has a base movement speed of 40ft and have 10ft of Reach.
- Firey Rock has a range increment of 120ft.
- Firey Rocks are small sized rocks, which makes them the size of halflings - Safe to call that a boulder that you can't deflect with the Deflect Arrows feat.
So your three skirmish options are going to be:
1 - Start within the FG's attack range, throw your jav, then run outside of the FG's attack range.
If you wanna hit with that jav, you're gonna need to be within 30ft. You need 65ft of movement to get outside of the FG's charge range. You don't have that kind of speed unless you're level 12 or burning a ki point for speed.
How does the FG retaliate? One option is to throw a firey rock. You'll be within the FG's first range increment, so it won't get an attack penalty. Also, 1d8+15+1d6 Fire is way better than your jav's 1d6+2(ish). In a battle of ranged attrition, the FG wins. OR, the FG could opt to just ignore you, since you "got away" and start pounding your friends with his giant-sized greatsword and his giant-sized strength.
2 - Start outside the FG's attack range, move in to a 30ft range to avoid attack penalties, and throw a jav, ending your turn.
Doing it this way leaves you within the FG's base movement range, which means after you throw your piddly little jav, it can walk up to you and smash your moderate-HP-face in. (It's worth noting, if you don't have "Shot on the Run" then this situation happens to you every other turn. ie: You'll die pretty fast.)
3 - Using your "Shot on the Run" feat, you start outside the FG's 90ft charge+reach distance, move into range to attack, then move outside the charge distance again.
This tactic doesn't work.
Let's ignore the fact that you had to burn 3 of your feat slots on awful prereq feats (Dodge is a bad feat, Mobility is even worse, and Point Blank is an awful choice for a Monk of any color).
Even at level 18+, burning a ki point for the extra 20ft, you cannot bounce into a 30ft range and then back out of the FG's charge range. If it didn't have 10ft reach, you could just do it (at level 18+) if you had a straight line to work with, but since the FG has reach, you won't make it. So if the FG doesn't feel like throwing rocks this turn either, it'll charge you and smash your face in.
The only way you can "skirmish" with a Giant is to take stacking range increment penalties which, given your moderate BAB, MAD, and lack of options for improving thrown-weapon ranged attacks, will not be a winning strategy for you.
I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.
Post up your build, please!
Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.
Certainly. Monks struggle compared to other combat classes against:
Anything with a high AC (monk to hit lags behind that of everyone else, even a lot of 3/4 BAB classes). All combat classes do better here, they have better chances to hit.
Anything with a lower AC but a lot of hit points and a good Fort save (monk damage output isn't great). All combat classes do better here too, they will still hit more often and deal more damage.
Anything with DR vs anything more than magic. Most other combat classes can either dish enough damage to overcome the DR, or have weapons or abilities that go right through it)
Anything he can't reach (monk missile options are bad - combine flying with DR and your monk may as well pack up and go home). All other combat classes have proficiency with bows, and most carry one as a back-up weapon.
Anything he can't see (flat-footed AC for monks is pretty bad, so greater invisibility on a sneak-attacker is lethal against them). While all combat classes will struggle here, most have better flat-footed AC and barbarians have Uncanny Dodge.
If he relies on maneuvers, anything big, or flying, or with an unusual number of legs, or with natural weapons.
Of course the question arises of what the monk can do that other combat classes cannot, what enemies are they better at fighting:
Foes that use touch attacks, melee or ranged. Monks have good touch AC, so they are somewhat better at facing wraiths, shadows and the like. Of course an archer that can see them coming is better still.
Foes that target traditionally 'weak' saves. Creatures that charm, confuse, dominate and the like.
Foes that use area attacks.
First problem I see here is that the first list is long and contains a lot of common monsters. The second is short, and the monsters are more specific and largely less common. The second problem here is that the second group are creatures that find it hard to hurt the monk, but that the monk will likely struggle to hurt as well. He is stronger defensively against these creatures, but that doesn't mean he can fight 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.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
So what is the rest of the party doing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.
Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.
OK, question, what are defining as good in combat? Surviving to the end of it? Taking a hit or two? Doing 40-50 points of damage when the sum total off all the opponents HP is up over 500? Providing flanking bonuses for the rest of the party?
People bring up specific points and you kinda ignore those points and try to refocus it to something extremely subjective.
Heck, here's a great case, at level 20, how well do you think a monk will do vs a CR 17 marilith,or a CR 19 ancient red dragon, or at CR 20, a pit fiend or balor?
It isn't even about soloing them, the question is how effective is the monk against them at all, how does he contribute to the party instead of being carried? Between DR and the AC involved, or the mobility of the opponent, the monk just ends up lackluster next to the rest of the party, more dead weight than not.
And I'm talking about basic Paizo books here for making the monk, not some weird feat/item buried in an old AP or 3pp product, using pure RAW rules.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gah! forum ate my post! Trying again:
I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.
Then please post up your build and show us what we are doing wrong.
Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.
Apart from against anything with DR other than magic (monk struggles to get through it), anything with a high AC (monk struggles to hit), anything with masses of hit points (monk damage output is not fantastic), anything the monk cannot reach (his missile options are not very good), anything he cannot see (monks generally have poor flat-footed AC), and if he uses manuevers anything large/multi-legged/flying/natural-weaponed.
In all these cases the monk is less effective than just about any other combat class. To be fair, creatures that use mind effects, area effects and touch attacks find it harder to hurt the monk when traditionally they are very effective against other combat classes, but that doesn't mean the monk can necessarily do anything to them.
So what is the rest of the party doing?
What does it matter?
The group as a whole will likely win the encounter (they're supposed to, after all). But the Monk definitely didn't help contribute in any meaningful way, which means the rest of the party had a much tougher time with the encounter because they were effectively "one man down."| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what is the rest of the party doing?Saving the monk's bacon, apparently. Do you have something to show he doesn't need that help?
Dangit, you made me snort my coke through my nose...good caffeine and sugar source but painful that way.
I've played Monks all the way to 20 and I still disagree with you.
Give me some examples of those cases where the monk isn't good in combat.
Just off the very top of my head:
OutsidersDragons
Giants (true or otherwise)
Many-legged creatures
(But Dabbler said it better 3 posts up.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay. According to the Core Rules, a part of one person has their APL (average party level) reduced by 1 (actually three or less; there is no reduction in APL for going to 2 or 1, that I saw, at least). That means a 10th level monk should be able to solo a CR 9 monster with average difficulty, whereas a CR 8 monster is an easy encounter.
So what CR 8 and CR 9 monsters are there? I gleaned these from the on-line Monster Reference PDF.
CR 8 Monsters: Behir, Young Copper Dragon, Dark Naga, Dire Tiger, Efreeti, Erinyes, Giant Octopus, Giant Slug, Gorgon, Greater Shadow, Young Green Dragon, Intellect Devourer, Lammasu, Mohrg, Nabasu, Ogre Mage, Sphinx, Stone Giant, Treant, and Triceratops.
C9 Monsters: Greater Air Elemental, Young Blue Dragon, Bone Devil, Young Bronze Dragon, Dire Crocodile, Dire Shark, Dragon Turtle, Greater Earth Elemental, Greater Fire Elemental, Frost Giant, Giant Squid, Marid, Mastodon, Nessian Warhound, Night Hag, Roc, Spirit Naga, Tyrannosaurus, Vampire, Vrock, and Greater Water Elemental.
Can a 10th level monk have an easy solo encounter against the listed CR 8 critters? Or bull his way through an average difficulty against the CR 9s?
You tell me.
MA
Woah! Lotta passion here, to say the least. Thought I would add a few more insights:
1.) Just this past week in our regular game I saw a situation where a monk would have shined. Our resident barbarian is a killing machine and he loves to party amongst the innards of fallen foes. He has a decent ac, alot of hps, and uses a Great Axe to good effect. Trouble is, he's a one trick pony. We were fighting a fairly powerful mage, who after taking an initial thrashing from our barb in round one cast an IronGuard spell.(Havenot seen this in PF yet, makes you immune/insubstantial to all metal) So our barb was left with nothing to do but grumble and feel useless.(He didnt want to risk grappling because we assumed the mage was a vampire too) A monk, on the other hand, could have kept on fighting. (assuming he had an amulet of mighty fists as the mage turned out indeed to be a vampire)
2.) These days I most often play a caster. And I just LOVE to see a barbarian or fighter npc coming my way
with ill intent. They have bad saves, few other options than just "hit it", and I usually mop the floor with
them.Now a monk coming at me, on the other hand, is much more scary. Good saves, evasion and
attacks that require fort saves on my part (not a strong save for me as a mage) and decent hps and ac. If
he has anything that protects from Magic Missile as well, I am practically hosed.
3.) When I first started playing DnD I went the usual route of playing a fighter. I concentrated on having a
high ac, good hit points, and hitting things as hard as I could. At lower levels I was the Golden Child,
grabbing glory and killing hordes. But as the game progreseed, I couldnt help but envy other
classes and their special abilities. My foes now flew beyong the reach of my mighty sword, casters
confounded me with mirror images and stoneskin spells, rogues popped out of the shadows and
backstabbed or poisoned me, and I often felt like a turtle on its back when I fell into various dungeon
traps and pitfalls. Monks were really weak in those days at lower levels, but hard work payed off and
eventually they became truly fearsome opponents at higher levels, and I couldnt but help feel like a 5th
wheel in comparison.
4.) Also, I have played "old school" in the days before dms felt so much pressure to maintain a campaign.
There were no "adventure paths", though there were linked modules. Bottom line, the dm didnt care if he
killed you or the party had a complete tpk. Part of the challenge/fun was just surviving. So if you were good
at"running away" that was a valueable commodity. To paraphrase a current cultural saying, "I dont have to
outrun the monsters. I just have to outrun you!" And run we did, leaving behind dying comrades who
would have done the same if circumstances permitted and who would have snickered no less than we did
while doing so. And good saves or immunity to things were so much more important back then because so
many thing could kills you outright. Poison was scary because a footlong spider could conceivably kill your
level 30 character with one bite! I guess my point is that all these things which are considered somewhat
unimportant compared to DPR now used to be difference makers in the days when survival was alot more
unsure.
|
1) In 3.5 amulet would not have helped one bit as enhancement did not bypass DR like they do in PF. So yeah, your monk would have been justas helpless as the barbarian. Have fun.
2) Or the wizard just tosses out one of the many you lose spells. I don't need saves to screw you over as a wizard...I have plenty of I win spells. Less then 3.x however.
3) So your excuse for the monk being good is that you play a fighter BADLY...okay...good to know.
4) Yeah, those old poisons were SCARY...guess what rules are no longer in effect. This is about the PF monk...and to a lesser extent in the 3.x one.
3) So your excuse for the monk being good is that you play a fighter BADLY...okay...good to know.
No, the point is that the 1e/AD&D monk got really awesome at high levels, while the fighter didn't.
Woah! Lotta passion here, to say the least. Thought I would add a few more insights:
1.) Just this past week in our regular game I saw a situation where a monk would have shined. Our resident barbarian is a killing machine and he loves to party amongst the innards of fallen foes. He has a decent ac, alot of hps, and uses a Great Axe to good effect. Trouble is, he's a one trick pony. We were fighting a fairly powerful mage, who after taking an initial thrashing from our barb in round one cast an IronGuard spell.(Havenot seen this in PF yet, makes you immune/insubstantial to all metal) So our barb was left with nothing to do but grumble and feel useless.(He didnt want to risk grappling because we assumed the mage was a vampire too) A monk, on the other hand, could have kept on fighting. (assuming he had an amulet of mighty fists as the mage turned out indeed to be a vampire)
2.) These days I most often play a caster. And I just LOVE to see a barbarian or fighter npc coming my way
with ill intent. They have bad saves, few other options than just "hit it", and I usually mop the floor with
them.Now a monk coming at me, on the other hand, is much more scary. Good saves, evasion and
attacks that require fort saves on my part (not a strong save for me as a mage) and decent hps and ac. If
he has anything that protects from Magic Missile as well, I am practically hosed.
3.) When I first started playing DnD I went the usual route of playing a fighter. I concentrated on having a
high ac, good hit points, and hitting things as hard as I could. At lower levels I was the Golden Child,
grabbing glory and killing hordes. But as the game progreseed, I couldnt help but envy other
classes and their special abilities. My foes now flew beyong the reach of my mighty sword, casters
confounded me with mirror images and stoneskin spells, rogues popped out of the shadows and
backstabbed or poisoned me, and I often felt like a turtle on its back when I fell into various dungeon
traps...
I don't think anyone would argue that monk saves and immunities are bad. I quite like the standard litany of class features. Even stuff like slow fall. I've never had it come up in about a combined 30 or so levels of monk playing but hey, I guess maybe some day I could get bull-rushed off a cliff or something, right?
The problem I have with the class is that it gives up too much offense for its defense. Remember, paladins (particularly), rangers, and barbarians get all kinds of perks besides "I hit it" too but still put out great damage. I don't think the class needs a major re-write, just a tweak to +hit and an itemization fix.
Also, regarding your specific example of the vampire; vampires have DR 10/silver which pretty much shuts a monk down as described above. Your barbarian in this case would probably do more damage raging and power attacking with a two handed improvised weapon (e. g. a big stick or wooden chair). Alternatively if the party did have a monk and the monk had a quarterstaff handy, the barbarian could have borrowed that to avoid the nonproficiency penalty...