Lol, thanks Bearded Ben, that was my point. And with what rules I had available, I played an awesome fighter, Napalm. But you are right, this is PF now, But you know what? I dont see the devs here running to pander to anyone with class complaints, which I deeply respect. Have fun ranting =)
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.
Not well at all. We ran a test in one of those links I posted on the first page. The monk "almost" pulled even with a barbarian once or twice IIRC, but most of the fight had the barbarian as the clear favourite as far as doing better.
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.
Most melee classes perform pretty well against most monsters. Flyers might be a problem if you have a low dex, but beyond that the monster should not be justified in putting you on "ignore" status.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lol, thanks Bearded Ben, that was my point. And with what rules I had available, I played an awesome fighter, Napalm. But you are right, this is PF now, But you know what? I dont see the devs here running to pander to anyone with class complaints, which I deeply respect. Have fun ranting =)
Well, Paizo built the Pathfinder rules on the back of a lot of play testing and feedback. I'd be shocked if they viewed listening to plausible player feedback (negative or positive) and making appropriate changes as 'pandering'. In fact, I'd be disappointed if they ignored such an issue as this.
As you go up in levels DR becomes more prominent assuming your GM is using monsters. Now I am not suggesting that a GM should use only monsters, but when he does the monk will know it. They have high CMD's and fort saves. That means stunning fist is not likely to work, and neither are any combat manuevers. This is not theorycraft. This is based on actual gameplay. I have seen monk in real games, and in simulations. The results are the same. If someone can bypass the problems we are discussing I would love to see how they are doing it.
PS:We know some of the archetypes are decent, but some of them have issues also, not like the core monk however. I like the monk, or the idea of the monk anyway. The execution is lacking however.
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)
That is a 3.5 spell, and very circumstansial which is a criticism often levelled at the monk. You can't depend on such situation to prove you are useful. Someone could easily argue the monk is sucking wind to the GM did that on purpose to give the monk a place to shine.
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.
Fighters and Barbarians don't have to have poor will saves. They often do, but that is not a class problem, just like casters dont have to have poor fort saves. I have never seen a caster fall to a monk, well not a well built one anyway. Dispel the brooch of shielding. It should have a low caster level, and take the monk out. Why you are not flying with mirror image, and displacement up is another question.
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...
Fighters have their issues to but you problems were not class issues. Nobody should dump perception. Everyone should have a ranged weapon. Stoneskin is an issue depending on your strength. Mirror image is a pain to the monk also. You should have made the saves vs poison most of the time then stabbed the rogue in the face. Why were you running into traps? Did the party not have someone focused on perception since your fighter did not have it?
Widow the devs said they are remaking the monk. :)
If the monk got awesome in PF nobody would care. The issue is not one class being awesome. I liked the 2ed monk. The issue is when a class has to be coddled.
Wraith, actually I use mirror image all the time. Ahem, I sort of ommitted that because it adds credence to my insistence that monks are a good class and especially against casters. I dont usually fly because we are usually in a mega dungeon situation.
And yes, anyone can pad a bad save a bit, but certain classes still have save "weaknesses".
And if they actually do remake the monk, that will sadden me a little. Not because MAYBE, just MAYBE the class needs it, but because it will potentially open the door to every cry baby whiner who thinks such and such class is broken or nerfed, etc. I have seen this sort of thing happen way too often on MMOs I have played over the last decade. After awhile, the game looks nothing like the one you started playing and fell in love with.
2nd edition monk? You mean the fighting monk cleric? Hmm, yeah he was pretty cool.
And if they actually do remake the monk, that will sadden me a little. Not because MAYBE, just MAYBE the class needs it, but because it will potentially open the door to every cry baby whiner who thinks such and such class is broken or nerfed, etc. I have seen this sort of thing happen way too often on MMOs I have played over the last decade. After awhile, the game looks nothing like the one you started playing and fell in love with.
I suspect that is why they haven't actually made any changes yet. One thing Paizo seems to do well is to be aware of the not just the immediate fallout of a change, but likely indirect fallout as well. Still, it's hard to argue that there isn't room for improvement in the class, even if it just rearranging and refocusing what already exists into something a bit more in line with what most of the other classes have become.
If a monster or class, that you can identify will jack you up, then you should have fly prepped in case the ceiling is high enough. Invisibility is good to have also.
Fighters should take iron will. There is no reason no to. They get 10000 feats. :)
That puts them 1 behind the class that has it as their good save. They should also not dump wisdom. That is why I say it is not a class issue.
It is not a "crybaby" issue. To play the monk well you need a high level of system mastery or a nice GM. Not everyone has the time to learn the ins and outs of the system. That does not mean they should not be able to perform decently. Myself, Dabbler, Ciretose, Ashiel and a few other posters here know the system well, but not everyone can do it. I know I don't like to help players to much. If someone brings a monk to the table I have to turn the difficulty meter down or the monk suffers. I would not play a monk if I had a clone as the GM, unless I did it just for the challenge.
These same issues come up with every monk thread, people get upset*, ignore evidence, and so on, but nobody can give a way to handle the issues that come up. We have asked for builds and they don't work as advertised. Unless someone is multiclassing the monk does not really do much, and then it is the other class that is doing the heavy lifting.
*I am not saying you are upset.
PS:Just to be clear when I say I don't like to help players, that does not mean I go out of my way to kill their characters. Most of the time I just use stock monsters without any modifications.
Wraith, actually I use mirror image all the time. Ahem, I sort of ommitted that because it adds credence to my insistence that monks are a good class and especially against casters. I dont usually fly because we are usually in a mega dungeon situation.
And yes, anyone can pad a bad save a bit, but certain classes still have save "weaknesses".And if they actually do remake the monk, that will sadden me a little. Not because MAYBE, just MAYBE the class needs it, but because it will potentially open the door to every cry baby whiner who thinks such and such class is broken or nerfed, etc. I have seen this sort of thing happen way too often on MMOs I have played over the last decade. After awhile, the game looks nothing like the one you started playing and fell in love with.
2nd edition monk? You mean the fighting monk cleric? Hmm, yeah he was pretty cool.
I actually showed in another thread (it is one of the ones linked earlier) that a wizard at level 10 could come pretty close to trivializing an average monks stunning fist DC at level 10. And I know when I play a fighter I buff up the will save just because it can be so lethal to everyone else when that will save gets failed. And there is one of the monk issues. Every class has weaknesses. One of the great aspects of playing a game where you have choices is the ability to focus on your strengths and hope your weaknesses are ignored, or shore up the weaknesses some while playing to your strengths. Monk as written require a large amount of systems knowledge, books outside of core, and a DM willing to alter encounters/campaigns for the presence of the monk if he is trying to not make the monk feel shut down. Only class in the game that way.
Them remaking the monk won't sadden me. I would rather see a company admit "Hey, we could have done this better, we have looked at everything that has been said, the theory crafting, the actual in play reports, and we have decided to tweak the class. We aren't redoing it, just rewriting a couple of abilities to make things flow smoother for the class." than them never do anything about it, even after the company itself has said "Yes, there are some issues here, we'll look at it."
And yes, a few years from now, when the PF CRB celebrates its 10th birthday, even if they don't alter the monk, the game won't resemble what it was when you started. More books, more fluff, more everything, that is the nature of gaming, it has been since I got a little red box all those many years ago. Every new book changes something.
I agree, if Paizo goes and just starts making changes willy nilly to the monk, it would be bad. But if they evaluate whats there, take a look at what isn't working as intended and make it work as intended, that isn't pandering. Its fixing, the same as writing an eratta, issuing a FAQ, or clarifying with a post on a message board.
And the 2e monk was meh to me. 1e monk was where it was at. Full hit dice at every level, insane levels of movement, evasion before it even had a term, dodging missiles, laying the smackdown on demon lords with bare hands, and getting to challenge guys for the right to advance a level. Oh yeah. Totally. Kick. Ass. I miss those monks.
And before anyone says it, yes, I know, 3.0/3.5/PF monks are supposed to harken back to that. They don't. They really, really don't.
Krigare, have you ever read the Dragon Magazine Article "He's Got a Lot to Kick About?" I think Philip Myers wrote, it was back in Dragon #53, and reprinted in Best of Dragon III.
Ah, that monk kicked some major butt. We used that one, with skills added, instead of the 2nd edition kit, which I didn't care for.
MA
I apologize beforehand if I'm overly derailing the topic.
I keep seeing these threads about the monk class and I've thought about some of the complaints. I don't have the system mastery that many here do. I'm actually very new at this, only a year and a half of play under my belt and the highest level character I have is at fifth level, but I'm hoping you'll here me out anyway.
What if the Monk used DEX as his main stat for attack and damage bonuses? I've always thought that a monk would be quick, using his speed and agility to strike opponents as opposed to raw strength. Okay so now having an 18 in DEX is much more attractive, +4 to AC, attack, and damage. That takes care of the MAD problem a bit, right?
As for Flurry and the Monk's speed not synergizing, what if the monk could move up to half speed and still flurry? Or have the option of taking a 5 foot step between attacks up to half his movement?
As a side note: to all monk lovers, the scariest monk I have seen relative to the gaming system it was in is the one in Swords and Wizardry. You can go look at it in the Swords and Wizardry SRD. I bought the Core, Complete Rules, and the monster book and its a fun read. But its waaaaaay too hardcore for most people I think. It hearkens to a simpler time, but its not for everyone. I have been reading some gms blog an he is like on his 4th party in 6 weeks.......
@MA: It sounds familiar, but Dragon was a hit or miss thing for me until the mid 90's when the local brick and mortar started carrying them. My group used the 1e monk up until 3e came out, we just added proficiencies like the thief. Why fix what ain't broke?
@AdamWarnock(Nice name btw, Adam Warlock is cool depending on who was doing the writing at the time): What your proposing is an idea. The downside of the dex to attack and damage innately is it duplicates a feat (weapon finesse, and not a huge deal) and also one of the more...well...broken magic enhancements (agile, at +1 it is really just to good, only reason a dex based melee char doesn't have it is either a) its banned or b) they haven't heard of it yet).
And that kind of solution helps at low levels. Even at high levels it isn't as horribly abusive as Wis to hit (and only to hit) is. But as soon as magic items come into play, you end up with the "not good enough" situation for it, due to DR.
As to the flurry and move...um. Your talking about pounce. Maybe not by name, but in function, it is close enough. If you don't know the dangers of that one (at level 5 not sure a druid could do the pounce insanity yet and barbarians don't do it till 10-12 something like that) I recommend doing a search on these forums for pounce in conjunction with barbarian, druid, or my personal favorite, find one of the ragelancepounce builds.
And btw, I've known folks who have played for decades and don't have any real functional system mastery, length of time played has little to do with rules knowledge, it only comes in handy as grognard cred, and exposure.
Dex based builds do less damage than strength based builds, and you need more resources to make them work, however see if you use the agile enhancement, and take weapon finesse you won't be so MAD. If you plan on using any combat maneuvers though you will need another feat to make all of your maneuvers work with dex.
So with strength out of the way your primary attack stat is dex. Wisdom is still needed for perception, AC, and will saves. You still need constitution for hit points, and fort saves, but it does not have to be boosted like the others do. If you want a decent number of skills you still have to boost intelligence. If you have a 15 point buy you are in a lot of trouble. 20 would be better of course, but I am guessing you still need a 25 to be adequate. Of course this also assume the GM allows noncore material. The "agile" enhancement is in the "Pathfinder Society Field Guide", which is less likely to be available as a hardcover book.
That still does not stop the fact that their abilities don't work well together.
PS:I just remember Agile Maneuvers does not help your CMD so you still need strength. On top of that most monster's CMD will be hard for a monk to deal with around level 10.
I apologize beforehand if I'm overly derailing the topic.
I keep seeing these threads about the monk class and I've thought about some of the complaints. I don't have the system mastery that many here do. I'm actually very new at this, only a year and a half of play under my belt and the highest level character I have is at fifth level, but I'm hoping you'll here me out anyway.
What if the Monk used DEX as his main stat for attack and damage bonuses? I've always thought that a monk would be quick, using his speed and agility to strike opponents as opposed to raw strength. Okay so now having an 18 in DEX is much more attractive, +4 to AC, attack, and damage. That takes care of the MAD problem a bit, right?
It's doable, and it does help, but not a lot. Reason I say that is because it can already be done, and it's a build I prefer. Problem is, it comes with issues of it's own.
First off, you need Weapon Finesse and Agile Maneuvers at first level, a two-feat tax. Then you have to wait until you get an AoMF for the Agile weapon property. That cuts down your available enhancement bonus. So now you are further behind on hitting, worse off for feats, and STILL get largely shut down by DR.
Even without the taxes, you are staking too much on one stat, and even then you are left with some problems that haven't gone away.
As for Flurry and the Monk's speed not synergizing, what if the monk could move up to half speed and still flurry? Or have the option of taking a 5 foot step between attacks up to half his movement?
I suggested making the 20' move bonus a move of 20' as a swift action.
|
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.
I'm ignoring corner cases and other things that aren't relevant. A 20th level Monk is going to be great, along with the rest of the party, when it comes to fighting these guys. Let's take the dragon for instance. Well his breath weapon is essentially useless against the Monk because of Improved Evasion, even if he fails his save that's still half damage. A Monk could easily get weapons that have Cold Iron and Good when fighting against the Marilith or the Balor or he could just accept the 10 damage off each hit, hell it's still 1d10 plus whatever else he has.
|
|
By 2oth level a Monk should be able to bypass the following DR if he is good. Magic, Lawful, Adamantine, Chaotic, and Good. For anything else such as Cold Iron or Silver he would need to maybe carry around a spare weapon or two. Other classes such as the fighter has to do this.Stop focusing at level 20, even if monks are fine at level 20 that doesn't mean much, because in PF all the other classes have crazy capstone that makes them amazing. Fighters are one shotting pretty much anything on a crit at level 20, barbarians are rage cycling non stop, etc. etc.
Don't say hey at level 20 monks are great that still leaves 19 levels of suckitude. We should focus on the monk between levels 6 - 15, because that is the majority of when you will spend your time.
By my math monks can contribute ok not great from levels 1 - 6, but so can a commoner because at those levels even the most optimized melees still need to roll 7 or above to hit that means a lot of it just comes down to dice rolls.
However, above level 6 most other melee classes start getting to the point that they only need a 2 to hit APL + 2 or 3 creatures on their first attack each round. Except for the monk and rogue, because these two class have 0 self buffing or class abilities that add to hit. This can't even be up for debate because it can be proven mathematically.
That said a rogue is better off than the monk because people don't expect them to be combat monsters since they are sold as skill monkeys, 8 skill points and nearly every skill as class skill. A rogue that is mediocre in combat can still contribute as being scout, face, and take on one or two more skill challenges.
A monk has to contribute in combat because besides combat all a monk can do is be a decent scout. If Paizo decides that they don't want monk to be a combat class fine, they need to buff their skills to 6 per level, make them better at healing at least equal to bard maybe in their own weird way.
However, if Paizo decides to...
I was just responding to someone who mentioned level 20.
Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?
It's pretty bad when almost no one even considers playing the core version of the class when they think about playing the monk. Precisely where the problem is can be hard to tell right now, which is why I think the best thing they can do right now is rearrange it to look more like the ranger class with flurrying and mobility options resting on different trees, and the defensive measures mixed in appropriately. That way, it would be a lot easier to see where the shortcomings with the class truly are, making it a lot easier to introduce actual changes without doing more harm than good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?It's call process of elimination. You look at the monk and you see, no caster levels ok so not a spell caster. Then you go over and see hmm 4 skill points per level, probably not a skill monkey.
Then you read flurry of blows a unique way to fight in combat.
Then you continue all good saves, AC increase and unarm damage automatically goes up as you level.
I get it the monk must be a healing class....
Seriously. If people haven't figured out that monks are a combat class that would explain a lot. I can't imagine what kind of class they're supposed to be though. Do the official APs have lots of modules devoted to foot races and fireball dodging competitions or something?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm ignoring corner cases and other things that aren't relevant. A 20th level Monk is going to be great, along with the rest of the party, when it comes to fighting these guys. Let's take the dragon for instance. Well his breath weapon is essentially useless against the Monk because of Improved Evasion, even if he fails his save that's still half damage. A Monk could easily get weapons that have Cold Iron and Good when fighting against the Marilith or the Balor or he could just accept the 10 damage off each hit, hell it's still 1d10 plus whatever else he has.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.
At 20th level the monk can't reliably hit the dragon, so his ability to bypass the DR is irrelevant, if he boosts his strength up high enough to have a chance to hit, his defenses suffer to the point he dies extremely fast to the dragon saying "ohhh, lunch" and full attacking (seriously, you think the breath weapon from a dragon is a threat at level 20? Spells, physical attacks, flight, so so many things. Not the breath weapon.)
Likewise, versus the marilith, an encounter a full 3 CR's beneath him, the monk should win. Without breaking a sweat. But he doesn't. His being forced to go through the DR the hard way or eat up +1 of his total allowable +5 enhancement bonus (not even the whole +10 other characters get, but hey, this shrodingers monk of yours is so awesome if they gave him the full +10 he's be op) with holy. If he has gone that route, then even bypassing DR he still has the hit issue, which he has hurt by sacrificing a +1 to hit.
The balor is an even worse case for the monk, so is the pit fiend, the monks ability to actually do anything meaningful besides provide a flank bonus (that more than likely isn't needed) to a fighter/barbarian/ranger(who doesn't have evil outsiders as a favored enemy) would be limited to...harsh language. Hardly contribution.
I get that you think the monk is fine. I'd really like a better explanation of why you think that, but you don't (or can't) want to do that, its cool. But it seems that no matter what gets shown to you, or said, you feel no need to show any math, provide a decent example, or even do more than say "Nah, that is just a corner case." Well, if the game session for the monk consists of moving from one 'corner case' situation to the next it isn't a corner case anymore.
And the funny thing is, the monk is worse off at 20 than he is at lower levels. And at the levels where most folks run games (low to mid levels, 1-14ish) the monk starts contributing less after 4th, by 6-7th when most other classes are hitting their stride and starting to shine, the monk is left to trying to play catch up and not hinder his party.
|
|
Seriously. If people haven't figured out that monks are a combat class that would explain a lot. I can't imagine what kind of class they're supposed to be though. Do the official APs have lots of modules devoted to foot races and fireball dodging competitions or something?Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?It's call process of elimination. You look at the monk and you see, no caster levels ok so not a spell caster. Then you go over and see hmm 4 skill points per level, probably not a skill monkey.
Then you read flurry of blows a unique way to fight in combat.
Then you continue all good saves, AC increase and unarm damage automatically goes up as you level.
I get it the monk must be a healing class....
Technically all classes are "combat" classes. The Monk is a skirmisher which means he can run around all over the place and jump in and out to land a blow or two. This is how the rogue works but I wouldn't call it a primary combat class.
The Monk class is what ever the player decides to do with it.
|
|
It's pretty bad when almost no one even considers playing the core version of the class when they think about playing the monk. Precisely where the problem is can be hard to tell right now, which is why I think the best thing they can do right now is rearrange it to look more like the ranger class with flurrying and mobility options resting on different trees, and the defensive measures mixed in appropriately. That way, it would be a lot easier to see where the shortcomings with the class truly are, making it a lot easier to introduce actual changes without doing more harm than good.
No one your group you mean.
I know a lot of people who play Monks and enjoy playing Monks. They play the class for what it is and not what someone else expectations of it should be.
Alright. I'd like to just say perhaps the problem is less about the Monk and more about fighting Unarmed isn't as good.
Most of the problems mentioned seem to be from fighting unarmed.
The main problems so far mentioned:
1. Lack of Enhancement
2. Inability to bypass DR
So what's the difference between a Unarmed Monk and an any other class?
If your fighting strictly unarmed (like most of you assume the Monk is doing) then you still run into the problem of number 1 and 2. A fighter using unarmed strikes still needs to use the AMoF and will suffer the same problem.
You might say well the fighter can use Brass Knuckles, Gauntlets, etc. So why can't the Monk use Brass Knuckles? Brass Knuckles are a Monk weapon and can be used by the Monk.
But alas, cries of "Oh no!" but you have to use the 1d3 damage as opposed to the Monk's Unarmed damage. (Which i'll add a number of you have stated is worthless anyway.) I mean using Brass Knuckles is still punching right?
Though at that point you have to pay for two weapons to be enhanced like everyone else now.
+1 4,600
+2 16,600
+3 32,600
+4 64,600
+5 100,600
or i guess you could spend a little extra on the AMoF. Which isn't nearly "double the cost" more like 10% to 25% increase at the most.
+1 5,000
+2 20,000
+3 45,000
+4 80,000
+5 125,000
So you can purchase the AMoF as a Monk for an increased cost to keep your Unarmed damage scaling or you can purchase Brass Knuckles or other weapons but have a lower damage dice.
The Monks does need a little tune-up. I'm not against it and totally agree they need a tweak. But it no where as severe as some of you would make it out to be.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Monk class is what ever the player decides to do with it.
...
They play the class for what it is and not what someone else expectations of it should be.
They play the class for what it is, but what it is is whatever they decide? That's a serious ice cream koan.
|
|
They play the class for what it is, but what it is is whatever they decide? That's a serious ice cream koan.
I know some people who don't play the Monk as an up front combat type character. They play the Monk as someone who runs around and throws a blow here and there but they also, "oh my god", play the class for role playing reasons.
Really what the Monk needs is the ability to bypass all DRs using Ki.
3rd: DR/Magic
6th: Dr/Silver
9th: DR/Cold Iron
12th:DR/Lawful
Etc....
They play the class for what it is, but what it is is whatever they decide? That's a serious ice cream koan.I know some people who don't play the Monk as an up front combat type character. They play the Monk as someone who runs around and throws a blow here and there but they also, "oh my god", play the class for role playing reasons.
The fact that a class is powerful doesn't make it less useful for roleplaying.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know some people who don't play the Monk as an up front combat type character. They play the Monk as someone who runs around and throws a blow here and there but they also, "oh my god", play the class for role playing reasons.
I can roleplay a Commoner. That doesn't make it a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously. If people haven't figured out that monks are a combat class that would explain a lot. I can't imagine what kind of class they're supposed to be though. Do the official APs have lots of modules devoted to foot races and fireball dodging competitions or something?Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?It's call process of elimination. You look at the monk and you see, no caster levels ok so not a spell caster. Then you go over and see hmm 4 skill points per level, probably not a skill monkey.
Then you read flurry of blows a unique way to fight in combat.
Then you continue all good saves, AC increase and unarm damage automatically goes up as you level.
I get it the monk must be a healing class....
Technically all classes are "combat" classes. The Monk is a skirmisher which means he can run around all over the place and jump in and out to land a blow or two. This is how the rogue works but I wouldn't call it a primary combat class.
The Monk class is what ever the player decides to do with it.
The rogue works (or rather, it usually doesn't) because of the huge damage boost he receives from sneak attack. How many creatures have Improved Uncanny Dodge? I cannot think of one critter with that ability . . . so if a rogue can flank, he deals that extra damage on every single attack that hits. DR 20/x vs. 11d6 damage means a good amount gets through even if the rogue cannot bypass the DR. If he can bypass the DR, then he is dealing very large amounts of damage in every successful hit.
The monk doesn't. A skirmishing monk has the same attack bonus as the rogue (on average, before ability scores) and deals FAR less damage on a hit. In practice, the skirmishing monk will have a LOWER attack bonus than the rogue, who can dump Strength and rely on his sneak attack to cause damage, taking the Weapon Finesse feat and boosting that one ability score to the high heavens.
Take a monk in comparison with a bard. Both classes have the same BAB (medium) and the same hit die (d8). The bard has a lower Fort save than the monk, Reflex and Will are both high.
The bard has 6 levels of spell-casting (7 if you count cantrips) as a spontaneous caster and can cast bard spells while wearing light armor and using a shield without Arcane Spell Failure. Several of his spells provide a stackable bonus on his attack and damage rolls (heroism gives a +2 morale bonus to attacks and damage for 10 minutes/level, greater heroism gives a +4 morale bonus to attacks and damage for 1 minute/level). Inspire courage, which a 20th level bard can maintain for at least 42 rounds a day (before Charisma), will add another +4 competence bonus on attack rolls and damage rolls.
Both classes have the same BAB (+15), so presuming that each has a +5 weapon and the feat Weapon Focus, each has a +21 attack bonus prior to ability scores. Except the bard will actually have a +29 attack thanks to greater heroism and inspire courage. AND, the bard is getting a +8 bonus on damage to every attack he makes thanks to that one spell (20 minute duration, mind you) and inspire courage.
Both are likely to have somewhere around the same Strength score after magic (I'd say about a 24 should be doable by 20th level, without taking away from Dex and Wis for the monk, or Dex and Cha for the bard, all other ability scores are a wash).
So that gives the monk a +28 attack for 2d10+12 damage (20/x2 critical threat), skirmishing. The bard (with a rapier) has a +36 attack for 1d6+20 damage (18-20/x2 critical threat), skirmishing.
Full attack, the monk gains another +3 attack bonus for his flurry, so he goes to +31/+31/+26/+26/+21/+21/+16 for 2d10+12 damage each. The bard holds steady at +36/+31/+26 for 1d6+20 damage each, if he fights with one weapon. The bard can afford to put the speed property on his rapier (which isn't limited to a +5 total bonus), and can make it keen as well (for a threat range of 15-20/x2). That will give the bard +36/+36/+31/+26 for 1d6+20 damage per hit, with six times the chance of scoring a critical hit.
The bard has more skills (6 ranks per level vs. 4 ranks per level), AND gains half his bard level to all knowledge skills (and use them untrained), can substitue his perform skills for a wide range of very useful skills, and can take 10 on any skill whether it is trained or not, treating it as a class skill for this purpose. Never mind, that the bard has at a minimum, another 29 spells per day after casting greater heroism (not including any bonus spells from a high Charisma score).
The bard can duplicate just about every monk ability throught those spells: fast movement . . . expeditious retreat! Slow fall . . . feather fall! Wholeness of body . . . cure light wounds, or cure moderate wounds, or cure serious wounds, or cure critical wounds! Diamond body . . . delay poison or neutralize poison! Tongue of the Sun and Moon . . . tongues, speak with animals, and comprehend language! Abundant step . . . dimension door! Purity of body . . . heroe's feast!
Yeah, the monk can be outfought and outplayed by a bard! Who can do everything he does (a ring of evasion will even give him that ability).
And that bard will most likely have a higher AC, as well, or least an AC on par with the monk. Especially if he uses a light shield instead of two weapon fighting. Celestial armor gives +9, Dex can give up to another +8, +5 deflection, +5 natural armor, +1 Dodge, and you are looking at AC 38. Add a +5 light shield and AC 44.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Alright. I'd like to just say perhaps the problem is less about the Monk and more about fighting Unarmed isn't as good.
Most of the problems mentioned seem to be from fighting unarmed.
...
So what's the difference between a Unarmed Monk and an any other class?
How many times does this have to be repeated for it to sink in?
Here ya go:- MAD - Worst case of MAD out of any class, keeping the primary offensive stats lower than other classes.
- Lack of Self-Enhancement - Rage. Inspire Courage. Wild Shape. Weapon Training. Smite. Favored Enemy. Mutagen. Challenge. Deeds. Judgement/Insta-Bane. Arcane Pool. And finally, Spells. All of the above things do or can contribute towards adding a bonus to hit or both hit and damage. A Monk has nothing like the above. (Ki Pool doesn't help you hit at all.)
And not only do all of these things listed give you bonuses to hit, half of the classes involved (6 out of 12) even have a higher BAB to begin with.
And for what it's worth, the only other class that doesn't have something like the above is a Rogue, and they're also in the "needs help" category (but at least they can fall back on skills to be useful to a group!) - Horrible Weapon Options - So you finally give up on the idea of trying to go Unarmed. You want the same opportunity to enchant your weapons as the other classes get. But now you're stuck with d6/20x2 or something equally bad or worse. Temple Sword (longsword stats) is as good as it gets, but since you use TWF exactly, then you'll be taking another -2 penalty for your offhand weapon being one-handed. Congrats on your further forced downgrade to hit for your marginal increase in damage and crit chance.
To answer your question on why a Monk refuses to use Brass Knuckles when their counterparts choose to, it's simple: Add bullet point 1 and 2, then add in the lack of ability to wear light armor (for Brawling). If a Monk doesn't take advantage of that increasing die range, he might as well not even adventure. Seriously.
As to your arguments over AoMF cost: Other TWFers can stagger their expenses. Enchant one weapon now, the other weapon later. Monks have to pay more overall, and have to "pretend" to enchant "both" their weapons at the same time, which most games won't offer the finances to accomplish. When a Monk wants to go from a +1 to a +2, he has to drop 15,000gp right then - When a Fighter wants to take both his weapons from a +1 to a +2, he can spend 6,000gp now and 6,000gp later.
|
|
Seriously. If people haven't figured out that monks are a combat class that would explain a lot. I can't imagine what kind of class they're supposed to be though. Do the official APs have lots of modules devoted to foot races and fireball dodging competitions or something?Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?It's call process of elimination. You look at the monk and you see, no caster levels ok so not a spell caster. Then you go over and see hmm 4 skill points per level, probably not a skill monkey.
Then you read flurry of blows a unique way to fight in combat.
Then you continue all good saves, AC increase and unarm damage automatically goes up as you level.
I get it the monk must be a healing class....
Technically all classes are "combat" classes. The Monk is a skirmisher which means he can run around all over the place and jump in and out to land a blow or two. This is how the rogue works but I wouldn't call it a primary combat class.
The Monk class is what ever the player decides to do with it.
The rogue works (or rather, it usually doesn't) because of the huge damage boost he receives from sneak attack. How many creatures have Improved Uncanny Dodge? I cannot think of one critter with that ability . . . so if a rogue can flank, he deals that extra damage on every single attack that hits. DR 20/x vs. 11d6 damage means a good amount gets through even if the rogue cannot bypass the DR. If he can bypass the DR, then he is dealing very large amounts of damage in every successful hit.
The monk doesn't. A skirmishing monk has the same attack bonus as the rogue (on average, before ability scores) and deals FAR less damage on a hit. In practice, the skirmishing monk will have a LOWER attack bonus than the rogue, who can dump Strength and rely on his sneak attack to cause damage, taking the Weapon Finesse feat and...
Let's see your ability score array for that Bard.
Let's see your ability score array for that Bard.The rogue works (or rather, it usually doesn't) because of the huge damage boost he receives from sneak attack. How many creatures have Improved Uncanny Dodge? I cannot think of one critter with that ability . . . so if a rogue can flank, he deals that extra damage on every single attack that hits. DR 20/x vs. 11d6 damage means a good amount gets through even if the rogue cannot bypass the DR. If he can bypass the DR, then he is dealing very large amounts of damage in every successful hit.
The monk doesn't. A skirmishing monk has the same attack bonus as the rogue (on average, before ability scores) and deals FAR less damage on a hit. In practice, the skirmishing monk will have a LOWER attack bonus than the rogue, who can dump Strength and rely on his sneak attack to cause damage, taking the Weapon Finesse feat and...
Something like...
20pts HumanStr- 14
Dex- 16 (+2 Racial)
Con- 12
Int- 8
Wis- 10
Cha- 16
...looks pretty good I'd say.
Let's see your ability score array for that Bard.
Okay. 20-point buy, human.
Base ability scores are Str 14 (2 pts), Dex 14 (2 pts), Con 14 (2 pts), Int 10 (2 pts), Wis 10 (2 pts), Cha 14 (5 pts). +2 for human in Cha. Final starting stats of Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 16.
Level ups go +2 Str, +2 Dex, +1 Cha. Str 16, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 17.
Equipment: +9 rapier (+5 enhancement, keen, speed) is 162,320 gp. Celestial armor is 22,400 gp. +5 light steel shield is 25,159 gp. +5 ring of protection is 50,000 gp, so is the +5 amulet of natural armor. Ring of evasion is 25,000 gp. Belt of physical perfection +6 comes in 144,000 gp. Headband of alluring charisma +6 is 36,000 gp. Cloak of resistance +5 costs 25,000 gp.
Total spent so far is 539,879 gp, leaving our bard with 340,121 gp.
Ability scores so far are Str 22, Dex 22, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 23.
Now we get to inherent bonuses. +2 in Strength is 55,000 gp, +4 in Dex is 110,000 gp, and +5 in Cha is 137,500 gp. That is 302,500 gp, leaving our bard with 37,621 gp for other magic items.
Final ability scores are Str 24, Dex 26, Con 20, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 28.
Easily done for a 20th level character, and the bard has spent two feats (Dodge and Weapon Focus), leaving him with 9 more to spend and more than 37,000 gp to spend. I would spend four feats on Spell Focus (Enchantment) and Greater Spell Focus (Enchantment), as well as Spell Penetration and Greater Spell Penetration, leaving 5. Since Fortitude is still the weak point, Great Fortitude and Improved Great Fortitude leaves us with 3. Dodge and Spring Attack (for the skirmishing build), leaves one, and let's go ahead and spend our last feat on Combat Casting.
I would probably go ahead and buy Gloves of Arrow Snaring (4,000 gp, replicates the Deflect Arrows and Snatch Arrows feat chain 2/day), Goggles of Night (12,000 gp), a Handy Haversack (2,000 gp), and Slippers of Spider Climbing (4,800 gp), leaving me with 14,796 gp for various wands.
MA
EDIT: And note, that every feat, every magic item, every spell listed above is Core Rulebook material; nothing from any subsequent publication.
Krigare, have you ever read the Dragon Magazine Article "He's Got a Lot to Kick About?" I think Philip Myers wrote, it was back in Dragon #53, and reprinted in Best of Dragon III.
Ah, that monk kicked some major butt. We used that one, with skills added, instead of the 2nd edition kit, which I didn't care for.
MA
I need to dig that out of storage now!
I think it is reasonable to conclude that the monk fix will take a while and will come from Paizo, mainly. In the meantime it sure would be nice to have a sticky called "Monk Issues" at the top of General Discussion so people don't ask the same questions a million times.
And 3.5 Loyalist has been misrepresented here...he isn't anti monk. There are some who just dislike the class no matter what, but he ain't one.
Seriously. If people haven't figured out that monks are a combat class that would explain a lot. I can't imagine what kind of class they're supposed to be though. Do the official APs have lots of modules devoted to foot races and fireball dodging competitions or something?Where does it say that a Monk is a combat class specifically?It's call process of elimination. You look at the monk and you see, no caster levels ok so not a spell caster. Then you go over and see hmm 4 skill points per level, probably not a skill monkey.
Then you read flurry of blows a unique way to fight in combat.
Then you continue all good saves, AC increase and unarm damage automatically goes up as you level.
I get it the monk must be a healing class....
Technically all classes are "combat" classes. The Monk is a skirmisher which means he can run around all over the place and jump in and out to land a blow or two. This is how the rogue works but I wouldn't call it a primary combat class.
The Monk class is what ever the player decides to do with it.
Nah, Rogues buy that new Decoy ring and get Greater Invisibility every 4 rounds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, you have multiple 'showing our work' by posting actual builds to support our arguments. Do you have a build that 'gets it right', and debunks our issues with the monk class?
|
|
Shallowsoul, you have multiple 'showing our work' by posting actual builds to support our arguments. Do you have a build that 'gets it right', and debunks our issues with the monk class?
I don't have to post any builds. What some of you have been doing is posting builds and then picking specific encounters that will give that particular build trouble.
Creating troublesome encounters shows nothing but how a class is in trouble versus that specific build.
We could do that for all classes and all builds and come to the same conclusion.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shallowsoul, you have multiple 'showing our work' by posting actual builds to support our arguments. Do you have a build that 'gets it right', and debunks our issues with the monk class?I don't have to post any builds. What some of you have been doing is posting builds and then picking specific encounters that will give that particular build trouble.
Creating troublesome encounters shows nothing but how a class is in trouble versus that specific build.
We could do that for all classes and all builds and come to the same conclusion.
Of course you don't have to post any builds.
No one has to believe you either.
In a forum such as this one, it s helpful if you can support your claim with some form of proof besides "I say so." In fact, once you get past the grade school playground, proof to support claims can get pretty important.
So, please, either post up a build to show some proof, or go into more detail about how the monk contributes ( and not in that dice less "we RP through encounters" way please, we are talking RAW monks and rules) and actually, you know, contribute to the discussion.
Or be like the monk and don't contribute, but if that's your option, you realize that for some of us, that borders on trollish behavior?