It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not meet our expectations.
(Man, this is deja vu.)
You should have that pasted in your profile for easy copy+paste.
So, who wants to take bets on how long this one will last?
Yeah there are a lot of topics about the Monk. He makes me sad because I want him to work out so bad but then he just doesn't D:
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TOZ pretty much covers it. It's not hate, it's frustration over mechanics that do not live up to the flavor.
My last monk felt like a parody of the monk I actually wanted to play, all because I wanted to play something besides BEEFMONK. People shouldn't be required to min-max/dumpstat or play the Hulk or have a PhD in system mastery in order to play an effective monk.
Now if you're talking about people that hate the monk because "EW ASIAN GERMS". Hell man, I don't even know.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the monk class. I just hate monk threads. So I don't read them. Problem solved! :D
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue is that for most people who post regularly on the boards it's all about min-maxing your character to do a specific thing. And those things are DPS, tank, control, etc. The monk will lose a DPS fight. A monk doesn't have the HP to tank, and probably won't be able to keep up with the high AC other classes can achieve.
The monk isn't worse than other classes, though. It's more of an intangible class. It's capable of doing a whole slew of things mediocre. It is the best TWFer in the game as it doesn't have to waste feats to be good at it. It has the best saves in the game, and develops some pretty sick survivability (the type unrelated to actual HP total). With a monk you can't have it all, and really have to decide what path you want to take with it. I think too many people see all it's capable of and try to stretch their characters too thin trying to achieve it all.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is the best TWFer in the game as it doesn't have to waste feats to be good at it.
It's actually the worst TWFer in the game. The weapons it can TWF with are extremely limited, and it doesn't actually have those feats it got for "free" so it doesn't qualify for the other TWF-style feats it may want.
It has the best saves in the game, and develops some pretty sick survivability (the type unrelated to actual HP total).
Paladin has better saves and survivability than a Monk.
|
|
My last monk felt like a parody of the monk I actually wanted to play, all because I wanted to play something besides BEEFMONK. People shouldn't be required to min-max/dumpstat or play the Hulk or have a PhD in system mastery in order to play an effective monk.
I think the issue is that for most people who post regularly on the boards it's all about min-maxing your character to do a specific thing.
>:(
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not meet our expectations.
I was about to provide the same link. :)
That way the OP can read that thread. No need to rehash the same old arguments. :)
edit:That was not thread I was thinking of.
Mr.OP I would suggesting doing a search and reading the last 3 monk threads. Even though they are long it will save you a lot of time, and most of us, such as myself and Dabbler have done this enough times, that my replies are memorized.
It has nothing to do with min-maxing either.
It's actually the worst TWFer in the game. The weapons it can TWF with are extremely limited, and it doesn't actually have those feats it got for "free" so it doesn't qualify for the other TWF-style feats it may want.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said best. Maybe most convenient. It doesn't have to invest any feats and slowly gains access to better "base" weapons, i.e. his own fists. He loses access to the Two-Weapon Rend ability? Bleh. What other TWF feats do people want to take? Having limited access to weapons comes with being a monk.
Paladin has better saves than a Monk.
With a decent Cha score, sure. That ability is really powerful for the sole reason that there aren't many paladins walking around with a 16 Cha. At least not in any games I've played. While the exact opposite can be said of monks and Wis and Dex.
It's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not meet our expectations.
I was about to provide the same link. :)
That way the OP can read that thread. No need to rehash the same old arguments. :)
You're making a huge assumption in thinking people actually read the already heavily discussed threads that you guys post; if they did, then we wouldn't have multiple mega-threads about the same thing :O
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a huge assumption in thinking people actually read the already heavily discussed threads that you guys post; if they did, then we wouldn't have multiple mega-threads about the same thing :O
I don't know about that. It does seem there are some folks who love to repost their points of view over and over and over and ......
It's actually the worst TWFer in the game. The weapons it can TWF with are extremely limited, and it doesn't actually have those feats it got for "free" so it doesn't qualify for the other TWF-style feats it may want.Perhaps I shouldn't have said best. Maybe most convenient. It doesn't have to invest any feats and slowly gains access to better "base" weapons, i.e. his own fists. He loses access to the Two-Weapon Rend ability? Bleh. What other TWF feats do people want to take? Having limited access to weapons comes with being a monk.
Paladin has better saves than a Monk.With a decent Cha score, sure. That ability is really powerful for the sole reason that there aren't many paladins walking around with a 16 Cha. At least not in any games I've played. While the exact opposite can be said of monks and Wis and Dex.
Base damage is not what determines who does the most damage. As an example kukris and their d4 are great for TWF'ing.
I also made a barbarian with better saves than the monk. Ok well wisdom the barbarian was slightly behind, but not by much, but when raging the barbarian had better saves.
I have had this debate before. I really do suggest reading that last link in my last post. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're making a huge assumption in thinking people actually read the already heavily discussed threads that you guys post; if they did, then we wouldn't have multiple mega-threads about the same thing :OIt's not hate. It's disappointment that the class does not meet our expectations.
I was about to provide the same link. :)
That way the OP can read that thread. No need to rehash the same old arguments. :)
Actually I was not assuming they had read them. I was assuming people don't, while suggesting they do so. :)
I think the issue is that for most people who post regularly on the boards it's all about min-maxing your character to do a specific thing. And those things are DPS, tank, control, etc. The monk will lose a DPS fight. A monk doesn't have the HP to tank, and probably won't be able to keep up with the high AC other classes can achieve.
The monk isn't worse than other classes, though. It's more of an intangible class. It's capable of doing a whole slew of things mediocre. It is the best TWFer in the game as it doesn't have to waste feats to be good at it. It has the best saves in the game, and develops some pretty sick survivability (the type unrelated to actual HP total). With a monk you can't have it all, and really have to decide what path you want to take with it. I think too many people see all it's capable of and try to stretch their characters too thin trying to achieve it all.
A monk's DPR is atrocious for a combat class.
I did a DPR model with the best DPR feats for a strength monk and his DPR was less than a druid (a full casting class), even with the assumption that haste stacks with ki and the monk was blowing ki every round.
Having good saves does not justify hitting as hard as a wizard for a melee class. (hyperbole included)
To be fair a monk can do decent damage, but it either suffers at doing damage, or its defenses suffer, unlike the other combat classes that can get good defenses(normally AC) and still make monsters cry.
Fair enough then. Carry on.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
A previous poster said it quite well. According to the poster,
"Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion. Monks and Rogues share that quality. A fighter just has to go up and hit things, a wizard can cast his cookie cutter spells from anywhere, but the monk and rogue actually have to think on their feet constantly to bring their assets into play. Many players don't have or develop this ability, so for them, these classes. "suck".
And so they come to the boards here, let things like fighter DPR numbers go into their heads, and vent their frustrations out on crusades and threads on things on "how this and this sucks".
These two classes don't suck. But it does take more player effort to realize their potential. That's not a fault of the class, it's an aspect of the roles they play."
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion.
Oh, I guess that's why I had a miserable time with my monk then. Proably also why I'm still banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to make the monk I actually want to play feel like a monk and still function.
>:(
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A previous poster said it quite well. According to the poster,
"Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.
If that is what he said then he was wrong, and therefore did not say it well. Now if he were to single out people that only theorycraft, but have not had the issues in game that would be more appropriate.
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion. Monks and Rogues share that quality. A fighter just has to go up and hit things, a wizard can cast his cookie cutter spells from anywhere, but the monk and rogue actually have to think on their feet constantly to bring their assets into play. Many players don't have or develop this ability, so for them, these classes. "suck".
Some of the more knowledgeable and experienced players also have the same issues so to an extent it is the class. Now how bad a class has to be to "suck" is a matter of opinion but even those of us that can make the monk and rogue work will tell you that it is more work than it should be at times. If you think a fighter or wizard are that easy to run then that is a campaign/GM issue.
GM:My player kills my campaigns by only using spells X, Y, and Z
Me:<Pat him on the back and offer some advice>
And so they come to the boards here, let things like fighter DPR numbers go into their heads, and vent their frustrations out on crusades and threads on things on "how this and this sucks".
These two classes don't suck. But it does take more player effort to realize their potential. That's not a fault of the class, it's an aspect of the roles they play."
If you think that a focus on DPR is the sole issue you are sadly mistaken. Most knowledgeable players know that the monk's damage is no bad.
One good thing that came from this post is that it shows the monk takes a higher level of system mastery to make work, and yes that is an issue, especially since the return is not any higher.
Like other smart folks said, we love the monk in concept and flavor, we hate that it's the weakest class in the game, was nerfed from 3E (where it was also the weakest core class in the game), and is contunously targeted with nerfing errata to shut down anything remotely good they manage to get that slips through prison bars.
Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).
Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.
Wow. I thought this was the other thread, too.
@Wolfen, I know it's a lot of reading, but if you're really interested to hear why people are disappointed and vocal about it, you should read some of those other threads Wraithstrike posted.
While I think some posters take the argument too far, there has been a lot of well thought-out and explained reasons of why the monk needs some love.
They're not a lost cause, but as is they don't work very well. They could stand to have their role and mechanics massaged a bit.
Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).
Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.
Are we talkign aout a PvP persepctive here? Cause I don't think that's where my complaints with the monk lie.
A bard -- whether in a group-buffing or direct combat at role -- can out-perform the monk across a range of encounter types, once you take into account the resources and abilities both classes bring to a group.
Bards somewhere in the middle or just below the primary casters in power depending on what classes you let into the game.
The main problem with the monk is its a fighting class that sucks at fighting. Its two main abilities (speed, flurry) also clash with each other and it requires to many high scores.
I'm okay with the fact that a monk can't compete with a fighter (or barbarian) in a straight damage race.
What I find most frustrating is their inability to consistently land a hit or bypass DR as they get above level 6 t 8.
I'd love it if I could build a monk who is the BEST UNARMED WARRIOR EVAR! But I'm just not sure that the class is intended to out-damage a fighter or barbarian, even with unarmed strikes.
I think the issue is that for most people who post regularly on the boards it's all about min-maxing your character to do a specific thing.
No, some of us actually do play the game for fun, to role-play. But if we play the monk it's like a comedy of errors as we end up with a character that basically struggles to do anything effectively.
And those things are DPS, tank, control, etc. The monk will lose a DPS fight. A monk doesn't have the HP to tank, and probably won't be able to keep up with the high AC other classes can achieve.
Monks can actually get very good AC. HP aren't too bad, but the biggest problem the monk has is actually hitting the target.
The monk isn't worse than other classes, though.
Yes, it is. Really. Even the devs have said so.
It's more of an intangible class.
True in the sense that the monk may as well not be around on occasion, yes. If you mean their benefits are not immediately obvious, then I guess you are right in that I still haven't found them.
It's capable of doing a whole slew of things mediocre.
I wouldn't go so far as mediocre, the monk is not even a good generalist. He has a grab-bag of abilities that do not work well in conjunction with one another, or indeed in the case of some of them they do not work well at all. Worse, the game rewards specialisation, so in every field the monk is outshone. Except running away (until the wizard gets a fly spell, anyway).
It is the best TWFer in the game as it doesn't have to waste feats to be good at it.
No, he's not. His weapons suck.
It's actually the worst TWFer in the game. The weapons it can TWF with are extremely limited, and it doesn't actually have those feats it got for "free" so it doesn't qualify for the other TWF-style feats it may want.Perhaps I shouldn't have said best. Maybe most convenient. It doesn't have to invest any feats and slowly gains access to better "base" weapons, i.e. his own fists. He loses access to the Two-Weapon Rend ability? Bleh. What other TWF feats do people want to take? Having limited access to weapons comes with being a monk.
So what you are saying is that 'best' in your view means waving around a pair of crappy weapons saying "look what I can do" while being in actual fact unable to fight effectively? Wouldn't like to meet your worst.
See, what makes a weapon good is not the base damage, it is, in order: Static bonuses (including enhancement), threat range, threat multiplier, special effects, damage dice. The best weapon for a TWFer is a kukri. Monk's unarmed strike is a red herring, it's gimped by low threat range and lack of enhancement.
It has the best saves in the game,
Paladin has better saves than a Monk.With a decent Cha score, sure. That ability is really powerful for the sole reason that there aren't many paladins walking around with a 16 Cha. At least not in any games I've played. While the exact opposite can be said of monks and Wis and Dex.
What paladin doesn't have a decent charisma score? A paladin needs two good scores: strength and charisma. With 20 point buy he can get a 16 in each, with +2 from race in there somewhere too. A monk needs decent strength, dexterity, wisdom and mediocre constitution, and mediocre intelligence if he wants to scout. You can't achieve all that even with 25 point buy.
and develops some pretty sick survivability (the type unrelated to actual HP total).
You mean he's a combat class that can survive anything but, er, combat? And in fact he's not invulnerable anyway, paladins get more immunities and better defences.
With a monk you can't have it all,
...winner of this year's understatement of the year. Where other classes can have several schticks, the monk has to fight tooth and nail to be mediocre at one, usually sacrificing the rest to utter rubish in the process.
and really have to decide what path you want to take with it.
Not obvious, is it?
I think too many people see all it's capable of and try to stretch their characters too thin trying to achieve it all.
No, they stretch their characters too thin trying to achieve anything at all, THAT's the problem.
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion.Oh, I guess that's why I had a miserable time with my monk then. Proably also why I'm still banging my head against the wall trying to figure out how to make the monk I actually want to play feel like a monk and still function.
I've seen this before, but I have never seen anyone put their money where their mouth is and show us a monk build and tell us how it can be used in given situations that is better than anything we can put up. I've built monks for theorycrafting, I have played them in games, and all the issues we pinpoint appear. I am sick of playing a combat class with great flavour but that can't actually fight.
Well, monks are a good counter to bards, pass the will saves, beat them in the attack, number of attacks, damage, greater movement, some better saves. The monk is not the weakest, I am not sure the bard is the weakest, but monks are not on the bottom (if there is a bottom).
Ignoring PVP, a bard can out-hit, out-damage, and out-save a monk. remember, that bardic performance also buffs the bard...
Weak classes comes down to opponents and situations.
Indeed. If a given class is ineffective in a larger number of situations against a larger number of foes than other classes are, and fails to shine against as many, then that class is weak. Sadly, this would be the monk.
See, what makes a weapon good is not the base damage, it is, in order: Static bonuses (including enhancement), threat range, threat multiplier, special effects, damage dice. The best weapon for a TWFer is a kukri. Monk's unarmed strike is a red herring, it's gimped by low threat range and lack of enhancement.
I'm in general agreement with Dabbler, but I'd like to clarify. I think this priority list is probably appropriate for two-weapon fighting weapons… big-two handers can have a slightly different priority… base damage begin one of them depending on the character concept.
Carry on.
I am not ok that a monk can't compete with a druid without blowing ki.I'm okay with the fact that a monk can't compete with a fighter (or barbarian) in a straight damage race.
What I find most frustrating is their inability to consistently land a hit or bypass DR as they get above level 6 t 8.
I'd love it if I could build a monk who is the BEST UNARMED WARRIOR EVAR! But I'm just not sure that the class is intended to out-damage a fighter or barbarian, even with unarmed strikes.
Agreed, though I haen't personally run any numbers comparing the two, so I'll leave that one to you. ;)
I don't have a link, but there are a few threads where Paizo said tey recognized there were some issues, that they wanted to look at them, but that they didnt want to re-write the class.
I don't think they ever said "we, the debs, agree that the monk is terrible and is the worst class", and I don't think many people are suggesting that.
Though I will say a strong case can be made that they are... at least in terms of what their Role entry says they are supposed to be.
Psh... YOU'RE part of the problem. :D
|
Can someone actually show me where "the devs agree the monk is terrible and is the worst class"? I keep seeing that but I'd like to see an actual quote from the powers that be.
Try here. I'll try to find more specific posts. Hard to search on my phone.
Edit: Specifically here.
Personally, I like a lot of the archetypes, but the core class really needs a bit of focus to it. Far too often, any given build is forced to ignore a large number of clashing class abilities as if they weren't there, and that tends to annoy a lot of people. I don't think the class needs huge changes in terms of what it offers, it just needs to be rewritten so that the abilities it currently offers are presented in a much clearer and more focused manner. Something like the ranger combat style where you choose either mobility or flurry at an early level, and getting appropriate boosts to the selected one at similar intervals, with the defensive abilities mixed in and common to both would help a lot. It still wouldn't fix everything, but it would at least remove a lot of the confusion of what precisely the end design was.
|
|
I don't have a link, but there are a few threads where Paizo said tey recognized there were some issues, that they wanted to look at them, but that they didnt want to re-write the class.
I don't think they ever said "we, the debs, agree that the monk is terrible and is the worst class", and I don't think many people are suggesting that.
Though I will say a strong case can be made that they are... at least in terms of what their Role entry says they are supposed to be.
"The monk isn't worse than other classes, though.
Yes, it is. Really. Even the devs have said so."Some are, but not many I agree. Still seems like a lto of discontent, but then again its not my ideal class so I'd probably feel very strongly if it were.
Some are, but not many I agree. Still seems like a lto of discontent, but then again its not my ideal class so I'd probably feel very strongly if it were.
There is a lot of discontent. Many, many people who like the monk and have tried to play them come back consistently frustrted by the class. That just sucks.
You said it yourself, it's not your ideal class... so you don't really have "skin in the game", as it were.
It's the same reason I don't try to speak authoritatively about cavaliers and wizards.. not my cup of tea and I havent' ever played one... at least not for any length of time.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, especially for people new to the game, the monk is counter-intuitive. What do I mean by that, you ask?
What do you think of when you say martial artist or monk? It is Bruce Lee, or David Carradine, or Chuck Norris, or Chow Yun-Fat, or Jackie Chan . . . it is for me. Slim and fast, with good muscle builds and well-toned bodies (but not body-builder levels of stacked and ripped muscles), who are (generally speaking) wise in the interaction of human beings and the ways of the world.
They are not Arnold Swartzenegger, Dwayne Johnson, or John Cena. But in Pathfinder, Strength matters. The best monks for combat concentrate on Strength and have scores that rival the Incredible Hulk, with only medicore Dexterity and Wisdom. They pick feats like the Dragon Style chain that enhance their ability to deal damage in combat, sacrificing their potential AC in order to deal damage at the back of the bus of the rest of the martial characters.
That isn't to say such a monk cannot be fun every once in a while, but it is completely the opposite of what most people think a monk is. When you get some new guy who looks at the monk, the first thing out of their mouth is . . . "Wisdom to AC? I get Wisdom to AC? And my ki is based on Wisdom? My Stunning Fist is based on Wisdom? It's like a caster, my Wisdom needs to be my highest stat!"
And then they frustrated and sad because the game doesn't work for the monk in that fashion. They have incredible ACs (but can still be hit), but they cannot do anything offensively to critters of equal or greater CR.
Then there is the matter of the two primary features of the monk: speed and mobility, versus flurry of blows. You cannot use one at the same time as the other. You are the fastest character class in the game, but to get your flurry you have to stand still, or take a 5' step. If you move, your attack bonus goes down.
The class does not just reward high system mastery, it makes it mandatory to understand how to stack feats, skills, various bonuses, to tweak the system to 11 in order to make the monk a viable, contributing member of an adventuring party. New guys don't have that . . . and they get turned off to the monk when it becomes obvious that their characters aren't contributing.
And then we get into all of the other class archetypes that strive to steal the monk's thunder: the fighter has two, the Brawler and the Unarmed Fighter. Both of which outfight the monk in his own specialty of unarmed combat.
There are other issues, plenty of them. Don't get me wrong, I love monks. The very first character I played in AD&D was a monk. But the monk class, as it currently stands in Pathfinder, needs to be rewritten.
Master Arminas