| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I blame anime. Folks watch wuxia over-the-top fighting, come back to D&D and are amazed that Monks can't teleport across universes and throw punches that conjure meteors of death from 999th Hell or whatever. They want to go Ninja Scroll or Tekken and ooops, the system doesn't support that right out of the box.
I think that expectation of anime fans is one of the major drives of "D&D martials suck" movement. Of course, WotC didn't really help with throwing them a bone with ToB:Bo9s...
I know you're (probably) being sarcastic based on the post just above this one, but I've seen this before and want to touch on it just a smidge.
The whole "Bring martials in line with casters" thing is not necessarily about making martial characters "Magical without being magic" (though for some classes, it would fit). It's just about giving martial characters their own niche that casters can't just fill with a spell or two.
Like battlefield control. Martials simply cannot do that outside of a few very specific builds (Trip builds spring to mind, to an extent). Giving martials unparalleled in-combat versatility and effectiveness, and still having an acceptable amount of out of combat effectiveness is enough. Likewise the best way to balance casters is to stop giving them so many options for combat ending spells. Reducing their in-combat presence while leaving their out of combat ability untouched will fix quite a few issues in my book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who the hell uses a monk for his fist fighting? Fist fighting is laaaame. Give him a sword and power attacks so he can fight like a real man. On good 9-ring broadsword (or temple sword if you don't want to drop a feat) and you'll be cutting your enemies julienne.
Since you can flurry using a single weapon, that allows you to two-hand a weapon, which doesn't give you a strength bonus (as per description), but does give you the power attack bonus (which only requires the proper handedness). Thus, you can whip out a ton of surprisingly powerful attacks.
Bam, monks are awesome.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who the hell uses a monk for his fist fighting?
People that want to play unarmed, unarmored martial artists.
Elbows, feet, knees, headbutts and other forms of attack are options as well.
Some folks find the idea of being a living weapon more than sufficient to qualify as "fighting like a real man/woman".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanna say, I wish we had something like a monk thread sticky, in which people discuss the problems with the monk forever. That would be so much better.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some folks find the idea of being a living weapon more than sufficient to qualify as "fighting like a real man/woman".
And that right there is one of the big difference between an eastern and western way of looking into battle, here that point is illustrated better.
The common thing I hear in a lot of these threads: monks are fun and good, but there's nothing they do that another class can't do better. I think that's what honestly frustrates people about them unless I miss my guess.
Scouting: sure, but so could the wizard with a familiar. Otherwise the rogue and ranger have you beat hands down.
Frontline: no question - fighters and all other martials have the advantage here. Your DPR will always lag, your special maneuvers are situational or easily resisted, and if you want to specialize in CMB...well so could the fighter.
Tanking: umm...AC is a real issue
Aggro or debuffing: bards have a lot of the same tools/potential, only their powers scale better than yours.
In short, it always seems like the monk comes up just a little behind other classes. You'd think that the one thing they excell at would be smacking the senses out of people w/their hands, but with moderate BAB they just don't do it all that well either.
I have no allusions to the fact that my above statements will get picked apart and potentially even get me ostracized. However I still feel the core of the complaint seems to be that some other class is always better than the monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks should be listed as priests.
That is after all what they really are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that expectation of anime fans is one of the major drives of "D&D martials suck" movement. Of course, WotC didn't really help with throwing them a bone with ToB:Bo9s...
ToB was Alpha Orcus. What 4E might have been before they nerfed Orcus... sigh, what could have been.
The thing about the monk is that they are not pure pugilists. Not really. This is reflected in their bab which is moderate but not good. They are more like half-mystics and hlf-pugilists. Therefore it somewhat makes sense for them to be inferior to the barb and fighter in standing toe to toe with the opponent. Like the rogue, they aren't actually a frontline tanker. If you find your monk standing toe to toe with opponents in the frontline instead of being melee support, then somebody isn't doing their job or you have no idea how to control your monk to best complement the party. A pugilist would actually be closer to an unarmed swordsage. The system of utilisiting stances and maneuvers is more in line with the whole martial shtick. Also, unarmed strike is designed to be mechanically inferior to every other fighting style in terms of damage. Even sword and shield outdamages unarmed so the game doesn't exactly favour unarmed martial artists in damage. Doesn't mean you can't contribute. Max out the grapple or stunning fist(I'd pick stunning fist over grapple but both can also work). Ask if your DM will allow you to swap out improved disarm for something monk related such as extra stunning. Monks can be good but tanking and killing opponents in one round is not something they can do. On the other hand, if the idea of slowing down opponents or preventing them from acting to give the part an edge isn't quite your thing, don't play a monk. Thats what they actually specialize in. By specialize, I mean make sure your monk is good at it. If you ar maxing grapple, simply taking improved grapple and maxing out strength isn't going to cut it. If maxing out stunning fist, go the whole ten yards. If its in a monster heavy campaign, and you are maxing grapple, you'll be fine if your grapple mod is around +23 at by level 10. If its stunning fist and you are pushing a dc of 24, thats good. Seen certain monks who were not just well created but also well played forcing saves of 29. Their main...
Your games are 70% combat? You think all games are 70% combat?
What about roleplaying, the dm engaging in description and players describing what they do, traps and getting around them or getting hurt by them, haggling and questioning, non-combat skills checks, rolling what has been found in treasure, dishing out loot and the giant time sink of levelling and general book-keeping. 70% is a giant unfounded call, a total shot in the dark.
You would like the label of 70% combat time so that if the monk isn't a great frontline fighter like the others, he is wasting everyone's time. After all, he is crap in combat which is apparently 70% of the game.
Nice try.
And that right there is one of the big difference between an eastern and western way of looking into battle, here that point is illustrated better.
Some folks find the idea of being a living weapon more than sufficient to qualify as "fighting like a real man/woman".
Good link, and yes there is something beautiful and self-sufficient about the monk. They don't need a magic sword, armour or a headband of intellect to get off powerful spells with a higher dc. They just are, and as they continue on their journey they get better and better.
I've been tempted, although it would be hard, to play a monk that totally kept away from magic items. Reliance on an item of wizardry does not demonstrate enlightenment and a commitment to a spiritual path.
I am also reminded of a neat quote that emerges in shogun 2 and the juijitsu dojo building: sometimes the weapon is a distraction.
the only thing that can fix the monk is a new edition. a less gear dependant edition where MAD is favored.
I disagree, I think Wraithstrike has the right of it:
The monk is not that bad. If you reduce mad, give him a decent way to bypass DR, and improve his ability to skirmish I think that would work. Maybe something like two weapon pounce from 3.5.
I agree, personally the ki-ability to move 20' should be move 20' as a swift action, and solved that one there. The others...they need work.
Who the hell uses a monk for his fist fighting?People that want to play unarmed, unarmored martial artists.
Pretty much. Everything about the monk is written to scream: "Fight unarmed!" so people try to.
Style feats were a missed opportunity to improve the monk, everything the Master of Many Styles does with them should have been an automatic for any monk IMHO. As it is, the MoMS is no better than a core monk stand alone, and a great dip for any class wanting to be a better monk than the monk.
Thanks for the link Epic Meepo. That is a lot of what I meant and I am really interested to try that archetype now.
The biggest mistake was trying to stick with the 3.5 monk when monsters and creatures have higher acs, better damage and more rip and tear in pf (so the monk isn't so bad in 3.5 and you can certainly feat-equip them out quite well in 3.5, but they struggle in standard pf).
The monk should have been truly remade. Fashioned into a different form.
|
|
I'm not seeing mistakes, so the blame must be somewhere else, dear wuxia fans. I have 2 Monks in my games for the last 3 years, and I'm yet to hear any complaints about somebody being redundant or too weak. Yeah, I know, real-life experience is biased, polluted and basically useless in a serious armchair theorycraft discussion, but hey.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing mistakesNot our fault.
My second thesis: armchair theorycrafters go all this length just so that at the end of the day they can say "Well, I'm one of the few who can see the truth. All those unwashed masses, they are blind. But I have pierced the veil and learned the ways. I know what balance is. Now, why am I not working as a game designer? Ah, because I'm TOO GOOD AT IT."
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In some of the campaigns we run, we use a house rule that the Big Six bonuses are taken out of equipment and granted to players based on their level. This leaves only magic items that do magic things, like grant you the ability to fly or provide you the effect of a feat or whatnot.
For monks it would be quite nice, because they don't pay extra for getting more attack bonus, and they can operate as though they don't need lots of gimmicky equipstuff. If there ever is a second edition of PF I am seriously hoping that the Big Six get a hard look. There is nothing that feels magical about near mandatory "bonuses".
Your games are 70% combat? You think all games are 70% combat?
What about roleplaying, the dm engaging in description and players describing what they do, traps and getting around them or getting hurt by them, haggling and questioning, non-combat skills checks, rolling what has been found in treasure, dishing out loot and the giant time sink of levelling and general book-keeping. 70% is a giant unfounded call, a total shot in the dark.
You would like the label of 70% combat time so that if the monk isn't a great frontline fighter like the others, he is wasting everyone's time. After all, he is crap in combat which is apparently 70% of the game.
Nice try.
I think it's pretty difficult to dispute that the combat system in this game takes a ton of time to pull off, especially when someone tries to pull off something more difficult than "I run up to the enemy and hit him in his face". Much rulebook referencing immediately begins as soon as combat maneuvers pop up or as soon as someone casts spells which are not that often used.
I very often have encountered occasions when a single larger combat ate three to five hours of game time. Not something I am happy with, I assure you, but a reality nonetheless.
In some of the campaigns we run, we use a house rule that the Big Six bonuses are taken out of equipment and granted to players based on their level. This leaves only magic items that do magic things, like grant you the ability to fly or provide you the effect of a feat or whatnot.
For monks it would be quite nice, because they don't pay extra for getting more attack bonus, and they can operate as though they don't need lots of gimmicky equipstuff. If there ever is a second edition of PF I am seriously hoping that the Big Six get a hard look. There is nothing that feels magical about near mandatory "bonuses".
I come from the same exact place as you in this regard and experimented with some numbers to implement the exact same system some years ago. Where I failed was in determining which WBL would be appropiate to dole out the PCs if the "big six" bonuses were to be applied as part of leveling up. How did you deal with that in your house rules?
I was kinda hoping that Ultimate Campaign would provide a solution to this whole paradigma, but it seems it won't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In before the thread lock?
I remember somewhere in 3.5, there was a feat called Flying Kick. When you charge and end in an unarmed strike, you deal an additional 1d12 damage. Prereq: Imp. UAS
I feel like that feat alone could give monks the extra traction they need. With that, they can flurry when they full-attack and still have an option for skirmishing-- remember, as little as 10 feet counts as a charge as long as it's a straight line.
The best part is, it's one feat. No rules rewrites, no errata, just "hey, you can take this feat if you want it."
|
|
And that right there is one of the big difference between an eastern and western way of looking into battle, here that point is illustrated better.
Some folks find the idea of being a living weapon more than sufficient to qualify as "fighting like a real man/woman".
While I wouldn't carry the comparison over as an absolute match(though I do think they're onto something there), that does also seem to click with how frustrating the Christmas Tree effect is for many players, where their awesomeness feels more like it's coming from their gear than their characters. I certainly wind up feeling the same way looking at how gear-dependent the ascetic-flavored monk actually is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, that sentiment resonates with me a lot. I like playing warrior types, but I can't stand the gear dependence. I'd rather if my epic hero was actually...epic... Not just some Joe decked out in a ton of magic items that give him all his power. Even Iron Man at least designs and updates his own suit... I don't think it's even necessarily an Eastern vs. Western mindset, though. There's tons of ancient myths with heroes that do all sorts of incredible feats of strength or prowess.
Granted, they're usually claimed to be "demigods" to explain it away (saying, "it's magic! moving on..." is older than dirt, I guess), but the fact remains they aren't summoning or tossing fireballs or anything; they're hitting things with swords, punching things in the face, etc... They might have quasi-magical abilities, but ultimately they're still fighters. Then again, those same myths also had dudes decked out in magic items, like Perseus, to go along with the heroes like Theseus who just plain are the source of power, through his own innate abilities and training. I always liked the Theseus types more than the Perseus types...
Anyway, I think the phenomenon in the west is more recent, it probably goes hand in hand with the rise of christianity (probably would have been the same for any monotheistic religion, but Judaism at least has Sampson), having human beings attain superhuman powers through their own determination and skill kind of hurts the narrative, and having a bunch of demigods running about *definitely* does.
In some of the campaigns we run, we use a house rule that the Big Six bonuses are taken out of equipment and granted to players based on their level. This leaves only magic items that do magic things, like grant you the ability to fly or provide you the effect of a feat or whatnot.
For monks it would be quite nice, because they don't pay extra for getting more attack bonus, and they can operate as though they don't need lots of gimmicky equipstuff. If there ever is a second edition of PF I am seriously hoping that the Big Six get a hard look. There is nothing that feels magical about near mandatory "bonuses".
I come from the same exact place as you in this regard and experimented with some numbers to implement the exact same system some years ago. Where I failed was in determining which WBL would be appropiate to dole out the PCs if the "big six" bonuses were to be applied as part of leveling up. How did you deal with that in your house rules?
I was kinda hoping that Ultimate Campaign would provide a solution to this whole paradigma, but it seems it won't.
I don't know a lot of the specifics but we also have an abstract wealth system that is adapted from the burning wheel (basically a wealth "skill" that means we don't count GP). I haven't personally played enough with it to know how its working.
Actually we have about 4 different campaigns that rotate through based on who is available. The different games have different house rules too :D I have been out of the loup for a bit but I hoping to get into some games soon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing mistakes, so the blame must be somewhere else, dear wuxia fans. I have 2 Monks in my games for the last 3 years, and I'm yet to hear any complaints about somebody being redundant or too weak. Yeah, I know, real-life experience is biased, polluted and basically useless in a serious armchair theorycraft discussion, but hey.
Next thing you tell me is that the economic decline here in Europe is also the fault of rampant wuxia and anime fans.
You see, you're trying to prove a point with anecdotal evidence when everyone else has more definitive proof like calculations and statistics.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I blame anime. Folks watch wuxia over-the-top fighting, come back to D&D and are amazed that Monks can't teleport across universes and throw punches that conjure meteors of death from 999th Hell or whatever. They want to go Ninja Scroll or Tekken and ooops, the system doesn't support that right out of the box.
I think that expectation of anime fans is one of the major drives of "D&D martials suck" movement. Of course, WotC didn't really help with throwing them a bone with ToB:Bo9s...
I totally just made a ninja trying to clone Jubei Kipugami for PFS. I also made a qinggong monk as a backup. I am totally who you are talking about except I know what to expect, and that is that I will be rockin' that table with anime tropes till their minds explode.
*air guitar solo!*
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't understand why people feel compelled to come in to these threads and tell everybody that monks seem fine to them.
It's not really about the distinction between experience and theory-crafting. There's a big difference between a poor monk and a powerful monk, a wide range of average power-levels across different groups and as many different definitions of "balanced" and "useless" as there are players.
The issue is not that the monk under-performs in your game. The issue is that it doesn't do what lots of other people think it should.
As for the wuxia argument, yeah that's just wrong. I have met plenty of people who think D&D martials suck. None of them are big anime fans, none of them want wuxia mixed in with their D&D.
It's because of the perception that spellcasters get a huge, powerful and varied toolbox of abilities which eventually transcends attacking in scope, while martial characters mostly only get new ways to attack.
To use the classic fighter vs wizard example, the fighter is defined by the one thing he does, fighting. He is good at fighting but he can only do it by hitting people with weapons. If you fight with spells you're a magus or a blaster sorcerer or something. The wizard, meanwhile, is defined by the method he uses to do things, magic. He can use magic for almost anything, from fighting to avoiding fights to travelling.
The monk struggles more than most because it's not as focused on fighting as the fighter, but the non-combat abilities and supernatural powers he has are very minor for their costs and levels and remain limited in scope throughout.
In before the thread lock?
I remember somewhere in 3.5, there was a feat called Flying Kick. When you charge and end in an unarmed strike, you deal an additional 1d12 damage. Prereq: Imp. UAS
I feel like that feat alone could give monks the extra traction they need. With that, they can flurry when they full-attack and still have an option for skirmishing-- remember, as little as 10 feet counts as a charge as long as it's a straight line.
The best part is, it's one feat. No rules rewrites, no errata, just "hey, you can take this feat if you want it."
It is a glorious feat, like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c48ITXJWISY
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is the most obvious troll I've ever seen on these forums, he rehashes an ancient and divisive argument, states 'I disagree' when given a reasonable response and then abandons the thread when it gets going.
*ready action throw alchemists fire* Don't feed the troll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monk fixy.
Yes, Elven Monks using flurry-of-longbow-arrows and flurry-of-longsword. Yes, Dwarven Monks using flurry-of-Urgosh and flurry-of-Dwarven-Battleaxe.
I'm sure the math is not overpowered when compared to a barbarian or fighter of equal level.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
all i have to say is my tetori uses dimention door to grab dragons, then bowerbombs them to the ground, and beats the snot out of them.
he is a pure monk and is the second most bad ass character ive ever played.
you can take all your bs "monks suck" talk over then and bury it.