|
Hi, this thread is more appropriate for General Discussion; this forum is for discussion of topics related to Pathfinder Society Organised Play. I've flagged this thread to be moved.
|
Monks are underpowered for a 15 point build because of MAD. As a melee skirmisher/front line character with no armor, you need to have high STR, DEX, CON, and WIS. With a 15 point build you can have one of these high, one average, and the rest low or you can have all of them low-average.
You can take Weapon Finesse and hope to one day find an agile weapon or amulet of mighty fists, but your damage will suck until you do.
The only monk archetype that isn't underpowered at that level of play is the Zen Archer, but even they will not be doing any damage until around level 4-6. The reason Zen archers are not underpowered is because they have class features to use Wis for attack, which also boosts their AC. They can then afford to put some points in to STR to boost damage with a composite bow or put more points into DEX for better AC. As ranged characters they don't need to be in Melee all the time, so they don't need as much CON as a normal monk. All together, this makes Zen Archers not have the MAD issues that a Melee Monk does.
As a balancing feature, I think part of the core monk class should be the option to use WIS as the attack stat when making attacks with an unarmed strike or Monk weapons for all monks.
Hi, this thread is more appropriate for General Discussion; this forum is for discussion of topics related to Pathfinder Society Organised Play. I've flagged this thread to be moved.
Huh? While the thread may or may not be better in General Discussion, this forum is not only for Society Organized Play... at least according to its description...
Hints, tips, how-to guides, character builds, and requests for advice about how to play the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.
cheers
|
+13 on your attack rolls at level 8 is not impressive. Never mind that your monk build requires finding a level 20 druid or summoner in order to function.
As for the young red dragon, your martial artist would not get into melee range without outside help, and would likely not get to full attack it ever.
Hi, this thread is more appropriate for General Discussion; this forum is for discussion of topics related to Pathfinder Society Organised Play. I've flagged this thread to be moved.Huh? While the thread may or may not be better in General Discussion, this forum is not only for Society Organized Play... at least according to its description...
Hints, tips, how-to guides, character builds, and requests for advice about how to play the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game.cheers
That's because it was already moved out of the PFS Discussion forum before you saw it I guess ;)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people claiming monks are weak usually measure a character's worth only by the damage he can deal.
That is not true at all. There are threads go in DETAIL on the various issues.
The first issue is that the monk has no real focus, and from there things are broken down even more.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people claiming monks are weak usually measure a character's worth only by the damage he can deal.
Not strictly true, but the monk IS a combat class so if they are unable to do anything offensive in combat it's a bit of a non-starter, really, isn't it? What else do they have?
Special abilities - spells are more powerful, more versatile and you get more of them.
Defensive Strength - monks are good defensively in terms of saves and (if they invest in dexterity) AC, but they pay for it in lack of offensive options. A paladin is better at saves and the equal in AC, and has more hit points, more offensive capacity, and arguably much better special abilities. As attacks scale up faster than AC, having a high AC for your level does not mean you will not get hit, just that it will happen a bit less often.
Skills - monks are average on skill ranks, and MAD restricts their using intelligence to boost them.
What else is there?
By that metric, the monk is weaker than everything except the rogue.
Yes, he is. In fact he arguably weaker because the rogue at least has a role he can fulfil, and the rogue can function pretty well with sneak attack.
Some monk archetypes suffer less than others, but there are very few that are actually "good" in the way that other classes are.
The monk's main problems are:
1) Their accuracy to hit is their main problem for a combat class. The monk needs more good stats than any other class in the game, bar none. This means their main hitting stat is likely to be down, unless they pay for it elsewhere in AC or damage.
2) Their main "weapon" unarmed strike is nerfed by dint of the Amulet of Mighty Fists being capped at +5 total enhancements + effects, and this contributes to their lack of accuracy. To cap it off, they are on 3/4 BAB. They are locked into the weakest combat style by Flurry-of-Blows. The unarmed strike has a low threat range, and the monk gets few static bonuses, and these are a more clear determination of good damage output than how big a dice you roll.
3) The monk also has problems getting through DR. DR is beaten by materials (the recent tweak by Paizo fixed this) and by bonuses, which the monk gets less of. The monk's ki-strike is limited in scope to overcome DR, if the monk has so much as +1 on properties for their AoMF then they are never going to bypass any DR/alignment other than Lawful. They certainly aren't going to overcome DR by massive damage, the monk's damage output is usually poor, unless their AC is poor in which case they care glass cannon - this would be acceptable if the cannon bit was worth it, and it isn't.
4) The monk's main offensive ability, flurry-of-blows, and his mobility are mutually exclusive. He's the fastes man in the party, and he can only have a hope of fighting effectively if he stands still. Some would argue that the monk pays for his existence by attackers wasting attacks on him and not others...this lasts as long as it takes for them to realise he can't hit back effectively.
5) The monk's other abilities do not synergize well - in fact some actively conflict with one another, or hinder the monk more than they help him, or are pretty much useless. Diamond Soul is a classic example in that it is more effective in preventing the monk being buffed or healed than at protecting him from enemy spells. Wholeness of Body is another example, it takes a standard action, burns up a lot of ki, and heals very little - drinking a potion takes as long, and saves ki resources.
To sum up, the monk has great difficulty actually fulfilling the role it is set in the CRB, and nothing it can do that another class can't do better.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue with the monk is not that it is 'weak' per say, its that the class is very split in its focus and that several of it's primary abilities work against eachother, instead of with eachother. It also had issues with weapons that have been somewhat resolved with the sort of recent errata about flurry of blows and amulets of mighty fists.
Pathfinder and its precedesesor 3.x do not favor movement in combat. Your best bet as a combatant is almost always to try to get in a full attack once people start getting more then one attack. The monk has an ability that works with this, flurry of blows. A standard monk wants to flurry as much as possible in combat, because that is when they have the best attack bonus, and can do the most damage.
However the monk has always had a ton of very flavorful and very cool abilities based around movement. People often imagine monks doing very acrobatic and cinematic maneuvers jumping over barriers, tumbling past opponents and they do this well. But when they do this, they arent using flurry of blows. You cant combine a large chunk of the monks abilities with their primary offensive ability.
This is a a symptom of the game as a whole (which favors static combat between tough guys slugging it out over mobility and maneuvering) but monks feel it most of all because of the way their abilities are laid out.
There is also the ability score problem. Monks need wisdom ofcourse, for ki and for their ac. They also need dexterity for their AC as they are unarmored, AND they need strength to be able to deal damage with their attacks. They are a combatant so they need con. Thats 4 abilities that are important, plus they are fairly skillfull characters so they want some int as well, or at least not to have a very low intelligence. With their ability scores split this way they have difficutly being as effective as characters that worry about one or two ability scores for their abilities.
For instance, in a 15 point buy game, a monk's wisdom wont be as high as a wizards intelligence. Meaning the monks stunning fist has a lower chance to succeed then a wizard's spell. This difference grows as the game progresses since the monks resources are continuously diverted between the different ability scores.
There is also a bit of an identity crisis for the monk in terms of their role in the party. In a 4 character party a monk doesnt really fill in as the primary combatant (replacing the fighter) and doesnt really have the skillset to replace the rogue. They are sort of caught in the middle. And while the monk is certainly useful to have around even with its problems (as a monk in my game on sunday proved when its enhanced mobility was critical) if one of 4 players is playing a monk, one of the other 4 key rolls (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric) is lacking somehow.
This is all not to say a monk isnt fun to play or cant be effective. Just that it is much harder to do then most classes. Give a wizard a high int, and pick some good spells and you have yourself a good character. Put a sword in the fighters hand and give him a high strength and he will kill some monsters. The monk on the other hand takes alot of thought and careful planning or he will end up being a lackluster expert with some cool mobility tricks.
Ok, so this is my first post here and I keep seeing that monks are a weaker class just about every place I look.
SO I'm going to run down my regular monk build, at least give you guys the gist of it, and we'll see what you guys think.
Ok, so lowerish levels you may have a bit of trouble, but honestly around level 5 plus is where you really start to shine.
At least a 15str. Would prefer higher, we'll assume for this rough build we'll assume a 15 point build so that gives us 2 14's a 13 and a 12 which is rather uncommon anyway. So we'll start with a human monk (Martial Artist) and forgo the feat at level 1 to get 2 (+2's) to your stats. We're going to say you're level 8. You probably have at least a +2 str item and the only real item you need is a purchased casting of magic fang +5 which from everything I've put together runs you just under 10k gold which you should easily have at this level.
Monk- Martial Artist
Str: 14 (+2 race) 16 (+2 item) for an 18 (+4)
Dex: 12
Con: 13 (+1 Level 4) 14 +2
Wis: 14 (+2 race) 16HP: (8)+(5x7)+(8Favored)+(8Tough)= 59
AC: 10+ 1(Dex)3(wisdom)(1dodge)(2Class)=17 before items or spells.
Monk Bonus Feat
1: Dodge
2: Pick one
6: Pick oneStunning Fist: DC 10+3wis+4CL= 17 (Yes it's low but really not a huge issue.
Level 1 feat: Toughness: +8hp
Level 3 feat: Dragon Style: +.5 of str on first atk and charge through rough terrain. Both are bloody amazing.
Level 5 feat: Dragon Ferocity: +.5 of str to all atks
Level 7 feat: Power Atk: - 2 atk for +6 dmgSO at level 8 your atks will be
+ 15/15/10/10 OR +13/13/8/8 with PWR atkThis does not include exploit weakness which gives you a +2 (and going through any DR the target may have-PSH what zombies) to hit with you needing to roll 8(Monk level)+3 to beat a CR which to beat a CR 10 is less than 1.
DMG 1d10+ 8(str)+5(MF)+6(PWR ATK) for 1d10+19 on your first punch
Each other 1d10+ 6(str)+(5mf)+6(PWR ATK) for 1d10+17
dmg assuming 1 miss with the minimum 58 to 112 with no critsNow This is...
1. Monks suck except for certain archetypes. You are using an achetype now.
2. You are not calculating damage correctly.
3. That monk will not be dropping that dragon in 2 rounds in an actual game. Once you post the complete build I will give you the breakdown on what will happen if your GM uses tactics and does not serve the dragon to you on a silver platter.
Monk really are extremely weak, it is not a matter of dealing a lot of damage or not (though they don't even have that).
But the fact that they indeed have no focus, no "specialty", they don't bring anything to the table that another character can not do better.
The worst is that they are supposed to be good at stuff like combat manoeuver but really they are not.
Not to mention that combat manoeuver are anyway almost useless past level 10.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why do people keep saying monks are underpowered?
It probably has something to do with their general underpowered-ness.
|
|
Give me a fighter with someone making his weapon +5 @ 8th level and he'll look good as well :).
In seriousness, you chose one of the "better" levels for monk, you gave him a spell which would not be readily available (and insanely expensive if it were... the 20th level casting of magic fang), and compare it.
You also gave him +3 damage/level for power attack, which on fist is not correct. It's +2 damage per. However, at level 8 you do get to use 3 for it, so it's -3/+6.
So eliminate that and give him the +2 that he could get from a party member.
Now you're looking at:
+8 (levels) +4 (stat) +2 (greater magic weapon was cast) for a total of +14, -3 for power attack. +11 to hit. You're hitting the dragon under half the time with your primary, and 25% of the time on secondaries.
Your damage is as listed (d10+17, 22.5 per attack) on a flurry.
And your AC is 17, so you're going to get hit by the dragon's 6 attacks for extensive damage. After magic items you might be batting 22... still very easy to hit for our dragon friend. He's dropping you in 2 rounds, not the other way around :).
Monks are weak because their magic items are expensive, they don't deal enough damage (relative to their fighter counterparts), certainly don't hit often enough, and their abilities aren't concentrated. Style feats and archtypes have done a lot to compensate for this; especially when making a manuevering monk, but they still have a while to go.
Edit: And combat manuevers don't have to be useless after level 10, but you really have to exploit the system to prevent them from becoming such. If done correctly they're the most powerful non-caster at mid-to-high levels, but you'd better be able to grapple down storm giants on a 5 to keep them that way :).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting, I keep hearing all this talk of underpowered monks, but the small handful of times I've played alongside one in PFS, they've always seemed to contribute just fine. I guess I'll try one for myself sometime. For science! :D
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people claiming monks are weak usually measure a character's worth only by the damage he can deal.
That is not true at all. There are threads go in DETAIL on the various issues.
The first issue is that the monk has no real focus, and from there things are broken down even more.
They sit right beside the threads complaining about the monk being overpowered.
The overpowered monk thread tend to pop up whenever a DM realizes there is no effective way to damage a well built monk without wiping the rest of the party.
Monks do well in resource poor games, especially when they have a wizard cast Mage Armor on them every day.
I've been in a combat where the monk was the only one that could hit the shades we were fighting. So that's something.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's interesting, I keep hearing all this talk of underpowered monks, but the small handful of times I've played alongside one in PFS, they've always seemed to contribute just fine. I guess I'll try one for myself sometime. For science! :D
If properly built, this is my experience as well. But it is really easy to mess up building a monk.
While on one level the monk is a combat class, it isn't really isn't a tank. You adapt to what you are fighting and what the party needs, which is true of all classes.
I've seen monks played and built badly, so I get where the hate comes from. But in my experience it was mostly user error, kind of like giving an italian sportscar to someone who wanted a range rover. They will be disapointed when they try to use it for things it is not intended for, but that doesn't mean it is a bad car.
|
|
It's interesting, I keep hearing all this talk of underpowered monks, but the small handful of times I've played alongside one in PFS, they've always seemed to contribute just fine. I guess I'll try one for myself sometime. For science! :D
They can contribute just fine. They just do that despite being mechanically disadvantaged.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They sit right beside the threads complaining about the monk being overpowered.
The overpowered monk thread tend to pop up whenever a DM realizes there is no effective way to damage a well built monk without wiping the rest of the party.
They last as long as it takes for the DM to realise that to all intents and purposes he can just ignore the monk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hyper focus on combat efficiacy by some members of this community, and the need to argue about something.
|
|
They last as long as it takes for the DM to realise that to all intents and purposes he can just ignore the monk.They sit right beside the threads complaining about the monk being overpowered.
The overpowered monk thread tend to pop up whenever a DM realizes there is no effective way to damage a well built monk without wiping the rest of the party.
Not with the recent change allowing a single weapon to be used for flurry. That basically gives you TWF like a full martial class only investing in a single weapon.
For unarmed, I don't completely disagree, although the clarification about bonuses applying to DR and the price drop for AoMF helped.
It's interesting, I keep hearing all this talk of underpowered monks, but the small handful of times I've played alongside one in PFS, they've always seemed to contribute just fine. I guess I'll try one for myself sometime. For science! :DIf properly built, this is my experience as well. But it is really easy to mess up building a monk.
While on one level the monk is a combat class, it isn't really isn't a tank. You adapt to what you are fighting and what the party needs, which is true of all classes.
I've seen monks played and built badly, so I get where the hate comes from. But in my experience it was mostly user error, kind of like giving an italian sportscar to someone who wanted a range rover. They will be disapointed when they try to use it for things it is not intended for, but that doesn't mean it is a bad car.
No, it's like giving a mid-priced sedan to someone who wanted an Italian Sports Car.
This is all not to say a monk isn't fun to play or cant be effective. Just that it is much harder to do then most classes. Give a wizard a high int, and pick some good spells and you have yourself a good character. Put a sword in the fighters hand and give him a high strength and he will kill some monsters. The monk on the other hand takes a lot of thought and careful planning. . .
This! The strongest class in the game, when built and played by a beginner, will be outperformed by the weakest class in the game, when built and played by an expert.
In addition to all of the above. . .
Monk, unfortunately, acts as a kind of newb trap. This has been true since 1977 when the monk was first added to the Player's Handbook. Here's how the trap works. A new player picks up the book and starts to read. Starting at the beginning, they read some text about role playing games, then some races, then classes. Trying to make their first character, they might get hooked by any class, but most likely by a class with lots of cool stuff in the "Class" chapter. The spellcasting classes don't have the cool spells listed in that chapter, and the equipment based classes don't have their equipment listed there, so classes like Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, and Fighter really look kinda weak compared to the amazing Monk! Monk gets big damage dice! Doesn't even need weapons! Moves faster than anyone! Hits faster than anyone! Stunning Fist! Special monk-only weapons! Immunities! Armor class! Free pizza!
So, a difficult to play class attracts beginning players.
So, a difficult to play class attracts beginning players.I don't really have a problem with this. If a newb player asks about monks I'll suggest an alternative class, if he's new to the game and mechanics. If he's determined to find his own path and make his own mistakes, I'll cheer him on. Mistakes are a major part of how we learn.
I wouldn't say I "have a problem with" this either. I just think it's an interesting effect that is difficult to notice, but easy to see once it's pointed out. I think it partially explains why so many players seem to go through a "monk phase".
|
|
I've had huge problems with most monks I've played beside in PFS. They usually need the entire party focused on keeping them alive, rarely do enough damage to not make you wonder why they are alive, and don't fulfill any role.
I have seen well-built ones too; the later books do make them better if you stack archtypes, but you have to work at it. It's confusing and difficult; and so most just don't do it.
This is play experience; not theorycraft. Their ACs typically are not "up to par", and their damage is exceptionally below expectations. In comparison, any newer player with a fighter/barbarian typically comes in swinging nicely and doing their fair share of havok.... you actually have to work to make a Fighter/Barb not good.
Meanwhile, you have to work hard to make monks keep up at all; and most builds you can point out they would have been better off both offensively and defensively as a different fighter archtype.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, so this is my first post here and I keep seeing that monks are a weaker class just about every place I look.
First off, you need to know your history.
Frank explains it in his post Why Monks?
Now, Paizo has made some revamps to the monk since that post was made. Some help, some don't. Some archetypes are the bomb-diggity. But the core monk is still a very oddly-specific tool that must be used in just the right way to have any effect.
|
|
This is play experience; not theorycraft. Their ACs typically are not "up to par", and their damage is exceptionally below expectations.
A well built monk has little difficulty showing up to his very first PFS game with a 20+ AC. Damage is only sub-par if you set your minimum expectations to "enraged barbarian with a two-handed weapon + power attack."
If that is your expectation then, by all means, show up as the 4th barbarian at the table.
In comparison, any newer player with a fighter/barbarian typically comes in swinging nicely and doing their fair share of havok.... you actually have to work to make a Fighter/Barb not good.
By this expectation, anybody not rocking an 18+ strength, power attack and a two-handed weapon is under performing.
As I stated earlier. Monk is only under powered if your sole measure of value is raw damage. By this standard, everybody should be playing barbarians, fighters, and melee focused alchemists.
|
|
So the big problem with Monks is that they are hard to build and play correctly....???
I reckon nobody has EVER seen a Cleric or Wizard with the wrong spell set prepped for the day.
Nobody ever saw a fighter with 1 weapon at a table.
Chaotic Stupid, anyone??
You can pretty much make a $#!tty character with any class/race combo, or have someone at the table who is high/drunk/stupid ruin any well built character.
But the monk is a terrible class, I guess.
Ok, so this is my first post here and I keep seeing that monks are a weaker class just about every place I look.First off, you need to know your history.
Frank explains it in his post Why Monks?
Now, Paizo has made some revamps to the monk since that post was made. Some help, some don't. Some archetypes are the bomb-diggity. But the core monk is still a very oddly-specific tool that must be used in just the right way to have any effect.
What are those good archetypes?
|
|
So the big problem with Monks is that they are hard to build and play correctly....???
I reckon nobody has EVER seen a Cleric or Wizard with the wrong spell set prepped for the day.
Much easier to fix than the monk. Change the spells next day.
Nobody ever saw a fighter with 1 weapon at a table.
Unless there is a rust monster or a really bad sunder roll, no problem. Still better than the core monk.
Chaotic Stupid, anyone??You can pretty much make a $#!tty character with any class/race combo, or have someone at the table who is high/drunk/stupid ruin any well built character.
Player stupidity is player stupidity. The CORE Monk RAW under-performs when optimized by someone with a high degree of system mastery. That is a problem, and pulling out arguments about player being stupid adds nothing to the discussion.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What are those good archetypes?
Zen Archers take advantage of the overwhelming superiority of ranged combat.
Maneuver Masters have done very well at debilitating enemies so they cannot harm the party.Masters of Many Styles are good with the right choices as Crane Style can make you an excellent blocker.
The last two have trouble actually finishing a fight without someone else to deal the damage for them however.
There are obviously a number of issues with monks as stated above. The sum of it is, the monk is a support class as opposed to a primary class.
It can't tank as well as a frontline melee class. It can't do the damage of the glass cannons. It can't keep up with the skill monkeys in skills. Etc. On top of that, its highly MAD.
What it can do is a little bit of each of these. The monk can back up the rogue on the skill checks. The monk can, in particular, make a decent scout, especially since he can do so relatively quickly. The monk can add moderate damage and is good at getting into position to flank with the fighter/pally/barb etc. and contribute that way. Keep in mind though, that getting into a good flanking position might mean putting the monk in harms way too.
The other main problem that the monk faces is that a lot of his class features look cool on paper, but when put in practice often come out as meh. Take slow fall for instance. Looks really cool, especially when you get to the point that its any height. Problem is, its highly situational and might only come into play a couple of time over the course of the entire campaign. Remember, he has to have a surface with which to slow his fall down. So if he falls from the rickety bridge, gets knocked off the flying carpet, etc., he still falls.
Wholeness of Body is another example. Sure it can save on some of the party's resources, and is particularly decent between battles. But, its also going to deplete the monk's ki pool rapidly. Its really better served as a "just before bed" kind of ability.
Even fast movement quickly becomes overkill. Sure its great for scouting, but in combat, you won't need a whole lot of extra movement to give you what you need to get into flanking, etc. Talking to any animal? Uhhhh, ok, not bad if you don't have a druid but again, not likely to come up all that often. Stop aging? Again kind of cool, but in most campaigns, this again isn't likely to make a big deal mechanically. Yet its these features that the monk receives that are supposed to make up for the fact that they are not as good as anyone else at any particular role.
Again, as others have said, its not all bad. Certainly you can make an effective monk with a careful build and smart play. Its just that its a heck of a lot easier to make an ineffective monk than with pretty much any other class.
All that said, I still love the monk and they can be great fun to play, but just keep in mind that you'll never compete in any one aspect with other members of the party unless you are extremely careful in your build and/or they are particularly inefficient in theirs.
|
|
What are those good archetypes?Ok, so this is my first post here and I keep seeing that monks are a weaker class just about every place I look.First off, you need to know your history.
Frank explains it in his post Why Monks?
Now, Paizo has made some revamps to the monk since that post was made. Some help, some don't. Some archetypes are the bomb-diggity. But the core monk is still a very oddly-specific tool that must be used in just the right way to have any effect.
Zen Archer, and to a lesser extent Sohei. Qigong monk is good to mix in some spell like abilities. Flowing monk is a good support class if you don't care about doing damage yourself but instead negate other attacks and reposition enemies for flankers and rogues. Drunken Master can put out really good damage, but still has the MAD issues and will have low AC to do it.