
Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Marthkus wrote:I went through this thread too. I haven't seen a "good" monk. Any similarly opt fighter still does a better job in most situations and the fighter isn't all that great either.You also have not defined good.good
/go͝od/
Adjective
To be desired or approved of.RDRR
Wraith set a goal post. You haven't.
Fills a role to the same capacity as a bard/druid/sorcerer/barbarian or cleric.
Or fills a combination of roles to be an equivalent contributor to the team.
If the monk is only good in combat, then he must be on-par with the most tricked out barbarian, taking into account that a monk can't pounce while barbar can. Or the monk has to be as good or better in combat than a paladin with his nice offensive and defensive capabilities.
If the monk effective at combat and also stealthy/scout, he has to be as effective in combat as a bard or ranger. Actually he needs to be better than both in combat since they have more skill points and spells.
If the monk is going to be effective at combat and out-of-combat he needs to be on-par with bard or a fullcaster in both realms.
If the monk is going to be better out-of-combat than in combat he needs to be on par with a bard or the utility full-caster both in and out of combat.

wraithstrike |

So a total of 109.21 DPR?
Geez. Either I dun goofed somewhere or the extra hit and the Str focus instead of Dex does a LOT more than I thought.
You can never get 100% to hit, but getting over 100 DPR is possible. You should have have done your animal companions DPR since its possible to for it to hit 40 DPR. Yes I mean the ranger's animal companions, not any from the druid list. :)

Marthkus |

I don't think bard can be as combat effective as a monk, and I don't think a barb can't be as versatile as a monk.
Prove me wrong.
Inspire courage
skillsspells
EDIT: Since you picked the bard, you chose the latter three options, comparing the monk against the bard and fullcasters for both versatility in combat and utility out of combat. The bard is also a good party face. Or you are arguing that monks make good skill-monkeys and are good in combat. Where's your goalpost?

![]() |

ciretose wrote:I don't think bard can be as combat effective as a monk, and I don't think a barb can't be as versatile as a monk.
Prove me wrong.
Inspire courage
skills
spellsEDIT: Since you picked the bard, you chose the latter two options, comparing the monk against the bard and fullcasters for both versatility in combat and utility out of combat. The bard is also a good party face.
My build is up, I hit 89 DPR 10 time a day with 22 AC (26 100 minutes a day) at 10th level. I am immune to all disease and poison, have all good saves, move 60 per, have spring attack, 5 skill points a level, no ACP, and improved evasion and 70 hit points.
You can do either bard or barbarian (I said Barb, not Bard in the 2nd part) or both.

![]() |

For convenience (and to be checked, if I am wrong I want to know, unlike others...)
Monk 10
LN Medium Humanoid (human)
Init +4; Senses Perception +17
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 22 , touch 20, flat-footed 21 (+1 armor, + 2 Dex, +3 Monk AC, +4 Wis, +1 deflection, +1 dodge) Barkskin +4 with 1 ki 100 minutes
hp 70.5 (9d8+10+10+10 Con Toughness)
Fort +8, Ref +9, Will +11 (+2 vs. enchantment)
Defensive Abilities: Improved Evasion, Deflect Arrows
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 60 ft.
Melee Unarmed Strike +16/+11 (2d6+8/20/x2)
Special Attacks Flurry of Blows (+17/+17/+12/+12) w/ki (+17/+17/+17/+12/+12) w/ki and Haste (+18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+13)
Power attack -3 attack +6 damage on all attacks.
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 22 (15+2 (human) +1 4th), Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 18 (15+1 8th +2 Headband), Cha 9
Base Atk +7; CMB +16; CMD +23
Feats (In Order): 1 Toughness; 1 Extra Ki; 1 Dodge; 2 Deflect Arrows; 3 Weapon Focus(Unarmed Strike); 5 Dragon Style; 6 Mobility; 7 Spring Attack; 9: Dragon Ferocity, 10 Improved Critical (unarmed)
Traits: Wisdom in the Flesh (stealth), Reactionary
Skills: (5 Per level) Perception +17(10+3+3), Stealth (10+3+3) +17, Sense Motive (10+3+3) + 17, Acrobatics (10+3+2) +15, Knowledge (history and Religion) (10+3+0) +13 for Both.
Other Gear Belt of Strength +4: 16,000, Bracers of Armor +1 1,000, 4,000gp, Ring of protection +1 2,000gp,; Amulet of Mighty Fists +2 (16k); Monk Robe 13,000, 4,000 Headband of Wisdom, Boots of speed 12,000.
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Flurry of Blows: Fight like TWF w/level as BAB +6/+6/+1/+1
Fast Movement: +30ft
Unarmed Strike: 2d6+8
Stunning Fist: Save DC 19
Evasion: No damage on successful reflex save
Ki Pool: 11
Slow Fall swapped for Barkskin
Wholeness of Body: 10 hit points for 2 Ki.

Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:I don't think bard can be as combat effective as a monk, and I don't think a barb can't be as versatile as a monk.
Prove me wrong.
Inspire courage
skills
spellsEDIT: Since you picked the bard, you chose the latter two options, comparing the monk against the bard and fullcasters for both versatility in combat and utility out of combat. The bard is also a good party face.
My build is up, I hit 89 DPR 10 time a day with 22 AC (26 100 minutes a day) at 10th level. I am immune to all disease and poison, have all good saves, move 60 per, have spring attack, 5 skill points a level, no ACP, and improved evasion and 70 hit points.
You can do either bard or barbarian (I said Barb, not Bard in the 2nd part) or both.
Barbar has pounce. Monks don't. Everytime the monk moves he loses out on combat effectiveness while the barbar does not.
The barbar has ridiculous bonuses to saves and AC putting him close to a paladin in defense (no healing though).
Really though pounce makes the monk lose this comparison. The monk can't fill the barbar role.
You are arguing defenses make up for pounce. Well that's what paladins do. Are you trying to say that a monk has more defenses, is more versatile, and does more damage than a paladin?

![]() |

ciretose wrote:Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:I don't think bard can be as combat effective as a monk, and I don't think a barb can't be as versatile as a monk.
Prove me wrong.
Inspire courage
skills
spellsEDIT: Since you picked the bard, you chose the latter two options, comparing the monk against the bard and fullcasters for both versatility in combat and utility out of combat. The bard is also a good party face.
My build is up, I hit 89 DPR 10 time a day with 22 AC (26 100 minutes a day) at 10th level. I am immune to all disease and poison, have all good saves, move 60 per, have spring attack, 5 skill points a level, no ACP, and improved evasion and 70 hit points.
You can do either bard or barbarian (I said Barb, not Bard in the 2nd part) or both.
Barbar has pounce. Monks don't. Everytime the monk moves he loses out on combat effectiveness while the barbar does not.
The barbar has ridiculous bonuses to saves and AC putting him close to a paladin in defense (no healing though).
Really though pounce makes the monk lose this comparison. The monk can't fill the barbar role.
You are arguing defenses make up for pounce. Well that's what paladins do. Are you trying to say that a monk has more defenses, is more versatile, and does more damage than a paladin?
If you are so sure, post the build.
I can charge through difficult terrain and through allies.

wraithstrike |

Personally I don't think evasion or uncanny dodge should count for the purpose of being versatile since they don't help the party. Versatility should measure what you can do for your party, not what you can do for yourself. The monk will probably come out on top by that definition, but having a lot of class abilities that only help you, does not make someone versatile in party terms.
So I guess what should be ask is what are the different things they bring to the party.
PS: I think the bard will take this one over most classes.

wraithstrike |

For convenience (and to be checked, if I am wrong I want to know, unlike others...)
** spoiler omitted **
I only gave a glance, but everything looks good. I am decent at estimating numbers.
If your AC is that low I would suggest you get more hit points though.
PS:That suggestion is apart from your debate with Marthkus.
PS2: Well I see this is the quinqong(probably spelled wrong) monk. If I can get archetypes then I might try my hand at this, but I owe this post a ranger first. :)

Marthkus |

Personally I don't think evasion or uncanny dodge should count for the purpose of being versatile since they don't help the party. Versatility should measure what you can do for your party, not what you can do for yourself. The monk will probably come out on top by that definition, but having a lot of class abilities that only help you, does not make someone versatile in party terms.
So I guess what should be ask is what are the different things they bring to the party.
PS: I think the bard will take this one over most classes.
Barbarians have pounce. You really can't compare anything else to them after that, unless you have pounce. The other equivalents paladin and ranger do other things that make up for it. When comparing something like a rogue, monk or fighter, they have to compare against those two not the barbar.

![]() |

ciretose wrote:You were the one who started with the barbarians as an example, not me.
Pounce is great, but it is also beaten by mud.
I have ran into mud twice in my D&D/Pathfinder career.
Schrodinger's terrain much?
I was giving an example of difficult terrain. If you have only encountered difficult terrain twice in your D&D and Pathfinder career, that is quite interesting and explains a lot.

![]() |

ciretose wrote:For convenience (and to be checked, if I am wrong I want to know, unlike others...)
** spoiler omitted **
I only gave a glance, but everything looks good. I am decent at estimating numbers.
If your AC is that low I would suggest you get more hit points though.
PS:That suggestion is apart from your debate with Marthkus.
PS2: Well I see this is the quinqong(probably spelled wrong) monk. If I can get archetypes then I might try my hand at this, but I owe this post a ranger first. :)
I can get up to 26 for 100 minutes a day, which is 2 over average.
I personally would probably play a higher AC build, but I was aiming for the goal post :)

Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:I was giving an example of difficult terrain. If you have only encountered difficult terrain twice in your D&D and Pathfinder career, that is quite interesting and explains a lot.ciretose wrote:You were the one who started with the barbarians as an example, not me.
Pounce is great, but it is also beaten by mud.
I have ran into mud twice in my D&D/Pathfinder career.
Schrodinger's terrain much?
Schrodinger's battle map!
How can we have a decent discussion when you keep moving the goalpost?
Prove me wrong and post a battle map. At which point we'll have move-by-move combat comparing effectiveness.

Starbuck_II |

ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.

Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.
I'll just steal someone else's build and DPR calculations
Bob the barbarian:
9*(20)+(.25*20*2)+.65(20)+(.25*20*2)+.5(6.5)+(.05*6.5*2)+(if foot claws are allowed you'd get a few extra here I think it's not so I'll ignore them.)Nets you a 54.9 DPR without power attack or Reckless Abandon and with foot claws banned.
With Power Attack = 69.5
With PA and Reckless abandon = 81.1
With Foot claws allowed and all the penalties piled on = 98.5
All options are 3 to 5 times better (and that's without the monk's miss chance factored in).

Nicos |
Personally I don't think evasion or uncanny dodge should count for the purpose of being versatile since they don't help the party. Versatility should measure what you can do for your party, not what you can do for yourself. The monk will probably come out on top by that definition, but having a lot of class abilities that only help you, does not make someone versatile in party terms.
If you are tanking not diying is good for the party. the turn the cleric heal you cause you are near to death is a turn when the cleric can not do something else.

Nicos |
The Vulture wrote:TWF does fantastic damage if you can get a full attack in. If not, then you're rather worse off than a THF. You also get less of a bonus from haste and similar effects. DR also hits you harder than a THF if you can't penetrate it, and they're (somewhat, at least) more likely to be able to given they're only buying one weapon instead of two.
It has its trade-offs, but it has great potential.
Agree 100%. The THF is a better mobile fighter. The TWF can't move and melee nearly as well, but the bonuses to damage help more, as they occur more often in the attack cycle, and the higher Dex makes them likely better switch hitters.
it is true. Part of TWF is to be able to full attack as often as you can. That is why my build have step up and lunge. it would be better at that job once following step and pind down comes into play. Is incredibly feat expensive though.

Marthkus |

wraithstrike wrote:If you are tanking not diying is good for the party. the turn the cleric heal you cause you are near to death is a turn when the cleric can not do something else.Personally I don't think evasion or uncanny dodge should count for the purpose of being versatile since they don't help the party. Versatility should measure what you can do for your party, not what you can do for yourself. The monk will probably come out on top by that definition, but having a lot of class abilities that only help you, does not make someone versatile in party terms.
That is defenses not versatility.

![]() |

Starbuck_II wrote:Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.I'll just steal someone else's build and DPR calculations
Quote:All options are 3 to 5 times better (and that's without the monk's miss chance factored in).
Bob the barbarian:
9*(20)+(.25*20*2)+.65(20)+(.25*20*2)+.5(6.5)+(.05*6.5*2)+(if foot claws are allowed you'd get a few extra here I think it's not so I'll ignore them.)Nets you a 54.9 DPR without power attack or Reckless Abandon and with foot claws banned.
With Power Attack = 69.5
With PA and Reckless abandon = 81.1
With Foot claws allowed and all the penalties piled on = 98.5
And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.

![]() |

ciretose wrote:it is true. Part of TWF is to be able to full attack as often as you can. That is why my build have step up and lunge. it would be better at that job once following step and pind down comes into play. Is incredibly feat expensive though.The Vulture wrote:TWF does fantastic damage if you can get a full attack in. If not, then you're rather worse off than a THF. You also get less of a bonus from haste and similar effects. DR also hits you harder than a THF if you can't penetrate it, and they're (somewhat, at least) more likely to be able to given they're only buying one weapon instead of two.
It has its trade-offs, but it has great potential.
Agree 100%. The THF is a better mobile fighter. The TWF can't move and melee nearly as well, but the bonuses to damage help more, as they occur more often in the attack cycle, and the higher Dex makes them likely better switch hitters.
Absolutely. It really is only an option for rangers and fighters because of that, and kind of monks because they get TWF for free.

![]() |

Nicos wrote:That is defenses not versatility.wraithstrike wrote:If you are tanking not diying is good for the party. the turn the cleric heal you cause you are near to death is a turn when the cleric can not do something else.Personally I don't think evasion or uncanny dodge should count for the purpose of being versatile since they don't help the party. Versatility should measure what you can do for your party, not what you can do for yourself. The monk will probably come out on top by that definition, but having a lot of class abilities that only help you, does not make someone versatile in party terms.
And defense doesn't matter, given what he has shown so far is I believe a -5 to AC. 4 of his rage powers are burned, so lets see what else is involved...

Marthkus |

And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.
Yes, a barbar gives up so-much to have his two-handed full-attack do more than damage than a monks 3/4 BAB single attack action.
You can't compare the two. If you want to save "Well the monk has these defenses" or "The monk has special attack options" well then you are comparing it to a paladin or ranger now.
Barbar pounce is why you compare fighters to paladins and rangers.
Pounce ends the debate (at the cost of 3 rage powers, two of which give you natural attacks and armor)

MrSin |

So... How is posting builds going to show how much it hurts not to have pounce? Do we have a magic number of "this is when you can full attack!" or something? I think its sort of silly to demand a build in response to "Well barbarians can get pounce." because its just a statement. I can show you barbarians get pounce. A lot of people know beast totem barbarian gets pounce, or that quad eidolons get pounce. Flying super gopher eidolon doesn't even care about difficult terrain and he get super buffed by a charismatic caster. Should we be comparing to summoners too while we have pounce? How many builds does it take to prove monks are meh?
Some times I think the "BUILD IT!" thing is a little over done.

Nicos |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose wrote:And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.Yes, a barbar gives up so-much to have his two-handed full-attack do more than damage than a monks 3/4 BAB single attack action.
You can't compare the two. If you want to save "Well the monk has these defenses" or "The monk has special attack options" well then you are comparing it to a paladin or ranger now.
Barbar pounce is why you compare fighters to paladins and rangers.
Pounce ends the debate (at the cost of 3 rage powers, two of which give you natural attacks and armor)
Cause there is never dificult terrain, never an alli is in the middle of the way, never the enemy act first etc.
Other also have their options to moveand do moe than attack once.

MrSin |

Other also have their options to moveand do moe than attack once.
Such as? You can use one maneuver, but if you can use more than one maneuver in a full attack that's still a loss. You can cast, but we're comparing martials. So what exactly is this option? I want to know so I have something else to say when someone says "If your not full attacking your not doing anything."

![]() |

ciretose wrote:And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.Yes, a barbar gives up so-much to have his two-handed full-attack do more than damage than a monks 3/4 BAB single attack action.
You can't compare the two. If you want to save "Well the monk has these defenses" or "The monk has special attack options" well then you are comparing it to a paladin or ranger now.
Barbar pounce is why you compare fighters to paladins and rangers.
Pounce ends the debate (at the cost of 3 rage powers, two of which give you natural attacks and armor)
And yet the debate goes on...
So you have spent 4 rage powers of your 5. You have 22 rounds of rage a day +Con, I think.
I mean, you can keep going "I AM RIGHT, LOOK AT ME" or you could do what everyone else in the thread is doing.
If you think your approach is working, have fun...

![]() |

Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.
+13?

Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.Yes, a barbar gives up so-much to have his two-handed full-attack do more than damage than a monks 3/4 BAB single attack action.
You can't compare the two. If you want to save "Well the monk has these defenses" or "The monk has special attack options" well then you are comparing it to a paladin or ranger now.
Barbar pounce is why you compare fighters to paladins and rangers.
Pounce ends the debate (at the cost of 3 rage powers, two of which give you natural attacks and armor)
And yet the debate goes on...
So you have spent 4 rage powers of your 5. You have 22 rounds of rage a day +Con, I think.
I mean, you can keep going "I AM RIGHT, LOOK AT ME" or you could do what everyone else in the thread is doing.
If you think your approach is working, have fun...
And yet you refuse to compare the monk against a paladin? Telling
I've put barbars, rangers, and paladins at the same level of usefulness. Yet you only want to compare the monk to the one that is least comparable? Who is trying to be right now?

Marthkus |

Starbuck_II wrote:+13?Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.
That's to-hit. Single attack action monk hits are laughable in more ways than one.

Starbuck_II |

Starbuck_II wrote:+13?Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:Let us see your 10th level pouncing Barbarian and discuss it.Let's see a single monk attack compare to a full-attack.
Well here is his single attack to compare to Barbarian full attack (added Power attack + Dragon Style because he was too lazy to do it for us)
Melee Unarmed Strike +13(2d6+15/20/x2)How is DPR calculated again?
Average damage is 22 though.
Yep, you had it +16 but you never added Power attack which takes -3 from hit to add +6 damage.
Without power attack or dragon style: Melee Unarmed Strike +16/+11 (2d6+8/20/x2)So yeah, -3 from 16 =13.

Nicos |
Nicos wrote:Other also have their options to moveand do moe than attack once.Such as? You can use one maneuver, but if you can use more than one maneuver in a full attack that's still a loss. You can cast, but we're comparing martials. So what exactly is this option? I want to know so I have something else to say when someone says "If your not full attacking your not doing anything."
Youare spending trhee rage powers to pounce, so let me give two example of people that spend three feats to do something more than move + attack once.
1)Improved unarmed strike + Hamatula strike + Improved grapple.
This one let you attack and grapple.
2) Panther style + panther claw + panther.
This one let you provoke an AoO in exchange to make two attacks. If you have the AC reasonable high it can be a good trade.
There is three fighter archetype that have a pounce-like abiliies. Mounted build can do the same trick too.

Nicos |
ciretose wrote:Marthkus wrote:ciretose wrote:And now the rest of the build so we can see what you give up.Yes, a barbar gives up so-much to have his two-handed full-attack do more than damage than a monks 3/4 BAB single attack action.
You can't compare the two. If you want to save "Well the monk has these defenses" or "The monk has special attack options" well then you are comparing it to a paladin or ranger now.
Barbar pounce is why you compare fighters to paladins and rangers.
Pounce ends the debate (at the cost of 3 rage powers, two of which give you natural attacks and armor)
And yet the debate goes on...
So you have spent 4 rage powers of your 5. You have 22 rounds of rage a day +Con, I think.
I mean, you can keep going "I AM RIGHT, LOOK AT ME" or you could do what everyone else in the thread is doing.
If you think your approach is working, have fun...
And yet you refuse to compare the monk against a paladin? Telling
I've put barbars, rangers, and paladins at the same level of usefulness. Yet you only want to compare the monk to the one that is least comparable? Who is trying to be right now?
You you have to build a paladin and compareaginst one of the monk in this thread.

Anburaid |

...If the monk is only good in combat, then he must be on-par with the most tricked out barbarian, taking into account that a monk can't pounce while barbar can. Or the monk has to be as good or better in combat than a paladin with his nice offensive and defensive capabilities.
Pounce is OP. And as such is a feature that is highly sought after, and would mechanically benefits any martial class. A monk can "pounce" too with tiger style feats, but has some caveats (the enemy has to be moving away for it to trigger).
If barbs couldn't pounce would they be rated so highly? Probably not, considering how they were viewed on the forums before the pounce rage power came along.
There is a false need here for every class to be "the best" at something. Sure they all have their wheelhouses and thats good, but I think "best" gets us into these 800 post discussions about balance and fairness. "Roughly good enough", and "better in certain situations" is what I think we should be striving for.
That's not to say that I think monks don't have issues, but saying monks must be on par with the most tricked out barbarian goes a bit far.

MrSin |

Speaking of rage powers, that's another thing about monks. Rage powers are great. Class features are usually more valuable than feats. Class features often scale/add options*), feats almost never do. Cool thing about playing a barbarian is that I can take extra rage power. Get most of the superstitious line and full beast totem line by level 10? Yes please! The monk at best has the style feats. Style feats are good, and open to everyone(which I actually like), but they don't have the modular design barbarians do. They have archetypes, but they don't have a class feature that lets you pick from a group of other amazing powers. I like barbarian's design a lot(though they could use more late game.)
* Unless your a rogue. Some rogue talents actually take options away.

Starbuck_II |

Marthkus wrote:...If the monk is only good in combat, then he must be on-par with the most tricked out barbarian, taking into account that a monk can't pounce while barbar can. Or the monk has to be as good or better in combat than a paladin with his nice offensive and defensive capabilities.
Pounce is OP. And as such is a feature that is highly sought after, and would mechanically benefits any martial class. A monk can "pounce" too with tiger style feats, but has some caveats (the enemy has to be moving away for it to trigger).
If barbs couldn't pounce would they be rated so highly? Probably not, considering how they were viewed on the forums before the pounce rage power came along.
There is a false need here for every class to be "the best" at something. Sure they all have their wheelhouses and thats good, but I think "best" gets us into these 800 post discussions about balance and fairness. "Roughly good enough", and "better in certain situations" is what I think we should be striving for.
That's not to say that I think monks don't have issues, but saying monks must be on par with the most tricked out barbarian goes a bit far.
You could always multiclass into a synthergist for pounce. Add some arm evolutions for weapons on your quadraped to make a 4 legged human creature with pounce.

Marthkus |

Marthkus wrote:...If the monk is only good in combat, then he must be on-par with the most tricked out barbarian, taking into account that a monk can't pounce while barbar can. Or the monk has to be as good or better in combat than a paladin with his nice offensive and defensive capabilities.
Pounce is OP. And as such is a feature that is highly sought after, and would mechanically benefits any martial class. A monk can "pounce" too with tiger style feats, but has some caveats (the enemy has to be moving away for it to trigger).
If barbs couldn't pounce would they be rated so highly? Probably not, considering how they were viewed on the forums before the pounce rage power came along.
There is a false need here for every class to be "the best" at something. Sure they all have their wheelhouses and thats good, but I think "best" gets us into these 800 post discussions about balance and fairness. "Roughly good enough", and "better in certain situations" is what I think we should be striving for.
That's not to say that I think monks don't have issues, but saying monks must be on par with the most tricked out barbarian goes a bit far.
if your saying monks have great DPR then yeah barbars. If you are saying monks have OK DPR and good defenses then you compare to a pally. But for some odd reason people here are trying to down-play pounce, saying that mud is all over their maps.

MrSin |

"I would totally charge you but... but... it just rained and I don't want to get my new shoes dirty!" - A very civilized pounce barbar.
Yes, pounce is OP in that so few people get it. However not having pounce sucks. Its one of the issues with the game and how full attack works. I guess you could grab vital strike, but if I remember right barbarian is the only class that can spring attack and vital strike.(Bestial leaper or something like that).

Starbuck_II |

"I would totally charge you but... but... it just rained and I don't want to get my new shoes dirty!" - A very civilized pounce barbar.
Yes, pounce is OP in that so few people get it. However not having pounce sucks. Its one of the issues with the game and how full attack works. I guess you could grab vital strike, but if I remember right barbarian is the only class that can spring attack and vital strike.(Bestial leaper or something like that).
Wow, Bestial leaper is Flyby Attack for non-flyers.

Anburaid |

I am saying that the comparison is being leveraged around one optional class feature that isn't even in the CRB (neither are style feats, but I digress). Pounce is great. Its great for anyone who can get it. Saying that monks can't compete because they don't have pounce is unfair though. I don't want everyone to have a pounce arms race. Let it be a special thing that makes barbs special. Like I said, monks can pounce too under the right conditions.
On a side note I wish that barbs pounce had a caveat too, because its a hell of an awesome ability, especially since they aren't as MAD and can stack high strength based damage.
In a humanoid focused campaign I think that monks fair better in the class comparison area. Especially in that they can get some more use out of their maneuver feats. But that is not something that is guaranteed, and certainly something you might not know as a player at 1st level.