You guys are arguing different points of the thread.
The stance was brought up earlier that the monk is a high system mastery class.
Artanthos is presenting his argument based on that stance.
To be able to have an equivalent comparison vanilla you'd have to somehow factor in suboptimal choices for the fighter to represent the lack of system mastery.
However this is of course rather arbitrary as it assumes that your party consists of several average players with the lone expert player choosing monk.
My Vampire Monk does fine in our no magic campaign.
|
I did reply citing the group I game with's experience - as a second fighter they can be effective. Not as a sole/primary one however.You guys are arguing different points of the thread.
The stance was brought up earlier that the monk is a high system mastery class.
Artanthos is presenting his argument based on that stance.To be able to have an equivalent comparison vanilla you'd have to somehow factor in suboptimal choices for the fighter to represent the lack of system mastery.
However this is of course rather arbitrary as it assumes that your party consists of several average players with the lone expert player choosing monk.
This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.
Pretty much this. The sohei is great at level 8, right in his "sweet spot". Try the comparison at level 3 for example and the sohei sucks donkey-balls compared to the other classes.I picked level 8 for three reasons, none of which are class specific.
1. Levels 7 & 8 are where most classes get class defining abilities. (the sohei actually gets his at level 6)
2. Levels 7 & 8 are a point where martials and casters tend to draw even with each other in regards to effectiveness.
3. My play style in PFS. I switch to 1/2 xp at level 7. Level 8 means my character is exactly half way through his expected life span.
A great many builds have points where they are inferior to other classes.
Level 1 wizards tend to suck after the first or second encounter of the day. Assuming their spell are even capable of affecting their opponents. That same wizard a level 20 can play games with the gods.
Barbarians on the other hand are front loaded, receiving their class defining ability at level 1. They start out strong but are eventually surpassed in damage by the fighter.
All good points, although I think you have found sweet spot for your sohei. In my experience the core monk does OK from 2nd through to 6th, and starts to fall off from there. He's not good at those levels, he just doesn't suck as badly. For the sohei, he starts to shine at 6. Your build is good, but it's not proving anything except that the core monk is suboptimal choice, and that was the point we were all trying to make. Even a pure qingong isn't brilliant, and the same is true of many monk archetypes.
As we said, the core monk is what sucks, some of the archetypes that shy away from unarmed strike do OK. Problem is that fighting unarmed is what the monk is meant to do, and what people play monks for. Even the archetypes that are good are only really "ok" most of the time.
How do monks support? They're advertised as Mobile Fighters in the book, and most of the pictures are bare fisted and shirtless aren't they? In the least not heavily armored and mounted.
This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.
What support abilities do they have?
|
|
Well I'm sorry I've only been role-playing 32 years and clearly when we put our parties together we really should be more open to our main combatants being more easily hit and having fewer hit points than other potential options.This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.I did reply citing the group I game with's experience - as a second fighter they can be effective. Not as a sole/primary one however.You guys are arguing different points of the thread.
The stance was brought up earlier that the monk is a high system mastery class.
Artanthos is presenting his argument based on that stance.To be able to have an equivalent comparison vanilla you'd have to somehow factor in suboptimal choices for the fighter to represent the lack of system mastery.
However this is of course rather arbitrary as it assumes that your party consists of several average players with the lone expert player choosing monk.
I agreed with your statement...and you suggest I'm wrong?
|
|
This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?
Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for others...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter...provide flanking...make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.
cue up: Other classes do that so much better!
My monk makes use of his movement outside of combat.
In combat he is just trying to get off full-attacks like everyone else.
|
|
I would like to hear that answer.How do monks support? They're advertised as Mobile Fighters in the book, and most of the pictures are bare fisted and shirtless aren't they? In the least not heavily armored and mounted.Huh?
I can answer your first question...the rest...what are you talking about?
See my response to Dabbler.
Actually, right now I'm playing in a pbp of RotRL under Wrath, and the monk...1st level...is rocking hard.
I would like to hear that answer.How do monks support? They're advertised as Mobile Fighters in the book, and most of the pictures are bare fisted and shirtless aren't they? In the least not heavily armored and mounted.Huh?
I can answer your first question...the rest...what are you talking about?
Was joking about the Sohei and the Iconic monk.
Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for others...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter...provide flanking...make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?
So... Their job is to stand there? Why not be another class that does something? That seems like an awkward position in life...
|
|
I would like to hear that answer.How do monks support? They're advertised as Mobile Fighters in the book, and most of the pictures are bare fisted and shirtless aren't they? In the least not heavily armored and mounted.Huh?
I can answer your first question...the rest...what are you talking about?
Was joking about the Sohei and the Iconic monk.
So... Their job is to stand there? Why not be another class that does something? That seems like an awkward position in life...Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for others...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter...provide flanking...make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?
Stand there?
Monks are the most mobile class there is, in melee. That's a major part of how they do all that. Seriously, you aren't new to the game, are you?
|
|
What out-of combat task are those?This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for others...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter...provide flanking...make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.
cue up: Other classes do that so much better!
Whatever the DM comes up with. I've seen hundreds.
Monks are the most mobile class there is, in melee. That's a major part of how they do all that. Seriously, you aren't new to the game, are you?
I hear throwing insults and inferring people don't know what they're doing is the best way to make an argument. Anyways, they are mobile in that they have an ACP and have good movement speed, but they don't have any synergy for moving and then doing something...
Monks are a joke. weaker than even the rogue.
there are a few archetypes that shine, compared to the core monk, and several that do better at the cost of being one trick ponies
but at least the rogue has the skill points to pretend to be a skill monkey, even if they gimp their ability to fight.
a rogue can still fall back on sneak attack to deal damage while having more than twice the skills of the monk.
but then
Bard and Ranger, outperform the rogue both in and out of combat
but at least rogue, has value as a 2 level dip for trap spotter, evasion, trapfinding, 1d6 sneak attack, a mountain of class skills, and a fairly decent number of base skill points.
Monk's 2 level Dip Value is a handful of feats you most likely won't get much benefit from and +3 to all saves.
but then, if i was playing a noncaster whom was never going to reach 10th level ((Such as E8)) and thus didn't care about better class features. i could understand dipping 2 levels in rogue for a barbarian or 2 levels in monk for a ranger.
You should write a guidebook. Put it on the store. Make some money.Why do people keep saying monks are underpowered?Because they aren't playing them correctly.
Stating that there is a correct way to play them and actually knowing of that way are two different things entirely.
There are definitely incorrect ways to play them...assuming they can hold a front line is a quick way to fail...
Not if your goal was to get stabbed until you resemble Swiss cheese.
We all know the best non-archery monks are
Big, Hulking, Power Attacking Onispawn with high strength and a freaking temple sword held in both hands, the armor of the pit feat, and an archetype that lets them hyperspecialize in the temple sword and somehow manage to ignore DR.
oh wait, that is your typical Onispawn martial artist build.
|
|
There are definitely incorrect ways to play them...assuming they can hold a front line is a quick way to fail...Not if your goal was to get stabbed until you resemble Swiss cheese.
Ummm...granted? That or ignored. Some monks do manage insane ACs, usually by sacrificing the ability to be useful in combat...
Ummm...granted? That or ignored. Some monks do manage insane ACs, usually by sacrificing the ability to be useful in combat...There are definitely incorrect ways to play them...assuming they can hold a front line is a quick way to fail...Not if your goal was to get stabbed until you resemble Swiss cheese.
If I build a dex/wis monk he'll destroy you with his legacy temple sword that adds dex and wis to damage and hit.
|
|
If I build a dex/wis monk he'll destroy you with his legacy temple sword that adds dex and wis to damage and hit.Ummm...granted? That or ignored. Some monks do manage insane ACs, usually by sacrificing the ability to be useful in combat...There are definitely incorrect ways to play them...assuming they can hold a front line is a quick way to fail...Not if your goal was to get stabbed until you resemble Swiss cheese.
Cool.
I did use that word 'usually'. :p
Post one up. :)
If I build a dex/wis monk he'll destroy you with his legacy temple sword that adds dex and wis to damage and hit.Ummm...granted? That or ignored. Some monks do manage insane ACs, usually by sacrificing the ability to be useful in combat...There are definitely incorrect ways to play them...assuming they can hold a front line is a quick way to fail...Not if your goal was to get stabbed until you resemble Swiss cheese.Cool.
I did use that word 'usually'. :p
Post one up. :)
Pfff any corner case build that is good is what is defined as usually. That's why druids usually get natural spell. Pffff
Monks OP. Nerf the fighter.
You guys are arguing different points of the thread.
The stance was brought up earlier that the monk is a high system mastery class.
Artanthos is presenting his argument based on that stance.To be able to have an equivalent comparison vanilla you'd have to somehow factor in suboptimal choices for the fighter to represent the lack of system mastery.
However this is of course rather arbitrary as it assumes that your party consists of several average players with the lone expert player choosing monk.
Actually the high system mastery was only one issue we brought up. If you check the other monk threads we have the same points every time. It is NOT just ONE problem the monk is dealing with.
I brought up the issue of the monk not doing well on the first page, unless you use certain archetypes WELL BEFORE he posted a monk build, and so did others.
This. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for others...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter...provide flanking...make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.
cue up: Other classes do that so much better!
Anyone can provide flanking.
How are they taking heat off of the fighter?How are they making tactics work?
Stunning has a very low success rate. It is not a positive point for the monk.
Why do people keep saying monks are underpowered?Because they aren't playing them correctly.
I keep seeing this argument, but nobody is providing anything concrete.
The ball is in your court if you want to try. Before you reply note that certain archetypes already get credit, and the "I can punch you in the face" monk is what is normally envisioned, so using the core monk would make you a legend around here.
3
2
1
Go!!!!
Why do people keep saying monks are underpowered?Because they aren't playing them correctly.I keep seeing this argument, but nobody is providing anything concrete.
The ball is in your court if you want to try. Before you reply note that certain archetypes already get credit, and the "I can punch you in the face" monk is what is normally envisioned, so using the core monk would make you a legend around here.
3
2
1
Go!!!!
[http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/treatmonks-lab/treantmonk-s-guide-to-monks]
How is a guide to Monk optimization proof that Monks are not underpowered?
How is a guide to Monk optimization proof that Monks are not underpowered?
Well they would do well in a monk, inquisitor, magus, bard party.
How is a guide to Monk optimization proof that Monks are not underpowered?Well they would do well in a monk, inquisitor, magus, bard party.
I don't see how that answers my question.
Plenty. Outside of combat, they do tasks that might be very difficult for othersThis. This in spades. Monks are support characters, not front-line fighters.What support abilities do they have?
Such as? They have average skills, so they aren't doing anything special there, and their abilities are all self-only. They have good mobility by around level 5...at which point a wizard trumps them with: "I cast fly."
...in combat, they take heat off of the main fighter
How? With limited offensive capacity they will not get someone's attention from someone who can cleave them in two, and if they can it;'s at the sacrifice of defensive ability which means they won't last long.
...provide flanking...
Ok, they can do that, but so can anyone else. A commoner can provide flanking. Rogues will do it better than the monk because they actually deal a lot of damage when they do. What you are basically saying is that a monk's significant contribution is to do as much as the druids monkey? Seriously?
make tactics work. They leave enemies stunned so they can be mopped up.
Stunning fist don't work all that often, you know.
cue up: Other classes do that so much better!
Er, well they do. They do just about EVERYTHING better than the monk, and more besides, except one: run away fast. Even then basic buff spells can cause the party to match the monk's speed save at the highest levels.
Support-wise, a bard has more and better skills, can buff everyone with bardic song, and with a variety of spells that do masses more than the monk's abilities. The bard is MADE for support. The monk...isn't. Sure, he can be very mobile and dash around the party in a crises but he can't do much when he gets there. Another class can do more on arrival, and perhaps prevent the crises in the first place.
The bard is a support class with many class abilities built around supporting the party. Naturally it is better at it than the monk who has none.
Whatever the DM comes up with. I've seen hundreds.
So the DM has to help out the monk by giving him things to do? Your argument is that monks are OK if the DM takes pity on them? O.o
Monks are the most mobile class there is, in melee. That's a major part of how they do all that. Seriously, you aren't new to the game, are you?
Not so new I don't know that monks have only 3/4 BAB when moving. What's the point of running around making single attacks that do little damage if they don't miss? Maneuvers? only useful in corner cases.
I'm not denying monks are mobile, but using their mobility undermines their barely useful combat ability still further.