With this foul necromancy, we can say tha march was the month of the baeting of Monk/rogue/fighters dead horses.
Well all healing spells were Necromancy until 3.0 when they changed healing spells it to Conjuration because __________.While TECHNICALLY conjuration, one can say that Bringing the Dead back to life is a sort of necromancy in practice...Necromancy is never holy.Holy Necro!
KILL THIS THREAD! KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT SPREADS!!!
Obviously because Conjuration did not have enough good tricks already.
Well all healing spells were Necromancy until 3.0 when they changed healing spells it to Conjuration because __________.While TECHNICALLY conjuration, one can say that Bringing the Dead back to life is a sort of necromancy in practice...Necromancy is never holy.Holy Necro!
KILL THIS THREAD! KILL IT WITH FIRE BEFORE IT SPREADS!!!
I never understood the change...
I mean sure you can pull the whole "well your "summoning" positive/negative energy" blah blah blah but by that logic, nearly 90% of magic would be conjuration.
Conjuration just needs to get nerved a bit...
|
Builds will come later, but from what I can figure at high levels monks will have:
Better AC.
Better Saves.
Better immunities.
Better SR.
Better mobility.
More Attack options.
Better CMB for many maneuvers.
Better CMD.
More Skill points.The only places where the fighter is better is that a fighter will have:
Higher DPR
1 point of health per level more
1 point higher strength
Higher flat footed ACTo keep things simple I am only looking at CRB material for both classes. When you go outside of that, both classes get neat options. Let's assume for a moment that both of them are equally boosted by non-CRB material.
Anyone disagree? Is the extra DPR worth the flaws the Fighter has at high levels?
This argument has been going on forever...
What it boils down to, is kill or be killed, honestly.
The fighter can do just that, kill on the first 1-3 swings.
The monk will likely have to push out 3-6 swings.
Scenario #1
However, let's say that first attack misses, or rolls min damage for *both* classes.
Now survival takes it's turn. The monk will likely carry on unhindered as it has many defensive perks, especially if you're a flowing monk.
The fighter... better hope it's fort save related or attacking his ac. Otherwise, he's going to take quite a beating in return. How this beating effects him, can be a multitude of ways, if not plain death.
Scenario #2
Let's say all of their attacks instead, hit on the first round for max damage.
Well, the monk is still in the running here as his opponent still lives.
The fighter is in the clear as his opponent lays in a bloody heap on the floor.
The fighter can carry on.
The monk has another round to survive through. Survival comes in with it's turn. It's still likely the Monk will live through this encounter.
Next round, he finishes off the boss.
Scenario #3
Let's say they both suck on their attacks, and defenses that round.
They're both dead.
Conclusion: Your D20 rules your character. Don't roll poorly and you'll do just fine no matter what. In the end, both classes have their purposes, and the Monk is still way cooler : P
This argument has been going on forever...
This thread has been going on forever...
This argument has been going on forever...This thread has been going on forever...
STOP! You just propagating this unholy thread...
STOP! You just propagating this unholy thread...This argument has been going on forever...This thread has been going on forever...
And you aren't...
And you aren't...STOP! You just propagating this unholy thread...This argument has been going on forever...This thread has been going on forever...
Nope. I am attempting to kill this thread with pinky powers....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.
I'm sure this comment comes after reading 18 pages of discussion...
I'll accept that monks are better than fighters at high levels, especially with the Quiggong archetype.
This is the thread that never ends...
It is not that bad, it have not even reached 1000 post. The is a still open fighter thread with 2000+ post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe we can get it over 9000?
|
|
The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.
He doesn't need damage if he prevents his target from leaving that spot(which is precisely what a flowing/qingong is good for!). Now he has all the attention he wants :D!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is not that bad, it have not even reached 1000 post.
This has all happened before, and shall happen again.
It is not that bad, it have not even reached 1000 post.This has all happened before, and shall happen again.
Oh hey, mythics came out since this thread started!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And it's pretty awesome.
Hey all.
My monk-fu is pretty weak and I'm relatively new to the system, can someone give me a tl;dr on why SR is a bad thing? It seems like something you'd want as a martial, especially at high levels.
As TOZ says, SR works against hostile and beneficial spells.
See if Monks got SR vs only hostile spells (only in 3.5 did that exist in a Prc), then we would say sounds awesome.
But with SR working vs all spells: Buffs, curing hp, removing bad conditions, etc. And Cure spells do nothing if SR wins so the better the SR, the less you are healed (overall).
Now, you can as a standard action, lower your SR to 0, but it last for 1 rd. You have to keep using up your action.
I would say that rule about SR could easily be in the top 10 most ignored rules.
|
Hey all.
My monk-fu is pretty weak and I'm relatively new to the system, can someone give me a tl;dr on why SR is a bad thing? It seems like something you'd want as a martial, especially at high levels.
As TOZ says, SR works against hostile and beneficial spells.
See if Monks got SR vs only hostile spells (only in 3.5 did that exist in a Prc), then we would say sounds awesome.
But with SR working vs all spells: Buffs, curing hp, removing bad conditions, etc. And Cure spells do nothing if SR wins so the better the SR, the less you are healed (overall).
Now, you can as a standard action, lower your SR to 0, but it last for 1 rd. You have to keep using up your action.
The other issue with SR is that it's almost always more likely to stop beneficial spells than harmful ones. Typically, classes like the bard and cleric aren't spending feats on things like Spell Penetration, because they're not using their spells offensively. And enemy casters usually have a few levels on a party (it's usually not very climactic when the enemy necromancer who's been making your life hell for the last 12 levels turns out to be a guy you could have went to school with).
So enemy casters often have a 65% or better chance of punching through your SR, while your allies may have 50% or less. That means you're actually losing twice over having spell resistance, since there was at least a chance of breaking even without it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's why Qinggong Hungry Ghost Monk with Dimensional Savant is the cat's ass. Heals enough by killing stuff/critting to be near immortal. Who needs a healer when you heal yourself with every kill and are a one man destruction crew.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that rule about SR could easily be in the top 10 most ignored rules.I make it a free action to drop but a standard to raise.
Hell, I would be happy if it was just a standard action to lower (AND STAYED DOWN!) and a standard action to raise.
Hey all.
My monk-fu is pretty weak and I'm relatively new to the system, can someone give me a tl;dr on why SR is a bad thing? It seems like something you'd want as a martial, especially at high levels.
As TOZ says, SR works against hostile and beneficial spells.
See if Monks got SR vs only hostile spells (only in 3.5 did that exist in a Prc), then we would say sounds awesome.
But with SR working vs all spells: Buffs, curing hp, removing bad conditions, etc. And Cure spells do nothing if SR wins so the better the SR, the less you are healed (overall).
Now, you can as a standard action, lower your SR to 0, but it last for 1 rd. You have to keep using up your action.
The other issue with SR is that it's almost always more likely to stop beneficial spells than harmful ones. Typically, classes like the bard and cleric aren't spending feats on things like Spell Penetration, because they're not using their spells offensively. And enemy casters usually have a few levels on a party (it's usually not very climactic when the enemy necromancer who's been making your life hell for the last 12 levels turns out to be a guy you could have went to school with).
So enemy casters often have a 65% or better chance of punching through your SR, while your allies may have 50% or less. That means you're actually losing twice over having spell resistance, since there was at least a chance of breaking even without it.
If your party doesn't have buffers it isn't really an issue. In low magic parties, or where the only spellcaster is offensive, I am not finding monks to have an issue.
Certainly right that the monk can have trouble working with a heavy buff or heavy magic party though.
actually it does although I often question whether you do.The scenario you're missing is the boss ignores the monk because of low damage and kills someone else instead. While the fighters defences aren't great he CANT be ignored because of damage. Most monks(with great defended) can safely be ignored because when it takes you 3-6 rounds to finish some off the odds of them taking out another party member increases. Defensively monks can survive a TPK like nobodies business but in a lot of those scenarios with a fighter there wouldn't have been a TPK.I'm sure this comment comes after reading 18 pages of discussion...
If a boss ignores the monk that is a clear target, and moves around to take someone else out, that leaves the monk so free. Not just attack of opportunities, or trips, or disarms, but also since they are too boring to be attacked, they can get themselves up into flanks, and when able, use their ki point to add another attack to their flurry. Flurry, an extra attack at highest and all of it flanking can be great news for the monk (especially if multiple hits means more good things for the party, like bleed from feats).
Kazumetsa Raijin : you forgot something really important.
This argument has been going on forever...What it boils down to, is kill or be killed, honestly.
The fighter can do just that, kill on the first 1-3 swings.
The monk will likely have to push out 3-6 swings.
Scenario #1
However, let's say that first attack misses, or rolls min damage for *both* classes.
The fighter will have done several times more damage than the monk (praise straght bonuses). The monster will likely be more or less mid-life if it is very solid.
If the monster moves, he will take a lot of damage, and may even die trying. So he will attack the fighter, but is likely to not kill him, as he has a lot of HP and AC. At worst, the creature can try to affect the fighter with a will save attack, for 50% chance of removing the fighter from the fight, at best (when the fighter doesn't optimize for will saves/the fighter doesn't have a buff warding him from mind affecting spells).
At second round, the monster is dead, even with min damage.
The fighter's group is safe.
=====================================================
The monk does min damage : the monster will barely feel the hit.
It will ignore the monk and attack the group.
As the monk has great AC and saves, he will manage to kill the creature eventually, but his group will be long dead when he manages to do it.
The monk's group is dead.
Scenario #2
Let's say all of their attacks instead, hit on the first round for max damage.Well, the monk is still in the running here as his opponent still lives.
The fighter is in the clear as his opponent lays in a bloody heap on the floor.
The fighter can carry on.
The monk has another round to survive through. Survival comes in with it's turn. It's still likely the Monk will live through this encounter.
Next round, he finishes off the boss.
The fighter will kill his foe in 1 round, maybe 2.
The monk will kill it in 3 or 4 rounds, when the creature will have killed his whole group. Too bad.Scenario #3
Let's say they both suck on their attacks, and defenses that round.They're both dead....
The most important point is not that the fighter or monk dies, it's that the rest of the group will die.
A combattant need to be able to freeze the monster right next to him to prevent it from killing the party.
The fighter can do it, the monk cannot.
*shrugs*
I respectfully disagree.
Last game my monk tanked while the party took out the adult black dragon. No one died. The monk took 50 damage (lev 8) but he was still okay. Another took 30+ from acid, but that was it.
I knew the AC would be a bit high for my char to it, but if the dragon had ignored and moved to kill the others, you can bet I would be going for charge to flank, and then flank flurry with everything and more ki burned for that extra attack (I had the ki to do it too).
Checking it up, yeah my monk could hit the AC on +13 to hit. Any hit starts bleed too, double hit (unlikely) starts more bleed.
It's a team game and the monk can contribute. I was also helped by the dragon's attack being taken down just a bit with some excellent and lucky str drain. Alas our ranger archer didn't do very much, but archers while considered a very strong build, don't always reach high ACs (like monks).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In an effort to keep the train chugging...
My previous monk had very high hp, and ac and a non-existant attack and damage bonus. People admit that he is quite an amazing tank. GM's have grown frustrated because of his tanking. And ignoring my monk is never an option.
My current monk can equal or compete with an optimized fighter in raw damage output until power attack kicks in. Then the fighter comes out ahead. However, it has rather poor HP and relies on a formidable ac, high fort and ref saves, evasion and combat maneuvers to control adjacent threats (wand & potion of enlarge person ftw). He has been the party tank for about 9-10 sessions....
Parties don't die just because the tank does not deal much damage.
Lastly, if your group is so bad that a boss kills everyone who is not a tank in 1-2 turns, then something is wrong with their character builds.
I have yet (barring one exception) to see an encounter that would do this. Furthermore, arguments like that render all of the optimization threads about all of the non-tank classes pointless, since no matter what level of optimization you have, you cannot live to contribute meaningfully if you have to deal with something dangerous for a round or two.
Hmm. Good thing concentration checks, defensive casting, invisibility, blur, displacement, mirror image, dimension door, etc, etc, etc, don't exist.
And if buff spells and healing magic were real, maybe casters and non-tanks could handle a couple of rounds of a boss and it's goons.
Oh wait.....
@Dark immortal :
You misunderstood things here.
Every adventurer in a group fill a "role", something they can contribute by themselves fantastically.
The combattant role is doing damage (and surviving ennemies attacks), and by doing a lot of damage, he prevents the creature from acting lots of rounds, which means it improves the defenses of the whole group.
To sum up : the monk have more AC+saves for himself, the fighter grants virtually more AC+saves to the group, including himself.
There is not a tank role in pathfinder, because keeping a creature close to you is impossible. If you don't threaten your ennemy (and a fighter/monk/... doesn't have another threat than damage), you get ignored and your group have to deal with it.
for a boss fight : It's not a boss encounter against a group of 4 adventurers, but against a group of 3 adventurers and a spectator. The whole difficulty of the encounter goes up. It's like adding +1 to the CR of hard encounters. It's not that the group can't handle it, it's that they have to handle their job AND the combattant's job.
In such a group, I would totally split up the monk's share between the other characters, because surviving encounters is not somthing that is useful for the group.
|
|
I've actually seen monk builds with comparatively attrocious damage do a very decent job of tanking via Stunning Fist, Trip, and Touch of Serenity. Particularly in rounds where using Trip was a viable tactic they could prevent enemies from easily getting at their allies or taking any offensive actions at all while being incredibly hard to hit themselves. Enemies couldn't ignore them because they could target Will, Fort, or CMD, whichever they had the best chance at connecting with, and possibly shut them down completely, giving the rest of the party time to finish them off. Amusingly, that monk made a fantastic partner for a Rogue thanks to his ability lock down enemies, turning two of the weaker classes in the game into a fantastic duo.
|
|
I've actually seen monk builds with comparatively attrocious damage do a very decent job of tanking via Stunning Fist, Trip, and Touch of Serenity. Particularly in rounds where using Trip was a viable tactic they could prevent enemies from easily getting at their allies or taking any offensive actions at all while being incredibly hard to hit themselves. Enemies couldn't ignore them because they could target Will, Fort, or CMD, whichever they had the best chance at connecting with, and possibly shut them down completely, giving the rest of the party time to finish them off. Amusingly, that monk made a fantastic partner for a Rogue thanks to his ability lock down enemies, turning two of the weaker classes in the game into a fantastic duo.
Honestly, a Monk can take Serious control over something if he wishes. 1 Level of Cleric or Urban Druid and he can get access to Repose Domain, then with Conductive he can Stagger as part of a fullattack, Stunning Fist(which can paralyze, stagger, sicken, stun, blind, deafen, and one other I can't remember) as part of a full attack, Punishing Kick as part of a full attack, Trip as part of a full attack, Touch of Serenity as part of a full attack, Quivering Palm as part of a full attack, etc. They can literally repeat the same process over and over for upwards of 21 rounds... minus Quivering Palm as that is Once per day. I could have sworn Quivering Palm used to be up to 5 times per day... did it change?
I guarantee at least 1 of those above maneuvers will work, and provide an open gate for the Monk to take advantage of. If the Monk is a Flowing Monk, it's chances are even better as it can also do immediate actions to completely screw the opponent out of a full attack, or seriously hamper their chances of getting any hits. That Redirection Ability is absolutely outstanding.
Either way, the D20 still rules us all : P
|
|
Ah the D20, cruel mistress that she is. What she gives with a 20, she snatches back with a 1.
But seriously I think it's a little hard to have this conversation because I think a Fighter tank and a Monk tank have to do their jobs in very different ways. Monks need to use maneuvers and status effects to have any real chance of locking enemies down, but some of those can be absolutely nasty.
Fighters have the option of going the maneuver route, but other than a few archetypes they're generally better off just beating the snot out of an enemy so that ignoring the Fighter is not an option.
A Monk who tries to tank like a Fighter is probably not going to do so well, any more than a Fighter who tries to tank like a Monk. What it really falls down to is what the rest of the party composition looks like as far as which one will be more effective if they're doing the job in the way best accomodated by their particular talents.
|
|
Ah the D20, cruel mistress that she is. What she gives with a 20, she snatches back with a 1.
But seriously I think it's a little hard to ahve this conversation because I think a Fighter tank and a Monk tank have to do their jobs in very different ways. Monks need to use maneuvers and status effects to have any real chance of locking enemies down, but some of those can be absolutely nasty.
Fighters have the option of going the maneuver route, but other than a few archetypes they're generally better off just beating the snot out of an enemy so that they have no choice but to ignore it.
A Monk who tries to tank like a Fighter is probably not going to do so well, any more than a Fighter who tries to tank like a Monk. What it really falls down to is what the rest of the party composition looks like as far as which one will be more effective if they're doing the job in the way best accomodated by their particular talents.
True Story. :)
The D20 rolls are especially awful on Roll20.net... I find it odd how I can get 3-4 1's in a row with no problem, but gods forbid I get a 20 let alone 2 in a row.
|
|
@AvH I do not think that I misunderstood. I simply disagreed.
I have yet to make a monk whose intention was to be the primary damage dealer (although my current monk enjoys being able to dish out some noticeable amounts of pain). Not once has any of the long list of groups I have been in regretted having my monks as tank. My 8th level monk with a +8 (total) to hit and 1d8+2 damage per hit? People absolutely love him...entire parties adjust their play styles to ensure they can get the benefits of my monks tanking in the best way at any given time. I have literally stopped playing for months, returned and was met with tales of my exploits with said monk....he tanks absolutely fine and rarely deals any damage in an encounter.
My current monk? Enemies have difficulty performing a full attack because they have to waste a move action getting up. Then he has a good ac. He also enjoys provoking aoo's through movement (like overrun). He allows the group a lot more tactical freedom and safe actions that otherwise they wouldn't have. He does this through superior HP (melee classes) and superior ac (Monk and fighter armor).
He tanks fine.
I disagree all day and in most ways that tanking requires a character to just be some DPs thing...at all.
I can prove in so many ways, how a monk cannot be ignored and can easily never deal a single point of damage to the enemy throughout an entire module....and tank the entire time. I am sure that I could get creative and build all sorts of tanks who have 0 DPs, or even low ac and low DPs.
I am not even remotely bluffing, either. I already have proven it with two different characters and have seen other classes and builds (some pure casters) who have inspired me to try new angles in tanking. I have every reason to disagree with the church of the dps philosophy. It is one of a vast multitude of ways to tank, not the only way.
I can prove in so many ways, how a monk cannot be ignored and can easily never deal a single point of damage to the enemy throughout an entire module
I'm interested to hear how. GM fiat aside, what is keeping things from just ignoring you and moving to attack something that is actually hurting/hindering it?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can prove in so many ways, how a monk cannot be ignored and can easily never deal a single point of damage to the enemy throughout an entire moduleI'm interested to hear how. GM fiat aside, what is keeping things from just ignoring you and moving to attack something that is actually hurting/hindering it?
I noted earlier that I've seen monks use Stunning Fist, Touch of Serenity, Trip, and other combat maneuvers to very effectively tank.
A Maneuver Master monk can use Stunning Fist, Touch of Serenity, Trip, and Dirty Trick to pull off some serious lock down without dealing very much damage at all. They just have to be enough of a nuisance that the enemy can't afford to ignore them, and you really can't afford to ignore a guy who's dropping stuns, stealing your offensive options, knocking you on your ass, or dropping other nasty status effects on you that prevent you from doing what you do. The monk's ability to use Abundant Step and his high speed can also prevent enemies from easily teleporting or moving out of their effective range the way that those same enemies might evade a Fighter. They also have the ability to target more than one defense, allowing them to adapt their tactics a little better to adjust for their enemies' strengths and weaknesses.
Monks are really only bad or ineffective tanks when they try to tank in the same way a Fighter does.
Sensei can do some pretty mean things with stunning fist, they can get those DC's really high. Add crushing blow to your character and you will be shutting down a good number of enemies. That said, I would say the sensei is pretty dissimilar to the monk base class.
In my experience, those types of attacks (fort/will save attacks or maneuvers) aren't that reliable. I had thought there was something else that had been figured out. :(
In my experience also maneuvers at higher levels is just a bad option. Mobs CMD climbs faster than your CMB, lower levels grappling is pretty easy and tasty, by level 6 or so it becomes a round waster, especially if you haven't stacked your strength your CMB becomes maybe 20-30% effective and wasting a round to try something that doesn't work. Meh. Stunning fist is just abominable at later levels you can only do it once and it has to hit, then he has to lose a fort save...might go off maybe 15% of the time, I just throw it in there just incase - because there is 10 of them or so that might as well be used. Stacking wisdom, makes you not hit...stacking strength makes your stunning fist saves low. Either way it goes bad.
High levels as low levels, strength is king. It's to hit and damage, and monk needs to hit more than anyone. Trying to hit something on a 16-20 just sucks for 1 attack a round or many.
|
|
In my experience, those types of attacks (fort/will save attacks or maneuvers) aren't that reliable. I had thought there was something else that had been figured out. :(
You can really only get it but so high, especially if it's a fort save you're jacking up, and the mooks will still usually save. However, if there is an ability forcing them to reroll certain saves, that's a big plus. If you can do multiple control methods, that's the biggest plus. As a Monk, you can;
1. Stunning Fist = Stun, Fatigue, Sicken, Stagger, Blind, Deafen, OR Paralyze(only one of these at a time)2. Repose Domain via Cleric(1) + Conductive = Touch Attack Stagger
3. Trip = Prone
4. Stand Still = End Movement
5. Punishing Kick = Prone
6. Touch of Serenity = Cannot Attack
7. Quivering Palm = Instant Death
Literally every part of your full attack, could be one of these. One of them are certainly bound to land, which will only make it worse for the opponent. Depending on the Archetype, you can do even more. Flowing(yay for reflex saves vs fort) and Maneuver Master are great examples of how things become more nasty(control-wise).
This is all great in Theory of course... ;P
I've got a campaign thread going or I may make a new one, testing this kind of stuff out. I've been doing GREAT with up to level 3 as a Flowing Qinggong Monk in preventing things from ever reaching my teammates(the squishy ones) and setting them up so the fighter has an easier time hitting. Thankfully, a Monk's AC gets pretty ludicrous since buffs stack so easy...
|
|
In my experience, those types of attacks (fort/will save attacks or maneuvers) aren't that reliable. I had thought there was something else that had been figured out. :(
You've got three different defenses that you can target. If you build to actually use those abilities, they're very reliable.
The problem with the monk comes up when people try to play him like a Fighter instead of a weirdly specialized mystic. Monks get Maneuver Training as a freebie to get them up to par and a fair number of bonus feats, so they can afford something like Weapon Finesse or Agile Maneuvers.Most opponents aren't going to have unbeatably high CMD, Fort, and Will all at the same time, so being able to target the weakest link in the chain is generally pretty useful. If you're going to tank with a Maneuver Master, Dirty Trick is awesome because there aren't a bunch of monsters running around with bonuses against it like Trip.
The Sensei can make a very cool tank with very high DC Stunning Fist and Touch of Serenity attacks and possibly a few maneuvers, though he gives up his bonus feats. Being able to get reliable buffs from Advice and share key features like evasion and improved evasion can also really help with keeping party members alive, a key component of tanking.
And again, mobility, insanely better saves, the potential for even higher AC, etc. all contribute to some pretty solid monk tanking.
I'm actually really glad they're bringing in the Brawler base class; it will help establish the monk as the mystic and the brawler as the street-fighter instead of trying to squish those ideas together into the same class.