| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is especially true since he can summon another balor, and through a combination of full attacks and greater dispel magic at will cut your monk into tiny pieces.1) He can't summon another balor. He can only summon 1 CR 19 or lower demon (which the best thing he can summon is a MARILITH. Which can do next to nothing against my monk, or your fighter except for his will save).
2) I would LOVE it if he tried to suppress a single magic item for 1d4 rounds every turn. It's his full attack that is dangerous to me. Dispel magic does next to nothing to me, even the greater version.
Combat starts - he is 30ft. from you. He dispel's your bracers of armor. Suddenly your AC goes from being something he hits on a 10 to being something he hits on a 2. He can now afford to power attack. Alternatively he hits your amulet of mighty fists - you now do almost no damage when attacking him, since you cannot beat his DR and have no backup. What do you do?
A Marilith might not be an overt combat threat. Lets look at some other options though. Core demons can provide spells at will ranging from chaos hammer, to unholy blight, to darkness. While the first two do mild damage to your monk (since he saves) they can slowly chip away at him with his complete lack of ranged attack options. Darkness and deeper darkness wreck your monks defense and offense, especially against an opponent with reach. Any creature provides a flank. Even a Vrock can provide enough damage with spores to wear you down over time. Many beings provide their own greater dispel magics to keep your key magic items off while the balor thrashes you (since most of your key items fall between CL 15 and 16).
I stand by my original statement - in a 1v1 a balor would wreck my fighter and your monk - period. And that's before we start spending a balor's 44,000-100,000 in treasure.
This is especially true since he can summon another balor, and through a combination of full attacks and greater dispel magic at will cut your monk into tiny pieces.1) He can't summon another balor. He can only summon 1 CR 19 or lower demon (which the best thing he can summon is a MARILITH. Which can do next to nothing against my monk, or your fighter except for his will save).
2) I would LOVE it if he tried to suppress a single magic item for 1d4 rounds every turn. It's his full attack that is dangerous to me. Dispel magic does next to nothing to me, even the greater version.
Combat starts - he is 30ft. from you. He dispel's your bracers of armor. Suddenly your AC goes from being something he hits on a 10 to being something he hits on a 2. He can now afford to power attack. Alternatively he hits your amulet of mighty fists - you now do almost no damage when attacking him, since you cannot beat his DR and have no backup. What do you do?
A Marilith might not be an overt combat threat. Lets look at some other options though. Core demons can provide spells at will ranging from chaos hammer, to unholy blight, to darkness. While the first two do mild damage to your monk (since he saves) they can slowly chip away at him with his complete lack of ranged attack options. Darkness and deeper darkness wreck your monks defense and offense, especially against an opponent with reach. Any creature provides a flank. Even a Vrock can provide enough damage with spores to wear you down over time. Many beings provide their own greater dispel magics to keep your key magic items off while the balor thrashes you (since most of your key items fall between CL 15 and 16).
I stand by my original statement - in a 1v1 a balor would wreck my fighter and your monk - period.
1) The dispel will more likely than not fall. Only a 55% of getting through my SR. Then the dispel only has a 70% of dispelling my bracers for 1d4 rounds. So a successful dispel is useless on the bracers 25% of the time, only good for 1 round of attacks 25% of the time.
The dispel only does SOMETHING 29% of the time.
2) My monk only fails saves 5% of time from the Marilith. Robe of Eyes negates darkness. I also can't be flanked. Deeper darkness may work a little, but between blind-fight and my perception I can still do things (like walking out of the deeper darkness). ALSO: Neither of them have darkness or deeper darkness as SLAs. You need an EVEN weaker demon for that.
3) Other creatures dispels fail even more frequently.
So no. The Balor's best bet is hold position and full-attack when I get close, hoping for a vorpal (which this will kill me before I can kill it).
Ok marthkus i will post the fighter to compare with yur monk cause posting buil fun. But can you post your build in, let say, a more organized way? you can steal the template from arthantos builds.
20 point buy. CRB only. No custom made items (not counting picking bonuses for your weapons and armor. That's fine). Wealth is 880,000 gold.
Consider average health from fighter d10 to be 6.
*Also thank you. We need more fighter builds to look at.
You know, to us, DPR is only one of many things. The Monk has a better will and reflex save, and with evasion is almost immune. Will is critical, since when you fail a Will save you’re often out of the battle entirely, making your “DPR” moot. Or worse, you’re attacking your allies.Will is sort of critical, but what is more critical is killing the guy using will effects before he gets to use them. Shooting first is all that matters in Rocket Tag.
You know, I hear about this "rocket tag" thing but have yet to see it in the wild, except in a 3.5 very high level game. In any case, the Fighter would have to be able to drop the BBEG on a charge with one hit. Seems rather unlikely. There are scads of spells that amke it pretty much impossible, including Mirror Image.
Oh I forgot the vorpal has to confirm the nat 20 to kill!
So, I'm pretty sure my monk can take this Balor now.
The weapons the balor wield are of such a high enhancement equivalent to ignore my DR, likewise I ignore his DR.
After enough encounters over several days, with the Balor retreating and coming back, my monk would still die from the vorpal. So no, I can't kill a smart Balor, but I can win the fight.
1) The dispel will more likely than not fall. Only a 55% of getting through my SR.
Er, Greater Dispel is "SR: No."
I'm really torn between posting a fighter and not spending hours to post a character I would never play because it'd be irrelevant and terrible, but just slightly less so than the monk...
1) The dispel will more likely than not fall. Only a 55% of getting through my SR.Er, Greater Dispel is "SR: No."
I'm really torn between posting a fighter and not spending hours to post a character I would never play because it'd be irrelevant and terrible, but just slightly less so than the monk...
Right you are. The dispel is still a pretty worthless action though. Does something meaningful half of the time.
AS you wish, but definitely you need to ost your build in a more organize way.
EDIT: although you thread shoudl be named "CRB MONKS ARE BETTER THAN CRB FIGHTERS AT HIGH LEVELS" since that is what you are actually claiming.
I'm working under the assumption that both classes benefit equally from rules bloat to keep the discussion simpler and avoiding rules that don't have FAQ clarification.
It's a big assumption. But I want an actual answer in this thread. Including all the material in PF would make this discussion even less likely to reach a conclusion.
By the way, are the +6belt of physical perfection even in the CRB? Are they not from the advance player guide?
It's in the CRB.
and the other half of the time your character no longer works just like the dominated fighter.Right you are. The dispel is still a pretty worthless action though. Does something meaningful half of the time.1) The dispel will more likely than not fall. Only a 55% of getting through my SR.Er, Greater Dispel is "SR: No."
I'm really torn between posting a fighter and not spending hours to post a character I would never play because it'd be irrelevant and terrible, but just slightly less so than the monk...
The balor getting a 40% bonus chance to hit for 1-3 rounds, or my monk is getting his damage negated for 1-4 rounds...
That is not the same thing as becoming the Balor's mind slave.
In a party situation, the PCs can only hope a Balor is dumb enough to waste an action on dispelling 1 item 70% of the time on the monk.
The same cannot be said for the balor dominating the fighter.
What if you built both classes without any magic items?
What if you built both classes without any magic items?
Entirely different game. Since the game is balanced around having gear, we are looking at that. It would be like trying to compare League of Legends champions without including item builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually its greater dispel cast at 20th level so he gets to target 5 of your items.
Nope. He can dispel 5 spells, he can only suppress 1 item for 1d4 rounds.
Also bracers have a CL of twice their bonus...
In a party situation...
Ok, now I need to know, where are the goal posts here?
Is this soloing a Balor? Or fighting him in a party situation?
Because in a party situation, the Monk and Fighter are irrelevant. Either the spellcasters win rocket tag and shut down the Balor, or the party loses. Then, the only thing that matters for the monk/fighter is DPR, as they try to kill the Balor while the spellcaster's CC effects, whatever those happen to be, are still in effect. In a DPR race, the Fighter wins, unquestionably.
However, you're basically arguing that the irrelevant Monk is less of a liability to the party than the irrelevant Fighter, because the Monk won't get dominated. Ignoring that there exists (albeit, I don't think in the CRB) an item that prevents domination and that the fighter probably has it, the party spellcasters would probably be grateful if the Balor wasted a turn dominating the Fighter rather than dealing with the actual threats (i.e. the PC spellcasters) who would have an extra turn to stick a CC effect on him.
In a party situation...Ok, now I need to know, where are the goal posts here?
Is this soloing a Balor? Or fighting him in a party situation?
Because in a party situation, the Monk and Fighter are irrelevant. Either the spellcasters win rocket tag and shut down the Balor, or the party loses. Then, the only thing that matters for the monk/fighter is DPR, as they try to kill the Balor while the spellcaster's CC effects, whatever those happen to be, are still in effect. In a DPR race, the Fighter wins, unquestionably.
However, you're basically arguing that the irrelevant Monk is less of a liability to the party than the irrelevant Fighter, because the Monk won't get dominated. Ignoring that there exists (albeit, I don't think in the CRB) an item that prevents domination and that the fighter probably has it, the party spellcasters would probably be grateful if the Balor wasted a turn dominating the Fighter rather than dealing with the actual threats (i.e. the PC spellcasters) who would have an extra turn to stick a CC effect on him.
Both? Individual prowess is one thing, and in party contribution is another. Both need to be weighed and compared. Things like dominate hurt the Fighter in both aspects.
Also good luck using CRB spells and feats to "shut down" a Balor. He's only little worse than a monk at laughing at spells. But we're not looking at High level monk vs caster.
Generally speaking I think 1v1 (against each other or against CR 20 monsters) aren't really that meaningful. I only bring it up here in response to Marthkus's commentary on how a balor would dominate the fighter.
As I said, in a 1v1 situation I don't see any core character winning a fight against a balor. Wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer. Bring your best, they're still going to likely die unless built specifically for this fight (and perhaps even then). The number of options available to the balor means that he can find a way around your defenses, and in a vacuum with nothing to tie him to one place he can fly around and play keep away to wear you down even if you're able to beat him with one trick. He's got solid saves, lots of hit points, a decent melee routine, and both fortitude and will based attack methods that are save or die effects. He sees through most defenses for casters and can get around battlefield control effects. Generally speaking it takes a party to bring one down - which is the way it should be.
In a party circumstance, as mplindustries notes, the two characters we're discussing are functionally very similar - though I'd sooner take the fighter because his weaknesses (poor will save) can be shored up more readily than the monk's (poor armor class, low attack bonus, low damage, lack of a ranged option). Saves can be patched up with a marginal amount of spending (especially with some of the Ultimate Equipment Items). The same doesn't go the other way. That said, each character brings something to the table. I don't think it's really fair to call one superior to another in this circumstance.
Generally speaking I think 1v1 (against each other or against CR 20 monsters) aren't really that meaningful. I only bring it up here in response to Marthkus's commentary on how a balor would dominate the fighter.
As I said, in a 1v1 situation I don't see any core character winning a fight against a balor. Wizard, cleric, druid, sorcerer. Bring your best, they're still going to likely die unless built specifically for this fight (and perhaps even then). The number of options available to the balor means that he can find a way around your defenses, and in a vacuum with nothing to tie him to one place he can fly around and play keep away to wear you down even if you're able to beat him with one trick. He's got solid saves, lots of hit points, a decent melee routine, and both fortitude and will based attack methods that are save or die effects. He sees through most defenses for casters and can get around battlefield control effects. Generally speaking it takes a party to bring one down - which is the way it should be.
In a party circumstance, as mplindustries notes, the two characters we're discussing are functionally very similar - though I'd sooner take the fighter because his weaknesses (poor will save) can be shored up more readily than the monk's (poor armor class, low attack bonus, low damage, lack of a ranged option). Saves can be patched up with a marginal amount of spending (especially with some of the Ultimate Equipment Items). The same doesn't go the other way. That said, each character brings something to the table. I don't think it's really fair to call one superior to another in this circumstance.
The monster comparison was to show that having 51 AC is overkill. Saying the monk has poor AC is a misnomer when the mightiest demons and devils need a 20 to hit the shield fighter's AC, but can completely mind rape the Fighter's low will save. 41 AC is by no means poor.
The problem is, if the balor is staying out of the monk's reach (which with winged boots and abundant step, that is a very hard thing to do), the Balor isn't doing much to the monk either. Monks saves against his spells and can devour or ignore any demon he summons.
In a party circumstance the Fighter can only contribute better with higher DPR, but the fighter is less likely to be able to use his DPR than the monk. The only time the fighter is contributing better than the monk is when the casters completely shut down the monster and it needs to be burst down. Which a monk is still more than capable of doing that job.
It was pretty easy to made a fighter with most Ac and DPR than martkus fighter, unfortunately all the (non AC related) good defensive items are non core.
Well if you go outside or core the monk can get more nat and shield bonuses to AC.
We're ignoring non-core items because the confounding factors go back and forth ad nauseum.
*Also, Post that build!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with regard to armor class. Your monk has marginal AC for his level. You snatched up a CR 20 monster - something that a party should roll - and pointed out that he can't hit the fighter and hits you 50% of the top. That's great. A given CR 20 monster only hits you 50% of the time. That isn't all CR 20s though (A wyrm silver dragon or a great wyrm sea dragon hit far more frequently) and certainly not anything beyond CR 20 you might encounter. Lets look at some others - for instance encounters meant to be a real challenge to you?
CR 21 - fair difficulty
Wyrm Gold Dragon hits AC 41 on a 2 without any buffs (and has full spellcasting options).
Another CR 21 (like a Tor Linnorm) hits on a 7.
CR 22 - moderately difficult
Tempest Bohemoth - can't miss
Thanatotic Titan - hits on a 4.
CR 23 - Boss fight
Solar - before any buffs hits on a 6 (and has spellcasting options).
Jabberwock - hits on a 4.
I don't agree with regard to armor class. Your monk has marginal AC for his level. You snatched up a CR 20 monster - something that a party should roll - and pointed out that he can't hit the fighter and hits you 50% of the top. That's great. A given CR 20 monster only hits you 50% of the time. That isn't all CR 20s though (A wyrm silver dragon or a great wyrm sea dragon hit far more frequently) and certainly not anything beyond CR 20 you might encounter. Lets look at some others - for instance encounters meant to be a real challenge to you?
CR 21 - fair difficulty
Wyrm Gold Dragon hits AC 41 on a 2 without any buffs (and has full spellcasting options).
Another CR 21 (like a Tor Linnorm) hits on a 7.
CR 22 - moderately difficult
Tempest Bohemoth - can't miss
Thanatotic Titan - hits on a 4.CR 23 - Boss fight
Solar - before any buffs hits on a 6 (and has spellcasting options).
Jabberwock - hits on a 4.
For the first attack. Dragons are different with their natural attacks(Although DR helps here, and if they power attack my AC is relevant again).
Also considering how CRB everything is, I've only been looking at Bestiary 1 monsters. (cause everything outside of that increases with power along with everything else)
Against any BBEG that has a weapon full attack, rather than natural attack patterns, 41 AC is more than enough to significantly reduce their damage.
I don't know why a PC would ever fight a solar.
*Also only the Balor's best attacks hit 50% of the time. The next one's hit 25% and rest hit 5% of the time. So 4 attacks could do damage. 2 attacks if the balor power attacks.
Why are you fighting Gold Dragons and Solars!? (Just a joke, some people get fussy around here.)
In a party circumstance, as mplindustries notes, the two characters we're discussing are functionally very similar - though I'd sooner take the fighter because his weaknesses (poor will save) can be shored up more readily than the monk's (poor armor class, low attack bonus, low damage, lack of a ranged option). Saves can be patched up with a marginal amount of spending (especially with some of the Ultimate Equipment Items). The same doesn't go the other way. That said, each character brings something to the table. I don't think it's really fair to call one superior to another in this circumstance.
If the choice is fighter or monk as your only martial (and I hesitate to call the monk a martial), then fighter definitely. If there is any other damage dealer in the party, then monk every time.
The monk cannot "out fight" the fighter (and shouldn't in my opinion), but can do more things other than just fighting than the fighter can. (Not sure if that sentence makes any sense but I'm sticking by it!)
Monks are known for being very buffable.
Beyond the basic point that monk's extra attacks and such are a specific inherently buff-friendly class feature, one other thing to note is that (at least in Core, and I believe in the game overall), attack and damage, where the Figher excels, are very easy to buff for compared to capabilities where the Monk excels. I know we've both seen this empirically in Kain's game, Roon, where buffing typically weights heavily towards offense.
Though the Monk's offensive weaknesses may glare, a party may be able to more readily, or with less resource expenditure, cover for them than for a fighter's. It's more straightforward to buff someone up to effectively full BAB than it is to buff them up to effectively all good saves and great mobility.
PS:
It's a decent AC on your fighter build Roon, but I would be very wary about ever taking it into a real 20th level combat. Due to the combination of poor saves and lack of options it seems like it would combine have all the issues you have identified with our current party fighters (would suck tons of resources out of his party to keep him in the game), with the ones I have identified (would still be pretty inconsistent at combat overall, even with all those resources sucked away), writ 5 levels worth of larger.
I don't think much of core monks, mind - but I'm not sure I wouldn't be more enthusiastic about taking a core monk into an actual party at 20th level than that fighter, just because I suspect a monk would be significantly less likely to be a drain on bottom line party strength than that fighter.
PPS: TWFing with a heavy shield makes me automatically wonder whether the attacks are correct for two one handed weapons (rather than an off hand light weapon). Are they?
If the choice is fighter or monk as your only martial (and I hesitate to call the monk a martial), then fighter definitely. If there is any other damage dealer in the party, then monk every time.
The monk cannot "out fight" the fighter (and shouldn't in my opinion), but can do more things other than just fighting than the fighter can. (Not sure if that sentence makes any sense but I'm sticking by it!)Besides teleporting and a couple of extra skills I do not think a monk can do much more things.
Then you and I play monks very differently! (Emoticon that denotes friendly banter!)
Then you and I play monks very differently! (Emoticon that denotes friendly banter!)
If the choice is fighter or monk as your only martial (and I hesitate to call the monk a martial), then fighter definitely. If there is any other damage dealer in the party, then monk every time.
The monk cannot "out fight" the fighter (and shouldn't in my opinion), but can do more things other than just fighting than the fighter can. (Not sure if that sentence makes any sense but I'm sticking by it!)Besides teleporting and a couple of extra skills I do not think a monk can do much more things.
Well, then what a monk can do that a fighter can not?
PS: I did not list healing himself because that is like a bad joke.
Let me see here; have better Saves, better Immunities, super powerful CMB/CMD and the ability to properly utilize Styles. I am sure there are more, but those are the biggies.
Sure, Fighters have higher BAB and apparently deal more damage, but are so easy to take out of the fight that these increased parameters are pointless. This Fighter can 1-shot a Balor, but when he gets turned to ash or a drooling clown, all of that 1-shot power goes down the drain, and then he becomes his servant until the end of time.
At least the Monk can be all like "LOLno" and proceed to FoB for decent damage while mitigating most of the Balor's assault quite easily.
Actually its greater dispel cast at 20th level so he gets to target 5 of your items.Nope. He can dispel 5 spells, he can only suppress 1 item for 1d4 rounds.
Also bracers have a CL of twice their bonus...
1. Since the ability to target items and objects is under the description of targeted dispel I'd say that you were wrong and he would stop 5 items
2. You're looking at item creation incorrectly assuming that caster level is the level its created at. Between the fact that the bracers are listed as caster level 7 and the ability to craft something outside your level just by raising the DC by 5 its probably not created at the highest level.
3 even without #1 he stops your attack from working on a 6 and your armor from working on a 7.
You can't solo this monster. Sorry played correctly he wins every time.
1. Description says it can target one item.
2. "creator’s caster level must be at least two times that of the bonus placed in the bracers"; I see what you mean by the entry though of 7. Regardless it's a waste of actions for the Balor.3. He also rolls a 1d4. The armor debuff does little. The amulet actually does something, but the Balor can't full attack my monk unless he wants to be full attacked and vice versa.
The Balor will win eventually, but I argue my monk could make him flee the fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Then you and I play monks very differently! (Emoticon that denotes friendly banter!)
If the choice is fighter or monk as your only martial (and I hesitate to call the monk a martial), then fighter definitely. If there is any other damage dealer in the party, then monk every time.
The monk cannot "out fight" the fighter (and shouldn't in my opinion), but can do more things other than just fighting than the fighter can. (Not sure if that sentence makes any sense but I'm sticking by it!)Besides teleporting and a couple of extra skills I do not think a monk can do much more things.
Well, then what a monk can do that a fighter can not?
PS: I did not list healing himself because that is like a bad joke.
In all honesty, I've been trying to stay out of these debates. I've come to the conclusion that my games are quite different then what I've seen talked about on the forums. My games (or our games, if you want to be politically correct) rarely go past tenth level, "magic marts" are nonexistent, and "optimizing" is unheard of! (Note: my players do not make "sub-optimal builds" to be "better role players." They make sub-optimal builds because they suck at character building.) So I'm not sure my experience means much...
However...
I have often referred to monk as "support martial" (yeah bards are better, big whup wanna fight about it). In my experience the monk is all about mobility. The ability to get from point a to point b can be crucial. Monks can be more self-sufficient than fighters (overcoming DR, some healing, etc.) in a low-magic or a low-magic-item game.
Now don't get me wrong. I like fighters and monks. (And don't tell anyone, but I don't think they're underpowered) But like I said, my games tend to be different then the discussions I see here.
My players are the same way, they build suboptimal characters because they suck at character building. It has killed them many a time.
@Nicos
That fighter build is more solid for saves. The AC advantage is only a +3 and you are wielding a shield.
Fighter still wins in DPR, but the gap is narrow (until you factor in crits)
Mobility is still less than the monk.
To conclude: The differences are smaller. Your Fighter is not a liability to the group (as much. 19 will is still low, but reasonably so). I still think my monk comes out ahead in overall use to the party and personal prowess.
ASIDE: Isn't Robe of the Eyes a fantastic item? Kind of an F-you to rogues though.
That is fine but drungn was talking about options. the monk you are describing is jsut rolling his save and trying to full attack.Let me see here; have better Saves, better Immunities, super powerful CMB/CMD and the ability to properly utilize Styles. I am sure there are more, but those are the biggies.
Sure, Fighters have higher BAB and apparently deal more damage, but are so easy to take out of the fight that these increased parameters are pointless. This Fighter can 1-shot a Balor, but when he gets turned to ash or a drooling clown, all of that 1-shot power goes down the drain, and then he becomes his servant until the end of time.
At least the Monk can be all like "LOLno" and proceed to FoB for decent damage while mitigating most of the Balor's assault quite easily.
Unique monk options compared to fighter:
1)Activate Winged boots and DD to monster within 1200ft, all in 1 round
Benefit: Monk does not need a range weapon
2)Etherealness as a move action. Benefit: Scout, walk through walls, GTFO escape power, Fight Ghosts
3)Stunning Fist, Quivering Palm, Benefit: Can shutdown low fort enemies
4)Monk is stealthy, Benefit: Another Great scouting tool and GTFO ability
5)Slow fall, Benefit: Can look cool instead of making a climb check when going down a cliff or wall.
6)Improved Trip, Improved Disarm; No Fighter posted yet has my the attribute and feat investment to get these maneuvers. Benefit: Take wielded objects like Weapons, wands, and staffs from enemies with reasonable CMD, and monk can use last auto miss to make a fully effective trip attack. (Since their CMB is base on level instead of attack bonus, it doesn't go down with iterative attacks)
7) Grapple, Monk is better grappler. Better CMD and Better grapple damage, also better CMB from monks being able to use enhancement bonus to grapple, while fighters normally cannot. Benefit: Yet another tool to wreck BBEG arcane casters, not really useful against monsters though.
Summary: Monks at high levels fill the fighter role very well (and I am arguing better), but they also do many skills and abilities the fighter simply can't. Acrobatics doesn't seem important, until you are not wasting a use of winged boots to get around an out-of-combat obstacle. The Monk can do stuff out of combat, in addition to rocking at in combat. Monks can talk with plants and animals (not incredibly useful, but cool)! Sense motive helps in social situations. Stealth +other stuff makes him a very good scout. He can break down any obstacle with his adamantine hands.
I think that when you factor the crits the diference in DPR is much bigger, the fighter aoutoconfirm and have a big multiplier. No to mention that blining and stuning critical are devastating.
By the other hand the saves are a big and annoying issue with few items in the core that helps.
Your fighter has the edge on offense, as my monk has the edge on defense.
But my monk can do monk stuff, on top of being respectable at DPR.
6)Improved Trip, Improved Disarm; No Fighter posted yet has my the attribute and feat investment to get these maneuvers. Benefit: Take wielded objects like Weapons, wands, and staffs from enemies with reasonable CMD, and monk can use last auto miss to make a fully effective trip attack. (Since their CMB is base on level instead of attack bonus, it doesn't go down with iterative attacks)
Er, what? CMB definitely still drops with iterative attacks. It acts like flurry, it just pretends that you have full BAB, rather than 3/4.
6)Improved Trip, Improved Disarm; No Fighter posted yet has my the attribute and feat investment to get these maneuvers. Benefit: Take wielded objects like Weapons, wands, and staffs from enemies with reasonable CMD, and monk can use last auto miss to make a fully effective trip attack. (Since their CMB is base on level instead of attack bonus, it doesn't go down with iterative attacks)Er, what? CMB definitely still drops with iterative attacks. It acts like flurry, it just pretends that you have full BAB, rather than 3/4.
"Maneuver Training (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus. Base attack bonuses granted from other classes are unaffected and are added normally."
A monk always uses his level instead of base attack bonus. If CMD wasn't so awfully high at these levels, this would be a bigger deal.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In all honesty, I've been trying to stay out of these debates. I've come to the conclusion that my games are quite different then what I've seen talked about on the forums. My games (or our games, if you want to be politically correct) rarely go past tenth level, "magic marts" are nonexistent, and "optimizing" is unheard of! (Note: my players do not make "sub-optimal builds" to be "better role players." They make sub-optimal builds because they suck at character building.) So I'm not sure my experience means much...
No, you play how almost everyone plays. Almost no one plays at 20th level. PvP, One on One arena combats and so forth are super rare. My LT PF game is now 11th level. It's true we have a couple rotating parties, but few games get much past low teens.
It's like healing in combat where some say since you kill the BBEG in one hit, why would you need in combat healing? And, then James Jacobs sez his combats (both in the games he plays and the one he runs) go on for many rounds and in combat healing is very necessary. And I have been playing since 1974, with dozens of groups over half-a-dozen Editions and all the way thru becoming deities- and we ALWAYS needed in combat healing. (I understand some groups play "toons" who could care less if that PC dies as they have a stack of newer-better PCs waiting to be played- I can't play that way.)
Now, of my group, we do have 1 guy who sucks at optimizing - but two who are very very good at it, and two who are OK but will do sub-optimized things for RPing (I am one of those) . And you know? Yeah, the guy who sucks (runs a rogue, hasn't even bothered to give him all his feats and talents) does suck. But the RPers keep up with the Optimizers just fine.
We don't have a "magic mart" but if you have contacts & cash and a major city you have a reasonable chance of finding at least your 3rd choice.
Despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth around here about how much monks/fighters/rogue or who-ever suck (there's even a serious thread about how much PFS wizards suck and are underpowered & nerfed), those classes remain popular, fun to play and can be a very serious asset to any TEAM. A fighter will bust a wizard's butt at lower levels- and guess where most of the actual real playing is done? At those very levels.
Besides, the monk-o-philes have always been crazy. They want their monks to be Bruce Lee @ 1st level and wu-shu "walk on clouds" at mid level and beat up deities at high levels. You could give them full BAB AND full spellcasting and they'd still grumble the monk is underpowered. It's been that way since Blume first put the "M" down on the sheet on foolscap when writing Monks for Blackmoor in 1975. They have never been satisfied and never will be satisfied. Really, they have been like that for almost 40 years and they're not gonna stop not matter what build you show or what bone the devs throw them.
Don't get me wrong, this sort of theorycrafting can be a real asset. These guys are plenty smart even if not terribly realistic. For example- They pointed out some actual serious issues with the Monk, which have been fixed. It's a valuable TOOL, but it's not anything at all like IRL table-top gaming.
So, they are having fun. let them. Just don't think it's real. It's on the level of Could the Enterprise beat a Star Destroyer?
"Maneuver Training (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus."
If your iterative attack uses your Base Attack Bonus minus five, then replacing BAB with monk level doesn't get rid of the minus five.
"Maneuver Training (Ex): At 3rd level, a monk uses his monk level in place of his base attack bonus when calculating his Combat Maneuver Bonus."If there is a -5 iterative attack penalty, it would be in the BAB calculation not the CMB calculation. The CMB equation does not take iterative attack penalties into account. Those penalties are in the BAB equation, which the monk circumvents.
"Editor's Note: Replacing Attacks with Combat Maneuvers
Any combination of a creature's attacks during a melee full attack can be replaced by a trip, disarm, or sunder maneuver (any maneuver that says "in place of a melee attack"). When doing this, the calculation for the creature's Combat Maneuver Bonus uses the base attack bonus of the attack that was exchanged for a combat maneuver. For example, a creature with a BAB of +6/+1 who performs a trip with her second attack uses +1 as her BAB for the CMB of the trip."