** spoiler omitted **
So are we going to have a PbP Monk v.s. Fighter duel or what?
1) Not a derail. The monk has SR, so this is relevant.
2) a creature casting CLW or any spell on itself does not have to pass an SR check. My question is how CLW could go through someone else's SR.3) PvP duel doesn't mean anything. Now if you are asking who does better fighting a Martial BBEG, then that means something.
** spoiler omitted **
So are we going to have a PbP Monk v.s. Fighter duel or what?
1) Not a derail. The monk has SR, so this is relevant.
2) a creature casting CLW or any spell on itself does not have to pass an SR check. My question is how CLW could go through someone else's SR.3) PvP duel doesn't mean anything. Now if you are asking who does better fighting a Martial BBEG, then that means something.
Which makes no sense since it's still a spell, and spells, regardless of source (i.e. familiar, animal companion, etc.) or effects still have to make a SR check. SR just needs a rewrite due to how stupid it functions via RAW.
I suppose it would make sense for it to, though many people seem to compare it as a PVP session, not a PVE session.
Of course, I still vote Monks would last longer than a Fighter against any given BBEG, since any BBEG would just "LOLLockdown" or "LOLDominate" the Fighter. Monk can't really have that happen, so the BBEG has to actually beat him down to nothing.
Of course, I still vote Monks would last longer than a Fighter against any given BBEG, since any BBEG would just "LOLLockdown" or "LOLDominate" the Fighter. Monk can't really have that happen, so the BBEG has to actually beat him down to nothing.
In a real situation (i.e. not Core Only), the Fighter will be immune to domination, so it doesn't matter.
Others have shown the math that by virtue of doing 2.5-3x more damage than the Monk, the enemies won't last as long and thus have less opportunity to lockdown the Fighter, whereas the Monk will have better saves, but be subjected to far more rolls, thus tipping the balance and making them ultimately more likely to get caught.
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.
Well thank God we play PF where defense is defense!
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.Well thank God we play PF where defense is defense!
<_<
Pathfinder did nothing to help defense, and it is D&D 3.5 with a different name and some minor changes.
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.Well thank God we play PF where defense is defense!<_<
Pathfinder did nothing to help defense, and it is D&D 3.5 with a different name and some minor changes.
Well in my experience with 3.5, defense was defense. But, you could have been talking about other editions.
Um no.... Offense is ALWAYS the best defense. Why? It is much the same reason why having a dedicated healer is a sub- par role and the "rule of 20s". Ok, you have a giant defense, but the price for that is that you become weaker in the offense. Your effectively a wall. The problem is, the fight is going on for alot longer. This gives the enemy more of an opportunity to get the nasties on you. Oh and god help you if it is a Witch you are fighting against because now they have twice over chance of getting nastiness on you. Also, with the "rule of 20s", with 20 level 1s going after you, one of them will hit you (crit). Your defenses are not perfect. You WILL be hit eventually, which mitigates your rediculous defense vs your paltry offence. If your Offence is high enough, your defence become secondary since the enemy won't have the time to do anything to you.
Of course, I still vote Monks would last longer than a Fighter against any given BBEG, since any BBEG would just "LOLLockdown" or "LOLDominate" the Fighter. Monk can't really have that happen, so the BBEG has to actually beat him down to nothing.In a real situation (i.e. not Core Only), the Fighter will be immune to domination, so it doesn't matter.
Others have shown the math that by virtue of doing 2.5-3x more damage than the Monk, the enemies won't last as long and thus have less opportunity to lockdown the Fighter, whereas the Monk will have better saves, but be subjected to far more rolls, thus tipping the balance and making them ultimately more likely to get caught.
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.
I am guessing this is the "Unbreakable" archetype. An archetype that hardly focuses on damage, and is probably about as helpful as a DPR Monk. Ignored, and/or beaten to death in seconds. Although the features are nice, they overshadow themselves and it becomes a garbage archetype, since a Paladin has the same level of immunities and bonuses without compromise.
So a Fighter can just beat down a Prismatic Wall/Sphere like child's play now? I wonder how they could possibly pull that off. Obviously the Monk can't, but he's immune to half the stuff the Prismatic Wall/Sphere could throw at him. Even if the Fighter has higher DPR and more HP, their defenses are also going to be lower (Monk can have higher potential AC, significantly better saves and immunities), and much easier to kill.
Defense>Offense at early levels.
Offense=Defense at higher levels.
I think this occurs about level 10 to 12. At lower levels having a weak defense and strong offense is advantageous. You kill things fast and you don't get hit very much. Much of what you fight has very few tactical capabilities and they are easy to gang up on and attack.
At later levels enemies start to have lots of options to stop you from getting a full attack on them. They can fly, teleport, hit you with fear effects, paralyze, and the like. Those dangerous will and fort saves start to mean something. Creatures do a lot more damage as well and quickly. They're ability to detect an enemy coming and prepare for them is much better as well.
If you can't defend yourself, especially if you stat dumped wisdom and spent your limited cash on offense, you're in for a painful amount of being useless at high level. I think the mentality that offense>defense comes from the fact that very few folks play high level Pathfinder.
Pathfinder is a nasty, nasty game once the enemies start accessing powerful, nasty abilities against a party that are hard to resist. You hope your healer is good enough to keep you alive as you become a focused target for painful attacks that debilitate and damage. The enemies saves and resistances reach a level where they shrug off half of what the party throws at them.
I'm wondering myself how the fighter becomes immune to domination. Does he have a constant protection from evil on or something? I know any opponent wizard worth his salt will have an arcane sensing spell up to tell him what spells are active on his opponents.
I allow Knowledge checks for enemies against PCs. Knowledge [Local] will tell an enemy a whole lot about a PC and what he is known for such as his feats, notable magic items, and his companions. So the enemy can be better prepared to deal with PC parties.
Get a wayfinder and stick the right ioun stone in it. And not a particularly expensive one at that.I'm wondering myself how the fighter becomes immune to domination. Does he have a constant protection from evil on or something? I know any opponent wizard worth his salt will have an arcane sensing spell up to tell him what spells are active on his opponents.
I allow Knowledge checks for enemies against PCs. Knowledge [Local] will tell an enemy a whole lot about a PC and what he is known for such as his feats, notable magic items, and his companions. So the enemy can be better prepared to deal with PC parties.
So a cheap magic item that the Pathfinder designers decided to toss in the game. Fun.
Doesn't matter too much. Lots of will saves the fighter has to deal with that don't slow their movement or dominate them that are very nasty. Fighters are not a popular class in our games because of this.
I've played a fighter archer before and am currently playing a zen archer qingong monk. If I had to pick one for being "better" it would be the monk. There are lots of out of combat utility that a monk gets that fighters never get the luxury of having. The only real highlights to a fighter is feats, weapon training, and possibly armor training. The damage is also another bonus, but then again for most builds for a fighter they are already using weapon focus/specialization feats. That's only a +2/+4. Weapon training with dueling gloves is another +7/+7 for main weapon.
Monks have more skills and better class features and abilities to help them in and out of combat. Snowfall, high jump, Barkskin (qingong), increased movement, stunning fist, ki leech, restoration, and so on. The fighter has bonus COMBAT feats, and better armor bonuses and atk/Dmg. The monks flurry tries to balance out more hits for less damage, but fails most of the time unless you can get your primary stat to work off what you need, either a wisdom to hit, or a str to hit build.
Even a lore warden fighter to just equal the monks skill points swaps out a few abilities for others you might not necessarily want. Regardless, the monk has better skills to choose from. The differing skills are perception which the fighter doesn't get unless using a trait, knowledge:dungeoneering and engineering ( monk doesn't need more than a rank in dungeoneering incase of needing to identify certain monsters), and survival which the monk doesn't need to have really. The fighter misses out on perception and acrobatics. 2 of the biggest and most important skills, at least perception is, for a character to have. No class bonus, plus wisdom isn't a major stat for a fighter, but for them it needs to be high enough to not be a dump stat, otherwise domination spells will become frequent alongside confusion.
The fighter is just that, a fighter. They aren't really meant or designed to be great at anything else besides combat. Couple this with the low skill points, and very few useful utility, or,out of combat abilities/class features and the fighter is not looking so good. The fighter needs a niche from one of the archetypes to really to branch out a bit. Whereas the monk is so all over the place, they need an archetype typically to help focus them in to be actually good at something.
|
I am curious to see the combat superior fighter build that many advocate. So let's do this:
20th level character
20 point buy for attributes
All official Pathfinder product open for use (read: no 3rd party products)
No use of custom magic items - only items printed as they are will be allowed
This is, after all, the state of the game most of us currently play, so a modern comparison might be more appropriate.
Combat Superior Fighter Build? Do you mean a fighter build versus a monk? At lvl 20?
At lvl 20 in hand to hand combat, a fighter will kill a monk. You talking PvP or versus environment?
The average fighter build should have a huge hit bonus:
+20 BAB +2 GWF +4 Weapon Training +13 str +5 weapon +2 Gloves of dueling (or something)=+46 to hit unbuffed -6 PA +40 attack roll.
Damage for Two-hander: +19 str +24 PA +5 weapon +4 specialization +6 weapon training with gloves = 2d6+58 x3 crit/17-20 crit range.
The average level 20 fighter crit is 195 damage at lvl 20. The average around about the same with haste.
How you getting the monk's AC so far above +40 to hit while still having viable combat abilities?
|
|
If you check my profile you will find my PFS monk there. He does have a few boons which give him an advantage that cannot be replicated elsewhere: +2 profane bonus to Fort saves, +2 unnamed bonus to initiative, +2 morale bonus on disarm checks, and a +1 Dex. Other than that, he is level 19 with 675,996 gp, so the comparison is relatively even vs. a character with 1 more level.
The math is all spelled out on the sheet, so you should be able verify it easily. Understand his base AC listed is sustainably increased by use of barkskin, fighting defensively (-1 to hit, +6 AC with crane style and rod of balance), combat expertise, and 8 mins of shield spell (from staff of minor arcana + UMD). 16 rounds of ki dodge ontop if absolutely necessary. So you're looking at a constant 70, and bouts of 74 in limited quantity. Crane wing and deflect arrows if you manage lucky rolls.
Base to attack bonus is +38 with self cast greater heroism. With defensive and combat expertise running, it's knocked down to +34.
Edit: Come to think of it, I wonder if the new spell-like ability racial rulings would contribute to increasing the caster level on staves. The shield use may be in 19 min intervals. I'll have to look into that.
|
|
I did say excessive buffs. Key word. The monk uses barkskin and greater heroism from his own class/race abilities, and a single spell trigger item. Feel free to employ similar measures if your build is capable. We're looking for a true comparison here, and I apologize if that was not made clear.
Edit: I'm also not looking to rub anyone in the face. I hear many people comment that monks are not a good class. I built this guy as my first PFS character to show others that, when built well, they can be a beast. Monks are my favorite class and I just want others to be able to enjoy playing them without incorrectly fearing they cannot be built well.
Just of the top of my head a 20th level fighter can get up to a 49 attack bonus. That means the monk would have to have a 69 ac. I'd like to see the monk build who can have that ac without giving up contributing to combat.
Seems a double standard, asking the fighter to do it without buffs while the monk gets bufs.
Let me have fun with this, and push the Fighter's maximum limits. "Up to 49 Attack Bonus"? Let's test that theory.
We factor all of this in, we get +56 to Hit, and +48 to Damage without Power Attack. We take the Power Attack modifiers for Two-Handed Fighter (-6 Hit, +24 Damage), it's a total of +50 to Hit, and +72 to Damage. Surprisingly accurate. This makes it +50/+50/+45/+40/+35 as his attack rolls, with Power Attack.
Of course, This does not include the damage dice of a 4D8 from the P/S Nodachi (now at X3 Modifier), or criticals, factoring an average of 25% chance to critical on a given attack (chances are he just doesn't need to roll a 1 to hit them with the pluses alone), so with an average of at least 1 critical per round and the average dice roll of 18 for a 4D8 damage dice, I come up with this formula for DPR, both with and without Power Attack (assuming the subtracted to-hit makes that much of a difference in AC).
Without Power Attack: 3(18+48)+4(18+48) = 462
Although the physical defenses are really low, they can be easily made up for it by providing Rage (+3 Constitution), Shield (+4 AC), Barkskin (+5 AC), Mirror Images (1D4+4 Copies), Haste (+1 AC, +1 Reflex Saves) Greater Heroism (+3 Additional Saves), Deadly Juggernaut/Righteous Might (+4 Constitution, scaling DR 10/-), and Monstrous Physique (+2 Natural Armor), combined with the other penalties (-2 Size, -2 Untyped, -1 Dexterity AC, -2 Rage) making his now 29 AC turn into 34 AC, and his 26/22/23 Saves now 29/26/26, along with the ability to reroll Will and Reflex Saves 6/day, he's going to make those Save or Suck spells almost constantly in any given fight, have a somewhat competent AC, as well as powerful levels of DR that the Monk will have to deal with.
Edits: Re-evaluating Math and Bonus Type configurations; still not sure if it's 100% accurate. Also, grammar and word implementation.
@Dabbler
Please don't take this the wrong way. You're free to discuss the monk in any which way you prefer. However, when every post I've seen of yours is about how much the monk sucks, and is trying to convince others who enjoy the monk that nope the monk sucks, then don't expect me to believe you when you say, "I love the monk."
I love the concept of the monk class, and some of it's features. The actualisation of the class is terrible, resulting in a class that is mechanically weak. The latter is a statement of fact that can be backed with evidence. You do not have to be blind to the faults of something to love it (ask any married man or woman).
I have read - and partially participated in - a lot of monk threads so I am well aware of the arguments in favor and against the monk.
I disagree with the notion that the monk is weak. All the math and all the "evidence" I have seen always assume some kind of scenario where the role of the monk is shown not to be "the best" or "the strongest", followed by a reasoning that since class X can be better at actions A&B and class Y better at B&C the monk "sucks" and is "weak".
You mean any situation where the monk has to fight a credible opponent, and all situations the monk is in when the monk is performing his role as described in the CRB?
The discussions usually also focus on unarmed strike and the disadvantages and costs of amulet of mighty fists, since using weapons (or a single weapon which only the monk can do TWF with by the way) is not what "people" want the monk to be.
Meaning that the emphasis on the unarmed strike for the monk in it's mechanical design and description is the biggest red herring in the game?
It is really funny that one of the other classes which is claimed to be useless out of combat and less relevant in combat - the fighter - is used as a benchmark vs. the fighter in this thread. Incidentally, I also find that statement not to be true.
I think you kinda missed the point there. We could compare the monk to the paladin or barbarian - it's just the differences are bigger.
What I believe is that there are different roles that classes can assume in a game and that largely decides upon the usefulness and players' satisfaction with them.
This is very true.
So I think that Marthkus already has been proven wrong with his initial assertion; the fighter definitely blows the monk away in terms of damage. So will the barbarian and - in many instances - the ranger and the paladin. And that is good, after all the fighter (and the other full BAB classes) is supposed to be good at his job.
All classes are meant to be good at their job, the issue many of us have with the monk is that he isn't good at his job, to the extent that other classes can actually do that job arguably better.
However, Marthkus would be right when he had advertised the monk as being a better multiplier of groups abilities, annoying to the opponents of a party.
True, for a given value of true. The question here is, is the monk contributing as much in this role as another class could?
The monk is not designed to be standing still, flurrying away to take out opponents in one on one fights.
Then why does he have the flurry-of-blows class feature at all? Is that another red-herring?
He is however very well suited to
- provide flanking to make sneak attacks a real threat and help the fighter to hit even better, maybe even with that last attack
Any character can do this. The wizards familiar can do this. A commoner with a stick can do this. This is not a strength, it's an admission of how weak in combat the monk is that you even have to list it.
- not be taken out easily: spells (at least from items or creatures that have spellcasting that can hurt but not at full caster level) will fizzle or be saved against, maneuvering will be countered with the monk's high mobility and abilities like abundant step, disease and poison immunity negate major threats of high CR monsters
The monk has good defences, the problem is those do not help the rest of the party, only the monk.
- chip away damage consistently to make sure the Balor or other opponents have lost just enough HP so the fighter can kill them - after all, they fight as well at 1 HP as with 370 HP
Except that the monk does not hit reliably, especially against more powerful foes. Comparing Markthus' monk to my fighter, the difference in their best attack bonus was +10 in favour of the fighter.
- provide debuffs like stunning, speed reductions or even making them shaken or flat-footed (those last two not really in CRB though), thus - again - enabling sneak attack and reducing their AC
- assume the role of a backup fighter or a backup skill monkey. This is due to the monk 4 skill points (not so much, but OK) and the many useful bonus feats he gets that open up slots for skill focus feats and the like (this is more important).
Stunning is nice but not reliable, even a monk optimised for stunning fist (there was one in another thread) only managed around a 30% success rate against CR-equivalent foes. It's been demonstrated time and again that the monk is NOT a skills monkey.
I think Marthkus has proven with his build and the arguments that the above is true :-)
That isn't actually saying much. What Markthus maintained in this thread was the a monk was "better" at level 20 than a fighter. He gave his reasons as it having better saves and defences, AC, CMB, CMD, Special abilities, while having adequate DPR and hitting ability.
What has been demonstrated is that the monk has two better saves, a few immunities that can probably be saved against anyway, spell resistance which nerfs him as much as it helps him, worse AC and CMB, equal CMD, and few whistles and bells, while having about 40% the DPR with a substantively less attack bonus.
Something that I find curious is that spell resistance is considered to be such a disadvantage. I have played monks with spell resistance before and I do so currently. We play by the rules, and I can honestly say that there has not been a single instance where spell resistance has been a problem:
- SR does not apply to cure spells. Read the cure light wounds spell description and you will see. Though not decisive, this is a big part of the arguments that are made.
Not according to the section on SR.
Anyway, what about short-term buffs normally cast on the fly mid-combat?
- SR is supposed not be relevant for enemy casters since "they will make the caster level check anyway". Well, the same is true for player parties: You have full-CL wizards, clerics, bards etc. Particularly wizards will want to invest in spell penetration or other CL increasing feats or items anyway, so they will succeed with haste and other in-combat buffs.
Enemy casters tend to be BBEGs, and as such are usually a few levels up on the party. Hence it is claimed that enemy wizards are more likely to get through SR than friendly ones. Both have access to Spell Penetration etc.
- Many buffs can be applied before combat, so lowering the SR is not a problem. And if for some reason the attack should come at exactly that moment, the monk will likely save and is protected next round.
The problem comes when the party is attacked by surprise, before they get pre-buffed...and yes, it happens.
The monk has an excellent defensive package and abilities that enable him to be quite self-sufficient, in turn allowing him to compensate for weaknesses in the party or adding weight to certain tactics.
Half right - the problem with the monk is not his defences, it's his offences being very weak and his other abilities not working well together. The qingong archetype solves a lot of problems with other abilities, including the SR ones, and that leaves the monk's poor combat performance. This occurs due to a combination of MAD, poor enhancement, and poor weapon options. Fix those and you fix the monk.
To put it into a short statement wrt. the title of this thread: Monks are not "better" than fighters at high levels, but they are "better" than a second martial - be it ranger, barbarian, paladin or ranger :-)
Only he isn't. This question has already been asked and answered - what is the monk brining to the party that another class cannot trump? we put the monk to test against other class builds and it could not be demonstrated that the monk brought anything useful to the party another class could not do better, with the possible exception of land speed, and land speed...well, it's not that important, most of the time.
Back on Topic, Monks can actually last against a Fight with a Balor or similar creature. They'd lose, but at least they could fight back. Fighters just become HURR DURR minions for the Balor.
My fighter doesn't. At least, he might if the balor lived long enough to try a few times, but the balor doesn't get that time, there's a 40% chance he's purée on round 1, and definitely purée by round two.
That's what we mean by "offence is defence".
Only solo. If you have four balors and this is the fighter or monk's share of the fight in someone's going to cast circle of protection from evil and everyone's completely immune to charm and compulsion effects by evil creatures. Or possibly immune to charm and compulsion effects full stop, it doesn't actually have he evil creatures qualifier on that paragraph, but the spell is protection from evil.
Balors have Greater Dispel at will, and I think a smart balor (are there any other kind?) will debuff his enemies.
As another has said repeatedly and I agree wholeheartedly, in D&D, offense is defense.Well thank God we play PF where defense is defense!
I have mechanically demonstrated the principal in another post above. For example, the longer the fight, the greater the chance the balor gets a lucky hit and kills his enemy. Your monk takes about 3.5 rounds of full attacking to kill the balrog, my fighter about 1.5. Both had the same AC, so the chances of a crit on both per round are the same, hence your monk has a higher risk of dying.
The same is true of special abilities - although your monk has better saves, the opponents of my fighter get less opportunities, and the factors tend to balance.
Get a wayfinder and stick the right ioun stone in it. And not a particularly expensive one at that.I'm wondering myself how the fighter becomes immune to domination. Does he have a constant protection from evil on or something? I know any opponent wizard worth his salt will have an arcane sensing spell up to tell him what spells are active on his opponents.
I allow Knowledge checks for enemies against PCs. Knowledge [Local] will tell an enemy a whole lot about a PC and what he is known for such as his feats, notable magic items, and his companions. So the enemy can be better prepared to deal with PC parties.
Where is the Wayfinder and what is it's stats, as it's not Core.
And which IOUN stone are you talking about?
So, let's admit that the monk isn't best in any one area. He doesn't have the DPR of a fighter, saves of a paladin, skills of a rogue, flexibility of a wizard, or anything that puts him in the "top of the class" bracket for something that actually matters in game.
Does a well built monk do "good enough" in a cross section of areas that he is worth having in the party?
Not easily, is my best answer there.
The monk's problem is that while he can avoid being a liability, he's not that much of an asset. The only thing he is indisputably good at is mobility, and that's limited to land movement.
The barbarian is better balanced as the mobile warrior, the ranger at being a "jack of all trades", and the paladin as the invulnerable warrior. The main advantage all of these three have is the ability to hurt the enemy a lot, something the monk lags behind on. I'm not arguing the monk should be equal to a smiting paladin, but he does need to be able to reliably deliver damage to be an outright indisputable asset to a party, and he doesn't without sacrificing in ways the other classes do not have to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Dabbler:
You are still not getting the point. The monk is not supposed to *best* at something, he is supposed to be competent and *good* at many things.
The package of the monk is great, and though many arguments you make sound good, fact is none of your (counter) examples can do everything the monk can do. Nothing is as mobile, as defensive, as self-sufficient, as decent at damage, as able to provide status effects etc. as the monk. Many builds, regardless which class you use, can be better if not much better at 2 or 3 things, but they won't be able to do everything.
You seem to have a very fixed image of what the monk is supposed to be like and in what way a monk "contributes to a party". What you can't seem to accept is that the monk can be fine and adequate just the way he is - as another poster pointed out it is hard to look at all your posts and find love for the monk in it, at least as long as it does not fit your picture of the unarmed improved fighter. You may mean it, but it comes across differently.
I also cannot share your views on immunities. Immunities are *great*. Your argument that the other classes "will save anyway" is a strawman. Certainly they will save many times - but they will fail. For example, in a poison intensive adventure path such as serpent skull immunity to poison is invaluable. Immunity is completely different from having good saves.
Regarding the spell resistance, you apparently neither read the thread I linked to nor what I wrote. You have your own view on how SR works, that's fine. To me it's perfectly clear it works differently in the case of cure spells. And apparently that view is shared by quite a few people, hence the FAQ thread.
Finally you asked what the point of flurry of blows is. I believe it is a creative way of giving the monk a damage boost while at the same time enabling him to a) represent the typical image of a lightning fast striking martial artist while b) allowing him to apply status effects. And it performs quite well there. And no, again and again, the monk *does* hit reliably. He just won't hit against every opponent with all of his attacks. But many attacks are performed at very high attack bonuses, the rest may hit or may not hit - it does not matter. In that sense he performs well enough and has the chance to perform even better with good rolls on later attacks. Feats like hammer the gap (non-CRB, thus not relevant here) can really improve those hits further in ways they don't for non-flurries.
It's fine for you to have your view on the monk, and the way you present it is not wrong. It's just that what I expect of the monk and what I consider to be important is something completely different, and there the monk does really well - much better than a barbarian, a fighter, a paladin, a ranger or another martial class. :-)
Just of the top of my head a 20th level fighter can get up to a 49 attack bonus. That means the monk would have to have a 69 ac. I'd like to see the monk build who can have that ac without giving up contributing to combat.
Seems a double standard, asking the fighter to do it without buffs while the monk gets bufs.
Let me have fun with this, and push the Fighter's maximum limits. "Up to 49 Attack Bonus"? Let's test that theory.
** spoiler omitted **...
Where are the 6/day rerolls coming from? Just wondering.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Get a wayfinder and stick the right ioun stone in it. And not a particularly expensive one at that.I'm wondering myself how the fighter becomes immune to domination. Does he have a constant protection from evil on or something? I know any opponent wizard worth his salt will have an arcane sensing spell up to tell him what spells are active on his opponents.
I allow Knowledge checks for enemies against PCs. Knowledge [Local] will tell an enemy a whole lot about a PC and what he is known for such as his feats, notable magic items, and his companions. So the enemy can be better prepared to deal with PC parties.
Where is the Wayfinder and what is it's stats, as it's not Core.
And which IOUN stone are you talking about?
Wayfinders aren't Core; they're legal as far as PFS Material is concerned, but they're not Core. They're in the Seeker of Secrets Pathfinder Companion Softcover book.
One of the Ioun Stones plugged into a given Wayfinder provides an effect akin to Mind Immunity as the PFE spell.
Of course, if we're talking including such Material into the fight (even though OP specifically mentioned Core Only), the Fighter I provided using all of the (non-recent) Hardcover Rulebooks would have even more items and stats to add to hit attack and damage from these other minor supplement books, so he'd actually be able to take on multiple Balor/Balor Lords at once.
Where are the 6/day rerolls coming from? Just wondering.Just of the top of my head a 20th level fighter can get up to a 49 attack bonus. That means the monk would have to have a 69 ac. I'd like to see the monk build who can have that ac without giving up contributing to combat.
Seems a double standard, asking the fighter to do it without buffs while the monk gets bufs.
Let me have fun with this, and push the Fighter's maximum limits. "Up to 49 Attack Bonus"? Let's test that theory.
** spoiler omitted **...
Defiant property from Ultimate Equipment makes you never drop your weapon in cases of Stun or similar conditions; it also allows you to add additional rerolls per day to your Heroic Recovery or Improved Iron Will/Lightning Reflexes/Great Fortitude feats equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. Since the base feat allows 1, the Weapon Enhancement is at +5, making it 6 rerolls total per day.
I will say that the weapon property itself does not provide this amount to each one (and it doesn't explicitly say this in the character abilities), but simply that you can 'recharge' the usage of these rerolls equal to the weapon's enhancement bonus. So if I have Improved Lightning Reflexes/Iron Will both at 1/day, and I use both up, I can reroll either one (or a mixture of rerolling both) up to 5 additional times.
It's a very nice +2 Property; coupled with the Cap of the Freethinker, Will Saves are going to be a complete joke when you have a competent bonus.
@Dabbler:
You are still not getting the point. The monk is not supposed to *best* at something, he is supposed to be competent and *good* at many things.
The package of the monk is great, and though many arguments you make sound good, fact is none of your (counter) examples can do everything the monk can do. Nothing is as mobile, as defensive, as self-sufficient, as decent at damage, as able to provide status effects etc. as the monk. Many builds, regardless which class you use, can be better if not much better at 2 or 3 things, but they won't be able to do everything.
I think YOU are not getting the point.
The monk is mobile and have good "spell" defenses. That's all.For everything else, he is subpar.
Skills : below average.
Spells : don't have any. That brings Buff/debuff/control and anything like that out of monk grasp.
DPR : last (I don't count fullspellcasters and bard in this, but it may be possible they are above the monk too).
Physical résistance : last amongst front liners.
CMB/CMD : Average ? I'm not even sure of that.
Being average in something does not make you a "second" specialist or something.
You seem to have a very fixed image of what the monk is supposed to be like and in what way a monk "contributes to a party". What you can't seem to accept is that the monk can be fine and adequate just the way he is - as another poster pointed out it is hard to look at all your posts and find love for the monk in it, at least as long as it does not fit your picture of the unarmed improved fighter. You may mean it, but it comes across differently.
The monk does nothing to help the group. He can scout, but won't be able to comprehend what he sees, or deactivate traps. Half the classes in the game can do more than that. Specialists can do much more.
The monk helps a little in combat. But everyone can help in combat by flanking. Actually, a wizard is as skilled as the monk to do the flanking part (not a standard familiar, cause of the size).
Hell ! A first level commoner have the same ability.
His manoeuvers are average for martial classes (only the rogue and maybe the cavalier are really behind).
He's good to take care of mooks. But surprise : everyone can, and everyone does it better.
I also cannot share your views on immunities. Immunities are *great*. Your argument that the other classes "will save anyway" is a strawman. Certainly they will save many times - but they will fail. For example, in a poison intensive adventure path such as serpent skull immunity to poison is invaluable. Immunity is completely different from having good saves.
Immunities are great. Immunities to something you encounter rarely is less good. Immunities to something you can fail 5% of the time is bad.
It is even worse when poison is something you can heal very easily. If you're in a poison-heavy campaign, that's... good. I guess.
Regarding the spell resistance, you apparently neither read the thread I linked to nor what I wrote. You have your own view on how SR works, that's fine. To me it's perfectly clear it works differently in the case of cure spells. And apparently that view is shared by quite a few people, hence the FAQ thread.
No : "SR:Yes (see description)" means you have SR on harmless spells too. Cure is not an exception.
Actually, you would need to have a "SR:No (see description)" in order to provide a spell that does not allow SR, but in certain circonstances (as harming a undead), it allows it.Finally you asked what the point of flurry of blows is. I believe it is a creative way of giving the monk a damage boost while at the same time enabling him to a) represent the typical image of a lightning fast striking martial artist while b) allowing him to apply status effects. And it performs quite well there. And no, again...
What status effects ? None. Oh, I forgot Stunning fist. Well, that's the same as none.
It does not performs "quite well". -10 in attacks compared to a fighter means that the third fighter attack has as much chance as hitting as the first attack from the monk.
It also means that his secondary attack (the one at -5) have as much chance as hitting WHEN POWER ATTACKING than the first one from a monk.
If the monk moves, his chances to hit dropped again by much (-3 or something at 20th level ?), while the fighter's didn't drop (actually, even a charging monk lose attack bonus compared to "still monks", while "Charging fighter" increase his attack bonus).
@Dabbler:
You are still not getting the point. The monk is not supposed to *best* at something, he is supposed to be competent and *good* at many things.
The package of the monk is great, and though many arguments you make sound good, fact is none of your (counter) examples can do everything the monk can do. Nothing is as mobile, as defensive, as self-sufficient, as decent at damage, as able to provide status effects etc. as the monk. Many builds, regardless which class you use, can be better if not much better at 2 or 3 things, but they won't be able to do everything.I think YOU are not getting the point.
The monk is mobile and have good "spell" defenses. That's all.For everything else, he is subpar.
Skills : below average.
Spells : don't have any. That brings Buff/debuff/control and anything like that out of monk grasp.
DPR : last (I don't count fullspellcasters and bard in this, but it may be possible they are above the monk too).
Physical résistance : last amongst front liners.
CMB/CMD : Average ? I'm not even sure of that.Being average in something does not make you a "second" specialist or something.
You seem to have a very fixed image of what the monk is supposed to be like and in what way a monk "contributes to a party". What you can't seem to accept is that the monk can be fine and adequate just the way he is - as another poster pointed out it is hard to look at all your posts and find love for the monk in it, at least as long as it does not fit your picture of the unarmed improved fighter. You may mean it, but it comes across differently.The monk does nothing to help the group. He can scout, but won't be able to comprehend what he sees, or deactivate traps. Half the classes in the game can do more than that. Specialists can do much more.
The monk helps a little in combat. But everyone can help in combat by flanking. Actually, a wizard is as skilled as the monk to do the flanking part (not a standard familiar, cause of the size)....
*Sigh*
No, you're not getting the point as well. We can throw that back and forth, it stays the same.
SR: You did not read the spell and not the thread. What you write simply is not correct. Again, and again, and again: READ THE SPELL. It has specific text regarding that situation. There wouldn't be FAQ threads if it was that easy.
Also the monk helps a lot. I explained what he can do. If you don't value it high enough, fine, that's your right. But I will keep my opinion there that he has his options and he does perform them well.
And if you consider stunning fist to be not relevant - well, let's hope your DM never applies one to your character and lets someone else coup de grace / sneak attack /whatever you ;-)
Finally, the argument that when a monk is doing flanking he is doing nothing specific because a wizard could do the same: That's simply wrong. Yes, a wizard can flank. At the same time he won't limit others', particularly many opponents', options nearly as much as the monk. The monk at least is a threat in terms of melee, a wizard isn't. Also, any wizard that makes it his business to go in melee to flank is not going to live very long while a monk will. Defenses, again.
Now this is devolving into a "monk sucks, I tell you so" thread. You can make a seperate one for that if you like, I am not interested in always reading the same arguments again and again. You and others are not in any way more right than before, and I don't rate your arguments the way you do.
So let's get back to the topic - unless that is already settled? :-)
*Sigh*
No, you're not getting the point as well. We can throw that back and forth, it stays the same.
SR: You did not read the spell and not the thread. What you write simply is not correct. Again, and again, and again: READ THE SPELL. It has specific text regarding that situation. There wouldn't be FAQ threads if it was that easy.
Well, that's right. I didn't read the spell. That's why I didn't actually read "SR:Yes" and the part where it's written "undead targets can make a SR check". You're right, that's why my explanation of why "SR:Yes" means "SR:Yes" is false.
Also the monk helps a lot. I explained what he can do. If you don't value it high enough, fine, that's your right. But I will keep my opinion there that he has his options and he does perform them well.
You explained he could flank. Good, everyone can.
You explained that none could be at the same time as mobile, as resilient, as DPR, as self sufficient : you're wrong, and have been given many examples. To repeat some of them : paladins, barbarians, rangers, bards, druids, clerics, wizards, summoners, sorcerers, alchemists and witches. I'm pretty sure a rogue, a fighter, a gunslinger an inquisitor or a magi is all around better than a monk at most of those, but lack in some other.
And if you consider stunning fist to be not relevant - well, let's hope your DM never applies one to your character and lets someone else coup de grace / sneak attack /whatever you ;-)
My DM send us real threats. Monks are not.
To be fair, we encountered a monk once, in RotRL, an elf at almost the beginning of the campaign (I don't know if it's a "normal" encounter or one he came up with). The thing is he didn't have the chance to move or do anything, he was beaten to a pulp even before the end of the first action in the combat (and it was not a surprise round or anything, or beaten by a critical or a super spell). We were lvl 1 and not optimized.Finally, the argument that when a monk is doing flanking he is doing nothing specific because a wizard could do the same: That's simply wrong. Yes, a wizard can flank. At the same time he won't limit others', particularly many opponents', options nearly as much as the monk. The monk at least is a threat in terms of melee, a wizard isn't. Also, any wizard that makes it his business to go in melee to flank is not going to live very long while a monk will. Defenses, again.
The monk doesn't "limit others', particularly many opponents" more than a wizard. Even in melee the wizard is at least as useful, thanks to his superior defenses (better than AC by a huge margin) AND superior offense.
Now this is devolving into a "monk sucks, I tell you so" thread. You can make a seperate one for that if you like, I am not interested in always reading the same arguments again and again. You and others are not in any way more right than before, and I don't rate your arguments the way you do.
So let's get back to the topic - unless that is already settled? :-)
This was settled before it began : did Paizo improved the monk those past months ? Yes, a little with mythic.
Did it equalized it with other classes ? Not in any possible way, except maybe a mythic monk with "normal" classes.
Does it have something to do with the topic : no, cause the OP asked for CRB characters.
Does using more than core improve more the monk than any other class (to cover the gap) ? Not in any way.
So a cheap magic item that the Pathfinder designers decided to toss in the game. Fun.
Seekers of Secrets; October 2009.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do not have to be blind to the faults of something to love it (ask any married man or woman).
If you talk about your spouse the way you talk about the monk, do not expect to be married long.
|
|
So, let's admit that the monk isn't best in any one area.
Agreed, armor class potential aside. No non-caster will ever match a pure cleric/oracle/wizard/sorcerer for sheer reality bending power anyhow, though.
He doesn't have the DPR of a fighter, saves of a paladin, skills of a rogue, flexibility of a wizard, or anything that puts him in the "top of the class" bracket for something that actually matters in game.
Does a well built monk do "good enough" in a cross section of areas that he is worth having in the party?
That said, you have commented on my monk build a number of times, but have not shared your thoughts on finding it strong or poor compared to a fighter. I am still curious if you are capable of creating a fighter build drawn from the same list of resources that could overcome it.
Lormyr,
Note: So the Agile Weapon Enhancement comes from Pathfinder Society and is not core? What book is it in? You will have to get rid of everything on your character that is not core rules. Pathfinder Society Rules do not apply to how most game over the table. If Agile is not core, your damage will be substantially reduced.
You have to get rid of all the boons as that is not considered normal play. Very few players play PFS. The game should not be designed with PFS in mind. The test is between a common monk and a common fighter playing in a game around a table using rules from the core books. That is the monk everyone is complaining about. Not some beefed up Pathfinder Society monk with boons and rules that regular players don't or can't use.
How are you reliably activating magic items with a UMD of +12?
You fight with the rod of balance in one hand? So unarmed strike with a rod of balance is your common MO right?
Agile weapon? Interesting. I didn't even know that existed. I'm glad I know now. That makes it easier to make a dex-based martial.
I don't plan to play your build game. Dabbler or one of the other "monks are weak" critics should do it. Monks are not the damage dealers fighters are, but they are not weak. Straight monk versus straight fighter I put my money on the fighter in average campaigns in PvP. Having played monks versus fighters, I find the monk more enjoyable because I despise being debilitated in so many battles or suffering massive damage from ranged magical assaults while trotting around at 20 feet per move.
I'm fairly certain my Hungry Ghost Monk would beat most fighters in battle at higher level barring a lucky crit. His self-healing and temporary hit point gains when dealing damage would sustain him along with his much higher AC against high damage fighters. Every time I crit at high level I gain wisdom temporary hit points, heal my level, and gain a ki point back. It's going to be hard to beat for a regular fighter once I get my AC boosted.
Your monk build is not at all common. All the boons and the use of UMD is uncommon. Monks should not be rated by how they do with a Christmas Tree full of perfectly chosen magic items at level 20. They should be determined over play at various leveling points. I would say every 5 level break after 1st level. That would be 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th, and then 20th. Those breaks are when many classes receive key abilities or extra attacks that substantially elevate damage.
I am glad I looked it over. That Agile enhancement alone is worth it as that will allow me to create some character concepts that usually require feats. Damn. Looks like Agile is some house rule for Pathfinder Society. We don't use PFS rules in our campaigns.
And one area I firmly agree with Dabbler on, I want my monk to be able to stand toe to toe flurrying an opponent with unarmed strikes doing great damage like a fighter, barb, or paladin does with a full attack. I did not make a monk to wander around a battle field giving flank bonuses to other characters so they can take the glory. That is not at all what I made a monk for. If that is what Paizo intended, that is just lame.
Monk should be like the Wuxia fighters in Kung Fu movies. There should be a few monks that are like two-handed fighters giving up defenses for damage. Just like the highly defensive monks should give up damage for defenses. They should definitely be able to stand toe to toe in combat more like the fighter or paladin than the rogue.
On the other hand, a fighter with Weapon Training IV and Gloves of the Duelist will have +6 CMB on all maneuver attempts - plus the enhancement bonus of his weapon and any additional bonuses from feats on top of that.
Not 100% correct. The Fighter only has those bonuses on combat maneuver checks that he can make with his weapon. For example, most weapons will not apply their bonuses on bull rush, overrun, or steal maneuvers. The only arguable exception is if the Fighter takes Weapon Training (natural weapons), which would apply to everything. However, that's hardly the most optimized path for the Fighter to take, and in such a scenario the Monk's unarmed damage is going to wipe the floor with the Fighter's.
As a general rule, Monks will win out if they don't need to specialize on a specific weapon whereas Fighters will win out whenever they can specialize with a specific weapon. There are exceptions, however, notably the Weapon Adapt and Zen Archer archetypes, which allow the Monk to specialize to great effect. That said, Fighters can make strong fighting styles and builds out of nearly any weapon while Monks are restricted to a very specific few weapons.
|
|
Raith,
As previously stated, the only relevant boons include: +2 profane bonus to Fort saves, +2 unnamed bonus to initiative, and +1 to Dex. The Dex would be recouped at 20th level, so that is not a biggie. The other listed benefits could easily be stricken and not impact the comparison, especially considering I'm willing to compare him to a 20th level character with 100k+ more gold. Quickly looking over the listed boons will verify these words.
The only magic item he actives is a staff of minor arcana for a shield spell. With greater heroism active, his bonus is +15 vs. DC 20 for activating a staff. I also just realized I haven't finished updating his page yet, because his base UMD is now +16. The use of barkskin comes from Qinggong archetype, and the greater heroism from Celestial Obedience.
Correct on the rod of balance. Flurry includes whatever appendages you feel cinematic, so it's irrelevant to attack routine unless grappling.
And yeah, the agile weapon enhancement is a lifesaver and lynch pin.
Agreed the build is not common, and in a home game you may not be able to select your magic items depending on the nature of the campaign. For comparison though, I would expect the fighter be built with the same options I had for fairness.
It just blows my mind that people think of monks so poorly. I by no means intend offense or insult, I simply wonder if folks who looked at the build had their minds swayed at all for a monk's potential. Thank you for looking it over and offering your analysis.
Edit: Agile is from the pathfinder society field guild, so it is not core. He would also lose both traits and 2 feats (celestial obedience and piranha strike) to be completely core. These would get replaced by fate's favored and reactionary for traits, and weapon focus and arcane strike for feats.
So overall the AC and saves would increase by +1, attack rolls and saves not would not benefit from greater heroism, and damage would go down by -7 after factoring in arcane strike and another +1 on the amulet to replace agile. He's still unhittable, which is the main victory factor, and is like to win by attrition of 2d10+10 a hit.
Lormyr,
Note: So the Agile Weapon Enhancement comes from Pathfinder Society and is not core? What book is it in? You will have to get rid of everything on your character that is not core rules. Pathfinder Society Rules do not apply to how most game over the table. If Agile is not core, your damage will be substantially reduced.
The Agile weapon enhancement comes from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide. Its not a book about, "How to Play in the real-world Pathfinder Society." Its a book ABOUT the Pathfinder Society organization as it appears in Golarion.
It is not, "Pathfinder Society House Rules" and is as much of a legitimate product to pull crunch from as any other Campaign Setting line book.
In terms of the flavor-to-crunch ration, the Pathfinder Society Field Guide is one of the best Campaign Setting books I've seen, and there are a number of character options and magic items that I regularly use in my games. As a matter of fact, my absolute favorite Fighter archetype, the Lore Warden, comes from this book.
It just blows my mind that people think of monks so poorly. I by no means intend offense or insult, I simply wonder if folks who looked at the build had their minds swayed at all for a monk's potential. Thank you for looking it over and offering your analysis.
Parts of this come from 3.5, where the Monk class WAS fairly bad. More parts comes from the notion that a monk needs a high Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom to be effective (not true). More parts of this opinion come from abilities like "Tongue of Sun and Moon" and "Slow Fall" which aren't extremely optimized choices that most players look forward to getting.
In the long run, Archetypes saved the Monk class. It is possible to build a VERY powerful Monk using the right combination of archetypes, and unlike other classes (#1 Example: Bard), many monk archetypes combine with each other nicely.
Finally, the Lawful requirement of the Monk class has a lot of mental baggage behind it too. Even if a player would have picked a Lawful Monk anyway, there's a lot of negative mojo behind an option that dictates your roleplaying. That, and the Martial Artist is extremely hard to stack archetypes with. : /
|
|
Lormyr,
Note: So the Agile Weapon Enhancement comes from Pathfinder Society and is not core? What book is it in? You will have to get rid of everything on your character that is not core rules. Pathfinder Society Rules do not apply to how most game over the table. If Agile is not core, your damage will be substantially reduced.
The Agile weapon enhancement comes from the Pathfinder Society Field Guide. Its not a book about, "How to Play in the real-world Pathfinder Society." Its a book ABOUT the Pathfinder Society organization as it appears in Golarion.
It is not, "Pathfinder Society House Rules" and is as much of a legitimate product to pull crunch from as any other Campaign Setting line book.
In terms of the flavor-to-crunch ration, the Pathfinder Society Field Guide is one of the best Campaign Setting books I've seen, and there are a number of character options and magic items that I regularly use in my games. As a matter of fact, my absolute favorite Fighter archetype, the Lore Warden, comes from this book.
Alexander, my understanding is that by "core", they mean the CRB, APG, and the ultimates line only.
If my understanding of this is incorrect, someone please feel free to inform me.
But no, that monk has only genuine Pathfinder product. No PFS only pieces other than boons, and no 3rd party pieces.