So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in Pathfinder and wanted to try and "fix" them so they work on par with other classes.
I was just wondering, is there really that big of a problem with monks?
If so, what makes them strong?
Monks are generally considered to be a "weaker" class, not a strong one! Still, I agree with Justin Rocket. I feel monks are fine.
What are your players suggesting, exactly?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest problem that most monk players come across compared to the frontline fighting types is AC/HP and Accuracy.
AC can be difficult to come buy because most melee types focus on Strength leaving them few points to put into Dex/Wis for the AC. This can mean a fighter might start with an 18 but a monk only 14. This can be addressed with some magic (mage armor wands/potions) higher point buys (which benefit a Monk very well) or using a Dex based build.
Monks have 1 hp less per level than most up front fighters and 2 than the barbarian. Combined with the fact they have to prioritize Str/Dex/Wis means less points in Con. This means that at a given level a monk may have 2-3 hp/lvl less than the other up front fighters. They do however have better saves, mobility and some abilities that can help.
Accuracy can be a concern. A monk is a 3/4 BAB class when not full attacking and if using flurry they are a two weapon fighter meaning they suffer a -2. They also lack the ability to increase accuracy that other classes have whether its the weapon training of fighters, rage of barbarians, smite evil of paladins or favorite enemy of rangers. I think this is the one that gets most players because it really sucks to run up to the big bad, dodge the first blow then whiff repeatedly because you don't have that expected extra 2 - 3 points to help hit the boss. It also makes it more difficult to use the power attack/piranha strike ability to increase damage, putting you further behind.
Overall I have fun with monks, but be prepared to have to work a bit harder for AC and accuracy, Hp I tend not to worry about because evasion and some other abilities can make up for it. Definitely look at archetypes though as they can totally change how you play a monk.
|
So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in Pathfinder and wanted to try and "fix" them so they work on par with other classes.
I was just wondering, is there really that big of a problem with monks?
If so, what makes them strong?
I'll just give you their strengths and weaknesses for the typical Qinggong Monk. Everyone should be a Qinggong Something(if anything) Monk at the least. Nearly all other Archetypes qualify for mixing with Qinggong, and Qinggong is nice because you can swap out the less useful abilities for generally more useful ones.
Outstanding->Great->Average->Poor->Awful
Pros:
Outstanding Saves
Great to Outstanding AC, Touch AC, and Flat-footed AC(If going Dex/Wis)
Great +Attack with Flurry
Outstanding CMD(Again if Dex/Wis)
Average CMB
Great at Controlling the Field(Combat Maneuvers, Stunning Fist, Punishing Kick, Tranquilizing Touch, Quivering Palm, etc.)
Quick on the Field(Enhanced Movement)
Great at doing do some seriously wacky physical abilities
Outstanding Flavor in the class alone
Great compatibility with most other Martial Classes for dipping.
Outstanding compatibility with Druid for Multiclass.
Great overall defensive abilities.
Can get a Plethora of attacks with Flurry at a higher BAB
Outstanding compatibility with spells that enhance AC, Attack, etc.
Cons:
Poor selection of Monk/Proficient Weapons
Average to Awful Damage in the Longterm
Average to Poor Attack in the Longterm
Poor at handling Ranged Fights
Outstanding difficulty on Building a Monk Right
Edit: Outstanding MAD- Multiple Attribute Dependencies, unless you go Dex/Wis/Con with Guided on a weapon or AoMF or Weapon Finesse Feat + Agile on AoMF
This is all based off of my Level 5 Qinggong Monk(Vanara Race) and his adventures through the "Rise of the Runelords" Campaign so far. His Dex and Wis are a base of 18 after Race Modifiers. His defenses with the friendly Wizard throwing Mage Armor on him tend to make him unhittable unless by a Crit - Good luck confirming that crit with another crit to get an actual crit. If I were to go Full Defense or Fight Defensively, and use a Ki Point for AC... needless to say he's ready for Frontline Fighting.
This is all I can really think of for now.
Edit: Supposedly they are the worst for damage, but I've seen; and projected based off of my character, no other issues with them.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in Pathfinder
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...HA ...Ha ... ha?
Wait, you were SERIOUS?
So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in PathfinderHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ...HA ...Ha ... ha?
Wait, you were SERIOUS?
The arcane spell list would like to have a word with someone...
Really, there are a number of monk threads already all about this subject.
Monks, as presented in the CRB suffer of all the flaws and advantages presented by previous posters.
But I like to point out that, since the release of Ultimate Combat and the Martial Arts Style feats, the monk is one of the most adaptable second-line warriors in the game. Heck, even by mixing archtypes, you could be a "tank" monk!
The only problem that persists is the to-hit problem. Also, Monk/Sorcerers are a great option for a multiclassed PC.
Man, now I love Pathfinder monks.
Easiest fix for AC, dip 1 level of Empyreal Wild-Blooded Sorcerer. You now have access to Mage Armor and Shield.
And many other useful 1st level spells.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in Pathfinder and wanted to try and "fix" them so they work on par with other classes.
I was just wondering, is there really that big of a problem with monks?
If so, what makes them strong?
Monk's are often considered the opposite, they are thought of as being tied with the rogues as being worst class in books. I disagree, but the main points are MAD, no accuracy/damage buffs, low HD. Show the guy a monk as optimized as you can for whatever your goal is (DPS, Field Control, Tank, whatever you think they are best for), and a fighter for the same thing side by side at a low, then medium, then high level. The fighter will be better at the 1 thing he does, while the monk will be OK, but not as good (generally, there are exceptions).
|
|
While I'm sure there are easier ways to bump damage, a Drunken Master with Elemental Fist and Dragon Ferocity at 20th level can nova 2d10 + 9d6 per attack (and monks get a LOT of attacks per round) and by 'nova' I mean 'do it frequently, but not perpetually'. That's obviously before gear is considered.
But, the real trick with monks is to attack where the enemy is weakest. So, you can't trade blows with fighters? Then, don't. Use Touch of Serenity. the enemy caster is putting a hurt on your party? tumble in with your high movement and grapple him.
Exactly. They're more about Control than anything. Damage certainly isn't everything, as necessary as it is.
From my personal monk experiences, Monk is at best when there are enemy casters. Aside from being a caster killer he's kind of just 'ok' and at it's worst against 'hard' targets.
With a vanilla Monk I personally hate flurry of blows. Of all the mobility options you have for some reason the main offensive ability forces you to sit still and full attack. Also disappointed that ki does not let you gain a scaling attack bonus.
Since the core rule book I've gotten to like Monk a lot for it's diversity, especially Master of Many Styles. I think if Pathfinder were re-made Style feats would be the Monk's main feature like bloodlines or arcane schools.
In short it is nowhere near the best class, but it can be pretty useful as the resident debuffer and support melee combatant.
Monks, as presented in the CRB suffer of all the flaws and advantages presented by previous posters.
But I like to point out that, since the release of Ultimate Combat and the Martial Arts Style feats, the monk is one of the most adaptable second-line warriors in the game. Heck, even by mixing archtypes, you could be a "tank" monk!
Yeah, archetypes help a lot of the problems. Zen Archer and Sohei aren't even a monk anymore, but I've been told then kick plenty of butt. The only downside is that it doesn't help core monk, so the best way to be a monk is... to not be a monk. That manta has been around for a while.
Style feats aren't monk only. MoMS is actually an extremely dip-friendly archetype. They do quiet a bit to help the monk though. I have a crane wing barbarian that kicks plenty of butt on his own too.
Downside of tank monks is they tend to not do damage, but the upside is crane style and flowing monk with a friend buffing him with mage armor has a ridiculous potential AC.
Monks, as presented in the CRB suffer of all the flaws and advantages presented by previous posters.
But I like to point out that, since the release of Ultimate Combat and the Martial Arts Style feats, the monk is one of the most adaptable second-line warriors in the game. Heck, even by mixing archtypes, you could be a "tank" monk!
Yeah, archetypes help a lot of the problems. Zen Archer and Sohei aren't even a monk anymore, but I've been told then kick plenty of butt. The only downside is that it doesn't help core monk, so the best way to be a monk is... to not be a monk. That manta has been around for a while.
Style feats aren't monk only. MoMS is actually an extremely dip-friendly archetype. They do quiet a bit to help the monk though. I have a crane wing barbarian that kicks plenty of butt on his own too.
Downside of tank monks is they tend to not do damage, but the upside is crane style and flowing monk with a friend buffing him with mage armor has a ridiculous potential AC.
Not being a Monk is okay because thematically I hate Monk. It, along with classes like Samurai and Ninja kind of fall in to 'the oriental classes' when thematically they could have just been archetypes of existing classes.
Pathfinder as a whole has a very strange line between representing classes as linear concepts and representing classes as sources of expertise. I tend to favor the latter but palette swapping seems good enough.
Monks, as presented in the CRB suffer of all the flaws and advantages presented by previous posters.
But I like to point out that, since the release of Ultimate Combat and the Martial Arts Style feats, the monk is one of the most adaptable second-line warriors in the game. Heck, even by mixing archtypes, you could be a "tank" monk!
...
Downside of tank monks is they tend to not do damage, but the upside is crane style and flowing monk with a friend buffing him with mage armor has a ridiculous potential AC.
Don´t forget about the benefits of that Sacred Mountain archetype! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not being a Monk is okay because thematically I hate Monk. It, along with classes like Samurai and Ninja kind of fall in to 'the oriental classes' when thematically they could have just been archetypes of existing classes.I don't know what the Monk would have been an archetype of. I do agree that the Samurai should have been an archetype, but I don't know if the idea of archetypes had been created yet. I think of the Ninja as a "do over" for the Rogue - Paizo's way of saying they messed up the Rogue.
A monk could have been a fighter. Replace weapon and/or armor training with a ki pool and selectable ki powers, make style feats into combat feats.
Ninja is just redundant in flavor.
Looking at D&D history some classes probably could be folded into each other making them very redundant. Bard used to be some prestige class with druid spells and then a type of Rogue. I think Bard and Rogue should be the same class.
Think about it; Aside from being iconic to D&D exactly why does the bard need to exist? It's power source is effectively art and its own charisma which makes qualifying for magical ability kind of mundane, similar to the rogue's ability to gain minor magic. Both classes are skill monkeys. Both classes are pretty much defined as characters who get by on skill and guile.
Thematically the only things really separating the two classes are mechanics and the music theme. I think that if Bard and Rogue became 'The Rogue': a skill-based class with talents ranging from spell levels and performances to the Rogues normal stuff they things would be better off. Especially since I have never seen a typical Bard. I mostly see Gish-Bards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not being a Monk is okay because thematically I hate Monk. It, along with classes like Samurai and Ninja kind of fall in to 'the oriental classes' when thematically they could have just been archetypes of existing classes.I don't know what the Monk would have been an archetype of. I do agree that the Samurai should have been an archetype, but I don't know if the idea of archetypes had been created yet. I think of the Ninja as a "do over" for the Rogue - Paizo's way of saying they messed up the Rogue.
Monk was part of the core 9 from 3.5. Samurai came about in ultimate combat, which came out after the APG which made archetypes. Alternative classes are ones that are much different from their core, so much so they are a new class themselves(think one big archetype).
Thematically the only things really separating the two classes are mechanics and the music theme. I think that if Bard and Rogue became 'The Rogue': a skill-based class with talents ranging from spell levels and performances to the Rogues normal stuff they things would be better off. Especially since I have never seen a typical Bard. I mostly see Gish-Bards.
I'm not sure, I think the bard is well into a class of its own. Its definitely a step up from rogue and much more interesting imo. Rogue and Bard are also from 3.5 and given new class features coming into pathfinder(though rogue suffered a few stealth nerfs/buffs). Gish classes like magus and bard aren't a bad thing either imo. They're actually among my favorite.
It's power source is effectively art and its own charisma which makes qualifying for magical ability kind of mundane, similar to the rogue's ability to gain minor magic.A wizard's power source is effectively finger wiggles, verbal gibberish, and pocket contents. How is that less mundane than art?
The same thing you said about Bards and Rogues could be used to make the entire system classless.
If you want a classless system, I suggest something other than DnD.
That's a bit of a leap. The argument can be used in favor of a classless system but what I'm thinking about is something more along the lines of folding classes into fewer flexible classes over many narrow classes, mostly because from D&D to Pathfinder the classes have way more options and once archetypes became a thing the classes became even less narrow.
I was under the impression that Wizards got power from knowledge of cosmic mathematics/physics so technically I would imagine that that aspect of Bard would be folded into Wizard as a charisma based school. Either way in campaigns that I run I make it pretty much the same source of power and introduce mundane magic feats to justify it.
I'm not sure, I think the bard is well into a class of its own. Its definitely a step up from rogue and much more interesting imo. Rogue and Bard are also from 3.5 and given new class features coming into pathfinder(though rogue suffered a few stealth nerfs/buffs). Gish classes like magus and bard aren't a bad thing either imo. They're actually among my favorite.
I think that mechanically Bards are their own class right now, I just find it interesting that they used to be Rogues.
Most of the things I'm talking about is pretty much just the aftermath of table conversations where some asks 'what is X' and I have a hard time really explaining without discussing class features.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my players had heard somewhere the monks are one of the best classes in Pathfinder and wanted to try and "fix" them so they work on par with other classes.
I was just wondering, is there really that big of a problem with monks?
If so, what makes them strong?
They aren't, but they can be frustrating for some DMs.
Quite simply, the monk can have excellent defences: good saves, immunities, abilities that enable them to escape situations, etc. This can mean that they are difficult to attack directly and in a conventional sense. Add in details like Deflect Arrows and the Crane Style feats and they get really hard to hurt. When you can get past their defences, though, you can really hurt them.
On the down side, MAD, lack of and limited enhancement on the unarmed strike, and poor attack options with no buff to hit as other combat classes get, and the monk usually is down the scale from the other combat classes in hitting, and damage isn't brilliant either.
Now it may seem that because the monk is defensively strong and offensively weak, they are balanced, but this isn't really so. When you are offensively strong, this contributes to your defences because while you may be more vulnerable, you also kills your foe faster so they have less time to exploit those weaknesses you do have. While if your offence is relatively ineffective, they can slug away at your better defences and with lucky hits wear you down faster than you wear them down.
What this means is that if your game has an "every man for himself" feel, the monk is not a bad option. If your party works like a close-nit team, the monk soon gets like a spare tyre: handy to have around but not actually used much. All they can do in combat is hit things, and they are not usually very good at it - their great defences may keep THEM safe, but they are not any use to anyone else. Outside combat they are better than some classes, but not anything like as useful as a spell-caster or a rogue, bard, or ranger.
If you want to make an offensively strong monk, you usually sacrifice a lot of those good defences to do it. If you have a degree in system mastery, and can cherry-pick all your equipment and all the buffs others cast on you they can be very deadly, in certain conditions. If you cannot, be prepared for frustration, especially in boss-fights where the AC/DR of a tough foe can render your only offensive options irrelevant.
You can have fun playing monks, I certainly do, but the main attraction is the flavour, not the the mechanics. Even the devs have described the monk as a weak class, and it is, arguably the weakest in the game.
I think that mechanically Bards are their own class right now, I just find it interesting that they used to be Rogues.No, they didn't.
They were their own "Prestige class" which you had to take levels in rogue and fighter to qualify for.
They were Rogues in AD&D 2e. Or at least shared the Rogue supergroup with Thief who became what's now Rogue.
I'm really glad I don't play in your games. The flavor sounds like the equivalent of turnips. Sure, some people like turnips and that's cool, but I'm not one of them.
My players have a lot of fun so I'd say something more popular than Turnips. More like Scotch.
They did help out monks quite a bit when they added the Brawling magic armor property (+2 to unarmed attack and damage rolls and +2 to grapple)
They also reduced the cost of an Amulet of Mighty Fists to being appx double the cost of a magic weapon instead of the insane cost that it had before.
And if your GM is allowing the Guided Weapon property, then you don't have to worry nearly as much about MAD.
They were their own class in 2e, too. Every class was under a supergroup.
They were Rogues in AD&D 2e. Or at least shared the Rogue supergroup with Thief who became what's now Rogue.
I kind of liked that part. I wish I could play AD&D. Nobody ever wants to play it.
Back on the subject of Monks; I think Monk could have been done with Fighter, but that bridge has been burned as Monk became more mystical. But I'm just not too thrilled with the class presenting the feel that Asian weapons and tropes are exclusive to it and the other asian classes.
Mechanics-wise last I heard the general consensus was that it was among the weakest classes. There was a thread recently about using Crane Style in an abusive way. But I've seen it done in PFS and its good but not broken however I think the perception of the class is that it is one step away from being overpowered. That would explain the relatively frequent nerfing/unnerfing
Back on the subject of Monks; I think Monk could have been done with Fighter, but that bridge has been burned as Monk became more mystical. But I'm just not too thrilled with the class presenting the feel that Asian weapons and tropes are exclusive to it and the other asian classes.
Monk's don't seem that Asian to me, personally. And fighters don't have many abilities to speak of. I've been told brawler makes a great monk, but YMMV.
Also keep in mind crane wing is not a monk class feature. Just one he can get a little more easily.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They did help out monks quite a bit when they added the Brawling magic armor property (+2 to unarmed attack and damage rolls and +2 to grapple)
Except that monks can't use that.
Back on the subject of Monks; I think Monk could have been done with Fighter, but that bridge has been burned as Monk became more mystical. But I'm just not too thrilled with the class presenting the feel that Asian weapons and tropes are exclusive to it and the other asian classes.Monk's don't seem that Asian to me, personally. And fighters don't have many abilities to speak of. I've been told brawler makes a great monk, but YMMV.
Also keep in mind crane wing is not a monk class feature. Just one he can get a little more easily.
Well Class features-wise (aside from weapon profs) it doesn't aside from a relative narrow set of tropes. Although after archetypes come into play I'm not even sure what's 'monk' about the class anymore.
Actually one thing I found that I liked doing is playing Monk using Magus. As I said I like to palette swap.
Style Feats were a big help to the Monk
The real issue they have is that they don't get a full BAB progression, they can't wear armor, and they have a low HD. For a frontline sort of character, these are problems.
I think that unfortunately the Monk is being compared to fighter/ranger/barb when it should really be compared to a rogue. TThe monk is a weird class that doesn't really specialize in anything, but people see all the unarmed stuff and figure that they must be good at that. Truthfully, though, a fighter or barbarian can pretty easily outmatch a monk in that department.
So its more of a comparative issue here. Are monks a weak class? No. Are they able to stand toe-to-toe with a full BAB martial class? No.
My only issue is that when you look at a class like the Magus, Cleric, Oracle or Druid... they seem to get a lot more in trade for their lowered BAB. Heck a druid gets to be a full caster with a full animal companion wildshape, 2 strong saves, the same HD, and the Druid can wear armor.
At the end of the day, the monk is caught a little bit in Limbo.
So its more of a comparative issue here. Are monks a weak class? No.
So, out of curiosity, why isn't the monk weak? Is he supposed to be there for his mad skills, or awesome class features that help out of combat, or his amazing combat abilities, or how about their amazing support class features like umm... Yeah they don't have any of those. So what do you think they're supposed to do?
Speaking of full BAB who was the genius that decided the class who can be most accurately defined as a martial artist should somehow not get full BAB? and just to up the stupid a bit more, off the top of my head there are two class features that uses pretend full BAB. I know it's just arithmetic but why am I doing all kinds of extra math just to use the core abilities?
Related question: How much of an impact would full BAB actually do? What comes to mind is that 1) less complicated, and 2) It wouldn't hurt so much when you cannot flurry.
Related question: How much of an impact would full BAB actually do? What comes to mind is that 1) less complicated, and 2) It wouldn't hurt so much when you cannot flurry.
Would make attacking while moving better and would make prereqs easier to hit. Also would save space for text for things like 'monk level 6' or the aforementioned abilities. To be honest all martials need a bit of an overhaul. when it comes to the moving and attacking thing.
How does brawling help monks it can only be placed on armor not bracers and monk's lose flurry and their unarmored abilities. So it screws monks and makes brawlers even better.They did help out monks quite a bit when they added the Brawling magic armor property (+2 to unarmed attack and damage rolls and +2 to grapple)
They also reduced the cost of an Amulet of Mighty Fists to being appx double the cost of a magic weapon instead of the insane cost that it had before.
And if your GM is allowing the Guided Weapon property, then you don't have to worry nearly as much about MAD.
Wow... you are right... that is ridiculous.
Why? Why would they do that?Its like those Bodywraps of Mighty Striking that only work based on how many attacks you can make from BAB! Who came up with that junk! So a level 6 monk can flurry for 3 attacks but only get bonuses on 1.
Sometimes I am sick of 'sit still and full attack until combat is over' that happens a lot.
Sometimes I am sick of 'sit still and full attack until combat is over' that happens a lot.
That's how most pathfinder martials work. Not a big fan of it myself.
as Monk became more mysticalMonks were always very mystical
Where do you get that from? They get the ability to jump really well, fall really well(if there's a wall) and punch things. Where is the mysticism in that?
Style Feats were a big help to the Monk
The real issue they have is that they don't get a full BAB progression, they can't wear armor, and they have a low HD. For a frontline sort of character, these are problems.
I think that unfortunately the Monk is being compared to fighter/ranger/barb when it should really be compared to a rogue.
You're not doing the monk any favors with this comparison.
Monks fail at being rogues. You let a rogue into your party so he can use his 8+int skill points per level and broad selection of class skills to handle noncombat chores for your 2+int cleric, fighter, and sorcerer. Monks fail. They don't have the skill points and they don't have the class skills.
Or you have a rogue so he can handle traps because your GM will kill any party that doesn't have the trap spotter rogue talent. Monks fail at that too.
The rogue at least has a place in an eigenparty as a skill monkey. Monks aren't good for anything except NPCs. Their strong defenses and weak offense can make them nice NPCs against parties overly reliant on novaing.
I meant in terms of combat prowess... but yeah... its hard to think a monk is really on par with anyone.
I think the best fix is to give them full fighter BAB and eliminate the TWF penalties while they flurry. That, at least, is a start. Dropping the BAB down would be fine for a true mystic monk... but if they are going to be mystics, then they should have spells like the Oracle, Druid or Cleric that shares that BAB progression.
as Monk became more mysticalMonks were always very mystical
. But I'm just not too thrilled with the class presenting the feel that Asian weapons and tropes are exclusive to it and the other asian classes.Exclusive to it?
Mechanics-wise last I heard the general consensus was that it was among the weakest classes.There's a common belief that monks should fill the fighter 'role' (whatever that is). Stick a sword in a Wizard's hands and its going to look pretty weak too.
Really? Now you are simply being obtuse. Yes, you put a sword in the hands of the wizard he is going to look dumb, but guess what. THE WIZARD CASTS SPELLS. His spells can do more in a single round of combat than the figher can do in 5. The wizard has a COMPLETELY different role in the party than the martials. The monk on the other hand has 1 job, hit things. All martials have 1 role in combat, to hit things. Why? Because that is all they can do. They can't lock down creatures with Hold X abilities. They cannot create giant pits of lava or freeze over the entire battlefied. They cannot completely drain their opponents until they become 1 HD creatures. All they can really do is HP damage.