By the way, if you are not a quinngon or dex focused monk is hard to have a high AC and stay relevant in the offense deparment.by the way you wont have insane DR, saves or pounce if you dont take those options...
see what i did there lol.
What Barbarian doesn't anyway? Unfortunately pounce blows everything else out of the water, but that's actually a problem with full attacking.
Not that there's anything wrong with celestial or anything, I think celestial is awesome! But I think pounce is pretty gosh darn important for killinating' things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, if you are not a quinngon or dex focused monk is hard to have a high AC and stay relevant in the offense deparment.by the way you wont have insane DR, saves or pounce if you dont take those options...
see what i did there lol.
On a side note, rage powers =/= archetypes. I can mix and match most rage powers (the exception being totem rage powers). Most of the best barbarian stuff is either in core or comes as a rage power that doesn't make invasive changes to the class.
It's one of the things I enjoy about the barbarian. You can have a lot of diversity and do a lot of mixing and matching to get exactly what you want. The monk on the other hand basically cannot function without X, Y, or Z archetypes, most of which you cannot take together. The exception being Qigong monks which turns monk abilities into other things like a band-aid patch for monks to have some sort of talent-system that's very limited.
Also, Tels rocks. Have a good day. :)
By the way, if you are not a quinngon or dex focused monk is hard to have a high AC and stay relevant in the offense deparment.by the way you wont have insane DR, saves or pounce if you dont take those options...
see what i did there lol.
So? the optiosns are there to be taken. I do think quinngon is fine, but a dex based monk might suffer a lot if he do ot have his agile amulet. The barbarian can smash with any weapon.
Still, in the end, the barbarian have better defensive abilities (at least when raging).
EDIT: not to mntion that the barbarian have multiles ways to be builded even with the restrictions I preented. I do not think the barbarian have so many good builds.
A problem for Monks generally is that they are MAD
If you have a generous GM then, you can offset this immensely by taking non-core book enchantments like Guided or Agile. None that I have met have ever been willing to allow these except in the special case of Monks who, lets face it, could use the help.
it is the BEST defensive class in the game, only slightly weaker then a paladin who focuses on self healing through layon hands. monks have higher ac, higher saves (unless the paladin is super opimized), and an incredible touch ac, which lets them move into a position to tie up casters and enemies with nasty SLA's and EX touch abilities. i never think of my monks as the tank, only the distraction to prevent my casters for being targeted.
I'm going to dispute that point. Two of the Paladin's saves are on par with the monk's even before accounting for the fact that they add charisma to all of their saving throws. After accounting for Divine Grace, the paladin is going to win on Fortitude and Will saves (unless the paladin dumps wisdom and/or the monk is build which uses Wisdom as it's prime stat). Reflex saves go to the monk, but those are generally seen as the least important of the three saves, and even then the Paladin won't be too far behind a non-finesse monk.
Adding a second ability score to all three saving throws is just a huge boon for the Paladin.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A problem for Monks generally is that they are MAD
If you have a generous GM then, you can offset this immensely by taking non-core book enchantments like Guided or Agile. None that I have met have ever been willing to allow these except in the special case of Monks who, lets face it, could use the help.
my tetori disagrees with you. my dwarven monk is the lynch pin of my group, he doesnt do much damage but when hes grappling dragons, and earth elementals, and you name it... im having a blast playing my guy.
damage doesn't mean squat to me while im playing my support characters. when i play my barbarian, fighter, or magus i want to see those massive DPR numbers. when i play my buffer control characters i want to know that everyone is more effective in combat. when i play my support characters i want to know that they are accomplishing a task OTHER then hitting hard, like taking casters, BBEGs and nasty things that will make my fighter tank QQ himself to sleep, out of the fight.
the fighter is worthless with massive negative levels, paralysis, or god knows what else, the casters are worthless when they get pin cushioned by the enemy archer in the back of all those mobs, or the enemy cleric silences my casters and make the fight 10x harder then it should have been. all of that is avoided by my monk moving through the battle field and applying pressure to those targets.
that is what monks excel at.
A problem for Monks generally is that they are MAD
If you have a generous GM then, you can offset this immensely by taking non-core book enchantments like Guided or Agile. None that I have met have ever been willing to allow these except in the special case of Monks who, lets face it, could use the help.my tetori disagrees with you. my dwarven monk is the lynch pin of my group, he doesnt do much damage but when hes grappling dragons, and earth elementals, and you name it... im having a blast playing my guy.
damage doesn't mean squat to me while im playing my support characters. when i play my barbarian, fighter, or magus i want to see those massive DPR numbers. when i play my buffer control characters i want to know that everyone is more effective in combat. when i play my support characters i want to know that they are accomplishing a task OTHER then hitting hard, like taking casters, BBEGs and nasty things that will make my fighter tank QQ himself to sleep, out of the fight.
the fighter is worthless with massive negative levels, paralysis, or god knows what else, the casters are worthless when they get pin cushioned by the enemy archer in the back of all those mobs, or the enemy cleric silences my casters and make the fight 10x harder then it should have been. all of that is avoided by my monk moving through the battle field and applying pressure to those targets.
that is what monks excel at.
No arguments here, I posted a Tetori myself earlier in the thread. Its my favorite Monk archtype. Very competitive class. Barbarians still end up being slightly better grapplers for the most part, but the tetori is pretty boss and can be situationally more effective.
Still, my statement was a generalization not an absolute.
Why, does a comparative statement made about monks require that they be compared to something? That is what you are asking.Obviously, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is why the thing being compared to must be another class.
That's a question you still haven't answered.
I have to assume (or hope) that you are being intentionally obtuse, but I will spell it out if that is what you need.
A class is compared to other classes.
A spell is compared to other spells.
A weapon is compared to other weapons.
One could certainly attempt to compare a Monk to something other than another class, but that would be meaningless. It is a class. More specifically, the Monk is one of a suite of options available to players known as a class. There are no options for a PC at this step in character creation other than 'a class' so the Monk must be considered as an object of the category in which it exists.
Otherwise we are going to start having to argue about whether or not Power Attack is as good as Righteous Might. They are not exchangeable equivalencies.
I have to imagine that you would prefer to compare the Monk to some beastiary monster. But that doesn't work. The PC party is not comprised of beastiary monsters, and the relative power level of a class will always be relative to the other classes.
But go ahead. Provide some actual argument other than this ad nauseum string of questions for "clarity" and for other people to explain. You clearly have a position. Support it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why, does a comparative statement made about monks require that they be compared to something? That is what you are asking.Obviously, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is why the thing being compared to must be another class.
That's a question you still haven't answered.
How about you tell us what you want the comparison to be between then? You compare classes because it's the only thing that can be compared! You can't compare a PC Class and PC Race against a monster. Monster's aren't designed to be played, they're designed to be fought and don't follow PC rules.
Monsters get SLA, or free combat maneuvers on hits. They can take feats PCs can't without GM say-so (Bestiary feats). They can have abilities that just aren't fair. At-will Darkness SLA, automatic Sneak Attacks, natural attacks that have huge damage dice that are just screaming to have vital strike tossed on, movement types that allow them to abuse feats look on as traps for PCs (like incorporeal creatures with spring attack).
Monsters cheat!
The way to analyze the Monk class and determine whether or not it is adequate or not, is to compare it to another class. That is, to say, not on a direct 1 vs 1 basis.
You must put up a Monk and compare the results of a test, against the results of the same test as given to other classes. For instance, build 5 monks, 5 rangers, 5 barbarians, 5 fighters, 5 paladins, 5 rogues etc. etc. and then issue them all the same tests, both solo and in parties. Then you compare the Monk results, to the results of the other classes.
While this stuff has never been done to that extent, all of these tests have been done before. I've participated in several of these tests, and the Monk always comes out lacking.
There was a poster, I forget who, that was running a series of these tests and he was using the Monster Creation rules to build custom monsters based off the statistical average of monster abilities. He broke down what was the average abilities of monster for a given CR, and then built the monster to have those abilities, and each time her increased the level, he continued building the monster using the statistical average.
I lost track of the thread, but the numbers, if I recall, weren't very promising for the Monk. He was comparing the Monks performances to that of different types of ranger, one using weapon and shield, one using TWF and one using a two-handed weapon. I think he also tested them against similarly built rogues and fighters so the test was more accurate.
and this is the fallacy of the message boards. not taking into account non damaging functions in an encounter with an NPC.
dpr is the easiest thing to chart so you use that as a basis for "this class sucks" threads.
What non damaging functions are you talking about exactly? Funny enough, just a while ago someone complained that they were taking in too much of it. Darn casters and they're out of combat skills. Everyone knows raw Damage is the only way to measure things![/sarc]
Monsters get SLA, or free combat maneuvers on hits. They can take feats PCs can't without GM say-so (Bestiary feats). They can have abilities that just aren't fair. At-will Darkness SLA, automatic Sneak Attacks, natural attacks that have huge damage dice that are just screaming to have vital strike tossed on, movement types that allow them to abuse feats look on as traps for PCs (like incorporeal creatures with spring attack).
Monsters cheat!
Hahah, yeah. You remind me of the shadow sorcerer mini-boss in one of the campaigns I was running. That was a vicious, vicious encounter which probably should have resulted in me being assaulted by a bunch of angry players wielding PHBs. :P
and this is the fallacy of the message boards. not taking into account non damaging functions in an encounter with an NPC.
dpr is the easiest thing to chart so you use that as a basis for "this class sucks" threads.
And yet, tons of threads complaining about Monks while nobody seems to be complaining about Bards.
Non-combat factors in, no doubt. But there isn't much non-combat to talk about here. 4+int skill points, check. Then what? You can get some abilities with Qingong I suppose that are non-combat effective. Abundant step, cleverly applied, can be a factor. I generally refer to this as Utility, and it always comes up for me. Utility helps to gauge a class as a whole, so any comparison of builds will keep that in mind. It will also keep in mind non-damaging functions like debuffing, controlling, buffing others, healing, modes of movement, etc.
Hahah, yeah. You remind me of the shadow sorcerer mini-boss in one of the campaigns I was running. That was a vicious, vicious encounter which probably should have resulted in me being assaulted by a bunch of angry players wielding PHBs. :PMonsters get SLA, or free combat maneuvers on hits. They can take feats PCs can't without GM say-so (Bestiary feats). They can have abilities that just aren't fair. At-will Darkness SLA, automatic Sneak Attacks, natural attacks that have huge damage dice that are just screaming to have vital strike tossed on, movement types that allow them to abuse feats look on as traps for PCs (like incorporeal creatures with spring attack).
Monsters cheat!
We had to deal with Dread Wraiths that had whirlwind attack at one point... pretty brutal.
I have to assume (or hope) that you are being intentionally obtuse, but I will spell it out if that is what you need.I have grown impatient with your inability to behave civilly. I will no longer be reading your posts.
Strong argument, way to step up to the challenge.
Just post your build already and let the mob decide.
Just post your build already and let the mob decide.
I've got the pitchforks and torches ready. If you don't have one I'm willing to rent mine out.
Oh... I guess you want a civil mob?
Why don't you just state the utility features of the monk (Hopefully without a cornucopia of archetypes added) and then move to benchmarking combat features against monster stat blocks at the appropriate level. To be fair to the monk, I would suggest adding save percentages against strong monster abilities so that you can see what your trading your fighting prowess for.
All you would have to do is measure survivability against the number of rounds the monk needs to kill his opponent.
We had to deal with Dread Wraiths that had whirlwind attack at one point... pretty brutal.Hahah, yeah. You remind me of the shadow sorcerer mini-boss in one of the campaigns I was running. That was a vicious, vicious encounter which probably should have resulted in me being assaulted by a bunch of angry players wielding PHBs. :PMonsters get SLA, or free combat maneuvers on hits. They can take feats PCs can't without GM say-so (Bestiary feats). They can have abilities that just aren't fair. At-will Darkness SLA, automatic Sneak Attacks, natural attacks that have huge damage dice that are just screaming to have vital strike tossed on, movement types that allow them to abuse feats look on as traps for PCs (like incorporeal creatures with spring attack).
Monsters cheat!
Yikes, yeah that would be worrisome as well!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
But moving goalposts and chasing after red herrings is so much easier than doing actual work. Besides, if he posted his build, people might actually have the gall to compare it to how effective other classes/builds are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, you guys really expect to see Justin's builds?! He's been stalling for days now. I don't think he has any interest in posting those builds.
Every time someone mentions it, he diverts the argument to a completely different discussion. He asks for people to suggest monsters so that he can then create his character, which makes no sense. Does any GM give his players the full list of encounters for the day and then lets his players create character custom-made to deal with them?
IME, at best, GMs say something like "int his campaign, we'll be seeing lots of undead/outsiders/dragons/whatever, prepare for it" but don't give specifics.
Most of the time, they just run the campaign and the players have to deal with whatever is thrown at them. That's how I did it. I didn't have a "campaign theme" when I started GMing my campaign, so I simply told them the adventure happens in Golarion and that they'd travel a lot, so making versatile characters would be wise.
OTOH, you all keep fighting against any effort to ensure an objective test which measures what is actually relevant.
Why should I throw my hat in when the game is rigged?
Then don't. But don't be surprised when people say your statements don't hold water. Saying "Monk is great, because reasons!" does nothing to prove that Monk are in fact great.
Wait, you guys really expect to see Justin's builds?! He's been stalling for days now. I don't think he has any interest in posting those builds.
Every time someone mentions it, he diverts the argument to a completely different discussion. He asks for people to suggest monsters so that he can then create his character, which makes no sense. Does any GM give his players the full list of encounters for the day and then lets his players create character custom-made to deal with them?
IME, at best, GMs say something like "int his campaign, we'll be seeing lots of undead/outsiders/dragons/whatever, prepare for it" but don't give specifics.
Most of the time, they just run the campaign and the players have to deal with whatever is thrown at them. That's how I did it. I didn't have a "campaign theme" when I started GMing my campaign, so I simply told them the adventure happens in Golarion and that they'd travel a lot, so making versatile characters would be wise.
Indeed. When I GM, the only real forecasting I do is in general setting information for the campaign and a few potential adventure threads. Plus, I would probably offer a few hints/warnings about appropriate build choices just to avoid people picking up abilities they won't use, like a ranger picking favored enemies/terrain that won't come up during the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
Oh god no. XD
How would "I'm going to repeatedly cite a fluff description demanding it is RAW, while intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it in a most earnest attempt to disparage your name rather than actually refute your arguments, but only just before tossing a red herring into the field to try and draw attention away from the points I can't refute, while entering into threads and bantering on about a poster's gender as though it was somehow relevant in any universe, while constantly misusing the term 'goalpost' over and over again, and of course getting upset when the RAW doesn't agree with me or does something that doesn't suit me and justifies me insulting you for being badwrongperson" be any better than what's going on with Justin? O.o
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
Oh god no. XD
How would "I'm going to repeatedly cite a fluff description demanding it is RAW, while intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it in a most earnest attempt to disparage your name rather than actually refute your arguments, but only just before tossing a red herring into the field to try and draw attention away from the points I can't refute, while entering into threads and bantering on about a poster's gender as though it was somehow relevant in any universe, while constantly misusing the term 'goalpost' over and over again, and of course getting upset when the RAW doesn't agree with me or does something that doesn't suit me and justifies me insulting you for being badwrongperson" be any better than what's going on with Justin? O.o
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
Oh god no. XD
How would "I'm going to repeatedly cite a fluff description demanding it is RAW, while intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it in a most earnest attempt to disparage your name rather than actually refute your arguments, but only just before tossing a red herring into the field to try and draw attention away from the points I can't refute, while entering into threads and bantering on about a poster's gender as though it was somehow relevant in any universe, while constantly misusing the term 'goalpost' over and over again, and of course getting upset when the RAW doesn't agree with me or does something that doesn't suit me and justifies me insulting you for being badwrongperson" be any better than what's going on with Justin? O.o
Because he actually posted a Monk build when he claimed he could build a Monk better than a Barbarian.
Then we got to tear it apart and discover how wonderfully deadly the Ghaele was. That's a win in my book!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.
Hmmm...good point. Viciously logical. O.o
Because he actually posted a Monk build when he claimed he could build a Monk better than a Barbarian.
Then we got to tear it apart and discover how wonderfully deadly the Ghaele was. That's a win in my book!
Hm, point. I do love Ghaeles. :o
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.Hmmm...good point. Viciously logical. O.o
Of course it is. That's how I roll... And GM!
;)
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.Justin, post your build and stop stalling.
Seriously, seeing you post is making me wish Ashiel's stalker was here instead.
Oh god no. XD
How would "I'm going to repeatedly cite a fluff description demanding it is RAW, while intentionally misunderstanding and misrepresenting it in a most earnest attempt to disparage your name rather than actually refute your arguments, but only just before tossing a red herring into the field to try and draw attention away from the points I can't refute, while entering into threads and bantering on about a poster's gender as though it was somehow relevant in any universe, while constantly misusing the term 'goalpost' over and over again, and of course getting upset when the RAW doesn't agree with me or does something that doesn't suit me and justifies me insulting you for being badwrongperson" be any better than what's going on with Justin? O.o
I beg to differ good sir! Lord Ashiel has minions! We shall intercept the vicious fiend that stalks our benevolent Master! We shall shield our Lord and strike down his foes! Only the worthy shall face our Master.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.Hmmm...good point. Viciously logical. O.oOf course it is. That's how I roll... And GM!
;)
Geeze, I really need to get more time to run more online games. I'm currently playing in a Friday game with one of the other messageboarders, and GMing for him and my brother on Tuesdays (with another player and an occasional guest or two) but I want to invite you and Tels to play in one of my games sometime. :P
I just need to figure out when that would be reasonable given my crazed schedule. XD
I beg to differ good sir! Lord Ashiel has minions!
I have shown a lot of love for simulacrum and animate dead haven't I? :P
Because you'd be the only victim... Or at least the main target, while the rest of us could ignore it and have a parallel discussion... lol.Hmmm...good point. Viciously logical. O.oOf course it is. That's how I roll... And GM!
;)
Geeze, I really need to get more time to run more online games. I'm currently playing in a Friday game with one of the other messageboarders, and GMing for him and my brother on Tuesdays (with another player and an occasional guest or two) but I want to invite you and Tels to play in one of my games sometime. :P
I just need to figure out when that would be reasonable given my crazed schedule. XD
While I would love this, I have more or less stopped playing Pathfinder and many other things for the foreseeable future. My sister had to sign over custody of my Nephews while she deals with issues she has. So I am currently the guardian of a 16 month old and a 3 year old.
I know that PBP campaigns don't take the time commitment that sitting at a table for hours does, but if I play anything at all, I'll be itching to get back into running my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, and getting back into playing the Kingmaker and Legacy of Fire campaigns I'm involved with as well.
While I would love this, I have more or less stopped playing Pathfinder and many other things for the foreseeable future.
Aw, bummer. :o
My sister had to sign over custody of my Nephews while she deals with issues she has. So I am currently the guardian of a 16 month old and a 3 year old.
Ah, well I hope everything works out. At least kids are cool. I have a much, much younger brother, so I learned what it was like to take care of little kids. It's given me a great patience that makes me a sweet babysitter. :P
I know that PBP campaigns don't take the time commitment that sitting at a table for hours does, but if I play anything at all, I'll be itching to get back into running my Curse of the Crimson Throne campaign, and getting back into playing the Kingmaker and Legacy of Fire campaigns I'm involved with as well.
Those all sound pretty awesome actually. Truth be told I don't know that I could go back to playing Play By Post games. I used to play them when I was like 13 and had no one around to play with (living in a rural community where nobody knew what D&D was) but the last time I tried to do one on the Paizo forums I had a hard time keeping up with it. It's just too slow for me these days.
I found programs like OpenRPG or MapTools (I also understand Roll20 is pretty awesome but I haven't tried it) to be way better for gaming. I enjoy both text-based gaming and online voice chat (both are great for different purposes, though I prefer text for deep immersion RPing). I'd recommend trying any of those out if you ever find yourself with some extra time on your hands one day.
I prefer this sort of approach. At least then what is important is what is being measured (unlike comparing Monk to a different class)Why don't you just state the utility features of the monk (Hopefully without a cornucopia of archetypes added) and then move to benchmarking combat features against monster stat blocks at the appropriate level. To be fair to the monk, I would suggest adding save percentages against strong monster abilities so that you can see what your trading your fighting prowess for.
All you would have to do is measure survivability against the number of rounds the monk needs to kill his opponent.
Actually, that's exactly the same.
the reason why we compare the monk to other classes is because you have to know what he can bring to the party compared to other classes.
The monk can do a little damage, and little manoeuvers. He brings little skills. Everything else in the class is purely devoted to himself, and doesn't help the group he will be in.
The barbarian does much more damage, is absolute master of manoeuvers (he can pin the tarasque) and have the same skills as the monk. He brings more utility, because by doing more damage, he improves the durability of the group (when the monsters have 1 round to act, he can do less to the group than when he have 10 rounds to do so).
The ranger does more damage than the monk (and much more if he is against his favorite foe), have a lot of skills, a pet and spells. So much more useful out of combat but still very useful in combat.
The paladin does more damage than the monk (and much more against evil monsters), have a little less skills, but can be master in social encounters, have auras that boost the group (the monk does +2 against enchantment for him, the paladin is right immune and give +2 to the group, for example), can heal efficiently, have spells and either a pet or a versatile enchantment with is weapon.
The cavalier brings more damage, same or more skills (and possibly social specialist), a pet, group bonuses, ...
The fighter does much more damage than the monk, have just little less skill (or similar if he goes with the INT path of manoeuvers), but more feats (with broader selection with his bonus feats). Those feats can make him a technical specialist in combat (a fighter that can control 9x9 is not unheard of for example), and combining manoeuvers and other things, he can manage to do more than damage. He is the less versatile of the 5 (barbarian, ranger, paladin, cavalier and fighter), but he is steady, sturdy and very useful in combat.
So, when I compare what the monk can bring to the group against "fighter-type", he's lacking.
I won't compare to full caster type, because the monk isn't a fullcaster.
I will compare him to other 3/4 BAB class.
The rogue have the same DPR as the monk (or even a little more), but have A LOT of skills (he can specialize in 2 to 4 roles in skills while being a specialist in each).
The bard have a almost the same DPR, have much more skills (comparable to the rogue), have spells and can buff like a boss.
The Inquisitor have more DPR, more skills, spells, and utility.
The Alchemist have more DPR, more skills, similar-to-spells powers, versatility with mutagen and everything.
The summoner... well, he's closer to a fullcaster. But even without its spells, he have more skills than the monk, a pet or more pets, huge versatility.
The magus does as much damage as a fighter-type, have spells and have similar skills.
So, he's not bringing "arcane spellcasting" (control, buff, debuff, ...), not "divine spellcasting" (damage healing, condition healing, buff, ...), not "fighter-type" contribution (=> killing stuff as quick as possible) and not "rogue-type" contribution (=> bringing out of combat utility while not being a liability in combat).
The monk is not a danger in a group. Having a monk does not decrease the group utility. But it doesn't improve it. And that's why the monk is lacking => every single other class in the game brings something useful to the whole group (even something as simple as doing damage).
My conclusion ? The monk brings as much to the group as the warrior (the NPC class). I'm not even sure he can bring as much as the warrior actually...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monk class should be highly flexible,
Should be, but aren't.
that's why many of its powers are in its access to feats (whether we're talking about Panther, which is easier for monks to pick up and gives them an advantage wrt AoO) or the fact that feats do more for them (such as Punishing Kick and Touch of Serenity, both of which expands what monks can do).
Almost all of these feats work just as well if not better for every other class in the game. There are very few exclusively monk feats, and few others that they get more out of than, say, an unarmed fighter.
do you really think monks take more mastery than casters do?I never said they did. But, considering how many people have problems with them, while there are other players (not including me) who don't, the monk class clearly requires a level of mastery which isn't widespread.
Or possibly instead of polishing your ego by assuming they are "doing it wrong" you should consider that maybe you are not playing the same game as these other players. Especially when they back up their arguments with solid facts and easy math. And when even the game's developers agree that the monk is a weak class.
What is the need to compare it to another class?
Because the assertion is that the monk is underpowered compared to other classes. That any of them bring more to a party than the monk does.
I FULLY agree with the above.I still build Monks, and some of them, admittedly, have been very powerful. They take a lot of system mastery and abusing certain aspects of the rules to do, but it's possible.
HOWEVER, there are only a few such possible builds.
...so if for roleplay purposes you do not wish to play one of these builds, the monk then sucks mechanically. This, we assert, is the problem.
Because it's hard to play a core MonkI FULLY agree with this as well. It is hard to play a core Monk. The core Monk IS weak and underpowered.
However, the Monk class is not just the core Monk.
But they are all based on the core monk.One cannot build mighty towers on foundations of mud, Grasshopper.
The claim is that other classes are overall betterNo.
Yes.
The claim is that the Monk is underpowered.
...compared to the other PC classes. How else COULD you regard a PC class as underpowered, save by comparing to other PC classes?
Give me a reason that has nothing to do with rollplaying (i.e. optimization for its own sake) why the question of whether the Monk is underpowered need have anything to do with how it compares to other classes.
The argument is that the monk is mechanically underpowered compared to other classes, and you want a reason we would use mechanics and a reason we should compare to other classes in your attempt to disprove this assertion? What don't you just concede that we are right, that the monk IS mechanically underpowered compared to other classes?
Since you all have no interest in developing an unbiased test for the monk, there's no point in continuing. I wish you'd been more explicit about that a week ago. I'm quite interested in model testing on this subject.
Please...don't continue, as you have no concept of the word "comparison" and why it would apply...
As for us, we have done just this time and again, and the net result is always the same: the monk is underpowered.
Stuff on Drinking Alcohol
You got me there, but I think it's kinda "gaming the system" like the monk with fifty potions of mage armour and the like...and I think most DM's would houserule there's a point where you are going to drink enough to pass out. But yes, by the RAW, you have caught me out. Bet you won't see Justin Rocket say that!
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.actually this is wrong. the monk isnt about damage, its about tieing up the BBEG and having the defenses to mitigate damage and spells long enough for the fighter/casters to mop up the mobs and assist the monk in killing the target.
Yes...shame he doesn't have the offensive capacity to tie down the enemy as effectively as a full BAB class can. Or can just kill the enemy, like they can, if the tie down tactics do not work. That's the problem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Justin,
Post a build you think your monk would excel at, in a 4 encounter day with foes 1-3 CRs above party level, and how he could/should not be easily replaced by any other class.
This is what's been going on for the last couple years. Give it a shot.
Justin,
Post a build you think your monk would excel at, in a 4 encounter day with foes 1-3 CRs above party level, and how he could/should not be easily replaced by any other class.This is what's been going on for the last couple years. Give it a shot.
What the heck games to you people play in? I guess in super optimized groups standard encounters with CRs greater than the groups level might work, but for ordinary players that would be an incredibly rough day.
I did a quick search of the original bestiary and came up with 5 CR12 creatures as follows:
Adult Green Dragon
Lich
Purple Worm
Roper
Sea Serpent
I think this is a pretty good spread. Each is a different type of encounter with some really unique problems to overcome when fighting them.
For a test I think the Monk should get some support fighting these guys. The test, after all, is what he would do in a group, not how he would do all by himself. So can we pick 3 worthy companions to accompany the Monk on his quest to prove himself?
Once that is done and tested, we can then swap the Monk out for another class and see if it makes a big difference. Maybe swap out for a Bard, Rogue, Barbarian or Ranger.
For companions how about a Wizard (controller, buffer), Cleric (buffer, secondary melee, after combat and emergency healing), and Fighter (two-handed and ranged damage dealer). It would be best to limit these guys to core and try to keep them simple.
All of the above is just suggestions to get things started. Other ideas are of course welcome.
Honestly I think having him fight above-CR opponents is overkill. O.o
It shouldn't require that if the encounters are run to the hilt.