Oh, I forgot distance in the Perception DC. Say the dragon is hiding 40' from the road. That would increase the DC to 24.Okay. I would like to point out that I put this in before you posted your character. So I did not do it just to screw you over. ;-)
Sounded fair to me... I usually max perception on martial characters, and definitely on a Barbarian, and 13 is what I got. Surprise me!
The one thing I don't get is everyone says the 'vanilla' monk suck compared to the barbarian or the fighter, then they tell you to use an archetype for the supposed better class like invulnerable rager or unarmed fighter. To each their own man, I personally like the monk and I play one. I have a fun time playing. If it doesn't work at your table but it works at someone elses, leave it alone. No sense in nitpicking about a table you'll never play at. Most people are WAY to concerned with realism about the monk punching stuff. Dude, you're fighting dragons and demons. That's all I'm going to say.
That's my two cents. Carry on.
To each their own man, I personally like the monk and I play one.
I have fun playing a commoner. They are mechanically balanced with everyone else and there's nothing wrong with them. Quit telling me they aren't as powerful as fighters. Maybe that's how it works at your table, but not at mine!
I should probably mention more seriously that how much fun you have is somewhat unrelated to the mechanical balance. Someone can have fun with a commoner. Sure doesn't mean its balanced with everyone else or that you wouldn't have a problem playing at a table with a wizard/druid/cleric.
Invulnerable rager might be an improvement for barbarians. But for rangers, paladins* and fighter the arcehtypes are not really stronger than the base class, IMHO.
* maybe oath of vengeance is stronger here.
Take a look again at some of the Fighter Archetypes, especially Two-handed Fighter and Two-weapon Fighter.
A vanilla two-handed fighter isn't going to be as good as an archetype that is built around two-handing, same applies to two-weapon fighting. As a jack-of-all-trades combatant (archery, maneuvers, damage etc) sure, the vanilla fighter might be best, but when you start to specialize, look very closely at the archetypes.
I think that varies with class... Most Rogue archetypes are terrible, except for one or two that are all but obligatory. I can't recall any good Wizard archetype... Or Sorcerer archetype for that matter, other than Tattooed Sorcerer.
You know what, now that I think about it... Most archetypes are pretty bad.
Maybe druids, they have a lots of archetypes.
Most druid archetypes are pretty awful actually.
I would say the Monk benefits the most from archetypes. One almost never see vanilla monks anymore. At least, I haven't seen a vanilla Monk since archetypes came out.
Maybe druids, they have a lots of archetypes.Most druid archetypes are pretty awful actually.
Yeah, but Menhir Savant is amazing. It's basically a better druid. And Saurian Shaman can be pretty good too.
Magus is probably the one class with a nice selection of archetypes. Maybe Bards too... The other classes have about 15 terrible archetypes for every 2~3 good ones
Invulnerable rager might be an improvement for barbarians. But for rangers, paladins* and fighter the arcehtypes are not really stronger than the base class, IMHO.
* maybe oath of vengeance is stronger here.
Agreed.
You know... just ONE decent replacement for hunters bond would be nice. No every ranger wants a pet (or a horrifically bad group "buff" )
Invulnerable rager might be an improvement for barbarians. But for rangers, paladins* and fighter the arcehtypes are not really stronger than the base class, IMHO.
* maybe oath of vengeance is stronger here.
Agreed.
You know... just ONE decent replacement for hunters bond would be nice. No every ranger wants a pet (or a horrifically bad group "buff" )
Wiith how I have things planned out right now with my current ranger/horizon walker build I plan on giving a decent buff to my group. At least +8 to +12 on all FE.
Even with Invuln. Rager it's not the only option to make a strong Barbarian I've seen plenty of builds around Urban Barbarian or whatever it's called and other archetypes as well as builds using just the core barbarian. I've seen plenty of different archetypes used for fighters and rangers, I mostly ignore paladin threads but I'm sure other archetypes are used for those.
But Monks? A good monk uses one of two archetypes by default, Qinggong or MoMS. They may stack on some archetypes in addition to those but one of those will pretty much always be included and the only time Qinggong isn't stacked onto Monk is if the Monk class is just a dip hence MoMS. Now let's ignore MoMS for a second because it's a whole different beast and is often used for dipping cheese.
What is it that Qinggong lets you do? It gives you the option to trade out abilities the core monk has for spells(SLA's technically but whatever), and feats for the most part. Now it is worth noting that the Monk abilities are so bad that the ability to cast a single specific spell constrained to a number of times per day equal to his ki pool's allowance and also limited by how much he need to use the bonus ki attack on his flurries is still mostly better than the ability he would get normally. This is pretty much proof positive that the Core Monk is weak.
Now lets look at the classes like say the Barbarian or Fighter or Gunslinger. How desirable is it to trade out their core abilities? How many barbarians would give up rage increases or rage powers for a single 2nd level spell that used up 10-20% of their daily Rage per use?
To add insult to the injury, MoMS is really only good for people dipping a level or two of Monk, but kinda bad for pure Monks themselves.
MoMS.... this bugs me. They should have just let core monks take style feats as bonus feats...
Would this have been a big deal? They expanded fighter weapon groups right? And fighters list of bonus combat feats grows with every book.
Otherwise MoMS is pretty pointless... even fusing styles is not that great and is super feat intensive.... and even a normal monk can switch as a free action.
Instead what did style feats give us?
Uber DR stalwart barbs using crane style? Better aldori swordmasters?
Instead what did style feats give us?
Well, they also happened to give us a chain of feats that requires investment and may actually give something worthwhile back. They also tend to be more interesting than just getting a small bonus to a stat, and even better they tend to give you a bonus beyond the action they give you. Though prereqs for them are a bit weird, such as requiring improved unarmed strike when they don't involve unarmed strikes, and their balance is sometimes questionable as is the level when you can obtain them.
They also give us arguments over whether you need to take an action to enter the style in combat. Do I really have to spend a swift action on turn one to enter the style? Alternatively I'm just going to say I walk around flailing my arms ready to deflect attackers.
I started a new thread for the challenge here.
How do your characters fair against an acid breath weapon and frightful presence on the surprise round?
I think we did this sort of thing once before (I had an Unarmed MoMS Monk 2/TWF Ranger 8 and a cestus-focused TWF Ranger), but people lost their enthusiasm midway through... Hopefully this one will go longer.
I would put up my dwarf monk but we're using a 30 point point buy in my DMs game so it would be tough to squeeze it down into 20 and still be happy with the trade offs of being a dwarf.
Huh, dwarf has +2 Con and Wis, both very useful for a Monk and the extra movement makes up for his base 20 speed. But I know going down that much can hurt. A 30 point buy probably helps him a lot.
Dwarf is actually a very strong defensive Monk race. With access to the Ironhide and Steel Soul feats, you can bump Natural Armor (through Improved Natural Armor) and saves pretty high.
A Crane Wing, Dex focused, Dwarven Monk is neigh-impregnable.
@MrSin
Dude, I never said anything about monks being on par with the rest of the classes, I'm just saying if you're not having fun playing stick to solitaire. Yeah mechanically some classes are better than others that's the whole point. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Like I said to each their own, I enjoy reading the back and forth. Carry on.
@MrSin
Dude, I never said anything about monks being on par with the rest of the classes, I'm just saying if you're not having fun playing stick to solitaire. Yeah mechanically some classes are better than others that's the whole point. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Like I said to each their own, I enjoy reading the back and forth. Carry on.
The thing is the monk doesn't have anything that helps the group besides below average damage and little skill points.
While a fighter will do more damage (especially when moving, which was the monk "job" in its description), or a rogue will do as much damage while still be much better in the skill use, or a ranger will do more damage and more skill than the monk while still casting spells and having a pet, the monk have one advantage : its toughness (average to high AC, good saves, some immunities and evasion).
But, toughness doesn't help the group. Paladin is not good because he is immune to charms, domination and fear (it's good for the paladin, but doesn't really help the group). He is good because he gives the group +2 to resist to all of those. Oh, and he deals more damage than the monk and is a master talker. And he casts spells too (including CLW, which allow him to use the wand). Oh, and he have a pet OR a super flexible weapon. Oh, and he can self heal as a swift action and heal the group as a standard, while removing conditions at the same time.
I could say the same for all the classes in the game : they bring something useful to the group. The monk don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With pretty few exception (in the "weaker side") I think fighter archetype are pretty well balanced against the base class.
Most archetypes are not too bad, really.
I think that varies with class... Most Rogue archetypes are terrible, except for one or two that are all but obligatory. I can't recall any good Wizard archetype... Or Sorcerer archetype for that matter, other than Tattooed Sorcerer.
You know what, now that I think about it... Most archetypes are pretty bad.
I disagree, the archetypes make using a class easier to adapt to a concept. If you are chasing the concept, the archetype makes a lot of sense.
I would say the Monk benefits the most from archetypes. One almost never see vanilla monks anymore. At least, I haven't seen a vanilla Monk since archetypes came out.
Sadly, that's because the core monks selection of abilities was so bad, almost anything improves on them.
MoMS.... this bugs me. They should have just let core monks take style feats as bonus feats...
I agree. But that didn't happen.
Would this have been a big deal? They expanded fighter weapon groups right? And fighters list of bonus combat feats grows with every book.
But they still have to meet prerequisites. That said, the ranger doesn't have to meet pre-reqs for his combat style and THAT list of feats has grown.
Otherwise MoMS is pretty pointless... even fusing styles is not that great and is super feat intensive.... and even a normal monk can switch as a free action.
Instead what did style feats give us?
Uber DR stalwart barbs using crane style? Better aldori swordmasters?
Yep. The monk got nothing that others couldn't get more out of. That's the real tragedy, those tiny losses against other classes are small on their own, but it's all the little things that just stack up.
@MrSin
Dude, I never said anything about monks being on par with the rest of the classes, I'm just saying if you're not having fun playing stick to solitaire. Yeah mechanically some classes are better than others that's the whole point. Each has their own strengths and weaknesses. Like I said to each their own, I enjoy reading the back and forth. Carry on.
Some classes may be better than others mechanically, but every class should be able to fill a niche, or otherwise do something for the rest of the party that contributes to their success.
For example, the rogue is another weak class, but the rogue can do ONE THING: he can scout. Others may do it as well, and more besides, but at least the rogue can perform at the role that he is described as performing.
Another weak class is the fighter, who again only does one thing: he hurts things. But he does it well, and he brings it with him to the party.
The problem the monk has is he doesn't bring much with him that benefits everyone else. He can't even do all the things that his stated role describes; he has no way of aiding allies or striking foes when they are vulnerable that anyone else cannot do, and many can do this better.
|
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]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.
who said anything about "out of combat"
im talking about how you cannot quantify numerically the value of taking an enemy out of an encounter for x number of rounds. stopping the enemy from casting a spell, will net a better over all advantage over the high DPR barbarian face smashing mooks. i see combat as more then DPR, i see it as stopping the treat and unfortunatley people on these boards only care about the DPR.
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]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.
who said anything about "out of combat"
im talking about how you cannot quantify numerically the value of taking an enemy out of an encounter for x number of rounds. stopping the enemy from casting a spell, will net a better over all advantage over the high DPR barbarian face smashing mooks. i see combat as more then DPR, i see it as stopping the treat and unfortunatley people on these boards only care about the DPR.
I agree, combat is more than DPR, however everything else is highly situational. Indeed, DPR can be situational, but it's a lot LESS situational because you can usually reach some enemy and bash them.
The other reason that DPR is used as a measure for a combat class is because DPR is the only reliable thing you can do if you cannot cast spells. Maneuvers require heavy feat investment, and are not reliable as various creatures are immune to them or have such high CMD's due to size or anatomy that it makes no odds.
Some monk archetypes are better at some maneuvers than others, like the Tetori, but one archetype does not a useful class make.
However, the monk on the whole is NOT a master of maneuvers, for two reasons:
First, getting the best out of a maneuver you need all the feats, not just the free one the monk gets. Other classes, particularly the fighter, have the advantage here because they are not as MAD as the monk.
Second, most of the other combat classes have a bonus to hit on top of their full BAB and any feats which applies to maneuvers they perform.
Bonus reason, the full BAB classes also get better weapons to work maneuvers through, and they can deal better damage on top.
I wouldn't say that the monk is not effective if he has a situation he can exploit...but that's IF. The other combat classes are not relying on IF to get their spotlight time, they have DPR to fall back on.
@MrSin, hey dude I never called anybody stupid I just said it's suppose to be fun, if you're not having fun playing the game why bother playing it. It doesn't affect me either way. Like I said I enjoy reading the back and forth banter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of the people who think monks have problems don't care about or even value DPR. I for one am such a person. As both a player and GM, I value defense and problem solving far greater than raw damage. IMHO, DPR is only good for measuring DPR and how much investment it takes you to get good amounts of DPR. Beyond that, it's pretty pointless.
But monks are very bad. With enough splat material they're better, but it increases their complexity and you have to avoid a lot of traps and pit falls.
I don't value DPR much at all. I think monks in general are poor without a lot of system mastery to get the most out of tons of archetypes, races, and splat material. Which with the same you can usually make other classes grossly overpowered.
I just want the Monk to be able to hit so I can get some abilities to actually go off. I don't need the damage, I just want to hit. Is it so much to ask for if I want a master of martial arts to just be able to connect with a hit? If I just had that then Stunning Fist would actually be useful, Elemental Fist could pick up a bit of slack, I could actually shut down a monster without dying in two rounds.
I just want to hit.
one, it was meant to be an insult. ]
Then it has no place on our boards. Please revisit the messageboard rules.
Removed some posts in violation of those rules.
I just want the Monk to be able to hit so I can get some abilities to actually go off. I don't need the damage, I just want to hit. Is it so much to ask for if I want a master of martial arts to just be able to connect with a hit? If I just had that then Stunning Fist would actually be useful, Elemental Fist could pick up a bit of slack, I could actually shut down a monster without dying in two rounds.
I just want to hit.
Exactly. It's about hitting, not damage. Improving hitting will improve DPR, but in the monk's case it mainly allows other effects work.
Or at the very least they could perform maneuvers reliably
A lot of problems with the monk come from the fact that so many of their class features are only there to replace things that they lose
AC bonus but can't wear armor
Full BAB on maneuvers and flurry because they don't get full BAB
Unarmed strike dmg because its terrible to begin with
Ki strike to bypass DR because AoMF is absurdly expensive
I mean... try to imagine for a moment that monk was an archtype for another class... would the tradeoffs be worth it?
I did a quick search of the original bestiary and came up with 5 CR12 creatures as follows:
You should include an encounter with a vampire/enchanter or similar. Monks can have pretty good will saves aganist mind affecting, which is quite cool. My fighterish players are a bit fed up being dominated and the like.
You should include an encounter with a vampire/enchanter or similar. Monks can have pretty good will saves aganist mind affecting, which is quite cool. My fighterish players are a bit fed up being dominated and the like.
Silver Spindle Ioun Stone resonance might help. Or protection from x. Several of the other martials also get things to help their saves, but fighters are probably a little lacking in that respect.
Also...
I thought I put you down thread!!!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should include an encounter with a vampire/enchanter or similar. Monks can have pretty good will saves against mind affecting, which is quite cool. My fighterish players are a bit fed up being dominated and the like.
Why? If you have to cherry-pick the enemy in order for the monk to contribute, isn't that underlining the point that the monk cannot contribute normally?