| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... Defeating a 3.5 Monk is not exactly something to be proud of...
I considered 3.5 Bards to be okayish. Not bad, but not amazing either. Of course, with splat books they could become really nasty. Dragonfire Inspiration was sick!
Well... Defeating a 3.5 Monk is not exactly something to be proud of...
I considered 3.5 Bards to be okayish. Not bad, but not amazing either. Of course, with splat books they could become really nasty. Dragonfire Inspiration was sick!
Nah it was a PF bard vs PF monk. Sorry I wasn't being clear. It was due to this guy on our OpenRPG lobby who wouldn't stop telling everyone how much better monks were than everyone else and/or overpowered. Said he could trip/disarm all the fighters and such.
A friend of mine rolled a 10th level fighter and murdered his monk. The fighter used his bare hands and let the monk beat on him for four rounds strait before he actually bothered to fight back. When he did, he halved the monk's Hp in the first blow (and both had max HD HP).
He then recanted that monks aren't for fighting martials, they're for dealing with other hybrids and such.
So I rolled a 10th level monk and crushed him. And I did it with a flare for style over performance as my weapon of choice was a short sword in a locked gauntlet and a hand free for casting or using items. He couldn't really touch my character atop her mount and she let him chase her around a bit before dismounting and beating him to a pulp. When he complained about her using greater invisibility for it being cheap, I spent a standard action to dismiss the power and he still couldn't touch her and she proceeded to kick his ass into the dirt. She then healed him and said "Come at me bro, is that all you've got? Come on big monk man, I'm just a little girl with a dinky sword!"
He gave up demoralized and recanted that monks exist as an anti-caster class, not to fight martials or hybrids, but they were definitely for killing mages. I facepalmed and said I didn't have time to roll up another 10th level character, but that I had a 7th level NPC mage with NPC wealth and statistics that I'd be happy to duel him with. This was just the sort of mage my groups were facing in the actual games I was running.
Can you guess what happened?
Bards are great full stop
There is really nothing they can't do.. and being a charisma based character also gives them great UMD utility.
Good hope is IMHO the best pound for pound group buff spell in the game... and it lasts for 1min per level unlike haste.
At level 7 you can give everyone +5 to hit and damage and +2 to saves... amazing
And at that same level as a soundstriker you can apend one round of performance to fire off 7 ranged touch attacks that hit for 1d8 + 1/2 charisma each... you can easily hit for 75 damage a round with this sucker at level 10. And they can crit. And they get the benefit of good hope.
Simply amazing
I wasn't even aware of soundstriker. I just meleed him with a mostly core bard with her shortsword. Soundstriker sounds quite awesome. :O
It is early in my build so far, but I'm noticing that the average CR11 monster CMD is about 33. I'm pretty confident I can hit that. Those monsters with higher CMDs tend to have really bad will saves, which means they are vulnerable to Touch of Serenity.
In general, the problem with CR 11 monsters and maneuvers isn't CMD. It's the fact that most of the monsters once you start in the double digits CR, are immune by default to most maneuvers. You can't disarm claws, you can't trip flying creatures and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters, and that make manuevers harder to pull. But that's not a monk issue, it's a maneuver issue, regardless of class
Nah it was a PF bard vs PF monk. Sorry I wasn't being clear.
Still not something to write home about... ^^
I remember this story, BTW. It's still entertaining, although not as much as the one about shoveling dead chickens. :)
...and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters
Actually, I think you can. Grapple is one of the few maneuvers (if not the only one) that escaped the pointless size limitation.
It is early in my build so far, but I'm noticing that the average CR11 monster CMD is about 33. I'm pretty confident I can hit that. Those monsters with higher CMDs tend to have really bad will saves, which means they are vulnerable to Touch of Serenity.In general, the problem with CR 11 monsters and maneuvers isn't CMD. It's the fact that most of the monsters once you start in the double digits CR, are immune by default to most maneuvers. You can't disarm claws, you can't trip flying creatures and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters, and that make manuevers harder to pull. But that's not a monk issue, it's a maneuver issue, regardless of classAgain, this is why the monk's advantage of changing how it attacks is such a big advantage
A flying character can't be tripped, but it might be stunned, serened, disarmed, grappled, etc.
Claws can't be disarmed, but the creature baring the claws might be grappled, tripped, serened, stunned, etc.
Too bad Touch of Serenity doesn't show up until late in the game and only stops someone from whacking you for a turn. To be honest, if your a monk there's little reason not to also grab punishing kick and perfect strike(if it applies to your weapon of choice), but both of those show up later. Using them all you can constantly spam saves on people you hit, and if they work(if!) they can do some damage.
Maneuvers take an investment, even the monk has to make that investment to use them without provoking. Its not likely that someone can grapple, trip, and disarm effectively. Worse, the monk isn't better than everyone else at it. The two things they get related to maneuvers are bonus feats(of which they get six, luckily front loaded), and the ability to use their full BAB for maneuvers, like pretty much every other full BAB class. They don't actually have a better potential for it than others unless they use an archetype, in which case they are no longer a monk(though there are some awesome archetypes, some of them very dippable too!) Edit: Actually, with MAD and lack of a good weapon and attack modifiers, they may come out worse for their maneuvers.
It is early in my build so far, but I'm noticing that the average CR11 monster CMD is about 33. I'm pretty confident I can hit that. Those monsters with higher CMDs tend to have really bad will saves, which means they are vulnerable to Touch of Serenity.In general, the problem with CR 11 monsters and maneuvers isn't CMD. It's the fact that most of the monsters once you start in the double digits CR, are immune by default to most maneuvers. You can't disarm claws, you can't trip flying creatures and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters, and that make manuevers harder to pull. But that's not a monk issue, it's a maneuver issue, regardless of classAgain, this is why the monk's advantage of changing how it attacks is such a big advantage
A flying character can't be tripped, but it might be stunned, serened, disarmed, grappled, etc.
Claws can't be disarmed, but the creature baring the claws might be grappled, tripped, serened, stunned, etc.
Yes, but it's not easy to be able to do all those maneuvers efficiently at the same time.
There are multiple critical flaws in your model. Some of them are
- Comparing a Barbarian to a Monk when what matters is whether, how, and to what extent Monk PCs contribute to a party, not how they compare to other classes
- I can't even figure out what you're trying to add up in the grapple Barb (Hive Totem adds to CMD, Reckless Abandon adds to hit, you seem to be all over the place), but I notice that you completely ignore the penalty Reckless Abandon has
- Comparing a single Monk attack to a single Barbarian attack when the Monk is all but guaranteed to get more attacks per round
- You ignored several options the monk has to further increase their CMB
Thank you for giving me the option to review your model before you begin the heavy lifting of actually proving that you are right about monks. Once you correct the above identified flaws, I'm happy to review your model further.
Hive totem Resilience adds to both CMB and CMD:
"While raging, the barbarian takes no damage from attacks by swarms of vermin, preventing harmful secondary effects of such attacks like poison or bleed. She also gains a +1 bonus on combat maneuver checks and to CMD when grappling for every four barbarian levels she has (maximum +5)."Reckless Abandon reduces AC, yes, but anything that adds to attack rolls also adds to CMB.
From the CRB:
"When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver. The DC of this maneuver is your target's Combat Maneuver Defense. Combat maneuvers are attack rolls, so you must roll for concealment and take any other penalties that would normally apply to an attack roll."
Monks are great! They just need some Barbarian awesomeness to work!
I would also add that a grapple Barb with Animal Fury and the three main grapple feats (Imp, Great., and Rapid) will get 3 grapple checks and three free bite attacks per round (each bite at highest BAB -2). Theoretically a Maneuver master could match that number of attacks by taking -12 on three grapple checks and making three iteratives eventually.
SO this is not really about one attack, but a particular build.
A monk can have more attacks, yes. Any other class can match that with TWF feats, of course, but the point you raised (I thought) was about Combat Maneuvers.
Fighters are going to be the best at any maneuver that can be performed with a weapon (loremasters being particularly fearsome) because of weapon training, weapon feats, no MAD and a better BAB. Barbarians can do equally as well as fighters because of reckless abandon and rage (as well as a few rage powers that work very well with sunder and grapple).
There is no combat maneuver that a monk is "better" at, but even if the comparison can't be made between these three melee types, my point was that a monk is going to have a hard time getting a high enough CMB to be relevant, particularly for grapples (Grapple is oddly defined as its own weapon so no AoMF bonuses apply, brawling armor requires light armor so no bracers, though I guess you could tank your monk defenses and wear armor but then why not just play a fighter)
It is early in my build so far, but I'm noticing that the average CR11 monster CMD is about 33. I'm pretty confident I can hit that. Those monsters with higher CMDs tend to have really bad will saves, which means they are vulnerable to Touch of Serenity.In general, the problem with CR 11 monsters and maneuvers isn't CMD. It's the fact that most of the monsters once you start in the double digits CR, are immune by default to most maneuvers. You can't disarm claws, you can't trip flying creatures and you can't grapple huge or larger monsters, and that make manuevers harder to pull. But that's not a monk issue, it's a maneuver issue, regardless of classAgain, this is why the monk's advantage of changing how it attacks is such a big advantage
A flying character can't be tripped, but it might be stunned, serened, disarmed, grappled, etc.
Claws can't be disarmed, but the creature baring the claws might be grappled, tripped, serened, stunned, etc.
Too bad Touch of Serenity doesn't show up until late in the game and only stops someone from whacking you for a turn. To be honest, if your a monk there's little reason not to also grab punishing kick and perfect strike(if it applies to your weapon of choice), but both of those show up later. Using them all you can constantly spam saves on people you hit, and if they work(if!) they can do some damage.
Maneuvers take an investment, even the monk has to make that investment to use them without provoking. Its not likely that someone can grapple, trip, and disarm effectively. Worse, the monk isn't better than everyone else at it. The two things they get related to maneuvers are bonus feats(of which they get six, luckily front loaded), and the ability to use their full BAB for maneuvers, like pretty much every other full BAB class. They don't actually have a better potential for it than others unless they use an archetype, in which case they are no longer a...
Grappling is pretty useless unless you spend feats on it. A grappled creature can still decide to just full-attack you. It works really well on casters, but later on in the game a caster that isn't built to deal with grapples and entangles is a poorly built enemy. So, you really need to get a creature pinned to actually control it.
Monks can have a particularly hard time with this if they are dex based, since pinning an opponent means losing your Dex mod. This means that any finesse or agile maneuvers build is automatically shut down while pinning unless it is a Tetori archtype.
I guess my point here is that given any 1 to 1 comparison between a monk and the other martials, I don't see what they are supposed to contribute. They aren't doing more or equal damage, they aren't better at maneuvers, they are blown out of the water in terms of utility when held up against a bard. So what is the monk's "thing"?
Nah it was a PF bard vs PF monk. Sorry I wasn't being clear.Still not something to write home about... ^^
I remember this story, BTW. It's still entertaining, although not as much as the one about shoveling dead chickens. :)
Nothing is as amusing as dead chickens, but that may be the necromancer in me. :P
I just get irritated when someone comes in an starts bragging / throwing their system knowledge around at people and telling them how lame their stuff is. The fact he was also obscenely wrong only added to it. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How they compare to other classes is a rollplaying question, not a roleplaying question. I'm not a rollplayer. The question I'm concerned with is whether Monks can make a positive contribution to a party of adventurers.
Gosh darn rollplayers making you think about mechanics in a thread about mechanics.
But no, really, lets not turn this into roleplayer vs. rollplayer thing. That has nothing to do with this.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess my point here is that given any 1 to 1 comparison between a monk and the other martials, I don't see what they are supposed to contribute. They aren't doing more or equal damage, they aren't better at maneuvers, they are blown out of the water in terms of utility when held up against a bard. So what is the monk's "thing"?How they compare to other classes is a rollplaying question, not a roleplaying question. I'm not a rollplayer. The question I'm concerned with is whether Monks can make a positive contribution to a party of adventurers.
You assert that, due to feat scarcity, Monks are unable to have the flexibility I believe they have. Well, as I said, this is quite early in my build process, so we'll see.
why don't play with commoner class then? Just call it a monk, and you'll be fine. Great roleplaying there. And Pete McFarmer doesn't know about your char class, so everything is cool in-game! Awesome roleplaying oportunities there.
Btw, if the build needs so many hours of work, some people might think it needs way too much system mastery. Isn't that a rollplaying thing? What about those players that are about roleplaying and don't want to spend several days building their monk? The claas is not for them?
Honestly I'd like some fully written builds too... then I could face them off a few times with another player and really test how good or bad the monk is with combat. A short description of how you play them would help too.
I've got 3 for you right here! Though they aren't the best in the world probably.
Iconic tend to be weak, there is no point in using then in this thread.
They are however core only and do state tactics. The joke was that they were weak and an example of a badly built monk, much like Harsk is a badly built ranger.
Even the devs have said they are a weak class.Can you post the link where this is said? I'm not doubting you; I'd like to see what the developer opinion was exactly.
Now ya got me, it was over a year ago, and I didn't keep the link and can no longer find it, but SKR basically came out and said yes, the monk was a weak class that needed fixing. It lead directly to this post where they made a few minor changes....that didn't really address the actual problems of inability to get past DR/alignment, the +5 cap on the AoMF, and the monk's MADness.
I absolutely love monks.
The only downside I see to the monk is their weaker attack compared to the other melee classes.
Everything else, the insane AC, speed, saving throws, physical abilities and immunities, style feats, equal a character that is a real survivor.
I absolutely love monks too, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that mechanically I can take almost any other class in the game and make a more useful party member from them with a lot less effort.
You see, your survivability doesn't do much for the rest of the party. It doesn't even help you as much as you might think, because of your weak attacks: if it takes you three times as long to kill something as one of the other classes, it really doesn't matter that your defences are twice as effective, they need to be three times as effective before you have the same chances of success, and usually they aren't. Even then, you are still less use to the party than that big dumb guy with the big axe.
There isn't a reliable mechanic to make people focus on you regardless.
Hit them so hard on the first attack that they realise they probably won't survive a full-round against you if they don't either run or splatter you first works for me.
The question I'm concerned with is whether Monks can make a positive contribution to a party of adventurers.
Or more accurately, can they make as good a contribution as A. N. Other class can. You can argue a commoner can make a contribution, just not a very good one. Otherwise you're just setting up a strawman.
Thing is, we've already had this debate around a year ago, running tests and comparing stats for several monks. The result? No, they can't make as good a contribution to a party as pretty much any other class. Why repeat work that's already been done?
But no, really, lets not turn this into roleplayer vs. rollplayer thing. That has nothing to do with this.So, we'll focus on how the monk contributes to a party, not how it compares to other classes.
Well, sort of. The thing is if Joe chooses to play a charlatan rogue it means he's not playing a bard. Even a commoner can make a contribution, and depending on the GM could be a real badass, but there really isn't much of a reason to play a commoner when he could play a fighter. The commoner also fares much less well when locked in a room without props and set against some horrible evil because its much harder to roleplay your way out of that. Mechanics are just easier to measure because they have less variables such as what the GM would let you do.
Mechanics are just easier to measure because they have less variables such as what the GM would let you do.A lack of interest or concern in rollplaying does not mean a lack of interest or concern in mechanics. The question of how the monk contributes to the party has to consider mechanics, but it doesn't have to consider how the monk compares to other classes. How it compares to other classes is an issue of number optimization (ie rollplaying), whether and to what extent it contributes is not.
And again I point to my example of the commoner. The commoner can contribute, doesn't mean you should play a commoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mechanics are just easier to measure because they have less variables such as what the GM would let you do.A lack of interest or concern in rollplaying does not mean a lack of interest or concern in mechanics. The question of how the monk contributes to the party has to consider mechanics, but it doesn't have to consider how the monk compares to other classes. How it compares to other classes is an issue of number optimization (ie rollplaying), whether and to what extent it contributes is not.
First; what you're invoking is deeply rooted in something we call the Stormwind Fallacy, and it's as old as the Sun.
Second- just to get some clarification, since I'm a bit confused about your argument- if a class exists (and I'm not saying Monk here, I'm saying 'a class') that in all mechanical cases does not perform its role as well as other classes that can perform that role in addition to others, do you consider that a problem?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Justin simply can't produce a build that proves his point, so he's trying to divert the attention to unrelated topics.
Assuming you aren't rollplaying, you should play whatever you want to play. If you want to play a commoner, then you should play a commoner.And again I point to my example of the commoner. The commoner can contribute, doesn't mean you should play a commoner.Mechanics are just easier to measure because they have less variables such as what the GM would let you do.A lack of interest or concern in rollplaying does not mean a lack of interest or concern in mechanics. The question of how the monk contributes to the party has to consider mechanics, but it doesn't have to consider how the monk compares to other classes. How it compares to other classes is an issue of number optimization (ie rollplaying), whether and to what extent it contributes is not.
This suggests to me that any further discussion on this point is moot because the two "sides" are approaching this from orthogonal positions.
In one camp are those who believe that provided at least some positives are to be had with the person in the group as opposed to without, then that concept works. That is, an extra attacker beating on the enemy is better than not having them there, even if they won't contribute much, they contribute something.
In the other camp are those who believe that in order to be considered worth using, a concept should be able to answer 'Yes' to the question of 'Do you offer something to the group that cannot be obtained in greater quantities elsewhere?'
Put another way, you have an equation:
Party + Character = Total Effectiveness
or
P + C = T
If C is not very big and other values (C1, C2, C3...) are bigger, then T would be bigger with those other values. Camp 1 says that doesn't matter because simply put, C is positive and T is larger with than without. Camp 2 says it does matter as why would you not just use C1 or C2 in order to increase T further.
There is no answer to this with a build discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMHO, Justin simply can't produce a build that proves his point, so he's trying to divert the attention to unrelated topics.
Maybe. I don't really understand the point he's getting at. On one hand he's defending the usefulness of a core monk, and on the other hand he's saying you should play a character regardless of effectiveness, IE commoner (potentially at the expense of the game or other players). I'm not seeing the line drawn between those two assertions.
Edit: I assumed core monk since that's kinda what this is about. You can throw in a mash of splat material and multiclassing to make a character work, but at that point it's not exactly a monk.
Mechanics are just easier to measure because they have less variables such as what the GM would let you do.A lack of interest or concern in rollplaying does not mean a lack of interest or concern in mechanics. The question of how the monk contributes to the party has to consider mechanics, but it doesn't have to consider how the monk compares to other classes. How it compares to other classes is an issue of number optimization (ie rollplaying), whether and to what extent it contributes is not.
On that same token, a wizard's familiar can contribute to the party.
I could write up a two-handed exotic crossbow that took a full-round action to reload and dealt 1 damage and say that that weapon still dealt damage. No one would USE that weapon, but if we are making umbrella statements then it still fits with all the other weapons.The comparisons dont exist because of rollplay. I could very easily roleplay an unarmed fighter as a Shaolin Monk. No conflicts there.
I still think that the monk could use some tweaking. My stance isn't that the Monk is outright useless and I am not suggesting anything about the people who choose to play them. I regularly sacrifice optimization for characterization. What I am trying to say is that the Monk isn't properly balanced. To make any argument about balance, one needs to make comparisons.
I am not just idly bashing monks. I think that the class needs to be fixed. There is a difference, and defending the class as it stands seems (to me) unproductive. What should the Monk be great at? Where does it stuggle when it probably shouldn't? What should its role be in a group? How does it contribute in ways that another class couldn't, or couldn't as effectively?
I can answer these questions for all the other CRB classes. They have strengths and weaknesses, but they all fill a distinct role and can be excellent within their niche. Monks are the odd man out, and I think it would be good for the Devs to invest some time into raising the Monk up to the level of the other Classes.
Maybe I've misunderstood you, but it sounds like you're suggesting that the mechanical aspects of the game have little value and that only roleplaying matters. That's very similar to the Stormwind Fallacy.
... stuff removed for brevity ...This suggests to me that any further discussion on this point is moot because the two "sides" are approaching this from orthogonal positions.
In one camp are those who believe that provided at least some positives are to be had with the person in the group as opposed to without, then that concept works. That is, an extra attacker beating on the enemy is better than not having them there, even if they won't contribute much, they contribute something.
In the other camp are those who believe that in order to be considered worth using, a concept should be able to answer 'Yes' to the question of 'Do you offer something to the group that cannot be obtained in greater quantities elsewhere?'
Put another way, you have an equation:
Party + Character = Total Effectiveness
or
P + C = TIf C is not very big and other values (C1, C2, C3...) are bigger, then T would be bigger with those other values. Camp 1 says that doesn't matter because simply put, C is positive and T is larger with than without. Camp 2 says it does matter as why would you not just use C1 or C2 in order to increase
We may be able to reach a bridge on the following point
Being able to attack is not the same as being able to hit or the same as being able to do damage. A first level wizard character contributes effectively nothing to a 20th level party. The same can be said for a familiar.
I'm not sure what your goal is with that. Clearly no one is arguing about mismatched levels on members of the party. Mention of commoners within a party were to highlight that sometimes a contributor doesn't contribute enough, a position held by camp 2.
I don't think anyone defines "contribute" to mean "I gave it my best". I think most think "contribute" means "I positively affected the outcome in a meaningful way". The difference between camp 1 and camp 2 is in the definition of "meaningful".