|
SO, I have seen all kinds of threads involving how to make the monk not suck. ranging from a tank to a damage dealing monster of a glass cannon. To the dragon grappling mayhem that is the CMB monster.
Now, I pose to you all, what is the BEST WAY TO USE A MONK. Perhaps there is not a problem with the monk class in so much as there is a problem with a way people attempt to use them. (certain circumstances barring) (no zen archer builds, as, technically this is one of the all around best ways to build a monk, but imo its not a "monk" or not an "Iconic monk".
Thoughts?
|
Frankly for a monk in a party to be efficient, it's to actually be flexible. When the party needs someone to scout ahead and your usual scout is not available, you should be able to do it. You can indeed fight in melee range but you can also protect the weakest party members with your high mobility with fast movement, you can go back and forth between the front line and the back line, something most melee characters cannot do (paladin in full plate, Barbarian is most likely tanking in the front line). With the high amount of skill points no excuse to grab at least one social skill so you can actually talk and roleplay in social situations.
That's pretty much the only advice I can give, sure you can go the high DPR builds on the forums...but frankly I always thought that the monk flexibility was his biggest asset.
|
As I recently states in the 'most powerful monk' thread, monks biggest strengths are versatility, defense and mobility. The above post pretty much covers how you should, generally, be using those assets. Unlike other classes, you can target other glass cannons from anywhere on the battlefield and render them useless. You can provide flanking to nearly any point needed and perform very well when doing so. In fact, anything require tactical positioning loves the monk because they can almost always get to whatever position is needed...in a variety of ways.
Monks can tank, just as well as any other melee class (actually better) but they don't do as much damage as those classes when they are tanking. When using a monk as a tank, you have to consider a lot more things than just your ability to not die.
Out of combat monks are versatile as well but not masters of any particular skills (ie. No special bonuses or uses of them). They make excellent partners for scouting and stealth while being capable at basic tasks and serviceable backups for when a specialist is not around.
With these things in mind, any monk can be good, even in a party with a bard, rogue, and fighter/barbarian and wizard.
I also find that monks near immortality (well built monks, that is) can be used to slowly whittle down enemies over time and to recover fallen comrades since a tpk is much less likely with a monk in the party. This means that one other person, at least, has a chance of being raised. I think that is a rather big deal and extremely often overlooked.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem here is that the monk is in strong company. Let's look at what things the monk brings and break it down:
Attacking - monks are bad at this, arguably as bad as rogues who are not meant to be a combat class. They have lots of attacks, but compared to the other combat-classes their buffs are weak and their attack bonus is bad. Damage could be OK, but they rarely get to land it on a skilled enemy.
Tanking - monks have excellent defences, equal to the other great defender, the paladin. The difference being that the paladin's defences protect others, and the paladin has a strong offence as well. A defensive monk isn't bringing much to the rest of the party, if anything at all. He can do it, but what's the point? The enemy can just ignore him.
I also find that monks near immortality (well built monks, that is) can be used to slowly whittle down enemies over time and to recover fallen comrades since a tpk is much less likely with a monk in the party. This means that one other person, at least, has a chance of being raised. I think that is a rather big deal and extremely often overlooked.
I think this is a valid point if not for the fact that it overlooks the even more valid point that having any other character in the party instead of the monk - one that can actually do something substantial to the enemy, in other words - means the odds of a near-TPK happening at all are considerably reduced if not removed.
Scouting - monks can scout better than...anyone else who isn't a scout. The "scout" classes - rogue, ranger, bard, inquisitor - are all way, way better at it. You can make a monk scout, but he's at best a second-rate scout.
Versatility - monks, it is argued, are 5th wheel characters, good at several things rather than very good at one. So are bards, inquisitors, rangers, even the magus, among others. They all do the fifth-wheel thing better than the monk, being more versatile by dint of more skill points, better combat ability (those with 3/4 BAB can self-buff), and spells. Monk is a "versatile" class in the same way he is a scout class - he can do it, but bottom of the heap.
The problem the monk has is he is not "good" at a lot of things, he is excellent at one (defence, and he usually has to nerf it to be better at other things), and mediocre at everything else. Most classes are excellent at one thing, and good at another, or else are good at a LOT of things.
There's not really much you can point at the monk and say "he's the best at that" except maybe running away.
|
|
I was looking into the dimensional feat chain. and, it seems very powerful with a monk, specially a drunken master monk, you get to flurry while moving your normal distance, and at 19 can flank with yourself!.
(add in dragon style feats + elemental fist + improved nat attack for some nice damage, +4 amulets with speed enchant at 20, thats a bit of hurt!)
Improved Nat Attack won't work with Unarmed Strike though. (Though there is a thread discussing whether combining Alchemist levels with Feral Combat Training and INA will work). I would also say that if you have to wait til 19 to be able to pull off some really impressive stuff, that's a bit of a problem.
As for scouting, I'd say that a monk CAN be a top tier scout if built for it, especially a Qinggong monk which would have access to gaseous form. However, said monk will, admittedly, have to give up other stuff to get there, primarily due to his MADness. So in principle, I agree with Dabbler on that issue as well since the other classes mentioned won't have to give up anything for the most part to rival, or even best, the monk.
|
|
I've been playing a Sensei Ki Mystic 4 Winds Qinggong Monk in a home campaign, and I must say that I've had no complaints about not being useful.
20+ ki points
20+ rounds of Bardic Performance
10ish Elemental Fist uses (I never use these, if I did, it's Marid style)
My usual is ensuring the frontliners have Barkskin, then inspire courage, then throw around some scorching rays. My allies have the ability to get a re-roll. Slow Time comes around at 12th level.
So, TLDR...it's fun and I'm a useful engine.
|
I'd say the best way to use a monk is as a boss replacement for a party with things like gunslingers that are hitting all the time. Because touch AC goes through the roof on monks, and other than that, they aren't incredibly likely to TPK unless the PCs make poor decisions, don't fight as a team, or are rather unlucky, but it will still pose a challenge just out of how difficult monks are to hit.
Than I'd say dip because monks are frontloaded with cool stuff and taking 2 levels of it on a whatever is really really nice, especially if that class doesn't already have evasion or 3 good saves.
After that, probably half a gestalt. Even a monk/rogue gestalt is rather powerful, with the flowing monk archetype and sap line of feats, because you can wind up getting reliable sneak attacks via the 2nd level thing flowing monks get.
Then I'd say as a party's 5th man. If you already have a barbarian/fighter/paladin/ranger/other reliable frontliner, a rogue/bard/other trapfinder, a cleric/oracle/other healer, and a wizard/sorcerer/witch/other arcane caster, then a monk can do fairly well. Especially in a party with a rogue, due to the ability to reliably flank the rogue to give him sneak attack. You can do stealthy scouty stuff, damage to help the fighter, tank if the fighter goes down in combat so the arcane caster doesn't get hit, and a bunch of other roles. Unfortunately, you can't really focus on one of them because when you do, you lose the ability to do any of the other things.
Its a fun class, one of my favorites, but it isn't an incredibly strong class unless you take a few archetypes and do stuff like archery or party buffing.
I was looking into the dimensional feat chain. and, it seems very powerful with a monk, specially a drunken master monk, you get to flurry while moving your normal distance, and at 19 can flank with yourself!.
(add in dragon style feats + elemental fist + improved nat attack for some nice damage, +4 amulets with speed enchant at 20, thats a bit of hurt!)
With Ultimate Campaign retraining rules, you can sink all your feats into doing this at level 12, and still not compare too favorably to Barbarian or druid pouncing.
|
|
a monk is a scalpel, its not a big blunt object. a barbarian can run into the frey and hulk smash, same with the fighter, but a monk can get to the target that is the most deadly and hold it off by using combat maneuvers (which is why i love the tetori) or aoo's to stiffle casters, ranged characters, or even big baddies with big massive damaging hits with crane/snake style.
i would never build a monk to keep pace with a fighter/barbarian in damage, monks are not designed for that, but a barbarian cant get to that caster who was about to baleful poly the party wizard, dominate person the party fighter, or create pit the party cleric.
I have found that the monk scout can be incredibly effective. Don't discount the ability to move at 70+ft/round with a 0 ACP. Monks can be very effective combatants, they're just not "the best." As others have pointed out, a Monk has very high survivability, which I think is very underrated on these boards. Having one character who doesn't fail his/her save and is still upright is a huge help avoiding a tpk. Also, I can't remember the last time I heard so many people shilling for the rogue on the boards. The monk is a better thief than the rogue.
Do monks suffer because they aren't super awesome at something? Yes, but the're still pretty good at lots of things.
Just look up the theory crafting threads comparing a monk to fighter. Yes the Fighter does more DPR, but the monk isn't that far behind... plus the fighter is only good in combat and a liability otherwise. People poo poo the Monk, but really all a Monk needs to be effective is a higher system mastery (or slightly lower expectations) than is required for a Fighter or Wizard.
I guess "tie them up and toss them into rooms to see if there are traps" is not the answer you're looking for?
Honestly, they work well when paired with another character. Send a rogue and monk off scouting... the monk can cover the rogue's back as needed. In a fight, flanking bonuses with the fighter.
I guess "tie them up and toss them into rooms to see if there are traps" is not the answer you're looking for?
Honestly, they work well when paired with another character. Send a rogue and monk off scouting... the monk can cover the rogue's back as needed. In a fight, flanking bonuses with the fighter.
Monks are a more solid class than that.
They don't exist just to provide flanking bonus. They do fair damage with a full attack.
I guess "tie them up and toss them into rooms to see if there are traps" is not the answer you're looking for?
Honestly, they work well when paired with another character. Send a rogue and monk off scouting... the monk can cover the rogue's back as needed. In a fight, flanking bonuses with the fighter.
Monks are a more solid class than that.
They don't exist just to provide flanking bonus. They do fair damage with a full attack.
That's why I suggested they could guard the rogue, and then paired them with the fighter. Working together, a monk makes a very effective bodyguard for a rogue against monsters... and working with a fighter means they can quickly turn even most of the toughest enemies into a fine pink mist in one round of combat.
I was looking into the dimensional feat chain. and, it seems very powerful with a monk, specially a drunken master monk, you get to flurry while moving your normal distance, and at 19 can flank with yourself!.
(add in dragon style feats + elemental fist + improved nat attack for some nice damage, +4 amulets with speed enchant at 20, thats a bit of hurt!)
Magus does it better, and can do it earlier. Improved Natural Attack does not enhance unarmed strike, and Speed is a +3 bonus so you won't get more than +2 on an AoMF with that property as it's capped at +5. So maybe not as much hurt as you think?
I've been playing a Sensei Ki Mystic 4 Winds Qinggong Monk in a home campaign, and I must say that I've had no complaints about not being useful.
20+ ki points
20+ rounds of Bardic Performance
10ish Elemental Fist uses (I never use these, if I did, it's Marid style)My usual is ensuring the frontliners have Barkskin, then inspire courage, then throw around some scorching rays. My allies have the ability to get a re-roll. Slow Time comes around at 12th level.
So, TLDR...it's fun and I'm a useful engine.
Sounds like a great buffer, but if I want a buffer I'd look to a bard.
a monk is a scalpel, its not a big blunt object. a barbarian can run into the frey and hulk smash, same with the fighter, but a monk can get to the target that is the most deadly and hold it off by using combat maneuvers (which is why i love the tetori) or aoo's to stiffle casters, ranged characters, or even big baddies with big massive damaging hits with crane/snake style.
Combat maneuvers generally run out of usefulness once you are into double-digits, and other classes (especially the fighter) actually do them better. I agree the monk is reasonably good at getting to an enemy and tying them down, but this depends on there being multiple foes with a clear leader, the enemy in question being reachable by the monk (after all, he can't fly or see invisible), and him being able to command that foe's attention. That unfortunately doesn't happen as often as I'd like in most campaigns, if it happens one encounter in four it's a good day.
So what else can the monk do? We end up with "hit things" and we know he isn't all that good at that.
The monk's problem in fighting is lack of accuracy and DR. Damage...is an issue that can fix itself if the accuracy and the ability to get through DR is there, but they aren't.
I have found that the monk scout can be incredibly effective. Don't discount the ability to move at 70+ft/round with a 0 ACP.
I agree, monks can make an OK scout, but the job is done better by at least four classes, three of which can do a lot more besides. What the monk brings to the role can easily be duplicated by equipment, but the monk cannot duplicate the features other classes bring to the role.
Monks can be very effective combatants, they're just not "the best." As others have pointed out, a Monk has very high survivability, which I think is very underrated on these boards. Having one character who doesn't fail his/her save and is still upright is a huge help avoiding a tpk.
As has been pointed out, it's better to have somebody in the party that can prevent the TPK situation in the first place than someone who can be the sole survivor.
Also, I can't remember the last time I heard so many people shilling for the rogue on the boards. The monk is a better thief than the rogue.
Does he have Disable Device, or Slight-of-Hand as class skills? I agree he can make a better bag-snatcher with his speed, but that's about it. The rogue has more appropriate skills and more skill ranks available to use them.
Do monks suffer because they aren't super awesome at something? Yes, but the're still pretty good at lots of things.
Monks aren't super-awesome at ANYTHING, and are mediocre at a lot of things in a game that rewards specialisation. To be a useful "generalist" you don't have to be half as good at two things, you need to be three quarters as good at a lot of things. The ranger, bard, and inquisitor are good examples of successful generalists.
Just look up the theory crafting threads comparing a monk to fighter. Yes the Fighter does more DPR, but the monk isn't that far behind... plus the fighter is only good in combat and a liability otherwise. People poo poo the Monk, but really all a Monk needs to be effective is a higher system mastery (or slightly lower expectations) than is required for a Fighter or Wizard.
So the monk is great as long as you are a wizard with the system and you are content to invest all that effort to still come out with a role barely more useful than that of the ranger's animal companion? I would say that's a good description of the problem, not a solution to that problem.
Monks are a more solid class than that.
They don't exist just to provide flanking bonus. They do fair damage with a full attack.
...if they hit at all, I have to point out. This has been discussed in another thread; against high AC targets the monk can be all but ineffectual.
The biggest problem the monk has is answering this question: What does the monk bring to a party that another class doesn't, and more besides?
as an improvised two-handed weapon for a body bludgeon barbarian?
The biggest problem the monk has is answering this question: What does the monk bring to a party that another class doesn't, and more besides?
That's the wrong way to look at it.
Also monks are plenty accurate for any group where the GM doesn't get personally offended at the fighter power attacking and decides to bump AC to absurd levels.
|
|
improved nat DOES increase the monks unarmed strike, it is counted as nat. weapons AND manufactured weapons.
Monk can do it A LOT more often than a magus as well though. I never Said I took the ammy for the +5 to hit. I took it for the extra 2 attacks at full BaB.
combine this with dragon style tree to get 1.5 str on all your unarmed strikes, a drunken master with several drunken ki, and an elemental fist feat. That is pretty nice. Its a high level monk thing, but a very good and workable concept. Magus gets it early yes, but it limited to how many times a day ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My 7th level monk was stuck in a 7-11 game this past saturday. The gm rolled a lot of critical hits. I was unable to perform the tanking style my character was built for and the game was all about rocket tag because we were playing the high tier) my monk got hurt, even got hit with a touch attack, got negative levels, took wisdom drain, etc. It was an interesting experience.
The adventure was difficult and a capstone one as well. It was pure combat and I was really under leveled for the experience.
Some things I noticed:
My ac was roughly the same as everyone else's, but slightly higher (in some cases by only one or two points).
I was able to increase my ac substantially and to to extreme end of what would be required for a boss to hit me (somewhere around 40). Nobody else came close.
I had roughly as much health as everyone else but not quite as much as the big combat classes (the fighters had about 110 HP and I had 80 or 87 if I drank alcohol).
The paladins had better saves than me (one was optimized for support and saves and his were way ahead of mine because of stacking and class features).
I made almost every save.
When drunk, it is difficult for me to fail a save. Rolling low end single digits still resulted in me passing DC 17+ saves.
Having to save versus Baleful Polymorph really makes you appreciate being a monk and not a fighter.
The fighters were ranged and offensively did things I don't think any typical monk could expect to do. However, I listened to their numbers, attack rolls, damage, etc....and realized that I could have gone several rounds with the best of them if dominated. Scratch that...2-4 rounds depending on the rolls of the dice.
We lost an animal companion. I kept thinking that if I had been tanking, the companion would have lived and so would I (this turned out to be true).
Hitting was a problem for me. Mostly because of my build and some lame ruling about not being able to enchant bracers of armor with brawling....I became pure defense instantly with no option for offensive action beyond hoping to roll a natural 20.
If the brawling property worked, a single level up would allow me to contribute offensively with frequency.
In an adventure tiered for my level, I would have been an invulnerable, obnoxious god. The enmies had difficulty hitting me and using magic on me as it was (but they did hit and those hits hurt).
My mobility was an asset, even compared to flight and dimension door. Being able to almost go wherever I wanted was really becoming telling in terms of what I could do and how I could help. 40 foot movement is great but anything after that really is an awesome thing.
Versatility is king. Focusing on any one thing with a monk does not seem to do it justice. I definitely have realized that being able to do more things out of combat and a wider variety of options in combat are far and away better than tripling my to hit and damage. Too many encounters have nothing to do with combat and if they are fights, are combats where DPR is less important that doing something else or where a simple grapple or other combat maneuver would have been SO much more efficient. It doesn't matter that there are many or few targets, or how hard teammates can hit. When three of you lay into her and she is not going to drop for three or four ADDITIONAL rounds...and is casting magic that can end your character, that dps built fighter using a bow is suddenly not as useful...a monk (or anyone built around maneuvers) becomes infinitely more valuable.
Adaptability. I felt more flexible and safe in many situations than many of my much higher level allies. I would have felt completely safe if I were a vanilla monk, though. Strange, right?
Rarely as useless as made out to be. I have had exactly one session where I felt truly useless and even then, I wasn't. I have always had so many different options, even in combat, that I have been a contributor and in some cases (such as when others have all fallen), the only option left.
Conclusion: not experiencing anything like what is commonly argued about monks except for accuracy issues, but I have a 13 str and amulet of natural armor instead of mighty fists and am built for tanking not DPs.
When I cannot do much damage, I find that helping others deal it while I keep them alive works just as well.
PS. The game was about rocket tag but several rockets often needed to be fired to drop anyone from either side. It felt more like rockets for anyone who wasn't in heavy armor with lots of HP.
a monk is a scalpel, its not a big blunt object. a barbarian can run into the frey and hulk smash, same with the fighter, but a monk can get to the target that is the most deadly and hold it off by using combat maneuvers (which is why i love the tetori) or aoo's to stiffle casters, ranged characters, or even big baddies with big massive damaging hits with crane/snake style.
i would never build a monk to keep pace with a fighter/barbarian in damage, monks are not designed for that, but a barbarian cant get to that caster who was about to baleful poly the party wizard, dominate person the party fighter, or create pit the party cleric.
he kind of can, with the use of dragon style to ignore terrain, and his (smaller but still effective) speed boost, a barbarian can usually charge+pounce (something the monk severely lacks is the ability to move AND remain able to hit things effectively--since no flurry means your accuracy takes a nosedive) whoever they need dead.
want them tripped or grappled instead? barb can do it too, even without the feats--strength surge is a powerful thing (and for those who dont have it, the rage bonus to strength is respectable enough), and they have enough HP and gnerally good enough defenses to eat an AoO for using it without the improved feat(s).
The biggest problem the monk has is answering this question: What does the monk bring to a party that another class doesn't, and more besides?That's the wrong way to look at it.
And what's the right way? Ignore all other classes, shout "Hi-ya!" and pose? It's hard to feel that you are role-playing a hero when the ranger's animal companion makes a bigger contribution to party success than you do.
Also monks are plenty accurate for any group where the GM doesn't get personally offended at the fighter power attacking and decides to bump AC to absurd levels.
I beg to differ from personal experience in many AP games where the as-written AC stretched the full BAB classes and I was left with a monk punching air. It happens, and it happens all to frequently when facing "boss" encounters (those that are CR+2-4).
improved nat DOES increase the monks unarmed strike, it is counted as nat. weapons AND manufactured weapons.
No really, it can't. It says very specifically Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). Unarmed Strike was specifically excluded.
Monk can do it A LOT more often than a magus as well though. I never Said I took the ammy for the +5 to hit. I took it for the extra 2 attacks at full BaB.
With his arcane pool I don't think so. He can also take that +5 weapon, use his arcane pool to haste himself (or cast the spell and haste the party), and end up hitting more accurately than you for more damage.
combine this with dragon style tree to get 1.5 str on all your unarmed strikes, a drunken master with several drunken ki, and an elemental fist feat. That is pretty nice. Its a high level monk thing, but a very good and workable concept. Magus gets it early yes, but it limited to how many times a day ;)
It's nice, and Dragon Style is THE feat-tree for the strength-oriented monk, but the magus can recall spells with his arcane pool, so he's probably not much more limited in uses than the monk (certainly he can get "enough" out of it), and as I pointed out he hits more accurately and can throw in other fun and games for more damage. Sorry, but the whole feat chain works better for the magus than the monk, and the monk doesn't really get it all until 19th level...and most APs are long over before you get that far.
|
|
a monk is a scalpel, its not a big blunt object. a barbarian can run into the frey and hulk smash, same with the fighter, but a monk can get to the target that is the most deadly and hold it off by using combat maneuvers (which is why i love the tetori) or aoo's to stiffle casters, ranged characters, or even big baddies with big massive damaging hits with crane/snake style.
Combat maneuvers generally run out of usefulness once you are into double-digits, and other classes (especially the fighter) actually do them better. I agree the monk is reasonably good at getting to an enemy and tying them down, but this depends on there being multiple foes with a clear leader, the enemy in question being reachable by the monk (after all, he can't fly or see invisible), and him being able to command that foe's attention. That unfortunately doesn't happen as often as I'd like in most campaigns, if it happens one encounter in four it's a good day.
So what else can the monk do? We end up with "hit things" and we know he isn't all that good at that.
The monk's problem in fighting is lack of accuracy and DR. Damage...is an issue that can fix itself if the accuracy and the ability to get through DR is there, but they aren't.
dabbler i have proven in many a "monk sucks threads", that this is not true. my tetori can grapple anything givin the correct level, and can literally grapple anything tangible prior to level 17, then i can grapple intangible as well.
he kind of can, with the use of dragon style to ignore terrain, and his (smaller but still effective) speed boost, a barbarian can usually charge+pounce (something the monk severely lacks is the ability to move AND remain able to hit things effectively--since no flurry means your accuracy takes a nosedive) whoever they need dead.
want them tripped or grappled instead? barb can do it too, even without the feats--strength surge is a powerful thing (and for those who dont have it, the rage bonus to strength is respectable enough), and they have enough HP and gnerally good enough defenses to eat an AoO for using it without the improved feat(s).
pounce fails in comparison to dimensional agility + abundant step. you get pounce on what... 80 feet tops assuming you can get a straight line? i poof the f!&@ next to the target and full attack it into the ground, or if im a tetori, grapple, pin, and tie up in one round. and that has a range of what 800 feet?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In a party of rogue, cad fighter/shadow dancer and druid I find my monk being useful in combat and social situations. In combat my qinggong 4 winds monk can be tough front liner with toughness/lots of hp druid or mobile as rogue when needed. When using elemental fist with efreet style he hits the hardest, par maybe the rogue when he crits and gets SA. Also in campaign where heavy armors are very rare, the monk gets to shine. Outside of combat my monk can be lie detector with high sense motive, search engine thanks to high perception, scout with no armor or go-to-guy when information about history or religion is needed. Intimidate is my social skill, not very good at it but often role playing covers that area.
I'm enjoying playing the monk. He fits to party, is very self-sufficient and as others have said before: being versatile is the key. Also preparing for adventure like buying potions and oils can really help the monk around if there are no buffers in party.
|
|
However, at least in my experience, a monk is better off flanking with a rogue because he gets a bonus to hit that counters the built-in -2 from flurry, and he improves DPR of the rogue by granting said rogue sneak attack and letting the rogue do an extra fist full of dice or two. Once played a monk with a multiweapon fighting rogue. He existed to provide the rogue a flanking bonus. The guy playing the rogue had to borrow my hat to put his sneak attack dice in and roll it because he didn't have a dice bucket.Monks are a more solid class than that.
They don't exist just to provide flanking bonus. They do fair damage with a full attack.
Whole bunch of stuff about monks
Guys, Dabbler has contributed in most of the monk threads for a while. He knows his stuff about monks. Trust him on this.
...pounce fails in comparison to dimensional agility + abundant step. you get pounce on what... 80 feet tops assuming you can get a straight line? i poof the f@%# next to the target and full attack it into the ground, or if im a tetori, grapple, pin, and tie up in one round. and that has a range of what 800 feet?
Pounce is only half normal charge range and it is often all you need. Monks DD will often experiance similar problems. And i dont belive you have used the Dimetion door trick with a tetori you have played. Unless there is a Tetori FAQ i dont know about.
pounce fails in comparison to dimensional agility + abundant step. you get pounce on what... 80 feet tops assuming you can get a straight line? i poof the f%## next to the target and full attack it into the ground, or if im a tetori, grapple, pin, and tie up in one round. and that has a range of what 800 feet?
First problem: Barbarian Full Attack >> Monk Full Attack.
Second problem: Dimensional Dervish Tetori is not one, but TWO actions short of actually being able to do that.
And a question: What's the actual range of a Dimensional Dervish charge?
I've been out of the loop a bit with regards to monks, as I haven't played in a group with one in a while, but is there any room for a Maneuver based Tank? Because I know one of the big problems with the Monk is an inability to put out damage. As such, even though they have decent defenses, there's no reason for an enemy to attack them instead of another squishier ally.
However, Combat maneuvers don't care too much about being able to put out damage. Trip an enemy enough, or grapple them enough, or even dirty trick, once Greater Dirty Trick comes around, can cause the enemy to focus on you, even if your damage is subpar.
I know Combat Maneuvers get a lot worse at higher levels, but is there any room for this, at least at relatively low-to-mid levels?
dabbler i have proven in many a "monk sucks threads", that this is not true. my tetori can grapple anything givin the correct level, and can literally grapple anything tangible prior to level 17, then i can grapple intangible as well.
No, you haven't. You have proved that ONE (count them) archetype of one (count them) class can make good with ONE (count them again) maneuver. If you don't want to play a purely grappling monk it's not much good, is it?
So the statement "i have proven in many a "monk sucks threads", that this is not true" is itself not true. You have proven that the Tettori can make grappling work at high level, nothing more. Maneuvers in general still fall short if it's any maneuver other than grappling or any class/archetype than the Tettori, but the Tettori is at the end of the day a one-trick pony. It's a good trick, but it's only one trick.
pounce fails in comparison to dimensional agility + abundant step. you get pounce on what... 80 feet tops assuming you can get a straight line? i poof the f&!@ next to the target and full attack it into the ground, or if im a tetori, grapple, pin, and tie up in one round. and that has a range of what 800 feet?
No, Dimensional Dervish allows you to move up to only twice your base speed and full-attack. At level 20, that's about 180 feet.
But you miss the crucial point here, that the monk can move himself, and unload...and get pulped by all the enemies next to the guy he unloaded on - super-mobility is great but you can get too far from your support for it to be a good idea in all cases. The magus can move THE WHOLE PARTY, unload, lets his friends unload on everyone around him, and does a little dance of victory.
When it comes to a contest between limited SLAs and complete spells, spells win just about every time.
I've been out of the loop a bit with regards to monks, as I haven't played in a group with one in a while, but is there any room for a Maneuver based Tank? Because I know one of the big problems with the Monk is an inability to put out damage. As such, even though they have decent defenses, there's no reason for an enemy to attack them instead of another squishier ally.
However, Combat maneuvers don't care too much about being able to put out damage. Trip an enemy enough, or grapple them enough, or even dirty trick, once Greater Dirty Trick comes around, can cause the enemy to focus on you, even if your damage is subpar.
I know Combat Maneuvers get a lot worse at higher levels, but is there any room for this, at least at relatively low-to-mid levels?
Maneuvers can and do work at lower levels. I had a monk who could do great at lower levels (1st through 6th level, largely) by grappling foes. At low levels, monks in general do OK, though. However, there are issues unless you are playing a Maneuver Master monk or a Tettori:
* Availability of Feats: you don't get Improved Trip or Improved Disarm until 6th level on the bonus feats. If you want them earlier, or if you want the Greater feats, you need Int 13 and Combat Expertise for some, Power Attack for others, and that's hard on the MAD monk. There are a few weapons that can help you, but they largely require a feat for proficiency even though they are "monk" weapons. Basically, for those low levels it's "grappling" and not "maneuvers" until 6th level unless you are blowing all your feats on it and are MAD as hell.
* How good are they really: Penalties that apply to your normal attacks apply to maneuvers as well. That means a flurry of trips/disarms/whatever start at -2 to your CMB, then go to -7, then -12...and you can't flurry grapple attempts.
* Fighters Do It Better: if you really want a maneuver-tank, a fighter does it best. He's not restricted to that flurry rule, he has immediate access to some great weapons, it's easier for him to take Combat Expertise and/or Power Attack, he applies his weapon training bonus to maneuvers...all round he will have better CMB, equal CMD (I've made one to prove it), and better options if the maneuvers don't work.
* High Level Blues: as you state, at higher level maneuvers in general lose ground.
Maneuver Masters and Tettori do their things relatively well, but both are limited - Tettori can only grapple, so are weak against multiple opponents, although they do make grappling work at high level; Maneuver Masters don't have many options if maneuvers aren't cutting it, though they get more mileage out of them.