|
ok, so CR 20, lets assume the monk is level 19
CMB: 19+4(greater dirty trick)+10 (dex)+ say 9 wis + 4 (since at this point your -most likely- enlarge) for about 46 CMB.
now you are flurrying so you get normal attacks at ~31/31/31/26/26/21/21 then 3 maneuvers at 44/41/36 you have a pretty good chance one of them will get through. you also have decent chances to hit, and even better to hit after one of the three blinds gets through.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'd like to suggest for a build like this is Dragon Style. It's absolutely screaming "Take me! Take me!"
For your Level 3 and 5 feats, taking Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity is as good as adding a non-penalty inducing Power Attack and allows you to charge through allies, difficult terrain, etc.
So what I'm seein is someone posted a monk that is not bad and yet the response is "Yeah, but a barbarian can....."
If that's the reposnse is there any point in ever fixing the monk if the only argument is but so and so can do this instead.
The op isn't saying this is the best monk ever known to man, he is saying this is amonk build that can fight and contribute to a party without being useless. Is that not what all the monk arguments are about? Or is the end game having a monk able to outshine ever other class. Is it going to out dpr a ragin barbarian or a smiting paladin? No but no one else is either.
I think you've brought a really nice and well balance build to the table. This is the kind of build that adds to a party and can be helpful in almost any circumstance. There are definitely a few changes I would make but they fit my play style and are not necessarily improvements.
What I really like about this build is that you kept it CRB, didn't take an exotic race or use any splat. It's a straight forward build.
Or you play a Warpriest of Irori in brawling armor and you are a better monk than a monk.Well, in fairness as it stands, Monks are woefully lacking in what they are supposed to be, so...
You work with what you got.Which is why system mastery is a major factor in a monk build.
It's sad how true this is. Also, take Warpriest of Irori with a 1 level dip of MoMS so you can use Snake Style (the whole chain) and Crane Style (just the first feat). Rock a high AC and watch all the AoO you get from Snack Style with your Full BAB unarmed strikes and the damage you can deal.
If a Monk fights a Warpriest of Irori, he's going to have a bad day.
|
Some situations favor a monk, straight up fight isn't one of them.
The mechanics of flurry bring them up even with two weapon fighters before the fighters get their class benefits, so a monk is behind wpn spec, plus weapon training. Against a barb he is down all the benefits of rage, vs. a ranger down favored enemy and instant enemy at 10+, vs. paladin down smite, vs. slayer down favored target, vs. swashbuckler down swashbuckler level in damage plus extra crit range (starting at 5th lvl).
Damage is ok as they do increase over time, but the increase is roughly 1 pt every 4 levels (d6 to d8 to d10 to 2d6 to 2d8 etc.) compared to a swashbuckler's 1 pt/level at 3, and others who get a benefit at low level and scale as well.
However, not every situation is a straight up fight. I remember one scenario in PFS in which parties often TPK, my party with 3 monks owned the fight preventing it from even being difficult. I definitely see a lot of monks in PFS where we game because while they may be down accuracy and damage vs. a fighter or barb, they have the flexibility to meet a variety of situations.
if you focus on one maneuver then yes, but I have yet come across something immune to: trips, grapple, blind, and or disarm/sunder.
I have. Flying invisible devil. Natural weapons. My monk had Improved grapple/trip/disarm. Grappling not good when you only get one try a round with a 50% miss chance.
Sure when you/if you DO find something immune to ALL of these you have to rely on your damage, which would be lower, due to to-hits. But to be fair, that fight is probably for the fighter/paladin to shine. each class has there shining moment/areas. Saying the monk is a bad class because he contributes slightly less on the really Big Big bbeg fights where the BBEG fights alone because he really IS just that badass is like saying a wizard is a bad class because he can die to a full round attack from a monk after a stunning fist hit.
I'm not saying that. I am saying that the monk is a bad class because he contributes slightly less in most combats and gets shut down almost completely by the BBEG fight. There's a difference.
ok, so CR 20, lets assume the monk is level 19
CMB: 19+4(greater dirty trick)+10 (dex)+ say 9 wis + 4 (since at this point your -most likely- enlarge) for about 46 CMB.
now you are flurrying so you get normal attacks at ~31/31/31/26/26/21/21 then 3 maneuvers at 44/41/36 you have a pretty good chance one of them will get through. you also have decent chances to hit, and even better to hit after one of the three blinds gets through.
Where's the +9 from Wisdom coming from, a house rule? Because without it you are stuffed. Oh, and Pit Fiends can whip off a Greater Dispel, so don't count on ANY buffs.
Here are several.
- When the enemy features a battlefield controller caster. (pit spells, slow, entangle, web, etc.)
If you don't have a caster in the party with dispel prepared, this would be a good scenario, yes. On the other hand, he casts dispel to open a hole in the defences and the party piles through while hasted.
- When the enemy features a protected, hard to reach, area damage dealer (fireballs, lightning bolts, chain lightning, etc)
Assuming the party archer doesn't turn him into a pin-cushion while the party casters counterspell him. Seriously, this is the easiest enemy for a standard party, sans monk, to deal with.
- When the environment in a fight is challenging. (slippery, water hazards, pits, jumps, difficult terrain, hazardous poisons)
This is a good example. Shame it doesn't crop up often.
- When the BBEG features henchmen, especially casting henchmen.
Fireball fixes them faster than the monk can.
- Reaching and destroying the line of ranged foes peppering the party from across the chasm.
Other martials do not need to reach them, they have good missile weapons and can shoot back. Casters have spells that can deal with them. Seriously, the monk doesn't have an advantage in being able to reach them - he has a disadvantage in that he HAS to reach them to do anything at all.
- VS any Enemy who is disabling the party or dominating/holding them by targeting WILL
Why does the monk have an advantage here?
Barbarian can take superstition and laugh at the attack; paladin has better protection than the monk; ranger has a decent wisdom; fighter has the spare feats to take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will. The monk's good saves are nice, but they are no more infallible than anyone else's defences.Plus, in a party you have the friendly caster's as well. They are not there just to buff.
- Any BBEG encounter where the room is actively trapped, and you need to deal with and constantly make checks to stay active in the fight.
That's why parties usually have a trap-springer.
- Any large area encounter (outdoor encounters on a 3'x3' table map - we have and use one, etc)
Missile weapons and ranged spells. You know, the things monks are not good with.
- Simply running down a trapped hallway, setting them all off, and taking 0 damage (don't do often enough that the GM metagames the traps just for you, lol)
Again, nice example, but doesn't happen often.
Now again... going into a BBEG type fight, I honestly have never seen a group not even try to "buff up" with spells. Even if the players don't normally help each other, they tend to plan for a BBEG fight.
Assuming that you know the fight is coming, and assuming you have buffers in the party, and assuming the BBEG cannot debuff you.
So what I'm seein is someone posted a monk that is not bad and yet the response is "Yeah, but a barbarian can....."
If that's the reposnse is there any point in ever fixing the monk if the only argument is but so and so can do this instead.
The point here is that the monk does not bring more to a party of anything that another, equally optimised class cannot bring more of to a party, with added extra. That's why the monk needs fixing. The rogue and the fighter are weak because they can only do their role and nothing besides, whereas others do the same role and more. The monk is weak not because others can do his role and more, but because he cannot do his own role without support and they can.
The monk isn't even the best at fighting unarmed, or saves. His mobility is nice but clashes with his other class features, and is trumped as soon as haste and fly get copied into a spell-book.
The point is that even a monk that isn't bad by monk standards still isn't very good.
Some situations favor a monk, straight up fight isn't one of them.
I agree, and that's a pretty big weakness in a class that pretty much has to stand and fight.
The mechanics of flurry bring them up even with two weapon fighters before the fighters get their class benefits, so a monk is behind wpn spec, plus weapon training. Against a barb he is down all the benefits of rage, vs. a ranger down favored enemy and instant enemy at 10+, vs. paladin down smite, vs. slayer down favored target, vs. swashbuckler down swashbuckler level in damage plus extra crit range (starting at 5th lvl).
Damage is ok as they do increase over time, but the increase is roughly 1 pt every 4 levels (d6 to d8 to d10 to 2d6 to 2d8 etc.) compared to a swashbuckler's 1 pt/level at 3, and others who get a benefit at low level and scale as well.
Agreed - especially as many of these classes also get bonuses to hit as well as damage, and have access to fully enhanced weapons.
However, not every situation is a straight up fight. I remember one scenario in PFS in which parties often TPK, my party with 3 monks owned the fight preventing it from even being difficult. I definitely see a lot of monks in PFS where we game because while they may be down accuracy and damage vs. a fighter or barb, they have the flexibility to meet a variety of situations.
I agree, but that's PFS which is often low level where monk disadvantages are not staggering, and where flexibility is often more important than power. The opposite seems true of adventure paths, where you do know who your allies will be, and power is essential.
Also the Pit Fiend... besides trapping the soul, has a DC 32 poisonous bite and a DC 32 Disease (onset immediate).
The Monk is immune to both of those, but they are abilities designed to wreck a Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue, etc. (soul trap, poison, disease)
It's exactly this versatility to stay in almost any fight that is the highlight of a monk.
32 is childs play for any martial character that cares.
ok, so CR 20, lets assume the monk is level 19
CMB: 19+4(greater dirty trick)+10 (dex)+ say 9 wis + 4 (since at this point your -most likely- enlarge) for about 46 CMB.
Agreeing with you, but just FYI - large size gives +1 to CMB, not +4 (that's 3.5 grapple).
32 is childs play for any martial character that cares.
Of course, but 1's always fail, and even a 30 Con martial with +5 Cloak, stone of good luck and pale green ioun stone only has +29 and fails on a 2. Shaken or any other penalty raises those odds, but even with just a 1, immunity is still that much better.
|
|
dabbler- I am using the Maneuver Master. He gets 3 maneuver attempts after he can full attack.. and gets to add wis mod to CMB as a swift action for all of them. If you focus on maneuvers, please use teh right archetype, makes things much better.
I have rarely seen a melee martial class whip out a bow and completely wreck face. Do they do some damage? yeah. but wreck face? no.
ok, so CR 20, lets assume the monk is level 19
CMB: 19+4(greater dirty trick)+10 (dex)+ say 9 wis + 4 (since at this point your -most likely- enlarge) for about 46 CMB.
now you are flurrying so you get normal attacks at ~31/31/31/26/26/21/21 then 3 maneuvers at 44/41/36 you have a pretty good chance one of them will get through. you also have decent chances to hit, and even better to hit after one of the three blinds gets through.
Flurry of maneuvers replace flurry of blows. So your regular attacks are +14(BaB)+10(Dex)-1(Large)+5(Amulet)=+28/+23/18, I think?
You do realize those 3 maneuvers take a -12 penalty right? So your CMB is 19+4(GDT)+10(Dex)+9(Wis)+1(Large)+5(Amulet)=48, but then you flurry and get -12 to them.
So the attack routine would be more like Manevuers +36/+36/+36 and Attacks +28/+23/+18. If hasted, it's instead +37/+37/+37/+29/+29/+24/+19. At level 19, that's kind of low.
I have rarely seen a melee martial class whip out a bow and completely wreck face. Do they do some damage? yea. but wreck face? no.
Any paladin that can smite and any ranger up against their favored enemy will be quite good at ranged combat against them, at least if there's no melee mixed in so they don't take all those penalties. In other words, the monk going over to the monsters can likely make it take longer to down them than otherwise. A fighter can be decent with ranged weapons with just a feat or two (and they have quite a lot) since their secondary weapon training will likely be a ranged weapon. Barbarian can be a bit lacking unless built for ranged combat, but their dex is usually decent enough that they can hit ranged mooks (which is what we where talking about here) and their strength is good.
And it's not like monks are exceptionally mobile either. At low levels, they're no more mobile than a barbarian, and at higher levels, haste comes into play, which stacks with barbarian speed but not with monk speed, and soon thereafter everyone's flying and is again on a level playing field - except the flying fighter is likely to be more effective than the flying monk.