Monk, Is there any reason for it


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Because d10 is reserved to Full BAB classes.

Well that just makes me ask, why is Monk not a full BAB class instead of a Pseudo-Full BAB class.

Shadow Lodge

Backwards compatibility.


TOZ wrote:
Backwards compatibility.

Silly Reason

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Never said it wasn't. ;)


^^^ This...

Yes, the monk CAN be a deadly class. Lormyr proved thsi a while back by making a level 20 monk that can match a fighter in DPS AND have stupid levels of AC...

But it takes a rediculous amount of system mastery and theory building. An "organically grown monk" is much tougher to do (Lormyr's build abused Agile while dumping strength to oblivion on character creation).

Now something like the Sacred Fist just simply does the job that much better...

Oh and everyone trying to defend the Monk's random abilities as "pluses" I would like to ask you, if they are so good why is that most people end up trading them away for Qinggong?


Anyone ever get the feeling the reason they didn't give the monk a major upgrade was due to that? Because 3.5 seems to lack any good support for the Monk other then to make classes to replace it and we need to be able to add 3.5 into our PF or PF into our 3.5 we had to keep it similar.


1) I hope in Unchained they make Monk Full BAB and d10.
2) My Tetori Monk did very well in a very dangerous campaign. Only died due to 4-5 really poor rolls (saves) in a row (rolled like 3, 4, 4, 5, and my +16 wasn't enough).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How many times does this kind of thread come up and how often do people still play monk?


AlaskaRPGer wrote:

1) I hope in Unchained they make Monk Full BAB and d10.

2) My Tetori Monk did very well in a very dangerous campaign. Only died due to 4-5 really poor rolls (saves) in a row (rolled like 3, 4, 4, 5, and my +16 wasn't enough).

Unchained?


Nerdtothe3rd wrote:
AlaskaRPGer wrote:

1) I hope in Unchained they make Monk Full BAB and d10.

2) My Tetori Monk did very well in a very dangerous campaign. Only died due to 4-5 really poor rolls (saves) in a row (rolled like 3, 4, 4, 5, and my +16 wasn't enough).
Unchained?

There's apparently a full BAB Monk rewrite in Pathfinder Unchained.


Nerdtothe3rd wrote:
AlaskaRPGer wrote:

1) I hope in Unchained they make Monk Full BAB and d10.

2) My Tetori Monk did very well in a very dangerous campaign. Only died due to 4-5 really poor rolls (saves) in a row (rolled like 3, 4, 4, 5, and my +16 wasn't enough).
Unchained?

Paizo is releasing a book (I believe next year) that is a reworking of a bunch of classes that either address certain "problems" (for the non CRB classes) or "unchain" CRB classes from their heritage issues, allowing Paizo to make, say the monk, in a way THEY feel it should be. WIthout the restrictions of being backwards compatible with their 3.5 counterparts.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish all of you who are having problems with monks the best of luck sorting that out in your games.

This is a non-issue both at the table where I play and at the table where I GM.

Monks perform, play and prosper at both these tables just fine.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Weslocke wrote:

I wish all of you who are having problems with monks the best of luck sorting that out in your games.

This is a non-issue both at the table where I play and at the table where I GM.

Monks perform, play and prosper at both these tables just fine.

I presume you allow non core options, have bad players, have a high system mastery monk vs a low system mastery party, play games below level 10, and so on. The warrior isn't that bad at low levels. That doesn't mean the monk is ok.


Weslocke wrote:

I wish all of you who are having problems with monks the best of luck sorting that out in your games.

This is a non-issue both at the table where I play and at the table where I GM.

Monks perform, play and prosper at both these tables just fine.

Our only issue with the Monk has been the lack of a definite "niche' for him. Other than that, it's a fun class, tough, can deal out some hurt and is very survivable. I agree.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

As with rogues, monks are a lot of fun in games that are either (a) not highly-optimized, and/or (b) are primarily story-driven, rather than tactical in execution. The fact of the matter is that, if you go far enough in that direction, Commoners are also potentially fine in those games, and adventure on more or less equal footing with barbarians and wizards.

Those sorts of games might well be the rule, rather than the exception, so they're worth mentioning, and feedback from people playing in them (Weslocke, DrDeth, et al.) is disproportionately valuable for that reason.

However, one shouldn't start thinking that those are the only types of games that exist, even if they're the only sort one personally plays in. Most especially, one shouldn't start to slip into the contemptuous stance that those are the only games that count as "real" games, and that fully-optimized tactical games are badwrongfun or are "not Pathfinder." That kind of attitude does a great disservice to one's fellow players and to the very antecedents of the game itself, which sprang directly from tabletop wargaming.

The game rules, as written today, are still very clearly intended to facilitate both sorts of games, or any blend of the two.

That said, in places they fail in that in execution. On a tactical level in a fully-optimized game, monks and rogues are not "just fine." They are not able to contribute as equal team members in that kind of game, except at very low levels.

Now here's the thing: if all classes were fine in both sorts of games, then anyone could play any class in any game and have fun. As it is, anyone can play any class in a low-optimization or story-driven game and still contribute as a full team member, but only certain classes can do that in a high-optimization tactical game. So we need one of two things: (1) very clear labels or disclaimers in the rulebook that say "WARNING: THIS CLASS NOT INTENDED FOR HIGHLY-OPTIMIZED TACTICAL GAMES," so that we can avoid comparing apples to oranges; or (2) monk and rogue classes that can contribute as equal team members in all types of games.


Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.

Vanilla Monk, though? Might as well forget it exists.


Lemmy wrote:

Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.

Let me go another step and opine that, if a class is viable in a tactical game only if you dumpster-dive into a bunch of splatbooks to make it work, then that class is, from its inception, manifestly not suited to tactical games and should be labeled in the Core rules as such. If I start with a Commoner and then use a bazillion bizarre feats, magic items, archetypes, and prestige classes from a lot of non-Core sources to make it viable, than I'm not really playing a Commoner -- which is I think where your last sentence quoted above is headed.


Yeah, most people who want to play a monk are thinking of the classic "shirtless face-puncher." Not a spellcaster, archer, or mounted armor-wearing and weapon-wielding warrior.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.
Let me go another step and opine that, if a class is viable in a tactical game only if you dumpster-dive into a bunch of splatbooks to make it work, then that class is, from its inception, manifestly not suited to tactical games and should be labeled in the Core rules as such. If I start with a Commoner and then use a bazillion bizarre feats, magic items, archetypes, and prestige classes from a lot of non-Core sources to make it viable, than I'm not really playing a Commoner -- which is I think where your last sentence quoted above is headed.

I agree. If a class needs specific archetypes (or even worse, specific builds) to work, then that class simply doesn't work.

The Rogue is even worse, because even giving it a whole alternate class (not archetype) barely pushes it into half-decent territory.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
If a class needs specific archetypes (or even worse, specific builds) to work in a tactical game, then that class simply doesn't work for that sort of game.

Agree, with the additions in bold (lest people think we're dissing the other sorts of games, which is not the intent).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
If a class needs specific archetypes (or even worse, specific builds) to work in a tactical game, then that class simply doesn't work for that sort of game.
Agree, with the additions in bold (lest people think we're dissing the other sorts of games, which is not the intent).

Noted and agreed. Although I do feel the distinction is kinda unnecessary, because pretty much anything works in a game where low optimized characters work.

And in my defense, I didn't specify what "work" means, so, technically, I could be saying an overpowered class needs an specific archetype and/or build to become horrible enough to work in a low-op game. ;)


Chengar Qordath wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Skull wrote:

I love monks. I follow the golden rule of ignoring the "monks suck" feeling the forums give off. I know monks have issues, but every monk I make has been a blast to play. The different archtypes keep it interesting for me.

Sure basically everyone trades out slow fall for something else. A ring of feather fall is not that expensive after all.

I for one do not see how a sacred fist makes a better monk than the monk. Ki pool much later, ac bonus to deflection, no disease immunity, high jump, evasion, skill points, reflex save, stunning fists (required for many style feats) andmore.

It is a cool archtype I would rather play than the cleric/monk or druid/monk I was planning as a replacement divine class for CC however. It just doesnt feel as cool as a monk. But like everything else in this game I will only really know once I play the class.

I sometimes get the feeling dpr is something far too many forum users focus on.

Sorry for the rant

Spells over ride just about everything you said...

and the Blessings are actually pretty useful for Sacred Fists (free action summons here I come :P).

Sacred Fists get a Fort Save version of Evasion so that is cool.

High Jump is a joke ability... really, most monks tend to trade High Jump and Feather Fall for more useful abilities... oh and spells.

Skill points are cool, but monks rarely have the Int to get more. And skill points are kinda meh when you have spells.

Spells need time to cast. Too many have I seen some inquisitor or some magus stacking their spell to be ready after the end of the combat....

Er ... did you miss the part about how Warpriest can cast their buff spells and activate sacred weapon and some of their blessings as free and swift actions? Because that rather mitigates the whole action economy problem.

sadky, yes. But it's still a swift action, and it consume 2 different pool (spell and fervor)


Never underestimate the value of always being "armed and armored". Cannot bear arms in the king's presence? no problem for the monk. Attacked while sleeping? monk needs no time to get ready. Undercover mission? Disarming enemy? monks are always ready to rock.


Cerberus Seven wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:

The plan here:

1. you do almost no damage.
2. Your goal is: be the main target ( good ac, almost immune to magic), boost your allies and stun creature (at 23, even strong fort monster will fail almost 50% of the time...)

One of these things does not compliment the other. o_o

I'm looking at this and...wouldn't playing a bard play pretty much the same way except better in just about every way, and be more playable from level 1? Beyond the stunning fist trick (which is a good trick), I'm not really seeing much usefulness in this guy.

Reasons Stunning Fist isn't even a minor saving grace of the class:

  • Can only be used once per round.
  • Has to be declared before the attack is made, wasted if the attack doesn't hit.
  • Allows a Fortitude save to negate the effect entirely.
  • Negated if the enemy somehow reduces or eliminates the damage immediately.
  • A long list of things are just outright immune to it: undead, constructs, plants, oozes, incorporeal targets, and anything immune to critical hits.

People like to complain about rogue's SA needing help to line up. Stunning Fist is just as bad if not worse.

Whit the attack bonus and the save, it's maybe 40% of success against high save creature, or 60% against low save. And you got your kamehameha (scorching ray) when it don't work well. Finally, if I am not mistaking, creature whit a DR and immune to stunning fist are not to mantis torment.

Why play that over a bard? Well, if I want to do the uncle in avatar, or if I want to be durable, it's de way imo


Lemmy wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.
Let me go another step and opine that, if a class is viable in a tactical game only if you dumpster-dive into a bunch of splatbooks to make it work, then that class is, from its inception, manifestly not suited to tactical games and should be labeled in the Core rules as such. If I start with a Commoner and then use a bazillion bizarre feats, magic items, archetypes, and prestige classes from a lot of non-Core sources to make it viable, than I'm not really playing a Commoner -- which is I think where your last sentence quoted above is headed.

I agree. If a class needs specific archetypes (or even worse, specific builds) to work, then that class simply doesn't work.

The Rogue is even worse, because even giving it a whole alternate class (not archetype) barely pushes it into half-decent territory.

It's fu n to see then how the gunslinger don't need archetype and precise build to work in power house game....wait...


Saigo Takamori wrote:
It's fu n to see then how the gunslinger don't need archetype and precise build to work in power house game....wait...

I'm not particularly impressed by Gunslingers either... Like Swashbucklers, they are slightly less one-dimensional Fighters. And just because of a few grit powers, extra skill points, better saves and SADness (Swashbucklers, OTOH, are very MAD, but have slightly greater variety of "grit" powers). I'm not even sure why you mentioned Gunslingers, actually...

I do think that they are far more effective and much less build-dependent than Rogues, though...

Sovereign Court

I'd actually say that in a middling tier power level game monks to worse than in high tier.

Why? Because in high tier power level games everyone uses a bunch of splatbooks & archetypes to max their power.

And yes - monks with Qinggong do suck. Qingong was the stealth buff for the monk.


JurgenV wrote:
Never underestimate the value of always being "armed and armored". Cannot bear arms in the king's presence? no problem for the monk. Attacked while sleeping? monk needs no time to get ready. Undercover mission? Disarming enemy? monks are always ready to rock.

There are DISadvantages to using only your body, too. There are a number of monsters, spells, items and other things which can automatically deal retributive damage to an unarmed/natural attacker. Getting your enhancement bonus to your attacks isn't easy, either: it's twice as expensive for one-half the potential bonuses. If you want to get through DR without that item? Good luck, it's set at what levels you can do so and what you get through. Oh yeah, and don't go using your precious ki when you most need it, your DR penetration only works if you keep ki in reserve.

As for the armored bit, you should take a very close look at the monk AC Bonus class feature. It falls off when they're helpless or immobilized. Now granted, there's not an innumerable number of things that can do that to you, but everything under the grapple/grab category is one big place to start. Same with mechanics like tanglefoot bags/bombs or proper use of the dirty trick mechanic. The dazed and stunned conditions cover it as well, as might some confusion results. Sepia Snake Sigils, monster like magma oozes, a properly worded Command, there's plenty of ways to deny this stuff to the party. Simply having armor on might not be great for your touch AC, but for the majority of the games attacks it works fine and still functions if you're stuck in knee-deep sand or just suffered a disorienting blow to the head.


Something just dawned on me while reading this thread. Can't believe I didn't notice this before.

There's a lot of "All or Nothing" going on here, and in the forums in general.

I feel lonely in my The Middle's Just Fine Too camp. Does the All or Nothing campers have pizza-cake or something?

I have yet to see anyone I personally know be dissatisfied with the monk. Same with the Rogue, Ninja, and other "why do you play that!?" classes I see people talking about on the forums. And, no, it's not a matter of system mastery among them. They enjoy it because it's what they wanted to play. And, no, don't tell me it's because I run story-oriented games. I do, but the combats are brutal, vicious, and have more chance of killing you than a lvl 1 commoner strapped to a meat cart against a 25HD Red Dragon. It may have something to do with the fact that I like to make the game fun for everyone and take character builds into account when prepping, but here I assumed that was part and parcel to RPGs....

Dark Archive

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:

Next you're going to argue that since Ki abilities are mystical and I want speed, attacks and mystical powers while having a high ac, I should just play a wizard and call it a monk. I even get to hold a quarterstaff.....

Like.....seriously?

Yes, seriously.

I had a player whose ninja character used the Sorcerer class (obscurement spell for smoke bombs, etc.), and it worked out perfectly -- way better than if he had selected "Ninja" as his class. Another one used the Barbarian class mechanics to represent a monk whose training allowed him to slip into a trance in a fight, like he was "in the zone." These sorts of things work out really nicely if your mind isn't so rigid that it breaks when confronted with something other than a stereotype.

I am not saying you can't 'reskin'. But assuming people who dislike reskinning as rigid minded is incorrect. When I want certain features badly enough, I might consider reskinning to help explain things. But more often than not when I want to play a monk or any other class, I actually play the class and not something else entirely. Assuming that everybody should reskin because of your personal view of the place of monks and how reskinning works for you is both unfair and rigid thinking that is not sensitive to the -fact- that other people who are not you and who have pretty open and flexible minds (a great many more open and flexible than yours or mine) don't want to adopt your philosophy and play something utterly different than what you want to play when you want to play something. For a large number of players that's just stupid.

If we take your idea to the exteme, why not just remove the names of all classes and abilities and label them with numbers? Now you can play <character designation #00324> while using <character object #0024>. You can be anything!!! Yay....

Let's just strip away all those 'meaningless' names, right? Get off it. My mindset isn't rigid. I power game dip, I occasionally reskin when I feel it is within reason. I just don't have any plans of playing a mystical monk who actually has no levels of monk and no monk class features or archetype features or monk related feats. Obviously, I am not a monk at that point since the game already has one. In the absence of the class, I'd argue otherwise. One day might I try this extreme level of reskinning? Sure, for fun because I think it is ridiculous, even if others don't. I may even do it with every intent to be a homage to mockery of you and our conversation because I would then find it funny and am certain to make everyone laugh when I take everything out of context by making a character who calls himself a monk, but has no levels in the class, uses no feats for it, doesn't fight like one or anything monk like at all. He'll use a gun and a whip or tower shield, and have a really low str Dex and wisdom. He'll be all about technology and maybe rangerish things and wear oversized full plate to make him as slow as possible. But he sure as hell will insist he is a monk even if there is no possible way anyone could even vaguely make a connection to the concept of one.

And to be honest, your first reply seemed to sound almost as ridiculous as that because many statements that are based on optimization philosophies are inherently ridiculous because there are a lot of optimizations ideas floating around that are completely inaccurate and untrue but which people subscribe to as gospel. I've proven more than one as wrong, specifically regarding the monk. But even that aside, whether those ideas are right or wrong is irrelevant because they assume that their idea is what is right for the player. You can't tell me that playing a wizard is what I should do because you think it is better than the monk when what I want to play is a monk. You might get some newbie or weak willed/minded person to forsake their interest like that bit I can think for myself and I can choose to be dictated to and knowingly subscribe to an idea as presented because I enjoy it (at least conceptually). Maybe your first reply wasn't as insanely off the tracks as it sounded because hey- it's the internet. Read the same text 3 times and it usually sounds nothing like it did the first time. Tone and meaning can be tricky.

Kudo's to your players for finding a way to realistically explain how they could do what they were doing without actually being able to do those things as the classes they wanted. Again, it is not for everyone.

PS. Monks are solid even if you drop the favored 3-4 'best' archetypes (take your pick). I could easily build a potent monk without any of them, capable of functioning well. I am sure that many others can top as have already been posted in this thread, I believe.


@Artemis: I think you're misrepresenting the positions of some of the people on the board. Different is fine; diversity is what makes things fun and interesting. It's one thing to say "non-spellcasters are outright inferior in all ways!", it's another to point out potential flaws and inconsistencies with a concept in a fundamental part of the game's core. Misrepresenting the latter as the former isn't helping anyone.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Dark Immortal wrote:
PS. Monks are solid even if you drop the favored 3-4 'best' archetypes (take your pick).

I don't find this to be true, from my first 3.5 monk all the way to now.

Dark Archive

Ashiel wrote:
Saigo Takamori wrote:

The plan here:

1. you do almost no damage.
2. Your goal is: be the main target ( good ac, almost immune to magic), boost your allies and stun creature (at 23, even strong fort monster will fail almost 50% of the time...)

One of these things does not compliment the other. o_o

I'm looking at this and...wouldn't playing a bard play pretty much the same way except better in just about every way, and be more playable from level 1? Beyond the stunning fist trick (which is a good trick), I'm not really seeing much usefulness in this guy.

Have you run across my latest monks thread? He's disgusting and has forced me to send the character sheet to multiple GM's and up the chain through the VL for my region. He's singlehandedly stopped encounters from being challenges and does so reliably. Sometimes the dice gods aren't so great but he was built to counter and prove that you can run a monk chassis that deals 0-1 damage per round and reliably tanks. When enemies get to act, they should focus on him. If they do not they lose. He doesn't deal any damage but he is way too dangerous to ignore.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
PS. Monks are solid even if you drop the favored 3-4 'best' archetypes (take your pick).
I don't find this to be true, from my first 3.5 monk all the way to now.

Really? Out of the big 3, I found CRB monk to be the most playable. Throw on Qinggong and dragon style, and you are comparable to a lot of other classes.

Is monk the sexiest class? No, but out of the 3, monk has received the most love.


@Dark Immortal: Umm, that character is only half monk...and you needed three different archetypes to do what you did. I mean, kudos, the concept sounds awesome from what I'm getting, but I'm not entirely sure it qualifies for much when people are discussing monks in general. Also, in a game where 90%+ of the loot and experience comes from killing and looting monsters, is a build focused on not actually standing a good chance of harming the enemy that great an idea for your team?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:
PS. Monks are solid even if you drop the favored 3-4 'best' archetypes (take your pick).
I don't find this to be true, from my first 3.5 monk all the way to now.
Really? Out of the big 3, I found CRB monk to be the most playable.

I've been meaning to roll one for PFS, but haven't gotten around to it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dark Immortal wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dark Immortal wrote:

Next you're going to argue that since Ki abilities are mystical and I want speed, attacks and mystical powers while having a high ac, I should just play a wizard and call it a monk. I even get to hold a quarterstaff.....

Like.....seriously?

Yes, seriously.

I had a player whose ninja character used the Sorcerer class (obscurement spell for smoke bombs, etc.), and it worked out perfectly -- way better than if he had selected "Ninja" as his class. Another one used the Barbarian class mechanics to represent a monk whose training allowed him to slip into a trance in a fight, like he was "in the zone." These sorts of things work out really nicely if your mind isn't so rigid that it breaks when confronted with something other than a stereotype.

I am not saying you can't 'reskin'. But assuming people who dislike reskinning as rigid minded is incorrect. When I want certain features badly enough, I might consider reskinning to help explain things. But more often than not when I want to play a monk or any other class, I actually play the class and not something else entirely. Assuming that everybody should reskin because of your personal view of the place of monks and how reskinning works for you is both unfair and rigid thinking that is not sensitive to the -fact- that other people who are not you and who have pretty open and flexible minds (a great many more open and flexible than yours or mine) don't want to adopt your philosophy and play something utterly different than what you want to play when you want to play something. For a large number of players that's just stupid.

If we take your idea to the exteme, why not just remove the names of all classes and abilities and label them with numbers? Now you can play <character designation #00324> while using <character object #0024>. You can be anything!!! Yay....

Let's just strip away all those 'meaningless' names, right? Get off it. My mindset isn't rigid. I power game dip, I...

Except it is meaningless. When someone tells you their character is "a very stealthy guy who is at home in the urban jungle. He is very skilled at many things and prefers to strike from the cover of shadows" do you go "oh he must be a rogue?" For all you know he could be an urban ranger. Or maybe he is a Shadow Bloodline Sorcerer?A character's class name means nothing. Not all ninja's run around in Pajamas. Not all Wizards are wizened old men with rediculously long beards. Not all bards are horridly spoony and play the lute. And not all barbarians are foaming from the mouth.

To be constrained by the name "Ninja" or "monk" and say that "only rogues (the class) can be rogues (the concept... if that is even a concept? Just WHAT IS a rogue?)" is the very ideal of being very stuck and not having flexibility in yoru creativity. It's not like there are "Fighter Schools" and "Rogue Schools" in the world... unless you are playing your games like its an OotS Comic...


@Dark Immortal.

Yeah... The guy is barely a monk... And he requires 3 archetypes, a VERY specific race/Racial combination, and pretty much has to run around naked because, remember, if he has anything more than a light load he is screwed, and his str is 7....


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.

Let me go another step and opine that, if a class is viable in a tactical game only if you dumpster-dive into a bunch of splatbooks to make it work, then that class is, from its inception, manifestly not suited to tactical games and should be labeled in the Core rules as such. If I start with a Commoner and then use a bazillion bizarre feats, magic items, archetypes, and prestige classes from a lot of non-Core sources to make it viable, than I'm not really playing a Commoner -- which is I think where your last sentence quoted above is headed.

I don't really feel this is fair. The "dumpster diving" is a product of Pathfinder's existence as a tabletop game; Paizo can't rewrite older books to improve faulty parts of the system so they have to add new stuff in new books. If Pathfinder was a video game Qinggong would have been in a patch and applied to all Monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Best Monk I ever played was a Stalker from Path of War with the Broken Blade and Steel Serpent disciplines. Veiled Moon could have also worked if I wanted more Mysticism.

Best and most fun unarmed mystic ever.


PIXIE DUST wrote:

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.

I'd rather have a Monk and be good with supplements than a Rogue or a Fighter that still sucks with supplements.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.

I'd rather have a Monk and be good with supplements than a Rogue or a Fighter that still sucks with supplements.

Well to be honest, with the archetypes in ACG, the fighter is actually pretty decent now. Granted, you are effectively trading away everything but your feats but meh.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.

I'd rather have a Monk and be good with supplements than a Rogue or a Fighter that still sucks with supplements.
Well to be honest, with the archetypes in ACG, the fighter is actually pretty decent now. Granted, you are effectively trading away everything but your feats but meh.

You keep BRAVERY!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.

I'd rather have a Monk and be good with supplements than a Rogue or a Fighter that still sucks with supplements.
Well to be honest, with the archetypes in ACG, the fighter is actually pretty decent now. Granted, you are effectively trading away everything but your feats but meh.
You keep BRAVERY!

no you don't, you gave that up the moment you never had to roll a fear roll. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
PIXIE DUST wrote:

@Dark Immortal

I do have to say though, your build actually looks pretty creative and fun to try.

But it also show cases the HUGE problem with monks. Like Lormyr and his builds, your monk build requires a LOT of system mastery and how to mix things together to take advantage of their ALL OVER THE PLACE mechanics. To the average person, they would never figure out your build.

The fact that the monk NEEDS TO DO THAT to meet the other classes is kinda rough. Makes the monk a very underwhelming class to all but the most advanced players.

I'd rather have a Monk and be good with supplements than a Rogue or a Fighter that still sucks with supplements.
Well to be honest, with the archetypes in ACG, the fighter is actually pretty decent now. Granted, you are effectively trading away everything but your feats but meh.
You keep BRAVERY!

You know.. sometimes I forget that ability even exists...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

Well... There are a few archetypes that make a decent work of patching Monks... Qinggong, Zen Archer and Sohei are pretty good. Sadly, these archetypes often make the Monk feel more like a caster, unarmed Fighter or Ranger than like a Monk.

Let me go another step and opine that, if a class is viable in a tactical game only if you dumpster-dive into a bunch of splatbooks to make it work, then that class is, from its inception, manifestly not suited to tactical games and should be labeled in the Core rules as such. If I start with a Commoner and then use a bazillion bizarre feats, magic items, archetypes, and prestige classes from a lot of non-Core sources to make it viable, than I'm not really playing a Commoner -- which is I think where your last sentence quoted above is headed.
I don't really feel this is fair. The "dumpster diving" is a product of Pathfinder's existence as a tabletop game; Paizo can't rewrite older books to improve faulty parts of the system so they have to add new stuff in new books. If Pathfinder was a video game Qinggong would have been in a patch and applied to all Monks.

I agree with you to a point. Paizo has to keep producing stuff, I can buy that, makes sense as a business. You make mistakes here and there, they're human, they usually fix them. Basing your product to have compatibility with an older system means you inherit some of the older's flaws too, so some allowances should be made there.

That said, there's a lot of content that's been put out by Paizo over that years, not all of it good. Rogue talents have been subpar since the CRB, that's not really changed. Lots of feats are still locked behind unnecessary requirements, ridiculous trees, or both. The downside to breaking monk vows is @*#$ing insane. So, when you take into account all the options that're available for some of the seemingly less 'gifted' classes, building a powerful character concept means that you have to dig through all sorts of unnecessary, subpar, or blocked off options to finally get the pieces you need to make the envisioned whole work. For that reason, Kirth's metaphor isn't entirely inaccurate.


There is also the fact that many of these feats, abilities, and archetypes are hidden away in splat books that some people argue are not even meant to be taken as a common thing (See Spells like Blood Money, which was meant as an obscure spell for an NPC in a particulair AP). Things like Dervish Dance was supposed to be a regional thing for Golarian specific games, not PF as a whole. The Agile enchantment is also a hidden away thing that has become common, despite it not initially being so (I think it first showed up in a PFS handbook or something)

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Monk, Is there any reason for it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.