Monk, Is there any reason for it


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

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

Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Now now, monks can spend a Ki point and jump real high. I don't know exactly how high, but you definitely want to be about 5 ft higher than that.

Unless you want to get grappled in mid air.

At 9th level, they can easily reach 14-15 feet, and grapple you. At 20th, they can reach upwards of 30 feet, and grapple you.

Edit: That's '14-15 feet from the bottom of their soles to the ground,' so they could still hit you 20 feet in the air.

oh, how cute! a wizard can be hovering at around 760 feet in the air with a dimension door, or anywhere within 100 miles with teleport (both by level nine, conveniently), as a standard action.

at 20th: 1200 feet with DD, (still within 100 miles with TP), anywhere in the world with greater teleport, on another planet entirely with interplanetary teleport, and any other plane of existence with plane shift. likewise all with standard actions.

this is with no investment in conjuration spells (otherwise DD bumps up by another 40ft each CL), and hardly shrodinger's wizard territory, as what wizard doesn't pick up at LEAST DD.

there's a reason scry-and-fry tactics are a thing.


AndIMustMask wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Now now, monks can spend a Ki point and jump real high. I don't know exactly how high, but you definitely want to be about 5 ft higher than that.

Unless you want to get grappled in mid air.

At 9th level, they can easily reach 14-15 feet, and grapple you. At 20th, they can reach upwards of 30 feet, and grapple you.

Edit: That's '14-15 feet from the bottom of their soles to the ground,' so they could still hit you 20 feet in the air.

oh, how cute! a wizard can be hovering at around 760 feet in the air with a dimension door, or anywhere within 100 miles with teleport (both by level nine, conveniently), as a standard action.

at 20th: 1200 feet with DD, (still within 100 miles with TP), anywhere in the world with greater teleport, on another planet entirely with interplanetary teleport, and any other plane of existence with plane shift. likewise all with standard actions.

this is with no investment in conjuration spells (otherwise DD bumps up by another 40ft each CL), and hardly shrodinger's wizard territory, as what wizard doesn't pick up at LEAST DD.

there's a reason scry-and-fry tactics are a thing.

Yes we know Wizards are OP and utterly broken along with any 9th level spell user. This is why I always argue you would never actually see a Wizard or Sorcerer of high level. The gods just would not allow them to survive that long.


I was responding to the tactic of 'hover ten feet in the air, and unload.'

Plus, if Wizard Bob is 700+ feet in the air, or on another plane, he ain't launching magic at you any time soon.

Scarab Sages

Bandw2 wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Now now, monks can spend a Ki point and jump real high. I don't know exactly how high, but you definitely want to be about 5 ft higher than that.

Unless you want to get grappled in mid air.

you can't attack mid move action...

Pummeling Charge

Guess I'll just have to fall afterwards.

This is making the assumption I never invested in an item that would allow me to fly. Kind of silly, since melee classes have no excuse not to carry a Fly potion.

Dark Archive

Guys- how far can your wizard see to launch those fireballs, save or sucks and other nasty spells? Do they all have ranges of 100 miles or hundreds and hundreds of feet? Does your caster see that far without penalty? When was the last time you played or faced a wizard and the battle took place 900+ feet apart and/or between multiple non coterminous planes of existence? Please, let's get kinda real here.

Arachnofiend wrote:
First off, I don't actually think Monks are weak (assuming the availability of archetypes).

The core monk is extremely handy at outlasting casters worst assaults. A core monk can kill a caster just fine. They just have fewer offensive tools and potent tricks to capitalize on their opportunities. But any caster committed to an encounter with a core monk should also be aware that the odds mathematically favor the monk across most all the possible outcomes. It's the archetypes that open up weaknesses in the monks defenses but usually they gain a lot of other things and can attempt to rely on their high saves and SR if their archetype didn't remove it. But the poison immunity, and host of other features are applicable as well. Many archetypes trade these out for other obnoxious tools that are difficult to deal with.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Secondly, the Fighter is certainly not stronger than the Monk. Dominating the Fighter instead is an option because the Fighter sucks at everything but DPR, including will saves.

Yes, but that dominated fighter isn't easily killing the monk who has some of the same sort of magical options for defense that a wizard has, plus normal defenses like a fighter. But the monk also combines this with a better ac (in that it applies to more things and the worst things) and usually a similar or potentially better ac. Offensively optimized fighters will still miss defensively optimized monks- and it is not a far stretch to assume that a player using a monk decides to focus on what the class is best at- defense. Sort of like when people make barbarians and fighters and build them to do what they are best at- damage. Still, a monk will likely as not engage that fighter as it will come down to kill the mage and try to end the dominate or hold the fighter off so he doesn't kill the rest of the party.....because if anyone can go toe to toe with the fighter without expending resources, it's a monk or other defensively built character. To be fair, though, many people want an offensive monk and don't build them with obnoxious ac in mind. But even the developers have stated that the class is defensive in nature not offensive. A monk will hold the fighter off long enough. But in that case a point goes to the caster for successful divide and conquer.

Arachnofiend wrote:
I just think it's misleading to trump up the Monk as this glorious mage killer.

There is nothing misleading about the truth. Stating the facts is not 'trumping up'. Is it trumping up to say that cleave is a great mook-killing feat on high damage characters like barbarians? Is it trumoing up to claim that rangers are very good at killing their favored enemies or paladins aspt killing evil things? Why is it suddenly a different csse for the monk? Are you saying that the class is not allowed to be good at what it is inherently good at?

Now we are entering the territory where in all cases where a monk is defamed and trashed, people point out flaw after flaw after flaw- and then throw in a redeeming grace (meant as an insult) but when someone uses that redeeming grace of an insult to demonstrate how good the class can be at this otherwise useless function in a situation that is actually useful- they suddenly cannot do that. It's hypocritical.

Example: 'Sure, if you just want someone good at killing casters or who can survive anything-fine. The monk is amazing at that. But it's not so amazing when the rest of the party is dead. The monk sucks because it can't <insert DPR related statement here>. No one wants or cares about the guy who'll never die if he can't kill anything but mooks. Mooks don't matter ever, nonly the boss matters and only if it is cr+3 and monks cannot contribute meaningully to anything like that'

This is sort of a conglomerated paizo forum theme when it comes to the Monk. And here you are saying that now the monk cannot be good at killing casters without some specialty single archetype. So....I guess the monk actually can't do anything now?

Arachnofiend wrote:


The Tetori, yeah, absolutely can get the job done; if you're not a Tetori you're not any better at grappling than anyone else and casters have no incentive to not just go around you and attack enemies with more offense and less defense. A stone wall isn't very effective when it's only five feet wide.

I can be better at grappling than others by choosing maneuver master. Martial Artist gets a lot of grapple related abilities that are actually rather powerful, too, if not a bit more subtle if memory serves. Believe it or not a Ki Mystic can be statistically superior to many non-monks at grappling as they can reroll a failed grapple check. Master of Many Styles can be very good with the right style combinations. So, as that was off the top of my head without considering Qinggong, core monk or any other archetypes that might have legitimate grapple related perks. So what was that about not being a tetori?

Grapple is not the only tool. A stun, flurry on unbuffed ac, quivering palm, and several other options/feats all spell doom to pretty much any arcane casting class and really hamphers or wrecks divine ones specced for casting. Any intelligent caster, upon realizing an enemy is a monk, should likely have a game plan based on that factor. Sort of like when a party identifies that one of the enemies is a spellcaster, except on a smaller scale.

401 to 405 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.