Why not monks?

[SkredlitheOgre]

Actual book text:

Role: Monks excel at overcoming even the most daunting perils, striking where it’s least expected, and taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities. Fleet of foot and skilled in combat, monks can navigate any battlefield with ease, aiding allies wherever they are needed most.

Looks like a lot of moving around to me...

True, but I think that's where the Monk's increased speed comes from. In a metagame sense, medium humanoids move a rate of 30 ft. per round. So, from an metagame perspective, if a humanoid general is expecting someone to move 30 ft. and have placed their soldiers 40 ft. away and is standing 10 feet behind them, then they're going to be surprised when a Monk who moves 50 ft. per round sprints up, jumps over or tumbles past their soldiers and lands a solid blow to his face.

With increased speed and the Acrobatics skill, a Monk CAN navigate any battlefield. Granted, it's not the "move from one opponent to the next while laying down a beating on each one," but given the damage output of a Monk (my 7th level Monk does (1d8 +3 (Str) +1d6 Frost) per hit), you're not going to be able to do that unless you're fighting very low level enemies.

I would have fun with the ability to move and use the main combat class feature.

By which I assume you mean the Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows is a full attack action, which means it takes an entire round. I mean, I get what you're saying, but if you allow the Monk to move AND use a full attack action, then I think, in fairness you have to open that up to everyone, which I think could get out of hand.

 

[DDogwood]

I mean, I get what you're saying, but if you allow the Monk to move AND use a full attack action, then I think, in fairness you have to open that up to everyone, which I think could get out of hand.

Barbarians can do this eventually. Summoner Eidolons can do it from level 1 if they're quadrupeds with the Pounce mutation.

Honestly, though, giving monks a move+full attack ability, either as a ki power or as an always-on ability at low levels, would go a LONG way towards making them a reasonable alternative to other melee classes.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Honestly, though, giving monks a move+full attack ability, either as a ki power or as an always-on ability at low levels, would go a LONG way towards making them a reasonable alternative to other melee classes.

See, that's one of the things that comes down to expectations. I don't expect the Monk, and never have, to be a front line fighter with the Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin. They're backup/second line fighters. I never gave the thought to making my Monk a front line fighter, because mechanically, they aren't.

I'm not sure using 'low levels' is a good indicator though, because 'low levels' comes down to interpretation. You could use it up to level 5, I guess, but then what do you replace it with at level 5, since you're taking something away as the character gets better? Of the two options, I would go with it being a Ki ability to make there some offset to the increased ability.

 

[Walking Dad]

Backup/secondline fighter fits nearly any class with at least medium Bab.

What do you think monks should be good at?

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I wish Monks were better at Combat Maneuvers. Maybe something like you pick a Combat Maneuver, say Grapple, and there's a grapple tree of Monk abilities that make you better at grappling than anybody else in the party. Similar to how there are rogue talents or Barbarian rage abilities.

As it stands, I think my party has gotten past the point where my Monk is effective at Grappling or Tripping. The Barbarian is good at consistently hitting and doing good damage. The Rogue is good at consistently getting sneak attacks (where applicable), and the Cleric is lousy in combat, decent with spells and good with healing. The Monk is decent in combat, but I would like better Combat Maneuvers to help control the flow of battle.

 

[Walking Dad]

Have you seen the Maneuver Master?
And the Tetori is a grapple master, but he needs errata, because many of the mentioned feats were omitted from the source book.

 

[DDogwood]

See, that's one of the things that comes down to expectations. I don't expect the Monk, and never have, to be a front line fighter with the Barbarian, Fighter, and Paladin. They're backup/second line fighters. I never gave the thought to making my Monk a front line fighter, because mechanically, they aren't.

Yes, this is definitely a matter of expectations. The main problem with the monk is that it is outclassed by someone else in pretty much everything it does, so there is no consensus on what its role ought to be.

I'm not sure using 'low levels' is a good indicator though, because 'low levels' comes down to interpretation. You could use it up to level 5, I guess, but then what do you replace it with at level 5, since you're taking something away as the character gets better? Of the two options, I would go with it being a Ki ability to make there some offset to the increased ability.

Who says that it would ever be taken away? As a melee class, monks get worse and worse as they level up already. Making move + attack a Ki power would be a very minor boost that would at least clarify the monk's role as an anti-caster melee type (which, frankly, is still not a great role). Giving monks the ability to make a full attack after a move action, as a 1st-level, always on class ability would not, IMO, overpower the class. It would merely make it a reasonable alternative to the other melee classes.

 

[gamerprinter]

To me the area of monk that needs expanded upon is Ki. Ki is the aspect that monk is that other classes are not, so Ki needs to be expanded upon to better cement the role of this class.

My first PF character was a monk, and I do love my monks. Once we got near 20th level, my monk proved to be suboptimal, but I had fun with the character all the way up to 20th.

I never expected monk to compete with fighter, barbarian and ranger, and why anyone else does, I have no idea. Monks are not the martial characters that frontline classes are. Look at the monk's abilities - fast movement. This alone means that monks are better off as skirmishers, not frontline fighters. I had great results with: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack - using my fast movement to be 30' away, move in close, strike and back off and never being hit by AoO. In fact in one fight, due to good saves, the monk was the only one that didn't get repulsed by a divine baddie, and eventually killed the villain alone, using spring attack strikes alone.

I'm looking at ways to create a list of ki powers that monks and other ki classes can choose from, rather than getting a defined ki power provided in class (as it is in existing rules) - note: with the existence of Ninja, there are now other classes than monk with ki powers.

I like monks, and think if played smart tactically and given some more options can still make a great character choice, but don't expect them to outfight a fighter or barbarian ever - that's not their job and never have been.

Although I haven't done it yet, my next monk character, I want to take Spider Walk and Cloud Walk feats from the APG, as I think a monk (tweaked) would make a better ninja than the ninja class. Walking up walls, on ceilings and air walking for infiltration are great concepts for a ninja, and these feats are only accessable to monks, not ninja.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

Have you seen the Maneuver Master?
And the Tetori is a grapple master, but he needs errata, because many of the mentioned feats were omitted from the source book.

Yeah, I saw that, but we're only using the Core Rulebook, so that's not an option. I think it looks pretty cool, though.

Yes, this is definitely a matter of expectations. The main problem with the monk is that it is outclassed by someone else in pretty much everything it does, so there is no consensus on what its role ought to be.

See, the problem I see with this thinking is that yes, there is someone who does what the Monk does better than the Monk at INDIVIDUAL ABILITIES, except for Fast Movement. The Monk, in my opinion, puts all of these middling abilities into a pretty good package. Fast Movement, good saves, decent to good combat ability and damage (my Monk now does 1d10 per attack with FoB, compared to the Barbarian's 2d6 with his greatsword), special abilities with the Ki Pool...I think the Monk is a fun class to play, as long as you don't try to play him as a Fighter, which I think is what a lot of people try to do.

Who says that it would ever be taken away? As a melee class, monks get worse and worse as they level up already. Making move + attack a Ki power would be a very minor boost that would at least clarify the monk's role as an anti-caster melee type (which, frankly, is still not a great role). Giving monks the ability to make a full attack after a move action, as a 1st-level, always on class ability would not, IMO, overpower the class. It would merely make it a reasonable alternative to the other melee classes.

Sorry. You mentioned having move + FoB be an 'always-on ability at low levels,' so I assumed there was something you were going to exchange it with when you determined that the Monk was no longer 'low level.'

See I wouldn't mind that being a Ki ability, because in my opinion, there has to be a tradeoff. Something like 'At the cost of one Ki point, if you move less than your full movement rate, you can use Flurry of Blows as an attack action.' Granted, you'd have to wait until 4th level to use it, but by that point, your FoB attack progression is +2/+2, so you have a decent chance of hitting.

Here's a question: If you give this as a 1st-level ability, but the problems (that I've read, anyway) is the 'horrible attack progression' and 'MADness' of the Monk, then what difference would this make? At 1st level, the Monk's FoB progression is -1/-1, you actually have a better chance to hit not using FoB, since your BAB at 1st level is +0. So, unless you have a +1 (or better) Monk weapon at 1st and 2nd level to make up for the -2 due to Two Weapon Fighting, using the single attack makes more sense, at least to me.

To me the area of monk that needs expanded upon is Ki. Ki is the aspect that monk is that other classes are not, so Ki needs to be expanded upon to better cement the role of this class.

I'm looking at ways to create a list of ki powers that monks and other ki classes can choose from, rather than getting a defined ki power provided in class (as it is in existing rules) - note: with the existence of Ninja, there are now other classes than monk with ki powers.

I would love to see that list. Since our group is just using the Core Rulebook (for now), hopefully it would be something that we could include at a later time.

I never expected monk to compete with fighter, barbarian and ranger, and why anyone else does, I have no idea. Monks are not the martial characters that frontline classes are. Look at the monk's abilities - fast movement. This alone means that monks are better off as skirmishers, not frontline fighters. I had great results with: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack - using my fast movement to be 30' away, move in close, strike and back off and never being hit by AoO. In fact in one fight, due to good saves, the monk was the only one that didn't get repulsed by a divine baddie, and eventually killed the villain alone, using spring attack strikes alone.

One thing I've heard is that you should NEVER take Spring Attack because you only get one attack with it. I like seeing examples of how things can be used that 'everyone' hates because it's (theoretically) 'suboptimal.'

I like monks, and think if played smart tactically and given some more options can still make a great character choice, but don't expect them to outfight a fighter or barbarian ever - that's not their job and never have been.

This right here. If you go into playing the Monk class like a Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin, all front line, heavy damage dealing classes, then you're going to be disappointed.

Although I haven't done it yet, my next monk character, I want to take Spider Walk and Cloud Walk feats from the APG, as I think a monk (tweaked) would make a better ninja than the ninja class. Walking up walls, on ceilings and air walking for infiltration are great concepts for a ninja, and these feats are only accessable to monks, not ninja.

Yeah, I was noticing that too, when I was going through the APG and it didn't make any sense. Granted, I haven't played anything out of the APG yet, so I have no in-game experience, but yeah...that made no sense.

 

[N'raac]

Here's a question: If you give this as a 1st-level ability, but the problems (that I've read, anyway) is the 'horrible attack progression' and 'MADness' of the Monk, then what difference would this make? At 1st level, the Monk's FoB progression is -1/-1, you actually have a better chance to hit not using FoB, since your BAB at 1st level is +0.

Actually, you don't. While Flurry of Blows reduces the likelihood of any single attack hitting, it adds an extra attack which has the potential of hitting. It is simply 2 weapon fighting restricted to Flurry-eligible weapons (normally bare hands).

The odds of landing at least one hit if you make a single attack versus the odds of landing at least one hit if you make two attacks, each at a -2 penalty, is almost always lower. For example, if you need an 11 to hit with no penalty, you have a 50% chance of hitting. If you take a -2 penalty, each shot hits on a 13+ (40% chance, so a 60% miss chance). You have only a 36% (60% x 60%) chance of missing with both attacks, so a 64% chance of at least one attack hitting.

Your odds of landing at least one strike with Flurry than with a single attack assuming a 2 point difference in attack bonus is better unless your unpenalized attack roll needs to be an 18 or 19 (unmodified). If it needs to be 20 anyway, the Flurry is again superior (9.75% chance of at least one hit versus 5% chance with a single attack).

If the difference between the Base and Flurry attack bonus is reduced to -1, the single attack has better odds only if it needs an unmodified 18 to hit (15% chance versus a 9.75% chance of at least one FoB attack hitting).

Note that my math is pretty minimal here - I have not attempted to address the situation at higher levels, where iterative attacks come into play, nor to incorporate the impact of the possibility of landing two hits with the FoB.

One thing I've heard is that you should NEVER take Spring Attack because you only get one attack with it. I like seeing examples of how things can be used that 'everyone' hates because it's (theoretically) 'suboptimal.'

The ability to get in a single strike with no AoO can be quite powerful. In our first 3rd Ed game, I ran a fighter who built up the Spring Attack chain on the way to Whirlwind Attack. Spring Attack can be effectively used to start and end your move out of melee range (well out with Monk movement) while getting in one full BAB attack. It can also be used to move in, circle round your opponent and set up the Rogue to flank. Who cares if I only get one attack, instead of 2 or 3 (an increasing penalties) if the Rogue gets an extra 5d6 damage (on each hit) plus flanking bonuses to hit as a consequence of me sacrificing a full attack action for one round? It's all about teamwork.

That fancy footwork is also very effective to flank the opposition, and get at the squishy spellcaster in the back - especially if your Team Player spellcaster then uses some battlefield control magic to prevent their fighters coming to Squishy's assistance.

This right here. If you go into playing the Monk class like a Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin, all front line, heavy damage dealing classes, then you're going to be disappointed.

And well you should be. If the Fighter can't fight, they're useless. The Monk has numerous other abilities to be useful without just standing and trading blows.