Why Did The Game Wimp Out On Monks?

[Walking Dad]

...

If you're trying to make a defensive monk, it's all about the Dexterity. And a monk never has to worry about the Maximum Dexterity on his armor.

A little of both. They certainly aren't as skilled as a rogue, but they can do some solid damage like a fighter. A human monk can knock out 6 skill points a level if he doesn't completely tank Intelligence -- not Rogue level, certainly, but skilled.

...

Again, we're not using the horribly over-priced Amulet, but Brass Knuckles. Mine are currently +3 Holy Serpent-Bane. The party fighter and I both have 18 Strengths, though I out-damage him (his flail to my 2d6 unarmed). His armor class is higher than mine, with plate and a shield.

I commented earlier in this thread that the lack of a way to use all those attacks and movement at the same time is MY biggest gripe. As it is, I usually close with a charge while the Fighter either trips or uses Dirty Trick and then we just combo down foes. I'm more fragile but blow his damage out of the water, while he's the rock that can soak up the AoO's when we close on a monster.

...

Monks need good scores. I don't think anyone will ever argue that one. When I rolled a spectacular set of abilities for the current game, I knew it was time to play a monk.

----------------------------------

I'm not arguing that monks are perfect. I just hear lots of people complain about them being underpowered and weak, which does not agree with what I've seen at our gaming table. Honestly, the DM (and fighter, to a lesser extent) spend lots of time complaining about how *over* powered my current monk is...

I think monks could use a tweak -- especially a way to combine their speed and their attacks -- but it has proven to be a solid class at our gaming table.

No offense, but playing a class only when rolling spectacular ability scores, using an item the designers posted that shouldn't work and who is still more fragile when another character he works as a team with, doesn't make the class sound overpowered or a solid class. It only shows the power difference between bad, average and spectacular ability creation rolls.

I guess I'm not seeing a huge difference in Monk and Paladin HP. One uses d8s, one uses d10s. That's a difference of 1 HP per level on average. And both classes are rather MAD, so it's not like a fighter that comes out of the gate with a huge CON score. The Paladin *can* heal himself more effectively, of course.

Why is the paladin still so MAD? They removed much of his Wis dependence for class abilities, he wears heavy armor so doesn't need great Dex, is no real skill class or has other need for Int. Why shouldn't be Con his second or third best stat after Str (and maybe Cha)?
And why have fighters automatically a high Con? Many feats have a Dex or Int perquisite, they need much Str and they lack the paladin's Cha to Will, so they should never dump Wis.
Also there are very good TWF and Archer builds that need a very high Dex.

 

[wolff96]

No offense, but playing a class only when rolling spectacular ability scores, using an item the designers posted that shouldn't work and who is still more fragile when another character he works as a team with, doesn't make the class sound overpowered or a solid class. It only shows the power difference between bad, average and spectacular ability creation rolls.

Perhaps I should explain a bit more about our character generation. Everyone at the table rolls stats. Then the players pick ONE of those sets. Then everyone builds a character using those same scores. Everyone at our table has great stats. It just benefits the monk more than most of the others.

As to the Brass Knuckles, Sean Reynolds posted they shouldn't work as written. There have been at least two rounds of errata -- at least one that I know affected the book the item came from -- that didn't affect the Brass Knuckles. Either Pathfinder has forgotten how to do errata or not everyone there agrees with his take on Knuckles. Like I said in my post -- that one is going to vary by the table you play at. Our DM doesn't think the class should be penalized by paying more for magic weapons. YMMV.

And finally, I had four scores to prioritize, so my Constitution isn't great. The fighter has a better Con and a bigger hit-die. Of course I'm more fragile than he is, especially since he wears plate armor, a shield, and is four or five feats down the "Shield" chain. Something would have to be really broken for him NOT to be more sturdy than I am. He and I designed our characters to work well together. *shrug* He puts out status effects and I kill things. It works for us.

Why is the paladin still so MAD? They removed much of his Wis dependence for class abilities, he wears heavy armor so doesn't need great Dex, is no real skill class or has other need for Int. Why shouldn't be Con his second or third best stat after Str (and maybe Cha)?

And why have fighters automatically a high Con? Many feats have a Dex or Int perquisite, they need much Str and they lack the paladin's Cha to Will, so they should never dump Wis. Also there are very good TWF and Archer builds that need a very high Dex.

I find it funny that you put those two paragraphs back to back -- if you only make Paladins a single way, then they aren't MAD any more! But fighters don't automatically have high Con because of feat requirements and alternate builds. Maybe it's just my sense of humor.

There are lots of ways to build any class, of course. I wasn't trying to imply there's only one true way to make a fighter. I will say that every single one of them I've seen has had a high Constitution... but that's just anecdotal evidence from a dozen or so games. It's similar with Paladins -- a player is now a bit freer to make intelligent paladins, archers, or even gun-based builds. They will have different priorities.

--------------------------------------------------

Our game certainly isn't going to play the same as everyone else's game. At our table, at least, we have never seen the monk as being weak compared to any of the other characters. He scouts, is the party survivalist and tracker, has the second-best perception in the party, off-tanks in large combats, and deals more damage than anyone else at the table.

You've obviously decided the monk needs work. My experience varies. *Shrug*. That's all.

 

[frankthedm]

I think Paizo said they wouldn't do a Pathfinder 2E during the first decade of the game.

Link please?

 

[Walking Dad]

Perhaps I should explain a bit more about our character generation. Everyone at the table rolls stats. Then the players pick ONE of those sets. Then everyone builds a character using those same scores. Everyone at our table has great stats. It just benefits the monk more than most of the others.

And average stats and bad stats penalize the monk more than most.

I find it funny that you put those two paragraphs back to back -- if you only make Paladins a single way, then they aren't MAD any more! But fighters don't automatically have high Con because of feat requirements and alternate builds. Maybe it's just my sense of humor.

Not funny. Just an example as you did again, stating has an as high as MAD as the Monk.
The fighter part showed only that your fighter statement was wrong. Many can choose to concentrate on Con besides Str, but not all. They have decisions. Monks have MAD.

Our game certainly isn't going to play the same as everyone else's game. At our table, at least, we have never seen the monk as being weak compared to any of the other characters. He scouts, is the party survivalist and tracker, has the second-best perception in the party, off-tanks in large combats, and deals more damage than anyone else at the table.

Your description could also be an archer ranger. Who has not an as strong MAD.
And the Monk is able to do that because of high DEX (needed for stealth), high WIS (perception and survival abilities), deals high damage and hits because of high STR.

You've obviously decided the monk needs work. My experience varies. *Shrug*. That's all.

Try to play a monk with average stats. Your experience may vary.
We do usually point-buy.

 

[Walking Dad]

I think Paizo said they wouldn't do a Pathfinder 2E during the first decade of the game. I would prefer small incremental changes and claims of backwards compatibility to be gradually dropped

They started already with rewriting stealth...

What would you call "small incremental changes"?

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

Link please?

paizo.com - Paizo People: Lisa Stevens

My mistake. She backtracked or I was dead wrong. See the June 5th 2011 post. I was going off a rumor that appears not to be true.

 

[GregoryOatmeal]

They started already with rewriting stealth...

What would you call "small incremental changes"?

Stealth is fine. I think TSR had the pacing down pretty well. Every couple years they could put out a 2.5/3.5 style revision, and after 12 years or so they put out a new edition like 2E with some twist like proficiencies or combat manuevers. After 25 years it's probably healthy to hit the reset button (I suspect 4E could see the reset button after 4 years...that just feels way too short).

Twenty years into that 25 year cycle it would be nice if you could run a module/monster from the first year of it's life with a little work and a character from a player splatbook with a lot of work. Sort of like how I can use a 3.0 module/monster in PF now with relative ease, and if I really want to with some work (due to gameplay innovations) I can salvage some player material from a 3.0 splatbook.

If a substantial amount of new players just look at the game in bewilderment it probably shouldn't be called D&D (or PF)

 

[Tovec]

And average stats and bad stats penalize the monk more than most.

Because they're SOO MAD - yes.

Not funny. Just an example as you did again, stating has an as high as MAD as the Monk.
The fighter part showed only that your fighter statement was wrong. Many can choose to concentrate on Con besides Str, but not all. They have decisions. Monks have MAD.

Actually, it is kind of funny. In those examples he gave you do appear to be saying Paladins aren't MAD because they only need X to work but fighters can be built any way they want so they don't have as many dump stats.
Granted your point was to illustrate the MAD-ness but he did a good job of pointing out one small element of contradiction.

Your description could also be an archer ranger. Who has not an as strong MAD.
And the Monk is able to do that because of high DEX (needed for stealth), high WIS (perception and survival abilities), deals high damage and hits because of high STR.

Three abilities does not MAD make. His CHA, CON and INT could all take a hit in the example listed and not have a single problem. Monks have more skill points to go around than rangers and therefore can dip into multiple pots effectively - skill wise.

Try to play a monk with average stats. Your experience may vary.
We do usually point-buy.

In the last game I DMed I had a player with rolled stats who vastly overpowered and overshadowed the other members of the party. I was forced to kill that character after his third or fourth OPENING ROUND kill of mini-bosses.

It is the entire reason I AM instituting point buy into my future games to see if the issue with monk gets resolved. They were just too good in my game. I can understand with point buy they will not be as effective but kindly remember not everyone uses point buy or wishes to use point buy. Those who don't will have a very different view of the class than you. As wolff96 tried to say.

 

[Walking Dad]

...

Three abilities does not MAD make. His CHA, CON and INT could all take a hit in the example listed and not have a single problem. Monks have more skill points to go around than rangers and therefore can dip into multiple pots effectively - skill wise.

Yes, the example didn't mention CON, but I doubt monks can easily afford a hit there. And Survival was trained. Not one of the obvious skill choices. And he said they are part-skill-monkey.

But you are right.

In the last game I DMed I had a player with rolled stats who vastly overpowered and overshadowed the other members of the party. I was forced to kill that character after his third or fourth OPENING ROUND kill of mini-bosses.

Just out of curiosity: Was this with the player's consent or just happened?

Those who don't will have a very different view of the class than you. As wolff96 tried to say.

And I wanted to say that the possibility to roll many high stats says nothing about a class being MAD or not.

 

[Tovec]

Yes, the example didn't mention CON, but I doubt monks can easily afford a hit there. And Survival was trained. Not one of the obvious skill choices. And he said they are part-skill-monkey.

But you are right.

I like being right.

Just out of curiosity: Was this with the player's consent or just happened?

Well, neither. Mostly it had to do with the fact that after 4 mini-boss kills the character was killing too much. So I set up an encounter that he was supposed to die if he chose to fight the creature solo. I tried to get him NOT TO but the PC decided to fight him and I was happy when he died. The PC left the party shortly after. Much of the party couldn't stand the character, it was a very lawful-stupid monk who TKO'd the biggest threats in a single round before anyone else acted. And who, this being our first pathfinder game, led me (the DM) to believe one of his abilities was far better than it was (for about two sessions at the beginning).

And I wanted to say that the possibility to roll many high stats says nothing about a class being MAD or not.

Yes quite true, good stats does negate MAD. I was just pointing out small holes in the argument.

I love monks, in my game world I've made my personal avatar the god of monks because I love them so. It would be nice if they had a few more fixes or tweaks including the MAD issue but I don't consider them underpowered the way they are now. (I do hate Ki points/pools.) Pathfinder did a lot to fix many of my issues with them, including flurry and some of the CMB issues. They did far prettier/cleaner fixes for Barbs, Casters, Paladins, Fighters and Rangers, I'll grant.