New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 280
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gametime View Post
    I'm not entirely sure why anecdotal evidence is obviously misguided, but vague assertions are reliable.
    "Anecdotal evidence isn't valid."
    "Yes it is! I used anecdotal evidence once and later it turned out I was right! ... Or so I heard."

    Let me give you a brief rundown of an average Post-3E Era fight: You attack an enemy and start kicking his shins. He then starts kicking your shins, then you take it in turns kicking until one of you falls over. It basically comes down to who started the battle with the biggest boot, and the only strategy involved is realizing when things have gone tits up and legging it.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Banned
     
    Malevolence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Theodoxus View Post
    Re: VoP - every time it's brought up, the first reply is 'you can't fly'. Really? So you play with jerk spellcasters who aren't casting fly, overland flight, windwalk on you? You don't have dudes with flying carpets or paladins with dragon mounts? Nothing? huh, I guess if I were playing in your campaign, I'd be stoking the fire, awaiting your return from taking out the flying badguys that happen every encounter.
    Overland Flight is a flat out illegal move, as it is self only. Air Walk only lasts an hour or three, and Fly lasts even less. Not to mention you are a VoP Monk, which means there's a long list of options that rank higher in priority than making a completely useless character only mostly useless. Additionally, Flying Carpets are crazy overpriced, and dragon flight doesn't work with full attackers.

    My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.
    This makes them suck somewhat less, but they still can't hit worth a damn.

    Looking at other suggestions, I like the idea of Abundant Step a per encounter ability. Basically anything that a monk can do that a swordsage can also do, should be usable as often. It'd of been nice if they'd errata'd the monk in ToB to make it more inline with the philosophy evident before the switch to 4th ed.
    For Abundant Step to even begin to be a not joke ability, it has to lose the "end turn" clause. As long as that is there, it is only useful for running away.

    Quote Originally Posted by jiriku View Post
    VoP just doesn't fix things. It's really quite favorable for the inexperienced player in the sense that it forces you to have things that you might not have thought to get for yourself, but the reduced flexibility and choice exposes the fact that the monk has enormous holes in its capabilities and isn't a well-rounded class. For example, the druid and the sorcerer also benefit a lot from VoP because (like the monk) they aren't gear-dependent classes, and they don't care that it doesn't grant flight... because (unlike the monk) druids and sorcerers don't need gear to fly, and can affect aerial targets just fine even when they are on the ground.
    Sorcerers lose hard on VoP for much the same reasons as everyone else. The only class it's even a discussion for is Druids. And even then, WBL is better. It's just closer than with any other class.

    Monks are the most equipment dependent class in the entire game. I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonestheSpy View Post
    Well, aside from the fact that Fortification protecting from a monk's stunning is a highly debatable rule interpretation (I wouldn't allow it), padded armor has a 5% spell failure chance, i.e. the same as rolling a 1 on a d20. By your own rules of engagement, wizard is not allowed to cast any spells, wizard loses right there.

    Also, you're assuming a highly specific magic item buy for this single fight, yet you allow thought for no magic items the monk might own. See the problem?
    Heavy Fort is a standard item at all levels 15+. It specifically negates stunning.

    Barring something silly like Dust of Sneezing and Choking, it matters not one bit what items the Monk has.

    Well, given that it's a well-known trick the one can Dimension Door out of a grapple pretty easily, why would the monk even try when they can use Improve Disarm and take away a wizard's wand, staff, ubiquitous Headband o' Brains, or spell component pouch?
    And then die anyways.

    Oh, and your damage calculations are assuming no damage-enhancing magic (which seems unlikely) or Power Attack. If the monk just chose to attack 5 times, it's quite probable they could hand the wizard 100 damage right there.
    At which point he survives easily, and wins anyways, because 100 damage full attacks are abysmally low.

    Now here we get to the real, biggest, most obvious flaw of this whole scenario - high level monks have spell resistance (the Blasphemy effect of a Balor has a Save too, but we'll let that slide). So guess what, no spells work, and the monk kills the wizard before he knows what's happening.
    Correct, the Monk will have extreme difficulty being buffed by allies. I'm not sure what this has to do with some penis waving one on one fight though. It will not stop actual hostile spells from landing, as it is beyond trivial to trivialize.

    You know, there probably are, but in a real game a wizard doesn't have time to sit and spend hours figuring out the right strategy and is just as likely to make the same kind of mistakes made above, let alone buy equipment and choose spells suited to a specific battle - especially if they're so overconfident.
    What specific gear is this again? Why is this plan taking hours? It's basic mook swatting measures. Which is only one letter off.

    Quote Originally Posted by JonestheSpy View Post
    Edit: the reason Fortification is open to interpretation is because it specifically says it only makes the user immune to damage form crits or SA's. Whereas Stunning Fist doesn't work on creature types immune to crit damage. Fortification does not change yout creature type, it just protects you from damage. One could rule either way I suppose, but really, when having to make a judgement call like that are you really going to rule in such a way that nerfs one of the monks only useful abilities?
    It states that it does not work on a list of things containing four creature types, one creature subtype, and creatures immune to critical hits. It is extremely clearcut. You are immune if any of the following are true:

    Your creature type is Construct, Ooze, Plant, or Undead.
    You have the Incorporeal subtype.
    You are immune to critical hits.

    Anyone with Heavy Fort meets the third criteria, ergo no effect. Not to mention that outside of some Monk always rolls 20s, Wizard always rolls 1s scenario Stunning Fist is a non factor, because he will save on a 2+. It is also worth mentioning Monks are the only class in the entire game that cannot get Heavy Fort. One more reason why they suck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mojo_Rat View Post
    Previously i have read the common themes in these discussions and while i had not played a Monk i agreed with what had been said on paper.

    In our game that just endd My character died and i got to start a Monk at lvl 8 and it continued til the end of the Campaign at lvl 10. for the most part My views have changed.

    I will preface saying this is all Pathfinder Stuff with no 3.5

    I Built the character with he intent of having my bases covered. I split my 20 pt buy among str dex con wis. and after Gear and Racial (human) i was 18 18 14 16. i went with the Weapon Maser Archtype focused on the temple sword . when the game ended i had a
    60 ft move saves of 12 13 12, evasion. And a CMB of +22 to Trip. on a flurry of Blows against a slowed or staggered or stunned or whatever target i could get /8/ attacks. with no Dr 6 of these at my highest Bab (which for the sword was +16, a bit lower for the Punches)

    Ac of 27 (28 with mage armor) and 32 using Ki of which i had 9.

    Was the character perfect? No it had holes in it, I could do 80 foot jumps but needed to be hasted to clear 20 feet high. couldnt See invis or Fly etc.

    but really characters don't exist in a vacuum .

    However, i will adMit. in a group where everyone was Uber optimized id have been far less effective Especially if bad guys were improved to compensate for that.

    As it is minions needed 20's to hit me and many of the bbeg in the high teens.
    Then you were fighting weak minions and weaker BBEGs. At level 10, AC 28 is borderline hit on a 2 by normal fights. Bosses will have no trouble doing so.

    Quote Originally Posted by jiriku View Post
    It's a fair criticism. Most wizards don't invest in crit immunity through items, since their primary strategy is not to get hit. But, well, then we go down the road of how gosh-darn good wizards are at not getting hit. My wizard characters always have a least a couple of panic buttons to throw at high levels to get them out of the way if trouble threatens.
    It's more common via Elemental Body (which explicitly grants stun immunity, along with perfect flight, critical hit immunity, and other things) or the Heart of line, because they come online sooner. It's the same end result though. Everyone that knows better gets Heavy Fort. Except Monks, because they can't.

    In general, panic buttons are good; in high-level play, they're vital. Wizards have them. Sorcerers and artificers have them in spades. Clerics and favored souls have them, as do beguilers and bards. Warblades and swordsages and crusaders have them. Factotums definitely do.

    Monks, not so much.
    They can Abundant Step away. That's a panic button, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by archon_huskie View Post
    Monks don't suck.

    Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.

    The only class that really sucks is Truenamer.
    Flurry of Blows.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Doc Roc's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
    The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)
    Sure, but then it comes up once in a while, and their session is ruined.

    In programming, corner cases are still bugs.


    Quote Originally Posted by Firechanter View Post
    "Anecdotal evidence isn't valid."
    "Yes it is! I used anecdotal evidence once and later it turned out I was right! ... Or so I heard."

    While not valid as a source of empirical evidence under normal circumstances, he was insisting that it simply never came up. {k !E in set A} is proven wrong by {k E in set A}. Also, SMBC is awesome.
    Last edited by Doc Roc; 2011-03-29 at 05:52 PM.
    Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
    DocRoc: to?
    Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Euphonistan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Monks can get heavy fortification you can put it on your bracers of defense for one.

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    VoP Monks are rather decent in low-magic campaigns with a stingy DM (read: wealth way below WBL) and with the PCs being threatened with loss of their gear all the time.

    That's an extreme corner case though.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Leon View Post
    3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
    The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)
    I would also suggest that in many of the games in which it doesn't present a problem, it is entirely because of player attitude. I've seen games where the monk underperforms, dies, loses a level, underperforms more because he is now lower level, etc, but it wasn't a problem as such, because the player just shrugged and had a good time.

    That doesn't mean that monk was fulfilling its party role or performing well, the player just didn't care, and to the degree that he did care, he assigned the blame to luck rather than to the class that he wanted to love.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Keld Denar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    VoP ANYTHING is good in that situation though. VoP comes out to be ~60% WBL, when you add everything up. If your DM is only giving you 20% WBL in treasure, automatically getting 60% WBL is a pretty dang good deal. A VoP fighter wielding a quarterstaff 2handed with Power Attack is gonna dramatically outclass and out damage a VoP monk.

    Its not a function of monks, its a function of DMs and WBL.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
    AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
    _________________________________
    A beholder’s favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Banned
     
    Malevolence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by MeeposFire View Post
    Monks can get heavy fortification you can put it on your bracers of defense for one.
    169k. 105k more than normal +8 Bracers. 70k more than just adding it to normal armor. Or to put it better, three times as expensive. On a class that has little spare gold to begin with.

    Not to mention if you have obscure book access such as the Arms and Equipment guide, which is the only place you can do that you can just be an Unarmed Swordsage, or hell, an Unarmed Cleric and punch people out that way.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    VoP Monks are rather decent in low-magic campaigns with a stingy DM (read: wealth way below WBL) and with the PCs being threatened with loss of their gear all the time.

    That's an extreme corner case though.
    In campaigns like that, there is only one option, and that option is a primary spellcaster.

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Joliet, IL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    We should just make a "Why Monks are Bad" handbook and sticky it.

    But then what would we talk about on Mondays?
    Last edited by Shyftir; 2011-03-29 at 06:12 PM.

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Banned
     
    Malevolence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shyftir View Post
    We should just make a "Why Monks are Bad" handbook and sticky it.

    But then what would we talk about on Mondays?
    Pizza. What, what do you mean that's too short?

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Banned
     
    Malevolence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    That's why I put that conditional in.

    'though now that I think about it, most manifesting classes are better, and it's easy for druids to get their Divine Focus back even if they lose them.
    That conditional doesn't really change anything. Either way, no one has any magic defense, because it's low magic, so you'll just run right over everything.

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    warmachine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Reading, England
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Alas, D&D is a combat oriented game, so poor stats means sucking at combat and, thus, D&D. In some RPGs, some perfectly good character concepts can go with poor combat abilities but D&D is combat oriented. That idea is so vital, it needed to be written twice.

    Of course, D&D is still an RPG and there is scope for non-combat roles. Let's consider how the monk can handle a variety of roles.
    • Face man: CHA tends to be a dump stat and lacks Bluff as a class skill.
    • Investigator: lacks some skills as class skills, such as Gather Information and Search, only has only 4+INT skills and no spells either.
    • Sage: only 4+INT skills with INT being a low priority and most sage skills aren't class skills.
    • Healer: next!
    • Thief: better but lacks Open Lock and Disable Device and no spells either.

    In all these cases, you're better off with a Bard or Rogue.

    Let us reconsider various combat roles.
    • Tank: poor armour and damage dealing.
    • Opportunist striker: speed is good but 2/3 BAB progression and no strike capability isn't.
    • Battlefield control/debuffer: no spells or area effect abilities.
    • Artillery: poor ranged weapons.
    • Buffer/healer: no spells.

    Mostly, you're still better off with a Bard.

    Monks don't excel at any role whereas even Bards easily excel at face man. They lack the skill points and class skills to usefully contribute to a variety of roles whereas Bard has more skill points, class skills and has spells.

    How about what some think is cool or fun.
    • Touchy-feely love: no.
    • Nag people to behave themselves: doesn't fit whereas this fits Cleric or Paladin.
    • Lesbian, stripper ninja: this works.
    • Emo kid: doesn't fit, try Warlock.
    • Kung fu hijinks: now you're talking.



    So, the Monk sucks except for stunts that are cool but aren't really that useful.
    Matthew Greet
    My purpose in life is to play games.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malevolence View Post
    That conditional doesn't really change anything. Either way, no one has any magic defense, because it's low magic, so you'll just run right over everything.
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Doc Roc's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?
    In a world of monks, the one-monked monk is king.
    Lagren: I took Livers Need Not Apply, only reflavoured.
    DocRoc: to?
    Lagren: So whenever Harry wisecracks, he regains HP.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    HalfOrcPirate

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?
    Depends, if the DM is nerfing everyone equally they're still going to be about on par. A Fighter with a Quarterstaff and power attack is better than a Monk doing the same thing in a no wealth campaign, and a Wizard can take eschew materials and such. If, hypothetically, it was a no wealth campaign where Eschew Materials was banned, no one but the monk was allowed to take Improved Unarmed Strike and improvised weapons were given a damage of 1d2 and always treated as light weapons... The monk still loses to Divine casters, but at very low levels it would be better in combat than anyone but the Druid.

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Titan in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malevolence View Post
    169k. 105k more than normal +8 Bracers. 70k more than just adding it to normal armor. Or to put it better, three times as expensive. On a class that has little spare gold to begin with.

    Not to mention if you have obscure book access such as the Arms and Equipment guide, which is the only place you can do that you can just be an Unarmed Swordsage, or hell, an Unarmed Cleric and punch people out that way.
    The best way to get Heavy Fort is actually a dragon item- Gemstone of Fortification, in Draconomicon. 35,000 GP, which is quite cheap for the effect, plus a Limited Wish or similar magic to get it implanted in yourself if you aren't already a dragon or something else with thick skin that doesn't much mind having bits of rock jabbed in it.

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    blackjack217's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Ama'varde
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Without Homebrew anyone with enough wisdom to function as a monk has enough wisdom to know to be something else.


    Countdown to the zombie Apocalypse: braaaaaaains.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Titan in the Playground
     
    tyckspoon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?
    Survivability. Specifically, survivability against non-AC attacks; all good saves, Evasion and Improved Evasion acquired earlier than even the Rogue, Still Mind, and encouraged to invest in its defensive stats. Unfortunately, "I'm still alive" is not a particularly valuable niche.. unless your party dies a lot and you need somebody who can reliably duck out of the TPK and carry your corpses back to base for resurrection. Monks can do that pretty well.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    So, in core with the only roll 1s/20s rule, granted the SR which I forgot before, I think the wizard has to resort to suffocation. So:
    Resilient Sphere. Cast all normal long term buffs, including Shapechange, stone skin, mirror image, False life. Fast Heal all damage done by monk on round 1. At this point, if you mess up and the monk gets an attack on you, he is no real threat. Take a fast flying form, like a dragon.

    Fly to 60 feat or so away from monk. Forcecage him (No SR, No save). Put walls of stone around the barred forcecage, making a box. Fill the box with sand, water or mud (for example, by shapechanging into something huge, with high str, picking up rocks, tossing them in and casting rock to mud.) once the box is filled with mud, turn the mud back into rock around the outside, creating an airtight seal. 40 hours later, by the time the forcecage drops, monk should be dead. (you could also earthglide into the box (outside the cage), and disintegrate or burn up the air to speed things up)

    If monk hasn't used his DDoor yet, he can escape the forcecage, once. Forcecage him again and he is done.

    There are lots of faster methods, which are also kills, but they are either non-core, or require a d20 roll.

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?
    They are decent in Gestalt, or as 1-2 level dips.
    Last edited by Gnaeus; 2011-03-29 at 07:29 PM.

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    With Tashelatora (which I probably misspelled) or to give yourself a challenge, it's a good choice.

    Otherwise, Monk is good if it's the archetype you most enjoy, and none of the mechanically superior options are available to you. After all, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.
    Iron Chef in the Playground veteran since Round IV. Play as me!


    Spoiler
    Show

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Darth Stabber's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Amphetryon View Post
    Otherwise, Monk is good if it's the archetype you most enjoy, and none of the mechanically superior options are available to you. After all, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.
    Actually monks are so bad that even if you are having fun your still wrong. And fighter is a superior option in any game.
    My homebrew
    Official spokesman of the totemist class for gestalt (and proud supporter of parenthetical asides (especially nested ones)). Author of a gestalt handbook
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerd-o-rama View Post
    Did you just put a gear shift on a lightsaber?
    Redneck laser swords only work in manual.

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Martial Monk variant is a superior dip than fighter. Due to it not needing to meet its prereqs for its bonus feats. Add in invisible fist variant and you have something to work with.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lans View Post
    Martial Monk variant is a superior dip than fighter. Due to it not needing to meet its prereqs for its bonus feats. Add in invisible fist variant and you have something to work with.
    Yeah, but VERY unlikely to be allowed. The first time you claim you're taking Perfect Two Weapon Fighting and Weapon Superiority at levels 1 and 2 is the first time you get smacked with a rulebook.

    JaronK

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Probably depends on the group. I'm sure their are some groups that will just roll their eyes when you say your playing a broken monk.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    This Overland Flight? The one with a range of Personal? Baring some Spellguard of Silverymoon shananananananananananananananananigans, that's not really possible.

    Mass Fly is still a pretty solid spell.
    My mistake (or actually the party wizard's), but that still leaves fly, mass fly, phantom steed, phantom stag, and probably a couple of others I don't remember. It probably helped that our last high-level party had a War Weaver in it

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Banned
     
    Malevolence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by NNescio View Post
    Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?
    They are an excellent source of experience points and treasure for the classes that are worth something. They are also an excellent source of comic relief, when they make six attacks and miss all of them only to be knocked out in one punch by a Cleric. But aside from that? Yes, they're terrible, and any attempt to make others as terrible as they are will fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by tyckspoon View Post
    Survivability. Specifically, survivability against non-AC attacks; all good saves, Evasion and Improved Evasion acquired earlier than even the Rogue, Still Mind, and encouraged to invest in its defensive stats. Unfortunately, "I'm still alive" is not a particularly valuable niche.. unless your party dies a lot and you need somebody who can reliably duck out of the TPK and carry your corpses back to base for resurrection. Monks can do that pretty well.
    Monks have average saves. And if the party is dying a lot, having a useful party member would be better.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    My mistake (or actually the party wizard's), but that still leaves fly, mass fly, phantom steed, phantom stag, and probably a couple of others I don't remember. It probably helped that our last high-level party had a War Weaver in it
    Fly = low duration. Mass Fly = only useful when there are multiple, useful non fliers. The others don't work with Monks. So that's not happening.
    Last edited by Malevolence; 2011-03-30 at 08:00 AM.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Lustria
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by archon_huskie View Post
    Monks don't suck.
    Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.
    I've played a short campaign in a group with no optimization at all (probably, the strongest character was my ranger, which is self-explanatory), and the monk was by far our weakest member
    Last edited by Killer Angel; 2011-03-30 at 08:19 AM.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books
    Quote Originally Posted by Eldan View Post
    Historical zombies is a fantastic idea.

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by Malevolence View Post
    Fly = low duration. Mass Fly = only useful when there are multiple, useful non fliers. The others don't work with Monks. So that's not happening.
    Winged boots have an even shorter duration, phantom steeds are no less useless than carpets of flying, and most parties are going to have multiple useful members that don't get fly on their own.

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThunderCat View Post
    Winged boots have an even shorter duration, phantom steeds are no less useless than carpets of flying, and most parties are going to have multiple useful members that don't get fly on their own.
    That depends entirely on the level of optimization. Most casters can fly on their own, and most optimized non-casters have the need to fly taken into account (flying mounts, items, grafts, races with wings etc.)

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Monk... Why do they suck?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    That depends entirely on the level of optimization. Most casters can fly on their own, and most optimized non-casters have the need to fly taken into account (flying mounts, items, grafts, races with wings etc.)
    Phantom steed and phantom stags can fly at level 14 and flying items are usually expensive. A lot of times, we've found it more practical to save the money and just have the caster(s) provide flight. I agree that a monk with VoP can't truly shine in a party with even basic optimisation, but unless the whole party consists of casters who can fly (in which case the monk is even more useless), the lack of independent flying doesn't have to be that crippling.
    Last edited by ThunderCat; 2011-03-30 at 09:31 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •