[PF] And in this corner...

[Beowulf DW]

This is going to be a Monk vs. the Unarmed fighter archetype thread, but before we delve into the issue, a little background.

As a martial artist in real life, I adore the monk class. But the affection isn't mutual. Despite the fact that the monk was improved from 3.5, and the fact that some of its archetypes certainly improve its performance, it still has quite a few problems. They're still the MAD-est class in the game, and I'm pretty sure that their weapon proficiency doesn't include even half the weapons with the "monk" special ability. So, you can imagine my joy at seeing the Unarmed Fighter Archetype in Ultimate Combat. Proficiency with all monk weapons, full BAB, no ki pool but I can live with that.

I'm not hung up on optimization, but I like my characters to be effective. So my question is, how does the Unarmed Fighter stack up against the Monk? Would multiclassing Unarmed fighter into some Monk archetypes be a worthwhile venture?

I submit to your wisdom, oh senseis of the playground.

[tedthehunter]

Please could you tell me what MAD stands for? Noob here :smallredface:

[Tohron]

Please could you tell me what MAD stands for? Noob here :smallredface:

MAD means Multi-Attribute Dependency

Basically, the more attributes your class uses for its various features, the more you have to either specialize in some of your class features at the cost of others, or be mediocre at all of them. Monk in particular is notorious for needing strength (for its melee attack), dex and con (for surviving in melee), and wisdom (for the AC boost and other class features), meaning your int and charisma will always suck, and none of your other stats can be high unless you dump some of them too.

[Particle_Man]

Please could you tell me what MAD stands for? Noob here :smallredface:

Multiple Ability Dependency. Like Monks need high str, con, dex, wis and (for skills) int.

Fighters generally don't need wis. The unarmed fighter might need str, con, dex. Since fighters have so few skill points anyhow either they really really need int or they give up on it as a lost cause.

[Beowulf DW]

Please could you tell me what MAD stands for? Noob here :smallredface:

It's as Tohron and Particle have said. Monks try to do a lot of things, and end up being mediocre at them.

And some of the archetypes don't even make sense. The sohei gets light armor, even though wearing that armor results in the loss of the wisdom to AC and Flurry of Blows. The ability to flurry with weapons without the "monk" special quality is nice, I guess, but what's the use when they've already lost Flurry? I suppose you could combine it with the sensei archetype to give up flurry and get wisdom to attacks, but at that point you can't really say that you're playing a monk anymore.

[Curious]

In response to your question. . .

Monk wins. The best monk archetypes (Hungry Ghost and Qinngong) push the class into tier 3, whereas the Unarmed Fighter struggles to remain above tier 5.

[Beowulf DW]

In response to your question. . .

Monk wins. The best monk archetypes (Hungry Ghost and Qinngong) push the class into tier 3, whereas the Unarmed Fighter struggles to remain above tier 5.

Now you see, that's the problem. Those two archetypes don't seem to me like the the skillful exotic martial artist that I want to play when I reach for a monk. But perhaps I'm misjudging. I've never actually tried those two archetypes before. What's the experience like? Have you become a "ki-sorceror" or can you still mix it up when you have to?

[Curious]

Now you see, that's the problem. Those two archetypes don't seem to me like the the skillful exotic martial artist that I want to play when I reach for a monk. But perhaps I'm misjudging. I've never actually tried those two archetypes before. What's the experience like? Have you become a "ki-sorceror" or can you still mix it up when you have to?

It's all in the flavor. Most of the Hungry Ghost's abilities are based around gaining Ki or HP, while the Qinngong mostly adds utility, with perhaps one or two useful combat SLAs. Crit-fishing is generally the way to go, since that's how you regain your Ki.

[Particle_Man]

One fun monk-type to try could be the Eidolon (biped). They are neat to play and you get this free Summoner pal to buff you up. :smallsmile:

[Blyte]

Just because they have a lot of options available to them, doesn't mean they need to try to do them all. A player can choose his monk to focus on one thing, and do well at it. You are only mediocre when you spread your resources too thin.

I disagree that a monk is MAD. They are only MAD if the player wants them to be. It is quite easy to make an effective DEX build monk with average stats elsewhere. You just can't be all things all the time, no class can be, and it's silly to expect this of any class.

I have looked into the tetori, master of many styles, zen archer, maneuver master, qinngong, and martial artist. With focus they all make effective specialist combatants. The less focused you are, the more well rounded they become, but also the less effectiveness in their specialty they posses.

I don't know of any class, save pure casters (and even many of them choose to focus for added effectiveness in one thing at the expense of utility), who aren't essentially one trick pony's if they choose to optimize potency. The monk isn't an exception. If you want to be the master of all 'yoga noogie' holds, then you take the tetori and you focus nearly all your feats to making him the most effective grappler you can. Sure you won't be able to quivering palm a storm giant, but with an enlarge person you can potentially get him in a full nelson and make him say uncle.

[Beowulf DW]

One fun monk-type to try could be the Eidolon (biped). They are neat to play and you get this free Summoner pal to buff you up. :smallsmile:

I hate you so much right now.:smallannoyed:

[Drelua]

Have you seen the Brawler Fighter archetype? It's a much better unarmed fighter than the Unarmed Fighter, especially with a 2-4 level dip into Martial Artist Monk. That way your saves get a lot better, you get extra skills, and Sense Motive as a class skill makes Snake Style, my favourite combat style work even without traits. If you decide to wear armour, you don't even need WIS or much DEX, making you no more MAD than a normal fighter.

I love playing unarmed fighters, and this is by far my favourite way to do it. Does you DM allow 3.5 material? If he does, the Dungeoncrasher Fighter ACF from Dungeonscape goes perfectly with this build. Be sure to pick up Quick Bull Rush (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/quick-bull-rush-combat) if this is allowed.

[Blyte]

agreed, the brawler is superior to the unarmed fighter.

[Beowulf DW]

Have you seen the Brawler Fighter archetype? It's a much better unarmed fighter than the Unarmed Fighter, especially with a 2-4 level dip into Martial Artist Monk. That way your saves get a lot better, you get extra skills, and Sense Motive as a class skill makes Snake Style, my favourite combat style work even without traits. If you decide to wear armour, you don't even need WIS or much DEX, making you no more MAD than a normal fighter.

I love playing unarmed fighters, and this is by far my favourite way to do it. Does you DM allow 3.5 material? If he does, the Dungeoncrasher Fighter ACF from Dungeonscape goes perfectly with this build. Be sure to pick up Quick Bull Rush (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/quick-bull-rush-combat) if this is allowed.

This isn't for any specific game. My penchant for playing melee classes is just so great that I know that this issue will come up eventually.

As for the 3.5 material, I don't know. None of us have tried it and we tend to handle stuff like that on a case-by-case basis. We're all good friends, so we have a decent idea of what each of us can be trusted with (that is, trusted not to break the game, or if we've some gotten the capability to break the game, not to take the gloves off unless it's really necessary).

[crazyhedgewizrd]

In response to your question. . .

Monk wins. The best monk archetypes (Hungry Ghost and Qinngong) push the class into tier 3, whereas the Unarmed Fighter struggles to remain above tier 5.

The tier system does not in fact determine the outcome of fights. A tier 6 can beat the daylights out of a tier 2 character, but thats all a the tier 6 character can do, it cant do anything outside of the combat.

Out of the 8+ years of playing, i have played a few monks and none of them were MAD. This is mainly how the character was built.

The monk cant do everything, just as the the fighter cant.

[Krazzman]

I'm AFB and AFFIC(away from free internet connection) so I can't back my statements up.

If I remember correctly the Brawler gives you a raising Damageboost thanks to Weapon Training. Now someone should crunch the numbers about how a dip in either Monk benefits the Brawler or the Brawler benefits the Monk and IF the Monk is a Qinggong (whilst there is no reason not to be one), which features should be traded for what. And if this could be a build where weapon spec is a viable feat choice...

The thing is in a Gestalt game this would be a Hard combo.
Going with the Dragon Style chain, having high Strength, having bonuses to Unarmed Strikes, having higher Strike Damage dice and the bonuses from brawler that give certain tactical advantages.

[Curious]

The tier system does not in fact determine the outcome of fights. A tier 6 can beat the daylights out of a tier 2 character, but thats all a the tier 6 character can do, it cant do anything outside of the combat.

Out of the 8+ years of playing, i have played a few monks and none of them were MAD. This is mainly how the character was built.

The monk cant do everything, just as the the fighter cant.

Ah, it kind of does. Tier 6's are in tier 6 because they are terrible at everything, including fighting. Tier 3's, while it is not essential, are almost always quite competent combatants.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

Ah, it kind of does. Tier 6's are in tier 6 because they are terrible at everything, including fighting. Tier 3's, while it is not essential, are almost always quite competent combatants.

You do know the tier system just doesn't just messure combat ability, but messures how competent how the character can deal with any givin situation they may run into.
The creator of the tier system does recognizes that people can play a class from a lower tier and be just as competent as the person from a higher tier class.

[Coidzor]

T6 against T2 is fairly extreme though, and it generally means that the T2 is doing something wrong just as the T6 is doing something right.

[Curious]

You do know the tier system just doesn't just messure combat ability, but messures how competent how the character can deal with any givin situation they may run into.
The creator of the tier system does recognizes that people can play a class from a lower tier and be just as competent as the person from a higher tier class.

Yes, I am aware of that. That's why I made the comparison. And no, a character in a lower tier is not as competent as a character in a higher tier. That's why the tiers exist; to measure the broad levels of power between characters. Granted, a lower tier character can have the same power in certain situations as a higher tier class, but never the same power, and flexibility.

Anyways, the Unarmed Fighter is not even tier 4. It is a tier 5, just like the regular fighter, whereas the Hungry Ghost Qinngong Monk is around tier 3. That's a pretty broad disparity, in both power and versatility.

[KutuluKultist]

Yes, I am aware of that. That's why I made the comparison. And no, a character in a lower tier is not as competent as a character in a higher tier. That's why the tiers exist; to measure the broad levels of power between characters. Granted, a lower tier character can have the same power in certain situations as a higher tier class, but never the same power, and flexibility.

Tiers do not measure differences between characters, but between classes. Not even between builds. As such they are necessarily broad and vague, expressing possibilities rather than necessities. They cannot take into account environmental factors and broader context that any actual situation will be embedded in. Actual characters could differ regarding equipment, both selection and overall value might be different and have different impact. Furthermore, the tier systems measures the potential of the toolbox presented by a class to contain a good, effective and efficient solution to any given problem. That is why highly flexible classes end up in the highest tier and specialized classes, not matter how good they are at what they do, end up in lower tiers. Finally, the tier system generalizes over 20 levels and power differences between classes, much less characters can vary a lot over 20 levels.

There is more to a character than the tier of it's class.

As an addendum, keep in mind that the tier system is a secondary analytical approach to an existing system, not a primary raison d'etre for the game. As such evaluation can always vary and theoretical mind games should be taken with a grain of salt. In the end, it is the experience of play that shows the actual applicability of both the tier system and the placement of classes therein.
That being said:

[quote]
Anyways, the Unarmed Fighter is not even tier 4. It is a tier 5, just like the regular fighter, whereas the Hungry Ghost Qinngong Monk is around tier 3. That's a pretty broad disparity, in both power and versatility.

I disagree. The PF fighter has the tools to do one thing reasonably well. In fact, with clever use of skills and the abundance of feats, he can manage to do a few more things (like debuffing, an extra combat style or even being good at a skill or two). That makes him a tier 4, leaning towards 3. Lots of feats means lots of possible tricks.
The unarmed fighter archetype on the other hand is really a rather sad option. But a fighter doesn't have to chose to be that archetype, hence it should not be held against him.

And for the OP: If you want a martial artisty, down to earth feeling character, try the martial artist monk archetype, it's quite ok and it drops all the ki-shenanigans.

[Curious]

Tiers do not measure differences between characters, but between classes. Not even between builds. As such they are necessarily broad and vague, expressing possibilities rather than necessities. They cannot take into account environmental factors and broader context that any actual situation will be embedded in. Actual characters could differ regarding equipment, both selection and overall value might be different and have different impact. Furthermore, the tier systems measures the potential of the toolbox presented by a class to contain a good, effective and efficient solution to any given problem. That is why highly flexible classes end up in the highest tier and specialized classes, not matter how good they are at what they do, end up in lower tiers. Finally, the tier system generalizes over 20 levels and power differences between classes, much less characters can vary a lot over 20 levels.

There is more to a character than the tier of it's class.

Firstly, WBL-mancy does not affect tier. Otherwise, commoners would be tier 2, since they can theoretically build the Cube.

Secondly, I never stated that tier was the most important anything- the most important thing is having fun with the game -tiers are simply the easiest and fastest way to assess the capabilities of a class. And while, yes, class capabilities vary over the span of their levels, the tier system takes this into account as well; otherwise, wizards would be tier 4 at levels 1-2, then tier 3 at 3-6, then tier 1 at 7 and on. It is generalized as the average power across levels.




I disagree. The PF fighter has the tools to do one thing reasonably well. In fact, with clever use of skills and the abundance of feats, he can manage to do a few more things (like debuffing, an extra combat style or even being good at a skill or two). That makes him a tier 4, leaning towards 3. Lots of feats means lots of possible tricks.
The unarmed fighter archetype on the other hand is really a rather sad option. But a fighter doesn't have to chose to be that archetype, hence it should not be held against him.


Actually, no. The PF Fighter requires at least a modicum of optimization to be competent at his job, hitting things, and even then struggles to contribute in combat when something outside his highly specific specialization arises, such as a flying enemy or mobile enemy. That makes him a tier 5.

Additionally, skills alone, especially as few and as highly limited as the fighter gains, are not enough to push a class up a tier. The only classes that come near to gaining a tier using skills are the Factotum and Rogue, and that only because they have just tons of them.

[Novawurmson]

In general, a properly built Monk is going to have more non-combat versatility than any Fighter, simply because the Monk has more skill points and class features that do more than "+1 damage" (the core Monk has High Jump, Abundant Step, hell, even Empty Body).

In general, a properly built Fighter is going to do more damage than a Monk when sitting still and doing full attacks round after round, simply because the Fighter is more SAD and has access to Weapon Specialization and the like.

Brawler looks like a pretty sweet archetype for a raw-damage unarmed build. Unarmed Fighter looks like it wants to be a Tetori Monk (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/monk/archetypes/paizo---monk-archetypes/tetori).

[Beowulf DW]

Thanks for all the advice. I seem to have inadvertently caused a tier debate, though...:smallfrown:

[Particle_Man]

For what it is worth, I will refrain from commenting on the tier of the Eidolon class. :smallbiggrin:

[KutuluKultist]

Firstly, WBL-mancy does not affect tier. Otherwise, commoners would be tier 2, since they can theoretically build the Cube.

Which was part of my point.


Secondly, I never stated that tier was the most important anything- the most important thing is having fun with the game -tiers are simply the easiest and fastest way to assess the capabilities of a class.

Precisely, class. Not character. That is a vast difference.



And while, yes, class capabilities vary over the span of their levels, the tier system takes this into account as well; otherwise, wizards would be tier 4 at levels 1-2, then tier 3 at 3-6, then tier 1 at 7 and on. It is generalized as the average power across levels.


I am not entirely certain everyone who makes tier analysis actually does this, but even if it is done perfectly: games span different level spans. Hence for any given game, the actual "tier in play" that you can see, will vary.
But this shouldn't turn into a general critique of the tier system. It's useful, but it's necessarily vague and abstracts from many factors in actual play. The important point I want to make is that tier gives a guideline to what a character of a given class could accomplish and nothing more.




Actually, no. The PF Fighter requires at least a modicum of optimization to be competent at his job, hitting things, and even then struggles to contribute in combat when something outside his highly specific specialization arises, such as a flying enemy or mobile enemy. That makes him a tier 5.

The same goes for the wizard. Having learned nothing but alarm and floating disc and the like makes him pretty useless. Selecting halfway useful spells might not be much to ask, but it is a modicum of optimization, is it not? Certainly no less than having to pick power attack & deadly aim for feats. Prioritizing str and con is no more of an optimization effort than prioritizing int and con. And while it's easier to fix a wizard by giving him a new spell book, things look different for a sorcerer.

In any case, even a class like cleric and druid requires a "modicum of optimization" to produce a useful character. Everyone can pick only options that are unhelpful.

Also, I've not seen fighters having all that much trouble with hitting things.



Additionally, skills alone, especially as few and as highly limited as the fighter gains, are not enough to push a class up a tier. The only classes that come near to gaining a tier using skills are the Factotum and Rogue, and that only because they have just tons of them.
There is no factotum in Pathfinder. And I also didn't say that skills push the fighter into a higher tier. I merely claimed that feats can open useful options that help belie the notion of the fighter necessarily being able to do one and only one thing.