I've never seen a monk played in 3.5 or PF well. I've

You don't. Not in 3.5/PF. Martials suck utterly there, and monk sucks the most out of all martials.

>>49668508
Unchained Monk effectively gets pounce with flying kick and is therefore about as good as a martial is ever going to get.

>>49668508
There are quite a few alternatives. None of them break out of T3 though. Unchained monk is the most straightforward.

If you liked the swordsage stuff, there's a 3rd party supplement for PF based on Tome of Battle, that has a monk archetype which gives it initiating.

>>49668508
I've seen a flowing water monk make an assassin ambush result in them backstabbing each other.

There's some neat shit they can do

>>49668508
Is there a particular reason you don't just want to play an unarmed swordsage

Aren't monks the only core tier 6? Everything about them is a disaster.
>relies on 4 stats
>incomplete BAB on a martial
>awful feat options
>awful gear options
>not even proficient with Unarmed Strike

>>49668508
Make an unarmed swordsage

>>49669288
This.

Playing Gestalt helps monks a lot as well but that has to be a group decision. Unchained Monk with another class to supplement it is pretty fun.

Gestalt Unchanged Monk/Synthesis Summoner for Kamen Rider

>>49668508
The Unchained monk has a lot going for it in terms of customization.

There's also a grapple focused archetype (don't recall what it's called) that can be pretty awesome against anything not built for grappling.

>>49671741
Do gestalt martials still pale in comparison to magic users? What about the gestalt magic users?

>>49668508
>How do you make one well?
You don't

>>49668508
Tashalatora Monk. In other words... uh... two levels of monk, 18 levels of psychic warrior from the Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5.

Tashalatora feat is in Secrets of Sarlona. It allows you to improve monk flurry, AC bonuses and unarmed damage bonuses as if you were taking monk levels while taking Psychic Warrior levels instead.

Yes, this is besides the point of your post. Yes, it means you're just playing an unarmed Psychic Warrior with a few bennies to his attacks and that nice 2 level Monk dip.

Yes, it's fucking great, so I don't care that it technically isn't monk.

Why are you still playing 3.pf?
Go play something else where the systems work and you don't have to ask these inane questions

>>49673120
Jesus fuck, go fuck somewhere already.

>>49669632
>not even proficient with Unarmed Strike

Nigger you what? Both 3.5 and PF have an entire extra class feature that says, as it's first line, "At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat."

The rest I agree with, since Monk base is absolute garbage and has nothing going for them, but they have unarmed proficiency. That is literally their entire gimmick, to be a martial arts master of wrecking your shit without a weapon. It fell flat on it's face and the class is garbage, but ideally that's what it does.


>>49668508
There's a bunch of different guides out there that will give better info than /tg/. The short version is you either play Unchained Monk in PF or not at all. If you absolutely have to, Qinggong Monk and/or Zen Archer. Quinggong gives some spells that run off your ki pool to supplement the rest of the shitty class, and Zen Archer lets you add your Wisdom to bow stuff. Archery feats are the best way to be a martial in PF.

>>49673537
>Nigger you what? Both 3.5 and PF have an entire extra class feature that says, as it's first line, "At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat."
The Improved Unarmed Strike feat doesn't grant proficiency with Unarmed Strike, though. Nor does it require proficiency with Unarmed Strike.
Unarmed Strike is a simple weapon as detailed in the PHB. The weapons that Monks are proficient with are explicitly listed as
>club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling
Unarmed Strike not among them.

>>49673569 (me)
I should just note I do know it is merely a complete oversight that goes against the intentions of the class. Nearly every class has "all simple weapons" listed under their proficiency, only Monk and Druid come to mind otherwise. (And Druids should never ever punch things so nobody cares.)

>>49673569
Well, shit. Technically you're right. Though every DM ever treats Imp Unarmed as proficiency with unarmed weapons. Because to do otherwise is literally retarded.

>>49668508
Zen archer

>>49673637
Yes, I was using it jokingly since any DM that tries to enforce that is nerfing the most nerfed class.

>>49671872
Gestalt Martials with Basic Magic Users works from mid to high level, but totally fucks over any Magic Users but CoDzilla at low level thanks to the fact they don't have the output to perform effectively.

If you wanted to power up Martials instead of depowering Magic Users for balance, your best bet would be to allow Martials to go Gestalt when they hit the level 5 Fireball/Call Lightning/Inflict Serious Wounds barrier where Magic Users can typically start one-shotting Martials or at least put them down with ridiculous ease.

I.E. Your party hits level 5. The Wizard and Druid just get Wizard5 or Druid5 abilities. The Rogue5 can add the level 1 abilities, proficiencies and skills (and level-equivalent replacement BAB/Average HP increase/Saves) of another non-magic class. He decides he's going to add some Fighter to the mix.

His HP jumps up by 10 (because of the additional +2 average he'd have had as a Fighter) in addition to his level roll. His Base Fort save jumps from +1 to +4. He gets automatic proficiency with all Martial weapons, as well as the Fighter Bonus Feat.

>>49668508
Monks can be made decent if you specifically set them up to be mage-killers. Not great, but decent.

You can zoom around the battlefield, should have enough Tumble ranks to make AOO a non-issue even at low-level, have good saves for everything, and with the right feats you'd be an even bigger combat monster against them.

All you really need to tackle is: The ability to see invisible creatures, the ability to strike a Blinking mage more effectively, and the ability to strike a mage if they fly.

You'll have a shitload of cash compared to other Martials since your skillset is entirely self-contained to being effective as a naked monkey, so I'd recommend going for Ability Score-boosting items (you'll need 'em), a ring of Spell-Storing for the party Wizard/Sorcerer/Cleric to put a nasty surprise in, and if you can swing it, a Ring of Spell Turning.

Monks in PF are ass.

>need str for damage
>need Dex for AC
>need Con for HP
>need Wis for monk shit
>have to buy a stupid overpriced amulet for your fists to be as damaging as weapons

>>49668508
With liberal cheese, and even then, "good melee" is about as good as it gets.

>>49671872
General rule of thumb for gestalt is taking one class work a lot of passive stuff, thenot one to actually be, if that makes sense.

One reason why Aegis is am amazing third party gestalt option as a mayer of fact.

>>49669515
>current character in my PF game dies...

File: 1449275790779.jpg (159KB, 567x920px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 567x920px

>>49668508
What do you mean by played well? Contributing effectively to the party in combat? Out of combat? Playing to good characterization? Providing opportunities for interaction? Fitting in among a merry band of murderhobos?

How do you dice game OP?

>>49668508
In PF you use Unchained Monk, which is an effective martial. Mainline strength, second on wisdom for ki points.

>>49673569
Everyone is proficient in unarmed strike per We[apons rules in 3.5 and PF:

>Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons

>Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon.

Fuck off with your unarmed strike non-proficency meme.

>>49673569
You're wrong and you have triggered me

"Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons

Most character classes are proficient with all simple weapons. Combat-oriented classes such as barbarians, cavaliers, and fighters are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of simple weapons and possibly some martial or even exotic weapons. All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes and any natural weapons they gain from their race. A character who uses a weapon with which he is not proficient takes a –4 penalty on attack rolls with that weapon."

All characters are proficient with unarmed strikes, regardless of class.

Play a Brawler instead.

>>49679346>>49679332

That's PF.

The thing he's quoting is 3.5 (do note monks in PF are also proficient with all simple anyway, IIRC).

Here
>Simple, Martial, and Exotic Weapons

>Anybody but a druid, monk, or wizard is proficient with all simple weapons. Barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers are proficient with all simple and all martial weapons. Characters of other classes are proficient with an assortment of mainly simple weapons and possibly also some martial or even exotic weapons. A character who uses a weapon with which he or she is not proficient takes a -4 penalty on attack rolls.

>>49679447
He was literally responding to someone who said both 3.5 and PF, and then proceeded to falsely say that monks lack unarmed strike proficiency in both games.

Stow your bullshit and take the L mate

>>49672313
>A class that specializes in self-buffing via the power of the mind

psychic warriors are pretty monk-like already

>>49679447
It's made clear elsewhere that all creatures are proficient with their natural attacks and that unarmed strike is a natural attack for humanoids. This means it qualifies for Improved Natural Attack, which is a feat OP should look into.

File: What the actual fuck.jpg (238KB, 1349x386px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1349x386px

>>49668508
You don't.

>>49668508
Make an unchained monk

You will never be "good", but you will be "passable", a solid tier 4 class