Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows


Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,667 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>

Me too. I will not be spending one penny of my hard-earned money on this. Not hard-cover, not PDF, not at all.

MA


Sooo... how long until we get another "Paizo hates Monks" thread popping up? I mean, yet again, a hardcover book comes out, and every one gets nice new shiny things and the Monk gets left over crumbs. I swear, the Monk is the abused puppy that lives in the Paizo office. He gets kicked, slapped and spit on everyday, but keeps returning because it's the only place he can get food and shelter.

[/rant]


Well, I heard about this brawling magic armor property that makes people better at fighting unarmed. Except monks can't use it because they can't wear armor!

EDIT: Found it. Ah, wow. It is simply wow for anyone except a monk who can't wear armor.

Oh, and of course we cannot forget this gem from the UE previews: the brawling special armor property.

The wearer of brawling armor gains +2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls, including combat maneuver checks made to grapple. her unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. These bonus do not apply to natural weapons. This speical ability does not prevent the wearer's unarmed strikes from provoking attacks of opportunity or make the wearer's unarmed strikes count as armed attacks. The brawling ability can be applied only to light armor.

It is a +1 special armor property bonus. +1!!

The bonus on attack and damage rolls is untyped and stacks with everything . . . but monks can't wear armor. AND they get to apply the bonus to grapple, but monks with an AoMF that they spend up to 200,000 gp on . . . don't. Basically, for +2 suit of armor (+1 bonus and +1 brawling property) that you spend 4,000 gp on, you get a better effect than a +2 AoMF which costs 20,000 gp . . . and that it stacks with.

Master Arminas


master arminas wrote:

Well, I heard about this brawling magic armor property that makes people better at fighting unarmed. Except monks can't use it because they can't wear armor!

MA

Yeah, heard about it, can't find the preview it was shown in though. The only Ultimate Equipment previews I can find are with Goblins, Mummies and some Giants and Hellhounds. I know there was supposed to be a Red Dragon encounter, but can't find it anywhere.


Do a goggle search for "ultimate equipment paizo brawling armor"

That's how I found it.

MA


master arminas wrote:

Well, I heard about this brawling magic armor property that makes people better at fighting unarmed. Except monks can't use it because they can't wear armor!

EDIT: Found it. Ah, wow. It is simply wow for anyone except a monk who can't wear armor.

Oh, and of course we cannot forget this gem from the UE previews: the brawling special armor property.

The wearer of brawling armor gains +2 bonus on unarmed attack and damage rolls, including combat maneuver checks made to grapple. her unarmed strikes count as magic weapons for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. These bonus do not apply to natural weapons. This speical ability does not prevent the wearer's unarmed strikes from provoking attacks of opportunity or make the wearer's unarmed strikes count as armed attacks. The brawling ability can be applied only to light armor.

It is a +1 special armor property bonus. +1!!

The bonus on attack and damage rolls is untyped and stacks with everything . . . but monks can't wear armor. AND they get to apply the bonus to grapple, but monks with an AoMF that they spend up to 200,000 gp on . . . don't. Basically, for +2 suit of armor (+1 bonus and +1 brawling property) that you spend 4,000 gp on, you get a better effect than a +2 AoMF which costs 20,000 gp . . . and that it stacks with.

Master Arminas

Yeah, I noticed Jason Bulmahn made a post clarifying that it specifically couldn't be added to Bracers of Armor as they don't count as light armor.

Not ragging on Jason, as I know he's posting as the mouth of the Development team, but I wanted to toss that out there.


Here is the preview page: Oh for a Muse of Fire

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:

Yeah, I noticed Jason Bulmahn made a post clarifying that it specifically couldn't be added to Bracers of Armor as they don't count as light armor.

Not ragging on Jason, as I know he's posting as the mouth of the Development team, but I wanted to toss that out there.

Wow. I am doubly speechless.

The only thing I can think of is that they are going to give the monk's ki-strike an actual enhancement bonus. Not a bonus based on ki, or a virtual bonus, no an ACTUAL bonus to hit that applies to everything they do unarmed (maneuvers too) - because the monk sure isn't going to get a decent one from anywhere else.

That's the only explanation that makes any sense to me if the monk is going to actually be the unarmed expert he's meant to be, if he's precluded from getting all the bonuses in unarmed combat available to other classes.

Jason, Sean, we're waiting.


What a disappointment indeed.

I'm waiting, too...


I have a suspicion that there will not be an 'innate' enhancement bonus to the monk when they do get to it. After all, they wouldn't want to 'obsolete' their new bodywraps, now would they?

My optimism is decreasing at a depressing rate, here.

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Ah, but it wouldn't because the wraps and the AoMF can provide enhancement before it would be gained inherently, as well as weapon properties otherwise unavailable.

I do see you r point though. Without either weapon training (or similar) or enhancement, there IS no fix to the monk, no matter what else they do.

Taldor

I know it's prolly obvious, but what I would do with the monk is simply play the class as how you think it should be played. No one at Paizo is gonna scream at you for not doing it "thier way". Same with the brawling armor ability and whatever else.

Granted, if you are playing PFS as a monk you are basically screwed, cause that's the only time you have to follow thier rules. I feel bad for whomever plays a monk in society play. Somehow I doubt when I walk into the room ro play a scenario on Thursday there is gonna be a big board with the final rules clarification. Oh, you wanted to play your monk at Gen Con and paid money for these events? Sucks to be you. How about a pregen gunslinger?

Not sure why anyone is really surprised by this.


I had to wait before posting this so that I didn't write something that would get me banned.

So there are apparently two more things that are just a big insult to people who wanted to see better things for the Monk class.

There is no reason that they had to limit the brawling property to light armor. They could easily have allowed it to work on light armor and bracers of armor. Or just allowed it on any armor! Would it really break things if a guy in plate wanted to punch someone? No, they did this intentionally. They knew full well that this would be something that people would love to have for a Monk and specifically prohibited it. That's a punch to the gut.

And the bodywraps. A bonus to attacks that is worse than a regular weapon enhancement in every way, but costs half again more? Obviously they gave an arbitrary limit to the number of attacks it could be used for to prevent people from applying it to a dozen different natural weapons. Why didn't they just exclude it from working with natural weapons like has been suggested in this thread dozens of times? I can almost see how they might, possibly, think that this item would be good for a Monk. Maybe.

Whatever happened to the open playtesting that Paizo is famous for? Why didn't they just say, "Hey! Here is our idea for a bodywrap item! What do you think?" and let us give our honest thoughts on it. Now it is too late. It is published and they are going to be more resistant to criticism. It is human nature.

I have basically lost all hope that Paizo will actually fix the Monk. I think they really don't believe that it needs fixing. Their heart is not in it. Also they are married to the idea that the Amulet of Might Fists can not be invalidated NO MATTER WHAT. So there are just too many preconceived notions and emotional barriers to overcome.


Lord Twig wrote:

I have basically lost all hope that Paizo will actually fix the Monk. I think they really don't believe that it needs fixing. Their heart is not in it. Also they are married to the idea that the Amulet of Might Fists can not be invalidated NO MATTER WHAT. So there are just too many preconceived notions and emotional barriers to overcome.

They can't be bothered to do it because there is no money in it for them.


Lord Twig wrote:

I had to wait before posting this so that I didn't write something that would get me banned.

So there are apparently two more things that are just a big insult to people who wanted to see better things for the Monk class.

There is no reason that they had to limit the brawling property to light armor. They could easily have allowed it to work on light armor and bracers of armor. Or just allowed it on any armor! Would it really break things if a guy in plate wanted to punch someone? No, they did this intentionally. They knew full well that this would be something that people would love to have for a Monk and specifically prohibited it. That's a punch to the gut.

And the bodywraps. A bonus to attacks that is worse than a regular weapon enhancement in every way, but costs half again more? Obviously they gave an arbitrary limit to the number of attacks it could be used for to prevent people from applying it to a dozen different natural weapons. Why didn't they just exclude it from working with natural weapons like has been suggested in this thread dozens of times? I can almost see how they might, possibly, think that this item would be good for a Monk. Maybe.

Whatever happened to the open playtesting that Paizo is famous for? Why didn't they just say, "Hey! Here is our idea for a bodywrap item! What do you think?" and let us give our honest thoughts on it. Now it is too late. It is published and they are going to be more resistant to criticism. It is human nature.

I have basically lost all hope that Paizo will actually fix the Monk. I think they really don't believe that it needs fixing. Their heart is not in it. Also they are married to the idea that the Amulet of Might Fists can not be invalidated NO MATTER WHAT. So there are just too many preconceived notions and emotional barriers to overcome.

I feel your pain. And they put their bodywraps in the same slot as the only core monk item: the Monk's Robes!

Master Arminas

Cheliax

Can a monk wear Silken Ceremonial Armor like casters can?

Or does it go HAHA NO!

Andoran

I've participate in a lot society play and monks never have any trouble.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You know what would be an interesting idea?

If Paizo held not just an open play-test but a competition for monk builds. Let's face it, we have churned around enough builds for the monk to fill a player's handbook, why not chuck them out there for the community to see which is the most well adapted to survive, as they say...


master arminas wrote:

I feel your pain. And they put their bodywraps in the same slot as the only core monk item: the Monk's Robes!

Master Arminas

And it's even worse! I forgot about the Monk's Robes.

Plus there is the fact that they DID exclude natural weapons from using the Brawling armor ability, so they can't even make an excuse for limiting the body wraps to keep natural weapons from being overpowered.

Andoran

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If their concern was that the wraps might be abused by creatures/players with obscene numbers of natural attacks (like some druids/eidolons) why not make the item require a minimum ki pool to function and call it good enough, instead of setting some fairly arbitrary limitations that just about guarantee the wraps will never see use?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
If their concern was that the wraps might be abused by creatures/players with obscene numbers of natural attacks (like some druids/eidolons) why not make the item require a minimum ki pool to function and call it good enough, instead of setting some fairly arbitrary limitations that just about guarantee the wraps will never see use?

Because that is a good idea, and monk's cannot have good things?

MA


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For those interested, Jason posted here about the items. And, Cheapy was kind enough to list a total of ten items that were made for the monk. Off the top of my head, a couple allow unarmed strikes to bypass other types of DR.

Andoran

I'm going to wait until I get home and dig through the PDF, but if this is the "solution"...

W.T.F.


Seranov wrote:

Can a monk wear Silken Ceremonial Armor like casters can?

Or does it go HAHA NO!

HAHA NO! That was a good one!

Seriously though, Silken Ceremonial Armor is still light armor. So no.


You know what I would have liked to have seen: robes (wondrous item) that bestowed an armor bonus. Like the robes of the archmagi or the impervious garment from 3.5's Magic Item Compendium, or any of the other two dozen robes in MIC that actually gave an armor bonus.

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
For those interested, Jason posted here about the items. And, Cheapy was kind enough to list a total of ten items that were made for the monk. Off the top of my head, a couple allow unarmed strikes to bypass other types of DR.

He did indeed. If the items had been well thought out, it would have been great, but clearly they weren't - at least from the monk's PoV. An amulet that then precludes the AoMF (unless you combine them - hope you have deep pockets) and gives you flaming or frost damage and some DR is nice, but how do you hit the target? You are MAD, at least -2 behind BAB, and now lacking any enhancement bonus at all. However, they are fantastic for an unarmed fighter with brass knuckles. Again, the item 'for the monk' works even better for the fighter. It really does feel that the designers are working to make sure the monk stays far behind the other combat classes, sometimes.

Now the Deliquescent Gloves are nice, because they can stack with the AoMF (or body wraps, if anyone can be found who will use them), as can longarm bracers, or Poisonous Gloves (add to snake style, anyone?). These are decent items, it's just the body wraps are just...so bad, so really bad!


I could see the body wraps being good if you just have to have a +5 holy pimp slap every now and then.

Paizo Employee Digital Products Assistant

Removed a couple posts. Pirating ≠ cool on paizo.com, and please try to discuss this maturely.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Jason responded on the other thread (the one on monk items in UE), and I thought I would repost his statement and my response here.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there Folks,

I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.

We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.

There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.

Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

Mr. Bulmahn,

I wanted to say thank you for responding and for paying attention. I will not say that I am not disappointed to hear that; the monk is currently one of the most difficult classes to play in a fashion that corresponds to traditional fantasy films and literature. A veteran player with absolute system mastery can make a monk that competes with other character classes, but for a novice? Or even someone who has played but doesn't have a full grasp of how different elements of the system mesh together?

Those players suffer greatly when they build a monk. And a large part of that is that when you think of a monk, you do not think of an extremely high strength, moderate dex, moderate wis character. That seems to be almost the antithesis of what a monk should be.

Yet, within the game, that is the best build one can use to create a monk. No, monks should not be able to do as much damage as a fighter or a barbarian; but monks are a front-line martial class, and they are start from there having a much harder time hitting. The infamous 'flurry of misses' sums it up nicely.

How much is being unable to be disarmed or sunder or stolen well and truly worth? Considering that to get that high base damage as a monk, you must stay a monk, retain a lawful alignment, stick with a single class over the course of your entire adventuring career.

Every single other martial class has a special feature which adds to their damage and (with the exception of the rogue) their attack bonus. For rogues, this is sneak attack. For fighters, weapon training. For barbarians, rage. For paladins, smite evil. For rangers, favored enemy.

Now, having said that, I would not mind there not being a damage bonus given to the monk, being as they as capable of making (potentially) more attacks than any other class in the game in a single round. But the problem with those attacks is hitting in the first place. Having to concentrate on Str, Dex, and Wis as primary attributes, Con and Int as secondary, with only Charisma serving as an area in which dumping is possible leaves them just further behind.

One suggestion that has been made is something akin to Weapon Training for the monk class. How about making it apply to the attack roll only? No damage, just the attack roll. That is something that would give monk-fans a better ability to serve in their role.

How about being able to spend a point of ki to make two attacks when you charge? Or when you move more than 10' or use spring attack? Barbarians can get pounce, but the most mobile class in the game, the one focused on speed and agility and, a flurry of blows, cannot?

On the subject of the cost of magic items. Yes, the amulet of mighty fists is priced very high. And yes, the monk should be paying more than the cost of a single magic weapon because of his innate abilities. But two and half times the cost? The reaction you are seeing to the bodywraps of mighty strikes from Ultimate Equipment is not because of the price, it is because of the restrictions on the number of attacks per round combined with a higher price tag than a magic weapon that is always active and can be used for a (potentially) infinite number of attacks.

And then there are things like the brawling armor property. Mister Bulmahn, this is exactly what we as proponents of the monk class have been begging for. It is perfect . . . except, it can only be used on armor, not bracers of armor. I know that I would give up two points of AC to add that property to my monk's bracers in a New York minute.

We keep seeing the gap widening between the monk and the other martial classes, and we lament over that fact. Has the game itself gone too far, making things too good? Possibly. But the monk is the single weakest class in the Core Rulebook, weaker even the Rogue, which many people will not even play anymore.

There are many options on how to improve the monk class and make it a viable, strong, competitive martial character; we are not asking for a monk to deal more damage (or even as much damage) as a typical fighter or barbarian or ranger, but they should be able to hit more often than they do now. And they cannot because of the 9+ point difference between the martial classes attack bonuses and the monks. You scoff at that number, but it is accurate. A monk uses his level-2 for his BAB with a flurry. That is +18 at 20th level. +19 with weapon focus. +24 with a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists or an appropriate special monk weapon. Plus Strength (Dexterity on the few builds that focus on that ability and nab Weapon Finesse). A Fighter of the same level has a +20, +22 with Weapon Focus and Greater WF, +27 with a +5 weapon, +33 with his weapon training and gloves of dueling. Before adding in his Strength . . . which will be higher than that of all but the most unusual monks. For a class that is a martial class, who has a BAB 5 points below the Fighter, the difference is at least double in practice, thanks to the special abilities of the fighter. And the ranger. And the paladin. And the cavalier. And the barbarian. We don't want an attack bonus as high as those classes; we don't want to do as much raw damage as those classes; but we expect the monk, as a martial class, to at least be within shouting distance of them. And able to contribute to a party.

I mean no disrepect, Sir. And I hope that I have not conveyed that; it was not my intention to do so.

We do not hate the game, and appreciate all of your hard work, and that of Mr. Mona, and even that of Mr. Reynolds, and all of your other designers and developers and writers and editors. We are grateful that you folks at Paizo have tried so hard to keep D&D alive, even when Wizards tried to run it into the ground.

And what we are asking for, is that our favorite class be allowed to serve the role it is supposed to have. For better or worse, Pathfinder, D&D, the game shows that offense beats defense each and every time. It is what makes a DM's life so challenging. And as a person who has played this game since 1986, since I ran a monk as my very first character out of the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, and subsequently gone on to run games for friends and for lovers of the game at local stores, I know how challenging that can be.

For my own games, I do use modifications of the published classes, I change spells, I alter feats, I remove or add stuff that makes sense for my own campaign. And I will continue to do so, Mister Bulmahn.

I just would like, in a humble tone of voice, to see a new player be able to open the book and make a character based on Kwai Chang Caine, or Jackie Chan or Jet Li or Bruce Lee or any one of a hundred creatures from television, film, and literature to be able to do so. And to contribute to a party without feeling like he is the reason the party is not succeeding.

Stephen T Bynum (aka, Master Arminas)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to lie, Jason Bulmahn coming in and saying they plan on doing some minor tweaking to 'fix' the Monk, and apparently of the opinion that the Monk class is fine as is, doesn't leave me too enthusiastic about any 'fix' the Development team has in store.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Tels wrote:
I'm not going to lie, Jason Bulmahn coming in and saying they plan on doing some minor tweaking to 'fix' the Monk, and apparently of the opinion that the Monk class is fine as is, doesn't leave me too enthusiastic about any 'fix' the Development team has in store.

Something I've learned about game balance from discussions on LoL is that it's always better to do minor tweaks that slowly bring something up to power than large, sweeping changes that have the potential to overpower (or underpower) what you are trying to fix.


Very well said, MA. +1

As for what the future holds, I don't think Pathfinder is going to make it after D&D Next. Monte Cook is just too good at what he does and Paizo is just too tied to the idea of backwards compatibility.

We'll see after Gencon though.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Very well said, MA. +1

As for what the future holds, I don't think Pathfinder is going to make it after D&D Next. Monte Cook is just too good at what he does and Paizo is just too tied to the idea of backwards compatibility.

We'll see after Gencon though.

Monte Cook left WotC a while ago dude...

Also, there are many that disagree with you and despise the man, making him out to be the worst thing to happen to gaming since FATAL.

Personally I think he's a nice guy.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:

Very well said, MA. +1

As for what the future holds, I don't think Pathfinder is going to make it after D&D Next. Monte Cook is just too good at what he does and Paizo is just too tied to the idea of backwards compatibility.

We'll see after Gencon though.

I believe I read posts like that one at some point. Wait, wasn't it 2008 and the only difference was 4E instead of 5E?


Odraude wrote:
Monte Cook left WotC a while ago dude...

Huh. I had no idea. I haven't been following things all that closely.

Odraude wrote:
Also, there are many that disagree with you and despise the man, making him out to be the worst thing to happen to gaming since FATAL.

In my experience, the vast majority of these people are the ones who still think THAC0 is the best thing since sliced bread. ;)

Gorbacz wrote:
I believe I read posts like that one at some point. Wait, wasn't it 2008 and the only difference was 4E instead of 5E?

Having (just) learned about MC no longer being a player in 5E, I have to say my hope for the project is rapidly bottoming out.

That said, it still doesn't address Paizo's obsession with backwards compatibility, even to the detriment of their rules.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion Subscriber

Backwards Comp is what allowed Pathfinder to capture the position it holds. Were it a "similar yet different" game such as Trailblazer or Fantasycraft, it would likely not take over the 3.5 player base so swiftly.

One can argue that with their market share secure, Paizo could look into PF2E that moves away from 3.5 slightly more, but that's still very much wishcrafting at this point.


Based purely off the Beta, I don't think D&D Next is going to hold a candle to Pathfinder. When the Beta came out, a bunch of the local gamers got together to discuss the Beta and we weren't very impressed. Between the At-will Magic Missile, the Maximized healing of the Cleric, and the 'regain all hit points when you sleep' we just didn't like it. There was no more sense of threat from monsters anymore. When a Cleric automatically maximizes any Cure spell he casts, and (I think) adds his ability modifier to the spell, it just seems so trivial. "What's that? You hit Tordek for 7 points of damage? Well I just healed him for 12..."

The only thing we did like was the Advantage/Disadvantage (which we thought was neat) and that 'Finesseable' weapons automatically use Dex to hit and damage.

D&D Next felt too much like a video game when we read through it, a complaint that was often lamented with 4E. D&D Next will be 'more fun' for new players, than it will for more experienced players.

Experienced players in Pathfinder can trivialize many encounters, this is true, but, based off what we saw in the Beta, we couldn't help but feel that an experienced group of players would trivialize every encounter in D&D Next.

It was a couple steps forward in some ways, and many steps backward in others. I mean, the Fighter is once again, just swinging a sword.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Neo2151 wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Monte Cook left WotC a while ago dude...

Huh. I had no idea. I haven't been following things all that closely.

Odraude wrote:
Also, there are many that disagree with you and despise the man, making him out to be the worst thing to happen to gaming since FATAL.

In my experience, the vast majority of these people are the ones who still think THAC0 is the best thing since sliced bread. ;)

Gorbacz wrote:
I believe I read posts like that one at some point. Wait, wasn't it 2008 and the only difference was 4E instead of 5E?

Having (just) learned about MC no longer being a player in 5E, I have to say my hope for the project is rapidly bottoming out.

That said, it still doesn't address Paizo's obsession with backwards compatibility, even to the detriment of their rules.

Honestly, backwards compatibility has become less and less prevalent since APG. Instead, Paizo has been focusing on publishing more new content and more options that either didn't exist in or weren't done well in 3.5.

But, this isn't really the thread for edition talk...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I really hope they propose the changes here first for play-testing, rather than just handing us a set of what they think we will like.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Item fix!

Oh wait...

I have Ultimate Equipment, and the first thing I did when I got it was to glace over the various wraps and gloves that could help the monk.

There were things that did help, but didn't help enough, or took away from something else monks needed. So...not impressed.


Trust us, neither were we. The developers have said that they will NOT do an item fix; rather they would attempt to focus their attention on fixing the class itself. I worry that their viewpoint of what needs fixing differs greatly from those of us who actually play the monk.

But we shall see what we shall see. Sometime down the road, whenever this issue actually starts to be looked at. SKR confirmed in another thread, they haven't even started looking at the monk problem yet. Sigh. It's only been months since this blew up, but why should it take less time than Hide in Plain sight and Stealth?

MA


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If memory serves, jason said Gencon in this thread.


Here is Sean's full post:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But based on what was put in Ultimate Equipment, I am worried the Devs concerns and my concerns aren't the same.

I don't know how many times we have to say something before it'll stick.

We do NOT want to use items to fix the monk.

We want to fix the CLASS.

And the design team hasn't yet had ANY talks about what to do about the monk. So we can't have implemented any fix-the-monk design decisions in Ultimate Equipment items because there haven't been any fix-the-monk design decisions made yet.

So I don't know why you're using anything in Ultimate Equipment, or the lack of anything in Ultimate Equipment, to come to anything resembling an informed opinion about what our concerns are or how they relate to yours.

Seriously. I understand this is an important issue to you, but stop working yourself up about it. You don't have any data; I know this because WE don't have any data. Calm down.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
master arminas wrote:

Here is Sean's full post:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
ciretose wrote:
But based on what was put in Ultimate Equipment, I am worried the Devs concerns and my concerns aren't the same.

I don't know how many times we have to say something before it'll stick.

We do NOT want to use items to fix the monk.

We want to fix the CLASS.

And the design team hasn't yet had ANY talks about what to do about the monk. So we can't have implemented any fix-the-monk design decisions in Ultimate Equipment items because there haven't been any fix-the-monk design decisions made yet.

So I don't know why you're using anything in Ultimate Equipment, or the lack of anything in Ultimate Equipment, to come to anything resembling an informed opinion about what our concerns are or how they relate to yours.

Seriously. I understand this is an important issue to you, but stop working yourself up about it. You don't have any data; I know this because WE don't have any data. Calm down.

Exactly... That kinda reinforces what Jason said, which you yourself quoted earlier in this topic...

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Sorry folks,

I know we sorta dropped a grenade on this issue and then left the room, but we've been a bit swamped trying to get the Gencon books out the door. We will revisit this issue once the current crisis is averted.

Hang in there.. we will find a reasonable solution for this one.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

GenCon is literally this week... Once that is dealt with, I'm sure they'll revisit it.


Odraude wrote:
If memory serves, jason said Gencon in this thread.

Back before March 12, he said this

Quote:

We will be evaluating this situation a bit further in the coming days and I would like to thank everyone here for pointing out some of the problems with this ruling.

I hope that clears this up a little for folks. I will see to it that we get to the bottom of this soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

The coming days have now become five months. It gets frustrating, especially when Sean pipes up that the design team has not yet had any talks on the subject. And yes, I know, the season of Cons was upon them. I will wait, like everyone else until after GenCon, but I am not holding my breath.

Master Arminas


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well all we can really do is wait until Gencon is over at this point.


So shall we all, my brother. Anyone got a deck of cards?

MA


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Possibly. Or we could keep bouncing ideas around for the tweak-fixes Paizo are now talking about.

I think we are all agreed that the monk needs a boost to hit and something to get past DR. There are other niggles, like getting past MAD, but these are the main ones. So any suggestions on how to do that? I have considered:


  • Make ki-strike impart a natural enhancement bonus. Pros: simple and direct, and gets through DR. Cons: Paizo may not like the effect on the AoMF and on damage output as it gets relegated to providing effects only.
  • As above, make it an enhancement bonus to hit only. As above, but no knock-on effect on damage.
  • Give monks an insight bonus to hit with monk weapons. Pros: it can stack with an AoMF. Cons: doesn't help vs. DR.
  • Together with the above, give monks a ki-based ability to bypass DR - spend a ki-point, bypass all the DR of a designated target for one minute.

On the MAD front, how about fixing Wholeness of Body to a swift action and permitting the monk to use Wisdom bonus to hit on all attacks with maneuvers, unarmed strikes and monk weapons?

1,151 to 1,200 of 1,667 << first < prev | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew / Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.