anyway, im hoping that paizo understands what monks need, and dont change monks for the worse.
Well we have said it enough times, but maybe it can be repeated that if the monk is intended to be a combat class then:
1) Monks need a means of enhancement to hit with their unarmed strike, perhaps based on ki-strike, to keep up with the weapon enhancements that other classes will employ.
2) Dependency on MAD needs to be reduced, perhaps by using wisdom bonus as the hitting modifier for unarmed strike and monk weapons.
3) If the monk is not meant to be a heavy damage dealer they need a means to overcome DR another way, perhaps a ki-based ability, or they will be shut down at higher levels by foes with DR and high CMD.
Good defences are nice, but paladins actually have defences and saves as good as the monk's without losing out on offensive ability even without smite.
If the monk is not meant to be a combat class, then what are they meant to be? A skills-based class needs more, well, skills.
Some other features need a good hard look (wholeness of body is a good example, mobility/full attack is another), as they are simply not fit for purpose as currently written.
Heh, thinking about movement and attack, how's this for a feat:
Flying Dropkick
You transform your body into a living missile when you charge.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Acrobatics 5 ranks, more than 40' movement.
Benefit: When you make a charge attack you may add +1 to your attack and damage for every 10' of total movement you possess over 30'. Should your attack miss, you will automatically overrun your target by a minimum of 10', but may optionally expend the rest of your movement to do so as well. Whether this attack fails or succeeds you must make a DC15 Acrobatics check to complete the move on your feet and not be prone on its completion.
Special: Monks may select this feat as a bonus feat after 6th level.
Feats are all good and well, but the problem is deeper, the problem is in the system.
I was going over the 2nd ed monk and how they were presented in baldur's gate.
Monks used to be very strong (but with faults) because hp was a fair bit less than what it is now. So if a monk hit you for 8,11,6,9 damage, it was serious stuff, you can't take much of that. They got a lot of attacks, they got great movement. Their hp wasn't so bad, but they had acrobatic type options, or just a lot of speed. Steadily their immunities came to the fore, getting more and more, which has been carried over. In a game with a varied lot of attacks, traps and saves, if a lot of attacks varied in what they were, the monk once they got to about 9 was immmune to a great deal.
What they used to get, was some sweet magic resistance. They truly were a spellcaster counter with some levels under their belt.
It seems pf has changed radically. Not just talking about the monk. Their saves are good, but they could be made even better against spells, making them even better than the pally at shrugging off spells. That would be a high merit, whether one likes defensive casters or not.
As to hit and damage climbed higher, as DPR became more important and a more frequently used term, the little jabs of the monk started to become weaker and weaker. Now I don't run those type of games, where everything has DR and/or always brilliant ac, so monks are fine in my games; but what becomes more common is very significant if the monk becomes weaker and weaker by the steady changes. Hope I am being followed this far.
The monk can be made more devastating. They can be given fantastic attack, even better damage, finer hit die. This could lead to monks being op, which might seem funny to those who think they are weak now, until it happens. The numbers of the 3.5 and the pf monk differ, the pf monks numbers (ac, to hit when flurrying) has crept upwards. The times they are a changing.
A problem though. Spellcasters have been considered to be weak at low levels, but once they hit a sweet spot, they are truly strong. Of course there are builds that don't fall into this early level weakness, and pathfinder has pushed away from this to an extent with more low level abilities. Melee start strong and can continue to stay strong with well chosen feats and great equipment. However, their top level power potential is a lot lower than spellcasters. If the monk is made stronger they may become equal to the melee at low levels, because that is what seems balanced and what some players are demanding, but stronger than the melee at high levels because of their immunities and improved bonuses/abilities. If we were to attach a near invulnerability to spells to the monk AND increase their combat stats, they would have no melee fragility and be a (fast) walking counter to spellcasters. This is not a problem the 3.5 or 2nd ed monk had, because their weaknesses were plain, they could be out-fought by the true specialists or taken down with enough spells forcing saves.
The monk should not get it all, which is why I really like the 2nd ed monk with its weaknesses, and approve of the 3.5 monk. The pf monk has its stats increased, faster progression on flurry, ac, new ki points; but the designers need to work out what they want it to be, and to stick to that. Ensuring they absolutely do not combine every good idea together to please people, and make a highly op melee class. The monk needs to have a weakness, but its to hit, damage and ac stats not being high enough is now considered its weakness.
Feats are all good and well, but the problem is deeper, the problem is in the system.
I agree. At the same time a class could get overpowered if you give them all the options available.
I was going over the 2nd ed monk and how they were presented in baldur's gate.
I'm not familiar with the second edition monk (it was missed out of the core rules) but I am with the AD&D monk.
Monks used to be very strong (but with faults) because hp was a fair bit less than what it is now. So if a monk hit you for 8,11,6,9 damage, it was serious stuff, you can't take much of that. They got a lot of attacks, they got great movement. Their hp wasn't so bad, but they had acrobatic type options, or just a lot of speed. Steadily their immunities came to the fore, getting more and more, which has been carried over. In a game with a varied lot of attacks, traps and saves, if a lot of attacks varied in what they were, the monk once they got to about 9 was immmune to a great deal.
What they used to get, was some sweet magic resistance. They truly were a spellcaster counter with some levels under their belt.
It seems pf has changed radically. Not just talking about the monk. Their saves are good, but they could be made even better against spells, making them even better than the pally at shrugging off spells. That would be a high merit, whether one likes defensive casters or not.
I think 3.0 changed them radically, myself. One problem is the monk looks stronger than it is. As is, anyone claiming monks are defensively too good for full parity with a full BAB class has to explain why the paladin is better defensively than the monk.
As to hit and damage climbed higher, as DPR became more important and a more frequently used term, the little jabs of the monk started to become weaker and weaker. Now I don't run those type of games, where everything has DR and/or always brilliant ac, so monks are fine in my games; but what becomes more common is very significant if the monk becomes weaker and weaker by the steady changes. Hope I am being followed this far.
Absolutely. The problem is that as you go up levels a larger and larger subset of creatures shut you down. In a recent game I hit tenth level with a monk and in a boss-fight found myself completely unable to effect the outcome. Not slightly unable, completely unable. It's not a case of bad choices for feats, equipment, or spells etc. It's not a case of bad luck. It's a case that no combination of choices available would have been effective.
DR and AC neutralise the concept of lots of small attacks making up for a few big ones. High AC means fewer of those attacks will connect, DR means that low damage = no damage.
The monk can be made more devastating. They can be given fantastic attack, even better damage, finer hit die. This could lead to monks being op, which might seem funny to those who think they are weak now, until it happens. The numbers of the 3.5 and the pf monk differ, the pf monks numbers (ac, to hit when flurrying) has crept upwards. The times they are a changing.
I agree that the monk could be made overpowered. I disagree that the PF monk is proportionally (compared with other classes) better than the 3.5 monk. Odds to hit are slightly better at high level, with flurry, but while the 3.5 monk got four attacks at 'full BAB' the PF monk only gets two or three, at +3 on the BAB of the 3.5 monk. What is more, every monk used to take Improved Natural Attack along with a few other feats to improve their damage output, options the Pathfinder monk doesn't have. In short, odds to hit are slightly better, damage output is a lot worse.
A problem though. Spellcasters have been considered to be weak at low levels, but once they hit a sweet spot, they are truly strong. Of course there are builds that don't fall into this early level weakness, and pathfinder has pushed away from this to an extent with more low level abilities. Melee start strong and can continue to stay strong with well chosen feats and great equipment. However, their top level power potential is a lot lower than spellcasters. If the monk is made stronger they may become equal to the melee at low levels, because that is what seems balanced and what some players are demanding, but stronger than the melee at high levels because of their immunities and improved bonuses/abilities. If we were to attach a near invulnerability to spells to the monk AND increase their combat stats, they would have no melee fragility and be a (fast) walking counter to spellcasters. This is not a problem the 3.5 or 2nd ed monk had, because their weaknesses were plain, they could be out-fought by the true specialists or taken down with enough spells forcing saves.
My experience and calculations indicate the monk's sweet spot is 3rd-7th level. At this range they are just about up with the other melee classes. Slightly behind in hitting, but at a level where their maneuvers are still effective enough to take up the slack.
The problem currently is that the monk has comparable AC to a melee class, but worse hp, better saves than most (the paladin has the best), and weaker attacks. The monk's immunities...don't actually seem to affect play at all, or at best are highly situational. Even spell resistance is a double-edged sword.
The monk should not get it all, which is why I really like the 2nd ed monk with its weaknesses, and approve of the 3.5 monk. The pf monk has its stats increased, faster progression on flurry, ac, new ki points; but the designers need to work out what they want it to be, and to stick to that. Ensuring they absolutely do not combine every good idea together to please people, and make a highly op melee class. The monk needs to have a weakness, but its to hit, damage and ac stats not being high enough is now considered its weakness.
I agree, the monk should not get it all. I would like to see the monk's offence beefed up enough to make him relevant across a wide range of foes, not just a select few. His defences are good enough - he doesn't need more.
What the monk really lacks, though, are options. With other classes you are either specialised for a few select roles, or you are a generalist with a lot of options to specialise. The monk is neither. Given the variety of interpretations people put on the monk, I think the monk needs more options and customisation available. Give the monk the facility to be a scout, or a melee hitter (but not both).
Actually, I'd lile the monk to have the option of beimg a scout, skirmisher, or stan up brawler. Of course he shouldn't be able to do ALL the things, but like Dabbler said, Monks could use options.
Actually, I'd lile the monk to have the option of beimg a scout, skirmisher, or stan up brawler. Of course he shouldn't be able to do ALL the things, but like Dabbler said, Monks could use options.
That's kind of what I meant. I did my own version of the monk, here, which has a lot more options for how a monk can be made. You can't do everything, but it's easier to do things that a monk struggles to do at the moment. It angles the monk toward the mobile skirmisher combat-wise, but he isn't locked into that.
And what about Ki Strike to overcome DR?
Of course it´s specialized and could be better scaling, but you can still get something on you Amulett of mighty fists.
That Amulett lets your Unarmed Strikes count as magical too anyway.
I guess the most easy way to change a lot about the monk would be to change the amulett of mighty fists, lower its price and make a total of +10 enchantment possible, just like on normal weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It would, but there are two reasons not to do that:
1) Paizo won't errata it or render it obsolete, because it has other uses for which it is not overpriced.
2) It actually just hides the fact that the the 'unarmed' class needs to be 'armed' by one in order to function. It's papering over the cracks - not that it wouldn't work, but that it's not a real fix.
Edit: and I will add, I still think that the monk needs automatic enhancement of some kind and a means of bypassing DR in order to function as a melee class.
Good stuff. I said the problem is the system, so I'm going to suggest something weird (because when something becomes standard it is difficult to let it go).
DR needs to go.
If it does, the monk will be back on track to flurry away and do well to all but the highest ac opponents (which limit its damage, but they have always been a counter to rogues as well). High ac is protection and survivability, DR is not necessary.
I've run plenty of games with monks, when there isn't much DR, the DR issue doesn't come up. A little is fine, its a bit like a high ac in its effects, or rather a high ac with minimum damage rolls.
If there is no DR but high ac, the monk can still effect, the combat just takes longer (a lot like many many hong kong action movies). If there is no DR and okay ac, the monk is just fine and dandy.
As I said, I run a lot of games and yeah, I keep DR monsters as rare creatures. I don't want everything to have DR, it is frustrating to the dm and the players.
I don't play monks, it has been years since I have; but as a dm DR is ugly and another hassle, a hassle that says, when it comes out in large numbers, you must have this magic item to effect. That annoys me. High ac? Great sure, work it, work with your team, act to lower the ac (take them prone, get them pinned), but DR is another layer of complexity that isn't needed, but which serves to mess with the monk's potential.
|
You do realize that Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story had fictional parts right? This is one of those parts.
actually i was quoting the biography his friend dan isnito(i dont remember how to spell it) said in his book.
guy over the internet who most likely doesnt know what hes talking about, or the guy who was one of bruce lees best friends... i'll listen to the guy who was there.
DR needs to go.
I can't see this happening, as it has become very integral to the game. However, I can see monks being able to bypass DR as having a valuable niche in combat.
Monks in BG II are a bit misleading. They are god-awful until very high levels, when they begin to begin revving up into awesomeness. If you want to die, play a monk from 1st level. It's a minor miracle if you reach 5th level if the monk has been actively participating as a martial character. They are basically naked, and sucky until they begin getting their high level abilities.
Here is the Baldur's Gate II Monk. Incidentally, its monk AC is not tied to Wisdom, and it is a full BAB class, but is not considered a fighting class (it cannot benefit from Con 17+, has a d8 HD, and cannot benefit from 18/xx strength).
At 1st level you are a d8 class with a maximum of +2 HP, running around in less than leather armor, wielding a short sword. They are also virtually useless against anything with damage reduction (which is outright immunity in pre-3E) before 9th level (and you do not get your extra attacks per round every 3 levels when not fighting unarmed). By 15th level is the first time a monk is actually viable as a PC in the BG series. Until then, you are exceedingly gimped.
EDIT: In BG II it's not super obvious because you begin somewhere around 9th level anyway, and most of the enemies that you face early on are not that powerful, and you get the majority of your XP from quests and such, which is not split between your party. In fact in early BG II, you can use metagame knowledge to solo with a monk and try to get him to 15th level ASAP. Magic resistance in that game also doesn't apply to beneficial spells, only offensive spells, which means magic resistance is nothing but a good thing there (no drawbacks), and the magic resistance in 2E is a flat magic resistance regardless of casters (so nothing bypasses it super easily, though spells exist to lower spell resistance).
In most cases, a martial character is better IMHO. Or at least a gishy class like cleric. You're way harder to kill at low levels (where you can wear splint mail, grab a shield, and spec sword & board to be a turtle). Martial characters can specialize in weapons (fighters can achieve grandmastery which makes them mobile gensu-knives), and so forth. Even in BG I & II you suffer the issue of monks also being melee only (no decent ranged attacks), which means either be up in their faces and getting butchered...or don't, and do nothing remarkable.
^Wasn't Kensai/Mage also a good one?
Kensai/Mage is a very good build for a class that is going to be a fighter/mage because its drawback is the inability to wear armor, and its suckiness with ranged weapons. It's a pure melee class with no armor. However it gets +1 to hit and damage (and -1 to speed factor) for every 3 class levels. That's HUGE in 2E, but Kensai has many of the same issues that monks have in that they're virtually useless if you're trying to build one organically; but from a pure power standpoint, the higher the kensai level you can get before becoming a mage the more power your character will have in the long run, since it basically results in a mage who is an absolute god in melee (and the lack of armor is meaningless with spells that grant armor or stoneskin).
In fact, the most common method for becoming a kensai/mage is by being a human, beginning BG II (you begin around 8-9th level), collecting lots of spell scrolls, dual classing to mage, and then kicking everyone out of the party except yourself and then scribe scrolls like crazy (at 1,000 XP * spell level per scroll, you can quickly catch up your new mage levels).
The problem I have with kensai/mages is that I tend to play BG I and then go into BG II. You can play with monks, kensai, and other cool class options in BG I due to the ability to play using the BG II engine via mods like BG Tutu or Baldur's Gate Trilogy. To me, I see certain classes like Monks and Kensai to be the sort of kits you use when you begin at a goofy high level. When you have to actually begin the game at 1st level and actually play to reach those levels, monks and Kensai are laughable.
If you play a kensai in BG I, you're likely to never survive long enough to ever see the benefits of your class (as in, you likely won't even see your +1 to hit and damage at 3rd level) as you prance around in no armor in melee. You'll get killed by gibberlings, wolves will eat you, ogres will squash you, bandits will shoot you, and undead will dismantle you with the greatest of ease.
@Ashiel: Having played a monk through BGI using TuTu, I know what you mean. They start to come into their own around 9 or so, but don't become a complete wrecking machine until you get to Throne of Bhaal, where their defenses and mobility make them a superb skirmisher/troubleshooter. That and you stood a decent chance to land a stunning fist even in the full final battle against all the siblings + Jon & Bohdi.
Exactly. They're worse than 3.x/PF monks in BG I & II until extremely high levels. 9th level is pretty darn high in 2E. In fact, 8-9th level is actually end-game for BG I (I'd dare say you could beat the game lower than that, and you couldn't even get high enough to cast cloudkill in the original BG I due to the XP cap).
If you have downloaded any of the strategy packs which make NPCs harder to cheese due to bad AI, playing a monk from low levels is borderline suicidal. You'll need to get as many levels as you can solely by virtue of quest experience and the like. :P
Also, if I remember right the pretty much most unbalanced class was a Cleric/Ranger multi-class due to an issue where the ranger received both the full cleric and druid casting tables on top of their default martial abilities.
It's not really the most unbalanced thing. Honestly, I've played a Ranger/Cleric and they're pretty good, but not great. In fact, they fact they get druid casting is basically the only reason to play them over a fighter/cleric or a fighter/druid, and they require significantly more experience points to level up. About the only thing that really makes them stand out is that they can get the druid spell ironskins (mechanically identical to stoneskins) which allows them to tank at high levels where enemies could care less about your AC.
I'd be willing to say that your standard Fighter/Mage is better even. EDIT: In fact, in BG I, fighter/mage is the only class I can think of that can solo Drizzt, and get an AC high enough to fight him. Basically you throw on your spells, cast mirror image, don your armor, drink your potions, dive into battle and fight with him. Despite Drizzt's truly goofy combat capability that has slaughtered many entire parties before, Fighter/Mage can kill him if you know what you're doing.
At high levels in BG, fighter/mages are more effective than most martials because they can tank and fight. The biggest problem all martials have -- and the biggest reason high level cleric/rangers stand out -- is their inability to tank at high levels. AC does not rise to meet enemy to-hit modifiers, so the only way you can avoid damage is via magic.
^Wasn't Kensai/Mage also a good one?
Thinking about it more, I've always found more direct options to be stronger ones from 1st through epic levels in BG I & II; and in general I find classes that cast spells more useful than those that do not. Even though Fighters are better in BG I & II than they are in latter editions (they have the best physical offense, the best saves, etc), I find casters more useful for much the same reason they are more useful in modern D&D (options).
A party I highly recommend for taking from BG I through BG II is:
1 Dwarf Fighter/Cleric Focusing on sword & board, specializing in hammers (in BG I you can get a very good +2 hammer, and BG II has good hammers like the mighty Crom Fyrer). This mainly allows you to be an extremely effective tank in BG I, and the bonuses vs missile weapons for having a shield make it hard to interrupt your heals and spells via archers (this is a good main, or Yeslick in BG I).
1 Ranger/Cleric or Fighter/Druid At low levels this character can provide extra heals, and off tank. At high levels this character will be your primary tank due to ironskins. I recommend ranger/cleric over fighter/druid IF you don't mind the extra XP that it will take to level, as a fighter/druid will require 400,000 XP per net level at high levels, while a ranger/cleric 525,000 XP per net level at high levels and will be functionally similar, though the ranger/cleric cannot use non-blunt weapons but gets a wider array of spells. The biggest reason to consider Ranger/Cleric at low levels is because animate dead useful at low levels, and spell resistance/ironskin on your tank at high levels; and righteous might can be useful for a martial. The catch is you'll be limited to blunt weapons (I recommend the flail of ages in BG II, and some guides suggest specializing both hammers and flails to dual wield crom fayer and the flail, and if you use the hammer, the cleric spell that increases your Strength is meaningless). Fighter/Druids on the other hand get access to a wider array of weapons, and are only really missing out on a few cleric buffs.
1 Thief/Mage I prefer being a thief and getting just enough points to get 100% in lockpicking and trap disabling, then dualing to mage from there on out; and Imoen is a perfect candidate for this very thing.
1 Focused Magician I prefer conjurers. Edwin in BG I & II is the superior choice of specialist mage in both games. The rat bastard has an unremovable magic item that provides a bonus spell at every level and he's already a focused conjurer (which means he gets at minimum 3/day spell slots of every level). Since you have a secondary mage (your thief/mage), your party should have access to all schools of magic despite your specialization.
That leaves you with 2 extra slots. Fill it with whatever you feel you need more of. This 4 person party has 2 melee, 2 divine casters, 1 thief, and 2 arcane casters. You can round out the party with a bard and inquisitor for good mileage (bard can buff your party and is a good caster, and inquisitor paladins come with True Sight and the most epic dispel magic in the game). Honestly, do with these slots as you will.
EDIT: In BG I, more martials are preferred. Khalid and Jaheira are good options. Minsc and Dynaheir are good options as well. In general, martial characters (especially ranged martials, being anyone specialized in bows) are exceptionally good. In BG II, you get way more mileage out of more spellcasters.
It feels good to type about baldur's gate. Actually like reading what you've put up for once Ashiel. I think your writing has improved, certainly more condensed.
Korgan and Edwin were my favourites. Axe throwing, chopping and summoning.
On Drizzt, melees can take him, you can avoid and poison him too. Can play a long bout with a monk. HA! I really want to see a bounty hunter get him.
De-railing the Baldur's Gate discussion slightly, there was debate that giving the monk Wisdom bonus to hit instead of Strength or Dexterity could lead to the class being used as a 1-level dip for clerics to make them brokenly over powered in melee. Then I found this:
...and it doesn't look that broken to me after all. Clerics can get the ability for one measly feat, they don't need to drop a level of spell-casting.
Two measly feats. Channel Smite is a prereq after all.
Still less than a level dip for a spell-caster if you want the combat ability. Also an added argument that the monk should get this option, as it enables a caster (the cleric) that is SAD to out-hit the monk, a combat class, thanks to MADness.
|
|
unless you channel negative, and even then its not that great, channel smite is a waste of a feat. i dont think i would want a manditory feat for my monk to have such a worthless feat tax attached to it.
i would love to have wisdom to hit, over strength, but wasting 2 feats for it... i dont think that would help much.
You misunderstand, I am saying that if it exists for Clerics already, it isn't broken for monks to get it at 1st level, without a feat.
|
|
You misunderstand, I am saying that if it exists for Clerics already, it isn't broken for monks to get it at 1st level, without a feat.
if it only affected base monks, yeah i can see that not being to over powering. but my tetori had a +7 to grapple at level 2, if i had the ability to ignore strength and keep dex and wisdom high at level 2 i could easily have a +9 or +10 to grapple and only fail a grapple on a 1-4. man that would be way to good.
if i had to invest feats it would be more balanced. similar to weapon finesse, or agile maneuvers.
I have said from the start that any changes in the core monk are going to require ongoing changes in the various archetypes.
That said, I am curious as to how replacing either Strength or Dexterity for CMB would make that big a difference save that you can balance better between the two. At level 2, your Tetori would have 2 (level) + 2 (Improved Grapple) + {Ability Bonus}.
How would this be more broken than a fighter able to plough everything into strength being an effective grappler? All that changes is the stat you use, not the scale it is permitted. You are limited to 20, absolute max, at this level. If a fighter can make +9 grapple CMB at 2nd level, why should a monk be more limited? In fact, he isn't.
|
|
I have said from the start that any changes in the core monk are going to require ongoing changes in the various archetypes.
That said, I am curious as to how replacing either Strength or Dexterity for CMB would make that big a difference save that you can balance better between the two. At level 2, your Tetori would have 2 (level) + 2 (Improved Grapple) + {Ability Bonus}.
How would this be more broken than a fighter able to plough everything into strength being an effective grappler? All that changes is the stat you use, not the scale it is permitted. You are limited to 20, absolute max, at this level. If a fighter can make +9 grapple CMB at 2nd level, why should a monk be more limited? In fact, he isn't.
having a +9 is as good as a fighter, only that monk will have a +8 will save, 10 if hes a dwarf, and at 3rd level would have a better CMD vrs grapple. basically there would be no reason to have a fighter based grappler in that case.
now that youre changing the monk to gain wisdom to attack youre changing every archetype, potentially, that has been printed. thats a long list of errata. if they would release it as a feat option then it wouldnt require any errata to archetypes.
That's like saying that because there's a TWF Fighter archetype that does it better than a Ranger, that there's no reason to have a TWF Ranger option.
Nonsense, IMO.
Then again, the grappler fighter would have stronger damage output in more combat, more feats to have more "fall back options" when grappling isn't a good tactical choice, and the full BAB and feat slots to attain the more specialized grappling feats at earlier levels.
Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
It feels good to type about baldur's gate. Actually like reading what you've put up for once Ashiel. I think your writing has improved, certainly more condensed.
Korgan and Edwin were my favourites. Axe throwing, chopping and summoning.
On Drizzt, melees can take him, you can avoid and poison him too. Can play a long bout with a monk. HA! I really want to see a bounty hunter get him.
Um, thank you? (o.o)
You do realize that Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story had fictional parts right? This is one of those parts.
actually i was quoting the biography his friend dan isnito(i dont remember how to spell it) said in his book.
guy over the internet who most likely doesnt know what hes talking about, or the guy who was one of bruce lees best friends... i'll listen to the guy who was there.
I think the script for Kung Fu was bought in the mid 1960s. I don't think Lee pitched his show until 1970 or so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still under the impression that fixing MAD is a mistake. It has far too much backlash to all other areas of balance and will make the archetype redesigns a nightmare.
If you can reliably hit and bypass damage reduction through ki (and possible changes to ki pool), the monk comes into his own adequately. Also there are other suggested changes to turn the monk into better "disablers" through stunning fist upgrades or movement/flurries. These are interesting and plausible. These are the areas that I think can fix the monk's major drawbacks.
If the monk can be made to continue to be useful and playable in high level battles, why is MAD even a required change? MAD actually can grant versatility to build options as long as each option becomes viable through the other fixes.
Let's keep the "I'm a strength monk" - "I'm a finesse monk" MAD motif. If they both can be fixed through ki, MAD is not a drawback.
Guided hand for the Monk without channel energy is not a bad idea.
Two archetypes get that already, the zen archer and sensei.
Only you still need DEX and CON, but not that much STR anymore.
WIS to damage would be strange somehow, maybe let the monk qualify for weapon focus, weapon specialization and greater stuff with unarmed strke and monk weapons.
That plus amulett of mighty fists with 50% costs for monks only would be something wothy of a try.
I am still under the impression that fixing MAD is a mistake. It has far too much backlash to all other areas of balance and will make the archetype redesigns a nightmare.
I don't think so, actually. At least, no more a nightmare than any other monk fix is going to effect them.
If you can reliably hit and bypass damage reduction through ki (and possible changes to ki pool), the monk comes into his own adequately. Also there are other suggested changes to turn the monk into better "disablers" through stunning fist upgrades or movement/flurries. These are interesting and plausible. These are the areas that I think can fix the monk's major drawbacks.
If the monk still cannot hit the AC, then none of it means anything. Enhancement is only one reason monks don't function against high AC, the other is MAD. The monk has to sacrifice AC or damage to get comparable to hit to the other combat classes, something the others do not have to do. If they try and balance it out between their three 'necessary' scores (strength, dexterity and wisdom) by taking moderate values at each, then they end up behind in accuracy. They simply can't take just one high score and two moderate, or two high and one mediocre, and not lose out substantially compared to other classes.
That's where the wisdom-to-hit comes in. It means they CAN take wisdom high, and moderate their other scores. Or if they choose to take two high scores they do not necessarily have to pay a feat-tax, and they only lose out in one area.
If the monk can be made to continue to be useful and playable in high level battles, why is MAD even a required change? MAD actually can grant versatility to build options as long as each option becomes viable through the other fixes.
Let's keep the "I'm a strength monk" - "I'm a finesse monk" MAD motif. If they both can be fixed through ki, MAD is not a drawback.
Because the strength monk is a glass cannon and the finesse monk is ineffectual in damage output when compared with other combat classes.
Well, we could opt to not solve this DR problem through ki, but make it a steadily increasing monk ability.
Ignore DR 1, then 5, then 10 (or 1-4-9) at an appropriate level. Makes the monk an interesting possibly counter to the barb, if your build-fu is strong and you get real lucky. :D
The old monk attacks count as +1-4 weapons is quite old.
De-railing the Baldur's Gate discussion slightly, there was debate that giving the monk Wisdom bonus to hit instead of Strength or Dexterity could lead to the class being used as a 1-level dip for clerics to make them brokenly over powered in melee. Then I found this:
...and it doesn't look that broken to me after all. Clerics can get the ability for one measly feat, they don't need to drop a level of spell-casting.
I have liked the idea that the wisdom bonus only applies to monk weapons and/or unarmed strikes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ahhh yes. Extreme ability score consolidation with no meaningful restrictions is always the answer.
Always.
I mean, what possibly could go wrong with giving the class more to-hit, more AC, higher DCs, and higher saves at absolutely no cost?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You mean like what Dexterity does for archery and finesse builds?
Ahhh yes. Extreme ability score consolidation with no meaningful restrictions is always the answer.
Always.
I mean, what possibly could go wrong with giving the class more to-hit, more AC, higher DCs, and higher saves at absolutely no cost?
I have done it a few times, but with a restriction to monk FoB only, and it worked out well. That stopped it from being a level dip. The player still has to invest in strength to get more damage done, but the choice to invest in dex is not as important. Of course that is just my games. I don't know how it works in other people's games. I also did not try to min max it so I may not be aware of the edge case issues.
I don't like adding wisdom, as I agree with Cheapy. The solution is simply letting the monk enhance their hands at similar cost.
I do agree this is a good idea, but that would get rid of the need for the AoMF, and they have already said no to that.
i don't think AoMF is terribly overpriced compared to two weapons.
plus it lets you apply special enchants without any +1, as well as applying to natural weapons.
you can't flurry with those (albeit a feat lets you choose to but not gain extra attacks, still useful potentially),
but you can use them for AoOs or standard attacks, while benefitting from the same enchantments.
honestly, all i would change would be to allow it to also apply to 'weapon-less' grapple/bullrush/over-run,
albeit other stuff that also applies to UAS should also apply to those things (fighter wpn training, etc),
since as-is, those uniquely have less capacity to be buffed than any other attack.
having another option for single UAS enchantment is a good idea, for those who don't plan on Flurrying with 2 UAS attacks,
but having that option wouldn't 'get rid of the need for AoMF', since AoMF is still useful...
i would say that said 'single UAS enchantment' SHOULDN'T get the grapple/etc bonuses that AoMF would get.
If it allowed you to overcome DR it would not be so bad, but a strict reading says it does not. Hopefully the devs give an official answer once they rework the monk.
sure, that should definitely be included in AoMF as well...
i just don't think it's THAT FAR OFF from where it should be, is all.
but people seem to have existential problems with it, simply because it's more expensive than 1 weapon.
yeah, when they get around to the monk (which i am optimistic of, they kind of just opened the can before realising what they were doing, but they are aware of the issue, and it isn't really that much work), i am optimistic that AoMF might see some minor changes as well.
I have liked the idea that the wisdom bonus only applies to monk weapons and/or unarmed strikes.De-railing the Baldur's Gate discussion slightly, there was debate that giving the monk Wisdom bonus to hit instead of Strength or Dexterity could lead to the class being used as a 1-level dip for clerics to make them brokenly over powered in melee. Then I found this:
...and it doesn't look that broken to me after all. Clerics can get the ability for one measly feat, they don't need to drop a level of spell-casting.
That's the way I'd do it.
Well, we could opt to not solve this DR problem through ki, but make it a steadily increasing monk ability.
Ignore DR 1, then 5, then 10 (or 1-4-9) at an appropriate level. Makes the monk an interesting possibly counter to the barb, if your build-fu is strong and you get real lucky. :D
The old monk attacks count as +1-4 weapons is quite old.
I like that idea, a lot.
Ahhh yes. Extreme ability score consolidation with no meaningful restrictions is always the answer.
Always.
I mean, what possibly could go wrong with giving the class more to-hit, more AC, higher DCs, and higher saves at absolutely no cost?
You mean it might be as broken as the feat "Weapon Finesse"?
Let's look at it in the cold light of day without the sarcasm a moment. Weapon Finesse let's you use your dexterity bonus to hit instead of strength on a limited group of weapons. Dexterity adds to Reflex saves, AC, a large group of skills, and is also used for missile combat.
Adding Wisdom bonus to hit for the monk with monk weapons and unarmed strikes only instead of strength means you are restricted to an even more limited group of weapons. Wisdom also adds to Will saves, AC (for the monk), a moderate group of skills, and the monk's special abilities.
This ability does NOT mean the monk can ignore strength and dexterity - he still needs dexterity for the AC and strength for the damage output. It does mean that he can avoid having to max out one in order to keep up with hitting and then lose out badly on the other. He can balance the two more evenly to get the 'little of both' design he's currently precluded from.
Unless you are arguing that Weapon Finesse is a broken feat you exclude from your game, or at least ban monks from taking, I really fail to see where your argument is coming from.
|
|
I don't like adding wisdom, as I agree with Cheapy. The solution is simply letting the monk enhance their hands at similar cost.
the issue i see with this is now maneuvers dont gain that bonus. it would be nice to have a maneuver monk, like tetori or maneuver master, and have a class ability that increases the cmb with generic bonuses that dont require an attack or melee/ranged weapon.
like a generic +x over y number of levels which would help out cmb monks as well as melee or ranged strikers.
It's not just the price, Quandry, it's the fact that it is limited to +5 total enhancement and takes up a slot. Real cost of an item not filling a slot is double that of one that does - that's how useful slots are. So in real terms the price of the AoMF can be argued to be 5x a weapon of the same enhancement. It's also the only option there is, which makes it not an option but a necessity.
The devs have said that the AoMF is not changing, period.
That leaves the monk to change. How can we boost the monk's chances to hit and leave the AoMF relevant? Again, I say give the monk a natural ki-strike enhancement to hit only. This gets them the hits, bypasses some DR, but doesn't boost damage output and allows the AoMF to remain useful for enhancement to damage, special properties etc. It's only one change I would make, but it's a valuable one that keeps him up with the pack.