[Monk] Quick Summary of Possible Design Issues


Classes

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I believe if you spend 3 actions to flurry, then attack 2 more times with agile strikes, your progression is:

Full, -4, -8, -8.

I see some folks use -5 for the MAP and some -4. Is this coming from disparate rules in the book. Like Paizo tweaked it at some point and folks are reading conflicting things?

-5 if they don’t understand its agile.


So many great points here. Though, I'm not bothered by Monks wanting to seek out Bracers of Armor in the same way I'm not bothered by a fighter going after magical armor.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
Skaldi the Tallest wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

I believe if you spend 3 actions to flurry, then attack 2 more times with agile strikes, your progression is:

Full, -4, -8, -8.

I see some folks use -5 for the MAP and some -4. Is this coming from disparate rules in the book. Like Paizo tweaked it at some point and folks are reading conflicting things?
Agile reduces the MAP by 1, and most unarmed strikes are agile; if you are using Dragon Stance or Mountain Stance it would be -5.

Cool beans. That's what I was missing. Thanks.


tottreson wrote:
So many great points here. Though, I'm not bothered by Monks wanting to seek out Bracers of Armor in the same way I'm not bothered by a fighter going after magical armor.

I was basing my argument on misreading bracers of armor. :P

I thought it said Bracers +1 were mage armor with 2nd spell level, but it's actually with 1st spell level. That made more sense.

Seven of Swords wrote:

Literal first post on the site... would we lose anything at all from having the Monastic Weaponry feat just be part of the initial proficiencies for the class? Because the weapons don't give much to the class as it stands, except for range, and as written, the monk isn't even proficient with simple weapons.

To recap, that's a group that includes the dagger and the club, weapons that don't appear on the monk weapon list, both of which are pretty basic martial artsy fare, especially the club. The sorcerer is proficient with simple weapons. The wizard is proficient with club and dagger. The rogue and bard both get their traditional, very scattered lists, cherry-picking appropriate weapons, what's the problem with doing something similar for the monk?

Edit: I should add that I just wanted to give support for the same thought in the original post, and also point out a little bit of weirdness in the way that the weapons are laid out.

I think it's a given they'll add it baseline at this point.


I mean, I figure a real reason that monastic weapons builds aren't going to be popular is that a monk's survival at low levels right now is sort of predicated on having high dex, and the only finesse monk weapon are the sai and the nunchaku, and all of the monk weapons do less or as much damage as tiger or wolf style.


I agree with most of the points in the original post and the point about limited variety in ability scores is especially near to my heart.

It strikes me as a huge fun-killer across most of the classes that you need to invest heavily in dexterity along with your main stat just to be functional, and since you need constitution too, there's not much left for mentals that aren't your main stat.

I'd like to see ways to get your AC up without dexterity for the monk and others. I'm agnostic as to whether it should come from mentals, or whether you could just give PCs armor with good AC and no Dex bonus. (A 1st level feature could let the monk keep up with this without having to further buff the bracers, perhaps with mentals to AC.)

Perhaps it's pie in the sky, but if PF2 divorced dexterity from AC entirely, dexterity would still be good and have a strong identity as the only source for ranged attack rolls, reflex saves and stealth.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As worded, Monastic Weaponry doesn't allow using Shuriken with Monk abilities - it says 'melee weapons'.
However, the Monk weapon Trait does allow using Shuriken. It looks like the melee only clause of Monastic Weaponry is a bit pointless


I'm okay with the relatively poor starting AC. Level 1 has more HP now thanks to racial HP, and it's not thaaaat bad to have to invest into Dex. A 18Str 10Dex 16Con monk would be weird after all.

If you feel vulnerable with 14Dex (and level 1 AC of 14) then you can take Crane Stance for another +1 to AC. Then retrain it later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoreKeeper wrote:

I'm okay with the relatively poor starting AC. Level 1 has more HP now thanks to racial HP, and it's not thaaaat bad to have to invest into Dex. A 18Str 10Dex 16Con monk would be weird after all.

If you feel vulnerable with 14Dex (and level 1 AC of 14) then you can take Crane Stance for another +1 to AC. Then retrain it later.

Have you actually played the game yet? With your proposed solution in form of Crane Stance, your "more HP" will not last all that long, since you are eating crits left and right. On top of that, you now hit like a wet towel thanks to Crane Stance.

Crane Stance should give you above average AC for the cost of doing much less damage than the other styles (which gets much more obvious with magical handwraps). +1 AC is not a solution for a STR build I am afraid.

In fact, i believe Crane Stance should be the monk equivalent of a shield bearer, thus +2 AC for the lower damage trade off seems more than reasonable.


Of course I've played.

Think about it this way: a minimum Dex of 16 is required for the monk in terms of AC. Or Dex 18 if you want to maximize AC.

If you can agree with that premise, then Dex 14 and Crane Stance gives the same AC as just Dex 16. So you've achieved parity.

Naturally Dex 14 means that you can have Str 18; so you do 1d6+4 damage with Crane Stance. Expected damage 7.5 per hit.

Dex 18 and Str 14 and Tiger Stance is 1d8+2 (expected 6.5 damage per hit). Or Dragon Stance 1d10+2 (expected 7.5, but not agile).

Turns out at level 1 the bonus damage from Strength compensates for Crane Stance poor damage dice. Then once you've leveled a bit and feel comfortable with your AC you can retrain into a stance that provides better offense.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you play a Fighter, with 14 DEX and 18 STR, you are dealing 1d12+STR (expected 10.5) and your AC is 17.

And then you have an extra Class Feat to spend.

Basically, the whole "your AC isn't bad, just get Crane Style" thing sounds like you are compensating for class flaws rather than making real, meaningful choices.

It'd be much easier if the Monk had a baseline reaction to defend itself, then you could make all sorts of builds as long as you maintain smart tactics.


Your Fighter also has a TAC of 14 (my monk 15).

Reflex of 1 (monk 4). Reflex is more important in 2e compared to 1e (and also is your trip/disarm/tumble defense).

Speed 10 slower than the monk. For humans that is 15 vs 25.

All Fighter Dex skills at -3 compared to the monk.

Figher has basically no money left for anything else.

...

The monk is fine with having a couple of levels of slightly low AC when focusing on Strength. The option to go either Str or Dex is there. Naturally an offense-focused monk will suffer a bit in defense; and naturally a defense-focused monk will suffer a bit in offence.

Both are valid and viable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoreKeeper wrote:

Your Fighter also has a TAC of 14 (my monk 15).

Reflex of 1 (monk 4). Reflex is more important in 2e compared to 1e.

Speed 10 slower than the monk. For humans that is 15 vs 25.

All Fighter Dex skills at -3 compared to the monk.

Figher has basically no money left for anything else.

I don't care that you said "Reflex 1" even if I said it was a 14 DEX Fighter, and I don't care you wilfully ignore Perception here...

The thing is that the Fighter has a choice, and the Monk doesn't. The Monk is seemingly supposed to go with the AC option if they go STR, or die. The Fighter can just play out whatever they want, and begin making the character in their heads right away.

The Monk needs to optimize or get crit out of this world.

My stance is that adding a reactive defensive feature grants the Monk choice in Class Feat to start realizing their character rather than compensating for its faults.


Why reactive defense? You think that having +1 or +2 vs one attack a round is what the monk needs? If you believe the monk has an AC problem, then the solution should be to give him AC.

...

The Figher's AC is 17 with Dex 14. At level 1. That means he's wearing breast plate. Which is armor check penalty of -4 and is "clumsy". Meaning that the penalty applies to Reflex too.

Fighter reflex
= 1 (level) + 1 (expert) + 2 (dex) - 4 (clumsy)
= 0

Monk reflex
= 1 (level) + 1 (expert) + 2 (dex)
= 4


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clumsy applies your dex modifier cap to your reflex save, not your ACP.

So the 14 Dex fighter and the 18 dex fighter in splint mail have the same reflex save: 4.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, man, Clumsy is meaningless for 14 DEX people.

Also, straight up giving Monks more AC would make DEX Monks better – a reactive defence would be a resource that could be gamed in interesting ways and would make the STR-DEX tension more interesting.

If you go STR, you'd have more damage but your defence is gated by reactions.

If you go DEX< you'd have more defence and could pile on top of that, but your damage would be need some souping up, which is a thing Class Feats offer several choices for.


I personally think as a monk you should always go for dex instead of str without dumping str completely. 14 str at lvl 1 is more than enough to keep your damage up early and can be increased easily later, getting to 18 at lvl 10. Str is not as crucial for damage anymore since the damage later is generated mostly through runes and the high starting dex helps with the AC.
I don't think the monk is supposed to have great AC. He has options to deal with projectiles and reflex saves. He is not supposed to be as resistant in melee as a fighter for example. That is a design choice. You can like it or not. In my opinion it is fine when classes are not good at everything.


Asuet wrote:

I personally think as a monk you should always go for dex instead of str without dumping str completely. 14 str at lvl 1 is more than enough to keep your damage up early and can be increased easily later, getting to 18 at lvl 10. Str is not as crucial for damage anymore since the damage later is generated mostly through runes and the high starting dex helps with the AC.

I don't think the monk is supposed to have great AC. He has options to deal with projectiles and reflex saves. He is not supposed to be as resistant in melee as a fighter for example. That is a design choice. You can like it or not. In my opinion it is fine when classes are not good at everything.

The thing is, if you plan on playing any kind of brawler monk at all, then you are forced to pick STR as your main stat, since all combat maneuvers are tied to acrobatics now. With all combat maneuvers having crit failures with huge drawbacks as well as useful crit successes, you want the stat to be as high as possible.

Forcing monk to max DEX in every build is way too build restricting and bad class design, period. Which is why I agree that letting monks scale their AC off of one mental attribute instead of DEX might fix this problem. It would also make monks a little bit less MAD than they currently are, even if that is not as huge of an issue as it was in PF1, but they still remain to be the most MAD class out there.


I think str monks are still viable but you need to be more careful in your playstyle on early levels. Using combat maneuvers actually compensates for a lack in AC because you deny actions to the opponent who has to stand up, break free, escape or whatever and by that can't use these actions to attack.
The stat development in this version allows easily to get high stats in multiple areas. You can have 18 str and dex on lvl 5 without sacrificing anything (one of the stats can be 19), so this whole idea of dex or str build is kinda pointless.


Ah, thanks for clarification on "clumsy", I had that wrong.

I realized something earlier: the reason why I don't have problems with 1e monks at level 1 is because there was easy access to a potent solution, namely potions of mage armor. The playtest currently is very limited in what items are listed explicitly - but using potions of healing as example, it would cost 3gp to buy a potion of mage armor (item level 1, spell level 1). Or 8gp to buy an item level 3, spell level 2 potion of mage armor.

I think this could be enough to help the monk at level 1.

Asuet wrote:
I don't think the monk is supposed to have great AC.

That is where you are mistaken. The monk has not-so-great AC at level 1, but by level 20 a Dex monk has the highest AC of everybody, including paladins (and TAC equal to his AC). The late game power of the monk is unquestionable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Asuet wrote:

I think str monks are still viable but you need to be more careful in your playstyle on early levels. Using combat maneuvers actually compensates for a lack in AC because you deny actions to the opponent who has to stand up, break free, escape or whatever and by that can't use these actions to attack.

The stat development in this version allows easily to get high stats in multiple areas. You can have 18 str and dex on lvl 5 without sacrificing anything (one of the stats can be 19), so this whole idea of dex or str build is kinda pointless.

No one is concerned about a monk at level 5, since by then, he will most likely have bracers of armor and thus, no longer lack behind other frontliners in the AC department. The real problem is getting there without being forced to one build and one build only.


If having 1 AC more or less is the real issue here then from my point of view there is no issue. As I pointed out before, the old ideas of str/dex builds are outdated. No one is forced into giving things up in favour of going a specific route.


I mean, I plotted out a dwarf monk who had 20 dex, 20 wis, 20 con; and master level proficiency in reflex, fort, and will; so they have evasion in every save and with impossible technique I think this means they will critically succeed on every save unless they crit fail.

So that's an impressively tanky character... at level 20. It's just that those first half-dozen levels are going to be rough.

It seems like "mid and high level characters are great, low level characters are rough to play" is a major issue that PF2 has. Admittedly there's a tricky balance to strike between "don't overwhelm people with too many things right out of the gate" and "let low level characters feel heroic and survive", it's just that this is hitting the monk especially hard, and there is no reason to assume they got it 100% right for the public playtest.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It only just dawned on me that monks don't appear to get legendary unarmed proficiency, despite being the only class that actually has much if any proficiency in it at all.
that just seems... wrong.


If you give early level benefits you also have to take into account that they carry on to later levels. And as you pointed out the monk is actually quite impressive later on. If the monk gets some kind of improvement it should be something that doesn't bring him over the top in later levels.
I personally still think the monk is in a good spot right now, at least from my playtesting experience.


AndIMustMask wrote:

It only just dawned on me that monks don't appear to get legendary unarmed proficiency, despite being the only class that actually has much if any proficiency in it at all.

that just seems... wrong.

It feels kind of unnecessary once you get the "can't roll less than 10 on a d20 to make an unarmed attack" but I guess you'd crit more if you had that extra +1 so it seems like we should work "legendary at unarmed" in there somewhere, since it'd be weird if no one can do it (or if someone who's not the monk could.)


AndIMustMask wrote:

It only just dawned on me that monks don't appear to get legendary unarmed proficiency, despite being the only class that actually has much if any proficiency in it at all.

that just seems... wrong.

Getting legendary proficiency in any weapon (including unarmed) is something only Fighter can get, which IMO is fine as long as the other classes get compensated for it. Perfected Form kinda makes up for it as mentioned.


Asuet wrote:

If you give early level benefits you also have to take into account that they carry on to later levels. And as you pointed out the monk is actually quite impressive later on. If the monk gets some kind of improvement it should be something that doesn't bring him over the top in later levels.

I personally still think the monk is in a good spot right now, at least from my playtesting experience.

This is why my solution was a Reaction-based defence.

At later levels, it competes with other options – Impossible Technique, Deflect Arrows, Crane Flutter (which I think should be redesigned). Maybe even more.

So a Reaction-based defence would not pile on too much to later levels.


I've been doing some experimenting:

Str 18
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 12
Cha 10

This seems okay. Fort/Will takes a bit of a knock - but they'll recover with level 5/10/15 boosts and you start with expert saves anyway.

You can still stack Crane and potions of mage armor over that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

master of many styles at 16th level is ridiculous. it should be at 6th level.


I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:
get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.


ikarinokami wrote:
master of many styles at 16th level is ridiculous. it should be at 6th level.

I agree it seems a bit late; especially since it has a feat tax to reach. And you'd need to spend more feats to make it worthwhile (at least two styles, typically with follow-up feats as well). Even then the Master of Many Styles only lets you change styles for free once a turn.

I think levels 8 or 10 would be adequate.


Gavmania wrote:


play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)

If you're still using unarmed attacks, then you can wield the bo staff without Monastic Weapons. As far as I read you do not need to be proficient with a weapon to benefit from its traits.

(Likewise you can pick up and wield an expert sai to get a +1 bonus to your disarm attempts; while still doing normal attacks with unarmed strikes. The sai adds its item bonus to athletics checks to disarm; your sai proficiency does not factor in, it's just a tool. Whether you are untrained or legendary in sai use does not change its bonus to athletics checks).

Gavmania wrote:

get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.

I find it easier to just get a potion of mage armor (of whichever level). No failure chance - though you do need resonance.


Well, I couldn't see a potion. what page is it on? but yes, that would work better (except maybe for cost)


LoreKeeper wrote:
If you're still using unarmed attacks, then you can wield the bo staff without Monastic Weapons. As far as I read you do not need to be proficient with a weapon to benefit from its traits.

It feels like "carry a weapon you have no intention of ever using" is the sort of inelegant solution to a problem where fixing the identified issue is a better priority during a playtest than "put up with the inelegance."


PossibleCabbage wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
If you're still using unarmed attacks, then you can wield the bo staff without Monastic Weapons. As far as I read you do not need to be proficient with a weapon to benefit from its traits.
It feels like "carry a weapon you have no intention of ever using" is the sort of inelegant solution to a problem where fixing the identified issue is a better priority during a playtest than "put up with the inelegance."

I may not have the intention to use it for hitting people - but certainly have the intention of using it to be in the way of other people.

I don't know how to use a staff in real life like a shaolin monk - but you bet I can hold it in the way of you trying to hit me. It is, quite literally (according to the rules as well), a circumstance bonus.

Gavmania wrote:
Well, I couldn't see a potion. what page is it on? but yes, that would work better (except maybe for cost)

Not explicitly listed in the playtest. But then again there are almost no potions listed, and no rules for how to make potions. The playtest rules are incomplete in that sense. I believe you can extrapolate, though, using the potion of healing as an example. Potions and scrolls now appear to have the same cost (as opposed to 1e) - probably due to potions having a higher opportunity cost than before (by consuming resonance).

I know people can argue for-and-against whether a potion of mage armor should be allowed in the playtest. So probably different playgroups will differ on it. I know my players can use it (being GM).

Some might argue that the playtest should test what is explicitly in the text. I rather think that it is important to test the concepts in the playtest - for example the use of Resonance. At low levels there is almost no point to Resonance, other than swallowing a potion of healing. By making other level 1 (or 2) potions available, there is actual consideration and testing of Resonance happening.


Gavmania wrote:

I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:

get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.

getting skill feats is only possible at level 2, to my knowledge, outside from backgrounds, if i am not mistaken.

Also,parry and crane style don't stack, as they're both the same type of bonus (circumstancial).

"Bonuses and Penalties
Other bonuses and penalties come in several types. If you
have more than one bonus or penalty of the same type,
you use only the highest bonus or penalty." Page 9.


LoreKeeper wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:
LoreKeeper wrote:
If you're still using unarmed attacks, then you can wield the bo staff without Monastic Weapons. As far as I read you do not need to be proficient with a weapon to benefit from its traits.
It feels like "carry a weapon you have no intention of ever using" is the sort of inelegant solution to a problem where fixing the identified issue is a better priority during a playtest than "put up with the inelegance."

I may not have the intention to use it for hitting people - but certainly have the intention of using it to be in the way of other people.

I don't know how to use a staff in real life like a shaolin monk - but you bet I can hold it in the way of you trying to hit me. It is, quite literally (according to the rules as well), a circumstance bonus.

Gavmania wrote:
Well, I couldn't see a potion. what page is it on? but yes, that would work better (except maybe for cost)

Not explicitly listed in the playtest. But then again there are almost no potions listed, and no rules for how to make potions. The playtest rules are incomplete in that sense. I believe you can extrapolate, though, using the potion of healing as an example. Potions and scrolls now appear to have the same cost (as opposed to 1e) - probably due to potions having a higher opportunity cost than before (by consuming resonance).

I know people can argue for-and-against whether a potion of mage armor should be allowed in the playtest. So probably different playgroups will differ on it. I know my players can use it (being GM).

Some might argue that the playtest should test what is explicitly in the text. I rather think that it is important to test the concepts in the playtest - for example the use of Resonance. At low levels there is almost no point to Resonance, other than swallowing a potion of healing. By making other level 1 (or 2) potions available, there is actual consideration and testing of Resonance happening.

Can't find the dev quote atm, but potions are now unique magic items, not "spells in a bottle".

You can't make whatever spell you want in a potion, only what you see in the item list.


shroudb wrote:

Can't find the dev quote atm, but potions are now unique magic items, not "spells in a bottle".

You can't make whatever spell you want in a potion, only what you see in the item list.

I'll take that into consideration once I can review the relevant post.

For the time being I believe that there'll be a way to get potions of mage armor at some point. The way spell scaling works now there is certainly no balance issue with it. (As opposed to the 1e potion of mage armor, which would be broken in 2e.)


LoreKeeper wrote:
shroudb wrote:

Can't find the dev quote atm, but potions are now unique magic items, not "spells in a bottle".

You can't make whatever spell you want in a potion, only what you see in the item list.

I'll take that into consideration once I can review the relevant post.

For the time being I believe that there'll be a way to get potions of mage armor at some point. The way spell scaling works now there is certainly no balance issue with it. (As opposed to the 1e potion of mage armor, which would be broken in 2e.)

If you're not bored to check, the quote was in a thread from a guy searching (and unable to find) where potions of healing were.

As for allowing potions of mage armor, that's akin to allowing boots of haste, vests of resistance and etc. All in your power as a GM, but all houserule items as well.

Edit: well, that was easy, 1st entry on my search:

Logan Bonner wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Where can I find the rules for potion pricing? I've found pricing for very specific potions. But I can't find potions of healing (and am not sure what each potion would cost depending on heal level).
Potions are unique items rather than being spells with a price by level. You’ll find the healing potions starting on page 394!


Logan Bonner wrote:
John Lynch 106 wrote:
Where can I find the rules for potion pricing? I've found pricing for very specific potions. But I can't find potions of healing (and am not sure what each potion would cost depending on heal level).
Potions are unique items rather than being spells with a price by level. You’ll find the healing potions starting on page 394!

Thank you. Google search wasn't nearly as forth coming about that.

That said, my assumption still is that portions of mage armor will exist; and will be comparable to potions of healing in cost. It's an obvious gap in the treasure list to have a consumable to grant AC and/or saves. I'm okay with that not being run that way by all tables.

Boots of haste are likely to exist sooner or later - but I cannot make a reliable guess on what item level and cost these will have. Vests of resistance are also a weird case, with resistances being rolled into potency runes. So I'd not feel safe presupposing what they'd be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gavmania wrote:

I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:

get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.

This doesn't work. No skill feats at level 1, Parry doesn't stack with Crane, Parry takes out an action, and it's an absolute gimmick build.

I'm moving out of PF1 to be done with gimmick builds.

LoreKeeper wrote:

I'll take that into consideration once I can review the relevant post.

For the time being I believe that there'll be a way to get potions of mage armor at some point. The way spell scaling works now there is certainly no balance issue with it. (As opposed to the 1e potion of mage armor, which would be broken in 2e.)

A. No more spells in a bottle. Not because of balance, but because they are not supposed to replicate or replace items. Look into the alchemical items list.

B. I'm done with counter-intuitive, gamified builds for what should be a natural, organic character in an immersive game world.

To me this is super simple: you want the class to not feel like a trap and for everyone who plays it to have options. If pump DEX like a madman is the only choice, if pumping STR is suicidal, then you have none of the former.


Secret Wizard wrote:
Gavmania wrote:

I don't see that Monks have too much of a problem with ac at 1st level, after all it's possible to have 20ac at level 1. Of course, it takes your entire build to do so, but:

get crane style as your class feat (+1ac)
play as human and use Natural ambition to get Monastic weapons, then carry a Bo staff for parry (+1ac)
get trained in Knowledge (arcane) and get the skill feat trick magic item so you can cast Mage armor. 2nd level scrolls cost 8gp (you start with 15, but have not much else you need to buy apart from some gear and a Bo staff) and will give +2ac.
So that's: level (+1), Dex (+4), proficiency (+1), Crane style(+1), parry (+1) and Mage Armor (+2).

There is no rule saying you have to do all this, so if you wanted to drop one of the feats, or reduce the investment in Dex in favour of STR or Con (or anything else), it's possible. Also if you want to play a different race (so you can't get 2 class feats), your ac will still be good.

This doesn't work. No skill feats at level 1, Parry doesn't stack with Crane, Parry takes out an action, and it's an absolute gimmick build.

I'm moving out of PF1 to be done with gimmick builds.

LoreKeeper wrote:

I'll take that into consideration once I can review the relevant post.

For the time being I believe that there'll be a way to get potions of mage armor at some point. The way spell scaling works now there is certainly no balance issue with it. (As opposed to the 1e potion of mage armor, which would be broken in 2e.)

A. No more spells in a bottle. Not because of balance, but because they are not supposed to replicate or replace items. Look into the alchemical items list.

B. I'm done with counter-intuitive, gamified builds for what should be a natural, organic character in an immersive game world.

To me this is super simple: you want the class to not feel like a trap and for everyone who plays it to have options. If pump DEX like a madman is the only choice, if pumping STR is suicidal, then...

We had a 18str /16dex /12con monk in our table.

It didn't feel particularly squishy and he dished out quite some pain.

The ac gap with a Dex based Monk will be eliminated for levels 5-10 and then it'll be just a 1-2 points difference till level 20 (dex builds stopping at +7 with the +dex potent vs +5 dex at level 15 for 16 starting dex)


Secret Wizard wrote:
To me this is super simple: you want the class to not feel like a trap and for everyone who plays it to have options.

Well; as pointed out, the bo staff is a simple, realistic way to consistently have +1 AC (at the cost of an action). It's cheap. It doesn't cost a character feat. And seems perfectly consistent with your desire to have a reaction based defense - it works for the same reasons.

I don't think you can reasonable demand that the solution has to be a reaction, when an action is the solution provided.

Secret Wizard wrote:
This doesn't work. No skill feats at level 1

It works for humans, since you can take a general feat as a racial feat - and general feats include all skill feats. That said, it is very specialized if you only use if for scrolls of mage armor. But you could certainly play certain monks through that (casting spells from ancient parchments that distill the wisdom of the masters).


So one thing I think it's important to avoid is setting it up so that while there are many viable builds at late levels, to survive early levels one really has/wants to build to a specification which either cuts off certain other options later (e.g. Strong and Wise monks who are not especially dextrous need not apply) or requires you to retrain all of your first couple levels.

Now sure some concepts aren't likely to be supported until later books (e.g. archer paladins, str rogues, gun clerics), but eventually it should be possible to build a Str >Wis>Con>Dex monk who does not die instantly at low levels.

Essentially, give me options for the "Iron Body" monk who is extremely tough and largely immovable that are just as good as the monk who's running on walls and doing flips.


I would be 100% cool if the solution was:

A. Monk weapon proficiencies baseline (even if you can't FoB with them).

B. Class Feat that allows players to get extra functionality out of a staff parry, either making it reactive, granting a bigger boost to AC, etc.

Picking up a specific weapon in which you are not proficient, to use an ability that is a single line lost between three different modifiers is something my player base would not grok and would feel arbitrarily imposed on them.

Adding a carrot – that is, something to boost that playstyle – rather than removing a crutch would be something that's much easier to understand and see as a power boost.


Weapon-based monks clearly need support. I was hoping you would be able to do some "Eight Diagram Pole Fighter" stuff with the Bo Staff, but I realize that not every option will be in the playtest.

But regardless what that character gets at 1st level should be something more than "you are trained in the weapon you want to use."


Secret Wizard wrote:
1. Very limited trained skills. 3 + INT seems very restrictive.

Agreed.

Quote:

2. VERY FEW SIGNATURE SKILLS. Doesn't allow for a lot of variation between characters.

Fix: Add Occultism (philosophy, esotericism), Performance (particularly fitting) and Medicine (very iconic).

Agreed about Occultism in particular. Not so sure about the others.

Quote:
4. LACK OF RANGED WEAPON PROFICIENCIES CREATES LARGE GAP IN CAPABILITIES. Being able to efficiently attack from range is an essential part of a martial character's toolkit. There's a large incentive to get Monastic Weaponry just for this reason, and it gives a "feel-bad" vibe to be spending a Class Feat in covering a glaring weakness instead of growing more powerful, even if they are the same thing.

Agree. Improvised ranged weapons would fit the theme.

Quote:
10. FEW INCENTIVES TO TRY OUT MONK WEAPONS Other than the Bo Staff (which has parry, reach and trip), only the Nunchaku seems interesting (with its ability to disarm).

Agreed. It does seem like "monk" weapons should actually be useful to monks. Plenty of monks in martial arts movies and television fight with weapons, and they're quite good at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Madame Endor wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:


4. LACK OF RANGED WEAPON PROFICIENCIES CREATES LARGE GAP IN CAPABILITIES. Being able to efficiently attack from range is an essential part of a martial character's toolkit. There's a large incentive to get Monastic Weaponry just for this reason, and it gives a "feel-bad" vibe to be spending a Class Feat in covering a glaring weakness instead of growing more powerful, even if they are the same thing.

Agree. Improvised ranged weapons would fit the theme.

ooh! Improvised weapon support, I like that!


Just a for fun design distraction: here's my take on how weapons (including bow) could work for the monk

Iron Tempest Stance (Feat 1)
When learning this stance, choose one weapon that does not have the unarmed trait. Your proficiency rank in that weapon matches your proficiency rank for unarmed attacks. You can use the weapon with any of your monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks except stances other than Iron Tempest Stance.
If the weapon is a monk weapon, it additionally has the agile and finesse traits while in Iron Tempest Stance.

Iron Strikes (Feat 6)
Prerequisites: Iron Tempest Stance
Requirements: You are in Iron Tempest Stance.
You ignore the multiple attack penalty, instead all attacks are at a -3 penalty. This excludes attacks that explicitly set a penalty other than the multiple attack penalty.

51 to 100 of 113 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Player Rules / Classes / [Monk] Quick Summary of Possible Design Issues All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.