Monk Class Preview

Well, I guess there are some things you only know when you play it! ^^

Happy Tuesday! Here are a couple tidbits that weren't in the blog.

Monks have 10 + Con mod HP per level.

Monks have no alignment restriction.

So, my Monk will have pretty good HP and achieve enlightenment by deciding all life is meaningless and become a CE Omnicidal Maniac? Great!

…
What? Monks and Paladins are very different beasts hahahaha.

KingOfAnything wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

We don't know this for sure. In fact, all the evidence we have suggests that the increments are +2 even for higher stat boosts (note that Mark gave a bunch of stat arrays and none of them included an odd number...). Personally, I like this way better. Essentially forcing characters to generalize (or get half the usual bonus) is bad in my book.

Confirmed in this thread, actually

Logan mentioned a stat progression with 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, etc.

Thanks for the link, I had apparently missed that one. Ugh, well, that's... horrible. I had thought they might have figured out this was a bad idea with Starfinder... So much for that. Going to make monk a lot harder to build with multiple stats as well... I'm really not a fan of essentially forcing players to have even stats/not tank a stat, but so it goes...

Though it might not be obvious at a glance, it's precisely that process that drastically benefits builds that use several ability scores; for instance, the reason that even the more extreme character (24, 20, 20, 18, 14, 8) eventually had a 14 in that 5th stat was entirely based on that, and it allows something like the triple 16 starting point mentioned earlier in this thread to be an interesting alternative build. A flat +2 means a lack of catch-up, which also means that if you don't min/max completely at the start, you are forever behind, and the gap between a high stat and a medium stat or a low stat is much larger. Those effects would harm multiple attribute classes dramatically compared to a class like the wizard (weirdly enough, they would also significantly weaken ancestries without a flaw, as the ability to silo more into your third-highest stat in character creation becomes another thing that never allows catch-up).

I like the Starfinder stat advancement since it makes starting with an 18 less valuable, which is something I like. I prefer spreading those points around than trying to get the highest single number possible.

Like I made a Shirren Operative (Bug Detective!) and starting without an 18 in Dex or Int was fine.

tivadar27 wrote:

KingOfAnything wrote:

tivadar27 wrote:

We don't know this for sure. In fact, all the evidence we have suggests that the increments are +2 even for higher stat boosts (note that Mark gave a bunch of stat arrays and none of them included an odd number...). Personally, I like this way better. Essentially forcing characters to generalize (or get half the usual bonus) is bad in my book.

Confirmed in this thread, actually

Logan mentioned a stat progression with 18 Str/16 Dex at 1st level, 19/18 at 5th level, 20/19 at 10th level, etc.

Thanks for the link, I had apparently missed that one. Ugh, well, that's... horrible. I had thought they might have figured out this was a bad idea with Starfinder... So much for that. Going to make monk a lot harder to build with multiple stats as well... I'm really not a fan of essentially forcing players to have even stats/not tank a stat, but so it goes...

Though it might not be obvious at a glance, it's precisely that process that drastically benefits builds that use several ability scores; for instance, the reason that even the more extreme character (24, 20, 20, 18, 14, 8) eventually had a 14 in that 5th stat was entirely based on that, and it allows something like the triple 16 starting point mentioned earlier in this thread to be an interesting alternative build. A flat +2 means a lack of catch-up, which also means that if you don't min/max completely at the start, you are forever behind, and the gap between a high stat and a medium stat or a low stat is much larger. Those effects would harm multiple attribute classes dramatically compared to a class like the wizard (weirdly enough, they would also significantly weaken ancestries without a flaw, as the ability to silo more into your third-highest stat in character creation becomes another thing that never allows catch-up).

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Insight wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm really kind of sick of the "it's like 4e" comparisons as though this is a complaint. Games are complex beasts with a lot of moving parts and even if you don't like the game as its constituent parts come into a holistic entity, it's not like there were not good ideas which went into that game.

And "everybody gets to do cool stuff no matter what class they pick" is unarguably a good idea.

I want Pathfinder 2nd Edition to borrow, adapt, steal, poach, purloin, etc. every good idea they can find from anywhere, even if it's a similar game that a bunch of people dislike (but a bunch of people like it too.)

No complaints here. 4e was great.

This post (along with others like it) is a startling insight into the current PF2e fanbase. If most people feel like this I worry that PF2e isn't going to resemble a game my group enjoys.

The problem with stealing "the best ideas" from 4th ed, is that there is little to no universal agreement as to what the best ideas are. 5th edition decided that +1/2 level to everything for everyone was ultimately bad design and reduced the number porn significantly to address the criticisms that it had introduced. Now we have +level to everything for everything for everyone.

That said, I don't see any significant similarity in the current preview of the monk with 4e. Yes the monk has spells. He also had them in PF1e. Empty body, abundant step, no sacrifice and greater ki sacrifice were all effectively spells cast with spell points. Qi gong jing monk was blatantly casting spells and in my group it was the most popular archetype. Simplifying that is not homogenising the classes. We will have to wait and see how similar they all are when the full rules come out.

I disagree on the 4e point (while there's no universal agreement on what the "best ideas" of 4e were, that's not saying there isn't consensus. And from what I've seen PF2e seems to be doing well at taking the consensus good while avoiding the consensus bad, for the most part), but I do agree with your second point: Homogenization in 4e was largely a part of how nearly everything that was class specific was built into a formula of "This is an attack, and when the attack hits, it does this much damage and does this thing" which PF2e is not doing.

Having a chassis for class abilities, which each class follows in a similar fashion, is not necessarily homogenization, so long as each class does something different with the chassis, which I think PF2e seems to be doing with what they've shown so far.

I would almost like a simple hard cap on how much ability boosts can raise scores rather than the change from +2 to +1 from 18. That said, I can see how that can feel bad for some players who can no longer raise their primary ability after two post-level-1 boosts.

I like the Starfinder stat advancement since it makes starting with an 18 less valuable, which is something I like. I prefer spreading those points around than trying to get the highest single number possible.

Like I made a Shirren Operative (Bug Detective!) and starting without an 18 in Dex or Int was fine.

I feel much the same way, but I also like it that, as opposed to point buy, it's something where starting with an 18 isn't a huge hindrance to your other ability scores. Being a high strength fighter doesn't mean I can't also have some Con or Dex. It's only when I want to advance do I have to choose whether a +1/2 to Str mod is worth more than a +1 to another mod.

I would almost like a simple hard cap on how much ability boosts can raise scores rather than the change from +2 to +1 from 18. That said, I can see how that can feel bad for some players who can no longer raise their primary ability after two post-level-1 boosts.

At least personally, I bristle at hard caps. I don't know why, but for me, that does more to hurt my suspension of disbelief more than anything. With the post 18 +1s a la starfinder, I feel like that makes sense. Diminishing returns and such. But a hard cap just reminds me that I'm in a game, and there are artificial limits. It's kind of like how in video games, not being able to climb a mountain because the cliff face becomes too sheer doesn't bother me, but hitting an invisible wall does.

while there's no universal agreement on what the "best ideas" of 4e were, that's not saying there isn't consensus. And from what I've seen PF2e seems to be doing well at taking the consensus good

The leading publisher of fantasy tabletop RPGs and the one that has the largest marketshare and most brand recognition thinks that having +1/2 level to everything scaled the game too fast and too quickly. Pathfinder is disagreeing on that consensus and is in fact doubling down by increasing it from +1/2 level to +level.

So no. I don't agree that there is a consensus that PF2e is tapping into when it comes to taking the best parts of 4e.

But that has little to do with the monk. In fact, I spent most of my post defending the monk and saying how it's not hewing too closely to 4e and is in fact a pretty straight forward change from the PF1e monk into a slightly simplified revised monk.

So for a more on-topic post: Given monks do cast spells, what power source/spell list (whatever PF2e calls it) do you think monks will draw from? If the Arcana skill helps with identifying wizard spells, the Religion skill helps with identifying priest spells and the Nature skill helps with druidic spells. I have a sneaky suspicion that the monk is going to have the Occult power source. Hopefully the occult power source isn't blatantly psychic and is more "mystical" in flavour.

The leading publisher of fantasy tabletop RPGs and the one that has the largest marketshare and most brand recognition thinks that having +1/2 level to everything scaled the game too fast and too quickly. Pathfinder is disagreeing on that consensus and is in fact doubling down by increasing it from +1/2 level to +level.

So no. I don't agree that there is a consensus that PF2e is tapping into when it comes to taking the best parts of 4e.

I really don't give a damn about +Level to stuff. I really couldn't care less, even if I tried. I'm talking about the rest of the things that PF2e seems to be drawing on 4e for.

Deleted response to Thomoloyes. We disagree (I also disagree with how Thomoloyes is coming to his conclusions). Best to just move on.

What about them monks?

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

I was sad to hear we still had odd ability scores, though Mark's point about needing to play catch up with stats is well made.

So having never played Starfinder, I just Googled how it works. I think PF2 seems to have a better system. Even with odd ability scores at level 5 onwards, I think the PF2 stat array generation *might* be my favorite change to the game.

tivadar27 wrote:

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

You have just pretty much described my exact plan for the next Starfinder AP I run.

tivadar27 wrote:

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Good to see I'm thinking what you're thinking. Plenty of people are like "Oh no, monks are MAD!" I'm thinking, "Well, yeah. Isn't the goal here?"

Isn't the goal to make all classes MAD, or at least to make each classes' SAD and MAD builds equally viable? Even if it's not baked into the class, useful skills will necessitate some attention be paid to the ability scores those skills require. Right? Dump stats are much less attractive?

(If that really is the goal, why would a wizard need STR?)

You know, I read a lot of AD&D 2e stuff, and that edition’s monk was very weird. 2e Monk (Spells & Magic) has the unarmed, unarmored fighting style, but other than that, it has divine spells instead of ki effects (although with access to some unorthodox spheres). It really is a Monk! That makes a lot of sense and no sense at the same time.

Thing is, when they made AD&D 2e they decided to nix the monk class, because it was thought to be a poor fit (and it was also a rather weird class back then). So the PHB doesn't have a monk. But of course, people still loved kung-fu fighting, and wanted ways to include that in their games. So over the 10 years or so that AD&D 2e ran, there were at least five different ways to make a martial artist character:

* The Complete Priest's Handbook had the Fighting Monk kit (an add-on/modifier to another class - the Pathfinder analogue would be an archetype) that gave specialization bonuses to unarmed fighting.
* The Complete Ninja's Handbook had something similar, but I never got that one so I'm not sure quite how they did it.
* The Will & The Way (Dark Sun-specific psionics splatbook) had the Sensei kit for psions based around martial arts, similar to the Fighting Monk priest kit. This one is fairly intriguing, since psionics is fairly close to ki, thematics-wise.
* Player's Option: Spells & Magic (as well as Faiths & Avatars, which repeated a bunch of content from Spells & Magic) had a Fighting Monk priest class. This would be used instead of that deity's regular priest class for such characters.
* Finally, in the waning days of 2e, the Scarlet Brotherhood sourcebook for the Greyhawk setting was released. It included a monk class similar to the 1e monk, along with an Assassin class.

With the exception of the Scarlet Brotherhood monk and maybe the Ninja book stuff, all of these used the same mechanic for unarmed fighting expertise: bonus specialization in one or more methods of unarmed fighting. Unarmed fighting in AD&D2 was weird, with damage determined by looking up the actual die roll for the attack on a table which then gave 0-2 points of damage and a chance of up to 25% of a straight KO. One of the benefits of unarmed specialization was the ability to modify your effective roll on that table in order to get a better hit.

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

the problem with 4e for me wasn't that classes were mechanically streamlined so they all used the same basic framework...it was that the classes basically had identical powers that only changed the stat they ran off...every class basically had a power that did the same attack and damage that was based on their primary stat...so every class felt exactly the same...i'm not getting that vibe from these previews at all...sure a lot of classes are getting abilities that work the same as casting spells...but they aren't all getting the exact same spells at the exact same level...

I admit that I don't really understand this perspective on 4e. It seems to me that the power structure was very similar to the way it will be in PF2. 4e fighters had stances, combat maneuvers, and reliable attacks. Rogues emphasized skill powers and mobility attacks. The barbarian used large weapons enhanced by rage. Wizards had all the control powers. Warlord powers enabled teamwork and tactics.

While it is true that many of the martial classes had powers identical to twin strike, whirlwind strike, power attack, nimble strike, sudden charge, opportunity attack (and marking), etc., and the healing classes all had access to powers identical to healing word, and blasting casters had area burst AOEs, I don't think the mistake was that these classes had access to the same pool of powers, I think the mistake was that each class called each power something different.

As far as powers that deal X damage and then have a rider, I admit that 4e did have that. For example, a monk could hit a creature to deal damage, daze the creature, and cause it to grant combat advantage. Rogues debilitating strikes worked in a similar manner. But I'm failing to see how PF2 isn't using this same paradigm based on what we are seeing. PF2 monks explicitly have attacks that deal damage and add a rider (at-will even). PF2 rogues also get strikes that deal damage and add a rider. Presumably this is true of most of the other classes.

The non-attack actions follow a similar line. A low level 4e rogue could get a mobility power called Tumble, which as a move Action allows the rogue to shift up to half its speed without provoking reactions.

And as we've seen from the latest Glass Cannon podcast, a low level PF2 rogue can get a power called Mobility, which as an Action allows the rogue to stride up to half its speed without provoking reactions.

These similarities are ubiquitous for someone who has played 4e as long as I have, and it feels disingenuous to me to suggest that the above setup somehow makes 4e homogenized, while the PF2 version is not.

As one final point, every 4e class does get the same power to deal attack and damage, although it only used Dex or Strength depending on whether the weapon had the Finesse property. That power was called Basic Attack. This identical power is present in PF2. It is called Strike. As far as other at-will attacks that key off the primary ability modifier, the podcast strongly suggests that the wizard was using his Intelligence modifier to hit with Acid Splash.

Mark Seifter wrote:

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

The second can be determined mathematically. He's 10th level (well, between 10th and 14th, technically).

The first there's a few options, but starting stats, given that he's a Dwarf, are pretty close to as follows:

Str 18, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10 Wis 14, Cha 10.

He might have only Wis 12 and either Int 12 or Con 14, but it's one of those options.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

The second can be determined mathematically. He's 10th level (well, between 10th and 14th, technically).

The first there's a few options, but starting stats, given that he's a Dwarf, are pretty close to as follows:

Str 18, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10 Wis 14, Cha 10.

He might have only Wis 12 and either Int 12 or Con 14, but it's one of those options.

He was human. As I mentioned in the quote, as a dwarf he would have potentially had an 18 in Con or Wis and 8 Cha. Not that a human can't have exactly the starting stats you listed, mind. In fact, that would have allowed him to hit 18 Con/Wis at the expense of Int (he actually started with 16 Dex, which did not allow that).

Something I'm a bit hoping is that Ninja becomes an archetype for the Monk, Rogue, and Bard. I feel the Ninja is a class in between those three, depending on how you want to build one.

Mark Seifter wrote:

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

Not Mark but I want to guess. Based on the low Con and Int 12 I am going to guess this is a Str Based Elven Monk.

Start with 10 in all stats
Ancestry: +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con put the floating in +2 Str
Background: Something hardly like lumberjack +2 Str and +2 Con
Class: Str Monk gets +2 Str
Floating Bonuses +2 to Str, Dex, Con, and Wis
So at lvl 1:
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 10
Lvl 5: +1 Str +2 Dex +2 Con +2 Wis
Lvl 10: +1 Str +2 Dex +2 Con +2 Wis

EDIT: Ninjaed by people who could figure this stuff out faster than me and the man himself. Still Elven Lumberjack Monk is a good option.

Jurassic Pratt wrote:

Mark Seifter wrote:

I had a huge success with Strength 20, Dex 18, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 10. If I was a dwarf, I could have had Cha 8 and 18 in either Con or Wis, which would have been even better.

Mark, what would this monk's stats look like at first level and at what level did he achieve what you listed here out of curiosity?

Not Mark but I want to guess. Based on the low Con and Int 12 I am going to guess this is a Str Based Elven Monk.

Start with 10 in all stats
Ancestry: +2 Dex +2 Int -2 Con put the floating in +2 Str
Background: Something hardly like lumberjack +2 Str and +2 Con
Class: Str Monk gets +2 Str
Floating Bonuses +2 to Str, Dex, Con, and Wis
So at lvl 1:
Str 18 Dex 14 Con 12 Int 12 Wis 12 Cha 10
Lvl 5: +1 Str +2 Dex +2 Con +2 Wis
Lvl 10: +1 Str +2 Dex +2 Con +2 Wis

EDIT: Ninjaed by people who could figure this stuff out faster than me and the man himself. Still Elven Lumberjack Monk is a good option.

Now I kind of want to make an elven lumberjack monk.

Will it be viable to play a Monk who's ability scores are Wis > Dex > Con > Str > Int > Cha?

Will it be viable to play a Monk who's ability scores are Wis > Dex > Con > Str > Int > Cha?

Viable, Probably, but given that DCs for their effects are based off of Dex or Str, it's probably taking a penalty, compared to Dex>Wis>Con>Str>Int>Cha monks, or similar. You are basically trading +1 to attack, +1 to DC, +1 to AC, +1 to Dex skills, +1 Reflex for +1 to Wis skills, +1 Will and +1 Ki power point.

Will it be viable to play a Monk who's ability scores are Wis > Dex > Con > Str > Int > Cha?

Whiteboarding here, but I'm going to guess that's hard to sell given that your save DC and presumably your ability to hit is keyed off of your Dexterity. You can get around the second a bit, but if you're going to focus on Ki abilities, I'm guessing you want either to hit more often with them, or have their saves be more difficult. I can't see prioritizing Wisdom over Dexterity in that case...

EDIT: Note: viable, probably, but optimal, probably not.
EDIT EDIT: @Tholomyes beat me to the punch! Filthy ninja!

tivadar27 wrote:

As with everything, I'll give it a shot. It could be I'm coming to the table with bias because I *do* feel Starfinder attributes were done poorly overall (though some of that might have had to do with point buy to begin with...), and this is at least a slightly different system, where the initial allotment is different as are the cut-offs for when you get reduced points.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

This is fair, now, thinking about it. I think there were a couple big issues with it:

Since we start with all evens in PF2e, I think this is somewhat solved. You *can't* have these odd situations where you're halfway between the switch point. Also, with it being a bit higher, it at least means that at most one stat (your primary) suffers from diminished returns early on. Anyways, we'll see how it plays, but I can see it being fairly different.

This is fair, now, thinking about it. I think there were a couple big issues with it:

1. Putting a 15 into any ability score meant you were doing it wrong. It cost you more initially and once you boosted it, it wasn't any better than a 14, and that was stupid.
2. Odd and even numbers prior to the switch point (15) meant you needed to be strategic about starting scores and boosts, for similar reasons to (1). Starting with a 13 was worse than a 12 if you were planning on boosting that stat a couple of times.
Since we start with all evens in PF2e, I think this is somewhat solved. You *can't* have these odd situations where you're halfway between the switch point. Also, with it being a bit higher, it at least means that at most one stat (your primary) suffers from diminished returns early on. Anyways, we'll see how it plays, but I can see it being fairly different.

While I don't generally like rolling for stats, this does bring up a valid point. Earlier blogs said that rolling was still a thing. While I feel that the current option is way better than the PF1e way of doing things, I wonder how Odd stats under 18 will be treated.

Given that rolling roughly equates to a 16/14/13/12/10/8 array, the easiest I can see is to ignore everything but the Anceestry, and allow an extra floating Bonus. But honestly, while I like the diminishing returns for post 18 stats, odd stats, and stat bonuses derived from (Stat-10)/2 just feel like an antique of the system. If diminishing returns could be implemented in other ways, I'd be down, but the legacy stats just feel wrong to me somehow.

Any unfriendliness to MAD characters in Starfinder vis-PF1 rests squarely on the shoulders of the initial attribute assignment; the level-up process is significantly more MAD friendly than in PF1, and the cornerstones are raising four stats and the diminishing returns. I imagine it might become a common houserule in Starfinder to use something akin to PF2 (add another free boost to each Starfinder race, a free boost to themes and increase the boost to +2, a +2 to key ability score from class, and a starting +2 to 4 stats) instead of SF point buy; I know I'm strongly considering it next time I run. That'll give you something more like Strength 16, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 18 for a starting vesk solarian rather than like Strength 18 Dex 10 Con 12 Int 8, Wis 10, Cha 14.

Another way to simplify and quicken the stats generation:

(Humans advantage would be that they can choose their flaw.)

I guess this would be simple, fast, and player-friendly.

Monks have no alignment restriction.

Time to make a barbrian/monk!

Ki strike, rage, flurry! Too bad it'd almost have a negative AC...

EDIT: Bulk... You know, everytime I see this mentioned in one of these threads, my 'excitement meter' for the new game drops lower.

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

I feel like in play, most non-TWF builds won't take more than a single attack per turn. The fact that a Monk lets you do flurry as a single action means that they will be doing more attacks than most builds, but since it's one action they also get to do other things. This feels like what a monk should do. While I have some possible issues with some of the math, the flavor doesn't feel all that wrong to me.

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

If you have the "ghost strike" ability (or whatever) that lets you target touch AC and your unarmed attacks are agile then your third iterative attack actually have a decent little chance of landing I should think.

I personally like the monk as a more mobile/active class though.

I've been mulling over weapon proficiency being feat locked, using the Unchained Monk as a point of reference. I think I see where the devs are coming from on this, so hear me out.

Monks get a lot of features which are built (and balanced) to only work with unarmed strikes. Sans those factors, weapons are stronger. Hence, in both Pathfinders you need a feat to apply unarmed strike features to weapons.

For the unchained monk, this created some weird dynamics between the punching and wielding weapons. Two handed weapons + Power Attack just did crazy amounts of damage compared to the punches, and it took a long time for the damage dice of the fists to close that gap. The only thing incentivizing you to use unarmed was stunning fist and style strikes, and maybe DR at certain levels. Even these things probably push you towards being a mixed striker-- use unarmed for the style strikes where appropriate or stunning fists, but otherwise make all your attacks with weapons. But the mixed striker routine carries problems with both resource expenditure-- AoMF was already twice as expensive, then add a weapon on top of that-- and additional complexity mid-combat.

You otherwise had to spec your monk into styles or combat maneuvers or whatever to make the fists competitive. And if you wanted to use weapons exclusively and still utilize all your monk stuff, you had to spend feats too.

So the Devs are aware of this, and might see a potential solution: don't give monks weapon proficiency at all by default. Now, the monk has no pressure to use weapons unless they want to go all in on weapons. The weapon guys still need to pay a feat, which helps offset the inherent superiority of weapons. The unarmed guys get that feat for a style or whatever.

So that's I'm guessing what the thought process was. I'm not sure it was the right decision, though. That monk in my game I mentioned up thread uses weapon finesse and focused on unarmed strikes, but I dropped a cold iron nine ringed broadsword for him. The unarmed strikes are more accurate plus can stun and leg sweep for debuffs. But the sword hits way harder. I believe my player likes the tactical flexibility this provides, and gives him interesting decision making round to round. Now, this Ironfang Invasion, so they pretty much have to stick to found gear. That makes the money questions less relevant. But being able to switch between unarmed perks and weapons lacking those perks seems to be fun.

And then of course there's the ranged issue. It seems like monks should at least get shurikens or something specific to address this by default. Throw anything might be really cool for it-- just hurl whatever is on hand at fliers and such.

(If that really is the goal, why would a wizard need STR?)

Melee wizard? I think wizards really only want int for DCs and +spell attacks. A wizard using spells to add damage to weapons does not need int.

Stack on str and dex and start slamming foes.

NorthernDruid wrote:

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

If you have the "ghost strike" ability (or whatever) that lets you target touch AC and your unarmed attacks are agile then your third iterative attack actually have a decent little chance of landing I should think.

I personally like the monk as a more mobile/active class though.

I would be pretty unhappy if monk were the only class that kept the "stand still and full attack" mentality from PF1. I had a lot of fun with the fighter's mobility in the playtest, and it looks like the monk has even more mobility and action flexibility. I think a monk will be my primary playtest character come August.

\ The only thing incentivizing you to use unarmed was stunning fist and style strikes, and maybe DR at certain levels. Even these things probably push you towards being a mixed striker-- use unarmed for the style strikes where appropriate or stunning fists, but otherwise make all your attacks with weapons. But the mixed striker routine carries problems with both resource expenditure-- AoMF was already twice as expensive, then add a weapon on top of that-- and additional complexity mid-combat.

AoMF is the big issue, really. Other than economy and critical range, Dragon Style solves most other issues and requires less feats.

Excaliburproxy wrote:

NorthernDruid wrote:

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

If you have the "ghost strike" ability (or whatever) that lets you target touch AC and your unarmed attacks are agile then your third iterative attack actually have a decent little chance of landing I should think.

I personally like the monk as a more mobile/active class though.

I would be pretty unhappy if monk were the only class that kept the "stand still and full attack" mentality from PF1. I had a lot of fun with the fighter's mobility in the playtest, and it looks like the monk has even more mobility and action flexibility. I think a monk will be my primary playtest character come August.

Agreed, especially since, IMO, the Monk should be the class that least embodies the "Stand Still and Full Attack" paradigm. I'll have to see it in action, but while I'm concerned with some things, I do feel like the monk will be a mobile combatant, which I can definitely accept.

So, concerning Stat boosts/1st level generation, my question would be how the stats are done and if Rolling and point buy is not being considered at this point for the final ruleset. To be sure, the change with this and the Ranks being ticks instead of bonuses is something I am unsure of and kind of confused on how it would work in higher levels as the additional add ons are done.

I see some truly crazy numbers for stats and skills becoming flat as one can only "specialize" in four steps instead of actually adding anything to them. It may work better in practice, but it seems sketchy compared to what came before.

As I understand it-

For the playtest, they want us to use the ABC stat generation system since that's what they are testing. For your own games once the rules are finalized, use any kind of stat generation you want, it shouldn't change the game much.

-4 for flurry of blows? Back to flurry of misses. Also no wisdom to AC? How on earth is an unarmored monk supposed to survive? Why then would a monk ever pick strength?

2E: Everyone gets three actions a turn. Well the monk gets 4 attacks, but it still counts as three actions. But they have to take a penalty to attack if using the second action to attack. Which is the third attack. But don't worry! Their fists are "agile", so the monk's penalty is different than the penalty for other classes that take 4 attacks in three actions.

It's almost _too_ simple.

On the other hand, it sounds like you made Ki Strike the sole point of entry into the Ki power tree, just like Point Blank Shot in PF1 was the feat tax to be able to do anything else whatsoever as an archer. Not sure how I feel about that. It'd be better if there was at least two points of entry. I know there will be more options later down the line, but even the CRB shouldn't constrict things this much. All the other ki feats should have "Possesses ki" as their printed prerequisite rather than specifically "Ki Strike" to make this more future compatible.

I don't know. With one feat and 1 level dip as a monk it seems you will be able to take all the kain (at least, I read Power 8 as requiring 8 levels, not 8 monk levels). From one of the first blogs it seems that all spell points stack together. Keeping that in mind, I don't like much the idea of allowing people to steal most of the thunder of monks that easily. Adding more points of entry make that even easier.

Darius Alazario wrote:

Weather Report wrote:

Okay, but what is the point of waiting until after the second attack roll to make the damage roll for your first attack?

I don't think there is a necessity for waiting to make the damage rolls. The key here is 'the damage of the two attacks is combined' why this is key is if things have say, resistance 5 bludgeoning and you do 2 separate attacks, the damage of each is reduced by 5. However, with this flurry the damages are being combined and as such the resistance only applies once! I imagine there are other similar cases but this is the most obvious one that comes to mind. I suppose also would be overpowering

So, does this mean both attacks must be against a single target?

That is something I have been attempting to dig out of this thread for awhile now but haven't seen many question that or an answer to it. Given it is a single action to perform I could see it going either way.. And expect to see it behave similar to the two-weapon fighter feat for double slice or twin slice or whatever it is, which I do not know if they mentioned being able to pick different targets or not for that one.

Regarding that weapon proficiency: It could be a pretty easy fix that doesn't change the power of the class all too much:

Monks start trained in simple monk weapons (Bo staff, shuriken,...), but can't apply their unarmed specials to those weapons.

Once they decide to pick up Monastic Weaponry, they (as the blog says) gain the ability to use his unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons.

-------------

...at least, I read Power 8 as requiring 8 levels, not 8 monk levels...

Power 8 actually means character level 16, just as with spell-levels.

-------------

And again, if they are powers, (Ki-Powers, wizard's school powers, cleric's domain powers, ranger, druid, bard... whatever powers), than the points that you use for those powers aren't spell points.
There's a logical/semantic disconnect. Either those powers aren't powers, but spells, or those spell points for powers aren't spell points.

-4 for flurry of blows? Back to flurry of misses. Also no wisdom to AC? How on earth is an unarmored monk supposed to survive? Why then would a monk ever pick strength?

It follows the progression of all iterative attacks, but gives you an option for one more. Normally it's +0/-5/-10 with each additional attack being -10, but since your unarmed strike is agile, it's instead +0/-4/-8.

So, using three actions for four attacks thanks to Flurry of Blows gets you +0/-4/-8/-8 before adding your proper modifier to them, and if you were hasted, one more -8 attack.

Monks aren't punished any more than any other class trying to do multiple attacks.

Also, Mark did mention a Monk's AC could match a Paladin in full plate:

"In fact, a full-on Dex-based monk will very eventually hit a point where they can equal even a full plate paladin, all while not having any of the restrictions of heavy armor, which is pretty incredible."

The Monk will be fine.

If you're feat gating Ki powers, shouldn't the speed enhancement also be feat based as that is thematically a Ki derived enhancement. You could then scale it of the size of your Ki pool which could scale comparatively with level based progression.

One of my favourite Monk tropes is the Mountain style doesn't really needing the speed as a Core feature. Unmovable, you try and budge one and get thrown on your backside. . I imagine that a lot of Str monks wouldn't need it so long as they have mobility (quality over quantity in other words).

KingOfAnything wrote:

Excaliburproxy wrote:

NorthernDruid wrote:

So my first and immediate thought without reading the thread:

I hate how flurry of blows now makes you more efficient at doing stuff other than punching people instead of being useful for an all-out offense. That cumulative penalty just doesn't make the 3rd or 4th attack in a round seem very worthwhile. So now flurry is for letting you do more non-punchy stuff during your turn.

If you have the "ghost strike" ability (or whatever) that lets you target touch AC and your unarmed attacks are agile then your third iterative attack actually have a decent little chance of landing I should think.

I personally like the monk as a more mobile/active class though.

I would be pretty unhappy if monk were the only class that kept the "stand still and full attack" mentality from PF1. I had a lot of fun with the fighter's mobility in the playtest, and it looks like the monk has even more mobility and action flexibility. I think a monk will be my primary playtest character come August.

Agreed, especially since, IMO, the Monk should be the class that least embodies the "Stand Still and Full Attack" paradigm. I'll have to see it in action, but while I'm concerned with some things, I do feel like the monk will be a mobile combatant, which I can definitely accept.

All the various takes on the classic martial arts challenge of "don't step out this small circle or you lose" kinda makes me disagree on monks having to be super mobile.

Honestly, after reading over the thread and getting more ideas, I want the monk to have a core defensive ability they can spend an action on.

Could be as simple as spend an action to get +2 AC, raising your shield replacement.

But I'd prefer something more complex like, ready a stance to receive and counter an attack. Letting you spend your reaction to get your wisdom to AC against an attack and if the attack misses you get to do a maneuver at them. Like the semi-classical(?) 'grab their foot as they kick you and twist it so they fall to the ground' or the judo standard of using their momentum against them to grab and throw.

If the monk had both something offensive like flurry and some form of active defence, their turn gets a lot more meat to it.

At heart though I'm mostly dissatisfied with flurry because it doesn't help you with being more offensive, it helps you with doing more other stuff.

I'm also kind of puzzled they didn't use that monster ability from a few blogs back with a barrage of attacks was modeled as one attack with a regular failure still dealing one attack's worth of damage. That seems like a natural fit for flurry.

Unless I've missed something, I'm a little curious as to why an entry feat is needed for ki, rather than simply giving the pool for the first ki power you take (most of the others feat gated higher than ki strike).

Regarding that weapon proficiency: It could be a pretty easy fix that doesn't change the power of the class all too much:

Monks start trained in simple monk weapons (Bo staff, shuriken,...), but can't apply their unarmed specials to those weapons.

Once they decide to pick up Monastic Weaponry, they (as the blog says) gain the ability to use his unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons.

This is the way I'd like to see it. Simple, easy AND makes sense.

The way it is now, they go from unable to use even the simplest of weapons to being able to go full kung fu fighting with them in one feat. IMO it makes more sense to have it take a single step vs taking several steps.

Unless I've missed something, I'm a little curious as to why an entry feat is needed for ki, rather than simply giving the pool for the first ki power you take (most of the others feat gated higher than ki strike).

They wanted to allow monks without any kind of magic/ki power to exist. So you could build a basic brawler without any kind of sparkles. And from the sounds on how the new archetypes will work, this could not be realized that way.