Dabbler's page

Hell yes it is! You are going to be lagging badly behind in terms of spell levels available as it is, this leaves you just one level behind in terms of caster level. I'd recommend taking the magical knack trait as well, that will allow you to et one of your casting classes up to your character level.

TBH the Mystic Theurge route is sadly a weak sauce one. What it could do with is a feat or feat chain that can boost not just the casting levels but the level dependent other features of the two originating classes - I've played with one that boosts the non-spell-casting abilities of the base classes by one level for every two levels of spellcasting you gain from them, and it worked OK - it meant your channelling and free spells added to spell-book didn't stall out completely.

That's a shame, because I think Syrus has a lot to offer in plot and character development.

For me, the psionics system from Dreamscarred Press is a must-have in my games. I also incorporate my own fixes for the Monk class, but that's a whole other story.

That's two bowmen down :)

That was the whole point of coming out with Pathfinder UnChained!, so that players and DMs now have an alternate set of the characters that needed either the most help, or a massive swing with the nerfbat, a.k.a. the Summoner.

IMO they failed with the monk then. The core monk suffered from a set of problems:

MAD - it is easily the MADest class in the game. Unchained did not address this.
Poor weapon options - the monk weapons are awful and the unarmed strike, while it has good damage dice, fails on so many other levels - specifically that it really makes the monk totally dependent on one 2nd-rate item, the AoMF.
Grab-bag of abilities that just didn't work together.

This had the effect of making a class that could be good defensively moderately awful at offence. All of Paizo's fixes - like the Qingong and the Unchained monk - have focussed on fixing the last item. At no point have they seriously addressed the first two.

The Unchained Monk had an improved flurry (which wasn't, actually, a problem) and the style strikes helped, but the ki powers were largely a hit with a nerf-bat as the majority cost way too much ki, and all the "always active" powers had gone. Then they nerfed Will saves as well, which just does not sit for a supposed disciplined, spiritually strong warrior. So the monk was a little stronger offensively, and weaker defensively, so it remained a weak class overall.

Absolutely nobody can agree on what on earth do they want monk to be.

The core concept of monk is such a mess because since the beginning, Monk has been the attempt of someone trying to take EVERYTHING about eastern mysticism and martials arts and stuff them into a single class.

It has been since 3.X, anyway. The original monk from AD&D was very much what it wanted to be, and very good at it. The 3.X monk...wasn't. It was, in retrospect, designed to suck. WotC used the trading card concept of making some options deliberately worse or better than others, and the monk was designed to look good and be awful.

The Pathfinder monk was a slight improvement, but still sucked. There has been a chorus of "Fix the Monk!" from players ever since, with Paizo...not fixing the monk. Then they released Unchained...which certainly unchained the monk, but sadly from it's original concepts of a spiritual warrior (Why nerf the Will save? Why????) rather from the constraints of sucking. Yes, they made it more powerful in one respect, but less in another, and they made the ki-powers demand WAY too much ki from a class that didn't have enough to start with. In short, take something weak: make it stronger one way, make it weaker another, and what do you have? Something that still sucks, but in a different way.

I've tried working with the original monk, on the basis that if you use the Qingong archetype it's not too bad and is fixable, and my results and play-tests are here if anyone is interested. The salient points are:

Use Wisdom for attack rolls with monk weapons and unarmed strikes.
Ki-strike gives an actual enhancement bonus as a magic weapon (+1 at 4th level, increasing every three levels to +5 at 16th).
One ki-point can grant you an extra attack whenever you make an attack, not just when flurrying.
One ki-point can give you 20ft movement as a swift action rather than being extra movement.
Monks have proficiency with all monk weapons.
Unarmed strikes bypass 1 point of DR or Hardness per monk level, regardless of type.

I've tested up to 16th level in an ongoing game, and it works really well. Not too powerful, but just enough to make the monk effective, accurate, and give him a place in the party.

To be honest I'm stunned *beat* that it's 2015 and Pathfinder people [be they Paizo staff or forumposters] are still concerned about the dippability of a class.

I agree, after some of the archetypes made for dipping, it is as I described above, shutting the monastery door after the MoMS has done a runner.

I wasn't talking about any threads but this one, nor any version of the monk but the Unchained version. And frankly, "backed up with hard figures" is something that this thread's been pretty light on, particularly from the people who have expressed disappointment with the changes.

Why repeat numbers we've crunched a hundred times before if nothing has changed?

For example, the idea that "armed monks rather than unarmed monks [are] mechanically superior." I'm the only one who has posted anything even close to an actual side-by-side comparison, and the back-of-the-envelope calculations didn't really seem to support the "armed is better" hypothesis.

Certainly, here’s the back of my envelope:

Unarmed monk is attacking for 1d10 base damage, and can afford a +2 AoMF. That gives him +7 static bonus, then Power Attack for +6, and assuming Improved Critical a 10% threat chance. That gives us 18.5 x 1.1 = 20.35 before we factor odds to hit.
Armed monk with a temple sword has only 1d8 base damage, and can afford a +3 weapon. He’s using it two-handed so he gets +7 from Strength and +3 from the weapon for +10. Then he’s using Power Attack for +9, and the Improved Critical gives him a 20% threat chance. That gives us 23.5 x 1.2 = 28.2 before we factor in odds to hit – which are better for this monk as he has an extra +1 from his weapon and can take Furious Focus to make his first attack with no penalty from Power Attack.

So quite a difference. Even if the unarmed monk uses a monk’s robe (damage to 2d6), and a feat chain like Dragon Style to add 1.5x strength bonus damage, he caps at 22 x 1.1 = 24.2. The armed monk is both more accurate and does more damage.

You can still be a Str based Rogue, you are just less supported vs old rogue.

Oh I agree. It's just not how I would have done it - I'd have left Finesse Rogue as a rogue talent and given the rogue an extra talent at first level, for example. It leaves the customization up to the player. Other talents might easily have included the TWF feats, the dex-to-damage option, etc.

The more flexibility you build in, the less a class needs archetypes and the more variation you get within a class.

Would you consider that an upgrade to the standard flurry?

Yes I would, but then paradoxically I never saw the flurry-of-blows as actually being a problem. I'd like to see a change on how iterative attacks are made anyway, and I am a little disappointed that Unchained didn't do this.

Frosty Ace, I agree, and I was rather disappointed too (as if you coudn't tell). It's not that I think I'm some ace designer, but I do think I had the monk's issues nailed.

Were I redesigning the monk from scratch, I'd certainly keep the style-strikes and qinggong-like powers. But I'd use my own changes as well, and I'd keep the monk at 3/4 BAB with all good saves. Then rather than the full/partial BAB nature of the monk I'd give him something akin with weapon training with his unarmed strike and monk weapons, and I would recalculate the unarmed strike damage somewhat - I'd rather see the dice stay the same, and have a static bonus and increasing threat range instead.

Ah, if wishes were fishes...

I wouldn't say there's "consensus" on anything but the new flurry and the style strikes, and those only because they are the the only unarguable upgrades. The rest of that list does comprise the most common issues people have put forward about the class, but there have been multiple commenters opposing just about all of those complaints throughout.

I was there in most of those threads, and many reasons against them were indeed made - but not backed up with hard figures, as those highlighting the monk's flaws did. One of the main comments was that "monks make great mage-killers" - alas, with the nerfed Will save, this is no longer true.

I think the biggest problem that may have been had was that while the devs made an attempt to address the monk mechanically, they didn't have a clear concept of "monk" other than a set of mechanical stats. I can understand that this is something the role-player should apply, but plenty of other classes have been made that have a clear "focus" and concept. For example, for better or worse they have made the Unchained Rogue a dex-focussed character with Weapon Finesse and dex-to-damage as class features. Personally, I think these should have been optional features (yes, I have seen a strength-focussed rogue!) but that's the way they went: they had a clear idea of the rogue as quick-and-clever.

Now my understanding of the monk is as a spiritual warrior, a philosopher-priest who uses discipline to hone body, mind, and spirit. But there's no clear focus other than the martial arts angle obvious in the design of either the original class or the unchained version. I'd love to know what concept, if any, Jason had in mind.

As to the monk, if it was Reflex, then people would be complaining (rightly) that the evasion ability has become much weaker, since you get no use out of it if you fail a Reflex save. If it was Fortitude, it would be that a monk's body is perfected, a weapon, and that failed Fort saves can kill you or turn you stone. I know this because these are the discussions we had when Jason came in floating various options. We said all of these things, including the things on this thread about meditation and the mind when the option was Will. In the end, I'm glad he picked Will and not the others. Evasion still works, and the d10 hit dice means you can drop your Con and have the same number of hit points but Wisdom is still as important as ever, so mechanically I'd rather have weak Will progression and have a solid but not stellar Will instead of a horrifically low Fort (and thematically, weak Fort made the least sense of the three). So Jason definitely didn't make the decision flippantly; of all four classes, the monk took him the longest (he thought it would be the summoner) and went through the most iterations.

You could argue all of them, but there's no reason that the monk couldn't have all of them, is there? Other than "Well, that makes him a full BAB class with all good saves." It seems there is some consensus that thematically speaking, Will was the WORST save to nerf, if you had to nerf one, even if technically it was the easiest.

I appreciate the worries about dipping, but I'm afraid for the monk that's shutting the monastery door after the Master of Many Styles has bolted (an archetype perfectly made for other martials to dip). Dipping will happen, just as it happens with every class. So what if a lot of players decide they want a little of the monk's disciplined mind in their fighter? Is that actually a problem?

You don't see lots of Strength>Wisdom>Dexterity monks? I've seen quite a few. I guess if you usually see monks with pretty low Wisdom, I can see why the low Will would be particularly bad in that meta.

Sadly we do see these monks. I mean, the monk concept is inspired by the Shao Lin priest, a little guy in safron with great discipline and mental fortitude, but the only way to make a monk that is actually effective in combat in Pathfinder is to have hulking pile of muscle - and that, for many, is a problem. It's simply the way the combat system works: you need a high hitting stat first for a combat class, and that means Strength for a monk unless you pay the feat-tax for Dexterity and suck up poor damage output until you can get an agile amulet of mighty fists.

This was something that many people hoped you would fix, as it was certainly highlighted as a problem for many people on the forums as counter-intuitive for "their" monk concepts.

As for the "Well house-rule it!" if that was an answer Unchained was a waste of a book - you could claim every problem Unchained set out to fix was a "house-rule it" situation, so why produce the book?

Well, I think a lot of people would have been happier with keep your d8 hit die and your good will save than the hit die buffed to d10 but with a poor will save.

Absolutely.

One of the reasons I put in qinggong power (there were several) is to create a useful backdoor. I've seen new qinggong powers in various books, after all, and I figured that with that backdoor, a book, even one that wasn't supposed to be about the Unchained classes, could release new qinggong powers to create more ki powers. I am sneaky occasionally.

That was a very good move!

As an aside on enhancement cost, I definitely recommend using Automatic Bonus Progression in general to negate the need for Big 6, and if you do, it essentially gives the monk the cheaper enhancement cost.

IF your DM plays it, it's great! But relying on optional rules is not really good game design. Indeed, if I was playing a soulknife or a bladebound magus in a game with that rule I'd be a tad miffed as they automatically get an enhanced weapon as a class feature...

I know, I'm playing devil's advocate. But you don't make a good design by looking at the positives, you make a good design by taking your design and trying to break it.

As another aside, lot of these previews for Unchained monk have been leaving out the fact that Unchained flurry does not give any attack roll penalty. In terms of damage output, that +2 is worth a considerable amount; it's pretty important, and it's being overlooked.

I certainly haven't, and I rate the new flurry as an upgrade in the monk's offensive power. However, we worked out on one thread that the monk at mid-to-high levels was between +2 and +4 behind the other combat classes before they factor in their mojo (due mainly to MAD and the restrictions on the AoMF). This changes it to +0 to +2 behind them, so he's still behind. If you compare him to the fighter, for example, from 5th level the fighter is +1 better than the monk's (thanks to weapon training) and by 20th level the fighter is +8 better with exclusive feats and items as well as his abilities. So compared to that, the monk's flurry is -8 to -10 to hit...so an enemy that challenges the fighter to hit it will still prove nigh-impossible for the monk using just his flurry to hit it. I'm not saying the monk should be that accurate, but you can see now why I feel that MAD and enhancement are issues to be tackled.

The old monk was defensively good (the paladin is the best defensive class by a whisker), he needed improved offence and some synergy. You went halfway with the offence, all the way with the synergy, and then reduced the defences (and ruined the theme for me!).

I will say - getting an Agile AoMF ASAP and dumping Str solves this somewhat - though the 1.5x strength for two-handing flurry makes strength builds more viable unchained.

I agree, and it's my preferred build, but you are paying a one- or two-feat tax to pull it off, and losing +1 enhancement off your AoMF permanently.

As I mentioned a few pages back - this can be solved somewhat with an Allying cestus. Worst case (vary by DM) - you basically give up an iterative attack to give the weapon's enhancement bonus to your fist. Especially useful with the pummeling feats.

Again, using some kooky items to work around a limitation...works, but it feels a bit like cheating, and it's not perfect. What if you would have preferred some deliquescent gloves for a bit of extra damage?

Now - I will say - it does sound like the unchained monk will be easier to make pretty solid. One problem with the base monk is that while it can be made pretty solid (though a bit weak offensively) it takes mixing and matching archetypes, feats, and items from across different books. It certainly sounds like the unchained monk doesn't require that.

Unless you want the strong-willed spiritual warrior, which is my concept of the monk...sorry.

Would it be too broken to let the monk enhance his fists with his ki like a mugus enhances his weapons with arcane pool?

Or just have ki-strike be an enhancement bonus, as I have house-ruled, and it works just fine.

Dabbler wrote:

As I mentioned previously, they never play-tested the original monk, and they didn't play-test this one. That's probably why both suck so bad.

Hey Dabbler, as I mentioned in another thread too, over my time on the forums, we've chatted in various threads and I've always respected your tendency for strong analysis, whether we agreed or disagreed. The rest of your post is opinion, but in this one quoted section, you state fact incorrectly. As someone who agrees with you that both playtesting and running math are important, we did playtest the Unchained monk, and run a bunch of mathematical analyses too. I'm wondering, did you? I assume yes because from other threads I know you pretty much always do, but some of your assertions this time seem contrary to the math, which they have never been before (you previously said that the Unchained monk that isn't expending ki is worse at dealing damage than a paladin that also isn't expending limited resources, which I believe is strictly provable not to be correct by math, unless I am mistaken). So I'd be interested if you could share them.

I beg your pardon, you didn't do a public play-test. The thing is, when you do a public test you invariably get someone that does or thinks of something you never thought of.

I did a LOT of number crunching on the original monk, as well as playing (and in fact more playing than crunching, truth be told) and came up with several results:

MAD
First, that MAD was the monk's biggest single problem. The original monk needs the physical stats as much or more than the other full BAB classes. He needs Strength as much as them for the same reasons; he needs Con even more than them for d8 hid dice; he needs Dex because he can't wear armour (many full BAB builds can skimp on either Dex or Str, the monk struggles trying to do this). On top of that, he needs Wisdom for his monk abilities and to compensate for his lack of armour.

Now the Unchained monk reduces the need for Con with d10 hit dice, but it increases the need for Wis with a low Will save and more ki demands through switching "always active" abilities for ki-powered options. So the Unchained monk is still struggling with MAD, which will either reduce his to-hit score or else make him seriously weak elsewhere, or demand a fierce feat-tax. You haven't fixed MAD, you just shuffled the problem around a little, but it won't go away.

My own house-ruled solution to this issue was to use Wisdom as the monk's hitting stat for monk weapons and unarmed strikes. It worked well, as now like every other martial class the monk only has to worry about one maxed-out stat instead of several. Also it's thematic for the monk: he's a spiritual warrior, it makes sense that he would be fighting with his spirit, not just his muscles.

Enhancement
The monk's unarmed strike can only be enhanced by one item, the amulet of mighty fists, and that is capped at a +5 maximum of enhancement bonus and equivalent features, quite aside from it's expense. Enhancement bonus is very important to martial characters: it improves accuracy (and if you do not hit, you do not do anything), it gets through DR, it gives you a static bonus to damage. The problem with the AoMF is that with that cap, if you want any properties, you lose on the enhancement. It's a big issue for many monk players, and I know Paizo have been vexed by it before, but there are good reasons not to improve the AoMF.

Now as you noted, Mark, I do a lot of number crunching. One thing I crunched numbers on was the soulknife for Dreamscarred Press. An issue I was concerned with was that because the soulknife didn't have to spend resources on a magic weapon (a huge expense for a martial character), he would have an overabundance of other gear that could make the class unbalanced with regard to other martials. It turned out not to be the case - the soulknife's ability to have the perfect weapon for any occasion (or as near as dammit) and his psychic strike didn't completely make up for his lack of a "mojo" ability such as the other martials have: paladin's smite, fighter's weapon training, barbarian's rage, etc. So I know that giving a free enhancement on a weapon will not break the game.

That's why I couldn't understand why a qinggong power was never greater magic fang as a swift action. I certainly don't get why the unchained monk couldn't have an enhancement bonus as part of the ki-strike. I've tried it in my own games, and it doesn't break them.

I'm beginning to think that it's possible that this will be like the hunter, where on release there were a fair number of people who were worried about the class, but since then it has been proven to be pretty solid. If so, it's not unexpected, in that we had a lot longer in the book's development cycle to run math and playtest than folks have had since getting subscriber copies, so even if the collective forums are a more powerful organ overall for such endeavors (which I believe they are, over time, if sometimes one with signal/noise to work out), it hasn't had time to sort itself out.

The monk is supposed to be a spiritual warrior, a master of discipline and focus. Yet there is no mechanic other than the ki-powers to represent this. Worse, the monk's focus and discipline don't make him stringer against mental threats any more. It always used to be argued that the monk was a great mage-killer because of his saves, but that's no longer true.

If I was going to nerf a save, because full BAB and all good saves is too good (although I don't actually think it is - the monk was the only class to have all good saves regardless of BAB) then Fortitude was the one to nerf. After all, the monk gets abilities early in the game that compensate for it anyway, and it represents the ascetic rather than material warrior concept more appropriately.

I really do like a lot of the strikes and powers, and some of the monk's offensive problems have been somewhat (but not completely) addressed with full BAB and the new flurry, but I'm disappointed that the monk hasn't had some of the other issues he has addressed. Worse, I feel that the Unchained monk actually steps away from the monk's true concepts. You've made him more like the brawler and less like, well, a monk. Not only that, but you've made that spiritual concept of the monk much, much harder to attain. I mean with the old monk, he might suck on the attack but at least he had his spiritual defence. No more.

So for me this monk doesn't cut it. I won't use him for a monk, for the same reason I won't substitute a brawler for a monk. Sorry Mark, I know you guys did a lot of work, but you've missed the target. That's why I really think this should have had a public play-test, to get that different input of what a monk means to different players. I know it would have been a pain, but I think it would have been worth it.

Even inasmuch as this is true, the math should be the same for everybody. Yet it seems to be getting ignored this time, or being stated flat-out incorrectly (I noted another flaw in Dabbler's math elsewhere on the forums too); it's rather odd for the theorycrafting crowd around here, who tend to be pretty good with mathematical assessments.

I'm not a "theorycrafter", I use theorycraftuing to prove a point but it's not my forte. I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm satisfied that we've proved in the past that the monk was the most MAD class in the game, and he suffered for it, and that enhancement was equally important to all martial classes - and the monk had less than the others. If these issues are not addressed, or if work-arounds are not provided, then they will remain problems.

Like I said, the Unchained monk is offensively better than the original monk, and synergy is better, but it's defensively worse and the offensive improvements are not sufficient to put it on the same par as the other martial classes. As I also explained, thematically...the Unchained monk doesn't have the spiritual strength any more, and to me that is what makes a monk.

Did they open playtest these at all? Paizo's open playtest of all their big stuff is what separated them from WoTC. It's why it succeeded and 4th edition failed. When Paizo listens to their customers, beautiful things happen.

As I mentioned previously, they never play-tested the original monk, and they didn't play-test this one. That's probably why both suck so bad.

I will probably get this book as it will probably have something useful I can use. But as usually the devs are unable or unwilling to find the proper middle ground when designing something. Either a ability is really good. Or it's not worth taking. Six years after the core was released and I expected a hell of lot better from the devs. Oh well.

There are loads of great, really useful ideas in this book.

The monk is just not one of them.

Ravingdork wrote:

EDIT: Never mind, it only works against people using the Style feats. What the hell!?

Yeah, I do not understand how thematically it only works against opponents with a stand. A monk with this route rejects stands, so why could he exploit them more?

I'm not sure if the ability would be too strong without the restriction. At first glance it seems to strong, but then I think about paladin smites and how my magus works.

Uses up ki (a really restricted resource) but gives either +4 to hit, +4 to AC, or +[monk level] to damage? Now look at the other martials:

No, not too powerful at all if it had applied to anything.

Back on the poor Will save topic:

I think I know why the developers dropped it. It would have been too good of a dip in canon (not variant) multi-classing. Dip two levels of Unchained Monk and get +2 BAB, 2d10, multiple feats, and +3 to all Saves!! Yeah?

Unfortunately, I think they missed an opportunity here. I mean how they kept Still Mind exactly the same (but pushed it back to 4th level):

Quote:

A monk gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells and effects.

If they had done this instead:

Quote:

A main gains +1 bonus on all will saving throws. When the character gains 7th level as a monk (and every three levels gained as a monk thereafter) this bonus increases by +1 to a maximum of +6 at 19th level.

In addition, a monk gains a +2 bonus on saving throws against enchantment spells and effects. This ability stacks with the bonus listed above.

it might well have not sparked this debate. Four levels is a LOT for folks looking to dip. It would be a delayed good Will save, but that I could live with.

And if doing that was still too much, then I wouldn't mind dropping the hit die back down to a d8. Making the class even less attractive as a dip.

Just my thoughts.

MA

I think you hit the nail on the head there MA. If they were worried about dipping, they could have done this with the monk to maintain the defences. Mind you, if they were worried about monk dips they should have nerfed the MoMS or never created it at the outset. Two levels of MoMS still remains the best dip for any martial around.

Unchained is optional? Right?

So in theory, you could do everything the Unchained Monk has, but keep the saves as the CRB monk?

All rules are optional, you can house-rule anything you like. I house-rule the monk to hell and back in my games. This doesn't help me PLAY a monk I want to play, though.

Everyone is missing the point of Formless Mastery. Don't think of it as an unchained monk class feature; think of it as an unchained Crane Wing nerf. If you look at it that way, Formless Mastery is a thing of beauty.

No, it's not.

You see the problem was never Crane Wing. Crane Wing was fine as was. The PROBLEM was the Master of Many Styles archetype. It was a perfect dip, and it did away with all those pesky requirements for style feats. It was the perfect dip class for any non-monk.

If they's fixed the MoMS monk by making it meet the level/BAB demands of the style feats they never would have needed to nerf Crane Style/Wing. In fact if they had simply made the MoMS abilities part of the core monk they would have made the whole class thematically much more fun.

Aren't you likely to drop Still Mind by taking vows for extra Ki anyway?

Especially with the limited Ki amounts since there is more Ki needed to be spent.

But now it is a harder choice I guess.

Exactly. That's why it's such a bad nerf.

Here's the problem with the unchained monk:

• It's a disciplined, spiritual warrior who somehow isn't any better spiritually than any other martial now, and is worse than some (the paladin).
  
• In overall defences, the paladin is now undisputed king, and the monk is down there with the rest of the plebs.
  
• He's offensively still less effective than any other martial.
  
• He still gets his a$$ handed to him by the brawler in unarmed (or even armed) combat, which is what he's supposed to be good at.

I don't understand what Paizo's problem is with non-spellcasters having good will saves. For a book all about killing sacred cows it's pretty bizarre how they stuck with "martials should be at the mercy of the wizard's dominate person DC" on a class that broke that rule before.

I don't think Paizo really [i]understood[i] that (and how) the monk was weak before, although they said it was. They removed the strong will save I would guess because they made the monk offensively stronger, without realising that they had not brought the monk up to even the same level as the paladin without a smite. This essentially left the monk as weak as before on the exchange.

Some of the style strikes are nice, but the ki powers...too many, cost too much ki, last too short a period of time. I thought Formless Mastery was the boost the monk needed to bring it to the offence level of the other martials...then I read "As long as he does not possess any style feat" and realised that it was unusable to any monk build I would want.

I'll start: Flawless Mind does not cost ki, nor do you have to pick it as a ki power. You just get it automatically.

At 19th level. A stage which most campaigns never reach.

That's the Monk's THING, man; no armor, all good saves. A martial artist with such mental discipline that unlike the brawler his mind is as impregnable as his body, to the point he literally armors himself in wisdom.

That's how I felt too. It was like making the monk a Brawler...only not as good as the brawler.

The one I was referring to there are called style strikes. You can make one per round whenever you are flurrying and learn more as you go. They are not limited in any other way that I can see.

Without giving too much away they are really cool and include examples like flying kick, defensive spin, hammerblow, head-butt (so amazing), leg sweep and more. They actively let you adjust even while flurrying to be more defensive, do more damage, inflict ailments, move, and more. We felt it was something the monk should have had all along honestly.

They are good...but they are a minor feature. Some of them address the monk's issues, like flying kick letting you move and full-attack - but other than that there is that dependence on flurry-of-blows again.

The secondary will save makes up for the Full BAB and HD d10 bump to me, and since Ki is still Wis driven, the Monk will have a will save that only trails behind clerics and paladins, which is still...great.

Not really, as the monk hasn't lost his MADness so that's less wisdom than clerics and less charisma than paladins. In fact it puts the monk more on a par with the ranger.

Take a weak class. Add a bonus. Take away a bonus. What do you end up with? Still a weak class. The monk is offensively a little stringer, but with MAD and lower enhancement he's still behind the other martials, while defensively he's now on a par with the other martials. That's not actually a net improvement.

Will save bonus is lower, but that was always going to be one of the monk's better saves anyway. Add in the new Will save benefits that nobody has bothered to wait and examine before declaring a flub? Sounds like Chicken Little's been running amok again.

No, he;s not. The new "will save benefits" are? Well I see Still Mind is the same as ever, and the Flawless Mind is not gained until 19th level - to high to be of much use in most campaigns. Looking through the monk I'm not seeing anything else.

No time to go through the rest of this already-long thread, that's just the first page. I imagine this will be as contentious as the other monk threads with supporters and detractors. I really, really wanted to be a supporter....damn...

Lance Manstrong wrote:

Have you posted the review anywhere?

Dabbler's Reviews

First one.

Actually the second, but yes it's posted.

Dabbler, how does the Unchained Monk stack up when combined with one (or more) of the options to remove the 'Big Six' from the game? Mark Seifter implied that one of the options allowed you to allocate bonuses to a weapon each morning, so the Monk could self-enhance his unarmed strike each morning.

I haven't had a chance to look at those, but potentially this could work very well. On the flip side, the options to remove the "big six" are just that - optional rules: if the GM isn't playing them, they may as well not be there.

MY problem with the monk unchained is that it's offensively improved, but still not to a par with the other martial classes, while at the same time reducing the defensive qualities of the monk to be on par with the other martial classes. That, to me, is not a fix. If they'd not nerfed the monk's saves I'd have been willing to work with it...but no, the monk's saves were part of what made the monk into a monk. Without them he's a brawler with a few magic-lite abilities and no weapon training.

So what's gonna happen now in terms of your own monk changes?

Are you going to incorporate anything from Unchained? Stick to your own changes?

Or a less pleasant option, give up on trying to make yourself heard to paizo about fixing the monk which looked to be the point of the whole thread to begin with?

For the time being, I'm going to ignore Unchained. It's not a fix, it doesn't do what it promised, and it reduces the monk's uniqueness to me. I'll keep on with the tests, because they do still serve a purpose of showcasing some house rules people can pick up and use. Yes, I was hoping Paizo would actually take note of what was being said, but clearly from the sight of Unchained they just did what they felt like doing - I think the warning bells were there when they didn't offer up the Unchained classes to play-test.

Well, after a little work here's my current working map of the region of north-east Avistan, scratched together from several maps and worked over with a hefty use of cut & paste!

http://www.mediafire.com/view/h0k1orb54cv5bru/NE_Avistan_working.bmp

If you really want odd rituals, look into what various cultures do in the real world.

11. For coming of age, male children are expected to slay a creature consummate with their rank. So a commoner can slay a sheep, a warrior a lion, a noble a mythical beast, and the King's son had better sharpen up his dragon-slaying skills...
(Variation on a theme found in various cultures)

11a: If you successfully kill a creature above your station you advance in social rank. Hence becoming a dragon-slayer can make you heir to the kingdom!

12. Up until the age of twelve all children are "girls" and treated as such; only at this stage are boys named and treated differently.
(Used to be practised on a Dutch island until the second half of the 20th century)

13. In courtship mastery of certain skills is a requirement in a suitor: usually this is dancing (remember all those balls in Pride & Prejudice?), but in other cultures may involve cooking, hunting, singing, horsemanship etc.

I would say it depends how the amulet of mighty fists is used.

If the amulet is on a creature with multiple natural weapons (claws, horns, bite etc.) then each is in effect a separate weapon. The effect of the AoMF on such a creature is like that of multiple castings of greater magic fang on each natural weapon. So for furyborn each weapon hit accrues independently; however, spell-storing could release on any of the attacks, as the spell is stored in the amulet, not the "weapon" - so it can still only be used once, though it could be triggered by any of the attacks (it's like several spell-storing weapons, but all sharing the same single spell).

If the amulet is on a monk, the monk's unarmed strike is considered a single weapon (there was the whole furore over single weapon flurries that clarified it as such) even though attacks are made with different body-parts. Mechanically, it makes no difference as the monk could in theory make his flurry of blows with just one fist. So this version gets the best of furyborn, but spell-storing you only get to use once, as above.

If the amulet is on a brawler or other unarmed class, then if they are using TWF or the brawler's flurry (which is explicitly TWF) in order to make multiple unarmed attacks, then they in effect have two weapons. Each has furyborn separately like the animal with multiple attacks, and once again the spell-storing is shared because having two spells go off from one casting makes no sense.

For an unarmed character not using TWF, their unarmed strike is a single weapon for furyborn and spell-storing.

That's my best guess, but I may be influenced by my desire not to give the monk the sh*t end of the stick which is what the monk usually gets from any item or power ruling.

My monsters often DO act like PCs in this regard. However monsters usually have far fewer resources than PCs do and are geared up to defend against different kinds of threats.

You have to remember that the biggest threats to kobolds are not adventurers, it's the village militia who are much less well equipped, organized, and motivated. Adventurers are like the special forces of their world (well, the ones that survive are), the people who will take on any job. They are the guys who will attack superior numbers, relying on speed and surprise to ensure they never get overwhelmed.

When the village militia encounter those traps, they are either deterred or take forever to get past them, giving the kobolds time to raise the alarm and organise a defence. Adventurers sneak through them and hit hard and fast.

During the Spanish Civil War and The Finns during the War with the Soviet Union used Slings to throw Grenades farther then one could by hand.

Now if there was only a feat to allow Alchemist to use a sling to toss their bombs

Now there's a scary thought!

Gaberlunzie wrote:

Quote:

As the ranged weapon of a strength-oriented melee, it's not a bad choice. Eventually they'll get a +1 adaptive bow, but seriously, that's 3,400 gp. That's 21% of your cash at level 6.

At level 6 they won't have a constantly changing strength score so why would they need adaptive? With a 20 strength, it's 600 gp for a composite bow for their strength. For a primary ranged character, that's level 2. As a backup weapon, it's level 4.

Rage. New Str Belt. Str poison or disease. My character, who spent 600gp on a +5 Composite Bow at level 3, has run into all these issues between levels 5 and 7. It's not constantly changing, but you might miss out on a point or three of damage per hit or suffer a -2 attack penalty depending.

The other question is, do most melee characters use their ranged backup often enough that it's worth 600gp to avoid reload times? Even getting a full attack isn't worth much if you don't have the Dex to hit with an iterative. If you're built as a switch hitter you'll want a better ranged option but if the ranged weapon is just used when you absolutely cannot melee something (once per level?) you might be better off with a sling and some well-chosen consumables.

Adaptive property, +1000gp and it adapts to whatever strength you have.

Dabbler wrote:

Indeed, but we are talking a rogue (scout) here, so he can move 10' and be attacking flat-footed AC with full sneak attack

Why you target flat-footed AC? Because the Scout Skirmisher ability make your attack deals sneak attack damage as if the target was flat-footed, not hit flat-footed AC.

Darn! Missed that...the little fink's in for a surprise the next time he uses it...

Dabbler wrote:

DominusMegadeus wrote:

One of the devs, when asked why crossbows were just objectively bad, compared them to a water balloon fighting style. Saying, basically, that crossbows were goofy and you were goofy for wanting them to be good

It is worth pointing out that actually IRL crossbows were not as good as longbows - they had less range, much slower rate of fire, and only equal power at best. It is also worth pointing out that decent longbowmen had to be trained for years to use them, and that in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of all longbows needing Exotic Weapon Proficiency, while crossbowmen could be trained up in a week or two, and musketeers in just a day or so.

There are several over-broad assertions in this post on the mechanics. I will say that the idea that crossbows outcompeted longbows due solely to ease of training troops is also somewhat suspect. Trained mercenary crossbowmen on the Continent actually generally commanded higher pay and higher social status perks than competing mercenary longbowmen.

And when you are hiring mercenaries, they come already trained to use the weapon, that's not an issue for the buyer.

Crossbows almost completely displaced bows among elite career soldiers on the Continent, and that isn't because they were easy to put in a peasant's hands, it's because they offered major advantages to the skilled user.

Yes, but the elite crossbowman had to pay three other people to be his loaders. He was the marksman, he had four crossbows and three loaders, and a tower shield to shelter behind. He shot, then passed back his crossbow to a loader and took a second crossbow that had been pre-loaded, and repeated. He still didn't get the rate of fire or range of the longbow, although at close range he did get better armour penetration.

Time to train does count, as it hinges on the availability of the troops. The reason the English deployed longbowmen and most of the continent didn't was because in England it was law that all able-bodied men had to practice archery on the village green every Sunday, and no-one else had such a law to provide a large pool of longbow-trained soldiers. Almost no-one else had any trained longbowmen, so they didn't employ them, they pretty much had to rely on crossbows.

Interestingly the conquistadors also had crossbows. Early guns were not superior to bows, they were just easier to train troops to use. You could have ten longbowmen in a year, thirty crossbowmen in a month, or a hundred musketeers in a week. So which do you choose? Sure longbows are better than crossbows, and crossbows do more damage than early guns, but who cares when you have THAT many guns shooting?

So as a Small Halfling you normally do 1d3, but actually do 1d2 at -1 to-hit with 3/4ths BAB with no in-class accuracy boosters.

Indeed, but we are talking a rogue (scout) here, so he can move 10' and be attacking flat-footed AC with full sneak attack (in this case, 12d6+36 non-lethal damage) - so really, the damage done by the sling is pretty much not relevant. To a rogue, the infiltration advantage is more than worth it, and sling bullets themselves are easier to hide than arrows.

That's really the point of the build: it bypasses the sling's failings because everything hinges on the sneak-attack rather than the sling.

One of the devs, when asked why crossbows were just objectively bad, compared them to a water balloon fighting style. Saying, basically, that crossbows were goofy and you were goofy for wanting them to be good

It is worth pointing out that actually IRL crossbows were not as good as longbows - they had less range, much slower rate of fire, and only equal power at best. It is also worth pointing out that decent longbowmen had to be trained for years to use them, and that in Pathfinder that would be the equivalent of all longbows needing Exotic Weapon Proficiency, while crossbowmen could be trained up in a week or two, and musketeers in just a day or so.

I have the DSP books, but I'm still new. I'm using a rune magic variant, but all the rules are the same. Aside from basic rules, what are the ins and outs (what is effective, what is not, what to watch out for), and what does a GM have to consider (What sorts of challenges can a Psionic character wreck? I hear Seers can wreck mystery plots by being too good at them.)?

The major difference is in the resource management: with powers, quite often you have more flexible abilities than spells, but you have less of them. With power points, you have a smaller resource pool than you have with spells, but you can use it more efficiently.

Points to watch out for:

1) You cannot expend more power points on a power than you have levels in the class manifesting the power. This is the biggest mistake made by people trying psionics for the first time, and the biggest reason a lot claim it is over-powered. There are ways around this - the Overchannel feat, the Wilder, some traits for multi-classing - but they are the exceptions.

2) Many powers do not automatically scale. You have to augment a lot of powers to get more out of them, and that means spending more power points. An energy ray doing 1d6 damage at first level for one power point does not do 2d6 damage at 2nd level unless you spend two power points. On the flip side, you can often get extra effects from some powers when you augment them.

Those are the two biggest pitfalls you may run into, and the things you have to remember.

Dabbler wrote:

"Why are slings so bad?"

I have a halfling rogue in my party who regularly dishes out 12d6+24 temporary damage with one shot from a sling. He's killed foes with one shot just from temporary damage. It's enough to make me shudder.

Uhm, not bad (I'm assuming sap adept feats). It could be the only good combo I've seen for slings.

Absolutely - Bludgeoner, Sap Adept and Sap Master, and then a pair of sniper's goggles into the bargain on a high level rogue (scout). It's the only ranged weapon you can do this with, but dear god does it work when it works! He's actually out-damaged the party ranger (archer) on a few occasions against his favoured enemies.

He moves 10', lets fly (aiming at flat-footed AC) and hits for this bucket of dice. Now, imagine him mounted...

The biggest problem with the Monk weapons list is the complete absence of any reach weapons. The only other core class that can't use a longspear [Shaolin monk performs introductory longspear form starting 6:12 into video] is the Wizard! That's quite an oversight!

"That's quite an oversight!" describes the mechanics of the entire monk class...

Claxon wrote:

About the only other option would be a Sohei monk, but it takes longer for the Sohei to be able to flurry with the weapon than it does a Sacred Fist.

Sohei actually doesn't work for the desired weapons, they don't get weapon training with heavy blades.

Unless you dip fighter for weapon training with the desired weapon. Then you get it...eventually.

Scout archetype rogue, take the feats Bludgeoner, Sap Adept, Sap Master. You now inflict double your sneak attack dice in damage with a sling, with a +1 bonus per dice, as long as you opt to do non-lethal damage and you move ten feet or more (so you treat foes as flat-footed).

Now add the mounted feats, and on a charge you can hit with a lance and do your sneak attack damage as well.

It's an evil build for one-shotting foes. You don't get many attacks but the ones you do get are really, really nasty.

Like he said. I can tell the player or pass a note saying that they feel that the person in question is hiding something, or not being honest, or is preparing to lash out.

How you RP it is up to you, if it's me I tell the GM I am studying the person in question carefully, or ask for my impressions. Sense Motive is the social equivalent of Perception, really.

"Why are slings so bad?"

I have a halfling rogue in my party who regularly dishes out 12d6+24 temporary damage with one shot from a sling. He's killed foes with one shot just from temporary damage. It's enough to make me shudder.

I think monk is a great dipping class, not that great of a single class. Most of it's problems don't stem from the class itself per say, but rather from adventure design.

No, the class is badly designed.

• You are a melee class, with no decent ranged weapons, but emphasis has to be placed on dexterity because you cannot wear armour. Don't even start me on BAB.
  
• You have emphasis on a mental stat (Wisdom), but you can't cast spells.
  
• You have emphasis on movement, but your biggest offensive ability forces you to stand still.
  
• You have emphasis on unarmed strike, but it's hard to enhance and is in every other way a 2nd rate weapon choice.
  
• You have all these ki-powers, but half of them do not work well together and even when they do they cost too much or last only 1 round. Many are not as useful as spells at the same level, some are effectively useless.
  

Monks are fine in society play, cause you get to choose all your gear. For home games, the paladin is running around with some named full plate and an artifact longsword, the rogue's got celestial chainmail and a luckblade, the sorcerer has a staff of illusion, a maximize rod, and is building a flesh golem with the manual they just found... and the monk has bracers of armor +3 and is cheering cause he just found an amulet of mighty fists +2 (he's level 12).

And society play is at lower level, where the monk's flaws don't show up as badly. I agree, though, adventures are not exactly designed with monks in mind.

May he join Gary Gygax's table in whatever hereafter he finds himself in.

The DM's job is to keep the party alive while convincing the players he is out to get them.

For those who aren't familiar with that particular mythos; there are a number of myths/religions (arguably most of them, if you're counting all the ancient now-dead ones) where the soul was not a single discrete thing, and would include many different parts and urges, from one's connection to the gods to one's physical drives.

Indeed so, the ancient Egyptians believed there were seven discrete parts to the soul:

Certain undead could be aspects of different parts of the soul. Those without the Akhu are much less intelligent; those that are spectral incorporate the Ka; those that are unintelligent could just use a fraction of the sekhem to animate them; those that have no memory of the past life lack the Ba, and so on.

Yes, in a normal game is impossible.

I think this is about a simulate duel players vs Cthulhu

Essentially for bragging purposes, then...

Rapiers were made and in use before guns came about in Europe. Guns simply popularized them on the battlefield.

Certainly before guns became popular battlefield weapons, I agree. Plate armour was on the way out because of it's expense. Also because the nobility were getting out of the direct fighting - pre-Wars of the Roses the nobility had to be seen at the front of the army, but Richard III found out why that was a bad idea and was the last warrior-king of England. If the people with the most money aren't at the front, they don't need all that plate, and no-one else could afford it.

To be sure armour was still used after this point, it was still being used in the Napoleonic period, but it was a different kind of armour worn by a different kind of soldier to the armoured knight.

The rapier isn't a battlefield weapon (afaik, it never was); rather it's an improved and lengthened version of a smallsword. Of course the term "rapier" doesn't necessarily describe the same thing to all people; I think of it as a slim cut-&-thrust straightish blade about 4' long with a half-basket hilt & thumb ring.

So it's standard issue in the English Civil War of the 17th century and fact that the French Kings Musketeers carried it as their standard melee weapon in the 18th Century are what, exactly? These are swords made for and used on the battlefield.

It's an interesting conjecture but to quote the article:

"While knights on heavy horses had been one of the most dangerous forces on the medieval battlefield they were rendered significantly less effective by cannons and the widespread use of matchlock and wheel lock firearms."

And the problem with this is that it's dead wrong.

In the English Civil War pikes and cavalry were the main force, with muskets - at that period matchlocks - and canons providing supporting fire along with crossbows and longbows (which were more effective, but required greater training); wheel-locks and flintlocks had not yet arrived, and matchlocks had not even replaced crossbows and longbows. Yet the main sword was undeniably a form of rapier: a long, slender, sharp sword used to thrust rather than cut. Firearms had not yet really come "in" but the rapier was already here.

Armour had been reduced in complexity and coverage not because it was ineffective against muskets (plate was proof against early muskets for the most part) but to make it cheaper, covering just the vitals to maximise effectiveness but reduce cost. If you look at the standard armour of the English Civil War, it's easily adapted from one soldier to another, while full plate armour would have to be painstakingly resized if the owner put on a few pounds, let alone be fitted from one man to a different one. Off-the-peg armour had trumped tailor-made armour, based on price. You could turn out a lot of generic armour and train up a lot of men for the price of arming and training just one knight, and they were easier to maintain too.

Similarly, the reason the musket supplanted the longbow and crossbow had nothing to do with firepower and everything to do with ease of use. You could train an archer in five years, a crossbowman in a week, and a musketeer in a day. King Henry V famously annihilated a French army of knights with longbowmen at Agincourt, guns themselves were not a factor in knights being made redundant on the battlefield due to ranged firepower.

The rapier itself was the result of a steady progression of swords in Western Europe from generic broadswords to more specialised blades as economies grew. The "Viking" broadsword gave way to the arming sword and the falchion, and later the early rapier. Of these the rapier was not just deadly against both flesh and armour, but lightweight so it used less metal. Weight of equipment was, as ever, a vital consideration for a marching soldier. It wasn't the only sword around, it was just an optimal choice.

Imbicatus wrote:

Don't forget the capstone. You can completely erase yourself from having ever existed permanently. Yay?

Ok, I agree. That is a worst ability than voices of the spheres.

Agreed.

To be fair, by erasing yourself, you also cast True Ressurection on all allies in a 50ft emanation.

No limit on the number of fallen allies, and it's just a standart action.

Sure, the character can't ever be brought back, not even with wish/miracle, his name can't be spoken anymore (let's ignore all problems with that) and every written instance of his name becomes a blank space, so for the character himself it's pretty bad. But it can have its uses.

Yes, you can use it to reverse the TPK caused by you taking a really weak archetype of a really weak class into the game.

While we're on the monk at this point: Vow of Poverty - Exchange the entirety of your access to WBL in exchange for 1 ki point per monk level. You don't even get ki until you're level four, when people are desperately scrambling for boosting magic items.

That could work in a low-magic campaign, though, on a quingong monk where you can use it to get a lot of uses of some nice powers that could make up for rare magic items.

Ah, who am I kidding, it sucks.

I have just invented a new Law of Pathfinder: No matter how bad you think a class, archetype, or ability is for any other class, somewhere there will be monk archetype or ability that is worse.

Ah, we've come to the point in time where someone accuses 4E of dumping everything about 3.x and starting from scratch. WHILE IGNORING THE FACT THAT 3.X DID THE EXACT SAME G$$*&%N THING!

4e might have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, but 3.0 threw out the baby, the bathwater, the bathtub, and had the entire bathroom demolished.

Um...no.

Having played 2E, 3E, and 4E, I can confidently say that 2E and 3E have a LOT more in common than 3E and 4E. In fact, I would say that 3E actually took out almost nothing from 2E (well, it got rid of THAC0 but instead revamped the AC system to a climbing rather than descending scale), but added in a lot - a skills system, feats, etc. while 4E removed a lot and changed many systems like Vancian casting that were staples of all the prior editions.

Therefore 3E did not throw out the baby with the bathwater...because it didn't throw out anything. 4E did throw out the baby with the bathwater, because it threw out the shining advantage of the character class system - separate and novel mechanics - while keeping it's drawback of constricting play and indeed made it more profound.

2E and 3E are a fundamentally similar game, but 4E is a very different one.

Basically, those adventures are designed on the assumption that the players will grab the right kind of weapons, spells, equipment etc. In some they even give you the mega-weapon of doom that will vanquish their foes (Curse of the Crimson Throne). There's absolutely no point having Favoured Enemy: Reptilian Humanoids in Rise of the Runelords, for example, or a giant-bane weapon in Carrion Crown. Players making these choices will only be frustrated, so they offer advice against it. Even so, Giants are the foes no more than half the time in RotR, so there are plenty of occasions when the giant-slayer ranger doesn't get to rule the fight.

Psionic classes on the other hand are all about personal power and forcing your own will upon the outside world.

Ironically Aleister Crowley used almost the same words to describe magic in real life: that magic is an act of will which you force onto the world. All the chanting and props are just used to focus the will.

When my monk in Curse of the Crimson Throne drew the Empty Throne from the Harrow Deck of Many Things. She had started with the "Tortured Childhood" trait and had been an orphan whose Chelaxian mother died in childbirth and whose father had abandoned her. Off we went to fight Ileosa, and when we came back everyone was bowing and calling her "Your Majesty" - turned out she was the illegitimate child of King Eodred II via a married courtier and Neolander had been looking for her ever since the old king died...

Being a LG monk she actually made a pretty good Queen of Korviosa, too, ending conflict with the Shoanti, cutting ties with Cheliax, and rebuilding the city.

Chaco Rockhammer wrote:

claudekennilol wrote:

The high level caster feels outclassed? ...by a rogue?

He doesn't feel like he is doing enough damage. The rogue just outputs too much.

He is a caster. He is not designed to do damage. He is capable of doing damage. He should expect to be outdamaged, and as for the SR it is a very common defense at high levels. He will have to invest in feats if he wants to deal with it.

Or spells that do not run up against SR.

Wraithstrike has the right of it, the arcanist shouldn't be worrying about damage, he should be worrying about battlefield control. A caster should only be keeping a few AoE spells for dealing with swarms, that's all the damage he should be called on to do.

Seriously, the rogue is generally regarded as a weak class with limited combat potential, it's hard to make a very effective one.

ok, a few things i gathered.

1) the ranger is indeed sub-optimal. he took boon companion but his pet is only a defensive non attacking wall. and as a elf he has fewer feats.

Falcon bracers would up his damage output nicely, and if he's devoting feats to archery he should be riddling his targets with arrows. That his companion is just a wall isn't an issue - it just frees up anyone from having to worry about him.

2) the magus had some mistakes (not using action to add flame&shock, not using action for pool strike etc.)

Yes, this is quite a common cause for classes seeming overpowered - the player has excitedly read through the rules and missed the downsides of some of his abilities.

3) most fights indeed come to us...

Then you need to structure your encounters - enemies should use numbers and tactics. They should have missile weapons and be happy to hang back and use them to draw the party out. Unless they are rushing in because the ranger is shooting them up at range, in which case he is most definitely not sub-optimal...he's doing his job.

As for why your fighter seems underpowered, it's because he's taken the weakest fighting style around. Even so, at level 9 he should have Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Improved Critical and Weapon Training all racking up on those kukris. A full attack should easily kick out 50-60DPR, more if he uses Power Attack - in a well-built fighter. The fighter shouldn't be weak in DPR terms, but he is easy to get wrong.

My suggestion: give them a multi-foe encounter. It doesn't matter if the magus one-hits them, because there are more to take their place. Have the enemy in a good, defensive position, with ranged weapons, reach weapons, and standard melee weapons. Say, a gang of ogres with a defensive wall with two apertures, throwing rocks from behind the wall. This should take tactics and several rounds to get through, and it should take the whole party doing what they do:

Magus and fighter take an aperture each to fight the enemy.

Cleric summons allies to harass the ogres behind the wall.

Ranger to target the ogres throwing rocks.

Bard buffs everyone.

Another few sessions. Last week's the monk-player couldn't make, but the party did OK without him in a series of largely random encounters. This week he did, and the game continued.

Wow, mega session last night, and the boss-fight still isn't over!

Dabbler wrote:

On the flip, SKR did have a point about brass knuckles and famous martial artists.

Not really. When famous martial artists can teleport and speak to plants and animals and become immortal, then he'll have a point.

There is that, too.

Dabbler wrote:

Lots of things right from inception, and to be fair the nerfs were not unjustified EXCEPT that no notice was taken of the cumulative effect on the monk.

You got that right. Like how Flurry becoming TWF is a significant nerf to the monk in the long term compared to 3.5 flurry.

It's not TWF, and it was an improvement. The extra attacks you got from TWF and flurry left you at 3/4BAB -2 which basically meant hitting a lot less often. If your point is that flurry should have it's own mechanic, and only getting full BAB when flurrying, being a problem I agree. But it WAS an improvement from 3.5 - it just didn't go far enough.