Kyle_TheBuilder's page

Ok, so again: spoilers, this is for those that already played Gatewalkers

Basically I am looking for ways to make Book 2 better. I already have ideas how to fix "escort" part, GMPC party part and how to make Egede more exciting part with less idiotic contradiction and anti-climatic subplot of Committee for Moral Rectitude.

However, here is what I need help with: I want to start giving some tips or clues that Dr Ritalson is a shady figure and that there is something wrong with him, this whole quest and Missing Moment stuff. Adventure BADLY lacks any build up to revelation in Book 3 that's its all Dr Ritalson plan. Also I would like to give more clues about players being behind kidnapping and Osoyo, but I dont know how to do it so I don't spoil whole thing. Maybe something with dreams? I don't know. This "plot twist" seems too much 0-100 for me. I don't have ideas how to make it more building up through book 2.

Any advice is welcome.

how do you do this MAPless shield attack?

Btw. you can get second weapon group (including shields) scalling proficiency from Swordmaster feat "Martial Exercise" at level 10. This is the only way I know where you can make S&S Fighter and have at level 10 both your weapon and shield group at same proficiency. Good dip at level 8 to get Martial Exercise at level 10 and still snag some nice Archetype with Multitalented at 9.

You can also use Martial Exercise to be Able to Double Slice with Falcata and light Pick at the same time.

Answered by James Jacobs in 2015: Ask James Jacobs ALL your Questions.

They reproduce like birds (lay eggs), have beaks, and feathers but otherwise have humanoids traits. They don't feed chicks like bird, and if they do they keep it private.

Hm, I guess If that will be the closest one I can get, I will go with more bird features.

Thanks for finding that btw.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Like I don't feel comfortable making that "rulling" so if there would be any lore to take it out of me, I would appreciate that :)

Stepping back from your precise question, I'm wondering what else about this player and their character might be making you uncomfortable. Have you had a discussion about lines, veils, and other agreements around sexuality for the table?

The GM has as much input as anyone else about telling stories that make them uncomfortable. If you aren't comfortable with this ruling, what other spur-of-the-moment rulings might you be faced with when adjudicating this character's interactions with NPCs and other elements of the story?

lol, no, no. Don't make such conclusions, jeez. It's a friend of mine, he is not wierd or anything. It was a legit question. It was just strange, becasue I never thought about that (believe it or not in my 2 decades of TTRPGs nobody ever played a humanoid bird race) and I had a little brain freeze as it opened a lot of question. Don't jump onto my players please. I just want to know if lore says something about that and that's it. Sex stuff in TTRPGs is no issue for us, we are all adults at table. It was just something nobody ever thought of.

Pathfinder lore doesn’t often have anything to say about genitals - that’ll be a table decision.

Well, I dont expect direct quote but you know, maybe some books/novels mentioned a Tengu sleeping with other ancestry member, which would suggest one way or another. I don't know, never read anything from Pathfinder.

Like I don't feel comfortable making that "rulling" so if there would be any lore to take it out of me, I would appreciate that :)

So my player with whom I will be starting Gatewalkers wanted to play Tengu Bard and he asked me if Tengu , being humanoid brids have genitals or they have cloacas.

Now, I don't myself find this question wierd (if you want to roleplay a race, you may want to know more about it, I understand that, especially when it comes to maybe some cross-species romance adventures of PC) but I honestly don't know. I am really new to Gloarion and Pathfinder lore so I have no idea. I only know that Tengu are born from eggs reading about them on PF wiki. But I don't know how otherwise humanoid they are.

Anything in official lore?

Two-handed Reach weapon and Shield cantrip FTW.

Yeah, hard to beat Amp Shield. On level 9 that's 3x 15 points Block that don't care about hardness/BT, big/small hits, nothing. You can just block whatever. And if you stack Focus Points you can recast after 2nd Block to reset Amp Shield. And it works with Quick Shield Block.

My 2-handed Maul Fighter/Champion with Amp Shield and Quick Shield Block and Combat Reflex hasted by caster is equally tanky and devastating spaming Knockdown while at the same time having 1x AoO/Block, 1x AoO/Ret.Strike and 1x Block every turn for tota 3 reactions. It's just walking juggernaut.

The only downside is that you have to sustain it, so you need to commit to it, so it's best used when you can stand and tank boss as in other fights where you have to Stride, it's not that good. Unless you can get Hasted often, then you can Sustain, Stride and still have 2 actions for Offense.

magnuskn wrote:

SuperBidi wrote:

Just less organized parties compared to Deriven's (we have quite many conversations together and he seems to play always with the same bunch of players who have their specific way of playing, this is rather uncommon).

It is? Most people I know who RP have their "standard" groups, where only every few years someone new enters or someone leaves.

I don't consider Deriven's group a standard group. Not everyone considers tactics so highly when playing TTRPGs.

I play in groups that play together since ages, still I don't consider them as organized as Deriven's one.

I don't know. I play with same folks for years now (and some new ones) and at some point everyone start to play tactically as, like, I don't know, people get experience and want to perform instead of behaving for years like they have no idea that TTRPG grid-bases combat is basically a tactical board game. I had people that really didn't have grasp on tactics but they just picked it up from other players. Sure they were few that run solo into room as Wizard "becasue that's what my character would do" cliche, but they just died and stopped playing when they realized it's not Skyrim.

I don't even think what Deriven describes is some high-end coordinated tactics.. Like stay close to Champion because he can give you damage reduction and smack enemy that hurt you? Like you'd have to be really special to not realize that standing in correct range from him is good idea. Or not trying to stand 60ft from your Medic who has Doctors visiation.

Shields seem kind of less than stellar on Paladins. Like a class that has low damage per hit but gets extra MAPless attacks via its frequent reactions gets the most value out of maximizing its damage die, especially when two-handers are on the table.

Shields are a better choice on characters with high static damage bonuses, characters that naturally have a free hand, or characters who don't have great 2h options anyways.

Slap a shield on a barbarian, monk, or rogue instead. They'll be a lot happier.

What about Fighter then?

ottdmk wrote:

Keep in mind that the developers have stated that Sturdy Shields will still be the pinnacle of shield blocking options. The new runes (although I believe they're using another name than rune) will go a good ways to opening up other options, but Sturdy Shield will still be the best one for shield block.

But it will be a rune so you can upgrade other types of magical shields right?

It will be a rune to upgrade other shields Hardness/HP/BT, but NOT to the level of Sturdy Shields. Sturdy Shields will still have highest H/HP/BT.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Temperans wrote:

YuriP wrote:

This whole weirdness stems from how shield block was originally designed and what it ended up becoming.

During the PF2 playtest the original design of the objects, including the shields, somewhat resembled the mechanics of dying.
The objects had their hardness value like today, but instead of having HPs, whenever the hardness value was exceeded they received Dents, a condition unique to objects and the dents of all objects obeyed the same pattern, the first dent did not it did nothing, it just got marked, the "second" dent broke the object, while a "third" dent destroyed the object.
Also, just like dying, crits deal 2 dents in a single attack.

This exact mechanic was applied to shields, when the character blocked with it and the damage went beyond hardness, the shield suffered 1 dent, if it blocked again and went beyond hardness it received the 2nd dent and broke. And finally, if the shield was already on the verge of breaking (1 dent) and the character suffers a critical hit and still chooses to block it, it will automatically go to the 3rd dent and be destroyed.

The sturdy shield was developed at the same time, the difference between it and the normal shield was that it could hold 1 tooth more and had greater hardness.

However, this mechanic did not work or was not well accepted, and in the interval between the 2nd playtest and the final version, the objects returned to HP, but received the BT, probably to not need to rewrite all the part related to broken objects .

And that's where the whole weird part of the shields started. Magic shields, which like any regular shield, lasted 1-2 attacks, now lasted even less due to still being based on normal shields.
At the same time, the sturdy shield that should just have a higher hardness and therefore only block a little more damage and once more, is actually much better than any shield, as now they have a value in HP depending on from the amount of damage it

...

So let me ask the question: if we removed HP/BT, adjust Hardness (damage mitigation), remove Sturdy Shields and let all shields scale same as Sturdy Shields but with using Runes instead that would scale all shields: what would we lose that would make it worse than better?

YuriP wrote:

This whole weirdness stems from how shield block was originally designed and what it ended up becoming.

During the PF2 playtest the original design of the objects, including the shields, somewhat resembled the mechanics of dying.
The objects had their hardness value like today, but instead of having HPs, whenever the hardness value was exceeded they received Dents, a condition unique to objects and the dents of all objects obeyed the same pattern, the first dent did not it did nothing, it just got marked, the "second" dent broke the object, while a "third" dent destroyed the object.
Also, just like dying, crits deal 2 dents in a single attack.

This exact mechanic was applied to shields, when the character blocked with it and the damage went beyond hardness, the shield suffered 1 dent, if it blocked again and went beyond hardness it received the 2nd dent and broke. And finally, if the shield was already on the verge of breaking (1 dent) and the character suffers a critical hit and still chooses to block it, it will automatically go to the 3rd dent and be destroyed.

The sturdy shield was developed at the same time, the difference between it and the normal shield was that it could hold 1 tooth more and had greater hardness.

However, this mechanic did not work or was not well accepted, and in the interval between the 2nd playtest and the final version, the objects returned to HP, but received the BT, probably to not need to rewrite all the part related to broken objects .

And that's where the whole weird part of the shields started. Magic shields, which like any regular shield, lasted 1-2 attacks, now lasted even less due to still being based on normal shields.
At the same time, the sturdy shield that should just have a higher hardness and therefore only block a little more damage and once more, is actually much better than any shield, as now they have a value in HP depending on from the amount of damage it took, it was able to easily last and withstand far more attacks

...

As much as I like PF2e mechanics overall, I will be first to say that Shield rules as whole are big failure. They tried too hard to make overcomplicated mechanics, they overshot and then they had too little time and way too many things already in rules (like hardness, broken thresholds etc.) to redo Shields from scratch. And we ended up with Frankeinstein of shield mechanics we have no with Sturdy Shields we can't get rid off.

Shields should have been just tools without any stats for blocking, HP/BT, nothing. Just Raise for AC and feats that would allow you to use Shield Block with greater damage reduction effect. For example Shield Block feat should give you entry "you can block X Points of damage when you use Shield Block" and then every other shield feat you take (Reactive, Reflexive, Warden, Quick Block, Aggresive Block etc) increase that amount by X (how much is unknown, would have to been calculated from scratch. Simillar to how feats increase your weapon damage dice number, damage bonus, how focus spells increase focus points, how feats decrease MAP etc. You invest in being shield martial: you get better at blocking, that's not hard concept to grasp.

And in the end nothing would be missed. You'd able to use any shield you want/get and throw to trash bin whole HP/BT mechanic, becasue as harsh as I sound here, I think that's the place of those two stats for Shields and Sturdy Shields (meaning all shields shoulds scale like Sturdy ones).

Megistone wrote:

Deriven Firelion wrote:

Megistone's math is why I prefer the shield as resist all for Hardness. They aren't worth using instead of a bigger, higher damage weapon to kill faster. They don't reduce enough damage and are too easily avoidable on any class but the champion. It's also why I house ruled that the shield and the PC each take half the damage that gets through otherwise it's a double up on the shield and the PC. Makes them more worthwhile to use.

I'm not so sure about that. Just raising the shield is a 20-25% damage reduction in the scenarios I did the math for; if you also block the first hit each round, the total reduction reaches 45-50% (65% at level 1).

Switching to a two-handed weapon and using the second action to attack instead of raising a shield can almost double your damage output (I did the math for a level 1 fighter; I think that the damage output increase is relatively lower at higher levels), and that saves your reaction for something else. In a 1 vs 1 fight it's a wash: you either halve the damage you take, or double the damage you dish out. In a group combat situation it's more complicated: your damage is just a fraction of your team's output, and if the enemy focuses on you then having a shield is a phenomenal boon; conversely, if you aren't a preferred target, then your shield is useless and you have wasted potential damage output.

If not a champion or possessing Champion's Reaction, you don't have a way to force the creature to attack you and you also risk limiting your actions per round as you have to use an action to raise a shield. You may want to use a feat like Knockdown to prone the creature and set up AoOs. Or move. Or some other 2 action feat.

The monk and the champion use the shield best. The champion because of the reaction to force the creature to choose. The monk due to Flurry which has superior action economy.

The fighter has the means to greatly increase damage, so there is no real reason to focus on a shield over...

Truth to be told if you want to be "tank" you are much better with using Combat Grab (or Grapple action) combined with AoO to force enemy to fight with you. Shields make you nice brick, but brick can just be ignored.

Monk later has stumbling stance which works simillar, forcing enemy to focus on you.

If I were to make best "tank" I would probably do Combat Grapple/Wrestler Fighter, Champion or Animal Barbarian. Even Knockdown Fighter will force enemy to attack him as you already waste 1 action of him per turn and he has to Step away from you or eat AoO. Improved Knockdown into Combat Grab is probably best combo. Or Suplex->Combat Grab next turn if you went Wrestler and grabbed Martial Artist to also get unarmed scalling without your Weapon Mastery.

I wish Shield Bash could like immobilize for a round or something to enchance shield-tank gameplay.

Thank you all so far for giving all your opinion. I will add few cents from me:

1. I do not like that there are Sturdy Shields. Period. It's wierd design decision, seemed last last-minute hotfix to hot-garbage shields were before it was applied. All shields should (depending on their level) scale just like a Sturdy Shield do. I know they add some runes for that in Remaster but that again just looks like desperate patching a mechanic that was (in my personal opinion) a failed experiement. The whole Shield Block, Raise, HP, BT is overcompliated. More moving mechanisms: more chance of something will break.

2. The fact that first Sturdy Shield is level 4 is something I don't like. The first one should be level 2 becasue level 4 in some scenarios (like 1-10 campaigns) is actuall very late. Of course GM can throw him one earlier (I know I would) but I just think the gap on level 2-4 is too big as Steel Shield becomes wet noodle

3. The BT mechanic didn't make any sense for me. Ever. I can't wrap my head around why it does exist even. Why not just have HP and simplify it. HP 0 = shield broken and you can't use it to Raise/Block. I don't see a reason for HP and BT to even exists aprat from desperately trying to make Crafting do something... Same is why shields do even get destroyed? Our weapons don't get destroyed, runes don't wear out, armor (aprt from very very situational scenarios that I never see anyway) don't get destroyed, wear magic items don't get destroyed. Yet shields, even magical, do... why?

Overall I find them lackluster myself, taking free-hand, with overcomplicated mechanics attached to them, requiring quite a feat investement and don't do much in return. I mean, they feel good when you block all those attacks, but I would rather just have some self-heal/Amp shield as damage mitigation and still have free-hand/two-handed. At least that's how I see it after looking at people feedback and general thoughts everywhere.

possibly making flurry of blows require unarmored as well.

That was also my proposition, however It doesn't solve all the problems becasue I totally didn't notice that everyone still get unarmored proficiencies lol. Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue and Rangers get unarmored Master, Champ Legendary. As long as they planned ahead and got DEX to 20, it's not an issue and pretty much only Champion could have problems with finding room for DEX boosts since he has to boost CHA.

I still stand by opinion that Flurry should not be given by dedication. But even moving it from level 10 to level 14 feat would solve a lot of issues.

By my comparison of a level 8 maul fighter attacking 3 times with their maul and no special feats comes in at a DPR of 29 flat. Using exacting strike boosts this to 32.

I can see why looking at just flurry + 2 attacks looks deflated by comparison (21.7432) but Dragon roar+ki strike+1 attack is 29.71425 and 1" Punch and flurry is 26.7435

So the Maul fighter with exacting strike is 7% better damage than the Dragon Roar+ki strike+1 attack Monk. Is this a problem? And does anyone really think boosting monk's accuracy here isn't going to seriously topple the fighter's damage? By my calculation, the monk with master proficiency just using ki strike and attacking 2 more times here would do 38.1, and Ki strike flurry+2 attacks is not better than Dragon Roar+Ki Strike+1 attack (but a lot easier to calculate).

Why would anyone play a maul fighter if a monk can just flatly do more damage? At level 10 the maul fighter is getting an extra reaction attack, but the monk has one, and the fighter needing to have the opportunity to use 2 AoOs a turn in order to do more damage than the monk feels like it would be pretty wrong.

But you are still beating here a dead horse becasue you are making comparsion on levels 1-9. As I told you, and @Deriven Firelion - monk is fine on levels 1-9. He plays there more less on same level as other martials. Also that Maul Fighter using Exacting Strike is just doing that, Exacting Strike. From level 1. You had to pay 2 Focus Points in 1 turn to do that, spec into CHA + Intimidation (so what are your DEX, STR, CON if you had to boost your CHA and intimidation for Dragon Roar to work/success? Also if you boost Intimidation, what you didn't boost? Athletics or Acrobatics?) to do simillar damage in 1 turn becasue full 3 actions offense is a realm of other martials. A Fighter doing Knockdown -> AoO will deliver 2x 0 MAP D12 Strikes with Maul. A level 10 Fighter Can Do Improved Knockdown->Press -> Attack of Opportunity for 2x 0 MAP + -5 MAP D12 attacks. No Focus Points paid, no resources spent, no Stances to enter. Same with Flurry Ranger. They also don't have to invest into anything, STR goes naturally with Athletics, two-handed natrually with Knockdowns.

The strength of Monk is to utilize action economy. Doing Raise Shield, Flurry/Ki Strike, Aid or Doctors Visitation, Battle Medicine, Flurry etc. is what monks excel. Yes, you can do what you did to get close to Fighter typical turn by using all that resources, packing CHA, Intimidation etc. or you can do what monk should do which is utilizing action economy. Cause if you'd want to stand and do 3 actions offense: play Fighter, Barbarian or Flurry Ranger at this point.

The problem starts on level 10, where Monks feats just don't do him any favour. Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue gets new great feats every 2 levels (or passive damage scalling) that further keep boosting their damage/accurac/number of attacks etc. All that without resources tied to to it. And they can steal Flurry from monk if they want. My calculations showed you how hard Fighter out-monk Monk at levels 10+ if he takes Flurry and plays plate armor unarmed monk.

What we would like is for a monk to get some boost at those 10+ levels too, like upgrades to Flurry (more attacks, or less MAP, or damage boost, anything), earlier feats increasing their unarmed damage, earlier feats adding for example Deadly/Fatal d6/d8 to his attacks, Agile Grace access. Anything so his main thing: Flurry is scaling. Becasue his Flurry just don't do anything new at levels 10+. While main features of other martials are keep improving, they are getting more and more.

Monk 1-9 is fine, he has clear advantages and disadvantages. He is not Fighter or Rogue, but he is definitely on level with Champions, Rangers and Barbarians. But from level 10+... He kind of just stops scalling and his feats are dissapointing.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

You can just Stride, Raise Shield/Heaven's Thunder, Flurry instead.

The best defense is a good "not being there."

Why wouldn't you Stride, Flurry, Stride away instead?

Because that's not a good tactic unless every single party member would do the same and that's also hardly optimal considering lost of action for damage, trips, flanking and reactions setup. If you have one other martial in party, then doing that you are playing selfish becasue:

1. You are leaving him alone there to get all the hits since you run away. And you have high HP, high AC, reaction that makes enemies not want to move away from you. Now you left other martial and squishies to get the heat becasue you run away. Focus damage is best tactic not only for players, but also for monsters. Now everyone will pile on other martial.
2. You are stripping your martial buddies of potential flanking bonus since you run away instead of flanking. You are great for providing that since you are mobile. So they should run to front of enemy becasue you have enough movement to run around and give flank
3. You are opening slot for enemies to flank your buddies instead from all sides.
4. If it's for example Champion you denied him a trigger for his reactions as his co-frontliner.
5. You are not trying to trigger other reactions, including yours. If you did instead Stride, Raise Shield, Flurry of Manvouers: Trip->Strike then on enemy turn since you and other martial are next to enemy you would both get trigger for Stand Still plus Attack of Opportunity.
6. If combat map is small you gained nothing apart from not playing with team as enemies will stride to you anyway and now nor you, not your other martial are flanking and you are outside for example Champion reaction or Fighter AoO.
7. If you Stride enough far away using your superior Speed, enemies will just target all the squishies you left behind since they are closer/slower and there is no martial next to them with Stand Still/AoO to prevent them from moving.

The only time where I can see this tactic for Monk as optimal if you are "3rd one" martial in party (for example there is Fighter + Barbarian) and they are flanking enemy, either tripping or grappling him and you are just getting in, doing your damage on flat-footed enemy and getting out. But if you have Stand Still and you coordinate you could all three of you trigger 3x additional 0 MAP reaction attacks on same enemy this turn.

There are situations where something like that might be good idea, but generally you should coordinate with your team to try to flank, setup reactions for everyone and use your reactions. Not play outside of your frontline. Also as one of three "beefiest" melees you should be there to split damage done to frontline, not pile it on others. You are not squishy.

Even Rogue wants to be close enough so he can get Opportunate Backstab reaction. That's 0 MAP additional damage. One of the main things of playing frontline is to try to coordinate for reactions.

Nobody plays them in all campaigns I play right now so I have no personal experience with them apart from some little math I did. I mostly think probably people just don't want to bother with tracking HP/BT, calculating how much damage they can block, having decision breaks in middle of combat (should I block that much damage or not?), repair after combat etc.

So I don't personally have an opinion whenever they are good or not and how Shield Block scales on levels 1-20 on characters that want to do it.

I know Blade Ally (Shield) is basically the stapple to buff that, so probably if you want to Shield Block you should be Champion or archetype into Champion for that. Sadly Quick Shield Block feat comes quite late (level 8 earliest) so that Block fights with AoO/Champion Reaction.

Anyway, what is your experience with Sturdy Shields and characters that build for Blocking. Do you consider it good enough? Does it scale well with average damage dealt as levels go up? Do you think it's worth investment over free-hand, dual or two-handed or just using shield for AC bonus and don't bother with blocking?

Would be nice to look at it from APs perspective where encounters level +2 and up are very common. And let's skip talk about Amp Shield as I know it's a great alternative free of all the HP/BT stuff. Let's just focus on Sturdy Shields and Shield Blocking.

I forgot that. Monk usually has to open a fight getting into a stance unless they take Stance Savant I think. That does take an action.

Yup and Stance Savant comes at level 12. Till then, Monk, like Barbarian is basically Slow 1 in first turn all the time.

That's why I like Monastic Weapon at levels 1-9, you don't have to use 1 action in first turn to enter Stance. You can just Stride, Raise Shield/Heaven's Thunder, Flurry instead. With average combat duration of 3-4 rounds in PF2e every action economy advantage matters.

Your math on 3 action attacks is for a different level where a bunch changes with runes so it is not comparable to my level 8 analysis, which is where my character picked up 1" punch. The math on Dragon stance attack order gets very complicated with backswing and what accuracy point it is better to switch over to making regular unarmed attacks. It isn't too bad at 2 actions yet, but it is when we get to 3 actions where full map attacks come in and the difference can be a full point of damage on average (at level 8). Adding another damage die changes this even more, as does damaging runes and things that happen on a crit. It doesn't look like Crit kings tool is making those decisions in its calculations so it complicates what I am seeing with your numbers.

I am trying to work on work stuff and not PF2 stuff, but I did look at the 1'P +flurry stuff and interestingly, at level 8, if you can Ki strike, then Dragon roar, Ki strike, and third attack will probably be the best 3 action combo (29.714 without the enemy already being frightened), but once you run out of Ki strike, 1" Punch + regular flurry (26.7435) becomes the next best 3 action option, with flurry+2 regular attacks coming in at (21.7432)

This is what I mean by the monk not being as straight forward of a class as I think people think it is. Every martial class has to think about what their accuracy range is vs their opponent in deciding what attacks to make, but the combination of Good focus point options for increasing damage with flurry, good debuffing options with feats, and good focused damage attacks, there is a lot of moving parts to deciding which attack to make as a monk.

If someone was just looking at flurry +2 attacks as the best possible option with the monk, they would be underestimating the monk's damage potential by a full 25%.

I am curious where the fighter is at level 8 and what they are doing at this level with their 3 actions.

First of all, don't write me random numbers. Show me the graph or your calculations, level range, enemies AC, enemy. You saw what tool I used (https://bahalbach.github.io/PF2Calculator), you can use it and verify my calculations if you want. I can send you my Routine codes even. I can't verify yours with you just throwing random numbers without anything else.

Second, my calculations are for realistic scenario. You have to Stride, you have to use your Stance, you have to use X etc. Your calculation in vaccum is what is way more unrealistic. And I didnt use any damage runes as I wrote.

Also what you are talking about Backswing is automatically calculated inside that tool. It takes it into account when calculate damage. All weapon traits like Agile or Backswing are getting calulated automatically by tool when making average results. Same with Fatal/Deadly if it applies etc.

Third, your "combo" of Ki Strike, then Dragon roar, Ki strike doesn't make any sense from Focus Points effective usage. You can do Flurry only once (it has Flourish) so you waste a Ki Strike on one single attack at the end of turn instead of using it second turn for two strikes from Flurry again. That's the definition of wasted turn/resource and MAP reduction source (ask yourself whats more optimal: +1 status bonus to -8/10 SINGLE strike or +1 status bonus to 0 MAP and -5/4 MAP TWO Strikes. Come on). It's as far from optimal as you can get. Also, when did you enter Stance (1 action), Stride (1 action) before that? My graphs showed possible turn 1 and turn 2 scenario where both builds try to deal maximum damage using Flurry but first they need to start somewhere.

Also your argument about accuracy doesn't make sense. Monk doesn't have any better accuracy than other martials and actually: Rangers have better accuracy on average due to Flurry MAP reduction. As I showed you my calculations: MAP reduction and accuracy is the king of DPR in PF2e. You would have stack crazy amount of flat damage bonuses and buffs/debuffs to offset that.

What's even worst: any source of status bonus in party: Inspire Courage, Bless, Marshal Stance, Heroism etc. basically eliminates advantage of Ki Strike. Especially at higher levels.

Now, if Monk had feats at level 10+ that would upgrade Ki Strike status bonus to attack and duration, that would be different story.

Deriven was skeptical of looking at three action attacking so I am running math for 1, 2 and 3 actions that can be spent attacking. Here is the math on 2 actions which could be spent attacking:

2 action Dragon stance options (8th level vs AC 27)
1" punch - 13.5
Ki strike flurry + 1 full map regular unarmed strike - 25.56 (25.51 with a backswing tail lash instead)
Regular flurry +1 full map strike - 19.1432
Dragon Roar then Ki Flurry - 27.11425 (29.88375 if target already frightened)
Estimate: Dragon Roar then regular flurry is probably around 19.53ish if not already frightened and 21.3ish if already frightened)

Note that the Dragon Roar is worth doing even if the enemy is already frightened, because then you get the damage bonus even without risk of failing to intimidate so the damage of a Dragon Roar vs an already frightened enemy is higher.

2 actions to attack is where the monk falls off hard. I ran out of time to do the regular Dragon Roar and Flurry so the last one is an estimate based on the difference between regular flurry and Ki Flurry, but the critical shift is going to matter a lot here so the estimate is rough.

The difference between a flurry and a flurry with an extra attack is about 10% more damage. Roaring with the 2nd action is twice as effective if you can ki strike your flurry, or 3 times as effective if the target is already frightened. My math here is actually off because I just realized that I didn't add in the possibility of critically succeeding on the roar and dropping the enemy to frightened 2. There are an obscene amount of moving pieces with this calculation so I am not sure exactly what that would change but I am guessing it would probably boost Dragon roar and flurry up to about 29 and DR+F vs already frightened 1 enemy up to 30.5.

2 action 1 inch punch is a terrible choice comparatively. I probably won't get to the 3 action attack cycle until later tonight or tomorrow. Deriven did say that he doesn't like 3 action attack cycle white room math because it is...

I will just math you the issue with Monk and Fighter (and other martials) being able to loot Monk at level 10.

Free Archetype.

Monk level 12: Archetype into Heavenseeker for +6 dmg per Strike and into Rogue for extra 1d6 precision per Strike. Handwraps of Mighy Blows of Greater Striking +2 using Dragon Stance (3d10). We go with level 12 instead of 10 so we give monk advantage with Stance Savant here so he can still Heaven's Thunder for +6 boost for both Sequences. His second graph is for Stumbling Stace so we get Agile and backstabber. Enemy if flat-footed.

Stats are 20 STR (no property Runes for both)

1st Sequence: Stride, Heaven's Thunder, Ki Strike
2nd Sequence (2nd turn): Ki Strike, Strike, Strike with Stumbling Stance

VS

Fighter level 12: Archetype into Monk at level 6, taking Stumbling Stance and WoB/Ki Rush at level 8, Multitalented Rogue at level 9. Level 10 Agile Grace and Flurry. Level 12 Sneak Attacker and Ki Strike. Handwraps of Mighy Blows of Greater Striking +2 using Stumbling (3d8). Enemy is flat-footed

1st Sequence: Stance, Stride, Ki Strike
2nd Sequence (2nd turn): Ki Strike, Strike, Strike with Stumbling Stance

Here is graph vs enemies on levels 12-15 (for the sake of showing graduation) level +0. 1st Sequences: https://imgur.com/aYJ91RV

Here is graph with added 2nd Sequence, same enemies as above: https://imgur.com/1nGE9L8

Here is graph vs enemies on levels 12-15, Level +2: https://imgur.com/GAoPIAM

So the point is that: Accuracy is the king of damage. MAP reduction is the king of PF2e. Agile Stance also allows for taking advantage of backstabber and Sneak Attacker. Fighter can literally become a better monk at levels 10+ thanks to him having +2 accuracy in Unarmed and Having access to Agile Grace at level 10. Mind you I don't count here that he can get two Attacks of Opportunity on top of that, Heavy Armor Master, Bravery, and if you build him correctly for that level 10 transition (by using Martial Artist for example) you can easy double weapon proficiency (Group + Unarmed) before taking Monk. Hell, you could not do that and go for Monastic Weaponry.

Now this is only when Fighter feels so. He can still get more DPR by going Double Slice, AG, Flurry route with dual Picks/Falcatas etc, but the point is: Fighter looting Monk of Flurry + having Legenadry in Unarmed + having Agile Grace on top is basically killing monk.

And that's without even mentioning a superior defensive action economy version of Fighter with Monastic Weapon + Flurry + Stance Savant and Paragon Guard Stance having Perma Raised Tower Shield, being able to out-action economy Monk at levels 12+ as Fighter will be able to Take Cover, Flurry/Ki Strike, Attack/Stride/Whatver with 3 actions while Monk forever will be locked into Raise Shield, Take Cover, Flurry/Ki Strike if he would like to maximize AC + still doing his thing.

I could also show you here graph of Deer Animal Wrestler Barbarian taking Monk and his Flurry alone and using D12 reach unarmed attack combined with Furious Grab, Tharsh etc. and he would also out action-economy Monk at levels 10+ with his superior damage dice and flat bonuses and (Funny enough) you can take Heaven's Thunder on top of that on Deer Animal Barbarian before level 10 for another +6 flat damage bonus for him. I don't really feel as making another graph but I think you can see how Brabarian with unarmed D12 + Rage + STR + Weapon Specialization + Heaven's Thunder + reach etc. can out monk monk in unarmed combat. Elf Thief Rogue with Monastic Weaponry + Ancestral Weaponry + Flurry can become a Sneak Attack machine at level 10 with Elf Branch Spear on top of his excellent class chasis. With Free Archetype that's not big price for double Sneak Attacks for 1 action with Reach Finnease Deadly weapon and ability to Ki Strike on top.

To sum up issues/possible solutions:

1. Monk dedication should not give access to Flurry. Period. I have no idea who thought giving basically THE CLASS FEATURE to other classes is good idea.
2. Monk should get access to upgrades to Flurry to decrease his MAP/increase damage/number of attacks, anything at levels 10-18
3. Monk should either get access to Legendary unarmed or Legendary Unarmored as choice or be given access to Agile Grace at level ~12-14.

I'll probably be doing this math in sections but I did the 8th level monk with Dragon Stance doing 1 action of attacking, so I will share it here now. I may get to 2 action and then 3 action later today. I built a new monk who's focus is attacking, not casting to give the cleanest results. I will add in 1" punch for the 2 action and 3 action comparisons. The character also has ki strike so these will be added into the comparison as well. For kicks, to test out the hypothesis of the OP, I have also added in a boosted attack proficiency for comparison. At level 8, I am assuming no damaging runes, just +1 striking.

This is against a level 8 creature Average AC of 27, with no buffing or debuffing: It does factor in backswing.

8th level 1 action flurry is 16.5432
8th level 1 action ki strike flurry is 22.96
(8th level 1 action flurry shifted up a proficiency is 21.5475)

feel free to compare to one action of your favorite other martial. Also, 2 focus points is pretty easy to have by level 8 so in the remastered game, this would be 2x an encounter single action damage for ki strike.

Excuse me, but what is that? Nobody asked for 1 action vs 1 action, as we all here said that this scenario: Flurry vs other martials 1 action is the main advantage Monk has over other martials.

You said above that your Dragon monk does 3 action offense on levels 6-10 using One-Inch-Punch into Flurry. That's the math I want to see becasue I litereally told you that you take away from monk using that his action economy advantage.

Now you want to compare 1 action for 1 action, which is the thing we said: Monk advantage, until on level 10 other martials can steal it from monk on top of their own advantages.

I have no idea what math you want to make here as it's obvious that two Strikes are always better than 1 Strike so obviously Monk doing 1 action Flurry (two Strikes) will be on chart statistically better than other martials doing 1 action Strike. That's like asking if two apples will be more than one apple.

I have no idea what made you suddenly go with this one as nobody here ever denied that 1-9 level Monk 1 action economy is superior to other martials. I am starting to abosolutely getting lost in arguments you are trying to make as they make no sense.

Are we comparing 1 action vs 1 action now? 3 action vs 3 action? Or DPR vs DPR which is Damage Per Turn (per turn, not per action), meaning a statisticaly fair comparsion here is (for DPR) a Flurry vs 2 actions of other martials unless you want to tell me what other offesive stuff your Monk is doing with his other 2 actions.

One inch punch, at level 6 + flurry is an attack with an extra damage, then a -4 or -5 attack then a -8 or - 9 third attack ( the math on this gets tricky because dragon tail has backswing, but you can always make a regular D6 unarmed strike in dragon stance so you can evaluate how easy the target is to hit and how well debuffed it is).

The monk’s 3rd action after 1 inch punching has way better returns on attacking than the fighter’s after power attack. The abilities are not the same and you haven’t looked at the math close enough if you think they are.

I am sorry, I didn't look at what math? I am open for you to show me average DPR calculations charts of that tactic on levels 6-10 of Dragon OIS into Flurry and prove to me that it's anything that would make Monk damage output at full 3 actions (!) high enough to justify risking -8/10 attack at such low level. Show me, I will run it vs Double Slice, Flurry, Exacting using weapons instead of Stances at same level range. If I am wrong, numbers will show it and I will admit that as math is always enough proof for me. Not to mention you basically trade everything that gives monk some edge over other martials for spending 3 actions on just attacking.

If you look at Flurry Rangers doing TT->2 attacks you'd realize that even for them at levels 6-9 it's still -4 MAP and they will miss, especially on higher level enemies. But they are the only class where that many attacks is justified as -4 is good enough.

One inch punch combines well with flurry. It doesn’t have the Map issues of power attack and it scales at higher level. A monk in close is one inch punching and making 2 additional attacks. It is much better than making 4 attacks, the last 2 being a -10 or -8.

What? No, that is just incorrect. There is absolutely ZERO mathematical evidence that this is good strategy. OIS into Flurry would still put your 3rd attack at -10 or -8 MAP.

The only class that can really make 3+ attacks at those levels are Flurry Rangers with Agile weapons as that brings their 3rd and 4th attack to -4 MAP. But that's their whole class mechanic. And even then: they miss fairy regulary.

But attacking with -8 is just nonsense when it comes to your last action. That's just gamble. That's not viable strategy for effctive usage of your last action. You would be much better statistically to use Raise Shield there, Step, Aid etc. anything but attacking with -8 MAP.

Also again, using OIS->Flurry is 3 full actions for just pure offense. Why at this point not play Doube Slice Fighter/Giant Barbarian, Flurry Ranger etc. I don't see advantage here.

The big damage boosting feat for the monk is one inch punch. With a D10 damage die it is very strong, especially at the highest levels where it scales well and you get perfected form. One inch punch is the mega hit 1 attack feat that power attack isn’t. Doing a 2 action one inch punch with a follow up flurry is pretty solid, especially as 1 inch punch is only one attack with no added map for getting extra dice.

Being a hybrid caster does require some buy in. Inspired by Michael Sayre, I have been playing a dex 10 dragon monk who started with a 18 STR, 14 WIS and 14 CHA. At early levels, it was all kiting attacks that hit hard enough to make enemies move around to me, letting them make 1 attack, which would usually hit, but trigger our party champion’s reaction reliably every round. We also had a cleric, so it was healing in abundance. By level 5 your spell DC/attack is 1 behind a full caster, but at most you have a focus spell that cares about this. Level 7 you fall to 3 behind,but you still don’t really have many spells for it to matter yet. Level 9 you are back to 1 behind and you stay 1 behind at level 10 when you spell casting stat goes to 18 but the dedicated caster goes to 20. As now you actually have some spell slots and are getting enough gold to buy more spell casting options without interfering with your fundamental runes. At level 15 you are back to 3 behind again (of a full caster only, not a summoner or a magus or a war priest), but 2 levels later you are back to 1 behind. At 19 and 20 you are back to -3/-4 with apex items. If you go with a 16 starting casting stat, then level 15 is only a -2 and level 19 is only a -2, but 20 is a -3 to 4. So very much if the game you are probably around -2 compared to a full caster. The thing is, when facing a solo monster, you don’t try to beat them by casting offensive spells at them. You are a martial first. You are using spells to cover your defenses, boost the damage of your strikes, and buff yourself. If the enemy has a high AC and a low save though,...

Sorry, but math doesn't support what you are saying. One inch punch at level 6 is just PA that gives option for 3 action for additional dice. Everybody who do math in PF2e knows that 2 strikes > PA and that with 3 actions Exacting Strike > PA->Strike. Same with Double Slice > PA etc. By simple statistic if you spend all 3 action on single attack, if that miss you deal ZERO damage. That puts that tactic on average way lower than Stuff like Double Slice, Twin Takedown, Exacting Strike or just attacking twice, especially with buffs, striking/elemental runes, flat damage bonuses and debuffs (PA scales worse the more debuffs and buffs/flat damage bonuses you have becaue of MAP compensation and multiple seperate damage riders). I can run you math with full charts vs various enemy level range/AC to show you that. One-Inch Punch makes you do 2 or 3 action offensive stuff as Monk. So why play monk at this point?

If what you want to do is to spend 2-3 actions to do melee offensive stuff, you do what other martials do but worse. Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue and Ranger will outdamage at level 6 OIS and will out damage it at level 10. Why play monk if you don't use it's superior Flurry action economy. That's like playing Champion and not using their reaction or playing Ranger and not using their Hunter's Prey.

At level 18 OIS looks better. But that only confirms what I am saying. Monks have HUGE hole from level 10-18. They pretty much stop scalling. And on level 1-9 they are not even ahead becasue Stances don't compensate enough vs other martials.

Also You "hybrid caster" monk has 10 DEX? So unless you are using Mountain Stance you are 5 AC behind? And if you use Mountain Stance, till level 12 in first turn of combat you are very very vulnerable and I don't think party would appreciate wanna be caster martial who runs with horrible AC and has to hide behind them before first turn starts so they don't get crit to death on lowest perception martial in game before they get their first turn.

I mean, I understand that for you it's fun concept, fun build to make caster Monk but at this point... why not just play caster? You will never be as effective as caster and you will suck hard as martial doing what you are doing. Monk casting stuff is not something that gives him any real edge over other martials. If martial would want to be caster, he would play caster. Hell, if I want to make hybrid martial caster I would roll Magus for that.

That's the problem with monk. They don't do anything exceptional at some point. At level 1-9 their best selling pointis action economy with Flurry and ability to get Agile 1d8 attacks. This gives them enough to keep them relevant with other martials. However, that's it. Monks needs something, especially at levels 10+. Feat upgrade to Flurry, damage upgrade to Flurry, MAP upgrade to Flurry and Flurry of Manouvers etc.

If adding in casting archetypes is part of the class, than the monk can pick up a casing archetype like bard, which works out pretty well for them because they can spare an action or two a round very easily.

I didn’t mention the rogue specifically because the sheer number of skills and skill feats available to them keep them from over specializing. They can often take all the skill feats they want to use and still have many extra.

Not every class can be built to be the best melee combatant in a 25 by 25 ft room. In my example, mobility was only one out of several other things a monk can do. The maneuver monk can be quite strong. Paizo gave monks a ton of feats built around pushing enemies though and I think players generally write that off as a tactic right away. Prevailing tactics I continue to see from mid level to high level are knock an enemy over, swarm them and dog pile them with attacks and reactions that trigger when they try to stand up. I think it is ok for fighter and rogue to be the best martials for exploiting this particular tactic. I don’t think making every martial have a built around participating in that kind of thing is necessary, although the monk can participate in it pretty well. Just not by taking 3 to four actions to make as many attacks as possible.

I think you are certain to be disappointed with the monk if you look at the flurry of blows ability and think that the purpose of that class ability is to be able to make an extra attack at a -8 penalty every round.

First of all: I don't understand your casting archetype argument you keep repeating in all threads. Nothing makes monk a good caster. They don't get Legendary DC, they get slower DC progression, they can't allow themselves to fully invest and maximize either WIS or CHA without dumping CON, STR or DEX. We know that even full casting players feel 50/50 at higher levels (especially vs level +2/3 enemies) when it comes to their Save spells and they have luxury to target weakest saves at that point with different effects and many slots.

Sorry, but I do not see how monk having above average casting progression is his strong side or how he can archetype into casting archetype, with Painfully slow slot progression and that's somehow great. He has to sacrefice taking anything that would boost his main job as martial for that. Meaning if the archetype into worse side of his kit (casting vs striking): he didn't how Heaven Seeker for HT, he didn't go Rogue for Sneak Attacker, he didn't go Champion for reaction etc.

Mobility stuff I already commented on and here in other threads many had simillar experience: martial mobility is overrated, official APs (and most do play those) don't support it and there many easy ways for martials to get high Speed using magic items/ancestry feats.

As far as Manouvers go, yes manouver monk can be quite strong. But so can other martials.

Free-hand Fighter is absolutely brutal lockdown machine with Combat Grab and Knockdown, also getting Dueling Parry for +2 AC (which still allows him to be main frontliner) and Dual-Handed Assault for 1d12 attacks with Bastard Sword for example without need to break Dueling Parry or any other free-hand feat effects. Warhammer Fighter with Combat Grab is brutal lockdown and damage machine that can frequently waste min. 2 enemy action or suffer perma prone condition debuff. Falcata free-hand Fighter can still use Knockdown and Combat Grab while having that Fatal d12 one-handed weapon Strikes. Giant Barbarian with Gill Hook and Giant Stature can lock enemies down with Grapple, support that with Furious Bully, Tharsh etc with 15ft range while delivering much higher damage and having +2 cricumstance bonus to Athletic checks (and they get Furiosu Grab at higher levels). Deer Animal Barbarian grappler with d12 unarmed reach attacks (hi there Monk) at level 7 also can lockenemies down (with Expert Unarmored and +5 armor AC bonus from Animal Skin). The Monk with Stand Still and Flurry of Manouvers (using unarmed or Temple Sword for trip trait) can do Trip->MAP strike->Stand Still combo. It is an effective strategy. However, if that's what you want to do, Knockdown Fighter just does it better becasue I will take 2 actions without MAP (Strike + Trip) over 1 action with -4/5 MAP on class that is -2 accuracy behind me anyway. I have the same issue with Wolf Drag. It's great. I love this feat. However, if what you want to do is spending 2 actions for Strike+guarantee Trip to trigger your Stand still... you just play Knockdown/Improved Knockdown Fighter at this point becasue you stop using your main advantage that is Flurry. Mixed Manouver Monk can do Trip->Grapple, that's great, but Fighter can do Trip->Combat Grapple which has same chance on tripped enemy to land but will also deal damage on top. 2 actions again. The strength of Monk is their 1 action for 2 economy. Everytime you build monk to use 2 actions for martial stuff, you do what other martial do but less effective.

Also nobody said anything about doing -8 extra attacks every turn? I don't see anything like that. The main focus on every martial should be: trying to deliver 2 Strikes where possible and trying to setup an athletic manouver like trip/grapple etc. without (if possible) sacreficing damage output.

But I don't want to be all negative becasue Monk up to level 10 is good fronliner that can combine tanking with control:

STR 18/DEX 16 Human Monk taking Rush, Ki Strike, WoB at level 4 with Flurry of Manouvers at level 6, FA into Fighter for AoO at level 4 and Reactive Shield at level 6, using Tower Shield first and Fortress Shield from level 7 makes a very tanky fronline tank:

1. Easy +3 AC either by Raise or using reaction if actions were tight (especially on turn 1 if using Stances and not Temple Sword)
2. Up to +4 AC if next turns can just stand next to enemy and spend all 3 actions
3. 1 action for Trip->Strike, to fish for AoO trigger.
4. Best self healing thanks to 3 Focus Points and Wholness of Body, becasue WoB doesn't provoke AoO from enemies unlike Lay on Hands so you can Raise, Heal, Flurry or Heal, Heal, Flurry and Reactive Shield for +3 AC.
5. Taking Heavenseeker later and Rogue for more damage boosts as we have actions to use Heaven's Thunder.

Up to level 9 I think this is one of best frontline tanks/controllers you can make. High AC, 2 great reactions, 3x self heal per combat, still doing 2 strikes per turn (either from Flurry or FoM->AoO)

However, I still belive you would be better with free-hand Fighter instead with Medic/Blessed One/Champion, as you would tank less, but you would definitely hit more and trip better. That second strike in Flurry of manouvers will be frustrating on misses. I don't like how the only damage increase option for monk is Ki Strike, which 1 focus point per 2d6 extra damage up (if -4/5 MAP strike hits) until... level 9!!! +1 bonus is even worse. If it was circumstance it would be much better. It just doesn't blend with Bless, Inspire Courage, Heroism, Inspire Martial in party. Feels like a waste. WoB is their best Ki Spell on level 1-10. 1 FP to maybe get 2d6 more damage, in many cases just 1d6 becasue you will miss that second attack just feels... bad.

Sadly it all crumbles for Monk at level 10 and up. There is just nothing there anymore till like level 18 and at level 10 everybody who wants to monk, can monk better. But don't even need that Flurry. It's just option for them to take it.

There is also a GMing issue going on if players are choosing abilities designed to run up walls and across water but most encounters are happening in small quarters. GMs need to be aware of the abilities their players are choosing and whether the game they are running is good for those abilities or not. But that is outside of the scope of things the monk class should offer as feats.

Even if GM makes more stuff like that just so Monk has any usage from CLASS FEATS (I can't stress this enough, this cost class feats!) that player spend on very situational usage, that still will be way more situational than encounters without those gimmicks becasue 3 or 4 other players won't use them. Also if only Monk can do that, that will often lead to Monk being seperated from rest of the party and spreading out in PF2e is a big no no.

So even in your example where GM would place more situations for those feats to shine, they would still be situational, not regular because he has other players in party, not only wanna-be-spider-man Monk.

And again, those were class feats. That means player will be worse in majority of combat situations anyway, even with such GM, than if he took a generally-always-good combat feats like WoB, FoM, MM, Wolf Drag etc.

If you allow me, I will give my piece of opinion here based on the various analyzes of both mine and your fellow players about the monk.

Yes, the monk is legendary in Defense without armor and as pointed out by Deriven Firelion this usually means he will have a slightly higher AC than most martials. However, we cannot ignore that it can be increased to the same AC as the champions using Mountain Stance + Mountain Stronghold + Mountain Quake, which makes the Monk defensively a tanker.

I only want to chip in for that as this probably another misconception (that Mountain Stance is good tanking option for Monk) and I think this is another thing that people miss when they think that Monk defenses suddenly off-set other martials higher damage/combat potential:

1. First off all - it costs 3 feats to maximize Mountain Stance. 3! That's abnormal investment for something that Champions get automatically without spending any precious class feat. You sacrefice tons of utility, control, reaction and offensive stuff for that.

2. It locks you pretty much into just one Stance forever, because to maximize Mountain Stance investment you had to dump your DEX (to min 14 at some point). Otherwise the gain is not worth it. A 18 DEX Monk has same AC as Mountain Stance. A 18 DEX Monk with Shield has only 1 less AC than Mountain Stronghold Monk using MS action for +2 AC (same as Raise Shield). But first one is using for example Dragon Stance for 1d10 damage or 1d8 agile (lower MAP) Stance and didn't have to pay feat for just 1 AC more. And finally Mountain Quake feat at level 14 (!) gives equivalent of Full Plate. 1 AC more than 20 DEX Monk (which even 18 STR/16 DEX monk gets at level 15 or 12 with GAB) for 3 feats, married to one Stance and p.3 below.

3. It makes you actually less tanky in first turn of combat, where you don't have your Stance on (till level 12). If you planned to be main party tank and maximize Defense, you can actually get crit to death in first turn becasue Mountain Stance doesn't synergize with one of the Monk main disadvantages: horrible Perception progression, meaning low initiative.

If someone would like to play a full tank Monk he would be better with 18 DEX Monk with Tower Shield and fast 3 FP (rush, Ki strike, WoB) for Wholeness of Body at level 4. But that means that our offense is kind of weak and so is our reaction.

At level 5 a Fighter Full Plate +1 and 18 DEX Monk with Explorers Clothes +1 have the same AC when they Raise Shield. And while Monk has free Action for take cover from time to time, Fighter has Reactive Shield to skip having to Raise Shield in his turn if he needs to.

So overall I agree here with @Deriven Firelion, that Monks do not have really that big defenses to compensate for Fighters +2 and feats, Champion Reactions and Heavy Armor Expert at 7 and fact that other martials can snatch Flurry at 10. I don't think "Legendary in unarmored" is good argument. In my opinion.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Yes, accuracy is damage too but that doesn't mean that Fighters get only their proficiecny and that's it. Fighters get damage boost from their feats. Dual-Handed Assault with free-hand build is damage boost (going from 1d8 to 1d12+circumstance bonus), Double Slice is damage boost (-2 to 0 on second attack is damage boost due to accuracy as you said, but Double Slice is exclusive to Fighters and DWW and it doesn't blend with Monk at all), Certain Strike is damage boost (even at -10 as 3rd attack that's boost), Brutal Finish is damage boost, Combat Reflex is damage boost (double AoO per turn), Agile Grace is damage boost, Dual Weapon Flurry is damage boost and so on. So while Fighter doesn't get flat bonus like Barbarian, they get damage boosts from feats.

Sorry, is the issue about unarmed combat are not? Because you started that list with weapon specific options which don't entirely feel relevant to me. That aside, monks also have damage enhancing feats. Ki Strike is extra accuracy and damage which can trigger common weaknesses with follow up feats, Wolf Stance gives you a d8 backstabber/finesse/agile weapons and most stances do something similar, tiger slash is extra damage dice without MAP issues like power attack, ki blast is AoE damage that martials otherwise lack. Not to mention various control options which can turn into damage with team. Whirling Throw + Blade barrier = the juice.

Quote:

Also Monk mobility is in my opinion a little overrated and misleading argument for Monks. Barbarians get +10 Speed in Rage. Any martial for low price can do Trick Magic Item + Trained in Arcana and Wand of Longstrider (2) to get +10 Status Speed for 8h per day and it allows to save class feats. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions for 2. A Fighter doing Sudden Charge -> Strike is spending 3 actions for double Movement (let's say 20+Fleet+Longstrider) so 70ft (could be easy 80ft with Nimble Elf, Unburdened Iron, Nimble Hooves, Swift etc. from Heritage) Speed and attacking

...

The issue is unarmed combat but it's you who stated that Fighter doesn't get damage increases but everyone say they do most damage, and that's becasue of their feats, which do increase their damage, partialy becasue of their much higher accuracy, but also becasue of their excellent feats. So let's not pretend Fighters only do most damage just becasue of their proficiecny.

Yes, Ki Strike does increase damage as well as Stances. But till level 12 Stances are action tax and I said earlier, the Stances are not giving that much boost compare to weapons, backstabber is +1 dmg until very late levels. Regardless, even with all that Monks are behind Rangers, Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians when it comes to damage. Math was done many times. Ki Blast as was already mentioned is not valid argument as Monks spells DC is terrible. And as I said, Monk after level 10 can be out-monked by other martials as they can get their Flurry.

And "Your guy" started to play few months ago but bold of you to assume I only play one campaign. I am currently playing Ages of Ashes, Abomination Vaults and Agents of Edgewatch. I will be also GMing soon Gatewalkers and I already saw combat maps. I could count on two hands situations in all of them where I had to even Sudden Charge, especially with Wand of Longstrider (2) or fleet step, which is cheap investment for party to save their martial actions. Never seen issue with buying one at level 6, especially since APs rain you with Potency and Striking runes, reducing a lot of gear cost if party knows what they are doing.

Also no, Monk is not "doing things like Flying Kick (basically Sudden Charge that ignores difficult terrain), wall running, or outright flying without dropping gold on an item." because he has no place for all that feats unless he will sacrefice feats by not taking Ki Rush, Ki Strike, Wholeness of Body (3 Focus Points), Stand Still to have some reaction, Flurry of manouvers, some upgrades to Stance etc. Also gold > class feat. If I can buy something instead of spending class resource/feat on that, the cost is cheap as cost of items gets cheaper the higher you go, while feat cost stays the same.

Personally, I'm not sure monks should get a damage booster at all. They already have better defenses than other martials and better mobility as well, though feats like Sudden Charge and Sudden Leap can help offset that gap. The class which functions closet to the monk defensively is champion, and they get no consistent damage boost. For mobility, the closest are the Swashbuckler (limited by panache generation, worse weapons, and finisher loops) and the Summoner (who burns an action every round just to deal two handed damage.)

Range and mobility are qualities the community undervalues in my opinion-- and Paizo seems to share that opinion based on their design decisions. If you don't care about those things and want to be legendary at unarmed combat, you can play a fighter with the monk or martial artist archetype. It is similar to how if don't want to cast spells as a significant party of combat but want to smash things with a big hammer instead of casting spells, you should play a champion or magus instead of a war priest or Sorcerer.

Side note: the auto correct on my phone picks and chooses which classes it wants to capitalize seemingly at random.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think they should get Legendary Unarmed proficiency myself. Fact is Legendary Unarmored proficiency is one point higher than Heavy Armor master proficiency. Legendary Unarmed proficiency would probably just make the monk a slightly better damage dealer given they don't have the heavy damage boosters of other classes.

I'd take that moderate damage booster.

Fighters don't have damage boosters either, and people call them the best damage dealing class in the game. Accuracy IS damage with PF2.

If it feels bad that flurry can be poached, monks should get something else unique that can't be. (I mean, they can already with various class feats and metal strikes, but something else too.)

Yes, accuracy is damage too but that doesn't mean that Fighters get only their proficiecny and that's it. Fighters get damage boost from their feats. Dual-Handed Assault with free-hand build is damage boost (going from 1d8 to 1d12+circumstance bonus), Double Slice is damage boost (-2 to 0 on second attack is damage boost due to accuracy as you said, but Double Slice is exclusive to Fighters and DWW and it doesn't blend with Monk at all), Certain Strike is damage boost (even at -10 as 3rd attack that's boost), Brutal Finish is damage boost, Combat Reflex is damage boost (double AoO per turn), Agile Grace is damage boost, Dual Weapon Flurry is damage boost and so on. So while Fighter doesn't get flat bonus like Barbarian, they get damage boosts from feats.

Also Monk mobility is in my opinion a little overrated and misleading argument for Monks. Barbarians get +10 Speed in Rage. Any martial for low price can do Trick Magic Item + Trained in Arcana and Wand of Longstrider (2) to get +10 Status Speed for 8h per day and it allows to save class feats. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions for 2. A Fighter doing Sudden Charge -> Strike is spending 3 actions for double Movement (let's say 20+Fleet+Longstrider) so 70ft (could be easy 80ft with Nimble Elf, Unburdened Iron, Nimble Hooves, Swift etc. from Heritage) Speed and attacking Twice. Monk can Stride twice and use Flurry or he can use Ki Rush but here is the catch: there goes the Focus Point, so no Ki Strike/Wholeness of Body. Sudden Charge is free (and its losing Open in Remaster).

Also at level 15 most STR martials have Legendary in Athletics which means Cloud Jump which suddenly becomes better mobility option that Striding at this point anyway.

Mobility is viable argument but it's not that big of a deal. I mean if anyone played official APs: we know big open areas are rarity.

The fact is that as long as Fighters get stuff like Paragon/Dueling Dance stances that allow them to get constant benefit of something that cost action (which monks can't do becasue they need to enter their stances so even pouching Dueling Dance from Duelist is not solution) and stealing Flurry on top is just another pile of issues.

What Monks should get is an upgrade of some sort to Flurry of Blows that cannot be grabbed via archetype, to give monks a unique benefit that helps to boost their expected damage output. This could be done in different ways, but I don't think changing their proficiency scaling to get legendary is the answer.

I would be fine with that too (idea I mean), but with removing Flurry from archetype feat list. Core class features should be unique, same as you can't get Ranger Flurry/Precison with Ranger dedication and you only get very very weak version of Exploit Vulnerability from Thaumaturge Dedication or very nerfed Sneak Attack from Rogue dedication, you dont get font from Cleric dedication etc. Getting full Flurry of Blows is too much. Like Remove Flurry from Monk and their whole advantage vs other martials crumble to dust. Now at level 10+ any martial can get Flurry.

And to continue on what you said: obviously if someone smarter than me could think of some other way to make Monks Monk better, then I am all for that.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Monk in my opinion is very solid class, but them not being Legendary in unarmed on top of other martial being able to get their Flurry while running in armors is an lore/thematic and mechanical balance issue.

This are two separate issues and I don't see how one has to do with another.

"Monks need a stronger, unique mechanical identity" and "so they should poach Legendary proficiency" don't follow each other.

Yes, those are two seperate issues but they bog down to same thing: Monk is not Monk enough, don't monk enough (getting stronger) at levels 10+ and other classes can even monk better at some point than Monk can.

1. A Fighter has better proficiency in unarmed attacks than class that is all about unarmed mastery. That is partially mechanical issue, but also partially just class identity/lore/theme issue. I just don't see why class that gets proficiency in every single weapon category in game can be Legendary in unarmed while Monk, who gets only proficiecny in simple and unarmed (which translates to all his feats and almost every single Stance) can't get Legendary in that one unarmed group they are mostly identifed with as class/class theme.

2. Other classes being able to totally replicate Monk main action economy shtick with Monk dedication at level 10+ and achieve thanks to that even better action economy than Monk can is pure mechanical issue I have with Monks. No dedication should grant core class feature to other classes. Funny is, most dedication make sure of that (Ranger, Rogue, Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, even Fighter), but they kind of forgot to place same limiation on two other dedications (Monk and Champion).

I never really got this insistence among some people that certain classes should 'own' certain fighting styles. Making Fighters worse with unarmed weapons does nothing to make the monk (or any9one else) more appealing. It's a really lame idea and I genuinely can't figure out why someone would think it's a good thing.

Monks have some issues, but they don't really have any particular need for legendary proficiency, which is basically just a fighter class feature.

If there's any mistake here, it's Paizo choosing to use an existing framework for fighter mechanics instead of just giving them an untyped bonus to hit. After all, nobody gets all righteously angry and pouty about how unfair it is that unarmed barbarians get rage.

That is fair argument, but the issue also lies in Archetypes and Fighter.

As you said yourself above: "legendary proficiency, which is basically just a fighter class feature."

Fighter can get Champion Reaction (core class feature) by getting Champion Dedication. They can also get Lay on Hands/Ranged Reprisal and Deity Domain. On top of being Legendary.

Fighter can get Monastic Weaponry and Flurry (core class feature) by getting Monk Dedication. They can also get Ki strikes, Ki Rush, Wholeness of Body etc. On top of being Legendary.

The problem is that Monk/Champion can't get Legendary from Fighter dedication. This creates issues where main feature of class can be "stole" by ONE class that will always be better at hitting stuff, which is, let's not kid ourselves a main thing martials do first and foremost: they hit stuff.

There is a reason (and good decision behind it) why Ranger dedication doesn't give Hunter's Prey Flurry/Precision feature. That would also meant that Fighter would be better Flurry Ranger. Same reason why Rogue Dedication give hard capped Sneak Attack. Becasue otherwise Fighter would be better Sneak Attacker than Rogue. I have no idea why Monk and Champion dedication didn't get same treatment.

We could "bite" this issue from different angle: and for example either remove Flurry/Champion Reaction from dedications or for example make Flurry of Blows have prerequesite: you are unarmored. This would prevent 10 DEX Full Plate Paragon Guard Fighters to be better action efficient Monks than Monks are. They would have to sacrefice AC.

Monk in my opinion is very solid class, but them not being Legendary in unarmed on top of other martial being able to get their Flurry while running in armors is an lore/thematic and mechanical balance issue.

This seems to be the problem with legendary proficiency in weapons. It's meant to emulate the full BAB + weapon focus of PF1, and do so using the same proficiency system the rest of the game uses. It is an elegant solution, but one that feels bad to some people. They get aggravated about not having that last bubble filled in. In the playtest, I remember getting really annoyed with someone who thought his bard should become legendary in rapiers.

Especially since many players don't come from PF1 so it has no other conoations to them apart form "Fighter gets Legendary in every weapon they want, other martials in none". Apart from that the truth is that Fighter already steps onto to many other martial toes (dual wielding/range vs Ranger, two handed "unga bunga" vs Barbarian, Fighter/Champion vs Champion, Shield Fighter vs Shield Champion, Duelist/fre-hand vs Swash, Unarmed/Martial Artist vs Monk etc.) especially with how Archetypes allow it (Fighter/Champion and Fighter/Monk being biggest offenders) as they can do same main thing as good/better as other classes but get Legendary in weapon on top.

I started this game with Fighter (finishing campaign soon with Fighter/Champion build I have) and now I am playing 2 other martials (Champion and Monk) in 2 other campaigns and starting soon 3rd (Ranger) martial character and I really feel this issue "I could have just made a Fighter or Fighter/Archetype instead.." becasue +2 is really just that good.

Bard example was extreme, but if we put there any other martial class instead: I understand the frustration.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

If monks should have legendary unarmed proficiency... should rangers have legendary bow proficiency? Or legendary proficiency whenever they wield a weapon in both hands?

Well, I don't want to start here a thread about all other martials (especially since Ranger is not any more a range focused class) so I would appreciate if we stay on monk. However: I wouldn't mind (obviously that would have to been better made than what you mentioned) it overall. In my opinion Fighter is already best martial just becaue of his feats, style flexibility, role flexibility and class features, without even taking into account his Legendary in whatever he wants.

Other martials having their own Legendary weapon/style group-niches in my opinion would be really cool and it would be better for game. Fighter still would have flexibility to choose in what he wants to be Legendary in and be eventually in everything. But other martials should have their niches for that.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20. There are a lot of campaigns going to level 20 and one of the main selling point of PF2e as opposed to for example 5e is that it plays to level 20 without problem. Even Abomination Vaults recommend and mention to switch to Ruby Phoenix after finishing.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

If the issue is that fighters are better unarmed attackers than monks are, then my preference would to limit fighters' unarmed proficiency rather than boost the monk class' offense.

Similar to how gunslinges are limited to guns, fighters could be limited to weapons.

While a possible solution, there would have to be an errata to Martial Artist dedication feat as otherwise it would give Fighter Legendary in Unarmed anyway becasue it scales with your weapon proficiency increases.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

As for Flurry, yes, they would attack more, but I don't think they would unbalance anything. They would just have accuracy as Fighter. They wouldn't have damage like Fighter, feats like Fighter or stuff like Combat Reflex and many other staple Fighter great combat feats. Also even with +2 accuracy and Flurry monk wouldn't even come close to Fighter best damage builds.

The problem isn't that Monk would be too much like a Fighter with the added proficiency. No, they wouldn't have all of the Fighter feats.

The problem is that they would have damage and defense approaching that of the sword and board fighter but with a lot better action economy (flurry of blows vs raise shield), better accuracy on multiple attacks (d8 agile weapons, remember), and more general combat utility (movement abilities and free hands for grapple/trip/items). They would be more effective overall even if they don't match the maximum damage of a 2-hand weapon Fighter.

Maximized damage output is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. In PF2 it is quite arguably not even a good measure of it.

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has Paragon Guard Stance and can also get Stance Savant, same as Monk. Meaning a Monk with Tower Shield can attack twice (Flurry), Raise Shield and Take cover. Paragon Guard Fighter has permanent Raise Shield so he can attack twice (2 actions) and take Cover, having same effective action economy as Monk. Plus Fighter doesn't need Stance to get his damage (unlike Monk whos Stances up his unarmed damage) so if he wants to maximize defense + offense he can get same effective action economy as Monk while having also easy 3 reactions (quick shield block + combat reflex) without issue.

Not to mention Fighter on top of being Legendary in unarmed if he wishes so has Agile Grace at level 10, making his Unarmed attacks (if he wishes so) to be even more accurate than Monk can ever has. But that's not all:

Fighter getting Monk archetype around levels ~8/9/10 (depending if Multitalented etc.) can get Flurry + Monastic Weaponry + Paragon Stance.

So now your Fighter with Paragon Stance can have Perma Raise Shield, Flurry, Take Cover and still have one action left AND is Legendary in Monastic Weaponry. Something Monk can never achieve, bringing Fighter (if players wishes so) into better action economy than Monk. Obviously that's a matter of build but the fact is: Fighter can do it. Monk have no way of doing that. You can make better Monk with Fighter on level 10+ with better action economy.

As for being both Legendary in unarmored defense and unarmed, I agree here that's why I think there should be choice here for Monk. But I still think that Fighter steps on way too many other martial toes with all the options he gets.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

The fighter's schtick is that they're the best fighter with whatever weapon they choose to use - in this case, fists.

A fighter/"brawler" gets legendary prof. with unarmed, but they don't get all the mystical bullshit that comes with monk normally. There are tradeoffs and right now, the monks schitck isn't "I am the unarmed fighting master" it's broader than that now and takes into account more aspects of 'monkery' than just the unarmed combat.

Technically all the "mystical bullshit" as you called it comes from feats. So monk going for full unarmed combat and picking non-Ki feats is one of the possible Monks aspects by design (same as Fighter picking shield feats instead of 2 handed/free hand feats to flesh out unique Fighter style). If I recall correctly from Paizo, they wanted to move away from mystical stuff on monk into more martial artist. Probably why all the Ki Stuff is optional and not a base class features any more. Which doesn't fit in my opinion why Monks wouldn't get at least option to be Legendary in unarmed attacks.

Monks already have Legendary 'unarmored defense' so giving them Legendary Weapon Proficiency would probably be a bit much, even if it is only with Unarmed attacks.

Traditionally, Monks have only had a 3/4 or 2/3 attack bonus progression in these games.

As I suggested in my other post: you could give Monk at level 17 a choice: either Unarmored Legendary or Unarmed Legendary. Not both. Having an option is better than not having an option.

For which levels?

Fighter only gets legendary in weapon groups at level 13. So they could build specifically for Brawling group for the unarmed attacks. And I think that should be allowed. If they pick Sword group, then they won't be the legendary Kung Fu master either. But if they do pick Brawling group, why shouldn't they be legendary at Kung Fu as much as a Monk is? That is what the character is being built to be.

Fighter does get legendary in all unarmed attacks at level 19. Along with everything else other than advanced weapons. I'm not sure why unarmed attacks should get a specific exemption from this though.

Now, the other tweak you are mentioning is giving legendary proficiency to unarmed attacks to the Monk. The only other class that I am aware of that gives legendary proficiency in any weapons is Gunslinger - and they pay dearly for it. Basically they get proficiency at the same level as a Fighter that chooses Firearm as their specialization group. What they pay for that increase in proficiency is that Firearms take at least two actions to fire - which slows down their attack rate. Monk with unarmed attacks wouldn't have that problem. In fact, with Flurry of Blows, they have the opposite effect. If we gave them the Singular Expertise of Gunslinger for unarmed attacks, then with Flurry they would have the Fighter level of accuracy and be making more attacks per round - with d8, agile, free-hand weapons.

Correct, but don't forget that Fighter archetyping into Martial Artist can get double Legendary on level 13 becasue of "Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency rank in all unarmed attacks." So Fighter that wants to be Legendary in unarmed can still be legendary in any other weapon group he wants for little investment since unarmed Fighter would want Martial Artist archetype anyway.

As for Flurry, yes, they would attack more, but I don't think they would unbalance anything. They would just have same accuracy as Fighter in very narrow group. They wouldn't have damage like Fighter, feats like Fighter or stuff like Combat Reflex and many other staple Fighter great combat feats. Also even with +2 accuracy and Flurry monk wouldn't even come close to Fighter best damage builds.

I don't really think a monk with +2 accuracy to unarmed (and that's that) would unbalance anything vs Fighter. Fighter is too good to be unbalanced by that.

As for Gunslinger argument - you have to take into consideration that Gunslinger is range class. Range always have to pay little extra in balance terms becasue they are sitting usually at back and are safer and have better action economy (since they don't have to Stride/Step nearly as much as melee classes). So that's also part of price Gunslinger pays.

As for what levels? Monk should imo have same unarmed progress as fighter. Start at expert and be Legendary at level 13. Or stay like now but get Legendary unarmed at 17. Still better than not at all.

And I have no idea why monks don't get crit spec at level 5... just, I don't see argument here. Unarmed crit spec is bad anyway becasue of DC scalling horribly, but still, why they have to pay feat for it.

Also fighter is also used to represent brawler from 1e (it even has a less annoying version of its versatility feature), and yeah brawlers and fighters could have better accuracy and damage with unarmed strikes due to weapon spec and focus (which one of the paizo people have said legendary is meant to emulate) while monk got all the stuff like faster movement and flurry. It's pretty much always been like that. Also monks getting legendary in unarmed but not weapons even with the feat that makes you a weapon monk is probably one of the worst ideas I've seen, why would anyone pick it?

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

As for weapon monk - a fair argument. It was just an idea so Fighter still has his weapons shtick, which I am fine with. But monk not being legendary in unarmed just feels so dam wierd.

Quote:

but also a reason from devs: why Fighter is more proficient in unarmed than Monk?

Do you mean a reason besides the monk going to Legendary in their defense (when most martials cap at Master in both offensive and defensive proficiency)?

And yet Champions also get Legendary so Monk is not a exceptional sacred cow here, like Fighter is. So I don't see anything against monk getting Legendary in unarmed.

Hell, you could just give Monks a choice at level 17: "You either mastered your defenses or your offenses. Choose to either become Legendary in unarmed defenses or in Unarmed weapons"*. Which would also present interesting choice.

Giving my voice as to what I think is really one of the biggest mechanial mind boggles for me in PF2e. And I am saying it as a big Fighter simp, mind it.

How for Gods sake is it that a Monk, whose whole class legend/myth/power fantasy/lore/history/identity is being a master of unarmed fighting (originating from Kung Fu legends), of martial arts, is not getting Legendary in unarmed while Fighter does? And why Monk doesn't get crit spec of unarmed by default and needs to spend feat?

Now I am not against Fighter getting Legendary in weapons. I understand that they are Fighters and they are like masters of arms. However, the only thing that Fighter should not be Legendary in is Unarmed attacks. That should be monk.

Normally I am not a guy who sews mechanics with lore, however this one thing among martials just doesn't fit the class identities in my opinion. Monks are people who soley, for their whole life, try to master unarmed techniques. They learn various of Stances (martial arts), various of unarmed deadly techniques (like one-inch-punch) or learn how to (as the only class) use a Ki to further enchance their unarmed mastery. They are only proficient in simple and unarmed for that reason, becasue of how big focus they put into it. Even Monastic Weaponry being feat shows that it's something outside of their expertise without additional training.

Yet, despite all that training and dedication to unarmed martial arts and all the mystical ways to enchance them and rich traditions of monks Houses, Monsteries etc...

Here is a guy, a Fighter and he just happes to be Legendary at unarmed. Not only unarmed. Everything else. Monk player playing with Fighter/Martial Artist in party feels just wrong when Fighter is MASTER at unarmed but monk is only Expert? How?

Whos should be more Legendary in unarmed? A guy who just punches or a guy who achieved such greatness in unamred fighting that his fist are adamant, magical, cold iron, silver and can channel energies through them? What sounds more "Legendary"?

I wish we could see a change here in Remaster but also a reason from devs: why is Fighter more proficient in unarmed than Monk? It's like Wizard having better divine font than Cleric... I just don't get it and can't wrap my head around it.

For me it should be: Monk Legendary in Unarmed, never in weapons (even with Monastic Weaponry), Fighter legendary in weapons, but never in Unarmed.

That's just how I wish it could be.

You will no more being flat-footed but off-guard.
Attack of Opportunity now will be Reactive Strike.
Illusion still a trait with rules.
Positive damage/energy is now Vitality damage/energy, negative damage/energy is now Void damage/energy.
Saves are now Defense.

lol, I honestly didn't expect those to be license things... like "positive" and "negative" is hardly WoTC creation, those are common terms... Saves also. "Attack of Opportunity" I get, it's specific term. Also how "flat-footed" is an license issue where that is litereally medical name of "having a condition in which the foot has an arch that is lower than usual."

Seems little over the top to change those.

ki monk need to have their spell dc base on str or dex

cleric ki blast have 4 higher dc than monk

that just doesn't look good for monk

Even though Monk doesn't have much DC Ki Spells, I agree 100%. I wish I could make Monk that uses Ki Blast becasue I think it's awesome but the terrible DC makes me skip it every time.

The Raven Black wrote:

The above made me slightly worried for Monks who do not use Ki powers. It now sounds like a suboptimal built whereas it was a perfectly usable version previously.

Supposing that the only change will be what we already know, then that is exactly what would happen, yes. At least the suboptimal part. The offense from Ki Strike and the sustain from Wholeness of Body at the very least are incredible tools to pass up.

On the other hand, non-ki monks are exactly as usable as before. As far as we know their effectiveness in combat should be identical to before, which is to say pretty decent by popular perception. All that changes is our perception of them, as we are presented with something that seems (and probably is) more effective. With the changes coming this late in the game, I think this will cushion the perception shift a lot.

But at the end of the day, yes, it sounds like ki monks will be objectively more optimal. It'll be interesting to see what steps, if any, Paizo will take to limit that shift. Because we can be absolutely sure that they see those problems as well.

Besides, lets also be honest. "More optimal" in PF2e term is very little difference. Reach Fighter/Champion is definitely more optimal than greataxe Fighter/Dandy but it's not like PF1e, DnD 3.5/5e. It's like 10-20% difference at most. So such things as what is absolutely the most optimal only will matter to powergamers like me who sit with excel weeks before campaign and make tons of builds for their upcoming character and squeeze every % of advantage they can get.

For majority of players a small difference like that won't be a reason to play or not play certain build/class/style. Hell, it's even hardly for me becasue PF2e is so balanced as I sometimes choose some options becasue I like them, not becasue they are mechanically stronger (which is new to me in RPGs). All thanks to excelent math behind system.

Besides even by sheer law of statistics, even if differences are small, something must be at top and something must be at bottom with everything else in between. But if difference between top and bottom is small, then apart from extreme competetive players: it doesn't matter for most.

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

The above made me slightly worried for Monks who do not use Ki powers. It now sounds like a suboptimal built whereas it was a perfectly usable version previously.

Well, before taking Ki Feats was suboptimal as you had only 1 FP so it was much better to take feats that work always. It's like saying that you are worried about clerics who won't use their Deities Domain spells. I mean, part of chosing classes with Focus Spells is to use them. Monk was designed around Ki Spells and in my opinion the FP rules before remaster were countering the whole PF2e Monk design.

However, I also disagree with you. A Bo Staff Monk just going for Flurry, Stand Still, Flurry of Manouvers and only Ki Rush/Abundant Step for extra mobility is perfectly fine build for skirmisher.

However, if you want to make "in-your-face" striker monk then Ki Strike, Sacred Ki, WoB and Perfect Strike from Student (combined with Sky and Heaven Stance) is perfect for maximizing your striking damage with Ki Strikes (or tankiness with WoB) but you sacrefice control as you are unable to take feats like Flurry of Manouvers/Mixed Manouvers or Stand Still.

So in my opinion it's better now as Ki builds are finally viable due to fact that average combat in PF2e is 3-4 rounds. Before that you were better to not take Ki Spells and focus on mundane combat feats.

One of the goals for the PF2 Monk in the playtest was to make non-mystical (ie, no Ki-power) Monk a perfectly fine choice.

Ki-powers were designed from the start to be an option and not a requirement.

So, completely different from Cleric, or even Champion.

And I said above, a non-mystical Monk is pefectly fine, you have tons of great feats you have to chose between when you level up Monk. You can't have everything. Stand Still, Mixed Manouvers, Flurry of Manouvers, Stunning Fist, Wolf Drag/Tiger Slash etc. are all great non-Ki feats and you can't have them all and at the same time have Ki Rush, Ki Strike, Sacred Ki/Elemental Fist, Abundant Step and Wholness of Body with Wind Initiate as ki-range option as backup.

You have to pick your poison. Monk has so many good feats now that Ki is viable that it makes me want to play 3 monks in 3 different campaigns now, while before a Ki Strike Monk wouldn't even cross my mind.

Non-mystical Monk is as good as it was. He wasn't nerfed or anything. It's Ki-Monk that's finally good becasue before there was no point in doing Ki focused Monk with pathethic 1 FP/combat. But with 3? That's great now.

The above made me slightly worried for Monks who do not use Ki powers. It now sounds like a suboptimal built whereas it was a perfectly usable version previously.

Well, before taking Ki Feats was suboptimal as you had only 1 FP so it was much better to take feats that work always. It's like saying that you are worried about clerics who won't use their Deities Domain spells. I mean, part of chosing classes with Focus Spells is to use them. Monk was designed around Ki Spells and in my opinion the FP rules before remaster were countering the whole PF2e Monk design.

However, I also disagree with you. A Bo Staff Monk just going for Flurry, Stand Still, Flurry of Manouvers and only Ki Rush/Abundant Step for extra mobility is perfectly fine build for skirmisher. Combine with Tiger Stance for longer Steps or with Tangled Forest for extra control.

However, if you want to make "in-your-face" striker monk then Ki Strike, Sacred Ki/Elementa Fist or Stand Still (dependig on campaign), WoB and Ki Rush from Student (combined with Sky and Heaven Stance and Heaven's Thunder) is perfect for maximizing your striking damage with Ki Strikes (or tankiness with WoB) but you sacrefice control as you are unable to take feats like Flurry of Manouvers/Mixed Manouvers or Stand Still. Not much usage of reaction here as opposed to above so you have to find something for yourself (like Champion reaction for example etc.)

Or combine both for some mixes. A lot of options now.

So in my opinion it's better now as Ki builds are finally viable due to fact that average combat in PF2e is 3-4 rounds. Before that you were better to not take Ki Spells and focus on mundane combat feats. Now you have more options to mix and match Ki spells focus vs manouver focus. A Wolf Drag monk for example won't have much usage of Ki Strikes, but can have of Ki Rush, Abundant Step and WoB.

I absolutely love this change and we jump onto it as soon as we heard it will be new RAW in Remaster so no point waiting :).

Immidietly we saw great improvement on lower levels, mostly 1-6 where certain more focus classes/casters got well-needed boost to their core features or just flexibility in general. Mainly:

1. Monk. Being able to have 3xFP/Ki Strikes at level ~4 means they really can Ki Strike almost every round and feats like Elemental Fist and Sacred Ki became much better as they are able to trigger enemy weakness multiple times per combat and giving themselves +1 status bonus to hit. It also opens up combinations of using Ki Strike and still having FPs for WoB, Ki Rush or Student of Perfection Ki Spells etc. Also let's be honest: monk being albe to Ki Strike once/combat was lame as hell...

2. Champion and Monk. This really makes them more "tank" oriented at lower levels than Fighter, having 3x/combat LoH or WoB allows them to really stay there at front line and reduce the pressure of casters to keep them alive.

3. Casters in general, some more than others. Storm Druid being able to toss 3x/combat Tempest Surge is such an awesome blasting option now. Our druid immidietly felt much stronger when it comes to blasting with D12 reflex Focus Spell that can deliver Clumsy 2 on enemy, which encourage teamwork aspect and combos and also decreased the pressure of having Synesthesia being spammed on bosses. Elemental Toss, same, great option for just 1 action etc. Generally casters now have pretty much "resource free" options to use in combt apart from their Cantrips and it's great.

4. Utility. Anything from Heal Animal to Domain Spells like Enduring Might, Veil of Confidence, Perfected Mind, Protector's Sacrifice, Adapt Self etc. has more usage now.

All of that becasue players no longer will clinch to their single FP every combat for "best option" or "most emergency option" and instead they will feel like they can play more with their Focus Spells and have fun to them in combat, isntead of using same over and over again becasue it's best value for that single FP.

The little downsides:

1. Psychic and Champion dedications just got stronger and they were already top 2 archetypes for optimizing builds. Whole main Psychic class feature of having 2 FP recharge will need to be reworked as it's no longer unique thing.

2. We will get little more power creep from Free Archetype. Fighters/Rogues for example will be able to easy get with right Archetypes chosen 3 Focus Points and great Focus Spells by level ~8 which will already boost their powerful chasis. It won't break anything, but still, worth mentioning.

3. Bards got even stronger now being able to do 3x Inspire Heroics per combat as soon as level 8 or easy switching from Lingering to Inspire (or any other way around) since they have enough FPs for that.

Is it a problem? Eh, just an annoyance. It's not the best when there's a clear best way to build a class, but more so when that doesn't fit the class presentation without reflavoring it. Right now, Mountain Stance has a sixth level feat that is effectively just saving you your off-hand and one gold. It feels unpleasantly similar to the mithril buckler trick of PF1, a non-obvious but significant gap between experienced players and new players.

Monk is getting reprinted, and this is probably still early enough for things to be tweaked a little, so I'm bringing it up. If Monk stays the same, that's fine. It'll just continue being an annoyance of the class for me, and that's fine.

I don't really think that this is an issue for most. Monk is not forced to use Shields, but without them he would be forced to use Mountain Stance (if he would like to be tank or just increase his defenses) for AC boost, which is already a very lackluster stance and overrated by people who only see White Room. It costs 3 feats to maximize AC of it and have 1 action for +2 AC (same as Raise, which doesn't cost precious class feat, just gp for any +2 AC shield), risking crit to death on first turn because you have to enter stance, which doesn't work well with Monk low Perception. Overall it's a niche stance for people who for some reason want to dump DEX. But becasue Monk can use Shields, he can have 20 DEX and Shield and use different Stances and achieve for cost of 0 feats only 1 AC less than 3 feats Mountain Stance... giving you room to take other feats like Stand Still, WoB, FoB, MM etc instead of taxing your Mountain Stance.

I like flexibility so for me current situation is really good. If you want for some reason make high INT + high CHA Monk and want to dump DEX, Mountain Stance can compensate for that. However, for every other Monk that still starts with 16+ DEX and increase it you can still get great AC boost options thanks to ability to use Shields, which can be refluffed however you want. Once you have high enough Speed you can even move to Fortress Shield and go for +3 Raise and free more actions.

I think more options is always better and using Shields is just that: another option to consider depending on what kind of build you want to make with your Monk.

We already have niche cases where Monk taking Champion archetype can have 10 DEX and run with Full Plate Trained (having same AC as 18 DEX Monk) and still use few Stances that don't require being unarmored (like Gorilla Stance). But that's just an option, not requirement. More options > less options, even if some are worse/better than others.