Secret Wizard's page

Kelseus wrote:

I am firmly in the remove FoB from multiclass camp. it allows to too much cheese at mid levels and if feels like it lets other classes step on the Monk's toes a bit too much.

Im in the other Camp, i rather they add more things to other classes Archetypes. it always felt archetypes was to limited and only forced some specific feature of the class on you while keeping most things out of reach.

i agree that FoB is hands down one of the most powerful archetype ability's, but i rather see they add more to all archetypes then nerf the good once.

I'm on the other other camp.

I think unarmed is weak enough without FoB (or Follow-up Strike for that matter).

I'd like to see Monks get a unique FoB boost at level 11 to make them strictly better than the multiclass archetype, without making unarmed worse for everyone else.

I would prefer some feat or defensive style that gave the +2 circumstance bonus even without the shield block ability. It would look cooler in the mind's eye.

Oh yeah, Acrobat archetype is a fix for me to get faster proficiency + Dodge Away for a reaction.

Secret Wizard wrote:

All I want is a reason not to use a shield.

I hear this thing about Monks and Shields and yet none of my monks have used them to date and their AC was best at table.

Am I missing something?

In addition to the other things folks mentioned, you have no native Reactions and ways to get this circumstance bonus to AC.

I kinda wish class chassises were juicier and Monks had Crane Style in-built and you basically got to pick your "offensive" Style to go with it, which would make Stance Dancing less onerous in the feats too.

I understand a Cleric of Gorum, for example, will not be granted any spells from a dead god after a rest.

What happens, though, with any spells you haven't expended?

If you used one after August 1st, would it still take effect? Or would it not work at all even though you still have that particular spell prepared?

I ask because let's say I still wanted to play a Cleric of Gorum even after Gorum's death. I'm thinking I'd have to be VERY judicious with spell-use because I know I'm never going to get them back after he dies.

Casting a Heal spell becomes a HUGE deal for my character and it had better be for a DAMNED GOOD REASON!!

Baller idea, mad respect.

All I want is a reason not to use a shield.

You know what would be cool and maybe balanced for low level play? A reaction strike that triggers when the barbarian gets crit. Soaking that big to risk one of your own, or getting one last swing before you drop, feels very barbarian.

Storm druids can do do that with Tempest Surge at level 6, but I think it could work as a level 1 barbarian feature. Doesn't seem likely, though, since ranger and rogue didn't get built in reactions.

Everyone should have built-in reactions to devalue how powerful Shield Block as a general feat is.

Not just Barbs but Monks, Rangers too.

-1 Ac represents an overly aggressive approach to battle when raging.

This is the wrong way to go about it if you ask me. The way to represent they are more aggressive than defensive is getting them stuck on Master proficiency of Medium Armor and not give them any means to increase AC, which already happens everywhere else in the chassis.

Compare with Rangers who get options like Outwit, Skirmish Strike, Twin Parry/Riposte...

I feel the -AC is an artifact of a bygone era where you couldn't shape an experience with class feats.

SuperBidi wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

And for Superstition Instinct, I would remove the "even from your allies" part. So that Superstition Barbarian would be the only one unable to cast spells, but they would be able to benefit from their allies' spells

That would make the Instinct pretty imbalanced. The Anathema would not really be one but the benefits would still be here.

Also, as of now the Superstition Instinct can technically cast spells so certain builds would have to be reviewed if you make that change, which is always a bad thing for these players.

The only thing I'd remove is the unclear limitation on "continuing to travel with an ally (who) insists on using magic on you despite your unwillingness" and just keep the fact that you can't be a willing target for spells.

Anathemas are pretty much inconsequential for barbarians, with the only exception being superstition. Most instincts have anathemas that 99% of barbarians aren't going to break anyway (a dragon instinct barbarian likely wasn't going to be disrespectful towards dragons, otherwise why would the player choose to play as that instinct) so if the anathema becomes meaningless for the superstition instinct it would make it in line with the others.

Yeah so why don't we get rid of the thing altogether.

If the anathema/edict system is fun on its own, it doesn't need to be pushed onto players.

I've said my piece before, to some controversy:

- I hate the -AC penalty in Rage. I don't think it serves any real purpose and you become an HP piñata early on. Very counter-intuitive for new players. I get it that very experienced folks rage when lower in HP, but I want to allow my players to play intuitively out of the box... this was the same problem that +CON had with the 1E Chained Barb.

- I think they should smoothen Fury Instinct to be comparable to the others. No reason why roleplaying railroads should give you power. I think we've left that design principle by the wayside.

- I honestly believe the class / playerbase is disserviced by forcing Edicts on them as Barbarians. Less roleplaying railroads, please.

- I think that things like Cleave should be General Feats, and Class Feats saved for things that really really tie to your class. Why can't any class Cleave? I want my Barbarian feats to be very unique to what my class does.

I don't expect everyone to see eye-to-eye with me, but I do think these changes would be closer to the PF2E ethos than what we have right now.

Awesome Wizard wrote:

I also kind of like Zyphus and I wouldn't mind him getting to chill and have a beer with me. Comparing Zyphus to Naderi who is also very attractive

Cool Rhodiani wrote:

Zyphus would be interesting

Scarablob wrote:

he could always get expanded bc he is already very swole and strong

thx dudes preciate the support. don't forget to like and subscribe

SIGH FINE I'LL WORSHIP YOU, if that makes you ha-- *dies, accidentally*

Secret Wizard wrote:

I also kind of like Zyphus but I wouldn't mind him getting merc'd in lieu of a deeper, more interesting, souls-ferrying deity.

Zyphus would be interesting. My character is built on hunting down cultists of Zyphus - they'd be thrilled at the development, but "mission accomplished" ends the character's concept. Still, Zyphus is a niche tool that allows for places filled with traps that aren't otherwise justified in having them, so I don't see him leaving.

That's the issue, it kinda feels one-note. Aren't deities more fun when they have a couple of twists to them?

Comparing Zyphus to Naderi...

why would anyone kill Hanspur??? He's just a tiny rat dude????

If anything, they should off Charon (who is lame and not IP protected) and ascend Hanspur to ferrying souls.

I also kind of like Zyphus but I wouldn't mind him getting merc'd in lieu of a deeper, more interesting, souls-ferrying deity.

I also have a soft spot for Feronia because my favorite Cleric worshipped her, but even in Rage of the Elements, she didn't get much prime time.

Jacob Jett wrote:

Riddlyn wrote:

The only person who said sword and board is the "correct" build is you. No one else has. It's there for those who want to use it. Almost every class has something like this (druid, wizard, Magus....). Now I could sort of see this being an issue if you cost you something, but it doesn't. And for a fighter it absolutely makes sense that they would learn to use a shield as a part of their basic training.

Ah, but it did cost the player something. It cost them a choice (of which they have been deprived).

No, it actually doesn't.

The Fighter class design and balance doesn't have room for freely or even limitedly choosing a level 1 General Feat.

"Lose Shield Block and pick a different level 1 Feat" isn't really something that is on the design table. So it was never a choice for the player in the first place. Taking away Shield Block from the Fighter chassis it still wouldn't have design space for a choice of a General Feat.

You seem to be working under the assumption that Shield Block that Fighter gets is a General Feat. It isn't. It is a class feature. The level 1 General Feat gives the Shield Block reaction also, but the two are not equivalent.

The problem here is that Shield Block is unique as a General Feat in terms of power, and there's no comparable feat to it.

If you give me Dueling Parry and Nimble Dodge as General Feats, then it's really IS basically a free General Feat.

But no equivalent options are there for other types of characters to pick up.

I'd love for the main options to be:

- Wanna use a Shield? Here's Shield Block, you get +X AC and the ability to absorb damage with a reaction.

- Wanna use a 1H weapon and an empty offhand? You get to turn on Parry for a blanket +2 AC and a reaction to riposte on critical failures.

- Wanna use a 2H weapon, TWF, or be ranged? Here's Nimble Dodge... you don't get to activate for a blanket +AC, but you still get a defensive reaction if you need it.

I think people here are interpreting this the wrong way.

A Reaction is a must for every character as it is a massive boost in action economy.

The fact that you get an unusable one as a Fighter is a "feels-bad moment" that should be avoided.

Fighters should have been allowed to pick up a thematic reaction, whether it is a Dueling Parry, a 2H Block, or a Shield Block.

Same goes for Paladins, and hell, why not Monks, Rogues and Rangers?

Secret Wizard wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, Barbarians are in a good place over all I wouldn't expect much.

Yeah, I know I've been complaining about them but the class is functional and fun in a lot of ways. With the level of changes I expect in PC2 I'd rather focus be put on the bad classes.

I don't get this approach... classes shouldn't be balanced in comparison to each other, they should be balanced as an experience on its own.

I feel like the Barb not doing what it says on the tin is a problem, even if other classes are worse off.

Ahh you feel like. That's a big part of the issue that Paizo has to look at and think about. Because for quite a few people that feel it's doing what it says on the tin.

I already exposed my arguments here. Feel free to engage them or, alternatively, not respond to my comments.

Squiggit wrote:

Yeah, Barbarians are in a good place over all I wouldn't expect much.

Yeah, I know I've been complaining about them but the class is functional and fun in a lot of ways. With the level of changes I expect in PC2 I'd rather focus be put on the bad classes.

I don't get this approach... classes shouldn't be balanced in comparison to each other, they should be balanced as an experience on its own.

I feel like the Barb not doing what it says on the tin is a problem, even if other classes are worse off.

This is just spitballing out loud, but what if the Barbarian could just pick up anathema as feats and gain benefits from those, instead of having fixed instincts? The general idea would be that becoming superstitious in certain ways is a choice you'd make that would give you special powers, and if you wanted you could become a really superstitious Barbarian bound by lots of different anathema, but who'd gain lots of varied benefits as a result. Alternatively, you could just have your Barb not lean into any kind of superstition at all and instead focus on other things. Similarly, Rage could start off as a fairly basic damage boost with no downsides or restrictions, but you could take on certain tradeoffs (which could include some of these superstitions) for additional benefits, which could then also make it much easier to bridge the gap into things like a bloodrager in the future as well.

I love this, but I think it steps a little too far into the Monk territory of developing a discipline.

Really like some ideas, don't see eye to eye with many other comments/suggestions...

...but honestly would like some indication of where Paizo stands with the PC2 classes, TBH.

The penalty to AC is both something that barbarians have for tradition since it is common to have barbarians being "clumsy" in lieu of them being hp sacks that hit like a truck.

It's also common to have them be really sturdy, which isn't the case in practice. If DR started at level 1, sure. Because it doesn't, I think the AC penalty should go.

I think the Action restriction is penalty enough.

1. Get rid of Anathemas. I wanna play a Barbarian without being told how they should act. If you want to keep them, keep something SUPER specific that won't interfere with the regular flow of character building.

2. Get rid of the AC penalty on Rage. -1 is MASSIVE, and causes Barbarians to be health piñatas at low level. I've DM'd multiple games where the Barb just blows up because of big increase in critical chances. The class shouldn't be strictly a damage dealer, it should be allowed to be the tank for the party too. The AC penalty needs to go... can be replaced by Clumsy, Stupefied, or whatever, but get rid of what makes the class so dangerous to frontline with.

3. Let Fury increase damage from 2 to 4 as an Instinct ability. No Lv1 Barb Feat can compete with the Instinct bonuses AND +2 to damage.

25speedforseaweedleshy wrote:

not sure how paizo plan to fix monk

make fob only count as one map might work

still wouldn't fix the high level feat pool problem

Fix implies it's broken somehow, which isn't. The class is great and this thread is pretty much just finding ways to further refine the class and touch up some of its less good aspects.

Even FoB being accessible at level 10 is pretty much just a non-issue for the Monk itself. No one will even stop playing a Monk in favor of another martial class with FoB. It's just weird that its whole shtick is easily accessible,when others are not, that's all.

Just saying this to keep things clear.

I think several arguments have been put here as to why things are broken and need fixing.

I would think you should at least explain your criteria for things being "great" and why that is the case here.

The Monk has a lot of things going for them, but I feel most of them are about the strength of 2E's system rather than the class itself.

Secret Wizard wrote:

2. Make Shields less useful for Monks.

There are a lot of parry weapons that have the monk trait, and traditionally in weapon fights in martial arts cinema there is a lot of blocking. I wonder if there isn't a way to make monks really effective with parry weapons (like bump the +1 to a +2), that would resolve the problem of "mechanically it makes sense for the monk to raise a shield since they likely have a free hand and probably have a spare action, but it's weird thematically."

Like Swashbucklers get to double the buckler AC bonus with a feat.

My favorite solution: add other alternatives to Shield Block as General Feats.

The problem is not Shield Block being busted, it's that it has a monopoly in what it does.

Adding a General Feat that promote 1H/Unarmed parries without a shield would be great. Right now, there's few incentives to NOT use a Shield.

I can't edit my last post so I wanted to put a link of the older thread here.

We do have Michael Sayre there saying there's no chance they'll make Monks Legendary at Unarmed though.

I’ve made my points elsewhere, but in summary:

1. Clean up Monastic Weaponry.

2. Make Shields less useful for Monks.

3. And the most personal one: I think Styles should be baked into the class. Style dancing from level 1 onwards would allow the class to be more interesting, put versatility into the limelight, and move away from the Fighter But Different feel the class has right now.

I'm still gonna say: Swash shouldn't have those subclasses, if skill action is still important for gaining Panache then all those applicabpe skill action should be able to gain Panache.

Every swashshpuld be able to gain panache from bragging, making a feint, wrestling people dowm andmaking a witty retort.

Love this suggestion.

Would it make all Swashbucklers too same-y? Yes, so there's something that should be looked at in terms of subclasses.

Perhaps give them more stances like the Monk?

Riposte on a failure if you are in Panache does sound very cool,

Love the play patterns associated with this.

The thing about scaling for advanced weapons, is that every class has a 3 feat option to peg any advanced weapon to martial: Fighter Dedication, Basic Maneuver (for whatever), and Advanced Maneuver (at 12th, for Advanced Weapon Training.) There are many good 1st and 2nd level fighter feats, so you have to take Basic Maneuver isn't a tremendous onus, and 12th level is before you would outpace the general feat anyway (martials usually gain master prof at 13th.)

This is workable, except that the fighter dedication feat is pretty terrible, and that for specific advanced weapons you can peg your proficiency to martial with one feat (Unconventional Weaponry, [Ancestry] Weapon Familiarity, specific dedications like the Aldori one.)

The gulf of "cost" between "one feat, it could be an ancestry feat" and "three class feats, including a level 12 class feat" is enormous. It's not clear that there are advanced weapons that merit the second cost.

Right now the problem is certainly opportunity costs. General feats are so forgettable that you cannot adequately price Advanced Weapon proficiency.

If they make General Feats something you are excited for, then you could certainly have 1 General Feat for an Advanced Proficiency.

Totally disagree on DEX-to-damage and the whole MAD conceit. You get a ton of attributes in this game.

After You should be a baseline skill though. It solves most of the problems about running into combat.

Hi team!

I think the Remastered is a great chance to address one of the salient aspects of PF2E that seems to be irregular across the board: proficiency scaling that's not granted by a Class.

Right now, we have:

• General feats that do not scale.
  
• Archetype feats that do not scale.
  
• Archetype feats that provide scaling that's parallel to a Class (like Butterfly Blade with butterfly swords.)
  
• Archetype feats that provide scaling that's parallel to a Class, but capped (like Sentinel with armor).
  
• Archetype feats that scale with level (like Acrobat with Acrobatics.)

Feels like, just like casting, this should be normalized somehow across the board because it creates needless complexity.

I don't like how outside proficiencies are gained, I'm sad it wasn't addressed.

Getting Advanced Weapons or other armor is clunky.

I hate partial boosts because it creates the possibility of “dead” boosts for 20th level builds, and you start building your character with higher levels in mind.

I’d rather have more rules about boosts than partial boosts.

Just a small thing I just thought up after a session: maybe get rid of vancian casting altogether

Just tell the king that these are not the refugees he is looking for and you'll be fine.

Agreed, you are not forced to answer yes/no.

You can answer a variety of things, with the ideal dialogue line being antagonism towards the evil doer that leads them astray.

“What? Your men lost sight of the refugees, and now they are sending you my way? You’re wasting your time. If I were harboring the refugees, you know that interrogating me will get you nowhere - I’d never reveal their location. What worries me is your awful choice in lieutenants… as a matter of fact, I was looking for employment and I think I could do your kingdom a great service as your new Master of the Watch…”

I don't think that discussing any Level 20 feat, good or bad, is relevant to the topic in the discussion.

And yes, Unicore brings up Golden Body way too often.

The focus point change is going to be a hearty perk to the monks. It is one that only favors one type of monk build though.

I still think the best boost to the monk would be a level 11 ability that is perfected form, but it only guarantees you an 8. This way, the 19th level ability doesn't come completely out of nowhere and it continues to foster using an array of abilities instead of just overloading one clear activity as the best for the monk to do over and over again. An 8 is still enough to hit with only a little bit of tactical support most of the time so it also will help encourage more tactical play.

While the focus point change is obviously a buff to all the focus point classes... I usually don't care about ki stuff and I don't want to feel like I'm missing out on the most powerful part of my class budget if I don't go for it.

As for the suggestion, "you are guaranteed to be subpar" is not very exciting, and seems like the kind of feature that is not friendly to people without system mastery.

I'd honestly have hardcoded Dancing Leaf/Water Step as a class feature just to give the movement more ways to be put to use.

I think the consensus has been "no, thanks" to Legendary Unarmed Proficiency, but "yes, please" to some sort of boost.

As I've said in other threads, a big part of the Monk's power budget goes to movement speed and metal strikes, and both are too situational (when compared to, say, Intensify Vulnerability, Raging Resistance, Debilitating Strike, etc.

I stand by my thought that if you made Stances into a subclass (free at Level 1, with a small boost at level 6 and 15), and gave them back their Level 1 and 6 feats to spend on (an expanded) array of feats, the class would be fine.

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.

Didn't we have this exact same thread just one week ago?

My post last week was focused on the first part of that sentence.

I don't like the solution of "just have stronger accuracy".

Monk with a shield is basically Captain America.

Use it mostly for offense with a returning rune, or just the +2 AC.

How do you get proficiency?

It's a bit jarring yeah. Although with my monk I've had to choose between holding a returning javelin or a shield, while keeping the other hand free. So it's not always a thing.

I think Tsubutai's "Monk's Parry" is a good direction for a solution. Monks still get to have that kind of AC (which wasn't unbalanced, for that action cost), but why bother holding a shield for it now?

I actually think that the best "Monk reaction", in terms of style, is the Acrobat's Dodge Away:

Dodge Away ⤦ (reaction)
Trigger You are the target of a melee attack.
Requirements You're aware of the attack and aren't flat-footed.
You use your acrobatic prowess to evade an attack, using momentum to keep yourself moving, if you choose. You gain a +1 circumstance bonus to AC against the triggering attack. If the attack misses you, you can Step after the Strike. If you're a master in Acrobatics, you can move 10 feet on this Step instead of 5 feet.

I love it because:
1. It's less AC than a Shield, so if you go with a Shield, you have a good reason to do so.

2. It's only against a single attack, making Parry still valuable.

3. It gives you movement, which is the core mechanic of the class.

This is a personal quest of mine, ever since the playtest.

It's been a long time and I got a better grasp of system mastery since then, but Shield Block as a general feat has been too tempting to pass up.

I did ask about this during an AMA, and the team mentioned that they don't think it breaks the flavor of the class because you can re-skin the "shield" as "bracers".

I cannot remember for the life of me where that AMA was though, so I haven't been able to find the post...

In any case, I think giving Monks an early game defensive reaction would be fantastic.

My preference would be to allow Monks to pick a defensive reaction from a series of options: a "block" (like in fighting games) that creates a small amount of resistance to damage, a "dodge" which gives you some AC, and a "roll" which gives you some movement.

EDIT: But I'll take anything really! I do believe it won't break the class to give it an extra push in the early levels.

Secret Wizard wrote:

So, without getting prescriptive:

There's general agreement that the biggest issues with the Monk right now are power budget comes in too frontloaded, so other classes can poach it easily.

But even if it's frontloaded, the early level power from Stances/FoB only leaves it up to parity with other classes early on, and there's no late-game power spikes of note.

I can't say there's general agreement about that, because I don't know what it means. That first part... how is the monk's power budget frontloaded? what does that mean? What's a power budget anyway? And how do other classes "poach" the monk's power budget?

Reading this stuff, I feel like I felt when I attended the first day of what I thought was a first class in fluid dynamics. I sat through the lecture, then went up to the prof and told him I didn't understand a word of it. Turned out the physics department clerical types had directed me to the wrong class -- this was the *second* semester class. :-)

Good thing you got here for the first lesson: "be like water" (ง`_´)ง

I'm trying to summarize what I believe is everyone's points in this thread:

1. The great things about the Monk come early, and the class feels really good before level 10:
- Flurry of Blows: for obvious reasons
- Stances: compare them to other Level 1 feats from other classes, there's no Lv1 feat that provides this level of power (or Monastic Weaponry for that matter)

2. The things the Monk receives from later levels are situationally good, not universally good, so the class starts losing luster after level 10:
- Movement speed: battlefields don't always allow you to exploit this, ways to use this with more versatility cost Class Feats (Dancing Leaf, Water Step, etc.)
- Resistance bypass: This is by definition situational – really good in those situations, but not something that will come up constantly

3. Multiclass makes it easy for other classes to poach the great early level features of the Monk:
- Stances can be picked up at Level ~4
- FoB can be picked up at Level 10

4. This makes classes with stronger late-game features very competitive against the Monk in whats supposed to be its niche. Fighter is mentioned quite a bit in this thread, as Legendary Proficiency seems much more appealing than Mystic Strikes and Movement Speed due to how universally applicable it is

I feel you either:
a) Believe the bonus speed and resistance bypass are strong enough to warrant keeping the status quo
b) Believe they aren't, and maybe the class should get a bit more love around level 8 or 10 to keep its identity

As for power budget, each class certainly has its own and its own way to dole it out.
For example, the 'Thurge has a strong chassis and weak feats; each class gets a defensive boost at the same level; each class gets offensive proficiency boosts at the same level; etc.

The Monk, baseline at Level 1, without any feats, is much weaker than a Fighter. Once you pick a feat with both, they are about as strong as each other, because Monk feats at Level 1 are pretty strong.

So, without getting prescriptive:

There's general agreement that the biggest issues with the Monk right now are power budget comes in too frontloaded, so other classes can poach it easily.

But even if it's frontloaded, the early level power from Stances/FoB only leaves it up to parity with other classes early on, and there's no late-game power spikes of note.

Obviously there's a midpoint here -

Or you could make Ki Strike an innate class ability that requires 1 action to activate to per round.

This is exactly the same thing that I'm saying: FoB is one half of the puzzle, the other part of the puzzle is a Third Action Sink.

I think it should be a Style Dance, Deriven thinks it should be a "reward" action in case you don't use a third action.

Doesn't need to be a magical thing, it just needs to be a thing Monks do after Move + FoB regularly... and that's where you put a subclass.

I think some kind of internal synergy that helps out the strategies that don't have a lot of feat support would help a lot. Like if you want to be a Finesse Skirmisher, there's not a lot of feat support for that except "you get a d8 agile finesse attack" and "you get movement from your class."

This is my original point – and why I think it'd be good for the Remaster to give the Monk the Magus/Swashbuckler/Barbarian treatment and find more spaces to build a stronger mechanical identity for the class.

I imagine something like:

- Pick 2 stances at Lv1
- Pick a 3rd one at Lv7, get "advanced" benefits of each stance
- Pick a 4th one at Lv15, get "master" benefits of each stance

I'd probably take away the Lv1 Feat, reduce the power budget of the Stances, and move some of the class benefits to the stances (like resistance-bypass from Adamantine Strikes and the speed boost).

You could reasonably fit a 5th stance some where too.

But, yeah, the UM was originally planned for Strange Aeons, only that in the end, because of some shuffling around of ideas and the GM of the Ironfang Invasion campaign not liking the idea of an Alchemist joining the wilderness focused campaign, I'm playing an Alchemist in Strange Aeons, a Sylvan Sorcerer in Ironfang Invasion and an Unchained Monk in Iron Gods. Can't say that I don't love the variety of characters I can try out. :)

Sounds like a hella of a time!

Can't recommend the Dwarf FCB enough for Iron Gods...

Ki strike scales +1d6 every 4 spell levels. You don't start casting level 5 spells until level 9 and level 9 spells until level 17. If you were imagining that the monk is primarily supposed to function as a striker, then blah blah blah.

Ki Strike is about the +1 to attack, the damage is gravy.

You already have access to a lot of great rider effects, what you need is accuracy. So between finding different ways to lower enemy AC and increase your attack with the environment, the no-questions-asked +1 is magnificent to me.

BTW, have you written a 2E Monk guide? I loved your work on your 1E Unchained Monk guide (basically built my UM, which I finally can start playing tomorrow in a new Iron Gods campaign, around your Jabbing Striker build), so I'd be very interested to see what you might have written up about the 2E Monk.

I tried! But I found out I didn't have anything interesting to say.

I did the 1E UnMonk guide because I thought building them was hard but rewarding, and that sharing that knowledge could be a good thing for the community.

2E Monk... get your ability scores right, pick your favorite feats, find a use for your Third Action... you can't really go wrong.

I really like the Monk of this edition, I do! I just feel like a lot of the classes don't have a deep mechanical identity, and because they don't, it's tough to say something interesting about one class in particular that doesn't apply to the rest.

EDIT: WAAAAIT is this the same Jabbing Style Monk than the one you posted in TWENTY TWENTY ONE? DAMN MAN. What happened with the Strange Aeons campaign?

Flurry of Blows: Very good action economy booster at low level.

Ki Strike: Poorly scaling ability and focus point cost for damage.
Stand Still: Reaction based attack keys off movement.
Ki Form: Better Ki strike type ability progression. Not a bad ability for damage boosting.

What do you mean bad at scaling? +1 is massive, it's the foundation for my Monks dealing crazy damage.

As for Monk changes that I'd personally want:

* A bo staff/polearm stance. Just copying and pasting Whirlwind Stance from the Staff Acrobat archetype would be fine. It's wild that the class has sword and bow stances but not a stance for one of the iconic martial arts weapons.

* Monks (and Champions) to get their bump from Expert to Master (un)armor(ed) proficiency at level 11, when fighters, rangers, and maguses get their bump to Expert, rather than 13 so you don't have a weird two-level interlude where half of the offense-focused martial classes are just as good at defending themselves as the two martials that are hyperspecialized in defense.

Love it, I think this could be a viable solution:

1. Bake in Monastic Weaponry

2. Add a ton of specialized Stances for specific weapons (that require you to be unarmored so that multiclass is less appealing)

But even then... it still seems to me like baking in Stances as a whole as a Subclass and then really souping them up with power is a much more interesting class than what we have.

Having the Monk be about flowing from Stance A to B during a fight makes much more sense to me as a class fantasy than what we have right now, which feels like you can easily compare to other classes because all you have for you is action economy... and other classes also solve for action economy too.

I think to really understand the monk class and what a very powerful monk is supposed to do you have to look at the high level feats. The monk gets so many high level proficency boosts to saves and defense and spell casting that their budget for career defining feats feels a little underwhelming, which is why they make such incredible chassis for MC casters. They have a bunch of feats that just move targets around and a bunch of Ki spells, and the mobility and defensive stuff.

It is kinda like the damage and attack math of PF2 is so tightly locked in from level 1 choices that pretty much every class goes sideways instead of up with focusing on offense. I think that is why flurry of blows as a MC feat sticks out so much, although it really only benefits fighters and requires the fighter be focusing on unarmed attacks to really be that big a boost.

This is kind of my point in the first post.

I feel the power budget is extremely focused on Stances, so why not make a Fun Stance Class with all the frills that would imply, including dancing stances?

You already have one of the big tools a Stance Dancing Class would want, FoB.

And making the chassis meatier is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Making classes too streamlined like the Monk and the Fighter reduce design space.

I think Swashbuckler, and not Fighter, is the future of Pathfinder 2E.

A monk with fighter archetype wastes a feat tax on the dedication and likely get nothing major out of the fighter feats.

A fighter with monk archetype loses the penalty to attacking with lethal unarmed strikes, gets a better weapon dice with said attacks, can get flurry of blows which is the best action compressor, and can get the stances.

People say "oh legendary proficiency is the equivalent of weapon training". But then fighter also has 2 flexible feats on top of everything else. What are the other classes getting for that? Not much. What are the other classes getting in exchange for their archetypes being so easily exploited by fighter? Not much.

I think the issue here is that multiclass archetypes are pretty haphazardly designed. Their power budget is all over the place.