The scene you describe is indeed cool.. but, unless I misunderstood the mechanic, the power works only if the enemy has not already harmed someway, even if such harm does not come from combat (say, fire on the ground or a falling object).
THIS last part seems quite odd to me.
I cannot be more clear.. I apologize maybe it's an issue of language for me.
Another issua are the powers you just descrbed. What's the difference with trip or reposition? Couldn't be enough make the monk being able to take the "greater" version of the feats and call it a day?
The scene you describe is indeed cool.. but, unless I misunderstood the mechanic, the power works only if the enemy has not already harmed someway, even if such harm does not come from combat (say, fire on the ground or a falling object).
THIS last part seems quite odd to me.
I cannot be more clear.. I apologize maybe it's an issue of language for me.
Ah, I suppose it could, but...well, I've yet to see a fight in any edition where an enemy took falling damage :p
Another issua are the powers you just descrbed. What's the difference with trip or reposition? Couldn't be enough make the monk being able to take the "greater" version of the feats and call it a day?
They aren't feats, but powers. It's...kinda hard to go into without explaining, like, all of 4e. They're basically "monk only" things that they can do. There's no trip "feat."
Reposition is just that - you switch places with them. Knocking them prone is, well, just that as well - like in 3e, prone is a condition. So this power, if it hits, does a little bit of damage and knocks them down. Either before or after you use it, you can move normally like you typically would, or you could swap places with an ally or prone enemy.
The idea behind the movement power is that you'd knock an enemy prone and then switch places with them. So thematically or cinematically or descriptively (however you want to put it ;p) the monk could be grabbing an enemy and shifting his position to throw him down to the ground, or weaving next to the baddie and pushing him to the ground, or the baddie throws an attack and the monk grabs their arm and uses their momentum to knock them down.
[
Ah, I suppose it could, but...well, I've yet to see a fight in any edition where an enemy took falling damage :p
In this case, I strongly suggest to work with your DM/players to create more interesting locations and combats ;)
They aren't feats, but powers. It's...kinda hard to go into without explaining, like, all of 4e. They're basically "monk only" things that they can do. There's no trip "feat."
I know how 4e works (and I realize that yeah, would be hard to explain the differencies in few words!)
My point is that.. we do not need anything like that. Everything we need, is already in feats and maneuvers. If some of them can be combined with attacks and AOOs (like trip) the better, because it helps both dynamic combat and immersion.
The point is, IMHO, to make he monk able to qualify for them without swear blood. I can use vital strike to hit harder a surprised enemy after I jumped across the battlefield, or to finish off another one at the end of the combat. BUT BEFORE, I HAVE TO QUALIFY FOR THE G!$@@$N FEAT.
After that, I will move, precise strike togreater trip a foe, and punish kick it into a pit (FALLING DAMAGE! YAY!) but I should be able to do it without have the biggest stat being a 14!
Not to say that class specific "powers" wouldn't be a good idea. Heck, few feats already do it for Fighter and Monk. And rogues and Barbarians have their Rage Powers and Talents. In a future iteration of the game, I could actually see a lot of current Archetypes for Fighter and Monk become "Warrior Exploits" and "Martial Secrets" (names just made up) gained every other level.
Well, I did say that I loved how Swordsage worked ;p
Swordsage it's, flavour-wise, the best class of ToB - disciplines are well made, barring the almost-eversucking desert wind. You can easily build a Ninja, a Monk, a Swordmaster or something in-between with the swordsage. Moreover, on the opposite of the Crusader (Extraordinary Ability Healing? WTFey?) Flavour and Crunch are well assembled.
Consider that, nevertheless, a lot of tiger claw moves are here or there in this or that monk incarnation. With the intention or not, if you look around in Core and APG, a lot of things in the ToB are here or there in this or that martial class, or feat. Standard action devastating attacks, stuns and conditions, pounce..
The only things missing are the most broken or, better say, unclearly defined (IHS, bu there's a feat in APG..) and the saving throw concentration maneuvers.
To add, maybe the ones that used swift and immediate action. Of those, There is something here and there (step up, crossbow fighter), but MOARRR wouldn't be wrong :D
I actually DO THINK monk can be made workable and enjoyable, and I'm quite satisfied by meleers, maneuvers and full attacks currently. But I find interesting and positive point out weak points because can help future splats and implementations of the game - se above what I said about "greater x" feats and monk MADness.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Swordsage it's, flavour-wise, the best class of ToB - disciplines are well made, barring the almost-eversucking desert wind. You can easily build a Ninja, a Monk, a Swordmaster or something in-between with the swordsage. Moreover, on the opposite of the Crusader (Extraordinary Ability Healing? WTFey?) Flavour and Crunch are well assembled.
This is my whole problem with this thread. The desire to graft strange mechanics onto a game system that makes you feel like you are no longer playing the Game.
Swordsage and the rest ToB had too much fantasy mechanics that were far too easy to use all day long.
In contrast, PF has well built mechanics and has enhanced them in ways that make sense (Improved Vital Strike to replace the Full Attack.)
I really don't like two elements from ToB:
1) Supernatural or otherwise similar magical things from a "martial artist"
2) The "I never run out of abilities since I took the fast refresh to my maneuvers feat" problem. If they made ToB like vancian spell casting with "slots" and once used, they are gone. My hate on it would be much less visceral.
I've always like a more martial Monk tho. I never play a 3.5/PF monk past 3rd level (because I never want Still Mind iirc the 3rd level ability.)
In 3.5 I built monks using a Dragon Magazine Fighter alternate (Pugilist) and another Monk alternate (Martial Monk but again not past 2nd level.) This gave me the best unarmed combat possible in 3.5 rules. I've also use Shou Disciple from Unapproachable East. I used feats from ToB like Superior Unarmed Strike. So in short, while I desire a more "martial" Monk in PF, I don't think Swordsage or similar paths (or anything from 4E with At will and Daily etc) is anything like where we should be going.
Martial character in D&D should use Ex abilities and should be "whenever the circumstances align to allow it" (think Cleave) and not "do I have a remaining use today" way of balancing.
Well, not with the intent of remake the class or stuff.. but there are several archetypes of monk.. in my example above, in a future incarnation of the game, one could have the choice to select all (Ex) class features, all (Su), or a mix. So everybody could be happy... and with current rules too one have several combinations to try to fit his needs.
If you ask me, I prefer far more at-will mundane powers like and Cleave, so I can mix them with maneuvers and other feats (and I'm quite disappointed when I discover that I cannot for a fiddly rule ;P).
To be fair, indeed, encounter powers were born in 3.0 with barbarians, and Stunning Fist is not at-will..
Also give everything pounce, the "full attack action" was never a good idea.
Reminds me of a houserule I had in 3.5. I didn't get to test it out at all, but here's how it goes. For each iterative attack you get from you're BAB, you can move 5ft and still perform a Full Attack Action. Any movement beyond a 5ft step, still provokes AoO as normal.
So a fighter at least level 6 (netting him 2 attacks from BAB), can move 10ft in the round and still able to perform a Full Attack. However, Monks, get to add half of their Monk Speed to this movement. (I renamed Fast Movement for the Monk to not confuse people in thinking anything named Fast Movement would apply, this is a Monk only thing).
So a Monk at level 3, can move 10ft and still able to Full Attack, far earlier than any other class in the game. At level 20, they can zip around the battlefield 45ft a round and still Full Attack, while the Fighter can only move 20ft and still Full Attack.
Not sure how this would play out, might make combat more deadly with Full Attacks easier to achieve, but I thought it was a nice rule for non-casters and of course give something unique to Monks.
|
I could actually see a lot of current Archetypes for Fighter and Monk become "Warrior Exploits" and "Martial Secrets" (names just made up) gained every other level.
The idea of Feats is a step towards a Skill-Based system, are you suggesting an almost fully Skill-Based system?
Either way if I was doing PF 2.0 would fold the Feats into the classes to make the classes more unique. In some ways like the development trees seen in the Star Wars SAGA rules. I would like to see Monks be able to do things no other class can, and the same for each class for that matter. The lines between classes is becoming grey, feats don't help with this, and adding extra classes ad nauseum sure doesn't either.
Monks aren't good because it seems many classes can do an equal or better job and that falls squarely at the reliance on feats to do anything neat as a Monk in combat.
S.
Just a question. Can a player, with a full round action, make a full attack and replace one of is hits with a combat manuever? Like, the fighter has two attacks and goes Trip then Attack.
Just a question. Can a player, with a full round action, make a full attack and replace one of is hits with a combat manuever? Like, the fighter has two attacks and goes Trip then Attack.
Yep. He can even trip twice if needed, or disarm and trip etc. etc. Here's the relevant text, on performing a combat maneuver.
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Ok, so 4e solved the "monk" problem by turning all monks into Jackie Chan's "helpless every-man" characters, yes?
I'm glad that there's a clear "feel" to it ... I'm not so glad that the feel locks the monk into Jackie-Chan knock offs all the time.
:shrugs:
I'm not a fan of that. The idea that there is a "right" way to make the character ... or one prescribed mode of attack tactics, etc.
I think the monk would/could be better if there were things along the lines of say Rage Powers - not that I like Rage Power mechanics AT ALL mind you, but, the idea of having "options" in the class progression that help to define the monk's style is what I like about it (I can't express how enraged *I* am on the final implementation of Rage Powers - such a monumental let down for me, especially after the Beta).
Maybe making monks that follow that sort of "al-a-carte" of class features it will work out far better.
Right now, I'm LOVING The Wraith's take - minus the high BAB and HD. In fact, I'd say dial it *back* and take AWAY the maneuver options and the flurry BAB boosts. Honestly, Fighters need to have *something* no? Let 'em keep that best martial quality going. HOWEVER, make monks "fight different" and by that I mean give them something that like ... replaces str in "to hit" and damage checks, OR something that adds the two stats together (you know ... so they can *at least* pretend to be a front-liner-type, eh?). Make that a bonus from the early levels, and now you've got a very different type of combatant - adding more *stuff* but still restricted in how/what is used - follow?
To that, add in all the ideas of Ki-points/pressure points and chi-healing, etc and NOW we're talking about some *serious* "he can do that?" being brought to the table for the monk. If the class were truly centered around that sort of thing, and combined with the options of say a rage-power-like set of choices, it's going to *actually* be able to bring something to most encounters, and it will be different enough to merit bringing along in the first place.
Edit: I'm loving Mok's stuff, too! :-D
Just a question. Can a player, with a full round action, make a full attack and replace one of is hits with a combat manuever? Like, the fighter has two attacks and goes Trip then Attack.Yep. He can even trip twice if needed, or disarm and trip etc. etc. Here's the relevant text, on performing a combat maneuver.
While many combat maneuvers can be performed as part of an attack action, full-attack action, or attack of opportunity (in place of a melee attack), others require a specific action.
Ah ok. See I think that's something that makes a monk a pretty good disabler.
Many times when I play my monk, I use the fast movement to get to an area of the battefield that needs help. Maybe its a wizard or cleric that is being a pest. Once I get there, I open with a trip or stunning fist (trip if it is something I think has a low CMD) then next turn unleash a trip+stunning fist combo that leaves an enemy on the ground for two turns, leaving him weak against your melee fighters.
Stunning fist is a great disable. I also like how at Level one you have both Two Weapon Fighting and Double Slice right off the bat without having to meet the Dex 15 requirement, allowing you to put more in Strength
A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage
rolls for all successful attacks made with f lurry of blows,
whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a
weapon wielded in both hands.
Benefit: Add your Strength bonus to damage rolls made
with your off-hand weapon.Normal: You normally add only half of your Strength
modifier to damage rolls made with a weapon wielded in
your off-hand.
I wonder if to make the monk the "maneuver character" either give them a boon to using maneuvers:
a) a class level based increase to CM checks (perhaps also make CM's based off Wis to mitigate MAD)
b) a measure of (the monk may choose to inflict) X damage to be inflicted by a successful CMOne suggested I've posted about before to tease out maneuvers as a key theme for the Monk is to modify the maneuver training class ability to wipe away the Attack of Opportunity for any combat maneuver initiated by the Monk. That way they are free to be extremely versatile in battle as they don't need to take 10 different "improved" feats just to avoid AoO, assuming you add in the APG maneuvers.
Using that you'd have 10 different actions to try at a moments notice that are flavorful and different. You might not have the highest CMB, but you won't be penalized just for trying to pull off the maneuver.
The only thing that is unfortunate is that the APG baked in the new maneuvers as standard actions, so they can't be done during a flurry. Still, having this grab bag of options opens up the Monk into the flexible and versatile class that it ought to be. In 4E parlance, the Monk could be a martial controller, who'd quickly move around the battlefield and then move, shove, drag or disable... whatever needs to be done.
But I also like having Wis impacting CMB. Overall, conceptually the Monk ought to follow in the Paladin's redesign, so that it funnels as many class abilities into Wisdom as possible. It helps solve MAD and anchors the idea of being good at martial arts in the focus and training of the individual, rather than raw physical power and agility.
"Size matters not!"
That way you can have the skinny old man hunched over his staff who ends up being this phenomenal fighter, using the weakness of the enemy against them, etc. Right now Monks need to be these hulk-like warriors with arms as thick as telephone poles to be effective.
Originally I was thinking that allowing them to ignore the AoO from maneuvers might be too much, but now I am really liking it. It could be made part of maneuver training (especially if the full BAB is grafted more substantially on a house ruled monk). That + allowing them to use wisdom in place of strength for CMB would give them a HUGE advantage towards using maneuvers. I think that we all can see that the Profs description of how 4E monks work is compelling and something that PF monks could really use to make them stand out.
I myself like to make things little fiddly, so if it were me writing a new version of the monk I think I would probably do something like this:
Maneuver Training:
At 3rd level a monk learns to better defend himself while performing combat maneuvers. He may use his Wisdom bonus in place of strength bonus when calculating his CMB. In addition if his CMD is equal to or higher than his opponent's attack bonus, then he may ignore any attacks of opportunity provoked from the performing of a combat maneuver.
This would still leave a little bit of danger in the mix. The monk would have to make a gamble as to whether his CMD was high enough for him to avoid the AoO. Against your average mid level mook, its a safe bet, but against an ogre barbarian? Maybe, maybe not. The improved maneuver feats would still be worthwhile purchases, as they would remove the AoO altogether, as well as provide that +2 bonus that they do.
The other thing I was thinking of that might help the monk pattern more after the 4E monk, and to better open up the combat option is for there to be style feat chains (I don't know if this is something like what SKR is working on for Ultimate Combat, but I hope so), that are meant to be picked up as the monks bonus feats. You could then structure specific styles of movement and combat to the monk, and build in a flavor as well, beyond the standard vanilla shaolin. The gorgon's fist line might be reworked into a specific style, perhaps remade so that they perform more like stunning fist, as a bonus status condition.
Each style might have some flavorful mechanics that could effect the combat of that monk. Heck, a tiger kunfu style might indeed have a pounce (real tiger Kung fu does, I believe. They jump in with claw hands and tear the crap out of the opponent). Another style might have Sidestep, which although triggered by missed attacks, functions somewhat like Prof's 4E monk moving with each attack. Another tai kwon do kicking style might get lunge and step up, both of which are lovely monk feats.
This is my whole problem with this thread. The desire to graft strange mechanics onto a game system that makes you feel like you are no longer playing the Game.
So you don't use casting classes in your games, right?
Swordsage and the rest ToB had too much fantasy mechanics that were far too easy to use all day long.
They were to fantasy.
In the fantasy roleplaying game.
...What.
In contrast, PF has well built mechanics and has enhanced them in ways that make sense (Improved Vital Strike to replace the Full Attack.)
Except it doesn't work. Vital Strike is a terrible feat chain, partially because it's a chain, and partially because it's a bandaid made of lemon juice to a gaping wound. And it still allows for infections. And it has mercury in it.
I really don't like two elements from ToB:
1) Supernatural or otherwise similar magical things from a "martial artist"
Yes, there was supernatural maneuvers if you were the supernatural martial artist, and there was divine maneuvers if you were the divine martial artist. Or you make the warblade and there's no supernatural maneuvers. Hey, look at that.
2) The "I never run out of abilities since I took the fast refresh to my maneuvers feat" problem. If they made ToB like vancian spell casting with "slots" and once used, they are gone. My hate on it would be much less visceral.
Death to Vancian casting. Also, how on earth does this make sense at all? Isn't that one of the biggest complaints about 4e, that fighters have "Dailies?"
At the end of the day, the Monk isn't working, and at least in my opinion, an alternative fighting system would fix this.
For me, at least, the fact that the monk plays the exact same as a fighter does is a problem.
Ok, so 4e solved the "monk" problem by turning all monks into Jackie Chan's "helpless every-man" characters, yes?
I'm glad that there's a clear "feel" to it ... I'm not so glad that the feel locks the monk into Jackie-Chan knock offs all the time.
:shrugs:
I really don't get what you're saying here.
I really don't get what you're saying here.Ok, so 4e solved the "monk" problem by turning all monks into Jackie Chan's "helpless every-man" characters, yes?
I'm glad that there's a clear "feel" to it ... I'm not so glad that the feel locks the monk into Jackie-Chan knock offs all the time.
:shrugs:
He's saying that the movement you describe 4E monks having makes him think of jackie chan movies, where there is near constant repositioning.
I actually think that's pretty damn cool, myself.
I really don't get what you're saying here.Ok, so 4e solved the "monk" problem by turning all monks into Jackie Chan's "helpless every-man" characters, yes?
I'm glad that there's a clear "feel" to it ... I'm not so glad that the feel locks the monk into Jackie-Chan knock offs all the time.
:shrugs:
He's saying that the movement you describe 4E monks having makes him think of jackie chan movies, where there is near constant repositioning.
I actually think that's pretty damn cool, myself.
Yes - it's VERY cool ... but, when that's the SUM TOTAL of monk, it's now far too limiting.
What about the Bruce Lee from Fist of Fury scenes? THAT guy isn't a reposition/hapless mover - he's cleaning house BIG time.
What about Jet Li's character in Lethal Weapon 3? Again - certainly NOT build around repositioning.
Or add to that Tony Jaa's character in most of his movies - he's incredibly bad-ass and NONE of it really revolves around ONLY movement as his main power. Sure - that running scene posted up *can* qualify, but every other scene is of him laying waste to the enemies and it's NOT about positioning for him to get it done.
So, the idea of high-mobility guy is nice, and certainly cool, making that the ONLY option is terrible.
So choose strength as your secondary and take powers who's movement techniques give you bonuses to your defenses and let you simply move as normal.
:|
I could actually see a lot of current Archetypes for Fighter and Monk become "Warrior Exploits" and "Martial Secrets" (names just made up) gained every other level.The idea of Feats is a step towards a Skill-Based system, are you suggesting an almost fully Skill-Based system?
Either way if I was doing PF 2.0 would fold the Feats into the classes to make the classes more unique. In some ways like the development trees seen in the Star Wars SAGA rules. I would like to see Monks be able to do things no other class can, and the same for each class for that matter. The lines between classes is becoming grey, feats don't help with this, and adding extra classes ad nauseum sure doesn't either.
Monks aren't good because it seems many classes can do an equal or better job and that falls squarely at the reliance on feats to do anything neat as a Monk in combat.
S.
I was only thinking that I like the way they managed Rogue and barbarian. You can customize your PC with feats ("generic" powers) and talents/rage powers (more related, thematically, with the class).
I like a lot and IMHO would be nice for every non-spellcaster class. That's all.
About the monk, I re-state it: we don't need pre-made moves. Vital strike can be a good opening, closing, whatever "more damage" move. It's how feats scale and how demanding are prereqs that can hamper the true fun in building a martial character: mix and match maneuvers and strikes both in your build and in your turn.
Pre-made cool moves with fancy names... let them to other games ;)
|
The real issue is the monk currently has no place in Pathfinder. In 3.5 tumbling was fairly easy, and with Monk speed + easy tumbling + fairly easy/relevant combat maneuvers the monk could get where they needed to be, tangle up their opponent, and start doing hand-to-hand damage to finish them. Yes it was their only trick, but it was a good one.
Pathfinder correctly nerded Tumble and grapple; the first was too easy to get good at, 2nd was overly powerful. For the most part this was a good change, but it did hurt monks terribly.
The powers they got in return, well, don't make up.
So I think even the "love monk" camp is now in agreement they are weak. House rules can be argued now, but the bottom line is the monk is the failed class of Pathfinder. At least barbarian is great at low levels, and can set up a "decent" character for midlevels. Monks can take a APG package and be a pretty good archer or OK weapon user, but that defeats a lot of the flavor.
Topic done, Internet won, return of Ganon.
I wonder if to make the monk the "maneuver character" either give them a boon to using maneuvers:
a) a class level based increase to CM checks (perhaps also make CM's based off Wis to mitigate MAD)
b) a measure of (the monk may choose to inflict) X damage to be inflicted by a successful CMOne suggested I've posted about before to tease out maneuvers as a key theme for the Monk is to modify the maneuver training class ability to wipe away the Attack of Opportunity for any combat maneuver initiated by the Monk. That way they are free to be extremely versatile in battle as they don't need to take 10 different "improved" feats just to avoid AoO, assuming you add in the APG maneuvers.
Using that you'd have 10 different actions to try at a moments notice that are flavorful and different. You might not have the highest CMB, but you won't be penalized just for trying to pull off the maneuver.
The only thing that is unfortunate is that the APG baked in the new maneuvers as standard actions, so they can't be done during a flurry. Still, having this grab bag of options opens up the Monk into the flexible and versatile class that it ought to be. In 4E parlance, the Monk could be a martial controller, who'd quickly move around the battlefield and then move, shove, drag or disable... whatever needs to be done.
But I also like having Wis impacting CMB. Overall, conceptually the Monk ought to follow in the Paladin's redesign, so that it funnels as many class abilities into Wisdom as possible. It helps solve MAD and anchors the idea of being good at martial arts in the focus and training of the individual, rather than raw physical power and agility.
"Size matters not!"
That way you can have the skinny old man hunched over his staff who ends up being this phenomenal fighter, using the weakness of the enemy against them, etc. Right now Monks need to be these hulk-like warriors with arms as thick as telephone poles to be effective.
+1
Makes a lot of sense too if you think about it.
Most martial arts differ in the manuevers they perform not the strikes. the strikes yes are different but that is usually because a particular technique is applied to the strike (stunning fist, vital strike, touch of serentiy) or a different manuever is used to set them up (grappler, trip, reposition).
I say make them the best at manuevers. Sure it outshines the fighter in that respect then but to be honest most people dont play a fighter to be king of a manuever, they use the manuever so that they are king at damage and usually just one manuever.
Also I always liked the funnel wisdon and until you said the part about the old man I had no way to explain it, I say make it replace strength for combat manuevers and add it to damage on a stunning fist or something, because the wisdom to AC raelly isnt that good to be honest, it just basically replaces armor. Give them both, now we got a
Midnightoker - you lost the end of your thought there ...
@Prof: Man ... you might as well be speaking like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon - I do NOT grok 4e junk at all. I follow str as secondary - that's about it.
In any case, still FORCING movement-based does nothing to address that they've been pigeon-holed into that ONE defining characteristic, and nothing more.
Options and customization are the way to go - like Rogues w/Rogue Talents, and Barbarians with Rage Powers.
Look at the APG alternatives for monk - any/all of those things can be reworked into a more generalized framework of options that monk characters can pick and choose with the freedom of say the Rogue Talents ... so why not revise the monk in THAT direction?
Note: my suggestion does not exclude the options you're talking about with movement-based powers. In fact, they would make a DAMN fine idea and option for a line of stacking, progressive abilities chosen in the monk's career path. My criticism against your concept is not against the concept itself, but the narrowing definition of "monk" to fit ONLY that mechanical option in play. As one option amongst many, I LOVE that idea. As the sum total of monk, it's a pure fail to me. Likewise, with so many classes getting so many options and upgrades, the stuff that *did* get to the monk in revision by PF leaves me cold.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So you don't use casting classes in your games, right?
Swordsage and the rest ToB had too much fantasy mechanics that were far too easy to use all day long.What?
Vital Strike is a terrible feat chain, partially because it's a chain,
warblade and there's no supernatural maneuvers. Hey, look at that.
At the end of the day, the Monk isn't working, and at least in my opinion, an alternative fighting system would fix this.
For me, at least, the fact that the monk plays the exact same as a fighter does is a problem.
I don't tend to use them, no. I've got a 17th level 3.5 Druid who has never cast a spell. Granted he is a Master of Many Forms (so 5th level Druid) but he has never cast anything, ever.
I've just built a 4th level PFS Druid with a 7 Wisdom, so he won't ever be able to cast. He will keep his Druid 1/day Wild Shape and go on to another class.
As for my complaint on ToB, I worded it strangely. IN fantasy settings, fantasy things are "normal" but ToB things stand out and look too "fantasy." In other words, they don't look like the others (Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers) and therefore clash.
I don't have a problem with Vital Strike, the Monk (other than I'll never play past 2nd because a Monk isn't a Supernatural thing in my view), and the fighter.
But I think the Monk working like the fighter is exactly how it should be. I'd rather see the monk have a "martial" path to avoid the supernatural junk in favor of "I'm better at unarmed than a fighter" path.
As for my complaint on ToB, I worded it strangely. IN fantasy settings, fantasy things are "normal" but ToB things stand out and look too "fantasy." In other words, they don't look like the others (Clerics, Druids, Wizards, Paladins, Rangers) and therefore clash.
How?
The crusader is a paladin. Literally, the crusader fluff is the paladin fluff. He's a divine champion for his god that is given divine strength in arms.
The swordsage is the monk. Literally, the swordsage monk is the monk fluff. An aescetic warrior who gets a benefit from wisdom and uses a mystic fighting style. That's the monk!
The warblade is the warrior. I think you can kinda see where I'm' going with here! The warblade doesn't have any SU abilities at all, no access to any of the supernatural styles.
But I think the Monk working like the fighter is exactly how it should be. I'd rather see the monk have a "martial" path to avoid the supernatural junk in favor of "I'm better at unarmed than a fighter" path.
Then why have a different class at all?
In any case, still FORCING movement-based does nothing to address that they've been pigeon-holed into that ONE defining characteristic, and nothing more.
Movement based isn't forced though. You don't have to use the movement techniques. And even if you did, they aren't all zipping and zapping around.
Let's go back to that monk. Monks are an "A" class - one prime stat, two secondary (recently a third style was added, but I don't know of a letter that looks that way). Monks have dexterity as their main stat, with wisdom, strength, or for weapon users, constitution as their secondary. Let's go with strength, since we want a big musclebound guy who doesn't flip out or jump around, but just punches people and informs them that they're already dead.
Springing Drake Assault had too much jumping around, so we take Eternal Mountain instead. This one knocks the enemy prone when you hit (presumably due to you punching them right in the face), but the movement power is different. You shift two squares (shifting is movement without incurring an AoO; think of it like the five foot step, so this lets you make a ten foot step) and gain resistance to damaged based on your strength.
No dancing around, no jumping here and there, no zipping and zapping. You cold clock your enemy and sidestep, holding up your massing strength heavy arms to defend against further attacks.
The crusader is a paladin. Literally, the crusader fluff is the paladin fluff. He's a divine champion for his god that is given divine strength in arms.
The swordsage is the monk. Literally, the swordsage monk is the monk fluff. An aescetic warrior who gets a benefit from wisdom and uses a mystic fighting style. That's the monk!
The warblade is the warrior. I think you can kinda see where I'm' going with here! The warblade doesn't have any SU abilities at all, no access to any of the supernatural styles.
So why are we not incorporating things from Bo9S into PF for the similar classes (Paladin, Fighter, Monk)?
So why are we not incorporating things from Bo9S into PF for the similar classes (Paladin, Fighter, Monk)?The crusader is a paladin. Literally, the crusader fluff is the paladin fluff. He's a divine champion for his god that is given divine strength in arms.
The swordsage is the monk. Literally, the swordsage monk is the monk fluff. An aescetic warrior who gets a benefit from wisdom and uses a mystic fighting style. That's the monk!
The warblade is the warrior. I think you can kinda see where I'm' going with here! The warblade doesn't have any SU abilities at all, no access to any of the supernatural styles.
Backwards comparability, and many wrong opinions of ToB*. The monk needs a complete rebuild.
If you go search for thread on OMG ToB is Broken here is what happens.
OP: I heard/know/etc ToB is broken
Defender: Uh, not it is not, but for the sake of argument why do you think that.
OP:Because I heard (wrong info) OR My player did (illegal move) and so on
Defender: You know that is not legal because X,Y,Z
OP:Well what about (many other illegal things).
Defender: You can't do those either. Look at page (random number).
OP: Well what about Iron Heart Surge
Defender:I admit the book could have been edited better, but since WoTc was trying to push 4th edition they did not care enough to errata anything. The GM can fix that, and the core book has more broken things. [Then the defender goes on to list broken things].
Normally most of the OP's points are shut down so:
OP:Well I don't like it so I still won't allow it.
Defender:thinks to himself, "That was a great waste of time."
PS:I think the PF Fighter and Paladin have been greatly improved.
Seriously, you can go all the way back to 1E and Monks had strange powers. One Finger and Distance Death were both ranged martial art styles/techniques.
The swordsage is a monk or ninja, however you want to build him. He's got the killing touch attack (dim mak), he's got the fiery heart of beat you up (middle eastern), he can walk on air and flit from place to place (like a monk), toss stuff around with mighty throws, and deal incredible dmg with precise strikes.
He just uses a system that it's almost impossible for spellcasters to tap into, which is by design.
==Aelryinth
Just to chime in about the thing that disturbed me for most of this thread. I didn't realize what it was until I reached page 10 or so.
My latest monk started her career as... a barbarian. Yes. With a real RP "excuse" too (to sum up: a rage gone wrong, killing a family member, remorse, found enlightenment in the monastery).
For her first level, she took the Barbarian's alternate class feature called "Lion Totem" (from 3.5 Complete Champion), which gives Pounce in exchange for her enhanced speed.
Now, a dozen levels later, she can charge, using her enhanced mobility, and use the dreaded Flurry of Blows.
Almost everything from her Barbarian past help, too: a full 12 HP, +1 BAB, and rage (not that many rounds per day, but still...)
Because of this, I have trouble envisioning monks not able to do that naturally. Does that mean that this Lion's Totem is overpowered (as in "if people have the option between this and something else, there's not much of a choice")? Probably. My GM didn't seem to care.
$0.02
I'm very comfortable with adding a pounce mechanic either to their "Fast Movement" ability or their "Flurry of Blows" ability (must flurry after a move not just any full attack action) or even have it Ki activated. It really should be there already, imho.
I'm very comfortable with adding a pounce mechanic either to their "Fast Movement" ability or their "Flurry of Blows" ability (must flurry after a move not just any full attack action) or even have it Ki activated. It really should be there already, imho.
I agree that it seems like a great Ki power rather than one variant of one APG monk getting it at 17th level.
Lion totem barbarian clearly gets access to pounce as an ability far sooner than Pathfinder characters are typically allowed to access that feature. APG mobile fighters don't get a pounce like ability until 11th, beast totem barbarians don't get it until 10th, Shifter Rangers get it as a capstone, Master of the Four Winds Monks don't get it til 17th,etc.
Granted Druids still get pounce at 6th with their tiger forms but Druids are special still unbalanced snowflakes.
Unlocking pounce at first level makes lion totem barbarian a totally obvious dip class for all martial characters and Pathfinder really wanted to get away from that.
That being said I said early in this thread that the 5' step limit on full attack actions was bad design choice and rather than give people some method for unlocking pounce I think iterative attacks should be able to be combined with move actions (maybe not run actions though) for everyone. Maybe provide a penalty to hit (-2 seems to be the standard) and suddenly you have a much more mobile and dynamic battlefield. Pounce is still desirable because of it's interaction with abilities like rake but it's no longer the uber ability that it currently is.
Just to chime in about the thing that disturbed me for most of this thread. I didn't realize what it was until I reached page 10 or so.
My latest monk started her career as... a barbarian. Yes. With a real RP "excuse" too (to sum up: a rage gone wrong, killing a family member, remorse, found enlightenment in the monastery).
For her first level, she took the Barbarian's alternate class feature called "Lion Totem" (from 3.5 Complete Champion), which gives Pounce in exchange for her enhanced speed.Now, a dozen levels later, she can charge, using her enhanced mobility, and use the dreaded Flurry of Blows.
Almost everything from her Barbarian past help, too: a full 12 HP, +1 BAB, and rage (not that many rounds per day, but still...)Because of this, I have trouble envisioning monks not able to do that naturally. Does that mean that this Lion's Totem is overpowered (as in "if people have the option between this and something else, there's not much of a choice")? Probably. My GM didn't seem to care.
$0.02
I would say that 10 feet of movement does not equate to pounce, no. I could see it as a rage power selectable at 6th level, however.
That's just my take on it. If your gm says its kosher, then mazel tov!
Edit - ah, I guess it is a rage power, at 10th! Doh!
Well, I guess level 10...
On could argue that mobility is more important to a monk than a barb, and maybe give it up a bit earlier maybe?
But should it be a mechanic of FoB or of fast movement (always on when flurrying) or a ki power (situational)? The always on seems a bit problematic (will spring attack allow FoB at any point in the movement?)
and might open a can o worms there, where one fix raises the monk to flavor of the month class.
It needs work, but I'm confident this is the solution.
I'd really like to get James or Jason's view on this too, tbh. It's their baby. Maybe it was something they considered but turned down for x reason...
I agree it would be nice to see if James and/or Jason's take on a lot of the ideas we have been presenting. How much ground have we covered that they have rejected for various reasons?
I agree it would be nice to see if James and/or Jason's take on a lot of the ideas we have been presenting. How much ground have we covered that they have rejected for various reasons?
My thoughts exactly. I don't wish to assume they haven't thought of this stuff already as they are the professionals here :)
Also if these ideas have enough merit, maybe they won't need to be house ruled in, they could become canon changes (one can hope).So how do we do this? Start a new thread under rules questions, or FAQ this one? Would that be abusing the FAQ function?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I think you can kinda see where I'm' going with here!
I see where you are going. It is just that you don't agree that ToB is a bad thing for the game and I do.
My 3.5 game (now 16th level) started at level 1. My allowed material was:
1) All WotC 3.0 and up including setting books (Eberron/FR) and Dragon Magazines.
2) Some select third party (including all Living Arcanis)
I've always been liberal about allowed material.
I had a player start at level 1 with a Crusader, and level to 16th as Crusader. Around 14th I decided to make one change to the rules of the game. I created a vancian version of the Crusader and required he switch to it or rebuild as something else. He switched. He hated it, and switched to a controlling venerable dragonwroght(sp?) kobold sorcerer.
OP: I heard/know/etc ToB is broken
My PC from above's Crusader wasn't broken, but it also wasn't D&D. If you wish to suggest I banned due to him being broken as a Crusader, you are attacking the problem the wrong angle. I run high level games, so most things can be called "broken". In fact, his highly optimized kobold sorcerer was more broken to an extreme in almost every way than the Crusader. I was perfectly fine with his sorcerer. Maybe you (and others) don't understand why the ToB just rubs people (that have experience with it like me) the wrong way. Not all people, because clearly those (like my Crusader PC) really loved it.
Then why have a different class at all?
Why have a different class? Because you can't really build a Monk out of existing Fighter/Paladin/Ranger mold.
Bracers of Armor are more expensive than mundane armor, and make you miss out on special properties. The end result is you either end up with really bad AC, or you spend more gold than a Fighter would and still have worse AC. And when you can be unfavorably compared to a Fighter, you are not doing well.
Nope. The new Bracers of Armor work just the same as the new Amulet of Mighty Fists. You can add special properties to the bracers up to a +8 equivilent, as long as they already have a +1 and they're not one of the flat GP options.
The rest of your post is pretty much redundant, as it's been covered in the thread already, but at least you admit not having read any further than the first.
Seems like it should be an easy fix. At 8th level just allow the monk to spend one ki point in order to make a full attack at the end of a charge.
On a slight aside, just wanted to say how much I hate Freedom of Movement as a GM. I'm sorry, but a spell (and item) that negates more than a few monsters' special attacks (Vampire bites, Werewolf bites, various aberration grapples) is a tad broken for the level (and price) it is.
Ran a campaign a few years back which featured a werewolf cult as a central theme and villain, with designs on 'recruiting' as many members as possible. To make it fair, designed the monsters to need to grapple their targets before administering cursed bites, assuming there would be plenty of occasions where the party took damage, but may be able to escape a grapple before anything untoward happened to them. Its not like I wanted to actually kill the party anyway, maybe just generate a few scares and roleplay opportunities for them.
However, wholly unprompted by what they were going to be facing, turned out EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM bought/made Rings of FOM at the earliest opportunity (damn item creation feats!). Ignorant of the campaign-breaking nature of this item, I stupidly allowed it without batting an eyelid (they worked hard to get to be able to make them, let it roll), assuming naively at the time it only made them ignore adverse movement effects.
Result: Up to and including CR20 monsters rendered little more than fleshy pounding rocks for the fighters to wail on without fear by a lvl 4 spell that they could do nothing about (short of dropping disjunctions and greater dispels all of a sudden despite no previous casting ability...)
Suddenly wishing I'd removed any opportunity to buy/sell/make from the party around about lvl 7...
Freedom of Movement should probably be modified to change the immunity to grapple to a static bonus to CMD to resist grapple checks. Keep the various other benefits such as underwater movement.
Considering that casters have access to a ton of I win cards I don't really like them having a low level method of negating one of the few I win cards vs casters.
It would still be a useful spell but it wouldn't be "haha grapplers you suck" like it currently is.
Also note for Pathfinder, Pounce is only offered as an option for classes and variants that are using Natural Attacks, for the most part.
I believe Pounce should be an ability of all pure Melee classes at level 6. Of course, I believe Melee should get Full attacks with moves all the time, just like they had in 1E and 2E, but that's me.
==Aelryinth
Also note for Pathfinder, Pounce is only offered as an option for classes and variants that are using Natural Attacks, for the most part.
I believe Pounce should be an ability of all pure Melee classes at level 6. Of course, I believe Melee should get Full attacks with moves all the time, just like they had in 1E and 2E, but that's me.
==Aelryinth
a single level dip into lion totem barbarian helps you get pounce if your dm allows 3.5 edition stuff. 2 levels gets you uncanny dodge.
here is a really good strategy for leveling melee builds if 3.5 stuff is allowed.
take 2 levels of lion totem barbarian then multiclass into your desired melee class.