| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since Jade Regent is going to be the big Asia adventure path, I want to voice my ongoing disappointment that there is no martial artist base class, outside of the Monk.
My problem with the Monk is that
a.) it is assumed that every martial artist has trained in a monastery
b.) that every martial artist has to be lawful, which is contrary to many martial artists depicted in film and literature ( note: Being focused and disciplined is not equal to being lawful, otherwise Wizards and Fighters would need to be always lawful, too ) and
c.) that the Monk class is full of mystical supernatural abilities, which also is not reflected in many iconic martial arts movies.
d.) Hosts of mechanical problems with the Monk, like MAD, poor melee combat capabilities and so on. There are threads over threads about that, though, and I'd like to keep a bit more to the flavour side of things in this complaint.
I don't know how many of those concerns Ultimate Combat will alleviate. But even if the book would do that, the Monk would still be a Monk.
What about all those martial artist schools which are more about fighting than inner enlightment, known from all those Hongkonk martial arts movies? Being lawful was also not something I saw much of there.
I hope we could maybe get sometime in the future a generic Martial Artist base class, as an alternate class for the Monk, like the Ninja is for the Rogue. As to better reflect how fighting is done in Tian Xia. :)
|
I disagree with several of your points and will address them in the order in which they were placed in your post.
Your first point - taking the monk class does nothing to raise the assumption that the character was trained in a monastery. Having been trained in a monastic way of life does not necessarily imply having been trained in a monastery. There are many martial arts films that support this - the most immediate that comes to mind is Ip Man starring Donnie Yen. The classic training schools from countless Shaw Brothers films are not monasteries. The Shoalin temple in The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and again in Return to the 36th Chamber is the classic monastery. And the Shoalin/Wudan were well known for turning away more people than they actually took in.
Your second point - It is not assumed that every martial artist is lawful. Jackie Chan's classic film Half a Loaf of Kung Fu exemplifies this. Zhang Ziyi's character from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is another more recent example of a fighter with martial arts training that is not Lawfully aligned. And while I agree that being focused and discipline does not necessarily make a martial artist Lawful, respecting the traditions of one's martial arts school and teacher does.
Your third point - The monk's mystical supernatural abilities are gathered from various sources, mostly wuxia films. That Gary Gygax pulled the ones that he thought would make great player abilities in 1st Edition is beside the point. At some point, at least one of the abilities presented in the monk class is seen in Hong Kong martial arts cinema. And there are others in the movies that are not seen in the class itself, so yes the cinema monks are in fact full of mystical supernatural abilities.
I won't even touch the fourth and final point, as that is continually being debated in these forums. Nothing that I could say here would serve to be useful in a constructive, mind-changing fashion.
I disagree with several of your points and will address them in the order in which they were placed in your post.
Your first point - taking the monk class does nothing to raise the assumption that the character was trained in a monastery. Having been trained in a monastic way of life does not necessarily imply having been trained in a monastery. There are many martial arts films that support this - the most immediate that comes to mind is Ip Man starring Donnie Yen. The classic training schools from countless Shaw Brothers films are not monasteries. The Shoalin temple in The 36th Chamber of Shaolin and again in Return to the 36th Chamber is the classic monastery. And the Shoalin/Wudan were well known for turning away more people than they actually took in.
Flavor writing from the PF books however, does. We get write-ups about Chelaxian monasteries or Vudran monasteries. Pure martial arts fighting schools are not mentioned to exist in Avistan or Garund.
I would, however, expect them to exist in the eastern setting of Tian Xia, if Paizo intends to stay within the flavor of existing martial arts movies. As such, having only Monks be martial artists is a problem for me.
Your second point - It is not assumed that every martial artist is lawful. Jackie Chan's classic film Half a Loaf of Kung Fu exemplifies this. Zhang Ziyi's character from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is another more recent example of a fighter with martial arts training that is not Lawfully aligned. And while I agree that being focused and discipline does not necessarily make a martial artist Lawful, respecting the traditions of one's martial arts school and teacher does.
So, every person who respects their teacher is lawful? Uh, sorry, I disagree.
Your third point - The monk's mystical supernatural abilities are gathered from various sources, mostly wuxia films. That Gary Gygax pulled the ones that he thought would make great player abilities in 1st Edition is beside the point. At some point, at least one of the abilities presented in the monk class is seen in Hong Kong martial arts cinema. And there are others in the movies that are not seen in the class itself, so yes the cinema monks are in fact full of mystical supernatural abilities.
Well, my problem is with not with the Monk class having supernatural abilities. My problem is with there being no martial artist class which eschews those for a more physically focused style.
I hope that archetypes in Ultimate Combat may fulfill my hope for a more martially oriented martial artist, but I fear that it will still be lathered to the old hide-bound "must be lawful, must be monastery trained" paradigm. The APG archetypes did not fill me much with confidence so far that the Paizo writing staff is willing to broaden the horizon of the Monk class to more martial arts characters. That's why I wrote this post.
Your third point - The monk's mystical supernatural abilities are gathered from various sources, mostly wuxia films. That Gary Gygax pulled the ones that he thought would make great player abilities in 1st Edition is beside the point. At some point, at least one of the abilities presented in the monk class is seen in Hong Kong martial arts cinema. And there are others in the movies that are not seen in the class itself, so yes the cinema monks are in fact full of mystical supernatural abilities.
All true but I believe the point the OP was trying to make with this one is that Martial Arts cinema is also chock full of people with no mystical abilities what so ever who are never the less purveyors of some bad ass kung-fuery and that this is a difficult character concept to make happen in pathfinder.
I whole heartedly agree. I love the monk for when I want a mystical martial artist but I would like for there to me a non mystical alternative.
Torger
|
Since Jade Regent is going to be the big Asia adventure path, I want to voice my ongoing disappointment that there is no martial artist base class, outside of the Monk.
My problem with the Monk is that
a.) it is assumed that every martial artist has trained in a monastery
b.) that every martial artist has to be lawful, which is contrary to many martial artists depicted in film and literature ( note: Being focused and disciplined is not equal to being lawful, otherwise Wizards and Fighters would need to be always lawful, too ) and
c.) that the Monk class is full of mystical supernatural abilities, which also is not reflected in many iconic martial arts movies.
d.) Hosts of mechanical problems with the Monk, like MAD, poor melee combat capabilities and so on. There are threads over threads about that, though, and I'd like to keep a bit more to the flavour side of things in this complaint.I don't know how many of those concerns Ultimate Combat will alleviate. But even if the book would do that, the Monk would still be a Monk.
What about all those martial artist schools which are more about fighting than inner enlightment, known from all those Hongkonk martial arts movies? Being lawful was also not something I saw much of there.
I hope we could maybe get sometime in the future a generic Martial Artist base class, as an alternate class for the Monk, like the Ninja is for the Rogue. As to better reflect how fighting is done in Tian Xia. :)
I think they could make an unarmed martial arts variant fairly easily that would do what you want but not be a monk.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk, he is a fighter. He doesn't have supernatural abilities, he doesn't run at 100 miles an hour. He just kicks ass and chews bubblegum.
Make a fighter variant that doesn't need armor and you will be good to go. My suggestion would be having some sort of scaling damage reduction scaling system when wearing no armor similar to what they did with the barbarians without armor.
I think they could make an unarmed martial arts variant fairly easily that would do what you want but not be a monk.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk, he is a fighter. He doesn't have supernatural abilities, he doesn't run at 100 miles an hour. He just kicks ass and chews bubblegum.
Make a fighter variant that doesn't need armor and you will be good to go. My suggestion would be having some sort of scaling damage reduction scaling system when wearing no armor similar to what they did with the barbarians without armor.
Mostly I want Paizo to support some of that via archetypes for their Tian Xia setting book or in Ultimate Magic. :) When Jade Regent drops, it'd be nice to have some official material, because house rules I can always write up myself. :p
|
|
Mostly I want Paizo to support some of that via archetypes for their Tian Xia setting book or in Ultimate Magic. :) When Jade Regent drops, it'd be nice to have some official material, because house rules I can always write up myself. :pI think they could make an unarmed martial arts variant fairly easily that would do what you want but not be a monk.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk, he is a fighter. He doesn't have supernatural abilities, he doesn't run at 100 miles an hour. He just kicks ass and chews bubblegum.
Make a fighter variant that doesn't need armor and you will be good to go. My suggestion would be having some sort of scaling damage reduction scaling system when wearing no armor similar to what they did with the barbarians without armor.
No I mean Paizo should make a fighter variant that does this rather than try to make a monk do this.
No I mean Paizo should make a fighter variant that does this rather than try to make a monk do this.Mostly I want Paizo to support some of that via archetypes for their Tian Xia setting book or in Ultimate Magic. :) When Jade Regent drops, it'd be nice to have some official material, because house rules I can always write up myself. :pI think they could make an unarmed martial arts variant fairly easily that would do what you want but not be a monk.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk, he is a fighter. He doesn't have supernatural abilities, he doesn't run at 100 miles an hour. He just kicks ass and chews bubblegum.
Make a fighter variant that doesn't need armor and you will be good to go. My suggestion would be having some sort of scaling damage reduction scaling system when wearing no armor similar to what they did with the barbarians without armor.
I don't think so. Monks are already martial art characters. Why not use them as base for an alternate class?
|
|
I don't think so. Monks are already martial art characters. Why not use them as base for an alternate class?No I mean Paizo should make a fighter variant that does this rather than try to make a monk do this.Mostly I want Paizo to support some of that via archetypes for their Tian Xia setting book or in Ultimate Magic. :) When Jade Regent drops, it'd be nice to have some official material, because house rules I can always write up myself. :pI think they could make an unarmed martial arts variant fairly easily that would do what you want but not be a monk.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk, he is a fighter. He doesn't have supernatural abilities, he doesn't run at 100 miles an hour. He just kicks ass and chews bubblegum.
Make a fighter variant that doesn't need armor and you will be good to go. My suggestion would be having some sort of scaling damage reduction scaling system when wearing no armor similar to what they did with the barbarians without armor.
Because Monks aren't melee characters. They are mystics with supernatural abilities who also can fight well in melee.
But not as well as a fighter.
If you devote your entire life to studying melee combat, you will be better at it that some who spends their entire life mastering supernatural abilities.
Because Monks aren't melee characters. They are mystics with supernatural abilities who also can fight well in melee.
But not as well as a fighter.
If you devote your entire life to studying melee combat, you will be better at it that some who spends their entire life mastering supernatural abilities.
I really don't want to do the same debates again. But I disagree about what the role of the Monk should be and of any alternate classes derived from it.
|
|
I really don't want to do the same debates again. But I disagree about what the role of the Monk should be and of any alternate classes derived from it.Because Monks aren't melee characters. They are mystics with supernatural abilities who also can fight well in melee.
But not as well as a fighter.
If you devote your entire life to studying melee combat, you will be better at it that some who spends their entire life mastering supernatural abilities.
You disagree with the designers of 3.5 and Pathfinder then.
Look, if it was meant to be a tank it would have full BaB and at least a d10.
It doesn't, ergo...
There isn't a "martial artist base class" outside the monk, because there doesn't need to be. The monk is the mystical martial artist who gains supernatural ability through intense discipline and special training (hence the lawful alignment to simulate the ordered lifestyle and mindset required). Other "generic" martial artists can be easily modeled with existing archetypes (brutal pugilist, drunken brute, and invulnerable rager (barbarian); samurai (cavalier); mobile fighter and two-weapon warrior (fighter); skirmisher (ranger); acrobat, ninja, and scout (rogue)) and/or feat chains (Combat Expertise, Dodge, Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Vital Strike). Most "generic" martial artists fight defensively or use Combat Expertise (i.e., block or avoid blows instead of all-out attacking), so they don't necessarily need to wear armor (especially if they have access to a magical alternative). Remember that the term "martial arts" includes more than unarmed/unarmored combat: arnis/kali/escrima, fencing, kenjutsu, etc. are "martial arts" as much as aikido, boxing, jiu-jistu/judo, karate/kobujustu, etc.; also many "unarmed" martial arts include training in techniques with various weapons as well.
For instance, a "martial artist" who concentrates on punching (i.e., a boxer):
Human Fighter (Two-Weapon Warrior)
14 Str, 16 Dex (+2 race), 14 Con, 10 Int, 12 Wis, 8 Cha; 15-Point Buy
1st- Double Slice, Improved Unarmed Strike, Two-Weapon Fighting
2nd- Power Attack
3rd- Weapon Focus (Brass Knuckles, Cestus, Gauntlet, Spiked Gauntlet, or Unarmed Strike)
4th- +1 Dex; Weapon Specialization
5th- Step Up
6th- Improved Two-Weapon Fighting
7th- Following Step
8th- +1 Wis; Stunning Fist
9th- Greater Weapon Focus
10th- Step Up and Strike
11th- Two-Weapon Rend
12th- +1 Str; Dazing Assault
13th- Strike Back
14th- Greater Weapon Specialization
15th- Penetrating Strike
...
Alternately, switch Int and Wis, take +1 Int and Combat Expertise at 4th level (+1 Dex and Improved Two-Weapon Fighting at 8th), and take more defensive (i.e., Dodge chain) and combat maneuver feats. Even the "mystical martial artist" can be simulated by an alchemist, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, oracle, paladin, summoner (synthesist especially), and (as a bit of a stretch) magus, sorcerer, witch, and wizard.
Actually, an unarmed strike magus could be an interesting alternative to a qinggong monk (since an unarmed strike usually counts as "wielding a light... melee weapon" with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat)...
By this argument, we didn't need the Ninja or Samurai, neither.
|
|
By this argument, we didn't need the Ninja or Samurai, neither.
Don't get me started on the ninja (should have been based off the Ranger, not the rogue...grrr)
We don't need the samurai. It is basically a Cavalier variant in a lot of ways. But I like that they put time and thought into making an iconic concept workable.
Bruce Lee isn't a monk. He's a martial artist. There are conceptually monks.
We can have both.
I do think that there needs to be a martial arts fighter variant who can fight unarmed and unarmored. I think dodge bonus combined with damage reduction (all while wearing no armor) would make this work fine as a fighter variant.
You know what, screw that noise. There totally needs to be a Martial Artist base alternate class, because that is what Tian Xia is all about, not silly "I can do this with a Fighter" builds.
It needs to be there, because it belongs to the setting.
|
Let's not get snippy now. They are all valid points. I could see a Fighter alternate class that focuses on unarmed combat. The pugilist that is about hitting hard and fast.
The thing that is worth noting is that an alternate class for the monk will NEVER have a full BAB. This is simply because of the definition of alternate class.
I agree that you can do it with a fighter archetype or alternate class. Work with your GM, the way things are written by the Paizo guys are guidelines. They are not set in stone. If you want to change something talk to your GM and then set about to do it in a fair, non-game breaking way.
Sorry that my post is all over the place, I am finishing up working overtime on a Saturday and am a little scatterbrained.
The point is, you are all correct, just the OP needs to work it out with his GM until they all are happy.
Peace!
|
I would, however, expect them to exist in the eastern setting of Tian Xia, if Paizo intends to stay within the flavor of existing martial arts movies. As such, having only Monks be martial artists is a problem for me.
It's possible that Paizo might not care about what movies say about movies. They might care though.
|
I don't think your using the term Martial Arts correctly.
Given the huge amount of Martial Arts in the world today you really don't have to work hard to find something that probably works as a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier, Rogue or the like. Monk fills a generic punch/kick school, but schools focusing on grappling and throws are easily represented just by taking a few feats.
By this argument, we didn't need the Ninja or Samurai, neither.
<shrug>
IMO, no we didn't "need" separate ninja or samurai classes/variants. It may have been more cumbersome to get certain abilities/equivalents (such as the ki pool of the ninja or the resolve of the samurai) through multiclassing, spell use, etc., but many classes can fill the "sneaky infiltrator/assassin" and "dedicated warrior" roles.
The cultural aspects are mostly flavor and not mechanics, anyway. The 3.x/Pathfinder ruleset is flexible and robust enough to model a "Far East" setting for all but the most discriminating orient-philes; the same can be said regarding European-based settings, as well (see the recurring debates regarding bows vs. crossbows, for instance).
I don't think your using the term Martial Arts correctly.
Given the huge amount of Martial Arts in the world today you really don't have to work hard to find something that probably works as a Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cavalier, Rogue or the like. Monk fills a generic punch/kick school, but schools focusing on grappling and throws are easily represented just by taking a few feats.
All right, that's about the only argument so far which holds any weight. But, yeah, what I'd like is a Tian Xia styled martial artist class, which should go well with the setting.
Anyone eager for more martial arts stuff need only wait for Ultimate Combat to come out at Gen Con. Not coincidentally on the same day that the first Jade Regent Adventure Path comes along.
Well, I hope the Monk fixes are in there we are all waiting for... and things for non-monastery trained, non-lawful, non-supernatural Monks. :p
Couldn't be bothered to read all the arguments again, sorry.
But your arguments are based on the wrong assumption:
Since Jade Regent is going to be the big Asia adventure path
Only that it won't be. As has been stated many times 2/3 of the AP are going to be concerned with the journey TO Tian Xia.
So there's time enough for Paizo to publish the Ultimate Combat book, where there are going to be all these asian-themed classes described in detail.Ruyan.
[EDIT]Grml, seems I had a glitch and the last three posts didn't show. So there, JJ said it.
Couldn't be bothered to read all the arguments again, sorry.
But your arguments are based on the wrong assumption:
Since Jade Regent is going to be the big Asia adventure pathOnly that it won't be. As has been stated many times 2/3 of the AP are going to be concerned with the journey TO Tian Xia.
So there's time enough for Paizo to publish the Ultimate Combat book, where there are going to be all these asian-themed classes described in detail.Ruyan.
[EDIT]Grml, seems I had a glitch and the last three posts didn't show. So there, JJ said it.
It's the introduction AP to Tian Xia, and while only 1/3 of the AP will be in Tian Xia, we will see pretty constantly asian element crop up, like agents of the Jade Regent.
And even if only 1/3 of the AP were to have anything for Tian Xia, we had Ultimate Combat introduce the Ninja and Samurai at the same time and not coincidentally as James pointed out upthread. Now, I am pretty hopeful that UC will also give tons of martial arts material and, hey, maybe a "Martial Artist" archetype is already in the book.
But I don't think it a bad thing to point out that a Martial Artist alternate class, like with the Ninja and Samurai, would have been a neat idea.
|
You know Mag, the way you write your posts gives me the impression that you are very closed minded to the advice given here for alternate monk type characters.
You seem so steadfastly against alternate class features, fighter/ranger/rogue etc... alternates that would still fit what you want to do.
(This is just my impression by what I have read of your posts in this thread)
You obviously have a love of martial arts, perhaps more mixed martial arts due to your multiple mentions that you prefer non-lawful type monks not being trained in a monastery that are not supernatural.
I am just wanting to point out (as others have) that you CAN make anything you want to in this game without a full 20 level class tailored to your specific (and imo, very restrictive) wants.
open your mind, unlearn what you have learned, and actually try to make this specific type asian themed character with the rules that are already in existance.
I have a funny feeling that if you try, you will succeed with this elusive character concept without ever seeing a single page of UC.
I wish you success.
You know Mag, the way you write your posts gives me the impression that you are very closed minded to the advice given here for alternate monk type characters.
You seem so steadfastly against alternate class features, fighter/ranger/rogue etc... alternates that would still fit what you want to do.
(This is just my impression by what I have read of your posts in this thread)
You obviously have a love of martial arts, perhaps more mixed martial arts due to your multiple mentions that you prefer non-lawful type monks not being trained in a monastery that are not supernatural.
I am just wanting to point out (as others have) that you CAN make anything you want to in this game without a full 20 level class tailored to your specific (and imo, very restrictive) wants.
open your mind, unlearn what you have learned, and actually try to make this specific type asian themed character with the rules that are already in existance.
I have a funny feeling that if you try, you will succeed with this elusive character concept without ever seeing a single page of UC.
I wish you success.
Oh, I'd be happy with a detailed archetype, too. A very detailed archetype. ^^
But, hey, likewise I see tons of closed-minded people who are totally against the idea of a martial artist alternate class. Maybe it's them who should open their mind to it, instead of instinctively crying out "no, no new classes!".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer a basic martial artist(not supernatural) class with different styles to choose from in the same way that the ranger can choose different fighting styles.
Examples:
striking based
cmd based
movement based
counter attack based
etc
It might also be nice to be able to concentrate on different forms, but you just won't be as good as in the two forms as you would be if you devoted yourself to one form.
Then they could all argue about which dojo is better, and have ongoing vendettas and duels and such.
Kinda like real life.
|
|
I would prefer a basic martial artist(not supernatural) class with different styles to choose from in the same way that the ranger can choose different fighting styles.
Examples:
striking based
cmd based
movement based
counter attack based
etcIt might also be nice to be able to concentrate on different forms, but you just won't be as good as in the two forms as you would be if you devoted yourself to one form.
This. A monk isn't Jackie Chan/Bruce Lee/Jet Li/etc...
I would like that class. But let a monk be a monk.
And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?
And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?
Couldn't just be a fighter archetype that gets flurry of blows? Especially
since Martial Arts are going to be a series of feats.
And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?Couldn't just be a fighter archetype that gets flurry of blows? Especially
since Martial Arts are going to be a series of feats.
Eh, if it is done well, why not that, too? The Monk already has many of the "basic" features, though, it'd just need to get better in some regards... :p
|
|
And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?Couldn't just be a fighter archetype that gets flurry of blows? Especially
since Martial Arts are going to be a series of feats.
Well...isn't that what the two-weapon fighting chain is?
Well...isn't that what the two-weapon fighting chain is?And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?Couldn't just be a fighter archetype that gets flurry of blows? Especially
since Martial Arts are going to be a series of feats.
Basically, but if you made it only for unarmed attacks, and did the increased damage for unarmed attacks it could be interesting.
Basically, but if you made it only for unarmed attacks, and did the increased damage for unarmed attacks it could be interesting.Well...isn't that what the two-weapon fighting chain is?And what else have I been asking for than an alternate class to the Monk, like the Ninja is the alternate to the Rogue and the Samurai to the Cavalier.... ?Couldn't just be a fighter archetype that gets flurry of blows? Especially
since Martial Arts are going to be a series of feats.
The fighter already outdamages the monk in unarmed attacks. No need to make the difference greater. All you really need is an unarmored fighter varient.
Is character concept that hard to separate from a level progression chart? I've played a Samurai character using a Ranger as the base class before. Sure each + and - and ability wasn't named after an appropriate thematic power, and the mechanics didn't mesh perfectly but...it worked out okay and he was a fun character to play.
On a similar "new class/writeup for every character concept" line of thinking, do people need a new monster entry to have an Orc Hag villain? I mean sure you can take orc and apply the witch class to it but it isn't an orc hag by RAW so don't give me any of that hogwash about adjusting the game to fit a concept!
Does an asian farmer NPC have to be Asian Farmer NPC in order to fit into Jade Regent or can he just be a Commoner? Isn't it the tiniest bit condescending that the Oriental merchant NPC can't just be an Expert but has to be a "Asian Spice Exporter" NPC?
Take a fighter/paladin/ranger/rogue/barbarian/inquisitor/cleric/etc, drape him or her in thematically appropriate tropes, feat progressions & gear...poof...fun oriental-themed times.
OR...wait untill Ultimate Combat comes out and complain that Paizo has let the world down by not including an Asian themed version of Power Attack in the feats section.
Sorry for the tone of my post here. Not trying to instigate a "no shampoo is betta" argument. I guess I just don't see the same bars and restrictions that the OP presents. It doesn't make Magnuskn's points invalid for those in agreement. I just think that sometimes the simplest solution is the best (in my opinion only), even if we have to take a step back, turn our heads sideways and re-approach a problem from a different angle.
I'd like to chime in favor of re-skinned existing classes. I would rather have a few flexible classes than a menagerie of base classes, such as 3.5 and 4 are suffering from. Urban Ranger doesn't have to be its own base class, it works better as an archetype.
That said, I enjoy the "captain" feel of the cavalier, the unique (if somewhat scattered) alchemist, and many other base classes.
I could live with a re-skinning of ranger that allows "divine rangers" rather than Inquisitors, or for inquisitors to be a ranger archetype. I can live with druids becoming clerical archetypes (yes, yes, heresy, I know). I could have lived with wizard and sorcerer options allowing witches to sub in those classes.
(And yes, while we're on the subject of heresies, I could see the sorcerer folded into wizard and a spontaneous-casting cleric.)
But yes, I see no reason why EVERY character who throws a roundhouse kick has to be a monk.
Looking forward to class-independent feat trees that enable me to make "The Bride with White Hair" as a witch, and still be as AWESOME as she was in the movie Forbidden Kingdom.
funny thing about the monk that has been a bit of a bother to me is that IMO a base line monk is your asian inspiared kung fu monk. because All Monks Know Kung Fu.
I could be wrong though, but I am hoping for in ultimate combat to have more mixed martial arts and other styles besides just shoalin inspired, I mean even look at the name of their ablities.
|
|
The fighter already outdamages the monk in unarmed attacks. No need to make the difference greater. All you really need is an unarmored fighter varient.
A fighter can outdamage a monk unarmed? What? Uhmm yer gonna have to explain that one to me, how does a 7th level fighter go from using a longsword (lets say) to using a 1d3 weapon still outdamage a 7th level monk that still gets to use his longswords?
It gets worse for the fighter if he uses a two-hand weapon because then he loses on the dice and his Str-and-a-half, more if you factor in Power Attack.
An Unarmed Fighter archetype is definetly something that is needed because the only characters that can use unarmed attcks effectively in the game are Monks, which is kinda lame. Since film is full of non-monk martial artists (a bride with white hair witch with unarmed attacks would be awesome).
Give a fighter an archetype that uses Weapon Training that focuses on increased unarmed damage and Armor Training that gives DR (or something) and you've got the makings of a great unarmed fighter. Which I would bet is something that will be in Ultimate Combat.
The fighter already outdamages the monk in unarmed attacks. No need to make the difference greater. All you really need is an unarmored fighter varient.A fighter can outdamage a monk unarmed? What? Uhmm yer gonna have to explain that one to me, how does a 7th level fighter go from using a longsword (lets say) to using a 1d3 weapon still outdamage a 7th level monk that still gets to use his longswords?
It gets worse for the fighter if he uses a two-hand weapon because then he loses on the dice and his Str-and-a-half, more if you factor in Power Attack.
An Unarmed Fighter archetype is definetly something that is needed because the only characters that can use unarmed attcks effectively in the game are Monks, which is kinda lame. Since film is full of non-monk martial artists (a bride with white hair witch with unarmed attacks would be awesome).
Give a fighter an archetype that uses Weapon Training that focuses on increased unarmed damage and Armor Training that gives DR (or something) and you've got the makings of a great unarmed fighter. Which I would bet is something that will be in Ultimate Combat.
The monk has its advantage in higher total damage, but loses because of the significantly lower bonus to hit. Base fighter can have higher DPR than the monk when using unarmed combat. Flat bonus to hit and damage is better than increasing the damage die. With fighter training and weapon spec, he keeps up with the monk. The bonuses to hit make the fighter power attack more effective. Double Slice makes up for the penalties of TWF vs FoB, and allows you to qualify for Two Weapon Rend.
Now, this is not the most optimal fighter, but it does outdamage the monk. Monk is still better, IMO, because of the other defenses that it gets.
Think about it this way. At 5th level, the fighter has weapon spec and weapon training. That 1d3 is +3, so its 4.5 average damage and +1 to hit. The monk has no bonus to hit and gets 1d8 damage, which averages 4.5. At 8th, the monk goes to 5.5, while the fighter hits 5.5 and +3 (IWF and second weapon training) to hit at 9th. 12th, monk goes up to 7 average, and the fighter picks up GWS for 7.5, and at 13th goes up to 8.5 with +4 to hit. 16th, the monk is averaging 9, but his lead only lasts 1 level when the fighter gets annother +1 for 9.5 and +5 to hit. The monk pulls ahead again in damage at 20, but that doesn't beat out fighter weapon mastery in DPR.
|
|
The monk has its advantage in higher total damage, but loses because of the significantly lower bonus to hit. Base fighter can have higher DPR than the monk when using unarmed combat. Flat bonus to hit and damage is better than increasing the damage die. With fighter training and weapon spec, he keeps up with the monk. The bonuses to hit make the fighter power attack more effective. Double Slice makes up for the penalties of TWF vs FoB, and allows you to qualify for Two Weapon Rend.
Now, this is not the most optimal fighter, but it does outdamage the monk. Monk is still better, IMO, because of the other defenses that it gets.
Think about it this way. At 5th level, the fighter has weapon spec and weapon training. That 1d3 is +3, so its 4.5 average damage and +1 to hit. The monk has no bonus to hit and gets 1d8 damage, which...
Oh ok I see now. Yer one of those DPR people.
So on that note all I will say is you are wrong about the monk, they get to use their level for base attack when using FoB so they dont lose anything on that front to a fighter.Math being what it is can tell you a lot of things and you can make it do a lot of things. But sit down at a table and actually have a fight between a fighter (who's unarmed) and a monk (who's not) and then you tell me how that went for your fighter. Yes a fighter who spent all his feats and his first weapon group on close weapons might be able to out-damage a monk. Take a 'real' fighter who uses weapons and then un-arm him and see who does more damage. The next closest fighter to your example is a two-weapon fighter that uses two light weapons to begin with.
[EDIT] Also, I'm pretty sure the fighter only gets 1/2 Str on his off-hand attacks, monks get full Str for all their attacks.
The monk has its advantage in higher total damage, but loses because of the significantly lower bonus to hit. Base fighter can have higher DPR than the monk when using unarmed combat. Flat bonus to hit and damage is better than increasing the damage die. With fighter training and weapon spec, he keeps up with the monk. The bonuses to hit make the fighter power attack more effective. Double Slice makes up for the penalties of TWF vs FoB, and allows you to qualify for Two Weapon Rend.
Now, this is not the most optimal fighter, but it does outdamage the monk. Monk is still better, IMO, because of the other defenses that it gets.
Think about it this way. At 5th level, the fighter has weapon spec and weapon training. That 1d3 is +3, so its 4.5 average damage and +1 to hit. The monk has no bonus to hit and gets 1d8 damage, which...
Oh ok I see now. Yer one of those DPR people.
So on that note all I will say is you are wrong about the monk, they get to use their level for base attack when using FoB so they dont lose anything on that front to a fighter.Math being what it is can tell you a lot of things and you can make it do a lot of things. But sit down at a table and actually have a fight between a fighter (who's unarmed) and a monk (who's not) and then you tell me how that went for your fighter. Yes a fighter who spent all his feats and his first weapon group on close weapons might be able to out-damage a monk. Take a 'real' fighter who uses weapons and then un-arm him and see who does more damage. The next closest fighter to your example is a two-weapon fighter that uses two light weapons to begin with.
[EDIT] Also, I'm pretty sure the fighter only gets 1/2 Str on his off-hand attacks, monks get full Str for all their attacks.
1st: I fully agree that a monk is better than an unarmed fighter overall. I was just pointing out how the fighter outdamaged the monk unarmed, which was my claim. I do this to show that an unarmed character can be made that does not have the mysticism attached to the monk, and they will still be effective. They will not be optimal. My point was you could build this way if you wanted to, to counter the claim upthread about monks being the only unarmed fighters worth playing and having too much off flavor. The fighter brings no flavor baggage and can be effective.
2nd. The hit bonus I include is coming from weapon training and improved weapon focus, not the fighter's better BAB (which is indeed canceled out when the monk uses FoB.)
3rd. The fighter will get 1/2 str until he picks up the Double Slice feat, which he can qualify for at 1st level as a human. Power Attack will still be affected, so the monk does pull ahead a little there, but not enough to offset the hit bonus.(depending on the GM, I have seen it as a common houserule/rules error to allow PA to count full with Double Slice as well. I allow it personally because the TWF in my group is horrible at math and it speeds him up to have identical weapons.)
My money is on Sajan in an unarmed fight.
Getting back on topic, the Martial Artist archetype in Ultimate Combat basically solves my initial complaint. Now only the ones about the Monk as a general class being lacking remain ( The problems being MAD, bad synergy of combat styles and difficulty of enchanting the Monks unarmed attacks ).
|
|
Getting back on topic, the Martial Artist archetype in Ultimate Combat basically solves my initial complaint. Now only the ones about the Monk as a general class being lacking remain ( The problems being MAD, bad synergy of combat styles and difficulty of enchanting the Monks unarmed attacks ).
Monks are awesome, yes you need good stats (like a paladin, why don't they suck?), how is it difficult to enchant their attacks? Magic Weapon and GMW still work don't they? Get a wand and UMD. Easy as hell. The rest is just groundless whining about monks and I'm sick of hearing it but I respect your right to continue with it. I've run (or been in [multiple] partys with) monks and at no time have I or my other party members said/thought 'boy yer monk just sucks, my character is just soooo much kewler because...(insert random nonsense here)'
I was all behind you on the non-monk martial artist as something that was totally needed in Pathfinder, since only monks can effectively use unarmed combat. But if yer gonna start monk bashing, goodbye.
EDIT: This goes all the way back to 3.0 monks not just Pathfinder monks.
|
|
Getting back on topic, the Martial Artist archetype in Ultimate Combat basically solves my initial complaint. Now only the ones about the Monk as a general class being lacking remain ( The problems being MAD, bad synergy of combat styles and difficulty of enchanting the Monks unarmed attacks ).Monks are awesome, yes you need good stats (like a paladin, why don't they suck?), how is it difficult to enchant their attacks? Magic Weapon and GMW still work don't they? Get a wand and UMD. Easy as hell. The rest is just groundless whining about monks and I'm sick of hearing it but I respect your right to continue with it. I've run (or been in [multiple] partys with) monks and at no time have I or my other party members said/thought 'boy yer monk just sucks, my character is just soooo much kewler because...(insert random nonsense here)'
I was all behind you on the non-monk martial artist as something that was totally needed in Pathfinder, since only monks can effectively use unarmed combat. But if yer gonna start monk bashing, goodbye.
EDIT: This goes all the way back to 3.0 monks not just Pathfinder monks.
Criticizing the treatment the monk class has gotten isn't the same as bashing the monk. For starters, criticism tends to come from those that like the monk and want it to be good at being a monk.
Magnuskn isn't knocking the monk or anyone's characters. He's calling out issues that monk players have been having to put up with for 10+ years that still haven't been resolved.
Getting back on topic, the Martial Artist archetype in Ultimate Combat basically solves my initial complaint. Now only the ones about the Monk as a general class being lacking remain ( The problems being MAD, bad synergy of combat styles and difficulty of enchanting the Monks unarmed attacks ).Monks are awesome, yes you need good stats (like a paladin, why don't they suck?), how is it difficult to enchant their attacks? Magic Weapon and GMW still work don't they? Get a wand and UMD. Easy as hell. The rest is just groundless whining about monks and I'm sick of hearing it but I respect your right to continue with it. I've run (or been in [multiple] partys with) monks and at no time have I or my other party members said/thought 'boy yer monk just sucks, my character is just soooo much kewler because...(insert random nonsense here)'
I was all behind you on the non-monk martial artist as something that was totally needed in Pathfinder, since only monks can effectively use unarmed combat. But if yer gonna start monk bashing, goodbye.
EDIT: This goes all the way back to 3.0 monks not just Pathfinder monks.
Criticizing the treatment the monk class has gotten isn't the same as bashing the monk. For starters, criticism tends to come from those that like the monk and want it to be good at being a monk.
Magnuskn isn't knocking the monk or anyone's characters. He's calling out issues that monk players have been having to put up with for 10+ years that still haven't been resolved.
Quite exactly. And, no, Paladins don't suffer from MAD anymore. WIS stopped being an important stat for them in Pathfinder.