There is a common misunderstanding t5hat monks are a martial class. I don't know where it comes from, but I think that if therewere feats fighters could take which enhanced their unarmed combat ability, maybe some othis confusion about the monk would go away.
You mean, I don't know, I'm spit-balling here, "Improved Unarmed Strike"?
Basically, monks are thought to be a martial class because they practice martial arts. It's kind-of in the name!
And you're view of "Christmas tree" is not my view of "Christmas tree". My view includes little bulbs, some blinking lights, strings of golden flashy things, and no less than one string of popcor- ... *looks at forum* ... hm, you know, nevermind carry on^.
All kidding aside, fighter talents are a pretty good idea.
Also, despite your distaste, there's plenty of precedent for it, and all peoples' tastes are different. "Injecting sanity" is a very nasty way of saying that you disagree with stuff. Also, you keep getting schooled by your niece. I mean, come on. It's not even original!
/nostalgic sigh :)
^ It's still missing the actual tree, though! And the fresh pine scent!
Boy I just can't imaging why anyone in their right mind would think a monk who studies Kung-Fu, Karate, Ju-Jitsu, or Aikido would be a warrior. Why would any class dedicated to unarmed combat want to be considered a good warrior. It is completely absurd. Anyone who thinks the monk shouldl kickass in combat just obviously does not understand what it means to be a person who has dedicated his life to the study of unarmed combat.
People who think the monk should know how to shine in combat and be lethal with their barehands are just silly.
Bwahahahaha!
The monk as written in PF is a martial class, in that it primarily relies on dealing raw physical damage in order to be relevant in battle. Right now, the problem with the monk is that in order to do so, one has to ignore half of the other abilities of the class. That is the biggest problem with the monk. Flurry of Blows wants the monk to stand still and hit as hard and as often as possible while most of the other commonly used abilities emphasize mobility and skirmisher tactics. They need to pick one thing or the other for the core class, and make whatever wasn't chosen into an archetype. Where ever flurry of blows ends up, it needs to be matched with full bab and d10 HD to give the monk the ability to use it without being turned into goo and having to write unnecessary rule exceptions. The skirmisher type could get more abilities in exchange for the lower BAB and HD, which aren't quite as crucial to that kind of fighting.
The fact that the monk as written in PF isn't intended to primarily rely on raw physical damage is evidenced by the feats it can select for free - disarming, tripping, etc.
Except that the end goal is still to cause raw physical damage, or be able to stay alive long enough for someone else to deal that raw physical damage, neither of which is something the core monk as written is particularly capable of doing very well. He is a still a martial character, and the mish mash class abilities, HD, and BAB prevent him from choosing a particular way of doing that effectively. If they want the monk to be primarily a skirmisher who relies on trip, disarm, stunning fist, and the like, they need to move flurry of blows to an archetype, with appropriate HD and BAB to make it actually work, and give the core class more skirmisher type abilities that don't require him to stand still and take the beating.
You think the monk isn't able to stay alive despite the fact that it has the best defenses in the game?
If the defenses leveled as well the ability of their foe to hit them, I wouldn't have a problem, but +1 AC every five levels vs +1 BAB every level isn't going to be able to keep up. And while their defenses rank high overall, when they do get hit, and it is when, not if, they don't have much HP to back it up. As a skirmisher they do fine, or mook control, but using flurry of blows against a level appropriate opponent will get a monk killed quick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't forget that the monk gets combat manuevers. A prone character is both easy to hit and hard to take damage from. Not thattrip is the only trick available to a monk - its not.
Which work less and less as levels go up. The rogue has the same overall problem. Relying on gimmicks, even really good gimmicks, not to get hit is a bad idea. Because they tend to either work really well or completely fail, they are not something I would consider to be a particularly reliable defense; a nice extra, yes, but not a reliable defense.
I apologize in advance for contributing to a thread derailment, and one that's an argument about monks at that.
The monk as written in PF is a martial class, in that it primarily relies on dealing raw physical damage in order to be relevant in battle. Right now, the problem with the monk is that in order to do so, one has to ignore half of the other abilities of the class. That is the biggest problem with the monk. Flurry of Blows wants the monk to stand still and hit as hard and as often as possible while most of the other commonly used abilities emphasize mobility and skirmisher tactics. They need to pick one thing or the other for the core class, and make whatever wasn't chosen into an archetype.The fact that the monk as written in PF isn't intended to primarily rely on raw physical damage is evidenced by the feats it can select for free - disarming, tripping, etc. Flurry of Blows is one single ability which isn't intended to work in all situations, yet most of youact like its the only thing the monk has. Its not. You should learn to use the monk's other features effectively.
Darkwing Duck, I think you are right that sometimes people overemphasize flurry of blows as "what a monk does." But you stated to me, "There is a common misunderstanding t5hat monks are a martial class. I don't know where it comes from [...]" [direct copy-paste, SIC]
And I think maybe you are overlooking something. Bear with me a moment, and let's look at the monk at early levels.
1st level: These are the things the monk gets at 1st level:
Improved unarmed damage dice, free improved strike feat, free stunning fist feat, and an additional free bonus feat chosen from a list of ALL-COMBAT feats. AND also, flurry-of-blows, which is free two-weapon fighting (if limited by weapons that work with it) and operates at a full BAB mechanic.
The only things they do NOT get that are not directly related to melee is all good saves and Wisdom bonus to AC, which are still largely useful only in combat. They also have some non-combat skills. That's it.
2nd Level: The monk gets Evasion and an additional bonus feat which are chosen from a list of combat-only feats. This furthers the emphasis on combat, one defensive ability and your choice of offensive or defensive.
3rd level: Monk gets full BAB when performing combat maneuvers (Monk is now essentially full-bab class for flurry and combat maneuvers, even if he still gets a penalty to attack a single attack). It's not till 3rd level that he starts getting something non directly attack-or-defense related--fast movement and still mind.
4th Level: Ki pool allows you to do a number of things to directly affect, once again, your ability to fight, and in melee in particular--you can boost your attack bonus, give yourself an extra attack, boost your AC, and of course allows your unarmed strikes to count as magic for the purpose of bypassing damage reduction. The only non directly combat related use of ki is boosting your speed by 20 feet. At this level, unarmed damage dice goes up and AC goes up. Only noncombat ability is the very circumstantial slow fall ability.
When people look at characters they want to create, they look at what they get at the first few levels. The vast majority of the abilities a monk gets are combat related, and most of them are very specifically melee related. Again, you're right, not all of them relate to flurry-of-blows, but the early class build shows the class is intended to be a martial class. Do you not still see how people get this impression?
I think there is a LOT to be said for the monk, but I think it tries to do too much at once. Since a monk already has full BAB halfway, they either need to just give it full BAB (and make it much easier to play), or if the intent is more along the lines you suggest--a non-martial character good at defense with other non-combat abilities, then they need that class to be less top heavy with melee abilities at the early levels.
I am done now.
This is related to manuers but not as in terms fears used.
One gripe I've had with Disarm and Sunder is they are only good against humanoid foes with actual weapons and gear. They have 0 use against many of the "animal" style creatures that use natural weapons.
In a revision I would like to see them gain a use against Natural Weapons. Sunder is the easiest since the Damaged Condition is easy to apply now that is exisits along with Broken if its good to take it that far. Disarm should take the Natural Weapon out of use until the creature uses a move(swift?) action to "ready" it again.
You should learn to use the monk's other features effectively.
Which ones? That is the problem with the monk. At no point in time can you use more than one or two of the monk's abilities. This is what frustrates a lot of people; their abilities are simply too situational and often clash with each other. They can survive a long time, provided they avoid melee combat with the main enemies, and have a lot of good skills, and I personally enjoy the class, but I can see why a lot of people have problems with the class. Things like "I can cover the entire distance of the battlefield, but that never matters because the only way I can accomplish anything is to stand there and pray that the fighter gets his butt over here and hits this thing hard enough to kill it before it can hit back," or trying to get past DR are perfectly legitimate complaints. Whether it's flurry of blows or combat maneuvers, you still have to be in the thick of battle, and generally those in the thick of battle need to kill their foe, not merely incapacitate them.
I've had no problems with high level monks. I don't understand why you have.Don't forget that the monk gets combat manuevers. A prone character is both easy to hit and hard to take damage from. Not thattrip is the only trick available to a monk - its not.Which work less and less as levels go up. The rogue has the same overall problem. Relying on gimmicks, even really good gimmicks, not to get hit is a bad idea. Because they tend to either work really well or completely fail, they are not something I would consider to be a particularly reliable defense; a nice extra, yes, but not a reliable defense.
I, personally, have not, but you have to know exactly how to build the character to make it work, and that is much easier said than done. Building a character around a gimmick like combat maneuvers, flurry of blows, or any of the other monk features, and figuring out how to actually make it work, is not easy, especially when the core abilities send conflicting messages about which is supposed to be the primary focus.
To take your example of covering the entire battlefield, I've used the monk's high initiative to leap over the enemy defensive line and stunning fist the enemy spellcaster at the beginning of combat. This allowed the rest of my party a chance to position themselves while the enemy defensive line was split (some turned back to help the enemy spell caster) giving my party another opportunity. On the folowing round, I tumbled back behind our fighter.
Mastering the monk's abilities (most of which aren't flurry of blows) leads to all kinds of stuff like this.
I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the class is not intuitively setup to encourage things like that. Also, in that instance, you deliberately cut yourself off from the rest of the party while relying on a gimmick, a really good gimmick, but still a gimmick. While you may call that clever, a lot of people call that trying to commit suicide. Neither side is right or wrong, but you have to understand that the other side exists. I don't think they need to dumb down the class any, just make it a bit clearer precisely what the heck the class is supposed to do, and put any competing ideas of what the class is supposed to do in an archetype. Right now, the core class is simply too busy, with too many different types of abilities clashing with each other.
1. Eliminate metamagic rods. All of them.
2. Fix or eliminate persistent spell.
3. Continue cleaning up the spell list, removing SoD spells and clarifying limitations of ambiguous spells.
There's nothing wrong with metamagic rods. You think they're overpowered and "cheesy" but I doubt most do. They're just utility belt items.
Persistent spell is fine. I might add a CL 15 or so to the pre-reqs if I had been designing it, but it's just a good metamagic feat. It's very hard to make metamagic worthwhile, IMO, and this is one of the few that are potentially worth a feat slot.Why remove SoD spells? There are very few genuine SoD spells left, and having that as an OPTION, however suboptimal it is, is a positive addition to the game. Unless you mean virtual SoD/SoL spells like glitterdust or hold monster. Then you're batty.
As to classes.
Alchemist: Fix bombs. They are cheesy at this point. I love the concept of the alchemist, but the mad bomber that bombs at midnight should me more an alchemist archetype than a central defining feature. The concept of the class is great, and bombs could be "a" feature. But they shouldn't me "the" feature. I would love to see the primary focus on having better infusions, with bombs being an archetype you exchange. I think the current alchemist is kind of silly, but the concept has lots of potential, love the concept, just needs refining and it could really be a great class.
I get it. YOU DONT LIKE THESE THINGS. Therefore they must change. I like bombs. They're not overpowered. If they were so great you wouldn't have people climbing over each other to give them up for sneak attack with the Vivisectionist. Bombs are fine.
Gunslinger and guns themselves need a major overhaul. I want Roland Deschain and/or the three musketeers. I got a full BaB class with to many moving parts to actually play. It is such a simple concept, so why is the execution of it made so complicated? If you make guns difficult and dangerous to anyone but gunslingers, and increase the gunslingers ability to use guns as well and how effective they are in the hands of gunslingers as they level, both problems are solved.
Gunslinger is precisely the kind of niche class I want to see more of. You don't have to use them in your campaign, in fact I imagine they don't fit into most people's campaigns. I like that it's an option if you want to play a more late renaissance or pre-modern style game. New options like firearms don't have to be available or viable for everyone to be a positive addition to the game.
Gunslingers are fine.
Monk I would add some physical enhancement bonuses at specific levels (maybe am extra +1 to a physical ability every 4 levels when you get the normal one). This would fix the MAD complaints and completely fit the flavor. I would also make the quiggong archetype part of the class rather than a variant. Choose your abilities each level rather than following the chart. Gives more flexibility in builds and also fits the concept. If you haven't noticed, concept is the key for me.
I don't think that MAD is the worst of the monk's problems. To me it's two things. They have more special exceptions than any other class, for one. For another they are clearly a combat focused class with two contradictory abilities. They can move really fast, and get one attack, or not move at all, and have a chance to do real damage. Either let them make multiple attacks with a single action, or make multiple attacks along a movement route. From what I understand there's a style or archetype that lets them do that? I'm too lazy to check.
A bunch of feats doesn't fix the monk, unfortunately. It also doesn't help that they have to buy special equipment for everything.
Rogue needs an overhaul, as they don't currently really fill the role they were made for anymore. The concept of a rogue isn't being done justice at this point. You really need to follow one specific path to be effective as a rogue, and that is completely contrary to the classes concept. First suggestion is give them weapon finesse for free fairly early on. They need good fort saves, and perhaps later some kind of bonus to attack and/or damage dex or perhaps even from Charisma. Why Charisma? Because a) the charming rogue is the trope not currently appearing, since it needs to be a dump stat and b) it fits the concept that through force of will and personal magnetism the rogue is able to prevail.
For me the concept of the rogue is the guy who is quick if not strong, charming if not particularly wise or bright, who finds ways to get things done. That isn't how the rogue is currently playing, and it is a shame since that is a great concept.
Rogue is hurting, I agree. However, they're hurting because development towards a more open system without distinct roles has left them without a niche. Their 3 big things are a)disarming magical traps b)lots of skills WOO and c)sneak attack meh.
The problem is not so much with design of the rogue, which I think has been done admirably, but that design of adventures and other aspects of the game is moving away from REQUIRING any certain class. Just let anyone disarm magical traps with a feat and abandon the rogue. He's not needed as a separate class any longer. Any class can be "rogue-ish".
Summoner...where to start...look, if you are going to make the pet as good as other classes by itself, you can't also make the summoner himself be an effective caster in addition. Take away the spells not related to summoning, and make the concept what it is. Someone who focuses all of their energy into summoning creatures. Will that take away his ability to buff the creature. Yes. That isn't a bad thing. Let him heal his buddy, let him maybe cast a host of conjuration spells, but it is ridiculous that the summoner is currently a 3/4 BaB 3/4 caster on top of being able to summon a creature as powerful as most PC's. While we are at it, the synthesist is a great concept for a class...make it that instead of just tacking it on to the summoner.Witch is ok, but the familiar eating the spell is just silly. Let them learn spells from scrolls like wizards do, hell let them have spell books and potion books. It isn't outside of trope. Just have them be unable to cast spells effectively without their familiar. Will this make familiars good targets? Yes. So are arcane bonded items. Use that model.
Again. You don't like something therefore it must change. I've run for summoners. They are fine and don't overshadow other party members if they're all optimized. They're certainly no better than full casters. I put summoner in the same class as Inquisitor-done just about right.
Wizard...I am not one who follows the "God Wizard" belief as much as believing in the Schrödinger Wizard of the messageboard, but it is clear the limitation of the class come first from it's fragility and second from it's limited number of spells available over the course of the day. There has been some creep on the later. I would consider making changes to scroll use, perhaps having it expend an equal level spell slot without a UMD check.
No class has built-in fragility. Don't you even get that? A lower hit die number isn't a limitation. Not really. Crank your con. Get better protection. Stay off the front lines. Yadda yadda.
Making wizards use a spell slot to use a scroll? How about other classes? Or just how about not?These are fundamental changes in the way the game works, not tweaks to a class, and all because you don't LIKE a class or see it as overpowered. Wizards are very powerful, I agree and I'm a proponent of the God Wizard, but you can do all the same things with a cleric or a sorcerer or a witch or an oracle or a druid (you get the idea) and those classes you've deemed fine.
TL;DR-It just sounds like you're asking Paizo to buff classes you like and nerf ones you don't. You and I have different ideas of balance, clearly.
P.S. Is that better? You can't really say I haven't read it now. Most of my responses are just "um...no" which is why I responded the way I did initially.
You hik there's plenty of precedent for DnD monks being fighter types? Where? In1e, they had d4 hit die. They weren't in 2e core. Where is this alleged precedent?
Sorry, it took me so long to respond, it took a little while to translate this, and then understand what you meant by it. Now that that's happened, I can tell that you, just like your namesake, you came to the wrong conclusion after looking at the evidence! (... of course that was because I was unclear, so, you know...) :D
To attempt to clarify, I wasn't talking about "precedent" in terms of monks being melee class. The last paragraph was about the "Christmas tree" effect that you disparaged, specifically placing feats into magic items. The "precedent" in question is that: hey, look, feats have been put into magic items. You have ioun stones, golem manuals, metamagic rods, and other items that imitate or surpass the benefits of similar feats imbued into magic items, like I listed before. I was not talking about older editions.
As far as monk stuff: I love monks, they're not as powerful as other classes, but that's okay. They can be very useful if you know what you're doing, which, obviously, you do.
Also, as I said: "martial arts" has "martial" in the title, and monks are supposedly masters of "martial arts" ergo the "martial class" mentality. Also, the stuff DeathQuaker wrote.
|
stuff
Good, I believe you kinda read it now. I am going for skimmed.
I disagree with you on metamagic rods, I made the reasons clear above so no need to flog that horse.
The word “overpowered” doesn’t appear anywhere in my Alchemist comments. It isn’t about power, it is about flavor. I think having a “Mad Bomber” alchemist with the current bomb structure would be an awesome archetype. I just don’t think bombs should be the core backbone of the alchemist concept. I think they should instead make infusions better and add in more potion type applications for self or peer buffing. Then you can have a "Bomber" archetype that trades out things for what currently exists.
An alchemist is basically an arcane chemist who mixes rather casts spells. That is a great concept. I would like to see the alchemist/brewer of potions aspect central and the “mad bomber” as a type of alchemist. There is a lot of potential in the arcane chemist concept beyond blowing things up. I’m not saying that “mad bomber” is bad. I am saying it shouldn’t be the central focus of the class. The vivisectionist is a great archetype.
Basically I am saying that bombs are fine, a bomber archetype identical to the existing class is fine, but I don’t think bombs should be the backbone of a class, and right now they more or less are.
I honestly don’t know if you read the gunslinger part, because your comments seem to assume I am objecting to the gunslinger “concept” when I am objecting to the gunslinger “execution”. I love the gunslinger concept, I just hate how a simple concept became what is currently in Ultimate Combat.
You actually seem to have suggestions as well for the monk. A lesser person would point out you are being hypocritical in dismissing criticism while offering your own. I may therefore, be a lesser person.
We agree on a good chunk of the rogue. The problem is it doesn't have a role anymore, yet I think there is a call for a rogue like character. The archeologist is to my mind an effort to make the Bard into the rogue we all want, but can't play because rogues can't be Indiana Jones. Why don't we fix the rogue so we can actually play a rogue.
Summoner we disagree, Witch I’m not sure if you noticed was next to summoner, but hey skimming…
And as to Wizard, when a class has d6 hit dice, 2 bad saves and can’t wear armor, I can’t help but think the designers weren’t aiming for “tough” and perhaps wanted them to be relatively fragile.
Crazy, I know.
The scroll idea was all classes would have to choose to either burn a slot or make a UMD check. But of all the suggestions I made, this is the least important one to me.
You keep using the word “like”…It isn’t about like or dislike. You pointed to at least two classes you think need changes as well, and yet your position seems to be “Shut up!”
But hey, at least you responded. So some credit for that.
I, personally, have not, but you have to know exactly how to build the character to make it work, and that is much easier said than done.
I'd really prefer not to get my head bitten off, but, are you sure?
- I've only been in one long campaign with a monk, and the player had never played one before. He did more than fine - In fact, he was the biggest power-house in the party.
- In the one offs I've run and/or played, first time players have built (what seem to me) fairly effective monks.
- I've also built NPC monks who seemed to do alright. (at least for my limited purposes)
It just doesn't seem to me, that one has to know "exactly" how to build one, for it to work. Maybe my experience is just fluky, but with the games I've played in, the Monk seemed (seemed mind you, it's hard for me to say with such limited experience with it) to hold it's own as a class, just fine.
So again, are you sure?
I, personally, have not, but you have to know exactly how to build the character to make it work, and that is much easier said than done.I'd really prefer not to get my head bitten off, but, are you sure?
- I've only been in one long campaign with a monk, and the player had never played one before. He did more than fine - In fact, he was the biggest power-house in the party.
- In the one offs I've run and/or played, first time players have built (what seem to me) fairly effective monks.
- I've also built NPC monks who seemed to do alright. (at least for my limited purposes)It just doesn't seem to me, that one has to know "exactly" how to build one, for it to work. Maybe my experience is just fluky, but with the games I've played in, the Monk seemed (seemed mind you, it's hard for me to say with such limited experience with it) to hold it's own as a class, just fine.
So again, are you sure?
Your experiences differ from what most on this board have experienced, if what has been said in numerous monk threads are any indication. Personally, I think that it is one of the more challenging classes to play, and success usually comes from someone simply choosing one of the class abilities and running with, ignoring any abilities that don't mesh well their chosen one. Since this happens anyway, they may as well clean up the class to make it easier. Doing this doesn't hurt the class any, and makes it more accessible, which shouldn't be the primary concern, but is a worthy goal when everything else works.
One gripe I've had with Disarm and Sunder is they are only good against humanoid foes with actual weapons and gear. They have 0 use against many of the "animal" style creatures that use natural weapons.
I hadn't noticed that until you mentioned it, but, I totally second this suggestion.
They should at the very least, be able to be sundered. Even if they are not 'disarmable'It seems problematic to explain. Even as you did so, I was trying to picture how teeth can be 'un-readied' -
I guess, a creatures head could be dodging and thus not in position to attack, but that's not quite the same as 'un-readied' in that it [in theory] wouldn't take as long to get back to the ready. Maybe the other option could be that it takes them half as long as a 'regular' disarm to come back to the ready? [since they can't very well 'drop' their weapon] - I don't know -
Anyways, if not disarm, sunder should work; claws are not unbreakable.
Your experiences differ from what most on this board have experienced, if what has been said in numerous monk threads are any indication. Personally, I think that it is one of the more challenging classes to play, and success usually comes from someone simply choosing one of the class abilities and running with, ignoring any abilities that don't mesh well their chosen one. Since this happens anyway, they may as well clean up the class to make it easier. Doing this doesn't hurt the class any, and makes it more accessible, which shouldn't be the primary concern, but is a worthy goal when everything else works.
Thank you for replying and explaining. (And not biting my head off. :) I am just trying to understand.)
I could see that; and streamlining a players ability to customize, is something I am always for. I mostly hope that it doesn't eliminate some of the cooler aspects ('gimmicks' as you called them), but that would still be (more than) forgivable if it helps it to be a more playable class.
As long as it isn't shoe-horned into extra alignment based limitations (It's actually the only reason I, as a player, wouldn't want to be a monk.)because the lawful limitation, is painful enough, on it's own, already. XP
I removed a post. Please refrain from name calling.
Your experiences differ from what most on this board have experienced, if what has been said in numerous monk threads are any indication. Personally, I think that it is one of the more challenging classes to play, and success usually comes from someone simply choosing one of the class abilities and running with, ignoring any abilities that don't mesh well their chosen one. Since this happens anyway, they may as well clean up the class to make it easier. Doing this doesn't hurt the class any, and makes it more accessible, which shouldn't be the primary concern, but is a worthy goal when everything else works.Thank you for replying and explaining. (And not biting my head off. :) I am just trying to understand.)
I could see that; and streamlining a players ability to customize, is something I am always for. I mostly hope that it doesn't eliminate some of the cooler aspects ('gimmicks' as you called them), but that would still be (more than) forgivable if it helps it to be a more playable class.
As long as it isn't shoe-horned into extra alignment based limitations (It's actually the only reason I, as a player, wouldn't want to be a monk.)because the lawful limitation, is painful enough, on it's own, already. XP
That is what archetypes are for. They allow the core class to be a clear, concise class while leaving room available for other options.
Alrighty DW. You and I seem to be having a difficult time communicating. So, here's our relevant conversation to date.
What you said:
Improved Trip feat rods because we just don't have enough of a Christmas Tree problem.
I don't want to play characteers, I want to play lists of magic items.
Seriously, most of you are offering suggestiveons which would make a game I don't want to play.
Thank you, ciretose, for injecting sanity.
What ciretose said immediately before you (thus it looked like what you were responding to):
More to my point, if you give purchasable feats to everyone, it only makes the value of the feats the fighter has less, since his big thing is to have more feats than everyone else.
Ergo, my response to the concept that you seemed to be agreeing with him was:
Also, despite your distaste, there's plenty of precedent for it, and all peoples' tastes are different. "Injecting sanity" is a very nasty way of saying that you disagree with stuff.
I admit that response was not clear, and thus might be leading to confusion.
Your apparently agreed with ciretose that items-with-feats were a terrible I idea and that it was "insanity" to be discussing it. I responded with the fact that there was precedent in the game - as in currently, in Pathfinder, there are items that grant feats. The precedent I was referring to, I'd already mentioned above. In fact:
Other feats(or class abilities)-in-items (only better): ring of evasion, ring of [climbing/jumping/swimming] (skill focus), bracers of archery (multiple proficiencies, focuses, or specializations, depending on your current ability), ioun stones (various), monk's robe, and golem manuals (only partially: craft construct). That list is only a very cursory glance at the basic items list, and doesn't include any non-core options.
IF you were not agreeing with ciretose in siding against items-with-feats, okay, this entire conversation was based on a complete failure of communication.
IF, instead, you did agree with him, my responses stand.
The Christmas Tree effect is when a character is defined by their gear. It comes from the fact that such a charactef lights up like a Christmas Tree when Detect Magic is cast. It has also beensaid to refer to games where every session the players are eager to see what gifts the GM gives out.
Yes. I am, in fact, aware of what "Christmas Tree" (in this context) means. BUT! Since its generally used as a derogatory term, and I enjoy poking fun at use of derogatory terms for derogatory purposes in general, I simply applied silliness, using a literal interpretation to obviously metaphorical terminology.
Now that we've (hopefully) got that straight, as far as the Monk and martial class goes...
"Melee competency" is about what you can do to maximize the party's damage potential' NOT how much damage you personaly do.
And the monk, in most of your arguments with many more posters that disagree with you than agree with you, do explicitly this. They are competent in melee. This makes them a martial class that relies on supernatural effects to gain that martial competency (unless they take an archetype that does not use supernatural effects... in which case they are martial by virtue of having no magical elements whatsoever).
Monks fill many different niches partially. They are pretty sweet and I like them in theory and in play, but they're confusing, potentially (and, from the looks at the boards and internet in general, fairly often) difficult to master, aside from random luck-of-the-fall-into-awesome. That does not mean I had a problem. It means I know quite a few who did (although most were in 3.X, not PF, I admit) and, when you have people arguing that fighters are hard to build (not me), you're going to have more people who feel moreso about the monk.
I think they could use streamlining for purposes of allowing players to get a handle on them. I don't unilaterally support a full BAB, but I don't disagree with it either. With the advent of archetypes, I believe the monk has huge potential opened before them for customization, and, if a PF1.X or PF2 or whatever comes out, I would generally push for them to have both better flavor and a streamlined effect for purpose of new players, but with archetypes that allow a full array of customization. A full base attack bonus, while not the only option, is one way to handle that rather well. With PF's stipulation that BAB ties intimately to HD, however, this doesn't flow as readily, and other changes would likely have to result.
Metamagic rods are p. bad.
Also I can't speak about 1e, but Basic monks (or Mystics, if you will) were most assuredly warrior classes. They were, in fact, better warriors then fighters in many occasions.
Do you know that when 3e was first coming out, people decried the monks as overpowered before the details were even made clear? There's a reason for that. That reason is "Monks in 1e and Basic were hilariously powerful."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still see people saying monks are overpowered, I can only assume these people are drinking paint.
I think they could use streamlining for purposes of allowing players to get a handle on them. I don't unilaterally support a full BAB, but I don't disagree with it either. With the advent of archetypes, I believe the monk has huge potential opened before them for customization, and, if a PF1.X or PF2 or whatever comes out, I would generally push for them to have both better flavor and a streamlined effect for purpose of new players, but with archetypes that allow a full array of customization. A full base attack bonus, while not the only option, is one way to handle that rather well. With PF's stipulation that BAB ties intimately to HD, however, this doesn't flow as readily, and other changes would likely have to result.
This is more or less what I am suggesting. I don't think every archetype of monk needs a higher BAB or HD, but I could see it for some archetypes, if for no other reason than to reduce the number of rules exceptions they have to give monks right now. It wouldn't be that hard to do. Just swap out the extra speed and slow fall, or something like that.
I still see people saying monks are overpowered, I can only assume these people are drinking paint.
But they can stunning fist! OR run fast! OR hit a lot in a round! OR do fair combat maneuvers! Any one of those, in a round! What's not OP about that?!
We could post characters for comparison. Post a character and then I'll post a monk of the same level. All Paizo rules at d20prd are allowed. The character needs to be a good adventurer, not just a combat character, as such the goal will not be to see whivch characterwill beat the other in combat. What the rest of the party is is irrelevant.
Comparison levels are 4th, 8th, and 12th.
Click on my name, that's who I am going to use for this. The steelcloth is basically a mithral breastplate.
What we need is some mechanics which makes something like dominate simply completely ineffective on the first round in a fight on a BBEG, but a good option against mooks and perhaps even against the BBEG once he is softened up a bit.Villain Points.
Like Hero Points, but come in cooler colours.
Black and silver are only cool until You've gone to a transformers convention.
|
The monk in 1e was NOT 'hilariously powerful'. It had a d4 hit die and got stuff like feign death as it levelled - not as spells, but as class abilities.
And you had to take time out of the campaign, to go off on a detour, to fight a potentialy lethal combat against one of your equals, for one of you to be allowed to level up! And even if you didn't accidentally die, losing sent you back a level.
Black and silver are only cool until You've gone to a transformers convention.What about purple?
Purple's a good villain colour, right?"Tremble before the Purple Impaler!"
That one stops being cool when you realize it's just a dark shade of pink. Plus there's all those jokes about your junk.
|
Also I can't speak about 1e, but Basic monks (or Mystics, if you will) were most assuredly warrior classes. They were, in fact, better warriors then fighters in many occasions.
If you mean a warrior that was a Priest variant, than sure. They actually where not. You are probably thinking of the extra rules for unarmed combat, (which Warriors) could also take, but Monks, even in the Oriental Adventures, where not at all better than Warriors.
Do you know that when 3e was first coming out, people decried the monks as overpowered before the details were even made clear? There's a reason for that. That reason is "Monks in 1e and Basic were hilariously powerful."
Must have been your group, I don't remember this at all. I remember a lot of people saying they where so KOOL, and then complaining after a few levels that they didn't work the way people wanted or expected them to. Until people learned about Grapple, Book of Exalted Deeds, and Vow of Poverty, and Psionics, (and a few Epic Level handbook goodies).
That one stops being cool when you realize it's just a dark shade of pink. Plus there's all those jokes about your junk.Black and silver are only cool until You've gone to a transformers convention.What about purple?
Purple's a good villain colour, right?"Tremble before the Purple Impaler!"
So not true! There is no pink ;)
Besides, violet is really closer to a shade of blue (but it actually has it's own 'light wave' - so really, with the minus green colour, it would be better to say that it's a type of purple than the other way arround.)
Purple wins. Mu-wa, ha, ha. ;)
Edit: And Purple, is the colour of death, wisdom, mournig, evening, winter, wine and royalty - that sounds like a sneaky, rich, murderous villan to me. - I wouldn't mind sharing my name with those... Provided the sneaky part always applies.