So I got the itch to make an archetype for the Monk that makes it a bit more straightforward in combat and takes advantage of their mobility.
I want to give them the following:
- the ability to make two attacks as a standard action along the lines of Flurry of Blows (better BAB-2, maybe only as part of a charge?)
- +WIS to damage (and possibly to hit)
- Pounce, essentially as an advancement of the first ability
- better crit range for unarmed strikes and the essentially crappy Monk weapons
As this is an archetype, that means losing other abilities to make room for these, but I can't quite settle on what to remove. I'd prefer to keep FoB, and I am thinking of replacing the SR of Diamond Soul with some DR, as well.
So, what are people willing to lose to gain the above?
Twitch.
Wis to damage is fine. It'll add up tho.
Is the pounce ability with flurry of blows at the end? If so, maybe give up the ability to do just about everything else.
Twitch.
Abundant step could go. Lose the immunity to disease and poisons, as well as timeless body. Perfect Step, and Tongue of the Sun and Moon could go as well. Rework the level 20 capstone to something more combat like. Basically, lose or change the abilities that emphasize physical perfection, but have no little impact on melee combat.
Twitch.
Wis to damage is fine. It'll add up tho.
Is the pounce ability with flurry of blows at the end? If so, maybe give up the ability to do just about everything else.
Twitch.
Do Barbarians make you twitch thanks to Greater Beast Totem, as well, then?
Twitch.
Wis to damage is fine. It'll add up tho.
Is the pounce ability with flurry of blows at the end? If so, maybe give up the ability to do just about everything else.
Twitch.
Ohh then i shouldn't tell you that Monk of the Four Winds can already get pounce at 15th Level
What I've always wanted to see out of the Monk:
-Full BAB
-All Good Saves
-Decent Skill Points
-No Attack of Opportunity for any Combat Maneuver
-Extra mobility (horizontal and vertical) while unarmored
-Extra defense while unarmored
-Being able to move in between full attack actions while unarmored
-Various Wuxia powers driven by Ki as you gain levels, which are chosen by the player rather than doled out.Basically, a Jackie Chan to start and end with Crouching Tiger.
In a lot of ways a Monk ought to be a "martial controller" who can deal with large mobs of people via multiple attacks that can be spread out, plus great maneuverability to harass key targets until the bruiser can get over to deal final blow.
That might be a bit more than what game balance could allow. Building a class that has above average attacks and above average defenses would be more than what most people could accept. They have to have a weakness somewhere.
Do Barbarians make you twitch thanks to Greater Beast Totem, as well, then?Twitch.
Wis to damage is fine. It'll add up tho.
Is the pounce ability with flurry of blows at the end? If so, maybe give up the ability to do just about everything else.
Twitch.
Barbarians won't be getting 9 attacks at the end of their charge. Flurry of blows changes things.
Won't Be so horrible if they don't add their wis to hit.
There already is a feat chain for dimension door/dimensional step, if you do not like the dimensional theme, perhaps make a feat chain just using movement that somewhat mirrors this chain. Instead of dimension door it might build of the spring attack chain or use ki.
Ohh then i shouldn't tell you that Monk of the Four Winds can already get pounce at 15th LevelTwitch.
Wis to damage is fine. It'll add up tho.
Is the pounce ability with flurry of blows at the end? If so, maybe give up the ability to do just about everything else.
Twitch.
Yes, please don't tell me that at level 17,one of the weaker archetypes can, once per hour charge and do a full attack, not a flurry of blows.
So I got the itch to make an archetype for the Monk that makes it a bit more straightforward in combat and takes advantage of their mobility.
I want to give them the following:
- the ability to make two attacks as a standard action along the lines of Flurry of Blows (better BAB-2, maybe only as part of a charge?)
- +WIS to damage (and possibly to hit)
- Pounce, essentially as an advancement of the first ability
- better crit range for unarmed strikes and the essentially crappy Monk weapons
As this is an archetype, that means losing other abilities to make room for these, but I can't quite settle on what to remove. I'd prefer to keep FoB, and I am thinking of replacing the SR of Diamond Soul with some DR, as well.
So, what are people willing to lose to gain the above?
By themselves, these are fine. Some would take a lot to replace, but altogether fine.
The standard action two-punch thing is fine.
Adding Wis to damage and to hit (on top of Str it would seem) alone makes them shoot up from near the bottom of the martial classes to near middle top. They already have a great reason to invest in Wisdom. This would make the reason even greater.
Improved Crit range is probably fine. Make them have a base crit range of 19-20, modifiable with Improved Crit to 17-20.
The pounce with flurry of blows at the end? Yea, it'd take a lot to balance this one. At level 10, you'd have...something like 3 attacks at full BAB and 2 and BAB-5. Full attacks: 2 from Flurry, 1 from Ki point. That's opposed to the two the greater beast totem barbarian has at the end of their pounce: one from BAB, one from Haste.
But all combined? It's far beyond the realms of normal character balance.
We're talking about at level 10, full movement and 5 attacks, each of which has a 20% chance to critical hit for extra damage, and each of which gets both wisdom and strength to hit and damage. Adding both Str and Wis to hit, and I see no reason why this isn't the case since you didn't say it replaced Str, effectively gives them the main benefits of full BAB: higher chance of hit. All together, it's too much.
It's not even a case of "monks can't have nice things". It's a case of "monks will marginalize all other martial characters with no investment whatsoever." I'm fine with the Dimensional series of feats. It's a big investment for an ability you can't use too often.
That might be a bit more than what game balance could allow. Building a class that has above average attacks and above average defenses would be more than what most people could accept. They have to have a weakness somewhere.I'm not really seeing the imbalance. The thing is that everything has to be measured against Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Summoners. You can't really do balance right if you're measuring the Monk against the Fighter or Rogue, because if you do then all you're getting is a lower-tier rebuild which in the end doesn't accomplish anything beyond shuffle abilities around. What has to happen is get all of the lower tiered classes bumped up to be closer in equivalence to the high tiered classes.
Except that in actual play, those higher tiered classes aren't nearly as powerful as they look on paper. Action economy, party tactics, wealth (which is controlled by the DM), and the setup of the encounter (also controlled by the DM) all turn those paper tigers into something remarkably quite tamable.
That might be a bit more than what game balance could allow. Building a class that has above average attacks and above average defenses would be more than what most people could accept. They have to have a weakness somewhere.I'm not really seeing the imbalance. The thing is that everything has to be measured against Wizards, Clerics, Druids, and Summoners. You can't really do balance right if you're measuring the Monk against the Fighter or Rogue, because if you do then all you're getting is a lower-tier rebuild which in the end doesn't accomplish anything beyond shuffle abilities around. What has to happen is get all of the lower tiered classes bumped up to be closer in equivalence to the high tiered classes.
So I guess in terms of the OP, nothing really needs to be given up, but rather more just has to be added to the class. Even the Monk archetypes, which let you replace various elements that are subpar, often still just end up keeping the balance sheet still too low compared to the upper tier classes. Thus, ladling more onto the Monk is the answer.
No...they have to be judged based on the class the archetypes are for, and based on others of their type: martial or caster
I'm honestly not sure if your post is serious, Mok.
Sure, I'm serious. I can't imagine I'm saying anything that hasn't been expressed thousands of times before. If you concede the archetypes as balanced then you've already fallen back onto tradition, and we're always supposed to be moving forward with progress.No...they have to be judged based on the class the archetypes are for, and based on others of their type: martial or caster
I'm honestly not sure if your post is serious, Mok.
I have never seen the argument that all options need to be balanced against the strongest options.
Then again, I'm fine with some options being better than others. I'm just interested in whether or not other members of the same type (casters or martials, again) are completely marginalized by the options.
Eh, the GMs job is to ensure that everyone is having fun. And if you want balance to be a codified goal of the game, there's always 4e :-) One of the goals of 3e was for some options to be better.
But yes, I do see that point of view. I just don't think that non-optimality means that you aren't having fun.
But yes, if the rest of your group is fine with an extremely powerful monk, then by all means go ahead. My perspective of balance is firmly for works you plan to publish, either freely or paid.
If it's just a homegame and everyone is cool with it, go ahead.
Except that in actual play, those higher tiered classes aren't nearly as powerful as they look on paper. Action economy, party tactics, wealth (which is controlled by the DM), and the setup of the encounter (also controlled by the DM) all turn those paper tigers into something remarkably quite tamable.That's true if the GM is an expert and has a lot of system mastery, plus the players of the martial characters likewise have system mastery. But system mastery, despite being intended as a feature, has born out as a bug after over a decade of play. It needs to be scrubbed out of the system, and one part of that is to get it so that classes play themselves, and free up players to act on their own personal imaginations, rather than have to study the rules in depth. With GMs they ought to be able to run the game without struggling to cope with the shifting underlying assumptions of the different levels of play, and not need to juggle the solutions of low and high tier classes.
As with so many posts I make, pretty much every position I take is one looking to a PF2 that has a completely overhauled system to get rid of the 11+ year old gunk laid down in 3.0.
I would disagree that it requires that much system mastery to remain even. I've played in a lot of groups with varying skill levels represented, and I have never seen the domination of the casters that everyone complains about.