I like to think it's a single weapon. Because if not the case, how many Magic Fangs must I have? What if want to alternate between punches, kickes, headbutts, etc just to be stylish?
A monk should not be restricted to right-hand hooks just 'cause he only got 1 enhancement. Where is the fun in that?
Every Kung Fu move I've ever watched has the guy attacking with multiple limbs (even if sometimes they focus on one or another), so I want my monk characters to be able to do that without being penalized.
I want my monks to kick, punch, headbutt, attack with a nunchaku all in the some round, just like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li do all the time in their movies, and still be free to instead give the dragon three straight punches to the face if I want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to repost something I wrote from another thread because it seems more relevant here.
Okay, I think that the developers made another bad decision with the two-weapon fighting FAQ. I see where they were coming from, but I don't think it helped the situation at all, it probably just made it worse.
So now if you have two weapons in your hands you can attack with both at no penalty as long as you only use iterative attacks. So you also take no penalty if you are right handed and fight with your left. Actually, it seems like EVERYONE is ambidextrous... Unless they try to get another hit in, then they aren't ambidextrous any more.
Does anyone else remember the Ambidextrous feat from 3.0? It was rolled into the two-weapon fighting feat in 3.5. And now it is apparently gone altogether.
Why can you attack with four different weapons with iterative attacks, but only two when you attack more often? How does that make any sense?
It seems to me that it would be simpler to just say that everyone has one primary hand (or limb) that never changes. All other hands/limbs/whatever are "off-hand". If you fight with your off-hand, even without two weapons, you take a -4 with a light weapon and a -6 with a one-handed weapon.
If you take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you are ambidextrous (either naturally or through training) and either hand can be declared primary before you make your attacks. If you have Flurry of Blows you can declare any one attack primary and all others are "off-hand". So Unarmed Strike could be primary, or your kama, or whatever.
Unarmed Strike should be an exception to the standard rules. It is already a natural attack that is not a natural attack, so one more exception would not hurt. Unarmed Strike should be one weapon for all purposes except two-weapon fighting. You can two-weapon fight with one Unarmed Strike (flavored as attacks from any body part) as if it were two weapons even though it isn't. This is the same exception that the Zen Archer has to have in order to two-weapon fight with one bow. No difference.
Back when I studied martial arts, the emphasis was on 'total body weapon' - that every part of the body could be used in some way. That's why I think that unarmed strike should be different from multiple weapons, even if mechanically it works off the same maths.
So now if you have two weapons in your hands you can attack with both at no penalty as long as you only use iterative attacks. So you also take no penalty if you are right handed and fight with your left. Actually, it seems like EVERYONE is ambidextrous... Unless they try to get another hit in, then they aren't ambidextrous any more.
Go ahead, play your character with a strong right arm and a weak left arm. No-one will notice the difference.
How often does a character make iterated attacks that are definitely using separate weapons in separate hands? There are a few cases, such as keeping a special-material weapon in the off hand just in case it bypasses DR. But those cases are rare. If a character had a strong right hand, he would make all his iterative attacks with that right hand and receive full strength bonus. What more would we gain by the character saying, "I'm righthanded," yet never demonstrating the weakness in his left arm by swinging his longsword with it? Even the wicked GMs who lie awaking at night dreaming up ways to make the paladin fall are not going to bother thinking of a way to force the fighter to use his left hand and lose half his strength bonus.
They aren't ambidextrous; rather, they favor their good hand all the time.
It seems to me that it would be simpler to just say that everyone has one primary hand (or limb) that never changes. All other hands/limbs/whatever are "off-hand". If you fight with your off-hand, even without two weapons, you take a -4 with a light weapon and a -6 with a one-handed weapon.
D&D 3.5 had permanent primary hand and off hand. Apparently, Paizo noticed that that mattered only for Two-Weapon Fighting and reduced the mention of off hand to only the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, the Two-Weapon Fighting feats, and the monk class's Unarmed Strike ability (I think that the last was an editing oversight). Which is simpler: a handedness rule that is on all the time but truly matters only during Two-Weapon Fighting, or a handedness rule that is only an extra complication to the Two-Weapon Fighting rule? I admit that the first version is more straightforward to explain, but the second version makes the Core Rulebook easier to read.
By the way, in your rule if you use your off hand as part of wielding a one-handed weapon in two-handed style, does the attack roll get a -6? If not, why not? You are using your clumsy off hand to swing it. Maybe a -3, the average penalty on the two hands.
Why can you attack with four different weapons with iterative attacks, but only two when you attack more often? How does that make any sense?
Nope, that does not make sense. Fortunately, that is not in the FAQ. For convenience, the FAQ entry is Multiple Weapons, Iterative Attacks, and Two-Weapon Fighting. The thread that inspired the entry is Weapons in Both Hands and Iterative Attacks, Without Two Weapon Fighting, though earlier questions on the topic exist, such as Holding Two Weapons, Only Using One at a Time.
|
Another vote here for unarmed strike needing to be an abstract single weapon.
Otherwise, it's just going to further complicate an already over-complicated class. And that's before one gets into the flavor-wrecking aspects of splitting every possible body part one can attack with up.
Let the monk be able to doing flying knees to the face, headbutts, elbow jabs, palm strikes, flailing the weighted end of their braid during a spin, and so on.
I say MA's post above (1501! wow) gets FAQed like there's no tomorrow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's safe to say the devs are aware of the problem.
They're very aware there is a problem. I have much less confidence that they know what we think the problem is.
And yeah, FAQing something in all likleyhood won't matter one bit. But doing nothing has never helped either. /shrug
I think the whole problems keeps going back to this question: Are unarmed strikes one weapon or are they multiple weapons?
The entire defination of flurry of blows rests on this idea, along with the overpriced nature of the amulet of mighty fists.
I disagree. I think the unarmed strikes as multiple weapons question is the tip of the iceberg and that deeper problems reside in the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.
First, most forms of multiple attacks do not care about multiple weapons. Iterated attacks from high BAB, the extra attack from the Haste spell, the extra attack from a monk spending a ki point, the Rapid Shot feat, the magus's Spell Combat and Spellstrike combination all allow repeated use of the same weapon. Only a natural-attack full attack, Two-Weapon Fighting, and Two-Weapon Fighting's unwritten sibling Multiweapon Fighting insist that attacks be with different weapons. Many of us had assumed that Flurry of Blows was in the first group and had not worried whether unarmed strike was multiple weapons.
Second, the problems occur even if the character is not using unarmed strikes. For example, suppose a wizard casts a touch spell with multiple charges, such as Chill Touch. He uses the first charge in the touch attack that comes free with casting the spell, but has two more held charges left. On his next turn, he declares that he is Two-Weapon Fighting to deliver a charge with each hand. Whoa, is a touch spell one weapon or two? Maybe each charge is one weapon, but wouldn't that mean that the unused charges are discharged when he first touches someone, because they do discharge on a touch.
2) If even one of the monk's potential attack forms is not identical to the others, such as using a special monk weapon with an attack bonus or damage different than his unarmed strike, or having magic fang on one hand but not any other body part, now the order and identity of each attack matters, and you have to specify what you're attacking with and you have to abide by the TWF rules because your decisions affect the die rolls. In other words that monk15 is actually making attacks with two weapons, one with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3, and another with a main attack bonus of +13 and iteratives at +8/+3. So if you have a +5 sai in your left hand and a normal sai in your right hand, you can't say you're using the +5 sai for all six of your attacks, you're doing +13/+8/+3 with the left hand (adding the sai's +5 enhancement bonus, of course) and +13/+8/+3 with the right hand.
Jason says that in this situation, the "any combination" text means you can swap in a regular unarmed strike in place of any of those attacks (though that's not clear in the text). (Doing so affects the attack and damage rolls for that attack, of course.) So you could swap out your left-hand +8 attack for an unarmed strike such as a kick or elbow (losing the +5 enhancement bonus to that attack because you're not actually using the +5 sai to make that attack), swap out all of the right-hand sai attacks for unarmed strikes, and so on, but you're still abiding by the TWF setup in that you have a series of attacks with one weapon and a series of attacks with your other weapon.TLDR: (1) Flurry is based on TWF. (2) If all your attacks are identical, declaring which weapon is which is pure flavor and doesn't affect the dice, so go ahead an call them whatever you want. (3) If even one of your attacks is different than the others, you have to follow the TWF rules when flurrying; you can't just declare all of your flurry of blows attacks to be your best weapon because you can't do that with TWF.
Mr. Reynolds' point (2) applies to more than unarmed strike, too. Suppose an empty-handed first-level monk is throwing two identical shuriken as a Flurry of Blows, one as a regular attack and one as an off-hand attack. I usually visualize throwing multiple shuriken as using the same hand, perhaps like the ninja's Flurry of Stars ability. Since each shuriken throw is identical, Mr. Reynolds says that I can claim for flavor that the monk throws both with his left hand. But suppose that two turns later the monk has drawn his temple sword and is holding it in his right hand. Suddenly the monk loses the ability to throw two shuriken with his left hand, because his right hand is full. I was only pretending for flavor that he had the ability and now I have to stop pretending because it would break the rules.
Now for the most frustrating quote, also copied from the first post in this thread,
The intent of this particular rule was to marry the flurry of blows ability to the Two-Weapon Fighting feat tree, so that we could easily control and correct any problems that came up, and to have those corrections universally apply to everything that interacted with it. That said, there was an exception built into the flurry rules to allow them to properly portray the monk ability to beat you to death with various body parts (hence unarmed strike). I will admit that the wording could certainly be better in this regard. Let me give it to you clearly as to what we intended...
The problems with Flurry of Blows is that the Two-Weapon Fighting rule is broken. Its description is inadequate and becomes very confusing when combined with unarmed strike. I have some other technical nitpicks that I will post in another thread someday. Flurry of Blows was married to Two-Weapon Fighting so that repairs could be made more easily, but instead it has spread the brokenness of Two-Weapon Fighting to Flurry of Blows.
This probably wont help the topic and would make things even more complicated, but it's something I came to wonder some time ago, so here goes nothing:
Why do humanoids have unarmed strikes instead of natural weapons?
I mean, sure, a human bite (for example) is not THAT big a threat, but it's a potential attack (with a low damage die) nonetheless.
So what would happen if all humanoids (and other) would receive a number of natural attacks instead of this mysterious unarmed strike?
Sure, the rules for natural attacks hat to be nerfed/changed, but maybe, just maybe, it would make things better in the long run?
(Probably not, but ...)
I started a new thread to analyze this idea (hopefully without being shot down in the first 3 posts).
Maybe it would help if we actually broke down what the penalties are for fighting with two weapons and how they interact.
First lets start with what the rules actually say and then extrapolate from there. Holding two weapons and attacking with only one is no penalty at all. If you attack with two weapons the penalty is -6 with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand. If the off hand weapon is light the penalty for both hands is reduced by 2.
So breaking it down. Fighting with two weapons to get an extra attack is a -6 to your attack roll for both hands. The attack with your off hand is at an additional -4 because it is not your good (primary) hand. Additionally you only get half your Str damage with your off hand. I assume that the reason for treating the off hand separately is because most people are either right handed or left handed, and if they try to do something with their other hand, they just aren't as good with it. If this is the reason then it is logical to assume that you would take a -4 penalty to hit and do half Str damage when attacking with your off hand whether you are two weapon fighting or not.
Now I understand that the rules do not cover this, and mechanically it really doesn't matter which hand you attack with. But for verisimilitude it really should be the case.
If you take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat you remove the off hand penalty to attack. If you take the Double Slice feat you remove the off hand penalty to damage.
Has this not been touched by the developers yet? I've been to Afghanistan and back and it still has not been resolved.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They said they would look at if after the Cons (now) and as much as they could while making sure they met their other deadlines. I'd rather get a good fix late than a bad fix now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am reminded of the movie Apollo 13. Where Gene and Deke are talking about repowering the Odyssey for reentry.
GENE KRANZ: Come on, I want whatever you guys got on the power-up procedures. We've got to get something up to these guys.
DEKE SLAYTON: Gene, they're working on it.
GENE KRANZ: I don't want the whole damn bible, just give me a couple of chapters. We've got to give these guys something.
DEKE SLAYTON: They're working on it now.
NASA ENGINEER: I'll get over there and get an estimate.
GENE KRANZ: CENSORED-it! I don't want another estimate! I want the procedure! Now!
Sigh. I wish we had an advocate as forceful as Gene Kranz looking out for us.
But it looks like we will have to keep on waiting.
MA
Our advocate is us, MA. We just need to be polite, respectful, reasonable, and a little bit insistent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the Apollo astronauts hadn't been accusing Gene Kranz of "slapping astronauts in the face".
You have plenty of advocates - one of them even used to make errata blog posts remember? And answer queries in various rules threads. It probably got tiresome to be told he was doing it wrong.
|
|
Like I said before, I believe that the Monk Advocacy Drive has gone too far, and actually damaged their case more than they helped it.
Imagine that suddenly Paizo abandons whatever they're doing and publishes a fixed Monk. People look at this and say "Gee, those guys were shouting long and loud enough to get what they wanted. Looks like Paizo are wussies and bow down to those who are most vocal. Perhaps we should do the same?".
Suddenly, the forum would escalate as everyone who is remotely interested in some changes in Paizo's products (and that's a long list, remember: people who want less splatbook material in APs, people who want Good Orcs, people who want fixed Fighter, people who want nerfed Fighter, people who want books not printed in China, people who want ninja robots, people who don' want ninja robots, etc. etc. etc.) would pile in on to try to re-created the Monk Advocacy Drive. And would be even more vocal if M.A.D. got their shiny things and they didn't.
The best part about all of this complaining over nearly nothing, is the fact that even when Paizo finishes work on the Monk like they said, it won't stop.
After seeing how some of these Monk "Fans" react and handle things, i'd be willing to bet that a good portion of them still won't be happy afterward and continue complaints and house-rules.
Simply because it doesn't fit there exact idea of what a Monk is.
@Brain in a Jar:
I don't think it is a problem. Paizo is professional and used to the bickering and politics of the forums. That some people won't be happy with changes is obvious (and that will go both ways, some will not have wanted the changes to have happened, others will want to have more changes).
But look at the objective here, the individuals are not important: after everything is said and done, one of the classes considered to have problems (an opinion shared by the developers) will have less problems. That is a win for the game.
@Brain in a Jar:
I don't think it is a problem. Paizo is professional and used to the bickering and politics of the forums. That some people won't be happy with changes is obvious (and that will go both ways, some will not have wanted the changes to have happened, others will want to have more changes).
But look at the objective here, the individuals are not important: after everything is said and done, one of the classes considered to have problems (an opinion shared by the developers) will have less problems. That is a win for the game.
I understand that. I look forward to a possible change to Monk since i agree it needs a tweak.
I just meant some people would have it changed much more than i think will actually happen and won't be happy after month s of being belligerent.
Some people on the forums have been civil and possibly helpful about the Monk topic others are a bit to extreme.
Imagine that suddenly Paizo abandons whatever they're doing and publishes a fixed Monk. People look at this and say "Gee, those guys were shouting long and loud enough to get what they wanted. Looks like Paizo are wussies and bow down to those who are most vocal. Perhaps we should do the same?".
This isn't a very well-thought-out argument. Case in point being that Paizo has admitted that their game (concerning FoB) doesn't work as presented, and does need to be fixed.
You can scream until you're blue in the face that "you don't think undead should always be evil" but they won't be obligated to change it unless they think the game doesn't work right with all undead being evil. (Just one example.)IF there is still any "shouting" going on, it's not that the Monk needs fixing: It's that the timeframe has dragged on and there is always something "more important" on the developer plate that can/will push this fix back even further.
|
|
Imagine that suddenly Paizo abandons whatever they're doing and publishes a fixed Monk. People look at this and say "Gee, those guys were shouting long and loud enough to get what they wanted. Looks like Paizo are wussies and bow down to those who are most vocal. Perhaps we should do the same?".This isn't a very well-thought-out argument. Case in point being that Paizo has admitted that their game (concerning FoB) doesn't work as presented, and does need to be fixed.
You can scream until you're blue in the face that "you don't think undead should always be evil" but they won't be obligated to change it unless they think the game doesn't work right with all undead being evil. (Just one example.)IF there is still any "shouting" going on, it's not that the Monk needs fixing: It's that the timeframe has dragged on and there is always something "more important" on the developer plate that can/will push this fix back even further.
Sure. But if they fix him right now, it would look that if they bowed down to a vocal bunch of players. That will encourage other vocal bunches, and turn the forum into "who can shout the loudest" contest. You want that?
Sure. But if they fix him right now, it would look that if they bowed down to a vocal bunch of players. That will encourage other vocal bunches, and turn the forum into "who can shout the loudest" contest. You want that?Imagine that suddenly Paizo abandons whatever they're doing and publishes a fixed Monk. People look at this and say "Gee, those guys were shouting long and loud enough to get what they wanted. Looks like Paizo are wussies and bow down to those who are most vocal. Perhaps we should do the same?".This isn't a very well-thought-out argument. Case in point being that Paizo has admitted that their game (concerning FoB) doesn't work as presented, and does need to be fixed.
You can scream until you're blue in the face that "you don't think undead should always be evil" but they won't be obligated to change it unless they think the game doesn't work right with all undead being evil. (Just one example.)IF there is still any "shouting" going on, it's not that the Monk needs fixing: It's that the timeframe has dragged on and there is always something "more important" on the developer plate that can/will push this fix back even further.
Good point, we wouldn't want people to think they can effect change by listing their grievances and being persistent.
IF there is still any "shouting" going on, it's not that the Monk needs fixing: It's that the timeframe has dragged on and there is always something "more important" on the developer plate that can/will push this fix back even further.
This may well be true, and any shouting is not justified. There's no reason to think the expectations as to timelines of those who want change are reasonable.
There is good reason to think that, if the design team say they have more important things to do now but will get to the monk eventually, then that is indeed the case.
As you said, paizo agree there is a problem so they're not just sweeping it under the rug - they're balancing all the disparate calls on their scarce time.
Good point, we wouldn't want people to think they can effect change by listing their grievances and being persistent.
But if they fix him right now, it would look that if they bowed down to a vocal bunch of players. That will encourage other vocal bunches, and turn the forum into "who can shout the loudest" contest. You want that?(S)
Right, Paizo would look weak if they buckled to influence from an unprecedented number of their paying customers, especially when Paizo staff themselves acknowledge a problem that needs fixing. (S)
Unprecedented. I think you meant Vocal Minority.
|
|
Good point, we wouldn't want people to think they can effect change by listing their grievances and being persistent.
But if they fix him right now, it would look that if they bowed down to a vocal bunch of players. That will encourage other vocal bunches, and turn the forum into "who can shout the loudest" contest. You want that?(S)
Right, Paizo would look weak if they buckled to influence from an unprecedented number of their paying customers, especially when Paizo staff themselves acknowledge a problem that needs fixing. (S)
I wouldn't be so sure about the "paying customers" part. The funny thing is that the vast majority of people who complain about the rules related stuff don't have any subscriber tags. Sure, not a proof of anything, but food for thought nevertheless.
I wouldn't be so sure about the "paying customers" part. The funny thing is that the vast majority of people who complain about the rules related stuff don't have any subscriber tags. Sure, not a proof of anything, but food for thought nevertheless.Good point, we wouldn't want people to think they can effect change by listing their grievances and being persistent.
But if they fix him right now, it would look that if they bowed down to a vocal bunch of players. That will encourage other vocal bunches, and turn the forum into "who can shout the loudest" contest. You want that?(S)
Right, Paizo would look weak if they buckled to influence from an unprecedented number of their paying customers, especially when Paizo staff themselves acknowledge a problem that needs fixing. (S)
I don't have a subscriber tag but as of the other day, I now own every hardback rule book, many of the Golarion books and 3 adventure paths. I know it costs more, but I prefer to buy everything through my local hobby store. Things may be cheaper online, but online doesn't provide everything a local store does.
Just because they don't have a subscriber tag, doesn't mean they aren't a paying customer. You're presenting information in a way that is designed to portray anyone without such a tag, as intellectual pirates and thieves.
I generally enjoy your comments and sarcasm, but I think that this most recent comment is unfair and just plain dickish.
|
|
Actually, what I do have in mind is that with all the rules available for free on PRD and D20PFSRD, you don't need to pay a dime to use all the material that's so heatedly discussed here. Didn't mean to imply that anybody is pirating stuff or whatever.
Another thing is that discussion tends to be far less volatile in the fluff part of the forum (fluff books, not being open content, pretty much requires a purchase) while the rules forums (where free content is being discussed) are usually full of flamewars of varying variety. I think it might be because anybody can hover over to PRD/PFSRD and check stuff out and then come fight over it here, while Golarion books aren't as easily accessible.
We just need to be polite, respectful, reasonable, and a little bit insistent.Tried that - didn't work.
Being a jerk about it hasn't worked any better. But at least if you are polite and reasonable you hold the moral high-ground and don't drag the subject through the mud and you don't look like a whiner.
Anyone have a link to a respectful, polite and reasonable monk thread?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone have a link to a respectful, polite and reasonable monk thread?
Many threads have started off as such. And then the people who are upset with people making threads about how they are upset about monks come on and start provoking and needling and belittling those of us who are actually concerned with the issue. And it goes downhill from there.
Usually.
I have started a number of threads that I thought were amusing in their choice of title (Bodywraps of Absolute Suck for example; the title has since been changed and the thread closed), but those are in the minority.
You know, if the folks who complain about the number of monk threads and post in them just to complain about how we are taking up valuable forum space just held their figurative tongue, I would imagine these threads would be a lot more polite.
My rule of thumb is if the topic doesn't interest you, don't post. If you are posting just to pick a fight with people because you don't like their topic, don't post.
Things get a little heated on occassion, but, by and large, this thread in particular has explored the issue in depth and examined what solutions might or might not work.
MA
I am interested in the topic. I'm not provoking, needling nor belittling anyone.
I'm still going to point out that paizo work on actual, professionally and commercially necessitated timeframes. The fact those don't line up with what some monk fans want is not something to get riled about.
The idea that you guys only started being sarcastic and disrespectful/rude to Sean in response to the people who are sick of monk threads is laughable. (Post ten of this thread, for example: "With the new clarification that looks and smells like a retcon but apparently isn't" what was it exactly that "provoked you" into implying you doubted the developers account?)
I wasn't referring to you Steve.
Now, about that statement in particular to Sean K. Reynolds . . . I stand by it. If it looks like a retcon, smells like a retcon, it probably is a retcon. Funny how this issue wasn't raised until after he started saying that it wasn't fair to other players if a monk could flurry with a single weapon. That stinks to high heaven of a retcon . . . especially since 3.5 specifically allowed for single weapon flurry and that every Pathfinder product published prior to that announcement that featured monks as NPCs used single weapon flurry.
I don't really see what the big deal is about people getting upset over the use of that word. Retcon isn't a dirty word, after all. It is a technique used in literature and in games all the time, changing things to better fit the world envisioned.
Now, both SKR and Jason say it was their intent from the first to have flurry=TWF . . . and I believe them. But it was poorly executed given the sheer number of people who played it the other way. The number of Paizo writers who got it wrong with published adventure paths and stat blocks. The authors of several monk archetypes which only work if single weapon flurry is used. And from that point of view, it is exactly a retcon. A retroactive change in the continuum of the system.
Really, what were folks expecting? As Jason said, as I quoted in the first post on this thread, "boy, we sure stirred up the hornet's nest this time."
Did tempers run high at first? Sure. They calmed down a good bit. Look at the threads, look at the posts; and you will see a whole lot more of people deliberately trying to rile up and antagonize monk fans than monk fans provoking the developers. Sure, there are some out there who still use language they shouldn't and who tar everyone with the same broad brush, but I think an honest and objective look at ALL the posts might give you a much better idea on the matter.
Of course, that is merely my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
MA
1 Your (collective) rudeness is not the fault of the people criticizing you for being rude.
2 People posting that the monk-liberation-front should be respectful are not disinterested in the monk's issues
3 Paizo have said they'll do it when they can. "After the convention season" hasn't finished. People who expect them to work to some other timeframe than what makes sense for their business are being over entitled and unreasonable.
I am interested in the topic. I'm not provoking, needling nor belittling anyone.
I'm still going to point out that paizo work on actual, professionally and commercially necessitated timeframes. The fact those don't line up with what some monk fans want is not something to get riled about.
Absolutely agreed.
The idea that you guys only started being sarcastic and disrespectful/rude to Sean in response to the people who are sick of monk threads is laughable. (Post ten of this thread, for example: "With the new clarification that looks and smells like a retcon but apparently isn't" what was it exactly that "provoked you" into implying you doubted the developers account?)
And I will point out that some of us have tried consistently to be respectful and polite all the way through this debate. We're only human, but we acknowledge the devs are too and we appreciate their work. Being accused of "collective rudeness" doesn't sit well - I fully acknowledge some people advocating change have been quite obnoxious, but what have I or MA or Tels or others got to with them, other than a shared opinion that one character class needs some changes?
I agree too. There are many, even most of the "fix the monk" crowd who have been very helpful, polite and constructive. You are clearly in that group - I'm sure your comments and analysis are very valuable data points for the design team. Master arminas is also, generally, polite.
The minority are prolific and unpleasant, in my view.
That "huh" that I typed in was because I couldn't see your post, Steve. I saw that you posted, and sometimes I can't see new ones until someone else posts. It has now been edited to reflect my actually reading your post.
MA
Ah. Cheers.
Really, what were folks expecting?
I expect amateurs to recognize that they are criticizing some of the most successful and accomplished roleplaying game designers ever. As such, they are entitled to respect. Argue the rules passionately all you want as far as I'm concerned. The moment you start doubting the designers' account of their motives or thoughts behind their actions, you've crossed the line in my view.
Look at the threads, look at the posts; and you will see a whole lot more of people deliberately trying to rile up and antagonize monk fans than monk fans provoking the developers. Sure, there are some out there who still use language they shouldn't and who tar everyone with the same broad brush, but I think an honest and objective look at ALL the posts might give you a much better idea on the matter.
Of course, that is merely my opinion. You are welcome to your own.
I generally do read all the monk threads. I'm astonished you can form that view.
Nonetheless, my point is not about volume of posting its about the cause of the antagonism - the rudeness and disrespect towards paizo staff was not in response to criticism from "monklover baters" It was what provoked that criticism.
I agree too. There are many, even most of the "fix the monk" crowd who have been very helpful, polite and constructive. You are clearly in that group - I'm sure your comments and analysis are very valuable data points for the design team. Master arminas is also, generally, polite.
The minority are prolific and unpleasant, in my view.
Thank you for clarifying. Sadly all we can do is lead by example.
Yeah, it's an unfortunate habit of mine. I tend to engage those who I find reasonable. Which kind of makes it look like I'm having a go at you.
The various monk debates have ranged from cryptic and arcane to enlightening for someone like me. Personally, I think it's much more difficult than we suspect to "fix a class". Witness all the competing ideas that have been put forth - some contradictory in philosophy but all passionately defended. I wouldn't envy the developers' need to consider past rulebooks, future supplements, all the different archetypes, etcetera (not to mention things like layout considerations if they reword any CRB sections for the next reprint/errata).
For my part, I'm of the view that the ki pool is the least intrusive "fix" (even if not the ideal rules based approach). Granting an ability to use ki to bypass DR and also to move+flurry (while leaving most of the rest the same) would be my preferred solution - perhaps with a 1/4 level bonus to hit with unarmed strikes (although I'm not 100% convinced the monk should be able to hit more than currently).
A big part of it is what one expects the monk to be, of course. I don't consider them a "frontline fighter" and prefer paying a mechanical cost for flavor sometimes (unpopular as that idea traditionally is with rules aficionados). I do think they should be able to flip about the battlefield being awkward to the enemy though - increased mobility (with a concomitant increase in the incidence of flanking bonuses) is a better approach to boosting their chances to hit, in my view.
Another controversial view I hold is that a monk's MADness is intrinsic to the class concept. I think they are, by definition, all-rounders. That means they're inherently going to suffer versus the more specialized classes. I think that jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, combination mystic/martial concept is an integral part of the class. For example: I know people look down on the monk's need for strength - I don't consider a strong monk to be a hulking brute, but rather a wiry individual who knows just how to apply force in the most efficient and effective, slightly mystically enhanced, way.
Yeah, it's an unfortunate habit of mine. I tend to engage those who I find reasonable. Which kind of makes it look like I'm having a go at you.
The various monk debates have ranged from cryptic and arcane to enlightening for someone like me. Personally, I think it's much more difficult than we suspect to "fix a class". Witness all the competing ideas that have been put forth - some contradictory in philosophy but all passionately defended. I wouldn't envy the developers' need to consider past rulebooks, future supplements, all the different archetypes, etcetera (not to mention things like layout considerations if they reword any CRB sections for the next reprint/errata).
For my part, I'm of the view that the ki pool is the least intrusive "fix" (even if not the ideal rules based approach). Granting an ability to use ki to bypass DR and also to move+flurry (while leaving most of the rest the same) would be my preferred solution - perhaps with a 1/4 level bonus to hit with unarmed strikes (although I'm not 100% convinced the monk should be able to hit more than currently).
A big part of it is what one expects the monk to be, of course. I don't consider them a "frontline fighter" and prefer paying a mechanical cost for flavor sometimes (unpopular as that idea traditionally is with rules aficionados). I do think they should be able to flip about the battlefield being awkward to the enemy though - increased mobility (with a concomitant increase in the incidence of flanking bonuses) is a better approach to boosting their chances to hit, in my view.
Another controversial view I hold is that a monk's MADness is intrinsic to the class concept. I think they are, by definition, all-rounders. That means they're inherently going to suffer versus the more specialized classes. I think that jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none, combination mystic/martial concept is an integral part of the class. For example: I know people look down on the monk's need for strength - I don't consider a strong monk to be a hulking
brute, but rather a wiry individual who knows just how to apply force in the most efficient and effective, slightly mystically enhanced, way.
In many ways I agree. I can dream of big changes, but that isn't coming down the pike and I know that. Really, if they do something about getting through DR (heck, even something as simple as adding Penetrating Strike and Greater Penetrating Strike to monk bonus feats at 12th and 16th level!), and added an option to spend a point of ki as a swift action to move normal speed and get two attacks (a full-on flurry might be a bit much) at their flurry BAB, I would be happy. Oh, and brought back single-weapon flurry the way it has been. LOL Something like weapon training (to hit only) would also go a LONG way in making the monk able to fight well unarmed.
And I am with you on the idea of wiry monks for strength . . . but I think the great disconnect is that so many people see the need to bump Strength to 20 or 22 or 25 (!) to try and stay competitive, while having Dex and Wis scores down around 12-14 or so. That's not wiry, that is pushing up against Olympic-class power-lifters!
MA
...so many people see the need to bump Strength to 20 or 22 or 25 (!) to try and stay competitive, while having Dex and Wis scores down around 12-14 or so. That's not wiry, that is pushing up against Olympic-class power-lifters!
I think the guy is still wiry - he just seems able to perform impossible feats of strength given his slight build. (This seems to easily fit within the fantasy martial artist trope from movies, at least from my admittedly limited experience).
Well, to be fair, even the Str-build monks aren't going to have a natural score of higher than 20 or so, at best. All the other boosts are coming from magic, which wouldn't necessarily change your physical appearance.
And besides, there are plenty of martial artists that are buff as hell, instead of skinny/wirey - not every Monk is going to look like Bruce Lee (Bolo Yeung anybody?)
...so many people see the need to bump Strength to 20 or 22 or 25 (!) to try and stay competitive, while having Dex and Wis scores down around 12-14 or so. That's not wiry, that is pushing up against Olympic-class power-lifters!I think the guy is still wiry - he just seems able to perform impossible feats of strength given his slight build. (This seems to easily fit within the fantasy martial artist trope from movies, at least from my admittedly limited experience).
No, I'll buy 14-16 strength can be wiry, but 20 strength without magic is a mountain of muscle, no two ways.