Do I want to know what Gelbooru is?No, you don't. it's something i would rather not explain. even the priests of Lamashtu are wary about it.
Oh my god, my poor keyboard! I was eating rice and now it is everywhere. XD
*falls over laughing*
Hmm... Nikos, I think you are misunderstanding Shuriken and Ashiel, so I'll try to explain it for you.
Monks deal extra damage with their unarmed strikes.
Gauntlets are considered armed-unarmed strikes, just as someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is considered to be making armed-unarmed strikes.
Since gauntlets are considered unarmed strikes, then a monk, who deals additional damage with unarmed strikes, will deal additional damage when wielding gauntlets.
Afther reading more carefully it seems that you guys are right. The RAI of the issue is clear Though, no good weapons for the monk the Dev said.
I personally would not oppose to better options for the monk though.
It would be nice if the devs fixed improved the weak stuff and nerfed the bad stuff. Instead, we get "let your GM" sort if out on the bad stuff, and nerfs for the weak stuff. >.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay.
-The devs have spoken about gauntlets, cesti, etc.--and yet, declarations appear to be unclear.
-The devs have not delivered a final word about FoB. The wording as of now is definitely unclear.
-Contentions have been made that the monk is underpowered and that increasing DPR reduces defense, and that the archetypes are a bandaid for the core monk's weaknesses.
-Not even the most detailed rules-lawyer posters have been able to delineate RAW or RAI for the monk, because these rules are inconsistent and thus no consensus can be built--and the rulings need clarification from the devs. Because the rules are inconsistent, however, it is unclear how underpowered the monk is.
No amount of forum discussion can ever resolve this, although forum discussion can be used to point out issues, educate, and make suggestions for either houseruling or for Paizo corrections.
-If gauntlets aren't allowed to enhance monk unarmed strikes, AoMF continues to be expensive, weird workarounds like enchanted fists are required, and FoB is nerfed (according to some), then a section of players will definitely feel the monk is underpowered and can quantify it better.
Does that sum it up?
Gloves of Mighty Fists
Aura faint evocation; CL 5thSlot neck; Price 3,000 gp (+1), 12.000 gp (+2), 24.000 gp (+3), 48.000 gp (+4), 75.000 gp (+5); Weight —
Description
This gloves grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks.Alternatively, this gloves can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed strikes. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. The gloves of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. The gloves of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.
This gloves do not enhace natural attack other than unarmed strikes made by humanoids (no bites, horns,..., etc)
Well, it mostly looks like an amulet of mighty fists that goes on your hand slot (you still have it listed as neck slot by the way, which is kinda a weird place to be wearing your gloves :P). If it's only going to affect unarmed strikes, I think the price needs to come down even more. More in line with a normal weapon. Enhancement bonus squared x 2000 gp (so 2,000 gp (+1), 8,000 gp (+2), 16,000 gp (+3), 32,000 gp (+4), 50,000 gp (+5)) would be more than enough. I still think monks are getting the raw deal though, because again you are sacrificing a body slot (in this case just a different body slot) for a weapon; which is why I still support the RAW and allowing monks to wear gauntlets as weapons as well as wondrous items (with the option to enhance them as wondrous items as well).
Definitely a good step in the right direction though, I believe. Now a more extreme fix would be to apply improved unarmed strike damage to all monk weapons (all core monk weapons suck). For example, if at levels where the monk's unarmed strike damage increased the monk dealt damage with monk weapons as a size-category larger, then wielding monk weapons would also be cool and a class feature.
A 1st level monk would deal 1d6 with a kama. A 20th level monk would deal 1d6->1d8->2d6->3d6->4d6 (average 14) with that same kama, and would do better with vital strike and the like (making mobile monks possibly viable). Alternatively, I'd be with Dabbler and provide bonus damage to monk weapons every time their damage increased.
For example, at level 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20, add +1d6 damage onto the damage of all monk weapons and unarmed strikes, and remove the monk damage scaling. That would set the monk's unarmed strike damage at 20th level to 6d6 (21 average).
But I digress...I'm going off into la-la-land in a tangent. XD
I would not have a problem with monks using gloves or some similar item as a weapon, but as has been said the devs disallowed it and made clear that anything that makes the AoMF redundant is out.
That's why I've concentrated on supplementing the AoMF instead. I came up with the Ring of Accurate Striking - priced the same was as Nicos' gloves ({bonus squared}x3000gp) - that would give any weapons used by the wearer the enhancement bonus to hit but not to damage. A useful item that allows any weapon held to get past DR and hit accurately, but because it adds nothing to damage, it's not arguably overpowered. I capped it at +5 and specifically noted that weapon properties would work in conjunction with it. It has uses for any character, not just the monk.
Using one of these Icandu, my monk above, could have had a +2 ring of accurate striking and an agile amulet of mighty fists for slightly less than he paid for the amulet he has. This would reduce his damage but increase his chances to hit.
Edit: removed my thoughts on gauntlets are they are no longer relevant and I want that debate to die peacefully!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... Nikos, I think you are misunderstanding Shuriken and Ashiel, so I'll try to explain it for you.
Monks deal extra damage with their unarmed strikes.
Gauntlets are considered armed-unarmed strikes, just as someone with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat is considered to be making armed-unarmed strikes.
Since gauntlets are considered unarmed strikes, then a monk, who deals additional damage with unarmed strikes, will deal additional damage when wielding gauntlets.
Only it has been ruled this isn't the case, in large part because it makes no sense for the flavor of the class to make monks wear gauntlets.
That was the logic for the brass knuckles change, that would hold for gauntlets, point = moot.
|
|
I would not have a problem with monks using gloves or some similar item as a weapon, but as has been said the devs disallowed it and made clear that anything that makes the AoMF redundant is out.
That's why I've concentrated on supplementing the AoMF instead. I came up with the Ring of Accurate Striking - priced the same was as Nicos' gloves ({bonus squared}x3000gp) - that would give any weapons used by the wearer the enhancement bonus to hit but not to damage. A useful item that allows any weapon held to get past DR and hit accurately, but because it adds nothing to damage, it's not arguably overpowered. I capped it at +5 and specifically noted that weapon properties would work in conjunction with it. It has uses for any character, not just the monk.
Using one of these Icandu, my monk above, could have had a +2 ring of accurate striking and an agile amulet of mighty fists for slightly less than he paid for the amulet he has. This would reduce his damage but increase his chances to hit.
Edit: removed my thoughts on gauntlets are they are no longer relevant and I want that debate to die peacefully!
The ring makes sense. I think the devs are loathe to give more damage to the monk, since unarmed already outpaces most weapons and they don't want the monk to be able to deal as much damage as martial classes.
But they need to hit more than most 3/4 classes, being at least on par with the rogue I think. And because they are somewhat MAD and can't really enhance unarmed strike well, it is a problem.
I would prefer it to be something slotless, but a ring is better than nothing.
Agreed. It's a quick fix, though, and I'd rather ki-strike gave an enhancement they can stack with effects from AoMF. Let's face it, all our monk builds had excellent AC without an amulet of natural armour.
I understand the reluctance to give more damage, but the damage is actually falling behind in all the builds we have considered thanks to static bonuses and higher threat ranges. The monk's rising damage dice complicates things and hides the fact that they are in fact falling behind, one reason I axed it in my redesign (then had to reintroduce it as some players liked the buckets of dice effect). That said if dropping damage is the price I have to pay for actually connecting, I'll take it.
|
|
Agreed. It's a quick fix, though, and I'd rather ki-strike gave an enhancement they can stack with effects from AoMF. Let's face it, all our monk builds had excellent AC without an amulet of natural armour.
I understand the reluctance to give more damage, but the damage is actually falling behind in all the builds we have considered thanks to static bonuses and higher threat ranges. The monk's rising damage dice complicates things and hides the fact that they are in fact falling behind, one reason I axed it in my redesign (then had to reintroduce it as some players liked the buckets of dice effect). That said if dropping damage is the price I have to pay for actually connecting, I'll take it.
And it was not that difficult to get the defense up to that level. I can always tell someone doesn't play a monk if they complain about defense as an issue.
I also think the builds show that it really is just the ability to hit reasonably.
Even if stunning fist only works 25% of the time if you hit, that means if you hit, 25% of the time you are set up for a flurry next round and the thing you are fighting is immobile for a round to be pounded on (or in the case of the dragon, crashing to the ground).
That is a very big benefit that I feel overcomes any damage lag issues, which really isn't an issue if you strength built like you would with any other class. Combine it with the other monk benefits (mobility, immunities, no ACP, spell like abilities) and there really is no problem at all relative to other classes.
As it stands, I don't think the monk is aquaman. I think it have a lot of options in a given encounter and can contribute. But it could use a bump toward being able to have a level appropriate attack bonus.
I think the monk does have other issues, but that's the main one. What I don't like is that to make anything like a SAD build in effectiveness you have to pay a vicious feat tax just to get onto an equal footing with other combat classes. Icandu's hit points suck, and without agile he can't inflict serious damage - yet that's cost both his starting feats.
Compare with other MAD build combat classes, the paladin and ranger. They both need only two good stats to function (for the ranger, one good and two moderate). Strength for a melee build, dexterity for an archer, plus their casting stat. Paladins get lay-on-hands to compensate for low con, rangers don't but have less need for a high wisdom as opposed to a moderate one.
Monk needs two good, and two moderate at the least. They just don't get compensated for it. You could reduce Con dependence (a moderate) by improving wholeness of body to take less ki and activate as a swift action - that would actually make it useful as opposed to the first ability swapped out in archetypes. You could reduce strength dependence with automatic feats or similar.
Why is this a problem, you ask? Because it reduces options available. You either lose your feats or have to go for a strength build for an effective monk, when the monk is otherwise geared for dex (a lot of dex-based skills, no armour etc). All your starting monks look the same, which I find mildly irritating, not to mention that it sets you back in acquiring the feats you actually want.
|
|
Wholeness of body as a swift action I am fine with, but it should cost some ki considering it would then be an insta-potion.
Keep in mind the monk has as many feats as a fighter early on, and at one every 4 levels after is ahead of everyone but the fighter. Not to mention they don't require pre-reqs.
I proposed adding bonus +1 to physical enhancements every 4 levels as a fix before, as they can be a bit MAD. I just don't want to see to much added that will tilt it the other way, particularly considering how much more flexible Quiggong has made the class.
In the next version (rooting for 1.5 soon...) I hope Quiggong is the base and not just an archetype.
Now the +1 enhancement is an idea, certainly, and it has been mooted before. I'd be tempted to make it an inherent bonus, and stagger it so that it does not occur at the same time as the normal bonus to stats. If it isn't typed, then it needs to not stack with the character level bonus (ie the player has to place them on different ability scores).
The wholeness of body at 2 ki-points is very expensive for what it is, considering how the ki pool is subject to other - compare it to the paladin's lay on hands which is available earlier, delivers 50% more healing on average and has other healing effects thrown in, and you realise what the monk has been given is just a means of wasting ki. In a standard action you can drink a potion, after all.
the Devs have such inconsistent opinions. and there is no errata saying that a punch with a gauntlet doesn't count as an unarmed strike. it might be on the boards, but it's in far too obscure a location to be found. who gives a damn if it obsoletes the amulet of mighty fists? that item was made for Druids, Eidolons, Animal Companions and stuff that uses lots of natural weapons.
and before you say it doesn't fit the flavor of the monk to wear gauntlets. there are many real world unarmed fighting styles that use gauntlets. i just don't feel like naming them at the moment.
There doesn't need to be. In the equipment section it says that you do the damage listed in the equipment chart. The chart list 1d3 as the damage for the guantlet. If the damage listed was -- then I would the damage defaulted to the creature's unarmed strike damage.
By putting that 1d3 there I think the intent is clear.
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the weapon on a successful hit. The column labeled “Dmg (S)” is for Small weapons. The column labeled “Dmg (M)” is for Medium weapons. If two damage ranges are given, then the weapon is a double weapon. Use the second damage figure given for the double weapon's extra attack. Table: Tiny and Large Weapon Damage gives weapon damage values for Tiny and Large weapons.
edit:That post(where they said certain weapons are not light weapons) posted by SKR, was not SKR acting solo. That was the rules team doing that together.
the Devs have such inconsistent opinions. and there is no errata saying that a punch with a gauntlet doesn't count as an unarmed strike. it might be on the boards, but it's in far too obscure a location to be found. who gives a damn if it obsoletes the amulet of mighty fists? that item was made for Druids, Eidolons, Animal Companions and stuff that uses lots of natural weapons.
and before you say it doesn't fit the flavor of the monk to wear gauntlets. there are many real world unarmed fighting styles that use gauntlets. i just don't feel like naming them at the moment.
Monks have a lot of natural attacks as well, unless you think that headbutts and kicks are unnatural. The amulet was not made for eidolons. It was simply made with the intention of giving someone/something the ability to have enhancement bonuses to natural attacks. The more natural attacks you have, the cheaper it is per attack but how much value you place on that will vary from person to person. I don't have any issues with the cost as written but that's just me.
"the Devs" have weighed in and said that the intention is for gauntlets (and several other weapons) to not use a monk's unarmed damage. Should it have been updated by now? Absolutely. Is it easy to track down? Yeah but you shouldn't have to. Does it change anything? Nope. For purposes of this discussion, we have a clear indication of the RAI and that's what we should follow.
This not only makes it so that everyone is on the same page with the rules, but it also can help support some points that the monk and monk weapons don't hold up as well as some people like.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.
Actually Bob, Monks have no natural attacks. The Devs said Monks don't have any natural attacks, otherwise they would qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat. They have unarmed strikes that can be considered manufactured or natural weapons for the purposes of spells that enhance said weapons, but they don't have a natural attack, they have an unarmed strike.
For instance, anytime a creature that has some aura of damage, such as a fire elemental's burn ability say, "Creatures that hit the monster with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage..." They differentiate between natural weapons or unarmed attacks. As far as I can recall from reading the bestiaries, any time a creature has an ability similar to burn, natural weapons and unarmed attacks are also separate.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.
Actually they skipped a few other things more than once. Spellcraft contradicted itself for a while before they finally got to it. There is actually thread made by a poster of every thing that was in question at one point.
There are still things they have not answered yet. As an example the poison from the prismatic spells does not work with the poison rules. That was mentioned in the poison blog, and there have been two post made just to FAQ it, and it is still is not handled.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.
Yes, but look at it like this: Gauntlets are technically part of armour, and monks cannot wear armour (well they can, but they lose abilities). Also, you can hit with a shield, but it isn't automatically a weapon, it's still a shield.
Plus there's the point that each gauntlet would have to be enchanted separately.
In other words, even if you can deal monk unarmed damage with a gauntlet, that doesn't mean you can enchant it as a weapon, because it's armour.
you can enchant a gauntlet as a weapon. but they provide No AC bonus, No Max Dex restriction, No Armor check penalty. meaning they aren't armor. and they are listed as a weapon under the unarmed strikes section. but a masterwork gauntlet is just as valid a weapon as a masterwork scythe. and the scythe is a farming implement.
you can enchant a gauntlet as a weapon. but they provide No AC bonus, No Max Dex restriction, No Armor check penalty. meaning they aren't armor.
Some armour does not have a max dex or ACP but is still armour, so this does not necessarily add up.
and they are listed as a weapon under the unarmed strikes section.
Shields are listed among weapons, but they aren't weapons they are still shields, they are simply implements that can be used as weapons. Can you show me a single example in any official source of a gauntlet enchanted as a magic weapon?
The only examples I know of were in the Neverwinter Nights CRPG, which wasn't canon even for 3.x and certainly not for Pathfinder.
but a masterwork gauntlet is just as valid a weapon as a masterwork scythe.
So is a shield bash, but it doesn't change the fact that a monk picking up a shield and bashing with it is still using a shield. It also doesn't change the fact that an enchanted shield is always enchanted to protect first and foremost, and the damage, like the listed damage for any weapon, does not change for a monk.
and the scythe is a farming implement.
A scythe started as a farming implement adapted into a weapon, just like a sickle, kama, nunchuks or flail.
I'm not saying you are wrong per se, merely pointing out that the situation is not as cut and dried as you would like - or as I would like for that matter. In any event, this discussion is pretty much over as the devs have made clear that no, monks can't use their unarmed damage with enchanted gauntlets even if they were available.
Actually Bob, Monks have no natural attacks. The Devs said Monks don't have any natural attacks, otherwise they would qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat. They have unarmed strikes that can be considered manufactured or natural weapons for the purposes of spells that enhance said weapons, but they don't have a natural attack, they have an unarmed strike.
For instance, anytime a creature that has some aura of damage, such as a fire elemental's burn ability say, "Creatures that hit the monster with natural weapons or unarmed attacks take fire damage..." They differentiate between natural weapons or unarmed attacks. As far as I can recall from reading the bestiaries, any time a creature has an ability similar to burn, natural weapons and unarmed attacks are also separate.
I don't think it's relevant in this case though. The amulet of might fists was not intended just for druids and animal companions. Heck, the name alone implies that it might have been intended for monks. Whether or not they benefit more from it than other classes is obviously a debatable point.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.
DnD's intentions are 100% irrelevant for this. The fact that Pathfinder's developers have come out and said that for Pathfinder, the intent is a certain way, that's what it is.
We probably won't see a FAQ anytime soon because SKR gets reamed for decisions that are made as part of the team. It's just his name that gets put on it. Maybe when people are less likely to be jerks to the developers we'll see some FAQs again.
From the general attitude I can see from a small group of people about this gauntlet argument (this thread and any others it's brought up in), I'm not holding my breath for a FAQ anytime soon.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.DnD's intentions are 100% irrelevant for this. The fact that Pathfinder's developers have come out and said that for Pathfinder, the intent is a certain way, that's what it is.
We probably won't see a FAQ anytime soon because SKR gets reamed for decisions that are made as part of the team. It's just his name that gets put on it. Maybe when people are less likely to be jerks to the developers we'll see some FAQs again.
From the general attitude I can see from a small group of people about this gauntlet argument (this thread and any others it's brought up in), I'm not holding my breath for a FAQ anytime soon.
I think there was some talk of posting everything official under a 'Development Team' name so no one's name is assigned to it.
I would personally love to see the FAQ come back as there are a lot of questions lingering around. I kind of feel they are obligated to answer legitimate FAQ requests because PFS is so popular and PFS is also very rule intensive.
the fact they didn't update it after 3 editions means it was both RAW, and RAI that monks get all thier unarmed goodies with gauntlets. if it gets changed, than i know it's merely another tuesday on paizo. and that it will most likely be changed again on another tuesday in the future. tuesday being a synonym for weekly halfhearted FAQ day.DnD's intentions are 100% irrelevant for this. The fact that Pathfinder's developers have come out and said that for Pathfinder, the intent is a certain way, that's what it is.
We probably won't see a FAQ anytime soon because SKR gets reamed for decisions that are made as part of the team. It's just his name that gets put on it. Maybe when people are less likely to be jerks to the developers we'll see some FAQs again.
From the general attitude I can see from a small group of people about this gauntlet argument (this thread and any others it's brought up in), I'm not holding my breath for a FAQ anytime soon.
I think there was some talk of posting everything official under a 'Development Team' name so no one's name is assigned to it.
I would personally love to see the FAQ come back as there are a lot of questions lingering around. I kind of feel they are obligated to answer legitimate FAQ requests because PFS is so popular and PFS is also very rule intensive.
I'm all for that. I think it would be better for SKR's sanity and hopefully would make people realize that the questions aren't answered by just one guy's opinions on the rules.
I think the problem(s) they see with the monk would require an entire rewrite of the class and that's not really feasible so they are trying to patch it instead.
Part of the problem I think they are running into is trying to please so many people on the boards. I think that there is a vocal minority that says "the monk sucks" and another vocal minority that says "the monk rocks" and there is a majority in the middle that isn't on agreement with the problems or solutions. Paizo is stuck trying to figure out how to fix problems without changing too much with the actual rules of the game.
I think that the archetypes are one solution as are the better feat options available. It would probably be easier if they decided what role they want the class to fill in the game.
Better magic items would help too. and they are much more easier to introduce and without change any rule.I think the problem(s) they see with the monk would require an entire rewrite of the class and that's not really feasible so they are trying to patch it instead.
Part of the problem I think they are running into is trying to please so many people on the boards. I think that there is a vocal minority that says "the monk sucks" and another vocal minority that says "the monk rocks" and there is a majority in the middle that isn't on agreement with the problems or solutions. Paizo is stuck trying to figure out how to fix problems without changing too much with the actual rules of the game.
I think that the archetypes are one solution as are the better feat options available. It would probably be easier if they decided what role they want the class to fill in the game.
No, they really aren't. The Paizo Team is adamant that the Amulet of Mighty Fist is the only allowable enhancement for unarmed/natural attacks. They refuse to release anything that even slightly threatens the sanctity of the Amulet of Mighty Fist.
So unless they've changed their stance for Ultimate Equipment, then Monks won't be getting anything that will be enhancing their attacks at all. It is possible they may change their stance though, because the uproar about Monks reached the peak in the Ultimate Equipment thread where the 'clarification' was issued.
Since then, I think the Paizo Team may have sat back and taken a good long hard look at the Monk, and all the Monk threads out their complaining about the class, and realized there is a very real problem. They may realize the quickest, easiest, patch will simply be an item. Or they may go the hard route and re-write the Monk, or release some sort of Monk supplement to patch the Monk, I don't know.
As long as it doesn't go the way of the Stealth Errata.
Better magic items would help too. and they are much more easier to introduce and without change any rule.I think the problem(s) they see with the monk would require an entire rewrite of the class and that's not really feasible so they are trying to patch it instead.
Part of the problem I think they are running into is trying to please so many people on the boards. I think that there is a vocal minority that says "the monk sucks" and another vocal minority that says "the monk rocks" and there is a majority in the middle that isn't on agreement with the problems or solutions. Paizo is stuck trying to figure out how to fix problems without changing too much with the actual rules of the game.
I think that the archetypes are one solution as are the better feat options available. It would probably be easier if they decided what role they want the class to fill in the game.
The problem with magic items as a fix is they now force you to spend your WBL on specific items. Changes to items or new items are always welcome but a class should be able to at least function on a basic level without the items. The items should be icing on the cake. That's not to say that a character should be able to function without items. The game assumes they will have some. But look at the other classes, they can all participate without magic items to a point. The fighter, barbarian, cavalier, paladin, samurai, and gunslinger can hit hard enough and often enough against many creatures (not all but many). The casters can all cast their spells to varying levels of success. The bard, ninja, and rogue can use their skills. The inquisitor and magus can use their magic and class abilities to enhance themselves. The monk will have a harder time filling his role, whatever it is, without magic items. We don't want to pin the class down to "must have" magic items. This would make all monks look pretty much the same.
I'd avoid saying Paizo hates Monks. I know I said it once as a knee-jerk reaction to the Flurry clarification, but it's comments like that, which stopped the FAQs.
If anything, I think the errata's just coincided with being bad for Monks. I mean, I know Paizo bent over backwards to do nice things for Monks in the later books, which culminated in some of the archetypes, so I do think Pazio wants a better Monk. I think they may be worried about power creep that would make the Monk replace another class in it's role.
I mean, if you tweak the Monk, just a little, you could easily break the class. The fact that the Monk can get more melee attacks than anyone else, with the highest damage dice, you could easily upset class balance if you gave the Monk too many nice toys.
Weapon Training, for instance, has been advocated by a number of people on the boards. Combine that with a decent method of enhancing unarmed strikes (say via pre-errata Brass Knuckles) and a 1 weapon flurry, and you could easily see where things start being skewed. Such a Monk could use Power Attack and Gloves of Dueling to get a good attack bonus, and a good damage as well, possibly giving the melee kings a run for their money.
I know that is something Paizo doesn't want to do, and I don't think it's something we want either. Personally, I'd be happy with a more reliable attack bonus, and a better method of overcoming DR. I wouldn't really worry about damage bonuses. Just those two tweaks could probably make a lot of people happy with the Monk.
If they wanted to fix the monk all they would have had to do is clarify Flurry to work the way most people thought it did and not errata the brass knuckle. The temple sword flurry monk was competitive with the TWF ranger against nonfavored enemies IIRC. The single brass knuckle flurry monk may have actually been able to compete with a barbarian.
They apparently don't want to fix the monk. Makes me wonder why they put a class they appear to hate so in the CRB rather than the APG or a Tian Xia setting book.
There is a lot more wrong with the monk than just flurry of blows, and having just one build of monk that is effective if like having just one feat-tree that works for fighters - you haven't fixed the class, you have just nerfed everyone that wants to do anything but the one 'optimal' choice.
So unless they've changed their stance for Ultimate Equipment, then Monks won't be getting anything that will be enhancing their attacks at all. It is possible they may change their stance though, because the uproar about Monks reached the peak in the Ultimate Equipment thread where the 'clarification' was issued.
Since then, I think the Paizo Team may have sat back and taken a good long hard look at the Monk, and all the Monk threads out their complaining about the class, and realized there is a very real problem. They may realize the quickest, easiest, patch will simply be an item. Or they may go the hard route and re-write the Monk, or release some sort of Monk supplement to patch the Monk, I don't know.
We'll have to wait and see on ultimate equipment, I suppose. The devs have accepted that there is a serious problem, and the monk does need an overhaul in a big way.
It would help more if the answers didn't give the impression that the folks on the Paizo rules team consider the monk, currently in the running for worst PC class depending on how the flurry kerfluffle gets resolved, to be so overpowered it can't be given any breaks.
No, they don't. SKR has stated clearly that the monk is weak class that lacks options and they want to give a complete and full fix to it.
Weapon Training, for instance, has been advocated by a number of people on the boards. Combine that with a decent method of enhancing unarmed strikes (say via pre-errata Brass Knuckles) and a 1 weapon flurry, and you could easily see where things start being skewed. Such a Monk could use Power Attack and Gloves of Dueling to get a good attack bonus, and a good damage as well, possibly giving the melee kings a run for their money.
I agree. The monk has to be handled carefully: give the monk enhancement and weapon training and you have to tone down unarmed damage - I reduced it to a flat 1d6 for my redesign, which with enhancement and weapon training roughly keeps pace with the current monk's unarmed progression average damage. Give on the one side and you have to take on the other.
I agree, Atarlost. It's not matter of it being overpowered to let a monk flurry with one weapon, or of a monk having an effective (reasonably priced) weapon. It's a matter of supplying something that does not make the AoMF redundant.
|
|
I agree, Atarlost. It's not matter of it being overpowered to let a monk flurry with one weapon, or of a monk having an effective (reasonably priced) weapon. It's a matter of supplying something that does not make the AoMF redundant.
Or they can fix AoMF by making it unarmed strike only and reducing the price and increasing the cap.
I would still be annoyed it is taking a slot, but the cost of at AoMF is only so high because of how it interacts with creatures it was presumably not intended for if it was such an iconic "monk" thing.
Personally, I kind of hate the concept of AoMF regardless since it takes a slot unlike other weapon enhancements.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how "martial arts" have such a wide range of styles... I personally believe the best way to set up a "new" Monk Class would be as a "kit" with "Some assembly required". That way you could build your Monk with whatever class features you personally feel relevant to the game the Monk will be in. With the inclusion of all the Monk archtypes in the recent books we kinda have this already to a small extent. Just making the Monks class features a little more mutable from the git-go would please a large amount of people I think.
Having the Monk set up sort of like the "Godling" 3rd party base class from the folks at SuperGenius could work.
This way, people who want a full BAB pugilist could have it... and those who want more of a ki-mystic could have it as well.
Again, I have no problems with some Eastern kung-fu wandering into my Western-themed fantasy from time to time. Cross pollination can and has bred some interesting new things. But it's killed the Western monk for modern fantasy, and that grinds my gears.
No it hasn't, it's just called Cloistered Cleric now.
Again, I have no problems with some Eastern kung-fu wandering into my Western-themed fantasy from time to time. Cross pollination can and has bred some interesting new things. But it's killed the Western monk for modern fantasy, and that grinds my gears.No it hasn't, it's just called Cloistered Cleric now.
Friar Tuck from Disney's Robin Hood was obviously a D&D monk.
Considering how "martial arts" have such a wide range of styles... I personally believe the best way to set up a "new" Monk Class would be as a "kit" with "Some assembly required". That way you could build your Monk with whatever class features you personally feel relevant to the game the Monk will be in. With the inclusion of all the Monk archtypes in the recent books we kinda have this already to a small extent. Just making the Monks class features a little more mutable from the git-go would please a large amount of people I think.
Having the Monk set up sort of like the "Godling" 3rd party base class from the folks at SuperGenius could work.
This way, people who want a full BAB pugilist could have it... and those who want more of a ki-mystic could have it as well.
This is how a lot of us did our monk re-designs; we made them more flexible and customizable, and put in enough features that whichever way you chose to go would produce a viable option.
Friar Tuck from Disney's Robin Hood was obviously a D&D monk.Again, I have no problems with some Eastern kung-fu wandering into my Western-themed fantasy from time to time. Cross pollination can and has bred some interesting new things. But it's killed the Western monk for modern fantasy, and that grinds my gears.No it hasn't, it's just called Cloistered Cleric now.
Or from the Robin Hood legend, which Disney didn't invent...
I forgot...did we FAQ this thread or the "Flurry of changes..." thread?
Which thread do we expect to see a reponse from Jason et all in?
I forgot...did we FAQ this thread or the "Flurry of changes..." thread?
Which thread do we expect to see a reponse from Jason et all in?
Fairly certain SKR gave us a brief update in the Flurry thread mentioning they were working on it, but wouldn't give it their full attention until after Gen Con in August.
I imagine any announcement would be in a FAQ or new thread or something to that effect. Something official that can be easily found by everyone.
Oh, gencon. I was hoping he meant PaizoCon.
Oh, gencon. I was hoping he meant PaizoCon.
I wish, but August is right around the corner... then November isn't too far after that; February is fairly close to November, and May is practically right next door....
Maybe I'm seeing things with less than a 'glass is half-empty' viewpoint?
Bad Tels! Don't crush our rosey-glass tinged optimism! I must now go watch Kelly's Heroes to wipe away the stain of all the negative waves. LOL
MA
Bad Tels! Don't crush our rosey-glass tinged optimism! I must now go watch Kelly's Heroes to wipe away the stain of all the negative waves. LOL
MA
Tels is sorry, Master Arminas, sir. Tels did not mean to crush the great Master Arminas sir's optimism, sir. Tels must be punished, sir. *Whack* Bad Tels *Whack Whack Whack* Tels is bad for hurting Master Arminas sir's optimism! *Whack Whack* Tels must never do such a thing again! *Whack Whack Whack*
Tels is sorry for crushing yous optimism Master Arminas, sir! Tels promises to never do it again, sir!
(Sigh) He'll iron his hands next...