:D
Christ in Heaven do NOT google image search "fist wizard".
I just did. Nothing special came up. The first entry was on Wizard's First Rule.
edit:did I just get tricked into googling for no reason?
If so good job. :)
Shame he died...
|
Monks: They have never been my favorite Class, simply because there isn't a system of different punches,kicks,etc.. just Dice scaling.
Yes, I'm that guy who loved Hero System's differing attacks with minor adjustments to the accuracy or damage die etc...
Fitting in? What hasn't been said about the ludicrous position that Monks (Asian-in-theme or otherwise) are so alien, but scimitars, composite bows,kukris...not to mention gear spanning 1,000+ years of 'European' history all exists comfortably side-by-side.
It always struck me as strange that folks would have an issue with Monks, but not with Assassins, the Archetype which is derived from a Middle-Eastern source.
If one wants to claim that their game is Medieval Europe, cool...but there had better not be any women running around adventuring, commoners who are festooned with weapons or piles of gold coins as loot, because none of that crap existed either.
-Uriel
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks: They have never been my favorite Class, simply because there isn't a system of different punches,kicks,etc.. just Dice scaling.
Yes, I'm that guy who loved Hero System's differing attacks with minor adjustments to the accuracy or damage die etc...
-Uriel
Offensive Strike! Legsweep! Sacrifice Throw! Passing Strike!
The problem I find with monk is monk weapons. The weapons that are monk weapon are restrictive and don't allow you to flavor you monk differently.
Not to mention, there isn't a single one of those weapons that should qualify as 'exotic' under either realistic values of complexity or game balance concerns. They're farm implements, for the most part, or the equivalent of other similar Simple or Martial weapons.
I mean, it's handy for a 1-level dip when you need a bunch of worthless feats to feed to the Dark Chaos Shuffle... but even that 'feature' is more of a 'bug' in a reasonably balanced game that says you can't use DCS to swap out your class weapon proficiencies.
I had issue with this at first but with the changes to Flurry of Blows to work just like Two Weapon Fighting that meant I wouldn't see Two Handed Sword wielding monk Flurrying 2 attacks with the same sword. I no problems with monk hitting with the two handed sword and kicking in the same round though.
I don't have as much of a problem with it. The Monk isn't going to have the Strength bonus that makes the Greatsword particularly nasty in flurry attacks... and if he does, you can just rule that Flurry of Blows is incompatible with x1.5 Str bonus.
Viktyr FOB is incompatible with x1.5 str bonus as is. You can still get the -1/+3 PA trade-off if you can afford the futher penalty on your attack rolls as you level.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all!
Hello there. ^-^
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
D&D and Pathfinder aren't "typical western medieval based role-playing games". Never have been. Monks have been here since 1E. D&D is filled with many eastern things. Scimitars, for example, are eastern. The cleric in the PF Core Rulebook is eastern. Some of the armors in D&D weren't invented until the renaissance. Some things never existed at all (such as studded leather armor). Most D&D iconic things are multicultural (divine powers/mysticism/magic, dragons, great warriors, etc). It seems silly to complain about the possibility of monks because they're "too eastern" in your otherwise "western medieval fantasy filled with giant robots, space traveling aliens, oni, and arab priests".
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
Truly the concept that a warrior can kill anything in D&D is really a miracle. If you look at the sheer size and power, or the stuff some of these enemies are made out of, nobody would be able to hurt them at all. Fists, swords, or shotguns. Most people can't either. The only way you're going to is by being a superhuman badass; and I hate to break it to you, but Fighters do the "beat it to death with your fists" better than monks ever have.
See, monks damage represents they're above and behond the norm. A halfling monk deals 1d4 damage instead of 1d2. He still can't beat a dragon to death or scratch even a wooden golem unless he's also incredibly strong and likely a very high level. Of course, by the time he could, a fighter is dealing 1d3+15 or so damage with every punch, which means the Fighter can quite literally punch through steel plates (hardness 10, hp 5 or so) with his bare hands. So this isn't really something we can point at the monk and complain about.
If anything, you're complaining about PCs being super action heroes. If you don't want PCs doing things beyond the realm of normal humans, limit them to 3rd level, where they will remain in the realm of normalcy + supernatural power. At these levels, they will be "realistic" and monks only deal about 1d6 damage (matching only a club). But again, you shouldn't point fingers when everyone is guilty here.
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
As I pointed out before, monk was from 1E. It pre-dates 2E. They brought it back in 3E.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
I respect that you do, but please accept that based on your given reasons it seems like a declaration of weaksauce.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Well assuming that we throw out everything else that existed outside of medieval Europe (that is probably 60%+ of the game, since most of the weapons in the core rulebook didn't exist in medieval europe, most of the classes don't fit, and a great number of the monsters would need to be scrapped), it sounds like an incredibly boring game.
At risk of sounding like a strawman, the first thing I think of when I hear things like "authentic traditional medieval Europe fantasy" I think of dirt famers, lords, and some guys who aren't really that special (mostly just a higher rank than the common folks) riding around on horses wearing chainmail and worrying about if Duke What's His Face is going to try to claim the lands of Duchess What's Her Face, which matters little since the peasants are essentially screwed in any case and taxed half to death.
Honestly, some guy who wears little to no armor, fights with peasant weapons, and snaps bones, breaks necks, and elbows people in the jugular just sounds like a very irate peasant who's tired of putting up with s%~*. :P
Cheers!
RW
Same to ya.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks have been here since 1E.
Actually, monks haven't been here since 1E. They've been here since original D&D ("0E") — Supplement II: Blackmoor, copyright 1975.
Which is to say, they've been a playable class in published D&D longer than bards, druids, or illusionists, never mind barbarians. They've been in the game longer than demons, mind flayers, or the Hand and Eye of Vecna; the drow are D&D newbs compared to monks.
Monks have been here since 1E.Actually, monks haven't been here since 1E. They've been here since original D&D ("0E") — Supplement II: Blackmoor, copyright 1975.
Which is to say, they've been a playable class in published D&D longer than bards, druids, or illusionists, never mind barbarians. They've been in the game longer than demons, mind flayers, or the Hand and Eye of Vecna; the drow are D&D newbs compared to monks.
Uh, sorry. I meant the first D&D release. I thought when people mentioned original D&D that it was synonymous with 1st edition. Learn something new everyday. ^-^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being around since OD&D doesn't change the fact that the way monk weapons are handled is an admission that they don't belong in the default Pathfinder campaign setting. The default Pathfinder campaign setting being defined according to weapon exoticness and the earliest APs and setting books as Avistan and the Inner Sea region.
If you're actually playing in Tian Xia it's fighters, rangers, and barbarians that don't fit. They have the wrong weapon proficiencies just like Monks in Avistan or Garund.
I am not buying that argument. Being able to use exotic weapons does not mean the class does not belong. The only issue with monk weapons is that they are not that good aside from the temple sword. If anything is an admission it is that because monk weapons suck, they should be given better weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Simplest thing to do if you don't feel that the monk weapons fit your campaign: change them!
That is part of your job as DM, to set the parameters of the game. I would remove the kama, nunchaku, sai, shuriken, and siangham; and add the light mace, sickle, and throwing axe. THEN, I would tell monks, you can flurry with the following weapons: unarmed strikes, club, dagger, handaxe, light mace, quarterstaff, shortspear, short sword, sickle, and throwing axe. DONE.
It is a problem only for those monks who rely on shuriken being ammunition to draw and flurry. But he can still throw daggers, shortspears, spears and throwing axes no problem.
Reskinned for not so much an oriental feel. You could add darts as well, but they aren't ammunition; so the throwing shuriken monk build is probably out. Otherwise, it fits.
MA
I hate the monk, too. Not because of the fluff.
I just hate how the stupid way the Aomf works makes you think:
So I can use the thing just as a monk and only get half the bang for the money (more so with monks lacking fob) or you can play a monk with natural attacks and be cheesy.
If there was a magic item that gave enhancement bonuses (no special abilities) to a monk's fists for a reasonable price it wouldn't be that bad.
Still: If you want to play a monk you're better of playing a fighter and calling him monk. (perhaps with 1 level dip into monk)
Actually the easiest thing to do if you don't like monks as a DM is to not use them at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate the monk, too. Not because of the fluff.
I just hate how the stupid way the Aomf works makes you think:
So I can use the thing just as a monk and only get half the bang for the money (more so with monks lacking fob) or you can play a monk with natural attacks and be cheesy.If there was a magic item that gave enhancement bonuses (no special abilities) to a monk's fists for a reasonable price it wouldn't be that bad.
Still: If you want to play a monk you're better of playing a fighter and calling him monk. (perhaps with 1 level dip into monk)
Monks are great dipping classes for most all martial characters. A 2 level dip in monk nets you 4 bonus feats (improved unarmed strike + improved unarmed damage, stunning fist, and 2 bonus feats from a pretty wide list which makes it very easy to grab feats like Mobility quickly), evasion, +8 skill points, and +3 to all saves. For a dedicated martial, you lose 1 point of BAB for a 2 level monk dip. I am so down with that.
-1 BAB for +15% to all saves, evasion, plus 4 feats, two of which I get to choose from a rather large list? Yes please. Improved Unarmed Strike is already nice since it opens up feats like Deflect Arrows (a feat that's nice for most anyone, since it lets you ignore the best attack per round from any archer, assuming you're not 2 handing something at the time). Gnabbing Catch off Guard is good for pole-arm fighters, and dodge turns the monk dip into a +1 AC as well as opening up Mobility pretty easily.
The only downside is the emphasis on wearing light armor for evasion. Everything else is pretty golden, and I know some who would consider it for the +3 to all saves (that's kind of like getting a all the save boosting feats at once plus the option to stack them with the save boosting feats).
Plus their slightly improved unarmed strike damage applies to gauntlets, so if you're an unarmed fighter or barbarian, enjoy dealing 1d6 base damage with your gauntlets instead of 1d3.
Plus their slightly improved unarmed strike damage applies to gauntlets, so if you're an unarmed fighter or barbarian, enjoy dealing 1d6 base damage with your gauntlets instead of 1d3.
Ashiel that is not correct. The monk gets no love from gauntlets, the cestus, brass knuckles, or the rope thingy whose name I can't remember.
There is a post on it. I think the developer posted it on a thread we were both in. That lack of a weapon that works like that for a monk is part of the frustration that people have with monks. The overpriced AoMF would no longer be an issue also.
I often wonder if stealth or the monk will get fixed first.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe its just me but the monk isn't such a bad class.
They are a bit strange I will give it that but then again I fell in love with the idea of a Goblin Monk (Drunken Monk Archetype) with the deity of Cayden Cailean which is why I cannot really say I dislike it.
Yeah I agree the armor thing kinda stinks at times but it does make sense, to an extent.
I forget if this was in 3.5, but I thought there was the possibility of enchanting the monk's hands.
I'm personally fine with anybody playing as anything even if it's stuff I don't particularly like.
Wanna be a monk? Fine! Wanna be a Friar Tuck look-a-like with kung-fu skills? Fine! This is Golarion, baby!
However, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact that Ninja and Samurai get their own classes instead of being archetypes. At least they are alternate versions of existing classes though.
Maybe its just me but the monk isn't such a bad class.
They are a bit strange I will give it that but then again I fell in love with the idea of a Goblin Monk (Drunken Monk Archetype) with the deity of Cayden Cailean which is why I cannot really say I dislike it.Yeah I agree the armor thing kinda stinks at times but it does make sense, to an extent.
I forget if this was in 3.5, but I thought there was the possibility of enchanting the monk's hands.
Maybe in a 3.5 splat book, but it is still something I never heard of.
However, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact that Ninja and Samurai get their own classes instead of being archetypes. At least they are alternate versions of existing classes though.
I'm not even sure they should have been Archetypes. We should have gotten a couple of Samurai-based Cavalier orders and all of the Ninja tricks and alternate class features should have been made Rogue talents.
I'm personally fine with anybody playing as anything even if it's stuff I don't particularly like.
Wanna be a monk? Fine! Wanna be a Friar Tuck look-a-like with kung-fu skills? Fine! This is Golarion, baby!
However, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact that Ninja and Samurai get their own classes instead of being archetypes. At least they are alternate versions of existing classes though.
As far as Paizo is concerned the "Alternate" classes are just archetypes that got a full chart printed for their class progression, and I tend to agree. They're similar enough to the classes they're based on to be within the realm of an archetype.
Hi all!
I was wondering if I was the only one who despises the monk class? Am I the only one who thinks like I do?
The reason is not even related to what it does as far as game mechanics go; I just don't like the concept of it. In fact, I never even read the class skills and abilities...
Here are my reasons:
1-A martial arts style typically oriental type of class has no place whatsoever in a typical western meieval-based role-playing game, in my opinion at least
2- the concept that a halfling can poud a dragon or iron golem to death with its bare fist, for example, would be enough to switch me back to Vampire the Masquerade...
In my opinion the fighting-monk priest kit from 2nd Ed was sooo popular that that is why they added the monk as an individual class in 3rd ed and up.
I respect those that like the monks, simply as DM I have enver allowed them in my game.
Also, if someone can give me a reasoning/concept/flavor/justification they use or know to why Monks have their place in a medieval-europe themed game, I am all ears and might even let people play one in my game.
Cheers!
RW
Western Medieval? that is a generalization and I also remember the "kits" from 2nd but how young are you? I was led to believe monks were an original 1st ed AD&D core class and got curtailed from 2nd for being over powered like the 1st ed barbarian. I played 2nd ed for seven years and thought that whole time that there were alot of things about the system that straight sucked.I digress though, it seems your view of Monks as intruders in a western(european?)medieval setting is out of place...well its not medieval europe, try reading some forgotten realms novels and perhaps pick up a boardgame like hero quest or stratego if you're looking for a more traditional feel. THIS is FANTASY roleplaying NOT historical. cheers.
Plus their slightly improved unarmed strike damage applies to gauntlets, so if you're an unarmed fighter or barbarian, enjoy dealing 1d6 base damage with your gauntlets instead of 1d3.
Ashiel that is not correct. The monk gets no love from gauntlets, the cestus, brass knuckles, or the rope thingy whose name I can't remember.
There is a post on it. I think the developer posted it on a thread we were both in. That lack of a weapon that works like that for a monk is part of the frustration that people have with monks. The overpriced AoMF would no longer be an issue also.
I often wonder if stealth or the monk will get fixed first.
When it is errata'd, then I will accept that. However, currently, the PRD is quite clear. Gauntlets deal your unarmed strike damage. It says so in the core rulebook, and it says so in the PRD. They can't be used with flurry because of a weird wording between unarmed attack and unarmed strike, but it is iron clad clear that they deal unarmed strike damage.
I'm personally fine with anybody playing as anything even if it's stuff I don't particularly like.
Wanna be a monk? Fine! Wanna be a Friar Tuck look-a-like with kung-fu skills? Fine! This is Golarion, baby!
However, I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact that Ninja and Samurai get their own classes instead of being archetypes. At least they are alternate versions of existing classes though.
I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact the Ninja and Samurai even exist, given that you can build Ninja and Samurai using the core rulebook with no problems at all. Ninja is just rogue 2.0. Samurai is...well Samurai I guess. More or less just a cavalier remix.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't hate the monk for it's flavor. I don't particularly care for it's flavor either, but it never bugged me that much.
No, the reason i hate the monk is because of it's mechanics.
Director: okay guys wee need this guy to be fast, and agile. give him a mystic feel and some other martial arts abilities.
Dev 1: makes flurry of blows, combat maneuver stuff, monk weapons, gives full bab, evasion and bonus feats.
Dev 2: Fast movement, ki Pool, slow fall, all good saves, magic wisdom armor, average bab, and scaling unarmed damage.
Director: Both of these could work but...slap them together, nobody'll notice.
I just feels like the monk is a class that had WAY to many ideas and none of them were executed properly.
E.G.: My best abilities allow me to move really far and do stuff when not moving.
E.G.:I'm a front line fighter who can't do anything at a range. I need to be away from the enemy because of my lower hp and ac.
Als i don't get the scaling unarmed damage. No other weapons scale, why should fists. I'd rather be a fighter and deal a d8+8+str+magic at mid level than a monk dealing 2d10+str+(really expensive)magic at 20th. I just don't think big damage dice are worth it.
(Actually i think that's the biggest problem i have with it, the stupid unarmed damage, if it just stayed a d6 and was cheaper to enhance, maybe let them take weapon spec. I don't know i think it may be that one ability that bugs me the most)
When it is errata'd, then I will accept that. However, currently, the PRD is quite clear. Gauntlets deal your unarmed strike damage. It says so in the core rulebook, and it says so in the PRD. They can't be used with flurry because of a weird wording between unarmed attack and unarmed strike, but it is iron clad clear that they deal unarmed strike damage.
Plus their slightly improved unarmed strike damage applies to gauntlets, so if you're an unarmed fighter or barbarian, enjoy dealing 1d6 base damage with your gauntlets instead of 1d3.
Ashiel that is not correct. The monk gets no love from gauntlets, the cestus, brass knuckles, or the rope thingy whose name I can't remember.
There is a post on it. I think the developer posted it on a thread we were both in. That lack of a weapon that works like that for a monk is part of the frustration that people have with monks. The overpriced AoMF would no longer be an issue also.
I often wonder if stealth or the monk will get fixed first.
But even so it never says they deal the monk's unarmed strike damage like the cestus or brass knuckles does/did so you are still at 1d3.
edit:added brass knuckles.
|
Repeated wish in the wild hope that it'll stick one day:
Self-enhancing rituals the monk can perform himself. Appropriately priced. Would cover their to-hit issues and opens up flavor options while at the same time preserving the monk's core flavor of an ascetic who has focused on personal perfection rather than getting his mojo from magical bling.
I've always sort of rolled my eyes at the fact the Ninja and Samurai even exist, given that you can build Ninja and Samurai using the core rulebook with no problems at all. Ninja is just rogue 2.0. Samurai is...well Samurai I guess. More or less just a cavalier remix.
I mean, why don't we have whole classes for every cultural warrior? I mean, I'm sure we need a new Viking Raider class now. Or a Teutonic Knight class. Or maybe a class dedicated to English Longbowmen. Or why not a class that is a roman gladiator. Or a roman legionnaire.
I mean, why exactly does a warrior from Japan get its own class? I mean, I think Japan is awesome and all, but it's kind of stupid if you think about it. A samurai of all varieties can already be built using Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, and Ranger. Toss some Rogue in there if you want some Iaijutsu action. Personally I think it's a slap in the face of the simplicity and flexibility of the d20/D&D system the way they're doing stuff these days.
I'd rather see more love for the multiclass characters. Screw archtypes. Why not something like this?
Iaijutsu Efficiency (Combat)
Your strikes are quick, deliberate, and impossible to follow.
Prerequisite: Weapon Training class feature, Sneak Attack class feature
Benefit: You deal some (or all) of your sneak attack damage when fighting with a weapon that benefits from your Weapon Training class feature. For every +1 to hit your training grants you, you may apply 1d6 of your sneak attack damage to the attack even if it would not be a sneak attack. For example, if you have Weapon Training I and Sneak Attack +2d6, you may apply 1d6 of your sneak attack damage on all attacks with that weapon (inflicting the +2d6 when you could normally use Sneak Attack).
The above feat is obviously geared towards Fighter/Rogues, combining their class features to make them work together.
Likewise, another feat might be...
Skald's Song (Combat)
Your passion fuel's your songs and poems of past heroes.
Prerequisites: Inspire Courage class feature, Rage class feature
Benefit: You may use Inspire Courage even while in a Rage. When you do, the competence bonuses granted by Inspire Courage increase by +2 as long as you remain in a rage.
Obviously for Barbarian/Bards...
Or...
Concealed Casting (General)
You're adept at concealing your spellcasting.
Prerequisite: Slight of Hand 5 ranks, ability to cast spells
Benefit: When casting a spell you may conceal the casting. Observers must make a Perception check (DC 10 + your slight of hand modifier) to notice any of the components of your spell. Likewise, the DC to identify a spell you are casting is equal to 10 + your slight of hand modifier or the normal DC for identifying the spell, whichever is higher.
Or...
Arcane Fist (Combat)
You are adept at channeling magic through your body.
Prerequisite: Flurry of Blows, caster level 1+
Benefit: When you declare a flurry of blows, you may make one less attack (usually the one at your lowest attack bonus) to cast any spell with a range of touch as a swift action. You may may then deliver the touch spell as part of an unarmed strike as normal.
Stuff like that would be nice to see.
It can't be much clearer.But even so it never says they deal the monk's unarmed strike damage like the cestus or brass knuckles does/did so you are still at 1d3.
edit:added brass knuckles.
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.
You deal unarmed strike damage. Only it's lethal. People with a level of monk deal 1d6 unarmed strike damage. Thus when wearing a gauntlet they deal 1d6 lethal armed strike damage. Likewise, someone with stone fist cast would also deal 1d6 damage.
Monks, oh how i hate them! In first edition they were over powered and the players that had them always carried amazing stats. Now it could of just been the people I played with back in the day. That said...
In every edtion thereafter it might not be the class but the players that chose to play that class. They are the elite player that carries stats totaling 85-95 points. Over my 30 years of playing RPG's it's like a set standard (there is always an exception) that guy who plays a monk is trying "beat the game". The guy that makes a bard is just "goofing off" and druid is brushed off to the side cause no DM wants to deal with your pet in town...
Another thing I've seen on a few post is that this game isn't real life and not based on western ideals. Twist it anyway you want but it is, oriental adventures anyone? Why make a book called that if it wasn't.
Monks are aweful and I hate them honestly it's not like a dislike, I hate them. I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk? If the answer is no (and for me it is.) then maybe just maybe the class isn't correct as a base class for the game. Toss it into the advance players guide or somewhere else but it does bother me that it's in the core rule book.
Good job with knocking the OP out of the thread there Ashiel, mad props to you, now, can this not become Just Another Monk Thread and die a quick, painless death?
Huh? What do you mean Gorby?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks, oh how i hate them! In first edition they were over powered and the players that had them always carried amazing stats. Now it could of just been the people I played with back in the day. That said...
In every edtion thereafter it might not be the class but the players that chose to play that class. They are the elite player that carries stats totaling 85-95 points. Over my 30 years of playing RPG's it's like a set standard (there is always an exception) that guy who plays a monk is trying "beat the game". The guy that makes a bard is just "goofing off" and druid is brushed off to the side cause no DM wants to deal with your pet in town...
Another thing I've seen on a few post is that this game isn't real life and not based on western ideals. Twist it anyway you want but it is, oriental adventures anyone? Why make a book called that if it wasn't.
Monks are aweful and I hate them honestly it's not like a dislike, I hate them. I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk? If the answer is no (and for me it is.) then maybe just maybe the class isn't correct as a base class for the game. Toss it into the advance players guide or somewhere else but it does bother me that it's in the core rule book.
I...what...I don't even....how....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk?
Synthesist Summoner
I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk?Ever heard of Paladins?
Also a good choice. And on a side note Gorbacz are you a bag full of buttery popcorn goodness?
Paladins is a red herring compared to the monk. Interesting enough, and I am sure someone out there smarter then I can find this out, which of the classes has more posts, not like hey my monk/pally has a question but ones like this wher its just a I like/hate/luke warm the class.
Obviuosly I am still standing by the monk in this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk?Synthesist Summoner
+1 to that.by the way, referencing oriental adventures to justify the argument that monks don't belong might be reaching for 2 reasons 1)monks were introduced before oriental adventures 2)this is pathfinder not dungeons and dragons 1st,2nd,3rd 3.5,4th or 5th editions. It was designed to cater to ANY flavor that a rpg fan might like be it a gunslinging steampunkish Mana Waste campaign or Knights and Chivalry in Taldor or revolutionary war in Andoran, Galt, Cheliax etc., Vikings in the Land of the Linnorm kings...Golarion, the setting for Pathfinder rpg is a huge melting pot of different cultural backgrounds.Play it anyway you like. I've been playing Rpgs for 25 years and my tastes have obviously evolved, if yours have not, by all means play it anyway you wish, at your table it's your game at my table it's mine.
It can't be much clearer.But even so it never says they deal the monk's unarmed strike damage like the cestus or brass knuckles does/did so you are still at 1d3.
edit:added brass knuckles.
Gauntlet: This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets. Your opponent cannot use a disarm action to disarm you of gauntlets.You deal unarmed strike damage. Only it's lethal. People with a level of monk deal 1d6 unarmed strike damage. Thus when wearing a gauntlet they deal 1d6 lethal armed strike damage. Likewise, someone with stone fist cast would also deal 1d6 damage.
The book also gives you a listed amount of damage that the guantlets deal. It never says monks get to bypass that amount. Since you are using the guantlet, and not the monk's unarmed strike I am failing to see how you think the monk's damage overrides anything.
If the gauntlet did more damage would you still default to the monk?
If the gauntlet is a +3, and the monk also has a +2 AoMF which one takes precedence?
Monks, oh how i hate them! In first edition they were over powered and the players that had them always carried amazing stats. Now it could of just been the people I played with back in the day. That said...
This has nothing to do with the present.
In every edtion thereafter it might not be the class but the players that chose to play that class. They are the elite player that carries stats totaling 85-95 points. Over my 30 years of playing RPG's it's like a set standard (there is always an exception) that guy who plays a monk is trying "beat the game". The guy that makes a bard is just "goofing off" and druid is brushed off to the side cause no DM wants to deal with your pet in town...
Baseless generalization.
Another thing I've seen on a few post is that this game isn't real life and not based on western ideals. Twist it anyway you want but it is, oriental adventures anyone? Why make a book called that if it wasn't.
Not evidence at all. The fact that fans wanted an oriental setting does not mean the default setting is western. Twist it any way you want, but trying to claim random things as facts still makes them random.
Monks are aweful and I hate them honestly it's not like a dislike, I hate them. I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk? If the answer is no (and for me it is.) then maybe just maybe the class isn't correct as a base class for the game. Toss it into the advance players guide or somewhere else but it does bother me that it's in the core rule book.
The paladin wins this one, but at least you are willing to admit that for you at it is, and not claim it as some universal truth.
If you feel the need to repost you can start by refuting the non-western evidence that has been provided, or the other thoughts on how to portray a monk since the fluff is the issue. Of course you could be trying to say the mechanics are eastern, and it is not the fluff. If so we await your statements.