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.
Paladin's cause much more trouble. You have paladin alignment threads, the smite is OP threads. The paladin archer alone has gotten a few threads.
Is it evil/wrong if my paladin _____ threads. The list goes on.There is nothing controversial about the monk except that many of us don't like the mechanics. The paladin has had threads on several fronts.
The synthesis is catching up.
The book also gives you a listed amount of damage that the guantlets deal.
It lists the amount of damage a typical unarmed strike deals. The actual rules concerning the gauntlet, under the weapon description, explain how the item functions. Text trumps table.
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.
It doesn't have to override anything. Gauntlets per their description only modify your existing unarmed strike damage. Monks deal more unarmed strike damage. They are still modifying the monk's unarmed strike damage.
If the gauntlet did more damage would you still default to the monk?
Yes because the text says that it modifies unarmed strike damage. If hypothetically a race had an ability called "puny weakling" that made their unarmed strikes deal damage as a size smaller, then they'd be dealing 1d2 with their gauntlets instead of 1d3. Unless they were a monk, then they'd be dealing 1d4.
If the gauntlet is a +3, and the monk also has a +2 AoMF which one takes precedence?
The one with the highest modifier. Stacking 101 is down the hall. :P
I am going by the text. At no point does the text say the monk can override the guantlet.
It doesn't have to override anything. Gauntlets per their description only modify your existing unarmed strike damage. Monks deal more unarmed strike damage. They are still modifying the monk's unarmed strike damage.
Just to make sure we are clear that 1d3 in the table is not gauntlet damage, but unarmed strike damage, and the guantlet is only allowing that damage to be lethal?
If so I don't see that quote.
I see:
Simple Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M)
Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the 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.
The weapon in this case is the gauntlet. :)
I am going by the text. At no point does the text say the monk can override the guantlet.
It doesn't have to override anything. Gauntlets per their description only modify your existing unarmed strike damage. Monks deal more unarmed strike damage. They are still modifying the monk's unarmed strike damage.Just to make sure we are clear that 1d3 in the table is not gauntlet damage, but unarmed strike damage, and the guantlet is only allowing that damage to be lethal?
If so I don't see that quote.
I see:
Simple Weapons Cost Dmg (S) Dmg (M)Gauntlet 2 gp 1d2 1d3
Dmg: These columns give the damage dealt by the 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.The weapon in this case is the gauntlet. :)
Text trumps table. The weapon deals unarmed strike damage. It specifically says in its description that it modifies unarmed strike damage to be lethal, but it's still an unarmed strike (and provokes attacks if you don't have IUS).
You're getting hung up on the listed damage, where the actual rule text says that the damage is just your unarmed strike damage modified. I don't see why you're making this out to be so hard, Wraith.
Hi, I just started this forum and learned about the glories of Pathfinder as I hate the new 5th edition dungeons and dragons already as the 4th edition needs more supplement content already and they are really just making 5e to make money. So low and behold I found pathfinder! (Yay my 3e and 3.5e books are useful again!)
..but I want you all to know I read through this thread and it kind-of makes my brain hurt after listening to all the murmuring about the monk class.
I think the complaints truly are mechanical (rules), conceptual (ideas behind the monk), and theoretical (implementation into a game).
All fairness alongside this topic I want to say:
If you like Monks, great if not screw 'em but if you are so against Monks then why join a forum full of like'ers and talk to 'em.
Thanks their is my $0.02
It does not say "your" unarmed strike damage.
It says:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strike.
The amount of unarmed damage is provided by the table, and is supported by the text in my last post. What you are proposing is not RAI or RAW.
RAW says go to the table. The table says 1d3. With specific text to overide the text saying to follow the table that is what should be done. This is further supported by the fact that the brass knuckles specifically said they did the monk's unarmed damage.
It does not say "your" unarmed strike damage.
It says:
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strike.The amount of unarmed damage is provided by the table, and is supported by the text in my last post. What you are proposing is not RAI or RAW.
RAW says go to the table. The table says 1d3. With specific text to overide the text saying to follow the table that is what should be done. This is further supported by the fact that the brass knuckles specifically said they did the monk's unarmed damage.
*points to the bold part* Unarmed strike. You're making an unarmed strike. It only changes the damage to lethal. Notice that the unarmed strike damage on the chart is identical to the gauntlet damage other than being lethal? Yeaaaagh. Let that sink in a moment.
Monk's unarmed strike ability says "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would". Monks deal more unarmed strike damage than most creatures. Gauntlet modify that damage. That should be the end of the debate. Will it be?
I think that when you use a guantlet you are dealing the guantlet's unarmed strike damage, not your own, and I think that is the crux of the debate. With that said I think we have to agree to disagree.
PS:
Sharmune:That depiction was not accurate. I like the monk. I just think they need some help as do many others. Those that disagree beleive the monk is fine as is. However every time I see someone say the monk is ok:
1.They are either really good with mechanics so it blinds them to the problem. It is similar to a weightlifter saying something is not heavy just because he can pick it up.
2.They try to use splat books as justification.
3.They have a nonstandard style of play or a really nice GM who lets them get away with things. This is usually influenced by houserules.
4.They try to use very circumstantial situations that may never come up to justify the monk's failings.
5. Some combination of the above, and probably some more that I am not thinking of right now.
PS2: Lost Ohioian my debate with Ashiel is a good way to present your arguments. Bring proof and/or logically explain your points.
This post was a good example by Ashiel. It provides evidence that can be researched and uses the OP's own basic arguments against him.
I think that when you use a guantlet you are dealing the guantlet's unarmed strike damage, not your own, and I think that is the crux of the debate. With that said I think we have to agree to disagree.
Wait, you're saying that you're dealing the gauntlet's unarmed strike damage!? The gauntlet doesn't have unarmed strike damage. It's not making unarmed strkes. You are. The only way the gauntlet is getting unarmed strikes is if it's an animated gauntlet making unarmed strikes. Please, please show me where weapons get unarmed strike damage from. I've kept my argument within the rules I think, but that one is just somewhere off in left field Wraith. :(
Oh boy. Man, I'm going to have my longsword deal its unarmed strike damage now. Maybe a greataxe could deal its unarmed strike damage. I beat it would be such great and axey unarmed strike damage. :P
PS:
Sharmune:That depiction was not accurate. I like the monk. I just think they need some help as do many others. Those that disagree beleive the monk is fine as is. However every time I see someone say the monk is ok:1.They are either really good with mechanics so it blinds them to the problem. It is similar to a weightlifter saying something is not heavy just because he can pick it up.
2.They try to use splat books as justification.
3.They have a nonstandard style of play or a really nice GM who lets them get away with things. This is usually influenced by houserules.
4.They try to use very circumstantial situations that may never come up to justify the monk's failings.
5. Some combination of the above, and probably some more that I am not thinking of right now.
PS2: Lost Ohioian my debate with Ashiel is a good way to present your arguments. Bring proof and/or logically explain your points.
This post was a good example by Ashiel. It provides evidence that can be researched and uses the OP's own basic arguments against him.
Why thanks much, old friend. :3
Wait, you're saying that you're dealing the gauntlet's unarmed strike damage!? The gauntlet doesn't have unarmed strike damage. It's not making unarmed strkes. You are. The only way the gauntlet is getting unarmed strikes is if it's an animated gauntlet making unarmed strikes. Please, please show me where weapons get unarmed strike damage from. I've kept my argument within the rules I think, but that one is just somewhere off in left field Wraith. :(
Oh boy. Man, I'm going to have my longsword deal its unarmed strike damage now. Maybe a greataxe could deal its unarmed strike damage. I beat it would be such great and axey unarmed strike damage. :P
What I mean is that the dangerous metal glove is the source of the damage, as opposed to a bare fist.
The metal glove does 1d3 damage.
I think you read it as the gauntlet just transferring(for lack of a better term) the unarmed strike damage, and making it lethal instead of nonlethal.
a heartless try to convince you:
1. ninjas!
2. magic!
no, it's completly ok, I dislike paladins. Just tell your players if you think you can't be impartial towards monks.
This post was a good example by Ashiel. It provides evidence that can be researched and uses the OP's own basic arguments against him.
"Why so Serious?"
Anyhow, I like monks because they are an everyaman kind of warrior that does not rely on weapons other than what they can pull from their surroundings. (staff, baton, rock and sling, cloth armor, special moves)
I like them b/c to me that is what I would like to hold to bear if I had to fight and be like a PF hero.
This post was a good example by Ashiel. It provides evidence that can be researched and uses the OP's own basic arguments against him."Why so Serious?"
Anyhow, I like monks because they are an everyaman kind of warrior that does not rely on weapons other than what they can pull from their surroundings. (staff, baton, rock and sling, cloth armor, special moves)
I like them b/c to me that is what I would like to hold to bear if I had to fight and be like a PF hero.
That post was for the OP. The stuff I mentioned for you was just to make sure you understood what was going on. :)
I like them for the same reasons you do.
Nobody is upset though. Well I am not upset anyway. :)
Just want to thank Ashiel and Wraithstrike for bringing this thread back into the comfort zone after the...colorfulness upthread..
;)
I am completely loss, but I am assuming you approve of the side debate I had with Ashiel. :)
What I mean is that the dangerous metal glove is the source of the damage, as opposed to a bare fist.
If that were the case it wouldn't be an unarmed attack. It would just be another weapon. You would be considered armed. You wouldn't need IUS. It would say nothing about nonlethal damage. It would just deal 1d3 damage and otherwise function as a slightly less damaging spiked gauntlet that dealt bludgeoning damage. But it doesn't. It doesn't do any of those things. You aren't considered armed, you are making an unarmed strike* specifically noted in the description and it notes that it merely modifies your unarmed strike to deal lethal damage.
I think you read it as the gauntlet just transferring(for lack of a better term) the unarmed strike damage, and making it lethal instead of nonlethal.
Considering that's exactly what the darn thing says it does, pretty much, yeah. It is unarmed strike damage. Unarmed strike. Get it? Unarmed strike. It even notes it's still considered an unarmed attack. You can even deliver touch spells through them. Did I mention it says Unarmed Strike? Oh yeah, and unarmed strike.
Wait just to check Unarmed Strike........Right?
I am completely loss, but I am assuming you approve of the side debate I had with Ashiel. :)
That's because we can banter back and forth like drunk monkies without getting mad at each other, or suggesting the world is somehow a worse place because of the others' existence. It's a really refreshing change compared to some of the posters here. In essence, our debating banter is comfortable, warm, and cuddly, with a slightly playful bent. It makes people happy, and it makes monks smile!
Then monk 2/fighter 18 unarmed strikes people with gauntlets for 1d6+10+6+4+5 damage. :P
Wait just to check Unarmed Strike........Right?
Right. :3
What I mean is that the dangerous metal glove is the source of the damage, as opposed to a bare fist.If that were the case it wouldn't be an unarmed attack. It would just be another weapon. You would be considered armed. You wouldn't need IUS. It would say nothing about nonlethal damage. It would just deal 1d3 damage and otherwise function as a slightly less damaging spiked gauntlet that dealt bludgeoning damage. But it doesn't. It doesn't do any of those things. You aren't considered armed, you are making an unarmed strike* specifically noted in the description and it notes that it merely modifies your unarmed strike to deal lethal damage.
I think you read it as the gauntlet just transferring(for lack of a better term) the unarmed strike damage, and making it lethal instead of nonlethal.Considering that's exactly what the darn thing says it does, pretty much, yeah. It is unarmed strike damage. Unarmed strike. Get it? Unarmed strike. It even notes it's still considered an unarmed attack. You can even deliver touch spells through them. Did I mention it says Unarmed Strike? Oh yeah, and unarmed strike.
I agree that it makes no sense to call it an unarmed weapon/strike/etc, when the weapon damage takes precedence at 1d3 but WoTC did it, and Paizo did it. Paizo even going so far as to specially make one similar item specifically for monk's(brass knuckles) use before deciding against it.
RAW does not care about logic though. If it did then either you would not have similar items differentiating between unarmed strikes and unarmed strike made by monks. The gauntlet would never list unarmed strike damage, and only the brass knuckles would have ever made a reference to monk damage. As written you have a weapon that does unarmed strike damage. Paizo for a short time decided to give monk's brass knuckles.
Basically you have a weapon that does damage as an unarmed strike. Hopefully they get the errata out that fixes all of this, and brass knuckles are allowed to keep dealing monk unarmed strike damage, instead of the Equipment Guide version which was errata'd not to.
I am completely loss, but I am assuming you approve of the side debate I had with Ashiel. :)That's because we can banter back and forth like drunk monkies without getting mad at each other, or suggesting the world is somehow a worse place because of the others' existence. It's a really refreshing change compared to some of the posters here. In essence, our debating banter is comfortable, warm, and cuddly, with a slightly playful bent. It makes people happy, and it makes monks smile!
Then monk 2/fighter 18 unarmed strikes people with gauntlets for 1d6+10+6+4+5 damage. :P
Rules aside though, it makes no sense how my punches hurt less when I wear a metal glove. :)
Personally in my home games I allow the cestus and brass knuckles to work, not just the brass knuckles. The player just has to use punches. It seems a decent trade-off to avoid paying for the AoMF, which IIRC, does not even overcome DR.
Hmm. If you make a defensive monk, and add it to a party with good defences, that isn't worried about quickly triumphing, the monk can do really well. You also then avoid the "you didn't do very much damage" problem. Add a defensive monk to an offence based party, they can still shine, they become a blocker/pursuer.
Those saves, a great ac possible with only high wis and smart feat choices. You don't need the items, don't need to talk to crafters or merchants. Just "be".
Course I love high ac and dragging fights out, slowly winning. Steady light-boxer style. Weave weave, jab jab, hook, step around, cover, crack a joke or goad. Stay alive and have fun.
|
Course I love high ac and dragging fights out, slowly winning. Steady light-boxer style. Weave weave, jab jab, hook, step around, cover, crack a joke or goad. Stay alive and have fun.
Hopefully you do realize that in most not-your games, combats last for 5 rounds tops and "prancing English boxer" approach isn't really applicable :)
"Face me, foes! I shall duck, weave, jab and crack a joke oh wait is the combat over yet I've barely worked myself into the role /SADPANDAFACE"
|
Vulgar Latin5)In almost 30 years of gaming I've only played in 2 Medieval Europe settings, I ran one of those, sometimes I still do. In it there are no Monk (class), there is also no;
Rapiers or full plate armor (anachronistic)
Spellcasters (thats fantasy)
Demi-humans as players (myths)
Polytheism ( well some, but those are pagans)
Genies or elementals (middle eastern)
The "common tongue" (that's a Star Trek fallacy)
Mithral or Adamantine, heck most special materials (myth or fiction)
A crap ton of knowledge skills (obvious reasons).
Various other things.
Modern English
Course I love high ac and dragging fights out, slowly winning. Steady light-boxer style. Weave weave, jab jab, hook, step around, cover, crack a joke or goad. Stay alive and have fun.Hopefully you do realize that in most not-your games, combats last for 5 rounds tops and "prancing English boxer" approach isn't really applicable :)
"Face me, foes! I shall duck, weave, jab and crack a joke oh wait is the combat over yet I've barely worked myself into the role /SADPANDAFACE"
I get you hate my gaming style, the way I do things, how I play. How many times have you shot down what I've typed now? But here is the thing, while others can emphasise the offence, the monk has some real defensive ability up their sleeves if they want to fully realise it. While others can get blown away from a failed save, monks have all good saves. The monk can work as a blocker, or as an attacker of wizards and archers while others push on. They aren't the heavy infantry, they have other roles. With some luck and a pure defensive focus, a monk can even tie up a barb and cause him to waste his precious rage swinging at the bending willow tree. If a combat doesn't go the parties way in five rounds, if those that jump in with their massive damage modifiers get toasted or hit by massive damage from the enemy, the monk has the speed and special abilities to get away. That derided defensive focus is a potential to survive and survival is always a plus. It doesn't always have to be all in, we do it in five rounds or die/we are worthless adventurers.
And the 5 round claim thing. Don't you guys face defensive opponents of your own? I don't just mean high ac, I mean blockers allowing shooters more shots, abjurers and grapplers, tower shield inf wearing the party down. Are defensive chars not used to soak up all that a boss has, so everyone can get in a great position and pile on the pain? Monks are great, but you have to know what you want and what you are doing to make them, or a fighter is probably a better idea.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Course I love high ac and dragging fights out, slowly winning. Steady light-boxer style. Weave weave, jab jab, hook, step around, cover, crack a joke or goad. Stay alive and have fun.Hopefully you do realize that in most not-your games, combats last for 5 rounds tops and "prancing English boxer" approach isn't really applicable :)
"Face me, foes! I shall duck, weave, jab and crack a joke oh wait is the combat over yet I've barely worked myself into the role /SADPANDAFACE"
I get you hate my gaming style, the way I do things, how I play. How many times have you shot down what I've typed now? But here is the thing, while others can emphasise the offence, the monk has some real defensive ability up their sleeves if they want to fully realise it. While others can get blown away from a failed save, monks have all good saves. The monk can work as a blocker, or as an attacker of wizards and archers while others push on. They aren't the heavy infantry, they have other roles. With some luck and a pure defensive focus, a monk can even tie up a barb and cause him to waste his precious rage swinging at the bending willow tree. If a combat doesn't go the parties way in five rounds, if those that jump in with their massive damage modifiers get toasted or hit by massive damage from the enemy, the monk has the speed and special abilities to get away. That derided defensive focus is a potential to survive and survival is always a plus. It doesn't always have to be all in, we do it in five rounds or die/we are worthless adventurers.
And the 5 round claim thing. Don't you guys face defensive opponents of your own? I don't just mean high ac, I mean blockers allowing shooters more shots, abjurers and grapplers, tower shield inf wearing the party down. Are defensive chars not used to soak up all that a boss has, so everyone can get in a great position and pile on the pain? Monks are great, but you have to know what you want and what you are doing to make them, or...
I'm not judging your gaming style. I'm just noting that it's greatly different from any 3.5 game I played in and ran (and that's hundreds of games with dozens of GMs), and therefore, likely less useful as a baseline for comparison. Somewhere between your "casting should go off BAB", "multiple sneak attacks per round are bad" threads I arrived at conclusion that we're playing two entirely different games. Which is all fine and well, me and TOZ and Ashiel and Wraithstrike are playing different games as well, but we do share certain baseline assumptions and our combined years of experience lead us to careful conclusion that our baseline assumptions are much more in line with the perceived norm among average 3.5/PF gaming populace.
Regarding defensive/blocking arguments: you just walk around, over or under (or through) the monk. Notice that 3.5 D&D has a lot of rules for going around somebody who wants to stop you (tumble, overrun, Mobility) and almost zero rules for actually stopping somebody from doing that. There are also no rules for "taunting" the opponent and forcing him to keep attacking your defensive character instead of going after his squishy sploshy mates. Pathfinder, which you so like to snipe at, actually did try to help remedy that with stuff like Step Up, Stand Still, Combat Patrol, the much-maligned Antagonize and few others.
Since there are very little ways to stop your enemies in place and zero rules to force them to focus on you instead of more attractive targets outside of having a nice DM, there's a general emphasis on making sure that your party can kill the enemy before the enemy can kill you. Melee characters who can drop an opponent in 1-2 full attacks win the day here, giving anybody who's really good at damage an advantage. Monks are left in cold. Their supreme defensive abilities give them little comfort if opponents walk past them and bulldoze the other party members. Meanwhile, full BAB classes enjoy just slightly lesser resilience while retaining superior offensive capabilities.
Now stuff got slightly better between archetypes that swap out the less-than-stellar Monk abilities for stuff that's actually useful and Ultimate Combat style feat chains which are quite sweet and give Monk something that nobody else can pull off, but even then making a mighty Monk requires a rather silly amount of system mastery compared to every other class in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is a plethora of different genres in one giant setting, which is defined by the APs and the different places they bring to light (apart from the giant Varisian Focus). For Monks, I find that they mesh story-wise exceptionally well in some APs (Jade Regeant, Legacy of Fire) and not at all in others (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker). The same can be said of Paladins (as said above, with Second Darkness and Skull and Shackles as examples) and Gunslinger (not yet fitting an AP setting, but if you read the 'next AP' threads, you see dozens of requests for a "Stephen King's 'The Gunslinger'" style AP in the Mana Wastes.)
I actually really like the flavor of Monks (have ever since the Cleric Quintet novels), but don't feel that they necessarily lend well to the aesthetic present within each module. i.e.: I tell players who play such classes that aren't AP appropriate that a lot of what might occur will be outside the bounds of the module. (having to write in a monk monastery or a way for a paladin to correspond with his church for example)
This isn't always a big deal and in some ways is what makes a campaign unique and fun (I'm reminded of my all evil-Hextor Age of Worms campaign that I ran), but for purists who only like to run the module as written, it can create some problems...
I am following the "All-Paladin" Thread in the Skull and Shackles area with some amusement...
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...
Amazing stats were a result of the system, you needed them to qualify for certain classes.
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...
Huh?
The monk is a MAD class, if I were to roll 6 15s for stats, I'd play a MAD class. Most of the MAD classes are relics of 1st Ed. In 1st there were classes you could only play if you got lucky on stats; Paladins, Rangers, Monks, Acrobats etc. Point Buy becoming the default stat generation system has damaged those that haven't been tweaked from the 1st Ed. incarnations.I've had a lot of players try to "beat the game", they seldom pick the Monk class. The Bard Players aren't goofing off, quite the contrary, they've chosen a class that's not wholly dedicated to a tactical simulation, they want to ROLE PLAY. Druid players are more likely power gaming, it's arguably the strongest class. Brushed aside? Because of companions in the city? Animal Companions are dismissible in Pathfinder; so you can send your leopard away when you enter Absolom and call for a mutt dog or a big rat or a pigeon. If I witnessed a PC brushed aside because of a relatively mundane class feature I'd call the GM on his/her laziness.
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.
Uhm, the game is NOT based on real life. Hence the dragons and vampires and wizards shooting lightning bolts from their eyes and fireball from their arses.
Western ideals?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here? Monotheism via Christianity, the Divine right of Kings, the Feudal System of economics? None of that is in the game's core rules, nor in any of the major published campaign settings. There have been attempts at recreating medieval Europe in some 3rd party settings and alternate rule systems, none of them have generated the popularity or widespread acceptance of D&D/d20 and Golarion, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Ebberon, Dark Sun, Planescape etc. That's telling.
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 might be willing to give you the point on controversial, if not for the Paladin and the Synthesist (as others have pointed out). Personally I'm of the opinion that the controversy is sometimes contrived by people who just need to b~##$, other times by awkward rules interactions.
The Monk is in the CORE RULEBOOK because PFRPG is a backwards compatible system (at least it was once). The Monk was in the Player's Handbook so it made it to the CRB, it's that simple. If it hadn't been in there, we'd all still be complainig about the HUGE goof in backwards compatibility.Sorry man but Hating a base class seems silly, there are things I dislike about every class but hate is a strong word. If there was something that I hated, I mean really hated in PFRPG I probably wouldn't play the game.
Pathfinder is a plethora of different genres in one giant setting, which is defined by the APs and the different places they bring to light (apart from the giant Varisian Focus). For Monks, I find that they mesh story-wise exceptionally well in some APs (Jade Regeant, Legacy of Fire) and not at all in others (Curse of the Crimson Throne, Kingmaker). The same can be said of Paladins (as said above, with Second Darkness and Skull and Shackles as examples) and Gunslinger (not yet fitting an AP setting, but if you read the 'next AP' threads, you see dozens of requests for a "Stephen King's 'The Gunslinger'" style AP in the Mana Wastes.)
I actually really like the flavor of Monks (have ever since the Cleric Quintet novels), but don't feel that they necessarily lend well to the aesthetic present within each module. i.e.: I tell players who play such classes that aren't AP appropriate that a lot of what might occur will be outside the bounds of the module. (having to write in a monk monastery or a way for a paladin to correspond with his church for example)
This isn't always a big deal and in some ways is what makes a campaign unique and fun (I'm reminded of my all evil-Hextor Age of Worms campaign that I ran), but for purists who only like to run the module as written, it can create some problems...
I am following the "All-Paladin" Thread in the Skull and Shackles area with some amusement...
For sure. They fit in some settings, seem out of place in others. There is also the problem that a player may skim the monk, and feel they should be brilliant in hand to hand, because that is what a martial artists are in the movies. Then they play them, and can be disappointed. The monk isn't prepared for a barb or a cavalier and can get squashed if they have a few unlucky rounds. They fit a strange defensive niche, but can be worked to do well at offence.
Vulgar Latin5)In almost 30 years of gaming I've only played in 2 Medieval Europe settings, I ran one of those, sometimes I still do. In it there are no Monk (class), there is also no;
Rapiers or full plate armor (anachronistic)
Spellcasters (thats fantasy)
Demi-humans as players (myths)
Polytheism ( well some, but those are pagans)
Genies or elementals (middle eastern)
The "common tongue" (that's a Star Trek fallacy)
Mithral or Adamantine, heck most special materials (myth or fiction)
A crap ton of knowledge skills (obvious reasons).
Various other things.
Modern English
I get your point, but I was specifically referencing Medieval Europe. While any of those may have had a presence in that time period, the presence was not widespread.
Koine was dead long before the medieval age.
Vulgar Latin never made it to Scandanavia or Russia to any significant degree, same for Modern English.
While both Latin and French enjoyed widespread use in Medieval Europe, neither worked as widely or as universally as "Common Tongue". Common is a continent spanning language, known to most every race in most RPG campaigns. It's an over simplification, one of many that RPGs use to make player choices easier. Most of those simplifications are divergent with any historical accuracy.
Even today, there has to be 40+ spoken languages in Europe. Granted every European I've ever met speaks at least two passably, if not more. My point still has some validity considering the European continent is very "connected" in our modern world but doesn't share a common tongue.
I have a question for Wraithstrike and Ashiel.
Do you allow monks proficiency with gauntlets?
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.
From the rest of your post, it was.
Anyhow, I like monks because they are an everyaman kind of warrior that does not rely on weapons other than what they can pull from their surroundings. (staff, baton, rock and sling, cloth armor, special moves)
I like them b/c to me that is what I would like to hold to bear if I had to fight and be like a PF hero.
Me too. Problem is the mechanics get in the way sometimes.
Text trumps table.
Text is fluff. Table is crunch. Crunch beats fluff every time, sadly.
Paladin's cause much more trouble. You have paladin alignment threads, the smite is OP threads. The paladin archer alone has gotten a few threads.
Is it evil/wrong if my paladin _____ threads. The list goes on.There is nothing controversial about the monk except that many of us don't like the mechanics. The paladin has had threads on several fronts.
The synthesis is catching up.
At the end of the day, the paladin works for anyone. The monk doesn't. The problems with the paladin are 90% down to how the code is interpreted because it is a fluff feature with crunch repercussions, while with the monk it's all down to getting the mechanics to work.
Now stuff got slightly better between archetypes that swap out the less-than-stellar Monk abilities for stuff that's actually useful and Ultimate Combat style feat chains which are quite sweet and give Monk something that nobody else can pull off, but even then making a mighty Monk requires a rather silly amount of system mastery compared to every other class in the game.
^ This ^ basically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
Course I love high ac and dragging fights out, slowly winning. Steady light-boxer style. Weave weave, jab jab, hook, step around, cover, crack a joke or goad. Stay alive and have fun.Hopefully you do realize that in most not-your games, combats last for 5 rounds tops and "prancing English boxer" approach isn't really applicable :)
"Face me, foes! I shall duck, weave, jab and crack a joke oh wait is the combat over yet I've barely worked myself into the role /SADPANDAFACE"
I get you hate my gaming style, the way I do things, how I play. How many times have you shot down what I've typed now? But here is the thing, while others can emphasise the offence, the monk has some real defensive ability up their sleeves if they want to fully realise it. While others can get blown away from a failed save, monks have all good saves. The monk can work as a blocker, or as an attacker of wizards and archers while others push on. They aren't the heavy infantry, they have other roles. With some luck and a pure defensive focus, a monk can even tie up a barb and cause him to waste his precious rage swinging at the bending willow tree. If a combat doesn't go the parties way in five rounds, if those that jump in with their massive damage modifiers get toasted or hit by massive damage from the enemy, the monk has the speed and special abilities to get away. That derided defensive focus is a potential to survive and survival is always a plus. It doesn't always have to be all in, we do it in five rounds or die/we are worthless adventurers.
And the 5 round claim thing. Don't you guys face defensive opponents of your own? I don't just mean high ac, I mean blockers allowing shooters more shots, abjurers and grapplers, tower shield inf wearing the party down. Are defensive chars not used to soak up all that a boss has, so everyone can get in a great position and pile on the pain? Monks are great, but you have to know what you want and what you are
You got a few things wrong here, and I shouldn't try to correct someone on the internet, but okay, I'll bite.
This is on 3.5
"There are also no rules for "taunting" the opponent and forcing him to keep attacking your defensive character instead of going after his squishy sploshy mates."
Nope, not true. There is the feat Goad, which from the sounds of it has inspired some pathfinder feats. Goad can be found in complete adventurer, p. 109, and a monk can take it at second level.
Now you also said there were no rules to force them to attack your defensive character, so I'll also bring in test of mettle, an ability for the 3.5 knight class, p. 26 of player's handbook II.
"Monks are left in cold. Their supreme defensive abilities give them little comfort if opponents walk past them and bulldoze the other party members."
Back to discussing monks, you can take those attack of opportunities if they want to walk past you, then you can take 5 and flurry, or charge in the back of the foe that took a stroll into the party. Drop your ac if you are using expertise, go to power attack. Making a grappler defensive monk is also a nice idea, slow them down and tie them up, then choose someone important and grapple them as the fight continues, taking them out of doing much while held. If a sucker walks past and hits an ally, you can then take the aoo and on your turn, charge grapple them from the side or behind. In a way, hmm, the monk can pursue bouncer tactics quite well. It is not all blocking, there are heavy swings and grapples to use too. For any class with good speed, I also like feats such as powerful charge. Beefs damage where you can. Improved grapple, powerful charge, these aren't hard feats to get a hold of. Ensure you have some options and plan for them to stand and swing or go around you, and you can certainly feel a lot of comfort at the gaming table.
For monks in pathfinder, didn't you say there are a range of feats that pathfinder has added to concentrate attacks upon your character? "Step Up, Stand Still, Combat Patrol, the much-maligned Antagonize and few others". If you take some of them and use them, that is going to keep heat off others. Make sure the other feats go to defence and bam, you have a monk that protects party members, will evade a lot, draw attacks to him and keep the rest just a little more free to do their thing. Sounds like we have a great build here. A true team-player. Be sure to get mate's rates on healing from the cleric.
"Now stuff got slightly better between archetypes that swap out the less-than-stellar Monk abilities for stuff that's actually useful and Ultimate Combat style feat chains which are quite sweet and give Monk something that nobody else can pull off, but even then making a mighty Monk requires a rather silly amount of system mastery compared to every other class in the game."
Ha, this I can agree upon more. Variants and archetypes help the monk quite a bit, because it allows people to play more the type of monk they expected the monk to be in the first place, not the curious defensive skirmisher that is the class. Not sure about the system mastery requirement entirely though. Monks are truly shaped by feats, so you have to get those sorted. This isn't so different to playing a fighter--find what works for your char.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archetypes are awesome for monks.
Monks are also awesome for archetypes.
The other classes just wish they had all of that stuff to swap around.
Archetypes are awesome for monks.
Monks are also awesome for archetypes.
This is because the core monk is so badly designed you can't fail to improve it with archetypes.
Nah I was pointing to the ridiculously variant class features. No other class gets that much stuff, sometimes 2 or even 3 things per level. Almost all of it not tied to any other abilities.
I really think it's the best class for Archtype design.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone with asian-itus should look up Russian Orthodox Monks. Those guys knew how to throw a punch, and had the mysticism thing going on. No fruity outfits, no weird weapons, just plain ass beating with a divine "discover yourself" motif.
In home brew games I've written totally brand new monk themes and players loved them.
Wild elf thai boxers whose style mimicked the movements of the sea.
Halfling underground boxing clubs whose teachers were not of this plane. It mixed Pugilitsts with Lovcraftian boiler hat wearing arcanists.
Orc tribes who settled differences with bare knuckle "wrestiling" matches, the masters of which could take on the mighty behemoths bare handed. These guys reminded me of the incredible hulk.
Chi/Qi can be called whatever you like. The elf kickboxers called it Wava. The haffer pugilists called it Moxy. Orcs Mojo ect.
The main thing here is not cancelling out a class, but restructuring it to something that you can marvel at. Truly legendary gamers are the ones whose imaginations can bridge any gap in order to augment immersion.
Text trumps table.Text is fluff. Table is crunch. Crunch beats fluff every time, sadly.
Text is not fluff. Text is the rule. Table is only a summary - it was multiple and explicitly times stated by the developers that when table and textual description contradict each other the text trumps the table (at least until errata stating that table was correct and text was wrong is provided).
Anyone with asian-itus should look up Russian Orthodox Monks. Those guys knew how to throw a punch, and had the mysticism thing going on. No fruity outfits, no weird weapons, just plain ass beating with a divine "discover yourself" motif.
In home brew games I've written totally brand new monk themes and players loved them.
Wild elf thai boxers whose style mimicked the movements of the sea.
Halfling underground boxing clubs whose teachers were not of this plane. It mixed Pugilitsts with Lovcraftian boiler hat wearing arcanists.
Orc tribes who settled differences with bare knuckle "wrestiling" matches, the masters of which could take on the mighty behemoths bare handed. These guys reminded me of the incredible hulk.
Chi/Qi can be called whatever you like. The elf kickboxers called it Wava. The haffer pugilists called it Moxy. Orcs Mojo ect.
The main thing here is not cancelling out a class, but restructuring it to something that you can marvel at. Truly legendary gamers are the ones whose imaginations can bridge any gap in order to augment immersion.
THis all reminds me of the GUPRS martial arts book that had fantasy martial arts for different races. Smasha! for Orcs was my fav :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like .......monks they fight in bathrobes and are cool
Nah I was pointing to the ridiculously variant class features. No other class gets that much stuff, sometimes 2 or even 3 things per level. Almost all of it not tied to any other abilities.
I really think it's the best class for Archtype design.
I humbly submit the paladin. If you discount the increases to slow fall and movement against the paladin's increases in lay on hands and channelling (which mysteriously don't get listed) then the monk is no better off, or in some cases worse off, than the paladin.
Text is not fluff. Text is the rule. Table is only a summary - it was multiple and explicitly times stated by the developers that when table and textual description contradict each other the text trumps the table (at least until errata stating that table was correct and text was wrong is provided).Text trumps table.Text is fluff. Table is crunch. Crunch beats fluff every time, sadly.
The text can be either fluff or crunch, while the table is always crunch, and the crunch is the rule. If the table says the damage of the gauntlet is 1d3, it's 1d3. If it was as unarmed strike, it would say 'As Unarmed Strike'. If you try and feed it into HeroLab, it tells you that you are inflicting 1d3 damage for your monk.
I don't have a problem with the gauntlet being a weapon the monk can use, I'd love for it to be, but at the moment it isn't by the strict interpretation of the rules, just as Brass Knuckles aren't.
I have a question for Wraithstrike and Ashiel.
Do you allow monks proficiency with gauntlets?
I would allow it if it was requested. As far as I know, monks are not specifically proficient with gauntlets, but gauntlet proficiency is wonky anyway in that it specifically notes that you are making an unarmed strike. Last I checked, monks aren't specifically proficient with unarmed strikes, but that all creatures are proficient with unarmed strikes (but need the Improved Unarmed Strike feat to threaten).
So giving it some thought, yes, I would allow monks -- or anyone else -- to use gauntlets. Seeing as an attack with a gauntlet is an unarmed strike, it doesn't even require proficiency as a normal weapon (because you do not require proficiency for unarmed strikes). It also eliminates the 2 largest problem with monks that is noted on the boards; impossible to overcome damage reductions and overly expensive enhancement bonuses.
The more I examine the rules, the more that I think that this is entirely legal in accordance with the rules; because a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed strike. That being said, it applies evenly across the board. Wearing special gauntlets would be nice for a fighter, some magi, and perhaps even some of the more martially minded spellcasters (I know that clerics might like delivering inflict spells through their unarmed attacks).
If it were that easy, Ashiel, it would already be done which makes me suspect there is a ruling against it somewhere.
Martial Arts are a part of Mythology. Maybe not your European/Caucasian mythology but these stories are told across the Asian continent and written about in history books and contemporary fantasy literature. Monks are as much a part of mythology and fantasy as Knight or a wizard.
Role Playing has gone on too long excluding people with the excuse that it’s based on medieval times. That is simply a lazy excuse. It can and should be so much more. Exclusivity does bring in new markets and it does not make for a better game IMO.
Ashiel's point about gauntlets IMO is spot-on. They're listed as part of "unarmed strike", *not* on any of the other weapons. All you need is a pair of them and you're good to go.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh...I've not ever been a fan of oriental gaming and never include the culture in my game worlds/campaigns, so you definitely aren't alone. I don't allow monks or halflings ...I hates halflings!!!
Annika - Goddess of the Demi-plane of Dark Chocolate
In regards to gauntlets and monks, I believe SKR has already ruled in that gauntlets being listed as an "unarmed strike" is a mistake. If you have a weapon of any kind, you are "armed". I think that is all stuff that was hashed out when the APG came out and people were discussion cesti and rope gauntlets.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It always blows my mind that a person who won't blink an eye at letting you play a half-orc gets all in a huff if you want to play a half-Chinese.
it's clear to me looking at the longevity of this thread and the posts contained herein,that the op achieved their ultimate goal...:TROLLING TO PISS OFF LOTS OF PEOPLE.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Martial Arts are a part of Mythology. Maybe not your European/Caucasian mythology but these stories are told across the Asian continent and written about in history books and contemporary fantasy literature. Monks are as much a part of mythology and fantasy as Knight or a wizard.
Hell, they're a part of our mythology, too-- the only difference between European and Asian martial arts is that we don't have the flowery names for each and every single maneuver. And since that seems to be limited to only a handful of specialized kung fu styles in the first place...
Role Playing has gone on too long excluding people with the excuse that it’s based on medieval times. That is simply a lazy excuse. It can and should be so much more. Exclusivity does bring in new markets and it does not make for a better game IMO.
I'm still trying to figure out where this 'medieval times' thing comes from. Lord of the Rings seemed vaguely medievalish, but the Conan stories were clearly set in the early Iron Age-- and still included African and Asian cultural influences despite being written by a Texan in the Thirties-- while Burroughs' work was set on alien planets in the late 19th century. None of the authors listed as 'most immediate' in Appendix N wrote Eurocentric medieval fiction.
If we're going to ignore the history of the game and focus entirely on Pathfinder, Appendix 3 has this to offer us: Hellbound Heart is set on modern Earth (it's the basis for the Hellraiser movies), Imajica is set on modern Earth, and Weaveworld takes place partially on modern Earth. Beowulf-- which is a religious text-- is set in ancient Europe centuries before the Middle Ages. Algernon Blackwood's works were set largely in 'modern' times, being a contemporary of Lovecraft's, and one of the recommended works is set in Canada and based on indigenous American myth.
There's simply no basis in any of the books for this claim that D&D-- and by extension, Pathfinder-- is supposed to be set in some kind of analogue of medieval Western Europe. The game has always been more diverse than that, drawing upon the mythology of many cultures and drawing more upon pulp horror and strange fiction than any real-life culture.
All of these things, by definition and by default, belong in Pathfinder. If they don't belong in your game, that's because you are playing something else. And that's okay that you're playing something else and that you don't want these things that are part of the core Pathfinder experience, and the traditional D&D experience Pathfinder draws upon, in your game. Just quit trying to claim that these things don't belong in Pathfinder and trying to have them removed from Pathfinder.
Stop amputating Pathfinder because you really want to be playing MERP.