I love that concept, Ashiel; psionics work really well with monks, and keeps them 'weird', which I think is part of their appeal to many. I have loved psionics since AD&D ver. 1, concept wise.
What would be a non-3PP solution, one that wouldn't require a bunch of new material? Give them many more ki points and a bunch of ki spells a la the Qinggong monk? (thus cannibalizing that archetype.)
Well the Qinggong archtype solves the problem with self-buffing. While I feel like psionics is a more elegant (and varied) way of producing much the same result, drastically increasing their Ki pool and giving them some sort of stunted spellcasting and a spell list that was appropriate for their themes would go a long way to help.
For example, what they actually get to do with the Ki pool is pretty minor, yet they are limited in ki points like it was somehow a very powerful resource. It caps out at around 30 points at 20th level, and that's if you're pushing wisdom pretty hard (more likely around 27).
A quick and dirty fix would be to give them level + (lvl * wisdom mod) ki points, and then give them a series of magical things they can do like the qinggong monk, but you'd need to reprice things. Maybe set the cost in ki to spell level x 2, and emphasize self buffs. Such 0-level abilities would cost 1 ki, 1st level points would cost 2 ki, 2nd level 4 ki, 3rd level 6 ki, and so forth. By carefully picking their list of ki powers, you could shape them into something of a bard-style caster (up to 6th level powers) with versatility.
For example, they might have access to...
0-Level (1 Ki) - detect magic, detect poison, virtue, resistance, purify food & drink, know direction.
1st (2 Ki)- comprehend languages, burning hands, ventriloquism, feather fall, expeditious retreat, magic weapon (self only), mage armor, enlarge person (self only), reduce person (self only), jump (self only), true strike, shield of faith (self only), shocking grasp, chill touch, sanctuary
2nd (4 Ki) - blur (self only), protection from arrows (self only), resist energy (self only), shatter (range: touch), false life, ghoul touch, bear's endurance (self only), bull's strength (self only), cat's grace (self only), eagle's splendor (self only), fox's cunning (self only), spider climb (self only), whispering wind
3rd (6 Ki) - dispel magic (range: touch), nondetection (self only), protection from energy (self only), tongues, hold person (range: touch), displacement (self only), vampiric touch, water breathing
4th (8 Ki) - dimensional anchor (range: touch), dimension door, stoneskin (self only), crushing despair (range: touch), phantasmal killer (range: touch), bestow curse, enervation (range: touch), death ward (self only), freedom of movement (self only), rusting grasp
5th (10 Ki) - break enchantment, dismissal (range: touch), hold monster (range: touch), slay living
6th (12 Ki) - greater dispel magic (range: touch), repulsion, eyebite (range: touch), disintegrate (range: touch), flesh to stone (range: touch), transformation
Toss in a few feats like Quicken Spell-like ability and you're good to go with a mystical martial artist who bounces around delivering dangerous touch spells through his unarmed strikes while surviving due to a variety of mystical buffs that make them harder to kill. It also rewards Wisdom a lot more by giving you a lot more Ki-Juice (with a +7 Wisdom at 20th you'll have about 160 ki points, or 13 uses of your 6th level spell-like abilities). Give them an ability that makes their monk SLAs based on Wisdom and apply their monk AC bonus to to the save DCs and you'd probably end up with something pretty playable.
Of course, I'd still just recommend going with the psychic warrior fix. It requires a lot less remixing of the system and has been working wonders in our group. I haven't heard anyone complain about the monk in our games in ages, and my brother went from absolutely despising monks to considering them one of his favorite and most versatile (conceptually speaking) classes. He built a monk that he plays as a wise-cracking assassin.
But if we must absolutely stick with vancian-style casting and ki points, the above is where I'd begin and start tweaking it to suit tastes. I just more or less planned out their progression, initial spell list, and ki pool mechanic off the top of my head so don't freak out it anything seems a bit wonky. It's purely conceptual and it's not like I had anything prepared. ;)
+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.I better question is there a class more controversal than the monk?Synthesist Summoner
I think you misunderstood what i was saying. Well not totally i don't like monks thats true. People were stating that pathfinder/3.5 or any other RPG of that archtype wasn't based on a western world feel but a fantasy feel.
Is it fanasy no contest of course it is, but with a western flair. The game was were made by western people the worlds over all reflect that fact. That lends to the argument that monks don't, again in my opinion, fit with the base classes. If you get your kicks off monks have at it, i'm not gonna be able to change anyones view what they like to play. The point was more that monks shouldn't of been a base class in any edition of dungeons and dragons or in pathfinder. If they were in the advanced players guide i'd still not liek them but i would be more understanding of adding them after the fact.
I have a few things abount classes that don't have anything to do with thread the OP started so i was trying to stay....somewhat (what can I say i like to rant as much as anyone.) on topic.
What 40 point buy Monk of Dabblers are you looking at?
it's in a prior post on the previous page hidden by a spoiler labeled Feriah. it's the chelexian woman. it's not hard to miss. look on page 7 about halfway or thereabouts.
i counted the point allotment of Dabbler's monk Feriah. its a 40 point buy. the sole reason she is able to contribute meaningfully.
when you have a 40 point buy it has the following effects
monks can finally contribute
attribute prerequisites on feats may as well be thrown out the window.
it opens up some fun and interesting character builds you wouldn't normally see. such as 2WF clerics, dwarven bards, halfling barbarians, monks that don't suck or even skilled fighters with decent will saves as examples.
i would join a 40+ point campaign just to play a female tian dual sickle wielding 2WF inquisitor of pharasma modeled loosely after Enma Ai from Jigoku Shoujo.
Ah but see you've hit on the monk's REAL weakness.
Dabbler rolled those stats. No point buy.
In AD&D certain classes were rare. They were rare because they needed really high stat rolls to qualify for them. Paladins needed a 17 in CHA, monks needed like 4 15s. These were the original MAD classes, the ranger and Druid were MAD too.
Point Buy and it's near universal acceptance as the default stat generation method has hurt those old MAD classes that haven't been retooled for a world where Point Buy reigns supreme. This is the core issue, not with he Monk but with the d20 system's underlying math.
When stats are rolled, the general power level of characters gets altered. On the boards, spellcasters reign supreme. That supremacy is predicated on the acceptance that all casters start at level 1 with a primary casting stat no lower than a 16 (and probably no lower than 18).
Just to see how crazy the old game was, play a game where you roll 3d6 6 times and drop the stats in order. You will come up with some decidedly UNoptimized characters most of the time.
i counted the point allotment of Dabbler's monk Feriah. its a 40 point buy. the sole reason she is able to contribute meaningfully.
when you have a 40 point buy it has the following effects
monks can finally contribute
attribute prerequisites on feats may as well be thrown out the window.
it opens up some fun and interesting character builds you wouldn't normally see. such as 2WF clerics, dwarven bards, halfling barbarians, monks that don't suck or even skilled fighters with decent will saves as examples.
i would join a 40+ point campaign just to play a female tian dual sickle wielding 2WF inquisitor of pharasma modeled loosely after Enma Ai from Jigoku Shoujo.
Ah but see you've hit on the monk's REAL weakness.
Dabbler rolled those stats. No point buy.
In AD&D certain classes were rare. They were rare because they needed really high stat rolls to qualify for them. Paladins needed a 17 in CHA, monks needed like 4 15s. These were the original MAD classes, the ranger and Druid were MAD too.
Point Buy and it's near universal acceptance as the default stat generation method has hurt those old MAD classes that haven't been retooled for a world where Point Buy reigns supreme. This is the core issue, not with he Monk but with the d20 system's underlying math.
When stats are rolled, the general power level of characters gets altered. On the boards, spellcasters reign supreme. That supremacy is predicated on the acceptance that all casters start at level 1 with a primary casting stat no lower than a 16 (and probably no lower than 18).
Just to see how crazy the old game was, play a game where you roll 3d6 6 times and drop the stats in order. You will come up with some decidedly UNoptimized characters most of the time.
High stats were less critical to casters though. I mean, the save DCs of your spells were completely separate from your stats, and you didn't gain bonus spells from a high stat (unless you were a cleric or druid).
Ability scores mean a lot more to most classes than they did. That being said, the difference between an 18/00 and a 15 for a warrior class was easily enough to beat someone of your own class several levels higher than you in a 1 on 1 fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah but see you've hit on the monk's REAL weakness.Dabbler rolled those stats. No point buy.
In AD&D certain classes were rare. They were rare because they needed really high stat rolls to qualify for them. Paladins needed a 17 in CHA, monks needed like 4 15s. These were the original MAD classes, the ranger and Druid were MAD too.
Point Buy and it's near universal acceptance as the default stat generation method has hurt those old MAD classes that haven't been retooled for a world where Point Buy reigns supreme. This is the core issue, not with he Monk but with the d20 system's underlying math.
When stats are rolled, the general power level of characters gets altered. On the boards, spellcasters reign supreme. That supremacy is predicated on the acceptance that all casters start at level 1 with a primary casting stat no lower than a 16 (and probably no lower than 18).
Just to see how crazy the old game was, play a game where you roll 3d6 6 times and drop the stats in order. You will come up with some decidedly UNoptimized characters most of the time.
but randomly determining attributes has several flaws. emphasized even more if you do them in order.
*it takes away your freedom to choose what you want to play. in effect, the dice chose for you. you aren't playing YOUR character, you are playing around the stats assigned by the fickle dice gods.*instead of building and planning the character at home. you have to build it there. which takes up precious game time, especially considering all the little toys available in pathfinder. and you have to build around your attributes.
*you are more likely to be missing a key role because the dice say so.
*you have varying tiers of power in the same group, ranging from the guy with nothing above a 14 to the guy with nothing below a 15.
*it favors single attribute dependant classes just as much as point buy does.
Ah but see you've hit on the monk's REAL weakness.Dabbler rolled those stats. No point buy.
In AD&D certain classes were rare. They were rare because they needed really high stat rolls to qualify for them. Paladins needed a 17 in CHA, monks needed like 4 15s. These were the original MAD classes, the ranger and Druid were MAD too.
Point Buy and it's near universal acceptance as the default stat generation method has hurt those old MAD classes that haven't been retooled for a world where Point Buy reigns supreme. This is the core issue, not with he Monk but with the d20 system's underlying math.
When stats are rolled, the general power level of characters gets altered. On the boards, spellcasters reign supreme. That supremacy is predicated on the acceptance that all casters start at level 1 with a primary casting stat no lower than a 16 (and probably no lower than 18).
Just to see how crazy the old game was, play a game where you roll 3d6 6 times and drop the stats in order. You will come up with some decidedly UNoptimized characters most of the time.but randomly determining attributes has several flaws. emphasized even more if you do them in order.
*it takes away your freedom to choose what you want to play. in effect, the dice chose for you. you aren't playing YOUR character, you are playing around the stats assigned by the fickle dice gods.
*instead of building and planning the character at home. you have to build it there. which takes up precious game time, especially considering all the little toys available in pathfinder. and you have to build around your attributes.
*you are more likely to be missing a key role because the dice say so.
*you have varying tiers of power in the same group, ranging from the guy with nothing above a 14 to the guy with nothing below a 15.
*it favors single attribute dependant classes just as much as point buy does.
Pretty much all the above. I dropped dice rolling a long time ago. I rolled up a PC for a girl I knew who wanted to try a game and rolled 4 17s and 2 18s using 4d6 drop lowest. Had anyone actually brought me such stats, I would have thought they were lying. Ironically, she never actually played the character because she was feeling ill that week and ended up napping. Meanwhile, the guy who was going to be sitting next to her had a high roll of 15.
Point buy is fair. Point buy also makes designing and balancing classes easier because you have an idea as to where your stats are going to lie and a reasonable understanding of resources of X vs Y. It means that your character is up to you. Everyone plays by the same rules, everyone has a fair shake. If your wizard has 14, 14, 14, 14, 10, 10, and the guy next to you has 18, 14, 14, 7, 13, 7, it's because the two of you picked what you wanted.
Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.
I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.
I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.
Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...
How do barbarians have better defense?
How do barbarians have better defense?Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.
I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.
I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.
Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...
medium armor provides more AC for cheaper, superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance. beast totem provides a scaling natural armor bonus. barbarian weapons are cheaper to enchant. invulnerable rager provides massive damage resistance.
superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance.
Not to mention the human Favored Class bonus bumps it up even higher. +1 to all saves/3 levels is one of the best FC bonuses in the game.
medium armor provides more AC for cheaper, superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance. beast totem provides a scaling natural armor bonus. barbarian weapons are cheaper to enchant. invulnerable rager provides massive damage resistance.How do barbarians have better defense?Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.
I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.
I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.
Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...
^ All of the above. Barbarians can easily sport a 33 AC while raging before counting Dexterity and without using shields, or rage powers, or feats. If the Barbarian wants to wield a shield (still outdamages the monk, out grapples, etc), then he can bring it up to AC 39. Throw in a +7 Dex mod (assumes he began at 13 Dex at 1st level) then that brings AC to 46. 51 with Beast Totem. Then we count his +7 to all saves vs spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities, and his +2 to +4 on Will saves, +2 to +4 on Fortitude while Raging, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge, damage reduction, etc. Then for poops and giggles we get a +1 buckler of arrow deflection and fortifcation, and can pick up Unarmed Strike and Deflect Arrows if we want.
The barbarian's gear is cheaper than the monk's gear as well. Funny that. So then we grab a lesser cloak of displacement to add a 20% avoidance vs all incoming attacks (including touch/rays), and a ring of evasion (to show we can dodge fireballs too). We also have a pimp bow that we can fight at a distance with that makes shurikens look like jokes.
The funny thing is, we do this while our offense doesn't suffer at all. In fact, we're freaking terrifying. We're fast as hell (boots of speed stacks with our movement buff) and we can leap on you and we can even full-attack you when we get to you, so pray to whatever gods you worship. If you hit us, we will break your spine and then use it as a weapon to kill your friends and family.
Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaghhhhhhh! *frothy mouth*
medium armor provides more AC for cheaper, superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance. beast totem provides a scaling natural armor bonus. barbarian weapons are cheaper to enchant. invulnerable rager provides massive damage resistance.How do barbarians have better defense?Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.
I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.
I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.
Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...
Those are archetype bonuses not barbarian bonuses are or we going to assume the monk archetypes count also when discussing the monk?
Those are archetype bonuses not barbarian bonuses are or we going to assume the monk archetypes count also when discussing the monk?medium armor provides more AC for cheaper, superstitious is a huge bonus to saving throws that stacks with the cloak of resistance. beast totem provides a scaling natural armor bonus. barbarian weapons are cheaper to enchant. invulnerable rager provides massive damage resistance.How do barbarians have better defense?Fun fact. I place more emphasis on defense than I do offense. I just don't think monk defenses are anything to write home about. Barbarians have better defense.This thread is a great read. I really appreciate the points pro- and con- about Monks and their effectiveness. I am currently enjoying playing a Flowing Monk quite a bit; he's been really useful both in and out of combat, and I think that he will remain useful throughout the campaign.
I agree that the Flowing archetype is an improvement on the baseline Monk--reduces MAD--and perhaps defensive characters aren't for everyone or every party.
I do think that points made about Monks needing some magic item boosting, which causes a bit of a dissonance with both players and designers as to the flavor of the Monk, warrants further analysis.
Ashiel, your adventure gear guide is especially helpful for Monks, by the way, who really, really need those potions and oils. Now, if we can just pour magic weapon oil on our hands...
The only thing I listed were rage powers, gear, and 2 feats.
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?
The Superstitious rage power is core.
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?The Superstitious rage power is core.
Superstitious is an archetype, and it is not core. Core is the CRB.
Superstitious
Many barbarians distrust magic. While most just shy away from magic, others focus their rage on users of such foul arts. These barbarians are naturally distrusting, and develop keen senses to protect them from harm. A superstitious barbarian has the following class features.
Sixth Sense (Ex): At 3rd level, the superstitious barbarian gains a +1 bonus on initiative and a +1 insight bonus to AC during surprise rounds. This bonus increases by +1 for every three levels after 3rd. This ability replaces trap sense.
Keen Senses (Ex): At 7th level, the superstitious barbarian gains low-light vision (triple normal vision range in dim light if she already has low-light vision). At 10th level, she gains darkvision 60 feet (or adds 60 feet to the range of any darkvision already possessed). At 13th level, she gains scent. At 16th level, she gains blindsense 30 feet. At 19th level, she gains blindsight 30 feet. This ability replaces damage reduction.
Rage Powers: The following rage powers complement the superstitious archetype: clear mind*, disruptive, roused anger*, spellbreaker, superstition*, and witch hunter.
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?The Superstitious rage power is core.Superstitious is an archetype, and it is not core. Core is the CRB.
Superstitious
Many barbarians distrust magic. While most just shy away from magic, others focus their rage on users of such foul arts. These barbarians are naturally distrusting, and develop keen senses to protect them from harm. A superstitious barbarian has the following class features.
Sixth Sense (Ex): At 3rd level, the superstitious barbarian gains a +1 bonus on initiative and a +1 insight bonus to AC during surprise rounds. This bonus increases by +1 for every three levels after 3rd. This ability replaces trap sense.
Keen Senses (Ex): At 7th level, the superstitious barbarian gains low-light vision (triple normal vision range in dim light if she already has low-light vision). At 10th level, she gains darkvision 60 feet (or adds 60 feet to the range of any darkvision already possessed). At 13th level, she gains scent. At 16th level, she gains blindsense 30 feet. At 19th level, she gains blindsight 30 feet. This ability replaces damage reduction.
Rage Powers: The following rage powers complement the superstitious archetype: clear mind*, disruptive, roused anger*, spellbreaker, superstition*, and witch hunter.
Too narrow a search pattern, and mistakes on the hands of the posters.
Benefit: The barbarian gains a +2 morale bonus on saving throws made to resist spells, supernatural abilities, and spell-like abilities. This bonus increases by +1 for every 4 levels the barbarian has attained. While raging, the barbarian cannot be a willing target of any spell and must make saving throws to resist all spells, even those cast by allies.
Found in the Core Rule Book. Also, you may want to look at what you posted. Under 'Rage Powers' they list 'Superstition' as a Rage Power that compliments the Archetype.
That is pretty nice. So at level 20 the bonus is a +7 morale bonus.
Now someone will come along and say it only works while raging, but most barbarians will rage during combat anyway, especially at higher levels when they have a lot of rounds to rage with. I am starting to like this class more, and more.
PS:I am intentionally posting as Wraithstrike this time. :)
Pretty much all the above. I dropped dice rolling a long time...
I still prefer dice rolling but I've taken a little sting out of it by using the 2d6+6 method. No scores below an 8 helps insure the PC's are properly heroic, I've got one player who just seems to roll bad for stats and so this method helps a bunch.
With a point buy system the game seems allot less "organic". I prefer a more organic feel to the game instead of having PC's drop out of some cookie cutter mold.
Pretty much all the above. I dropped dice rolling a long time...I still prefer dice rolling but I've taken a little sting out of it by using the 2d6+6 method. No scores below an 8 helps insure the PC's are properly heroic, I've got one player who just seems to roll bad for stats and so this method helps a bunch.
With a point buy system the game seems allot less "organic". I prefer a more organic feel to the game instead of having PC's drop out of some cookie cutter mold.
I basically came to the realization that I need random stat generation to make your characters more interesting or not seem like a cookie cutter mold, then I need to work on deepening my characters because my roleplaying must be very poor.
I can give an entire party the exact same scores, and have an entirely different party, story, personalities, and more each and every time. Since ability scores are nothing more than the most bare bones representations of what your characters excel at, they are only marginally more important to roleplaying as if the player's hair is red or blonde, and that's only because they help to define what your character can actually do.
The +2 to hit on all attacks that is part of Exploit Weakness goes a fair bit towards correcting this.
...on an archetype. That you need an archetype to make the monk work is highlighting the weakness of the core build, not making up for it.
i counted the point allotment of Dabbler's monk Feriah. its a 40 point buy. the sole reason she is able to contribute meaningfully.
Pretty much, It was rolled, my first set of stats sucked so I rolled again and didn't get a single score below 14 (17/16/15/14/14/14 to be precise). Yes, she can contribute well because she has the intelligence to boost skills (she scouts), the strength to add something to damage, the dex and wis to have decent AC and the Con to have decent HP. Even then I have had to take feats I do not really want (Combat Expertise) so that I can make her good at maneuvers because I know that at higher level (well, now actually) maneuvers are largely all I will be able to do effectively.
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?
It highlights that the monk cannot work without archetypes and system mastery, which is what we've been saying from the word dot. Not that you can't make a monk work, just that what you get out for the effort is mediocre. If you don't have system mastery it's bad.
Is there no such thing as handwraps +1 or perhaps gloves +1? If the main reason people seem to hate the monk is that they can't hit anything (and from reading the majority of posts, it is) then maybe there should be some magical gloves for the monks unarmed attacks.
I agree. But there aren't.
Or maybe that is a fix for the monk, as long as he has 1 ki point in his pool he gains an enhancement bonus which increases as he levels.
This has been suggested.
Honestly I have no love for monks. I think they are weak. But even if they where powerful I probably wouldn't choose to play it. Which brings me to my point.
I REALLY hope Paizo fixes the monk class. Please. So 100+ threads bemoaning monks can die away. Every week.
300+ post on a thread titled "Anyone else hate monks?". Give me a friggin break. I really do hope they fix the class so we can move on.
Honestly I have no love for monks. I think they are weak. But even if they where powerful I probably wouldn't choose to play it. Which brings me to my point.
I REALLY hope Paizo fixes the monk class. Please. So 100+ threads bemoaning monks can die away. Every week.
300+ post on a thread titled "Anyone else hate monks?". Give me a friggin break. I really do hope they fix the class so we can move on.
Please, if it weren't for monks we'd be stuck with paladin alignment threads!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I basically came to the realization that I need random stat generation to make your characters more interesting or not seem like a cookie cutter mold, then I need to work on deepening my characters because my roleplaying must be very poor.
Ok... so you just called me a poor roleplayer because I prefer a certain dice rolling method. Wow... just ... wow.
Ok... so you just called me a poor roleplayer because I prefer a certain dice rolling method. Wow... just ... wow.I basically came to the realization that I need random stat generation to make your characters more interesting or not seem like a cookie cutter mold, then I need to work on deepening my characters because my roleplaying must be very poor.
Nope. I said if I need it for that. Some people prefer dealing with whatever fate hands them. If a series of numbers on my sheet is somehow a qualifier for how interesting my character is, then I need to try harder. That's all I meant.
Let me put it another way. Let's pretend we didn't have a character sheet in front of us for a moment. Slide your sheet under your PHB/CRB or something, and just think about your character. Who is your character? Where did they come from? What do they act like? Are they endearing? Are they someone you love to hate? Do they talk a lot? Do they talk only a little? What are their hopes? Aspirations? Do they have goals or dreams? What brought them into this adventuring life? Do they do it for themselves, for others, or do they know?
EDIT: Having different ability scores is not a substitute for having a personality or a real character. All the iconics in the original 3.x D&D game were all built using the exact same stat array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8). Nobody confuses Tordek for Lidda or Mialee for Nebin. If we were to imagine their personalities, their stats aren't what we are looking at.
If I said "Tell me about your character", I'd rather not hear at all if the answer is going to be "Well he has a 16 strength and a 13 Dexterity...".
I only meant that I realized that what numbers that I have don't really improve a character's personality or anything like that. Since it doesn't, I went with a method that is fair for everyone and lets them build characters they want, rather than just being handed the limitations of their character randomly by chance.
I have no qualms with your enjoyment of random. I have a friend who once said if they had no control over their character's development they would be happy (like if they got a new class at random every level). Seemed entirely alien to me, but whatever works for him, right?
Ok... so you just called me a poor roleplayer because I prefer a certain dice rolling method. Wow... just ... wow.I basically came to the realization that I need random stat generation to make your characters more interesting or not seem like a cookie cutter mold, then I need to work on deepening my characters because my roleplaying must be very poor.
Nope. I said if I need it for that. Some people prefer dealing with whatever fate hands them. If a series of numbers on my sheet is somehow a qualifier for how interesting my character is, then I need to try harder. That's all I meant.
Let me put it another way. Let's pretend we didn't have a character sheet in front of us for a moment. Slide your sheet under your PHB/CRB or something, and just think about your character. Who is your character? Where did they come from? What do they act like? Are they endearing? Are they someone you love to hate? Do they talk a lot? Do they talk only a little? What are their hopes? Aspirations? Do they have goals or dreams? What brought them into this adventuring life? Do they do it for themselves, for others, or do they know?
EDIT: Having different ability scores is not a substitute for having a personality or a real character. All the iconics in the original 3.x D&D game were all built using the exact same stat array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8). Nobody confuses Tordek for Lidda or Mialee for Nebin. If we were to imagine their personalities, their stats aren't what we are looking at.
If I said "Tell me about your character", I'd rather not hear at all if the answer is going to be "Well he has a 16 strength and a 13 Dexterity...".
I only meant that I realized that what numbers that I have don't really improve a character's personality or anything like that. Since it doesn't, I went with a method that is fair for everyone and lets them build characters they want, rather than just being handed the limitations of their character randomly by chance.
...
Sorry somehow I completely mis-understood what you were trying to say. I already do this as well whenever I'm actually having a chance to play in a game instead of run a game.
Having the random dice rolling method for my players to create their characters with helps keep them away from the "build" mentality as they are not taking time to squeeze the most out of a point system. The rolls have some small influence on dictating what kind of character class your PC is fated for. From there I encourage my players to think of several life events that may have pointed the character towards the path they took in becoming who they are. This gives you a sort of "filter" to look through and act through while building the PC. As you build more and more of the PC, this "filter" becomes more defined and thus helps shape the character for roleplay.
Sorry somehow I completely mis-understood what you were trying to say. I already do this as well whenever I'm actually having a chance to play in a game instead of run a game.
Hey no problem. It's not always the easiest to understand what people mean, and we're not always as clear as we'd like to be. No worries. ^-^
Also, I hear ya on the "actually having a chance to play". I GM 90% of the games I'm involved in easy (possibly more, as I'm actually pretty sure I don't get to actually play in 1 out of every 10. >.>).
Having the random dice rolling method for my players to create their characters with helps keep them away from the "build" mentality as they are not taking time to squeeze the most out of a point system.
Well that makes sense. I might favor point buy 'cause my group doesn't see a lot of that, really. We don't really put a whole lot of emphasis on "builds" exactly. Generally our system mastery focuses on getting what you want out of your character with the tracks the system gives you. The d20 system is beautifully versatile, and between multiclassing, prestige classes, and so forth, you can probably build a character that fits what you want while also being effective.
As an example, a friend of mine who is fairly new to D&D (or at least was at the time) wanted to play a Rurouni Kenshin style samurai duelist. His character concept was great (backstory wise), and he wanted a character who wore light to no armor (some armor was fine in battle) who was incredibly fast Iaijutsu duelist (essentially a Samurai who emphasizes speed and strikes from difficult to avoid/defend angles). After listening to what he wanted, I sat down with him and helped him build a Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue. At first, he was confused as to why he'd have levels in something called a "barbarian" or levels in rogues because "Samurai aren't thieves" and such. However, in play, he said it was perfect. But then again, each thing about it was a consideration for the character as was like a lego block in the bigger picture.
The barbarian brought the speed and some combat skill. "Rage" was simply a mechanic to describe his gritty determination due to his rigorous belief in Bushido and represented him pushing everything else out of his mind except the battle (it was his "oh crap, he really means it" power). The rogue levels enhanced his acrobatics and stealth and provided the sneak attack dice to represent his Iaijutsu strikes. The fighter levels allowed him to round out his swordplay quite adequately. He wanted some sort of gimmick that represented a way for him to seem to vanish from sight for brief moments to surprise enemies (literally having movements so fast or erratic as to prevent the eyes from focusing on him). So we gave him a feat called "Cloak Dance" from the Expanded Psionics Handbook which allowed you to spend a move-action to gain concealment. He would then stealth and move, causing him to seemingly vanish when he preformed a sword flourish.
Then he would seem to appear out of nowhere next to you for an Iaijutsu strike. For a demonstration of how this would appear, see The Inspiration Material.
The Inspiration Material
On the subject of the inspirational material, have you heard of this?
Ok, well I was not expecting this to be a somewhat delicate issue. Nor did I know it had been previoulsy discussed; I started reading this forum a few weeks ago.
I was mostly wondering if I was the only one who thought the concept of the Monk was out of place. I did specify it was only my opinion.
Also thanks for the correction; I didn't know it dated from 1st edition.
Special thanks to Azazull whose post I particulalry liked :)
Interestingly enough, my DM ALSO hated the 2E monk. With a PASSION.... Apparently there was another player who played him TOO well and stole a lot of thunder or something and twisted his view beyond repair.
Myself... I AGREE with you on the 'punching'golems and such. It gets a little ridiculous.
However, the 'concept' of an unarmed martial arts type character is so AWESOME, that I don't see an issue with them belonging in the genre. In fact I was able to talk my DM into letting me make up my own kit for 2E that had NOTHING to do with Ki or magical fists or anything. He was very much Jean Claude Van Damme or Jackie Chan designed. Massive bonuses to AC and multiple (if weak) attacks, and he became one of my all time favorite characters!
But yeah... Fists = Magic weapons?!? I was never a fan of that ;)
Yes and the wait is killing me.
August can't come soon enough. :(
The Inspiration MaterialOn the subject of the inspirational material, have you heard of this?
Yes and the wait is killing me.
Oh wow. This actually looks pretty promising. :o
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Inspiration MaterialOn the subject of the inspirational material, have you heard of this?Yes and the wait is killing me.Oh wow. This actually looks pretty promising. :o
I just saw live action Sanosuke and know that a live action Rurouni Kenshin movie is going to feature some variation of the gatling gun scene.
SOLD.
(now make us a good Cowboy Bebop/Trigun/or-hey-even-Outlaw Star movie too plz!)
Outlaw Star movie too plz!
This! I would love this. I own(ed) the whole series on DVD. Well, for approximately 4 hours I did. The first few discs got snapped by one of my nephews while I was in the bathroom after they arrived.
One problem though, there will be a large amount of internet mockery for Aisha Clan-Clan of the Ctarl-Ctarl. You know how the internet feels about furries.
|
Fair enough. My point was that stepping outside of core is ok?
Don't try to find the goalposts. You'll spend half the thread looking for them only to have them moved.
God forbid we pin them down and actually have an honest discussion about a specific point.
Someone might *gasp* be wrong if we did that.
Still have the standing offer to post a monk build of equal level to a Barbarian build for comparison.
|
|
That is pretty nice. So at level 20 the bonus is a +7 morale bonus.
Now someone will come along and say it only works while raging, but most barbarians will rage during combat anyway, especially at higher levels when they have a lot of rounds to rage with. I am starting to like this class more, and more.
PS:I am intentionally posting as Wraithstrike this time. :)
I think someone will say that because it's true.
Part of the issue in these discussions is that we keep moving around when we are talking about things and where. Schrodinger's Barbarian can pounce and has superstition...what else are we adding and at what level are we comparing it?
You can't have all things at all times, and these thought experiments tend to get exposed quickly when you actually have to build them out and make choices along the way.
This isn't to say that you can't make a very powerful Barbarian, you definately can. It is to say you can't make all Barbarians in one build any more than you can with any class.
Which is why parties generally have 4 people.
I believe monks are on par with ninjas, rogues, inquisitors, bards, magus, clerics, oracles ect on hitting things and dealing damage so why the hate?
Because that's not even remotely true. All of those classes are superior to Monks at hitting and dealing damage, and all of them besides Rogue and Ninja are also capable of doing much much more both in and out of combat.
|
|
I believe monks are on par with ninjas, rogues, inquisitors, bards, magus, clerics, oracles ect on hitting things and dealing damage so why the hate?Because that's not even remotely true. All of those classes are superior to Monks at hitting and dealing damage, and all of them besides Rogue and Ninja are also capable of doing much much more both in and out of combat.
Pick a level, I'll post a build and you'll post a build and we can compare them for party value.