|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure that the guy who designed PF Paladin, Bard, Alchemist and Inquisitor can bring the ball home with Monk.
What I *strongly* suspect is that Monk fell victim to the backwards compatibility criteria. However, while Paladins and Bards could be (and got) fixed while keeping that criteria intact, the Monk was built on such a wonky chassis, that it would take a major redesign to get him right. It was just too poor a 3.5 design to begin with.
Looks like attempts were made to fix via items (no dice, brass knuckles), flurry clarifications (let's forget this one happened), archetypes (admittedly successful to a degree, but people don't want to play Zany Monk to make it work, they want Vanilla Monk to be cool out of the box) and via style feats (which actually do work but why oh why do I need 2 splatbooks and a PhD in system mastery to get it right?).
I hope that now with PF out of infancy, the 3.5 skin can be shed and a new Monk may emerge.
The style feats are great, but they do not fix the monk's fundamental problems and like everything else they give as much, if not more, to non-monks as they do to monks.
You are correct, though, in that the monk has too much 3.5 legacy weighing it down. That said, it is fixable without violating backward compatibility the same way that the paladin or the fighter are. All the elements needed are there, they just need rearranging.
When has Paizo said that they are going to "fix the monk soon"?
It's in the flurry of blows thread, SKR and JB said that they would be taking a look not just at flurry-of-blows but at the monk as a whole after the conventions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm saying that a blanket statement "they'll never do X" has little grounds to support it, especially when there are precedents for rules changes after something was put in print. And actually, there were posts from Jason about plans for revisiting the Monk issues, and Paizo employees are not known to mislead the fanbase.
They are, however, known to delay the fix into the indefinite. See "Stealth, revision thereof". ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's in the flurry of blows thread, SKR and JB said that they would be taking a look not just at flurry-of-blows but at the monk as a whole after the conventions.
Not to be pedant, but unless there's a more direct quote that's no promise of a fix, that's saying they'll look at it, which could just lead to deciding to leave things the way they are (which, the stealth fix has been mentioned) or make a relatively minor change to the wording of flurry.
They've had 3-4 years of time to "fix" the monk, they even started with the example of 3.5 where they'd published unofficial monk "fixes", they even went back and changed their own brass knuckle weapon to no longer work with the monk's unarmed damage, so I'm not too optimistic at this point that they're going to see a need for change.
For the monk lovers among us, I've posted a new monk build that has been enabled thanks to Ultimate Equipment. I think it's kinda neat.
Actually, I will say that that the AoMF is realistically priced for natural weapons. Bear in mind that a 12-headed hydra gets twelve magic weapons out of it, and it makes perfect sense for it to be the way it is. The problem is that an item originally designed for monks is better for other classes than it is for monks. Same seems to be true of just about everything made for monks.The 12 headed hydra is a straw man. It is not a PC race, not a valid wildshape form, not a familiar option, and not an animal companion. It doesn't matter how the AoMF interacts with it because only the GM should ever by outfitting or controlling it.
Not everything is about PCs, though, and in any event the hydra is a hyperbolic example. Fact remains that an animal companion with three attacks gets more out of the AoMF than the monk: it enhances three weapons at once, not just one (or in the TWF interpretation of FoB, two weapons).
It's in the flurry of blows thread, SKR and JB said that they would be taking a look not just at flurry-of-blows but at the monk as a whole after the conventions.Not to be pedant, but unless there's a more direct quote that's no promise of a fix, that's saying they'll look at it, which could just lead to deciding to leave things the way they are (which, the stealth fix has been mentioned) or make a relatively minor change to the wording of flurry.
They've had 3-4 years of time to "fix" the monk, they even started with the example of 3.5 where they'd published unofficial monk "fixes", they even went back and changed their own brass knuckle weapon to no longer work with the monk's unarmed damage, so I'm not too optimistic at this point that they're going to see a need for change.
No, the reference is in Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows. SKR makes clear in some very detailed posts that the core problem is that the monk is a weak class that needs fixing, and they want to fix it properly.
Sigh. I guess my sense of humor just isn't with the time, is it? Ross, I don't mind you changing the name if you felt like it was overly confrontational, but could you change it again? There ARE a number of monk (and ki-user) items and pieces of equipment in the book, and the current title makes it appear as if I am unaware of that. Since Bodywraps of Absolute Suck . . . yada, yada, yada isn't acceptable, howabout A Discussion of Monk Items in Ultimate Equipment?
Thank you, regardless of your decision.
Master Arminas
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sigh. I guess my sense of humor just isn't with the time, is it? Ross, I don't mind you changing the name if you felt like it was overly confrontational, but could you change it again? There ARE a number of monk (and ki-user) items and pieces of equipment in the book, and the current title makes it appear as if I am unaware of that. Since Bodywraps of Absolute Suck . . . yada, yada, yada isn't acceptable, howabout A Discussion of Monk Items in Ultimate Equipment?
Thank you, regardless of your decision.
Master Arminas
Your sense of humor doesn't translate over the internet unfortunately. While it may be trying to convey humor, it only make your posts look much more confrontational. It's why I dot humor with smiley faces...
...b&$@%es love smileys ;)
|
|
How hard is it to say "At 4th level monk's hands are considered masterwork double weapons."
Meaning enhancements could be added to them in the same pricing you would a quarterstaff.
Which would fix more or less EVERYTHING.
There even are rules for double weapons in Pathfinder? I kinda hoped that meanwhile somebody set them on fire and let them die slowly with nobody noticing...
Indeed that is a viable option, ciretose, save that replaces the AoMF which Paizo don't want to do. Personally I favour ki-strike conferring an enhancement bonus, up to +5 which can stack with effects from the AoMF so it is still useful, just no longer mandatory. These are all quick, simple fixes that address the monk's main problem.
The monk has other problems, like MAD, but IMHO it's the main one.
What we can all agree is that none of these solutions came to fruition, and so the monk threads will continue...
No, but they may yet. These things weren't going to be in Ultimate Equipment anyway.
But he's got hiiiigh hopes! He's got hiiiigh hopes!
He's got high apple pie in the skyyyyyyy hopes!
LOL
Master Arminas
Director of Games
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there Folks,
I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.
We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.
There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.
Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
<Salutes higher CR Bestiary entry>
<disappears>
Hey there Folks,
I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.
We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.
There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.
Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Mr. Bulmahn,
I wanted to say thank you for responding and for paying attention. I will not say that I am not disappointed to hear that; the monk is currently one of the most difficult classes to play in a fashion that corresponds to traditional fantasy films and literature. A veteran player with absolute system mastery can make a monk that competes with other character classes, but for a novice? Or even someone who has played but doesn't have a full grasp of how different elements of the system mesh together?
Those players suffer greatly when they build a monk. And a large part of that is that when you think of a monk, you do not think of an extremely high strength, moderate dex, moderate wis character. That seems to be almost the antithesis of what a monk should be.
Yet, within the game, that is the best build one can use to create a monk. No, monks should not be able to do as much damage as a fighter or a barbarian; but monks are a front-line martial class, and they are start from there having a much harder time hitting. The infamous 'flurry of misses' sums it up nicely.
How much is being unable to be disarmed or sunder or stolen well and truly worth? Considering that to get that high base damage as a monk, you must stay a monk, retain a lawful alignment, stick with a single class over the course of your entire adventuring career.
Every single other martial class has a special feature which adds to their damage and (with the exception of the rogue) their attack bonus. For rogues, this is sneak attack. For fighters, weapon training. For barbarians, rage. For paladins, smite evil. For rangers, favored enemy.
Now, having said that, I would not mind there not being a damage bonus given to the monk, being as they as capable of making (potentially) more attacks than any other class in the game in a single round. But the problem with those attacks is hitting in the first place. Having to concentrate on Str, Dex, and Wis as primary attributes, Con and Int as secondary, with only Charisma serving as an area in which dumping is possible leaves them just further behind.
One suggestion that has been made is something akin to Weapon Training for the monk class. How about making it apply to the attack roll only? No damage, just the attack roll. That is something that would give monk-fans a better ability to serve in their role.
How about being able to spend a point of ki to make two attacks when you charge? Or when you move more than 10' or use spring attack? Barbarians can get pounce, but the most mobile class in the game, the one focused on speed and agility and, a flurry of blows, cannot?
On the subject of the cost of magic items. Yes, the amulet of mighty fists is priced very high. And yes, the monk should be paying more than the cost of a single magic weapon because of his innate abilities. But two and half times the cost? The reaction you are seeing to the bodywraps of mighty strikes from Ultimate Equipment is not because of the price, it is because of the restrictions on the number of attacks per round combined with a higher price tag than a magic weapon that is always active and can be used for a (potentially) infinite number of attacks.
And then there are things like the brawling armor property. Mister Bulmahn, this is exactly what we as proponents of the monk class have been begging for. It is perfect . . . except, it can only be used on armor, not bracers of armor. I know that I would give up two points of AC to add that property to my monk's bracers in a New York minute.
We keep seeing the gap widening between the monk and the other martial classes, and we lament over that fact. Has the game itself gone too far, making things too good? Possibly. But the monk is the single weakest class in the Core Rulebook, weaker even the Rogue, which many people will not even play anymore.
There are many options on how to improve the monk class and make it a viable, strong, competitive martial character; we are not asking for a monk to deal more damage (or even as much damage) as a typical fighter or barbarian or ranger, but they should be able to hit more often than they do now. And they cannot because of the 9+ point difference between the martial classes attack bonuses and the monks. You scoff at that number, but it is accurate. A monk uses his level-2 for his BAB with a flurry. That is +18 at 20th level. +19 with weapon focus. +24 with a +5 Amulet of Mighty Fists or an appropriate special monk weapon. Plus Strength (Dexterity on the few builds that focus on that ability and nab Weapon Finesse). A Fighter of the same level has a +20, +22 with Weapon Focus and Greater WF, +27 with a +5 weapon, +33 with his weapon training and gloves of dueling. Before adding in his Strength . . . which will be higher than that of all but the most unusual monks. For a class that is a martial class, who has a BAB 5 points below the Fighter, the difference is at least double in practice, thanks to the special abilities of the fighter. And the ranger. And the paladin. And the cavalier. And the barbarian. We don't want an attack bonus as high as those classes; we don't want to do as much raw damage as those classes; but we expect the monk, as a martial class, to at least be within shouting distance of them. And able to contribute to a party.
I mean no disrepect, Sir. And I hope that I have not conveyed that; it was not my intention to do so.
We do not hate the game, and appreciate all of your hard work, and that of Mr. Mona, and even that of Mr. Reynolds, and all of your other designers and developers and writers and editors. We are grateful that you folks at Paizo have tried so hard to keep D&D alive, even when Wizards tried to run it into the ground.
And what we are asking for, is that our favorite class be allowed to serve the role it is supposed to have. For better or worse, Pathfinder, D&D, the game shows that offense beats defense each and every time. It is what makes a DM's life so challenging. And as a person who has played this game since 1986, since I ran a monk as my very first character out of the 1st Edition AD&D Player's Handbook, and subsequently gone on to run games for friends and for lovers of the game at local stores, I know how challenging that can be.
For my own games, I do use modifications of the published classes, I change spells, I alter feats, I remove or add stuff that makes sense for my own campaign. And I will continue to do so, Mister Bulmahn.
I just would like, in a humble tone of voice, to see a new player be able to open the book and make a character based on Kwai Chang Caine, or Jackie Chan or Jet Li or Bruce Lee or any one of a hundred creatures from television, film, and literature to be able to do so. And to contribute to a party without feeling like he is the reason the party is not succeeding.
Stephen T Bynum (aka, Master Arminas)
|
To make this basic.
The monk can't hit things with unarmed strike.
Obviously full BaB are going to be better. But at this point the difference is not just the difference between 3/4 and full, but the difference between being able to focus on strength (bonus to attack and damage) in addition to the enhancement bonus.
The rogue can add enhancements and focus on Dex and weapon finesse. They don't need strength for damage, so they can put a 10 there and call it a day.
The other 3/4 classes are either full casters or get buffs for themselves to attack and damage (inquistor) or the whole party (bard)
And then we have the monk.
You can't hit things with unarmed strike. You lose a needed slot with amulet of mighty fist AND it is capped at +5. It isn't a fix.
This bandage is a joke.
You can't get past damage reduction, so the increased monk damage lags far behind. You are 12 level before you are doing as much as a basic greatsword.
Let us be able to hit with the primary weapon without losing a slot. Let it cost as much as a double weapon, let it be monk only.
But let us hit things.
I find it kindof telling about the monk unarmed situation that the best solution to it, currently, is... to use a weapon. My buddy playing a Temple Sword monk did pretty well, in no small part due to the extra attack/damage/threat range the weapon contributed toward his effectiveness.
While I think that an armed monk should be just as valid as an unarmed one, I think the opposite should also be true; for monks especially, fighting unarmed should be as effective as being armed.
As it stands, its not even really close..., in no small part due to the unavailability of competitive options for enhancing your unarmed strikes.
Bigger damage dice and maneuver resistance are fine for class bonuses, but they don't make a weapon a 'good' choice for combat.
Thats the issue I perceive.
One change I do want to see with the monk is adding proficiency to all monk weapons. I think it's a bit odd that the unarmed fighter archetype can be proficient with all monk weapons but not the monk.
This is a big one for me, too. It is already a house rule in our games, but I would love to see this as an official change. If it is balanced enough for a fighter archtype, I feel it should be ok for monks to be proficient with monk weapons.
Don't think anyone expected a full re-write, Jason. Just an honest look at the problem and a best case scenario fix.
It's enough, for me at least, that you recognize there is a problem, and intend to fix it.
Work your magic!
People say the Monk is MAD but if you look close you could see that only two abilities are really needed. Either Strength or Dexterity depending upon fighting style and Wisdom. Secondary you would want Constitution or Dexterity if you haven't chosen that as your fighting style.
You aren't required to have Intelligence since you get a decent amount of skill points. Also since a Monk's bonus feats don't require prerequisites you don't need Intelligence to get Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, etc. The same goes for the Dexterity feats like Dodge, Mobility, etc.
You also don't require Charisma.
So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?
People say the Monk is MAD but if you look close you could see that only two abilities are really needed. Either Strength or Dexterity depending upon fighting style and Wisdom. Secondary you would want Constitution or Dexterity if you haven't chosen that as your fighting style.
You aren't required to have Intelligence since you get a decent amount of skill points. Also since a Monk's bonus feats don't require prerequisites you don't need Intelligence to get Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, etc. The same goes for the Dexterity feats like Dodge, Mobility, etc.
You also don't require Charisma.
So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?
I agree with this sentiment and is how I usually build my monks. I figure that with a higher Wisdom, you have AC that is around for both flatfooted and touch ACs. So, the necessity for a high dex is mitigated. A good Constitution is still nice to have but that still leaves just Str and Wis as the main ones, with Con then Dex.
Brain your missing the fact that If I want to get the greater combat manuvers I do need at least a 13 int for combat expertise.
Also not every monk is goint to focus on a full DEX build so you will need both dex and con at reasonable levels to maintain survivability.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
I agree with this sentiment and is how I usually build my monks. I figure that with a higher Wisdom, you have AC that is around for both flatfooted and touch ACs. So, the necessity for a high dex is mitigated. A good Constitution is still nice to have but that still leaves just Str and Wis as the main ones, with Con then Dex.People say the Monk is MAD but if you look close you could see that only two abilities are really needed. Either Strength or Dexterity depending upon fighting style and Wisdom. Secondary you would want Constitution or Dexterity if you haven't chosen that as your fighting style.
You aren't required to have Intelligence since you get a decent amount of skill points. Also since a Monk's bonus feats don't require prerequisites you don't need Intelligence to get Improved Trip, Improved Disarm, etc. The same goes for the Dexterity feats like Dodge, Mobility, etc.
You also don't require Charisma.
So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?
Ditto here. The monk I play in PFS is Dex and Wis, with Con as a secondary, and she's played pretty well so far.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can't get past damage reduction, so the increased monk damage lags far behind. You are 12 level before you are doing as much as a basic greatsword.
This right here is interesting, and something I've been thinking about lately. No, not the DR issue. Benchak solved that problem with his UE entries. The comparison to the greatsword, of all weapons.
It's certainly curious that comparisons between classes, etc, almost always revolve around the greatsword. I'm guilty of this too (I think I have a few rogue greatsword users lying around). Or in general, it's always a two-handed weapon. Or a weapon used two-handedly. It's never* anything else.
Now, I play with many, many non-optimizers. One of the guys, one of our best players too!, HATES leveling up because then he has to pick a feat. Maybe. That level of non-optimizer. We rarely see two handed weapons, and if we do, it's rarely a greatsword. And every single monk I've seen in this group has done fine, and the monk is probably the 3rd or 4th most popular class in that group. The players have always done fine compared to our one-weapon users, our sword-and-boards, our sorcerer artillery, our TWF throwing axe dudes (plural.), or dual dagger users, etc.
And I'd be willing to bet that most groups are like this. The average player isn't a forum-goer. We're the most extreme of the bunch, often with corresponding opinions. What's normal for us on the boards is far-fetched for others.
And this isn't just isolated to this one group. Of all the groups I've played in (and there have been many!), only one is even close to the mindset that is normal on the forums. Everyone used two-handed weapons if they fought (except the rogue, who used a crossbow with my sneak attack replacement). Maybe it's something in the water around here that causes such casual players.
But Paizo needs to make the game for everyone, not just the forumgoers. What I believe this means is that they need to take our views, and cut the intensity by about a third, or some other psuedo-mathetmatical jibbity-jab.
And what's this have to do with greatswords?
Stop comparing everything to greatswords. Greatswords are what you use to compare the upper-end. The end that is relatively rare compared to the other fighting styles that are probably most often used by the majority of players.
Stop comparing everything to two-handed weapons. Two-handed weapons are the upper-echelons of damage potential.
Comparing everything in the extreme is not as helpful when it comes to game design as comparing to the average.
How does the monk compare to the two-weapon fight-- actually no, ignore the fighter. The only thing they do is deal damage. They have to be the best. Comparing others to them is useless except to show if something is overpowered. If you're doing more damage than the fighter, something's wrong, mate.
How does the monk compare to the paladin, valiantly rushing out with longsword in hand and heavy shield strapped to his arm?
The stealthy rogue, waiting for that one shot with her crossbow to best put the hurt enemy, and then joining the fray content with her one sneak attack?
The sorcerer lobbing magic missiles and scorching rays?
The spring attacking rogue, more keen on dealing some sneak attack damage from flanks and not getting hurt in return?
The bard hitting his antagonistic audience with his rapier, all whilst playing the one-handed-harpsichord?
The cleric, busting bones with his mace, all whilst holding his deity's holy symbol high?
The sharp-eyed archer, ready to stop threats before they get close? (Ok, we all know the answer to this one.)
The fiery alchemist with their explosions and daggers?
I can only imagine that things wouldn't look so doom and gloom then.
Aaaaand back to the DR.
Why assume everyone but the monk is going to have an easy time overcoming the DR? It's only "easy" to overcome quite a bit of DR at the levels where most people don't play. And that's just cold iron and silver! They still have to deal with damage type, aligned, etc. The only easy one to overcome is magic. That bard with his rapier is going to have just as hard a time overcoming the wood golem's DR. Or the guy with the longsword. Or any person with a melee weapon that isn't being used with two-hands. You'd be surprised if you step away from forum-goers just how little DR matters to their weapon choice. They won't be upgrading to adamantine, and throwing out their favorite weapon, without prodding. They'll be all about the flaming, frost, etc special abilities rather than enhancement bonuses. They'll have just as much difficulty overcoming DR.
Aaaaaand done. Just something that's been on my mind, and how it relates to the monk.
Hey there Folks,
I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.
Yes, the monk has defences that are as good as a paladin's. They don't have the tricks or angles or powers...no, wait, they do. :-|
The 'full potential of the monk' is what, exactly? They are a combat class, if they can't hit the target then they can't do anything in combat. It's not damage that's the issue, it's accuracy. You can give the monk as many Stunning Fist attempts as you like, he only gets one a turn and if he misses, it's gone.
Maneuvers are not much cop once your level gets into double figures, so what else is the monk able to do to contribute to the party.
We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.
The issue is hitting the target. The monk's other abilities like stunning fist hinge on this, and it's what the lack of enhancement contributes to. It's not helped by MADness, either.
Bottom line, if the monk cannot hit on a par with another combat class, it's ineffective. If it's ineffective, it cannot contribute on a party basis.
What we need is a boost to hitting probability. Whether this comes through a class feature, enhancement item, whatever, I personally do not care. But ultimately, it's what the monk needs to be a viable option.
There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.
I can appreciate this attitude, but the monk is a weak class with some fundamental flaws. How can you fix those flaws without large changes? So far all the small changes have been as much to nerf the monk as to assist it. Sure, there are a few archetypes that are worthwhile out of the box, but they basically take the monk and make it not-a-monk.
There are a lot of problems the monk has that can be fixed with little tweaks, but they are not among the major problems the monk has.
Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Well, we'll try, and we appreciate that you guys have a tough job keeping everyone happy, and we appreciate that you are looking at the problems with the monk. What we think the monk's problems are, are not specifically equipment, although equipment could have been used to apply a fix. They boil down to:
1) Accuracy in hitting: This is the monk's biggest problem, with two sources, the monk's MADness, and the lack/cost of enhancement. Both leave the monk a few points down on to hit modifiers, and it's capped off with either 3/4 BAB or -2 on full BAB. Sure, the monk gets a lot of attacks, but if you crunch the math you still get less hits than fewer attacks with greater accuracy.
1a) Bypassing DR: An associated problem is that with limited enhancement, limited damage output (contributed to by MADness again), the monk cannot bypass or overcome DR very easily. Yes, they get past DR/magic at 4th level, past DR/lawful at 10th level (if it ever gets used) and DR/adamantine at 16th level. Given that, if you use WBL and conservatively assume that 1/3 WBL will be spent on a acombat class' weapon, another combat class could be swinging a +5 weapon by 13th or 14th level (which gets past all DR), and the monk is not going to have a +5 amulet until around 19th level, DR/adamantine at 16th level is still behind the curve by a long way.
This is kind of important, maneuvers don't work on everything (actually above 10th they rarely work on anything), and the monk's only other offensive resource (other than straight damage) is Stunning Fist, which has to hit and do damage before it gets as far as making the saving throw.
2) Multi-Attribute Dependency, or MAD. The Paladin was fixed to hinge on two good stats, as was the Bard, the Ranger, in fact pretty much all classes that were MAD in 3.5, except the monk, were fixed this way and they got some goodies to compensate for that extra stat they needed.
The monk didn't get either. He still needs:
Strength - to hit and damage, or just damage if you pay a feat tax and have good dexterity.
Dexterity - for AC, and with Weapon Finesse accuracy.
Constitution - when you are front-lining with d8 hit dice, you better have a decent constitution score.
Wisdom - for monk abilities, ki, etc.
Edit: just to make clear, you DO need dex and con for survivability, if you are rushing into combat wearing no armour and d8 hit dice.
There are a number of ways the MAD could be worked around, for example the Paladin escaped a need for a high Con with lay on hands as a swift action so he can self-heal in combat. Wholeness of Body could do the same for the monk if it didn't require a standard action. As it stands, as Master Arminas stated, the 'viable' monk is high strength, moderate con, dex and wis, the antithesis of how the monk is perceived.
3) Abilities that just aren't well thought through, either clashing with other abilities (like flurry of blows and fast movement) or else with limitations that make them barely usable. Wholeness of Body is one example, it burns ki (a resource in short supply) while taking the same time and doing as much as drinking a potion. These, however, are the minor issues.
These are the problems we see the monk as having. We've been discussing the monk in depth, we've between us played the monk every which way it can be played, and this is what seems to have stood out in this thread. We don't disagree that with a lot of skill and planning you can make a monk that can work - but they really struggle to shine even at their best.
Aren't you glad I learned how to hit enter twice in a row to make linebreaks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So how is only needing two stats maybe three being MAD?
Needing three stats to maintain defensive and offensive viability is MAD.
In order to compensate for class weakness, you need to focus on Strength almost as much as a fighter does, and in order to remain defensively valid without armor, you need a good wisdom and at least a positive dexterity.
I'd like to stop here a moment to note that monks have a +5 AC bonus (what most other people would get from the enhancement on their armor) built right into the class. How about that? A similar mechanic for attacks would seem to be entirely reasonable, IMO.
Note that not needing Int and Charisma, and having them be dumpable, while ok for strictly stat related reasons, is terrible for people who like things like roleplaying. I can build a fighter with one good stat (strength), have positive dexterity and constitution, and not have to dump on my roleplaying stats. Why should all monks have to be stupid and unappealing to keep up?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You're a frontline fighter: You need wisdom to make up for your lack of armor, not to replace dexterity. Wisdom has to be in addition to dexterity, not in place of it, or you're going to get hit more often than a bong at woodstock.
Hey there Folks,
I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.
We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.
There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.
Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thank you for dropping by and answering some of our questions. May I say that at least in my opinion paying the extra cost that the wrap has isn't the problem. Its paying extra for less. If it applied to all attacks or stayed as is but cost the same as a normal weapon you probably would have had different reactions all around. As is the cost to play an unarmed monk is already 1/5 more than a TWF if that is how you rule monks fucntion. If it is ruled we can make all attacks with the same weapon then fighting unarmed cost 3/5 more over what we could pay to fight with a weapon. For a monk hitting level 20 2d10 is a lot better on average than any monk weaponn. however in the average AP or society play 2d6 is about right and only a a few points of increased damage over a temple sword which can be much more cheaply enhanced to a reasonable level.
You're a frontline fighter: You need wisdom to make up for your lack of armor, not to replace dexterity. Wisdom has to be in addition to dexterity, not in place of it, or you're going to get hit more often than a bong at woodstock.
No one ever said replace Dex. We said that we usually pump Wisdom over Dex, not dump it. It's still a good idea to have a decent dex.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I wouldn't really call the monk 'frontline', at least not the way I played him. I always played rogues, monks, melee bards, and two-weapon fighters more like skirmishers, usually only sticking around one person at a time and disengaging when I feel like I need to. I never tried to take on three-four people at once like I do with my fighter. But that's just my experience.
|
Director of Games
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Folks,
I think that if you want the monk to have the same hit percentages as a fighter, with the same damage potential, and all the other monk defenses that they get, you are going to be disappointed. Thats just not how we envision the monk as working in the game. Thats not to say we want the monk to be ineffective in combat just to fit a perceived roll, but dishing out huge amounts of damage has never been their primary focus.
All that said, we are aware of some problems with the class not performing to expectations and we will be looking to address those soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I'd like to see more use of the movement in melee, like being able to take a 5' step between FoB attacks and moving up to a half move and still flury.
I think if the monk isn't suppose to be the up front fighter, he can and should be able to offer damage to multiple targets a round, kind of like a living AoE spell, or a flurry of attacks, if you will...
Hey there Folks,
I think its fine to look at the monk in a bubble and rant about how their damage output is not on par with a fighter or a barbarian with various tricks and rules angles. It is my view that this does not take into account the full potential off the monk, including its defenses and other abilities that these classes do not get.
We are not going to introduce an item that gives monks flat bonuses to hit and damage with the exact same pricing as magic weapons. Many of the folks on this thread have pointed out some of the benefits of the monks unarmed strike (increasing damage dice, immunity to various combat maneuvers, never having to draw, etc), and it is my view that those things are offset by an increased cost in gaining the various bonuses and weapon abilities. It is clear that some folks here do not agree, nor will they agree unless they get exactly what they want. I understand. If you are playing in a home game and you think such inexpensive bonuses are fine for the monk, then by all means, give them out. No one is going to stop you, but I have no plans on giving out such items in the core book at the current time.
There are some other issues in the monk that I hope we can address after Gencon, but I want to warn folks.. we will not be rewriting the class. We endeavor with most of our changes to make small moves to get things where we want instead of drastic shifts that might go too far or force us to change again. We've been burned by that in the past.
Other than that.. just play nice folks. We are listening and hope to carve out some time to tackle some of these concerns soon.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
I too would like to express my appreciation for the direct approach here.
I'm actually one of the few people here that are okay with the cost of the Amulet of Mighty Fists. The correct price (not counting basic weapon cost) for a two-weapon fighter is 4000gp, since they need to enhance two weapons to +1 at 2000gp each. Having a 25% mark-up to 5000gp to account for the special nature of unarmed strikes (always ready, not disarmable, etc) is not over-the-top.
The amulet breaks down in the case of a monk performing a flurry mixing a weapon and unarmed strikes - in this case the cost becomes prohibitive as both the weapon and unarmed strikes need to be enhanced. The new bodywraps are obviously an attempt to address this specific gap, albeit I find not a particularly elegant attempt.
If I may make one request: I know I - and I suspect all the supporters in this thread - would love to be part of the solution. As such I would like to ask Paizo to play with open cards, tell us what concerns with the monk you do have and what options you are considering to address these concerns. That way we can learn to understand your thought processes and one of us might make a crucial suggestion based on the considered options. Similar to an open-playtest, but more focused.
A decent, double spaced argument.
You describe our group pretty well. We are, by and large, pretty clueless about optimisation - so our wizards do damage, our clerics heal people while the fighters go toe-to-toe with the monsters and the thieves run around doing what they can. I would suspect a monk would perform ok at our table (only one guy really likes them and we've never had a pathfinder one, from memory).
Brain your missing the fact that If I want to get the greater combat manuvers I do need at least a 13 int for combat expertise.
Also not every monk is goint to focus on a full DEX build so you will need both dex and con at reasonable levels to maintain survivability.
True. The base Monk would need that Intelligence 13.
I would say if you're going to focus on getting greater combat manuvers then perhaps the monk archetype Maneuver Master is just for you.
Which is a major point of the monk crowds problems. The archetypes do a good job of bringing the class up to par.