| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Think of like this. Changes to a game like Pathfinder can cause problems to other areas of the game with unintended effects. It takes time to carefully change something in a rule set to rush through it would only lead to further problems.
What happens when you throw a stone into a pool of water? It creates ripples throughout the pool. So when you change something in a rule set you have to make sure those ripples if any don't adversely affect the remainder of the rules.
Look at 3.5 when they would throw splat-book and after book into the rules. It created a number of unintended combos and problems that would break the game.
|
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Truthfully, who knows? I don't know. I don't think any of us knows how long it would take to analyze, develop, and playtest the changes to the monk. Maybe it'd be interesting to see a public playtest of the monk changes.
All I know is, all we can really do is be patient. They've hopefully read everything in the threads MA has posted. If one really believes that they are ignoring the posts, then I don't see how posting more threads and hijacking other monk threads would make the 'uninterested devs' read it.
It's after GenCon, like they said. I'm just going to wait and see what happens. It's really the only constructive thing left.
But back to my main argument, this does not need an overhaul, just a tweek. The tweeks added and taken away in the past each addressed the problem in a way, albeit imperfectly. So why reinvent the wheel?
And if it does require an overhaul, we should probably be discussing the diagnosis before we operate, right?
Either way, MA is wrong. It hasn't been 5 months. I has been 5 months since the FOB clarification that created the most recent firestorm.
It's been about 4 years, up and down depending on what was added, removed, or clarified.
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Truthfully, who knows? I don't know. I don't think any of us knows how long it would take to analyze, develop, and playtest the changes to the monk. Maybe it'd be interesting to see a public playtest of the monk changes.
All I know is, all we can really do is be patient. They've hopefully read everything in the threads MA has posted. If one really believes that they are ignoring the posts, then I don't see how posting more threads and hijacking other monk threads would make the 'uninterested devs' read it.
It's after GenCon, like they said. I'm just going to wait and see what happens. It's really the only constructive thing left.
But back to my main argument, this does not need an overhaul, just a tweek. The tweeks added and taken away in the past each addressed the problem in a way, albeit imperfectly. So why reinvent the wheel?
And if it does require an overhaul, we should probably be discussing the diagnosis before we operate, right?
Either way, MA is wrong. It hasn't been 5 months. I has been 5 months since the FOB clarification that created the most recent firestorm.
It's been about 4 years, up and down depending on what was added, removed, or clarified.
I stand corrected, then. I was referring to the most recent firestorm, to use your own words, when I spoke of 5 months. Since I only joined these boards around a year ago, I am not fully familiar with the history of this discussion and debate.
MA
|
|
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Think of like this. Changes to a game like Pathfinder can cause problems to other areas of the game with unintended effects. It takes time to carefully change something in a rule set to rush through it would only lead to further problems.
What happens when you throw a stone into a pool of water? It creates ripples throughout the pool. So when you change something in a rule set you have to make sure those ripples if any don't adversely affect the remainder of the rules.
Look at 3.5 when they would through splat-book and after book into the rules. It created a number of unintended combos and problems that would break the game.
And they do this all the time. Every item added needs that vetting. Every archetype, every spells, all of them require that vetting.
It is literally what they do every day as a profession.
Given that, how long would it take to noodle out what the problem is? I can't imagine more than an hour or two if everyone is in the same room with a white board.
So can that happen? It is one of the 11 core classes after all. There are currently 17 different archetypes for the class, so presumably some of the work of valuing attributes and analysis is done.
They may come out of the room and decide the official position is we are all whiny and it works fine. And they can post that with the math they put on their board and that would be that.
But at this point it seems to be "Yeah there is a problem, we haven't really talked about it."
|
|
I stand corrected, then. I was referring to the most recent firestorm, to use your own words, when I spoke of 5 months. Since I only joined these boards around a year ago, I am not fully familiar with the history of this discussion and debate.
MA
That was kind of why I laid it out the way I did in the original post to provide some context.
I was a monk defender, pre-nerfs. Everything I wrote was a discussion on the boards. The DD as a move, Vital Strike, Brass Knuckles, each of those was a firestorm on the boards about the class being fixed and then broken again.
This latest round of FOB is just the latest bit of confusion that nerfs the class when no one seems to think it needs the nerf.
I get why they did it, but I don't get what part of the monk they fear is so overpowered that they nerf it aggressively while saying things like metamagic persistent rods and simulacrum abuse are just part of the program.
Speaking of nerfs/clarifications to the monk, wasn't there also something said by one of the devs (in order to justify the price of the AoMF for the monk) at one point that each of the Monks limbs is a separate weapon, so even if you have a Druid cast Magic Fang on your Monk he can only have it effect, say, one fist. And then, when using FoB (TWF!!!) unarmed he'd have to mix attacks between the enhanced fist and other unarmed strikes?
Since pretty much everything else I would want to say on the matter has been said I'll just say this: I look forward to Paizo's eventual changes and regardless of whether they're the ones I want, I hope they benefit the monk is some way.
Speaking of nerfs/clarifications to the monk, wasn't there also something said by one of the devs (in order to justify the price of the AoMF for the monk) at one point that each of the Monks limbs is a separate weapon, so even if you have a Druid cast Magic Fang on your Monk he can only have it effect, say, one fist. And then, when using FoB (TWF!!!) unarmed he'd have to mix attacks between the enhanced fist and other unarmed strikes?
And I really hope not, that would just be silly :/
Since pretty much everything else I would want to say on the matter has been said I'll just say this: I look forward to Paizo's eventual changes and regardless of whether they're the ones I want, I hope they benefit the monk is some way.
Speaking of nerfs/clarifications to the monk, wasn't there also something said by one of the devs (in order to justify the price of the AoMF for the monk) at one point that each of the Monks limbs is a separate weapon, so even if you have a Druid cast Magic Fang on your Monk he can only have it effect, say, one fist. And then, when using FoB (TWF!!!) unarmed he'd have to mix attacks between the enhanced fist and other unarmed strikes?And I really hope not, that would just be silly :/
Darth, Ninja, yes, one of the developers said exactly that. SKR. The quote is in the Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows thread. I think on the first page.
And I agree. It is silly; are they also going to bring back 3.0s Ambidexterity feat?
MA
but my point was , brain in a jar, not that they wern't communicating, but that they wern't telling people what they wanted (or needed to, to shut them up) to know, they told the truth.
any person in public relations will tell you the same thing, "its not what you say, but how you say it."
thats all i was trying to say.
I think that the point where people really started to feel frustrated was when SKR said the following the week before GenCon:
And the design team hasn't yet had ANY talks about what to do about the monk. So we can't have implemented any fix-the-monk design decisions in Ultimate Equipment items because there haven't been any fix-the-monk design decisions made yet.That was almost five months after this issue first came to light. Five months, during which time we have been told, we are getting to it; it will be fixed. And then, Sean lets slip that "the design team hasn't yet had ANY talks about what to do about the monk."
That is when some of us, not even a lot of us, kind of lost faith.
MA
They've been writing books which sell thousands of copies. How many monk champions are there on the boards? A dozen? Twenty?
.All these monk threads are the same small group of people furiously agreeing with each other and demanding action. Even if you are completely and utterly correct, it doesnt imply that you should have your needs addressed immediately. (You've "lost faith"? Seriously? What did you think was going to happen when the problems with FoB interpretation arose?)
The epic crowd have been clamouring for at least as lonk as the 'monks are no good' crowd and their seem to be many more of them. The developers cant do everything and they have to be guided by more than what specific niche of the rules they personally favor (you've preferred playing monks since 1986, right? Dont you think your perspective might be a little skewed compared to 'the majority'?)
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Think of like this. Changes to a game like Pathfinder can cause problems to other areas of the game with unintended effects. It takes time to carefully change something in a rule set to rush through it would only lead to further problems.
What happens when you throw a stone into a pool of water? It creates ripples throughout the pool. So when you change something in a rule set you have to make sure those ripples if any don't adversely affect the remainder of the rules.
Look at 3.5 when they would through splat-book and after book into the rules. It created a number of unintended combos and problems that would break the game.
And they do this all the time. Every item added needs that vetting. Every archetype, every spells, all of them require that vetting.
It is literally what they do every day as a profession.
Given that, how long would it take to noodle out what the problem is? I can't imagine more than an hour or two if everyone is in the same room with a white board.
So can that happen? It is one of the 11 core classes after all. There are currently 17 different archetypes for the class, so presumably some of the work of valuing attributes and analysis is done.
They may come out of the room and decide the official position is we are all whiny and it works fine. And they can post that with the math they put on their board and that would be that.
But at this point it seems to be "Yeah there is a problem, we haven't really talked about it."
I think it will take way longer than an hour or two. Even the most ardent monk supporters dont all agree about what the actual problem is.
As I understand things, they're slogging away at mythic rules at the moment. Monk fixes are very important to a small group of customers.
EDIT: Personally, I think your arguments for various monk fixes have been very balanced and reasonable, so I'm not saying "shut up and go away", nor disputing your right to voice and opinion and clamor to be heard. I think it's unrealistic to expect something so marginal to be prioritised highly though.
It makes sense to be honest, since they've had Paizocon and Gencon to get ready for in those couple of months. Con season is pretty rough and you have to make your priorities. Unfortunately, the monk wasn't for the Con rush. But, Gencon is over so now they have the time to bang heads and analyze the monk.
It does and it doesn't.
I mean seriously, how much time do we really think it would take to noodle this all out?
Think of like this. Changes to a game like Pathfinder can cause problems to other areas of the game with unintended effects. It takes time to carefully change something in a rule set to rush through it would only lead to further problems.
What happens when you throw a stone into a pool of water? It creates ripples throughout the pool. So when you change something in a rule set you have to make sure those ripples if any don't adversely affect the remainder of the rules.
Look at 3.5 when they would throw splat-book and after book into the rules. It created a number of unintended combos and problems that would break the game.
Well, I think the problem there is that the last official statement on the monk was not "We're considering several solutions and evaluating how they will effect overall game balance" but "We haven't even started thinking about the problem."
Personally, I've been fairly happy with the way monks have done in my group, where we use the un-erratad Brass Knuckles and ignore the Flurry Clarification.
|
|
I think they could knock it out fairly quickly as the Devs are a lot more reasonable than a group of monk supporters :)
Seriously, I don't see this taking more than an hour or two considering the quality and experience of the devs. That isn't a kiss ass, they do good work and I don't think this is any more complex than designing an archetype.
So go back in time and take the time you spent making the Geisha Bard and fix the monk :)
I think they could knock it out fairly quickly as the Devs are a lot more reasonable than a group of monk supporters :)
Seriously, I don't see this taking more than an hour or two considering the quality and experience of the devs. That isn't a kiss ass, they do good work and I don't think this is any more complex than designing an archetype.
So go back in time and take the time you spent making the Geisha Bard and fix the monk :)
You're not going to get an argument from me - I cant imagine being able to do it.
However, it seems to me (as a casual observer) that there are a lot of complicated elements to it all - not the least of which is identifying exactly what it is that a monk is supposed to do.
So many of the arguments proceed from "look how bad the monk is compared to other frontline melee characters". Controversially, it seems, I dont actually think a monk is a front line melee character (for example). Similarly an inherent assumption of those in favor of tweaking the monk seems to be that all classes should be relatively equal in terms of power (not brute damage dealing - just power to 'influence the game' or 'contribute to the party' or similar). I'm not really convinced that that is something shared by the designers - or more accurately, I think that providing some mechanically inferior but "flavor enhanced" options for those of us who like that kind of thing is also part of what they try to do.
Sorting out exactly what a monk is supposed to do, which design goals it's expected to meet, etcetera, etcetera... is going to be quite time consuming, I would suspect. Then there's the issue of how to improve it in such a way that it can fulfill that role without making the currently playable monk builds too good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not really irony. I am still under the guise that Monks don't have any issues whatsoever, and find they are fine the way they are. I only listed that option because people are being impatient with the developers trying to make changes. If you don't like their changes or don't want to wait for their changes to be made, then make some for yourself; it's not rocket science. It's the same solution one does for all cases of Homebrew, where they want to implement something new, tweak some things around, etc. You make it yourself, or you find something that was already made.If the Monk class is really causing this much whining and crying, then you might as well provide a "Do-It-Yourself" fix, instead of do nothing but complain because the Dev doesn't balance the class out yet, or in a way that you don't want to have happen.Irony.I'm sorry, what do we need to change about a Monk again, other than the fact that Monk players are a bunch of whiners and negative nancies?
Not a damn thing. Get back to your Emo Corner.
Some people are players, and don't have that option so until Paizo fixes it they are stuck. Before you go with "find a new group/gm" argument, depending on where you are that may not be feasible.
Some people also suck at homebrewing mechanics, and they know it so they leave it alone.
That brings us back to "the devs need to fix it."
Good thing the class isn't unplayable and generally works just fine.
I think they could knock it out fairly quickly as the Devs are a lot more reasonable than a group of monk supporters :)
Seriously, I don't see this taking more than an hour or two considering the quality and experience of the devs. That isn't a kiss ass, they do good work and I don't think this is any more complex than designing an archetype.
So go back in time and take the time you spent making the Geisha Bard and fix the monk :)
You're not going to get an argument from me - I cant imagine being able to do it.
However, it seems to me (as a casual observer) that there are a lot of complicated elements to it all - not the least of which is identifying exactly what it is that a monk is supposed to do.
So many of the arguments proceed from "look how bad the monk is compared to other frontline melee characters". Controversially, it seems, I dont actually think a monk is a front line melee character (for example). Similarly an inherent assumption of those in favor of tweaking the monk seems to be that all classes should be relatively equal in terms of power (not brute damage dealing - just power to 'influence the game' or 'contribute to the party' or similar). I'm not really convinced that that is something shared by the designers - or more accurately, I think that providing some mechanically inferior but "flavor enhanced" options for those of us who like that kind of thing is also part of what they try to do.
Sorting out exactly what a monk is supposed to do, which design goals its expected to meet, etcetera, etcetera... is going to be quite time consuming, I would suspect. Then there's the issue of how to improve it in such a way that it can fulfill that role without making the currently playable monk builds too good.
Exactly. What is the monk supposed to be? Right now, it is not a martial class able to stand in combat with full BAB martials, bards, magi, or rogues. Is it a class that gives support via flanking and skills? If so, it doesn't have enough skill points and it has ZERO ablities to create and capitalize on that style of combat, except for being able to move fast.
It is a mystic with spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities? Please, it doesn't even come close to a paladin or ranger in width and breadth of spell use. All of those special SLAs and SNAs (except Slow Fall) are based on the expenditure of ki.
Now, I don't mind if the designers decide that the monk is a skill or caster-type class instead of a martial: as long as they give it the ability to perform in that role.
I, on the otherhand, see the monk as a martial class. Perhaps that is just me.
MA
Exactly. What is the monk supposed to be? Right now, it is not a martial class able to stand in combat with full BAB martials, bards, magi, or rogues. Is it a class that gives support via flanking and skills? If so, it doesn't have enough skill points and it has ZERO ablities to create and capitalize on that style of combat, except for being able to move fast.
It is a mystic with spell-like abilities and supernatural abilities? Please, it doesn't even come close to a paladin or ranger in width and breadth of spell use. All of those special SLAs and SNAs (except Slow Fall) are based on the expenditure of ki.
Now, I don't mind if the designers decide that the monk is a skill or caster-type class instead of a martial: as long as they give it the ability to perform in that role.
I, on the otherhand, see the monk as a martial class. Perhaps that is just me.
MA
It's clearly not just you, but nonetheless it might not be the developers' view (or views). I wouldnt know. What I do see is a bunch of arguments proceeding from some particular assumption - a set of assumptions not necessarily shared by the game designers.
.As I mentioned once or twice, I like paying a mechanical price for flavor options. It's supposedly "bad game design" to set things up that way, but nevertheless - I'm part of the crowd Paizo are trying to sell games to. Even if they're going to ignore me on this, they still need to mull over where the game is heading, how it will appeal to all the different niche groups... A whole bunch of thinking that someone like you, Dabbler or Ciretose dont need to fuss about.
The three of you do a decent job of arguing for your own specific causes (In my view you have strayed into the sarcastic and unhelpful territory from time to time, but overall you're at least constructive in your criticism). But all of it is predicated on a broad idea of what the game should be like and what role the monk should fill within that. I think you should take a long view as to the time required for the developers to sort it out - especially given that monks are such a niche thing.
The crowd clamouring for epic rules have been doing so for considerably longer and (in my subjective opinion) with far more advocates than the monk-supporters. If that's the case, shouldnt Paizo be devoting its scarce development/gamedesign resources towards the upcoming mythic playtest rather than to sorting through what the problem is with the monk and how best to fix it without making it the automatic 'martial class' choice?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The crowd clamouring for epic rules have been doing so for considerably longer and (in my subjective opinion) with far more advocates than the monk-supporters. If that's the case, shouldnt Paizo be devoting its scarce development/gamedesign resources towards the upcoming mythic playtest rather than to sorting through what the problem is with the monk and how best to fix it without making it the automatic 'martial class' choice?
I cannot disagree, but I will say that correcting the faults in an established Core Class, is worth a few days (or even a week or two) delay on another sourcebook; at least in my own opinion. I feel, as a customer who purchased material, that getting errata in a timely fashion is what differentiates between a good company putting a good product and an outstanding company putting out an excellent product.
Once again, that could just be my own views.
MA
Good thing the class isn't unplayable and generally works just fine.Not really irony. I am still under the guise that Monks don't have any issues whatsoever, and find they are fine the way they are. I only listed that option because people are being impatient with the developers trying to make changes. If you don't like their changes or don't want to wait for their changes to be made, then make some for yourself; it's not rocket science. It's the same solution one does for all cases of Homebrew, where they want to implement something new, tweak some things around, etc. You make it yourself, or you find something that was already made.If the Monk class is really causing this much whining and crying, then you might as well provide a "Do-It-Yourself" fix, instead of do nothing but complain because the Dev doesn't balance the class out yet, or in a way that you don't want to have happen.Irony.I'm sorry, what do we need to change about a Monk again, other than the fact that Monk players are a bunch of whiners and negative nancies?
Not a damn thing. Get back to your Emo Corner.
Some people are players, and don't have that option so until Paizo fixes it they are stuck. Before you go with "find a new group/gm" argument, depending on where you are that may not be feasible.
Some people also suck at homebrewing mechanics, and they know it so they leave it alone.
That brings us back to "the devs need to fix it."
I don't know what that statement means, but I have never said the class can not contribute. I just think it requires too much effort for most people if they don't go with an archetype. I personally have trouble with anyone playing a monk in my games either because they have trouble staying alive or contributing, or sometimes both unless I do some "magic" on my side of the GM screen. I have heard other GM's have the same issue. Even in Kingmaker which was a fairly easy AP the monk had issues, and I was allowing 3.5 material.
--------------------------------
That previous post was mostly explaining reasons why the "fix it yourself" idea is not always an option, and that goes double if you are in PFS, which I have heard has some rather difficult scenarios. I have yet to play one though, so I can't really say how accurate that is.
--------------------
As far as generally working just fine, well if that depends on the GM being nice, then I think that would be an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The crowd clamouring for epic rules have been doing so for considerably longer and (in my subjective opinion) with far more advocates than the monk-supporters. If that's the case, shouldnt Paizo be devoting its scarce development/gamedesign resources towards the upcoming mythic playtest rather than to sorting through what the problem is with the monk and how best to fix it without making it the automatic 'martial class' choice?I cannot disagree, but I will say that correcting the faults in an established Core Class, is worth a few days (or even a couple of weeks) delay on another sourcebook; at least in my own opinion. I feel, as a customer who purchased material, that getting errata in a timely fashion is what differentiates between a good company putting a good product and an outstanding company putting out an excellent product.
Once again, that could just be my own views.
MA
That still ties in with what I said above about perceptions, perspectives and balancing disparate views. You see it as an errata - many of us think that's too strong (or just flatout disagree). You think the monk fails to fulfill it's role and needs to be fixed or errata-ed. I think the monk could use some clarification or perhaps tweaking - others have said they think it's fine the way it is. The developers have to weigh all those perspectives (plus more) and decide where they sit on the various issues.
.I doubt very much that it would be as simple as delaying one book whilst directing work to the revision of the monk - things are just more complicated than that, in real life, I suspect. Also, missing a deadline by a few days actually means a month (given the policy of releasing all Paizo products at once). Every time one of their books slips in the schedule they get at least as many complaints (and at least as many defenders). Suddenly the decision is going to impact not just on those who want or dont want the monk looked at, but even people who are oblivious to the whole saga - they just have to wait extra for a book.
In a niche market like this, the expectation of frequent, timely errata and revisions is unrealistic in my view. Paizo have an excellent policy of incorporating known errata into reprints (with only one major hiccup in the four or so years I've been subscribing). If they spend all their time polishing* past work, there'll be a marked dropoff in new stuff. That would have severe financial repercussions, one would suspect.
* Again, remember that you are convinced the monk requires errata. That isnt necessarily a majority view. If the class had been published with the class features printed in reverse order (giving the capstone at level one by mistake) or with a d12 hit die, or if all the monk weapons had no stats provided then that would require an immediate fix. You need to at least acknowledge that, even if they end up agreeing with you, the developers have to think about the views of all those who think monks are fine as is. Otherwise, they're going to issue what you term "errata" and run into a dozen new threads a week saying "Fix the monk! It's so overpowered now! Oh my god! What were Paizo thinking?"
I think the monk should have just been given the TWF feats as bonus feats, not including Two weapon rend. It would have taken care of the issue with people thinking they could flurry like they could in 3.5, and the issue of what happens if a monk actually takes the TWF feats. I understand the scaling dice was a legacy issue, and it was more difficult to get rid of. Giving the monk 2 more skill points, and adding a few class skills would have also helped.
Being able to burn ki points to get a pseudo-pounce would also have been nice. I don't think a lot of work needs to be done, just a few touch ups.
I don't think a lot of work needs to be done, just a few touch ups.
Once they know what they want to fix, I suspect you're right. I wouldnt expect some massive re-write, but just some tweak or boost. I think the work is in forming a clear view on the first part (and on checking for unintended consequences).
.As you know, I'm clueless when it comes to character building. Nonetheless, there is apparently some Zen Archer archetype which is not bad. If they introduce some of the tweaks people have suggested (adding Wis to attack and/or damage, moving to full BAB, etcetera) then suddenly they'll presumably have made some of those builds unreasonable.
Again - I'm pretty clueless, so the above might be a bad specific example, but hopefully the point is clear.
While I am eagerly looking forward to the Mythic Playtest and Mythic Rules, I'm also equally worried that the Playtest and Rules development will push any Monk development back even further. The Demonblight Crusade AP can't be written until the Mythic rules are hammered out and James Jacobs said Jason is furiously working out those rules right now, just to get the Playtest started.
So we've got one of the main designers wrapped up in a system of Rules that will be one of the largest changes to Pathfinder since it's inception. We've got the other main designer who's royally ticked off at all the Monk threads on the forums and said he wasn't going to be involved in those threads anymore and he's pulling out.
The future does not look good for any Monk patches/fixes/band-aids/tweaks what-have-you.
It looks even less bright as every day, every week, we get another thread, that has the same tone as this one does. Every time a thread pops up that has a snarky tone, or gives an over-all impression of bashing on the Developers, it just makes any Monk fixes even less likely to actually occur.
Frankly, this thread is NOT something we need. I don't think it's helping the situation at all. All it really does, is stirs up animosity on any side of the debates.
You end up with the 'Moks are Fine' side complaining about the threads tone.
The 'Monks are Broken' people are getting more riled up about confusing rulings and lack of action.
The Developers are getting annoyed, pissed off, and tired of everyone constantly insulting and harassing them.
Prospective Monk players see these threads and think, "Well, I'll never play a Monk at all now".
Threads like these don't help. At least, not in my opinion.
I don't think a lot of work needs to be done, just a few touch ups.Once they know what they want to fix, I suspect you're right. I wouldnt expect some massive re-write, but just some tweak or boost. I think the work is in forming a clear view on the first part (and on checking for unintended consequences).
.
As you know, I'm clueless when it comes to character building. Nonetheless, there is apparently some Zen Archer archetype which is not bad. If they introduce some of the tweaks people have suggested (adding Wis to attack and/or damage, moving to full BAB, etcetera) then suddenly they'll presumably have made some of those builds unreasonable.Again - I'm pretty clueless, so the above might be a bad specific example, but hopefully the point is clear.
Sadly, their own clarification on Flurry of Blows makes the Zen Archer (and the Sohei) not work. At least without changing either or both of the archetypes to allow flurry with a single weapon. But if they change it for the archetypes, why not simply leave it as many of us were playing it for the Core monk AND the many archetypes?
EDIT: The Martial Artist archetype is probably the best of the bunch, except for the odd fact that it retains abundant step but doesn't have any ki to spend! It addresses a lot of issues and makes a good (not great, but good) martial character.
MA
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a lot of work needs to be done, just a few touch ups.Once they know what they want to fix, I suspect you're right. I wouldnt expect some massive re-write, but just some tweak or boost. I think the work is in forming a clear view on the first part (and on checking for unintended consequences).
.
As you know, I'm clueless when it comes to character building. Nonetheless, there is apparently some Zen Archer archetype which is not bad. If they introduce some of the tweaks people have suggested (adding Wis to attack and/or damage, moving to full BAB, etcetera) then suddenly they'll presumably have made some of those builds unreasonable.Again - I'm pretty clueless, so the above might be a bad specific example, but hopefully the point is clear.
Sadly, their own clarification on Flurry of Blows makes the Zen Archer (and the Sohei) not work. At least without changing either or both of the archetypes to allow flurry with a single weapon. But if they change it for the archetypes, why not simply leave it as many of us were playing it for the Core monk AND the many archetypes?
EDIT: The Martial Artist archetype is probably the best of the bunch, except for the odd fact that it retains abundant step but doesn't have any ki to spend! It addresses a lot of issues and makes a good (not great, but good) martial character.
MA
Whether the Zen Archer and Sohei monk actually dont work, or whether they do is not something I can really opine on. I can pretty confidently predict that arguing rules minutiae with me is going to make you tear your hair out. I'm very much a "rules are just guidelines" kind of guy. :)
.As I said - the point of that was not to make any actual theoretical argument, but to illustrate the potential problem with a "quick fix". Even if it's a great solution and has no downside - they still have to do the work to check that there's no downside or unintended consequence with one of the monk archetypes, animal companions, or 'treading on the toes' of some other class. I dont think it's going to take a couple of hours.
Not really irony.It's not ironic that you say people should come up with their own solutions barely a day after you berated people in another thread for doing just that? Did you have a change of heart?That is "hypocrisy".
I confuse the two sometimes myself, no worries.
See, I thought TOZ was pointing out the Irony of someone calling themselves "Darksol the Painbringer" telling other people they were being emo...
Also, Paizo has released stuff in the past on several occasions that clash with each other. Look at the Prone Shooter Feat, or the Summoner. The Summoner brings all kinds of hell-to-play-with when it comes to spells available. Because the Summoner has reduced spell progression, but still gets many high level spells, you get weird funky things like Wands of Teleport (Summoner has Teleport as a 4th level spell).
Also, a lot of things in Core Rules and other places are now incorrect because of the Summoner. Magic Item Creation Rules state that items are created at the lowest level possible for the spell. So an item that has a Teleport spell in it's creation (like Helm of Teleportation) should now have a reduced price as the spell level has gone down.
Because of that rule, a Wizard can craft a 4th level Wand of Wall of Stone. Imagine the hell that will come with a Wizard can create 50 Walls in a day because of his wand?
Or Hell, how about a Wand of Magic Jar?
The Summoner clashes in a lot of ways with existing material, but there are other feats and items and abilities that do this as well. Using strictly Core Rules Only, Rangers have Resist Energy as a first level spell, but the Rings of Energy Resistance are all priced according to the 2nd level spell version as cast by all of the other casters.
Remember, when it comes to content, not everything published by Paizo was developed by Paizo. A lot of it was made by other free-lance Developers and submitted to them for approval, before being sent to the printers. The Developers can't remember every rule in the game all at once. That's why you see things like Prone Shooter slipping through, or the Summoner's Spell List getting approved.
Paizo isn't perfect, no one is, but in my opinion they're damned better than the competition.
I've learned to condition my players to talk to me about new stuff in the game. If a new book with a bunch of potentially disruptive spells come out or maybe an errata that modifies an important class feature (like Flurry of Blows), we talk about it before it is implemented into the game. If the players and I all agree that it works in our game, we use this new material. If not, we simply ignore it.
Likewise, if we don't like the way that a class works (like monk), we talk about how to make it better. We don't wait for the devs to give an official announcement or errata. We take care of it ourselves. I'm not trying to be confrontational about this monk issue, but if you don't like it, change it in your game. If you aren't running said game, talk to your DM about it. If he or she is a decent one, he or she will be willing to work with your to make playing a monk fun again.
It shouldn't even need to be explained, however, "if you don't like it, change it," is simply not an option for many. Some people play PFS. Some DMs only run things by the book, whether or not that's because they aren't "decent" is probably a matter of opinion. For some people just finding a game/group that matches their schedule and doesn't fall apart after a few weeks is rather difficult.
lol the weakest class is probably rogue---luckily for the devs almost no one plays one so they don't have to worry about them complaining.
I quit mine as soon as it reached level 2 as it served no purpose.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah.
I see this issue is still up in the air, and people have been getting more frustrated.
I do understand why all three sides are getting irritated.
The Devs are being prodded by a bunch of upset gamers.
The Upset Gamers are unhappy that they view the option they want to play as being broken to the point of unplayable.
The Indifferent Gamers are being annoyed at the tone and quantity of the posts of the Upset ones.
Personally, I think it may be worth taking a step back. I used to get more worked up about "trap options" as well (if you search you can probably find me saying as much).
It's a d20 game, based on 3.X. Paizo have stated before (roughly) that they don't mind if an option is less powerful, it's more powerful that they're concerned about. There are tons of other options that are (IMO) underpowered to the point of unplayability. That's not going away. You have to either avoid them or accept that playing that option is to make your character weaker - possibly even useless.
It kindof sucks if your only option is PFS and you wanted to play a martial arts focused character. I would suggest you start looking at playing an unarmed fighter, or using an archetype that makes the class something you can accept.
Otherwise?
Sit down, make a list, and play with the subset of options you are okay with. Write down the category (class, feat, etc), and the book and page number. Basically you're making an index. It will take time. Make it your list of "playable options". Use those. Ignore the stuff you don't consider usable.
There is a bunch of paizo stuff I really like, there's a bunch of stuff I don't. Usually I like or dislike it due to how it was designed, not due to the fluff. If I think something is underpowered or really hate how it was designed, I blacklist it. I don't allow it in games I run, and don't use it in the games of others.
For me, that includes stock monks, stock rogues, stock gunslingers, and paizo firearms (to name a few things). If I'm GMing, I have alternatives (including alternate firearm rules) which I allow.
And if you're not having fun with Pathfinder at the moment, you could take a break from it for a while and play a different game for a while - and come back to Pathfinder later. You have options besides Pathfinder and WotC4e.
RuneQuest 6 (Quite New), and Mongoose' Legend (Newer than PFRPG) both have similar fantasy medieval tones to Pathfinder. You can mix and match much of the Legend and RuneQuest6 Materials. Take a break for a bit, come back, and see if you're a bit more calm about it.
Paizo may sometimes share their playtest stuff, but it's their RPG, and they'll put what they want in it, whether you like it or not.
Additionally, It's all OGL. If you think you could do it better, you don't have to create a completely different game, you can make a compatible splinter edition of this one.
Paizo may sometimes share their playtest stuff, but it's their RPG, and they'll put what they want in it, whether you like it or not.
Lol, that's a bad business strategy. If the customers don't like your product, then the customers won't buy said product.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo may sometimes share their playtest stuff, but it's their RPG, and they'll put what they want in it, whether you like it or not.
Lol, that's a bad business strategy. If the customers don't like your product, then the customers won't buy said product.
I imagine it's only a small subset of the Paizo customers who have any kind of informed opinion on whether an option is well balanced/designed or not, to begin with.
And many people aren't really aware of much in the way of non-d20 RPGs, seeing the two available options as being Pathfinder or 4e.
Clearly their current business model doesn't bother enough people that it's seriously hurting their business. Only a small number of people even object to any real amount of their design content.
Personally I'm nearly at my Pathfinder hardcover saturation point. I'll likely pick up the equipment book, but I dont think I'll be grabbing the Lv21+ books (Mythic?). Beyond that? I dunno what I will or will not get.
I've realized that when I run any d20 fantasy:3.x, at this point my rules are culled from so many sources and I've got so many houserules I would like to use, that there's not much point in collecting more of the hardcovers for me. As a player I have all I need for someone else's game. As a GM I find I do so much rules-editing to be happy with the ruleset that it's basically a different fantasy d20 game.
Of course, I'm still interested in the modules, and some of the fluff books (race books and the like), and I can always use new monsters. But I really don't think I need new d20 player books (I could use the equipment book, maybe).
I think paizo has alot of great ideas, and they definitely seem to put out less overowered stuff than WotC. But I still often disagree with their design philosophies (and the resulting game material), and therefore only end up using/allowing my players to use a small subset of the character options they release, and use alot of things from other sources or my own work instead.
My point was, that if Paizo publishes whatever they want to, and the customers at large don't like it. They won't buy it. Then Paizo goes out of business. There's always going to be a group of people that don't like some aspect of your game. That's inevitable, and there's nothing you can do about it.
But the Monk has had problems for years. This isn't even just from a power-game or min-maxer view point. They are a hard class to play unless someone knows the system well. Or gets lucky. Or has advice.
For the most part, you could pick up any class and generally play that class well using only the Core Rules. Short of you perfectly selecting the absolutely wrong feats and abilities for a Fighter, that Fighter will probably turn out fine, even if a total newb with no experience or advice builds him. Well, as long as he's got some sort of brain and common sense in his head.
The same thing can be said of Wizards, Clerics, Barbarians, Rangers, Paladins etc.
Monks aren't so lucky.
I can build a good Monk that will be fun to play. In fact, I love playing my Monk. But I also know how to get everything I can out of a book. Out of the 80 people or so that frequent my local Hobby Store, I'm the only person that genuinely enjoys the Monk I have. Some of it is play style, sure, but a lot of it is because they feel frustrated that there Monk just doesn't add up to what it should be able of doing.
I've talked with those people, and given them advice on what they can do, but they just don't like their options. They have more fun playing a Ranger, or a Paladin, or a Rogue. That's a problem to me when the people I play with universally agree that the Monk is "Not a fun class to play" when I love the Monk so dearly. But I can't honestly refute them. They don't enjoy it, they didn't have good experiences, and they don't like how complicated it can be to build a good Monk.
All of the other classes are so varied and have so many options of playstles. You can be a sword and board Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter or Cavalier. You can be an archery Ranger, or Paladin, or Fighter or Rogue. You can be a two-weapon fiend with a Fighter, or Paladin, or Ranger, or Rogue, or Barbarian, or Cavalier. You can be a stealthy Bard, or Rogue, or Ranger or Ninja. You can be a maneuver master Ranger, or Fighter, or Barbarian, or Paladin, or Rogue.
You can be any one of those things, while also doing something else. An Maneuver Fighter is still going to do great damage when his Maneuver doesn't work. So too will a Paladin, or Ranger, or Rogue. But a Monk built for Manuevers, is probably going to be hurting for either defense or offense.
Sure, there are Archetypes, but a lot of people don't like that one has to completely change the class, to make the class good. The Sohei, Zen Archer, Martial Artist, Maneuver Master etc, these are all regarded as good choice. They're fun, they contribute and they can be a blast.
But the Core Monk makes so many people disappointed because it's just frustrating.
I want my players and friends to be able to play anything they choose to play, and I want them to enjoy it while they do so. But even though I enjoy my Monk so much, I habitually do not recommend the Monk to just about anyone who thinks about playing one. I'm pessimistic about the Monk at this point and I expect them to not enjoy the class. I've seen people who purposefully do stupid things to kill off their Monk because they want to play something else. Something more fun.
That's something I think should be fixed. I want the class to be fun for everyone, not just those that know how to play one because they can get all the right feats and abilities to make it work.
|
|
I get all that.
But its been brought up many times over the past four years that the monk needs a remake/overhaul, and the response has been a series of patch-fixes, which are then errata'ed away.
The monk is a bad option, and it seems plausible to say that it will likely not be getting fixed soon.
The same goes for the rogue. If you want to be either of those sorts of things and be useful, you basically have to look at archetypes, or unusual builds of other classes.
The Monk relies on things like the AoMF, which is overpriced for what it does, and takes your Amulet of Natural Armor slot away.
The people who have been pressing for an overhaul for the past 4 years have not gotten it, and it seems unlikely that it will suddenly happen, whether the community believes it necessary or not. I don't think the devs will budge on it, regardless of how loud people yell. All that will happen is the devs will get frustrated at the nagging.
Pathfinder is fun, but there are still many bugs and design problems which people have been aware of for years, that are still around. Books simply don't patch as nicely as software.
You can put up with it, avoid those options, make a couple houserules to change a few you don't like, or you can make something similar to Kirthfinder for yourself. But I don't think we'll see a monk or rogue overhaul before Pathfinder 2, and there will continue to be new spells and feats and stuff that are simply never worth taking.
And if none of those options make you happy? Try out some other games for a while.
EDIT: The Martial Artist archetype is probably the best of the bunch, except for the odd fact that it retains abundant step but doesn't have any ki to spend! It addresses a lot of issues and makes a good (not great, but good) martial character.
Yet it contains too much RNG and "roll once per round" for my taste in the essential Exploit Weakness ability. Otherwise you are completely right.
I really didn't want to end up back in this thread...but I have to point out two things:
lol the weakest class is probably rogue---luckily for the devs almost no one plays one so they don't have to worry about them complaining.
However weak it is, the rogue can do the rogue's job. He has a clear party role (scout, trapspringer and streetwise man) and a clear combat role as well, and while he's not a combat class per se, you don't turn your back on a rogue in a fight.
The rogue is considered weak because other classes like the ranger can do most of the rogues scouting roll, not because the rogue cannot do it the best. The monk is considered weak because aside from running fast, another class can be found to do anything the monk can do a lot better.
Which brings us to:
Sorting out exactly what a monk is supposed to do, which design goals it's expected to meet, etcetera, etcetera... is going to be quite time consuming, I would suspect. Then there's the issue of how to improve it in such a way that it can fulfill that role without making the currently playable monk builds too good.
The monk has a stated role listed in the CRB, the problem is that they don't actually have a means of achieving half of it, especially the 'taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities' and 'helping allies where they are needed' bit. The monk has no advantages or abilities to perform either of these functions, all they can do in a fight is hit things - which is why they keep getting compared to a combat class, because that's all they can do (or, actually, it's all they can try and do, because their to-hit is woeful compared to other combat classes).
But the fix may be to revise the CRB listing of its role - not necessarily improving the monks chances of fulfilling that role. (I'm not saying they will do this - but it's considerations like this which suggest me to think its likely to take longer than someone may think if they've already formed a view as to what the problem is).
But the fix may be to revise the CRB listing of its role - not necessarily improving the monks chances of fulfilling that role. (I'm not saying they will do this - but it's considerations like this which suggest me to think its likely to take longer than someone may think if they've already formed a view as to what the problem is).
This is a possibility, but I'd love to know what role a monk could fulfil successfully and intuitively within a party as it currently stands, because after years of playing I have not really found one yet.
If they just gave the monk more skill points and more class skills it'd be a huge improvement and at least let them be the scout/scholar/skills person! Not ideal, but it'd be something.
If they improved his chances to hit and get past DR he could be a skirmish-fighter.
Tidying up a lot of his abilities would make him more effective at anything.
|
|
I think they could knock it out fairly quickly as the Devs are a lot more reasonable than a group of monk supporters :)
Seriously, I don't see this taking more than an hour or two considering the quality and experience of the devs. That isn't a kiss ass, they do good work and I don't think this is any more complex than designing an archetype.
So go back in time and take the time you spent making the Geisha Bard and fix the monk :)
You're not going to get an argument from me - I cant imagine being able to do it.
However, it seems to me (as a casual observer) that there are a lot of complicated elements to it all - not the least of which is identifying exactly what it is that a monk is supposed to do.
So many of the arguments proceed from "look how bad the monk is compared to other frontline melee characters". Controversially, it seems, I dont actually think a monk is a front line melee character (for example). Similarly an inherent assumption of those in favor of tweaking the monk seems to be that all classes should be relatively equal in terms of power (not brute damage dealing - just power to 'influence the game' or 'contribute to the party' or similar). I'm not really convinced that that is something shared by the designers - or more accurately, I think that providing some mechanically inferior but "flavor enhanced" options for those of us who like that kind of thing is also part of what they try to do.
Sorting out exactly what a monk is supposed to do, which design goals it's expected to meet, etcetera, etcetera... is going to be quite time consuming, I would suspect. Then there's the issue of how to improve it in such a way that it can fulfill that role without making the currently playable monk builds too good.
We generally agree, but I think we have past examples where we had brass knuckles and you could enhance unarmed strike and it wasn't broken.
If anyone can post a "broken" build that:
1. Allows unarmed strike to be enhanced at the same cost as TWF and doesn't take a slot.
2. Uses the current flurry rules.
I'll switch sides. That is all I'm arguing for. Give me that, the monk is fixed.
I'm talking core monk, but I would be interested to see if archetypes would need modifications with this change as well.
|
|
Paizo may sometimes share their playtest stuff, but it's their RPG, and they'll put what they want in it, whether you like it or not.Lol, that's a bad business strategy. If the customers don't like your product, then the customers won't buy said product.
Paizo's bread and butter are the Adventure Paths. That is where they make the money and profit margin.
The perfect opportunity to fix the monk was when Jade Reagent was coming out, as that would have made more people excited to play an oriental themed monk in an oriental themed path.
Instead, that was when the latest controversy kicked up.
I think the fix would be to move them to the NPC class list where they belong!
... along with all the other non-casters. Let Pathfinder become the high magic d20 system it was always meant to be :>
I thought I should point out that many of the monk's unique features are just a pouch of gold away:
Periapt of Proof against Poison 27000
Periapt of Health 7500
Cape of the Montebank 10800
Ring of Jumping, Improved 10000
Ring of Evasion 25000
You forgot boots of striding and leaping or boots of speed, and of course the monk's robe.
So the Brass knuckle flurry and get unarmed damage thing is gone now?
Errata'd out almost as soon as brass knuckles hit the equipment list. Brass knuckles, gauntlets, cestus, they are all light weapons that inflict their own base damage now.
Please pardon my ignorance, having never played a Pathfinder monk, but Ive always believed the monk, across editions, has been harder to play by design and is more of a choice for PCs who want a tactical challenge.
That being said, there's clearly a problem here, based on what I've been reading in this thread. I get the sense that you guys know the game and have realistic expectations, but wind up dissappointed with your characters. Is it simply a BaB issue, or more an issue of failing to transition beyond monk weapons?
If this helps, I'll offer up a houserule that attempts to " fix" the lack of power and customization you experience with mid-level unarmed monks. This could be a feat or even a class feature (Id recommend it at level 3 and only for single-classed monks).
ARCANE KI APPROXIMATION:
By laying hands on a magic weapon, the monk can adopt some of the qualities of that weapon for 1 hour. The monk can choose either a macical attack and damage bonus or unique magical properties (such as "vorpal"). The weapon still functions normally while the quality is being borrowed. The process requires one round of uninterrupted concentration on the part of the monk.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please pardon my ignorance, having never played a Pathfinder monk, but Ive always believed the monk, across editions, has been harder to play by design and is more of a choice for PCs who want a tactical challenge.
There's tactical challenge and then there's nerfed. Monks ARE challenging, no doubt about it. The problem is the monk does not reward the effort that goes into it; you can push it to the max and end up being mediocre in performance at best.
Then there's the issue of new players seeing the monk and thinking it must be awesome, only to discover that it isn't and they have a lame duck character - not the best introduction to Pathfinder, and more likely to put people off the game than entice them in.
That being said, there's clearly a problem here, based on what I've been reading in this thread. I get the sense that you guys know the game and have realistic expectations, but wind up dissappointed with your characters. Is it simply a BaB issue, or more an issue of failing to transition beyond monk weapons?It's a whole load of small issues that add up to big problems, really. let me break it down:
- MAD - the monk needs more decent attributes than any other class to function. This can often mean that they are very weak in one area, or that they are weaker in an area that really counts. The classic example is that the monk looks as if it needs Dex and Wis, but if you want to be good in combat you always need high strength or else pay a feat tax and suffer from rubbish damage. You have d8 hit dice, but less leeway to bump Con. You could act as a scout, but need to bump Int to do it.
- FoB Mess - the whole full/3/4 BAB mess with flurry of blows is confusing and puts the monk in a bad situation: he's highly mobile, but he has to fight standing still to have a chance of hitting anything. And is it one weapon or two? It has the feel of a bodge compromise that satisfies no-one.
- Lack of enhancement for unarmed strike - the monk's unarmed strike looks awesome, but fails to perform at all. Because of the expense of enhancement it becomes a second rate 'weapon' option whichever way you look at it. Not only is the monk reduced in his odds to hit by MAD (lower stats) and his BAB (whichever you use), he also has lack of enhancement to throw into the mix. Generally speaking a mink can expect to be -2 to -3 behind the curve at every level above 2nd to every other combat class. Ciretose has even posted an alalysis showing how a rogue can match the monk's attack bonus when TWFing. The damage output is likewise lacklustre thanks to MAD, low threat range, and poor static bonuses. The dice are high, the damage ends up low compared to the other combat classes.
- Lack of DR penetration - again, the ki-strike looks great until you realise that by the time you have ki strike (lawful) every other ocmbat character is bypassing cold iron and silver. By the time you get ki strike (adamantine) every other class has a +5 weapon that bypasses everything (but you won't until at least 17th level by the numbers).
- "Anything you can do, they can do better" - for the monk, anything they do another class can do, sometimes with a piece of equipment and sometimes without, and probably do it better. A monk is outshone even as an unarmed combatant by the other combat classes if they pick the right feats and equipment (ironically, equipment the monk himself cannot use). Is it too much to ask that the dedicated unarmed combat class actually be good at it? No-one complains of paladins being out-smited by fighters, or barbarians out-raged by rangers because it can't happen. Not so the monk's speciality.
- A lot of monk abilities just are not fit for purpose. For example, what is wholeness of body for? It takes a standard action and burns your precious ki, so why not just drink a potion? It would be useful if it cost less and could be applied as a swift action, like a paladin's lay-on-hands - and it would make the monk less dependent on Con, and less MAD. Abundant step is another foul-up; great you can teleport a short distance (only yourself though) but it's no use in combat as it ends your turn, and out of it the wizard will do it and take everyone else along too. You can pay a feat to make it useful, but that's one less feat you then have to fix your other problems, and should class abilities really come with a feat-tax? Then spell resistance, which again looks great until you realise that it blocks your own allies buffing and healing you.
- Lack of a role - at the end of the day, the monk cannot fulfil the role listed in the CRB for a lot of the above reasons. They have no abilities to take advantage enemy's vulnerabilities, and they have no clear role in a party. They are not front line fighters, they are not very good scouts (although it's one role they can stretch to), and they certainly are not casters or healers.
Sorry, I'll end my rant there. There is a lot that monks have to recommend them, it's true: brilliant saves (almost as good as a paladin's), some abilities that are pretty cool, the best touch AC in the party, etc. But at the end of the day none of these abilities actually help the monk contribute much to a party dynamic. Like a wizard that only casts spells to buff and protect himself, there are times when the monk may as well not be around.
MAD - the monk needs more decent attributes than any other class to function. This can often mean that they are very weak in one area, or that they are weaker in an area that really counts. The classic example is that the monk looks as if it needs Dex and Wis, but if you want to be good in combat you always need high strength or else pay a feat tax and suffer from rubbish damage. You have d8 hit dice, but less leeway to bump Con. You could act as a scout, but need to bump Int to do it.
Sensei lets you usae Wisdom to hit at 2nd.
That lowers you to use 12 Str (for damage), okay Dex, High Wis, etc.It helps Mad a bit.
FoB Mess - the whole full/3/4 BAB mess with flurry of blows is confusing and puts the monk in a bad situation: he's highly mobile, but he has to fight standing still to have a chance of hitting anything. And is it one weapon or two? It has the feel of a bodge compromise that satisfies no-one.
That isn't issue (that was same in 3.5); issue is Designer say it is TWFing.