Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk?Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.Yes. I think the Fighter should be better at their chosen form of fighting than any other character.
I'm not saying monks are great and don't need help--I'm just saying that Fighters fight and that's it, so they should be the best. And this item doesn't actually do anything to hurt monks, all it does is (slightly) help Unarmed Fighters--and they kind of need help. Even though they're better than the Monk at fighting unarmed, they're weaker than many other Fighter options.
This. Fighters should be good at fighting of all kinds. In the style they specialize in, no other class should compete in terms of fighting.
I like the monk, don't get me wrong. But even if the specialize in unarmed fighting, a fighter who specs in it should be better?Why? Because its all the fighter does. He doesn't do kind tricks, he doesn't cast spells, he doesn't stab people in vulnerable spots, he doesn't rage, and he doesn't have pets and hate certain critters more than others. He just fights.
Not sure why people have an issue with that.
Yes, some other classes can do unarmed fighting to, but they do it differently than a monk. From the time a monk style character hit end, way way back when the rules came in boxes, and again in adnd, they have never been a replacement fighter. Quit trying to make them that and see about getting the uniquely monk things (ki powers, the monk granted abilities, their innate MAD) fixed.
As for the op...yes, its good. Like anything else good, in some cases it can be amazing. But is it under priced? Not really. If it had a set cost of say 5000 then, then it would be undercosted. But it doesn't. So at some levels, its retarded good(in some situations) in most, nah, just another tool in a toolbox.
Okay, I have had some time to think on this issue since UE was released, and to be honest, I don't see how in the world the brawling special armor property was priced at only +1.
Here is the likely answer.
It's a quiet item patch to boost non-monk unarmed fighters. It's likely deliberately underpriced in order to help such characters out without doing any retconning or rewriting to fundamental unarmed combat rules.
In this regard it is similar to, say, furious weapons, gloves of dueling, horns of valhalla, and all sorts of other under or over priced items. Magic item prices are all over the map and only sometimes follow any rhyme or reason. You might as well complain about this particular one as about a hundred others.
Any other questions?
@ slim yes and thank you now I hide from this thread this place is scary lol
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you think fighters should be better at unarmed combat than a monk?Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.I'm not really sure I get the issue. Do you think Monks should be better fighters than the Fighter? That doesn't make sense to me.Yes. I think the Fighter should be better at their chosen form of fighting than any other character.
I'm not saying monks are great and don't need help--I'm just saying that Fighters fight and that's it, so they should be the best. And this item doesn't actually do anything to hurt monks, all it does is (slightly) help Unarmed Fighters--and they kind of need help. Even though they're better than the Monk at fighting unarmed, they're weaker than many other Fighter options.
This. Fighters should be good at fighting of all kinds. In the style they specialize in, no other class should compete in terms of fighting.
I like the monk, don't get me wrong. But even if the specialize in unarmed fighting, a fighter who specs in it should be better?
Why? Because its all the fighter does. He doesn't do kind tricks, he doesn't cast spells, he doesn't stab people in vulnerable spots, he doesn't rage, and he doesn't have pets and hate certain critters more than others. He just fights.Not sure why people have an issue with that.
Yes, some other classes can do unarmed fighting to, but they do it differently than a monk. From the time a monk style character hit end, way way back when the rules came in boxes, and again in adnd, they have never been a replacement fighter. Quit trying to make them that and see about getting the uniquely monk things (ki powers, the monk granted abilities, their innate MAD) fixed.As for the op...yes, its good. Like anything else good, in some cases it can be amazing. But is it under priced? Not really. If it had a set cost of say 5000 then, then it would be undercosted. But it doesn't. So at some levels, its retarded good(in some situations) in most, nah, just another tool in a toolbox.
The fighter being the best at fighting is a myth, Kigare. I had a long post written and the internet ate it, so let me summarize. The fighter, I believe, should be the best armed generalist. He uses weapons, he uses an array of weapons, that make him better than anyone else not using their own speciality.
Paladins, however, are the undisputed best at fighting Evil creatures due to their Smite Evil.
Rangers are the best when fighting their Favored Enemies.
Barbarians, while raging, may not exceed a fighter, but are certainly as good as a fighter.
A Mounted Cavalier charging with a lance after Challenging is a force of nature no mere fighter can best.
And in that theme, I think that the monk should be the best at unarmed combat. It is what he does, he is a martial class, a fighting class, who wades into combat without weapons or armor. And when he does so, no other unarmed and unarmed character should be able to best him. With weapons? No, a fighter should be better with weapons. With unarmed strikes? That is the monk's wheelhouse. That is special ability, just like the Paladin's Smite Evil, or the Ranger's Favored Enemy, or Barbarian's Rage, or the Cavalier's Challenges.
I am very familiar with the old rules. And in those rules, the monk was king of Open-Hand Attacks (as unarmed strikes were called back in the day). Heck, he gained a bonus on weapon damage that a fighter could only dream about, as well! And because of that, his AC sucked (at low levels), his hit points were lower, and he had a lower THAC0. The Best of Dragon monk boosted the class a good bit, and made it the unquestioned second tier fighting class . . . in his chosen field.
I don't mind fighters being great weapon masters. I don't mind Paladins kicking the arse out of Evil. I don't mind Rangers being able to go to town on their Favored Enemies. But I would like to see Paizo quite stealing the monk's stuff and letting other classes be better at it than the monk itself.
MA
MA, why do you have such a problem with the basic premise of this item, other than it screwing over monks for no good reason?
An unarmed combatant with this item is still doing less damage than a weapon-using character.
Because the price is simply too low for what it does, SotS. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like it is simply far too cheap.
MA
I hate to break it too you MA, but Unarmed Strike is a weapon.
Fighters kinda rule at using weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
MA -
I think you have a valid concern. This makes the unarmed fighter a significantly more appealing combat class than a monk.
A monk still has tricks that a fighter doesn't. I think that's fair; you don't, that's okay.
However, I am certain that if you toned down your rhetoric significantly, you would do a lot better at convincing people of your viewpoint.
In other words, your substance is obscured by your style. It may benefit you to rebalance that.
The fighter being the best at fighting is a myth, Kigare. I had a long post written and the internet ate it, so let me summarize. The fighter, I believe, should be the best armed generalist. He uses weapons, he uses an array of weapons, that make him better than anyone else not using their own speciality.
Paladins, however, are the undisputed best at fighting Evil creatures due to their Smite Evil.
Rangers are the best when fighting their Favored Enemies.
Barbarians, while raging, may not exceed a fighter, but are certainly as good as a fighter.
A Mounted Cavalier charging with a lance after Challenging is a force of nature no mere fighter can best.
And in that theme, I think that the monk should be the best at unarmed combat. It is what he does, he is a martial class, a fighting class, who wades into combat without weapons or armor. And when he does so, no other unarmed and unarmed character should be able to best him. With weapons? No, a fighter should be better with weapons. With unarmed strikes? That is the monk's wheelhouse. That is special ability, just like the Paladin's Smite Evil, or the Ranger's Favored Enemy, or Barbarian's Rage, or the Cavalier's Challenges.
I am very familiar with the old rules. And in those rules, the monk was king of Open-Hand Attacks (as unarmed strikes were called back in the day). Heck, he gained a bonus on weapon damage that a fighter could only dream about, as well! And because of that, his AC sucked (at low levels), his hit points were lower, and he had a lower THAC0. The Best of Dragon monk boosted the class a good bit, and made it the unquestioned second tier fighting class . . . in his chosen field.
I don't mind fighters being great weapon masters. I don't mind Paladins kicking the arse out of Evil. I don't mind Rangers being able to go to town on their Favored Enemies. But I would like to see Paizo quite stealing the monk's stuff and letting other classes be better at it than the monk itself.
MA
Its funny, I mentioned most of the core examples that you mentioned. Yes, a paladin smites better than the fighter, the barb rages, the cavalier charges, rangers vs favored enemies, all those are using a class ability in their niche area (vs evil, while raging, while challenging etc) to outdo the fighter in that niche.
Your desire is that the fighter take a backseat, all the time, to a monk in unarmed combat. Not in specific situations, all the time. If am misunderstanding, please, say so, I really hate it when I misunderstand. But if the monk wants to do that, maybe they should have to give up stuff? Say, Ki pool and its related abilities? How about that stunning fist thing, thats not raw damage related, mmm, oh, how about some of those skill points to while we are at it?
And all of a sudden, the monk looks less like a monk and more like a fighter.
I'm all for boosting the monk. But for the whole time I have been playing (27 years now, almost 28) monks have never been only about unarmed combat. They have always been the cool mystic masters who fought unarmed and did crazy shennanigans no one else could (hey, they had evasion before it was called evasion) and weren't just reflavored fighters. I agree with you, monks fail to live up to that right now, but the DPR isn't what makes it fall flat, its their other class abilities (manuevers, Stunning Fist, Ki abilities and so on) which is what makes it fall flat.
My 2 cents. Just an opinion, its mine, so I like ti obviously, but if you disagree, cool. =) We are all entitles to our opinions, as long as we don't ignore the facts (and yes, I see what about the monk needs boosted to bring up to par as an opinion issue)
PS: There are some who will no doubt consider this post 'fighty'. I do not. I am speaking here from the heart and expressing my own viewpoint. And I would like to hear an answer to the questions I have posed and the points I have raised. I am not trying to provoke a fight, just to understand where the game is going.
If Unarmed Strike is a weapon, then why without Improved Unarmed Strike are you considered unarmed?
THe Monk might have some tricks, but the tricks seem counter intuitive to the Monk's base, which is to to fight Unarmed.
Back on topic, yes. The Brawling property does seem a little underpriced, thought that has nothing to do with Monks.
MA, why do you have such a problem with the basic premise of this item, other than it screwing over monks for no good reason?
An unarmed combatant with this item is still doing less damage than a weapon-using character.
Because the price is simply too low for what it does, SotS. Maybe I am wrong, but I feel like it is simply far too cheap.
MA
It's called a patch. Unarmed strike sucked, so they tried to fix it. That's all there is to it.
Only problem is that they forgot (I hope it was just forgetfulness) monks can't use it.
If Unarmed Strike is a weapon, then why without Improved Unarmed Strike are you considered unarmed?
THe Monk might have some tricks, but the tricks seem counter intuitive to the Monk's base, which is to to fight Unarmed.
Back on topic, yes. The Brawling property does seem a little underpriced, thought that has nothing to do with Monks.
Unarmed Strike IS a weapon. Look it up.
Monk's don't have to fight unarmed. They are focused on fighting with Flurry of Blows. (Which in my opinion works best with a weapon and unarmed strike.)
PS: There are some who will no doubt consider this post 'fighty'. I do not. I am speaking here from the heart and expressing my own viewpoint. And I would like to hear an answer to the questions I have posed and the points I have raised. I am not trying to provoke a fight, just to understand where the game is going.
My apologies, Ross. I will try and watch that in the future.
MA
The fighter being the best at fighting is a myth, Kigare. I had a long post written and the internet ate it, so let me summarize. The fighter, I believe, should be the best armed generalist. He uses weapons, he uses an array of weapons, that make him better than anyone else not using their own speciality.
Paladins, however, are the undisputed best at fighting Evil creatures due to their Smite Evil.
Rangers are the best when fighting their Favored Enemies.
Barbarians, while raging, may not exceed a fighter, but are certainly as good as a fighter.
A Mounted Cavalier charging with a lance after Challenging is a force of nature no mere fighter can best.
And in that theme, I think that the monk should be the best at unarmed combat. It is what he does, he is a martial class, a fighting class, who wades into combat without weapons or armor. And when he does so, no other unarmed and unarmed character should be able to best him. With weapons? No, a fighter should be better with weapons. With unarmed strikes? That is the monk's wheelhouse. That is special ability, just like the Paladin's Smite Evil, or the Ranger's Favored Enemy, or Barbarian's Rage, or the Cavalier's Challenges.
I am very familiar with the old rules. And in those rules, the monk was king of Open-Hand Attacks (as unarmed strikes were called back in the day). Heck, he gained a bonus on weapon damage that a fighter could only dream about, as well! And because of that, his AC sucked (at low levels), his hit points were lower, and he had a lower THAC0. The Best of Dragon monk boosted the class a good bit, and made it the unquestioned second tier fighting class . . . in his chosen field.
I don't mind fighters being great weapon masters. I don't mind Paladins kicking the arse out of Evil. I don't mind Rangers being able to go to town on their Favored Enemies. But I would like to see Paizo quite stealing the monk's stuff and letting other classes be better at it than the monk itself.
MA
Its funny, I mentioned most of the core examples that you mentioned. Yes, a paladin smites better than the fighter, the barb rages, the cavalier charges, rangers vs favored enemies, all those are using a class ability in their niche area (vs evil, while raging, while challenging etc) to outdo the fighter in that niche.
Your desire is that the fighter take a backseat, all the time, to a monk in unarmed combat. Not in specific situations, all the time. If am misunderstanding, please, say so, I really hate it when I misunderstand. But if the monk wants to do that, maybe they should have to give up stuff? Say, Ki pool and its related abilities? How about that stunning fist thing, thats not raw damage related, mmm, oh, how about some of those skill points to while we are at it?
And all of a sudden, the monk looks less like a monk and more like a fighter.
I'm all for boosting the monk. But for the whole time I have been playing (27 years now, almost 28) monks have never been only about unarmed combat. They have always been the cool mystic masters who fought unarmed and did crazy shennanigans no one else could (hey, they had evasion before it was called evasion) and weren't just reflavored fighters. I agree with you, monks fail to live up to that right now, but the DPR isn't what makes it fall flat, its their other class abilities (manuevers, Stunning Fist, Ki abilities and so on) which is what makes it fall flat.
My 2 cents. Just an opinion, its mine, so I like ti obviously, but if you disagree, cool. =) We are all entitles to our opinions, as long as we don't ignore the facts (and yes, I see what about the monk needs boosted to bring up to par as an opinion issue)
If a Monk and a Fighter both pick up a weapon(s), then the Fighter is superior every single time.
If a Monk and a Fighter put down the weapon(s), then the Monk should be superior.Monks don't have to fight unarmed. Most choose to because that's their one strength they have over other classes. Or rather, it's supposed to be.
Neo2151 you're forgetting something important.
Unarmed Strikes....they are weapons.
P.S. I heard Fighters are good with weapons.
Hum, it seems like a nice armor property for a Ironskin Monk.
** spoiler omitted **
Hasn't been cleared up, but I am a pessimist this week. I fully expect that they will 'clarify' that flurry is TWF. And that unarmed strikes are 'multiple weapons' that you can TWF with.
Still don't think either of those is how is should be, but probably that is how it will eventually come down.
MA
I like how a few people have hit the FAQ button on this, as if it's a rules question.
Perhaps it does need the FAQ though i'm not quite sold on it bypassing damage reduction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You guys all seem to be concentrating on what it provides, not its restrictions. And then you seek to "solve" the issue of its "under-pricedness" by lifting those restrictions.
Do you not see the paradox in that?
If the only solution to making it as pricey as its power suggests is to lift its restrictions, then it is not under-priced.
Thing is, the value/price of a magic item is not just determined by what it provides, but to who, where and when. You have to factor those in, too. As is, you all are contradicting yourselves.
** spoiler omitted **Hasn't been cleared up, but I am a pessimist this week. I fully expect that they will 'clarify' that flurry is TWF. And that unarmed strikes are 'multiple weapons' that you can TWF with.
Still don't think either of those is how is should be, but probably that is how it will eventually come down.
MA
Hey if Unarmed Strikes aren't multiple weapons. Then why would you say:
Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
By 20th level, he is doing 1d3+7 damage before Strength, magic, or feats. He will probably have weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization (+4), amulet of mighty fists +5 (+5), and mithral +5 brawling breastplate (+2) for 1d3+18 before Strength. He only needs a 13 Dex (and a belt of physical might Str/Dex +6) to qualify for ALL of the two-weapon fighting feats, including Double Slice and Two Weapon Rend, so his strength is probably up somewhere around 30 (+10), so he is looking at 1d3+28 per hit, of which he can get seven. And if two of those hit, his Double Weapon Rend triggers, adding even more damage. And his critical hits are probably going to be 19-20/x3, auto-confirm. That doesn't include Power Attack, by the way, which adds another +12 to his primary hand and +6 to his off-hand.
Seems like your example for why a Fighter is awesome with unarmed strikes involves TWF. How can that be?
You guys all seem to be concentrating on what it provides, not its restrictions. And then you seek to "solve" the issue of its "under-pricedness" by lifting those restrictions.
Do you not see the paradox in that?
If the only solution to making it as pricey as its power suggests is to lift its restrictions, then it is not under-priced.
Thing is, the value/price of a magic item is not just determined by what it provides, but to who, where and when. You have to factor those in, too. As is, you all are contradicting yourselves.
Say, what? I haven't suggested anything of a 'solution', but I do think the item is far under-priced for what it delivers. Others had said let it be used on bracers of armor, but that doesn't address the basic issue that this property gives too much for its cost.
Now, on those restrictions: name me a single other armor property that is restricted to light armor only. Any? I don't know of any. So right away, that raises questions about what the developers were doing. If you can enchant full-plate mail to be silent, or stealthy, then why can't you do so with this property?
I am not seeking to lift any restrictions, Bruunwald, I asking how they came up with the price on this. How? It is far too good for the price it carries. And yes, that is true of other items in UE as well (such as those bracers of the falcon).
MA
** spoiler omitted **Hasn't been cleared up, but I am a pessimist this week. I fully expect that they will 'clarify' that flurry is TWF. And that unarmed strikes are 'multiple weapons' that you can TWF with.
Still don't think either of those is how is should be, but probably that is how it will eventually come down.
MA
Hey if Unarmed Strikes aren't multiple weapons. Then why would you say:
Seems like your example for why a Fighter is awesome with unarmed strikes involves TWF. How can that be?Okay, what about the Brawler Archetype? Gets better weapons training than the pure fighter (+1 to hit/+3 to damage, +1 every 4 levels to max of +5/+7), keeps all armor proficiencies, and can still select fighter feats.
By 20th level, he is doing 1d3+7 damage before Strength, magic, or feats. He will probably have weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization (+4), amulet of mighty fists +5 (+5), and mithral +5 brawling breastplate (+2) for 1d3+18 before Strength. He only needs a 13 Dex (and a belt of physical might Str/Dex +6) to qualify for ALL of the two-weapon fighting feats, including Double Slice and Two Weapon Rend, so his strength is probably up somewhere around 30 (+10), so he is looking at 1d3+28 per hit, of which he can get seven. And if two of those hit, his Double Weapon Rend triggers, adding even more damage. And his critical hits are probably going to be 19-20/x3, auto-confirm. That doesn't include Power Attack, by the way, which adds another +12 to his primary hand and +6 to his off-hand.
Because while I don't think it should work that way, the developers apparently do. They intended for flurry to be TWF (Jason and Sean both said that, but it has since been put aside); folks have argued me until they are blue in the face that RAW supports you can TWF with unarmed strikes only even if you are not a monk.
I'm not going to argue with it; if that is consensus, so be it. If that is what the developers want, then so be it. And since it appears to be RAW and RAI, I will use in it builds for these boards. In my own game? No. Unarmed strikes are a single weapon, and flurry ain't TWF.
That is how that can be.
MA
I consider myself a fan of the monk so when I first heard about this ability, I was upset. But after the inital release of UE and I vented, the brawling property doesn't bother me so much.
Don't get me wrong, it is much too cheap for what it gives when AoMF, which is not supposed to be made obsolete, costs so much more. Imo, it's definitely made AoMF obsolete at lower levels and even at higher levels, when buying mithral medium armor isn't so hard, thanks to the fact it's untyped and can stack with anything else like AoMF. But at the end of the day, it seems like it was a simple mistype or poor decision to place it as a +1 trait.
I definitely don't think it's something to attack the Developers over though. We can all come up with home-brew solutions, or play perfectly useable archetypes like the Martial Artist, till the day Pathfinder 2.0 comes rolling down the pipes when they should at least address some of the issues with the base class.
So would an easy fix be to bump it up to a +2?
Hmm. Brain on a Jar, you didn't answer my question. Let me ask another way. If Unarmed Strikes are weapons, can I make them masterwork or enchant them?
|
Of course, there are problems with Monks. They should be able to *hit* more often while not outdamaging Fighters at the same time (more to hit, less to damage), the disconnect between turbo mobility and being required to stand still to fight efficiently could do a fix, and perhaps all those silly abilities like tongue of soon and moon should be swap-able for something else, Qinggong Style. If they're supposed to be the most mobile class in the game, enhance that.
There, that's my obsession with Monks. Yes, Gorbacz is fully aware of *actual* Monk issues. But "Monks aren't the best melee class in the game" is not one of them.