RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, there's a big difference between "X needs to be fixed" and "X needs to be fixed because it doesn't fit my highly custom/personalized games". The further your games are from the "default", the less likely it is that any given piece of material is going to fit seamlessly into your games. To expect things to be balanced to your highly-modified games instead of balanced for existing published material is selfish and unrealistic.
Yeah, there's a big difference between "X needs to be fixed" and "X needs to be fixed because it doesn't fit my highly custom/personalized games". The further your games are from the "default", the less likely it is that any given piece of material is going to fit seamlessly into your games. To expect things to be balanced to your highly-modified games instead of balanced for existing published material is selfish and unrealistic.
Sigh. Have I argued, anywhere here, that X and Y need to be fixed because they don't fit into my game? No. I've used the default, Paizo rules, including the supplemental rules, to show that they need to be fixed within the Core game.
But believe what you want.
MA
The Brawling property is overpowered no matter how you slice it. It would be overpowered for Monks if they could actually use it, but since Monks are underpowered to begin with it would just bring them up towards "acceptable" level... maybe. For other classes that are already useful it is too much.
Arminas, if that's what you took away from my comment, I pity you.
TOZ...+1
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Have I argued, anywhere here, that X and Y need to be fixed because they don't fit into my game?
Yes, you have. For example, you argue there are problems with the brawling property because it lets a rogue out-do a monk, except you exclude all the awesome stuff monks have been getting in supplemental books when you make the comparison. So instead of basing your claims about a non-Core item on the current version of the monk, you're basing them on the version of the monk that exists in your mostly-Core, heavily-houseruled games.
But believe what you want.
It's not overpowered for anyone, monk or not. A fighter using unarmed with this is still inferior to a weapon-using fighter on damage, especially a 2H weapon fighter.
As for "fighter should be best at fighting"...bs!
If that were true, the other martial classes have no reason to exist, because ultimately their primary purpose, all of them, is to fight. To have one class that does it better in every style and way imaginable is unbalanced.
It's also not how the game works.
Against favored enemies (or anyone he hits w/ Instant Enemy), Ranger outdamages the Fighter.
Against evil foes he smites, paladin GREATLY outdamages the fighter.
Against a foe he challenges, a Cavalier outdamages a Fighter. Later on, on mounted charges / lance charges, the Cavalier outdamages the Fighter.
Druid and Eidolon/Synthesist outdamage the Fighter with natural weapons (oh, and they have spellcasting).
If monk cannot do better than the fighter at unarmed or anything else, the monk has no reason to exist.
I sent the following email to one of my gaming buddies. Keep in mind that we've designed a tabletop PRG together. Just a slap-together based on a comment earlier in this thread:
A claim was made that you could make a better unarmed fighter out of a Ranger than a Monk. I’ve been considering it and I think it may be valid to a degree.
Cons: less damage from dice vs Monk, bad Will save, no fruity jump tricks or bonus move speed (the latter is OK if you choose to get Boots of Springing and Striding or prepare Longstrider for yourself)
Pros: d10 and full BAB, Favored Enemy or Ranger’s Focus static damage increases, Brawler armor property more reasonable (+2 untyped bonus to damage with unarmed, grapples and, I believe, +2 to hit for +1 cost on light armor), more skills, spells, possible Animal Companion, martial proficiencies if desired (read: optional longbow), no alignment restrictions.If you opt into it, you can start with just as many attacks (Human, starter feats Improved Unarmed and TWF), or you can do the more powerful Power Attack + IUS combo (Monks can’t get PA at level 1) and move into Dragon Style at level 3. Your combat style will most likely be TWF, but there’s a 1 feat inefficiency in the line-up (you need to grab Double Slice, which is built into Flurry, to get your full damage on off-hand attacks).
Difficulties: Stunning Fist either requires a 1 level dip in Monk or +8 BAB and is a pre-req for Dragon Ferocity. Suggested path is to take Ranger 1 / Monk 1 / Ranger 10 as your path, then, taking Master of Many Styles archetype to get the free Dragon Style, or Ranger 2 / Monk 1 / Ranger 9 to do the same, but utilizing your level 3 feat for Dragon Style and your Style Feat from MoMS to get Dragon Ferocity. This then shifts your initial feat priorities to TWF/PA, followed by Double Slice. Alternatively, you can choose to skip out on Dragon Ferocity, though that’s a penalty of 2-4 damage per strike.
The more I look at this, the more I think that the Monk needs to move to full BAB/d10 HP in order to effectively compete in melee. If they’re going to otherwise be out-damaged by classes that hit more often, they shouldn’t also be out-skilled and out-utilitied, as well, which is how the Ranger appears to roll.
My cursory analysis still puts Fighters (either Unarmed or Brawler) ahead of the Ranger version for combat purposes (albeit at a cost of needing higher DEX), but the non-combat versatility is definitely present on the Ranger in ways not available for Fighters.
It's not overpowered for anyone, monk or not. A fighter using unarmed with this is still inferior to a weapon-using fighter on damage, especially a 2H weapon fighter.
As for "fighter should be best at fighting"...bs!
If that were true, the other martial classes have no reason to exist, because ultimately their primary purpose, all of them, is to fight. To have one class that does it better in every style and way imaginable is unbalanced.
It's also not how the game works.
Against favored enemies (or anyone he hits w/ Instant Enemy), Ranger outdamages the Fighter.
Against evil foes he smites, paladin GREATLY outdamages the fighter.
Against a foe he challenges, a Cavalier outdamages a Fighter. Later on, on mounted charges / lance charges, the Cavalier outdamages the Fighter.
Druid and Eidolon/Synthesist outdamage the Fighter with natural weapons (oh, and they have spellcasting).
If monk cannot do better than the fighter at unarmed or anything else, the monk has no reason to exist.
The "fighter should be best at fighting" is an oversimplification. Rather, on average the fighter should be the best at fighting. Against Evil foes when using Smite, Paladin should excel. But without Smite, can/should the paladin outperform the fighter? When the ranger is out of "Instant Enemy" and is not facing his favored enemy, can/should they outperform the fighter?
I prefer the idea that most of the martial classes have their specialties. Cavaliers excel in open-field combat, paladins are meant to smite evil, rangers excel at hunting their chosen prey, etc. But in combat situation where those specialties can't be used (be it due to expendable resources, enemy types, or terrain), the fighter should be king. While the other classes will spike in combat ability when combat favors them, the fighter maintains a consistent high level. Whether or not this is true in practice, that is what I envision the martial balance should be.
I still believe that monks should not be at the same level as the full BAB martials. I would almost prefer them to be the "fighters" of the 3/4s BAB, consistently powerful, though not at full BAB martial level. Perhaps flurry is a way for them to reach the level of a paladin not using Smite. I would much rather see the non-combat monk toolset revamped to be more useful and allow them to better fit various niches. I think they still need a buff in combat, but I believe that the monk is and should be a whole lot more than their combat potential.
Also, a monk has reason to exist even if he is not top dog in unarmed combat. Believe it or not, classes (except the fighter) have abilities and uses outside of combat (granted, the monk suffers in this respect, which is why I think this should be a focus of any fix). Some people care more about flavor than doing tons of damage. Which is why my backup character in the Skull and Shackles campaign I plan in is a monk who has taken all of the monk vows (a more ill-fitting pirate you will never see). He will be pretty useless in combat (well, until he snaps and drops his vows), however I am confident he can be fun to play and useful overall.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
