|
If other classes want to make an unarmed warrior that is viable, great.
The issue is that the monk can't, which is a problem because that is what they are designed to do.
An unarmed fighter than can out hit a monk doesn't offend my sensabilities if that fighter dedicates completely to being an unarmed fighter.
What offends my sensibilities is the unarmed monk not being able to hit on part with a Bard.
why then you cant take improvend natural attack (unarmed strike)?I think we're wandering too far away from the main point: The Bodywraps are a bad item.
It's insulting to suggest that one class must be penalized on their gear's pricing because they just happen to be designed a certain way.*snip*
What I want to know is why the developers insist that, "if an item enhances an unarmed strike, it should enhance a natural attack too." WHY? Why does a Monk have to be penalized just because an octopus/dragon/whatever has lots of natural attacks?
Well, that one is rather simple. Because unarmed strikes are natural attacks. People may not like that fact, but trying to pretend like it isn't true is ignoring that you are, in fact, attacking with a natural part of your body. That part just is what it is.
In 3.5 you could. Other than the ridiculous amount of rolled damage you get when enlarged, I honestly can't say.
I have yet to see an argument on that feat and monks that holds water outside of potential high level shenanigans, and at that point, it is a high level game, when 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells start coming into play...yeah, is a few extra dpr from the monk breaking anything?
So really, this is all Evil Lincoln and Zark's fault. EL spawned the idea, Zark got the idea of iteratives in the devs' minds :P
While I am happy to accept responsibility for sewing so much discord in the world of monk threads, they didn't exactly implement my suggestion. That's okay with me though.
*I* wanted an item that would enhance only a specific limb, a limbwrap, that you would actually have to buy for each arm and leg if you wanted to use all those limbs. I suppose it would have costed the same as enchanting a weapon of the same enhancement bonus, putting the cost on-par with TWF, actually worse *if* you want more attack limbs. I don't care about the price at all, because I think it would be easy (and tempting) to equip any number of NPC monsters with such a thing, so long as it worked with natural attacks. The slot would be hand or foot, so it wouldn't work with gloves or boots.
(EDIT: Because of starbuck's post below... Yes, you COULD disarm or sunder the limbwraps as I envision them.)
But I think about this whole situation as "how would I GM my way out of this if there was a monk PC?" Some people call that bad game design, even a rhetorical "fallacy". However, this works for me. My monk player isn't going to throw a fit at the cost of enchanting each limb — he'll use the limbs he has wraps for, and wait until he can murder another monster with a limbwrap and take it. And I will give them to monsters to make them bad-ass and worth the reward.
But — if I may politely sidestep Ross's request upthread — I must repeat myself: nobody should be fixing (or waiting for a fix to) the monk with a piece of gear in a splatbook. If it is really in need of a fix, the change needs to be in the core rules, or else you are dooming legions of beginners to frustration. That's not a good policy.
Immune to disarm - What GMs ever use disarm on players? Taking away a player's weapon is practically guaranteeing they die (one look through the Beastiary is proof enough of that).
I've used grease as it bypasses Disarm immunity/high CMD.
Grease will remove a locked guantlet as it isn't a true disarm.
But — if I may politely sidestep Ross's request upthread — I must repeat myself: nobody should be fixing (or waiting for a fix to) the monk with a piece of gear in a splatbook. If it is really in need of a fix, the change needs to be in the core rules, or else you are dooming legions of beginners to frustration. That's not a good policy.
Agreed. We are still waiting on the clarifications Jason said would be coming, but we do not even have a time-frame in which to expect them, except 'we will be working on it'. Have they even started yet? I know they hadn't prior to GenCon.
MA
I don't think we'll get the fix until after the Mythic Rules release. I'm pretty sure I saw that mentioned somewhere, or I just inferred it.
Or maybe people are starting to share his opinions because they are realising that he's right?Or that he has a point.
Calling it right from the get-go is what the nay-sayers would call a lie.
I stand corrected!
I'm still baffled by the fact that the Brawler Fighter is proficient with more Monk weapons than the Monk itself as a class.
You and me both. I hope they fix this, the monk has enough feat-taxes to pay without having to take more just for a few mediocre weapons an unarmed specialist fighter gets for free.
But — if I may politely sidestep Ross's request upthread — I must repeat myself: nobody should be fixing (or waiting for a fix to) the monk with a piece of gear in a splatbook. If it is really in need of a fix, the change needs to be in the core rules, or else you are dooming legions of beginners to frustration. That's not a good policy.Agreed. We are still waiting on the clarifications Jason said would be coming, but we do not even have a time-frame in which to expect them, except 'we will be working on it'. Have they even started yet? I know they hadn't prior to GenCon.
MA
Well, with Mythic being fixed up so we can play test it, and all the other projects to do...
I would kind of think sticking my head into an issue like the monk that is so polarized is not really hi on the "OH yeah, let's get on it" list. I mean...whatever they do there's gonna be very vocal group complaining about to much/little or "this didn't get fixed" or "why didn't you alter x ability"?
Just saying, from my perspective, between home brew stuff and a polarized community...I'd find other projects, just for my own sanity(tenuous as it is most days)
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that one is rather simple. Because unarmed strikes are natural attacks. People may not like that fact, but trying to pretend like it isn't true is ignoring that you are, in fact, attacking with a natural part of your body. That part just is what it is.
No. No it is not. If it were a natural attack, it would not get iteratives--and, in fact, every attack that could be made with it would be made at the same attack bonus. Not to mention flurry explicitly cannot be used with natural attacks, barring a special feat. Now what is the flavorful distinction between a slam attack and an unarmed strike? I don't know, but mechanically they are so different that their relation cannot be used to justify that they must always be enhanced together.
For that matter, even if you were to accept that they were the same, I doubt anyone would bat an eye at an item that enhanced claws alone; why then should an item that enhances unarmed strike alone be any odder?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
MA, thanks for linking back to the Paizo Blog in which people discussed what they'd like in Ultimate Equipment. What I took away from SKR's methodology was:
"What do you guys want? What...a wrap that affects only ONE strike? Uh, okay...we'll do it, but it may not make you happy."
With many people in the chorus going "No, no!" and one dude suggesting a bodywrap rather than a handwrap to prevent natural strikes from coming into play, or something, and various desires to fix AoMF, which were turned down due to the fact that AoMF can be purchased without a +1, can't be disarmed, and some other stuff that I just skimmed.
Where to go from here? It seems to me that here's what's going on:
-Paizo is listening and taking suggestions from the audience
-As it happens, taking suggestions leads to inconsistency of vision (it's not all internal Paizo ideas), as SKR has said elsewhere that monk fixes shouldn't come from equipment, but it furthers democracy and buy-in
-Mechanical problems result, as various rule mechanic experts point out.
I think that we should accept points 2 and 3 as part of the messiness of Paizo listening, and praise them for point 1. If we are frustrated about the Bodywraps item, just remember that they are frustrated as well: people asked for it, SKR warned that it wouldn't quite work the way people wanted, they took the time to build it, and now people don't like it. How could praise be presented in a thread? You could start out by acknowledging their work instead of immediately saying something is useless or weak.
On a somewhat related topic, try searching monk complaint threads from 2008 or so. The points are the same, and I found one that linked back to a monk complaint thread from 2002 for 3.0. These problems are ancient. I sincerely doubt other companies care as much about players' opinions as Paizo does, so we should be cognizant and respectful of that during the messy, iterative, clunky process of making the monk work.
Well, that one is rather simple. Because unarmed strikes are natural attacks. People may not like that fact, but trying to pretend like it isn't true is ignoring that you are, in fact, attacking with a natural part of your body. That part just is what it is.No. No it is not. If it were a natural attack, it would not get iteratives--and, in fact, every attack that could be made with it would be made at the same attack bonus. Not to mention flurry explicitly cannot be used with natural attacks, barring a special feat. Now what is the flavorful distinction between a slam attack and an unarmed strike? I don't know, but mechanically they are so different that their relation cannot be used to justify that they must always be enhanced together.
For that matter, even if you were to accept that they were the same, I doubt anyone would bat an eye at an item that enhanced claws alone; why then should an item that enhances unarmed strike alone be any odder?
Except that a monks unarmed strike says its both a natural and manufactured weapon. So, yes, yes it is in that case.
Yes, an item could be made that just solely affects one type of natural attack/unarmed attack/whatever attack, but does that actually fix any issues, or just add to bloat? Personally, I'd say it just adds to bloat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we are frustrated about the Bodywraps item, just remember that they are frustrated as well: people asked for it, SKR warned that it wouldn't quite work the way people wanted, they took the time to build it, and now people don't like it.
Er, no. People asked for it, were told they wouldn't get it, and didn't. Whatever the hell body wraps are, they are not the solution that was asked for - saying they are is like saying giving someone a lemon when they asked for an orange, and shrugging and saying "you asked for fruit". Other suggestions were made that were a lot more workable and actually useful than this and would still not eclipse the AoMF.
If we are frustrated about the Bodywraps item, just remember that they are frustrated as well: people asked for it, SKR warned that it wouldn't quite work the way people wanted, they took the time to build it, and now people don't like it.Er, no. People asked for it, were told they wouldn't get it, and didn't. Whatever the hell body wraps are, they are not the solution that was asked for - saying they are is like saying giving someone a lemon when they asked for an orange, and shrugging and saying "you asked for fruit". Other suggestions were made that were a lot more workable and actually useful than this and would still not eclipse the AoMF.
I may have missed that. Can you point to the better suggestions made?
...and would anything that doesn't eclipse the AoMF be a viable solution, since there is a group of people who considers the AoMF itself to be flawed?
Design Manager
|
If we are frustrated about the Bodywraps item, just remember that they are frustrated as well: people asked for it, SKR warned that it wouldn't quite work the way people wanted, they took the time to build it, and now people don't like it.Er, no. People asked for it, were told they wouldn't get it, and didn't. Whatever the hell body wraps are, they are not the solution that was asked for - saying they are is like saying giving someone a lemon when they asked for an orange, and shrugging and saying "you asked for fruit". Other suggestions were made that were a lot more workable and actually useful than this and would still not eclipse the AoMF.I may have missed that. Can you point to the better suggestions made?
...and would anything that doesn't eclipse the AoMF be a viable solution, since there is a group of people who considers the AoMF itself to be flawed?
People had suggested ki-based items to improve the monks accuracy using hand, foot, or ring slots, or making ki powers more versatile to include options that actually give the monk a chance to hit just off the top of my head. The exact same item as a handwrap and priced like any other magic weapon was another...
|
Design Manager
|
Also, the AoMF is flawed. Like most monk items, it's better for numerous other classes than it is for the monk (druid, ranger and summoner for example). The devs don't want to make it obsolete though, and don't want to introduce an item that will augment a potentially unlimited number of natural attacks that's any more affordable. It's why I advocate tying any magic items meant to enhance the monk into his ki pool, so you have some basic limitations that aren't as arbitrary and nonsensical as the bodywraps.
Also, the AoMF is flawed. Like most monk items, it's better for numerous other classes than it is for the monk (druid, ranger and summoner for example). The devs don't want to make it obsolete though, and don't want to introduce an item that will augment a potentially unlimited number of natural attacks that's any more affordable. It's why I advocate tying any magic items meant to enhance the monk into his ki pool, so you have some basic limitations that aren't as arbitrary and nonsensical as the bodywraps.
Two things...
One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
And two, it isn't a monk item specifically, no item is restricted solely to one class. Heck, you even mentioned another CRB class that gets lots of mileage from it. Classes don't exist in a vacuum, so barring an item saying "Only x class can use this item" any class/prestige class that meets the usage requirements can use an item.
Ki-based stuff is cool--especially if (here's hoping) combined with a bigger ki pool, period. Ah, you mean the suggestion about a handwrap that had charges based on ki, or something like that? True, and fair enough.
I share your view that AoMF will not be removed nor altered by the devs. They have made their opinion clear on that point. There are other useless items out there (usually situational stuff)...the issue is that this is one that monk players depend on, with no alternative.
I may have missed that. Can you point to the better suggestions made?
...and would anything that doesn't eclipse the AoMF be a viable solution, since there is a group of people who considers the AoMF itself to be flawed?
Can't find the thread (it was one of many monk threads), but there have been many. I suggested a ring that gave any light weapon, natural weapon or unarmed strike an enhancement bonus to hit only (not to damage) that could stack with properties from the AoMF. Cost was the same as the bodywraps but capped at +5 with no properties.
Difference between that and the bodywraps is that bodywraps give you full enhancement for half the attacks, the ring gave you half the benefit of enhancement for all attacks. Much simpler and more elegant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
Agreed. I think this is an important distinction that should be remembered.
And two, it isn't a monk item specifically, no item is restricted solely to one class. Heck, you even mentioned another CRB class that gets lots of mileage from it. Classes don't exist in a vacuum, so barring an item saying "Only x class can use this item" any class/prestige class that meets the usage requirements can use an item.
Bolded emphasis mine. The Devs have outright stated that the AoMF is a Monk-intended item.
|
Design Manager
|
Also, the AoMF is flawed. Like most monk items, it's better for numerous other classes than it is for the monk (druid, ranger and summoner for example). The devs don't want to make it obsolete though, and don't want to introduce an item that will augment a potentially unlimited number of natural attacks that's any more affordable. It's why I advocate tying any magic items meant to enhance the monk into his ki pool, so you have some basic limitations that aren't as arbitrary and nonsensical as the bodywraps.Two things...
One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
And two, it isn't a monk item specifically, no item is restricted solely to one class. Heck, you even mentioned another CRB class that gets lots of mileage from it. Classes don't exist in a vacuum, so barring an item saying "Only x class can use this item" any class/prestige class that meets the usage requirements can use an item.
I say it is flawed, not in and of itself, but because the devs have specifically made multiple statements to the effect that the AoMF is how monks are intended to enhance their Unarmed Strikes, and it just doesn't scale well for that purpose. It's why they removed the text that allowed brass knuckles to be used with a monk's unarmed strike damage, because they will not allow an item in the game that makes the AoMF obsolete. Monk's, meanwhile, pay substantially more than other classes (even Two Weapon Fighters) and sacrifice an important neck slot. It is flawed as a solution for the monks to enhance their Unarmed Strikes. By itself, it's great for wildshaping druids, animal companions, and natural attack users, but they're not actually who the item was originally intended for, per the developers.
They could just change the name to Amulet of Monkly Fists and not let anyone else use it.
I say it is flawed, not in and of itself, but because the devs have specifically made multiple statements to the effect that the AoMF is how monks are intended to enhance their Unarmed Strikes, and it just doesn't scale well for that purpose. It's why they removed the text that allowed brass knuckles to be used with a monk's unarmed strike damage, because they will not allow an item in the game that makes the AoMF obsolete. Monk's, meanwhile, pay substantially more than other classes (even Two Weapon Fighters) and sacrifice an important neck slot. It is flawed as a solution for the monks to enhance their Unarmed Strikes. By itself, it's great for wildshaping druids, animal companions, and natural attack users, but they're not actually who the item was originally intended for, per the developers.Also, the AoMF is flawed. Like most monk items, it's better for numerous other classes than it is for the monk (druid, ranger and summoner for example). The devs don't want to make it obsolete though, and don't want to introduce an item that will augment a potentially unlimited number of natural attacks that's any more affordable. It's why I advocate tying any magic items meant to enhance the monk into his ki pool, so you have some basic limitations that aren't as arbitrary and nonsensical as the bodywraps.Two things...
One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
And two, it isn't a monk item specifically, no item is restricted solely to one class. Heck, you even mentioned another CRB class that gets lots of mileage from it. Classes don't exist in a vacuum, so barring an item saying "Only x class can use this item" any class/prestige class that meets the usage requirements can use an item.
OK, so, you basically said exactly what I did, you just would prefer to deflect the fault onto the item. If it helps you sleep, that's fine, but it is the actual interaction and synergy between class and item that is the issue. If it works for all the other potential users but not well enough for the one, the problem is with the one, not the item.
And yes, intended for monks. Not specifically for monks. Two different things. Yes, I know, grammar picky, but with a language as imprecise as English, it pays to be specific. In this case, yes, its primary function is supposed to be for monks, but other classes can benefit as well. So, while folks might not be happy with it, whatever solution comes about needs to be inherent to the monk class, otherwise you fix nothing in the long run about class disparity.
|
Design Manager
|
You're alos faced with the issue that since the developers intended that the AoMF be for the monk, they're loathe to create a monk item that would make the AoMF obsolete for monks. That is an issue. If the item were the Amulet of Mighty Claws, Fangs, Talons, and Various Other Appendages, it wouldn't be the sacred cow it is and so untouchable. I honestly never even considered it a monk item until the devs came out and said "This item is specifically what we put in place for monks to enhance their unarmed strikes and we won't put any other official content in the game that makes this item obsolete". I thought it was a wonderful toy for animal companions.
So no, I didn't say exactly what you said. An item that doesn't accomplish it's intended purpose is... wait for it... flawed. It doesn't matter that it's great for a variety of unintended consequences. And I personally don't think it's even that bad as is. The majority of people I see using it (druids, rangers, summoners) will continue to do so, even if more appropriate items are released for the monk. None of that changes the fact that the AoMF is an issue. It also creates the roadblock of preventing a good item being implemented because of its nature. If they did release an item like "Handwraps of Ki Striking" or something similar that enhanced the monk's unarmed strike, the dps monk would suddenly fly through the roof on damage because there's nothing stopping him from slapping on his +5 Speed Flaming Handwraps, and then throwing on a Holy Bane Shock Frost Corrosive AoMF that'll stack on all his attacks.
So, you've got an item that is ineffective at it's intended purpose, and directly interposes itself between a more effective solution.
None of which changes the basic need for re-tooling of the monk itself, but that particular project is incredibly difficult since the core monk is what pages and pages of feats, archetypes, and yes, even gear, are balanced to.
OK, lemme put it this way. You have a cart(magic items) and a horse ( the base class). In order to get your goods to market, which comes first? The horse or the cart?
You fix the class first. Then you look at itemization. Otherwise you get a band aid magic item fix and the class never get fixed because any fix seems overpowered.
The core monk is easier to fix than you think. Go hit up the home brew forum, there's a ton of suggestions, variations, tweaks and alternates.
It isn't so much difficult as it is (apparently) not a high priority.
Oh, if they go with something less drastic than a complete rework of the class, and instead go with slight boosts and reworking a few abilities, I could see it being a CRB fix.
The devs have already said that any fix will be a small tweak that does not break the word-count in the CRB. This is doable, but what matters is the RIGHT fix.
So devs, if you are reading this, don't give us some half-broken compromise that doesn't work as intended - the monk already has enough of those. No "spend X ki per round to the exclusion of all else and for half the encounters per day you can be almost as good as a real PC class" 'solution' that will only create more moans and groans. No "Taking away X to give Y because otherwise it's not balanced" either, the monk is underpowered, you won't fix that by adding and taking away, you fix that by adding, period. Oh, and no powering up every other class to be better than the monk at what the monk does on the sly afterwards, either.
The core monk is easier to fix than you think. Go hit up the home brew forum, there's a ton of suggestions, variations, tweaks and alternates.
It isn't so much difficult as it is (apparently) not a high priority.
But homebrew is heresy, and should be killed with fire!! /sarcasm
It saddens me to see a lot of people who seriously think that all homebrews are unbalanced monstrosities that should never be allowed.
The core monk is easier to fix than you think. Go hit up the home brew forum, there's a ton of suggestions, variations, tweaks and alternates.
It isn't so much difficult as it is (apparently) not a high priority.
But homebrew is heresy, and should be killed with fire!! /sarcasm
It saddens me to see a lot of people who seriously think that any homebrew is an unbalanced monstrosity that should never be allowed.
This attitude has always completely baffled me because isn't one of the cornerstones of DMing being able to tell when RAW is contradictory or just plain stupid and being able to adjust accordingly?
Unless you are doing PFS of course, but that is kind of just a stopgap for when you have no actual gaming group.
The core monk is easier to fix than you think. Go hit up the home brew forum, there's a ton of suggestions, variations, tweaks and alternates.
It isn't so much difficult as it is (apparently) not a high priority.
But homebrew is heresy, and should be killed with fire!! /sarcasm
It saddens me to see a lot of people who seriously think that any homebrew is an unbalanced monstrosity that should never be allowed.
This attitude has always completely baffled me because isn't one of the cornerstones of DMing being able to tell when RAW is contradictory or just plain stupid and being able to adjust accordingly?
Unless you are doing PFS of course, but that is kind of just a stopgap for when you have no actual gaming group.
I have no interest whatsoever in PFS, so yeah.
And trust me, I find the issue baffling at first, saddening a bit later, and finally a bit infuriating.
It all comes down to me going on a rant about how stupid people are, fearing the unknown even in a few darn rules.
Exactly, if this whole monk-related clusterf*@+ teaches people anything, the take home lesson should be that the developers are far from infallible and that interpretation or even (god forbid) adjustment are necessary to make something as complex as the PF rules tick smoothly.
|
|
So really, this is all Evil Lincoln and Zark's fault. EL spawned the idea, Zark got the idea of iteratives in the devs' minds :PWhile I am happy to accept responsibility for sewing so much discord in the world of monk threads, they didn't exactly implement my suggestion. That's okay with me though.
*I* wanted an item that would enhance only a specific limb, a limbwrap, that you would actually have to buy for each arm and leg if you wanted to use all those limbs. I suppose it would have costed the same as enchanting a weapon of the same enhancement bonus, putting the cost on-par with TWF, actually worse *if* you want more attack limbs. I don't care about the price at all, because I think it would be easy (and tempting) to equip any number of NPC monsters with such a thing, so long as it worked with natural attacks. The slot would be hand or foot, so it wouldn't work with gloves or boots.
(EDIT: Because of starbuck's post below... Yes, you COULD disarm or sunder the limbwraps as I envision them.)
But I think about this whole situation as "how would I GM my way out of this if there was a monk PC?" Some people call that bad game design, even a rhetorical "fallacy". However, this works for me. My monk player isn't going to throw a fit at the cost of enchanting each limb — he'll use the limbs he has wraps for, and wait until he can murder another monster with a limbwrap and take it. And I will give them to monsters to make them bad-ass and worth the reward.
But — if I may politely sidestep Ross's request upthread — I must repeat myself: nobody should be fixing (or waiting for a fix to) the monk with a piece of gear in a splatbook. If it is really in need of a fix, the change needs to be in the core rules, or else you are dooming legions of beginners to frustration. That's not a good policy.
This was a good suggestion. As usual, from Evil Lincoln. Evil Lincoln "gets it".
This is the kind of fix that could solve the problems, as opposed to the bodywraps that make the problem worse and demonstrate either a disagreement with the nature of the problem or a lack of understanding of the concerns.
Which is what cause the uproar.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we'll get the fix until after the Mythic Rules release. I'm pretty sure I saw that mentioned somewhere, or I just inferred it.
They said this before Ultimate Equipment, and the book before that, and the book before that.
This is publishing, there will aways be "something" unless it is made a priority.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Two things...One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
If the item doesn't do what it is made to do, the item is flawed regardless of the reason.
If the AoMF did what it was supposed to do, give the monk a viable way to enchant unarmed attacks that was competitive in value with other classes ability to do the same thing, it would not be flawed.
It doesn't, so it is.
Two things...One, the AoMF is not flawed, the interaction and synergy between the AoMF and monks is flawed. Big difference.
If the item doesn't do what it is made to do, the item is flawed regardless of the reason.
If the AoMF did what it was supposed to do, give the monk a viable way to enchant unarmed attacks that was competitive in value with other classes ability to do the same thing, it would not be flawed.
It doesn't, so it is.
So the problem isn't with the monk class, it is with the monks itemization. OK, let's agree to disagree on that point, k?
Oh, if they go with something less drastic than a complete rework of the class, and instead go with slight boosts and reworking a few abilities, I could see it being a CRB fix.
This just makes no sense to me. They won't invalidate the AoMF with a new item in a new book, but they'll invalidate the Monk section of all their existing Core Rule Books that have already been printed?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, if they go with something less drastic than a complete rework of the class, and instead go with slight boosts and reworking a few abilities, I could see it being a CRB fix.This just makes no sense to me. They won't invalidate the AoMF with a new item in a new book, but they'll invalidate the Monk section of all their existing Core Rule Books that have already been printed?
Yes.
MA
Here I will try to break it down by person.
Citrose wants to give a monk a better way to hit so an item fix may work.Dabbler and master arimas see more wrong with the class and want bigger changes although arimas seems to want bigger changes
Ashiel proposes a psionic fix. Also ashiel and citrose disagree almost by reflex so if both agree that something.is wrong then something is really wrong.
I'm somewhere between ashiel and citrose. I think that a small tweak based on more ki and the sohei enhancement to hit being given to all monks combined with expanded feat lists I personally favor more psionic style feats create an amulet of might fists that costs as much as comparable to 2 magic weapons as long as you posses ki.
*I respect every one of the people above and apologize if ive given offence
No offence taken. I follow the path I follow in this discussion because it's the way circumstances have guided it.
I like Ashiel's monk. It basically makes the monk a 2/3 casting class, which is awesome. The only problem with it is, it's not official and not every DM uses psionics. Without psionics, it's DOA. Hence, I don't see the need to discuss it.
Like Ciretose I think that a feat/item fix would be the easiest to implement. It's quick-and-dirty, but it would do the job with the least disruption to the CRB. Problem with a feat-fix is that it's basically a feat tax because it is essential. Who wants feat taxes? The monk has enough as it is. Item fixes have been ruled out by Paizo, and actually I cannot fault their logic on this one. The class is weak, so the class is what should be fixed. Hence, I don't waste mnuch time talking about items.
That leaves us with a monk fix, and the fix has to be in small tweaks, not complete re-writes (though I would love the latter). So we need to look at small tweaks that would fix the monk, and that's what I focus on in the various debates. There's no point discussing hypotheticals that have already been ruled out save as idea-mines.
|
|
Here I will try to break it down by person.
Citrose wants to give a monk a better way to hit so an item fix may work.Dabbler and master arimas see more wrong with the class and want bigger changes although arimas seems to want bigger changes
Ashiel proposes a psionic fix. Also ashiel and citrose disagree almost by reflex so if both agree that something.is wrong then something is really wrong.
I don't agree with the psionic fix, by the way. It completely changes the class. I would be fine with a psionic monk (I would like it a lot actually) but the core monk shouldn't be psionic anymore that the core fighter should be.
I think MA is going to far. I'm glad he's been pushing the issue forward, but at this point his position is relatively extreme to me.
I think Dabbler and I basically agree on the problem and are quibbling on the solution. I think the monk can be MAD as long as they can enhance unarmed strike, Dabbler thinks MAD needs to be addressed.
But summaries of position are always helpful, so thanks.