|
I've been gone for a few months (been playing RuneQuest 6 and Vampire the Masquerade, and not D&D/Pathfinder), but I recently got motivated to run a Pathfinder game again, and am starting to plan the campaign out, so I'm back.
The way the monk would work was up in the air a few months back. The main devs wrote the rules to work one way, a ton of people (including many devs who made archetypes, and myself) understood it to work a different way.
Paizo said they would deal with the problem after GenCon
Is that resolved? Is it resolved without making Monks weaker?
I'm trying to decide whether I will allow monks in the game, or whether I will disallow monks like I do rogues and gunslingers, and suggest or provide my players with archetypes that accomplish what they're trying to build without having them play the classes I consider and have found to be poorly designed (We've had issues where some players got upset at the monk/rogue for not contributing.)
In case anyone is curious: For the Rogue I suggest Ranger and Bard Archetypes (I allow archetype stacking - They generally take a couple of them together to make a roguey nonmagic ranger - It's basically an alt. class). For the Monk, I'm not sure - I may have to look for 3pp Archetypes or make a couple myself to fill it, and while I don't mind having guns in the game, and Pirates and Musketeers fit in my game atmosphere, cowboys don't, and I'm still not a fan of paizo's gun mechanics - So I tend to grab them from other d20 books I have instead.
So, to sum up:
Monks: Explained? Crazy weak like the Rogue, or a little better now?
no they havent fixed it
/end thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What confusion monks have good Will saves and good wisdom?
Oh you meant flurry carry on.
|
|
Well. Actually, if the thread continued, it would include arguing, whining, and a ton of house rules to try to "fix" the monk.
I'll be the DM though. So if the issue is not resolved, that makes it simple. I shall simply tell the players: "Monk and Rogue are NPC classes, you cannot take them."
Thanks for the update on the lack of updates. Too bad though.
I'm going to go hunt for good 3pp archetypes to fill my gaming needs before I write them myself.
|
I wouldn't disallow them, but be upfront how you will run them in your game.
This 100%. If you think FOB should operate a certain way just do it that way. If you think the Amulet of Mighty Fists is over priced, reduce it or even make one show up early in the game so a PC doesn't have to purchase it.
If you're not running a PFS game you have unlimited latitude to run your game in a manner you feel is best.
I wouldn't disallow them, but be upfront how you will run them in your game.
Yeah, this.
Monk is not in the spot as rogue gamewise. The homebrew forums have quite a few alternates, fixes, alterations etc.
|
|
I wouldn't disallow them, but be upfront how you will run them in your game.
I've had player conflict in the past due to monks and rogues being substantially weaker. That would be why I'm inclined to disallow them.
It's a home game, so I can write an archetype to fill the niche if need be. I'm also now hunting for archetypes that are published as 3pp.
I've heard of DMs disallowing classes because they were too powerful. While I understand that, I also consider it worthwhile to consider disallowing classes which are too weak.
In games where PVP is strongly discouraged, and the party doesn't mind carrying the weaker players, I can sortof see it working better, but I've had PVP resulting in a player death occur more than once, and I don't believe in disallowing it. I've also had groups who would leave a non-useful PC in town (once they even went out of their way to take an NPC with them in his place). Maybe not the nicest thing to do, but I can see both perspectives.
Maybe there's some middle ground involving houserules where I'll be able to allow them instead of just saying no, and not have to worry about the power gap as much. We shall see.
|
|
Wow, do you pla with people who know how to heavily optimize any character except Rogues and Monks?
I'm not a good Min/Maxer but I can build monks a couple different ways to stay relative and contribute in most games.
Rogue, well, I'd probably build a Ninja...
I've played with heavy optimizers in the past, but usually I play with people who build reasonably effective characters (fully aware that I don't discourage PVP when it makes sense in character), and then someone comes along and builds a rogue or monk who lags substantially behind the group (more often a problem with rogues, as monks are simply less common classes), sometimes one who isn't interested in hearing he should build a more effective character (or that he made bad choices) - sometimes because he's building for concept at the expense of being useful, and the rest of the group isn't willing to "carry the freeloader" or what have you, and expect him to contribute.
Or more annoying to me, they carry him, and I get emails from 4 of the 6 players complaining about the guy's useless character.
While those problems can happen with bad builds of other classes, the Rogue and Monk are just not as good as the other classes, and much more optimizing is necessary to be competitive - which makes it a far more common occurrence with those two classes.
|
|
Sorry if this is a sign of my age or lack of forum acumen or what have you but what is PVP? Is it Player vs. Player ?
Precisely.
I don't force the players to cooperate (and I try not to control the game plot very much, so I tend to have several possible plots, and develop the ones they follow). I only tell them to be in character, basically treat the other player characters the way your character would treat an NPC in that situation.
Sometimes one character catches another stealing from the party, or collaborating with the enemy, or doing something their character objects to, and it comes to blows, and sometimes they kill eachother.
Sometimes a character doesn't help in the dungeon, and looks out for himself instead of helping the group defeat a boss, and the other players cut him out of his share, or ditch him in the next town.
Sometimes a character dies, wants the group to pay to resurrect him, and doesn't have the money to afford it or isn't willing to owe gold to another character when they speak with dead him (and the party didn't have any agreements to divide those resurrection costs evenly), so that character just stays dead.
|
|
If I was building for that specifically I may not choose Monk - although there are a few builds that could have some success in that kind of game.
There are a few builds of monk that can have success in that sort of game. The optimizer types tend to know of them. The non-optimizer types often don't.
For the Rogue? Again, it's difficult to make them keep up, but in some cases, yes it can be done.
One time we ended up with an entire party of rogues with different builds (sometimes with multiclassing). That actually makes for a decently effective party. Multiple rogues synergize well.
So when I disallow a weak build, it avoids some of these problems I've seen in the past, and puts the players on a more fair playing field if it goes to player character murder.
bbt, cmon man. It is the internets. And this is a discussion board.
Since when did calm and patient become listened to advice? =)
I agree though. It isn't worth an argument. Much like anything else in a home game, after the books get printed, houserule things to suit the group. You'll be happier and have a game more like what the group wants, and at that point, it doesn't matter how the devs decide.
|
|
I will either apply copious houserules or disallow the classes.
Lets not rehash the last 8 months of arguments yet again. We've gone through it all before. People aren't happy with the current state of the Monk, people will be even less happy with it if the few decent builds are no longer valid, there are tons of suggestions to "fix the monk", some of which may be quite good.
We can always look up the older threads for suggestions, unless someone has something genuinely new to add.
Anyways. I remember the original thread. I shall now look for alternatives to the monk and rogue for my games, in the thread I mentioned above.
[/thread].
My 2 cents(even if they aren't wanted):
If someone actually wants to play a monk or rogue, by god let them.
Several archetypes are perfectly viable and no matter how "poorly" designed a core class is; any class can be optimized to be effective at one role or another. Even monks & rogues.
Also, it comes off to me as presumptuous to me, just to make a decision like that for your players. Assuming someone knows the limitations of the class it shouldn't be an issue. If they still want to play a monk, but you said it was too weak of a class for them so they can't play it at all, it's like saying "You're not good enough to play this class and still be useful." Even with the mechanical issues they have, as long as they aren't threatening to completely steam roll your entire campaign(Synthesist is a popular candidate for this) or mess with your games flavor(Gunslingers for many) then I don't think you should take the option away.
Otherwise they might drop your game.