@Drachasor: Disagreeing and being disrespektful/a jerk isn’t the same thing. I never said they are, nor does Sean seem to say that.
I think it is fair to say that IF the Devs think that, then as far as I have seen there's been no indication of it.
Yes there are. Can't bother with finding the quotes, but Sean said something along the lines of the not wanting to fix the monk with magic items, but wanted a more thorough fix and I seem to recall that when the Monk blog post was released Jason said he was aware that there still was some issues but for now this was is it. I also seem to recall Sean or Jason talking about baby steps ( small changes at a time to be able to monitor the consequences).
I personally think that compared to the rogue the monk and fighter are rock solid. I still think the three classes need some more love, but both the monk and fighter are far more solid classes that the rogue. Then again I don’t really care for the rogue anymore. We have the ninja. Give it trap finding, rename it rogue and done.
I'm just saying that I've personally seen people conflating the two together.
And that is kind of sad, but understandable.
What is slander?
- That some people are jerks or at least behave as jerks?
- That some posters, including some people from the 'monk lobby', treat the Devs as war criminals? Calling them names; accusing them of hating this class or that class; accusing them of conspiracies; calling them: liars, ignorant, lazy, stupid and arrogant, etc.Considering how many insult the monk lobby have been guilty of in the past I suggest you show a bit more empathy and humility.
The generalized insinuation (not only against people who have problems with the Monk class) that people who criticise some of Paizo's development decisions are somehow less appreciative of the Paizo staff than fans who just shut up and put up. That some individuals could behave better is no excuse for you just making general accusations like this.
The generalized insinuation (not only against people who have problems with the Monk class) that people who criticise some of Paizo's development decisions are somehow less appreciative of the Paizo staff than fans who just shut up and put up. That some individuals could behave better is no excuse for you just making general accusations like this.What is slander?
- That some people are jerks or at least behave as jerks?
- That some posters, including some people from the 'monk lobby', treat the Devs as war criminals? Calling them names; accusing them of hating this class or that class; accusing them of conspiracies; calling them: liars, ignorant, lazy, stupid and arrogant, etc.Considering how many insult the monk lobby have been guilty of in the past I suggest you show a bit more empathy and humility.
I didn't insinuate any such thing. It was actually quite the opposite. I was actually pointing out that even if there are people that behave as if they don’t respect the devs, the majority does.
Nor did I imply that “vocal minority” equals “people that criticise some of Paizo's development decisions”. It is perfectly possible to criticize some of Paizo's development decisions without being disrespectful or rude. To be critical of something doesn’t give you a free ticket to behave any way you please. Some people apparently have a problem of grasping this.
BTW, I’ve unfortunately posted some real bad stuff myself on these messageboards so I’m not claiming to be a saint.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I recall Sean stating that the Monk is kind of a weak class. But that was months ago during the Flurry Debacle. My computer broke mid-January and only rarely checked the Forums, so I probably missed a lot of things.
@Ciretose You said that once before in one of the Monk threads, built a Monk, and compared it to other characters and your Monk was inferior in like every category other than that you were arguably more survivable I think. Your best feature, was that everyone in the party was likely to die first.
I think it was also the same thread we got into that debate about the Ghaele Azata as that was one of the creatures the builds went up against.
Yes, and after we showed with the math I was one of the loudest "Monks need a bump" people on here, and then we got one.
When you see a problem, show the math. Too often on here people shout there is a problem, but when you dig into it is more loose interpretation of the rules and poor GMing than a problem with the rules themselves.
In the case of the monk, some people (Dabbler right outfront) showed the math, opened it for testing, and then we got change.
That is how you do it.
I think it is fair to say that IF the Devs think that, then as far as I have seen there's been no indication of it.Yes there are. Can't bother with finding the quotes, but Sean said something along the lines of the not wanting to fix the monk with magic items, but wanted a more thorough fix and I seem to recall that when the Monk blog post was released Jason said he was aware that there still was some issues but for now this was is it. I also seem to recall Sean or Jason talking about baby steps ( small changes at a time to be able to monitor the consequences).
I personally think that compared to the rogue the monk and fighter are rock solid. I still think the three classes need some more love, but both the monk and fighter are far more solid classes that the rogue. Then again I don’t really care for the rogue anymore. We have the ninja. Give it trap finding, rename it rogue and done.
I certainly won't argue the point, as I haven't monitored their statements closely.
Personally, I think tweaking the monk should utilize archetypes if they want to try something out. To most it is hardly a secret that the monk has problems, so putting out some archetypes or something to address would be a way to see how potential fixes work.
Certainly all three classes need work. The biggest problem with the Rogue, as I see it, are the really crappy talents (generally), and the extreme difficulty of ignoring AoOs. Though having a full BAB wouldn't be amiss. Hmm, frankly I rather liked 4E giving everyone the same BAB progression. Moving everyone to full or 3/4 BAB might be a good idea for PF though.
Hmm, my biggest problem with the martial classes is the lack of mobility and lack of versatility. If they do make a PF 2.0, I hope they tone down casters and buff up martial characters in both respects.
As for the monk's weakness, BigNorseWolf sums it up pretty good in another thread:
- "The hate for the monk comes from the fact that its two main assets: Mobility and furry of blows, completely exclude each other. The class is all about mobility, but you... have to stand still to do any damage."I think most melee builds suffer from the lack of mobility; especially the fighter, rogue and monk. I guess the Cavalier and the Samurai share the same problem.
I recall Sean stating that the Monk is kind of a weak class. But that was months ago during the Flurry Debacle. My computer broke mid-January and only rarely checked the Forums, so I probably missed a lot of things.
@Ciretose You said that once before in one of the Monk threads, built a Monk, and compared it to other characters and your Monk was inferior in like every category other than that you were arguably more survivable I think. Your best feature, was that everyone in the party was likely to die first.
I think it was also the same thread we got into that debate about the Ghaele Azata as that was one of the creatures the builds went up against.
Yes, and after we showed with the math I was one of the loudest "Monks need a bump" people on here, and then we got one.
When you see a problem, show the math. Too often on here people shout there is a problem, but when you dig into it is more loose interpretation of the rules and poor GMing than a problem with the rules themselves.
In the case of the monk, some people (Dabbler right outfront) showed the math, opened it for testing, and then we got change.
That is how you do it.
And still some people claim "The monk suck".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some people claim a lot of things.
The math no longer matches that claim. I've actually been quite surprised how much a monk can do now when you remember haste applies.
I don't like all the changes, for flavor reasons (unarmed is now a clearly inferior option) but it is flat out wrong to say a monk can't dish out DPR.
It’s all in how you say it. I have said that I’d like to see the Fighter with 4 SkP so as to give him more out of combat utility. SKR has said that’s not on the table, but he doesn’t sneer at the idea.
I also have asked for rogues with more cool talents, and the ability to use some of their once a day talents more often, and one of the Devs replied they are working on that.
But saying “MONKS ARE TEH SUXXOR!!!!! SEAN HATES US, PAIZO IS RUN BY STUPIDHEADS!!!!” Just doesn’t help.
|
|
If you think there is a problem, the way you solve it is to say "I believe this thing should be able to this, and it can't do this. Prove me wrong."
Or
"I believe this is to powerful, show me how it isn't"
Telling the Devs they didn't think something through...do you think they just wake up in the morning and do FAQs off the top of their head?
Thanks for the update that the math no longer matches that claim
I agree that it’s a bit frustrating that most build now days seem to involve a temple swords wielded in two hand (or bow ) oppose to unarmed, but at the same time I can understand that making the unarmed option more powerful might be too powerful since an unarmed “weapon” can be sundered, disarmed, stolen, etc. The Devs is walking a fine line and I sure don’t envy them.
It’s also a bit sad that the Core monk (just like the bard) is one of the weaker options, but then you can always play a Qinggong Monk and use that one as the default monk.
BTW, Is there a monk reach weapon? That would be cool.
|
|
The thing about the DPR now is the Monk gets full BAB TWF with a single weapon AND it stacks with haste AND you can also add a Ki point, meaning you have a one more attack than any other class can have, plus you can do it all with a single weapon rather than dividing expense between two weapons.
It was a patch rather than a re-write. I'm hoping the major revision is coming in the next year or so.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it interesting that so many people (myself included, at one time) expect the monk to be better off unarmed than with a weapon. I'm not sure from where this expectation originates. If you watch martial arts movies, the characters are quite effective unarmed but almost always use weapons when offered the chance. They also often mix up armed and unarmed attacks.
The tricky part about implementing such a thing in a game system is that PCs tend to find the thing they are best at and stick to it. Not sure how to make a character that, for example, switches up melee and unarmed attacks equally while keeping any difference between them at all.
I didn't insinuate any such thing. It was actually quite the opposite. I was actually pointing out that even if there are people that behave as if they don’t respect the devs, the majority does.
Nor did I imply that “vocal minority” equals “people that criticise some of Paizo's development decisions”. It is perfectly possible to criticize some of Paizo's development decisions without being disrespectful or rude. To be critical of something doesn’t give you a free ticket to behave any way you please. Some people apparently have a problem of grasping this.
BTW, I’ve unfortunately posted some real bad stuff myself on these messageboards so I’m not claiming to be a saint.
Alright, that sounds perfectly reasonable. Consider my complaint retracted.
The thing about the DPR now is the Monk gets full BAB TWF with a single weapon AND it stacks with haste AND you can also add a Ki point, meaning you have a one more attack than any other class can have, plus you can do it all with a single weapon rather than dividing expense between two weapons.
It was a patch rather than a re-write. I'm hoping the major revision is coming in the next year or so.
Next edition at the soonest for any major changes, as far as I remember Sean saying. They don't want to invalidate their existing CRB's.
About Sean talking about Monk's being weak, I direct you to a post he made in the Flurry of Changes to Flurry of Blows thread.
You are mistaken as to who is responsible for "every negative change" to the monks since they came out.
I am not functioning alone. The design team works together on these things. And before it goes to print, Jason reads all the rules content as a last-minute check.
How brass knuckles interact with monk attacks was a decision the design team reached after discussing it.
Monk vows were a decision the design team reached after discussing it. (Mind you, in the design turnover for the vow, the benefit was you got +1 ki for every 5 monk levels. So it's not like I took what was presented and nerfed it, I felt it needed more of a boost than as it was originally written. Clearly most people think it deserved more, but don't paint this situation like I did this to punish anyone or that I hate monks or vows.)
The wording for flurry of blows in the Core Rulebook was written by Jason (and as that TWF reference isn't in the Beta, it was probably added very late in the design process for the Core Rulebook). At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent. "Sean's ruling" on how flurry works isn't my personal belief (derived independently with no input from Jason) of how the rule should work, it's the result of me checking and re-checking with Jason about it over the course of the boards discussion to make sure I understand what he meant by the text in the Core Rulebook.
As it turns out, the rules for the monk flurry aren't clear. I got it wrong when answering an earlier FAQ (perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough to Jason when addressing that FAQ issue, perhaps Jason misrembered that he changed how flurry works in PF). Other people on staff got it wrong when they built or developed stat blocks. Freelancers got it wrong when they wrote archetypes for the monk. Like much of the rules text in the Core Rulebook, the flurry text could really benefit from being rewritten and reworded. The design team hasn't decided what to do about that yet, but that doesn't change that Jason intended it to work like TWF. This isn't "Sean's ruling," this is "how Jason the designer wanted it to work."
It's really easy to make me the point man for your outrage and rude comments because I'm the guy who's always answering FAQ questions. And it's easy to want to "go ask mom" if you don't like the rule answer from "dad." But that's not how it works. If you don't like my answer, you can't ask Jason to override me... because what we say in the FAQ is the result of a discussion and consensus with the other designers, regardless of whose name (mine, Jason's, Stephen's) is attached to that specific FAQ. It's fine to disagree with a FAQ, or say you won't do it that way in your campaign, or ask for the design team to reconsider a FAQ decision, but you can't single out me or Stephen or Jason and say "that guy is wrong, I want another designer to correct them." That just makes you look foolish.
Yes, ProfessorCirno, your information is wrong about me designing the gunslinger. I have no idea where you got the idea that I had anything to do with the design of that class. Maybe you should think about what other information you think is true is actually wrong. And that goes for everyone in this flurry meta-topic. I've been reading all of this, and I can't help but laugh at some of the ridiculous and provably false things some people are quoting as the truth. One really good example is "Jason couldn't have meant flurry to work like TWF, that would make the sohei invalid, and Jason designed the sohei, and he wouldn't have designed the sohei that way if he meant flurry to work like TWF." Except that Jason didn't design the sohei (at least, Jason Bulmahn didn't... it was designed by freelancer Jason Nelson). You guys don't know who designed which parts, or who developed which parts, or what discussion led to a particular choice of wording. Talking as if you do know really puts you on shaky ground.
Does the brass knuckles ruling hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a weapon choice that would become the default weapon for monks if you don't want your monk PC to suck.
Does the vow of poverty hurt the monk? Only in the sense that the monk is a weak class and needs to be fixed at its root, not patched with a two-paragraph option for gearless monks that doesn't address the greater campaign issues of wealth by level, wealth in a party, and so on.
Does the flurry-as-TWF rule hurt the monk? Well, it certainly doesn't help that it breaks or forces weird interpretations of certain archetypes, and is written in a confusing way that led to unclear interpretations by most people who read it.
I don't want the monk merely patched, I want it fixed. I agree that it's hard to play an effective monk, the monk rules are convoluted, and it's expensive in terms of magic item and ability score needs. But I don't know that the monk can be sufficiently fixed without requiring significantly more explanatory text in the Core Rulebook--which we can't add without messing up the layout for pages and pages, which we can't do because we have that book and other books referring to things in the Core Rulebook by specific page number. I--and the other designers--don't want to just slap a bandage on it and call it good; this is a significant concern, just like the stealth rules, and deserves careful consideration.
My much-earlier point from the other thread still stands: I go out of my way to engage with people on the boards, discuss rules, and figure out what people want in the FAQ. When Jason and I discuss something in the rules, if I disagree with his ruling (for example, I think the trip weapon property is really weak), I'm not afraid to (1) explain the official ruling, and (2) admit that I disagree with that ruling. Yet too many people here think that I'm some kind of FAQ-lackey, making rulings without talking it over with other members of the staff, and think it's okay to be rude to me or go "over my head" when they disagree with the official ruling from the design team. I got tired of that attitude. And I stopped posting answers to rules, and stopped posting FAQs, because I didn't want to deal with it any more (which is sad, because I actually like answering rules questions). Because I'm not required to deal with rudeness and personal attacks, I won't do it.
And since I stopped posting rules clarifications and FAQs, there have been zero new FAQs posted.
Take that as you will.
He mentions twice that the Monk class is, in a sense, weak, but that there are larger issues that are at the core of the game that need to be fixed first. He also states he wants the Monk class fixed, not just patched. Now, to me, that implies he thinks the Monk class is slightly broken in that it's a weak class. . So I admit that I was wrong when I thought he said the Monk was broken, it was my interpretation of his words that lead me to believe so.