Frontline in a similar vein to a Ranger being frontline. As in, you can do it if you have to but it isn't always your best option depending on what you are fighting or your build.
The "not front line" argument is made in every monk thread I have seen so far. So then it is asked, well what is their purpose, and it goes downhill from there most of the time.
I will put it another way. The argument was they were not there to do damage primarily, and since monk normally do damage with their fist, they had to be up front to do that. Therefore the term "front line" was used.
Otherwise archery focused paladins and fighters are also not frontline either, just as much as the ranger would not be if he chose archery.
Kung fu almost certainly owes some of its origins to an exhibition of Greek wrestling and freestyle kickboxing that Alexander took with him to India.
Anyway, I like the idea of a monk. They're all mystical and stuff. That's what justifies the super effective fists. If if you look at historical martial artists, however, they used weapons. The Shao-Lin monks fought off the Imperial troops using weapons. I would expect a non-magical person who has to slay ogres and stuff to use a weapon. If the new Brawler uses ki to punch people, rather than to turn ethereal and stuff, that's cool. If, however, they just punch things really hard, that's hard for me to wrap my head around.
You know, I'd honestly be much more concerned for the fighter than the Monk, personally.
A class that gets some class features, probably more than one good saves, good HP, full BaB, a main weapon that powers up as they level, and probably doesn't need to worry about maneuverability and armor. Both classes already get built in Bonus Feats that are probably going to play in directly to their focus, and the Brawler seems like it will not have another of the Fighter's main complaints in needing to rely on others (buffs) to make them work past the early levels. Presumably some skills, too.
Really, why would you ever play a normal Fighter after that?
People played normal fighters before this?
Yes. All the time. They're one of the most popular classes out there, actually.
|
People played normal fighters before this?You know, I'd honestly be much more concerned for the fighter than the Monk, personally.
A class that gets some class features, probably more than one good saves, good HP, full BaB, a main weapon that powers up as they level, and probably doesn't need to worry about maneuverability and armor. Both classes already get built in Bonus Feats that are probably going to play in directly to their focus, and the Brawler seems like it will not have another of the Fighter's main complaints in needing to rely on others (buffs) to make them work past the early levels. Presumably some skills, too.
Really, why would you ever play a normal Fighter after that?
:)
Yes. All the time. They're one of the most popular classes out there, actually.
+10 000
Well, optimally sword flurrying...which is part of the problem...
If this is the "solution" I can live with it.
A temple-sword flurrying Monk still deals less damage than a 2-handed Ranger.
Just saying...
EDIT: Well, unless the Monk is a Sohei. But then, he's more Fighter than Monk.
BTW, I think the Brawler will be like a Sohei Monk, but with full BAB, only 2 good saves (Probably Fort and Reflex), no Ki and, hopefully, no FoB (although getting TWF as a bonus feat would be nice, just because AoMF is way too goddamn expensive for non-TWF unarmed warriors).
This honestly sounds awesome to me. I don't want to deal with the eastern mysticism content that's so deeply baked into the Monk that a LOT of work has to be done on the GM side to strip it out. I don't think it fits very well with the fundamentally European medieval style of the rest of Pathfinder. Honestly, a Psion fits better, as their abilities, while making some nods to New Age and eastern mystic concepts, remain relatively agnostic on a fundamental level. It's the same reason I wouldn't let a player make a "ninja". If they wanted to make a character who had ninja abilities, and wanted to work out the fluff to keep it thematically consistent, I'd be fine with that.
I'm one of those weird types for whom the fluff matters as much as the crunchy bits. :P
My go-to example for a Western-style Ninja would be the Assassin's Creed games.
Some of it doesn't fit, like the throwing stars or Shadow Clone, but Hidden Weapon, High Jumper, Darkvision, Wall Climber, etc all fit in perfectly.
There's your Western Ninja.
Maybe they'll throw in a really awesome ki power and say the monk can use this option as well? Stealth patch for the win!
(something like spend 1 point of ki for 1 minute of enhancement bonus to hit. This would be similar to the magus arcane pool feature)
I have a question; If the new classes invalidate some classes that are often considered weak or inflexible is that a bad thing?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now there's a question for a 1000 post thread with lots of moderator activity.
Should I start one?
Now there's a question for a 1000 post thread with lots of moderator activity.
Just one? I am pretty sure I can find about 5 that are effectively connected to it. Like every time someone complains about style feats and the ninja...
I have a question; If the new classes invalidate some classes that are often considered weak or inflexible is that a bad thing?
Depends a lot on your point of view. I personally would rather they just errata what they have, but I can understand the viewpoint that people would find it annoying to errata an entire class. On the other hand, isn't replacing one class with a more balanced one just a form of errata?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the Advanced Class replaces a CORE RULE BOOK class, it kind of goes against Paizo's policy of "Nothing new should invalidate or replace anything form the Core Rule Book."
Why do you think it took so long for the Amulet of Druid Attacks to get it's price dropped?
The Core Rule Book is supposed to be sacred and nothing should be better than what's found in there. Sure, you can alter or build upon things (like feats or archetypes or magic items), but there should never be anything that is totally and completely better than Core Rule Book material.
Also, if the Advanced Class replaces a CORE RULE BOOK class, it kind of goes against Paizo's policy of "Nothing new should invalidate or replace anything form the Core Rule Book."
Why do you think it took so long for the Amulet of Druid Attacks to get it's price dropped?
The Core Rule Book is supposed to be sacred and nothing should be better than what's found in there. Sure, you can alter or build upon things (like feats or archetypes or magic items), but there should never be anything that is totally and completely better than Core Rule Book material.
I was under the impression that this was comically untrue on paper if not in spirit.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the Advanced Class replaces a CORE RULE BOOK class, it kind of goes against Paizo's policy of "Nothing new should invalidate or replace anything form the Core Rule Book."
Why do you think it took so long for the Amulet of Druid Attacks to get it's price dropped?
The Core Rule Book is supposed to be sacred and nothing should be better than what's found in there. Sure, you can alter or build upon things (like feats or archetypes or magic items), but there should never be anything that is totally and completely better than Core Rule Book material.
That is a very bad policy. I would much rather a company admit its mistake in making a poor class and correct it than hold said mistake on a pedestal on some mistaken belief that the initial outlay of books is somehow immune to scrutiny.
Yep, and correct obvious imbalance if it is there.
Wizards can be a bit weaksauce actually. lol
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a very bad policy. I would much rather a company admit its mistake in making a poor class and correct it than hold said mistake on a pedestal on some mistaken belief that the initial outlay of books is somehow immune to scrutiny.
You're looking at that wrong.
It's not "this design is perfect and we don't think you should make anything more powerful than this."It is, "this is a standard option for the game, and no later option should invalidate this standard option, because we don't want to create an 'arms race' where you know a new book is going to have more powerful abilities, and without those abilities your character is going to die because adventures expect you to be powered-up."
I have a question; If the new classes invalidate some classes that are often considered weak or inflexible is that a bad thing?
No. It is just a thing. It's just. A. Thing. And that is ok.
Also: Invalidate is very broad. Seeing as opinions vary, and the individual's measure might be: broad mechanics; specifically DPR driven; concept/theme/flavor; legacy/heritage; "role"; "tier" or personal preference, I don't think any previous Core, Base or Alternate class could ever be invalidated completely and universally.
Ok, Paizo I made another post. Please invalidate my parking. ;P
Another question: Since Monk and Brawler share a few assumptions would we expect for new options available to the Brawler make Monk more powerful?
Opinion: Considering the eastern and mystical flavor of the Monk, I do not think that the Monk will be invalidated thematically. But if Monk is considered underpowered and Brawler is balanced against a stronger martial class it does have the possibility of replacing or redefining assumed roles for the Monk.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question; If the new classes invalidate some classes that are often considered weak or inflexible is that a bad thing?
There are already like five classes/archetypes that invalidate the rogue, two more are just nails on the coffin. And the monk never got validated on the first place, so it can't even be invalidated.
Or more generally, woul the new book have new options for old classes?Another question: Since Monk and Brawler share a few assumptions would we expect for new options available to the Brawler make Monk more powerful?
I'm pretty sure they said there will be archetypes and feats for the "old" classes that take advantage of the "new" classes mechanics.
I'm pretty sure they said there will be archetypes and feats for the "old" classes that take advantage of the "new" classes mechanics.
UOTE="Nicos"]
Or more generally, woul the new book have new options for old classes?Another question: Since Monk and Brawler share a few assumptions would we expect for new options available to the Brawler make Monk more powerful?
but will the new options offer more power or modularity?
I'm sure one of the design goals was that every archetype would put AM BARBARIAN to shame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a good question. what is the intended power level of the new classes? particularly, what is the intended power level of the brawler?
It is intended to be on par with the monk? cause, in this case, why to publish it?
it is intended to be on par with barbarian, paladins and magus? cause taht definitely means that the brawler outclassed the monk.
You are looking at all of these classes merely through a "power" as damage lens, not usefulness, niche, role or flexibility. At least that's the way it seems to me.
Even if it was on par with the monk, perhaps the Bralwer's non-mystic take on the unarmed combatant might be popular? etc etc etc
And because it was linked recently in another thread, a post from Jason Buhlman about "balance":
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talk of class "power" really annoys me because one of my players is obsessed with maximizing his characters combat potential without any regard for roleplaying or non-combat situations. This ends up with him complaining when we enter no combat situations because his characters are rather useless. Another problem I have in general is that the idea of a character concept goes completely over my players' heads. Im seeing the same problem here: the monk won't be useless because there is no other class that is a monk, and fills that role.
It is a good question. what is the intended power level of the new classes? particularly, what is the intended power level of the brawler?
It is intended to be on par with the monk? cause, in this case, why to publish it?
it is intended to be on par with barbarian, paladins and magus? cause taht definitely means that the brawler outclassed the monk.
You are looking at all of these classes merely through a "power" as damage lens, not usefulness, niche, role or flexibility. At least that's the way it seems to me.
Even if it was on par with the monk, perhaps the Bralwer's non-mystic take on the unarmed combatant might be popular? etc etc etc
One reason why above I used the phrase "...redefining assumed roles for the Monk" If Brawler takes over the unarmed/combat maneuver frontliner from the Monk will that make for an incentive to play up the Monk's mystical aspect and thus make it more powerful because it's role is redefined to be less martial and more of something else.(support, debuff, Jack-of-all-trades, ect.) One hope that I have is that the Monk will be more defined from the design end and receive more useful features because it's martial aspect is obsolete to some extent.
Talk of class "power" really annoys me because one of my players is obsessed with maximizing his characters combat potential without any regard for roleplaying or non-combat situations. This ends up with him complaining when we enter no combat situations because his characters are rather useless. Another problem I have in general is that the idea of a character concept goes completely over my players' heads. Im seeing the same problem here: the monk won't be useless because there is no other class that is a monk, and fills that role.
consider suggesting some classes that have out of combat potential baked into the class mechanics. A ranger will still have some out of combat utility with 7 intelligence and so forth. A wizard will always have lots of skills despite his low skill bonus... Its unfortunate that your friend seems uninterested in the non combat aspect of the game, but it may help if he/she has those skills to fall back upon.
One reason why above I used the phrase "...redefining assumed roles for the Monk" If Brawler takes over the unarmed/combat maneuver frontliner from the Monk will that make for an incentive to play up the Monk's mystical aspect and thus make it more powerful because it's role is redefined to be less martial and more of something else.(support, debuff, Jack-of-all-trades, ect.) One hope that I have is that the Monk will be more defined from the design end and receive more useful features because it's martial aspect is obsolete to some extent.It is a good question. what is the intended power level of the new classes? particularly, what is the intended power level of the brawler?
It is intended to be on par with the monk? cause, in this case, why to publish it?
it is intended to be on par with barbarian, paladins and magus? cause taht definitely means that the brawler outclassed the monk.
You are looking at all of these classes merely through a "power" as damage lens, not usefulness, niche, role or flexibility. At least that's the way it seems to me.
Even if it was on par with the monk, perhaps the Bralwer's non-mystic take on the unarmed combatant might be popular? etc etc etc
A fighter is already good enough to compete with the monk for damage and manuevers. I don't think the new class is breaking ground in that regard, and many posters(not me) say the monk's main job is not to be a front line combatant anyway, so it should not bother them.
I think maybe you failed you create Monk Check as where I sit in Australia Monks are running riot. Some of the Monk builds are truly awesome and very little if any monster can face them and challenge.
Are these zen archers, multiclassed monks, or some other archetype such as the master of many styles?
For the most parts monks are very hard to build well, and if you dont have good system mastery, but that has been repeated in every other monk thread.
Talk of class "power" really annoys me because one of my players is obsessed with maximizing his characters combat potential without any regard for roleplaying or non-combat situations. This ends up with him complaining when we enter no combat situations because his characters are rather useless. Another problem I have in general is that the idea of a character concept goes completely over my players' heads. Im seeing the same problem here: the monk won't be useless because there is no other class that is a monk, and fills that role.
Seen it.
Well yes you could make the Duke explode, but since you are here to ask him a question and work out what is going on, your combat abilities aren't of paramount importance at the moment.
An inability to adapt can be a real problem, whether that comes from the build or the player. I still like the monk, and I see them as adaptable critters, potentially quite anti-spellcaster, impossible to disarm when using unarmed, capable of swift movement, scouting and easily taken in the direction of many builds. While I liked the ki abilities, it is very curious they get less use over the rounds than the barbarian gets with their rage points. There isn't a balance there. If the barbarian can rage and pound for many rounds, the defensive monk should be able to keep that ac buff up for quite a long time.
Anyone give the monk a bit more ki points in their games, and find it was a nice balancing touch?
Why not just look at the brawler as the update you feel monks need then?Yeah but I feel like that just exacerbates the problem. The biggest issue with the monk is the ki system and how it eats up build space for the class and yet either doesn't deliver with those abilities. Things like tongue of the sun & moon, wholeness of body, and diamond soul coming up way too late in their level progression to be as useful as those level slots are supposed to be and with a few of them actually getting in the way of the class doing what its supposed to be doing. With the brawler I feel like we're just going to be getting monks further and further left behind instead of giving them a desperately needed update."...without any of the mysticism of the monk."
I think the monk will be fine.
This is what I'm doing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That is a very bad policy. I would much rather a company admit its mistake in making a poor class and correct it than hold said mistake on a pedestal on some mistaken belief that the initial outlay of books is somehow immune to scrutiny.You're looking at that wrong.
It's not "this design is perfect and we don't think you should make anything more powerful than this."
It is, "this is a standard option for the game, and no later option should invalidate this standard option, because we don't want to create an 'arms race' where you know a new book is going to have more powerful abilities, and without those abilities your character is going to die because adventures expect you to be powered-up."
If the core book were at all balanced, I would agree with you. But when you have blatantly broken things, whether too weak or too strong, they should be fixed, no matter where they are printed.
If it's too weak, it's already invalidated anyway, isn't it? Few players play it because there are other classes/archetypes that do it better.