| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey all,
In an attempt to lower the noise to signal ratio, I’ve created this thread to hopefully contain the majority of the discussion on the effects of the introduction of the brawler class on the monk.
So, what are your thoughts on the Brawler versus the Monk? Does the brawler obsolete the monk? Will the people who enjoy the smack-yo-face aspects of the monk migrate to the brawler, leaving the fans of the monk’s mysticism behind?
Stay civil. We're all trying to make the game better.
Mechanically the Brawler is better class. Except for people who want the mystic flavor for a few niche concepts/builds. I actually feel like it does a.lot of that to the fighter as well but leaves a few more viable concepts than the monk.
Monk Archetypes are still make the class solid and get a few nicer things than the Brawler does at high levels.
Not sure how it affects the fighter. I think we'll see a Martial Maneuvers archetype for the fighter soon.
Eh... monks still seems fine to me. They want to be full attacking anyway, so I'm not sure how big of a deal full BAB is (monks get that during a flurry). With their Ki pool, monks can also get an extra attack or 4AC, or other bonuses based on their feats - I feel like that's a really big bonus that isn't always considered when comparing the monk to other classes.
Brawlers also have low will saves... This is huge. It also makes monk a much more appealing dip (I recently dipped monk for my magus kensai; int and wis to AC, a nice save bonus, and deflect arrows), and a class with more staying power later on. As someone who's played many frontline fighters at various levels, high will saves are not to be underestimated. DPR calculations are all well and good, but it doesn't matter much when you're out the first round from Dominate Monster. Monks also have some really nice archetype support with the Qinggong Monk, Monk of Many Styles, Martial Artist, Zen Archer, Sensei, and other awesome ones.
One nice thing the brawler has, however, is armor proficiency and the AC bonus. Even though monks get wisdom, this will probably result in more AC for the brawler in the long run, and focus their stats more.
Overall, no, I don't think the monk has been obsoleted, but then again, I always thought it's been a perfectly fine class. It's my favorite class, and I've never had issues with their relative power.
The Brawler looks ok, but I just have issues with liking it. It suffers the same issues that the fighter does IMO, not that I want that baggage showing up here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not what I expected... kind of in a good way. Sure, the Brawler doesn't have the ki pool and other esoteric powers, but they can still punch things with Brawler Strikes as though their fists were magical, adamantine weapons. So, basically, this is a full BAB monk variant that dispenses with self-healing and some unusual defenses. The way they can configure their bonus feats is interesting... but not exactly cutting-edge at this point, as Fantasy Craft did the same thing years ago and a similar mechanic appears in my monk rewrite. It's still good.
I see this replacing the monk at many tables, not because it's overwhelmingly better, but because it's considerably easier, and closer to the image of the monk most people have in the first place. With light armor and full BAB, it's a much better Shao-lin fighter or Street Fighter.
The way they gain bonus feats is vague. Can they use Critical Focus, with melee weapons? What about Point Blank Shot, which works with some melee weapons (eg. shortspear) but is used to make ranged attacks? What about Weapon Focus? It would be nice if we at least got a list for the Core Rulebook, as a basis for making the call for other feats.
A pet peeve of mine: all their abilities focus on and enhance melee attacks. This character is even more likely to be sidelined in the wrong encounter than a fighter or barbarian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, they're the brawler. Brawlers are all about close range fighting. Makes sense to me.
Just need a way to non-magically and non-surgically throw their fists.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was pleasantly surprised with the brawler. I don't think it obsoletes the monk. Offensively, it doesn't blow the monk away, for one thing. I think that's excellent. Brawler has deliciously cool things in it that are different, and I can see myself wanting to play both brawlers and monks depending on the concept. That's good game design.
Brawler is a mechanically simpler martial artist without a bunch of abilities that tend to work against each other in undesirable ways and probably better matches the idea of a brutal unarmed buttkicker.
Instead of being skirmisher whose best ability depends on staying still this is a much more straight forward pugilist that I could actually see suggesting to players who want that sort of character I generally can't ever suggest the monk in good conscience.
Honestly I could see giving it some boosts to HD and/or movement and it would still be well within the sweet spot.
If anything I think an opportunity was missed in not pairing up the monk and the barbarian because rage + unarmed fighting would be pretty cool and probably significantly less fiddly than fighter + monk
I think that for those like myself that want a pure martial artist more focused on AC and DPR without having to put in too much effort this class will replace the monk. However that assumes the clas does what I thinkbit will do. This is one class I do plan on making a build for.
I don't think it completely replaces the Monk, loads of archetypes do certain things better:
-Zen archer best for ranged
-Martial artist I still think is better in straight melee(full AB with flurry and a cool DR mitigation mechanic) and is more useful in multiclass builds(barbarian monks ftw)
-Master of Many styles for early style feat entry. The Monk due to his weird nature I think doesn't loose much from the Brawler aside from
-Sohei Horse monks.
-Loads of other Monk Archetypes capture the Mysticism.
I'll be building out one tomorrow afternoon to see how it plays though, cause it looks like an all around better grappler(True full BAB) and more versatile martial combatant. I am generally pleased.
That insta-feat feature is what the fighter wishes it could do (and honestly, what the fighter should do IMO).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it completely replaces the Monk, loads of archetypes do certain things better:
-Zen archer best for ranged
-Martial artist I still think is better in straight melee(full AB with flurry and a cool DR mitigation mechanic) and is more useful in multiclass builds(barbarian monks ftw)
-Master of Many styles for early style feat entry. The Monk due to his weird nature I think doesn't loose much from the Brawler aside from
-Sohei Horse monks.
-Loads of other Monk Archetypes capture the Mysticism.I'll be building out one tomorrow afternoon to see how it plays though, cause it looks like an all around better grappler(True full BAB) and more versatile martial combatant. I am generally pleased.
But you needed to list several archetypes with specialization to even compete with the brawler. I still think it can outdamage the martial artist monk. Even a fighter can match it for damage, and I would like to think the brawler can out damage an unarmed fighter.
Just to be clear the fighter was using TWF, but with a cestus instead of unarmed attacks.
I will be making one also when I get time.. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Brawler Fighter archetype is dead. I think the Martial Artist Monk archetype is dead. And I think the Core Monk is dead.
But unlike the Rogue's new situation, I think other Monk archetypes still offer rewarding (and useful) play-styles. So while the Rogue is totally dead, the Monk still hangs on by a thread.
|
I don't think core Monk is dead. I consider it, it's own archetype. Functional, just not optimal. The AC bonus Brawlers get is much slower, light armor or no. Some of the unique resistances a Monk get still are hard to beat. I dunno. Brawler is powerful, but lacks the Martial Artist's ability to punch through DR and resistances.
The d10 for HPs though. That's BIG. Really big.
Resistances don't help the party. This is why I feel (along with others) that the Core Monk is dead.
There are Monk archetypes that contribute effectively, and the Brawler contributes effectively, but the only thing the core Monk does is survive. That's simply not enough for what this game throws at a party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel that the only people who will stop playing Monks are the people who didn't want half of the monk class anyway but it was the only decent way to make an unarmed warrior.
Anyone who thinks the brawler is better than the monk really hasn't seen a well played monk. couple of notes
1) If you're going to spend a standard action on getting feats to make combat maneuvers, as a qinggong monk you could spend 1 ki to get a true strike, virtually guaranteeing a maneuver to succeed.
2) The tetori monk is the best grappler in the game because he can grapple virtually anything, the brawler gains no special ability to grapple beyond an improved base CMB/CMD.
Really the brawlers main competition is going to be the martial artist monk, as they are both non-mystics.
1) Both can use monk weapons, but the brawler can do so with a full BAB, and more bonus feats
2) Both have uses for swift actions (eventually), but the martial artist has a better use, that they have immediately.
They're both fairly competitive, with the brawler being better at combat maneuvers, and the martial artist being better at straight unarmed damage.I really agree with Rogue Eidolons comments above about Brawlers and Monks both having a place in Pathfinder, which is excellent design.
I'd like to see progression on actions be move, swift, free [as opposed to standard, move, swift]with the duration lasting a number of rounds equal to half the class level of the brawler, as action economy would dictate a full ban not taking the time to pick up a new feat(s).
You compared several monk archetypes to a class with no archetypes yet.Of course the monk will come out ahead. Since the brawler is more focused on hurting people, then I expect that the final version will be better at that, even though I expect to monk to retain its better defenses.
What does the brawler do that the core monk doesn't do? As I outlined above, as far as I can tell the core monk has everything covered that the brawler can do and has all the resistances on top of that.
When you you dont combine every archetype because it is not rules legal the brawler will be better at DPR or Maneuvers while using unarmed combat. That is basically what many wanted anyway. Most monk builds are either good at offense or defense, and to make that not true you need an archetype and several books. That means high system mastery. If this playtest goes well the brawler will be self contained class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the brawler do that the core monk doesn't do?
Reliably hit it's targets. ;)
I'm used to play monk a lot, and it always be my favorite class. The Brawler doesn't seem to me to be overpowered or to replace the monk. It's just a monk focus on doing dommage, but less effective to be a tank or a murder/grappler. I'll play both now :)
For the AC armor don't forget the bracelet of Armor for the monk, or Monk of the Sacred Mountain. Tank always has been for me the best tank in te game. (High save, monstrer control with grapple or trip, very good AC, etc...)
Hey all,
In an attempt to lower the noise to signal ratio, I’ve created this thread to hopefully contain the majority of the discussion on the effects of the introduction of the brawler class on the monk.
So, what are your thoughts on the Brawler versus the Monk? Does the brawler obsolete the monk? Will the people who enjoy the smack-yo-face aspects of the monk migrate to the brawler, leaving the fans of the monk’s mysticism behind?
Stay civil. We're all trying to make the game better.
I have two variants of the same character in my archives - a goblin and a human version of a 2nd level Master of Many Styles/15th level Brawler with the remaining three levels being open to Rogue, Brawler or Wizard if they are every reached. Its one of my favorite builds... so for me the short answer is a hybrid is better than the sum of its parts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see how reliably hitting targets comes into play here, they have the same BAB during a full attack action.
•A Monk must deal with Flurry penalties. The Brawler can choose whether they want to use Brawler's Flurry or not. -2 for the Monk
When making a Standard Action Attack, the Monk suddenly becomes at a serious disadvantage. -1 to -5 for the Monk, depending on level.•The Brawler has no reason to invest hard into a Wisdom score like the Monk does, leaving more points for Strength and/or Dex, which translates into a higher attack bonus.
•The Brawler can wear light armor, and can therefore use the Brawling enchantment, getting an additional +2 to hit and damage that a Monk cannot gain.
•The Brawler is working off a full BAB for Combat Maneuvers, compared to the Monk's 3/4 BAB, not to mention Maneuver Training granting an additional +1 to +5 over what the Monk can do.
There is so much more that goes into hitting things than just looking at the attack chart's numbers, my friend.
I think you could turn the monk into a full BAB class, leaving the rest the same, and the Brawler and monk would then be evenly matched archetypes.
|
Base book monks were replaced by their Ultimate Combat representatives sometime ago.
Brawler doesn't really replace... anything. It's a decent hitting damage dealer, but the non-base book monks do everything mechanically better. They're still nowhere close to Manuever Masters for doing manuevers, their damage is only nominally better, and the loss of "real" feats for the ability to temporarily add feats a few times a day just don't add up.
They get to use Brawler armor without giving up some AC bonus, which is nice. And they hit harder (and more often) than the average monk, which is nice too (but this is not true when compared to a fighter with a weapon).
Overall I'd say brawlers are better than the Unarmed Fighter archtype, and that's about the extent. Lore Wardens and Manuever Masters will still be the go-to CMB machines, Fighters the damage machines.
Heres a few notes in no particular order.
1: The brawler can also make more effective use of the vital strike chain then the monk could.. Not to mention that if you play point buy, which is in fact what the game is balanced for, being able to largely focus on two stats rather than three or four gives you a huge boost.
2: Leave archetypes out of the comparison since one class has no access to them yet. Its kind of like saying that a ranger will always be better at casting spells then a fighter. You are in fact correct, until a spelless ranger comes along and you're not.
3: The feat swap ability scales in power with the amount of splatbooks released and looks to have staggering combination of versatility without giving up focus.. I in particular like the seeming ability to gain full style feat chains as a move action for both rules and flavor. In D&D versatility vs focus matches as a general rule focus wins.
4: I #$%@ing hate Diamond soul as its often as harmful as helpful.
5: I belive that the brawler does not lose access to his abilities in heavy armor despite only starting with light
6: Tanks are... awkward in tabletop games.. this is not a MMO ot DOTA style game where there is mob aggro and maneuvering is not as freeform so the use of a tank is more dependant on your gm then nearly any other party role.
Heres a few notes in no particular order.
5: I belive that the brawler does not lose access to his abilities in heavy armor despite only starting with light.
As it's written now only the AC Bonus ability doesn't work with medium/heavy armor or while carrying a shield.
I'm thinking that starting with a level of barbarian and going brawler for the rest might be an interesting way to go (at later levels you could get a mithral breastplate and get the benefit of the AC bonus after all). Alternatively, you could pick up a level or two of a martial class with heavy armor proficiency (Sword Saint Samurai Order of the Ronin?) and drastically reduce your need for DEX.
brawling only goes on light armor, not clothing or bracers of armor.
+5 Celestial Mail with Brawling is going to beat Wis to AC every time.
Some people, 2009: Monk can't hit anything! We don't care for supernatural crap! It's terribad!
The same people, 2013: Brawler doesn't have supernatural crap! Brawler can hit something! It's terribad!
This is pretty much my reaction to some of the response. I think the Brawler and the Monk both have their places, especially since folks who are interested in the class with the highest melee damage potential are off playing Barbarians (or whatever). People who want to play unarmed fighters now have yet another way to achieve it, and that's good.
What I'm not getting is the people who are implying how awful it is that the Monk has been 'replaced.' Haven't people been griping for YEARS how underpowered the Monk is? So if I made an unarmed fighting class that vastly improved the Monk's weaknesses, would people complain because the class wasn't called Monk? I'm not trying to play a Monk just so that I can call myself a Monk. I'm trying to play a Monk because I wanted to play an unarmed fighter, or an asian style mystic, or otherwise because the Monk class offered the best mechanics to support my character concept. Now another set of mechanics has come out that offers a different set of options... and this is bad?
the inclusion of the brawler doesn't suddenly alleviate the problems that still plague the monk--it's merely drawn attention away from them.
the monk still has abilities that dont' work together (mobile, but has to stand still to actually hit stuff), still sufers form terrible hit-chance, is still too MAD to play without being mediocre at everything, and has far too many things that seem helpful but only serve to taunt it (bodywraps of mighty strikes, brawling armor enchant being SPECIFICALLY BARRED from monks--provided they want to use their class abilities anyway), and still has the zen archer and tetori for people to hide behind and say "what? no. the monk totally works, just look at these!"
Resistances don't help the party.
I disagree, what good is the best damage dealer if he's taken out of the fight in one turn? Or worse, dominated and aimed against the party.
More staying power also means more damage potential.
The brawler and monk when flurrying should have close to the same chance to hit if they both focus on attack. The bonus that brawling armor property will give the brawler and possibly greater weapon focus give the brawler a slight lead in static attack bonus. But the monk can get an extra attack by spending a ki point. I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison across some levels to see what's more valuable an extra attack or +3 to hit. I am to lazy to do it myself.
An extra attack gives you the extra damage equal to the average damage of your first attack, which is depending on how many iteratives you have 50% to about 20%, while a +3 to hit adds a flat +15% damage to any attack mode.
That's a really rough estimate, but at low to mid i think the extra attack is better.
The brawler and monk when flurrying should have close to the same chance to hit if they both focus on attack. The bonus that brawling armor property will give the brawler and possibly greater weapon focus give the brawler a slight lead in static attack bonus. But the monk can get an extra attack by spending a ki point. I wouldn't mind seeing a comparison across some levels to see what's more valuable an extra attack or +3 to hit. I am to lazy to do it myself.
It seems somehow inappropriate to compare the brawler armor property (an always on bonus) to an ability which burns an extremely limited resource which is shared among several other abilities which may drain it as well.