On Monks

[kyrt-ryder]

Felinus wrote:

I agree with pretty much all of what is said about the identity of the monk and it's leaning towards the supernatural abilities.

The reason I started this thread was the concern that by forcing it into core they will do so without the supporting framework that makes the makes the concept so great in pop culture. It's why it was a mess in D&D 3.X and PF1. While they may release that extra stuff in a future book, it never meshes right and feels like an afterthought.

As I stated in my initial post, I'd rather they release it as a complete package later than have it be a sliver of the system that is required. If it is to be included as a Core class, back it up with the appropriate subsystems, like martial arts, etc.

When you say martial arts, do you mean Martial Arts or Martial Arts?

In the first instance that's not a subsystem that's attacks and combat maneuvers.

In the second that's moreso an archetype than what the baseline monk should be. A qingong monk type with that degree of Qi Magic though? That would be very cool.

[Arachnofiend]

Vidmaster7 wrote:

Eh I think the PF1 one was different enough to deserve its own class. the hybrid classes were some of my favorites. I think yeah totally you can do a fighter with unarmed strike for sure. I think the pf1 brawler brought some new stuff to the table that made them fun by their own rights however.

Also cavalier has been in the game since AD&D 1st.

The main Cool Thing brawlers brought to the table was Martial Flexibility, which... isn't something innate to the idea of an (Ex) unarmed combatant, and something I'd love to see as an option for the Fighter in PF2.

[kyrt-ryder]

Agreed. If anybody gets Martial Flexibility as a Class Thing, it should be the Fighter.

Ideally the feat system will be engineered in such a way that Martial Flexibility would be ridiculously broken though, considering that Martial Flexibility is a patch on a pretty crappy feat system.