The mechanical-fantasy core of the Monk, and that which could be shed


Prerelease Discussion

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Honestly, being MAD in PF2 is just not that big a deal. I mean, what do Monks need? Str, Dex, Wis, and a bit of Con? Every time you raise stats you raise four of them, so you can keep all of those relatively maxed out for your level fairly readily.

That does make a Monk's Int and Cha suffer a bit, so I certainly wouldn't object to increased stat-ups (one obvious way to do this is have them raise 5 stats every time they raise them rather than four), but it's hardly mechanically unworkable or anything.

Straight up +6 stat ups would be pretty aesthetically pleasing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Saffron Marvelous wrote:
The problem, and I think probably the source of MAD problems with the monk class, is that a lot of the source material for its theming assumes that its characters have something like arete, or a general excellence applied to all things. Furthermore, it's trying to encompass a very diverse set of character types that would probably be many different classes if they had their own game (and they do, and it's Legend of the Wulin). Archetypes can help solve some of that, but ultimately, I feel like the monk should almost be built with the intention of being multiclassed, or with class abilities that in some way allow you to accomplish that.
Secret Wizard wrote:
And stop equating MAD with unviable. MAD is a descriptive term. If the system supports MAD characters, then it's not a problem.

The core PF1 monk suffers frim Multiple Attribute Dependent beyond what Pathfinder supports. The Unchained monk is more playable, but feels like a jerryrig than a class of its own.

I was on the Paizo forums before Pathfinder Unchained was published and I particilated in many discussions about the ineffectiveness of the monk. It did come down to the MAD problems but the MAD problems was caused by a deeper yet similar problem. The monk's abilities did not work together.

The core monk has 3/4 BAB and 1d8 hit dice like the bard, cleric, druid, and rogue. Clerics are protected behind medium armor and druids are protected by an animal companion. The monk is more like the bard and rogue. To compensate for his lack of any armor, the monk was given a Wisdom bonus to AC. To get a +2 bonus, which would match the leather armor of 1st-level bards and rogues, the monk needed Wis 14. He also needed the same high Dex for AC that the rogue and bard needed.

The PF1 monk's two initial combat abilities were Unarmed Strike and Flurry of Blows. Unarmed Strike at 1st level dealt 1d6 damage with critical threat on a 20, the same as a light mace, a simple weapon. Thus, relying on unarmed strikes put the monk below the other martial classes that could use a 2d6 greatsword or 1d10 glaive in two hands or a 1d6 shortsword with critical range 19-20 if a light weapon was desired. Flurry of Blows gave a -2 penalty to hit, which was especially hard on a character with +0 BAB. To overcome these handicaps, the monk needed high Strength.

Or the monk could fight like a rogue via Dexterity. But then the monk deals only weapon dice in damage, and his weapons are weak. The rogue has sneak attack for additional damage, and the bard has bardic performance and Arcane Strike. The monk has increasing unarmed strike damage dice that do not keep up with the enchantments on weapons. Hence, he needs an expensive Amulet of Might Fists.

With a lot of work, the monk can fight as well as the bard and rogue, two classes better played for their out-of-combat utility rather than their combat effectiveness. The monk does not have that out-of-combat utility.

Okay, the monk does have two other 1st-level abilities: Stunning Fist and a short list of bonus feats. Stunning Fist does not work well, especially while the monk suffers the -2 penalty from Flurry of Blows. The bonus feats have a lot of options such as Catch Off-Guard that are more flavorful than practical. Dodge is the most practical choice, another +1 to AC to make up for the lack of armor.

The Unchained Monk fixed some of that. The clash between a +0 BAB and a -2 penalty on Flurry of Blows was corrected. The Maneuver Training designed to keep the 3/4 BAB from weaking combat maneuvers could be dropped since the unchained monk has a full martial BAB. Ki powers turned a fixed list of abilities into a flexible list that could match the monk's build. Alas, unchained monk did not feel more mystical nor more flavorful, only more effective.

Liberty's Edge

Secret Wizard wrote:
Straight up +6 stat ups would be pretty aesthetically pleasing.

This would also be fine. Really, the benefits of this for most Monks are pretty much +4 Trained Skills, +4 Resonance and a bonus to Int and Cha Skills. It's super nice, but not mechanically overpowered in any way.

Mathmuse wrote:
The core PF1 monk suffers frim Multiple Attribute Dependent beyond what Pathfinder supports. The Unchained monk is more playable, but feels like a jerryrig than a class of its own.

I think the point people are trying to make is that PF2 supports MAD Classes a lot better than PF1, and thus it being equally MAD woulkd not be a problem in the new system. That's a tad speculative, but there's a fair amount of evidence to support it.


Also if the new monk is somehow weak because of being mad the fix is super easy just have the monk give an bonus to an extra attribute or two.


Man, I wasn't even... I brought up the monk as it exists being MAD because it was tangentially related to the thing I was actually talking about. I have no idea how that will play out in PF2, though I think that all else being equal, being MAD will still ultimately be a disadvantage (though perhaps heavily mitigated to the point of not mattering).


I tried a thread like this in the first weeks of the playtest but I like your take on it. I definitely agree with all your points.

Secret Wizard wrote:
The Monk is a mystic warrior.

I really agree that the identity of the monk is it's mysticism. When I created my thread, the existence of the Occult spell list wasn't known. I had sort of forgotten about the Monk so didn't make the connection but now that it has it makes a lot of sense. now I'm wondering if the Kenetisist will some how work it's way in here as an element-bending Monk.

On this point i'd love it if the proficiency in the various areas of Monk-ness (combat vs ki based personal enhancement vs mysticism) was a trade off. Like all three reach expert but you can only progress two to master and one to legendary. That way choose whether you go for the martial grounding or the spell slinging Wu Jen type of character.

Secret Wizard wrote:
1. Monks don't need have to be masters of unarmed combat.

With what we're seeing from the martial classes we know there will be different categorises of feats, with the ability to build towards a theme. I'm sure this will give us the option to select from unarmed (classic Monk as well as your preassure point mojo), armed (Kensai, Sohei, Zen Archer) and more mystical otions (I see Wu Jen here as well as your divine/eldritch fist type archetypes).

As I type this I'm becoming more excited by the idea that you won't be limited to being a master of unarmed combat, but even mastering martial combat is optional in the pursuit of mystic prowess.

Secret Wizard wrote:
2. Monks don't have to be Wisdom-based.

I'd been a purist for Wis Monks until you introduced me to the pairing of Monk and Occult spell list. In the past, I'd have said that the pairing of Monks with other stats would best be achieved by dding Monk-ness to other class via archetypes.

Now though I can certainly see the justification of using say Charisma for monks that emulate dragons and demons and Intelligence for those that use occult items and text to gain power.

Secret Wizard wrote:
2. Monks don't have to be Lawful.

I do think the Lawful only should be retired. Like the question of of key mental stat, it's all about the path to power. I think it'd be more along the lines of usually Lawful, with regards to pursuing mystical power for self improvement. Not saying there can't be exceptions, just a natural inclination for the majority of those in the class.

I've always been on the fence with Monks but I'm excited to see them in PF2 if some of our speculations and wish-listing pans out.


Wolfism wrote:

One idea I haven't seen mentioned, though I should say I like a bunch of the others in this thread, is by owning the MADness of the monk by making them masters of the attribute boosting system.

In the way fighters get more feats, rogues get more skills, alchemists get more resonance, monks should get more attribute boosts as a core part of their ideal is perfecting the body and mind. It makes them less reliant on equipment and makes the fact that they want so many stats high work for the class. It also helps achieve the possibility of high saves across the board in a more organic way.

While I'm not a fan of MAD classes per se, one time I thought it was done well was in the 3.0 Psion where each discipline was tied to a particular attribute. I could see some of that being applied to the idea of a Mystic Warrior.

Str vs Dex used to differentiate strong punishing styles of combat vs a lightning fast rain of blows.

Con for Mountain style techniques where you shrug of damage and are unmovable.

Dex for the celerity leaning monks

Mental stats could vary depending on themes/sources of occult power. Cha could be used for preassure point attacks where you are forcing your ki to override the target's nervous system. Wisdom for centring techniques. Intelligence (or Charisma) for shaping elements.

I agree with many that the perfect high saves across th board. I really like the idea of extra stat boosts as a way of achieving this, i.e. that nexus of concepts where seeking balance meets self-improvement/enlightenment.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Given what has happened in every Paladin thread that mentions alignment at all (including but not limited to the ones spawned from the announcement of Pathfinder 2nd Edition), I am amazed that nobody has Nerd Raged about the idea of dropping the Lawful-Only requirement from Monks. I'm not complaining, mind you -- it's just that I keep nervously looking around, thinking that I have entered some kind of alternate reality that can't possibly last . . . .


I would like them to rename Ki, as a power source, maybe with a sidebar noting that some monks refer to this energy source as Ki.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Given what has happened in every Paladin thread that mentions alignment at all (including but not limited to the ones spawned from the announcement of Pathfinder 2nd Edition), I am amazed that nobody has Nerd Raged about the idea of dropping the Lawful-Only requirement from Monks. I'm not complaining, mind you -- it's just that I keep nervously looking around, thinking that I have entered some kind of alternate reality that can't possibly last . . . .

Why you got to go and jinx it?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It's a total slap in the face that they would even CONSIDER dropping the lawful alignment requirement for Monks. Might as well stop using d20s as the main die. I'm personally offended by this cash grab.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
WatersLethe wrote:
Might as well stop using d20s as the main die.

Hey! Who told you the secret plans for PF3?


Hah, the MAD comment is a very 3.Pathfinder comment I admit. And it may be that PF2E will alleviate the issue by being more generous with attributes but I think in a game that is designed around teamwork, where one character can't do everything and specialization is encouraged, it is impossible to get away from entirely. I'll hold my judgment on that though obviously.

I just really like having a class that breaks the rules in a way that makes them unique.For me the core monk's all good saves was like the barbarian's d12 HD. It's a purely personal flavor/mechanical preference but I hope it survives. I'll homebrew it in if it's not there anyway :).

Probably though they'll have Still Mind type Monk feat options that will let me do that if I choose to take those Feats. Or maybe a Monk 'Vow' or Monk 'Style' that boosts the Will Save.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

Given what has happened in every Paladin thread that mentions alignment at all (including but not limited to the ones spawned from the announcement of Pathfinder 2nd Edition), I am amazed that nobody has Nerd Raged about the idea of dropping the Lawful-Only requirement from Monks. I'm not complaining, mind you -- it's just that I keep nervously looking around, thinking that I have entered some kind of alternate reality that can't possibly last . . . .

I keep a tight ship.

(Sorry I've been watching a lot of King of the Hill and Peggy rubbed a little of her unbound confidence on me.)


Azih wrote:

Hah, the MAD comment is a very 3.Pathfinder comment I admit. And it may be that PF2E will alleviate the issue by being more generous with attributes but I think in a game that is designed around teamwork, where one character can't do everything and specialization is encouraged, it is impossible to get away from entirely. I'll hold my judgment on that though obviously.

I just really like having a class that breaks the rules in a way that makes them unique.For me the core monk's all good saves was like the barbarian's d12 HD. It's a purely personal flavor/mechanical preference but I hope it survives. I'll homebrew it in if it's not there anyway :).

Probably though they'll have Still Mind type Monk feat options that will let me do that if I choose to take those Feats. Or maybe a Monk 'Vow' or Monk 'Style' that boosts the Will Save.

TBH, it's likely that Still Mind will literally be: "You get legendary proficiency in Will saves".

Liberty's Edge

What I want in Monk

D10 Hit Die
Ki Pool at level 1 with fun/unique Monk Feats that let me customize my Ki powers
Temporary Hit Point Reserve = Monk Level + Current Ki Reserve while Unarmored. Can be fully restored by spending 1 Ki as an Action.
Bonus to Unarmed Damage = Temporary Hit Point Reserve
Scaling Unarmed Damage d6>2d6>3d6 ...


I'm pretty certain at this point that we'll see a playtest monk without alignment restrictions but with yet another set of anathema that staple the monk's flavor to the classical tropes more than ever. PF2 so far has seemed less friendly to broad definitions and creative reinventions of classes than PF1 was. I'd be happy to be wrong, though.

I do like the idea of the monk's niche being the mystical warrior. Martial magic, as opposed to martial characters who also cast spells by waving their hands and mumbling, is an underexplored space IMO.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

Given what has happened in every Paladin thread that mentions alignment at all (including but not limited to the ones spawned from the announcement of Pathfinder 2nd Edition), I am amazed that nobody has Nerd Raged about the idea of dropping the Lawful-Only requirement from Monks. I'm not complaining, mind you -- it's just that I keep nervously looking around, thinking that I have entered some kind of alternate reality that can't possibly last . . . .

I feel like a whole lot of this was that the Paladin was a mechanically amazing chassis in PF1, while the monk... was not.


^A fair point. That might explain why the angst over exchanging the non-Lawful requirement for Totem Anathemas for Barbarian has been in between . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PossibleCabbage wrote:
I am down for Cha and Wis based monks, I'm not so certain about an Int-based monk. I guess you could do the Sherlock Holmes thing (from both the original books and the RDJ movies in which people thought this was weird even though it was from the books) where Holmes is a phenomenal boxer because he's an incredibly astute observer of human behavior, but I'm wondering if this shouldn't belong to a different class.

Well, the PF1 Investigator has this exact ability already.


By the way, in case anyone didn't notice, the Monk blog came out today and DIDN'T mention alignment restrictions at all . . . .


UnArcaneElection wrote:

By the way, in case anyone didn't notice, the Monk blog came out today and DIDN'T mention alignment restrictions at all . . . .

Nor is Wisdom required if you don't wish to go that route:

"The monk's unarmored defense proficiency also goes up as he levels, first to master at 13th level and then to legendary at 17th. You'll notice that monks no longer add their Wisdom modifiers to AC, which is due to a few factors. First, depending on the monk's Dexterity modifier, the gulf between a heavily armored character and a monk without armor is extremely low, so adding even more bonuses would put the monk really far ahead. Second, adding more than a single ability modifier to a check or DC now really distorts the game. Third, we have another role for Wisdom to play in the class, and wanted it to be optional so monks aren't dependent on many different ability scores, giving you more flexibility with how you can build a monk character."

Also, all you need is one feat to be just as good with both simple and martial monk weapons as you are unarmed:

"Your monk could take Monastic Weaponry at 1st level, letting him use his unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons. This is how Sajan gets to use that sweet temple sword!"


UnArcaneElection wrote:

By the way, in case anyone didn't notice, the Monk blog came out today and DIDN'T mention alignment restrictions at all . . . .

Granted, it also didn't mention that alignment restrictions have been removed like they did with the Barbarian.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's official Monks have no Alignment Restriction.


I see that Paizo shares a lot of my considerations, except what the core of the Monk is :P

Oh well, nice to see some Martial Arts. I like how Styles work.


If the core of the monk is "Martial Artist", what class is the "Mystical Warrior" then? I don't think it will be Paladin, it has to many restrictions, and seems a role too important to not be on Core. I can only think on Bard or Sorcerer. But Bard can be too much generalist to that. Sorcerer is a possibility now that there is not BAB, but is a deep change to the class.


Alaryth wrote:
If the core of the monk is "Martial Artist", what class is the "Mystical Warrior" then? I don't think it will be Paladin, it has to many restrictions, and seems a role too important to not be on Core. I can only think on Bard or Sorcerer. But Bard can be too much generalist to that. Sorcerer is a possibility now that there is not BAB, but is a deep change to the class.

I don't think we'll see it in the CRB, but I could certainly see whatever the Occult version of a Magus/Hunter/Warpriest as filling this role, at least within a facet of that class.


Alaryth wrote:
If the core of the monk is "Martial Artist", what class is the "Mystical Warrior" then?

Still monk. "Martial Artist" is the core and "Mystical Warrior" is one of the ways you can (but need not) progress from there.

Every mystical warrior is a martial artist, not every martial artist is a mystical warrior. (In PF2 that is, not everywhere.)


That covers Mystical Warriors that also are Martial Artist. But not all Mystical Warriors are Martial Artist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A fighter is a martial artist, as is any class that makes an art of martial thingies.


The Mystical option being optional for the Monks identity was a real bummer.

What we should have is:
Fighters - Mundane (but still extraordinary)
Rogues - Mundane (but skilful)
Paladins - Divine
Monks - Mystical (Ki)
*Magus - Arcane

If you're feat gating Ki powers, shouldn't the speed enhancement also be feat based. You could then scale it of the size of your Ki pool which could scale comparatively with level based progression. One of my favourite Monk tropes is the Mountain style. Unmovable, you try and get thrown on your backside, doesn't really needing the speed as Core. I imagine that a lot of Str monks wouldn't need it so long as they have mobility. Quality over quantity in other words.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I am have kept thinking about it and I am still struggling to see why the fighter would not be the best class to represent the martial artist and that the monk should represent something different than an "eastern" version of a fighter. The distinction between armed and unarmed feels like a bad mechanic to distinguish classes. If unarmed fighting was going to focus more on ways of incapacitating enemies with out killing them, it could be interesting, but since it does not in this rule set, the monk class is sitting in just as awkward place for me as the Lawful Good knight in shining armor as a paladin - it feels like a core base class has been created just to provide extra support to one specific flavor of a different class. At this rate it seems like gunslinger, swashbuckler, magus, inquisitor and every existing class in PF1 is going to have to get carried over as well, which leaves me nervous about where PF2 is headed as far as adding a needless bloat of options that are mostly redundant.

Most of the distinctions presented between a STR monk and an STR fighter feel like they could have been resolved easily by turning these class features into feats, feats which feel like they will probably pop up eventually in a splat book within a couple of years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, that's my perpective ATM, but if Paizo is able to make Martial Artist into a compelling class, I'll give it a look.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Unicore wrote:

I am have kept thinking about it and I am still struggling to see why the fighter would not be the best class to represent the martial artist and that the monk should represent something different than an "eastern" version of a fighter. The distinction between armed and unarmed feels like a bad mechanic to distinguish classes. If unarmed fighting was going to focus more on ways of incapacitating enemies with out killing them, it could be interesting, but since it does not in this rule set, the monk class is sitting in just as awkward place for me as the Lawful Good knight in shining armor as a paladin - it feels like a core base class has been created just to provide extra support to one specific flavor of a different class. At this rate it seems like gunslinger, swashbuckler, magus, inquisitor and every existing class in PF1 is going to have to get carried over as well, which leaves me nervous about where PF2 is headed as far as adding a needless bloat of options that are mostly redundant.

Most of the distinctions presented between a STR monk and an STR fighter feel like they could have been resolved easily by turning these class features into feats, feats which feel like they will probably pop up eventually in a splat book within a couple of years.

I feel exactly the same.

If they make it so that a fighter can't compete against the monk in unarmed combat, then they've basically made a class that equates to the use of a weapon type (unarmed strike). That's a very bad place to be from a design flexibility standpoint.

You should be able to make a viable unarmed monk, but the notion that you need to take a certain class to effectively use a weapon is not great. It's okay if one class has an edge in something because of other features that synergize well, but I don't want to tell someone who wants to play Batman that they have to play a monk or give up on unarmed strikes. Or that to play someone with mystic powers and ki they have to know how to punch someone super well.

Class design concepts I'm okay with:

* Be a fighter to choose a path of combat specialization
* Be a monk to enhance your strikes with mystic energy and total control of the body
* Be a paladin to use divine power to enhance your resistance and attacks

Class design concepts I'm not okay with:

* Be a fighter to be good with a longsword
* Be a monk to be good with punches
* Be a paladin to be good with armor
* Be a gunslinger to be good with a gun


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All indications are that the Fighter can be built to excel at unarmed combat, and in some ways be better than the monk. Fighters can get Master Proficiency in unarmed strikes at 3rd level, when monk is only getting expert. Flurry is cool for additional actions, but the Fighter can get Double Slice which allows two attacks at no penalty for two actions. The Fighter also has less need for dex because of its armor, and can therefore prioritize strength.

Fighters don't get some of the esoteric unarmed techniques of the monk, but they will be punching stuff plenty hard. Those esoteric monks are what sets the monk apart, coupled with superior mobility. Ki powers can be used as an optional point of distinction.

This is all fairly consistent with how monks compared to fighters that specced for unarmed in PF1.

Basically, they've opted for the monk's identity to be "faster, more agile, and more esoteric martial combatant" with the caveat that it defaults to unarmed unless you take a feat to apply the above to weapons.

Liberty's Edge

Captain Morgan wrote:
All indications are that the Fighter can be built to excel at unarmed combat, and in some ways be better than the monk. Fighters can get Master Proficiency in unarmed strikes at 3rd level, when monk is only getting expert. Flurry is cool for additional actions, but the Fighter can get Double Slice which allows two attacks at no penalty for two actions. The Fighter also has less need for dex because of its armor, and can therefore prioritize strength.

This is all true, but I think they're stuck with d4 unarmed strikes, which hurts in terms of damage quite a bit (Monks have d6 and can get higher), and are stuck with nonlethal damage.

Now, if there's a Fighter Feat to up their unarmed damage and make it lethal, then we're in business.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

And honestly, faster, more agile, and more esoteric martial is about as distinct an identity as martials tend to have from each other. Barbarians aren't that really further from a fighter than that, and I'd argue they are probably equidistant from the monk-- monks and barbarians are both about tapping into inner potential as opposed to learning the best way to utilize a particular weapon. They just approach it from different angles.

We can use the Avengers movies as a popular example of the identities the classes seem to be going for.

Fighter: Hawkeye. He's learned to leverage a bow an arrow about as well as it could possibly be used. He's good at close range, but he's clearly got weapon mastery with the ranged stuff. Without the bow, he's athletic, more so than a real world human, but he's not comparable to what his universe's metas pull off.

Rogue: Black Widow. This doesn't seem like it needs much justification. Agile polymath that can leverage openings and surprise very effectively, but doesn't want to stand and slug it out one on one with a more dedicated martial like the Winter Soldier.

Paladin: Thor. He took Righteous Ally with his weapon, is durable as all hell, and has powerful but not especially varied magical abilities. (Obviously, Cap fits the personality of a paladin better, but not the power set.)

Barbarian: Hulk. SMASH. These last two break the power curve, but they still have the right kind of powers if not level.

Monk: Captain America. He's got the shield as a monastic weapon and can therefore do things with it that shouldn't be physically possible. He's incredibly agile and can outrun a horse or moving vehicle.

If you wanted an example of what I expect an unarmed fighter to look like, I'd probably point to Luke Cage. Incredibly durable, hits like a truck, and quite skilled to boot when he has to be. If you locked Cap in the octagon with Cage, Cap will probably lose to that raw power. But Cap's speed and skills can let be leveraged to greater effect in a more dynamic setting.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Captain Morgan wrote:
All indications are that the Fighter can be built to excel at unarmed combat, and in some ways be better than the monk. Fighters can get Master Proficiency in unarmed strikes at 3rd level, when monk is only getting expert. Flurry is cool for additional actions, but the Fighter can get Double Slice which allows two attacks at no penalty for two actions. The Fighter also has less need for dex because of its armor, and can therefore prioritize strength.

This is all true, but I think they're stuck with d4 unarmed strikes, which hurts in terms of damage quite a bit (Monks have d6 and can get higher), and are stuck with nonlethal damage.

Now, if there's a Fighter Feat to up their unarmed damage and make it lethal, then we're in business.

True, but that's such an easy fix. I'd be shocked if we didn't have a feat that let non-monks use unarmed effectively, but if we don't get it in the playtest I am positive we will get it eventually.


I agree that the core of 2e playtest Monk seems to be Mobile Unarmed Striker as opposed to the Fighter whose core is Weapon Master with Good Armor. That seems distinct enough.

The class feats for each obviously allow for a lot of diverse character that can be built on top.

Liberty's Edge

Weather Report wrote:
Has this been confirmed?

Which part? Unarmed combat normally being a d4 of nonlethal damage (with Monks rising to 1d6 and being able to make it lethal) is pretty easy to infer from the Monk Blog.

Whether Fighters have a way around this we have no actual idea.

Weather Report wrote:
I know about nonlethal damage, much to my chagrin.

It works a bit differently in PF2, but being stuck with it is still not great.


Weather Report wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Weather Report wrote:
Has this been confirmed?

Which part? Unarmed combat normally being a d4 of nonlethal damage (with Monks rising to 1d6 and being able to make it lethal) is pretty easy to infer from the Monk Blog.

Whether Fighters have a way around this we have no actual idea.

Weather Report wrote:
I know about nonlethal damage, much to my chagrin.
It works a bit differently in PF2, but being stuck with it is still not great.

Yeah, unarmed dealing 1d4 nonlethal makes sense (maybe they have done away with d3), just asking, cool.

How does nonlethal damage work in PF2?

You no longer track nonlethal damage separately. Nonlethal damage is just damage, and it only matters that it's nonlethal if it brings you to 0 hp, at which you're knocked out and not dying. But if you bring someone to 1 HP with Nonlethal, and someone hits them with a sword, they're dying, even though most of the damage was nonlethal.


I have to imagine the equivalent of "Improved Unarmed Strike" will be available in some sense to all classes somehow.

51 to 95 of 95 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion / The mechanical-fantasy core of the Monk, and that which could be shed All Messageboards
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest Prerelease Discussion