So one of the biggest changes to class design between 2e and 1e seems to be that Paizo has split the class features of each of the core classes (plus Alchemist!) into two groups
Core to the class - these remain class features as in 1e. Here you have Barbarian Rage, Rogue Sneak Attack etc.
Optional class build paths - these have turned into 'class feats' in 2e.
This, like any big change, is controversial. After all big decisions have to be made on what is 'core' to a class and what is an optional build! Especially as this new design interacts with the new universal archetypes, where the Optional class build feats can be swapped out for archetype feats but the Core features can't be. But there's other threads for that discussion.
What I'd like to talk about is two features that were core to the 1e Monk that have turned into Option class build paths in the 2e playtest.
First is Ki. The 1e monk was always mystical from 4th level up, the 2e playtest monk *could be* mystical right from 1st level but only if they choose to use a class feat on the Ki Strike monk class feat, which gives them a 'Spell' pool to use on classic monk abilities like Abundant Step and Quivering Palm etc.
Second is Monastic Weaponry. The 1e monk was trained with a selection of weapons while the 2e playtest monk gets NO weapon training... unless they take the Monastic weaponry monk class feat which lets 'them use their unarmed attack proficiencies, as well as any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks, with simple and martial monk weapons.'
Now both of these aren't straight up replacements of their 1e core feature counterparts.
In 1e for example, the Ki pool class feature was how monks unarmed strikes were treated as enchanced for the purpose of overcoming DR (magic, cold iron etc.) In 2e playtest that feature isn't tied to Ki strike and is a part of the core unarmed strikes class feature. Another difference is that in 1e the bread and butter use of the Ki pool was to power an extra attack on top of the flurry of blows. This is completely irrelveant to the 2e playtest monk's Action Economy.
Because of this greater focus on what Ki is used for I am pretty much alright with Ki becoming a 'Wuxia' build option for the 2e playtest monk rather than core. Paizo seems to have come to the conclusion that non mystical martial arts heroes (like those in Jackie Chan classics) are monks rather than fighters and Wuxia heroes are monks that invested heavily in Ki monk class feats. I'm good with this.
Monastic Weaponry I'm having a harder time with.
Now Monastic weapon training is a bit stronger than the 1e monk's training since 'any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks' can suddenly be used with simple and monk weapons while in 1e monk weapons just allowed them to be used with a flurry of blows. I just don't think it's enough.
A 2e playtest monk who does not take the Monastic weaponry feat has suddenly become very bad at dealing with ranged enemies and is level locked in dealing with enemies that have many kinds of DR. From what I can see it's just too harsh a nerf to the 2e playtest monk's in combat utility and Monastic Weapon Training is a necessary 'feat tax' to get away from it.
Now of course this might not be true in practice (I certainly haven't played a monk in 2e yet :p). But I would propose that
1. Monks do get weapon training in simple and monk weapons as a part of the the core chassis so they can at least pick up a bow and fire it if they need to, or smack a fae around with a cold iron club with a decent chance of success.
2. Monastic weaponry Training becomes 'any monk abilities that normally work with unarmed attacks can be used with simple and martial monk weapons'.
The class feat is still pretty powerful as you can now Flurry with simple and monk weapons and then eventually Paizo can publish a whole whack of Zen archer or Sohei monk class feats that have Monastic Weapon Training as a perquisite!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion is that ki should be baseline for Monks and that unarmed mundane characters should be Fighters.
Weaponry for Monks, and Flurry of Blows, are tangential. The core is mysticism and martial training combined. I'd rather have ki as a 1st level feature than Flurry, which might as well be a Fighter thing.
But that's another concept altogether.
Tangential thought then is that it seems super easy to homebrew your version by making Flurry of Blows a class feat for Monks and Fighters and swapping Ki Strike in as a core feature of the Monk.
Tangential thought then is that it seems super easy to homebrew your version by making Flurry of Blows a class feat for Monks and Fighters and swapping Ki Strike in as a core feature of the Monk.
And/or convincing devs that should be healthier for the playtest.
|
The playtest monk I intend to use as my "primary" for Doomsday Dawn will almost certainly use Ki Strike and its related abilities but will not take Monastic Weapons, as the concept is someone trained as an assassin used in situations where they cannot carry weapons. (I might multiclass rogue, depending on how MC actually works.) Consequently, I am not concerned with weaponry training for my monk, and feel reasonably comfortable with the idea that it's not needed. I'd frankly be more interested in options that allow me to use improvised weaponry easily than regular monk weapons.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the devs on this one. I see unarmed /unarmored fighting as the core of the monk and special weapons and ki as common features but ultimately optional. I would prefer than monks get proficiency in a few simple weapons though instead of no weapons. staff, club, dagger, sling something like that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always seen the monk as the warrior-mystic. The fighter should be able to build a punch-good character. Ki is absolutely core to my idea of the monk and I am sad that the Ki-Strike feat is so unexciting. Its also lame that every ki-user has to start with the same feat. It would be cool if there were three or four entry points into the ki feat tree.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a dev said that they are planning on adding more ki entry options in the CRB and I agree it is 100% necessary.
My opinion is that ki should be baseline for Monks and that unarmed mundane characters should be Fighters.
Weaponry for Monks, and Flurry of Blows, are tangential. The core is mysticism and martial training combined. I'd rather have ki as a 1st level feature than Flurry, which might as well be a Fighter thing.
But that's another concept altogether.
I feel like the "goes to the monastery to learn martial prowess (for revenge, to protect their town, etc.) but on the way nonetheless acquires enlightenment" is a sufficiently common trope in monk source material (e.g. Eight Diagram Pole Fighter, the 36th Chamber trilogy) that a monk should be able to start out without that much in the way of mystic enlightenment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think giving monks simple weapon training in the chassis might be enough to take care of my worry. Only having unarmed fighting seems unnecessarily tactically limiting for a front line martial character.
And I think it doesn't really fit the fantasy of a dojo or monastery training its pupils to be able to defend themselves if they aren't able to handle the first DR/slashing-piercing and/or flying monster they come across since they're limited to just unarmed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class feat is still pretty powerful as you can now Flurry with simple and monk weapons and then eventually Paizo can publish a whole whack of Zen archer or Sohei monk class feats that have Monastic Weapon Training as a perquisite!
Here's the thing: you already CAN flurry with weapons. (Or so I believe.) Flurry is now a single action, not a full round action. I think that as written you can use your flurry with punches out the box and then use whatever weapons for your subsequent attack. Rather than complicate the relationship between your different actions like you had with the old flurry, I believe paizo has opted to simply apply the -2 untrained penalty out the box so that the monk who mixes weapons with punches isn't automatically better than than the monk who only punches. (This is the problem with the Unchained Monk.)
I can mostly get behind that, if it is their reasoning. I am very confident styles or other feats will let you unarmed strike for slashing or piercing. If you want to use weapons for flavor reasons you want Monastic Training anyway so it isn't much of a tax.
My one problem is it doesn't seem to leave monks with a viable ranged option out the box.
I feel like the "goes to the monastery to learn martial prowess (for revenge, to protect their town, etc.) but on the way nonetheless acquires enlightenment" is a sufficiently common trope in monk source material (e.g. Eight Diagram Pole Fighter, the 36th Chamber trilogy) that a monk should be able to start out without that much in the way of mystic enlightenment.
Yeah, but you aren't really a monk until you hit that minimum quota.
You can go to the monastery to learn martial prowess and come out a fighter regardless. There are plenty of backstories, I went to such-and-such school but <circumstance> so I didn't become a such-and-such-ologist.
If the baked in Flurry of blows was a ki ability like in PF1 that'd be fine. But its a mundane ability now and thus doesn't align with the monk identity of mystic warrior.
The martial artist as Monk, isn't that they are good at martial arts, its that they have gone beyond the normal human limits of what you can do with a punch (damage, speed, etc).
I would prefer if Ki was called something else (maybe a sidebar explaining how it can be called that for certain Japanese-themed characters), and the removal entirely of Asian/Oriental/Monk weapons (they can simply be among names used for standard weapons, they should not be inherently different/special because they are from the East).
I think PF2 is halfway there on both accounts. You now have spell points instead of ki points and weapons won't be exotic because they are Eastern but because they are powerful.
That said, you pretty much need their to be a specific subset of weapons with the monk trait for balance reasons, and I don't have a problem with a good number of them being Eastern. I think if they are going to make separate weapons though the weapons should be mechanically unique. Since pathfinder weapons have never been historically accurate I don't see why flavor can't be mutable, so if a katana and a longsword have the same stats just call them both longsword. But if a katana has a different set of weapon traits you may as well call it a katana.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a guy who grew up reading actual wuxia stories, I'd say Ki(or qi, or whatever else that pronounces as appropriate) abilities should be core, specifically Timeless Body and Perfect Self. Living long and healthy for centuries, then being elevated into the celestial bureaucracy by becoming a xiānrén is a classic goal, or rather a common by-product of a protagonist's training coupled with their incredible talent in-story.
----
An unrelated note; Japanese wuxia equivalents, "Chanbara", as far as I'm informed, do not mention or make use of the Ki trope (despite the word's chosen pronunciation being Japanese), preferring relatively realistic samurai gorn for its plot.
Yes, Ki is now a spell point delivery system, which is nice, and I like weapons having several names (longsword/katana/khandar, etc), but I do not dig the Monk trait for weapons, not really into class titles being linked with weapons, like the Druid trait for a club or something, not something I want to see.I would prefer if Ki was called something else (maybe a sidebar explaining how it can be called that for certain Japanese-themed characters), and the removal entirely of Asian/Oriental/Monk weapons (they can simply be among names used for standard weapons, they should not be inherently different/special because they are from the East).I think PF2 is halfway there on both accounts. You now have spell points instead of ki points and weapons won't be exotic because they are Eastern but because they are powerful.
That said, you pretty much need their to be a specific subset of weapons with the monk trait for balance reasons, and I don't have a problem with a good number of them being Eastern. I think if they are going to make separate weapons though the weapons should be mechanically unique. Since pathfinder weapons have never been historically accurate I don't see why flavor can't be mutable, so if a katana and a longsword have the same stats just call them both longsword. But if a katana has a different set of weapon traits you may as well call it a katana.
I think if you are going to have a class whose special ability is "make more attacks than anyone else" you probably need to limit the weapons they can do it with, and the monk trait seems to be the most elegant way to do that.
Here's the thing: you already CAN flurry with weapons. (Or so I believe.) Flurry is now a single action, not a full round action. I think that as written you can use your flurry with punches out the box and then use whatever weapons for your subsequent attack.
Sure, I'm not disputing that, but since monks are untrained with any weapon other than their unarmed strikes, their second and third attacks with weapons are going to be at -4/-8 or -5/-10 penalty PLUS the -2 penalty they have if they didn't pick up the Monastic Weapon Training Feat. Currently without Monastic Weapon Training they are terrible at using *any* kind of weapon which severely limits their tactical options against flying enemies (as you noted) and also any DR other than DR/bludgeon, especially at lower levels. That's pretty bad for a martial class.
It certainly makes perfect sense to gate them being able to do monk things with weapons behind a Monastic Weapon Training kind of feat, but not even a club or a sling? At the very VERY least they need the sling and I don't think it would unbalance them to give them more.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You mean like have the monk say "The monk can flurry with this list of weapons..."?
That runs into problems with future proofing. If you make a specific list of weapons the monk can use, that means it can't use weapons released later unless that weapon has specific exception text built into it, which is far from ideal when you are looking at weapon tables.
The original monk had this problem, and so they had to put text in the later released temple sword that monks were proficient with it. That's why they just gave the Unchained monk proficiency I Nall monk weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would prefer if Ki was called something else (maybe a sidebar explaining how it can be called that for certain Japanese-themed characters), and the removal entirely of Asian/Oriental/Monk weapons (they can simply be among names used for standard weapons, they should not be inherently different/special because they are from the East).You now have spell points instead of ki points and weapons won't be exotic because they are Eastern but because they are powerful.
That said, you pretty much need their to be a specific subset of weapons with the monk trait for balance reasons, and I don't have a problem with a good number of them being Eastern. I think if they are going to make separate weapons though the weapons should be mechanically unique. Since pathfinder weapons have never been historically accurate I don't see why flavor can't be mutable, so if a katana and a longsword have the same stats just call them both longsword. But if a katana has a different set of weapon traits you may as well call it a katana.
I think this is all unneeded. Monk weapons are simply regular weapons with less item budget and MONK slapped on them.
Restricting Flurry to Simple Weapons would accomplish the same thing.
Here's the thing: you already CAN flurry with weapons. (Or so I believe.) Flurry is now a single action, not a full round action. I think that as written you can use your flurry with punches out the box and then use whatever weapons for your subsequent attack.Sure, I'm not disputing that, but since monks are untrained with any weapon other than their unarmed strikes, their second and third attacks with weapons are going to be at -4/-8 or -5/-10 penalty PLUS the -2 penalty they have if they didn't pick up the Monastic Weapon Training Feat. Currently without Monastic Weapon Training they are terrible at using *any* kind of weapon which severely limits their tactical options against flying enemies (as you noted) and also any DR other than DR/bludgeon, especially at lower levels. That's pretty bad for a martial class.
It certainly makes perfect sense to gate them being able to do monk things with weapons behind a Monastic Weapon Training kind of feat, but not even a club or a sling? At the very VERY least they need the sling and I don't think it would unbalance them to give them more.
Ah, but see, that's where I think you're wrong. A monk doesn't have to use flurry with his first attack action, and indeed shouldn't if he's trained with weapons. Consider if he is swinging a d8 bo staff.
Staff/punch/flurry punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
Flurry punch/punch/punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
If you are going use the strike action more than once, you have no real reason to flurry with your first attack and can instead use a non-agile weapon with higher damage dice and other properties. (This assumes I'm correct that you can flurry with later actions, but I feel fairly confident on this.) This means relying solely on your fists is strictly suboptimal.
I do think they should get slings, shurikens, or some other combination of ranged options out the box, and maybe some melee weapon proficiencies out the box that aren't actually better than unarmed strikes.
I don't think DR will be a huge problem. Flurry combines damage in a way that will help monks overcome it, and if you don't spend the feat on monastic weapons you can get a style feat which will almost certainly let you switch your damage type like you could in PF1.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see no problem with it, but this brings up the question of weapon power creep, I do no want weapons trickling into the game through various products, I would prefer all weapons to be in the CRB.You mean like have the monk say "The monk can flurry with this list of weapons..."?
That runs into problems with future proofing. If you make a specific list of weapons the monk can use, that means it can't use weapons released later unless that weapon has specific exception text built into it, which is far from ideal when you are looking at weapon tables.
Paizo's business model is based on publishing an overwhelming amount of content. They aren't going to do things which limits content they can put out later. Even if they don't put out new weapons for years, they will want to be able to make new weapons eventually. (Also, giving themselves a hard rule on "no new X" is creatively limiting and probably not fun for their design team.)
Another route is for monks only being able to flurry with weapons that have certain qualities.
Which is what they are doing. The weapon quality is called monk.
Ah, but see, that's where I think you're wrong. A monk doesn't have to use flurry with his first attack action, and indeed shouldn't if he's trained with weapons. Consider if he is swinging a d8 bo staff.
Staff/punch/flurry punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
Flurry punch/punch/punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
In your example above you're not taking into account the monk's level of training. They're untrained in the bo staff by default which means -2 to the attack.
So taking that into account it would be
Staff/punch/flurry punch = -2/-4/-8/-8
Flurry punch/punch/punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
That's pretty terrible especially as every point of bonus is more valuable in 2e rather than 1e (it also hinders the ability to get a crit by exceeding AC by 10).
Plus one of the points of the 2e flurry is that it lets you get two attack actions over in one action and then you're free to use your two other actions for other things (like moving in, flurrying, moving away etc.). So unless you're committed to a full attack (which 2e seems to be de-emphasizing) you're sacrificing the monk's mobility by not flurrying in the first attack.
In any case I think we're both agreed that Monks should be trained in more than just unarmed attacks at the start of their career without needing Monastic Weapon Training even if it is a limited set of weapons. It's just an in-combat utility thing which is important for a martial.
I'm not talking about them being able to flurry with weapons at the start of their career. I'm just talking about them being trained with some of them rather than untrained at the start.
Edit: Untrained means -2 I'm pretty sure.
Ah, but see, that's where I think you're wrong. A monk doesn't have to use flurry with his first attack action, and indeed shouldn't if he's trained with weapons. Consider if he is swinging a d8 bo staff.
Staff/punch/flurry punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
Flurry punch/punch/punch = +0/-4/-8/-8
In your example above you're not taking into account the monk's level of training. They're untrained in the bo staff by default which means -2 to the attack.
So taking that into account it would be
Staff/punch/flurry punch = -2/-4/-8/-8
Flurry punch/punch/punch = +0/-4/-8/-8That's pretty terrible especially as every point of bonus is more valuable in 2e rather than 1e (it also hinders the ability to get a crit by exceeding AC by 10).
Plus one of the points of the 2e flurry is that it lets you get two attack actions over in one action and then you're free to use your two other actions for other things (like moving in, flurrying, moving away etc.). So unless you're committed to a full attack (which 2e seems to be de-emphasizing) you're sacrificing the monk's mobility by not flurrying in the first attack.
In any case I think we're both agreed that Monks should be trained in more than just unarmed attacks at the start of their career without needing Monastic Weapon Training even if it is a limited set of weapons. It's just an in-combat utility thing which is important for a martial.
I'm not talking about them being able to flurry with weapons at the start of their career. I'm just talking about them being trained with some of them rather than untrained at the start.
Edit: Untrained means -2 I'm pretty sure.
Yeah, my example was if they gave the monks training in melee weapons. I should have made that clearer.
I understand what you are advocating for. What I'm suggesting is that -2 untrained penalty wasn't just a flavor decision, it was an intentional balance point. If you give monks equal proficiency with weapons and fists, even without the weapons being able to flurry the monk should optimally use weapons. (Unless all of the weapons available to the monk are equal or inferior to unarmed strikes and offer no new properties.) This is at least true at level 1, later features may change this.
Paizo probably wants someone to be able to play a weaponless monk without feeling like they are making an inferior mechanical choice out the gate. That -2 penalty to weapons seems to be the answer.
The trained weapon wouldn't just be better when using all three actions to attack, by the way. 2 strikes would do it as well.
Staff/flurry punch/move = +0/-4/-8
Punch/flurry punch/move = +0/-4/-8
If the monk is trained with any melee weapons that offer an advantage over unarmed strikes (higher damage die, reach, block, etc) they are automatically better off using it than not, because the pure punching is only competitive if you devote no more than one action to striking.
Hence, you get -2 to weapons out the bat. You can spend a feat to fix that, just like the unarmed monk can spend a feat to catch up with monastic weapons-- a style feat that changes up the damage type for example. Theoretically, this keeps both monks comparable to each other.
I don't know that the -2 penalty is the best balance point, mind you. But if you just make the monk trained in weapons you pretty much have to give them some other limitation to keep the truly weaponless monk from falling behind. (Which is part of why I am advocating for RANGED weapon proficiency by default but not necessarily melee weapon profiency. Ranged weapons shouldn't compete with punching.)
I think the purpose of simple weapons is to fill the need for weapons that can be given to anyone that won't compete with actual good options.
I don't think any of them should be able to compete with a monk's flurry and scaling damage die unarmed combat right from first level. They would definitely be left way behind by third level when the monk becomes expert at unarmed combat and gains DR/magic.
I really don't see why they can't just be trained in simple weapons as well as unarmed combat at level 1. Simple change that doesn't detract from the power of Monastic Weapon Training as it's currently written either.
I think the purpose of simple weapons is to fill the need for weapons that can be given to anyone that won't compete with actual good options.
I don't think any of them should be able to compete with a monk's flurry and scaling damage die unarmed combat right from first level. They would definitely be left way behind by third level when the monk becomes expert at unarmed combat and gains DR/magic.
I really don't see why they can't just be trained in simple weapons as well as unarmed combat at level 1. Simple change that doesn't detract from the power of Monastic Weapon Training as it's currently written either.
Depends really. In Pathfinder 1, a simple two handed weapon could already do 1d8, which is more than the fists do at level 1. We don't know what else they will have beyond that.
Also, a lot of my personal feelings on the matter will depend on what I proficiencies the other classes get. If sorcerers get all simple weapons and wizards are better at swinging a stick than a monk, then I think something has gone wrong.
Since they're splitting ki off from core monk, I'd really like to see a monk archetype or a set of feats with a huuuge focus on ki and making use of it. I think a "ki mage" could be quite interesting and fun.
Which is what they are doing. The weapon quality is called monk.Ha, I mean qualities such as Agile, or Finesse, or maybe a classification/grouping such as Simple, not a trait that is named after this one class. Also, if you are playing in a campaign setting with no monks, it's kind of lame for all these weapons to have a trait for a class that does not exist in this world; I know they are infusing more of Golarian in this edition, but many PF campaigns are home-brew.
I do not see any feasability for a custom world where there are not esoteric martial artist practitioners.
It's simply human nature to fight each other - and that means that people will make a sport of it, and as such it follows that people will dedicate themselves to attaining perfection in that art. This is the beginnings of what the Monk class represents.
So... I think the Monk trait is going to be as commonplace and quintessential as any other weapon quality.
There are certain weapons that are simply better suited for blending with unarmed strikes in combat, and those are what is represented by this trait.
There are certain weapons that are simply better suited for blending with unarmed strikes in combat, and those are what is represented by this trait.Great (clubs/escrima sticks, etc), but there are ways to express that without a specific class-titled trait.
So you don't have an issue with the actual trait, just that it's named after a class? That seems like a very simple houserule....
What if the trait was named Monastic to tie in with the unlock by the Monastic Weapon Training feat?
Hey, good idea, I would feel much better about that, thanks.So you don't have an issue with the actual trait, just that it's named after a class? That seems like a very simple houserule....
What if the trait was named Monastic to tie in with the unlock by the Monastic Weapon Training feat?
If that's not sarcasm - which I feel it isn't, but you can never tell on the 'net - I'm glad to have helped your head-canon. :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do not see any feasability for a custom world where there are not esoteric martial artist practitioners.It's simply human nature to fight each other - and that means that people will make a sport of it, and as such it follows that people will dedicate themselves to attaining perfection in that art. This is the beginnings of what the Monk class represents.
So... I think the Monk trait is going to be as commonplace and quintessential as any other weapon quality.
There are certain weapons that are simply better suited for blending with unarmed strikes in combat, and those are what is represented by this trait.
My issue with the PF2 Monk is exactly this. A character that trains in the Martial Arts to the exclusion of all other practices is a fighter. Most fighters choose to utilize weapons as a part of that martial mastery, because weapons are tools that make fighting more effective, but most fighters would also probably train for situations where their weapons were restricted or unaccessible, if for no other reason than training without weapons is safer and can be done for longer periods of time. Some fighters may not ever learn to fight with weapons if they live in a society where it is illegal or dangerous to cary weapons, but if the focus is to perfect a martial art, that is the core of what a fighter is.
A monk is a character that dedicates themselves to some form of mental or spiritual perfection that can also include the body, but is not inherently martially focused. European Monks often did not focus on martial pursuits at all. It seems very strange for a game heavily rooted in western fantasy to adopt a character class for monk as martial artist, when there was very little connection between monasticism and martial training in Europe. This is not to say that the game shouldn't support a martial artist monk as a possibility, but it runs counter to the core idea of monasticism for the martial arts and not the contemplative mental or spiritual focus to be core principle of the class.
Especially when "Best Fighter" is already a character class concept. If the issue is "Best Fighter" cannot effectively be the best at fighting without weapons, than that is more of a statement about the fighter class design than about what a monk should be.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore: I think we're talking about the core fantasy of the classes here.
It seems to me Paizo sees the shtick of the Fighters as being 'gear' based warriors. They train with a weapon, and they train with armor. Monks on the other hand are warriors that can engage in combat without weapons and without armor. For Paizo, the spiritual perfection, mystical, part of the fantasy is optional.
Basically the question is, is Mike Tyson a Fighter or a Monk? I think you would call him a Fighter, I think Paizo would call him a Monk.
I'm sympathetic to both points of view really.
The problem though is that the 3.Pathfinder Monk really did try to do the mental and spiritual perfection thing along with combat and became so MAD that they were weak enough to need either highly specific TreantMonk builds or Archetypes or an Unchained variant to be effective.
In the end the role of Monks in Pathfiner is to be front line combatants. They need to have a combat niche where they're better at Fighters at this role otherwise everyone would just play a Fighter.
I am seeing roles change slightly in PF2. Where the Monk is not necessarily mystical now, the fighter is not just "the martial fighter". The fighter seems to be more of a weapon and armor specialist now, offloading some of it's martial market share onto the Monk.
Also, as a fan of the Brawler, I like that the core Monk is absorbing that. The Monk seems to be the physical prowess class. I definitely want the class to cover some non-mystical archetypes, such as wrestlers and barroom brawlers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unicore: I think we're talking about the core fantasy of the classes here.
It seems to me Paizo sees the shtick of the Fighters as being 'gear' based warriors. They train with a weapon, and they train with armor. Monks on the other hand are warriors that can engage in combat without weapons and without armor. For Paizo, the spiritual perfection, mystical, part of the fantasy is optional.
Basically the question is, is Mike Tyson a Fighter or a Monk? I think you would call him a Fighter, I think Paizo would call him a Monk.
I'm sympathetic to both points of view really.
The problem though is that the 3.Pathfinder Monk really did try to do the mental and spiritual perfection thing along with combat and became so MAD that they were weak enough to need either highly specific TreantMonk builds or Archetypes or an Unchained variant to be effective.
In the end the role of Monks in Pathfiner is to be front line combatants. They need to have a combat niche where they're better at Fighters at this role otherwise everyone would just play a Fighter.
This is probably where they are coming from and a good point. I can understand it mechanically, but it feels like this decision has been made entirely from a mechanical perspective and lacks a clear narrative purpose, infact it kind of flies in the face of narrative traditions and the choice to keep the names fighter and monk for these two classes doesn't make as much sense if they are becoming the soldier and the martial artist in practice.
It also means giving the monk weapons at all has to be very carefully done, especially if the fighter is getting pushed into the role of weapon master.
Actually, I feel like Mike Tyson would probably be a fighter specializing in the Brawler weapon group. Most combat sport athletes would fit under this umbrella, because all of their training is spent on being as good as possible at this one particular form of combat, but they don't necessarily train to run faster or jump higher. (The only tricky bit is that boxers and martial artists IRL train without armor, but I don't think Mike Tyson's overall survivability would be hurt in anyway if you put him in a bullet proof vest.)
Ironically, I think a soldier is probably a better representation of a monk, or at least a monk with monastic weaponry. Soldiers learn to use weapons across multiple different weapon groups (rifles, side arms, knives, explosives) and also train to run faster and further and jump higher and such. Soldiers will probably wear body armor, but really modern day ballistics armor has very little resemblance to most iconic medieval armor.
Actually, now that I think about it, most modern day infantry types would probably be Rangers rather than fighters or monks. Monks are more becoming the action movie hero class.
Hmm. I don't know that either are necessary to a theoretical 'class fantasy', but I do think defaulting to no options for ranged or damage resistance or any of a number of tactical challenges is a not good idea. At all.
Nothing should be training players in the ways of the dumb melee fighter, who refuses to put down the chosen beatstick and actually contribute when things are out of reach or require an option beyond meleeing something to death.
One thing that particularly worries me about the 'bare bones, fill out with feats' for classes and races is it lends itself to being very one dimensional. A gimmick, rather than a well rounded character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall from a class design perspective paizo seems to be finding about three different core elements of a class and then letting you use class feats to drill down into one of them or determine what order you get/focus on them.
For the monk that is ki, fighting styles and weapons.
For the fighter it looks like combo moves, critical focus and stances.
They have some definite similarities but if they feel enough different in play and maybe multiclass well together in interesting ways then I like it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mike Tyson is absolutely a fighter and not a Monk. The name monk is already troubling in much the same way that fighting man was troubling because it is an exclusively masculine term, but tying it to fighting instead of monastic living is clearly appropriating the wrong word for the class. Is Ronda Rousey a nun? Not a chance. MMA has made a very clear distinction in the US as to what an unarmed fighter and not a monk should be.
Ki strike at least makes passes toward an a monastic practice, and I could see mystic martial arts fitting into the monk category, but weapons training and punching hard don't feel core to the monk fantasy.
A lot of this boils down into "are classes mechanical chassis, narrative categories or some hybrid of both? Mike Tyson as a monk is clearly a purely Mechanical build. That could be ok if every other class was working to strip away its narrative elements, but that is clearly not the case. I am personally very confused as to why the paladin got doubled down upon as a narrative category, while the monk has been opened up as a flexible mechanical chassis.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably because they should have opened the paladin up mechanically but there would have been a riot.
|
The name monk is already troubling in much the same way that fighting man was troubling because it is an exclusively masculine term, but tying it to fighting instead of monastic living is clearly appropriating the wrong word for the class.
Huh. I don't think of the term monk as being exclusively masculine. That seems like a very Catholic understanding of the term, whereas I would use it as a gender neutral description for an ascetic with a martial bent.
The name monk is already troubling in much the same way that fighting man was troubling because it is an exclusively masculine term, but tying it to fighting instead of monastic living is clearly appropriating the wrong word for the class.Huh. I don't think of the term monk as being exclusively masculine. That seems like a very Catholic understanding of the term, whereas I would use it as a gender neutral description for an ascetic with a martial bent.
It is true in Buddhism as well (Monks are almost exclusively male). Nun is to monk as sorceress is to sorcerer. Which I am fine with having the Witch class and the Sorcerer class, but a warlock or a Sorceress would still definitely fit in the class. The new monk almost entirely excludes any European version of monks , and especially nuns. I would much rather the focus be on the ascetic aspect of the bent and is why it seems like the martial focus is counter intuitive for me.