Monk: Unarmed Strike -Can NEVER be Legendary

[Themetricsystem]

Why?

Seriously, what justification is there for making Fighters better at Unarmed Strikes than a Monk?

Right off the starting Line Fighters are ALREADY at Expert where Monk is only Trained.. **baffled look**

Is there some reason that Monks should be more inaccurate with their primary attacks than a bare-fisted Fighter with no special training or unarmed focus at all?

This makes no sense, can we please get a Dev to chime in as to if this was an oversight or intentional.

[DM_Blake]

Of course monks (martial artists) can never be legendary. That's why there are no real world legendary fighters like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme or Morihei Ueshiba or...

Oh, yeah, right. There are.

One of the first house rules I'll make if Paizo doesn't officially fix it is that monks get the fighter's training track for their unarmed strikes. And, maybe, Miyamoto Musashi's ghost might try to convince me that they at least need a style or stance or feat or whatever to let them get fighter's training with weapons, too.

[Themetricsystem]

Without exception, in EVERY WAY a Fighter at ever level beyond Level 1 is better at Unarmed Strikes than a Monk is. At level 1 the only reason Monk has an edge at 1, is because Fighter cannot pick up the Monk Multiclass Archetype yet.

At Fighter 2 - Monk Dedication Feat gives them the Monk Unarmed d6 Damage up to match the Monk, except it's probably even higher because the Fighter doesn't need to spend Ability Scores in Wisdom OR Dex, plus they can add Flurry of Blows after level 10, adding it together with Double Slice to get 5 attacks per turn, one of which doesn't suffer the MAP.

Level 10 Fighter Monk
20 Strength (+5 To hit)
10 Class Levels (+10 to hit)
Master in Unarmed Strikes (+2 to hit)
Handwraps +2 Potency (Master Item Quality +2 to hit))

Double Slice +19 to hit, +19 to hit; 3d6 + 5 & 3d6 +5 Damage (Calculate before DR/Resistances)

Strike + 14 to hit; 3d6 +5 Damage

Flurry of Blows + 10 to hit, +6 to hit; 3d6 + 5 & 3d6 +5 Damage (Calculate before DR/Resistances)

Is my math way off here, or does a mid-level Fighter with the equivalent of a 1 level "dip" into monk (BTW Fighter can use their Combat Flexibility to get this Archetype AFAIK) not have more individual attacks, more damage, more AC, and more accuracy than ANY Monk built to the same level?

[shroudb]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Without exception, in EVERY WAY a Fighter at ever level beyond Level 1 is better at Unarmed Strikes than a Monk is. At level 1 the only reason Monk has an edge at 1, is because Fighter cannot pick up the Monk Multiclass Archetype yet.

At Fighter 2 - Monk Dedication Feat gives them the Monk Unarmed d6 Damage up to match the Monk, except it's probably even higher because the Fighter doesn't need to spend Ability Scores in Wisdom OR Dex, plus they can add Flurry of Blows after level 10, adding it together with Double Slice to get 5 attacks per turn, one of which doesn't suffer the MAP.

Level 10 Fighter Monk
20 Strength (+5 To hit)
10 Class Levels (+10 to hit)
Master in Unarmed Strikes (+2 to hit)
Handwraps +2 Potency (Master Item Quality +2 to hit))

Double Slice +19 to hit, +19 to hit; 3d6 + 5 & 3d6 +5 Damage (Calculate before DR/Resistances)

Strike + 14 to hit; 3d6 +5 Damage

Flurry of Blows + 10 to hit, +6 to hit; 3d6 + 5 & 3d6 +5 Damage (Calculate before DR/Resistances)

Is my math way off here, or does a mid-level Fighter with the equivalent of a 1 level "dip" into monk (BTW Fighter can use their Combat Flexibility to get this Archetype AFAIK) not have more individual attacks, more damage, more AC, and more accuracy than ANY Monk built to the same level?

fighters can't use flexibility for archetype feats.

flexibility grants a "Fighter feat" specifically. You need a Class feat for archetypes. While for a fighter a class feat IS a fighter feat, that doesn't automatically works both ways, making all "fighter feats" somehow "class feats".

apart from that:

your math is off:

at level 10 it should be double slice at +0/+0 (2 actions) followed by flurry at -8/-8 (your 3rd action)

so, a total of 4 attacks at 0/0/-8/-8

secondly, it's not even clear if you can double slice with normal unarmed attacks, since they have the unarmed trait that makes them "not-a-weapon" according to traits. But even if you can:

Also, a monk can also pick up fighter dedication and do the exact same attack routine 6 levels earlier ^^ (since they can pick up double slice at 4 from fighter multiclass)

but eve without fighter multiclass:

For a level 10 monk, we can assume a 20 dex and a 18 str, also d8 strikes

so, with +2 handwraps, we're at 3d8+4/3d8+7 vs the fighter's 3d6+5/3d6+5 and if both flurry attacks hit, then it's 3d10+4/3d10+7 (unless the fighter spends more feats, goes unarmored, and goes dex as well, losing quite a bit of his stuff)

fighter 10 has +1 extra to hit (master vs expert) and double slice is effecgtively 1 action to grant +4 to hit to second attack but monk has higher damage on each of his strikes, and is much more flexible due to much higher movement speed and that flurry is only 1 action vs 2 for double slice.

so we're talking +2/+5 damage on 1st/2nd attack, and +5/+8 if both hit and 1 full extra action and increased mobility vs +1/+5 attack bonuses

and that's a bog standard monk with just a level 1 stance feat, mind you.

If we add the level 10 feat in that you used for flurry, we can have Knockback strike, that is not affected and doesn't affect MAP on the monk, for a routine of 0/0/-4 for d8+4/d8+7/d8+10 as opposed to the fighter (counting his increased weapon proficiency) being at +1/+1/-7/-7 for d6+5/d6+5/d6+6/d6+5. Counting the increased damage of monk strikes, i'm not even sure that you outdpr him as a fighter at this point.

A multiclass monk can go with sorc (i call mine Kata monk^^), switch wisdom for cha for spell point pool, grab arcane striker that procs off ki strike, and even carry a staff of divination on his hand for true strike/RP (which due to cha fueling his SP now will be high)

that way you can true strike->flurry, ki strike on the second strike, proccing arcane striker, and the end result will be something like (compared to fighter):
+3 on 1st attack /-3 on second 3d8+4/4d8+8 and if both hit 3d10+4/4d10+8 all those for the same action as double slice.

[PossibleCabbage]

Since the monk dedication gives training in unarmed strikes, something that most everybody seemingly already has, it seems like the thing to do is to separate "proficiency in unarmed strikes" from "proficiency in simple weapons" then just give proficiency in unarmed strikes to people who need it (animal totem barbarians, wild-shaping druids, etc.)

It does feel weird that there are currently some things that people who should be good at it literally cannot gain legendary proficiency in it. Like monks should have an option for legendary unarmed, even if it's not free and automatic.

[shroudb]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Since the monk dedication gives training in unarmed strikes, something that most everybody seemingly already has, it seems like the thing to do is to separate "proficiency in unarmed strikes" from "proficiency in simple weapons" then just give proficiency in unarmed strikes to people who need it (animal totem barbarians, wild-shaping druids, etc.)

It does feel weird that there are currently some things that people who should be good at it literally cannot gain legendary proficiency in it. Like monks should have an option for legendary unarmed, even if it's not free and automatic.

i'm not sure i mind fighter being the only class to ever get legendary "weapon" proficiency. I mean, having the single most, highest, unbuffed, attack, is kinda his niche.

he is the undisputed highest (mundane) trained class in the Weapon of his choice. If his weapon of choice is his fists, he should be better trained than a monk.

[Ludovicus]

Themetricsystem wrote:

Why?

Seriously, what justification is there for making Fighters better at Unarmed Strikes than a Monk?

Right off the starting Line Fighters are ALREADY at Expert where Monk is only Trained.. **baffled look**

Is there some reason that Monks should be more inaccurate with their primary attacks than a bare-fisted Fighter with no special training or unarmed focus at all?

This makes no sense, can we please get a Dev to chime in as to if this was an oversight or intentional.

Makes sense to me.

Think of the fighter/monk as a (pretty good, imo) equivalent to the PF1 brawler. The fighter/monk masters martial arts for the sake of pounding people into paste. The monk masters martial arts for the sake of enlightenment.

DM_Blake wrote:

Of course monks (martial artists) can never be legendary. That's why there are no real world legendary fighters like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme or Morihei Ueshiba or...

Oh, yeah, right. There are.

Yep.

[DM_Blake]

Ludovicus wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Of course monks (martial artists) can never be legendary. That's why there are no real world legendary fighters like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme or Morihei Ueshiba or...

Oh, yeah, right. There are.

Yep.

LoL, now you're going to get me started about how stupid the class name of "Fighter" is...

It's been stupid for 44 years and still is. Paladins, rangers, monks, rogues, barbarians, and, really, everybody else, have all been "fighters" every time they get into fights.

It should have been called Warrior, or maybe even Soldier (though that might be a bit too specific), right from the start.

All those guys I mentioned really were legendary "fighters" though their legendary style of fighting was unarmed strikes and kicks and maybe throws (looking at you, Ueshiba). Much like the shtick of the D&D monk who is also an unarmed fighter, no matter what he's called.

Sadly, as pointed out in this thread, if you want to play Bruce Lee or Jet Li or even Quai Change Kane, you can do it much better by being a fighter than a monk.

[shroudb]

DM_Blake wrote:

Ludovicus wrote:

DM_Blake wrote:

Of course monks (martial artists) can never be legendary. That's why there are no real world legendary fighters like Bruce Lee or Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme or Morihei Ueshiba or...

Oh, yeah, right. There are.

Yep.

LoL, now you're going to get me started about how stupid the class name of "Fighter" is...

It's been stupid for 44 years and still is. Paladins, rangers, monks, rogues, barbarians, and, really, everybody else, have all been "fighters" every time they get into fights.

It should have been called Warrior, or maybe even Soldier (though that might be a bit too specific), right from the start.

All those guys I mentioned really were legendary "fighters" though their legendary style of fighting was unarmed strikes and kicks and maybe throws (looking at you, Ueshiba). Much like the shtick of the D&D monk who is also an unarmed fighter, no matter what he's called.

Sadly, as pointed out in this thread, if you want to play Bruce Lee or Jet Li or even Quai Change Kane, you can do it much better by being a fighter than a monk.

i don't know the last one you mentioned.

BUT all the others (Lee, Li, etc) are nowhere near the "identity" of the DnD monk.

They have nothing to do with mystical stuff, nothing to do with enligntenment and order, nothing "ki-like", etcetcetc

so yeah, if anything, in old pf1, they would be the very definition of "brawlers" which is the same thing as fighter/monk in this edition.

[PossibleCabbage]

Seems like better examples of monks who should be legendary combatants are people like Wong Fei-hung or San Te (at least the fictionalized versions of the real people) who were decidedly not fighters, but were martial artists nonpareil.

[ikarinokami]

it is kind of weird but can be justified. I think of the unarmed fighter to be like a mike Tyson or ali. who perhaps in absolute ability to hit something is better than any MMA fighter or monk.

However while the MMA or monk might not be able to hit as absolute best, their additional training makes there unarmed better.

a legendary fighter might have a higher bonus than a master monk, but that monk is going to have additional abilities that makes his unarmed far more deadly.

the monk stances are damn good.

[Themetricsystem]

Ok I guess that brings up another point.

What Fictional Monks DO fit the Pathfinder Monk Role? I mean Jackie Chan in Drunken Master is a pretty neat fit to the ARCHETYPE they created for it, but the Vanilla Monk ... I just can't think of any examples that fit. Is everyone really OK with the idea that everyone who really wants to [ATTACK] things really well with a [WEAPON (Unarmed is also a weapon too some conditions apply not available in all states, see your local Military for more information)] should be a Fighter otherwise they'll never reach their goal..

Here I thought Monks were all about Perfection of the physical form...

[PossibleCabbage]

I would say Gordon Liu's character in "the 36th Chamber of Shaolin" (aka "Shaolin Master Killer") is the archetypical monk you could very easily import to Pathfinder.

Like he's even got a built-in reason to not be at the monastery.

[Rameth]

I would just like to take the opportunity to say that I both HATE and LOVE the Monk class. As Martial Artist for 9 years (and counting) and having played 3.x for over 17 years I used to love the Monk class (I still enjoy it but not as much as I used to).

The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for. It also assumes that Monks (Martial Artists) don't use weapons, or that only a few do. ALL old martial artists used weapons. ALL of them. Not using weapons is a modern thing (within the last 100 years or so).

So after getting that off my chest (lol) what exactly is the Monk going for? It seems to me to be a mix of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon & Iron Fist. It does well to give this sort of feel I think but I've yet to see a good Monk played in my games as the the one Monk I saw played had a 12 Str so his damage was garbage.

I really think they dropped the ball on the Monk. They should have done it like the Druid and given them different options. Like Mystic, Brawler and Weapon Expert. Let all of the options be available but you get bonuses within your chosen discipline. Like toward the end the Brawler is Legendary in Unarmed only, Weapon Expert is Legendary in his chosen weapon, and Mystic stays lower but gains access to a cool Ki power.

[Draco18s]

Rameth wrote:

The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for.

I agree, but I also disagree.

Stances do give you some edge against your opponent and the only way the rules can reflect that is by, well, giving you a power up.

Do note that the stances the monk gets are no where near "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!" but rather more like "This stance makes it easier to jab my fingers into the joins in your armor" or "This stance makes it easier to swiftly kick, keeping you at a distance."

[Themetricsystem]

I feel like Paizo in general is scared of making the Monk "Anime", and in the process they're hamstringing them, relegating them to only having really weak baseline mystical powers instead of ones that are actually impactful.

For example, it takes what, 4 feats and at least 8-10 Levels for a Monk to more/less Fly? Any PC with some gold jingling around in their back pocket can just pay for potion or scroll to get this, let along an actual spellcaster can just do this whenever they like after around level 5.

I feel like because they straddle the Martial/Caster divide they're getting the worst of both worlds, weak versions of the Physical Stuff (Flurry of Blows is just a nerfed Double Slice), and also garbage feats that let them emulate low level spells (Feather Fall, Ki Strike, Crane Stance). Similarly they're way behind on Skills, AC, and Hit Points for some reason, the only REAL thing they have over anyone else is awesome Saving Throws which to be honest, is boring.

[Dragonborn3]

Pathfinder pretty much is Anime though. Heck, most of D&D is. How else is three to four feet of metal being stabbed into a mountain-sized-dragon by an average-sized-human killing said dragon in a few shallow stabs?

Getting mad and transforming into a different form, perhaps able to fly and breath fire? Anime.

Having mystical martial arts? Anime.

I could think of other examples.

[PossibleCabbage]

I confess I know very little about Anime, but I figure the sweet spot for fantasy monks is "pick your favorite wuxia epic".

But in a game where the Barbarian can literally get mad enough to grow horns with which to gore people *at level one*, the monk's low level ki stuff needs more oomph than "get +1 to hit." I mean, "get +1 to hit" is extremely limited (there's no way to regain ki yet) while the Barbarian can have horns for 75% of the entire day if they want. Said Barbarian also gets "literally turn into an animal" at the same level you get "Wall Run" (something a PF1 character could have at 3rd level.)

[MaxAstro]

I am definitely in favor of the general fantasy/awesomeness level for martials being kicked up to the standard set by the Barbarian, the Rogue, and Catfall.

I love Barbarians that get angry and turn into beasts; I love Rogues that sneak through walls; I love legendary acrobats that leap off mountains unharmed. I want Fighters that can cut people's armor off without touching their skin and Monks that can balance on a cloud or shatter a door with a fingertip.

On the legendary thing: even if there is a game design reason for it, it just feels... weird, in a gutteral kind of way, for Monks to not have legendary unarmed strike.

Fighters can still be legendary with their entire golf bag of weapons; I think it's okay to let monks be legendary at one specific weapon, or at least have the ability to get legendary by spending a feat or using a particular stance or something.

[Aiken Frost]

Dragonborn3 wrote:

Pathfinder pretty much is Anime though. Heck, most of D&D is. How else is three to four feet of metal being stabbed into a mountain-sized-dragon by an average-sized-human killing said dragon in a few shallow stabs?

Getting mad and transforming into a different form, perhaps able to fly and breath fire? Anime.

Having mystical martial arts? Anime.

I could think of other examples.

Shhhh, don't let the fantasy RPG nerds hear you or they'll flip in anime-like rage!

[Bardarok]

Perfect from should just give legendary proficiency in unarmed strikes. With the way ACs seem to work if you are hitting on a 10 anyways than you don't really need any help to beat the creature so perfect from 1 through 9 = 10 ability isn't all that helpful.

[Rameth]

Draco18s wrote:

Rameth wrote:

The problem with the Monk class is it assumes that only these mystical Monks are good at punching people (ha!). It assumes Stances are something that enhances you (like an anime power up, "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!") which is stupid and has nothing to do with what Stances are used for.

I agree, but I also disagree.

Stances do give you some edge against your opponent and the only way the rules can reflect that is by, well, giving you a power up.

Do note that the stances the monk gets are no where near "Your armor is no match for my Mantis Style!" but rather more like "This stance makes it easier to jab my fingers into the joins in your armor" or "This stance makes it easier to swiftly kick, keeping you at a distance."

I may have exaggerated a bit much but my original point is true. In REAL combat a stance does very little. Stances are something you get into during duels, when you have time to prepare, and do not hold up after the initial clash of combat. Plus real combat is not a duel. It's hectic and chaotic and there is absolutely no time to get into stances. Granted I may be getting too "real" for the developer's tastes but I am correct.

Edit: For the record I love anime lol

[Draco18s]

I also don't want "real" combat.

Real combat is a chaotic mess and one sword strike means death.

I'll pull out a quote-signature from the Shadowrun forums if I have to.