|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this might be a little mystic for your tastes, but I'm going to share anyway. Last night, the 10th level monk in my playtest game was fighting wvyern riders. He ran up a building and wall jumped off of it to reach and injured wvyern and hit it with a flurry in one turn, slaying it and dropping the rider out of the sky. The other riders took heed of this and gained altitude to 75 feet and started raining arrows.
The next round, the monk combined 2 ki powers to leap 75 feet straight up, landing on a wvyern and flurrying the rider. Another rider flew over to try nd help fight this crazy monk.
The next round, the monk flurries the hurt rider, killing him with a flaming headbutt. Then he reaches over and grapples the other rider, and uses his Whirling Throw feat to toss him off the wvyern and at a huge sized enemy on the ground. At this point, the wyverns don't have their riders, so they just try and buck him off. One succeeded in doing so... but the monk used a grab edge reaction to snag onto the other wvyern. That is where we paused for the night.
Monks are doing pretty good, is what I'm saying. :)
This reminds me so fondly of my Crane Hengeyokai Unarmed Kensai in original Oriental Adventures that I now want to play it again in PF2.
Something I never even thought of attempting in any system.
Thank you
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
good thing my players go for whats fun to them and not for min-maxingExpect to see a LOT of elf monks: Flurry with a bow blows the other monk ranged option out of the water and dex elves will love the curve blade. About the only competition for other races is 2 handed dwarf waraxe strength monks for a 1d12.Just one thing about the monk I will probably houserule:
If a character picks his racial weapons prophiciency and the monastic weaponry they can consider their racial weapons as monk weapons, should add a nice spin too it and open some interesting option
To be fair, both of those sound really fun as well.
Well you don't need wisdom at all for monks now, even if you want to use ki powers.
Str monks are definitely fine, and Dex monks don't need str at high levels, but it helps at low levels.
There is a stance so Str monks don't need as much Dex, but using that means they do less damage.
Weapon using monks probably won't be able to do as much damage as unarmed monks.
Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?
As of right now, the only way for anyone to get dex to damage is "be a rogue." But it's also not a huge deal, since by 20th level your damage for a dex monk is going to be 4d8+8+StrMod while the str monk is going to be doing 4d8+8+strmod (4d10 with dragon style, which might not be the best choice). Highest strength or dex can possibly be is 24 (start at 18, get an apex item for the stat) and since stats go up 4 at a time a dex-monk can manage an 18 Str pretty easily by endgame. So the damage difference between a max-str monk and a max-dex monk at the endgame is like 3 damage/hit, 7 with dragon style.
I don't even see a "Weapon Finesse"-style "Dex to damage" under Rogues. What am I missing?
But that doesn't sound too bad. The couple of points that you lose out on from not specializing in Strength doesn't seem like it makes a big difference, other than a little bit of flavor: trading a little more defense for raw power, but both can strike pretty accurately. Cool.
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of the three rogue subclasses (i.e. rackets), competing with "can use medium armor/sneak attack with any simple weapon + crit spec if flat-footed" and "trained in an extra skill, your feints make people flat-footed until the end of your next turn."
Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?No. You can get Sneak Attack in theory, but not Dex to damage.
To further explain, the rules say "However, unarmed attacks aren’t weapons, and effects and abilities that work with weapons never work with unarmed attacks unless they specifically say so." So unarmed attacks don't act like a weapon except for monk effect/ability and handwraps. So this means that the rogue racket doesn't work on unarmed as it isn't a weapon.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?As of right now, the only way for anyone to get dex to damage is "be a rogue." But it's also not a huge deal, since by 20th level your damage for a dex monk is going to be 4d8+8+StrMod while the str monk is going to be doing 4d8+8+strmod (4d10 with dragon style, which might not be the best choice). Highest strength or dex can possibly be is 24 (start at 18, get an apex item for the stat) and since stats go up 4 at a time a dex-monk can manage an 18 Str pretty easily by endgame. So the damage difference between a max-str monk and a max-dex monk at the endgame is like 3 damage/hit, 7 with dragon style.
I'll need to wait for people better at math to crunch the numbers but I think for strength Monks Falling Stone is going to be the go-to unarmed strike; Forceful is a really good ability, much better than Backswing. And the benefit of being able to ignore dexterity for another stat cannot be understated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Math-wise I'm not sure it competes with the Agile d8 attacks, especially with the lower cap on damage dice and that Wolf Jaw also has backstabber.
Being able to drop Dex is definitely a reason to take Falling Stone, but you also have to worry about circumstances where you can't activate it in the first place (especially as you get to higher levels and 'touching the ground' isn't as simple and straightforward as it used to be. Or just the start to Oblivion Oath- a Mountain Stance monk would have been nigh-useless on that boat).
On the other hand, a strength monk who doesn't sacrifice dex is all of 1 point behind in AC and quickly catches up. And doesn't have a reduced speed, which is big deal before the +10 speed comes in at level 3. At levels 1 and 2 faster enemies can kite you and drop your damage down to just flurry, as you'll need to spend two actions to get back into melee.
I'll need to wait for people better at math to crunch the numbers but I think for strength Monks Falling Stone is going to be the go-to unarmed strike; Forceful is a really good ability, much better than Backswing. And the benefit of being able to ignore dexterity for another stat cannot be understated.Question: Is there a way to get Dex to unarmed damage?As of right now, the only way for anyone to get dex to damage is "be a rogue." But it's also not a huge deal, since by 20th level your damage for a dex monk is going to be 4d8+8+StrMod while the str monk is going to be doing 4d8+8+strmod (4d10 with dragon style, which might not be the best choice). Highest strength or dex can possibly be is 24 (start at 18, get an apex item for the stat) and since stats go up 4 at a time a dex-monk can manage an 18 Str pretty easily by endgame. So the damage difference between a max-str monk and a max-dex monk at the endgame is like 3 damage/hit, 7 with dragon style.
Unless I messed up the math, Dragon Tail actually comes out a bit on top in terms of damage, which makes enough sense considering that only your third and further Falling Stone attacks actually deal more average damage.
It's a difference of 4-5 damage over an entire round of attacking, so it probably doesn't make up for the other benefits of Mountain Stance.
EDIT: Also, the forceful damage is a circumstance bonus, so if you already have a circumstance bonus to damage somehow Dragon Tail pulls further ahead as well.
I think what's going to make dragon style not the go-to style is the effects of the other stances unrelated to what happens when you roll to attack. Like tiger stance lets you 10' step, tangled forest keeps people close, an ironblood can give you some beefy resistance.
I can see a lot of str monks wanting to start with mountain stance and 16 dex so you can retrain after getting ironblood and hitting 20 dex (max for bracers) at 15.
I'm abit disappointed that high wisdom is useless for a monk. It only looks like wisdom Only matters for the DC of quivering touch and ki blast.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm abit disappointed that high wisdom is useless for a monk. It only looks like wisdom Only matters for the DC of quivering touch and ki blast.
Perception is still the most useful skill even though it's not a skill since it covers default initiative and sense motive, and will is still the most important save, plus you can cast rituals with enough religion or nature...
But I wish monks had more in-class that made wisdom matter, since all of those things apply to everybody.
Yeah I don't really see much reason to play a wise monk, when I could play an actual class that benefits from wisdom like druid or cleric.
Getting just the base things like perception don't really interest me when it means I'll be worse at actually doing my classes thing compared to dumping wisdom, especially since I am one of the few players who seems to not always put full ranks into perception.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think what's going to make dragon style not the go-to style is the effects of the other stances unrelated to what happens when you roll to attack. Like tiger stance lets you 10' step, tangled forest keeps people close, an ironblood can give you some beefy resistance.
I can see a lot of str monks wanting to start with mountain stance and 16 dex so you can retrain after getting ironblood and hitting 20 dex (max for bracers) at 15.
Dragon Stance does let you ignore a square of difficult terrain as well. That's not to be underestimated, especially if it lets you step in difficult terrain.
Seems like it'd be better to just go pure cleric of a philosophy to try and cover a wise monk character, than multiclass monk just for slightly better punching.
I think the eventual way to restore concepts that got lost in the shuffle in the new edition (e.g. mystic monks, non-deific paladins, sword wizards) is more with class archetyping than multiclassing.
I can't really see them adding in non-deific options through class archetypes given it is a golarion-flavour taking precedence over legacy-rules situation. So that will probably just need to be houseruled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I mean, we have non-deific religions in Golarion. So why shouldn't I be able to play a Rivethun Champion, or a Green Faith Champion, or an Animist Champion, a Shamanic Champion etc.?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm abit disappointed that high wisdom is useless for a monk. It only looks like wisdom Only matters for the DC of quivering touch and ki blast.
This is something that'll get fixed over time; it doesn't even need archetypes, high wis monks will improve as more ki powers with save DC's are published.
But I mean, we have non-deific religions in Golarion. So why shouldn't I be able to play a Rivethun Champion, or a Green Faith Champion, or an Animist Champion, a Shamanic Champion etc.?
I think you should, but the setting people seem to prefer the idea that philosphies and faiths are just beliefs that don't actually do anything and that if you want to be a paldin in 1e in golarion you need to have a god, so they added in the "You Need A God" to Champion in 2e.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But I mean, we have non-deific religions in Golarion. So why shouldn't I be able to play a Rivethun Champion, or a Green Faith Champion, or an Animist Champion, a Shamanic Champion etc.?I think you should, but the setting people seem to prefer the idea that philosphies and faiths are just beliefs that don't actually do anything and that if you want to be a paldin in 1e in golarion you need to have a god, so they added in the "You Need A God" to Champion in 2e.
As I understood it, the objection was to "clerics of philosophies" which is not something I disagree with them on, considering that they eventually gave an Oracle and Shaman class for some of these non-deific religious spellcasters, and we should get something like that again. But if your ancestors, or the spirits, or w/e are able to grant full progression spellcasting, they should for sure be able to endow martial champions too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I understood it, the objection was to "clerics of philosophies" which is not something I disagree with them on, considering that they eventually gave an Oracle and Shaman class for some of these non-deific religious spellcasters, and we should get something like that again. But if your ancestors, or the spirits, or w/e are able to grant full progression spellcasting, they should for sure be able to endow martial champions too.
Part way through 1e they change it so paladins needed a god in the setting. Which was abit weird because earlier into the 1e life cycle you could see posts by James Jacobs saying paladins don't need to worship gods.
Neither Oracles or Shamans were available for clerics of philosophies because they got their power from divine figures just like clerics do... it's just that they don't need to worship those divine figures. But homebrewing clerics of philosophies back in is pretty easy.
There was alwasy this disconnect between pure rules and Golarion Lore.
By Pathfinder 1e rules, Clerics and Paladins could worship a philosophy.
By Golarion Lore, Clerics and Paladins needed to worship a god to gain divine features.
With Pathfinder 2 putting the setting info more in the rulebooks, that distinction seems to be gone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was alwasy this disconnect between pure rules and Golarion Lore.
By Pathfinder 1e rules, Clerics and Paladins could worship a philosophy.
By Golarion Lore, Clerics and Paladins needed to worship a god to gain divine features.With Pathfinder 2 putting the setting info more in the rulebooks, that distinction seems to be gone.
As is mentioned above, this isn't strictly true. Paladins without Gods were very much canonical to Golarion per James Jacobs (who would know) for quite some time. I'm not at all sure when that particular change happened.
Just FYI, there is literally nothing in the new book about requiring Wisdom for DC on Ki spells of monks that we could find. It only references the class casting DC which the only DC skill of a monk is Strength or Dexterity. You can have a Wisdom of 3 and still blast people with Ki spells just fine with RAW. I don't know if it was intentionally changed or they forgot to add the changes with removing the wisdom bonus power stuff from playtest.
Mark Seifert, on the development team, reportedly told multiple people who asked him at Gencon that it was a mistake, and monk focus spell DCs are supposed to key off wisdom.
|
I figured that was the case. But still, pretty big mistake for release, and while experienced players may understand the lack of clarity in print, anyone newer trying to learn it will not. Hopefully they fix it in print to stop a gap in translation of RAW and RAI.Just FYI, there is literally nothing in the new book about requiring Wisdom for DC on Ki spells of monks that we could find. It only references the class casting DC which the only DC skill of a monk is Strength or Dexterity. You can have a Wisdom of 3 and still blast people with Ki spells just fine with RAW. I don't know if it was intentionally changed or they forgot to add the changes with removing the wisdom bonus power stuff from playtest.Mark Seifert, on the development team, reportedly told multiple people who asked him at Gencon that it was a mistake, and monk focus spell DCs are supposed to key off wisdom.
To head that off, the example Ki user in the Monk section specifically calls out needing Wisdom.
|
|
You're absolutely right, except it's an example box for a sample build. Just like Crane build recommends Dex primary but you can pick Str if you want, any of the sample builds are just that....examples. I can say I'm building a Crane Monk and learn Ki skills to still use the book RAW. Basing an entire mechanic on a sample build in a side box isn't practical.I figured that was the case. But still, pretty big mistake for release, and while experienced players may understand the lack of clarity in print, anyone newer trying to learn it will not. Hopefully they fix it in print to stop a gap in translation of RAW and RAI.To head that off, the example Ki user in the Monk section specifically calls out needing Wisdom.
It is since it's sensical. Historically, Monks have used Wisdom, the example Ki User explicitly calls out using Wisdom, and the Designers have stated they use Wisdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're absolutely right, except it's an example box for a sample build. Just like Crane build recommends Dex primary but you can pick Str if you want, any of the sample builds are just that....examples. I can say I'm building a Crane Monk and learn Ki skills to still use the book RAW. Basing an entire mechanic on a sample build in a side box isn't practical.I figured that was the case. But still, pretty big mistake for release, and while experienced players may understand the lack of clarity in print, anyone newer trying to learn it will not. Hopefully they fix it in print to stop a gap in translation of RAW and RAI.To head that off, the example Ki user in the Monk section specifically calls out needing Wisdom.
It recommends certain attributes, then says specially your ki spells are powered by wisdom.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, you guys are missing the point. Experienced players like us KNOW this. However, leaving it open to interpretation to a new player to figure out that Wisdom is needed for Monk Ki power is the problem, because the ONLY mention is in an example, which anyone reading the guide with no tabletop experience could easily ignore that and still go by the book RAW.
Mistakes are going to be made with a book this size; eventually there will be errata and they will be corrected in another printing. In the meantime people can ask people who would know, or they can infer it from a number of places. It's not all that dire, really.
|
|
That's where i disagree, because no one reads a rulebook and uses claims in an example as a rule.We disagree. If the example went against rules it would defeat the purpose of being in there.
I know people that ignore side bars and example boxes completely, to speed read through stuff.Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.
This is why it's a big problem, it's only a small problem for us that already know how it should be.
Again, it's listed in the example, so it's easy to infer even if you've never dealt with Monks before.
|
Organized Play Developer
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know people that ignore side bars and example boxes completely, to speed read through stuff.Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.
Without weighing in on other elements of this conversation, I want to note that skipping sidebars is often a terrible idea. Sidebars are where developers and designers get to talk most directly and freely to the reader, and the information in them is often very important for contextualizing and framing some element of the product. We wouldn't put those things in there if they weren't important.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without weighing in on other elements of this conversation, I want to note that skipping sidebars is often a terrible idea. Sidebars are where developers and designers get to talk most directly and freely to the reader, and the information in them is often very important for contextualizing and framing some element of the product. We wouldn't put those things in there if they weren't important.I know people that ignore side bars and example boxes completely, to speed read through stuff.Ignoring examples and sidebars is on them, not the book.
Reading sidebars is usually the very first thing I read on a page, they're usually very important and/or insightful.