So, Monks are a bit of a mess.


Rules Discussion

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo Employee

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Saedar wrote:
Squiggit wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
As DMW mentioned, there's no reason you can't drop into encounter mode when it's appropriate to do so.

I'd really like to see more information from Paizo though on how they intend Encounter and Exploration mode to interact. There are a lot of abilities or features that only really have rules for encounter mode described.

Dropping in and out at will makes sense for a lot of them, but I'm not sure if that's how the developers intend the game to be played. There are also other things that don't really work with that paradigm and I'm not sure if the rules just aren't explicit or if they aren't intended to interact with exploration mode at all or what.

Worth Noting: If you are going to question how the devs intend things to be played, be aware of who you are responding to. Ssalarn IS a dev. Organized play, perhaps, but they all work alongside one another and a new edition is pretty all-hands.

Though in fairness, I put my "Ssalarn" hat on when I want to participate in a discussion without whatever I'm saying being interpreted as an official ruling or "Paizo's stance on the matter". It's a young system yet and the best folks to be answering questions in an official capacity are the design team.

As far as moving between Encounter and Exploration mode, I think one of the relevant bits is on page 496 under actions and reactions: "If they have specific actions they want to use, they should ask; you can decide whether the actions apply and whether to switch to encounter mode for greater detail."

So that's an area where the GM is specifically empowered to say "Okay, you want to do a thing that should happen in encounter mode and uses increments of time or some other limit/measurement inappropriate for exploration mode, so lets enter encounter mode and sort this out."

The Multiple Encounters sidebar on page 499 also refers to PCs moving from fight to fight without leaving encounter mode, which is another example of how you're really empowered to tailor the flow of the game to what the party and the adventure call for. Encounter mode and Exploration mode aren't really intended to be barriers to each other, they're meant to help facilitate and expedite play and provide you with a framework of what kinds of activities are appropriate in different time scales. I expect the time will come when we may even have a scenario or adventure that specifically call out these moments to note examples of situations where you might resolve an obstacle in encounter mode rather than exploration mode despite there not being an actual enemy creature to deal with.


Huh. I didn't even realize Michael and Ssalarn were the same person. I just sort of recognized the name from an old 3.5 forum and never bothered to check what was behind the purple. Neat.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xenocrat wrote:
Corvo Spiritwind wrote:
Is the wind stance not viable for ranged combat compared to the shurikens? Was considering a human monk who could start with tiger and wind stance at level one. Or maybe rogue then dip into monk for wind stance for fancy ranged attacks? Since wind strikes are finesse, a thief rogue would apply dex to hit and to damage?
Wild Winds Stance is a level 8 feat, not level 1.

It also takes focus points to enter the stance. You don't spend anything after that, which actually makes it fairly efficient over a whole fight if there are multiple fliers/enemies on high ledges. Still, whether or not that cost is very important for you is up to debate and the nature of your build.

I tend to go more physical, and I would only seek focus points for use with a good "I need to hit something at range" option. But it IS an option on the ki spells build path, so you might have other options that could use the focus points.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Rulebook Subscriber

I am playing an elven monk, and I really liked the "idea" of taking elven weapon familiarity. The problem is that the way it's worded, your proficiency with "elegant weapons" doesn't improve because the are martial weapons. The elven weapons are considered simple so that will increase as your proficiency with simple weapons. But none can be used with FoB. You can of course pick up the 13th level feat, elven weapon expertise to bring your bow proficiency up to snuff but it's going to lag for some time.

I just liked the idea of the Elf monk flurrying with an Elven curved blade. Seems appropriate.

So I'm not sure it's worth it. Take Nimble Elf instead and go with the mobile archer (w/short bow) or just mobile unarmed. Possibly add Monastic weapons to pick up bo staff for reach.


graystone wrote:
lemeres wrote:
Edit: I wouldn't even want it to get anything else other than flurry. Flurry is a nice ability, and it would be more than enough to distinguish a monk from any other class that uses simple ranged weapons. It wouldn't bring you to ranger range, of course... but would make a fantastic switch hit style for a class that doesn't need to draw another weapon.
Sadly, a ranger can 'flurry' with Shuriken and Hunted Shot but a monk can't use flurry cuz... :P A monk has to take ranger dedication and Hunted Shot before they can 'flurry' with the Shuriken

Without monastic weapons, a monk's ranged options are similar to a wizard that didn't prepare a damaging cantrip, since they both use simple weapons (well, the wizard list is even smaller than that, but close enough for this discussion). And effectively, there is little difference between their crossbow shots.

Flurrying shuriken would take you fully out of that sad little spot. Sure, not as good as a ranger. But it would come to a level where I would feel it would be 'relevant' in a flier fight.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:


2.... And Mountain Stance isn't magic, all you need is a stable surface. They don't work great with Fuse Stance, but they're very good on their own.

Actually, mountain stance does work with fuse stance, but only if the other stance doesn't also have the line of "you can only make x-type of strikes". As it is, you could fuse mountain with wolf stance, for example, not that it currently has much benefit for doing so.


Ssalarn wrote:
Hopefully no one adds a class feat to key AC off a mental stat; it would make Monk dips virtually mandatory for casters after 5th level and introduce a lot of the PF1 math bloat and potential for abuse that PF2 removed.

"Dipping" has been solved by "Inherent" Class Abilities. For example, you can multiclass into Ranger and pick up Hunt Prey, but you are locked out of Hunter's Edge (the best part!) because that is an Inherent, non-Feat, part of the class. And WIS-to-AC would need to not stack with DX-to-AC, merely replace it.

These two precautions would make it so it wouldn't "break" the game's math.

I agree with OP in that if the Monk wants to be a frontline warrior - by using all 3 of their actions to remain toe-to-toe with the party's foes rather than apply mobility tactics to hit-and-run - that options are limited, because this role essentially requires top-tier AC and Hit Points coupled with solid damage output. Statwise, that looks like high DX, CON, and ST. WIS-to-AC as an Inherent class ability would open up possibilities for this character, allowing them to prioritize WIS, CON, and ST, opening up a build that could hold the frontline and do so by capitalizing on the Monk Class DC effects like Stunning Fist. You have got to agree that that would be So Cool!

That said, perhaps this is working as intended, and Monk wasn't meant for this role? Or at least not at this stage of development?

...

Overall though, I must say that I am very impressed with the Monk. Flexible chassis, Style feats day one, and Ki Powers optional, all make the class very versatile. Well done!

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Personally, as a base chassis, I think monk is the strongest class in the game. Legendary in 1 save (with evasion), master in 1 save (with evasion), and expert in 1 save. Master in attacks, legendary in defense. Right now, if I want to play a spellcaster, I'm probably playing a monk with multiclass dedication because of all the abilities being a main monk gives you that feats simply cannot and all it costs is slightly slower spell progression and 9th and 10th level spells, seems worth it to me.

Paizo Employee

7 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Hopefully no one adds a class feat to key AC off a mental stat; it would make Monk dips virtually mandatory for casters after 5th level and introduce a lot of the PF1 math bloat and potential for abuse that PF2 removed.
"Dipping" has been solved by "Inherent" Class Abilities. For example, you can multiclass into Ranger and pick up Hunt Prey, but you are locked out of Hunter's Edge (the best part!) because that is an Inherent, non-Feat, part of the class.

That's all great, but not terribly relevant to my point since I was responding to someone specifically asking for a class feat. However...

Quote:

And WIS-to-AC would need to not stack with DX-to-AC, merely replace it.

These two precautions would make it so it wouldn't "break" the game's math.

That's only true from a somewhat narrow viewpoint. Each stat fits into a very particular aspect of the game, and breaking stats out of their intended roles will always have consequences that need to be considered carefully. Making WIS apply to AC means that you have a cascade of consequences: initiative gets buffed without requiring you to invest in a Dex-based skill, class and spell DCs are buffed while reducing reliance on physical stats, and a host of other minor effects that don't seem significant individually but which can cascade into all kinds of unexpected impacts, up to and including the game pointing you at a character who can't actually fulfill the roles and responsibilities other players expect from the character at the table, or on the opposite end, a "one true build" that is superior enough to its peers that it distorts game balance and opens the door for rapid power creep and escalation.

Quote:


I agree with OP in that if the Monk wants to be a frontline warrior - by using all 3 of their actions to remain toe-to-toe with the party's foes rather than apply mobility tactics to hit-and-run - that options are limited, because this role essentially requires top-tier AC and Hit Points coupled with solid damage output.
Statwise, that looks like high DX, CON, and ST.
WIS-to-AC as an Inherent class ability would open up possibilities for this character, allowing them to prioritize WIS, CON, and ST, opening up a build that could hold the frontline and do so by capitalizing on the Monk Class DC effects like Stunning Fist. You have got to agree that that would be So Cool!

Not necessarily. Monks can already hit incredibly high AC across multiple builds regardless of which physical stat they're prioritizing; Mountain Stance is a status bonus to AC that stacks with bracers of armor or other item bonuses to AC, while Crane Stance is a circumstance bonus that sits on top of a Dex-primary indicative build. That's all to say nothing of alternate front-line methodology like going Wolf Stance / Wolf Drag to devour your enemies' action economy (you can really double down on this with Flurry of Maneuvers if you want to.)

Damage is secondary to being a frontliner if you can simply rip away enemy actions while making them more vulnerable to your allies' attacks. And that's beside the point that Strength forms a fairly minor portion of damage anyways, particularly if you're going hard in on a build that has high defenses and accuracy. Similarly, Con never needs to be more than a tertiary stat and is unlikely to ever be competing with resources that might go to your primary and secondary stats. The only time you need to seriously consider pumping CON is if you're going STR primary, dumping DEX, and not taking an AC-boosting style.

For a Dex build, options like Crane Flutter or the bleed damage from tiger claw strikes can quickly make up anything a higher STR build brings to the table, particularly when one considers that the ability to stay toe-to-toe in combat longer is an offset to higher damage builds with lower defenses that need to dart in and out more.

That's really probably one of the biggest issues with WIS to AC, is that it would actually lower the relative diversity of builds in the monk by making STR/WIS builds the preeminent option for all monks. If you've got the highest damage, accuracy, defenses, and class DCs all on one build frame, why (from a mechanical perspective) would you play anything else? And eventually that question would lead to someone feeling that they need to include more options to buff Dex builds, and now we've got numerical escalation building out from issues created by changing stat roles, and soon we're well on our way to undermining the entire framework of the game. That may sound alarmist, but it's really that easy. Stat replacement abilities are a slippery slope, and WIS to AC is starting a pretty quick slide all by itself.

Quote:


That said, perhaps this is working as intended, and Monk wasn't meant for this role? Or at least not at this stage of development?

As I mentioned above, monk can actually frontline spectacularly if it wants to. Crane is marvelous for Dex-based AC, Mountain Stance can get to truly ridiculous levels of tankiness and is already incentivized to prioritize Wisdom since it has very little use for Dex (which makes it a primo candidate for Stunning Fist lockdown as you mentioned above), while Wolf Stance is great for action burn tanking and pretty much any build with STR as at least a secondary can excel at maneuver-based front-line combat. What we have currently is a diverse array of builds that are all equally viable; what we'd get from adding WIS to AC would actually be a narrowing of the field as some builds were pushed out of a relevance (and in the worst case scenario this could open the door directly to the kind of bloat and power creep the system is built to resist.)

Quote:


Overall though, I must say that I am very impressed with the Monk. Flexible chassis, Style feats day one, and Ki Powers optional, all make the class very versatile. Well done!

Agreed! Monk is far and away one of my favorite classes of the new edition, and I think one of the best things about it is that every time I look at it I find a new build or path that can play and feel totally differently than the last one I was looking at.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think "Wis not Dex to AC" would work best as a class archetype, since that would make it entirely inaccessible to non-monks.

Paizo Employee

PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think "Wis not Dex to AC" would work best as a class archetype, since that would make it entirely inaccessible to non-monks.

The problem doesn't just lie with it being accessed by non-monks, but also what it does to the relative framework of the various possible monk builds. It's probably more significant within the monk framework, really, since right now the various styles all have some interesting facility and ways to compete with each other.

Which is not to say that there's not a world where you could do it with a very in-depth class archetype intentionally designed to go that route, just that doing so would likely involve a lot more trades and swaps in the chassis than you might suspect. Mountain Stance exists in no small part because of the playtesting done internally at Paizo that included a STR/WIS monk with minimal Dex. Non-Dex stats to AC are fairly fraught and can have a significant impact on the internal balance of any class. It'd definitely have a more significant impact than the only other stat replacement currently in existence, the rogue (thief)'s ability to add Dex to damage.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Someone was mentioning more stuff with shields.. We could get a turtle stance later on!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ssalarn,
Necessary Preamble:

Spoiler:

Two points first. Respect for your knowledge of game design theory; doubly so for attempting to break it down in a thread with random (amateur) posters such as myself. Secondly, it's worth repeating that, amidst what may sound like complaining, really, this edition has generated new excitement for me, and one way I express that is exploring the outer bounds of the system, while simultaneously enjoying the strength of it's core. It is how I like to engage with (solid) systems generally.

In short, I appreciate all the work that has gone and is still going into this game, and think that hard work is paying out tremendously. This feels like a game that has taken 10 years of data and properly innovated upon it. No small feat!


...

That all said, let me see if I understand your main point: You think that ability scores moving outside of their intended roles, with rare exception (Thief), can easily create unintended and probably negative impacts on the "meta" of the game, as concerns character creation. You then site that playtesting was done, and as a result, to support build diversity, the decisions that were made are currently reflected in the choices available for character creation in the CRB.

Specifically, you describe three rough builds for "Front-Line Monks":

1) Crane with DX > ST/CON/WIS (high AC/accuracy)
2) Mountain with ST > CON/WIS > DX (high AC/accuracy/damage)
3) Wolf with ST > DX/CON/WIS (high accuracy/damage, action economy tactics in lieu of high AC)

Next, you made specific arguments against "WIS replacing DX to AC", citing that potential consequences of a "ST/WIS>DX/CON" build entering the "meta" could be problematic by being, essentially, better in all ways.

I'd like to challenge that viewpoint.

Spoiler:

As a baseline, 1st level Monks get 9 "bumps" to their ability scores to distribute to ST, DX, CON, and WIS, typically resulting in the following arrays:

Prioritizing Four Combat Scores ("4")
a) 18, 16, 12, 12
b) 18, 14, 14, 12
c) 16, 16, 14, 12
d) 16, 14, 14, 14

Prioritizing Four Combat Scores plus Utility ("4+U")
e) 16, 16, 12, 12 (plus one bump to INT/CHA)
f) 16, 14, 14, 12 (plus one bump to INT/CHA)
g) 16, 14, 12, 12 (plus two bumps to INT/CHA)

Prioritizing Three Combat Scores ("3")
h) 18, 16, 14, 10

Prioritizing Three Combat Scores plus Utility ("3+U")
i) 18, 14, 14, 10 (plus one bump to INT/CHA)
j) 18, 14, 12, 10 (plus two bumps to INT/CHA)
j) 16, 16, 14, 10 (plus one bump to INT/CHA)
k) 16, 14, 14, 10 (plus two bumps to INT/CHA)
l) 16, 14, 12, 10 (plus three bumps to INT/CHA)

Prioritizing Two Combat Scores plus Utility ("2+U")
m) 18, 16, 10, 10 (plus two bumps to INT/CHA)
n) 16, 16, 10, 10 (plus three bumps to INT/CHA)


...

To quote you

Ssarlarn wrote:
If you've got the highest damage, accuracy, defenses, and class DCs all on one build frame, why (from a mechanical perspective) would you play anything else?

This quote above seems to assume that a "ST/WIS>DX/CON" build (a "3+U" or "2+U" build in my middle spoiler tags), can do everything any of the other three "Front-Line Monk" build (above) can do (who are all "4" or "4+U" or "3" or "3+U" builds), by essentially committing fewer ability scores to those functions, without losing out on anything significant.

It's the italics part I would argue against.

I would argue that this build is potentially a "safe" case, similar to the Thief exception, because the trade-offs not only exist, but exist substantially enough to exert a force on the "meta" that this build wouldn't dominate other builds by virtue of legitimate opportunity costs.

If that makes sense, that is my counter-argument to the excellent points you make above. In short, that the opportunity costs paid by "ST/WIS>DX/CON" remain intact.

Here is an example to discuss, a potential character who makes use of "WIS to AC" that is theoretically in play:

Spoiler:

Strongwise Monk, aka "ST/WIS>DX/CON", has high accuracy, damage, Athletics, initiative, Will, class DC, WIS skills, and AC, but middling or low Reflex, DX skills, Fortitude, and hit points.

In other words, Strongwise has essentially traded out Reflex, DX skills, Fortitude, and hit points, for things like more INT skills, Languages, CHA skills, and INT/CHA multiclass potential. He/she has weakened his/her Combat Potential in exchange for some Utility Potential.

And so, I might even be so bold as to take your argument - that "WIS to AC" narrows the field - and throw it back in your face by claiming the exact opposite - that "WIS to AC" widens the field by allowing builds that can trade out DX/CON combat for some INT/CHA utility!

As of posting this, I fail to see a hole in my line of reasoning, and would invite you to point it out for me, if'n you have the time.

Again, Mad respect, Dope game, and Cheers!


Is casters investing on a dedication (that already requires 14 STR/DEX) and then paying a class feat for less AC than they would get by getting heavy armor (through general feats or high upfront value dedications) that broken?


pjrogers wrote:
1) Even if it's theoretically suboptimal, I won't ever be using a shield with a monk doing unarmed attacks. I don't have any interest in pretending to be Capt America, and overall I just think it would like silly (obviously a purely subjective aesthetic judgement).

I get that. Using the parry feature of a bo staff or getting the shield cantrip would get you some similar protection when you really need it but would have a less "Cappy" style.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

One thing I noticed above that didn't seem to be touched on - isn't a monk's class DC based on whichever of strength or dexterity that they chose, and therefore Stunning Fist DCs would also be based on that? I understand that a monk's spell DC is Wisdom-based, but I believed Stunning Fist used class DC. Thanks!


Stunning Fists uses Class DC which uses Strength/Dex.

The only thing that uses Spell DC for monks is Quivering Palm and Ki Blast, IIRC.

prototype00

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
prototype00 wrote:

Stunning Fists uses Class DC which uses Strength/Dex.

The only thing that uses Spell DC for monks is Quivering Palm and Ki Blast, IIRC.

prototype00

Thanks, that's how I understood it. So all of the maxed-out dex and strength monks shouldn't feel like they can't also stun people now and then!


I think there should be some option (like a class archetype) to base your class DC on Wisdom.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I think there should be some option (like a class archetype) to base your class DC on Wisdom.

I am curious about how classes without set groups (like rackets or orders) will handle future new content. Like it is easy to see a new type of rogue based of INT, and giving a bonus to INT and delivering poisons being released as a racket. But for fighters and monks where you just choose a key attribute, I am not sure how it will be handled. I guess maybe through class-based archetype? But we definitely haven't seen what that will look like yet, and how will class archetypes apply to rogues, or druids or champions who have all these different class groupings?


Class Archetypes can change class features, cost a level 2 feat (so presumably add something approximately as valuable), can be taken at level 1.

So you can make a class archetype to change the key ability of the monk from "Strength or Dexterity" to "Wisdom" which also does other things.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

Class Archetypes can change class features, cost a level 2 feat (so presumably add something approximately as valuable), can be taken at level 1.

So you can make a class archetype to change the key ability of the monk from "Strength or Dexterity" to "Wisdom" which also does other things.

how do you know this? are there any class archetypes yet?


Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Class Archetypes can change class features, cost a level 2 feat (so presumably add something approximately as valuable), can be taken at level 1.

So you can make a class archetype to change the key ability of the monk from "Strength or Dexterity" to "Wisdom" which also does other things.

how do you know this? are there any class archetypes yet?

There aren't any yet, but the CRB describes them.

CRB, p. 219 wrote:
Class archetypes always alter or replace some of a class’s static class features, in addition to any new feats they offer. It may be possible to take a class archetype at 1st level if it alters or replaces some of the class’s initial class features. In that case, you must take that archetype’s dedication feat at 2nd level, and after that you proceed normally.


Unicore wrote:
PossibleCabbage wrote:

Class Archetypes can change class features, cost a level 2 feat (so presumably add something approximately as valuable), can be taken at level 1.

So you can make a class archetype to change the key ability of the monk from "Strength or Dexterity" to "Wisdom" which also does other things.

how do you know this? are there any class archetypes yet?

Page 219, CRB.


Here are my ideas for a Monk Fix.

Paizo Employee

6 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

Strongwise Monk, aka "ST/WIS>DX/CON", has high accuracy, damage, Athletics, initiative, Will, class DC, WIS skills, and AC, but middling or low Reflex, DX skills, Fortitude, and hit points.

In other words, Strongwise has essentially traded out Reflex, DX skills, Fortitude, and hit points, for things like more INT skills, Languages, CHA skills, and INT/CHA multiclass potential. He/she has weakened his/her Combat Potential in exchange for some Utility Potential.

And so, I might even be so bold as to take your argument - that "WIS to AC" narrows the field - and throw it back in your face by claiming the exact opposite - that "WIS to AC" widens the field by allowing builds that can trade out DX/CON combat for some INT/CHA utility!

I would say the main thrust of this assertion is fundamentally wrong based on a key point: You assume the monk traded away a bunch of options when that's not at all the case.

The monk has numerous ki powers and Wis-based abilities that do things like enhance his ability to move (ki rush), heal himself (wholeness of body), fend off multiple attackers (ki blast), or fly (wind jump), rendering Acrobatics irrelevant. Similarly, because it's a monk, you didn't lose anything on defenses; by prioritizing WIS you simply identified the other two saves as the targets for your Path of Perfection class feature. Because WIS and STR are now the foundation for everything you might want to do and provide all the equivalent facility of other stat priorities, the field has narrowed. Anything that's notably less effective than that default gains the reputation of being a trap option, eventually enough people get upset about imbalances that reinforcing materials are made, which pushes the CRB further out of relevance and distorts the experience for others, so on and so forth.

The monk is in the unique position of being one of the most versatile chassis' in the CRB already; it can play tank, controller, DPR, or an option of the two, and all of the various paths are pretty solidly balanced against each other in use and versatility.

The rogue is a pretty great example of where a change like this might actually be called for; they only get Dex to damage on one build, and it's a build that forces them into systemically-enforced smaller damage dice coupled with real limitations throughout the early levels that if they dump STR too hard, they won't be able to perform the basic functions of their role because they need to be able to carry melee and ranged weapon options, thieve's tools, rope, grappling hooks, and other accoutrement that will quickly force them to start making hard priority calls. The rogue has multiple systemic reinforcements that both prevent STR from being a complete dump stat without making significant sacrifices that will follow through at least the first quarter of a character's life span.

So the result when you look at something like WIS to AC and ask the appropriate questions is, at least in my view-

1) Is it needed? Not at all. Monk includes many of the highest AC builds already available in the game, including on builds that already benefit from high WIS.

2) Does it improve the game? Strong argument for no. I can already have a STR/WIS, DEX/WIS, or CON/WIS build with great AC (regardless of which is primary and which is secondary) so all the change really does is distort the currently balanced framework by shifting priorities further away from DEX and marginalizing it as Monk priority; AC and Acrobatics checks are already the primary functions it serves, and the monk can bypass the need for Acrobatics checks with WIS-based abilities already, so completely shutting off DEX creates a dynamic that overly favors non-Dex builds.

3) Does it adhere to the paradigms of the system it's being presented in? Again, no. Pathfinder 2nd doesn't solve SAD/MAD by allowing everyone to mono-stat, it does it by giving anyone more stats. This means that every stat you effectively dump stat is a meaningful increase in overall character strength since the ability to zero in on one or two stats allows you to raise a smaller number of stats higher and more efficiently while negatively impacting your versatility It pushes away from well-balanced adventurers and towards the kind of math-manipulating options that ultimately undermined PF1 and created significant barriers to entry for new players by allowing builds that shattered the game's performance expectations.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

So jumping back a little in the conversation, the consensus seems to be that monastic weaponry is usable but lackluster (it seems like its best when using flurry of blows, rather than a stance?) fair enough.

One thing I haven't seen suggested is that this could very easily be remedied by dropping a few weapon-monk specific stances (say starting at level 4) to support a full-weapons build, the prerequisite to using the stance could list that the monk must be holding a melee weapon, or a ranged weapon, and then it would confer some other benefits.

My first instinct when I read the book, was just that monastic weaponry was more or less an "unfinished" feat chain.


I think weapon monks need an upgrade at level 6, at the same time all the level 1 styles get their second feat.

Since if you are a weapon using monk who isn't buying ki powers or non-weapon stances, the only real options at 6 are water step (which might not be relevant) and whirling throw (which doesn't combine all that well with weapons.)

Like I'm happy on a bo staff monk taking: Monastic Weaponry, brawling focus, and stand still for my first three class feats and then there's that first gap that makes me reconsider the character.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I couldn't disagree more, 2e has the best version of the monk class that I've ever seen in any edition of D&D. In addition, Monk has one of the best feat lists in the game. You want bad feats? Check out Alchemist, Bard and Champion. Pure bloody awful.

The one big change I would make is to allow Monk weapons to be used with stances. That's pretty much the only thing I'd change.


PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think weapon monks need an upgrade at level 6, at the same time all the level 1 styles get their second feat.

Since if you are a weapon using monk who isn't buying ki powers or non-weapon stances, the only real options at 6 are water step (which might not be relevant) and whirling throw (which doesn't combine all that well with weapons.)

Like I'm happy on a bo staff monk taking: Monastic Weaponry, brawling focus, and stand still for my first three class feats and then there's that first gap that makes me reconsider the character.

This is unfortunately a consequence of the game being new. It will get better (took until Ultimate Magic for ANY monk to be worthwhile in PF1 so this is an improvement).

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:
You want bad feats? Check out Alchemist, Bard and Champion. Pure bloody awful.

I was going to offer up my 2cp for the conversation, but this right here? This broke me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Weapon monks would feel better if Fighter dedication wasn't so bad for martials.

I feel like Paizo sort of intended multiclassing to be a way to help prop up alternative weapon choices, especially in core, but in practice it doesn't feel super great to try to buy into.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually quite like the champion feats that give you igther a shield sword or mount.


Squiggit wrote:

Weapon monks would feel better if Fighter dedication wasn't so bad for martials.

I feel like Paizo sort of intended multiclassing to be a way to help prop up alternative weapon choices, especially in core, but in practice it doesn't feel super great to try to buy into.

This is probably my biggest issue. I don't know if it's done on purpose (clerics seem to get just as much from multiclassing into a wizard as a fighter does), but it definitely feels underwhelming trying to have a martial class multiclass into another martial class.

I would absolutely love alternative dedication feats to the core classes.

51 to 84 of 84 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / Rules Discussion / So, Monks are a bit of a mess. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.