Monk focus point pool limited to 3, why? / Occult over Divine? / Value of Mtn Stance in this build?

[NielsenE]

Zapp wrote:

Justinian9 wrote:

1. I can't understand why a Monk focus point pool is limited to 3.

No character has more than 3. Ever.

And if a class were allowed to break it, it would cause all kinds of problems with multiclassing. I've start as monk for a hypothetical larger focus cap, then multiclass into a different focus using one.

[PossibleCabbage]

The hard limit on focus was put on in order to make focus powers vastly more powerful. Hitting the cap means that you can use 3 in one combat once, then reliably one per 10 minute rest until level 12, at which point (with a feat) you now have 2 which are spammable.

Just compare things like Ki Strike, Wholeness of Body, etc. from the playtest to what they are now.

[Perpdepog]

And especially ki blast. I may be mismathing but I think it deals about as much as a fireball of the same spell level, or perhaps slightly less, while having the advantage of being wider and also being force.

[Gloom]

Justinian9 wrote:

Lanathar wrote:

I think at level 1 most classes will start round 1 with low AC if they don’t have a shield raised . I believe medium armour would be 15 as well

Occult as a skill is just as useful as Divine but for different things - identifying different types of spells and monsters

Let use Fighter as an example as they are also a melee class.

A 1st lvl Fighter, in med armor let say scale has a +3 to armor class and +2 dex cap, let say he has a +1 ability bonus from dex.... that is a 14 AC... than add in +2 for proficiency 16 AC plus level 17 AC... shield? +2,
19 AC

4 AC higher than a Monk with a str build.... unless the monk also uses a shield (which I did not consider in this post). A 20% higher chance of a crit and a hit on a monk than a fighter.

Using your monk here as an example, at level 1 a Mountain Stance Monk would have a base AC of 10 + 5 (Proficiency) + 4 (Status/Stance). That's a 19 base for the Monk. They can also use a shield, if they really wanted to in order to gain 1-2 more putting them on par with most fighters and even some Champions.

Just base a Mountain Stance Monk is going to be 1-2 points behind in terms of armor than most people, however their Unarmored Defense Proficiency compensates for it putting them on par with or better than most other martial characters.

Once they get up to the improved stance feats they actually start to pull ahead putting them on par with Champions.

Monk really isn't in as bad of a place as you're seeming to think they are right now.. and in actual play they're SUPER fun.

[Gloom]

Just to point it out.. a level 1 Mountain Stance Monk is on par with both Champion and Fighter in Full Plate or any other heavy armor. That comes from them starting as an Expert in Unarmored Defense.

[Varun Creed]

Perpdepog wrote:

And especially ki blast. I may be mismathing but I think it deals about as much as a fireball of the same spell level, or perhaps slightly less, while having the advantage of being wider and also being force.

Ki Blast is 4d6 for three actions, fireball is 6d6 for two actions. Both gain +2d6 per spell level.

[Perpdepog]

Varun Creed wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

And especially ki blast. I may be mismathing but I think it deals about as much as a fireball of the same spell level, or perhaps slightly less, while having the advantage of being wider and also being force.

Ki Blast is 4d6 for three actions, fireball is 6d6 for two actions. Both gain +2d6 per spell level.

Ah, so it is. My second guess was more on the money then. Still, a 2d6 trade off, or 3d6 if you want them to cost the same number of actions, isn't a bad trade for a less easily resisted damage type and a possible knockback. Admittedly, if you MC into wizard or druid as a monk you don't even need to pick between the two. Get both!

Shame we can't use Ki Blast as a line. I'd like to Kamehameha.

[Ascalaphus]

Varun Creed wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

And especially ki blast. I may be mismathing but I think it deals about as much as a fireball of the same spell level, or perhaps slightly less, while having the advantage of being wider and also being force.

Ki Blast is 4d6 for three actions, fireball is 6d6 for two actions. Both gain +2d6 per spell level.

Yeah, but as a focus power it keeps coming back every encounter.

Focus powers are basically a per-encounter sort of thing, so they get better compared per-day spells if your adventures tend to have more encounters per day. If you usually have just one encounter per day then the regular spells are better. But if you have to go through 4+ encounters in a day, the focus powers give you a gas tank that doesn't run dry. It puts wizards (who have a daily amount of spells) and fighters (who can do any number of combats as long as they regain HP afterwards) closer together.

So I don't think "ki monk" is a full concept on its own, and not intended to be. But "a strong opening move fueled by ki" definitely is.

[BellyBeard]

Ascalaphus wrote:

... So I don't think "ki monk" is a full concept on its own, and not intended to be. But "a strong opening move fueled by ki" definitely is.

I mean, they literally made one of the example monks a "ki monk", so I'd say it is a concept they intended. But it's not "every attack I do is a ki attack", more of waiting for the right opening for a perfect ki-fueled strike.

[prototype00]

I'm probably pretty basic as far as Ki goes. I just picked Ki Strike as my main ki power and everything else as utility. That way I get to use Ki Strike (fingers crossed) 3 times every fight, or something like that.

[Varun Creed]

prototype00 wrote:

I'm probably pretty basic as far as Ki goes. I just picked Ki Strike as my main ki power and everything else as utility. That way I get to use Ki Strike (fingers crossed) 3 times every fight, or something like that.

Not sure if you're making this mistake.. But it's happening often: Without special feats, you only get back a max of 1 focus point per 10 minute rest. You can't gain back 3 points by resting 30 minutes.

See p.300, and look at the requirements of the Refocus ability.

[PossibleCabbage]

Since you're only guaranteed one focus per rest until level 12, my preference is for Ki powers which are for specific situations (Wholeness of Body, the movement ones, Wild Winds stance) than things I would use every round if I could.

Since I'm just never going to use Ki Strike if there might be a reason to use abundant step or wholeness of body later in the fight.

[Perpdepog]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Since you're only guaranteed one focus per rest until level 12, my preference is for Ki powers which are for specific situations (Wholeness of Body, the movement ones, Wild Winds stance) than things I would use every round if I could.

Since I'm just never going to use Ki Strike if there might be a reason to use abundant step or wholeness of body later in the fight.

I think you can use Wild Winds Stance every fight unless I'm mistaken. Doesn't it let you enter the stance for a ki point and then last the whole fight? It eats away your extra ki point you can spend on your one semi-free monk ability but since it's refreshable you should be able to use it every fight unless you have a couple back to back.

[prototype00]

Varun Creed wrote:

prototype00 wrote:

I'm probably pretty basic as far as Ki goes. I just picked Ki Strike as my main ki power and everything else as utility. That way I get to use Ki Strike (fingers crossed) 3 times every fight, or something like that.

Not sure if you're making this mistake.. But it's happening often: Without special feats, you only get back a max of 1 focus point per 10 minute rest. You can't gain back 3 points by resting 30 minutes.

See p.300, and look at the requirements of the Refocus ability.

I’m quite aware that you require the two meditative feats to regain 3 focus points, yes.

[Captain Morgan]

Varun Creed wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

And especially ki blast. I may be mismathing but I think it deals about as much as a fireball of the same spell level, or perhaps slightly less, while having the advantage of being wider and also being force.

Ki Blast is 4d6 for three actions, fireball is 6d6 for two actions. Both gain +2d6 per spell level.

I think the big advantage ki blast has over fireball is that it auto heightens.

[AnimatedPaper]

So what I'm hearing is we need Ki-cantrips. Could be an interesting way of testing the kineticist without committing to a full class right out the gate, and see what they can get away with within the current rules before pushing into new ground.

[Perpdepog]

Ooooh. Ki cantrips do sound like they would be pretty neat. That would be good for going full-on ki monk. I imagine if they were made they'd need to be one cantrip per feat, so they would fall in line with what bards do and would also eat up enough of your feats to not be an automatic option.

[Arakasius]

I think what they did with living monolith in lost omens is a reasonable way to give a class more focus points for a specific type of ability. Basically players are locked at 3 but the monoliths abilities aren’t tied to focus points (even though they are just casting spells like enlarge person, stonetell, etc) but actually tied to number of class feats taken in the archetype. So a living monolith can cast them up to 7/day.

I’d consider for Paladins as a house rule for lay on hands to have every feat you take that effects lay on hands to give something similar, thus giving an alternate pool akin to clerics just to cast lay on hands. I could see doing something similar for some monk abilities.. I wouldn’t do it for anything that’s just scaling damage, but more basic stuff that’s fine.

[Captain Morgan]

AnimatedPaper wrote:

So what I'm hearing is we need Ki-cantrips. Could be an interesting way of testing the kineticist without committing to a full class right out the gate, and see what they can get away with within the current rules before pushing into new ground.

The thing is we already have ways to get cantrips on a monk... And I'm pretty sure you can use your ki spell proficiency if they are divine or occult. So this need doesn't feel very burning to me.

[Ventnor]

Captain Morgan wrote:

AnimatedPaper wrote:

So what I'm hearing is we need Ki-cantrips. Could be an interesting way of testing the kineticist without committing to a full class right out the gate, and see what they can get away with within the current rules before pushing into new ground.

The thing is we already have ways to get cantrips on a monk... And I'm pretty sure you can use your ki spell proficiency if they are divine or occult. So this need doesn't feel very burning to me.

At least the way I see it, Ki Cantrips would be similar to the Composition Cantrips that Bards can learn. Unique magical abilities that only Monks know how to use, which have to be learned specifically through Monk class feats, but don't require spending a Focus Point to cast.

[Maxim D'Ahmagge]

There was a lot of talk about the Mountain Stance earlier in the thread (it's part of the OP). But I think people have been ignoring the problem with the stance (I didn't see it mentioned as read though the previous posts).

Quote:

Trigger: You are unarmored and touching the ground.

You have to be touching the ground to use this stance! You can't be flying, you can't be sailing on a ship and (most importantly) you can't be inside of a building unless your on a dirt ground floor/basement. I don't even know if you can use this stance while on cobblestones...

Respectfully,
Max

[Squiggit]

It'd be a really spiteful GM to try to rule that the floor isn't ground. More an indication that you should hurry on out of that game than anything wrong with the feat.

[Maxim D'Ahmagge]

A wooden floor is not the ground, neither is a stone floor. There is nothing spitefull about it. It is the way the world works, just like the sky being blue.

This is just like Sneak Attack not working on Elementals. Should any Rogue player hurry on out of a game where the judge/module writer puts in an Elemental? Or an Ooze? Or an Incorporeal?

[PossibleCabbage]

The floor is the ground. A ship's deck is the ground. A cloud you can walk on for some reason on the elemental plane of air is the ground.

The trigger requirement is basically "you are not swimming, climbing, flying, or prone."

[Vlorax]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

The floor is the ground. A ship's deck is the ground. A cloud you can walk on for some reason on the elemental plane of air is the ground.

The trigger requirement is basically "you are not swimming, climbing, flying, or prone."

100% Agree, and it's just the trigger right? So you could easily fly after entering the stance on the ground

[PossibleCabbage]

Vlorax wrote:

100% Agree, and it's just the trigger right? So you could easily fly after entering the stance on the ground

Yup. The trigger on the stance is "you need this condition to use the action that puts you on the stance"- so you could enter mountain stance on the deck of a ship then dive into the water and it still applies. Something that would take you out of the stance if you stop fulfilling the condition is a requirement rather than a trigger.

[graystone]

Squiggit wrote:

It'd be a really spiteful GM to try to rule that the floor isn't ground.

I don't agree: ground specifically refers to a solid surface of earth. Look at the synonyms once: earth, land, dirt, field, landscape, park, sand, soil, terrain, turf, arena, dust, loam, sod, terra firma... SO I wouldn't fault any DM for reading the word the by it's definition. If the stance meant 'flat solid surface', it really should have said that.

Lets face it, if someone said something crashed into the ground you aren't going to look for it in a building or on a boat.

[Morton Mazon]

Also consider what you tie a lightning rod to: the ground. Not the deck of a ship, and certainly not a cloud.

Dirt, stone, clay and the bottom of a creek-bed or puddle. I wouldn't complain if you stood on the grass/mosss/pressed down kelp.

[Bandw2]

graystone wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

It'd be a really spiteful GM to try to rule that the floor isn't ground.

I don't agree: ground specifically refers to a solid surface of earth. Look at the synonyms once: earth, land, dirt, field, landscape, park, sand, soil, terrain, turf, arena, dust, loam, sod, terra firma... SO I wouldn't fault any DM for reading the word the by it's definition. If the stance meant 'flat solid surface', it really should have said that.

Lets face it, if someone said something crashed into the ground you aren't going to look for it in a building or on a boat.

i disagree with your disagreement, ground is quite often used to mean just whatever you are standing on. "he fell on the ground" doesn't mean he fell specifically on dirt, but all the way down, as opposed to catching himself or only slightly. to be sure, the term "he dropped it on the ground" makes perfect sense on the deck of a ship, and generally means what is mostly just used to put on furniture and to be walked upon. it's a context sensitive term to relatively mean what you walk on and nothing much more.

ground is a general term meant for an unspecific type of thing you can stand on, the most the word ground assumes is that the surface is more or less in an orientation to be stood upon. for instance, if you said a solid surface(or just surface), then you could do mountain stance while climbing, if you said you must be standing, then you could do it while balancing on a beam, if you said dirt or unworked stone you'd then get exactly your interpretation, but instead we have ground.

[Deadmanwalking]

Let's use a little logic here, folks. Mountain Stance is non-magical. If it were magical, you could argue that ground meant literal earth or dirt, but it's not, it's just a martial arts stance.

Any GM who argues that a non-magical martial art only works on actual dirt or stone is being a dick.

[graystone]

Bandw2 wrote:

"he fell on the ground" doesn't mean he fell specifically on dirt, but all the way down, as opposed to catching himself or only slightly.

Can't say I agree. 'fell on the ground' I hear meaning they fell outside as opposed to 'fell to the floor' for inside.

Bandw2 wrote:

ground is a general term meant for an unspecific type of thing you can stand on

Then, IMO, it was a VERY poor choice to pick for the trigger.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let's use a little logic here, folks. Mountain Stance is non-magical. If it were magical, you could argue that ground meant literal earth or dirt, but it's not, it's just a martial arts stance.

Magic/non-magic has always been a fuzzy line [you can fall from space and by having the right non-magic feat take no damage]. Then you read the feats: "You focus on your connection to the earth and call upon the mountain to block attacks against you." "You stomp, shaking the earth beneath you." If it DOESN'T want you to think it needs earth, then it REALLY shouldn't keep bringing it up.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Any GM who argues that a non-magical martial art only works on actual dirt or stone is being a dick.

Or he read the feats and saw then say earth/mountain/stone over and over again. If not, is water the ground if you have Water Step? A waterfall or wall if I have Wall Run? The air itself if I have Unfolding Wind Rush? Is a bridge? A ropeline? The ceiling with a spiderclimb? When in your mind does it start being a reasonable question when the only thing to go on is "ground"?

For me, it's a legitimate question once you start taking about anything not outside on a natural surface.

[PossibleCabbage]

You can go into mountain stance any time you can plant two feet on a solid surface.

[Vidmaster7]

graystone wrote:

Bandw2 wrote:

"he fell on the ground" doesn't mean he fell specifically on dirt, but all the way down, as opposed to catching himself or only slightly.

Can't say I agree. 'fell on the ground' I hear meaning they fell outside as opposed to 'fell to the floor' for inside.

Bandw2 wrote:

ground is a general term meant for an unspecific type of thing you can stand on

Then, IMO, it was a VERY poor choice to pick for the trigger.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Let's use a little logic here, folks. Mountain Stance is non-magical. If it were magical, you could argue that ground meant literal earth or dirt, but it's not, it's just a martial arts stance.

Magic/non-magic has always been a fuzzy line [you can fall from space and by having the right non-magic feat take no damage]. Then you read the feats: "You focus on your connection to the earth and call upon the mountain to block attacks against you." "You stomp, shaking the earth beneath you." If it DOESN'T want you to think it needs earth, then it REALLY shouldn't keep bringing it up.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Any GM who argues that a non-magical martial art only works on actual dirt or stone is being a dick.

Or he read the feats and saw then say earth/mountain/stone over and over again. If not, is water the ground if you have Water Step? A waterfall or wall if I have Wall Run? The air itself if I have Unfolding Wind Rush? Is a bridge? A ropeline? The ceiling with a spiderclimb? When in your mind does it start being a reasonable question when the only thing to go on is "ground"?

For me, it's a legitimate question once you start taking about anything not outside on a natural surface.

I just got to say the whole argument that ground means earth for that feat is silly and no argument will make me use it the wrong way. Grounds means what I'm standing on. It's a stance.

[pjrogers]

Just to confuse matters, the PF2e earth elemental has the word "ground" (albeit with the adjective "solid") in the description of this ability - "Earthbound: When not touching solid ground, the elemental avalanche is slowed 1, can’t use reactions, and can’t Trample."

Does "ground" mean one thing for Mountain Stance and another for Earthbound? I'm playing a dwarven Str monk with Mountain Stance, and I'd love for a liberal interpretation of "ground." However, given the current language in the PF2e CRB, I think I would limit Mountain Stance to an earth, stone, or similar surface and not allow it on a wooden upper floor, deck of a ship, etc.

[Vidmaster7]

lol well it's not my game so you do what you want but If someone tries that crap in a game I'm involved with then I'll end that nonsense promptly one way or another.

[pjrogers]

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

[PossibleCabbage]

I think the important thing is as a GM you should interpret ambiguities in player-facing things (like this feat) in whatever way makes the character most fun to play without making them unreasonably powerful.

"You can use the combat stance that fixes your AC in literally every situation" is not liable to be unreasonable.

[NA Palm]

pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

Guess we just can't move while on the deck of a ship now...

[Vlorax]

NA Palm wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

Guess we just can't move while on the deck of a ship now...

Wooden stairs also now present an issue.

[Quintessentially Me]

Vlorax wrote:

NA Palm wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

Guess we just can't move while on the deck of a ship now...

Wooden stairs also now present an issue.

As do shoes... though it's great if you do a handstand.

[graystone]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

You can go into mountain stance any time you can plant two feet on a solid surface.

I truly wish they has come out and had that as the trigger then. I still don't think a dm just picking up the book and reading the Mountain Stance line of feats is a jerk for reading ground as earth and that's the whole point I was making. It's NOT clear just from looking at it and the feats go way out of their way to use evocative text about earth and stone.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think the important thing is as a GM you should interpret ambiguities in player-facing things (like this feat) in whatever way makes the character most fun to play without making them unreasonably powerful.

That's an easy thing to say but does the new dm KNOW if it'd "unreasonably powerful" offhand without play? They look at the stance and +4 status bonus to AC looks darn big so maybe that's why it's limited in where you can use it? Again, not a dick move when you don't know why the trigger is there. If the trigger works in almost every situation without fail you wonder why it's there at all. If you can activate it on your ship then jump into the water or fly and have it still work or walk on air then why say ground at all?

PS: I'm arguing the wording and how reasonable the interpretations of it are. Myself, I'm all for the more liberal read but I can see someone coming in and not reading threads like this and after reading the feats think it means 'earth'.

[pjrogers]

pjrogers wrote:

OK, I went and changed my mind after doing a Google search - "ground" site:2e.aonprd.com - which is something I should have done earlier.

It's now pretty clear to me that PF2e uses "ground" in the broadest possible way, such as in the following sentence "Most characters and monsters have a speed statistic—also called land Speed—which indicates how quickly they can move across the ground."

I think I may have not expressed myself clearly here. Earlier in this discussion, I had concerns that in the context of the PF2e rules, the word, "ground", might be limited to earth, stone, or something similar. This would then present problems for using Mountain Stance in certain situations.

After doing my Google search of the 2e.aeonprd.com site, it's clear to me that in a rules context, "ground" means any level surface, and thus a monk could go into Mountain Stance on the upper floor of a wooden house, the deck of boat or airship, etc.

I'm not trying to be ultra-picky, but I think it's critical that words and terms be clearly defined in terms of what they mean in this, or any other set of rules. Many (most?) English words have multiple meanings and can mean very different things to different people and depending on their context.

[nick1wasd]

I think Monk cantrips sounds amazing, something akin to the baby ki blasts the Z-Warriors throw out against the riff-raff before going after the obvious "boss". Maybe 1d4 + casting; Heighten+2 +1d4 force damage? Slow enough that it doesn't scale like crazy, but still competitive so that it's not useless after level 5 (force damage is a bit strong, so I don't think full heighten scaling dice is good for balance imo), or maybe with inspiration from Magic Missile and 5E's Scorching Ray; 1d4 + mod, Heighten+1 add a blast (they'd still need attack rolls, because duh). Also, this "ground" discussion is getting out of hand, y'all silly :P

[jimthegray]

prototype00 wrote:

Justinian9 wrote:

1. I can't understand why a Monk focus point pool is limited to 3. To be a Ki Monk (Unlike the other classes) a Monk has to pick heavy Ki feats. You can have a pool of 3 as early as 2nd level, however I think level 4 would be the norm. You can't regain 2 focus points until you pick Meditative Focus at level 12. So saying for most combat you will only have 1 focus point to use while Ki is your main weapon in combat. It is almost like they don't want you to be a Ki Monk, just a Monk that can once or twice a fight use Ki. But use a bunch of feats to have options.

I do not understand this restriction, seems very limiting, can some one please explain?

Errrm, every class is limited to max ever a pool of 3 focus points, it says so on pg 300. Sorcerors only have 3, wizards only have 3, so in a way, Monks have the most Focus points of any class...? (3)

Quote:

2. The example of a Ki Monk on page 162 in the core book says you should pick occult for your spell like abilities (I say this as occult is one of the skills picked on the build). I do not understand this... is it because occult skill is used versatile in day to day play? Occult is an Int based skill while Divine is Wis based. Seems to me you need the higher stat to be wis for the saves, Ki saves, and perception. Why pick occult over divine?

Thats kind of a flavour thing, mysterious user of Ki = Occult. Its a trained skill, you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

Quote:

3. I see no value in Mtn Stance as with the spread of your points across so many ability scores you will not stand and fight toe-to-toe... move, hit, move! It also limits you to one form of attack. Am I missing something?

Mountain Stance allows you to focus your ability points in Str, and ignore Dex so I'm not sure why you would be very spread out. Mountain Monks can start with one of the highest starting ACs in the game (23 with a tower shield) so heck, you can just stand there and take it. Let all the enemies...

yeah for unarmed you want to be a monk or a animal barbarian , fighter has a much hard time of it

[jimthegray]

Justinian9 wrote:

prototype00 wrote:

Justinian9 wrote:

1. I can't understand why a Monk focus point pool is limited to 3. To be a Ki Monk (Unlike the other classes) a Monk has to pick heavy Ki feats. You can have a pool of 3 as early as 2nd level, however I think level 4 would be the norm. You can't regain 2 focus points until you pick Meditative Focus at level 12. So saying for most combat you will only have 1 focus point to use while Ki is your main weapon in combat. It is almost like they don't want you to be a Ki Monk, just a Monk that can once or twice a fight use Ki. But use a bunch of feats to have options.

I do not understand this restriction, seems very limiting, can some one please explain?

Errrm, every class is limited to max ever a pool of 3 focus points, it says so on pg 300. Sorcerors only have 3, wizards only have 3, so in a way, Monks have the most Focus points of any class...? (3)

Quote:

2. The example of a Ki Monk on page 162 in the core book says you should pick occult for your spell like abilities (I say this as occult is one of the skills picked on the build). I do not understand this... is it because occult skill is used versatile in day to day play? Occult is an Int based skill while Divine is Wis based. Seems to me you need the higher stat to be wis for the saves, Ki saves, and perception. Why pick occult over divine?

Thats kind of a flavour thing, mysterious user of Ki = Occult. Its a trained skill, you don't have to take it if you don't want to.

Quote:

3. I see no value in Mtn Stance as with the spread of your points across so many ability scores you will not stand and fight toe-to-toe... move, hit, move! It also limits you to one form of attack. Am I missing something?

Mountain Stance allows you to focus your ability points in Str, and ignore Dex so I'm not sure why you would be very spread out. Mountain Monks can start with one of the highest starting ACs in the game (23 with a tower shield) so heck, you can just stand there

...

most fights only last 3 or 4 rounds so you should have enough key points for a fight.

the 1st round in a fight can be rough if you fail init but once ou stance into mountain your doing great and hitting hard
you can get away with high str and maybe a bit of con and be survivable.
toughness and other things that add to your hit points are a big benefit , dwarves make very good mountain stance monks

[Justinian9]

I played my rock dwarf monk last Sunday and it was okay.... it was a pathfinder society adventure with a bunch of skill checks and that sucked as I have a 8 Cha!

The fights went well, got hit before getting into my stance but that went okay! I am going to play again this Sunday, I hope there is more combat in the next adventure as I am really not setup for role play. Lesson number 1.... be well rounded if you play PFS.

This Monk is not my Ki Monk... I will play it after I play pathfinder a bit more and learn how to use the system.