I built a lizardfolk mountain style monk. I took wall run/water walk and specialized in climbing and Athletics. Also took the ancestry feat to let me climb with my feet.To those who tried that specific monk build.
Did you find yourself, during combat encounters, dealing with situations which involve jumping/leaping or similar stuff which requires you to lose the "stay on the ground" Requirements?
I found myself the only one who make use of jump/leap during encounters, and I am a liberator with the acrobat+ staff acrobat dedication.
Some sort of Daredevil ( human tiefling heritage too) which leaps and jumps instead of stride.
So it's just some flavour stuff ( I move less than I could, most of the times).
That character is awesome!
Mind to tell me ( I know it's not related to the thread) more about?
Other feats, weapons used, attack patterns, dedication ( if any), etc?
@pjrogers: yeah same for me. Mostly ooc stuff. But we still are lvl 5 in one and lvl 8 in another one. So maybe things will change at higher levels.
I took student of perfection dedication and focused on focus powers. It was one of my few non free archetype builds. Was rather fun.
Curious what are folks' thoughts about Abundant Step and Mountain Stance. I would not have thought that casting Abundant Step would take one out of Mountain Stance, but perhaps there are those who think it would?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.
There in lies the question. But another one to pose.
How often does your dm give you nothing but flying ranged attacking enemies in a fight. And if it is often, did you have any inkling, clue or forewarning that he would make his campaign this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, given that "eventually, at a high level you will have to fight a dragon or something that just wants to fly around while breathing fire at your or whatever" is sort of a core assumption of the game, and the monk is not able to combine styles until level 20, and there is not another style that accomodates low dex you could switch to to...
Thus I have to conclude that "you can't leave the ground at all, ever, or the stance turns off" to be an unreasonable reading of the feat. At least until we get more ranged options that do combine with mountain stance besides "Ki blast".
Since my basic GMing assumption about everything in PF2 is that "it works, and it works like it's intended to".
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.
Bola. "This weapon can be used to Trip with the Athletics skill at a distance up to the weapon's first range increment."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.Bola. "This weapon can be used to Trip with the Athletics skill at a distance up to the weapon's first range increment."
Doesn't work-
The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks.
Sure, someone else can bring down the flying thing, but you're not allowed to throw anything but elbows and knees.
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.Bola. "This weapon can be used to Trip with the Athletics skill at a distance up to the weapon's first range increment."Doesn't work-
The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks.Sure, someone else can bring down the flying thing, but you're not allowed to throw anything but elbows and knees.
"The only Strikes you can make are falling stone unarmed attacks." Is a "Trip with the Athletics skill" a strike? Last time I looked, trip was it's own action. Once you trip something in the air, it becomes prone, falls and your flying issue is solved...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm also curious, given that Mountain Stance basically defines a character (it's accessible at level 1, and makes strong suggestions about your stat array), how a mountain style monk is expected to fight "something that flies" if jumping isn't allowed; with "lower your AC by 4+ and hope for the best" not really being a great option.Bola. "This weapon can be used to Trip with the Athletics skill at a distance up to the weapon's first range increment."
It's also a Martial weapon, and doesn't have the monk trait. How would proficiency with a trip weapon play into making attacks like that?
Would be thematic if there were some sort of ranged Boulder Hurl feat for mountain monks tho.
Does this line of reasoning hold water?
(1) Mountain Stance is quite powerful and the ground restriction is meant to rein it in to a meaningful extent.
(2) If jumping ends the stance, then the ground restriction is meaningfully restrictive, i.e. does its job.
(3) If jumping doesn't end the stance, then the ground restriction really doesn't do much, i.e. doesn't do its job.
(4) The devs who wrote it are good at their jobs, so we ought to assume what they wrote does its job unless we have reason to believe otherwise.
(5) It follows that jumping ends the stance.I am not personally thrilled with the conclusion, but if (1) is true I tend to believe the rest. Before this thread I had not realized Mountain Stance might be considered significantly more powerful than other stances.
This whole line of reasoning is based on 1 being true though, which I'm not sure is the case.
The significant majority of encounters I've seen in official Pathfinder material take place on a solid surface and don't tend to expect players to spend a lot of time outside those conditions. Even at very high levels, a lot of big fights take place in rooms, on the ground (or some sort of solid platform for people who want to be really picky about ground).
Campaign depending, encounters where it's going to be a significant impediment seem more like an exception than the norm. I don't think it's a meaningful balance factor anymore than not being able to cast Fire trait spells underwater is meant to be a meaningful balance factor.
It's also a Martial weapon, and doesn't have the monk trait.
You're making a Trip, not a strike.
How would proficiency with a trip weapon play into making attacks like that?
It's shouldn't matter: you're using your athletics proficiency not your weapon proficiency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a not so great assumption is that things *just work* in 2e. I've found a multitude of trap's in 2e that either do not work or cease working by certain levels.
But fact is you probably just need to drop stance (free action) then decide if you want you have an action to re enter stance.
Does this line of reasoning hold water?
(1) Mountain Stance is quite powerful and the ground restriction is meant to rein it in to a meaningful extent.
(2) If jumping ends the stance, then the ground restriction is meaningfully restrictive, i.e. does its job.
(3) If jumping doesn't end the stance, then the ground restriction really doesn't do much, i.e. doesn't do its job.
(4) The devs who wrote it are good at their jobs, so we ought to assume what they wrote does its job unless we have reason to believe otherwise.
(5) It follows that jumping ends the stance.I am not personally thrilled with the conclusion, but if (1) is true I tend to believe the rest. Before this thread I had not realized Mountain Stance might be considered significantly more powerful than other stances.
This whole line of reasoning is based on 1 being true though, which I'm not sure is the case.
The significant majority of encounters I've seen in official Pathfinder material take place on a solid surface and don't tend to expect players to spend a lot of time outside those conditions. Even at very high levels, a lot of big fights take place in rooms, on the ground (or some sort of solid platform for people who want to be really picky about ground).
Campaign depending, encounters where it's going to be a significant impediment seem more like an exception than the norm. I don't think it's a meaningful balance factor anymore than not being able to cast Fire trait spells underwater is meant to be a meaningful balance factor.
I can't quite tell whether you think that "no jumping" is not a significant impediment in practice or that it is not present (i.e. that the stance definitely allows jumping). Could you clarify?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think RAW, the stance doesn't allow jumping since doing so invalidates the requirement while you're airborne (although there might be some arguments there, there are a couple other stances that have issues if they de-activate the instant you no longer fulfill the requirements and I'm not sure if that's the intent or not).
But I also think that it was never written to be a meaningful impediment, because in practice it isn't with the way most encounters are designed.
Logically, it doesn't make much sense either to design a feat that's both a necessary enabler for a build and unreliable as a supposed balancing factor.
I think that's an important distinction to make because a GM who goes around looking for ways to screw with Mountain Style because they're working under the assumption that it's supposed to be unreliable isn't doing the game or their player any favors.
For me I always go raw then am willing to work with my players to home brew something possibly.
But by raw, jumping drops the stance.
Logically, it doesn't make much sense either to design a feat that's both a necessary enabler for a build and unreliable as a supposed balancing factor.
Well it IS designed to be unreliable at it's base: You roll low on initiative and you can see a LOT of attacks vs your no "necessary enabler" AC: even worse, get paralyzed or stunned before you can activate your stance...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Logically, it doesn't make much sense either to design a feat that's both a necessary enabler for a build and unreliable as a supposed balancing factor.Well it IS designed to be unreliable at it's base: You roll low on initiative and you can see a LOT of attacks vs your no "necessary enabler" AC: even worse, get paralyzed or stunned before you can activate your stance...
In that case, how unreliable should it be? I can see the problem with rolling low on initiative; it's effectively one round of pain before you can turn on your main defences. Things happen.
I do see the point of encounter design, though. It's akin to trying to target the fighter or champion by negating their heavy armour somehow, except that most tables assume you can strap on the plates as part of daily preparation while you can't spend all day in Mountain Stance.
Then again, you can also go back in quickly. At the cost of an action, you could do your leap, flurry (or draw a ranged weapon and use it), then Mountain as your third action. Hm.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked about folks' thoughts on Mountain Stance, Leaping, definition of "ground," etc. on a local Discord channel. Two people who GM regularly gave me two fairly different answers.
At this point, I think I'll be retraining my little dwarf monk from Mountain Stance to either Monastic Weaponry or Wolf Stance. There seems to be too much table variation regarding Mountain Stance. I thought I understood how it worked, but it looks like I was just kidding myself.
EDIT: Thanks to those who started and contributed to this thread and the similar one in General Discussion. There have been many interesting ideas and much to think about.
I asked about folks' thoughts on Mountain Stance, Leaping, definition of "ground," etc. on a local Discord channel. Two people who GM regularly gave me two fairly different answers.
Let me guess, one defined it as literal ground (made of dirt and rocks) the other defined it as stable footing (more likely the designer's intent).
Mountain Stance also got errataed from having a trigger to a requirement. That's a pretty decent indicator that leaving the ground is intended to end it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mountain Stance also got errataed from having a trigger to a requirement. That's a pretty decent indicator that leaving the ground is intended to end it.
That was the one piece of errata that was a huge headscratcher for me. I guess a lot of people were confused about the difference between a trigger and a requirement, but considering that no other stance in the game ends short of "you pause during combat to put on armor" then having mountain stance be so... unstable is weird.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They had to errata that because "action with a trigger" isn't defined in the rules, only "reaction with a trigger" or "free action with a trigger." If you think about the way triggers work for those two you'll see why it gets messy for the stance.
Maybe it'll get further edited in the next errata to say something more complex, if they can figure out how to fit it on the page.
I'm not sure how you can interpret jumping as not no longer touching the ground. This an Rai argument?
Wolf stance is quite good though.