That's actually a good point !I think one thing that has gone unsaid is the reliability of the monk. A precision immune enemy destroys a rogue or Swashbuckler damage. Calm emotions, enemies using hit and run or being knocked unconscious stops a barbarian raging. Damage resistance hurts a fighter more than a monk (monk can access different damage types through feats but all of them will be buffed by one set of runes.)
A monks optimal might not be as high as some other classes but it is also very hard for them to operate at anything less.
Flurry also helps with that consistency since a monk can almost always get two attacks into a round where other martials find themselves running out of actions. For example, the barbarian hits harder but even with Sudden Charge they only get 1 attack on the round they raged if they had to move or draw a weapon. (Though Pounce obviously changes that eventually.) Same with a precision ranger. Hitting harder only helps if you actually land the hit.
That said, monks do get some major spikes once metal strikes comes into play.
And I don't know if this was mentioned or not (long thread and I'm on a time crunch today) but Flurry is also one of few actual ways to get multiple unarmed strikes in one action. Nearly every similar ability calls out wielding weapons. Unarmed strikes don't count as those. So technically Monk is way better at being the class good at punching than some give it credit for. Especially in the niche cases of ancestries with special unarmed benefits such as orcs, sprites, and gnolls.
And while stances just bring you up to similar one-handed damage as weapons, they often have more traits than weapons and innately come with the Free Hand trait.
And they are capable of hitting weaknesses way better than many martials if you build to that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because the alternative, while not AS effective, is still very valid and will do the trick when you're in the kind of encounter where it matters.
From my experience the alternative is massively overvalued.
I made a dragon fight once: 2 dead NPCs (sacrificed while protecting the PC escape), the dragon took less than 20% damage.
Was my party able to Fly? Yes.
Did my party actually flied? No. Why? Because when the AoE damage starts pilling on, the party scatters, the Cleric heals, and the Champion doesn't want to face the dragon solo, considering that the dragon was 5 times faster.
I find the unique combination of extreme mobility + extreme action economy + nice defenses + a few maneuver/control based abilities to open a lot of possibilities in combat.
But I also fully agree with you that raw efficiency is important, as the party needs it to go through fights. It's really a question of party composition in my opinion: You need characters that are strong at dealing with the most classical circumstances and you need characters able to handle the special circumstances (and they are rarely the same kind of characters).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teams usually have 2 casters, and at least one of them has a fly spell for just such scenarios.
What percentage of all PF2 teams does that usually imply? How many 4 person teams have two casters? Does it differ greatly from 5 player teams with two? And what happens in PFS when you sit down to a table with no casters?
So what do you mean by usually?
Or is it not useful generalization?
Teams usually have 2 casters, and at least one of them has a fly spell for just such scenarios.What percentage of all PF2 teams does that usually imply? How many 4 person teams have two casters? Does it differ greatly from 5 player teams with two? And what happens in PFS when you sit down to a table with no casters?
So what do you mean by usually?
Or is it not useful generalization?
I mean I could do a poll... ?
I've never seen a team not have at least 2 casters, including 3 people team, in all my 24 years of TTRPG.
YMMV
Also that was a generalisation based on superbidi's incredibly specific anecdotal evidence of his level 16 sorcerer, which in turn was an answer to my broad statement that almost all teams have the possibility of the fly spell.
So I guess from your statement either
A: everything everywhere is always wrong on these forums about party experience because we don't have peer reviewed macro studies of party compositions with at least 1000 data points or
B: generalisations about what is the perceived majority of party composition experiences, while not entirely accurate on an individual standpoint on each count, can still be viewed as pertinent?
I ran a 3 person PF1 campaign to level 9, with only 1 caster in 2012 and 2013
I ran a 3 person PF1 campaign to level 9, with only 1 caster in 2012 and 2013
Cool but that's hardly the majority of cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teams usually have 2 casters, and at least one of them has a fly spell for just such scenarios.What percentage of all PF2 teams does that usually imply? How many 4 person teams have two casters? Does it differ greatly from 5 player teams with two? And what happens in PFS when you sit down to a table with no casters?
So what do you mean by usually?
Or is it not useful generalization?
Parties built with any sort of intelligent planning end up in one of two ways from my experience in play and optimization testing/discussion. Either two martial, two caster or three martial, one caster.
The most common configurations I see in regards to optimizing are: fighter, thief or fighter, heal cleric, bard in the 2/2 setup or fighter, fighter, rogue or fighter, cleric or bard in the 3/1 setup.
The rule of thumb for larger parties is that in the early game, you want fewer casters than martials and that in the mid and late game it doesn't matter.
PFS difficulty is figured to be low enough that it doesn't particularly matter what you sit down with so long as the individual players have well built characters and a basic understanding of tactics. If nothing else, there is still a perception that casters are almost detrimental before level 5 and aren't truly valuable until level 7 outside of the bard and cleric. Given the levels PFS generally covers, you might prefer to sit at a 0 caster table.
If you were shimmying along the edge in the middle of combat, I do agree you should stop dicking around, climb up on the ledge and rush the boss.
Don't know what you were trying to do though!
He also had a hostage. It was a goal of mine to get the hostage away from him while the rest of the party distracted him with talk.
How many hostage scenarios do you know work out by charging through the front door against a prepared enemy?
On a battlement's allure, there's only two directions, unless you climb, fly, or jump. I chose to hang from the parapet and climb sideways to get behind my enemy. I thought it pretty clever until I found myself a heartbeat away from falling to an inglorious death.
But I guess the rest of my table doesn't like thinking things through tactically, and in contrast, I guess I think about the tactical possibilities details too much.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I guess from your statement either
A: everything everywhere is always wrong on these forums about party experience because we don't have peer reviewed macro studies of party compositions with at least 1000 data points or
B: generalisations about what is the perceived majority of party composition experiences, while not entirely accurate on an individual standpoint on each count, can still be viewed as pertinent?
I'd say...
C: You can talk about the kind of party composition you tend to run into in your own native gaming ecologies, and it's not completely meaningless, but it's also important to realize that it only goes as far as it goes.
To my mind, such arguments are great at justifying statements like "X is a valid choice and/or sometimes a good idea" because you're describing situations where it has been a good idea, and you can assume that such situations exist even outside of your own particular friend-groups (even if you don't know how widespread they are by percentages). By contrast, they're really bad at justifying "X is terrible and/or worthless" because hey - the fact that it's worthless (if indeed it is) in the tiny slice of the gaming community that *you* can see doesn't necessarily mean a lot for the broader gaming community.
Also helpful - if we can identify one set of gaming norms where Thing X is worthwhile and valuable, and one set where it fails hard, then that's a great start on figuring out what exactly is *making* it useful or useless, which can be really helpful at offering advice to others on when it's a good idea and when it isn't.
I ran a 3 person PF1 campaign to level 9, with only 1 caster in 2012 and 2013Cool but that's hardly the majority of cases.
Nothing is the majority of cases.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A great deal of Alastar's complaints seem to me to boil down to
"Absolutely any single thing a monk can do or any character concept that can be done as a monk can be done pretty much as well by a combination of another character, lots of in character resources (feats, stat points, etc) and some out of character resources (spells, magic items, whatever)"
And that is true.
But its true of just about ANY character in PF2 (about the only exception I can think of is that NOTHING is more reliable at hitting than a fighter or gunslinger).
Whatever your character concept there is probably more than one way to build it in PF2. And those different builds will generally be equally effective in that there will be tradeoffs. All the builds will manage the key character concept and they'll do some things better and some things worse than the other builds.
So, if you want a highly mobile skirmisher sort you can definitely trivially do it with a monk or a barbarian. Or with a bit more work you can do it with a swashbuckler, a wild shaping druid, a ranger, a rogue etc etc etc. They'll all be decent at being a highly mobile skirmisher and there will be tradeoffs.
If you want a really good tank you can trivially play a shield using monk or a champion. Or with a bit more work ....
If you want a really good maneuver specialist ....
@gesalt: Nice! Thanks for the input.
@Ravingdork: I love it ! Great thinking! As a DM would have definitely encouraged that!
@Sanityfaerie: Full agreement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with plans backfiring. I'm less fine with the social treatment and too-high DCs.
GMs and players that actively oppose creative thinking are in the wrong hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 monk is pretty good, but I think 4e's Monk did a better job carving out its own identity and PF1's uMonk was pretty fantastic too.
I find myself missing style strikes quite a bit and Ki-as-focus-spells feels kind of frustratingly limiting to me compared to how Ki works in PF1 or even 5e (though 5e's monk has some serious problems of its own).
I only played a few sessions of 4e before my group voted to move to PF1 to keep things familiar. Looking back, I think that 4e is actually pretty good and just needed better marketing and less visually bland rules to sell better. Heck, my current group might find it enjoyable if I could convince them to give it a shot.
The Unchained Monk, I have trouble seeing. Even if it does Monk stuff well I'm not sure how it earns its place in a caster-dominated game like PF1. I think I'd rather play something from the Path of War and re-flavor it than play any base-level martial class in PF1. Of course, YMMV, and if you got to see a uMonk in action at a high optimization table and saw that it worked out, who am I to question that.
I'm fine with plans backfiring. I'm less fine with the social treatment and too-high DCs.
GMs and players that actively oppose creative thinking are in the wrong hobby.
It really seems like your playstyle didn't mesh well with the group. From their perspective, I'd bet it felt as if you were taking the spotlight too often and trying to work solo in too many fights. I can see why they were happy to let a 'problem character' die when they had the chance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 monk is pretty good, but I think 4e's Monk did a better job carving out its own identity and PF1's uMonk was pretty fantastic too.
I find myself missing style strikes quite a bit and Ki-as-focus-spells feels kind of frustratingly limiting to me compared to how Ki works in PF1 or even 5e (though 5e's monk has some serious problems of its own).
I only played a few sessions of 4e before my group voted to move to PF1 to keep things familiar. Looking back, I think that 4e is actually pretty good and just needed better marketing and less visually bland rules to sell better. Heck, my current group might find it enjoyable if I could convince them to give it a shot.
The Unchained Monk, I have trouble seeing. Even if it does Monk stuff well I'm not sure how it earns its place in a caster-dominated game like PF1. I think I'd rather play something from the Path of War and re-flavor it than play any base-level martial class in PF1. Of course, YMMV, and if you got to see a uMonk in action at a high optimization table and saw that it worked out, who am I to question that.
In my return of the runelord game I actually got to see a high level monk with MR 3 in play and it was.... actually pretty decent...
Of course it had a lot of party support, with mythic heroism and the ranger sharing its favored ennemy bonuses with the team making the monk much more accurate than it otherwise would be. But still, eventually he was able to full attack dimensional assault for like 8-9 attacks that each hit a lot. We stopped the campaign at 18 (still slotted to pick it back up eventually, although I'll convert it to 2e cause I don't want to have to use excel calculators and advanced software to run a round of combat) but by then he was matching the archer ranger and the mythic vital strike warpriest in damage.
So overall it was much more effective than I thought it would be, so I was impressed. Still wouldn't play one though.
In my return of the runelord game I actually got to see a high level monk with MR 3 in play and it was.... actually pretty decent...
Of course it had a lot of party support, with mythic heroism and the ranger sharing its favored ennemy bonuses with the team making the monk much more accurate than it otherwise would be. But still, eventually he was able to full attack dimensional assault for like 8-9 attacks that each hit a lot. We stopped the campaign at 18 (still slotted to pick it back up eventually, although I'll convert it to 2e cause I don't want to have to use excel calculators and advanced software to run a round of combat) but by then he was matching the archer ranger and the mythic vital strike warpriest in damage.
So overall it was much more effective than I thought it would be, so I was impressed. Still wouldn't play one though.
That... might not be worth it. High-level PF1 characters just don't convert well to PF2 in general. There's not enough space at the top. The cheese budget won't stretch to fit.
There's also one important point about the Monk, which are its defensive abilities.
Even if many classes end up Expert/Master/Legendary at their saves, you get your increases earlier than anyone. And choosing the saves you increase is always an asset.
Your AC is high, only beaten by the Champion in that domain.
You have an easy access to shields, potions or Battle Medicine, and the actions to use them.
And your great mobility and action efficiency is always nice to avoid reactions like AoO and to avoid staying at melee range when wounded.
You lack the Champion's ability to protect others and as such can't be considered a defender per se, but when it comes to survivability you are at the same level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it feels... *odd* how well monk-and-shield works, especially for monks who decide that they don't really care about grappling. Spellguard shields in particular (don't bother getting shield block) are surprisingly solid. We have a bunch of people whose whole schtick is running around without weapons or armor... but shields are totally legit, and even often a good idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the appeal that is that the monk is a very self-sufficient class that is hard to shut down. Monks have access to the tools to attack basically anywhere on the map and to penetrate any kind of defenses, and have strong saves and AC so they are hard to shut down in the conventional way. You're not even necessarily worse off if you lose a weapon.
I think that, thematically, is just very appealing to people.
That... might not be worth it. High-level PF1 characters just don't convert well to PF2 in general. There's not enough space at the top. The cheese budget won't stretch to fit.In my return of the runelord game I actually got to see a high level monk with MR 3 in play and it was.... actually pretty decent...
Of course it had a lot of party support, with mythic heroism and the ranger sharing its favored ennemy bonuses with the team making the monk much more accurate than it otherwise would be. But still, eventually he was able to full attack dimensional assault for like 8-9 attacks that each hit a lot. We stopped the campaign at 18 (still slotted to pick it back up eventually, although I'll convert it to 2e cause I don't want to have to use excel calculators and advanced software to run a round of combat) but by then he was matching the archer ranger and the mythic vital strike warpriest in damage.
So overall it was much more effective than I thought it would be, so I was impressed. Still wouldn't play one though.
Sounds like a player problem to me ! **Smug GM face**
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm fine with plans backfiring. I'm less fine with the social treatment and too-high DCs.
GMs and players that actively oppose creative thinking are in the wrong hobby.
To some extent. But only to some extent.
I've certainly seen LOTS of players who push "creative thinking" way, way, way too far
1) Much of the time their creative thinking isn't all that creative. Eg, I've seen the "sand in the face" trick before :-)
2) I've seen players who think that creative thinking means that they can completely ignore the rules (physics, game rules, etc) and a sufficiently good plan should be able to do ANYTHING
3) I've seen LOTS of players who confuse "flavourful expression" with "creative thinking". I don't really care HOW you describe swinging your sword, at the end of your 3 minute long description I'm still going to want to see an attack roll that succeeds
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
starting at 18 dex (only valid choice if you want to use that high AC without using mountain stance)
Most characters at lv1 will have a much lower AC than that. So... why do you need it?
My Cleric starts with AC 17. My Fighter, same. My Champion too. Let's avoid talking about my Wizard. Mostly, maxing to 18 costs a lot of money at level 1, and it's something I'm ok with trading off. A max dex monk starts with AC19, and clearly rubs you the wrong way.
Start with AC18. AC19 is overkill, and you'll still be higher than anyone else while they play catch-up with you. And then you'll overtake them anyways.
starting at 18 dex (only valid choice if you want to use that high AC without using mountain stance)Most characters at lv1 will have a much lower AC than that. So... why do you need it?
My Cleric starts with AC 17. My Fighter, same. My Champion too. Let's avoid talking about my Wizard. Mostly, maxing to 18 costs a lot of money at level 1, and it's something I'm ok with trading off. A max dex monk starts with AC19, and clearly rubs you the wrong way.
Start with AC18. AC19 is overkill, and you'll still be higher than anyone else while they play catch-up with you. And then you'll overtake them anyways.
Most martials will begin with 18 AC, cleric is 18 with chainmail and 12 dex (I assume you mean warpriest cleric?) Fighter with splint mail is 18 (yes it's pricey but worth), same for champion. Then halfway through level 1 you have enough for a full plate. Throughout most AP after the first encounter you have enough, then they are at either 18 for medium armor or 19 for full plate.
Strength monks are a thing and can definitely start with 17 AC...
...But then since you're not gonna hit optimal unarmed AC until level 15, and that AC is itself just +1 above a full plate fighter, you can't really say that high AC is one of the perks of the monk you're playing since for 10 out of 20 levels (5-14) you're gonna be at the same AC as a full plate fighter, 2 below a champion, and 1 above ranger/swashy/rogue/etc.
Levels 1-4 you're 1 below medium/light armor builds with no special armor.
So yeah... You can, but then you lose that high AC privilege which many consider core to the monks advantages. Meanwhile, the champion and fighter have just as much AC (or more!) without sacrificing anything, have better reactions and deal much more damage.
Once again boils down to me not liking the opportunity cost of being a Monk.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teams usually have 2 casters, and at least one of them has a fly spell for just such scenarios.What percentage of all PF2 teams does that usually imply? How many 4 person teams have two casters? Does it differ greatly from 5 player teams with two? And what happens in PFS when you sit down to a table with no casters?
So what do you mean by usually?
Or is it not useful generalization?
I mean I could do a poll... ?
I've never seen a team not have at least 2 casters, including 3 people team, in all my 24 years of TTRPG.
YMMV
Also that was a generalisation based on superbidi's incredibly specific anecdotal evidence of his level 16 sorcerer, which in turn was an answer to my broad statement that almost all teams have the possibility of the fly spell.
So I guess from your statement either
A: everything everywhere is always wrong on these forums about party experience because we don't have peer reviewed macro studies of party compositions with at least 1000 data points or
B: generalisations about what is the perceived majority of party composition experiences, while not entirely accurate on an individual standpoint on each count, can still be viewed as pertinent?
None of the tables of PF2 I've run or played at have had more than one caster - the two longest lasting have had one sorcerer and one druid (in a 5-person party), and the table I'm currently playing in has no casters whatsoever - the closest to a caster is the Captivator free archetype I've taken. Of course, my experiences are no more representative than any of ours - the point is that different table cultures will give rise to different benefits for different classes. If your table routinely is 50% casters, and those casters are very willing to spend their spell slots on things like Fly, you'll want your martial characters to be very good at a specific niche (because you only have 2), and those martial characters won't need much in the way of movement abilities. Both of those go against the monk - but that doesn't make monk a worse class in general. If you were playing at a table entirely made of martials, monk would be very valuable for those fights in which that movement flexibility is required.
@arcalan: fair point!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the reasons why people love 2e monk is that all the previous monks have been so... awful. 3.5 and PF 1e monks were just horribly MAD and needed a lot of love, support, and buffs to work in any sensible way - Unchained Monk was a bit better but didn't have as much support otherwise as the original 1e monk. So, people may just generally be happy that they now have an actually viable and working monk class.
Given the Society Play for context, most people are concerned for if their character/build is viable for the early levels, not late levels - monk is tied in AC with champion for the first 6 levels which makes them very appealing - AC is probably most important stat for surviving combat because of how crits work. (incidentally, this makes Barbarians one of the worst martials - especially giant instincts - taking -2 to already poor AC is just huge, and barbarians tendency to go for a 2-hander instead of sword and shield is another problem. Barbarians aren't -bad- per say, it's just that the most stereotypical depiction (Iconic, even) is just horrible to play with).
As others have pointed out, action economy is a huge thing. The other "strike twice" feats tend to require a ranged weapon (usually 2-handed) or two weapons, while flurry allows you to wield a shield, OR pick up a spellcasting dedication and use your free hand for spells. Ranger gets the similar "1-action, strike twice" ability but only against their hunted targets and only with 2 different weapons or a ranged weapon, fighter gets a similar ability At Level 14 AND it requires 2 weapons.
While monk feats definitely are good, you don't really need that many of them - maybe a stance or monastic weaponry, and stunning fist. The rest of the important stuff are baked into the class abilities, making multiclassing very viable for a monk without sacrificing much of your core build.
The save progression. Monk has the best save progression.
Sure, other classes finish with the same spread, But monk gets to pick which ones they want and That Is Huge: You can tailor your saves depending on the kind of enemies you're facing OR which of your stats need support. Don't plan on taking KI feats and your wisdom isn't good? Pick up better will saves!
Playing in a campaign heavy with dragons or something? Pick up better reflex saves to avoid those breath weapons!
I do think that monk could have used a bit more support for the higher levels, though. At level 10+, going for your preferred martial class and picking up monk dedication and flurry + stunning fist will make you very much a monk with the most important bits, while other classes generally don't hand out the most important class features as freely. This tends to be a problem only if you start at higher levels, though (Fists of the Ruby Phoenix, for example) - I don't really see anyone playing a fighter from level 1 to level 9 with the idea that "my build only comes online after half the campaign is done!"
(ranged fighter with a bow, monastic archery, stunning fist, flurry... Would be mean!)
I think the Monk class really showcases the strengths of the 2e system and how flexible different classes are - you can build a monk in so many interesting ways especially when using archetypes, and all of them are strong.
EDIT: Wanted to add that I feel probably the same way you do, but about swashbuckler class.
It's just horrible, you either go for finesse but your dmg lacks behind and the panache-finisher action economy is absolutely horrible, OR you go for a str and forgo finishers instead focusing on the flat dmg bonus, in which case you don't have the stats for skills... Ugh. Can't make a swash that works in a mechanically satisfying way.
Good post, overall 2 things though
1: don't need freehand to cast spells
2: agreed on swashy, but the panache/finisher mechanic makes them mechanically much more engaging and opportune riposte is a fun mechanic. All of these are in baked into the class and picking a style makes you feel thematical. The monk does not have anything like that, making them feel lackluster to me. The weaknesses of the swashbuckler are the weaknesses of the finesse style in general, which the monk definitely suffers from too. So my take isn't that I love the swashy, never played one and I always find something else to play instead, it's that if I'm going to commit to a mobile, run everywhere hitting people, low damage because of finesse build, I'm going to pick a swashy because their mechanics are engaging and fun, despite them not being terribly better than the monk.
|
|
Well, true, most spells don't need free hand, but there are still spells that do have material components which do require, plus you need a free hand to handle scrolls.
What part about panache/finisher mechanic makes it mechanically engaging?
Our group's swash retrained out of swash because they got frustrated with it, and I haven't seen more than a few swashes in organized play either. It just locks you into repeating the same couple actions over and over again, with no actions left for anything interesting - exactly the opposite of monk which gets to make two strikes with 1 action, then still has 2 actions to cast a spell, raise a shield, move, combat medicine, whatever they want.
It seems just like a 'feel bad' mechanic: move in, attempt to gain panache, fail, and your whole round is basically wasted. Or gain panache, move in, miss with the finisher, and your whole round is wasted again.
Or even if you get panache and do a finisher, you need to spend your last action to get the panache back, and if you fail, you're at a situation where your next round begins from square 0: Attempt to gain panache, lament if it fails.
The swash styles all have hidden drawbacks which makes the class challenging to build for a new player:
Battle Dancer's panache giving action doesn't normally do anything, it's just a wasted action.
Braggart would be good, if it wasn't for enemies that are immune to mental stuff, and the fact that if there are just 1 or 2 enemies, you can't utilize your demoralize more than once or twice and then they are immune.
Fencer has the same problem (feint is mental) (AND requires you to be adjacent, can't get panache from afar) OR you can create diversion (but DC goes up if you do so again). (Scout archetype fencer would be cool, though - skip charisma, feint as part of the scout's charge using stealth instead)
Gymnast sounds good until you realise that finisher is, well, finisher, so you can't trip an enemy for panache after using your panache.
Wit is probably the best (and honestly, the only one I could imagine using), especially with one for all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that they create an engaging system of ressources management.
It's, in the eternal words of Mallory Archer, the classic irishman's dilemma: do I eat the potato now or ferment it for later?
Do I keep the bonuses panache gives me for now or do I blow it all on a showy finish.
A lot of feats and powers give you advantages to keeping your panache and the nuance of the SWashy is managing those ressources. You still outdamage a Monk by just keeping your panache on. Not to mention opportune riposte and all the follow up feats are really fun thematically.
Call me a star wars fanhead but the idea of shooting back disintegration beams with my sword is very engaging to me, if unlikely to happen.
As for the styles breakdown:
Battledancer has leading dance too which isn't mental, forces movement, and targets a traditionally weak save. You just gotta be clever to use it.
Braggard does have that issue but it's solved by 9, and before that if it's just 1-2 ennemies just don't use a finisher till it's clutch.
Gymnast is the trickiest one but also the most team based one as you either help your team out with maneuvers (which are the most potent they can be when you're level 10 and roll twice on every check while you have panache) or you can absolutely destroy anyone who's probed or grabbed, making high teamwork tactics very engaging.
Duelist is meh, not particularly fun to me, I've seen it in play and feint does have the advantage of targeting perception
With is definitely one of my favorites though!
Also keep in mind that if you can't demoralize and such....you can always tumble through, it's actually the default action.
Swashys have a kit where you always have something to do with your actions, and that something is always relevant to what you're trying to do.
Monks on the other hand definitely have 3rd action problems.
cast a spell: gotta archetype out, which creates opportunity cost vs the other monk feats everyone keeps talking about, if it's innate spells they have shit DC cause you can't afford charisma
raise a shield: lotsa people, including me, find it antithematic
Move: cool but then stand still or any other reaction won't trigger... Sometimes it's useful, sometimes it's not, even then that's just 1 action.
combat medicine: what if no one is wounded or you want to keep the CD up for harder encounters
Whatever they want: what else could it be? RK? Dont have int Feint? Don't have cha athletics actions? Have the attack trait assurance athletics? Often won't work
The number of times I've seen a Monk just swing for the fences with -8 MAP attack on 2nd and 3rd is astounding, and I can't really fault them for it.
They were trying to hold positioning to focus ennemy attacks on them, which meant not running away, and they had no viable 2nd or 3rd action options .. so they just flurry of failed.
All in all very on brand for monk mind you.
And before you say "well they could have done x and y as of level z" all monks I've seen have been 5 under.
I realise they get more options at higher levels, but in levels 1-4 from what I've seen the swashy was MUCH more engaging.
Huh. Fencer wants you to feint. Huh. You know what the absolute most action-efficient way to feint is, right? Stumbling feint FoB (with optional stunning fist). Now, all of that gets really very expensive on feats if you try to port it over onto a non-monk, and it doesn't come online until lvl 14. On the other hand, you can pick up the swashbuckler dedication, grab a relatively low-level finisher (unbalancing, maybe?) take finishing precision for the damage, if you like, and then later grab evasiveness so that you have legendary/master/master in your saves. Be a monk with a bit more flair, rather than a swashbuckler who punches.
...then, once you've done all that, possibly consider assassin dedication and sneak attacker? You're going to be handing out quite a lot of flat footed, after all.
Admittedly, I probably wouldn't do this unless I was playing with free archetype, but as a way to generate some extra damage for a monk with free archetype....
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You still outdamage a Monk by just keeping your panache on.
In some white room thought experiment, sure. The expected bonus from panache often beats the expected damage from an extra -8 MAP attack.
In practice at the table? Not nearly so much (at least for the levels where swash doesn't have FoB). Its actually fairly rare that just standing there spamming attacks is your best course of action
You're SERIOUSLY underestimating how useful FoB can be. Its quite common that you need to spend 2 actions on something else in which case FoB absolutely rocks. It is incredibly nice to be able to ready a flurry.
A monk just rocks at either hit and run attacks OR at using shields combined with some mobility. Or combined with electric are if you ARE just standing and attacking.
Or combined with electric are if you ARE just standing and attacking.
Okay... I like the monk, but you're going to have to work that one out for me a bit better, because I'm having difficulty seeing it.
- Monk gets proficiency for occult or divine. electric arc is primal or arcane. Where are you getting your proficiency from?
- What are you doing for your spellcasting ability mod? In addition to the effect on DC, at lower levels, most of the damage that EArc does comes from that ability mod.
Electric arc on a monk to me feels like investing a feat (because it's going to have to be a feat of one kind or another) to get back a handful of not much. Am I missing a build where it makes sense?
@Sanityfaerie: that's a cool build but the reverse also works, also works better on spread because monks are a bit MAD and working charisma in there instead of wisdom locks you out of some ki spell options. So to your affirmation, I'd say drunken style swashbuckler with stumbling feint and finishers who gets panache when he feints is pretty cool too (both work though)
@pauljathome: I understand that it's an efficient action, don't get me wrong, but per strike, other classes do more damage, and since FoB is not unique to monk, it means eventually other classes can just get it. As for shields and electric arc I've mentioned above why it's oftentimes unappealing, although if you make it work I do admit it's pretty good !
And I agree that standing there spamming attacks is not a good idea ! Hence why I lament that I've often seen monk players (and across three builds through three different players with varying degrees of expertise!) Just stand there and wail because they literally had nothing else to do!
This isn't white room, this is actual play across multiple campaigns, with multiple players, and multiple GMs. Since MAP -10/-8 actions are a waste of time, an alternative is often best, but with how monks are builtz that alternative is oftentimes non existing.
In all three builds, 2 out of 3 refused shields cause they didn't like the aesthetic, one wanted to grab a cantrip initially but when he realised it would be terrible if he didn't get charisma he didn't, the other had the shield cantrip, which worked.
Even then, the action spread was often "FoB, shield spell/raise shield, 3rd attack at -8" yes they could have moved, but then they wouldn't be controling space for the casters in the team anymore, or would have lost the flanking they were giving their ally.
Mobility is chill and all but if you already have the best position you can get right now it's pointless, and monks struggle to find good actions outside of move and strike.
Small note, the one monk that DID grab shield was a mushroom Leshy monk that grabbed it as a wide brimmed wooden hat.
It's pretty cool ! Game is still ongoing but it's VERY slow paced (GM gives like 150exp per game on a "this is my whim" basis, games are like 1:30 and we don't often do them cause he's a journalist and...*gestures to world*) so I might yet notice something else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is, gymnast tripper aside, you never want to hold onto panache as every turn you don't land a finisher, you're not doing enough damage (or enough anything really) to justify your existence. It should also be noted that precise strike damage is pathetic.
As for monk 3rd actions
Raise a shield: just reflavor it. Don't let something as simple as baseline flavor or action name stand in the way of making good choices. You're not raising a shield, you've simply focused ki into your gi or skin and use that to help repel attacks and by next turn its dissipated and needs to be renewed.
Trip/assurance: you can actually just lead with trip and follow up with flurry to prioritize the debuff. The inevitable stand the next turn lets you get stand still off as well. If you land it, you can even attack a 3rd time at effective -6 without feeling too bad if you have nothing better to do with your action.
Cast a spell: it's true, monk has a lot of mandatory feats. Something to keep in mind if you're playing with free archetype though.
Or combined with electric are if you ARE just standing and attacking.Okay... I like the monk, but you're going to have to work that one out for me a bit better, because I'm having difficulty seeing it.
- Monk gets proficiency for occult or divine. electric arc is primal or arcane. Where are you getting your proficiency from?
- What are you doing for your spellcasting ability mod? In addition to the effect on DC, at lower levels, most of the damage that EArc does comes from that ability mod.
Electric arc on a monk to me feels like investing a feat (because it's going to have to be a feat of one kind or another) to get back a handful of not much. Am I missing a build where it makes sense?
If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified.
By this rule, you'd use your monk occult or divine proficiency to cover innate electric arc though your cha modifier will be trash.
Alternatively, while I've never seen the option taken seriously, you can grab something like cleric dedication and use a human ancestry feat to take adaptive cantrip electric arc to have it all covered under divine and wisdom.
That's... actually pretty good.
Cleric dedication is real good on monks!
@Sanityfaerie: that's a cool build but the reverse also works, also works better on spread because monks are a bit MAD and working charisma in there instead of wisdom locks you out of some ki spell options. So to your affirmation, I'd say drunken style swashbuckler with stumbling feint and finishers who gets panache when he feints is pretty cool too (both work though)
Yeah? the basic problem there is that if you try to drink your monk powers through the archetype straw, the core combo doesn't come online until level 12 at the earliest, and doesn't complete until level 14. Something that "works better" that you'll never get to isn't winning you anything, really.
It also doesn't get you the legendary/master/master spread on saves.
As for ki spells... who cares? I mean, really. When I'm building monks, I usually skip ki spells anyway (unless there's one in particular that's core to the build concept).
True, they're not vital.
All monks I've seen though really want ki blast, because who doesn't want to yell Kamehameha in the middle of combat !
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
True, they're not vital.
All monks I've seen though really want ki blast, because who doesn't want to yell Kamehameha in the middle of combat !
I don't?
I think this is another one of those "the experience in my playgroup is..." things.
...and it's not like your swashbuckler with monk archetype version is getting those ki blasts either.
True, they're not vital.
All monks I've seen though really want ki blast, because who doesn't want to yell Kamehameha in the middle of combat !
I don't?
I think this is another one of those "the experience in my playgroup is..." things.
...and it's not like your swashbuckler with monk archetype version is getting those ki blasts either.
Oh definitely not! It's more of a personal bias there, if I ever build a Monk ki blast is gonna be a good contender for me. For child like candor reason.
You can also do a Monk/Swashy build based around monastic weapons to have a star wars feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh definitely not! It's more of a personal bias there, if I ever build a Monk ki blast is gonna be a good contender for me. For child like candor reason.
You can also do a Monk/Swashy build based around monastic weapons to have a star wars feel.
Well... yeah, but the whole point of the build I described is that it allows for some really solid feint optimization, which means that you're *not* doing stuff with weapons, because stumbling stance is an important part of the while thing.
Again, this pretty much requires free archetype to be efficient, but with the right feat picks, by about level 12 you can have your default turn look like this:
- Flurry of Blows: feint. Strike (-0), Strike (-4). The feint applies to both strikes. If either hits, you get a chance at a stun.
- flourish: Strike (-6), plus whatever the effects of your flourish are.
- winding flow: two move actions.
That uses four monk feats and three swashbuckler feats. The rest of your feats can go into making it that much better... and you can have the core of it in place by level 6 - just that the flourish is at -8, and you don't get the winding flow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like the fact that you can have an extended back and forth about monk and swashy is pretty good evidence the two are balanced against each other and it is really just preferrance
I think one of the reasons why people love 2e monk is that all the previous monks have been so... awful. 3.5 and PF 1e monks were just horribly MAD and needed a lot of love, support, and buffs to work in any sensible way - Unchained Monk was a bit better but didn't have as much support otherwise as the original 1e monk. So, people may just generally be happy that they now have an actually viable and working monk class.
Given the Society Play for context, most people are concerned for if their character/build is viable for the early levels, not late levels - monk is tied in AC with champion for the first 6 levels which makes them very appealing - AC is probably most important stat for surviving combat because of how crits work. (incidentally, this makes Barbarians one of the worst martials - especially giant instincts - taking -2 to already poor AC is just huge, and barbarians tendency to go for a 2-hander instead of sword and shield is another problem. Barbarians aren't -bad- per say, it's just that the most stereotypical depiction (Iconic, even) is just horrible to play with).
As others have pointed out, action economy is a huge thing. The other "strike twice" feats tend to require a ranged weapon (usually 2-handed) or two weapons, while flurry allows you to wield a shield, OR pick up a spellcasting dedication and use your free hand for spells. Ranger gets the similar "1-action, strike twice" ability but only against their hunted targets and only with 2 different weapons or a ranged weapon, fighter gets a similar ability At Level 14 AND it requires 2 weapons.
While monk feats definitely are good, you don't really need that many of them - maybe a stance or monastic weaponry, and stunning fist. The rest of the important stuff are baked into the class abilities, making multiclassing very viable for a monk without sacrificing much of your core build.
The save progression. Monk has the best save progression.
Sure, other classes finish with the same spread, But monk gets to pick which ones they want...
Definitely some truth about the barbarian. The best way to play it is by poking and staying mobile with the huge reach, which definitely isn't intuitive to the concept. For other instincts the raw damage the class puts out can work out better. The temporary hit points and higher base damage is pretty nice. You're basically guaranteed kills on low level enemies even with minimum damage rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Huh. Fencer wants you to feint. Huh. You know what the absolute most action-efficient way to feint is, right? Stumbling feint FoB (with optional stunning fist). Now, all of that gets really very expensive on feats if you try to port it over onto a non-monk, and it doesn't come online until lvl 14.
You can get it to work at level 10 with two archetypes. The Martial Artist archetype gets Stumbling Stance at 4 and Stumbling Feint at level 8 even though it can never actually use Stumbling Feint as the archetype lacks access to Flurry of Blows.
However, if you're Human, you can grab the Monk Archetype with Multitalented at 9th level, and pick up FoB at 10.
You have however devoted four class feats and one ancestry feat to something that straight up doesn't work for 10 levels. Most GMs I know are going to side-eye that level of retraining shenanigans, and see stuff like this as an argument against Free Archetype if done too much.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And before you say "well they could have done x and y as of level z" all monks I've seen have been 5 under.
Then to be fair you shouldn't
Braggard does have that issue but it's solved by 9, and before that if it's just 1-2 ennemies just don't use a finisher till it's clutch.
Or
Gymnast is the trickiest one but also the most team based one as you either help your team out with maneuvers (which are the most potent they can be when you're level 10 and roll twice on every check while you have panache) or you can absolutely destroy anyone who's probed or grabbed, making high teamwork tactics very engaging.
Its rather disingenuous to talk about swashy choices at level 9 and 10 and then tell people not to talk about monk choices at higher levels because you've only seen monks 5 and below.
|
Huh. Fencer wants you to feint. Huh. You know what the absolute most action-efficient way to feint is, right? Stumbling feint FoB (with optional stunning fist). Now, all of that gets really very expensive on feats if you try to port it over onto a non-monk, and it doesn't come online until lvl 14.You can get it to work at level 10 with two archetypes. The Martial Artist archetype gets Stumbling Stance at 4 and Stumbling Feint at level 8 even though it can never actually use Stumbling Feint as the archetype lacks access to Flurry of Blows.
However, if you're Human, you can grab the Monk Archetype with Multitalented at 9th level, and pick up FoB at 10.
You have however devoted four class feats and one ancestry feat to something that straight up doesn't work for 10 levels. Most GMs I know are going to side-eye that level of retraining shenanigans, and see stuff like this as an argument against Free Archetype if done too much.
Yup. Either you start play at 10th level or you retrain a ton.
Well... yeah, but the whole point of the build I described is that it allows for some really solid feint optimization, which means that you're *not* doing stuff with weapons, because stumbling stance is an important part of the while thing.
Again, this pretty much requires free archetype to be efficient, but with the right feat picks, by about level 12 you can have your default turn look like this:
- Flurry of Blows: feint. Strike (-0), Strike (-4). The feint applies to both strikes. If either hits, you get a chance at a stun.
- flourish: Strike (-6), plus whatever the effects of your flourish are.
- winding flow: two move actions.That uses four monk feats and three swashbuckler feats. The rest of your feats can go into making it that much better... and you can have the core of it in place by level 6 - just that the flourish is at -8, and you don't get the winding flow.
But why bother optimizing feint when you can Trip (better str than cha,can be exploited by rest of party,will proc stand still on stand/crawl), flurry (-2, -6 considering prone+agile) with an open 3rd action (stride into range I assume).
3 feats between stance,stunning,stand still
Online at level 4
Stance agnostic
Higher damage (stand still+str mod)
Better condition
If you're free archetyping you can go rogue instead of swash and get sneak attack too for more damage.
But why bother optimizing feint when you can Trip (better str than cha,can be exploited by rest of party,will proc stand still on stand/crawl), flurry (-2, -6 considering prone+agile) with an open 3rd action (stride into range I assume).
3 feats between stance,stunning,stand still
Online at level 4
Stance agnostic
Higher damage (stand still+str mod)
Better conditionIf you're free archetyping you can go rogue instead of swash and get sneak attack too for more damage.
Trip plus flurry takes two actions, and the MAP from the trip applies whether you succeed or not. Stumbling feint as part of flurry takes one action, and does not generate MAP. Instead of an effective (-2, -6), you run an effective (+2, -2), and you have an extra action free to do whatever.
So, you're basically saying that the trip build can do more with two actions and a reaction than the feint build can with one action. I'm willing to take that as a given... but I don't think that necessarily invalidates the feint build as a choice.
I also tend to think that the assassin is a better pick than the rogue if all you care about is dealing additional damage. The "assassin archetype first" vs "swashbuckler archetype first" is a question entirely aside from the trip vs feint.