Why do I hate the monk where everyone seems to like it?


Pathfinder Second Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Bigger stat damage, bigger weapons, better AC with Heavy armor (and the excellent benefit of Bulwark).

STR really needs some boosting I think.


Squiggit wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
The Monk only needs 4 attributes and as such is not MAD at all.

I mean, needing four attributes means that all of your ability increases are dedicated just to maintenance, which means if you want to invest in something else you have to sacrifice some part of your core to do it. That doesn't sound great in terms of attribute flexibility.

There are some who have it worse, but it's still not great.

Contrast with like, a druid who depending on their build can kind of get away with whatever they want.

But the Druid's the exception. The classes that can just raise 3 stats are:

- Druids (Wild ones may benefit from Strength, GM-dependent)
- Thief Rogues
- Ranged martials (archers benefit from Strength, but it's minor)
- Full Plate Fighters/Barbarians/Rangers (but as you point out you need something to do for ranged combats)

So it's quite limited.

The Monk is average when it comes to stat dependency. The non-Mountain Strength Monk is a bit more constrained as Dexterity is important. And the Dexterity Monk can live with 10 Strength, even if it's a bit hard at low level.


Speaking about the Monk, there's a Stance I've often disregarded due to its low damage output at low level and that is actually very strong: The Crane Stance.
Crane Flutter is just an outstanding reaction. On top of being extremely easy to trigger it combines both a defensive and an offensive use. One of the best reactions in the game.

Also, I haven't seen Ki Strike mentioned much in this discussion. A Ki Striked Flurry of Blows from a Dragon Monk as the same damage output than a Greatsword Fighter making 2 attacks. It has the limitations of all Focus Spells, but it's very easy to grab and is a strong damage enhancer. A Ki Strike Strength Monk is a good damage dealer in my opinion.


I fully agree that it's great damage but it does suffer from my point about opportunity cost of feats.

You can't grab dragon style and ki strike at level 1 unless you're a human. You could grab it at 2 but there's stunning fist. You could grab it at 4 but there's stand still.

So because of how the monk works, it's a very niche option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, Human is the most played Ancestry and Adopted Ancestry exists.

I can't say there's no opportunity cost, as there's always one when choosing a feat over another one, but I find that you consider Stunning Fist and Stand Still highly.

I personally try to avoid Stand Still on a Monk without Reach as I find it weak unless you have a party who's heavy on trips.
As for Stunning Fist, I have never found it excellent unless on a hit and run Monk (which is a weird character in a party). Outside nat 1s, the effect is not incredible.

In my opinion, especially at low level, Ki Strike is very important to take into account. Low level fights are very quick, lasting less than 3 rounds on average. On top of that, before the Striking Rune, Ki Strike damage increase is crazy. On a Dragon Monk (so the least affected Monk) a Ki Strike FoB does 55% more damage than a FoB.
And I also find that its impact on the combat dynamic is very interesting. It allows you to start with a very violent first round, attracting attention on a character who's strong in defense, who can easily use hit and run strategies when low in hps and who can't keep its damage output during the later rounds => the character you want the enemies to focus on.


SuperBidi wrote:

Well, Human is the most played Ancestry and Adopted Ancestry exists.

I can't say there's no opportunity cost, as there's always one when choosing a feat over another one, but I find that you consider Stunning Fist and Stand Still highly.

I personally try to avoid Stand Still on a Monk without Reach as I find it weak unless you have a party who's heavy on trips.
As for Stunning Fist, I have never found it excellent unless on a hit and run Monk (which is a weird character in a party). Outside nat 1s, the effect is not incredible.

In my opinion, especially at low level, Ki Strike is very important to take into account. Low level fights are very quick, lasting less than 3 rounds on average. On top of that, before the Striking Rune, Ki Strike damage increase is crazy. On a Dragon Monk (so the least affected Monk) a Ki Strike FoB does 55% more damage than a FoB.
And I also find that its impact on the combat dynamic is very interesting. It allows you to start with a very violent first round, attracting attention on a character who's strong in defense, who can easily use hit and run strategies when low in hps and who can't keep its damage output during the later rounds => the character you want the enemies to focus on.

That's an interesting take on it. I tend to agree with you. I don't like that it forces you to play human though, let my kobold monk build shine damnit paizo!!!

As for Stunning fist and stand still it was more that in the past posts of this thread they were held up as shining exemples of why the monk is super good.

Personally unless I'm going for a reach stance (and most of these are 8+) I don't see the use in stand still. Stunning fist is tight thought.

I have a hatred of brawling focus. Why is this costing me a feat? Why is this not part of the core class!


AlastarOG wrote:

That's an interesting take on it. I tend to agree with you. I don't like that it forces you to play human though, let my kobold monk build shine damnit paizo!!!

As for Stunning fist and stand still it was more that in the past posts of this thread they were held up as shining exemples of why the monk is super good.

Personally unless I'm going for a reach stance (and most of these are 8+) I don't see the use in stand still. Stunning fist is tight thought.

I have a hatred of brawling focus. Why is this costing me a feat? Why is this not part of the core class!

I tend to play humans a lot, 50% of my characters roughly. I have a few characters who can take Natural Ambition but their class doesn't have interesting first level feats, and it's bugging me.

So, I consider it a feature of the Monk!

About Brawling Focus, I agree with you, it's a bit stupid to have it as a feat. And it's really bad, especially when you compare it to Stunning Fist.
Anyway, Brawling Critical Specialization is just bad, I don't think anyone misses it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
AlastarOG wrote:

I fully agree that it's great damage but it does suffer from my point about opportunity cost of feats.

You can't grab dragon style and ki strike at level 1 unless you're a human. You could grab it at 2 but there's stunning fist. You could grab it at 4 but there's stand still.

So because of how the monk works, it's a very niche option.

Despite how often they're brought up on these forums, I just do not see the appeal in Stunning Fist or Stand Still, and have never taken them. So that's not really an issue for me. My monks get along just fine without them.


Ravingdork wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

I fully agree that it's great damage but it does suffer from my point about opportunity cost of feats.

You can't grab dragon style and ki strike at level 1 unless you're a human. You could grab it at 2 but there's stunning fist. You could grab it at 4 but there's stand still.

So because of how the monk works, it's a very niche option.

Despite how often they're brought up on these forums, I just do not see the appeal in Stunning Fist or Stand Still, and have never taken them. So that's not really an issue for me. My monks get along just fine without them.

Stunning fist is liked because it's a passive that sometimes does stuff. Mostly only good when fighting mook hordes but that's good enough.

Stand still is taken because if you don't have a reliable reaction you're playing badly. Stand still isn't as good as AoO or champion reaction but it's all you've got baseline so you don't really have a choice without archetyping.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
Stand still is taken because if you don't have a reliable reaction you're playing badly. Stand still isn't as good as AoO or champion reaction but it's all you've got baseline so you don't really have a choice without archetyping.

But Stand Still is not a "reliable" reaction unless you have Reach or a tripping party. It doesn't trigger that often, and quite randomly.

Reaction optimization is an important part of character optimization, but Stand Still is quite a poor choice in that regard.


SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Stand still is taken because if you don't have a reliable reaction you're playing badly. Stand still isn't as good as AoO or champion reaction but it's all you've got baseline so you don't really have a choice without archetyping.

But Stand Still is not a "reliable" reaction unless you have Reach or a tripping party. It doesn't trigger that often, and quite randomly.

Reaction optimization is an important part of character optimization, but Stand Still is quite a poor choice in that regard.

Its the only reaction that interrupts move though, so its good for that.

Combined with lashing branch or jellyfish stance it can be quite effective.


AlastarOG wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Stand still is taken because if you don't have a reliable reaction you're playing badly. Stand still isn't as good as AoO or champion reaction but it's all you've got baseline so you don't really have a choice without archetyping.

But Stand Still is not a "reliable" reaction unless you have Reach or a tripping party. It doesn't trigger that often, and quite randomly.

Reaction optimization is an important part of character optimization, but Stand Still is quite a poor choice in that regard.

Its the only reaction that interrupts move though, so its good for that.

Combined with lashing branch or jellyfish stance it can be quite effective.

Yes, it's build-dependent. If you have Reach, it's definitely a strong component of your efficiency. If you have just a normal Monk without Reach and without expectations of many prone enemies, it's quite meh.

Mostly because it won't trigger enough to consider that your character is optimized for reactions, you need to find another one at least. So, it's better to directly find an easy to trigger reaction and call it a day.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

Its the only reaction that interrupts move though, so its good for that.

Combined with lashing branch or jellyfish stance it can be quite effective.

It only interrupts move on a crit, though, which isn't great. So, it's cool for frustrating mooks, if you get lucky. That doesn't make it as good as AOO, which triggers on significantly more things and has its own crit-interrupt for manipulate actions. Having reach makes it better for frustrating mooks, but still doesn't make it super-impressive.

Now, to be clear, having a reaction attack is useful, and I'm not saying that it's a poor use of a feat or anything. It's not. It's just that the synergies you're discussing there aren't as big a deal as you're making them out to be.


AlastarOG wrote:
Its the only reaction that interrupts move though, so its good for that.

I let it slip: Stand Still doesn't interrupt move, it interrupts Move actions. It's very different (and even less common).

And then you can add the weird ruling on Move actions without actual movement triggering reactions after the Move action is performed and how your GM would rule an interruption in such a case (I can see GMs ruling it either way).

So Stand Still doesn't interrupt much and is GM dependent in its interrupting ability.


SuperBidi wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
Stand still is taken because if you don't have a reliable reaction you're playing badly. Stand still isn't as good as AoO or champion reaction but it's all you've got baseline so you don't really have a choice without archetyping.

But Stand Still is not a "reliable" reaction unless you have Reach or a tripping party. It doesn't trigger that often, and quite randomly.

Reaction optimization is an important part of character optimization, but Stand Still is quite a poor choice in that regard.

Its the only reaction that interrupts move though, so its good for that.

Combined with lashing branch or jellyfish stance it can be quite effective.

Yes, it's build-dependent. If you have Reach, it's definitely a strong component of your efficiency. If you have just a normal Monk without Reach and without expectations of many prone enemies, it's quite meh.

Mostly because it won't trigger enough to consider that your character is optimized for reactions, you need to find another one at least. So, it's better to directly find an easy to trigger reaction and call it a day.

Well the idea is that enemies will be prone often because prone is among the best conditions to inflict given that it flatfoots, puts -2 circumstantial on attacks and forces an action to undo which itself triggers AoO and stand still. If your party isn't putting enemies on the floor to eat their actions, improve party accuracy against said enemy and give party martials extra attacks, I'm really hoping there's a good reason for it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
gesalt wrote:
If your party isn't putting enemies on the floor to eat their actions, improve party accuracy against said enemy and give party martials extra attacks, I'm really hoping there's a good reason for it.

Is "noone can do it" a good enough reason?

Not every character can Trip efficiently, you need a specific build for that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Squiggit wrote:
aobst128 wrote:
"fundamentally niche" is not how I would describe strength.

I mean, if you aren't using it for attack rolls, or investing significantly in athletics, it's at best something that's okayish to splash and at worst completely ignorable.

Does a level 19 wit swashbuckler, investigator, or tiger monk really care about the 1-2 points of damage they're missing from not throwing a couple increases in strength? What about a wizard? A flame oracle? A pistolero gunslinger?

Most campaigns don't get that high in level. Strength remains fairly relevant to damage until level 11 or 12 I would say. You've listed a bunch of classes that wouldn't want strength typically. I guess since they're light armored classes they only need dex? Classes that would want strength are obvious. Strength being bad for wizards isn't really the fault of the stat. Intelligence would be niche for barbarians but I wouldn't say intelligence is therefore niche all together. Depends on the class and build.


SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
If your party isn't putting enemies on the floor to eat their actions, improve party accuracy against said enemy and give party martials extra attacks, I'm really hoping there's a good reason for it.

Is "noone can do it" a good enough reason?

Not every character can Trip efficiently, you need a specific build for that.

It's more that between trip with athletics, class feats like knockdown, TWO weapon groups (flail and hammer) that drop you prone on a crit with no save, grease, shockwave, hideous laughter and gust of wind (all of which are level 1-2, target a different save each, don't have the incapacitation trait, and span all 4 traditions) the ways of making someone prone are numerous and efficient.

It's also one of the best conditions, giving a circumstance penalty to AC that you can stack on top of making the target clumsy or frightened with intimidate/spear crit/crushing rune/fear spell.

If you're playing a controller (most often a caster) then your go to is to try to get as many targets as you can prone as fast as possible.

Granted its not all parties that have those options, but most should.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
gesalt wrote:
If your party isn't putting enemies on the floor to eat their actions, improve party accuracy against said enemy and give party martials extra attacks, I'm really hoping there's a good reason for it.

Is "noone can do it" a good enough reason?

Not every character can Trip efficiently, you need a specific build for that.

It's more that between trip with athletics, class feats like knockdown, TWO weapon groups (flail and hammer) that drop you prone on a crit with no save, grease, shockwave, hideous laughter and gust of wind (all of which are level 1-2, target a different save each, don't have the incapacitation trait, and span all 4 traditions) the ways of making someone prone are numerous and efficient.

It's also one of the best conditions, giving a circumstance penalty to AC that you can stack on top of making the target clumsy or frightened with intimidate/spear crit/crushing rune/fear spell.

If you're playing a controller (most often a caster) then your go to is to try to get as many targets as you can prone as fast as possible.

Granted its not all parties that have those options, but most should.

It hasn't been my experience at all. I've seen a few characters able to Trip (Hammer Fighter, Gymnast, Wolf Monk and Knockdown Fighter, no caster). They were not tripping that often (the Hammer Fighter tripped unreliably, the Monk was not often using Wolf Drag). Considering the number of games I've played and DMed, I consider Trip as uncommon.


Good to know!

I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

I'm thinking PFS actually doesn't foster party cohesion and stable tactics though, so I'd wonder how much PFS you're playing ?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

I'm now the kind of player/GM that tells your kind to (redacted) (redacted) the (redacted) right off. It's not your character. You don't tell me what to pick.


Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

I'm now the kind of player/GM that tells your kind to (redacted) (redacted) the (redacted) right off. It's not your character. You don't tell me what to pick.

Look if you insist on sucking that's your prerogative, I'd still tell you that x option over Y would probly be better for party tactics, what you make with that is your choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I just want everybody else at the table to have fun.


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I just want everybody else at the table to have fun.

Same here! I often find players have two problems:

Decision paralysis: In which case I'll point out to options that I think would mesh well with what they're trying to do.

Frustration at underperformance: (This is often the case with ''5e/pf1e'' minded people who just want to move adjacent and wail with all 3 actions) in which case I will point out options that could benefit them and the group.

An exemple of this was the fighter in my kingmaker group lamenting that he felt like pf2e was very much about rolling 10 or above.

I then pointed out to him that all he did, all the time, was true strike+power attack. Despite being master in athletics and master in intimidate, he never demoralized, never tried to trip, never moved to flank, never aided. Not to mention that as a fighter Power attack does give big numbers but is often inferior to attacking twice because of RNG.

We haven't had a game since this conversation, but we'll see if he takes my advice and tries to play tactically, because I do feel bad for him.

My somewhat rude answer to Tristan was to answer to his somewhat rude comment.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

Good to know!

I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

I'm thinking PFS actually doesn't foster party cohesion and stable tactics though, so I'd wonder how much PFS you're playing ?

50/50, I'd say. I GM Abomination Vaults for a few tables, play AoA and Grey Death, have played Plaguestone and Slithering.

People who don't play PFS tend to think that there's no party cohesion. There's no session 0, for sure, but players tend to do what they should. I don't think that builds are different in PFS than in other forms of play, Trip stays a strong debuff whatever your allies.

Silver Crusade

SuperBidi wrote:
I don't think that builds are different in PFS than in other forms of play, Trip stays a strong debuff whatever your allies.

I think that there is one very significant difference in the way that mechanically inclined players build their PFS characters as opposed to the way they'd build their characters for an AP.

They'll try to make them more flexible even at the cost of making them a little weaker at their primary schtick. And they will NOT rely on just about ANYTHING from the group.

So, for example, the rogue will likely have some way internal to their character to reliably get sneak attack. Maybe an animal companion, maybe a good feint score, maybe twin feint. If you have Dread Striker you'll also have a good intimidate skill, etc. More likely to have battle medicine and assurance medicine.

In an AP the rogue may have dread striker because they know their bard ally loves to intimidate/cast fear. Or rely on the fact that with a barbarian AND fighter in the party flanks are easy.

Even something like tripping is affected. Tripping a foe is MUCH more valuable if you have a fighter (or somebody else in the party) next to the tripped opponent. If you're in a PFS party with no other strong melee characters just hitting him for damage is almost certainly the better tactic. The PFS character may well have trip but they won't rely on it as much.


pauljathome wrote:
SuperBidi wrote:
I don't think that builds are different in PFS than in other forms of play, Trip stays a strong debuff whatever your allies.

I think that there is one very significant difference in the way that mechanically inclined players build their PFS characters as opposed to the way they'd build their characters for an AP.

They'll try to make them more flexible even at the cost of making them a little weaker at their primary schtick. And they will NOT rely on just about ANYTHING from the group.

So, for example, the rogue will likely have some way internal to their character to reliably get sneak attack. Maybe an animal companion, maybe a good feint score, maybe twin feint. If you have Dread Striker you'll also have a good intimidate skill, etc. More likely to have battle medicine and assurance medicine.

In an AP the rogue may have dread striker because they know their bard ally loves to intimidate/cast fear. Or rely on the fact that with a barbarian AND fighter in the party flanks are easy.

Even something like tripping is affected. Tripping a foe is MUCH more valuable if you have a fighter (or somebody else in the party) next to the tripped opponent. If you're in a PFS party with no other strong melee characters just hitting him for damage is almost certainly the better tactic. The PFS character may well have trip but they won't rely on it as much.

Complex tactics, like your Dread Striker + Dirge of Doom combo, are rare. But I've never seen a Rogue feinting, Flanking is such a basic strategy you expect any party to provide it.

Your Medicine example is actually a bad one because Medicine is way more common in PFS than outside PFS as you can't be sure there'll be a medic in the party.

Overall, there's a lower level of coordination in PFS, but the difference with other modes of play is extremely small. And a "party with no other strong melee character" seems like the exception, not the rule. 90% of PFS parties benefit greatly from Trip, it's quite a basic tactic.


Trip IMO is a very good movement but usually is under used by martial players due habit.

Many players tend to forget or underestimate the maneuvers due the lack or difficult of it's usage in others systems and even electronic games. Their main mind usually is "how can I give max DPT to take down my opponents faster?".

And being honest the PF2e doesn't help. Trip action suffers and increases MAP so even helping other melee party members to have a better chance to hit also wastes your own hit rate. Also it's a maneuver STR depend, so if your char is DEX based (like many monks) your trip chance may be less than your attack hit rate. Also if you aren't a monk/animal instinct barbarian/eidolon you also needs a free hand or a weapon with trip trait to allow a trip move. And in the end the player needs to check the initiative order before check if it's trip move will really help someone in the party or if the opponent turn will arrive before this.

Also mostly players with debuff strategies in mind tend to choose spellcasters due have more interesting options and the players that prefers martials usually just want to do high DPT or just want to tank their opponents others manouvers are more than secondary for them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Why people like Monks so much? Hmm...

Fighters have things like Snagging Strike, Assisting Shot, Combat Grab, Intimidating Strike, (Improved) Knockdown and even things like Revealing Stab and Shatter Defences, all things that can aid the other party members in landing their own attacks, spell or otherwise.

So Fighters excel at being at the front line, keeping the enemy engaged in melee and off the other party members (yeah yeah, I know, no such thing as a 'draw aggro' ability, but still). But they absolutely must coordinate both the feats they take and the actions they use in combat with the rest of the party for best effect. They are co-dependent on the fighting styles of their fellow party members.

Monks on the other hand, are more self-centred and self-reliant. They lack class feats that outright help other party members (although Stunning Fist helps everybody). They seem to do best 'doing their own thing' behind the enemy front line, messing up the other side's squishies.

Some people just like that play style better then having to coordinate with the rest of the party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Why people like Monks so much? Hmm...

Fighters have things like Snagging Strike, Assisting Shot, Combat Grab, Intimidating Strike, (Improved) Knockdown and even things like Revealing Stab and Shatter Defences, all things that can aid the other party members in landing their own attacks, spell or otherwise.

So Fighters excel at being at the front line, keeping the enemy engaged in melee and off the other party members (yeah yeah, I know, no such thing as a 'draw aggro' ability, but still). But they absolutely must coordinate both the feats they take and the actions they use in combat with the rest of the party for best effect. They are co-dependent on the fighting styles of their fellow party members.

Monks on the other hand, are more self-centred and self-reliant. They lack class feats that outright help other party members (although Stunning Fist helps everybody). They seem to do best 'doing their own thing' behind the enemy front line, messing up the other side's squishies.

Some people just like that play style better then having to coordinate with the rest of the party.

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.

Maneuver-based monk has quite a lot of party-friendly options, and some nice feats to back them up.

You just also really dislike leaving potential points of AC on the table.


Sanityfaerie wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.

Maneuver-based monk has quite a lot of party-friendly options, and some nice feats to back them up.

You just also really dislike leaving potential points of AC on the table.

Also that !!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
AlastarOG wrote:
Look if you insist on sucking that's your prerogative, I'd still tell you that x option over Y would probly be better for party tactics, what you make with that is your choice.

Cause of course you know all and your options are the best.


Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:
Look if you insist on sucking that's your prerogative, I'd still tell you that x option over Y would probly be better for party tactics, what you make with that is your choice.
Cause of course you know all and your options are the best.

They are !! Thanks for noticing ^^


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ah of course i missed it. A Gaming Bully


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
Ah of course I missed it. A Gaming Bully

Who are, in my experience, the biggest deterrent to new players joining the hobby.

I've been to so many conventions and organized games where one highly charismatic (or at least forceful) personality will not only make it their show, they will insist others play their way.

So obnoxious!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:
Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:
Ah of course I missed it. A Gaming Bully

Who are, in my experience, the biggest deterrent to new players joining the hobby.

I've been to so many conventions and organized games where one highly charismatic (or at least forceful) personality will not only make it their show, they will insist others play their way.

So obnoxious!

To be fair though, while Tristan d'Ambrosius is being an ass and I'm refusing to engage him, I don't really think I fall into that category.

Most players I play with are new to pf2e or even TTRPG and get paralyzed with indecision when it comes time to structure their build. They don't have the time to read everything and so they ask for advice.

In combat if they seem paralyzed they will often ask for my advice, cause I'm often the veteran.

I sometimes make suggestions that I think would create some cool synergy, like the maestro bard grabbing synesthesia because its a good spell.

Now if I were to make a suggestion and they were to, in Tristan's words, tell me to: ''tells your kind to (redacted) (redacted) the (redacted) right off. It's not your character. You don't tell me what to pick. ''

I would kindly tell them to leave my table, or withdraw myself from the table, because I'm too old to put up with petulant drama queens.

I do agree with you that the kind of player that insists everyone play their way or dictate every action are annoying as f#~*, and I have had to have talks with some of those in the past. One of them is especially egregious, even moreso because he's not really grasping the PF2E tactics game, but he's an old friend so I don't mind telling him to calm down when he's dictating, and to let the other players make their choice, so in principle I agree with you Ravingdork.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sanityfaerie wrote:
AlastarOG wrote:

I think you've hit deadon why I dislike the monk, since I'm very much more of a team focused guy. I'll always wait till last second to lockin a concept to see what meshes best with team.

Monk... just doesn't give me a lot of options for that.

Maneuver-based monk has quite a lot of party-friendly options, and some nice feats to back them up.

Certainly, but if they are behind enemy lines performing interdiction strikes on the other side's glass cannons, they are not helping their own front-liners.

Not that monks have to be played that way, but they are the class best suited for that sort of thing because of their high mobility. So the assumption is, people are drawn to monks to enable that play style.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And yet

AlastarOG wrote:


I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

Not suggests, tells. Your words.

Also

AlastarOG wrote:
I would kindly tell them to leave my table, or withdraw myself from the table, because I'm too old to put up with petulant drama queens.

What makes them petulant drama queens as opposed to you being on overstepping domineering play what I say sort?


Tristan d'Ambrosius wrote:

And yet

AlastarOG wrote:


I'm the kind of Nosy player/GM that tells people what to pick though.

Not suggests, tells. Your words.

Also

AlastarOG wrote:
I would kindly tell them to leave my table, or withdraw myself from the table, because I'm too old to put up with petulant drama queens.
What makes them petulant drama queens as opposed to you being on overstepping domineering play what I say sort?

I wouldn't know, you're the only petulant drama queen I know !


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not interested in actual questions. Gotcha. Bully


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pawns, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

In my book there's a BIG difference between offering advice that was requested, and telling people how they should build or play.

I'm hoping everyone here is the former. If not, I hope they learn to do better.


Ravingdork wrote:

In my book there's a BIG difference between offering advice that was requested, and telling people how they should build or play.

I'm hoping everyone here is the former. If not, I hope they learn to do better.

Agreed!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lycar wrote:

Why people like Monks so much? Hmm...

Fighters have things like Snagging Strike, Assisting Shot, Combat Grab, Intimidating Strike, (Improved) Knockdown and even things like Revealing Stab and Shatter Defences, all things that can aid the other party members in landing their own attacks, spell or otherwise.

So Fighters excel at being at the front line, keeping the enemy engaged in melee and off the other party members (yeah yeah, I know, no such thing as a 'draw aggro' ability, but still). But they absolutely must coordinate both the feats they take and the actions they use in combat with the rest of the party for best effect. They are co-dependent on the fighting styles of their fellow party members.

Monks on the other hand, are more self-centred and self-reliant. They lack class feats that outright help other party members (although Stunning Fist helps everybody). They seem to do best 'doing their own thing' behind the enemy front line, messing up the other side's squishies.

Some people just like that play style better then having to coordinate with the rest of the party.

Considering Fighter as a class for team players is in opposition to my experience. I've seen numerous Fighters with Power Attack and Sudden Charge, some went for Barbarian Dedication or casters one to grab True Strike. But free hand Fighters? I'd still love to play with one of them.

On the other hand, Monk players in my games have been more supportive than Fighters. For multiple reasons and clearly the action economy + free hands advantage give them way more options to help their party.

Anyway, I dislike categorizing players because of their class, it often falls short as there are so many reasons to play a class.

Grand Archive

< Free Hand Fighter

Some day we can play a pbp together and you can watch me struggle with an abundance of action options.

Threatening Approach and Snagging Strike for maximum debuff?

Dual Handed Assault for +6 damage?

Parry for +2 AC?

Battle Medicine?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I will try to build a character with as many action-economy options as I can. Flurry, Doctor's visitation, Sudden charge, maybe even Spellstrike.


SuperBidi wrote:

Considering Fighter as a class for team players is in opposition to my experience. I've seen numerous Fighters with Power Attack and Sudden Charge, some went for Barbarian Dedication or casters one to grab True Strike. But free hand Fighters? I'd still love to play with one of them.

On the other hand, Monk players in my games have been more supportive than Fighters. For multiple reasons and clearly the action economy + free hands advantage give them way more options to help their party.

Anyway, I dislike categorizing players because of their class, it often falls short as there are so many reasons to play a class.

Yes, class choice alone is not an indication of a 'lone wolf' play style vs. a more, err, 'pack oriented' style. Fighters can be built as lone wolves, and Monks can be played in a totally cooperative way (having the option to keep your hands free for maneuvers certainly enables that), even if their feat choices don't offer direct support for it.

AlastarOG just seemed to be unimpressed by the features that make Monk good for that 'lone wolf'/'behind enemy lines' play style, so I figured he's just not a fan of that style of play.


I already saw in my table tank fighters focused in shield block + AoO, offensive fighters focused in 2 handed weapon + power attack and ranged fighter using bows + double shot but until now I never see a player with a fighter class with a free hand using maneuvers or even using a trip weapon in practice but as GM I already used maneuvers many times with fighters NPCs against my players to trying to awake some interest and to make the fighter more interesting than just "the enemy attacks" yet none of my players even consider to make a maneuver based fighter.

And for Monk I only saw one player's monk in practice but he's also never used a maneuver because he's monk is DEX focused so he simply prefer to strike or use KI attacks just because he's hit rate in greater than athletics.

That's returns the point I talked before. Players with martial classes builds in mind tend to focus in strikes and usually ignores maneuvers due mechanical difficulties or direct damage limitations. The players that consider debuff actions usually play with spells casters like dirge of doom bards. I still don't see a maneuver based char in practice in PF2 except in GMs hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe that is because 3.x and, frankly, PF 1 kinda actively discouraged the use of maneuvers. 1 feat to just not eat an AoO, potentially ruining even a good roll and 2 feats just to maybe do a maneuver instead of damage... not cool.

But that is just the thing: Combat Grab is a Strike and a potential grab. That is great!

On the other hand, Knockdown is... not so great. If your Strike doesn't hit, you don't get your Trip attempt. Sure, you get to make your Trip without MAP if your Strike hits. But... if you Trip first you still get to make a Strike, even if at a penalty. So, yeah...

So while PF2 does allow Fighters to be 'martial debuffers', people who were soured at combat maneuvers by 3.x and PF1 will not look kindly at those feats. Personally I think Knockdown is suboptimal and it *only* is worth taking for Improved Knockdown. But hey, once you get there? Guaranteed Trip + damage for 2 actions? Sign me up!


Knockdown's main effect seems to be mitigating the odds of critical failure, compared to a Strike followed by a Trip. A Trip followed by a Strike has lower average damage than either Knockdown or Strike then Trip, but it has the highest overall odds of knocking your target prone. So I think Knockdown caters mainly to rounds/routines that treat Trips as secondary to damage. I do greatly prefer Combat Grab and Brutish Shove to it.

251 to 300 of 304 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / General Discussion / Why do I hate the monk where everyone seems to like it? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.