Preface, I'm biased. I love monks!
One of my first DND character was a monk. I've made at least one every system I've played that has one. Even video games.
One if the things I liked the least though in many past systems was them being forced into ki in previous systems. I was always more a fan of the martial monk. 2e gives me the option to do that, do a little if that, do none of it.
I also love the lack of a subclass. I feel very open ended when I play a monk.
I see many people say they are weak. I don't know if that's true. They certainly can drop off in relative dpr as you gain levels. But they start out at a high point. Starting with flurry of blows is great. Stances offer both utility, damage, and flavor. Though I am a bit sad with how late master of many styles is. As it was my favorite 1e monk. I hope they release an archetype that does that earlier someday.
When I see a monk it encapsulates some of my favorite mechanical strengths as well.
1- high action economy efficiency. Flurry of blows alone is great for this. No action to set up like hunt prey. No hoops to jump through. Conditions to be met.
2- fast. Being one of if not the fastest class in the game is s ton of fun and gives you great ability to reposition or just be safe.
3- strong defense. Having some of the highest ac and best saves is great peace of mind. Along with them finally getting d10 hit die!
Things I feel they lack
1- monk is selfish. By that I mean is despite not having the highest damage. They don't have great group support either.
What is your thoughts on the monk class? I love it especially with free archetype given how action economy efficient it is. Makes it feel very flexible
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks can be pretty darn good for group support. Manuevers help ranged characters who can't flank. Stunning Fiat can shave off actions. Whirling Throw might be the best positioning tool in the game. And I can't tell you how many times I've seen a monk grab a teammate in a bad position and run them to safety.
Monks can be pretty darn good for group support. Manuevers help ranged characters who can't flank. Stunning Fiat can shave off actions. Whirling Throw might be the best positioning tool in the game. And I can't tell you how many times I've seen a monk grab a teammate in a bad position and run them to safety.
This is a fair point and I think the disconnect on this front for some players is two factors
1- you have to build for the support options, it's not like a champion in that regard.
2-the support often isn't reactive or in the forms it buffs. You are not providing group save bonuses or a reaction to protect someone.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best designed class in my opinion, it's simple to understand and the class main mechanic being just 1 action equal 2 strikes with Flurry of Blows makes their action economy pretty free for you to do a lot of things in the game.
Get in, Flurry of Blows then Quick Jump somewhere safe.
Archetype? Ops also have the action economy free to do the archetype actions like Marshal Auras and so on.
It just feel... so free, no tight action economy like Magus or Thaumaturge.
One of the best designed class in my opinion, it's simple to understand and the class main mechanic being just 1 action equal 2 strikes with Flurry of Blows makes their action economy pretty free for you to do a lot of things in the game.
Get in, Flurry of Blows then Quick Jump somewhere safe.
Archetype? Ops also have the action economy free to do the archetype actions like Marshal Auras and so on.
It just feel... so free, no tight action economy like Magus or Thaumaturge.
It's actually been several months since I built a monk with free archetype I need to revisit ideas.
My best I've was using beast Master so far.
With the caveat that I have not played a lot of it - just a few combat scenarios, really - and mostly watched it being played by teammates, I think it is well designed, but not something for me.
When I play, I like my characters to have a very substantial alpha strike, which the monk is a bit more... roundabout about? More quantity vs quality like a flurry ranger, not "you are hit for 1/3 your health bar". I also don't currently have any great character concepts that would fit the classes' style.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are really solid. Most of my complaints about them come down more to stylistic choices than mechanical deficits.
I'm a big fan of their weird mobility feats. Stuff like getting to run across water or avoid fall damage are kind of niche in a lot of games but really fun.
With the caveat that I have not played a lot of it - just a few combat scenarios, really - and mostly watched it being played by teammates, I think it is well designed, but not something for me.
When I play, I like my characters to have a very substantial alpha strike, which the monk is a bit more... roundabout about? More quantity vs quality like a flurry ranger, not "you are hit for 1/3 your health bar". I also don't currently have any great character concepts that would fit the classes' style.
That's fair. I'm likely that way with swashbuckler.
Monks are not much for alpha strikes, and I often don't look to design those types of characters myself either. So it was not something I ever worried about.
Best I can imagine is ki strike and dragon stance. At early levels.
Should be able to do it by level 2 and it's +1 to hit. 1d10+4+1d6 twice. (Once per encounter usually)
Power attack would be 2d12+4 (once per round optimall)
Magus would be, 1d12+4+2d12 (shocking grasp, at best 2 per day)
Not terrible. Not great.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rather like them. They get pretty big damage dice for agile stances which means their large amount of actions works quite well. And still have enough actions left to also be quite active in moving into flanks and such.
Defenses are very good - good base AC, can use shields for even more, and choose your own best save.
What I also really like is how the stances are a set-up for a flavor of "my fighting school is better than yours" kinda rivalries.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are really solid. Most of my complaints about them come down more to stylistic choices than mechanical deficits.
I'm a big fan of their weird mobility feats. Stuff like getting to run across water or avoid fall damage are kind of niche in a lot of games but really fun.
I really like those options too, but I think there was a missed opportunity there to make class specific skill feats. We got archetype specific skill feats in the APG, but there are a lot of core class feats which are just souped up skill feats. It would have helped the Ranger particularly to match their PF1 versatility.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Incredibly solid class, whose players consistently feel satisfied and effective while enjoying the flavor. I feel comfortable recommending it to new players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk has been my favorite class in every edition, but rarely is the monk actually decent. The Pathfinder 2e monk might be the strongest monk we've seen in any edition of a d20 elfgame.
It's a non-fighter CRB martial. Gets an A for Average.
Pros:
Good single action damage, best as str monk
2nd best AC as dex, plate baseline as str
Good mobility
Decent passive in stunning fist
D10 hp
Good saves, can flex based on campaign
Good switch-hit candidate with archery style+gauntlet+blazons
Cons:
No reach + trip
Worst martial reaction
Mediocre feats overall
Feat tax: stance/weaponry
Action tax: enter stance
Gets flurry stolen at 10+
I’ve never played one, but I’ve GMed for two and played alongside one. It’s… A little strange, really. From a glance, I really like what it offers, and people seem to really like it too (as evidenced by this thread!).
But these three players have all grown to be a little frustrated with it. Something between low damage, the best abilities having the incapacitation trait, and a hazy feeling that they are not contributing enough/that the party would be better off with another martial instead.
I dunno… I feel like they contributed plenty. But all three of them were newbies that had played martials with a bit more of pizazz before, maybe (Swashbuckler, Fighter and Thief Rogue, if I’m not mistaken). Ironically, all three of them went with Crane Stance, although the third player didn’t really stick with it and ended up poaching Sneak Attack from the Rogue Dedication and then built towards Whirlwind Throw. Always saw them use it to great effect, to be honest. So, I dunno!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm very satisfied with the Monk, if I had to give it a score I'd mark it as a solid 9/10 with my primary gripe being grounded in my opinion that it is criminally unthematic that they NEVER get to be Legendary in Unarmed Attacks and Monk Weapons... Fighters should NOT be more accurate with these Attacks and Weapons than a Monk full stop.
Even if getting this meant trading out something else I sincerely believe it could and should have been done, and my mind will not be changed on this.
Both people I've seen play a good bit of monk have loved the experience.
I've never really liked the monk, that being said I think pf2e did a fair take on it.
I would however fix minor things like:
Monastic weaponry being included into the class without a feat.
Brawling focus being integrated at 7 like the other martials.
Right now monk weapons, a big part of the flavour and theme, are horrible for them.
Aside from that, not really my cup of tea but pretty decent.
Just a note that it would be 5 for Brawling Focus.I've never really liked the monk, that being said I think pf2e did a fair take on it.
I would however fix minor things like:
Monastic weaponry being included into the class without a feat.
Brawling focus being integrated at 7 like the other martials.
Right now monk weapons, a big part of the flavour and theme, are horrible for them.
Aside from that, not really my cup of tea but pretty decent.
Noted, wasn't sure and had spotty wifi !
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think my biggest complaint about the Monk is that monk weapons really aren't that good/appealing. You're not a class that gets a bunch of extra damage from class features (like rogues, swashbucklers, inventors, thaumaturges, etc.) so you really can't afford a d4 weapon and you probably want a d8 weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't have great group support either.
With some modest feat investment and creative play, Monks have some fantastic group support with combat maneuvers. Flurry of Maneuvers and Whirling Throw make a Monk into a battlefield control monster that mucks up enemies' action economy.
My wife's monk loves to Flurry of Maneuvers (Grab + Strike) > Whirling Throw > move. She'll also FoM Grab + Trip and then Ready an Action (Whirling Throw) when the target attempts to Escape. Her personal DPR my be in the toilet, but the Groups' DPR and survivability is well enhanced by her shenanigans.
They don't have great group support either.With some modest feat investment and creative play, Monks have some fantastic group support with combat maneuvers. Flurry of Maneuvers and Whirling Throw make a Monk into a battlefield control monster that mucks up enemies' action economy.
Grapple - a Gabbed enemy is Flat-Footed for your allies and must Escape (increasing their MAP) to do anything with the Move trait. Shove - repositioning an enemy has few mechanical condition/bonus/penalty benefits, but can set up flanking for others, or disrupt enemies' flanking, remove threats from the front line forcing them to move to reengage, etcetera. Trip - a Prone enemy is Flat-Footed for your allies, has a penalty to attack, and can only take Crawl or Step Move actions. My wife's monk loves to Flurry of Maneuvers (Grab + Strike) > Whirling Throw > move. She'll also FoM Grab + Trip and then Ready an Action (Whirling Throw) when the target attempts to Escape. Her personal DPR my be in the toilet, but the Groups' DPR and survivability is well enhanced by her shenanigans.
Issue I have stuff maneuver monk is why not go barbarian have have+2 over monks on my athletic checks.
Fighters can get maneuvers done via weapon attacks.
Monk, unless something can be shown to me. Seems third rate in this regard. Mixed maneuver seems nice though!
Not saying you need objectively optimal characters or anything. It's just been really hard for be to justify making maneuver focused monks
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how the stances really differentiate them from each other. Nearly each stance does something different (Gorilla and Dragon both focus on intimidation, for instance), and I already have builds in mind for a lot of them. Most of them overlap in stats, but the playstyles feel so different that I'm genuinely excited to try all of them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Issue I have stuff maneuver monk is . . .They don't have great group support either.With some modest feat investment and creative play, Monks have some fantastic group support with combat maneuvers. <snip>
You said, "They don't have great group support either," which is a Black Swan Logical Fallacy.
I gave you a rebuttal by revealing a Black Swan: a maneuver-focused, battlefield control Monk.
So, now, you may concede the point, that your black swan fallacy has been debunked OR offer a rebuttal that disproves that Monk has great support with maneuvers.
Note: Just because other classes can also do it, and maybe better, does nothing to invalidate that a maneuver-focused monk brings some very nice group support to the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks are one of my favorite martials of this edition. Tanky, plenty of attack options, and tons of super cool feats. I consider them a gold standard for interesting class design in the system
Issue I have stuff maneuver monk is . . .They don't have great group support either.With some modest feat investment and creative play, Monks have some fantastic group support with combat maneuvers. <snip>You said, "They don't have great group support either," which is a Black Swan Logical Fallacy.
I gave you a rebuttal by revealing a Black Swan: a maneuver-focused, battlefield control Monk.
So, now, you may concede the point, that your black swan fallacy has been debunked OR offer a rebuttal that disproves that Monk has great support with maneuvers.
Note: Just because other classes can also do it, and maybe better, does nothing to invalidate that a maneuver-focused monk brings some very nice group support to the table.
So what I said, was just personal feelings. Wich is why I also ended with I thought mixed maneuvers is good. And that I thought monk was third rate.. Wich is probably a bad phrasing. Third best?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Issue I have stuff maneuver monk is why not go barbarian have have+2 over monks on my athletic checks.
Fighters can get maneuvers done via weapon attacks.
Monk, unless something can be shown to me. Seems third rate in this regard. Mixed maneuver seems nice though!
Not saying you need objectively optimal characters or anything. It's just been really hard for be to justify making maneuver focused monks
In general, barbarians and monks are the two best maneuver classes. Fighters and Swashbucklers have some support, but not as much. Between the two of them, barbarians get a bit more damage, are more able to push strength higher, and get easier access to reach. Monks have better defenses and more general flexibility to swap between maneuvers and damage-dealing.
Flurry of Maneuvers is pretty significant.
The +2 to athletics checks you describe for the barb only comes online at level 8... which is the same level the monk gets access to Clinging Shadows Initiate, which gives +2 to grapple and to escape DC, plus gives you a built-in grapple weapon with reach, and (arguably) leaves your hands free.
Alternately, if you don't like that one, might I suggest Dragon Stance? Gives you a nice 1d10 damage trip weapon that doesn't care what you're doing with your hands, and a one-action area effect intimidate that doesn't let the fear drop below one as long as you make sure that they can't get away from you. Grappled/prone/afraid is a place that most enemies would not prefer to be.
...and, of course, no general defense of the monk is truly complete without mention of Winding Flow.
I suspect you haven't looked at it enough. Maneuver monk is actually quite solid, especially if you value being able to control board position. Monk gets a fair bit of quality board repositioning.
Suggestion: if you want to really work the monk advantages, try teaming up with a party member who'd like to have better control of where the enemy is - a kobold ranger snarecrafter, or a caster who likes zone spells, and so forth. Monk is very good at putting enemies in places that will make them unhappy, and this eliminates the need to wait for the GM to just give you handy cliffs to yeet them off of and so forth.
I've looked into it several times. It's hard to quantify effect with do many non numerical values.
And it's one of the monks I haven't gotten to try in actual play as well. Could be similar to the caster debates I often see. Where people lament then being under tuned but they actual play I've experience they have been nigh invaluable and often extremely high damage as early as level 8.
They seem good. You can build them a lot of different ways. A very viable class. Not the greatest damage dealer, but often a good balance of a variety of abilities. Mobility is incredible and can be very helpful at high level if used well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say Monks have the most of what I'll call agency. They have the mobility to go where they want, the defenses to remain there if they wish, and the free hands to Interact/maneuver as needed. Plus they can stick with their best, most magical "weapon" in nearly all combats due to Metal Strikes.
When some people were praising it above, they underspoke. Monks don't have good speed, they have the best speed, speed so far ahead it strains other builds to catch up, and backed by feats that build on that. They don't have good Saves, they have the best saves, and while other classes do catch up, the Monk can tune theirs to suit their needs or the obstacles of the campaign.
I do see most of the downsides listed above (especially for non-Reach weapons), but dang if Monks don't Monk better than anybody else (which wasn't so true in other editions). Another downside is there are many monsters that punish unarmed attacks; that damage could add up. Separately, I suspect the main reason Monks don't get critical specialization for free is because of Stunning Fist.
I also like that Monks pass the "can a party of these thrive" test, where four Monks could make a viable party, filling key roles while also remaining distinct from one another. They'd have to emphasize broadening their skills & magic access (as most all-martial parties do), but imagine some overland race:
"You're going to want horses."
"LOL. That'd just slow us down."
Or
"Who's going to brave crossing the rickety bridge?"
"We all jump over."
"Dang it!"
Or
"Haha! You'll never catch me!"
"Seriously?"
"Shut up."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preferred style of monk is one that leans heavily into the supernatural abilities, and the focus power set up of PF2e's monk just will never achieve that, so it isn't for me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't traditionally like d20 Monks, but was very fond of the Monk when it dropped. Stances are one of my favorite PF2 mechanics, and it breaks my heart that so few other classes touch on them at all. The addition of an elemental damage stance (Reign of Embers) shot them up even higher in my esteem; I'd love to see a cold damage equivalent someday, at the very least. The variability of how mystical your Monk feels via Feat choices is a ton of fun.
It's not perfect, though. Monk Weapon remain a headache, and in an edition that made so many steps forward, keeping the Monk as "the Asian class" is a frustrating throwback. Their proficiencies can end up feeling a little goofy - there's not currently any Axes a Monk can use! For as much emphasis on customization the class gets in other places, the parts where it is inflexible are even more frustrating.
Here's hoping it continues to get cool new toys. Class Archetypes would be neat - ditching Flurry of Blows for something else, perhaps?
My preferred style of monk is one that leans heavily into the supernatural abilities, and the focus power set up of PF2e's monk just will never achieve that, so it isn't for me.
Interesting! We are actually the exact opposite in terms of monk preference. I thought focus powers, especially higher levels, did a decent job however.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting! We are actually the exact opposite in terms of monk preference. I thought focus powers, especially higher levels, did a decent job however.
Doing 1 or 2 supernatural things per encounter is not my idea of a supernatural character.
As for why I prefer the supernatural mystic warrior angle, it's because I sort of feel like flavourful unarmed fighting should just be an open and viable path for most melee focused martial classes, and that 'asian weapons' is a poor category of weaponry.
Even in pathfinder 1e I opted for master of many styles. I just loved stances she the martial artist idea
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A Monk has been the first class I tried in every edition I've played (PF1, 5e, PF2). PF2 is the first time I came away from the experience feeling good about it.
A Monk has been the first class I tried in every edition I've played (PF1, 5e, PF2). PF2 is the first time I came away from the experience feeling good about it.
If you’re interested at all in trying a few others, 4e had a Monk whose schtick was being incredibly mobile, while 13th Age’s is about stringing together “combos” of opening, middle, and finisher moves.