| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A monk with fighter archetype wastes a feat tax on the dedication and likely get nothing major out of the fighter feats.
A fighter with monk archetype loses the penalty to attacking with lethal unarmed strikes, gets a better weapon dice with said attacks, can get flurry of blows which is the best action compressor, and can get the stances.
People say "oh legendary proficiency is the equivalent of weapon training". But then fighter also has 2 flexible feats on top of everything else. What are the other classes getting for that? Not much. What are the other classes getting in exchange for their archetypes being so easily exploited by fighter? Not much.
I think the issue here is that multiclass archetypes are pretty haphazardly designed. Their power budget is all over the place.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think people have a skewed perception about Fighters because it's a well known custom for players of PF1e and other crunchy systems to take into account DPR calculations and then interpret it as both completely reliable (which is not) and more important than actually is.
Sure, Fighters are easily among the best classes (because of my aforementioned reasons) and I think their core design principle (along with Rogues) of being the "best" at a basic system, instead of flavor, is inherently problematic, but, I don't think its performance is so far beyond other classes.
It is more reliable, though, and it's way too strong for how little effort it takes to play. Which means, to me, that classes that need to jump hurdles and are more complex, need to be stronger (Swashbucklers, Inventors, Investigators, Alchemists, Thaumaturges, combat-oriented class options, etc).
Complexity and "gimmicks" that require set up should give performance above a Fighter's "plug and play" style, imo. History shows that this hasn't been much the case (maybe except Thaumaturges).
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, I've played monks, fighters, magi (and a lot of others). I don't think it's Paizo's design goal to make complicated classes more powerful than simple classes, if only you can master the complexity. Well, a bit more "sideways" powerful because you have some good options in odd situations. But the main design goal seems to be that some people just want to play complex and others don't, and those two should be able to play side by side without one being clearly stronger than the other.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people have a skewed perception about Fighters because it's a well known custom for players of PF1e and other crunchy systems to take into account DPR calculations and then interpret it as both completely reliable (which is not) and more important than actually is.
Sure, Fighters are easily among the best classes (because of my aforementioned reasons) and I think their core design principle (along with Rogues) of being the "best" at a basic system, instead of flavor, is inherently problematic, but, I don't think its performance is so far beyond other classes.
It is more reliable, though, and it's way too strong for how little effort it takes to play. Which means, to me, that classes that need to jump hurdles and are more complex, need to be stronger (Swashbucklers, Inventors, Investigators, Alchemists, Thaumaturges, combat-oriented class options, etc).
Complexity and "gimmicks" that require set up should give performance above a Fighter's "plug and play" style, imo. History shows that this hasn't been much the case (maybe except Thaumaturges).
Fighter is the epitome of the fighting classes. It is a feature, not a bug. Their performance should be the ceiling of what other similar classes can do. Not the floor.
All martial classes have been designed with this in mind to avoid the power race we saw in previous editions.
|
|
The obsession with Legendary proficiency on martials in this forum is bizarre, NGL.True but it comes from the flavour.
The thought that only the fighter gets Legendary goes contry to the story. Was the character of Robin Hood or Bruce Lee a fighter? I don't think so.
I'm Ok with the abstraction but for many people it breaks the game immersion.
Neither Robin Hood nor Bruce Lee were the equivalent of 13th level though.
I think what people dislike is the proficiency gap with the Fighter at a given level.
Proficiency tends to be valued higher than the class features that are supposed to balance it. And when these can be poached by the Fighter it feels doubly worse.
I wish to add that I can perfectly see both Robin Hood and Bruce Lee as Fighters FWIW.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, I've played monks, fighters, magi (and a lot of others). I don't think it's Paizo's design goal to make complicated classes more powerful than simple classes, if only you can master the complexity. Well, a bit more "sideways" powerful because you have some good options in odd situations. But the main design goal seems to be that some people just want to play complex and others don't, and those two should be able to play side by side without one being clearly stronger than the other.
IMO that's kind of missing the issue. It's not simplicity vs complexity in terms of how you use the mechanics or flavor or even how hard the class is to play.
Complexity in this case is being used to refer to the number of things a class expects to go right to work well, or the number of points of failure the class has. In that case, in order to make sure the classes can play side by side without being clearly superior, you have to 'reward' the complexity in some way, because that complexity means more actions or more checks being required to reach the same goal.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the issue here is that multiclass archetypes are pretty haphazardly designed. Their power budget is all over the place.
Possibly the biggest offender here is that the Fighter Archetype literally gives nothing but a single skill training for anybody who already has martial weapon proficiency, but the fighter is a class that can easily justify archetyping to poach other class's stuff.
The Champion dedication has a similar issue, but at least most classes don't have heavy armor proficiency (as opposed to 10 classes that have martial weapon proficiency.)
|
|
I think the issue here is that multiclass archetypes are pretty haphazardly designed. Their power budget is all over the place.Possibly the biggest offender here is that the Fighter Archetype literally gives nothing but a single skill training for anybody who already has martial weapon proficiency, but the fighter is a class that can easily justify archetyping to poach other class's stuff.
The Champion dedication has a similar issue, but at least most classes don't have heavy armor proficiency (as opposed to 10 classes that have martial weapon proficiency.)
Fighter archetype seems primarily aimed at those classes that are NOT proficient in martial weapons.
A build that is already proficient in martial weapons will only take Fighter MC Dedication to get Fighter feats and AoO. Those are quite good though.
No need for the Dedication feat by itself to provide something for every class.
TBT this reminds me of posters complaining that the Sentinel dedication feat gave nothing to the Champion. Or that bound casting dedications are not on par with other spellcasting dedications.
Nobody is forced to take a dedication. It's a build choice and makes sense for the build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, I've played monks, fighters, magi (and a lot of others). I don't think it's Paizo's design goal to make complicated classes more powerful than simple classes, if only you can master the complexity. Well, a bit more "sideways" powerful because you have some good options in odd situations. But the main design goal seems to be that some people just want to play complex and others don't, and those two should be able to play side by side without one being clearly stronger than the other.IMO that's kind of missing the issue. It's not simplicity vs complexity in terms of how you use the mechanics or flavor or even how hard the class is to play.
Complexity in this case is being used to refer to the number of things a class expects to go right to work well, or the number of points of failure the class has. In that case, in order to make sure the classes can play side by side without being clearly superior, you have to 'reward' the complexity in some way, because that complexity means more actions or more checks being required to reach the same goal.
Monks don't have that problem at all, though? With flurry and the highest powered agile weapons in the game their routine is as smooth and reliable as the Fighter's is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No need for the Dedication feat by itself to provide something for every class.
It just feels bad to spend a class feat (a meaningful resource) on a dedication feat that gives you basically nothing. I think this fact is a large part of why "Free Archetype" is so popular.
There's actually a solution in place for things like the Fighter Dedication, simply have two different ways to qualify for it- one which gives martial weapons, and one which requires martial weapons and gives something else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The monk is already a better unarmed warrior than the fighter, it just doesn't do it by using an advanced accuracy progression and instead uses a technique progression.
I think this is true up to level 10. I don't think it is true past level 10. Everything good about the monk can be obtained via archetypes. Yes there are some nice feats for monks in the top half. But AFAICT the fighter just leaves them in the dust. Better attack values, better AC, more reactions, lower MAP. The best Monks feats are low level and can be easily taken accross class. Even a status bonus to movement is simple to get via items.
I wish to add that I can perfectly see both Robin Hood and Bruce Lee as Fighters FWIW.
Shouldn't they be Rouge/Ranger or a Monk respectively. Seeing everything as a Fighter is a problem in itself. Where is the space for these other classes?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the part that bothers people, is that legitimately the fighter can take the monk dedication, get flurry of blows, get stance feats, and do 70% of things people care about with the monk while having better accuracy. Sure it costs several class feats to accomplish, but I think people don't put enough emphasis/value on class feats to recognize what's being given up. They just see the fighter as being able to out unarmed fight the monk.I mean... Monks, even Unchained Monks, also never could reach the to-hit accuracy of a Fighter in 1E, either, due to a lack of Weapon Training, Greater Weapon Focus and Gloves of Dueling. Just saying.That's kind of the trick. Getting legendary proficiency scaling in weapons is the equivalent of getting Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Focus, and Improved Critical (entire weapon group / all weapons) as free bonus feats in PF1.
The monk is already a better unarmed warrior than the fighter, it just doesn't do it by using an advanced accuracy progression and instead uses a technique progression.
A lot of what monk gets can be stolen, which is kind of annoying.
Flurry of Blows at 10th level.
Fleet Step 1st level spell for 30 foot status bonus to speed for 1 minute, which is effectively a combat.
Most of the martials get at least one Legendary saving throw proficiency, only advantage a monk gets is they get to pick which one.
Heavy armor with master proficiency is 1 point behind a monk's Legendary Unarmored Defense Proficiency often with included damage resistance. So a monk is gaining 1 point of AC to a fighter, while being 2 points behind on attack rolls even with unarmed strikes.
They have a weaker weapon die than fighters most of the time with no automatic critical specialization effects for their attacks.
As far as improving technique, what do they have a fighter or other martial cannot obtain? What exactly do they get? Fighter has Knockdown which let's them do a weapon attack and a knockdown with no MAP penalty on the Athletics check.
Monk has what? Flurry of Maneuvers which incorporates a MAP penalty to the check?
The monk has no damage boosters to set it apart from other martial classes.
Monk is inferior in nearly every way to a fighter at the things martials do.
Monk has versatility in builds, but everything they get can be stolen except the choice of Legendary proficiency in a save and Legendary Unarmored Defense which is exactly 1 point better AC than a martial class using heavy armor.
In PF2 you play a monk for style purposes, not for power. Monk is not a powerful class, but if you like the style it is available and offers some unique build options even though they aren't effective enough to stand out amongst the other martials.
I think the monk could use some power up myself, not much, but a little. I don't think Legendary Unarmed Attacks would be out of the question. Why does this balance against a fighter? Because the fighter gets automatic critical specialization without expending a feat and the option to use superior weapons with a superior weapon die and critical specialization effect. So the plus is already accounted for with lower damage for the monk.
So the balance would look like the following:
1. Monk Legendary Unarmored proficiency offset by fighter heavy armor proficiency and armor specialization effect. So this means the following:
A maximum dexterity monk would have 1 greater AC than the fighter.
The fighter would get heavy armor damage resistance and access to special material armor and any special heavy armor provided as well as runes that can only be worn by heavy armor users.
2. Monk Legendary Unarmed Attack versus fighter Legendary Weapon Proficiency.
Monk would get lower damage dice with limited critical specialization effects and weapon choice which would leave the fighter with the much better weapon damage choices and critical specialization effects with no feat tax to gain them.
This would mean the fighter would still do clearly better damage and be better at fighting, while still allowing the monk to at least be in the discussion for best unarmed fighter in the game.
Right now you could argue that the fighter, animal barbarian or even a wild-shaped druid are better unarmed fighters and if they went head to head with the monk in unarmed fighting, the monk would lose quite often.
I believe you could mathematically prove that giving a monk Legendary Unarmed proficiency would in no way imbalance the game or even allow them to become better damage dealers than the majority of classes. In fact, it may just lead to parity at best given Legendary Unarmed proficiency would lead a +2 damage from greater specialization and a slightly better hit and critical hit chance while being offset against other classes with a lower weapon damage die, no damage booster like sneak attack or rage, and no quality critical specialization effect.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, I've played monks, fighters, magi (and a lot of others). I don't think it's Paizo's design goal to make complicated classes more powerful than simple classes, if only you can master the complexity. Well, a bit more "sideways" powerful because you have some good options in odd situations. But the main design goal seems to be that some people just want to play complex and others don't, and those two should be able to play side by side without one being clearly stronger than the other.IMO that's kind of missing the issue. It's not simplicity vs complexity in terms of how you use the mechanics or flavor or even how hard the class is to play.
Complexity in this case is being used to refer to the number of things a class expects to go right to work well, or the number of points of failure the class has. In that case, in order to make sure the classes can play side by side without being clearly superior, you have to 'reward' the complexity in some way, because that complexity means more actions or more checks being required to reach the same goal.
Thank you. That's exactly what I mean.
Complex Classes being well piloted and having things go right for them should be rewarded, because they're working for it. Fighters will still perform constantly well and have a better baseline performance.
It really, really, really doesn't make sense that complex classes should work more, require more conditions and still perform less than a fighter just saying "I roll my attack" all the time.
With this paradigm in mind, Fighters won't lose their place and complex classes will feel rewarding when well played.
This is really a non-issue, tbh. I'm being really obvious. I hope this is easy to see.
...
Thinking about it... It's really, really weird that Monks don't get improved Flurry of Blows at higher levels.
Sure, there are some feats that allow combat maneuvers and something like that. But other classes get improvement to their core stuff. Rangers, Barbarians, Rogues, etc.
Monks either improve it by spending feats, which other classes also do, and nothing else.
If there's one thing that would take the "sting" of Flurry of Blows being a level 10 Feat is the Monk Feature improving after higher levels as part of the class chassis.
Still, though, I think Monks are in a good spot. Their strengths can be leveraged quite well and in action, they're good characters to have in a party. They also don't lack flavor and good mechanics... They just go a little bit too overboard on Mobility and nothing else, which sucks.
How upset would people be if flurry was taken out of the Monk archetype? While I don't think Monk itself has any problems it is a pretty major feels bad that other classes can steal their class feature. It is basically equivalent to being able to get Legendary weapon proficiency from Fighter archetype.
How upset would people be if flurry was taken out of the Monk archetype? While I don't think Monk itself has any problems it is a pretty major feels bad that other classes can steal their class feature. It is basically equivalent to being able to get Legendary weapon proficiency from Fighter archetype.
Flurry being absolutely unavailable to other classes has a pain point though, since Stumbling Feint (available through the Martial Artist archetype and through MCing Monk) does absolutely nothing without FoB.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How upset would people be if flurry was taken out of the Monk archetype? While I don't think Monk itself has any problems it is a pretty major feels bad that other classes can steal their class feature. It is basically equivalent to being able to get Legendary weapon proficiency from Fighter archetype.
I don't think it's the right solution. I think the best course is making the Monk's FoB much better right around the time other characters have access to it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk has no damage boosters to set it apart from other martial classes.
Flurry is an extra attack. That counts.
Stunning Fist also fills that role. Save versus stun on a hit is a very nice rider.
A lot of what monk gets can be stolen, which is kind of annoying.
Precisely. Which is why I think I'd prefer Stunning Fist to be a class feature not a feat.
The monk has no damage boosters to set it apart from other martial classes.Flurry is an extra attack. That counts.
Stunning Fist also fills that role. Save versus stun on a hit is a very nice rider.
A lot of what monk gets can be stolen, which is kind of annoying.Precisely. Which is why I think I'd prefer Stunning Fist to be a class feature not a feat.
Flurry of Blows does not count as a damage booster in the context I intended. Ranger has Hunted Shot or the similar melee ability yet still gets precision damage or a flurry bonus.
Haste also provides an extra attack.
A damage booster in the context I am using it is something that occurs regardless of MAP like Sneak Attack or rage and can occur even on reaction attacks.
I've tracked monk damage quite a bit. They are one of the weakest of the damage dealing martials. Thus if Flurry of Blows is intended to be a damage booster, it has failed miserably.
The monk could use a boost other than the Jalmeray Heavenseeker backdoor fix of Heaven's Thunder, which was overtuned at first and is now a nice moderate damage booster the monk needed making that style more attractive.
The monk is a bit on the weak side mainly attractive for players who like the class fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How exactly would you make flurry better though, its already extremely good and it would be better to just buff every attack the monk does so its other attacking feats like one-inch punch don't just become obsolete by flurry getting a unique upgrade.How upset would people be if flurry was taken out of the Monk archetype? While I don't think Monk itself has any problems it is a pretty major feels bad that other classes can steal their class feature. It is basically equivalent to being able to get Legendary weapon proficiency from Fighter archetype.I don't think it's the right solution. I think the best course is making the Monk's FoB much better right around the time other characters have access to it.
There are multiple ways:
Reducing MAP on the second attack (-2 for agile and -3 for normal).
Adding Traits like Forceful.
Making Flurry count as one attack for MAP. Allowing combat maneuvers as baseline improvement.
If you take down an enemy you get to transfer the second attack, with or without penalty, whatever.
If you miss with an attack the next one isn't affected by MAP (exacting strike but without press).
One I would like to see is having a 2 or 3 action version that behaves like Impossible Flurry from Rangers. Ip Man style.
My only pause is that other 2-action activities might become less appealing if Flurry Of Blows gets more accurate.
The monk has no damage boosters to set it apart from other martial classes.Flurry is an extra attack. That counts.
Stunning Fist also fills that role. Save versus stun on a hit is a very nice rider.
A lot of what monk gets can be stolen, which is kind of annoying.Precisely. Which is why I think I'd prefer Stunning Fist to be a class feature not a feat.Flurry of Blows does not count as a damage booster in the context I intended. Ranger has Hunted Shot or the similar melee ability yet still gets precision damage or a flurry bonus.
Haste also provides an extra attack.
A monk can be hasted as well so that is not a factor.
A damage booster in the context I am using it is something that occurs regardless of MAP like Sneak Attack or rage and can occur even on reaction attacks.
A monk works slightly differently - this is a good thing!
I've tracked monk damage quite a bit. They are one of the weakest of the damage dealing martials. Thus if Flurry of Blows is intended to be a damage booster, it has failed miserably.
The monk could use a boost other than the Jalmeray Heavenseeker backdoor fix of Heaven's Thunder, which was overtuned at first and is now a nice moderate damage booster the monk needed making that style more attractive.
The monk is a bit on the weak side mainly attractive for players who like the class fantasy.
You aren't playing it to its potential. A monk is a skirmisher or a defender or a martial controller. Not really a slugger.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Both Monks and Champions can have their combat gimmick poached by archetypes. I guess Paizo considers their higher armor proficiency to be their 'real' class mechanic?
Not saying that necessarily works out great but just if I had to guess the logic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think “fighter can get flurry of blows at level 10” is ignoring that that is a feat choice and should be compared to level 10+ monk feats that a monk could take instead. I think that generally the damage die size is so set at level 1 that people doing white paper class analysis and DPR comparisons that the added gonzo magical abilities of high level feats are easy to ignore, in part because they can be situational and in part because they can be a bit convoluted to think of how to use.
With the preponderance of "Free Archetype" though, is there another level 10 archetype feat that competes with "Flurry of Blows"? Like in terms of "action economy enhancer" at 10th level the Chronoskimmer gets what is basically "borrow an action from your next turn to stride, strike, or step" and they can use it once a minute.
It might be prudent to add "monk" to the list of "archetypes you should not allow with Free Archetype."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People using variant rules have always had to be prepared to make adjustments off of what those rules change. Probably just advice on the forums for GMs about feats to keep an eye out for when using those rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The monk has no damage boosters to set it apart from other martial classes.Flurry is an extra attack. That counts.
Stunning Fist also fills that role. Save versus stun on a hit is a very nice rider.
A lot of what monk gets can be stolen, which is kind of annoying.Precisely. Which is why I think I'd prefer Stunning Fist to be a class feature not a feat.Flurry of Blows does not count as a damage booster in the context I intended. Ranger has Hunted Shot or the similar melee ability yet still gets precision damage or a flurry bonus.
Haste also provides an extra attack.
A monk can be hasted as well so that is not a factor.
A damage booster in the context I am using it is something that occurs regardless of MAP like Sneak Attack or rage and can occur even on reaction attacks.A monk works slightly differently - this is a good thing!
You aren't playing it to its potential. A monk is a skirmisher or a defender or a martial controller. Not really a slugger.I've tracked monk damage quite a bit. They are one of the weakest of the damage dealing martials. Thus if Flurry of Blows is intended to be a damage booster, it has failed miserably.
The monk could use a boost other than the Jalmeray Heavenseeker backdoor fix of Heaven's Thunder, which was overtuned at first and is now a nice moderate damage booster the monk needed making that style more attractive.
The monk is a bit on the weak side mainly attractive for players who like the class fantasy.
I am playing the monk as a controller. I do like that a monk is a good controller. They do have a role in that regard, which is why they are not a bad class.
But other classes don't give up the ability to be a controller to do damage.
I'd like the option to build a damage dealing monk. As I've played fighters that are controllers with knockdown and such, but give up nothing in the damage department to do so. In fact, fighters damage is enhanced while also being a controller.
So not sure why the monk should have to be a weak damage dealer to be a controller when a fighter and other martial classes don't have to give up such abilities to do more damage.
I do believe that Legendary Unarmed Proficiency would not in any way imbalance the monk. And would close the damage gap, while maintaining their strong versatility focus on being a controller martial without stepping on any toes just as the gunslinger's legendary proficiency with guns doesn't make them a better damage dealer or in any way than a fighter or other martial classes.
I have tried multiple different ways to build a damage dealing monk and they are on the weak side regardless of build.
I do like the monk class overall though. You can build them to be a decent controller or mobile damage dealer. I usually combine them with the Rogue Archetype to pick up the Mobility feat to further enhance their movement.
For the low levels, you don't notice the damage differences too much.
It's at the higher levels where you start to notice the weaknesses in damage and the ability of other classes to steal your monk abilities with spells and feats. Fleet step is pretty easy to cast often at higher level. And lots of classes build for mobility.
So as a monk you get only the boosts for striking runes and damage type runes, while rogues are obtaining increased sneak attack, barbarians increased rage damage, and fighters improving their ability to use reaction attacks which are their big damage booster.
The monk lacks any of these abilities as Flurry of Blows never improves. And they don't get anything else to act as a damage booster.
I would even be happy if Flurry of Blows provided some MAP reduction as you get higher level so it was a more effective damage enhancer working well with the monk's versatile build options.
Every other classes damage enhancer ability improves except the monk's if Gortle is correct and Flurry of Blows is expected to be their damage enhancer.
So if Monks don't get Legendary Unarmed Strike proficiency, then some kind of enhancement with a MAP reduction that affects both attacks and maneuvers would suit the monk very well as well.
I want to make clear that the monk doesn't need much as it is a good class. But a little boost to Flurry of Blows or some kind of slight damage enhancer like Legendary Unarmed Proficiency would make the class just about perfect.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People using variant rules have always had to be prepared to make adjustments off of what those rules change. Probably just advice on the forums for GMs about feats to keep an eye out for when using those rules.
While true, the fighter's already one of the more feat flexible classes (especially if you're not using some more esoteric weapon combinations). FA probably does more to close their power gap than widen it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could care LESS about the math and "balance" of it honestly, to me, it's the image and principal of the matter, it makes NO SENSE.
Also, if we want to consider balance, even then, I'd like to see one of the resident super-nerd spreadsheet gamers take a whack at this, if anyone happens to know how to rouse Mathmuse into taking a shallow dive that'd be awesome.
What exactly WOULD a Monk with pound-for-pound Unarmed Attack Prof Scaling with the Fighter look like from a purely whiteboard DPR, crit chance, and overall all damage perspective look like? I'd be willing to bet that it STILL falls behind the Fighter at basically every conceivable level so long as the Fighter isn't taking the absolute worst possible options at their disposal.
I could see Flurry having reduced MAP at higher levels. A class feature at level 10 or 11 or so?
I like this idea. Like "a fighter has better accuracy unarmed" is not different from PF1 (since the fighter has weapon training) but the monk got more overall attacks with good accuracy.
Like a 16th level fighter from BAB was full-attacking with +16/+11/+6/+1 with all the bonuses they could stack on that, but a 16th level monk was flurrying with +14/+14/+9/+9/+4/+4/–1 or an unchained monk was flurrying with +16/+16/+16/+11/+6/+1.
I think to really understand the monk class and what a very powerful monk is supposed to do you have to look at the high level feats. The monk gets so many high level proficency boosts to saves and defense and spell casting that their budget for career defining feats feels a little underwhelming, which is why they make such incredible chassis for MC casters. They have a bunch of feats that just move targets around and a bunch of Ki spells, and the mobility and defensive stuff.
It is kinda like the damage and attack math of PF2 is so tightly locked in from level 1 choices that pretty much every class goes sideways instead of up with focusing on offense. I think that is why flurry of blows as a MC feat sticks out so much, although it really only benefits fighters and requires the fighter be focusing on unarmed attacks to really be that big a boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What exactly would the fighter do to improve its damage after picking up flurry that monk wouldn't also have, because monk just has everything the fighter has for damage at that point to my knowledge, along with its bonus to ac, movement and better saves.I could care LESS about the math and "balance" of it honestly, to me, it's the image and principal of the matter, it makes NO SENSE.
Also, if we want to consider balance, even then, I'd like to see one of the resident super-nerd spreadsheet gamers take a whack at this, if anyone happens to know how to rouse Mathmuse into taking a shallow dive that'd be awesome.
What exactly WOULD a Monk with pound-for-pound Unarmed Attack Prof Scaling with the Fighter look like from a purely whiteboard DPR, crit chance, and overall all damage perspective look like? I'd be willing to bet that it STILL falls behind the Fighter at basically every conceivable level so long as the Fighter isn't taking the absolute worst possible options at their disposal.
The monk has one better save. But the fighter gets Bravery which in play is as good as a Legendary save with improved evasion given how often the Frightened condition comes up.
I will once again state that the Legendary Unarmmored Defense proficiency nets you 1 more AC than the fighter without Armor Specialization because Heavy Armor provides plus 6 to AC versus the monk reaching 5 AC from items.
The fighter's damage enhancer ability is reaction attacks aka Attack of Opportunity. They have feats that other classes do not have access to that allows them to improve their ability to use reaction attacks along with feats that set up these reaction attacks like Knockdown or Disruption Stance. This allows them to improve the number of situations where a reaction attack is triggered.
Reaction attacks are MAPless and with a fighter using a higher damage die weapon with a good critical effect, the fighter ends up doing more damage than many classes and far more damage than classes like the monk.
As far as mobility goes, an archetype and a 1st level fleet step spell gets them 30 feet movement as a status bonus for what is usually an entire combat. Then there are plenty of feats to obtain improved mobility like Fleet and Nimble Elf along with items like Booots of Bounding which mixed with feats like Sudden Charge make the fighter effectively highly mobile.
Having played both multiple monks and fighters to various levels, the fighter is nearly every way better than the monk. They even get Expert Armor proficiency sooner than the monk gets Master Unarmored Proficiency and thus gains a higher AC than a monk for few levels due to Heavy Armor having a higher item AC bonus than a monk can obtain.
I think to really understand the monk class and what a very powerful monk is supposed to do you have to look at the high level feats. The monk gets so many high level proficency boosts to saves and defense and spell casting that their budget for career defining feats feels a little underwhelming, which is why they make such incredible chassis for MC casters. They have a bunch of feats that just move targets around and a bunch of Ki spells, and the mobility and defensive stuff.
It is kinda like the damage and attack math of PF2 is so tightly locked in from level 1 choices that pretty much every class goes sideways instead of up with focusing on offense. I think that is why flurry of blows as a MC feat sticks out so much, although it really only benefits fighters and requires the fighter be focusing on unarmed attacks to really be that big a boost.
Why do you believe this? So many?
Monks get one Legendary save, one master save, and one expert save.
The fighter gets two master saves and one expert save. Then gets Bravery and the initiative boosting ability which boosts up their Perception at the same time.
I don't know why people don't calculate the AC of the monk versus the fighter. It amounts to a 1 AC boost. If the monk had access to Heavy armor like the Champion, then it would the 2 AC boost of Legendary Unarmored Defense proficiency, but it isn't.
The fighter is good for MC casting too.
I've tried to run a monk caster. If you're not a maxed out caster focused on it, you're not going to be very good at offensive casting. If you're in melee range casting, then you're getting AoOs.
And the fighter's accuracy always makes heroism better on them.
I've tried the monk ranged builds as well. They are weak damage. And in a party with combat healing, the ranged builds are not necessary since the martials will get needed healing while being able to bring the damage hammer.
The main advantage of the monk is mobility. The monk has feats to build on its mobility. But I'm not sure how valuable that is within a party. If you were playing solo, it's pretty valuable. In a party moving in and out of combat is more a way to get your caster's hammered because you are not holding the line.
I was doing a mobility build on a monk. You can tell the monk is built to be highly mobile as a means of avoiding damage and moving in and out of combat while knocking someone down or something.
The problem I found with this build was it was hard to support the other members of the group. The rogue needs a flanking partner and a monk moving in and out battle is not a great flanking partner on top of the fact it leaves the rogue to take all the attacks.
The mobility monk is not a great flanking partner for anyone in the party. Moving in and out of battle also removes from range to use reaction based attacks which makes trip less valuable to the monk itself. If you're one of the primary martials in the group, moving in and out of battle just makes the enemies go after slower casters and martials.
I found the monk's mobility is not as useful within a party. It can in fact lead to a very selfish playing style which harm's the party preventing others from maximizing their abilities. You have to keep an eye on that and make sure you're leaving more vulnerable party members in bad situations.
The monk does make a decent tank controller. With flurry of blows and maneuvers and a shield, you can usually raise your shield and get two attacks. It's pretty easy to obtain Champion's reaction and make a cool monk tank. Your actions per round are fairly locked in, but so are a Champion's so that's par for the course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... As far as mobility goes, an archetype and a 1st level fleet step spell gets them 30 feet movement as a status bonus for what is usually an entire combat...
Also, a minor investment in Arcana or Nature, Trick Magic Item, and 160 gp for a Wand of 2nd Level Longstrider nets a 10 ft. status bonus to speed for 8 hours.
...What exactly would the fighter do to improve its damage after picking up flurry that monk wouldn't also have, because monk just has everything the fighter has for damage at that point to my knowledge, along with its bonus to ac, movement and better saves.I could care LESS about the math and "balance" of it honestly, to me, it's the image and principal of the matter, it makes NO SENSE.
Also, if we want to consider balance, even then, I'd like to see one of the resident super-nerd spreadsheet gamers take a whack at this, if anyone happens to know how to rouse Mathmuse into taking a shallow dive that'd be awesome.
What exactly WOULD a Monk with pound-for-pound Unarmed Attack Prof Scaling with the Fighter look like from a purely whiteboard DPR, crit chance, and overall all damage perspective look like? I'd be willing to bet that it STILL falls behind the Fighter at basically every conceivable level so long as the Fighter isn't taking the absolute worst possible options at their disposal.
The monk has one better save. But the fighter gets Bravery which in play is as good as a Legendary save with improved evasion given how often the Frightened condition comes up.
I will once again state that the Legendary Unarmmored Defense proficiency nets you 1 more AC than the fighter without Armor Specialization because Heavy Armor provides plus 6 to AC versus the monk reaching 5 AC from items.
The fighter's damage enhancer ability is reaction attacks aka Attack of Opportunity. They have feats that other classes do not have access to that allows them to improve their ability to use reaction attacks along with feats that set up these reaction attacks like Knockdown or Disruption Stance. This allows them to improve the number of situations where a reaction attack is triggered.
Reaction attacks are MAPless and with a fighter using a higher damage die weapon with a good critical effect, the fighter ends up doing more
Fighters do not rely on regular attacks for their damage. If a fighter relied solely on their regular attacks for maximizing damage, they'd be behind the rogue and barbarian eventually.
The strength of the fighter is in reaction based attacks. This is where their damage spikes immensely clearly out damaging nearly every other class.
If damage were solely based on hits during your turn, then sure the dragon style monk with Legendary Unarmed Proficiency would match fighter damage depending on actions and set up.
Damage dealing martials do more damage with a combination of regular attack rounds with reaction based attacks.
Fighter with knockdown or some trip ability will get their regular attacks, then a reaction based attack or two.
Rogue eventually gets Opportune Riposte.
This is what causes these classes to really spike their damage as they level.
The Monk gets Stand Still which is a more limited reaction attack that requires them to stay in melee range avoiding the use of their mobility to move in and out of battle. The monk loses more and more damage with their smaller damage die on all their attacks including reaction based attacks as the striking runes get higher and abilities like Sneak Attack and Rage get better and the fighter acquires abilities that boost the number of Opportunity Attacks and improves the triggers.
So the fighter would still do substantially more damage.
|
|
...What exactly would the fighter do to improve its damage after picking up flurry that monk wouldn't also have, because monk just has everything the fighter has for damage at that point to my knowledge, along with its bonus to ac, movement and better saves.I could care LESS about the math and "balance" of it honestly, to me, it's the image and principal of the matter, it makes NO SENSE.
Also, if we want to consider balance, even then, I'd like to see one of the resident super-nerd spreadsheet gamers take a whack at this, if anyone happens to know how to rouse Mathmuse into taking a shallow dive that'd be awesome.
What exactly WOULD a Monk with pound-for-pound Unarmed Attack Prof Scaling with the Fighter look like from a purely whiteboard DPR, crit chance, and overall all damage perspective look like? I'd be willing to bet that it STILL falls behind the Fighter at basically every conceivable level so long as the Fighter isn't taking the absolute worst possible options at their disposal.
The monk has one better save. But the fighter gets Bravery which in play is as good as a Legendary save with improved evasion given how often the Frightened condition comes up.
I will once again state that the Legendary Unarmmored Defense proficiency nets you 1 more AC than the fighter without Armor Specialization because Heavy Armor provides plus 6 to AC versus the monk reaching 5 AC from items.
The fighter's damage enhancer ability is reaction attacks aka Attack of Opportunity. They have feats that other classes do not have access to that allows them to improve their ability to use reaction attacks along with feats that set up these reaction attacks like Knockdown or Disruption Stance. This allows them to improve the number of situations where a reaction attack is triggered.
Reaction attacks are MAPless and with a fighter using a higher damage die weapon with a good critical effect, the
You know any class can poach AoO from the Fighter archetype at level 4, right ?
That is 6 full levels before being able to poach FoB from the Monk archetype. Almost a third of your career as an adventurer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A monk can have a D10 weapon with deadly d10, backswing and reach that uses 0 hands by the end game with offensive feat selection. They need to be in 1 stance to do this, but can still use reaction based attacks if they have them with this.
To flurry, a fighter is either not using heavy armor or is no where near this damage die.
To flurry, a fighter is either not using heavy armor or is no where near this damage die.
The APG stances largely lack the "not wearing armor" clause. So you could be in, say, Gorilla Stance in full plate and flurry. It's a d8 attack, but 1d8 B forceful, grapple, backswing attack is pretty good given how rare the grapple trait is.