I highly doubt big changes are on the way for the Monk, if not many are primed for the Fighter either.
Both classes are relatively simple to play, with the Fighter being geared towards using many different attack actions, and the Monk geared towards using more non-attack actions.
However, I think this simplicity plays against the Monk because it reduces design space. All the new Monk feats outside of Rulebooks are Ki Spells because it's really hard to find other ways to give it more depth.
For this reason, I believe Monks should have a subclass feature: stances. This would mean making stances mandatory, which I won't imagine to be a 100% popular idea, but right now stances have such a high power level that it seems reasonable.
Making stances part of the core class would encourage stance-dancing, something that many Monks opt out from because using once stance means not benefiting from your investment in another.
By having a feature that, says, forces players to pick two stances at Level 1, then you bake the cost of the stances into the chassis. Doing so, you set up a play-pattern for Monks: switching from once stance to the other as it's benefitial to you.
You could add extra stances at certain levels (to say something), adding additional depth along the way.
This would create a more complex play pattern, but much more replayability, and the ability to add more variety of content since Monks will have a subsystem that is not Ki that they'll be juggling with.
Creating tools to switch stances quickly and boost their benefits would become something that Paizo could design around.
| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I definitely feel that stance dancing is a mechanic that should be supported at a low enough level that it can be your character identity, I do not think every Monk should be required to stance dance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, I think this simplicity plays against the Monk because it reduces design space. All the new Monk feats outside of Rulebooks are Ki Spells because it's really hard to find other ways to give it more depth.
Rain of embers stance, Jellyfish stance and Vitality-manipulating stance beg to differ.
Also Golden body, Effortless reach.
Actually, I feel feats based on ki spells are the minority for new Monk feats outside of Rulebooks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The main change monks need is a clear rule about how you can/must leave a stance. For example when you're in a stance that allows only one kind of strike, and then you discover that the enemy is immune to that damage type. (Most GMs are reasonable about it; but it's missing in the rules.)
My experience playing a monk in PFS is that having multiple stances is pretty good. I don't have to be forced into it, it's good enough on its own.
- Sometimes I just use the basic d6 fists, if I don't want to spend the action to go into stance right now, or if I need bludgeoning.
- I'll go into wolf stance for d8 damage and wolf drag.
- I'll go into burning ember stance for the extra AC and to trigger fire weakness, bypass a physical resistance or block regeneration.
- I'll use crashing wind stance against ranged enemies or if cover/concealment are causing trouble.
I don't often switch stances mid-fight, but I get use of all the different stances.
IMO what the monks need is Combat Flexibility like fighters.
Technically the big difference in feats from monk to fighter is dependencies. While in the fighter several feats depend on the type of weapon he is using, if it is 1-handed, 2-handed, if it is a bow or if he holds a shield, the monk uses the stances to basically do the same thing but they depend on of feats and create a much bigger hell of dependencies.
Adding Flexibility in Combat would solve this to a large extent, as it would allow multi-instance builds to operate much easier and breaking it would also help with the other hell of dependencies that are ki feats.
Another 2 things about the monk that I would like Paizo to change are the feats of higher level stances, such as the Ironblood Stance and the Cobra Stance and the Tangled Forest Stance which in my opinion are only there to be used with the Master of Many Styles /Fuse Stance and thus have access to their passives being able to use attacks from another stance or monastic weaponry.
The other problem is that there are too many feat dependencies. For example Master of Many Styles depends on Stance Savant, but in my view this dependency only exists to justify the need for Stance Savant after getting the Master of Many Styles, but this ends up removing a feats slot, kind of transforming Stance Savant on a feat tax. OK, the idea of putting Combat Flexibility helps with that too, but ideally it would be nice if Paizo's designers considered merging some of these feats and auto-progressing them (in the example above Stance Savant could auto-increment to get the benefits of Master of Many Styles at level 16) or simply remove the dependency.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO what the monks need is Combat Flexibility like fighters.
Technically the big difference in feats from monk to fighter is dependencies. While in the fighter several feats depend on the type of weapon he is using, if it is 1-handed, 2-handed, if it is a bow or if he holds a shield, the monk uses the stances to basically do the same thing but they depend on of feats and create a much bigger hell of dependencies.Adding Flexibility in Combat would solve this to a large extent, as it would allow multi-instance builds to operate much easier and breaking it would also help with the other hell of dependencies that are ki feats.
Another 2 things about the monk that I would like Paizo to change are the feats of higher level stances, such as the Ironblood Stance and the Cobra Stance and the Tangled Forest Stance which in my opinion are only there to be used with the Master of Many Styles /Fuse Stance and thus have access to their passives being able to use attacks from another stance or monastic weaponry.
The other problem is that there are too many feat dependencies. For example Master of Many Styles depends on Stance Savant, but in my view this dependency only exists to justify the need for Stance Savant after getting the Master of Many Styles, but this ends up removing a feats slot, kind of transforming Stance Savant on a feat tax. OK, the idea of putting Flexibility in Combat helps with that too, but ideally it would be nice if Paizo's designers considered merging some of these feats and auto-progressing them (in the example above Stance Savant could auto-increment to get the benefits of Master of Many Styles at level 16) or simply remove the dependency.
That last thing seems to be on the menu across the board. They have commented on condensing feats a bit.
|
|
I think overall PF2 avoids the sin of PF1, very long feat chains. The longest chains are 3 long now. I can sort of see the point that Improved Knockdown does more than Knockdown, so it's higher level and because it extends Knockdown, it requires it.
Monk stances are 2, sometimes 3 feats deep. Not that different from fighter chains. But going into a stance also prevents you from being in a different stance (unless you wanna spend even more feats) so it doesn't make much sense to take a lot of deep stance trees. You might go multiple feats into one stance, and only take the entry level feats for other stances to use them as backups.
Speaking of backups: I'd say overall for the monk it's actually friendlier to use multiple stances than for the fighter to use multiple weapons. Because your handwraps of mighty poking will apply runes to all your unarmed strikes, while the fighter is worried about not getting good runes on a second weapon.
A place where I think the monk could improve slightly is ki feats. Maybe I don't care much about ki strike and ki rush? But later ki feats require that I took an entry level ki feat. That's a feat chain that could be detached.
I don't think "stance-dancing" should be required and I think the monk is mostly good as is.
If anything was done, reducing the number of feats is a stance chain to max at two should be enough encouragement to get people to pick up extra stances and switch between them based on what would work best for any given combat.
Perhaps add a feat that would let you change stances (if you like) when you do something. Like maybe crit and enemy, or some sort of action specific to the stance you're currently using.
Other than enabling changing stances to be a more dynamic and attractive option I don't see a big change as needed.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really see the benefit into turning Monk into a game of Stance Stance Revolution.
I think it's less about forcing that type of play, and more making it possible.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to see JUSTICE for the Monk in the Remaster in that they DESERVE, unquestionably, Legendary Unarmed Attack Prof.
If the justification that Fighters can/do get it and also are ALWAYS further ahead than the Monk in Unarmed Attacks because being the very best with every type of Weapon/Attack possible is "their whole identity" then the Gunslinger broke that excuse like a glass vase against the concrete. If Gunslingers can be S tier top of the Class tied with Fighter for Firearms then the Monk absolutely 110% DESERVES to also be Legendary with Unarmed Attacks, full-stop and there is no argument that can convince me otherwise. The Monk is to Unarmed Attacks/Monk Weapons (It's in the NAME and yet, Fighters are STILL BETTER with them than a Monk, esp Fighters with the Monk MCA and FoB) as Fighters are to all Weaponry and Gunslingers are to Firearms/Crossbows.
It doesn't make sense. Yes, it's a big buff but frankly, the fact that the Monk ISN'T even TIED for the best with the PRIMARY THING that defines them as a Class with Fighter is just plain wrong.
You can pry this soapbox from my cold dead hands, I don't care which math nerd on Paizo staff decided to put their foot down during the CRB creation that make this so, and I suspect I know which one it was, but they were wrong and the decision flies in the face of the identity of the Class.
Thank you for coming to my TED (Totally Enraged Discussion) talk.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not convinced that's needed. After seeing monks in action hitting reasonably often even on third, fourth and fifth agile attacks in a round, I think monks came at a good to-hit from a different angle. d8 agile finesse attacks are easily available to monks, flurry gives you more attacks, with a high speed you don't waste multiple actions walking around.
I also don't buy stance savant as a feat tax for something else. Saving an action in the first round of combat is super valuable all on its own. (You could argue that spending an action to go into stance is a tax. But it's a tax you can afford as a monk. More so than magi can afford the action to go into arcane cascade.)
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter can poach 100% of the best FoB benefits and have a better to-hit than a Monk, I don't buy it, plus with Agile Grace + FoB and an Agile Weapon/Unarmed Attack, they come out even FURTHER ahead pushing them into the territory of having about an 80% chance of getting at least one Critical Hit every round they can spend all three Actions on Attacks even against a +1 PL enemy.
Similarly, I'm not investing in the idea that "moving fast" is more critical or central to the Monk than Unarmed Attacks/Monk Weapons, the prospect of return on that seems suspect at best.
JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!one
Perhaps add a feat that would let you change stances (if you like) when you do something. Like maybe crit and enemy, or some sort of action specific to the stance you're currently using.
What about a feat that lets them Step or change stance after an enemy critically fails an attack? So far there's only the Fighter's Dueling Riposte that triggers on an enemy's total whiff, I think; I would really like an ability of that kind on a Monk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It might not feel like much, but monks also get a flexible spell casting tradition proficiency that scales to master faster than a multi-class dedication. At the very minimum, any ability for a Monk to go legendary with their attack should cost feats and/or prohibit boosting your spell casting so high, as well as maybe switch out your potential for legendary AC.
Monk is already an absolute beast of a class to build a multi-class caster around with proficiencies in all the places casters want them and flexibility to cover bad saving throws. You won't be a great blaster or debuffer, but you can be about as good of a support caster as a full caster by level 8 if you put your wealth into casting stuff, which you can pretty easily afford to do.
I am not saying "Monks are good MC casters" means they shouldn't be good dedicated martials, but I do think buffing monks as a class should take into account they are exceptionally good MC casters as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I definitely feel that stance dancing is a mechanic that should be supported at a low enough level that it can be your character identity, I do not think every Monk should be required to stance dance.
Yep. I want to play as Eleanor from EEAAO, or at least someone with the ability to bounce from stance to stance to stance and back again within a single combat.
|
|
Okay, some good points were made I suppose so I am left to wonder if there is an oppotrunity to introduce a kind of Class Path for Monk that would make sense ala Cleric/Druid/Rogue/Alch/Etc with the Remaster since as has been noted they are very much like the Martial Jack of all Trades.
I'd be happy with a kind of three-way split based on the already existing niches that basically already vie for your Class Feat budget, the three Ms, each come with a base chassis adjustment that CAN'T be poached that is unique to the Path/Role, and a bonus Feat somewhat related to that style.
1) Martial - Provided with Fighter Unarmed Attack Scaling, Expert at level 1, and pound-for-pound parity for Unarmed Attack scaling. Monastic Weaponry, or any 1st Level Monk Feat with the Stance Trait as a free Class Feat. (Removing an oft-complained about "Feat tax" for such Monks)
2) Mystical - Provided with automatic Scaling of either the Religion or Occult Skill as appropriate for the type of Tradition they choose as well as an additional special way to Refocus DURING and Encounter. Ki Strike as a free Class Feat.
3) Mobile - Base Speed increase that stacks with the base Monk bonus as well as things like Fleet of 5 ft, add the Attack of Opportunity Reaction to your Character. Ki Rush as the bonus Class Feat.
SURE, that's a lot, but a guy can hope, right? Also, just flat out, I don't think it is okay to be able to poach Flurry of Blows with the Multiclass Archetype, even a high levels, yeah it will invalidate some VERY intentional high level "spam as many attacks as I can with Agile Weapon" Fighter builds but... I don't see that as a bad thing truth be told.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It does feel like Stance Savant and Master of Many Styles are at way too high a level to make "stance swapping" seem viable. Since you're most likely not going to want to change up your combat routine dramatically at level 16.
They also have the same basic problem as the Refocus feats- they may be mechanically powerful, but they are boring.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does feel like Stance Savant and Master of Many Styles are at way too high a level to make "stance swapping" seem viable. Since you're most likely not going to want to change up your combat routine dramatically at level 6.
They also have the same basic problem as the Refocus feats- they may be mechanically powerful, but they are boring.
I would like a low-level feat that provides and uses a Focus point to change Stance as a free action.
If too mystical, a feat allowing to do it once every 10 minutes without using Focus points could do it I guess.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I'm thinking about, is "does be in 2 stances at once" need to be a capstone feat? I get why they did this at launch, since maybe something really powerful would be enabled by it, but I don't think anything like that has actually emerged.
I'd like for Fuse Styles to either be "potentially really powerful" or "available at a much lower level."
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I'm thinking about, is "does be in 2 stances at once" need to be a capstone feat? I get why they did this at launch, since maybe something really powerful would be enabled by it, but I don't think anything like that has actually emerged.
I'd like for Fuse Styles to either be "potentially really powerful" or "available at a much lower level."
Fuse stance should allow for fusing any two stances without restriction and superceding the "only such and such Strikes" clauses.
Or maybe even allow for benefiting from all stances you know.
Stances shouldn't take an action to enter and everybody should get a free action to draw a weapon/item from an appropriate holster at the start of every combat.
Look at anybody who actually fights and you'll see that the stance is the strike you cannot have one without the other.
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.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is legendary proficiency is functionally the fighter's (and gunslinger's) specific combat gimmick.
Saying "Monks need legendary" is functionally kind of the same thing as saying "Monks need sneak attack" or "Monks need Overdrive"
In hindsight it probably would have been better for Paizo to not have legendary martial (or give it to everyone) and give Fighters +2 to hit as a class feature... because I feel like the main reason it keeps coming up is that making it an extra tier of proficiency makes it look like a generic feature and not a class mechanic.
... Fighters should probably not get armor expertise two levels early for no discernible reason though that probably doesn't help with how this looks either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In hindsight it probably would have been better for Paizo to not have legendary martial (or give it to everyone) and give Fighters +2 to hit as a class feature... because I feel like the main reason it keeps coming up is that making it an extra tier of proficiency makes it look like a generic feature and not a class mechanic.
Ayup.
All these spots for Legendary Proficiences to be marked off and no one will ever get to use them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What the class needs is some more damaging options at higher levels and feats that encourage Stance Switching.
Also, Stance Savant should be baseline (even if it stays at the same level) and Fuse Stance IS NOT a level 20 Feature. Most of Stances released are mutually exclusive and the ones that mix are not OP. This is a level 15 feature at most. Unless it's improved (such as being able to break the rule on mandatory Unarmed Attacks).
The class is in a great spot, it just needs some mobility feats to be conflated and some new feats added to enhance damage. Something similar to the Heavenseeker Archetype, maybe?
IMO these proficiency grades aren't made with lore in mind but to meet role requirements and to give fighter some good thing.
We just need to see other CRB classes and what we get:
Barbarian: Some extra HP + plain additional damage.
Rogue: Sneak attack
Ranger: Reduced MAP or extra precision damage.
Champion: Legendary heavy armor AC.
Outside these classes we have Monk and Fighter. Monks have armor restriction by default for most stances and needs a compensation. That's why they get Legendary Unarmored Proficiency and Fighter need something to compensate their lack of extra damage or extra defense that other martials have so Paizo designers decided to give legendary attack proficiency and a better attack progression. It's not for a lore perspective once any avg fighter got that high proficiency but to compensate the fact that fighters don't get some "special ability" like many other martials get.
IMO for fighters would make more sense if they got flurry rangers MAP and rangers got legendary proficiency for a lore point of view. But I think that Paizo designers also run away from this in order to prevent the fighters become to closer to 5e fighter that get extra attacks.
Backing to the main question. For lore context make sense that Monks get legendary in both attack and defense proficiencies but this would end unbalanced once that monks already get other benefits like Flurry of Blows and don't requires weapons and many times a free-hand to have some of the best Strikes damages and traits of the game. I also don't thing that most monk enthusiasts see this as a problem to the monks. IMO the inability to mix stances in lower levels and the high number of feats with other feats as dependencies is more problematic to do some builds than the lack of legendary proficiency.
The Monk's action economy and having, probably, the best "weapons" in the game really makes their damage be consistent due to their mobility and number of attacks per action (they rarely lack movement to reach their enemies and having Flurry of Blows makes their turns consistent).
Personally, I think the best way to improve their damaging capabilities is giving them more ways to mitigate the MAP, if damage increasing options is out of the question for the devs.
I would like some high level feats for each Stance as well. Mini-capstones for Stance users, if you will. Right now, we only have the Stance Feat and an new Stance-Related Feat roughly 5 levels later.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am sorry folks. You just AREN'T going to EVER convince me that Goku and Ryu don't and can't get Legendary Unarmed Attacks but for some reason, Gimli and Simon Belmont SHOULD have it. That's a train of thought that is leaving the station without me.
The flavor, feel, and texture of it are ALL wrong. This isn't a "chocolate in my peanut butter" issue, it's a "garcon, there is a fly in my soup" problem, whoever on the team thought that legendary unarmed defense to make the monk nearly as tanky as the MOST TANKY Champion you can possibly build by default but NOT to even be tied with accuracy or ability to deal Critical Hits on Unarmed Attacks that a Fighter gets was seriously ON something when that call was made and whoever was in the room with them must have been dealing with very serious impostor syndrome being unable to speak up... it's madness to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Alright, how about we get rid of Legendary proficiency for weapons altogether, and the fighter gets an untyped +2 bonus that stack with everything. Gunslinger too.
Will you feel better?
At the end of the day, I can't agree with Monks getting Flurry of Blows and Legendary proficiency. I will admit the Monk dedication shouldn't have granted Flurry of Blows either because no one else should be able to poach a classes main thing like that. Or at least not at 100% efficiency. Like Rogue dedications don't get progressing sneak attack. Unfortunately FOB is completely front loaded and there is no scaling too it.
I would also argue Gunslingers probably shouldn't have gotten legendary proficiency either, but guns suck so much I think they did it to throw the class a bone, and so that a gunslinger using guns could benefit from the traits that make crit fishing better. Course...I think gunslingers are still better off using crossbows.
Anyways, fighters should have been the only one to get legendary weapon proficiencies.
Design Manager
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This is pretty much exactly what "fighters get legendary weapons, almost nobody else does" is supposed to represent (the only other class to get legendary attacks in PF2 is the Gunslinger, which previously had "Gun Training" analogous to "Weapon Training")
I think the only "feels bad" part of this is that the Monk Archetype lets you poach a lot of the monk's best stuff (the low level stances are very good, and the monk archetype gives FoB at level 10.) But the fix to this I think is to try to show how someone who gets Monk feats from the levels 12-20 slot (the ones you can't get from MCing) is a better unarmed fighter than anyone else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I think there might be a serious problem of presentation in using a basic system mechanic like proficiency as a core class feature. If anything, the fact that we're three years into the game and people still constantly ask for Legendary unarmed on Monks shows that. It might be obvious for people who are deeper into the game's design that Legendary progression is the equivalent of your Rage or Sneak Attack, but it's really not in a first or even second glance.
It doesn't help that, in pretty much every other place in the game, "Higher Proficiency = Better At X Thing" is true, and that spellcasters follow a completely different progression for their spells where Legendary is the assumed rather than the "extra". Combine that with how absurdly important accuracy is in this game, and that Monk's core feature is stealable with 2 feats at level 10, and... well, I can at least understand why this is seen as an issue and probably will be until the heat death of the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(...) But the fix to this I think is to try to show how someone who gets Monk feats from the levels 12-20 slot (the ones you can't get from MCing) is a better unarmed fighter than anyone else.
The thing is... are they, really? I love Monk, it's one of my favorite classes, but looking at their high level feats, I don't see anything that changes the fact that a Fighter with an unarmed Stance, Flurry, stuff like Combat Grab and Dazing Blow, Combat Reflexes and maybe another unarmed feat or two can easily compete with, if not outdo, a Monk in unarmed combat. Sure, a Monk is more mobile and has better defenses, but in terms of punchy-punchyness? Yeah the comparison kinda looks pretty good for the Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, a Monk who spends their 18th and 20th level feats on this can have a 1d8 agile,finesse, deadly d10, reach unarmed attack. That's pretty incredible.
I think the big outliers here is that the 12 and 18 "refocus" feats are kind of a bummer in that they're good, but they don't really make you better at fighting, and that a lot of the "irrelevant to fighting, but it references an old monk ability" like "tongue of sun and moon" goes there.
Another issue is that a fighter who spends 3 feats on Monk Dedication, Gorilla Stance, and Flurry of Blows got a really efficient package of archetype feats.
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.
I think there might be a serious problem of presentation in using a basic system mechanic like proficiency as a core class feature. If anything, the fact that we're three years into the game and people still constantly ask for Legendary unarmed on Monks shows that. It might be obvious for people who are deeper into the game's design that Legendary progression is the equivalent of your Rage or Sneak Attack, but it's really not in a first or even second glance.
It doesn't help that, in pretty much every other place in the game, "Higher Proficiency = Better At X Thing" is true, and that spellcasters follow a completely different progression for their spells where Legendary is the assumed rather than the "extra". Combine that with how absurdly important accuracy is in this game, and that Monk's core feature is stealable with 2 feats at level 10, and... well, I can at least understand why this is seen as an issue and probably will be until the heat death of the game.
I'm always downvoted when I comment about this elsewhere, but I do agree that classes whose core strength is being best at something that everybody does.
This means Fighters designed with the intention of being the "best" in combat, through increased proficiency scaling speed and ceiling, on top of having a ton of choices at each level and free feats and class features and martial saving throws. On the other side we have the designated "best at skills", which are the Rogues, with their stacked chassis full of skill free feats and skill increases and also lots of class features at each level and having rackets with unique special abilities (including Thief, which offers a even rarer feature than extra proficiency) all the while sacrificing little to no combat prowess (except against stuff immune to precision damage).
It's no surprise by anyone that these two classes are regarded as the best and you see no one whatsoever even coming close to criticize them in terms of lack of power. In fact, Rogues are even getting a small buff by having access to all martial weapons, which is neat, but it has never been something crucial to make the class good, it's just extra icing on top of a stacked cake.
|
|
| 1 person 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 adequate comparison should be between Monks : how many want to dedicate into Fighter ?
And the same for Fighter : how many actually want to dedicate into Monk ?
|
|
Another issue is that a fighter who spends 3 feats on Monk Dedication, Gorilla Stance, and Flurry of Blows got a really efficient package of archetype feats.
Spending 2 feats that give you nothing really valuable and lock you out of other archetypes just so you can wait till level 10 to get Flurry of blows ?
Does not sound that attractive to me.
It's no surprise by anyone that these two classes are regarded as the best and you see no one whatsoever even coming close to criticize them in terms of lack of power. In fact, Rogues are even getting a small buff by having access to all martial weapons, which is neat, but it has never been something crucial to make the class good, it's just extra icing on top of a stacked cake.I've literally never seen anyone say rogues are one of the best classes until now, I only heard of fighter and bard, and then sometimes good champions and clerics.
Rogues are definitely among the best classes. Along with the Fighters, they're clearly the darlings of the designers.
Bards are still the best class, mainly because they have above average caster feats (well above, actually), they're casters and their main shtick, Composition Cantrips, are awesome. However, Rogues and Fighters share the same thing that makes them above other classes: Stacked base chassis, good proficiency spread and above average feat options.