Remaster Wish (even if it's too late): Monk should be legendary in unarmed, not Fighters.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Giving my voice as to what I think is really one of the biggest mechanial mind boggles for me in PF2e. And I am saying it as a big Fighter simp, mind it.

How for Gods sake is it that a Monk, whose whole class legend/myth/power fantasy/lore/history/identity is being a master of unarmed fighting (originating from Kung Fu legends), of martial arts, is not getting Legendary in unarmed while Fighter does? And why Monk doesn't get crit spec of unarmed by default and needs to spend feat?

Now I am not against Fighter getting Legendary in weapons. I understand that they are Fighters and they are like masters of arms. However, the only thing that Fighter should not be Legendary in is Unarmed attacks. That should be monk.

Normally I am not a guy who sews mechanics with lore, however this one thing among martials just doesn't fit the class identities in my opinion. Monks are people who soley, for their whole life, try to master unarmed techniques. They learn various of Stances (martial arts), various of unarmed deadly techniques (like one-inch-punch) or learn how to (as the only class) use a Ki to further enchance their unarmed mastery. They are only proficient in simple and unarmed for that reason, becasue of how big focus they put into it. Even Monastic Weaponry being feat shows that it's something outside of their expertise without additional training.

Yet, despite all that training and dedication to unarmed martial arts and all the mystical ways to enchance them and rich traditions of monks Houses, Monsteries etc...

Here is a guy, a Fighter and he just happes to be Legendary at unarmed. Not only unarmed. Everything else. Monk player playing with Fighter/Martial Artist in party feels just wrong when Fighter is MASTER at unarmed but monk is only Expert? How?

Whos should be more Legendary in unarmed? A guy who just punches or a guy who achieved such greatness in unamred fighting that his fist are adamant, magical, cold iron, silver and can channel energies through them? What sounds more "Legendary"?

I wish we could see a change here in Remaster but also a reason from devs: why is Fighter more proficient in unarmed than Monk? It's like Wizard having better divine font than Cleric... I just don't get it and can't wrap my head around it.

For me it should be: Monk Legendary in Unarmed, never in weapons (even with Monastic Weaponry), Fighter legendary in weapons, but never in Unarmed.

That's just how I wish it could be.

[HammerJack]

Quote:

but also a reason from devs: why Fighter is more proficient in unarmed than Monk?

Do you mean a reason besides the monk going to Legendary in their defense (when most martials cap at Master in both offensive and defensive proficiency)?

[MEATSHED]

Also fighter is also used to represent brawler from 1e (it even has a less annoying version of its versatility feature), and yeah brawlers and fighters could have better accuracy and damage with unarmed strikes due to weapon spec and focus (which one of the paizo people have said legendary is meant to emulate) while monk got all the stuff like faster movement and flurry. It's pretty much always been like that. Also monks getting legendary in unarmed but not weapons even with the feat that makes you a weapon monk is probably one of the worst ideas I've seen, why would anyone pick it?

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

HammerJack wrote:

Quote:

but also a reason from devs: why Fighter is more proficient in unarmed than Monk?

Do you mean a reason besides the monk going to Legendary in their defense (when most martials cap at Master in both offensive and defensive proficiency)?

And yet Champions also get Legendary so Monk is not a exceptional sacred cow here, like Fighter is. So I don't see anything against monk getting Legendary in unarmed.

Hell, you could just give Monks a choice at level 17: "You either mastered your defenses or your offenses. Choose to either become Legendary in unarmed defenses or in Unarmed weapons"*. Which would also present interesting choice.

[HammerJack]

Yes, Champions also go Legendary in defense. And they also do not have a damage boosting core feature like barbarian rage, thaumaturge exploit, ranger edge or fighter/gunslinger's extra high offensive proficiency.

It's not that Legendary Defense is a "sacred cow". It's that proficiency going past the martial standard is a major feature, and getting those on both offense and defense on the same class would be a lot of power.

[breithauptclan]

For which levels?

Fighter only gets legendary in weapon groups at level 13. So they could build specifically for Brawling group for the unarmed attacks. And I think that should be allowed. If they pick Sword group, then they won't be the legendary Kung Fu master either. But if they do pick Brawling group, why shouldn't they be legendary at Kung Fu as much as a Monk is? That is what the character is being built to be.

Fighter does get legendary in all unarmed attacks at level 19. Along with everything else other than advanced weapons. I'm not sure why unarmed attacks should get a specific exemption from this though.

Now, the other tweak you are mentioning is giving legendary proficiency to unarmed attacks to the Monk. The only other class that I am aware of that gives legendary proficiency in any weapons is Gunslinger - and they pay dearly for it. Basically they get proficiency at the same level as a Fighter that chooses Firearm as their specialization group. What they pay for that increase in proficiency is that Firearms take at least two actions to fire - which slows down their attack rate. Monk with unarmed attacks wouldn't have that problem. In fact, with Flurry of Blows, they have the opposite effect. If we gave them the Singular Expertise of Gunslinger for unarmed attacks, then with Flurry they would have the Fighter level of accuracy and be making more attacks per round - with d8, agile, free-hand weapons.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

MEATSHED wrote:

Also fighter is also used to represent brawler from 1e (it even has a less annoying version of its versatility feature), and yeah brawlers and fighters could have better accuracy and damage with unarmed strikes due to weapon spec and focus (which one of the paizo people have said legendary is meant to emulate) while monk got all the stuff like faster movement and flurry. It's pretty much always been like that. Also monks getting legendary in unarmed but not weapons even with the feat that makes you a weapon monk is probably one of the worst ideas I've seen, why would anyone pick it?

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

As for weapon monk - a fair argument. It was just an idea so Fighter still has his weapons shtick, which I am fine with. But monk not being legendary in unarmed just feels so dam wierd.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

breithauptclan wrote:

For which levels?

Fighter only gets legendary in weapon groups at level 13. So they could build specifically for Brawling group for the unarmed attacks. And I think that should be allowed. If they pick Sword group, then they won't be the legendary Kung Fu master either. But if they do pick Brawling group, why shouldn't they be legendary at Kung Fu as much as a Monk is? That is what the character is being built to be.

Fighter does get legendary in all unarmed attacks at level 19. Along with everything else other than advanced weapons. I'm not sure why unarmed attacks should get a specific exemption from this though.

Now, the other tweak you are mentioning is giving legendary proficiency to unarmed attacks to the Monk. The only other class that I am aware of that gives legendary proficiency in any weapons is Gunslinger - and they pay dearly for it. Basically they get proficiency at the same level as a Fighter that chooses Firearm as their specialization group. What they pay for that increase in proficiency is that Firearms take at least two actions to fire - which slows down their attack rate. Monk with unarmed attacks wouldn't have that problem. In fact, with Flurry of Blows, they have the opposite effect. If we gave them the Singular Expertise of Gunslinger for unarmed attacks, then with Flurry they would have the Fighter level of accuracy and be making more attacks per round - with d8, agile, free-hand weapons.

Correct, but don't forget that Fighter archetyping into Martial Artist can get double Legendary on level 13 becasue of "Whenever you gain a class feature that grants you expert or greater proficiency in certain weapons, you also gain that proficiency rank in all unarmed attacks." So Fighter that wants to be Legendary in unarmed can still be legendary in any other weapon group he wants for little investment since unarmed Fighter would want Martial Artist archetype anyway.

As for Flurry, yes, they would attack more, but I don't think they would unbalance anything. They would just have same accuracy as Fighter in very narrow group. They wouldn't have damage like Fighter, feats like Fighter or stuff like Combat Reflex and many other staple Fighter great combat feats. Also even with +2 accuracy and Flurry monk wouldn't even come close to Fighter best damage builds.

I don't really think a monk with +2 accuracy to unarmed (and that's that) would unbalance anything vs Fighter. Fighter is too good to be unbalanced by that.

As for Gunslinger argument - you have to take into consideration that Gunslinger is range class. Range always have to pay little extra in balance terms becasue they are sitting usually at back and are safer and have better action economy (since they don't have to Stride/Step nearly as much as melee classes). So that's also part of price Gunslinger pays.

As for what levels? Monk should imo have same unarmed progress as fighter. Start at expert and be Legendary at level 13. Or stay like now but get Legendary unarmed at 17. Still better than not at all.

And I have no idea why monks don't get crit spec at level 5... just, I don't see argument here. Unarmed crit spec is bad anyway becasue of DC scalling horribly, but still, why they have to pay feat for it.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Monks already have Legendary 'unarmored defense' so giving them Legendary Weapon Proficiency would probably be a bit much, even if it is only with Unarmed attacks.

Traditionally, Monks have only had a 3/4 or 2/3 attack bonus progression in these games.

[breithauptclan]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

That's the thing. Monk is unarmed style. They do fancy tricks. They don't have exceptional accuracy.

Fancy tricks including hitting harder (increased die sizes) and faster (flurry) and with different damage types (from various stances), mystical abilities (ki strike, ki rush, etc), exceptional abilities (water step, arrow snatching, ...). Things like that.

[Raiztt]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

The fighter's schtick is that they're the best fighter with whatever weapon they choose to use - in this case, fists.

A fighter/"brawler" gets legendary prof. with unarmed, but they don't get all the mystical b~@+#$%@ that comes with monk normally. There are tradeoffs and right now, the monks schitck isn't "I am the unarmed fighting master" it's broader than that now and takes into account more aspects of 'monkery' than just the unarmed combat.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Monks already have Legendary 'unarmored defense' so giving them Legendary Weapon Proficiency would probably be a bit much, even if it is only with Unarmed attacks.

Traditionally, Monks have only had a 3/4 or 2/3 attack bonus progression in these games.

As I suggested in my other post: you could give Monk at level 17 a choice: either Unarmored Legendary or Unarmed Legendary. Not both. Having an option is better than not having an option.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Raiztt wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

I understand that but It still doesn't click with me how brawler would have better accuracy with unarmed attack than Monks, whose whole class shtick is unarmed style. It just doesn't click in my head.

The fighter's schtick is that they're the best fighter with whatever weapon they choose to use - in this case, fists.

A fighter/"brawler" gets legendary prof. with unarmed, but they don't get all the mystical b%%$$!%* that comes with monk normally. There are tradeoffs and right now, the monks schitck isn't "I am the unarmed fighting master" it's broader than that now and takes into account more aspects of 'monkery' than just the unarmed combat.

Technically all the "mystical b@~@~%+%" as you called it comes from feats. So monk going for full unarmed combat and picking non-Ki feats is one of the possible Monks aspects by design (same as Fighter picking shield feats instead of 2 handed/free hand feats to flesh out unique Fighter style). If I recall correctly from Paizo, they wanted to move away from mystical stuff on monk into more martial artist. Probably why all the Ki Stuff is optional and not a base class features any more. Which doesn't fit in my opinion why Monks wouldn't get at least option to be Legendary in unarmed attacks.

[NECR0G1ANT]

If the issue is that fighters are better unarmed attackers than monks are, then my preference would to limit fighters' unarmed proficiency rather than boost the monk class' offense.

Similar to how gunslinges are limited to guns, fighters could be limited to weapons.

[breithauptclan]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

As for Flurry, yes, they would attack more, but I don't think they would unbalance anything. They would just have accuracy as Fighter. They wouldn't have damage like Fighter, feats like Fighter or stuff like Combat Reflex and many other staple Fighter great combat feats. Also even with +2 accuracy and Flurry monk wouldn't even come close to Fighter best damage builds.

The problem isn't that Monk would be too much like a Fighter with the added proficiency. No, they wouldn't have all of the Fighter feats.

The problem is that they would have damage and defense approaching that of the sword and board fighter but with a lot better action economy (flurry of blows vs raise shield), better accuracy on multiple attacks (d8 agile weapons, remember), and more general combat utility (movement abilities and free hands for grapple/trip/items). They would be more effective overall even if they don't match the maximum damage of a 2-hand weapon Fighter.

Maximized damage output is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. In PF2 it is quite arguably not even a good measure of it.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

As for Flurry, yes, they would attack more, but I don't think they would unbalance anything. They would just have accuracy as Fighter. They wouldn't have damage like Fighter, feats like Fighter or stuff like Combat Reflex and many other staple Fighter great combat feats. Also even with +2 accuracy and Flurry monk wouldn't even come close to Fighter best damage builds.

The problem isn't that Monk would be too much like a Fighter with the added proficiency. No, they wouldn't have all of the Fighter feats.

The problem is that they would have damage and defense approaching that of the sword and board fighter but with a lot better action economy (flurry of blows vs raise shield), better accuracy on multiple attacks (d8 agile weapons, remember), and more general combat utility (movement abilities and free hands for grapple/trip/items). They would be more effective overall even if they don't match the maximum damage of a 2-hand weapon Fighter.

Maximized damage output is not the only measure of combat effectiveness. In PF2 it is quite arguably not even a good measure of it.

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has Paragon Guard Stance and can also get Stance Savant, same as Monk. Meaning a Monk with Tower Shield can attack twice (Flurry), Raise Shield and Take cover. Paragon Guard Fighter has permanent Raise Shield so he can attack twice (2 actions) and take Cover, having same effective action economy as Monk. Plus Fighter doesn't need Stance to get his damage (unlike Monk whos Stances up his unarmed damage) so if he wants to maximize defense + offense he can get same effective action economy as Monk while having also easy 3 reactions (quick shield block + combat reflex) without issue.

Not to mention Fighter on top of being Legendary in unarmed if he wishes so has Agile Grace at level 10, making his Unarmed attacks (if he wishes so) to be even more accurate than Monk can ever has. But that's not all:

Fighter getting Monk archetype around levels ~8/9/10 (depending if Multitalented etc.) can get Flurry + Monastic Weaponry + Paragon Stance.

So now your Fighter with Paragon Stance can have Perma Raise Shield, Flurry, Take Cover and still have one action left AND is Legendary in Monastic Weaponry. Something Monk can never achieve, bringing Fighter (if players wishes so) into better action economy than Monk. Obviously that's a matter of build but the fact is: Fighter can do it. Monk have no way of doing that. You can make better Monk with Fighter on level 10+ with better action economy.

As for being both Legendary in unarmored defense and unarmed, I agree here that's why I think there should be choice here for Monk. But I still think that Fighter steps on way too many other martial toes with all the options he gets.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

NECR0G1ANT wrote:

If the issue is that fighters are better unarmed attackers than monks are, then my preference would to limit fighters' unarmed proficiency rather than boost the monk class' offense.

Similar to how gunslinges are limited to guns, fighters could be limited to weapons.

While a possible solution, there would have to be an errata to Martial Artist dedication feat as otherwise it would give Fighter Legendary in Unarmed anyway becasue it scales with your weapon proficiency increases.

[breithauptclan]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Fighter getting Monk archetype around levels ~8/9/10 (depending if Multitalented etc.) can get Flurry + Paragon Stance.

So now your Fighter with Paragon Stance can have Perma Raise Shield, Flurry, Take Cover and still have one action left. Something Monk can never achieve, bringing Fighter (if players wishes so) into better action economy than Monk. Obviously that's a matter of build the fact is: Fighter can do it. Monk can't.

What it sounds like is that your ideal Kung Fu master character is a Fighter with Monk archetype.

Which already exists. We don't need to turn the Monk class into the Fighter with Monk archetype (Kung Fu master) character.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20. There are a lot of campaigns going to level 20 and one of the main selling point of PF2e as opposed to for example 5e is that it plays to level 20 without problem. Even Abomination Vaults recommend and mention to switch to Ruby Phoenix after finishing.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

[Raiztt]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

If monks should have legendary unarmed proficiency... should rangers have legendary bow proficiency? Or legendary proficiency whenever they wield a weapon in both hands?

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Raiztt wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

breithauptclan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

That's not accurate, especially when it comes to Raise Shield. Fighter on level 12 has ...

So only looking at higher levels? No one plays at lower levels any more? Or we just don't need to balance those?

That's a very very moot argument. Age of Ashes, Extinction Curse, Agents of Edgewatch, Strength of Thousands, Blood Lords are 1-20. Fists of The Ruby Phoenix, Stolen Fate (still coming out) are 11-20.

The fact is that spectrum of a class is 1-20 level. Not 1-10, nor 11-20. However if one class can become a better version or another class at any of those level ranges, that in my opinion is balance problem. There many moving parts of this problem (Fighter getting Legendary in whatever he wants, Monk archetype giving Flurry, Fighter getting Paragon Guard which even Champion can't get before level 20) but let's not pretend it doesn't exist.

If monks should have legendary unarmed proficiency... should rangers have legendary bow proficiency? Or legendary proficiency whenever they wield a weapon in both hands?

Well, I don't want to start here a thread about all other martials (especially since Ranger is not any more a range focused class) so I would appreciate if we stay on monk. However: I wouldn't mind (obviously that would have to been better made than what you mentioned) it overall. In my opinion Fighter is already best martial just becaue of his feats, style flexibility, role flexibility and class features, without even taking into account his Legendary in whatever he wants.

Other martials having their own Legendary weapon/style group-niches in my opinion would be really cool and it would be better for game. Fighter still would have flexibility to choose in what he wants to be Legendary in and be eventually in everything. But other martials should have their niches for that.

[Captain Morgan]

This seems to be the problem with legendary proficiency in weapons. It's meant to emulate the full BAB + weapon focus of PF1, and do so using the same proficiency system the rest of the game uses. It is an elegant solution, but one that feels bad to some people. They get aggravated about not having that last bubble filled in. In the playtest, I remember getting really annoyed with someone who thought his bard should become legendary in rapiers.

[Raiztt]

Fighter is the best fighter... I don't see the issue with this. If you want your defining feature to be how bad ass you are at combat, regardless of your weapon choice, you should be a fighter.

Fighter has been arguably one of least powerful d20 classes since 3.0 - can they please just have something nice??

[Themetricsystem]

This is a drum I've been beating since the PF2 Playtest, it makes no narrative sense whatsoever. It isn't about not having a bubble filled in it is the principle of the matter, the ULTIMATE MASTER of Unarmed Attacks which has over HALF of their Class budget and a similar portion of their Class Feats dedicated to Unarmed Attacks not being Legendary while dumb as a brick Fighters who have access to the best Weapons in the game and exceptional Damage scaling options in a multitude of ways are more accurate and deal more damage with their Unarmed Attacks... to call it silly would be an insult to clowns.

Monk doesn't get Legendary Attacks nor does it get any significant damage boosting specialization for... reasons. Among those that have been posited is that they can choose a Legendary Saving Throw and also get Legendary AC by the time the hit max level. It's howgwash if you ask me, if the decision had to come down to picking between two Legendary options among a Save, Attacks, and AC then the decision to push Attacks to the side was just flat out the wrong one and if anything they should have made the decision for Legendary to be between a choice of Saves or Defense and just provided it to Attacks.

It is just the way it is, I don't like it and though it's not like I'm running any games at the moment I fully plan to just homebrew that Monk just flat out mirrors Fighter Attack scaling with the option to choose a Weapon group removed and simply provide it to Monk Weapons and Unarmed Attacks.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Captain Morgan wrote:

This seems to be the problem with legendary proficiency in weapons. It's meant to emulate the full BAB + weapon focus of PF1, and do so using the same proficiency system the rest of the game uses. It is an elegant solution, but one that feels bad to some people. They get aggravated about not having that last bubble filled in. In the playtest, I remember getting really annoyed with someone who thought his bard should become legendary in rapiers.

Especially since many players don't come from PF1 so it has no other conoations to them apart form "Fighter gets Legendary in every weapon they want, other martials in none". Apart from that the truth is that Fighter already steps onto to many other martial toes (dual wielding/range vs Ranger, two handed "unga bunga" vs Barbarian, Fighter/Champion vs Champion, Shield Fighter vs Shield Champion, Duelist/fre-hand vs Swash, Unarmed/Martial Artist vs Monk etc.) especially with how Archetypes allow it (Fighter/Champion and Fighter/Monk being biggest offenders) as they can do same main thing as good/better as other classes but get Legendary in weapon on top.

I started this game with Fighter (finishing campaign soon with Fighter/Champion build I have) and now I am playing 2 other martials (Champion and Monk) in 2 other campaigns and starting soon 3rd (Ranger) martial character and I really feel this issue "I could have just made a Fighter or Fighter/Archetype instead.." becasue +2 is really just that good.

Bard example was extreme, but if we put there any other martial class instead: I understand the frustration.

[magnuskn]

Didn't we have this exact same thread just one week ago?

[Squiggit]

I never really got this insistence among some people that certain classes should 'own' certain fighting styles. Making Fighters worse with unarmed weapons does nothing to make the monk (or any9one else) more appealing. It's a really lame idea and I genuinely can't figure out why someone would think it's a good thing.

Monks have some issues, but they don't really have any particular need for legendary proficiency, which is basically just a fighter class feature.

If there's any mistake here, it's Paizo choosing to use an existing framework for fighter mechanics instead of just giving them an untyped bonus to hit. After all, nobody gets all righteously angry and pouty about how unfair it is that unarmed barbarians get rage.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Squiggit wrote:

I never really got this insistence among some people that certain classes should 'own' certain fighting styles. Making Fighters worse with unarmed weapons does nothing to make the monk (or any9one else) more appealing. It's a really lame idea and I genuinely can't figure out why someone would think it's a good thing.

Monks have some issues, but they don't really have any particular need for legendary proficiency, which is basically just a fighter class feature.

If there's any mistake here, it's Paizo choosing to use an existing framework for fighter mechanics instead of just giving them an untyped bonus to hit. After all, nobody gets all righteously angry and pouty about how unfair it is that unarmed barbarians get rage.

That is fair argument, but the issue also lies in Archetypes and Fighter.

As you said yourself above: "legendary proficiency, which is basically just a fighter class feature."

Fighter can get Champion Reaction (core class feature) by getting Champion Dedication. They can also get Lay on Hands/Ranged Reprisal and Deity Domain. On top of being Legendary.

Fighter can get Monastic Weaponry and Flurry (core class feature) by getting Monk Dedication. They can also get Ki strikes, Ki Rush, Wholeness of Body etc. On top of being Legendary.

The problem is that Monk/Champion can't get Legendary from Fighter dedication. This creates issues where main feature of class can be "stole" by ONE class that will always be better at hitting stuff, which is, let's not kid ourselves a main thing martials do first and foremost: they hit stuff.

There is a reason (and good decision behind it) why Ranger dedication doesn't give Hunter's Prey Flurry/Precision feature. That would also meant that Fighter would be better Flurry Ranger. Same reason why Rogue Dedication give hard capped Sneak Attack. Becasue otherwise Fighter would be better Sneak Attacker than Rogue. I have no idea why Monk and Champion dedication didn't get same treatment.

We could "bite" this issue from different angle: and for example either remove Flurry/Champion Reaction from dedications or for example make Flurry of Blows have prerequesite: you are unarmored. This would prevent 10 DEX Full Plate Paragon Guard Fighters to be better action efficient Monks than Monks are. They would have to sacrefice AC.

Monk in my opinion is very solid class, but them not being Legendary in unarmed on top of other martial being able to get their Flurry while running in armors is an lore/thematic and mechanical balance issue.

[Secret Wizard]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Monk in my opinion is very solid class, but them not being Legendary in unarmed on top of other martial being able to get their Flurry while running in armors is an lore/thematic and mechanical balance issue.

This are two separate issues and I don't see how one has to do with another.

"Monks need a stronger, unique mechanical identity" and "so they should poach Legendary proficiency" don't follow each other.

magnuskn wrote:

Didn't we have this exact same thread just one week ago?

My post last week was focused on the first part of that sentence.

I posited that there's not enough things to do as a Monk with Class Feats - you end up feeling like you are missing tools just because you are "buying into" your power with Stances that are mostly passive.

I don't like the solution of "just have stronger accuracy".

[Claxon]

I would say no, Fighter shouldn't lose the option to be legendary in unarmed/brawling. It's not on the table.

I will also say, no Monks shouldn't get legendary in unarmed.

But I do agree Monks need a boost.

What Monks should get is an upgrade of some sort to Flurry of Blows that cannot be grabbed via archetype, to give monks a unique benefit that helps to boost their expected damage output. This could be done in different ways, but I don't think changing their proficiency scaling to get legendary is the answer.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Secret Wizard wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Monk in my opinion is very solid class, but them not being Legendary in unarmed on top of other martial being able to get their Flurry while running in armors is an lore/thematic and mechanical balance issue.

This are two separate issues and I don't see how one has to do with another.

"Monks need a stronger, unique mechanical identity" and "so they should poach Legendary proficiency" don't follow each other.

Yes, those are two seperate issues but they bog down to same thing: Monk is not Monk enough, don't monk enough (getting stronger) at levels 10+ and other classes can even monk better at some point than Monk can.

1. A Fighter has better proficiency in unarmed attacks than class that is all about unarmed mastery. That is partially mechanical issue, but also partially just class identity/lore/theme issue. I just don't see why class that gets proficiency in every single weapon category in game can be Legendary in unarmed while Monk, who gets only proficiecny in simple and unarmed (which translates to all his feats and almost every single Stance) can't get Legendary in that one unarmed group they are mostly identifed with as class/class theme.

2. Other classes being able to totally replicate Monk main action economy shtick with Monk dedication at level 10+ and achieve thanks to that even better action economy than Monk can is pure mechanical issue I have with Monks. No dedication should grant core class feature to other classes. Funny is, most dedication make sure of that (Ranger, Rogue, Thaumaturge, Swashbuckler, even Fighter), but they kind of forgot to place same limiation on two other dedications (Monk and Champion).

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Claxon wrote:

What Monks should get is an upgrade of some sort to Flurry of Blows that cannot be grabbed via archetype, to give monks a unique benefit that helps to boost their expected damage output. This could be done in different ways, but I don't think changing their proficiency scaling to get legendary is the answer.

I would be fine with that too (idea I mean), but with removing Flurry from archetype feat list. Core class features should be unique, same as you can't get Ranger Flurry/Precison with Ranger dedication and you only get very very weak version of Exploit Vulnerability from Thaumaturge Dedication or very nerfed Sneak Attack from Rogue dedication, you dont get font from Cleric dedication etc. Getting full Flurry of Blows is too much. Like Remove Flurry from Monk and their whole advantage vs other martials crumble to dust. Now at level 10+ any martial can get Flurry.

And to continue on what you said: obviously if someone smarter than me could think of some other way to make Monks Monk better, then I am all for that.

[Squiggit]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

I just don't see why class that gets proficiency in every single weapon category in game can be Legendary in unarmed while Monk, who gets only proficiecny in simple and unarmed (which translates to all his feats and almost every single Stance) can't get Legendary in that one unarmed group they are mostly identifed with as class/class theme.

Because legendary in weapons is the Fighter's Thing.

Again, it's the same reason monks don't get Rage, or Hunt Prey, or Sneak Attack, and it would be weird to suggest that they should. Or why none of the above can get legendary armor.

[WatersLethe]

Put me down for not wanting Monks to be shackled by being made legendary in unarmed attacks. I also don't like the idea of setting a precedent for coming to loot the Fighter every time someone gets proficiency jealousy for their class of choice.

[Faemeister]

You know, a lot is being said about the Monk's class identity boiling down to " being the best at Unarmed combat" and I'm just not seeing it. Maybe in a game like Final Fantasy I where character classes govern mostly static stuff like HP or access to weapons and armor, but that was like 35 years ago and PF2e has better ways to differentiate between classes.

Following this same logic, you'd need to give the Monk Legendary in all weapons you can wield with Monastic Weaponry too, since evidently Monk is meant to be better than everyone else at using monk weapons: it's faulty logic, and it completely sidesteps the fact that even if you're not hitting with that coveted +2 to attacks, you don't particularly need it either to establish yourself as a master of unarmed combat.

This is important, as there is a massive distinction between "making the most precise strikes with your chosen weapon", which is what the Fighter does, and the dozens upon dozens of exclusive class features and feats Monk gets that enable it to shine on its own. You know, the crazy acrobatics, the custom save progression, the harnessing and mastering of ki/chi/qi, stuff like Flurry of Maneuvers... you don't even need to go into all the mystical Wuxia s@#* you can do if you just wanna play a Pugilist, either! What I'm trying to say is that "unarmed attacks" aren't the Monk's defining feature: what actually defines them, relative to other martial classes, is the whole slew of things they can do as a result of their physical and spiritual training.

[PossibleCabbage]

I think monks would benefit from "some way to boost damage" more than poaching the fighter's accuracy. Monks get a huge advantage from things like "MCing Rogue for sneak attack" or "Heaven's Thunder from Jalmeray Heavenseeker" or "Psi Strikes from MCing Psychic" but their only in-class "use an action to boost damage" is Ki Strike which is underwhelming (since it's 1 focus for every round you use it.)

[Captain Morgan]

Ultimately, I don't think monks are the meant to be the best at punching class. They are meant to be the mobility, stunts, and hard to land a hit on class. Flurry is not a feature designed to maximize damage, but to let you do damage while still doing other things in your turn. How much you value those things is a matter of personal taste, but in my experience those things are great.

[The Raven Black]

Why do people keep on doing these threads when it's too late ?

It only leads to frustration and conflict.

[YuriP]

I don't know if it's so late, because the monk stayed for Core 2.

[Ravingdork]

I agree that monks need something more, but I don't think Legendary unarmed proficiency is it.

I think a good starting point would be some kind of damage booster, like those mentioned in post #5 by Hammerjack.

[Deriven Firelion]

I think they should get Legendary Unarmed proficiency myself. Fact is Legendary Unarmored proficiency is one point higher than Heavy Armor master proficiency. Legendary Unarmed proficiency would probably just make the monk a slightly better damage dealer given they don't have the heavy damage boosters of other classes.

I'd take that moderate damage booster.

[Captain Morgan]

Personally, I'm not sure monks should get a damage booster at all. They already have better defenses than other martials and better mobility as well, though feats like Sudden Charge and Sudden Leap can help offset that gap. The class which functions closet to the monk defensively is champion, and they get no consistent damage boost. For mobility, the closest are the Swashbuckler (limited by panache generation, worse weapons, and finisher loops) and the Summoner (who burns an action every round just to deal two handed damage.)

Range and mobility are qualities the community undervalues in my opinion-- and Paizo seems to share that opinion based on their design decisions. If you don't care about those things and want to be legendary at unarmed combat, you can play a fighter with the monk or martial artist archetype. It is similar to how if don't want to cast spells as a significant party of combat but want to smash things with a big hammer instead of casting spells, you should play a champion or magus instead of a war priest or Sorcerer.

Side note: the auto correct on my phone picks and chooses which classes it wants to capitalize seemingly at random.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think they should get Legendary Unarmed proficiency myself. Fact is Legendary Unarmored proficiency is one point higher than Heavy Armor master proficiency. Legendary Unarmed proficiency would probably just make the monk a slightly better damage dealer given they don't have the heavy damage boosters of other classes.

I'd take that moderate damage booster.

Fighters don't have damage boosters either, and people call them the best damage dealing class in the game. Accuracy IS damage with PF2.

If it feels bad that flurry can be poached, monks should get something else unique that can't be. (I mean, they can already with various class feats and metal strikes, but something else too.)

[Secret Wizard]

I stand by my thought that if you made Stances into a subclass (free at Level 1, with a small boost at level 6 and 15), and gave them back their Level 1 and 6 feats to spend on (an expanded) array of feats, the class would be fine.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Personally, I'm not sure monks should get a damage booster at all. They already have better defenses than other martials and better mobility as well, though feats like Sudden Charge and Sudden Leap can help offset that gap. The class which functions closet to the monk defensively is champion, and they get no consistent damage boost. For mobility, the closest are the Swashbuckler (limited by panache generation, worse weapons, and finisher loops) and the Summoner (who burns an action every round just to deal two handed damage.)

Range and mobility are qualities the community undervalues in my opinion-- and Paizo seems to share that opinion based on their design decisions. If you don't care about those things and want to be legendary at unarmed combat, you can play a fighter with the monk or martial artist archetype. It is similar to how if don't want to cast spells as a significant party of combat but want to smash things with a big hammer instead of casting spells, you should play a champion or magus instead of a war priest or Sorcerer.

Side note: the auto correct on my phone picks and chooses which classes it wants to capitalize seemingly at random.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think they should get Legendary Unarmed proficiency myself. Fact is Legendary Unarmored proficiency is one point higher than Heavy Armor master proficiency. Legendary Unarmed proficiency would probably just make the monk a slightly better damage dealer given they don't have the heavy damage boosters of other classes.

I'd take that moderate damage booster.

Fighters don't have damage boosters either, and people call them the best damage dealing class in the game. Accuracy IS damage with PF2.

If it feels bad that flurry can be poached, monks should get something else unique that can't be. (I mean, they can already with various class feats and metal strikes, but something else too.)

Yes, accuracy is damage too but that doesn't mean that Fighters get only their proficiecny and that's it. Fighters get damage boost from their feats. Dual-Handed Assault with free-hand build is damage boost (going from 1d8 to 1d12+circumstance bonus), Double Slice is damage boost (-2 to 0 on second attack is damage boost due to accuracy as you said, but Double Slice is exclusive to Fighters and DWW and it doesn't blend with Monk at all), Certain Strike is damage boost (even at -10 as 3rd attack that's boost), Brutal Finish is damage boost, Combat Reflex is damage boost (double AoO per turn), Agile Grace is damage boost, Dual Weapon Flurry is damage boost and so on. So while Fighter doesn't get flat bonus like Barbarian, they get damage boosts from feats.

Also Monk mobility is in my opinion a little overrated and misleading argument for Monks. Barbarians get +10 Speed in Rage. Any martial for low price can do Trick Magic Item + Trained in Arcana and Wand of Longstrider (2) to get +10 Status Speed for 8h per day and it allows to save class feats. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions for 2. A Fighter doing Sudden Charge -> Strike is spending 3 actions for double Movement (let's say 20+Fleet+Longstrider) so 70ft (could be easy 80ft with Nimble Elf, Unburdened Iron, Nimble Hooves, Swift etc. from Heritage) Speed and attacking Twice. Monk can Stride twice and use Flurry or he can use Ki Rush but here is the catch: there goes the Focus Point, so no Ki Strike/Wholeness of Body. Sudden Charge is free (and its losing Open in Remaster).

Also at level 15 most STR martials have Legendary in Athletics which means Cloud Jump which suddenly becomes better mobility option that Striding at this point anyway.

Mobility is viable argument but it's not that big of a deal. I mean if anyone played official APs: we know big open areas are rarity.

The fact is that as long as Fighters get stuff like Paragon/Dueling Dance stances that allow them to get constant benefit of something that cost action (which monks can't do becasue they need to enter their stances so even pouching Dueling Dance from Duelist is not solution) and stealing Flurry on top is just another pile of issues.

[Unicore]

I think it is interesting that no one here brought up that Monks can also take one Ki feat and get scaling proficiency in spell casting faster than any multi-class caster and equal to the magus and the summoner.

While I get that someone making a monk character to be the best punch-facer in all the lands might not ever pick up a Ki power, built in hybrid casting proficiency is not nothing. In the remaster, this will mean having 3 fairly decent spells to cast every encounter, and with minimal archetyping into a caster, the monk can be using wands and scrolls of any spell in the divine or occult list as well as summoner.

If monk is supposed to be the class you take to punch people in the face the most and the hardest, then a number of aspects of the class are overcompensated. A monk with legendary in unarmed attacks is better than a fighter with unarmed attacks in almost every way. The only place where it starts to get questionable is with stances that allow characters to wear armor and still get a D8 agile/finesse weapon. I think that was probably the mistake (and not one made until after the playtest was over, so it never really got looked at by a wide range of players). Monk stances that allow for the wearing armor probably shouldn't give unarmed agile D8 attacks. Monks lose so much for wearing armor beyond their stances that it doesn't really make sense for the stances to offer their top quality attacks to characters in armor. It is like the stance is losing value to initial class to make it better for MC characters.

Much of the rest of this was already said in the thread last week, so I will generally leave it, except to summarize that the writing about many players see flurry of blows as the ultimate multi-attack power, but it doesn't really exist in the monk chassis to make monks good at making the most attacks possible. Making the most attacks possible (that are effective attacks) is not Monk's niche. Without an Agile Grace like ability, it just isn't a good tactic to attack with 3 actions as a monk. Flurry of blows exists to let monks always make 2 attacks and still do other things.

Interestingly, 1 inch punch is worlds better than power attack and is a place where the monk has stolen the fighter's lunch. One Inch punch plus perfected form is wild damage boosting. I think it would be cooler for perfected form to scale up to 10 from a much lower value earlier on in the monk Chassis as a damage booster than anything else. If at level 5, a monk's first attack could never roll lower than a 6 for example, and then it boosted at 13 to 8, it would at least help Monk players see that getting a powerful single attack ability (that can just be 2 actions to potentially pair with flurry of blows) is an expected class choice eventually, rather than being stuck making 3 to 4 attacks at -8 as their best offensive options.

[Deriven Firelion]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Personally, I'm not sure monks should get a damage booster at all. They already have better defenses than other martials and better mobility as well, though feats like Sudden Charge and Sudden Leap can help offset that gap. The class which functions closet to the monk defensively is champion, and they get no consistent damage boost. For mobility, the closest are the Swashbuckler (limited by panache generation, worse weapons, and finisher loops) and the Summoner (who burns an action every round just to deal two handed damage.)

Range and mobility are qualities the community undervalues in my opinion-- and Paizo seems to share that opinion based on their design decisions. If you don't care about those things and want to be legendary at unarmed combat, you can play a fighter with the monk or martial artist archetype. It is similar to how if don't want to cast spells as a significant party of combat but want to smash things with a big hammer instead of casting spells, you should play a champion or magus instead of a war priest or Sorcerer.

Side note: the auto correct on my phone picks and chooses which classes it wants to capitalize seemingly at random.

Deriven Firelion wrote:

I think they should get Legendary Unarmed proficiency myself. Fact is Legendary Unarmored proficiency is one point higher than Heavy Armor master proficiency. Legendary Unarmed proficiency would probably just make the monk a slightly better damage dealer given they don't have the heavy damage boosters of other classes.

I'd take that moderate damage booster.

Fighters don't have damage boosters either, and people call them the best damage dealing class in the game. Accuracy IS damage with PF2.

If it feels bad that flurry can be poached, monks should get something else unique that can't be. (I mean, they can already with various class feats and metal strikes, but something else too.)

I've played nearly every class and monks don't have better defenses than every martial. This shows how much people look and go, "Oooh. Legendary Unarmored Defense" without even thinking about what that means.

And the only class they have better saving throws than is the fighter, which compensates for that with Bravery which is absolutely amazing as it it immediately reduces Frightened by 1, one of the most common conditions applied.

Once again, Legendary Unarmored defense is 1 point of AC better than Master Heavy Armor proficiency. 1 point better. And the monk gets no DR from the armor.

As far as scaling caster proficiency goes, it's solely for Divine or Occult spells. If you're not scaling like a Legendary caster with a maxed out casting stat, then you suck. You are not landing many spells at all.

You literally hear on these very boards legendary casters with maxed out casting stats wanting Item bonuses to spell attack rolls and complaining about saving throws being weak and you think a monk's casting is somehow a plus that someone can build on? How about trying that some time and seeing how that goes? I tried it. It was a net loss in damage to use casting with a weak monk casting ability.

As far as choosing your Legendary save, good for you. But you're going to choose what other classes already have anyway: Fort or Reflex.

1. Legendary Reflex: Ranger and Rogue both get it on top of everything else.

2. Legendary Fort: Barbarian gets it along with DR and insane damage.

And as far as One Inch Punch, the math was already done on this by Unicore. It showed at level 19 and 20, just those two levels, with Perfect Strike once per round they did good damage. Two levels at the end that very few will ever see.

Making the monk seem ok for stuff that is provably bad or at best equitable options doesn't change that Legendary Unarmed Proficiency may be just the balance point they need to be on par with the other martials.

[Captain Morgan]

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Yes, accuracy is damage too but that doesn't mean that Fighters get only their proficiecny and that's it. Fighters get damage boost from their feats. Dual-Handed Assault with free-hand build is damage boost (going from 1d8 to 1d12+circumstance bonus), Double Slice is damage boost (-2 to 0 on second attack is damage boost due to accuracy as you said, but Double Slice is exclusive to Fighters and DWW and it doesn't blend with Monk at all), Certain Strike is damage boost (even at -10 as 3rd attack that's boost), Brutal Finish is damage boost, Combat Reflex is damage boost (double AoO per turn), Agile Grace is damage boost, Dual Weapon Flurry is damage boost and so on. So while Fighter doesn't get flat bonus like Barbarian, they get damage boosts from feats.

Sorry, is the issue about unarmed combat are not? Because you started that list with weapon specific options which don't entirely feel relevant to me. That aside, monks also have damage enhancing feats. Ki Strike is extra accuracy and damage which can trigger common weaknesses with follow up feats, Wolf Stance gives you a d8 backstabber/finesse/agile weapons and most stances do something similar, tiger slash is extra damage dice without MAP issues like power attack, ki blast is AoE damage that martials otherwise lack. Not to mention various control options which can turn into damage with team. Whirling Throw + Blade barrier = the juice.

Quote:

Also Monk mobility is in my opinion a little overrated and misleading argument for Monks. Barbarians get +10 Speed in Rage. Any martial for low price can do Trick Magic Item + Trained in Arcana and Wand of Longstrider (2) to get +10 Status Speed for 8h per day and it allows to save class feats. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions for 2. A Fighter doing Sudden Charge -> Strike is spending 3 actions for double Movement (let's say 20+Fleet+Longstrider) so 70ft (could be easy 80ft with Nimble Elf, Unburdened Iron, Nimble Hooves, Swift etc. from Heritage) Speed and attacking Twice. Monk can Stride twice and use Flurry or he can use Ki Rush but here is the catch: there goes the Focus Point, so no Ki Strike/Wholeness of Body. Sudden Charge is free (and its losing Open in Remaster).

"Low cost" is relative. By the time you can afford that wand and have the monk has 3 focus points (which now come back every fight) and is doing things like Flying Kick (basically Sudden Charge that ignores difficult terrain), wall running, or outright flying without dropping gold on an item.

Quote:

Mobility is viable argument but it's not that big of a deal. I mean if anyone played official APs: we know big open areas are rarity.

My guy, you've been playing PF2 for six months. How many APs have you played? Because I have been playing them since the game released and PF1 APs before that. The whole "paizo maps are tiny" thing is vastly over reported. There are entire APs based outdoors (Ironfang, Kingmaker) and most APs at least feature significant portions outdoors. (Book 2 of Age of Ashes is entirely outdoors, and so is much of book 3.) Even megadungeons like Abomination Vaults open up to maps so big they may as well be outdoors by the end.

[Deriven Firelion]

Even if Paizo maps aren't tiny, combats are close quarters. Mobility isn't that needed. A level 1 spell gives you level 20 monk mobility for a combat. Just buy a few level 1 wands and you have +30 feet fleet step for most combats a day if needed.

[Kyle_TheBuilder]

Captain Morgan wrote:

Kyle_TheBuilder wrote:

Yes, accuracy is damage too but that doesn't mean that Fighters get only their proficiecny and that's it. Fighters get damage boost from their feats. Dual-Handed Assault with free-hand build is damage boost (going from 1d8 to 1d12+circumstance bonus), Double Slice is damage boost (-2 to 0 on second attack is damage boost due to accuracy as you said, but Double Slice is exclusive to Fighters and DWW and it doesn't blend with Monk at all), Certain Strike is damage boost (even at -10 as 3rd attack that's boost), Brutal Finish is damage boost, Combat Reflex is damage boost (double AoO per turn), Agile Grace is damage boost, Dual Weapon Flurry is damage boost and so on. So while Fighter doesn't get flat bonus like Barbarian, they get damage boosts from feats.

Sorry, is the issue about unarmed combat are not? Because you started that list with weapon specific options which don't entirely feel relevant to me. That aside, monks also have damage enhancing feats. Ki Strike is extra accuracy and damage which can trigger common weaknesses with follow up feats, Wolf Stance gives you a d8 backstabber/finesse/agile weapons and most stances do something similar, tiger slash is extra damage dice without MAP issues like power attack, ki blast is AoE damage that martials otherwise lack. Not to mention various control options which can turn into damage with team. Whirling Throw + Blade barrier = the juice.

Quote:

Also Monk mobility is in my opinion a little overrated and misleading argument for Monks. Barbarians get +10 Speed in Rage. Any martial for low price can do Trick Magic Item + Trained in Arcana and Wand of Longstrider (2) to get +10 Status Speed for 8h per day and it allows to save class feats. Sudden Charge gives you 3 actions for 2. A Fighter doing Sudden Charge -> Strike is spending 3 actions for double Movement (let's say 20+Fleet+Longstrider) so 70ft (could be easy 80ft with Nimble Elf, Unburdened Iron, Nimble Hooves, Swift etc. from Heritage) Speed and attacking

...

The issue is unarmed combat but it's you who stated that Fighter doesn't get damage increases but everyone say they do most damage, and that's becasue of their feats, which do increase their damage, partialy becasue of their much higher accuracy, but also becasue of their excellent feats. So let's not pretend Fighters only do most damage just becasue of their proficiecny.

Yes, Ki Strike does increase damage as well as Stances. But till level 12 Stances are action tax and I said earlier, the Stances are not giving that much boost compare to weapons, backstabber is +1 dmg until very late levels. Regardless, even with all that Monks are behind Rangers, Fighters, Rogues and Barbarians when it comes to damage. Math was done many times. Ki Blast as was already mentioned is not valid argument as Monks spells DC is terrible. And as I said, Monk after level 10 can be out-monked by other martials as they can get their Flurry.

And "Your guy" started to play few months ago but bold of you to assume I only play one campaign. I am currently playing Ages of Ashes, Abomination Vaults and Agents of Edgewatch. I will be also GMing soon Gatewalkers and I already saw combat maps. I could count on two hands situations in all of them where I had to even Sudden Charge, especially with Wand of Longstrider (2) or fleet step, which is cheap investment for party to save their martial actions. Never seen issue with buying one at level 6, especially since APs rain you with Potency and Striking runes, reducing a lot of gear cost if party knows what they are doing.

Also no, Monk is not "doing things like Flying Kick (basically Sudden Charge that ignores difficult terrain), wall running, or outright flying without dropping gold on an item." because he has no place for all that feats unless he will sacrefice feats by not taking Ki Rush, Ki Strike, Wholeness of Body (3 Focus Points), Stand Still to have some reaction, Flurry of manouvers, some upgrades to Stance etc. Also gold > class feat. If I can buy something instead of spending class resource/feat on that, the cost is cheap as cost of items gets cheaper the higher you go, while feat cost stays the same.

[Gortle]

magnuskn wrote:

Didn't we have this exact same thread just one week ago?

Yes but the different sides never came together.