I’ve played a dragon stance monk. It is fun. You can cover your defenses in other ways but it takes mobility and party support.
But the key is that dragon stance locks you out of armor. Unless using weapons with monk abilities also locks you out of using armor, it makes armored monk with a 2 handed weapon the top damaging monk, which is just a fighter at this point. Fighters get ways to make extra attacks every round. That is not the defining feature of a monk.
How do you max out your AC using dragon stance on a monk? Did you take a lower strength or accept the lower AC until level 15?
Monk can't wear armor, so no way to obtain the AC with armor. Should be at least 2 points lower than max until level 5 when it becomes 1 point lower. Then 10 and 15 ability boosts should reach the 20 dex needed to max monk AC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 points of AC can be covered a lot of different ways, including just having a redeemer champion that lessens the damage you take, and using MC spell casting to give you other defenses.
But just moving a lot and having a caster laying down difficult terrain works well with your dragon stance.
My point about armor relates to people asking how dragon stance is different from monk weapon training if it allowed martial weapons. Monks with weapons can poach armor. It won’t keep up with their unarmored prof, but it is a good low level cheat that eventually works out just fine if you keep boosting dex
Monk is built around Dex, not strength. They are suboptimal as a strength class and will play weak. If you want a strength-based unarmed fighter, better to go barb or fighter and archetype into monk.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dragon Stance is a suboptimal option and even then is still better than most martial weapons, so literally allowing a monk to flurry with a martial weapon is, much like Dragon Stance, suboptimal, so why don't allow a Gorumite monk to flurry with a greatsword when they otherwise can already do it with Dragon Stance that literally requires you to sacrifice both hands and thus makes using any kind of item troublesome in exchange for 1~4 points of damage?
I think minimally, any martial weapon using monk ability would probably have to require a stance and maybe not work with any other monk feats.
I proposed this too. Monastic Archery Stance is a thing so why wouldn't Monastic Weaponry Stance be a thing too.
2 points of AC can be covered a lot of different ways, including just having a redeemer champion that lessens the damage you take, and using MC spell casting to give you other defenses.
But just moving a lot and having a caster laying down difficult terrain works well with your dragon stance.
My point about armor relates to people asking how dragon stance is different from monk weapon training if it allowed martial weapons. Monks with weapons can poach armor. It won’t keep up with their unarmored prof, but it is a good low level cheat that eventually works out just fine if you keep boosting dex
Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some way to boost AC on the monk up to what it should have with a 20 Dex absent buffs or assistance from other PCs.
Monk is built around Dex, not strength. They are suboptimal as a strength class and will play weak. If you want a strength-based unarmed fighter, better to go barb or fighter and archetype into monk.This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dragon Stance is a suboptimal option and even then is still better than most martial weapons, so literally allowing a monk to flurry with a martial weapon is, much like Dragon Stance, suboptimal, so why don't allow a Gorumite monk to flurry with a greatsword when they otherwise can already do it with Dragon Stance that literally requires you to sacrifice both hands and thus makes using any kind of item troublesome in exchange for 1~4 points of damage?
I think minimally, any martial weapon using monk ability would probably have to require a stance and maybe not work with any other monk feats.I proposed this too. Monastic Archery Stance is a thing so why wouldn't Monastic Weaponry Stance be a thing too.
Monk offense is set where it should be.
Dragon Stance is not better than optimal martial weapon choices.
The monk has no need to step into the arena of other classes.
Barb and fighter best with two-handed weapons. Maybe a precision ranger with a two-handed weapon can be good.
Rogue and monk best with agile and finesse weapons. I guess swash falls in here too.
Ranger best with bow and two-weapon fighting.
Classes shouldn't step too heavily into the arena of other classes, which would happen if monks could do what no other class can do: flurry with all martial weapons. It's a balance point that should not be crossed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dragon Stance is a suboptimal option and even then is still better than most martial weapons, so literally allowing a monk to flurry with a martial weapon is, much like Dragon Stance, suboptimal, so why don't allow a Gorumite monk to flurry with a greatsword when they otherwise can already do it with Dragon Stance that literally requires you to sacrifice both hands and thus makes using any kind of item troublesome in exchange for 1~4 points of damage?
At this point, I think it's safe to say you tried reason, but it's just not getting through. Maybe it's time to accept that discretion is the better part of valour?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I don't like the mental image of someone using Flurry of Blows with bigger weaponry. I do like the image of a sword twirling as its user strikes, but not to the extent of Flurry, and it's even worse to imagine with a maul or greataxe.
I also like the idea of breaking away from the 'Eastern' style weapons. Especially when there are significant overlaps. I think the only reason we have bo staff as well as staff is to make sure wizards don't get good weapons, which makes game design sense but not much else. And while there are some outliers, eventually a sword is a sword and an axe is an axe.
I can imagine the whole thing with flurry being tied to agile and/or finesse weapons ... except that rogues and swashbucklers are in theory supposed to excel at them too. (I'll leave out fighters because they excel with anything.) And that would leave out other potential items like the kusarigama. Or even just kusari.
I can agree that a bespoke class list of weapons is off but I can't think of any other way of simulating 'martial arts'.
And now I'm imagining a monk in Tian Xia who practices using such exotica as guisarmes, quarterstaves, and main-gauches, mysterious weapons found in lands far away ...
I think minimally, any martial weapon using monk ability would probably have to require a stance and maybe not work with any other monk feats.I proposed this too. Monastic Archery Stance is a thing so why wouldn't Monastic Weaponry Stance be a thing too.
Well, the big issue to me is that restricting access to monk class feats and features in exchange for getting to use a d12 martial 2 handed weapon is that it takes away any reason for the character to be a monk. Like just ki strike and flurry of blows on a great weapon user at level 1 definitely is better that a dragon stance monk, and a first level human monk could have both this hypothetical weapon feat and ki strike. A stance that literally does nothing but let you use any martial weapon but heavily restrict your ability to use unarmed abilities with that weapon is just a weird weapon proficiency feat that a monk could pretty much already take. An Orc Monk, for example, can already carry a great ax and use it fine, they just can’t treat it like an unarmed strike. But monks can make unarmed strikes with their hands full, so a monk can even Cary a qualified martial weapon and even still benefit from a number of monk stances that don’t restrict what kinds of strikes you can make.
Monk is built around Dex, not strength. They are suboptimal as a strength class and will play weak. If you want a strength-based unarmed fighter, better to go barb or fighter and archetype into monk.This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dragon Stance is a suboptimal option and even then is still better than most martial weapons, so literally allowing a monk to flurry with a martial weapon is, much like Dragon Stance, suboptimal, so why don't allow a Gorumite monk to flurry with a greatsword when they otherwise can already do it with Dragon Stance that literally requires you to sacrifice both hands and thus makes using any kind of item troublesome in exchange for 1~4 points of damage?
I think minimally, any martial weapon using monk ability would probably have to require a stance and maybe not work with any other monk feats.I proposed this too. Monastic Archery Stance is a thing so why wouldn't Monastic Weaponry Stance be a thing too.
So you are saying its a difference of 1-4 damage from a d12 weapon vs dragon tail. But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does. Also its that extra damage for any other strike with that d12 weapon. So in a single turn the potential extra damage including haste and a reaction strike is actually 6-24. Not to mention with a d12 the high end of your possible damage goes up not only the average damage. Thats not something to discount, especially on a crit.
In a 3 round encounter thats an extra 18-72 damage if you dont crit at all. The point is this damage is above and beyond what the class is doing now. Likely you wont be hasted and have a reaction strike at level 1 so the low levels is more likely to be just the four attacks providing a potential extra 4 damage per round and potential 12 for an encounter. Not negligible for level 1.Unicore brought up the fact that that d10 a monk can have right now they only get after activating a stance. That should say something about how the class balances use of those strikes the stances provide with the class benefits overall. The same reason I didnt want proficiency with weapons to be outside of the stances.
Deriven brought up the mobility and defenses of the class. Lets say you can use flurry with a d12 weapon in dragon stance. you know what you are also doing in dragon stance? ignoring the first difficult terrain square you walk into. that extra benefit right now is balanced with a d10 strike not a d12. And if your proficient with weapons even outside of the stance then as a monk you wouldnt even need to spend an action to get the higher damage strikes. I think theres a bit glossed over by just saying its only 1-4 more damage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk is built around Dex, not strength. They are suboptimal as a strength class and will play weak. If you want a strength-based unarmed fighter, better to go barb or fighter and archetype into monk.This is exactly the point I was trying to make. Dragon Stance is a suboptimal option and even then is still better than most martial weapons, so literally allowing a monk to flurry with a martial weapon is, much like Dragon Stance, suboptimal, so why don't allow a Gorumite monk to flurry with a greatsword when they otherwise can already do it with Dragon Stance that literally requires you to sacrifice both hands and thus makes using any kind of item troublesome in exchange for 1~4 points of damage?
I think minimally, any martial weapon using monk ability would probably have to require a stance and maybe not work with any other monk feats.I proposed this too. Monastic Archery Stance is a thing so why wouldn't Monastic Weaponry Stance be a thing too.
So you are saying its a difference of 1-4 damage from a d12 weapon vs dragon tail. But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does. Also its that extra damage for any other strike with that d12 weapon. So in a single turn the potential extra damage including haste and a reaction strike is actually 6-24. Not to mention with a d12 the high end of your possible damage goes up not only the average damage. Thats not something to discount, especially on a crit.
In a 3 round encounter thats an extra 18-72 damage if you dont crit at all. The point is this damage is above and beyond what the class is doing now. Likely you wont be hasted and have a reaction strike at level 1 so the low levels is more likely to be just the four attacks providing a potential extra 4 damage per round and potential 12 for an encounter. Not negligible for level 1.Unicore brought up the fact that that d10 a monk can have right now they...
As you are pointing out, the damage increase is substantial even from d10 to d12 without the inclusion of desirable traits. All the d10 martial arts are strength-based, which also ties into the upper limit of a monk where they pay the price in lower AC and saves to have even a d10 damage unarmed strike using strength. So that is cost is already set in as well.
I believe the designers accounted for the upper limits of monk offense when designing the class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does.
I really don't have a horse in the numbers race here, but I wanted to say, rounding the average damage up to 2-8 on a flurry is putting a lot of faith that an MAP-5 attack is going to hit every round. +1-4 is the average damage increase per successful strike, irrespective of how many strikes are attempted per round, and so probably wouldn't be seen to stack additively with more MAP strikes. It seems like a rough eyeball of 2-6 per flurry is a bit closer accurate.
Either way, I'm not fussed whether monks get to wield greatclubs and greatswords (albiet, the only difference I'm seeing between a khakkara and a greatclub is the former can alternate between 1h and 2h damage freely while the latter has backswing). I just think that the 'kensei' type concept of an unarmoured blade-or-other-weapon master seems too cool to leave on the table when monk is already 90% of the way there. It really seems like we should be able to pull it off--even if it's capped to d8/d10 weapons.
But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does.I really don't have a horse in the numbers race here, but I wanted to say, rounding the average damage up to 2-8 on a flurry is putting a lot of faith that an MAP-5 attack is going to hit every round. +1-4 is the average damage increase per successful strike, irrespective of how many strikes are attempted per round, and so probably wouldn't be seen to stack additively with more MAP strikes. It seems like a rough eyeball of 2-6 per flurry is a bit closer accurate.
Either way, I'm not fussed whether monks get to wield greatclubs and greatswords (albiet, the only difference I'm seeing between a khakkara and a greatclub is the former can alternate between 1h and 2h damage freely while the latter has backswing). I just think that the 'kensei' type concept of an unarmoured blade-or-other-weapon master seems too cool to leave on the table when monk is already 90% of the way there. It really seems like we should be able to pull it off--even if it's capped to d8/d10 weapons.
That was what I was going for by wanting weapons to be selected for each stance. Each stance is balanced around the strike it gives. Any weapons allowed in that stance should be suited to that stances balance point and if that is done then there is no issue with allowing flurry, unarmed monk benefits, and stance benefits with the allowed weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But thats for each strike. So per Flurry its an average of 2-8 damage more than the class currently does.I really don't have a horse in the numbers race here, but I wanted to say, rounding the average damage up to 2-8 on a flurry is putting a lot of faith that an MAP-5 attack is going to hit every round. +1-4 is the average damage increase per successful strike, irrespective of how many strikes are attempted per round, and so probably wouldn't be seen to stack additively with more MAP strikes. It seems like a rough eyeball of 2-6 per flurry is a bit closer accurate.
Either way, I'm not fussed whether monks get to wield greatclubs and greatswords (albiet, the only difference I'm seeing between a khakkara and a greatclub is the former can alternate between 1h and 2h damage freely while the latter has backswing). I just think that the 'kensei' type concept of an unarmoured blade-or-other-weapon master seems too cool to leave on the table when monk is already 90% of the way there. It really seems like we should be able to pull it off--even if it's capped to d8/d10 weapons.
Like a fighter and barbarian have to do with worse action economy?
This is the problem. The monk would heavily step into other class's territory with no penalty like the other classes have.
This is not a discussion of the degree of extra damage. If you look at this small amount of extra damage, sure, you can go, "It's only a few points." But that's how balanced these classes are. A few points of extra damage is the balancing point to give the monk all they have.
Same as the small seeming +2 the fighter gets for Legendary Weapon proficiency keeps them from having a legendary save or legendary armor. The balance points between classes are that small to create PF2's balance points.
I really do not understand how it is not easy to see the problem with giving monks something no other class can do with heavy weapons on top of all the other stuff they get. It's such an unrealistic, imbalanced request that I never even thought to ask for it even when I was wanting a more offensive monk option.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is extremely easy to do the math on this. So not sure what you're saying. It's an increase in offensive power allowing d10 and d12 weapons with desirable traits to a class with as much as it has right now.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The balance of the monk is set with its current offensive capabilities or you give them too much. It's that simple. This idea it's only a small upgrade is like saying Legendary Armor for the fighter is just a small upgrade. It's a big upgrade to a class balanced based on their current offensive capabilities.
It's easy to see.
To be clear, I think there would be flavour issues with flurrying using a greathammer or something like that, it's not like I'm pushing heavilty for this. But you keep saying that it's obvious and that there's no possible way to argue with this without any meaningful proof. If we look at the numbers, lets say level 5 for when they get Expert in their strikes. Both are at +14 to hit (5 level + 4 expert + 4 str + 1 item); the Dragon monk's damage is at +14 for 2d10+4(backswing) versus the ogre hook monk's +14 for 2d10(deadly d10). With a Flurry of Blows against a High AC for a level+1 creature as an example of a tough enemy (AC 24), the damage should be:
Dragon:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2))) = 7.8
Strike 2: 55% chance of a hit in round 1 for backswing, so 0.55*((0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) + 0.45*((0.5-0.25+0.05)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) = 4.8425
Dragon total flurry damage: 12.6425
Ogre Hook:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2+4.5))) = 8.025
Strike 2: (0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*(9+4)*2+4.5) = 4.775
Ogre Hook total flurry damage: 12.8
So against a higher-level enemy, the Ogre Hook is using both your hands and adding about 0.15 damage to your expected Flurry damage. If you've taken the Brawling Focus feat, which is a cost that you don't have to take necessarily, that changes to ~12.6 vs 13.2 damage, or 0.6 damage from a flurry.
The higher AC benefits the Dragon strike though; if we go to a level-1 creature instead for AC 21, the numbers do change. For a Dragon flurry, we'd expect ~18.5 damage (18.4925), for an Ogre Hook flurry with the Brawling Focus feat, we'd expect ~20.3 (20.325) damage. Given the difference is less than 2 damage, even against a lower-level enemy, I can reframe the question; would you take a 1st level feat that says "you can use a 2-handed weapon without using any hands, but your damage dice decreases by one step"? For this specific set of examples at least, that's functionally the choice being made between the boosted Ogre Hook with a 2nd level class feat specifically for it versus the dragon strikes. I am fairly confident that this feast would be considered brokenly good for the variety of options that it offers you from having both hands free. I am not confident that the maths proves that the two-handed ogre hook would increase the power of a monk over the existing stances.
Feel like this is getting into dpr weeds
Meanwhile my favorite monk is still a strength dragon stance (no cha, forget the next dragon stance feat) with one inch punch and perfect strike reaction
Why? I am not looking to win the dpr fight, I'm looking to win the fight in front of me and sometimes I just want the thing dead now, not in 1.73 rounds.
I'm just not sure what reason there is to vastly expand the Monk's set of weapons. To me, the reason you make something a "monk weapon" is that you can look at a martial arts film or similar and find someone using that sort of thing. Since the monk exists basically as a clearinghouse for tropes from Wuxia, Anime, etc.
If you just want an Asian-coded character with a giant axe or a polearm, you can just make that person a fighter or a barbarian or something.
While I understand the tensions around letting Monks flurry with martial weapons (and my opinion leans towards allow), why is that the default assumption?
Why not let them be proficient in martial weapons similar to other martial classes, but only allow unarmed (what we have) and monk weapons (merge in monastic weaponry). Then have a feat or a stance at a level higher than 1 that allows additional flurry ability by weapon group?
Or am I missing a fundamental piece of either side's argument?
Trying to break the analysis down into just looking at attacks misses the forest for a tree. Monks do a lot more than flurry of blows. If the feats that let you use a martial 2 hander work just like monk weapons, then we are talking about one-inch punch with a d12 weapon…so then a second idea floating around is to make the martial weapon feat unusable with most of these monk abilities, but then, what is the point?
Just getting to make 2 attacks for 1 action with a d12 weapon doesn’t have anything to do with the flavor of being a monk. Dragon stance is fun because you don’t plan on just attacking with dragon tail 4 times an encounter. It is the best option for pairing with one inch punch, or combining with other stances later on, or mixing up attacks that you make in a round, because you can still make other strikes. Monk weapon training is useful because it does the same, but that is the reason why the damage die on monk weapons is limited. There is certainly room for some specific feat chains that switch up weapons but making sure the end result is about more than just maximizing potential damage is the important design challenge.
It is extremely easy to do the math on this. So not sure what you're saying. It's an increase in offensive power allowing d10 and d12 weapons with desirable traits to a class with as much as it has right now.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The balance of the monk is set with its current offensive capabilities or you give them too much. It's that simple. This idea it's only a small upgrade is like saying Legendary Armor for the fighter is just a small upgrade. It's a big upgrade to a class balanced based on their current offensive capabilities.
It's easy to see.
To be clear, I think there would be flavour issues with flurrying using a greathammer or something like that, it's not like I'm pushing heavilty for this. But you keep saying that it's obvious and that there's no possible way to argue with this without any meaningful proof. If we look at the numbers, lets say level 5 for when they get Expert in their strikes. Both are at +14 to hit (5 level + 4 expert + 4 str + 1 item); the Dragon monk's damage is at +14 for 2d10+4(backswing) versus the ogre hook monk's +14 for 2d10(deadly d10). With a Flurry of Blows against a High AC for a level+1 creature as an example of a tough enemy (AC 24), the damage should be:
Dragon:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2))) = 7.8
Strike 2: 55% chance of a hit in round 1 for backswing, so 0.55*((0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) + 0.45*((0.5-0.25+0.05)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) = 4.8425
Dragon total flurry damage: 12.6425Ogre Hook:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2+4.5))) = 8.025
Strike 2: (0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*(9+4)*2+4.5) = 4.775
Ogre Hook total flurry damage: 12.8So against a higher-level enemy, the Ogre Hook is using both your hands and adding about 0.15 damage to your expected Flurry damage. If you've taken the Brawling Focus feat, which is a cost that you don't have to take necessarily, that changes to ~12.6 vs 13.2 damage, or 0.6 damage from a flurry.
The higher AC benefits the Dragon strike...
Given that higher or lower AC changes things a bit what does this look like with expected tactical play? Flanking giving off guard and add in a fear effect on the enemy a basic bless spell on the monk. Enemies with High AC are going to be hit with tactical play anyway right?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just not sure what reason there is to vastly expand the Monk's set of weapons. To me, the reason you make something a "monk weapon" is that you can look at a martial arts film or similar and find someone using that sort of thing. Since the monk exists basically as a clearinghouse for tropes from Wuxia, Anime, etc.
If you just want an Asian-coded character with a giant axe or a polearm, you can just make that person a fighter or a barbarian or something.
Is not a matter of "I want to flurry with a greatsword" but rather, at least from my side, a matter of mechanical and logical consistency. A monk can't flurry with a longsword but can with a temple sword, which is effectively a longsword but harder to use (not in mechanics, but in actual real life). That and, using Arcaian's numbers as an example, allowing a monk to flurry with a weapon isn't that much different than a monk flurring with their fists. Yes, there's a difference in damage, but its marginal at best and you are losing both hands and some traits along the way, so its not a direct upgrade but rather an equivalent option, if not worse overall. Not to mention that how is a monk that isn't from Tian Xia (or your equivalent of Asia in your setting) has learned to use tonfas or kamas when those weapons aren't common in the place they come from? If Paizo wants to move from stereotypes, wouldn't it make more sense to not assume all monks somehow train in all the same weapons even if those don't exist in their region?
I don't think Paizo is too keen in protecting "niches" either if I have to be honest. The best thief rogue uses unarmed builds now, barbarians have fantastic unarmed support with the animal instinct and can even delve into the "naked brawler" trope of monks with Animal Skin. Monks themselves have support to use non-traditional monk weapons with Ancestral Weaponry, both investigator and swashbuckler are mechanically similar to rogues (but worse, but that's another story), and they said they took away traps for rangers to make it a more general thing.
A monk isn't all about punching stuff, the "warrior poet" trope also exists and isn't limited to punching or monk weapons (a monk can't flurry with a katana either). Your average anime protagonist is closer to a monk with a sword than a fighter to be honest, so if mechanically a monk already has better weapons than most martials and logically it makes sense for them to be using them if they want, why don't allow it? Its IMO a big ludonarrative dissonance.
...It is extremely easy to do the math on this. So not sure what you're saying. It's an increase in offensive power allowing d10 and d12 weapons with desirable traits to a class with as much as it has right now.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The balance of the monk is set with its current offensive capabilities or you give them too much. It's that simple. This idea it's only a small upgrade is like saying Legendary Armor for the fighter is just a small upgrade. It's a big upgrade to a class balanced based on their current offensive capabilities.
It's easy to see.
To be clear, I think there would be flavour issues with flurrying using a greathammer or something like that, it's not like I'm pushing heavilty for this. But you keep saying that it's obvious and that there's no possible way to argue with this without any meaningful proof. If we look at the numbers, lets say level 5 for when they get Expert in their strikes. Both are at +14 to hit (5 level + 4 expert + 4 str + 1 item); the Dragon monk's damage is at +14 for 2d10+4(backswing) versus the ogre hook monk's +14 for 2d10(deadly d10). With a Flurry of Blows against a High AC for a level+1 creature as an example of a tough enemy (AC 24), the damage should be:
Dragon:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2))) = 7.8
Strike 2: 55% chance of a hit in round 1 for backswing, so 0.55*((0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) + 0.45*((0.5-0.25+0.05)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) = 4.8425
Dragon total flurry damage: 12.6425Ogre Hook:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2+4.5))) = 8.025
Strike 2: (0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*(9+4)*2+4.5) = 4.775
Ogre Hook total flurry damage: 12.8So against a higher-level enemy, the Ogre Hook is using both your hands and adding about 0.15 damage to your expected Flurry damage. If you've taken the Brawling Focus feat, which is a cost that you don't have to take necessarily, that changes to ~12.6 vs 13.2 damage, or 0.6 damage from a flurry.
The higher AC
Am I right in saying when you add tactics in bringing the chance to miss and do 0 damage and the chance to crit and do x2 damage to the same percent value you get back to the potential damage based on the average damage we talked about earlier?
Unless deadly or fatal is involved since those increase the damage calculation on the crit end beyond x2.|
|
Am I right in saying when you add tactics in bringing the chance to miss and do 0 damage and the chance to crit and do x2 damage to the same percent value you get back to the potential damage based on the average damage we talked about earlier?
Unless deadly or fatal is involved since those increase the damage calculation on the crit end beyond x2.
As others have mentioned it, I don't want to encourage the thread to get too deep into the DPR weeds; my key point was that the posters saying the idea is absurdly broken and is never a possibility because of the maths seem to be exaggerating the reality of the difference between the two. That being said, the more you lower the AC, the better for the Ogre Hook; the deadly d10 triggering on a crit (and the crit spec if you've spent a feat on it) is the only time it does more damage, so the higher your chance of a crit, the larger the difference will be. The difference between my AC 21 and AC 24 example was ~1.8 points of damage (18.5 vs 20.3), so if you were fighting the level+1 boss and imposed the off-guard and frightened 1 conditions, you'd expect it to change from ~0.15 damage to ~1.8 damage - a meaningful difference, but not exactly game-breaking given the cost of the 2 hands, IMO. Larger than a 3 point swing is also a real possibility, but then we start getting into arguments about the average optimization of a party - Deriven's parties do seem to be extremely well optimized for taking down single higher-level targets, so that much debuffing will likely make one value abilities like the crit spec or deadly more substantially than someone with a ~3 point change in their AC, not ~6 point change in their AC :)
It is extremely easy to do the math on this. So not sure what you're saying. It's an increase in offensive power allowing d10 and d12 weapons with desirable traits to a class with as much as it has right now.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? The balance of the monk is set with its current offensive capabilities or you give them too much. It's that simple. This idea it's only a small upgrade is like saying Legendary Armor for the fighter is just a small upgrade. It's a big upgrade to a class balanced based on their current offensive capabilities.
It's easy to see.
To be clear, I think there would be flavour issues with flurrying using a greathammer or something like that, it's not like I'm pushing heavilty for this. But you keep saying that it's obvious and that there's no possible way to argue with this without any meaningful proof. If we look at the numbers, lets say level 5 for when they get Expert in their strikes. Both are at +14 to hit (5 level + 4 expert + 4 str + 1 item); the Dragon monk's damage is at +14 for 2d10+4(backswing) versus the ogre hook monk's +14 for 2d10(deadly d10). With a Flurry of Blows against a High AC for a level+1 creature as an example of a tough enemy (AC 24), the damage should be:
Dragon:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2))) = 7.8
Strike 2: 55% chance of a hit in round 1 for backswing, so 0.55*((0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) + 0.45*((0.5-0.25+0.05)*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2)) = 4.8425
Dragon total flurry damage: 12.6425Ogre Hook:
Strike 1: (0.5*(9+4) + 0.05*((9+4)*2+4.5))) = 8.025
Strike 2: (0.5-0.25)*(9+4) + 0.05*(9+4)*2+4.5) = 4.775
Ogre Hook total flurry damage: 12.8So against a higher-level enemy, the Ogre Hook is using both your hands and adding about 0.15 damage to your expected Flurry damage. If you've taken the Brawling Focus feat, which is a cost that you don't have to take necessarily, that changes to ~12.6 vs 13.2 damage, or 0.6 damage from a flurry.
The higher AC benefits the Dragon strike...
This is completely not how it will play out in real play.
Do the math on it, including expected crits, extra damage on crits including deadly d10, then take into account group play with debuffing, flanking, and movement during finite combat rounds, not over a 1000 rounds like you're swinging at a dummy. That's not how combat works.
For me all of this is easy to see mathematically and it isn't white room math like the above claiming some .15 increase in damage over some indeterminate amount of time.
It's very easy to see.
Dragon Style with greater striking rune versus an ogre hook looks exactly the same on paper, then you take into account debuffing, flanking, and critical hits with critical hit specialization.
A dragon style style crit is going to be 6d10 with greater striking for an average base damage of 33.
An ogre hook crit with crit specialization and deadly is 8d10+6 for an average crit of 50. That is approximately 17 more points of damage on a crit against a class able to swing twice for a single action.
Traits like deadly and fatal matter. They do a substantial increase in damage over the course of fights.
Fights do not occur over the course of a 1000 rounds of combat with just the base damage taken into account. Fights occur in finite periods of 1 to x number of rounds with a variety of variables from a party with the most common being flanking and the need to move to a new target.
Where the monk excels is moving to targets and attacking twice, which is a large action economy advantage.
The ability to do 17 more points of damage per critical hit is quite high.
Then take into account dragon style versus a d12 weapon with a greater striking rune. I do not use major striking because major striking is generally not obtained until level 19 or 20 due to the high cost.
Dragon Style Greater Striking: Average hit: 16.5 Crit: 33.
d12 weapon: Average: 19.5. Crit: 39
This seemingly minor increase in damage is substantial in PF2 given the balance points classes are built around.
Then take into account buffing, debuffing, movement, and critical hits with damage increasing abilities the monk possesses like Ki Strike or Heaven's thunder and you really start to encroach upon the barbarian and fighter's territory.
This is the math I'm looking at, not some white room calculation done like with weapon versus weapon. It's base hit damage, then incorporate all the varying builds the monk can do. Since I have seen quite a number of well built monks, even the slight damage per hit increase or critical hit damage of the above coupled with all their other abilities pushes their damage too high and encroaches upon every other class.
What's next? Give the Ruffian rogue d10 and d12 weapon sneak attack? Where does it stop attempting to paint this as a minor increase in damage when viewed in absentia of the entire capabilities of the monk class within a group combat paradigm collecting data over the finite periods of a fight of 1 to x rounds?
That's why white room math damage tools are so useless in this game. You need to see how this stuff works in real play, which is why the base numbers matter more than the idea of using a weapon against a particular AC in some tool. That AC will not stay static and the individual builds, buffs, and combinations will alter the variables substantially.
As others have mentioned it, I don't want to encourage the thread to get too deep into the DPR weeds; my key point was that the posters saying the idea is absurdly broken and is never a possibility because of the maths seem to be exaggerating the reality of the difference between the two. That being said, the more you lower the AC, the better for the Ogre Hook; the deadly d10 triggering on a crit (and the crit spec if you've spent a feat on it) is the only time it does more damage, so the higher your chance of a crit, the larger the difference will be. The difference between my AC 21 and AC 24 example was ~1.8 points of damage (18.5 vs 20.3), so if you were fighting the level+1 boss and imposed the off-guard and frightened 1 conditions, you'd expect it to change from ~0.15 damage to ~1.8 damage - a meaningful difference, but not exactly game-breaking given the cost of the 2 hands, IMO. Larger than a 3 point swing is also a real possibility, but then we start getting into arguments about the average optimization of a party - Deriven's parties do seem to be extremely well optimized for taking down single higher-level targets, so that much debuffing will likely make one value abilities like the crit spec or deadly more substantially than someone with a ~3 point change in their AC, not ~6 point change in their AC :)Am I right in saying when you add tactics in bringing the chance to miss and do 0 damage and the chance to crit and do x2 damage to the same percent value you get back to the potential damage based on the average damage we talked about earlier?
Unless deadly or fatal is involved since those increase the damage calculation on the crit end beyond x2.
You should focus on the damage. It is the problem.
The monk is balanced around d8 damage with d10 if you are willing to accept the suboptimal play of a Strength based monk.
This is all about the damage numbers of the individual weapons. Not just the ogre hook, but also like the d12 weapons and the d10 with deadly or fatal.
Right now, barbs, fighters, melee magus, and maybe precision rangers are best with big, two-handed weapons. They do the most damage with these weapons. This is as near as I can tell by design.
Giving the monk flurry with d10 or d12 weapons with desirable traits steps all over these other classes and makes the monk class the apex martial of the game.
You do not seem to even grasp all the monk gets and can do and that much of this applies to their weapons when they flurry if taking Monastic Weaponry. Since I have seen this all first hand with multiple monks, I don't think it would be balanced at all.
You keep looking at the monk flurrying with a great weapon versus dragon stance without looking at everything the monk can add to this. Heaven's Thunder and Ki Strike as well as Ki Form all boost monk damage with their chosen attack form. To my knowledge, they all stack.
This is already a substantial amount of stacked damage. Then you want to give this "Just a little minor increase in damage" with ogre hooks and d12 weapons that "don't look so bad and is exaggerated" on paper and it isn't.
The monk does not need even the slightest damage boost. It certainly doesn't need to start encroaching on the territory of other classes only doing it better with better AC.
It's not exaggerated at all save by people who have never built a monk well and have little to no experience DMing or playing a well built monk. They already slam super hard and don't need any increase. Their action economy in fights is second to no martial. They are brutal and don't need to be made more brutal.
If you want a weapon to look a certain way, just reskin a monk weapon to look like you want it look. Most DMs will let this happen. Then enjoy crushing your enemies.
I'll admit I'm coming in cold here, but a STR monk using dragon stance or the 1 two handed 1D10 Khakkara can max out AC by L4 using dragon disciple + scales of the dragon. They actually pull ahead of of the champion in that case until champion gets expert, AND you can go in as a kobold crystal/sea or forest kobold and take the other one for resistance to two phsyical damage types to support your melee shenanigans. Otherwise grab the fortress shield for raise/take cover/flurry turns.
Sure its a niche build, but really the best DPR monks are ki monks spamming ki strike.
There is a method if you want to spend the feats on that archetype. I figure there was some method. Thanks for pointing that out. Makes dragon monk more viable. Still doesn't make dragon style the top damage style which is still wolf build with rogue archetype, but definitely mediates dex hit for AC, but not for saves and doesn't take into account the reduced Con.
Str-based monk is inferior for a variety of reasons, AC being but one factor. The other factors are reduced reflex save and reduced Con. An idea dex-based monk focuses on Dex, Con, and Wis/Str. Str-based monk must elevate stat array to Str, Dex/Con/Wis spreading as needed and taking the reduced optimality of saves.
Not a big deal most of the time. You can play suboptimal in PF2 and do fine. Just monk is best dex-based from an optimal viewpoint. Wolf Style is pretty much the ideal damage martial art.
I don't take it all the time myself because that's not fun. I like Reflective Ripple Stance myself right now. Not the best damage style, but it is fun and feels like Aikido.
As a player and DM of many monks, Paizo would be pretty nuts to add martial weapons to a monks ability to flurry. As a player I'd use it as it let's me min-max my monk more, as a DM I hope they never add that option. Monks are great as is.
|
|
Listen, DF, I know you tend to get dogpiled on around here and I really hate seeing that but anyhow... here comes my elbow-drop.
I'm not the spreadsheet type but I implicitly already know for a fact that even if you invented a d12 that upgraded to all d20 dice on critical hits that was a Monk Weapon it would STILL always put the Monk, on average, behind any Fighter, Rogue, or Barb that is competently built with equivalent prebuffs, debuffs, and Runes among them.
I'm just not sure what reason there is to vastly expand the Monk's set of weapons. To me, the reason you make something a "monk weapon" is that you can look at a martial arts film or similar and find someone using that sort of thing. Since the monk exists basically as a clearinghouse for tropes from Wuxia, Anime, etc.
If you just want an Asian-coded character with a giant axe or a polearm, you can just make that person a fighter or a barbarian or something.
Is not a matter of "I want to flurry with a greatsword" but rather, at least from my side, a matter of mechanical and logical consistency. A monk can't flurry with a longsword but can with a temple sword, which is effectively a longsword but harder to use (not in mechanics, but in actual real life). That and, using Arcaian's numbers as an example, allowing a monk to flurry with a weapon isn't that much different than a monk flurring with their fists. Yes, there's a difference in damage, but its marginal at best and you are losing both hands and some traits along the way, so its not a direct upgrade but rather an equivalent option, if not worse overall. Not to mention that how is a monk that isn't from Tian Xia (or your equivalent of Asia in your setting) has learned to use tonfas or kamas when those weapons aren't common in the place they come from? If Paizo wants to move from stereotypes, wouldn't it make more sense to not assume all monks somehow train in all the same weapons even if those don't exist in their region?
I don't think Paizo is too keen in protecting "niches" either if I have to be honest. The best thief rogue uses unarmed builds now, barbarians have fantastic unarmed support with the animal instinct and can even delve into the "naked brawler" trope of monks with Animal Skin. Monks themselves have support to use non-traditional monk weapons with Ancestral Weaponry, both investigator and swashbuckler are mechanically similar to rogues (but worse, but that's another story), and they said they took...
PF2 isn't about mechanical and logical consistency. Class design is about balance. Classes having niches that don't step into other class's territory. Classes that don't have too much on a single chassis.
Which is why I keep telling you too look at everything the monk has and tell me what you want to give up to obtain a flurry with d10 and d12 weapons. And it can't be some weak sauce sacrifice.
You want to give up a legendary save and Legendary unarmored defense to obtain flurry with two-handed weapons? That's probably what it would take to get that as an option for the class. Some substantial sacrifice of monk defensive power to boost their offensive abilities.
And that would require Paizo to completely redesign the monk in a way I don't think they plan to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This debate is double interesting to me because Deriven used to vehemently argue that monks needed a high level damage boost and we did in depth numbers analysis to show how the sum of monk parts together already give them this. At high levels, enemy weaknesses to cold iron, silver, admantine, etc are often 15 or even 20. Monastic weapons makes weapons work with all unarmed class feats and features. One inch punch is far better than power attack because there is a damage die cap on monks and the dragon stance monk deliberately pulls you towards str and cha. It is a risky build that you don’t see people build into often. D12 weapons flurrying and working with all the other monk features would instantly change how most people build monks. That is a good indicator that the decision to exclude them was deliberate and well considered.
Lets say monk can use any weapon and that weapon could benefit from all monk abilities as if unarmed.
This is what I see happening.
Weapon of choice at level 20 might be the Falchion
Edit:Diamond Fists would give this forceful weapon a bump to a d12
Golden Body then adds deadly d12
So now the monk is flurrying with a d12 weapon with forceful and deadly d12. A round where all the tactical buffs and debuffs are in place and the monk is in position to go all out were talking about 5 attacks.
The more attacks you throw out there the more opportunities you give yourself to roll a 20. The first attack is going to crit on less.
Is this not a concern?
I think the highest die on an unarmed strike from stances with forceful is 1d8.
Whatever the disregard for the amount of damage it is an increase in power when you go up a die.
That is one scenario worth looking at, but another is the big strike.
At level 20, a monk can't roll less than a 10 on their first attack of the round. One Inch Punch at level 20 with 3 actions is 6 additional dice of damage. So you are looking at 10d12 (plus runes and weapons specialization and any other damage modifiers you have) that pretty much can't miss if it is set up at all.
And to really gonzo the build, you could pair it with gravity weapon (which only works with weapons, not unarmed strikes) for +20 damage on each strike.
Even without gravity weapon, The monk can just use 2 actions with one inch punch to get that 7d12, and then flurry either with the weapon, or with another unarmed attack (like a Lashing branch D8 agile stance that lets you make other attacks).
I’ve played a dragon stance monk. It is fun. You can cover your defenses in other ways but it takes mobility and party support.
But the key is that dragon stance locks you out of armor. Unless using weapons with monk abilities also locks you out of using armor, it makes armored monk with a 2 handed weapon the top damaging monk, which is just a fighter at this point. Fighters get ways to make extra attacks every round. That is not the defining feature of a monk.
How do you max out your AC using dragon stance on a monk? Did you take a lower strength or accept the lower AC until level 15?
Monk can't wear armor, so no way to obtain the AC with armor. Should be at least 2 points lower than max until level 5 when it becomes 1 point lower. Then 10 and 15 ability boosts should reach the 20 dex needed to max monk AC.
Best bet is the dragon disciple archetype, then take scales of the dragon at 4. Otherwise, Drakeheart Mutagens are a thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't know what to say anymore. You say that you have to ignore damage and then you say that we have to look at damage, you make your calculations based on multiple rounds of combat but then say that combat is shorter so we have to calculate using DPR instead. The only thing I know for certain is that you play TTRPGs as if this was an MMO (which is fine, every table has their style) but because of that mindset you overblow the impact of losing your two hands over the added damage. Yes, the ogree hook deals more damage... on a crit. You aren't going to crit every single attack, but you will lose your both hands as long as you use an ogree hook. If you don't crit, your average damage is the same with dragon stance or sansetsukon.
(not to mention that doing the math assuming every attack is going to hit is also misguided and wrong).
You are also the first one that mentions how Dex monk is the optimal choice over Str monk since Dex capitalizes more on the advantages the monk has, but then you are the first one that dismisses that when weapons enter the discussion. A monk that uses an ogree hook is a Str-based monk, and if using weapons requires a stance as I described, it means you'll have bad AC and reflex saves. This effectively means you'll go down like a wet noodle in combat which IMO hardly compensates the extra damage.
You also have mentioned I don't know how many times that "monks are the strongest martial at high level" but I haven't seen a single chart of high level play with monks being at at the top. Fighter, barb, rogue, and flurry rangers are the classest that always have the stop position in those charts. Even if somehow monk weapon became the best DPR monk, someone would need to make the math to see if it actually beats the others.
This debate is double interesting to me because Deriven used to vehemently argue that monks needed a high level damage boost and we did in depth numbers analysis to show how the sum of monk parts together already give them this. At high levels, enemy weaknesses to cold iron, silver, admantine, etc are often 15 or even 20. Monastic weapons makes weapons work with all unarmed class feats and features. One inch punch is far better than power attack because there is a damage die cap on monks and the dragon stance monk deliberately pulls you towards str and cha. It is a risky build that you don’t see people build into often. D12 weapons flurrying and working with all the other monk features would instantly change how most people build monks. That is a good indicator that the decision to exclude them was deliberate and well considered.
What can I tell you. I often need to see things with my own eyes before I believe it. And I saw it and now I know it.
The weaknesses are nasty, but it's also the debuffing combined with the sheer number of attacks.
Flurry of blows is almost like Slow resistance built in. It has a huge number of advantages. A regular player gets hit by slow, they are down to 2 attacks or one if they have to move. But not a monk, slow hits them and they still can move and double attack if not a crit fail.
Then the stacking. Wolf Stance stacked with Sneak Attack from Rogue Archetype with haste with agile with stacked runes with Ki Form with Heaven's Thunder is 4 attacks then 5 attacks with tons of stacked damage with a -4 and -8 on their attacks.
Then working in maneuvers with maxed out athletics and Flurry of Maneuvers meaning they can use a maneuver, then attack with agile.
Then the high AC.
Then cherry picking the idea saves, usually Fort and Reflex to max.
Then Stunning Fist works more often than you think it would.
Then Ki Strike worked in and stacking.
Then put that with some buff like heroism while debuffing with Synesthesia or a fear effect.
It all just started stacking up and getting annoying. I think the most annoying part was finding out how high their AC can get combined with how often they get to swing while operating with 60 foot plus movement in three dimensions. Monk flying up, knocking the dragon to the ground out of the area or any other flier, and just doing crazy stuff while being hard to hit.
Fighter and barbarian who? Just make a bunch of monks and clown the enemy by tripping and beating on them while having great Fort and Reflex saves with high AC.
You can't really ignore what they do at high level. It gets crazy if you let them stack stuff up.
(not to mention that doing the math assuming every attack is going to hit is also misguided and wrong).
Why do you believe averages and dpr calculations are the only statistics that matter such that looking at any other information is misguided and wrong? Yes you can look at potential damage and should depending on what you are trying to assess.
If you are assessing averages that tells you what to expect over the course of many many many encounters thats ok. But without looking at variance and range you are not assessing what is possible in any single encounter. I find that important because the lower the die size the closer the average is to the actual damage you might see in any given encounter. The larger the die size the further away it is.Another point is the highs are higher even though the lows are the same. It is when those highs occur encounters are impacted the most so it is valid to asses them even when its not something that looking at supports your position.
When you look at monks unarmed strikes d10 is only available with dragon stance. Thats it. the rest of what makes up a monk is using lower die sizes. All of the other abilities from stances and strikes have to go lower on the die size meaning d10 was the highest the designers felt a monk unarmed strike should go. No matter how much you diminish the difference in damage a difference exists. If you start pairing greatwords unarmed benefits of the monks and flurry with any stance you like the thought put into deciding what each stance gave is thrown out with it.
It is significant as we have discussed when you look at more than just what damage is likely over many many encounters since it doesnt say enough about what will happen in any given encounter. Especially when you start looking at all the other monks stances we would be mixing d12 weapons with that you seem to be satisfied with after only comparing the one stance monk has with a d10 to a d12 weapon (d12 still stronger than the d10 and clearly this game trades a lot for a singe die size). All of the other stances are going to get further and further from dragon stance on the damage die but if you could just bring out a greatsword and gain all the same benefits the balance of lower die sizes is gone.
You did bring up having to use two hands as a negative point. Thing is monks can still use any unarmed attack with no hands. This means something like wolf stance monk while flanking can trip with wolf fang while not letting go of their grip on the greatsword. Theres to many ways for monks to ignore that as a negative.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Especially when you start looking at all the other monks stances we would be mixing d12 weapons
I don't know how many times I said that I would want a Monastic Weaponry Stance, not just plain allow monk to use martial weapons with their stances. The benefits a monk with a weapon would have are the same as those a monk without a weapon has. Both would require a stance, but unlike a regular unarmed monk, the monk would have to use a martial weapon which requires their hands. Its clear that Paizo values traits much more than raw damage (which I don't entirely agree, but that's a different discussion) and yet the only "problematic" weapon so far has been the ogree hook (which I also said you guys are overblowing here).
Especially when you start looking at all the other monks stances we would be mixing d12 weaponsI don't know how many times I said that I would want a Monastic Weaponry Stance, not just plain allow monk to use martial weapons with their stances. The benefits a monk with a weapon would have are the same as those a monk without a weapon has. Both would require a stance, but unlike a regular unarmed monk, the monk would have to use a martial weapon which requires their hands. Its clear that Paizo values traits much more than raw damage (which I don't entirely agree, but that's a different discussion) and yet the only "problematic" weapon so far has been the ogree hook (which I also said you guys are overblowing here).
I believe there is a mischaracterization there of this discussion. A die increase matters, every step, it is not inconsequential. It is one key lever of weapon balance.
Putting all martial weapons in a single stance has issues of its own. I dont find it interesting or balanced for monks. Its an amorphous blob where other martial classes use multiple feats to distinguish into styles of fighting. Monk has all of these already distinguished stances and probably wouldn't have the room to have distinguished weapon based feats in addition. I think its a better approach to use the existing framework and incorporate weapons that fit the existing stance themes while keeping the balance each stance is going for. That may mean that not all weapons get included for the monk and that is ok with me. If they do make a new stance to fill the idea of a unarmored greatsword user It would have to have more limitations in stance to make it balanced against other stances. I am not sure monk is the right class to theme it under. Cloud sounds more like a fighter.
Especially when you start looking at all the other monks stances we would be mixing d12 weaponsI don't know how many times I said that I would want a Monastic Weaponry Stance, not just plain allow monk to use martial weapons with their stances. The benefits a monk with a weapon would have are the same as those a monk without a weapon has. Both would require a stance, but unlike a regular unarmed monk, the monk would have to use a martial weapon which requires their hands. Its clear that Paizo values traits much more than raw damage (which I don't entirely agree, but that's a different discussion) and yet the only "problematic" weapon so far has been the ogree hook (which I also said you guys are overblowing here).I believe there is a mischaracterization there of this discussion. A die increase matters, every step, it is not inconsequential. It is one key lever of weapon balance.
Putting all martial weapons in a single stance has issues of its own. I dont find it interesting or balanced for monks. Its an amorphous blob where other martial classes use multiple feats to distinguish into styles of fighting. Monk has all of these already distinguished stances and probably wouldn't have the room to have distinguished weapon based feats in addition. I think its a better approach to use the existing framework and incorporate weapons that fit the existing stance themes while keeping the balance each stance is going for. That may mean that not all weapons get included for the monk and that is ok with me. If they do make a new stance to fill the idea of a unarmored greatsword user It would have to have more limitations in stance to make it balanced against other stances. I am not sure monk is the right class to theme it under. Cloud sounds more like a fighter.
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as opposed to animal instinct, whicn is inarmoured and unarmed).
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...
Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.
A class archetype could be a way to accomplish the unarmored 2 handed swordsman. I personally think it would be better to use swords with the 2 handed trait and make use of drawing the weapon and changing grips to do cool things. It could also be its own class with fancy maneuvers with over the top names. Monk has a small handful of such things (one inch punch) but the classic roving swordsman should be able to have 8 or more special techniques by level 20, not just stance and flurry every encounter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...
True. Or not, I never built many 1e monks.
As far as ‘monk’ weapons go … I still like the thought of not pigeonholing ‘eastern’ ones that way. What would the real difference be between a kama and a sickle? Or a sai and some examples of mains-gauche? And could some other more common weapons be ‘monk’ weapons? It is odd that a monk can learn to flurry with a bo but not the lighter staff.
|
Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...True. Or not, I never built many 1e monks.
As far as ‘monk’ weapons go … I still like the thought of not pigeonholing ‘eastern’ ones that way. What would the real difference be between a kama and a sickle? Or a sai and some examples of mains-gauche? And could some other more common weapons be ‘monk’ weapons? It is odd that a monk can learn to flurry with a bo but not the lighter staff.
The standard staff and spear actually did gain the monk trait in the remaster interestingly enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The standard staff and spear actually did gain the monk trait in the remaster interestingly enough.Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...True. Or not, I never built many 1e monks.
As far as ‘monk’ weapons go … I still like the thought of not pigeonholing ‘eastern’ ones that way. What would the real difference be between a kama and a sickle? Or a sai and some examples of mains-gauche? And could some other more common weapons be ‘monk’ weapons? It is odd that a monk can learn to flurry with a bo but not the lighter staff.
Ah, one fewer example for the list of 'why this one and not that one' weapons above. An unfortunate oversight on the already overtaxed Archives team.
|
|
The standard staff and spear actually did gain the monk trait in the remaster interestingly enough.Best Monk build in PF1E though -- Aesthetic Style with a Wave Blade or a Sansetsukuon did exactly that.
The ‘charge in with a greatsword and a tanktop’s worth of armour’ fantasy sounds like another class, honestly. An unarmoured barbarian build sounds nice (as...True. Or not, I never built many 1e monks.
As far as ‘monk’ weapons go … I still like the thought of not pigeonholing ‘eastern’ ones that way. What would the real difference be between a kama and a sickle? Or a sai and some examples of mains-gauche? And could some other more common weapons be ‘monk’ weapons? It is odd that a monk can learn to flurry with a bo but not the lighter staff.
Time to build my old Monk MC Druid Shillelagh-flurrying concept.
BTW is Shillelagh in Remaster ?
I believe it's intended to be replaced by the new and improved runic weapon spell, which is now on the Primal tradition list. It also has better heighten effects than either the legacy magic weapon or shillelagh. It doesn't have the increased effect against aberrations, extraplanar creatures, and undead like shillelagh used to though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In light of a recent controversy on the subreddit that I won't talk about in any detail, I think it may be to the Monk's benefit if the class gained baseline proficiency with martial weapons and could naturally use weapons with monk feats and monk abilities just as well as unarmed attacks, with an appropriate limitation on the damage die for such attacks.
From a gameplay perspective to begin with, I think the above would give the Monk a ton more options without disrupting the class's balance, assuming the damage die limit is set correctly. Flurry of Blows means the class can't necessarily go around using FoB with a greatsword, but I can think of many weapons the Monk could put to good use without dealing any more damage than they do now. Monastic Weaponry comes off as a feat tax that tends to make unarmed combat much more straightforward on the class, even though armed and unarmed combat both have a place on the Monk. Having a broad-lines policy for what counts as a Monk weapon would avoid Paizo having to hand-pick which weapons get to be Monk weapons each time new weapons come out.
On top of this, though, I also feel the above carries the benefits of helping alleviate certain lingering concerns around the Monk and orientalism: a big problem with Monk weapons right now is that hand-selecting them is a tricky process -- throw in too many Asian-themed weapons and you end up furthering the notion that the class is specifically Asian-centric when most other classes can find examples in pretty much any real-life culture's stories, but hand-pick weapons that don't immediately correlate to wuxia movies and people get mad about those weapons feeling like a poor thematic fit. Monastic Weaponry doesn't improve things either, because specifically granting access to uncommon Monk weapons, many of which are region-locked to Asian-coded parts of Golarion, I think furthers the stereotype that Monks are so specific to certain cultures that they somehow always train with and use weapons tied to those cultures, regardless of where they come from or what weapons are available locally. Enabling every weapon that fits a certain set of mechanical criteria, however, avoids that issue entirely, and allows Monks to fully work with any part of Golarion by making full use of common weapons, along with region-specific weapons that don't just come from Vudra or the various nations of Tian Xia.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be worse for the flavor of the class to give them all martial weapons than it would be for the class to have no proficiency in any martial weapons but have a feat that gives them specific proficiencies in a handful of advanced weapons.
The historical origin of “monk weapons” are weapons that don’t look like weapons of war, and instead look like tools, or religious ceremonial objects, or were at least weapons that can be easily concealed and could be possessed by people denied the right to carry weapons of war. Perhaps I could see some specific martial weapons that are also divine favorite weapons made possible to gain proficiency in, but I don’t think any of those weapons need to be “monk weapons” that can be flurried with. You can carry a weapon and use it with your regular attacks, then flurry with unarmed strikes and it can work just fine.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it would be worse for the flavor of the class to give them all martial weapons than it would be for the class to have no proficiency in any martial weapons but have a feat that gives them specific proficiencies in a handful of advanced weapons.
The historical origin of “monk weapons” are weapons that don’t look like weapons of war, and instead look like tools, or religious ceremonial objects, or were at least weapons that can be easily concealed and could be possessed by people denied the right to carry weapons of war. Perhaps I could see some specific martial weapons that are also divine favorite weapons made possible to gain proficiency in, but I don’t think any of those weapons need to be “monk weapons” that can be flurried with. You can carry a weapon and use it with your regular attacks, then flurry with unarmed strikes and it can work just fine.
This is completely inaccurate. Just to give a couple of examples, the Eighteen Arms of Wushu list plenty of weapons made for combat first, including the greataxe, and the Kalaripayattu explicitly focuses on weapons to the point where they're prioritized over fighting bare-handed. I don't know where you pulled your own information from, but it looks to me like a clear example of the harm reductive stereotyping can inflict on gameplay.