Why Did The Game Wimp Out On Monks?
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Because they were afraid it might make some 3E monk prestige classes allow for earlier entry, and that would be unbalancing.
Feel free to pick yourself up from the floor laughing at your own leisure.
Feel free to pick yourself up from the floor laughing at your own leisure.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Well, that was one of the reasons I've heard. The other was being backwards compatible. But that argument goes to hell as soon as you look at the Barbarian's rage mechanic or lots of other things. So the only logical reason I've heard is the prestige class one. Mind you, I'm not sure there actually even ARE any 3E prestige classes for a monk that lack a high skill rank requirement to allow full BAB alone to make the difference for early entry. Nevermind as you mention, how many games use 3E material? Or my original point htat monk PrC's, like that base class, suck anyway.
Stormonu
Legend
Though flawed in execution, I think it was intended to prevent the monk from "overpowering" the fighter. In theory, if the monk had full BAB, great saves, supernatural powers and could perform all their attacks (and have a decent AC) without weapons and armor, why would anyone choose to play a fighter?
tylermalan
First Post
So, does anyone else think that eventually Paizo will remake Pathfinder into a kind-of Pathfinder 2.0 in which the pretense of being backwards compatible is dropped? I mean, I can kind-of understand their desire to keep it backwards compatible upon release (years ago) due to now knowing just how well it was going to do sales-wise... but now that it is clearly popular, I would LOVE to see a re-release that addresses all of the issues that we discuss about on these forums.
GregoryOatmeal
First Post
I think Paizo said they wouldn't do a Pathfinder 2E during the first decade of the game. I would prefer small incremental changes and claims of backwards compatibility to be gradually dropped
re
If they gave monks full BAB, they would have to revamp them. Why would they get full BAB and so much other stuff like all good saves, improved evasion, and still have all the supernatural powers they have?
I'd be fine with revamping monks personally. I'd prefer they be more of an alternate fighter classes focusing on unarmed fighting than this strange supernatural power class they have become in D&D. They don't really need the SR or immunity to disease and poison or the ability to heal themselves.
What people want to do with monks is fight like a martial artist in hand to hand to combat. That's the aspect of the monk Paizo should focus on.
Move them away from the MAD model and make them more of a dex/str fighter type. Maybe they can have an archetype for the monk mystic focusing on wisdom, but it shouldn't have been the focus of the class.
Maybe they'll get to it at some point.
And some of you want the monk to be the main fighter and judge it by that. I've played with a ton of monks, seemingly more than the people I see posting in threads like this. They are great secondary fighters. I've seen many a monk shine when they aren't trying to be the main fighter in the group. A lot of the abilities they get are very applicable in combat.
Near as I can tell the game designers realize that when players complain about the monk, they're complaining because they want the monk to be something it is not: on par with the fighter for damage. Whereas the game designers, unlike power gamers like Stream of the Sky, are focused more on the total ability of the class rather than on how much damage the class does.
Monks can do a lot of things other classes cannot and have some of the best defensive abilitiies in the game. Seen them in action for years and I know they are effective. The majority of "monks are weak" crowd are made up of a bunch of people that don't know the role of the monk or how to build them very well without power gamer options like Vow of Poverty. I'm glad the game designers are ignoring the crowd that want to turn monks not into a viable class, but a class that surpasses the fighter and gives up nothing.
If they gave monks full BAB, they would have to revamp them. Why would they get full BAB and so much other stuff like all good saves, improved evasion, and still have all the supernatural powers they have?
I'd be fine with revamping monks personally. I'd prefer they be more of an alternate fighter classes focusing on unarmed fighting than this strange supernatural power class they have become in D&D. They don't really need the SR or immunity to disease and poison or the ability to heal themselves.
What people want to do with monks is fight like a martial artist in hand to hand to combat. That's the aspect of the monk Paizo should focus on.
Move them away from the MAD model and make them more of a dex/str fighter type. Maybe they can have an archetype for the monk mystic focusing on wisdom, but it shouldn't have been the focus of the class.
Maybe they'll get to it at some point.
And some of you want the monk to be the main fighter and judge it by that. I've played with a ton of monks, seemingly more than the people I see posting in threads like this. They are great secondary fighters. I've seen many a monk shine when they aren't trying to be the main fighter in the group. A lot of the abilities they get are very applicable in combat.
Near as I can tell the game designers realize that when players complain about the monk, they're complaining because they want the monk to be something it is not: on par with the fighter for damage. Whereas the game designers, unlike power gamers like Stream of the Sky, are focused more on the total ability of the class rather than on how much damage the class does.
Monks can do a lot of things other classes cannot and have some of the best defensive abilitiies in the game. Seen them in action for years and I know they are effective. The majority of "monks are weak" crowd are made up of a bunch of people that don't know the role of the monk or how to build them very well without power gamer options like Vow of Poverty. I'm glad the game designers are ignoring the crowd that want to turn monks not into a viable class, but a class that surpasses the fighter and gives up nothing.
Walking Dad
First Post
This!!!
I hope they will do it. Maybe they have to do.
They needed the compatibility for the "old 3.5 players".
But now, if I judge the groups and forums I know right, most are satisfied with the APG, the Race and Ultimate books of the Pathfinder game.
Most criticism is is pointed at things they claim to be this way for backward compatibility.
It is time for Paizo to try to emancipate from D&D to show their real design and development strengths!
Walking Dad
First Post
Currently thea get flurry that keeps them from using their movement powers and attacking effectively in the same round. Their powers lack a theme or a bandwagon for a lack of an item that enhances unarmed strikes (ki strike+) (NOT the overpriced amulet that improves natural attacks and keeps them from getting an Amulet of natural armor)
Agreed. If they got supernatural powers, make them useful for something and not an unconnected collection of weird abilities.
Not all, but this is the aspect that needs the most improvement.
Yes. But we still need an replacement for AC increase.
They should be able to have a primary role in the group. 'Great 5th member' is kind of an insult.
I wouldn't call StreamOfTheSky a power gamer. Epically as be both seem to agree that he is right.
Sorry, here you loose me. What things? And the saves are not much better than the ones of a paladin, who has most often a better AC and more HP.
Monks are weak, because there is not enough support for the unarmed archetype, they have MAD, cannot move and attack properly in the same round, and their supernatuarl abilities are not helping much (SR, minor self-healing). They are secondary fighters, as you said above. And this is considered weak.
