Core Concept: Of the 11 core classes, the monk is the only one which I honestly wish was not part of the game. Which is funny, because in terms of the mechanics, it actually gets a lot of things right which the other classes get wrong. But mechanics aren’t everything. Flavor and style are also important, and in that respect my tastes lean towards the pretentious. Ninjas riding robotic sharks with laser eyes sounds “awesome” in a silly way, but it’s not the kind of thing I enjoy investing my time with. For me, fantasy is the most fun when it’s somewhat grounded, and stylistically consistent.

In every respect, Pathfinder and D&D are stylistically linked to medieval Europe. Every respect, that is, except where the monk class is involved. When weapons or coins are shown in the art, they’re always shown in a western style; save for monk weapons. There are no non-european armor styles present in the core rulebook. No other class which does not descend from a European archetype. Hells, even the word “monk” refers primarily to members of western religious orders, not to highly disciplined martial artists.

The influences of other cultures begin to appear more prominently in supplemental materials. The Bestiary 3 is filled with monsters inspired by Asian mythologies. But that in itself goes towards my point: Paizo filled two bestiaries before they got around to Asia for inspiration.

If the game were multicultural from the start, that would be another thing. If the core rulebook’s classes and equipment and art and magic pulled from cultures all over the world, then I wouldn’t mind the monk so much. Of course, I don’t want to ruin anybody’s good time. D&D originated as a silly game which had no pretentious about how serious it was. And while I think many people feel as I do about the importance of a consistent tone, that’s no reason that others can’t enjoy the monk. But you probably won’t find them in any game I run.

Now, most of the time, I analyze a class’s abilities based on my personal vision of how the class should work. But since I don’t think this class should exist at all, I can’t really do that. Instead I’ll judge each ability by what I think most people want from a monk class. As I mentioned above, I think the class’s mechanics are some of the best in the game. I really have nothing to say about many of these abilities, because they’re good just how they are.

Hopefully the hate-fueled preamble will make up for any blandness in the analysis itself.

(For the record, my hatred of the monk class is actually what originally inspired me to start the Pathfinder Class Analysis series).

AC Bonus: Monks add their wisdom bonus to their armor class because wisdom represents situational awareness, and monks can block swords and arrows with their arms, legs, or by twisting their body to avoid harm. This is a great, elegant mechanic.

Flurry of Blows: A few different monk abilities call for the monk to use their level in place of their base attack bonus. Perhaps I am missing the point, but this seems really confusing for no good reason. Why not simply give the monk a higher base attack bonus? Or let them use the base attack bonus they’ve been given? This is doubly confusing when combined with the fact that the monk receives bonuses and penalties to these abilities on top of having a different base attack bonus.

At level 1, the Monk’s base attack bonus is 0. But when using flurry of blows, they should treat their base attack bonus as though it was equal to their level, so for the purposes of this attack, their BAB is 1. However, the attack is made at a -1/-1 penalty, which negates the improved BAB. Why do I need to do that much math just to find out nothing is different!?

Flurry of blows is a sensible way to represent monk fighting style, but the actual mechanic needs to be simplified dramatically. How about something like “The monk can make a number of attacks per round equal to 1/3 their level, plus 1.”

Bam. Class improved.

Unarmed Strike: This is good and appropriate and I have no problems with it, save those I will address when discussing the Ki pool.

Bonus Feat: I haven’t counted, but off the top of my head I think the Monk has more class abilities than any other class in the game. Was it necessary to add bonus feats on top of that? The reason the fighter class has bonus feats is because fighters are intended as a kind of ‘blank slate’ class, where the players fill in their own fighting style. The monk is quite the opposite; the style has been thoroughly defined already. 

Stunning Fist: Part of the fantasy monk schtick are secret punches which can freeze a person in place or make them sick. Stunning fist serves this role well.

Evasion / Improved Evasion: I don’t think I realized just how many classes have these two class abilities before I started this series. It fits here as well as it fits on the rogue or the barbarian. I have no complaints about its inclusion as a monk ability.

Fast Movement: As mentioned in the analysis of the barbarian class, I would actually like to see more movement speed bonuses and penalties in the game. I think it’s one of the most interesting considerations of tactical, grid-based combat. Yet it very rarely comes up after a player selects their race. I’ve never run a game for a high level monk, but I’ve always been a little curious to see how a player would use a movment rate of 90ft per round.

Maneuver Training: Like flurry of blows, this mechanic calls for the monk to use their level in place of their BAB. Like flurry of blows, I ask: why?

Still Mind: This is a filler ability. It’s fiddly and small, and only complicates an already cluttered character sheet. It could be removed, and nothing would be lost.

Ki Pool: I don’t really like tracking “power points” in tabletop RPGs. I don’t like tracking spells that way. It’s one of the reasons I’ve never liked any of the psionic stuff produced for D&D 3.x. It tends to make things more messy, rather than any simpler. Plus, most of the stuff Ki is used for seems silly to me. It can be used to make unarmed strikes magical and law aligned. Why isn’t that simply a default built into the character as it levels up? It can be used for a temporary boost of speed, but the monk already receives huge speed boosts. It can be used to gain a dodge bonus to AC, but isn’t that what the monk’s wisdom bonus to AC is for?

Aside from the basic stuff, the monk later gains a few abilities which use Ki points, but I don’t see why those couldn’t simply have daily uses like most class abilities have. I suppose, given the many abilities the monk has, that it might actually be easier to track points than it would be to track the daily uses of a half dozen class abilities. But meh.

I’m somewhat undecided on whether Ki is good or bad. But I’m not a huge fan of it, either way.

Slow Fall: This allows the player to do a cool thing, rather than simply allowing the player to try a cool thing. It’s a method of game design that I approve of.

High Jump: Instead of a bonus to acrobatics checks made to high jump,  think this ability would be much more interesting if it simply allowed monks to jump straight up a number of feet equal to their level. So at level 5 when the ability is acquired, monks can leap 5ft straight up into the air.

Granted, since that’s an acrobatics check of 20, it’s not actually that impressive in Pathfinder. But I hold that’s the fault of the skills system for making high jumps too easy in the first place.

Purity of Body / Diamond Body: As the monk gains greater control of their body, they gain perfect resistance against ailments of the body. Cool cool cool. There’s really only so many ways that I can say an ability is good!

Wholeness of Body: Aside from my stated issues with Ki, I have no problem with the monk being able to heal themselves a small amount. It fits within the ‘mastery of body’ trope.

Abundant Step: While I find this kind of weird and out of place, I don’t neccesarily have a problem with monks gaining access to dimensional door. I imagine it’s meant to combine the idea of moving fast, with the idea of monks having spiritual power.

Diamond Soul: I’d actually like to see spell resistance show up more often in the game, so this ability works for me. Particularly since it fits in with the idea that monks are perfect masters of their own body.

Quivering Palm: “The Death Touch!” is a cliche as old as martial arts fantasy. While I think the concept is kinda schlocky, you can’t really make a fantasy monk class without including it. Particularly when most Pathfinder classes have some kind of instant death ability, though usually they get it at level 20, not level 15.

Timeless Body: As the monk’s supernatural control of the body grows, it is only logical that they would begin to slow the effect that time has on them. This fits particularly well with the classic trope of the super old martial arts master who can beat the crap out of anyone.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon: Presumably, based on the description, this ability allows the character to speak with anyone, regardless of what language they speak, or whether they can speak language at all. I don’t really see what this has to do with monks, but I also have no real problem with it. It’s an interesting ability which will have minimal impact on the game since it doesn’t show up until level 17.

Empty Body: Again, this ability works decently well for the monk. The ability to enter into an ethereal state for a short while is in keeping with the idea that the monk gains a supernatural control over their own body.

Perfect Self: This is a respectable capstone ability. The central idea of a monk’s training is perfection of the body, so to perfect one’s body to the point of being considered a lawful outsider is pretty cool.

Ex-Monks: Is it just me, or is it strange that there are a half dozen variants for evil paladins, but no such variant for chaotic monk? That seems like a huge oversight to me. A monk who breaks the law and loses the respect of their peers could become a Chaos Monk, with an entirely different philosophy and set of mystical abilities.

Core Concept: It would be difficult to argue that the cleric doesn’t have a place in a game descended from D&D. Even if you go all the way back to the beginning, to the three little brown books which started it all, the cleric was there. When the thief class was naught but a gleam in Gygax’ eye, the cleric was one of only three classes available, along with the fighting man and the magic user. It’s hard to have a better gaming pedigree than ‘has existed as long as the game.’

That’s not to say that the cleric is necessary. Of the three original classes, the cleric is easily the least memorable. In a game about fantasy adventures, you need the person who swings the sword, so you can’t get rid of fighting men (or women. But we can cut Gygax some slack on that, as he was raised in olden times).  And when I think of characters in fantasy who wield magic, my first thought is of wizards, not religious types. Even thieves, introduced in a supplement though they were, are more distinct and memorable than clerics are.

I’m not advocating we be rid of clerics. I like them just fine. But of the 4 most fundamental classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard), cleric is the one which needs the most work. I’m not sure what that work would entail, and figuring out what needs to be done is beyond the scope of this post. But were I to make an iteration of D&D, I think that game would feature much more distinct clerics.

Aura: This hardly counts as a class feature, really. Clerics of a god have a strong aura of that god’s alignment, which is, ostensibly, the cleric’s alignment as well. Though not necessarily, I suppose. This doesn’t seem very important to mention, but since it’s here I suppose I’ll give it my approval.

Spells: Pathfinder uses a single spellcasting system which remains consistent for each class, with only minor modifications. This has some important benefits, such as making the game as a whole easier to understand. It provides continuity between different classes, and prevents players from needing to spend excessive time learning new mechanics.

That said, I would rather see the game incorporate multiple types of spellcasting. Let the wizards keep vancian magic. It’s better suited to them anyway. Clerics, I think, should have an entirely different kind of magic.

Perhaps instead of a lengthy spell list which clerics prepare from each day, they could have a much more limited spell list. Only 1-3 new spells per level. And most of the spells have a much longer cast time, enough so that they can’t be used in combat. “Cure Light Wounds” is a 10 minute ritual spell which requires a lot of praying (and perhaps a random encounter check while the rest of the party stands guard over their injured companion).

In combat, clerics would have a number of spells which focus primarily on bestowing small blessings or curses. Each of these would have a short enough duration to keep the cleric on their toes. On the first round of combat they give the fighter a +1 to her attack rolls. On the next round, they run over to shield the magic user from incoming arrows–which leaves the fighter without their attack bonus.

In exchange for the reduced effectiveness of their spell list, clerics would be able to cast any of their spells at any time. No memorization, no limits. An instrument of the gods will does not tire! (I suppose some limitation might be called for to prevent over use of healing. Perhaps magical healing causes grogginess, causing a cumulative penalty on some of the player’s rolls for a few hours? I’m just tossing ideas out here.)

Channeled Energy: I’ve always thought turn undead was kind of a dumb ability. Why should clerics, alone among all the classes, have a primary ability which only works against a certain type of enemy? In most campaigns it’s alright, because undead are a relatively common type of foe. But what if the GM doesn’t want them to be? When playing most versions of D&D, I can’t simply decide to run a campaign with no undead in it, because that would severely gimp the clerical class.

Replacing turn undead with channeled energy is one of Pathfinder’s best innovations. It’s simple to understand (Cha + 3 times per day I can pump out xd6 of either positive or negative energy into a 30ft radius. Simple!), and is fits within the flavor of the clerical class. I also like how feats can be used to focus the channeled energy in different ways–such as into an optional ‘turn undead’ ability.

Domains: I never liked domains in 3.5, and I like them only slightly more in Pathfinder. They’re just too fiddly, with too little reward. Who really needs +1 spell slot each level which can only be filled with a domain spell? It just seems like a needless complication to me. I will say that domain powers are pretty cool, though. I like the idea that clerics will have different powers, based on the god they worship. But perhaps instead of domains, these different powers could simply be granted to the cleric directly from the god the cleric worships? This would have a twofold benefit: it would reduce the number of decisions a player needs to make (which god, then which of those god’s domains to pick from). It would also make the cleric’s actual religion much more important to gameplay, which is good. Too many players would just as soon be “generic cleric of vaguely [blank] alignment,” which doesn’t work for me at all.

Orsions: I see what they were trying to do here. The thinking is that magic using classes need to use magic, ergo it is bad if those magic using classes are in a situation where they have no magic to use. But they’re wrong, because running out of magic is part of the fun of being a magic using class. Managing your resources so that you don’t run out of spells at an inopportune time, as well as figuring out what to do when poor planning means you run out anyway, is part of the challenge of playing a magic user.

Of course, level 0 spells are pretty minimal in power, so clerics will still want to manage their spellcasting resource. All the same, I’d prefer to play a game where being out of magic for the day actually meant you were completely out of magic for the day.

Spontaneous Casting: Channeled Energy makes this ability redundant. As such, it only serves to confuse the game by introducing meaningless options. It ought to be removed.

Core Concept: It is a commonly held belief that bards are ridiculous. Even if made to be mechanically useful, it seems strange to some people that a busker would stand along side a master of arms or a powerful wizard. But in fact, the bard class has strong historical roots. Traveling minstrels existed, seeking out larger and more impressive stories to sing for lords and ladies, hoping to find a noble who would retain their services for awhile. And when work was slow, a traveling bard was apt to pick pockets or take up banditry until they could make enough coin to move on. If any class has the right to be an adventurer, it’s the bard.

Spells: The spells chosen for the bard are flavorful. I also approve of the fact that a bard must perform in order to cast their spells. I further think bards should have a touch of magic about them, so access to spells is appropriate. But only a touch of magic, mind you. More than any other class, I think bards should resemble rogues, but that’s not the case in Pathfinder. In Pathfinder, bards are basically mini-sorcerers. That doesn’t work for me.

Additionally, I find it a little distasteful that seven out of the eleven basic classes eventually gain access to a spell list they can cast from. Not only does it reduce the specialness of the casting classes, but it hints at a game which relies too heavily on magic to bring it into balance.

I think it would be best if spells were dropped entirely from the bard class. In their place, bards should gain the ability to the use of magical scrolls–arcane or divine. This allows the class to be a little bit magical, without giving them the innate access to magic which would dilute the caster classes. Most of the bard-only spells (such as Summon Instrument) could be kept as special abilities rather than spells.

Adding scrolls and special abilities doesn’t come close to making up for the loss of spells, though. The rest of that loss should be made up for in the performance ability, covered below.

Bardic Knowledge / Lore Master: My feelings are conflicted with regards to these two abilities, which is really just because by feelings are conflicted with regards to knowledge skills in general. But if the game is to have a knowledge skill, then these are interesting abilities, which make good sense. So I’ve no real qualms with them.

Performance:  Performance is the bard’s most important ability, and of all of the abilities of all the classes, I think it just might be the one I like the least. Were I so inclined, I would completely rebuild the bard class from the ground up just to correct the many problems I have with performance. But right now I’m just pointing out things I don’t like, and brain storming thoughts on how they might be improved, so I’ll stick to that mission for now.

First, why is there a limit to the number of rounds per day a bard can perform? I have a difficult time wrapping my head around a minstrel who can only play for 48 seconds before becoming too exhausted to perform anymore throughout the day. I understand that this could be explained by saying that magical performances are a great deal more draining and can only be maintained for a short period of time, but I don’t really buy it. Wouldn’t it be better to design a performance ability which the bard could use for a longer amount of time? There’s no reason to make performance function identically to a barbarian’s rage or a cleric’s channeling ability.

Which brings me to an important point: standardization is not always good. There are many good things about creating standards. They help everyone communicate better, and specifically in the case of tabletop RPGs, they aide greatly in helping a GM remember and improvise the rules. Standardization is one of the great improvements I think we can ascribe to D&D 3rd edition. But it can be taken too far. Too often in D&D 3.x/Pathfinder, characters gain abilities which “function as the spell,” sometimes with minor adjustments. A number of the bardic performance abilities mimic spells in this manner, and it bugs me. A wizard wakes up each morning with nearly limitless options for which magical effects they will produce that day. Why should the wizard be just as good as the bard is when it comes to swaying a crowd? Should not the wizard’s limitless choices be countered by more specialized classes being able to do their jobs better than wizards can? A lot better?

Much like rage, Performance ought to be a much more dramatically powerful ability. In an ideal game, I think bards would need to seek out new songs and stories to enhance their performance abilities. When the character began their performance, they would not need to stop and start again to produce a different effect, but would instead be able to weave effects together into a single, moving performance. And those effects wouldn’t allow the bard to influence a person for 1 hour per level. It would make that person into a lifelong fan.

Obviously it’s very simple to make bold statements about how something ought to work, and it’s a very different thing to actually make it work that way. This is just what I think would make the class compelling.

Cantrips: Since this is the same for every class with the ability to cast spells, I’d rather hold off on discussing it until a primary caster, such as the cleric.

Versatile Performance: This ability really highlights the problems of the skill system. Lets say your character is an actor. Their profession, and indeed, many of their class abilities rely on changing their appearances, and convincing others that they believe in the fictional reality of the play. It would seem to follow that such characters would be good at disguises, and lying, would it not? But no! Not in D&D! In the game, players must wait until second level before they can apply their acting abilities towards other pursuits.

Obviously level 2 isn’t a very long wait, but the fact that this ability had to be included at all is just…sad.

Well-Versed: …meh. This is a filler ability. There’s really nothing much to say about it, save for the fact that it adds clutter-notes to the character sheet. Where in the world are you supposed to write “+4 on saving throws v. Bardic Performance effects.”

Jack-of-All-Trades: While you might not expect it given my feelings towards skills, I like this ability. It makes sense, it’s flavorful, and it’s not bad mechanics insofar as skills go. If I were to completely re-design Pathfinder’s skills system, I would likely keep this ability in a different form. Perhaps they would never have to roll in the Untrained – Difficult column?

Core Concept: While they’re not a class I’ve personally ever wanted to play, I think barbarians have a legitimate niche within fantasy adventures. Fighters are soldiers with expertly honed weapons skills and knowledge of military tactics. The fighter class can’t represent the brute ferocity of the wild-man. If you are to imagine the battles between Rome and Gaul, it would be hard name meaningful similarities between the warriors on the two sides. What I’m a little less fond of is the rage mechanic which is part-in-parcel of every barbarian class. I don’t actively dislike rage mechanics, they’re flavorful and they work fine. I just don’t think it’s such a perfect fit for the barbarian concept that it deserves to be ubiquitous.

As an example, I once made a class called the Whirling Berserker which received  a bonus to attack rolls so long as she attacked a different target on each turn. As such, the character would be most effective if she moved through a battle, attacking everyone she passed, rather than engaging with a single opponent.

So while I think the concept deserves some more creative thinking than it normally gets, I none the less approve of the class’s inclusion in the Pathfinder RPG.

Fast Movement:Movement speed is important to grid based combat. And while I don’t like to be forced to use a grid, I certainly like to have it as an option. The potential problem of Fast Movement is that it does tie a group down to using a grid, because if a grid is not used, then the barbarian player’s class is functionally gimped. That being said, I have GMed for several barbarians, and none of them have complained yet during the battles where I choose to run things grid-less.

That’s really a minor issue however, as Pathfinder combat is intended to be run with a grid. And when using a grid, the rate of movement has some very interesting effects on combat. If anything, I’d like to see more movement speed bonuses and penalties in the game.

Rage: I’ve already mentioned that I don’t think rage mechanics deserve to be ubiquitous, but it’s here, so lets talk about how it’s implemented.

Honestly I’d rather see rage be more dramatically powerful, but come with more significant drawbacks. As it stands, Rage is certainly…’balanced.’ It’s a boon to the class which allows them to be competitive in combat. But that’s a metric which I believe to be overrated. Not entirely without value, mind you, but certainly overrated. I won’t go into that now, but I recommend Brendan of Untimately’s thoughts on the matter.

Instead of a small bonuses and penalties, I want to see Barbarians hurl stones that weigh as much as they do–but I also want them to have a possibility to attack their fellows, or flee from a flashy magical effect. I haven’t thought out how this might be implemented, but I’d enjoy it a lot more than a +4 bonus to Strength and Constitution. Snore.

Rage Powers: Despite myself, I love rage powers. They overcomplicate the class, confuse new players, and encourage veteran players to concentrate on their character’s ‘build,’ rather than improvement through play. But all of that aside, I think Rage Powers are awesome. They’re elegantly flavorful, and lend the rage ability the type of drama I was lamenting the lack of above.

Consider that when enraged, a character could gain the ability to see in the dark, or run twice as fast, or deflect swords with the sheer bulginess of their muscles. It is fun, and awesome. And–better yet–most every one of the rage powers presented in the core rulebook avoid my problem with feats. They’re mostly improvements to stuff the character could already attempt, or legitimately new abilities, rather than agency-damaging game options.

Though I do love them, I think Rage Powers might benefit from being made much more powerful, and acquired much more slowly.

Improved / Uncanny Dodge: There’s not a lot to say about this pair of abilities. They might be seen as complications, but at least they’re not minor, fiddly ones. The inability to be caught flat footed, or the inability to be flanked, change a lot about how combat will work. The pair works well with barbarian flavor–particularly if you consider my alternative to ‘rage’ noted above–so no complaints on that front either.

Trap Sense: This, on the other hand, is a minor fiddly complication; and not one which fits particularly well with Barbarian flavor. I’ve always hated Trap Sense, even for rogues. Perhaps it might carry more weight if traps were deadlier in Pathfinder. (Of course, traps are plenty deadly in my games. But not in Pathfinder raw.)

Damage Reduction: I think damage reduction is a really elegant mechanic, and one of the best innovations of D&D 3rd edition.* I think it’s also a good fit for the Barbarian, since they’re so ferocious and battle scarred that minor blows have completely ceased to phase them.

Greater / Mighty Rage: While I’m okay with rage as a barbarian ability, I do not like these kinds of rage ‘upgrades.’ I suppose there’s nothing inherently wrong with them, but it makes the character’s progression seem stilted. I would much rather see rage improve organically. So instead of +4 strength at level 1, +6 at level 11, and +8 at level 20; rage could simply give characters a 25% increase in strength. As the character’s strength improved, so would the strength bonus they received when they raged.

As an alternative, all improvements to rage could come in the form of something similar to rage powers.

Indomitable Will: I can’t help but feel this ought to just be a rage power. Maybe it was deemed to be out of balance with other rage power options, but as I mentioned, I think rage powers ought to have a more dramatic effect anyway.

Tireless Rage: I’ve decided I’m too tired and apathetic to write what I think about Tireless Rage. Instead, just go up and read what I think about Indomitable Will, because my thoughts on that ability are literally identical to my thoughts on Tireless Rage. I seriously considered copy-pasting it.

*Please forgive me, and correct me, if I’m missing a piece of gaming history here.