New Monk weapon: Wraps

[A Man In Black]

Reiver wrote:

I must presume the first point is pure thematics, not mechanics. Of course, why this comes about tends to have more to do with Monks being so thematically different to the other melee classes than anything else, but we'll see.

I don't see any reason that monks shouldn't have a special list of flurry weapons for thematic reasons. I just don't see why they have to suck so badly. There's no reason for a siangham to not be a d6 19-29/x2 or d6 20/x3 or even d8 damage weapon. There's also no reason that monks shouldn't get short piercing swords, daggers, or even clubs, since those are weapons that have been utilized by the martial arts traditions of pretty much any society with swords/knives/heavy things, and there's no reason that a curved blade of east Asian styling shouldn't be a monk weapon in a game that pretty much lumps anything east of the Ukraine and west of the Aleutians into "Oriental stuff."

Quote:

As for the second... I can see why at first glance an amulet should cost twice as much "So it scales with the price a TWF combatant pays for two weapons" - that a Monks damage falls behind because their damage mechanic is potentially a tad wonky is perhaps a quirk of having one person write the classes, and another the magic items?

Well, that's one explanation, but I was kind of hoping that there was some sort of thought behind it, that someone could point out something I missed. It's nine years later, and monks are still using an item which is costed and balanced for use by creatures and classes who use natural attacks (which tend to come in large numbers, all at full BAB), as well as giving up a valuable magical item slot to do so.

Quote:

(PS: Are you the Mibsy I might happen to know from a certain <i>Mythic</i>al IRC channel? I'm just curious since I saw your name, and if these forums have a PM button I've missed it. :) )

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe. And there's no PM button I'm aware of.

[Sean K Reynolds]

{"When the rubber meets the road the monk does less damage than those other classes."}

Since when is damage the only measure of a class's effectiveness? The monk has better saves, better speed, can stunlock opponents, teleport, DR 10/chaotic, evasion, immunity to disease and poison, more skill points, spell resistance, and quivering palm. Perhaps THAT has something to do with the overall balance of the class?

{because other classes get +hit/+damage as class abilities and can take the TWF feats (often as bonus feats) to get just as many attacks as a monk, while using superior weapons.}

What "superior weapon" is the optimized TWF fighter using? What light, one-handed weapon does significantly more damage than the best flurryable monk weapon?

{This imbalance is fundamental and it begs a lot of other questions}

Yes, questions like, "how come the fighter can't teleport?," and "how come the fighter isn't immune to disease and poison?," and "how come the fighter doesn't have evasion?," and "how come the fighter has to buy expensive armor?," and "how come the fighter doesn't have DR 10?," and "why doesn't the fighter have more skill points?," and so on.

The fighter is the standard by which other melee classes' melee damages are measured. If the monk doesn't do as much damage as the fighter, perhaps there are OTHER elements to the class that are better than the fighter to compensate for that?

This isn't World of Warcraft. The DPS classes aren't measured just by how much damage they can do per second. There are things in the game other than combat that influence overall class balance.

[Saradoc]

(This isn't World of Warcraft. The DPS classes aren't measured just by how much damage they can do per second. There are things in the game other than combat that influence overall class balance.

)

WELL SAID, all of it.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Since when is damage the only measure of a class's effectiveness? The monk has better saves, better speed, can stunlock opponents, teleport, DR 10/chaotic, evasion, immunity to disease and poison, more skill points, spell resistance, and quivering palm. Perhaps THAT has something to do with the overall balance of the class?

Are you telling me that the answer to both questions is "Because the monk is meant to do less damage than other classes"? That leads to new questions, and those are much more interesting ones. Also, less math involved. :D

Quote:

What "superior weapon" is the optimized TWF fighter using? What light, one-handed weapon does significantly more damage than the best flurryable monk weapon?

A short sword or a kukri. A short sword is 5% more damage (well, ~4.76% more, but whatever) than a siangham and benefits twice as much from Improved Critical, a feat so good that pretty much everyone who hits people takes it.

Quote:

Yes, questions like, "how come the fighter can't teleport?," and "how come the fighter isn't immune to disease and poison?," and "how come the fighter doesn't have evasion?," and "how come the fighter has to buy expensive armor?," and "how come the fighter doesn't have DR 10?," and "why doesn't the fighter have more skill points?," and so on.

Those are very good questions. Would you be interested in answering them in another thread?

[Sean K Reynolds]

A Man In Black wrote:

Are you telling me that the answer to both questions is "Because the monk is meant to do less damage than other classes"?

No, the answer is, "The monk shouldn't do as much damage as the fighter because that's stepping on the fighter's toes." Just as giving the wizard more spells per day steps on the sorcerer's toes, giving the sorcerer more spells known steps on the wizard's toes, and so on.

A Man In Black wrote:

A short sword or a kukri. A short sword is 5% more damage (well, ~4.76% more, but whatever) than a siangham and benefits twice as much from Improved Critical, a feat so good that pretty much everyone who hits people takes it.

So you're complaining about a 5% damage disparity. Five. Percent.

Quote:

Those are very good questions. Would you be interested in answering them in another thread?

No, because I don't have any interest in a feature-by-feature evaluation of every single class, complete with assigning arbitrary point values to each so you can determine which class is "best."

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

No, the answer is, "The monk shouldn't do as much damage as the fighter because that's stepping on the fighter's toes." Just as giving the wizard more spells per day steps on the sorcerer's toes, giving the sorcerer more spells known steps on the wizard's toes, and so on.

So you're complaining about a 5% damage disparity. Five. Percent.

Actually, I'm pointing out a 5% difference there. And another 9% difference from a lesser benefit from Improved Crit. And the difference from not being able to use kukris. (Which are generally even better and available to any TWFer but a rogue.) And also the loss of the monk's only flat +damage ability. Etc., etc. But if lesser damage was the design intent, that's fine. I'm satisfied with "the monk is intended to do less damage than [standard] because [reasons]." (I might find [reasons] insufficient but the discussion of how the goals were implemented is more interesting to me than the discussion of how the goals might be improved.)

Monk damage is low, but more important it's non-obviously low. It's lowered in subtle ways that make doing lots of damage with a monk look like a powerful strategy ("Look, he's got so many attacks! And the base damage is so high!") but then the access to magic weapons is subtly crippled, the to-hit falls behind other classes, etc., contributing to lower overall damage in non-obvious ways.

PF was an opportunity to redesign the monk, and all the base numbers were changed anyway. Why not come out and make the damage obviously lower than the other classes, and say outright in the class description that monks can attack with a flurry of weaker blows, but supplement their lower damage with unique abilities and high defenses against magic? Just make fists a d6 weapon from start to finish, bake any extra damage/to-hit into FOB or ki strike or something, then give monks enhanceable gloves or something so they don't have to use an item balanced for druids and monsters.

That way, people know what they're getting into. New players can look at a rogue and say, "Hey, he's going to be bad at hitting things and bad at defense, but do really good damage when he gets the drop on people." New players can't eyeball a monk the same way, because the numbers look big and the class description says that "These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade."

I don't think that it's scandalous that the monk is weak so much that the monk appears to be good at a number of things that it is bad at by design, and the player isn't informed of this. You'd get a lot less of this whiplash if the base numbers were reshuffled to be less misleading and the monk description said something like "These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, eschewing the brute force of a blade for a flurry of blows that leave foes staggered and reeling."

Quote:

No, because I don't have any interest in a feature-by-feature evaluation of every single class, complete with assigning arbitrary point values to each so you can determine which class is "best."

I'm not interested in what class is "best". I'm interested in the thinking behind class concepts. I'd be immensely interested in your thoughts on how a class which is non-magical by definition is meant to fit into D&D. But it's a topic big enough for its own thread.

[Sean K Reynolds]

A Man In Black wrote:

New players can't eyeball a monk the same way, because the numbers look big and the class description says that "These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade."

Perhaps the monk is a class that new players shouldn't mess with until they're a little more experienced?

In other words, there's a reason why the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are easy-to-play classes: the game needs an intro point for new players so they're not bogged down with a dozen options.

[Chris_Johnston]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

New players can't eyeball a monk the same way, because the numbers look big and the class description says that "These warrior-artists search out methods of battle beyond swords and shields, finding weapons within themselves just as capable of crippling or killing as any blade."

Perhaps the monk is a class that new players shouldn't mess with until they're a little more experienced?

In other words, there's a reason why the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are easy-to-play classes: the game needs an intro point for new players so they're not bogged down with a dozen options.

I can't really imagine a class LESS friendly to new players than the wizard, actually.

The monk, with a standard progression of abilities (all monks always get x at level y) should be simpler for a new player to pick up. In theory it should be more newbie-friendly than a class where you have an enormous choice of abilities, since a new player has no way of judging the value of such abilities against each other.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Perhaps the monk is a class that new players shouldn't mess with until they're a little more experienced?

In other words, there's a reason why the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are easy-to-play classes: the game needs an intro point for new players so they're not bogged down with a dozen options.

That's non-obvious as well, though, and clerics and wizards are some of the hardest classes to understand because their abilities are broadly and irregularly distributed through a 146-page chapter. I don't understand why you picked three classes that pick from intimidatingly-large pools of abilities as as an intro point that doesn't bog players down. What is it about these classes, other than their ties to previous editions, that makes them particularly well-suited to starting players?

That aside, eventually you are going to have a new group who is ready to try a monk for the first time. They may or may not have a significant understanding of the game, already, but they haven't yet tried this class. Unfortunately for them, it is a trap option. It's not a trap because it's weak; it's a trap because the monk is bad at a number of things that people would think it's strong at. There's a powerful-looking AC ability, so that makes people think the monk's AC is going to be high. There's powerful-looking attacks and lots of them, so it makes people think that the monk is going to do lots of damage. By contrast, Stunning Fist (which I'd say is the class's main ability; would you disagree?) is a single paragraph that requires you to look in another section (the feats section) in order to know what it does. Players are set up to fail, not because the class is weak but because it's misleading. Is this something that's ever been on the radar?

[Sean K Reynolds]

Though Clr and Wiz are more complex than previous versions of the game, they're still pretty simple at low levels: "you can cast spell X once, Y once, and Z once... cross them off when you cast them."

[sysane]

Don't know if this has been mentioned but couldn't the wraps be tied to specific DR type without any enhancement bonus? Meaning you could have something like "Monk Wraps of Silver" which would simply allow the monk's unarmed attacks to bypass DR/Silver. That way the wraps would still work in conjunction with the Amulet of Mighty Fists?

Probably not an original idea but thought I'd put it out there in case it hadn't.

[Saradoc]

A Man In Black wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Perhaps the monk is a class that new players shouldn't mess with until they're a little more experienced?

In other words, there's a reason why the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are easy-to-play classes: the game needs an intro point for new players so they're not bogged down with a dozen options.

That's non-obvious as well, though, and clerics and wizards are some of the hardest classes to understand because their abilities are broadly and irregularly distributed through a 146-page chapter. I don't understand why you picked three classes that pick from intimidatingly-large pools of abilities as as an intro point that doesn't bog players down. What is it about these classes, other than their ties to previous editions, that makes them particularly well-suited to starting players?

That aside, eventually you are going to have a new group who is ready to try a monk for the first time. They may or may not have a significant understanding of the game, already, but they haven't yet tried this class. Unfortunately for them, it is a trap option. It's not a trap because it's weak; it's a trap because the monk is bad at a number of things that people would think it's strong at. There's a powerful-looking AC ability, so that makes people think the monk's AC is going to be high. There's powerful-looking attacks and lots of them, so it makes people think that the monk is going to do lots of damage. By contrast, Stunning Fist (which I'd say is the class's main ability; would you disagree?) is a single paragraph that requires you to look in another section (the feats section) in order to know what it does. Players are set up to fail, not because the class is weak but because it's misleading. Is this something that's ever been on the radar?

Dude - why are you so persistent? If you don't like the monk build just don't play it. You seem like a disruptive poster to me. And I think I've seen you get disruptive or negative in tone in other posts as well. Not cool.

[Saradoc]

Saradoc wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Perhaps the monk is a class that new players shouldn't mess with until they're a little more experienced?

In other words, there's a reason why the fighter, cleric, wizard, and rogue are easy-to-play classes: the game needs an intro point for new players so they're not bogged down with a dozen options.

That's non-obvious as well, though, and clerics and wizards are some of the hardest classes to understand because their abilities are broadly and irregularly distributed through a 146-page chapter. I don't understand why you picked three classes that pick from intimidatingly-large pools of abilities as as an intro point that doesn't bog players down. What is it about these classes, other than their ties to previous editions, that makes them particularly well-suited to starting players?

That aside, eventually you are going to have a new group who is ready to try a monk for the first time. They may or may not have a significant understanding of the game, already, but they haven't yet tried this class. Unfortunately for them, it is a trap option. It's not a trap because it's weak; it's a trap because the monk is bad at a number of things that people would think it's strong at. There's a powerful-looking AC ability, so that makes people think the monk's AC is going to be high. There's powerful-looking attacks and lots of them, so it makes people think that the monk is going to do lots of damage. By contrast, Stunning Fist (which I'd say is the class's main ability; would you disagree?) is a single paragraph that requires you to look in another section (the feats section) in order to know what it does. Players are set up to fail, not because the class is weak but because it's misleading. Is this something that's ever been on the radar?

Dude - why are you so persistent? If you don't like the monk build just don't play it. You seem like a disruptive poster to me. And I think I've seen you get disruptive or negative in tone in other posts as...

In addition, it's not just about "attacks" and "damage" etc. It's about flavor and giving even new players options to play the kind of iconic characters from stories that they would want to play. I just don't think you get it.

[Sgtdrill]

Saradoc wrote:

In addition, it's not just about "attacks" and "damage" etc. It's about flavor and giving even new players options to play the kind of iconic characters from stories that they would want to play. I just don't think you get it.

Very well said. We're about to start a Pathfinder campaign, and I'm playing a Bard. Not because I have any expectation he'll be able to keep up in the power department - I couldn't care less about that (though the bard is MUCH more competitive in that dept than in years past). I'm playing him because I think the idea of an actor joining the party because he's researching a role for a play would be a blast.

Most new players, in my experience, don't choose classes based on the fact they think it would be min/maxable - they choose the class because its their particular flavor of wish fulfillment. "Ooh, I always wanted to be Gandalf!" "Man, Conan rocks!" "Bwahahah - fear the master catburglar BackStabbath!"

[kyrt-ryder]

Sgtdrill wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

In addition, it's not just about "attacks" and "damage" etc. It's about flavor and giving even new players options to play the kind of iconic characters from stories that they would want to play. I just don't think you get it.

Very well said. We're about to start a Pathfinder campaign, and I'm playing a Bard. Not because I have any expectation he'll be able to keep up in the power department - I couldn't care less about that (though the bard is MUCH more competitive in that dept than in years past). I'm playing him because I think the idea of an actor joining the party because he's researching a role for a play would be a blast.

Most new players, in my experience, don't choose classes based on the fact they think it would be min/maxable - they choose the class because its their particular flavor of wish fulfillment. "Ooh, I always wanted to be Gandalf!" "Man, Conan rocks!" "Bwahahah - fear the master catburglar BackStabbath!"

That's all well and good, until the guy playing the monk gets disappointed because his character isn't helping the party win and sees they would do just fine without him.

I agree with the concept aspect. Heck, I play concepts, not builds, but I consider myself a 4th rank optimizer (the last rank is Theoretical Optimization and although I'm fair at it I'd never try to bring something like that into play.)

The reason for the use of math is simple, and that's to bring a concept to life. What good is it playing a martial arts master, or a ninja or whatever your theming your PC after if they can't contribute?

That's why some of us want certain classes improved, we want to bring everything up to parity so optimization isn't as required to have a character with combat value. (Note I said combat value, any PC can be fun to roleplay, but someone who basically would be better off sitting on the sidelines isn't very fun to fight as.)

[Sgtdrill]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

That's all well and good, until the guy playing the monk gets disappointed because his character isn't helping the party win and sees they would do just fine without him.

I agree with the concept aspect. Heck, I play concepts, not builds, but I consider myself a 4th rank optimizer (the last rank is Theoretical Optimization and although I'm fair at it I'd never try to bring something like that into play.)

The reason for the use of math is simple, and that's to bring a concept to life. What good is it playing a martial arts master, or a ninja or whatever your theming your PC after if they can't contribute?

That's why some of us want certain classes improved, we want to bring everything up to parity so optimization isn't as required to have a character with combat value. (Note I said combat value, any PC can be fun to roleplay, but someone who basically would be better off sitting on the sidelines isn't very fun to fight as.)

Yes, but as Sean pointed out - all the classes are not DESIGNED to be equal in every category. WIth a few exceptions, a fighter can't sneak as well as the rogue, but the monk very easily can - not to mention teh increased skill points that go with it. The monk gets SR, DR, self-healing, higher move speed, etc etc etc. Its not designed to be a pure damage dealer.

Looked at another way, by your logic, if the monk DID have equal damage output with the fighter, why on earth would anybody play a fighter? When you can have the same damage output PLUS DR, SR, mocve speed, stunnning fist, etc etc. We'd be back to the same crap you saw in 3.5 - nothing but a lot of splashing into the fighter class (if that).

If you're looking for a game system where they tried to make every class just as good as every other class at everything - WotC just cam out with a new system called '4th edition' - you'll love it. ;)

[kyrt-ryder]

Sgtdrill wrote:

various comments

Yeah... about that... everybody BUT the fighter gets speed like that, and the Fighter often does under haste.

The DR doesn't hit until level 20 or you might have something.

(A decent houserule would be to give the monk DR/ Chaotic = 1/2 his character level, starting at level 2. Now THAT would matter. Then again, I've houseruled the Barbarian DR progression to start at level 1, and for the Fighter's armor DR to start at level 3 and progress with his armor training but eh, guess I'm just weird that way.)

As for the 4th edition comment, I've tried it, and I don't particularly enjoy it to be honest. 3.X is what I love, that's why I want to help make it better.

I don't want everybody to be the same at everything, I just want them to be equally effective in their own way. Heck I've probably put in over 100 hours working on a personal Pathfinder redesign to that end, but just because I have my own work doesn't mean that I don't still care about the source game. Pathfinder's special to me (part of that probably comes from being in the playtest, but I digress)

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Sgtdrill wrote:

various comments

Yeah... about that... everybody BUT the fighter gets speed like that, and the Fighter often does under haste.

The DR doesn't hit until level 20 or you might have something.

(A decent houserule would be to give the monk DR/ Chaotic = 1/2 his character level, starting at level 2. Now THAT would matter. Then again, I've houseruled the Barbarian DR progression to start at level 1, and for the Fighter's armor DR to start at level 3 and progress with his armor training but eh, guess I'm just weird that way.)

As for the 4th edition comment, I've tried it, and I don't particularly enjoy it to be honest. 3.X is what I love, that's why I want to help make it better.

I don't want everybody to be the same at everything, I just want them to be equally effective in their own way. Heck I've probably put in over 100 hours working on a personal Pathfinder redesign to that end, but just because I have my own work doesn't mean that I don't still care about the source game. Pathfinder's special to me (part of that probably comes from being in the playtest, but I digress)

Dude - no character concept or build is perfect. HOUSERULE the changes that you want. My player loves the monk at midlevels and is kicking ass with her. And contributing. And having fun.

[kyrt-ryder]

Saradoc wrote:

Dude - no character concept or build is perfect. HOUSERULE the changes that you want. My player loves the monk at midlevels and is kicking ass with her. And contributing. And having fun.

Ok, there's one last piece I need to add to my statement. That's assuming the GM is playing hardcore lol. Of course you can contribute and have fun in an adventure designed for the group.

Glad your player's enjoying your game Saradoc, good luck :)

[Saradoc]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Saradoc wrote:

Dude - no character concept or build is perfect. HOUSERULE the changes that you want. My player loves the monk at midlevels and is kicking ass with her. And contributing. And having fun.

Ok, there's one last piece I need to add to my statement. That's assuming the GM is playing hardcore lol. Of course you can contribute and have fun in an adventure designed for the group.

Glad your player's enjoying your game Saradoc, good luck :)

I will take your last comment as genuine, because there's no luck necessary, just good times.

[A Man In Black]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Though Clr and Wiz are more complex than previous versions of the game, they're still pretty simple at low levels: "you can cast spell X once, Y once, and Z once... cross them off when you cast them."

That doesn't answer either of my questions.

What makes the fighter (and cleric, and wizard) more suited to new players than the monk? How is this (or how could it be) communicated effectively?

What is the monk intended to be effective at, and how is this (or how could it be) communicated effectively?

Quote:

We're about to start a Pathfinder campaign, and I'm playing a Bard. Not because I have any expectation he'll be able to keep up in the power department - I couldn't care less about that (though the bard is MUCH more competitive in that dept than in years past). I'm playing him because I think the idea of an actor joining the party because he's researching a role for a play would be a blast.

But you know exactly what you're getting into, and what the bard is good and bad at. The description of the bard tells you clearly what you're good at and what you're going to leave to the rest of the party. In addition, the bulk of the class abilities and the bulk of the space spent describing class abilities are focused on things that are a core part of the class concept.

I would say that the bard is much better designed in this way than, for example, the cleric, which hides many spells which are essentially activated class abilities (e.g. Divine Power) in the scattershot, intimidating spell section. This doesn't have anything to do with which class is more powerful, but instead which class's abilities, strengths, and weaknesses are more clearly communicated to players.

We're still at this:

Quote:

Monk damage is low, but more important it's non-obviously low. It's lowered in subtle ways that make doing lots of damage with a monk look like a powerful strategy ("Look, he's got so many attacks! And the base damage is so high!") but then the access to magic weapons is subtly crippled, the to-hit falls behind other classes, etc., contributing to lower overall damage in non-obvious ways.

PF was an opportunity to redesign the monk, and all the base numbers were changed anyway. Why not come out and make the damage obviously lower than the other classes, and say outright in the class description that monks can attack with a flurry of weaker blows, but supplement their lower damage with unique abilities and high defenses against magic? Just make fists a d6 weapon from start to finish, bake any extra damage/to-hit into FOB or ki strike or something, then give monks enhanceable gloves or something so they don't have to use an item balanced for druids and monsters.

That's not criticizing low damage. That's criticizing deceptively low damage.

If the monk isn't meant to be a damage dealer, why is more ink spilled describing its damage than for every other class in the game? In RPGs, fantastically detailed rules are implicitly important, because nobody would be wasting pagecount and the reader's time on something that wasn't. This is why combat is a huge, lengthy chapter (or most of the book, depending on your point of view) and basketweaving and busking get one page a piece.

For example, take the wizard. The wizard clearly communicates what it is that you do each round: you cast a spell. You don't even need any of the prose to see this; the class table is mostly given over to a spellcasting progression. The only other things besides BAB and saves are a few magical-sounding abilities, all clustered at level 1, and bonus feats, which when I look them up turn out to be spells. Skimming the class ability descriptions, they are all about enhancing spells, learning spells, casting spells, or doing magical stuff. I know that this class casts spells.

This idea of clearly communicating what a class does is important, both for teaching new players and for giving players of all skill levels ideas. Bad class descriptions give players ideas that they can't play with that class: for example, if you want to play someone who punches through walls and shatters weapons with your hands as a monk, you're probably SOL. A better description would give players ideas that they can play, like a guy who slips through fights giving everyone the Vulcan nerve pinch or a gnome who tumbles from foe to foe kicking each in the shins. 4e does this by making pre-made slots for each class to fit into, but that's hardly the only way to do it.

Now, it's too late to save the monk. PFGCR is out the door and sold. It's not too late to save, say, the alchemist or the cavalier, both of which have serious WTF-does-this-class-even-do issues. I believe they arise from the same conflict between how much effort is spent on describing the things the class doesn't do well and a lack of emphasis on things the class does do well. By analyzing the failure of the monk in this way, lessons can be learned to be applied to future books.

[Anburaid]

Monks at low level are easy to play. Really easy. it's optimizing a monk over time that is difficult. The disparity in damage is something that gradually builds, and is mostly a product of the fact that they get so many attacks eventually. At high level having 7 attacks makes every +1 you can scrap together matter all that much more. By that logic every +1 you pass up on for some other bell and whistle matters too, whether it's from magic, items, or feats or whatever.

In the end it only matters if your game includes a lot of optimizers. If no one is trying to play massive DPR characters, a non optimized monk will fit in just fine. In any case, I find that optimization stuff does teach you how to rule play hypothetically, which helps you as a GM when designing balanced encounters, or dreaming up house rules. It does serve a good use when it's not being used a bludgeoning weapon on the forums.

[A Man In Black]

Anburaid wrote:

In the end it only matters if your game includes a lot of optimizers. If no one is trying to play massive DPR characters, a non optimized monk will fit in just fine. In any case, I find that optimization stuff does teach you how to rule play hypothetically, which helps you as a GM when designing balanced encounters, or dreaming up house rules. It does serve a good use when it's not being used a bludgeoning weapon on the forums.

I dispute this. One of my games is a PF game with mostly new players, for whom revelations like "Hey, Precise Shot is really good" come as a surprise. One of these players has been playing a monk, and is increasingly dissatisfied with the decay of his ability to contribute to the group. Granted, I only recently showed him that he should be using Stunning Fist, like, all the time, but flipping through the book I realized that there's really no good indication that SF is his main ability. He's unhappy with how squishy he is, and he's unhappy with how he doesn't do anything the party's two rangers can't do more effectively. I've been giving him some advice to try and correct it, but there's only so much optimization can do.

Unfortunately, it's not my game to correct the imbalances on the fly for him.

[Turin the Mad]

Santiago Mendez wrote:

LordGriffin wrote:

That DOES seem to make it less convenient to fight while rock climbing, but I don't think most people would mind that loss of functionality.

Also, you'd probably, technically, need two of them to flurry with. I think that puts the cost above the amulet.

But the OP stated that they were bought in a set and only needed one to cover both hands and both feet, maybe even have them extend the length of the whole arm and the whole legs, they are just cloth wraps after all. Think of them as medical wraps in real life, but instead of covering wounds they cover arms and legs (or what ever your monk uses as a weapon, could be forehead and look like a headband, LOL) but give no mechanical benefit except that they can be made masterwork and then enchanted.

I really like this idea and overall it makes more sense to me than an amulet would.

Actually, I think you are looking at a single multiple-slot magic item here to fulfill the aesthetics: armor, feet, hands and head. Taking an item that gobbles up three of the monk's normal magic item groups/slots is a fair trade for a 'weapon' that would benefit from being able to progress up to +10 [as normal for a weapon] at half the weapon cost (dropping to armor costs).

[Miranda]

sysane wrote:

Don't know if this has been mentioned but couldn't the wraps be tied to specific DR type without any enhancement bonus? Meaning you could have something like "Monk Wraps of Silver" which would simply allow the monk's unarmed attacks to bypass DR/Silver. That way the wraps would still work in conjunction with the Amulet of Mighty Fists?

Probably not an original idea but thought I'd put it out there in case it hadn't.

Looks fine to me, however I'm houseruling the Monk attacks vs DR as per magic weapons with +1 at 4th, every 4 levels to even out the progression.

If you price the wraps as per amulet it's really just fluff, plus it makes more sense on the item type = use it's for rule of thumb.

[Miranda]

If you want your monk to do more damage with weapons consider Scorpion Kama from Magic Item Compendium which does your unarmed damage or the weapon mod. from quintessential monk 2 which does the same for any weapon as a +2 enhancement.

Question is, does that unbalance the game?

What if you make it a feat?

[Kaisoku]

Oie... lots of discussion about Monks again. Interesting, but distracting. I had to check the title of the thread to remember what I wanted to post about again.

.

So, getting back to the original topic.

My own current ideas on "wraps" concept is this: the Cestus.

A Cestus (historically) was leather straps wrapped around your hands to protect them when punching. Often, it was loaded with something to make it more lethal, weights, spikes, bladed edges, etc.

What I would do is simply add a new "weapon" item called the Cestus.

Unloaded it would do nothing for the normal, nonmagical use (although I could see a masterwork version granting a +1 to attack, from the protection it offers your barehand).
Loading it with Weights would grant Lethal Bludgeoning damage, Spikes would grant Lethal Piercing damage, and Blades would grant Lethal Slashing damage.

An "exotic" load could be created, edged spikes with a bladed tip, that allow punching with them to be considered Lethal Piercing/Slashing/Bludegoning damage (bludgeoning because of the punch behind the spike, piercing because of the spike itself, and slashing because the edge allows pulling motions after striking to cause a slashing effect). Yes, it would be hard to pull off the triple effect with a single blow, but that's why it's exotic.
For those crying "it's too good!", look at a monster's "Bite" attack sometime for comparison.

The load would be added when wrapping the Cestus. Wrapping it takes time (1 full round action per hand?), and can't be disarmed (although it can be sundered).

Finally, it would allow for magical enhancement. The Cestus itself can be enhanced, or the loads individually can be (the load being the dominant effect), allowing swapping effects (albeit with two rounds of setup, so not really a mid-combat thing).
Of course, this limits the magical bonuses to striking with that particular appendage, putting a bit of a limitation on the monk's normal unarmed strike usage. Then again, they are magically enhancing a single weapon cheaper than if they were magically enhancing all natural attacks, so the restriction fits appropriately.

.

Any thoughts?

[Lyingbastard]

We featured the Cestus in Paths of Power, by 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming, in the new gear section.

I think SKR has given us some really good points here, and honestly I think at this point AMIB is getting to his usual "Well, I'm not satisfied by your reasoning so I'm gonna argue the point until everyone's sick of it and so I WIN" bit that I've seen in at least three threads so far.

[N. Jolly]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

The reason why the amulet is expensive is because a monk doesn't just use his hands to make unarmed strikes, he can use fists, elbows, knees, and feet, so the item potentially has to "charge up" eight weaponized parts of the body. Limiting something to the hands like this is possible, but the monk would only get the bonus on the part of the body wrapped with the magic item.

Just now noticing this...so an item like this would be possible? Could that possibly be in the APH? I'd be cool with just doing it for his hands, and his feet (probably less trained unless he was using a style based around feet or both hands and feet which could also be wrapped and take up that magic item slot) would just not get the same bonuses...yeah, that's basically what I was looking for, so knowing that it's possible, I'm totally going to do that in my home games!

But honestly, SKR did have a lot of good points that I came to realize before asking about this, so overall, I'm pretty happy with how things turned out. Everyone can continue to discuss this, but I'm pretty happy about this whole thing.

[Kaisoku]

Lyingbastard wrote:

We featured the Cestus in Paths of Power, by 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming, in the new gear section.

I think SKR has given us some really good points here, and honestly I think at this point AMIB is getting to his usual "Well, I'm not satisfied by your reasoning so I'm gonna argue the point until everyone's sick of it and so I WIN" bit that I've seen in at least three threads so far.

Really? I don't see the same thing.

I don't always agree with the points AMiB makes (see the Jack B Nimble/Stealth thread for example), however he seems to have the goal of seeking improvement on the game as a whole.

I mean.. I need to emphasize his recent couple paragraphs on this issue:

A Man in Black wrote:

This idea of clearly communicating what a class does is important, both for teaching new players and for giving players of all skill levels ideas. Bad class descriptions give players ideas that they can't play with that class: for example, if you want to play someone who punches through walls and shatters weapons with your hands as a monk, you're probably SOL. A better description would give players ideas that they can play, like a guy who slips through fights giving everyone the Vulcan nerve pinch or a gnome who tumbles from foe to foe kicking each in the shins. 4e does this by making pre-made slots for each class to fit into, but that's hardly the only way to do it.

Now, it's too late to save the monk. PFGCR is out the door and sold. It's not too late to save, say, the alchemist or the cavalier, both of which have serious WTF-does-this-class-even-do issues. I believe they arise from the same conflict between how much effort is spent on describing the things the class doesn't do well and a lack of emphasis on things the class does do well. By analyzing the failure of the monk in this way, lessons can be learned to be applied to future books.

Now, while I agree this is aggressive in tone, it is definately not an "I want to win the thread" post.

And I have to agree... pretty much every effective monk I've seen in use used combat options that were NOT taking advantage of the damage dealing aspects of the class.

It's just weird that a major class benefit (Stunning Fist) is kind of tucked away as a bonus feat among other bonus feats... barely mentioned at all.

But anyways.. I didn't want to get into this side issue.

If even SKR agrees that such an item could be workable if restricted to the one limb, then it's something I vote for having in the Advanced Player's Guide too...

[Saradoc]

Lyingbastard wrote:

We featured the Cestus in Paths of Power, by 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming, in the new gear section.

I think SKR has given us some really good points here, and honestly I think at this point AMIB is getting to his usual "Well, I'm not satisfied by your reasoning so I'm gonna argue the point until everyone's sick of it and so I WIN" bit that I've seen in at least three threads so far.

Bingo.

[Eyolf The Wild Commoner]

Skimmed through the stuff, and decided to post this as it's been said many times it seems, and I think everyone would think it's a good idea, if I failed then oh well. Here we go. Faaallcooo-

Quote:

Martial Wraps

Cost - 5 Gold.
Location - One body part.
Effect - Are enchantable like that of a MW weapon. (Cannot be made MW, but are enchantable as stated previously.)

Example - The groups monk has two Martial Wraps, one for his left hand, one for his right. The right is enchanted with a +2 to hit, and flaming.

The left is enchanted with a +3 to hit, and Freezing Burst.

The bonuses only apply to attacks made with the exact wrapped body party.

Combat Example - The Monk makes an attack roll with his right hand, he gets a +2 to hit, and Flaming. His next attack is made with his left hand, which instead gets a +3 to hit, and he scores a critical which allows him to gain the Freezing Burst effect of his enchantment.

[MoFah]

I wish the developers would integrate some sort of martial fighting-style option to complement unarmed combat for monks. As an alternative to monk weapons, a monk could practice a specific combat style that would vaguely resemble previously unaccessible weapons. For example, there could be a style that reduced a monk's unarmed damage but increase threat range, or reduced unarmed damage but increased crit damage (Iron Fist style). Otherwise, I'm a bit disappointed with a lot of the monk weapon options for many of the reasons you guys already listed. It would be cool if monks had more unarmed combat options to mirror their description and expectations as unarmed martial artists.