Round 1: charge + punch
Yet a kama does 1d6/20/x2. Wouldn't 1d4/20/x4 be more interesting? And give you a reason to use one?
Why should this be more interesting?? Let's look at the average damage (ignoring that threats have to be confirmed, which would lower the average damage of the suggested kama stats even further):Kama as written: (3.5x19 + 3.5x2) / 20 = 3,675
Kama as suggested: (2.5x19 +2.5x4) / 20 = 2,875
Factoring in damage bonuses, say +b, results in:
Calculating the break even point for b:
So, for a damage bonus (from strength or enchantments) of +8 or more the suggested kama is as good or better than the kama as written (again, not taking into account that threats have to be confirmed, raising the break even point for b even higher, depending on AC).
Critical hits might become relevant for weapons with wide threat ranges when doubling them, for anything else, they are just irrelevant.
So I'll gladly stick with the kama as written.
Well, a monk is not just a fighter he is a spiritual fighter, so knowledge religion is very appropriate. Monks are certainly inspired by Shaolin monks and similar who were first and foremost monks in the pure spiritual/religious sense. The fighting techniques came later. Being monks living in monasteries with long history where knowledge is kept, makes Knowledge history another appropriate class skill.
Of course there are more possible backgrounds for monks which do not include a monastic background, but then you are not forced to take the skill, but it's there for those that do choose a monastic or spiritual background.
Perform is a very nice skill supplementing role playing in my opinion. Categories that come into mind are Perform (singing), Perform (kata), Perform (show combat) or Perform (Oratory) for reciting parables of the task of heroes of old. Think of the Chinese festivals where the dragon puppets are played by a number of people hidden in them where it is a great honor to do that and requires the appropriate skill to perform the ritualistic fake combats.
However, swift action economy means you only have one ability running per round. Hence more ki abilities means less benefit than might appear. While agree that less bookkeeping is good, it also means less functionality.
That's where the following suggestion comes into play:
Liam ap Thalwig wrote:
Might be lower levels (I did no evaluation yet which levels might be appropriate).
@ciretose: To avoid dipping problems with Dabbler's Wis-to-hit, the bonus could be restricted to be no bigger than the number of monk levels the character has (similar to the Canny defense Int bonus of the Duelist).
If Wis-to-hit is an alternative to Str then the monk might start out using Str and switch to Wis when he gets more experienced.
Now you see I hold the opposite point of view, the monk is supposed to be a spiritual warrior, so a mental stat is essential to represent this. I think it's use should be emphasised to reduce MAD rather than de-emphasised. After all, paladins are dependent on a mental stat, charisma, and it works for them.
Yes, monks definitely are spiritual warriors. The non-spiritual warrior is represented by the Martial Artist archetype.But monks do not live from spirituality alone. Instead they strive to perfect their body and mind (Str, Dex, Con, Wis). So the physical attributes should not become meaningless either.
But I don't think that Dabbler's changes put too much weight on Wis. IIRC Dabbler's monk can choose whether to use Str or Wis for his attack bonus. Otherwise this should be the way to go :-)
master arminas wrote:
Here is the entire list of 'minimal' suggestions I made.
What I don't like about the 3.5 flurry is that the monk only gets one more attack than a fighter even at higher levels. It should be two more attacks IMHO from about level 8 on. CRB monk goes up to three more, but I think I could live with one less attack, if there are more attacks with highest attack bonus like the 3.5 flurry produces.
I'd let monastic weapon training start at level 1. This would result in lifting the 3/4 BAB to exactly full BAB for just monk weapons, unarmed strikes and CMB. That's where it should be, I think.
What about the following flurry:
3/4 BAB Flurry with Monastic Weapon Training:
1st: +0/+0 (monastic training: +1)
5th: +3/+3/-2 (monastic training: +2)
9th: +6/+6/+1/+1 (monastic training: +3)
13th: +9/+9/+4/+4/-1 (monastic training: +4)
17th: +12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2 (monastic training: +5)
BAB from other classes should just increase the attack values for flurry but not add additional attacks.
I don't think that the training pool idea is very attractive for dipping. The pool might even start at level 2 or 3 to discourage dipping.
The first mercy should be gained at 5th level together with Wholeness of Body and then one mercy every 2 levels (to make up for the late start).
I would probably drop shaken and frightened because they do no fit Wholeness of the Body well.
Furthermore I would drop poisoned because of the monk being immune to poison anyway.
Diseased might dropped as well because of Purity of Body. On the other hand it might be kept, dropping Purity of Body instead.
Cursed is a corner case (not body related in general) but fits a monk fine, so I'd keep it.
All those changes would make it distinct from Lay on Hands, though, so there would be nothing gained anymore from referring to Lay on Hands... :-)
Good point. On another thread you suggested to change it to fast healing for that reason which is another good idea, although it would break the concept of ki powers having a duration of at most 1 round (thereby eliminating bookkeeping).
I like that! Actually I'm a big fan of the independence theme of the monk.
Did you mean restoration instead of regenerate at 15th level? Restoration already has the precedent of being available for the Qinggong monk: 2 ki points, self only, available at 8th level, i.e. even much earlier than your suggestion.
While I like Dabbler's suggestion I think having real SR where magic just rolls off the monk is thematically nicer.
Being able to be healed when unconscious should be possible, though, so why not just let the monk's SR only work against hostile magic?
And I'd add a swift ki action to increase SR by 4 for 1 round at the cost of 1 ki point.
Some additional thoughts on Dabbler's suggestion:
Just realized something in another thread about ki powers that I'd like to mention here as well:
That's why I like the 1 round duration.
[...Ideas about ki powers lasting several rounds...]
While other classes have powers that last for several rounds or minutes, there is one thing I actually like about ki powers having only a 1 round duration: no bookkeeping required
You just decide what power to use this round and deduct the ki point(s) to power it. No counting of remaining rounds for each of the many ki powers you might have active at any one time.
To improve cost and swift action economy I would
(see this thread for some ideas being tossed around)
- fix the hitting problem (unarmed strike, monk weapons and CMB)
PCs generally have a higher survival rate, lest the GM actively metagames so hard that everyone red-pill completely. This can be stuff like auto-surprise, concentrated fire on a single party member because the enemies magically know it is the priority target, etc.
Why is concentrating fire on a single opponent member considered metagaming if the GM does it and good tactics if the PCs do it?
And concentrating fire is not even necessary because the argument was that a PC should be able to take down an enemy of CR=APL every round (without help).
Also, the PCs generally have higher AC than most CR=APL creatures can hit on a 10, meaning that there needs to be some seriously good rolls (or fudging) involved for a PC to go down in the first round.
A PC of level X has a CR of X due to PC wealth (see [url="http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz4rdq?CR-of-PC"]). So an opponent with CR=APL+1 is equal to a PC one level higher than the APL. The claim was that a PC can take down an enemy every round that is his CR or even a few higher. So taking down a PC every round that is a CR below him should be even easier!
If PCs have higher AC than CR=APL creatures then either they do not have CR (i.e. something is wrong with their builds) or the creature is not played to its CR (treating it like a fighter and ignoring its special features).
I have never done it to a PC, on principle. [i.e. killing a PC in one round]
Actually that is metagaming, not the other way round. To avoid misunderstandings: IMHO metagaming in favor of the PCs is often good and necessary (as long as it is not overdone). But we should not confuse which actions are metagaming and which actions are not.
So, my argument still stands: Given the claim that a PC should be able to take down an enemy every round that is his CR or even a few higher, a creature of CR=APL should be able to take down a PC each round as well.
He can usually take down an enemy every round that is his CR or even a few higher. And thats from first level till 20th. Same goes for most archers so thats...
Let me turn that argument around: so an opponent with CR=APL+1 is able to take out one party member per round. Seems like fights should be short indeed - with an equal chance of the party being dead after those 3 rounds as the other way round. And getting killed that fast with practically no time to react is not fun IMHO.
If it doesn't work this way, why should it work the other way around (i.e. for the party)?
I always hated level 1 in (A)D&D when your character could die within one round by an (un)lucky blow. This got better when leveling up (with the exception of certain magics of course, like finger of death - which would just add to the feeling that magic was something powerful and dangerous, though).
I'm just envisioning that character with his three greatswords strapped to his back...
Carrying a greatsword on the back and maybe a mace and a dagger on the belt is fine, but three greatswords...no.
Thanks for the detailed writeup AD!
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Your description sounds like (almost) all party members usually won initiative: cleric is able to move into position; barbarian is able to choose target
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
So, the barbarian was not only able to choose his target but also to actually choose the most dangerous one and reach it (i.e. in charge range with no intervening hindrances like other people)?
Actually my question was meant rhetorically :-)
All sound advice that you are giving, Adamantine Dragon, and it certainly is very nice once in a while if the fight just works out as planned.
master arminas wrote:
Stunning fist: p_hit * p_save => stunnedStunning strike: approx. n * 0.05 * p_hit => at least staggered (n = number of attacks; the probability is an approximation for small n and is worse if calculated correctly, but it is easier to compare with)
Therefore for p_save > 0.05 * n Stunning fist is better than Stunning strike.
For n = 2 (monk level 4) this means that even if the opponent has a fortitude save of 3+, i.e. is failing only in one of ten cases, Stunning fist is at least as good as Stunning strike in producing a result (stun or staggering).
The picture would improve if a monk's unarmed strike would have a threat range of 19-20 but I'm not sure if it would be enough. Not requiring to confirm would help more but feel bad.
What I like:
What I don't like:
Not sure yet, whether I like it:
Maybe if monks would get a threat on 19-20 (while still being able to double that range with the appropriate feat) it might become viable.
master arminas wrote:
The fort save of a 14th level wizard is +4, not +5. Giving him a +5 Cloak of resistance (which would require 13.5 % of his WBL, so actually I'd rather expect a +4 cloak) he'd have a save of +9. A 14 Con might indeed be likely, so we are looking at +11.
Now, Great fortitude is quite unlikely IMHO. Why? A wizard does not have many feats (10 if he is human) and as a wizard I'd rather take feats like Improved initiative, Spell focus, Greater Spell focus, Augment Summoning, Spell Penetration, Spell Specialization, Metamagic feats and possibly Item creation feats, i.e. feats centering on improving my magic abilities.
So we have a +11 vs. 20 which means a 40% success rate for stunning fist. Quite good, I'd say.
True, you have to find him, hit him etc. But other characters have to do the same, so there is no special disadvantage for being a monk.
With regards to the red dragon example: Ciretose explicitly talked about taking out wizards with stunning fist because of their bad fortitude save. Yes, stunning fist is no silver bullet and that is great. Silver bullets are boring.
master arminas wrote:
push the ki pool back to 5th level. Hold on, wait and let me finish. With ki strike, as long as the monk has at least one point of ki remaining in his ki pool, his unarmed strike gains a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. At 8th, 11th, 14th, and 16th level, this enhancement bonus would increase by +1.
No need to push the ki pool back to 5th level. Just decouple the introduction of ki strike from the introduction of the ki pool.
The feat still has a point for use with the spell, especially as Abundant step already is better than the spell (being a move action which can be used after a standard action) and therefore gains less from the feat than the spell in a sense.
I'm not fond of having to pay a feat tax to make Abundant step work like expected ("move action").
Just let the monk gain Abundant step together with Dimensional Agility at 12th level if you don't want to reword Abundant step and the feat.
Allow Wholeness of Body to do something useful - like restore lost ability score points, negative levels, or such. Or change the focus so it can act as DR, maybe, or fast healing for a minute
I like these ideas!
Make Dimensional Agility and it's tree be monk bonus feats so Abundant Step is actually useful...
Dimensional Agility should be built right into Abundant Step.
Ragnarok Aeon wrote:
I'm a big fan of the monk's fast speed and support Dabbler's suggestion of making the 20' move for 1 ki a a swift action.
High jumping is another favorite of mine. While I don't understand the grasshopper thing you mentioned the high jumping most certainly has its roots in chinese Wu Xia folklore.
Giving the monk DR (maybe coupled to expenditure of ki) makes perfect sense for me.
Like you said, wizards have access to all knowledge skills including Knowledge (Psionics). If they don't take one of these skills, they know nothing about these things. If the wizard has no ranks in Knowledge (religion) and wants to know something about an undead he encounters he cannot say, "hey I'm a wizard and I'm supposed to know things, so I'm just rolling against Knowledge (arcana), ok?". I don't see why this should be different with psionics.
Why hadn't he heard of [psionics] before? How had he never encountered it? Did all of reality suddenly just change around him? Or did his GM just screw him over because he bought a new book?
If the GM just bought a new book he has to put a bit of work into integrating its contents into existing campaigns. So, psionics might indeed be hitherto unknown, maybe because only underground folks or folks from beyond the sea or the mountains know and use it and the BBEG Psion is the first of an expedition force into the known lands. So these strange powers come as a real surprise and the wizard suddenly realizes that there is something new to learn. Something unheard of! What an opportunity for a sage!If the GM just slaps psionics onto the campaign and Psions are popping up here and there with now story behind them, just because the GM bought a new book, then, well, yes, he did screw his player. But this should not be taken care of by rules badly mixing things together which are clearly different. Otherwise, what's the point of introducing psionics if it's just magic in a rules disguise?
Not wanting to derail the thread further, I'd suggest to move further discussion of this topic (if any) into a new thread.
Leucrotta are "intelligent and cruel" according to their description and they have Int 11, so they are far from mindless (actually more intelligent than many PCs who use Int as a dump stat... :-).Avoiding heavily armored opponents seems to be an intelligent decision as well.
Mindless undead on the other hand are mindless indeed :-)
Then you run into Psionic Items which could only be identified by Psionic skills. A 30th level Caster with +70 in Spellcraft, would never be able to identify a Psionic item with a DC of 5, because it had to be a trained skill, and you had to have Knowledge Psionics and Psicraft.
Why should a 30th level caster with +70 in Spellcraft be able to identify a Psionic item? It's not magic, it works on completely different principles, it requires to be activated mentally, so him not being able to identify it is just what I would expect.
Same for Spell Resistance and Psionic Resistance. Makes sense to keep them separate. For "old" creatures I would use a default of giving them Psionic Resistance equal to their Spell Resistance, though, because the resistance in general does not reflect special knowledge of the creature but is there to make the creature more dangerous.
IMHO Dark Sun (and probably other campaigns) would lose much of its atmosphere if psionics where just magic with other rules mechanics.
In the even people who want to keep Psionics and Magic different, you use Knowledge Psionics and Psicraft, in the event you don't, you use Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft.
Makes sense :-)
Ah, thanks. I did read it once but as I haven't used it yet, I'm not firm with the details. Certainly I didn't expect manifesters to use the same skills as casters. Especially because Knowledge (psionics) was added to his list which made perfectly sense and I would expect that and not Knowledge (arcana) to be used to identify psionic effects and items. Instead of Spellcraft I probably would expect something called Psicraft. I find it rather strange if a manifester can identify spells being cast (and vice versa) as manifesting and casting are completely different in my opinion.(Just looked it up and indeed Psicraft and Use Psionic Device did exist formerly but were dropped in Psionics Unleashed which I consider a bad and unnecessary choice, but so be it).
Actually I saw that, but the thing I overlooked is that the monk's unarmed strikes are supposed to count as magic at level 1 already.
That clears up my misunderstanding with regards to having a jump to +2 at level 4 but I still think that this is a bit early. Maybe magic at level 3 (or maybe 2), and for Alvena: +2 at 6th, +3 at 9th, +4 at 12th, +5 at 15th and +6 at 18th or something like that. Just a thought, nothing too important.
I would drop Knowledge (arcana) and Spellcraft from the list of class skills. While monks are wise and knowledgeable I don't think they should be knowledgeable in the arcane in general. The arcane should stay so except for its students :-)
Furthermore I'd even drop Ride as I'm always imagining (generic) monks to rather walk than ride. Archetypes like the Sohei should add Ride back in, of course.
Maybe add Diplomacy to the list, reflecting the wisdom and serenity of a monk.
"ki strike: ... At 8th level, your unarmed strikes are treated as adamantine for the purposes of overcoming damage reduction. ... At 16th level, your unarmed strikes ignore hardness of less than 20. ..."
I would prefer a more gradual approach to ignoring hardness instead of jumping from zero to 20.
To discourage dipping just introduce such features at higher levels and/or couple them to ki and/or restrict them like the duelists bonus to half monk levels.
[ ...Halfling Underfoot Adept throwing net at huge demon... ]
While nets are a nice weapon (although I'm not envisioning them in the hands of a monk - more likely in the hands of a gladiator - but that's just me), unfortunately they are only effective against max 1 size category difference, so the halfling may net only medium, small or tiny creatures but not huge demons.