Yes, I agree.
|
I think that would over simplify things, plus there are several things a Monk does or can do that no fighter can duplicate. For example, huge boosts to speed, ever increasing damage die for unarmed attacks, access to stunning fist at 1st level, wisdom bonus to AC, evasion, flurry of blows, you see what I mean? Try making up a unarmed, unarmored fighter that comes even close to a monk at the same level, I doubt it will.
Although originally I wasn't a fan of the oriental class in my western fantasy rpg, but I've grown to like it and many settings have really incorporated the class and feel into the more standard western style feel of the game.
I for one can't wait to see what changes Jason makes for Monks.*
*and for Rangers & Bards too.
The monk is supposed to be a combatant ... so give him full BAB and d10's for hit dice.How about eliminating the Monk, then using the Fighter's Bonus Feats to take all of the combat abilities that the Monk normally has ...
FWIW,
Rez
Hmm... any takers for this challenge? Now that you are proposing it, it might be a nice take on the monk.
Stefan
I can't take this challenge, I'd end up sued by Monte Cook (Iron Heroes) and whomever has copyright on the Book of Nine Swords and Tactical Feats.
|
I can't take this challenge, I'd end up sued by Monte Cook (Iron Heroes) and whomever has copyright on the Book of Nine Swords and Tactical Feats.
No you won't...
it's a character build that is the challenge not publishing new rule for a fighter and/or monk.Give it a try...
I already posted an Pathfinder unarmed fighter. (It was v1.1 so it might have changed.)
I can't take this challenge, I'd end up sued by Monte Cook (Iron Heroes) and whomever has copyright on the Book of Nine Swords and Tactical Feats.No you won't...
it's a character build that is the challenge not publishing new rule for a fighter and/or monk.
Give it a try...
I already posted an Pathfinder unarmed fighter. (It was v1.1 so it might have changed.)
How about we just wait what the Pathfinder crew puts out, and then we'll have something to work with or criticize. They're doing a pretty bang job as it is, and I'm sure Alpha 3 will be pretty good as well.
I'm not saying that everything is perfect, as that's impossible and you can't please everybody, but rather that it is taking a good direction that I think most of us can appreciate.
1) Yes, Paizo is doing a WONDERFUL job with Pathfinder RPG. Most of the mistakes that I've seen have been minor and easily fixed. I may have had high hopes for what PFRPG should be, but I'd lose track of backward compatibility in a heartbeat.
2) If you swap the fighter weapon and armor proficiency feats out for unarmed feats, you end up with something that looks a lot like the monk. Swap out the weapon training for increased hand damage, and armor training for the AC increase, and add a feat for running faster in light armor and you're close to the basics of monk. No clue how to cram in all the class features of the old monk, though. Maybe Paladin is a better starting point, since it also has a code. (Or call this variant the Sohei, which has a different focus than the monk, anyway.)
3) I'd like to see the monk have a role other than swiss army knife (part fighter, part rogue, with a code of conduct so we can cram 25% more stuff into the class). THAT mentioned, I'd like to see the 'monk code' be distinct from the paladin code. Not entirely different; I'm sure there's points where they agree. But there are points where they diverge, also.
4) I'd rather have a system with too much flexibility than too little. I would have been happy with just the four base classes, with enough options to transform them into the others, than the current 3.5 system, with (I'm guessing) over 100 base classes. I'm not saying that's the way 3.P should go, and there are valid reasons why they shouldn't.
I don't like the monk too. It's just that every other class is european orientated and the monk just falls out of this.
But I know too, that we can't take it out of PF since this would go against their core design rules.
So back to the initial idea:
Maybe it's not that bad about giving the monk a good BAB and a good HD.
It's surely better than the Flurry of Blows stuff.
BUT: I would only allow him his good BAB for unarmed strike and monk weapons (is the spear included? If not, DO IT!)
For all other weapons he should only get the medium BAB or a -5 penalty.
Hmm. Actually the only reason for this is to hinder the monk to use longswords or axes or even greatswords.
Maybe a code similar to the paladin would be useful instead, saying that a monk can only use simple weapons and light martial weapons, or something.
Or just get rid of all the strange monk weapons and let him fight unarmed completly...
Yes, that +60' land speed is soo powerful when there are people with items and spells that allow teleportation...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I know that Jason has tied BAB to HD-type, but I think the monk is an exception. She's skilled in offensive strikes and defensive dodges and blocks.
I think d8 is right for hit points. Monks take damage, but not like fighters. Their defense is in a high Armor Class, not sucking up damage.
But full Base Attack Bonus makes sense, too. These guys attack a lot, and hit a lot, too.
Two suggestions for archetypical martial arts maneuvers:
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you only give them the BAB increase with monk weapons or unarmed, you are not giving them a huge advantage. They cant exactly pick up that vorpal sword and use it as well as the fighter.
Actually, Keith, Jason could give the monk an attack bonus with those weapons, but it would be odd to give her a split BAB. Base Attack Bonus is, for example, used as a prerequisite for many prestige classes. Letting the monk join a prestige class, but only so long as she doesn't use a non-monk weapon for the first couple of levels, seems peculiar to me.
|
|
The monk is supposed to be a combatant, but his poor bab and hit dice hinder him greatly in combat. He doesn't have the spells of a cleric or the sneak attack of a rogue, so give him full BAB and d10's for hit dice. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
I admit I'm biased because I don't really get the monk as a core class, but monks are described as combatants focused on personal abilities. They're not as strong as a fighter, and they're not supposed to be... but they do have a lot of special abilities that enable them to do things fighters can't.
Every class shouldn't get everything plus the kitchen sink. In other words, a monk should only get the BAB and HD of a fighter... if he gave up his redonculous saves, slow fall, a few other things, and lowered his skill points to 2, as well.
Classes should be balanced, but they should be unique, too. Otherwise, as someone else said, make an agile fighter, give him unarmed feats, and let him go to town, fist-style.
Some thoughts regarding additional monk abilities.
An ability that allows the monk to make a full attack at the end of a move would be fitting IMO.
Also granting them a better version of the rogue's Defensive Roll talent would be very much in flavor with the monk theme.
I think a cool ability that would make monks unique would be at higher levels allow them to use more than one combat feat a turn
|
|
I agree; I've loved the monk through since 3.0, and don't see much need for changes. Their attack bonuses and hit dice seem fairly balanced with their defensive abilities.
A suggestion? Increasing the dimension-door usefullness (more times per day, etc). Either more times per day, or able to spread out the total distance over various trips.
Maybe mug the "ninja" class from CAdv for some of their "Ki" abilities, similar to the Barbarians' rage points?
Or, possibly grant a climbing ability to complement the slow fall - that's great that one can fall any distance without damage, but how do you easily get back up the pit?
Either way, very much looking forward to seeing what Jason and the boys already have cooked up for the monk.
I'm with the OP on this. All the base classes are getting power boosts. Monks should get full BaB as part of theirs.
I wouldn't mind the monk getting the d10 and strong BAB, and I don't think that would make him a fighter with different feats, either - or do you think the same of the Paladin, Barbarian and Ranger?
The way the class is right now, I'd say that it wouldn't unbalance things, but let's just wait until they release Alpha 3 and the Pathfinder Monk.
the monk will go to d10, right? Every other class besides those already d10's were upped by one dice. d4 classes became d6, d6 became d8. I'm not sure if that happened with the cleric and ranger though. I am not sitting on a comp that has the alpha releases, not at my house.
I just am perplexed that they make a class that is SUPPOSED to be fighting and entering melee yet they have a D8 hit dice AND 3/4 bab.
I think a monk's flavor is that he is a fighter just trained in the mystical fantasy-ish martial arts.
I mean you look at fantasy kung-fu movies and even some real world martial artists out in asia that are masters of what they do. They can do some superhuman things! You tell me they aren't tough enough for a d10 or not disciplined enough in combat to get a full BaB. Even some asian aestetic monks have been known to sleep out in the freezing winter cold in just their normal robes with no blankets, wake up, and walk away as if nothing happened. Their mind over matter and pain is incredible.
the monk will go to d10, right? Every other class besides those already d10's were upped by one dice. d4 classes became d6, d6 became d8. I'm not sure if that happened with the cleric and ranger though. I am not sitting on a comp that has the alpha releases, not at my house.
No ya have it a bit wrong full BAB is d10..sept the barbarian who stays a d12. 3/4 is a d8 and 1/2 is a d6.
So ranger will be a d10 , bard a d8 ,but a monk if its BAB dose not change will be a d8.
I always thought monks should be proficient in all double weapons, and that they should be usable as the quarterstaff in a flurry of blows. (Monk as a master of exotic, nonstandard combat.) Fairly minor (since unarmed damage surpasses it fairly soon anyway) but cool.
I like the notion of the monk's Unarmed attack advancing at 3/4 BAB, and a weapon-wielding monk advancing at full BAB. Gives a reason to choose between going unarmed vs. armed.
I say keep the monk at d8 and middle range BAB. Monks are splitting their time between combat training, contemplation of themself and the cosmos and in many cases service to a religion. I would like to see the monk abilities get the same treatment the barbarian did. Instead of this power at this level and this power at that level work off a ki pool and select from a list of ki powers similar to the rage powers. I think this could make the monk orders stand apart from each other the same way the rage powers can make different "lodges" stand apart from each other. And you can add new ki powers in later supplements. Many of the rage powers would actually work well as ki powers given a different name and color text.
-Weylin Stormcrowe.
I say keep the monk at d8 and middle range BAB. Monks are splitting their time between combat training, contemplation of themself and the cosmos and in many cases service to a religion.
Flavor-wise, you're absolutely right. But they don't get cleric spells or domain powers or anything like that for all that time and trouble; all it does is make them immune to disease. That's a poor trade for handicapping their primary mechanical focus -- melee. (I think the other ideas in that post are quite cool, however, and could be a valuable addition/substitution for the usual monk stuff.)
I wouldn't mind the monk getting the d10 and strong BAB, and I don't think that would make him a fighter with different feats, either - or do you think the same of the Paladin, Barbarian and Ranger? The way the class is right now, I'd say that it wouldn't unbalance things, but let's just wait until they release Alpha 3 and the Pathfinder Monk.
I agree. If you design a class that revolves around melee, it really ought to have full BAB/d10 HD. Otherwise, right out of the gate it's crippled in its primary function. I'd happily give up slow fall or whatever for that, if necessary.
And monk weapons ought to scale in damage (and get the ki strike benefits) with the unarmed strike. Otherwise, why do they exist? Trading a huge penalty for moderate flavor is a bad deal all around.
I'd say give him one or the other, but not both. The Monk has a number of cool combat and non combat options the fighter/ranger/barbarian can't do already. My recommendation would actually be the hit die, they usually have crap for HP after investing in WIS, DEX, and STR.
The monk is supposed to be a combatant, but his poor bab and hit dice hinder him greatly in combat. He doesn't have the spells of a cleric or the sneak attack of a rogue, so give him full BAB and d10's for hit dice. This seems like a no-brainer to me.I admit I'm biased because I don't really get the monk as a core class, but monks are described as combatants focused on personal abilities. They're not as strong as a fighter, and they're not supposed to be... but they do have a lot of special abilities that enable them to do things fighters can't.
Every class shouldn't get everything plus the kitchen sink. In other words, a monk should only get the BAB and HD of a fighter... if he gave up his redonculous saves, slow fall, a few other things, and lowered his skill points to 2, as well.
Classes should be balanced, but they should be unique, too. Otherwise, as someone else said, make an agile fighter, give him unarmed feats, and let him go to town, fist-style.
Problem, Phaerie -- D10s and full BAB aren't some special, unique fighter trick. In fact, they're neither unique nor particularly special.
Take a look at the monster manual and you'll see that it takes a lot mroe than BAB and HD to keep up. Bigger monsters hit hard, and you need to be powerful class features that let you fight back. To the extent that BAB and Hit Dice define fighters, fighter is a bad class. Fighters have better weapons and armor than monks, and more feats, and whatever Pathfinder ends up giving them. If that's not enough to get them through the day (which I think it isn't) that's thier lookout, not the monk's problem.
Part of the problems with monks (which has been discussed at length elsewhere) is that they're spread thin; they're behind at front-line fighting, they're behind as a skilled character, and their class features at higher levels can be very situational. That, coupled with the reliance on many ability scores, makes them a difficult class at best.
Paizo's said monks will be the masters of Combat Maneuvers, which sounds like a smart move. Looking at the barbarian, a monk with Ki points and powers seems like a logical choice if the big guy playtests well and is well-received.
I've argued that it's important to decide where the monk falls in terms of combat and utility, and IMHO that brings the decision down to two main factors: BAB/HD, and Skills/Trapfinding.
Monks seem like they're in line for a HD boost, since everyone else has been getting one. With the word about Combat Maneuvers, the safe money is BAB will follow suit; Jason (I believe at PaizoCon) said they'll get bonuses to CMB, and a higher BAB would be the place to start.
If, however, you want the monk to be a utility (adventurer) class, with some nifty combat abilities as a bonus (like sneak attack is), you almost have to give them trapfinding, better skills, or both to make them competitive. Though monks don't have the same background with dirty tactics and devices that rogues and artificers do, it's easy to stretch their "sixth sense for danger" to include traps as well. You run into problems with how monks deal with the trap once they've found it, but that's a different discussion with my opinion about traps (bypasses need to be easier to deal with).
|
|
Instead of upping the monks BAB/HD, why not give him some class features like Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense? I think those would fit the class more than saying that he is a front line fighter. I see the monk only jumping into the fray occasional but his main ability is to use combat maneuvers(which is the case for the better monk builds). Flurry of blows works better in grappling than it does in front line fighting. Another thing to look at is the ability to continual change weapons with the flurry of blows. A monk running around with nunchaku and kamas can have a diverse amount of combat options when flurrying.
I think the Monk needs some kind of tune up. Flavor-wise its a really interesting class (when I switched from 2nd edition to 3rd, the Monk was on the top of my list of things to play), but the rules fall a little short.
I'm not sure that a higher BAB and HD are the way to go, but it's certainly an option worth considering. Personally, I'd like to see a reduction in the overall complexity of the class, and the BAB boost is less the complex than some of the alternatives.
I'd also like to see a little more support for Monks that fight with martial arts weapons. A Monk that focuses on the staff or spear should be different than an equivalent fighter, but at the same time should still be a valid character.
Some of the latter discussion (thanks, Russell) hits the nail nicely on the head. To revise the monk, there needs to be a consensus as to what the monk actually does. Do we keep the 3/4 BAB, but give them trapfinding and uncanny dodge and more skill points? If so, why not play a rogue instead? Do we give them full BAB and d10's? If so, why not play a fighter instead? The monk needs a niche to call his own, and not just be muscling in on someone else's. We just need to figure out what that niche is.
I'd also like to see a little more support for Monks that fight with martial arts weapons. A Monk that focuses on the staff or spear should be different than an equivalent fighter, but at the same time should still be a valid character.
I totally agree, but unfortunately am at a loss as to how to go about doing that.
|
I love the monk class; from first edition on to the current one. When I play one, I use the class as the situation demands. Sometimes that purpose is as fighter support, sometimes it is as stealth support. But my main use seems to be containment (read harassment) of spellcasters, a role for which they are eminently suited for. And in that role, I always use stuns, trips (throws) and disarms to lethal effect.
The idea that they are going to be masters of combat maneuvers is awesome. It says mixed-martial arts to me and I like that alot. This could make them a much more viable class, especially if you give them both options (ground and pound/wrestling, strikers/punch and kick specialists, etc.)and the bonuses that go along with them, which would stack with anything else that they may take (like the Agile Maneuvers feat).
Some of the latter discussion (thanks, Russell) hits the nail nicely on the head. To revise the monk, there needs to be a consensus as to what the monk actually does. Do we keep the 3/4 BAB, but give them trapfinding and uncanny dodge and more skill points? If so, why not play a rogue instead? Do we give them full BAB and d10's? If so, why not play a fighter instead? The monk needs a niche to call his own, and not just be muscling in on someone else's. We just need to figure out what that niche is.
I'd also like to see a little more support for Monks that fight with martial arts weapons. A Monk that focuses on the staff or spear should be different than an equivalent fighter, but at the same time should still be a valid character.I totally agree, but unfortunately am at a loss as to how to go about doing that.
I disagree. While it would be *nice* if Monks had their own unique niche, they have unique flavor which justifies their existence. It's awesome to have a "martial arts" class that can fight without equipment, even if they're similar to rogues or fighters.
Furthermore, giving monks better skills in no way threatens the rogue. Yes, the rogue has skills--but so does an expert. Really, a huge portion of the rogue's mechanical identity is about stabbing fools for mad damage, something which the monk does not do now and probably never will. UMd is another classic rogue ability I don't predict monks usurping.
Assuming that the monk gets new, good combat abilities based on stunning, tripping, and disarming, then we can have monk and rogue as two options for skills monkey-- damage guy and juggling guy.
I'd say give him one or the other, but not both.
Doesn't work, since HD and BAB are tied together now.
I say keep the monk at d8 and middle range BAB. Monks are splitting their time between combat training, contemplation of themself and the cosmos and in many cases service to a religion.
So do paladins, except they contemplate themselves less and learn magic and other supernatural stuff more. And they also get the strong BAB.
So I think it would be perfectly alright for monks to be warriors. After all, a main part of their image is beating people up.
the monk will go to d10, right? Every other class besides those already d10's were upped by one dice. d4 classes became d6, d6 became d8. I'm not sure if that happened with the cleric and ranger though. I am not sitting on a comp that has the alpha releases, not at my house.
Actually, HD and BAB have been tied together: Weak BAB means d6, medium BAB is d8, and strong BAB equals d10 (or d12, in the case of barbarians, which are the exception).
So wizards and sorcerers have d6 now. Rogues and Bards get the same HD as clerics now, and all keep their medium BAB. Rangers will get their d10 back, of course.
Now, if they don't change the monk's BAB, they won't change the HD, either.
I agree that the Monk's BAB should be advanced. It's the single biggest drawback they have, I believe, once they get to mid and later levels. The traditional monk in the game I run is way behind the fighter and cleric on the fighting curve.
I don't think there should be any difference between a monk's BAB and his unarmed attack or weapons. I always thought that the monk's increasing unarmed damage balanced reasonably well with his ability to get monk weapons enchanted with things like energy damage and other magical powers. I don't think any changes are really necessary there.
I dont think classes have to stay tied to the d6 hit die get low BAB, d8 hit die get mid BAB, d10 get high BAB.
Especially considering that Pathfinder has already broken away from BAB based on HD (see Alpha release rogue, wizard, & sorcerer).
Doesn't work, since HD and BAB are tied together now.
Barbarian.
Next?
Doesn't work, since HD and BAB are tied together now.Barbarian.
Next?
That's the exception that proves the rule.
Plus, you can easily say that strong BAB is d10 or d12.But strong BAB and d8, or medium BAB and d10 are right out.
I dont have my really old books in front of me, but didnt monks at one time actually get a more favorable BAB for unarmed attacks or monk weapons in either 1st Edition, 2nd edition, or 3.0?
They used to have an unarmed BAB. Its best attack was still only 3/4 (medium), but additional attacks were at -3, not -5 (so you had +15/+12/+9/+6/+3 at 20th level).
They did away with that and just changed flurry of blows, and good riddance. The old system was a mess, since multiclassing and iterative attacks was quite weird.
I dont think classes have to stay tied to the d6 hit die get low BAB, d8 hit die get mid BAB, d10 get high BAB.
It is a rule in Pathfinder right now.
If that is a big sticking point, then simply give a monk a +1 to hit bonus every 3 levels or something. I just think a monk should be a better combatant than a cleric.
I don't like inventing weird rules to circumvent your own rules.
I dont have my really old books in front of me, but didnt monks at one time actually get a more favorable BAB for unarmed attacks or monk weapons in either 1st Edition, 2nd edition, or 3.0?
In 1e they strictly used the attack table for thieves (though they got additional attacks per round at full power for unarmed combat, unlike thieves). The thief table was inferior to the cleric table.
They weren't included in 2e (late 2e -- Skills & Powers, Faiths & Avatars -- added a "monk" class that didn't have much resemblance to the 1e/3e monk.)
In 3.0, their first unarmed attack bonus improved at the medium BAB rate, but the additional attacks progressed at a favorable rate so that unarmed attacks from a monk at level 20 were +15/+12/+9/+6/+3. However, the 3.5 flurry of blows ability is superior.
(In more detail -- levels 1-5 a 3.0 monk could only make a single attack, period; a 3.5 monk can make a single attack at the same attack bonus as the 3.0 monk or a flurry of two at a lower bonus, which means equal power and greater flexibility. At 9th level, the 3.0 monk had +6/+3 UAB vs. the 3.5 monk's +6/+6/+1 flurry, making the 3.5 monk clearly superior to the 3.0 monk. The only zone where 3.5's BAB-or-flurry of blows isn't clearly superior to 3.0's UAB are levels 6-8, where 3.5 flurry vs. 3.0 UAB constitutes trading a +1 on the first attack for a +2 on the second.)