As the title asks:
Are special monk weapons really necessary? For the most part they seem based off of stereotypical weapons from asian martial arts films. Why can't my monk have been trained in the use of the longsword in his pseudo-european monestary or the spear as part of a remote sect of aztec militant priests?
I appreciate the monk class and what it represents but I see the focus on asian martial arts as needless, especially when it can limit diversity. So esentially what I ask is why? Why have special monk weapons at all? Monks from different backgrounds and cultures will have been trained with different weapons unless there is a mysterious monkish covenant to only use a specific set of weapons, not matter the geography, culture, or time-period of the monks in question.
|
I have a suggestion. Allow pcs with limited weapon selections replace weapons proficiencies with other weapon proficiencies from the same group or lower (exotic, martial, simple). You may wish to let them replace with the same type of weapon also, like 1 handed piercing or light bludgeoning. I don't really see a game balance issue with allowing this, just like I can't see why a druid can't use a greatclub, it's a larger stick than a club....
I also hate that monk weapons are stereo-typed to be oriental weaponry, and not all the proper ones, no less. Spears were common, swords of various styles, shields, Kwan-dos (basically a glaive), etc. and they were all used in various monk styles.
I would like to see spears on the list of monk weapons, maybe glaives also.
But the monks that are in DnD *are* aisian-style monks. They are *not* european-style monks... which are more scholars than warriors. I really *don't* want to see monks using flurry of blows with a greatsword, doesn't make much sense to me.
I would like to see spears on the list of monk weapons, maybe glaives also.
But the monks that are in DnD *are* aisian-style monks. They are *not* european-style monks... which are more scholars than warriors. I really *don't* want to see monks using flurry of blows with a greatsword, doesn't make much sense to me.
I did not suggest making them historically accurate to european monks, nor did you take iunto account my example of how the monk class could be different in other cultures. I suggested that focusing the them of monk weapons into a specific category decreases variability and the cultural correctness of monk orders in some societies. Removing the weapons restriction or altering it to be customizable adds verismultitude to the class without changing much of the class's core mechanics.
It strikes me as odd that a class would be delegated to a specific culture rather than altered so as to be adaptable to any culture the DM or player wants. This need not be historically accurate, historically there were no Asian druids, yet the class is freeform enough to stand in for any sort of natural preist. It is in fact so divorced from the historical druids as to be similar almost only in name.
Many of the points have been covered in this thread. Building styles (such as the OGL Fighting Styles in Unearthed Arcana) into the class that have different "monk weapons" would be a good thing, IMO.
|
I've added a House Rule to my campaign:
1. Monks are trained in all Simple Weapons (and may use the melee weapons as special monk weapons).
2. Monks may take on any 1 of the Weapon Groups listed under the Fighter as special monk weapons. Then, as available bonus feats, the Monk may take Weapon Group Proficiency and select any one of the remaining Fighter Weapon Groups (per feat) to add as special monk weapons.
No complaints yet.
In my campaign setting Monks are limited to simple weapons and the weapons that are associated with their style. I have yet to encounter complaints either.
I agree with getting rid of monk weapons, for instance in my homebrew camp, there is no asian like civilization, thus no nunchaku, shuriuken, saigham, sai, etc. Also, realistically, monk weapons are NEVER in loot as 98% of your monsters wont be using them for the party to loot.
That is a good point, I dislike "Magic item walmarts" with some DM's using the random-roll treasure tables, the odds against ever encoutnering these weapons becomes slim. Thus in a campaign with few magic item shops a monk could find him (or her) self significantly behind in terms of weaponry.
|
|
Monk weapons are not really stereotypical movie weapons.
They include four of the five traditional weapons of Okinawa (kama, nunchaku, bo (quarterstaff), and sai, a gratuitous random weapon (the siangham), an even more gratuitous ninja weapon (the shuriken), the traditional Tong hatchet (handaxe), and a few random others.
I am rather amused at the inclusion of all the Okinawan weapons myself.
However, I do agree that the attempt at multiculturalism or whatever is sorely misplaced. All of those weapons have similar European equivalents, not to mention absolutely identical stats for a few of them. The only real difference is making them exotic. I would not mind seeing them going and just absorbed into the general weapon types.
The only big balance issue is how many weapons a monk can use with his flurry of blows and to channel other abilities. That is likely a balance issue, and should be considered before opening up monk weapon use too much.
I've made this comment in numerous other threads, but I'll repeat it in abbreviated form here.
Monks should be proficient with all simple weapons, and one or two Martial. The exotic 'Monk Weapons' are not only silly, but unnecessary because the majority of them already exist, with a slightly different price, as simple weapons.
Nunchaku=Light Flail
Kama=Sickle
Bo=Quarterstaff
etc etc
Monks should be able to use maces, spears, daggers, light flails, sickles, quarterstaves, clubs, etc. Monks should be able to use spears, especially to flurry.
Need I remind anyone that 'Kama' is Japanese for 'Sickle' and that other than price the two weapons have identical stats. That's just ridiculous.
And as for European monks...anyone remember the Knights Templar? They were a monastic knightly order.
(I posted this while sleepy, please excuse grammar/spelling and general incoherence of ideas, I did my best.)
Monks should be able to flurry with any weapon they're proficient with, and should be proficient with all simple weapons.
Monks should be proficient with all simple weapons, and one or two Martial. The exotic 'Monk Weapons' are not only silly, but unnecessary because the majority of them already exist, with a slightly different price, as simple weapons.
Nunchaku=Light Flail
Kama=Sickle
Bo=Quarterstaffetc etc
Monks should be able to use maces, spears, daggers, light flails, sickles, quarterstaves, clubs, etc. Monks should be able to use spears, especially to flurry.
Need I remind anyone that 'Kama' is Japanese for 'Sickle' and that other than price the two weapons have identical stats. That's just ridiculous.
Monks should be able to flurry with any weapon they're proficient with, and should be proficient with all simple weapons.
I never really noticed that before, but when you posted it... the light came on in the darkness. You are 100% correct, to the point I even called my DM and expressed this opinion(amonst rants about 4th Ed.), who also agreed and has likely adopted a new house rule.
I would even go as far as to replace the shurikens with daggers. You cannot throw 3 daggers a round, but they do more than just 1 damage too. Strength monks would most likely be upset at the loss of "flurry shurikens". Example: We currently have an orc monk in our party, she doesnt go for the cheese of 3 shurikens at 1 dmg +6 each... but it would be exceptionally nasty.
I have always thought that polearms, spears & tridents should be able to used as double weapons. I believe it was back in 2nd Ed. I had rigged a fighter to look much like a Gladiator and the DM allowed me to use the blunt (reinforced... they all are) end of a trident as a quarterstaff 1d6.
Also... if we are going to keep the spiked chain around, I would also like to see that usable as a double weapon. (Two-Weapon Fighting) It would of course lose its range and drop to a 1d6/1d6 weapon, that is how it was dealt with in various d20 books and OA.
They persist on using that very odd art concept (in 4th Ed.) with the 3 rings when its most likely just a rather lengthy flail similar to the one used in Castlevania or Cadash ((old arcade game) Priestess), being as it is currently only a 2-handed weapon.
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff.
|
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff.
"Here we see the rare and dangerous Black Pudding, a monster that delivers acid damage to anything it touches. Let us now watch the monk try and fight it."
"Oooh, too bad. Let us now watch the monk try and find a cleric to regenerate his acid-dissolved hands."
|
|
I like the idea of all Simple Weapons and one Martial weapon of choice (chosen at 1st level, and perhaps re-trainable?) being usable as 'special Monk Weapons.'
If the monk wants to add the ability to use other weapons as 'Monk weapons,' he would have to use a Feat to buy that weapon, even if he's already proficient in that weapon from another class and wouldn't normally have to buy Proficiency.
Say, a Monk who wants to be able to Flurry or use Stunning Attack through a Spiked Chain. He's going to have to buy Exotic Weapon Proficiency in Spiked Chain, but he doesn't have to blow *another* Feat to use it as a Monk Weapon.
If a Fighter 2 / Monk 4 wants to be able to use Short Swords as a 'special Monk weapon,' and he chose Longsword at 1st level, he's going to have to blow a Feat to be able to use a Shortsword as a Monk weapon. Then he can TWF / Flurry with a Longsword and Shortsword pair, and turn the enemies into sashimi.
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff."Here we see the rare and dangerous Black Pudding, a monster that delivers acid damage to anything it touches. Let us now watch the monk try and fight it."
"Oooh, too bad. Let us now watch the monk try and find a cleric to regenerate his acid-dissolved hands."
Good point, douchebag.
But I never use oozes, they're a cheap enemy.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff."Here we see the rare and dangerous Black Pudding, a monster that delivers acid damage to anything it touches. Let us now watch the monk try and fight it."
"Oooh, too bad. Let us now watch the monk try and find a cleric to regenerate his acid-dissolved hands."
Good point, douchebag.
But I never use oozes, they're a cheap enemy.
Ummm ... Unglef ... we have this whole thing about trying to be nice to each other here and not call each other names. I know it is your fourth post and all but just so you know.
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff.
Or maybe because they want the +1 attack bonus from a masterwork quarterstaff? Or because it's much easier to get a silver kama when fighting werewolves than get hands and feet made of silver?
I think that Monk weapons should be necessary for flurrying, just so that the line is drawn somewhere. Perhaps allow a feat to flurry with any light weapon. But the idea of flurrying with a Greatsword is just ridiculous.
As for recombining monk weapons with their farm implement counterparts, I might argue that a farmer's sickle is just a tool, while a monk's kama is really designed and balanced as a weapon: In unskilled hands they are identical but a monk can make much more rapid strikes with one that the other (flurry). On the other hand, it would make the rules much more elegant to make a Nunchuk a light flail, a kama a sickle, a siangham, well, a siangham. A footnote would just have to be added, similar to the current one saying a Katana is a masterwork bastard sword.
Or because it's much easier to get a silver kama when fighting werewolves than get hands and feet made of silver?
What sort of crappy black market are you buying your spare body parts from?
What sort of crappy black market are you buying your spare body parts from?
Apparently not as nice of one as you.
Why the hell should monks use weapons, anyway? Monks should punch and kick stuff."Here we see the rare and dangerous Black Pudding, a monster that delivers acid damage to anything it touches. Let us now watch the monk try and fight it."
"Oooh, too bad. Let us now watch the monk try and find a cleric to regenerate his acid-dissolved hands."
Maybe what needs to change then, is a monk's ability to resist damage normal people would take by hitting stuff that hurts?
Also, I'll second the earlier remarks concerning monks and simple weapons. Monk weapons are eastern versions of western weapons.
Well unfortunately after a few levels there is no real justification in using monk weapons, other in special cases (like the ooze). Once your monk damage increases a good bit (especially with feats) then you really lose a lot of potential damage by using a weapon. I am hoping in Beta that they make it where you can use the weapons but the damage scales (i think he mentioned somewhere that he was thinking about that). That would at least help keep the monks on par with other classes for magical weapon bonuses or other weapon effects, without forcing the monk to have to decide between magic bonuses or the more damage.
Let's take a 12th level monk. His unarmed attacks do 2d6. If he has an Amulet of mighty fists +2, he does 2d6 + 2 damage, with a +2 bonus to attack. For the 6,000 gp less than that Amulet, he can get a +2 Kama of Frost, and deal 2d6 + 2 damage with a +2 bonus to attack. Or he could just get a +3 Kama, and deal 1d6 + 3 damage instead (Which is, on average 2.5 damage less), but hit more often, which may pay off it his other damage bonuses are high enough, or if the target has a high AC.
Monk weapons are viable throughout the monk's progression.
Maybe this isnt a good example, but what if a paladin had to choose between being able to smite evil, or use the +1 flaming longsword he just found?
How does a monk have to choose? Even with their hands full, they can still make unarmed strikes if they need to Stunning fist, for example.
Contributor
|
This is a late response to the post about European monks being non-martial. While this is largely true, the oldest known manual of personal combat was written by German monks around 1300 AD, and features the use of sword and shield. All of the illustrations show exchanges between the "the priest" and "the scholar."
It's a lovely book.
/tangent
The re-iteration that a "kama" is really a sickle is appreciated. Monks should be proficient with simple weapons. "Special monk weapons" can then be re-combined with the simple weapons they replicate, with no change in the game whatsoever except that a few anomalous "exotic" weapons--which monks got free proficiency with anyway--would be absent from that portion of the table.
To represent glaive-trained monks, a special feat could be devised, along the lines of "choose one weapon with which you are proficient. You may use this weapon to make a flurry of blows, even if it is not a simple weapon." (Human monks get a free martial weapon, but this would make them pay a feat to flurry with it.)
The whole reason for the monks weapons in the first place was to allow different damage types to be possible. Otherwise they would be utterly useless against anything with a DR vs. Bludgeoning. Also, the damage dice are better at lower levels.
Talk to your DM. He can make whatever weapon you need into a monk weapon (I would think) Greatsword? Try Daikatana. Longsword? Ninja-to(IIRC), and yes, all three base spears should be there as well.
Just think of the starting list as more like "guidelines". After all, they are really nothing but someone elses house rules.
Talk to your DM. He can make whatever weapon you need into a monk weapon (I would think) Greatsword? Try Daikatana. Longsword? Ninja-to(IIRC), and yes, all three base spears should be there as well.Just think of the starting list as more like "guidelines". After all, they are really nothing but someone elses house rules.
Yes, this is true and I have nothing against houseruling (sometimes it seems that those are the majority of the rules in my campaigns) but I have played in groups where only "RAW" was allowed. It's in situations like that where nonsensical (IMHO) rules like special monk weapons come into play.
Honestly in regards to an earlier poster discussing the limitation of being one of balance, it's also my opinion that monks need all the help they can get, and limiting their weapons options is a somewhat odd nerf. Yes, they can theoretically use different weapons, but to do so would be hamstrining their already limited capabilities.
The whole reason for the monks weapons in the first place was to allow different damage types to be possible. Otherwise they would be utterly useless against anything with a DR vs. Bludgeoning. Also, the damage dice are better at lower levels.
Actually, the monk weapons were introduced in 3.0 when DR worked differently. They existed for flavor and to make it so that monks could benefit from Magic Weapon and weapon enchantments, because their hands did not act like manufactured weapons and the Amulet of Mighty Fist didn't exist yet.
Talk to your DM. He can make whatever weapon you need into a monk weapon (I would think) Greatsword? Try Daikatana. Longsword? Ninja-to(IIRC), and yes, all three base spears should be there as well.
I promise no one has ever Flurried with a Daikatana or no-dachi.
The whole reason for the monks weapons in the first place was to allow different damage types to be possible. Otherwise they would be utterly useless against anything with a DR vs. Bludgeoning. Also, the damage dice are better at lower levels.Actually, the monk weapons were introduced in 3.0 when DR worked differently. They existed for flavor and to make it so that monks could benefit from Magic Weapon and weapon enchantments, because their hands did not act like manufactured weapons and the Amulet of Mighty Fist didn't exist yet.
Talk to your DM. He can make whatever weapon you need into a monk weapon (I would think) Greatsword? Try Daikatana. Longsword? Ninja-to(IIRC), and yes, all three base spears should be there as well.I promise no one has ever Flurried with a Daikatana or no-dachi.
agreed, but sometimes you have to SEE the horror with your own eyes to understand. I allowed one of my players to wheedle a greatspear onto his monk weapons list...it was REALLY bad. I mean REALLY REALLY bad. The party killed him, and buried him with his stupid spear.
The current rule is pretty much light weapons only. It kills a teeny bit of the flavor, but it fits in with adapting to "western" cultural ideals.
BTW, Hand axes seem to be the best one so far, with kukris a VERY close second.
The current rule is pretty much light weapons only. It kills a teeny bit of the flavor, but it fits in with adapting to "western" cultural ideals.
BTW, Hand axes seem to be the best one so far, with kukris a VERY close second.
I figure flurry with all light weapons automatically, then allow exemptions for specific other weapons, like the Quarterstaff.
I'd have to agree - get rid of the silly 1970's stereotype and give the Monk all simple weapons, and perhaps a sidebar explaining the Oriental equivalent of the European weapons for those that want to retain the names for flavor.
The Turkish Whirling Dervish practiced the equivalent of a martial art, and their weapon of choice was the Yatagan, which was just a long Knife, or shortsword in European terminology.
Even the Vikings had a form of martial arts, and practiced catching thrown spears and returning them at their enemies (adding their own momentum to the already speeding missile).
Its counter-productive to hamstring a class based on out-dated bigotry.
I'd have to agree - get rid of the silly 1970's stereotype and give the Monk all simple weapons, and perhaps a sidebar explaining the Oriental equivalent of the European weapons for those that want to retain the names for flavor.
The Turkish Whirling Dervish practiced the equivalent of a martial art, and their weapon of choice was the Yatagan, which was just a long Knife, or shortsword in European terminology.
Even the Vikings had a form of martial arts, and practiced catching thrown spears and returning them at their enemies (adding their own momentum to the already speeding missile).
Its counter-productive to hamstring a class based on out-dated bigotry.
LOL! The "Hashish Master" PrC? Kinda like drunken master, except he keeps forgetting who to punch?
I let anything go if adequately explained in a backstory and then make some feat which makes it so...I especially like Weapon Proficiency (Improvised Weapons)!
I can't wait for the Pathfinder gun rules - can you say Gun Kata?