One thing I'd love to see in Pathfinder is a way for the monks to expand their flurrying repertoire.
In the decade of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero and The Mummy 3, I'd say that the image of the unarmoured, mobile, mystical oriental swordsman is at least as strong as that of the unarmoured, mobile, mystical oriental unarmed warrior.
Obviously, assuming you balance the monk around flurrying with monk weapons, you don't want to just give them access to anything, but if flurrying with a 1d6 20/x2 kama is OK, flurrying with a 1d8 19-20/x2 sword cannot be so inherently unbalanced as to be a completely unworkable.
Another aspect of the monk that could be improved is the lack of synergy between his primary two abilities: flurrying and mobility. Give them their flurry bonus attacks on every attack action, not just full attacks, and then compensate in other ways if needed.
There's a feat in both Dragon Compendium and also Eberron that allows the monk use of a longsword in flurry and proficiency.
Easy to replace "Longsword" with any weapon, really.
There's a feat in both Dragon Compendium and also Eberron that allows the monk use of a longsword in flurry and proficiency.
Easy to replace "Longsword" with any weapon, really.
If "it was already done in another sourcebook" were a valid reason not to cover something in Pathfinder, Pathfinder wouldn't need to cover anything at all. Especially if the way it's done in another sourcebook is crappy, and the Eberron feat is (I'm not familiar with the one in Dragon Compendium).
|
If "it was already done in another sourcebook" were a valid reason not to cover something in Pathfinder, Pathfinder wouldn't need to cover anything at all.
I'd actually argue that Pathfinder's commitment to backwards compatibility would suggest that if another sourcebook has covered something, then why add it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.*
Also, not all games/settings would be appropriate to allow monks to be swinging around swords. If that's the kind of game you are running, by all means house rule the Monk's abilities, but don't ask the Dev's to make a change that doesn't need changing.
*BTW, what is wrong with the Eberron feat? It gives you proficiency in the longsword and allows you to wield it as a monk weapon, what else should it do?
|
If "it was already done in another sourcebook" were a valid reason not to cover something in Pathfinder, Pathfinder wouldn't need to cover anything at all.I'd actually argue that Pathfinder's commitment to backwards compatibility would suggest that if another sourcebook has covered something, then why add it? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.*
Also, not all games/settings would be appropriate to allow monks to be swinging around swords. If that's the kind of game you are running, by all means house rule the Monk's abilities, but don't ask the Dev's to make a change that doesn't need changing.
*BTW, what is wrong with the Eberron feat? It gives you proficiency in the longsword and allows you to wield it as a monk weapon, what else should it do?
For the record the Pathfinder Campaign guide pg 210 has a Temple Sword
An Exotic Weapon same stats as a long sword listed as a monk's weapon
I'd actually argue that Pathfinder's commitment to backwards compatibility would suggest that if another sourcebook has covered something, then why add it?
To make it work better?
Otherwise, why does Pathfinder include fighters and wizards and Dodge and spellcraft...? They're all covered in the PHB.
Also, not all games/settings would be appropriate to allow monks to be swinging around swords. If that's the kind of game you are running, by all means house rule the Monk's abilities, but don't ask the Dev's to make a change that doesn't need changing.
Not in all games/settings would it be appropriate to allow monks to punch through steel with their bare hands or leap dozens of feet. Or to have wizards that shoot fireballs, or clerics that weak armour.
Demanding appropriateness for all games/settings isn't a reasonable criterion for inclusion. Now, appropriateness for many or most games/settings... as I've said, I think that the sword-swinging martial artist has become at least a strong an image in the popular imagination as the Shaolin fist fighter that sometimes uses weird exotic weapons.
And considering that the whole point of the open playtest is for us, the players, to ask the devs to change what we feel needs changing, I feel it's quite strange that you're telling me not to ask.
*BTW, what is wrong with the Eberron feat? It gives you proficiency in the longsword and allows you to wield it as a monk weapon, what else should it do?
It doesn't give you proficiency, it requires it. Discounting Weapon Focus, also a requirement, since it brings its own benefit, that means it costs the monk two feats to go up from 1d6 20/x2 damage (kama) to 1d8 19-20/x2 longsword. It's weak. Not horribly so, but noticeably. If you imported it into Pathfinder, where almost everything is just a little bit stronger, it would be even more noticeable. I'd prefer some way of modeling the same concept that was equally useful in game terms as most other options.
Also, you cannot easily extend the Eberron feat to different weapons. If X feats to flurry with a longsword is a reasonable cost, what about a greatsword? What about a mace? What about a spiked chain?
I'd like to see the monk's flurry extensible in terms of weapon groups (light, one-handed, martial, simple &c.) in order to easily cover all weapons, and possible new ones, rather than having a separate feat for each and every weapon.
In short, much like most of what Pathfinder changes, the Eberron feat, while not unusably broken, could be significantly improved, and Pathfinder is a rare opportunity to do this.
For the record the Pathfinder Campaign guide pg 210 has a Temple Sword
An Exotic Weapon same stats as a long sword listed as a monk's weapon
I don't have PCG, so I didn't know this. Thanks for the heads up!
|
I know this isn't a post for house rules, but let me throw three out here:
1. Simple Weapon Proficiency. ALL classes are proficient in the use of simple weapons.
2. Weapon Group Proficiency. As a bonus feat, a monk may take a Weapon Group (listed in the fighter's weapons groups) and be proficient with those weapons.
3. A monk can use any weapons with which he is proficient in his Flurry of Blows (and with other special monk fighting techniques).
The monk doesn't start out as strong, his weapons are changes around, but it provides room for individualizing your monks as they grow. It also requires some serious decisions, i.e., take a Weapon Group or another feat as a bonus feat.
The reason I raise these is that I believe it answers your dilemma and is EASY to insert. I haven't playtested it out fully, but on the surface, it seems fair.
Yes it is if covering the desired item means impinging on intellectual property.
If you are saying that having monks use swords would impinge on anyone's intellectual property, that's just surreal.
If you're saying something else, I'm not sure what it is, and I must ask you to clarify.
I'm saying that lifting text bodily out of an IP source can be infringement.
Why in the world would you think I was suggesting lifting the text bodily, when I specifically mentioned that I think the way it's done in Eberron is crappy, in the very text you quoted?
jasin, you're being pretty aggressive while we're just trying to help you out.
Unfortunately, monks wielding swords is contrary to the definition of the class, in most circumstances. They've already added a couple more weapons to the monk list as it is, plus forcing the monk to take a feat in exchange to use a longsword with flurry isn't unheard of.
Pathfinder is explicitly made t be backwards compatible, so it's not unreasonable to keep the feat in other source books.
jasin,
If you'd like a "really great" custom sword wielding monk, I suggest you stop coming online to complain and start writing up homebrew rules to use in your own game.
Rule 1 of Role Playing Games: If you think your idea about a changed base class is really awesome and definitely needs to be included in the core game you're almost certainly wrong.
jasin, you're being pretty aggressive while we're just trying to help you out.
It seems to me that people towards whom I could be construed as having been aggressive have been closer to dismissive than helpful.
It's disappointing that in a forum about a book that's currently in open playtest, suggestions and requests should be met with "use another book" or "house rule it".
Pathfinder is explicitly made t be backwards compatible, so it's not unreasonable to keep the feat in other source books.
I maintain that it is, if the feat is poorly done. The whole point, at least as I see it, of Pathfinder the system (as opposed to Pathfinder the setting) is to take things that were poorly done in 3.5 and do them right.
If you'd like a "really great" custom sword wielding monk, I suggest you stop coming online to complain and start writing up homebrew rules to use in your own game.
If you're bothered by people suggesting ideas they think can improve the game, I suggest you stop coming online to read a forum dedicated to a discussion of an open playtest.
Rule 1 of Role Playing Games: If you think your idea about a changed base class is really awesome and definitely needs to be included in the core game you're almost certainly wrong.
You do realize you just implied the whole idea behind the Pathfinder system is almost certainly wrong, yes?
Whelp, nothing else to say here. Hope you find something that makes you happy.
Wow, what an unnecessarily antagonistic thread.
In 3.5, going strictly by the PHB, the only thing a monk can't do with a sword is flurry with it.
IMO, flurry is actually one of the weaker monk abilities, unless you are flurrying a thrown or ranged weapon. The monk is really a mobility based class. Using a full attack option only makes sense if you are attacking a single foe that is already disabled.
Now, for an actual usage example, consider the following:
In the PfRPG, a human gets one free martial weapon proficiency.
A monk suffers no off-hand penalties for attacking with an unarmed strike ("There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.")
A first level Human monk in 3.P can take the longsword as their bonus proficiency and pick up the two weapon fighting feat. End result, a monk who can attack with unarmed strikes and a sword, with only a -2 penalty their main hand weapon (the longsword.)
Finally, setting specific material (Eberron, Pathfinder) presents us with setting specific feats and equipment that allow a monk to flurry with a sword.
I maintain that it is, if the feat is poorly done. The whole point, at least as I see it, of Pathfinder the system (as opposed to Pathfinder the setting) is to take things that were poorly done in 3.5 and do them right.
The scope of the pathfinder rpg is explicitly limited to content found within the 3.5 PHB, MM and DMG.
IMO, flurry is actually one of the weaker monk abilities, unless you are flurrying a thrown or ranged weapon. The monk is really a mobility based class. Using a full attack option only makes sense if you are attacking a single foe that is already disabled.
As I've said in the original post, that's another thing I'd like to see remedied.
Not so much from a balance standpoint; I'm not saying monks need both flurry and mobility at the same time in terms of power. But I think it's a bit strange that the two signature abilities of a class, neither of which is optional, have pretty much no synergy, so that whichever is being used, the other is pretty much wasted.
Now, for an actual usage example, consider the following:
In the PfRPG, a human gets one free martial weapon proficiency.
A monk suffers no off-hand penalties for attacking with an unarmed strike ("There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.")A first level Human monk in 3.P can take the longsword as their bonus proficiency and pick up the two weapon fighting feat. End result, a monk who can attack with unarmed strikes and a sword, with only a -2 penalty their main hand weapon (the longsword.)
Well, yes, I know there are ways of building a swordsman monk, even in core 3.5. At the extreme, you could just get proficiency, use a sword, and forget about flurry altogether.
But I'd like to see monks actually do their monk stuff with swords (and do it well!) if they invest in it.
Your suggestion does remind me of a house rule I once considered: the bonus attacks from flurry must be taken with monk weapons, but the basic attacks can be taken with any weapon the monk wants. You'd even get the effect you see in wuxia movies, where even swordsmen punch and kick people occasionally.
The scope of the pathfinder rpg is explicitly limited to content found within the 3.5 PHB, MM and DMG.
Monks are found in the PHB. :)
|
I have always been a fan of having the monks unarmed damage be a damage bonus instead. So he does, 4th +1d4, 8th +1d6, 12th +1d8, 16th +1d10, 20th +1d12. And I think unarmed strike feat should give 1d6 base damage.
I also think the bonus damage could apply to the monk list of weapons. So they can punch for 1d6 or use their tonfa, sai, staff or nunchucks for 1d6. I can see a need for them to also include a feat to allow a non-monk weapon to be used as a monk weapon.
The bonus given to the monk unarmed attack was designed to keep pace with the magic weapons other martial classes use in a moderately powered campaign.
IME, unarmed attacks are magical just as often as weapons.
Sometimes it's greater magic weapon, less often (because it's more expensive) it's amulet of mighty fists.
But I don't think the 3.5 designers ever counted on monk unarmed attacks staying non-magical.
I'd like to see monks actually do their monk stuff with swords (and do it well!) if they invest in it.
+1 [italic]ki focus[/italic] longsword
The scope of the pathfinder rpg is explicitly limited to content found within the 3.5 PHB, MM and DMG.Monks are found in the PHB. :)
So is a rule restricting what monks can flurry with is, while a feat allowing monks to flurry with non-monk weapons isn't. Not being able to flurry with every weapon in the PHB isn't a problem, not being able to hit after the first or second strike in a flurry is.
+1 [italic]ki focus[/italic] longsword
I'd like to see monks actually do their monk stuff with swords (and do it well!) if they invest in it.
And do it well.
Being able to use Stunning Fist, but not flurry isn't doing it well.
So is a rule restricting what monks can flurry with is, while a feat allowing monks to flurry with non-monk weapons isn't.
So is polymorph, and Pathfinder is changing that wholesale.
Isn't that what Pathfinder is all about? 3.5, only done even better?
Now, I don't expect everyone to agree with my suggestions, but I find it wondrous that so many people appear to disagree with the very idea of making a suggestion.
Just use another book. Just house rule it. It's not in the PHB. The rule that disallows it is in the PHB.
With that sort of mindset, I wonder what appeal is there in a variant set of core rules to begin with.
The simplest solution is to simply expand the selection of monk weapons. There are many types of swords that are oriental in origin; it just takes a little research and conversion to game mechanics. The tough decision is deciding whether to go with the popular image of how a weapon was used or look more at its actual historical use; still, this is a fantasy game, so I do not see a need to be really uptight.
For the record the Pathfinder Campaign guide pg 210 has a Temple Sword -- An Exotic Weapon same stats as a long sword listed as a monk's weapon
This fits in with the kama vs. sickle disparity in 3.0 and 3.5. A kama is a sickle. A real person skilled in the use of a sickle could pick up a kama and do just as well with it... but in D&D, the "kama" requires a separate exotic proficiency, which monks get as a bonus, and which NO ONE ELSE ever, ever, ever takes. In other words, a single weapon was split in half simply to cater to one ability of one class. This is an absurdly convoluted route to a next-door destination. Why not just make monks proficient with simple weapons and eliminate the "kama" as an exotic? Or else spell out that monks are proficient with the sickle, and eliminate the kama? Or, if the ONLY difference between a kama and a sickle is that monks can flurry with the former, why not just put a note in the sickle description that monks can flurry with it?
In the same vein, allowing monks to use a martial weapon proficiency for the longsword would allow the "temple sword" to be eliminated, as it should be. Make the rule that monks can flurry with any weapon with which they are proficient.
Make the rule that monks can flurry with any weapon with which they are proficient.
I'm trying to think of a reason that why this is a bad idea... and I can't.
|
|
Potential House rules;
Monks of race X can use any of their racial weapons with a flurry. Human Monks can use their bonus martial weapon with a flurry.
Another option;
Multiclass Cleric / Monks can use their deities favored weapon with a flurry.
Alternately, the first could be a general house rule, that last option with the diety's favored weapon could be a Faith Trait.