|
I imagined giving Monks a new ki power that would cost 2 ki points to use and allow them to make a full attack in situations where they would normally be restricted to a single attack.
This way, they can combine their 2 greatest strengths : movement and flurry of blows.
For example, your player's Spring Attacking Monk character could move part of his movement rate, deliver his full attack, and then finish his move.
I feel that the possibility for multiple attacks in such a situation should appropriately compensate the lower BAB. And the Monk would be the only one who could do this.
If you want, you could suggest he uses the Decisive Strike alternate class feature instead of Flurry. It doubles all damage done with the attack and adds +2 to the Dc for Stunning fist. The only drwback is you can only make one attack this way until 11thlv(correct me if I'm wrong), at which point he can make to attack against different opponenets in the round. The penalties/bonuses to hit are the same for a flurry monk.
This doesn't fix the problem. A decisive strike is a full round action, which makes it as difficult to pull off as a flurry of blows. Also, unless a monk gets attacks of opportunity regularly, flurry of blows deals more damage after a third attack is gained.
If you want, you could suggest he uses the Decisive Strike alternate class feature instead of Flurry. It doubles all damage done with the attack and adds +2 to the Dc for Stunning fist. The only drwback is you can only make one attack this way until 11thlv(correct me if I'm wrong), at which point he can make to attack against different opponenets in the round. The penalties/bonuses to hit are the same for a flurry monk.This doesn't fix the problem. A decisive strike is a full round action, which makes it as difficult to pull off as a flurry of blows. Also, unless a monk gets attacks of opportunity regularly, flurry of blows deals more damage after a third attack is gained.
1: You choose Decisive Strike instead of Flurry, you get one or the other.
2: Taking feats like Fists of Iron or Imp. Natural Attack can help up the damage.3: The monk can always full attack instead of using D.S
I say just wait til the PFRPG comes out, then we can hit the monk discussion again, I was the one of the biggest proponents to in increasing the monks powers and ki, without increasing their BAB/HD. I'm really hoping Jason took a lot of our suggestions, since I created a Playtest 20th level Dwarven Fighter, who at level 20 would destroy a couple Level 20 monks...
I did a huge write-up on Xaaon's monk, but no one really playtested it to help smooth it out...
If the new monk isn't up to par with my monk, I'll be injecting my monk into my game. (after smoothing it out some.)
|
Thanks again to everyone for the feedback. I've discussed several of the ideas from this thread with my monk player, and he is keenly interested in them, particularly tactical ideas.
He realizes he's never going to do as much damage as the fighter (who is a maximized melee damage dealing machine), but will be changing out a feat or two to improve his character's damage potential.
And as a side note - I'm VERY curious as to the monk changes with Pathfinder. Hopefully, the monk will show up in a preview. Hint, hint.
1: You choose Decisive Strike instead of Flurry, you get one or the other.
2: Taking feats like Fists of Iron or Imp. Natural Attack can help up the damage.
3: The monk can always full attack instead of using D.S
1. Yes, I know. Still, they both use a full round action, so they are comparable.
2. Fists of iron works better with a flurry. Extra damage dice aren't multiplied. INA works better with a flurry as soon as flurry gets better than Decisive Strike.
3. True, but full attacking without using a flurry or decisive strike kind of defeats the point of having them.
|
[on the prohibition on potions of Personal range spells] This seems an arbitrary and illogical rule, and I personally ignore it.
[potion making tangent]
Upon reflection, so does Monte Cook, the dude who wrote the DMG. In his Book of Eldritch Might (p 30-31) he has a chart and some text talking about other types of spells being made into potions or oils, including stuff like Summon Monster, Shield, etc.If I were worried about the potential balance issues that might crop up from True Strike, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, etc. being available to non-arcane-casters (which I'm not, really), I'd just add an extra charge of 50% or so to the cost to make Potions or Oils of 'non-traditional' spells.
Most of the Magic Item creation guidelines are wonky anyway, full of artefacts left over from previous editions that make little sense in a different context, and the half-dozen feats scattered across sourcebooks that do the same darn thing (Gem Magic, Candle Casting, etc) are just annoying. The categories should be 'Create Consumable / One-Use Item,' 'Create Charged Item,' etc. instead of a plethora of redundant Feats like 'Brew Potion,' 'Craft Runestone that acts exactly like a Potion,' 'Scribe Scroll,' 'Shape Gem that acts exactly like a Scroll,' etc.
[/potion making tangent]
Yeah, Monks. Never got the appeal. They were so horribly weak in 1st edition that none of us ever played them (a front-line fighter with d4s for HD? WhatEVER.), and no matter how much better they've gotten over the decades, we still haven't gotten excited on any version of them that didn't come from an Oriental Adventures book.
[on the prohibition on potions of Personal range spells] This seems an arbitrary and illogical rule, and I personally ignore it.[potion making tangent]
Upon reflection, so does Monte Cook, the dude who wrote the DMG. In his Book of Eldritch Might (p 30-31) he has a chart and some text talking about other types of spells being made into potions or oils, including stuff like Summon Monster, Shield, etc.If I were worried about the potential balance issues that might crop up from True Strike, Shield, Expeditious Retreat, etc. being available to non-arcane-casters (which I'm not, really), I'd just add an extra charge of 50% or so to the cost to make Potions or Oils of 'non-traditional' spells.
Not a bad idea.
Most of the Magic Item creation guidelines are wonky anyway, full of artefacts left over from previous editions that make little sense in a different context, and the half-dozen feats scattered across sourcebooks that do the same darn thing (Gem Magic, Candle Casting, etc) are just annoying. The categories should be 'Create Consumable / One-Use Item,' 'Create Charged Item,' etc. instead of a plethora of redundant Feats like 'Brew Potion,' 'Craft Runestone that acts exactly like a Potion,' 'Scribe Scroll,' 'Shape Gem that acts exactly like a Scroll,' etc.
[/potion making tangent]
I agree that all these splat feats for runestones, gems, candles, tattoos, etc., are all a bit silly.
And they do the same thing as the existing core feats, just with a different flavor.
But I actually like the fact that the flavor is what requires the different feat.
I'm very much OK with the idea that someone with Brew Potion has no idea how to make a runestone that works exactly like a potion.
Bread and Meat do very much the same thing. They are consumable food items that feed, fill, and nourish us. Basically the same thing.
But a baker lacks the skill to butcher a carcass, and a butcher lacks the skill to bake bread.
If one guy wants to do both, he needs both skillsets or both feats.
I'm OK with that.
Yeah, Monks. Never got the appeal. They were so horribly weak in 1st edition that none of us ever played them (a front-line fighter with d4s for HD? WhatEVER.), and no matter how much better they've gotten over the decades, we still haven't gotten excited on any version of them that didn't come from an Oriental Adventures book.
Agreed.
And I hate having to blow away the look and feel of a traditional European medieval campaign by inserting monkish weapons into treasure hoards, just so our party anachonism can have his own Christmas tree of magic. Or maybe it's a bonzai tree of magic, since Christmas is an occidental thing.
Yeah, Monks. Never got the appeal. They were so horribly weak in 1st edition that none of us ever played them (a front-line fighter with d4s for HD? WhatEVER.), and no matter how much better they've gotten over the decades, we still haven't gotten excited on any version of them that didn't come from an Oriental Adventures book.
In first ed they were not first line fighters, they were an alternative to the thief, as was the assassin. All had the skills eventually that you needed a thief for. Their combat skills were about on par with the Thief.
They really did not move to the status of front line fighter until 3.x.
Yeah, Monks. Never got the appeal. They were so horribly weak in 1st edition that none of us ever played them (a front-line fighter with d4s for HD? WhatEVER.), and no matter how much better they've gotten over the decades, we still haven't gotten excited on any version of them that didn't come from an Oriental Adventures book.
The appeal of the monk is the "fluff", not the "crunch".
|
|
Yeah, Monks. Never got the appeal. They were so horribly weak in 1st edition that none of us ever played them (a front-line fighter with d4s for HD? WhatEVER.), and no matter how much better they've gotten over the decades, we still haven't gotten excited on any version of them that didn't come from an Oriental Adventures book.In first ed they were not first line fighters, they were an alternative to the thief, as was the assassin. All had the skills eventually that you needed a thief for. Their combat skills were about on par with the Thief.
They really did not move to the status of front line fighter until 3.x.
This got me thinking - are monks REALLY a front line fighter? Or do they fit the role of scout/skirmisher/second-line better? Comparing the monk to fighters, paladins, knights, barbarians, and even rangers, I'm not so sure they should be on the front lines.
Come to think of it, I've had this concern with the rogue as well with the attempts to beef the class' front line potential up (d8 hit dice, the ability to sneak attack everything).
Hmm, may have to start a new thread on this - what is the monk's (and rogue's) role in combat?
This got me thinking - are monks REALLY a front line fighter? Or do they fit the role of scout/skirmisher/second-line better? Comparing the monk to fighters, paladins, knights, barbarians, and even rangers, I'm not so sure they should be on the front lines.Come to think of it, I've had this concern with the rogue as well with the attempts to beef the class' front line potential up (d8 hit dice, the ability to sneak attack everything).
Hmm, may have to start a new thread on this - what is the monk's (and rogue's) role in combat?
Well, a monk should be the Arcane Slayer in combat. His high mobility, his immunities (and extremely good saves) and his ability to unleash an unreal number of attacks (with a chance to hit which is effectively lower than that of a Fighter) puts him as the perfect Wizard/Sorcerer nemesis (the Arcane caster has low AC, low hp, and all his abilities are based on spells - which a Monk can easily shrug off).
Give him some means to fly (Potion of Fly, Winged Boots, Carpet of Flying or Wings of Flying - or even a Flying Broom !) and some means to see invisible creatures (a potion will do), and the enemy Wizard is dead meat (the Monk can reach him before the enemy Fighter can even move).
Trying to beat a full-armored Fighter ? Not in 3.x... perhaps in the final PFRPG ? I hardly doubt so (it would require at least full BaB, and we all know that Jason stated that it won't happen). Trying to hack less-armored foes ? Sure.
After all, no expert caster would try to kill a Barbarian with a Fortitude-based spell, or a Rogue with a Reflex-based spell, or a Cleric with a Will-based spell (just to mention the top-tier in the respective saves) - unless he is extremely sure of his resources and wants to humiliate that character -, so why should a Monk try to fight foes he isn't suited to fight ?
Just my 2c.
what is the monk's (and rogue's) role in combat?Well, a monk should be the Arcane Slayer in combat. His high mobility, his immunities (and extremely good saves) and his ability to unleash an unreal number of attacks (with a chance to hit which is effectively lower than that of a Fighter) puts him as the perfect Wizard/Sorcerer nemesis (the Arcane caster has low AC, low hp, and all his abilities are based on spells - which a Monk can easily shrug off).
Divine slayer, too.
That cleric/druid/healer in the back, keeping your enemies alive, even if he's a cleric in full plate, he won't have the AC of a real fighter so go take him out.
All the stuff that makes a monk good against a mage makes him good against a cleric, too, though maybe not quite as good since the cleric's AC will be better than a mage's AC.
Give him some means to fly (Potion of Fly, Winged Boots, Carpet of Flying or Wings of Flying - or even a Flying Broom !) and some means to see invisible creatures (a potion will do), and the enemy Wizard is dead meat (the Monk can reach him before the enemy Fighter can even move).
Excellent plan.
Trying to beat a full-armored Fighter ? Not in 3.x... perhaps in the final PFRPG ? I hardly doubt so (it would require at least full BaB, and we all know that Jason stated that it won't happen).
If a monk is stupid enough to go toe-to-toe against a fully equipped fighter, then he deserves to die.
Use that mobility.
Stay out of reach and pepper the fighter with ranged attacks (e.g. shuriken).
If you have to close with him, use that full CMB to put the fighter down, then take advantage of his lower AC (since he's prone) to hit him more easily than your limited monk BAB would otherwise allow.
Never use Flurry of Suck on a heavily armored foe, at least until you reach a level where there is no to-hit penalty for using it - if you do, you'll just reduce your total number of hits so badly that your damage output over the whole fight will go down.
So keep him prone, and use your AoO (at your best BAB) to smack that fighter when he stands up.
Standing up once/round means that fighter will never use iterative attacks against the monk.
Have a pair of Sai handy to disarm the fighter. Use that full CMB to make sure the fighter can't dish out his full damage potential. That fighter won't get much use of his bastard sword specialization when it's lying on the ground.
Trying to hack less-armored foes ? Sure.
After all, no expert caster would try to kill a Barbarian with a Fortitude-based spell, or a Rogue with a Reflex-based spell, or a Cleric with a Will-based spell (just to mention the top-tier in the respective saves) - unless he is extremely sure of his resources and wants to humiliate that character -, so why should a Monk try to fight foes he isn't suited to fight ?
Sometimes you can't pick your foe.
Sometimes you just have to buckle down and take the bull by the horns.
If a wizard has nothing but lightning bolts prepared, and has to fight a rogue, well, he's doomed. No options.
But a monk has options.
The tactics a monk uses against a wizard are vastly different than the tactics he will use against a fighter.
I'm not saying the monk vs. fighter is an easy win. It's a tough fight to be sure.
But it's impossible if the monk goes toe-to-toe, unless he brings his super super lucky (read: loaded) dice.
Divine slayer, too.
That cleric/druid/healer in the back, keeping your enemies alive, even if he's a cleric in full plate, he won't have the AC of a real fighter so go take him out.
All the stuff that makes a monk good against a mage makes him good against a cleric, too, though maybe not quite as good since the cleric's AC will be better than a mage's AC.
The Wraith wrote:
I agree with almost all you said except this. A smart cleric will have a competative AC with a fighter. Shield of Faith, Doom (a - to hit works just as good as AC), Magic Vestments, Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos can add a lot to the AC of a Cleric. I'm not saying the monk can't make his life unpleasent but that Cleric's AC could be right up there or better then the fighter's so be aware of that going in.
Also that Cleric has little reason not to have a shield, many fighters use two handed weapons or fight with two weapons.
|
|
I agree that all these splat feats for runestones, gems, candles, tattoos, etc., are all a bit silly.
I'm very much OK with the idea that someone with Brew Potion has no idea how to make a runestone that works exactly like a potion.
To build off of your Profession skill (butcher vs. baker) parallel, I'd prefer if one just purchased a 'Craft Consumable Item' feat, and then chose what sort of consumable one created (potions, runestones, candles, origami paperfolds that turn into real critters or spell effects when unfolded, clockwork contraptions, etc.)
And I hate having to blow away the look and feel of a traditional European medieval campaign by inserting monkish weapons into treasure hoards, just so our party anachonism can have his own Christmas tree of magic.
I'd like the class much better, flavor-wise, if it was geared towards the euro-fantasy worlds it's put into. A Dwarven unarmed combatant who follows a philosophy of 'forging the self' until their skin is as hard as stone and their fists strike like shaped iron would be very much a 'Dwarven Monk' statistically, but would fit the feel of the Dwarven race much better. An Elven unarmed combatant who eschewed tools and embraced the fighting styles of the beasts of the wild, striking with the swiftness of the wind and bending away under blows like a wave would be more elemental / nature-based, as fits more Elven ideals, and have not a jot of faux eastern pseudo-mysticism thrown into it. Savage Orc grapplers, who train to fight with the savagery of the wild dogs, and perhaps even *bears*, that they throw their young into pits to fight in unarmed combat, using only the strength of their thick arms and the power of a natural bite attack to bring opponents down to the ground, where their weapons and shields are of no use, would fit better than some orc with a kama, pretending to be Keith Carradine-pretending-to-be-Bruce-Lee.
It didn't help much that the only Monks that seemed *mechanically* effective and / or visually 'cool' were in the OA products (both in 1st edition with it's many Hard, Soft and Hard/Soft styles and in 3rd edition with feats like Falling Star Strike), and most heavily flavored for an Asian-style setting.
Divine slayer, too.
That cleric/druid/healer in the back, keeping your enemies alive, even if he's a cleric in full plate, he won't have the AC of a real fighter so go take him out.
All the stuff that makes a monk good against a mage makes him good against a cleric, too, though maybe not quite as good since the cleric's AC will be better than a mage's AC.
The Wraith wrote:
I agree with almost all you said except this. A smart cleric will have a competative AC with a fighter. Shield of Faith, Doom (a - to hit works just as good as AC), Magic Vestments, Protection from Good/Evil/Law/Chaos can add a lot to the AC of a Cleric. I'm not saying the monk can't make his life unpleasent but that Cleric's AC could be right up there or better then the fighter's so be aware of that going in.
Also that Cleric has little reason not to have a shield, many fighters use two handed weapons or fight with two weapons.
True, those spells can really help a cleric.
The smart monk hits him hard and fast before he spends 4 rounds casting them... :)
And if he can't, or he's too late or too far away, well, there's always the grapple trick.
Awfully hard to cast any cleric spells when he's grappled, and he can have all the AC in the world and it won't prevent a grapple.
My bet is, a monk with CMB = class level + STR will outgrapple a cleric with CMB = medium BAB + STR.
To build off of your Profession skill (butcher vs. baker) parallel, I'd prefer if one just purchased a 'Craft Consumable Item' feat, and then chose what sort of consumable one created (potions, runestones, candles, origami paperfolds that turn into real critters or spell effects when unfolded, clockwork contraptions, etc.)I agree that all these splat feats for runestones, gems, candles, tattoos, etc., are all a bit silly.
I'm very much OK with the idea that someone with Brew Potion has no idea how to make a runestone that works exactly like a potion.
Sure, then we see eye-to-eye here, assuming you're allowing for the butcher with Craft Food Item to take the feat a second time to learn baking.
...pretending to be Keith Carradine-pretending-to-be-Bruce-Lee.
Wasn't that David Carradine?
True, those spells can really help a cleric.The smart monk hits him hard and fast before he spends 4 rounds casting them... :)
And if he can't, or he's too late or too far away, well, there's always the grapple trick.
Awfully hard to cast any cleric spells when he's grappled, and he can have all the AC in the world and it won't prevent a grapple.
My bet is, a monk with CMB = class level + STR will outgrapple a cleric with CMB = medium BAB + STR.
True but Magic Vestments lasts an hour per level, that is likely going to be pre-cast before you meet the cleric. :) (And he can put that on both his armor and shield (I have a level 16 cleric and he walks around nearly all day with +4 full plate and +4 large shield thanks to them. Never mind as a cleric I make sure I have the best protection devices I can, amulet of natural armor, ring of protection, (heck I made a magic item that eminates protection from evil because I've gone up against demons way too many times))
I not saying you're wrong though about the wrestling, it's a good idea to get to him and start wrestling him asap. Most cleric will be hard pressed by that, they might still be able to get some spells off but it will be a bad day for them most likely.
I love monks for beating on spell casters, I struggle to get anyone to try it but the one player who did really shined as both a spellcaster killer and as a scout.
((Course when they cleric has a 20 strength your day might not end as well as you hoped it would....((Half-Orcs have all the fun, espically those with craft magic items feats. Gotta love belts of strength.))))
|
|
...pretending to be Keith Carradine-pretending-to-be-Bruce-Lee.Wasn't that David Carradine?
Oh, I can never tell them apart. I'm still recovering from the mistaken impression that the dude who played McCoy in the new Star Trek movie was a country singer, since I was unaware that Karl Urban and Keith Urban were different people. :)
...pretending to be Keith Carradine-pretending-to-be-Bruce-Lee.Wasn't that David Carradine?
Technically it was both....
Keith portrayed the character Kwai Chang Caine as a teenager in the 1972 television series Kung Fu (the adult Caine was portrayed by his half brother, David). David was the primary star but Keith did portay him as a tennager for the show.
Speaking of that their other brother Robert went from his debut with John Wayne to be the lead in Revenge of the Nerds to more recently play the father in Lizzie McGuire.
That family has certainly done it's share of acting, good and bad no doubt.
|
|
Standing up once/round means that fighter will never use iterative attacks against the monk.
Unless he just attacks while prone. Full attack at -4, or one attack after getting hit with an attack of opportunity while standing?
My party learned this answer the hard way after fighting a group Order of the Chain Hellknights, all wielding spiked chains, and all with Improved Trip and Improved Disarm (some with Greater versions as well). Yes, the fight was very ugly. Yes, the party eventually spent the fight crawling on the floor and fighting from their backs. Yes, flurry of blows while prone works just fine. Yes, a druid shapechanged into a v-raptor being tripped on round one, and flailing with talons from prone the rest of combat is a very funny image.
Yes, I'm never doing an encounter like that again.