I have seen it indeed - it does everything but actually address what I consider to be the monk's primary problem: lack of proper enhancement. That's fine if that's the monk you want to play, but to me all those attacks with no success is not a solution, it's just underlining the problem. I like some of your ideas, but I don't think it's a winning design overall.You've seen my take on re-making the monk. The one that grants additional actions rather than more to-hit; as well as a big range of insights to learn. I think the focus should not be to make the monk hit more, but make the monk more awesome.
Two things are relevant here: all the attacks of the re-made monks are done at his full bonus (no penalty); the monk does not have trouble hitting on his first attacks - its the long string of low iteration attacks that are misses.
Secondly, the re-make is a long read, so you may not have seen:
Monk Combat Training (Ex): A monk with this insight gains a +1 bonus to hit and damage to unarmed strikes and when wielding a weapon with the ‘monk’ quality. A monk must be at least 4th level before selecting this insight. A monk may select this once, and one additional time for every six monk levels (thus at level 12 a monk may have this insight three times), the effects stack.
Doesn't that make you feel all warm and tingly? :D
It's an improvement, but I'm still not overwhelmed. Lack of actual enhancement renders the monk's unarmed strike useless in certain circumstances (such against incorporeal targets: technically, as ki-strike only bypasses DR as if magic, it is not a magic weapon and has 0% chance of effecting an incorporeal creature). That's why not having actual enhancement is just not an option.
For that matter, having monk combat training as an option implies it may not be necessary. When it boosts all forms of attack the monk, a combat class, makes, that's not optional, it's essential.
Like I said, I like some of the features you included, but you didn't cover all the bases.
A monk can have an oil of magic weapon if he really feels like he needs to hit a ghost. Making that a class ability is unnecessary in the same way that rogues, fighters and other melee classes don't need to explicitly get a "hit a ghost" ability. That is definitely on the list of "minor niggles" and not so much a concern of note. There are ways to deal with ghosts, the class doesn't have to be self-sufficient to cope with 1% of encounters.
That the monk combat training is optional is perfectly fine. It is not necessary to build a successful monk, as I've said: all attacks are at the highest BAB - those hit. It is not necessary for the same reason that all other non-fighters don't get weapon training either. However, it is available for those monks who want to pursue DPR above all else.
The implications of the changes in the re-make (specifically to the flurry - but also due to the wide range of insights) are such that the monk becomes a whole new beast. If you playtest the re-make, or run simulations, you'll see that the re-made monk has very good and consistent DPR every single round. On average better than a same-level fighter for the simple reason that the monk can always get a "full round" attack - where the fighter often loses attacks due to having to move.
Indeed, in a straight-up slugfest where just attacks count, the fighter (rightfully) has better DPR, as it should be. The monk when, optimized for that, comes very close (an expected DPR of 63 at level 10 is very respectable and on-par with many fighters). That particular sample monk has the "monk combat training" insight twice, if you take those two insights away and replace them with non-DPR affecting insights then the expected DPR is still 51(!). Any melee class that hits DPR of 50 without optimizing specifically for high DPR is perfectly acceptable for play purposes.
A monk can have an oil of magic weapon if he really feels like he needs to hit a ghost.
It's an oxymoron, but the spell magic weapon does not actually specifically make a weapon magic. It grants an enhancement bonus to attack and damage. I know a lot of DMs will rule a monk's unarmed strike, or a magic weapon spell, will allow them to hit incorporeal creatures. However, the technical interpretation of the spell and the ki strike ability do not actually grant this ability.
That's why actual enhancement is so important.
Like I said, your monk has some nice toys and some great concepts. That doesn't mean it's my preferred rebuild, and I really am not fond of the way that you did the multiple attacks with extra flurry actions, though it may grow on me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like everybody else, the monk can walk around with a +1 weapon.
Or if he feels like it, a potion of ghostbane dirge, which will help everybody in the party to hit the ghost.
But seriously. Hitting a ghost is not an intrinsic class ability and it should not be. The monk (and any other class) has a variety of options to cope with ghosts. His naked fist (unmodified by items or spells) is not required to be able to hurt ghosts, and a normal class should not have the answer for every situation built-in. Having to spend money to solve a problem is perfectly acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hitting a ghost is not an intrinsic class ability and it should not be. The monk (and any other class) has a variety of options to cope with ghosts. His naked fist (unmodified by items or spells) is not required to be able to hurt ghosts, and a normal class should not have the answer for every situation built-in. Having to spend money to solve a problem is perfectly acceptable.
I agree, they can carry a weapon, but then you are back at the 'monk weapons suck' problem. It's not a major issue to have to carry a backup weapon, but it is a major issue when you don't have an effective primary weapon, especially when it costs as much to enhance (partially and inefficiently) as the monk's unarmed strike.
As for whether the unarmed strike should be enhanced at all, I disagree strongly with you - where other classes get a built in weapon (such as the Bladebound archetype of the Magus) it's a magic weapon. If the unarmed strike cannot be effectively enhanced (through item or through intrinsic enhancement) then it's a dead end as a combat option, and that's a pretty major flaw in a class for whom it is the only truly effective combat option.
I think that Enhancement should only be applied through either:
1: An item.
Or:
2: A class feature that requires that you spend an equivalent amount of "gold" or ritual materials equal to X amount of gold as part of a training regimen to upgrade your unarmed strike.
I much prefer a Weapon Training style +1 to attack/damage, because enhancement bonuses don't improve monk beyond what every other class already can get by paying a quantity of gold. if the Pathfinder Team does fix the Monk Magic Item mess, then there's no reason to have enhancement bonuses built in unless it's option 2.
Meanwhile, a Weapon Training style bonus can be ADDED together with any future enhancement bonuses, and allows the Monk to stand in the same room as any other frontline fighter, and actually contribute against more enemies...because they'll actually be able to HIT things thanks to their stacking Weapon Training/Enhancement Bonuses. Dabbler, the one thing that really irked me about your concept: it STILL doesn't fix the "Monk Can't Hit" problem, because a Monk can already get up to +5 in enhancement to hit a target. It's just really, really expensive and you can't get any special abilities to go with that enhancement. If you don't go beyond that +5 somehow, then Monk is still getting shafted compared to every other multi-role fighting class in the game. Ranger can get massive Attack Bonus against their favored enemy, Paladins can smite and add their Charisma to their attack bonus against anything evil, and all Monks get is the POSSIBILITY of Full BAB if they did not move during the round. Monks need another bonus of some kind on top if they're supposed to be a class that can fight on the front line without requiring powerful and weird special abilities.
This, once again, assumes that we're following "Monk as a Full BAB Class" concept.
If we approach Monk with the idea of "Monk as a 3/4 BAB class with Heavy Special Ability Support", as outlined previously...then honestly, we need to stop looking at monk as a class that punches things, and start looking at it as a class that punches things to cause awesome effects (similar to Magus.) In which case, Flurry of Blows would need to become something completely new and/or some kind of special ability like Spells (or Secret Techniques) or something similar needs to be added on top.
Dabbler, the one thing that really irked me about your concept: it STILL doesn't fix the "Monk Can't Hit" problem, because a Monk can already get up to +5 in enhancement to hit a target.
'Monk can't hit' is a simplification - monks can hit, but to do so they have to abandon special effects, which can supply a lot of damage and get around some DR. The problem is one of not being able to hit and for it to be effective.
Ki strike allows you to get past DR/magic but your strike is not magic in any other way. Likewise, the enhancement from AoMF does not get you past any DR the way that magic weapons do, by RAW.
Similarly, not being able to make AoOs or single attacks at full BAB is part of the problem.
It's just really, really expensive and you can't get any special abilities to go with that enhancement. If you don't go beyond that +5 somehow, then Monk is still getting shafted compared to every other multi-role fighting class in the game.
Which my design allows, because you can get +5 enhancement bonus (that counts fully as a magic weapon) from monk levels and +5 worth of properties that will stack with that from an AoMF.
Ranger can get massive Attack Bonus against their favored enemy, Paladins can smite and add their Charisma to their attack bonus against anything evil, and all Monks get is the POSSIBILITY of Full BAB if they did not move during the round. Monks need another bonus of some kind on top if they're supposed to be a class that can fight on the front line without requiring powerful and weird special abilities.
Again this is something that my monk design DID address, at least in part. It remains at 3/4 BAB, but the flurry of blows option allows multiple attacks on a standard action over 8th level, and the monk weapon training gives +4 to hit and damage on top of the BAB.
Hence your effective BAB is not +15 or +18 at level 20, but +19. The way I worked flurry of blows this could mean a standard attack of +19/+14/+9 (which is effectively what the mobile fighter archetype can do), or a full attack at +19/+19/+14/+14/+9/+9 with an extra attack from ki if required. Add in full enhancement, and you have an attack that will give an enemy pause for thought.
Now this means that the monk is hitting easily as well as a full BAB class not employing it's special shinnies. However, the monk does have his special stuff as well, his Stunning Fist. The point here was not to make the monk as good at dealing damage as the fighter, just to make him effective against a wider range of foes and not waste his stunning fist attempts on misses. The monk is still defensively very good compared to the other classes, we don't want him to be too good offensively, we just want him to be good enough.
Edit: for those wondering, we are talking about a monk redesign I did you can see here.
I like the attack bonus idea, but I'd still want to keep some scaling on the unarmed attacks. Seems lame to just be stuck with the 1d6.Look at it like this:
2d10 = 11 average.
1d6+9 = 12.5 average.
Scaling dice are much nicer in combination with Enlarge Person.
Perfect Self breaks this at level 20, of course, but that's a long time till there :-)
Like everybody else, the monk can walk around with a +1 weapon.
Or if he feels like it, a potion of ghostbane dirge, which will help everybody in the party to hit the ghost.
But seriously. Hitting a ghost is not an intrinsic class ability and it should not be. The monk (and any other class) has a variety of options to cope with ghosts. His naked fist (unmodified by items or spells) is not required to be able to hurt ghosts, and a normal class should not have the answer for every situation built-in. Having to spend money to solve a problem is perfectly acceptable.
I totally support this.
I like the attack bonus idea, but I'd still want to keep some scaling on the unarmed attacks. Seems lame to just be stuck with the 1d6.Look at it like this:
2d10 = 11 average.
1d6+9 = 12.5 average.Scaling dice are much nicer in combination with Enlarge Person.
Perfect Self breaks this at level 20, of course, but that's a long time till there :-)
Crunching some numbers, the bonus you gain on enhancement (because +1 to hit usually equates to +2 damage/attack in DPR) more than makes up for the loss in damage you are losing. Full enhancement at higher levels more than compensates, in fact I reckon by 8th level you will be doing more DPR under my system without a potion of enlarge than you will with it under the current system.
I agree, it does look awesome when you can roll larger dice, but static bonuses to damage and bonuses to hit is where it's at.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like monks!
I like the attack bonus idea, but I'd still want to keep some scaling on the unarmed attacks. Seems lame to just be stuck with the 1d6.Look at it like this:
2d10 = 11 average.
1d6+9 = 12.5 average.Scaling dice are much nicer in combination with Enlarge Person.
Perfect Self breaks this at level 20, of course, but that's a long time till there :-)Crunching some numbers, the bonus you gain on enhancement (because +1 to hit usually equates to +2 damage/attack in DPR) more than makes up for the loss in damage you are losing. Full enhancement at higher levels more than compensates, in fact I reckon by 8th level you will be doing more DPR under my system without a potion of enlarge than you will with it under the current system.
I agree, it does look awesome when you can roll larger dice, but static bonuses to damage and bonuses to hit is where it's at.
I don't care whether a revised monk does the same damage or more than an enlarged current one. I care about losing the flavor of enlargement for increased damage (actuallly I think enlarge person should give more than +2 to Str, so you might fix the spell instead but larger weapons do significanty more damage except for small weapons with d6 or less...).
I know, another important aspect of enlarge person is the increased reach, but still...
Static bonuses with low dice are boring. Just not enough diversity in results. I don't like it.
I don't care whether a revised monk does the same damage or more than an enlarged current one. I care about losing the flavor of enlargement for increased damage (actuallly I think enlarge person should give more than +2 to Str, so you might fix the spell instead but larger weapons do significanty more damage except for small weapons with d6 or less...).
I know, another important aspect of enlarge person is the increased reach, but still...
Static bonuses with low dice are boring. Just not enough diversity in results. I don't like it.
To be honest it's a tactic I never really used much - nothing against it, but my monks always seemed to be fighting in confined spaces where it was not a good idea.
Diversity in results is nice when you roll high, and not nice when you roll low, is all I can say about it. Using the low dice + static modifier method made adjusting and manipulating the figures much easier, and easier to place on the same scale as other classes, I found, which is why I used it.
Different plan: how about we instead reduce the AC of all creatures. I suggest -1 to AC and an additional -1 to AC for every 3 CR. xD
O_o
I have to agree with Liam ap Thalwig. Scaling unarmed damage dice to me is as part of the monk as Flurry of Blows is. Getting rid of it would be akin to me to getting rid of Flurry of Blows. I love the potential damage you can get with higher value dice. Sure, flat bonuses are more reliable, but I just love rolling and seeing those tens on weapons dice.
I'm okay with reducing the dice scaling and adding flat damage bonus but honestly, losing the dice scaling completely would make me honestly reconsider ever playing the monk.
It's fair comment. If you don't make the proposal, you don't get answers like this.
scaling unarmed damage dice is possibly the worst mechanic you could possibly use. It's inconsistent, it doesn't increase monk damage effectively until higher levels, and it is NOT a good class feature.
I don't care if it's been a Monk class feature since day one, if it hasn't worked since day one then it should change into something that does work.
...or this.
Ultimately Paizo decide, they are the pros. I'm just taking part in the equivalent of brainstorming.
I'm pretty sure Monte Cook fixed this potential problem with his Oathsworn class in Arcana Evolved.
That monk-like class gets iterative attacks each +4 base attack rather than +6 - which works nicely math and level-wise and helps to keep rules simple and short.
My two cents as a fix: just give the monk a 1/1 base attack so they can finally be a "warrior class," and if it is the intent of the rules, give them the TWF feats at appropriate levels (i.e. ignore Hasbro's ruling traditions when they don't add anything nice - probably its own thread).
I have no doubts that Paizo will make a great fix though. If their game wasn't so well received and thus beloved by players nobody would be so argumentative about it.
I have to disagree, ReconstructorFleet. Sorry, Dabbler, but monk unarmed damage has been a staple since 1st edition: I just think they screwed up when they switched over to 3rd edition. Go back to the d4s of the old style (except at 1st level): 1st level 1d6, 4th level 2d4, 8th level 2d4+1, 12th level 3d4, 16th level 4d4, and 20th level 5d4.
You get the best of both worlds by doing this: first of all the monk player gets to roll LOTS of dice (who doesn't like that?) when he hits!
Current
1st: 1d6, range 1-6, average dmg 3.5
4th: 1d8, range 1-8, average dmg 4.5
8th: 1d10, range 1-10, average dmg 5.5
12th: 2d6, range 2-12, average dmg 7
16th: 2d8, range 2-16, average dmg 9
20th: 2d10, range 2-20, average dmg 11
Proposed
1st: 1d6, range 1-6, average dmg 3.5 (same)
4th: 2d4, range 2-8, average dmg 5 (+ 0.5)
8th: 2d4+1, range 3-9, average dmg 6 (+ 0.5)
12th: 3d4, range 3-12, average dmg 7.5 (+ 0.5)
16th: 4d4, range 4-16, average dmg 10 (+ 1.0)
20th: 5d4, range 5-20, average dmg 12.5 (+ 1.5)
Second, your AVERAGE damage stays roughly the same; heck, it increase slightly at 4th-15th level, and then a bit more 16th-19th, and a bit more at 20th. You aren't as likely to deal your maximum anymore, but neither are you as likely to get a bad roll and deal 4 points on a critical hit (rolled a '2' on 2d10, after confirming that natural 20! Pissed me off in 3.5 something fierce when that happened!).
Third, it fits the theme of the monk, not only because this was how the original AD&D monk had its damage, but because a monk doesn't believe in weapons as clumsy or random as bastard swords. (To paraphrase Star Wars, sorry, I'm a geek.) Changing the damage dice only helps the monk, but it doesn't give him a huge boost in power. What it does is eliminate some of random probability in rolling while at the same time letting the player have fun picking up a HANDFUL of d4 and letting them fly!
And it stays true to the traditions of our past.
Master Arminas
Personally I'm against d4s for unarmed damage - but that is because I'm biased as my d4s roll notoriously low.
Hmmm. I always felt 2d10 at max was way too variable. Yet another option for the devs to consider, I guess. I'd LIKE to use multiple dice, but I am afraid that they will upset the damage out put combined with full enhancement and weapon training.
Plus, I also do not like D4s.
That said, full enhancement was not impossible for the old monk, just not combined with special effects. If I regard 2d10 as 2d10+5 we are looking to match an average of 16 points, not 11.
What I would do, if people want more dice, is not adjust the system I use as is, but adjust the monk's robe instead, to add an extra 1d6 to the monk's base unarmed damage.
Otherwise if I was scaling damage I would have to drop the enhancement to damage and the weapon training bonus to damage, and scale 1d6 each 4 levels:
lvl 1-4: 1d6
lvl 5-8: 2d6
lvl 9-12: 3d6
lvl 13-16: 4d6
lvl 17+: 5d6
One thing I wanted to avoid was that messing about with bonuses applied here and not there, though.
Full enhancement is a +5 to the roll; weapons training (if as per the fighter class) is another +4. By 20th level, a monk can reasonably expect another +7 from Str or Dex or Wis (depending on the exact class build, of course).
Perhaps the best way to avoid the additional damage scaling too much is to change weapons training (since most of us agree that a monk needs that boost to hit). How about this:
Monastic Weapons Training (Ex): Starting at 5th level, a monk gains a +1 bonus on attack rolls whenever he attacks with an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon. When using a special monk weapon (not his unarmed strike), a monk also receives a +1 bonus to damage. Every four levels thereafter (9th, 13th, and 17th), these bonuses increase by an additional +1.
A monk also adds this bonus to any combat maneuver checks made with unarmed strikes or monk special weapons. This bonus also applies to the monk's Combat Maneuver Defense when defending against disarm and sunder attempts made against special monk weapons.
This provides the needed bonus on to-hit rolls with unarmed strike, but no damage bonus since it is already scaling (his scaling die eventually adds +7.5 average damage for the canon monk; +9 for my multi-d4 progression). However, it DOES add to the damage for special monk weapons which don't scale on their own.
So, at 20th level, my monk would be doing 5d4+12 (+5 enhancement, +7 ability) on a successful unarmed attack (average dmg of 24.5), whereas if he was using a +5 kama (for example), he would do 1d6+16 (average dmg of 19.5). Or a nonmagical shuriken 1d3+11 (average dmg of 13).
Master Arminas
Doesn't the sohei archetype address the hitting and enhancement problems with it's ki weapon and weapon training abilities?
What if you gave a regular monk those? (Taking away things where appropriate) What happens?
{stuff}
While I see the attraction in lots of dice, I guess I just don't see why that alone has to be the over-riding reason for using a different set of weapon rules. The Paizo crew like standardising things, remember, which was one reason for FoB = TWF. If I wanted to make the unarmed strike of my monk design any better at fighting unarmed, I'd rather crank up their threat range than their damage dice.
Sometimes sacred cows have to die. Holding on to something for the sake of tradition when something more effective is around just does not make sense to me.
If SoD spells can be mostly gotten rid of I see no reason why unarmed strike damage can't be changed also.
Doesn't the sohei archetype address the hitting and enhancement problems with it's ki weapon and weapon training abilities?
What if you gave a regular monk those? (Taking away things where appropriate) What happens?
It would be cool to give the regular monk unarmed strike versions of these (rather than to weapon enhancements). And for weapon training (or "unarmed strike training") I wouldn't mind giving away the various immunity/resistance abilities (plus the useless tongue of the sun and moon(useless because it's too little too late)) for that.
Ki weapon replaces abundant step and slow fall though, which at least personally I'd be more loath to give up for my monk characters. I know they're not all that but I do like their particular flavor. OTOH, I think since it requires an expenditure of ki to activate it, I've no problem with just adding an unarmed strike version to the list of ki abilities without any tradeoff--I don't think the monk would be harmed by it. It's not a bad house rule/mini archetype, really.
{stuff}While I see the attraction in lots of dice, I guess I just don't see why that alone has to be the over-riding reason for using a different set of weapon rules. The Paizo crew like standardising things, remember, which was one reason for FoB = TWF. If I wanted to make the unarmed strike of my monk design any better at fighting unarmed, I'd rather crank up their threat range than their damage dice.
A word of caution:
Every step of increase in threat-range effectively increases the DPR by 5% on average (assuming x2 multiplier). If you want to make a 1d6 with higher threat range equivalent to a 2d10 then the maths requires you to assume specific values after the dice to make comparable balanced figures.
1. For example, assuming we working with 1d6 + 10 (vs 2d10 + 10) the effective difference per hit is 13.5 vs 21; this would require the unarmed strike to have a threat range of 9-20/x2 to have the same average damage output
2. For example, assuming we working with 1d6 + 20 (vs 2d10 + 20) the effective difference per hit is 23.5 vs 31; this would require the unarmed strike to have a threat range of 15-20/x2 to have the same average damage output.
3. For example, assuming we working with 1d6 + 30 (vs 2d10 + 30) the effective difference per hit is 33.5 vs 41; this would require the unarmed strike to have a threat range of 17-20/x2 to have the same average damage output.
4. For example, assuming we working with 1d6 + 5 (vs 2d10 + 5) the effective difference per hit is 8.5 vs 16; this would require the unarmed strike to have a threat range of 4-20/x2 to have the same average damage output
The point here is that it is very difficult to balance a higher threat range. The bonus to damage (after dice) can vary quite a lot; particularly when you incorporate effects like Power Attack or other flat damage bonuses (possibly from multi-classing). While builds that do not heap on such bonuses are left out with pitiful DPR.
I agree, Lorekeeper, it's to be handled with great caution. However, if I already have the damage average where I want it, then I think it can be beneficial. For example, if the threat range of the unarmed strike increased by 1 (not stackable with Improved Critical) every time the weapon training incremented, you'd end up with 1d6+9 16-20/x2. That's a 20% DPR increase, so 12.5 average becomes 15 average.
Hmm. Like the look of that...
Not a whole lotta random there.
If you're going to go that route, why not just state unarmed strike does x damage per level + STR, and leave the dice out of it?
Not a whole lotta random there.
If you're going to go that route, why not just state unarmed strike does x damage per level + STR, and leave the dice out of it?
There's random and there's random. Remember the 3.0 monk that did 1d20 damage? They dropped it because it was just too random. With 2d10 you could blast through DR with two tens, or fall completely flat with snake eyes and achieve nothing.
Face it, most weapons are one dice with static modifiers and special effects. Now and then you get two dice...yet no-one complains they are not random enough and you should just make them a fixed damage amount. In fact for more than half his career the monk is going to be rolling only one dice anyway. All I'm doing is re-crafting unarmed strike to the same standard as every other weapon - if it isn't wrong for them, why is it wrong for unarmed strike? And if it is wrong for unarmed strike, why is it one dice only up to 11th level?
Good point.
Surprisingly enough, you'd be shocked how many people don't mind a lot of dice even if you have the chance to roll snake eyes. The majority of the people I know here usually we have the attitude of "Oh well rolled low. That's the nature of the dice!" when we roll low. I've only really know one person to lose their cool when rolling snake eyes and admittedly... he had anger issues to begin with.
I'm okay with lowering the scaling of the unarmed strike to instead get more base damage. Maybe make the cap a d12 or 2d6 and have a bonus to damage every so often. But get rid of it completely and you might as well just make FoB exactly like TWF. Would it be mechanically better if it were just a flat bonus? Yes. But it'd lose the flavor many people like and in my opinion, become lame. At that point, I'd just play a two weapon fighter and pretend he's a martial artist.
Surprisingly enough, you'd be shocked how many people don't mind a lot of dice even if you have the chance to roll snake eyes. The majority of the people I know here usually we have the attitude of "Oh well rolled low. That's the nature of the dice!" when we roll low. I've only really know one person to lose their cool when rolling snake eyes and admittedly... he had anger issues to begin with.
I have no issue with it either, and no attachment to it, for that matter. I am merely looking at ways to make the monk as a whole more effective in combat without being over-the-top good.
My reasons for experimenting with this were that it was mentioned that the original monk had a damage bonus when fighting with weapons. That got me thinking about a damage bonus for the Pathfinder monk with said weapons...which lead to the idea of weapon training. Now that's all well and good, but then the monk is dishing out too much damage with unarmed strike with all that bonus damage...so why not make unarmed strike like a weapon, and don't scale up the damage dice at all?
The numbers crunched indicate that this should work well.
I'm okay with lowering the scaling of the unarmed strike to instead get more base damage. Maybe make the cap a d12 or 2d6 and have a bonus to damage every so often. But get rid of it completely and you might as well just make FoB exactly like TWF. Would it be mechanically better if it were just a flat bonus? Yes. But it'd lose the flavor many people like and in my opinion, become lame. At that point, I'd just play a two weapon fighter and pretend he's a martial artist.
I don't think your comparison is a fair one, there. When you switch FoB for TWF you are (assuming you used the 'any combination' interpretation of FoB) losing out on some versatility and some types of character will need to be completely re-written.
Changing the multiple dice (basically, one or two) for a dice plus static bonus doesn't really lose you anything in the long term. In fact, you gain slightly in average damage.
But this has got me thinking...maybe some options would be nice to include.
How about this: At each level where the Weapon Training feature would increment damage, the monk has a choice: Either to increase the threat range of their unarmed strike by one (does not stack with Improved Critical), or to improve the dice rolled by a step. Not only does this make the 'big dice' available, it makes the unarmed strike more unique to each monk.
So it would work like this:
1st level: 1d6 20/x2
5th level: 1d8 20/x2 or 1d6 19-20/x2
9th level: 1d10 20/x2 or 1d6 18-20/x2
13th level: 2d6 20/x2 or 1d6 17-20/x2
17th level: 2d8 20/x2 or 1d6 16-20/x2
2d8+9 averages to 18 damage, not too bad compared to 2d10+5, or it could cap at 2d6, what do people think?
I wouldn't like to stop there with options, though. Perhaps have other options available, like dealing damage of a different type (slashing, piercing). Anything anyone else can think of?
I agree, Lorekeeper, it's to be handled with great caution. However, if I already have the damage average where I want it, then I think it can be beneficial. For example, if the threat range of the unarmed strike increased by 1 (not stackable with Improved Critical) every time the weapon training incremented, you'd end up with 1d6+9 16-20/x2. That's a 20% DPR increase, so 12.5 average becomes 15 average.
Hmm. Like the look of that...
That is the problem though; the impact of the 16-20 is huge once you look at the build average. 1d6+9 is the average you have from basic class related bonuses. Now if you factor in high Strength, Power Attack, and other sources of flat damage bonuses you can end up with 1d6+40 on an actual character; in that case the effect of a 16-20 threat range scales the effective damage up to 1d6+50.
In essence, changing the threat-range rewards monks for having very high Strength.
Part of the reason I don't like rising unarmed strike damage dice is because it reduces character options, and takes out a lot of traditional Wuxia character options. If you want to be the guy with the staff/Tai Chi Sword, you're naturally going to be MUCH less effective than someone who does xd6 or xd10 with his unarmed strike, and you'll have no additional damage to make it a viable character option. Any additional damage you CAN find is not nearly as powerful as just sticking to Unarmed Strike.
I don't think it's a simple matter of figuring out unarmed strike damage, because that's only part of the problem. If we're looking at Monk as our eastern-themed Martial Arts character, then we've got exactly ONE option from that area of combat as the class currently stands: unarmed strike. Part of the reason I advocate a Weapon Training style bonus, is because if it is set for Monk Weapons, that includes a lot of traditional martial arts weapons as well as Unarmed Strike. While we're at it, lets make Unarmed Strike it's own weapon, with a crit-range and special weapon effects based on options you choose as you level as a monk.
What I would like to see, is a class feature that affects both unarmed strike, monk weapons, and things that WERE traditional monk weapons such as Short Sword, Spear, Short Spear, Spear, Dagger, etc. In fact, since the vast majority of the mentioned weapons are light, or do no greater damage dice than 1d8, you could reclassify the Monk as a light weapon/armor fighter that we all have an image of in our heads, and give Monk more class features based on that. If you want to play a western version of a Monk, it ends up looking a lot like an Errol Flynn style, high-flying acrobatic Swashbuckler, doesn’t it? Thus we expand our character concept, and allow for a more interesting Monk.
One way or another, lets give monk more than just unarmed strike. I want to pull some serious High-Flying Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon type stuff with a temple sword, or Hero style flying spear-work.
Part of the reason I don't like rising unarmed strike damage dice is because it reduces character options, and takes out a lot of traditional Wuxia character options. If you want to be the guy with the staff/Tai Chi Sword, you're naturally going to be MUCH less effective than someone who does xd6 or xd10 with his unarmed strike, and you'll have no additional damage to make it a viable character option. Any additional damage you CAN find is not nearly as powerful as just sticking to Unarmed Strike.
This is my thinking too.
I don't think it's a simple matter of figuring out unarmed strike damage, because that's only part of the problem. If we're looking at Monk as our eastern-themed Martial Arts character, then we've got exactly ONE option from that area of combat as the class currently stands: unarmed strike. Part of the reason I advocate a Weapon Training style bonus, is because if it is set for Monk Weapons, that includes a lot of traditional martial arts weapons as well as Unarmed Strike. While we're at it, lets make Unarmed Strike it's own weapon, with a crit-range and special weapon effects based on options you choose as you level as a monk.
...and this is also what I was thinking about and talking about.
What I would like to see, is a class feature that affects both unarmed strike, monk weapons, and things that WERE traditional monk weapons such as Short Sword, Spear, Short Spear, Spear, Dagger, etc. In fact, since the vast majority of the mentioned weapons are light, or do no greater damage dice than 1d8, you could reclassify the Monk as a light weapon/armor fighter that we all have an image of in our heads, and give Monk more class features based on that. If you want to play a western version of a Monk, it ends up looking a lot like an Errol Flynn style, high-flying acrobatic Swashbuckler, doesn’t it? Thus we expand our character concept, and allow for a more interesting Monk.
This is an interesting idea, something we could expand on in archetypes maybe?
One way or another, lets give monk more than just unarmed strike. I want to pull some serious High-Flying Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon type stuff with a temple sword, or Hero style flying spear-work.
I like this concept. I am going to go back to my monk concept and re-work it with some options. Watch this space folks...
What I like about the monk - or what makes the monk a monk for me:
flexible attacks
- ki pool (love that)
- many attacks
- stunning fist
- combat maneuvers (bonus feats and being able to use them in a flurry)
- use shrunken in a flurry
defenses which avoid damage and detrimental effects
- no armor but good AC
- all three saves are good + still mind
- immunity to poison (and diseases)
- spell resistance (would like to improve that by +4 with ki)
- evasion/improved evasion
movement
- fast movement
- high jump
- abundant step
- slow fall
skilled
- good selection of class skills (with an emphasis on physical and mental "fitness")
- relatively high skill ranks per level
- bonus feats
independence
- does not need equipment, except for special cases (like cold iron etc)
- may heal himself
No particular order, just grouped a little bit.
Hehe, seems like that covers all features of the monk :-)
Yes, I do like that class...
That's why I don't like the Qigong monk very much: I'd hate to drop anything in favor of a Qigong power (which are of very mixed quality IMHO anyway).
What I left out: features that come late (15+) and therefore don't define the monk too much for me because they are so far away...
That is the problem though; the impact of the 16-20 is huge once you look at the build average. 1d6+9 is the average you have from basic class related bonuses. Now if you factor in high Strength, Power Attack, and other sources of flat damage bonuses you can end up with 1d6+40 on an actual character; in that case the effect of a 16-20 threat range scales the effective damage up to 1d6+50.
In essence, changing the threat-range rewards monks for having very high Strength.
It rewards high stats - one AoMF with the Agile property and it is rewarding high dexterity instead - but then, high stats are rewarded regardless; without a decent hitting stat you will have problems striking the target regardless.
The size and source of the static bonus is not important, really. I don't see it as an issue for the monk because a TWF fighter with twin kukris and Improved critical is starting from a higher basis (1d4+13) with a bigger threat range (15-20).
Edit: here is a first draft of what I have come up with so far, taking on board criticisms, feelings and feedback.
Thank you! I like the psychic monk idea too, but as you say it isn't core.
Dabbler. You're missing some serious issues in this proposed draft of Monk. It doesn't actually fix Monk's problems. :(
There are great ideas in your rewrite. You're trying to get rid of monk MAD, and it's admirable, however:
1: By reducing BAB, and not including original Monk Maneuver training, this version of monk is -5 in the hole across 20 levels when they attempt to perform a combat maneuver compared to Current Monk. In fact, the best you can get by comparison is -3 compared to Current Monk, because of a special ability you can take once for one combat maneuver. You never get to take it again for that combat maneuver...which leads us to...
2: The bonus feat list is still lacking all the different Improved and Greater combat maneuver feats. This is a huge problem for Monk, so many bonus feats, and none of them particularly useful at the times they get them. Admittedly, the Maneuver Skill power you wrote in mitigates SOME of that, but it doesn't change the fact that Monk should have a more expanded combat feat list. I know a few Crane Kung Fu and Mantis Kung Fu guys who would tell you flat out that Improved Dirty Trick, Greater Dirty Trick, and Fast Dirty Trick are totally part of their feat choices.
3: Spending a Ki point to change the damage type of Unarmed Strike, unless it becomes elemental, isn't worthwhile at all. Come on, Style Feats let you change that permanently. There's a reason why everyone complains about the overall usefulness of Ki Pool, and it's because of lackluster spending options.
4: Tag on another ability to change unarmed strike from 1d12 to 2d6? Did you mean 2d6 to 2d8, or 1d12 to 2d8?
5: Your flurry is a fun idea, and I've seen it before. However, the version I saw before on the internet was made for D&D 3.5, and it made up for Monk's weaknesses by adding your version of Flurry AND by making Monk an 8 + Int Mod skills class. You still haven't fixed Monk's role problem the way that version did...we're still somewhere in between, and there is no reason that this version of Flurry is not at Full BAB, but with no final bonus attack. (Thus leading to 4 attacks and 3 bonus attacks.)
The reason 5 is true is because...
6: Your Monk is still at Medium BAB, making it a combat class that still cannot qualify for useful combat feats at a reasonable rate, and you haven't added or replaced anything with a degree of power that would allow this monk to stand on it's own as a combat class OR as a medium BAB class. The reason we all love the Psychic Monk class, is because it is an example of a Medium BAB class that has special powers that allow it to compensate for it's otherwise weak fighting ability. DO NOT STAND BETWEEN TWO EXTREMES. Either make it a Medium BAB class with the awesome powers to compensate, or make it a Full BAB class, which is the route this version mostly takes. Your new flurry is fantastic, and the Weapon Training is useful, but all of that combined still leaves this monk with a +1 Attack Bonus overall compared to CURRENT monk. The only reason this is true is because of the two weapon fighting penalties that Current Monk faces. There is exactly ONE thing that would fix every single problem with this draft of your Monk with the exception of the lackluster Ki expenditure choices and the limited bonus feat list: Make it full BAB. If you did that, it would be +5 Attack Bonus greater overall, and you wouldn't need any Maneuver Training nonsense, it would qualify for combat feats easy, and suddenly the vast majority of monk problems would fade away. And you'd have an awesome, nifty Skirmisher. Remember: The number one complaint that people have with Monk is that it can't hit things, and bypass DR. You've dealt with the DR issue, but this monk is only +1 better at hitting things than current monk. That is not enough.
Seriously guys, I love you all, but stop trying to straddle the line between Full BAB Combat Class, and Medium BAB Combat-With-Weird-powers. Monk's been trying to do this since Day One, and it does not work.
That said though! There were a lot of amazing ideas in this one, I especially like the special abilities that could be purchased for monk fighting options.
Dabbler. You're missing some serious issues in this proposed draft of Monk. It doesn't actually fix Monk's problems. :(
I didn't? I always saw the monk's main problem as lack of enhancement on unarmed strike, and the resulting inability to get past DR. That's fixed here. What else is there?
There are great ideas in your rewrite. You're trying to get rid of monk MAD, and it's admirable...
Thank you...
...however:
1: By reducing BAB, and not including original Monk Maneuver training, this version of monk is -5 in the hole across 20 levels when they attempt to perform a combat maneuver compared to Current Monk. In fact, the best you can get by comparison is -3 compared to Current Monk, because of a special ability you can take once for one combat maneuver. You never get to take it again for that combat maneuver...which leads us to...
OK, I see what you missed: Weapon Training.
When you have the weapon training class feature, you add the bonus gained onto to hit, damage and maneuver checks made with that weapon. As the weapon training group for the monk is monk weapons + unarmed strike, this effectively means that you gain the weapon training bonus on ALL maneuver checks. You are also gaining it to hit and damage. That's also why I included the maneuver skills, for an extra +2. So if you made a maneuver monk, you are +1 better off with this monk with full enhancement as well.
Ultimately, you are at 3/4 BAB +4. Or if you prefer, as far as hitting things and maneuvers, full BAB-1. Not bad when you have multiple attacks even on a standard action, and much better than before when your attacks on single actions were lower still.
2: The bonus feat list is still lacking all the different Improved and Greater combat maneuver feats. This is a huge problem for Monk, so many bonus feats, and none of them particularly useful at the times they get them. Admittedly, the Maneuver Skill power you wrote in mitigates SOME of that, but it doesn't change the fact that Monk should have a more expanded combat feat list. I know a few Crane Kung Fu and Mantis Kung Fu guys who would tell you flat out that Improved Dirty Trick, Greater Dirty Trick, and Fast Dirty Trick are totally part of their feat choices.
Adding in the Improved feats for dirty trick, reposition and steal is a no-brainer I completely missed. As for the Greater feats, there is a reason they are not included - prerequisites. The Greater feats have to have the Improved feats, and the monk bonus feats specifically allow you to ignore prerequisites.
Now as I've reduced MAD somewhat, the easiest thing to do with your maneuver monk is exactly what every maneuver monk is already doing: get some intelligence and take combat expertise.
3: Spending a Ki point to change the damage type of Unarmed Strike, unless it becomes elemental, isn't worthwhile at all. Come on, Style Feats let you change that permanently. There's a reason why everyone complains about the overall usefulness of Ki Pool, and it's because of lackluster spending options.
Point taken. I'll get rid of that one.
4: Tag on another ability to change unarmed strike from 1d12 to 2d6? Did you mean 2d6 to 2d8, or 1d12 to 2d8?
I wrote what I meant. On reflection I felt 2d8 was too high a cap for the unarmed strike, 2d6 feels better to me (with weapon training and enhancement, 16 average damage, the same as 2d10+5). I may just make it 1d10 -> 2d6 and cap it there.
5: Your flurry is a fun idea, and I've seen it before. However, the version I saw before on the internet was made for D&D 3.5, and it made up for Monk's weaknesses by adding your version of Flurry AND by making Monk an 8 + Int Mod skills class. You still haven't fixed Monk's role problem the way that version did...we're still somewhere in between, and there is no reason that this version...
Again, you seem to have missed out the weapon training bonus TO HIT there. The monk's problem in hitting comes down to lack of enhancement. This monk has built in enhancement to +5 to hit and damage, and weapon training to +4 to hit and damage. That means they are up on 3/4 BAB +9, and can add an AoMF for effects gravy.
Keeping 3/4 BAB was deliberate on my part - the monk is defensively very, very good - perhaps the best class in the game. I wanted to make him offensively as good as or slightly better than the other full BAB classes when they are not using their 'thing'. I did not want his overall offensive ability to be as good as or better than the fighter with all guns blazing.
Lets look at a comparison with some other combat classes' attack bonus and number of attacks:
Ranger/Paladin:
Full BAB + full enhancement + weapon focus = +26 attack bonus, so they will get either 4 attacks starting at +26 or up to seven starting at +24.
(They also get bonuses against a limited set of foes that scale them right up past the fighter).
Fighter:
Full BAB + full enhancement + weapon training + feats = +31 attack bonus, so they will get either 4 attacks starting at +31 or up to seven starting at +29.
Now look at the monk design compared to them:
3/4 BAB + full enhancement + weapon training + weapon focus = +25 attack bonus, so they will get 6 attacks starting at +25.
(The monk also has his stunning fist and other abilities on top)
So, hitting-wise the monk is about up there with the full BAB classes when they are not using their 'thing'.
Now looking at damage:
Ranger/Paladin - weapon + full enhancement = weapon + 5 + effects
Fighter - weapon + full enhancement + weapon specialisation + weapon training = weapon + 13 + effects
Monk - weapon/unarmed strike + full enhancement + weapon training = weapon/unarmed strike + 9 + effects
Now compare the monk power attacking with a two-handed weapon. You are looking at six or seven attacks there with a seriously effective weapon and the bonus from Power Attack at +12. The monk loses +6 damage in exchange for two extra attacks...I can live with that.
So this monk is hitting slightly more often than the full BAB classes without their 'thing', and harder, but not quite as often or as hard as the fighter. This is exactly where we want to be, where he is a threat that cannot be ignored, but is not so good with all his defensive abilities that he is broken in the other direction.
Some very nice ideas and debates, all. Good job.
EDIT: Post #900! YES!
MA
OK, I see what you missed: Weapon Training.
When you have the weapon training class feature, you add the bonus gained onto to hit, damage and maneuver checks made with that weapon. As the weapon training group for the monk is monk weapons + unarmed strike, this effectively means that you gain the weapon training bonus on ALL maneuver checks. You are also gaining it to hit and damage. That's also why I included the maneuver skills, for an extra +2. So if you made a maneuver monk, you are +1 better off with this monk with full enhancement as well.
Ultimately, you are at 3/4 BAB +4. Or if you prefer, as far as hitting things and maneuvers, full BAB-1. Not bad when you have multiple attacks even on a standard action, and much better than before when your attacks on single actions were lower still.
Ohhhh. Okay. I see. That makes MUCH more sense. That's pretty awesome, in fact.
Again, you seem to have missed out the weapon training bonus TO HIT there. The monk's problem in hitting comes down to lack of enhancement. This monk has built in enhancement to +5 to hit and damage, and weapon training to +4 to hit and damage. That means they are up on 3/4 BAB +9, and can add an AoMF for effects gravy.
Keeping 3/4 BAB was deliberate on my part - the monk is defensively very, very good - perhaps the best class in the game. I wanted to make him offensively as good as or slightly better than the other full BAB classes when they are not using their 'thing'. I did not want his overall offensive ability to be as good as or better than the fighter with all guns blazing.
That's not true, actually. Current Monk can get +5 Enhancement to hit with their unarmed strike, it was just really expensive and you couldn't get anything else. Current Monk in fact gets +1 more to hit across 20 levels due to the fact that it's BAB becomes Full when it flurries. Dabbler-Monk is a much better monk in terms of attack bonus whether it flurries or does not flurry, however, losing out on only 1 point in attack compared to when Current Monk Flurries. Either way though, I honestly think you'll still end up with the same Flurry of Misses issue that Current Monk has regardless of if it's making a full attack action or a standard attack.
Still, overall, this IS MUCH BETTER in terms of attacking than Current Monk. I don't know if I want to agree that it's good enough though. You've got a huge feat Frontload that you can't actually take useful feats with due to Monk's Medium BAB.
My big suggestion at this point? Something that lets you use your Monk Level in place of your BAB for meeting feat prerequisites, and 6 + int Mod Skills OR Ranger/Paladin style spellcasting up to 4th level to count as "secret techniques" to round out the class.
Adding any one of those things along with more things you can take when you get your Weapon Training bonuses would probably even out the class and make things work like a charm. I might have more ideas on that later...but so far, I like what you've got.
Final Thought: MAD is still an issue, because if you drop STR for DEX, your monk is now a master of cherry tapping. So make it so that you can also use Dexterity or Wisdom for your damage rolls instead of Strength if those scores are better, and treat it as being Strength bonus for all damage roll purposes (including how STR is treated when using a two handed weapon.)
Does that work? I'd love to see some discussion on that idea. :D