| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This class has quite possible THE strangest weapon proficiency list in the game. As far as I can tell, there's not much reason for it, either. Thematically and from a balance perspective, these choices are just bizarre.
- Of the 32 monk weapons I can find, they are proficient in only 9 of them. For comparison purposes, the full BAB classes get 14. That's right, fighters, barbarians, cavaliers, rangers, and paladins are proficient in half-again as many monk weapons as a monk. Because the paladin needing to patiently explain the proper use of wushu darts to a monk makes a lot of sense.
- You want stranger? Of the monk weapons I mentioned, 1/3 of those are simple weapons, the rest are ALL exotic, no martial weapons at all. So, shurikens yes, tonfa no. For some reason, the tonfa, a weapon so simple that peasants used it in China, just doesn't fit properly into a monk's hand in combat unless they devote a feat to it. Well, it's not like it's meant to used by a flurrying monk anyways, right?
- Oh, you want more oddness? How about monks are proficient with quarterstaves, but not the bo staff? Because, presumably, the weapon being 1 lb lighter, tapered slightly, and giving a +1 shield bonus when fighting defensively makes this the proper use of this stick alien as hell to a martial artist. I mean, that's gotta be incredibly awkward to use for a class that's all about insightful, defensive combat in the first place.
- What's that? You STILL want more? Get this: the use of punching daggers, maces, sickles, boar/long spears, darts, and blowguns are completely foreign concepts to monks. Shortspears and regular spears, clubs, crossbows, regular daggers, kamas, those very similar weapons all make perfect sense to a monk, though. Don't worry, they get how to use shortswords or handaxes just fine! Not sure why, but they do.
So, yeah, that. Anyone have any insight from prior Dev comments or whatever to explain why their weapon list ended up looking like holes were punched out of it using a machine gun?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly? Legacy content, probably followed by the normal, every day 'detail issues' that sometimes plague design. For the weapons that showed up later, back-porting in proficiency is a small, easy-to-overlook detail of the kind that even editors miss. I know I've had little things like that crop up in my work lately that I've only caught on the fifth or sixth read-through of something.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also they're not proficient with the MONK'S Spade one of the iconic tools/weapons of monks and it even has their name in it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also the unarmed fighter archetype is proficient with all monk weapons, the monk is not.
Unarmed fighter also retains all of his normal proficiencies...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my games, i house-rule that monks are proficient with all weapons with monk on it.
Personally I think if a weapon can be flurried with a monk, then he probably trained with it... and is therefore proficient...
Personally I think if a weapon can be flurried with a monk, then he probably trained with it... and is therefore proficient...
Yep. To make matters worse, this isn't the sort of thing you can blame on the 3.5 legacy. How would this have impacted backwards compatibility if a monk was proficient with a 'monk spade'? It's not even a core book weapon, so the backwards compatibility issue of the core rule set seems like it shouldn't even come up. It, like many of the other monk weapons, came out in later books like the APG or UC. And yet, the monk got only 3 new proficiencies from everything Paizo has done since Core: brass knuckles, cestus, and temple sword. Meanwhile, fighters / barbarins / cavaliers / paladins / rangers get to pick up their brand-spanking new and awesome lucerne hammers, nodachi's, tri-point double-edged swords, as well as any simple or martial weapon with the word 'monk' in it. It's just nuts.
One might hope that the various classes (eg bard, druid, rogue, monk, wizard) who get an odd collection of proficiencies might get an updated list when new weapons are published.
For example, bards and rogues can use a boring old shortsword, but not a flashy gladius if they want to look cool. Nor can they use a sword cane in case they want to look stealthy.
Well, with the exotic weapons, it makes sense they aren't proficient (they are exotic for a reason; likely they are only used by weird sects for who knows what reasons, but the least of which are 'ease of use'). I mean, jus because something is suitable for the quick strikes of a flurry does not mean it is very intuitive and easy to use.
The martial ones have far more room for argument though. A lot of them have some of the more iconic martial arts weapons (butterfly swords, monk's spade, Sansetsukon, etc). I also feel the Lungchuan tamo should be on their automatic proficiency list (it is a slightly worse dagger that they can use to flurry; knife wielding monks seem fairly common in media). I would also prefer at least one straight sword...if only to pay homage to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. It would not be too much of a problem balance wise to include longswords in the list of flurriable weapons, since they are virtually identical to temple swords (a bit more common on loot tables though).
Of course, I tend to prefer sohei builds, so the proficiency problem usually doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Also- mudfoot, there is some debate about whether proficiencies count as feats for the purposes of how a gladius counts as a short sword. There might be some definitive answer question somewhere on the rules forum... but I am a bit too tired for google-fu. Another note- monks get short swords because pretty much anyone that is expected to hit things (other than druids, for obvious reasons; alchemist too though, oddly) get the short sword. Just a general design decision that seems fair enough (it is a fairly common weapon, so at least someone will find use of that +2 shortsword).
Don't sprain your brain.
In home games I let monks flurry with Short Swords, hand axes and daggers. Any lite weapon they are proficient and the spear.
With the new UC weapons I let Monks pick any 5 Monk weapons at start up. And they can retrain. This weapon list is really awkward too, I'm still confused what some of them actually are supposed to do.
In Society I tell everyone, "Don't play a monk!", the history of unequal nerfium thrown at them in OP formats (even pre PF) is too extensive to justify the class. Someone hates the class and goes out of their way to hex it.
PS
The Core Monk proficiency list is very similar to the weapon forms of Okinawan Karate. It's missing the Oar, brass knuckles (horseshoe fist), and Turtle shell shield and shrt spear combo.
When 3.5 was released there was some fear that flurry would be too Good!, they were very conservative with the available weapons. In AD&D monks could flurry with more stuff than in PF.
likely they are only used by weird sects for who knows what reasons
You mean like the Monk's Spade?
In old China, Buddhist monks often carried spades (shovels) with them when travelling. This served two purposes: if they came upon a corpse on the road, they could properly bury it with Buddhist rites, and the large implement could serve as a weapon for defence against bandits. Over time, they were stylised into the monk's spade weapon.
Monks ARE the weird sect that uses these exotic weapons.
(Also, if you think that's weird, dragons in Shadowrun need to purchase "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (their own breath weapon)")
likely they are only used by weird sects for who knows what reasonsYou mean like the Monk's Spade?
In old China, Buddhist monks often carried spades (shovels) with them when travelling. This served two purposes: if they came upon a corpse on the road, they could properly bury it with Buddhist rites, and the large implement could serve as a weapon for defence against bandits. Over time, they were stylised into the monk's spade weapon.
Monks ARE the weird sect that uses these exotic weapons.
Don't confuse "all the people who train with these weapons are monks" with "all monks are people who train with this weapon."
A lot of people like to focus on the fact that a kama is an exotic weapon, while a sickle, which is game-mechanically identical, is not.
This is not true. You can't flurry-of-blows with a sickle, because it's not a monk weapon. So they're not game-mechanically identical. To use a sickle as a kama, i.e. to flurry with it, requires special training, training that not all martial artists get. (I can vouch for that from personal experience -- having training for an uncomfortably large number of years in various Chinese martial arts, I've never had occasion to handle a kama, which is primarily an Okinawan weapon.)
Don't confuse "all the people who train with these weapons are monks" with "all monks are people who train with this weapon."
A lot of people like to focus on the fact that a kama is an exotic weapon, while a sickle, which is game-mechanically identical, is not.
This is not true. You can't flurry-of-blows with a sickle, because it's not a monk weapon. So they're not game-mechanically identical. To use a sickle as a kama, i.e. to flurry with it, requires special training, training that not all martial artists get. (I can vouch for that from personal experience -- having training for an uncomfortably large number of years in various Chinese martial arts, I've never had occasion to handle a kama, which is primarily an Okinawan weapon.)
Well, to start with since you're basing some of this on your real life skills, I'll put in the obligatory snark about asking what level monk you are, how big your ki pool is, etc.
I think part of the objection to kama vs sickle is that they're not just mechanically identical, they're the same thing in real-world terms too. It would be pretty fair to say that a kama is nothing more than a Japanese sickle.
I don't think the monk being proficient with all monk weapons is any more absurd than martial classes being proficient with all simple and martial weapons. If we're going for realism, roll back the AD&D's way of handling weapon proficiency.
I don't think the monk being proficient with all monk weapons is any more absurd than martial classes being proficient with all simple and martial weapons. If we're going for realism, roll back the AD&D's way of handling weapon proficiency.
Precisely. No swordsman (in a modern or historical context) was also proficient with flails, maces, clubs, and axes equally well. Not to mention spears, halberds, and the longbow.
Longbows took years of dedicated training, and while they utterly ruined anything they were pointed at, they were eventually replaced by the crossbowman because you could hand any idiot a crossbow and he'd be 70% as good as the guy who spent 5 years training with a longbow (i.e. individually the crossbow was crappier, but you could field more of them more quickly).
They may look similar, be used for the same non-combat purpose, but they are not wielded the same way, in any means.
The curved blade makes all the difference in the world.
That's one type of sickle, yes. Sickles come in a very wide variety of blade shapes, depending on what crop they're being used to harvest, and other various time/place factors. There are plenty of examples of occidental sickles that are a perfect match for the design of a kama.
And most importantly, Wikipedia identifies the kama as a type of sickle. Because a wiki anybody can edit is a completely irrefutable source.
I think part of the objection to kama vs sickle is that they're not just mechanically identical, they're the same thing in real-world terms too. It would be pretty fair to say that a kama is nothing more than a Japanese sickle.
It might be "pretty fair" to say, but it would also be wrong. The blade shape is considerably different.
More importantly, the way it's used is also considerably different. That's also what separates the one-handed use of the bastard sword from the two-handed use, so the idea that technique matters for classification is already baked into the system.
I don't think the monk being proficient with all monk weapons is any more absurd than martial classes being proficient with all simple and martial weapons.
Not at all. But on the other hand, saying "well, this particular ludicrous proposal is no-more-ludicrous than a number of other ludicrous rules that are already in use" is hardly a compelling argument in favor of that proposal.
I don't think the monk being proficient with all monk weapons is any more absurd than martial classes being proficient with all simple and martial weapons.Not at all. But on the other hand, saying "well, this particular ludicrous proposal is no-more-ludicrous than a number of other ludicrous rules that are already in use" is hardly a compelling argument in favor of that proposal.
I'd say it's more a matter of keeping things consistent. As it is, you're applying "I personally couldn't do that, so mystical martial artists with magic kung-fu powers shouldn't be able to either" to the monk while other classes get a completely different standard. The game can be hard-core realistic or it can be a fantasy where realism is suspended for rule of cool, but you can't constantly switch between the two if you want any kind of consistent feel to the game.
In my games, i house-rule that monks are proficient with all weapons with monk on it.Does that include Half-Dragon Dire Weremonkey?
*Groan*
Of course, that reminded me of my (3.5) Lolth-Touched Mineral Warrior Half-(Howling)-Dragon Crystaline Troll.ECL 20 and basically immune to anything that would cause it to die, become dying, or stay dead (for one, its CON was 48, so even with only 10 actual hit dice, it had 274 hp and immune to lethal damage,* a fortitude of +33, with feats it got its con to will as well; with a +5 vs. "most everything from the necromancy school" and a +4 vs. "most mind-effecting").
*I'm sorry, I'm a crystal troll. I only take lethal from Sonic. I'm also a bastard child with a howling dragon, so I'm immune to all sonic damage. Have fun!
As it is, you're applying "I personally couldn't do that, so mystical martial artists with magic kung-fu powers shouldn't be able to either" to the monk while other classes get a completely different standard.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that real-world martial artists are not necessarily trained in all obscure weapons. I pointed out two different traditions (Okinawan and Chinese) and further pointed out that the kama was associated with only one of them. I could have done exactly the same for the French la boxe savate tradition or the Indonesian silat tradition -- neither of them include the combat use of a sickle. (By contrast, all martial arts that I know of include some form of staff and some form of combat knife; those seem to be universal.)
The usual method for handling cultural differences in weapons and training requirements seems to be via the type of weapon proficiency needed to handle them without penalty.
In my games, i house-rule that monks are proficient with all weapons with monk on it.Does that include Half-Dragon Dire Weremonkey?
That does it. My next character will be an awakened primate with qinggong and master summoner levels and the Leadership feat to acquire more monk followers. Carries a wand of mad monkeys and his eidolon is yet another kung-fu primate.
He shall be called Monkey Monk and the Monk[e]y Bunch.
Edit: Unsurprisingly, I see that this has been done. I shall do it anyway. : D
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that real-world martial artists are not necessarily trained in all obscure weapons. I pointed out two different traditions (Okinawan and Chinese) and further pointed out that the kama was associated with only one of them. I could have done exactly the same for the French la boxe savate tradition or the Indonesian silat tradition -- neither of them include the combat use of a sickle. (By contrast, all martial arts that I know of include some form of staff and some form of combat knife; those seem to be universal.)
The usual method for handling cultural differences in weapons and training requirements seems to be via the type of weapon proficiency needed to handle them without penalty.
Which is why the class probably needs some sort of scaling monk weapon proficiency feature. It would reflect the individual monks training in the more esoteric and difficult weapons of their order, society, or faith. Considering the kind of rigorous training a monk is expected to put themselves through, as reflected by both the alignment requirement and the average starting age for their class, it should be expected that their daily practice routines gradually expand as the monk gains experience to incorporate not only new techniques but also new tools.
Which is why the class probably needs some sort of scaling monk weapon proficiency feature. It would reflect the individual monks training in the more esoteric and difficult weapons of their order, society, or faith. Considering the kind of rigorous training a monk is expected to put themselves through, as reflected by both the alignment requirement and the average starting age for their class, it should be expected that their daily practice routines gradually expand as the monk gains experience to incorporate not only new techniques but also new tools.Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that real-world martial artists are not necessarily trained in all obscure weapons. I pointed out two different traditions (Okinawan and Chinese) and further pointed out that the kama was associated with only one of them. I could have done exactly the same for the French la boxe savate tradition or the Indonesian silat tradition -- neither of them include the combat use of a sickle. (By contrast, all martial arts that I know of include some form of staff and some form of combat knife; those seem to be universal.)
The usual method for handling cultural differences in weapons and training requirements seems to be via the type of weapon proficiency needed to handle them without penalty.
That's certainly a solution. It would be easy enough to build -- monks start out with the CRB proficiencies, and then at every even level they get a weapon proficiency that must be used on either a weapon with the monk descriptor or a simple weapon. This would of course very quickly saturate as there frankly aren't that many useful monk weapons, but it also allows for expansion when someone adds "chair" as an official monk weapon (which it actually is in la boxe savate).
Eh, if most martials can be proficient with all martial weapons automatically, I'm okay with monks being proficient with all monk weapons, or at least all Eastern simple and martial weapons.
That's another solution, and as Chengar pointed out, that's no more silly than the existing martial rules. But 'no more silly than the existing rules' is not necessarily the proper standard to use.
In 1e, monks were proficient with only one weapon at 1st level (fewer than anyone else) but gained another every 2 levels (faster than anyone else). 1e monks sucked really, really hard. Like hard vacuum hard.
But in any case, adding monk proficiencies doesn't really help. Once you've picked up a +2 Keen Temple Sword or AoMF, you're not going to care if you're suddenly proficient in Sai, Tonfa and Spade.
1e Monks were fun though.
That's another solution, and as Chengar pointed out, that's no more silly than the existing martial rules. But 'no more silly than the existing rules' is not necessarily the proper standard to use.
It's good enough for my game. The monk is something of a cinematic class anyway, and any excuse to see a meteor hammer get some play is a good one in my book.
Do you have a better approach? The status quo isn't game-breaking or anything, but it is a little confusing and off-putting to new players.
Edit: I just read the "more proficiencies as you level" solution above. It's nice I suppose, but it's also just one more thing to track on a character sheet. I'd rather just throw the lot in.
I suppose if we wanted a more limited list, one could always for getting to chose a limited number of monk weapons to be proficient with. It would have much the same end result, without giving the monk a pile of proficiencies.
I suppose if we wanted a more limited list, one could always for getting to chose a limited number of monk weapons to be proficient with. It would have much the same end result, without giving the monk a pile of proficiencies.
99 percent of the time, it'd be the same thing. People talk enough about a character only using one or two weapon types all the time. The CRB monk list has sixteen items on it. If a nu-monk got to pick even, say, five weapons and discard the rest, that'd be enough for the life of the character unless the GM deliberately dropped a weapon the monk couldn't use--and a GM could already do this by dropping a greataxe.
Yep.
A monk isn't much different than a rogue in that. Having access to all monk weapons isn't suddenly going to turn into monks wandering around with 10 different weapons on them.
They already get IUS which is the same as having backups mostly.
I suppose if we wanted a more limited list, one could always for getting to chose a limited number of monk weapons to be proficient with. It would have much the same end result, without giving the monk a pile of proficiencies.99 percent of the time, it'd be the same thing. People talk enough about a character only using one or two weapon types all the time. The CRB monk list has sixteen items on it. If a nu-monk got to pick even, say, five weapons and discard the rest, that'd be enough for the life of the character unless the GM deliberately dropped a weapon the monk couldn't use--and a GM could already do this by dropping a greataxe.
Which was pretty much what I had in mind.
I think a monk companion should be made. Within that book should be traditions. Those traditions would have different monk weapons that a monk would be proficient with. Similar to the cavalier orders.