I'm posting this because it came up in the Ask Jason Bulmahn thread in OTD, and because I can see arguments either way.
A quick recap of the issue: monks and brawlers are not able to flurry with every weapon on their respective proficiency lists. While I'm certain this is intentional (Sean K Reynolds weighed in on the point that not all class features need to function or synergise with all other class features), there is an argument that can be made that it over complicates bookkeeping (is proficient Y/N? Is flurryable Y/N?) and (potentially) weakens the classes.
Thoughts and arguments either way, please.
Note: I do not have a horse in this race, I am perfectly willing to be swayed either way.
I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
Really which enchantment?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone pointed out in another thread, having proficiency with a weapon that you can't flurry with still leaves you with the option to USE it when effective. For example, if the only adamantine weapon you have found is a short sword and you need to stab a golem.
Would it be nice if you could also flurry with that sword? Yeah, of course, but you are still better off than if you couldn't use it all. And I suspect those weapons aren't allowed for the flurry because they aren't thematically appropriate and would be mechanically superior to the weapons which are. If the monks all started wielding the same weapons as the fighters it would make dull the distinct class flavors.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should a monk be proficient with all monk weapons?
Cause they aren't.
I let monks make the same number of attacks as a full BAB attack character with any weapon then the extra attacks must be a with monk weapons or unarmed attacks.
I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
Wow, you could be doing a whole extra 3.5 damage a round? Golly!
Jokes aside; As I vaguely recall a developer saying at some point in the playtest - a class shouldn't have features because they'd help but because they meet the flavour.Wow, you could be doing a whole extra 3.5 damage a round? Golly!I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
In lieu of this, I don't think the inverse is that mad - class have features for flavour, not mechanics. It'd be nice if the flurry could occur with these weapons but it's not needed, power or flavour wise.
Well, actually - I think it'd fit quite well flavour-wise.
On that note (since someone mentioned sacred fist); I was personally a little bit let down Crusader's Flurry wasn't a bonus feat for it. It just seemed....right.
Jokes aside; As I vaguely recall a developer saying at some point in the playtest - a class shouldn't have features because they'd help but because they meet the flavour.
Which is why you get classes as poorly designed as the Warpriest and Arcanist (for different reasons).
Wow, you could be doing a whole extra 3.5 damage a round? Golly!I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
While I do think the monk needs a boost for the sake of balance, I think there are better ways to do it from a flavor perspective than making it so the optimal weapon for a monk is the optimal weapon for everyone else.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly I feel like monks should be PROFICIENT in all MONK weapons... that way, they can flurry with more options... seeing as it seems kind of dumb to be able to flurry with a weapon you are not even proficient with...
Honestly I feel like monks should be PROFICIENT in all MONK weapons... that way, they can flurry with more options... seeing as it seems kind of dumb to be able to flurry with a weapon you are not even proficient with...
This I agree with.
Honestly I feel like monks should be PROFICIENT in all MONK weapons... that way, they can flurry with more options... seeing as it seems kind of dumb to be able to flurry with a weapon you are not even proficient with...This I agree with.
It's a holdover from the core rulebook. Monks had so few special weapons that they could be listed individually, whereas the Fighter's list of weapons needed a shorthand (all Simple and Martial weapons). Which means that the Fighter gains new proficiencies automatically.
The Monk on the other hand needed his proficiencies to be listed as "sling, javelin, etc., and all Monk weapons".
They learned when they made the Brawler. The Brawler gains proficiency with a few select weapons and anything past, present, or future that gets classified as a close weapon.
Heck, what's really sad is the Unarmed archetype Fighter. He is the Fighter moving away from using weapons, and he gets better proficiencies with Monk weapons than the Monk does.
Making the mistake is excusable. Not fixing it after all this time? Less so.
While I do think the monk needs a boost for the sake of balance, I think there are better ways to do it from a flavor perspective than making it so the optimal weapon for a monk is the optimal weapon for everyone else.Wow, you could be doing a whole extra 3.5 damage a round? Golly!I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
That'd be the Falchion in that case.
I never understood the point of monk weapons. In fact I hate it. I house rule the monk to me non eastern flavor. I had create an Aldori Dueling Monk order in Bevroy. They got none of the classic monk weapon but were trained and proficient in light and heavy blades along with dueling sword.
While I do think the monk needs a boost for the sake of balance, I think there are better ways to do it from a flavor perspective than making it so the optimal weapon for a monk is the optimal weapon for everyone else.Wow, you could be doing a whole extra 3.5 damage a round? Golly!I'm a big fan of both those classes but to be honest I kinda like it as it is. I don't think it really needs to change. If it was open to any weapon the character was proficient in, you could have flurrying greatswords by lvl 2. Assuming str 18 fighter/monk +4/+4 or more to hit doing 2d6+6 per hit. Ouch!
No,I think its balanced up nicely as it is.
That'd be the Falchion in that case.
The specific weapon isn't that important to my general point. The monk has a cool, distinct thing going for it (even if it doesn't always do it well.) It's bad enough that I'm probably better off using a Temple Sword over my fists if I want to play the kung-fu master. I would rather the monk just get some flat boosts to accuracy, full BAB, or a lot of other fixes over increasing the weapons they flurry with.
Which is why you get classes as poorly designed as the Warpriest and Arcanist (for different reasons).
Jokes aside; As I vaguely recall a developer saying at some point in the playtest - a class shouldn't have features because they'd help but because they meet the flavour.
Take my later points in the post though in this case. It'd make sense but ultimately, is small change.
For other cases; well that's whole other threads.I never understood the point of monk weapons. In fact I hate it. I house rule the monk to me non eastern flavor. I had create an Aldori Dueling Monk order in Bevroy. They got none of the classic monk weapon but were trained and proficient in light and heavy blades along with dueling sword.
That's....actually a good house rule for settings. May steal that (already running weapon group proficiencies from 3.5).
I think it's silly that it's 2014 and you have to be a sixth-level Sohei to flurry with a Chinese straight sword in Pathfinder.
You would think that Li Mu Bai from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) would have happened by now.
-Matt
Design Manager
|
Honestly I feel like monks should be PROFICIENT in all MONK weapons... that way, they can flurry with more options... seeing as it seems kind of dumb to be able to flurry with a weapon you are not even proficient with...
I think the one that always gets me is the monk not being proficient with the Monk's Spade.
....
Really?
The Monk's Spade, the Meteor Hammer, the butterfly swords...
|
Design Manager
|
The Monk's Spade, the Meteor Hammer, the butterfly swords...
I get that the "monk" property is just a keyword meaning "can be flurried with", and that maybe there are some weapons that even martial arts masters require extra training with. I just find it silly that the weapon with the class in its name isn't actually available to that class. It'd be like Paladins having to take a feat to wield a holy avenger, or a weapon called "rogue's knives" requiring martial or exotic proficiency...
Maybe make a feat to allow a monk to flurry with any given weapon, or maybe any one handed weapon. Or have the monk choose a few which he can integrate into his kata practice at level one.
When I was trying to work out what I could do with a brawler it took me about half an hour of going through the various exotic weapons. If it had just said they could flurry with a shortsword then I wouldn't have been worrying so much about whether significant damage was plausible.
Though on the bright side I now have a page of notes about various exotic weapons that there is no point using... unless you're a brawler.
I think it's silly that it's 2014 and you have to be a sixth-level Sohei to flurry with a Chinese straight sword in Pathfinder.You mean... the longsword, with added tassel?
It's a nice tassel :-)
I'm even more peeved that they can't use the Nine-Ring Broadsword. That's like, my favorite weapon IRL and really fits for a Chinese themed kung fu Monk.