had to clean up the quoting, still getting the hang of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I always saw Monastic Weaponry as the equivalent of a Stance (ie costs a class feat to access specific attacks) except that it opens up more variety and does not cost an action.
I see this as a legacy of the playtest where proficiency with unarmed attacks was not accessible to everyone and the idea of the feat was to allow the monk, the one who was trained in unarmed attacks, to also be able to be trained in attacks with weapons, while several other classes needed to take the archetype to be able to fight well unarmed.
To this day, the Monk Dedication contains the excerpt "You became trained in unarmed attacks...".
Necroing just a bit here because I was just noticing what many people on the first page have said about the monk trait surviving into the remaster. I lowkey hope PC2 hits us with some errata to rid the trait in favour of some other way of classifying which weapons monks should be good with. Right now it seems perfectly arbitrary that a Vudran Monk may become trained to flurry with the Temple Sword, but an Iomedaean Monk may not defend their monastery with a different d8 blade weapon more suited to their faith--and I don't particularly feel the answer is adding another monk feat to open deity favored weapons to Monastic Weapons.
It's not terribly often I feel the need to give my Monks a weapon, but it is very often I'm trying to read clusters of traits on weapons and seeing the monk trait taking up space when it feels like there are several better ways to delineate weapons for Monks, like how Rogues use the agile and finesse traits rather than a 'rogue' weapon trait.
Anyway, back to designing the Samsaran mendicant Monk who travels with a khakkara that appeared in my head yesterday and has been jingling their staff in the corner of my mind all day now.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested weapon training be build into stances.
If you go into a stance you also turn on proficiency with all weapons that stance is meant to use just like it also provides use of a special unarmed attack. They could do it by weapon group or by individual weapons but by weapon group allows new weapons to be added later without errata.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested weapon training be build into stances.
If you go into a stance you also turn on proficiency with all weapons that stance is meant to use just like it also provides use of a special unarmed attack. They could do it by weapon group or by individual weapons but by weapon group allows new weapons to be added later without errata.
I wouldn't mind that. Fits the flavor of specific and specialized training that the monk has.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suggested weapon training be build into stances.
If you go into a stance you also turn on proficiency with all weapons that stance is meant to use just like it also provides use of a special unarmed attack. They could do it by weapon group or by individual weapons but by weapon group allows new weapons to be added later without errata.
This would be 'proficiency all the time', the Stance training just grants it, right?
Because otherwise I could see it being an issue if there are effects that cause folks to drop out of their Stances semi-consistently.
That would make such a proficiency pretty useless -- how would they even TRAIN if every ten minutes they forget which side of the stick is pointy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is it too different from not being able to use wolf jaw when your not in wolf stance?
You can think of it as having trained to use a weapon group in a particular stance and not really being proficient when attempting other fighting styles
I'm not that sure that each stance having a group of weapons in which you become proficient is the right way to go, because if anything, that would make things much as arbritary or more than having the monk trait IMO.
Let's take the Iomedaean monk example of Sibelius Eos Owm; let's say you want to play a Mountain Stance monk because you want to go full Str and because your temple is a mountain or whatever, but the feat itself doesn't include longswords but rather some spears and polearms, but the stance that does allow you to use longswords (Dragon Stance for example) doesn't fit the flavor of your character. This effectively creates a champion / cleric situation in which often you have to build your character first and then come up with the flavor and background second.
What they IMO should do is make Monastic Weaponry a baseline feature of monks and then have a feat similar to Ancestral Weaponry in which weapons with either the agile or finesse trait gain the monk trait. Then a feat such as Peafowl Stance could become a 2nd level feat instead and expand its options to weapons beyond swords, with something like all simple and martial weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like even that's potentially too much.
The monk trait doesn't serve a valuable purpose just at all, and with the power allocated to stance strikes there just doesn't seem to be a compelling argument at all that this serves a balance purpose. Monks have in-house access to d8 agile finesse and 0-hand d10 weapons. That is literally better than anything on the weapon table.
Here's hoping the class interacts with the Monk trait differently in PC2. It'd be a big shame for them to break down bespoke proficiencies in PC1 and then just bring them back for the Monk alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not that sure that each stance having a group of weapons in which you become proficient is the right way to go, because if anything, that would make things much as arbritary or more than having the monk trait IMO.
Let's take the Iomedaean monk example of Sibelius Eos Owm; let's say you want to play a Mountain Stance monk because you want to go full Str and because your temple is a mountain or whatever, but the feat itself doesn't include longswords but rather some spears and polearms, but the stance that does allow you to use longswords (Dragon Stance for example) doesn't fit the flavor of your character. This effectively creates a champion / cleric situation in which often you have to build your character first and then come up with the flavor and background second.
What they IMO should do is make Monastic Weaponry a baseline feature of monks and then have a feat similar to Ancestral Weaponry in which weapons with either the agile or finesse trait gain the monk trait. Then a feat such as Peafowl Stance could become a 2nd level feat instead and expand its options to weapons beyond swords, with something like all simple and martial weapons?
Thats a good point. When i initially thought of this my idea was more restrictive even then groups. It was specific weapons that for mechanical reasons the designers would deem balanced for that stance.
It really was looking at it from a mechanical angle and I didnt consider character concept design.Adding: I think i also advocated for rethinking and rewriting stance benefits to work with weapons not just the stances given unarmed attack. Since not all of them do.
Sadly, I'm not seeing Paizo making the changes needed to solve this issues with the monk because, if I take PC1 as an example, the classes that were "fine" like rangers were left as is in favor of focusing what really needed to be changed. In PC2 we have alchemist, champion, and oracle having reworks, certain subclasses like draconic bloodline and draconic instinct needed to be changed due to the OGL thing, as well as multiple archetypes and feats.
Monks aren't a perfect class, but they work "fine" so besides a few feats I wouldn't expect to have much stuff being tweaked in the class itself. Even I that suggested making Monastic Weaponry a baseline feature for monks is probably asking stuff way above what Paizo is likely going to do with the class, and since the monk trait has survived in the Remaster, I would probably not expect big changes in regards to that.
If we are lucky, monks ends up being the rogue of PC2 and receive a ton of buffs despite the class being one of the best classes already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more i learn about the game the more I look back on earlier ideas ive had and see how some dont hold up with my current understanding of the game.
This one with proficiency built into stances might be ok with some tweaks.
For one whatever weapons are selected to be considered incorporated into the style expressed by a particular stance those weapons should treated as simple weapons to monk while they are in that stance. This makes proficiency scale and only apply while that style of fighting is in use. This also allows the stance benefits to be designed with the included weapons in mind for balance.
But exequiel759 is right that the idea locks in fighting stances with certain weapons and limits concepts. I think I am ok with that though if it means the design can approach more inclusion of weapons into the stance design so they can benefit from them and do so in a way that balances the stance benefits with the weapons allowed.
A big problem I think with tying weapons to stances is that stance unarmed strikes are overtuned compared to weapon options.
So tying weapons to stances feels like it would necessitate giving massive buffs to those weapons as well. Which just sort of feels awkward all around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The unarmed stances are giving you an advanced weapon+a little more in exchange for a class feat. Genuinely all you have to do to make weapons viable is remove Monastic Weaponry so the question is "do I want to spend my 1st level feat on getting an advanced weapon, or do I settle for a martial weapon and get ki strike instead?". That's an actual choice you can make.
I'm actually pretty fond of the idea that monks by default don't have much in the way of weapon training... certainly not a random selection of weapons which may not be appropriate for a standard brawler. My preference would be if Monsastic Weapons was more worth it to get... proficiency plus something to make those weapons actually come alive in the hands of a monk.
If I would make changes, I'd probably make something like this...
* Monks are now trained in martial weapons. If bards can, why monks wouldn't.
* Powerful Fist would be replaced with a similar ability that, alongside its normal benefits, would allow monk to use weapons with the monk trait for their monk feats or monk abilities that normally require unarmed attacks. This would effectively meld Monastic Weaponry into Powerful Fist.
* Change how the Monastic Weaponry feat works to allow monks to use any weapons for their monk feats or monk abilities.
* Change Peafowl Stance to work with other types of weapons.
These changes are IMO in line with the changes some classed had on PC1. They are also easy to introduce without changing much about the system itself, and they solve most of the problems some people have with the class in its current state in a smooth, simple way.
I'm actually pretty fond of the idea that monks by default don't have much in the way of weapon training... certainly not a random selection of weapons which may not be appropriate for a standard brawler. My preference would be if Monsastic Weapons was more worth it to get... proficiency plus something to make those weapons actually come alive in the hands of a monk.
I think that if Monastic Weaponry gave the martial monk weapons some sort of buff to compensate for costing a feat you'd wrap right back around to the unarmed stances being hard to justify over using a bo staff.
* Monks are now trained in martial weapons. If bards can, why monks wouldn't.
Forgive me, I don't want to go around picking on others' ideas about how they would make the class cool to them, but in this case you did specifically ask. For me, the answer is simple: I like that monks are the punching class, and I dislike that my 5e monk never got to put down their staff because using it was always stronger than actually using the punches I made them to do. I feel like granting martial proficiency as a default without further buffing their default fist attack would turn them into a class that can punch as a backup option, rather than a class that does punch and can sword.
In short, I like that right now all monks come pre-loaded with punching being their default best option with weapons secondary, and can take a feat to choose better punches or a feat to take better weapons. I just would like it if the feat to take better weapons didn't feel inherently weaker than any of the feats to take better punches.
I think that if Monastic Weaponry gave the martial monk weapons some sort of buff to compensate for costing a feat you'd wrap right back around to the unarmed stances being hard to justify over using a bo staff.
Well, if you feel that right now taking a feat to use the bo staff is roughly equal in power to the unarmed stances, I suppose I have absolutely no argument against that. My problem is I don't think I've ever seen that position fielded. Rather, I've heard much more about how Monastic Weapons is considered a waste because picking up any of these weapons at the cost of a feat is almost always strictly worse than taking a stance, with perhaps one or two weapon exceptions.
If I have understood the community incorrectly, then I would happily retract my complaint. I generally much prefer playing monks who punch (claw/kick/bite/etc), but I do also love the image of an unarmoured warrior disciple and I wouldn't mind if that option was considered somewhat more equal to the aforementioned stance strikes. I don't imagine it would take very much.
---
My complaint about the monk trait creating an arbitrary bespoke weapon list stands, however.
If capping the damage is the primary concern, we can say d8 weapons or lower. If we want to cleave to a certain aesthetic, limiting the monk to clubs, knives, and the brawling weapon group cuts almost nothing out of their repertoire, but already adds back in such aesthetic choices as canes, fighting sticks, rungu, claw blades, and really most of the new knives. ...And obviously, my comments above would suggest an interest in the sword group, but I'm throwing a bone to the idea of limited monk weapons just to illustrate how pointless the monk trait feels to me.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like granting martial proficiency as a default without further buffing their default fist attack would turn them into a class that can punch as a backup option, rather than a class that does punch and can sword.
The unarmed attacks you can pick up in class are categorically better than any comparable weapon by a meaningful margin, and powerful fist out the gate is already comparable to a martial weapon while also sporting the free-hand trait (and the monk's upgraded version of non-lethal).
I don't really like this "should punch but can sword" mentality because it suggests that one sort of style must be treated as second class, as something only begrudgingly allowed. But the class could just support a variety of options with somewhat comparable measure instead.
I feel like granting martial proficiency as a default without further buffing their default fist attack would turn them into a class that can punch as a backup option, rather than a class that does punch and can sword.The unarmed attacks you can pick up in class are categorically better than any comparable weapon by a meaningful margin, and powerful fist out the gate is already comparable to a martial weapon while also sporting the free-hand trait (and the monk's upgraded version of non-lethal).
I don't really like this "should punch but can sword" mentality because it suggests that one sort of style must be treated as second class, as something only begrudgingly allowed. But the class could just support a variety of options with somewhat comparable measure instead.
You may have misread my meaning. I do not think the monk should punch. I like that it does punch, and that punching is not inherently inferior to picking up a weapon. IN fact, the bulk of my post is about how I want punching and swords to be equally viable options for monks to invest in. The segment you quote has nothing to do with the stance strikes being superior to the monastic weapons, but rather than the default fist attack is a solid default option and not second best to anything else that all monks have for free.
I know that not everyone has the time to read every word that falls out of my keyboard, so let me restate more concisely: I want to be able to make a sword-wielding 'kensai' monk, or a staff-carrying mendicant, and have that be just as good as having a stance, and I don't want default proficiencies to push all monks to use a weapons unless they spend a feat on a stance. No-Feat punching should be good enough to be worth using in the presence of No-Feat weapons (which it is right now); Monastic-Feat weapons should be good enough to be worth using in the presence of Stance-Feat punching (which it isn't yet).
I usually let monks make the weapons look like what they want it to look like as a DM. They want the damage capped around d8 because of how much the monk gets.
Level 20 monks are pretty ridiculous. I've changed my view on the monk seeing the class at level 20. They may be the strongest level 20 martial in the game in terms of all they can do, exceeded by maybe the rogue. They are more wide open than the fighter or champion who are highly specialized. Whereas a monk can do a whole bunch of stuff as part of the class chassis. You can build them to be very good at maneuvers or striking.
Once they pick up Ki Form and with the new refocus rules, monks get brutal. Then pick up something like Golden Body at level 20 and even their damage can get ridiculous.
A little more support for weapon builds would be nice, but monks are walking a tightrope. Not a huge amount of room to add much because they already have so much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ok, hear me out.
The current benefits of monastic weaponry are absorbed into the base class. All monks are trained in monk weapons and can flurry with them.
The monastic weapon stance 1st level feat then bumps up the damage dice of monk weapons one step. That's it. You could also just add this benefit to the existing feat instead of increasing the base monk proficiency, and it probably won't significantly matter.
The trade off for monk stances is that they cost you an action to enter but they upgrade your d6 powerful fist, generally by bumping it up a single damage dice. Maybe you get a good trait like backstabber but generally you get things which barely matters on unarmed strikes, like trip or grapple. There are some exceptions to this rule, but they do things like bump to d10 for losing finesse and agile or switch your damage to elemental. So basically give weapons the same choice-- spend an action to make a temple sword d10 or a nunchaku d8.
This feels remarkably well balanced and easy to implement. A couple of strong options become even stronger, like the bo staff, but d10 reach weapon with parry is barely an upgrade to regular martial weapons. The gakung looks a little better better than a shortbow, but given monks lack other damage boosters this seems fine.
Another fun option you could add would allow the runes from hand wraps to apply to monk weapons. Incentivizing monks to blend weapon strikes and unarmed strikes feels on brand, and given their lower base damage it shouldn't break anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I want is a reason not to use a shield.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I want is a reason not to use a shield.
I hear this thing about Monks and Shields and yet none of my monks have used them to date and their AC was best at table.
Am I missing something?
I used a shield on quite a few monks. It's easy extra AC and I can get two attacks with one action, so why not. Monk's get the second best AC with shield in the game, might as well take advantage.
Monk with shield maxes out at 48.
Champion with shield maxes out at 49.
A big problem I think with tying weapons to stances is that stance unarmed strikes are overtuned compared to weapon options.
So tying weapons to stances feels like it would necessitate giving massive buffs to those weapons as well. Which just sort of feels awkward all around.
What i was thinking was that by tying weapons into stances the stance could provide benefits to the monk that can be executed with either the given unarmed strike from that stance or the weapons allowed by that stance.
For exampleWolf stance gives the benefit of the wolf jaw unarmed attack. It also gives the trip trait to the unarmed attack when flanking a target.
Wolf drag adds to this unarmed attack when using the wolfdrag action fatal d12 and it knocks the target prone if the attack succeeds.
What I would like to see is specific weapons chosen with balance in mind added to this stance and be allowed to be used and gain the benefits that wolf jaw would gain under the same circumstances.
The reason is to allow weapon wielding monks to still feel like they gain the progression benefits of these stance feats even though they decided their concept proffered using weapons instead or along with the stance given strikes.
I think the idea works best if the list of weapons allowed by a stance are limited to weapons that dont become broke if they gain what the stance would give to the given unarmed strike.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All I want is a reason not to use a shield.I hear this thing about Monks and Shields and yet none of my monks have used them to date and their AC was best at table.
Am I missing something?
In addition to the other things folks mentioned, you have no native Reactions and ways to get this circumstance bonus to AC.
I kinda wish class chassises were juicier and Monks had Crane Style in-built and you basically got to pick your "offensive" Style to go with it, which would make Stance Dancing less onerous in the feats too.
I would prefer some feat or defensive style that gave the +2 circumstance bonus even without the shield block ability. It would look cooler in the mind's eye.
I would prefer some feat or defensive style that gave the +2 circumstance bonus even without the shield block ability. It would look cooler in the mind's eye.
Oh yeah, Acrobat archetype is a fix for me to get faster proficiency + Dodge Away for a reaction.
A big problem I think with tying weapons to stances is that stance unarmed strikes are overtuned compared to weapon options.
So tying weapons to stances feels like it would necessitate giving massive buffs to those weapons as well. Which just sort of feels awkward all around.
What i was thinking was that by tying weapons into stances the stance could provide benefits to the monk that can be executed with either the given unarmed strike from that stance or the weapons allowed by that stance.
For example
Wolf stance gives the benefit of the wolf jaw unarmed attack. It also gives the trip trait to the unarmed attack when flanking a target.
Wolf drag adds to this unarmed attack when using the wolfdrag action fatal d12 and it knocks the target prone if the attack succeeds.What I would like to see is specific weapons chosen with balance in mind added to this stance and be allowed to be used and gain the benefits that wolf jaw would gain under the same circumstances.
The reason is to allow weapon wielding monks to still feel like they gain the progression benefits of these stance feats even though they decided their concept proffered using weapons instead or along with the stance given strikes.
I think the idea works best if the list of weapons allowed by a stance are limited to weapons that dont become broke if they gain what the stance would give to the given unarmed strike.
You keep saying "with balance in mind" but you seem to be missing how much worse martial weapons are compared to their monk stance equivalents.
Compare wolf jaw to a short sword, the latter is just worse in almost every respect. Asking someone to enter the former's stance for the privilege of doing less damage with the latter weapon is an incredibly raw deal.
|
|
A big problem I think with tying weapons to stances is that stance unarmed strikes are overtuned compared to weapon options.
So tying weapons to stances feels like it would necessitate giving massive buffs to those weapons as well. Which just sort of feels awkward all around.
What i was thinking was that by tying weapons into stances the stance could provide benefits to the monk that can be executed with either the given unarmed strike from that stance or the weapons allowed by that stance.
For example
Wolf stance gives the benefit of the wolf jaw unarmed attack. It also gives the trip trait to the unarmed attack when flanking a target.
Wolf drag adds to this unarmed attack when using the wolfdrag action fatal d12 and it knocks the target prone if the attack succeeds.What I would like to see is specific weapons chosen with balance in mind added to this stance and be allowed to be used and gain the benefits that wolf jaw would gain under the same circumstances.
The reason is to allow weapon wielding monks to still feel like they gain the progression benefits of these stance feats even though they decided their concept proffered using weapons instead or along with the stance given strikes.
I think the idea works best if the list of weapons allowed by a stance are limited to weapons that dont become broke if they gain what the stance would give to the given unarmed strike.
You keep saying "with balance in mind" but you seem to be missing how much worse martial weapons are compared to their monk stance equivalents.
Compare wolf jaw to a short sword, the latter is just worse in almost every respect. Asking someone to enter the former's stance for the privilege of doing less damage with the latter weapon is an incredibly raw deal.
Depends on the other benefits the stance might give. Peafowl for example makes temple sword monks a unique and powerful option that competes well with unarmed stances imo
Oh, that suggestion was something that gives unarmed attacks and access to weapons. Hmm. The better thing would definitely be to separate weapon stances from unarmed stances.
A big problem I think with tying weapons to stances is that stance unarmed strikes are overtuned compared to weapon options.
So tying weapons to stances feels like it would necessitate giving massive buffs to those weapons as well. Which just sort of feels awkward all around.
What i was thinking was that by tying weapons into stances the stance could provide benefits to the monk that can be executed with either the given unarmed strike from that stance or the weapons allowed by that stance.
For example
Wolf stance gives the benefit of the wolf jaw unarmed attack. It also gives the trip trait to the unarmed attack when flanking a target.
Wolf drag adds to this unarmed attack when using the wolfdrag action fatal d12 and it knocks the target prone if the attack succeeds.What I would like to see is specific weapons chosen with balance in mind added to this stance and be allowed to be used and gain the benefits that wolf jaw would gain under the same circumstances.
The reason is to allow weapon wielding monks to still feel like they gain the progression benefits of these stance feats even though they decided their concept proffered using weapons instead or along with the stance given strikes.
I think the idea works best if the list of weapons allowed by a stance are limited to weapons that dont become broke if they gain what the stance would give to the given unarmed strike.
You keep saying "with balance in mind" but you seem to be missing how much worse martial weapons are compared to their monk stance equivalents.
Compare wolf jaw to a short sword, the latter is just worse in almost every respect. Asking someone to enter the former's stance for the privilege of doing less damage with the latter weapon is an incredibly raw deal.
That makes sense, you wouldnt take monastic weapons right now for a short sword either though right? To be honest I don't know all of the things that could go wrong with the idea, but it helps when people point out the flaws.
But one benefit of choosing weapons for a stance I can imagine is being able to take something like tiger stance and adding other 1d8 weapons to it opening up other crit specs, and weapon traits. Probably need to be slashing weapons though to thematically fit. A glaive for example would heavily compete with all the good traits on it and really benefit from the 10ft step because of reach but the monk would need to have gone str and not dex since its not finesse. Actually wouldnt giving a monk glaive too strong if they could flurry with it and it could be used with tiger stance attacks like tiger slash?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would a Monk raise a shield instead of just Striding or even just Stepping away from their opponent ?
I can tell you why my monk does it:
1. Striding away gets your allies hit who usually have a lower AC than you. Also risks the monster going after the backline casters or archers.
2. I have Disrupt reaction strike which only works in melee range and I still like my AC higher in melee.
I tried the whole stride away tactic as a monk, you have to build for it and give up reactive strikes and have other good martials in place who can take a beating as well or better than you. The only class with a better AC than the monk is the champion as you reach higher levels.
Monks are a low to moderate damage martial with great defense. They are built to move around, but it sets the rest of the group up for problems if they do.
Why would a Monk raise a shield instead of just Striding or even just Stepping away from their opponent ?I can tell you why my monk does it:
1. Striding away gets your allies hit who usually have a lower AC than you. Also risks the monster going after the backline casters or archers.
2. I have Disrupt reaction strike which only works in melee range and I still like my AC higher in melee.
I tried the whole stride away tactic as a monk, you have to build for it and give up reactive strikes and have other good martials in place who can take a beating as well or better than you. The only class with a better AC than the monk is the champion as you reach higher levels.
Monks are a low to moderate damage martial with great defense. They are built to move around, but it sets the rest of the group up for problems if they do.
I can attest to this.
My early monk days had my party getting the snot kicked out of them because I wasn't there to help tank the hits.
Such strategies can also land the monk in hot water. I skirmished away a little too far once. Once. I accidentally instigated a whole second encounter in which my monk, being too far away from the party for them to give any practical support, quickly perished.
I am firmly in the remove FoB from multiclass camp. it allows to too much cheese at mid levels and if feels like it lets other classes step on the Monk's toes a bit too much.Im in the other Camp, i rather they add more things to other classes Archetypes. it always felt archetypes was to limited and only forced some specific feature of the class on you while keeping most things out of reach.
i agree that FoB is hands down one of the most powerful archetype ability's, but i rather see they add more to all archetypes then nerf the good once.
I'm on the other other camp.
I think unarmed is weak enough without FoB (or Follow-up Strike for that matter).
I'd like to see Monks get a unique FoB boost at level 11 to make them strictly better than the multiclass archetype, without making unarmed worse for everyone else.
IMO Monks should get Monk weapon proficiancy by default and be able to use Flurry with them, and Monastery Weapon would instead become 'Can use Flurry and gain prof on all martial weapon'
100% agree, as I described in an earlier comment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO Monks should get Monk weapon proficiancy by default and be able to use Flurry with them, and Monastery Weapon would instead become 'Can use Flurry and gain prof on all martial weapon'
This cannot and should not happen.
Monk should not be able to flurry with D12 weapons or pick any with high quality traits. They have too much on the chassis already.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Monks can already flurry with a d10 unarmed attack through dragon stance, which is vastly better than most d10 or d12 martial weapons in the system.
Monks can already flurry with a d10 unarmed attack through dragon stance, which is vastly better than most d10 or d12 martial weapons in the system.
No. It isn't, not even close to vastly better.
Monk is best using an agile or finesse martial art which tops out at d8 damage. That's where they should stay.
...if you yourself say a d8 agile weapon is better than a d10 or d12 weapon for monks then what's the problem of allowing them to use one if they want? The game isn't all about building the most effective character, its about playing a character you want, and if you want to flurry with a greatsword, you can't do that and really there isn't a reason to prohibit that.