PDA

View Full Version : [3.5] A querry regarding Monks



Tehnar
2009-02-05, 05:26 PM
I am considering 2 houserules for the monk. So give me your thoughts. And no, this is not a monks are overpowered thread.

1st:


Fast Movement (Ex)
At 3rd level, a monk can, once per round, take a free action to move 10 ft. This improves as the Monk gains levels. See Table: The Monk. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed. This movement is considered normal movement for all things, and thus provokes attacks of opportunity.

2nd.
This came when I read that epic Monks don't improve their unarmed strike damage. So I was thinking what would happen if they did. Not that I play epic games, but with superior unarmed strike, a monks belt and improved natural attack what would happen if they stacked:

Looking at the Monk unarmed damage we see that it increases roughly one size category per 4 levels. This is my estimate if it did increase into epic levels:

{table] Monk level | Unarmed strike damage
21 | 2d10
22 | 2d10
23 | 2d10
24 | 4d8
25 | 4d8
26 | 4d8
27 | 4d8
28 | 6d8
29 | 6d8
30 | 6d8
31 | 6d8
32 | 8d8
33 | 8d8
[/table]
and so on....

So lets see a Monk 20 with monks belt and superior unarmed strike feat would have unarmed weapon damage as a level 29 monk (6d8). Taking improved natural attack feat would bump it a size category higher which I think that makes it 8d8 (average 36 damage). That Monk with an active enlarge person spell on him would have a 12d8 unarmed strike for a average of 54.

A Monk 17/Fist of the forest 3 with the above feats and items would have a 12d8 (16d8 with enlarge) unarmed strike. (I think, or I am doing something funky with weapon damage increases).


So what do you all think?

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-02-05, 05:34 PM
Monk 3/Scout 17 would become a very common build.

As for damage, the issue isn't that damage doesn't scale after 20(though that doesn't help), it's that Monks can't use good weapons and get the benefits of US. I recommend just adding the rule: "All Special Monk Weapons deal their own damage or the Monk's US damage, whichever is higher." That at least makes the special Monk weapons occasionally useful.

MammonAzrael
2009-02-05, 06:07 PM
Fast Movement is very good for Scouts. You may want to look at Sparring Dummy of the Master in the Arms and Equipment Guide if you want monks to wind up with a 10' step.

As for the epic damage progression, that's perfectly fine. Anything that can help out the monk in epic levels is good.

Overall, there are plenty of fixes for the monk all over, including the Playground, and nearly all of them are far more extensive than yours, and are still balanced. I recommend you check them out if you're thinking of playing or having a player play a monk.

Tehnar
2009-02-05, 07:49 PM
Thanks for the comments. What I am looking for in homebrews are very small changes. I am aware of the several very good ones out there and they don't really suit my purpose.

How about fast movement is phrased like this:

Fast Movement (Ex)
At 3rd level, a monk gains an enhancement bonus to her speed, as shown on Table: The Monk. A monk in armor or carrying a medium or heavy load loses this extra speed. If the monk moves a distance of equal or less then the bonus to her movement (10 ft at lvl 3, etc), she can use flurry of blows at the end of that movement. She must use the unarmed strike for this flurry (not a special monk weapon).

What Im looking for is a way that monks (and only monks) can get a good off a full attack (flurry) and still retain a degree of mobility. Good catch about the scout, didn't think of that before. I hope there is no ascetic scout feat.

As for increasing damage with "monk" weapons I was thinking about it but decided against it as it might be a overkill.

As for the improved damage into epic levels, its so that non epic monks can do damage by focusing their feats on unarmed strikes.

Harperfan7
2009-02-05, 08:57 PM
where does fist of the forest come from?

Eloel
2009-02-06, 02:55 AM
where does fist of the forest come from?

Complete Champion

Zergrusheddie
2009-02-06, 06:34 AM
Monks still have 2 core problems:

They are the textbook definition of MAD. Strength for Trip/Damage, Dex for AC, Wisdom for AC/DC on Special Abilities, Constitution for HP, and maybe even a little Intelligence for Tumble, Balance, Jump, etc. The only way I can see changing this is adding "Use Wisdom modifier for Strength checks such as Grapple or Trip."

They suffer a rather feeble BAB. Rogues can safely ignore Strength and just pump Dex to hit. What's the point of adding +1-2 damage when you can use those points for more HP or AC/Hit; besides, most Rogue damage is from the bucket of D6's. Monks don't get weapons, so they can't even up them like a Rogue can.

Here are a few things I think could be done without being too powerful:

Gloves that add modifiers to US. Make them act as if they were magic weapons for the purpose of adding enhancements. This could also help bypass DR/Silver or Cold Iron; let the Monk add that to his gloves as a +1.

Give them a Full BAB, but take away their Fast Movement (Variant style). They still add new attack as if they were still at a MAB, but they get a Full BAB. IE, not an extra swing at level 6 but level 8 like a normal Monk. Monks get enough swings through FoB anyway; it would be nice to actually see some hit.

However, most players would rather just be an Unarmed Attack Swordsage Variant if ToB was available so maybe Monks are just doomed.

Also, 20th level damage progression isn't all the special as Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike do not stack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080604a) :smallfrown:

Greg
2009-02-06, 08:05 AM
Why not simply allow them to use the extra FoB attacks as part of a standard action? Like so:

{table=head]Level|BAB|Flurry of Blows (standard action)|Flurry of Blows (full round action)
1|+0|-2/-2|-2/-2
2|+1|-1/-1|-1/-1
3|+2|+0/+0|+0/+0
4|+3|+1/+1|+1/+1
5|+3|+2/+2|+2/+2
6|+4|+3/+3|+3/+3
7|+5|+4/+4|+4/+4
8|+6/+1|+5/+5|+5/+5/+0
9|+6/+1|+5/+5|+5/+5/+0
10|+7/+2|+7/+7|+7/+7/+2
11|+8/+3|+8/+8/+8|+8/+8/+8/+3
12|+9/+4|+9/+9/+9|+9/+9/+9+/4
13|+9/+4|+9/+9/+9|+9/+9/+9+/4
14|+10/+5|+10/+10/+10|+10/+10/+10/+5
15|+11/+6/+1|+11/+11/+11|+11/+11/+11/+6/+1
16|+12/+7/+2|+12/+12/+12|+12/+12/+12/+7/+2
17|+12/+7/+2|+12/+12/+12|+12/+12/+12/+7/+2
18|+13/+8/+3|+13/+13/+13|+13/+13/+13/+8/+3
19|+14/+9/+4|+14/+14/+14|+14/+14/+14/+9/+4
20|+15/+10/+5|+15/+15/+15|+15/+15/+15/+10/+5[/table]

Burley
2009-02-06, 08:40 AM
Monk 3/Scout 17 would become a very common build.

As for damage, the issue isn't that damage doesn't scale after 20(though that doesn't help), it's that Monks can't use good weapons and get the benefits of US. I recommend just adding the rule: "All Special Monk Weapons deal their own damage or the Monk's US damage, whichever is higher." That at least makes the special Monk weapons occasionally useful.
Emphasis mine.
Just wanna point out: That would make Spell-Storing Flurried Shuriken extremely powerful. Awesome Powerful.

Douglas
2009-02-06, 09:30 AM
Also, 20th level damage progression isn't all the special as Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike do not stack (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080604a) :smallfrown:
Whoever wrote that answer didn't read the descriptions involved very closely. Yes, they are not technically bonuses, but they both state that your Monk level is treated as some number of levels "higher". Not "higher than your Monk level", just "higher". The obvious default for any such statement in the English language is "higher than without this", so they stack.

Yes, the FAQ may disagree with me on this issue, but this is one case where I emphatically agree with the sentiment that "FAQ is not RAW".

Zergrusheddie
2009-02-06, 09:39 AM
Whoever wrote that answer didn't read the descriptions involved very closely. Yes, they are not technically bonuses, but they both state that your Monk level is treated as some number of levels "higher". Not "higher than your Monk level", just "higher". The obvious default for any such statement in the English language is "higher than without this", so they stack.

Yes, the FAQ may disagree with me on this issue, but this is one case where I emphatically agree with the sentiment that "FAQ is not RAW".

Silly Wizards. They can't even agree amongst their own damn system!

kamikasei
2009-02-06, 09:52 AM
The obvious default for any such statement in the English language is "higher than without this", so they stack.

How would you apply this reasoning to the Powerful Build/Monkey Grip question, where it is generally held that they don't stack? I don't have the text of Monkey Grip to hand but Powerful Build just says "one size category larger" throughout. (If Monkey Grip explicitly states "you can wield weapons one size category larger than normal for a creature of your size", it's moot, of course.)

Douglas
2009-02-06, 10:18 AM
How would you apply this reasoning to the Powerful Build/Monkey Grip question, where it is generally held that they don't stack? I don't have the text of Monkey Grip to hand but Powerful Build just says "one size category larger" throughout. (If Monkey Grip explicitly states "you can wield weapons one size category larger than normal for a creature of your size", it's moot, of course.)
Monkey Grip says "You can use melee weapons one size category larger than you are...", thereby referencing your actual size.

For that to really be an ironclad argument and consistent with my opinion on Monk's Belt + Superior Unarmed Strike they would both have to do that, though, as you could argue that Monkey Grip should be applied first and Powerful Build lets you use weapons one size larger than with just Monkey Grip...

I'll have to check Races of Stone tonight to see if the Goliath's version of Powerful Build is phrased differently from the Half-Giant's version in the SRD. It may be worth noting that even the Half-Giant's version of the ability does explicitly reference your actual size, even if it's not in the same sentence as the weapon size clause, and that might be considered relevant context.

kamikasei
2009-02-06, 10:42 AM
Fair enough.

monty
2009-02-06, 01:06 PM
Silly Wizards. They can't even agree amongst their own damn system!

And this surprises you?

Tehnar
2009-02-07, 07:24 AM
@ Greg, love the idea, that's what I'm going to do.


To others regarding unarmed strike damage:

I was basing it on rogue damage. At level 20 with monks belt and improved natural attack and superior unarmed strike feats, a unarmed strike deal 8d8 (average 36). A level 20 rogue adds +10d6 sneak attack (35 average). Sure the rogue gets to add weapon damage to that, but between flurry and the option of increasing damage by increasing size, the monk and the rogue I think are in the same ballpark now. The monk has to invest 2 feats and a magic item to get there, but then he gets this improved damage with every attack, not just in specific situations.

I was wondering if there was any way to break this added unarmed strike damage?

P.S. In my campaigns im going to rule that Monks belt and superior unarmed strike stack.

Curmudgeon
2009-02-07, 01:00 PM
A Monk 17/Fist of the forest 3 with the above feats and items would have a 12d8 (16d8 with enlarge) unarmed strike. (I think, or I am doing something funky with weapon damage increases). You're doing something funky, but it's misreading the Fist of the Forest unarmed damage table.
If your unarmed attack already deals this amount of damage, increase the base damage to the next step indicated on the monk class table. There is no cumulative benefit here -- only a higher minimum unarmed damage. FotF 1 and FotF 3 will both yield one step up on the Monk unarmed damage table.


Whoever wrote that answer didn't read the descriptions involved very closely. Yes, they are not technically bonuses, but they both state that your Monk level is treated as some number of levels "higher". Not "higher than your Monk level", just "higher". douglas, this is an example of an implied reference (see Warriner's English Grammar and Composition (http://www.amazon.com/Warriners-English-Grammar-Composition-Complete/dp/B000EPR8S8/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1234027825&sr=1-5)).
The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. The word "higher" is a comparative, and comparatives always need a reference (a "than" term). "Monk ... levels" is the implied reference, "higher" is the comparative, and "five" is the degree of difference. The FAQ author got this one right: both the item and the feat reference the character's actual Monk levels.

Douglas
2009-02-07, 01:21 PM
The word "higher" is a comparative, and comparatives always need a reference (a "than" term). "Monk ... levels" is the implied reference, "higher" is the comparative, and "five" is the degree of difference. The FAQ author got this one right: both the item and the feat reference the character's actual Monk levels.
I fail to see how this makes "than your actual monk level" a better choice for the reference than "than without this feat/item". In my experience as a well educated native speaker of the language, an unspecified reference for a comparative is always meant to include each and every factor other than the specific one(s) being discussed.

Curmudgeon
2009-02-07, 02:05 PM
I fail to see how this makes "than your actual monk level" a better choice for the reference than "than without this feat/item". The former is referred to in the comparative sentence, so it's the default implied reference. (I strongly recommend reading Warriner's EG&C on this point.) The latter is merely a global statement -- and in the context of D&D feats would be represented by a "Normal:" section, which Superior Unarmed Strike omits. Lacking that section, "than without this feat" would be an unlikely intended meaning both grammatically and by the conventions of D&D rules.

In my experience as a well educated native speaker of the language, an unspecified reference for a comparative is always meant to include each and every factor other than the specific one(s) being discussed. That experience with loose grammar is leading you astray here. Advertisers use this frequently, in statements like "Our chips are crisper!" Crisper than what? A null comparative is meaningless. The chips are undoubtedly crisper than something. They can even be crisper than some other chips -- say an identical batch that's been soaked in water overnight. The advertisers want you to think that their chips are crisper than competitors' chips, but they avoid libel suits and prosecution for fraudulent advertising by completely avoiding any actual reference.

Standard grammar rules, D&D conventions, and Occam's razor all make the most closely linked reference the default assumption: actual Monk levels.

Douglas
2009-02-07, 03:04 PM
The former is referred to in the comparative sentence, so it's the default implied reference.
Really? Where?

The latter is merely a global statement -- and in the context of D&D feats would be represented by a "Normal:" section, which Superior Unarmed Strike omits. Lacking that section, "than without this feat" would be an unlikely intended meaning both grammatically and by the conventions of D&D rules.
The "Normal:" section in D&D rules is used to note when not having the feat causes some sort of penalty rather than simply the absence of the feat's bonus, or when the feat overrides normal rules in a way other than simply modifying a number. It is not used or needed to indicate that the feat's effect is relative to the situation without the feat (there may be a few exceptions, like Extra Turning, but I chalk that up to sloppy writing by WotC; the vast majority of feats are consistent with that use of the section).


Standard grammar rules, D&D conventions, and Occam's razor all make the most closely linked reference the default assumption: actual Monk levels.
I disagree on all three counts.

Standard grammar - there is no reference to actual monk levels anywhere in any part of either feat or item description, so there is nothing to even imply overruling the default of "than without this <effect>".

D&D conventions - the "Normal:" section is not used for what you claimed it is.

Normal

What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.

Occam's Razor - "Ignore all other effects, then apply this one" seems more complicated, not simpler, than "apply this effect on top of whatever you've already got".

Curmudgeon
2009-02-07, 05:52 PM
The former is referred to in the comparative sentence, so it's the default implied reference.
Really? Where? In Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, which I mentioned twice previously.
Occam's Razor - "Ignore all other effects, then apply this one" seems more complicated That's not what Occam's Razor implies. It's the principle of parsimony: when you can choose between a simple explanation (the reference is contained in the sentence: Monk levels) versus more complex possibilities:
an unspecified reference for a comparative is always meant to include each and every factor other than the specific one(s) being discussed. ... you should always choose the simpler explanation.

Douglas
2009-02-07, 07:16 PM
In Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, which I mentioned twice previously.
??? I was asking where your actual monk level is referenced, not where the grammatical rule is described.


That's not what Occam's Razor implies. It's the principle of parsimony: when you can choose between a simple explanation (the reference is contained in the sentence: Monk levels) versus more complex possibilities: ... you should always choose the simpler explanation.
Except that actual monk levels is not contained in that sentence or any other in either relevant description. The choice is not between choosing a reference that's there or picking one from elsewhere, it's between two references that are both absent from the sentence itself. It's a choice between a) add everything and b) compute two separate sums, compare them, and pick the higher one. The first strikes me as considerably simpler and therefore the choice favored by Occam's Razor.