Thoughts on Monk and Paladin improvement

[Quietus]

One of the things that always comes up with Monks and Paladins is the really bad MAD they have - str, dex, con, wis/cha for the Pally and int/wis for the Monk. This is aside from the generally poor design of the classes, though Paladins get a nice fix for that with Spell Compendium and Battle Blessing.

At any rate, solving the MAD problem; What would you say, as a DM or a player, to giving/getting the option to switch some stat reliance? Say, a Paladin can choose on taking their first level whether they want their class abilities to be based on EITHER Wisdom or Charisma (Essentially, Serenity for free, and you can be Charisma-based if you'd prefer). Whichever stat you choose, it's used for adding to your Smite Evil, determines your Lay On Hands benefits, gives you bonuses to saves via Divine Grace, and determines your bonus spells and DC's for your spellcasting.

For the Monk, a similar choice, between either Con or Wis; If you choose Wis, then most of your stuff remains the same, but you then base your *hit points* on your Wisdom modifier instead of your Con. This might not make a whole lot of sense, but I'd fluff it as being a take on "Mind over matter", You're so in touch with your body, that you can simply ignore most wounds until they force you to stop. If you take Con, then you're looking at basing Stunning Fist DC, AC bonus.. well, those are the only real Wisdom-based things a Monk gets. I'd relate this to anime in the "Wisdom = refined ki, Constitution = just straight up a whole lot of ki" way; admittedly, the Monk variation on this idea is a little harder to justify than the Paladin one, but in both cases, you're reducing the reliance on a single stat by a significant amount.

If you were a DM, would you allow these ideas at your table? If you were a player, would they change whether you'd be more or less likely to play one of those classes? And am I missing any glaring holes?

[dsmiles]

If you were a DM, would you allow these ideas at your table?
Yes. They seem reasonable adjustments.

If you were a player, would they change whether you'd be more or less likely to play one of those classes?
No, I play monks and paladins as they are, I have never had any problems with them, either fluff-wise or mechanically. I'd continue to play them with these changes.

And am I missing any glaring holes?
Not that I can see, but then again, I've never had any problems with them as they currently are.

[Psyren]

I think using the Pathfinder Paladin (base everything on Cha) and gestalting that with Knight would get it at or near T3.

Monks can be fixed by making them psionic, as they should be. Eliminate Psionic Fist (FoZ) and roll the abilities/power selection into the monk base class. Same with Ninja.

[Urpriest]

I think using the Pathfinder Paladin (base everything on Cha) and gestalting that with Knight would get it at or near T3.

Monks can be fixed by making them psionic, as they should be. Eliminate Psionic Fist (FoZ) and roll the abilities/power selection into the monk base class. Same with Ninja.

Eastern flavor =/= Sci-Fi Flavor. While Psionics may seem like simply mind-over-matter, looking at the names of the powers, let alone what they do, makes it clear that they are intended as a Sci-Fi entry to a Fantasy world, not merely an internally motivated form of magic.

[Psyren]

Eastern flavor =/= Sci-Fi Flavor.

Psionics != sci-fi flavor.

The names of the abilities differ simply because psionics uses greek roots and spells use latin. It has nothing to do with "science."

[Eclipse]

Pathfinder actually made this adjustment for the Paladin, except they simply made them charisma based, with no option to choose wisdom instead. I think this keeps with the paladin fluff nicely, as they are supposed to be the charismatic warriors of the church.

I'm not sure I like the monk change of using con as a basic stat for abilities or moving hit points to wisdom. I've never liked stacking hit points with other class features. I'd be more in favor of stacking class features on one ability, so perhaps choosing between making monk abilities strength based, or allowing monks to add their wisdom modifier to hit and damage would be a method of balancing that still keeps hit points separate. Also, fluffwise, if the abilities are strength based, the monk is more of a brawler. If they are wisdom based, the monk is more of a mystical warrior.

As an aside, I think the death attack should be usable once a day instead of once a week. At this level, wizards and clerics are tossing off many death spells a day if need be. No reason to so pitifully limit the monk's death attack.

Edit: As a side note, I've had both classes in campaigns work out quite nicely as is in 3.5, and I've played monks and had fun with them before. These evaluations are more about balance than fun, as the fun is already there, imo.

[Lev]

I've never had a problem with monks or paladins personally.

[Urpriest]

Psionics != sci-fi flavor.

The names of the abilities differ simply because psionics uses greek roots and spells use latin. It has nothing to do with "science."

In Psionics, one power covers all of the energy types. In magic, the closest you come is in later orbs, and even then the higher level ones have varying effects and must be memorized separately. Psionics views energies as interchangeable, magic views energies as having distinct flavor.

Compression has a Latin origin, not a Greek one. While in magic you shrink and grow things, in sci-fi you can only compress and expand things.

Redirecting someone's neural pathways into a self-contained inner world? Sci-fi. The whole concept of Synesthesia? Sci-fi/real life science. Shaping Ectoplasm rather than summoning demons? Please. Healing via body modification rather than healing via positive/holy energy? Tentacles flipping-everywhere? Mind Flayers, who come from the Lovecraftian Future? Aboleths, who come from the Lovecraftian Past? Ardents who do things based on the force of their own abstract philosophical ideals instead of clerics who do things because of their commitment to religious principles?

There's nothing wrong with adding sci-fi themes to fantasy, it's quite fun. But you'd have to be blind to conclude that there's no sci-fi in psionics. Sorcerors have inner power. Warlocks have inner power. Psions have sci-fi themed inner power.

[Quietus]

Guys, can we drop the sci-fi vs. eastern flavor debate? This was a purely mechanical consideration, the flavor bit was only there because for some people, they WANT fluff to be tied to their mechanics.


Pathfinder actually made this adjustment for the Paladin, except they simply made them charisma based, with no option to choose wisdom instead. I think this keeps with the paladin fluff nicely, as they are supposed to be the charismatic warriors of the church.

I'm not sure I like the monk change of using con as a basic stat for abilities or moving hit points to wisdom. I've never liked stacking hit points with other class features. I'd be more in favor of stacking class features on one ability, so perhaps choosing between making monk abilities strength based, or allowing monks to add their wisdom modifier to hit and damage would be a method of balancing that still keeps hit points separate. Also, fluffwise, if the abilities are strength based, the monk is more of a brawler. If they are wisdom based, the monk is more of a mystical warrior.

As an aside, I think the death attack should be usable once a day instead of once a week. At this level, wizards and clerics are tossing off many death spells a day if need be. No reason to so pitifully limit the monk's death attack.

Edit: As a side note, I've had both classes in campaigns work out quite nicely as is in 3.5, and I've played monks and had fun with them before. These evaluations are more about balance than fun, as the fun is already there, imo.

I wasn't aware that Pathfinder made that change; I'm happy with my 3.5, and this line of thinking was more thought exercise than anything else. I, too, have found that monks and paladins work well enough for their purposes in my games.. I just find that few people take Paladin past level two or three.

I do like your suggested Monk stuff, though.. although the "strength to AC" would be hard to justify. Wis replacing Str for attack/damage is good, though, and makes more sense than using Wis for hit points. I don't know why I didn't think about that, actually.

[dsmiles]

Tentacles flipping-everywhere?

You gotta admit, magic has tentacles too.
http://images.hugi.is/spunaspil/thumbnails/150423.jpg

EDIT: @ Quietus: Strength for AC = MY MUSCLES ARE AS HARD AS IRON!!!
http://www.lifeisajoke.com/Pictures/bodybuilder.jpg

[prufock]

Yeah, making Paladins charisma-based spellcasters would work.
I think the monk needs more than that to make it par up with most other classes, though. I'd use a completely re-built monk, or allow ToB.

[Psyren]

In Psionics, one power covers all of the energy types. In magic, the closest you come is in later orbs, and even then the higher level ones have varying effects and must be memorized separately. Psionics views energies as interchangeable, magic views energies as having distinct flavor.

What does that have to do with science? Converting heat to cold to electricity and back again at will with zero entropy by thinking about it really hard sounds like magic to me.


While in magic you shrink and grow things, in sci-fi you can only compress and expand things.

And yet concepts like the inverse-square law and bone density never factor in. Have a gem dragon - or even a phrenic bird - go up 2 size categories with expansion, and his flight ability isn't affected in the slightest. That's not science.


Redirecting someone's neural pathways into a self-contained inner world? Sci-fi. The whole concept of Synesthesia? Sci-fi/real life science. Shaping Ectoplasm rather than summoning demons? Please. Healing via body modification rather than healing via positive/holy energy? Tentacles flipping-everywhere? Mind Flayers, who come from the Lovecraftian Future? Aboleths, who come from the Lovecraftian Past? Ardents who do things based on the force of their own abstract philosophical ideals instead of clerics who do things because of their commitment to religious principles?

The closest you can come to science with any of those are the names. They are just as farfetched and unrelated to existing science as any amount of finger-wiggling, gibberish-chanting and bat-poop-throwing.

Which reminds me; let's take a look at how totally unscientific magic is then, shall we?
Material components for lightning bolt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/lightningbolt.htm) - fur and glass. Sounds like static electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity) to me.
Fireball: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) sulfur and bat guano. I don't think I need to explain this one.
Scrying: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) mirror, lemon, wires; congratulations, you've just made a medieval battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29) to power your television. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television)

If you're biased against psionics then that's your right, but you shouldn't try to pretend that magic is somehow above using science-y concepts itself.


There's nothing wrong with adding sci-fi themes to fantasy, it's quite fun. But you'd have to be blind to conclude that there's no sci-fi in psionics. Sorcerors have inner power. Warlocks have inner power. Psions have sci-fi themed inner power.

There's sci-fi concepts in every magic system. Psionics is no different. It's all still fantasy.

Back to topic: I still say psionics are the best way to improve the Monk. (Psywars are just as MAD, but powers push them to Tier 3.) However, the best way to improve them without such abilities is to make them Swordsages.

[Urpriest]

The Paladin's problem is dependence on Str, Con, Wis, and Cha, while the Monk likes Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, possibly Int since they want to be skillmonkeys. I don't see giving Con to Wis class features as all that useful, though, since the Monk's Con dependence is the same as the Paladin's: it needs enough of it to survive in melee, which isn't the same as wanting it as a primary/secondary stat. I support the earlier suggestion of Str or Wis being a Monk's choice of stats, giving you the mundane brawler vs. ki distinction.

[jiriku]

The monk still suffers mechanically on a variety of fronts. There's a homebrew monk in my sig that makes a solid, useful, less-MAD class. Others have posted different styles of monk fixes too; just check the homebrew forum.

Pally fixes abound as well, if you do a quick search.

[thompur]

I'd also give Paladins smite evil 1/day/level.

[Urpriest]

What does that have to do with science? Converting heat to cold to electricity and back again at will with zero entropy by thinking about it really hard sounds like magic to me.

And yet concepts like the inverse-square law and bone density never factor in. Have a gem dragon - or even a phrenic bird - go up 2 size categories with expansion, and his flight ability isn't affected in the slightest. That's not science.

The closest you can come to science with any of those are the names. They are just as farfetched and unrelated to existing science as any amount of finger-wiggling, gibberish-chanting and bat-poop-throwing.

Who taught you that Science Fiction was scientifically plausible? Have you ever seen Star Wars? Sci-Fi is distinguished from fantasy by the modernity/antiquity of its technobabble, not by its plausiblity. In a sci-fi universe things are made of atoms, not elements, so you don't shrink things, you just "bring the atoms closer together", and no, this doesn't change properties because it's sci-fi, not science.


Which reminds me; let's take a look at how totally unscientific magic is then, shall we?
Material components for lightning bolt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/lightningbolt.htm) - fur and glass. Sounds like static electricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity) to me.
Fireball: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/fireball.htm) sulfur and bat guano. I don't think I need to explain this one.
Scrying: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/scrying.htm) mirror, lemon, wires; congratulations, you've just made a medieval battery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_%28electricity%29) to power your television. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television)


Sulfur and bat guano, fur and glass, are thematically characteristic of seventeenth or eighteenth century physics. Science Fiction is thematically characteristic of twentieth century physics. See above.

Also, the Scrying example is interesting, but I doubt the intent is a fantasy TV. The material components are clearly a battery, that I grant (note, an eighteenth century battery). But since you don't generally power a TV with a battery I don't think that's the intent. Perhaps you're supposed to be animating the hawk's eye so you can see through it, using electricity?


If you're biased against psionics then that's your right, but don't try to pretend that magic is somehow above using science-y concepts itself.

There's sci-fi concepts in every magic system. Psionics is no different. It's all still fantasy.

I'm not biased against psionics, quite the opposite in fact, reread the post. I enjoy psionics because it's fun to stir some sci-fi into fantasy. But sci-fi is its own thematic entity with different thematic tendencies, and requiring one's equivalent of the east to be twentieth-century themed rather than fourteenth-century themed is really only appropriate if you're intentionally making it something other than the traditional monks n' ninjas feel. {Scrubbed}

[Blackfang108]

Who taught you that Science Fiction was scientifically plausible? Have you ever seen Star Wars? Sci-Fi is distinguished from fantasy by the modernity/antiquity of its technobabble, not by its plausiblity. In a sci-fi universe things are made of atoms, not elements, so you don't shrink things, you just "bring the atoms closer together", and no, this doesn't change properties because it's sci-fi, not science.



Sulfur and bat guano, fur and glass, are thematically characteristic of seventeenth or eighteenth century physics. Science Fiction is thematically characteristic of twentieth century physics. See above.

Also, the Scrying example is interesting, but I doubt the intent is a fantasy TV. The material components are clearly a battery, that I grant (note, an eighteenth century battery). But since you don't generally power a TV with a battery I don't think that's the intent. Perhaps you're supposed to be animating the hawk's eye so you can see through it, using electricity?


I'm not biased against psionics, quite the opposite in fact, reread the post. I enjoy psionics because it's fun to stir some sci-fi into fantasy. But sci-fi is its own thematic entity with different thematic tendencies, and requiring one's equivalent of the east to be twentieth-century themed rather than fourteenth-century themed is really only appropriate if you're intentionally making it something other than the traditional monks n' ninjas feel. At which point you can just use Tash and stop whining.

Star Wars isn't Sci-Fi. It's Fantasy dressed up as Sci-Fi for halloween.

[Telonius]

I'd be a bit hesitant about giving CON to all Monk abilities. In particular, Fist of the Forest is a Monk-ish PrC that gives CON (instead of DEX) to AC. If you make it stack with itself, that would change Monk from MAD to SAD (which could also be "BAD").

In any case, Wis to HP doesn't solve the essential problem of being a Monk: being able to hit (without heavy feat investment or use of partially-charged wands). Monks already have a pretty good hitpoints. At level 20, they average only 40 hp below Barbarian, and Wholeness of Body means they can heal 40hp per day for free.

My personal houserule is that Monks get full BAB, and the ability to enchant their own body as though it were a Magic Weapon or Armor, using Monk (or monk-ish PrC) levels as Caster levels for prerequisite purposes. (Fluff: they meditate instead of craft, and use incense worth the GP cost).

[Psyren]

@ Urpriest:
I utterly disagree with you. Plausibility IS the distinguishing factor between sci-fi and fantasy, not terminology.

Furthermore, physics is physics; the fact that there are more sophisticated ways to generate static electricity now than there were when it was discovered does not change the fact that it is a scientific concept. Electrons have been around since long before the 16th century, even if they weren't thought of as such back then. And you can still, today, rub some fur on a glass rod and make the hair on your arms stand up.

There is nothing scientific about "ectoplasm," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectoplasm_%28paranormal%29) or thinking at someone so hard they burst into flame, or have all of their outward sensory paths shut down. It's magic in a different coat, wearing crystals and covered in tattoos.

[Quietus]

I'd be a bit hesitant about giving CON to all Monk abilities. In particular, Fist of the Forest is a Monk-ish PrC that gives CON (instead of DEX) to AC. If you make it stack with itself, that would change Monk from MAD to SAD (which could also be "BAD").

In any case, Wis to HP doesn't solve the essential problem of being a Monk: being able to hit (without heavy feat investment or use of partially-charged wands). Monks already have a pretty good hitpoints. At level 20, they average only 40 hp below Barbarian, and Wholeness of Body means they can heal 40hp per day for free.

My personal houserule is that Monks get full BAB, and the ability to enchant their own body as though it were a Magic Weapon or Armor, using Monk (or monk-ish PrC) levels as Caster levels for prerequisite purposes. (Fluff: they meditate instead of craft, and use incense worth the GP cost).

This is a good point.. though I do think Barbarians will have more than just 40 more HP, given they can "afford" to put Con as a higher priority than a Monk can. Still, I like the "wis to hit/damage" that someone mentioned earlier, it's a much more elegant way of doing things.. the strength to stunning fist DC/AC I can see in part, adding strength to the stunning fist's DC is easy to imagine. AC, not so much.. despite the crazy wall of muscle that was posted above.

As far as other mechanical concessions go - yes, I know that Monk is a poorly designed class. Yes, I know that Paladins would be better off with more Smite Evil, perhaps on a per-encounter basis. Rather than trying to address those as a whole, this idea was simply to explore ways to reduce the MAD of these two classes, and I think basing all Paladin abilities on Charisma or Wisdom (possibly just Charisma, it does make more sense, though at the very least I'd still allow Serenity to switch it all to Wis) does that for the Paladin. With the Monk, giving them Wis to attack/damage rolls would be a big boon; I'd prefer to still give a "brawler" monk option, but I guess that could be done by basing Stunning Fist DC on strength and allowing one of many UA-based class feature trades to gain things like DR via barbarian.

[Glimbur]

For the Monk, a similar choice, between either Con or Wis; If you choose Wis, then most of your stuff remains the same, but you then base your *hit points* on your Wisdom modifier instead of your Con. This might not make a whole lot of sense, but I'd fluff it as being a take on "Mind over matter", You're so in touch with your body, that you can simply ignore most wounds until they force you to stop. If you take Con, then you're looking at basing Stunning Fist DC, AC bonus.. well, those are the only real Wisdom-based things a Monk gets. I'd relate this to anime in the "Wisdom = refined ki, Constitution = just straight up a whole lot of ki" way; admittedly, the Monk variation on this idea is a little harder to justify than the Paladin one, but in both cases, you're reducing the reliance on a single stat by a significant amount.

If you were a DM, would you allow these ideas at your table? If you were a player, would they change whether you'd be more or less likely to play one of those classes? And am I missing any glaring holes?

Con also governs fort saves, so in the system you have now you choose between Fort saves and Spot/Listen/Sense Motive when you choose which stat to base monk powers on. Is this intentional?


I'd also give Paladins smite evil 1/day/level.

I prefer making smite evil a per encounter mechanic.

[Quietus]

Con also governs fort saves, so in the system you have now you choose between Fort saves and Spot/Listen/Sense Motive when you choose which stat to base monk powers on. Is this intentional?

It's not something that I was unaware of. I do think that if you were to go the route I initially considered, choosing between con/wis, then it does make sense that the more physical individual would have a higher fortitude, while the more "zen" one, for lack of a better term, would be more aware of their surroundings. Unfortunately, any time you raise the priority of one stat over another, it does affect what an individual is good or bad at, and that did weigh in the back of my mind - making hit points based off of Wisdom would really turn Con into a dump stat. But when I considered that Monks really lack for those, I didn't think it would be a major concern.

[Tael]

I prefer making smite evil a per encounter mechanic.

I prefer doing what PF did, making Smite Evil last the whole encounter.

[Fawsto]

Make it Charisma only for the Paladin special abilities.

I can sense a few cleric builds going out of their ways just to grab a huge bonus to saves based on the single stat they need.

Or you can go Pathfinder paladin. Seriously, it is a fine fix.

For the Monk... Well... Giving them FAD (Few Ability Dependence?) is just the begining. They need a few real class abilities. Tongues of Sun and Moon just don't cut it...

Either way, it is a good start.

[Frosty]

Pathfinder Paladin is balanced. Go use it.

In PF, Monks get Quivering Palm 1/day I believe, and when they use FoB they count as having full bab for their monk levels. They also have "ki points" sort of like a Ninja. Not a bad fix, but they could go a bit further.

[Mongoose87]

Pathfinder Paladin is balanced. Go use it.

In PF, Monks get Quivering Palm 1/day I believe, and when they use FoB they count as having full bab for their monk levels. They also have "ki points" sort of like a Ninja. Not a bad fix, but they could go a bit further.

Actually, the way the worded the bits about BaB for FoB and Combat Maneuvers actually makes it a serious nerf, if you multi-class.

[Frosty]

Actually, the way the worded the bits about BaB for FoB and Combat Maneuvers actually makes it a serious nerf, if you multi-class.
I'm pretty sure even people int he PF society use the common-sense ruling of the monk levels = 1/1 bab, then add in other bab.

[Mongoose87]

I'm pretty sure even people int he PF society use the common-sense ruling of the monk levels = 1/1 bab, then add in other bab.

Common sense or not, it's a RAW nerf.

[Runestar]

Even if I were to switch stat reliance, I would never allow any 1 stat to become entirely obsolete.

I would probably take a cue from 4e's stat alternatives for class. Though for monk, I would make them either str or wis based, rather than con or wis.

For instance, at 1st lv, the monk could opt to apply wis mod to fort saves instead of con, but you still use con to determine bonus hp. Of course, this means that if you dump con, you will have fewer hp (though it might make going undead more enticing).

For the str alternative, maybe have it determine bonus AC and stunning fist DC instead of wis? Of course, now that you dump wis, your will saves will be poorer.

Paladins have some options as well. I think there is an ACF which lets them trade their spellcasting for bonus feats, thus letting them dump wis (especially with steadfast determination).

Likewise, warforged (having poor cha) can choose to apply their con mod on will saves (instead of cha mod to all saves). I could extend this option to all races. So paladin would either be con or cha based.

Admitably, this does nothing to make them stronger, for which I would just use the swordsage and crusader respectively. :smalltongue:

[Drend]

Paladins can usually be fixed with the crossover feats in CAd. I also have a homebrew feat that crosses over paladins and Duskblades (my group LOVES duskblades). Monks are also pretty cool with those CAd crossover feats. A little multi-classing usually can make classes better than they were initially.

Further, Paladins and Monks don't necessarily NEED constitution, and Paladins really don't need Wisdom either. Sure, the extra hit points help, but in a party that always has a healer, what are those few HP going to help anyway? I always hated that partial spell-casting progression, and took the feats alternative anyway. Monks can ignore wisdom to an extent, and just focus on Strength and Dex, or ignore strength (what with the no armor to carry, and the multitude of DR piercing blows anyway), and just focus on Dex and Wis for the high AC.

[Xuc Xac]

One of the things that always comes up with Monks and Paladins is the really bad MAD they have - str, dex, con, wis/cha for the Pally and int/wis for the Monk. This is aside from the generally poor design of the classes, though Paladins get a nice fix for that with Spell Compendium and Battle Blessing.

At any rate, solving the MAD problem; What would you say, as a DM or a player, to giving/getting the option to switch some stat reliance?

I was just thinking about this earlier today, but my idea for a solution was actually the opposite: give more MAD to everyone else. Why should a Wizard be able to do everything with Intelligence? Tampering with the laws of reality doesn't take any willpower or intestinal fortitude? No one would ever cast spiderclimb (by eating a live spider), much less animate dead, without having a strong stomach.

I think the number of "dump stats" a class has should be inversely proportional to its tier. A tier 5 class that only does one thing should only need one attribute. A tier 1 class that does everything should be able to afford to spread that power out among 4 or 5 stats.

[Souhiro]

You know, I find many of monk habilities insulting. For the Monks.

The Monk gains at Lvl-15 the Quivering Palm. He need to declare that he is using it, so it must connect (And if he fails, he lose it) and kills one guy. The Wizard gains access to Finger of Death at Lvl-13. And Quivering Palm is just one for week. Finger of death is one when first attained, later can be used many times. And a wizard who needs it can write scrolls of Finger of Death!


At Lvl-12, the monk can use dimension door ONCE per day. The wizards and sorcerers at that level have fully access to Teleport. Woot.


Monks are supossed to be front-line fighters, but they don't receive full BAB (The only one of the supossed front fighters that don't!) and about the unarmed strikes... At Lvl-12 the monk deals 2D6 each blow. But the Lvl-1 Fighter can buy a 2h-Sword without waiting 11 levels.


Pathfinder fixed a few things (When using the flurry, they have full BAB) But monks are still a non-option. I prefer to give them some Exotic Monk weapons, so they can use their flurry, and don't be outshined. Otherwise, the only way a monk could work is in "This is a job for aquaman" moments... (IE, all the equipment stolen)

[Psyren]

Common sense or not, it's a RAW nerf.

Indeed, RAW is frequently at odds with common sense. :smallwink:



Monks are supossed to be front-line fighters, but they don't receive full BAB (The only one of the supossed front fighters that don't!) and about the unarmed strikes... At Lvl-12 the monk deals 2D6 each blow. But the Lvl-1 Fighter can buy a 2h-Sword without waiting 11 levels.

Everyone forgets psionics :smalltongue: (I'm going to add that to my sig.)
Soulknife and Divine Mind are both front-line fighters that also don't receive full BAB for whatever reason.

[Blackfang108]

Everyone forgets psionics :smalltongue: (I'm going to add that to my sig.)
Soulknife and Divine Mind are both front-line fighters that also don't receive full BAB for whatever reason.

Because, repeat after me, "psionics cannot receive full BAB."

[Psyren]

Because, repeat after me, "psionics cannot receive full BAB."

Marksman (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/marksman) has it. 3rd-party, but Dreamscarred Press knows what they're doing.

There are also full-BAB+nearly-full manifesting PrCs in first-party like Slayer and Sanctified Mind. Stacking those on top of even a 1/2 BAB class the right way can get you all 4 attacks.

[Blackfang108]

Marksman (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/marksman) has it. 3rd-party, but Dreamscarred Press knows what they're doing.

There are also full-BAB+nearly-full manifesting PrCs in first-party like Slayer and Sanctified Mind. Stacking those on top of even a 1/2 BAB class the right way can get you all 4 attacks.

I was quoting the WotC party line.

[Coidzor]

If you were a DM, would you allow these ideas at your table? If you were a player, would they change whether you'd be more or less likely to play one of those classes? And am I missing any glaring holes?
If the concept of either appealed to me enough. Probably much more likely to choose paladin and then PrC out than monk, since even with the MAD issue taken care of, monk class features just leave me cold. And paladins don't get much in the way of features that are good, especially not after low-mid levels.

Paladin at least can make for a nice mounted gish variation if the MAD is partially dealt with by taking away cha as a requirement, leaving the Pally needing Str, Con, and Wis with enough Int to get ride and knowledge religion at least and enough Dex to not take a penalty and take full advantage of heavy armors. Heck, dumping Dex and Cha can be made up for by armor + minor statboost items. Especially since sword of the arcane order is available to paladins, which along with a +2 or +4 item opens up a new world of wizard spells to 'em.

Then again, Divine Champion + Cha base casting + domain-granting PRCs could also be quite nice.

[Ecalsneerg]

Because, repeat after me, "psionics cannot receive full BAB."

Full BAB class 4/Sanctified Mind 1/War Mind x/Sanctified Mind +5/fill out with more War Mind or slayer = half-manifesting, full BAB.

[Blackfang108]

Full BAB class 4/Sanctified Mind 1/War Mind x/Sanctified Mind +5/fill out with more War Mind or slayer = half-manifesting, full BAB.

Sorry: "A WotC Psionics Base Class cannot receive full BAB."

Happy now?

[Runestar]

Monks are supossed to be front-line fighters, but they don't receive full BAB (The only one of the supossed front fighters that don't!) and about the unarmed strikes... At Lvl-12 the monk deals 2D6 each blow. But the Lvl-1 Fighter can buy a 2h-Sword without waiting 11 levels.

I actually see them as more of a rogue/scout-like class. So I don't think they should get full bab (for the same reason the swordsage doesn't get full bab). Rather, I would love to see more abilities which allow them to take advantage of their mobility and control capabilities such as stun/trip.:smallsmile: