Should Monk even be a class? What is the exact value of unarmed fighting?

[FMArthur]

Hello Playground,

I've been sort of mulling this over in my head for months but haven't really spent the time to sort out the data on the matter. As you all know (shockingly, considering its obscure source), any psionic class can take feats to gain all relevant Monk features, and a Swordsage adaptation gives them the unarmed damage of a Monk as a trade for weapon proficiencies; they already have Wis to AC and Flurry-equivalent abilities.

The cause of inquiry comes from the reaction: "so what?" The abilities are not much better than martial weapons and armor, if they even are. And sadly, that's the Monk's whole damn class. It's starting to look like a Soulknife situation, where 20 levels of blood, sweat and tears comes down to "alternative-but-not-really-better weapon style".

So what exactly is the value of Monk features? Of unarmed progression alone?
I can outline a couple of "standard" options pretty quickly, to give some kind of guideline on their approximate value, but it's hard to say what that might be because of its inconsistent cost:
Monk 1 / Psionic X: The one Monk level provides IUS and a bonus feat to take Monastic Training (your psionic class). The total cost for Monk unarmed strike, AC and Flurry is one class level and one feat.
Psionic X: You don't need Monk levels for either Monastic Training or Tashalatora. You can just take those two feats and have your psionic class levels work as Monk levels. The drawback is that you also need IUS, which you can get along with INA on a Fanged Ring (10000gp). So the total cost is three feats or two feats and 10000gp.
Unarmed Swordsage: This is for unarmed damage only, since Swordsage already has Wis to AC and "Flurry of Blows". Interestingly, you only give up light armor proficiency for this.
Superior Unarmed Strike: Obviously, this costs you one feat, but... You deal a Small Monk's unarmed damage, equivalent to a Monk of 4 levels lower. INA doesn't resolve the difference because Monks also take INA.

I'm actually inclined to actually allow the whole package - Unarmed, Wis-AC and FoB - on any class with Martial Weapon Proficiency and at least Light Armor, in exchange for those proficiencies and a feat, or two feats if they lack that. Or, in proper formatting:
MONK TRAINING [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Proficiency with at least one martial weapon and proficiency with any type of armor, OR the feat Armor Proficiency (light) OR the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency
Benefit: Choose any class. You gain Improved Unarmed Strike, a Monk's unarmed strike damage progression, a Monk's AC bonus and Flurry of Blows progression for your levels in that class. These abilities only function when you are unarmored and unencombered. You can choose this feat multiple times, selecting another class to which this progression applies.

You don't need to give up the proficiencies altogether for this, since that would be wierd if you took a feat to gain them. You just need to refrain from using them to gain this feat's benefit.


What's your opinion on the value of Monk features, Playground?

And as an aside, what about the Soulknife? It's another class whose defining feature is "has a weapon". The Psychic Warrior seems to shrug and say "don't care" when presented with the option to produce a more powerful Mind Blade and Weapon Focus in exchange for one measly Fighter feat and a power known (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20070214a). Should the Mind Blade class feature be lumped into this houserule as an option in place of Unarmed Strike?

[stainboy]

I think monk should be its own class, it just needs to suck less. The class is supposed to be unarmed fighting and a series of quasi-magical kung fu abilities. We just don't care about the second part because the abilities aren't good and we don't get to pick them. Swordsage and Qinggong Monk get closer to what the class should be. (Qinggong Monk isn't at the power level I'd like, but the concept is headed in the right direction.)

[Jude_H]

What's your opinion on the value of Monk features, Playground?
The Monk represents an archetype that isn't exactly obscure. I do think there should be a class should model that. The Psychic Warrior does a better job, but might need to be repackaged slightly to really fit the idea.

It's a shame that the monk turned punching things into a very specifically flavored class. I agree that it should be a feat or feat chain, just to let players use decent chaotic drunken brawler types without having to dig up an obscure fluff-heavy setting-specific feat or adopt the ToB melee ruleset.

I think the Monk class's unique abilities could be reasonably compressed into 3 or 4 feats. The various immunities and small circumstantial bonuses are probably worth one feat. the SR is probably worth a feat. Flurry's probably worth a feat. The Unarmed Strike progression is probably worth a couple weapon proficiencies or a feat. I'd prefer to model it after the DSP Mind Blade feats (I'll describe them below).

And as an aside, what about the Soulknife? It's another class whose defining feature is "has a weapon".
The Monk at least has an archetype. The Soulknife just has a blurb that says "Soulknives have deadly minds that they stab people with." I don't think that deserves its own class.

Dreamscarred Press condensed the class to a feat chain (http://dsp-d20-srd.wikidot.com/mind-blade-feats). Each feat improves the Mind Blade by one step and adds a meaningful benefit that could be worth a feat on its own [like replacing strength with wisdom in melee or adding a knockdown effect to the blade]. I'm a big fan of this approach.

[PollyOliver]

I think monk, if repaired, is a good archetype of fighting--at least, it totally could have pre-swordsage. Among other things, if you got abundant step sooner, access to some sort of wuxia flight or crazy jumping, fixed the capstone to work thematically with the class, and made flurry useable on a standard action (maybe flurry your max attacks minus one as a standard?) I think it would be pretty decent--and very good for core melee.

[FMArthur]

I think monk should be its own class, it just needs to suck less. The class is supposed to be unarmed fighting and a series of quasi-magical kung fu abilities. We just don't care about the second part because the abilities aren't good and we don't get to pick them. Swordsage and Qinggong Monk get closer to what the class should be. (Qinggong Monk isn't at the power level I'd like, but the concept is headed in the right direction.)

But giving it to other classes only expands the unarmed-fighter into a greater variety of archetypes - which still includes the quiet martial artist from the monestary - rather than limiting it to just the one. I think if a Ranger wants to pick one weak weapon style over another and still be a full Ranger, he should be allowed to without struggling tooth and nail to get it to a passable level.

[Tvtyrant]

This brings up the question of classes as feats though; Chameleons Tier 3 status indicates that the vast majority of class features could be safely boiled down to feats, including Bardic casting and SA.

I find your Monk feat reasonable for flurry, Unarmed damage and unarmed progression. I think a stat to AC and AC bonuses would be a reasonable second feat, and all of the other monk stuff a third.

[Quietus]

I want to say that there SHOULD be a class for it, but I think that's mostly because... I'm used to it being there. I think the swordsage has the "Supernaturally talented fisticuffs" handled nicely; If a player came to me and asked for Monk fist damage advancement coupled with Improved Unarmed Strike, I'd probably have no issues with that so long as they agreed not to abuse size enhancements.

Adding other things, like Flurry progression, as a separate feat in a chain would be perfectly acceptable to me as well, and would easily replicate the "pugilist" feel.

[Seerow]

I want to say that there SHOULD be a class for it, but I think that's mostly because... I'm used to it being there. I think the swordsage has the "Supernaturally talented fisticuffs" handled nicely; If a player came to me and asked for Monk fist damage advancement coupled with Improved Unarmed Strike, I'd probably have no issues with that so long as they agreed not to abuse size enhancements.

Adding other things, like Flurry progression, as a separate feat in a chain would be perfectly acceptable to me as well, and would easily replicate the "pugilist" feel.

No size abuse? Well there goes my gish with Greater Mighty Whallop. You monster.

[Fisticuffs]

The Monk at least has an archetype. The Soulknife just has a blurb that says "Soulknives have deadly minds that they stab people with." I don't think that deserves its own class.

Guy who manifests weapons out of pure will isn't an archetype? Granted Incarnum did this alot better.

[FMArthur]

Yeah, the general vibe I'm getting is that Flurry is separate, and maybe Wisdom to AC could be, too? I can definitely agree with making Flurry a feat or two. Wisdom to AC seems like one of the most Monk-ish things about it, but it occurs to me that it's not totally sensible to attach to unarmed damage because it's not too hard to envision a heavily-armored fist-fighter.

It's easy to just peel off Flurry as its own feat (as well as the rest of Monk features being one feat, with SR and Outsider each being their own as well). But how should AC Bonus and Unarmed Strike separate? I feel like requiring a feat for each might be a bit too much just to get a 'standard' Monk going, especially when Wis to AC is just... not quite as good as normal armor. Maybe this feat could just have separate benefits, like tactical feats do: it requires you to wield no weapons to have Unarmed Damage, and wear no armor for the AC bonus.

Would that work?

[Tvtyrant]

No armor for the AC bonus, but you get to pick a stat. Otherwise its a divine caster feat and everyone else misses out. Then you can be unarmored and fight or armored and fight based on your desire no matter what the stat array is.

[FMArthur]

No armor for the AC bonus, but you get to pick a stat. Otherwise its a divine caster feat and everyone else misses out. Then you can be unarmored and fight or armored and fight based on your desire no matter what the stat array is.

I like this, but with the stipulation that it must be a mental stat. The flavour is otherwise hard to preserve. Wisdom is already the "strongest" mental stat for combat because it influences Will saves, while Int and Cha don't do much on their own, so I see no issue in the substitution.

Edit: So here's what I've got...

MONK TRAINING [TACTICAL]
Prerequisites: Any one Martial Weapon Proficiency, or Armor Proficiency
Benefit: Choose any class. You gain the following benefits for taking levels in this class:
Unarmed Warrior: You gain Improved Unarmed Strike and a Monk's unarmed strike damage progression whenever you wield no weapon.
AC Bonus: Choose either Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma. You gain your bonus in this stat to your AC when unarmored, unencumbered and wielding no shield. Every 5 levels in this class, the AC bonus increases by 1. You lose this bonus when immobilized or helpless.

FLURRY OF FISTS [GENERAL]
Benefit: When you are fighting unarmed or with a special Monk weapon, you can take a -2 penalty to all attacks made in this round to make another attack at your highest Base Attack Bonus when you make a full attack or take a standard action to attack. You must make the choice to use this before you attack on your turn.

FLURRY OF FISTS, IMPROVED [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Flurry of Fists, character level 5th
Benefit: The penalty you take to use Flurry of Fists is reduced by one. At 9th level, it is removed altogether. Starting at 11th level, you make an additional attack when using Flurry of Fists.

And then more feats for other features, which I don't need to list.

[Tvtyrant]

I like this, but with the stipulation that it must be a mental stat. The flavour is otherwise hard to preserve. Wisdom is already the "strongest" mental stat for combat because it influences Will saves, while Int and Cha don't do much on their own, so I see no issue in the substitution.

Fair enough; it gives a Rogue a better option then leather armor to use on his Int.

[Quietus]

No size abuse? Well there goes my gish with Greater Mighty Whallop. You monster.

It's one thing to USE things. It's another to ABUSE them. Taking your fists up to 8d6 will get you a raised eyebrow and maybe a frown, or a "Okay, scale that back a little" if it's a low-op game. Taking them to 32d6 will get you liquid poured on your sheet and told to go make a new one.


I like this, but with the stipulation that it must be a mental stat. The flavour is otherwise hard to preserve. Wisdom is already the "strongest" mental stat for combat because it influences Will saves, while Int and Cha don't do much on their own, so I see no issue in the substitution.

If you're going this route, I'd say Con ("I'm so tough that I laugh at your puny attacks!"), Wis ("My intuition is so finely honed that I dodge attacks I didn't see coming!"), or Int ("I can see what moves you're going to make long before you make them!")

However, I wouldn't make this a feat. I'd make it an alternate class feature available to anyone with Medium Armor Proficiency, whether that's via feats (so a wizard can spend two feats for Int to AC) or via class levels. And for every 5 levels you have that grant Heavy Armor Proficiency, you gain a +1 bonus to AC. In order to gain these benefits, you have to go unarmored.

Going this route, you could have an unarmored barbarian who is a wall of muscle and laughs at your puny attempts to harm him, and with Improved Unarmed Strike, gets Monk advancement to his fist damage. For the cost of a single feat, total. And to me, this would be an EXCELLENT representation of a pugilist.

[FMArthur]

If you're going this route, I'd say Con ("I'm so tough that I laugh at your puny attacks!"), Wis ("My intuition is so finely honed that I dodge attacks I didn't see coming!"), or Int ("I can see what moves you're going to make long before you make them!")

However, I wouldn't make this a feat. I'd make it an alternate class feature available to anyone with Medium Armor Proficiency, whether that's via feats (so a wizard can spend two feats for Int to AC) or via class levels. And for every 5 levels you have that grant Heavy Armor Proficiency, you gain a +1 bonus to AC. In order to gain these benefits, you have to go unarmored.

Going this route, you could have an unarmored barbarian who is a wall of muscle and laughs at your puny attempts to harm him, and with Improved Unarmed Strike, gets Monk advancement to his fist damage. For the cost of a single feat, total. And to me, this would be an EXCELLENT representation of a pugilist.

I really don't want to give Con to AC. That's way stronger than the other options, for one thing. The other is that I like the idea of making it an ACF for armor proficiency, but it would be too much at too little cost if the bonus were from Con. If you want to be a tough as nails pugilist... just a Barbarian with the unarmed damage acquired this way represents that perfectly fine. More than that is dipping into Prestige Class territory and racial DR, as well as just being part of the stanard benefit of a massive Constitution anyway. :smallconfused:

[Zaq]

It's worth mentioning that Snap Kick is basically FoB in feat form already. Slightly different, but in truth, a much more accessible one (FoB needs to be a standard action anyway, no?). I suppose it would technically stack with your proposed FoB feat anyway, if you're willing to tank your to-hit that low.

[Quietus]

I really don't want to give Con to AC. That's way stronger than the other options, for one thing. The other is that I like the idea of making it an ACF for armor proficiency, but it would be too much at too little cost if the bonus were from Con. If you want to be a tough as nails pugilist... just a Barbarian with the unarmed damage acquired this way represents that perfectly fine. More than that is dipping into Prestige Class territory and racial DR, as well as just being part of the stanard benefit of a massive Constitution anyway. :smallconfused:

Stronger how? I mean, sure, it's considered somewhat simple to get 30+ to your primary stat. But even if you made con your primary stat, that's.. +10 to your AC. Same as you'd get with a +5 breastplate. And you're giving up armor special qualities to do it. On top of that, this is assuming it's your primary stat; More likely you'll have a score somewhere in the mid-twenties.

Note that I'm not trying to shut you down here; I'm interested in where your line of thought is going.

[FMArthur]

It's worth mentioning that Snap Kick is basically FoB in feat form already. Slightly different, but in truth, a much more accessible one (FoB needs to be a standard action anyway, no?). I suppose it would technically stack with your proposed FoB feat anyway, if you're willing to tank your to-hit that low.

That's a good point, and they basically represent a "flurry of unarmed attacks" anyway. I think that Flurry of Fists feat can just be trimmed out entirely and the second one can just be renamed Improved Snap Kick.

[Zaq]

That's a good point, and they basically represent a "flurry of unarmed attacks" anyway. I think that Flurry of Fists feat can just be trimmed out entirely and the second one can just be renamed Improved Snap Kick.

If you do, you should probably include some kind of option for getting Snap Kick without the BAB prereq. At high levels it's a staple feat of certain fighting styles, but waiting until level 6 at the earliest (level 8 with 3/4 BAB, so probably your 9th level feat) can be rough.

[Seerow]

Stronger how? I mean, sure, it's considered somewhat simple to get 30+ to your primary stat. But even if you made con your primary stat, that's.. +10 to your AC. Same as you'd get with a +5 breastplate. And you're giving up armor special qualities to do it. On top of that, this is assuming it's your primary stat; More likely you'll have a score somewhere in the mid-twenties.

Note that I'm not trying to shut you down here; I'm interested in where your line of thought is going.

Well remember, you can still get bracers of armor to go with it, getting you up to an extra 8 AC with it, though it's more expensive. You could limit it to +5 (for the same cost as the +5 breastplate), which pushes you above what you get with a +5 breastplate.



It's one thing to USE things. It's another to ABUSE them. Taking your fists up to 8d6 will get you a raised eyebrow and maybe a frown, or a "Okay, scale that back a little" if it's a low-op game. Taking them to 32d6 will get you liquid poured on your sheet and told to go make a new one.


Aww but 32d6 is only like 100 average damage a hit, totally reasonable! :x

[FMArthur]

Stronger how? I mean, sure, it's considered somewhat simple to get 30+ to your primary stat. But even if you made con your primary stat, that's.. +10 to your AC. Same as you'd get with a +5 breastplate. And you're giving up armor special qualities to do it. On top of that, this is assuming it's your primary stat; More likely you'll have a score somewhere in the mid-twenties.

Note that I'm not trying to shut you down here; I'm interested in where your line of thought is going.

For one thing, it ostensibly doesn't cost you gold. Con to AC would be better than the mental stats in every way on a melee character, and doesn't represent a person's presence of mind improving their dodging ability like the Monk ability is replacing. I'm not saying the Monk's AC is good, but this is more about moving things around and opening up the Monk fighting style to other classes than overhauling all melee options in any comprehensive way. There would need to be special provisions for the Con one because it's different, and I don't see the point in doing it. There are other ways to get that, and tons of other ways you can represent incredible physical durability anyway; it's just outside the scope of this experiment.


If you do, you should probably include some kind of option for getting Snap Kick without the BAB prereq. At high levels it's a staple feat of certain fighting styles, but waiting until level 6 at the earliest (level 8 with 3/4 BAB, so probably your 9th level feat) can be rough.

True. I guess it's better to obviate Snap Kick with a feat that encompasses it and makes it available earlier, with nonstacking language. I'm leery of using both only because it's pretty much the exact same thing, like TWFing while TWFing.

[Seerow]

To be fair, there is at least 2 PrCs I can think of that grant con to AC, and one of those I don't think even requires you to go unarmored. It's hardly game breaking to allow it.

[FMArthur]

To be fair, there is at least 2 PrCs I can think of that grant con to AC, and one of those I don't think even requires you to go unarmored. It's hardly game breaking to allow it.

But not in place of obviously inferior options, and I don't feel like it has much to do with this thread. It's an easy enough homebrew if you want it.

edit: Anyway, I'm going to bed now. I'll respond to additional posts and take another shot at this (including the Soulknife) tomorrow. Thanks for your input everyone.

[Quietus]

Well remember, you can still get bracers of armor to go with it, getting you up to an extra 8 AC with it, though it's more expensive. You could limit it to +5 (for the same cost as the +5 breastplate), which pushes you above what you get with a +5 breastplate.

I'll grant you this, but 30 con is also if you're making it your primary. Which means taking your strength on a melee build. More likely is you'll get 30+ strength and have 24-26ish con, if that's your secondary thing.

This all being said, maybe it'd be easier to give it a feat tax and let anyone swap their AC stat from dex to something else, without any armor limitations or anything like that.


True. I guess it's better to obviate Snap Kick with a feat that encompasses it and makes it available earlier, with nonstacking language. I'm leery of using both only because it's pretty much the exact same thing, like TWFing while TWFing.

But then how am I supposed to use manyshot with all four of my bows???

[Divide by Zero]

If you're going this route, I'd say Con ("I'm so tough that I laugh at your puny attacks!"), Wis ("My intuition is so finely honed that I dodge attacks I didn't see coming!"), or Int ("I can see what moves you're going to make long before you make them!")

I prefer Cha. "I'm too sexy for your attack."

[Seerow]

But then how am I supposed to use manyshot with all four of my bows???

That's what multiweapon fighting is for :smallcool:

[Telonius]

Soulknife does fit at least one archetype ...

http://www.rpgamer.com/games/zelda/z1/graphics/screen/snap006.gif

That said, I do think that expanding some sort of unarmed combat to other classes makes sense. But the "Speedy Bruce Lee-style Kung Fu guy who knows how to use all kinds of weird weapons and can also beat you senseless while unarmed" role should belong to the Monk and Monk only.

It would probably make the Monk fit the role a lot better if the special (exotic) Monk weapons weren't generally worthless. Or possibly, if more levels in Monk gave better options with those weapons. (+1 to the "disarm/trip" things every x levels, for instance)

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Honestly, I would prefer the Monk as a full BAB half psionic caster, like a Divine Mind. I like the idea of allowing them to choose their casting stat, with different ACFs attached like a Pathfinder archetype.

I also agree that unarmed combat should be a viable style for all classes.

[holywhippet]

A monk would be a great class, if you weren't playing D&D. They get all sorts of immunitites, resistances and abilities to avoid getting hurt or weakened by ailments. Their touch AC is generally the same as their regular AC which is pretty rare for most classes.

The catch is, the monk just isn't cut out for fighting in regular melee. Their mediocre AC, BAB and HP put them behind the other fighting classes. The cleric gets the same BAB and HP progression but will have better AC and the benefit of spells.

I think the monk needs either more unique bonus feats to cover up their weaknesses or they need better AC progression so they can be better than the fighter types at something.

[Eldariel]

Monk's already a half-caster, just without any control over which spells he gets, nor any way to get enough uses of them. Take Monk trash magical abilities out, give him Psionic manifesting (or arcane spellcasting up to something like Duskblade-levels in a game without Psionics) and he's pretty much what he should be; can choose which mystical abilities he has and can augment his combat with those.

I think you shouldn't have to be a Monk to fight unarmed. Monks cover a specific niché that incidentally happens to be good at fighting unarmed too. Fighters and Barbarians should be just as capable of fisticuffs. So yeah, I like Superior Unarmed Strike and would expand that and Flurry to Monk-level powers; fighting unarmed is not why the Monk-class exists. If you want a brawler, that's a Warrior, a Fighter or a Barbarian, not a Monk. And yet he fights unarmed. So...yeah, dissociating unarmed fighting from Monk and then making Monk make sense (that is, remove its schizophrenic abilities and make it a manifesting class) would be one of the best things you could do.

[mabriss lethe]

so strip out the crap and gestalt monk with adept?

[Eldariel]

so strip out the crap and gestalt monk with adept?

Psychic Warrior would be my preference. Adept doesn't really get all the Monky spells; they more heal and shoot lightning than fly and walk through walls. You'd need a Monk Spell List if making it based off Vancian casting instead. Would be easy enough to make though.

[Greenish]

As you all know (shockingly, considering its obscure source), any psionic class can take feats to gain all relevant Monk featuresHey, it's not that obscure, it's one one of the better Eberron books.

Anyhow, I'm not sure about making the style consist of just feats. Melee traditionally gets it's options from feats, yes, but it doesn't have to be that way. A short PrC or two for, say, Brawler or Martial Artist would work better. Melee has so many feats it wants, already, but is much poorer when it comes to PrCs.

Fist of the Forest is a good example, or would be without the way too specific and invasive fluff and the long list of entry requirement feats.

[Hida Reju]

I prefer Cha. "I'm too sexy for your attack."

On a funny note Spycraft 2.0 which is a modified D20 game reduced all martial arts to feats the big one being named simply Martial Arts. It allowed you to pick your primary stat for basing your unarmed hit and damage modifier as well as swap Dex for AC with that modifier.

So you could have a Wis, Con, Cha or Int Martial artist that dumped Dex or Strength and did not gimp their to hit and damage rolls. Much of it could be converted to D&D easy.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Honestly, I have no problem with monk as a class that does unarmed strikes. Not everyone learns to wield a sword and smack face with it: some guys just brawl like mad men!

I do not, however, like its very specific eastern-orientated fluff, however. It should have been blander than that. Oh well, we got USSes now!:smallbiggrin:

[stainboy]

Psychic Warrior would be my preference. Adept doesn't really get all the Monky spells; they more heal and shoot lightning than fly and walk through walls. You'd need a Monk Spell List if making it based off Vancian casting instead. Would be easy enough to make though.

You could do monk spells with an unarmed arcane swordsage. If, you know, your DM is gullible. "Broken? Pssh. That Adaptation paragraph wouldn't be there if it hadn't been extensively playtested."

[Thrice Dead Cat]

You could do monk spells with an unarmed arcane swordsage. If, you know, your DM is gullible. "Broken? Pssh. That Adaptation paragraph wouldn't be there if it hadn't been extensively playtested."

Yeah, but that could get Tome of Battle banned! And that's the last thing you would want!:smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

You could do monk spells with an unarmed arcane swordsage. If, you know, your DM is gullible. "Broken? Pssh. That Adaptation paragraph wouldn't be there if it hadn't been extensively playtested."

The DM better be real gullible for that since it's obvious to a dead rat that none of the official material has been tested, let alone Adaptations. :smallwink:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

The DM better be real gullible for that since it's obvious to a dead rat that none of the official material has been tested, let alone Adaptations. :smallwink:

See, I honestly think they did playtest at least some of the stuff. They just did it in the style of healbot clerics, blaster wizards, and the rest of the typical 4 man team, rather than CoDzilla, God wizards, spiked chain shock trooper fighters, and sneak attack EVERTHING rogues.

[Eldariel]

See, I honestly think they did playtest at least some of the stuff. They just did it in the style of healbot clerics, blaster wizards, and the rest of the typical 4 man team, rather than CoDzilla, God wizards, spiked chain shock trooper fighters, and sneak attack EVERTHING rogues.

They playtested a small part of their material, went like "Yeah, the rest is obviously fine!" and released it (including all the heavily-improved-from-AD&D 2e stuff like Gates, Planar Bindings, Shapechanges, Polymorphs and company that nobody simply bothered to cast, I guess; stuff that had been "balanced" for certain definitions of balanced and had been heavily improved upon in addition to the general improvements to mages and nerfs to warriors [IT'S FINE!]).

And then they had a bunch of Faerun-books someone was paid to get drunk on to write and few strokes of genius in the Completes (Full casting PrC that's effectively able to stop anything as an immediate action? BRILLIANT! Ability to make any spell free of any components and immune to dispels, countermagic and detection? YES! YES! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs) - seriously, I wouldn't be surprised if their development team was Dictator).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Certainly they did a poor job of playtesting, but at least considering that the swiftblade got a revamp with the help of char-op, they at least realized later on in the run of 3.5 that they were far from the best balancers. Do caster have more nice things than non-casters? Yes, that's just due to the nature of spells. Do I think they at least tried to balance most things in published books? Again yes. Did they do a terrible job at it? Sadly, yeah, that too.

[Eldariel]

Certainly they did a poor job of playtesting, but at least considering that the swiftblade got a revamp with the help of char-op, they at least realized later on in the run of 3.5 that they were far from the best balancers. Do caster have more nice things than non-casters? Yes, that's just due to the nature of spells. Do I think they at least tried to balance most things in published books? Again yes. Did they do a terrible job at it? Sadly, yeah, that too.

Well. All I wonder is, they basically did this:
- Take a balanced (for certain definitions of balanced; basically every base archetype has a role that makes them desirable for an adventuring party) system in AD&D 2e.
- Take everything that made Warrior-types special (extra attacks, extra HP from high Con, feats) and give them to everyone else.
- Butcher what you didn't give to everyone else (Weapon Specialization-line)
- Ensure that Fighter has nothing worthwhile to take after level 12 ever when other classes' progression kicks into high gear.
- Redesign combat step so that it's impossible to threaten anyone without a reach weapon that threatens adjacent squares also, and so that you can simply enough walk past a person standing in front of you.
- Take the classes with the best saves (Warriors) and give them the worst save progression for everything but Fortitude-saves.
- Take experience tables and toss them to the wind without touching the pace at which classes gain abilities.
- Take magic and remove every drawback casting a spell could possibly have, give spellcasters more slots, make preparing spells faster, make save-system such that basically all creatures have under 50% chance of making a save against a spell targeting their weak save (and indeed, so that saves scale), and make most spells simply numerically stronger while at it. And make spells harder to disrupt, giving casters the ability to cast spells with someone right next to them without any disruption if they make a low Concentration-check (and even if they're hit, entitle them to a Concentration-check too).
- Make divine casters get 9th level spells and gain new levels at the same pace as arcanists and share some of the better arcane spells with divinists while at it.
- Multiply the HP of every single creature by a random, large number without adjusting the damage things are expected to deal at all.

They did all that. Then they expect the outcome to be the same as the starting point with regards to usefulness of each archetype. It just...boggles my mind. I don't comprehend the logic behind all that. They knew every single change they made. They knew, every single one of those bones Warriors or helps Casters or both (Skill Types remained about the same even though their leveling was hurt the most). And they went "Let's test it". Then they went "Yeah, trying to play exactly as in the previous edition using solely the material we did not touch without testing any of these changes we made assuming monsters act as if the old rules were in place works fine; I guess all those restrictions were unnecessary after all!"

I just...don't understand. How is that possible? Did they not understand how "testing" functions? What kind of "testing" does not test the whole material? I'm betting they didn't question many of their preconceptions and try if they still hold; I'm betting they assumed their preconceptions still hold with no grounds other than faith. *sigh*

[Thrice Dead Cat]

My guess is that they were simply to set in their ways: magic users blasted things to kingdom come, divine caster healed, thieves, well, did theft and sneaky, underhanded attacks, and fighters fought, protecting the mage.

I'm not saying they did a good job at playtesting, but I only know 3.X: Outside of the first level of Planescape, and the most basic portions of 4.0, I don't know any other edition. So, I believe you when you say they did a piss-poor job of playtesting the basics, but I would like to at least think that they did playtest most of everything. The only thing I have to support this, is the all too common case of sample NPCs not meeting the pre-reqs for various prestige classes.

[Feytalist]

<rant>

And now I really, really miss AD&D 2nd Ed.

[Mindfreak]

I don't know about 3.5e, but in 4e Monk can kick some serious butt. The 4e Monk has a 3rd level encounter power called 'Open the Gates of Battle', what it does it that if the target is at full health, it removes half of the target's health(if I am remembering it right). Though my monk died easly(But I blame my DM for that, he is straight from the pits of hell itself)

[Frozen_Feet]

To answer the title question:

No.

Of the core classes, Paladin and Ranger should've always been PrCs. Barbarian and the unarmed-combatant aspect of the Monk should've both been integrated into Fighter's feat system from the start. The mystical kung-fu aspect of the Monk should've likewise been a PrC.

As far as Soul Knife goes, the whole concept is just a different flavor of Psychic Warrior, so it should've been an ACF, Feat or powerset for them from the start.

Interestingly enough, Tome of Battle pretty much fixes the issue. Instead of one base class that's broad to the lack of focus (Fighter) and several which are too narrow (Monk, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin), it created three distinct baseclasses (No-nonsense warrior of guile and brawn in Warblade, charismatic kniightly defender of faith in Crusader, and wise, agile fighter in Swordsage), with enough variance in their maneuvers to implement a large amount of narrower character archetypes.

[FMArthur]

I'd rather stick to a class that's already been gutted and robbed of its good stuff by other classes, though. It's less of a system overhaul that way and an easier houserule to get groups to swallow.

The consensus (well, majority) seems to be that unarmed fighting is something that should have been an option for any class, possibly as an ACF and not a feat. The one problem I have with making it so is the existence of the Necklace of Natural Weapons from Savage Species, which eliminates the drawback of using unarmed strikes over regular weapons - weapon special properties being expensive or impossible to get. With it as an ACF it's basically a regular weapon that has bigger damage, is always ready and cannot be removed.

What would be better, making it cost a feat or making it free and disallowing the Necklace of Natural Weapons? I still think it should cost one extra feat for those who don't get martial weapon proficiency, them being mostly non-warriors and, well, Druids.

The AC bonus is an easy swap for classes that have armor proficiency. It's obviously going to be weak, so the idea on the restriction is pretty much only to keep it out of easy Wizard access. Druids are sort of a concern though, since they have nothing but gain out of it. What can be done about that?

[Cog]

...considering that the swiftblade got a revamp with the help of char-op...
I hadn't heard about that before. What did it look like originally?

[Eldariel]

I hadn't heard about that before. What did it look like originally?

In short: Bad. Don't think the original version is anywhere to be seen but it was basically worthless. With some help from Char Ops it was made into the much loved Gish-class it is today.

[Greenish]

I hadn't heard about that before. What did it look like originally?The revamped version was discussed here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41342). From the OP:
The original was posted on the wotc website and someone linked to it on the CO boards, it got badmouthed and eviscerated due to how it loss too many caster levels, is medium bab, and you didn't gain much besides a free quicken spell for your loss of 4 caster levels. The original creator of the class saw the thread and asked how CO would redo it. There were several redone builds by alot of people, and the original creator took what he liked from it, redid his prc, and sent it to WOTC and posted the new version on the website.

[Veyr]

Re: Swiftblade — That is awesome.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Re: Swiftblade


Re: Swiftblade


Re: Swiftblade — That is awesome.

Basically, yeah. Whether or not the guy actually playtested the old or the new Swiftblade, it was enough to warrant a change for the better. Is the new Swiftblade gamebreakingly powerful? Arguably, but it takes it till 15th or 16th level to reach that point, depending on who you ask, and it is certainly much, much better than what it once was before hand to reach that point.

That's the entire point that I was trying to make: while the original designers may have done a poor job of designing and making 3.5 as we know it with all its quirks and "ZOMG CASTERS ARE BORKED!" It has a lot of cute little tricks to it. And while a Swiftblade is damned strong with its breaking of the action economy, at, arguably, the absolute earliest 10th level, it still loses three caster levels in the process, forcing the character to be solidly in "GISH" category, rather, than, say "FULL CASTER" category, limiting it in some regards.

[Greenish]

And while a Swiftblade is damned strong with its breaking of the action economy, at, arguably, the absolute earliest 10th level, it still loses three caster levels in the process, forcing the character to be solidly in "GISH" category, rather, than, say "FULL CASTER" category, limiting it in some regards.Dragonwrought Spellhoarding Loredrake Great Wyrm Desert Kobold with Greater Draconic Rites. :smalltongue:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Dragonwrought Spellhoarding Loredrake Great Wyrm Desert Kobold with Greater Draconic Rites. :smalltongue:

HUSH, you!:smallyuk: EDIT: I was trying to prove a point, dang it all!

[Vulaas]

Whenever someone brings up a Spellhoarding Loredrake Kobold it makes me want to say "Yeah, but Pun-Pun." I mean, yes, it's a broken trick, but hey, if your DM is letting that level of crap fly then you can probably get him to agree with whatever you say.

[Greenish]

Whenever someone brings up a Spellhoarding Loredrake Kobold it makes me want to say "Yeah, but Pun-Pun." I mean, yes, it's a broken trick, but hey, if your DM is letting that level of crap fly then you can probably get him to agree with whatever you say.It was a bloody joke. :smallsigh:

Besides, there's a sliding scale of optimization, and there probably are games where spellhoarding loredrake is kosher, but Pun-Pun is banned without a thought. You can't just arrogantly claim that everything above the level of optimization you're comfortable with is akin to playing Pun-Pun, or that a DM who allows tricks you feel iffy is a door mat who can't say no to anything.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

HUSH, you!:smallyuk: EDIT: I was trying to prove a point, dang it all!


Whenever someone brings up a Spellhoarding Loredrake Kobold it makes me want to say "Yeah, but Pun-Pun." I mean, yes, it's a broken trick, but hey, if your DM is letting that level of crap fly then you can probably get him to agree with whatever you say.


Dragonwrought Spellhoarding Loredrake Great Wyrm Desert Kobold with Greater Draconic Rites. :smalltongue:

See, I am the type of DM who would allow a Dragonwrought Loredrake Kobold with Greater Draconic Rite, I'm less likely to allow Spellhoarding, because, well, it is a bit on the strong side of things. So, yeah. I may have been using it to prove a point to get into Swiftblade early, nothing more!:smallsigh:

[Veyr]

I could see allowing Loredrake/Greater Draconic Rite of Passage if the player in question was taking a bunch of weak PrCs/poor multiclass choices that didn't advance spellcasting. I'd probably apply a Practiced Spellcaster-like limit on them, though.

Although, really, I'd probably just say "No, how about we just fix those PrCs"...

[Grendus]

I'd rather stick to a class that's already been gutted and robbed of its good stuff by other classes, though. It's less of a system overhaul that way and an easier houserule to get groups to swallow.

The consensus (well, majority) seems to be that unarmed fighting is something that should have been an option for any class, possibly as an ACF and not a feat. The one problem I have with making it so is the existence of the Necklace of Natural Weapons from Savage Species, which eliminates the drawback of using unarmed strikes over regular weapons - weapon special properties being expensive or impossible to get. With it as an ACF it's basically a regular weapon that has bigger damage, is always ready and cannot be removed.

It's one handed, and can only do bludgeoning damage. You can't make your fists out of cold iron, adamantine, or alchemical silver. It falls into the standard problem of death by a thousand cuts builds - DR pwns your face, but worse since most forms of DR can't be overcome even if you're prepared (no carrying an adamantine greatsword, an alchemical silver heavy flail, and a cold iron halberd, then enchanting one to pierce DR magic).


What would be better, making it cost a feat or making it free and disallowing the Necklace of Natural Weapons? I still think it should cost one extra feat for those who don't get martial weapon proficiency, them being mostly non-warriors and, well, Druids.

Have it as an ACF requiring full martial weapon proficiency and have it scale with BAB. It would be powerful, but not so much that it's overpowered. The only classes with full BAB that don't really need buffs are martial adepts.


The AC bonus is an easy swap for classes that have armor proficiency. It's obviously going to be weak, so the idea on the restriction is pretty much only to keep it out of easy Wizard access. Druids are sort of a concern though, since they have nothing but gain out of it. What can be done about that?

Word it so you lose the armor bonus if you change form. "She only gains this armor bonus in her natural form, or any form that could reasonably wear armor." So Enlarged is kosher. Wild shaped into a bear (riding a bear, summoning bears, and dual wielding mauling bear cubs) isn't.

[Tvtyrant]

I could see allowing Loredrake/Greater Draconic Rite of Passage if the player in question was taking a bunch of weak PrCs/poor multiclass choices that didn't advance spellcasting. I'd probably apply a Practiced Spellcaster-like limit on them, though.

Although, really, I'd probably just say "No, how about we just fix those PrCs"...

I would allow it on a normal mystic thuerge.

[Eldariel]

Have it as an ACF requiring full martial weapon proficiency and have it scale with BAB. It would be powerful, but not so much that it's overpowered. The only classes with full BAB that don't really need buffs are martial adepts.

Probably worthwhile to make a clause of "can't gain the Martial Profs out of another class" (I think both, martial profs and unarmed progression are worth ~2 feats for martial types) since normally you're hopping over multiple classes anyways and there wouldn't be much of a tradeoff if you got both, full UA dice and martial profs.

[Darth Stabber]

Soulknife is only half a class. Wizards was really sneaky and printed half of a class in XPH, and the other half in MoI (soulborn), and the rules for combining them in UA (gestalt). If you actually put the two halves back together it is a decent class, not great but workable.

[Veyr]

The Soulknife//Soulborn thing was a clever idea, but it doesn't really solve matters: it's still a bad class. What it comes down to is the fact that neither Soulknife nor Soulborn really has any features worth taking, so a large selection of useless abilities... doesn't really do anything for you.

At higher levels, you can do some interesting things with Soulborn 'melds, but you don't even get those until what, 8th?

[Grendus]

Probably worthwhile to make a clause of "can't gain the Martial Profs out of another class" (I think both, martial profs and unarmed progression are worth ~2 feats for martial types) since normally you're hopping over multiple classes anyways and there wouldn't be much of a tradeoff if you got both, full UA dice and martial profs.

The only problem is, melee likes to dip. Sometimes, they dip in to classes that don't have full martial proficiency, or PrC's that "gain no additional weapon or armor proficiencies". Scaling it off BAB means (assuming it's scaled right) that it's a flavor choice for full BAB classes, a win-lose choice for gishes, and not a choice for pure spellcasters.

You could say that "any class that grants full martial weapon proficiency or grants full BAB", but that still seems messy to me. I'd rather just scale it off BAB and accept that full and half gish classes might gain a little extra from the ACF. Full melee will still gain more, and dipping will have to accept the lost damage dice.

[Greenish]

The only problem is, melee likes to dip. Sometimes, they dip in to classes that don't have full martial proficiency, or PrC's that "gain no additional weapon or armor proficiencies". Scaling it off BAB means (assuming it's scaled right) that it's a flavor choice for full BAB classes, a win-lose choice for gishes, and not a choice for pure spellcasters.He's not suggesting scaling it off the levels of classes that grant said proficiencies, he's suggesting that it's to have a clause that says you won't gain those proficiencies back by dipping into another class that has them.

The Dragon Husk and Hit and Run Tactics Fighter already have such clauses, I believe, so there's precedent.