I'm in need of a monk fix. [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

HunterOfJello

2011-08-12, 10:57 PM

1. Unarmed Swordsage
2. Play a monk 1/Psychic Warrior X with the talashatora feat.
3. Identify what aspects about a monk that the player likes and find a different class that has those.
4. Allow the option for a PC to replace the class feature of "Martial Weapon Proficiency" with the Monk's unarmed strike progression and Flurry of Blows.
5. Armed Swordsage
6. Explain to the player that monks just aren't built properly and that he/she really does need to find a different class.
7. Find a different player.
8. Eat some macaroni and cheese.
9. Remove all weapons and spells from the game.
10. Remove all weapons, spells, and psionics from the game as everyone plays a psionic class and are still outdoing the monk.
11. Allow only extraordinary abilities in the game outside of the monk class. No supernatural, spell-like, psi-like, or other abilities whatsoever.
12. Allow only Ex abilities and ban ToB as the Warblades and Swordsages are still severely outdoing the monk unarmed and with only Ex abilities.
13. Allow only the monk class for all players ever.

SamBurke

2011-08-12, 11:03 PM

"If you don't have your Jiriku's fix, sir, you don't have anything."
-Count Rugen (Slightly Altered for applicability)

Jiriku's Monk Fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122)

Greenish

2011-08-12, 11:09 PM

13. Allow only the monk class for all players ever.Now this might be an interesting campaign. Of course, encounters would have to be adjusted, but it might work.

NNescio

2011-08-12, 11:20 PM

Now this might be an interesting campaign. Of course, encounters would have to be adjusted, but it might work.

Alternatively, try a Rincewind campaign.

Drachasor

2011-08-12, 11:23 PM

Now this might be an interesting campaign. Of course, encounters would have to be adjusted, but it might work.

All unarmed swordsages would be more interesting I think, just because there are a lot more ways to go. Each character could have a much more distinctive feel from level 1.

HunterOfJello

2011-08-12, 11:25 PM

Alternatively, try a Rincewind campaign.

All Rincewind campaigns are awesome and kind of like All Gandalf Campaigns. In the first, everyone is a wizard, but can't cast any spells. In the second, everyone is a level 30 wizard, but aren't allowed cast any spells except against CR 20+ evil outsiders.

All unarmed swordsages would be more interesting I think, just because there are a lot more ways to go. Each character could have a much more distinctive feel from level 1.

You watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a child, didn't you?

King Atticus

2011-08-12, 11:26 PM

"If you don't have your Jiriku's fix, sir, you don't have anything."
-Count Rugen (Slightly Altered for applicability)

Jiriku's Monk Fix. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122)

+1

I've always liked Monks despite their ineffectuality so when I found this fix I loved it straight away. I showed it to my DM who was willing to work with me on it, all though he wants to nerf the skill bounes equal to speed bonus, which I urge you not to do. Those kind of bonuses seem crazy until you see what the bonuses are to and realize that they are basically flavorful skills (Balance, Jump, and Tumble ). It gives the Monk the ability to do all the kung-fu movie monk stuff...walk on water, flip around in combat and jump to the rooftops. Nothing that's going to break your game but lets the player feel really cool. I haven't had a chance to put this fix into action yet but plan on it at my first opportunity.

Zale

2011-08-12, 11:27 PM

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199227)is monk-like. Soulknife/monk fusion. :smallbiggrin:

Drachasor

2011-08-12, 11:31 PM

You watched Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a child, didn't you?

The old ones, yarp. Seriously though, variety is better than everyone looking pretty much the same. The only trouble is getting pizza.

Drachasor

2011-08-12, 11:34 PM

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199227)is monk-like. Soulknife/monk fusion. :smallbiggrin:

Neat class.

Haldir

2011-08-12, 11:37 PM

Really, Belkar hit the nail on the head when he described the monk in "Origin of the PCs"

Monk: Hey! I can fight. I can make four attacks per round!

Belkar: Yeah, and you have the same Base Attack progression as a tree sloth, so are any of them going to actually HIT?

The Monk is a melee class based entirely on skill and discipline, unless that skill and discipline requires you to make accurate attacks.....

Drachasor

2011-08-12, 11:39 PM

The Monk is a melee class based entirely on skill and discipline, unless that skill and discipline requires you to make accurate attacks.....

It is a poor warrior who must hit to fell his foe.

Dusk Eclipse

2011-08-12, 11:50 PM

There is a reason why flurry of blows is nick-named flurry of misses....

Haldir

2011-08-12, 11:50 PM

Effective is the warrior who can actually do damage to an enemy.

ericgrau

2011-08-12, 11:52 PM

What level is the player? Stats?

big teej

2011-08-12, 11:58 PM

don't get hung up on the player, I'm not looking to fix him, or his character,

I'm looking for homebrew monk fixes to use instead of the monk-as-written entirely.

such as the two posted above, which I'm looking at right now.

EDIT:

just read Jirikus monk fix....

it's... wonderful.
it's amazing.
it's perfect!

whoever suggested that gets a cookie!

SamBurke

2011-08-13, 12:14 AM

Awesome! What kind of cookie?

Godskook

2011-08-13, 12:16 AM

Honestly, you don't need homebrew, unless you get excessively caught up on the mechanics/fluff issues. There's quite a few ways to build monk-ish characters without relying heavily on monk levels to do it. The easiest 4 to mention are Swordsage, Enlightened Fist, Sacred Fist and Tashalatora, but depending on how much or how little is 'required' to be monk-ish, you can get away with quite a lot of other stuff too.

turkishproverb

2011-08-13, 12:30 AM

so....

a player tried out a monk 2 sessions ago.

and it was horrible.

yes, even at BIG TEEJ'S optimization level (which is effectively zero)

the monk STILL fails to contribute!

so ....

what fix do you use in your group?

I wrote This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93103) years ago. Not my best work, but a monk rebuild that is still decidedly a 3.5 style monk.

Mind you, my group hasn't played 3.5 in a while, so fixing is less an issue and more a theoretical exercise

big teej

2011-08-13, 12:30 AM

Awesome! What kind of cookie?

hmmmm..... freshly baked chocolatte chip.
the good kind, where the chocolatte chips are still mostly molten cocoa, and the cookie falls apart as soon as you pick it up. :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, you don't need homebrew, unless you get excessively caught up on the mechanics/fluff issues. There's quite a few ways to build monk-ish characters without relying heavily on monk levels to do it. The easiest 4 to mention are Swordsage, Enlightened Fist, Sacred Fist and Tashalatora, but depending on how much or how little is 'required' to be monk-ish, you can get away with quite a lot of other stuff too.

I dunno about "excessively" caught up.....

but my groups do take classes as in-game constructs.

so an unarmed sword-sage is just that, a sword-sage.
a fighter is a fighter
a cleric is a cleric
and a monk is a monk.

so actually a fix of somesort was required.

King Atticus

2011-08-13, 12:38 AM

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=199227)is monk-like. Soulknife/monk fusion. :smallbiggrin:

Nice, I'd play that all the way through.

Godskook

2011-08-13, 01:23 AM

I dunno about "excessively" caught up.....

but my groups do take classes as in-game constructs.

so an unarmed sword-sage is just that, a sword-sage.
a fighter is a fighter
a cleric is a cleric
and a monk is a monk.

so actually a fix of somesort was required.

Without metagaming, how is it that you differentiate an Unarmed Swordsage from a Monk, exactly?

-Both have psuedo-magic abilities that allow them to perform things that would otherwise be left to caster-types.
-Both hit things with their fists, really hard
-Both can teleport
-Both want good dex, con and wis, and are also happy with Str and Int

Is it cause only one of them names their moves, cause if that's the case, the lack of 'named moves' on the swordsage is something we can fix pretty easily(For reference, there's Stunning Blow, Flurry of Blows, Quivering Palm and Ki Strike, not to mention the non-attack abilities with fairly martial names).

I ask mostly cause I'm curious(that last paragraph was a bit snarky though).

Ravens_cry

2011-08-13, 01:27 AM

In-Universe? Monks are the McDojo, Swordsages are Dragonball Z?

SamBurke

2011-08-13, 01:28 AM

hmmmm..... freshly baked chocolatte chip.
the good kind, where the chocolatte chips are still mostly molten cocoa, and the cookie falls apart as soon as you pick it up. :smallbiggrin:

Hm... you're making me extremely hungry.

I dunno about "excessively" caught up.....

but my groups do take classes as in-game constructs.

so an unarmed sword-sage is just that, a sword-sage.
a fighter is a fighter
a cleric is a cleric
and a monk is a monk.

so actually a fix of somesort was required.

So they take things literally, then?

Skaven

2011-08-13, 05:49 AM

My monk house rules:

Monks:
Can use their unarmed damage dice on monk-type weapons.
No penalty for multiclassing.
Gain an attack bonus on their attacks equal to 1/4 their class level
Can use their dexterity bonus for to-hit and damage (Alleviates M.A.D)

Not perfect but nice and simple.

Mostly my players use the following class instead.

http://home.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm

Cespenar

2011-08-13, 07:25 AM

I wonder what would happen if monks would get the benefits of VoP without the restrictions.

In short, Monk + VoP + WBL.

Greenish

2011-08-13, 07:35 AM

Alternatively, try a Rincewind campaign.You can do that with monks, just give them speak language as a class skill and one spell known. They've got the running part down already.

All unarmed swordsages would be more interesting I think, just because there are a lot more ways to go. Each character could have a much more distinctive feel from level 1.Maybe a bit, but you can customize a monk quite a bit, especially if you don't have to worry about effectiveness (since everyone else will also be a monk).

Have a grapple monk, sword monk, skirmish monk, stunning monk, tripping monk etc.

molten_dragon

2011-08-13, 08:00 AM

As has already been posted, the quickest easiest fix is just to have him play an unarmed swordsage. All of the flavor, none of the suck.

big teej

2011-08-13, 08:55 AM

Hm... you're making me extremely hungry.

yes, cower in fear at my descriptive abilities! mwuahahahah!

So they take things literally, then?

quite. but it's also a personal preference of my own. and given that I'm the DM...

As has already been posted, the quickest easiest fix is just to have him play an unarmed swordsage. All of the flavor, none of the suck.

even if I were un-opposed to the idea, we don't have TOB

turkishproverb

2011-08-13, 11:55 AM

I posted an example fix above, but here goes for a short-list of fixes.
1.More Skill Points.
2. More Class Skills
3. Let them add Wisdom Bonus to Attacks after a few levels.
4. Bump Damage Slightly
5. Start them with the +10 movement, and add the rest accordingly.
6: Give Them (or let them take a feat to) Pounce before flurry of blows.
7. Increase Hit-die slightly.
8. Increase damage Die overall through progression.

Morbis Meh

2011-08-13, 12:11 PM

This might be a little self serving, but recently I did a monk fix and I believe it is quite good, all of my friends really want to play as this class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208735)

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-13, 12:20 PM

Without metagaming, how is it that you differentiate an Unarmed Swordsage from a Monk, exactly?

A Gather Information or Knowledge (history) with a check result of at least 10.

*sigh*

I'm getting really sick of having to point this out. Does anyone actually read the Lore section of ToM or ToB classes besides me?

I cannot speak for all classes, but the Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade are quite clearly spelled out as concepts that exist in the game universe as well as existing as metagame constructs.

EDIT
Add Incarnates, Soulborn, and Totemists from Magic of Incarnum to that list.

Greenish

2011-08-13, 12:34 PM

A Gather Information or Knowledge (history) with a check result of at least 10.You can't make a Knowledge check to determine what class someone belongs to.

If you knew he was a swordsage, you could make the check to know what they are.

AMFV

2011-08-13, 12:37 PM

A Gather Information or Knowledge (history) with a check result of at least 10.

*sigh*

I'm getting really sick of having to point this out. Does anyone actually read the Lore section of ToM or ToB classes besides me?

I cannot speak for all classes, but the Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade are quite clearly spelled out as concepts that exist in the game universe as well as existing as metagame constructs.

EDIT
Add Incarnates, Soulborn, and Totemists from Magic of Incarnum to that list.

Nope, or at least in my case have read it and dismissed it. Basically the ToB fluff is only to prevent them from being generic fighters (IMHO), and therefore WOTC doesn't have to admit it screwed up melee classes and rerelease them. Also ToB fluff is pretty horrendous from a conceptual and writing standpoint, at least in my opinion. As a result I ignore it, I suspect many others do to for the same reasons.
ToM has some really good fluff but has the reverse issue in having such screwy mechanics. Binder is pretty awesome, both fluff-wise and mechanics wise though.
To the OP: Fixing classes is kind of a stopgap, basically you're best bet (IMHO) is to find something that character would like to do and make it his schtick, as a monk he could work for a secret organization, or have to infiltrate etc. Basically that would give him his feeling of special usefulness, and if you're careful not take too much from the other players. If the player refuses to readjust his niche from ''a fighter that sucks'''then there isn't anything you can really do to help him out.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-13, 12:53 PM

You can't make a Knowledge check to determine what class someone belongs to.

If you knew he was a swordsage, you could make the check to know what they are.

Either way, that still shows them as being in-game constructs. The question wasn't "at a glance, how do you tell the difference?"

The question was, "in the game universe, is there a difference?"

The answer is yes. Yes, there is.

Nope, or at least in my case have read it and dismissed it. Basically the ToB fluff is only to prevent them from being generic fighters (IMHO), and therefore WOTC doesn't have to admit it screwed up melee classes and rerelease them. Also ToB fluff is pretty horrendous from a conceptual and writing standpoint, at least in my opinion. As a result I ignore it, I suspect many others do to for the same reasons.

This is one of those cases where fluff and crunch intersect: there is an actual rule as to how to determine the fluff.

Going strictly by what's written on paper, the Swordsage does seem to exist in the game universe, alongside the other eight classes I mentioned.

AMFV

2011-08-13, 01:02 PM

This is one of those cases where fluff and crunch intersect: there is an actual rule as to how to determine the fluff.

Going strictly by what's written on paper, the Swordsage does seem to exist in the game universe, alongside the other eight classes I mentioned.

I'm fair sure that fluff doesn't count as rules in any case that the DM or setting doesn't feel they do. There is little preventing a character from having those type of abilities sans the fluff, and none of the rules are dependent on the fluff. Again in my opinion, the fluff sucks, so I ignore it. I have DMed more than one game with ToB classes, and played in another, ignoring the fluff had ZERO effect on actual gameplay or the playabilility of the classes in question. Therefore I would posit that ignoring the fluff is not a question of RAW but a question of preference.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-13, 01:23 PM

HappyBlanket

2011-08-13, 01:26 PM

I don't doubt that. I'm just saying, the book says, "Make these checks to learn this information."

There's rules provided.

So, Swordsages exist in-game, according to Wizards of the Coast. You're free to change that for your campaigns, but in a general discussion...not so much.

In these forums, general discussion assumes fluff and mechanics segregation. The little blurb about that one single skill isn't as important as you think.

Rogue Shadows

2011-08-13, 01:42 PM

In these forums, general discussion assumes fluff and mechanics segregation. The little blurb about that one single skill isn't as important as you think.

Well, where's the divisor here, then? The Lore section exists and provides a mechanical way to learn information about the class, but all information learned is fluff.

I guess the most reasonable thing to do in this situation, assuming a fluff and crunch segregation, is that you can make the skill checks at the given DCs, but all information provided depends on the campaign and the GM.

It's either that or ignore the rules-as-written, but ignoring RAW rarely gets one far on these or any forums, insofar as general discussion is concerned at any rate.

Either way that still means that there's a mechanical way to learn about swordsages, and keeps them in-universe distinct from monks, as there is no mechanical way to perform a like action with monks provided by RAW.

big teej

2011-08-13, 01:45 PM

I'm fair sure that fluff doesn't count as rules in any case that the DM or setting doesn't feel they do. There is little preventing a character from having those type of abilities sans the fluff, and none of the rules are dependent on the fluff. Again in my opinion, the fluff sucks, so I ignore it. I have DMed more than one game with ToB classes, and played in another, ignoring the fluff had ZERO effect on actual gameplay or the playabilility of the classes in question. Therefore I would posit that ignoring the fluff is not a question of RAW but a question of preference.

In these forums, general discussion assumes fluff and mechanics segregation. The little blurb about that one single skill isn't as important as you think.

except I stated clearly, (and do so in every thread I start where it is relevant)

that I am talking about my game. and in my game classes are in game constructs.

so, for example, when I start a thread saying "I need a monk fix"
and someone (inevitably) points out "unarmed sword-sage is better"
I, realizing my error, point out that this doesn't work for me because
A) classes are in game constructs for me.
B) even were this not the case, I don't have TOB

so once I've stated we're talking aboutmy specific game and I have stated that classes are in game constructs

the ability to ignore fluff you don't like goes flying out the window.
because we're talking about my game.

AMFV

2011-08-13, 01:45 PM

Well, where's the divisor here, then? The Lore section exists and provides a mechanical way to learn information about the class, but all information learned is fluff.

I guess the most reasonable thing to do in this situation, assuming a fluff and crunch segregation, is that you can make the skill checks at the given DCs, but all information provided depends on the campaign and the GM.

It's either that or ignore the rules-as-written, but ignoring RAW rarely gets one far on these or any forums, insofar as general discussion is concerned at any rate.

Either way that still means that there's a mechanical way to learn about swordsages.
There's also generally a knowledge role for most monsters (and organizations) listed. Being able to find out about swordsages in this case might not give you information about a specific class (as those don't exist) but would describe how warriors used a particular style of fighting. As far as mundane fighters are concerned the difference is really one of style rather than of any difference between classes.

sonofzeal

2011-08-13, 02:00 PM

I wonder what would happen if monks would get the benefits of VoP without the restrictions.

In short, Monk + VoP + WBL.
Monk + VoP already breaks traditional AC limits at low levels, and only really becomes useless at higher levels. That's why it's a trap - it's seductive at first, but detrimental in the long run. Adding magic items on top of that would get ridiculous.

I could, however, see allowing them to use NON-WORN magic items, such as flying carpets or potions or any of the vast array of magical tools in MiC. That could be a fun fix.

Metahuman1

2011-08-13, 02:42 PM

+1 to Jiriku's Monk fix.

big teej

2011-08-13, 02:53 PM

+1 to Jiriku's Monk fix.

indeed, that's the one I plan on using from now on.

Snails

2011-08-13, 04:41 PM

One of my DMs changed the Monk to have full BAB while using Monk weapons. With a good Str, the Flurry becomes more than respectable -- at level 12, +12/+12/+12/+7/+2 plus Str.

And she is fearsome in a grapple, relative to most PCs.

It does not get actual full BAB, or that would make a 1 or 2 level dip too attractive.

Draz74

2011-08-13, 04:54 PM

Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11041902&postcount=2) is my Monk fix, pretty similar to Jiriku's but a little less intrusive on the Rogue's role (only 6+INT skill points, no trapfinding).

Telonius

2011-08-13, 11:41 PM

My monk fix:

Nerf Tier 1's, fix/ban egregious spells and items, etc.
Full BAB.
Explicit proficiency in unarmed strike, proficiency in gauntlet.
Can enchant his own unarmed strike and defensive capabilities by spending time/gold/xp as though he had Craft Magic Arms and Armor.
No alignment requirement.

Circle of Life

2011-08-13, 11:47 PM

While you seem to be happy with the fix you've found, Morph Bark ran a playtest (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10866534&postcount=54) of three monk fixes a while back. You may find something that better suits your taste (or not; I confess to not being familiar with jiriku's monk fix) in here. I only point this out because you say that you have effectively zero optimization, and that monk fix was deemed strong in a moderate optimization game.

In any case, best of luck.

turkishproverb

2011-08-14, 12:25 AM

Telonius

2011-08-14, 09:46 AM

...

Why this last one?

Because I find alignment requirements silly except where classes get spells or powers directly from a deity.

Midnight_v

2011-08-14, 09:52 AM

Forgive my ignorance and maybe I missed the explination, but what does he mean classes are in game constructs? :smallconfused:

Greenish

2011-08-14, 10:35 AM

Forgive my ignorance and maybe I missed the explination, but what does he mean classes are in game constructs? :smallconfused:It means that John the Fighter can look down on his friend Mark the Warrior, secure in the knowledge that he is a PC class.

Circle of Life

2011-08-14, 10:51 AM

Forgive my ignorance and maybe I missed the explination, but what does he mean classes are in game constructs? :smallconfused:

It means that clerics in his world are known as clerics, not as mystics or priests or what-have-you. The same goes for fighters, who are not brawlers or swordmasters or knights-errant or some other such thing.

Edit: Also the above. It can create immersion-shattering events fairly easily, but it's a personal choice I suppose.

big teej

2011-08-14, 12:02 PM

MammonAzrael

2011-08-15, 05:35 PM

Edit: Also the above. It can create immersion-shattering events fairly easily, but it's a personal choice I suppose.

Only for classes that are really lacking in any distinct flavor or style, like fighters and barbarians. Other classes, such as a dragonfire adept or beguiler, make perfect sense as in-game constructs.