Fix Unarmed Combat?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

So I've been mulling over how to fix the Monk class since...forever. Basically since it came out. And this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291334) discussion made me think:

Why not just scrap the class and let everyone spec into unarmed fighting?

After which I thought: Everyone seems to think unarmed fighting sucks.

Which brings me to my current question: Why is unarmed combat terrible, and how do we fix it?

[Lightlawbliss]

irl, unarmed combat is typically weeker and riskier then fighting with a weapon. It has advantages but for most PC builds the advantages are worse then the disadvantages. typically the biggest drawback is how limited the enchantments are.

Also, TOB has a feat that gives you increased damage dice for unarmed attacks.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Greater Mighty Wallop, Races of the Dragon. Combine it with a Lesser Rod of Extend and you're good. Remember that 'unarmed strike' is a single weapon, regardless of what part of your body you use to make an attack.

[Perseus]

Because you/they haven't used 2e's martial arts rules yet?

[Ninjadeadbeard]

Because you/they haven't used 2e's martial arts rules yet?

Oh? Has there been a good port to 3E yet?

[Darth Stabber]

Because you/they haven't used 2e's martial arts rules yet?

Don't remind me of those, the memory burns my brain.

[Curmudgeon]

Why not just scrap the class and let everyone spec into unarmed fighting?
You don't need to scrap the Monk class. Everyone can use unarmed combat already. Biffoniacus_Furiou already pointed to Greater Mighty Wallop, which boosts the effective size of bludgeoning weapons, including unarmed strikes. The other part you need, to crank up your base damage first, is Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle). This has two options, and the one without Monk levels is better. Effectively you'll have the unarmed strike progression of a Small Monk (before you add on those Greater Mighty Wallop effective size bumps) through level 19, and it won't cost you a single class level.

So don't scrap the Monk; just ignore it.

[Ashtagon]

Rather than have fixed dice of damage, I'm wondering if we might go something like this:

Kung Fu: A 1st level monk does 1d6 damage with his unarmed strike, with which he is proficient. He deals bludgeoning damage, which can be lethal or non-lethal (no penalty for either), at his choice.

MMA I: A 4th level monk increases his effective size class by one step with his unarmed strike and with his special monk weapons.

MMA II: A 12th level monk increases his effective size class by two steps with his unarmed strike and with his special monk weapons.

MMA III: A 20th level monk increases his effective size class by three steps with his unarmed strike and with his special monk weapons.

Note: Beyond 4d6 or 4d8 damage, each effective size increase adds another 2d6 or 2d8 (as appropriate) to the weapon's base damage.


I picked those steps to tie the monk damage to the size classes as closely as possible, but monk is weak enough that adding additional MMA steps at 8th and 16th level won't unbalance it. Because this MMA class feature also works for his monk weapons, it keeps those relevant at high levels.

[Jeff the Green]

There's also the problem that unarmed strike is a light weapon. This means no Power Attack, which significantly limits its damage potential. Greater mighty wallop isn't a substitute, since a) it's not inherent to the weapon and b) a wielder of a heavy flail can make use of both GMWp and Power Attack (with the x2 multiplier!).

[Ashtagon]

Extra changes to unarmed combat:

An unarmed strike is explicitly either an arm attack (fist/elbow/shoulder slam), leg attack (kick/knee), or head butt. Pick one when you make the attack.

You can use two coordinated limbs (most usually a two-fist "haymaker") to make an unarmed "two-handed" attack, which does qualify for Power Attack. You can also two-weapon fight by using two limbs (no, you can't three-weapon fight). You can't use two unarmed strikes in the same round you make an attack with any other weapon or natural weapon.

[Jeff the Green]

You can also two-weapon fight by using two limbs (no, you can't three-weapon fight). You can't use two unarmed strikes in the same round you make an attack with any other weapon or natural weapon.

That seems excessively restrictive, honestly. I'd rather just fold Circle Kick into UAS.

[Aotrs Commander]

Um...

You can PA with unarmed strikes. It explicitly says you, as an exception to light weapons.

From SRD Power Attack:

"You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies."



You can also - as I do - allow Improved Natural Attack to be used on unarmed strike. (At 20th 2D10 => 4D8.)

[Jeff the Green]

...I don't play melee characters often, can ya tell?

The problem still stands, though in a lessened form: there's no way to get the x2 multiplier, and one-handed manufactured weapons rarely see play for that reason.

[Curmudgeon]

You can also - as I do - allow Improved Natural Attack to be used on unarmed strike. (At 20th 2D10 => 4D8.)
That's not allowing anything other than what's already supported by the rules.

You can buy that in the form of a Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic) which grants the following feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike)

[Aotrs Commander]

That's not allowing anything other than what's already supported by the rules.

Yes, but it's also something that many DMs don't allow for some reason (at least I've heard it debated often enough.)

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, but it's also something that many DMs don't allow for some reason (at least I've heard it debated often enough.)
I think those are the same DMs who think Rogues only get sneak attack once per round.

[Eldan]

OKay, first of all, Unarmed combat should be less effective than weapons. Otherwise, there's no reason to use weapons, which cost money, you can lose and get sundered and a dozen other things.

Anyway. First suggestion: Improved Unarmed Strike makes unarmed strikes count as one-handed instead of light weapons. Everything else is the monk class' fault.

Maybe let people enchant them.

[Drachasor]

Hmm. I think a start is have a simple, martial, and exotic version of unarmed strike. Everyone gets proficiency with it (no need to take improved unarmed strike -- it's a silly feat tax). Perhaps two-handed versions too -- exotic two-hand is the Power Fist, of course.

After that it is a bit more complicated, imho. Should we handle Unarmed Strikes as Weapons or Natural Weapons? If the former, then just make enchanting unarmed strike damage easy. If the latter, we need enchanting easy and perhaps some damage increases.

[Jeff the Green]

OKay, first of all, Unarmed combat should be less effective than weapons. Otherwise, there's no reason to use weapons, which cost money, you can lose and get sundered and a dozen other things.

The thing is that they're automatically worse by nature of requiring a feat to use without massive penalties.

[Thrudd]

So I've been mulling over how to fix the Monk class since...forever. Basically since it came out. And this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291334) discussion made me think:

Why not just scrap the class and let everyone spec into unarmed fighting?

After which I thought: Everyone seems to think unarmed fighting sucks.

Which brings me to my current question: Why is unarmed combat terrible, and how do we fix it?

What part of unarmed fighting do you want to fix? Everyone already can spec into unarmed fighting. I could see getting rid of the attacks of opportunity associated with the relevant combat maneuvers (grapple, trip, disarm, unarmed strike) to make unarmed fighting easier for everyone without the heavy feat tax. Then you'd need to give monks something different at those levels, or make the feats improve their ability to do those maneuvers. Or allow an attack of opportunity only on a missed attempt at trip, disarm or grapple, and the improved version removes that as well.
Unarmed fighting, in general, should be seen as a bad idea when facing opponents with weapons. I wouldn't want to make it a viable option vs having a weapon and armor, except for special characters like a monk, who uses supernatural training to make their bodies into weapons. Monks don't need to have their unarmed attacks improved with magic, because they already improve naturally over time (the scale of which is pretty much magic), as well as literally counting as magical attacks with ki strike. Other classes shouldn't have access to this (without mutliclassing with monk). Their class progression definitely represents something which requires dedicated and focused study to accomplish.
The rules do represent all the main categories of fighting unarmed: striking, throwing/sweeping (trip) and wrestling/locking (grapple). Since D&D is such an abstract and simplified combat system, adding much more than the current rules for stunning, grappling, tripping, and disarming would probably be overkill. If anything, they could be simplified and abstracted even more to make combat faster. I'm not saying there are no improvements that could be made to the system, but I wouldn't use the words "terrible" or "sucks". Unless you feel the entire D&D combat system as a whole is terrible (which is fine).

[Curmudgeon]

OKay, first of all, Unarmed combat should be less effective than weapons. Otherwise, there's no reason to use weapons ...
I don't buy that line of reasoning. This would mean the very best dagger wielder in the world should always be less effective than the level 1 Warrior with an ordinary greatsword.

Unarmed strikes start worse than most every weapon in the game (shuriken being slightly worse). After that, you can improve them in various ways, the same as you can improve manufactured weapons in various ways. The unarmed combatant is still going to miss out on some major options that require weapons, such as:

Power Attack multiplier for two-handed weapons
Two-Weapon Fighting, which can only be used when you have a second weapon

You're still going to have to shell out the money for magical enhancements in addition to using up most/all of your feats, such as the following:

Level 3 Pear of Power to pay back your spellcaster friend for a daily casting of Greater Mighty Wallop
Metamagic Rod of Extend, Lesser, to make that daily spell last
Necklace of Natural Attacks, to add all your "weapon" enhancements

[Eldan]

Unarmed strike requires a feat just like any other proficiency, yes.

And, well. Other weapons don't improve automatically, you need to invest maneuvers, feats and class features. Same for the unarmed strike.

[Scow2]

I don't buy that line of reasoning. This would mean the very best dagger wielder in the world should always be less effective than the level 1 Warrior with an ordinary greatsword.

Daggers cost as much as a greatsword when you start talking masterwork and enchantments.


Anyway... I think Unarmed Strikes should have more utility purpose. By RAW, all trip and disarm attacks are Unarmed strikes (Unless you're using a tripping/disarming weapon)... why can't they do Unarmed damage, and have IUAS remove the AoO for such maneuvers (Still need the improved version for the +4 bonus and other effects, such as free attacks)

And, something I picked up from the Elder Scrolls (Particularly Daggerfall) is "Unarmed strikes always work." If anything can attack you, you should be able to attack them with an unarmed strike. Ghosts and Wraiths and Shadows should be just as vulnerable to your Corporeal Touch as you are to their Incorporeal Touch (You cannot benefit from gauntlets or spiked gauntlets on such attacks, though)

Unarmed strike requires a feat just like any other proficiency, yes.

And, well. Other weapons don't improve automatically, you need to invest maneuvers, feats and class features. Same for the unarmed strike.Actually, 3.P's Unarmed Strike is handled more like a Maneuver than a Weapon. When it comes to proficient, you're as Proficient with an Unarmed Strike as you are a Disarm or Grapple.

I'd be more of a fan of letting a Monk apply its unarmed strike damage as the Special Monk Weapon damage as well (And if you get a Special Monk Weapon that does a d8 instead of d6, it should be treated as a Monk's unarmed strike of a larger size). That way, Monks are still as dependent on weapons as anyone else, but they're not gimped when they find themselves unarmed.

Something I'm curious about: What keeps a Double-Weapon from counting as a two-handed weapon for purpose of Power Attack when your two-weapon-fighting with it? It would make the Quarterstaff a VERY appealing monk weapon.

[ericgrau]

Which brings me to my current question: Why is unarmed combat terrible, and how do we fix it?
Because your fist is not a 3 foot long razorblade, and the system never even intended for it to be better. Not even on monks. But people keep thinking that it would and dig their own grave.

You could increase the damage so there's basically no difference between that and weapons. But it seems boring and nonsensical to merely clone an existing mechanic without any plausible explanation. I'd pump the fists full of magical ki and do special things rather than rehashing "I full attack again".

[ArqArturo]

The thing is, when we all roll a monk, we all think it's gonna be like this (http://youtu.be/zmDiCaJ4n1s?t=1m57s), but it turns more into this (http://youtu.be/Z1eFdUSnaQM), at least in the games I've been :smallbiggrin:.

[Flickerdart]

Fighting unarmed has a reason to exist - combat maneuvers such as grabs, grapples, disarms, and similar should be much easier to perform with free hands than while you're holding a sword. But conceptually, if you have warriors of similar skill, and one has a weapon, he should be better at killing. If you want to kill unarmed, get teeth and claws.

[Curmudgeon]

And, well. Other weapons don't improve automatically, you need to invest maneuvers, feats and class features. Same for the unarmed strike.
Some things improve automatically once you've paid the entry fee. Many spells that enhance weapons, or that create weapons, improve automatically when your caster level increases. The Soulknife's Mindblade weapon automatically improves as they gain levels. Power Attack improves automatically in capabilities every time your BAB goes up a point. Superior Unarmed Strike improves automatically when you get enough levels.

Unarmed strike isn't given preferential treatment.

[EyethatBinds]

Sometimes the joy of beating a monster to death with your bare hands outweighs the need to make every attack better than a greataxe. Also, decisive strike in PHB2 makes unarmed combat pretty viable as an option. No one particular method of combat is better at every level, so "fixing" unarmed combat would mean a complete reworking of all the rest.

At first level an orc barbarian with a greatclub can one shot almost every CR 1 monster. Mid levels you are best served with a good shield and sword combo as your staying power matters far more than your ability to instantly slay things. And at high levels all melee focused characters are useless since they can't keep toe to toe with the monsters and the spellcasters are doing all the heavy lifting.

Sure there's exceptions to these broad generalizations, but really no choice is better. Unarmed damage sucks compared to a sword because I'd always prefer to be punched than stabbed IRL. I don't care if a martial arts master wants to clean my clock, I'd stand a much lower chance of dying than being stabbed even once by a large knife.

In game, just pick your favored weapon and try to stay on par with the other characters in the group. You don't need to be the best, or if you do you certainly don't need the rules changed in your favor specifically for that purpose.

[ArqArturo]

And that is why Barbarians should always stick with Falchions :p.

[Frog Dragon]

Sometimes the joy of beating a monster to death with your bare hands outweighs the need to make every attack better than a greataxe. Also, decisive strike in PHB2 makes unarmed combat pretty viable as an option. No one particular method of combat is better at every level, so "fixing" unarmed combat would mean a complete reworking of all the rest.

At first level an orc barbarian with a greatclub can one shot almost every CR 1 monster. Mid levels you are best served with a good shield and sword combo as your staying power matters far more than your ability to instantly slay things. And at high levels all melee focused characters are useless since they can't keep toe to toe with the monsters and the spellcasters are doing all the heavy lifting.
You've got this backwards though. At low levels, physical defenses are relevant enough that sword and shield can compete with THF, and the damage difference between the two hasn't gotten that big yet. As you gain levels, the number of foes that can bypass physical defenses like a shield increases, and the defensive advantage of a shield is outstripped by the damage avoided by just killing the critter one round earlier with a greatsword. Animated shields also make wielded shields pretty much obsolete at this point.

[Mato]

How to fix Unarmed Combat?

Step 1.
Do not allow for progressions off the size chart. As hilarious as 8192d8 damage is, it should probably have stopped before the 12d8 mark presented in the rules compendium.

Step 2.
Disallow the crazy stacking. A +5 necklace of natural weapons combined with a +1 collision valorous morphing manyfanged dagger turned into a ward cetus and a +1 soul drinking holy bracers of striking and a +1 mightyfist enhanced to have flaming frost shock by the cave of gems should not allow the unarmed strike be treated as a +5 collision valorous soul rinking flaming frost shock holy weapon that deals four times it's normal damage.

Step 3.
Ban material like snap kick which exclusively grants additional unarmed strikes any time you make an attack, such as attacks of opportunity or trip attempts. Likewise effects like the pillar of greyon that grants a once per round you're unarmed attack is treated as a touch weapon needs to be removed. Also collars of venom and using venomfire's +1d6 acid damage per caster level is off the table. And lastly, never mention the word "Tashalatora".

Step 4.
Never go down the road of what a +1 throwing morphing sizing ghost touch necklace of natural weapons can do for you.

Step 5.
Laugh generously and loud for 1.3 seconds upon seeing anything thread that believes unarmed damage needs to be empowered for being too weak. As the original poster begins to smile thinking he did something right stop laughing immediately and stare at him.
With an unblinking stare.
With a cold unblinking stare.
Maybe he'll get the hint how unhumorous his thread is.

What is it with Giant and Monks anyway?

[TuggyNE]

Laugh generously and loud for 1.3 seconds upon seeing anything thread that believes unarmed damage needs to be empowered for being too weak. As the original poster begins to smile thinking he did something right stop laughing immediately and stare at him.
With an unblinking stare.
With a cold unblinking stare.
Maybe he'll get the hint how unhumorous his thread is.

What is it with Giant and Monks anyway?

The existence of a high optimization ceiling with a great deal of cheese does not preclude the existence of a very low optimization floor, nor negate the observed tendency of most optimization results to be closer to the bottom end than the top. (See also: the ExFighter.)

[Alienist]

The most fundamental problem is that you have to burn feats to learn things like 'how to kick'.

Imagine if Mages had to spend a feat each time they wanted to learn a spell.

If you meet somewhere in the middle (that is, put everyone on the same rate of progression), you get Legend or 4e (et viola! Game balance)

----

Let's assume you don't want to do that, that you go the other way. Now we produce a manoeuvre compendium (to go with the spell compendium). You can learn the manoeuvres by spending a week training with a master (cost 7gp x level of manoeuvre).

So now everyone is burning the same resource (money) to get better. Huzzah!

How do we stop people from just learning the same small set of manoeuvres and constantly spamming them? E.g. trip trip trip trip disarm disarm disarm disarm bullrush for great victory

Actually, even getting people to do three different kinds of attacks in the one combat would be an improvement over the current system, where you blow half a dozen feats to be good at one thing, and hence that's the thing you spam.

How do we get people to do things? By giving them interesting options.

You could take one approach, by imposing limitations. E.g. you cannot trip something with more legs than you. Yes it's arbitrary. Yes people will complain that a giant the size of the death star can't trip a caterpillar. But the current system is equally arbitrary and offers just as many stupid limitations (example: you cannot Spot the sun because it is too far away (etc) (seriously, there are whole threads devoted to that sort of thing))

Another way to impose limitations would be that the second time you try a particular manoeuvre on an particular opponent the chance to connect goes down.

Or you could offer combos, you get a bonus if the manoeuvre you use this round is different from the one you used last round.

Or you could allow certain manoeuvres to counter other manoeuvres. But again here the magic system is instructive. Hardly anyone ever bothers with counterspelling. What are the odds that you have exactly the right spell? OR that you wouldn't just prefer to spend your actions stomping the opponent? Not good.

[Phelix-Mu]

It's not as broken as many people think, once we divorce it from the issue of the Monk class as written. Here's what I'd do, drawing on the concept of Superior Unarmed Strike from ToB.

1.) Give some kind of option for anyone to trade out an existing class of Weapon Proficiencies for Improved Unarmed Strike. This works even with the "conceptual feats" granted by the first level in many classes, which normally can't be traded. This needs a bit of spit-polish, though, because it's very punitive to classes that get limited weapon lists, and can amount to a big loss in versatility if you have to trade Martial Weapon Proficiency (all) for it (a fighter that does this gets IUS for free, but now probably will want to purchase back proficiency with Martial Weapons...and thus would have been better off not trading anything and purchasing IUS as a bonus feat or whatever). The general idea is that just about anyone is talented enough to learn the rudimentary basics of swinging your fist without provoking attacks of opportunity (not a radical jump in power, there, as it makes this combat option change from "Suicidal" to "Probably Not a Good Idea w/out More Training").

Maybe some kind of ACF for an Unarmed Combat version of any class that grants IUS.

I did kind of like the 2e versions of this, since it was quite easy to tack an unarmed combat style onto a character.

2.) Superior Unarmed Strike exists, and has upgrades that function like Practiced Spellcaster. The names would have to be reworked, methinks, but it would be something like
- Improved SUS: +4 more levels to effective monk level of unarmed strike, up to your current HD (would need to develop/extend the given SUS table...which is nice in that it doesn't sync up well with previous progressions *rolls eyes*)...possibly allow a rule that allows a monk to exceed the HD cap, so we can get around this ridiculous co-dependence involving grtr mighty wallop...if base monk uses mystical forces to do stuff, then it should be available in similar form sans spell, IMHO.
- Greater SUS: +4 more levels, capped by HD.
- You get the idea.

So, another feat progression. Yeah, well, welcome to the world of martial classes.:smallwink: I'd consider giving monks automatic IUS, and the SUS feats as bonus feats, either instead of or on top of the existing bonus feats (as the 1st/2nd/6th placement of existing feats wouldn't sync well with the damage increases of these proposed feats). Monk unarmed damage is supposed to be mystically good, yet is roughly comparable to a severely non-optimized weapon choice, so I don't have a problem giving them a considerable boost, even for free. (Many monk fixes just straightforward increase the damage progression, and I'm usually on that sort of bandwagon).

Finally, some language clarifying the stackability of UAS size increases, especially in regards to these new feats.

[Mato]

The existence of a high optimization ceiling with a great deal of cheese does not preclude the existence of a very low optimization floor, nor negate the observed tendency of most optimization results to be closer to the bottom end than the top. (See also: the ExFighter.)Please correct your self on that. Realistically, none of the things I mentioned are cheesy nor do they suggest getting a psion to implant powers or a wizard to polymorph you.

The ad-hoc generally agreed upon definition of cheesy requires you to use something as untended. It could range from intentionally misreading rules, playing loose with actual odds with random effects, branching down open worded statements, to down right cheapen your point by saying your 18th level cohort wizard casts a dozen spells on your pathetic build to make you viable (see your link). An good example of cheesy would be altering the definition of a word to suit your means. Like your post's usage of the word "cheesy" it's self as you attempt to communicate your disagreement to me because you're view of D&D is everyone plays core-only fighters asking where the mountain dew is.

Keep in mind that manifesters that use tashalatora as fully intended combines full manifesting with 2d10 unarmed. Which unless the psion has over 30 in strength then using an unarmed strike would deal more than using a greatsword.

Monks, or anyone else that obtained 2d10 unarmed can use greater mighty wallop as exactly intended and printed to deal 12d8 damage all day. Are you even aware how significant this is? If you put a greatsword in two hands and swung it, then punched a target, even at 160 str the unarmed strike deals more (132 vs 119). It isn't until around 210 strength does the two-handed bonuses finally surpass the size increase.

Items like gauntlets, ward cetus, bracers of striking, necklace of natural weapons, amulet of mighty fists, battlefist, and the scorpion's kama were designed to add their enhancements to unarmed strike. Two of those are found within the core rule set and the additions were intended to cheapen things (amulet is expensive), provide alternatives (bracers), or present unique magical loot to play with (kama). Superior unarmed strike was printed for the sole purpose of increasing unarmed damage, none-monk combatants can instantly access a 2d6 base, which is just one step away from the dedicated specialist (monk).

Even a druid using venomstrike isn't cheesy. While this spell is significantly and absolutely overpowered is it by every means being used correctly and as intended. The collar of venom that allows you to use this with unarmed strikes was even printed in the same book.

A +1 throwing morphing sizing ghost touch necklace of natural weapons does branch out into that area. But no mistake, I said "Never go down the road of what a [sic] can do for you." was the second way to remind you of the unarmed potential of cheesy without condoning it's usage (first being the joke of eight thousand dice).

Unarmed strike costs a feat or two for non-monks. Big deal, so does wild shape (natural spell), incantatrix (iron will), and shadowcraft mage (spell focus) when you think about it. Fact of the matter is the stuff printed for it was intentionally designed to be powerful in order to make up that cost and then some. This makes it powerful or overpowered, not cheesy.

[Drachasor]

This makes it powerful or overpowered, not cheesy.

Actually, there are those that would say deliberating using something overpowered is cheesy. Far more would say that knowingly combining more than one overpowered thing together on purpose is cheesy.

So I don't think we are in agreement on what constitutes Cheese.

[ericgrau]

It is odd to be freely open with chargers and all kinds of abusive tricks but suddenly when it's the monk or related I hear "omg that's cheesy". And then when casual groups are confused why there doesn't seem to be a problem I hear "that may work fine for low OP, but then as you optimize you get so many things that aren't available to the monk."

I think it boils down to a bit of extreme prejudice against the monk. Or anything related to the class, even if achieved by other means.

If you're fine with high OP you need to assume stacking size increments for damage is normal and use that as your baseline for discussion. If you want low OP then you can't worry about all kinds of tricks that may make low OP methods obsolete. You can't take the worst of one and the best of the other.

[Drachasor]

It is odd to be freely open with chargers and all kinds of abusive tricks but suddenly when it's the monk or related I hear "omg that's cheesy". And then when casual groups are confused why there doesn't seem to be a problem I hear "that may work fine for low OP, but then as you optimize you get so many things that aren't available to the monk."

I think it boils down to a bit of extreme prejudice against the monk. Or anything related to the class, even if achieved by other means.

If you're fine with high OP you need to assume stacking size increments for damage is normal and use that as your baseline for discussion. If you want low OP then you can't worry about all kinds of tricks that may make low OP methods obsolete. You can't take the worst of one and the best of the other.

Well, if I was running a game, I'd probably just ban most of the Core classes (definitely the core martial classes) and use other classes like ToB instead. I've not looked carefully about how that interacts with charging builds, since my group has jumped around from system to system quite a bit.

I personally don't have any problems with the idea of Monks doing well, but the class as a whole is so awful I'd sooner just use the Unarmed Swordsage. That and/or some simple adjustments to how unarmed attacks work would solve the whole thing. No need to try to hack together a solution with multiple things that were never intended to be stacked together -- also, my players* would never think of that or look it up.

I think the goal of the OP is to just make the Monk work a lot better out of the box. Nothing wrong with that at all.

*When they are my players. We rotate DMs a fair bit too.

[ArcturusV]

You know, when I was pondering this, my thought was generally to drop some of the Feat Chain/Monk Level requirements. I wanted to give Unarmed Combat a niche that made it a choice you might consider instead of Power Attack Two Handed Smashing, or Two Weapon extra damage on attack fighting, etc. But not something that was necessarily strictly better than the other two.

So that was my idea.

What I mean is that anyone who picks up Improved Unarmed Strike (Or if I'm letting in other D20 material, a feat like Combat Martial Arts/Defensive Martial Arts, etc), automatically gets the various effects of Martial Arts Feats as long as they meet the non-feat pre-reqs of it.

Got a high wisdom? You instantly get stunning fist when you take Improved Unarmed Strike. Same deal with things like Falling Star Strike, Freezing the Lifeblood, Eagle Claw Strike, etc.

I was thinking if that was the case, if Improved Unarmed Strike basically eliminated feat chain madness and gave all those "disables" for free. Improved Sundering, blinding, stunning, etc, that it would provide another niche that might make it worthwhile. So the eventual set of meleer options would look like: Power Attack Two-Handed Smash, Two Weapon I Have Extra Damage Dice Spam, Unarmed Strike I Will Make You A Cripple.

[Big Fau]

Monks, or anyone else that obtained 2d10 unarmed can use greater mighty wallop as exactly intended and printed to deal 12d8 damage all day. Are you even aware how significant this is? If you put a greatsword in two hands and swung it, then punched a target, even at 160 str the unarmed strike deals more (132 vs 119). It isn't until around 210 strength does the two-handed bonuses finally surpass the size increase.

Hold up. Do a comparison for the amount of investment it takes to get to that 2d10 (and, subsequently, the 12d8) versus how much effort it takes to buy a Greatsword. The "Monk" has to invest effort to either get to 20th level or artificially inflate his effective monk level to 20th to get the 2d10, and then has to invest in increasing the damage die size. While gp is plentiful, levels and feats are limited by several factors.

The "fighter", meanwhile, just waltzes into the local blacksmith's store and buy the first greatsword he sees. He can do this at 1st level thanks to starting gold, and it will be more efficient damage-wise than a 1st level "Monk" (who is using either 1d4 or 1d6, possibly 1d8 damage). That is the problem with unarmed combat: Until you start layering on the effort, it just isn't worth using over traditional weaponry.

Hell, even at 12d8 it kinda isn't worth it. Even with GMWallop you are still investing a large quantity of your limited resources to be doing the same damage that a 9th level Barbarian/Fighter/Paladin/Whatnot was doing. Investing in Tashalatora makes this easier, but that's more of an aspect of how efficient Psionics can be at buffing than it is an aspect of unarmed combat.

Unarmed combat is by-and-large awesome but impractical.

[TuggyNE]

Please correct your self on that. Realistically, none of the things I mentioned are cheesy nor do they suggest getting a psion to implant powers or a wizard to polymorph you.

Most of those are borderline cheesy (with the exception of "8192d8 damage" or "+1 throwing morphing sizing ghost touch necklace of natural weapons", which are pretty thoroughly cheesy, though still nowhere near as bad as the ExFighter). My point was not so much that your specific examples of high-op tactics are on the same level as the ExFighter, but that they are only quantitatively different: normal play is not likely to use many of those tricks, and the ones that are used are not enough to make up the difference, so it's disingenuous to assert, based only on those, that unarmed strikes optimization is a solved problem for most characters.


Keep in mind that manifesters that use tashalatora as fully intended combines full manifesting with 2d10 unarmed. Which unless the psion has over 30 in strength then using an unarmed strike would deal more than using a greatsword.

At level 20, what meleer does not have more than 30 Str?


Monks, or anyone else that obtained 2d10 unarmed can use greater mighty wallop as exactly intended and printed to deal 12d8 damage all day. Are you even aware how significant this is? If you put a greatsword in two hands and swung it, then punched a target, even at 160 str the unarmed strike deals more (132 vs 119). It isn't until around 210 strength does the two-handed bonuses finally surpass the size increase.

Or, of course, using Power Attack plus maybe Leap Attack: feats instead of depending on custom items or allied buffing that drop the break-even point down considerably.