PDA

View Full Version : D&D: Rethinking the Monk



johnbragg
2017-07-27, 08:55 PM
The unarmed martial artist has conceptual problems in a hack & slash sword & sorcery genre. Namely, he's unarmed. 3E's attempt at balancing this led to the famous "flurry of misses."

But what if we look at the martial artist without that mechanical construct. IRL, he's facing an armed opponent, his first priority is going to be disarming that opponent. Once that's happened, the next order of business is to either grapple the opponent and prevent him from attacking, or get the opponent on to the ground and in a vulnerable position.

So maybe instead of building monks that look like Bruce Lee, maybe we should think of monks using ju-jitsu and UFC styles.

Mechanically, that would mean heavy use of disarming, tripping, and grappling rules.

JNAProductions
2017-07-27, 09:02 PM
This is a fantasy game. Dragons fly, wizards cast spells.

I don't think someone punching instead of using swords is all that far-fetched. And 5E did a good job with it.

MasterMercury
2017-07-27, 09:12 PM
This is a fantasy game. Dragons fly, wizards cast spells.

I don't think someone punching instead of using swords is all that far-fetched. And 5E did a good job with it.

At the same time, the monk could use a bit more on the grappling/disarming front.

The monk class is based off of action movie monks. One of my favorite depiction of monks is the ones who manipulate others attacks to strike others (why are you hitting yourself), or the ones who can defeat foes by grabbing a hand in a special way.

This is very monk, and awesome. And I would love a way to integrate it into the class, but I feel it's more of a subclass thing than a class change thing.

Anxe
2017-07-27, 10:01 PM
My favorite part of action hero marital artists is the use of their environment. Picking up a box and using that to block a sword swipe. In addition to the other stuff that's been mentioned.

J-H
2017-07-27, 10:26 PM
Setting Sun (D&D 3.5 ToB style) does this, but the maneuvers are a bit unreliable. They often require opposed checks, and monsters usually have higher stat modifiers than humanoid PCs.

Stunning Fist is a step in the right direction as well, as is Intuitive Strike.

Unfortunately, it ultimately takes hit point damage to kill most enemies, and Intuitive Strike, grappling, and the SS maneuvers all suffer from a distinct lack of major bonus damage.

Hunter Noventa
2017-07-28, 07:38 AM
Setting Sun (D&D 3.5 ToB style) does this, but the maneuvers are a bit unreliable. They often require opposed checks, and monsters usually have higher stat modifiers than humanoid PCs.

Stunning Fist is a step in the right direction as well, as is Intuitive Strike.

Unfortunately, it ultimately takes hit point damage to kill most enemies, and Intuitive Strike, grappling, and the SS maneuvers all suffer from a distinct lack of major bonus damage.

This is really the problem with any kind of grappling as a whole. Once you move past fighting goblins and orcs to anything bigger than you are, you can't do a thing to them.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-28, 08:29 AM
This is really the problem with any kind of grappling as a whole. Once you move past fighting goblins and orcs to anything bigger than you are, you can't do a thing to them.

Isn't that what the Tetori archetype is for? (Pathfinder)

Airk
2017-07-28, 09:05 AM
Gonna be honest, I don't think any amount of "grappling/disarming" stuff is going to "fix" the monk. When people have a problem with the monk, it's generally because somehow they can accept that by studying enough books and adventuring, that a man in robes can learn to throw lightning from his fingertips, but cannot accept that by through study, meditation, training, and adventuring, a man in robes can learn to punch his fist through a steel breastplate.

There is TONS of media that features unarmed combatants beating the living crap out of people with weapons, and most of them don't have any particularly heavy focus on grappling/disarming. If that doesn't fit your strange fantasy aesthetic, then you probably just shouldn't have monks.

JellyPooga
2017-07-28, 09:07 AM
Monks shouldn't be Bruce Lee...they should be Jackie Chan.

SaurOps
2017-07-28, 10:36 AM
Monks shouldn't be Bruce Lee...they should be Jackie Chan.

Needs more period piece examples (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yang_Guo).

Tinkerer
2017-07-28, 11:02 AM
One of the big problems here is that you're going against armed foes only a part of the time. You're going against dragons and oozes and krakens the rest of the time. Are you going to give that dragon a full nelson? Suplex that gelatinous cube? Give the kraken a noogie? Trying to make the monk more gritty and realistic only makes sense if they are up against gritty and realistic foes. Even the fighters that they are up against aren't realistic. I say go the other way. If you want to explain how they go up against swords then mention that their hands are mystically hardened to be as hard as steel or some such thing. Or don't include them in your world if it bothers you. But increasing their grappling capability means you are probably taking away from one of their other abilities which may increase their effectiveness against one enemy type at the cost of reducing their effectiveness against all others.

Edit: Whoops, somehow missed the fact that this was brought up already.

Thinker
2017-07-28, 11:08 AM
Grappling is only useful against one foe at a time. Against humanoids, that is typically problematic. Still, there is something awesome about imagining a monk leaping onto and grabbing hold of a giant's arm and then snapping the bone.

TheYell
2017-07-28, 11:10 AM
Isn't that what the Tetori archetype is for? (Pathfinder)

They give up an awful lot to get there though.

johnbragg
2017-07-28, 11:41 AM
Gonna be honest, I don't think any amount of "grappling/disarming" stuff is going to "fix" the monk. When people have a problem with the monk, it's generally because somehow they can accept that by studying enough books and adventuring, that a man in robes can learn to throw lightning from his fingertips, but cannot accept that by through study, meditation, training, and adventuring, a man in robes can learn to punch his fist through a steel breastplate.

There is TONS of media that features unarmed combatants beating the living crap out of people with weapons, and most of them don't have any particularly heavy focus on grappling/disarming. If that doesn't fit your strange fantasy aesthetic, then you probably just shouldn't have monks.

I have no problem, conceptually, with the monk punching through a steel breastplate. But the mechanics don't seem to work out for it. (Or if they do work out, it doesn't seem very different than shoving a sword through a steel breastplate.) I was thinking grappling because it has a family resemblance to what modern martial artists do a lot of (I may have been watching martial arts belt testing when I had this thought). So I made the leap from "guy with a knife/gun" to "guy with a sword/greataxe".

Of course this would mean you'd have to fix grappling too.


One of the big problems here is that you're going against armed foes only a part of the time. You're going against dragons and oozes and krakens the rest of the time. Are you going to give that dragon a full nelson?

Bear hug the dragon's tail? Grab a claw and judo-throw the dragon as it does a flyby attack?


Suplex that gelatinous cube? Give the kraken a noogie? Trying to make the monk more gritty and realistic only makes sense if they are up against gritty and realistic foes. Even the fighters that they are up against aren't realistic. I say go the other way. If you want to explain how they go up against swords then mention that their hands are mystically hardened to be as hard as steel or some such thing. Or don't include them in your world if it bothers you. But increasing their grappling capability means you are probably taking away from one of their other abilities which may increase their effectiveness against one enemy type at the cost of reducing their effectiveness against all others.

Edit: Whoops, somehow missed the fact that this was brought up already.

If we wave a magic wand and fix grappling, do we have to take away the ability to punch-as-hard-as-a-sword? The non-monk martials will have magic swords anyway.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-28, 11:46 AM
I have no problem, conceptually, with the monk punching through a steel breastplate. But the mechanics don't seem to work out for it.

Have you checked out Pathfinder's Unchained Monk?

JNAProductions
2017-07-28, 12:00 PM
Is this a system agnostic issue? I don't think so-again, check out 5E's Monk. They kick ass.

If you're talking about 3.5 specifically, then yes, I do agree that Monk is highly flawed, but it should be moved to that subforum, then.

solidork
2017-07-28, 12:05 PM
Doesn't 5e solve many of these problems? You can (and probably should) make a mixture of weapon and unarmed attacks, and if you're Open Hand then you can get two trip/knockback attempts as part of your normal actions pretty frequently.

They are also overtly magical, so it makes sense that they can do such things.

rs2excelsior
2017-07-28, 01:04 PM
Same with Pathfinder, you get a bunch of mystical abilities on top of just punching really hard that help the monk out quite a bit. And with the Unchained Monk you've got a lot of freedom to pick abilities that suit your particular style/vision of what a monk should be able to do.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-28, 02:14 PM
Same with Pathfinder, you get a bunch of mystical abilities on top of just punching really hard that help the monk out quite a bit. And with the Unchained Monk you've got a lot of freedom to pick abilities that suit your particular style/vision of what a monk should be able to do.

Also - while Unchained monk is the easiest way to do it, if you know what you're doing in Pathfinder you can make an equally potent monk by stacking qinggong & 1-2 other archetypes together. (I actually 'talked' with a designer on Paizo's message boards - and he confirmed that the intent of Umonk was to have something which was equally potent to something which could already be done with a well built archetyped core monk, only far easier.)

Arbane
2017-07-28, 03:10 PM
Monks shouldn't be Bruce Lee...they should be Jackie Chan.

Pretty sure Jackie Chan as a concept tops out around level 5 or so.

Monks should be more like the cast of Weapons of the Gods - at 15th level or higher, 'skilled fighter' isn't enough. 'Supernatural fighters' is more the order of the day.

FreddyNoNose
2017-07-28, 04:16 PM
Even in a world of magic, flying, and dragons, I have never liked the monk. For me, it is almost too stupid. It is certainly my problem though.

Now if I was into anime or crazy martial arts movies, I might buy into it. Sadly I don't.

SaurOps
2017-07-28, 07:05 PM
Pretty sure Jackie Chan as a concept tops out around level 5 or so.

Monks should be more like the cast of Weapons of the Gods - at 15th level or higher, 'skilled fighter' isn't enough. 'Supernatural fighters' is more the order of the day.

Specifically, Weapons of the Gods with one of the Rare styles, like Disrespectful Sages or Limitless Freedom. Now you can unleash hurricane-force winds with a slapping motion, or crit an entire wide-scale cylinder with your attacks when your weapon appears to duplicate itself to fill the space!

Cluedrew
2017-07-28, 07:23 PM
Now if I was into anime or crazy martial arts movies, I might buy into it. Sadly I don't.I have no particular fondness for either of those things, but the monk might be my favourite D&D class flavour wise. Although it is definitely more eastern than the others.

There are a lot of ways to make the monk (whatever exactly you want that to be) stronger. They could be as fast as the wind, nearly impossible to hit and defecting everything with a brush of their hands. They could be practically made of iron, as blades dull against their bare skin. Or do stuff with pressure points, let them through a dragon around after grabbing the time of a tail, the list goes one.

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-28, 08:22 PM
Honestly, my favorite image of what I imagine a really cool Monk as seen in D&D is something like this:

A man from some distant place, a race not often seen around these parts, walking alone when bandits come from the woods with their swords drawn. He lowers his robe hood, revealing a bald head covered in tattoos. With a step, he assumes a wide stance, the ground shaking slightly with the impact of his foot. The bandits charge, not heeding the obvious threat. The violence is quick, savage, and merciless. Bones are broken, swords are snapped against his forearms like so much kindling, and one bandit is thrown through a tree with a single shove. Before long, none of them are left standing. The man brushes some dust from his robes, picks up his walking stick, and continues down the road.

In essence, they should be able to do things like: Hit multiple enemies in the same round or even with the same attack, move enemies around the battlefield, and other such kung-fu combat tropes. He should be able to assume different stances to change buffs or gain access to new abilities, or change styles entirely day by day or combat by combat. (During combat with a giant, they use Stormwind Form in the Turtle Stance, but against many goblins they may choose the Thresher Form in the Tiger Stance.)

I'm not going to go so far as to actively fix it, but I can see ways of making it work.

JellyPooga
2017-07-30, 03:09 AM
Pretty sure Jackie Chan as a concept tops out around level 5 or so.

To be fair, so does Bruce Lee :smallwink:

My point was less about "power levels" and more about the concept. The common conception of the "martial artist" being a dude that's good unarmed; the whole punching through a breastplate and suplexing dragons thing...it all just bugs me a bit. Monks should be good with weapons as well as unarmed, they should be utilising the terrain; jumping off of impossibly thin branches, running up walls and spinning through the air; they should be turning their surroundings into weapons, not just their own body...and that starts with the Jackie Chan thing of using improvised weapons :smallbiggrin:

Altair_the_Vexed
2017-07-30, 08:16 AM
In the UK, until the 90s when film censorship relaxed a little, any scenes with nunchaku were cut. This meant that in (IIRC) Enter the Dragon, when Bruce Lee sees two bad guys coming at him - all he does is raise one eyebrow, and they die.

Monks should be like that.
;)

CharonsHelper
2017-07-30, 09:15 AM
In the UK, until the 90s when film censorship relaxed a little, any scenes with nunchaku were cut.

Lol - why nunchucks specifically?

Rynjin
2017-07-30, 10:06 AM
Also - while Unchained monk is the easiest way to do it, if you know what you're doing in Pathfinder you can make an equally potent monk by stacking qinggong & 1-2 other archetypes together. (I actually 'talked' with a designer on Paizo's message boards - and he confirmed that the intent of Umonk was to have something which was equally potent to something which could already be done with a well built archetyped core monk, only far easier.)

They failed. An archetyped Monk is generally stronger than an Unchained Monk by a fair margin. The only thing you miss out on is the superior Flurry, pseudo-Pounce, and better weapon proficiencies. The Ki powers are generally weaker, your saves are worse (while lacking the immunities of a typical Monk to boot), and you're less able to specialize in various forms of unarmed combat with archetypes like (pre-nerf) Master of Many Styles, Tetori, Flowing Monk, Zen Archer and Sohei.

The UnMonk also has a clash in design where they have a class feature (Style Strikes) that can only be performed with unarmed strikes, but the whole class HEAVILY encourages you to be like every other ****ing martial class in the game and swing a big 2H weapon for 1.5x Str and Power Attack in your Flurry. Unless you use Ascetic Style, in which case there is absolutely ZERO reason to ever touch an Unarmed Strike with the UnMonk.

The UnMonk is the second most frustratingly disappointing class released in the last few years, after the Kineticist. It both fails at making the class all around stronger AND making unarmed strikes not get kicked in the nuts so I can have my fun flavor without eating a 3 Feat chain that locks me out of other, more fun 3 Feat chains and tanking my AC in multiple different ways.

Just play a Qinggong/Whatever other archetype you want Monk and save yourself at least SOME trouble. Or more accurately, just play a pre-nerf Sacred Fist, that was a good way to be a Monk for a while.

Re: "Muh realism" I'm not sure why people rag on the mystic warrior smashing armor with his fists but nobody bats an eye at the armor piercing Sneak Attack having rapier eviscerating vital organs through plate.

It's almost like there's a double standard on what has to be "realistic" or something.

goto124
2017-07-30, 10:26 AM
when Bruce Lee sees two bad guys coming at him - all he does is raise one eyebrow, and they die.

That's a Wizard, silly!

Sredni Vashtar
2017-07-30, 10:33 AM
Monks shouldn't be Bruce Lee...they should be Jackie Chan.


Pretty sure Jackie Chan as a concept tops out around level 5 or so.

Monks should be more like the cast of Weapons of the Gods - at 15th level or higher, 'skilled fighter' isn't enough. 'Supernatural fighters' is more the order of the day.

Frankly, I think Monks should be Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan at first, but then quickly graduate into Spider-Man before evolving into a mix of The Buddha and Memetic Badass Chuck Norris.

CharonsHelper
2017-07-30, 11:06 AM
They failed. An archetyped Monk is generally stronger than an Unchained Monk by a fair margin. The only thing you miss out on is the superior Flurry, pseudo-Pounce, and better weapon proficiencies. The Ki powers are generally weaker, your saves are worse (while lacking the immunities of a typical Monk to boot), and you're less able to specialize in various forms of unarmed combat with archetypes like (pre-nerf) Master of Many Styles, Tetori, Flowing Monk, Zen Archer and Sohei.

The UnMonk also has a clash in design where they have a class feature (Style Strikes) that can only be performed with unarmed strikes, but the whole class HEAVILY encourages you to be like every other ****ing martial class in the game and swing a big 2H weapon for 1.5x Str and Power Attack in your Flurry. Unless you use Ascetic Style, in which case there is absolutely ZERO reason to ever touch an Unarmed Strike with the UnMonk.

The UnMonk is the second most frustratingly disappointing class released in the last few years, after the Kineticist. It both fails at making the class all around stronger AND making unarmed strikes not get kicked in the nuts so I can have my fun flavor without eating a 3 Feat chain that locks me out of other, more fun 3 Feat chains and tanking my AC in multiple different ways.

You are mistaken.

You forgot about a LOT of extras the Umonk gets.

1. Flying Kick is huge - as it gives a psuedo pounce.

2. Actual Full BAB is pretty big, and it gives the benefit of making their CMD go crazily high (since they kept the monk's bonuses to negate their mid BAB), and I think you're underestimating how much better their flurry is.

3. d10 HD

4. You're underestimating their saves. Between Still Mind and having Wisdom has their secondary stat, they'll still have pretty solid saves all around.

I'm not saying that Umonk is better than a well built archetyped monk. But the DPR it can put out is considerably better. Umonk is a much better beatstick, while the archetyped monk is better at utility. Overall they're pretty close to par. Just pick which one you want.

They did not intend the Umonk to be better than an archetyped monk and totally replace it (as I mentioned above - a designer specifically called that out) but I think they did a pretty decent job of building a monk class which works 'out of the box'.

johnbragg
2017-07-30, 12:07 PM
but the whole class HEAVILY encourages you to be like every other ****ing martial class in the game and swing a big 2H weapon for 1.5x Str and Power Attack in your Flurry.

This is part of why I was thinking that tripping/disarming/grappling would be the way to go for the Monk. You can goose the numbers so that Magic Ninja Fist hits as hard as a sword, but that just pushes the question back one step--you COULD just use a sword, it's kinda the same. But if the Monk attack disarms you, or puts you flat on your back, or grapples you so your options change, that seems to me to be worth having.

And I have no problem with MAgic Ninja Fist allowing you to do that to dragons or oozes or constructs or what have you.

Rynjin
2017-07-30, 12:56 PM
You are mistaken.

You forgot about a LOT of extras the Umonk gets.

1. Flying Kick is huge - as it gives a psuedo pounce.

2. Actual Full BAB is pretty big, and it gives the benefit of making their CMD go crazily high (since they kept the monk's bonuses to negate their mid BAB), and I think you're underestimating how much better their flurry is.

3. d10 HD

4. You're underestimating their saves. Between Still Mind and having Wisdom has their secondary stat, they'll still have pretty solid saves all around.

I'm not saying that Umonk is better than a well built archetyped monk. But the DPR it can put out is considerably better. Umonk is a much better beatstick, while the archetyped monk is better at utility. Overall they're pretty close to par. Just pick which one you want.

They did not intend the Umonk to be better than an archetyped monk and totally replace it (as I mentioned above - a designer specifically called that out) but I think they did a pretty decent job of building a monk class which works 'out of the box'.

I literally mentioned all of the things you said I "forgot" besides the d10 HD (average 1 extra HP per level isn't a huge draw). Second sentence even. "The only thing you miss out on is the superior Flurry, pseudo-Pounce, and better weapon proficiencies." (You actually don't even miss out on the Pounce, no pseudo, if you spend two Feats on Pummeling Style and Charge, and get melee Clustered Shots in the bargain).

You overestimate Still Mind, IMO. And having Wis as a secondary stat doesn't make up for the hugely slower progression. You're behind by 2 at 1st level and fall 1 point further behind every 4 levels. That's HUGE.

Yeah, it's a decent beatstick, but Pathfinder already has too many decent and more than decent beatsticks. It's worse than a Barbarian and way worse than an Inquisitor, Investigator, or Magus at high levels. I'd say trading in versatility for staunchly middle of the road damage output is even worse than the core Monk's trade of having no damage output in exchange for a bit of versatility.

Arbane
2017-07-30, 04:44 PM
To be fair, so does Bruce Lee :smallwink:

Fair enough. Bruce Lee is just a lot more serious.


My point was less about "power levels" and more about the concept. The common conception of the "martial artist" being a dude that's good unarmed; the whole punching through a breastplate and suplexing dragons thing...it all just bugs me a bit. Monks should be good with weapons as well as unarmed, they should be utilising the terrain; jumping off of impossibly thin branches, running up walls and spinning through the air; they should be turning their surroundings into weapons, not just their own body...and that starts with the Jackie Chan thing of using improvised weapons :smallbiggrin:

This works fine at low levels, but remember, at some point they need to deal with flying invisible planeshifting wizards or whatever.


Frankly, I think Monks should be Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan at first, but then quickly graduate into Spider-Man before evolving into a mix of The Buddha and Memetic Badass Chuck Norris.

This works. Especially if at 20th level they have a move where they can drop a mountain on any spellcaster who can't jump out of their hand.

goto124
2017-07-30, 08:08 PM
This works fine at low levels, but remember, at some point they need to deal with flying invisible planeshifting wizards or whatever.

Monks may not fly, but they can jump very high :smallbiggrin:

Monks could be able to hear the softest of sounds, such as the rustle of leaves or the movement of dust, and be able to figure out where an invisible wizard is.

It might help to borrow ideas from wuxia.

Got nothing on planeshifting, though I don't think other classes can really deal with that either.

JNAProductions
2017-07-30, 09:59 PM
Monks may not fly, but they can jump very high :smallbiggrin:

Monks could be able to hear the softest of sounds, such as the rustle of leaves or the movement of dust, and be able to figure out where an invisible wizard is.

It might help to borrow ideas from wuxia.

Got nothing on planeshifting, though I don't think other classes can really deal with that either.

Punch holes in reality.

SaurOps
2017-07-31, 12:15 AM
Punch holes in reality.

That, or see past the illusion of that thing known as "reality".

Martin Greywolf
2017-07-31, 04:26 AM
Bruce Lee vs UFC

If you want high levels of verisimilitude in your game, it doesn't matter - a man without a weapon will be destroyed by a man with a weapon 9 times out of 10, with training getting you maybe a 7 out of 10 in extreme cases. Go ask anyone who knows his unarmed fighting how much he would like to go up against a knife, let alone a sword. That's why we have weapons in the first place - they are a meter long, one kilo chunk of steel, but boy do they give you, pardon the pun, an edge.

Ultimately, monk who disarms a swordsman is no less unrealistic than a monk who punches through a breastplate. Both consistently do things that are incredibly unlikely if not impossible in real life.

Mechanical problems

Some parts of this are easy to fix. Monk has low BAB - make it higher. Monk can't spend money on magic weapons - make him able to spend money on qi gong medicines that give his fists the same properties. This way, you can bring monk to at least Fighter tier, or slightly higher.

With that done, your only other question is what is your target tier? If you want monks to compete with Sorcerers, you need to make different changes than if you want them to be able to play fairly with Barbarians.

khadgar567
2017-07-31, 05:42 AM
Bruce Lee vs UFC

If you want high levels of verisimilitude in your game, it doesn't matter - a man without a weapon will be destroyed by a man with a weapon 9 times out of 10, with training getting you maybe a 7 out of 10 in extreme cases. Go ask anyone who knows his unarmed fighting how much he would like to go up against a knife, let alone a sword. That's why we have weapons in the first place - they are a meter long, one kilo chunk of steel, but boy do they give you, pardon the pun, an edge.

Ultimately, monk who disarms a swordsman is no less unrealistic than a monk who punches through a breastplate. Both consistently do things that are incredibly unlikely if not impossible in real life.
i dont think so mate lot of monk disciplines teaches atleast couple of weapons to students and one of the main thing lot of games forget that. monk is master of few weapons as well as his lefty and rightly

Mechanical problems

Some parts of this are easy to fix. Monk has low BAB - make it higher. Monk can't spend money on magic weapons - make him able to spend money on qi gong medicines that give his fists the same properties. This way, you can bring monk to at least Fighter tier, or slightly higher.

With that done, your only other question is what is your target tier? If you want monks to compete with Sorcerers, you need to make different changes than if you want them to be able to play fairly with Barbarians.
good bab maybe help but they kinda need ways to 99% kick ass

Pugwampy
2017-07-31, 06:09 AM
Monk should have as much HP as a Barbarian . How on earth is a chaotic reckless barbarian more healthy than a disciplined monk ?

As many feats as a Fighter.

Mega bonus on Disarm , trip , grapple and sunder roles.

SaurOps
2017-07-31, 03:34 PM
Monk should have as much HP as a Barbarian . How on earth is a chaotic reckless barbarian more healthy than a disciplined monk ?

Hit points are too abstract to be about health alone, and too narrative to be able to completely discount the roles that each character is supposed to have in an adventure. Barbarians have historically been HP sponges, monks have historically relied on not getting hit or unduly affected; barbs have had d12s since 1e, whereas monks bounced around in earlier editions, getting 2d4 plus an extra d4 a level in 1e, then becoming a priest sub-class in 2e, which seems to have stuck with them.

So, really, you're complaining about a very particular interpretation that has history here, a sacred cow, as they say. Give it a few more years, maybe you'll see fewer in D&D Next Next? (^VVVVVVV^)



As many feats as a Fighter.

Mega bonus on Disarm , trip , grapple and sunder roles.

This just highlights the problem with the strict divides that people put up in what viable martial effects are vs. magic being allowed to do anything and everything. The monk occupies a weird grey area between the two in most takes on that divide, which also probably has to do with why they didn't get the same HP as a warrior group class: the designers didn't want to make it seem like fighters and company were completely useless, even though everyone knows that casters have been set up as the highest powers and have a way of making others irrelevant at later levels, so those scant few hit points are a bit questionable in value.

N810
2017-07-31, 03:50 PM
To be fair, so does Bruce Lee :smallwink:

My point was less about "power levels" and more about the concept. The common conception of the "martial artist" being a dude that's good unarmed; the whole punching through a breastplate and suplexing dragons thing...it all just bugs me a bit. Monks should be good with weapons as well as unarmed, they should be utilising the terrain; jumping off of impossibly thin branches, running up walls and spinning through the air; they should be turning their surroundings into weapons, not just their own body...and that starts with the Jackie Chan thing of using improvised weapons :smallbiggrin:

Speaking of Power levels...

Maybe more like Dragon Ball Z by level 20 ?

johnbragg
2017-07-31, 05:23 PM
Bruce Lee vs UFC

If you want high levels of verisimilitude in your game, it doesn't matter - a man without a weapon will be destroyed by a man with a weapon 9 times out of 10, with training getting you maybe a 7 out of 10 in extreme cases. Go ask anyone who knows his unarmed fighting how much he would like to go up against a knife, let alone a sword. That's why we have weapons in the first place - they are a meter long, one kilo chunk of steel, but boy do they give you, pardon the pun, an edge.

Ultimately, monk who disarms a swordsman is no less unrealistic than a monk who punches through a breastplate. Both consistently do things that are incredibly unlikely if not impossible in real life.

I have no problem with either one of those. If you're going to have unarmed warriors in a game with armed warriors, they should be A) competitive with the armed warriors and at the same time B) be mechanically different from armed warriors.

Part of my objection to "monk punches through breastplate" is that, numerically, it's pretty much the same as "fighter sticks sword through breastplate". Just like a Warlock's Eldritch Blast can seem like a refluffed archer.

Or maybe it's just that the monk fluff doesn't do enough for me.

Beneath
2017-07-31, 05:52 PM
Part of where I think the class fails at representing the archetype is that I can't see an archetypal martial artist deliberately going into a dungeon expecting 3-5 combat encounters before resting unarmed.

Look at most kung fu movies and the masters know several weapons and use them when appropriate. Empty hand combat is a foundation of their training and a hold-out for when they are accidentally or circumstantially unarmed, not a preferred style over using, say, a sword, staff, nunchaku, dagger, or bow.

If you're not expecting a fight (especially in a system where inventory space is precious or there's a downside to carrying a weapon), if you're forbidden from entering a place armed, or if you've had to discard your weapon to carry more loot, then the monk fights unarmed or with weapons of convenience found in their environment. But unarmed combat is a hold-out, not a first choice.

They might, as they increase in power, change that up; eventually you throw away the extending staff when shooting energy blasts from your hands becomes more effective. But at that point they've become more like a wizard who can fight than a fighter who can use weird powers.

Hold-out abilities are impossible to balance under D&D's conventions (since it's assumed that putting the party in situations where they're necessary is vindictive DMing, that specializing in one thing is the way to go and hold-outs for when you can't use it are a waste of resources, and that anyone who hasn't invested in hold-outs (most of the party) will be bored when forced to rely on them), though, but I generally favor using a different balance convention.

I don't think AOE melee attacks should be the Monk's specific thing, either; a sufficiently advanced fighter should be able to do sweeping attacks with his sword, knock people to the ground by stamping her foot, etc. too. I could see it being argued that the Monk should get them first, but I can't see excluding the Fighter from them in general (in general though, the Monk and Fighter should probably be assumed to have equal dedication in pursuing fighting, and should therefore surpass the bounds of possibility equally well).

SaurOps
2017-07-31, 09:20 PM
Speaking of Power levels...

Maybe more like Dragon Ball Z by level 20 ?

20? You might want to wait a bit longer, given all of the planet-destroying super attacks and all.

JNAProductions
2017-07-31, 09:31 PM
20? You might want to wait a bit longer, given all of the planet-destroying super attacks and all.

In 3.5, at least, you can blow up the planet at level 1. So...

goto124
2017-08-01, 05:46 AM
One could treat a monk's fists as weapons in their own right.

johnbragg
2017-08-01, 06:36 AM
One could treat a monk's fists as weapons in their own right.

Sure, but then how is a monk really different from an armed warrior? We don't build classes around axes vs swords vs clubs. Having a monk's punch be nearly-equal to a warrior's shortsword is pretty much the minimum requirement.

There's only so much flavor text and fluff can do if the Hobgoblin Monk's flying-double-hammer strike does the same thing mechanically as the regular Hobgoblin Warrior's greataxe.

N810
2017-08-01, 07:45 AM
20? You might want to wait a bit longer, given all of the planet-destroying super attacks and all.

lol fair enough, maybe just the first season then.

CharonsHelper
2017-08-01, 07:51 AM
lol fair enough, maybe just the first season then.

Maybe Dragonball (no "Z")

King of Nowhere
2017-08-01, 09:10 AM
I think monks should be specialized in fighting spellcasters, thus forming the missing item in a rock-paper-scissor balance that would also bring casters closer to the other common mortals. There is already some of it (good saving throws, spell resistance), but it works only at low level of optimization. A competent caster will mop the floor with a monk, and it will be only marginally more difficult than doing so with a fighter.

So in my opinion monks would need:

- better saving throws; so far, a monk would have some 50% chance to succeed one, even after investing considerable money in save-raising items. Give them another +4 by the time they reach level 20, and they become mostly immune to all spells alllowing saving throws.
- better spell resistance: 10+level is good at low optimization, but at high optimization wizards can increase their caster level. Give monks some high optimization way to increase their spell resistance too.
- better mobility options: increased movement, jump and dimension door once per day are great, but not enough. A wizard puts you in a forcecage, you abundantly step out, the wizard casts another forcecage, you're out. I'd say a monk needs more uses of abundant step, as well as more versatility with it; if it ends your turn, you can do nothing at all as long as the wizard spends one spell per round on you. You need something to counteract that. Maybe a limited use of the old edition speed (a number of times per day equal to your wisdom modifier, you can make an extra partial action dduring your round). Becoming ethereal is a good way to overcoming many barriers, but monks get it at level 19, while wizards get 9th level spells at level 17. empty body should come a few levels earlier.
- Other anti-caster stuff; possible ideas are banishing summoned creatures with your attacks, using your fists to dispel magic (if you can make your body go ethereal, then maybe you can also make it interact with the spell flows), seeing illusions with a spot check (there is an epic usage for the spot skill, but monks would have to get it non-epicly), preventing teleportation.

Giving monks those kind of skills would give them their niche of usefulness. It would also give other martials their niche: they would be useful for fighting monks. And it makes plenty of sense that a guy who trains the soul, the mind and the body is not as good in a straight-up fight as the guy who trained the sword, the sword some more, and then he specialized at using a sword.

A slightly unrelated note: monks should be masters of dodging, but the way it's done, it sucks. they get to add wis to ac, but since they suffer from mad, that measn at most a +2/+3 at first level. The rogue probably dodges better than they do. And even at level 20, they only get a meager +4. between wisdom and levels, they get roughly the same bonus of full plate - pretty low considering the stuff everyone is doing by level 20. if the AC bonus was every 3 levels starting at level 1 (so at levels 1, 4, 7...) it would feel much better.

SaurOps
2017-08-01, 09:33 AM
In 3.5, at least, you can blow up the planet at level 1. So...

Good thing I bailed on 3e well before the revision...

Alent
2017-08-01, 09:48 AM
Sure, but then how is a monk really different from an armed warrior? We don't build classes around axes vs swords vs clubs.

You speak as if it had never happened before, but it did, and it was called "Fighter", and that class was bad for the same reasons.

Therein lies the problem: Monk is "Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Martial Arts)" along with a few feat chains that require it, but as a class for some strange reason. I think that's why Monk makes for such a sensible gestalt with anything, it's nothing more than a proficiency kit with a handful of SLAs/Passive SLAs.

In that same vein, the fluff for Monk is trying way too hard to be the subconscious gestalt of Kwai Chang Caine + Bruce Lee, and that seems to have been a straitjacket around the mechanics of the class. It really needs some sort of anchoring to a subsystem to make it function as a class... and it looks like later on they noticed this- Anchor it to Psionics and you get Psionic Fist. Anchor it to Maneuvers and you get Unarmed Swordsage. There's lots of stuff you could anchor it to, but because Monk is/was seen by the 3.x devs as a "complete class", typically those combinations are PrCs... :smallsigh:

After studying the class balance some, I've been starting to wonder why Monk wasn't attached to Druidic magic like Ranger is. It seems like a natural fit to the eastern mysticism they're trying to imply, especially since so many monk builds have some variation of Wildshape tossed at them. (Tiger shapeshift, Bear Warrior levels, etc.)

Rynjin
2017-08-01, 12:26 PM
Maybe Dragonball (no "Z")

Roshi blew up the moon.

JNAProductions
2017-08-01, 12:30 PM
Roshi blew up the moon.

But... Piccolo... What?

Rynjin
2017-08-01, 12:34 PM
But... Piccolo... What?

There are two answers to almost anything that seems weird and unexplained in the Dragonball universe. The first is "The Dragon Balls did it". The second, much more likely answer is of course "Toriyama forgot".

In this case "Kami did it", probably using the Dragon Balls to do so.

It definitely happened though, if you'd like to see it. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZPPW41LXJs)

johnbragg
2017-08-01, 02:16 PM
You speak as if it (building classes around weapons) had never happened before, but it did, and it was called "Fighter", and that class was bad for the same reasons.

Right. There are Fighters who use swords and axes and bows, not Swordsmen and Axemen and Archers. But the unarmed fighter is this different thing, a Monk.


It really needs some sort of anchoring to a subsystem to make it function as a class... and it looks like later on they noticed this-

I was groping towards this, if you treat "combat maneuvers" as a subsystem.


After studying the class balance some, I've been starting to wonder why Monk wasn't attached to Druidic magic like Ranger is. It seems like a natural fit to the eastern mysticism they're trying to imply, especially since so many monk builds have some variation of Wildshape tossed at them. (Tiger shapeshift, Bear Warrior levels, etc.)

In the early days of 3.0, I was preparing for a campaign that never started, and one option was Yogi, a monk-type with access to any spell with Self as a target, and could only target themselves. (If the world is an illusion, then with increasing knowledge and power you can change the way you appear/are in the world.)

Dr_Dinosaur
2017-08-01, 02:39 PM
I liked how 4e handled the Monk tbh. Making them part of the psionics rules could finally tie ki and their pseudo-magical abilities to the rest of the game, while also opening up a new world of options.
Have Ki function as a replenishing sub-pool of PP to offset a lower overall number of PP. Ki Powers are now special psionic powers that can only be manifested with Ki or by expending Focus.

Tinkerer
2017-08-01, 04:30 PM
So what edition(s) are we talking about here? Because things have changed a fair bit over the years. Now correct me if I'm wrong about this but what I recall of monks are basically the following.

AD&D: I did have to look this one up a little since I had two conflicting memories of AD&D monks. One I remembered being a fairly weak quasi-fighter with a handful of special abilities and the other I recalled being almost like a martial wild mage using random effect tables to do some weird stuff combined with a glass cannon nature. Turns out the first was from core AD&D and the latter was from Oriental Adventures. The core monk was nothing special however the Oriental Adventures one had some potential due to unique effects from the martial arts giving customization as well as abilities that no other martial class had access to like knockout. However it was still a martial class with a d4 hit die making them almost as squishy as wizards.

2nd Ed AD&D: This is easily the one I know the least about. I heard it was essentially a bare handed kit that went onto the priest class.

2nd Ed AD&D (Kinda): The Monk of the Scarlet Brotherhood. This one I know! This class pumped up many of the inherent abilities of the monk class turning them into deadly anti-magic warrior (anti-charm powers, anti mind-reading powers, takes no secondary effect from powers which have those on a successful save (kinda like evasion only vs all spells), and can make saving throws against spells which don't allow saving throws). Unfortunately they were all LE and fanatically devoted to the organization.

3.X Ed: The infamous 3rd ed Monk. Easily the most mocked of all monks this class was all over the place. It suffered heavily from MAD, had class abilities which were outmatched by basic spells, and suffered heavily later in the run from lack of support. It did have some nice mobility for a martial class, some resistances, and some abilities which could prove useful if not planned against but on the whole was most likely the weakest of the base classes due to the fact that there was nothing useful that they could do which couldn't be replicated by some gear (and awfully cheap gear for most of it). I don't really need to go on though considering where we are :smallwink:

4th Ed: Very high mobility and, unusual for D&D monks, tended towards AoE damage. Worked a lot better with weapons than some of the other editions. Not really mocked but still not viewed as one of the better options. Tied the monk to Psionics as a power source which I think makes a lot of sense, but didn't really use it much. I didn't really play much 4th and it's pretty fundamentally different from the rest of the monks in other editions.

5th Ed: Regarded as a quite competent class. We get mobility again, we get the ability to choose which part of their kit we focus on (inflicting conditions, stealth, or a grab bag of powers), we get good lockdown powers, and we get resistances again. This edition basically looks like 3X done right. I mean you can punch the Tarrasque and make him see stars (and actually have a good chance to succeed at that). So 5th Ed monk uses his mobility to get to the highest priority target, then his abilities to shut them down (at least every time I've seen them played).

I never played Pathfinder (when it came out I was so burnt out on 3X that I really wasn't interested in giving it a try)

So what is the problem with the monk? So far it seems like it gets in trouble when it doesn't know what it is. All the way back at the beginning Gygax wasn't satisfied with the 1st edition base AD&D monk. It didn't encapsulate the feel that he was looking for and it lacked any sort of focus. But that haphazard list of disparate abilities is what has formed the backbone of most of the class since then. If 5th edition hadn't done it properly I would be strongly advocating getting rid of them all together. If you just throw abilities at the monk it isn't going to make much difference if they don't work together.

They have a major support problem. Since monks often don't fit in well thematically in several of the worlds that means that anyone who is writing a sourcebook likely isn't going to be including additional monk material. This is one of the harder ones to get around as obviously you can't really control what WotC is going to write in their books.

The final one is a little odder in that it's the inversion of several other classes issues. Some classes how effective they are depend on what cool magical items they can get. With monks how effective they are depend on what cool magical items other people can get. The lower the magic level of the setting the more effective they are in comparison to the rest of the party. If healing magic is scarce then their self healing ability is more effective by comparison. If magic weapons are rare then their built in magic fists are more effective by comparison.

How do we get around these issues? Well for the first one giving players more input as to what abilities they get would help. I mean really, who decided that Tounges should be a 17th level ability? And what's more a lot of the monks in the different editions felt really "samey". Given the diversity of martial arts practices and philosophies it seems quite bizarre that all of them get this same batch of diverse mismatched abilities. 5th edition and AD&D Oriental embraced this although I think they could have stood to go a little further with the concept. These additional choices would allow players to customize and focus their characters.

The best way of dealing with the support issue would be to increase the presence of monks in the fluff. Unfortunately this is something where a) They may just not want to (in which case they should really just remove the monk as a class) or b) could piss off the fan base. So really what we are left with may be to buff them a little more at the start so while they are falling behind they aren't falling too far behind. Or they could put a big warning sign on their abilities going "Monk Only, Do Not Touch". I do like this concept if they were going to make monks anti magic warriors like 2nd Ed.

The final one is really only a problem if you look at it as one. Being slightly less equipment dependent than other martials is something which could be good, could be bad. Wound up being bad in 3x due to them balancing (in theory) to a low to mid level magic world when all of their books suggested a high magic world.

I definitely don't think that any issues would be resolved by a "UFC" style approach to the class. That seems quite gimmicky and really not in the best interests of the class. I mean when you're emphasizing mobility to get around to the main threats the last thing that you want to do is immobilize yourself behind enemy lines. Plus one on one combat it relatively rare in the world of D&D, it's usually either several on one or one on several. Lastly if you are worried about realism in D&D I highly doubt that you are going to pick the class which intentionally goes unarmed against people with swords, spears, and fireballs.

So to summarize monks in D&D have generally been mobility experts with a grab bag of abilities including being immune to certain things, a little self healing, and battlefield control. They are normally viewed as being fairly weak due to fragility and poor defense for a martial class, due to their abilities lacking any sort of focus, and due to a lack of support in supplements. As a generalized statement across the editions I think this problem is best addressed by either increasing player control over obtainable abilities or focusing the abilities gained a little.

SaurOps
2017-08-01, 08:17 PM
2nd Ed AD&D: This is easily the one I know the least about. I heard it was essentially a bare handed kit that went onto the priest class.

2nd Ed AD&D (Kinda): The Monk of the Scarlet Brotherhood. This one I know! This class pumped up many of the inherent abilities of the monk class turning them into deadly anti-magic warrior (anti-charm powers, anti mind-reading powers, takes no secondary effect from powers which have those on a successful save (kinda like evasion only vs all spells), and can make saving throws against spells which don't allow saving throws). Unfortunately they were all LE and fanatically devoted to the organization.

There was another one, a priest sub-class in Player's Option: Spells and Magic. It was far more elaborate than the kit, as a full caster in some spheres that were introduced in the Tome of Magic and most clerics and other priests didn't get, as well as level-based improvements to both unarmed combat and unarmored AC.

Pugwampy
2017-08-02, 04:11 PM
Hit points are too abstract to be about health alone, and too narrative to be able to completely discount the roles that each character is supposed to have in an adventure.


From a real world perspective and personal experience . You do karate and get your black belt , you are going to be super healthy as healthy or even more healthy than a viking who practiced with his sword everyday . The monk in theory trains longer and harder to the point of something resembling super human
That monk deserves a D12 too , heck he needs it more .

The we have all these kung fu movies and media which suggest that Bruce Lee could kick Conans butt with ease , yet DND insists that Barbarians and fighters can mince the monk ? What i find quite sad is that a disarmed martial character has a pretty even chance of beating up a monk just using his fists alone .

DND is hard on the monk . He seems like a fighter but his stats are those of a rogue but he is a poor choice for both . Monk should be a competitive option on par with Fighters and Barbarians .

Psyren
2017-08-02, 05:25 PM
I literally mentioned all of the things you said I "forgot" besides the d10 HD (average 1 extra HP per level isn't a huge draw). Second sentence even. "The only thing you miss out on is the superior Flurry, pseudo-Pounce, and better weapon proficiencies." (You actually don't even miss out on the Pounce, no pseudo, if you spend two Feats on Pummeling Style and Charge, and get melee Clustered Shots in the bargain).

You overestimate Still Mind, IMO. And having Wis as a secondary stat doesn't make up for the hugely slower progression. You're behind by 2 at 1st level and fall 1 point further behind every 4 levels. That's HUGE.

Yeah, it's a decent beatstick, but Pathfinder already has too many decent and more than decent beatsticks. It's worse than a Barbarian and way worse than an Inquisitor, Investigator, or Magus at high levels. I'd say trading in versatility for staunchly middle of the road damage output is even worse than the core Monk's trade of having no damage output in exchange for a bit of versatility.

I wanted all good saves too but you're nuts if you think that is enough to make the uMonk worse. They get way more DPR - full BAB flurry with no penalties and the full 1.5x STR is massive, and they get built-in pounce on top of that. A uMonk destroys the archetyped regular one at everything except grappling.

Personally I would have given them weak fortitude, then layer on all those immunities they normally get like Purity of Body and Diamond Body to make it mostly irrelevant. So they would technically have a weak save, but it would be one that matters way less for them than it would for a Fighter. But even as they are, they're much stronger.

CharonsHelper
2017-08-02, 05:38 PM
I wanted all good saves too

That was my first inclination - but all good saves with full BAB and the other stuff they get at level 1 would have been a stupidly good dip. Something had to give.



A uMonk destroys the archetyped regular one at everything except grappling.

For melee combat - yes. (Though eventually a Sohei's weapon training gives them higher DPR for Dex builds.) But some of the archetypes let them do other fun things.

I'm a big fan of my Dwarf Drunken Master and his infinite ki. (I almost combined it with Sensei to use WIS to attack and to give everyone Barkskin and eventually give them all True Strike every round, but it took too long to come online for PFS.)

In addition to tetori beating them in grappling, there is the halfling trip archetype and you can't forget the Zen Archer.


Personally I would have given them weak fortitude, then layer on all those immunities they normally get like Purity of Body and Diamond Body to make it mostly irrelevant. So they would technically have a weak save, but it would be one that matters way less for them than it would for a Fighter. But even as they are, they're much stronger.

I can see either way. They have a low Will save, but they get Still Mind and Wisdom should always be their second highest stat. (the first either STR or DEX depending upon the build)

But really, even if I never play a Umonk, it's much easier to suggest to someone in PFS with a horrible core monk to switch to Umonk then it is to try to explain to them rebuild them into something halfway decent.

Psikerlord
2017-08-02, 06:25 PM
Monks shouldn't be Bruce Lee...they should be Jackie Chan.

totally agree

Psyren
2017-08-02, 10:02 PM
That was my first inclination - but all good saves with full BAB and the other stuff they get at level 1 would have been a stupidly good dip. Something had to give.

Agreed, though I still think Fort should have been that thing since they demonstrably need that less than most (all?) other martial classes.



For melee combat - yes. (Though eventually a Sohei's weapon training gives them higher DPR for Dex builds.) But some of the archetypes let them do other fun things.

I'm a big fan of my Dwarf Drunken Master and his infinite ki. (I almost combined it with Sensei to use WIS to attack and to give everyone Barkskin and eventually give them all True Strike every round, but it took too long to come online for PFS.)

In addition to tetori beating them in grappling, there is the halfling trip archetype and you can't forget the Zen Archer.

Point on archery, so that's two things base monk does better. Drunken Master is largely a gimmick, getting more ki than you need isn't that tough. Tripping is meh for a monk and Halflings are a meh race.



I can see either way. They have a low Will save, but they get Still Mind and Wisdom should always be their second highest stat. (the first either STR or DEX depending upon the build)

But really, even if I never play a Umonk, it's much easier to suggest to someone in PFS with a horrible core monk to switch to Umonk then it is to try to explain to them rebuild them into something halfway decent.

Indeed, as a quick package it's much easier to build well than trying to mix and match archetypes.

CharonsHelper
2017-08-02, 10:25 PM
Drunken Master is largely a gimmick, getting more ki than you need isn't that tough.

It comes into its own with Fast Drinker (albeit requiring an 18 Con - hence mine being a dwarf). It's pretty sweet to be able to replenish mid fight and use abilities like Scorching Ray or Dragon's Breath over and over. It basically turns them into a decent switch-hitter. With a Ring of Ki Mastery you can use them indefinitely.

And as I said above - it combos well with Sensei. At level 10 they can give everyone in the group True Strike every round instead of attacking while giving them Inspire Courage.

Psyren
2017-08-03, 12:15 AM
It comes into its own with Fast Drinker (albeit requiring an 18 Con - hence mine being a dwarf). It's pretty sweet to be able to replenish mid fight and use abilities like Scorching Ray or Dragon's Breath over and over. It basically turns them into a decent switch-hitter. With a Ring of Ki Mastery you can use them indefinitely.

And as I said above - it combos well with Sensei. At level 10 they can give everyone in the group True Strike every round instead of attacking while giving them Inspire Courage.

Oh I know all that, having discovered it years ago (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?367701-The-quot-Monklock-quot-(drunken-ki-spam)) :smalltongue:

I'll concede it's not something the uMonk can do, but it's also more on the TO side of things. I'd expect a GM whose player began abusing this to start enforcing some of the nastier drawbacks of alcohol.

SaurOps
2017-08-03, 12:33 AM
From a real world perspective and personal experience . You do karate and get your black belt , you are going to be super healthy as healthy or even more healthy than a viking who practiced with his sword everyday . The monk in theory trains longer and harder to the point of something resembling super human
That monk deserves a D12 too , heck he needs it more .

First off, everyone in D&D is superhuman in some fashion. Secondly, a viking would probably be a fighter, or a rogue/thief. Barbarians, who really need to be called Berserkers or something else, are also explicitly supernatural, in this case



The we have all these kung fu movies and media which suggest that Bruce Lee could kick Conans butt with ease

Where? Do you mean comparing extremely over the top wuxia with period pieces about vikings? Because that would be a rather loaded and heavily cherry-picked set of examples.



, yet DND insists that Barbarians and fighters can mince the monk ? What i find quite sad is that a disarmed martial character has a pretty even chance of beating up a monk just using his fists alone .

In what edition? At what levels? What's the setup?



DND is hard on the monk . He seems like a fighter but his stats are those of a rogue but he is a poor choice for both . Monk should be a competitive option on par with Fighters and Barbarians .

How are they not? In 2e, monks were a priest class, which means that they got more bennie points than anyone else and they could get grand mastery in unarmed combat (usually, only single-classed fighters could get any mastery in anything). 3.x doesn't matter because CoDzilla made everything irrelavent. 4e had everything be fairly evenly balanced, from what I heard, and in any case monks were given an entirely different role apart from fighters (i.e. they did damage while fighters kept enemies from moving into more favorable places and putting the hurt on the party). And in 5e, monks get to be Totally Not Psionic casters along with getting better saves, among other bennies.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 01:50 AM
I wanted all good saves too but you're nuts if you think that is enough to make the uMonk worse. They get way more DPR - full BAB flurry with no penalties and the full 1.5x STR is massive, and they get built-in pounce on top of that. A uMonk destroys the archetyped regular one at everything except grappling.

Personally I would have given them weak fortitude, then layer on all those immunities they normally get like Purity of Body and Diamond Body to make it mostly irrelevant. So they would technically have a weak save, but it would be one that matters way less for them than it would for a Fighter. But even as they are, they're much stronger.

Nobody's arguing the UnMonk has superior damage to the Core Monk and most archetypes, that's pretty evident. Though even in that sense, who cares? They're still out-DPR'd by A LOT of classes anyway so if that's the main claim to fame it may as well not exist. The damage drops even lower if you use Unarmed Strikes instead of a weapon so it doesn't even have unique weapon typing and Feat options as a justification for it existing as a mere beatstick.

It's everything else that's lost that's an issue even setting that aside. Build variety is practically nonexistent for the UnMonk. There's no Zen Archer equivalent (and that archetype COULD give it a run for its money in the DPR department, and then some), the Sohei loses only a bit of DPR in exchange for access to Advanced Weapon Training abilities and Feats, and it doesn't have the niche but potentially amazing archetypes like Flowing Monk (You ever played one of those in a game that primarily features humanoids as enemies?) or Sensei to fall back on either.

The UnMonk fails because it's a one trick pony in a game where half the classes do that trick better AND MORE and it doesn't even do its half-assed trick in an interesting way.

CharonsHelper
2017-08-03, 07:41 AM
I'd expect a GM whose player began abusing this to start enforcing some of the nastier drawbacks of alcohol.

Sure - if your GM wants to punish you for making a niche build work with optional poorly designed rules. (You don't even get a Fort save, and the average person gets drunk on their second drink. Plus - it doesn't even mention drinks ever wearing off, so by RAW you're drunk forever. >.<)

Fortunately - my drunk monk is PFS, so GMs don't have the option to hose me.

Note: While it's fun/cool, you're really better off playing a Kinetiscist if you want to fling out touch attacks & AOEs at will. They do much more damage.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 12:49 PM
Sure - if your GM wants to punish you for making a niche build work with optional poorly designed rules. (You don't even get a Fort save, and the average person gets drunk on their second drink. Plus - it doesn't even mention drinks ever wearing off, so by RAW you're drunk forever. >.<)

Fortunately - my drunk monk is PFS, so GMs don't have the option to hose me.

Note: While it's fun/cool, you're really better off playing a Kinetiscist if you want to fling out touch attacks & AOEs at will. They do much more damage.

Hm? The rules are pretty clear for when the Sickening wears off. You can drink a number of drinks equal to 1+2*Con mod (in your 18 Con Monk's case, 9) safely. For very drink above that, you are sickened for an hour. If you hammer down 10 drinks, in other words, you're Sickened for 1 hour. There's very little risk of that happening.

The addiction rules are the ones not even defined, left as a vague suggestion that regular alcohol abuse MIGHT lead to addiction, without even a save DC listed. A GM would need to houserule a DC and frequency, which is what the PFS GM can't do. He CAN certainly enforce the GM Guide rules on drunkenness...not that it's ever likely to come up.

Psyren
2017-08-03, 02:03 PM
Nobody's arguing the UnMonk has superior damage to the Core Monk and most archetypes, that's pretty evident. Though even in that sense, who cares? They're still out-DPR'd by A LOT of classes anyway so if that's the main claim to fame it may as well not exist.

Well by that logic, why would you play any class other than a T1? Nothing else may as well exist right?

uMonk is for people who want to play a monk, but still contribute to a T3-baseline party, and do so without having to juggle a bunch of archetypes or other specialized options. Everything you need to be effective is right there in just two entries (the class itself, and the qinggong powers.)


The damage drops even lower if you use Unarmed Strikes instead of a weapon so it doesn't even have unique weapon typing and Feat options as a justification for it existing as a mere beatstick.

There are absolutely ways to get unarmed damage on par with weapons. Dragon Style for instance gets you up to 2x Str to your US before Power Attack. And you're ignoring the inherent advantages of unarmed, like immunity to disarm and sunder (which some monsters specialize in), plus fewer issues bringing weapons into social situations, free hands for grappling and item use etc.



Build variety is practically nonexistent for the UnMonk.

This is false too; archetypes exist like Monk of the Mantis, Far Strike Monk and Scaled Fist, and every new archetype is getting UM versions too. You're also not limited to monk weapons thanks to feats like Ascetic Style and Crusader's Flurry. There's plenty of ways to customize your monk.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 03:28 PM
Dragon Style gives you 2x Str to ONE attack, and no extra Power Attack. It's nowhere near on the same par damage-wise and locks you out of other styles like Snake and Pummeling that are all around better.

The "immunity to disarm and sunder" tripe gets trotted out a lot, but is a negligible benefit. That's not a tactic NPCs tend to use a lot. Always having a weapon is neat, but also very niche. Item use is rarely an issue since you can hold a 2H weapon in one hand to draw and use an item anyway. The downsides then outweigh the upsides sinc emost of them are always present: Lower damage, lower to-hit (your "weapon" at any given level is going to be at a lower Enhancement since an AoMF costs double what a weapon costs), lower AC (because you're using an AoMF, you can't use an AoNA; Barkskin offsets this somewhat though costs a resource), no easy way to get Reach without downsides, and the niche but occasionally dangerous drawback of punching enemies that hurt people who punch them like some oozes and the Remorhaz.

Far Strike Monk is not compatible with the UnMonk, it was released before Unchained. Mantis and Scaled Fist are overall pretty bad (the latter making the UnMonk's lack of a good Will save even more apparent), I don't count them as advantages any more than the ability to be a Terra Cotta Monk or Spirit Master is an advantage for the core Monk.

Those Feats you mentioned are basically only good for flavor (and in the case of Crusader's Flurry actively makes you weaker), so I'm not sure what your point is. Weapon choice isn't build diversity.


Well by that logic, why would you play any class other than a T1? Nothing else may as well exist right?

uMonk is for people who want to play a monk, but still contribute to a T3-baseline party, and do so without having to juggle a bunch of archetypes or other specialized options. Everything you need to be effective is right there in just two entries (the class itself, and the qinggong powers.)

What? How do you make that leap in logic, exactly?

If you have a class that does a thing, and a class that does the exact same thing but better, what is the point of the first class? That's not a matter of tiers, that's a matter of mechanical niche. The difference between a T1 and T3 class is OPTIONS, problem solving ability. In this case the UnMonk has roughly the same problem solving ability as a Barbarian, but less damage output. That's not an inter-tier problem, that' an intra-tier roblem. The UnMonk doesn't stand out from its peers, and mechanically speaking doesn't shine in AY aspect. Which the core Monk ALSO has a problem with, but has had many options over the years released that let it better define that. The UnMonk started from a mostly clean slate and that slate hasn't filled very much in the YEARS since its release.

So you're still left with a class that has:

-Less options
-Worse saves
-Nerfed class abilities
+Slightly more damage than an unarchetyped example of the previously released class

That leaves its only draw over the original class being more damage output (*if you didn't want to play a Far Strike, Zen Archer, or Sohei), except it's outdone in damage output by at least 6 classes I can name off the top of my head that are also at least as versatile, so its only draw is something it does worse than at least half a dozen other classes so...why bother?

The UnMonk, if we're talking tiers, is still only a solid T4 at best. So it has to compete with classes like the Barbarian and Fighter as damage dealers (and the Barbarian is as versatile, while the Fighter pretty heavily outstrips it in damage), and classes like Magus, Inquisitor, and Investigator in the tier above dealing nearly as much damage but being FAR more versatile.

The UnMonk has nowhere to land that makes it an acceptable class. It can't even claim to be the best unarmed fighter in the game since it's incentivized to use weapons over unarmed strikes and is competing with other unarmed classes like Sacred Fist Warpriest and Brawler as well.

TL;DR: The UnMonk isn't bad JUST because other classes are better, it's bad because MOST other classes are better, and MANY are better at its mechanical niche. It's redundant in every regard.

Psyren
2017-08-03, 03:59 PM
Dragon Style gives you 2x Str to ONE attack, and no extra Power Attack. It's nowhere near on the same par damage-wise and locks you out of other styles like Snake and Pummeling that are all around better.

2x to one and 1.5x to all the others, putting it on par with a 2H weapon (actually slightly ahead). Also, Combat Style Master is a thing that exists.


Mantis and Scaled Fist are overall pretty bad (the latter making the UnMonk's lack of a good Will save even more apparent), I don't count them as advantages any more than the ability to be a Terra Cotta Monk or Spirit Master is an advantage for the core Monk.

Nah, Mantis makes a pretty deadly Dex-based uMonk. Scaled Fist is pretty much on par with the basic one - nothing it replaces is that important - but is much more multiclassing friendly with things like Ninja.



Those Feats you mentioned are basically only good for flavor (and in the case of Crusader's Flurry actively makes you weaker), so I'm not sure what your point is. Weapon choice isn't build diversity.

So flurrying with a 15-20 crit Scimitar (and getting Dex to damage with it on top of that), or flurrying with a 15ft. whip, are not good things? Do you even D&D?

I'm convinced you just can't build a good one, but that's your problem.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 04:23 PM
2x to one and 1.5x to all the others, putting it on par with a 2H weapon (actually slightly ahead). Also, Combat Style Master is a thing that exists.

Combat Style Master lets you switch Styles freely; It does not let you use multiple at a time.




Nah, Mantis makes a pretty deadly Dex-based uMonk.

You have to jump through quite a few hoops to make a proper Dex based character without 3rd party stuff in PF. Jumping through those hoops to make your Stunning Fist ever so slightly better isn't really worth it.


Scaled Fist is pretty much on par with the basic one - nothing it replaces is that important - but is much more multiclassing friendly with things like Ninja.

Nothing it replaces is that important except making all your abilities Cha based (Cha being a much less important stat than Wis), and nothing it GIVES is that grand either.

I'll grant you it makes a decent dip, but so do a lot of bad classes.




So flurrying with a 15-20 crit Scimitar (and getting Dex to damage with it on top of that), or flurrying with a 15ft. whip, are not good things? Do you even D&D?

I'm convinced you just can't build a good one, but that's your problem.

Considering the UMonk's entire damage edge comes from its 1.5x Str on Flurry, you're making it just as bad as the core Monk (pumping AC at the expense of damage) for little purpose. There are a lot of Monk weapons with 19-20 crit rates that you can use with no further investment. Spending the one level (Cleric 1) and four Feats (Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus, Crusader's Flurry, and Dervish Dance) you need just to up your crit rate by 10% is a bad trade.

The whip is even worse. For an extra 5 ft. Reach over a Kyoketsu Shoge you need:

-Cleric 1 (*and worship a god with Whip as its favored weapon that is one step from Lawful Neutral, Good, or Evil, which I'm not sure exists, but I don't really trawl the PF wiki)
-Weapon Focus
-Crusader's Flurry
-Whip Mastery
-Improved Whip Mastery

So you spent 4 Feats and lost a BaB to attack from 5 feet further away and only threaten 10 ft. anyway.

Why aren't you just using Lunge with a Kyoketsu, exactly?

Are you sure you know what you're talking about?

Psyren
2017-08-03, 05:03 PM
Rynjin, I could respond point for point (e.g. the 19-20 crit on monk weapons means a max of only 17-20 rather than the much better 15-20, and that you can also just Lunge with a Whip for 20ft. reach) but rather than waste time, I'll reiterate that you're just bad at building Unchained Monks and move on.

Back on topic - PF Monk is only one solution, one can make a "martial artist" a variety of ways. Brawler gives you an unarmed combatant that can throw on a mithral chain shirt and not worry as much about their Wisdom score. Ninjas and Warpriests can also fight with their fists quite effectively.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 05:21 PM
Rynjin, I could respond point for point (e.g. the 19-20 crit on monk weapons means a max of only 17-20 rather than the much better 15-20, and that you can also just Lunge with a Whip for 20ft. reach) but rather than waste time, I'll reiterate that you're just bad at building Unchained Monks and move on.

So I'm bad because I look at things of the overall whole (non-renewable resources spent vs gain achieved) instead of builds in a vacuum? 20 ft. Reach is overkill unless you can make that your THREATENED area rather than attack area, which a whip doesn't allow, you still only threaten 10. 15 ft. Reach puts you in no AoO rage for even Colossal creatures, so the extra 5 ft. is pointless. Particularly so when you've now spent a level and four Feats on it.

The Whip is excellent for other classes (I had an Inquisitor once that specialized in maximizing Reach via buffs like Long Arm and Righteous Might and locking down an area with big damage AoOs and trips), but you're really grasping at straws to make it a good option for a Monk of any kind.

If I have the time later I'll run the numbers on crit vs extra static damage in DPR, you may be right there (though I don't THINK you are, obviously) but the whip build is such a baffling hill to die on.

Psyren
2017-08-03, 07:01 PM
So I'm bad because I look at things of the overall whole (non-renewable resources spent vs gain achieved) instead of builds in a vacuum?

I don't think you're bad. Just at making Unchained Monks. It's not that big a deal really.

Rynjin
2017-08-03, 07:50 PM
Parameters, quick and dirty build:

Level 11
20 PB
11th level WBL, no more than 1/3 WBL spent on a single item
Currently, only taking into account exact Feats needed for the build, shared where both are applicable (Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Improved Critical for Str build, Weapon Finesse/Dervish/Weapon Focus/Crusader's Flurry/Improved Critical/Power Attack for the Dex build)
Human race
Armor class target: 25 (CR 11 average)



Stats, post racial, leveling, and items:

Str: 25
Dex: 16
Con: 14
Int: 10
Wis: 14
Cha: 8

Gear: +3 Sansetsukon (18k), +4 Str, +2 Con Belt (22k), +3 Cloak of Resistance (9k), +2 Ring of Protection (18k), +2 Amulet of Natural Armor (8k), +2 Headband of Inspired Wisdom (4k), 3 stats into Str

Attack Routine, Power Attack: +19/+19/+19/+14/+9 (1d10+21, 17-20/x2)

DPR calc vs 25 PA: .7(26.5)+.4*.7*26.5= 25.97 (attacks 1-3), .45(26.5)+.4*.45*26.5= 16.695 (attack 4), .2(26.5)+.4*.2*26.5=7.42

Total DPR: 102.025



Stats:

Str: 13
Dex: 25
Con: 14
Int: 11
Wis: 16
Cha: 7

Gear: +3 Scimitar (18k), +4 Dex, +2 Con Belt (22k), +3 Cloak of Resistance (9k), +2 Ring of Protection (18k), +2 Amulet of Natural Armor (8k), +2 Headband of Inspired Wisdom (4k), 3 stats in Dex

Attack routine, no PA: +21/+21/+16/+11 (1d6+13, 15-20/x2)
Attack routine, PA: +18/+18/+13/+8

DPR, no PA: h= .8, .55, .3, d= 16.5, t=.3| 1-2 = 21.12, 3=14.52, 4=7.92

Total: 64.68

DPR, PA: 1-2 = 23.4, 3=14.4, 4=5.4

Total: 66.6

Admittedly, this is a PARTICULARLY bad level for the scimitar build. For giggles, let's give the Dex build +1 attack and an extra attack at full BaB, and see what changes. So basically, what it looks like at 12th.



No PA: h=.85, .6, .35

Total: (22.44 x3, 14.94, 9.24) = 91.38

PA: h=.7, .45, .2

Total: (25.2 x3, 16.2, 12.6) 104.4

So, 3 points higher than the 11th level Str build (which gets a hefty boost of 3 damage per hit at 12th as well) for the cost of 4 extra Feats. Yippee.

I'm not interested in carrying this any further, but I do believe the proper 12th level builds (the Dex one having +1 damage over the previous and the Str one having +3 damage and +1 hit, which I should have done in the first place but forgot the extra attack came in at 11th and not 10th until midway through calcs) would hold the same trend, with each build having roughly the same DPR, with the Str build edging it out slightly, and the Dex build having a higher AC, but being down 4 Feats that could have been spent on something else instead. Hardly the overwhelming advantage you claim.

Psyren
2017-08-03, 10:22 PM
So, 3 points higher than the 11th level Str build (which gets a hefty boost of 3 damage per hit at 12th as well) for the cost of 4 extra Feats. Yippee.

Your latter build has the same DPR (slightly ahead in fact) but nearly double AC, double touch AC, and more than double reflex. It can also switch-hit with a great ranged bonus, be primary or backup scout, and has far superior initiative. So thanks for proving my point?


I'm not interested in carrying this any further

Too much to hope for I think.