PDA

View Full Version : Monk damage; yet another fix



TGWG
2007-09-28, 10:56 AM
part of being a monk is being able to use weapons. (needs corrections)

Part of being a monk is being able to use weapons EFECTIVELY. Because think about it. Just because people are proficient with a weapon doesn't mean that they're good with them. It could be be that they don't have the stats to use the weapon efficiently, or because they haven't gotten proper training with the weapon. Monks have extensive training with certain weapons and should be much beter at using them then people who are just proficient. bottom line is down below.


FIX #1; while using a weapon, add the monk's unarmed damage to the weapon's damage
Fix #2; while using a weapon, add the monk's unarmed attack bonus to the weapon's attack bonus.
Fix # 3; the monk has 3 five foot steps that he can use as a non-action anywhere in is turn, instead of just one five foot step.

sikyon
2007-09-28, 11:03 AM
What if the monk likes fighting unarmed?

TGWG
2007-09-28, 11:07 AM
Fix number two: treat his arms/feet/watev like regular weapons that can be enhanced through meditation (and money)

EX: +3 frost fist

Miraqariftsky
2007-09-28, 11:14 AM
Aye! Why in blazes is it that there isn't a monk variant that could chanel Ki more effectively? Like, instead of ONLY getting past CERTAIN kinds of damage reduction, why not, as the monk levels, she can get bonuses be it on attacks, damage or skill checks when she uses her Ki?

TK-Squared
2007-09-28, 11:19 AM
Fix number two: treat his arms/feet/watev like regular weapons that can be enhanced through meditation (and money)

EX: +3 frost fist

We call this a Kensai.

Darrin
2007-09-28, 12:42 PM
We call this a Kensai.

Yes, and they made the same mistake with that PrC that they did with the Monk: giving a pimarily melee class a mediocre BAB. Trying to fix the Monk's poor damage output before you fix their to-hit problems is a little like trying to fix the hole in the bottom of a boat after it sinks.

TGWG
2007-09-29, 07:07 AM
Fix #3; while using a weapon, add the monk's attack bonus from his unarmed strike to the weapon to attack bonus. this includes enhancement bonuses, moral bonuses, ect

so now the monk gains double bonuses to attack from bard songs, items, and spells

EX:
unarmed strke (+7/+2)(1d10+1)
+3 frost nunchaku (+10/+5)(1d6 +1, 1d6)

real damage and attack (+17/+15)(1d10+1d6+2, 1d6)

too good?

Fix #4: the monk has 3 five foot steps that he can use as a non-action during his turn

let's add a little combat manuverability to the monk class

WhiteHarness
2007-09-29, 07:47 AM
Wait, you're wanting to "fix" things so that the monk does more damage? No thanks. He already does more damage than is reasonable for somebody fighting with bare hands and feet. Fighting without weapons should never be as good as fighting with weapons. That just doesn't make sense on any level.

Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.

TGWG
2007-09-29, 07:56 AM
do you have any idea how powerful a shoalin monk can be? it's not just myth that they can bring down a tree with just there fist, and if you don't believe me just take a look at all those stonebreaking martial arts competitions.

and also i'm not increasing monk damage without weapons, i'm increasing monk damage and attack with Weapons

truemane
2007-09-29, 08:05 AM
Wait, you're wanting to "fix" things so that the monk does more damage? No thanks. He already does more damage than is reasonable for somebody fighting with bare hands and feet. Fighting without weapons should never be as good as fighting with weapons. That just doesn't make sense on any level.

Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.

That may be technically "true" but it misses the point entirely. The discussion on the board isn't Whether or not the Monk should be discontinued due to poor realism. The argument is, there is a Monk, and the Monk's hallmark is the ability to compete adequately without weapons and armour. So how do we make it work?

If you want to discuss reality as it impacts on fantasy archtypes, start another thread.

Kellus
2007-09-29, 08:08 AM
After reading some of the stuff on this thread, I've made a re-done monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58317). Feel free to take a look and comment. It's sort of a combination monk-bard-factotum, but I think it works pretty well.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 08:18 AM
He already does more damage than is reasonable for somebody fighting with bare hands and feet.Without magical boosts, a 20th level monk isn't doing enough damage with a strike to consistently kill a 1st level commoner outright, let alone a warrior.

It's nonsense to talk about what an unarmed strike should reasonably able to do when we're dealing with people who can withstand being trampled by elephants or struck by a falling 16 ton weight without being in the least slowed down by their injuries.


Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.People are looking for balance, not bias. Your argument would mean that a barbarian or rogue, especially the latter, can best them for unarmed damage, even without taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. There was never anything wrong with increasing the monk's unarmed damage.

Having said that, I'll agree that it was wrong for them to be no more effective with their other weapons. I'd have little issue with unarmed strike capping at 1d6 if monks had a way to perform their flurry of strikes while moving. I'd prefer they were scoring a little higher with all of their weapons, but it's a starting point.

TO_Incognito
2007-09-29, 08:20 AM
Wait, you're wanting to "fix" things so that the monk does more damage? No thanks. He already does more damage than is reasonable for somebody fighting with bare hands and feet. Fighting without weapons should never be as good as fighting with weapons. That just doesn't make sense on any level.

Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.

In the context of a world in which Ki exist, it makes perfect sense, and in the context of a roleplaying game in which every character should be effective, it not only makes sense, but is absolutely essential.

TGWG
2007-09-29, 09:07 AM
After reading some of the stuff on this thread, I've made a re-done monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58317). Feel free to take a look and comment. It's sort of a combination monk-bard-factotum, but I think it works pretty well.

I've looked at your fix and the blitz idea is intriguing, I was only just toying with an idea like that, but you must of been thinking about that a lot longer then me. we just need to change the name (seriously it's a terrible name for a monk abbility)


Having said that, I'll agree that it was wrong for them to be no more effective with their other weapons. I'd have little issue with unarmed strike capping at 1d6 if monks had a way to perform their flurry of strikes while moving. I'd prefer they were scoring a little higher with all of their weapons, but it's a starting point.

Fix # 3, the monk's three five foot steps should take care of that, but should we increase it to four five foot steps?

and you WhiteHarness:smallmad:


Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.

where did you get an idea like that. these are trained warriors who bring their bodies to the limits. WIth or without ki their unarmed damage should be a lot higher than 1d3. and as proof here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_%28martial_arts%29)and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkvR-EftwQs)and especialy HERE (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1114174809362389368&q=breaking+martial+arts&total=2640&start=30&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6). these are normal people who have trained for competitions, not fully trained shoalin monks. moreover this is a world without ki, they were able to to this without the assistence of any mystical inner force. think of how that stacks.

Talya
2007-09-29, 09:12 AM
Wait, you're wanting to "fix" things so that the monk does more damage? No thanks. He already does more damage than is reasonable for somebody fighting with bare hands and feet. Fighting without weapons should never be as good as fighting with weapons. That just doesn't make sense on any level.

Monks should not do more than 1d3 plus a handful of modest bonuses.

I'll never understand why people ignore history and reality to denigrate unarmed combat when unarmed Shaolin monks took on armies with success.

TGWG
2007-09-29, 09:21 AM
I'll never understand why people ignore history and reality to denigrate unarmed combat when unarmed Shaolin monks took on armies with success.

because people tend to disregard the unfamiliar as nothing more than fantasies? Because they refuse to believe that a well trained human body is capable of doing remarkable things when their own flabby bodies are unfit and incapable of doing the same things?

don't know. some people are too narrow minded and skeptical to see the reality of the world. In a funny way they disregard reality as fantasy and their own fantasy as reality. kind of ironic isn't it.

bugsysservant
2007-09-29, 09:30 AM
FIX #1; while using a weapon, add the monk's unarmed damage to the weapon's damage

*cough cough shurikens cough*

TGWG
2007-09-29, 09:37 AM
too good? *scratch head*

WhiteHarness
2007-09-29, 04:24 PM
I'll never understand why people ignore history and reality to denigrate unarmed combat when unarmed Shaolin monks took on armies with success.

You can't be serious.

Prove it. Show me the primary source documentation that demonstrates shaolin monks "taking on armies with success"while unarmed. A cursory scan of wikipedia shows me that they did engage in military action, but their successes nearly always show them allied with other troops and often indicate that the monks themselves were armed. Also, they seem to have lost, badly, on several occasions, even having their temple destroyed. There exists no evidence for them "taking on armies with success" while unarmed. Frankly, their military track record doesn't look as sterling as their fanboys want to believe.

I'll never understand why people ignore history and reality to buy into pop-culture Asiaphilia.


do you have any idea how powerful a shoalin monk can be?

Yes. They can be exactly as powerful as any other human who attains a high level of accomplishment in any martial discipline. Which is to say, no, they can't knock down trees with one hit, take on armies single-handed, etc. They are bound by the same physical limitations as the rest of humanity.

Why are there so many credulous people in the world, who seem eager to believe that things like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" represent reality?

Arakune
2007-09-29, 04:30 PM
I was just wondering: a monk can use a gauntlet as a weapon and still retain his improved damage output? If so, what prevent the monk using a +5 holy flaming undead-bane gauntlet of speed and retaining his improved damage output?

I mean, what's the problem? It's not every day you can have a 2d10+str mod weapon with all that neat powers. If you can't have it, then the only fix should giving the monk access to this beauty.

Dullyanna
2007-09-29, 04:33 PM
Don't have any official verification on hand, but I'm sure one of their major temples was burned down in the past.

Staying on topic, though: Monks won't be fixed just by increasing their damage output. Fighters, barbarians, and rangers are available for that. They should, at the very least, be able to move while flurrying (A la the Dervish PrC). And make them capable of something besides twiddling their thumbs when up against things that move/fly around quickly. Not that all that would really, truly fix 'em.

Edit: Yeah, gauntlets (Maybe spiked gauntlets, as well) should be allowed. That's just logical... wait, logic... in DnD... Hah! Cute...

MeklorIlavator
2007-09-29, 04:48 PM
Why are there so many credulous people in the world, who seem eager to believe that things like "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" represent reality?
Why are there so many credulous people who think DnD represent reality?

This is a world with giant, color coded, ice/fire/cold(yes, you heard me right)/acid-breathing reptiles who are smarter than you plus people who can tell the laws of physics to shut up and sit down. So why are you complaining that making the monk effective is unrealistic. The game itself is unrealistic.

Logic
2007-09-29, 04:50 PM
Fix # 3; the monk has 3 five foot steps that he can use as a non-action anywhere in is turn, instead of just one five foot step.
Not this, because a monk would effectively get Spring Attack for free, but better.

WhiteHarness
2007-09-29, 05:03 PM
So why are you complaining that making the monk effective is unrealistic. The game itself is unrealistic.

In my last post, I wasn't addressing the realism of the game's rules; I was dealing with a pile of historical misinformation being spread around. I just can't let that slide.

slexlollar89
2007-09-29, 06:09 PM
the "Blitz" ability is called such because of the charatcer from Final Fantasy6, called Sabin who was effectively a monk... and a very cool and powerful charatcer (also one of my favs :smallsmile: ).

One metho to fix the Monk (which my old DM made me think of, thanks man if you're reading) is to create a Ki pool, like the ninja, and create some abilities that the monk can use, while also taking away the slowfall, ki power, and bonus feats the monk normally receives and giving them full BAB.

Instead, the monk may spend Ki points to temporarily gain a feat, DR, slowfall (#ft/point[s]), etc.

This is just an interesting idea I recently began toying with, and fits with the rest of the Ki based classes like the ninja and kensai.

lord_khaine
2007-09-29, 06:20 PM
i have allways belived letting a monk use light armor like a swordsage would be enough.

Guy_Whozevl
2007-09-29, 06:20 PM
the "Blitz" ability is called such because of the charatcer from Final Fantasy6, called Sabin who was effectively a monk... and a very cool and powerful charatcer (also one of my favs :smallsmile: ).

One metho to fix the Monk (which my old DM made me think of, thanks man if you're reading) is to create a Ki pool, like the ninja, and create some abilities that the monk can use, while also taking away the slowfall, ki power, and bonus feats the monk normally receives and giving them full BAB.

Instead, the monk may spend Ki points to temporarily gain a feat, DR, slowfall (#ft/point[s]), etc.

This is just an interesting idea I recently began toying with, and fits with the rest of the Ki based classes like the ninja and kensai.

Video games and D&D don't alwasys translate properly. Heck, the monk itself was probably WotC's attempt to make some kung-fu character based of Bruce Lee and look where that's got them.
I do however agree with the improvement of Ki abilities as a whole. PHBII tried to do something like that with Fiery Fist and Ki Blast, but the Fist (and its Fiery Shield counterpart) just sucked. Ki Blast, on the other hand, was a cool concept, but used up 2 Stunning Fist attempts a pop and had non-scaling damage (3d6). The Ki abilites should be more versatile, but not like DBZ or anything. That would be just wrong...

TGWG
2007-09-29, 06:27 PM
Not this, because a monk would effectively get Spring Attack for free, but better.

why not. the monk is already drastically underpowered already. why not give him an abbility that sets him apart?

slexlollar89
2007-09-29, 06:33 PM
thats the thing, with a Ki pool, you can get many different feats depending on the amout of Ki you have and the feat list that goes with the monk.

Dullyanna
2007-09-29, 07:38 PM
Why not give em' spring attack and whatnot as they level up? Not like other classes don't do this. Wait a second, monks do this kinda thing already... Anyway, I really do like slexlollar89's concept. It'd also be nice to let them choose, to a limited extent, what blitzes* they want.

* You could always call them techniques, secret arts, special moves, or whatever. It doesn't matter that much, really.

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 07:53 PM
I personally like the idea of allowing them to move their whole speed and make all the attacks of their flurry at any point in their movement.

It makes a certain amount of thematic sense, Martial artists do jump around hitting people on the move. And it fits their mobility/"battlefield control" stick.

Any of those attacks could be trips for example if facing mooks. Or end their turn by grappling the spellcaster (assuming the DM is nice enough to send non optimized/unprepared casters) Not like it's over powering or anything. Though some builds might decide to pick up a 1 lvl Monk dip. But we already have the Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian for that sort of thing anyway.

Dullyanna
2007-09-29, 07:58 PM
That's why you have to spread class features out as they level. This forces people to invest more than 1 or 2 levels into the class to get a nifty feature. And I completely agree with you on the mobility part. If the class is based on kung fu flicks, it makes perfect sense. And it makes them less useless, at least for a while.

Kaelik
2007-09-29, 10:24 PM
That's why you have to spread class features out as they level. This forces people to invest more than 1 or 2 levels into the class to get a nifty feature. And I completely agree with you on the mobility part. If the class is based on kung fu flicks, it makes perfect sense. And it makes them less useless, at least for a while.

Well the advantage of the flurry system that I mentioned is that a monk's flurry is already spread out across it's levels. So I can just say flurry does X differently.

Logic
2007-09-29, 10:47 PM
why not. the monk is already drastically underpowered already. why not give him an abbility that sets him apart?

Just because he is underpowered does not mean he should get a feat to fix it. And if you make this adjustment, a monk can make a full attack and still move 15 feet in a round, without provoking attacks of opportunity. That is making the monk better but going about it the wrong way.

So, reasons why it is bad:
*Full Attack action and move 15 feet in a round.
*The ability to move before, during and after the attack action.
*The monk is effectively immune to AoO, as long as he moves no more than 15 feet per round.

TGWG
2007-09-30, 12:37 PM
it's not a feat it's a class ability. and it makes perfect sense with the concept of a monk. (not what the poorly designed version we have)

all the reasons you gave make the monk better. and what's wrong with that? the monk will still have worse damage, to hit, and hp then the Fighter. if you give the monk this abbility then the monk will actualy have a purpouse in a fight. He will actualy be able to do something that no other class can.

Aquillion
2007-09-30, 01:13 PM
Honestly... are we going the wrong way by trying to make a monk into a functional full melee class?

Think about it. Sure, in the movies master monks are always great fighters, but they're also usually portrayed as being several 'levels' above everyone they fight. And when you get down to it, fighting is not at the heart of the monk "role".

Monks are usually shown as having lots of other abilities, too... they're stealthy, they can practically fly with their jumping abilities, they often know strange medical techniques and have the mystical knowledge to recognize lots of magic, and so on. They're often the "party face", too, come to think of it, because they're respected and disciplined. And they often use strange mystical items... why not give them UMD? Really, having a monk carrying mystical scrolls to help them banish evil makes perfect sense to me.

To me, this says that they should be a lesser skill-monkey with more limited skills, but with many special movement abilities, such as the power to run up walls, the ability to use their Bountiful Step more often and as a move action, some ability that lets them attack effectively as a standard action or on a charge, the ability to buff themselves temporarily in various ways by focusing their inner strength or whatever, and so on. Of course, if you give them all this they're basically Swordsages / Psychic Warriors, but that's what it comes down to: Functional versions of the monk already exist, they just don't have "monk" in front of them. Psychic Warriors would be a good template: Note that, like the Monk, they're a fighting-oriented class with only 3/4th BAB, but nobody complains that they're underpowered.

Mobility is extremely powerful when you're actually good at it; the problem is that monks really aren't. Just having a bonus to your movement, with nothing else supporting it, doesn't really make you mobile, particularly when your only real method of doing damage depends on a full attack.

I'd say absolutely no to gauntlets. Sure, it seems good from a power perspective, but where's the literary or movie precedent? How often does Bruce Lee wear magic gauntlets to boost his punches? Fighters and Rangers would be better balanced if we gave them missile launchers, too, but that doesn't mean we should. Once you give monks gauntlets, they're not monks anymore... they're just guys who like to punch people. You can represent that with a gauntlet-specialized fighter.