D&D 3E/3.5 Any good Homebrew Monk Variants? [3.5e]

[Celebrim]

Any dumber than a 4-foot dwarven fighter with a pointy stick killing 40-foot dragons and surviving what they dish out?

Yes, considerably dumber.

If you'd bothered to read, you would have seen I'd already briefly answered this entirely predictable objection.

To begin with, your argument seems to be that if I accept 'fantastic' things then I can no longer object to 'unrealistic' things. This draws a false contrast between 'fantastic' and 'unrealistic', because once I accept the premise of the 'fantastic' world where 40' long firebreathing lizards exist and people can conjure fire from thin air by mumbling the right words and even where I accept people's 'kung fu' is strong, I can still object to a lack of 'realism' within such constraints.

In the case of the open-hand fighting monk, I can point out that back in the real world were we get all the stories, myths, and ideas that we are creating our fantasy from, the idea that someone with strong 'kung fu' is not disadvantaged when forced to fight with only their bare hands just doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in wuxia. It doesn't exist in eastern martial arts. It just isn't found, because even amongst people who believed strongly that by practicing kung fu you could do magical, mystical things, they still understood that someone with equally strong kung fu but also wielding a sword, spear, or other weapon had the advantage.

Even if you believe and accept that someone can move with magical speed, float above the ground with the power of their ki, or strike with such force to break bricks, you still find yourself led to believe by the internal logic of the setting that said person ought to be able to move a sword with magical speed, float above the ground with the power of their ki, and strike more heavily holding a weapon than they would with their bare hands. You might well believe someone's kung fu let them beat non-heroic armed and armored individuals with only their bare hands, but any familiarity with actual Shaolin, Kung-Fu, Karate, Jute-Kwan-Do, or whatever and the myths around them would lead to you to think being armed was better than not being armed. The monk in 1e was recognized as badly designed almost universally and immediately, but it is this badly designed peice of crap that created the whole 'unarmed attacks ought to be better than armed attacks' nonsense.

But it's more dumb than that. The basic problem here is that reliance on arms and armor represent a serious drawback. Arms and armor are expensive. They can break. They can be dropped. They can be a hinderance. They are heavy. They give away that you are prepared for battle. If some dude could compete on equal terms in a fight without weapons with the guy who had weapons, then why would anyone use weapons at all? In such a world, where you could do just as well without them, who would bother to invent weapons? In such a game, where you could do just as well in combat without weapons as with them, why would anyone play the martial class that had the disadvantage of needing breakable, theftable, dropable, encumbering implements?

Dude's kung fu is strong. He punches a dragon in the shin and those scales crumple like the stones he practices on every week.

Great. That's believable in the light of fantasy. What's not believable is the expectation that some dude next to him with equally strong kung fu, but also a magical spear can't use that same kung fu thrust to skewer said dragon like a shish-kabob.

So the entire idea that you can somehow balance an unarmed fighter against an armed fighter in any granular game system is just dumb, as is any complaint that your unarmed fighter can't compete with armed fighters. If the Monk is a subpar fighter, that's the only way it can be balanced.

They are tougher than a Monk, anyway, but no better in offense and with less utility/mobility and less mystical stuff.

Right. Because not needing to breathe, eat, sleep, or drink and being immortal and completely immune to pain, poison, disease, nausea, energy drain, ability damage, compulsion and virtually every other thing (off the top of my head I don't remember the whole list) doesn't involve anything mystical at all.

 

[milo]

In most one on one fights between a monk and a fighter the monk will lose. You lock them in a small room where the monk can't use his superior movement and skills he will lose. You throw them in an obstacle course or a place with some loose tiles where balance and tumbling might be useful the monk will stand a chance. I know it is odd that the fighter might be a superior fighter, just crazy. But the monk can do other things that help balance them in the long run. Like evade fireballs, make will saves, charge 180 ft in a round and stun a wizard at the end of the charge. They don't stand toe to toe with things as well as a fighter does though, they don't replace a fighter in a party. They are a utility character and if you have the main 4(fighter, rogue, wizard, and cleric) then they are a great addition. This isn't always true though, just what I have seen in my experience. What does the rest of the party have in it? If he can get some help from the rest of the party like mage armor, heroism, magic fang, greater magic fang, etc he can get other items that he may need to help his combat ability. Custom made items are great for monks like a ring of divine favor +x (Spell levelxcaster levelx2000x2) 4000 for a +1, 24000 for a +2, 36000 for a +3, 48000 for a +4, 60000 for a +5, 72000 for a +6.
Then there is always the way you use monks, standing up in a straight fight they are useless, but they can do so much more than stand toe to toe and duke it out like a barbarian or a fighter, and if he tries to do that he will be greatly disappointed.

 

[Sylrae]

If youre looking for a non-ridiculous Monk Variant, look at the Monk in Project Phoenix. Search Google for Project Phoenix d20, and it should be right at the top.

It's got different martial schools.

I cant remember if it fixed the flurry of misses, but it's definitely a good improvement.

The Martial Arts techniques are loosely based on Avatar the Last airbender fighting styles (which are in turn based on real fighting styles), but without the magic and elemental stuff avatar has.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I like the Trailblazer monk variant.

Basically, as long as you fight like a monk (gaining the AC bonuses and using monk weapons) you get an attack bonus that places you on a virtual full BAB. This doesn't increase your iterative attack rates, or your feat access, since it's not a BAB increase, but it does shore up the attack bonus of a class that's supposed to fight. (+1 at first level, +2 at fifth level, +3 at ninth level, +4 at thirteenth level, etc.)

Add in the Weapon Kata feat (Benefit: gain proficiency with weapon and treat as special monk weapon) and you've got a pretty nifty class.

 

[Celebrim]

Basically, as long as you fight like a monk (gaining the AC bonuses and using monk weapons) you get an attack bonus that places you on a virtual full BAB. This doesn't increase your iterative attack rates, or your feat access, since it's not a BAB increase, but it does shore up the attack bonus of a class that's supposed to fight. (+1 at first level, +2 at fifth level, +3 at ninth level, +4 at thirteenth level, etc.)

Add in the Weapon Kata feat (Benefit: gain proficiency with weapon and treat as special monk weapon) and you've got a pretty nifty class.

That's a pretty simple fix that you could drop into pretty much any monk class roughly on par in power with the SRD monk. In my very limited experience DMing Monks in 3e, they are a tad bit underpowered at everything but running away (which sucks for the rest of the party).

An alternate fix, and one that would be more in my style, would be to make a feat where as long as you fought like a monk (no armor, monk weapons), you gained the monk's special defensive bonus. Then if you wanted to be a warrior monk, you'd just build a fighter with the appropriate feats. (That claim would be more believable if I posted some of my other house rules.) The Weapon Kata feat would translate well here to. The advantage of going this way - other than the fact that you get rid of the monk class entirely - is that its less specifically tied to flavor, so that if you wanted to make a swashbuckling fencer, you could go this way it it made sense for your character without picking up unwanted monk baggage. This would be especially true if you made the base 'monk weapons' definition somewhat broader to suit the weaponry of your campaign.

 

[ValhallaGH]

That's a pretty simple fix that you could drop into pretty much any monk class roughly on par in power with the SRD monk. In my very limited experience DMing Monks in 3e, they are a tad bit underpowered at everything but running away (which sucks for the rest of the party).

An alternate fix, and one that would be more in my style, would be to make a feat where as long as you fought like a monk (no armor, monk weapons), you gained the monk's special defensive bonus. Then if you wanted to be a warrior monk, you'd just build a fighter with the appropriate feats. (That claim would be more believable if I posted some of my other house rules.) The Weapon Kata feat would translate well here to. The advantage of going this way - other than the fact that you get rid of the monk class entirely - is that its less specifically tied to flavor, so that if you wanted to make a swashbuckling fencer, you could go this way it it made sense for your character without picking up unwanted monk baggage. This would be especially true if you made the base 'monk weapons' definition somewhat broader to suit the weaponry of your campaign.

Feat bloat? Yech.

 

[Celebrim]

Feat bloat? Yech.

On some level I agree, but as the alternative is class bloat, I take feat bloat as the far lesser of two evils.

 

[Aus_Snow]

In a system wherein feats represent not only tweaks to the spreadsheet, but entirely new things your character can do - only with a given feat - or, even more commonly, things your character can now do without copping some awful knid of penalty or hampering factor. . . I think it's just as well that there are many, many feats.

I realise that some feats could be made class abilities. I see C&C as one of several systems that're practically made for this. Likewise, class (and race, etc.) abilities can become feats. M&M presents a nearly flawless execution of this.

But, with 3e (and PF, et al) you're basically going to have to rely on feats, more than a little. Because, yes, otherwise you have gazillions of base classes - oh joy.

 

[Ashenboychild]

(@ post 11)


I used to think like that, but now I disagree. In the real world, weapons are always superior, but in a fantastical world this isn't always true. Imagine if all the weapons you had available were paper fans and rolls of newspaper, or were so heavy as to slow you down. If equipment limitations are so important, then mages (who never wear armor and only use weapons at lower levels) should never exist.

It seems silly and distant from the 'real world' but it's not necessary dumb, and is far less illogical that spells (by logic i refer to internal consistencies- mirror image being a prime example). For a monk, they are their own magic weapon and armor, and whether or not that is 'dumb' is more a matter of opinion than one of fact.

 

[Celebrim]

In the real world, weapons are always superior, but in a fantastical world this isn't always true.

Why not?

Imagine if all the weapons you had available were paper fans and rolls of newspaper, or were so heavy as to slow you down.

Then what you imagine is nothing like the usual fantasy worlds. Certainly, if everythinig in the fantasy world but the fighter was no harder than paper and heavier than lead, then we would be forced to rely on no weapons at all. But of course, in such a world weapons wouldn't even exist and no one would have thought of them. Everyone who relied on melee attacks would be a monk.

However, this is not what fantasy worlds are like. We know that in fantasy worlds their exist magical metals which are much harder and stronger than the hardest steel and yet which are also lighter than aluminum. We also know that in such fantasy worlds, those magical materials are harder than the monk. The monk may well be as hard as steel, but mithril or adamantium is much harder still.

If equipment limitations are so important, then mages (who never wear armor and only use weapons at lower levels) should never exist.

That's like saying that if rifles were so important, accountants shouldn't exist. How does that follow? Mages don't strike with their fists (usually) nor are they generally melee combatants. They aren't competing in the same sphere as an armed and armored man.

It seems silly and distant from the 'real world' but it's not necessary dumb, and is far less illogical that spells

Why?

(by logic i refer to internal consistencies- mirror image being a prime example)

I'm not sure I follow.

For a monk, they are their own magic weapon and armor, and whether or not that is 'dumb' is more a matter of opinion than one of fact.

I'm fully capable of accepting that in a magical world some people might have acquired the skill to be their own weapon and armor. That doesn't really challenge my point, which is either that monks are inferior melee combatants to fighters or else armed and armored warriors should either never come to exist or else should fade from use a sufficient time after the arts of monks were known.