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

[Ashenboychild]

You've taken my analogy literally. Yes, magic weapons are awesome, but a monk should gain more benefits striking without them, either from enhanced damage or speed, because their own bodies are more conditioned.

I see what you are saying, but there is no reason why a monk and a fighter could not co-exist around the same power level than a fighter and a mage should. Naturally there should be differences in class, with benefits and penalties, and alternatives to spend money on just as with the mage.

In terms of simulationism, the existance of a martial art that can train someone such that weapons become irrelevant will not prevent the manufacture of weapons. Armies have always tended towards cheap and easy to use weapons, other classes still need weapons, and the existance of armies in a d&d setting is already more than a little broken already (with the severity of differences between levels).

Incidentally, magic is quite illogical. Spells justified by the same cause can have different effects e.g. a terrifying vision either kills or damages you (phantamal killer), or makes you unconscious (curse of the putrid husk). And invisibility and mirror image both have bizzare clauses that explain when the spell 'pops' without really giving any form of explanation other than game mechanics.


Specifically for mirror image, see
Mirror Image: The dire flail of spells? - Giant in the Playground Forums

 

[Sylrae]

@Celebrim
And thats a good point. If you dont need the gear, and youre putting just as much effort into learning to fight regardless, why bother to acquire gear when you can do just as well without it. In that situation, of COURSE you're going to be a monk, because then a Fighter is just a monk who loses his fighting skills if you take him by surprise (when he doesnt have all his weapons).

I think the solution, is that if monks are going to be primary fighters, you need to combine them with the fighter, into a single class, which you can just specialize different ways. That's why the monk isnt as good at fighting as the fighter.

The monk gets in some good hits, then backs off, and the fighter can just sit there and keep making the good hits all night.

It's like, Rogues as main damage people. They did that in trailblazer too. Rogues aren't strikers in D&D, that's WoW. Fighters are the Tanks, Damage Dealing Mages are the Strikers, and Rogues and Monks somewhere between.

If monks are frontline fighters, then gear-dependent frontline fighters don't serve much purpose, unless they are simply specialized monks. (IE they specialize in X gear or weapon).

 

[Celebrim]

You've taken my analogy literally.

How else was I to take it?

Yes, magic weapons are awesome, but a monk should gain more benefits striking without them, either from enhanced damage or speed, because their own bodies are more conditioned.

That's not logical. Why can't they strike with great speed and force using a weapon because their own bodies are more conditioned?

I see what you are saying, but there is no reason why a monk and a fighter could not co-exist around the same power level than a fighter and a mage should. Naturally there should be differences in class, with benefits and penalties, and alternatives to spend money on just as with the mage.

I didn't say that they couldn't. I said that the monk could not be as strong of a fighter as a fighter, and so, if your principle interest in the monk is combat, he will always seem underpowered. The monk would be a reasonable choice for a front line fighter in a stealth centered party where no one used heavy armor, and the monk has big advantages over the fighter in some out of combat situations. However, in general, the monk must seem weak vs. other martial classes in combat else it utterly obseletes them.

In terms of simulationism, the existance of a martial art that can train someone such that weapons become irrelevant will not prevent the manufacture of weapons.

That's not logical.

Armies have always tended towards cheap and easy to use weapons...

Cheaper than no weapons?

other classes still need weapons

If weapons become irrelevant, those other classes that depend on them as their primary implements would cease to exist. Weapons might possible exist for the sake of spellcasters, who are too busy training their mind to train their bodies, but if weapons are irrelevant surely armies wouldn't use them.

and the existance of armies in a d&d setting is already more than a little broken already (with the severity of differences between levels).

No arguments from me there. If you haven't addressed issues like fireball, flight, and invisibility in your campaign and you think the world should look exactly like our own world's history, then I've got little sympathy for you when your world goes off the rails due to actions by the PC's.

Incidentally, magic is quite illogical. Spells justified by the same cause can have different effects e.g. a terrifying vision either kills or damages you (phantamal killer)...

I'm not seeing the problem.

And invisibility and mirror image both have bizzare clauses that explain when the spell 'pops' without really giving any form of explanation other than game mechanics.

I don't see that as a problem. No rules set really needs to go into an elaborate metaphysical description of how magic works in order to explain all of its effects. We don't expect sci-fi stories to give elaborate descriptions of all the science within them. Some cursory explanation is not only enough, it's probably both all that is possible and all that can be contained within the limited framework of a rulebook. Dropping a physics text into a rulebook would be pointless.

Without some comprehensive description of the technology of magic which underlies how each spell works, I can't say whether mirror image is illogical or not. However, personally, I find the writer of the essay you link to to be something of an idiot. Yes, it is true that the mirror image 'popping' is an exception to how illusions normally work, but its also true that as an exception to how illusions normally work you can't see through them (knowing which images are illusions and which not) merely by successfully disbelieving them. This implies that the technology behind 'mirror image' is somewhat different than that behind say 'silent image'. Clearly, in 'mirror image' some sort of partially real material is created that gives the illusion real visible substance in the world, but clearly that material is as fragile and emphemeral as a bubble.

Of course, this implies that maybe you could make advanced versions of 'mirror image' that emulated 'advanced image' or phantasmal force in some respects and mirror image in others - you could see through it, but when you interacted with it it popped. Or conversely, you could create a mirror image that couldn't be popped, but to which allowed the opponent a saving throw to ignore the effect. But that's all up to the individual DM as to what he will allow as spell research by the PCs.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's like, Rogues as main damage people. They did that in trailblazer too. Rogues aren't strikers in D&D, that's WoW.

I was probably misled by the fact that rogues have a straight damage dealing ability as their primary class feature.

 

[Kerrick]

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.

Here, I'll save you some trouble: Project Phoenix: Monk.

I'm rather proud of that one, personally... it's one of my favorite revised classes (though the sorcerer might be a close second).

 

[Sylrae]

Hey Wulf Ratbane: It's true, damage dealing is their primary class feature, but the way they set it up, it needs to be used strategically.

- The need for FULL BAB goes down if the opponent has to be flat footed for it to work.
- While their main 'ability' is a damage dealer, they're simply ineffective strikers. They're more useful for their utility features, which is why theyre all skill-based.
That's why most people don't build them as strikers in core D&D right?

To be clear, when I say striker, I'm thinking, "Highest damage output to single opponents, on a consistent basis." The difference is the rogue is more of a "highest damage output, but not consistently, only in certain situations." Where the fighter/barbarian does better damage consistently. (I could be remembering trailblazer rules wrong, I dont have them right in front of me this instant.)

And Wulf, don't get me wrong, I really like trailblazer, it has some really cool Ideas and I'm glad I bought it.
I'm even okay with changing the rogue INTO a striker. I'm just saying I don't think theyre designed as good strikers normally. Likewise with the Monk. Their damage output is designed to be lowed than the fighter, and their toughness is lower, but they get utility skills to make up for it.

Honsetly, I'd probably use the trailblazer rules wholesale if I could make them compatible with many of the other things I want to use, without ramping up the power levels of all the things that end up using Trailblazer mechanics (and then having to bump up the power of everything else to compensate). It would save me a good chunk of work, which is involved in trying to make rules alot like the ones you have in Trailblazer (particularly for class changes) without raising the power of everyone (IE keep the average power level about the same).

I like the Idea of making Monks and Rogues into strikers, and making Fighter types be the tough frontline take damage and deal less damage types. It's just not how the core game is designed.

Maybe if we assigned roles to the classes like in 4e just for design purposes, that would make class design easier. If someone just said outright:

Rogues/Monks are fragile, but they do great strategically placed damage. (as opposed to consistant damage).
Fighters/Barbarians are tough, and they fight consistently, but their damage is lower.
Wizards are (hard to classify because it all depends on spell selection. Wizards CAN be controllers like in 4e, but I always avoid playing those kinds of wizards.)

I guess what I'm saying is, while I'm okay with the Idea of redesigning classes to fit the roles that make sense for them, it's mainly the power level bump that I see as a problem.

Hmm.

Maybe a thread classifying roles could be useful, and then see how the classes could be changed to fit the roles we want them for.

Final thing about trailblazer: (This is just my opinion) Trailblazer is an awesome rules fix. The one downside (which is quite significant), is that while it looks to be balanced with itself, it ramps the power level for the game up well above other books. If you want to run a game using things Trailblazer doesn't cover, you need to up the power to match trailblazer (which can be a big chunk of work to rebalance it all).

Hey Kerrick: Yeah, the monk turned out fantastic. I'm glad alot of my suggestions got in there, too. It was a pretty huge class overhaul, and I think it turned out much more satisfactory than the core monk, or pathfinder monk. IMO your next best revision isnt your sorcerer though (I'm inclined to like the pathfinder sorcerer), it's the Druid.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hey Wulf Ratbane: It's true, damage dealing is their primary class feature, but the way they set it up, it needs to be used strategically.

Correct so far.

- The need for FULL BAB goes down if the opponent has to be flat footed for it to work.
- While their main 'ability' is a damage dealer, they're simply ineffective strikers.

Due primarily to legacy issues with backstabbing. In other words, the 1e "real world" considerations of backstabbing conflicted with the 3e design goals of backstabbing (rogue as damage dealer). They kept enough of the 1e restrictions that they crippled the 3e advances.

They're more useful for their utility features, which is why theyre all skill-based.

Even if skills were on an even footing with combat utility (which they are not) rogue skills are quickly trumped by magic. Your argument that rogues should not be dealing damage and should be doing skill stuff, if correct, makes the class even worse.

That's why most people don't build them as strikers in core D&D right?

Huh. I always did. Again, perhaps I was lured down that path because one glance at the class features seemed to hint overwhelmingly that the class should be doing everything possible at all times to get sneak attack damage (including flanking, invisibility, fighting with two weapons, etc.)

To be clear, when I say striker, I'm thinking, "Highest damage output to single opponents, on a consistent basis." The difference is the rogue is more of a "highest damage output, but not consistently, only in certain situations." Where the fighter/barbarian does better damage consistently.

Actually the fighter/barbarian does less damage more consistently, and the rogue does more damage less consistently.

I'm even okay with changing the rogue INTO a striker. I'm just saying I don't think theyre designed as good strikers normally.

No, they weren't.

Their damage output is designed to be lowed than the fighter, and their toughness is lower, but they get utility skills to make up for it.

Skills do not make up for combat prowess. They are not measured on the same scale. It's perfectly fine for both to exist and for a player to make a value decision between a skill-based character and a combat-based character. But to say that the rogue is balanced against the fighter because rogues have more skills is comparing apples to oranges.

Both the rogue and the monk are designed to be fragile strikers. They are lightly armed and armored, and have fewer hit points. That's their balance mechanism. Note that we are now comparing apples to apples-- combat to combat.

Maybe if we assigned roles to the classes like in 4e just for design purposes, that would make class design easier. If someone just said outright:

Rogues/Monks are fragile, but they do great strategically placed damage. (as opposed to consistant damage).
Fighters/Barbarians are tough, and they fight consistently, but their damage is lower.
Wizards are (hard to classify because it all depends on spell selection. Wizards CAN be controllers like in 4e, but I always avoid playing those kinds of wizards.)

Hey, looks to me like you get it after all. Very well stated.

I think where we differ is that I look at the design goal of 3e-- rogues are intended to be fragile damage dealers-- and I see a failure in execution, and make changes to bring the result at the table in line with the design.

You are looking at the results of the failed execution-- "These rogues don't seem to be doing much damage..."-- and therefore infer that must not be the design goal after all, so you want to bring rogues in line with some other design goal-- being really good at skills, for example.

For the most part-- specifically with respect to the rogue, monk, and fighter-- the power bumps they get from Trailblazer are needed to bring the classes into parity with even the RAW spellcasters. I would use those Trailblazer classes without any reservation at all next to any of the other RAW classes.

And the rogue doesn't really get much of anything at all if you hang on to the legacy restrictions of sneak attack (discernible anatomy and all that). The logic being, I assume, that hit points are abstract except when they're not.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Final thing about trailblazer: (This is just my opinion) Trailblazer is an awesome rules fix. The one downside (which is quite significant), is that while it looks to be balanced with itself, it ramps the power level for the game up well above other books. If you want to run a game using things Trailblazer doesn't cover, you need to up the power to match trailblazer (which can be a big chunk of work to rebalance it all).

I find myself in pretty serious disagreement. For a couple of reasons.

1) Iron Heroes: that book ramped up PC power to the point that for the first 10 levels, the party had to be considered at least one level higher when designing encounters. Otherwise, things died too quickly to be fun fighting. (Example: A 2nd level character that, on a critical hit using all damage boosting options and rolling maximum on dice, dealt 152 damage. That's enough to one-shot some CR 12 monsters. At level 2.) After level 10 the power curves lined up again and you could treat them as a fairly normal D&D party of their level (although one that lacked a Cleric / Druid).
Next to Iron Heroes, Trailblazer is a bunch of puppies pretending to be dire wolves.

2) Other than a small boost to low-level survivability* (the party can actually fight an appropriate number of orcs without at least one PC death), the actual power level hasn't been increased. The spells are the same, and the feat options are less broken. Multi-classing has been smoothed, and all the classes are closer across the entire power curve, but the curve itself is just about the same. What few differences exist are covered by the changed experience progression table (especially the encounter budgeting table, which is awesomely effective).

3) The main increases in PC power, in D&D 3.5, are in the spells available as the characters progress. (I refused to see this for my first few years of play, but now I understand.) Trailblazer uses the exact same spells as 3.5, and access is gained at the same rate as the Wizard. Further, multiclass casters do not gain spell slots from multiple classes; all their spell slots must be divided amongst their various casting traditions. If anything, this actually reduces the power of spellcasters in Trailblazer; since they push the power curve higher and faster than any other PC class, this (very slightly) reigns in said power curve.

4) The last big point of PC growth is magic items. Trailblazer removes (or recommends the removal of) most of the PC item creation ability, limiting players to what the DM makes explicitly available. This is a moderate power reduction, preventing the party from having highly unusual items with powers that are difficult to counter without excessive DM fiat. Something of which I approve.

Overall, I'd say that any flaws with Trailblazer have to lie within the rules that they are modifying, not within the work of Wulf and Glass. Which is why I recommended the TB monk to the OP.

*I've been treating the Con score hp as a one-time bonus to total hp, unmodified by later changes to Con. This is simpler and reinforces the low-level survivability that is the stated intent of the bonus. Used that way it is both simple and effective.

 

[Celebrim]

Due primarily to legacy issues with backstabbing. In other words, the 1e "real world" considerations of backstabbing conflicted with the 3e design goals of backstabbing (rogue as damage dealer). They kept enough of the 1e restrictions that they crippled the 3e advances.

That seems like some very tortured and circular logic to me. How do you know that they didn't restrict sneak attack because rogue as damage dealer wasn't their design goal? You seem to be saying that we know rogue as damage deal was their design goal because it could have actually been primarily a damage dealer had they designed it differently.

Even if skills were on an even footing with combat utility (which they are not)

Again, this is very tortured logic. You elsewhere say that the two things are apples and oranges, so how can you say that they aren't on even footing. I can think of many situations where combat utility is inferior to skills, and vica versa.

...rogue skills are quickly trumped by magic.

Arguably, so is a fighter's combat utility. All you prove in saying that is that magic dominates high level play; you don't prove that rogues aren't designed to be the 'skillful' class just because at higher levels the skills are increasingly trumped.

But to say that the rogue is balanced against the fighter because rogues have more skills is comparing apples to oranges.

Both the rogue and the monk are designed to be fragile strikers. They are lightly armed and armored, and have fewer hit points. That's their balance mechanism. Note that we are now comparing apples to apples-- combat to combat.

But if they are intended to be balanced in combat, then you have a serious problem because both the rogue and the monk vastly exceed the fighters utility out of combat.

I think where we differ is that I look at the design goal of 3e-- rogues are intended to be fragile damage dealers-- and I see a failure in execution, and make changes to bring the result at the table in line with the design.

I think where we differ is that I look at the design goal of 3e - rogues are intended to be the skillful class - and I see a failure in execution and make changes to bring the result at the table in line with the design. I see that for the most part, they fulfill the role of fragile damage dealers. I see no evidence that they fail at that if your campaign doesn't get overly focused on powerful undead. I see the 'damage dealing' as primarily a rogues secondary role, added to the class primarily to make up for the disparity in combat prowess that developed between rogues and fighters in higher level 1e play. However, had they actually intended rogues to become primarily a damage dealing class, they would have given in full BAB progression. 'Damage dealing' is a rogues secondary shtick to make it shine a little bit in combat, and its clearly intended because of the restrictions on sneak attack and special abilities like oppurtunist to have rogues in a support role during combat.

I don't even get where you get that 'sneak attack' is their primary ability. It's their most useful ability if you spend most of your time in combat, but the class also gets trapfinding as a silo power, trap sense, evasion, uncanny dodge, skill mastery, lots of class specific skills like use magical device, and tons of skill points. Whether you see 'sneak attack' as a primary power probably depends on the ratio of attack rolls to skill checks you plan on making.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But if they are intended to be balanced in combat, then you have a serious problem because both the rogue and the monk vastly exceed the fighters utility out of combat.

That presumes that out-of-combat play is a "serious" part of your game. If out-of-combat play isn't terribly common, terribly difficult, or terribly consequential, then you don't have a serious problem.

Success or failure on a skill check, or even a battery of skill checks, is not even close in parity to success or failure at combat, either in frequency of occurrence or seriousness of consequences.

My own view on skills is that they are (a) used to drive the story forward, (b) designed to be successful far more often than not, and perhaps most importantly (c) slave to the players' problem-solving abilities at any rate.

I don't even get where you get that 'sneak attack' is their primary ability. Whether you see 'sneak attack' as a primary power probably depends on the ratio of attack rolls to skill checks you plan on making.

Unarguably.

I am primarily concerned with the typical D&D play experience, in which combat is the centerpiece, the sine qua non. If your play style varies significantly from that, you will naturally have other demands of the ruleset and you'll have to rebalance accordingly.

Or perhaps play something other than D&D; something isn't designed around combat.