Can someone explain the monk changes to me?

[AverageCitizen]

Can someone who understands the class balancing explain something to me?

Since they shifted the PH3 monk to using implements more or less exclusively, it seems like they have dropped +3 from their attacks whole sale. Before they got unarmed combat on almost all their attacks, and now it's just for convenience in multi-classing. Now they use implements for every attack, which means they don't get their proficiency bonus, which means they're out +3 from the original version.

Was the original wrong? Was wizards really off by that much, balance-wise? Isn't the monk final behind the curve for striker attack bonuses? Actually, I'm hoping I've missed something.



Here are the articles, for your convenience:

Debut Monk
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Debut: The Monk)

Playtest Monk
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Playtest: Player's Handbook 3, The Monk)

 

[DracoSuave]

Can someone who understands the class balancing explain something to me?

Since they shifted the PH3 monk to using implements more or less exclusively, it seems like they have dropped +3 from their attacks whole sale. Before they got unarmed combat on almost all their attacks, and now it's just for convenience in multi-classing. Now they use implements for every attack, which means they don't get their proficiency bonus, which means they're out +3 from the original version.

Was the original wrong? Was wizards really off by that much, balance-wise? Isn't the monk final behind the curve for striker attack bonuses? Actually, I'm hoping I've missed something.

Yeah.

Attacks against non-AC defenses have lower attack bonuses than those against AC.

All monk attacks target non-AC defenses.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Yeah, I know. The old monk did as well, and still had unarmed combat. Was that an oversight?

 

[DracoSuave]

Yeah, I know. The old monk did as well, and still had unarmed combat. Was that an oversight?

Well, it -could- be that having a class have weapon attacks against only non-AC defenses, plus a damage-adding ability in Flurry of Blows, would be considered 'overpowered' and 'best striker ever'.

That then couldn't make print as it was.

 

[AverageCitizen]

Well, it -could- be that having a class have weapon attacks against only non-AC defenses, plus a damage-adding ability in Flurry of Blows, would be considered 'overpowered' and 'best striker ever'.

That then couldn't make print as it was.

I take it that is the consensus that I was unaware of? I can't believe they missed that. I mean, if there are no other balancing factors, how could they possibly have thought that giving an otherwise equally capable striker and extra +2-3 to attack would work?

 

[DracoSuave]

I take it that is the consensus that I was unaware of? I can't believe they missed that. I mean, if there are no other balancing factors, how could they possibly have thought that giving an otherwise equally capable striker and extra +2-3 to attack would work?

That's why it's a playtest monk--none of the playtests actually turned out exactly as printed.

Part of it too was that they didn't want to mix weapon stats onto implement powers. (By that I mean, having ranges like 'Melee weapon' or '1[W]' damage)

 

[Droogie128]

Well, it -could- be that having a class have weapon attacks against only non-AC defenses, plus a damage-adding ability in Flurry of Blows, would be considered 'overpowered' and 'best striker ever'.

That then couldn't make print as it was.

Not necessarily, other classes have weapon attacks that target NAD's. Piercing Strike, for example... and that's on the already super accurate rogue class.

 

[chitzk0i]

Not necessarily, other classes have weapon attacks that target NAD's. Piercing Strike, for example... and that's on the already super accurate rogue class.

They may have decided it was too powerful to hand out to other classes regularly. It's not so overpowered that it needs errata, but it's awesome enough that they don't want to use it willy-nilly.

Personally, I think the monk changes happened because having [w] powers presented a false choice. Every other class gets to choose from d8s, d10s, and d12s and pick from heavy blades, light blades, hammers, and so on. But playtest monks were limited to 'monk weapons', which were all d6 or d8 and they were all +2 proficiency, making them strictly inferior to using monk unarmed strike. That [W] may has well have just been a d8 for all it got you.

Plus, I don't think they want to mix weapon and implement attacks as much as they did on the swordmage and playtest monk.

 

[Shroomy]

IMO, changing the monk's attack powers to be strictly implement powers has less to do with balance (since they now work more or less like any other implement user) and more to do with flavor/class concept. WotC clearly envisioned the monk as an unarmed combatant, but Weapon powers have a tendency to encourage player investment in superior weapon feats (especially strikers in order to spike damage and accuracy). A bunch of fullblade, bastard sword, and executioner axe wielding monks was definitely not what the designers had in mind when they created the class. Making the class an implement user and adding ki foci solves this issue by creating little incentive to upgrade to a superior weapon or even to take proficiencies with weapons outside of the somewhat iconic simple weapons that monks already get (the feats that work with those weapons also help in this regard), even if they multi-class since the unarmed strike is pretty decent for such limited purposes.

 

[Felon]

Not necessarily, other classes have weapon attacks that target NAD's. Piercing Strike, for example...

Yes, but attacking Reflex is the only thing special about Piercing Strike.