Ditching [W] altogether

[keterys]

While I like everything else about the design, I hate that the Monk has little incentive and little benefit to use weapons.

Given that they're intended to fight unarmed, I think this one falls into the 'feature' bucket instead of bug. As much as it might irk you. That said, a feat to give monks with reach weapons reach seems perfectly reasonable. There's also the pointed step feat for flurrying 2 squares away.

At any rate, I think it's a reasonable idea, but I also think it'd be reasonable to just drastically simplify weapons. If you're presented a choice of a 1h melee weapon and it's either +3/d8 or +2/d12, and you ask what about 2h, and it's "add high crit or reach", you can mostly move on from there. Still get a variety of weapons, but no need for superior, no need for 'Oh, I don't want a mace, cause they get bad options, but hammers get ones, and ooh, spears and flails are good cause they get +3 profs while those others don't'. Meh.

Just describe your fighting style, use what you use. Make it sound cool. Move right along.

 

[Plane Sailing]

When i was reading the thread about an arteficier not beeing able to use his healing abilities, i though about the whole implement thing as a whole...

First i thought: implements should have an associated [W], but then it would restrict the class design a lot.

Why should it restrict class design?

To be honest, one of the things that bugged me from the very start of 4e was [W] for weapons but fixed dice for implement attacks - it gave weapon users instant scaling of their attacks in a way which was simply closed for implement users, and things just got worse when 'superior' super-weapons were introduced.

An early house rule that I wanted to try out involved giving implements characteristics (e.g. rod/orb was basic, staff was a 2H implement and damage die increased by 1 step. wand was more accurate (+ to hit) but damage die decreased by 1 step. Further decorating with 'superior' implement types could follow.

Personally, I think it would have been better if everything had [W] and or everything had Dx's for damage. Everything else was consistent, so why not that?

Cheers

 

[Mapache]

To be honest, one of the things that bugged me from the very start of 4e was [W] for weapons but fixed dice for implement attacks - it gave weapon users instant scaling of their attacks in a way which was simply closed for implement users, and things just got worse when 'superior' super-weapons were introduced.

An early house rule that I wanted to try out involved giving implements characteristics (e.g. rod/orb was basic, staff was a 2H implement and damage die increased by 1 step. wand was more accurate (+ to hit) but damage die decreased by 1 step. Further decorating with 'superior' implement types could follow.

Personally, I think it would have been better if everything had [W] and or everything had Dx's for damage. Everything else was consistent, so why not that?

This, exactly. Weapon users get damage scaling, but then all their powers are overly similar. Implement classes get variable damage between powers as a tradeoff with different side effects, and three different defenses to target. 90% of weapon powers are Primary vs AC, [W]+Primary damage, some effect. Weapons and implements should be the same; in fact, call them all weapons, either Melee, Ranged, or Implement. Either they all have a damage die or none do (though individual ones can still do more damage through properties like Deadly or Brutal), and proficiency for all of them should be like weapons—either you're proficient or not, none of this proficient for main class powers but not for multiclass powers and such silliness.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That said, a feat to give monks with reach weapons reach seems perfectly reasonable.

Making a class take a feat to get the benefit of a weapon characteristic that everyone else in the game gets for free is not reasonable to me at all.

Or, to put it a different way...BRAIN GO OWIE!

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Sounds like a great idea to me. Weapons still can add some fiddly bits (like bonuses to attack, extending reach, etc.), but their impact will be less and it will be easier to keep track of what powers do.

 

[keterys]

Making a class take a feat to get the benefit of a weapon characteristic that everyone else in the game gets for free is not reasonable to me at all.

Or, to put it a different way...BRAIN GO OWIE!

Monks can deal 1d10 damage while wielding a dagger, or a whip, or an executioner's axe. They're primarily making unarmed attacks, with the weapon assisting.

It's not like swordmages using implement attacks with glaives gain extended reach. Or anyone with AIP: heavy blades.

So, high crit, reach, etc just don't apply to implement attacks, because the rest of the penalties (like low proficiency) don't apply.

 

[mkill]

All of these are very basic design features and we won't see any changes before a 5th edition.

If 5th edition comes, I'd love to see more unification between weapons and implements. It would open a lot of interesting options if implements would have similar stats to weapons:
Wand proficiency +3 damage die 1d6
Staff proficiency +2 damage die 1d10
and so on.

There could even be different types of implement, say a wooden staff and an iron staff with different stats, all belonging to the implement type "staff".

In the same way, I'd like to see AC and Fort, Ref, Will lifted to the same level, so you can have implement attacks vs. AC and weapon attacks vs. Fort/Ref/Will without differences in accuracy.

This would mean some changes in the basic maths, as Fort/Ref/Will would have to be about 2 points higher across the board. (5th edition would have to do some readjusting of the basic math anyway if you want to replace the Expertise feats etc.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Monks can deal 1d10 damage while wielding a dagger, or a whip, or an executioner's axe. They're primarily making unarmed attacks, with the weapon assisting.

It's not like swordmages using implement attacks with glaives gain extended reach. Or anyone with AIP: heavy blades.

So, high crit, reach, etc just don't apply to implement attacks, because the rest of the penalties (like low proficiency) don't apply.

I know all of that. I still don't buy your assertion that its "logical" that monks wouldn't get the benefit of a weapon's physical characteristics without burning a feat, and Reach is the one that gets me the most.

I mean, I've watched Shaolin monks and other martial artists do demonstrations with what we would call reach weapons in D&D, and oddly enough, they actually get the full benefit of that extra length.

Or, in short, its a 4Ed design decision with which I profoundly disagree.

 

[keterys]

Fair - do a different house rule, then. Monks can take a -1 penalty to attack (to reflect the lower proficiency) to get the reach benefit with their reach weapon.

That said - what would you do to encourage people to _not_ use weapons with their monks? Ie, there has to be a counterbalance to 'Well, I pick this up and I gain high crit, or I gain reach, or I gain...', so what would you have preferred?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fair - do a different house rule, then. Monks can take a -1 penalty to attack (to reflect the lower proficiency) to get the reach benefit with their reach weapon.

Huh? No, that won't do either. They're not any less proficient with weapons than any other class- they're more proficient with fighting unarmed.

I mean, seriously...a Monk less proficient with weapons than a Wizard or Sorcerer?

That said - what would you do to encourage people to _not_ use weapons with their monks? Ie, there has to be a counterbalance to 'Well, I pick this up and I gain high crit, or I gain reach, or I gain...', so what would you have preferred?

I NEVER discourage people from using weapons with monks/martial artists in any RPG.

If you look at the history of martial arts- kung fu, karate, capoeira, etc.- most of them involve quite rigorous training with weapons, intermixed with unarmed combat techniques. Some created new weapons to meld with their techniques. Some- like the aforementioned capoeira- created fighting techniques to work with certain improvised weapons (in this art, shackles & manacles).

What they don't do, for the most part, is train people to fight in heavy armor.

If your concern is balance, perhaps monks powers simply wouldn't work with anything heavier than light armor. In a sense, they become the Wizards of the new editon.

Of course, they'd have to have had more defense boosts built into the class (more surges? more HP?), but things like this happen when a system is designed to place balance before simulation or flavor.