Ditching [W] altogether

[UngeheuerLich]

Try to figure it out!

It actually should make sense in context! (hint: there should be a difference between 1d8 and 1d4+2 when doing 2[w] and 2 x 1[w]

 

[Plane Sailing]

So:
Quoted Point 1) I said "puncture an organ" not "heart". etc

Hey, I'm not picking a fight, just giving an alternative perspective

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Monks in fourth edition are less Bruce Lee and more Avatar:The Last Airbender.

I understand how they are built, and what the mechanics reflect. I also understand that by doing so, they cut off not only a whole bunch of RW martial arts styles, but also lots of wushu, over-the-top martial arts archetypes as well.

Just consider The Flying Guillotine. The entire point of every major antagonist in every movie centered around that weapon is that the BBEG can use his martial arts prowess to take down foes many yards away from them...and, as is revealed in the movies, none of them is a slouch at close-quarters/unarmed combat either. Another martial arts flick I saw recently (but cannot name, since the cable company's guide mis-labeled it as The Breakfast Club), the protagonist had to fight 8 evil blind monks...each of whom had mastered a particular weapon while maintaining possession of an iron vessel of some kind. Each monk's fighting style was strongly influenced by his weapon...but even weaponless, each monk was a formidable combatant.

Sometimes, even in the out-there world of martial arts fantasy, the weapons help define the character.

My position is that the 4Ed monk cuts all that off, and because of that, I won't play the class. Ever.

And my contention is that I may not be alone in that sentiment, so DMs looking to HR something based on the Monk's character design should be aware that this design is not universally praised. IOW, they should proceed with caution.

 

[keterys]

What's the difference between a character using a flail, one using a battleaxe, and one using a warhammer in dnd? All are +2/d10. Mostly just feat support and if you're a fighter (and even then sometimes no difference).

Dnd _could_ care a lot more about the weapons, but it could also care more about you describing a fighting style and making that happen. So, if you wanted to make weapons no longer grant damage dice or all grant the same damage dice, that can totally work. Completely separate from any weapon property discussions.

 

[knightofround]

I would greatly enjoy getting rid of the [W]. It makes it such a pain to balance [W] based powers against XdX powers.

I would be all in favor of making ALL powers the XdX format. And then have each weapon add bonuses, penalties, and keywords.

Rough sketch:

S=Simple Weapon, either no penalty or one negative + one positive to = 0.
M=Martial Weapon, one positive, or two positive + one negative to = 1.
C=Caster Weapon, one positive, or two positive + one negative to = 1.
E=Exotic Weapon (requires a feat), two positive, or three positive + 1 negative to = 2.

(S)Dagger: -1/2/3 damage, range 5/10 light.
(M)Shortsword: Offhand.
(M)Longsword: +1 attack.
(M)Broadsword: +1/2/3 tiered damage.
(E)Glaive: +1 attack, +1/2/3 damage, reach, requires two hands
(E)Greatsword: +1 attack, +2/4/6 tiered damage, requires two hands.
(E)Scimitar: +2 attack

(S)Javelin: -1/2/3 tiered damage, range 10/20 heavy
(S)Spear: No bonuses
(M)Longspear: +1 attack, reach, requires two hands
(E)Greatspear: +1 attack, reach, +1/2/3 tiered damage, requires two hands.
(E)Rapier: +2 attack

(S)Club: -1/2/3 damage, brutal 1
(S)Quarterstaff: +1 AC, requires two hands
(S)Mace: No bonuses
(M)Warhammer: Brutal 1
(M)Greatclub: Brutal 1, +1/2/3 damage, requires two hands
(E)Maul: Brutal 1, +1 attack
(E)Throwing Hammer: Brutal 1, offhand, range 5/10 heavy

(S)Handaxe: -1/2/3 damage, high crit
(M)Battleaxe: High crit
(M)Greataxe: High crit, +1/2/3 damage, requires two hands
(E)Throwing Axe: High crit, range 5/10 heavy
(E)Halbred: High crit, +1/2/3 damage, reach, requires two hands

(S)Hand Crossbow: Range 10/20, -1/2/3 damage
(S)Crossbow: Range 15/30, requires two hands
(M)Shortbow: Range 15/30, +1 attack, requires two hands
(M)Longbow: Range 20/40, +1/2/3 damage, requires two hands
(E)Greatbow: Range 20/40, +1 attack, +1/2/3 damage, requires two hands

(C)Rod: Offhand
(C)Wand: +1 range
(C)Orb: +1 attack
(C)Staff: +1/2/3 with spell damage, healing, temp HP
(C)Icon: High crit with spell damage, healing, temp HP
(C)Book: +2/4/6 with spell damage, healing, and temp HP, requires two hands

If you don't have proficiency with the weapon, you suffer -5 attack in addition to all other penalties, however you do gain all the good stuff.

And then, instead of feats like "weapon focus/weapon expertise" there would be feats that add a new [keyword] to attacks with that particular weapon.

For example, there would be a Rogue class feature or feat that removes the -1/2/3 damage penalty from daggers, another one that adds +1 attack, and yet another one that adds the offhand keyword...etc.

Of course each keyword would need to be reworked to be closer equal to each other...mainly the offhand and high crit keywords.

 

[DracoSuave]

I understand how they are built, and what the mechanics reflect. I also understand that by doing so, they cut off not only a whole bunch of RW martial arts styles, but also lots of wushu, over-the-top martial arts archetypes as well.

Just consider The Flying Guillotine. The entire point of every major antagonist in every movie centered around that weapon is that the BBEG can use his martial arts prowess to take down foes many yards away from them...and, as is revealed in the movies, none of them is a slouch at close-quarters/unarmed combat either. Another martial arts flick I saw recently (but cannot name, since the cable company's guide mis-labeled it as The Breakfast Club), the protagonist had to fight 8 evil blind monks...each of whom had mastered a particular weapon while maintaining possession of an iron vessel of some kind. Each monk's fighting style was strongly influenced by his weapon...but even weaponless, each monk was a formidable combatant.

Sometimes, even in the out-there world of martial arts fantasy, the weapons help define the character.

My position is that the 4Ed monk cuts all that off, and because of that, I won't play the class. Ever.

And my contention is that I may not be alone in that sentiment, so DMs looking to HR something based on the Monk's character design should be aware that this design is not universally praised. IOW, they should proceed with caution.

Again, you're confusing 'martial artist' for '4e monk'. The 4th edition monk isn't the martial artist so much... you probably want the martial power source to reflect martial arts... just like you want the arcane power source to reflect arcane arts.

What the psionic monk does is use his mind, channeled through various objects which may or may not be a weapon, and use them in lieu of weapon attacks as a melee combatant. He's not hitting you with his fist, or his staff, or his three-bladed dagger of kimon.

He's hitting you with telekenetic force manufactured by his mind, using motion to channel it.

There's room in D&D for the wuxia-style martial artist, but I think it's not the psionic power source that should encapsulate it. Have you tried 'fighter'?

 

[Squire James]

Well, Aragorn would have been nearly impossible to describe as any Ranger build until Martial Power 2 came out. It might take a Psionic Power book or 2 to bring out what most people are thinking of when they think of a Monk. They can still add Weapon powers, you know. Those would generally be for larger weapons - it is my belief that most fictional small weapons in martial arts are not terribly different from fictional open-hand techniques (note my use of "fictional" to indicate I'm not talking about real-world martial arts at all).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, you're confusing 'martial artist' for '4e monk'.

No, not so much, really. I don't see the wuxia style martial arts as being inherently non-psi, which is precisely why I brought them up.

There's room in D&D for the wuxia-style martial artist, but I think it's not the psionic power source that should encapsulate it. Have you tried 'fighter'?

See my earlier commentary- I'm using Avengers for my "monks."

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

It seems Dannyalcatraz and myself are on the opposite side of the spectrum on this... in pretty much every regard.

For me, this is the first itteration of the monk that I actually like, and again, for me, it is the first one that captures the spirit of martial arts movies.

3/3.5 monks either used their fists, or they used a weapon, as either one option or the other was superior. You didn't see them mixing it up - chopping an enemy down with their sword, and then punching some guy in the chest.

For me, for monks anyway, I find the non-weapon attack powers incredibly freeing - for the first time you can have a guy with a sword/axe/whatever mixing it up with kicks, punches, swipes, stabs... however you want to describe the attacks. You don't always have to chop them with your kukri because to do otherwise you are nerfing your character. Indeed, with the advent of ki focuses, its the first time you can have a guy wade into battle unarmed then describe how he picks up weapons/objects and uses them against his enemy's - a defining trope of many martial arts movies to me (from Jackie Chan beating up mooks with a ladder, to Jet Li using his belt to defeat the katana wielding BBEG).

Indeed, I find that feet support for weapons does (for me, anyway) EXACTLY what Dannyalcatraz wants in his description of the fight with the blind monks - it allows each monk to specialise with a certain weapon and STILL feel like an all round martial artist. My only complaint with it is that there simply isn't feet support for most weapons - which hopefully will change as time goes by.

So, it seems that all the things that ruins the 4e monk class for him are all exactly the things that make it fun and evocative for me...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, this is the first itteration of the monk that I actually like, and again, for me, it is the first one that captures the spirit of martial arts movies.

3/3.5 monks either used their fists, or they used a weapon, as either one option or the other was superior. You didn't see them mixing it up - chopping an enemy down with their sword, and then punching some guy in the chest.

1) I think it only supports CERTAIN movies.

2) My 3.5 monks did mix it up- my last 2 freely intermixed their unarmed strikes with blows from polearms- y'know- Reach weapons. One damn near took down a green dragon by herself at ENWorld Dallas Gameday a few years ago.

Indeed, I find that feet support for weapons does (for me, anyway) EXACTLY what Dannyalcatraz wants in his description of the fight with the blind monks - it allows each monk to specialise with a certain weapon and STILL feel like an all round martial artist.

You missed my point- not only did they use weapons, they used the properties of those weapons to their fullest possible extent. Again, with reach weapons making it difficult for their foes to close, with chain weapons that entangled and disarmed (by their nature, usually at reach as well).

My 3.5 monks could do that. The 4Ed monk cannot.