Ditching [W] altogether

[keterys]

Then, like I said, it's just you not liking what they'd consider a feature. Monks are about being unarmed in D&D - any edition of it.

You'd give out benefits - and notable ones like Reach, at that - with no expenditure, no requirements, no penalties. Most importantly, no reason not to do it. What makes a glaive so much cooler than a greatsword, for monks? For a fighter, there's a cost there - slightly lower damage, and -1 proficiency.

The real trick at the moment for me is that they're really encouraging dagger and staff using monks at the moment, by dint of feat support. Eh.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then, like I said, it's just you not liking what they'd consider a feature.

I never said I thought otherwise- their feature is indeed my bug...and a fatal one at that.

Monks are about being unarmed in D&D - any edition of it.

Not quite- every previous edition of Monks had some kind of skill with weapons...and in no previous edition did their status of being monks negate the innate properties of the (few) weapons they used.

Now, I will admit that I like that monks are dangerous regardless of whichever weapon they use. But I dislike the path they took to get there.

You'd give out benefits - and notable ones like Reach, at that - with no expenditure, no requirements, no penalties. Most importantly, no reason not to do it. What makes a glaive so much cooler than a greatsword, for monks? For a fighter, there's a cost there - slightly lower damage, and -1 proficiency.

Those benefits like reach are intrinsic to the weapons, and get erased because monk powers are "Touch" range. I find that unsatisfactory and nonsensical.

If your issue is the damage thing, return the [W] to the monk powers instead of the way they handle damage now. Use a different mechanic to make them deadly with smaller weapons.

And what -1 proficiency penalty are you talking about?

 

[Ahrimon]

You could always just say that if a monk wants to use a weapon as a weapon and not an implement with that particular attack, then he attacks AC instead of whatever other defense the attack targeted. Then convert damage to [W]. For example 2d6 would become 2[W]. Most monk weapons aren't exactly high on the damage die, so it shouldn't become a powergaming issue.

 

[underfoot]

You could always just say that if a monk wants to use a weapon as a weapon and not an implement with that particular attack, then he attacks AC instead of whatever other defense the attack targeted. Then convert damage to [W]. For example 2d6 would become 2[W]. Most monk weapons aren't exactly high on the damage die, so it shouldn't become a powergaming issue.

This would be the balanced way to get the physical properties of the weapons. Also replace the Implement keyword with Weapon so appropriate feats/modifiers are applied.

Didn't the 4E original Monk concept have both Weapon and Implement powers, and they converted them all to Implements because it caused problems with feat selections at high levels?

 

[keterys]

And what -1 proficiency penalty are you talking about?

It was a Greatsword vs. Glaive comparison. Greatswords are 1 higher proficiency, +.5 avg dmg more, and lack reach.

Sounds like you'd prefer the non-Implement version of the monk, where they went against AC and used the weapon stats. Eh. Honestly, the weapon system is largely not a success at the moment due to superior weapons and certain properties.

I'm not really for set damage, but I don't think the monk is an example of bad design. It actually works, and it works well. And it _can_ use a reach weapon if it wants, even using things like polearm gamble - its powers just aren't as focused around the weapon as a fighter or warlord, who uses proficiency, damage dice, weapon properties like brutal and high crit, etc.

Much like a swordmage using implement powers like Sword Burst.

@Ahrimon - 2d6 is likely not 2W, but 1W or 1.5W at most. Remember, you can have 2d6 weapons.

 

[Ahrimon]

@Ahrimon - 2d6 is likely not 2W, but 1W or 1.5W at most. Remember, you can have 2d6 weapons.

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what the average monk damage is on a monk encounter/daily. I haven't read that deeply into the class.)

I was trying to keep things around the same total amount of damage. Aren't most monk weapons in the d6 or d8 range? I didn't think monks were into the big 2h weapons.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It was a Greatsword vs. Glaive comparison. Greatswords are 1 higher proficiency, +.5 avg dmg more, and lack reach.

I got ya.

Sounds like you'd prefer the non-Implement version of the monk, where they went against AC and used the weapon stats.

Not necessarily. I just think that ditching weapon attributes is lousy design on several levels.

I also think there are probably ways the designers could have done things differently. I just haven't given it serious thought since I'll never run 4Ed so coming up with HRs or alternative designs just hasn't been a priority.

For instance, just making some-but not all- of the Monk's techniques not be "Touch" so that there would be a few powers out there for weapon use. We already see something like this in Rangers, Rogues and Barbarians, all of whom have powers that work only with certain kinds of weapon selections.

Or the "Full Technique" Monk power design could have been expanded- some powers could work one way with certain weapons, another way with others, and perhaps another way with unarmed strikes. For example, a power might be [W] + stuff + a secondary (or even a tertiary) target with a small weapon & unarmed strike, and only [W] + stuff + reach with a reach weapon.

But excising weapon characteristics? That just bugs the bejesus out of me.

 

[keterys]

Monks tend to use daggers and staves for implements, but only because they're implements. Their at-wills deal d8 and d10, which matches the longsword and warhammer types they'd use as generic weapons... but frankly if they were based on weapons, most monks would probably end up with greatspears, fullblades, spiked chains, that kinda thing.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...but frankly if they were based on weapons, most monks would probably end up with greatspears, fullblades, spiked chains, that kinda thing.

Again, considering RW martial arts forms that train in chain weapons, various halbards, spears and one and 2 handed swords, not to mention truly exotic weapons like urimi, I don't see that as a problem.

The problem is that the designers didn't take that into account, and neutralized huge numbers of martial arts archetypes.

But my hangups about the system are not the issue. The reason I brought this all up is that, given that the monk's design is the way it is, some of your players may feel as I do, so basing stuff on its design may lead to friction that you don't need.

IOW, all I'm saying is before you get into this too deep, you might want to find out how your own players feel about the monk's design.

 

[DracoSuave]

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

Wrap your minds around that, and you get why weapons in their hands aren't really for damage.