Fixing the Monk Class

[Zarrok]

What about combining the best alternate class features (i.e. a single one in place of each weak class ability) from 3.5 and pathfinder, plus removing the -2 penalty from flurry of blows?

 

[Zarrok]

Sometimes you just gotta represent. Here's just a little taste.

Holy Raging Shadow Monk Batman! Sorry I had to do it.

Lose: Flurry of Blows, Still Mind, Quivering Palm, bonus feats at 1st level and 6th level, Wholeness of Body, and D8 hit die at 7th level

Gain: Rage, greater rage, mighty rage (all as barbarian). Aura of courage, smite evil, channel positive energy (all as paladin). Any condition other than full daylight, or a daylight spell the monk has total concealment (Su), and a d6 hit die at 7th level.

I think I'll be a half-orc. They gain some feats that synergize with rage quite well. One feat to change my Wis based abilities to Chr or we could be generous and let the monks smite work off Wis.

Yes he's still m.a.d. One could say more MAD than ever.

 

[enrious]

As far as I understood it, monks get proficiency with all weapons listed as monk weapons. At least that is how I run it.

Where does this come from? The core rules are very clear:

"Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with the club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shortspear, short sword, shuriken, siangham, sling, and spear."

Where does it say in the rules that are automatically proficient with weapons marked as "monk"?

If you cannot provide that, you are playing under a house-rule that monks are automatically proficient with monk weapons not listed in the class description.

Yes, I agree it's a reasonable and logical rule if for no other reason than it accounts for subsequently published material. No, that alone doesn't make it official.

You have wayyyy too many house rules. You must have a specific group you play with as I doubt most common players enjoy that many house rules.

That's sort of an odd statement to make, unless THE STREAM OF THE SKY has detailed a list of house rules that he employs, since so far I see only one person stating a house rule they use. (Well, two because I do the same thing)

In any event, Paizo has an organized play program called the Pathfinder Society. It's sort of a big deal.

From the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, "As a Pathfinder Society Game Master, you have the right and responsibility to make such calls as you feel are necessary at your table to ensure that everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com, but only you can judge what is right at your table for cases not covered in these sources."

Note that your ruling of allowing monks to be automatically proficient in all monk weapons (and mine as well) is invalid for Society play, unless there is something in a published game source, errata document, or official FAQ granting it.

As it is, look in the APG - the monk weapons in there are explicitly stated to also be monk proficiencies. However, the ones in UC are not.

Either a weapon has to be explicitly stated to be proficient by a monk, in which case the APG handled it correctly and the UC weapons do not grant proficiency, or monk weapons are automatically monk-proficient, in which case the APG is wrong by stating a rule as if it were covering an exception.

My take on it is that it's another example of how shoddy UC is, but for all I know it was a design decision not to make them automatically proficient weapons. My crystal ball is broken, so I can't read the designer's intent, so I'll either stick with the rules as written or explicitly make a house ruling.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yes, APG specifically said the monk weapons listed there monks have proficiciency with. UC dropped the ball on it, and I too am sure it's due to the UC being shoddy. But there is no core rule that guarantees every new monk weapon that comes out the monk class will be automatically proficient in.

HOWEVER, in UC the unarmed fighter archetype says he is proficient in "monk weapons," which means by RAW, that class does get this benefit. Whether it was in error or a concerted effort to make monks inferior to fighters at their own game, is left to you to decide.

And Celtavian, my games have exactly as many houserules as I deem necessary, and no more. I do have specific players I game with often, but we also do our own thing, and I can't really rely on them to be available / running a game all the time, so it's nice to share my ideas with others who'll hopefully agree and adopt them.

 

[Glade Riven]

Wow...I guess some people have had completely different experiance in actual play with monks than I have, or the experiance of other people I know. All monks I've seen played straight have decent to great in battle without rewriting the whole class - a little too good if a player is lucky in the rolls to have 4 good stats.

To be honest, I wonder if conversations like this stem from missing the point of the class. The way I have seen the monk played has been as an agile skirmisher, designed to be hard to hit and out-last the opponents. Good battlefield mobility allows for battlefield control, such as locking down an opponent so a caster can blast or tank can catch up and smash. The Monk is not a tank, or a heavy hitter - which seems to be the desire of a number of people in this thread.

Okay, I kinda understand the MAD thing; people do not like having to choose which stats to focus on. It does make it harder to power-build, since the choices leave open a blatent mechanical weakness. I guess I'm fine with it, because in actual play (that I've witnessed) the monk already seems strong enough.

 

[enrious]

I had a player using a monk in a recent Kingmaker campaign.

For the life of me, I don't see the role that monk-supporters assign to it (backup fighter, mobile whatever) as being viable for games that adhere to the RAW for encounter design.

After all, who cares about a backup fighter with a gazillion attacks if only one or two hits per round?

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, that proves my point - you're thinking of a monk as just a fighter. It's not a fighter. Plus, like other classes, there are magical items and several feat builds that negate the weaknesses of the class.

I am not even sure quite what you are talking about with RAW encounter building, but I am assuming has to do with math and probablility. My encounters are rather dynamic, since no group I've played with has ever created characters that fit into the statistical average.

 

[enrious]

Well, that proves my point - you're thinking of a monk as just a fighter. It's not a fighter. Plus, like other classes, there are magical items and several feat builds that negate the weaknesses of the class.

I suggest you read around the monk threads - that's what the monk-supporters are saying is the role.

And the issue is rarely if class x can be made adequate; it's a question of how much effort it takes - and if that same effort were made with another class, how much better would that class be than class x?

The same goes for DM fiat to make a class viable.

I am not even sure quite what you are talking about with RAW encounter building, but I am assuming has to do with math and probablility. My encounters are rather dynamic, since no group I've played with has ever created characters that fit into the statistical average.

That's nice.

Shame that you aren't running published adventures though, as some of them are pretty good.

 

[Glade Riven]

Look, I've read a number of threads on the subject of Monks, and my experience does not match what others are saying.

Monks are not Tanks. They are Skirmishers. Their good saves and crazy powers lead to a number of good tactics that play up to the strengths of the class. A Dex/Wis based monk is extremely hard to hit, and can lock down tanks at least long enough to get support as well as crazy-dodge spells. Or it can slip through enemy lines and punch enemy spellcasters in the face.

I've tried published adventures, but my DMing style lets the players have a lot more leeway than published adventers can account for. I refuse to railroad (+4 spiked clue bat, yes - railroad, no). On top of that, I've never had a published encounter that I didn't have to adjust. At minimum, I have to up the body count due to a larger number of players than what it is designed for.

If I wanted something that was overly balanced, I would play 4e. There are options in AGP but especially Ultimate Combat that change the flavor (or offer a hand-to-hand fighter) without going all Mary Sue on the class with house rules.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

There are options in AGP but especially Ultimate Combat that change the flavor (or offer a hand-to-hand fighter) without going all Mary Sue on the class with house rules.

Trying to balance Monks with other martial classes is going all Mary Sue on them?