Little rules-tweak to encourage monks to use weapons occasionally

[Pielorinho]

Of course monks sometimes use weapons, most notably when fighting creatures with DR or with dangerous-to-touch bodies (salamanders etc.) But in my experience, it's pretty dang rare: there's just no percentage in a monk using a weapon, usually.

But in Kung Fu movies, it's very common to see monks fighting bare-handed, and then one picks up a sword, and then the other picks up a spear, and then they continue fighting with weapons.

To simulate this, and to encourage monk battles to involve the occasional weapon, I'm thinking of adding the following line to the Unarmed Strike feat:

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.
If your opponent has this feat AND is wielding a melee weapon that threatens the area around her, you lose this benefit.
In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

A fighter may select Improved Unarmed Strike as one of his fighter bonus feats.

In other words, if Bob the monk is fighting Sherry the monk, and they're both unarmed, then neither one provokes AoOs when attacking. If Sherry picks up a weapon, though, then when Bob attacks her next, he provokes an AoO: Sherry knows enough about unarmed combat to be able to exploit its weaknesses. Bob, therefore, better pick up a sword himself if he wants to win this combat.

What do y'all think?
Daniel

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

Hm. Interesting.

My first reaction is "I'm not sure if this shouldn't be a feat of its own". The benefit would essentially be the same as the one you posted, ie when fighting someone who has the Improved Unarmed strike feat and is fighting unarmed, his attacks provoke attacks of opportunity from you. The feat could even be opened up to include any natural weapon attack. Of course, this makes it a very powerful feat, IMO.

Perhaps the feat could instead be: When fighting someone who is unarmed (or is attacking with natural weapons), you may use your weapon more efficiently. You receive a +1 circumstance bonus to either your attack rolls or your AC. You may choose each round which bonus you receive.

Of course, Improved Unarmed Strike would be a prerequisite for such a feat.

My second reaction is "Does it really have a purpose?"

A monk (as they exist now) will almost always be better off unarmed. That's how they're described anyway: an unarmed, unarmored, fighting machine. So, if we assume that a monk is almost better off punching and kicking people, then a 2 monk fight will go something like this:

Martin the Monk: Let's Kung-Fu fight! Aha! I kick you hard!
Mona the Monk: Aha! I punch you hard too!
(Martin, realizing that the fight will be a close match, picks up a spear)
Martin the Monk: Aha! Now I have a spear!
(Mona, envious of Martin's big spear, picks up a sword)
Mona the Monk: Aha! Now I have a sword!
Martin the Monk: Aha! I hit you with my spear with less efficiency than with my feet!
Mona the Monk: Aha! I hit you with my sword with less efficiency than with my hand!

AR

Edit:

What you propose, IMO, would make it so that monks would NEVER fight each other unarmed.

Perhaps another way of accomplishing what you wish to accomplish (perhaps it's been done), which would make some sense in an Asian-flavored campaign, would be to include fighting styles, à la Psionic combat powers (ie offense power vs defense power, Ego Thrust, Tower of Iron Will, etc.)

Monks would be proficient in some styles, more as they would go up in level, and each round (whatever) each combattant would secretly choose one fighting style and one defensive style, and AC and attack bonus would then change.

"aha! I use my Snake style with my nunchakus! Your spear attacks cannot hurt me!"
"aha! Then I use my Massive Boulder style with this mace to deflect your puny nunchakus!"
etc.

AR

 

[Pielorinho]

Hm. Interesting.

My first reaction is "I'm not sure if this shouldn't be a feat of its own".

It could be, but I like to minimize the necessity of feats to add wrinkles to combat; I also think that, as written, this would be a wussy feat, and if it were extended to apply to natural attacks, it'd be far too powerful.

My second reaction is "Does it really have a purpose?"

A monk (as they exist now) will almost always be better off unarmed. That's how they're described anyway: an unarmed, unarmored, fighting machine. So, if we assume that a monk is almost better off punching and kicking people, then a 2 monk fight will go something like this:

I love the example fight. Honestly, that's what I'm hoping this change would achieve. Without my suggested change, once Martin picks up a spear, Mona is going to say:

Aha! Now I will beat you, because monks don't fight with spears!

And that's not how kung-fu movies work. It's more fun, IMO, if monks do use weapons on occasion, and this change would encourage that.

Sure, they're less efficient than normal, but sometimes that's what circumstances demand.

And note that in most campaigns, this is going to be a very unusual circumstance: monks vs. monks is the exception, rather than the rule. If one fight in twenty is affected by this change, that'd be about right: one fight in twenty, the monks would need to pull out weapons.

Daniel

 

[Kemrain]

Thing is, Fighters can take Improved Unarmed Strike, too. And then, Martin is forced to pick up a spear to fight Matt, the Fighter who wields a greatsword and has Improved Unarmed Strike.


Martin the Monk: Let's Kung-Fu fight! Aha! I kick you hard!
Matt the Fighter: And you leave yourself open to an Attack of Opportunity[tm].
Martin the Monk: Aha! I pick up a spear and stab you much less effectively.
Matt the Fighter: And I just keep on using my greatsword. Good deal.

Fighters only have to take Improved Unarmed Strike to make Monks, an already not-too-scary opponent, into puchovers. Is that what you want?

- Kemrain the Disarmed. Dearmed. I mean Unarmed!

 

[Pielorinho]

Interesting point, Kemrain. Personally, I've never seen a fighter take Improved Unarmed Strike before: it's usually not worth it for them, especially not for a fighter that specializes in using a Greatsword.

In this case, it would effectively be like the fighter's taking a feat: "When you're armed and someone attacks you with Improved Unarmed Strike, they provoke attacks of opportunity as if they did not have this feat." That still seems like a wussy feat to me, compared to something like combat reflexes or weapon focus (glaive), both of which will grant a lot more Attacks of Opportunity.

Nevertheless, it'd make monks fighting anti-monk-fighters considerably less effective, which is a potential problem. Thanks for the feedback!

Daniel

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

And note that in most campaigns, this is going to be a very unusual circumstance: monks vs. monks is the exception, rather than the rule. If one fight in twenty is affected by this change, that'd be about right: one fight in twenty, the monks would need to pull out weapons.

I would find it odd if in a "normal" campaign, that the only time an unarmed specialist would have to use a weapon would be... against another unarmed specialist.

If your doing a mostly monk-on-monk action campaign, then, IMO, monks won't ever fight unarmed.

In Kung-Fu movies, the weapon switching was for the spectator, and probably didn't represent what real combattants would have done. There's a scene in Crouching Dragon Jumping Jack Flash when the women fight eachother. The young one with the sacred sword, and Michelle Yeoh (I think that's the actresse's name) fights with every other weapon in the dojo because her weapons keep getting sundered.

D&D made the monk's unarmed strikes better than weapons, which clearly (IMO) doesn't represent reality (I'm not saying it should).

Perhaps a way to encourage monks to use weapons occasionally could be to:
- remove their DR piercing ability
- give some monsters DR/bludgeoning weapons

Also, I edited my 1st post, don't know if you saw what I added.

AR

 

[ARandomGod]

Interesting point, Kemrain. Personally, I've never seen a fighter take Improved Unarmed Strike before: it's usually not worth it for them, especially not for a fighter that specializes in using a Greatsword.

In this case, it would effectively be like the fighter's taking a feat: "When you're armed and someone attacks you with Improved Unarmed Strike, they provoke attacks of opportunity as if they did not have this feat." That still seems like a wussy feat to me, compared to something like combat reflexes or weapon focus (glaive), both of which will grant a lot more Attacks of Opportunity.

Nevertheless, it'd make monks fighting anti-monk-fighters considerably less effective, which is a potential problem. Thanks for the feedback!

Daniel

I like it and the idea... of course, there is this problem with the anti-monk fighter, isn't there?

You could, of course, make this effect a monk only one, so it's only monks vs monks that this would handle. On the other hand, I HAVE played fighter characters who wanted unarmed strike... and they invariably take two levels of monk for it (Why take a stoopid feat when you can study at the monastery for much greater effect? Well, unless you're chaotic...)

What would you think of a feat that allows the monk to take average unarmed damage and then add the weapon damage on top?

No, adds too much. Adds 1/2 the weapon damage on top?

Careful to apply magic and strength bonus only once, of course... possibly ki-strike enchanted weapons only...

 

[JimAde]

Fighters I write up often take IUS. Sometimes you don't have weapons!

All in all I think the original idea is a good one. I don't have a problem with fighters being able to benefit from it. After all, fighting is their whole schtick. The fact that they haven't trained in a monastery doesn't meant they've never fought someone who has.

Some thoughts:
1) Maybe you could say that if both have IUS, but the unarmed character has a higher BAB, he still doesn't provoke.
2) Or he can avoid the AoO if he uses Flurry of Blows and sacrifices one of his attacks (to make it a monk-only thing). This means it could only be done on a Full Attack, of course.
3) Or you could let him make a Tumble Check to make the attack come from an unexpected direction (very cinematic). This is like moving through a threatened area. In fact, you could let someone do that when attacking unarmed even if they don't have IUS. Hmm...

 

[Pielorinho]

What you propose, IMO, would make it so that monks would NEVER fight each other unarmed.

Perhaps another way of accomplishing what you wish to accomplish (perhaps it's been done), which would make some sense in an Asian-flavored campaign, would be to include fighting styles, à la Psionic combat powers (ie offense power vs defense power, Ego Thrust, Tower of Iron Will, etc.)

First, I'm not sure it's true that monks would never fight unarmed: an armed monk is, as you say, less effective in some ways. What would likely happen is that the monks would begin fighting unarmed, and then at some point the weaker monk would bring out a weapon in order to try to even the odds. This would give the weaker monk the advantage of gaining AoOs on the stronger monk, and the disadvantage of all blows being even less effective. The stronger monk would have to choose whether suffering the AoOs was a good price to pay for landing harder blows.

Second, your psionic combat idea might work, but I'd prefer to achieve the effect with minimal new rules

In Kung-Fu movies, the weapon switching was for the spectator, and probably didn't represent what real combattants would have done.

Oh, I've got no interest in representing reality ; I'm wanting to represent Kung Fu movies. In fact, now that I think about it, it usually is the weaker monk in Fu movies who draws the first weapon; is this correct? In that case, this would mirror Fu movies: the stronger monk is likely to gain a greater advantage by fistfighting, and would lessen her advantage by pulling out a weapon, whereas the weaker monk would even the playing field by bringing weapons out.

I dunno; it's something I'll keep in the back of my head. Honestly, I'm not sure when I'll be seeing another monk character in a game I run; this was just something that I was idly thinking about. I think idle D&D thoughts a lot .

Daniel

 

[Kemrain]

Pleased to be of assistance.

Soldiers in modern armies are taught to fight unarmed as well as with their assigned weapons. In the game I'm playing in currently, the local invading army is trained to fight unarmed, and in the scirmishes I've had with them it's been very useful for them. My character will be picking up the feat soon herself, and she's a dedicated swordsman.

I've seen plenty of fighters take Improved Unarmed Strike, even ones who specialized with a specific weapon. Especially fighters who specialized in ranged combat. It's always a suprise when you provoke an attack of opportunity from a bowman and he cracks you in the face with his fist.

I really don't think it's as uncommon as you've found it to be, and I think that Improved Unarmed Strike is a very useful feat unto itsself. I think it should up your unarmed damage to 1d6 as well, personally, but you can't have everything. Perhapse it would be too useful then.

- Kemrain the Struck Unarmed.