Monk and Swordsage

[Enforcer]

Learning to punch well may or may not require any more or less effort than using a sword well, but the sword is the better investment, as it works better. The reason humans use tools (and weapons are a big subset of tools) is because they work better than one's bare hands. If something works better, you're going to use it more than something less efficient.

Hence, it doesn't bother me at all that 3e Fighters are better with weapons than without them--weapons work better than punches, so that's what they choose to use. It takes special discipline (i.e. using a feat on Improved Unarmed Strike or taking Monk levels) to achieve similar proficiency in the "less effective" unarmed combat. A 3e Fighter isn't even a bad combatant unarmed. In fact, due to his high BAB he's better than anyone who hasn't specifically devoted time and effort to fighting unarmed. That works for me.

I still want to see a competent unarmed, non-mystic fighter in 4e though, simply because the brawler is a valid fantasy archetype. And hell, beating up monsters with your bare hands is just fun. This is where "it's a game" comes in. So if we see a good unarmed talent tree in 4e, I think we'll be in good shape. But if a brawler can choose to be good unarmed, doing so should create an opportunity cost for weapon skill.

I like how Star Wars Saga does it. Easy, effective Martial Arts feats let one customize their level of unarmed combat ability, while the Soldier's Brawling talent tree lets the Soldier be better than anyone else unarmed, if they so choose. So you can have a tried and true martial artist with all the feats and talents, or you can have a gun bunny who can still tear things up in your average cantina fight because he chose Martial Arts I.

 

[Insight]

I am willing to bet real money that a martial arts expert using a sword is better than a schmuck using a sword. The training you get in learning martial arts (or wrestling, boxing, whatever) still applies to any sort of combat. Just like someone learning how to use a sword (I'm talking fencing/kendo here, not "how to swing like this *thud*") would better know how to apply those skills to unarmed combat better than Joe Blow who's taking wild swings at someone.

 

[Enforcer]

Would a boxer be better with a sword than a joe schmoe? Maybe. But in D&D terms it'd be because his BAB is higher (to paraphrase you: the training you get from any martial art that applies to any sort of combat equates to a higher BAB).

Would a martial arts expert be better with a sword than a joe schmoe? Maybe. If his martial art includes sword training (e.g. aikido teaches some sword maneuvers), then sure. Would the kendo/fencing guy be better? Probably, swords are what kendo/fencing is all about.

Basically, you want every Fighter to have basic competence at all forms of combat. What I'm saying is they already do--high BAB plus proficiency in most weapons=basic competence. What differentiates the Fighter is how they specialize. And a Fighter who focuses solely on his weapons is not going to be as good of an unarmed fighter as one who takes Improved Unarmed Strike and Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle) or dips in Monk. Why is this a problem?

 

[Stalker0]

Learning to punch well may or may not require any more or less effort than using a sword well, but the sword is the better investment, as it works better. The reason humans use tools (and weapons are a big subset of tools) is because they work better than one's bare hands. If something works better, you're going to use it more than something less efficient.

QFT. The thing is, most of the time in a dnd setting fighters don't have to give up their weapons when going anywhere, and the vast majority of things they encounter are armed in some way. If you play in a campaign where fighters do have to disarm frequently, then unarmed classes like the monk suddenly become a lot more enticing.

In 4e, I hope they add in unarmed fighting feats like they did in SAGA. They are good feats that will probably see a decent amount of use. If they want a monk class, that's fine, but you shouldn't have to be a monk in order to fight well unarmed.

 

[Driddle]

When the unstriped tiger is made to quack like a duck and dance upon the nameless wind, then contentment shall reign over the earth. Until then, however, only a blind man can truly taste the bitterness of youth.

Bard or monk? Yes. But not both.

 

[Achan hiArusa]

What I'm hoping is that the monk will kill the swordsage and take his stuff. IMO the separation between the two classes is artificial, since they're both essentially mystic unarmored wuxia classes.

So like this (I'm still keeping the name though).

 

[GAAAHHH]

Even they have no excuse not to like the warblade and crusader!

I don't like the Warblade and the Crusader.

 

[Gloombunny]

I don't like the Warblade and the Crusader.

INEXCUSABLE!

 

[Moggthegob]

If yo uthink fightersare underpowered you clearly havent played with some of the builds I have played alongside. The flying mounted charger dealing roughly 300 per hit is not to be laughed at.

 

[Campbell]

If yo uthink fightersare underpowered you clearly havent played with some of the builds I have played alongside. The flying mounted charger dealing roughly 300 per hit is not to be laughed at.

Games should not be balanced on corner cases.