Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tetsubo" data-source="post: 2585646" data-attributes="member: 1250">Monk Special Weapons    I’ve never been happy with how 3.0/3.5 rules have dealt with Monk specialty weapons. Lets look at the official SRD first:    “When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.”    With the exception of the quarterstaff all of these weapons are very Asian in design. There’s nothing wrong with Asian weapons, I’m rather fond of the tetsubo myself. But in a fantasy world that is trying to be “generic” they seem out of place. Not to mention a world that has quite a few races that aren’t from reality at all.    The intent of the designers seems to have been to offer the Monk a selection of weapons that would cover all of the damage type bases (Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing). They also threw in a few special abilities as well, i. e. Tripping and Disarming. In and of themselves these aren’t bad ideas. I just think that they weren’t well executed and were shoehorned into an Asian mold.    Lets look at each weapon individually (data from the SRD):    “Kama: The kama is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a kama special options.You can use a kama to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the kama to avoid being tripped.”    This is a Slashing weapon that offers the user the special ability of making a Trip attack. This weapon design is taken from an agricultural tool still in use today. Not a bad design but it is very much an Asian item.      “Nunchaku: The nunchaku is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a nunchaku special options. With a nunchaku, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).”    A Bludgeoning weapon that offers a Disarm specialty attack. Also derived from an Asian agricultural tool.     “Quarterstaff: A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A creature wielding a quarterstaff in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round.The quarterstaff is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a quarterstaff special options.”    The classic staff. I wouldn’t alter this weapon at all. Both because it’s ubiquitous to every culture and such a stable of RPG’s.     House Rule Idea: I’ve often thought that the quarterstaff should be more attractive to Fighters. One idea I had was to allow a Fighter to take an “exotic” Feat in the quarterstaff. This would change the stats to 1d6/1d6 (Small) or 1d8/1d8 (Medium) x3. Giving the weapon the same stats as an Orc Double Axe. Since the Double Axe is considered balanced I think this idea would fit into the rules easily.    “Sai: With a sai, you get a +4 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).The sai is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a sai special options.”    A second Bludgeoning weapon with a Disarm special attack. The special attack bonus is better than the Nunchaku. I’m not sure why anyone would take the Nunchakus in preference to the Sai. This weapon is at least not derived from an agricultural tool. In the real world these weapons were sometimes sharpened. I realize that the damage is slightly lower but the addition of a Ranged attack makes up for that deficit.    “Shuriken: A shuriken is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding shuriken special options. A shuriken can’t be used as a melee weapon.Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them and what happens to them after they are thrown.”    I wouldn’t change the rules governing this weapon. I’ve never seen it as an attractive weapon choice but it seems balanced and functional. To avoid the Asian influence I would rename the weapon Throwing Steels.    “Siangham: The siangham is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a siangham special options.”    This is frankly the most bizarre choice in the rules system. The Siangham is the most esoteric real world weapon in the game. I was baffled as to why it was chosen. I can understand that they needed a Piercing weapon to accommodate the Damage Resistance rules. But the Siangham is just a strange choice.    So, what would I do differently? I’d make the Monk Special Weapons generic in stats and let the individual Monk (or GM) provide the flavor text. For example:Monk Special Weapons:Bludgeoning: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2Piercing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2Slashing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2Thrown: 1d3 (Small) or 1d4 (Medium) x2 Range Increment 10 ft.Special: Two of the melee weapons may have one each of the Tripping or Disarming special attack. Bonus will be +2 for said attack. If the Thrown weapon has such a special attack addition the bonus will be +4.     The player or the GM will provide the required flavor text for the weapon. Dwarven Monks might have War Drum Sticks (Bludgeoning) or Stone Drills (Piercing). A Monk from a society with a naval background might have Gaff Hook (Piercing with a Trip special attack). Each set of Monk weapons would be tailored to the specific race, culture or martial arts style. There would literally be no limit to the number of potential designs. It would be left to the imagination of the players or GM.    Any thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification