Monk - what do you like and dislike?

[glass]

Nothing to do with balance. Everything to do with flavor. Get the flavor right first, then tackle the balance.

How is it more flavourful for a monk's very different fighting style to be mechanically identical to any greatsword fighter's?

Easier to balance? Probably. More flavourful? Don't see how.


glass.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The monk has an unarmed strike (her weapon), with which he makes unarmed attacks (her attacks). Unfortunately, the latter are also known as unarmed strikes on occasion, which I admit is a little confusing.

However, it seems pretty clear to me that when they are talking about the monks unarmed strike being treated as X types of weapon, they are talking about the former use (the weapon), rather than the latter use (the attacks themselves): Otherwise, each MW/MF spell would only be good for one attack!


glass.

It's not clear to me. It's grammar, flavor, picturing it in my mind, etc issue. Not that it's a huge deal, as the monk shouldn't be demanding spellcasting, and the rules for enhancing yourself don't exist anyway. I was (and am still) worried GMW only applied to one attack. (How do you flurry with just your left elbow?)

GMF has specific text about enhancing multiple attacks.

Magic Fang, Greater
Transmutation
Level: Drd 3, Rgr 3
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One living creature
Duration: 1 hour/level
This spell functions like magic fang, except that the enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls is +1 per four caster levels (maximum +5).
Alternatively, you may imbue all of the creature’s natural weapons with a +1 enhancement bonus (regardless of your caster level).
Greater magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

I'm just saying that looking at the Rules As Written, the Monk's high damage potential makes sense. And a 2d8-2d10 range of hand to hand damage in a 15th-20th level monk doesn't squick my suspension of disbelief in a game where 20th level wizards are casting Wish, Fighters are hitting with a +35-+40 attack, and Rogues get to add 10d6 to their sneak attacks.

This I don't agree with. Martial artists are supposed to strike with skill and finesse, but no one claims they're "deadlier" than a swordsman. They should be hitting quite often. I also don't think high damage is worth it if you never hit anything. I don't think a fighter hitting a +35 breaks my suspension of disbelief. (I'd like to know how you can get a fighter with +40. A tricked out barbarian might hit a buffed pit fiend only 60% of the time, and the buffed pit fiend has an AC of 44. So there's +6 unexplained attack bonus.) I don't think jabbing a needle into someone's carotid (that's basically sneak attack) breaks my suspension of disbelief either - you can only do it when your opponent is helpless, surprised or severely distracted (flanked), and if you could do that in real life, your victim would probably fall to the ground, bleeding very quickly.

How is it an 'improved TWF' when their chance of hitting is lower than that of a similarly tricked out Ranger with the TWF path? Someone went over the numbers upthread, and it was pretty obvious the Monk's flurry had lower chances of hitting than the Ranger with TWF.

Their chances of hitting are lower because of the lame BAB. The D20 Modern Martial Artist has a good BAB, and it's flurries look good.

Compared to TWF, it gives one or two extra attacks (just like TWF) at no penalty (instead of no penalty and then a -5 penalty). You get to do full Strength damage with your off-hand attack, to. Eventually the -2 penalty vanishes. I think it's comparable to TWF, but better - or would be if the monk could hit often in the first place.

Actually, I think that was 1d20 + 1d6 damage, in 3.0. I seem to remember the 3.0 monk going up along the single dice, although I don't have a PHB on hand to check, and it's almost impossible to find the 3.0 SRD these days.

Yeah, it would have been 1d10 + 1d6, which is almost the same.

How is it more flavourful for a monk's very different fighting style to be mechanically identical to any greatsword fighter's?

Greatsword? Not if the monk is doing 1d6 or 1d8 per hit.

 

[jcfiala]

This I don't agree with. Martial artists are supposed to strike with skill and finesse, but no one claims they're "deadlier" than a swordsman. They should be hitting quite often. I also don't think high damage is worth it if you never hit anything. I don't think a fighter hitting a +35 breaks my suspension of disbelief. (I'd like to know how you can get a fighter with +40. A tricked out barbarian might hit a buffed pit fiend only 60% of the time, and the buffed pit fiend has an AC of 44. So there's +6 unexplained attack bonus.) I don't think jabbing a needle into someone's carotid (that's basically sneak attack) breaks my suspension of disbelief either - you can only do it when your opponent is helpless, surprised or severely distracted (flanked), and if you could do that in real life, your victim would probably fall to the ground, bleeding very quickly.

We're arguing two different things again. I'm talking about how things are not overpowered and seem to make sense if you look at the rules as they are written, and you're talking about how you'ld like the monk to be - which is, in fact, something we agree on.

I want the Monk to have a full BAB. I want them to have a damage bonus that tops out around 1d8 - maybe going up to something like 1d10 at 20th level. I think it'd be interesting if there were enhancement bonuses for monks that were tattoos - a tattooed hand would be a +x to hit, but unless you tattoed both of your hands, only (say) your top and bottom flurry attacks would gain the bonus for the attack. I think the Firey Fist feat in the PHII is a great start on other changes to the monk, that could make them more like what they should be.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm talking about how things are not overpowered and seem to make sense if you look at the rules as they are written

I don't think it's overpowered - obviously - but I think there would be more room to fix the monk if the damage was rendered reasonable.

And no, I don't think the low hit/high damage paradigm makes sense. You find yourself sitting there for several rounds (missing) before you get anything done. Fun is part of game design.

 

[jcfiala]

I don't think it's overpowered - obviously - but I think there would be more room to fix the monk if the damage was rendered reasonable.

And no, I don't think the low hit/high damage paradigm makes sense. You find yourself sitting there for several rounds (missing) before you get anything done. Fun is part of game design.

I think I misspoke there. I didn't mean 'makes sense' as in 'this is how I'd build a monk' - because it isn't. I meant 'meakes sense' as in, 'doesn't strike me as any more unrealistic than anything else in the game'. But at this point I suspect I'm quibbling. In My Next Campaign (we should make that an acronym), I'm going with a monk with full BAB, a slower damage increase, and possibly a different Flurry progression.

 

[Gizzard]

I don't think it's overpowered - obviously - but I think there would be more room to fix the monk if the damage was rendered reasonable.

At what levels does the damage need to be more reasonable? There's a lot of talk about 2d10, which only matters at epic levels (which are often considered crazy and unbalanced anyway.)

At level 1 its a pathetic 1d6, compared to a fighter who probably started with 1d10.
At 5 it is a mediocre 1d8, +2/+2 BAB.
At 10 it is 1d10, which is getting up to where a fighter started at level 1.
At 15 you are doing 2d6, still closing in on the fighter who is piling on +STR +CON items.
And at 20 you are 2d10, which is somehow broken?

I think the Monk needs more of a boost a low and mid levels (would starting with a 1d8 of damage make him a better combatant than a Fighter? Hah). Even with a Monks Belt, the L12 Monk in my campaign could not keep up with the L12 Fighter in terms of damage, and certainly not in terms of survivability. If the Monk is supposed to be a "glass cannon" he needs more damage, not less.

 

[jcfiala]

At what levels does the damage need to be more reasonable? There's a lot of talk about 2d10, which only matters at epic levels (which are often considered crazy and unbalanced anyway.)

At level 1 its a pathetic 1d6, compared to a fighter who probably started with 1d10.
At 5 it is a mediocre 1d8, +2/+2 BAB.
At 10 it is 1d10, which is getting up to where a fighter started at level 1.
At 15 you are doing 2d6, still closing in on the fighter who is piling on +STR +CON items.
And at 20 you are 2d10, which is somehow broken?

Well, this argument is that it's broken, if we're fixing the monk in general. So, if it's with a monk with full BAB, then it's a pathetic 1d6, but with a +1 BAB and a -1/-1 Flurry.

Then at 5th it would be maybe a 1d6 still, but with a +5 BAB, and a better flurry...

The idea is to rebalance the monk in toto here.

[/QUOTE]I think the Monk needs more of a boost a low and mid levels (would starting with a 1d8 of damage make him a better combatant than a Fighter? Hah). Even with a Monks Belt, the L12 Monk in my campaign could not keep up with the L12 Fighter in terms of damage, and certainly not in terms of survivability. If the Monk is supposed to be a "glass cannon" he needs more damage, not less.[/QUOTE]

He needs to hit more often, not less. Once he's hitting at the same frequency as a Ranger of the same level, then the lower damage is offset by actually dealing the damage for a change.

 

[Gizzard]

Well, this argument is that it's broken, if we're fixing the monk in general.

Do we agree with this argument? ;-) I'm not sure I do, though I have never played a L20 Monk. I'd argue that it's more important to get the L1, L5 and L10 Monk right; those are the levels that the bulk of PCs are in practice.

So is 1d8 or +1BAB at L1 broken? Here's some damage per round math assuming an AC10 opponent, a 16STR Monk and an 18STR Barbarian:

1d6+2 * (40%) + 1d6+2 * (40%) = 4.4
1d8+2 * (40%) + 1d8+2 * (40%) = 5.2
1d6+2 * (45%) + 1d6+2 * (45%) = 4.95
1d12+4 * (60%) = 6.3

The first line is the current Monk, he flurries at -2/-2. The second line is a 1d8 theoretical Monk, still -2/-2. Third is a +1BAB Monk. Fourth is a Barbarian with a Great Axe. #1 and #4 are taken from my campaign, YMMV.

Anyway, if I did my math right, it shows the ranges of damage output that either of the two theoretical changes might make; increasing damage dice or increasing BAB. Comes out about the same; defintely more reasonable than the current -1BAB 1d6 configuration.

 

[Stalker0]

He needs to hit more often, not less. Once he's hitting at the same frequency as a Ranger of the same level, then the lower damage is offset by actually dealing the damage for a change.

Actually this really depends on how you play your monk. If your a spring attacking monk, you'd rather keep your big damage since your not going to get all of those attacks.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

At what levels does the damage need to be more reasonable? There's a lot of talk about 2d10, which only matters at epic levels (which are often considered crazy and unbalanced anyway.)

At level 1 its a pathetic 1d6, compared to a fighter who probably started with 1d10.

But the monk gets flurry of blows, which is like TWF. He shouldn't be doing more than 1d6 damage per hit.

But due to his low BAB (and the general wimpiness of TWF for any 1st-level character), the math gets all fuzzy.

At 5 it is a mediocre 1d8, +2/+2 BAB.

Think of what the ranger feels. Okay, they would be two points of attack bonus ahead, but that wouldn't be an issue if monks had full BAB.

At 10 it is 1d10, which is getting up to where a fighter started at level 1.

Assuming the fighter spent a feat, and of course the fighter can't dual wield bastard swords.

At 15 you are doing 2d6, still closing in on the fighter who is piling on +STR +CON items.

With each hand.

And at 20 you are 2d10, which is somehow broken?

Not broken. Stifling! I would rather do 1d10+5 (with a +5 bonus to hit as well) than 2d10+zip. (You would have to make Amulets of Mighty Fists reasonably priced if you also made the damage reasonable - I don't think there's a huge cry for the amulets to keep their price.)

I think the Monk needs more of a boost a low and mid levels (would starting with a 1d8 of damage make him a better combatant than a Fighter? Hah).

It does if he gets two attacks.