Silly thought on Monks

[Greenfield]

Okay, to qualify myself, I've never played a Monk, and I'm far from an expert on them.

Conventional wisdom says that the best way to optimize a Monk is not to play a Monk. Play another class applying a monk-ish theme, then take the feats for Monk-like abilities.

From my extremely naive perspective (having seen one played many times), one big thing is that they rely largely on hand to hand, which inherently denies them the advantages of half their equipment (specifically, the weapons). And in D&D, your equipment is half of what you are.

So I had the silly thought: What if you added a Feat or class ability that would allow Monk to apply the bonuses and abilities of any one weapon in their possession to their unarmed strike?

Own a +2 dagger? Channel that magic to gain +2 to hit and damage with unarmed strike. It's a flaming longsword +3? Flaming fists +3. Vorpal? You just learned how to break someone's neck.

The ability/feat would let the character spend a Move action to channel the power of the weapon (same as needed to draw it) into their hands. Another Move action to dismiss the power (same as sheathing a weapon), so "changing weapons" is the same for a Monk as anyone else.

You could "drop" the power as a free action, but couldn't channel that same weapon again until you spent a full round action "refocussing". That makes it the same as dropping a weapon instead of re-sheathing.

Only melee weapons in the character's possession, of course. Lose the weapon, lose the power, so you can't borrow someone elses Great Sword of Awesome Niftiness, channel the power, then hand the blade back.

Would this be a good way to bump the Monk up to a more competitive level? Or is it one of those things best left alone?

Or has this already been done?

 

[Empirate]

It's a nice idea for sure, but the problem with the Monk is that there is not a single problem to adress directly with a quick fix. Instead, the whole class simply doesn't work very well, owing to a combination of factors:

1. MAD. You need a lot of ability scores at good to very good values to do your stuff, while other classes only need one or two. Cha and Int are your only dump stats.

2. Lack of a defined role. d8 HD, Medium BAB and lower level flurry penalties means you're not much of a melee threat. Lack of skillpoints (see above) means you're not much of a scout or skillmonkey. Lack of mechanical theme where out-of-combat abilities are concerned means you're not bringing utility to the table. No social abilities to speak of (even though diplomacy is a class skill, you won't have the luxury of being good at it). Etc.

3. Non-synergistic class features. Flurry of Blows plus high move speed don't synergize well. AC bonuses plus inability to wear armor to good effect is just weird, really. Spell resistance, but very buff-dependent - meh. You're basically forced to use very weak weapons (most likely Unarmed Strikes), which you then get some class features (like Stunning Fist) to 'improve'.

4. Weak class features. Still Mind and Slow Fall aren't worth the ink they're printed with. Horrible stuff. Purity of Body - why are certain diseases (the most common that are likely to be dangerous for adventurers) excluded?Wholeness of Body - it's just too little. Abundant Step - why only 1/day? Quivering Palm - 1/week on a mediocre save or die?! Diamond Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon, Empty Body - why sooo late? And the capstone is really weaksauce (but at least Monks actually get a capstone...).

Those are the biggies in my book. It's just the combination of all these that makes the Monk weak.
The class is all over the place, and unlike a Bard or Ranger (who can feel a bit like that, too), most of your abilities are really niche, or cannot even be optimized heavily enough to make for a good focus for your build.

 

[emoplato]

Empirate has it pretty much down but I would add that the class didn't know what it wanted to do in the first place. It is quite clear the developers sat down and asked okay what are all the mythological eastern martial artist masters rumored to do? They tried to accommodate that entire theme/list in one archetype but naturally got demoted because of the large amount, especially against other fighter characters so they limited the abilities more and more. As a result you have a master of nothing.
The ability actually is quite a decent idea, but the monk needs to be reorganized as these monks in history and in the real world were still vastly different from one another. It really almost needs to be split up into different categories. On one end you have a single weapon savant with something similar to the ancestral weapon. Another a pressure point specialist that would have a stunning fist type feat line and a little sneak attack. I am just throwing stuff out there.

 

[Greenfield]

To be fair, I think the authors were watching the original Kung Fu series, which was relatively new on TV at the time.

In short, they were following a popular fad of the moment.

So, other than the concept issue (What's an Oriental monk doing in a pseudo-medieval European setting), the 1e version worked. But then, in 1e, ability scores weren't all that important. Unless you had a fairly high Dex, it made no difference. (from about 7 to 14, if I recall, was all the same.) Unless you had a Strength of 17 or higher, the only real difference was your "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" number. And only Fighter class, specifically, got to roll on the Extraordinary Strength table (the percentage number that followed an 18).

So, while the class was a bad fit for the setting, the MAD issue really didn't come up much. Additionally, prior to 3rd Edition, point buy wasn't in the game for stats. The only way to run a class with stat minimums was to roll them, so if you were running a Paladin or a Monk, MAD wasn't really an issue. You were guaranteed to have the stats just to play the class at all.

3.0 changed all that. Every stat is important for something, even if it's only Skills.

So what would it take to break the MAD problem? Allow a Monk to substitute Wisdom bonus for one other score? (i.e., at creation they could choose to train to use Wisdom for KI focus, allowing them to use Wisdom modifiers in place of Strength, or the might choose to train Wisdom for Insight focus, allowing them to use Wisdom bonus in place of Dex.) That would trim the stat competition down to something more reasonable.

As for a defining role, allow them to choose either a Fighter BAB (Warrior Monk), or Rogue skill base (Scholarly Monk). Again, this is a career choice, like a Ranger choosing the archery focus or the TWF focus.

If those choices were offered as class features, would it be too much? Not enough? Just wrong?

 

[Grogg of the North]

I've allowed monks to make magical gloves. The glove allows them to use their unarmed strike damage but lets them add things like flaming and other enhancements.

You could use the feat intuitive attack to use your wisdom modifier to attack instead of strength. Since wisdom usually high for monks, its a good choice but almost seems like a feat tax. You could just give it to the monk for free or add it as a choice for bonus feats that the monk gets.

Otherwise, monks can be fun and in the end that's all that matters.

 

[Dandu]

You need Wis to attack and to damage.

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

So I had the silly thought: What if you added a Feat or class ability that would allow Monk to apply the bonuses and abilities of any one weapon in their possession to their unarmed strike?

I've allowed monks to make magical gloves. The glove allows them to use their unarmed strike damage but lets them add things like flaming and other enhancements.

I Think The Discussion Here Can Apply To This Topic.

Otherwise, monks can be fun and in the end that's all that matters.

If you play a PC who's theme is to hit things to hurt it and it neither hits things, nor does much hurting when it does connect, the fun level goes down.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You need Wis to attack and to damage.

There is a PrCl for that...with a 1 level dip.

 

[nonsi256]

You need Wis to attack and to damage.

That's definitely essential, but barely scratches the surface.

 

[nonsi256]

There is a PrCl for that...with a 1 level dip.

PrCs started out as a DM's call optional rule. Now everything's solved with PrCs.
I'm slowly but surely starting to come to the conclusion that killing the whole notion of PrCs (or at least drastically clipping its wings) is in order.