What's Up With The Monk?

[Arcane Runes Press]

a) deal bonus damage based on Wisdom;

b) add Wisdom bonus to attack rolls;

c) count as one size larger, then two sizes larger in combat for purposes of tripping, disarming, grappling, etc.;

d) get more monk weapons (shortspear, quarterstaff, longspear, javelin, maybe even a bow);

e) get the psionic feat Up the Wall despite not having the prerequisites.

Bear in mind these are quickly thought up and written, and I may be way off base, but I'm certain this would fit my idea of the monk much better.

I'd like to see others redesign the monk in a few quick changes. Post your own ideas!

If you can, check out Mongoose's Quintessential Monk.

I wrote it and it should be out (I think) at GenCon.

Many of the things you list as desirable for the monk are things that I included in the manuscript, either as alternative class progressions, feats, or prestige classes.

There are new weapons and LOTS of new uses for existing skills.

Patrick Y.

 

[wolff96]

Second, The whole reason I gave him spiked chain was so that spring attack wouldn't work. The monk (indeed any monk) would run up for a spring attack, and boom: AoO at +20. That's an automatic hit (vs. his [dodge enhanced] AC of 20). Two more of those and the monk is likely dead.

Umm... No.

Just because you have a reach weapon changes nothing. As the feat explicitly states: "Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender the character attacks."

There are no exceptions for reach weapons or anything else. After all, what good would the feat be if a simple Ogre could still nail you with his fists (they have reach too) when you used it?

Or even worse, a dragon? Or anything with ridiculously long reach? There would be no point to the feat. Reach weapons don't give you AoOs against those with Spring Attack.

I still think your fighter would win in the long run, though... but I also don't think one-on-one fights prove anything.

 

[hong]

Or even worse, a dragon? Or anything with ridiculously long reach? There would be no point to the feat. Reach weapons don't give you AoOs against those with Spring Attack.

Note: readied attacks work wonders against annoying guys who bounce around all over the place, even if they have Spring Attack.

 

[wolff96]

Oh, and the house rule we use...

The Monk AC Bonus +1 is the highest damage reduction the monk can penetrate with his fists.

So at 1st level, a monk can beat DR +x/+1. At fifth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+2. At tenth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+3. At fifteenth, the monk can now get past DR of +x/+4. And at 20th level, the monk can get around DR +x/+5. This ONLY affects damage reduction.

The Ki Strike is altered to be an actual + to fists. Thus, at tenth level, all of the monk's unarmed attacks are made as a +1 weapon, to hit and to damage.

So far, it has worked pretty well. It also means that a monk can almost always damage the creatures that the party runs into -- sometimes better than anyone else in the party.

 

[wolff96]

Note: readied attacks work wonders against annoying guys who bounce around all over the place, even if they have Spring Attack.

Readied actions, yes. AoOs because you use a reach weapon, as Wolfen Priest said? No.

A readied action to trip has always been my favorite defense against those with Spring Attack.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Umm... No.

Just because you have a reach weapon changes nothing. As the feat explicitly states: "Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender the character attacks."

There are no exceptions for reach weapons or anything else. After all, what good would the feat be if a simple Ogre could still nail you with his fists (they have reach too) when you used it?

Ok, well, in that case, I wouldn't even give him the spiked chain but rather a greatsword; thus the crit range would be 17-20 and damage would be (on average) 2 points higher.

But technically, I guess (if no AoO are allowed) the monk could just spring attack the crap out of the fighter until he's dead, assuming he gets all his attacks in. But even with this actuality, couldn't the fighter just ready an action to hit the monk when he 'passes?' Otherwise, it seems kind of ridiculous that the monk would just sort of buzz by him like a jet fighter, the fighter completely unable to catch (and therefore) harm him.

 

[wolff96]

But technically, I guess (if no AoO are allowed) the monk could just spring attack the crap out of the fighter until he's dead, assuming he gets all his attacks in. But even with this actuality, couldn't the fighter just ready an action to hit the monk when he 'passes?'

Of course you can.

And, with that strength, I'd say you have a VERY good chance with a Trip Attack -- making the monk get up the next round and giving you some nice prone bonuses in the meantime.

Like I said before -- I don't think a monk could beat the fighter you designed. As I also said -- I don't think it proves much, either. The fighter only has one trick: fighting. If the monk could beat him in a straight-up fight, that would be ridiculous.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, I'm a big fan of bonus feats, because they allow lots of flexibility. If I was designing 3.1E or 4E, I'd make all the classes have bonus feats like the fighter, but with different sets of feats to choose from. Right now the fighter is extremely customisable, but you can't really say that about the barbarian or paladin, or even the cleric and sorc.

Couldn't agree more.

My biggest complaints about, say, the Ranger and Paladin is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with playing them as is, but they are unnecessarily focussed and inflexible. TWF doesn't fit some outdoorsmen and some campaigns. Cure Disease doesn't fit some LG gods.

 

[hong]

My biggest complaints about, say, the Ranger and Paladin is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with playing them as is, but they are unnecessarily focussed and inflexible. TWF doesn't fit some outdoorsmen and some campaigns. Cure Disease doesn't fit some LG gods.

Yep. This is (one reason) why I prefer the shaman and samurai classes in OA, to the PHB cleric and paladin. Instead of being relatively inflexible, both the shaman and samurai feature lots of bonus feat slots that you can use however you like. And you can easily transfer them over to another setting, just by changing the pool of bonus feats and doing a bit of tweaking.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

I do see Hong's point - a monk does not fulfill a role that many people want him to fulfill. ... But I can speak from personal experience to say that monks have been quite popular and enjoyable in our campaigns - just as they have not been as enjoyable in yours.

Monks actually seem pretty popular among the campaigns I have been in. Fun or no, I do not think low level monks pull their weight. High level monks are pretty good: their layers of defense and mobility are very valuable when combat is fluid and magic common.