Allow Monks to take martial feats

[eriktheguy]

Would the following houserule be balanced?
Monks can be considered a martial class for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites.
My beef is that monks are "martial" artists, yet they cannot use martial powers. If you look in the Martial Powers book there are several non-class-specific martial feats. Martial Powers 2 is going to have many more, and a good whack of them are going to be staff feats. Staff feats! Staff techniques that a fighter can learn and a monk can't!

!

 

[Starfox]

We don't really have enough of the Monk to judge, but I think the martial-only limitation is more flavor than balance.

Martial Powers 2 is going to have many more [feats], and a good whack of them are going to be staff feats. Staff feats! Staff techniques that a fighter can learn and a monk can't!

More staff feats? Sounds cool, but are you sure?

 

[Patlin]

Wouldn't a multiclass feat to any martial class solve this problem, even without a house rule?

 

[eriktheguy]

Yes it would, but then the monk is spending an extra feat they may not want to...
Why should a monk have to focus on non-monk training to learn feats perfectly suited to a monk?

 

[eriktheguy]

We don't really have enough of the Monk to judge, but I think the martial-only limitation is more flavor than balance.



More staff feats? Sounds cool, but are you sure?

Okay, only one staff feat so far, but many other any martial class feats.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Who could say without seeing full PH3 monk writeup, as well as the additional material in Psionic Power?

The current setup could make sense if you interpret the martial power source as representing western fighting styles, with the psionic source standing for eastern styles.

Of course, that doesn't work so well if you're running an Oriental Adventures style campaign where fighters are samurai and rogues are ninjas. Just a thought.

 

[BobTheNob]

This is flavor vs implementation. The flavor is that Monks should have martial feats, the implementation is they dont. But when should flavor override the rules. Can I say "Warlocks are sorcerors with rods! They should have access to all sorceror powers!"? Not in good conceince I cant regardless of how accurate I may or may not be.

Fact is all classes have to pay the multiclass feat to branch out, so why is the Monk different? You assume the monk is like some Bruce Lee fist pounding killer, where I say that in the realms of D&D its more of a mystical channeler that manifests powers through physical movement. By my description, the concept of goiving them martial feat access for free makes no sense what-so-ever.

Sorry, I must disagree that monks "should" get this for free. None of us have the full description of monk to base a change like this on, and your argument for why is based entirely on personnel perception with no-regard for compliance with established rule morays.

My advice, wait till the full source is out, read and play a monk, then make a decision. Thats what works for me (and has stopped me putting in many a specious rule)

 

[Saeviomagy]

This is why basically all of the martial feats should be re-done to be weapon feats, and the remainder should have no restrictions. The opposite should be done for divine and arcane feats, and primal and psionic feats should probably end up getting split down the middle.

I mean sometimes there's going to be a rare feat that is genuinely bound to one power source or another, but at this time I can't imagine one except for those which are bound to a specific class by virtue of modifying class features (and even then, the feat should be bound to the class feature not power source or class).

 

[DracoSuave]

This is why basically all of the martial feats should be re-done to be weapon feats, and the remainder should have no restrictions. The opposite should be done for divine and arcane feats, and primal and psionic feats should probably end up getting split down the middle.

I mean sometimes there's going to be a rare feat that is genuinely bound to one power source or another, but at this time I can't imagine one except for those which are bound to a specific class by virtue of modifying class features (and even then, the feat should be bound to the class feature not power source or class).

Because Swordmages, Bards, Avengers, Paladins, and Clerics aren't weapon using classes, and so their power source feats should be denied them?

That doesn't make sense.

And how do you rework the Channel Divinity feats?

 

[eriktheguy]

Weapon feats without class requirements would be cool. Racial weapon feats are allowed at least.
I agree with Bob that you should change flavor before you change implementation, else anyone can come up with a new interpretation of a situation and modify the rules at will.