Proposed Monk Rules Preview (not house rules)

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is an interesting concept. I'm not sure I think using themes in this way meshes too well with the way WotC has envisaged them (as basically a set of fairly generalized options that help specify a character concept and add a little mechanical justification to it). Obviously this theme is purely applicable to monks and is almost more like a PP than a theme in intent. I can understand why you built it as a theme. I'm just concerned that the devs aren't going to be on the same page you're on.

Go for it though. I haven't really played a monk, so I am not fully confident I totally understand how the interactions between ki focus, weapon, and unarmed strike are now being interpreted but as long as it doesn't overshadow any of the other build choices in any substantial way it should be good on those grounds.

 

[bganon]

You're right that if you take the theme, feat and power you get to be about as effective as if you had a club, but you don't get to ever have any weapon properties/powers to use, so I don't think that going unarmed will be that easy a choice. For example, you can have a Ki Club (another +2 to damage for a Flurry, but you can never have a Ki Fist.

No Ki Fist, but with your at-will every monk's going to be using a Mountainfall Ki Focus anyway, so they can get a +2/+4/+6 damage vs prone/immob on every attack.

My point is this: monks have Ki Foci to replace the loss of weapon properties/powers. It may not be a totally even trade because of all the magic weapons in print, but it's not meant to be an imbalance, and trying to fix it by giving the unarmed style some freebies will probably have unintended consequences.

I don't want to be relentlessly negative; I like the basic idea of what you're trying to do, and it'd be cool to see an article come out of it. I think a number of things are quite OP, but those sorts of things can be easier to tweak (the at-will is quite fixable, I think). I think the main problem is what others have pointed out: the theme as written is totally useless for non-Monks, and I doubt WotC will be interested in one-class themes.

If the starting feature were rewritten as a new standalone power (usable as a MBA), that might go a long way toward making the theme available to anyone who wants to occasionally punch monsters in the face.

Also, you really should check WotC's submission guidelines before posting more details here. It's admirable that you want to playtest ideas, but they may not want to print something you can't prove you own, and when you post ideas on a public forum it makes it pretty easy for others to claim things as their own.

 

[Artoomis]

It is an interesting concept. I'm not sure I think using themes in this way meshes too well with the way WotC has envisaged them (as basically a set of fairly generalized options that help specify a character concept and add a little mechanical justification to it). Obviously this theme is purely applicable to monks and is almost more like a PP than a theme in intent. I can understand why you built it as a theme. I'm just concerned that the devs aren't going to be on the same page you're on.

Go for it though. I haven't really played a monk, so I am not fully confident I totally understand how the interactions between ki focus, weapon, and unarmed strike are now being interpreted but as long as it doesn't overshadow any of the other build choices in any substantial way it should be good on those grounds.

Thanks. I think the theme works pretty well - similar in many way to the Oracle theme, but the starting power is done significantly differently in not being an encounter power, and I have no idea what sort of feedback I'll get for WotC on it - heck I don't even know if they'll read it, but I assume it will get that far, anyway.

I non-monk taking this theme would have the opportunity to be a sort of pseudo-monk which I think is part of the idea for many of these themes.

Even if they reject it completely but it gets them thinking and they do something else that helps out basic attacks and unarmed attacks for monks I'd be happy.

 

[Mengu]

When they update monk's unarmed strike feature with "You may use dexterity instead of strength for attack and damage rolls of melee basic attacks," then what happens to this article?

Fixing the unarmed attack problems of various classes is likely under the update team's purview, so it's not appropriate Dragon material.

Also if you include game rules in your submission, they will not look at it, and your submission is likely to be entirely discarded. Submissions are supposed to be a brief, rules-free description of what you would like to write an article about. Read the submission rules and recommendations. Various people like Shroomy and Klaus have been through the process so read their advice as well. There is also advice on various blogs, just google it.

 

[the Jester]

You shouldn't be posting this on a public messageboard if you're intending for this to go to WotC, especially if they've asked you to write an article.

Yeah- if it has already appeared online, they won't pick it up.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

When they update monk's unarmed strike feature with "You may use dexterity instead of strength for attack and damage rolls of melee basic attacks," then what happens to this article?

Fixing the unarmed attack problems of various classes is likely under the update team's purview, so it's not appropriate Dragon material.

Are we sure about that?

They may well consider not everyone having a good basic attack to be a feature, not a problem.

Brad

 

[Mengu]

No, I'm just presenting a possibility. Not sure at all what kind of solution they'll come up with, or if they'll come up witha solution. But it's been echoed and debated so many times that every class needs a melee basic or ranged basic attack that doesn't take up an at-will slot. If swinging a nunchuk or flinging a rod is your basic function, you should be competent at it. And this is definitely on the update team's radar from when they asked for "4e issues to be addressed".

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah- if it has already appeared online, they won't pick it up.

Glad to hear it.


On to the power:

The Special language that the Full Discipline doesn't aply when used in place of a basic attack (presumably charging, OAs, etc) is good.

The easiest way to make a new power interesting and accepted is to make it too powerful. There's a lot of that going on here. Immobilize obviously had to go, for instance. Attack bonuses, likewise, are probably excessive (yes, even in light of the Slayer's 'Poised Assault' stance - remember Slayer's have a lot of ground to make up due to their lack of dailies and lack of choice).

Typically, at-wills useable as basic attacks are /barely/ better than basic attacks, at all (and sometimes, it's debateable). The mere fact that 'Open Palm' will be useable as a basic attack makes it desireable. It saves the player who takes it a feat on Melee Training, for instance, which is very nice at first level or with a Human character. The Monk's Full Discipline only makes it's at will /better/, really, so there's not much need for improvement. A basic attack that lets you shift 4 as your move action is plenty impressive, by itself.

...and the feat:

Likewise, Monks hardly need to be be able to further upgrade their already longsword-like unarmed strikes to bastard-sword-like. Let alone with an added damage bonus. There should be feats - Expertise (ick), Focus, etc - to support unarmed strikes, of course, but there's hardly a need for a Superior Unarmed Strike, when the Monk's is already /so/ superior (+3/d8 vs +0/d4!!).

 

[Destil]

Are we sure about that?

They may well consider not everyone having a good basic attack to be a feature, not a problem.

Brad

Except, the monk had a good basic attack when PHB3 came out, either through high Str or Melee Training. Then melee training got changed to prevent abuse by essentials classes and the monk never got anything to compensate.

I'm not sure that everyone should have a good melee basic for free, but being able to get one at a cost like a feat is pretty much a given, yeah.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Likewise, Monks hardly need to be be able to further upgrade their already longsword-like unarmed strikes to bastard-sword-like. Let alone with an added damage bonus. There should be feats - Expertise (ick), Focus, etc - to support unarmed strikes, of course, but there's hardly a need for a Superior Unarmed Strike, when the Monk's is already /so/ superior (+3/d8 vs +0/d4!!).

The feat already exists as Improved Monk Unarmed Strike, the feat merely makes it better for the Monk to take, since it does something else.

Ultimately, what they should probably do for Monks is:

(a) Give them weapon attacks vs. AC as powers
(b) Give them a feat, or just errata, to let them use Dex for their MBAs.
(c) It would be nice if Unarmed Strike was an automatic class feature for hybrid monks, since weapon prof is 'best of both', and armor is 'worst of both', so a hybrid monk already has to deal with starting in cloth armor without a shield. Then it would be more likely to get to use the monk's unarmed strike as an actual weapon.

They have some out of class paragon paths, multiclass powerswaps and dark sun themes, but monks just don't use weapons very often, so the whole unarmed strike class feature is sort of a waste.