Post/Author/DateTime	Post
pres_man 06-15-06, 10:29 AM	I was wondering how unbalancing it would be to switchout the monk "asian" weapons for more standard weapons. For a lot of them, I don't see the appeal since they are not significantly more powerful then other non"asian" weapons. Basically it seems as if they are there for flavor mostly and they end up 1)screwing the monk character because they almost never find equipment they can use and 2)screw the party since when the monk dies the party can't use his equipment. So here is my alternative list: Weapon and Armor Proficiency: Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama sickle, nunchaku light mace, quarterstaff, sai light hammer, shuriken dart, siangham punching dagger, and sling. Monks are not proficient with any armor or shields When wearing armor, using a shield, or carrying a medium or heavy load, a monk loses her AC bonus, as well as her fast movement and flurry of blows abilities. When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham sickle, light mace, quarterstaff, light hammer, dart[need quick draw], and punching dagger). So what do you think, unbalancing? I tried to pick choices of weapons that were close to the originals or perhaps slightly weaker.
babysamurai 06-15-06, 10:58 AM	Basically it seems as if they are there for flavor mostly and they end up 2)screw the party since when the monk dies the party can't use his equipment. This line killed me. But in regards to your question - no, not unbalanced at all. Good job. ...Tomato, tomato.
tarkin 06-15-06, 11:18 AM	I think your list is a reasonable replacement if deciding to remove the asian flavor.
Erak 06-15-06, 12:41 PM	How are you balancing the fact that giving up the Sai penalizes disarming Monks?
jaelis 06-15-06, 12:45 PM	I'd probably go with a dagger rather than the light hammer. That way they are all simple weapons, and you get all the light simple weapons except the spiked gauntlet. Heck, I'd probably throw in the spiked gauntlet to make a clean sweep... use it to replace the hand axe.
Bulletproof_Condom 06-15-06, 12:45 PM	How are you balancing the fact that giving up the Sai penalizes disarming Monks?Give them all Stunning Fist?
lukelightning 06-15-06, 12:56 PM	I like that list; I've always felt that kamas and sickles should be the same thing, and there is no reason one is exotic and the other simple.
simon_tage 06-15-06, 01:00 PM	Seems fine to me.
pres_man 06-15-06, 07:14 PM	How are you balancing the fact that giving up the Sai penalizes disarming Monks? Yeah, that is an issue that I am a bit concerned with, along with the nunchaku. At first I had hoped there was a "light" flail, that maybe could be substituted in for one of them, but no such luck. And besides a quarterstaff would be a better disarming weapon anyway (+4 bonus versus the sai's total +0). As for balancing it out, well the light hammer does have twice the range (possible worth a +1 bonus), probably not totally equal but when changing things I tend to feel more comfortable with a slightly weaker choice then a slightly stronger choice. I'd probably go with a dagger rather than the light hammer. That way they are all simple weapons, and you get all the light simple weapons except the spiked gauntlet. Heck, I'd probably throw in the spiked gauntlet to make a clean sweep... use it to replace the hand axe. Monks are already proficient in the dagger, or do you mean make a choice for a flurrable weapon. Hmmm, daggers make me nervous, they seem a bit broken as is, I'm hestitant to give them more abilities. I like that list; I've always felt that kamas and sickles should be the same thing, and there is no reason one is exotic and the other simple. Yeah, I agree the only thing functionally different between the two is that a monk can flurry with one and not the other. It is not like the flurrableness helps any other class and makes them want to take it, so why not just list the sickle as a flurriable weapon, at least then when someone describes themself everybody doesn't immediately go, "He has a kama, he must be a monk!" With a sickle he might be a druid, or a farmer, or ... whatever. I don't know if anyone noticed or they didn't think it a bid deal with switching to darts, but not allow them to be draw as ammunition. Anybody think that is too nerfy?
jaelis 06-16-06, 08:39 AM	Monks are already proficient in the dagger, or do you mean make a choice for a flurrable weapon. Hmmm, daggers make me nervous, they seem a bit broken as is, I'm hestitant to give them more abilities. I was thinking about for a flurry. Compared to the sai, you trade a point of threat range for +4 to disarm. Seems OK to me. Compared to the hammer, you trade the threat range for doubling the throwing distance, again, seems fine. I don't know if anyone noticed or they didn't think it a bid deal with switching to darts, but not allow them to be draw as ammunition. Anybody think that is too nerfy? Given the damage increase, I think it's fine. I'd allow them to be crafted/enhanced as ammunition though.
Vaelan 06-16-06, 03:44 PM	How are you balancing the fact that giving up the Sai penalizes disarming Monks? The sai is a terrible weapon for disarming. The +4 bonus balances the -4 penalty for being light whereas any weapon wielded in two hands grants a total of +4. Even a spiked chain wielded by a non-proficient character is better. +4 for being two-handed, -4 for non-proficiency, and +2 to disarm checks for using a spiked chain for a total of +2.
DocBeard 06-16-06, 08:45 PM	Yeah, either a quarterstaff or an unarmed strike is almost surely the weapon of choice for a disarming monk. The quarterstaff because it's two-handed, and the unarmed strike because, while you take the usual light weapon penalty, if you succeed, you end up actually holding the enemy's weapon, which can be way more useful than just forcing him to drop it.
Tetsubo 06-16-06, 09:08 PM	Something I wrote awhile back... Monk Special Weapons I’ve never been happy with how 3.0/3.5 rules have dealt with Monk specialty weapons. Lets look at the official SRD first: “When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham). She may attack with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons interchangeably as desired. When using weapons as part of a flurry of blows, a monk applies her Strength bonus (not Str bonus x 1-1/2 or x 1/2) to her damage rolls for all successful attacks, whether she wields a weapon in one or both hands. The monk can’t use any weapon other than a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows.” With the exception of the quarterstaff all of these weapons are very Asian in design. There’s nothing wrong with Asian weapons, I’m rather fond of the tetsubo myself. But in a fantasy world that is trying to be “generic” they seem out of place. Not to mention a world that has quite a few races that aren’t from reality at all. The intent of the designers seems to have been to offer the Monk a selection of weapons that would cover all of the damage type bases (Bludgeoning, Piercing and Slashing). They also threw in a few special abilities as well, i. e. Tripping and Disarming. In and of themselves these aren’t bad ideas. I just think that they weren’t well executed and were shoehorned into an Asian mold. Lets look at each weapon individually (data from the SRD): “Kama: The kama is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a kama special options. You can use a kama to make trip attacks. If you are tripped during your own trip attempt, you can drop the kama to avoid being tripped.” This is a Slashing weapon that offers the user the special ability of making a Trip attack. This weapon design is taken from an agricultural tool still in use today. Not a bad design but it is very much an Asian item. “Nunchaku: The nunchaku is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a nunchaku special options. With a nunchaku, you get a +2 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails).” A Bludgeoning weapon that offers a Disarm specialty attack. Also derived from an Asian agricultural tool. “Quarterstaff: A quarterstaff is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. A creature wielding a quarterstaff in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. The quarterstaff is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a quarterstaff special options.” The classic staff. I wouldn’t alter this weapon at all. Both because it’s ubiquitous to every culture and such a stable of RPG’s. House Rule Idea: I’ve often thought that the quarterstaff should be more attractive to Fighters. One idea I had was to allow a Fighter to take an “exotic” Feat in the quarterstaff. This would change the stats to 1d6/1d6 (Small) or 1d8/1d8 (Medium) x3. Giving the weapon the same stats as an Orc Double Axe. Since the Double Axe is considered balanced I think this idea would fit into the rules easily. “Sai: With a sai, you get a +4 bonus on opposed attack rolls made to disarm an enemy (including the roll to avoid being disarmed if such an attempt fails). The sai is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a sai special options.” A second Bludgeoning weapon with a Disarm special attack. The special attack bonus is better than the Nunchaku. I’m not sure why anyone would take the Nunchakus in preference to the Sai. This weapon is at least not derived from an agricultural tool. In the real world these weapons were sometimes sharpened. I realize that the damage is slightly lower but the addition of a Ranged attack makes up for that deficit. “Shuriken: A shuriken is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding shuriken special options. A shuriken can’t be used as a melee weapon. Although they are thrown weapons, shuriken are treated as ammunition for the purposes of drawing them, crafting masterwork or otherwise special versions of them and what happens to them after they are thrown.” I wouldn’t change the rules governing this weapon. I’ve never seen it as an attractive weapon choice but it seems balanced and functional. To avoid the Asian influence I would rename the weapon Throwing Steels. “Siangham: The siangham is a special monk weapon. This designation gives a monk wielding a siangham special options.” This is frankly the most bizarre choice in the rules system. The Siangham is the most esoteric real world weapon in the game. I was baffled as to why it was chosen. I can understand that they needed a Piercing weapon to accommodate the Damage Resistance rules. But the Siangham is just a strange choice. So, what would I do differently? I’d make the Monk Special Weapons generic in stats and let the individual Monk (or GM) provide the flavor text. For example: Monk Special Weapons: Bludgeoning: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Piercing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Slashing: 1d4 (Small) or 1d6 (Medium) x2 Thrown: 1d3 (Small) or 1d4 (Medium) x2 Range Increment 10 ft. Special: Two of the melee weapons may have one each of the Tripping or Disarming special attack. Bonus will be +2 for said attack. If the Thrown weapon has such a special attack addition the bonus will be +4. The player or the GM will provide the required flavor text for the weapon. Dwarven Monks might have War Drum Sticks (Bludgeoning) or Stone Drills (Piercing). A Monk from a society with a naval background might have Gaff Hook (Piercing with a Trip special attack). Each set of Monk weapons would be tailored to the specific race, culture or martial arts style. There would literally be no limit to the number of potential designs. It would be left to the imagination of the players or GM.
Roxlimn 06-17-06, 08:03 AM	Being Asian myself, I don't really see how the monk is Asian in feel, particularly if we're talking about mythological references. By most accounts, Shaolin monks trained in the sword and the spear at the very least. Other accounts of Eastern warriors who excel in unarmed combat make use of hammers, sickles, even scythes, although the Spear was considered the King of Weaponry in Chinese mythology. Removing these perplexingly grouped weapons from the monk is something I can only applaud. Shuriken?!? Who ever heard of a Shaolin monk using shuriken?
Tetsubo 06-17-06, 08:30 AM	Being Asian myself, I don't really see how the monk is Asian in feel, particularly if we're talking about mythological references. By most accounts, Shaolin monks trained in the sword and the spear at the very least. Other accounts of Eastern warriors who excel in unarmed combat make use of hammers, sickles, even scythes, although the Spear was considered the King of Weaponry in Chinese mythology. Removing these perplexingly grouped weapons from the monk is something I can only applaud. Shuriken?!? Who ever heard of a Shaolin monk using shuriken? But you, as opposed to the game writers, have some actual knowledge of the topic. I agree with you. There are many, many weapons associated with martial arts. This is another example of sacrificing reality, flavor and interest to the altar of Game Balance. Would it be so bad to just allow a Monk to pick a number of weapons that he knows from his martial arts styles? I know, it would be abused by munchkins the world over. But there needs to be a better defining element for a game rule than, "It can't be abused by munchkins." Heck, an afternoon of Kung Fu Theater would show just how many weapons are used in martial arts...
Roxlimn 06-17-06, 09:51 AM	Can't agree with you there. Arguably, the best representation of a warrior like Broken Sword or Liu Bei would be the Fighter or Knight class married to the monk's unarmed combat damage and AC tables. No silly Slow Fall, and definitely not that overhyped ridiculous "Quivering Palm." Heck, someone like the warrior brothers from the Ramayana is probably best served by pure Fighter, never mind the atrocious unarmed attacks. An Asian fighter is no less great in stature in asian mythology than western warriors are in their mythology. Thus, an Asian warrior, represented with equality, should be just as good in straight up combat as any other warrior. Aside from weapons, Monk slow fall, diamond body, tongue of the sun and moon, and other such questionable and silly stereotypical features make the monk class a ridiculous, if not culturally insulting, mockery of Asian characters. If mythological accuracy and cultural sensitivity was at all strived for, I do not doubt that a credible warrior with Martial Weapon Proficiency and unarmed fighting proficiency could be achieved with no difficulty whatsoever. Thus, the Monk is better off dead, or at least heavily modified. Weapon selection is an excellent start.