Post/Author/DateTime	Post
dragonman407 09-16-05, 08:45 PM	I was thinking about the monks increasing unarmed strike damage and realized there are three ways this increase can be interpreted. one: the monk gets stronger. Two: the monk gets better at hitting key areas to cripple opponents. Three: the monk uses his ki to apply more force to his unarmed strike. I find one to be the least likely, and realized that two could easily apply to some weapons also. I think that there should at least be a feat that lets you apply extra damge bonuses to weapons. Can anyone help on this and tell me what they think?
Josheva 09-16-05, 08:52 PM	There is a feat that increses the damage a weapon does. Its called weapon specialization (+2 dmg with certain weapon prereq. ftr lvl 4). Ayways, to answer your question I would assume that the monks increasing dmg w/ unarmed attacks is based on a combination of the focusing his ki and learning to hit more crippling areas on the body ( if it was him getting stronger his strength would go up). Hope it helps.
dragonman407 09-16-05, 10:45 PM	then why not a feat that lets you transfer some of that ki/crippling area damage to a weapon. For example: Weapon Channel you can channel some of your ki through a weapon to do greater damge. prereques:Flurry of blows +2/+2, weapon focus (desired weapon), be able to flurry with that weapon Description: Choose one weapon. when dealing damage with that weapon, exchange the base damage with the damage that a monk one half of your monk level would do with his unarmed strike. For example, a lv 12 monk with Weapon Channel (quarterstaff) would do 1d8 damage with the quarterstaff, instead of 1d6. This feat would make the monk weapon training feats (i.e. wirling steel strike, double steel strike) much more useful at higher levels.
Fargren 09-16-05, 10:48 PM	then why not a feat that lets you transfer some of that ki/crippling area damage to a weapon. For example: Weapon Channel you can channel some of your ki through a weapon to do greater damge. prereques:Flurry of blows +2/+2, weapon focus (desired weapon), be able to flurry with that weapon Description: Choose one weapon. when dealing damage with that weapon, you do the damage that a monk one half of your monk level would do with his unarmed strike. For example, a lv 12 monk with Weapon Channel (quarterstaff) would do 1d8 damage with the quarterstaff, instead of 1d6. This feat would make the monk weapon training feats (i.e. wirling steel strike, double steel strike) much more useful at higher levels. Nice. If there were monks in my setting, I would allow that feat.
Millennium 09-19-05, 05:06 PM	I would say that most of the monk's added damage comes from being able to apply his weapons in more precise and crippling ways, along similar principles to a rogue's Sneak Attack. Of course, a monk's techniques are not quite as precise as a Sneak Attack, which is why they do less damage, but they also don't require as much setup time, and they can hit more areas on the body, which is why they don't need to be flanking an opponent or catch them flat-footed. Monks still marvel at a rogue's ability to hit exactly the right spot and do huge amounts of damage, while rogues wish they could hit as quickly and instinctively as monks can. In any case, the reason weapon damage doesn't increase is that however good you may be with a weapon, it's still not a part of you, and so you aren't ever going to be able to manipulate it quite as effectively as you can manipulate your own body. We think of monks striking with their fists as an abstraction, but in reality a monk would be using her whole body as a weapon, striking with whatever parts were appropriate at that second. By this theory, the only reason rogues are able to do so much damage with a sneak attack is that they take so much time to prepare and aim so carefully: a powerful ability if you're on a team but very weak in a toe-to-toe match. It's a rare monk who wouldn't appreciate working in tandem with a rogue, but they themselves prefer something a bit more reliable in case to rogue can't get where he needs to go. There is some credence to the idea of a monk applying his own ki to literally disrupt the flow of his opponent's ki, thus increasing the damage. Some real-world martial arts, such as Tai Chi (which is quite nasty when applied as an actual martial art), believe that this is actually how their strikes work. The Ki Strike and Quivering Palm abilities could even be seen as extreme applications of this technique. However, it has some problems: how do you deal with monsters like undead and constructs, who have no ki to mess with? Do monk abilities cease to work when fighting these monsters? Of course, undead and constructs are immune to Quivering Palm anyway, but if constructs are immune to all such abilities then Ki Strike (adamantine) becomes mostly useless.
sourface 09-20-05, 09:34 AM	The problem with applying unarmed damage to a weapon, is that it could get really nasty if you had a magical weapon, that does 1d20 unmagical damage plus extra damage from magic. What their extra damage also is based upon is the monks advancing level of skill. Really good martial artists doesn't just hit more often than other people, they also hit harder (perhaps not only because of strenght, but also because of technique (it takes an awful lot of time to get really good at kicking, but when you've got the real hang of it, you're deadly)).
dragonman407 09-21-05, 01:19 AM	1d20! do you know how long it would take to get up that high in monk levels? you'd be far past anything the epic handbook gos into. plus can you not also enchant an amulet of mighty fists to do the same thing to your unarmed strike as you can do to a weapon? This is why i made it only 1/2 your monk level.
Tyler Do'Urden 09-21-05, 01:55 AM	Monks' unarmed damage and rogues' sneak attack damage are based on the fact that as level increases, hit points increase. Their base damage is increased to keep them on par with their peers, thus making them balanced at high levels. An average 1st level character will have around 9 hp. An average 1st level monk can deal nine damage in about two rounds of flurrying. An average 20th level character will have between 125 and 175 hp (that's average; I'm including wizards too). A 20th level monk could dish out that much pain in just about two rounds of flurrying. Game balance. It's really that simple. Monks' damage increases to keep them balanced. If you're looking a thematic reason for the damage boost, it could be anything. Could be chi, could be practice, could be a field of entropy that actually makes everyone else weak but appears to make you stronger, whatever.
Harkle 09-21-05, 04:43 PM	well I interpret HP, as a persons ability to reduce the effectivness of an injury, as a person gets to higher levels they can dodge hits well enough that insteed of being cut in two they are just scratched. The increaseing damage represents a monk being able to keep hit strikes solid against his opponet. This also represents an increase in the presision of where a monk strikes, but also an increase in presision, of the monks form. Even subtle improvments in technique can make a great differance in how hard you hit. on top of those two factors it could also represent learning new more devistating techniques. all of these factors combine to improve the damage of a monks strike.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-21-05, 06:44 PM	Well its obviously NOT akin to sneak attack because it works on opponents with no vital areas what so ever. The monks unarmed damage is hokey and is just a game mechanic to keep them on par with other fighting types. There is no other way to decribe it. Its not blows to vital areas becuase it works on every enemy. It does not reprisent a series of fast and many blows otherwise a whole hoast of per-hit effects (str bonus, +dmg effects, etc) would be multiplied and plus 3.X breaks combat down blow by blow so you know exactly how many blows you are landing. Its not physical strength as this ability to do 2d10 dmg with bare hands is not reflectein any Str based skills or feats. Its not Ki or it would be listed as Ki for the sake of possible immunities etc. They just lost the plot when they made the monk and couldnt be bothered to think or ways to make a monk like high technique, high utility combatant so they just ladeled on the Damage dice and called it a day.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-21-05, 06:50 PM	well I interpret HP, as a persons ability to reduce the effectivness of an injury, as a person gets to higher levels they can dodge hits well enough that insteed of being cut in two they are just scratched. The increaseing damage represents a monk being able to keep hit strikes solid against his opponet. This also represents an increase in the presision of where a monk strikes, but also an increase in presision, of the monks form. Even subtle improvments in technique can make a great differance in how hard you hit. on top of those two factors it could also represent learning new more devistating techniques. all of these factors combine to improve the damage of a monks strike. So he lands his attacks so spot on target that he turns a 1d4(s) fist attack into a 2d10 attack? So how does that explination gel with the fact his BAB is worse than all other melee classes and that no other martial class actualy learns to land more solid blows (a 1d6 short sword is still a 1d6 short sword in the hands of a lvl 20 fighter) despite having better more accurate attacks? Sorry the monks whole concept is based 100% in some horrid limbo of metagamey-ballancing that makes no logical sense you could apply to the class ...but just works because the rules for the class as a whole are kinda blanced.
Tyler Do'Urden 09-21-05, 07:36 PM	You could ditch the monk's unarmed damage increases if you make it cheaper to enhance unarmed strikes (amulet of mighty fists, permanent magic fang, etc.). I mean the whole reason the amulet costs three times as much as a weapon of the same bonus is because the monk's base damage already goes up. I mean, if it really bothers you, there's always other ways.
Lina_Inverse 09-21-05, 09:14 PM	The reason the monk does more damage as he levels up? because monks should be punching stuff.
dragonman407 09-22-05, 02:19 AM	To Duration 10 Rounds: You don't like monks do you?
Sesoron 09-22-05, 07:23 PM	Its not Ki or it would be listed as Ki for the sake of possible immunities etc. Nothing is immune to ki because nothing can be immune to ki. Ki is nothing more than a character's application of force energy through willpower. Ki actually uses the same principles as arcane magic and psionics to warp energy and matter into a more desirable form to the character. You can't be immune to ki any more than you can be immune to a wall of force. And what makes you think that anything was immune to ki in the first place? Is there some application other than ki strike and other abilities to which things aren't immune (yeah, I know the OA kensei has an ability called ki critical, but things are immune to that because it's a critical, not because it's ki) that I don't know about? I go with the ki explanation on this one.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-22-05, 08:06 PM	Well wall of force is an energy spell, the reason you cant be immune to it is because its not an offensive spell. You can no more be ummune to wall of force than you could be immune to a wall of manure or brick or salad or gummi bears, etc. Magic Missle on the other hand is an offensive force/energy spell. Attacks that use somthing other than raw physics ((hard object + speed ) x your face = owch) are listed as thus becuase there is always the chance an immunity could be involved in future material. Spells that use energy are listed thusly and immunity to energy will grant immunity to them and so on. So as an attack that uses a non basic method of dealing damage (i.e Ki) you can only assume that it should/must be listed as being so, if it is at all. The fact that there is no text to back up it being Ki and abilities that use Ki are all called "Ki-somthing" is a bit of a dead-giveaway as well.
FlameLover 09-22-05, 08:26 PM	Either stick with the die increases or say a Monk always does 1d6 damage and allow them to get wand wraps that are trated like a weapon. For game balance you either have to give the Monk bonuses to base damage or some other way (the hand wraps) to stay par with a fighter in damage. If you want a logical reason you're not going to get one. I'm sick of people claiming that realism is more important than balance. A perfect example of these in action is armors, some armors are just plain moronic to wear and they should have been designed with no overlapping. But the designers must of wanted more 'realism' and as such have made armors gimped. If you have a problem with the Monk, don't play one. No one is forcing you to.
dragonman407 09-22-05, 08:51 PM	Posted by FlameLover Either stick with the die increases or say a Monk always does 1d6 damage and allow them to get wand wraps that are trated like a weapon. For game balance you either have to give the Monk bonuses to base damage or some other way (the hand wraps) to stay par with a fighter in damage. If you want a logical reason you're not going to get one. I'm sick of people claiming that realism is more important than balance. A perfect example of these in action is armors, some armors are just plain moronic to wear and they should have been designed with no overlapping. But the designers must of wanted more 'realism' and as such have made armors gimped. If you have a problem with the Monk, don't play one. No one is forcing you to. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: This is D&D, Duration_10_Rounds, you left reality behind when you picked up the PHB.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-22-05, 09:11 PM	This is D&D, Duration_10_Rounds, you left reality behind when you picked up the PHB. :rolleyes: Its not about whats real and whats not (we passed that point a few miles back, just before we saw the two hitchhiking hobbits) Its about reasonable suspension of disbelief vs unreasonable suspension of disbelief. Can i reasonably believe a magical elf can throw lightning bolts due to the well founded and explained D&D magic rules?... yes i can. Can i reasonably believe a one type of melee combatant can some how become so utterly deadly with his bare hands that geting hit by him his more life threatening than getting whooomped in the side of the head by a 12lb Greataxe?... Based on a damage dice entry on a class level porgression table?... No. All the classes do extraordinary things and most give you a good reason for it with backgrounds and explinations that function within the D&D mythos.... the monk has... well.... he has a 2d10 punch for a reason so unfounded and badly documented threads like this keep poping up.
FlameLover 09-22-05, 09:17 PM	Thank you, thank you. I'll be back next week ;) But there are so many problems with the 'realism' argument it isn't funny. There is the armor like a said, the whole, well you know, MAGIC thing, and the fact nothing was designed in the game for 'realism'. There has been a recent surge of this whole "realism over balance" thing and i'm sick of it. Anyone who can sit in there chair and type with a straight face that realism is more important than balance and therefor fun should be knocked out of the gene-pool forthwith. Following these people's logic we should have a chart describing multipliers on damage depending on the armor and the weapon, we should have Longspears being wielded one-handed and we should make it possible for a Commoner 1 to kill a Barbarian 20, not even on critcal hit. If you want 'realism' then either burn your D&D books or sell them on Ebay, get out of your chair, walk out of the front door to your house or apartment and get what you feel is lacking in D&D, 'realism'. Wait, you say that wasn't fun and that you want your D&D fantasy back? You say that you shall repent thy sins and that you admit that D&D should ALWAYS be balance over 'realism'? Well then you shouldn't have burned your books or sold them then should you ;) EDIT: As i said before you can either leave the extra damage die and chalk it up to skill, ki, focus, whatever or you can keep it at 1d6 and allow the Monk to get a magic enhancement on unarmed damage for the price everyone else pays. It's one or the other. Infact there is a third option, and that is removing Monks totally. But then you've gone and removed something because of 'realism' and not because it's not fun to play. If the Monk was unbalanced by the die increase i would be with you, i hope you understand that. But you should fit the fluff to the crunch, and not the other way round.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-22-05, 09:42 PM	(one of)My problem(s) with the monk is i like the idea of a clever unarmed combatant that can turn the tables despite only doing mediorce damage (say 1d6).....like a real martial artists disarms an armed foe rather than just fight him with his iron fists while getting sword-whacked to death or grapple and pin him, etc. IMO the monk should have abilities to (and sorry for the use of MMO tearms) use martial moves to do things like debuff foes, buff himself, control the flow of combat, crowd control, etc. Like moves that disorientate lowering a foes initiative, Being an awesome grappler (at grapple checks not the damage rolls) Being able to maneuver foes and gain bonuses for footing, light, advantage, cover, etc as part of a power or ability (i.e he could make a will check to pick the best fighting spot in the room before combat and would get +2 hit +2 AC if he stayed within 5ft of that spot or the ability to make an opposed will check in combat and move his foe onto unsure footing or some where the sun got in his eyes' etc). Draw foes into over extending themselves and lowering thier AC. Being particulaly good at pulling allies out of grapples, or have abilities to grant superior assitance to attacks and AC. so on and so forth, i.e clever, highly adaptable, combat moves based on control rather than raw damage I just see the slapping on of damage dice as a totaly wasted opertunity.. and also totaly unfounded. The monk has no place in my games as he is. I dont like the class and if a player wants to play anything monk-like i have no problem with hammeing together an acceptable comprimise with the player that fits the flavour he wants while keeping within what i as DM think is suitable for my game. Thats my decision, my problem to solve,etc. I'm just voicing the main gripes i (and others) have with monks.
FlameLover 09-22-05, 10:18 PM	You see NOW i see your argument and i sorta agree. I think the Monk should get bonuses to things like grappling, tripping, and all that but if you do drop the damage die to only 1d6 you should then allow handwraps or something. But now i can see what you are saying. Monks should be skilled, talented and multi-facited. Not just big damage dealers. And the fact they can't wear any armour is surely enough of a draw back as it is. So yeah, the Monk as-is should just be a Fighter who specializes in unarmed strikes. The Monk should be elevated to a ki/meditation master, bluring the lines between martial and divine almost.
dragonman407 09-23-05, 12:23 AM	Now that we're all getting along, why don't you try your hand at making a variant monk class that has all these abilities? All that aside, what do you think about the balance of the feat? (We passed that topic a little ways after the hitchhiking hobbits.)
FlameLover 09-23-05, 12:34 AM	I'd probably allow that feat, sure. Anyway i won't be writing the Monk up since all of my creative time is being spent on making D&D/Hombrew/RPG gish but once i make my Monk version for that be sure to check it out :)
Duration_10_Rounds 09-23-05, 07:12 AM	From a balance point of view its sound. But, again with my picky & awkward ways, I would have to say the idea of it does not gel with D&D combat. As it some how infers the monk is a better weapon master than the fighter, paladin, ranger and barbarian. Because he can scale up damage done with melee weapons where as they can not. Which makes me ask, from a fluff point of veiw, how is that explained away? But many dont agree with my ideas of the monk so ignore all that and take my answer as: "It's balanced" One question: From the discription it sounds like you forgo all weapon damage and get your monk unarmed dmg /2. Does this mean you also ignore and magical bonuses to damage like +'s and xd6 fire/holy/bane/ice/ect?
dragonman407 09-24-05, 01:03 AM	One question: From the discription it sounds like you forgo all weapon damage and get your monk unarmed dmg /2. Does this mean you also ignore and magical bonuses to damage like +'s and xd6 fire/holy/bane/ice/ect? This feat only changes the base damage, all bonuses from energy/enhancement still remain. I will change it to make it clearer.
Shike 09-24-05, 09:14 AM	Duration_10_Rounds have you actually studied martial arts?? Specifically Shou Lin? Shou Lin Monks irl can do some of the most amazing thing with their bodies. With the ascetic training these monk not only learn to strike their opponents weaknesses often, but also how to use their own bodies to greater effect. A swordsman learns how to better swing his sword, a monk, or martial artist, learns how to better use his entire body. Now I agree that a punch should do as much damage as a sword (generall), but D&D didn't build that kind of mechanic into the game. But a Mid level monk should (on average) be able to put his entire body behind a punch, not just the muscle in his arm.
Shike 09-24-05, 09:19 AM	From a balance point of view its sound. But, again with my picky & awkward ways, I would have to say the idea of it does not gel with D&D combat. As it some how infers the monk is a better weapon master than the fighter, paladin, ranger and barbarian. Because he can scale up damage done with melee weapons where as they can not. Which makes me ask, from a fluff point of veiw, how is that explained away? Here's another thought. Paladins, rangers, Fighters, and Barbarians are allowed to wear armor and can thus put higher stats into Str to increase damage. If a monk wants to be able to use his monk abilities, and thus be a monk, he must put his higher stats into Wis and Dex to be able to compete AC wise, thus reducing his effective damage overall. Also, if a monk is going to be truly effective, he should make one of his low level feats (ie thrid level) Weapon Finess so that he can compete with the front line fighter classes in Attack bonus.
Duration_10_Rounds 09-24-05, 10:22 AM	Duration_10_Rounds have you actually studied martial arts?? Specifically Shou Lin? Shou Lin Monks irl can do some of the most amazing thing with their bodies. With the ascetic training these monk not only learn to strike their opponents weaknesses often, but also how to use their own bodies to greater effect. A swordsman learns how to better swing his sword, a monk, or martial artist, learns how to better use his entire body. Now I agree that a punch should do as much damage as a sword (generall), but D&D didn't build that kind of mechanic into the game. But a Mid level monk should (on average) be able to put his entire body behind a punch, not just the muscle in his arm. Just the same way a fighter puts his whole body into a sword swing, etc. My point is the monks system undermines every other fighting class becuase the monk is assumed to be a more skilled fighter, blessed by mystical energies that come from his own uberness(rather than a god or the arcane or the force or pixie dust, etc). Its hokey crap. Yeah sure ive seen the superb shows the Shou Lin monks put on but that holds very little bearing on monks in D&D. If as you say monks strike at weaknesses, etc then thier super damage should only apply as the rogues backstab does! and not to every thing... how does a monk strike an oozes weakness. Also trained combatants of every martial art (be it eastern, european, weapon based or unarmed) strike at foes weak points there is no school of "dumb f**k kung fu & swordsmanship" that teaches you only to hit a foe in the least effective place. So if a monk is hitting vitals then it should also be assumed so is the fighter, he wouldn't be a decent fighter if he didn't. If we are just putting monk damage down to vital strikes then it should work just like the rogues sneak attack. That is my point.
Shike 09-24-05, 10:36 AM	I do agree with you. I'm just trying to play devil's advocate here. Of course, While all other classes can obtain magical items to increase damage potential, It is difficult to find a cost effective magic item to increase a monks damage, if any at all. The cheapest way costs 3,000 gp for a plus one, where a weapon is 4,000 for a +2. It's all semantics anyway. Maybe a different scaleable damage, maybe every 6 levels instead of every 4. but a complete nix of the scaleable damage means you have to change the magic item costs as well.