Pathfinder: Re-flavoring the Monk

[Radu]

I really like the Monk class in Pathfinder, but am bothered by the obvious kung fu influences. Rather than changing the mechanics overly much I'm more interested in re-designing the flavor to better fit a western culture. The largest mechanical change I'm thinking about is modifying their weapons list slightly, and this is only a minor tweak.

Right now, the special monk weapons are:

Kama
Nunchaku
Quarterstaff
Sai
Shuriken
Siangham

Some of these have a direct analogue in western culture:

Kama = Sickle
Quarterstaff = Quarterstaff

It's a simple matter to give the "Westernized Monk" (Henceforth WM) proficiency with the sickle and the ability to use it with flurry of blows.

Nunchaku and Sai are derived from farming implements used in China and Japan, while the Siangham comes from Malaysia. There are no "easy" western analogues to those weapons.

Here is what I was thinking:

Shuriken are easily ported over and require no changes except the name. I can't think of one except "darts" which already have stats, and honestly wouldn't even mind giving WM the ability to flurry with darts.

That leaves the Siangham, Nunchaku, and Sai.

Siangham are one handed piercing light weapons with no extra frills. They can easily be swapped out with any other 1d6 light piercing weapon... like a short spear. Let's do that.

Nunchaku are 1d6/x2 Blunt weapons that have the Trip ability, but are otherwise very similar to a flail. Flails, however, are martial weapons, and I don't want to power up the WM, just tweak it. There are, on the other hand, maces and clubs, which seem to be fairly good simple weapon analogues. We could let the WM flurry with clubs and light maces.

Sai are 1d4/x2 weapons that can be thrown and have the Disarm ability. There's nothing remotely close to that in the simple weapons list, but there are daggers that deal 1d4/19-20 and can be thrown. I understand the techniques for each are totally different, but it's the best analogue to the sai, so let's let WM use daggers in a flurry.

Looking at it now, the WM can flurry with:

Clubs
Daggers
Darts
Light Maces
Quarterstaves
Sickles
Short Spears

That's most of what designates the monk as Asian, because in a world of fantastic magical powers the rest of the monk fits right in. No one bats an eye at the Paladin's auras or detect evil abilities, and I see no reason why, with a few name tweaks, the other class features can't stay as is.

Keep me honest, here, Kadets-- the goal is not to subtly boost the power of the monk, just to strip the Asian origin out to integrate it easier into a mostly European-style campaign setting. What are your thoughts?

[Name Lips]

This could be a more "Western" flavored sai-equivelent. A split dagger:

http://monkeyingaroundcollectibles.com/shop/images/CK094.jpg

I have no idea if they're an "actual" "historical" western weapon, but I've seen them at ren faires and the like. You could say the split is used to catch opponent's blades for disarming.


edit: or a "trident" main gauche:

http://images.knifecenter.com/knifecenter/cas/images/1031gt.jpg

[Bagpuss]

Nunchaku is a weaponised a threshing flail, and they have a western equivalent.

Threashing Flail - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail

Which was also weaponised http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flail_(weapon)

The only difference between the western version and the eastern one is the length of the handle.

[Northcott]

One of the things I found interesting in Eberron, but never got the chance to try it out, was that you could take a Feat that allowed you to dual-class Monks and Paladins. There was another that allowed a character to use a Longsword as a Monk weapon. The end result would be a "wandering samurai" kind of character who would have come from one of Eberron's religious fighting orders. A true warrior monk, and a perfect marriage of two character classes to create something that wasn't nearly as jarring in a western-inspired fantasy setting.

Mind you, because of the stat spread needed for the special abilities of the two classes, it'd be nigh worthless to do that character via point buy -- and with a set of rolled-up stats, you'd have to be exceptionally lucky to get solid enough stats to make the character work. But if it did? The first four or so levels would be weaksauce, but after that the character would be made of awesome.

[Radu]

Thinking about it, I've come to a realization: why can't the Monk use flurry of blows with any weapon they're proficient with? There are countless examples of martial arts styles using all sorts of weapons, and I fail to see what makes the "monk" special weapons unique.

Would it be greatly unbalancing to let the monk flurry with anything they can use?

If so, is it a question of "this weapon is unbalancing" or is it a question of "I don't like the idea of monks flurrying with X?"

The latter has no weight--- I don't care about how something feels, I want to know if it is unbalancing. Give me a concrete argument for why the monk shouldn't be able to use flurry of blows with any weapon they can use.

Look at how the mechanics work-- they get the two weapon fighting feat tree at a slightly slower interval than a fighter could buy the feats. They get no more attacks per round than anyone else unless they use their ki pool to "buy" an extra attack. That's a class feature monks and monks alone get, one of the perks of being one.

Why aren't they able to use flurry of blows with any light weapon, plus a few select others that fit the theme?

What's exciting about watching Jason Statham or Jackie Chan fight? Is it how they scramble about, looking for one of a handful of extremely obscure weapons they know how to use, or is it how they pick up damn near anything at hand and use it to their advantage? That's something the monk should be able to do well, and something that would give it a definite niche in the party too. People need to stop thinking of Fast Movement and the wisdom mod as the primary factors in making a Monk, and start thinking about combat style as the primary factor, because THAT'S WHAT MAKES A MONK WHAT IT IS!

If you want to play a mountaintop aesthetic, then play a cleric or druid or bard-- all of them are more suited to that archetype.

I want to play an action hero.

I want to be able to pick up a hunk of rock, or a stick, or a bottle, or a guitar, or... (you get the idea) and go to town on someone. I want to be the type of character that is a hard to pin down, hard drinking, hard fighting man of the people. I want to play Indiana Jones.

Yes, I really do think the Monk models Indiana Jones better than any other character class. He's got great saving throws, a savage punch, is really good in a scrap regardless of circumstances, and knows a thing or two about history and religion. That's really easily modeled with the Monk class.

Let's think about the class as Action Heroes and not as Inscrutable Martial Artists and see if that changes the outlook any.

[Name Lips]

If you want to play a mountaintop aesthetic,

Bah! Unless you're referring t a pleasant mountainous view, you mean ascetic (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ascetic).

Minus 200xp for you.

[Radu]

Thank you, Varaj!

/snark

I do confuse those often. I need to figure out a way to remember which is which when I'm writing it-- I knew what I wanted to say, but I chose wrong.

(Or, continuing the Indiana Jones references, "I chose... poorly.")

[Northcott]

Because Indiana Jones was a Jackie Chan or Jason Statham type of character?

Sorry, man, but you're kind of all over the map on this one. Indy wasn't a Kung-Fu action hero -- he shot that guy in the first movie, when the douche was swinging swords around in the bazaar. ;)

[Radu]

What I was trying to say is that the Monk shouldn't be limited to strictly "punchy kicky" types. Jason Statham, Jet Li, Jackie Chan-- yes, they're all great kung fu type heroes, but that's not the only thing the monk should be capable of, or the only type of character archetype it can model.

For example--- monks are proficient with crossbows. Well, the equivalent of a crossbow in 1930's eras is basically a firearm. Yes, he shot the guy in the bazaar, but that doesn't mean he's not a monk.

Look at other scenes: There's plenty of punches, kicks, grapples, and fisticuffs to be found.

He's also got great saves: Indiana has an incredible Reflex save, which is demonstrated often, and he also shows he has a good Will save when confronted by supernatural aspects, evil mind controlling magic, and interrogation. His Fort save is evidenced by his endurance and ability to keep going in crazy adverse situtations, like surviving in extreme temperatures (deserts, frozen tunda, etc.)

Indiana Jones is never really successful at fast-talking or socializing... he's a man of action. What does he do when the chips are down? He punches people.

Remember this?

"I'm here to inspect the tapestries." (pause... they don't buy it. Indiana clocks the guy in the face and knocks him out.)

What I'm trying to say here is that to me, Monks represent the kind of jack of all trades man of action archetype, not solely the martial artists of the world. There are many ways to model these characters, and a fair bit of Fighters, Rogues, Rangers, and Bards are based off this idea, but everyone seems to want the monk to be the Shaolin guy.

I'm saying, "that's not the way it has to be." I'm trying to unshackle the mechanics of the monk from the idea of the martial artist, so that the next time someone wants to make a fighter type, they don't rule out monk as an option. The next time someone wants to make a nimble skirmisher, they don't rule out monk as an option. When you want to make a hybrid character, with a bit of supernatural power and a bit of physical skill, you shouldn't rule out the monk.

They can't model everything, but you shouldn't be forced to play into someone's stereotype of a kung fu master if you want to play one. Ditch your assumptions of "this is what a monk has to be" and let's go nuts!

I say to you: "How is Indiana Jones NOT a monk?"

Give me something concrete to work with here, and I'll show you how I think the monk class could model it.

[Dacke]

Thinking about it, I've come to a realization: why can't the Monk use flurry of blows with any weapon they're proficient with? There are countless examples of martial arts styles using all sorts of weapons, and I fail to see what makes the "monk" special weapons unique.

Would it be greatly unbalancing to let the monk flurry with anything they can use?
Well, balance-wise, the thing is that the monk weapons suck. In 3.0, there were only three flurry-able weapons: nunchaku, siangham, and kama. They were all 1d6/x2 weapons, equivalent to the unarmed strike of a starting monk. The main thing was that you could get magic versions of them (remember that the game didn't have amulets of mighty fists yet - those were added in Sword & Fist, IIRC), and that using them offered some protection against monsters you didn't want to touch (e.g. oozes). 3.5 added sai, quarterstaff, and shuriken, which are still roughly balanced with the original three.

I think the Eberron feats show a good middle path, although it could stand to be genericized: just create a feat called something like Weapon Kata, letting you use your flurry of blows with a particular weapon. I might even be inclined to limit it to one-handed or light weapons - I'd be wary of letting someone do a flurry with a greatsword.

[Caliphis]

I am adding nothing to this thread. I just wanted to say that I was over at lips house yesterday and he made a joke about having me roll the stats for everyone.

I went over today and rolled them.

14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18.

We are starting at lvl 4

[hobbiteer]

I am adding nothing to this thread. I just wanted to say that I was over at lips house yesterday and he made a joke about having me roll the stats for everyone.

I went over today and rolled them.

14, 15, 16, 17, 17, 18.

We are starting at lvl 4

Niiiiiiice

[Radu]

I am 100% perfectly, absolutely, mind-bogglingly happy playing a Monk with those stats. HOLY SHIT!

@ Dacke:

Realize that flurry of blows in Pathfinder is mechanically identical in almost every way to a fighter or ranger with two weapon fighting feats. You don't get more attacks per round (until level 4, when you start to unlock ki pool powers).

Is it unbalancing to allow other characters to two weapon fight with two kukris? 2 short swords? a 2 bladed sword?

If you would allow a fighter to take bastard sword proficiency and two weapon fight with it and a short sword or any other two weapon fighting combo, then it is no more unbalancing to allow a monk the same access to those weapons if they can get proficiency in them.

Re: Monk weapons suck---

You are 100% correct. There is absolutely NO incentive to using monk weapons over unarmed strikes based on the weapons themselves. I can see a case made for magical weaponry or nasty creatures giving you the incentive, but all of the monk's weapon choices are strictly inferior to what any other character could get using two weapon fighting. Why is this? There doesn't seem to be any justifiable mechanical basis for this, only a flavor straightjacket.

Limiting flurry of blows to light weapons only makes sense, and is totally justifiable.

Limiting the monk to just the handful of "monk" weapons (all of which universally suck ass and are in NO way exciting mechanically) seems like you have to ignore the staggering variety of weapon katas and techniques developed by real-world martial artists.

[Name Lips]

Of course, those stats also get to be the "standard array" for all the NPCs. :D

[Harry]

Fwiw, I put together an 'Indiana Jones' character for myself, for a run in C&C. I made him a Thief/Wizard. Played him for quite a long while, focusing on knowledge and pilfering and small arms combat. He was quite successful.

Etc fwiw - the best Monk I ever played was a Fighter named Moon who thought he was a Monk.

[Radu]

Nice! That sounds like a pretty fun concept. As for myself, my favorite monk character was a monk who carried around a quarterstaff and wizard robes. I gave him enough of a disguise that on several occasions the enemies were fooled into thinking I was a "defenseless mage" type. There's nothing quite like imagining their facial expression as they realized they had bitten off WAY more than they could chew!

Your example of the Indiana Jones type stat up is another example of how the same concept can be modeled with a huge variety of builds.

[Dacke]

@ Dacke:

Realize that flurry of blows in Pathfinder is mechanically identical in almost every way to a fighter or ranger with two weapon fighting feats. You don't get more attacks per round (until level 4, when you start to unlock ki pool powers).

Is it unbalancing to allow other characters to two weapon fight with two kukris? 2 short swords? a 2 bladed sword?

If you would allow a fighter to take bastard sword proficiency and two weapon fight with it and a short sword or any other two weapon fighting combo, then it is no more unbalancing to allow a monk the same access to those weapons if they can get proficiency in them.
Remember that TWF with non-light weapons carries an extra -2 attack penalty. Flurrying, if you allow it, generally does not.

I suppose I could see allowing a flurry with any light weapon "natively", and require a weapon-specific feat for any non-light.

But then again... you talk about "martial artists" wielding all sorts of weapons. In my mind, many of those are fighters (or fighter/monk multiclasses, with heavy emphasis on the fighter side). Or maybe something along the lines of the Unfettered class from Arcana Unearthed. Monks focus on unarmed martial art, or small relatively innocuous weapons.

[Droid101]

Of course, those stats also get to be the "standard array" for all the NPCs. :D

Why?

[Name Lips]

Because I'm capricious.

I am allowing Caliphis to play a CN cleric who rolls a d20 every day to see which god he's worshipping for the next 24 hours. He's focusing on item-creation feats.

Schizm is playing a Transmuter, with Evocation and Necromancy forbidden. I think he's going to try to avoid direct-damage spells as much as possible and instead be a "battlefield control wizard."

Emerald is playing a rogue who takes the minor magic rogue abilities and is planning on maxing out UMD and being a wand-wielder.

And now Radu is going to be playing a monk based on Indiana Jones, swapping out all the unique monk weapons for simple weapons.

Clearly the NPCs will need a power boost. You know, to level the playing field.

[Droid101]

Because I'm capricious.

I am allowing Caliphis to play a CN cleric who rolls a d20 every day to see which god he's worshipping for the next 24 hours. He's focusing on item-creation feats.

Schizm is playing a Transmuter, with Evocation and Necromancy forbidden. I think he's going to try to avoid direct-damage spells as much as possible and instead be a "battlefield control wizard."

Emerald is playing a rogue who takes the minor magic rogue abilities and is planning on maxing out UMD and being a wand-wielder.

And now Radu is going to be playing a monk based on Indiana Jones, swapping out all the unique monk weapons for simple weapons.

Clearly the NPCs will need a power boost. You know, to level the playing field.

Most of those ideas sound under-powered, not over powered. But to each their own.

[Schizm]

Most of those ideas sound under-powered, not over powered. But to each their own.

you don't know me very well, do you? :D

[Radu]

Ye of little faith. Schizm and I are two of the most irredeemable character optimizers to ever walk the face of the Earth. I'm deliberately NOT playing a Druid or other spellcaster simply because Schizm was already going to play a Wizard. I happen to like Monks a lot because of the challenge they present (from a CO viability standpoint) but I'm not remotely worried about the power of my character, and even less about Schizm's.

He's playing GOD, after all. (That's what I call Wizards, at any rate. From the Wizard's perspective, you have....


1) The Meatwall. That's me, as a Monk. Also known as the Big Dumb Fighter because they deliberately CHOOSE to get into combat situations where grievous bodily harm is not a question of "if" but "when." This character actively tries to be the target of attacks--- WHY WOULD YOU DO THAT?

2) The Glass Cannon. That would be Emerald as a Rogue. They are similar to the Big Dumb Fighter in that they WANT to be up in someone's grill, but unlike the Meatwall they don't want to be hit. At least THAT is something we agree on.

3) GOD. Also known as Shaper of Reality, The Arbitrator, or The Dictator. What keeps the Cannon and the Meatwall from being torn into tiny fleshy bits? That's right. GOD. This role is filled by Schizm's Wizard, and if he can't hack it, there's a certain Wizard fanboy who may be eager and willing to step in.... :devil:

4) The Sandbag. Also known as the Waste of Space, the Drain, or the Albatross. This is, ideally, not a role filled by anyone, but it often is filled inadvertently. You know the types--- people who thought playing a multi-classed wizard/cleric would be a fun concept, or the jerk who insists on playing a pacifistic noncombatant, or the wizard who only prepares obscure and esoteric spells without knowing a single remotely useful incantation, or the cleric who thinks that being a long ranged crossbow sniper is a good thing, or... you get the idea.

I'm hoping that we'll end up doubling up either the Meatwall or GOD, depending on how Caliphis plays his Cleric-- it's well suited to either role.

[Caliphis]

I'm hoping that we'll end up doubling up either the Meatwall or GOD, depending on how Caliphis plays his Cleric-- it's well suited to either role.

With the way the cleric is turning out that question really depends on the day.

[Name Lips]

By the way, everybody checked their email, right? (I know Radu did)

[Caliphis]

Yes

[Name Lips]

4) The Sandbag. Also known as the Waste of Space, the Drain, or the Albatross. This is, ideally, not a role filled by anyone, but it often is filled inadvertently. You know the types--- people who thought playing a multi-classed wizard/cleric would be a fun concept, or the jerk who insists on playing a pacifistic noncombatant, or the wizard who only prepares obscure and esoteric spells without knowing a single remotely useful incantation, or the cleric who thinks that being a long ranged crossbow sniper is a good thing, or... you get the idea.

Why you gotta make fun of all my character ideas? :(

[Caliphis]

When the party has 6-8 people in it, it does not matter if you have a usless char or two. They make the game more fun.

Don't worry lips, we still love you.

[Ergeheilalt]

Don't worry lips, we still love you.

No. No, we really don't.



:lol:

[Radu]

Why you throw chip? :(

FIFY.

(Incidentally... that's from the Arrogant Bastard Wizard (TM) point of view, which is similar but far, far more strongly phrased than I really think. It was written for comedic value more than anything.)

[Name Lips]

Oh good, then if you ever run a campaign, you won't mind if I play my bard with pipe organ concept. He needs several large wagons to haul it around, and a few servants take a few hours to set it up. But I guarantee you they'll be able to hear my inspire courage for a good 3 miles!

[Radu]

I might be convinced to go with that, but don't be upset when someone drops a Silence on your thoroughly immobile music platform... :wasntme:

[Caliphis]

What about my half orc that fights gnomish Florentine? He duel weilds gnomes who are duel weilding bastard swords.

[Name Lips]

I wonder what the prereqs are for Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Gnome

[Radu]

Size: Large or larger, Strength 20+, Alignment: any awesome

[Name Lips]

Oh that works then. Caliphis usually plays "Chaotic Awesome."

[hobbiteer]

Oh that works then. Caliphis usually plays "Chaotic Awesome."

That is totally my new favourite alignment

[Caliphis]

Oh that works then. Caliphis usually plays "Chaotic Awesome."


Dude, I don't play Chaotic Awsome I AM Chaotic Awsome.

[hobbiteer]

Dude, I don't play Chaotic Awsome I AM Chaotic Awsome.

LOL. Nice.

[Name Lips]

I'd argue, but his avatar contains photographic proof.