[4e] PHB3 -- The monk...WTF?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Archmage
Knight-Baron
Posts: 757
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:05 pm

[4e] PHB3 -- The monk...WTF?

Post by Archmage »

So the monk in 4e is officially an extremely nonsensical class, because after some brainstorming the best way to play a monk is actually to take some odd weapon proficiency for a weapon type that has really badass feats associated with it (like Polearm Gamble). Why?

Because all of the monk's powers have the Implement keyword. A monk's "implements" are "monk unarmed strikes" and any weapon with which they are proficient. When you use a weapon as a monk implement, you basically ignore all of the properties of the weapon. You're explicitly told to ignore proficiency bonus, damage die, and properties "such as defensive or high crit"--and use the power's listed values instead. Most monk powers have range "melee touch."

But it doesn't say you ignore the weapon group, and in fact a sidebar tells you that you might want to use a weapon because you can take feats that function with specific weapon groups. Therefore, you take weapon proficiency (glaive) at some point during your career so that you can use Heavy Blade Opportunity and Polearm Gamble; since monk stats are either DEX/STR or DEX/WIS it shouldn't be too difficult to qualify for both as long as your racial choice matches your stat needs.

If you want to get really goofy you can technically do something like use a sling as a lethal melee weapon or take a proficiency in hand crossbow and crossbow-kata everyone around you, bludgeoning them all to death with a flurry of blows. And you can still shoot them decently well, too, since DEX is your main stat. It's too bad there's no way to become proficient with improvised weapons.

At least they're explicitly proficient with their own unarmed strike this time. Anyone else smell imminent errata? Why can't WotC publish a monk class that isn't full of weird holes or extremely incompetent?
P.C. Hodgell wrote:That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
shadzar wrote:i think the apostrophe is an outdated idea such as is hyphenation.
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

I'd say glaive monks are a feature, not a bug.
kjdavies
Apprentice
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 8:53 pm
Contact:

Post by kjdavies »

I'm inclined to agree with Orion. While I find most of 4e to be suspect at best, the things described sound like the kind of badassery I would expect from a monk. I don't know what other baggage it brings with it, but on this point things sound okay so far.

Keith
User avatar
Orion
Prince
Posts: 3756
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Orion »

Heavy Blade Opportunity doesn't work because it allows use of an at-will with the *weapon* keyword; monk powers have Implement.

Nimble Blade looks promising though. Polearm Gamble might still be worthwhile if you can spare a feat for Combat Training.
Post Reply