Basic Fantasy RPG Forums

SmootRK, Dimirag.

Sorry, I tend to write "defensively" on the web

Many of the points you raise have their merits, if I look at the GWA as not-a-port the main issue I find is that it is too detailed and complex a class to handle for what is the BFRPG baseline.

It's quite likely that I'll submit a revision to Solomoriah incorporating some of the things we discussed.

artikid wrote:SmootRK, Dimirag.

Sorry, I tend to write "defensively" on the web

Many of the points you raise have their merits, if I look at the GWA as not-a-port the main issue I find is that it is too detailed and complex a class to handle for what is the BFRPG baseline.

It's quite likely that I'll submit a revision to Solomoriah incorporating some of the things we discussed.

No worries. I don't think I prefaced my initial post with my actual intentions, which probably led to your defensive stance. Again, you should not feel that you "need" to make changes because of my opinions (or anyone else's). Just exploring the concept and alternate ways of "making a monk".

Don't worry, defending ones work it's natural, feel free to do the changes you think are needed.

"An Adept can extend the use of Stunning strike, Gentle Stroke and Qi strike abilities to any melee weapon he is proficient with."

I'm a bit puzzled by this rule. Is the author referring to "weapon specialization" from BF Combat Options, and assuming a Monk to be a "fighter" class?

Or is it saying that stun applies to any weapon a fighter happens to use?

In any case, I believe the original spirit of stun is to be a hand weaponless attack; but maybe I'm missing something.

I think its a "import error", as Adepts are proficient with all weapons in BF they can use those moves with any weapon.

It is both a weapon and weaponless attack, but as BF does not use weapon proficiencies I would rule that he can use those moves after some levels.

Dimirag wrote:I think its a "import error"

I thought that too at first, but looking at od&d Blackmoor supplement II and ad&d 1e it's pretty clear that it was originally intended to be weaponless only; not a bad thing to extend to some weapons, but this took me by surprise.

Mystics in BECMI had no such stun ability. However, BECMI did introduce the concept of weapons that can stun at greater "mastery", but "stun" in that case was more like disarming or fumbling the foe (not paralyzing).

Dimirag wrote:but as BF does not use weapon proficiencies I would rule that he can use those moves after some levels.

There is a distinction between proficiency and specialization; they are easily confused amongst players. In 1e using a weapon you were proficient with actually meant that you would NOT take a penalty (you would not get any bonuses.) And it's also not clear that a Monk is a subclass of any particular core class; some say subclass of thief, some subclass of cleric, fighter? not exactly. So I agree that specialization was probably not the intended meaning.

Thank you for feedback.

The Adept is based mostly on 1E with some added things from BECMI/RC.

The Adept is a Class and not a subclass. You can treat it like its own independent class or put it as a sub-fighter or sub-cleric.

If we take it as an 1E import the weapon proficiency error makes more sense so it can be ditched. But yes, that ability is an added thing.

seandon4 wrote:"An Adept can extend the use of Stunning strike, Gentle Stroke and Qi strike abilities to any melee weapon he is proficient with."

I'm a bit puzzled by this rule. Is the author referring to "weapon specialization" from BF Combat Options, and assuming a Monk to be a "fighter" class?

Or is it saying that stun applies to any weapon a fighter happens to use?

In any case, I believe the original spirit of stun is to be a hand weaponless attack; but maybe I'm missing something.

Adepts are proficient with all weapons, and they can use all the above abilities with melee weapons.

This is different from the traditional take on the monk.

Original monks could use the above techniques only unarmed, i'm granting them those abilities with melee weapons too.

However they do not get additional attacks when using a weapon.

I was trying to emulate the fact that many Wuxia movies show the hero using a weapon and Kool-Kung-Fu-Techniques as most chinese martial arts do have specific techinques for weapons.

Thank you for the prompt replies

I know it's just a rule and could be ditched to make it more true to 1e, but I'm finding that extending those abilities to weapons (or certain weapons) is not an uncommon houserule.

Thanks again.

A query -

The great way adept supplement says that Monks are learned individuals and can read languages as a thief of the 1st level.

But the core rules make no mention of thieves being able to read languages - that I can see, anyway.

Do you think this class feature is based on a different thief class?

edit - by the way, the supplement plays well in my game.