VoP

[Kantolin]

I'm slightly pressed for time, but! One thing stands out.

Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and slings. Some monks are also proficient in, say, tonfa. Monks are also trained to punch people, use the 'stunning fist' tree or grapple things, and swing lots of time or swing once really hard.

You could, and easily, make a fighter who does everything I've just said. Would that fighter be a monk? Couldn't he?

Monks do not specialize to the extent people seem to think they do - two monks could graduate from an academy, one of them awesome with finessing his dagger and unable to use tonfa or grapple competently and the other who uses a tonfa, is extremely strength based, certainly sucks with daggers compared to his awesome tonfa, and can't stunning fist things but can grapple.

The majority of this is default variations built into the monk class. :P

[Boci]

But using ACFs for the monk is going into a whole 'another school' environment as well.

Swordsages have the option to deal elemental damage, monks have the option to deal elemental damage. I see no problem.


Also, you don't have elemental damage only on desert wind - shadow hand has a few maneuvers dealing cold damage.

:smallsigh: Swordsage has access to 6 disciplines. IIRC, each one has (not counting stances) 2 maneuvers, except desert wind which has 4. So thats a total of 14 maneuvers available. A total of 2 deal elemental damage, and another 2 deal with fire. Swordsages start with 5 maneuvers. So they have twice as many non-elemental maneuvers to choose from than they can take.

[Ozymandias9]

I'm talking about basic weapons, Ozy, not enhanced ones. If fighter A slashes a guy with his sword, it deals X damage, while if fighter B slashes a guy with his sword, it does Y damage, even though they're both just slashing with a sword.

The X vs Y damage isn't modeling the weapon in isolation. If there were a strength difference, the gap between x and y could be modeling the difference there. If it's purely the difference of random the outcome of a d6 or d8, they it could be modeling the fact that your opponent isn't a practice dummy and how they are moving in combat will change how effective your strikes are.
Regardless, much like the Iron Heart example, while the specific numerical outcomes may differ, the basic concept being modeled is still intact.

In truth, the pressure point example was probably a poor example for the opposite reason: the idea of pressure points is generally results in vastly different effects in fiction, often because of intentional and precise manipulation by the person making the attack (though in truth, the range of effects in fiction is laughably large relative to the actual effects "pressure points" can be manipulated to cause). "Pressure points" is probably to vague a thing to limit to a single ability. The later example, however, is a bit more sound in my opinion: unless they're punching in notably different methods, why would punching someone in the solar plexus when Person A does it and another when Person B does it.
And, really, there are only so many methods of punching someone in one specific spot that I can buy.

[Boci]

And, really, there are only so many methods of punching someone in one specific spot that I can buy.

How many different forms of martial art are there? I'm pretty sure most have a different way of punching someone.

[Ozymandias9]

How many different forms of martial art are there? I'm pretty sure most have a different way of punching someone.

Yes, but how many different ways to do they have of punching someone in the exact same spot?

That is, if the stun happens because you're hitting someone particularly hard in the solar plexus, why does the someone else hitting someone particularly hard in the solar plexus instead cause double the injury?

[Boci]

Yes, but how many different ways to do they have of punching someone in the exact same spot?

I'm pretty sure alot will have a different way to puch someone and then leave it up to you to decide where you punch them. Sure some might emphasize different parts of the body, but at that will still probably boil down to a lot of different ways to puch someone in the solar plexus.

[Ozymandias9]

I'm pretty sure alot will have a different way to puch someone and then leave it up to you to decide where you punch them. Sure some might emphasize different parts of the body, but at that will still probably boil down to a lot of different ways to puch someone in the solar plexus.

And how many of them are really going to be distinct enough to produce radically different results? An Ura-zuki delivered to the solar plexus really isn't going to produce radically different results than a Mat Soi Dao delivered to the solar plexus.

In fact, they're generally not going to be that different at all, regardless of where you punch with them. And then there's the whole issue of whether there's any real distinction between an Mat Soi Dao and, say, a Age-zuki. There really aren't that many different types of punches, and most martial arts that use punches extensively use most of them.

So if you're modeling close to the same thing, why wouldn't you expect close to the same result?

[Demons_eye]

So if you're modeling close to the same thing, why wouldn't you expect close to the same result?

The person in question never bothered to learn the right chi blocking technique that results in stunning. The person does not believe in stunning his opponent. He misses the correct spot every time. His chi does not flow well into the other person preventing him from stunning people.

How many answers do you want?

[Boci]

So if you're modeling close to the same thing, why wouldn't you expect close to the same result?

Okay, off the top of my head, someone could be punching an enemy in the solar plexus to:

1. drive them back
2. stun them
3. keep them still long enough to nick a major artety through a small gap in their armour
4. prevent them from stepping back to avoid a sweeping kick to the legs
5. grapple them

And thats all I could come up with in 2 minutes.

[Ozymandias9]

Okay, off the top of my head, someone could be punching an enemy in the solar plexus to:

1. drive them back
2. stun them
3. keep them still long enough to nick a major artety through a small gap in their armour
4. prevent them from stepping back to avoid a sweeping kick to the legs
5. grapple them

And thats all I could come up with in 2 minutes.

All of which basically involve temporarily incapacitating your opponent to some degree. Same conceptual goal used to different ends. I have no problem with that. Of those, only #3 would seem to imply that you should be modeling sneak attack (at least to me) and if someone presented it to me in such a way, I would not only be ok with it (really, I would be ok with someone ignoring it all together), I would actually be impressed by the effort.


The person in question never bothered to learn the right chi blocking technique that results in stunning. The person does not believe in stunning his opponent. He misses the correct spot every time. His chi does not flow well into the other person preventing him from stunning people.

None of those model hitting someone in the solar plexus. 2 of them model chi, as it relates to the solar plexus: that's like the difference between song and bard song. Stunning fist might well be a model for chi blocking as well as the one I posited (and as I said, I have no issue with that propisition, only its inverse).

Missing the correct spot implies that he's hitting something else, which creates an interesting situation where the goal is to use stunning fist and the result is using sneak attack (I find this ideal appealing, and intend to use it if you don't object). And the 2nd doesn't deal with the model at all: I'm interested (for the purposes of this topic) with abilities relative to the charcter's intent, I'm interested in how they create a believably immersibly consistent model of the game world. Intent plays in there in some situations, but not all.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

That backstory doesn't display any mechanical abilities nor explain the way she gets her power/abilities/mechanics from. Well, apart from being good at talking and running away.

If the backstory included the fact that her mother was a rogue/swordsage, then I would expect the character to also be swordsage or rogue at least.

Why must such references in the backstory be needed? You don't see the tragic backstory for Spider-man calling him a Rogue/Factotum.




Mainly that how the class system works (ie. wu jen can multiclass to wizard, spec. wizard cannot multiclass to wizard) shows that wu jens and wizards have completely separate studies. The difference in fluff should then reflect this.

Except the fact that Complete Arcane itself describes Wu Jens like wizards. Or how Spellthiefs are described like Rogues and Barbarians like Fighters or Rangers or similarly.



The problem only occurs when they have the same explanation. You can't say "he took shape soulmeld, the other guy took martial study" at the same time as saying "both of them learnt the exact same things".

People can learn and remember things from the exact same training. I myself have taken numerous courses with people coming out remembering everything there is to know about integral calculus and little about differential calculus while my friend was the reverse. Their studies may have similarly included both "Soulmelding" and "Martial Studies" but one stuck with A and the other with B.

Further more, the basic PHB shows that two characters with different classes with roughly the same skills could have very different fluff. See the text with footpaddin' and rice patty walk. On top of that, every - and I mean every - book that lists prestige classes with an "Adaptation" section is further evidence against your stance.

[jseah]

Jseah, stop strawmanning me. I never suggested you create an entirely new monastery if there aren't any in the setting just to create swordsages. I just said that the swordsage could come from the exact same monastery as the monk. If there are no monasteries, period, then he could come from the exact same place monks come from in that setting.

To be less pedantic: A monastery teaches you how to use unarmed strikes really well, and gives you a few esoteric supernatural abilities.

That describes both monks and unarmed swordsages. It doesn't make any sense to me to not let them come from the same place.
Like you say, you wouldn't have swordmasters come from wizarding school. We both agree on that.
I am merely applying the same principle to monks and unarmed swordsages. Perhaps they don't look different to you, but they are very different to me.


Why must such references in the backstory be needed? You don't see the tragic backstory for Spider-man calling him a Rogue/Factotum.
The background mentioned that the character learnt some tricks from her mother. I said that if her mother was a rogue/swordsage, then the tricks she learnt from her mother would be (I expect) rogue or swordsage tricks. Nothing more than that.

If her mother was a wizard, I would expect her to have some level of arcane casting (or maybe just spellcraft/knowledge arcana) and the secret stash of weapons to include a spellbook.


Their studies may have similarly included both "Soulmelding" and "Martial Studies" but one stuck with A and the other with B.
And that's the same as those organizations with a chapel, barracks, riding grounds and require their prospective students to train at all of them. Some become clerics, some become fighters.

If your monastery teaches Soulmelding, Martial Studies and whatever else for the normal monk, then you have different sections within the monastery that are also differentiable. You don't learn martial studies and come out knowing how to soulmeld.


Except the fact that Complete Arcane itself describes Wu Jens like wizards. Or how Spellthiefs are described like Rogues and Barbarians like Fighters or Rangers or similarly.
It doesn't. Wu Jen fluff (as per characteristics and background) is eastern-flavoured magic, with a casual nod to how they get trained. (lone mentor)
Another point of difference is that Wu Jen are non-lawful.


Further more, the basic PHB shows that two characters with different classes with roughly the same skills could have very different fluff. See the text with footpaddin' and rice patty walk. On top of that, every - and I mean every - book that lists prestige classes with an "Adaptation" section is further evidence against your stance.
Emphasis mine.
Different classes = different fluff. Different classes with identical abilities doesn't happen... I think, well, see my response to Kantolin below.

Similarly for Adaptations, changing the mechanics would imply the fluff explanation changes. If you're saying that the fluff doesn't change, well, I don't what to say beyond that it should.


You could, and easily, make a fighter who does everything I've just said. Would that fighter be a monk? Couldn't he?
You can't build a fighter that replicates a monk perfectly.
Or maybe you can. If you can get all and only the main abilities through a combination of classes (stunning fist or grapple, increased unarmed strike damage, fast movement, slow fall, etc.. Including must-be-lawful, having no racial restrictions, having at least 7 open feats through 20 levels and no spellcasting whatsoever) I suppose I'll have to retract my point...
Small things like hp, AC (but wis to AC is significant however), saves and BaB probably don't count as long as they are within stat range (having 20 higher AC is probably a bit too much difference).
The no-multiclassing thing... is pretty weird though, that specifies alot about a monk's fluff but it doesn't seem important.

CO is a wonderful thing isn't it? I have a feeling I'll have to eat my words though... =/


Monks do not specialize to the extent people seem to think they do - two monks could graduate from an academy, one of them awesome with finessing his dagger and unable to use tonfa or grapple competently and the other who uses a tonfa, is extremely strength based, certainly sucks with daggers compared to his awesome tonfa, and can't stunning fist things but can grapple.

The majority of this is default variations built into the monk class. :P
And that is the default variation based on feat choices and stats. The default variation of the monk class does not extend to something as radically different as unarmed swordsage.

[Demons_eye]

.


You can't build a fighter that replicates a monk perfectly.
Or maybe you can. If you can get all and only the main abilities through a combination of classes (stunning fist or grapple, increased unarmed strike damage, fast movement, slow fall, etc.. Including must-be-lawful, having no racial restrictions, having at least 7 open feats through 20 levels and no spellcasting whatsoever) I suppose I'll have to retract my point...
Small things like hp, AC (but wis to AC is significant however), saves and BaB probably don't count as long as they are within stat range (having 20 higher AC is probably a bit too much difference).
The no-multiclassing thing... is pretty weird though, that specifies alot about a monk's fluff but it doesn't seem important.

CO is a wonderful thing isn't it? I have a feeling I'll have to eat my words though... =/


LG Human Fighter 20

Notable Items: Monks Belt, Ring of Evasion, Ring of feather fall, Ankle of Transportation, Cloak of Spell Resistance, Adamantine Axiomatic Ki Gauntlets, Boots of striding and sprinting.

Able Learner (Human)
Open (First)
Improved Unarmed Strike (Fighter 1)
Improved Grapple (Fighter 2)
(Third)
Deflect Arrows (Fighter 4)
Superior unarmed Strike(third)
Open (Sixth)
Snap Kick (Fighter 6)
Stunning Fist (Fighter 8)
Open (Ninth)
Open (Fighter 10)
Open (Twelfth)
Open (Fighter 12)
Open (Fighter 14)
Open (Fifteenth)
Open (Fighter 16)
Open (Eighteenth)
Open (Fighter 18)
Open (Fighter 20)



What am I missing?

[jseah]

Missing:
Must be Lawful
No race restriction (cannot rely on human)
Outsider type

Etherealness
Quivering Palm (or something like it)

Questions:
Do those unarmed strike feats give you a monk's progression of unarmed damage?


Still, that's a very good one. Except for the reliance on items. (Monk's Slow Fall, Fast Movement and Evasion don't turn off in an AMF)

[Milskidasith]

Missing:
Must be Lawful
No race restriction (cannot rely on human)
Outsider type

All purely metagame things besides race restrictions, and even that can be refluffed to some extent (If you don't want to look like an orc, but want the orc bonuses, I wouldn't see a problem with you being a particularly strong human, but I suspect you will disagree). Anyway, seeing as a monk can be human and lawful, there's really no distinction here.


Etherealness
Quivering Palm (or something like it)

Again: These are class features. This doesn't make him any less of a monk (pseudo-mystical guy who punches stuff), they just make him less like the monk class. That's the whole point; you can be a monk-archetype without being a monk class, and the archetype of a monk doesn't really rely on etherealness even if the monk class gets it.


Still, that's a very good one. Except for the reliance on items. (Monk's Slow Fall, Fast Movement and Evasion don't turn off in an AMF)

Again, you are not distinguishing between the monk class and the monk archetype. The monk archetype already has them as pseudo mystical warriors, so the fact their mysticism is cut off in an AMF really isn't a dealbreaker.

I could see you arguing that it didn't really fit the monk archetype if it was a S&B fighter who focused on sundering things, or something equally unlike it, but when the character has a bunch of pseudo-magical (well, actually magical, but still) abilities and punches things, it can be a monk (archetype) regardless of if its a monk (class).

The point isn't "I can make something that fights exactly like a monk;" asking us to do that is a red herring where you are going to move the goalposts every time we actually do get something that looks like a monk class. The point is that we can build a character, that, mechanically, fits the monk archetype; a few pseudo mystical kung-fu abilities and a reliance on punching things to death. A fighter focused on unarmed strikes, a monk (class), and an unarmed swordsage, and more classes I've probably forgotten, can all fit that archetype very easily.

Likewise, since it hasn't been brought up, the monk (class) could easily be something besides the monk (archetype); it could be a thug on the streets, or a martial arts champion, or the western style monk that devotes its life towards a god. It really doesn't matter!

[balistafreak]

I think a major disagreement is coming from the definition of "monastery/school/college/whatever".

Some people believe it to be as niche as an individual class of no more than a dozen students underneath a single master, which would explain why they expect to see little to no variation in base abilities (barring feats and ACFs). Others see it to be a large establishment where students are exposed to a large variety of abilities. Of course, if you're leaving this school at at a low level, you haven't yet mastered everything there is to learn at your school. (There's always multiclassing to "master everything", despite how poor of a mechanical choice it probably is.)

Still, in my opinion this only strengthens the case for the power of refluffing. Yes, I'd look at you funny if you said your master in your class of handpicked students was a master of Monk and you walk out a Swordsage... but since your (learning) class was small, it affects very little in the rest of the world to say your master and class went the way of the Swordsage as well. (At least, it should. I can't think of many established-fluff cases where a very small class of learning individuals made a massively immutable plot difference.)

And if you were in a larger school, then you don't have to change anything about the world, because you just mastered different parts of the education provided.

[Milskidasith]

Even if you were individually tutored by a master, I could see an unarmed SS coming from the training of a monk; the best students learn and improve on what they are taught, rather than completely aping their master. Or at least, that's what happens in media, which is what a fantasy game is all about.

[jseah]

Again: These are class features. This doesn't make him any less of a monk (pseudo-mystical guy who punches stuff), they just make him less like the monk class. That's the whole point; you can be a monk-archetype without being a monk class, and the archetype of a monk doesn't really rely on etherealness even if the monk class gets it.
My argument hinges on that monks must have a fluff explanation for their ability to "turn ethereal"/"be an outsider"/"must be lawful".
If you don't have this, then you don't have those fluff explanations, then you have different fluff from the monk.

You can still call yourself a monk and get away with it most of the time. But the fact is, you're different.

Purely metagame things that have an impact are no longer purely metagame. They are differentiable in-universe. The only purely metagame things I could see happening are AC, saves and Bab differences that are a few points difference. And that's only because I don't expect D&D NPCs to understand and be able to test probability.
- Your suspicion about orcs vs strong humans is correct. I would disagree with allowing that.


As for improving on what you're taught explaining being a swordsage vs a monk, that's like asking for your character to invent a new style of martial arts. That explanation appears to me as a more synergistic choice of feats.

[Boci]

My argument hinges on that monks must have a fluff explanation for their ability to "turn ethereal"/"be an outsider"/"must be lawful".

Do you know what the difference is between a lawful fighter and a lawful monk is aligment-wise? Absolutly nothing. There is rarely any difference for a character concept between "Must take X" and "Chose to take X"
As far as the other two abilities go, you didn't manage to master them/have not yet mastered them. How is that any different from a monk with ACFs?


If you don't have this, then you don't have those fluff explanations, then you have different fluff from the monk.

But different monks also have different fluff.

[Caphi]

Why is access to etherealness, specifically, a requirement for a character, in-world, to call himself a monk?

[Milskidasith]

Jseah, you are completely ignoring my point. The monk archetype is different from the monk class.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Jseah, you are completely ignoring my point. The monk archetype is different from the monk class.

There's also the fact that even the monk class wouldn't qualify as a monk by Jseah's rules until 19th level due to the fact that that's when Empty Body hits play. Or, if etherealness is dropped as a requirement, 15th level due to Quivering Palm.

[jseah]

Do you know what the difference is between a lawful fighter and a lawful monk is aligment-wise? Absolutly nothing. There is rarely any difference for a character concept between "Must take X" and "Chose to take X"
As far as the other two abilities go, you didn't manage to master them/have not yet mastered them. How is that any different from a monk with ACFs?
Actually, yes, we are looking at one individual fighter mimicking a "normal" monk. So I suppose you could just give him the lawful alignment.

A monk with ACFs isn't the same as a "normal" monk. If you can make a fighter that mimics all and only the ACF monk's abilities, then that also proves the point.
Remember that the point was that if you could make another character with the exact same abilities, but with a class and feat setup that implied a different explanation, then yes, my point about 1 to 1 fluff to mechanics correlation is invalid.


But different monks also have different fluff.
Jseah, you are completely ignoring my point. The monk archetype is different from the monk class.
That is correct (both of them). The monk class does not have to even be the monk archetype.
However, the fluff for monks has to be uniquely explaining their abilities. And differences between individual monks have to stay within the variations of the monk class.

Note that I'm not saying you can't refluff the monk class. But whatever you refluff it to, all the monks' abilities must be explained by the new explanation.
You also have to explain why these abilities (and the range of variation within them) are different from other abilities, especially those abilities that are similar (eg. swordsage)


Why is access to etherealness, specifically, a requirement for a character, in-world, to call himself a monk?
There's also the fact that even the monk class wouldn't qualify as a monk by Jseah's rules until 19th level due to the fact that that's when Empty Body hits play. Or, if etherealness is dropped as a requirement, 15th level due to Quivering Palm.
The etherealness ability is part of the monk class. Thus those that advance the monk class (and it's fluff) get that ability. To call yourself part of that class, you must therefore be able to get that ability.

Therefore, the fluff must explain why those who train under/follow a specific point of fluff (eventually) get the ability to turn ethereal.

[Milskidasith]

Jseah, you are saying that we are right, and then either saying we are wrong, or arguing something we are not talking about. I see little point in continuing this discussion if you are going to continue to intentionally use red herrings and ignore what we are saying just to ask us to build something that gets all monk abilities without being a monk, then nitpick the build if we actually do get one, as Demon did.

The basic point is this:

The monk archetype can be played by many characters.

Therefore, the fluff of any monk archetype character can be exactly the same as any other, with no problems.

If you wish to discuss that issue, instead of talking about how the metagame abilities classes apparently have to be fluff now (side note: You don't have to individually explain every one of your abilities; imagine how tedious that would get for maneuvers, or spells, or even shoehorning all the monk [class] abilities into a backstory), or asking us to make monk (class) but not a monk (class) builds, then I will respond, but otherwise we should just agree to disagree, because I do not want to spend time posting if you do not intend to actually discuss what I am saying.

[balistafreak]

I'm a firm believer of "enabling" - although we all gather around a single ruleset, I prefer to interpret things openly.

Doing so does not, as many people believe, result in "special snowflake syndrome" where everyone is weird, but allows people to focus on characterization instead of making sure they can turn ethereal at some point far down their road of classes.

Taking such an interest in a class as an ingame concept can be an interesting way to add a unique feature to a game world, but insisting on doing so at the exclusion of all else seems needlessly restrictive, and can only harm a gaming experience. Hence my displeasure.


Note that I'm not saying you can't refluff the monk class. But whatever you refluff it to, all the monks' abilities must be explained by the new explanation.
You also have to explain why these abilities (and the range of variation within them) are different from other abilities, especially those abilities that are similar (eg. swordsage)

I'd like to call this statement out for particular examination. Emphasis added on what I believe is the most absurd part of it.

Read it for a few seconds. I firmly believe that while a little verisimilitude through repetition and rules is good, saying that everything must conform to one idea is not good for the roleplaying environment.

Yes, you can force everyone to play a monk to your ideal, but it's not a constructive action to take.


The etherealness ability is part of the monk class. Thus those that advance the monk class (and it's fluff) get that ability. To call yourself part of that class, you must therefore be able to get that ability.

Therefore, the fluff must explain why those who train under/follow a specific point of fluff (eventually) get the ability to turn ethereal.

It is perhaps an optimizer's point of view to pretend that 18 levels of Monk don't exist. :smalltongue:

However, such a clause seems a needless hindrance to character flexibility. Again, why is this a constructive action to take?

At this point, I'm not questioning the specifics of a class, but instead I'm targeting your motives. Perhaps you enjoy "regularity" and "uniformity", but this is the part where I confront you on the topic and ask you why you enjoy these.

Because honestly, I'm interested. Mostly because I'm confused, yes, but I'm interested.

[jseah]

The basic point is this:

The monk archetype can be played by many characters.

Therefore, the fluff of any monk archetype character can be exactly the same as any other, with no problems.

If you wish to discuss that issue, <...> but otherwise we should just agree to disagree, because I do not want to spend time posting if you do not intend to actually discuss what I am saying.
I do not see how the first point leads to the second.

"The monk archetype can be played by many characters."
That is fine. There should be multiple monks, and monks have variations among themselves.
Many characters does not mean all. I hold the position that there exists characters that no amount of explanation can make them monks, in fact, this applies to a large majority of possible characters.

"the fluff of any monk archetype character can be exactly the same as any other, with no problems."
Does not follow from the previous sentence. I can't quite understand how you draw that conclusion, mind explaining?


At this point, I'm not questioning the specifics of a class, but instead I'm targeting your motives. Perhaps you enjoy "regularity" and "uniformity", but this is the part where I confront you on the topic and ask you why you enjoy these.

Because honestly, I'm interested. Mostly because I'm confused, yes, but I'm interested.
I enjoy predictability. From the metagame point of view that is.

An ideal game to me would have rules and logic applied without exception. As a player, I expect to be able to construct a plan and have problems occur due to enemy action (or poor planning), not due to "Oh hey, those monks aren't monks anymore".

In practice, some level of rule bending has to occur to avoid CO breaking the game. That is a flaw of the D&D ruleset, apply houserules as necessary. Apart from that, I do not see any need for it.

As a GM, I often add in various definitions I find lacking in D&D.
Eg. defining what an object is, defining what a location is (for non-mobile spells and effects)
I also apply all such definitions across the entire universe. If motionless means relative to the local planet (or gravity field), then casting wall of force on an airship in a campaign run by me will get you killed (there will be an OOC "are you sure?" of course) and I will allow it to be used offensively even if it would trivialize encounters.


That level of predictability isn't even needed to make my point however. All you need is an expectation that people in the game can differentiate between different mechanical abilities. (and that abilities have a unique explanation)
Well, if you're happy with a lower level of consistency, then fine, I guess you can refluff monks however much you like.

EDIT: when I said "you must be able to get that ability", I meant by leveling up in that class. (level 20 limits notwithstanding)
Obviously, not all characters get it as some (or many) multiclass.

[Worira]

And you know that said monks are using the monk class how, exactly? In character? Do your characters have Goggles of Class Discernment?

[Boci]

So is a monk 2 / fighter 1 a monk?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

So is a monk 2 / fighter 1 a monk?

Technically, by jseah's standards, that wouldn't be a monk as it won't ever be able to access ethearalness, but a hypothetical fighter 4 would be because the possibility exists to take levels in monk later.

[true_shinken]

Swordsages have the option to deal elemental damage, monks have the option to deal elemental damage. I see no problem.
I thought we were discussing unarmed swordsage vs PHB monk. PHB monk can't deal elemental damage. If you include ACFs, sure, than the monk can do this - but then again, in a game that considers the PHB monk a specific fighting style, an ACF monk would be from a different school with a different fighting style, wouldn't it?


:smallsigh: Swordsage has access to 6 disciplines. IIRC, each one has (not counting stances) 2 maneuvers, except desert wind which has 4. So thats a total of 14 maneuvers available. A total of 2 deal elemental damage, and another 2 deal with fire. Swordsages start with 5 maneuvers. So they have twice as many non-elemental maneuvers to choose from than they can take.
...and so what? I don't really understand what you are implying. It does not change the fact that he could learn those maneuvers, which is specifically the point I'm adressing. The same schools should not allow both to learn those, period. If you had an unarmed swordsage that didn't have any tricks a phb monk shouldn't be able to pull out, then you'd have a point. It simply won't happen - any way or the other, there will be things the swordsage will be able to do in combat that a monk can't possibly do (like setting sun throws, to be a little less esoteric) and vice-versa (like stunning fist). And it looks very weird to me that two beginner characters fresh from a monastery could have so vastly different fighting styles. Remember, we are talking about a monastery of PHB monks - lawful, with a rigid style. It simply looks weird to me. YMMV, of course.

[Boci]

I thought we were discussing unarmed swordsage vs PHB monk. PHB monk can't deal elemental damage. If you include ACFs, sure, than the monk can do this - but then again, in a game that considers the PHB monk a specific fighting style, an ACF monk would be from a different school with a different fighting style, wouldn't it?

jseah doesn't have any problem with ACF being taken into account. He just insists they are not as different as an unarmed swordsage.


...and so what? I don't really understand what you are implying. It does not change the fact that he could learn those maneuvers, which is specifically the point I'm adressing. The same schools should not allow both to learn those, period. If you had an unarmed swordsage that didn't have any tricks a phb monk shouldn't be able to pull out, then you'd have a point. It simply won't happen - any way or the other, there will be things the swordsage will be able to do in combat that a monk can't possibly do (like setting sun throws, to be a little less esoteric) and vice-versa (like stunning fist).

And different monks from the same monestry will have a different abilities by virtue of a different skill and feat selection.


And it looks very weird to me that two beginner characters fresh from a monastery could have so vastly different fighting styles. Remember, we are talking about a monastery of PHB monks - lawful, with a rigid style. It simply looks weird to me. YMMV, of course.

As I said, not everyone in my ju-jitsu class fights in the same way. You could explain the difference as the monks teaching you to look within yourself and pull forth what you find. The swordsage found something different.

[true_shinken]

jseah doesn't have any problem with ACF being taken into account. He just insists they are not as different as an unarmed swordsage.
Well, I am not jseah, that's what I was adressing.



And different monks from the same monestry will have a different abilities by virtue of a different skill and feat selection.
Yes, but a single feat (we are talking first level here) does not make a combat style.




As I said, not everyone in my ju-jitsu class fights in the same way. You could explain the difference as the monks teaching you to look within yourself and pull forth what you find. The swordsage found something different.
As I said, you study Gracie's jujutsu. It's a mixed version of an ancient fighting technique. It incorporates elements from other styles. It's not a rigid, Lawful, PHB Monk style. That's my point. You won't find those rigid schools nowadays; martial arts 'evolved' to a point where flexibility is more important than anything else.
'look within yourself and pull forth what you find' as a big 'anything goes' thing and not really withing the rigid, lawful feel these monasteries should have. As I said before, YMMV. It just still looks very weird to me.

[Boci]

As I said, you study Gracie's jujutsu. It's a mixed version of an ancient fighting technique. It incorporates elements from other styles. It's not a rigid, Lawful, PHB Monk style.

Lawful does not equal rigid fighting style. This is no longer aboutr fluff, this is about your take on the monk's fluff.

[Greenish]

Technically, by jseah's standards, that wouldn't be a monk as it won't ever be able to access ethearalness, but a hypothetical fighter 4 would be because the possibility exists to take levels in monk later.Well, you could hypothetically take "Monastic Training (Fighter)" later to keep advancing as a monk, so it technically qualifies as a monk (just like any build ever).

[jseah]

And you know that said monks are using the monk class how, exactly? In character? Do your characters have Goggles of Class Discernment?
Monks have unique mechanical abilities. These can be differentiated.
You can tell that X guy is has monk levels (though you might not call it that!) by seeing what abilities / habits common to monks he has.

Hence why if you can build a character with all and only the monk abilities without using the monk class, you have disproved my point.
I also feel the need to say that it is quite restrictive, since you need to be completely identical (within RNG) to a normal monk in every way.


So is a monk 2 / fighter 1 a monk?
An ex-monk.

Monastic Training (if allowing you to bypass the multiclass restriction) would be a monk with some outside training.
Fighter 4 is not yet a monk. If you then multiclass to Fighter 4 / Monk 2, then you're a new "convert"/student who has lots of prior experience.


jseah doesn't have any problem with ACF being taken into account. He just insists they are not as different as an unarmed swordsage.
They are not as different from an unarmed swordsage, but more different that monks with different feats. After all, all that is different between them and a normal monk is one set of abilities traded out for another.

[Worira]

I enjoy predictability. From the metagame point of view that is.

An ideal game to me would have rules and logic applied without exception. As a player, I expect to be able to construct a plan and have problems occur due to enemy action (or poor planning), not due to "Oh hey, those monks aren't monks anymore".




Monks have unique mechanical abilities. These can be differentiated.
You can tell that X guy is has monk levels (though you might not call it that!) by seeing what abilities / habits common to monks he has.

Hence why if you can build a character with all and only the monk abilities without using the monk class, you have disproved my point.
I also feel the need to say that it is quite restrictive, since you need to be completely identical (within RNG) to a normal monk in every way.


OK, so you determine that this person has the abilities of a monk by observing said abilities. Unless your DM is outright changing the class of an NPC after this, how exactly is this ever going to pose a problem? If you've observed them using abilities, those are the abilities they have, regardless of what their class is.

[true_shinken]

Lawful does not equal rigid fighting style. This is no longer aboutr fluff, this is about your take on the monk's fluff.

It's more about alignment, but that is whole 'nother case of worms.

[jseah]

OK, so you determine that this person has the abilities of a monk by observing said abilities. Unless your DM is outright changing the class of an NPC after this, how exactly is this ever going to pose a problem? If you've observed them using abilities, those are the abilities they have, regardless of what their class is.
Eg. I observe a bunch of people doing monk training routines. None of them look considerably more skilled than the others (ie. all around the same level +- a few)

On planning an attack at night on the monastery, we prepare anti-monk measures and start.

After the first group of monks get flattened, the next group of monks are suddenly swordsages.
I've had similar stuff happen in games before.

[balistafreak]

Tangent: what kind of preparations are "anti-monk"?

I mean, they're big stupid melee fighters, standard issue adventurer fodder. Seriously. They might throw out Stunning Fist attacks and try to grapple you but that's hardly a challenge to deal with compared with Swordsages.

Back on topic: you seem miffed that your DM decided to "level up" the Monks with new and amazing powers. Apparently, your sense of verisimilitude demands that all the monks in the same monastery fight in the exact same way.

Personally, my sense of verisimilitude says that if they watch their Monk brethren get schooled, they send in the Swordsages, who are (let's admit it) far more competent at their job than the Monks. (The job in question is repelling attacking adventurers. Not being able to fall slowly, not being able to become ethereal at a high level, not any individual Monk class feature.)

Yes, they're not Monks. But for the scenario, they make far more sense. Heck, if you suddenly unleashed a squadron of Wizards on me, calling them "the school's mystics", I would have no problem and would even welcome the upcoming battle, because fighting a bunch of (competently played) Wizards is cool. The scenario dictates that the school pull out all the stops in its defense - while it might be more "realistic" in one way for there to be nothing but Monks in the school, it feels more "realistic" to the player that the challenge escalate.

[Greenish]

Eg. I observe a bunch of people doing monk training routines. None of them look considerably more skilled than the others (ie. all around the same level +- a few)

On planning an attack at night on the monastery, we prepare anti-monk measures and start.

After the first group of monks get flattened, the next group of monks are suddenly swordsages.
I've had similar stuff happen in games before.Oh woe, you were brought down by your own metagaming. :smallamused:

[jseah]

^I didn't actually play through such a situation. That was just an example.
But anti-monk measures are basically cheap battlefield control (caltrops? grease?) and anti-grapple.

And if the temple was scouted before (as implied by watching their training routines), one would expect to notice differences, like an elite group with notably different regimen/techniques, or an arcane laboratory/library/tower.
You can say it wasn't noticed, but there's a limit to how much stuff can be just pulled out of the air. Unless the temple was on alert, they wouldn't actively hide their own people.

It's not metagaming to note (in-game!) the defining set of abilities a group of NPCs have, and expect them to still have it when you come back later. (friendly or not)


Similar situations included having enemy calvary suddenly turning into barbarians despite having met such calvary before.
There was also... ah, a case of the special snowflake (a nice way of describing, thanks to whoever that was).
That was irritating. (I think it was a wizard refluffed to not need a spellbook, core only)

I mean, it's like saying that your Mage of the Arcane Order class features still work even though the central artifact in the Arcane Order got stolen/destroyed. Sure, you can refluff your powers. But that requires refluffing the entire Arcane Order.

[InkEyes]

So, Vow of Poverty: evidence Wizards of the Coast hates poor people?