Monk... Why do they suck?

[~Nye~]

Hi.
For some reason on this forum and many others people have the impression that monks are a really weak class. Having never really played a monk because the flavour doesn't appeal, I don't really know.
Having seen one in action in campaigns I've DMd for I have evidence to beleive in many situations thay can definately hold their own. The only weakness I can really see in the class is maybe at low levels being particularly squishy, but if you stack wisdom that's really not going to be a problem. Also, the lack of ranged attacks is simply solved by taking 'Ring the Golden Bell' from Dragon Magazine. To me it just seems like it's very much discredited for being a powerhouse.

[Sims]

Hi.
For some reason on this forum and many others people have the impression that monks are a really weak class. Having never really played a monk because the flavour doesn't appeal, I don't really know.
Having seen one in action in campaigns I've DMd for I have evidence to beleive in many situations thay can definately hold their own. The only weakness I can really see in the class is maybe at low levels being particularly squishy, but if you stack wisdom that's really not going to be a problem. Also, the lack of ranged attacks is simply solved by taking 'Ring the Golden Bell' from Dragon Magazine. To me it just seems like it's very much discredited for being a powerhouse.

Its mostly due to poor BAB and you can't enchant unarmed strikes, nor can you cast spells.

[Gnaeus]

Sigh.

Monks have abilities with no synergy...You cannot flurry & fast move, for example.

They require lots of good attributes to be effective. At least Str, Dex, Con and Wis, and they can't dump Int.

Most of their class abilities are duplicated by spells that spellcasters were casting several levels earlier.

They are a melee class, with mediocre hp, bad AC, mediocre BaB, and they almost always do less damage than a fighter or barbarian with a 2h weapon. In other words they are bad at their job.

You can make an unarmed fighter who can do everything that a monk does, better than the monk. That character is weaker than a normal fighter, and normal fighters aren't very good.

A monk is very, very rarely more helpful than the druid's pet.

[cfalcon]

{scrubbed}

[Amphetryon]

Monks are theoretically designed to be hit-and-run skirmishers (Fast Movement, low AC relative to most melee, d8 HD) but need to stand still in order to activate their primary combat shtick (Flurry of Blows). This is often cited as Poor Design.
Flurry of Blows adds penalties on top of a 3/4 BAB, resulting in what's often jokingly referred to as "Flurry of Misses."
Monks WIS to AC feature makes them MAD - Multiple Attribute Dependent - in order to keep their AC on the low end of viable for the levels where AC is a good defense.
The fact that they cannot wear armor or use a shield prevents them from ever having a good AC relative to other appropriately equipped melee types at mid levels and beyond.

[~Nye~]

Ok, well Thanks for taking me seriously, but from what I've seen my players do with a monk I don't really consider it weak.
We've done certain homebrew things to fix the lack of enhancement bonuses to hit and things.
Cheers for the quick response!:smallwink:

[hivedragon]

Its mostly due to poor BAB and you can't enchant unarmed strikes, nor can you cast spells.

i think magic fang works on that and then there is the kensai

[Malevolence]

I'll pass out fire resistance. Can someone else get protection from fire?

http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=163271#163271

[Darth Stabber]

If you have access to Tome of Battle, you have no need of homebrew fixes. Unarmed variant Swordsage is 99% of what you want out of a monk, and it actually works. Now if only I could get spell storing fists.

[T.G. Oskar]

Yes, it is generally a bad idea to do so these days...but we *can* keep it civil, right?


i think magic fang works on that and then there is the kensai

Yes, Magic Fang (and Magic Weapon) work (since the unarmed strike counts as both a natural weapon and as a manufactured weapon whenever it's most beneficial). However, while you can enchant your unarmed strikes with an enhancement bonus (temporarily and by means of a spell, or through the Amulet of Mighty Fists which is way too expensive), you can't add weapon special abilities to it. The only way is through a Necklace of Natural Attacks, which makes enchanting unarmed strikes pretty expensive (as if you were wielding a masterwork weapon originally costing 300 gp, turned into 600 through masterwork, and then adding the costs of the abilities). Same thing with armor: they can't equip it, so they lose on armor special abilities they might get (energy resistance and spell resistance isn't much, but don't tell me fortification and a few others such as Healing/Greater Healing aren't bad to add to an armor...)

The only proper way to self-boost your unarmed strikes is through Kensai, but Kensai doesn't enhance your monk abilities (hence, you might need to rely upon Superior Unarmed Strike, a Monk's Belt and a few others to keep some of the good parts of being a Monk),

Oh, and BTW: I also suggest everyone to get acid resistance, in case things go vitriolic. I, for once, will try to buffer up the thread. Chemistry joke, mwahaha!

[thompur]

Hey! It's not Monday! Shouldn't this be a 'why do fighters suck' thread.
But seriously, folks, one thing I give monks is Spring Attack for free for their unarmed strike and Flurry of blows, so that they can actually do what they're suppose to do.

[Veyr]

That's still not nearly enough.

[Dvandemon]

Are monks weaker with the weapons they're proficient with?

[Gnoman]

A big factor is also ability generation. MAD is really bad in a point-buy system, but potentially less in a rolled one, especially if yu have a generous DM that lets you reroll one stat.

[Darth Stabber]

Let monks take the one extra attack on a standard action attack or charge. Flurry gives you 1 extra attack, so just apply it a little further. Then they START to get close to their design goals.

[Lateral]

Oh, it's Monkday already? What happened to the weekend? :smalltongue:
--------
Okay, in all seriousness, I asked this question here when I was new at D&D, and the thread got to about 20 pages in a few days. I don't really think I can summarize everything said in that thread, but I could probably dig it up eventually.

Edit: Here we go. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=149509&page=3)

[Seerow]

Quick and Dirty version of make Monks not suck:

-Give them full BAB
-Give them a Soulknife-esque progression for their fists. Possibly let this apply to any non-enchanted monk weapon they hold.
-Give them Wis to hit/damage in place of strength.
-Let flurry's bonus attacks apply anytime you attack, as opposed to just full round actions.
-Add Spring Attack to the potential bonus feats, possibly also the PHB2 feat that gives you an extra attack on it as a level 6 bonus feat option.
-Abundant Step becomes usable more frequently (once per day is pretty horrible), and usable as a move action or swift action, rather than the normal standard action + end turn effect of dimension door. I'd give it at least 4 uses per day, or a per encounter limit instead.


These changes at least take the Monk from useless and push them into a strong skirmisher. They're still nowhere near the capability of casters, but they can compete with other melee types at least. A more comprehensive writeup/change would be needed to bring them up to the level of the tier 3 classes or higher.

[Vangor]

As said, choose the Unarmed Swordsage variant from ToB, frankly. The system seems ideal for the monk flavor by performing named maneuvers within stances and such, and this is mechanically capable.

Do note, plenty of people suggest "such and such option isn't bad because X anecdote". Anything of similar tier and similar optimization within a properly designed campaign will appear effective and likely will be. The issue is when you begin to find similar optimization in higher tiers or attempt to further optimize a pure or primary monk.

Monk issues are the amount of additional class features focused on saves despite all good saves, 3/4 BAB despite melee focus, and MAD.


But seriously, folks, one thing I give monks is Spring Attack for free for their unarmed strike and Flurry of blows, so that they can actually do what they're suppose to do.

Spring attack won't allow the monk to do anything better with flurry of blows. Flurry requires a full-attack action, and spring attack only functions with an attack option.

[Psyren]

Ok, well Thanks for taking me seriously, but from what I've seen my players do with a monk I don't really consider it weak.
We've done certain homebrew things to fix the lack of enhancement bonuses to hit and things.

Let me get this straight... you don't consider it weak... yet you homebrewed fixes for it?

Do you seriously not see the problem here? :smallconfused:

[Gnaeus]

Ok, well Thanks for taking me seriously, but from what I've seen my players do with a monk I don't really consider it weak.
We've done certain homebrew things to fix the lack of enhancement bonuses to hit and things.
Cheers for the quick response!:smallwink:

Good. If everyone is having fun, monk is fine. People should play what they like. If your group, as they play, begin learning what works better in the system, and the monk can't compete with the Druid Bear riding a Bear while summoning Bears, now you know why.

[only1doug]

someone in my group wanted to play a warforged monk, we are using Fax's reboot Monk (http://wiki.faxcelestis.net/index.php?title=Monk) progression and the Carmadine monk feat.

Still have flurry of misses. (currently L4 though, misses can be expected)

(Known Strikes: flurry of misses, Eye Gouge, Gentle Fist)

[The Precentor]

Whether or not a monk is going to appear weak in a particular campaign really depends on how optimized the rest of the party is. In terms of building a monk, due to them requiring high scores in multiple attributes in order to be good and the class itself having very little flexibility and choice within it (I'm assuming straight monk here), monks made by players of vastly different skill levels are going to come out pretty much the same in terms of power level (or at the very least, far more similar than fighters and wizards built by players of vastly different skill levels). As such, if the rest of the party has very weak optimization skills (say we have a sword and board fighter, a sorcerer who only knows direct damage spells, a cleric that just sits back and heals, and a rogue who is overly specialized in sneaking related stuff), then a monk is going to appear to be alright. When compared to better built (but not ridiculously optimized) parties, the monk is simply going to be useless (even if the monk's player tries to make a really optimized monk). In addition, whether or not the monk appears weak also really depends on what levels you play at. At low levels, everyone has crappy AC and BAB anyways, so the monk's issues there really don't matter too much. However, at higher levels the monk's low BAB, smaller hit dice, and low AC is going to matter a lot more. In addition, the monk's inability to wear armor and use most weapons means that the monk is really going to hurt when it comes to combat capabilities at later levels. Also at higher levels, while the rest of a party glows like a christmas tree due to their magic armor and weapons, the monk will still be walking around with his fists and bare skin, which is essentially the same stuff he has been using since level one. As such, depending on your particular group the monk can seem alright despite having serious power issues.

As to what the monk's actual issues are, they are as follows:
-Multiple Attribute Dependent, other classes need good scores in two attributes in order to be good, which works out well because you're only likely to roll good scores in two attributes. The monk needs good scores in almost everything in order to be good.
-Low BAB, the monk's primary roll is to deal damage in melee combat. The class's low BAB means that it's going to be missing a lot.
-Low Damage Potential, the monk's unarmed strike deals a pitiful amount of damage when compared to what a fighter or barbarian can dish out with a two handed weapon. This is assuming the monk even hits.
-Low AC, being at the front lines means a monk is going to get directly attacked a lot. The monk's low AC means that it's going to be hit a lot.
-Low HP, the monk can't take too many hits, which is problematic when it's going to be hit a lot.
-Limited access to magic weapons and armor, this issue makes all of the previous issues far more severe at higher levels.

Overall, I have the following to say about the monk. As a class, the monk's primary role is to hit dudes in the face from close range and be able to handle getting hit back. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and sometimes Rangers are the other classes from the PHB who have the same role as the monk. Fighters, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers are all better at hitting dudes in the face than a monk and handling getting hit back. Honestly, Rogues can generally handle themselves better in melee combat than monks can (especially at higher levels).

[Malevolence]

Hey! It's not Monday! Shouldn't this be a 'why do fighters suck' thread.
But seriously, folks, one thing I give monks is Spring Attack for free for their unarmed strike and Flurry of blows, so that they can actually do what they're suppose to do.

Spring Attack is not that good, particularly at what it is supposed to do.


Are monks weaker with the weapons they're proficient with?

Yes.


A big factor is also ability generation. MAD is really bad in a point-buy system, but potentially less in a rolled one, especially if yu have a generous DM that lets you reroll one stat.

Rolled stats simply means you randomly don't get enough stats, whereas a sufficiently high PB value could give you high enough stats. Good stats alone won't do it though.

[gomipile]

Why do I see Insane Clown Posse singing this thread's title in my mind's eye?


#$%ing Monks, why do they suck? And I don't wanna talk to a rules lawyer!





.....I really need some sleep.

[Amnestic]

#$%ing Monks, why do they suck? And I don't wanna talk to a rules lawyer!


This is one meme I will *never* get tired of. :smallbiggrin:

[Toofey]

Just grandfather in a 1st ed monk. That'll straighten you out.... after about 12 levels.

[Psyren]

#$%ing Monks, why do they suck?


{{scrubbed}}ing Binders, how do they work???

/bandwagon

[Noneoyabizzness]

They suck because tob, battle dancers, 3.5 ninjas, psychic warriors and fighters exist.

All do monkish flavor betterm

[Lateral]

They suck because tob, battle dancers, 3.5 ninjas, psychic warriors and fighters exist.

All do monkish flavor betterm

Well, except ninjas. They suck too.

[Seerow]

Well, except ninjas. They suck too.


So do Fighters, being better than a Monk doesn't mean they don't suck.

[Lateral]

True. Very true. Monks don't suck because there's other stuff that does their job better, although that does contribute. They suck because they just suck mechanically, from even an objective viewpoint.

[Half-Orc Rage]

Let me ask something. If I gave the monk a full BAB, and otherwise left them alone, would that make them a decent class or not really solve the problem?

[Ernir]

Let me ask something. If I gave the monk a full BAB, and otherwise left them alone, would that make them a decent class or not really solve the problem?

You'd be increasing its numbers, which would make it a slightly more powerful class. That is, a Monk with full BAB would obviously be better than a monk with 3/4 BAB.

BUT. It still does not address any of the fundamental issues.

[arguskos]

They suck because tob, battle dancers, 3.5 ninjas, psychic warriors and fighters exist.

All do monkish flavor betterm

Well, except ninjas. They suck too.

So do Fighters, being better than a Monk doesn't mean they don't suck.
So do Battle Dancers, if we're discussing such.

[Lateral]

Let me ask something. If I gave the monk a full BAB, and otherwise left them alone, would that make them a decent class or not really solve the problem?

It'd be a start, but it only fixes part of the problem. Now, give them the ability to flurry as a standard action, allow them to wear light armor and get Wis to AC in it, allow their fists to be enchanted, and revamp their class features so they're less random and more useful. Either that, or go play a swordsage or a Tash-warrior, but not everyone will want to do that.

[Daftendirekt]

Core monk 20 sucks. But there are perfectly viable builds with monk as the base. The one I played was Monk 4/Drunken Master 3/Warshaper 4/Fist of the Forest 3... and that campaign ended, so I never bothered figuring out what the rest of the levels would be (only ever actually got to the warshaper 2 part of it, actually). This was all with a Crane Hengeyokai, btw. And Carmendine Monk for skill-monkeyage.

[Eloel]

Core monk 20 sucks. But there are perfectly viable builds with monk as the base. The one I played was Monk 4/Drunken Master 3/Warshaper 4/Fist of the Forest 3... and that campaign ended, so I never bothered figuring out what the rest of the levels would be (only ever actually got to the warshaper 2 part of it, actually). This was all with a Crane Hengeyokai, btw. And Carmendine Monk for skill-monkeyage.
Best builds that act like a Monk don't have levels of Monk.
Best builds that have a Monk level are Monk 1/Wizard&PrCs 19

[Lateral]

That's not necessarily true. Many of the best Monklike builds (besides Swordsage builds) take levels in Monk. Tashalatora builds require one level of Monk to work, and many builds use 2 to 6 levels of Monk in order to springboard into PRC's. It just sucks for anything other than dipping.

[AslanCross]

The first two levels of Monk are actually very helpful for some of the builds that well...build on their strengths. For example, Monk 2/Swordsage X can get a lot of mileage out of those prerequisite-bypassing bonus feats.

[Gnaeus]

Don't forget Monk1/Druid 19. A Kung-Fu bear classic.

[Noneoyabizzness]

forget opt class or builds


a monk is supposed to be some hand to hand master with somewaht near mystical body over mind ability


battle dancer does serious damage and either inspires feits and eventually flys

why slow fall when you can fly?

ninjas sneakattack and ki pool abilities more flavor

fighters-feats-more ability to be skilled as a hand to hand combatant

[Heliomance]

Currently got a monk playing in the game I'm running. Having taken Flying Kick, Snap Kick and Flaming Fists, he's doing quite serious amounts of damage. I suspect he's outdamaging the party Warblade, though I haven't kept close track of the numbers.

I did give him full BAB with Monk weapons, though.

[soulchicken]

flurry as a standard action, base some of the other abilities like ethereal and dim door usage to occur more like Tome of Battle manuvers. Dim door once a day is pretty lame imo, but a swift dim door that you can use 1/encounter plus you can recover it with a full round action is much better. Dim door + flurry and then movement adds a lot of battlefield movement to this character. I'd also like to see them get damage reduction earlier on in their career. You finally get 10/magic DR at level 20? Like nothing out there uses magic weapons or isn't considered magic at that level. Besides, what does 10/magic DR make you immune to? Level 1-3 or 4 characters wielding bows?
Maybe featherfall at will instead of slow fall.

If you are playing an optimized game, then monks might be behind on the power curve, but correcting some of the more poorly thought out abilities makes them much better. You are passively immune to poison and disease, can heal yourself and jump off cliffs without dying. Plus if this is one of the first characters you play, leveling this character is awesome. You get stuff every level, or you get improvements to the stuff you already have. Perhaps thats the trap that gets people; they have something in their special ability column every level.

[The Glyphstone]

If you are playing an optimized game, then monks might be behind on the power curve, but correcting some of the more poorly thought out abilities makes them much better. You are passively immune to poison and disease, can heal yourself and jump off cliffs without dying. Plus if this is one of the first characters you play, leveling this character is awesome. You get stuff every level, or you get improvements to the stuff you already have. Perhaps thats the trap that gets people; they have something in their special ability column every level.

That is a big part of the problem - they look shiny to newbies.

Immune to poison and disease...very few poisons have the DC to threaten players by the time the Monk gets his immunity, so it's not really decisive. And Diseases never threaten anyone at all (except Mummy Rot) thanks to Cure Disease. Wholeness of Body is less total healing than a a couple of Cure Light spells, and anyone can not just jump off a cliff, but jump from the top of a mountain without anything to grab if they have a 2,000GP item.

Oh, and they can talk to trees. Monks are the Lorax.

[Firechanter]

Eh... it's really funny how this keeps coming up, not only on these forums. On my "regular" forum, which is not terribly D&D-centric, the same happened just today, someone claiming "the Monk is supposed to be a magekiller and he's very good at it". The problems that are discussed here on a nigh-weekly basis apparently were never identified over there.

Another guy actually challenged that poster to build a Monk 20, and he'd beat him with a core-only Wiz 20 even when the Monk rolls only natural 20s and the Wiz rolls only natural 1s on both any d20 rolls. That I found a bit dubious, but I guess it depends on whether the natural 1s also apply to Summons.

P.S.: back when 3.0 was young, I thought Monks were totally overpowered. XD

[Gnaeus]

Another guy actually challenged that poster to build a Monk 20, and he'd beat him with a core-only Wiz 20 even when the Monk rolls only natural 20s and the Wiz rolls only natural 1s on both any d20 rolls. That I found a bit dubious, but I guess it depends on whether the natural 1s also apply to Summons.


Assumptions. They start out 5 feet away. No buffs or contingencies up. Wizard chooses to be CE. All summons and gated creatures also roll only nat 1s.

Wizard uses WBL to buy some padded armor of greater fortification. This makes wizard immune to crits. No stunning fist or quivering palm. Wiz also buys a heavy constitution + item to survive round 1.

Monk wins init. 5 foot steps to wizard & full attacks. Crits 3 times (negated by armor) for average 31+ strx3 damage. Last 2 attacks are both grapples, pinning the wizard.

Wizard casts silent Dimension Door (His concentration check should allow him to succeed on a 1), and is now 900 feet away from the monk.

Monk full runs towards wizard. Base speed 90, we will give him run as a bonus feat and free 30 move from somewhere, monk is now 300 feet from wizard.

Wizard casts Gate. Balor appears right next to monk. Wizard shouts "I order you to stand next to that guy and use Blasphemy for the next 2 minutes."

Balor uses Blasphemy for the next 20 rounds. Monk is Dazed (no save) for the next 20 rounds. 20 rounds of 5 magic missiles each kills monk.

I'm sure there are other ways.

[Doc Roc]

I've killed an L20 fighter with an L13 Wizard, allowing every reasonable ruling to go in favor of the fighter. The monk, in this situation, is actually even weaker than the fighter. To be perfectly clear, we compared sheets after the battle, and the agreement was that it was completely unwinnable for the fighter.

[Malevolence]

I've killed an L20 fighter with an L13 Wizard, allowing every reasonable ruling to go in favor of the fighter. The monk, in this situation, is actually even weaker than the fighter. To be perfectly clear, we compared sheets after the battle, and the agreement was that it was completely unwinnable for the fighter.

When I was first starting to play, the DM thought it was a good idea to throw a level 15 and 2 level 8s at the then level 5 party. We killed both the 8s and half killed the 15 before they got us all on the railroad tracks, and we walked. Said enemies were Monks, which explains everything.

[Leon]

Ok, well Thanks for taking me seriously, but from what I've seen my players do with a monk I don't really consider it weak.


Its probably what the greater portion of gamers find - that its a decent class and does what they want. Those that don't find that it does certain things are rather noisy about it on forums.

[Doc Roc]

Its probably what the greater portion of gamers find - that its a decent class and does what they want. Those that don't find that it does certain things are rather noisy about it on forums.

Ehhh, it's come up in three games I've run. I don't know anyone who is surpassingly happy with the class.

[Leon]

Ehhh, it's come up in three games I've run. I don't know anyone who is surpassingly happy with the class.

3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)

[The Glyphstone]

When I was first starting to play, the DM thought it was a good idea to throw a level 15 and 2 level 8s at the then level 5 party. We killed both the 8s and half killed the 15 before they got us all on the railroad tracks, and we walked. Said enemies were Monks, which explains everything.

Geez, even Monks aren't supposed to be that bad - a level15 one should have wiped the floor with a lvl5 party, unless you guys were fairly well optimized. Or your DM was just that miserable.

[Reynard]

Anyone else think that the most... catastrophic Monk Thread should be stickied at it's name changed to "BEFORE ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MONK CLASS, READ THIS" ?

I mean, seeing a new Monk Thread every gorram week is a bit much.

[Firechanter]

If ceiling cat didn't mean for us to have a new Monk thread every week, he wouldn't have placed Monkday between Sunday and Tuesday.

[Kurald Galain]

You know what really sucks? A vampire monk...

/thread

[Leon]

You know what really sucks? A vampire monk...

/thread

Vacuums suck

[Eloel]

Vacuums suck

Unless they are branded Microsoft. It's the only thing they might ever have that doesn't suck.
Anyway, Monks?

[Teln]

Would having a monk take a Vow of Poverty help? I've heard it gets superb results. (Yes, this is a legitimate question, I've never played a monk but I'm considering one in a game that may or may not happen.)

[Malevolence]

Geez, even Monks aren't supposed to be that bad - a level15 one should have wiped the floor with a lvl5 party, unless you guys were fairly well optimized. Or your DM was just that miserable.

We were new players. I think the best PC there was a Ranger, who shoots things. Hardly powerhouses, and in no way comparable to anything I'd build today.

And aside from people that refuse to think critically, it is very painfully obvious that Monks suck. I've seen even brand new players give the PHB a once over and pronounce correctly that Fighters and Monks are terrible, and Druids are awesome.

[Malevolence]

Would having a monk take a Vow of Poverty help? I've heard it gets superb results. (Yes, this is a legitimate question, I've never played a monk but I'm considering one in a game that may or may not happen.)

Depends. Do you define help as "sitting helplessly on the ground, while everyone else is flying"? Or perhaps as "everyone else has standard WBL, you have things inferior to standard WBL"? Or maybe as "my character still takes a share of the useful character's loot, but instead of trying to use it to make himself suck a little less, he gives it away to random dirt farmers"?

Because if you do not mean any of those things, then no it does not help.

[Amphetryon]

Would having a monk take a Vow of Poverty help? I've heard it gets superb results. (Yes, this is a legitimate question, I've never played a monk but I'm considering one in a game that may or may not happen.)

No, it will often result in a Monk who is, in fact, weaker at mid-levels and beyond. Without VoP, the Monk can at least get some gear to help him deal with flying enemies. With VoP, he can only shake his mighty fists in nigh-helpless rage as the enemies fly above him.

[erikun]

Would having a monk take a Vow of Poverty help? I've heard it gets superb results. (Yes, this is a legitimate question, I've never played a monk but I'm considering one in a game that may or may not happen.)
No. Vow of Poverty can actually make a Monk worse, because now they have absolutely no way to fly and absolutely no way to damage anything incorporeal. They were relying on magic items for those capabilities, and VoP does not cover them.

[The Glyphstone]

We were new players. I think the best PC there was a Ranger, who shoots things. Hardly powerhouses, and in no way comparable to anything I'd build today.

And aside from people that refuse to think critically, it is very painfully obvious that Monks suck. I've seen even brand new players give the PHB a once over and pronounce correctly that Fighters and Monks are terrible, and Druids are awesome.

FailDM then. Monks suck horribly, but the sheer HP and damage output should have let that lvl15 example soak your entire party's damage output while taking out a PC every round or 2 (meleers in 1 round if they were in flurry range).

I may have mentioned it upthread, but the real sad part is that Monks get the coolest PrCs.
Drunken Master - three words For Medicinal Purposes.
Tatooed Monk - mediocre flavor, but can do some neat stuff.
Fist of Zuoken - punches you so hard you time travel into the future.

sadly, their requires chassis is atrocious, and they don't give enough mechanical power to overcome the fail that is Monk.

[Leon]

Would having a monk take a Vow of Poverty help? I've heard it gets superb results. (Yes, this is a legitimate question, I've never played a monk but I'm considering one in a game that may or may not happen.)

In a game where magic items are scarce its quite good but in a Standard Magicmart it falls behind over the vast array that can be used

[Malevolence]

FailDM then. Monks suck horribly, but the sheer HP and damage output should have let that lvl15 example soak your entire party's damage output while taking out a PC every round or 2 (meleers in 1 round if they were in flurry range).

While true, it isn't as out there as you think. Mr. 15 Monk was actually missing somewhat reliably, and unless you're 10 feet away or less, no full attack. That really does a nice job of shoving it to beatsticks right there.

I thought it was hilarious that he was obviously trying to set up a no win railroad, and it still almost failed.

[Theodoxus]

Re: VoP - every time it's brought up, the first reply is 'you can't fly'. Really? So you play with jerk spellcasters who aren't casting fly, overland flight, windwalk on you? You don't have dudes with flying carpets or paladins with dragon mounts? Nothing? huh, I guess if I were playing in your campaign, I'd be stoking the fire, awaiting your return from taking out the flying badguys that happen every encounter.

My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.

Looking at other suggestions, I like the idea of Abundant Step a per encounter ability. Basically anything that a monk can do that a swordsage can also do, should be usable as often. It'd of been nice if they'd errata'd the monk in ToB to make it more inline with the philosophy evident before the switch to 4th ed.

[Amphetryon]

Re: VoP - every time it's brought up, the first reply is 'you can't fly'. Really? So you play with jerk spellcasters who aren't casting fly, overland flight, windwalk on you? You don't have dudes with flying carpets or paladins with dragon mounts? Nothing? huh, I guess if I were playing in your campaign, I'd be stoking the fire, awaiting your return from taking out the flying badguys that happen every encounter.

My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.

On the first point: Requesting that another Character give up her actions once in a while so that you can do [x] is appropriate, and fun for all, generally. Requiring that another Character give up her actions - and spells - so that you may continue to contribute to level-appropriate encounters is much less appropriate and fun for all, IMO. Add to this that the Monk is statistically going to be contributing the least to dealing with those encounters, and the other Characters have little incentive other than Playing Nice to continue to visit the largess of donated actions and spells upon you, when those actions and spells are more intelligently and efficiently spent elsewhere.

On the second point: Power Attacking with less than full BAB would seem to exacerbate the issue of the Monk of Many Misses, unless there are additional parameters I'm missing.

[erikun]

Re: VoP - every time it's brought up, the first reply is 'you can't fly'. Really? So you play with jerk spellcasters who aren't casting fly, overland flight, windwalk on you? You don't have dudes with flying carpets or paladins with dragon mounts? Nothing? huh, I guess if I were playing in your campaign, I'd be stoking the fire, awaiting your return from taking out the flying badguys that happen every encounter.

My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.
Your Monk can't own a flying carpet, and the logic of "not owning but being the only person who rides around on it all the time" is pretty questionable. Riding in the backseat of a dragon mount makes you about as useful as a sack of grain to the fight in question. And really, are you going to run over to the Wizard and ask for a casting of Fly in the middle of a fight every time an opponent gets 10' off the ground?

Also, a Vow of Poverty Monk can't even have a masterwork quarterstaff. They can't own Shillelagh oil, or anything to grant Greater Magic Weapon on their stuff. They have no way of even doing meaningful damage from 10' away, and the only sling or shurikens they can own must be non-magical. Yes, the Wizard in the party can cast Greater Magic Weapon... and Fly... and Magic Vestments... and Protection from Evil. However, there gets to be a point when it all becomes too silly. What is the point of Vow of Poverty if the Wizard in the party needs to spend half a dozen buffs just to bring you up to the level of the equipment you would have normally? Even the Fighter can hit ghosts and chase after dragons with his basic equipment at that level.

And yes, your fix addresses a number of problems with the Monk. It's little surprise that they work at least as well as other melee characters with that. I've actually recommended changing Ki Strike to granting enhancement bonuses to Monk weapons, which kind of gives the same benefit.

[jiriku]

VoP just doesn't fix things. It's really quite favorable for the inexperienced player in the sense that it forces you to have things that you might not have thought to get for yourself, but the reduced flexibility and choice exposes the fact that the monk has enormous holes in its capabilities and isn't a well-rounded class. For example, the druid and the sorcerer also benefit a lot from VoP because (like the monk) they aren't gear-dependent classes, and they don't care that it doesn't grant flight... because (unlike the monk) druids and sorcerers don't need gear to fly, and can affect aerial targets just fine even when they are on the ground.

Most everybody who uses the monk homebrews a few extras sooner or later (shameless plug for my revised monk hombrew) -- the trick is in a) having enough time to do a proper job of it, and b) understanding the mechanics of the game well enough to do a proper job of it.

[Keld Denar]

Funny thing, everyone suggests VoP for monks because they don't rely on weapons or armor, but the truth of it is, monks are actually MORE gear dependant than any other class. They don't have reliable sources of bonus damage like 2:1 PA, so they need gear that grants increased UAS damage, or extra Str to make up for their MAD, or other misc items to keep up. They can't wear armor, so they need to come up with that bonus somewhere. This generally takes the form of Bracers of Armor, but thats the same slot where damage boosts like Armbands of Might go. They need +wisdom, +con, +enhancement to hit, and +natural armor all from the same neck slot. How is that fair? They need items to cover the things that spells normally cover.

Without gear, monks are even more crippled than normal. Without the MIC rules for combining base items, they have to make terrible choices between defense, offense, and utility, where most other classes, its not as dramatic of a choice. The most limited class is the one that is most penalized by the itemization in the DMG, and the most penalized in a low magic setting. Its like kicking a class thats already rolling around on the floor in pain.

[ThunderCat]

I've actually seen very few characters with flying items. They're usually only affordable around mid to high levels, and at that time, the wizard/sorcerer has already cast overland flight on everybody in the party, or has a couple of mass fly on hold. The efficiency of VoP depends highly on the level of optimisation and availability of magic items, but it can be an advantage, especially at lower levels.

[Darth Stabber]

I need some field data on VoP incarnum, but I think that might be the ideal use for that aweful feat. Their main class ability turns off magic item slots anyway, so the massive downside of the vow is mitigated. Though if you really want to make vop a more reasonable feat, kill the sacred vow requirement, infact make vop a trait rather than a feat and I would really like it.

[Keld Denar]

This Overland Flight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/overlandFlight.htm)? The one with a range of Personal? Baring some Spellguard of Silverymoon shananananananananananananananananigans, that's not really possible.

Mass Fly is still a pretty solid spell.

[JonestheSpy]

You know, I am fully aware of how weak monks are as written (though they're also very easy to fix), that they're written for a low magic world when the rest of the rules assume high magic, and yes, a wizard with a full complement of spells would win a fight because, duh, spellcasters are designed with the idea of having to ration spells through many encounters, not just blow them all on a single battle.

That being said, I have to say I find Gnaeus's post to be a sterling example of the habit of so many 'WZZRDS RULE' folks to assume all unclear rules must always work out in the wizard's favor, and forget about anything that disproves their hypothesis. To wit:


Assumptions. They start out 5 feet away. The wizard has no buffs or contingencies up. Wizard chooses to be CE. All summons and gated creatures also roll only nat 1s.

Wizard uses WBL to buy some padded armor of greater fortification. This makes wizard immune to crits. No stunning fist or quivering palm. Wiz also buys a heavy constitution + item to survive round 1.

Well, aside from the fact that Fortification protecting from a monk's stunning is a highly debatable rule interpretation (I wouldn't allow it), padded armor has a 5% spell failure chance, i.e. the same as rolling a 1 on a d20. By your own rules of engagement, wizard is not allowed to cast any spells, wizard loses right there.

Also, you're assuming a highly specific magic item buy for this single fight, yet you allow thought for no magic items the monk might own. See the problem?


Monk wins init. 5 foot steps to wizard & full attacks. Crits 3 times (negated by armor) for average 31+ strx3 damage. Last 2 attacks are both grapples, pinning the wizard.

Well, given that it's a well-known trick the one can Dimension Door out of a grapple pretty easily, why would the monk even try when they can use Improve Disarm and take away a wizard's wand, staff, ubiquitous Headband o' Brains, or spell component pouch?

Oh, and your damage calculations are assuming no damage-enhancing magic (which seems unlikely) or Power Attack. If the monk just chose to attack 5 times, it's quite probable they could hand the wizard 100 damage right there.


Wizard casts silent Dimension Door (His concentration check should allow him to succeed on a 1), and is now 900 feet away from the monk.

Well, aside from decent damage additions that I mentioned above making that check a wee bit harder, you've forgotten that monks' Abundant Step ability mimics Dimension Door. Monk jumps 800 feet closer to the wizard.


Monk full runs towards wizard. Base speed 90, we will give him run as a bonus feat and free 30 move from somewhere, monk is now 300 feet from wizard.

Oops, make that 5 feet.


Wizard casts Gate.

Oops, attack of opportunity! Just sayin'.


Balor appears right next to monk. Wizard shouts "I order you to stand next to that guy and use Blasphemy for the next 2 minutes."

Balor uses Blasphemy for the next 20 rounds. Monk is Dazed (no save) for the next 20 rounds. 20 rounds of 5 magic missiles each kills monk.

Now here we get to the real, biggest, most obvious flaw of this whole scenario - high level monks have spell resistance (the Blasphemy effect of a Balor has a Save too, but we'll let that slide). So guess what, no spells work, and the monk kills the wizard before he knows what's happening.


I'm sure there are other ways.

You know, there probably are, but in a real game a wizard doesn't have time to sit and spend hours figuring out the right strategy and is just as likely to make the same kind of mistakes made above, let alone buy equipment and choose spells suited to a specific battle - especially if they're so overconfident.

[2xMachina]

Well... the assumption that you can get Fly, etc off the Wizard pretty much makes it THE class to go to.

Also, Contigency (Dim. Door) stops you flat. When in grapple, I'm out of there at once. And with Overland Flight, it's easy to say, 900' UP. Have fun running up thin air.

[Keld Denar]

Couple things...

Padded Armor was probably a bad call on the person who posted it. More apt would be a Mithril Buckler of Fortification. Also, its not ambiguous...

Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned.
A wizard is a creature, correct? With fortification, he's immune to critical hits, correct? What's so ambiguous?

Abundant Step is 1/day. Thats part of the BIGGEST flaw in the ability. Yay...1/day. Weee! If he preps more than one Dim Door, thats game. If he prepped a Teleport and went even further than the Monk's abundant step can reach, thats game. Teleport is also verbal only, so you don't need components on hand, or free hands, to cast a silent teleport.

Blasphemy has no save. The save involved only applies if you have the Extraplanar subtype, and then its a save vs banishment. If you are on your native plane, that section doesn't apply to you.

Monk SR is by no means absolute, nor difficult to circumvent. SR is a tool for NPCs, not PCs. Most things a PC tends to fight often have higher caster levels. That alone already negates the chance to apply it down a bit. Then there is the fact that recieving helpful spells is a PitA. The above mentioned method of Blasphemy-lock wouldn't work in a 20 vs 20 battle though, but not for the reasons you gave. Blasphemy doesn't do anything if your HD are equal to the CL of the creature, and Balors have a CL of 20. If it was 17 vs 17, or even 19 vs 19, it would be a valid tactic, but at 20 not so much. Power Word:Stun would probably be the better tactic, if gating in a Balor to do your dirty work would be your chosen tactic, especially since Monks tend to be very MAD, and points put in Str, Wis, and Dex take away from the Con you need to get enough HP to be immune to PW:S.

All in all, you are correct, the above poster was a bit dilusional about some things. That doesn't negate his point, just his execution. Other ways still work, and are better.

[JonestheSpy]

Well, you have to remember that the fellow I was quoting was going on the absurd premise that a wizard who only rolled ones would still beat a monk rolling 20's, so SR would be quite relevant. Also, combined with a monk's high saves, SR can be very handy even if it doesn't work all the time - rather like a Concealment chance for spells.

And actually, IMO the biggest flaw in Abundant Step is that it's a standard action. For it to be really useful for a monk, it should count as a move action so they could use it and attack the same round. It certainly fits the mystical-Asian-warrior model better hat way.

Edit: the reason Fortification is open to interpretation is because it specifically says it only makes the user immune to damage form crits or SA's. Whereas Stunning Fist doesn't work on creature types immune to crit damage. Fortification does not change yout creature type, it just protects you from damage. One could rule either way I suppose, but really, when having to make a judgement call like that are you really going to rule in such a way that nerfs one of the monks only useful abilities?

And:




Also, Contigency (Dim. Door) stops you flat. When in grapple, I'm out of there at once. And with Overland Flight, it's easy to say, 900' UP. Have fun running up thin air.

No problem. Empty Body + Abundant Step + item that allows Ghost Touch = Surprise! Cause anyone who can become ethereal as a class feature and doesn't have the Ghost Touch ability via some method is really dumb. Not to mention the "Don't bother grappling" thing I mentioned earlier.

That's another overconfident wizard who thinks he's too badass to know his opponent's abilities biting the dust.

[Mojo_Rat]

Previously i have read the common themes in these discussions and while i had not played a Monk i agreed with what had been said on paper.

In our game that just endd My character died and i got to start a Monk at lvl 8 and it continued til the end of the Campaign at lvl 10. for the most part My views have changed.

I will preface saying this is all Pathfinder Stuff with no 3.5

I Built the character with he intent of having my bases covered. I split my 20 pt buy among str dex con wis. and after Gear and Racial (human) i was 18 18 14 16. i went with the Weapon Maser Archtype focused on the temple sword . when the game ended i had a
60 ft move saves of 12 13 12, evasion. And a CMB of +22 to Trip. on a flurry of Blows against a slowed or staggered or stunned or whatever target i could get /8/ attacks. with no Dr 6 of these at my highest Bab (which for the sword was +16, a bit lower for the Punches)

Ac of 27 (28 with mage armor) and 32 using Ki of which i had 9.

Was the character perfect? No it had holes in it, I could do 80 foot jumps but needed to be hasted to clear 20 feet high. couldnt See invis or Fly etc.

but really characters don't exist in a vacuum .

However, i will adMit. in a group where everyone was Uber optimized id have been far less effective Especially if bad guys were improved to compensate for that.

As it is minions needed 20's to hit me and many of the bbeg in the high teens.

[Firechanter]

> assume all unclear rules must always work out in the wizard's favor, and
> forget about anything that disproves their hypothesis.

Have to say I noticed that before in other environments.

> Well, aside from the fact that Fortification protecting from a monk's
> stunning is a highly debatable rule interpretation

Here I agree. Well, for that matter, I haven't seen it used so much ingame because of the price tag. Well, _if_ it really did make you "Immune to Critical Hits" it would be worth it, but as far as I can see the rules don't say that; they just say "there's a 100% chance that a critical hit will deal only normal damage".

That said, I guess it's already doing the Monk an implausible favour to start at 5' distance.

> padded armor has a 5% spell failure chance

Or use a Mithral Twilight Chainshirt, 0% ASF but costs another +1... that Heavy Fort armour (if it worked) would have a +7 total bonus now, but I guess at level 20 that's reasonable.

Also, Monk will probably have some stuff that grants him Flight, a Minor Ring of Universal Energy Resistance (to stop stuff like Acid Fog cold), and craploads of other utility stuff, which he can afford since he doesn't spend money on weapons.

> you've forgotten that monks' Abundant Step ability mimics Dimension Door. Monk jumps 800 feet closer to the wizard.

Right, but iirc Abundant Step also ends your turn.

> Oops, make that 5 feet.
> Oops, attack of opportunity! Just sayin'.

Even if the Monk has the Mage Slayer feat, what's to prevent the Wiz from taking a 5' Step and then casting whatever spell he wants?

>Now here we get to the real, biggest, most obvious flaw of this whole >scenario - high level monks have spell resistance (the Blasphemy >effect of a Balor has a Save too, but we'll let that slide).

SR30, which means the Balor (being CL20) has a 55% chance of getting it through. However, now that what I said in my previous post kicks in -- do the Summons also auto-1 or not? If they do, I guess the Wizard is screwed.

But either way, note that the "All 1s vs All 20s" wasn't my idea, and I think it's pretty meaningless. Sure, if the Wizard wins anyway (without bending any rules in his favour) that would prove that the Monk is so completely useless he could just hang himself, but otherwise this scenario proves... nothing.
A "Everyone rolls 10s all the time" would be more reasonable, and here I don't see much leeway for the Monk.

[The Glyphstone]

It'd also need a clause that lets it override Dimension Door's inability to act after using it. As-is, only that one tactical feat allows you to do so.

[jiriku]

It's a fair criticism. Most wizards don't invest in crit immunity through items, since their primary strategy is not to get hit. But, well, then we go down the road of how gosh-darn good wizards are at not getting hit. My wizard characters always have a least a couple of panic buttons to throw at high levels to get them out of the way if trouble threatens.

In general, panic buttons are good; in high-level play, they're vital. Wizards have them. Sorcerers and artificers have them in spades. Clerics and favored souls have them, as do beguilers and bards. Warblades and swordsages and crusaders have them. Factotums definitely do.

Monks, not so much.

[lightningcat]

I've only DMed for one monk. A third level VoP Monk, and at that level it was almost impossable to hit with level appropriate encounters.

That is not to say that the situation would continue with higher levels, and I don't think it would, but at low levels a monk can hold up. At mid levels probably not. And high levels has already been talked about to death.

[Keld Denar]

What stat generation method was used in this low level game? It really does make a difference. Buying points on a 25 PB budget is rough on a monk. That one annoying player who manages to roll 4 18s nearly every time you sit down at the table? That really tips the scale back the other way, especially at really low levels.

I just think the funniest thing is this phrase: "Monks are fine. I give them X, Y, Z, a cadilac, free rent, an an AR-15 assault rifle. Monks in my game aren't overshadowed at all."

Cause you know...if you have to fix it, maybe...just maybe...it might be broke?

[archon_huskie]

Monks don't suck.

Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.

The only class that really sucks is Truenamer.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Monks don't suck.

Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.

The only class that really sucks is Truenamer.

It doesn't do what it sells itself doing. That's the issue. While other classes are able to do things, that doesn't mean they're the standard. We all know wizards are nearly the strongest in the game, but we need not compare a wizard to a monk to show the monk's failures. A better metric would be either an unarmed fighter class, such as the swordsage, totemist, or, carp, even the barbarian class to show the monk's issues.

[JaronK]

It doesn't do what it sells itself doing. That's the issue.

I'd actually say the Fighter is worse in this regard. The fluff for fighters says they're supposed to be warlords, guards, and veteran soldiers. Yet they have no leadership or tactical abilities (such as Bardic Music, White Raven Maneuvers, Marshal Auras, Diplomacy, etc), no decent observational abilities (such as Spot or Listen or Sense Motive, Wisdom as a used stat, etc), and no military abilities (such as Knowledge History, or anything that helps with making the Heroes of Battle checks that show you know how to deal with battles).

Monks, meanwhile, are billed as being people who hit things with their fists. They are that. They're just not as good at it as they should be to compete.

Personally, I think Monks are designed exactly as intended... it's just that the game the designers intended us to play is not the game most folks play. The game we're supposed to play is one where Clerics are all healbots, Druids keep their Animal Companions back and use Wild Shape only for scouting and the like, Wizards and Sorcerers blast, and so on. In such a game, you die a lot, then roll up new characters and try again.

But they accidentally made Wizards, Clerics, and Druids FAR more powerful than they ever meant to, and many other classes were too strong too, and the result is the Monk ends up looking like a complete failure despite perfectly matching the design goals.

JaronK

[Gametime]

3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)

I'm not entirely sure why anecdotal evidence is obviously misguided, but vague assertions are reliable. I would, however, be inclined to agree that, at the very least, a large proportion of people who play 3.5 don't think monks suck. I am inclined to disagree that the suckiness of monks is determined by popular vote, though. Whether or not people enjoy playing monks is a very different issue from whether or not monks are bad (more on that in a second).




My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.



I'm not sure how Decisive Strike helps, since I'm pretty sure it's a full-round action to make the double damage attack. That said, Decisive Strike can allow for an okay build based on using it, then getting a truckload of double-damage AOO's off stuff like Karmic Strike, but even then you're better off taking as few levels of monk as possible in favor of classes with BAB to get the necessary feats faster. It still doesn't help the mobility issue.

[Keld Denar]

And...since JaronK posted, I feel like an obligatory tiers mention is in order.

Monks are a low tier, because while you CAN make one that is strong, it takes a LOT more work, and the return on investment is low. That is the meaning of a low tier class.

I can build you a monk that will absolutely kick ass, and be able to keep up with a group of T3s. It'll take some effort, a wide variety of books, a handful of other classes and prestige classes, and will probably only contain a few levels of monk in the end.

By contrast, I could just make a wizard and memorize Glitterdust and be just as effective. Or be a druid and take Natural Spell. Some classes are good enough on their own that you can make them very effective with little effort. These are high tier classes. Other classes take a LOT more effort to be effective, and in the end, the effort still might not be worth it. These are low tier classes. The monk is a low tier class.

[Gnaeus]

Well, aside from the fact that Fortification protecting from a monk's stunning is a highly debatable rule interpretation (I wouldn't allow it), padded armor has a 5% spell failure chance, i.e. the same as rolling a 1 on a d20. By your own rules of engagement, wizard is not allowed to cast any spells, wizard loses right there.

5% is statistically the same as a 1 on a d20, but it isn't a d20 roll. it is a percentile roll. Wizard is immune to critical hits, therefore to stunning.

He can't use the mithril twilight chainshirt. Not core.


Also, you're assuming a highly specific magic item buy for this single fight, yet you allow thought for no magic items the monk might own. See the problem?

A level 20 wizard, even an NPC, easily has enough money to buy this. Or make it. The monk can pick some items also.


Well, given that it's a well-known trick the one can Dimension Door out of a grapple pretty easily, why would the monk even try when they can use Improve Disarm and take away a wizard's wand, staff, ubiquitous Headband o' Brains, or spell component pouch?

Because none of those things actually stop D door. it is V only, and made silent with a metamagic feat, of which the wizard gets several for free.


Oh, and your damage calculations are assuming no damage-enhancing magic (which seems unlikely) or Power Attack. If the monk just chose to attack 5 times, it's quite probable they could hand the wizard 100 damage right there.

Sure. But wizard has a + con item, and his second highest stat is Con. Assuming a 20 Con (pitifully easy at level 20) Wizard has 123 HP if he rolled all 1s on his d4s, and is probably closer to 150.


Well, aside from decent damage additions that I mentioned above making that check a wee bit harder, you've forgotten that monks' Abundant Step ability mimics Dimension Door. Monk jumps 800 feet closer to the wizard.

Then wizard DDoors away again. I can do it several times a day. Can the monk?



Oops, attack of opportunity! Just sayin'.

5 foot step. Quickened Invisibility. AOOs are easy to avoid.



Now here we get to the real, biggest, most obvious flaw of this whole scenario - high level monks have spell resistance (the Blasphemy effect of a Balor has a Save too, but we'll let that slide). So guess what, no spells work, and the monk kills the wizard before he knows what's happening.

You know, you're right. I did forget that one. Fair enough. So the wizard is now several hundred feet away from the monk, and just needs a lockdown or kill method with no Saving Throw. Give me a few minutes



Monk SR is by no means absolute, nor difficult to circumvent. SR is a tool for NPCs, not PCs. Most things a PC tends to fight often have higher caster levels. That alone already negates the chance to apply it down a bit. Then there is the fact that recieving helpful spells is a PitA. The above mentioned method of Blasphemy-lock wouldn't work in a 20 vs 20 battle though, but not for the reasons you gave. Blasphemy doesn't do anything if your HD are equal to the CL of the creature, and Balors have a CL of 20

Sorry Keld. My PHB and the SRD agree that Blasphemy stuns when HD = Caster level. Thats why I chose the Balor over the Pit Fiend.

[Keld Denar]

Bah, I thought the daze was at CL-1, but its at CL. Weakened is the one at CL-1. My bad...:smallbiggrin:

[Firechanter]

I'm not entirely sure why anecdotal evidence is obviously misguided, but vague assertions are reliable.

"Anecdotal evidence isn't valid."
"Yes it is! I used anecdotal evidence once and later it turned out I was right! ... Or so I heard."

:smallbiggrin:

[Malevolence]

Re: VoP - every time it's brought up, the first reply is 'you can't fly'. Really? So you play with jerk spellcasters who aren't casting fly, overland flight, windwalk on you? You don't have dudes with flying carpets or paladins with dragon mounts? Nothing? huh, I guess if I were playing in your campaign, I'd be stoking the fire, awaiting your return from taking out the flying badguys that happen every encounter.

Overland Flight is a flat out illegal move, as it is self only. Air Walk only lasts an hour or three, and Fly lasts even less. Not to mention you are a VoP Monk, which means there's a long list of options that rank higher in priority than making a completely useless character only mostly useless. Additionally, Flying Carpets are crazy overpriced, and dragon flight doesn't work with full attackers.


My fix, which has made every monk player I've DM'd happy was to let monk weapons do monk fist damage - lots of Power Attack 2-handed quarterstaff builds with that one change alone. Most also took the ACF Decisive Strike as well, which helped with the whole move -> attack problem of flurry.

This makes them suck somewhat less, but they still can't hit worth a damn.


Looking at other suggestions, I like the idea of Abundant Step a per encounter ability. Basically anything that a monk can do that a swordsage can also do, should be usable as often. It'd of been nice if they'd errata'd the monk in ToB to make it more inline with the philosophy evident before the switch to 4th ed.

For Abundant Step to even begin to be a not joke ability, it has to lose the "end turn" clause. As long as that is there, it is only useful for running away.


VoP just doesn't fix things. It's really quite favorable for the inexperienced player in the sense that it forces you to have things that you might not have thought to get for yourself, but the reduced flexibility and choice exposes the fact that the monk has enormous holes in its capabilities and isn't a well-rounded class. For example, the druid and the sorcerer also benefit a lot from VoP because (like the monk) they aren't gear-dependent classes, and they don't care that it doesn't grant flight... because (unlike the monk) druids and sorcerers don't need gear to fly, and can affect aerial targets just fine even when they are on the ground.

Sorcerers lose hard on VoP for much the same reasons as everyone else. The only class it's even a discussion for is Druids. And even then, WBL is better. It's just closer than with any other class.

Monks are the most equipment dependent class in the entire game. I don't know why anyone would claim otherwise.


Well, aside from the fact that Fortification protecting from a monk's stunning is a highly debatable rule interpretation (I wouldn't allow it), padded armor has a 5% spell failure chance, i.e. the same as rolling a 1 on a d20. By your own rules of engagement, wizard is not allowed to cast any spells, wizard loses right there.

Also, you're assuming a highly specific magic item buy for this single fight, yet you allow thought for no magic items the monk might own. See the problem?

Heavy Fort is a standard item at all levels 15+. It specifically negates stunning.

Barring something silly like Dust of Sneezing and Choking, it matters not one bit what items the Monk has.


Well, given that it's a well-known trick the one can Dimension Door out of a grapple pretty easily, why would the monk even try when they can use Improve Disarm and take away a wizard's wand, staff, ubiquitous Headband o' Brains, or spell component pouch?

And then die anyways.


Oh, and your damage calculations are assuming no damage-enhancing magic (which seems unlikely) or Power Attack. If the monk just chose to attack 5 times, it's quite probable they could hand the wizard 100 damage right there.

At which point he survives easily, and wins anyways, because 100 damage full attacks are abysmally low.


Now here we get to the real, biggest, most obvious flaw of this whole scenario - high level monks have spell resistance (the Blasphemy effect of a Balor has a Save too, but we'll let that slide). So guess what, no spells work, and the monk kills the wizard before he knows what's happening.

Correct, the Monk will have extreme difficulty being buffed by allies. I'm not sure what this has to do with some penis waving one on one fight though. It will not stop actual hostile spells from landing, as it is beyond trivial to trivialize.


You know, there probably are, but in a real game a wizard doesn't have time to sit and spend hours figuring out the right strategy and is just as likely to make the same kind of mistakes made above, let alone buy equipment and choose spells suited to a specific battle - especially if they're so overconfident.

What specific gear is this again? Why is this plan taking hours? It's basic mook swatting measures. Which is only one letter off.



Edit: the reason Fortification is open to interpretation is because it specifically says it only makes the user immune to damage form crits or SA's. Whereas Stunning Fist doesn't work on creature types immune to crit damage. Fortification does not change yout creature type, it just protects you from damage. One could rule either way I suppose, but really, when having to make a judgement call like that are you really going to rule in such a way that nerfs one of the monks only useful abilities?

It states that it does not work on a list of things containing four creature types, one creature subtype, and creatures immune to critical hits. It is extremely clearcut. You are immune if any of the following are true:

Your creature type is Construct, Ooze, Plant, or Undead.
You have the Incorporeal subtype.
You are immune to critical hits.

Anyone with Heavy Fort meets the third criteria, ergo no effect. Not to mention that outside of some Monk always rolls 20s, Wizard always rolls 1s scenario Stunning Fist is a non factor, because he will save on a 2+. It is also worth mentioning Monks are the only class in the entire game that cannot get Heavy Fort. One more reason why they suck.


Previously i have read the common themes in these discussions and while i had not played a Monk i agreed with what had been said on paper.

In our game that just endd My character died and i got to start a Monk at lvl 8 and it continued til the end of the Campaign at lvl 10. for the most part My views have changed.

I will preface saying this is all Pathfinder Stuff with no 3.5

I Built the character with he intent of having my bases covered. I split my 20 pt buy among str dex con wis. and after Gear and Racial (human) i was 18 18 14 16. i went with the Weapon Maser Archtype focused on the temple sword . when the game ended i had a
60 ft move saves of 12 13 12, evasion. And a CMB of +22 to Trip. on a flurry of Blows against a slowed or staggered or stunned or whatever target i could get /8/ attacks. with no Dr 6 of these at my highest Bab (which for the sword was +16, a bit lower for the Punches)

Ac of 27 (28 with mage armor) and 32 using Ki of which i had 9.

Was the character perfect? No it had holes in it, I could do 80 foot jumps but needed to be hasted to clear 20 feet high. couldnt See invis or Fly etc.

but really characters don't exist in a vacuum .

However, i will adMit. in a group where everyone was Uber optimized id have been far less effective Especially if bad guys were improved to compensate for that.

As it is minions needed 20's to hit me and many of the bbeg in the high teens.

Then you were fighting weak minions and weaker BBEGs. At level 10, AC 28 is borderline hit on a 2 by normal fights. Bosses will have no trouble doing so.


It's a fair criticism. Most wizards don't invest in crit immunity through items, since their primary strategy is not to get hit. But, well, then we go down the road of how gosh-darn good wizards are at not getting hit. My wizard characters always have a least a couple of panic buttons to throw at high levels to get them out of the way if trouble threatens.

It's more common via Elemental Body (which explicitly grants stun immunity, along with perfect flight, critical hit immunity, and other things) or the Heart of line, because they come online sooner. It's the same end result though. Everyone that knows better gets Heavy Fort. Except Monks, because they can't.


In general, panic buttons are good; in high-level play, they're vital. Wizards have them. Sorcerers and artificers have them in spades. Clerics and favored souls have them, as do beguilers and bards. Warblades and swordsages and crusaders have them. Factotums definitely do.

Monks, not so much.

They can Abundant Step away. That's a panic button, right?


Monks don't suck.

Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.

The only class that really sucks is Truenamer.

Flurry of Blows.

[Doc Roc]

3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)

Sure, but then it comes up once in a while, and their session is ruined.

In programming, corner cases are still bugs.



"Anecdotal evidence isn't valid."
"Yes it is! I used anecdotal evidence once and later it turned out I was right! ... Or so I heard."

:smallbiggrin:

While not valid as a source of empirical evidence under normal circumstances, he was insisting that it simply never came up. {k !E in set A} is proven wrong by {k E in set A}. Also, SMBC is awesome.

[MeeposFire]

Monks can get heavy fortification you can put it on your bracers of defense for one.

[NNescio]

VoP Monks are rather decent in low-magic campaigns with a stingy DM (read: wealth way below WBL) and with the PCs being threatened with loss of their gear all the time.

That's an extreme corner case though.

[Gnaeus]

3 games out of how many across everyone who plays D&D?
The greater majority I'd hazard a guess just enjoy the game they play and not get bogged down in intricacies of things that routinely come up on this (and quite likely many other forums)

I would also suggest that in many of the games in which it doesn't present a problem, it is entirely because of player attitude. I've seen games where the monk underperforms, dies, loses a level, underperforms more because he is now lower level, etc, but it wasn't a problem as such, because the player just shrugged and had a good time.

That doesn't mean that monk was fulfilling its party role or performing well, the player just didn't care, and to the degree that he did care, he assigned the blame to luck rather than to the class that he wanted to love.

[Keld Denar]

VoP ANYTHING is good in that situation though. VoP comes out to be ~60% WBL, when you add everything up. If your DM is only giving you 20% WBL in treasure, automatically getting 60% WBL is a pretty dang good deal. A VoP fighter wielding a quarterstaff 2handed with Power Attack is gonna dramatically outclass and out damage a VoP monk.

Its not a function of monks, its a function of DMs and WBL.

[Malevolence]

Monks can get heavy fortification you can put it on your bracers of defense for one.

169k. 105k more than normal +8 Bracers. 70k more than just adding it to normal armor. Or to put it better, three times as expensive. On a class that has little spare gold to begin with.

Not to mention if you have obscure book access such as the Arms and Equipment guide, which is the only place you can do that you can just be an Unarmed Swordsage, or hell, an Unarmed Cleric and punch people out that way.


VoP Monks are rather decent in low-magic campaigns with a stingy DM (read: wealth way below WBL) and with the PCs being threatened with loss of their gear all the time.

That's an extreme corner case though.

In campaigns like that, there is only one option, and that option is a primary spellcaster.

[Shyftir]

We should just make a "Why Monks are Bad" handbook and sticky it.

But then what would we talk about on Mondays?

[Malevolence]

We should just make a "Why Monks are Bad" handbook and sticky it.

But then what would we talk about on Mondays?

Pizza. What, what do you mean that's too short?

[Malevolence]

That's why I put that conditional in.

'though now that I think about it, most manifesting classes are better, and it's easy for druids to get their Divine Focus back even if they lose them.

That conditional doesn't really change anything. Either way, no one has any magic defense, because it's low magic, so you'll just run right over everything.

[warmachine]

Alas, D&D is a combat oriented game, so poor stats means sucking at combat and, thus, D&D. In some RPGs, some perfectly good character concepts can go with poor combat abilities but D&D is combat oriented. That idea is so vital, it needed to be written twice.

Of course, D&D is still an RPG and there is scope for non-combat roles. Let's consider how the monk can handle a variety of roles.

Face man: CHA tends to be a dump stat and lacks Bluff as a class skill.
Investigator: lacks some skills as class skills, such as Gather Information and Search, only has only 4+INT skills and no spells either.
Sage: only 4+INT skills with INT being a low priority and most sage skills aren't class skills.
Healer: next!
Thief: better but lacks Open Lock and Disable Device and no spells either.

In all these cases, you're better off with a Bard or Rogue.

Let us reconsider various combat roles.

Tank: poor armour and damage dealing.
Opportunist striker: speed is good but 2/3 BAB progression and no strike capability isn't.
Battlefield control/debuffer: no spells or area effect abilities.
Artillery: poor ranged weapons.
Buffer/healer: no spells.

Mostly, you're still better off with a Bard.

Monks don't excel at any role whereas even Bards easily excel at face man. They lack the skill points and class skills to usefully contribute to a variety of roles whereas Bard has more skill points, class skills and has spells.

How about what some think is cool or fun.

Touchy-feely love: no.
Nag people to behave themselves: doesn't fit whereas this fits Cleric or Paladin.
Lesbian, stripper ninja: this works.
Emo kid: doesn't fit, try Warlock.
Kung fu hijinks: now you're talking.



So, the Monk sucks except for stunts that are cool but aren't really that useful.

[NNescio]

That conditional doesn't really change anything. Either way, no one has any magic defense, because it's low magic, so you'll just run right over everything.

Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

[Doc Roc]

Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

In a world of monks, the one-monked monk is king.

[RaginChangeling]

Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

Depends, if the DM is nerfing everyone equally they're still going to be about on par. A Fighter with a Quarterstaff and power attack is better than a Monk doing the same thing in a no wealth campaign, and a Wizard can take eschew materials and such. If, hypothetically, it was a no wealth campaign where Eschew Materials was banned, no one but the monk was allowed to take Improved Unarmed Strike and improvised weapons were given a damage of 1d2 and always treated as light weapons... The monk still loses to Divine casters, but at very low levels it would be better in combat than anyone but the Druid.

[tyckspoon]

169k. 105k more than normal +8 Bracers. 70k more than just adding it to normal armor. Or to put it better, three times as expensive. On a class that has little spare gold to begin with.

Not to mention if you have obscure book access such as the Arms and Equipment guide, which is the only place you can do that you can just be an Unarmed Swordsage, or hell, an Unarmed Cleric and punch people out that way.


The best way to get Heavy Fort is actually a dragon item- Gemstone of Fortification, in Draconomicon. 35,000 GP, which is quite cheap for the effect, plus a Limited Wish or similar magic to get it implanted in yourself if you aren't already a dragon or something else with thick skin that doesn't much mind having bits of rock jabbed in it.

[blackjack217]

Without Homebrew anyone with enough wisdom to function as a monk has enough wisdom to know to be something else.

[tyckspoon]

Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

Survivability. Specifically, survivability against non-AC attacks; all good saves, Evasion and Improved Evasion acquired earlier than even the Rogue, Still Mind, and encouraged to invest in its defensive stats. Unfortunately, "I'm still alive" is not a particularly valuable niche.. unless your party dies a lot and you need somebody who can reliably duck out of the TPK and carry your corpses back to base for resurrection. Monks can do that pretty well.

[Gnaeus]

So, in core with the only roll 1s/20s rule, granted the SR which I forgot before, I think the wizard has to resort to suffocation. So:
Resilient Sphere. Cast all normal long term buffs, including Shapechange, stone skin, mirror image, False life. Fast Heal all damage done by monk on round 1. At this point, if you mess up and the monk gets an attack on you, he is no real threat. Take a fast flying form, like a dragon.

Fly to 60 feat or so away from monk. Forcecage him (No SR, No save). Put walls of stone around the barred forcecage, making a box. Fill the box with sand, water or mud (for example, by shapechanging into something huge, with high str, picking up rocks, tossing them in and casting rock to mud.) once the box is filled with mud, turn the mud back into rock around the outside, creating an airtight seal. 40 hours later, by the time the forcecage drops, monk should be dead. (you could also earthglide into the box (outside the cage), and disintegrate or burn up the air to speed things up)

If monk hasn't used his DDoor yet, he can escape the forcecage, once. Forcecage him again and he is done.

There are lots of faster methods, which are also kills, but they are either non-core, or require a d20 roll.


Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

They are decent in Gestalt, or as 1-2 level dips.

[Amphetryon]

With Tashelatora (which I probably misspelled) or to give yourself a challenge, it's a good choice.

Otherwise, Monk is good if it's the archetype you most enjoy, and none of the mechanically superior options are available to you. After all, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.

[Darth Stabber]

Otherwise, Monk is good if it's the archetype you most enjoy, and none of the mechanically superior options are available to you. After all, if you're having fun, you're doing it right.
Actually monks are so bad that even if you are having fun your still wrong. And fighter is a superior option in any game.

[Lans]

Martial Monk variant is a superior dip than fighter. Due to it not needing to meet its prereqs for its bonus feats. Add in invisible fist variant and you have something to work with.

[JaronK]

Martial Monk variant is a superior dip than fighter. Due to it not needing to meet its prereqs for its bonus feats. Add in invisible fist variant and you have something to work with.

Yeah, but VERY unlikely to be allowed. The first time you claim you're taking Perfect Two Weapon Fighting and Weapon Superiority at levels 1 and 2 is the first time you get smacked with a rulebook.

JaronK

[Lans]

Probably depends on the group. I'm sure their are some groups that will just roll their eyes when you say your playing a broken monk.

[ThunderCat]

This Overland Flight (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/overlandFlight.htm)? The one with a range of Personal? Baring some Spellguard of Silverymoon shananananananananananananananananigans, that's not really possible.

Mass Fly is still a pretty solid spell.My mistake (or actually the party wizard's), but that still leaves fly, mass fly, phantom steed, phantom stag, and probably a couple of others I don't remember. It probably helped that our last high-level party had a War Weaver in it :smallwink:

[Malevolence]

Okay, so do monks have an extreme niche somewhere where they could be viable, or do they just universally suck no matter how much the DM screws over the other classes?

They are an excellent source of experience points and treasure for the classes that are worth something. They are also an excellent source of comic relief, when they make six attacks and miss all of them only to be knocked out in one punch by a Cleric. But aside from that? Yes, they're terrible, and any attempt to make others as terrible as they are will fail.


Survivability. Specifically, survivability against non-AC attacks; all good saves, Evasion and Improved Evasion acquired earlier than even the Rogue, Still Mind, and encouraged to invest in its defensive stats. Unfortunately, "I'm still alive" is not a particularly valuable niche.. unless your party dies a lot and you need somebody who can reliably duck out of the TPK and carry your corpses back to base for resurrection. Monks can do that pretty well.

Monks have average saves. And if the party is dying a lot, having a useful party member would be better.


My mistake (or actually the party wizard's), but that still leaves fly, mass fly, phantom steed, phantom stag, and probably a couple of others I don't remember. It probably helped that our last high-level party had a War Weaver in it :smallwink:

Fly = low duration. Mass Fly = only useful when there are multiple, useful non fliers. The others don't work with Monks. So that's not happening.

[Killer Angel]

Monks don't suck.
Powergamers have this idea that if a group of classes has higher stats, then a group of classes with lower stats must therefore suck.


I've played a short campaign in a group with no optimization at all (probably, the strongest character was my ranger, which is self-explanatory), and the monk was by far our weakest member

[ThunderCat]

Fly = low duration. Mass Fly = only useful when there are multiple, useful non fliers. The others don't work with Monks. So that's not happening.Winged boots have an even shorter duration, phantom steeds are no less useless than carpets of flying, and most parties are going to have multiple useful members that don't get fly on their own.

[LordBlades]

Winged boots have an even shorter duration, phantom steeds are no less useless than carpets of flying, and most parties are going to have multiple useful members that don't get fly on their own.

That depends entirely on the level of optimization. Most casters can fly on their own, and most optimized non-casters have the need to fly taken into account (flying mounts, items, grafts, races with wings etc.)

[ThunderCat]

That depends entirely on the level of optimization. Most casters can fly on their own, and most optimized non-casters have the need to fly taken into account (flying mounts, items, grafts, races with wings etc.)Phantom steed and phantom stags can fly at level 14 and flying items are usually expensive. A lot of times, we've found it more practical to save the money and just have the caster(s) provide flight. I agree that a monk with VoP can't truly shine in a party with even basic optimisation, but unless the whole party consists of casters who can fly (in which case the monk is even more useless), the lack of independent flying doesn't have to be that crippling.

[Malevolence]

Winged boots have an even shorter duration, phantom steeds are no less useless than carpets of flying, and most parties are going to have multiple useful members that don't get fly on their own.

Winged boots take your own action, not the action of those trying to win the fight. Said other characters are also less gear dependent than the Monk, because everything is, meaning that they are more likely to have flying boots. And of course there is a 0% chance a VoP Monk has those things. Comparing Phantom Steed to Carpets of Flying is not a point in the flying spell's favor.

And just who are these multiple non fliers? They certainly are not Clerics, Druids, Wizards, or Sorcerers. They likely are not Psions either, or Favored Souls.

[TroubleBrewing]

So... Non-Tier 1 or 2 classes. Probably not Tier 3 classes, either. I think we're done here.

[Sims]

What really sucks about Abundant Step is that you can only do it once per day. And the Prestige, Tattooed Monk, sucks too. Only like 3 or 4 of the Tattoos are useful. The rest are that "Once per day" bull crap.

A Monk should have better BAB and Unarmored AC Bonus. Plus let them use Abundant Step 3-5 times per day. (Or like once per day per 2 levels of Monk)

They should automatically get Weapon Focus, and perhaps Weapon Specialization for their Unarmed Strikes.

I think these tweaks would bump them up quite a bit.

[ThunderCat]

And just who are these multiple non fliers? They certainly are not Clerics, Druids, Wizards, or Sorcerers. They likely are not Psions either, or Favored Souls.There happens to be 4 whole tiers beneath those. I think we already agreed that in a high optimisation environment, monks don't stand a chance, and the only way for them to be even remotely useful is to be able to do everything themselves, because wasting even a swift action on the monk is not worth it for anybody else.

[TroubleBrewing]

A Monk should have better BAB and Unarmored AC Bonus. Plus let them use Abundant Step 3-5 times per day. (Or like once per day per 2 levels of Monk)

They should automatically get Weapon Focus, and perhaps Weapon Specialization for their Unarmed Strikes.

I think these tweaks would bump them up quite a bit.

Weapon Focus and Weapon Spec won't help at all. They're terrible feats, and giving them for free provides a negligible power boost.

If you want a "Monk fix", as has been stated many, many times, try Unarmed Swordsage.


There happens to be 4 whole tiers beneath those. I think we already agreed that in a high optimisation environment, monks don't stand a chance, and the only way for them to be even remotely useful is to be able to do everything themselves, because wasting even a swift action on the monk is not worth it for anybody else.

High optimization has nothing to do with it. Even a blaster wizard preps Fly. If you're in a game with any kind of full caster, a monk gets outclassed.

[Gnaeus]

All tier 1s and 2s can fly under their own power.

All casters can fly under their own power. For a few of them, it requires taking a feat or spell list expanding PRC to do so. For some, it involves summoning or creating a flying mount and riding it. Even the tier 5 paladin can cast a spell to let his mount fly.

That leaves:

Tier 3: Crusader, Warblade,

Tier 4: Rogue (can UMD a wand of fly), Barbarian, Scout, Marshal,

Tier 5: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer (Can Gate in something to fly), Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife (not sure), Expert (can UMD a wand of fly), Knight

So of the 30 classes in the tier list, about 12 can't fly, and about 3 have difficulty flying.

That list doesn't include MoI, but I think they can fly. It also doesn't include Spirit Shaman, Wu Jen, Shukenja or Dragon Shaman, all of whom can fly. Samurai is tier 6 and cannot fly. Am I missing anyone?

Edit: Lets also point out that some of those (like Scout, and some Fighters), have good ranged combat ability. It isn't as good as just being able to take to the air, but they aren't shut out like a monk is just because a fight is happening 40 feet off the ground. Knight's challenge may be able to make their enemies come to them. Warblade and Crusader can give a caster an extra turn (WRT) so that it doesn't take time to buff them for flight.

[vikingofdoom]

For the tier 3's: only SS gets flight normally (Balance on the Sky or Rising Phoenix, both 8th level stances). The others don't normally get the ability to fly, and would need a large investment of feats to get the stances (both requires 4 feats (3 pre-reqs each) and RP requires that you remain within 10 feat of the ground, while BotS requires that you keep one hand empty.

[Gnaeus]

For the tier 3's: only SS gets flight normally (Balance on the Sky or Rising Phoenix, both 8th level stances). The others don't normally get the ability to fly, and would need a large investment of feats to get the stances (both requires 4 feats (3 pre-reqs each) and RP requires that you remain within 10 feat of the ground, while BotS requires that you keep one hand empty.

Thanks Viking. I will amend.

[Elric VIII]

I have to say, while Monk 20 (or any amount of levels above 6) is bad, Monk 2 is pretty good.

It grants:

+3 to all saves.

3 feats (IUS, Imp Grapple or Stunning Fist, and Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows) waiving all pre reqs.

Evasion (that functions in light armor).

4+Int skill points/level

If you're unarmord, for some reason, you get Wis to AC and Flurry (although if you want this you're better off with a Monk's Belt)

[TroubleBrewing]

It's... Not a bad 2-level dip. But I wouldn't call it good.

[Malevolence]

There happens to be 4 whole tiers beneath those. I think we already agreed that in a high optimisation environment, monks don't stand a chance, and the only way for them to be even remotely useful is to be able to do everything themselves, because wasting even a swift action on the monk is not worth it for anybody else.

And three of those four are primarily defined by what they cannot do. The last, Tier 3 generally can either fly, or doesn't need to fly, because they can do something from the ground. A party of say... Beguiler, Crusader, Warblade, and Monk is hardly high optimization, but still mostly contains people that either don't need to fly or do but can provide their own flight. And in any case there's no flight casters here, because those are limited to the top two tiers with few if any exceptions. In such a party the Beguiler is going to be spamming save or loses, the Crusader is going to be flying and attacking, and WRTing the Beguiler, the Warblade is going to be doing much the same thing, and the Monk is going to be missing his own touch AC.

[Malevolence]

I have to say, while Monk 20 (or any amount of levels above 6) is bad, Monk 2 is pretty good.

It grants:

+3 to all saves.

3 feats (IUS, Imp Grapple or Stunning Fist, and Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows) waiving all pre reqs.

Evasion (that functions in light armor).

4+Int skill points/level

If you're unarmord, for some reason, you get Wis to AC and Flurry (although if you want this you're better off with a Monk's Belt)


The only reason this is a factor is because beatsticks have to desperately hunt for any low hanging fruit they can find.

[Elric VIII]

The only reason this is a factor is because beatsticks have to desperately hunt for any low hanging fruit they can find.

Agreed. While I would never personally play something so mundane, I think it can be useful to the magically-challenged.

[Seerow]

I have to say, while Monk 20 (or any amount of levels above 6) is bad, Monk 2 is pretty good.

It grants:

+3 to all saves.

3 feats (IUS, Imp Grapple or Stunning Fist, and Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows) waiving all pre reqs.

Evasion (that functions in light armor).

4+Int skill points/level

If you're unarmord, for some reason, you get Wis to AC and Flurry (although if you want this you're better off with a Monk's Belt)


Sure, if you ignore that you gave up a full point of BAB for it. This means later entry to a lot of prestige classes, late qualification for key feats, and just hitting less in general.

If you're trying to optimize a high save +evasion/mettle build, sure it may be worth it... but in that case there are better ways to go about it. Namely a charisma build with dips into Paladin and Marshall.

For any typical beatstick I'd still rather dip Fighter 2 and get two feats of my choosing without losing any BAB than dip Monk 2 and be restricted to 4 feats, only one of which is a generally taken feat (Combat Reflexes). Only reason I'd dip monk is if I was looking for the unarmed/unarmored combat and had an awesome PrC in mind.

[Gnaeus]

For any typical beatstick I'd still rather dip Fighter 2 and get two feats of my choosing without losing any BAB than dip Monk 2 and be restricted to 4 feats, only one of which is a generally taken feat (Combat Reflexes). Only reason I'd dip monk is if I was looking for the unarmed/unarmored combat and had an awesome PrC in mind.

Monk 1/Druid 19. Not as good as Druid 20, but if you plan to be doing a lot of melee & grappling, its decent.

[Keld Denar]

Awesome in spite of the monk level, not because of it.

[Gnaeus]

Thats a little unfair. Improved Grapple and Wis to AC helps Druid a lot. It isn't worth losing a caster level for. But in campaigns without wildling clasps or before you can afford a Monks Belt, it is solid enough. Adding ranks in Know: Religion, Hide, Move Silently and Tumble don't hurt either. Know Religion helps to get into PRCs, and the druid often has available skill points.

[Lans]

That list doesn't include MoI, but I think they can fly. It also doesn't include Spirit Shaman, Wu Jen, Shukenja or Dragon Shaman, all of whom can fly. Samurai is tier 6 and cannot fly. Am I missing anyone?

Magic of incarnum classes can get some flight. Healer can get a companion that can fly or cast fly I believe.

Ranger I'm not totally sure on.
Binders I'm not sure out side of the summoning vestige
I don't think Shadowcasters can.
Trunamers can unrealibly

[Gnaeus]

Magic of incarnum classes can get some flight. Healer can get a companion that can fly or cast fly I believe.

Ranger I'm not totally sure on.
Binders I'm not sure out side of the summoning vestige
I don't think Shadowcasters can.
Trunamers can unrealibly

Rangers have at least 3 ways. Flying AC. Wildshape Variant. Summon Natures Ally 2+.

[Malevolence]

Thats a little unfair. Improved Grapple and Wis to AC helps Druid a lot. It isn't worth losing a caster level for. But in campaigns without wildling clasps or before you can afford a Monks Belt, it is solid enough. Adding ranks in Know: Religion, Hide, Move Silently and Tumble don't hurt either. Know Religion helps to get into PRCs, and the druid often has available skill points.

Monk's Belt gives you everything from a Monk that matters. At levels before you can afford a 13k item, you also don't really need the bonus. Druids have no business ever PRCing, so that's a pointless point to bring up.


Magic of incarnum classes can get some flight. Healer can get a companion that can fly or cast fly I believe.

Ranger I'm not totally sure on.
Binders I'm not sure out side of the summoning vestige
I don't think Shadowcasters can.
Trunamers can unrealibly

Rangers can just shoot from the ground.

[Teln]

I've spoken things over with my DM, who has a copy of Tome of Battle, and he's letting me be an Unarmed Swordsage, but without IUS as a bonus feat. Would it be worth a dip of Monk for this? If so, at what point should I stop?

[The Glyphstone]

I've spoken things over with my DM, who has a copy of Tome of Battle, and he's letting me be an Unarmed Swordsage, but without IUS as a bonus feat. Would it be worth a dip of Monk for this? If so, at what point should I stop?

That's....kinda stupid. Why would an Unarmed Swordsage not be proficient in unarmed strikes?

[Teln]

Because Unarmed is a variant class and the blurb that suggests the variant doesn't mention it. :rolleyes:

[Keld Denar]

UA SS gives you Unarmed Strike as a monk. The description of the UAS class feature in the monk write up is thus:


Unarmed Strike
At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply her full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk’s unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. She has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk. The unarmed damage on Table: The Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with her unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

Emphasis mine. So...yea...

[The Glyphstone]

Herp the derp.

To answer your question...still no. Spend a feat slot on IUS if you have to, since you do explicitly get the Monk's unarmed strike progression. A level is more valuable than a feat slot.

[Gnaeus]

Monk's Belt gives you everything from a Monk that matters.

1. False. It doesn't give imp grapple, which helps druids.
2. It doesn't clearly give imp unarmed strike ( one assumes that it would, but...)
3. It doesn't clearly give wis to AC. Most Playgrounders assume that it does, but some DMs rule otherwise, and PF clarifies that it doesn't if you are in a PF game. I'm not arguing the RAW either way, just saying that it isn't something you can count on.
4. Esp if wilding clasps aren't available, DM could rule that some forms can't wear the rope belt.
5. Intelligent enemies may notice that your bear is wearing a rope belt, and Sunder it, which would suck.


At levels before you can afford a 13k item, you also don't really need the bonus.

That is only under 1/2 WBL at level 8. Druids may want to be in melee before level 8. They may also have other things to do with their WBL. Or they may be in a campaign that gives less than WBL. Or it may be a game with no magic marts. You could craft one, but not until 10th level and you would need a Cleric to help.


Druids have no business ever PRCing, so that's a pointless point to bring up.

Sacred Exorcist is often used as a dip to get DMM. It requires know religion. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on build. My party members love my mass lesser vigor (persisted) every morning. YMMV.

[T.G. Oskar]

Sure, if you ignore that you gave up a full point of BAB for it. This means later entry to a lot of prestige classes, late qualification for key feats, and just hitting less in general.

If you're trying to optimize a high save +evasion/mettle build, sure it may be worth it... but in that case there are better ways to go about it. Namely a charisma build with dips into Paladin and Marshall.

For any typical beatstick I'd still rather dip Fighter 2 and get two feats of my choosing without losing any BAB than dip Monk 2 and be restricted to 4 feats, only one of which is a generally taken feat (Combat Reflexes). Only reason I'd dip monk is if I was looking for the unarmed/unarmored combat and had an awesome PrC in mind.

Actually, to clarify:

Evasion gained early means you also gain access to two ACFs early, which are both good: Invisible Fist (invisible, not under the effect of invisibility, once every 3 levels) and Spell Reflection (uses your immediate action to reflect any touch spell that doesn't hit you, 1+Dex times per day). It also works if you need Evasion despite having replaced it on another class (say, Rogue or Ranger or Scout), and at least Invisible Fist is phenomenal on Rogue/Monk builds because it grants a very reasonable, easy to use form of invisibility for your sneak attacks, which lasts for the entire round so it allows for sneaky full attacks. It's also worthwhile if you want early Evasion, which should be decent because Evasion is more dangerous early on.

Fighting styles and a few loosened restrictions outside of Core also aid a lot. Example: Passive Way grants Combat Expertise without the Int requirement and Invisible Eye grants Combat Reflexes (although you still benefit from a high Dex). It's slightly more restrictive as it only offers a trio of feats that might not be so hot (I mean, one offers vanilla Dodge, Mobility and Spring Attack on six levels...), but it doesn't limit you to only four choices. If you want, you can also add Monastic Training (the needed feat to enter Tashalatora), or Fiery Fist and the Fiery Fist line as your 2nd level feat (if you choose Stunning Fist). Plus Stunning Fist is great if you know how to use it or optimize it (Ability Focus and Freezing the Lifeblood offers a solid paralysis ability that sneak attackers and just about anyone will appreciate).

However, it's not a dip anyone will make. It's great for some concepts (if using Rogue for the ninja concept, a Monk dip is ironically phenomenal), but not for others (such as your typical beatstick, which may take advantage of a Fighter 2-6 dip for the feats).

[Elric VIII]

For any typical beatstick I'd still rather dip Fighter 2 and get two feats of my choosing without losing any BAB than dip Monk 2 and be restricted to 4 feats, only one of which is a generally taken feat (Combat Reflexes). Only reason I'd dip monk is if I was looking for the unarmed/unarmored combat and had an awesome PrC in mind.

I'm not suggesting it's 100% better than a Fighter dip (it's not like I would require someone to take Monk when Fighter will work), but if you need what it offers, it's great. Plus, there's an ACF that lets you pick Fighter bonus feats in place of Monk feats, that's half of the prereqs for Mo9 right there.


Sacred Exorcist is often used as a dip to get DMM. It requires know religion. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on build. My party members love my mass lesser vigor (persisted) every morning. YMMV.

It requires 7 ranks, so the normal Druid entry for it is level 15. With the Monk dip it becomes level 10.

[Gnaeus]

It requires 7 ranks, so the normal Druid entry for it is level 15. With the Monk dip it becomes level 10.

I thought it was 8 ranks. Lets assume you are right.

Pure druid= 2 ranks at level 1+ 1/2 per level so level 11 (or 13)
With a dip=4 ranks at level 1 + 1/level so you could meet it by level 4 (or 5). Of course, you won't have the other prereqs by then. Druid can spend 2 skill points per level to stay at the maximum.

[Elric VIII]

I thought it was 8 ranks. Lets assume you are right.

Pure druid= 2 ranks at level 1+ 1/2 per level so level 11 (or 13)
With a dip=4 ranks at level 1 + 1/level so you could meet it by level 4 (or 5). Of course, you won't have the other prereqs by then. Druid can spend 2 skill points per level to stay at the maximum.

So, I completely messed up my skill point calculations by using level -3 rather than level +3.

You can get the required spell by level 8-10 (either a 4th or a 5th level spell), but how does a Druid get access to Dismissal or Dispel Evil?

[dextercorvia]

Contemplative?

[Elric VIII]

Contemplative?

Oh, good point.

[Telonius]

O Monk, why dost thou sucketh? Let me count the ways.
One for the hits that never fall,
Two for base attack bonus so small.
Three for unarmed strike, no proficiency there.
Four, for non-synergizing abilities to spare.
Five, for the wizard thou canst not kill;
Six, for the Bracers of Armor bill.
Seven, for the flight thou ever desire;
Eight, for the threads thou dost inspire.
Though Swordsage all shiny and sparkly be,
My heart shall always go out to thee.

[Keld Denar]

Bravo! Very well played, good sir!

[Malevolence]

That's....kinda stupid. Why would an Unarmed Swordsage not be proficient in unarmed strikes?

Same reason that Monks aren't?


1. False. It doesn't give imp grapple, which helps druids.

1: You are a Druid. This means that if you want to grapple something, and it can be grappled, it is grappled regardless.
2: You are a Druid. This means that aside from your level 6 feat being Natural Spell, every last one of your slots are open.
3: Everything that matters can't be grappled.


2. It doesn't clearly give imp unarmed strike ( one assumes that it would, but...)

And Monks are not proficient with their own bodies. Your point is what, exactly?


3. It doesn't clearly give wis to AC. Most Playgrounders assume that it does, but some DMs rule otherwise, and PF clarifies that it doesn't if you are in a PF game. I'm not arguing the RAW either way, just saying that it isn't something you can count on.

You gain "the AC bonus of a 5th level Monk". Which means Wisdom + 1. It's very clear cut. Bad houserules, including and especially PF do not invalidate this point.


4. Esp if wilding clasps aren't available, DM could rule that some forms can't wear the rope belt.

Most forms have a waist.


5. Intelligent enemies may notice that your bear is wearing a rope belt, and Sunder it, which would suck.

If a DM ever uses the Sunder maneuver at all, the correct response is to have your Druid completely destroy his campaign, as he is obviously a terrible person. Not to mention if you were anything other than a pure class Druid, you'd be even more irrevocable screwed.


That is only under 1/2 WBL at level 8. Druids may want to be in melee before level 8. They may also have other things to do with their WBL. Or they may be in a campaign that gives less than WBL. Or it may be a game with no magic marts. You could craft one, but not until 10th level and you would need a Cleric to help.

And at 5-7 actual armor does more for you. At 1-4 it does a lot more, not to mention you can't Wild Shape. For example, a Wis of 20 is only +6 AC with a Monk's Belt. Normal armor adds around +9 at this level, and that's not counting the Animated shield (you can get both for the same price).


Sacred Exorcist is often used as a dip to get DMM. It requires know religion. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on build. My party members love my mass lesser vigor (persisted) every morning. YMMV.

How many ranks, exactly? If it's 4 or less, you just cross class it. If it's 5 or more you use one of your many extra feats to take Knowledge Devotion, adding Knowledge: Religion to your class list and then simply max it. This is a good idea anyways if you're focusing on melee, which is kind of assumed due to the high number of attacks on most animals + Insight bonuses to attack and damage on all of them.

That way you're still down 1 Druid level, but actually have a somewhat plausible reason for it.


O Monk, why dost thou sucketh? Let me count the ways.
One for the hits that never fall,
Two for base attack bonus so small.
Three for unarmed strike, no proficiency there.
Four, for non-synergizing abilities to spare.
Five, for the wizard thou canst not kill;
Six, for the Bracers of Armor bill.
Seven, for the flight thou ever desire;
Eight, for the threads thou dost inspire.
Though Swordsage all shiny and sparkly be,
My heart shall always go out to thee.

Nice. Stolen.

[JaronK]

Same reason that Monks aren't?

Monks aren't because Unarmed Strikes aren't in their list of proficient weapons. They are in the Swordsage list though (because they're simple weapons).

JaronK

[Firechanter]

Seriously, is there _anyone_ who doesn't treat this as a mere clerical error?
(Or would that be a "monastic error" in this case?)

P.S.: a big hand to Telonius, that's awesome ^^

[Seerow]

Seriously, is there _anyone_ who doesn't treat this as a mere clerical error?
(Or would that be a "monastic error" in this case?)

Nope. All tables require monks take Feat Proficiency (Unarmed Weapons). The few who don't are nasty homebrewers, not playing by RAW as the developers intended.

[Gametime]

You gain "the AC bonus of a 5th level Monk". Which means Wisdom + 1. It's very clear cut. Bad houserules, including and especially PF do not invalidate this point.

Well, if you want to take that text completely literally, you'd gain a bonus to AC equal to X+1, where X is the wisdom bonus of whatever 5th level monk is being referenced in the item description. Whether it's always the same monk, or a randomly chosen monk, or a monk chosen by the item crafter, I have no idea, but the text pretty clearly states you gain THAT monk's AC bonus, not the bonus that would be granted if you had the monk's class feature.

Actually, looking at the text, I don't see "bonus" following AC. If we're taking the words at face value, you gain the EXACT armor class of this hypothetical 5th level monk. Huh. What an awful item.

[Elric VIII]

Well, if you want to take that text completely literally, you'd gain a bonus to AC equal to X+1, where X is the wisdom bonus of whatever 5th level monk is being referenced in the item description. Whether it's always the same monk, or a randomly chosen monk, or a monk chosen by the item crafter, I have no idea, but the text pretty clearly states you gain THAT monk's AC bonus, not the bonus that would be granted if you had the monk's class feature.

Actually, looking at the text, I don't see "bonus" following AC. If we're taking the words at face value, you gain the EXACT armor class of this hypothetical 5th level monk. Huh. What an awful item.

Wait, doesn't everyone play it this way?

[dextercorvia]

And then they follow it up with this: "This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus."

[Elric VIII]

And then they follow it up with this: "This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus."

does that mean if the Monk in question gets hit by something that you also get hit, regardless of your proximity?

[JaronK]

No, if you have his AC, then if something hits you he gets hit instead. That's what happens if you hit against someone's AC... that person gets hit.

Wow, that's hilarious. I think I'll have to go around crafting Monk's Belts made with a Learnean Lumi Monk 5!

JaronK

[dextercorvia]

Yet another reason not to take Monk levels. You might get whacked out of nowhere if someone's Monk's Belt is keyed to you.

[2xMachina]

Well, if you want to take that text completely literally, you'd gain a bonus to AC equal to X+1, where X is the wisdom bonus of whatever 5th level monk is being referenced in the item description. Whether it's always the same monk, or a randomly chosen monk, or a monk chosen by the item crafter, I have no idea, but the text pretty clearly states you gain THAT monk's AC bonus, not the bonus that would be granted if you had the monk's class feature.

Actually, looking at the text, I don't see "bonus" following AC. If we're taking the words at face value, you gain the EXACT armor class of this hypothetical 5th level monk. Huh. What an awful item.

I'll take that to mean that the AC of a Monk sucks. If it's bad, you don't want Monk's Belt or a Monk lvl at all.

On the other hand... you can dump Wis/AC, and take a Monk's Belt of a Wise monk. Wizard running around with Monk's Belt anyone? (13k for belt replaces need for Bracers of Armor. And use Miss chance to shore up defence.)
Practically everyone get's a Monk's bonus without even having to have Wis. So, Monk is even more useless, as everyone else gets what it has.

I Shock trooper for full! My AC is -, but because of Monk's belt, it's set to a + number regardless.

[Malevolence]

Well, if you want to take that text completely literally, you'd gain a bonus to AC equal to X+1, where X is the wisdom bonus of whatever 5th level monk is being referenced in the item description. Whether it's always the same monk, or a randomly chosen monk, or a monk chosen by the item crafter, I have no idea, but the text pretty clearly states you gain THAT monk's AC bonus, not the bonus that would be granted if you had the monk's class feature.

Actually, looking at the text, I don't see "bonus" following AC. If we're taking the words at face value, you gain the EXACT armor class of this hypothetical 5th level monk. Huh. What an awful item.

It doesn't specify a specific character.


This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.

It's very clear cut.

[Gametime]

Yes, it is very clear cut: You gain the AC (and unarmed damage) of a 5th level monk. The second sentence is incoherent because it refers to a non-existent bonus. A thing is not the same as a bonus to a thing; the sentence describing what the item actually gives you mentions a thing, but the sentence following it describes a bonus.

It's sensible to read that as poor editing and assume that the second sentence indicates the word "bonus" should be included in the sentence describing what the item does for non-monks. But that's not what the item actually says. We're talking RAW, here; there's no room for sensible interpretations or allowances of human error. One sentence tells you you get the AC of a 5th level monk, so that's what your AC is. The second sentence refers to an AC bonus that doesn't apply to anything in the item's function, so it's superfluous. It's not like that's the first case of a redundant or meaningless sentence popping up in an item description.

[Kylarra]

I'll take that to mean that the AC of a Monk sucks. If it's bad, you don't want Monk's Belt or a Monk lvl at all.

On the other hand... you can dump Wis/AC, and take a Monk's Belt of a Wise monk. Wizard running around with Monk's Belt anyone? (13k for belt replaces need for Bracers of Armor. And use Miss chance to shore up defence.)
Practically everyone get's a Monk's bonus without even having to have Wis. So, Monk is even more useless, as everyone else gets what it has.

I Shock trooper for full! My AC is -, but because of Monk's belt, it's set to a + number regardless.Unless everyone is following your idea, in which case the belt is set to null since there are no monks to attune to.


DIVIDE BY ZERO :smallamused:

[The Glyphstone]

Unless everyone is following your idea, in which case the belt is set to null since there are no monks to attune to.


DIVIDE BY ZERO :smallamused:


http://halshop.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/phpw9jvl0pm.jpg

[Gwendol]

Assumptions. They start out 5 feet away. The wizard has no buffs or contingencies up. Wizard chooses to be CE. All summons and gated creatures also roll only nat 1s.

Wizard uses WBL to buy some padded armor of greater fortification. This makes wizard immune to crits. No stunning fist or quivering palm. Wiz also buys a heavy constitution + item to survive round 1.

Monk wins init. 5 foot steps to wizard & full attacks. Crits 3 times (negated by armor) for average 31+ strx3 damage. Last 2 attacks are both grapples, pinning the wizard.

Wizard casts silent Dimension Door (His concentration check should allow him to succeed on a 1), and is now 900 feet away from the monk.

Monk full runs towards wizard. Base speed 90, we will give him run as a bonus feat and free 30 move from somewhere, monk is now 300 feet from wizard.

Wizard casts Gate. Balor appears right next to monk. Wizard shouts "I order you to stand next to that guy and use Blasphemy for the next 2 minutes."

Balor uses Blasphemy for the next 20 rounds. Monk is Dazed (no save) for the next 20 rounds. 20 rounds of 5 magic missiles each kills monk.

I'm sure there are other ways.

Well, you haven't even begun to optimize the monk in any way shape or form.

Let's try that fight against a slightly more challenging opponent:

Goliath Barbarian X/Monk 19-X where X is whatever level of Lion Totem Barbarian is needed to get pounce (and yes, there will be an alignement shift along the way).

Feats (needed): Power attack, Flying kick, Improved natural attack, and for good measure Mage slayer

Equipment: Enlarge person (permanent), Girallon's blessing (permanent, and for ultimate cheese the Savage Species version), boots of speed with anklets of translocation add-on. Monk belt, although it's hardly needed.

Given a starting STR of 16 add on +4 for from race, and +2 from level up and/or item (enlarge person adds another 2) we end up with a strength of 24.

Monk wins init, activates his boots of speed and his anklets of translocation to hop back 10', then charges and full attacks.

Monk has 8 arms, +2 attacks from FoB, and another attack from Haste (the boots) and power attacks fully (-15/+15).

Since he only rolls 20, every attack hits. Every unarmed strike deals (6d8+7) doubled + 15 from PA. That's 12d8+29. For every hit. Remember his unarmed strikes are equivalent of those of a Huge monk.

You end up with an average damage of 649. That's a tall order for a 20d4 creature.

[Doc Roc]

Well, you haven't even begun to optimize the monk in any way shape or form.

Let's try that fight against a slightly more challenging opponent:

Goliath Barbarian X/Monk 19-X where X is whatever level of Lion Totem Barbarian is needed to get pounce (and yes, there will be an alignement shift along the way).

Feats (needed): Power attack, Flying kick, Improved natural attack, and for good measure Mage slayer

Equipment: Enlarge person (permanent), Girallon's blessing (permanent, and for ultimate cheese the Savage Species version), boots of speed with anklets of translocation add-on. Monk belt, although it's hardly needed.

Given a starting STR of 16 add on +4 for from race, and +2 from level up and/or item (enlarge person adds another 2) we end up with a strength of 24.

Monk wins init, activates his boots of speed and his anklets of translocation to hop back 10', then charges and full attacks.

Monk has 8 arms, +2 attacks from FoB, and another attack from Haste (the boots) and power attacks fully (-15/+15).

Since he only rolls 20, every attack hits. Every unarmed strike deals (6d8+7) doubled + 15 from PA. That's 12d8+29. For every hit. Remember his unarmed strikes are equivalent of those of a Huge monk.

You end up with an average damage of 649. That's a tall order for a 20d4 creature.

With those same books, I am almost certainly immune to HP damage, and you'll never connect with MDJ. Trust me.

[Gwendol]

Certainly, but that wasn't the case in the quoted hypothetical match-up. :smallsmile:

[Leon]

The Benefit of these Monk threads is to let all you who dislike them vent frequently otherwise it would all end messily when the monk hate built up to much.

[Gnaeus]

Certainly, but that wasn't the case in the quoted hypothetical match-up. :smallsmile:

The quoted hypothetical matchup was monk 20. If you get to dip higher tier classes for their abilities, I will counter with Abrupt Jaunt. Goliath is an LA race, and if you buy it off you won't have enough xp to get to level 20.

Yes, it is possible to build a pounce charge build that can beat a wizard under those conditions. Black ethergaunt Monk 20 certainly beats wizard 20. But not because of the strength of Monk.

If you start with permanent buffs, I can too, including Contingency in core. Only difference is that you had to have a high level caster cast your buffs, while the wizard did it himself. How about Contingency: The first time I get hit, I D Door 1200 feet in the direction I am facing.

It is pretty clear that the moment the wizard gets one action, the monk threat drops to 0.

[Malevolence]

Well, you haven't even begun to optimize the monk in any way shape or form.

Let's try that fight against a slightly more challenging opponent:

Goliath Barbarian X/Monk 19-X where X is whatever level of Lion Totem Barbarian is needed to get pounce (and yes, there will be an alignement shift along the way).

Feats (needed): Power attack, Flying kick, Improved natural attack, and for good measure Mage slayer

Equipment: Enlarge person (permanent), Girallon's blessing (permanent, and for ultimate cheese the Savage Species version), boots of speed with anklets of translocation add-on. Monk belt, although it's hardly needed.

Given a starting STR of 16 add on +4 for from race, and +2 from level up and/or item (enlarge person adds another 2) we end up with a strength of 24.

Monk wins init, activates his boots of speed and his anklets of translocation to hop back 10', then charges and full attacks.

Monk has 8 arms, +2 attacks from FoB, and another attack from Haste (the boots) and power attacks fully (-15/+15).

Since he only rolls 20, every attack hits. Every unarmed strike deals (6d8+7) doubled + 15 from PA. That's 12d8+29. For every hit. Remember his unarmed strikes are equivalent of those of a Huge monk.

You end up with an average damage of 649. That's a tall order for a 20d4 creature.

Good thing Mr. Wizard only has around a 5% chance to be hit without counting AC. And all manner of contingencies, including ones that instantly revive him with no drawback if slain. And that's if he doesn't just STEELGUARD! away the entire attack.

[Firechanter]

Just FYI, the original hypothetical matchup was core-only.

[Gwendol]

My bad.

The build is terrible with the poor sod looking more like a giant caterpillar than anything else. My point was really not to try and prove the monk is better than the wizard, just that they are not quite as bad as one can think reading this board. Also, they can be a lot of fun to play: I'm on my second.

[LordBlades]

My bad.

The build is terrible with the poor sod looking more like a giant caterpillar than anything else. My point was really not to try and prove the monk is better than the wizard, just that they are not quite as bad as one can think reading this board. Also, they can be a lot of fun to play: I'm on my second.

Your build mainly draws it's strength from being a Goliath Lion Totem Barbarian not from being a Monk. You can replace those monk levels with anything but commoner, and the build will probably increase in power.

[Gwendol]

No. I could just as well have used a Catfolk monk 19 with the pounce feat and ending up doing more or less the same damage. The Goliath is not required for this particular attack, but his powerful build makes grappling, etc, more fun.

The build centers on getting double damage on a charge (flying kick), and from the many arms, thus making the power attack count. FoB and being hasted helps quite a lot.

[LordBlades]

No. I could just as well have used a Catfolk monk 19 with the pounce feat and ending up doing more or less the same damage. The Goliath is not required for this particular attack, but his powerful build makes grappling, etc, more fun.

The build centers on getting double damage on a charge (flying kick), and from the many arms, thus making the power attack count. FoB and being hasted helps quite a lot.

Nothing of what you did relies on being a monk. You can do at least as good with Catfolk <generic class>. It does not prove that monk is good, merely that pounce+flying kick is.

[Gnaeus]

My bad.

The build is terrible with the poor sod looking more like a giant caterpillar than anything else. My point was really not to try and prove the monk is better than the wizard, just that they are not quite as bad as one can think reading this board. Also, they can be a lot of fun to play: I'm on my second.

Quoting myself from page 1:


Good. If everyone is having fun, monk is fine. People should play what they like. If your group, as they play, begin learning what works better in the system, and the monk can't compete with the Druid Bear riding a Bear while summoning Bears, now you know why.

What I have taken away from this debate is that core Wizard has a bit of difficulty dealing with a Monk if he finds himself caught in melee, unbuffed, loses initiative, and he cannot use any spells involving SR, an attack roll, a saving throw or a summons. If the monk is prebuffed, using non-monk classes and non core, the monk can win that fight. Of course, if the wizard can also use the same sources, OR if the wizard can enter with permanent or long duration effects up, monk has 0 chance.

But ultimately, the result of a duel under highly unlikely conditions is meaningless other than seeing if it can be done. Under a "same encounter test" where the wizard gets to cast his normal morning buffs, the high level wizard can pretty easily win at least 4-8 encounters in a day, whereas the monk, even with goliath and pounce, is going to have difficulty winning any encounters where "I charge it" isn't a factor, and even then may have problems.

[Malevolence]

Your build mainly draws it's strength from being a Goliath Lion Totem Barbarian not from being a Monk. You can replace those monk levels with anything but commoner, and the build will probably increase in power.

I think Commoner would be an improvement. Infested with Chickens = Bag of Rats tricks.


No. I could just as well have used a Catfolk monk 19 with the pounce feat and ending up doing more or less the same damage. The Goliath is not required for this particular attack, but his powerful build makes grappling, etc, more fun.

The build centers on getting double damage on a charge (flying kick), and from the many arms, thus making the power attack count. FoB and being hasted helps quite a lot.

Catfolk Pounce has limitations that regular Pounce does not. And in that case it's still coming from being a cat girl, not from your classes. Make it a Catfolk any other class 19, same applies.

[Gwendol]

I thought I said the barbarian was unnecessary (he can't even rage). Catfolk is all monk and can still do the same damage.

Of course the wizard (or CoDzilla) will win if pre-buffs are allowed: they're tier one!

Malevolence's argument about pouncing can be applied to all pouncer (charger) builds: this is a monk charger build. If you take away the unarmed strike and monk levels you will not get anything out of flying kick, or the improved natural weapon feat, so being a monk is central. That said, I'm sure there are charger builds that laugh at the damage output of this monk.

[Malevolence]

Sorcerer 20 with Superior Unarmed Strike, Greater Mighty Whallop, and a Fanged Ring. Or the classic Harm punching Cleric, proven to one shot Monks or your money back.

...Even in a purely unarmed context, Monks are still terrible, and other classes still do it better.

[LordBlades]

damn double posting.

[Gnaeus]

I thought I said the barbarian was unnecessary (he can't even rage). Catfolk is all monk and can still do the same damage.

Of course the wizard (or CoDzilla) will win if pre-buffs are allowed: they're tier one!

Malevolence's argument about pouncing can be applied to all pouncer (charger) builds: this is a monk charger build. If you take away the unarmed strike and monk levels you will not get anything out of flying kick, or the improved natural weapon feat, so being a monk is central. That said, I'm sure there are charger builds that laugh at the damage output of this monk.

Well, your damage also depends on some other factors. The wizard has to be flat-footed. The monk has to know that the wizard is flat footed (or else the catfolk charge pounce fails). The monk has to invest in power attack, which is only actually useful for him because he knows that he is rolling only nat 20s. That isn't just a wizard slaying build, it is a wizard slaying build specifically designed for a world where it only rolls 20s, fighting only flatfooted opponents.

[LordBlades]

Malevolence's argument about pouncing can be applied to all pouncer (charger) builds: this is a monk charger build. If you take away the unarmed strike and monk levels you will not get anything out of flying kick, or the improved natural weapon feat, so being a monk is central. That said, I'm sure there are charger builds that laugh at the damage output of this monk.

Unarmed Strike is not monk specific. Any character can select Imp Unarmed Strike and Superior unarmed Strike and deal almost same damage as a monk (2d6 vs. 2d10 for medium) and Flying Kick requires nothing Monk specific.

A Catfolk Aristocrat (to choose a completely featureless medium BAB class) would do exactly the same thing as your build.

Using that build as an argument that a monk is not bad is like using Pun Pun as an argument that the Paladin is in fact Tier 0.

Not to mention it's a bit debatable if the Flying Kick from Complete Warrior isn't the 3.5 reprint of the OA Flying Kick, given the exact same name, prerequisites and similar effect.

[Tokuhara]

Halfling Monk substitution fixes one of the problems of monk: the Flurry of Misses ability. You get skirmish instead. See? Wizards CAN tell when they screwed up!

I personally played a Strongheart Halfling Monk 6/Acolyte of the Fist 10/Kensei 4 who was surprisingly effective as a hit & run striker. Granted, he was no Psionic Fist cheese, nor Unarmed Swordsage/Crusader/Master of 9, but he did what he was designed to do. Heck, I once played a Half-Fire Elemental Earth Elemental Monk/Tattooed Monk

[Veyr]

Skirmish on a melee character is not particularly good design: it encapsulates the nonsynergistic problems of the Monk in a single feature! Bonus damage dice depend on multiple attacks in order to work, but moving 10' in order to trigger Skirmish without losing all but one attack is relatively difficult. Skirmish really doesn't help the Monk very much at all, IMO.

And "Psionic Fist cheese"? Using a feat... as intended... is cheese? It's not even a particularly powerful feat; it has the same problem as Skirmish in that it requires (at least) a Move Action to activate (usually).

[Tokuhara]

Skirmish on a melee character is not particularly good design: it encapsulates the nonsynergistic problems of the Monk in a single feature! Bonus damage dice depend on multiple attacks in order to work, but moving 10' in order to trigger Skirmish without losing all but one attack is relatively difficult. Skirmish really doesn't help the Monk very much at all, IMO.

And "Psionic Fist cheese"? Using a feat... as intended... is cheese? It's not even a particularly powerful feat; it has the same problem as Skirmish in that it requires (at least) a Move Action to activate (usually).

I meant the Psion/monk synergy feat

and I never hit more than once. One punch is all I need to hurt you

[Gwendol]

Unarmed Strike is not monk specific. Any character can select Imp Unarmed Strike and Superior unarmed Strike and deal almost same damage as a monk (2d6 vs. 2d10 for medium) and Flying Kick requires nothing Monk specific.

A Catfolk Aristocrat (to choose a completely featureless medium BAB class) would do exactly the same thing as your build.

Using that build as an argument that a monk is not bad is like using Pun Pun as an argument that the Paladin is in fact Tier 0.

Not to mention it's a bit debatable if the Flying Kick from Complete Warrior isn't the 3.5 reprint of the OA Flying Kick, given the exact same name, prerequisites and similar effect.

No, but improved natural weapon does. And a catfolk aristocrat would miss out on the two hits from FoB.

[Veyr]

I meant the Psion/monk synergy feat
Oh, Tashalatora? Yeah, no, that's pretty much the Monk-as-it-should-be, IMO. It's an excellently designed feat.


and I never hit more than once. One punch is all I need to hurt you
With your 2d10+7d6+10 punch? (that's Monk 20 plus full Imp. Skrimish damage and 30 Str) What are you fighting that averages less than 45 HP?

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I meant the Psion/monk synergy feat

and I never hit more than once. One punch is all I need to hurt you

Unless you're also rocking hardcore power attack shenanigans on this same chassis, then it's painfully easy to dodge a once per round attack. The fact that you're requiring this one, singular attack to do everything is, well, far-fetched.

[Tokuhara]

Unless you're also rocking hardcore power attack shenanigans on this same chassis, then it's painfully easy to dodge a once per round attack. The fact that you're requiring this one, singular attack to do everything is, well, far-fetched.

Still, I don't see anyone else coming up with a better idea.

[Keld Denar]

Tashalatoran King of Smack.

Expand up to Huge size, take Imp Natural Attack, manifest Weapon of the Vampire, and bludgeon people to death with your 16d6 hamfists. Even better, take Robiliar's Gambit. Your foe hits you, shaves off some of your temp HP, and then you hit them back and regain that temp HP. They have to deal more damage per hit than half of your damage just to get through your temp HP. Its like having DR X/-, where X is half of your UAS damage.

Thats a better monk idea.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Still, I don't see anyone else coming up with a better idea.

That's because those better ideas either have already been mentioned (Psychic Warrior X/Monk 2/Slayer Y (or, hell, just moar Psy Warrior) with Tashalatora to get all the good monk class features covers all you want and more.


That or just be a bear with a silly hat and built and pretend that you are, in fact, a 5th level monk. :smallwink:

[Malevolence]

I meant the Psion/monk synergy feat

and I never hit more than once. One punch is all I need to hurt you

That one's falling flat.

[Tokuhara]

That's because those better ideas either have already been mentioned (Psychic Warrior X/Monk 2/Slayer Y (or, hell, just moar Psy Warrior) with Tashalatora to get all the good monk class features covers all you want and more.


That or just be a bear with a silly hat and built and pretend that you are, in fact, a 5th level monk. :smallwink:

ugh... I just like to think that Wizards knew what they were doing when they built these classes. I don't game with Powergamers, and thus I avoid "I hit you for a million damageand you die :smalltongue:" tactic. I prefer to build a better mousetrap with what I'm allowed to work with. As it was, we had a "No Psionics, No ToB" rule in place, so I just ran with what I was given. I avoided the Flurry of Misses, Bolstered my Damage with feats and class abilities (AotF raises the die size twice, took Superior Unarmed Strike, and Kensei enchants the crap out of my fists), and even used Traits/Feats to aid me (Quick trait, Improved Initiative, Yondalla's Senses). I wound up doing serious damage

[Thrice Dead Cat]

ugh... I just like to think that Wizards knew what they were doing when they built these classes. I don't game with Powergamers, and thus I avoid "I hit you for a million damageand you die :smalltongue:" tactic. I prefer to build a better mousetrap with what I'm allowed to work with. As it was, we had a "No Psionics, No ToB" rule in place, so I just ran with what I was given. I avoided the Flurry of Misses, Bolstered my Damage with feats and class abilities (AotF raises the die size twice, took Superior Unarmed Strike, and Kensei enchants the crap out of my fists), and even used Traits/Feats to aid me (Quick trait, Improved Initiative, Yondalla's Senses). I wound up doing serious damage

After a certain point, damage is just straight up murder. The difference between 1000 damage and 100000 damage is the amount dice it got you there. The real dirty tricks are means to avoid that death trap not just once, but up until it is also now your turn and can fire your own form of death laser back at the bugger.

As for the "No Psionics, no ToB" rules... all the borked stuff is core anyhow. Psionics is an intuitive system for casting that works without yes options to say no ways to you winning. ToB provides meleers with fewer options than even psionics get that allow them to do more than just "lol full attack" or "lol one big spring attack (hope I don't miss this one, too!)."

[Gnaeus]

ugh... I just like to think that Wizards knew what they were doing when they built these classes.

I like to think that if I don't pay my bills long enough that they will roll from the negative all the way around into a positive and send me a big refund check. Unfortunately, evidence is against us, Tokuhara.


I prefer to build a better mousetrap with what I'm allowed to work with. As it was, we had a "No Psionics, No ToB" rule in place, so I just ran with what I was given. I avoided the Flurry of Misses, Bolstered my Damage with feats and class abilities (AotF raises the die size twice, took Superior Unarmed Strike, and Kensei enchants the crap out of my fists), and even used Traits/Feats to aid me (Quick trait, Improved Initiative, Yondalla's Senses). I wound up doing serious damage

Serious damage is something that can kill a mook in a round, or hit a powerful enemy hard enough that he has to think to decide whether he needs to kill you, or that spellcaster mumbling ancient words in the back of the party. Nothing you have described amounts to serious damage.

[Tokuhara]

I like to think that if I don't pay my bills long enough that they will roll from the negative all the way around into a positive and send me a big refund check. Unfortunately, evidence is against us, Tokuhara.

Can I add this to my Signature?



Serious damage is something that can kill a mook in a round, or hit a powerful enemy hard enough that he has to think to decide whether he needs to kill you, or that spellcaster mumbling ancient words in the back of the party. Nothing you have described amounts to serious damage.

Correction: Legitemate Threat

[Gnaeus]

Can I add this to my Signature?

Certainly.


Correction: Legitemate Threat

How is that different?

[Tokuhara]

How is that different?

I wasn't sitting on my hands and standing around waiting to get killed. I was doing decent damage every turn (comparable to our fighter) and was actually hitting pretty consistantly

[Gnaeus]

I wasn't sitting on my hands and standing around waiting to get killed. I was doing decent damage every turn (comparable to our fighter) and was actually hitting pretty consistantly

Well, you did say that you didn't play with powergamers. In a fighter, monk, ninja, healer, adept group, that should work ok. If you play with tier 1-3 classes that are using their powers at all effectively (by which I mean not wierd TO or Gate/Wish/Time Stop/Shapechange, but merely employing one of the manylots of spells that can end a fight or cripple a major enemy in one round) "comparable to our fighter" is less of a ringing endorsement than it is a criticism.

[Malevolence]

People really need to stop with the "in a low tier group, it's fine" argument. Even if the rest of the party sucks too, the enemies don't. And that is the actual standard you are being compared to. Which means being about equal to a Fighter is a bad thing, because you're not playing against the Fighter, you're playing with him against BBEG the Mook Eater.

[Gnaeus]

Most of the time, DMs balance difficulty rating to party power. A low-op group is probably better balanced against similar CR encounters than a high-op group, which sometimes requires bringing out monsters that can one-shot PCs just to make fights challenging.

The common complaint I hear is "How do I make fights to challenge the tier 1 while allowing the tier 5 to remain relevant?"

[The Cat Goddess]

Errata very specifically and clearly notes that the Monk's Belt magic item gives "Wis+1" to AC when worn by a non-Monk. The "works just like a Monk's AC bonus" is there to indicate:

1) Doesn't work if you wear armor.
2) Doesn't work if you're encumbered (beyond light encumberance).
3) Doesn't work if you have a shield.
4) Doesn't work if you're helpless (tied up, asleep, etc.).
5) Works if you're flat-footed.
6) Works against Touch Attacks.

On a slight tangent...

Would you allow someone to craft a Monk's Belt that gave "Int+1" instead, if they had the Kung Fu Genius (or Carmendine Monk) Feat? How about "Cha+1" if they had the Aesthetic Mage Feat?

[TroubleBrewing]

I wasn't sitting on my hands and standing around waiting to get killed. I was doing decent damage every turn (comparable to our fighter) and was actually hitting pretty consistantly

Anecdotal evidence = logical fallacy.

While the "evidence" you presented may in fact be true (You were able to keep up with the fighter and not feel useless), that does not change the fact that monks are bad.

[Malevolence]

Most of the time, DMs balance difficulty rating to party power. A low-op group is probably better balanced against similar CR encounters than a high-op group, which sometimes requires bringing out monsters that can one-shot PCs just to make fights challenging.

The common complaint I hear is "How do I make fights to challenge the tier 1 while allowing the tier 5 to remain relevant?"

While there is no maximum baseline of competence, there is a minimum one. Things like Fighters and Monks are below the bar. Anything you use will turn them into a fine red mist. Things that can threaten the actually good classes will do this even more, but the problem is that the Fighter and the Monk aren't tall enough to go on this ride.

Make them an Unarmed Swordsage and a Warblade, and they can generally deal with stock encounters, and can properly handle intelligently played ones.

And threatening an optimized group doesn't require one round kills, though those will often happen anyways because it's D&D, and there's rockets flying around.

[Gnaeus]

While there is no maximum baseline of competence, there is a minimum one. Things like Fighters and Monks are below the bar. Anything you use will turn them into a fine red mist. Things that can threaten the actually good classes will do this even more, but the problem is that the Fighter and the Monk aren't tall enough to go on this ride.

The bar for the ride is adjustable. Saying that fighters and monks can't kill anything, when clearly they can, is false on its face. A decent DM can compensate for a Fighter, Monk, Ninja, Healer party a LOT more easily than he can make challenging but not overwhelming encounters for a Wizard, Archivist, Druid, Beguiler party. The main reason for this is that the DM knows EXACTLY what the low-op party can do on a given day.


And threatening an optimized group doesn't require one round kills, though those will often happen anyways because it's D&D, and there's rockets flying around.

It doesn't require it, but it is a common result. If my group regularly breezes through CR+2-3 enemies, and I start throwing CR+4-5 enemies at them to compensate, it is likely that the attacks that they generate are one shot kills against characters 4-5 levels lower than they were expected to fight.

[Z3ro]

Anecdotal evidence = logical fallacy.

While the "evidence" you presented may in fact be true (You were able to keep up with the fighter and not feel useless), that does not change the fact that monks are bad.

I just want to point out that anecdotal evidence is actually not a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is something like a strawman argument. While anecdotal evidence is often times subpar, as you yourself noted, it can be true, and therefore valid (in this case, that under certain circumstances, the monk doesn't feel useless). Large groups of anecdotal evidence can actually be put together to create legitimate data.

[Malevolence]

The bar for the ride is adjustable. Saying that fighters and monks can't kill anything, when clearly they can, is false on its face. A decent DM can compensate for a Fighter, Monk, Ninja, Healer party a LOT more easily than he can make challenging but not overwhelming encounters for a Wizard, Archivist, Druid, Beguiler party. The main reason for this is that the DM knows EXACTLY what the low-op party can do on a given day.

The bar cannot go below a certain point, and they are below it. It can however be raised to an infinite height. It is trivial to make encounters for capable parties. You have to really dig around to find something that won't kill a gimp party by looking at them. And that still doesn't mean they win, only that they don't automatically lose. Such a party dies to Fireballs and pure classed Barbarians. And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

[Gnaeus]

The bar cannot go below a certain point, and they are below it.

Really? I can make encounters below CR1. A first level party with that composition can pretty easily handle 4 CR 1 encounters in a day. Throwing under CR encounters for a weak party, including lots of mooks and stuff that is vulnerable to straight damage, is not hard at all.


It is trivial to make encounters for capable parties.

It can be done. It isn't trivial, if you want to avoid cakewalks or accidental TPKs.


You have to really dig around to find something that won't kill a gimp party by looking at them. And that still doesn't mean they win, only that they don't automatically lose. Such a party dies to Fireballs and pure classed Barbarians. And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

Every member of that party can handle a same level fireball with little risk. A same level Wizard is an equal CR encounter, and if the DM thinks it is a problem, he can easily drop the wizard's level, or have him cast different spells, or have the party encounter him after he has cast some spells in another encounter. The fighter + monk can almost certainly beat a same level pure classed barbarian, if he isn't a charger (i.e. built at much higher optimization than they are). All 4 members of the party can certainly do so.

There are a lot of people who play in low-op parties and have little difficulty. You seem to think that this is hard or impossible. I will admit it isn't to my taste, but there seem to be plenty of people who think that it is not only possible, but the easiest/best way to play. Please explain to me why their experiences are wrong. Please use actual facts, not a mix of baseless assertions and incorrect details.


And that's already pitching a bunch of softballs at the group.

Lots of people have fun playing softball. There isn't anything wrong with pitching softballs in a softball game.

[LordBlades]

It doesn't require it, but it is a common result. If my group regularly breezes through CR+2-3 enemies, and I start throwing CR+4-5 enemies at them to compensate, it is likely that the attacks that they generate are one shot kills against characters 4-5 levels lower than they were expected to fight.

From my experience that's rarely a problem, unless you're talking about monsters with HD based effects like Blasphemy. Of course, you don't need to throw enemies blindly at the party just because the MM says they're CR x. Some things are horribly under CR (see Adamantine Horror) while others are extremely weak (see Tarrasque)

Of course, DMing for an optimized party takes effort but then so does babysitting an unoptimized party.

On the topic of level appropriate encounters, this is the benchmark the designers of the game intended the characters to be judged (a party should face a level appropriate challenge without much trouble). Now look at a CR 10 fire giant; and try to make a level 10 core only monk or fighter that can stand up to that guy in melee.

[Gnaeus]

From my experience that's rarely a problem, unless you're talking about monsters with HD based effects like Blasphemy. Of course, you don't need to throw enemies blindly at the party just because the MM says they're CR x. Some things are horribly under CR (see Adamantine Horror) while others are extremely weak (see Tarrasque)

The CR system is part of the problem, to be sure. The problem with Tier 1s is that you never know from day to day if a druid or a cleric will be a melee fighter, a ranged blaster or spam SoDs or summons or something else. That can make an encounter trivial, or unbeatable.


On the topic of level appropriate encounters, this is the benchmark the designers of the game intended the characters to be judged (a party should face a level appropriate challenge without much trouble). Now look at a CR 10 fire giant; and try to make a level 10 core only monk or fighter that can stand up to that guy in melee.

But they don't have to. The entire party has to beat it. A fire giant is unlikely to be able to kill even the ninja in a single round. It has an AC that most level 10 characters will hit pretty easily, and only 145 HP. No combat reflexes. Averages only 25 damage per hit. Probably only about 50 damage per round against PCs with ACs in the 23-25 range, which isn't high even for unoptimized level 10 characters. Against 3 damage dealers and a dedicated healer, it isn't too hard a fight. And again, if the party proves particularly bad, it isn't hard to pretend that every monster has a +1 or +2 circumstance adjustment to its CR. If you put the party at level 11, the healer alone can heal more damage than the giant can deal.

[Lhurgyof]

Its mostly due to poor BAB and you can't enchant unarmed strikes, nor can you cast spells.

You can enchant unarmed strikes.

And if your DM says no, just get a necklace of natural attacks for 600gp + Enchantment.

[Veyr]

Anecdotal evidence = logical fallacy.
That's not correct; anecdotal evidence is just that - type of evidence. It's no good for a generalized proof (though it's great for disproving generalized theories), but it is certainly a valid form of corroborating evidence. On some level, science is based on a long string of carefully planned and tested 'anecdotes' (observations and experiments), which is also why science does not ever claim to "prove" anything. You can't prove things with anecdotes, and they're a fairly limited form of evidence, but that's far from making them a logical fallacy.

On the other hand, the argument that "this is what happened to me so this must be how it works" would be a logical fallacy, since it's applying a specific case to the general (looking it up, seems to be called the fallacy of Proof by Example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example))


That said...

I just want to point out that anecdotal evidence is actually not a logical fallacy.
Yes, but...

A logical fallacy is something like a strawman argument.
OK, not really. A straw man argument is invalid, but not exactly (formally) fallacious. The entirety of a straw man argument can be logically sound; the issue with the straw man is that its premises were inaccurate (because they were set up ahead of time to be easy to knock down).

More importantly...

While anecdotal evidence is often times subpar, as you yourself noted, it can be true, and therefore valid (in this case, that under certain circumstances, the monk doesn't feel useless).
Just because an argument depends upon a logical fallacy (and is therefore an invalid argument), does not automatically mean that its conclusion is false (and in fact, assuming that it is for this reason is itself the logical fallacy of Argument from Fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy)). By the same token, just because a given conclusion is true doesn't mean that a given argument lacks logical fallacies. So the statement that "it can be true, and therefore valid" is wrong; a statement can be true while still being logically invalid. It just means that the person making the argument is using the wrong argument.


Large groups of anecdotal evidence can actually be put together to create legitimate data.
Here is something I can agree with 100%. In certain circles, this is known as Science! (it works, bitches)

[Gnaeus]

Here is something I can agree with 100%. In certain circles, this is known as Science! (it works, bitches)

No. That is science. The practice of Science! involves building giant robots powered by steam, crystal powered rayguns which utilize the principles of etheric vibration, bringing the dead back to life in thunderstorms, and genetically engineering intelligent land squid. In other words, Science! is much cooler, if less predictable, than science.

[Veyr]

Allow me to present my counterargument (http://xkcd.com/54/).


(though I do like your definition of "Science!" as well)

[The Glyphstone]

Allow me to present my counterargument (http://xkcd.com/54/).


(though I do like your definition of "Science!" as well)

Yes, that is Science. With a period. His definition of SCIENCE! is also correct, with an exclamation point. Science and SCIENCE! are very different things.

[Z3ro]

That said...
OK, not really. A straw man argument is invalid, but not exactly (formally) fallacious. The entirety of a straw man argument can be logically sound; the issue with the straw man is that its premises were inaccurate (because they were set up ahead of time to be easy to knock down).


Well, if you want to get formal. I just picked strawman because I figured it'd be something everyone would recognize. But point taken.


By the same token, just because a given conclusion is true doesn't mean that a given argument lacks logical fallacies. So the statement that "it can be true, and therefore valid" is wrong; a statement can be true while still being logically invalid. It just means that the person making the argument is using the wrong argument.


I don't follow you on this. Can you give an example?

[Gnaeus]

They appear to be capitalizing all their strip headings, and no exclamation point. I think they are describing science.

[Veyr]

Yes, that is Science. With a period. His definition of SCIENCE! is also correct, with an exclamation point. Science and SCIENCE! are very different things.
They appear to be capitalizing all their strip headings, and no exclamation point. I think they are describing science.
Hrm. It seems you are correct.


I don't follow you on this. Can you give an example?
All I was saying was that "logical fallacy" and "truth" are independent things. You can use a logical fallacy in an argument for a true fact without making that fact untrue, and an argument without any (formal) logical fallacies can still have an untrue conclusion (if one or more of the premises is inaccurate).

So like, if I were to say that "Gravity pulls objects towards the earth with an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s/s," this is a true statement (assuming various things and give or take a bit). However, if you questioned it and my argument in its favor was "Well, we know it's true because Newton said so," this is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). The acceleration due to gravity has nothing to do with Newton's saying so, it has to do with the various physical laws that Newton experimented upon and wrote about.

At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

[Z3ro]

All I was saying was that "logical fallacy" and "truth" are independent things. You can use a logical fallacy in an argument for a true fact without making that fact untrue, and an argument without any (formal) logical fallacies can still have an untrue conclusion (if one or more of the premises is inaccurate).

So like, if I were to say that "Gravity pulls objects towards the earth with an acceleration of about 9.8 m/s/s," this is a true statement (assuming various things and give or take a bit). However, if you questioned it and my argument in its favor was "Well, we know it's true because Newton said so," this is a logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority). The acceleration due to gravity has nothing to do with Newton's saying so, it has to do with the various physical laws that Newton experimented upon and wrote about.

At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

Okay, that clears things up. Though that part of my post was more directed at the second assertion, namely that "your monk might have been good, but that doesn't matter cause monks are bad".

[Malevolence]

Really? I can make encounters below CR1. A first level party with that composition can pretty easily handle 4 CR 1 encounters in a day. Throwing under CR encounters for a weak party, including lots of mooks and stuff that is vulnerable to straight damage, is not hard at all.

Then you are punished, both by less epic stories and by lower rewards. I mean throwing things that actually give level appropriate rewards and treasure, but don't slay the party on sight.


It can be done. It isn't trivial, if you want to avoid cakewalks or accidental TPKs.

You can pick just about anything level appropriate and know they'll be able to handle it. Avoiding it being easy is slightly harder, but still easy. Finding something that doesn't eat basket weavers for breakfast? Good luck with that.


Every member of that party can handle a same level fireball with little risk. A same level Wizard is an equal CR encounter, and if the DM thinks it is a problem, he can easily drop the wizard's level, or have him cast different spells, or have the party encounter him after he has cast some spells in another encounter. The fighter + monk can almost certainly beat a same level pure classed barbarian, if he isn't a charger (i.e. built at much higher optimization than they are). All 4 members of the party can certainly do so.

A level - 3 Barbarian two shots them, without Leap Attack or Shock Trooper. A Wizard needs around 3. So no, they lose, even to easy stuff.


There are a lot of people who play in low-op parties and have little difficulty. You seem to think that this is hard or impossible. I will admit it isn't to my taste, but there seem to be plenty of people who think that it is not only possible, but the easiest/best way to play. Please explain to me why their experiences are wrong. Please use actual facts, not a mix of baseless assertions and incorrect details.

Those are also the ones who advocate cheating, aka they can't even handle the game on easy. Call me unimpressed. And that question has already been answered many times.


Lots of people have fun playing softball. There isn't anything wrong with pitching softballs in a softball game.

The Fighter and the Monk can't hit the ball with anything other than their face. Getting hit in the face is not the intended response to a pitch.

[Gnaeus]

Then you are punished, both by less epic stories and by lower rewards.

Lower CR encounters can be just as rewarding.

To switch systems for a moment, there was a werewolf game, that I played in with a kinfolk. One night, the pack went off in the spirit world to fight some big threat to the city. I was left with some cubs at the pack's lair. So some little evil fire spirit comes up and threatens the cubs, and the cubs and I, after a long fight, beat it. I was badly hurt, but we won.

Now, the threat the werewolves were facing was much bigger and ultimately more dangerous than the little fire demon the cubs and I beat. I don't think any of them were seriously threatened, my character could have died.

But 10 years later, do any of those players remember what they fought that night? I doubt it. It was one more dead bane in a long line of dead banes. For my character, it was an epic struggle that he never forgot. For them, it was one more point of renown on their sheet. For me, it was a giant Frack You to all the furries who had ever called me a useless monkey. I promise that the cubs and I had more fun that night.

Whether a threat is epic or not has a lot more to do with the PC's, the emotional investment they have in the fight, and the DMing than it does with the magnitude of the numbers on the monsters sheet. Most of the players who have played from a young age can tell some story about how their PC stomped Demogorgon or some such nonsense. Certainly I could, If I was willing to. The stories that are well told mean more than the ones with the big numbers (Not that those two are in any way mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that low op is necessarily better. I love optimization myself. But saying that low optimization is a bar from epic stories is not true).


I mean throwing things that actually give level appropriate rewards and treasure, but don't slay the party on sight.

The DM is encouraged to adjust encounter CR and rewards for circumstances. Party composition seems to be well within that. If for my party, a CR -1 encounter is just as challenging as a CR encounter would be for "normal party" there is no reason I can't award exp and treasure at CR, not CR-1.


You can pick just about anything level appropriate and know they'll be able to handle it. Avoiding it being easy is slightly harder, but still easy. Finding something that doesn't eat basket weavers for breakfast? Good luck with that.

Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.




A level - 3 Barbarian two shots them, without Leap Attack or Shock Trooper.

So an equal level barbarian should have no problem then.

So, a level 4 human barbarian. Elite array, say strength 19 while raging. Greatsword. Does 2d6+6, average 13, +9 to hit, about AC 14. Level 4 Healer heals 2d8+6 with his cure moderate wounds. Average 14. The healer can heal as much damage as the Barbarian does, every round.

But wait, you say, the barbarian can power attack for full, now he does 2d6+15, average 22. But that is only if he hits. Full power attack, no shock trooper, give him a +1 weapon (included in damage above), and he is only +5 to hit. Monk probably can scrape together a 15-16 AC, so barbarian only hits half the time, average 11 damage per round, about what the healer heals with a cure light wounds. Monk with a 14 con has average of 8+13.5+4 hp, or 25.5. The monk + the healer can tank the same level barbarian, on average, without the aid of the other 2 party members. If the dice roll in his favor, and the monk drops, the healer heals the monk back up next round.

On the other hand, the monk, with a 12 strength, +3 BaB, and improved grapple, hits the barbarian with a touch attack (probably only needs about a 5 to hit) and wins grapple checks half the time. Once grappled, the barbarian is screwed, with a fighter and ninja beating on him, a healer healing any damage he has done so far. Barbarian has a 50% to break free any round, but that takes his standard action, he eats 2 more attacks from fighter + ninja, and the monk touch attacks him again on the following round.

So, Team Crummy, (Fighter, Ninja, Monk, Healer), can pretty clearly beat an unoptimized core Barbarian, same level. They can certainly own one at level -3. Heck, they should be able to beat 2 level 2s with little trouble. Fighter 4, with plate mail and shield, Dodge, Toughness, and Weapon Focus, can solo a level 2 barbarian for a couple rounds while his friends beat down the other guy.



A Wizard needs around 3. So no, they lose, even to easy stuff.

I don't know what that means. Are you saying that an unoptimized wizard can beat that party 3 levels above him? With the DM picking the wizard's spells?


Those are also the ones who advocate cheating, aka they can't even handle the game on easy. Call me unimpressed. And that question has already been answered many times.

Ahh. A complete lack of facts. So long as you continue your baseless accusations, with no evidence, we will understand that it is because you cannot prove them.

Find where it is shown that low-op parties cannot play fun games. If it has been answered many times, it should be easy for you. I'm throwing you a softball here, try not to hit it with your face.



The Fighter and the Monk can't hit the ball with anything other than their face. Getting hit in the face is not the intended response to a pitch.

Your sweeping over generalizations are Epic Fail. A level 4 monk can easily beat some challenges, like a CR 1 orc. When you say they can't beat any challenges, the only thing you prove is a reckless disregard for the truth.

[Gametime]

People really need to stop with the "in a low tier group, it's fine" argument. Even if the rest of the party sucks too, the enemies don't. And that is the actual standard you are being compared to. Which means being about equal to a Fighter is a bad thing, because you're not playing against the Fighter, you're playing with him against BBEG the Mook Eater.

I play in a group that is aggressively unoptimized. I'm talking ninja, CW samurai, monk/shadowdancer, healbot cleric, and bard/mindbender unoptimized. The DM gives us unoptimized encounters. We struggle sometimes, but are usually fine, and our only party wipe came at the end of a campaign when the BBEG exploded.

It's patently false that bad classes can't compete with the challenges presented. There are plenty of monsters in the books that just aren't all that dangerous.


Errata very specifically and clearly notes that the Monk's Belt magic item gives "Wis+1" to AC when worn by a non-Monk. The "works just like a Monk's AC bonus" is there to indicate:


Which errata is that? I can't find it in the DMG errata.




At the same time, if I used the argument that "All scientists are always right, and Stephen Hawking, a scientist, says that black holes destroy information, so therefore black holes must destroy information," this is a logically sound argument: given my premises, my conclusion must be true. The problem is that the first premises is not true (scientists are not always right), so my argument can be as logically sound as possible and my conclusion will still be questionable.

At the risk of invading this thread with even more formal logic jargon... an argument cannot be sound and have a questionable conclusion. An argument can be valid and have a questionable conclusion. In formal logic, an argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises (i.e. if it is impossible that the premises be true and the conclusion false). A valid argument could still have a false conclusion if the premises are not true, but if they are, the conclusion must be true too. An argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and the premises are true, which means that the conclusion of a sound argument will always be true.

[Lans]

A tier 5 party is more than a match for damn near any equal CR encounter. The problem comes from the higher than equal CR encounters.

I think Level+4 is where the party is expected to be able to beat with knowledgeable.

[LordBlades]

But they don't have to. The entire party has to beat it. A fire giant is unlikely to be able to kill even the ninja in a single round. It has an AC that most level 10 characters will hit pretty easily, and only 145 HP. No combat reflexes. Averages only 25 damage per hit. Probably only about 50 damage per round against PCs with ACs in the 23-25 range, which isn't high even for unoptimized level 10 characters. Against 3 damage dealers and a dedicated healer, it isn't too hard a fight. And again, if the party proves particularly bad, it isn't hard to pretend that every monster has a +1 or +2 circumstance adjustment to its CR. If you put the party at level 11, the healer alone can heal more damage than the giant can deal.

I didn't say solo beat it, but stand up to it in melee.

Let's take a 10th level Monk with 25 PB (that's the PB designers say encounters ae balanced against)with a defensive build (13 str 16 dex(+2 levels), 14 con 14 wis 8 int 8 cha). now let's say said monk spends at least half of his 49000 gp WBL on defensive items (bracers of armor +3, gloves of dex +2; periapt of wis +2, item of con +2; amulet of nat armor +2, ring of prot +2 for a total of 33000 gold).

His AC is 10+2(class)+5(dex)+3(wis)+7(items)=27;
His HP is 10d8+30=avg. 79

Fire giant hits monk on rolls of 7/12/17 so a bit less than 2 attacks/round on average; let's say 2 for simplicity's sake(most 25 PB monks have less AC than mye xample; Average Fire Giant damage per attack is 25.5; So average DPR vs Monk is 51;

This means, without healing, the monk will be dead in 2 rounds. Now let's assume some merciful cleric decides the monk is worth his actions and pops a cure critical wounds every round; this lowers the DPR suffered by monk with 4d8+10(avg 28) to 23; So the monk survives 4 rounds vs. the fire giant.

Now, the question is: can 3 unoptimized chars (cleric is healing) down a fire giant in 4 rounds? Or rather 2.5 chars since if you build a monk this defensive it won't do much offensively

[The Glyphstone]

Because I'm bored...warning, lots of number crunching:


If the Fire Giant managed to full attack him, then we'll assume the Monk got a hit in first. With high Dex, he probably took weapon Finesse, so it's only a swing at +14 if he charged. with the +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists he can afford with what's left of his WBL. That's vs. AC23, roughly a 50% chance of hitting. On the monk's 1d10+1 damage (Average 6.5), he's inflicted average 3 damage. Only 139 to go.:smallbiggrin:

But now it's the party's turn. While the monk is soaking the giant's hits, the fighter and rogue are wailing on it. The fighter charges, shrugging through the AoO. He's sporting Str 18 after level bonuses, 20 after an item of +2 Str, and can afford a +3 sword without hurting his defenses severely. That's a total attack bonus of +18, +20 on the charge. He's low-optimized, though, so he has Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), along with WSpe and GWSpec for a total of +22. With a charge bonus, he has +24, and is flanking the giant for +26, so he'll Power Attack for 8. That gives him a 75% hit chance dealing 2d6+28 damaage (round off to 35),x.75, dealing 26 damage.

The Rogue goes now (realistically, he should have gone first, but he delayed to ensure flanking buddies). Dex 16 start, +2 level, +2 item, he's hitting at +16 with the flank and charge assuming WFin. 1d6 (shortsword) +5d6 SA, average 17.5 at a 60% hit chance, so another 10 damage.

Now it's the Monk's turn to unleash his full attack. He has no Charge bonus now, but instead flanks for the same +2. Each of his first 2 hits does average 3 damage again, then his iterative for 2 damage.

Cleric heals the meatsoak.

Giant's Turn: Thwacks the monk. Monk has taken 2 of the 4 full attacks necessary to kill him. Giant has 95 HP left.

Fighter's turn again. Striking at +24 this time, so he only PAs for 6 to make my math easier. Still a 75% hit ratio for 30-ish damage (-25%/iterative), so he deals 22 with his first attack, 15 with the second. Total of 37.

Rogue attacks, at +14/+9 after flank. Average 10 damage first hit, 7 damage second hit, total of 17.

Monk flails pointlessly, dealing another 8 damage overall.

Cleric heals.

Giant goes thwack, Monk will die next turn. Giant has 33 Hp left.

Assuming average rolls, the Fighter kills the giant this turn. Total cost to the party: 2 4th level spell slots.

Conclusion: yes, three unoptimized melee characters can defeat a Fire Giant in less than 4 rounds. One being a monk did not contribute as much as a non-Monk would have, but then that wasn't really the question posed.:smallsigh: Also, the Rogue has a nonmagical weapon for some reason in my analysis, so realistically the odds go even further in the party's favor.

[Gnaeus]

I didn't say solo beat it, but stand up to it in melee.

Let's take a 10th level Monk with 25 PB (that's the PB designers say encounters ae balanced against)with a defensive build (13 str 16 dex(+2 levels), 14 con 14 wis 8 int 8 cha). now let's say said monk spends at least half of his 49000 gp WBL on defensive items (bracers of armor +3, gloves of dex +2; periapt of wis +2, item of con +2; amulet of nat armor +2, ring of prot +2 for a total of 33000 gold).

His AC is 10+2(class)+5(dex)+3(wis)+7(items)=27;
His HP is 10d8+30=avg. 79

Fire giant hits monk on rolls of 7/12/17 so a bit less than 2 attacks/round on average; let's say 2 for simplicity's sake(most 25 PB monks have less AC than mye xample; Average Fire Giant damage per attack is 25.5; So average DPR vs Monk is 51;

This means, without healing, the monk will be dead in 2 rounds. Now let's assume some merciful cleric decides the monk is worth his actions and pops a cure critical wounds every round; this lowers the DPR suffered by monk with 4d8+10(avg 28) to 23; So the monk survives 4 rounds vs. the fire giant.

Now, the question is: can 3 unoptimized chars (cleric is healing) down a fire giant in 4 rounds? Or rather 2.5 chars since if you build a monk this defensive it won't do much offensively

Several objections:
1. Team Crummy, lacking a cleric, has a Healer. His Cure Critical heals 30. He has a unicorn companion who can also heal. He also has Close Wounds on his list. Certainly 5 rounds, maybe more depending on how much healing Healer & companion want to spend.
2. The Monk can heal himself for 20 damage per day. He could also tumble out of combat, and drink a potion, and come back in a round or 2 later.
3. Team Crummy's fighter, with his Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization and +1 weapon, should be able to do at least 10 points of damage per round. The ninja should be doing close to 20 damage per hit. The monk ought to be doing at least 8 damage per round, right? On rounds when he isn't healing, the unicorn should hit almost 50% of the time, for 12.5/hit, call him 5 more damage per round. That is 43 damage per round, should be enough to drop the giant before the monk goes down or has to use Wholeness of body.

Team crummy, with low op but relevant feats, should beat Fire Giant.

My 5 year old wants me to add the smiley with the sunglasses:smallcool:.

Edit: Glyphstone's low op party is slightly better than mine. They kill giant with less resources used.

[Malevolence]

Lower CR encounters can be just as rewarding.

But 10 years later, do any of those players remember what they fought that night? I doubt it. It was one more dead bane in a long line of dead banes. For my character, it was an epic struggle that he never forgot. For them, it was one more point of renown on their sheet. For me, it was a giant Frack You to all the furries who had ever called me a useless monkey. I promise that the cubs and I had more fun that night.

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.


Whether a threat is epic or not has a lot more to do with the PC's, the emotional investment they have in the fight, and the DMing than it does with the magnitude of the numbers on the monsters sheet. Most of the players who have played from a young age can tell some story about how their PC stomped Demogorgon or some such nonsense. Certainly I could, If I was willing to. The stories that are well told mean more than the ones with the big numbers (Not that those two are in any way mutually exclusive. I'm not saying that low op is necessarily better. I love optimization myself. But saying that low optimization is a bar from epic stories is not true).

No, it has to do with what you are fighting. Which in turn is a factor of numbers. No one cares about the guy who beats a bunch of Orcs at level 5. Most people are impressed when the party who has no magic better than Slow takes out a Frost Giant.


The DM is encouraged to adjust encounter CR and rewards for circumstances. Party composition seems to be well within that. If for my party, a CR -1 encounter is just as challenging as a CR encounter would be for "normal party" there is no reason I can't award exp and treasure at CR, not CR-1.

Yes, reward them for making terrible characters. I'm sure that will help.


Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.

So you can create a paraplegic commoner, and treat it as if it were CR 10. This has no basis on any credible argument.


I don't know what that means. Are you saying that an unoptimized wizard can beat that party 3 levels above him? With the DM picking the wizard's spells?

As clearly stated, it means 3 Fireballs = dead gimp party.

And remember, if you are struggling at all to defeat routine encounters, that means boss battles slay you all outright.

[Bayar]

Prove it. You make the crummiest 10th level party you can, using PC classes, and I promise I can easily make an encounter that will not eat it for breakfast. Bear in mind that 4, 10th level commoners with far below WBL can crush 4 unoptimized kobolds. My encounter does not have to be a 10 CR encounter.


Are 4 unoptimised kobolds used as a 10 CR encounter ? Define unoptimised please. Is it: no class levels, only npc class levels, only low tier classes with bad feats, no weapons and no Improved unarmed strike feat ? Depending on your definition, the party will not have any problems squishing them, but it might be so low on the chalenge level as to be just a small time sink, something that is a nuisance and not actually a challenge.



So an equal level barbarian should have no problem then.

So, a level 4 human barbarian. Elite array, say strength 19 while raging. Greatsword. Does 2d6+6, average 13, +9 to hit, about AC 14. Level 4 Healer heals 2d8+6 with his cure moderate wounds. Average 14. The healer can heal as much damage as the Barbarian does, every round.

But wait, you say, the barbarian can power attack for full, now he does 2d6+15, average 22. But that is only if he hits. Full power attack, no shock trooper, give him a +1 weapon (included in damage above), and he is only +5 to hit. Monk probably can scrape together a 15-16 AC, so barbarian only hits half the time, average 11 damage per round, about what the healer heals with a cure light wounds. Monk with a 14 con has average of 8+13.5+4 hp, or 25.5. The monk + the healer can tank the same level barbarian, on average, without the aid of the other 2 party members. If the dice roll in his favor, and the monk drops, the healer heals the monk back up next round.

On the other hand, the monk, with a 12 strength, +3 BaB, and improved grapple, hits the barbarian with a touch attack (probably only needs about a 5 to hit) and wins grapple checks half the time. Once grappled, the barbarian is screwed, with a fighter and ninja beating on him, a healer healing any damage he has done so far. Barbarian has a 50% to break free any round, but that takes his standard action, he eats 2 more attacks from fighter + ninja, and the monk touch attacks him again on the following round.

So, Team Crummy, (Fighter, Ninja, Monk, Healer), can pretty clearly beat an unoptimized core Barbarian, same level. They can certainly own one at level -3. Heck, they should be able to beat 2 level 2s with little trouble. Fighter 4, with plate mail and shield, Dodge, Toughness, and Weapon Focus, can solo a level 2 barbarian for a couple rounds while his friends beat down the other guy.


I wonder why the barbarian is attacking the monk and not just go poke the healer with his sharp stick.



Your sweeping over generalizations are Epic Fail. A level 4 monk can easily beat some challenges, like a CR 1 orc. When you say they can't beat any challenges, the only thing you prove is a reckless disregard for the truth.

That is not a challenge. A CR 1 orc is not a challenge for any level 4 character. Stating that a level 4 monk can beat a cr 1 orc is a challenging encounter is like stating that setting a beetle on fire is a challenging action when you are a human with a lighter and the beetle already had all of his legs cut off.

[Gnaeus]

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.

You don't get it. I had fun. I "won" that game. Because I had fun, and I told a story that was important to my character.



No, it has to do with what you are fighting. Which in turn is a factor of numbers. No one cares about the guy who beats a bunch of Orcs at level 5. Most people are impressed when the party who has no magic better than Slow takes out a Frost Giant.

You still do not understand. I suspect that you are either young, or have not been gaming long. Here is an experiment for you. Go to a con. Find 10 random gamers. Tell them all the story of how your super-character killed a gargantuan dragon. See how many of them care.



Yes, reward them for making terrible characters. I'm sure that will help.

They don't need "help". If they are having fun, they are doing fine. They aren't in a race with the CharOp boards to see how many CR 10 monsters they can beat by level 8.



So you can create a paraplegic commoner, and treat it as if it were CR 10. This has no basis on any credible argument.

Sure it does, You say a DM can't challenge a low op party. Pretty clearly , I can.



As clearly stated, it means 3 Fireballs = dead gimp party.

Nae problemo. DM controlls wizard's spell list. He doesn't have 3 fireballs. Heck, he didn't start out pre-buffed, and he doesn't know D Door or have abrupt jaunt. He will be lucky if he gets one fireball off.


And remember, if you are struggling at all to defeat routine encounters, that means boss battles slay you all outright.

So the day consists of 3 CR-1 battles and a CR +1 boss. Easy enough. There is no rule that a boss has to be CR +4.



Ahh. A complete lack of facts. So long as you continue your baseless accusations, with no evidence, we will understand that it is because you cannot prove them.

Find where it is shown that low-op parties cannot play fun games. If it has been answered many times, it should be easy for you. I'm throwing you a softball here, try not to hit it with your face.


I'm still not seeing a link to that evidence, or where it has been shown that low op parties can't have fun games. The softball is in the air, traveling VERY SLOWLY. More assertions, still no facts!


Are 4 unoptimised kobolds used as a 10 CR encounter ? Define unoptimised please. Is it: no class levels, only npc class levels, only low tier classes with bad feats, no weapons and no Improved unarmed strike feat ? Depending on your definition, the party will not have any problems squishing them, but it might be so low on the chalenge level as to be just a small time sink, something that is a nuisance and not actually a challenge.

That is not a challenge. A CR 1 orc is not a challenge for any level 4 character. Stating that a level 4 monk can beat a cr 1 orc is a challenging encounter is like stating that setting a beetle on fire is a challenging action when you are a human with a lighter and the beetle already had all of his legs cut off.

The point is that statements like "A fighter or a monk can't beat anything" or "it is difficult to find encounters that won't crush a low op party" are false on their face. I can always make an easier encounter than a party on any optimization level. It is no different than the process of throwing really high CR monsters at high-op parties, just in reverse. Monsters don't have to be optimized, or even at CR. As long as they challenge the PCs, not a problem.



I wonder why the barbarian is attacking the monk and not just go poke the healer with his sharp stick.

Doesn't really go any differently. Healer can heal himself as well as the monk. Healer probably has as good or better Hp & AC than monk. And again, once the barbarian is stunned or grappled, he is pretty much just a punching bag for 3 characters.

[Malevolence]

You don't get it. I had fun. I "won" that game. Because I had fun, and I told a story that was important to my character.

"I'm the DM, I killed my group about four times this session. I had fun though, so it's all ok."

"I'm a player. I have stolen from the party sixty three times so far. I am really the BBEG, and am toying with everyone for my own amusement. But I am having fun, so it's all ok."


Nae problemo. DM controlls wizard's spell list. He doesn't have 3 fireballs. Heck, he didn't start out pre-buffed, and he doesn't know D Door or have abrupt jaunt. He will be lucky if he gets one fireball off.

There is no level below Fireball. Even Fireball already puts the lie to his supposedly high Int stat.


So the day consists of 3 CR-1 battles and a CR +1 boss. Easy enough. There is no rule that a boss has to be CR +4.

So your solution to boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

[Gnaeus]

"I'm the DM, I killed my group about four times this session. I had fun though, so it's all ok."

"I'm a player. I have stolen from the party sixty three times so far. I am really the BBEG, and am toying with everyone for my own amusement. But I am having fun, so it's all ok."

You really don't see the difference between having fun by making everyone else suffer, and having fun based on roleplaying and enjoying your story? How sad.


There is no level below Fireball. Even Fireball already puts the lie to his supposedly high Int stat.

Sure there is. The wizard has Vampiric Touch, Dispel Magic, and Magic Circle v. Evil. Maybe he wasn't planning to fight a group of adventurers that day.


So your solution to boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

The only effort I have suggested so far is pretending that a low op party is one or two levels below their CR, picking NPCs with the crummy feats listed in the back of the DMG, and picking weak spells for casters. Those are (in order)
Easy
Easier than building strong NPCs,
As easy as picking strong spells.

I see no effort here.

Still no proof. Still no link to where it has been shown that low op parties can't have fun. I'm beginning to think you are making that up Malevolence. I mean it has been shown many times, right?

[LordBlades]

Because struggling desperately to kill a mook that wasn't even a threat to the babies of real characters proves that your character is useful, instead of what it actually does, namely proving the exact opposite? The "furries" are right to mock your character mercilessly. They, meanwhile are busy dealing with actual threats and epicness.



It's all relative, maybe that world has no optimized characters. Maybe in a certain world killing a regular Orc at level 5 is a big heroic feat.

Not saying that's a world I'd like to play in (I'm an optimizer), but I'm sure some people like that kind of games.

[Z3ro]

So your solution to the boss battles slaughter the party is to make everything a mook? Yes, I'm sure it doesn't require more effort to nerf up the entire world just so a party will not hurt themselves living in it than it would to just run things as they are, or even step it up.

I'm amused by your insistence that you can't have fun playing low-op.

My first ever D&D experience came at the beginning of 3.0. The group was almost exclusively new players, and we knew nothing about optimization. We were fourth level, and the boss fight of our session was an Ogre. Yes, one CR 2 ogre, unmodified. Almost killed half the party. I still remember that as one of the most epic, interesting encounters I've ever fought.

[marcielle]

Indeed, Mr. Zero. As one currently playing a pure monk, I will admit that they are mechanically inferior. However, I would just like to add that if that if one would pass one class over for another simply because it isn't as good as killing things, then I am afraid the majority of Mr. Gygax's game is lost on you. May I suggest( and mind you this is just a suggestion) that you try an 4th edition or an mmo? There lies FAR more room for your math and optimization.
One should play a druid, not beacuse he can stomp anything flat in 2 turns or less, but because one wants to be a champion for nature and spirituality.

[ScionoftheVoid]

Indeed, Mr. Zero. As one currently playing a pure monk, I will admit that they are mechanically inferior. However, I would just like to add that if that if one would pass one class over for another simply because it isn't as good as killing things, then I am afraid the majority of Mr. Gygax's game is lost on you. May I suggest( and mind you this is just a suggestion) that you try an 4th edition or an mmo? There lies FAR more room for your math and optimization.
One should play a druid, not beacuse he can stomp anything flat in 2 turns or less, but because one wants to be a champion for nature and spirituality.

I don't disagree with your general idea, but 3.5 has a far larger gap between optimised and non-optimised than 4e, but you are guaranteed that your class will be good enough in 4e (as far as I am aware), so I feel that "there lies FAR more room for your math and optimization" is a bit misleading.

Secondly, playing a druid because you want to change into animals and casts spells for whatever reason is also valid (most optimisation isn't so much "my numbers are bigger than yours" so much as "this character can do exactly what I want them to be able to", which can be anything from killing gods to being a good but not unbeatable swordsman).

Again, low optimisation games can certainly be fun. They're not my preferred style, but that doesn't mean that games where defeating a nest of Gricks is an achievement at level ten can't be fun. Malevolence, I suggest you have some more respect for other people's playstyles and preferences.

[LordBlades]

Indeed, Mr. Zero. As one currently playing a pure monk, I will admit that they are mechanically inferior. However, I would just like to add that if that if one would pass one class over for another simply because it isn't as good as killing things, then I am afraid the majority of Mr. Gygax's game is lost on you. May I suggest( and mind you this is just a suggestion) that you try an 4th edition or an mmo? There lies FAR more room for your math and optimization.
One should play a druid, not beacuse he can stomp anything flat in 2 turns or less, but because one wants to be a champion for nature and spirituality.

Actually, one should play a druid (or a monk for that matter) for whatever reason fancies him. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in D&D.

Also, fluff is what you make of it. You can play an unarmed swordsage or a psychic warrior (Talashtora or not) and call it a 'monk'. It's got the same flavor and it doesn't suck mechanically.

[Lans]

I would like to say that 4 commoners with the Wild Cohort feat should beat a fire giant easily

4 Commoners 1 wild cohort, 3 fey heritage, 6 fey presence, 9 fey legacy should do it.

[TOZ]

Looks like everything that needs to be said has been said.

The reason monks suck to me is that the expectation does not match the reality.

You CAN build a monk that contributes in combat. But the way you do that is NOT the way you think when you first read the class.

Running a monk through Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil as your first character is not an experience I would wish on anyone.

[Lhurgyof]

Because I'm bored...warning, lots of number crunching:


If the Fire Giant managed to full attack him, then we'll assume the Monk got a hit in first. With high Dex, he probably took weapon Finesse, so it's only a swing at +14 if he charged. with the +2 Amulet of Mighty Fists he can afford with what's left of his WBL. That's vs. AC23, roughly a 50% chance of hitting. On the monk's 1d10+1 damage (Average 6.5), he's inflicted average 3 damage. Only 139 to go.:smallbiggrin:

But now it's the party's turn. While the monk is soaking the giant's hits, the fighter and rogue are wailing on it. The fighter charges, shrugging through the AoO. He's sporting Str 18 after level bonuses, 20 after an item of +2 Str, and can afford a +3 sword without hurting his defenses severely. That's a total attack bonus of +18, +20 on the charge. He's low-optimized, though, so he has Weapon Focus and Greater Weapon Focus (greatsword), along with WSpe and GWSpec for a total of +22. With a charge bonus, he has +24, and is flanking the giant for +26, so he'll Power Attack for 8. That gives him a 75% hit chance dealing 2d6+28 damaage (round off to 35),x.75, dealing 26 damage.

The Rogue goes now (realistically, he should have gone first, but he delayed to ensure flanking buddies). Dex 16 start, +2 level, +2 item, he's hitting at +16 with the flank and charge assuming WFin. 1d6 (shortsword) +5d6 SA, average 17.5 at a 60% hit chance, so another 10 damage.

Now it's the Monk's turn to unleash his full attack. He has no Charge bonus now, but instead flanks for the same +2. Each of his first 2 hits does average 3 damage again, then his iterative for 2 damage.

Cleric heals the meatsoak.

Giant's Turn: Thwacks the monk. Monk has taken 2 of the 4 full attacks necessary to kill him. Giant has 95 HP left.

Fighter's turn again. Striking at +24 this time, so he only PAs for 6 to make my math easier. Still a 75% hit ratio for 30-ish damage (-25%/iterative), so he deals 22 with his first attack, 15 with the second. Total of 37.

Rogue attacks, at +14/+9 after flank. Average 10 damage first hit, 7 damage second hit, total of 17.

Monk flails pointlessly, dealing another 8 damage overall.

Cleric heals.

Giant goes thwack, Monk will die next turn. Giant has 33 Hp left.

Assuming average rolls, the Fighter kills the giant this turn. Total cost to the party: 2 4th level spell slots.

Conclusion: yes, three unoptimized melee characters can defeat a Fire Giant in less than 4 rounds. One being a monk did not contribute as much as a non-Monk would have, but then that wasn't really the question posed.:smallsigh: Also, the Rogue has a nonmagical weapon for some reason in my analysis, so realistically the odds go even further in the party's favor.

Amulet of mighty fists? What is this nonsense? Nobody should ever buy that, but instead grab a necklace of natural attacks...

[RaginChangeling]

Amulet of mighty fists? What is this nonsense? Nobody should ever buy that, but instead grab a necklace of natural attacks...

Unless you have more than 3 natural attacks. Enchanting a warshaper gets expensive with that :smallfrown:

[Lhurgyof]

Unless you have more than 3 natural attacks. Enchanting a warshaper gets expensive with that :smallfrown:

Ah, then I revise my previous statement to all Monks.

Edit: Ah, unoptimized characters? Well, damn. Nevermind then.

[Veyr]

Even with a multitude of natural attacks, having some decent special abilities on some of them is a lot better than having +3 (or whatever) to all of them.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Best monk fix ever. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122)

[Jeebers]

I don't like monks because they don't belong in the medieval mileu. They aren't even remotely European conceptually. Also, they do their best to be indestructible, but their offensive abilities aren't all that much. Makes for a boring PC.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Best monk fix ever. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122)

Fixed that for you! (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bestselling-sci-fi-fantasy-2007/535-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.coverbrowser.com/covers/bestselling-sci-fi-fantasy-2007/11&usg=__n15MaOlKUe4hd5xs5gmHm4gq8Ss=&h=549&w=420&sz=26&hl=en&start=0&sig2=C8gqqa8ABCzHFQRJ1raLLA&zoom=1&tbnid=u11LjmUqJxez7M:&tbnh=128&tbnw=98&ei=s2KaTZPRI8OP0QGA0c2CDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTome%2Bof%2BBattle%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den %26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DlMa%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1600%26bih%3D695%26tbs%3Disch: 1%26prmd%3Divnsfd&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=120&vpy=58&dur=1274&hovh=257&hovw=196&tx=131&ty=122&oei=s2KaTZPRI8OP0QGA0c2CDA&page=1&ndsp=41&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0):smalltongue: