monk stuff

[hivedragon]

so the sword sage gets most of the key monk abilities at the cost of an armor proficiency? does that sound unfair to anyone? should a rogue get the key monk abilities if the give up one feat's worth of abilities?

[Cog]

The monk class itself is what's unfair. It's not the Swordsage's fault that it's actually competent on a battlefield.

It's an alternate rule, though. You're free to not allow it if it bothers you that much.

[hivedragon]

The monk class itself is what's unfair. It's not the Swordsage's fault that it's actually competent on a battlefield.

It's an alternate rule, though. You're free to not allow it if it bothers you that much.

I'm not sure if it does bother me.
I want to know what is a fair exchange when gaining monk abilities.
I'm actually been wanting to make an assassin (the prc in the DMG) that can hit and move like a monk.

[Sacrieur]

You mean the meaningful part of the monk's abilities, making a useful and capable unarmed character capable of competing with tier 2 and 3 classes? Yeah, that's just so unfair to the monk.

Monks are stupid. And ugly. 'nough said.

---

No, it's technically "not fair", but really, what the hell is? You have abjurant champion giving you huge bonuses to abjuration spells without the loss of caster levels. And then you have your nice CW Samurai, which could perhaps beat-up a commoner on a good day.

So is it fair our Mr. Wizard can make meteors fall down from the sky while our dear Samurai can get himself beat up by some farmer? Nah, it's just unfair that people who play Wizards are constantly having to be dumbed down because of WotC's incompetence.

[SiuiS]

There's a Druid ACF that nets you monk unarmed, swift movement and AC, at the expense of wildshape. Get a PrC that "adds to your Druid levels for wildshape" and you have the best of both worlds- a Kung-Fu panda!

[Gavinfoxx]

Didn't you know? D&D 3.5 classes aren't balanced. They vary widely in power and versatility level, not to mention how easy they are to play, plan, or run.

If you have not yet read the tier system, please do so.

[Mr.Bookworm]

I'm not sure if it does bother me.
I want to know what is a fair exchange when gaining monk abilities.
I'm actually been wanting to make an assassin (the prc in the DMG) that can hit and move like a monk.

Ah, I see. I think people are assuming that you meant it in a negative way.

But, I don't know if fair is the right word. It's certainly not overpowered, and it actually makes for an effective character. Note that the suggested ACF in ToB doesn't actually give Swordsages any other Monk abilities, though, just unarmed strike progression.

[holywhippet]

Didn't you know? D&D 3.5 classes aren't balanced. They vary widely in power and versatility level, not to mention how easy they are to play, plan, or run.

If you have not yet read the tier system, please do so.

I have two schools of thought on why this is so. The first is that the system was designed by roleplayers who want to play a certain type of character, not crunch fanatics who only care about hard numbers.

The second is that the developers wanted to reward people who actually research the system and find where all the synergy lies.

[Cog]

The second is that the developers wanted to reward people who actually research the system and find where all the synergy lies.
One of the developers has claimed (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142) exactly this.

[Sacrieur]

I have two schools of thought on why this is so. The first is that the system was designed by roleplayers who want to play a certain type of character, not crunch fanatics who only care about hard numbers.

The second is that the developers wanted to reward people who actually research the system and find where all the synergy lies.

TL;DR: They BS'd it without much thought into balance and now they're making excuses.

Yeah, those people who researched real hard and played a Wizard 20. So much optimizing. :confused:

[testpatternmih]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0

Monks are basicly non-functional. So they really didn't take much away from them. It's more like salvaging parts from a broken down car, its not using it...

Setting Sun UA Swordsage is what a monk should be.

[holywhippet]

TL;DR: They BS'd it without much thought into balance and now they're making excuses.

Yeah, those people who researched real hard and played a Wizard 20. So much optimizing. :confused:

Consider what would happen if everyone played a wizard though - a level 1 party of wizards could likely get TPK'd in their first battle. Even at high levels, there are things that can shut down a wizard pretty much entirely.

Anyway, wizard = awesome is hardly new to 3rd edition. In 2nd edition wizards started of fragile, but ended up being very powerful as long as they still had spells.

[Sacrieur]

Consider what would happen if everyone played a wizard though - a level 1 party of wizards could likely get TPK'd in their first battle. Even at high levels, there are things that can shut down a wizard pretty much entirely.

Anyway, wizard = awesome is hardly new to 3rd edition. In 2nd edition wizards started of fragile, but ended up being very powerful as long as they still had spells.

Sure there are things that can shut down wizards. But it doesn't change the fact wizards can do everyone's job. Often better than those classes that do it.

[erikun]

Consider what would happen if everyone played a wizard though - a level 1 party of wizards could likely get TPK'd in their first battle.
This is why your average Tier 1 party is Cleric, Druid, Druid, Wizard. Perhaps substitute an Archivist or Artificer in there.

Anyways, the Tome of Battle was basically a re-writing of the martial classes to bring them on par with most of the game. The Warblade isn't fair to the Fighter, the Crusader isn't fair to the Paladin, and the Unarmed Swordsage isn't fair to the Monk. Sure, you could say that the Fighter and Paladin get a bunch of stuff that the Warblade/Crusader don't, but the Swordsage isn't getting the 20 levels of abilities that the Monk has either.

The fact that you may consider the 20 levels of Monk abilities to be effectively worthless is kind of the reason they printed the Tome of Battle in the first place. :smallwink:

[MeeposFire]

Actually I think it was less of that and more about testing the idea of encounter based melee powers that they were thinking to use in what became 4e. The fact that it was better than the original stuff was icing on the cake.