Unarmed swordsage, where is the rule?

[etrpgb]

I keep hearing of this ``unarmed swordsage'' as the monk as it should be.

But... as far I can see the swordsage is quite powerless without any weapons. Where is the rule? It is a web variant maybe?

[KillianHawkeye]

It's in the "adaptation" section towards the end of the class description.

[Amphetryon]

I keep hearing of this ``unarmed swordsage'' as the monk as it should be.

But... as far I can see the swordsage is quite powerless without any weapons. Where is the rule? It is a web variant maybe?

1. "Unarmed Strike" is a viable weapon for many Swordsage maneuvers.

2. Reread the Adaptation section, on page 20. "To create a monklike character with a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the swordsage the monk’s unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency." One might assume that the Swordsage's Wisdom-to-AC bonus would also be reworked in that case, since it ONLY functions when the Swordsage is in Light armor, by RAW (which is silly, but I digress).

[etrpgb]

To create a monklike character with a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency.


So it is nothing RAW. It is like stating that Ur-Priests are clerics who lost their god...


Edit: Got swordsaged.... ironic.

Edit2:
It is up the DM of course, but I think a good way is:

Replace Weapon and Armor Proficiency with:
Unarmed swordsage are proficient with certain basic peasant weapons and some special weapons that are part of monk training. The weapons with which a monk is proficient are club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling. Light armors, and no shields.
The Weapon Proficiency can be changes with others from the various monk variants.

Add somewhere the ``Unarmed Strike'' section of the srd monk.

[The Redwolf]

So it is nothing RAW. It is like stating that Ur-Priests are clerics who lost their god...

No, it is RAW, they state it specifically in the Tome of Battle underneath the entry for Swordsage that you can do that. It's on page 20 with the section heading Adaptation as was said earlier.

[Zdrak]

Yes, you can do that. It's a suggestion for homebrew, basically. Not an official class.

[Togath]

A swordsage even without the unarmed variant is still fine unarmed, since it's only a -4 to hit for lethal damage, or no penalty if they hit for non lethal.

[RFLS]

A swordsage even without the unarmed variant is still fine unarmed, since it's only a -4 to hit for lethal damage, or no penalty if they hit for non lethal.

Uhm...you also provoke AoOs if you're not proficient with unarmed strikes.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the most common adaptation is to drop light armor proficiency and give them Improved Unarmed Strike and the damage progression the monk gets for unarmed strikes.

[awa]

your not getting it they have an adaptation in the book.
In the sword sage entry the[B]book[B] say you can make a magic monk by doing these things.

[Waddacku]

It's not an official variant class or ACF. It's a suggestion for how to adapt it to fit your needs from the writers. They're not synonymous.
What really bugs me is that it's the only one of the three that gets any suggestions at all for mechanical changes. Did we really need ideas for fluff adaptions for Warblades of all things?

[RFLS]

your not getting it they have an adaptation in the book.
In the sword sage entry the[B]book[B] say you can make a magic monk by doing these things.

No. They don't have an adaptation in the book. That thing does not exist. What they do have is a suggestion for an adaptation. These are not the same thing. You cannot pretend that they are the same thing. Attempting to use this variant without DM approval will likely get quirked eyebrows at the least. The entire text concerning this found within Tome of Battle is this:


To create a monklike character with a tremendous array of fantastic moves and strikes, give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and remove his light armor proficiency.

Sidenote: I'm pretty sure that the above quote doesn't violate the forum rules, but if it does, someone let me know and I'll take it down immediately. I don't want anyone to get into trouble.

[etrpgb]

I guess it means little-to-nothing to anyone other, but I spoke with the DM and we decided that the Unarmed Swordsage has:

Armor Proficiency: Light Armor.
Shield Proficiency: None.
Weapon Proficiency: Depends on the school. Just like SRD monk (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm) or another school from Dragon Magazine 330 (page 90).
The Unarmed Swordsage has Unarmed Strike (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#unarmedStrike) ability as SRD monk.
The rest as the ToB Swordsage.


The Unarmed Swordsage replaces the monk class that cannot be used anymore.

[The Redwolf]

The Unarmed Swordsage replaces the monk class that cannot be used anymore.

So you guys just outright banned monks in your group?:smalleek: I mean, I get they aren't exactly very popular for power, but they're a fun class and they have unique stuff and just completely getting rid of them strikes me as going a little far. Granted, it's your guys' group and you can do what you want and all that, but man, just totally removing them...:smalleek:

[awa]

huh thought their was more to unarmed sword sage then just that. well that's what i get from just going by memory

[Saintheart]

So you guys just outright banned monks in your group?:smalleek: I mean, I get they aren't exactly very popular for power, but they're a fun class and they have unique stuff and just completely getting rid of them strikes me as going a little far. Granted, it's your guys' group and you can do what you want and all that, but man, just totally removing them...:smalleek:

This +1. I didn't make this exact argument in the Swordsage Handbook thread, but it's a concern. Halfling Monks in particular lose out on some goodies from racial substitution levels if you outright ban monks or don't come up with a nice synthesis between the two.

[etrpgb]

I am not even sure what you are talking about, sorry. Most swordsage maneuvers works fine even if you are small or with little strength.
Do you want an Halfling monk? Go unarmed swordsage halfling...


Our point is much simpler. The monks class is really badly made: just think that at level 20 you got a power that is like a level 1 spell, just weaker.


To us the unarmed swordsage is essentially an errata that replace the mistake.

[TuggyNE]

I am not even sure what you are talking about, sorry. Most swordsage maneuvers works fine even if you are small or with little strength.
Do you want an Halfling monk? Go unarmed swordsage halfling...

The first level of the Monk class, and often the second, and sometimes the sixth, can be surprisingly helpful in certain optimized builds. The racial substitution level mentioned allows Halfling Monks specifically to switch out some of the regular Monk features for (IIRC) +1d6 skirmish damage, and perhaps one or two other things; combining that with that item (Sparring Dummy of the Masters?) that allows Monks to train 10' steps, and then multiclassing into Scout, gives you a handy always-on skirmish.

[Diarmuid]

Yes, it's an alternate rule like the massive damage rules, auto kill on 20/20 rolling, etc.

[nyjastul69]

Yes, it's an alternate rule like the massive damage rules, auto kill on 20/20 rolling, etc.
Where is the alternate rule for auto killing? Or are you refering to a house rule?

[Gavinfoxx]

Where is the alternate rule for auto killing? Or are you refering to a house rule?

I believe he is referring to a house rule that is not actually written in Unearthed Arcana, but he thinks is in there.

[ThiagoMartell]

Where is the alternate rule for auto killing? Or are you refering to a house rule?

It's in the DMG.

[Answerer]

The first level of the Monk class, and often the second, and sometimes the sixth, can be surprisingly helpful in certain optimized builds.
Eh... at the highest levels of optimization, even for an unarmed-strike-based character, the best number of Monk levels is 0.

I wouldn't allow a player to take Fighter, Monk, or Paladin levels without a very good reason (they really do need feats that desperately, they're doing something clever with Monk 2, or they're working on Cha-ness and want Divine Grace, usually, though someone optimizing Special Mount I could see). That's what Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are for. I try to maintain relatively strong intraparty balance with my groups, and I don't think that the rest of the group should be held back by those classes.

[Rubik]

Eh... at the highest levels of optimization, even for an unarmed-strike-based character, the best number of Monk levels is 0.

I wouldn't allow a player to take Fighter, Monk, or Paladin levels without a very good reason (they really do need feats that desperately, they're doing something clever with Monk 2, or they're working on Cha-ness and want Divine Grace, usually, though someone optimizing Special Mount I could see). That's what Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are for. I try to maintain relatively strong intraparty balance with my groups, and I don't think that the rest of the group should be held back by those classes.Given that a monk's entire body is considered a weapon, synonymous with "unarmed strike," that means that any weapon enhancement or ability applies to a monk's entire body. Ghost touch? Now you're in/corporeal as a free action. Throwing? Now you can body-slam opponents from 50+ feet away on each attack in your flurry (it's faster than anything but teleporting or jack-b-quick at higher levels, especially with range enhancers like Distance and Far Shot). Flaming? Now you can flame all you like and not even be gay!

It's surprising how much mileage a few levels of monk can have if you know how to stretch the class.

[edit] Also, they have some GREAT ACFs.

[Diarmuid]

It's in the DMG.

What he said, page 28.

Thanks for assuming I didnt know what I was talking about.

[Answerer]

Given that a monk's entire body is considered a weapon
I'd not consider stuff like that strict RAW. Just because it has the weapon effect doesn't mean anything when it's not being used as an attack.

Regardless, even if that was your intention, there are better, cheaper ways to get that feature.

[nyjastul69]

What he said, page 28. Thanks for assuming I didnt know what I was talking about.

I apologize if my post came across that way. I assumed nothing. I meant no offense. I was genuinely curious. I hadn't recalled that as an alternate rule. Thank you for the reference.

[ThiagoMartell]

I apologize if my post came across that way. I assumed nothing. I meant no offense. I was genuinely curious. I hadn't recalled that as an alternate rule. Thank you for the reference.

My guess is that he meant that for Gavinfoxx.

[2xMachina]

Given that a monk's entire body is considered a weapon, synonymous with "unarmed strike," that means that any weapon enhancement or ability applies to a monk's entire body. Ghost touch? Now you're in/corporeal as a free action. Throwing? Now you can body-slam opponents from 50+ feet away on each attack in your flurry (it's faster than anything but teleporting or jack-b-quick at higher levels, especially with range enhancers like Distance and Far Shot). Flaming? Now you can flame all you like and not even be gay!

It's surprising how much mileage a few levels of monk can have if you know how to stretch the class.

[edit] Also, they have some GREAT ACFs.

Gives a new meaning to throwing a punch :P

[Gavinfoxx]

I knew it wasnt in UA! ;)

[dascarletm]

Eh... at the highest levels of optimization, even for an unarmed-strike-based character, the best number of Monk levels is 0.

I wouldn't allow a player to take Fighter, Monk, or Paladin levels without a very good reason (they really do need feats that desperately, they're doing something clever with Monk 2, or they're working on Cha-ness and want Divine Grace, usually, though someone optimizing Special Mount I could see). That's what Warblade, Swordsage, and Crusader are for. I try to maintain relatively strong intraparty balance with my groups, and I don't think that the rest of the group should be held back by those classes.

Suppose someone doesn't like the ToB's feel, fluff, mechanics, or what-have-you, and they want to play a martial character. They are just SOL?

[The Redwolf]

I am not even sure what you are talking about, sorry. Most swordsage maneuvers works fine even if you are small or with little strength.
Do you want an Halfling monk? Go unarmed swordsage halfling...


Our point is much simpler. The monks class is really badly made: just think that at level 20 you got a power that is like a level 1 spell, just weaker.


To us the unarmed swordsage is essentially an errata that replace the mistake.

Yes, but there are people who don't care about being super powerful and play the game to have fun and are willing to do that with stuff that isn't super powerful. Just because you guys think the monk is weak doesn't mean you should just ban it altogether, because if someone wants to play it despite it being how it is, you're basically saying "No, we think it's weak, so even though you like it you can't play it." That doesn't strike you as wrong, rude, illogical, or any other negative words/phrases?:smallconfused:

[Amphetryon]

Yes, but there are people who don't care about being super powerful and play the game to have fun and are willing to do that with stuff that isn't super powerful. Just because you guys think the monk is weak doesn't mean you should just ban it altogether, because if someone wants to play it despite it being how it is, you're basically saying "No, we think it's weak, so even though you like it you can't play it." That doesn't strike you as wrong, rude, illogical, or any other negative words/phrases?:smallconfused:

No, it strikes me as a game that players such as you describe might wish not to participate in, full stop.

[2xMachina]

Devil's advocate:

And how is that's different from banning any class disliked by the DM?

[Answerer]

Suppose someone doesn't like the ToB's feel, fluff, mechanics, or what-have-you, and they want to play a martial character. They are just SOL?
The fluff is identical to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin; I don't play with anyone who thinks otherwise.

At low levels, any difference in "feel" between the Fighter/Monk/Paladin and the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader is entirely in your head; you are choosing to see them as different when you could easily imagine them as the same thing. At higher levels, that's called "being competent." The Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are not. Any character that is, has to be superhuman, because that is what high levels are about.

If they don't like the mechanics, they're welcome to find others, but disliking ToB's mechanics is not an excuse for being crippled and forcing the rest of the party to carry you.

[Amphetryon]

Devil's advocate:

And how is that's different from banning any class disliked by the DM?

Who said it was?

[2xMachina]

Who said it was?

It's more like: "Someone's griping about it? Doesn't DM's ban classes all the time? What's so special about monk that banning it leads to outrage?"

[Amphetryon]

It's more like: "Someone's griping about it? Doesn't DM's ban classes all the time? What's so special about monk that banning it leads to outrage?"

Ah. I could not tell from your initial "Devil's advocate" post which side you were falling on: the one who saw no issue with banning a particular Class, or the one that thinks all Classes published by WotC should be equally available in a given campaign.

[dascarletm]

The fluff is identical to Fighter, Monk, and Paladin; I don't play with anyone who thinks otherwise.

At low levels, any difference in "feel" between the Fighter/Monk/Paladin and the Warblade/Swordsage/Crusader is entirely in your head; you are choosing to see them as different when you could easily imagine them as the same thing. At higher levels, that's called "being competent." The Fighter, Monk, and Paladin are not. Any character that is, has to be superhuman, because that is what high levels are about.

If they don't like the mechanics, they're welcome to find others, but disliking ToB's mechanics is not an excuse for being crippled and forcing the rest of the party to carry you.

Interesting, alright.

[Answerer]

It's more like: "Someone's griping about it? Doesn't DM's ban classes all the time? What's so special about monk that banning it leads to outrage?"
To be fair, I do not accept "because I don't like it" as a DM's reason for banning something. A statement like that makes me start looking to find a new DM.

Bans are, generally speaking, bad for the game. They should only be used with good reason. I "ban" some classes that are too powerful or too weak, but I'm really flexible about them as long as you can show me that your build is at an appropriate power level. I know people who like optimizing Core-mechanic melee classes, and I'll let them do so so long as they can maintain a reasonable level of competence and versatility, even though I despise those classes. But that is a privilege, as far as I am concerned, for those who can show me their build and how it overcomes the weaknesses of those classes.

[etrpgb]

I would tell him: Wizard.

Seriously, telling that a class should be available only because written by the wizard of the coast is ridiculous. If you read ToB it is obvious that they wanted to replace few base classes gone wrong.

[ThiagoMartell]

If you read ToB it is obvious that they wanted to replace few base classes gone wrong.
I think you're exaggerating. They have paragraphs saying how the ToB classes interact with the PHB classes and the example NPCs have levels in PHB classes. Between magical items and Martial Study/Stance, you have ways to use ToB with the PHB classes. That it could be used as a replacement does need mean it was meant to be used as a replacement.
It's like Psion being the psionic Wizard, Wilder being the psionic Sorcerer, Inquisitor being the divine Bard and so on so forth.

[The Redwolf]

Devil's advocate:

And how is that's different from banning any class disliked by the DM?

Something else I personally disagree with, I think it's better to just be reasonable and discuss things with your players so they play what they want to without going overboard.


I would tell him: Wizard.

Seriously, telling that a class should be available only because written by the wizard of the coast is ridiculous. If you read ToB it is obvious that they wanted to replace few base classes gone wrong.

I'm not saying it should be available for just that reason, and I don't think it's obvious they wanted to replace them. I think they wanted to give additional choices, because a game where the focus is playing a role is centered on you having the ability to choose. Taking that away from people straight out just strikes me as going against the intent of the game. Maybe this is a naive viewpoint, but I don't care, it's worked out well so far and my friends and I have all been having a lot of fun using this view.

[Gigas Breaker]

I love ToB, but I still use monk, fighter, and rogue levels sometimes. I don't see a reason to ban them.

[TuggyNE]

I love ToB, but I still use monk, fighter, and rogue levels sometimes. I don't see a reason to ban them.

No one said anything about rogue. :smalltongue: Still, I agree with your basic point, which is that while for most purpose ToB can replace straight monk|fighter|paladin, removing the classes entirely isn't necessarily worthwhile.

[Gigas Breaker]

No one said anything about rogue. :smalltongue: Still, I agree with your basic point, which is that while for most purpose ToB can replace straight monk|fighter|paladin, removing the classes entirely isn't necessarily worthwhile.

lol yeah I guess I meant paladin.

[TopCheese]

The big thing about classes is that later classes weren't always made by the same people...

But anyways...

I have run games where some newer classes take over for older classes.

Wizard becomes the 3 specialist casters (WM, BG, DN) with some flexibility.

Paladin/Fighter/Rogue-Monk become Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage-Unarmed Swordsage

Sorcerer becomes the Binder (which is what sorcerers really are.. devil summoning magic bargening ppl)

Druid is replaced by the Totemist (yuuuup)

Clerics... I forget what we did with them... People in my normal groups don't play Clerics much.

Funny enough...About the the fluff that is... I gave a newb a warblade to play as for a couple months... Then when it died I gave him a tripping fighter build (he asked for a tripper). He said that the tripper fighter didn't feel like a heroic fanatasy fighter and that it was boring to be only really able to do 1 thing.

I regret never putting him up against anything with 4 legs or huge or above on the size chart.

[etrpgb]

The point is: do you want fluff, power and rules for a monk character? Go Unarmed Swordsage. Do you want fluff, power and rules of a warriorish character? Go Warblade, Duskblade or Psionic Warrior.
Do you want a couple of feat for your build? Go Monk or Fighter.


(About the Rogue it has been replaced the Factotum and the Beguiller, but yes no-one spoke about it)

[only1doug]

Yes, but there are people who don't care about being super powerful and play the game to have fun and are willing to do that with stuff that isn't super powerful. Just because you guys think the monk is weak doesn't mean you should just ban it altogether, because if someone wants to play it despite it being how it is, you're basically saying "No, we think it's weak, so even though you like it you can't play it." That doesn't strike you as wrong, rude, illogical, or any other negative words/phrases?:smallconfused:

Unfortunately monks don't do fun low op character very well, I've played one in a low op group and I've had a player play one in a group I've been GMing for, in both cases the monk was just frustrating, to the point where I will say to anyone wanting to play one in a group i am in "don't, unless you are dipping for class features in an optomised build, just don't play a monk."

Let me expand on that, if you want the role-playing concept of a martial artist who has interesting abilities, play an unarmed sword sage, they can do that and do it well, if you want your class to be called monk then we can do that, but when it comes to class abilities they are unarmed swordsage.

[TopCheese]

The point is: do you want fluff, power and rules for a monk character? Go Unarmed Swordsage. Do you want fluff, power and rules of a warriorish character? Go Warblade, Duskblade or Psionic Warrior.
Do you want a couple of feat for your build? Go Monk or Fighter.


(About the Rogue it has been replaced the Factotum and the Beguiller, but yes no-one spoke about it)


Unfortunately monks don't do fun low op character very well, I've played one in a low op group and I've had a player play one in a group I've been GMing for, in both cases the monk was just frustrating, to the point where I will say to anyone wanting to play one in a group i am in "don't, unless you are dipping for class features in an optomised build, just don't play a monk."

Let me expand on that, if you want the role-playing concept of a martial artist who has interesting abilities, play an unarmed sword sage, they can do that and do it well, if you want your class to be called monk then we can do that, but when it comes to class abilities they are unarmed swordsage.

Holy crap I just accidently learned how to multi quote O_o

But both of you get a +1!

[2xMachina]

To be fair, I do not accept "because I don't like it" as a DM's reason for banning something. A statement like that makes me start looking to find a new DM.

Bans are, generally speaking, bad for the game. They should only be used with good reason. I "ban" some classes that are too powerful or too weak, but I'm really flexible about them as long as you can show me that your build is at an appropriate power level. I know people who like optimizing Core-mechanic melee classes, and I'll let them do so so long as they can maintain a reasonable level of competence and versatility, even though I despise those classes. But that is a privilege, as far as I am concerned, for those who can show me their build and how it overcomes the weaknesses of those classes.

I've learned to live with it.

I like psionics, but a number of DMs ban it, for the reason: I don't like the fluff, fluff doesn't fit my world.

Oh well.

[Rejakor]

Honestly, that adaptation section is more clearly written and definitive than many 'proper' class features produced by WotC.

It's also, y'know, IN THE RULEBOOK, and titled ADAPTATION. The 'you may' that people are fixating on can be interpreted very easily as 'you can if you want', like a Rogue 'may' sneak attack, and a fighter 'may' take a bonus feat.

[The Redwolf]

Unfortunately monks don't do fun low op character very well, I've played one in a low op group and I've had a player play one in a group I've been GMing for, in both cases the monk was just frustrating, to the point where I will say to anyone wanting to play one in a group i am in "don't, unless you are dipping for class features in an optomised build, just don't play a monk."

I'd have to say that depends on your group. In our group one of our characters played a monk in our very first game and had a blast, and I'm playing straight up monk right now (granted I'm using a slightly varied one) and we have gotten the hang of optimizing although we don't go overboard and it's still a lot of fun and I'm a good and contributing member. I think people need to stop generalizing things based off of there experiences because it's going to be different for other people and other groups. Just because in your group it wasn't fun to play a monk doesn't mean it won't be fun in other groups, or if someone new joins your group that they won't find it fun. It just feels like everyone here gets so hung up on optimization and doesn't do stuff just for a fun idea nearly often enough. I know the two aren't exclusive, but it seems like when something fun or based on preference is suggested you either get told all the ways to optimize it or that it sucks and shown a "better" thing to replace it with. I just find it frustrating.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'd have to say that depends on your group. In our group one of our characters played a monk in our very first game and had a blast, and I'm playing straight up monk right now (granted I'm using a slightly varied one) and we have gotten the hang of optimizing although we don't go overboard and it's still a lot of fun and I'm a good and contributing member. I think people need to stop generalizing things based off of there experiences because it's going to be different for other people and other groups. Just because in your group it wasn't fun to play a monk doesn't mean it won't be fun in other groups, or if someone new joins your group that they won't find it fun. It just feels like everyone here gets so hung up on optimization and doesn't do stuff just for a fun idea nearly often enough. I know the two aren't exclusive, but it seems like when something fun or based on preference is suggested you either get told all the ways to optimize it or that it sucks and shown a "better" thing to replace it with. I just find it frustrating.

This, so much this. I have a Dragon Style Monk in my PF game and she kicks major ass.

[Rejakor]

I'd have to say that depends on your group. In our group one of our characters played a monk in our very first game and had a blast, and I'm playing straight up monk right now (granted I'm using a slightly varied one) and we have gotten the hang of optimizing although we don't go overboard and it's still a lot of fun and I'm a good and contributing member. I think people need to stop generalizing things based off of there experiences because it's going to be different for other people and other groups. Just because in your group it wasn't fun to play a monk doesn't mean it won't be fun in other groups, or if someone new joins your group that they won't find it fun. It just feels like everyone here gets so hung up on optimization and doesn't do stuff just for a fun idea nearly often enough. I know the two aren't exclusive, but it seems like when something fun or based on preference is suggested you either get told all the ways to optimize it or that it sucks and shown a "better" thing to replace it with. I just find it frustrating.

The problem is, while some games have a GM who finagles things behind the scenes to make less mechanically powerful characters feel like they're contributing to the story, some games don't. Some games have GMs who don't like finagling, or aren't good at it - and they can be rip-roaring storytellers, but if your rogue is terrible at combat and is losing a fight against the Black Guardsmen of the castle, he's not going to step in and change things so it turns out alright.

Now, i've played in both kinds of groups, and i've had fun in both, but what i've found is that often in the former kind of group there is an expectation that mechanical considerations have in-game effects - that if you take levels in the monk class, your character was trained in a monastery or does kata in the forest or something - when this is not necessarily true in any way. There is no actual reason why taking levels in the monk class means your character's backstory would be any different than taking levels in the fighter class - that's just a leftover from the olden days when the rules and fluff were a lot more tightly tied. A class like wizard has to have a spellbook and prepare spells from it, that's part of the mechanics that DOES impinge on the fluff. But a monk doesn't have to have come from a monastery or anything like that.

I once played a monk who only had levels in sorcerer. He would spend rounds focusing his ki, and shout out the names of powerful elemental attacks as he performed them, and all this other stuff. He didn't need to take a necklace of natural attacks with Somatic weaponry enchanted onto it - assuming a fighting pose and punching the air WAS what he did to cast spells. He didn't need to take Silent spell - him shouting out the name of his attack WAS the verbal component of the spell. It's not a refluff if the mechanics are not being changed in any way, and doesn't even need DM approval.

So what I think happens with some players/groups is that they think they need to have certain mechanical feats or classes in order to express their concept that they actually don't - and it makes it a lot easier on the GM, especially some GMs, if the party has the capability to deal with challenges like, say, an aboleth. Or a chasm. Or fighting through the castle guards to warn the king. Or whatever. It opens up the potential number of stories you can tell without finagling or deus ex machina or powerful NPCs or whatever.

And some GMs like their deus ex machina and NPCs and whatnot, but i'm of the opinion that taking agency away from the players like that is generally a bad idea, but whatever, that's a different topic.

[Sith_Happens]

:smallsigh:

It's one thing for all the Monk threads to turn into arguments, but can we really not even have an Unarmed Swordsage thread without it turning into a Monk argument?

[123456789blaaa]

As long as you aren't ruining the fun of the other player's (by forcing them to carry you) than what's the problem with someone wanting to play a monk?

[Rejakor]

I don't think that anyone is saying there is anything wrong with that.


I think the thing people have a problem with is when someone comes into a game, thinks monk is awesome, is a single leveled monk, sucks compared to everyone else, and then accuses other people of being munchkins/wrecks the game. (which I have seen happen)

I also think the thing people have a problem with is when someone comes into a game, thinks monk is awesome, is a single leveled monk, sucks compared to everyone else (even single leveled fighters) and then is sad because their awesome guy in their mind is not the same as the mechanics on paper. (which I have seen happen)

I think the thing people have a problem with is when someone comes into a game, thinks monk is awesome, is a single leveled monk, sucks, and then then complains to the DM incessantly that the DM isn't putting enough 'monk challenges' into the game and similar whinging on that theme. (which I have seen happen - hell, I was the DM)

There are variations on that theme, but do you get the idea? The problem isn't people playing the monk knowing it makes them a third stringer - the problem is people playing the monk not knowing it is a third stringer, thinking it's awesome, and then having in and out of game problems when it turns out that it isn't.

Awesome Bruce Lee dude is not represented well by the monk. There are other situations like this, many of them, but monk is the most famous - that's why people tend to fill up any thread about monks or anything close to them with monk-warnings - and then other people disagree/think it's being overstated and etc etc so on so forth.

[The Redwolf]

*Insert rant that boils down to "I think clearly the only way monks are good is if the DM cheats" here*

While that's all fine and good and I have no problem with you being entitled to your opinions you're still missing a vital point. Not all games are the same, not all groups are the same, and not all opinions are the same. Just because the groups you play in have DM's that make ridiculous things happen so players can feel good doesn't mean we all do. Just because you play in groups where playing the monk is something that somebody should never do doesn't mean we all do. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean we all don't. All I'm saying is that it feels like all of you fail to take into account the players' choice in the game and the fact that everyone's experiences are different. I never came in here saying that monks are totally balanced and that they don't cause problems in any group, did I? I said I think it's ridiculous to take the option to play one away from someone that wants it, and that whether you all want to believe it or not there are situations where things work out. Just because your experiences happened a certain way doesn't mean you should typify everyone's experiences the same way.

This is what is upsetting me, and this is why I'm just going to drop this here. It feels like just because I have what seems to be the unpopular opinion very few want to listen to it, and some seem to want to say that it's outright wrong. It's an opinion, and it's based on my experiences, which are different from yours and every bit as valid as all of yours. It just feels like ignorance with half the arguments that I see leveraged against situations like this in general, and ignorance is one of the few things in this world that immediately sets me off.

Anyway, as I said, I'm done, and I apologize to anyone I have offended with my wrong opinions and experiences. Also, I feel I should note, I'm not trying to call you out specifically Rejakor, even though it may seem like that, your post was just the easiest to quote and respond to, so again, I apologize if this was unkind.

[Gigas Breaker]

I'm playing a Tashalatora monk/psychic warrior with plans of going into SRD slayer and I'm having fun using Psionic Lion's Charge with Linked Power and flurrying. Banning monk outright wouldn't let me do this. Swordsage is cool and all but banning monk is limiting options for no good reason.

[Amphetryon]

I'm playing a Tashalatora monk/psychic warrior with plans of going into SRD slayer and I'm having fun using Psionic Lion's Charge with Linked Power and flurrying. Banning monk outright wouldn't let me do this. Swordsage is cool and all but banning monk is limiting options for no good reason.
What, specifically, is it that Tash/PsyWar/Slayer does that, in your opinion, Swordsage/PsyWar/Slayer (or one of the other options folks typically suggest to replace Monk) will not allow you to do in your concept? Flurry is replicated in all but name with other abilities, either in Swordsage or elsewhere, for instance (and is available in name through a couple of options, according to the old Lists of Stuff thread).

[Gigas Breaker]

Tash advances monk class features without taking more than one or two monk levels; whereas to gain more maneuvers requires more swordsage levels which hurt your manifester level and power progression or you take martial study feats.

[Amphetryon]

Tash advances monk class features without taking more than one or two monk levels; whereas to gain more maneuvers requires more swordsage levels which hurt your manifester level and power progression or you take martial study feats.

1) Which Monk features are you wanting that you feel are not replicated in function, if not flavor (which is mutable) via Swordsage or PsyWar?

2) The way ToB maneuvers progress indicates a PsyWar 8/Swordsage 2 has access to pretty decent-level Swordsage maneuvers, even without taking the Martial Study feat a single time. Is there a particular one (or more than one) you think is vital to take in order to make up for what is lost by not taking 2 levels of Monk?

[Gigas Breaker]

There are the mongoose line of boosts for extra attacks but they take a swift action to activate so do not synergize with swift action powers and can't be refreshed without Adaptive Style. With tash I can pounce flurry every turn (if there is room to charge, the terrain allows it etc.) until I run out of PP.

As for the extra damage dice you get for advancing unarmed damage, that can be made up with strikes.

AC bonus advancement lol who cares.

Now, maybe one day I'll ask my DM to adapt Jade Phoenix Mage with me to work with powers and I'll mess around with that.

[Amphetryon]

tuggyne breaks down a Monk's "unique" abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14164891&postcount=35).

[Gigas Breaker]

Snap Kick and TWF tree are a lot of feats.

Edited to add: I'm also already taking Snap Kick.

[Answerer]

Tash advances monk class features without taking more than one or two monk levels; whereas to gain more maneuvers requires more swordsage levels which hurt your manifester level and power progression or you take martial study feats.
Strictly speaking, Tashalatora does not require any Monk levels at all.

[TuggyNE]

tuggyne breaks down a Monk's "unique" abilities (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14164891&postcount=35).

Heh. :smallredface: There are really probably a few other replacements for some of those features; I was mostly working off Core and MIC. (So it's actually favoring Monk by a certain amount.)

[Gigas Breaker]

Strictly speaking, Tashalatora does not require any Monk levels at all.

Well maybe, but not every DM will agree, and you may still want the monk bonus feats including all the different ones from unearthed arcana. I still don't see a reason to just throw it out. Is straight monk bad? Yes. Can you still play without monk? Yes. But why ban it?

[Amphetryon]

Well maybe, but not every DM will agree, and you may still want the monk bonus feats including all the different ones from unearthed arcana. I still don't see a reason to just throw it out. Is straight monk bad? Yes. Can you still play without monk? Yes. But why ban it?

Same reason DMs have to ban any other material: it doesn't fit within the paradigm they're trying to adhere to, for whatever reason. We just rarely see folks up in arms over a DM that bans, for example, StP Erudite for falling outside that campaign's intended power curve.

[Gigas Breaker]

But there are times that dips into monk, fighter, and paladin are appropriate and won't make characters as crappy as straight monk or straight fighter. I just see it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[Amphetryon]

But there are times that dips into monk, fighter, and paladin are appropriate and won't make characters as crappy as straight monk or straight fighter. I just see it as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.Do you have a similar complaint about bans of StP Erudite? How about Psionics in general, or Incarnum, or ToB? In other words, are you opposed to ALL bans on base Classes, or just the 3 you listed; if it's just those 3, then why do you suppose that is?

[Gigas Breaker]

Do you have a similar complaint about bans of StP Erudite? How about Psionics in general, or Incarnum, or ToB? In other words, are you opposed to ALL bans on base Classes, or just the 3 you listed; if it's just those 3, then why do you suppose that is?

I wouldn't say that I'm opposed just that I don't understand it. People can do whatever they want. I can understand why people ban things they perceive as broken, ban subsystems that they aren't familiar with, or ban things for fluff reasons. But to ban even dips because monk 20 is so bad doesn't make sense to me. And if it's not because of that then why?

[Amphetryon]

I wouldn't say that I'm opposed just that I don't understand it. People can do whatever they want. I can understand why people ban things they perceive as broken, ban subsystems that they aren't familiar with, or ban things for fluff reasons. But to ban even dips because monk 20 is so bad doesn't make sense to me. And if it's not because of that then why?

"Broken" doesn't have to mean "overpowered;" many folks perceive Truenamer as "broken" because it does not function properly (the DCs do not scale correctly, etc.). No doubt some folks ban Monk, Fighter, and Paladin because - to their sensibilities - those Classes do not function properly because they do not, in their experience or estimation, fulfill their designated roles sufficiently.

I've not personally seen one person give their reason for banning Monk as "because Monk 20 is bad." Could you provide a link to such a person?

[Gigas Breaker]

"those Classes do not function properly because they do not, in their experience or estimation, fulfill their designated roles sufficiently.

This implies Monk 20 or a majority of monk levels. A one or two level dip probably doesn't define your entire role or character. If that's not how I'm supposed to take it then I apologize.

[Amphetryon]

This implies Monk 20 or a majority of monk levels. A one or two level dip probably doesn't define your entire role or character. If that's not how I'm supposed to take it then I apologize.

Nowhere does it imply that, anymore than "Wizard" implies "Wizard 20" when, in all probability, most folks Prestige Class out at Wizard 5, or 7, or whatever breakpoint they see as appropriate. It implies only the Class itself, taken for 1, or 2, or 19 or any other number of levels as the actual, base Class. People who ban a Class outright are not banning the capstone level of it, are they? That's not what "ban" means, to my understanding of the word.

[Gigas Breaker]

So even somebody with only one or two levels of monk does not properly function within their designated role?

[Decatus]

So even somebody with only one or two levels of monk does not properly function within their designated role?

Generally speaking, no. Unless that person is a competent CO and they have their character planned out in advance, taking levels in monk "for teh lulz" is a bad idea.

[Amphetryon]

So even somebody with only one or two levels of monk does not properly function within their designated role?

According to the experiences and anecdotal evidence of some, that is correct. PsyWar or Swordsage, for two examples, are often cited as being able to do everything a Monk wants to do at what is perceived as a more reasonable level of competence.

[Gigas Breaker]

But if you want to ban monk because it is broken, I still don't believe that a one or two level dip in monk would break your character. A tash monk1/psywar is hardly broken. Is it worse than a psywar with a two handed weapon? Maybe a little, but that's not the only reason we play. Why flurry? Why TWF? Why play melee?

[Answerer]

Well maybe, but not every DM will agree
They might houserule it, but the RAW is very clear, silly as it is.

[Amphetryon]

But if you want to ban monk because it is broken, I still don't believe that a one or two level dip in monk would break your character. A tash monk1/psywar is hardly broken. Is it worse than a psywar with a two handed weapon? Maybe a little, but that's not the only reason we play. Why flurry? Why TWF? Why play melee?

Again, do you have the same concerns about folks banning StP Erudite, or Psionics in general (the latter is in the SRD, so "no access" seems a red herring)? For some groups' chosen power level, a Character with 1 or more levels of Monk is likely to show as a drag on XP and a relative liability in combat whom they have to either protect, use resources to heal/resurrect that they'd rather use on folks who 'pull their weight' more, or get rid of in-game. For those groups, a straightforward ban at the outset seems a clear and obvious solution before the problem ever causes tension.

[eggs]

I'd be more than a little bothered if someone banned my Swordsage's Monk 2 because having feat combos actually come together at reasonable levels isn't powerful enough.

And leaving aside the occasional use of overall weaker classes, the difference between banning high- and low-end characters is that high-powered characters can make other players' contributions obsolete against those players' will, while banning something like Commoner only makes a player's contributions pale if that player opts to choose a weak option have their character's contributions pale. That distinction is not trivial.

[lsfreak]

I'll just add that another reason not to ban monk flat-out is that invisible fist makes an awesome ability for a rogue. Even if it's not the most optimized choice around, 1/3rnd (Su) invisibility as an immediate action, that doesn't reference invisibility and thus won't break? Yesplz.

[Amphetryon]

I'd be more than a little bothered if someone banned my Swordsage's Monk 2 because having feat combos actually come together at reasonable levels isn't powerful enough.

And leaving aside the occasional use of overall weaker classes, the difference between banning high- and low-end characters is that high-powered characters can make other players' contributions obsolete against those players' will, while banning something like Commoner only makes a player's contributions pale if that player opts to choose a weak option have their character's contributions pale. That distinction is not trivial.As I have tried to indicate, for some groups, an individual's choice to be the weakest link and force the rest of the party to compensate for that individual Character's inability to make what the group calls meaningful contributions to combat or other (roll, not role)-driven encounters is a selfish one which they do not take lightly, either.

[Gigas Breaker]

Again, do you have the same concerns about folks banning StP Erudite, or Psionics in general (the latter is in the SRD, so "no access" seems a red herring)? For some groups' chosen power level, a Character with 1 or more levels of Monk is likely to show as a drag on XP and a relative liability in combat whom they have to either protect, use resources to heal/resurrect that they'd rather use on folks who 'pull their weight' more, or get rid of in-game. For those groups, a straightforward ban at the outset seems a clear and obvious solution before the problem ever causes tension.
I have to admit that I am not familiar with StP Erudite so I can't comment. As for banning Psionics, I wouldn't agree with it and would present my case as to why. In the end I would go with the group's decision since it isn't all about me.

I don't know what makes a monk1/psywar flurrying with a Scorpion Kama get a death sentence over a psywar without monk1.

[eggs]

If the argument is that some players choose to bend over backwards to keep a weak character alive, then get bitter because they chose to waste resources keeping the weak character alive, I'm afraid I can't even begin to empathize with that position. To each his own, I guess.

[Rubik]

It's possible to make a full (or nearly-full) monk keep up with all but the highest echelons of the tier system (even optimized T3s), but it does take some op-fu to make it work. Clever use of items, ACFs, and the base abilities of the monk can make for some surprisingly useful and flexible characters, above and beyond what's cited here. Monk has a surprisingly high ceiling if you know what you're doing.

If your reason for banning monk is because it can't keep up with the other classes, at least consider making exceptions for players that can optimize worth a damn.

[TuggyNE]

If the argument is that some players choose to bend over backwards to keep a weak character alive, then get bitter because they chose to waste resources keeping the weak character alive, I'm afraid I can't even begin to empathize with that position. To each his own, I guess.

Social obligations. If you make no effort to help a fellow party member, they will be annoyed, others will be puzzled and upset, and you'll feel guilty. However, a really weak character can suck up disproportionate amounts of help, and still die more often, which causes resentment on the part of those whose larger-than-usual efforts to keep them alive failed, and frustration for the player who loses characters at four or five times the rate of their fellows.

Of course, this is not always the expectation; some groups expect everyone to stand on their own (or at least be able to reciprocate help), and others avoid this by being more careful to avoid imbalances of power.

[Amphetryon]

It's possible to make a full (or nearly-full) monk keep up with all but the highest echelons of the tier system, but it does take some op-fu to make it work. Clever use of items, ACFs, and the base abilities of the monk can make for some surprisingly useful and flexible characters, above and beyond what's cited here.

If your reason for banning monk is because it can't keep up with the other classes, at least consider making exceptions for players that can optimize worth a damn.
Some within this very thread - Answerer, for one - have already stated they make that exception. Players that know what they're in for, rather than expecting core Monk to make Chuck Norris right out of the box, get an exception if the DM knows they can, at least, put in the work make Chow Yun Fat.

[Rubik]

Some within this very thread - Answerer, for one - have already stated they make that exception. Players that know what they're in for, rather than expecting core Monk to make Chuck Norris right out of the box, get an exception if the DM knows they can, at least, put in the work make Chow Yun Fat.I assume you're talking about the Chuck Norris who cries tears of cancer-curing, rather than the one on Walker: Texas Ranger? Who, by the way, is totally not a ranger unless his partner in crime fighting is his animal companion.

[Amphetryon]

I assume you're talking about the Chuck Norris who cries tears of cancer-curing, rather than the one on Walker: Texas Ranger? Who, by the way, is totally not a ranger unless his partner in crime fighting is his animal companion.

At the least, the Chuck Norris who stood toe-to-toe in a movie with Bruce Lee and was not shown to have died of the experience.

[Rubik]

At the least, the Chuck Norris who stood toe-to-toe in a movie with Bruce Lee and was not shown to have died of the experience.He died off-screen to an exploded spleen.

Nobody goes up against Bruce Lee and lives unless he WANTS you to live.

[TopCheese]

At the least, the Chuck Norris who stood toe-to-toe in a movie with Bruce Lee and was not shown to have died of the experience.

Because I must...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zj2Zf9tlg2Y