What makes the monk so bad?

[Zelkon]

I mean, it doesn't seem too bad to the untrained eye. What, generally, has to be fixed for the monk to work. Is it's damage output bad? Not enough versatility?

[ahenobarbi]

There was a thread on that exact topic recently...

Basically:
- No synergy between abilities (fast movement and flurry of blows that requires you not to move)
- Poor class features (you get worse version of featherfall as capstone...)

It looks good at first because it gets a lot of features with fancy names.

[Amnestic]

"Abilities which synergise with one another" would probably be top of the list along with "Abilities which can't be replicated by cheap magical items".

Less MAD wouldn't hurt either.

[willpell]

I'm not an optimizer at all; to me being a little on the weak side is a feature, not a bug, because it means you're not breaking the game before breakfast like a Wizard or Cleric. That said, even I don't like the monk much, not because it's weak but because it's boring. The skeleton of the class is good, but when you get to the part about ki abilities, there's virtually nothing there; they picked out abilities that do virtually nothing, and they're always the same for every member of the class, or perhaps one of two possible choices.

The Ranger has much the same problem in my book, apart from getting a few spells and an animal companion, both of which are basically just a built-in Druid multiclass; take those things away and all you're left with is Favored Enemy. And I love the ranger class, largely because it has Favored Enemy (though all those Skills don't hurt either). You don't need a lot of options, IMO, but you need some. Three or four bonus feats and a lot of rather pointless abilities just aren't enough to make an interesting character class.

Full casters (and full manifesters, and full initiators, and full meldshapers, and the Tome of Magic classes) all have the same problem IMO - too much diversity, too many choices to make. Monks and to a lesser extent Rangers and Rogues have the opposite problem; there are hardly any decisions involved and you don't have much that you can do outside of a very narrow niche (and the monk barely has that, hence why he is the worst of these). That's why I consider the Fighter to be one of the best-made classes; he has a nice big list of options to pick from, but he only makes one pick every level or two, plus deciding on choice of weapons or the like in a fight. Just a small amount of choice in both the short and long term, so you're neither bored nor overloaded - that's what I consider ideal.

(Granted my perspective is a bit skewed; I hardly ever actually play since I'm nearly always the DM, so instead of making a character with enough bells and whistles to keep me amused for however long it takes to level up, I'm making NPCs in large numbers that I need to be able to assemble fairly quickly and understand how to use them in-game.)

[awa]

monks have the least options of any class. Even a warrior has the choice between melee, or ranged. while a monk has to use unarmed if they want to be even remotly usefull.

[Coidzor]

A few discussions from the past.how to build one in 3.5 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251273)


struggling monk party member (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260693)

A monk fix's discussion. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=226857)


The awkward arguments/questions about the nature of unarmed strikes and if monks are even proficient. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=246259)


An actual monkday thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=232565)

Another one, justabout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=247920)

A discussion of a 20th level wizard versus a 1000th level Monk (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218989).

How they and Paladins are doing in PF. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230244)

Essentially lack of synergy and few obvious, good ways to proceed requiring more system mastery and jumping through hoops to compete on the same level as others.

[Eldariel]

Cross-posting my commentary on "Why each class is in its tier":
[Monks] aren't exceptional tanks due to lowish HD, medium BAB, multi-attribute dependency (and thus comparably lower combat stats than melee monsters; this also hurts their supposed strengths in Grapple, Tripping & other combat maneuvers, along with Stunning Fist; all of those heavily reward straightforward dedication to a single stat over all else, and a Monk really can't pull that off), the fact that you can't combine their movement speed with Flurry (Flurry requires full attack, movement allows only one) and lack of weapon proficiencies (unarmed strikes getting decent dice later on, but lacking in special abilities and enhancing them costs a ****ton; oh, and no reach, no AoO-builds). Flurry is needed for them to do decent damage forcing them to ignore their speed boost in combat.

They aren't exceptional scouts due to lacking Trapfinding and having relatively low skill points and being unable to afford decent Int thanks to multi-attribute dependency (Hide/Move Silently/Tumble is all good, but if you don't have Trapfinding, scouting ahead in a hostile environment is like to get you killed).

They aren't exceptional mage killers (*chuckle*) because they really have nothing to especially threaten mages with. Just like every other warrior type, their movement is inferior to teleportation (once-per-day Dimension Door doesn't cut it), they have few if any ways to locate the mage and penetrate magical defenses (Mirror Image + Displacement + Blink: good luck hitting... Or Wall of Force) and they can't even reasonably use bows so their ability to act at range is infinitely diminished. Oh, and if they somehow manage to plop an Anti-Magic Field around themselves? They just gave up like 70% of their class features. Thanks to Greater Spell Penetration (in Core)/Assay Resistance (out of Core), their multi-attribute dependency, spells that ignore saves (even just good ol' Rays like Enervation/Scorching Ray/whatever, or Forcecages or something dumb), spells that trivialize touch AC (hello, True Strike!) and so on, all their magical defenses really add up to jack ****.

They aren't exceptional skirmishers due to not being able to Flurry with standard action and their speed bonus being enhancement thus, while probably being able to somewhat remain out of the harm's way with Spring Attack, not reducing the damage their allies take one bit and dealing negligible damage themselves. Indeed, this is the worst thing a Monk can do since it means the people who do the fighting are now taking all the beatdown while the Monk isn't contributing to the team's damage in any meaningful way either. In other words, the Monk isn't taking any hits and he isn't dealing any damage this way; thus he's as good as an empty slot in the party.


And overall, their class features kinda suck. Mostly, you can look at 'em like this:
-Flurry? That's nice! Now if only I were able to focus on one stat and have full BAB, I'd be doing a lot with my extra attacks on highest bonus!
-Improved Grapple/Trip/Stunning Fist/whatever? Nice! Now, if I only were able to focus on one stat and have full BAB, I could be landing these and winning the opposed checks!
-Speed boost? That's nice! Now, if I only could move and attack with my Flurry (which "almost" makes me equal to full BAB types), I could be doing something! Oh, and if this only stacked with magical speed boosts I'd actually be faster than the other classes.
-Unarmed Strikes? That's nice! Now, if I only got size increases or something so the damage dice would actually add up to something, and got 2x Power Attack returns and full BAB, this could add up to something!
-Ki Strikes? Nice, my unarmed strikes pretend to be weapons and get some minor abilities that almost replicate what my 1000gp weapon does! If only my WPL wasn't 100000...
-Slow Fall? So I get to replicate a 1st level spell by level 20? No? It only works next to walls? Well, almost replicate a 1st level spell!
-All this nice stuff, Abundant Step, Quivering Palm, Empty Body, I can replicate many kinds of spells poorly...once per DAY! Oh, make it Once per WEEK for that scary scary, broken Finger of Death With Save DC Derived Off Secondary Stat That Requires An Attack To Hit To Be Used.
-Oh, there's more? I get to replicate few more random low level spells? Cool. Oh, and Evasion? Yeah, nice, my Reflex-saves actually matter something! That's like...25k saved on the Ring.
-I get Spell Resistance? Just to ensure my team can't waste a Heal on me when I'm about to die? Cool!


Lack of synergy and multi-attribute dependency pretty much screw Monks up. Oh, and the good class features being limited to Very Few Uses Per Day. Seriously, if Monks had the ability to use Flurry whenever making an attack, if they got like Wis x uses of their now-daily abilities and the ability to use Dex for combat maneuvers, and Wis/Dex for damage, they'd be just fine. Grab Weapon Finesse/Intuitive Attack and they'd be able to go to town. As all those things are ****ed up though, they don't. As I mentioned above, those multiclass builds easily sidestep these issues. Mono-classed Monks don't though.

[Edenbeast]

I'm not an optimizer at all; to me being a little on the weak side is a feature, not a bug, because it means you're not breaking the game before breakfast like a Wizard or Cleric. That said, even I don't like the monk much, not because it's weak but because it's boring. The skeleton of the class is good, but when you get to the part about ki abilities, there's virtually nothing there; they picked out abilities that do virtually nothing, and they're always the same for every member of the class, or perhaps one of two possible choices.

The Ranger has much the same problem in my book, apart from getting a few spells and an animal companion, both of which are basically just a built-in Druid multiclass; take those things away and all you're left with is Favored Enemy. And I love the ranger class, largely because it has Favored Enemy (though all those Skills don't hurt either). You don't need a lot of options, IMO, but you need some. Three or four bonus feats and a lot of rather pointless abilities just aren't enough to make an interesting character class.

Full casters (and full manifesters, and full initiators, and full meldshapers, and the Tome of Magic classes) all have the same problem IMO - too much diversity, too many choices to make. Monks and to a lesser extent Rangers and Rogues have the opposite problem; there are hardly any decisions involved and you don't have much that you can do outside of a very narrow niche (and the monk barely has that, hence why he is the worst of these). That's why I consider the Fighter to be one of the best-made classes; he has a nice big list of options to pick from, but he only makes one pick every level or two, plus deciding on choice of weapons or the like in a fight. Just a small amount of choice in both the short and long term, so you're neither bored nor overloaded - that's what I consider ideal.

(Granted my perspective is a bit skewed; I hardly ever actually play since I'm nearly always the DM, so instead of making a character with enough bells and whistles to keep me amused for however long it takes to level up, I'm making NPCs in large numbers that I need to be able to assemble fairly quickly and understand how to use them in-game.)

I really like this post. Although I don't agree about the full casters part, at least the ones from the PHB. I actually find the most fun classes to build and level are the fighter, cleric, and wizard. Basically because what you start with is an almost complete blank table that you get to fill in. Choose your feats and bonus feats, and for the casters there are domains, schools and spells. It's customization galore.
The other classes have a bit too many pre-written abilities. It's like the difference between Lego and Playmobil: with Playmobil you have a starbase or a starbase with a slightly different setup, and with Lego you can build a starbase or a starship from the same box.

That being said, I've played a monk once that was a tumbling, spring attacking, impossible to catch tripping machine, that was fun to play. Not alot of damage but useful for the rest of the party.

[Gerrtt]

I had done some math somewhere on the boards...years ago now it seems, that showed how level for level the commoner class can be built better at disarming someone than the monk. I can't remember exactly how long they were better, but it was for a good while.

Now, disarming may not be the best tactic you may say, but Monks can get it as a bonus feat and have special weapons that help with it, so it served as a good comparison point. But the fact remained that with equal stats and the same feats a commoner with a spear (or even better, a longspear) is better at disarming someone than a monk with a sai (their special disarming weapon).

A shame.

:edit:

Which is to say, the reason they are so bad is that everything they are designed and intended to do can be done by someone else better, stronger, and usually faster.

[Gavinfoxx]

Compare this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150122

With the original monk and the original versions of the feats mentioned in that thread. Looking at the fixed versions and the original versions, you can easily see where the problems are.

[TuggyNE]

I wrote a long-ish post recently comparing the Monk's class features to various (usually cheap) magic items. Spoiler alert: nearly all of them are available to every other class in that form.

[Eldariel]

That being said, I've played a monk once that was a tumbling, spring attacking, impossible to catch tripping machine, that was fun to play. Not alot of damage but useful for the rest of the party.

Honestly, leave Spring Attacking out and you have the best kind of Monk possible without a lot of work; the Improved Trip Strength-focused machine. You get your AoOs and even full attacks occasionally and you have the tripper's utility.

The reason this aspect isn't much vaunted for a Monk though is because there are better Trippers in the game. In Core, you have the Barbarian and the Cleric in particular. Cleric has trouble with the Int prerequisites but a smart Cleric with Improved Trip and the boost spells is a true monster. And Barbarian has the natural Strength-increases in Rage and a high basic move speed making him a superb tripper.

[Courier6]

They are not proficient with unarmed strikes, think about that for a second.

[willpell]

They are not proficient with unarmed strikes, think about that for a second.

That's really not a problem with the monk, just excessive literalism in the reading. Not one class in the game specifically states that you ARE proficient with unarmed strikes, so doubtless the writers figured it was obvious that everyone was. The fact that unarmed strike is on the table as a Simple weapon is misleading, but it doesn't actually prove that proficiency is required, it's just done in case anybody needs to know what type of weapon the unarmed strike counts as for the purposes of a feat or spell or something. But no one is ever not proficient in their natural attacks, and an unarmed strike is a natural attack for the human(oid) body.

[Fates]

In my experience, the monk class is excellent for a dip of a level or two, but not worth the trouble of sticking with. You get a few useful bonus feats, wisdom to AC, a respectable attack that you can always fall back on, evasion, and those saves. If you happen to be playing the right kind of character, I'd say go ahead and take a level or two in monk; it still won't be your best option, but it's not a bad one. Taking more than, say, five levels, however, seems downright silly.

[TuggyNE]

That's really not a problem with the monk, just excessive literalism in the reading. Not one class in the game specifically states that you ARE proficient with unarmed strikes, so doubtless the writers figured it was obvious that everyone was. The fact that unarmed strike is on the table as a Simple weapon is misleading, but it doesn't actually prove that proficiency is required, it's just done in case anybody needs to know what type of weapon the unarmed strike counts as for the purposes of a feat or spell or something. But no one is ever not proficient in their natural attacks, and an unarmed strike is a natural attack for the human(oid) body.

To be honest, I would disagree. Most people do not, in fact, know how to properly punch or kick (for evidence of this, ask any competent martial artist). So I have no problem modeling, say, Joe Blow in 21st-century America as being non-proficient with unarmed, and I can only suppose that a similar situation would prevail in most other times: fighting without weapons is a learned skill, and it is not one that everyone learns. Random Commoner 1 NPCs therefore should be non-proficient unless they picked unarmed strike as their proficiency, druids should not have any special training in fist-fighting (since they are proficient with wild shape natural attacks by magic, and since there is little or no commonality between those and human fists, elbows, knees, and feet), and so on and so forth.

TL/DR: Unarmed strikes should not be auto-proficient by common sense, and (by a happy coincidence) aren't by RAW either.

[LordBlades]

Honestly, leave Spring Attacking out and you have the best kind of Monk possible without a lot of work; the Improved Trip Strength-focused machine. You get your AoOs and even full attacks occasionally and you have the tripper's utility.

The reason this aspect isn't much vaunted for a Monk though is because there are better Trippers in the game. In Core, you have the Barbarian and the Cleric in particular. Cleric has trouble with the Int prerequisites but a smart Cleric with Improved Trip and the boost spells is a true monster. And Barbarian has the natural Strength-increases in Rage and a high basic move speed making him a superb tripper.

Even a fighter (or hell, even a warrior) is a better tripper than a monk. Better BAB and better str usually (due to less MAD); A PB monk with 18 starting Str has to make a lot of sacrifices. a 18 str 10 dex, 15 con 14 int fighter is perfectly playable for example.

The issue with the monk IMO is, like others have said, that it provides a lot of abilities but most of them are, non-synergizing(flurry of blows&fast movement), easy to replicate(slow fall vs. ring of feather fall), come online way too late(like DR 10/magic at level 20) or don't do anything at all(like immunity to magical aging at level 17, when at the time of writing there was no magical aging effect, and during the whole run of 3.5 there have been only 1 or 2 such effects)

[Vaern]

I saw a thread not long ago that looked a lot like this one. It was very enlightening. I'm surprised nobody's mentioned my two favorite tidbits yet.

Spell resistance
It's a great defense against spellcasters for a single monster, but it's a huge inconvenience for any character who's traveling with a party.
Unlike a spell's saving throws, you can't voluntarily accept a spell through spell resistance. You must spend a standard action to lower it, and it then reactivates automatically on your next turn unless you intentionally leave it off. This means that either anyone trying to heal or buff you needs to make a caster level check to get through.
Even if you keep it deactivated at all times and render the ability useless, it reactivates automatically if you are knocked unconscious (as you can not consciously focus on keeping it down). This is ultimately a giant middle finger to your healer, as his spells have a significant chance of failing at the most critical time.

Perfect Self
You become an outsider.
Not a native outsider. Just an outsider.
You're subject to dismissal and banishment.
Where will you be banished to? I don't know. Nobody does.
This may seem like a crazy interpretation of RAW, but that makes it no less true and no less hilarious to think about.

A Little Extra, Just For The Lulz
In a grapple, if one combatant is using a light weapon, the other can use that weapon against him. Unarmed attacks are considered to be a light weapon.
This means that, if you are ever grappled, you may find yourself on the wrong side of a game of "Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!"
...for up to 2d10 damage per attack, depending on what level you are.

[Sith_Happens]

I mean, it doesn't seem too bad to the untrained eye. What, generally, has to be fixed for the monk to work. Is it's damage output bad? Not enough versatility?

All of the above and then some.

-----

Let's start with attributes, which is the base of a lot of the other issues as well: Just like a Fighter, a Monk needs high Strength to hit things and high Constitution to be able to take a hit. Unlike the Fighter, the Monk also needs good Dexterity and Wisdom to keep his AC up, among other things. Which might not be all bad, except that the Fighter will have higher AC anyways due to wearing actual (magic) armor, and gets a larger hit die to boot.

Meanwhile, on offense: The Fighter will have much better to-hit than the Monk, due to
1. Better base attack bonus.
2. The -2 for flurrying for the Monk's first eleven levels.
3. Higher Str, since the Monk will inevitably have to divert resources away from boosting Str and towards boosting Dex and Wis.
4. A magic weapon.

The Fighter will also have much higher damage, due to:
1. A greatsword, which has the same or higher damage dice (2d6) as the Monk's unarmed strikes until 16th level, and even then the difference isn't much to write home about (a mere four damage on average between 2d6 and 2d10).
2. A magic weapon (starting to see part of the pattern here)?
3. Higher Str (see above).
4. 1.5x Str to damage and 2:1 Power Attack thanks to attacking two-handed. This is the big one, because after the first few levels your Str bonus and Power Attack are where all the real damage comes from.

The comparison isn't too great with a Rogue either:
1. Possible toss-up on AC, but with the edge going to the Rogue thanks (once again) to having actual armor.
2. Edge on to-hit also goes to the Rogue, thanks to magic weapon bonuses.
3. Damage goes to the Rogue handily, because Sneak Attack.

-----

Okay, so we've established that the Monk loses out to pretty much any other melee class in terms of the basic math of fighting things. What does it get in return?

1. An extra attack. This would be a lot better if it weren't for the Monk's problems actually hitting things in the first place (see above).

2. All good saves. Nice, but the other classes can easily make up the difference via a Cloak of Resistance, purchased with the cash they don't have to spend increasing more than one or two attributes.

3. Bonus feats. These are genuinely good, especially with some of the Fighting Style variants (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#monkVariantFightingSty les) from Unearthed Arcana, but can't justify the class as a whole due to all coming in the early levels.

4. Evasion. Always nice to have, but Rogues get it too, and so will everyone else once they have 25000 gp to spare for a ring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#evasion).

5. A genuine bucketload of other class features that each look cool, until you ask yourself the simple question, "When will this actually be relevant?" Let's go down the list:

Fast Movement

Doesn't stack with Haste (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), and to use Flurry of Blows you have to stand still.

Still Mind

Meh, I've seen better. +2 save bonuses are a dime a dozen, and this one is vs. one of the easiest effects to become outright immune to.

Ki Strike

Cool, now you can pretend your fists are magic weapons. Except for the part where a real magic weapon can hit incorporeal creatures, or give you extra attack and damage, or be on fire.

Slow Fall

At 20th level, this is almost as good as a ring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#featherFalling) you can buy with your pocket change.

Purity of Body

When was the last time your DM used mundane diseases? Exactly.

Wholeness of Body

That sound you hear? It's the Cleric laughing at you.

Improved Evasion

If you're ever missing a Reflex save by the time you get this, then something's gone horribly wrong.

Diamond Body

As above, you should be making the saves anyways.

Abundant Step

At 1/day it's too awesome to use (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TooAwesomeToUse), minus the awesome. As a utility option you can (and likely have been for five levels already) just grab the Wizard's hand while he uses his full caster level Dimension Door, and as a get out of jail free card it's shown up by some fairly cheap items.

Diamond Soul

Fun fact: Did you know that most buffs and healing spells are "SR: Yes?" And that it takes a Standard Action to waive your spell resistance? This ability is a trap.

Quivering Palm

1/week!? Are you kriffing kidding me!?

Timless Body

You're more likely to advance an age cateogry in real life than you are in a D&D campaign.

Tongue of the Sun and Moon

The casters have been doing this for the past twelve levels.

Empty Body

This one's actually pretty good, except for the part where you had to go through eighteen levels of the above to get to it.

Perfect Self

If you're 20th level and still remember that DR/magic exists, then your DM's kid gloves are several feet thick. In exchange, you lose the ability to get Enlarge Person'ed.

-----

Short version: The Monk is a class designed to fight unarmed and unarmored, in a game system built from the ground up around the assumption that combatants will be armed and armored. In return for that natural deficiency, it gets a bunch of abilities that you'll forget you even have.

[Eldariel]

Even a fighter (or hell, even a warrior) is a better tripper than a monk. Better BAB and better str usually (due to less MAD); A PB monk with 18 starting Str has to make a lot of sacrifices. a 18 str 10 dex, 15 con 14 int fighter is perfectly playable for example.

Well, Monk does have the advantage of not requiring 13 Int for Improved Trip. BAB does not factor into Trip so a Strength-focused Monk is as good as anything else. Of course, yeah, their MAD still hurts them but overall, tripping tends to be the best option for a Monk and a tripping Monk isn't as far behind of tripping everything else as a non-tripping Monk is.


Timless Body

You're more likely to advance an age cateogry in real life than you are in a D&D campaign.

Well no, with fast time planes and plane shifting this is pretty easy to turn into "+3 to all mental stats". Alas, it's often too little too late but if I somehow ended up playing a level 17 Monk (or more likely, a Druid) I sure as hell would use the hell outta this.

[hymer]

@ Eldariel: The player wants that time nonsense. Would the character, though? In 2nd Ed. I never once allowed anyone to cast Haste on me, even when I played a dwarf or an elf. That's a year of life gone by!

[Eldariel]

@ Eldariel: The player wants that time nonsense. Would the character, though? In 2nd Ed. I never once allowed anyone to cast Haste on me, even when I played a dwarf or an elf. That's a year of life gone by!

*shrug* A monk going by the fluff package would, probably. Meditating for years is basically what monks do, after all; seeking enlightenment is their whole purpose in life. If it enables them to unlock their true potential, well, I'd imagine they would indeed go for it.

Of course, there's more to each character than just the archetype and there is more to each class than just the default fluff but a monk is one of the narrower classes if going superdeep and 17 levels is pretty darn deep. Not everybody has a thirst for life, after all, and a monk's enlightenment is pretty much all about getting rid of that thirst if it's there in the first place.

[awa]

except a fighter/warrior is still better at tripping becuase he will be using a reach weapon that might have been specificaly enchanted for tripping.

edit haste no longer ages you

[hymer]

Weeell, if the guy thought meditation was all there is to enlightenment, why is he adventuring in the first place? Why would he ever stop, once he found a quiet place to do it? And if he doesn't, wouldn't he like to spend over half his life's years trying to find enlightenment?
I can certainly see some monk going for what you describe, though. I can't guarantee I wouldn't feel a desire to roll eyes if it came up at my table, on the other hand.

[Eldariel]

Weeell, if the guy thought meditation was all there is to enlightenment, why is he adventuring in the first place? Why would he ever stop, once he found a quiet place to do it? And if he doesn't, wouldn't he like to spend over half his life's years trying to find enlightenment?
I can certainly see some monk going for what you describe, though. I can't guarantee I wouldn't feel a desire to roll eyes if it came up at my table, on the other hand.

Monks seek enlightenment all their lives; that's why the class has the multiclass restrictions in the first place, it's something you have to see to the end. And adventuring monks, yeah, it's a kind of a weird role but I suppose for a monk seeking enlightenment through martial arts (rather than using martial arts just to keep your body in shape) seeking different adversaries to keep improving makes sense.

Ultimately, as a player I feel if I'm playing a level 17 Monk tho I'd damn well better utilize the class features to the fullest or I'm going to mechanically drag the party down and get everybody killed. As such I'd make small concessions on things like that starting top-down and figuring out why the character wants to do what makes him more powerful, rather than decide on something else 'cause while it might make sense it would also probably cripple me even further.


In general, in 3.5 when designing characters I pick a concept, and build mechanics to match that while not crippling the character power mechanically since that's what I feel the system is built to support. If I wanted full organic character building I feel I'd need a different system for that. The way 3.5 is designed, you both tend to need to keep an eye on your power level and plan things ahead of time.

[toapat]

Diamond Soul is a bit stronger then people give it to be, as Spell Resistance is overridden by Foregoing your save. I dont think there is a heal in the game that lacks a save.

The problem with monk is the only real way to make them effective is to use a quarterstaff (which people forget about). At least they have ONE twohander they are proficient and centered with.

[willpell]

Weeell, if the guy thought meditation was all there is to enlightenment, why is he adventuring in the first place?

Same reason Haley quit the thieves' guild and went to go improve her lockpicking skill by killing kobolds. In D&D land, adventuring is the fast-track to self-improvement; regardless of what you do, you can do it a lot better after three years of raiding dungeons and hunting owlbears in the wood than you could in thirty years of daily toil and tedium.


Monks seek enlightenment all their lives; that's why the class has the multiclass restrictions in the first place, it's something you have to see to the end.

Or rather, something that you can stop, but then can't start again. Which sort of makes sense, if you get into a bad habit it's very hard to get back whatever discipline or rigor you've lost.


Ultimately, as a player I feel if I'm playing a level 17 Monk tho I'd damn well better utilize the class features to the fullest or I'm going to mechanically drag the party down and get everybody killed. As such I'd make small concessions on things like that starting top-down and figuring out why the character wants to do what makes him more powerful, rather than decide on something else 'cause while it might make sense it would also probably cripple me even further.

Whereas in my circle it's much more important to roleplay a character, and if that means you pass up your existing class features because they don't fit the flavor, then the DM works around that. It might mean you can't call yourself the badassest of the badass, but as long as everyone is playing their character and having fun, achieving objectives is of secondary importance. And I usually don't give my players "do this or die" type plots anyway. I'll admit that I'm a bit slower than I should be about bending the rules to make sure they can function in spite of a little self-handicapping; when I made an NPC cleric who didn't wear armor, I was fully prepared to just take a hit to her potential, and while I did eventually homebrew up an alternate class for her (which involved gaining Charisma to AC the way a monk gains Wisdom), if it had been one of my players rather than myself with that idea, I'd probably have hemmed and hawed about game balance for a long time before I signed off on it. Still, that's a failing on my part, and forcing players to sacrifice their concept for the sake of "ability to contribute" is just as much a failing IMO.


If I wanted full organic character building I feel I'd need a different system for that. The way 3.5 is designed, you both tend to need to keep an eye on your power level and plan things ahead of time.

Or at least have a DM who is as willing to bend the rules in your favor as I am, but more confident than me in actually getting it done.

[Ernir]

Perfect Self
You become an outsider.
Not a native outsider. Just an outsider.
You're subject to dismissal and banishment.
Where will you be banished to? I don't know. Nobody does.
This may seem like a crazy interpretation of RAW, but that makes it no less true and no less hilarious to think about.

This is incorrect. Dismissal and Banishment refer to extraplanar creatures, not outsiders. "Extraplanar" is a subtype that has nothing to do with the creature's type and everything to do with its plane of origin, which the Monk capstone doesn't change.

Admittedly, the writers don't seem to have always realized this.

[toapat]

This is incorrect. Dismissal and Banishment refer to extraplanar creatures, not outsiders. "Extraplanar" is a subtype that has nothing to do with the creature's type and everything to do with its plane of origin, which the Monk capstone doesn't change.

Admittedly, the writers don't seem to have always realized this.

Actually, it does make monks vulnerable, as it changes your type to Outsider (no subtypes). Because they have no native descriptor, they are considered extraplanar no matter what. Fey'Ri and most other planetouched at least specify that they have the Native subtype by refferencing back to teiflings.

[Reynard]

Why do we need one of these threads every week? If this was last year, you'd get Giacomo jumping to say that the monk is still totally good because of sepcific cross-class UMD shenanananigans.

I think he got banned, though. Ah, memories.

[Eldariel]

Whereas in my circle it's much more important to roleplay a character, and if that means you pass up your existing class features because they don't fit the flavor, then the DM works around that. It might mean you can't call yourself the badassest of the badass, but as long as everyone is playing their character and having fun, achieving objectives is of secondary importance.

Oh, certainly, I'm all on board for homebrewing stuff for every player but it's just not always an option: in my latest campaign only one player is playing a printed class, Warblade, with only minor modifications, and the game doesn't use magic items outside a single scaling item per character and rules are changed accordingly. Other two are a blind Elven Mage of sorts (psionics-based magician class with some power limitations) and a Human ToB-reworked Ranger type. We don't pick one or the other, it's roleplay and mechanics all in one neat package. Mechanics worked out before the game, roleplay done during the game. Individual competencies vary, of course.

There's also a lot you can do with the rules as they stand anyways (e.g. Cleric with Wis to AC can be achieved; simple Monk's Belt from core being the easiest option). It's a lot more work to customize stuff for every player tho; in a local playgroup with longstanding friends, maybe; at a convention? Never.

PbP, well, it varies but usually I'd err on the side of caution with effort spent on individual players as not all might even participate and those games disintegrate occasionally.


That's all irrelevant for this question tho 'cause this only comes up if I'm playing the Core Monk as written in a playgroup not tailored to the power level it would require. In such a case I would go and age, and make it work probably.

[awa]

wow I cant belive I didnt even notice that the monk threads werent 20 pages long and full of yelling until you mentioned it.

(and im being completly serious)

[Coidzor]

Whereas in my circle it's much more important to roleplay a character, and if that means you pass up your existing class features because they don't fit the flavor, then the DM works around that.

That's very fortunate and lucky for you and your group, but not really entirely relevant to a discussion of why monks are problematic because just because you can fix it, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I believe there's a named fallacy for that one. :smalltongue:

[Answerer]

I believe there's a named fallacy for that one. :smalltongue:
Oberoni's.

[Vaern]

Diamond Soul is a bit stronger then people give it to be, as Spell Resistance is overridden by Foregoing your save. I dont think there is a heal in the game that lacks a save.

Actually, it's not. It specifically says that you need to spend a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to accept a spell.


The terms "object" and "harmless" mean the same thing for spell resistance as they do for saving throws. A creature with spell resistance must voluntarily lower the resistance (a standard action) in order to be affected by a spell noted as harmless. In such a case, you do not need to make the caster level check described above.

[Grendus]

Oberoni's.

It can also be referred to as the rule 0 fallacy - it's not broken because the DM can fix it.

[toapat]

Actually, it's not. It specifically says that you need to spend a standard action to lower your spell resistance in order to accept a spell.

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

[Kazyan]

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

It really bugs me when people use the primary source thing to ignore a book that outright tells you it overrides the primary source and has no other function.

[hewhosaysfish]

Actually, it does make monks vulnerable, as it changes your type to Outsider (no subtypes). Because they have no native descriptor, they are considered extraplanar no matter what. Fey'Ri and most other planetouched at least specify that they have the Native subtype by refferencing back to teiflings.

Have you got a reference for that? I'm looking at the SRD's entries for the Outsider type and the Extraplanar and Native types and I'm not seeing it.

[toapat]

It really bugs me when people use the primary source thing to ignore a book that outright tells you it overrides the primary source and has no other function.

well, if you actually use those rules, Spell resistance is fully useless, as the entire point of having the forego your saving throw rules originally was so that getting spell resistance wasnt slightly less effective then deciding to target yourself with a Headman's chop.


Have you got a reference for that? I'm looking at the SRD's entries for the Outsider type and the Extraplanar and Native types and I'm not seeing it.

Standard of obtaining Outsider type is getting Extraplanar as a subtype. because the monk capstone does not specify any subtypes (which is a huge problem), the game's auto assumptions apply. Planetouched are the exception, not the rule.

RAI, the monk capstone changes you to being Outsider, and grants you the subtypes (Lawful, Native). It doesnt say anything beyond becoming an outsider

[Vaern]

This was debated in the nonfunctional rules thread, with the judgement being that Core is more accurate then the rules compendium, in which you can force fail the saves no matter what.

This isn't about saving throws. Nobody is saying that you can't voluntarily fail a saving throw. I'm saying that forgoing a saving throw and lowering spell resistance are two completely different things, which are specifically described in the PHB, the SRD, and the Rules Comendium.

The Rules Compendium says the exact same thing about spell resistance as the Player's Handbook and the SRD: It takes a standard action to lower, reactivates on your next turn unless you continue to focus on keeping it down, and applies even to spells labeled as (harmless).

And although all three sources say that you can voluntarily fail a saving throw, none of them says that forgoing your saving throw also allows a spell's caster to ignore your spell resistance. Otherwise there would be no need for them to elaborate on the mechanics of voluntarily lower spell resistance.


Standard of obtaining Outsider type is getting Extraplanar as a subtype. because the monk capstone does not specify any subtypes (which is a huge problem), the game's auto assumptions apply. Planetouched are the exception, not the rule.

RAI, the monk capstone changes you to being Outsider, and grants you the subtypes (Lawful, Native). It doesnt say anything beyond becoming an outsider

I looked this up, and they are in fact native outsiders. Any creature on a plane other than its home plane gains the extraplanar subtype, and that any outsider whose entry does is not labeled as extraplanar is assumed to be native to the Material Plane even if they don't specifically have the native subtype. Thus, outsider (no subtypes) defaults to outsider (native), not to outsider (extraplanar).

However, I don't think they would gain the lawful subtype. The entry for the lawful subtype says that it's usually only applied to outsiders who are native to the lawful-aligned outer planes. A lawful outsider retains the lawful subtype even if his alignment changes and he becomes non-lawful, as he is partially composed of the essence of a lawful-aligned plane.

Despite the monk's requirement of having a lawful alignment, he is not native to a lawful plane and there is nothing to indicate that he would gain the lawful subtype as an outsider. He would be a outsider of an unaligned plane, who happens to also be a lawful creature.

[toapat]

*Snip*

1: The Rules Compendium Change is specifically in Foregoing saving throws, not spell resistance. Without it, you can fail the saving throw before you decide to roll spell resistance.

2: Im not going to believe you without you citing the entire section about this, as there are more unmarked extraplanar outsiders then unmarked planetouched.

[olentu]

Bah, the counter argument is that if the spell fails to overcome spell resistance then no saving throw is made because the spell does not affect the monk. You can not fail a save you are never asked to make.

[Vaern]

1: It does not say that a caster can disregard the spell resistance of a willing subject. It only says that you can willingly fail a saving throw. There isn't a single mention of spell resistance within six pages of the entry regarding forgoing saving throws.

2:


A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. This book assumes that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. These home planes are taken from the great Wheel cosmology of the D&D game (see Chapter 5 of the Dungeon Master's Guide). If your campaign uses a different cosmology, you will need to assign different home planes to extraplanar creatures.
Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane; the transitive planes in the D&D cosmology are the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow.
There you go. Monks are not labeled as extraplanar, and are therefore native to the Material Plane.

[tyckspoon]

2: Im not going to believe you without you citing the entire section about this, as there are more unmarked extraplanar outsiders then unmarked planetouched.

I'd actually have to turn this back on you- can you cite the rule that makes you believe that Outsiders are automatically Extraplanar? It's not part of the Outsider Type traits, and the Extraplanar Subtype itself, well



A subtype applied to any creature when it is on a plane other than its native plane. A creature that travels the planes can gain or lose this subtype as it goes from plane to plane. Monster entries assume that encounters with creatures take place on the Material Plane, and every creature whose native plane is not the Material Plane has the extraplanar subtype (but would not have when on its home plane). Every extraplanar creature in this book has a home plane mentioned in its description. Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane, and they gain the extraplanar subtype if they leave the Material Plane. No creature has the extraplanar subtype when it is on a transitive plane, such as the Astral Plane, the Ethereal Plane, and the Plane of Shadow.

... specifically mentions that if you go to another plane, you are (Extraplanar) and the creatures that actually live there are not. Unless there's something I have forgotten that says a Monk 20 stops being a creature of the Material Plan, they are no more (Extraplanar) than a Material-plane-born Aasimar or Tiefling is.

(Also, all the 'go home planes-travelers' spells specifically target the Extraplanar subtype, not the Outsider type.)

[Vaern]

(Also, all the 'go home planes-travelers' spells specifically target the Extraplanar subtype, not the Outsider type.)

Yes, yes, I take back what I said about them possibly being considered legal targets for those spells. I will not, however, take back what I said about it being a hilarious circumstance to think about :P

[toapat]

1: It does not say that a caster can disregard the spell resistance of a willing subject. It only says that you can willingly fail a saving throw. There isn't a single mention of spell resistance within six pages of the entry regarding forgoing saving throws.

2: There you go. Monks are not labeled as extraplanar, and are therefore native to the Material Plane.

1: Look through the non-functional rules thread, they have the actual place where the willingly take 1 can go without

2: Monks do not gain the Native subtype, which is not RAI. They gain specifically a unique subtype to their ascension that is Outsider (Can be ressed). This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors, which no other creature types in the game have normally on the Prime Material Plane.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Problems with monks.

Medium BAB: You're a warrior class. I'd understand this if you gained bonuses specific to your unarmed strike and monk weapons that make your BAB equivalent to full, but you don't.

D8 hit die: Warrior class!

4+int skill points with good list: So this is supposed to make you a better skillmonkey in exchange for being a bad warrior? Barbarian gets this too, and fighter should get this. Not good enough.

Unarmed Strike: Good enough

Flurry of Blows: No movement and medium BAB? With a weapon that's harder to enchant than normal? Bad. Easily fixed, but that ain't the point.
Fast Movement: Great, so now you can waste your turn running up to the enemy and making one medium BAB attack, then stand with your crappy AC and hit points. Oh, and it doesn't stack with Haste and magic items, so say goodbye to your concept of making a super-speedy guy.

Slow Fall: Oh, it's Feather Fall, but way worse.

All your other class features: Either useless, or too little too late.

[tyckspoon]

This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors...

This part. This part is Citation Needed. Why does an Outsider *have* to have one of these two subtypes? Why is an Outsider not permitted to just be an Outsider?

(Also, on review it's a bit of a moot point anyway, as a Monk doesn't actually become an Outsider- his Traits and Features don't change. He only counts as an Outsider for the limited realm of "magical spells and effects" ... which largely don't *care* whether or not he's Native. He has a specific exemption for Raise Dead already, which is the effect that most cares about the distinction between Native and non-Native Outsiders.)

[Zrak]

To speak more generally than the specific, mechanical problems of the monk (which have been enumerated at length in this thread and elsewhere), I think the primary flaw of the monk, from a design perspective, is that it really has no business being a base class. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I don't mean it as anything against the monk class, I just feel that, in both its flavor and mechanics, it is better suited to be (that is to say, it would function better if designed as) a prestige class than a base class.

Basically, the base classes all represent at least fairly broad archetypes which can evolve in a variety of ways and towards a variety of different concepts. A fighter can be a grizzled, pragmatic veteran of a mercenary company, a desert nomad who focuses on mobility and grace, or an honorable knight, in his family's ancestral plate, questing for justice and truth. A wizard can specialize in any number of schools and build a spell list any number of ways, from a power-mad necromancer to a battle-mage blaster wizard to a zany illusionist. These are all concepts the class can represent not just in terms of its fluff, but concepts that can be created and represented by the mechanics of the class, more-or-less viably. Not only does the flavor of monk narrow the concept down much more than just about any other core base class (Paladin, I'm looking at you), but the lack of mechanical options enforces this narrowly-tailored class.

The monk class basically necessitates that anyone who want to be a martial artist plays a character that's pretty much a kung-fu movie version of a Shaolin monk. As such, the class gets a lot of mechanically useless features which add to this flavor, but in the process define the flavor; a very specific character concept, with little room for change, is an entire class. Now, this is more what I think of when I think of prestige classes, classes who go down a more specific path than the base class from which one enters them, and which one must meet certain prerequisites, in alignment and character build, to enter.

Now, this isn't to say all monks are one-note characters, but rather that the system as written encourages monks to be one-note characters, or at least much more similar to one another than two members of another class, even if players can overcome this. Before splatbooks gave us a bajillion extra base classes and as such provided one for essentially any specific concept, concepts as narrowly tailored as the monk, at least in my opinion, were mostly represented through mechanical choices in base classes and/or taking more specific prestige classes. Stretching monk out over twenty levels gives it a bunch of useless "filler" abilities with cool names, abilities than come too late to be useful, and a notable lack of the variety of choices offered to other base classes.

[Coidzor]

What if Everyone (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?658672-3-5-What-if-everyone-was-a-monk) were a Monk? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=258254)

[Vaern]

1: Look through the non-functional rules thread, they have the actual place where the willingly take 1 can go without

2: Monks do not gain the Native subtype, which is not RAI. They gain specifically a unique subtype to their ascension that is Outsider (Can be ressed). This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors, which no other creature types in the game have normally on the Prime Material Plane.

1: The phrase "non-function rules" has never even been mentioned on this forum except in another post you made in a thread about a tarrasque.
I have found a "dysfunctional rules" thread, in which the phrase "spell resistance" only occurs in a copy+pasting of the spell description of Disintegrate (out of the full 40 pages of the thread).
Unless you want to dig up this post and link it yourself, I am inclined to conclude that it does not exist. Besides attempting to redirect me to this non-existent thread, you have done nothing more than insist that the rules say something that they very clearly do no say. Your argument is invalid, as you have no real evidence to back it up.

2: "Can be ressed" is not a subtype. It's a quality. That's like saying an elf is a "humanoid (elf, immune to sleep)."
Monks do not gain a subtype. Because they do not become extraplanar, they default to native. What part of "Creatures not labeled as extraplanar are natives of the Material Plane" is difficult to understand?

[TuggyNE]

Re the whole Outsider-banishment discussion: I've decided my earlier position (as noted in posts as little as a week ago) is incorrect, and (since Monks do not switch home planes) nothing special happens to them.

However, it would have been more useful, clear, and correct to simply give them the Outsider (native) type and subtype for all purposes, possibly even including traits, although martial weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies could I suppose be left out.

[hymer]

@ Zrak: While it may be a problem, I don't think monks are any worse in that particular regard than, say, paladins or bards - at least fluffwise. Druids too I suppose. Of course, druids and bards are notoriously versatile, and so the fluff specificity sort of caves in to the crunch broadness. Paladins much less so, but they at least get spells and a choice of fighting style.

[Darth Stabber]

Just another manic monkday.

Most of the previous listed arguments are entirely valid, but there is a more important note: Swordsage exists, and has an unarmed variant, therefore monk is irrelevant. Swordage has useful mechanical abilities, and is a ton of fun to play, and covers the concept monk is supposed to fulfill better, and can cover a wide variety of other concepts as well. Why would I pick a melee class that is worse at melee than than the NPC melee class, when I can use mountain hammer to break down iron doors with bare hands? Swordsage gets a lot of crap for being weaboo, but monk is just as weaboo by default. Even the most anti-ToB arguments still don't make a dent in it's perfection for monk replacment.

Monks reach spiritual enlightenment by being humble, and nothing makes you more humble than the realization that you are easily the least effective character in your party. Even the fighter who required no purity of mind and body to advance is hitting things harder and more accurately than you. Even the bard, who's whole class is based on merriment, carousing, ADHD, and all manner of good natured debauchery, is as accurate as you in a fight, and can replicate 90% of your other abilities (including all of the good ones) while still having room on his spell list for things that actually resolve challenges placed before you. Like the paladin you focused on power of order to change the world, and you didn't even get a free horse. Truely by the time he reaches even mid levels, he has learned to be humble.

[Zrak]

@ Zrak: While it may be a problem, I don't think monks are any worse in that particular regard than, say, paladins or bards - at least fluffwise. Druids too I suppose. Of course, druids and bards are notoriously versatile, and so the fluff specificity sort of caves in to the crunch broadness. Paladins much less so, but they at least get spells and a choice of fighting style.

Well, I feel like bard is actually a pretty broad class, both mechanically and conceptually. You could go all classic Orpheus with it, you could play a battle-ready Skald, or you could make High Fantasy Jeff Winger. They all fit with the bard fluff and, again, they're all possible and more-or-less viable bards, mechanically.
Paladin, though, yeah. If I were the guy making rules, Paladin would definitely be a prestige class.

Moreover, I feel like a bard represents a fantastic/mythical archetype that's not only broad, but iconic in a way monk (as the class is written) isn't. The monk, as written, is like a niche group of a type of hero from a specific folklore canon. The monk isn't a certain archetype of warrior, like the fighter (trained) and barbarian (wild/natural) are, it's not even as broad type as the ranger; rather than representing the broad category of unarmed combatants, or the slightly-less-broad category of warrior-monks, the monk represents warrior monks associated with a specific pop-culture image of a specific niche within the category of warrior monks.

[Eldariel]

Well, I feel like bard is actually a pretty broad class, both mechanically and conceptually. You could go all classic Orpheus with it, you could play a battle-ready Skald, or you could make High Fantasy Jeff Winger. They all fit with the bard fluff and, again, they're all possible and more-or-less viable bards, mechanically.

It even draws onto the folkloristic idea of song being magic and "casting" being done through singing (see e.g. Kalevala). This is even found in Lord of the Rings (Tom Bombadil, Old Man Willow, the Old Forest in general), pretty much the progenitor of the system.

A bard is a more iconic spellcaster for me than a wizard, honestly.

[awa]

I have never met anyone who owns tome of battle while the srd is free online so just saying monks dont matter sword sages exsist is not particularly helpfull or usefull.

[Gavinfoxx]

I have never met anyone who owns tome of battle while the srd is free online so just saying monks dont matter sword sages exsist is not particularly helpfull or usefull.

monks don't matter, psychic warriors exist. Monks dont matter, fighters and magic items exist. monks don't matter, barbarians and barbarian acfs exist. etc etc.

[awa]

im not saying monks are good merely that saying swordsages exist so completly ignore monks is not helpfull

[Grendus]

To speak more generally than the specific, mechanical problems of the monk (which have been enumerated at length in this thread and elsewhere), I think the primary flaw of the monk, from a design perspective, is that it really has no business being a base class. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I don't mean it as anything against the monk class, I just feel that, in both its flavor and mechanics, it is better suited to be (that is to say, it would function better if designed as) a prestige class than a base class.

Basically, the base classes all represent at least fairly broad archetypes which can evolve in a variety of ways and towards a variety of different concepts. A fighter can be a grizzled, pragmatic veteran of a mercenary company, a desert nomad who focuses on mobility and grace, or an honorable knight, in his family's ancestral plate, questing for justice and truth. A wizard can specialize in any number of schools and build a spell list any number of ways, from a power-mad necromancer to a battle-mage blaster wizard to a zany illusionist. These are all concepts the class can represent not just in terms of its fluff, but concepts that can be created and represented by the mechanics of the class, more-or-less viably. Not only does the flavor of monk narrow the concept down much more than just about any other core base class (Paladin, I'm looking at you), but the lack of mechanical options enforces this narrowly-tailored class.

The monk class basically necessitates that anyone who want to be a martial artist plays a character that's pretty much a kung-fu movie version of a Shaolin monk. As such, the class gets a lot of mechanically useless features which add to this flavor, but in the process define the flavor; a very specific character concept, with little room for change, is an entire class. Now, this is more what I think of when I think of prestige classes, classes who go down a more specific path than the base class from which one enters them, and which one must meet certain prerequisites, in alignment and character build, to enter.

Now, this isn't to say all monks are one-note characters, but rather that the system as written encourages monks to be one-note characters, or at least much more similar to one another than two members of another class, even if players can overcome this. Before splatbooks gave us a bajillion extra base classes and as such provided one for essentially any specific concept, concepts as narrowly tailored as the monk, at least in my opinion, were mostly represented through mechanical choices in base classes and/or taking more specific prestige classes. Stretching monk out over twenty levels gives it a bunch of useless "filler" abilities with cool names, abilities than come too late to be useful, and a notable lack of the variety of choices offered to other base classes.

Quoted for truth. The Monk gets it even worse though, as most designers basically gave up on trying to fix them in the expansions. While the Paladin is narrowly defined, he gets enough splat support that you can play a peaceful healing Paladin, a scourge of evil smiting paladin, a Sword of the Arcane Order spellcasting paladin, a Drakenmount charging paladin, or any of the moderately broad varieties of holy warrior out there. The Monk has very few ACF's, and most of them fail to give the Monk any real synergy or even allow the Monk to fill a different archtype. I'd go so far as to say that the Monk is probably the worst supported core class in the game, trailing after the Rogue (who got a lot of lackluster ACF's and average feats but a decent variety of PrC's).

Part of the reason the Unarmed Swordsage is such a popular suggestion is that the maneuvers can fill in for a broader variety of monk archtypes - the Naruto-esque magic monk, the badass normal martial artist, or anything in between. It was the Monk we always wanted, but didn't get until the end of 3rd edition.

[Gavinfoxx]

Actually, the Monk has a TON of ACF's; they are mostly in Dragon Magazine, though.

[toapat]

Actually, the Monk has a TON of ACF's; they are mostly in Dragon Magazine, though.

Although his claim that there are few ACFs and supporting feats is wrong (monks have more ACFs then druids, ranger, rogue, Sorcerers, and clerics), Their ACF's and supporting feats are some of the worst for actually providing options.

When people say play a Swordsage, or a Warblade, i dont argue typically because they both are much better built classes then their predecessor (unless its Swordsage for rogue, Rogue has a niche, and can be built quite effectively for ranged combat if given more feats.)

The reason why i dont like people saying play a Crusader instead of a paladin is that a paladin can be improved by leaps and bounds with only a small cross-section of the game.

[Coidzor]

I have never met anyone who owns tome of battle while the srd is free online so just saying monks dont matter sword sages exsist is not particularly helpfull or usefull.

On the bright side, warblade is freely available online and all of the maneuvers are freely available through WOTC's web enhancements.

[Gavinfoxx]

I'll quote a post I made... monk with a huge amount of ACF's is viable!

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14235447&postcount=2

"5.) Monk with a huuuuge variety of alternative class features. Namely: Wild Monk (Dragon Magazine #324), Holy Strike (Complete Champion), Invisible Fist (Champions of Valor), Resistant Body (Planar Handbook), who picks up the 'X Wild Shape' (where X is a descriptor) feats from Draconomicon, Book of Exalted Deeds, and Frostburn. Make sure the DM lets you use your unarmed strikes at the end of your natural attacks. Focus on Wild Shape forms that get Pounce. Only works as 'powerful' once you get Wild Shape, and if you use a method of speaking while in Wild Shape, and of getting your gear to work while in Wild Shape as well (Wilding Clasps from Magic Item Compendium, or taking your gear off and putting it on after you shape)."

[Eldariel]

I'll quote a post I made... monk with a huge amount of ACF's is viable!

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14235447&postcount=2

"5.) Monk with a huuuuge variety of alternative class features. Namely: Wild Monk (Dragon Magazine #324), Holy Strike (Complete Champion), Invisible Fist (Champions of Valor), Resistant Body (Planar Handbook), who picks up the 'X Wild Shape' (where X is a descriptor) feats from Draconomicon, Book of Exalted Deeds, and Frostburn. Make sure the DM lets you use your unarmed strikes at the end of your natural attacks. Focus on Wild Shape forms that get Pounce. Only works as 'powerful' once you get Wild Shape, and if you use a method of speaking while in Wild Shape, and of getting your gear to work while in Wild Shape as well (Wilding Clasps from Magic Item Compendium, or taking your gear off and putting it on after you shape)."

All you really need to make 'em viable is Wild Monk TBH. Martial Monk can do some fairly decent things too but Wild Monk is what pulls the class to tier 3.

[Lans]

Problems with monks.

Medium BAB: You're a warrior class. I'd understand this if you gained bonuses specific to your unarmed strike and monk weapons that make your BAB equivalent to full, but you don't. Full bab is overrated, as totemist, psychic and swordsage demonstrate


D8 hit die: Warrior class!
HD isn't a big deal, again with swordsage, totemist, and psychic warrior. The problem is with lack of viable defenses, other than ACFs the monk is either just too vulnerable to melee attacks or is a waste of space due having no offense.



Flurry of Blows: No movement and medium BAB? With a weapon that's harder to enchant than normal? Bad. Easily fixed, but that ain't the point. Again your over estimating the BAB deal, The weapon that's harder to enchant is the real problem, and nobody gets movement and a full attack except for barbarians and natural attack pouncers.


Fast Movement: Great, so now you can waste your turn running up to the enemy...

YOUR GOING THE WRONG WAY! jk



All your other class features: Either useless, or too little too late. Evasion that you can trade for invisible fist or feign death, and bonus feats are pretty nice.

[Gavinfoxx]

All you really need to make 'em viable is Wild Monk TBH. Martial Monk can do some fairly decent things too but Wild Monk is what pulls the class to tier 3.

The other stuff helps you survive till you get to Wild Monk's actual Wild Shape...

[Answerer]

Full bab is overrated
It is, in general, but I don't feel that Jade Dragon is doing so. There is a definite weakness in the Monk where he cannot hit things. This is due primarily to his Medium BAB and the additional penalties thrown on top by Flurry of Blows. You could just not use Flurry, but then you're missing out on one of the few real features that Monks do get.

[Coidzor]

Full bab is overrated, as totemist, psychic and swordsage demonstrate

They all get stuff to make up for it though. A ton of natural weapons which don't suffer the same problems as the monk's flurry and a lot of flexibility in addition to the ability to get additional bonuses to hit with them.

A lack of full BAB means that the main schtick of mundane melee combatants, Power Attack, is gimped.


Again your over estimating the BAB deal, The weapon that's harder to enchant is the real problem, and nobody gets movement and a full attack except for barbarians and natural attack pouncers.

And monks are supposed to be all about mobility, so them not getting it is kinda whack.

[Lans]

It is, in general, but I don't feel that Jade Dragon is doing so. There is a definite weakness in the Monk where he cannot hit things. This is due primarily to his Medium BAB and the additional penalties thrown on top by Flurry of Blows. You could just not use Flurry, but then you're missing out on one of the few real features that Monks do get.

I think the MADness is a bigger issue, hindering damage as well as attack bonus. At low levels flurry is like TWF with full strength mod to both hands. Which would be awesome if a monk could afford a strength modifier.

[Rejakor]

If you want the monk to be about as strong as the fighter, or barbarian, it's pretty easy.

Full BAB, full saves, 4 + int skillpoints, d8 HD, Pounce, unarmed strike, bonus feats it already gets, give stunning fist a real DC and more stunning attempts, faster movement progression, more AC, short range teleportation at will from about level 7, wall-running at like level 3, triple to quadruple jump range, air walk at higher levels etc, plane shift and teleport at higher levels, as well as meld with stone, water breathing, incorporeality, a swim speed, and some choices between this sort of thing and elemental attacks/abilities.

You can even make it tier 2ish if you want, the Tome Monk is basically there already. Just got to add some of the kind of things wizards can do to the class, but more limited in scope, and usable at will.


Monk is so bad largely because 3.5 is a superhero game and monks are sword and sandals melee combatants. They have no way to break out of being one, unlike barbarian and fighter who can access feat chains and ACFs to become chargers or trippers or whatever. Batman is always going to be more awesome than Trogald the Sneak-Thief. Sandman(Fighter/Barbarian), while maybe not as awesome as Batman, can at least play in the same leagues.

[Eldariel]

It is, in general, but I don't feel that Jade Dragon is doing so. There is a definite weakness in the Monk where he cannot hit things. This is due primarily to his Medium BAB and the additional penalties thrown on top by Flurry of Blows. You could just not use Flurry, but then you're missing out on one of the few real features that Monks do get.

Addendum: I think the important distinction to draw between Monk and your average medium BAB class is that Monk is designed to eventually do 3 attacks (inherently, before Haste comes into play) at their maximum attack bonus. Now, medium BAB, early level flurry penalties and their lack of internal options to increase their attack bonus combined ensure that all the full BAB attacks will be at such a low attack bonus that they still suffer a significant chance to miss, something no other warrior class in this game can really boast.

If the class weren't based on throwing a large array of unenhanced attacks at their maximum attack bonus (to compensate for the attacks' individual lack of damage and the poor attack bonus) or if the class had built-in means to boost its attack bonus medium BAB wouldn't be a big deal, but as it stands without a lot of work it leaves Monks behind even their sucktown companions like Fighters and Warriors.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Full bab is overrated, as totemist, psychic and swordsage demonstrate


HD isn't a big deal, again with swordsage, totemist, and psychic warrior. The problem is with lack of viable defenses, other than ACFs the monk is either just too vulnerable to melee attacks or is a waste of space due having no offense.
Alright.

1. Swordsage. Hitting the enemy is a problem with swordsages. A problem they solve with Strikes, especially Emerald Razor. Swordsages can also get dex-to-damage, so they rely on strength less, or they can forgo Wisdom and some Dexterity in favor of Strength.
2. Totemist. The Totemist's strength doesn't lie in its melee. It lies in its versatility. But a totemist can get so many attacks at maximum bonus that it just doesn't matter. A totemist can easily get as many attacks as Flurry has, but all at full BAB and without a penalty, so it beats out monk both at low and high levels. I think they can also gain touch attacks.
3. Psychic Warrior. I actually have really no idea how Psychic Warriors work outside of fundamentals and how to build a tripping machine.
Again your over estimating the BAB deal, The weapon that's harder to enchant is the real problem, and nobody gets movement and a full attack except for barbarians and natural attack pouncers.
...

Let me just give you a list.

1. Travel Devotion. For paladins and melee clerics, and monks who are willing to spend a feat to get this once per day.
2. Tome of Battle Strikes. Technically not full attacks, but a viable replacement.
3. Tome of Battle mobility. Sudden Leap, Pouncing Charge, and Shadow Blink.
4. One level of Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian. Easy dip for any class that doesn't have access to any of the other methods (except, y'know, monk, who has alignment AND multiclass restrictions that are incompatible with this method).
5. Totemist.
6. Spell: Dire Lion's Charge (I think that's what it's called). For gish builds.
7. Power: Psionic Lion's Charge. For Psychic Warriors.

Evasion that you can trade for invisible fist or feign death, and bonus feats are pretty nice.

Forgot about Evasion. Still, one class feature. Maybe two if Improved counts as separate. Unarmed Strike and Evasion, the only two decent class features the monk has.

[Darth Stabber]

2. Totemist. The Totemist's strength doesn't lie in its melee. It lies in its versatility. But a totemist can get so many attacks at maximum bonus that it just doesn't matter. A totemist can easily get as many attacks as Flurry has, but all at full BAB and without a penalty, so it beats out monk both at low and high levels. I think they can also gain touch attacks.


The only melee touch attack that totemist gets that I am aware of only deals non-lethal cold damage, that being said they have a couple of ranged touch attacks. The damage they deal is piddly compared to what wizards, sorcerers, psions, and wilders can do, but it can be a useful trick up your sleeve. The real power of the class comes from girallon arms, landshark boots, and manticore belt, since they are gateways to a huge number of attacks at full bab. Since they qualify for multi-attack they can significant reduce their attack penalties, where as monk doesn't have that option. Totemist and monk are very similar in that they rely on masses of attacks, and weird special abilities, the difference is that totemist can choose from a wide variety of attacks, and they choose their special abilities, and they choose them every morning, and several of the choices are pretty good, where as monks have a predefined list of mostly useless abilities.

[Rejakor]

Actually, the main strength of Totemist is not in it's versatility - one could argue that about Incarnate, or Binder, but Totemist's only real versatility is in using Manticore Belt or Landshark Boots or Girallon Arms - i.e. do you want ranged attacks, melee attacks with partial pounce, or melee attacks with +grapple?

Totemist is best used as a gateway drug. When you already have added damage from sneak attack, skirmish, X stat to damage, or power attack, a 2 level dip in Totemist adds between 3 and 5 attacks (depending on what you're attacking with already) which can double or triple your damage output.

That said, mixing a small amount of Incarnate into totemist, if Evil, can really boost your damage output(Incarnate Avatar), especially if you go Incarnate 3 for the Arms Bind, as that adds another 2 attacks (slams) to your attack routine(Astral Vambraces).



But uh. In terms of melee fighting, a totemist craps all over a monk. Thanks to Blink Shirt and the speed-increasing and jump-increasing melds, totemists crap all over monks in terms of mobility, too. With Landshark boots, they can even pseudopounce(which monks can't). Totemists are vastly superior than the monk at anything the monk would do.

[Darth Stabber]

Actually, the main strength of Totemist is not in it's versatility - one could argue that about Incarnate, or Binder, but Totemist's only real versatility is in using Manticore Belt or Landshark Boots or Girallon Arms - i.e. do you want ranged attacks, melee attacks with partial pounce, or melee attacks with +grapple?

Totemist is best used as a gateway drug. When you already have added damage from sneak attack, skirmish, X stat to damage, or power attack, a 2 level dip in Totemist adds between 3 and 5 attacks (depending on what you're attacking with already) which can double or triple your damage output.

That said, mixing a small amount of Incarnate into totemist, if Evil, can really boost your damage output(Incarnate Avatar), especially if you go Incarnate 3 for the Arms Bind, as that adds another 2 attacks (slams) to your attack routine(Astral Vambraces).



But uh. In terms of melee fighting, a totemist craps all over a monk. Thanks to Blink Shirt and the speed-increasing and jump-increasing melds, totemists crap all over monks in terms of mobility, too. With Landshark boots, they can even pseudopounce(which monks can't). Totemists are vastly superior than the monk at anything the monk would do.

Totemist can also fly, trip, debuff, AoE, and with a very fluff appropriate dip get pounce ( from barbarian (and not even lose illiteracy)). They have a slightly harder time with AC than monk, but monks aren't all that good to start with. And while yes, girallon arms, landshark boots, and manticore belt are certainly the most obviously powerful attacks, there are other good attack totem binds that can great in certain situations. Kruthik claws offer two attacks (as opposed to 4) with some very nice acid damage on top, and make you pretty good at hide and move silently bonuses while they're on (especially fun as a dip for rogues). Phase cloak gives you con damage poison on the sting. Plus the gorgon mask's temporary petrification is darn nice when you have a friend who has one of the mountain hammer manuevers ready to go.

Ironically the glue feat that really holds totemist together (especially as a dip) is improved unarmed strike, giving you an iterative to use alongside whatever monsterous appendages you have chosen to assemble. Monk could be used instead of ius, but that's wasting a level that could be totemist, barbarian, bear warrior, frenzied berserker, or what have you, and more to that point it locks you into lawful alignment, which is inferior to chaotic when it comes to issuing a massive beatdown. Also since all melee combatants need con and either str or dex (frequently both), it really helps that all of the totemists class abilities are con based (as opposed to incarnate, who uses con and wis), freeing him from dependence on any mental stat, where as monks wis dependence and greater reliance on skill (creating a round about int dependence), mean his only dump stat is cha. A totemist with straight 8s in mental stats is all but unperturbed, where as a monk would be hurting.

People often bring up monk when referring to gestalt, especially alongside druid. This is yet another case where living in a monastery is inferior to growing monster parts. IUS is just as potent as before (more so due to wildshape size), and you can add extra attacks to your animal form. Why be a kungfu bear, when you can be a pugilist bear with two tentacles coming out of your shoulders. Yeah, you have less AC than you would as a monk//druid, but not dying is less effective than killing things quickly when it comes to not dying. Even swordsage//druid is getting a lot more good stuff than druid//monk (wolf fang strike with real wolf fangs), and still has all good saves and wis to ac. For the real gestalt fun: spirit lion totem barbarian1/totemistX/swordsageY//druidX+Y+1

[Rubik]

Diamond Soul is a bit stronger then people give it to be, as Spell Resistance is overridden by Foregoing your save. I dont think there is a heal in the game that lacks a save.Could we get a reference for this? Because I'm pretty sure this isn't how this works at all. You have to spend a standard action to lower your spell resistance; there's no other way to do so, far as I know. Is this a houserule?

[Tvtyrant]

I mean, it doesn't seem too bad to the untrained eye. What, generally, has to be fixed for the monk to work. Is it's damage output bad? Not enough versatility?

It needs a role. A Monk class built around being a striker, or a controller, or a debuffer could be quite good. This is not the case however; it has no role and has to be pigeonholed into one to be playable.

[Yuki Akuma]

2: Monks do not gain the Native subtype, which is not RAI. They gain specifically a unique subtype to their ascension that is Outsider (Can be ressed). This becomes a significant problem when Outsiders have to have either the Native or Extraplanar descriptors, which no other creature types in the game have normally on the Prime Material Plane.

Native does not mean "you are on your home plane". Native means "you are a kind of Outsider that also has traits of a mortal".

A Devil in Baator does not have the Extraplanar subtype, and he doesn't gain the Native one either.

[TuggyNE]

Native does not mean "you are on your home plane". Native means "you are a kind of Outsider that also has traits of a mortal".

A Devil in Baator does not have the Extraplanar subtype, and he doesn't gain the Native one either.

I believe what Toapat (and I) meant is that because Monks should still have the traits [native] confers, it would be more elegant to simply give them the proper subtype rather than wedging in the ability to be resurrected separately.

[Devmaar]

Tongue of the Sun and Moon

The casters have been doing this for the past twelve levels.


The casters can only understand and be understood by intelligent living creatures, the monk can speak with any living creature

"Hello Mr.Gelatinous Cube, would you care to join Mr.Large Monstrous Centipede and myself for a discussion on local politics?"

[toapat]

The casters can only understand and be understood by intelligent living creatures, the monk can speak with any living creature

"Hello Mr.Gelatinous Cube, would you care to join Mr.Large Monstrous Centipede and myself for a discussion on local politics?"

nope. Tongue of the Sun and Moon lets you talk to, not understand, what the creature replys with. the dysfunctional rules thread covered this hilariously:

"Sheep, W H E R E I S T H E B L A C K S M I T H?" ~monk
"Baa"
(monk leads the party in the wrong direction)
"I dont get how he does it, but im impressed" ~Fighter

[Starbuck_II]

nope. Tongue of the Sun and Moon lets you talk to, not understand, what the creature replys with. the dysfunctional rules thread covered this hilariously:

"Sheep, W H E R E I S T H E B L A C K S M I T H?" ~monk
"Baa"
(monk leads the party in the wrong direction)
"I dont get how he does it, but im impressed" ~Fighter

Even better Monks can talk to Plants, no, not Plant type, plants. See as plants like rose bush aren't creatures but living objects in D&D.
There are no spells to talk to them. Monks can...

[olentu]

Even better Monks can talk to Plants, no, not Plant type, plants. See as plants like rose bush aren't creatures but living objects in D&D.
There are no spells to talk to them. Monks can...

Speak with plants.

[JBento]

nope. Tongue of the Sun and Moon lets you talk to, not understand, what the creature replys with. the dysfunctional rules thread covered this hilariously:

"Sheep, W H E R E I S T H E B L A C K S M I T H?" ~monk
"Baa"
(monk leads the party in the wrong direction)
"I dont get how he does it, but im impressed" ~Fighter

Nope. Tongue of the Sun and Moon lets you speak WITH, not TO, a living creature. That means you can understand what it says - otherwise it would, indeed, be "to." "With" implies that you can understand what the other side tells you.

Also, no, you can't talk to non-Plant plants (boy, that sounds weird), because as you've pointed out, non-Plant plants aren't creatures by the rules and thus do not fall under the group of "any living creature."

[Eldariel]

Even better Monks can talk to Plants, no, not Plant type, plants. See as plants like rose bush aren't creatures but living objects in D&D.
There are no spells to talk to them. Monks can...

Umm, what's this? (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/speakWithPlants.htm)

[toapat]

the problem is, Talking To does not necessarily mean you can understand what the opposing party is saying. The wording the ability should have is "Converse With"

[JBento]

the problem is, Talking To does not necessarily mean you can understand what the opposing party is saying. The wording the ability should have is "Converse With"

The srd wording is "speak with." I'm AFB, so I don't know if it's differently put in the PHB.

[Answerer]

Also, no, you can't talk to non-Plant plants (boy, that sounds weird), because as you've pointed out, non-Plant plants aren't creatures by the rules and thus do not fall under the group of "any living creature."
Which would be relevant if speak with plants had "any living creature" as a target, but it doesn't. It has "Target: You" and grants you the ability to "comprehend and communicate with plants, including both normal plants and plant creatures."

So yeah, spellcasters can do that one too. Druids have had access to it for 12 levels at this point.

[toapat]

The srd wording is "speak with." I'm AFB, so I don't know if it's differently put in the PHB.

i think it got errata'd pretty wuick when someone realized that Talk to didnt mean actual communication

[JBento]

Which would be relevant if speak with plants had "any living creature" as a target, but it doesn't. It has "Target: You" and grants you the ability to "comprehend and communicate with plants, including both normal plants and plant creatures."

So yeah, spellcasters can do that one too. Druids have had access to it for 12 levels at this point.

Ah, I guess I should've pointed out that I was responding to Starbuck in that second paragraph - my bad :smallredface:

EDIT: So many typos :smallsigh:

[Vaern]

i think it got errata'd pretty wuick when someone realized that Talk to didnt mean actual communication

It says "speak with" in the original 3.5 PHB, the 3.5 SRD,and the 3.0 SRD, and isn't even mentioned in the errata. You, sir, seem to have a very bad habit of trying to interpret the rules without actually looking at them.

[toapat]

It says "speak with" in the original 3.5 PHB, the 3.5 SRD,and the 3.0 SRD, and isn't even mentioned in the errata. You, sir, seem to have a very bad habit of trying to interpret the rules without actually looking at them.

The PHB wasnt a one print run thing. Errata doesnt mean just rules on the net that dont get printed. In some prints it wont have the same exact wording as others.

There are people who have prints with Talk to, not speak/converse with. Im not one of them

[Starbuck_II]

Ah, I guess I should've pointed out that I was responding to Starbuck in that second paragraph - my bad :smallredface:

EDIT: So many typos :smallsigh:

So Monks even suck talking with plants? Druid and Rangers I can see, but even Bards can do it...

Why are Bards conversing with plant objects?

[JBento]

Why are Bards conversing with plant objects?

Indeed. Most bards are wanderers, so they shouldn't have any interest in being seed-entary.

[Darth Stabber]

Indeed. Most bards are wanderers, so they shouldn't have any interest in being seed-entary.

With all that walking though, a bard could develop acorn.

We should get back to the root of the problem and leaf the distraction aloeN.

[Vaern]

The PHB wasnt a one print run thing. Errata doesnt mean just rules on the net that dont get printed. In some prints it wont have the same exact wording as others.

There are people who have prints with Talk to, not speak/converse with. Im not one of them
Again, you're insisting that people have a book that says something different than every available source, without having any evidence of it yourself.
If you're not among those people who allegedly have printings that say "talk to" rather than "speak with," then why would you even suggest that it functions differently from how your own sources say it functions?

[toapat]

Again, you're insisting that people have a book that says something different than every available source, without having any evidence of it yourself.
If you're not among those people who allegedly have printings that say "talk to" rather than "speak with," then why would you even suggest that it functions differently from how your own sources say it functions?

because its still a point, in certain printings, people have versions of the ability that dont work. And it makes you look like a **** with that kind of response.

Supposedly there is someone who has a PHB that, in an isolation of the printing cycle, has a rule unique to that specific run of the book.

[Vaern]

And it makes you look like a **** with that kind of response.
I'm not the one telling people that the words in front of their face are wrong because some form of the book that I think exists but don't have access to (and would be horribly outdated even if it did exist) is supposedly worded slightly differently.

All I'm saying is read the rules yourself before you try telling people what they say. You said yourself that you don't have a book that words it differently, so you have no reason to have claimed that it says something other than what it says to begin with.

[JBento]

Now, now, stop branching out like that. Don't rage; let's have some peas around here.

[Gwendol]

There are people who have prints with Talk to, not speak/converse with. Im not one of them

This looks like hearsay. In any case a discussion about misprinted copies of the PHB has no place in this argument, since the class ability is actually quite clear.

[Starbuck_II]

My book says "can speak with"
First Printing July 2003.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review.