Why Partial BAB?

[Thames]

Ok I do not understand why some classes get a partial BAB.
Or rather I do understand and think it's stupid.
There needs to be more to differentiate classes than this one sometimes doesn't get another +1 to this. Class features should be stronger than that.

Has there been any system or home brew that gets rid of this?

[Yora]

What is partial BAB?
What classes have it?

[ArcturusV]

Talking about something like Monk progression compared to Fighter Progression?

Though honestly the monk probably could use a normal +1 every level progression.

[Raimun]

Someone who mainly studies books or runs a farm can't be as skillful warrior as someone who gets his living out of mercenary work or is a knight.

Though, I have to agree that classes like Monk should have the Full-BAB.

If Wizards and Clerics got it too, their Disintegrations and Save-or-Die-Touch Attacks would be that much better.

[nedz]

We're not sure which classes you are talking about ?

The casters don't need any help, not that this would benefit them too much.

The skill-monkeys could use it, but you have to ask yourself: Why would anyone play a martial class in your system ?

The Fighter, and his fiends, already suffer from other classes stealing their toys. Full BAB is the last major thing that they have, even though BAB doesn't count for all that much anyway.

[Andezzar]

If Wizards and Clerics got it too, their Disintegrations and Save-or-Die-Touch Attacks would be that much better.Not sure about that. unless the target has a very high Touch AC even wizards should most likely hit on a 2 or higher, once disintegrate comes along. If not, the wizard can always cast True Strike before.

Attacks to get spells to the target are not the problem, Wizards and clerics have enough options to boost the AB high enough to reliably hit (cleric even better than the fighter).

[TuggyNE]

I haven't really run the numbers on this, but I think it might actually be better if BAB differences were increased, at any rate on the low end. Why do Wizards or Cloistered Clerics or Commoners need half progression, anyway? Dropping them to 1/3 would, obviously, require reworking some prestige classes, but would make full BAB a bit more valuable.

3/4 BAB classes probably don't need any nerfing though, and some should arguably be full anyway.

[lunar2]

drop full casters to 1/4th bab (+1 at 4, +2 at 8... +5 at 20). lower tier casters can keep their 1/2. they spend less time studying magic, so they get more time to practice their combat skills.

[Laserlight]

What is partial BAB?
What classes have it?

If you look at Page 22 of the PHB, you'll see that there are Good, Average, and Poor BABs and Saves. So a 3rd level Fighter or barbarian (good) would have BAB +3, a rogue or bard (average) gets +2 and a wizard (poor) gets +1. So far, no problem. However, multiclass characters may have a lower BAB. Take for instance a monk 1 / rogue 1 / bard 1. If you're using the tables for each class, that character would have BAB 0.
If you say "all three classes are Average so that 3rd level character should have BAB 2 rather than BAB 0", then you're using fractional BAB.
If you say "No, the tables say each first level is zero, so that monk / rogue / bard is zero", then you have a physically oriented character who can't hit as well as a wizard.

[ericgrau]

People tend to underestimate the big difference a +1 makes in damage. At the common level of optimization, damage is the main form of offense so it does make a big difference to have a higher attack bonus. It's rather boring since it's only a number, but at moderate optimization it is quite important.

Solutions for being boring include finding was to add more options without adding power. Magic items do this in core. Splatbooks add options and power, but they run the risk of increasing the optimization level for everyone which means you need to give something more to damage dealers if you want them to keep up.

I had a fighter-ish character who optimized attack bonus and related things to the point that he was the damage cannon. In fact I accidentally took it too far for the optimization level of the group, simply by having too high of an attack bonus. Combats were a little dull, but between fights he was maybe the 1st or 2nd most versatile purely from his bag of magic items.

[Bogardan_Mage]

d20 Call of Cthulhu used a shifted 3/4 progression, like a rogue of one level higher (+1, +2, +3, +3, +4, etc.) Would that make any difference if it appeared on some D&D classes?

[Hand_of_Vecna]

d20 Call of Cthulhu used a shifted 3/4 progression, like a rogue of one level higher (+1, +2, +3, +3, +4, etc.) Would that make any difference if it appeared on some D&D classes?

It would make 1-3 level dips of certain classes more tempting to martial builds.

PsyWarrior 2 would be an absolute given for two feats and 2 first level powers one of which would most likely be expansion.

Swordsage is already an awesome dip, interestingly this change might flip the script on them. Dipping Swordsage at key levels for maneuvers is a common tactic and a build that dips Swordsage may as well go to 4 since they already lost a point of BAB with backwards 3/4 you'd want to stop at 3.

Monk gives feats it's first two levels and give still mind at 3 which gets you ito lots of great Prestige classes as well as all the usual unarmed/unarmored stuff.

Rogue 1 SA or feat, 2 Evasion, 3 SA or feat all with 8 skill points.

You may never see a fighter again. Though Dungeoncrasher is irreplaceable for certain builds.

[hymer]

@ Laserlight: I think Yora is perfectly aware of what may be meant by 'Partial BAB' - just not sure what the OP means or is driving at. That's at least how I feel.

[Thames]

We're not sure which classes you are talking about ?

The casters don't need any help, not that this would benefit them too much.

The skill-monkeys could use it, but you have to ask yourself: Why would anyone play a martial class in your system ?

The Fighter, and his fiends, already suffer from other classes stealing their toys. Full BAB is the last major thing that they have, even though BAB doesn't count for all that much anyway.

I am talking about all classes - The ones who don't have Full-BAB I think all should. And for the ones that already do have Full-Bab they need something bigger and more impressive than a simple fractional advantage over the rest. IOW since the figher has +1/level and the wizard has +0.5/level that means that the fighters advantage over the wizard in hitting things is +1/level - +0.5/level = 0.5/level. They also get feats but that isnt impressive, especially when feat taxes are taken into account.

I was thinking if you had a level based component to the major secondary stats like attack and AC it would represent the levelled structure better. 2 people of the same class 'x' would have equal chance to hit and dodge each other as any other level.

As to why anyone would play a martial class - well why do they now? The classes are already underpowered and I think that needs to be addressed to make them better not safeguard their comparitively lackluster.

As you say "... even though BAB doesn't count for all that much anyway."
Martial Classes need class features - not fractional bonuses above what the non-martial get and some extra cash to buy some tax feats. I want to balance the classes on the precept that level is added to attack and defense and such - as long as its added to both sides of every coin you consider it cancels itself out as you go up in level. A difference in level would result in a straight difference in level.

I've been looking at other persons fixes and alternate base classes and the tome of battle trying to find a feature heavier alternative.

tldr.
Problem 1: a Level based system should level all the simple stats across the board (such as AC and atk)
Problem 2: Martial Classes lack enough class features which makes the fix to problem 1 hurt them

[RFLS]

I think perhaps you need to reconsider your point of view; there's absolutely no reason to give caster classes full BAB. Likewise, giving current full BAB classes additional to hit as well as bonuses to AC seems rather....pointless, to say the least. Doing what you've suggested won't fix the problem; nor would it make it any better at all. It'd just leave it the same with bigger numbers.

When you've played with the system a bit, you'll realize that BAB is not really an issue. It's largely trivial to hit things that you need to hit; it takes a much greater effort to pump your AC to the point where things of an equal CR to you are having difficulty being hit. That being said, again, neither of these are the problem. The problem you seem to have encountered is that melee doesn't seem to get nice things. If only there were a book, perhaps a Tome of sorts, in which melee found things to do....

Sarcasm aside, you're kinda poking at one of the fundamental flaws of the system. There's no decent hotfix to be found, really. If you're incredibly concerned with balance, you need to do a few things. First, ask yourself why you're concerned. If you're concerned because your group is having power issues, then that's a group issue and should be discussed with them. Sit down and explain that 3.5 is broken, and that other party members should be taken into account when designing characters. If one person wants to play a shape shifting guarding of nature, and another wants to play an unarmed, unarmored combatant, you don't want to end up with a druid and a monk. Instead, you want to end up with a Wildshape ranger and an unarmed swordsage. If you're concerned because, well, you're the kind of person that's concerned about balance for its own sake (and this is not a flaw; I understand where you're coming from if this is the case), then I have to suggest that 3.5 is just not the system for you. It's unbalanced at its core, and without bans or large amounts of homebrew, you just won't fix that.

Oh god don't kill me I know I suggested ToB and the tier system in one post.

[Pickford]

I am talking about all classes - The ones who don't have Full-BAB I think all should. And for the ones that already do have Full-Bab they need something bigger and more impressive than a simple fractional advantage over the rest. IOW since the figher has +1/level and the wizard has +0.5/level that means that the fighters advantage over the wizard in hitting things is +1/level - +0.5/level = 0.5/level. They also get feats but that isnt impressive, especially when feat taxes are taken into account.

That difference translates into a Wizard (if they ran out of spells) have 2 melee attacks, while a fighter can have up to 8 (dual-wielding with the appropriate feats)

If the fighter had no str bonus (hah) they could do, potentially, 8d10 damage a round assuming no crits and no aoo. With crit? (let's say using dwarven war axes (1h): 240 damage possible.

A level 20 mage with no con bonus would have 80 hp 'if' they got a 4 on every single HD. So, in theory, a fighter could kill a mage in 1 round. (I know, theory right?)

A monk doesn't need a better bab, they get flurry of blows (i.e. 1 extra attack compared to a fighter of equal level)

[Talya]

A monk doesn't need a better bab, they get flurry of blows (i.e. 1 extra attack compared to a fighter of equal level)

/boggle

Flurry of misses? Really?

Monks are utterly useless. Full BAB is not only needed, but not nearly enough to bring them even up to the fighter's meager capabilities.

[ArcturusV]

Even if you use the alternate Unarmed progression from Oriental Adventures (Monks getting extra attacks at 3 BAB), they are still pretty underwhelming. Least in my experience.

[Talya]

Even if you use the alternate Unarmed progression from Oriental Adventures (Monks getting extra attacks at 3 BAB), they are still pretty underwhelming. Least in my experience.

Minor nitpick... that's 3rd edition monks in general, not just OA. 3.5 changed them.

[killem2]

/boggle

Flurry of misses? Really?

Monks are utterly useless. Full BAB is not only needed, but not nearly enough to bring them even up to the fighter's meager capabilities.

I agree, and I do feel that a monk should start getting a +1 to Iniative at every odd level, or something.

[ArcturusV]

One of those weird things due to random "losses" of books (People walked off with them when I was running games at stores or something), I only have 3.5 Core books. But still some 3.0 books I sprinkle in. So I've been running 3.5 monks but with optional rules like the 3.0 +3 attach scheme. Still doesn't seem to help them keep up.

[Dusk Eclipse]

As with Magic in general there is no easy fix for monks. Google Monk Fixes+giantitp, go on I dare you.

[ericgrau]

As with Magic in general there is no easy fix for monks. Google Monk Fixes+giantitp, go on I dare you.



Flurry of misses? Really?

Monks are utterly useless. Full BAB is not only needed, but not nearly enough to bring them even up to the fighter's meager capabilities.
I'll only address this one because it's the most common monk "fix", staying 20 miles away from the rest. With lower damage and defenses, attack bonus alone does little to make monks keep up on melee fighting. Furthermore grapples and trips are touch attacks, while disarms tend to be easy (esp. against non-melee). So full BAB has little purpose for a monk who actually uses his main abilities instead of trying to be a fighter. In spite of a lower attack bonus the monk has more attempts and much higher grapple damage, which matters much more for special attacks. Especially against multiple opponents in the case of trip & disarm.

The 10,000 minor monk special abilities and melee stats are fairly meaningless to address; the main targets should be multiple attacks and special attacks. I'd like to go into more detail from there, but I know better.

[Person_Man]

It's an artifact of 2nd edition which was ported into 3.0 and then maintained in 3.5.

BAB is a resource, like hit die, weapon and armor proficiencies, saving throw bonuses, Skills, and special class abilities (spells, bonus Feats, etc). WotC dramatically over estimated the importance of non-special class abilities, which is why so many classes have "dead levels." They assumed (incorrectly) that a Rogue gaining d6 hit die, +1 BAB, +1 Ref Save, and 8 Skill points was somehow equivalent to a Wizard gaining d4 hit die, +0 BAB, +1 Will Save, 2 Skill points, and a new level of spells.

4E solved this particular problem, but made the terrible mistake of making most of the Powers and Feats too uniform and bland (XdW + minor effect summarizes most powers, and +1 to something summarizes most of the Feats).

[RFLS]

It's an artifact of 2nd edition which was ported into 3.0 and then maintained in 3.5.

BAB is a resource, like hit die, weapon and armor proficiencies, saving throw bonuses, Skills, and special class abilities (spells, bonus Feats, etc). WotC dramatically over estimated the importance of non-special class abilities, which is why so many classes have "dead levels." They assumed (incorrectly) that a Rogue gaining d6 hit die, +1 BAB, +1 Ref Save, and 8 Skill points was somehow equivalent to a Wizard gaining d4 hit die, +0 BAB, +1 Will Save, 2 Skill points, and a new level of spells.

4E solved this particular problem, but made the terrible mistake of making most of the Powers and Feats too uniform and bland (XdW + minor effect summarizes most powers, and +1 to something summarizes most of the Feats).

Yeah...let's not open that particular can of worms.

[Bogardan_Mage]

I'll only address this one because it's the most common monk "fix", staying 20 miles away from the rest. With lower damage and defenses, attack bonus alone does little to make monks keep up on melee fighting. Furthermore grapples and trips are touch attacks, while disarms tend to be easy (esp. against non-melee). So full BAB has little purpose for a monk who actually uses his main abilities instead of trying to be a fighter. In spite of a lower attack bonus the monk has more attempts and much higher grapple damage, which matters much more for special attacks. Especially against multiple opponents in the case of trip & disarm.

The 10,000 minor monk special abilities and melee stats are fairly meaningless to address; the main targets should be multiple attacks and special attacks. I'd like to go into more detail from there, but I know better.
But surely a full base attack progression can't hurt? I don't think anyone's saying that's all that's needed, and it's not as though we're only allowed to make a limited number of changes to fix the class so addressing a minor issue is wasting valuable Homebrew Points.

[Synovia]

But surely a full base attack progression can't hurt? I don't think anyone's saying that's all that's needed, and it's not as though we're only allowed to make a limited number of changes to fix the class so addressing a minor issue is wasting valuable Homebrew Points.

Right. The OP's suggestion is almost backwards. He's suggesting that Full BAB isn't enough for melee characters, so we should get rid of their BAB differences.

We should be doing the opposite, either increasing the BAB differences, or giving the melee characters additional things (or taking things away from the full casters)


Personally, I don't think Melee characters are a problem. I think the problem is that there's nothing a 18th level full caster can't deal with.

[Noctani]

/boggle

Flurry of misses? Really?

Monks are utterly useless. Full BAB is not only needed, but not nearly enough to bring them even up to the fighter's meager capabilities.

A combination of Shiba Protector and intuitive attack easily fixes that. If you want, add in Owl's insight, you'll sky rocket your AC, attack, and damage. Take a gish of sacred fist and a monk has no reason to complain by any means.

[Answerer]

Has there been any system or home brew that gets rid of this?
Legend has only medium and good BAB, and only three classes (Rogue, Sage, and Shaman) have medium BAB, and two of them (Rogues, Just Blade Sages) count as having full BAB when it matters.

There was not insignificant support for doing away with BAB altogether and just using class level; personally I think it's not a bad idea.

[jindra34]

A combination of Shiba Protector and intuitive attack easily fixes that. If you want, add in Owl's insight, you'll sky rocket your AC, attack, and damage. Take a gish of sacred fist and a monk has no reason to complain by any means.

Yeah taking two feats to do what your class originally was supposed to be able to do is perfectly fine. As is taking prestige classes.

[Pickford]

/boggle

Flurry of misses? Really?

Monks are utterly useless. Full BAB is not only needed, but not nearly enough to bring them even up to the fighter's meager capabilities.

Erm...I don't know if you've noticed by flurry of blows reaches total attack bonus parity with say, a fighter by 9th level and eclipses it each level after that.

I'm essentially arguing that +7/+7/+2 is better more useful at least as good as different but no worse than +10/+5.

A fighter without the right feats would have three attacks at: Prim: +4/-1 Off: +0 somewhat worse baseline.

Granted, you have to be level 10 to reach that point, but you're able to deal 1d10 damage as well.

[Ashtagon]

Flury of misses is correct.

Some time ago I ran a statistical analysis. And the result was that except against a vast inferior foe, Flurry was strictly inferior to just doing a regular full attack from levels 1-10.

[Pickford]

At 1st level you only get one attack with a full attack.

1 attack at +0 (A) or 2 attacks at -2 (B)

Against an opponent with AC 10
A: 1 with 50% chance of hitting.
B: 2 each with a 40% chance of hitting. (or a 64% chance of getting a hit, 36% for two hits(i.e. the same as for getting no hits))

So right off the bat, the flurry is better.

2nd level A: +1; B: -1
AC 10
A: 55%
B: 45% each (69.75% chance of at least one hit)

3rd level A: +2; B: +0
AC 10
A: 60%
B: 50% each, 75% chance of at least one hit.

As you can see, the probability of getting at least one hit is increasing for the flurry option faster than the non-flurry option. Granted, you may not hit 'all' of them, but you're better using flurry. The only time you would choose not to is if the starting -2 made it impossible to hit a target...in which case I would recommend you run away or use special attacks that ignore standard AC.

[Ashtagon]

You do realise its statistically rather unlikely to get an AC 10 opponent, right?

[Deophaun]

As you can see, the probability of getting at least one hit is increasing for the flurry option faster than the non-flurry option.
Except that's not really the question. The question is, does flurry of blows offset the 3/4 BAB progression. While at level 1 your monk is going to be great hitting anyone with less than 15 AC, that 3/4 progression hurts and it's flurry of misses by level 8.

It's not a good thing when one of a class's central features becomes not only obsolete, but a liability.

[Eldariel]

At 1st level you only get one attack with a full attack.

1 attack at +0 (A) or 2 attacks at -2 (B)

Against an opponent with AC 10
A: 1 with 50% chance of hitting.
B: 2 each with a 40% chance of hitting. (or a 64% chance of getting a hit, 36% for two hits(i.e. the same as for getting no hits))

So right off the bat, the flurry is better.

2nd level A: +1; B: -1
AC 10
A: 55%
B: 45% each (69.75% chance of at least one hit)

3rd level A: +2; B: +0
AC 10
A: 60%
B: 50% each, 75% chance of at least one hit.

As you can see, the probability of getting at least one hit is increasing for the flurry option faster than the non-flurry option. Granted, you may not hit 'all' of them, but you're better using flurry. The only time you would choose not to is if the starting -2 made it impossible to hit a target...in which case I would recommend you run away or use special attacks that ignore standard AC.

Your analysis falls short on many points. First of all:
- It is unlikely for Monk to have as high a strength as a Fighter. Sad but true, Monks require Dex, Con & Wis in large quantities too so on average a Fighter will be able to afford higher Strength (they can make do with 14 Dex and 13 Int if they want to AoO). You can average this to about -1 to hit and damage for Monk outside extreme arrays.
- Monk has low BAB and -2 to hit on level 1. Two hits at +2 vs. an AC 15-18 (tough enemies) have worse chance of hitting than one attack at +5. If we account for the -1 above, Monk's looking at +1 so against a CR 1/4 Kobold he'll need to roll 14 to hit. He has about 55% chance of landing at least one hit but he needs to land both to do real comparable damage due to weapon limitations Flurry bears with it, and being able to only apply 1*Str to damage.
- Monk needs a full attack to use Flurry while Fighter can do all his damage as a standard action up until level 6. This is a huge tactical disadvantage for a Monk early on. Though frankly, on first level Flurry isn't even worth using so this isn't that big of a problem.
- The aforementioned weapon limitations; Greatsword does 2d6 while Monk's whatever does 1d6 on level 1. Greatsword can also get up to +6 Strength to damage while Monk's Whatever can get +4. A Fighter's single hit does about twice the damage of a Monk's hit.


Monk is the game's worst class levels 1-9 or so. Monk AC is on average much lower than any other melee's due to not using armor (or forfeiting Wis-bonus to AC); Mage Armor merely brings them on par with non-shield users accounting for an average array and they can't have those early on since casters don't have extra slots.

Monk's melee attacks are low damage and don't hit much of anything. Indeed, level 1 a Monk's best bet is taking the bonus feat Improved Grapple and going with that (not enough Stunning Fist uses to make it useful); but the combination of Monk having terrible attack bonus and horrible defenses means that:
1. Monk has a hard time landing the touch attack to initiate a grapple reliably.
2. Monk has a hard time reliably winning the opposed checks (a raging Barbarian without Improved Grapple has +1 BAB and +2 Str vs. the +4 Improved Grapple of the Monk; if Barbarian's base strength is any higher than Monk's they're even)
3. A Grappling Monk is incredibly vulnerable (he basically has no AC) vs. attacks from anyone but the opponent he's grappling. If you're fighting vs. e.g. 3-4 Orcs or even Goblins or Kobolds, our dear Monk probably signs his own death sentence the second he makes himself flat-footed vs. the whole bunch amidst the enemy.


Really, the objectively strongest level 1 Monk has Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword/Guisarme, wears armor and maxes Strength, Dex and Con ignoring Wis.

Which is a Fighter with 1 less BAB, two less feats, no armor proficiencies, lower hit dice and no other weapon proficiencies for the classic bag-o'-weapons. Monk's about as good at this as Wizard (though admittedly Wizard can get much more gold for equipment by selling his spellbook so while Monk has higher Hit Die, a Wizard probably makes for a more formidable melee combatant even without using spells).

TL;DR: Monk is by far the worst class in the game on low levels on anything but the most generous stat arrays and a lot of help from the rest of the party.

Monks actually get slightly less incompetent when they get their unarmed damage dice high enough to do some damage but the low level Monk is a horror for its player.

It takes a lot of creativity and skill to even come close to matching the first-time Fighter player who moves and attacks without using any abilities every turn, while playing a Monk. And anyone with that much skill and creativity could of course perform better with any other player class.

[Pickford]

Your analysis falls short on many points. First of all:
- It is unlikely for Monk to have as high a strength as a Fighter. Sad but true, Monks require Dex, Con & Wis in large quantities too so on average a Fighter will be able to afford higher Strength (they can make do with 14 Dex and 13 Int if they want to AoO). You can average this to about -1 to hit and damage for Monk outside extreme arrays.

You're not wrong, but we were discussing the value of flurry of blows vs 'not' flurry of blows. In that light, you always want to be using flurry of blows if you can. Besides, a monk could just use weapon finesse to bypass this if the really wanted to (Though I find it more effective for a monk to want a high str and rely on stunning/grappling to negate concerns over dex).


- Monk has low BAB and -2 to hit on level 1. Two hits at +2 vs. an AC 15-18 (tough enemies) have worse chance of hitting than one attack at +5. If we account for the -1 above, Monk's looking at +1 so against a CR 1/4 Kobold he'll need to roll 14 to hit. He has about 55% chance of landing at least one hit but he needs to land both to do real comparable damage due to weapon limitations Flurry bears with it, and being able to only apply 1*Str to damage.

Well, it's the average attack bonus, that's the same as a rogue, bard, cleric, druid...it's not low (unless you mean low as compared to the classes which use the highest BAB), it's just average.

I'm not sure what your point is...a 1st level fighter has a +5% chance of hitting something, a monk has +0% (practically no difference, only 1/20 chance of causing a miss) or -10%/-10% over two attacks...

1*Str to both attacks is superior to 1*Str on the MH and 1/2*Str on the OH that two-weapon fighting would cause...so I'm not sure what you were implying.


- Monk needs a full attack to use Flurry while Fighter can do all his damage as a standard action up until level 6. This is a huge tactical disadvantage for a Monk early on. Though frankly, on first level Flurry isn't even worth using so this isn't that big of a problem.

I mean...I think you're overstating the case and in the reverse. It would make more sense to say that the Monk gains a huge tactical advantage over the fighter if they get to use their full attack action. (The Fighter has no benefit from this unless they're dual wielding...which is a terrible idea without the feats needed)


- The aforementioned weapon limitations; Greatsword does 2d6 while Monk's whatever does 1d6 on level 1. Greatsword can also get up to +6 Strength to damage while Monk's Whatever can get +4. A Fighter's single hit does about twice the damage of a Monk's hit.

True, but with flurry the monk is more likely to hit, and if a fighter is using a greatsword the monk can grapple and damage while the fighter cannot. (i.e. a monk who grapples a fighter kills them)


Monk is the game's worst class levels 1-9 or so. Monk AC is on average much lower than any other melee's due to not using armor (or forfeiting Wis-bonus to AC); Mage Armor merely brings them on par with non-shield users accounting for an average array and they can't have those early on since casters don't have extra slots.

Well, they could just buy a wand of it, but sure, initially low AC is the relative weakness of monks.


Monk's melee attacks are low damage and don't hit much of anything. Indeed, level 1 a Monk's best bet is taking the bonus feat Improved Grapple and going with that (not enough Stunning Fist uses to make it useful); but the combination of Monk having terrible attack bonus and horrible defenses means that:
1. Monk has a hard time landing the touch attack to initiate a grapple reliably.

Touch attacks are against AC 10 + dex...everyone can hit that, I hit that easily with my sorceror for ray attacks. Incidentally stunning fist also disarms the warrior, who drops the weapon, so when they 'do' finally get their turn they're unarmed (for real) and provoke an AoO if they try to pick the item up.


2. Monk has a hard time reliably winning the opposed checks (a raging Barbarian without Improved Grapple has +1 BAB and +2 Str vs. the +4 Improved Grapple of the Monk; if Barbarian's base strength is any higher than Monk's they're even)

I think that just indicates you should avoid a raging barbarian when possible.


3. A Grappling Monk is incredibly vulnerable (he basically has no AC) vs. attacks from anyone but the opponent he's grappling. If you're fighting vs. e.g. 3-4 Orcs or even Goblins or Kobolds, our dear Monk probably signs his own death sentence the second he makes himself flat-footed vs. the whole bunch amidst the enemy.

That's true of anyone who grapples when surrounded by enemies. On the flip side, the monk has the best save against 'every' type, so they're going to be better off vs. magic/traps/save or dies.


Really, the objectively strongest level 1 Monk has Martial Weapon Proficiency: Greatsword/Guisarme, wears armor and maxes Strength, Dex and Con ignoring Wis.

Which is a Fighter with 1 less BAB, two less feats, no armor proficiencies, lower hit dice and no other weapon proficiencies for the classic bag-o'-weapons. Monk's about as good at this as Wizard (though admittedly Wizard can get much more gold for equipment by selling his spellbook so while Monk has higher Hit Die, a Wizard probably makes for a more formidable melee combatant even without using spells).

The monk has improved unarmed strike, meaning they can trip without an AoO by default, the fighter can't. Flurry, in terms of chance to hit, is better than a single attack even with the BAB of a fighter being +1 at 1st. That's just true. A monk in a single round can stun the fighter (disarming them) and trip them (putting them prone) provoking up to 2 (with Combat Reflexes) AoO on the fighter's round (1 standing, 1 to grab their weapon) and the fighter would get 0 attacks in return. Easy repeat next round.


TL;DR: Monk is by far the worst class in the game on low levels on anything but the most generous stat arrays and a lot of help from the rest of the party.

A wizard, (at best having +4 con bonus 'and' Toughness) would have 11 HP. They may get better, but that's pretty rough early on.


Monks actually get slightly less incompetent when they get their unarmed damage dice high enough to do some damage but the low level Monk is a horror for its player.

It takes a lot of creativity and skill to even come close to matching the first-time Fighter player who moves and attacks without using any abilities every turn, while playing a Monk. And anyone with that much skill and creativity could of course perform better with any other player class.

1d6 isn't horrible, it's a shortsword, it's a rogue's damage when they aren't flanking.

[Thames]

It's an artifact of 2nd edition which was ported into 3.0 and then maintained in 3.5.

BAB is a resource, like hit die, weapon and armor proficiencies, saving throw bonuses, Skills, and special class abilities (spells, bonus Feats, etc). WotC dramatically over estimated the importance of non-special class abilities, which is why so many classes have "dead levels." They assumed (incorrectly) that a Rogue gaining d6 hit die, +1 BAB, +1 Ref Save, and 8 Skill points was somehow equivalent to a Wizard gaining d4 hit die, +0 BAB, +1 Will Save, 2 Skill points, and a new level of spells.

4E solved this particular problem, but made the terrible mistake of making most of the Powers and Feats too uniform and bland (XdW + minor effect summarizes most powers, and +1 to something summarizes most of the Feats).

You sir, have my thinking.

In addition I feel Initiative should also have a level component.

I was playing a high level warrior recently as a GM, in a last minute cobbled together story. He was guarding a bridge and was overcome by the NPCs by turning invisible. Now I don't have any trouble with the PCs turning invisible - what's more the spell does need to grant a sufficient bonus to stealth that a lucky roll won't help low level characters too much.
But I do feel that an old wizened warrior with a preternatural awareness of his surroundings is a valid character. I don't like that you need an item to do this.
This is in part what motivates this.
I was thinking as a solution a qi or stamina type system which could be consumed for heroic physical acts that are often seen in literature. Hero dice/force dice/destiny dice systems are NOT what I'm thinking.
An example of what needs to be possible is a sniper shot - which doesnt make much sense in the current system because hitpoints stop a single attack from being harmful. I feel such a shot should be difficult but possible, provided you are high enough level and roll well enough for your target (the higher level your target is the harder but there should be a base difficulty to stop unskilled people being successful against equally unskilled people save on a fluke). More likely is they have to sneak to a closer a range in disguise or something to get a clear shot and then need to escape somehow. And Warriors should be able to do this - not just sneak attack people.

[Eldariel]

You're not wrong, but we were discussing the value of flurry of blows vs 'not' flurry of blows. In that light, you always want to be using flurry of blows if you can. Besides, a monk could just use weapon finesse to bypass this if the really wanted to (Though I find it more effective for a monk to want a high str and rely on stunning/grappling to negate concerns over dex).

Weapon Finesse isn't really an option for a Monk; Monk's only real benefit over any other class is getting Improved Trip for free and that's a Strength-check. Likewise, Monk really doesn't do damage unless he has some Strength to speak of.


Well, it's the average attack bonus, that's the same as a rogue, bard, cleric, druid...it's not low (unless you mean low as compared to the classes which use the highest BAB), it's just average.

Those classes don't come with -2 to their Attack Rolls by default.


I'm not sure what your point is...a 1st level fighter has a +5% chance of hitting something, a monk has +0% (practically no difference, only 1/20 chance of causing a miss) or -10%/-10% over two attacks...

1*Str to both attacks is superior to 1*Str on the MH and 1/2*Str on the OH that two-weapon fighting would cause...so I'm not sure what you were implying.

Two-Weapon Fighting is terrible outside massive damage bonuses on individual attacks (for the same reasons, plus requiring high Dex so you can miss more). If you want to do damage efficiently, you pretty much have to two-hand. Which gets you 1 ½ your Strength without penalties on your To Hit.


I mean...I think you're overstating the case and in the reverse. It would make more sense to say that the Monk gains a huge tactical advantage over the fighter if they get to use their full attack action. (The Fighter has no benefit from this unless they're dual wielding...which is a terrible idea without the feats needed)

How so? Fighter's Greatsword does as much damage as both of Monk's attacks together, and he's much more likely to hit with it (and harder to hit to boot).

Monk needs Flurry to keep up; it's not a free bonus. A Monk needs Flurry and then hit twice to do competitive damage, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of ~13% likelihood per round for the +2 vs. AC 15 example. God forbid enemies move around and deny him the chance to Flurry (since anybody but a Monk or a TWFer has no need to stand still on level 1; casters largely cast as standard actions, warriors attack as standard actions and so on).

Compare Monk's standard actions to any other character's standard actions and they're even worse comparatively than Flurrying (and a Flurrying Monk likely loses to a Fighter head-on).


True, but with flurry the monk is more likely to hit, and if a fighter is using a greatsword the monk can grapple and damage while the fighter cannot. (i.e. a monk who grapples a fighter kills them)

Grapple is fine in 1v1 but how often do you face single enemies your size in your adventures? 'cause in a 4v4 grappling means you probably die in 1 turn. Also, a Fighter actually makes for a more efficient Grappler than a Monk here (he can afford Imp. Grapple and he'll have that +1 BAB over the Monk and he can wear a Scale Mail or Splint Mail or whatever giving him AC while grappled).


Well, they could just buy a wand of it, but sure, initially low AC is the relative weakness of monks.

They can buy a Wand of it once they can afford it. They won't be able to for the first few levels. Also, Wanded Mage Armor lasts only for 1 hour (unless you make it inconveniently expensive) so it'll need to be recast often unless the Monk is okay with being caught without it in case of e.g. ambush.


Touch attacks are against AC 10 + dex...everyone can hit that, I hit that easily with my sorceror for ray attacks. Incidentally stunning fist also disarms the warrior, who drops the weapon, so when they 'do' finally get their turn they're unarmed (for real) and provoke an AoO if they try to pick the item up.

Yeah, you have to announce Stunning Fist before you know if your attack hits. You have one per day. Now, keep in mind you have about ~35% chance of hitting with any individual attack. Then they have to fail a Fort-save.

And even then, if they happen to have more than one weapon on their person, they can just use their move action to draw another weapon (which does not provoke) and still attack. Or hell, move and draw a weapon since they have +1 BAB and thus can do that. The chances of Stunning Fist actually being successful are miniscule. And imagine you're fighting 4 Goblins; are you gonna even bother with Stunning Fist? No, Improved Grapple is a much better feat to take level 1.


And Touch Attacks; you're talking about a Monk with ~+2-+4 to hit (god forbid he's flurrying). AC 10 is hard for him and many things have Dex bonuses or size bonuses or such; he'll rarely have over 50% chance of landing it.

Now you add the Grapple-check where even with Improved Grapple he has a significant chance of failing vs. an enemy without (god forbid you run into that Grappler Orc Barbarian who completely malhandles you).

And then, if all that succeeds, he's flat-footed vs. everyone but the enemy he's grappling. That would not be my favorite plan. In 1v1, fine, Grapple's great. In party vs. party fights, it's a really, really dangerous gamble even if you do succeed (god forbid enemy grappler rolls well and pins you while his friends kill you).


That's true of anyone who grapples when surrounded by enemies. On the flip side, the monk has the best save against 'every' type, so they're going to be better off vs. magic/traps/save or dies.

Not the best. They have good base saves but their multi-attribute dependency and lack of class-based bonuses tends to leave them in the middle waters in every regard. Barbarians tend to have much better Fort, Druids/Clerics much better Will and Rogues somewhat better Reflex.

But my point was that grapple is not a strategy you can safely use in a large number of circumstances which is why Monk getting it is not all that and then some; if they learned to Trip on level 1 that'd be something else (basically Grapple except only for your opponent) but they don't.


The monk has improved unarmed strike, meaning they can trip without an AoO by default, the fighter can't. Flurry, in terms of chance to hit, is better than a single attack even with the BAB of a fighter being +1 at 1st. That's just true. A monk in a single round can stun the fighter (disarming them) and trip them (putting them prone) provoking up to 2 (with Combat Reflexes) AoO on the fighter's round (1 standing, 1 to grab their weapon) and the fighter would get 0 attacks in return. Easy repeat next round.

Fighter actually can trip without an AoO. Guisarme, for example. Do it at reach too. Without giving a chance for a strikeback. Also, Monk needs to be level 6 to Trip. And he'll likely never Trip as well as a Fighter since he doesn't have reach weapons as Monk-weapons and the Touch Attacks are hard for Monk to land for ~5 levels or so.

And actually, if we truly observe the numbers, a level 1 Monk with 16 Strength (16 Wis, 14 Dex, 14 Con) vs. a level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength (13 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int) attacking an AC 15 enemy (say Goblin Warrior or Kobold Warrior, CR 1/3 and CR 1/4 respectively); Fighter has Weapon Focus 'cause we're keeping this simple (Improved Trip would likely be better but we're not talking optimized here) and Fighter has a feat to pick as a class feature (and BAB to qualify for WF, for what it's worth).

Fighter's chance to hit at +6 vs. AC 15 is 60%. Monk's chance to hit with flurry (assuming he gets to flurry in the first place; requires a full-round action) at 2x+1 vs. AC 15 is 35% each. Chance of hitting at least once is 58% so worse than the Fighter's. Now, Fighter's single hit will do more damage than Monk's two hits assuming Monk's using Handaxe (otherwise Fighter also has better critical value). Now, that's not the whole story; Monk hitting only once does 1d6+3 damage, nothing compared to Fighter's 2d6+6. Monk has a ~13% chance of hitting twice. So Fighter is at 60% to do average 13 damage while Monk is at ~13% to do average 13 damage and ~45% to do average 6.5 damage. Even if the Monk hits once, he has a ~33% chance of not dropping an enemy Goblin and ~17% chance of not dropping a Kobold.


Now, yes, Monk can use Stunning Fist and might even land it and enemy might even fail a Fort-save. The chances of all that happening are in the neighborhood of 5% or so tho, so once per day, Monk might be able to stun a Goblin making him approximately as effective as the Fighter (who killed siad Goblin) for that turn.

Just pick Improved Grapple for first level, it's more likely to be useful than that single Stunning Fist attempt that has over 50% chance of missing (and then ~50% chance of enemy making the save anyways).


A wizard, (at best having +4 con bonus 'and' Toughness) would have 11 HP. They may get better, but that's pretty rough early on.

Wizard might have little in terms of HP but his contributions are second to none. The strongest standard action you can take on low levels is Color Spray for vast majority of the encounters. Sleep, Enlarge Person and Grease round out the remaining situations quite well.

Where other people plink each other for damage, a Wizard can one-shot multiple enemies multiple times per day with ~70%+ chance of success per enemy (while attacks have ~50%- chance of hitting). Wizard is far and away the most powerful offensive class early on, which makes up for their lackluster defense and tendency to plink away with Dazes and Crossbows for most of each encounter; if you face something hard you can make it easy.


1d6 isn't horrible, it's a shortsword, it's a rogue's damage when they aren't flanking.

Yeah, Rogue who isn't flanking is also mostly wasting his time; what else is new? Ranged attacks do 1d8 damage but at least they're ranged so there's a reason to use them. A melee character who does 1d6+3 a turn better have some damn big contributions to make up for being useless in combat. Also, Monk's 1d6 is 20/x2 to boot unless using Handaxe or the 1d4 Dagger.

[Pickford]

Weapon Finesse isn't really an option for a Monk; Monk's only real benefit over any other class is getting Improved Trip for free and that's a Strength-check. Likewise, Monk really doesn't do damage unless he has some Strength to speak of.

Well, I suppose if I had to prioritize I'd go: Wis/Str/Dex. Wis powers stunning fist which, if you land it, can be considered an I win button.


Those classes don't come with -2 to their Attack Rolls by default.

Neither does the monk, the default attack bonus is identical, but flurry of blows is more effective. If any of those classes could do it it would be better for them too.


Two-Weapon Fighting is terrible outside massive damage bonuses on individual attacks (for the same reasons, plus requiring high Dex so you can miss more). If you want to do damage efficiently, you pretty much have to two-hand. Which gets you 1 ½ your Strength without penalties on your To Hit.

Flurry is better than TWF which in ideal conditions provides a -2/-2 as well. But with Flurry the monk retains a full strength bonus on the second strike.

So not only do you have a higher chance of landing a hit at all, but you never lower your str bonus, so it doesn't matter which hit lands.


How so? Fighter's Greatsword does as much damage as both of Monk's attacks together, and he's much more likely to hit with it (and harder to hit to boot).

The Fighter is only more likely to hit than any 'one' of the attacks, taken as a group the Monk is more likely to hit overall. Further, with fewer attacks the Fighter can't use special attacks without completely giving up his damage. The Monk can freely engage in trips, stuns, and grapples while maintaining damage. (And when grappled the 2h does 0 damage).


Monk needs Flurry to keep up; it's not a free bonus. A Monk needs Flurry and then hit twice to do competitive damage, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of ~13% likelihood per round for the +2 vs. AC 15 example. God forbid enemies move around and deny him the chance to Flurry (since anybody but a Monk or a TWFer has no need to stand still on level 1; casters largely cast as standard actions, warriors attack as standard actions and so on).

It's not about hitting twice, it's about making sure the opponent can't hit. Just trying to do raw damage output is a disservice to the utility of flurry. A monk who isn't tripping every opponent they see is failing at their job. In response to your query about moving, Flying Kick nicely helps. (+1d12 damage when using unarmed attack on a charge).


Compare Monk's standard actions to any other character's standard actions and they're even worse comparatively than Flurrying (and a Flurrying Monk likely loses to a Fighter head-on).

Stunning Fist is worse? It damages, removes the Fighter's opportunity to fight 'and' Disarms in one go.


Grapple is fine in 1v1 but how often do you face single enemies your size in your adventures? 'cause in a 4v4 grappling means you probably die in 1 turn. Also, a Fighter actually makes for a more efficient Grappler than a Monk here (he can afford Imp. Grapple and he'll have that +1 BAB over the Monk and he can wear a Scale Mail or Splint Mail or whatever giving him AC while grappled).

If a fighter was grappling they'd only do 1d3 damage, because they aren't Monks, so that would be unwise. As the Monk can do more attacks they are more likely to pin the Fighter (and could even break a Fighter's pin 'and' repin them in one turn). Grappling vs a Monk is simply unwise.


They can buy a Wand of it once they can afford it. They won't be able to for the first few levels. Also, Wanded Mage Armor lasts only for 1 hour (unless you make it inconveniently expensive) so it'll need to be recast often unless the Monk is okay with being caught without it in case of e.g. ambush.

Probably not a concern as the Monk retains their AC bonuses from wisdom/class AC bonus for touch attacks and when flatfooted...so not as big a deal as one might think.


Yeah, you have to announce Stunning Fist before you know if your attack hits. You have one per day. Now, keep in mind you have about ~35% chance of hitting with any individual attack. Then they have to fail a Fort-save.

True, not being a touch attack Stunning Fist seems best used on someone you know you can hit. Probably better to reserve for after a fighter has been grappled. Still, if you managed to land it, the Fighter would be totally screwed.


And even then, if they happen to have more than one weapon on their person, they can just use their move action to draw another weapon (which does not provoke) and still attack. Or hell, move and draw a weapon since they have +1 BAB and thus can do that. The chances of Stunning Fist actually being successful are miniscule. And imagine you're fighting 4 Goblins; are you gonna even bother with Stunning Fist? No, Improved Grapple is a much better feat to take level 1.

Well, if they do more than a 5 foot step it provokes AoO, and how many weapons are we imagining this guy carrying? Well, a Goblin's base AC is 13. So yes, I would totally use stunning fist to drop one. Eh, Improved Grapple is easier to qualify for, Stunning Fist couldn't be taken again till level 11th level if you skip it...which is kind of weird, but given that it appears the case stunning fist seems the better choice.


And Touch Attacks; you're talking about a Monk with ~+2-+4 to hit (god forbid he's flurrying). AC 10 is hard for him and many things have Dex bonuses or size bonuses or such; he'll rarely have over 50% chance of landing it.

If by rarely you mean ~50% of the time, than sure. Assuming you have to hit a 15 (on say, a Goblin) from using flurry it's a 25% on each attempt (if you even have to do the 2nd one) for a cumulative 43.75% to land it.


Now you add the Grapple-check where even with Improved Grapple he has a significant chance of failing vs. an enemy without (god forbid you run into that Grappler Orc Barbarian who completely malhandles you).

It's an opposed melee attack roll, it would favor someone with a better BAB by only 1 point at 1st and if str is the same that's a measily 5% difference. The damage from it would by far favor the monk. (1d6 + str vs. 1d3 + str)


And then, if all that succeeds, he's flat-footed vs. everyone but the enemy he's grappling. That would not be my favorite plan. In 1v1, fine, Grapple's great. In party vs. party fights, it's a really, really dangerous gamble even if you do succeed (god forbid enemy grappler rolls well and pins you while his friends kill you).

Possibly risky, and even flat footed the monk gets their wisdom AC, so it could be worse.


Not the best. They have good base saves but their multi-attribute dependency and lack of class-based bonuses tends to leave them in the middle waters in every regard. Barbarians tend to have much better Fort, Druids/Clerics much better Will and Rogues somewhat better Reflex.

Monks have the best default save track, ymmv on the ability additional bonus. Essentially a Monk with the same Con score as a Barbarian has the same Fortitude save, same for Dex vs Rogue and Will vs Druids/Clerics. It really all depends on what the Monk invested in the most for their skills.


But my point was that grapple is not a strategy you can safely use in a large number of circumstances which is why Monk getting it is not all that and then some; if they learned to Trip on level 1 that'd be something else (basically Grapple except only for your opponent) but they don't.

They 'could' get trip at 1st. You would just have to be a Human Monk. (Combat Expertise + Improved Trip). Frankly it's unclear why you would want to do that though, as the only benefit (to a monk) would be +4 on the check.


Fighter actually can trip without an AoO. Guisarme, for example. Do it at reach too. Without giving a chance for a strikeback. Also, Monk needs to be level 6 to Trip. And he'll likely never Trip as well as a Fighter since he doesn't have reach weapons as Monk-weapons and the Touch Attacks are hard for Monk to land for ~5 levels or so.

If you fail with those ranged weapons you're forced to 'drop' the weapon though. Which leaves you unarmed unless you're just carrying a boatload of weapons. The Monk can trip any time, the imp. trip just gives a +4 bonus.


And actually, if we truly observe the numbers, a level 1 Monk with 16 Strength (16 Wis, 14 Dex, 14 Con) vs. a level 1 Fighter with 18 Strength (13 Dex, 14 Con, 13 Int) attacking an AC 15 enemy (say Goblin Warrior or Kobold Warrior, CR 1/3 and CR 1/4 respectively); Fighter has Weapon Focus 'cause we're keeping this simple (Improved Trip would likely be better but we're not talking optimized here) and Fighter has a feat to pick as a class feature (and BAB to qualify for WF, for what it's worth).

Fighter's chance to hit at +6 vs. AC 15 is 60%. Monk's chance to hit with flurry (assuming he gets to flurry in the first place; requires a full-round action) at 2x+1 vs. AC 15 is 35% each. Chance of hitting at least once is 58% so worse than the Fighter's. Now, Fighter's single hit will do more damage than Monk's two hits assuming Monk's using Handaxe (otherwise Fighter also has better critical value). Now, that's not the whole story; Monk hitting only once does 1d6+3 damage, nothing compared to Fighter's 2d6+6. Monk has a ~13% chance of hitting twice. So Fighter is at 60% to do average 13 damage while Monk is at ~13% to do average 13 damage and ~45% to do average 6.5 damage. Even if the Monk hits once, he has a ~33% chance of not dropping an enemy Goblin and ~17% chance of not dropping a Kobold.

Why not give the Monk 18 str (+4), 12 Dex (+1), 12 Con (+1), 16 Wis (+3) instead?

Monk makes a trip attack at +2 vs AC 11 (55% chance of success), likely landing it, makes opposed str +4 vs +0 and so very probably wins. Second attack would have +6 courtesy of prone, and so very likely hits. Perfect time to choose Stunning Fist which completely screws the Goblin.


Now, yes, Monk can use Stunning Fist and might even land it and enemy might even fail a Fort-save. The chances of all that happening are in the neighborhood of 5% or so tho, so once per day, Monk might be able to stun a Goblin making him approximately as effective as the Fighter (who killed siad Goblin) for that turn.

That's probably why stunning fist is best reserved for 'after' a target is tripped/flanked. I mean, if they work together that is pretty good.


Just pick Improved Grapple for first level, it's more likely to be useful than that single Stunning Fist attempt that has over 50% chance of missing (and then ~50% chance of enemy making the save anyways).

As above, stunning fist gets much better but it's prerequsites are high enough that it's not worth passing up for improved grapple (which is easy to pick up from one of the normal feats.)


Wizard might have little in terms of HP but his contributions are second to none. The strongest standard action you can take on low levels is Color Spray for vast majority of the encounters. Sleep, Enlarge Person and Grease round out the remaining situations quite well.

First level spells are a DC 11 vs let's say, a Monk, who would have at least a +2 to save (and more likely have a +5 or +6). i.e. A monk would negate by rolling a 6+. Given your opinion on stunning fist, I'm a little surprised.


Where other people plink each other for damage, a Wizard can one-shot multiple enemies multiple times per day with ~70%+ chance of success per enemy (while attacks have ~50%- chance of hitting). Wizard is far and away the most powerful offensive class early on, which makes up for their lackluster defense and tendency to plink away with Dazes and Crossbows for most of each encounter; if you face something hard you can make it easy.

There are great spells, but I'm not clear on what you're using that one-shots multiple enemies of equivalent level prior to 4th or 5th level spells.


Yeah, Rogue who isn't flanking is also mostly wasting his time; what else is new? Ranged attacks do 1d8 damage but at least they're ranged so there's a reason to use them. A melee character who does 1d6+3 a turn better have some damn big contributions to make up for being useless in combat. Also, Monk's 1d6 is 20/x2 to boot unless using Handaxe or the 1d4 Dagger.

1d6 unless you're using a longbow or crossbow (which takes time to reload anyway)

And yeesh it's just 1d6+str at level 1, ranged attacks are only useful up until someone closes to melee which generally won't take even one round in most encounters.

[tyckspoon]

First level spells are a DC 11 vs let's say, a Monk, who would have at least a +2 to save (and more likely have a +5 or +6). i.e. A monk would negate by rolling a 6+. Given your opinion on stunning fist, I'm a little surprised.


Spell DCs are 10 + Spell level + [casting stat modifier]. Depending on stat generation method/race selection, a 1st level spell should have a DC from 14-16. Possibly +1 more for a relevant Spell Focus, although that's not a common pick.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I was playing a high level warrior recently as a GM, in a last minute cobbled together story. He was guarding a bridge and was overcome by the NPCs by turning invisible. Now I don't have any trouble with the PCs turning invisible - what's more the spell does need to grant a sufficient bonus to stealth that a lucky roll won't help low level characters too much.
But I do feel that an old wizened warrior with a preternatural awareness of his surroundings is a valid character. I don't like that you need an item to do this.
This is in part what motivates this.


Funny enough, this is the Tome of Battle. Hearing the Air, a Diamond Mind stance, gives you blindsense 30ft - which is exactly what you're looking for.

[Greenish]

Two-Weapon Fighting is terribleFlurry is better than TWF:smallamused:

[Pickford]

Spell DCs are 10 + Spell level + [casting stat modifier]. Depending on stat generation method/race selection, a 1st level spell should have a DC from 14-16. Possibly +1 more for a relevant Spell Focus, although that's not a common pick.

Oops, my bad. Ok, so it's a straight 50/50 shot.

[Flickerdart]

Oops, my bad. Ok, so it's a straight 50/50 shot.
It's a 50/50 shot if the Monk has an 18 in every ability score, sure. How many Monks do?

[SowZ]

A monk doesn't need a better bab, they get flurry of blows (i.e. 1 extra attack compared to a fighter of equal level)

Not true, actually, they get one less attack because their lower BAB means they get one less iterative attack. So, in the end, it balances out. At least, the number of attacks does. But now you have the same number of attacks but they are all wildly less accurate. (Wildly, because not ONLY are you taking the hit from BAB, you get a -2 to all attacks.) On top of that, the damage per attack is pitiful compared to a fighter. Sure, you get scaling H2H damage. It doesn't compare to a weapon at any point in the progression.

You could, quite literally, give Monk's full BAB, take away the -2 to hit from flurry of blows, allow monks to use wisdom as damage, and they still won't come close to the damage output of a decently built barbarian or fighter. (11th level monks get a second attack from flurry, I suppose. Yipee?)

[Pickford]

It's a 50/50 shot if the Monk has an 18 in every ability score, sure. How many Monks do?

It's will negates. The monk gets +2 will save at level 1 and very probably has the +4 from an 18 wisdom, but fair enough, 55/45 for someone who skimped and took a 16 wisdom.


Not true, actually, they get one less attack because their lower BAB means they get one less iterative attack. So, in the end, it balances out. At least, the number of attacks does. But now you have the same number of attacks but they are all wildly less accurate. (Wildly, because not ONLY are you taking the hit from BAB, you get a -2 to all attacks.) On top of that, the damage per attack is pitiful compared to a fighter. Sure, you get scaling H2H damage. It doesn't compare to a weapon at any point in the progression.

The Fighter has 4 attacks by 20 and the monk using flurry (which has no penalty after 9th) has 5. Also, if you look at the Monk Flurry bonuses, they go up by +1 every level until 9th. (Sure they start out 3 points lower than the fighter, but they also start out with twice as many attacks).


You could, quite literally, give Monk's full BAB, take away the -2 to hit from flurry of blows, allow monks to use wisdom as damage, and they still won't come close to the damage output of a decently built barbarian or fighter. (11th level monks get a second attack from flurry, I suppose. Yipee?)

I'm pretty sure you're underrating the value of having the opportunity to carry out an extra attack with full strength bonus.

[Andezzar]

(Wildly, because not ONLY are you taking the hit from BAB, you get a -2 to all attacks.)The penalty is gradually removed: to -1 at Level 5 and -0 at level 9. A level 20 Monk would have +15/+10/+5 without flurry and +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 with it. Don't make the monk even worse than he is.

[Flickerdart]

It's will negates. The monk gets +2 will save at level 1 and very probably has the +4 from an 18 wisdom, but fair enough, 55/45 for someone who skimped and took a 16 wisdom.
I hate to break it to you, but not all spells are Will Negates.

[Pickford]

I hate to break it to you, but not all spells are Will Negates.

Yes, but the one we were debating was. If it comes to it, the monk has the best save progression for all three saves, which is more than any other class in the PHB can say. Further, they gain evasion at 2nd level and still mind by 3rd. Yeah, there are ways to get better saves....but for passive stuff you don't even have to think about? Better than anyone else.

Color Spray on a Fighter or Barbarian is a much better deal.

Edit: I avoid spells with saves like the plague. Much better to have a no-save and die.

[Greenish]

It's will negates. The monk gets +2 will save at level 1 and very probably has the +4 from an 18 wisdom, but fair enough, 55/45 for someone who skimped and took a 16 wisdom.But kobolds and goblins (which have already been used as examples, so why not) have -1 Will save. Orcs have -2!

[Flickerdart]

Monks also need four ability scores to keep up. A Monk putting 18 into their Wisdom leaves gaping holes in Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength, meaning that he's not very likely to live to see Evasion or Still Mind.

[Pickford]

But kobolds and goblins (which have already been used as examples, so why not) have -1 Will save. Orcs have -2!

I like Ray of Flame for setting people on fire. Granted, single target, but not a problem for a sorc.


Monks also need four ability scores to keep up. A Monk putting 18 into their Wisdom leaves gaping holes in Constitution, Dexterity, and Strength, meaning that he's not very likely to live to see Evasion or Still Mind.

Well, everyone 'needs' Con, but I'd be fine with a +1 bonus. If you're really freaked out about HP pick up Toughness (+3 at 1st level is big at 1st) or Improved Toughness from the CW, in terms of extra hp it's like a +2 Con bonus (+1 HP per HD and +1 each HD gained thereafter) and the only pre-req is Base +2 Fort save bonus.

If you want to spread yourself thin that may be true. Imo you don't need a high base dex or con. Str and Wis are the critical stats, they improve your offense and defense. Str required for winning the opposed checks, Wis for powering special monk attacks (and bonus AC). Dex works your init and AC, yes, but that's it. Con...well if there isn't a warrior in the party to be the big dumb soak you're missing a key player.

[Lord_Gareth]

I like Ray of Flame for setting people on fire. Granted, single target, but not a problem for a sorc.

Cute. I'll be over here with my Grease, spread of Orbs, and lockdown spells, 'kay?

[Greenish]

I like Ray of Flame for setting people on fire. Granted, single target, but not a problem for a sorc.http://i.qkme.me/35wxds.jpg

[Flickerdart]

Con...well if there isn't a warrior in the party to be the big dumb soak you're missing a key player.
"Hope that the monsters attack someone else" is possibly the worst defensive strategy anyone could possibly come up with.

[Pickford]

Cute. I'll be over here with my Grease, spread of Orbs, and lockdown spells, 'kay?

If you're a Sorc you only get 2 spells, if you're a wizard you get '1' cast.

So...you picked a non-damage spell which an enemy can make a 50/50 check to walk out of in 1 round?


"Hope that the monsters attack someone else" is possibly the worst defensive strategy anyone could possibly come up with.

So not a Rogue or spellcaster fan eh?

[Lord_Gareth]

If you're a Sorc you only get 2 spells, if you're a wizard you get '1' cast.

So...you picked a non-damage spell which an enemy can make a 50/50 check to walk out of in 1 round?

Grease, Color Spray, cantrips and daggers/crossbows cover all the damage I'll need at level 1. 'Zard gets two to cast (high Int) and can also use cantrips for damage (see also: daggers/crossbows), and all of this is ignoring the possibility of using, say, Abrupt Jaunt to simply avoid the encounter.


So not a Rogue or spellcaster fan eh?

Tell you what, find me D&D's aggro mechanic and we'll talk. There are two - TWO - melee classes with an innate ability to catch a monster or intelligent enemy's attention, and ONE - ONE - build outside of those two (chain tripper) that can command that same attention. Anything else with an Int score, Knowledge ranks, or both is going to be gunning for the casters and ignoring the beatsticks pretty completely.

Thankfully, even at first level spellcasters have some VERY impressive defenses, and they don't wait long before 'impressive' becomes 'comprehensive'.

[Oscredwin]

So not a Rogue or spellcaster fan eh?

Spellcasters have range. A rogue has a Dex focus and light armor, at level 1 the rogue has a great AC and might even have range.

[Pickford]

Spellcasters have range. A rogue has a Dex focus and light armor, at level 1 the rogue has a great AC and might even have range.

Anyone who cares to have a ranged weapon has range and at level 1, can outrange every wiz/sor spell mentioned by a good 30 feet without taking any attack penalty. Also, if the cast didn't take toughness and/or put 18 into Con they can be 1 shot by any ranged attacker.

So yeah, if you must argue the point, a caster is basically always going to be thinking "Oh god oh god please shoot at the guy in plate".

The Rogue is going to have a +5 dex bonus at best as a halfling or elf, and is likely to be in leather if they don't want to have armor check penalties. so they're going to be sitting at 18 AC, Any other race would be at 17.

Good, yes, but with 6-8 HP? Not exactly someone who wants to be a target.


Tell you what, find me D&D's aggro mechanic and we'll talk. There are two - TWO - melee classes with an innate ability to catch a monster or intelligent enemy's attention, and ONE - ONE - build outside of those two (chain tripper) that can command that same attention. Anything else with an Int score, Knowledge ranks, or both is going to be gunning for the casters and ignoring the beatsticks pretty completely.

Thankfully, even at first level spellcasters have some VERY impressive defenses, and they don't wait long before 'impressive' becomes 'comprehensive'.

Goad and the use of Attacks of Opportunity. It's more about positioning to prevent enemies from safely running past your melee.

[SowZ]

The penalty is gradually removed: to -1 at Level 5 and -0 at level 9. A level 20 Monk would have +15/+10/+5 without flurry and +15/+15/+15/+10/+5 with it. Don't make the monk even worse than he is.

Sure. I was mostly trying to talk about lower levels, though, since my argument doesn't work as well by the time you hit 11 anyway. (Though the monk is not any better at level 11, really.)

I should have said that the Monk is getting the same number of attacks but at a -1 to hit, though, since I was talking about level 6+ where the Fighter is getting an extra attack and the Monk isn't.

[Lord_Gareth]

Good, yes, but with 6-8 HP? Not exactly someone who wants to be a target.

Still haven't explained how melee manages to be a target instead.


Goad and the use of Attacks of Opportunity. It's more about positioning to prevent enemies from safely running past your melee.

Oh, wrong answer. Maybe at low levels AoOs alone cut it (Goad doesn't work at any levels) but certainly not at higher levels (starting at, say, level 5 or so) what with the tumbling, flying, burrowing, teleporting, miss chances, and just having enough HP to laugh off the hit. Try again.

[Pickford]

Sure. I was mostly trying to talk about lower levels, though, since my argument doesn't work as well by the time you hit 11 anyway. (Though the monk is not any better at level 11, really.)

I should have said that the Monk is getting the same number of attacks but at a -1 to hit, though, since I was talking about level 6+ where the Fighter is getting an extra attack and the Monk isn't.

True, but the monk's attacks are at +3/+3 where the Fighter gets them at +6/+1

One good chance at a hit and another meh chance vs two decent chances.


Oh, wrong answer. Maybe at low levels AoOs alone cut it (Goad doesn't work at any levels) but certainly not at higher levels (starting at, say, level 5 or so) what with the tumbling, flying, burrowing, teleporting, miss chances, and just having enough HP to laugh off the hit. Try again

That wasn't a wrong answer. AoO can be used to trip, interrupt attacks, disarm and otherwise confound an attacker. So yeah, they are useful regardless of the level. That first Tumble check for half speed movement (i.e. 15 feet, or 10 if we're supposing a halfling) is a DC 15. If the melee is properly positioned it's a 25 check. i.e. possible a little less than half the time (max ranks 8 + max dex bonus at lvl 5 +5 for +13, or end DC of 12)

But sure, there are few guarantees, which I think is why mages, monks, rogues and bards do have to rely on the "gee I really hope it goes after someone else" tactic while I make myself less conspicuous.

[Oscredwin]

Anyone who cares to have a ranged weapon has range and at level 1, can outrange every wiz/sor spell mentioned by a good 30 feet without taking any attack penalty. Also, if the cast didn't take toughness and/or put 18 into Con they can be 1 shot by any ranged attacker.

At low levels everyone is fragile. Range still beats melee.

So yeah, if you must argue the point, a caster is basically always going to be thinking "Oh god oh god please shoot at the guy in plate".

So far the conversation was about level 1, who can afford plate at level one?

The Rogue is going to have a +5 dex bonus at best as a halfling or elf, and is likely to be in leather if they don't want to have armor check penalties. so they're going to be sitting at 18 AC, Any other race would be at 17.

Good, yes, but with 6-8 HP? Not exactly someone who wants to be a target.

Again, everyone but the barbarian falls to a hit from a great sword from a 14 strength enemy.


Everyone is fragile at those levels, but the monk either has high STR and low AC (12-14) or can't do anything in combat. What exactly is the 18 Wis, 10 Str 14 Dex monk doing after he uses his stunning fist for the day?

[Lord_Gareth]

One good chance at a hit and another meh chance vs two decent chances.

No, more like one great chance to hit and a random die roll vs. two certifications that you will not hit, and even if you do WHAT DAMAGE?

[SowZ]

True, but the monk's attacks are at +3/+3 where the Fighter gets them at +6/+1

One good chance at a hit and another meh chance vs two decent chances.

That only works assuming the Fighter and Monk have the same Strength.

A level 6 Fighter sitting on 20 Str pre gear is pretty easy to achieve, whereas the Monk should be happy with 16. The Fighter also has a +1 Weapon or at the very least a MW sword. So it is more like +6/+6, +12/+7. Which is a pitiful spread, especially considering the Monk's damage is 7.5 a hit and the Fighter can, easily, be doing 15 damage per hit pre feats, (which the Fighter has more of.)

The Fighter hits almost twice as often AND literally twice as hard with more feats to spare, more HP, and probably better AC. So he moves a little slower and has worse saves. There isn't even a comparison, really. Shoot, the Fighter is even less MAD and so can probably afford a better Int, meaning the Monk doesn't even have a real advantage in skill points.

[Oscredwin]

That only works assuming the Fighter and Monk have the same Strength.

A level 6 Fighter sitting on 20 Str pre gear is pretty easy to achieve, whereas the Monk should be happy with 16. The Fighter also has a +1 Weapon or at the very least a MW sword. So it is more like +6/+6, +12/+7. Which is a pitiful spread, especially considering the Monk's damage is 7.5 a hit and the Fighter can, easily, be doing 15 damage per hit pre feats, (which the Fighter has more of.)

The Fighter hits almost twice as often AND literally twice as hard with more feats to spare, more HP, and probably better AC. So he moves a little slower and has worse saves. There isn't even a comparison, really.
That just goes to show how OP the fighter is.

[Lord_Gareth]

That just goes to show how OP the fighter is.

This is why I like the melee in Legend, where their response to spellcasters is, "SILLY CASTERS, 3.5 CAN'T SAVE YOU NOW!"

[Pickford]

Everyone is fragile at those levels, but the monk either has high STR and low AC (12-14) or can't do anything in combat. What exactly is the 18 Wis, 10 Str 14 Dex monk doing after he uses his stunning fist for the day?

To the range beats melee comment: Yes, and ranged weapons outrange spells.

Plate comment: Doh! I thought it was cheaper.

I agree, I would buff their str over their dex or con. The wisdom provides +4 AC. with a dex bonus of +1 you get 15 AC, which isn't terrible for level 1. It's midrange. (i.e. better than a mage, worse than a fighter). And before anyone says mage armor, yes anyone could hamstring themselves to get a higher AC.

Also the wisdom ac applies when flatfooted, the dex doesn't. So wisdom ac is more valuable.


That only works assuming the Fighter and Monk have the same Strength.

Yes, Str impacts the most monk actions, it appears to be the most valuable stat for a monk followed by Wis for AC and DC of monk special abilities, then Con for some durability, and finally Dex which only has an effect on init and AC.


A level 6 Fighter sitting on 20 Str pre gear is pretty easy to achieve, whereas the Monk should be happy with 16. The Fighter also has a +1 Weapon or at the very least a MW sword. So it is more like +6/+6, +12/+7. Which is a pitiful spread, especially considering the Monk's damage is 7.5 a hit and the Fighter can, easily, be doing 15 damage per hit pre feats, (which the Fighter has more of.)

I mean, I don't think I disagree that 6th is a big level for Fighter (2 feats and finally gets a 2nd attack) but we might just as well look at level 4 for monk when their damage goes to 1d8 (or more than a greatsword if both flurries hit, which with a potential +5 to each seems pretty likely (+4 str bonus and +1 regular))

Then at 8th the monk's damage upgrades again to 1d10 and they have a third attack over the fighter's 2. So a Fighter 'could' be doing up to 4d6 in a round (24) wheras a monk could be doing 3d10 (30)

At any rate, by 20th the monk gets up to 10d10, whereas the a greatsword wielding fighter gets up to 8d6. Yes, this doesn't take into account the possibility of fighters to get damage bonus feats, but still...the monk is capable of doing almost 40 more points of damage baseline by 20th.


The Fighter hits almost twice as often AND literally twice as hard with more feats to spare, more HP, and probably better AC. So he moves a little slower and has worse saves. There isn't even a comparison, really. Shoot, the Fighter is even less MAD and so can probably afford a better Int, meaning the Monk doesn't even have a real advantage in skill points.

They only hit twice as often if the monk doesn't flurry even at 6th. Otherwise they hit equally as often. The fighter never gets more attacks than the monk if the monk flurries (and why wouldn't they?)

Twice as hard? Only if they use a 2h (specifically a greatsword) and even then it's not exactly twice as much. But that also ignores the monk's other advantages by 6th: immunity to disease; slow fall; unarmed attacks are magic weapons for overcoming damage reduction; bonus saves vs spells; faster movement; evasion; ability to deflect arrows and probably improved trip. (i.e. practically negates a strength bonus for a fighter in tripping them).

Incidentally, a fighter has 4 bonus feats by 6th level (above and beyond what everyone gets)...a monk has 3 (improved grapple or stunning fist; combat reflexes or deflect arrows; improved disarm or improved trip) which doesn't include evasion (feat worthy); improved unarmed strike; slow fall; purity of body; fast movement; or still mind, which collectively have to be considered worth at least one feat. In other words, the monk at 6th level has about 7 feats or feat-like abilities from being a monk whereas the fighter has...4.

I'm not happy about that either upon seeing it. Oh I almost forgot, flurry of blows is actually better than two-weapon fighting so we should kick that upto 8 (or more depending on how valuable you think each of the other abilities might be).

[Eldariel]

Neither does the monk, the default attack bonus is identical, but flurry of blows is more effective. If any of those classes could do it it would be better for them too.

Actually, it's better to attack once with a two-handed weapon than twice in flurry. These classes all can attack with two-handed weapons. Monk has Quarterstaff too but it is, of course, eminently disappointing being a Monk-weapon and all.


The Fighter is only more likely to hit than any 'one' of the attacks, taken as a group the Monk is more likely to hit overall. Further, with fewer attacks the Fighter can't use special attacks without completely giving up his damage. The Monk can freely engage in trips, stuns, and grapples while maintaining damage. (And when grappled the 2h does 0 damage).

You're wrong. I just showed you the math; the chance of Monk hitting at all is lower than the chance of Fighter hitting at all. Also, "stuns" is not plural; you can have one stun on level 1 and if you do you don't have Improved Grapple. And you provoke AoO for tripping unarmed without Improved Trip even if you have Improved Unarmed Strike; you can't have Improved Trip before level 6 (and Barbarian/Fighter makes for a better tripper anyways).

And yes, Monk has higher base damage dice in grapple but Fighter/Barbarian has higher Strength; Monk won't really get ahead before they get ~2d6 UA Strike. You know what's more important in grapple; dealing lots of damage or tying the opponent down? 'cause Monk's "better" in the former, Fighter and Barbarian are better in the latter. If you Grapple somebody, it's 'cause you wanna hold them down. And grapple is very situational.


It's not about hitting twice, it's about making sure the opponent can't hit. Just trying to do raw damage output is a disservice to the utility of flurry. A monk who isn't tripping every opponent they see is failing at their job. In response to your query about moving, Flying Kick nicely helps. (+1d12 damage when using unarmed attack on a charge).

Flying Kick still doesn't replace full attack far as damage goes. Monk can't profitably Trip early on. Further, Flurrying Monk can't even reliably land those touch attacks. And he needs to stand still to use these wonderful abilities; Flying Kick doesn't allow you to get AoO'd twice a round after all.


Stunning Fist is worse? It damages, removes the Fighter's opportunity to fight 'and' Disarms in one go.

Stunning Fist is an unlikely hard-to-land once-per-day ~10% chance of shutting your opponent down for 1 round. It's quite far down the "Unimpressive"-line until you get some levels to actually get a meaningful number of uses, alongside Ability Focus and all that.


If a fighter was grappling they'd only do 1d3 damage, because they aren't Monks, so that would be unwise. As the Monk can do more attacks they are more likely to pin the Fighter (and could even break a Fighter's pin 'and' repin them in one turn). Grappling vs a Monk is simply unwise.

They need to beat Fighter's roll to do anything. A Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike will give a Monk a beating, since ties go in favor of whoever has the higher score.

A Fighter without Imp. Grapple will probably lose grapple to a Monk if it comes down to that but a Fighter without Imp. Grapple will probably lose grapple to Fighter with Improved Grapple too; that's not really saying much.


Probably not a concern as the Monk retains their AC bonuses from wisdom/class AC bonus for touch attacks and when flatfooted...so not as big a deal as one might think.

Now, which gives you more AC, Armor or Wisdom? Even 18 Wisdom (which seems really unlikely) only gives you +4 AC, which equates to light armor.


Well, if they do more than a 5 foot step it provokes AoO, and how many weapons are we imagining this guy carrying? Well, a Goblin's base AC is 13. So yes, I would totally use stunning fist to drop one. Eh, Improved Grapple is easier to qualify for, Stunning Fist couldn't be taken again till level 11th level if you skip it...which is kind of weird, but given that it appears the case stunning fist seems the better choice.

Goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm)'s base AC is 15. Where are you getting your numbers from?

And a Fighter can carry easily carry 3-4 weapons that cost next to nothing early on. I usually have a Guisarme, a bludgeoning weapon, a big sword and some light weapons on my person level 1 simply 'cause Falchion/Greatsword is the only weapon out of that bunch that costs anything, and you've got carrying capacity to spare.

And yeah, moving more than 5' provokes AoO unless they Tumble or whatever but my point was that unlike Monk, every other class can afford it without negatively impacting their combat efficiency.


It's an opposed melee attack roll, it would favor someone with a better BAB by only 1 point at 1st and if str is the same that's a measily 5% difference. The damage from it would by far favor the monk. (1d6 + str vs. 1d3 + str)

It's actually a much bigger difference; ties go in favor of who has the higher bonus. It's also not a clean 5%; opposed rolls have slightly different probability curves. For this case, there are 400 combinations of which 171 (sum 18 to 1; if the player with the edge rolls 1, there are 18 values that win for the one with a disadvantage) go in favor of the person with lower bonus. If enemy has +1 more grapple than you, he'll win Grapple-checks vs. you with 57.25% probability.


They 'could' get trip at 1st. You would just have to be a Human Monk. (Combat Expertise + Improved Trip). Frankly it's unclear why you would want to do that though, as the only benefit (to a monk) would be +4 on the check.

It also allows you to avoid AoOs (AoO for Trip and Unarmed Strike are separate), and get extra attack each time you succeed; Improved Trip is a godtier feat. Also, Combat Expertise requires 13 Int. That's not something Monks can afford.


If you fail with those ranged weapons you're forced to 'drop' the weapon though. Which leaves you unarmed unless you're just carrying a boatload of weapons. The Monk can trip any time, the imp. trip just gives a +4 bonus.

It's a Strength-check, not a BAB-based check (which is why it's reasonable even for a Monk). Improved Trip gives +4 and extra attack if you succeed. It's an absolute must if you intend on doing any damage while Tripping (and indeed, if you intend on having consistent chances of succeeding at tripping).


Why not give the Monk 18 str (+4), 12 Dex (+1), 12 Con (+1), 16 Wis (+3) instead?

14 AC on a frontliner. 9 HP on a frontliner (Toughness can help for the first 3-4 levels and be a waste of feat later; a level 10 Monk with Con 12 is a dead man walking). Honestly, if you're a Fighter you'd better have 14 Con at least. If you're a Monk you still have less HP than the equivalent Fighter and you have worse AC so you probably take more damage too.

All that adds up to a Bad Idea™. You need reasonable Dex and Con simply to survive. I'm not sure how many low level games you've played but I consistently see characters with low Con dying and characters with high Con surviving at single HPs.

Same with attacks; missing by a single number happens all the time with the number of attacks you take from small enemies. You absolutely cannot afford to skimp on AC or HP on a low level frontliner. Guess what Monks skimp on? Yeah, that. Oh, and To Hit too. They're poor both, offensively and defensively. Their only good side is good saves, which won't help.

Wizards and such get away with it since they can avoid melee where most of the damage happens. Monks aren't so lucky, and they aren't doing their job as frontliners unless they're taking hits anyways; it's not like they have Rogue's skills (Trapfinding, 8+Int to cover all skill areas, etc.) or casters' magic to allow them to contribute otherwise anyways.


Monk makes a trip attack at +2 vs AC 11 (55% chance of success), likely landing it, makes opposed str +4 vs +0 and so very probably wins. Second attack would have +6 courtesy of prone, and so very likely hits. Perfect time to choose Stunning Fist which completely screws the Goblin.

Great job. Now you turn to the second Goblin with zero Stunning Fist uses left. Wonderful feat investment there, sir.


First level spells are a DC 11 vs let's say, a Monk, who would have at least a +2 to save (and more likely have a +5 or +6). i.e. A monk would negate by rolling a 6+. Given your opinion on stunning fist, I'm a little surprised.

Okay. Let's do a quick comparison.

To land a Stunning Fist, you:
- Hit attack roll.
- Make enemy fail save.

To land Color Spray, you:
- Make enemy fail save.
- Hit multiple enemies with single casting.

Take, again, our perennial example, the 4 Goblins. Chances are 2-3 of them can be caught in any given Sleep or Color Spray. Any who fail the save are out of the fight.

Stunning Fist's problem is requiring you to announce use before attack roll (sure, you can save it for tripped/flanked enemies but you could probably just kill those with a single damaging attack instead).

And that it targets Fort-save which is the overwhelmingly best save for most monsters you can face on these levels. And that you need Strength to hit the attack roll and Wis to increase the DC. In effect, Wizard ignores the whole "Strength to hit"-part being able to focus only on the casting stat and removing the To Hit-part's chance of failure (which is always there).


Further, Wizard's spells can defeat quite tough opponents even level 1. Say your level 1 party is in a bit of dire straights; you're fighting 4 Ogres instead. These guys still fall to one Color Spray or Sleep or whatever (with over 50% chance of failure) but god forbid a melee type tries to trade blows with them; he's a dead man.


1d6 unless you're using a longbow or crossbow (which takes time to reload anyway)

You use Move Action to load, 5' step and shoot. Light Crossbows FTW.


And yeesh it's just 1d6+str at level 1, ranged attacks are only useful up until someone closes to melee which generally won't take even one round in most encounters.

Sure. Point being, there's a reason to do 1d8 in range; 'cause when fighting at range you're safe. There isn't a reason to 1d6+Str in melee when you could be doing 2d6+1.5*Str in melee instead.

[Greenish]

You use Move Action to load, 5' step and shoot. Light Crossbows FTW.High strength (or very poor) characters may prefer slings.

[Eldariel]

High strength (or very poor) characters may prefer slings.

Fair. Spears and Javelins are also reasonable in some contexts (though they tend to be really short range already). Though range increments tend to favor Bows, both Cross and Long. They also have superior Crit Values for what it's worth.

[thethird]

Is this monkday? :smalltongue:

[Venusaur]

Let's get the ability scores cleared up. With 32 PB, a fighter could have

18 STR
12 DEX
14 CON
12 INT
10 WIS
8 CHA

What would the monk spend his points on?

[Pickford]

Actually, it's better to attack once with a two-handed weapon than twice in flurry. These classes all can attack with two-handed weapons. Monk has Quarterstaff too but it is, of course, eminently disappointing being a Monk-weapon and all.

Assuming the exact same character:

1st level BAB +0, Flurry BAB -2/-2

Chance to hit AC 10: 50%; Flurry: 40%/40% (combined 64% chance to hit)

This scales in case you care about the AC 10...

AC 11: 45%, Flurry: 35%/35% (combined 57.75%)
AC 12: 40%, Flurry: 30%/30% (combined 51%)
AC 13: 35%, Flurry: 25%/25% (combined 43.75%)
AC 14: 30%, Flurry: 20%/20% (combined 36%)
AC 15: 25%, Flurry: 15%/15% (combined 27.75%)
AC 16: 20%, Flurry: 10%/10% (combined 19%)
AC 17: 15%, Flurry: 5%/5% (combined 9.75%)
AC 18: 10%, Flurry: 0%

So the breaking point is ~effective AC 16. If your to hit bonus makes someone have effecitvely a lower AC than that, flurry is better for landing 'a' hit.


You're wrong. I just showed you the math; the chance of Monk hitting at all is lower than the chance of Fighter hitting at all.

Ok, so the break point is effective AC 14. At that point a fighter who has +1 BAB by default would treat it as AC 13, which has a slightly worse chance of hitting once using a 2h than flurry has of hitting once. Any lower effective AC than that and the flurry is a clear winner for landing hits. This is ok because melee touch attacks generally won't have an AC above 14 unless your target has +4 Dex mod and a Dodge bonus. i.e. Rarely.


Also, "stuns" is not plural; you can have one stun on level 1 and if you do you don't have Improved Grapple. And you provoke AoO for tripping unarmed without Improved Trip even if you have Improved Unarmed Strike; you can't have Improved Trip before level 6 (and Barbarian/Fighter makes for a better tripper anyways).

True, you don't have improved grapple unless you picked it up as your 1st level feat that all characters get, or as a human bonus feat.

You only provoke 'because' it's an unarmed strike. With Improved it's not unarmed anymore so no AoO. Here, it's explained in the PHB pg. 158 "Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks."

Since Imp. Unarmed Strike removes AoO for unarmed attacks, it no longer provokes for a monk by default. Granted, anyone using one of the trip weapons wouldn't provoke either, but a Greatsword isn't such a weapon.


And yes, Monk has higher base damage dice in grapple but Fighter/Barbarian has higher Strength; Monk won't really get ahead before they get ~2d6 UA Strike. You know what's more important in grapple; dealing lots of damage or tying the opponent down? 'cause Monk's "better" in the former, Fighter and Barbarian are better in the latter. If you Grapple somebody, it's 'cause you wanna hold them down. And grapple is very situational.

A Fighter/Barbarian 'may' have higher strength or they may have exactly the same strength. Barbarian only gets a possible bonus via rage which would just make the actual grapple relatively equal (+4 vs +4 from imp. grapple) Otherwise the monk would have a +4 bonus over the opponent.

The monk, courtesy of flurry, would get 'two' grapple actions to the fighter or barbie's one. Given that, once pinned, the best a fighter or barb could do is break the pin (but nothing else) it seems pretty unfortunate to have fewer attack actions in a grapple.


Flying Kick still doesn't replace full attack far as damage goes. Monk can't profitably Trip early on. Further, Flurrying Monk can't even reliably land those touch attacks. And he needs to stand still to use these wonderful abilities; Flying Kick doesn't allow you to get AoO'd twice a round after all.

No, but Flying kick makes a monk charge potentially fatal for even a barbarian at 1st level. So there's that.


Stunning Fist is an unlikely hard-to-land once-per-day ~10% chance of shutting your opponent down for 1 round. It's quite far down the "Unimpressive"-line until you get some levels to actually get a meaningful number of uses, alongside Ability Focus and all that.

It's no less likely to land than a standard monk attack, which, if not used in a flurry, is just as likely as anyone but a fighter/barb/paladin/ranger at 1st.


They need to beat Fighter's roll to do anything. A Fighter with Improved Unarmed Strike will give a Monk a beating, since ties go in favor of whoever has the higher score.

A Fighter without Imp. Grapple will probably lose grapple to a Monk if it comes down to that but a Fighter without Imp. Grapple will probably lose grapple to Fighter with Improved Grapple too; that's not really saying much.

Yeah, on any given roll. But the differential isn't enough to have the fighter win all 3 grapple attempts in a given round. (1 from the fighter, 2 from the monk).


Now, which gives you more AC, Armor or Wisdom? Even 18 Wisdom (which seems really unlikely) only gives you +4 AC, which equates to light armor.

Goblin (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm)'s base AC is 15. Where are you getting your numbers from?

My bad, misread.


And a Fighter can carry easily carry 3-4 weapons that cost next to nothing early on. I usually have a Guisarme, a bludgeoning weapon, a big sword and some light weapons on my person level 1 simply 'cause Falchion/Greatsword is the only weapon out of that bunch that costs anything, and you've got carrying capacity to spare.

That does limit what you can afford to get in terms of armor though.


It also allows you to avoid AoOs (AoO for Trip and Unarmed Strike are separate), and get extra attack each time you succeed; Improved Trip is a godtier feat. Also, Combat Expertise requires 13 Int. That's not something Monks can afford.

It says it's an unarmed attack which is why it provokes, Improved unarmed strike negates that. If it makes you feel better, a monk could use a kama, but RAW it's not required and imp. trip is just for the +4 bonus.


14 AC on a frontliner. 9 HP on a frontliner (Toughness can help for the first 3-4 levels and be a waste of feat later; a level 10 Monk with Con 12 is a dead man walking). Honestly, if you're a Fighter you'd better have 14 Con at least. If you're a Monk you still have less HP than the equivalent Fighter and you have worse AC so you probably take more damage too.

All that adds up to a Bad Idea™. You need reasonable Dex and Con simply to survive. I'm not sure how many low level games you've played but I consistently see characters with low Con dying and characters with high Con surviving at single HPs.

I suppose it's just a question of rolling the dice and seeing what happens then. If you take the risk of having lower con/dex early on you'll reap the rewards at higher levels. Also, you could just retrain that toughness down the line for something more useful.


Great job. Now you turn to the second Goblin with zero Stunning Fist uses left. Wonderful feat investment there, sir.

Improved Grapple wouldn't exactly be an improvement over stunning fist in that particular situation. The average hp on that goblin is 5. Very likely with a flurry you could kill 1, possibly 2. A fighter could have a better chance at killing 1 and only gets a chance to kill 2 if they took cleave and they're not standing more than 5' apart. (i.e. a monk could flurry kill 1 on the first hit, move 5' and use the 2nd attack to kill another) No 5' allowed on cleaves.


Okay. Let's do a quick comparison.

To land a Stunning Fist, you:
- Hit attack roll.
- Make enemy fail save.

To land Color Spray, you:
- Make enemy fail save.
- Hit multiple enemies with single casting.

Take, again, our perennial example, the 4 Goblins. Chances are 2-3 of them can be caught in any given Sleep or Color Spray. Any who fail the save are out of the fight.

Maybe Goblins aren't the best target of a stunning fist. If you hit, you'd do 1d6+Str (i.e. 5 damage if you have +4 str) which kills the average goblin.


Stunning Fist's problem is requiring you to announce use before attack roll (sure, you can save it for tripped/flanked enemies but you could probably just kill those with a single damaging attack instead).

And that it targets Fort-save which is the overwhelmingly best save for most monsters you can face on these levels. And that you need Strength to hit the attack roll and Wis to increase the DC. In effect, Wizard ignores the whole "Strength to hit"-part being able to focus only on the casting stat and removing the To Hit-part's chance of failure (which is always there).


Agreed, it's kind of rough using stunning fist on monsters that are near certain to die in one hit anyway.

The spell isn't all roses though, color spray is close range, does no damage, provokes (so if you're threatened you have a decent chance of dying before it casts and even if you don't die, being hit may interrupt the cast). And once you've done it, anyone even close who didn't get hit will be gunning for you. Ideal positioning for a mage is 'behind' the party and color spray doesn't distinguish friend from foe as an aoe ability. (Not ideal).

[QUOTE]Further, Wizard's spells can defeat quite tough opponents even level 1. Say your level 1 party is in a bit of dire straights; you're fighting 4 Ogres instead. These guys still fall to one Color Spray or Sleep or whatever (with over 50% chance of failure) but god forbid a melee type tries to trade blows with them; he's a dead man.

Yeah, if you're fighting 4 4HD monsters as a 1st level party...you should probably run or expect to recruit several new teammates when you get back to town.

[Flickerdart]

Ok, so the break point is effective AC 14. At that point a fighter who has +1 BAB by default would treat it as AC 13, which has a slightly worse chance of hitting once using a 2h than flurry has of hitting once. Any lower effective AC than that and the flurry is a clear winner for landing hits. This is ok because melee touch attacks generally won't have an AC above 14 unless your target has +4 Dex mod and a Dodge bonus. i.e. Rarely.
Average AC for level 1 is 15, and it only goes up from there.



A Fighter/Barbarian 'may' have higher strength or they may have exactly the same strength. Barbarian only gets a possible bonus via rage which would just make the actual grapple relatively equal (+4 vs +4 from imp. grapple) Otherwise the monk would have a +4 bonus over the opponent.
Wrong. Monks need twice as many ability scores as the Fighter or Barbarian to function, so all of their scores will be lower.



The monk, courtesy of flurry, would get 'two' grapple actions to the fighter or barbie's one. Given that, once pinned, the best a fighter or barb could do is break the pin (but nothing else) it seems pretty unfortunate to have fewer attack actions in a grapple.
Wrong. Grapple actions only come from BAB.

[Pickford]

Let's get the ability scores cleared up. With 32 PB, a fighter could have

18 STR
12 DEX
14 CON
12 INT
10 WIS
8 CHA

What would the monk spend his points on?

I'd drop the Int 4 points the Con 4 up the wisdom to 16.

18 STR
12 DEX
10 CON
8 INT
16 WIS
8 CHA
+4 to hit, +4 damage, +4 AC

I suppose you could also do
16 STR
14 DEX
14 CON
8 INT
16 WIS
8 CHA
+3 to hit, +3 damage, +5 AC, +2 HP/HD

[Flickerdart]

You know you're in trouble when the Fighter has the same number of skill points as you do, 50% more HP, more attack bonus, better damage, better AC...

[Eldariel]

The spell isn't all roses though, color spray is close range, does no damage, provokes (so if you're threatened you have a decent chance of dying before it casts and even if you don't die, being hit may interrupt the cast). And once you've done it, anyone even close who didn't get hit will be gunning for you. Ideal positioning for a mage is 'behind' the party and color spray doesn't distinguish friend from foe as an aoe ability. (Not ideal).

Damage isn't necessary. Color Spray drops enemies unconscious for long enough for them to be out of the fight and Sleep leaves them sleeping for god knows how long. You can Coup de Grace at your leisure later. They're good as dead.


Yeah, if you're fighting 4 4HD monsters as a 1st level party...you should probably run or expect to recruit several new teammates when you get back to town.

With two Wizards in the party of 4, it's beatable. Which is my point exactly; best offense.


I'd drop the Int 4 points the Con 4 up the wisdom to 16.

18 STR
12 DEX
10 CON
8 INT
16 WIS
8 CHA
+4 to hit, +4 damage, +4 AC

I suppose you could also do
16 STR
14 DEX
14 CON
8 INT
16 WIS
8 CHA
+3 to hit, +3 damage, +5 AC, +2 HP/HD

Have you actually played anything along these lines in real games from level 1 with DMs who don't hold punches (say, live campaigns e.g. Living Greyhawk)? 'cause I'd think you would see the practical problems in your arrangement immediately; this sounds like theorycrafting or playing with houserules that make the game significantly less deadly.

[Pickford]

Average AC for level 1 is 15, and it only goes up from there.

This is touch attack AC we're talking about, the average AC doesn't matter for that. Also, a CR 1 monster's average (a 1st level encounter monster) AC is 12, not 15.


Wrong. Monks need twice as many ability scores as the Fighter or Barbarian to function, so all of their scores will be lower.

Boggle. Why would you spread yourself so thin on purpose you can't do anything? Just pick up +4 str and +2/+3 from dex/wis for your ac, con doesn't make enough of a difference at 1st to be worth fretting over, you'd be better off taking toughness and retraining it later.


Wrong. Grapple actions only come from BAB.

At this point I stopped reading because it's pretty clear you're not actually familiar with any of the rules you are talking about. Your homework is to review the Grapple rules. There will be a quiz.

:smallconfused: Provide a citation please, all I see in the grapple entry is that it doesn't inhibit mutiple attacks from the attack bonus and a list of things one can do grappling (which operate differently than other non-grappling). Nowhere does it say a full round ability is impossible. Indeed, as base attack bonus attacks 'beyond' the first are impossible without a full round attack it stands to reason that anything done in a full attack action is possible (within the restrictions of weapon types allowed by grappling). i.e. light weapons used for flurry are a-ok.

So to summarize:

First proof:
1) Grapple allows multiple attacks.
2) Multiple attacks require a full attack action to be done.
3) Therefore Grapple allows a full attack action.

Second proof:
1) Flurry is a full attack action.
2) Grapple allows a full attack action (proof 1).
3) Grapple allows Flurry. QED.

[Pickford]

Damage isn't necessary. Color Spray drops enemies unconscious for long enough for them to be out of the fight and Sleep leaves them sleeping for god knows how long. You can Coup de Grace at your leisure later. They're good as dead.

True as a full-round action. Suppose there are 4 enemies, you would need at least 9 rounds to kill all of them assuming you were 'not' threatening them in the start. (Granted this would go alot faster if you're not alone)

If you max roll the duration of color spray you can't kill at least one of them. If you crit with your dagger but somehow fail to murder one that's at least 2 enemies which would survive to the end of the spell effect.

Don't get me wrong, it's still great if it works, but you're going to suffer from nearly as many melee attacks as a monk solo against the 4.

Sleep lasts 1 minute, which, if it gets everyone (4 HD total limit)...awesome. Better than color spray. If one is awake their best action is to wake up another enemy (though that really depends on what the DM decides to do with them).



With two Wizards in the party of 4, it's beatable. Which is my point exactly; best offense.

Aye, but with two monks you 'could' kill all 4 in one round...


Have you actually played anything along these lines in real games from level 1 with DMs who don't hold punches (say, live campaigns e.g. Living Greyhawk)? 'cause I'd think you would see the practical problems in your arrangement immediately; this sounds like theorycrafting or playing with houserules that make the game significantly less deadly.

Never played in a greyhawk setting. Sorry I'm not following you...What difference is that from someone just making up a setting and playing with the enemies at hand (live campaign?)?

Only house-rule is that crits don't need to be confirmed, and sometimes cost of magic items gets doubled (sell for half) what's in the DMG.

[ArcturusV]

"Live Campaigns" usually refers to global events like the WotC "Encounter Sessions" and what not. Where they did things like play out the events of the Spellplague at stores across the world and chose how the canon unfolded based on those results.

As such, they were VERY rules strict campaigns. And my experience with them was that they were all designed as Meat Grinders where even the most optimized characters (And guess what, if you just randomly showed up they gave you very basic, not at all Optimized, characters) might BARELY be able to survive any given encounter.

[Eldariel]

Never played in a greyhawk setting. Sorry I'm not following you...What difference is that from someone just making up a setting and playing with the enemies at hand (live campaign?)?

Only house-rule is that crits don't need to be confirmed, and sometimes cost of magic items gets doubled (sell for half) what's in the DMG.

Many DMs hold punches in tables; avoid killing PCs, fudge rolls, etc. Live campaigns are kinda set up against that; character death is expected to happen. Also, live encounters are somewhat representative of what you're expected to be able to beat on those levels while any given DM's preference may vary wildly from ridiculously easy, bruiser-heavy to caster-heavy, ridiculously hard.

Since everyone in live campaign faces the same encounters, a party with a competent Wizard will usually breeze through most of it while a party of 4 Monks will probably TPK (and both parties do happen since e.g. at conventions, your group make-up is mostly random).


Yes, a Monk can, with extreme luck, defeat an Ogre level 1; Barbarian can too but I wouldn't count on it. Stun would not be enough to kill them, and Stunning Fist only lasts 1 round. Remember, after Unconsciousness there's still Stunned in Color Spray, which leaves them out even longer making the spell brutal in such a case. And even after that they're heavily inconvenienced for a moment. Also, 15' is still 10' more than e.g. Monk's range and it's a Cone so easy to catch multiples.

Again, it's assumed this is party vs. encounter, not 1v4 or 1v1 or any such (a single encounter is likely to be much higher CR than CR 1 anyways). Your allies will speed up the process of coup-de-grace clean up after the enemy has been routed or even defeated.

[Answerer]

Wrong. Grapple actions only come from BAB.
With you on everything else, but this is wrong. Flurry of Blows, the class feature, explicitly allows you to modify your full-attack; it's not a separate action but a modified version of a full-attack. Similar to Two-Weapon Fighting (the combat option, not the feat).

[Flickerdart]

With you on everything else, but this is wrong. Flurry of Blows, the class feature, explicitly allows you to modify your full-attack; it's not a separate action but a modified version of a full-attack. Similar to Two-Weapon Fighting (the combat option, not the feat).
Grapple actions don't come from full attacks.


If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.


Flurry is not base attack bonus, so it doesn't give you extra grapple actions.

[Answerer]

Grapple actions don't come from full attacks.

Flurry is not base attack bonus, so it doesn't give you extra grapple actions.
Sigh, that's idiotic. Also, since we're being pedantic, as long as your BAB is at least +6, you could still replace your Flurry attacks with more Grapple attempts. It only says "if your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks," which is true so long as your BAB is +6. It then says you can "in place of each of your attacks," which means the Flurry would be up for grabs. Of course, how you're supposed to apply "successively lower lower base attack bonuses" to those is utterly unexplained. Yet another glitch then.

And not one that Rules Compendium does much for. It does edit the paragraph, and eliminates the line about successively lower BAB, but, well, here it is:

If you can make multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack. If you succeed in starting the grapple and have remaining attacks, you can use those attacks to perform other maneuvers allowed in a grapple (see Grappling Results).
So you still need BAB +6 to try repeatedly to Grapple someone, but once you have it you can use your Flurry attacks normally (no weirdness about trying to apply successively lower BAB to them). On the other hand, if you were to Flurry and succeed on your first Grapple check, then you'd get to use your other attack from Flurry because of the second line. For that matter, I think you could use that attack just to attack if you failed the check and had less than BAB +6.

All in all, this is stupid.

[tyckspoon]

All in all, this is stupid.

We're discussing Grapple rules. They're pretty universally stupid. :smallfrown:

[Pickford]

Many DMs hold punches in tables; avoid killing PCs, fudge rolls, etc. Live campaigns are kinda set up against that; character death is expected to happen. Also, live encounters are somewhat representative of what you're expected to be able to beat on those levels while any given DM's preference may vary wildly from ridiculously easy, bruiser-heavy to caster-heavy, ridiculously hard.

Since everyone in live campaign faces the same encounters, a party with a competent Wizard will usually breeze through most of it while a party of 4 Monks will probably TPK (and both parties do happen since e.g. at conventions, your group make-up is mostly random).


Yes, a Monk can, with extreme luck, defeat an Ogre level 1; Barbarian can too but I wouldn't count on it. Stun would not be enough to kill them, and Stunning Fist only lasts 1 round. Remember, after Unconsciousness there's still Stunned in Color Spray, which leaves them out even longer making the spell brutal in such a case. And even after that they're heavily inconvenienced for a moment. Also, 15' is still 10' more than e.g. Monk's range and it's a Cone so easy to catch multiples.

Again, it's assumed this is party vs. encounter, not 1v4 or 1v1 or any such (a single encounter is likely to be much higher CR than CR 1 anyways). Your allies will speed up the process of coup-de-grace clean up after the enemy has been routed or even defeated.

Ah I see. Never done a live campaign, sounds kind of fun...wouldn't that take many weeks of play? Time limit?

If we're talking a party vs equal number of enemies, the goblin (hp 5 average) can be killed in one hit by basically any class, so I still wouldn't freak out as a monk about not being immediately definitively better than a fighter in melee. The difference we're debating is a very tiny one of degree.

And for the discussion on flurry:

"A monk must use a full attack action (see page 143) to strike with a flurry of blows."

"If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon (see Two-Weapon Fighting under Special Attacks, page 160), or for some special reason (such as a feat or magic item), you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks."

"When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses."

RAW don't mean that the logical consequences of putting together rules is undefined. Grapples allow for multiple attacks. Multiple attacks require a full attack action. A flurry is a full attack action. Therefore Flurry can be used in Grapple. QED.

[Flickerdart]

RAW don't mean that the logical consequences of putting together rules is undefined. Grapples allow for multiple attacks. Multiple attacks require a full attack action. A flurry is a full attack action. Therefore Flurry can be used in Grapple. QED.
Wrong. Grapple allows for multiple attacks from base attack bonus. So your trainwreck of thought doesn't follow.

[Pickford]

Wrong. Grapple allows for multiple attacks from base attack bonus. So your trainwreck of thought doesn't follow.

That's quaint, but it still requires a full attack and flurry is a full attack. It's not a trainwreck it's RAW.

[SowZ]

To the range beats melee comment: Yes, and ranged weapons outrange spells.

Plate comment: Doh! I thought it was cheaper.

I agree, I would buff their str over their dex or con. The wisdom provides +4 AC. with a dex bonus of +1 you get 15 AC, which isn't terrible for level 1. It's midrange. (i.e. better than a mage, worse than a fighter). And before anyone says mage armor, yes anyone could hamstring themselves to get a higher AC.

Also the wisdom ac applies when flatfooted, the dex doesn't. So wisdom ac is more valuable.



Yes, Str impacts the most monk actions, it appears to be the most valuable stat for a monk followed by Wis for AC and DC of monk special abilities, then Con for some durability, and finally Dex which only has an effect on init and AC.



I mean, I don't think I disagree that 6th is a big level for Fighter (2 feats and finally gets a 2nd attack) but we might just as well look at level 4 for monk when their damage goes to 1d8 (or more than a greatsword if both flurries hit, which with a potential +5 to each seems pretty likely (+4 str bonus and +1 regular))

Then at 8th the monk's damage upgrades again to 1d10 and they have a third attack over the fighter's 2. So a Fighter 'could' be doing up to 4d6 in a round (24) wheras a monk could be doing 3d10 (30)

At any rate, by 20th the monk gets up to 10d10, whereas the a greatsword wielding fighter gets up to 8d6. Yes, this doesn't take into account the possibility of fighters to get damage bonus feats, but still...the monk is capable of doing almost 40 more points of damage baseline by 20th.



They only hit twice as often if the monk doesn't flurry even at 6th. Otherwise they hit equally as often. The fighter never gets more attacks than the monk if the monk flurries (and why wouldn't they?)

Twice as hard? Only if they use a 2h (specifically a greatsword) and even then it's not exactly twice as much. But that also ignores the monk's other advantages by 6th: immunity to disease; slow fall; unarmed attacks are magic weapons for overcoming damage reduction; bonus saves vs spells; faster movement; evasion; ability to deflect arrows and probably improved trip. (i.e. practically negates a strength bonus for a fighter in tripping them).

Incidentally, a fighter has 4 bonus feats by 6th level (above and beyond what everyone gets)...a monk has 3 (improved grapple or stunning fist; combat reflexes or deflect arrows; improved disarm or improved trip) which doesn't include evasion (feat worthy); improved unarmed strike; slow fall; purity of body; fast movement; or still mind, which collectively have to be considered worth at least one feat. In other words, the monk at 6th level has about 7 feats or feat-like abilities from being a monk whereas the fighter has...4.

I'm not happy about that either upon seeing it. Oh I almost forgot, flurry of blows is actually better than two-weapon fighting so we should kick that upto 8 (or more depending on how valuable you think each of the other abilities might be).

Let's run some numbers comparing an NPC class Warrior using a greataxe damage output with that of a monk, both 28 PB. Let's go level 7. At level 7 the Monk has a +5 BAB and only a -1 on flurry. The Warrior has +7 BAB. Lts give our monk 16 Str, 15 Wis, (bumped to 16,) 14 Con, 12 Dex, 8 Cha, 8 Int. The Warrior can have 17 Str, (bumped to 18,) 14 Con, 14 Dex, 10 Int, 9 Wis. The Warrior can also go Half-Orc without being hurt too badly, but we won't go there.

The Warrior has a +2 Greataxe and the Monk has a +1 Amulet of Mighty Fists.

So the Monk has two attacks, with an accuracy of +8/+8. The Warrior has two attacks, with an accuracy of +13/+8. He hits more often no matter how you swing it. He is far more accurate. Go up one level, and the Warrior gets +14/+9 and the Monk gets +9/+9/+4.

Damage? The Monk gets 1d8 with a Str mod of +3 with +1 from gear. The Warrior gets +2 from gear, 1d12, and a +6 Str mod to damage. 14.5 per hit from the Warrior, 8.5 per hit from the Monk. Let's jump to level eight for this. The Monk is now dealing 9.5 per hit with +9/+9/+4. Let's say the Monk hits with all three attacks. Of course, to be fair, we have to assume a Warrior can hit with those same attack bonus. So the Warrior can PA down to +9/+4.

The Monk can roll max damage for all his hits and do a decent amount less than the Warrior. Actually, he can get a critical on a nat 20 three attacks in a row and the 'Warrior,' an NPC class without any special tricks beyond basic Power Attack, is dealing almost the exact same damage with average damage rolls and no critical. The monk wins by two or three damage is all.

Let's ponder this for a second. A Monk at level 8, a very good level for a Monk since it nets a bigger damage die and an extra attack, is doing less damage with the same accuracy than an NPC class, (and that NPC is using a simple, traditional load out and the same race,) even when the Monk, a PC class, rolls max damage on three attacks in a row or is doing minimally more damage when dealing three criticals in a row.

There is no comparison and numbers will never be on the side of someone trying to argue for the viability of a monk. All of the monks class features barely bring it up to on par with a 'warrior' and it is easier to build a damage dealer using the warrior than it is the monk.

The Warrior is wearing full plate and so has an AC of 20 pre gear/feats. The Monk has an AC of 15 pre gear. Gear will likely give the Monk slightly more AC than will the Warriors gear, so we can pretend the AC spread is only 3 in the Warriors favor as opposed to 5.

At every level, a 2H warrior without even taking advantage of a single ubercharge feat, will be outdamaging a H2H monk of the same optimization level. He is only missing out on some lackluster abilities and better saves.

[Flickerdart]

That's quaint, but it still requires a full attack and flurry is a full attack. It's not a trainwreck it's RAW.
It doesn't matter. You can't use the flurry attacks for grapple actions, because grapple doesn't permit it. You can have as many bonus attacks on a full attack as your little heart desires, but you don't actually get to use any of them for grapple actions.

[Answerer]

It doesn't matter. You can't use the flurry attacks for grapple actions, because grapple doesn't permit it. You can have as many bonus attacks on a full attack as your little heart desires, but you don't actually get to use any of them for grapple actions.
Again, you do if you have BAB +6.

Pickford, you're still wrong in general even if you were right about about Flurry-grappling (which you're not, though Flicker doesn't have it 100% right either).

[Pickford]

Plate is 1,500gp....I may be wrong, but a monk could probably get a few (60 of them)25gp scrolls of mage armor for that freebie. And that would put the monk's base AC at 20. (+5 from 16 wis/12 dex; +1 AC bonus, +4 from any given mage armor scroll)

But realistically he won't need 60, maybe 20 on any given outing. (so just 500gp spent on that)

[Answerer]

And he has to spend actions using it. Bad solution.

[Pickford]

Again, you do if you have BAB +6.

Pickford, you're still wrong in general even if you were right about about Flurry-grappling (which you're not, though Flicker doesn't have it 100% right either).

You seem to think one of these things is not written in the book even though I just showed you they are.

Which is it?
1) In order to commit multiple attacks the full-round action "Full Attack" must be used. (page 143)

2) Grapple allows the player to use multiple attacks. (page 156)

3) Flurry is a Full Attack Action (page 40)

The default of all these things is true until you can prove otherwise (i.e. an exception to the RAWt).

[Pickford]

And he has to spend actions using it. Bad solution.

It lasts 1 hour and a monk could use the remaining move to get further than a fighter can move (monk moves 40ft with a move action). A fighter in plate only moves 20, so at a full move would not even be able to attack the monk that round. :smallbiggrin:

[Answerer]

You seem to think one of these things is not written in the book even though I just showed you they are.

Which is it?
1) In order to commit multiple attacks the full-round action "Full Attack" must be used. (page 143)

2) Grapple allows the player to use multiple attacks. (page 156)

3) Flurry is a Full Attack Action (page 40)

The default of all these things is true until you can prove otherwise (i.e. an exception to the RAWt).
2 is incorrect. Grapple allows the character to use multiple attacks if his base attack bonus allows him to make multiple attacks. The ability to make multiple attacks from other sources does not allow him to make multiple Grapple attempts.


It lasts 1 hour and a monk could use the remaining move to get further than a fighter can move (monk moves 40ft with a move action). A fighter in plate only moves 20, so at a full move would not even be able to attack the monk that round. :smallbiggrin:
Movement is nearly useless and the majority of Fighters will be charging anyway (so moving 40 ft, and getting an attack). Monk movement speed bonus also does not come into play until 3rd level, for whatever that's worth.

Basically, the reasons why the Monk is god-awful are many, and have been hashed over an absurd number of times. Regular members of this and other D&D forums have literally seen all of the arguments dozens of times, and they know how they turn out: other than stubborn hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge evidence that does not support their pre-determined conclusion, everyone knows and accepts that Monks are among the worst classes in the game.

So, in short, you are wrong, and are joining a long and not-particularly-illustrious group of people who have argued the Monk's case. Not a single one of them has ever been successful in convincing anyone that the Monk is anything but one of the weakest classes that Wizards ever published.

[Pickford]

2 is incorrect. Grapple allows the character to use multiple attacks if his base attack bonus allows him to make multiple attacks. The ability to make multiple attacks from other sources does not allow him to make multiple Grapple attempts.

Movement is nearly useless and the majority of Fighters will be charging anyway (so moving 40 ft, and getting an attack). Monk movement speed bonus also does not come into play until 3rd level, for whatever that's worth.

Basically, the reasons why the Monk is god-awful are many, and have been hashed over an absurd number of times. Regular members of this and other D&D forums have literally seen all of the arguments dozens of times, and they know how they turn out: other than stubborn hold-outs who refuse to acknowledge evidence that does not support their pre-determined conclusion, everyone knows and accepts that Monks are among the worst classes in the game.

So, in short, you are wrong, and are joining a long and not-particularly-illustrious group of people who have argued the Monk's case. Not a single one of them has ever been successful in convincing anyone that the Monk is anything but one of the weakest classes that Wizards ever published.

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the two are standing next to each other. If that were the case even moving would provoke. Clearly they must begin with a 5 foot step in between in which case even charging the Fighter cannot close the distance and gets NO attack. 20 + 20 != 45.

If 2 were the way you incorrectly believe it to be NO character could ever do it because they cannot use multiple attacks without using a full attack action. The important thing here is that it requires a full attack action. BAB on the monk for flurry allows multiple attacks and requires a full attack.

Please note in the monk section the flurry bonus is declared modified BAB. That means it is STILL a BAB. That you didn't bother to read the section says you have no idea what you're talking about.

p.s. Conveniently ignoring rules when you want to achieve the desired result isn't RAW, please avoid making things up to puff the fighter.

[Venusaur]

Plate is 1,500gp....I may be wrong, but a monk could probably get a few (60 of them)25gp scrolls of mage armor for that freebie. And that would put the monk's base AC at 20. (+5 from 16 wis/12 dex; +1 AC bonus, +4 from any given mage armor scroll)

But realistically he won't need 60, maybe 20 on any given outing. (so just 500gp spent on that)

UMD and grappling with flurry attacks. Is this turning into a Giacomo monk thread?

[TuggyNE]

UMD and grappling with flurry attacks. Is this turning into a Giacomo monk thread?

All we need is partially-charged wands and an argument that monks can totally beat wizards any day with their super-great saves and SR and what-not. :smallsigh:

[Karnith]

All we need is partially-charged wands and an argument that monks can totally beat wizards any day with their super-great saves and SR and what-not. :smallsigh:
Butbutbut monks get so many class features, they must be good! They don't even need items or anything! Plus, they get SR 10 + their character level! At thirteenth level! There's no way casters can deal with that! They get their Wisdom bonus as a bonus to their AC, too! Casters can never hit them! And they move so fast, enemies never have a chance to run away! Then they get to attack them so many times that they're guaranteed to hit!

Surely there must be a stickied/archived "why monks are horrible" thread somewhere, even with most of the BG stuff gone. It'd be so useful to just be able to direct people there instead of having the discussion pop up in everything.

[Pickford]

UMD and grappling with flurry attacks. Is this turning into a Giacomo monk thread?

Ok, or we could just assume the fighter has no armor as well and so has an AC of 12, in which case the monk ruins them.

[Answerer]

You're assuming, incorrectly, that the two are standing next to each other. If that were the case even moving would provoke. Clearly they must begin with a 5 foot step in between in which case even charging the Fighter cannot close the distance and gets NO attack. 20 + 20 != 45.
I... what? I seriously cannot even understand what you are saying. You're saying that my point about charging is invalid because they must start within 5 feet of one another, and then somehow that prevents the Fighter from attacking? What? Also, where on earth is 45 coming from? A Fighter charges for twice his movement speed, i.e. 2*20=40. A Monk can move for 40 ft. once he hits level 3.


If 2 were the way you incorrectly believe it to be NO character could ever do it because they cannot use multiple attacks without using a full attack action. The important thing here is that it requires a full attack action. BAB on the monk for flurry allows multiple attacks and requires a full attack.
Uh? No. Two requirements: 1. your BAB be high enough to allow multiple attacks, and 2. you are doing something that gives you extra attacks. That's it. Any character with BAB +6 can do it.


Please note in the monk section the flurry bonus is declared modified BAB. That means it is STILL a BAB. That you didn't bother to read the section says you have no idea what you're talking about.
But the BAB is not what is giving the extra attack, the class feature is. BAB only gives extra attacks at +6, +11, and +16.


p.s. Conveniently ignoring rules when you want to achieve the desired result isn't RAW, please avoid making things up to puff the fighter.
What?

[ArcturusV]

If I may answerer... I think he's referring to some theoretical PvP Fighter vs Monk standoff... where for some reason they are starting off in melee range. So that his monk with Increased Speed is going to be 45 feet away (after accounting for a 5 foot step) at the end of a turn and thus the Fighter in Plate Armor will never reach him.

Though this also does suggest the monk is weaker as he has to ABANDON THE FIELD OF BATTLE. He is willingly admitting via that tactic that he cannot possibly fight the Fighter and will suffer horribly. And not like Monks are really trained or capable of using ranged combat effectively. Unlike a Fighter who can just bust out a Composite Longbow, still use his strength advantage, and pincushion you with arrows.

[Karnith]

Though this also does suggest the monk is weaker as he has to ABANDON THE FIELD OF BATTLE. He is willingly admitting via that tactic that he cannot possibly fight the Fighter and will suffer horribly. And not like Monks are really trained or capable of using ranged combat effectively. Unlike a Fighter who can just bust out a Composite Longbow, still use his strength advantage, and pincushion you with arrows.
Well, to be fair, running away is something that the monk is actually good at. Not as good as most spellcasters, who can just teleport away, but still.

[Pickford]

I... what? I seriously cannot even understand what you are saying. You're saying that my point about charging is invalid because they must start within 5 feet of one another, and then somehow that prevents the Fighter from attacking? What? Also, where on earth is 45 coming from? A Fighter charges for twice his movement speed, i.e. 2*20=40. A Monk can move for 40 ft. once he hits level 3.

I was saying that in the example I provided that you riffed on the monk didn't provoke an attack of opportunity by using his move action to go the 40 feet. The only circumstances he could have done that in is if the Fighter didn't threaten his starting space. i.e. they had at least 5 feet in between them. Clear?


Uh? No. Two requirements: 1. your BAB be high enough to allow multiple attacks, and 2. you are doing something that gives you extra attacks. That's it. Any character with BAB +6 can do it.

Yes, a full attack action gives multiple attacks and flurry is a full attack. There's nothing wrong with that, nothing says they can't do a full attack. Find me that and I will agree, till then, no.


But the BAB is not what is giving the extra attack, the class feature is. BAB only gives extra attacks at +6, +11, and +16.

I followed the RAW. Flurry provides modified BAB and grants an extra attack starting at 1st. It's unique and it's good and it works in grapple.

Lastly: Yes Arcturus got it right. I dispute the suggestion that having better speed makes a monk "weaker", just different. After using the scroll the Monk would have equal to plate which isn't going to be a picnic even for someone with the max BAB.

True, the Fighter could pull out a Composite Longbow...however that would be part of a move action, dropping him to '1' attack (since no full) and force him to drop his Greatsword. Meaning when the monk comes back the Fighter is holding a longbow and will provoke if they draw a new weapon or try to pick up the sword.

So yeah, the Fighter could pull out a ranged weapon, but that would cut his to hit by 3 points.

[Flickerdart]

I followed the RAW. Flurry provides modified BAB and grants an extra attack starting at 1st. It's unique and it's good and it works in grapple.
You followed nothing. Flurry doesn't provide modified BAB, and doesn't work in a grapple. The numbers on the table are just there to help players know what their attack bonus is for Flurry attacks, but Flurry itself doesn't touch BAB.

[ArcturusV]

Of course, there is ONE thing missing from your whole "I'mma bait the fighter into switching weapons and dropping them" bit.

If you use a 5 foot step, as you theorize, you cannot move. I mean it's right in the Player's Handbook. "you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance."

So you take your 5 foot step. That's it.

Fighter takes the 5-foot step, full attacks you. Null advantage.

Of course the Quick Draw feat or similar advantage also nullifies the idea of trying to yo-yo the fighter into somehow dropping all his equipment.

[Karnith]

I followed the RAW. Flurry provides modified BAB and grants an extra attack starting at 1st. It's unique and it's good and it works in grapple.First, Flurry of Blows may be unique, but it's not good. In fact, it's pretty horrible, because your to-hit bonus with it is pitifully low, especially with a MAD class like the monk. Second, "modified base attack bonus" is not the same as "base attack bonus," particularly since the former is only used for flurrying. More importantly, the Rules Compendium has the following to say

A creature that has a high enough base attack bonus can use a full-round action to make a grapple check for every extra attack its base attack bonus would allow it if it were a character. That means such a creature can make two grapple checks if its base attack bonus is +6 to +10, three if +11 to +15, and four if +16 or higher. (Emphasis mine)
Rules Compendium is quite clear as to what is meant by the "successively lower base attack bonuses" line; you get a grapple check when your BAB is less than +6, two for +6 to +10, three for +11 to +15, and four for +16 and higher. Not how many attacks you might have from other things, but just according to its BAB.

It may be dumb, but that's how it works as written. Answerer's interpretation of the rule is interesting, but even if valid, it still results in a monk who can't flurry-grapple until 8th level.

[Answerer]

If Flurry's modifications to base attack bonus counted as actual base attack bonus, you wouldn't get to make three attacks at Monk 8, because your BAB while Flurrying, if you follow Pickford's logic, would be +5 and not +6.

[Pickford]

You followed nothing. Flurry doesn't provide modified BAB, and doesn't work in a grapple. The numbers on the table are just there to help players know what their attack bonus is for Flurry attacks, but Flurry itself doesn't touch BAB.

Piffle, the rule says it. Find a rule, just saying 'nuh-uh' doesn't count.

[Pickford]

Of course, there is ONE thing missing from your whole "I'mma bait the fighter into switching weapons and dropping them" bit.

If you use a 5 foot step, as you theorize, you cannot move. I mean it's right in the Player's Handbook. "you can't take a 5-foot step in the same round when you move any distance."

So you take your 5 foot step. That's it.

Fighter takes the 5-foot step, full attacks you. Null advantage.

Of course the Quick Draw feat or similar advantage also nullifies the idea of trying to yo-yo the fighter into somehow dropping all his equipment.

The monk isn't taking a 5 foot step, we're just assuming they weren't standing hugging and suddenly decided to kill each other.

[Pickford]

If Flurry's modifications to base attack bonus counted as actual base attack bonus, you wouldn't get to make three attacks at Monk 8, because your BAB while Flurrying, if you follow Pickford's logic, would be +5 and not +6.

Only if you assume a modified BAB can remove attacks. Can you show that?

[Flickerdart]

Piffle, the rule says it. Find a rule, just saying 'nuh-uh' doesn't count.
You're asking me to demonstrate a self-evident fact. Nothing in the rules says flurry modifies BAB, therefore it does not. The onus is on you to find evidence that it does, and you haven't actually produced anything even remotely convincing.

[ArcturusV]

Far as this flurry of blows thing?

Right from Player's Handbook, Flurry of Blows description:

"When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham)."

Now, from the rules on Grappling:

"Step 2: Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target".

Now, touch attacks are not the same as Unarmed Strikes. Nor can I find any reference saying Unarmed Strikes count as Touch Attacks or can be used as Touch Attack, etc.

Meaning as far as I can tell, there is no basis for thinking Flurry of Blows gives any sort of bonus to grappling. You can't even initiate a grapple and use any extra Flurry strikes to smack a guy while grappling him as Flurry requires you ONLY use Unarmed Strikes/Monk Weapons.

Now as near as I can figure the round after you start grappling, you should be able to use Flurry of Blows to suckerpunch 'em an extra time. But that's the only situation in which the two interact, as in:

"Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling even if both are light weapons."

Though with a -4 penalty on top of the -2 from Flurry your ability to do much with it is greatly reduced.

[Flickerdart]

Now as near as I can figure the round after you start grappling, you should be able to use Flurry of Blows to suckerpunch 'em an extra time. But that's the only situation in which the two interact, as in:

"Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can't attack with two weapons while grappling even if both are light weapons."

Though with a -4 penalty on top of the -2 from Flurry your ability to do much with it is greatly reduced.
No, that's the thing. You can only use attacks gained from BAB to take grapple actions (including that one), which is mentioned before the list of actions themselves. Pickford merely thinks that Flurry counts for this because it "modifies BAB" in some arcane and convoluted way he hasn't been able to articulate.

[Karnith]

Only if you assume a modified BAB can remove attacks. Can you show that?
Rules compendium says that extra attacks during a grapple only come from your base attack bonus. Given also the example of how creatures grapple later in the text, this means that your BAB grants you an extra attack when it reaches a BAB of +6. If we assume for the purpose of argument that you are correct when you assert that a monk's attack bonus while flurrying counts as its base attack bonus, then a monk's "normal" base attack bonus at level 8 would be +6, while its "flurrying" base attack bonus would be 5. Which would mean that during a normal full attack, a monk would be able to initiate two grapple attempts (because its "normal" base attack bonus is +6), while it would not be able to do so while flurrying (because its "flurrying" base attack bonus is only 5).

Here is another example of why your interpretation of the monk's flurry of blows changing the monk's base attack bonus doesn't work. Characters only get extra attacks from their BAB if their BAB is at least +6. Monks get an extra attack for their flurry at level 8, but their flurry of blows attack bonus is only +5. Monks get their first extra attack from their flurry ability at level 1, and the second at level 11. Since the monk's flurry of blows has three attacks at level 8, and not two, the "flurry of blows attack bonus" does not represent the monk's base attack bonus while attacking, but is rather the monk's base attack bonus (+6/+1), with an extra attack at the monk's highest BAB (+6), -1 for the penalty for using flurry of blows. The monk's BAB for normal attacks and for its flurry of blows is +6 (well, +6/+1).

EDIT: I think that I know where you're getting tripped up now; the monk's flurry of blows ability says "modified base attack bonus." The important word in that phrase is "modified," because the values given on the table represent the monk's base attack bonus plus the -2 penalty for using flurry of blows. The monk's base attack bonus is always the number listed next to monk level on the table, regardless of what kind of attack you're using. The extra attack that a monk gets while using flurry of blows is derived from the class ability, not from having a high base attack bonus.

Relevant rules:

If you can make multiple attacks due to a high base attack bonus, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times by making a full attack. If you succeed in starting the grapple and have remaining attacks, you can use those attacks to perform other maneuvers allowed in a grapple.

A creature that has a high enough base attack bonus can use a full-round action to make a grapple check for every extra attack its base attack bonus would allow it if it were a character. That means such a creature can make two grapple checks if its base attack bonus is +6 to +10, three if +11 to +15, and four if +16 or higher.

A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to -1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.

[Answerer]

Only if you assume a modified BAB can remove attacks. Can you show that?
I do not need to, because "modified BAB" is a thing that you made up. I just showed that it's an internally-inconsistent fantasy.

[Karnith]

I do not need to, because "modified BAB" is a thing that you made up. I just showed that it's an internally-inconsistent fantasy.
While there is indeed no mechanically-defined "modified base attack bonus," it is a phrase used in the monk's flurry of blows ability, so he didn't make it up. He just took it to mean something that it isn't, and is basing his argument around i.t

[TuggyNE]

I do not need to, because "modified BAB" is a thing that you made up. I just showed that it's an internally-inconsistent fantasy.

It's actually not made up, but you're correct that it has no particular relation to iteratives or grapples.

Fakeedit: bah, swordsaged by Karnith.

[Karnith]

It's actually not made up, but you're correct that it has no particular relation to iteratives or grapples.

Fakeedit: bah, swordsaged by Karnith.
I do have to say that his argument made a whoooole lot more sense (or, at least, I understood it more) when I re-read the monk's Flurry of Blows ability and saw that line.

[Malroth]

useful feat chains with capstones equivilent to 8th lv spells would be a nice place to start. The capbility of enchanting their own weapons for free via feats of martial prowess and vastly improved mobility options would improve melee types greatly.

[Pickford]

I do not need to, because "modified BAB" is a thing that you made up. I just showed that it's an internally-inconsistent fantasy.

Do us all a favor and stop saying I made something up about something you clearly haven't read recently and don't remember. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you 'have' at some point read this).

PHB pg. 40

"When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table 3-10: The Monk."

As it is a modified base attack bonus it is 'still' a base attack bonus. With multiple attacks the monk can take multiple actions in grapple which substitute for attack.

Either way, you still have to take a full attack to get multiple attacks and flurry is a full attack. So if full attacks are valid in grapples (and they have to be or multiple attacks from high BAB could not be valid) then the monk can flurry and do multiple attack actions in a grapple.

So under no circumstances are you correct.

[ArcturusV]

Except you stop reading. And further on it says "These attacks MUST be unarmed strikes or use Monk Weapons".

A grapple is not an Unarmed Strike. It's a special touch maneuver.

[Pickford]

Except you stop reading. And further on it says "These attacks MUST be unarmed strikes or use Monk Weapons".

A grapple is not an Unarmed Strike. It's a special touch maneuver.

All it means is your target's AC is 10+dex bonus. (assuming they get that, which they don't in a grapple). Read the entry on Trip, Familiars delivering spells via a touch attack. There's also such a thing as a ranged touch attack.