Monkday: I don't get it.

[Snowbluff]

Thread title. What's with the class? Is this Stockholm Syndrome or something? Is that why this plague is so perennial?

[The Glyphstone]

Is the timing of this thread intentionally meta?

[CyberThread]

Is the timing of this thread intentionally meta?

His taking my job for the day :). Am only posting helpful things today.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I think mainly for two reasons:

a) the mystical martial artist is a popular trope and people want to emulate it, yes even in the pseudo-middle age setting of "vanilla" D&D and the monk class is a ready to go version of it.

b) at a first glance, it looks quite strong, it's class features' table is full of shiny stuff! They get the highest base damage of every weapon, they attack more than any other class, etc, etc. All of this is quite tempting to a new player, hell I thought that way too back when I started playing.

[hemming]

Thread title. What's with the class? Is this Stockholm Syndrome or something?

I've been held hostage by monks over the weekend and now I want to be one!



Is that why this plague is so perennial?

Does a plague of monks get the swarm subtype?

[Vrock_Summoner]

I've been held hostage by monks over the weekend and now I want to be one!



Does a plague of monks get the swarm subtype?

That's a lot better than if they became Native Outsiders or something else stupid that hurts more than helps.

... Wait.

[Snowbluff]

Is the timing of this thread intentionally meta?
If you're asking if I am analyzing a meta-analytical series of threads, the answer is yes.

His taking my job for the day :). Am only posting helpful things today.
:smallwink:

I think mainly for two reasons:

a) the mystical martial artist is a popular trope and people want to emulate it, yes even in the pseudo-middle age setting of "vanilla" D&D and the monk class is a ready to go version of it.

b) at a first glance, it looks quite strong, it's class features' table is full of shiny stuff! They get the highest base damage of every weapon, they attack more than any other class, etc, etc. All of this is quite tempting to a new player, hell I thought that way too back when I started playing.
These annoys me. Back when I started, I was all paladins and fighters, but we don't have very many fighter days. We need to spread a Tashalatora day or a Swordsage day.

[OldTrees1]

Part of the problem is how it is addressed. Even calling it "monkday" shows the (presumably unintentionally) hostile and elitist nature that provokes these threads.

People will fight back if you deride them even if the derision is unintentional.

Furthermore, that same hostile and elitist nature makes this forum less likely to acknowledged the few good points made by those they deride. This lack of listening then makes the derided feel like they are not be listened to. This only fuels the fire.

[Dusk Eclipse]

The thing is that ToB and Psionics are widely controversial issues, the XPH is 10 years old and some people still ban it because it is OP.

[hemming]

I think mainly for two reasons:

a) the mystical martial artist is a popular trope and people want to emulate it, yes even in the pseudo-middle age setting of "vanilla" D&D and the monk class is a ready to go version of it.

b) at a first glance, it looks quite strong, it's class features' table is full of shiny stuff! They get the highest base damage of every weapon, they attack more than any other class, etc, etc. All of this is quite tempting to a new player, hell I thought that way too back when I started playing.

I think this is dead on - pop culture (36 Chambers, Snake in Eagles Shadow, etc., etc.) breeds expectations for monk awesomeness

And new players are often only looking at your options out for the first several levels without a whole lot of supplements

[SowZ]

I played in a group once that banned Monks. /: It was a fun group, but pretty low OP. We played an Epic Game were I was a Stone Giant Kensai Variant Fighter who took Weapon Specialization and I did awesome, to give an idea. So I know they didn't really number crunch too much. But thinking Monk is the most OP class in core? I'll never get that. Nor was I able to convince them otherwise, and gave up trying.

They would reference some nebulous build I could never get explained to me called a Return Anything monk? Does anyone know what that means?

[EugeneVoid]

Also on Dandwiki there is a build called Ultimate Monk that is very very appealing to new players (such as me prior to minmaxboards + giantitp).

In nwn2 monk builds were one of the strongest.

Also, casters have limitations/day (or at least are supposed to), so new players shy away from them

[Irk]

We need to spread a Tashalatora day or a Swordsage day.
Tashlatora Tuesday and Swordsage Saturday?

[Killer Angel]

Also on Dandwiki there is a build called Ultimate Monk that is very very appealing to new players

Well, it's Dandwiki...

[CyberThread]

only use the SRD!

[Gwendol]

I think it may be the most disappointing of classes in that it promises so much and holds so little.

[Larkas]

only use the SRD!

To be honest, dandwiki's Ultimate Monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Monk_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)) is, as far as I can tell, merely a build. It doesn't seem to use homebrew stuff. Of course, I could be wrong, I never bothered to look too deep into it. For that same reason, I don't even know if it's any good.

[SowZ]

To be honest, dandwiki's Ultimate Monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Monk_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)) is, as far as I can tell, merely a build. It doesn't seem to use homebrew stuff. Of course, I could be wrong, I never bothered to look too deep into it. For that same reason, I don't even know if it's any good.

It's very powerful compared to the op levels of the kind of people who typically think monk is viable. But from a quick read, I'd still go for a similarly optimized Barbarian or Rogue any day of the week. Monk doesn't change Tiers at high levels of optimization since it is still Tier 5 relative to other classes.

[HaikenEdge]

I like to think there's a cultural reason as well; people generally try to enjoy their weekends, be it by playing D&D, watching a movie, etc, etc, and I speculate that may lead to them firing up their computers when they return to work or school and wanting to play something like what they saw in a game or a movie, or what they saw when looking at the PHB, and are thus end up asking on the first day back after a weekend.

Or is that not what you're asking about?

[eggynack]

To be honest, dandwiki's Ultimate Monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Monk_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)) is, as far as I can tell, merely a build. It doesn't seem to use homebrew stuff. Of course, I could be wrong, I never bothered to look too deep into it. For that same reason, I don't even know if it's any good.
Well, from a cursory examination, it seems to use a lot of silly custom item abuse, which is really not the sort of thing I like to see in a high op build.

[TuggyNE]

To be honest, dandwiki's Ultimate Monk (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Monk_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)) is, as far as I can tell, merely a build. It doesn't seem to use homebrew stuff. Of course, I could be wrong, I never bothered to look too deep into it. For that same reason, I don't even know if it's any good.

It doesn't use acknowledged homebrew, but many of its rules interpretations and interpolations are, to say the least, rather highly suspect. In particular, weapon sizes just do not work that way, which drops a whole lot of the damage output.

[Seerow]

Also on Dandwiki there is a build called Ultimate Monk that is very very appealing to new players (such as me prior to minmaxboards + giantitp).

In nwn2 monk builds were one of the strongest.

Also, casters have limitations/day (or at least are supposed to), so new players shy away from them

This seems to contradict.

You say that new players shy away from daily abilities, and so they want to play a monk and shy away from spellcasters.

Then you reference a build that these new players love which makes significant use of psionics, a daily resource.




It doesn't use acknowledged homebrew, but many of its rules interpretations and interpolations are, to say the least, rather highly suspect. In particular, weapon sizes just do not work that way, which drops a whole lot of the damage output.


I see nothing wrong in the way it applied weapon damage sizes.

Weapon damage progression as size categories go up follow a pattern of double every 2 size categories. Large Monks clearly have 4d8 (from the monk description), and every 2 sizes up increases it from there.

Assuming you have Expansion and a Manifester level high enough to transform into a Huge creature, the damage progression seems legit. Metamorphosis into Huge, Expansion to go up 2 more size categories to colossal. INA/Empty Hand Mastery both add an extra size category. Empty Hand Mastery is OA/3.0, and it may be questionable (under the argument that it was effectively updated by INA or Superior Unarmed Strike), but everything he used does stack, and the damage progression math is sound.

If he'd tried to fit Greater Mighty Wallop on there to add another 4 size categories, then there'd be issues (since Greater Mighty Wallop caps at Colossal and thus doesn't stack with actually being colossal), but none of the stuff actually used has that kind of restriction, so should work.

[toapat]

It's very powerful compared to the op levels of the kind of people who typically think monk is viable. But from a quick read, I'd still go for a similarly optimized Barbarian or Rogue any day of the week. Monk doesn't change Tiers at high levels of optimization since it is still Tier 5 relative to other classes.

Correction: Monk doesnt change tier if you are playing a monk without the Wild Varient (Dragon Magazine 324 p97)

if you are using the wild varient, Enjoy 30 attacks per round as a dragon, you might even splash raging monk, foregoing some of the useless (flurry of Blows, Quivering Palm, and Still Mind) abilities of monk for Barbarian Rage.

i could slap together the Lists from the CK index to show people what it would look like, and none of the material is not in core anyway

[TuggyNE]

I see nothing wrong in the way it applied weapon damage sizes.

Weapon damage progression as size categories go up follow a pattern of double every 2 size categories. Large Monks clearly have 4d8 (from the monk description), and every 2 sizes up increases it from there.

That's the pattern, yes; that's not defined in RAW, though, so extending damages beyond the actual chart is homebrew.


Assuming you have Expansion and a Manifester level high enough to transform into a Huge creature, the damage progression seems legit. Metamorphosis into Huge, Expansion to go up 2 more size categories to colossal. INA/Empty Hand Mastery both add an extra size category.

Metamorphosis is a magical/psionic effect that changes your size, and thus expansion does not stack with it. There are no sizes beyond Colossal.

[Seerow]

That's the pattern, yes; that's not defined in RAW, though, so extending damages beyond the actual chart is homebrew.

Extrapolation as homebrew is an interesting definition. But FWIW the ELH has Colossal+, with increased damage for that. There's also no rule saying Colossal/Colossal+ creatures don't get any benefit from Improved Natural Attack. I don't know if there's a full table for going arbitrarily beyond that, but in this case I'd say ignoring the progression to remove benefit of a feat is more of a houserule than continuing a logical progression.



Metamorphosis is a magical/psionic effect that changes your size, and thus expansion does not stack with it. There are no sizes beyond Colossal.

Metamorphosis is not a size increase effect. It changes your form. If you read the text it doesn't say "You gain size categories to the same size as what you transform into" or anything along those lines. It flat changes your base size. They stack for the same reason that you can cast Bull's Strength on someone using Metamorphosis.

[TuggyNE]

Extrapolation as homebrew is an interesting definition. But FWIW the ELH has Colossal+, with increased damage for that.

For dragons. And only for dragons. Unless you a) have the Dragon type and b) are using your bite, claws, wings, tail slap, crush, and/or tail sweep attacks, you can't use that table. (You might also have to be a true dragon, I don't know.)


There's also no rule saying Colossal/Colossal+ creatures don't get any benefit from Improved Natural Attack. I don't know if there's a full table for going arbitrarily beyond that, but in this case I'd say ignoring the progression to remove benefit of a feat is more of a houserule than continuing a logical progression.

Practiced Spellcaster does you no good if you haven't lost any caster levels. Widened antimagic field does you no good at all. Feats, and indeed rules in general, give you exactly what they say they give you, no more. If that means there are implicit limits on their utility, too bad; it's not even dysfunctional unless the implicit limits make an obviously intended use impossible, or make all uses impossible. "I can stack lots and lots of size increases to do ALL THE DAMAGES!" is not obviously intended; it may, or may not, actually be intended, but it doesn't work. (Beyond a certain point, of course.)


Metamorphosis is not a size increase effect. It changes your form. If you read the text it doesn't say "You gain size categories to the same size as what you transform into" or anything along those lines. It flat changes your base size. They stack for the same reason that you can cast Bull's Strength on someone using Metamorphosis.

The reason you can cast bull's strength on someone is because a) it's an enhancement bonus, so it stacks and b) bull's strength has no clause similar to expansion's. If it said "this does not stack with any other magical [or psionic] Strength-increasing effect" then it would, indeed, be useless with metamorphosis, polymorph, Wild Shape, and so forth.

[Seerow]

Practiced Spellcaster does you no good if you haven't lost any caster levels. Widened antimagic field does you no good at all. Feats, and indeed rules in general, give you exactly what they say they give you, no more. If that means there are implicit limits on their utility, too bad; it's not even dysfunctional unless the implicit limits make an obviously intended use impossible, or make all uses impossible. "I can stack lots and lots of size increases to do ALL THE DAMAGES!" is not obviously intended; it may, or may not, actually be intended, but it doesn't work. (Beyond a certain point, of course.)


There are effects that state "This effect caps at colossal size".

Why would those effects say that if there was no way to get above colossal size? If the other effects are not intended to let you go beyond that, why don't they have the same restrictions?

Once again, you are imposing your own houserules onto the utility of abilities with no real basis for it.


The reason you can cast bull's strength on someone is because a) it's an enhancement bonus, so it stacks and b) bull's strength has no clause similar to expansion's. If it said "this does not stack with any other magical [or psionic] Strength-increasing effect" then it would, indeed, be useless with metamorphosis, polymorph, Wild Shape, and so forth.


Once again, Metamorphosis is not a size increasing effect. It replaces your size with your new size. Nothing in the wording of the power implies it increases your size, just that it is changed. This is a completely different effect, and you are reading too much into Expansion's wording (which is intended to keep you from stacking with things like Enlarge Person, Animal Growth, and other such effects that explicitly increase size).

[Coidzor]

Correction: Monk doesnt change tier if you are playing a monk without the Wild Varient (Dragon Magazine 324 p97)

if you are using the wild varient, Enjoy 30 attacks per round as a dragon, you might even splash raging monk, foregoing some of the useless (flurry of Blows, Quivering Palm, and Still Mind) abilities of monk for Barbarian Rage.

i could slap together the Lists from the CK index to show people what it would look like, and none of the material is not in core anyway

Whirling Frenzy Raging Wild Monk, you say? And these actually stack? XD

[toapat]

Whirling Frenzy Raging Wild Monk, you say? And these actually stack? XD

yep. MoDruibarian. The unholy gestalt of balanced unarmed combat.

[Psyren]

Thread title. What's with the class? Is this Stockholm Syndrome or something? Is that why this plague is so perennial?

Cool concept, poor execution. Same reason people gravitate towards Truenamer and Warlock, except the latter actually has splat support.

[toapat]

Here is the "I cant believe its not Druid"

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special |
Armor Bonus|
Movement Speed

1st|+0|+2|+2|+2|Rage 1/day, Unarmed Strike, Wisdom to AC|
+0|
+0

2nd|+1|+3|+3|+3|Evasion|
+0|
+0

3rd|+2|+3|+3|+3|Resist Natures Law|
+0|
+10

4th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Rage 2/day, Ki strike (Magic)|
+0|
+10

5th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Purity of Body, Wildshape 1/Day|
+1|
+10

6th|+4|+5|+5|+5||
+1|
+20

7th|+5|+5|+5|+5|Wholeness of Body|
+1|
+20

8th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Wildshape 2/Day, Rage 3/day|
+1|
+20

9th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Improved Evasion|
+1|
+30

10th|+7/+2|+7|+7|+7|Ki Strike (Lawful), Wildshape 3/day|
+2|
+30

11th|+8/+3|+7|+7|+7|Diamond body, Greater Rage|
+2|
+30

12th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Wildshape (large), Rage 4/day|
+2|
+40

13th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Diamond Soul|
+2|
+40

14th|+10/+5|+9|+9|+9|Wild Shape 4/day|
+2|
+40

15th|+11/+6/+1|+9|+9|+9|Wildshape (tiny)|
+3|
+50

16th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Ki Strike (Adamantine), Wildshape (Huge), Rage 5/day|
+3|
+50

17th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moons|
+3|
+50

18th|+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape 5/day|
+3|
+60

19th|+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day|
+3|
+60

20th|+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+12|Perfect Self, Wildshape 6/day, Mighty Rage, Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day, Rage 6/day|
+4|
+60
[/table]

[Seerow]

Here is the "I cant believe its not Druid"

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special |
Armor Bonus|
Movement Speed

1st|+0|+2|+2|+2|Rage 1/day, Unarmed Strike, Wisdom to AC|
+0|
+1

2nd|+1|+3|+3|+3|Evasion|
+0|
+2

3rd|+2|+3|+3|+3|Resist Natures Law|
+0|
+10

4th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Rage 2/day, Ki strike (Magic)|
+0|
+10

5th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Purity of Body, Wildshape 1/Day|
+1|
+10

6th|+4|+5|+5|+5||
+1|
+20

7th|+5|+5|+5|+5|Wholeness of Body|
+1|
+20

8th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Wildshape 2/Day, Rage 3/day|
+1|
+20

9th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Improved Evasion|
+1|
+30

10th|+7/+2|+7|+7|+7|Ki Strike (Lawful), Wildshape 3/day|
+2|
+30

11th|+8/+3|+7|+7|+7|Diamond body, Greater Rage|
+2|
+30

12th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Wildshape (large), Rage 4/day|
+2|
+40

13th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Diamond Soul|
+2|
+40

14th|+10/+5|+9|+9|+9|Wild Shape 4/day|
+2|
+40

15th|+11/+6/+1|+9|+9|+9|Wildshape (tiny)|
+3|
+50

16th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Ki Strike (Adamantine), Wildshape (Huge), Rage 5/day|
+3|
+50

17th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moons|
+3|
+50

18th|+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape 5/day|
+3|
+60

19th|+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day|
+3|
+60

20th|+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+12|Perfect Self, Wildshape 6/day, Mighty Rage, Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day, Rage 6/day|
+4|
+60
[/table]

Hrm, can we do better than this?

I feel like there should be more ACFs that trade out some of those really bad features. Time to go digging through the Big ACF List

[Karnith]

Hrm, can we do better than this?

I feel like there should be more ACFs that trade out some of those really bad features. Time to go digging through the Big ACF List
Dark Moon Disciple at level 7 comes to mind; it trades out Wholeness of Body for total concealment in conditions other than full daylight.

It's a shame about the fluff attached, though.

[toapat]

Planar Monk replaces purity of body with +5 (choose one energy type) resistance

Sacred Strike from Dragon, and Wholeness of others are also quite good.

Sacred strike is Axiomatic Strike with Deities' weapon, and upgrades to stun, then blind, and can be used 1+Wis times day, Wholeness of others is LoH but wisdom*Monk based, they replace the Ki strikes and Wholeness of Body respectively

We dont qualify for anything else i can quick refference, its all been thrown out already, Including throwing out Still Mind twice

[TuggyNE]

There are effects that state "This effect caps at colossal size".

Why would those effects say that if there was no way to get above colossal size? If the other effects are not intended to let you go beyond that, why don't they have the same restrictions?

Redundant reminders of existing rules do not remove the effect of existing rules in cases where the reminders are not repeated.


Once again, Metamorphosis is not a size increasing effect. It replaces your size with your new size. Nothing in the wording of the power implies it increases your size, just that it is changed. This is a completely different effect, and you are reading too much into Expansion's wording (which is intended to keep you from stacking with things like Enlarge Person, Animal Growth, and other such effects that explicitly increase size).


Multiple effects that increase size do not stack

Does it, in fact, increase your size? Yes. There is no RAW that distinguishes "changes your size to X that is larger than original" from "increases your size to X", so far as I know.

[toapat]

Boo, seeing the name "Ultimate Monk" made me think you were talking about the "I cant Believe its not Druid"

[Seerow]

Redundant reminders of existing rules do not remove the effect of existing rules in cases where the reminders are not repeated.


Okay, now show the existing rule that says you cannot go above colossal.

What we have here is a grey area, where the rule is undefined. We have nothing that says you can't go beyond colossal. However, we have examples of things that do. We have nothing that says these effects can't boost you above colossal. We do however have other effects that do say they can't boost you above colossal.

If you want to say that the RAW is you can't go above colossal ever, cite an actual rule saying that is the case. Otherwise the existence of more specific rules preventing you from doing that indicates that yes, it is possible in other situations.


Does it, in fact, increase your size? Yes. There is no RAW that distinguishes "changes your size to X that is larger than original" from "increases your size to X", so far as I know.


Burden of proof is on you to show these are the same. I cannot prove a negative. I can only point out that at no point in the Metamorphosis description does it say it increases your size, which would be what triggers Expansion to not stack. You want to say this doesn't work, prove that Metamorphosis is in fact a magical enhancement to size. Once again we have two completely different categories of spells doing different things that you are claiming are the same.






And from a different perspective: This is a method that is allowing a martially focused character to keep up damage-wise without standard pouncing/power attack tricks. This is a method that is fairly well accepted by the community at large (seriously in years this is the first time I've seen anyone try to claim it's not legal to boost above Colossal effective size for damage. If it's a houserule, it's one of the most wide spread and well accepted houserules I'm aware of, up there with giving Monk unarmed strike proficiency), and your own sig references 100% RAW being silly. Even if I am wrong here, why waste the effort discrediting something that isn't broken and helps weaker character types keep up?

(okay the above argument doesn't apply so well to the Metamorphosis thing. But the size stacking in general? Come on)

[EugeneVoid]

Remembering back to my first reading of Ultimate Monk, I just remembered: Monk, more damaging, faster, more skillful than any other class.
I saw the psionic stuff, but I think there is drunken master? I don't know. It says monk it's definitely mostly monk,

[toapat]

Dark Moon Disciple at level 7 comes to mind; it trades out Wholeness of Body for total concealment in conditions other than full daylight.

It's a shame about the fluff attached, though.

well, ive compiled and dropped off I cant believe its not Druid here in Homebrew design (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336196). I know it legally doesnt qualify as homebrew but its so, insanely different.

[Coidzor]

Here is the "I cant believe its not Druid"

{table=head]Level|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Special |
Armor Bonus|
Movement Speed

1st|+0|+2|+2|+2|Rage 1/day, Unarmed Strike, Wisdom to AC|
+0|
+0

2nd|+1|+3|+3|+3|Evasion|
+0|
+0

3rd|+2|+3|+3|+3|Resist Natures Law|
+0|
+10

4th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Rage 2/day, Ki strike (Magic)|
+0|
+10

5th|+3|+4|+4|+4|Purity of Body, Wildshape 1/Day|
+1|
+10

6th|+4|+5|+5|+5||
+1|
+20

7th|+5|+5|+5|+5|Wholeness of Body|
+1|
+20

8th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Wildshape 2/Day, Rage 3/day|
+1|
+20

9th|+6/+1|+6|+6|+6|Improved Evasion|
+1|
+30

10th|+7/+2|+7|+7|+7|Ki Strike (Lawful), Wildshape 3/day|
+2|
+30

11th|+8/+3|+7|+7|+7|Diamond body, Greater Rage|
+2|
+30

12th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Wildshape (large), Rage 4/day|
+2|
+40

13th|+9/+4|+8|+8|+8|Diamond Soul|
+2|
+40

14th|+10/+5|+9|+9|+9|Wild Shape 4/day|
+2|
+40

15th|+11/+6/+1|+9|+9|+9|Wildshape (tiny)|
+3|
+50

16th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Ki Strike (Adamantine), Wildshape (Huge), Rage 5/day|
+3|
+50

17th|+12/+7/+2|+10|+10|+10|Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moons|
+3|
+50

18th|+13/+8/+3|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape 5/day|
+3|
+60

19th|+14/+9/+4|+11|+11|+11|Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day|
+3|
+60

20th|+15/+10/+5|+12|+12|+12|Perfect Self, Wildshape 6/day, Mighty Rage, Wild Shape into Elemental 1/ Day, Rage 6/day|
+4|
+60
[/table]

I think Wild Monk gets it at 6th level instead of 5th, differentiating it from Wildshaping Ranger and Druid.

[ericgrau]

Thread title. What's with the class? Is this Stockholm Syndrome or something? Is that why this plague is so perennial?
People like to restate existing comments that were stated before. It's a bandwagon thing. Particularly when someone goes against those comments, it's easy to have an opinion about "someone who's wrong on the internet" and gain strong support. Telling someone else he's wrong and having everyone tell you you're right is an ego thing.

So when a popular idea on the internet hits critical mass it just keeps going even further.

[toapat]

I think Wild Monk gets it at 6th level instead of 5th, differentiating it from Wildshaping Ranger and Druid.

nope, just checked, its 5th.

i know it looks like a hole but thats because the bonus feats got nuked from orbit

[Larkas]

nope, just checked, its 5th.

i know it looks like a hole but thats because the bonus feats got nuked from orbit

You've just proven, beyond any doubt, that having good class features are better than having no dead levels. As if that needed any further proving, but still.

[toapat]

You've just proven, beyond any doubt, that having good class features are better than having no dead levels. As if that needed any further proving, but still.

Ive also proven you can make an immensely powerful monk without homebrew similar to the A-Game Paladin

[eggynack]

Ive also proven you can make an immensely powerful monk without homebrew similar to the A-Game Paladin
Well, it depends to some extent on how you define immensely powerful, but sure, wild shape gets you into tier three even if you don't get the ability all the way. It's a sweet ability like that.

[toapat]

Well, it depends to some extent on how you define immensely powerful, but sure, wild shape gets you into tier three even if you don't get the ability all the way. It's a sweet ability like that.

assuming we take Sacred Strike and Wholeness of Others

3/4 BAB
All good Saves, with Evasion/improved
a Decent HD
Rage, missing almost nothing and counting as the barbarian class feature for other ACFs
Wild Shape, buffed by unarmed strikes
1+ Wisdommod Axiomatic Strikes
Lay on Hands
Innate Spell Resistance
Massive Movementspeed
Wisdom to Armor
Immunity to mundane Disease (couldnt nuke this, theres no ACFs to do so that we still qualified for after the main 2)
Immunity to Poison
No age penalties

[eggynack]

assuming we take Sacred Strike and Wholeness of Others

3/4 BAB
All good Saves, with Evasion/improved
a Decent HD
Rage, missing almost nothing and counting as the barbarian class feature for other ACFs
Wild Shape, buffed by unarmed strikes
1+ Wisdommod Axiomatic Strikes
Lay on Hands
Innate Spell Resistance
Massive Movementspeed
Wisdom to Armor
Immunity to mundane Disease (couldnt nuke this, theres no ACFs to do so that we still qualified for after the main 2)
Immunity to Poison
No age penalties
It still feels like wild shape is your one and only tier determinant. In other words, if you subtracted wild shape from that pile of stuff, you'd have a tier five or so, and if you subtracted that pile of stuff from wild shape, you'd still have a tier three. I mean, sure, if I had to choose between having all of that stuff plus wild shape, and just having wild shape, then I'd take the big pile in a second, but it's just not the most relevant list of abilities.

[CyberThread]

oh hey look folks, its that fellow Invisible Fist From that hit tv show "Exemplars of Evil "



It is almost like we didn't seem him there.

[toapat]

It still feels like wild shape is your one and only tier determinant. In other words, if you subtracted wild shape from that pile of stuff, you'd have a tier five or so, and if you subtracted that pile of stuff from wild shape, you'd still have a tier three. I mean, sure, if I had to choose between having all of that stuff plus wild shape, and just having wild shape, then I'd take the big pile in a second, but it's just not the most relevant list of abilities.

the comparison is this:

Does Rage + Smite Evil + LoH compete with Wildshape?

no. it does not. Expecially because IIRC natural attacks benefit from unarmed damage


oh hey look folks, its that fellow Invisible Fist From that hit tv show "Exemplars of Evil "



It is almost like we didn't seem him there.

i used a monk handbook on Brilliant gameologists for referrence, it wasnt in there

[Seerow]

the comparison is this:

Does Rage + Smite Evil + LoH compete with Wildshape?

no. it does not. Expecially because IIRC natural attacks benefit from unarmed damage

Yeah gaining Wildshape is cool and all, I think his point was that Wildshape was the only really big thing you gained.

As compared to the A-Game Paladin, which ends up with a hyper tricked out Inspire Courage, plus a tricked out Inspire Greatness (used from a different resource, so no worries about using it meaning you don't have enough ICs later), and amazing party support even beyond that from the Divine Spirit, AND casting Wizard+Paladin Spells up to 4th level, all as a swift action, with roughly double the spells per day of a typical paladin.

Yes, Wildshape Monk is a good tier boost. But the A-Game Paladin is a build that encompasses a much wider base of features combining into a much greater whole, which is what makes it so impressive.

[eggynack]

the comparison is this:

Does Rage + Smite Evil + LoH compete with Wildshape?

no. it does not. Expecially because IIRC natural attacks benefit from unarmed damage
I'm not all that sure on that last count, but yeah, that's basically as it is. The issue, I think, is that it's somewhat awkward to have a monk whose major defining feature is wild shape. I have a similar issue with the A-game paladin, come to think of it, as, if I'm recalling the build correctly, you end up with a paladin whose defining features are arcane casting and inspire courage. It tends to feel, at least to me, that you could just be a not-monk and do this stuff better.

Edit: Battle blessing is a cool thing, by the by, though I still dispute the idea that it lets you quicken SotAO spells, at least not unambiguously.

[TuggyNE]

Boo, seeing the name "Ultimate Monk" made me think you were talking about the "I cant Believe its not Druid"

Sorry, no, it's the self-described "Ultimate Monk" build on dandwiki.


Okay, now show the existing rule that says you cannot go above colossal.

There are only nine size categories, and Colossal is the largest; there is nothing defined above that point.


What we have here is a grey area, where the rule is undefined. We have nothing that says you can't go beyond colossal. However, we have examples of things that do. We have nothing that says these effects can't boost you above colossal. We do however have other effects that do say they can't boost you above colossal.

If you want to say that the RAW is you can't go above colossal ever, cite an actual rule saying that is the case. Otherwise the existence of more specific rules preventing you from doing that indicates that yes, it is possible in other situations.

You can't do anything for which no rules framework exists, generally. (More specifically: any area that the mechanics represent is assumed to be represented in its entirety by the entirety of mechanics; thus, while you can certainly do all manner of freeform actions that are never given any sort of mechanical representation, you can't change your size category, mechanically, beyond the limits of what's mechanically defined, any more than you can change your type to Superhumanoid.)


Burden of proof is on you to show these are the same. I cannot prove a negative. I can only point out that at no point in the Metamorphosis description does it say it increases your size, which would be what triggers Expansion to not stack. You want to say this doesn't work, prove that Metamorphosis is in fact a magical enhancement to size. Once again we have two completely different categories of spells doing different things that you are claiming are the same.

"Effect that increases size" is not, as far as I can tell, a rules-defined term, so we fall back on the usual definition of "increase", which allows anything that, in the final analysis, does act to increase size to count.

Metamorphosis, following your logic, would need to say something like "If your new size is larger than the original, this is a size-increasing effect, and if smaller, it is a size-reducing effect", but that would be a great deal of clunky verbiage for a very few niche interactions that are already fairly well defined by the implicit functioning of the spell. That's debatably worthwhile; given my bent for over-specification, I might indeed put that in if I were writing, but there are many places where clarification could be useful that have none.


And from a different perspective: This is a method that is allowing a martially focused character to keep up damage-wise without standard pouncing/power attack tricks. This is a method that is fairly well accepted by the community at large (seriously in years this is the first time I've seen anyone try to claim it's not legal to boost above Colossal effective size for damage. If it's a houserule, it's one of the most wide spread and well accepted houserules I'm aware of, up there with giving Monk unarmed strike proficiency), and your own sig references 100% RAW being silly. Even if I am wrong here, why waste the effort discrediting something that isn't broken and helps weaker character types keep up?

Well, I prefer to use explicit houserules where needed and useful, and actual rules where possible; I consider it extremely important for anyone playing 3.x to be aware of the areas in which the rules are potentially rather lacking in order to make the absolute necessity of group-agreed houserules more obvious.

Put another way, cheese for a good cause is still cheese and usually disturbs me, though not as much as for a bad.

(Also, I have seen critiques in the past that went into some detail on numerous other problems the build has; I'm only criticizing the one I found most egregious from memory.)

[Psyren]

@ size debate: I'm with Tuggy on this one, there is nothing above Colossal in 3.5. And the rules are exclusive, not inclusive (except in cases where they are stated to be inclusive.)

[toapat]

I'm not all that sure on that last count, but yeah, that's basically as it is. The issue, I think, is that it's somewhat awkward to have a monk whose major defining feature is wild shape. I have a similar issue with the A-game paladin, come to think of it, as, if I'm recalling the build correctly, you end up with a paladin whose defining features are arcane casting and inspire courage. It tends to feel, at least to me, that you could just be a not-monk and do this stuff better.

Edit: Battle blessing is a cool thing, by the by, though I still dispute the idea that it lets you quicken SotAO spells, at least not unambiguously.

Evidence can be shown both for and against BB affecting SotAO, and the ambiguity comes from the fact it doesnt cover whether the spells once prepared are still wizard spells. One can not cast spells not on thier own list.

the defining feature of A-game paladin is its basically taking as much of base paladin, and converting it into something more representing the typical idea of what a paladin is, while also boosting the power alot.

at this point, ya, its not really a monk anymore. It doesnt even do Monk things. Its a Warcraft Bear druid

[squiggit]

@ size debate: I'm with Tuggy on this one, there is nothing above Colossal in 3.5. And the rules are exclusive, not inclusive (except in cases where they are stated to be inclusive.)

The section on Epic Dragons states that "There is no size category larger than colossal".

Colossal+ in that section isn't defined as a size category larger than colossal but as a special category for the strongest of dragons that indicate that they hit harder and have bigger breaths than "other colossal dragons" which indicates they aren't actually bigger than colossal either.

I can't find anything else on C+.

[FaiT]

You can't do anything for which no rules framework exists, generally. (More specifically: any area that the mechanics represent is assumed to be represented in its entirety by the entirety of mechanics; thus, while you can certainly do all manner of freeform actions that are never given any sort of mechanical representation, you can't change your size category, mechanically, beyond the limits of what's mechanically defined, any more than you can change your type to Superhumanoid.)


Completely correct as written. However, your claim seems to me to be that we can never know the RAI for sure, therefore whatever written is what is and anything in excess is homebrew. This claim would be predicated on the entries in this table themselves serving as the mechanical definition of the pertinent rules. Everyone other than you seems to have corecctly targeted the table itself as the definition, moreover the predictable mathmatical progression defining the table IS the correct "mechanical definition" of these rules. To claim otherwise seems pedantic.

[TuggyNE]

However, your claim seems to me to be that we can never know the RAI for sure, therefore whatever written is what is and anything in excess is homebrew.

More precisely, that RAI is generally quite murky and prone to debate, RAW is (here) fairly clear and can be independently verified with the proper procedures, and that the lacks in these first two necessitate houserules, presumably of a more or less RACSD flavor.


This claim would be predicated on the entries in this table themselves serving as the mechanical definition of the pertinent rules. Everyone other than you seems to have corecctly targeted the table itself as the definition, moreover the predictable mathmatical progression defining the table IS the correct "mechanical definition" of these rules.

The table is the definition, yes. If there were rules indicating, for example, that d8s always become twice as many d6s when size is increased, that would be a different matter. But all we have is the tables of size and weapon damage changes by size, which are in fact exhaustive and are not specifically based on any formula.

For that matter, the tables for manufactured weapons and natural weapons do not agree on some details; if you look at the damage of a small greatsword and match it to the INA progression, it should theoretically do 8d8 damage at Colossal, but it does 8d6. The bastard sword, which does 1d10 at Medium, does 6d8 at Colossal, same as INA says. So I'm not convinced any simple formula exists that correctly covers the tables, since it would, seemingly, rely on odd artifacts like whether the baseline is Medium or Small creatures. In the absence of such, RAI isn't looking so obvious any more, is it?

[Togo]

I find the damage progression to be quite straightforward. Just use a medium creature as the base, and follow the progression given in the tables and under the 'improved natural attack' feat in the Monster Manual. You get a consistent answer with no conflicts that allows you to go as high or as low as you like.

[TuggyNE]

Just use a medium creature as the base

So, it relies on odd artifacts like the baseline being only Medium creatures, since you'd get different answers if you started with the damage values of Small creatures in some cases. That's what I said, isn't it?