Monk Druid

[Shadowscale]

How viable would a monk druid crossclass be and how would one go about doing it?

Any prestige classes that exist for or to compliment such a character?

[eggynack]

Worse than an equal leveled druid, with the exact level of worse-ness proportional to the number of monk levels you take. It's obviously a very imperfect model, but it makes sense to just imagine the monk levels as non-existent. If you're a druid 9/monk 1, then ask yourself whether a druid 9 can contribute in any given 10th level party. The answer is almost certainly yes. The answer, however, gets less "yes" when you start talking about a druid 5/monk 5. Druids can lose some power and still be amazing, in other words, so you can make suboptimal decisions like this if you want. If you really want the multiclass, then I'd advise just picking up one or two levels as is typically done. You'd do much better with a normal druid with a monk's belt, however.

[Divide by Zero]

Monk 1/Druid X is relatively solid, arguably better than straight druid for some concepts and only marginally weaker than straight druid overall (past level 5, anyway). Any number of monk levels greater than 1 becomes increasingly bad.

[eggynack]

Monk 1/Druid X is relatively solid, arguably better than straight druid for some concepts.
I'm not really sure what that concept would be, is the thing. Even on a brawler, I think you'd be better off just advancing as a druid, as the advancement of your animal companion, wild shape, and magic, all make you better at brawling, likely to a greater extent than monk dip abilities. Tippy has suggested in the past that a monk dip is probably better than no monk dip past level 17, but I'm not entirely sure that that sort of marginal power increase is even relevant at those levels.

[nedz]

Just take the Deadly Hunter Druid ACF (UA p58)
Gain bonus to AC when unarmored and fast movement (as monk).
Gain favored enemy, track, and swift tracker as a ranger.
Lose armor and shield proficiency and wild shape.

Though I quite like Elf Monk 2 / Druid 3 / Seeker of the Misty Isle X — though I prefer Spirit Shaman, mainly for fluff reasons.
Quarterstaffs are Monk weapons so you can Flurry with them, and then you can cast the various Druid Quarterstaffs buffs.

Obviously straight Druid is stronger, but that's not the point of the build.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Just make a single-classed Druid with a Monk's Belt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltMonks) with a Wilding Clasp (MIC). The Monk's Belt gives you the AC bonus (including Wis bonus) and unarmed strike damage of five levels of Monk, without wasting any character levels on it. The Wilding Clasp makes it so you'll still be wearing it when you Wild Shape.

[AvatarVecna]

Optimal advice: don't take any levels in Monk. The only useful class feature (Wis to AC) is replicated by a core item (the monk's belt). Slap on a wilding clasp and call it a day.

If you want to put together a good gish build that uses monk levels, I suggest Monk 1/Druid 5/Nature's Warrior 5/Druid +9. You get 16th lvl Druid casting, 19th lvl Druid Wild Shaping with extra benefits, BAB 15, Wis to AC, and 2 bonus feats to DCS into something useful.

[Pan151]

Just make a single-classed Druid with a Monk's Belt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#beltMonks) with a Wilding Clasp (MIC). The Monk's Belt gives you the AC bonus (including Wis bonus) and unarmed strike damage of five levels of Monk, without wasting any character levels on it. The Wilding Clasp makes it so you'll still be wearing it when you Wild Shape.

Except there are certain wildshape forms (like half the aberration wild shape list) that cannot wear belts - or items in general - wilding clasp or not. Which is why you'd want an actual monk level. And maybe even a Vow of Poverty (I know, heresy)...

[eggynack]

Except there are certain wildshape forms (like half the aberration wild shape list) that cannot wear belts - or items in general - wilding clasp or not. Which is why you'd want an actual monk level. And maybe even a Vow of Poverty (I know, heresy)...
Feh. If you're making use of the seriously zonked out stuff, then a decent sized AC boost doesn't even rate as particularly relevant, and you really want to have even more spell based power. I mean, really, you're able to cast two spells a round and kill folks from across the ethereal plane. Who cares about killer touch AC at that point? I'm also honestly somewhat doubtful that aberration forms are as incapable of wearing stuff as you claim. Sure a will-o'-wisp is tricky for this sort of thing, but most creatures have bodies of various kinds which can hold up a belt.

Edit: The same kinda goes for VoP, actually. Most of those stat bonuses are small potatoes against the backdrop of aberration wild shape. When you use aberrations, what you really want is more casting, and the way to do that is avoiding monk dips and using items that make magic better.

[Feint's End]

Except there are certain wildshape forms (like half the aberration wild shape list) that cannot wear belts - or items in general - wilding clasp or not. Which is why you'd want an actual monk level. And maybe even a Vow of Poverty (I know, heresy)...

I'm not sure any of this is RAW.

Honestly there are a lot of cases in which a belt doesn't make sense but that doesn't mean you can't wear an equivalent item. How does a horse wear a belt? I don't know but that doesn't mean I couldn't equip one if I wanted to. Same goes for dragons or pretty much any creature who wants magic items but has an "unusual" shape compared to humanoids.

So yes ... your monk belt will work in any Form.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Except there are certain wildshape forms (like half the aberration wild shape list) that cannot wear belts - or items in general - wilding clasp or not. Which is why you'd want an actual monk level. And maybe even a Vow of Poverty (I know, heresy)...

Not so, every creature no matter what shape they are still has all the standard magic item body spots. A beholder for example can wear rings, bracers, amulets, belts, etc. on its eye stalks instead of on wrists/fingers/neck/waist, as this is specifically called out in Lords of Madness. Any creature can wear any type of magic item, with the only exception being armor and shields not of the appropriate size/shape. Furthermore, the wilding clasp does not say that the item is worn by your wild shape form, only that it continues to function, so you'll still gain the belt's benefits when wild shaped regardless of how much you want to nitpick the form's shape.

[Pan151]

Not so, every creature no matter what shape they are still has all the standard magic item body spots.

Source? Because the Wilding Clasp description clearly suggests otherwise.


A beholder for example can wear rings, bracers, amulets, belts, etc. on its eye stalks instead of on wrists/fingers/neck/waist, as this is specifically called out in Lords of Madness. Any creature can wear any type of magic item, with the only exception being armor and shields not of the appropriate size/shape.

Yes, a Beholder could potentially wear rings in its eyestalks (if it could actually get them to fit through its eyeballs, but that's a gruesome story for another time). However, creatures that are perfectly spherical and/or amorphous and/or gaseous would have no lack attempting anything of the sort.


Furthermore, the wilding clasp does not say that the item is worn by your wild shape form, only that it continues to function, so you'll still gain the belt's benefits when wild shaped regardless of how much you want to nitpick the form's shape.


A wilding clasp can be attached to any item worn on the body. When so worn, a clasp prevents the worn item from melding into your new form when you use wild shape (as long as the item could reasonably be worn by the new form). Thus, the item remains fully functional and can be used normally in your new form.

Emphasis mine. If you can't wear it in your new form then you can't use it, regardless of whether or not you actually need to wear it.

[Amphetryon]

Source? Because the Wilding Clasp description clearly suggests otherwise.



Yes, a Beholder could potentially wear rings in its eyestalks (if it could actually get them to fit through its eyeballs, but that's a gruesome story for another time). However, creatures that are perfectly spherical and/or amorphous and/or gaseous would have no lack attempting anything of the sort.





Emphasis mine. If you can't wear it in your new form then you can't use it, regardless of whether or not you actually need to wear it.

Where in the rules do they clearly define what 'could reasonably be worn by the new form' means, specifically, please?

[eggynack]

However, creatures that are perfectly spherical and/or amorphous and/or gaseous would have no lack attempting anything of the sort.

Possibly. Not absolutely, but possibly. The list of creatures that are like that is pretty small though. Most creatures would plausibly be capable of wearing a good amount of the stuff a druid would want, including belts. We're mostly talking about the will-o'-wisp here, and that form doesn't even work all that well with the style that VoP and a monk dip promotes. For face punching, I'd think you'd want something more like thoon elder brain, which seems capable of wearing a belt on its brain, along with some rings, if ya want. Probably other stuff too.

[Karnith]

Where in the rules do they clearly define what 'could reasonably be worn by the new form' means, specifically, please?
According to the Magic Item Compendium, the default is that all creatures get all slots, and it's up to the DM to decide when they don't. There are also some pretty clear guidelines intended for DM use as to creatures with unusual anatomies. Per the MIC:

As a default rule, treat creatures of any shape as having all the normal body slots available. Creatures never gain extra body slots for having extra body parts (for example, a marilith still has only one hands body slot and two rings body slots). For unusual cases, here are some guidelines to help a DM particularly dedicated to details:
Amorphous Creatures: Creatures without any shape, such as most oozes and the phasm (in its normal form) have no body slots and can't wear magic items at all.
Armless Creatures: Creatures without forelimbs, such as snakes, don't have the arms, hands, or rings body slot (but see multilegged creatures, below). A creature with only a single forelimb retains these body slots, and can wear both of a pair on the same limb (such as both gloves on the same hand, and so on).
Fingerless Creatures: Creatures without flexible digits or extremities, such as horses, lack the rings body slot. A creature need not be able to manipulate objects to wear rings - a hell hound can wear a ring on a toe of its forelimb.
Headless Creatures: Creatures without an identifiable head, such as shambling mounds, lack the face, head, and throat body slots.
Legless Creatures: Creatures without hind limbs, such as lillends, don't have the feet body slot.
Multilegged Creatures: Creatures with more than two legs can treat their foremost pair of limbs as their arms (allowing them access to the arms, hands, and rings body slots), even if those limbs are used for locomotion rather than for manipulation. Creatures with multiple legs that also have arms (such as centaurs or driders) don't lack any body slots.
Rules Compendium contained essentially the same guidelines on body slots.

Most creatures have all the normal body slots available.Creatures never gain extra body slots for having extra body parts. For unusual cases, here are some guidelines.
[...]
Creatures that lack any clear shape have no body slots and can’t wear magic items at all.
Armless Creatures: Creatures that have no forelimbs don’t have the arms, hands, or rings body slot—but see Multilegged Creatures, below. A creature that has only a single forelimb retains these body slots and can wear both items of a pair on the same limb.
Fingerless Creatures: Creatures that lack flexible digits or extremities lack the rings body slot. A creature need not be able to manipulate objects to wear rings.
Headless Creatures: Creatures that do not have an identifiable head lack the face, head, and throat body slots.
Legless Creatures: Creatures that have no hind limbs don’t have the feet body slot.
Multilegged Creatures:Creatures that have more than two legs can treat their foremost pair of limbs as their arms, allowing them access to the arms, hands, and rings body slots, even if those limbs are used for locomotion rather than for manipulation. Creatures that have arms as well as multiple legs lack no body slots.

[eggynack]

Snip
Seems reasonable. Also looks like our noble druid will be reasonably capable of belt wearing most of the time, and lots of other stuff wearing. It's not perfect, certainly, but not nearly so imperfect that VoP is the way to go.

[Urpriest]

Most of the aberrations in Lords of Madness have explicit slot lists. Aboleths can wear belts, though the slot is merged with the cape slot. Beholders can wear belts, Flayers of course can. Neogi cannot wear belts, neither can Grell or Tsochari.

You can either try to generalize from those, or just say that everything without its own item slot list uses the human one.

Edit: Or use MIC guidelines apparently.

[Rhaegar14]

So I've seen a couple people suggest that the only good thing the Druid can get from the Monk is Wis to AC. As far as I know, Unarmed Strike is pretty good on a Druid too, as it lets them use their iterative attacks while wild shaped. Admittedly, you can pick this up for the cost of a feat, but a Monk's Belt or Monk dip gives it for free.

[Greenish]

Admittedly, you can pick this up for the cost of a feat, but a Monk's Belt or Monk dip gives it for free.I'm amused by the suggestion that a monk dip is "free" for a druid, the class with arguably most useful, scaling class features.

[Rhaegar14]

I'm amused by the suggestion that a monk dip is "free" for a druid, the class with arguably most useful, scaling class features.

Poorly chosen wording, mostly because I'm not arguing against the Monk's Belt being the MUCH better option.

[Ravens_cry]

Not sure what Druid animal form couldn't wear a belt. Heck, even bulls can wear a Belt of Binding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_riding)

[eggynack]

Not sure what Druid animal form couldn't wear a belt. Heck, even bulls can wear a Belt of Binding. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bull_riding)
Animal forms are generally fine, though I've heard some objection to bats with belts. The issue is aberration forms, particularly the will-o'-wisp. However, it looks like most of those forms are fine as well.

[Ravens_cry]

Animal forms are generally fine, though I've heard some objection to bats with belts. The issue is aberration forms, particularly the will-o'-wisp. However, it looks like most of those forms are fine as well.
Eh, a bat can wear a belt just fine. In fact, they are famous for it.:smalltongue: