ITS HIDEOUS!!! A multiclass monk that punches through anything?

[bobthedragon]

So I was fiddling around with some ideas for how to optimize unarmed strike and was looking for suggestions for how I could improve this.
If I use this, it will be with a DM that is extremely relaxed about alignment restrictions, and pretty much any source is okay
Here's what I have. (haven't done any backstory fluff yet, because not even sure if this build will be used, but I would absolutely love to tell my DM that I'm abandoning my Power playing ways to play a monk along side a fully optimized party, then take out a dragon in 1-2 hits)
(For full link: http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=1015344 )
Level 15
Race: Dragonborn lolth-touched mongrelfolk (+12 con, +6 str, -4 ch, dex -2, LA+1)
ability scores after racial mods:
str 19
dex 12
con 28
int 11
wis 20
ch 4
Class: monk 6/ Psychic fighter 2/ Shiba protector 1/ unarmed sword sage 2/ fist of the forest 3/ Paladin 1
noteable items-
monks belt (+5 monk level for damage)
Amulet of natural armor(+1, speed, frost) (1 extra attack)
Eternal wand of Greater mighty wallop, CL 12, +3 size
Eternal wand of Greater magic fang, CL 20, +5
Fanged Ring( grants improved natural attack)
Bracers of Majere (adds one attack to flurry of blows)

unarmed sword sage and monk levels stack for unarmed damage, add in monk belt bringing it to that of a level 13 monk, then fist of forest increases it by two steps to the equivalent of a level 20 monk. Greater Mighty wallop/improved natural attack bring size equivilant to Collosal
12d8 damage per unarmed strike!!!!! (not sure if improved natural attk stacks with mighty wallop, if it doesn't, ditch the ring and get a higher CL wand)

Get three extra attks (at -2 atk bonus) from speed, flurry of blows, and bracers of Majere
giving you this-
flurry of blows- 26/ +26/ +26/ +26/ +20, 12d8+14+1d6cold (If all of these would hit, it would average almost 300 damage)

Against incorporeal creatures each attk has 50% to hit in full, 50% to do half damage
7 sword sage maneuvers and 2 stances (with initiator level of 7 I think)

Thoughts?? Ideas??

[bobthedragon]

Also i used psychic and monk bonus feats to fill most of the prestige class requirements, plus I get 2 flaws, so I have quite a few feats to play with. Based on this they are mostly just going to various attk roll boosting stuff, not really sure what would be best

Also, I know my myth-weavers sheet isn't very well labeled, just kind of threw this together. If I do decide to use this build for something, I'll fix it.

[bobthedragon]

I should probably note, I think the shadow blink maneuver, monks insane mvt speed, and tornado throw maneuver could be insanely awesome. (I do admit that I'm not 100% sure how initiator level works, or if mine is high enough that I qualify for tornado throw, Only other time i've used ToB was in straight warblades)

[Rubik]

Try combining with portions of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15474863#post15474863) for extra punchiness.

[Fax Celestis]

You Could work Talashtora in there for a little more oomph.

[Andion Isurand]

If I'm right, and Lolth-touched requires one to be chaotic evil while dragonborn requires one to be non-evil... then you have a compatibility problem unless you refluff.

Nevermind, I failed my spot check.

[Snowbluff]

You don't seems to have a battlefist...

Try combining with portions of this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15474863#post15474863) for extra punchiness.

You've made a grievous error. Martial Stance isn't listed as a fighter bonus feat, even though it's an option. It's a nitpick, though, since you should be able to swap that with another feat in the build. The same is true for Karmic Strike.

EDIT: Beast Strike + Eldritch Claws I just made your build do 24d8 damage it's dragon material but you're welcome monkday is over.

[Rubik]

{Scrubbed}

[Snowbluff]

{Scrubbed} Nope. It's just it's axiomatic considering the wording of martial monk. It's not on the fighter bonus feat list as describe by WotC. There is only 1 fighter bonus feat list. The additional feats are not part of the list, but are exceptions.

Would you have heard from me if it was a typo and didn't have a reason? :smallconfused:


I don't remember adding any warlock in that build.
That wasn't directed at you. You probably should have done it, in hindsight. You already had dragon material and enough options for gaining more feats. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

Nope. It's just it's axiomatic considering the wording of martial monk. It's not on the fighter bonus feat list as describe by WotC. There is only 1 list. The additional feats are not part of the list, but are exceptions. The fighter bonus feat list is a list of all the fighter bonus feats. Martial Stance is a fighter bonus feat, ergo it's on the list.

Duh.

[Snowbluff]

The fighter bonus feat list is a list of all the fighter bonus feats. Martial Stance is a fighter bonus feat, ergo it's on the list.

Duh.

Did I stutter? To be in a list it has to be on a list. Your argument just now was that you have no argument. Wizard spells are added to lists. Other fighter feats are not put into lists.

ADDITIONALLY, your build is still in error even if you were right about this. You cannot have a Shadow Hand Stance without a Shadow Hand Maneuver, ergo you cannot have shadow blade.

I will gladly admit defeat if you can provide evidence. However, I do not believe you should not be suggesting this if it so full of errors.

[mangosta71]

Nope. It's just it's axiomatic considering the wording of martial monk. It's not on the fighter bonus feat list as describe by WotC. There is only 1 fighter bonus feat list. The additional feats are not part of the list, but are exceptions.

Would you have heard from me if it was a typo and didn't have a reason? :smallconfused:
The original fighter bonus feat list came out before ToB, so of course ToB material isn't included. However, ToB explicitly states that Martial Stance can be taken as a fighter bonus feat. Trying to claim that it can't, because it's not on a list that predates its publication, is absurd.

ADDITIONALLY, your build is still in error even if you were right about this. You cannot have a Shadow Hand Stance without a Shadow Hand Maneuver, ergo you cannot have shadow blade.
You can learn any stance for which you meet the prerequisites. There are stances which do not require the character to know any other maneuvers. In fact, going through the Shadow Hand list of maneuvers and stances, only two of the five Shadow Hand stances require you to know any maneuvers at all. And even if you were right, the proposed character would have 7 maneuvers known - he can easily use one of those to grab a SH strike.

As for the build, I'm reading it as ECL 16 (15 if you're allowed LA buyoff), IL 8. You need IL 17 to pick up Tornado Throw. Incidentally, what do you get out of monk 6/USS 2 that you wouldn't get out of monk 2/USS 6? That would increase your maneuvers and stances available, as well as boost your IL up to 10 (so you could take up to level 5 maneuvers and stances).

You mention Shadow Blink, which is a level 7 maneuver. Therefore it requires IL 13. (Maneuvers use the same calculation as spells to determine what level you need to learn them.)

[emeraldstreak]

12d8 is the minimum. (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Ultimate_Monk_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build))

[Rubik]

{Scrubbed}

[Snowbluff]

{Scrubbed}

[Ratatoskir]

The original fighter bonus feat list came out before ToB, so of course ToB material isn't included. However, ToB explicitly states that Martial Stance can be taken as a fighter bonus feat. Trying to claim that it can't, because it's not on a list that predates its publication, is absurd.

I believe the argument being presented is not that a fighter can't take martial stance as a fighter bonus feat, but rather that because it is not listed on the list of fighter bonus feats (nor does it specifically say that it is added to the list) the martial monk cannot select it. RAW, that's probably correct. Technically.

[mangosta71]

Do you know what the word "list" means? Do you understand the wording of Martial Monk? Do you know it specifies a list? Your ruling is the absurd one.

[Fighter Bonus Feat] does not denote that it's been added to any list. It mean the texts contains an exception that a fighter may take it as a feat.

The Martial Monk may take feats on the fighter bonus feat list. It does not say "It may take bonus feats that a fighter may take." "May take feats as a fighter" would be even worse, since they would not ignore prerequisites.
{Scrubbed} You're seriously trying to claim that feats that explicitly state that they can be selected as fighter bonus feats but aren't on a list (that nowhere claims to be absolute or exhaustive, almost as if WotC knew that later splatbooks might include more) are somehow not fighter bonus feats?

Of course, none of this matters, since the character, having 2 levels of unarmed swordsage, will have access to maneuvers and stances anyway.

[Snowbluff]

{Scrubbed}

[mangosta71]

{Scrubbed}

[Snowbluff]

{Scrubbed}

[Ruethgar]

Do note that the wording of Fist of the Forest makes it horrible for advancing unarmed damage, it isn't just a flat two step increase.

Edit: In order to increase in unarmed damage from Fist of the Forest you must enter dealing 1d8 damage, this increases to 1d10 and 2d6. If your unarmed damage is altered from that then you are disqualified from FotF damage increase and revert to 1d8 and 1d10. This is a big reason why that class is a horrible option for damage boosting and should likely only be used for boosting AC on a character focusing on unarmed rider damage(claw lock is an example). Or you know, house rule it to make sense.

[prufock]

Nope. It's just it's axiomatic considering the wording of martial monk. It's not on the fighter bonus feat list as describe by WotC. There is only 1 fighter bonus feat list. The additional feats are not part of the list, but are exceptions.
Where is this one fighter bonus feat list?

[Rubik]

Where is this one fighter bonus feat list?This one. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#fighterBonusFeats) Note that it says, "Fighter bonus feats include," which indicates that it's not an exhaustive list, though that's what Snowbluff is trying to indicate. It also says explicitly that "Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter’s bonus feat," which transfers over to the martial monk.

[Ruethgar]

This one. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#fighterBonusFeats) Note that it says, "Fighter bonus feats include," which indicates that it's not an exhaustive list, though that's what Snowbluff is trying to indicate. It also says explicitly that "Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter’s bonus feat," which transfers over to the martial monk.

This becomes increasingly expansive if you include the fighter alternate class options from Dragon #310 which include Leadership... mmm Leadership at level 1.

[ArqArturo]

Punching, the gift that keeps on giving :).

[Bad Wolf]

4 Cha...that's a face not even a mother could love.

[Rubik]

4 Cha...that's a face not even a mother could love.Basically, it's Mialee.

[icefractal]

Au contraire, my most frequent player tried to pull this crap on me. That's how I found out about how everyone was reading it wrong. I'm pretty magnanimous when it comes to allowed material (as long as you follow the rules), but I won't let that brick fly. :smallsmile:I'm actually curious - with an absolute-wording-RAW stance this strong, do you have Drown-Healing work (or alternately, is drowning a guaranteed death sentence because it never specifies how you stop drowning?) Do you let people pull artifacts out of a spell component pouch because they don't have a listed cost? Or simply pull NI pieces of bat guano out as a free action and bury an enemy town under a giant mountain of crap?

I ask because I've always assumed that kind of thing was purely theoretical, no GM would actually use/allow it. But OTOH, I'd never heard someone claim that Fighter Bonus Feats aren't on the Fighter Bonus Feat list because they weren't retroactively added to the PHB with a time machine. :smallconfused:

[Just to Browse]

If you can fool your DM into thinking that a Dragonborn Lolth-touched Mongrelfolk isn't powergaming because you're playing a monk, I salute you.


[Fighter Bonus Feat] does not denote that it's been added to any list. It mean the texts contains an exception that a fighter may take it as a feat.This is the funniest thing Snowbluff has ever written.

[animewatcha]

For a second I thought someone like toapat took over snowbluff's account. I am gonna have to ask you to detail out ( be separate document or spoiler post or something ) how each stat adds up to what. This is mainly cause I noticed a bit of a discrepancy (sp?) . Swordsage AC and monk AC don't stack ( noticing the wis x 2 there ). An ac difference of +5 / +8 can be pretty big considering a touch of idiocy will turn Hercules here into a sleeping hercules real quick.

-edit- noticed too late that touch of idiocy is a penalty and not damage, but point still stands for anything that causes charisma damage.

[Snowbluff]

I'm actually curious - with an absolute-wording-RAW stance this strong, do you have Drown-Healing work (or alternately, is drowning a guaranteed death sentence because it never specifies how you stop drowning?) Do you let people pull artifacts out of a spell component pouch because they don't have a listed cost? Or simply pull NI pieces of bat guano out as a free action and bury an enemy town under a giant mountain of crap?

I ask because I've always assumed that kind of thing was purely theoretical, no GM would actually use/allow it. But OTOH, I'd never heard someone claim that Fighter Bonus Feats aren't on the Fighter Bonus Feat list because they weren't retroactively added to the PHB with a time machine. :smallconfused: Following RAW and working with dysfunctional rules is entirely different. No one has tried to pull out an artifact, though. Same goes for people drowning. Hasn't even come up. I guess my players aren't dumb enough to try and get it past me. Well, some have been dumb to try, but... *shrugs*

It's not a question of retroactively adding something, but of how the rules interact and how the Martial Monk was written. Fighter was never designed to work off of a list. Claiming feats are added to the list is ridiculous, because that's not how it was intended to function and it's not how it mechanically functions. The word "list" doesn't apply to Fighter Bonus Feats as a category, because they aren't in a list together as a whole. All of the feats have text saying you can take these feats as a bonus feat if you are a fighter. Martial Monk runs off a list for some unknown reason.

You act as though finding how the rule works in this case and the conclusion being dysfunctional or ridiculous means I have to be written off as some RAW-nut. It's RAW, it's functional, and you'll have to learn to live with it.
EDIT: Well, it's dysfunctional in the "what were the writers thinking?" way.


This is the funniest thing Snowbluff has ever written.
I'm still waiting for evidence that works against my ruling. It's the most misquoted rule I've come across and there's no one here who can competently and honestly prove me wrong. :smalltongue:

[Rubik]

{Scrubbed}

[icefractal]

It's RAW, it's functional, and you'll have to learn to live with it. Well I won't, actually, no GM I've every played with would rule things in such a way. :smallsmile:

But I mean as far as "it's RAW" - being able to pull NI pieces of bat guano from a spell component pouch as a free action is RAW. Stupid as hell, but that's what the rules say.

Or for a more topical example - Monks are not proficient with their own unarmed strikes. Would you enforce that too?

[Snowbluff]

{Scrubbed}

[Just to Browse]

I'm still waiting for evidence that works against my ruling. It's the most misquoted rule I've come across and there's no one here who can competently and honestly prove me wrong. :smalltongue:

The evidence is that there is no "list" of fighter bonus feats. Not even in the PHB, where the only "list" is non-metamagic feats. Even in books like Complete Warrior, tailored to fightey-types, there are only general, divine, and tactical feat lists, but not "Fighter Bonus" feat lists.

So your argument is that, because the Martial Monk says they can pick feats from the "Fighter Bonus Feat" list, they actually can't get any feats at all. That is both hilarious and totally untenable. You can see why people associate it with drown-healing.

[Bad Wolf]

From what I can interept, you guys are arguing if feats that can be selected as fighter bonus feats are on the list of fighter bonus feats, correct?

[Snowbluff]

The evidence is that there is no "list" of fighter bonus feats. Not even in the PHB, where the only "list" is non-metamagic feats. Even in books like Complete Warrior, tailored to fightey-types, there are only general, divine, and tactical feat lists, but not "Fighter Bonus" feat lists.

So your argument is that, because the Martial Monk says they can pick feats from the "Fighter Bonus Feat" list, they actually can't get any feats at all. That is both hilarious and totally untenable. You can see why people associate it with drown-healing.

See, here's an actual argument. It's the iffy party. It's referring to list somewhere. If you don't think it's that list, then whatever. Can't argue with that Having no feats is preferable to have epic fighter feats, so all is well. If that's the case, it's just another piece of dragon magazine trash, which it already was. Equilibrium is maintained. :smallcool:

[Rubik]

Metaphorical lists are a thing. "The list of undead creatures in 3rd Edition is a mile long." There's no actual list of all the possible creatures that can become undead anywhere, so far as I know, but that doesn't invalidate the truth or validity of the statement whatsoever.

[Snowbluff]

That brick still doesn't fly. "Third party material," remember? You've just made up a list that isn't part of the rules.

"There's a list of things wizard do, and mine says I can make a sick rave party as a cantrip."

[Rubik]

That brick still doesn't fly. "Third party material," remember? You've just made up a list that isn't part of the rules.

"There's a list of things wizard do, and mine says I can make a sick rave party as a cantrip."A list is merely a sequence of like things, such as fighter feats. There's no "Third Party" about it.

[Snowbluff]

A list is merely a sequence of like things, such as fighter feats. There's no "Third Party" about it.

I still can't find a definition that fits what you have. I've check Webster's, Oxford, and even Dictionary.com. It says it have to be printed or written consecutively. There's no sequence that have Slashing Flurry and Weapon Focus in the rules.

[Rubik]

{Scrubbed}

[Bad Wolf]

How about a 'category' of fighter bonus feats?

[Snowbluff]

Hence my mention of metaphorical lists, which are quite common in everyday parlance. Especially poignant since apparently there's no list of fighter feats whatsoever.

So thank you for making monks suck even more with this stupidity, Snowbluff. I hope you're proud of yourself. :smallannoyed:
"Hey guys, monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes."
"Hm... sounds about right."
"Hey guys, Snowbluff says that Martial Monk doesn't work the way we've been using it!"
"OUTRAGE! He is surely a villain! Out paradigm is the only one that counts, even if we have to misuse words to prove him wrong! Make sure to insult him and pretend he hasn't been thoroughly issuing rebuttals to our arguments. Logical thought is stupidly as long as he is typing it! Repay his barely contained belligerence with rude behavior!"

Really feeling the love integrity, guys. :smallsigh:


How about a 'category' of fighter bonus feats?
That's pretty much what is it. If the wording was just a little bit different, it would have totally worked.

[jiriku]

Honestly, Snowbluff, I think you're probably getting a lot of argument simply because your writing makes it easy for one to interpret your attitude as arrogant, dismissive, condescending and insulting. Changing your writing style would probably be a wonderfully efficient means for you to change the reactions that you get. I'm sure you're the sort of person who appreciates efficiency.

Now, if I understand this correctly, Snowbluff is suggesting that the feat monk, which gets feats from the list of fighter bonus feats, gets no such feats because Snowbluff is not aware of any list of fighter bonus feats in an authorized source. Further, if one were to make a list of fighter bonus feats (i.e. a list of every feat that is a fighter bonus feat), Snowbluff would refuse to use this list, because Snowbluff doesn't want to use such a list. Snowbluff's argument is thus "I am the DM and I say so".

I'm actually inclined to support this. "Because I'm the DM and I said so" is a perfectly valid reason for the DM to admit or deny any option. There need not even be some slender logical precipice for interpreting the rules in the DM's favor, as there is here. Of course, "because I'm the DM and I said so" is also a valid reason for a player to get up and walk away from a campaign. I admit, if I was the monk player, I'd walk at this point. A good DM says "yes, and" to reasonable requests, and one who's difficult once is often difficult more than once. But it's still an honest and defensible position for a DM to occupy.

[Bad Wolf]

"Hey guys, monks are not proficient with unarmed strikes."
"Hm... sounds about right."
"Hey guys, Snowbluff says that Martial Monk doesn't work the way we've been using it!"
"OUTRAGE! He is surely a villain! Out paradigm is the only one that counts, even if we have to misuse words to prove him wrong! Make sure to insult him and pretend he hasn't been thoroughly issuing rebuttals to our arguments. Logical thought is stupidly as long as he is typing it! Repay his barely contained belligerence with rude behavior!"

Really feeling the love integrity, guys. :smallsigh:


That's pretty much what is it. If the wording was just a little bit different, it would have totally worked.

I think people just found you a bit stubborn, that's all.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Okay, let's put this to bed once and for all, citing all relevant sources.

First off, the class ability itself that states that the monk can get a feat from the fighter bonus list.

So we need to define the fighter bonus list. So let us refer to the Fighter class to determine what this list might be.


At 1st level, a fighter gets a bonus combat-oriented feat in addition to the feat that any 1st-level character gets and the bonus feat granted to a human character. The fighter gains an additional bonus feat at 2nd level and every two fighter levels thereafter (4th, 6th, 8th, 10th, 12th, 14th, 16th, 18th, and 20th). These bonus feats must be drawn from the feats noted as fighter bonus feats. A fighter must still meet all prerequisites for a bonus feat, including ability score and base attack bonus minimums.

This links to a list, to which Snowbluff is likely referring to, found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#fighterBonusFeats).

So there is, in fact, a comprehensive fighter bonus feat list.

HOWEVER

It says IN THE LIST:


Any feat designated as a fighter feat can be selected as a fighter’s bonus feat.

Therefore, the fighter bonus list may be appended to by designating it a fighter feat.

Now let us refer to the feat Martial Study in ToB page 31-32. It explicitly states:

SPECIAL: A Fighter can select can select Martial Study as a bonus feat.

Therefore, let us recap:

The fighter bonus feat list = 'any feat designated as a fighter feat'.
Martial Study is designated as a Fighter feat
THEREFORE
Martial Study is considered to be on 'the list'.
THEREFORE
It can be taken by the class ability mentioned.

Sorry, Snowbluff. You are incorrect.

[Snowbluff]

Honestly, Snowbluff, I think you're probably getting a lot of argument simply because your writing makes it easy for one to interpret your attitude as arrogant, dismissive, condescending and insulting. Changing your writing style would probably be a wonderfully efficient means for you to change the reactions that you get. I'm sure you're the sort of person who appreciates efficiency.

{Scrubbed}

There's only 1 list, and it's in the SRD. Other people says it's not the list and that there is no list it's referring, and I admit it's a large leap. Conversely, if people use it differently, whatever. Just don't tell me it's how it works RAW and do not tell me I'm the one making monk bad. It sucked by itself, thank you very much.

For example, the above argument could be dissolved with a Venn diagram. All feats that are fighter bonus feats are tagged as such. All feats in that list of fighter bonus feats are fighter bonus feats. Not all feats that are fighter bonus feats are printed in the list. You've made a leap there.

[jiriku]

I would absolutely love to tell my DM that I'm abandoning my Power playing ways to play a monk along side a fully optimized party, then take out a dragon in 1-2 hits)
Race: Dragonborn lolth-touched mongrelfolk (+12 con, +6 str, -4 ch, dex -2, LA+1)
ch 4
Class: monk 6/ Psychic fighter 2/ Shiba protector 1/ unarmed sword sage 2/ fist of the forest 3/ Paladin 1
Thoughts?? Ideas??

Bob, if you are hoping to convince the DM that you've abandoned powergaming, a dragonborn lolth-touched mongrelfolk with six classes is not the way to do it.

My suggestion for your build concerns your Charisma of 4. There is a huge hole in your defenses, and that hole is called CHARISMA DAMAGE. Now, as a monk you've got great touch AC, which is a solid defense, but even something like a ghost with a 1d4 Charisma drain has a 25% chance of dropping you in one hit. A monster with a 1d6 Charisma drain will drop you in one hit 50% of the time. This is a terrible, terrible vulnerability for a high-level character, because optimized enemies can summon the exact thing that you're vulnerable to if they get even a whiff of your vulnerability. And when the DM gets eyes on your character sheet, that vulnerability is going to pop up like a neon sign.

Also, how's your UMD check? If you can't trigger your wands reliably, your buffing routine may suffer. UMD isn't a class skill for most of your classes, that -3 Charisma modifier can't be helping, and I didn't see any +UMD items in your item list. Make sure to grab some item to buff your UMD so you can hit the wand DC reliably. Even if there's someone in your party who can use the wands for you right now, that PC might be killed or retired later and replaced with one who can't use the wands for you, so it's best to be able to manage your own wands.

[Snowbluff]

That's a good point. You should at least devote some money into a Soulfire item and maybe reassign some kill points, if you can.

[jiriku]

I'm a prick. It says so in the rant. I apologize, but I honestly don't have the patience to hold back when I'm being insulted by such fragile arguments today. Personally, I find it cathartic.

I used to take that approach myself, a few years ago. It got me a mod flag for flaming/trolling. I hope you have better luck with it than I did. :smallbiggrin:


For example, the above argument could be dissolved with a Venn diagram. All feats that are fighter bonus feats are tagged as such. All feats in that list of fighter bonus feats are fighter bonus feats. Not all feats that are fighter bonus feats are printed in the list.

Your argument is valid, and logically coherent. Your explicit premises are correct. But what about your implicit premise? You're assuming several things:

(a) the designers understood "list" to be an important functional part of the sentence.
(b) the designers meant "in a printed list" to be the criterion of judgment, rather than "possessing the Fighter Bonus Feat identifier"

I'd argue that, since the rules contain many instances of careless phrasing, and none of the designers show any evidence of having been formally trained in logic, that the RAW should not be interpreted from the perspective of strict, formal logic. I think it's quite likely, in fact, that the author accidently wrote the sentence to strictly require membership in a written list when his intent was that it should strictly require membership in a class -- the class of fighter bonus feats. Now, the trick to interpreting author intent is that sometimes we can't do it. But I think there's enough room for ambigious interpretation here that any statements should be made cautiously.

[Snowbluff]

I used to take that approach myself, a few years ago. It got me a mod flag for flaming/trolling. I hope you have better luck with it than I did. :smallbiggrin: I occasionally get flagged, but thankfully my grumpy days are far enough between nothing permanent has happened. Honestly I do feel much friendlier now that today's madness has ended. :smallcool:




Your argument is valid, and logically coherent. Your explicit premises are correct. But what about your implicit premise? You're assuming several things:

(a) the designers understood "list" to be an important functional part of the sentence.
(b) the designers meant "in a printed list" to be the criterion of judgment, rather than "possessing the Fighter Bonus Feat identifier"


Assuming what the writers know what they are doing is a HUGE leap. I concur. I wouldn't consider anything other than explicit stuff RAW, but if I was working at a table I'd make a more generous compromise for a less ridiculous player.

[Rubik]

{Scrubbed}

[jiriku]

Assuming what the writers know what they are doing is a HUGE leap. I concur. I wouldn't consider anything other than explicit stuff RAW, but if I was working at a table I'd make a more generous compromise for a less ridiculous player.

I have to admit, if one of my powergamer players showed up with a non-PHB race, two templates, and six classes on his character sheet, my munchkin-siren would be blaring RED ALERT with enough decibels to make my ears bleed. :smallbiggrin:

[EisenKreutzer]

For example, the above argument could be dissolved with a Venn diagram. All feats that are fighter bonus feats are tagged as such. All feats in that list of fighter bonus feats are fighter bonus feats. Not all feats that are fighter bonus feats are printed in the list. You've made a leap there.

Umm.. This seems counter to the spirit in which the rules were made. Shouldn't you atleast consider RAI before making such a harsh judgement call?

[Phelix-Mu]

Assuming what the writers know what they are doing is a HUGE leap. I concur. I wouldn't consider anything other than explicit stuff RAW, but if I was working at a table I'd make a more generous compromise for a less ridiculous player.

For the record, I believe that Rubik's build was for Tippy's eponymous trial a while back, and thus he had rulings from Tippy on what worked and what didn't. To that extent, it wasn't a purely TO exercise, since they had a referee to rule on how RAW was to be interpreted in the instance of the trial (as opposed to what the RAW itself says in a vacuum).

There is always a degree to which RAW parsing is functional, and then a point at which it breaks down. Usually, the community here (and elsewhere), working with years and years of practical experience, experimental tinkering, and fine-tooth-combing the ruleset, can put to shame the amount of integrity and consistency inherent in the ruleset. Seeing as the issue under debate (the Martial Monk) comes from a notoriously inconsistent, oft-less-than-expertly written, and often ignored source (as much as I like some of Dragon, this is a pretty basic fact), I hardly find it surprising that it was not well-executed in the minutiae and that we can find inconsistent wording.

Unfortunately, both parties here are rather unsatisfying. If it's a choice between "this variant is functionally useless" and "Weapon Supremacy at level 1," I'll gladly come up with something more in the middle on my own, and ignore the general debate here (except in a purely vicarious, rules TO kind of way where this all makes a very interesting read). Personally, there is plenty to do with monk aside from Martial Monk, and an actual table could come up with a more reasonable version of the variant, as Snowbluff suggests.

[1pwny]

Here guys, let me try to explain what I think Snowbluff is trying to say. Martial Monk said that you can take things off the Fighter Bonus Feat List because its creators looked at the list from PHB, said "Okay, no glaring abuses here!" (don't even start wiht a lecture about how you can already abuse the system anyway), and then wrote the ACF.

Its not that Snowbluff is trying to be super-dee-dooper RAW, he/she's just trying to think how the designers did.

And contrary to popular belief, the designers were not idiots. If they wanted someone to be able to take any Fighter Bonus Feat, they would have said that the Marital Monk can take any feat with the [Fighter Bonus Feat] tag.

I'm not saying that if I were DMing I wouldn't allow the monk to take the feats. I would probably allow it. I'm just trying to show you guys what I think Snowbluff is saying.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, Snowbluff. :smallsmile:

[The Glyphstone]

Great Modthulhu: Closed for Review.