The Monk and the 5 styles of Animal Kung Fu.

[Masakan]

So There's a Common Consensuses that Monks Suck, and let's be honest if you look at the core class it's a complete and total mess.....but what if I were to argue that maybe..just maybe it was intentional? Or at least made all the splats end up making it so. Monk has all these class features but you can only focus on probably 1 or 2, this emulates very well with the 5 Styles of Animal Kung Fu. Tiger, Panther, Crane, Snake and Dragon. There are multiple Sub Styles but these are the Main 5.

Tiger:The Simplest and arguable the most powerful, the Tiger Style is all about overwhelming Force, Crushing your enemies with as much power as Humanly Possible as fast as possible. Top of the Food Chain pretty much Ideal for anyone with a Type A personality. You Prove your the Better man and charge on in and you don't stop until either Your dead or the other guy Is.
As such a Tiger Style Monk would focus heavily on strength, along with anything that can augment it and can arguably survive off just Strength and Constitution while dumping everything else, Would probably take things like power attack, Leap attack and perhaps a dip in Lion Totem Barbarian for Pounce so the Overwhelming attack Variant will give some leverage, and while not recommended if you can find a way to get Two Weapon Fighting and Prestige into Bloodclaw master....well let's just say your Flurry of Blows Will Love you for it as This would be the entire Focus of the build Outputting Enough damage to give even Barbarians a run for their money. I can see the damage numbers already.

Panther: The Style of the thinking man, While the tiger Focuses on crushing force, the Panther is a creature of Intellect, Cunning and tactics. It never does anything without a plan and certainly doesn't do it without knowing who they are dealing with.
You would need average stats a little strength, some con maybe a bit of dex, but you want to pump the hell out of intelligence thus this build WILL NOT WORK, without Kungfu Genius so don't even try. Get Knowledge devotion asap, and possibly a 3 level dip in Swashbuckler for insightful strike, or a couple of levels in warblade for the effects that scale off Int. You could even consider going wizard and going into enlightened fist, Whatever you do remember Think before you act is the credo of the Panther Style, Oh and always plan ahead, Unlike the tiger you are not in it until the end, Be willing to fight but always have a way out in case things don't go as planned.

Crane: Peace, Balance, Harmony and Love. These are the traits that Define the crane style Taking a stance of Self Defense and even then is non lethal. This style focuses on taking a Bigger opponents weight and momentum and using it against them, this makes this style particularly popular with female practitioners as it makes the notion that men are naturally stronger than women completely pointless. The Crane is the Embodiment of Wisdom and fittingly so, This style would focus more on defensive and evasive Maneuvers Adopting to the monks Natural Wisdom affinity and taking the most advantage of it, This would also mean that You would focus heavily on the stunning fist aspect that the monk has to offer, because of this you can also opt to dip into levels of Either Cleric, Paladin(for some weird reason) or Psychic Warrior,You would also want to dip a couple of levels into Swordsage for setting sun abilities, And depending on your choice Either Sacred of Psionic Fist. Standard Monk Variant is perfect for this.
Regardless of whichever you take You are getting intuitive attack, it's pretty much paramount After that I would recommend Setting Sun attack so stunning fist will work with many of your maneuvers and get freezing the lifeblood ASAP, and while many will disagree with me, I would consider swapping out Flurry of Blows for Decisive Strike as it not Increased your Stun DC by 2 when you use it to use a stunning fist only does Double Damage, I would only suggest this if you plan to go cleric and get Travel Devotion or Psychic Warrior and get Hustle, Paladin don't even bother.(Oh By the way since your unarmed strikes are considered natural attacks, Raising their size will increase your damage output tremendously, This counts for all of them but I just wanted to clarify, Here's a link for some helpful tips on how to do that http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?127732-3-X-Increasing-Size-Effective-Size-Unarmed-Damage-Reach&p=7081777#post7081777). Since the goal of this is Nonviolence or at the very least non lethal, find some ways to use that to your advantage, such as the Vow of Nonviolence massively useful, but only if your willing to make the commitment, and some of your party members might not like you making it harder to kill things.

Snake:This one is actually more straight forward than most, Focusing on stealth precision and and waiting for that one perfect moment. This one focuses more on Dex than the others And you would also want to get a couple of Rouge Levels to offset this as well as a few levels in Swordsage yet again, So things Like Weapon Finesse, Shadowblade, Darkstalker, Craven and any sort of stealth abilities will be welcome here. You most likely DO NOT want a head on fight, you would never win, fundamentally the snake monk is a cowardly monk, and will never engage in a fight where he does not have the advantage, be it through deception or stealth or dirty fighting or something in between, the Snake monk is one who makes sure he will win before the fight begins. Truth be told it would probably be easier to just go Straight rouge, but Shadow Sun Ninja is a thing, then again so is unarmed swordsage. Sadly a Dex based Monk, Is the only one I honestly can not justify, However since sleeping tiger ironically enough helps this out it's worth considering

Dragon:The culmination of all 4 Styles and the reason people think Monk is so bad. Effectively Everyone is trying to be a dragon monk and don't even realize it, every time I hear the same thing "Monk Suck because he more MAD than anyone in the game, His skill list is a giant mess" Not really, the way I see it is that starting of Monk has multiple paths he can choose from, you just gotta know what you want and stick with it. You can't do everything and trying to do so is only gonna cause you headaches. But Yes to get everything in the monks kit to work, you need High Str, Dex, and Wis at the absolute LEAST(Ignoring Con because everyone needs con) It's much easier to find out which to focus on in your build and sticking to it, Tiger Monks with Flurry of Blows, Crane Monks with Stunning Fist, and Snake monks with sneaking and assassination, it makes things a lot easier, makes you much more useful and leaves you feeling accomplished.

Moral of the story: Don't be a Dragon

Disclaimer:Anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt, I'm quite sure there are a few things I overlooked and need to be corrected on, in no way,shape or form do i consider any of my thoughts to be absolute. I'm more than happy to take constructive feedback, provided it isn't written up with the sole purpose of trying to one up me, or just be a ****. You can disagree with me if you wish that is fine, but if you cannot be respectful and understand that these are simply my thoughts and are in no feasible way facts, I humbly ask that you simply not reply at all.

[AvatarVecna]

The biggest problem the monk faces isn't that it sucks compared to other non-casters (which it does, generally speaking; Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues can all DPR better, Rangers and Rogues get better skills, Barbarians and Fighters have better multiclass/PrC synergy with other things, Rogue gets UMD, etc.), but that it sucks compared to casters. A Monk 20 focused on maxing out Jump, using every Monk ACF available to them, can get 23 ranks, +2 synergy from Tumble, let's say +15 from Agile Athlete (use Dex instead of Str), with a +30 competence bonus from an item (a 90000 gp investment), and even an item familiar for another 23 pseudo-ranks; give them the Skill Focus: Jump, Athlete, and Run feats, and that's another +9; finally, their extra monk speed gives them another +24. All told, adding absolutely everything up, this Jump-focused Monk has a +96 Jump check, which gives them a minimum Jump check of 97. That's a high Jump of 24 ft.

Sound impressive? Ignoring that super-powerful monks in popular media are capable of leaping hundreds of feet into the air, and fighting on the way down...ignoring that in some incarnations, a different breed of monk is capable of flying and hovering through sheer force of willpower...that high jump of 24 feet (32 with reach)? A Wizard 1 can get up that high with a Spider Climb spell. A Wizard 5 can get that high by casting Fly...higher, even.

You can sink absolutely every resource you've got into optimizing your Monk's damage, but a sorcerer half-assing a Mailman build leaves you in the dust. You can sink absolutely everything you have into going even faster, and a Teleport spell's got you beat. You can push yourself to the upper limits of PO, and your Jump check will never carry you higher than Fly spell could fly.

Baseline Monk has to optimize heavily to compete with the Fighter and the Barbarian; baseline Monk has to go borderline PO to put out Ubercharger damage numbers, and will still overall be less effective in and out of combat than a rogue with the right skills (even without taking UMD into account).

[Masakan]

The biggest problem the monk faces isn't that it sucks compared to other non-casters (which it does, generally speaking; Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues can all DPR better, Rangers and Rogues get better skills, Barbarians and Fighters have better multiclass/PrC synergy with other things, Rogue gets UMD, etc.), but that it sucks compared to casters. A Monk 20 focused on maxing out Jump, using every Monk ACF available to them, can get 23 ranks, +2 synergy from Tumble, let's say +15 from Agile Athlete (use Dex instead of Str), with a +30 competence bonus from an item (a 90000 gp investment), and even an item familiar for another 23 pseudo-ranks; give them the Skill Focus: Jump, Athlete, and Run feats, and that's another +9; finally, their extra monk speed gives them another +24. All told, adding absolutely everything up, this Jump-focused Monk has a +96 Jump check, which gives them a minimum Jump check of 97. That's a high Jump of 24 ft.

Sound impressive? Ignoring that super-powerful monks in popular media are capable of leaping hundreds of feet into the air, and fighting on the way down...ignoring that in some incarnations, a different breed of monk is capable of flying and hovering through sheer force of willpower...that high jump of 24 feet (32 with reach)? A Wizard 1 can get up that high with a Spider Climb spell. A Wizard 5 can get that high by casting Fly...higher, even.

You can sink absolutely every resource you've got into optimizing your Monk's damage, but a sorcerer half-assing a Mailman build leaves you in the dust. You can sink absolutely everything you have into going even faster, and a Teleport spell's got you beat. You can push yourself to the upper limits of PO, and your Jump check will never carry you higher than Fly spell could fly.

Baseline Monk has to optimize heavily to compete with the Fighter and the Barbarian; baseline Monk has to go borderline PO to put out Ubercharger damage numbers, and will still overall be less effective in and out of combat than a rogue with the right skills (even without taking UMD into account).

I would rather this not devolved into another "Casters are better than everyone thread" If you can avoid doing so that would be great. If you have to bring up Casting classes to point out why they still suck it renders your entire argument moot. So before you try to debate you point try doing so without thinking "Hmm, How can i make the second coming of Pun-Pun?" This isn't about being better, it's about being competent.

[OldTrees1]

@Masakan

I notice your descriptions of the schools rarely mention anything from the Monk class that another single martial class does not also get (Fighter has a similar problem but at least it gets more of the shared thing than its competition).

Take Panther for an example. You mention Kung fu Genius and then a bunch of Int to X dips. The monk part of that description is replicated by Factotum. So we can compare the contributions of the 2 classes to the Panther fighting style as a way of comparing the strength of Monk relative to the Martial alternatives. Factotum gets the same BAB, better skills, and more Int synergy including some of the non monk stuff you listed before taking an equal number of dips.

So yes there are several things one can do with Monk(you listed 5) but in even a Martial:Martial comparison in the same fighting style WotC failed the Monk class.

Now you mentioned in your second post that this is not about being better/worse but about being competent. However I hope that you agree that a Martial:Martial comparison is a fairly good metric for what WotC used as a metric for determining the power of CRs (since obviously they did not use a Caster:Caster comparison or a Caster:Martial comparison).

PS:
You should work on your rebukes. Your comment to AvatarVecna was phrased in an insulting manner that would provoke them repeating their point rather than listening to your request.

[Masakan]

@Masakan

I notice your descriptions of the schools rarely mention anything from the Monk class that another single martial class does not also get (Fighter has a similar problem but at least it gets more of the shared thing than its competition).

Take Panther for an example. You mention Kung fu Genius and then a bunch of Int to X dips. The monk part of that description is replicated by Factotum. So we can compare the contributions of the 2 classes to the Panther fighting style as a way of comparing the strength of Monk relative to the Martial alternatives. Factotum gets the same BAB, better skills, and more Int synergy including some of the non monk stuff you listed before taking an equal number of dips.

So yes there are several things one can do with Monk(you listed 5) but in even a Martial:Martial comparison in the same fighting style WotC failed the Monk class.


PS:
You should work on your rebukes. Your comment to AvatarVecna was phrased in an insulting manner that would provoke them repeating their point rather than listening to your request.

Factorums are confusing, and I fail to see how bringing up casters serves any proactive purpose other than being like "This class is better so your wrong! HAHA!" Ok we get it, casters are better than mundanes....soooo what was the point of bringing that up when it's already a well established fact?



Now you mentioned in your second post that this is not about being better/worse but about being competent. However I hope that you agree that a Martial:Martial comparison is a fairly good metric for what WotC used as a metric for determining the power of CRs (since obviously they did not use a Caster:Caster comparison or a Caster:Martial comparison).


Assume I'm talking in multiclassing terms, and I think Monk makes a good base class for a pure mundane up to level 6 with some dips here and there to augment it.

[AvatarVecna]

I would rather this not devolved into another "Casters are better than everyone thread" If you can avoid doing so that would be great. If you have to bring up Casting classes to point out why they still suck it renders your entire argument moot. So before you try to debate you point try doing so without thinking "Hmm, How can i make the second coming of Pun-Pun?" This isn't about being better, it's about being competent.

You put forth the idea that the Monk sucks because people try to be the Dragon, when the rules don't support being the dragon; you suggested that a Monk could be competent if they focused on some particular style. I pointed out that a Monk devoting their entire build to a single particular thing (not even a single particular style) could still be outdone by a caster (EDIT: and a much lower level caster at that). And since casters are part of the game system, I don't see how pointing out how they're better invalidates my argument: however you may feel about them, they're a part of the game, same as the Monk is.

Monk are generally speaking high T5, but they can break into T4 (or even low T3) with some good ACFs, book diving, some dipping, and the right PrC; if you go the gish route, a "monk" build can even become T2 or low T1...but it's not because it's a monk.

A T3 Monk (the one that dips a bunch of stuff and takes a bunch of ACFs, like some of the builds you suggested) is a reasonably competent character compared to other non-casters; if that was what you were asserting, then I agree; a Monk, likea handful of other non-casters, can reach high T4/low T3 and perform reasonably well in an average game (other such classes include the Rogue cheating with UMD, the Ranger who can count on fighting his favored enemy, a Dungeoncrasher Ubercharger Barbarian/Fighter, a number of builds focused on using ToB content, etc). But this does not let the Monk play on the same power level as casters. If you had been arguing that this approach made the monk competent compared to other non-casters, I wouldn't have brought up casters, but you made no such point. You said this approach made Monks competent...and it does not. It makes the Monk highly competent on the non-caster scale, but not on the caster scale.

I think Monks...indeed, all classes, should be playing on the same scale; maybe not necessarily the scale casters are currently on, but maybe a bit lower. You're saying the rules don't support playing a Dragon Monk; I'm saying the rules should support playing a Dragon Monk that can hold its own against casters.

[OldTrees1]

Factorums are confusing, and I fail to see how bringing up casters serves any proactive purpose other than being like "This class is better so your wrong! HAHA!" Ok we get it, casters are better than mundanes....soooo what was the point of bringing that up when it's already a well established fact?

I did not mention any casters. Factotum are an Int to X Noncaster as far as I, or my example, are concerned.

[Masakan]

I did not mention any casters. Factotum are an Int to X Noncaster as far as I, or my example, are concerned.

I was talking about the other guy.


You put forth the idea that the Monk sucks because people try to be the Dragon, when the rules don't support being the dragon; you suggested that a Monk could be competent if they focused on some particular style. I pointed out that a Monk devoting their entire build to a single particular thing (not even a single particular style) could still be outdone by a caster (EDIT: and a much lower level caster at that). And since casters are part of the game system, I don't see how pointing out how they're better invalidates my argument: however you may feel about them, they're a part of the game, same as the Monk is.

Monk are generally speaking high T5, but they can break into T4 (or even low T3) with some good ACFs, book diving, some dipping, and the right PrC; if you go the gish route, a "monk" build can even become T2 or low T1...but it's not because it's a monk.

A T3 Monk (the one that dips a bunch of stuff and takes a bunch of ACFs, like some of the builds you suggested) is a reasonably competent character compared to other non-casters; if that was what you were asserting, then I agree; a Monk, likea handful of other non-casters, can reach high T4/low T3 and perform reasonably well in an average game (other such classes include the Rogue cheating with UMD, the Ranger who can count on fighting his favored enemy, a Dungeoncrasher Ubercharger Barbarian/Fighter, a number of builds focused on using ToB content, etc). But this does not let the Monk play on the same power level as casters. If you had been arguing that this approach made the monk competent compared to other non-casters, I wouldn't have brought up casters, but you made no such point. You said this approach made Monks competent...and it does not. It makes the Monk highly competent on the non-caster scale, but not on the caster scale.

I think Monks...indeed, all classes, should be playing on the same scale; maybe not necessarily the scale casters are currently on, but maybe a bit lower. You're saying the rules don't support playing a Dragon Monk; I'm saying the rules should support playing a Dragon Monk that can hold its own against casters.

Ok Fine, but for the sake of argument can we just compare monk to other mundanes and leave casters out of it? I fail to see the point in arguing for something that cannot be changed without massive homeruleing.

[OldTrees1]

I was talking about the other guy

Ah, while you do have a point, your tone is too aggressive and insulting for the person you are talking to to listen.



But back to my point:
Tiger: Fighter
Panther: Factotum
Crane: Swordsage
Snake: Rogue
Dragon: Multiclass

This is why I claim WotC failed Monk. These 4 martial classes each outdo Monk in that particular style, usually even copying the Monk's relevant abilities in addition to having more abilities.

[Masakan]

Ah, while you do have a point, your tone is too aggressive and insulting for the person you are talking to to listen.



But back to my point:
Tiger: Fighter(Should be considered a T6 Class imo)
Panther: Factotum(Have no idea how that works)
Crane: Swordsage(Still need to find a way to get stunning fist)
Snake: Rogue(I already admitted this would be difficult to justify realistically)
Dragon: Multiclass(Moot Point)

I wish people would read more thoroughly...

[eggynack]

Monks could have great ability scores and a bunch more skill points and they'd still be kinda mediocre. Monk optimization really relies on one or more of a few specific things, and none of those things is simple specialization. You really need, say, heavy ACF use, or unarmed strike optimization, or tashalatora if you're going to the extreme. Otherwise, the monk things you're getting, which you're apparently choosing only a select few out of to use seriously, aren't especially useful. MAD is only one out of a wide variety of monk problems.

[Troacctid]

I wish people would read more thoroughly...

You just need a TL;DR at the end. Like this:

TL;DR: The Monk class can actually encompass many different roles, and if you try to spread yourself between all of them at once, you will probably suck. Instead, you should focus on just one role so that you can suck at that exclusively.

[Masakan]

Monks could have great ability scores and a bunch more skill points and they'd still be kinda mediocre. Monk optimization really relies on one or more of a few specific things, and none of those things is simple specialization. You really need, say, heavy ACF use, or unarmed strike optimization, or tashalatora if you're going to the extreme. Otherwise, the monk things you're getting, which you're apparently choosing only a select few out of to use seriously, aren't especially useful. MAD is only one out of a wide variety of monk problems.

Are we talking straight monk or multiclass monk? Cause I don't see the benifit of going straight....anything really not even straight wizard, when compared to the multitude of prestige classes that can make base classes better.


You just need a TL;DR at the end. Like this:

TL;DR: The Monk class can actually encompass many different roles, and if you try to spread yourself between all of them at once, you will probably suck. Instead, you should focus on just one role so that you can suck at that exclusively.

There was really no need to add that last part.

[OldTrees1]

But back to my point:
Tiger: Fighter(Should be considered a T6 Class imo)
Panther: Factotum(Have no idea how that works)
Crane: Swordsage(Still need to find a way to get stunning fist)
Snake: Rogue(I already admitted this would be difficult to justify realistically)
Dragon: Multiclass(Moot Point)
I wish people would read more thoroughly...

1) You don't give Fighter the credit it deserves, especially while including dips in other classes in each of your examples. You mention Flurry and Overwhelming Attack. Fighter gets 2 Flurry Fighter only feat options (-3 and -6 penalties for +1 and +2 attacks with any weapon) and have their own Overwhelming Attack option from the same book as Monks do.
2) You don't know how Factotum works, but I do. The summary is +Int to attack/skills/AC/saves while still having the same BAB as monk.
3) Stunning Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stunningFist)

I do read carefully unlike the typical giantitp ilk, so please point out what you think I missed when I miss something(while also considering that I might not have missed it).

[AvatarVecna]

Ok Fine, but for the sake of argument can we just compare monk to other mundanes and leave casters out of it? I fail to see the point in arguing for something that cannot be changed without massive homeruleing.

Fair enough. Let's address a different issue then: both the mechanics and the fluff of the Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader are better fleshed out and lend themselves better to pulling off these styles than the Monk does. The nine disciplines presented in Tome Of Battle each have a handful of weapons related to them, as well as a mentality their wielders tend to get into when fighting; combined with the three separate, very different base classes offered, and the prestige classes offered allow for an even greater focus on a particular style, allowing a good mix of stylistic flexibility as well as rigid focus. Here's the most obvious example I can think of: the animal style that has a literal translation in the book.

Tiger:Dwarf Swordsage 5/Bloodclaw Master 5/Swordsage +10. Attribute focus is in this order: Str>Wis>Con>Dex>Int>Cha; focus on powerful attacks, leaping pounces, and Tiger's Claw maneuvers, and you should be golden.

I'm sure if other people wish to continue this line of thought, they will.

Monks can be quite capable...but it takes a lot of work, and the build ends up looking like a mess. The above build is simple; you could even just make it Swordsage 20 and it would be alright. Both would be perfectly functional, but one would require only a single source book, while the other would need a pile (or the Site That Shall Not Be Named).

Even without resorting to the Tome of {scrubbed} the Tiger can be better emulated by a refluffed Fighter/Barbarian/Bear Tiger Warrior with a focus on Str and Con. It would be a standard Ubercharger kind of build, but as long as it used bear tiger fists instead of weapons, it could be considered an unarmed combat specialist.

[Masakan]

1) You don't give Fighter the credit it deserves, especially while including dips in other classes in each of your examples. You mention Flurry and Overwhelming Attack. Fighter gets 2 Flurry Fighter only feat options (-3 and -6 penalties for +1 and +2 attacks with any weapon) and have their own Overwhelming Attack option from the same book as Monks do.
2) You don't know how Factotum works, but I do. The summary is +Int to attack/skills/AC/saves while still having the same BAB as monk.
3) Stunning Fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#stunningFist)

I do read carefully unlike the typically giantitp ilk, so please point out what you think I missed when I miss something(while also considering that I might not have missed it).

Oh well done well done, and you only had to wait until level 12 to get it if your going straight swordsage.
Dipping into monk is the only feasible way to get it while being useful, by the time you get to level 12 it becomes completely pointless to even waste your time on.
My god I didn't think that monk was so bad people don't think it's worth even a 2 level dip.


Fair enough. Let's address a different issue then: both the mechanics and the fluff of the Swordsage, Warblade, and Crusader are better fleshed out and lend themselves better to pulling off these styles than the Monk does. The nine disciplines presented in Tome Of Battle each have a handful of weapons related to them, as well as a mentality their wielders tend to get into when fighting; combined with the three separate, very different base classes offered, and the prestige classes offered allow for an even greater focus on a particular style, allowing a good mix of stylistic flexibility as well as rigid focus. Here's the most obvious example I can think of: the animal style that has a literal translation in the book.

Tiger:Dwarf Swordsage 5/Bloodclaw Master 5/Swordsage +10. Attribute focus is in this order: Str>Wis>Con>Dex>Int>Cha; focus on powerful attacks, leaping pounces, and Tiger's Claw maneuvers, and you should be golden.

I'm sure if other people wish to continue this line of thought, they will.

Monks can be quite capable...but it takes a lot of work, and the build ends up looking like a mess. The above build is simple; you could even just make it Swordsage 20 and it would be alright. Both would be perfectly functional, but one would require only a single source book, while the other would need a pile (or the Site That Shall Not Be Named).

Even without resorting to the Tome of {Scrub the post, scrub the quote}(I almost walked right into that one.) the Tiger can be better emulated by a refluffed Fighter/Barbarian/Bear Tiger Warrior with a focus on Str and Con. It would be a standard Ubercharger kind of build, but as long as it used bear tiger fists instead of weapons, it could be considered an unarmed combat specialist.

The Tome of Battle Classes are more fleshed out than pretty much every other mundane class in the game, So that's irrelevant. And really though Refluffing everything just because it gives you an excuse to be stupid is rather irritating. That's like those who take a single level in fighter, take 19 levels in wizard and have the audacity to call themselves a red mage.

[eggynack]

Are we talking straight monk or multiclass monk? Cause I don't see the benifit of going straight....anything really not even straight wizard, when compared to the multitude of prestige classes that can make base classes better.
If you're just dipping, then there's not that much of an issue with the monk in the first place, and the argument is kinda irrelevant. Who cares what problems exist for the class as a whole when you're just going for a couple of feats, some save bonuses, an AC boost, and maybe some unarmed strike capability. It's just fine for two levels, so anyone talking about monk suckitude is inevitably talking about a straight monk. As for the claim that you don't get anything by not multiclassing, I cite the usual druid, a class that can certainly be improved through prestige classes, but that doesn't feature strict improvement through that method unless you're going planar shepherd.

[AvatarVecna]

Oh well done well done, and you only had to wait until level 12 to get it if your going straight swordsage.
Dipping into monk is the only feasible way to get it while being useful, by the time you get to level 12 it becomes completely pointless to even waste your time on.
My god I didn't think that monk was so bad people don't think it's worth even a 2 level dip.

Monk is a decent 2 level dip, but it's not because Stunning Fist is so blindingly, pants-****tingly awesome. Stunning Fist, even by a monk, can only be used a handful (heh) of times per day until the higher levels; the flip side of this is that, by the time Stunning has become a more dependable part of your offensive repetoire, monsters either have a high enough Fort save to make the save far more often than not, they're immune to stunning, or they're the kind of enemy that's not going to be fighting in melee.

[OldTrees1]

Oh well done well done, and you only had to wait until level 12 to get it if your going straight swordsage.
Dipping into monk is the only feasible way to get it while being useful, by the time you get to level 12 it becomes completely pointless to even waste your time on.
My god I didn't think that monk was so bad people don't think it's worth even a 2 level dip.

People don't think it is bad as a 2 level dip (Tippy typically uses Factotum 8 / Martial Monk 2 in various builds). But that is not what the language of your post seems to be arguing. The language of your post seems to be arguing that WotC did not fail monk (which implies that Monk is worthwhile for at least 10 levels and relevant for at least 20).

So 2 things to learn:
1) Your tone provokes people to argue against you rather than listen and discuss
2) Your language makes bigger claims that you wanted to defend

[Masakan]

People don't think it is bad as a 2 level dip (Tippy typically uses Factotum 8 / Martial Monk 2 in various builds). But that is not what the language of your post seems to be arguing. The language of your post seems to be arguing that WotC did not fail monk (which implies that Monk is worthwhile for at least 10 levels and relevant for at least 20).

So 2 things to learn:
1) Your tone provokes people to argue against you rather than listen and discuss
2) Your language makes bigger claims that you wanted to defend

NO! Not even close....even I can admit that after 6 levels monk starts to plummet fast.
This is why i made that disclaimer earlier.


If you're just dipping, then there's not that much of an issue with the monk in the first place, and the argument is kinda irrelevant. Who cares what problems exist for the class as a whole when you're just going for a couple of feats, some save bonuses, an AC boost, and maybe some unarmed strike capability. It's just fine for two levels, so anyone talking about monk suckitude is inevitably talking about a straight monk. As for the claim that you don't get anything by not multiclassing, I cite the usual druid, a class that can certainly be improved through prestige classes, but that doesn't feature strict improvement through that method unless you're going planar shepherd.

Druids are quite honestly the only exception to this, everyone else your better off prestiging as soon as you can.


Monk is a decent 2 level dip, but it's not because Stunning Fist is so blindingly, pants-****tingly awesome. Stunning Fist, even by a monk, can only be used a handful (heh) of times per day until the higher levels; the flip side of this is that, by the time Stunning has become a more dependable part of your offensive repetoire, monsters either have a high enough Fort save to make the save far more often than not, they're immune to stunning, or they're the kind of enemy that's not going to be fighting in melee.

Here's the thing though, Stunning Fist by itself is good but nothing spectacular....Freezing the lifeblood however is absolutely amazing.

[AvatarVecna]

Here's the thing though, Stunning Fist by itself is good but nothing spectacular....Freezing the lifeblood however is absolutely amazing.

FtL is decent, but it comes on fairly late (10th level at the earliest, and probably at 12th instead), and it runs into the same problems that Stunning Fist had: the monsters you face either aren't melee'ers (and can't be targeted with it), are immune (and it does nothing), or have ridiculous Fort saves (and it does nothing), and the overall usage limit is too low to be super-useful even at the highest levels. The 2-5 rounds of paralysis is definitely better than a single round of stunning, but it doesn't totally mitigate the other problems.

[EisenKreutzer]

In this thread: Masakan really likes the Monk, and gets confrontational when other people don't.

[OldTrees1]

NO! Not even close....even I can admit that after 6 levels monk starts to plummet fast.
This is why i made that disclaimer earlier.

Your disclaimer does not read like you intend and the tone of your reaction here is not productive.

Regardless of how you read what you wrote:
2 things to learn:
1) Your tone provokes people to argue against you rather than listen and discuss
2) Your language makes bigger claims that you wanted to defend

Please listen to this word of warning. I don't like watching this short story repeat over and over with different forum members each time.

[eggynack]

NO! Not even close....even I can admit that after 6 levels monk starts to plummet fast.
This is why i made that disclaimer earlier.
Then it sounds a lot like you're just standing behind the general opinion of monks. Which means that I'm just not entirely sure what the point is.


Druids are quite honestly the only exception to this, everyone else your better off prestiging as soon as you can.
Well, the degree to which a build holds to its main class varies. Yes, wizards inevitably prestige out, but your main progression is still intimately connected to wizard. You're just kinda trading out the least wizardy aspect of the wizard to make the most wizardy aspect of a wizard better. By contrast, a monk often abandons everything outside of some specific abilities, not even progressing anything monk related after that point. Considering it in the reverse way, it's really rare that monk is the main class to which your build would hold in the first place. Its place is in augmenting the power of other classes. Monk, in that sense, is more like the prestige class in that wizard/prestige class setup.

[Masakan]

FtL is decent, but it comes on fairly late (10th level at the earliest, and probably at 12th instead), and it runs into the same problems that Stunning Fist had: the monsters you face either aren't melee'ers (and can't be targeted with it), are immune (and it does nothing), or have ridiculous Fort saves (and it does nothing), and the overall usage limit is too low to be super-useful even at the highest levels. The 2-5 rounds of paralysis is definitely better than a single round of stunning, but it doesn't totally mitigate the other problems.
There's a reason I said to pump Wisdom as high as you can for Crane, Let's see assuming we are level 10, 20 or so Wisdom, Decisive strike ACF, Falling Sun attack and A set of Ki Straps....You would have to be a sturdy SoB to beat a DC of 28. 32 if you managed to stick with Vow of Non violence.


In this thread: Masakan really likes the Monk, and gets confrontational when other people don't.
And you add nothing to the conversation, I guess we're both in the wrong huh?


Then it sounds a lot like you're just standing behind the general opinion of monks. Which means that I'm just not entirely sure what the point is.

I think in your case you need to pay more attention to what I DON'T say rather than what i do. If i don't specifically say something chances are that's not what im saying, I say what I mean, what you see is what you get. I never once said that I think monks were done right by WotC. If I fail to clarify something or there is something that you don't quite understand, Please ask me and I will try to clear things up best I can.

[AvatarVecna]

In this thread: Masakan really likes the Monk, and gets confrontational when other people don't.

Hey now, don't be like that. I like the monk as a concept, and I love building unarmed combatants. My problem is that, upon learning the basics of optimization, the biggest disappointment was how terrible the monk was comparatively, and a close second was how much better it could've been.

[Masakan]

Hey now, don't be like that. I like the monk as a concept, and I love building unarmed combatants. My problem is that, upon learning the basics of optimization, the biggest disappointment was how terrible the monk was comparatively, and a close second was how much better it could've been.

Just ignore him, he's only here to cause trouble.

[EisenKreutzer]

I was simply trying to point out an issue with Masakans confrontational tone in this thread. I suppose my error was attempting to use humour to do so. Mea culpa.

[Masakan]

I was simply trying to point out an issue with Masakans confrontational tone in this thread. I suppose my error was attempting to use humour to do so. Mea culpa.

Maybe because this is playing in my head constantly in threads like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXigFDxNUeI

[AvatarVecna]

There's a reason I said to pump Wisdom as high as you can for Crane, Let's see assuming we are level 10, 20 or so Wisdom, Decisive strike ACF, Falling Sun attack and A set of Ki Straps....You would have to be a sturdy SoB to beat a DC of 27.

Firstly, you'd need monk 12 to take it; if you have monk at all, the earliest you can get it is 11 by changing to a full bab class (iirc). Secondly, a CR 11 cloud giant ( a fair enemy you might face) will make that save about half the time, requiring an average of two attempts to ensure success. But theres creautres of that level with higher saves, and a high DC doesnt get around imminities or distance issues.

[eggynack]

I think in your case you need to pay more attention to what I DON'T say rather than what i do. If i don't specifically say something chances are that's not what im saying, I say what I mean, what you see is what you get. I never once said that I think monks were done right by WotC. If I fail to clarify something or there is something that you don't quite understand, Please ask me and I will try to clear things up best I can.
No, I paid perfect attention to what you did say. You said that the consensus was that monks suck, and that this was intentional, such that you need to specialize in order to not suck. I guess the not sucking was implicit rather than explicit, but if you weren't implying potential not sucking, then why would WotC create a sucky class that could be played differently to still suck? So, the claim is that you were going against consensus, except you weren't because it turns out you do agree with consensus. So, I guess the thread should have been, "Everyone thinks monks suck, except as a one, two, or occasionally six level dip, and I agree." Which, I'm not sure what the point is.

[Masakan]

Firstly, you'd need monk 12 to take it; if you have monk at all, the earliest you can get it is 11 by changing to a full bab class (iirc). Secondly, a CR 11 cloud giant ( a fair enemy you might face) will make that save about half the time, requiring an average of two attempts to ensure success. But theres creautres of that level with higher saves, and a high DC doesnt get around imminities or distance issues.

Wait what?! what are you even going on about? Monks get stunning fist at level bloody 1....Ahem
Bonus Feat: At 1st level, a monk may select either Improved Grapple or Stunning Fist as a bonus feat. At 2nd level, she may select either Combat Reflexes or Deflect Arrows as a bonus feat. At 6th level, she may select either Improved Disarm or Improved Trip as a bonus feat. A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them.

Did you have like a brainfart or something?


No, I paid perfect attention to what you did say. You said that the consensus was that monks suck, and that this was intentional, such that you need to specialize in order to not suck. I guess the not sucking was implicit rather than explicit, but if you weren't implying potential not sucking, then why would WotC create a sucky class that could be played differently to still suck? So, the claim is that you were going against consensus, except you weren't because it turns out you do agree with consensus. So, I guess the thread should have been, "Everyone thinks monks suck, except as a one, two, or occasionally six level dip, and I agree." Which, I'm not sure what the point is.

Ok Now you just confused me.....No i think i get it...I guess what I was thinking and this may be a backhand to the high optimization level of this site...is that Monks suck...Period. Any level you take in monk at any time for any reason, only serves to weaken you build drastically. That's what I was thinking.

[eggynack]

Wait what?! what are you even going on about? Monks get stunning fist at level bloody 1....Ahem
Freezing the lifeblood. The feat that is the love of your life. That's what he's going on about.

Edit:

Ok Now you just confused me.....No i think i get it...I guess what I was thinking and this may be a backhand to the high optimization level of this site...is that Monks suck...Period. Any level you take in monk at any time for any reason, only serves to weaken you build drastically. That's what I was thinking.
Well, they're not exactly beloved, but they have their place on a dip. Such is the generally accepted status of monks.

[Masakan]

Freezing the lifeblood. The feat that is the love of your life. That's what he's going on about.

Oh Ok...and please don't mock me.

[AvatarVecna]

Yeah, I was talking aboutFtL.

[Masakan]

Well, they're not exactly beloved, but they have their place on a dip. Such is the generally accepted status of monks.

And here I'm thinking That Monks were considered Truenamer Levels of bad.

[AvatarVecna]

And here I'm thinking That Monks were considered Truenamer Levels of bad.

Don't let Jormengand hear you talking like that.

[eggynack]

And here I'm thinking That Monks were considered Truenamer Levels of bad.
Truenamers are actually probably better than monks, hanging out around tier four when you optimize truenaming such that you get the utterances across consistently. It's a class that's really more wonky than bad. Though, tier four does mean three whole tiers of superiority. Balance is, as it always is, relative.

[Windrammer]

The biggest problem the monk faces isn't that it sucks compared to other non-casters (which it does, generally speaking; Barbarians, Fighters, Rangers, and Rogues can all DPR better, Rangers and Rogues get better skills, Barbarians and Fighters have better multiclass/PrC synergy with other things, Rogue gets UMD, etc.), but that it sucks compared to casters. A Monk 20 focused on maxing out Jump, using every Monk ACF available to them, can get 23 ranks, +2 synergy from Tumble, let's say +15 from Agile Athlete (use Dex instead of Str), with a +30 competence bonus from an item (a 90000 gp investment), and even an item familiar for another 23 pseudo-ranks; give them the Skill Focus: Jump, Athlete, and Run feats, and that's another +9; finally, their extra monk speed gives them another +24. All told, adding absolutely everything up, this Jump-focused Monk has a +96 Jump check, which gives them a minimum Jump check of 97. That's a high Jump of 24 ft.

Sound impressive? Ignoring that super-powerful monks in popular media are capable of leaping hundreds of feet into the air, and fighting on the way down...ignoring that in some incarnations, a different breed of monk is capable of flying and hovering through sheer force of willpower...that high jump of 24 feet (32 with reach)? A Wizard 1 can get up that high with a Spider Climb spell. A Wizard 5 can get that high by casting Fly...higher, even.

You can sink absolutely every resource you've got into optimizing your Monk's damage, but a sorcerer half-assing a Mailman build leaves you in the dust. You can sink absolutely everything you have into going even faster, and a Teleport spell's got you beat. You can push yourself to the upper limits of PO, and your Jump check will never carry you higher than Fly spell could fly.

Baseline Monk has to optimize heavily to compete with the Fighter and the Barbarian; baseline Monk has to go borderline PO to put out Ubercharger damage numbers, and will still overall be less effective in and out of combat than a rogue with the right skills (even without taking UMD into account).

Between full saves and evasion, I think it's a misinformed copout to say that it's a given that a mailman sorcerer wouldhand it to them. I think people don't fully understand what the tiers mean, and that hearing about how good casters are so much warps people's perceptions of the system... In straightforward combat, a monk isn't unlikely to hold their own against a mailman. They're not that spell vulnerable. A good monk can easily level a sorcerer in a turn and I think should win the fight most of the time.

What makes a caster tier 1 about it is how many options they have, and that they have an answer to so many situations that mundanes don't. That doesn't mean they always beat mundanes in a straightforward fight.

[Masakan]

Between full saves and evasion, I think it's a misinformed copout to say that it's a given that a mailman sorcerer wouldhand it to them. I think people don't fully understand what the tiers mean, and that hearing about how good casters are so much warps people's perceptions of the system... In straightforward combat, a monk isn't unlikely to hold their own against a mailman. They're not that spell vulnerable. A good monk can easily level a sorcerer in a turn and I think should win the fight most of the time.

What makes a caster tier 1 about it is how many options they have, and that they have an answer to so many situations that mundanes don't. That doesn't mean they always beat mundanes in a straightforward fight.

That's pretty much the vibe I'm getting. When considering tiers it pretty much asks one thing "How versatile are you?"
That doesn't necessarily mean You will auto win every fight, or make everyone else irrelevant unless your going above and beyond the call of duty to use and abuse as much cheese as you can.

Something that sadly I can't say a lot of people on this site would do.

[AvatarVecna]

Between full saves and evasion, I think it's a misinformed copout to say that it's a given that a mailman sorcerer wouldhand it to them. I think people don't fully understand what the tiers mean, and that hearing about how good casters are so much warps people's perceptions of the system... In straightforward combat, a monk isn't unlikely to hold their own against a mailman. They're not that spell vulnerable. A good monk can easily level a sorcerer in a turn and I think should win the fight most of the time.

What makes a caster tier 1 about it is how many options they have, and that they have an answer to so many situations that mundanes don't. That doesn't mean they always beat mundanes in a straightforward fight.

I wasn't saying a Mailman could kill a Monk (although they totally could, because a proper Mailman doesn't use spells that offer saves), I was saying a Mailman could outdamage a Monk, even if the Monk was optimized for damage. Granted, a Monk could probably reach higher DPR in a single round than the mage could, but the mage would be better protected the next round, while the Monk had to sacrifice AC to shoot its damage into the stratosphere without sacrificing accuracy. Furthermore, the mage wouldn't be limited to a single target, or even a small handful of targets; they'd be using things like Cloudkill, Widen'd blasting spells, Twin'd Repeat'd Orb spells, chain-summoning, and Apocalypse from the Sky to take out entire armies at a time.

[AvatarVecna]

Something that sadly I can't say a lot of people on this site would do.

Versatility is the thing the higher tiers don't have to try for, but it's not the only thing they've got. You seem to be implying that they don't have much power to bring to bear, when we both know that's not true.

[eggynack]

Between full saves and evasion, I think it's a misinformed copout to say that it's a given that a mailman sorcerer wouldhand it to them. I think people don't fully understand what the tiers mean, and that hearing about how good casters are so much warps people's perceptions of the system... In straightforward combat, a monk isn't unlikely to hold their own against a mailman. They're not that spell vulnerable. A good monk can easily level a sorcerer in a turn and I think should win the fight most of the time.

I don't see what high saves and evasion have to do with the mailman. The mailman traditionally relies on orb of fire, which doesn't touch saves at all. The thing that'd actually be relevant there is touch AC, which the monk does have, but probably not to a degree that'd bypass the fact that the mailman is boosting their ranged touch attack and taking a pile of shots each round. And, meanwhile, the sorcerer's defenses are far better against punching than the monk's defenses are against searing orbs of fire shot at the monk over and over again.


What makes a caster tier 1 about it is how many options they have, and that they have an answer to so many situations that mundanes don't. That doesn't mean they always beat mundanes in a straightforward fight.
So, to this, I say yes, caster supremacy is partially about how many options you have. But, y'know, sometimes it does mean beating a mundane in a straightforward fight, because options sometimes means targeting unanticipated defenses and blocking a wider variety of attacks. Also, monks are really not good at killing casters. Monks are a bit better off at dealing with the mailman than some, but there are so many spells that couldn't care less about the monk's limited defenses, and the overall impact is that monks tend to do quite poorly in head to head fights against casters. They do better in those fights than they'd do against a variety of encounters, but it's not a good situation.

[Windrammer]

I wasn't saying a Mailman could kill a Monk (although they totally could, because a proper Mailman doesn't use spells that offer saves), I was saying a Mailman could outdamage a Monk, even if the Monk was optimized for damage. Granted, a Monk could probably reach higher DPR in a single round than the mage could, but the mage would be better protected the next round, while the Monk had to sacrifice AC to shoot its damage into the stratosphere without sacrificing accuracy. Furthermore, the mage wouldn't be limited to a single target, or even a small handful of targets; they'd be using things like Cloudkill, Widen'd blasting spells, Twin'd Repeat'd Orb spells, chain-summoning, and Apocalypse from the Sky to take out entire armies at a time.

Yes, all casters have the POTENTIAL to outclass mundanes in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, should they PREPARE for those specific situations. So they aren't so compelling in a realistic situation.

Now do realize cloudkill doesn't work nearly as well in the situation we're describing. A monk of the same level as that caster isn't going to get killed by it, and they can just abundant step out of the damn thing.

As for blasting spells, again, EVASION. Monk's have perfect saves and likely high dex. You do realize how likely the monk is to beat that save, and take NO damage?

Orb spells? Yeah, rolling to hit touch AC seems like an easy deal... When you're facing people who aren't monks. (touch AC isn't hardly a difference to a Monk).

Chain Summoning? What's that going to do in a round that'll REALLY stop the Monk?

Apocalypse from the Sky? Ooo, you can do 40 damage to the Monk when you're level 17! A level 17 monk is going to have at least twice that in HP, and you don't really get to quicken that spell anyways.

[Masakan]

Versatility is the thing the higher tiers don't have to try for, but it's not the only thing they've got. You seem to be implying that they don't have much power to bring to bear, when we both know that's not true.

Quite the opposite actually, I feel they are TOO powerful. if you just decide to go all metagame and make a batman, wizard or a god cleric, eventually everyone else who DIDN'T pick a tier 1 or 2 class are gonna be like "The **** am I even here for?"

Yes Casters are powerful, but you pretty much have to go in with the intention of being able to just have an I win button for everything, at which point you end up ostracizing everyone else and may as well be playing a solo campaign.

Druid may as well be easy mode in a can, unless you plan to go planar Shepard in which case they are pretty much in a class of their own.

Wizards intentionally have to hold back just so everyone else can feel important.

And Clerics are the only ones who imo are manageable or at least can't auto break the game just due to the fact that they cant switch out spells like the other 2.

But hey i guess it doesn't matter if your just face stomping everything by yourself as long as YOUR having fun right?
I mean if you can do that it's the DM's Fault for being bad, it's the players fault for picking ****ty classes. You are like that because THEY suck and has nothing to do with you.

Nono that's fine that's perfectly fine, I totally get it.

[AvatarVecna]

Yes, all casters have the POTENTIAL to outclass mundanes in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, should they PREPARE for those specific situations. So they aren't so compelling in a realistic situation.

Now do realize cloudkill doesn't work nearly as well in the situation we're describing. A monk of the same level as that caster isn't going to get killed by it, and they can just abundant step out of the damn thing.

As for blasting spells, again, EVASION. Monk's have perfect saves and likely high dex. You do realize how likely the monk is to beat that save, and take NO damage?

Orb spells? Yeah, rolling to hit touch AC seems like an easy deal... When you're facing people who aren't monks. (touch AC isn't hardly a difference to a Monk).

Chain Summoning? What's that going to do in a round that'll REALLY stop the Monk?

Apocalypse from the Sky? Ooo, you can do 40 damage to the Monk when you're level 17! A level 17 monk is going to have at least twice that in HP, and you don't really get to quicken that spell anyways.

You're still focusing on "Mailman Fighting Monk". I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about "Mailman DPR vs Monk DPR"; the Mailman just has so many more options, and is relevant to more fights.

[eggynack]

Yes, all casters have the POTENTIAL to outclass mundanes in SPECIFIC SITUATIONS, should they PREPARE for those specific situations. So they aren't so compelling in a realistic situation.
Not really. Spells are often broadly useful, so you prepare those spells in the general case, and if you're a prepared caster, tailor your list to a particular situation if you know the situation. Those spells could easily be broadly useful ones like solid fog and greater mirror image, spells that really shut down a monk. And abundant step isn't really all that useful for this, because you're countering exactly one spell here. Maybe the caster has one of the many other spells that also shuts down the monk. And, of course, even if you can't lay down perfect monk murder on the first attempt, the caster is very unlikely to die through the cited spells, and the next encounter will feature the very caster knowledge that you say will lead to an outclassing.


Orb spells? Yeah, rolling to hit touch AC seems like an easy deal... When you're facing people who aren't monks. (touch AC isn't hardly a difference to a Monk).
The numbers seem to support the sorcerer doing alright. You're basically running dexterity+BAB on the sorcerer side against wisdom+monk AC bonus on the monk side. Given that monks tend to be rather MAD, combined with the fact that the extra monk AC bonus scales at half the speed of sorcerer BAB, I'd expect roughly 50/50 odds on any given orb. Then you consider the fact that the mailman uses a number of orbs in a turn, and things look even better for the sorcerer.

[AvatarVecna]

Quite the opposite actually, I feel they are TOO powerful. if you just decide to go all metagame and make a batman, wizard or a god cleric, eventually everyone else who DIDN'T pick a tier 1 or 2 class are gonna be like "The **** am I even here for?"

Yes Casters are powerful, but you pretty much have to go in with the intention of being able to just have an I win button for everything, at which point you end up ostracizing everyone else and may as well be playing a solo campaign.

Druid may as well be easy mode in a can, unless you plan to go planar Shepard in which case they are pretty much in a class of their own.

Wizards intentionally have to hold back just so everyone else can feel important.

And Clerics are the only ones who imo are manageable or at least can't auto break the game just due to the fact that they cant switch out spells like the other 2.

But hey i guess it doesn't matter if your just face stomping everything by yourself as long as YOUR having fun right?
I mean if you can do that it's the DM's Fault for being bad, it's the players fault for picking ****ty classes. You are like that because THEY suck and has nothing to do with you.

Nono that's fine that's perfectly fine, I totally get it.

You're misunderstanding my point. When I play a character like that in a real game, I hold back to avoid ruining everybody's fun. But that doesn't mean the wizard/cleric/druid/whatever isn't capable of curbstomping everybody, it's that they're choosing not to. That dude was saying (and you seemed to agree) that a caster has lots of tools, but can't actually beat a Monk in a straight up fight...and how true that is depends on how you define "fair fight". If it's anything other than "boxing match rules", the mage can use spells to cheat and win.

The first time I broke the game with a caster, I was 9, and it was by complete accident. It was, I will admit, polymorphing into a hydra, and it wasn't even my character that did it. But when my brother was having fun stomping around making 9 attacks a round, the after combat tactics talk could be summed up as "well, my monk feels kinda useless now. You can do that how often?" The paladin player felt similarly, and the DM was kinda bummed too. My point here is that you don't have to metagame to break the game with casters; the basic rules, as they're presented, can break the game by accident.

Also, this is a minor point, but Cleric's can prepare new spells from the cleric list every day, and unlike the Wizard, they aren't limited to what's in their "spellbook", because they don't have a spellbook, they just have access to the entire cleric spell list. Still, the cleric is definitely less "immediately break the game" than the wizard is because the cleric spells are mostly numbers games, rather than granting new abilities (mostly).

[Masakan]

You're misunderstanding my point. When I play a character like that in a real game, I hold back to avoid ruining everybody's fun. But that doesn't mean the wizard/cleric/druid/whatever isn't capable of curbstomping everybody, it's that they're choosing not to. That dude was saying (and you seemed to agree) that a caster has lots of tools, but can't actually beat a Monk in a straight up fight...and how true that is depends on how you define "fair fight". If it's anything other than "boxing match rules", the mage can use spells to cheat and win.

The first time I broke the game with a caster, I was 9, and it was by complete accident. It was, I will admit, polymorphing into a hydra, and it wasn't even my character that did it. But when my brother was having fun stomping around making 9 attacks a round, the after combat tactics talk could be summed up as "well, my monk feels kinda useless now. You can do that how often?" The paladin player felt similarly, and the DM was kinda bummed too. My point here is that you don't have to metagame to break the game with casters; the basic rules, as they're presented, can break the game by accident.

Also, this is a minor point, but Cleric's can prepare new spells from the cleric list every day, and unlike the Wizard, they aren't limited to what's in their "spellbook", because they don't have a spellbook, they just have access to the entire cleric spell list. Still, the cleric is definitely less "immediately break the game" than the wizard is because the cleric spells are mostly numbers games, rather than granting new abilities (mostly).

Still I believe I specifically warned you to keep this kind of talk to a minimum.....sigh this is why If i ever run a campaign Wizards are straight up banned i don't care. I feel that if you are an experienced player you aren't going wizard unless your new to the game or plan to ruin everyone elses time.

[AvatarVecna]

Still I believe I specifically warned you to keep this kind of talk to a minimum.....sigh this is why If i ever run a campaign Wizards are straight up banned i don't care. I feel that if you are an experienced player you aren't going wizard unless your new to the game or plan to ruin everyone elses time.

I was perfectly willing to drop it with you earlier when you originally conceded the point. That other dude is the one who restarted the stupid caster argument, so don't you blame all this **** on me.

[Solaris]

You're still focusing on "Mailman Fighting Monk". I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about "Mailman DPR vs Monk DPR"; the Mailman just has so many more options, and is relevant to more fights.

This is an important point to be making. D&D is very rarely a fight club-style game, so it doesn't matter who kills who - only who contributes more to the game and to fights.

[Masakan]

I was perfectly willing to drop it with you earlier when you originally conceded the point. That other dude is the one who restarted the stupid caster argument, so don't you blame all this **** on me.

Ugh Dam it windrammer why did you have to do this?

[eggynack]

I feel that if you are an experienced player you aren't going wizard unless your new to the game or plan to ruin everyone elses time.
I disagree strongly. Monks may do worse at most things, but that doesn't make them more complicated. In point of fact, wizards far outstrip monks in terms of play complexity, offering a far wider array of decisions at any given moment. If you're an experienced player trying to particularly derive joy from the mechanics, I think casters may be the best way to do so.

[AvatarVecna]

I disagree strongly. Monks may do worse at most things, but that doesn't make them more complicated. In point of fact, wizards far outstrip monks in terms of play complexity, offering a far wider array of decisions at any given moment. If you're an experienced player trying to particularly derive joy from the mechanics, I think casters may be the best way to do so.

...I don't think their issue with wizards is about relative complexity, but their ability to break campaigns. Regardless, we're getting off-topic: arguing the superiority of casters over non-casters is attempting to beat a dead horse that's been turned into glue and is holding together the collective Players Handbooks owned by members of the Playground. Let's get back to the Monk Fighting Styles.

...damn it, I actually lost my place in the discussion this thread is actually supposed to be about!

[Masakan]

I disagree strongly. Monks may do worse at most things, but that doesn't make them more complicated. In point of fact, wizards far outstrip monks in terms of play complexity, offering a far wider array of decisions at any given moment. If you're an experienced player trying to particularly derive joy from the mechanics, I think casters may be the best way to do so.

I think you misunderstood. When I said new to the game, I mean they have no clue the cornucopias amount of broken they are holding in their hands and have little to no idea how to use it.

And if they are experience, then how can they in good conscious use it knowing full well that they have to hold back constantly just so they don't make everyone else feel useless, it's like an exercise in restraint and when it looks like your about to die THEN you go all out and proceed to make everyone feel worthless anyway. You know full well that you could probably win every single fight you go into by polymorphing into an elder dragon each time, be it in character or otherwise. But you don't because you don't wanna hurt everyone's feelings, How accomplished can one really feel knowing they are holding back for everyone else's sake.

What's more it's insulting to everyone else,basically unless everyone else is using magic too, the wizard has to hold back otherwise he will just one shot everything forcing the dm to ramp up the difficulty making the other players feel doubly useless just so you can have a challenge. Sigh I could go on all night about this....and I really wanted to avoid using this word...but I confess. I honestly think that wizards....are toxic to DnD. They just suck the fun out of everything for everyone but themselves...and people never shut up about em...You wanna use some magic? Why not go a sorcerer? at least then we know your not just gonna insta break the game by level 6.


...I don't think their issue with wizards is about relative complexity, but their ability to break campaigns. Regardless, we're getting off-topic: arguing the superiority of casters over non-casters is attempting to beat a dead horse that's been turned into glue and is holding together the collective Players Handbooks owned by members of the Playground. Let's get back to the Monk Fighting Styles.

...damn it, I actually lost my place in the discussion this thread is actually supposed to be about!
Sorry that that needed to come out.

[eggynack]

...I don't think their issue with wizards is about relative complexity, but their ability to break campaigns.
I guess, but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of reasons an experienced player would want to cast that aren't the desire to overpower low tier party members. However, to touch on the specific issue of campaign breaking, the god wizard archetype is pretty good at being both optimal and not mundane fun ruining.

...damn it, I actually lost my place in the discussion this thread is actually supposed to be about!
It's a monk thread. Ya just gotta go with the flow.

[Masakan]

I guess, but what I'm saying is that there are plenty of reasons an experienced player would want to cast that aren't the desire to overpower low tier party members. However, to touch on the specific issue of campaign breaking, the god wizard archetype is pretty good at being both optimal and not mundane fun ruining.

It's a monk thread. Ya just gotta go with the flow.

On a side note superior unarmed strike.
Your unarmed strikes have become increasingly deadly, enabling you to strike your foes in their most vulnerable areas.

Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3.

Benefit: You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes, as shown on the table below.

Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
Does that mean 4 levels higher than your monk level or 4 levels higher than your character level?

[AvatarVecna]

As a suggestion for using magic without breaking the game in two, here's some advice: don't build to be unbeatable. Have a niche, even if it's an unoptimized niche, and stick to it. In fact, pick a bad niche deliberately and optimize it so that you still contribute to the party. Summoners and item crafters are awesome, but what about full blown necromancers, or buff specialists? One of my favorite real-game caster builds is Wizard 5/War Weaver 5/Uncanny Trickster 3; this gives you (by level 13) casting as a Wizard 11, and lets you cast a single-target buff spell up to 7th level...and have it affect the entire party; you can also store a bunch of spells of a similar level in your "weave" to all be released at the same time. That build is ridiculously powerful for straight up fights, but only if it has allies to work with and buff; on its own, it's a buff specialist who only has a puny bookworm to buff efficiently.

...and I'm still talking about casters. Monks, we're here to talk about monks!

[AvatarVecna]

On a side note superior unarmed strike.
Your unarmed strikes have become increasingly deadly, enabling you to strike your foes in their most vulnerable areas.

Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3.

Benefit: You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes, as shown on the table below.

Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
Does that mean 4 levels higher than your monk level or 4 levels higher than your character level?

Unarmed Strike damage upgrades based on your Monk level, not your character level, so you would act as if you had 4 more monk levels for the purposes of determining your unarmed strike base damage. Fair warning: the effects this has on a monk of 17th level or higher isn't governed by strict RAW, so you're at a DM's mercy on that front. Also, by RAW, it doesn't stack with the Monk's belt (IIRC), since they're both untyped bonuses of the same type to the same thing; still, a lenient DM might allow them to stack, although it's something to ask about.

EDIT: Not to mention how screwy the RAW gets when you throw "Fist of the Forest" into the mix. Ugh, what a mess of rules interactions...

[Masakan]

As a suggestion for using magic without breaking the game in two, here's some advice: don't build to be unbeatable. Have a niche, even if it's an unoptimized niche, and stick to it. In fact, pick a bad niche deliberately and optimize it so that you still contribute to the party. Summoners and item crafters are awesome, but what about full blown necromancers, or buff specialists? One of my favorite real-game caster builds is Wizard 5/War Weaver 5/Uncanny Trickster 3; this gives you (by level 13) casting as a Wizard 11, and lets you cast a single-target buff spell up to 7th level...and have it affect the entire party; you can also store a bunch of spells of a similar level in your "weave" to all be released at the same time. That build is ridiculously powerful for straight up fights, but only if it has allies to work with and buff; on its own, it's a buff specialist who only has a puny bookworm to buff efficiently.

...and I'm still talking about casters. Monks, we're here to talk about monks!

Sigh it's fine...I had a feeling it would ultimately devolve into this anyway...

[AvatarVecna]

Sigh it's fine...I had a feeling it would ultimately devolve into this anyway...

No, I'm trying to contribute to the real topic, honest! I just get side-tracked by trying to help mitigate the caster blues.

[eggynack]

I think you misunderstood. When I said new to the game, I mean they have no clue the cornucopias amount of broken they are holding in their hands and have little to no idea how to use it.

And if they are experience, then how can they in good conscious use it knowing full well that they have to hold back constantly just so they don't make everyone else feel useless, it's like an exercise in restraint and when it looks like your about to die THEN you go all out and proceed to make everyone feel worthless anyway. You know full well that you could probably win every single fight you go into by polymorphing into an elder dragon each time, be it in character or otherwise. But you don't because you don't wanna hurt everyone's feelings, How accomplished can one really feel knowing they are holding back for everyone else's sake.

What's more it's insulting to everyone else,basically unless everyone else is using magic too, the wizard has to hold back otherwise he will just one shot everything forcing the dm to ramp up the difficulty making the other players feel doubly useless just so you can have a challenge. Sigh I could go on all night about this....and I really wanted to avoid using this word...but I confess. I honestly think that wizards....are toxic to DnD. They just suck the fun out of everything for everyone but themselves...and people never shut up about em...You wanna use some magic? Why not go a sorcerer? at least then we know your not just gonna insta break the game by level 6.

You don't have to choose between game breaking and restraint. If you know what you're doing, it's pretty easy to cast very good spells without overshadowing folk. For example, haste is a very good spell, but the party fighter isn't going to say, "Hey, you happen to be outdoing us in DPS through the damage you're adding with haste." Instead, they're likely to say, "Cool, now I can hit stuff better." You can also cast wall of stone to divide things for the fighter to take down, or use enervation to again make their job easier, or teleport to get everyone to kill town, or use contact other plane to create plans. All of those spells are generally accepted to be of very high quality, and none of them are removing fun from the rest of the party. They might even be adding fun.


On a side note superior unarmed strike.
Your unarmed strikes have become increasingly deadly, enabling you to strike your foes in their most vulnerable areas.

Prerequisite: Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +3.

Benefit: You deal more damage with your unarmed strikes, as shown on the table below.

Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher.
Does that mean 4 levels higher than your monk level or 4 levels higher than your character level?
I think it means monk level, because you're pushing your monk unarmed strike progression up by four levels.

[Solaris]

On the subject of Animal Kung Fu, there's the Shen in Dragon 319.

It's actually kinda neat for a melee character. Kinda wish it had full BAB, but it doesn't need much more than a monk dip for entry and most Shen can skip the monk entirely (the PrC grants a lot of monk abilities).