Useful monk in 3.5

[Mike Miller]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

[ATHATH]

If you like the concept but not the execution, why not try Unarmed Swordsage instead?

[Psyren]

In 3.5., the best monk builds tend to have as little monk as possible, e.g. Tashalatora Psychic Warrior or Sacred Fist.

[Karl Aegis]

Pretty much only the archer works. Keep out of range with the enhancement bonus to movement speed and keep plinking away with your bow. Use deflect arrows, evasion or still mind versus the only things that have a decent shot at hitting you from bow range.

[The Viscount]

You will need to burn a feat on weapon proficiency for the bow, though. Zen Archery does offer something else to use that Wis for.

[Inevitability]

You will need to burn a feat on weapon proficiency for the bow, though. Zen Archery does offer something else to use that Wis for.

You could also be one of the zillion of elves out there. There's probably a few with the right stats for a monk.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

Gods, this sentiment gets old. The core monk is a class of extremely modest capability that requires knowing how to lean on your WBL to fully function but it is not "unplayable" unless the DM/other players are deliberately making the monk in the group extraneous. You -will- get better results by using multiclassing but that's true of -every- base class save, maybe, the artificer.

Now, if you want help with a character, please define the minimum parameters you want to meet. What do you -want- your monk to do?

PS: Unarmed swordsage is not a monk. It's a swordsage that can punch good. It's a fun class to play but if all you want from a monk is the unarmed strike damage and wis to AC, you don't want to play a monk at all.

[The_Jette]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

Don't listen to the nay-sayers. If you want to play a monk, then play a monk. Figure out a backstory and enjoy. You're not going to be the primary front-line fighter, and the rogues will be able to out dps you when they're managing to get their sneak attack damage in. But, other than that, the monk has a number of really useful abilities when it comes to adventuring itself. If you have a high wisdom and dex you'll have a decent AC. Plus, they get a decent amount of skill points. I built and played a monk for well over six years. He was a better scout than the rogue, because I focused on stealth. He was a decent up front fighter, mainly because we only got up to level 12 (the DM was extremely stingey with items and exp), and by taking some useful feats I managed to be a back up healer, too. If you're playing a game that's all about optimization and not about the adventure, then Monk isn't the best pick. But, if you're playing a game that isn't going to throw you into a gladiator arena to fight a storm giant one on one, you'll probably have no trouble having fun with a monk.

[The_Jette]

Gods, this sentiment gets old. The core monk is a class of extremely modest capability that requires knowing how to lean on your WBL to fully function but it is not "unplayable" unless the DM/other players are deliberately making the monk in the group extraneous. You -will- get better results by using multiclassing but that's true of -every- base class save, maybe, the artificer.

Now, if you want help with a character, please define the minimum parameters you want to meet. What do you -want- your monk to do?

PS: Unarmed swordsage is not a monk. It's a swordsage that can punch good. It's a fun class to play but if all you want from a monk is the unarmed strike damage and wis to AC, you don't want to play a monk at all.

Yeah, this too. :smallbiggrin:

[Zanos]

Gods, this sentiment gets old. The core monk is a class of extremely modest capability that requires knowing how to lean on your WBL to fully function but it is not "unplayable" unless the DM/other players are deliberately making the monk in the group extraneous. You -will- get better results by using multiclassing but that's true of -every- base class save, maybe, the artificer.
I think this is more true for the monk than many other classes, though. Especially at low levels. A 1st level monk vs a barbarian, for example:

Cons:
Fewer hit points(d12 vs d8, MAD)
Less Accurate(1 vs 0 BAB, MAD)
Less damage (1d6 vs. 2d6/19-20, MAD)
Lower AC (Chainshirt + dex vs dex+wis)
Slower(Barbarian fast movement starts at level 1)
Can't Rage
Barbarian can also choose to move at 25 for higher AC from medium armor


Pros:
Can't be disarmed(Unless you're playing Tomb of Horrors or are a Star Wars protagonist)
Higher Ref/Will
Can flurry at a penalty
Can Read
Bonus stunning fist or improved grapple

Many of these same comparisons can be made between the monk and other core primary melee combatants, like the fighter, ranger, or paladin. I don't think it's unplayable, but I think it fails to stay on par even by WotC standards of optimization without some serious work.

[Malroth]

Dip Warlock 1, take Eldritch Claws and Beast strike to more than double your unarmed strike damage and will also increase any scaling that comes from Greater Mighty Wallop. The one Least invocation you grab from this dip can be used to either gain some miss chance (darkness ) semi permanent see Invisible (see the unseen) permanent spiderclimb (spiderwalk) or to let you function as an effective social skill monkey (Beguiling influence)

[The_Jette]

I think this is more true for the monk than many other classes, though. Especially at low levels. A 1st level monk vs a barbarian, for example:

Cons:
Fewer hit points(d12 vs d8, MAD)
Less Accurate(1 vs 0 BAB, MAD)
Less damage (1d6 vs. 2d6/19-20, MAD)
Lower AC (Chainshirt + dex vs dex+wis)
Slower(Barbarian fast movement starts at level 1)
Can't Rage
Barbarian can also choose to move at 25 for higher AC from medium armor


Pros:
Can't be disarmed(Unless you're playing Tomb of Horrors or are a Star Wars protagonist)
Higher Ref/Will
Can flurry at a penalty
Can Read
Bonus stunning fist or improved grapple

Many of these same comparisons can be made between the monk and other core primary melee combatants, like the fighter, ranger, or paladin. I don't think it's unplayable, but I think it fails to stay on par even by WotC standards of optimization without some serious work.

The Barbarian is a dedicated front line fighter. The Barbarian you listed would be worse at sneaking through an enemy base, even assuming he has a decent dex stat, because of ACP and skill distribution. If you focus on hide/move silently as a Barbarian, or how to deal with in city politics, the Barbarian is going to fall behind. Of course if you focus on how the Monk is worse than (X) class in the area that (X) class is specialized in, they're going to fall behind. Compare a first level Barbarian to a first level Wizard at melee combat, and the Wizard gets stomped. Compare the first level Barbarian to a first level Bard at convincing a crowd not to lynch them, and the Bard is walking away unscathed. You see my point? The Monk is a fun class that fills a number of roles. Front line fighter is not one of them. They're a back up everything, though. And, with the saves they have, they used to be called Mage-Slayers, for their ability to pass every check due to high saves in everything.

[Zanos]

The monk is definitely not a skill character. It gets the same number of points as a barbarian, and intelligence is usually it's second last priority for stat assignment, usually only in front of charisma. Considering it's abilities are pretty much all about punching and not getting hit, and none of them are about skill use, I think it's fair to say the monk was intended as a primary melee combatant.


Dip Warlock 1, take Eldritch Claws and Beast strike to more than double your unarmed strike damage and will also increase any scaling that comes from Greater Mighty Wallop. The one Least invocation you grab from this dip can be used to either gain some miss chance (darkness ) semi permanent see Invisible (see the unseen) permanent spiderclimb (spiderwalk) or to let you function as an effective social skill monkey (Beguiling influence)
Hey, you got some warlock and wizard in your argument about how monks are fine on their own.

[The_Jette]

The monk is definitely not a skill character. It gets the same number of points as a barbarian, and intelligence is usually it's second last priority for stat assignment, usually only in front of charisma. Considering it's abilities are pretty much all about punching and not getting hit, and none of them are about skill use, I think it's fair to say the monk was intended as a primary melee combatant.

The Monk is not a primary melee combatant, or a skill monkey, or a buffer. The monk is the back up fighter. The Monk is the backup skill monkey. The back up Face. The back up to everything. The Monk synergizes with every class.The Monk has the speed to maneuver through the battle field and shore up any weak points by flanking and adding a bit of damage to take out the enemies. The Monk has the saves to get close to the spell casters and ruin their concentration. The Monk has enough skills to be useful outside of combat, and their skill set is similar to the Bard's. Diplomacy, Sense Motive, Hide, Move Silently. In my opinion, these four skills are the best skills for a character to invest in. The Monk is a generalist. Yes, they have unarmed strike damage that scales (poorly) to level. But, it's a free natural weapon, essentially. Their best feature is their flexibility.

[Zanos]

A monk doesn't have the skill points, wealth, or ability score points to fill all those roles at the same time, and 3.5 is a system that rewards specialization over generalization. Making yourself the second best at everything(but really only like two things) means you just suck at them, because monster stats and skill DCs that aren't just flat were scaled with the thought that the most capable person in the party at that task would be the one taking them on.

[CharonsHelper]

Get your DM to houserule in Pathfinder' Unchained Monk. Done.

[emeraldstreak]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

Yeah, any build that's actually optimized will crush level-appropriate encounters.

[The_Jette]

A monk doesn't have the skill points, wealth, or ability score points to fill all those roles at the same time, and 3.5 is a system that rewards specialization over generalization. Making yourself the second best at everything(but really only like two things) means you just suck at them, because monster stats and skill DCs that aren't just flat were scaled with the thought that the most capable person in the party at that task would be the one taking them on.

You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. All this sounds like someone who has never played a monk before. As a veteran of the monk class, once I played them they became my favorite class. Now, that's only because I prefer a generalist to a specialist, but I never ran into monsters that were flat out beyond my ability to hit, DCs that were outside of my ability to pass, or skill checks that I was unprepared to deal with, outside of things I didn't invest in. My human monk, with an Int of 10, did just fine with his 5 skill points per level. The monk is just as good in a game as any other base class.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I've heard that Improved Natural Attack is essential for Monks. I believe a Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic) gives it to you for free and a poison if I remember correctly.

A Necklace of Natural Weapons (Savage Species) is also supposed to help a lot too. It can enchant your fists with enhancement bonuses and special weapon properties (like throwing).

[Eladrinblade]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

The monk is playable if you understand it's limitations and know it's weaknesses. It's main strengths are in getting somewhere quickly and shutting down archers/rogues/casters and similarly-built monsters, which is pretty niche, so don't expect more than light skirmishing on most days. Also most DMs won't give you interesting geography in your adventures, because it's a ton of work, so don't expect your extreme-speed balance/climb/jump/tumble/swim checks to be of much actual use.

I'm playing a monk right now and doing good so far, but I was allowed a high point buy. As a human monk with 10 int, I get 5 skills per level, which lets me max out the ones I mentioned earlier, so I can get places quickly and easily. I wear an enhanced gauntlet for when I can make one unarmed strike, but can't flurry (like after a move), and I carry a ransuer for making disarm checks and free reach-AoOs (I might spend a feat on spiked chain proficiency in the future). Save your flurries for when you're attacking stunned/grappled/prone enemies. Otherwise just try to set up flanks with the fighter and rogue (very easy for you) and try not to be the best target. If an enemy flees, you have the best chance of catching them. My feats are Stunning Fist, Improved Grapple, Combat Reflexes, and Deflect Arrows (yeah, I didn't want to miss any). I have a wand of mage armor which I gave to the wizard to use on me, and I plan to get one of shield and maybe prot from evil. I consider strength to be my most important score.

Oh, and if you stun or grapple an enemy, they are vulnerable to sneak attack (this class has great synergy with rogues).

[emeraldstreak]

For people who are so concerned about skill points: just be carmendine monks.

[tiercel]

Obligatory links to Monk Handbook (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2902)(and another one (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=10747)).

Short version, yes, you can optimize monk without just being "LOL swordsage," but you will almost certainly be picking PrCs to taste, depending on what you want your monk to do.

[animewatcha]

You can claim that all you want, but that doesn't make it true. All this sounds like someone who has never played a monk before. As a veteran of the monk class, once I played them they became my favorite class. Now, that's only because I prefer a generalist to a specialist, but I never ran into monsters that were flat out beyond my ability to hit, DCs that were outside of my ability to pass, or skill checks that I was unprepared to deal with, outside of things I didn't invest in. My human monk, with an Int of 10, did just fine with his 5 skill points per level. The monk is just as good in a game as any other base class.

This whole thing depends upon what the DM throws at you. Like level 3 monk versus cr 3 carb. Nicknamed as 'That Darn Crab.'

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fw/20040221a

[Agahnim]

The Monk is notoriously underpowered, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't play one. As it has been mentioned above, the monk is pretty versatile and can adapt to changing situations.
General adventuring and dungeon-crawling? Use you high speed and saves to scout ahead, jump across pits, sneak past foes.
Fighting? Tumble across the battlefield to help whoever is in trouble, or catch that annoying sorcerer in the back and beat/stun the crap out of it.
Combat starts going south, or want give peace a chance? Try diplomacy.
>b-but the wizard can do all that, and better!
I wonder if any of those wizard cultists ever played D&D. Over the last few sessions, our party monk proved invaluable, even though he almost never landed a single hit in combat. He converted a defeated bandit to his religion, that guy is now guarding our base and gave us precious Intel on the bandit king. When we had to recover the McGuffin from a room filled with super tough monsters, he ran and grabbed the item so we could escape without fighting. When we ambushed a whole bunch of enemies very far above our CR, he managed to keep both enemy leaders (a sorcerer and a rogue) busy during the whole fight - and it was a long one.
All that using the default pre-generated character and being a total noob.
Gotta love monks!

Edit : during that last battle, our precious T2 sorcerer spent the first half casting pathetic magic missiles at a blind giant, then the other half puking his guts out in a stinking cloud.

[Esprit15]

I'm partial to a 4 level Paladin dip followed by Serenity and Ascetic Knight with my monks, and then taking Travel Devotion. WIS to all saves, and WIS+3 turn undead attempts to power said Travel Devotion, which deals with the often touted "You can't flurry and use your huge overland at the same time" issue that everyone brings up.

[SirNibbles]

Thanks to the Monk's Belt (Dungeon Master's Guide, page 248) and Monk's Tattoo (Magic of Faerun, page 163), which increase your Unarmed Strike damage by 5 and 4 levels, respectively, you only need 11 levels of Monk/PrCs to hit the 20th level cap. The feat Superior Unarmed Strike (Tome of Battle, page 33) gives you another 4 levels, allowing you to cap UAS damage with only 7 Monk levels.
___

The simplest thing to do is to take a few levels of Monk (no more than six) and then go Ranger with Ascetic Hunter (Complete Adventurer, page 105). This makes it so that your UAS damage is derived from the sum of your Monk and Ranger levels. Considering Ranger gives you full BAB, more skill points, and spellcasting, it's a pretty solid upgrade. This also doesn't change the flavour of the Monk too much.

The following three variant classes are conceivably worth taking to 20th level in a low-optimisation game:

The Chaos Monk from Dragon Magazine #335, page 88 is a vastly-improved Monk with its own unique flavour that you may or may not like. Its biggest difference is that it gets Flailing Strikes instead of Flurry of Blows, giving it more extra attacks than a Monk (1d6 extra attacks by 15th level). This feature makes one of the few Monk options worth taking past 6th level. However, it still has the same basic problem the monk has: problems that can't be solved by punching things can't really be solved at all. Note: the Chaos Monk must be Chaotic.
_

The Sidewinder Monk (Dragon Magazine #331, page 89) is also an improvement on the Monk. In exchange for some different (read: worse) bonus feat choices (which can be fixed with Martial Monk; see below) and giving up Slow Fall, you get Sneak Attack (1d6 every 3 levels), a Bite attack, +1 Competence to Bluff every 2 levels, and a +4 to +6 competence bonus to Intimidate checks.

This variant has slightly more versatility when it comes to doing more than just punching things, but only barely.
_

Wild Monk from Dragon Magazine #324, page 97 is technically a Monk but really it's just a Monk/Druid hybrid which combines too much Monk with not enough Druid. It's much better than a standard Monk and should definitely be considered, but you may find the flavour too drastically changed for your liking. Note: the Wild Monk must be Lawful Neutral.

I personally prefer Monk 2/Wild (Mystic) Ranger 8/Master of Many Forms 7 with Ascetic Hunter for a Wild Shape Monk build.
Note: Wild Ranger is from Unearthed Arcana, page 58. Mystic Ranger is from Dragon Magazine #336, page 105. Master of Many Forms is from Complete Adventurer, page 58.
_

The Martial Monk ACF from Dragon Magazine #310, page 45 loses 1 skill point per level (4 skill points at first level) in exchange for being to pick any Fighter Bonus Feat when selecting Monk Bonus Feats. There's almost no reason to not take this.
_

The Invisible Fist ACF from (Exemplars of Evil, page 21), which replaces the Monk's Evasion ability, is always a great addition. It allows you to become invisible for a full round as an immediate action, usable once every three rounds. It has the nice benefit of not ending when you attack, allowing you to make full attacks while invisible. This is great if you have Sneak Attack damage from Sidewinder or some other source. At 9th level (why are you taking 9 levels of Monk anyhow) it gives you Blink once every 3 rounds as an immediate action. The effect lasts for a number of rounds equal to your Wisdom modifier, meaning you can be perma-blinking if you want to. You lose Improved Evasion at this point.
___

If you're only looking to be good at combat, a Monk can make things work. However, such a character is boring.

[Gruftzwerg]

good pure monk builds are almost impossible imho.
The most monk fluff I did get so far was with clawlock builds.
You get high dmg, some magical abilities (fly 24h) and can pull off that what you would expect from a high mobile fighter (monk movementspeed bonus + pounce).


See my signature for more info on warlock/monk build.

[Jormengand]

I quite like taking psionic fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/psionicFist.htm) for the watered-down psychic warrior manifesting (I say "Watered down", but it's exceptionally good given that you're only spending 10 levels getting it - you get more power points and better powers than a 10th-level psychic warrior) which also means that you can skip out on real monk levels, given sufficient application of Monk's Belt/Tattoo and Superior Unarmed Strike, meaning that you can spend them on a real martial class with genuine full base attack bonus, so you can get 17 BAB at 20th level with fifth-level powers, which isn't exactly horrible when you deal 4d8+STR damage with each attack because of course you're large why wouldn't you be large?

On the basis that you get +13 levels of monk from your equipment and feat, you could take something like fighter 6/psionic fist 7/slayer 7 (ask your DM what, if anything, happens if you have 12 effective psionic fist levels for purposes of manifesting). I fully admit I have no idea how to sneak concentration onto a fighter as a class skill, so you may end up needing fighter 5/monk 1/psionic fist 6/slayer 8, or why not go for the second monk level, only take 5 levels of psionic fist, and then grab the slayer's 9th-level ability too?

Okay, at this point I'm even trying to take as few levels of the psionic monk version as possible. Still, the point is that full UAS damage and 5 levels of powers rocks.

[CharonsHelper]

good pure monk builds are almost impossible imho.

Isn't that true of every martial in 3.5? They all get better with plenty of multi-classing & PrC dipping.

[Inevitability]

Isn't that true of every martial in 3.5? They all get better with plenty of multi-classing & PrC dipping.

I'd say initiators at the very least make very competent characters without multiclassing.

[ComaVision]

The Monk is notoriously underpowered, but that doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't play one. As it has been mentioned above, the monk is pretty versatile and can adapt to changing situations.
General adventuring and dungeon-crawling? Use you high speed and saves to scout ahead, jump across pits, sneak past foes.
Fighting? Tumble across the battlefield to help whoever is in trouble, or catch that annoying sorcerer in the back and beat/stun the crap out of it.
Combat starts going south, or want give peace a chance? Try diplomacy.
>b-but the wizard can do all that, and better!
I wonder if any of those wizard cultists ever played D&D. Over the last few sessions, our party monk proved invaluable, even though he almost never landed a single hit in combat. He converted a defeated bandit to his religion, that guy is now guarding our base and gave us precious Intel on the bandit king. When we had to recover the McGuffin from a room filled with super tough monsters, he ran and grabbed the item so we could escape without fighting. When we ambushed a whole bunch of enemies very far above our CR, he managed to keep both enemy leaders (a sorcerer and a rogue) busy during the whole fight - and it was a long one.
All that using the default pre-generated character and being a total noob.
Gotta love monks!

Edit : during that last battle, our precious T2 sorcerer spent the first half casting pathetic magic missiles at a blind giant, then the other half puking his guts out in a stinking cloud.


Sounds like the monk did a bunch of stuff that any class could do. Sure is good you had a monk.

Also, I'm sure you realize that Magic Missile is usually not the best option for a Sorcerer AND I thought King Monk was keeping the enemy Sorcerer busy? Where'd the Stinking Cloud come from? Your DM is being nice if a Monk that can't land a hit is keeping anything busy.

Monks are terrible for versatility because they have literally zero class features that can be changed. If you make a Monk that is good at stealth and social skills, then he's not good at athletics or tumbling into position, and never will be unless you let the other skills slip. If you build them to be decent grapplers, you aren't going to be good at ranged attacks and never will be. They are stuck however you build them. I'm mind blown that anyone is comparing the Monk favourably to the Bard, since the Bard can actually be decent at pretty much everything at once.

[Rhyltran]

I made a monk, fist of the forest, and bear warrior. This was a fun combo if you don't mind transforming into a bear. You can do unarmed attacks while in the bear form and between items/classes/greater mighty wallop I was pulling 12d8+9 with 29/29/29/24/19/11 at level 20 in my base form and 12d8+17 (In the campaign I'm in we couldn't go colossal+ in sizes so 12d8 was max.) 37/37/37/32/27/22 in bear form. I also had 240 hp in bear form and 42 AC. Bear Warrior is incredibly powerful for the bonuses you gain but even without bear form my monk was definitely formidable. Between his hide, move silently, and dark stalker.. I was the party scout, primary physical damage dealer, I had enough hp to count as the tank, I had the speed to maneuver around the battlefield, etc. The build was quite fun.

However, to answer your question, no. I wouldn't build a core monk. It can be done but monk has so many short comings it really shines when you look at monk variants, PRC classes, and feats that you can find outside the core. You can make a really useful and powerful monk but to me it's not worth it with the restriction being core only. At least to me. My build also didn't give me any issues in hitting my targets.

[Karl Aegis]

T6 Sorcerer... The only spell that is actually worse than Magic Missile is Rouse (PHB II). Rouse cannot target unconscious creatures. That's it.

[Inevitability]

T6 Sorcerer... The only spell that is actually worse than Magic Missile is Rouse (PHB II). Rouse cannot target unconscious creatures. That's it.

1. Magic Missile spam (with proper optimization, of course) is actually a reasonable mailman alternative against enemies with high touch AC. Not the case here, but worth noting.

2. I keep seeing people say Rouse doesn't work on unconscious creatures: where does it say that? The spell seems to specify unconsciousness due to (nonlethal) damage: a sleeping being should be fine. Or is this about the only effect coming from the flavor text?

[Zanos]

Sounds like the monk did a bunch of stuff that any class could do. Sure is good you had a monk.

Also, I'm sure you realize that Magic Missile is usually not the best option for a Sorcerer AND I thought King Monk was keeping the enemy Sorcerer busy? Where'd the Stinking Cloud come from? Your DM is being nice if a Monk that can't land a hit is keeping anything busy.

Monks are terrible for versatility because they have literally zero class features that can be changed. If you make a Monk that is good at stealth and social skills, then he's not good at athletics or tumbling into position, and never will be unless you let the other skills slip. If you build them to be decent grapplers, you aren't going to be good at ranged attacks and never will be. They are stuck however you build them. I'm mind blown that anyone is comparing the Monk favourably to the Bard, since the Bard can actually be decent at pretty much everything at once.
They're confusing having a good DM with monk being a good class.

[Dagroth]

I quite like taking psionic fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/psionicFist.htm) for the watered-down psychic warrior manifesting (I say "Watered down", but it's exceptionally good given that you're only spending 10 levels getting it - you get more power points and better powers than a 10th-level psychic warrior) which also means that you can skip out on real monk levels, given sufficient application of Monk's Belt/Tattoo and Superior Unarmed Strike, meaning that you can spend them on a real martial class with genuine full base attack bonus, so you can get 17 BAB at 20th level with fifth-level powers, which isn't exactly horrible when you deal 4d8+STR damage with each attack because of course you're large why wouldn't you be large?

On the basis that you get +13 levels of monk from your equipment and feat, you could take something like fighter 6/psionic fist 7/slayer 7 (ask your DM what, if anything, happens if you have 12 effective psionic fist levels for purposes of manifesting). I fully admit I have no idea how to sneak concentration onto a fighter as a class skill, so you may end up needing fighter 5/monk 1/psionic fist 6/slayer 8, or why not go for the second monk level, only take 5 levels of psionic fist, and then grab the slayer's 9th-level ability too?

Okay, at this point I'm even trying to take as few levels of the psionic monk version as possible. Still, the point is that full UAS damage and 5 levels of powers rocks.

Uh... doesn't Psionic Fist require the Still Mind (Level 3 Monk) class feature?

I've been wondering what other classes get the Still Mind class feature myself.

[Deadline]

Uh... doesn't Psionic Fist require the Still Mind (Level 3 Monk) class feature?

I've been wondering what other classes get the Still Mind class feature myself.

I remember doing some searching on this a while back for an Iron Chef build. I don't have the details at hand, but I want to say that it was less than 5 classes, and most of them were Prestige Classes.

[SirNibbles]

I quite like taking psionic fist (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/prestigeClasses/psionicFist.htm) for the watered-down psychic warrior manifesting (I say "Watered down", but it's exceptionally good given that you're only spending 10 levels getting it - you get more power points and better powers than a 10th-level psychic warrior) which also means that you can skip out on real monk levels, given sufficient application of Monk's Belt/Tattoo and Superior Unarmed Strike, meaning that you can spend them on a real martial class with genuine full base attack bonus, so you can get 17 BAB at 20th level with fifth-level powers, which isn't exactly horrible when you deal 4d8+STR damage with each attack because of course you're large why wouldn't you be large?

On the basis that you get +13 levels of monk from your equipment and feat, you could take something like fighter 6/psionic fist 7/slayer 7 (ask your DM what, if anything, happens if you have 12 effective psionic fist levels for purposes of manifesting). I fully admit I have no idea how to sneak concentration onto a fighter as a class skill, so you may end up needing fighter 5/monk 1/psionic fist 6/slayer 8, or why not go for the second monk level, only take 5 levels of psionic fist, and then grab the slayer's 9th-level ability too?

Okay, at this point I'm even trying to take as few levels of the psionic monk version as possible. Still, the point is that full UAS damage and 5 levels of powers rocks.

Monk's Tattoo only works for people with levels in Monk, which Psionic Fist is not.

"The abilities of this tattoo do not stack with the abilities of another monk’s tattoo, nor does the tattoo grant any abilities to a non-monk character." - Magic of Faerun, page 163

[Psyren]

Uh... doesn't Psionic Fist require the Still Mind (Level 3 Monk) class feature?

I've been wondering what other classes get the Still Mind class feature myself.


I remember doing some searching on this a while back for an Iron Chef build. I don't have the details at hand, but I want to say that it was less than 5 classes, and most of them were Prestige Classes.

Archivist gets Still Mind at level 4.

[Jormengand]

Uh... doesn't Psionic Fist require the Still Mind (Level 3 Monk) class feature?

I've been wondering what other classes get the Still Mind class feature myself.
Monk's Tattoo only works for people with levels in Monk, which Psionic Fist is not.

"The abilities of this tattoo do not stack with the abilities of another monk’s tattoo, nor does the tattoo grant any abilities to a non-monk character." - Magic of Faerun, page 163

Hmm, I forgot that. Unfortunately, you do need to sink a whole three of your levels into actually being a monk. So fighter 3/monk 3/psionic fist 4/slayer 9 should probably be your first 19 levels, and I suppose you can take the tenth slayer level or fourth monk or fighter level for kicks. Unless you want to mess around with attempting to sneak archivist levels on your monk build and still getting enough monk levels and decent base attack... ehh. Not worth, probably.

[Dagroth]

Hmm, I forgot that. Unfortunately, you do need to sink a whole three of your levels into actually being a monk. So fighter 3/monk 3/psionic fist 4/slayer 9 should probably be your first 19 levels, and I suppose you can take the tenth slayer level or fourth monk or fighter level for kicks. Unless you want to mess around with attempting to sneak archivist levels on your monk build and still getting enough monk levels and decent base attack... ehh. Not worth, probably.

Ranger or Mystic Ranger 2 would be better than Fighter... and gives you the Track feat & Knowledge: Dungeoneering you need for Slayer.

You'll also need Tashalatora for Slayer to progress your Monk abilities.

[The_Jette]

Sounds like the monk did a bunch of stuff that any class could do. Sure is good you had a monk.

Also, I'm sure you realize that Magic Missile is usually not the best option for a Sorcerer AND I thought King Monk was keeping the enemy Sorcerer busy? Where'd the Stinking Cloud come from? Your DM is being nice if a Monk that can't land a hit is keeping anything busy.

Monks are terrible for versatility because they have literally zero class features that can be changed. If you make a Monk that is good at stealth and social skills, then he's not good at athletics or tumbling into position, and never will be unless you let the other skills slip. If you build them to be decent grapplers, you aren't going to be good at ranged attacks and never will be. They are stuck however you build them. I'm mind blown that anyone is comparing the Monk favourably to the Bard, since the Bard can actually be decent at pretty much everything at once.

Actually, my Monk was good at stealth, social skills, AND tumbling. They're also all naturally good at jumping because an increase in base speed equals a +4 to jump per +10 land speed. I've seen players build good Monks and bad Monks, and the same with Bards. With both classes you have to build efficiently in order to be useful to the group, and pay attention to the battlefield in order to move yourself into the optimal position.


They're confusing having a good DM with monk being a good class.

No. In no way am I confusing having a good DM with Monk being a good class. I had a terrible DM who expected us to be able to overcome challenges that were far beyond our abilities, and rewarded us far below our accomplishments. It got so bad that I ended up leaving the group because the DM claimed that the spell "Identify" was overpowered.

[Jormengand]

Ranger or Mystic Ranger 2 would be better than Fighter... and gives you the Track feat & Knowledge: Dungeoneering you need for Slayer.

You'll also need Tashalatora for Slayer to progress your Monk abilities.

Ranger is a decent idea, especially with FE: Arcanist.

Slayer doesn't need to progress your monk abilities because SUAS, monk's belt and monk's tattoo give you enough bonus effective monk levels.

@The poster above me: Choose any role and build a 10th-level single-classed monk which is tailor-made for that role. 32 point buy, average HP, wealth by level for level 10. I'll build... you know what everyone says is terrible, a truenamer who is tailor-made for the same role and we'll see which one wins. Or if you think the monk is a "Generalist", choose three or five or some other number of roles.

[ColorBlindNinja]

I had a terrible DM who expected us to be able to overcome challenges that were far beyond our abilities, and rewarded us far below our accomplishments. It got so bad that I ended up leaving the group because the DM claimed that the spell "Identify" was overpowered.

What. :smallannoyed:

Of all the spells in the game that could be labeled OP, your DM settled on Identify. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. You have my sympathies. :smallsigh:

[The_Jette]

What. :smallannoyed:

Of all the spells in the game that could be labeled OP, your DM settled on Identify. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day. You have my sympathies. :smallsigh:

One of the players in the group built a character based off the Blue Raja from Mystery Men who used this combination of feats and class levels to use throw anything as his base ability, then walked around with nothing but various spoons. I don't remember the specifics, but it ended up that each spoon he threw did 1d6 base damage, plus his Str modifier. He did it because he wanted to get the DM to state that spoons were OP. It worked...

[Dagroth]

Ranger is a decent idea, especially with FE: Arcanist.

Slayer doesn't need to progress your monk abilities because SUAS, monk's belt and monk's tattoo give you enough bonus effective monk levels.

True enough for damage... but Tash also advances your Flurry (reducing the flurry penalty) & AC bonus (which isn't big, but probably worth a feat for essentially +2 to hit & +2-ish AC).

[Jormengand]

True enough for damage... but Tash also advances your Flurry (reducing the flurry penalty) & AC bonus (which isn't big, but probably worth a feat for essentially +2 to hit & +2-ish AC).

True, +2 attack and AC is probably worth for a feat, but Tashalatora requires a worthless prerequisite (though you can swap one of your monk bonus feats for that, but they're just about useful). Not sure what other feats if any would be better than that pair, though. Plus of course Tashalatora allows you to drop some of the psionic fist levels because you probably want nine levels in slayer anyway, so you could take [some kind of ranger] 6/monk 3/psionic fist 1/slayer 10 (EDIT: Changed so you can take that tenth manifester level).

Man, everything is better with psionics. (Ignore the soulknife, it doesn't exist).

[ColorBlindNinja]

One of the players in the group built a character based off the Blue Raja from Mystery Men who used this combination of feats and class levels to use throw anything as his base ability, then walked around with nothing but various spoons. I don't remember the specifics, but it ended up that each spoon he threw did 1d6 base damage, plus his Str modifier. He did it because he wanted to get the DM to state that spoons were OP. It worked...

That's hilarious; I hope he took Quick Draw.

[Dagroth]

True, +2 attack and AC is probably worth for a feat, but Tashalatora requires a worthless prerequisite (though you can swap one of your monk bonus feats for that, but they're just about useful). Not sure what other feats if any would be better than that pair, though. Plus of course Tashalatora allows you to drop some of the psionic fist levels because you probably want nine levels in slayer anyway, so you could take [some kind of ranger] 6/monk 3/psionic fist 1/slayer 10 (EDIT: Changed so you can take that tenth manifester level).

Man, everything is better with psionics. (Ignore the soulknife, it doesn't exist).

I have always felt (and stated) that Tashalatora shouldn't require a prereq. Feat because the Ascetic Feats don't require one. It's a pointless feat tax, and Tash doesn't even specifically benefit your Psi class in any way, unlike the Ascetic Feats, which at least provide some benefit for the non-monk side.

[Jormengand]

I have always felt (and stated) that Tashalatora shouldn't require a prereq. Feat because the Ascetic Feats don't require one. It's a pointless feat tax, and Tash doesn't even specifically benefit your Psi class in any way, unlike the Ascetic Feats, which at least provide some benefit for the non-monk side.

Still, it's a pretty hideously powerful feat not to have a prereq, suppose if you put it on a monk 1/psychic warrior 19 you'd get, for one level and one feat (assume you trade out your first-level bonus for the prerequisite), +11ish AC, full flurry of blows, and a 2d10 weapon. You're missing out on a sixth-level power, a manifester level, and twelve power points, as well as another bonus feat that the psychic warrior gets at 20th level. I mean, that's probably a good trade-off.

Also, it's arguable that you can take Tashalatora with zero monk levels, and let your 20 psywar levels add to your zero monk levels for a total of 20, but that's somewhat more iffy.

Actually, y'know what, I think I've found the real answer to the best way to play a monk.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Also, it's arguable that you can take Tashalatora with zero monk levels, and let your 20 psywar levels add to your zero monk levels for a total of 20, but that's somewhat more iffy.

Actually, y'know what, I think I've found the real answer to the best way to play a monk.

The best way to play a Monk... Is to not be a Monk.

But I think we all knew that already. :smallwink:

[Jormengand]

The best way to play a Monk... Is to not be a Monk.

But I think we all knew that already. :smallwink:

Well, most of us knew that. My challenge to those who don't remains on the table.

[ComaVision]

Here's a question, are there any PHB classes that don't make a better monk than the monk?

[Dagroth]

Simple fix... have Tashalatora require Flurry of Blows instead of Monastic Training.

Note that Ascetic Hunter, Knight & Rogue only require Improved Unarmed Strike and give full Monk damage progression. Hunter & Rogue both improve Stunning Fist, though they don't require it.

Ascetic Mage only requires Improved Unarmed Strike (& 2nd level spells) and, by the way it's written, would make the Swordsage Wis-to-AC become Cha-to-AC. No Monk required.

Even having Tash require the Still Mind class feature along with Flurry of Blows would be fine. Just get rid of that other stupid feat tax.

Every Feat should provide a tangible benefit... not just exist as a gateway to another feat or just allow multiclassing.

[Psyren]

Here's a question, are there any PHB classes that don't make a better monk than the monk?

If by this you mean "unarmed, unarmored combatant" - then yes, all of them can be built to be (more) powerful at this.

[Doctor Awkward]

"Playable" is a very loaded term. A monk is reasonably playable in a party with a rogue, a fighter, and maybe a bard to shore up his accuracy with Inspire Courage, or a cleric that will focus on buffing him all day. It all depends on what standard you are trying to meet.

For practical optimization purposes, a monk has three levels: they are levels 1, 2, and 6. If you are making an optimized monk build then 99% of the time it will break at one of those three levels.

Again "playable" here depends entirely on what you want your monk to do:

Tripping? Passive Way (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#passiveWay) monk nets you Combat Expertise and Improved Trip for free, as well as a unique +4 bonus if you can reliably deny your opponent their Dex mod (more on that below).

Beating face? A lot of the times you'll stop at Monk 1, then prestige into something else. The Tashalatora feat was mentioned, as was Fist of the Forest, but there's also something like a one level dip in Shiba Protector which nets you Wisdom to attack and damage. You can also go the Archery route by including a one level monk dip in a Soulbow build, which with Zen Archery will also get you Wisdom to attack and damage (that same Shiba Protector dip will then get you Wisdom to attack and damage twice). For survival, the Broken One level 3 substitution out of Champions of Valor replaces Still Mind with a paladin's Lay on Hands.

Scouting? A monk can do that too. Mostly by making use of a huge amount of ACF's. Monks are a Wisdom based class that get enough skills for a ranks in Spot, Listen, Hide, and Move Silently. The Invisible Fist ACF from Exemplars of Evil swaps out Evasion to allow you to become invisible for 1 round as an immediate action with a 3 round recharge time. At level 7, the Dark Moon Disciple ACF from the Champions of Ruin web enhancement (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20050712a) can replace Wholeness of Body with Shadow Blend (just like a Shadow Mastiff) (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadowMastiff.htm). Now any time you are not in direct sunlight you have total concealment. Then at level 9 Invisible Fist grants you the ability to use Blink as an immediate action for a number of rounds equal to your Wisdom modifier with a 3 round cooldown (thus with a Wisdom of 16 it is Blink at will, permanently).

Putting it together:

Passive Way Monk 7/Lion Totem Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 1/Factotum 3/...
Requires some fiat with alignment or very clever roleplaying. But you are a tripper among trippers. Flurry of Blows+Whirling Frenzy for even more attempts per round. Dex and Int to trip attempts. Thanks to Invisible Fist you even get that +4 bonus from Passive Way monk, and you can rage for more Strength. If Dragon Mag is allowed, you can qualify for the Broken Fist I and II feats thanks to the monk levels.

Monk 2/Psion 18
Not strictly a monk build, but by taking Monastic Training as a monk bonus feat, you can qualify for Tashalatora and stack Psion with your monk levels for various abilities, so the next time someone mentions Unarmed Swordsage, you can point out that having 9th level powers or being a Spell-to-Power Erudite is better than that.

Passive Way Monk 7/Shiba Protecter 1/Fist of the Forest 3/Paladin 2/Swordsage 2/...
You MAD, bro? Turn one of the worst aspects of the class into your greatest asset with a little help from the stat boosting magic items and you can wind up with a character significantly more powerful than it's SAD counterparts. Wisdom and Con to AC, Strength and Wisdom to Attack and Damage, and Wisdom to Saves via the Paladin dip and Dragon Magazine's Serenity feat.

Passive Way Monk 2/psychic warrior 2/Swordsage 1/Initiate of Draconic Mysteries 4/SS+1/Shadow Sun Ninja 1/Fist of the Forest 3/Warshaper 2/IoDM+4
1: Combat Expertise (bonus), Monastic Training
2: Improved Trip (bonus)
3: Alertness, Iron Will (bonus)
4: Great Fortitude (bonus)
6: Tashalatora
9: Superior Unarmed Strike
12: Practiced Manifester
15: open
18: open
This one requires you to be a changeling. But the end result is 4 unarmed strikes at 36d8, insane tripping modifiers, and decent reach. Add in Inhuman Reach and another Warshaper level for a 10 ft. reach. If you have an undead or someone in the party with Tomb-Tainted Soul, it's free healing all day.

A couple of those should be pretty playable.

[AnimeTheCat]

ok, now hear me out... this is a theory (kinda). I posted a build review and came up with some interesting ideas when combining TWF and Flurry of misses. Here's what I've got and it's something that a Monk can do that no other class can.

Human Monk 3 (Passive Way Monk)
(32 point buy)
Str - 16
Dex - 16
Con - 14
Int - 8
Wis - 14
Cha - 8

Feats:
Human - Two Weapon Fighting
Level 1 - Improved Disarm
Monk 1 (Passive Way) - Combat Expertise
Monk 2 (Passive Way) - Improved Trip
Level 3 - Combat Reflexes

With the above stats and feats you can do the following:
3 attacks as a full attack action (Flurry of Blows + TWF) - Attack Bonus +1/+1/+1
Surround yourself with as many enemies as you can then flurry+TWF. You're making 3 trip attempts with additional attacks if you succeed and with those additional attacks you're going to disarm your opponents with your quarterstaff. Here are some things to note specifically:
the three +1 attacks you will be making will use your targets touch AC as they are to initiate trip attempts which will make hitting the target much easier. Next, if you succeed with your +7 (+3 for strength, +4 for feat) strength check, you get your Melee attack against them for free per the improved trip feat. You use this for a disarm attempt with your quarterstaff as two handed weapon granting you a +4 from the feat, +1 for being on higher ground than the target, and +4 for using a 2 handed weapon, +3 for your strength granting you a +12 on the attack roll while the prone enemy gets a -4 penalty on the attack roll for being prone. Now you (Hopefully) have 3 opponents on the ground without weapons. If they try to scamper away, attack them with your stick. If they try to pick up their weapon, hit them with your stick. If they try to stand up, hit them with your stick.

I can't think of a single other 3rd level character capable of anything on this scale and +1 isn't bad against a touch AC, especially when you're getting 3 attacks as such. You could feasibly get 3 attempts on a single opponent. I know this can be tweaked and fixed up with non-srd content.

Pitfalls:
This is really only useful against armed, two legged, medium or smaller humanoids. Fix action - powerful build, expansion psionic power, etc
+1 is a low bonus for attacking. Fix action - Weapon Focus, magic weapon, flank, etc
Your AC is really low, you'll be dead before you can do this (AC 15). Fix Action - Bracer of Armor, Amulet of Natural Armor, etc.

I know there are more issues, but this is a unique and cool build idea that I'm going to take for a theory stroll in an upcoming game to see how it fares. It may not do so well, but it may do great. We'll just have to see where it goes and have fun with it.

[Zanos]

No. In no way am I confusing having a good DM with Monk being a good class. I had a terrible DM who expected us to be able to overcome challenges that were far beyond our abilities, and rewarded us far below our accomplishments. It got so bad that I ended up leaving the group because the DM claimed that the spell "Identify" was overpowered.
Sorry, you're arguing the monk is strong based on an experience in a campaign where you weren't able to overcome the campaigns challenges?

'Scuse me, gonna have a chortle at that.

[Telonius]

Here's a question, are there any PHB classes that don't make a better monk than the monk?

A really old one, but (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=3276089&postcount=59)...


I'd say that monks are underpowered.

My reason?

Morris the Mock Monk.
Human Fighter, Strength-focused.
Feats:
1: Improved Unarmed Strike
1(Human): Stunning Fist
1(Fighter): Power Attack
2(Fighter): Improved Grapple
3: Deflect Arrows
4(Fighter): Improved Disarm
6: Combat Reflexes
6(Fighter): Improved Trip
8(Fighter): Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
9: Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)
10(Fighter): Greater Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike)
12: Greater Weapon Specialization (Unarmed Strike)

Morris will have exactly the same ability scores as a 20th-level Monk. Morris has all six of the monk's Bonus Feats, while the Monk can only have three of them. Fighter has 6 feats (4 fighter and 2 normal) left over between then and 20th level - the Monk only has 7 feats to begin with (8 if a human), so Morris can most likely take all of the same feats that the Monk does by level 20, minus one. He has an average of 20 more hit points than the monk by 20th level. He has a higher BAB, which means he can hit more often than an equivalent-level Monk. Morris Power Attacks for at least 3 every time; with his Weapon Specialization, this means he's hitting as hard as a 20th-level monk starting at 12th level. (Except his attack bonus is still 2 better than the monk). Morris can wear enchantable armor while fighting, which costs less than the Monk's Bracers; he has an AC almost equalling, if not exceeding, the Monk. He can use his enchanted Gauntlets without using a Feat to gain proficiency.

Monk, on the other hand, gets faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, Slow Fall, immunity to diseases, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, immunity to poison, Dimension door 1/day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, etherealness (monk level) rounds per day, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

But several of the Monk's bonuses can be gained by magic items. The Fighter can afford these, since he's paying less for his armor. Ring of Feather Fall, Periapt of Health OR Periapt of Proof against Poison (can't have both on at once), widgets of Etherealness and Dimension Door 1/day.

So, Monk's advantages: Faster movement, a higher jump check, evasion, +2 vs enchantment, immunity to diseases OR poison, ability to heal 2x monk level hp per day, SR monk level + 10, Quivering Palm, no aging penalties, speaks with everything, DR 10/magic, better Reflex and Will saves, one more feat than Morris, 2 more skill points per level (with a much better selection of class skills), and extra attacks from Flurry of Blows.

That's it. Those are the only advantages a real monk has over Morris, who has deliberately left his normal role to do what the Monk is supposed to be able to do. (I'm not going to do the stats, but I suspect that any advantages the extra Flurry attacks would give the Monk are rather small).

Point being: a deliberately gimped, straight-PHB Fighter20 can do pretty close to what a Monk20 can do. (If you click through, you'll see that the date of that post is 2007. So yes, we've collectively been having this discussion for almost a decade).

[Doctor Awkward]

A really old one, but (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=3276089&postcount=59)...



Point being: a deliberately gimped, straight-PHB Fighter20 can do pretty close to what a Monk20 can do. (If you click through, you'll see that the date of that post is 2007. So yes, we've collectively been having this discussion for almost a decade).

I think Morris is making more than a couple of baseless assumptions there.

For starters, to qualify for Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Deflect Arrows, Stunning Fist, and other feats, he is going to need a Str, Dex, Wis, and Int score of at least 13, whereas a monk gets any of those he wants for free. With a 32 Point Buy at BEST Morrison's stats will have to be:

Str 16, Dex 13, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 13, Cha 8

While a Monk could afford to dump Int for more Dex or Str.

Furthermore, with his 16 Str, at level 20 he is doing 1d3+3 Str +3 Power Attack +4 Greater Weapon Specialization damage, which means at most he would hit for 13 points of damage. A monk with that same 16 Strength would be doing an AVERAGE of 14 damage per hit, at 2d10+3. Now Morris could wear a monk's belt, bringing his own average up to the monk he is imitating, but he'd still lose to anything with a more optimal ability score distribution.

[Zanos]

Furthermore, with his 16 Str, at level 20 he is doing 1d3+3 Str +3 Power Attack +4 Greater Weapon Specialization damage, which means at most he would hit for 13 points of damage. A monk with that same 16 Strength would be doing an AVERAGE of 14 damage per hit, at 2d10+3. Now Morris could wear a monk's belt, bringing his own average up to the monk he is imitating, but he'd still lose to anything with a more optimal ability score distribution.
That was what power attack was for I'm pretty sure. A fighter can power attack off 5 of his BAB and be at the same accuracy as a monk because of the BAB difference.

[AnimeTheCat]

Point being: a deliberately gimped, straight-PHB Fighter20 can do pretty close to what a Monk20 can do. (If you click through, you'll see that the date of that post is 2007. So yes, we've collectively been having this discussion for almost a decade).

And a few flaws with that particular build... a fighter can't take stunning fist at level 1, it has a +8 BAB prerequisite. Additionally, he only gets 1/4 his character leveler day of it, the monk get 1/4 plus monk level per day. That's 5 stunning fist vs 25 stunning fists per day.

[Dagroth]

And a few flaws with that particular build... a fighter can't take stunning fist at level 1, it has a +8 BAB prerequisite. Additionally, he only gets 1/4 his character leveler day of it, the monk get 1/4 plus monk level per day. That's 5 stunning fist vs 25 stunning fists per day.

If an only if the Monk picks Stunning Fist as his 1st level Bonus Feat.

[Eladrinblade]

Are there any builds using the core monk progression that actually make the monk playable? Are PrCs necessary? I always liked the concept of the monk but I am totally aware of it's failings.

The fighter can take it at 8th. A monk can just take improved grapple as a feat at any time, so theres no particular reason he would need to not take stunning fist at 1st.

[AnimeTheCat]

If an only if the Monk picks Stunning Fist as his 1st level Bonus Feat.

Improved grapple can be picked up as a level 1 feat too. Or if the monk so chooses at 12th level when he/she meets the BAB requirement and by the text she still gets all of the stunning fists per day. It doesn't say "a monk that selects this feat as her first level bonus feat" it simply says "a monk that selects this feat".

[Gruftzwerg]

which also means that you can skip out on real monk levels, given sufficient application of Monk's Belt/Tattoo and Superior Unarmed Strike,

Doesn't stack together.

The mentioned items/feat don't give a bonus to stack to begin with.
It let's you count as monk + X lvl.

Let's say you have Monk 1:
Monk's Belt lets you count as: monk 6
Monk's Tatto lets you count as: monk 5
SUS lets you count as: monk 5

These ain't bonuses so can't stack. They just set your dmg on a certain lvl.
And even if you would count em as bonuses, than they would share the same category (counting as higher lvl monk).
Only thing that stacks with one of these is "Fist of the Forest" since it increases in steps.

[Dagroth]

Doesn't stack together.

The mentioned items/feat don't give a bonus to stack to begin with.
It let's you count as monk + X lvl.

Let's say you have Monk 1:
Monk's Belt lets you count as: monk 6
Monk's Tatto lets you count as: monk 5
SUS lets you count as: monk 5

These ain't bonuses so can't stack. They just set your dmg on a certain lvl.
And even if you would count em as bonuses, than they would share the same category (counting as higher lvl monk).
Only thing that stacks with one of these is "Fist of the Forest" since it increases in steps.

So you're saying that Ascetic Hunter & Ascetic Knight wouldn't make a Monk-4/Pal-4/Rng-4 count as a 12th level Monk for damage purposes because both feats say they "add levels together"?

Ridiculous.

Oh, and there's another PrC that specifically increases damage... Shou Disciple.

[SirNibbles]

Doesn't stack together.

The mentioned items/feat don't give a bonus to stack to begin with.
It let's you count as monk + X lvl.

Let's say you have Monk 1:
Monk's Belt lets you count as: monk 6
Monk's Tatto lets you count as: monk 5
SUS lets you count as: monk 5

These ain't bonuses so can't stack. They just set your dmg on a certain lvl.
And even if you would count em as bonuses, than they would share the same category (counting as higher lvl monk).
Only thing that stacks with one of these is "Fist of the Forest" since it increases in steps.

I can't believe you've made a Monk build which you advertise as if it were the second coming when you're so ill-informed.

"Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus." - Dungeon Master's Guide, page 248

No bonus type is mentioned, thus is it an untyped bonus. Untyped bonuses stack.

"Monk’s Tattoo: This tattoo is usually of an animal or beast considered important to the monks of a given monastery or school. Examples include tiger, dragon, snake, crane, monkey, and so on. The tattoo improves the unarmed strike damage, speed, and AC of the monk recipient by four levels. Thus, a 7th-level monk does damage, moves, and avoids being struck as would an 11th-level monk." - Magic of Faerun, page 163

No bonus type is mentioned again, so it stacks.

"Superior Unarmed Strike: ...If you are a Monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher." - Tome of Battle, page 33

This is an untyped bonus. It stacks.

"Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect." - Rules Compendium, page 21

Misleading people through your laziness is appalling.


_______



Passive Way Monk 7/Shiba Protecter 1/Fist of the Forest 3/Paladin 2/Swordsage 2/...
You MAD, bro? Turn one of the worst aspects of the class into your greatest asset with a little help from the stat boosting magic items and you can wind up with a character significantly more powerful than it's SAD counterparts. Wisdom and Con to AC, Strength and Wisdom to Attack and Damage, and Wisdom to Saves via the Paladin dip and Dragon Magazine's Serenity feat.

And how many dozen flaws are you taking to pay those feat taxes?

Required for Shiba Protector:
Alertness
Combat Expertise (granted by Passive Way)
Iron Will

Required for Fist of the Forest:
Great Fortitude
Improved Unarmed Strike (granted by Monk 1)
Power Attack

You say you're also taking Serenity. That's 5 feats already.

Human + 2 Flaws + 1/3/6/9/12 means you've got 3 feats to spend besides those feat taxes.

Let's say we're using the elite array of 15/14/13/12/10/8.
STR: 13
DEX: 12
CON: 14
INT: 10
WIS: 15
CHA: 8

With level ups, you're looking at 18 WIS at 15th level. Let's just say you have +2 items all around:
STR: 15
DEX: 14
CON: 16
INT: 12
WIS: 20
CHA: 10

AC = 10 + Dex + Wis + Con = 18
To-hit: Str + Wis = +8

That's not all that impressive.

Shiba Protector is a trap, as is Con to AC. The two damage step increases are nice though.

[Gruftzwerg]

So you're saying that Ascetic Hunter & Ascetic Knight wouldn't make a Monk-4/Pal-4/Rng-4 count as a 12th level Monk for damage purposes because both feats say they "add levels together"?

Ridiculous.

Oh, and there's another PrC that specifically increases damage... Shou Disciple.

emphasis added.
and pls, don't put words into my mouth.
"adding levels together" is something else as "count as X lvl higher".

edit:

"Untyped bonuses stack unless the bonuses come from the same effect." - Rules Compendium, page 21
show me where any one of the mentioned things is stated to be a "bonus"? No, you can't and thus the rule doesn't apply here.
All 3 things set your unarmed dmg as " x lvls higher than your monk lvl", they don't give you a "bonus" on monk lvl for unarmed dmg.

[Jormengand]

All 3 things set your unarmed dmg as " x lvls higher than your monk lvl", they don't give you a "bonus" on monk lvl for unarmed dmg.

The tattoo is very clearly not worded like that; it improves it by four levels rather than treating you as four levels higher. So if you're first level, the belt treats you as sixth level, and then the tattoo increases the level of your abilities by four above that. Also, there's such a thing as being treated as five levels higher, and then another four levels higher than that. SUAS asks what your monk level is, and your monk level tries to tell it "One!" but because the belt treats it as 5 levels higher, the belt interrupts and says "Six!" and then SUAS is like "Great, it's now ten", and then the tattoo increases that by 4. There is no reason to take the reading where SUAS is only able to check your real level, not the effective level granted by the belt.

[Gruftzwerg]

The tattoo is very clearly not worded like that; it improves it by four levels rather than treating you as four levels higher. So if you're first level, the belt treats you as sixth level, and then the tattoo increases the level of your abilities by four above that. Also, there's such a thing as being treated as five levels higher, and then another four levels higher than that. SUAS asks what your monk level is, and your monk level tries to tell it "One!" but because the belt treats it as 5 levels higher, the belt interrupts and says "Six!" and then SUAS is like "Great, it's now ten", and then the tattoo increases that by 4. There is no reason to take the reading where SUAS is only able to check your real level, not the effective level granted by the belt.

still not bonuses and thus have no special right to be added together.

all start with your "monk lvls" as base, not your unarmed damage (in general).

lets assume a Monk-1 again:

we add Monk's Belt: "unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher" = that of a 6th lvl monk (but you are still a 1st lvl monk)

we add Monk's Tatto: "improves the unarmed strike damage, speed, and AC of the monk recipient by four levels" = that of a 5th lvl monk, cause you are still a 1st lvl monk.

and last Superior Unarmed Strike: "improves the unarmed strike damage, speed, and AC of the monk recipient by four levels" again, start the count on your 1st lvl monk and would set you at the dmg of a 5th lvl monk.

They ain't bonuses (a defined keyword which you can't just assume if it isn't in the text!) and thus don't profit from that rule. Monk's belt is the highest modifier an thus the only one in the end that applies.

Fist of the Forest instead raises you to the next dmg step, ignoring lvls and thus can be combined with one(!) of the 3 others.

[Jormengand]

Again, there is no reason to believe that it checks your base monk level and not your monk level when deciding what to increase by 5. I mean, no good reason, anyway.

[Gruftzwerg]

Again, there is no reason to believe that it checks your base monk level and not your monk level when deciding what to increase by 5. I mean, no good reason, anyway.

Only "bonuses" stack, otherwise you lack any base in the rules that you may add them together. IMHO a very good reason. You ain't have any rules to back up that you may add em together. Or can't you point me out to any?

It's not that I wouldn't like the idea/cheese of stacking em. I also had a character under the assumption that it would stack. But the more I get into "how to read RAW", the more it becomes obvious that they don't stack. I searched, I searched for a long time to find any kind of rule base to stack em but couldn't find any.
So, if you have any rules to back up "how to stack em", pls show me. I will be really glad that I misses that rule and that I was under a false assumption. But don't tell me they are "bonuses", cause they are clearly not (in terms of rules and keywords).

[Jormengand]

Only "bonuses" stack, otherwise you lack any base in the rules that you may add them together. IMHO a very good reason. You ain't have any rules to back up that you may add em together. Or can't you point me out to any?

There's nothing to say you can't add them together, either, precisely because nothing stops them from stacking. The monk's belt sees your level is one, and proclaims in a loud, booming voice "This is a sixth-level monk!" The tattoo is told that your level is six, and proclaims that it is ten, and SUAS is told it is ten and proclaims that it is fourteen (assuming your items and feats can talk, anyway. Mine can). Each of them checks your monk level, not your base monk level, and then sets your new monk level to a value that is four or five higher than your previous monk level. None of them cares what your base monk level is, even though it may be the same as your monk level.

That is, it's not that they're "Stacking", it's just that they're taking effect cumulatively. It's like how you can two-weapon fight while hasted, and the reason that haste has to say specifically that it's not cumulative with speed weapons, because even though extra attacks can't "Stack" or "Not stack", if that line weren't there, it would be possible to take your attacks value, add 1 to it, and add another 1 to it. Not that you actually have an "Attacks value", but it's the same general principle.

[Gruftzwerg]

There's nothing to say you can't add them together, either, precisely because nothing stops them from stacking.

3.5 rules work on permission. When the rules don't say you can, you can assume you can't. That simple.

If 3.5 wouldn't have any stacking rules, you could apply common sense and count everything together. But we have stacking rules in 3.5, and it allows you only to stack different or untyped "bonuses" and not everything that may apply to that stat/roll (whatsoever).

I can point you at rules for stacking "bonuses". Can you point me out the rule that says that you may stack everything that ain't a bonus? No? Than you have no rule base to stack em. That's the way 3.5 rules work.

[Eldariel]

Actually, my Monk was good at stealth, social skills, AND tumbling. They're also all naturally good at jumping because an increase in base speed equals a +4 to jump per +10 land speed. I've seen players build good Monks and bad Monks, and the same with Bards. With both classes you have to build efficiently in order to be useful to the group, and pay attention to the battlefield in order to move yourself into the optimal position.

No. In no way am I confusing having a good DM with Monk being a good class. I had a terrible DM who expected us to be able to overcome challenges that were far beyond our abilities, and rewarded us far below our accomplishments. It got so bad that I ended up leaving the group because the DM claimed that the spell "Identify" was overpowered.

That's great but the numbers don't add up. You could've almost certainly performed better with just about any over tier 5 class in vast majority of those scenarios, given the same skill in the class. I don't know why people talk about Bard as "bad"; Bard is 5 times the class Monk, Fighter or even Barbarian is. Bards are only weak compared to dedicated casters and even there, they at least have some tools. Monk is weak compared to Barbarians or Rogues, not to even mention Bards or full casters.

With no further data on your experiences, I can't give you concrete examples, but you can just run the Same Game Test for Monk in general or any given Monk-build and compare it to one of the stronger classes (again, anyone with spellcasting or stronger martials) and notice that the Monk inevitably comes up short. But it's not very hard to design a Rogue or a Barbarian that's preferable to any given Monk in 90+% of the encounters in any given campaign; contributing isn't the same as contributing as much as another class would have.

[Fouredged Sword]

There is one monk 20 build that works pretty well at what it does.

The idea is that you build for Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit while stacking as much damage onto your AOO as possible. Monk is actually pretty good at this because of the decisive strike ACF that allows you to spend a full round action to make a single strike at 2x damage that also makes ALL OTHER ATTACKS YOU DO FOR THAT ROUND double in damage.

The best pure monk version of this I can think up is

Warforged monk 20

You want to wield a battle fist for +1 size to your unarmed strikes and slam. Get the party wizard to GMW you for another +5 size increases to both your slam and unarmed strikes. When you hit 5 bab pick up beast strike so you deal your unarmed AND slam damage each time you hit with an unarmed strike.

You end up returning to sender something like 64d6+2xStr worth of damage in the form of two attacks for every attack someone sends at you. You take -8 to ac and +4 damage from all attacks as a penalty.

The build comes online at level 9 when you have beast strike and karmic strike. Level 18 caps you off with robilar's gambit.

Feats
1- Dodge
1- Stunning Fist (monk)
2 - Combat reflexes (monk)
3 - Karmic Strike
^ Minimum build ^
6 - Open Feat
6 - Improved Strik (monk)
9 - Beast Strike
^ Optimum build ^
12 - Open Feat
15 - Open Feat
18 - Robilar's Gambit

The problem is you are better off going Monk 2 / Fighter 18 or something. Monk 3+ is basically wasted levels adding not much more than BAB and saves.

[Jormengand]

3.5 rules work on permission. When the rules don't say you can, you can assume you can't. That simple.

I mean, the rules don't specify that fireball can be used to damage outsiders, because they don't need to, because damaging outsiders is already something that it can clearly do from the rules that are already there. Similarly the rules don't specify that combining SUAS and Monk's Belt is a thing you can do, because it's already bloody obvious to anyone who isn't trying to make the argument that you cannot combine two things that don't say they stack, like say, bludgeoning and cold damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/iceStorm.htm) ("Clearly, you can't combine the two because stacking doesn't apply to damage!") or haste and two-weapon fighting ("Clearly, you can't combine the two because stacking doesn't apply to attacks!"). There's no mechanism, I hear you cry, for you to combine the effects of these two things... but there doesn't need to be. The mechanism is "This thing increases your monk level by 5. Then that thing increases it by another 4. These are two separate increases, but that's okay, because the first takes 1 as an input and gives 6, and the other takes 6 as an input and gives 10". Stacking doesn't come into it, so I don't know why you keep talking about stacking.

[Rhyltran]

That's great but the numbers don't add up. You could've almost certainly performed better with just about any over tier 5 class in vast majority of those scenarios, given the same skill in the class. I don't know why people talk about Bard as "bad"; Bard is 5 times the class Monk, Fighter or even Barbarian is. Bards are only weak compared to dedicated casters and even there, they at least have some tools. Monk is weak compared to Barbarians or Rogues, not to even mention Bards or full casters.

With no further data on your experiences, I can't give you concrete examples, but you can just run the Same Game Test for Monk in general or any given Monk-build and compare it to one of the stronger classes (again, anyone with spellcasting or stronger martials) and notice that the Monk inevitably comes up short. But it's not very hard to design a Rogue or a Barbarian that's preferable to any given Monk in 90+% of the encounters in any given campaign; contributing isn't the same as contributing as much as another class would have.

I wouldn't say "Any given monk build." again a lot of these statements is based on the "tier system" definition of monk but certain archetypes and even prestige classes/variants aren't considered. A wild monk is most likely tier 3 for example and is definitely above the likes of barbarian and/or rogue. With the right items and equipment the monk can easily handle the SGT just as there was a monk build that was created as a challenge who can solo all the elder evils. In TO optimization levels the monk can easily hit 36d8 and combine that with decisive strike if you really dislike fury of blows and you have something that the raw damage potential is beyond what most rogues can pull off. Wild Shape alone will give the monk answers and versatility to solve quite a few problems they normally wouldn't be able to have access too.

Gain aberration wild shape, draconic wild shape, etc and you gain some interesting answers to problems. Note that such a monk would still fall behind the likes of bard. However, it's definitely comparable if not better than most Barbarians/Rogues.

[Gruftzwerg]

I mean, the rules don't specify that fireball can be used to damage outsiders, because they don't need to, because damaging outsiders is already something that it can clearly do from the rules that are already there. Similarly the rules don't specify that combining SUAS and Monk's Belt is a thing you can do, because it's already bloody obvious to anyone who isn't trying to make the argument that you cannot combine two things that don't say they stack, like say, bludgeoning and cold damage (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/iceStorm.htm) ("Clearly, you can't combine the two because stacking doesn't apply to damage!") or haste and two-weapon fighting ("Clearly, you can't combine the two because stacking doesn't apply to attacks!"). There's no mechanism, I hear you cry, for you to combine the effects of these two things... but there doesn't need to be. The mechanism is "This thing increases your monk level by 5. Then that thing increases it by another 4. These are two separate increases, but that's okay, because the first takes 1 as an input and gives 6, and the other takes 6 as an input and gives 10". Stacking doesn't come into it, so I don't know why you keep talking about stacking.

The fireball is a really bad argument. The fireball gives you to permission to damage your targets, so you don't need to specifically call out all possibilities.

And as already said: If 3.5 hadn't had any stacking rules at all, common sense would apply. But 3.5 has stacking rules and those allow only "bonuses" to stack.
And what you are doing there is clearly stacking.. and you can't point out any rule that would allow you that.

If you talk about RAI, that is a another story (and I would have no problem with that as houserule). But if you go strict by RAW, you get a clear NO!

[ComaVision]

The fireball is a really bad argument. The fireball gives you to permission to damage your targets, so you don't need to specifically call out all possibilities.

The monk level thing is a really bad argument. The belt, feat, and tattoo gives you permission to treat the monk as several levels higher, so it doesn't need to specifically call out all possibilities.

I fail to recognize the distinction.

[Jormengand]

The monk level thing is a really bad argument. The belt, feat, and tattoo gives you permission to treat the monk as several levels higher, so it doesn't need to specifically call out all possibilities.

I fail to recognize the distinction.

That's probably because that was exactly the point I was making and exactly why I chose fireball as an example. :smalltongue:

EDIT: And the effects of the monk's belt and SUAS aren't "Stacking" any more than the extra attack from haste and TWF or the two kinds of damage from ice storm are "Stacking." They're just both taking effect. And increasing your monk level. Multiple times. It's not hard.

[Gruftzwerg]

The monk level thing is a really bad argument. The belt, feat, and tattoo gives you permission to treat the monk as several levels higher, so it doesn't need to specifically call out all possibilities.

I fail to recognize the distinction.

The distinction is that:

1: they ain't "bonuses" who can be stacked on each other

2: we lack any other stacking rules that would allow these effects to stack on each other (what you are clearly attempting here: stacking).

If you want to find proof that they may work you need either:

a) an errata text where the keyword "bonus" is in.

or

b) find another rule how things that are not bonuses may stack on each other.

As said, 3.5 rules are permission based.
Since we have stacking rules in 3.5, you may not apply common sense here (RAW = rules as written; RAI = rules as intended / or simple common sense). You may not stack/add these things on the same thing/stat/ability (whatsoever) unless you prove a rule that permits you to do so.

Again, this is just RAW. You don't need to play RAW and may play as you want (or your DM wants^^). But RAW the situation is pretty clear and obvious to me. All 3 things lack the keyword "bonus" and thus the stacking rule doesn't apply. Simple as that.

edit:
Increasing several times the same thing is not stacking for you? I can't see how you can deny this?

[AnimeTheCat]

So you're saying that Ascetic Hunter & Ascetic Knight wouldn't make a Monk-4/Pal-4/Rng-4 count as a 12th level Monk for damage purposes because both feats say they "add levels together"?

Actually, they wouldn't strike. Neither feat actually effects your monk level they both state "If you have levels of ranger and monk, those stack for determining unarmed strike damage" and "Your Paladin and Monk Levels stack for determining unarmed strike damage". So, by the text, the best you can hope for is 1d10 as an 8th level monk, not 2d6 as a 12th level monk. If you stack your paladin and monk levels, you have a level 8 monk. If you stack your Monk and Ranger levels, you have a level 8 monk. There is no indication that the two feats stack with each other.


There's nothing to say you can't add them together, either, precisely because nothing stops them from stacking. The monk's belt sees your level is one, and proclaims in a loud, booming voice "This is a sixth-level monk!" The tattoo is told that your level is six, and proclaims that it is ten, and SUAS is told it is ten and proclaims that it is fourteen (assuming your items and feats can talk, anyway. Mine can). Each of them checks your monk level, not your base monk level, and then sets your new monk level to a value that is four or five higher than your previous monk level. None of them cares what your base monk level is, even though it may be the same as your monk level.

That is, it's not that they're "Stacking", it's just that they're taking effect cumulatively. It's like how you can two-weapon fight while hasted, and the reason that haste has to say specifically that it's not cumulative with speed weapons, because even though extra attacks can't "Stack" or "Not stack", if that line weren't there, it would be possible to take your attacks value, add 1 to it, and add another 1 to it. Not that you actually have an "Attacks value", but it's the same general principle.

I urge you to read the text of all of those items and abilities again. They all say something to the effect of "treated as a monk of X levels higher for determining the calculations of Y abilities." this would lead me to believe that they don't stack. I am a level 1 monk. If I'm being treated as a monk of 5 levels higher for the purposes of my unarmed strike damage and AC bonus I'm still a level 1 monk... Also, to add to this, a monks belt clearly states that your get one additional use of stunning fist per day. If I was suddenly a level 6 monk I would have 7 uses per day (6+(.25*6) round down). a first level monk with a monk belt still only gets 3 uses per day. One for monk level, one as the minimum granted by the feat, and one from monk belt. Apply that same logic to the other items/abilities/feats.
Monk Tatoo - improves the unarmed strike damage, movement speed, and ac of a monk recipient by four levels. So if my monk level is increased by 4, my 1st level monk is now treated as a 5th level monk for only those three things. You can mix this an monk belt and get damage and AC of a level 6 monk with the movement speed of a 5th monk and an extra stunning fist per day, but not Strikes as 10th level, AC as 10th level, Movement speed as 5th and and extra stunning fist. That kind of stacking won't work because you're still only a first level monk.
SUS follows the same logic. "If you are a Monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher." well a monk of 4 levels higher than my monk level is 5 which does me no good.


There is one monk 20 build that works pretty well at what it does.

The idea is that you build for Karmic Strike and Robilar's Gambit while stacking as much damage onto your AOO as possible. Monk is actually pretty good at this because of the decisive strike ACF that allows you to spend a full round action to make a single strike at 2x damage that also makes ALL OTHER ATTACKS YOU DO FOR THAT ROUND double in damage.

The best pure monk version of this I can think up is

Warforged monk 20

You want to wield a battle fist for +1 size to your unarmed strikes and slam. Get the party wizard to GMW you for another +5 size increases to both your slam and unarmed strikes. When you hit 5 bab pick up beast strike so you deal your unarmed AND slam damage each time you hit with an unarmed strike.

You end up returning to sender something like 64d6+2xStr worth of damage in the form of two attacks for every attack someone sends at you. You take -8 to ac and +4 damage from all attacks as a penalty.

The build comes online at level 9 when you have beast strike and karmic strike. Level 18 caps you off with robilar's gambit.

Feats
1- Dodge
1- Stunning Fist (monk)
2 - Combat reflexes (monk)
3 - Karmic Strike
^ Minimum build ^
6 - Open Feat
6 - Improved Strik (monk)
9 - Beast Strike
^ Optimum build ^
12 - Open Feat
15 - Open Feat
18 - Robilar's Gambit

The problem is you are better off going Monk 2 / Fighter 18 or something. Monk 3+ is basically wasted levels adding not much more than BAB and saves.

I think throwing in Improved natural attack would bolster this build. You could even take the feat twice, once for monk's unarmed attacks and once for the natural slam attack. Every time you make a full attack you get your slam attack as a secondary attack (-5 penalty) but that can be lessened if you find a way to get two more natural attacks (maybe by means of a magic item or something). For the purposes of what you're trying to do that looks pretty effective to me.

[Jormengand]

To be clear one last time: It is precisely because the stacking rules do not apply to the monk equipment that they can be used cumulatively. It is, again, as you still refuse to even acknowledge let alone attempt to refute, the same as the way there is no rule for stacking damage, or bonus attacks, or bonus feats, or so forth.

Not to mention that "Stack" is used to refer to more than just bonuses:

"You can gain Extra Turning multiple times. [The extra TU uses] stack."
"You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. [The increases in threat range] do not stack."
"You can gain [Spell focus] multiple times. [The increases in save DCs] do not stack."
"A character may gain [Toughness] multiple times. [The hit points] stack."
"You can gain [Devastating Critical] more than once. [The saves versus instant death] do not stack."
"You can gain [Efficient Item Creation] more than once. [The time reduction does] not stack."
"You can gain [Epic Toughness] more than once. [The hit points] stack."

I'm sorry, but completely irrespective of whether stacking is involved or not, I'm afraid you're just wrong.

@AnimeTheCat: I direct you to the post YOU JUST QUOTED:

"Each of them checks your monk level, not your base monk level, and then sets your new monk level to a value that is four or five higher than your previous monk level. None of them cares what your base monk level is, even though it may be the same as your monk level."

That is, "Four levels higher" means "Four levels higher than 6, because your monk level is already effectively six."

[AnimeTheCat]

@AnimeTheCat: I direct you to the post YOU JUST QUOTED:

"Each of them checks your monk level, not your base monk level, and then sets your new monk level to a value that is four or five higher than your previous monk level. None of them cares what your base monk level is, even though it may be the same as your monk level."

That is, "Four levels higher" means "Four levels higher than 6, because your monk level is already effectively six."

So as a first level monk with a monk belt on what level monk am I? Do I have Slow Fall 30ft? Do I have +3/+3 Flurry BAB? Do I have Purity of body? Do I have Ki Strike (Magic)? Do I have my 6th level bonus feat? Do I have still mind? Do I have Evasion? Do I have my second level bonus feat? The answer to all of those is NO! You sir, are the wrong one here. My monk level is 1. By your logic, does is say check your "acting monk level for a few distinct features of the monk class"? well, nope so you're a level 1 monk with a magic belt. Congrats.

[Fouredged Sword]

I think throwing in Improved natural attack would bolster this build. You could even take the feat twice, once for monk's unarmed attacks and once for the natural slam attack. Every time you make a full attack you get your slam attack as a secondary attack (-5 penalty) but that can be lessened if you find a way to get two more natural attacks (maybe by means of a magic item or something). For the purposes of what you're trying to do that looks pretty effective to me.

You can, and I do think it is a good idea for those open feats, but in practice all it does is speed up your reaching 32d6 punches. Once you hit the size cap on the weapon damage table (8d6) there isn't really a value in trying to push it harder. For a monk's unarmed strike that is 3 levels of size bonus until you cap out (though it get's weird as not all monk damage die sets show up on the table).

Other REALLY good ideas are Travel Devotion to allow you some mobility 1/day and Martial Study Sudden Leap for the same but 1/encounter.

[Jormengand]

So as a first level monk with a monk belt on what level monk am I? Do I have Slow Fall 30ft? Do I have +3/+3 Flurry BAB? Do I have Purity of body? Do I have Ki Strike (Magic)? Do I have my 6th level bonus feat? Do I have still mind? Do I have Evasion? Do I have my second level bonus feat? The answer to all of those is NO! You sir, are the wrong one here. My monk level is 1. By your logic, does is say check your "acting monk level for a few distinct features of the monk class"? well, nope so you're a level 1 monk with a magic belt. Congrats.

For a start, I am not a sir. But, y'know, I suppose that jumping to conclusions is a thing you've been doing wrong.

In the second instance, it is possible to have different effective monk levels for different purposes. Your monk level, when you want to know about unarmed strikes, is fourteen if you have all three bonuses. When you want to know about evasion, your effective monk level is your base monk level, of 1.

To be clear, you are a monk of first level. You put on the belt, and are "Treated as a monk of five levels higher", that is, a monk of sixth level. Your effective monk level is 6 (ignoring those things that the belt doesn't advance). SUAS then treats you as a monk of four levels higher. Your unarmed damage is "Treated as a monk of five levels higher", including when determining what level of monk SUAS thinks you are, because no exception for this is made anywhere in the rules, so SUAS thinks you're a 6th-level monk, and makes you a 10th-level one instead. It's not hard.

[Eldariel]

I wouldn't say "Any given monk build." again a lot of these statements is based on the "tier system" definition of monk but certain archetypes and even prestige classes/variants aren't considered. A wild monk is most likely tier 3 for example and is definitely above the likes of barbarian and/or rogue. With the right items and equipment the monk can easily handle the SGT just as there was a monk build that was created as a challenge who can solo all the elder evils. In TO optimization levels the monk can easily hit 36d8 and combine that with decisive strike if you really dislike fury of blows and you have something that the raw damage potential is beyond what most rogues can pull off. Wild Shape alone will give the monk answers and versatility to solve quite a few problems they normally wouldn't be able to have access too.

Gain aberration wild shape, draconic wild shape, etc and you gain some interesting answers to problems. Note that such a monk would still fall behind the likes of bard. However, it's definitely comparable if not better than most Barbarians/Rogues.

Fair, Dragon Magazine content (practically speaking Wild Monk and arguably few others) can push the envelope, at the cost of sucking even worse early on. And yes, optimized unarmed strike damage can actually get much, much higher than that - but it's not that hard to match it with power attack multipliers.

[Gruftzwerg]

To be clear one last time: It is precisely because the stacking rules do not apply to the monk equipment that they can be used cumulatively. It is, again, as you still refuse to even acknowledge let alone attempt to refute, the same as the way there is no rule for stacking damage, or bonus attacks, or bonus feats, or so forth.

Not to mention that "Stack" is used to refer to more than just bonuses:

"You can gain Extra Turning multiple times. [The extra TU uses] stack."
"You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. [The increases in threat range] do not stack."
"You can gain [Spell focus] multiple times. [The increases in save DCs] do not stack."
"A character may gain [Toughness] multiple times. [The hit points] stack."
"You can gain [Devastating Critical] more than once. [The saves versus instant death] do not stack."
"You can gain [Efficient Item Creation] more than once. [The time reduction does] not stack."
"You can gain [Epic Toughness] more than once. [The hit points] stack."

I'm sorry, but completely irrespective of whether stacking is involved or not, I'm afraid you're just wrong.

@AnimeTheCat: I direct you to the post YOU JUST QUOTED:

"Each of them checks your monk level, not your base monk level, and then sets your new monk level to a value that is four or five higher than your previous monk level. None of them cares what your base monk level is, even though it may be the same as your monk level."

That is, "Four levels higher" means "Four levels higher than 6, because your monk level is already effectively six."

to clear your misinformation up:

- we have the regular stacking rules http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm

- than we have special circumstances (like those you mentioned), where it is clearly mentioned that they do or do not stack. Note that the "do not stack" sentences are in most times just a friendly reminder that you lack the permission to stack em. You can't stack something unless the text/rules allow you to do so (as said, 3.5 is permission based ruling). And no, you may not apply common sense here since we have rules that top common sense.

[Psyren]

And no, you may not apply common sense here since we have rules that top common sense.

There are few sentences that sum up this forum better.

[Jormengand]

to clear your misinformation up:

- we have the regular stacking rules http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm

- than we have special circumstances (like those you mentioned), where it is clearly mentioned that they do or do not stack. Note that the "do not stack" sentences are in most times just a friendly reminder that you lack the permission to stack em. You can't stack something unless the text/rules allow you to do so (as said, 3.5 is permission based ruling). And no, you may not apply common sense here since we have rules that top common sense.

You have three options here:

- Find a source which says that damage of different types stacks,
- Admit that you believe that Ice Storm only deals whichever of 2d6 and 3d6 damage is the higher, and that you are therefore just obviously wrong,
- Admit that the very fact that stacking has nothing to do with the monk's items and SUAS is exactly why you can combine them, just like you can with damage or extra attacks.

I'm coming back to this point because it's one you've repeatedly refused to address. You can apply common sense because the stacking rules only apply where they say they do, obviously, otherwise you add together damage, effective monk levels, and everything else that is increased, dealt, or done anything else by multiple sources simultaneously.

EDIT: To be even more clear: Neither damage nor effective monk levels "Stack", because "Stacking" is a thing that bonuses and the effects of some feats do, or don't do. They however "Are cumulative", the way that haste isn't with some other kinds of extra attacks, hence why haste doesn't use the word "Stack" which would only apply to bonuses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), but aging effects are "Cumulative" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm). However, there are no general rules on what may or may not "Be cumulative."

[Zanos]

To be clear, you are a monk of first level.
Sure.

You put on the belt, and are "Treated as a monk of five levels higher", that is, a monk of sixth level. Your effective monk level is 6 (ignoring those things that the belt doesn't advance).
No, this is wrong. "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." You are not considered to be a higher level monk, it simply increases your unarmed strike and AC progression.


SUAS then treats you as a monk of four levels higher.
See above.


Your unarmed damage is "Treated as a monk of five levels higher",
Sure.


including when determining what level of monk SUAS thinks you are
No it's not, because neither of those effects are keyed off of what your current monk unarmed strike progression is being treated as. They're keyed off of your monk level, which has never changed.


SUAS thinks you're a 6th-level monk, and makes you a 10th-level one instead.
No it doesn't, so it doesn't.

If you have one effect that lets you treat your weapon damage dice as being 2 size categories higher than your size category, and another that does the same thing, they will not stack because they're both keyed off the same base. It's the same reason goliaths with monkey grip can't use huge longswords. You are treating X as being Y higher for specific purposes, not actually increasing it.


It's not hard.
Appending this to the end of your post during a disagreement is pretty much the equivalent of saying "you are an idiot for not agreeing with me", so you might want to step it back a bit even if the guy you're arguing with hasn't been the most civil.

[Gruftzwerg]

There are few sentences that sum up this forum better.

well, from time to time here in the forums I have to tell myself: I'm not insane, it's just that those RAW who are insane and I just try to gasp/explain em.

[Jormengand]

No, this is wrong. "The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher." You are not considered to be a higher level monk, it simply increases your unarmed strike and AC progression.

Technically if you want to get really stupid with RAW then yes, technically your AC and unarmed damage are themselves treated as a single monk, who is five levels higher than you. However, I'm taking the reading of "The wearer's AC and unarmed damage are treated AS THOUGH THE WEARER WERE a monk of 5 levels higher", or "The wearer's AC and unarmed damage are treated AS THOSE OF a monk of 5 levels higher." Therefore, with SUAS, you're treated as a monk of 4 levels higher than that, because, for the purposes of unarmed strike damage, you're treated as being 6th level, not first.

[Zanos]

well, from time to time here in the forums I have to tell myself: I'm not insane, it's just that those RAW who are insane and I just try to gasp/explain em.
Honestly I feel like this is the kind of situation where "common sense" would be considered five different things at five different tables. Many DMs are going to balk at you getting double digit class feature progression from items and a feat, whereas others will assume that of course they stack what's the big deal.

[Gruftzwerg]

You have three options here:

- Find a source which says that damage of different types stacks,
- Admit that you believe that Ice Storm only deals whichever of 2d6 and 3d6 damage is the higher, and that you are therefore just obviously wrong,
- Admit that the very fact that stacking has nothing to do with the monk's items and SUAS is exactly why you can combine them, just like you can with damage or extra attacks.

I'm coming back to this point because it's one you've repeatedly refused to address. You can apply common sense because the stacking rules only apply where they say they do, obviously, otherwise you add together damage, effective monk levels, and everything else that is increased, dealt, or done anything else by multiple sources simultaneously.

EDIT: To be even more clear: Neither damage nor effective monk levels "Stack", because "Stacking" is a thing that bonuses and the effects of some feats do, or don't do. They however "Are cumulative", the way that haste isn't with some other kinds of extra attacks, hence why haste doesn't use the word "Stack" which would only apply to bonuses (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/haste.htm), but aging effects are "Cumulative" (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/description.htm). However, there are no general rules on what may or may not "Be cumulative."

Ice Storm:
has its own rules to back up what you are allowed to do. It's an exception in ruletext like it happens always in 3.5 . You have some base rules and some things/abilities/spells that may change/overcome those rules.
Nothing new, "Specific Trumps General" is what happened here.

So anything else left to address?

edit: btw, you did compare a single ability/source what specific gives you the ability to stack 2 things, with 3 things/sources that you try to stack without any ruletext to back up. I hope I could make the difference clear.

[Jormengand]

Ice Storm:
has its own rules to back up what you are allowed to do. It's an exception in ruletext like it happens always in 3.5 . You have some base rules and some things/abilities/spells that may change/overcome those rules.
Nothing new, "Specific Trumps General" is what happened here.

So anything else left to address?

Ah, except that it doesn't say that the damage stacks, so by your logic 2d6 of one type and 3d6 of the other should be whichever of those two is the higher. It's the same as if something granted you DR 5/- and 10/magic - they don't combine to 15 against nonmagical attacks and 5 against magical ones, they combine to 10 against nonmagical attacks and 5 against magical ones. ("If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.")

Similarly, because there "Is no rule allowing you to stack the damage types", and because ice storm does not specify that you add the two types of damage together (so no, no "Specific trumps general" here), clearly you can only take whichever is higher?

EDIT: does a spell that adds 1d6 points of fire damage to your weapon attack not stack with a spell that adds 1d6 points of cold or 1d12 points of fire damage to it, if you really think that the number of sources it comes from (and for Pelor's sake I AM NOT TRYING TO STACK THEM) matters?

[Gruftzwerg]

Ah, except that it doesn't say that the damage stacks, so by your logic 2d6 of one type and 3d6 of the other should be whichever of those two is the higher. It's the same as if something granted you DR 5/- and 10/magic - they don't combine to 15 against nonmagical attacks and 5 against magical ones, they combine to 10 against nonmagical attacks and 5 against magical ones. ("If a creature has damage reduction from more than one source, the two forms of damage reduction do not stack. Instead, the creature gets the benefit of the best damage reduction in a given situation.")

Similarly, because there "Is no rule allowing you to stack the damage types", and because ice storm does not specify that you add the two types of damage together (so no, no "Specific trumps general" here), clearly you can only take whichever is higher?

you know what? on second thought on Ice Storm:

the damage doesn't stack. you just do x bludgeoning and y cold damage. If they would stack you would get problems with DRs that only apply to one of the damage types. So no special damage stacking here.

[Jormengand]

But I'm confused, I thought you couldn't add two things together except by "Stacking" them? Or are you now prepared to say that two things can have a combined effect (EDIT: Perhaps even a "Cumulative" one) without them having to "Stack"?

[Gruftzwerg]

But I'm confused, I thought you couldn't add two things together except by "Stacking" them? Or are you now prepared to say that two things can have a combined effect (EDIT: Perhaps even a "Cumulative" one) without them having to "Stack"?

who said something about adding? you get x of this type of damage on y of that type of damage. It's not the same stack (type of damage), so it can't stack to begin with.

[Jormengand]

who said something about adding? you get x of this type of damage on y of that type of damage. It's not the same stack (type of damage), so it can't stack to begin with.

Right, right, but their effects both apply to increase the total amount of damage that the attack deals, right? Without having to stack? Because I think we might be onto something here. That is, two things can apply with a cumulative effect without "Stacking" ever being involved. Right?

[Gruftzwerg]

Right, right, but their effects both apply to increase the total amount of damage that the attack deals, right? Without having to stack? Because I think we might be onto something here. That is, two things can apply with a cumulative effect without "Stacking" ever being involved. Right?

as far as "stacking" is defined in terms of 3.5, yeah you are right here. But remember it's the spell Ice Storm that does this. Unless you are referring to something that explicit does this, you can't take it as general rule. Ruletext in spells is counted as "specific" when compared to "general" rules.

[AnimeTheCat]

You can, and I do think it is a good idea for those open feats, but in practice all it does is speed up your reaching 32d6 punches. Once you hit the size cap on the weapon damage table (8d6) there isn't really a value in trying to push it harder. For a monk's unarmed strike that is 3 levels of size bonus until you cap out (though it get's weird as not all monk damage die sets show up on the table).

Other REALLY good ideas are Travel Devotion to allow you some mobility 1/day and Martial Study Sudden Leap for the same but 1/encounter.

Well, Improved natural attack changes the size category you're considered for your natural weapon so you get to look at a different part of said table.


For a start, I am not a sir. But, y'know, I suppose that jumping to conclusions is a thing you've been doing wrong.

In the second instance, it is possible to have different effective monk levels for different purposes. Your monk level, when you want to know about unarmed strikes, is fourteen if you have all three bonuses. When you want to know about evasion, your effective monk level is your base monk level, of 1.

To be clear, you are a monk of first level. You put on the belt, and are "Treated as a monk of five levels higher", that is, a monk of sixth level. Your effective monk level is 6 (ignoring those things that the belt doesn't advance). SUAS then treats you as a monk of four levels higher. Your unarmed damage is "Treated as a monk of five levels higher", including when determining what level of monk SUAS thinks you are, because no exception for this is made anywhere in the rules, so SUAS thinks you're a 6th-level monk, and makes you a 10th-level one instead. It's not hard.

First off, I would like to apologize. I didn't see a gender identified in the sidebar so I took a WAG and I was wrong. My sincerest apologies. I meant no ill intent.

Next, if you're talking about effective monk levels vs monk levels my theory that the items effect your monk level 1 is more supported by that thought process. If your adding to your monk level, you're adding to 1. If your adding to your effective monk level, your combining the totals. I think that is the key word that's missing is "effective" monk level and I feel that that missing word prevents it from combining.

In the end, you play how you want to play and I'll play how I want to play and if we ever meet in life we can discuss this at length, but I am doubtful that you'll change your mind simply by reading text on a screen. With that I'm going to step out. Apologies again for offending you, that was entirely not my intent. Intent does not change reality though and I misspoke. Sincerely, I'm sorry for that.

[Fouredged Sword]

Well, Improved natural attack changes the size category you're considered for your natural weapon so you get to look at a different part of said table.


The problem is that 2d10 showes up nowhere on the table. You should be capping out at the largest die offered of 8d6 or 6d8 ether way. It's a solid option, I just think the player will likely appreciate more mobility rather than more damage when damage is already going to cap out. Maybe take them early and retrain later.

That said, it's a perfectly valid choice for the build. It depends on the play style your DM rewards and how much you need to move around in combat. My DM in college responded to a melee character bunkering down and prepping a powerful attack was goblins throwing rocks at him. They only did a point of damage or two, but unless he went to the enemy they would just poke him until he got tired of it.

[Dagroth]

emphasis added.
and pls, don't put words into my mouth.
"adding levels together" is something else as "count as X lvl higher".

edit:

show me where any one of the mentioned things is stated to be a "bonus"? No, you can't and thus the rule doesn't apply here.
All 3 things set your unarmed dmg as " x lvls higher than your monk lvl", they don't give you a "bonus" on monk lvl for unarmed dmg.

So... you're saying that the example of Monk-4/Ranger-4/Paladin-4 with Ascetic Hunter & Ascetic Knight would have unarmed attack damage as a 12th level Monk?

If so why doesn't a Monk's Tattoo, which uses "Increases by 4 levels" and says nothing about your current or actual level, stack with a Monk's Belt?

[emeraldstreak]

Well, Improved natural attack changes the size category you're considered for your natural weapon so you get to look at a different part of said table.


It doesn't do that. It increases damage "as if" a size increase would, but the math is the only thing it has in common with size increases.

[emeraldstreak]

With no further data on your experiences, I can't give you concrete examples, but you can just run the Same Game Test for Monk in general or any given Monk-build and compare it to one of the stronger classes (again, anyone with spellcasting or stronger martials) and notice that the Monk inevitably comes up short. But it's not very hard to design a Rogue or a Barbarian that's preferable to any given Monk in 90+% of the encounters in any given campaign; contributing isn't the same as contributing as much as another class would have.

Only thing I notice is how few people can actually optimize a Monk.

[Gruftzwerg]

So... you're saying that the example of Monk-4/Ranger-4/Paladin-4 with Ascetic Hunter & Ascetic Knight would have unarmed attack damage as a 12th level Monk?

If so why doesn't a Monk's Tattoo, which uses "Increases by 4 levels" and says nothing about your current or actual level, stack with a Monk's Belt?

Come on, can't you see/tell the obvious difference?

Ascetic Hunter & Knight call out in their text that it "stacks". A clear use of the keyword "stack" that allows to stack. Both feats give you the permission to "stack" lvl from class X/Y to monk for determining/affecting several class abilities.

Show me where Monk's Belt/Tattoo or SUAS explicit says that you may "stack" em with your monk levels? No, they just talk about "increase/count as" whatsoever and never mention the keyword "stack" (or "bonus" or even the sometimes rare used "extra" instead of "bonus").

"Bonuses and Extras" count as "adding to" while "Increase and count as X higher" aren't "adding to a value". They are setting you to a higher value.

Again, as friendly reminder. Don't try to apply common sense here. We have strict rules for this kind of situations and it all depends on the usage or absence of special keywords. That's how you are supposed to read RAW.

edit: As I said several times in this forum. If you want to read RAW, you need to become a wording-lawyer in the first place.

edit2:

Only thing I notice is how few people can actually optimize a Monk.
Regular internet phenomenon:
One thing is called out to be bad and almost everybody loses interest. Something else gets called out to be strong and almost everybody jumps on the train and tries to optimize it further.. but totally forgets that others things can be optimized as well.
And that is called "META".
In 3.5 imho it's warlocks and monks who suffer from this syndrome the most. While almost anybody knows 1337 ways to optimize a wizard, they can't even call out the rules to optimize monk & warlock.
I had a really long time to gather and gasp all the info that I have accumulated so far and sometimes still step upon things that are still new to me or where I had wrong impressions of the situation.
3.5 rules due to the nature of being split over dozens of books are sometimes really really hard to find.

[Doctor Awkward]

Only thing I notice is how few people can actually optimize a Monk.

https://img.memesuper.com/0c8f827ad9b498527dacfb6586371e15_template-fry-face-meme_603-452.png





...
Show me where Monk's Belt/Tattoo or SUAS explicit says that you may "stack" em with your monk levels? No, they just talk about "increase/count as" whatsoever and never mention the keyword "stack" (or "bonus" or even the sometimes rare used "extra" instead of "bonus").

"Bonuses and Extras" count as "adding to" while "Increase and count as X higher" aren't "adding to a value". They are setting you to a higher value.

...


You claim that the rules explicitly do not permit you to stack bonuses... uh... things? ...that come from different sources if they use the language "increase" or "count as".

This constitutes a positive claim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof)

Source?

[Gruftzwerg]

You claim that the rules explicitly do not permit you to stack bonuses... uh... things? ...that come from different sources if they use the language "increase" or "count as".

This constitutes a positive claim. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof)

Source?

I'm repeating the same thing over and over again..

1.) In 3.5 you need to have rules to have permission to be able to "do things". Common sense only applies when there are no rules that can cover the situation.

2.) We have rules for stacking. Either it is covered in the BASICS section:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm
or
it is explicitly called out in the feat/ability whatsoever.


Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS don't fall into the stackable things covered in the BASICS section. And they lack any keywords that would allow them to do so.
Thus you have no rule base to stack em. Cause Stacking is a defined game term & rule and you may not apply common sense to it.

[Doctor Awkward]

I'm repeating the same thing over and over again..

1.) In 3.5 you need to have rules to have permission to be able to "do things". Common sense only applies when there are no rules that can cover the situation.

2.) We have rules for stacking. Either it is covered in the BASICS section:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm
or
it is explicitly called out in the feat/ability whatsoever.


Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS don't fall into the stackable things covered in the BASICS section. And they lack any keywords that would allow them to do so.
Thus you have no rule base to stack em. Cause Stacking is a defined game term & rule and you may not apply common sense to it.

The rules for "Stacking" only applies to "bonuses" and "penalties" which are (by the page you linked) explicitly only things that modify the results of dice rolls.

Where are the rules that cover the stacking (or not) of effects from feats and magic items such as Nightsticks, the Monk's Belt, Monk Tattoo, Superior Unarmed Strike, and so on that don't modify the results of dice rolls?

[Gruftzwerg]

The rules for "Stacking" only applies to "bonuses" and "penalties" which are (by the page you linked) explicitly only things that modify the results of dice rolls.

Where are the rules that cover the stacking (or not) of effects from feats and magic items such as Nightsticks, the Monk's Belt, Monk Tattoo, Superior Unarmed Strike, and so on that don't modify the results of dice rolls?

There aren't any, that's my point. But since we have overall stacking rules, you can't say they are just absent and apply common sense.
You lack the rule base to stack the things not covered in the BASICS or that are not explicitly called out as stackable.

[Doctor Awkward]

There aren't any, that's my point. But since we have overall stacking rules, you can't say they are just absent and apply common sense.
You lack the rule base to stack the things not covered in the BASICS or that are not explicitly called out as stackable.

We don't have overall stacking rules. That's my point
We have general stacking rules that cover only things that modify the results of dice rolls.

In every other instance the rules explicitly tell you what does and does not stack (except where it doesn't):

-YES-
Circumstance modifiers
Dodge modifiers
Aid Other attempts
Combat Expertise (with Defensive fighting)
The various penalties on disguise checks

-NO-
Multiple instances of concealment and/or cover
Multiple instances of damage reduction
Encumbrance Penalties
Multiple instances of energy resistance
Multiple instances of miss chances
Spell Resistance
Temporary hit points
Spell Focus bonus on dual-school spells

And effects related to spells (mostly ones that deal in effects not related to dice rolls, like the movement speed increase Expeditious Retreat), with an additional note that untyped bonuses always stack.

The Rules Compendium further notes (pg. 87) that magic item effects stack exactly as spells do.

There are precisely zero mentions of feats and how they interact with items that produce similar effects.

[Dagroth]

As has been said before, the line that says "untyped bonuses that are not from the same source always stack" can be seen as a clear indication that the Monk's Belt, Monk's Tattoo & Superior Unarmed Strike should stack.

This is also why the Wis-to-AC from Monk doesn't stack with Wis-to-AC from Swordsage. However, Int-to-AC from Monk with Kung Fu Genius does stack with Wis-to-AC from Swordsage, since they are both untyped bonuses and come from different sources (different stats).

Edit: Further, Monk's Belt, Monk's Tattoo & Superior Unarmed Strike all provide differing amounts of bonus and differ in the number of things they provide a bonus to.

[Gruftzwerg]

As has been said before, the line that says "untyped bonuses that are not from the same source always stack" can be seen as a clear indication that the Monk's Belt, Monk's Tattoo & Superior Unarmed Strike should stack.

This is also why the Wis-to-AC from Monk doesn't stack with Wis-to-AC from Swordsage. However, Int-to-AC from Monk with Kung Fu Genius does stack with Wis-to-AC from Swordsage, since they are both untyped bonuses and come from different sources (different stats).

Edit: Further, Monk's Belt, Monk's Tattoo & Superior Unarmed Strike all provide differing amounts of bonus and differ in the number of things they provide a bonus to.

they still ain't bonuses. "untyped bonus" still requires the keyword "bonus" to work. See the different "bonus"-types in the BASICS stacking section. If you can fit them anywhere there you are lucky. But I guess you won't find anything fitting and that they ain't bonuses that may be stacked..

edit:
you can't just say "oh, that looks like a bonus (common sense). So I assume it works like a bonus even if the keyword "bonus" isn't used in the ruletext".

[ComaVision]

edit2:

Regular internet phenomenon:
One thing is called out to be bad and almost everybody loses interest. Something else gets called out to be strong and almost everybody jumps on the train and tries to optimize it further.. but totally forgets that others things can be optimized as well.
And that is called "META".
In 3.5 imho it's warlocks and monks who suffer from this syndrome the most. While almost anybody knows 1337 ways to optimize a wizard, they can't even call out the rules to optimize monk & warlock.
I had a really long time to gather and gasp all the info that I have accumulated so far and sometimes still step upon things that are still new to me or where I had wrong impressions of the situation.
3.5 rules due to the nature of being split over dozens of books are sometimes really really hard to find.

That might hold some water if this wasn't a good decade after 3.5e ended. Many people know a lot more about optimizing warlocks and monks than you. Also, warlocks are leaps and bounds better than monks.

[Doctor Awkward]

they still ain't bonuses. "untyped bonus" still requires the keyword "bonus" to work. See the different "bonus"-types in the BASICS stacking section. If you can fit them anywhere there you are lucky. But I guess you won't find anything fitting and that they ain't bonuses that may be stacked..

edit:
you can't just say "oh, that looks like a bonus (common sense). So I assume it works like a bonus even if the keyword "bonus" isn't used in the ruletext".

The Rules Compendium doesn't require the existence or absence of any specific word.
Only that it is a magic item that produces and "effect".

[Gruftzwerg]

That might hold some water if this wasn't a good decade after 3.5e ended. Many people know a lot more about optimizing warlocks and monks than you. Also, warlocks are leaps and bounds better than monks.

Well, does that change anything that most players aren't good at rules/optimization, especially thx due to internet, everybody can rely on others to decide what and how to play. How many people make guides? I guess <5%. The others just use the info that is there. Further many old guides contain bugs and people copy these bugs are truth.

btw, did I say anywhere that I am good at optimizing or why do u needed to compare my abilities to optimize monks & warlocks? I just said, that most people aren't capable of reading RAW and lack the rules/books/infos to make proper build.
Further I was just pointing out that most people don't bother to even try to optimize the so called weaker classes (monk / warlock).
And did I anywhere said anything about the power of monks vs warlocks here?

What are you reading into my posts? I'm surprised, really..

[Zanos]

Also, warlocks are leaps and bounds better than monks.
http://i.imgur.com/XS5LK.gif


btw, did I say anywhere that I am good at optimizing or why do u needed to compare my abilities to optimize monks & warlocks? I just said, that most people aren't capable of reading RAW and lack the rules/books/infos to make proper build.
Further I was just pointing out that most people don't bother to even try to optimize the so called weaker classes (monk / warlock).
Plenty of people try. You can check Tippy's Trial (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?285801-Tippy-s-Terrifically-Terrible-Trial) for some of the work people did, but in my opinion many of the builds created for that challenge were more powerful by virtue of magic items and selected cheese than anything that had to do with a monk. Which is fair, because a monk soloing an Elder Evil without massive cheese is impossible.

But acting like people don't try to optimize weak classes is ridiculous. There's tons of threads about how to optimize monks/fighters/rogues. People even try to optimize commoners.

[Gruftzwerg]

The Rules Compendium doesn't require the existence or absence of any specific word.
Only that it is a magic item that produces and "effect".

Do you have the page for me?
I can only find the stacking rules for Bonuses on page 21.

What did I miss?

[Gruftzwerg]

But acting like people don't try to optimize weak classes is ridiculous. There's tons of threads about how to optimize monks/fighters/rogues. People even try to optimize commoners.

I said not as much as T1 classes. It's not a 3.5 problem. It's a internet age problem. If you look at how META in other games work it's the same problem. There is always a class/hero/whatsoever which gets more fanboys as the others. And due to the higher amount of human resources, you get more guides, more chesse, more.. bla...

IMHO monks & warlocks face the same problem. For every TO monk or warlock thread here in the forums, you can count at least 10 TO wizard threads here. Or is this just my impression?

[Zanos]

I said not as much as T1 classes. It's not a 3.5 problem. It's a internet age problem. If you look at how META in other games work it's the same problem. There is always a class/hero/whatsoever which gets more fanboys as the others. And due to the higher amount of human resources, you get more guides, more chesse, more.. bla...

IMHO monks & warlocks face the same problem. For every TO monk or warlock thread here in the forums, you can count at least 10 TO wizard threads here. Or is this just my impression?
There's a lot more to be said about a class that had additional character options(spells) printed in pretty much every book since the game came out, yeah.

[Doctor Awkward]

Do you have the page for me?
I can only find the stacking rules for Bonuses on page 21.

What did I miss?

Page 87, subheading titled "Stacking Effects" under "Resolving Magic Item Effects" in the section for "Using an Item" in the entry for "Magic Items".

It refers you to page 137, The subheading "Stacking Effecst" which contains the rules for combining effects of different spells. It outlines all the specific instances in which effects from spells interact when combined together:


Different Bonus Types (untyped bonuses always stack)
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths (re: caster level dependent effects like a Greater Magic Weapon from two different level clerics, only the most powerful effect applies)
Same Effect with Differing Durations (they overlap)
Same Effect with Differing Results (When the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once; only the most recent effect applies)
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant (Haste and Slow, Enlarge Person and Reduce Person)


And the note regarding multiple sources attempting mental control on the same target.

Additionally, that same page has a footnote regarding "Other Power Sources" in D&D. These are referring to various subsystems introduced in other books. The short list includes Breath effects (Dragon Magic); draconic auras (Player’s Handbook II); soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum); infusions (EBERRON Campaign Setting); invocations (Complete Arcane, Dragon Magic); martial powers (Tome of Battle); mysteries (Tome of Magic); psionic powers (Expanded Psionics Handbook); Shadow Weave spells (FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting); utterances (Tome of Magic); vestiges (Tome of Magic).

It notes there that "The stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regardless of an effect’s or bonus’s source."

So in order for your claim to be true that various effects that increase your effective monk level with regards to various features do not stack, you must establish within the rules that they are any one of the following:


They are the bonus same type.
They come from the same source.
They contain in their description a specific exception that otherwise forbids them from stacking per the normal stacking rules.

[Gruftzwerg]

Page 87, subheading titled "Stacking Effects" under "Resolving Magic Item Effects" in the section for "Using an Item" in the entry for "Magic Items".

It refers you to page 137, The subheading "Stacking Effecst" which contains the rules for combining effects of different spells. It outlines all the specific instances in which effects from spells interact when combined together:


Different Bonus Types (untyped bonuses always stack)
Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths (re: caster level dependent effects like a Greater Magic Weapon from two different level clerics, only the most powerful effect applies)
Same Effect with Differing Durations (they overlap)
Same Effect with Differing Results (When the same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same recipient more than once; only the most recent effect applies)
One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant (Haste and Slow, Enlarge Person and Reduce Person)


And the note regarding multiple sources attempting mental control on the same target.

Additionally, that same page has a footnote regarding "Other Power Sources" in D&D. These are referring to various subsystems introduced in other books. The short list includes Breath effects (Dragon Magic); draconic auras (Player’s Handbook II); soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum); infusions (EBERRON Campaign Setting); invocations (Complete Arcane, Dragon Magic); martial powers (Tome of Battle); mysteries (Tome of Magic); psionic powers (Expanded Psionics Handbook); Shadow Weave spells (FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting); utterances (Tome of Magic); vestiges (Tome of Magic).

It notes there that "The stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regardless of an effect’s or bonus’s source."

So in order for your claim to be true that various effects that increase your effective monk level with regards to various features do not stack, you must establish within the rules that they are any one of the following:


They are the bonus same type.
They come from the same source.
They contain in their description a specific exception that otherwise forbids them from stacking per the normal stacking rules.


looking at page 137:
..which is talking about "bonuses" that can stack... wow.. the same "bonuses" as mentioned in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).

how many times do I need to repeat that we have no proof that Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS are "bonuses"?? Nothing on page 137 changes that what the Basics tell us.

Am I being trolled here? I feel like I am talking today to a wall.

me: those 3 things have no indication that they are "bonuses" and may be ruled as "bonuses"
next one stepping in line: but here, the rules say "bonuses" stack...

I mean..??? Whats up today? April the 1st?

[emeraldstreak]

I fail to see how an optimized Monk won't win 50%+ of SGT. As a minimum, the Monk wins any encounter that requires damage dealing while surviving hit point damage. In addition, the Monk will have decent odds in encounters requiring saves to survive. Let's check the CR 15 list

Winnable "brute"-like encounters
A Marut.
A warparty of Cloud Giants.
A pair of Glabrezus.
A Mature Adult White Dragon.
A Cornugon.
A Gelugon and his Iron Golem bodyguard.
Twenty Dire Bears.

Fairly winnable encounters with some chance of complications
A Hullathoin (with its army of skeletons and bloodfiend locusts).
A Nightmare Beast deep in a hedge maze.
A Death Slaad riding a Titanic Toad.
A pair of Beholders.
A Rube Goldberg series of contingent weirds triggered to a set of symbols of pain surrounding the artifact.

Possibly winnable at DMG example quality. Not winnable if PvP optimized.
A Yakfolk cleric with a party of Dao.
A Drow Priestess with an army of ghouls.

Winnable, but only if the build addresses issues they cause
A harem of Succubi.
A dozen Medusa archers mounted on Hellcats.
A forest made out of lava and infested with hostile fire-element dire badgers.

A flying anti-magic field? Not worth bothering with.
A Windghost in the sky.

[Doctor Awkward]

looking at page 137:
..which is talking about "bonuses" that can stack... wow.. the same "bonuses" as mentioned in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).

how many times do I need to repeat that we have no proof that Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS are "bonuses"?? Nothing on page 137 changes that what the Basics tell us.

Am I being trolled here? I feel like I am talking today to a wall.

me: those 3 things have no indication that they are "bonuses" and may be ruled as "bonuses"
next one stepping in line: but here, the rules say "bonuses" stack...

I mean..??? Whats up today? April the 1st?

Your claim then is that things... benefits? ...yeah, I like that word... benefits received via magic items (and feats, I guess) are neither "bonuses" nor "effects".

Interesting.

What are they, then?

[Dagroth]

looking at page 137:
..which is talking about "bonuses" that can stack... wow.. the same "bonuses" as mentioned in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).

how many times do I need to repeat that we have no proof that Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS are "bonuses"?? Nothing on page 137 changes that what the Basics tell us.

Am I being trolled here? I feel like I am talking today to a wall.

me: those 3 things have no indication that they are "bonuses" and may be ruled as "bonuses"
next one stepping in line: but here, the rules say "bonuses" stack...

I mean..??? Whats up today? April the 1st?

Actually, it says the stacking rules for effects and bonuses. Yet you only indicate bonuses.

The effect of a Monk's Belt is to allow the wearer to do damage as if treated like a Monk 5 levels higher. The effect of Superior Unarmed Strike is to deal unarmed damage as a Monk 4 levels higher.

[Gruftzwerg]

Your claim then is that things... benefits? ...yeah, I like that word... benefits received via magic items (and feats, I guess) are neither "bonuses" nor "effects".

Interesting.

What are they, then?

Well unless you try to call em via a defined keyword you may call em how you want. Benefit, improvement, increase, whatsoever.
But if you want to call em "bonuses", they need to fit the description of "bonuses" or need to explicitly call it out in their ruletext (which the 2 items & the feat does clearly not).
edit to further clarify: They are "effects" but not "bonus effects". A slight but important difference.


Actually, it says the stacking rules for effects and bonuses. Yet you only indicate bonuses.

The effect of a Monk's Belt is to allow the wearer to do damage as if treated like a Monk 5 levels higher. The effect of Superior Unarmed Strike is to deal unarmed damage as a Monk 4 levels higher.

look it up again pls.. (p137)

1) we have a Stacking Effect paragraph/title
It imitatively starts to talk about what? Yeah, "bonuses".

2) And what is the only section that clearly stacks with each other?
"Different Bonus Types:"

3) all other options either override or cancel each other out and are not the stacking (adding) what you are claiming for.

So could you pls reread the page again and (maybe my posts too..) and try again?


Don't get me wrong, If someone can give me any real prof that I am wrong here, I'll be really happy to grab at least a dozen character concepts that died because of this messed stacking rule.
So if you have any further arguments (other than something that just points me to the same "bonuses" cancer...) I would be really happy to hear/see em.
It's just as I said, I fell a bit trolled here, cause since yesterday I try to make clear, that until now no-one could give any prof that the 3 things can be categorized as "bonus".

So pls...^^ Stop pointing me to "bonuses" if you can't find any "bonus" section/type that the 3 things would fit into. Without any keyword usage of bonuses in the text of the items/feat, this will be really hard to accomplish IMHO, dunno if it is possible at all. I believe not so far. I spend IIRC about several weeks with looking up this in books & threads about this topic.
But I couldn't find any evidence, that would allow these 3 things to count as "bonus" and be stackable. Only threads with people claiming that they are "untyped bonuses" which ain't true imho.

edit:
If I had to categorize the 3 things/effects into p137 it would be either
"Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths"
or
"One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant"

your turn ;)

[SirNibbles]

looking at page 137:
..which is talking about "bonuses" that can stack... wow.. the same "bonuses" as mentioned in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).

how many times do I need to repeat that we have no proof that Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS are "bonuses"?? Nothing on page 137 changes that what the Basics tell us.

Am I being trolled here? I feel like I am talking today to a wall.

me: those 3 things have no indication that they are "bonuses" and may be ruled as "bonuses"
next one stepping in line: but here, the rules say "bonuses" stack...

I mean..??? Whats up today? April the 1st?

"Modifiers
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." - SRD

However, you can have a bonus to an ability score, which is not a die roll. You can have a bonus to caster level, which is not a die roll. You can apply a Healer's Healing Hands to Cure Minor Wounds, which is not a die roll. You can have a bonus to AC, which is not a die roll. I can go on.

You're trying to use self-contradictory RAW to prove your point for, I assume, the sake of being deliberately obtuse. If we ignore the self-contradictory part about a die roll being required, we get the following:

"A modifier is any bonus or penalty. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty."

Increasing levels sounds like a positive modifier to your levels, hence it is a bonus.

Base + N is pretty much the definition of a bonus and those Monk items give + N.

[Jormengand]

The alternative interpretation, incidentally, is that they aren't bonuses, so the stacking rules don't apply to them at all - they can't "Stack" or "Not stack", but they can "Be cumulative" the way that bonus attacks from Haste can be with two weapon fighting and can't be with speed weapons. Things which aren't bonuses "Are cumulative" unless something else says otherwise, otherwise you get stupid things like damage not being cumulative with other damage or only being able to make a maximum of two attacks from any source.

Whether they are or aren't bonuses, they therefore must add up in some way or another.

[Gruftzwerg]

"Modifiers
A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty." - SRD

However, you can have a bonus to an ability score, which is not a die roll. You can have a bonus to caster level, which is not a die roll. You can apply a Healer's Healing Hands to Cure Minor Wounds, which is not a die roll. You can have a bonus to AC, which is not a die roll. I can go on.

You're trying to use self-contradictory RAW to prove your point for, I assume, the sake of being deliberately obtuse. If we ignore the self-contradictory part about a die roll being required, we get the following:

"A modifier is any bonus or penalty. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty."

Increasing levels sounds like a positive modifier to your levels, hence it is a bonus.

Base + N is pretty much the definition of a bonus and those Monk items give + N.

If that would be all what the rules tells us about modifiers, you would have been right. But that is not the chase.

Just because it sounds like a modifier/bonus, you may not threat it like one. Cause they are declared:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm

what you call "self-contradictory part" is a general rule, which gets trumped several times by specific parts where the modifiers are listed (e.g. Ability modifier)

And if you look at the different types of available modifiers (bonuses & penalties) that are stackable, you won't find any category to fit Monk's Belt/Tattoo and SUAS into.
And those are the general stacking rules, and unless something that doesn't fit into it, doesn't special mention that it's stackable, you may not stack it.

You may not count something as bonus, just because it sounds like it (common sense). You need a clear indication that it fit's into the definition of modifiers. And that is not the chase for Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS. They don't have any modifier type, not even an (untyped) bonus is mentioned.

And you may not make up other modifier types. So unless you can solve this problem, NO it won't stack..


The alternative interpretation, incidentally, is that they aren't bonuses, so the stacking rules don't apply to them at all - they can't "Stack" or "Not stack", but they can "Be cumulative" the way that bonus attacks from Haste can be with two weapon fighting and can't be with speed weapons. Things which aren't bonuses "Are cumulative" unless something else says otherwise, otherwise you get stupid things like damage not being cumulative with other damage or only being able to make a maximum of two attacks from any source.

Whether they are or aren't bonuses, they therefore must add up in some way or another.

Haste & TWF stack because two complete different "mechanics" are applied. Hast increases your speed while TWF gives you an offhand-attack. Different mechanics stack. (other example of this is Concealment and Blink misschances (you need to roll twice, they don't really stack, you just have 2 layers).
But in chase of Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS I don't see how you could see them as different mechanics? Just because the effect is described (without keyword usage) with different words/sentences don't make em different mechanics. They just increase some of your monk abilities. The way how they work ain't described, so you can't assume that they are different mechanics.

And no, 3.5 gives you no right to add anything you want or what looks like addable.
We have "Stacking RULES"! Unless you can fit them (the 3 things) into them or can find an extension of the Modifiers in the BASICS where they would fit into, they won't stack/add up whatsoever. You need rules to be allowed to add things in 3.5.
So unless you can prove that they are modifiers/bonuses, pls consider that you might have been ruling it wrong so far..

[Jormengand]

If that would be all what the rules tells us about modifiers, you would have been right. But that is not the chase.

Just because it sounds like a modifier/bonus, you may not threat it like one. Cause they are declared:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm

what you call "self-contradictory part" is a general rule, which gets trumped several times by specific parts where the modifiers are listed (e.g. Ability modifier)

And if you look at the different types of available modifiers (bonuses & penalties) that are stackable, you won't find any category to fit Monk's Belt/Tattoo and SUAS into.
And those are the general stacking rules, and unless something that doesn't fit into it, doesn't special mention that it's stackable, you may not stack it.

You may not count something as bonus, just because it sounds like it (common sense). You need a clear indication that it fit's into the definition of modifiers. And that is not the chase for Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS. They don't have any modifier type, not even an (untyped) bonus is mentioned.

And you may not make up other modifier types. So unless you can solve this problem, NO it won't stack..



Haste & TWF stack because two complete different "mechanics" are applied. Hast increases your speed while TWF gives you an offhand-attack. Different mechanics stack. (other example of this is Concealment and Blink misschances (you need to roll twice, they don't really stack, you just have 2 layers).
But in chase of Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS I don't see how you could see them as different mechanics? Just because the effect is described (without keyword usage) with different words/sentences don't make em different mechanics. They just increase some of your monk abilities. The way how they work ain't described, so you can't assume that they are different mechanics.

And no, 3.5 gives you no right to add anything you want or what looks like addable.
We have "Stacking RULES"! Unless you can fit them (the 3 things) into them or can find an extension of the Modifiers in the BASICS where they would fit into, they won't stack/add up whatsoever. You need rules to be allowed to add things in 3.5.
So unless you can prove that they are modifiers/bonuses, pls consider that you might have been ruling it wrong so far..

The "Stacking RULES!" do not apply at all to things which aren't bonuses. That is, two things which are not bonuses do not have to "Stack" in order for both of them to apply cumulatively. The "Haste & TWF stack because two complete different "mechanics" are applied. Hast increases your speed while TWF gives you an offhand-attack. Different mechanics stack." is a set of rules which you just made up on the spot to justify your position, and again, neither the extra attack from haste nor from TWF nor from rapid shot nor from speed nor from a high base attack bonus nor from temporal twist nor from whirling frenzy nor from anything else is a "Bonus", so they do not "Stack" at all. Nor do they "Not stack". The "Stack"-"Not stack" dichotomy does not apply to them. It's like arguing that a rock isn't female so it must be male (ignoring the reasons that doesn't make sense with humans either for a moment). That is, stacking is not the only way that two things can have a concordant effect.

[Gruftzwerg]

The "Stacking RULES!" do not apply at all to things which aren't bonuses. That is, two things which are not bonuses do not have to "Stack" in order for both of them to apply cumulatively. The "Haste & TWF stack because two complete different "mechanics" are applied. Hast increases your speed while TWF gives you an offhand-attack. Different mechanics stack." is a set of rules which you just made up on the spot to justify your position, and again, neither the extra attack from haste nor from TWF nor from rapid shot nor from speed nor from a high base attack bonus nor from temporal twist nor from whirling frenzy nor from anything else is a "Bonus", so they do not "Stack" at all. Nor do they "Not stack". The "Stack"-"Not stack" dichotomy does not apply to them. It's like arguing that a rock isn't female so it must be male (ignoring the reasons that doesn't make sense with humans either for a moment). That is, stacking is not the only way that two things can have a concordant effect.

It doesn't matter if you call it Stacking, Adding or Cumulative. You need rules to have the permission to do it. Remember, 3.5 is permission based. And unless you can find a rule where the 3 things fit into, you may not stack/add em and they are not cumulative.

regarding, Haste&TWF and Concealment&Blink and such. look up Sage Advice & FAQs where these situations are explained why they stack/add and you will see that it is because of different mechanics that are in effect (maybe other wording). I didn't make em up. And I thought that you would know why they stack and that I don't need to prove that too (cause you was the one who brought it up). Look em up if you want and tell me if I was wrong, if you still insist that I made it up.

The reason/ruling behind this is quite simple. Let's look up the examples again:

Haste & TWF work together because one increases attack speed while the other gives offhand attack. It's obvious that your offhand speed is also affected. 2 different mechanics that work together and therefor a hasted offhand attack.

Concealment & Blink work together because one is a visual misschance (concealment), while the other shifts you to another plane (blink). 2 different mechanics that work together and therefor 2 misschances to roll.

and now:
Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS don't work together because they aren't described in any way "how they affect you mechanically". Do you get stronger, bigger, more focused, faster or whatsoever? Nothing mentioned. So you can't assume that there are different mechanics which would work together.
And they aren't untyped bonuses either, cause that would at least require the keywords "bonus" or the lesser used "extra" to work.
They have no base to be counted in any way together by the rules (unless you can point me to one, which was not the chase until now..).

And again, don't try to apply common sense here. I am not talking about Rules As Intended, I am talking about Rules As Written.

[Jormengand]

It doesn't matter if you call it Stacking, Adding or Cumulative. You need rules to have the permission to do it. Remember, 3.5 is permission based. And unless you can find a rule where the 3 things fit into, you may not stack/add em and they are not cumulative.

The permission is in the items themselves. They do say that they increase your effective monk level. They do not say that you cannot do that if you have already done so with another item.

It's like saying "Well, you can't cast magic missile on a target you've already cast a spell on because the rules don't say you can!" or "You can't cast fireball on someone in a tree because the rules don't say you can!" The rules tell you that these monk items can be used to improve your monk abilities. In order for them not to be cumulative, there would have to be a specific exemption in the rules saying that you could not do so if another item were already being used in this way.

EDIT: And again, tell me where these rules you're making up about haste and blink are written. Or are you "Using common sense"?

[Gruftzwerg]

The permission is in the items themselves. They do say that they increase your effective monk level. They do not say that you cannot do that if you have already done so with another item.

It's like saying "Well, you can't cast magic missile on a target you've already cast a spell on because the rules don't say you can!" or "You can't cast fireball on someone in a tree because the rules don't say you can!" The rules tell you that these monk items can be used to improve your monk abilities. In order for them not to be cumulative, there would have to be a specific exemption in the rules saying that you could not do so if another item were already being used in this way.

EDIT: And again, tell me where these rules you're making up about haste and blink are written. Or are you "Using common sense"?


no, that ain't a permission to count things together. They just give you the permission to treat X as if you where Y lvl higher. When things are stackable/addable with other things, either you have a bonus type (even if it's untyped) or it is explicitly called out that it stacks

e.g. Dodge Bonus to AC:
1st it's a bonus and thus has the rights by the rules to stack/add at all
2nd dodge bonuses mention that it even stacks with itself.

Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS lack this kind of text. "Increase" and "count as x lvls higher" has no special indication that if would stack/add to anything else similar at all.

edit: casting Magic Missiles/Fireballs over several rounds ain't have anything to do with stacking on a single action. Poor comprehension.

[Doctor Awkward]

It doesn't matter if you call it Stacking, Adding or Cumulative. You need rules to have the permission to do it. Remember, 3.5 is permission based. And unless you can find a rule where the 3 things fit into, you may not stack/add em and they are not cumulative.

Incorrect.
The D&D 3.5 ruleset is exception-based. Wizards of the Coast designed them to be that way. They have a lot of experience with exception-based rules on account of working with Magic: The Gathering for so many years.

The rules define a set of general truths, and list exceptions to those rules as needed. A monster's entry takes precedence over any other general rule about monsters, the Improved Disarm feat is the exception to disarm attempts always provoking attacks of opportunity, the rapier's entry permits it to be used in conjunction with the Weapon Finesse feat which is normally limited to light weapons, and so on.


Haste & TWF work together because one increases attack speed while the other gives offhand attack. It's obvious that your offhand speed is also affected. 2 different mechanics that work together and therefor a hasted offhand attack.

Do I detect a note of Common Sense in that interpretation?


Concealment & Blink work together because one is a visual misschance (concealment), while the other shifts you to another plane (blink). 2 different mechanics that work together and therefor 2 misschances to roll.

Also incorrect.
The Rules Compendium states multiple times (Incorporeality, pg. 64, and Concealment, pg. 32) that multiple sources of miss chances do not stack. Only the highest miss chance bonus applies. I did note this is my list above.


and now:
Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS don't work together because they aren't described in any way "how they affect you mechanically". Do you get stronger, bigger, more focused, faster or whatsoever? Nothing mentioned. So you can't assume that there are different mechanics which would work together.
And they aren't untyped bonuses either, cause that would at least require the keywords "bonus" or the lesser used "extra" to work.
They have no base to be counted in any way together by the rules (unless you can point me to one, which was not the chase until now..).

Inaccurate on multiple counts.
Per the rules on Resolving Magic Items (also covered under Multiple Spells), all magical effects function with each other except in cases where they specifically don't (as noted in my bulleted list above).
Fluff descriptions on "how" magic items function (harder, bigger, faster, stronger) are never a necessary step in resolving the mechanical effects of magic items. They affect you through magic. What form that magic takes is entirely up to how the DM chooses to describe it.


And again, don't try to apply common sense here. I am not talking about Rules As Intended, I am talking about Rules As Written.

Awful advice for interpreting the rule books in general.
The rules were always intended to be read with a judicious application of common sense. While that will vary from person to person, there must always be some core assumptions that a large group of "reasonable" people can agree upon or the game is meaningless. You aren't arguing the Rules As Written, you are arguing Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong. If you try and play this game purely and strictly by the rules as they are written, you will have an unplayable game.

Using RAW as a defense is meaningless-- in particular when that defense rests largely on your individual interpretation.

[Gruftzwerg]

Ok, here is the BONUS question:

Can someone explain me why "Monkey Grip" & "Strongarm Bracer" don't work together? Why don't they add up?

If you can answer this, you have given yourself the answer why Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS don't work together.

Cause Monkey Grip & Strongarm Bracer lack the same (ruletext/keywords) as Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS do to be able to stack.

[Doctor Awkward]

Can someone explain me why "Monkey Grip" & "Strongarm Bracer" don't work together? Why don't they add up?

Who says they don't?

Strongarm Bracers explicitly don't work with Powerful Build. It makes no mention of Monkey Grip, which in turn makes no mention of not working with anything else.

[Dagroth]

Does a Pearl of Power (which increases caster level) stack with Practiced Spellcaster (which increases caster level).

If you say "yes", then you have no reason to say that a Monk's Belt (which increases Monk level for unarmed damage) doesn't stack with Superior Unarmed Strike (which increases Monk level for unarmed damage).

[Gruftzwerg]

Does a Pearl of Power (which increases caster level) stack with Practiced Spellcaster (which increases caster level).

If you say "yes", then you have no reason to say that a Monk's Belt (which increases Monk level for unarmed damage) doesn't stack with Superior Unarmed Strike (which increases Monk level for unarmed damage).

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm
The pearl of power that I know doesn't give you increased caster lvl, so I can' help you here.

And if you would point me to an item that only "increases caster lvl" without the keyword "bonus" or a clear permission that it may stack with other things, you would get a clear NO.


Incorrect.
The D&D 3.5 ruleset is exception-based. Wizards of the Coast designed them to be that way. They have a lot of experience with exception-based rules on account of working with Magic: The Gathering for so many years.
Doesn't change what I said. "Rules need to give you permission to do things" does not exclude "exception-based rules". Both are correctly describing 3.5s nature.
That's why we call it "Specific Trumps General". The General rules give you permissions and the Exceptions may change these.
To prove this permission system:
PC: "I grab the sun and throw it at the enemy!"
DM: "What rule/ability gives you the permission"
PC: "It doesn't stand anywhere that I am not allowed to do this"
DM: "That's not how permissions work."

So pls, lets at least stop to argue about this topic and call it "Exceptions based Permission Rules" or "Permission and Exception based rules".

edit: Rules of the Game: There, not There part4 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041005a)

Normally, miss chances do not stack (a blur spell's 20% miss chance doesn't stack with the 50% miss chance for being completely unseen, for example). In this case, however, you could combine the incorporeal miss chance with a miss chance for attacking a concealed target because one involves uncertainty about exactly where the target is and the other involves an immaterial target that might not vulnerable to the attack at all. To stack the miss chances, check the miss chance for concealment first, then check the incorporeal miss chance; if the attacker fails either miss chance, the attack misses (to save time, you might want to check the highest miss chance first, or just roll both of them at the same time).
describes what I said: when you have 2 different mechanics, they can stack. in this chase it's visual misschance + incorporeal. Blink mechanics are as different from visual misschances, as incorporeal is compared to visual misschances.
Proves my point, that you need to have 2 clearly different mechanics to have stackable/addable things.
And this excludes Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS to stack. It ain't a untyped bonus, not even a bonus at all and can't be proved to be a different mechanic.

[Jormengand]

The permission given to combine the effects of the items is in the fact that the items say they do the thing, and don't say that there are any circumstances where they don't do the thing (such as when something else is already doing the thing), so they do the thing even if something else is already doing the thing. Otherwise, they'd have to spell out every circumstance under which they can do the thing.

Compare:

DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while using a monk's tattoo!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!

DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while underwater!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!

DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while sitting down!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!

DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while up a tree!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!

It says it does the thing. It doesn't say it stops doing the thing if something else is doing the thing. Therefore they both combine to do the thing better.

[Gruftzwerg]

The permission given to combine the effects of the items is in the fact that the items say they do the thing, and don't say that there are any circumstances where they don't do the thing (such as when something else is already doing the thing), so they do the thing even if something else is already doing the thing. Otherwise, they'd have to spell out every circumstance under which they can do the thing.

Compare:

DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while using a monk's tattoo!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!

That's how the rules work, yeah.


DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while underwater!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!
What has this with the permission to stack/add to do? Do we have special underwater rules for magic items? Do we have special Stacking Rules?


DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while sitting down!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!
Do we have special rules for magic items while sitting down? Do we have Stacking Rules?


DM: Aha, but it doesn't say your monk's belt works while up a tree!
Player: Well, it doesn't say it doesn't.
DM: But it needs to say that it does! Not just not say that it doesn't!
Do we have special rules for magic items when on a tree? Do we have Stacking Rules?

All boils down to:
Common Sense only works if there are no rules at all that might cover the situation (how magic items work when sitting down/on a tree/underwater).
But we have rules that say: These things are stack/addable. And since these things are clearly defined, you can apply this rule only to them or other things that, as "exception", are called out in the text that they are stackable. Otherwise you lack permission. (like in this chase).

[Doctor Awkward]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm
The pearl of power that I know doesn't give you increased caster lvl, so I can' help you here.

And if you would point me to an item that only "increases caster lvl" without the keyword "bonus" or a clear permission that it may stack with other things, you would get a clear NO.

Orange Ioun Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones)
If you don't want to allow that to stack with the Practiced Spellcaster feat, the Sanctum Spell feat, Create Magic Tattoo spell, or the Consumptive Field spell, or the Node Spellcasting feat, or any of the other myriad of ways to gain an effective caster level increase... that's your prerogative to house-rule as such as a DM.



Doesn't change what I said. "Rules need to give you permission to do things" does not exclude "exception-based rules". Both are correctly describing 3.5s nature.
That's why we call it "Specific Trumps General". The General rules give you permissions and the Exceptions may change these.
To prove this permission system:
PC: "I grab the sun and throw it at the enemy!"
DM: "What rule/ability gives you the permission"
PC: "It doesn't stand anywhere that I am not allowed to do this"
DM: "That's not how permissions work."

Not everything that can happen needs to be explicitly stated in the rules. Some things just are. The rules don't spell out what you can and cannot do when your character is dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) either. This is why common sense is necessary. If the designers took the time to spell out every single thing explicitly-- even the glaringly obvious-- then the core rulebooks would be larger than a full volume set of the Encyclopedia Brittannica.


So pls, lets at least stop to argue about this topic and call it "Exceptions based Permission Rules" or "Permission and Exception based rules".
"I'll be happy to stop contradicting you, just as soon as you start being right." (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=27189)


edit: Rules of the Game: There, not There part4 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041005a)

describes what I said: when you have 2 different mechanics, they can stack. in this chase it's visual misschance + incorporeal. Blink mechanics are as different from visual misschances, as incorporeal is compared to visual misschances.
Proves my point, that you need to have 2 clearly different mechanics to have stackable/addable things.
And this excludes Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS to stack. It ain't a untyped bonus, not even a bonus at all and can't be proved to be a different mechanic.

As the most recent source available, Rules Compendium takes precedent when the rules contradict each other.

And your argument that whether the benefit provided by the Monk's items is or is not a "bonus" was made irrelevant several posts ago.

[Gruftzwerg]

Orange Ioun Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#iounStones)
If you don't want to allow that to stack with the Practiced Spellcaster feat, the Sanctum Spell feat, Create Magic Tattoo spell, or the Consumptive Field spell, or the Node Spellcasting feat, or any of the other myriad of ways to gain an effective caster level increase... that's your prerogative to house-rule as such as a DM.
Not everything that can happen needs to be explicitly stated in the rules. Some things just are. The rules don't spell out what you can and cannot do when your character is dead (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) either. This is why common sense is necessary. If the designers took the time to spell out every single thing explicitly-- even the glaringly obvious-- then the core rulebooks would be larger than a full volume set of the Encyclopedia Brittannica.

I'll try to explain it again. And pls, at least try to gasp what I mean:

As said, you may apply common sense. But only if there aren't rules that cover the situation.
And we have rules, what you may stack & add. Which implies that everything that is not mentioned there, you are NOT allowed to stack/add (unless it's own ruletext explicitly allows it). Otherwise they could have just said, same bonuses don't stack and wouldn't have had a full page (137) dedicated to explain what you may add, what overlaps or overshadows other effects.
You can apply common sense to anything not covered by the rules (like what you can or can not do while dead). But again, we have stacking rules.


As the most recent source available, Rules Compendium takes precedent when the rules contradict each other.

And your argument that whether the benefit provided by the Monk's items is or is not a "bonus" was made irrelevant several posts ago.

Where are the rules contradicting? I only see how you are contradicting the rules as you wish. Look up page 137 again pls:


Spells that provide bonuses or penalties on attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, and other attributes don’t stack with themselves. Two bonuses of the same type don’t stack
even if they come from different spells or from effects other than spells.

Different Bonus Types:
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different
types. If separate spells apply bonuses that have the same type, only the better bonus applies. A bonus that has no type stacks with any other bonus.

Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths:
In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in
the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths,
only the best one applies.

Same Effect with Differing Durations:
When the same effect is cast more than once on the same target, the
durations of the effects don’t stack. Each effect’s duration
elapses normally.

Same Effect with Differing Results:
The same spell can sometimes produce varying effects if applied to the same
recipient more than once. Usually the last spell in the series trumps the others. None of the previous spells are actually removed or dispelled, but their effects become irrelevant
while the final spell in the series lasts.

One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:
Sometimes, one
spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still
active, but one has rendered the other useless.

Multiple Mental Control Effects:
Sometimes magical effects that establish mental control render each other irrelevant, such as a spell that removes the subject’s ability to act. Mental controls that don’t remove the recipient’s ability to act usually don’t interfere with each other. If a subject is
under the mental control of two or more controllers, that subject obeys each controller to the best of its ability and to the extent that each controller’s effect allows. If the subject
receives conflicting orders simultaneously, the competing controllers make opposed Charisma checks to determine which one the subject obeys.

You just forcefully categorize Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS into "Different Bonus Types" without any evidence. You try to let it look as if it is the only category they would fit into.
But as said in one of my post above.
Why you are so certain that they are not handled as "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths"? They all lack keywords of bonus (or extra at least) and thus seem to be just effects doing the same thing in different strengths.
And if you insist that they are different effects due to wording in the text, that still leaves "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:" as option.
Ain't it obvious that if they lack the "bonus"-keyword how they are ruled?
We have more than the bonuses category, so you can't call every effect that looks like a bonus to you a bonus. Bonuses are defined.
IMHO the rules give us enough categories and are not contradicting. Only bonuses stack and they give enough info about what happens with non-bonuses.

You couldn't make any rule based arguments, why they should count as "bonus" so far. If you can accomplish that, you will make me really happy (as said, it's not that I don't like the idea of them stacking. I would start a char op.-part by myself and grab some old builds out to polish em up and have fun with em. Really!).

[Doctor Awkward]

I'll try to explain it again. And pls, at least try to gasp what I mean:

As said, you may apply common sense. But only if there aren't rules that cover the situation.
And we have rules, what you may stack & add. Which implies that everything that is not mentioned there, you are NOT allowed to stack/add (unless it's own ruletext explicitly allows it). Otherwise they could have just said, same bonuses don't stack and wouldn't have had a full page (137) dedicated to explain what you may add, what overlaps or overshadows other effects.
You can apply common sense to anything not covered by the rules (like what you can or can not do while dead). But again, we have stacking rules.



Where are the rules contradicting? I only see how you are contradicting the rules as you wish. Look up page 137 again pls:


You just forcefully categorize Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS into "Different Bonus Types" without any evidence. You try to let it look as if it is the only category they would fit into.
But as said in one of my post above.
Why you are so certain that they are not handled as "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths"? They all lack keywords of bonus (or extra at least) and thus seem to be just effects doing the same thing in different strengths.
And if you insist that they are different effects due to wording in the text, that still leaves "One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant:" as option.
Ain't it obvious that if they lack the "bonus"-keyword how they are ruled?
We have more than the bonuses category, so you can't call every effect that looks like a bonus to you a bonus. Bonuses are defined.
IMHO the rules give us enough categories and are not contradicting. Only bonuses stack and they give enough info about what happens with non-bonuses.

You couldn't make any rule based arguments, why they should count as "bonus" so far. If you can accomplish that, you will make me really happy (as said, it's not that I don't like the idea of them stacking. I would start a char op.-part by myself and grab some old builds out to polish em up and have fun with em. Really!).

https://media.tenor.co/images/06152902b951416dc03dc07c0f85e7f6/tenor.gif



STACKING EFFECTS
Item effects stack just as spells do (see Stacking Effects, page 137).


COMBINING SPELL EFFECTS
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, that spell’s description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place.

Now that the general rules have been outlined.

This is the part where you use the specifics outlined on page 137 (or anywhere else you can find them) to establish that the Monk's items' benefits fall into one of the specific categories which would specifically prohibit them from functioning together.

[/micdrop]

[Gruftzwerg]

https://media.tenor.co/images/06152902b951416dc03dc07c0f85e7f6/tenor.gif
do we need now pics of emotions to talk about rules? is that your rule based argument?






Now that the general rules have been outlined.

This is the part where you use the specifics outlined on page 137 (or anywhere else you can find them) to establish that the Monk's items' benefits fall into one of the specific categories which would specifically prohibit them from functioning together.

[/micdrop]

Sorry that I need to ask..
Did you say that I convinced you and that they are prohibited to functioning together (= don't stack).
I have no ill intend with this question, I am just a bit confused after that pic and don't seem to get what you want to say with that.

[Doctor Awkward]

Sorry that I need to ask..
Did you say that I convinced you and that they are prohibited to functioning together (= don't stack).
I have no ill intend with this question, I am just a bit confused after that pic and don't seem to get what you want to say with that.

...

No.
The general rules are that magic item effects stack unless the items in question explicitly say otherwise.

[Gruftzwerg]

...

No.
The general rules are that magic item effects stack unless the items in question explicitly say otherwise.


COMBINING SPELL EFFECTS
Spells or magical effects usually work as described, no matter how many other spells or magical effects happen to be operating in the same area or on the same recipient. Except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, that spell’s description explains that effect. Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place.

"Except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, that spell’s description explains that effect."
Talks about spells/effects affecting other spells/effects. Since the Monk's stuff we talk about isn't targeting one the other it has nothing to do with us.

"Several other general rules apply when spells or magical effects operate in the same place."
Now the other general rules follow. Starting with Stacking Effects. There you have categories. Only Bonuses can stack. The different Bonus types are declared in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm). The monk stuff doesn't call it out to be a bonus. And thus it is just an effect.
Which leaves the 2 other mentioned options:

a) Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
or
b) One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant

edit: to further clarify

The general rule is that "bonuses" stack. Bonuses are effects, but not every effect is a bonus. There are categories how non bonus effects can interact with each other as mentioned (under Stacking Effects p137).

[Doctor Awkward]

"Except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, that spell’s description explains that effect."
Talks about spells/effects affecting other spells/effects. Since the Monk's stuff we talk about isn't targeting one the other it has nothing to do with us.

"Magic item effects stack just as spells do."


The general rule is that "bonuses" stack.
No.
"Magic item effects stack just as spells do."

[Gruftzwerg]

"Magic item effects stack just as spells do."


No.
"Magic item effects stack just as spells do."

the text that you are referring to was:
p87.

Resolving Magic Item Effects:
....
Stacking Effects:
Item effects stack just as spells do (see Stacking Effects,
page 137).

now you reread my last few posts and try again ;)

[Doctor Awkward]

now you reread my last few posts and try again ;)

...Sure. Okay.


Talks about spells/effects affecting other spells/effects. Since the Monk's stuff we talk about isn't targeting one the other it has nothing to do with us.
Items use the same rules that spells do.


Only Bonuses can stack.
Source?


The monk stuff doesn't call it out to be a bonus. And thus it is just an effect.
So if things are not explicitly called bonuses, then by the rules they are just "effects"...
...Source?


The general rule is that "bonuses" stack. Bonuses are effects, but not every effect is a bonus.
Source?


There are categories how non bonus effects can interact with each other as mentioned (under Stacking Effects p137).
And how does a Monk's Belt fit into those categories that prevents it from stacking with a Monk's Tattoo?

[Gruftzwerg]

...Sure. Okay.


Items use the same rules that spells do.


Source?


So if things are not explicitly called bonuses, then by the rules they are just "effects"...
...Source?


Source?


And how does a Monk's Belt fit into those categories that prevents it from stacking with a Monk's Tattoo?

how about reading the sources and giving me answers back?


"Except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates. Whenever a spell has a specific effect on other spells, that spell’s description explains that effect."
the rules here talks about spells/(magic item)effects that target/alter other spells/(magic item) effects in their description. And since none on the monk's stuff effects target the other effects directly, this rule "has nothing to do with/doesn't affect" them.

Only Bonuses stack:
Stacking effects (!) on p137 tells us that effects(!):

- stack when they are bonuses (here is the source!)
- only the strongest one is in effect (sounds like where the monk stuff fits in)
- the duration only overlap and not stack (has no meaning to the monk stuff we talk about)
- only the last instance counts when you have the same effect with different results (requires some kind of vaiable/roll, thus doesn't apply to our monk stuff)
- sometimes, one spell can render a later spell irrelevant. Both spells are still active, but one has rendered the other useless. (would apply to the monk stuff if you insist that they are worded different and thus different effects)
- and something about "Multiple Mental Control Effects" (again nothing to do with our monk stuff)

and as you couldn't prove that till now that the monk stuff are bonuses, they have to be one of the other available options. I have pointed out the 2 options that would be fitting.

read the page and apply the rules.

[Doctor Awkward]

the rules here talks about spells/(magic item)effects that target/alter other spells/(magic item) effects in their description. And since none on the monk's stuff effects target the other effects directly, this rule "has nothing to do with/doesn't affect" them.
It has everything to do with it. It's case one for exactly why the items/feats do stack. Because such things do by default unless they meet one of the criteria that prevents them from stacking.



- stack when they are bonuses (here is the source!)
You are losing something in your interpretation here.
Bonuses from different sources always stack unless they are the same type (as in enhancement, moral, competence, and so on).
Untyped bonuses always stack.

What is the bonus type provided by the Monk's Belt/Monk's Tattoo/Superior Unarmed Strike feat?


- only the strongest one is in effect (sounds like where the monk stuff fits in)
This category only applies when you have the same spell/magic item/source providing identical effects at differing strengths
The monk's belt and the magic tattoo are not the same source


and as you couldn't prove that till now that the monk stuff are bonuses, they have to be one of the other available options. I have pointed out the 2 options that would be fitting.

I don't have to prove anything in regards to that line of thought. You are the one who keeps insisting that the benefits provided by magic items are not "bonuses" or "effects" and that the general rules on stack should not apply to them.

The onus is therefore on you to prove that claim.


read the page and apply the rules.
Seriously. Do it.
"Rules As Written". Not "Rules As You Interpret Them".

[Dagroth]

All this talk about spells and magic items stacking is interesting, but it leaves out one very important thing...

Superior Unarmed Strike isn't a spell or magic item. It's a Feat.

Edit: If "effects" explicitly don't stack unless they are bonuses or otherwise specifically say they do stack...

Why does Keen Weapon specify that it doesn't stack with Improved Critical?

[Gruftzwerg]

It has everything to do with it. It's case one for exactly why the items/feats do stack. Because such things do by default unless they meet one of the criteria that prevents them from stacking.
As said, the sentence referred to is talking about spells/effects that affect (and thus target) other spells/effects. (e.g. Dispel Magic is a spell/effect that affects other spells/effects. that is what the sentence is talking about. not our monk stuff with don't affect each other via their description as Dispel Magic does with other Spells/Effects).


You are losing something in your interpretation here.
Bonuses from different sources always stack unless they are the same type (as in enhancement, moral, competence, and so on).
Untyped bonuses always stack.

What is the bonus type provided by the Monk's Belt/Monk's Tattoo/Superior Unarmed Strike feat?
I just shortened it, cause I am repeating it over and over again.
Only different bonuses and untyped bonuses stack.

Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS have no indication that they are bonuses. The keyword Bonus is missing. They are just effects that are handled by either:

a) Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
or
b) One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant



This category only applies when you have the same spell/magic item/source providing identical effects at differing strengths
The monk's belt and the magic tattoo are not the same source
not same item & source.

Same spell or magic item with the same effect. they don't need to share the source(or name), just the same effect ("treat your unarmed dmg x lvl higher").




I don't have to prove anything in regards to that line of thought. You are the one who keeps insisting that the benefits provided by magic items are not "bonuses" or "effects" and that the general rules on stack should not apply to them.

The onus is therefore on you to prove that claim.


Seriously. Do it.
"Rules As Written". Not "Rules As You Interpret Them".

I did explained it a dozen of times. It was just you ignoring over 2 pages my arguments until
I finally realized that you don't even read the things that I am pointing out to you.
Calm down, take a long breath and just reread the entire discussion. You got the answer a dozen of times.

____________________________



Why does Keen Weapon specify that it doesn't stack with Improved Critical?

Just a friendly reminder. You will find these reminders at the end of many ruletext. Sometimes they are real "exceptions" to general rules. But most often they are friendly reminders.

Same with Strongarm Bracer & Monkey Grip & Powerful build. IIRC only 1 mentions that they don't stack (which is a reminder, not an expeption), but since the rule for stacking is somewhere else and counts for all of em, it doesn't need to (cause all are affected by them the same way). And if you apply the mentioned rules, they are in the same boat with the monk stuff and it doesn't stack. They have no "bonus" (or extra) keyword indication that they are stable bonuses. Therefor they are non-stackable, non-bonus and just are simple effects that overlap each other.

edit: an example of another "friendly reminder"
Eldritch Claws mentions that they are not flurry-able. Since when are Claws (Natural Attacks) flurry-able to begin with? See, it's just one of many friendly reminders.

[Doctor Awkward]

As said, the sentence referred to is talking about spells/effects that affect (and thus target) other spells/effects. (e.g. Dispel Magic is a spell/effect that affects other spells/effects. that is what the sentence is talking about. not our monk stuff with don't affect each other via their description as Dispel Magic does with other Spells/Effects).

Do you target the Haste spell with a casting of Slow? Or do you target the person under the effects of Haste in order to negate it?
Does the Freedom of Movement spell target the Hold Person spell? Or the person under the effects of Hold Person?
How about Mind Blank? Does that target the Dominate Monster spell, or the creature under its effects?


I just shortened it, cause I am repeating it over and over again.
Only different bonuses and untyped bonuses stack.

Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS have no indication that they are bonuses. The keyword Bonus is missing. They are just effects that are handled by either:

Where in the rules does it say that an effect from a magic item must have the keyword bonus in order to fall under the general stacking rules?
Try to keep in mind we do have text that says magic item effects stack by default unless they fall under an exception that prevents them.



Just a friendly reminder. You will find these reminders at the end of many ruletext. Sometimes they are real "exceptions" to general rules. But most often they are friendly reminders.

Same with Strongarm Bracer & Monkey Grip & Powerful build. IIRC only 1 mentions that they don't stack (which is a reminder, not an expeption), but since the rule for stacking is somewhere else and counts for all of em, it doesn't need to (cause all are affected by them the same way). And if you apply the mentioned rules, they are in the same boat with the monk stuff and it doesn't stack. They have no "bonus" (or extra) keyword indication that they are stable bonuses. Therefor they are non-stackable, non-bonus and just are simple effects that overlap each other.
edit: an example of another "friendly reminder"

Eldritch Claws mentions that they are not flurry-able. Since when are Claws (Natural Attacks) flurry-able to begin with? See, it's just one of many friendly reminders.

...So now there is rules text that is not actually rules text but is really just "friendly reminders".

I... wow... I am honestly too fascinated to stop asking you these questions that you have to make up answers for so... How do you differentiate the "friendly reminders" from actual rules text?

[Gruftzwerg]

Do you target the Haste spell with a casting of Slow? Or do you target the person under the effects of Haste in order to negate it?
Does the Freedom of Movement spell target the Hold Person spell? Or the person under the effects of Hold Person?
How about Mind Blank? Does that target the Dominate Monster spell, or the creature under its effects?
I didn't intend to explain every detail. Cause it still ain't have to do with the monk stuff we are talking about. Or are you claiming that they affect each other in a way as the examples you mentioned? This is a pointless discussion here, cause it has nothing to do with our original problem of stacking the monk stuff.




Where in the rules does it say that an effect from a magic item must have the keyword bonus in order to fall under the general stacking rules?
Try to keep in mind we do have text that says magic item effects stack by default unless they fall under an exception that prevents them.
here is the rule how spells/effects/magic items may stack:

Different Bonus Types:
The bonuses or penalties from two different spells stack if the modifiers are of different
types. If separate spells apply bonuses that have the same type, only the better bonus applies. A bonus that has no type stacks with any other bonus.
the different bonus (or penalty) modifier types can be found here: BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm)
To be a "untyped bonus", the rules always just use "bonus" without adding any type to it. Otherwise it wouldn't be obvious that you may stack it with everything. The complete absence of the word "bonus" doesn't turn it into an "untyped bonus". This is for the other effects that don't stack (and instead override or overshadow each other, see below)

There is no rule that all beneficial effects have to be bonuses.
As I mentioned several times, beneficial effects can also be ruled:

a) Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths
or
b) One Effect Makes Another Irrelevant

How could you see that an effect would fit into these options and not be an untyped bonus, if every beneficial effect would be an untyped bonus as you suggest? You could always say it stacks as soon as you don't have the keyword bonus. Keywords are used to indicate what you are allowed and what not. It would be a big mistake if they intended to stack the monk stuff stack and not putting the word "bonus" into the ruletext.


...So now there is rules text that is not actually rules text but is really just "friendly reminders".

I... wow... I am honestly too fascinated to stop asking you these questions that you have to make up answers for so... How do you differentiate the "friendly reminders" from actual rules text?

Try to explain the Eldritch Claw rules than? Why does it call out that you may not flurry with them? Flurry doesn't allow Claws/Natural Attacks to begin with.

Can you find any other possible reason as "just a friendly reminder"?

[Dagroth]

Try to explain the Eldritch Claw rules than? Why does it call out that you may not flurry with them? Flurry doesn't allow Claws/Natural Attacks to begin with.

Can you find any other possible reason as "just a friendly reminder"?

This one is stupid-easy to explain.

The Monk's Unarmed Strike is specifically mentioned to count as both a Natural Attack and a Manufactured Weapon for the purpose of spell effects.

Thus, Eldritch Claws should add to the Monk's Unarmed Strike normally and the Monk should then be able to flurry. But, Eldritch Claws adds the "cannot be used in a Flurry" to prevent this (because of the "melee can't have good stuff" rule).

[Doctor Awkward]

To be a "untyped bonus", the rules always just use "bonus" without adding any type to it.

Okay I think we are starting to get to the root of the problem here.


stack: Combine for a cumulative effect. In most cases, modifiers
to a given check or roll stack if they come from different sources and
have different descriptors (or no descriptors at all), but do not stack
if they have the same descriptors or come from the same source
(such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a
particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus or worst penalty
applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonus however, do stack
with one another unless otherwise specified. Spell effects that do
not stack may overlap, coexist independently, or render one another
irrelevant, depending on their exact effects.

That's the only relevant definition that you have to work with. As long as an effect comes from a different source it stacks with another similar effect (provided they do not share a type). The absence of any specific typing is all that is needed for an effect to be "untyped".

This is why the Monk's Tattoo needed to have an exception written in its description to tell you that it does not stack with another Monk's Tattoo. Because two separate magic items always count as different sources of a beneficial effect, the same as a spell cast by two different creatures (even if they cast the same spell).

That last sentence in the definition only applies if you otherwise determine (through the previous sentences) that two beneficial effects would not stack. It is further instructions on how to resolve the effects if, and only if, they do not stack together.

[Gruftzwerg]

This one is stupid-easy to explain.

The Monk's Unarmed Strike is specifically mentioned to count as both a Natural Attack and a Manufactured Weapon for the purpose of spell effects.

Thus, Eldritch Claws should add to the Monk's Unarmed Strike normally and the Monk should then be able to flurry. But, Eldritch Claws adds the "cannot be used in a Flurry" to prevent this (because of the "melee can't have good stuff" rule).

Monk's Unarmed Strike already mentions in the PHB what is flurryable (and natural attacks are not part of this).
It is obvious even without the last sentence that you can't flurry with any kind of Claws. So why should Eldritch Claws mention it especially? After all other Claw weapons (that count as claws) don't mention that they can't be used in a flurry. Because PHB already told you that you can't use claws in your flurry.
It is obvious for someone who knows the rules that you can't flurry with Claws. And therefor that sentence is "just a friendly reminder". Sorry, I know it is irritating and I needed 2 years and to step over Eldritch Claws to confirm this. I stepped upon similar situations in the rules before but I wasn't sure of that moment. But Eldritch Claws is so obvious and easy to see and gasp it.

But again, these reminders are not consistent (as said, they aren't needed and just friendly reminders). That's why only one of Powerful Build, Strongarm Bracers & Monkey Grip mentions that it doesn't stack. Same as with Claws and Flurry. You can't Flurry with any Claw (unless you use Beast Strike Feat btw..) but only Eldritch Claws reminds you that it can't be used in a Flurry.

edit:

stack: Combine for a cumulative effect. In most cases, modifiers
to a given check or roll stack if they come from different sources and
have different descriptors (or no descriptors at all), but do not stack
if they have the same descriptors or come from the same source
(such as the same spell cast twice in succession). If the modifiers to a
particular roll do not stack, only the best bonus or worst penalty
applies. Dodge bonuses and circumstance bonus however, do stack
with one another unless otherwise specified. Spell effects that do
not stack may overlap, coexist independently, or render one another
irrelevant, depending on their exact effects.

The "different or no descriptor at all" is referring to the modifiers type.
It can have a descriptor (type) or no descriptor at all (no type). But it needs still to be a modifier.
And modifiers are declared as "bonus" or "penalty" as in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).
And keep in mind that the glossary just sums up what the rules already told you. It doesn't provide new rules. And we already know where the Stacking rules are, don't we?..

[Metahuman1]

Open Chakra: Hands.

Shape Soulmeld: Sphinxe Claws.

Snap Kick.

Either form here go with Mage Slayer, Or some kind of Robilars Gambit/Karmatic Strike build out for feats.

Cross Class ranks into UMD. Get a magic item boosting it ASAP. Then, ASAP, get a Schema of Greater Mighty Wallop, and another of Greater Magic Weapon. Put sudden extend as a feat effecting both.

Moving right along.

We want to spend time buying low value feats. Frog God's Fane for 2,000 GP is probably the cheapest. Then, every here and there, pay for a Psionic Reformation. Swap those over to travel devotion. Repeatedly. You should have 10 uses or more of travel devotion before you stop, giving you up too 20 round of benefit up to 5 times a day. If you need more then that, your DM is being a jerk, or your doing something very, very, very wrong.

MAX TUMBLE!!!!

Lastly, pick up a Necklace of Natural Weapons, and a Greater Adamantine Weapon Augmentation Crystal. Also, a tower shield and a collar of perpetual attendance.




Enjoy 16d8+str mod (Or Dex if you work in weapons finesse) + enhancements and greater magic weapon bonus, +2 for charging, per hit. Also enjoy being able to charge, full flurrying snap kicking attack, and then swift action move away with your speed to help you get back behind the tankier party members/at an area harder to hit.

The 50% miss chance form the shield + Collar of perpetual attendance, and the Hardness form the weapon crystal + Greater Magic Weapon should go a long way toward helping your survivability for when that skirmishing style is missing something.

[Fizban]

Just popping in.

Cross Class ranks into UMD. Get a magic item boosting it ASAP. Then, ASAP, get a Schema of Greater Mighty Wallop, and another of Greater Magic Weapon. Put sudden extend as a feat effecting both.
Unneccesary, unless you intend to have the schema made at a higher caster level. Necklace of Natural Weapons (unarmed strike) +1 covers all your unarmed strikes at standard 2,000gp (and you've got it below anyway so wha?), and you can use a Drow House Insignia to get 1/day GMWallop without the UMD. Schemas are spell completion items, you can't UMD your caster level up with them.

If you need more then that, your DM is being a jerk, or your doing something very, very, very wrong.
Personally I'd say that if you need to use location bonus feat+rebuild cheese instead of just fixing the class ability, your DM is being a jerk. "Flurry works on standard action attacks," done.

As I mentioned in one of the other monk threads, taking the snap kick penalty on all three of your top flurry attacks (as well as the iteratives) isn't worth it. I also don't see how having an Unseen Servant drag around a tower shield (they can only drag 50lb loads) would give you a miss chance, since even if it could hold the shield up that doesn't affect anyone but the wielder.

[Metahuman1]

They can provide Cover, and there using the actions to do so, and can angle the shield such that it will include you. |

As for the Schima, the idea is to get the +2 +3 +4 +5, and get the extra to hit bonus (which the monk could use.) the bit of extra damage (Meh.) and the extra hardness when combined with the crystal (Useful.).

And also leave the necklace to have special properties put on it.

Similar to how a barbarian might have there sword greater magic weaponed and just put special properties on it.

[emeraldstreak]

Drow House Insignia to get 1/day GMWallop

What's the caster level though?

[Doctor Awkward]

The "different or no descriptor at all" is referring to the modifiers type.
It can have a descriptor (type) or no descriptor at all (no type). But it needs still to be a modifier.
And modifiers are declared as "bonus" or "penalty" as in the BASICS (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/theBasics.htm).
And keep in mind that the glossary just sums up what the rules already told you. It doesn't provide new rules. And we already know where the Stacking rules are, don't we?..

So then, in your opinion, a character who is under the effects of Enlarge Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) would not be able to gain an additional size increase if they cast Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm), strictly because the size increase granted by those spells does not use the keyword bonus and is thus not subject to any of the stacking rules.

If that is the case, then why was it necessary for both of those spells to mention that "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack"?

[Karl Aegis]

This is a long argument over what amounts to a piddly amount of damage. Seriously, just play a Wis/Strength ranged build.

[Doctor Awkward]

This is a long argument over what amounts to a piddly amount of damage. Seriously, just play a Wis/Strength ranged build.

It's more about the principle of board integrity for me.

If one is interested in attracting people to the message boards, you generally want them to view the boards as a valuable resource for gameplay and a collection of accurate information. As such, you have to challenge incorrect assertions when they arise.

[Rhyltran]

This is a long argument over what amounts to a piddly amount of damage. Seriously, just play a Wis/Strength ranged build.

Monks are better in a melee build. 12d8 beats what a ranged build can offer.

[Gruftzwerg]

So then, in your opinion, a character who is under the effects of Enlarge Person (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/enlargePerson.htm) would not be able to gain an additional size increase if they cast Righteous Might (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm), strictly because the size increase granted by those spells does not use the keyword bonus and is thus not subject to any of the stacking rules.

If that is the case, then why was it necessary for both of those spells to mention that "Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack"?

1. That's why I call em "friendly reminder".
2. Would you have been able to find the ruling for it immediately? I for sure not.
3. The reminders are like "frequent happened errors/fails while play-testing". Like the players couldn't find the hidden rules and needed a "friendly reminder".

Really, I don't make this up. I play D&D since Ad&d and I needed over 10 years 3.5 until I just stepped over the idea and needed another 2 years until I could confirm it with Eldritch Claws.
Once you have noticed it, you will see more and more of these friendly reminders.

PS: I appreciate your effort for board integrity and as collection of accurate information. We are in the same boat. That's why I insisted on this debate a lil bit too.
I already was thinking about a thread for a while to start a discussion and yeah, than THIS thread came up and it "slipped" out me and happened..^^ Sry for the lil side-quest here.

[Fizban]

They can provide Cover, and there using the actions to do so, and can angle the shield such that it will include you.
No, that's not how any of that works.

As for the Schima, the idea is to get the +2 +3 +4 +5, and get the extra to hit bonus (which the monk could use.) the bit of extra damage (Meh.) and the extra hardness when combined with the crystal (Useful.).

And also leave the necklace to have special properties put on it.

Similar to how a barbarian might have there sword greater magic weaponed and just put special properties on it.
Which means you're paying for extra-high caster level on those schemas, which is the question I asked.

What's the caster level though?
5th, plenty enough for normal use without trying to cheese a sudden metamagic feat onto an item or investing in and then risking a botched UMD roll shutting your item down for a week.

[Metahuman1]

Really? No one complains when the wizard does it.


As for that drow house insignia, getting a caster level of 6 has a noticeable increase in damage as your going form colossal to colossal+. Which is something of a big deal to most monks. If the house insignia caps at 5, it may be a useful start up point but you'll still likely benefit from upgrading.

And the sudden meta magic feat is because it's a vastly cheaper way of making certain your character critical buff is an all day buff. With out having to pay for multiple hits on it. Though if the Drow house insignia can be brought up to CL 6 and is cheap enough, buying 2 might work better in that case for covering that purpose.


Another option would be to just buy two scrolls, one of each spell, and 2 circlets of casting form Magic Item Compendium, and a lesser Rod of Extend spell, possibly with a flawed make that only gives it 2 charges per day, and get the party wizard to cast them on you, extended, at the start of the day every day. But that does make you more dependent on party cooperation.

[Doctor Awkward]

1. That's why I call em "friendly reminder".
2. Would you have been able to find the ruling for it immediately? I for sure not.
3. The reminders are like "frequent happened errors/fails while play-testing". Like the players couldn't find the hidden rules and needed a "friendly reminder".

Really, I don't make this up. I play D&D since Advanced was in full swing in the Ad&d and I needed over 10 years 3.5 until I just stepped over the idea and needed another 2 years until I could confirm it with Eldritch Claws.
Once you have noticed it, you will see more and more of these friendly reminders.

PS: I appreciate your effort for board integrity and as collection of accurate information. We are in the same boat. That's why I insisted on this debate a lil bit too.
I already was thinking about a thread for a while to start a discussion and yeah, than THIS thread came up and it "slipped" out me and happened..^^ Sry for the lil side-quest here.

I have also been playing D&D since Advanced 2nd was in full swing in the early 1990's. As well as playing 3.5 solidly for the last 14 years. As well as dozens of other gaming systems from West End Games' D6 Star Wars, to Shadowrun, to the Marvel d100 table-top, World of Darkness, Paranoia, 7th Sea roll and keep, GURPs, and countless other systems created under the d20 system OGL. I have read a lot of rule books.

Your assertion of "friendly reminders" is nonsense. The SRD is compiled of the most recent errata for all the rules text posted there. That text (and rule books in general) contain no unnecessary words and phrases, just as a machine contains no unnecessary parts. If something is printed in a certain place, then it is for a very specific reason, entirely related to the rules. And in an exception-based rules set, that reason is to create an exception.

In the case of Enlarge Person vs Righteous Might; it is to tell you that the general stacking rules (which permit all untyped effects to stack) do not apply to magical increases to size.

In the case of Eldritch Claws; it is because monks are normally free to flurry with unarmed strke, as is clearly noted under Flurry of Blows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#flurryofBlows), and the designer of Eldritch Claws saw fit to not allow you to flurry with it as you normally would (since the feat states that the claw damage functions as extra damage on top of your normal unarmed strike).

In the case of Monk's Tattoo, it is because the designers felt that allowing a slot-less magic item to stack with itself (as all magic items do) would be overpowered, so they added an exception to prevent it from doing so.


Several people have posted several rules text excerpts and certifying examples that support the interpretation that a Monk's Belt, the Monk's Tattoo, and Superior Unarmed strike all stack together for a combined effect. You have responded with groundless assertions that rely solely on your personal interpretation and insistence that the rules contain things that they simply do not contain. For someone who claims to be such a learned system veteran, you demonstrate a remarkable unfamiliarity with the general stacking mechanics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21907073&postcount=69), magic item mechanics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520975-Useful-monk-in-3-5/page5), and possibly the magic system in general, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21915078&postcount=134) as well as a complete misunderstanding of the structure of D&D 3.5 on a fundamental level with your presumption that it is a "permission-based" system that does not ever allow you to do anything if the rules do not explicitly say you can do it-- including the glaringly obvious-- and your atrocious recommendation that you should never apply common sense when attempting to interpret the rules (a statement that, in hindsight, provides incredibly appropriate context for our current situation).

You have still not produced any rules text which backs up your assertion that only effects which specifically contain the word "bonus" are eligible to stack (indeed the rules state quite the opposite-- several times). Your claim of so-called "friendly reminders" is wholly speculative, has zero precedent across the entirety of 3.5, and is counter-intuitive to the layout and design of the 3.5 rule books in general. You have spent the last three pages making claims that border on the absurd and are rooted almost entirely in your own personal selective reading of the portions of the rules text that you believe support your conclusion, which has more than once required you to willfully ignore something that refutes it. You have moved beyond "Rules as I Interpret Them" and are now arguing "Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So Nyeh".

For the sake of full disclosure, I feel obligated to tell you that at this point I have accepted that you are likely beyond help, and I am now merely pushing back against you declaring that your house-rules are RAW.

[Fizban]

Really? No one complains when the wizard does it.
Does what? Applies a sudden metamagic feat to a crafted item for free? I've never actually heard someone try to do it before, which implies to me that there's probably a rule somewhere preventing it, and you can bet I'd tell anyone who wants some amount of sanity in their game to ban it. Regardless, an item crafted with a specific loophole is yet one step further removed when it comes to determining what's available for purchase. A character with the crafting feats can try to justify it, a monk does not have them.

As for that drow house insignia, getting a caster level of 6 has a noticeable increase in damage as your going form colossal to colossal+. Which is something of a big deal to most monks. If the house insignia caps at 5, it may be a useful start up point but you'll still likely benefit from upgrading.
. . . Greater Mighty Wallop scales every four caster levels, not three.

Another option would be to just buy two scrolls, one of each spell, and 2 circlets of casting form Magic Item Compendium, and a lesser Rod of Extend spell, possibly with a flawed make that only gives it 2 charges per day, and get the party wizard to cast them on you, extended, at the start of the day every day. But that does make you more dependent on party cooperation.
Or just ask them to do it. While paying off the party wizard to get them to buff you is clever in one sense, it only supports the idea that the wizard has no responsibility to the party at all, which is a significant portion of why casters are overpowered. But that's another thread.

[Gruftzwerg]

Your assertion of "friendly reminders" is nonsense. The SRD is compiled of the most recent errata for all the rules text posted there. That text (and rule books in general) contain no unnecessary words and phrases, just as a machine contains no unnecessary parts. If something is printed in a certain place, then it is for a very specific reason, entirely related to the rules. And in an exception-based rules set, that reason is to create an exception.

In the case of Enlarge Person vs Righteous Might; it is to tell you that the general stacking rules (which permit all untyped effects to stack) do not apply to magical increases to size.

In the case of Eldritch Claws; it is because monks are normally free to flurry with unarmed strke, as is clearly noted under Flurry of Blows (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm#flurryofBlows), and the designer of Eldritch Claws saw fit to not allow you to flurry with it as you normally would (since the feat states that the claw damage functions as extra damage on top of your normal unarmed strike).

In the case of Monk's Tattoo, it is because the designers felt that allowing a slot-less magic item to stack with itself (as all magic items do) would be overpowered, so they added an exception to prevent it from doing so.


Several people have posted several rules text excerpts and certifying examples that support the interpretation that a Monk's Belt, the Monk's Tattoo, and Superior Unarmed strike all stack together for a combined effect. You have responded with groundless assertions that rely solely on your personal interpretation and insistence that the rules contain things that they simply do not contain. For someone who claims to be such a learned system veteran, you demonstrate a remarkable unfamiliarity with the general stacking mechanics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21907073&postcount=69), magic item mechanics (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520975-Useful-monk-in-3-5/page5), and possibly the magic system in general, (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21915078&postcount=134) as well as a complete misunderstanding of the structure of D&D 3.5 on a fundamental level with your presumption that it is a "permission-based" system that does not ever allow you to do anything if the rules do not explicitly say you can do it-- including the glaringly obvious-- and your atrocious recommendation that you should never apply common sense when attempting to interpret the rules (a statement that, in hindsight, provides incredibly appropriate context for our current situation).


Stacking system:
I tried to explain how imho the p137 sets the rules.
"Stacking Effects" has 6 categories how magical effects can interact with each other.

- Only the first allows to stack. And only "bonuses". It's just that you insist that every beneficial effect should be a "bonus" even if the keyword "bonus" is missing. You are turning any effect that isn't a bonus into an untyped bonus and that is wrong imho. (see also my explanation/answer to the summary in the glossary for "stack")

- The 2 other categories that I suggested doesn't need to read words into the rules of Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS. It works with the ruletext given.


You have still not produced any rules text which backs up your assertion that only effects which specifically contain the word "bonus" are eligible to stack (indeed the rules state quite the opposite-- several times). Your claim of so-called "friendly reminders" is wholly speculative, has zero precedent across the entirety of 3.5, and is counter-intuitive to the layout and design of the 3.5 rule books in general. You have spent the last three pages making claims that border on the absurd and are rooted almost entirely in your own personal selective reading of the portions of the rules text that you believe support your conclusion, which has more than once required you to willfully ignore something that refutes it. You have moved beyond "Rules as I Interpret Them" and are now arguing "Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, So Nyeh".

For the sake of full disclosure, I feel obligated to tell you that at this point I have accepted that you are likely beyond help, and I am now merely pushing back against you declaring that your house-rules are RAW.


Imho you are a bit rude here. Groundless Assertions..
May I remind you that I always tried to point the rules in question and tried to explain as as best as I could (with English as 3rd language). While I needed over 2 pages until I could convince you to talk with argument and not with emoticons-pics and to actually read what I post. And now after I could put a counter argument to all what you got ..
.. I only throw groundless assertions.

1.) Open you PHB - monk
read it and tell me if monks may use Claws in their flurry. Let's say the party caster used Polymorph Other and turned the monk into a bear. May the monk use em in his flurry?
NO. Flurry only allows Monk weapons. Natural Weapons are not Unarmed. The monk in bear form may either use the Claw attack routine of the new form or his regular unarmed flurry.
But he may not flurry with his Claws.

And now Eldritch Blast
Gives you two Claws = natural weapons. They are ruled as any other claw. The fact that you add your unarmed strike dmg to it can only misleading people that aren't 100% aware of "What you may flurry and what not". If you did read the monk description in the PHB carefully enough, you already know that you may not flurry with claws and just take it as "friendly reminder" and not as "exception rule" (if you are not aware of the rules).

As said 10 years where I read the same passages without noticing anything and another 2 years to become sure.

If you deny the fact that Eldritch Blast just make use of a friendly reminder, than you either wasn't able to gasp that PHB doesn't allow to flurry with claws or that Eldritch Claws gives you natural attacks/Claws and doesn't enhance you unarmed strike dmg.
It's just mentioned because the "monk's unarmed strike can be buffed like magic weapons & natural attacks" caused much confusion (see FAQ/Sage Advice). That's the reasoning (imho) why they did add the reminder.

If you want to retreat from the discussion, fine. Sooner or later we'll talk about it again when the next thread pops up or one of us maybe even make a special thread for it. Maybe that's the best solution. We have both heated up the discussion enough so far and maybe it's just better that we both retread from this discussion here for a while and try it again later and with more calm.

[Malroth]

Nobody thinks you can Flurry with base Eldritch claws, what is used to flurry is Beast strike which improves your Unarmed strike by your claw damage.

[Gruftzwerg]

Nobody thinks you can Flurry with base Eldritch claws, what is used to flurry is Beast strike which improves your Unarmed strike by your claw damage.

we know that. that is not the point.
Why does Eldritch Claws point is out that you may not flurry with them?
For me it can't be an "exception rule" because you should already know that you can't flurry with claws/natural attacks unless you got beast strike. But still, BS just let's you add your claw dmg to your unarmed strike. Per rules you are still not allowed to flurry claws (for that you need the other feat to enhance your monk weapon list, forgot the name atm.).

IMHO it is obvious that Eldritch Claws just "friendly reminds" you that you may not use Eldritch-/Claws in a flurry. It's not an exception in any way.

[Doctor Awkward]

Stacking system:
I tried to explain how imho the p137 sets the rules.
"Stacking Effects" has 6 categories how magical effects can interact with each other.

- Only the first allows to stack. And only "bonuses". It's just that you insist that every beneficial effect should be a "bonus" even if the keyword "bonus" is missing. You are turning any effect that isn't a bonus into an untyped bonus and that is wrong imho. (see also my explanation/answer to the summary in the glossary for "stack")

- The 2 other categories that I suggested doesn't need to read words into the rules of Monk's Belt/Tattoo & SUAS. It works with the ruletext given.




Imho you are a bit rude here. Groundless Assertions..
May I remind you that I always tried to point the rules in question and tried to explain as as best as I could (with English as 3rd language). While I needed over 2 pages until I could convince you to talk with argument and not with emoticons-pics and to actually read what I post. And now after I could put a counter argument to all what you got ..
.. I only throw groundless assertions.

1.) Open you PHB - monk
read it and tell me if monks may use Claws in their flurry. Let's say the party caster used Polymorph Other and turned the monk into a bear. May the monk use em in his flurry?
NO. Flurry only allows Monk weapons. Natural Weapons are not Unarmed. The monk in bear form may either use the Claw attack routine of the new form or his regular unarmed flurry.
But he may not flurry with his Claws.

And now Eldritch Blast
Gives you two Claws = natural weapons. They are ruled as any other claw. The fact that you add your unarmed strike dmg to it can only misleading people that aren't 100% aware of "What you may flurry and what not". If you did read the monk description in the PHB carefully enough, you already know that you may not flurry with claws and just take it as "friendly reminder" and not as "exception rule" (if you are not aware of the rules).

As said 10 years where I read the same passages without noticing anything and another 2 years to become sure.

If you deny the fact that Eldritch Blast just make use of a friendly reminder, than you either wasn't able to gasp that PHB doesn't allow to flurry with claws or that Eldritch Claws gives you natural attacks/Claws and doesn't enhance you unarmed strike dmg.
It's just mentioned because the "monk's unarmed strike can be buffed like magic weapons & natural attacks" caused much confusion (see FAQ/Sage Advice). That's the reasoning (imho) why they did add the reminder.

If you want to retreat from the discussion, fine. Sooner or later we'll talk about it again when the next thread pops up or one of us maybe even make a special thread for it. Maybe that's the best solution. We have both heated up the discussion enough so far and maybe it's just better that we both retread from this discussion here for a while and try it again later and with more calm.

Oh I didn't mean to give you the impression that I was "retreating" from anything. As I said, attempting to push your house-rules as RAW is not okay, and it never will be.

I had suspected that there was a language barrier, but your level of intransigence indicates that you believe that barrier to be the reason you have not convinced me of your point of view. You haven't convinced me of your point of view because your point of view is incorrect. For the sake of reasonable discourse I will try to watch my phrasing.

To recap: the rules state clearly that all modifiers to dice rolls stack unless they come from the same source or the bonuses share a type, with a note that untyped bonuses always stack. You have repeatedly pointed this out and on this we agree. However, what you seem to be ignoring, either intentionally or unintentionally, is that the rules also state that all magic effects that result from spells also stack, unless they contain an exception which otherwise prohibits them. And since magic items use the same rules that spells do, you can also say that all magic items stack unless they contain a note that prevents them from stacking.

Now you also have claimed that the general rule for "Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths" should prevent the items in question from stacking, but you neglected the rest of the text after it:

"In cases when two or more identical spells are operating in the same area or on the same target, but at different strengths, only the best one applies."
As magic items use the same rules as spells, you can simply substitute "identical items" into that sentence to get your answer. Different items count as different sources for resolving magical effects.

And as far as the feat goes, you need only look at the Other Power Sources heading on the same page and you will find:

"The stacking rules for effects and bonuses apply, regardless of an effect’s or bonus’s source."
Effects AND bonuses.
And the general rule is that all effects stack unless they contain a prohibition that prevents them from stacking.

So whether or not the benefits from a Monk's Belt count as a "bonus" in order to be untyped is entirely irrelevant. Because "except in special cases, a spell doesn’t affect the way another spell operates."

Substitute the word spell for the word item or the word feat as necessary. All of these things are intertwined.

[Gruftzwerg]

@ tonymitsu

I have done my homework:

D&D Main FAQ 3.5 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a) proves my arguments:

Page 21, there are 2 gray boxes with red letters. It's the second one.


Q: Does a monk with a monk’s belt and the Superior Unarmed Strike feat benefit from both, or does just the highest benefit apply?

A: In this case, the better benefit will prevail. These effects technically do not have a bonus, so hey would not use the stacking rules. One effect will end up overshadowing the other.



There is the source answer to this topic.

1.) There are beneficial effects that aren't bonuses
2.) The Stacking rules don't apply to these beneficial effects.

=
Monk's Tattoo will follow the same logic/rules. Further, this is the reasoning why "size increase" doesn't stack, cause they ain't bonuses (unless explicitly mentioned). And that's why , as I said, the sentence of "not stacking size effects" are clearly just friendly reminders.

And while we are at it, "reminder" (in the FAQ):
We have at least 2 instance here (but they refer to the same misleading part of the text), where the FAQ admits the use of a "reminder". (Just search for "remind" with CTRL+F). So we can assume that there are other reminders that are just pointing out what you should already know. (Like in the case of many size increasing effect, Eldritch Claws..)

I hope that we can now both rest/sleep in peace and will get along well. At least I hope that the FAQ should satisfy your needs for source proof. ;)

[zergling.exe]

As for that drow house insignia, getting a caster level of 6 has a noticeable increase in damage as your going form colossal to colossal+. Which is something of a big deal to most monks. If the house insignia caps at 5, it may be a useful start up point but you'll still likely benefit from upgrading.

Colossal+ is a virtual size category for epic dragons with a very narrow list of benefits. It would do nothing to help a monk's unarmed damage because it specifically calls out what damage values a dragon's natural weapons are changed to.

[Gruftzwerg]

Colossal+ is a virtual size category for epic dragons with a very narrow list of benefits. It would do nothing to help a monk's unarmed damage because it specifically calls out what damage values a dragon's natural weapons are changed to.

Maybe a DWK that somehow cheeses "Colossal+" and adds his colossal+ claw dmg via Beast Strike to his unarmed "Colossal" dmg?^^

[zergling.exe]

Maybe a DWK that somehow cheeses "Colossal+" and adds his colossal+ claw dmg via Beast Strike to his unarmed "Colossal" dmg?^^

DWK are ineligible for becoming Colossal+ because they don't advance in RHD and size, which are necessary to gain the virtual size category.

[Gruftzwerg]

DWK are ineligible for becoming Colossal+ because they don't advance in RHD and size, which are necessary to gain the virtual size category.

It was meant as a lil joke. No intend to break out another great DWK discussion here. DWK is already a heavy debated topic. It's just we already had arguments like:
The DM has the duty to assign RHD progression to DWK.
And we now the opinions about ruling differ from table to table (or better said DM to DM) regards DWK. So, not everybody may share your opinion here.

(As said, no intend to break out a discussion about DWK here. Just trying to friendly pointing out, that the people in the forum still don't share all the same opinion on this topic.)

[Doctor Awkward]

@ tonymitsu

I have done my homework:

D&D Main FAQ 3.5 (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20070731a) proves my arguments:

Page 21, there are 2 gray boxes with red letters. It's the second one.



There is the source answer to this topic.

1.) There are beneficial effects that aren't bonuses
2.) The Stacking rules don't apply to these beneficial effects.

=
Monk's Tattoo will follow the same logic/rules. Further, this is the reasoning why "size increase" doesn't stack, cause they ain't bonuses (unless explicitly mentioned). And that's why , as I said, the sentence of "not stacking size effects" are clearly just friendly reminders.

And while we are at it, "reminder" (in the FAQ):
We have at least 2 instance here (but they refer to the same misleading part of the text), where the FAQ admits the use of a "reminder". (Just search for "remind" with CTRL+F). So we can assume that there are other reminders that are just pointing out what you should already know. (Like in the case of many size increasing effect, Eldritch Claws..)

I hope that we can now both rest/sleep in peace and will get along well. At least I hope that the FAQ should satisfy your needs for source proof. ;)

As nice as that would be The Official 3.5 FAQ is not RAW. Nor does it change RAW.

Both the FAQ, and it's predecessor, the "Sage Advice" column share the same problem of being written by a second party source that had no better judgement than a reasonably good DM, or you, or I, or any other contributor to this forum. Nor did it have any authority to change the rules. Wizards of the Coast had an official channel for rules changes: the errata.

Now, hypothetically, Skip Williams and his successors were employees of the publisher and had access to insider knowledge that most of the customer base did not, but in practice they mostly worked from the same principles and ruleset as the rest of us. The rulings were largely mediocre to decent, and can serve as a starting place for establishing your own house-rules, but they also produced quite a few stinkers before their run was over.

For example:

Pg. 31: Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105)
still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class,
and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the
maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were
playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1
to your Armor Class from your Constitution.

Ridiculous. Directly contradicts RAW, and it makes the ability near worthless, since as a dwarf (a race with a Con bonus) in heavy armor, Deepwarden won't be providing any more of a bonus than a typical 12-13 Dex would be.

pg. 116: Would the strongheart vest soulmeld (MoI 89) protect
you from the ability damage of the hellfire warlock’s
hellfire blast ability (FCII 90)?
The strongheart vest soulmeld reduces the amount of
ability damage you receive from an attack; however, it does not
keep you safe from the costs of hellfire blast because the ability
damage you are taking is not from someone attacking you.The
strongheart vest soulmeld reduces the amount of ability damage
you receive from an attack; however, it does not keep you safe
from the costs of hellfire blast because the ability damage you
are taking is not from someone attacking you.

So the Strongheart Vest only protects against "attacks", does it? While I don't necessarily disagree with the suggested ruling specifically in regards to Hellfire Blast, I also remember the thread that sprang up on the old 339 boards when this FAQ first popped up. Essentially, that statement made up there is based on non-rules related text that is either A) flat-out wrong, or B) severely nerfs the soulmeld in that it wouldn't protect you against poisons and dozens of other things that it is clearly intended to.

pg. 9: Does the Armor Class bonus ability from the monk,
swordsage, and ninja stack?
No, each of these abilities provides the same bonus. You
are not able to benefit from multiple sources that have the same
name more then once.

...Why? Just... just why? Why not clarify that you meant for them to advance each other, as was clearly the intention in Tome of Battle? (thus a monk 2/unarmed swordsage 2/ninja 2 would have the AC bonus of a level 6 monk).

And that follows with the claim regarding the Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike: "Technically it's not a bonus, so it shouldn't stack"? What kind of a crack-pot angle is that to approach the problem from? I guess that means since daggers technically don't provide a bonus either, when dual-wielding them you can only ever benefit from your best dagger? This once again directly contradicts RAW, since it is clearly established elsewhere that an effect does not have to even be a "bonus" in order to stack.

Overall, I would take anything that is stated in the Official FAQ with a heavy dose of salt. The only thing that counts as official rules text is the actual rules text and the errata. Furthermore, in any contradiction between the FAQ and the rules, the original rules text is the primary source and thus has precedence-- which means that even when the FAQ is right, you still have to double-check the original text to be certain it's not a case where the FAQ is wrong.

The FAQ is filled with equal parts answers that say, "yes, that RAW stuff does indeed work that way", some notes that say, "yeah, RAW stuff does work that way, but here's what I suggest as a house-rule". some things that clarify actual ambiguities, and then some other stuff that is pulled out of absolutely nowhere and tries to act like it's actually errata instead of just clarifications and suggestions.

I understand the instinct to take any Official Wizard's document as authoritative, but when you have been involved in enough rules debates it will become more clear that the problem with FAQ is that it wasn't written by anyone with any kind of special authority, oversight, or quality-control.

[Gruftzwerg]

Pg. 31: Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105)
still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class,
and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
Deepwarden (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=4)

Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character's Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed.
RAW is clear, just people who want more cheese as RAW provides (with just this sole ability).

The ability changes only the Ability modifier you may add. Nothing else and thus the max Dexterity rule normally applies. If you want more cheese than this, you need to build for thing that further improves your max Dex amount. You know, it's normal in D&D that you need to build synergies to get the cake. You don't get everything on a silver-plate..



pg. 116: Would the strongheart vest soulmeld (MoI 89) protect
you from the ability damage of the hellfire warlock’s
hellfire blast ability (FCII 90)?
The text says that it " protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores." To be able to protect you from an attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), something needs to roll an attack roll against you. And that ain't the chase here.
Again, just people asking for more cheese than they are allowed.



pg. 9: Does the Armor Class bonus ability from the monk,
swordsage, and ninja stack?
No, each of these abilities provides the same bonus. You
are not able to benefit from multiple sources that have the same
name more then once.


Why? I can't tell you why they decided to rule it this way. I can only talk about RAW and I thought we are talking about that and not what you think what how they should have intended/ruled it or whatsoever (I hope that didn't sound mean, not my intent).

_______

The rules are hard to find and sometimes even harder to gasp. If we get to the intention, even there we find weird examples. Which designer thought that Iron Hearth Sure is balanced as 3lvl ability?? IMHO 7+ would be more fitting. But if we go the intention route the full way, everybody will have different opinions. But that's fine, because even the most hard RAW groups aren't playing 100% RAW (without knowing). We all have opinions and different house rules (sometimes without knowing).

[Doctor Awkward]

Deepwarden (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20040807a&page=4)
.
RAW is clear, just people who want more cheese as RAW provides (with just this sole ability).

The ability changes only the Ability modifier you may add. Nothing else and thus the max Dexterity rule normally applies. If you want more cheese than this, you need to build for thing that further improves your max Dex amount. You know, it's normal in D&D that you need to build synergies to get the cake. You don't get everything on a silver-plate..


The text says that it " protects you from attacks that would reduce your ability scores." To be able to protect you from an attack (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm), something needs to roll an attack roll against you. And that ain't the chase here.
Again, just people asking for more cheese than they are allowed.




Why? I can't tell you why they decided to rule it this way. I can only talk about RAW and I thought we are talking about that and not what you think what how they should have intended/ruled it or whatsoever (I hope that didn't sound mean, not my intent).

_______

The rules are hard to find and sometimes even harder to gasp. If we get to the intention, even there we find weird examples. Which designer thought that Iron Hearth Sure is balanced as 3lvl ability?? IMHO 7+ would be more fitting. But if we go the intention route the full way, everybody will have different opinions. But that's fine, because even the most hard RAW groups aren't playing 100% RAW (without knowing). We all have opinions and different house rules (sometimes without knowing).

I could point you towards a number of different classes that make similar ability score substitutions that also lack text imposing any sort of hard limit on the bonus, except in cases where it explicitly does, or how Strongheart Vest contains a lot more text than you are citing, or about the many other serious inconsistencies between the FAQ and actual rule books, but that would all be really besides the point.

The main takeaway here is that the FAQ is not rules text. Only the errata and rule book is rules text. How you personally feel about the rules doesn't change what the rules say. Just because the FAQ agrees with your opinion on stacking magic items that increase your unarmed damage, or Strongheart Vest functioning with Hellfire Blast, or anything else that comes up that you think is overpowered and that only munchkins would want doesn't make the FAQ an authority on the rules, any more than you or I am, and is not the place to go to settle arguments about RAW. If you like what it says and want to house-rule that way in your games, then those are your games. But this right here isn't one of your games. Which is why this conversation has dragged on for so long.

Part of being a good DM is about separating your personal opinions from actual rules text. The more objective you can be about them, the easier it is to recognize the good ones from the bad ones. In the end the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone in your party is "overpowered", but all equally capable of contributing, and everyone is having fun, then that's all that matters. The DM just has them fight stronger opponents, or more of them. And the better you are at objective analysis, the easier it is to compare one build to another.

[Gruftzwerg]

I could point you towards a number of different classes that make similar ability score substitutions that also lack text imposing any sort of hard limit on the bonus, except in cases where it explicitly does, or how Strongheart Vest contains a lot more text than you are citing, or about the many other serious inconsistencies between the FAQ and actual rule books, but that would all be really besides the point.

The main takeaway here is that the FAQ is not rules text. Only the errata and rule book is rules text. How you personally feel about the rules doesn't change what the rules say. Just because the FAQ agrees with your opinion on stacking magic items that increase your unarmed damage, or Strongheart Vest functioning with Hellfire Blast, or anything else that comes up that you think is overpowered and that only munchkins would want doesn't make the FAQ an authority on the rules, any more than you or I am, and is not the place to go to settle arguments about RAW. If you like what it says and want to house-rule that way in your games, then those are your games. But this right here isn't one of your games. Which is why this conversation has dragged on for so long.

Part of being a good DM is about separating your personal opinions from actual rules text. The more objective you can be about them, the easier it is to recognize the good ones from the bad ones. In the end the only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If everyone in your party is "overpowered", but all equally capable of contributing, and everyone is having fun, then that's all that matters. The DM just has them fight stronger opponents, or more of them. And the better you are at objective analysis, the easier it is to compare one build to another.

Lil offtopic example:
In science when you try to discover/prove a new law (in our chase a rule) that you think you might have found/understood you need to come up with a theory (your way to interpret the law/rule). And if several theories exist, people put their thrust mostly in the one theory that fits best and causes the least problems with other laws (rules).

back to our topic:
While I could always give you an answer that fits other rules/items/abilities description, you are just assuming that everything that doesn't fit you design intent or powerlvl is wrong.
But your assumptions just causes more questions than it soles. And that's why I think, If my interpretation causes less problems, with other rules, items/spells and even with the interpretation of sage/FAQ, than I can highy assume that I am on the right sight.

How about some real fact arguments instead of personal feelings?
And most fun fact is, that you tell me that it's me who is bringing personal feelings in.
If you have a hard time to gasp the rules and their explanation, it's because you refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit your feelings about power lvl intention. What has power of a rule/ability/item to do with RAW? Nothing, cause there are many weak abilities. But unless you start to houserule, you just take em RAW as they are and not as you want em.


I talk about rules and how I interpret em, not how I feel about them. You are the one crying about balance and what not. If Deepwardens Con-to-AC is to weak for you due to max DEX limitation, than don't take it and stop complaining about "wrong rules".

You lack any arguments in your post and are just trying to either discredit me, the sage or the FAQ without any real evidence so far. You are just complaining here and nothing else.

If you can't accept the rules how they are, it's your problem.
3 pages of mostly rant that just tries to discredit the official statements and me.. Read your own posts and try to get a feeling of your own medicine.

I tried to be as calm as possible, but always when you are cornered by arguments, you just rant and QQ the hell out. Take a breath ..

[Doctor Awkward]

Lil offtopic example:
In science when you try to discover/prove a new law (in our chase a rule) that you think you might have found/understood you need to come up with a theory (your way to interpret the law/rule). And if several theories exist, people put their thrust mostly in the one theory that fits best and causes the least problems with other laws (rules).

back to our topic:
While I could always give you an answer that fits other rules/items/abilities description, you are just assuming that everything that doesn't fit you design intent or powerlvl is wrong.
But your assumptions just causes more questions than it soles. And that's why I think, If my interpretation causes less problems, with other rules, items/spells and even with the interpretation of sage/FAQ, than I can highy assume that I am on the right sight.

How about some real fact arguments instead of personal feelings?
And most fun fact is, that you tell me that it's me who is bringing personal feelings in.
If you have a hard time to gasp the rules and their explanation, it's because you refuse to believe anything that doesn't fit your feelings about power lvl intention. What has power of a rule/ability/item to do with RAW? Nothing, cause there are many weak abilities. But unless you start to houserule, you just take em RAW as they are and not as you want em.


I talk about rules and how I interpret em, not how I feel about them. You are the one crying about balance and what not. If Deepwardens Con-to-AC is to weak for you due to max DEX limitation, than don't take it and stop complaining about "wrong rules".

You lack any arguments in your post and are just trying to either discredit me, the sage or the FAQ without any real evidence so far. You are just complaining here and nothing else.

If you can't accept the rules how they are, it's your problem.
3 pages of mostly rant that just tries to discredit the official statements and me.. Read your own posts and try to get a feeling of your own medicine.

I tried to be as calm as possible, but always when you are cornered by arguments, you just rant and QQ the hell out. Take a breath ..

Whoa now... a couple of things:

First, I wasn't the one that tried to refute an argument by bringing up game balance. You were. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=21926730#post21926730) You mentioned "cheese" twice there, which I assumed you intended to mean the frequently used euphemism for unbalanced game mechanics, and then ended your post by with a wholly unrelated musing about a Tome of Battle maneuver you felt was overpowered. You are also insinuating that I claim the FAQ to be wrong simply because I disagree with it, completely disregarding the portion of my post where I said I agree that Strongheart Vest shouldn't be allowed to function with Hellfire Blast (it was their method for resolving it that I took issue with).

Second, this piece that I quoted right here? Where you are throwing out wild accusations about crying and ranting? That reeks of projection. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) That level of personal attack is also a sign that the position you've been arguing for doesn't have much ground left, and I think you're smart enough to know that.

If a few more factual arguments in the form concrete examples of inaccuracies in the FAQ will be more helpful to you, then I can oblige that:

Pg. 2, Effective Character Level and Pg. 3, When does a monster become epic: The FAQ describes two different methods for computing the attack bonus of an epic creature with a level adjustment within a page of one another, and neither method fits with example creatures from the Monster Manual or the Epic Level Handbook.

Pg. 31, Meeting Prestige Class requirements: This entry features a question about whether or not an assassin would retain the use of class skills if he no longer meets prerequisites for the class, and for some reason the author saw fit to comment on requirements across the whole system. In any event, the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide (2003, 2012) does not state that you must always and forever meet the requirements for a prestige class to advance in it, and implies otherwise with the the "first step" rule on page 176. The 3.0 Dungeon Master's Guide (2000), Complete Arcane (2004), and Complete Warrior (2003) all say the opposite; that you must always meet the requirements or you lose most of the benefits of the class. In the answer, the FAQ cites the Complete Warrior text as the source of the ruling, despite the fact that the updated Dungeon Master's Guide would be the primary source of general rules regarding prestige classes (if you are wondering, the Rules Compendium has nothing to say on the matter).

pg. 82, The scope of Freedom of Movement: With regards to what specific conditions Freedom of Movement should affect (such as stun), the FAQ suggests that you classify every single potentially movement impeding effect within all of D&D as either "mental" (the example spell they cite is Hold Person) or "physical" (solid fog, web, etc.) and only allow Freedom of Movement to work against the "physical" ones. This is one of several times the FAQ outright tells you that it is suggesting a house-rule. But that the FAQ would suggest such a monumental undertaking as if it were no big deal is downright insulting. It also does nothing but invite more argument, if only for the fact that that their claim that Slow-- one of several effects specifically negated in the description of Freedom of Movement -- would be a purely physical effect is highly dubious (note that you roll a Will save against it Slow, just like Hold Person).

Primary source vs. most recent printing: The FAQ states that the most recent printing takes precedence in any rules disputes, the errata says the primary source takes precedence. A dispute between documents that makes no one happy.

More about monk/ninja/swordsage AC Bonus: So the FAQ states that these do not stack because they provide the same bonus, and you cannot benefit from the abilities that have the same name more than once.... Except of course, where you can. In the Player's Handbook on page 59, where it states that Class Features for multiclass characters (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/multiclass.htm) that classes that provide the benefit from the same name can indeed stack, AND your class levels in the respective classes can stack for determining their effects. Sure it could be a specific list, but there is nothing in the text that indicates it is, or should be considered an exhaustive list.

Believe me, I don't like any of it either, but it's just the way it is. The FAQ should be your friend. It should be helpful and trustworthy. But, sometimes, what the Main FAQ says or suggests is just so out there-- so unbelievably weird or wrong-- that its credibility withers.

Ironically, the FAQ is at its best when it admits up-front that the official rules don’t cover a topic, and suggests a house-rule. These avoid misleading readers, and frequently provide useful ideas. But in other cases, the FAQ gave no notice that its statements were in contradiction with the official rules-- and indeed, the author was probably unaware of that-- and then those statements, if applied in a game, cause problems.

So no; I don't feel cornered by any arguments in particular at the moment. Mostly because I've been on both sides of this issue many times before. I've seen a lot of threads, and I've been on the receiving end of plenty of insults. If those hours spent on interpretations have taught me anything it's this:

-Common sense is not a bad thing
-Intent matters
-And most importantly: RAW is a myth

That last one sounds like nonsense, I know, but more often than not it's true. The hardest lesson I had to learn was that if you are going to make a claim then you need to be certain that the rules specifically back up your claim, not just that they are sort of vague and could be interpreted in such a way as to not forbid your claim.

[Dagroth]

Well, I do know one thing...

When it comes to Monks, you should always assume that RAI is "Monk gets shafted".