The "Tiers" of DnD

[busterswd]

Hiya, I've got a pretty good understanding and healthy interest of the Dnd system. I don't know a lot of the more intricate optimal builds and such (I JUST read about that level 5 kobold of infinite stats about 1 week ago) and when I do play, it's either a computer version or more for fun than coming up with the very best character.

That said, while reading the OOTS forum, DnD afficionados seem to drop random lines like "Clerics are overpowered since WoTC wants people to play healers" and "Belkar is underusing the abilities of an already underpowered class (the ranger)". Which started to make me curious; what are the "tiers" of DnD classes? In other words, which class is widely regarded as the overall strongest? Which one is the weakest? Are there any exceptions (ie: paper, rock, scissors)? Basically I'd love to see lists of which classes excel/do poorly and why. Thanks in advance if you do reply.

[BardicDuelist]

If you are a full caster, you are strong. If you are a skill monkey, you have a use. If you are a melee combatant, you can deal and take damage, but are otherwise useless. It should also be noted that at higher levels melee combat can be done by any other class reasonably well.

Wizards tend to be considered the strongest (excpet Artificers, but let's not go there).
Sorcerers, Clerics and Druids tend to be around the same place as far as power goes. The exact order tends to be debated.
After that it is up to disgression, with Monks being on bottom. Warlocks and fighters are pretty close there too.

[TheLogman]

Just standard Class?

Wizard is the most powerful, even more so when combined with other stuff, and as soon as he hits 9th level, he gets Time Stop (Extremely powerful), but he can be way tooo powerful before then.

Other than that, other full casters are also way powerful.

Druids can be better tanks than a fighter (In melee Combat), and can Heal, and Clerics and Wizards both have spells that make them better than fighters (In melee combat) for a time.

Generally, Monks are weak, since they are worse than fighters, with other restrictions, Fighters are weak, since they can deal less Damage than Wizards, and are usually limited to melee combat.

Anima mages, and Metamagic rods allow for tons of increased spell powers, at little or no costs, making them quite powerful.

Oh, and Sorcerers are still overly powerful, but not as good as Wizards, since they have slow metamagic.

[Dhavaer]

In Core, it's something like:

Wizard
Druid
Cleric
Sorcerer
Bard
Rogue
Ranger
Barbarian
Paladin
Fighter
Monk

Although the ones in the middle are iffy.

[kjones]

Just standard Class?

Wizard is the most powerful, even more so when combined with other stuff, and as soon as he hits 9th level, he gets Time Stop (Extremely powerful), but he can be way tooo powerful before then.


Just to clarify, a wizard doesn't actually get Time Stop until he reaches 17th level at least, and even then it's not a sure thing.

[TheLogman]

The problem with a lot of forum goers though, is that they work for most powerful character at 20th level, whereas in a real game, every class is appreciated over entire years of play (As long as you have a good DM)

In fact, with a good DM, the Encounters will be placed in a way that every class is useful, at any level (But sometimes, this involves Anti-magic fields)

Edit: Ya, but Celerity, and Contingency, that -Dexterity spell, plus Tensers Transformation make Mr. Wizard powerful before Time Stop AND Forcecage.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In no particular order

Tier 1: The Uber!
Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer

Tier 2: The Useful
Barbarian
Ranger
Rogue
Bard

Tier 3: The Dippers
Fighter
Paladin

Tier 4: The Pointless
Monk

Reasioning:

Tier 1: These are your casters. Caster > everything else. They have too many win buttons available to them. For example, even a core base druid can kill any fighter. With Natural Spell, they can turn into a Dire Bear, have better stats, higher Total Attack Bonus, and still be able to cast spells. Clerics, particularly with DMM Persist Divine Power and Righteous Might, also out-melee the melee classes. Wizards and sorcerers... Contingency Celerity upon being the target of an attack or negative effect, using that action to Sudden Maximize Time Stop to give me guarenteed 4 rounds before you can even affect me. And four rounds is enough to spell certain doom to just about everything, or at least get away clean.

Tier 2: These classes have some use, note that most of them have decent number of skillpoints? Rogues are skillmonkeys, they have a use. They're trapspringers and loot finders. Rangers are more melee, but still a solid point-man with search, spot, listen, hide, and move silently all as class skills, and enough skill points to use them. Barbarians have fewer skill points, but with D12 hit die and Rage, they are superior meat shields and damage output. Bards also fall into this category as they can become the unholy Diplomancers to sweet-talk litches into allies.

Tier 3. These classes are mostly only good for dipping. Fighter, for instance, is good for a 2 level dip for two bonus feats. Likewise, Paladin with a 2 level dip gives you Cha to saves. However, neither of these classes are strong enough on their own to consider staying with them much longer.

Tier 4. The monk seems strong on paper, but in reality he stinks on dry ice. Sure, he can probably say 'no' to nearly anything with a save and close up on people fast. He also can't do anything. By moving at least ten feet a round, you completely negate his Flurry ability and negate most of his damage potential. There really is no point to playing this class, which is why it is on the bottom rung, by itself. Poor thing. If you want to be a 'monk', get ToB and play a Swordsage. All the flavor, none of the suck.

[Otto-Sieve]

The folks down at Wizards had a discussion on this: Class power (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=369436)

[Draz74]

Yeah, I'd personally divide base classes something like this (similar, but not identical, to the list on the Wizards board):

Tier 1
Artificer, Druid, Wizard, Archivist, Cleric

Tier 2
Beguiler, Erudite, Psion, Wu Jen, Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman

Tier 3
Warblade, Swordsage, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Ardent, Duskblade

Tier 4
Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Lurk, Crusader, Bard, Binder, Dread Necromancer, Totemist, Factotum

Tier 5
Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Warmage, Divine Mind, Shadowcaster, Knight, Soulborn, Dragonfire Adept

Tier 6
Paladin, Barbarian, Hexblade, Warlock, Spellthief, Ninja, Dragon Shaman, Marshall, Truenamer, Incarnate

Tier 7
Soulknife, Adept, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Monk

Tier 8
Healer, Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Expert, Commoner

Some of the tiers here are arranged within the tier in approximate order of power (Tiers 1, 2, 7). Most aren't.

General consensus on these forums is that the classes that are most "balanced" are tiers 3-5. Meaning Tier 5 is probably actually what CR-appropriate encounters are decently matched with. (People like winning, after all, so they'll claim that classes that are just a bit tougher than monsters are the best classes. :smallbiggrin:)

[Grey Paladin]

Yeah, I'd personally divide base classes something like this (similar, but not identical, to the list on the Wizards board):

Tier 1
Artificer, Druid, Wizard, Archivist, Cleric

Tier 2
Beguiler, Erudite, Psion, Wu Jen, Sorcerer, Spirit Shaman

Tier 3
Warblade, Swordsage, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Ardent, Duskblade

Tier 4
Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Lurk, Crusader, Bard, Binder, Dread Necromancer, Totemist, Factotum

Tier 5
Rogue, Scout, Ranger, Warmage, Divine Mind, Shadowcaster, Knight, Soulborn, Dragonfire Adept

Tier 6
Paladin, Barbarian, Hexblade, Warlock, Spellthief, Ninja, Dragon Shaman, Marshall, Truenamer, Incarnate

Tier 7
Soulknife, Adept, Fighter, Swashbuckler, Monk

Tier 8
Healer, Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Expert, Commoner

Some of the tiers here are arranged within the tier in approximate order of power (Tiers 1, 2, 7). Most aren't.

General consensus on these forums is that the classes that are most "balanced" are tiers 3-5. Meaning Tier 5 is probably actually what CR-appropriate encounters are decently matched with. (People like winning, after all, so they'll claim that classes that are just a bit tougher than monsters are the best classes. :smallbiggrin:)
Um . . how come Psions are not T1?

[Zincorium]

Um . . how come Psions are not T1?

Because they're like wizards who have to spend spell slots to cast spells that are as good as other, real wizards, get for free.

Also, learning powers is a lot harder for psions. Not as bad as sorcerors, but not the "ooh, the enemy wizard's spellbook, just give me a whole load of magic ink and I'll have every spell I could ever want!"

[Grey Paladin]

You are ignoring the Psion's superior Nova capability, and the fact it is the most versatile spontaneous "caster" (not to mention most of Psion's cheese is "core"), Psions are inferior to Wizards, Archivists, and Artificers, true, but they are superior to Druids and Clerics, and those two are T1.

[lord_khaine]

actualy leaning powers is just as difficult for a psion as for sorceres, and i do think they belong in tier 1 as well.

besides most people underestimate monks, they might not be at the top tier, but they are not on the bottom either, yes 10 foot movement negates the possibility of a flurry, but at the same time that stops full attacks from more or less all the standart melee classes, and monks have several options for stopping you from moving 10 feet.

[Alyorbase]

I think that a class's usefulness is better determined by their level. For example, at first level a fighter or barbarian is your highest damage dealing class. Wizards don't really become overly powerful until you get to 3rd level spells then their power increases by alot. So as far as one class being more powerful than others, yeah at level 20 wizards are the most powerful class, but at low levels, it's the fighter's time to shine. That IMHO anyway.

[Tengu]

actualy leaning powers is just as difficult for a psion as for sorceres, and i do think they belong in tier 1 as well.

besides most people underestimate monks, they might not be at the top tier, but they are not on the bottom either, yes 10 foot movement negates the possibility of a flurry, but at the same time that stops full attacks from more or less all the standart melee classes, and monks have several options for stopping you from moving 10 feet.

It's not about flurry, it's about lack of anything good. Monk's offense is mediocre (medium BAB, damage output decent but still overshadowed by barbarians), and so is AC (unless you have wisdom bursting from your ears, a full plate will give you more). He's good at moving fast, resisting spells and having lots of abilities that sound cool but don't really shine most of the time (timeless body, tongue of soon and moon...).


I think that a class's usefulness is better determined by their level. For example, at first level a fighter or barbarian is your highest damage dealing class. Wizards don't really become overly powerful until you get to 3rd level spells then their power increases by alot. So as far as one class being more powerful than others, yeah at level 20 wizards are the most powerful class, but at low levels, it's the fighter's time to shine. That IMHO anyway.

Sleep is a first-level spell. Wizard's only drawback at low levels is frailty.

[Morty]

Sleep is a first-level spell. Wizard's only drawback at low levels is frailty.

But it is big drawback. Not to mention low-level wizard doesn't have many Sleeps to work with. Up until 6-7 level wizard don't trump other classes, and if not played well can very easily be underpowered in 1-4 level range.

[Thanatos 51-50]

We had a party monk that outclassed both the Paladans (We had two) and the Wizard.

Of course, he had both Wisdom AND Dexterity coming out of his ears, and weapon finesse in unarmed combat, and he was pretty good outside of battle, too.

[Alyorbase]

Sleep is a first-level spell. Wizard's only drawback at low levels is frailty.

True, however, if the fighter in the party gets hit by the sleep spell, someone else can wake him back up. I'm not saying that wizards are useless at low levels, I'm saying that fighters/barbarians are more useful at low levels than high levels and that lower level fighter/barbarians shine more than they do in a group that's at 15+ level.

[SITB]

Then use Color Spray, it's save or die for low levels. Agumented by the fact that unless you are a Cleric/Monk/Wisdom based character you probably have a good chance of failing the save.

[Arbitrarity]

Now, if I only remembered that quote...

Anyways. Sleep. Color Spray. Ray of Enfeeblement. Prestidigitation (Laundry, great food, random music... win!), Grease (rogue loves you). Selling your spellbook for a bunch of magebreed wardogs. Charm person. Silent image.

Not all of them are win buttons, but most can negate the threat a fighter poses. Grease: One first level spell slot. Color spray? One first level spell slot.

There are some things magic can't do. For everything else, there's prestidigitation.

[Saph]

It depends on what level you're playing. There's no 'best' class over all twenty levels, because effectiveness changes from level to level. Druids, for instance, get a huge boost in power each time they get one of Wild Shape, Natural Spell, or Wild Shape (Large). Wizards and Clerics jump in power at each odd-numbered level. Fighters are great for the first two levels, but not afterwards.

At levels 1-4, melee classes dominate. Sorry, but wizards suck at level 1. I've played plenty of low-level games, and it was very rare to see a wizard or sorcerer contribute significantly.

At levels 5-10, casters and meleers are fairly well balanced against each other. Ever noticed how so many D&D games seem to be around this level? That's why. In a lot of ways, the 5-10 area is where D&D works best.

At levels 11-14, casters start to dominate. You can still play with meleers and casters and have fun, but balance is going to become an issue.

At levels 15-20, casters completely dominate.

At levels 20+, casters dominate so completely that there's really no point playing anything else anymore, but by this point the system is breaking down anyway. Trying to decide what's 'best' by this point is in the 'Can the Hulk beat up Superman'? category.

- Saph

[Alyorbase]

It depends on what level you're playing. There's no 'best' class over all twenty levels, because effectiveness changes from level to level. Druids, for instance, get a huge boost in power each time they get one of Wild Shape, Natural Spell, or Wild Shape (Large). Wizards and Clerics jump in power at each odd-numbered level. Fighters are great for the first two levels, but not afterwards.

At levels 1-4, melee classes dominate. Sorry, but wizards suck at level 1. I've played plenty of low-level games, and it was very rare to see a wizard or sorcerer contribute significantly.

At levels 5-10, casters and meleers are fairly well balanced against each other. Ever noticed how so many D&D games seem to be around this level? That's why. In a lot of ways, the 5-10 area is where D&D works best.

At levels 11-14, casters start to dominate. You can still play with meleers and casters and have fun, but balance is going to become an issue.

At levels 15-20, casters completely dominate.

At levels 20+, casters dominate so completely that there's really no point playing anything else anymore, but by this point the system is breaking down anyway. Trying to decide what's 'best' by this point is in the 'Can the Hulk beat up Superman'? category.

- Saph

That was pretty much what I was trying to say...Saph just said it better :smallbiggrin:

[Telonius]

Sleep is a first-level spell.

Elves and Half-Elves are immune to it. Yay, Rogues and Rangers.

:smalleek: Good lord, did I just find the only circumstance in which being a half-elf is better than being a human?

[Fax Celestis]

Elves and Half-Elves are immune to it. Yay, Rogues and Rangers.

:smalleek: Good lord, did I just find the only circumstance in which being a half-elf is better than being a human?

That must feel about as icky as when I found a good use for Monkey Grip.

[Chronos]

You also have to consider that one of the casters' most valuable abilities is the ability to enhance the sharp-pieces-of-metal folks. Haste, for instance, is one of the classic "great wizard spells", but it hardly does anything for the wizard emself. But when that one extra attack per round is on a raging barbarian with a magical greataxe, or a flanking rogue, or any of the decent fighter builds, it's very nice indeed.

And furthering the discussion of casters at low levels, sure, even a first-level wizard can win a fight against low-level kobolds singlehandedly. But he can only do so twice per day (three times if he specializes in enchantment or illusion). And he's always reluctant to cast that second or third spell, because who knows if there's going to be another battle later where he'll need it more? The fighter or the paladin, meanwhile, or heck, even the monk, can just keep on hitting things.

[SITB]

Up until the kobolds swarm him and kill him because the Cleric doesn't have any more healing spells or the like.

Also, Saph, isn't level 7 the threshold for 'real ultimate power' for druids?

[Vincentrose91]

At levels 1-4, melee classes dominate. Sorry, but wizards suck at level 1. I've played plenty of low-level games, and it was very rare to see a wizard or sorcerer contribute significantly.

At levels 5-10, casters and meleers are fairly well balanced against each other. Ever noticed how so many D&D games seem to be around this level? That's why. In a lot of ways, the 5-10 area is where D&D works best.

At levels 11-14, casters start to dominate. You can still play with meleers and casters and have fun, but balance is going to become an issue.

At levels 15-20, casters completely dominate.

At levels 20+, casters dominate so completely that there's really no point playing anything else anymore, but by this point the system is breaking down anyway. Trying to decide what's 'best' by this point is in the 'Can the Hulk beat up Superman'? category.

- Saph

I completely agree, and Thanks for such a nice and easily understandable list!

[Jacob Orlove]

And furthering the discussion of casters at low levels, sure, even a first-level wizard can win a fight against low-level kobolds singlehandedly. But he can only do so twice per day (three times if he specializes in enchantment or illusion). And he's always reluctant to cast that second or third spell, because who knows if there's going to be another battle later where he'll need it more? The fighter or the paladin, meanwhile, or heck, even the monk, can just keep on hitting things.
At any adventure after the first, the 1st level wizard can scribe (or buy, if time is an issue) some scrolls, which nicely solves this problem.

[lord_khaine]

It's not about flurry, it's about lack of anything good. Monk's offense is mediocre (medium BAB, damage output decent but still overshadowed by barbarians), and so is AC (unless you have wisdom bursting from your ears, a full plate will give you more). He's good at moving fast, resisting spells and having lots of abilities that sound cool but don't really shine most of the time (It's not about flurry, it's about lack of anything good. Monk's offense is mediocre (medium BAB, damage output decent but still overshadowed by barbarians), and so is AC (unless you have wisdom bursting from your ears, a full plate will give you more). He's good at moving fast, resisting spells and having lots of abilities that sound cool but don't really shine most of the time (timeless body, tongue of soon and moon...).


well thats not true, you can get a acceptable offence out of a monk, and yes, barbarians will usualy do more damage, thats not a big thing, if build proberly they can even in some cases outdamage casters, and monks can do a lot of things barbarians cant, it all balance out in the end.

yes if you try to play a monk like a barbarian, with less armor and no weapon he will suck, thats because he isnt a barbarian, he is a monk.
and he has a lot of abilities that sounds cool, and yes timeless body, tongue of soon and moon isnt very effective, so what, the rest of the abilities are all good, greater flurry, diamond soul, diamond body and so on.

as for ac, you have to run a very very lowpowered campaign, or roll really bad, if a set of plate mail would give a better armor class.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You also have to consider that one of the casters' most valuable abilities is the ability to enhance the sharp-pieces-of-metal folks. Haste, for instance, is one of the classic "great wizard spells", but it hardly does anything for the wizard emself. But when that one extra attack per round is on a raging barbarian with a magical greataxe, or a flanking rogue, or any of the decent fighter builds, it's very nice indeed.

And, in general, it would be more efficent for the Wizard to drop down a Slow on the critters, reducing them to EITHER a single move action OR a single attack, negating charges and the like, than a Haste. Of course, the Wizard could also drop down something like Acid Fog or Cloudkill to completely obliterate them without needing a meat shield.


And furthering the discussion of casters at low levels, sure, even a first-level wizard can win a fight against low-level kobolds singlehandedly. But he can only do so twice per day (three times if he specializes in enchantment or illusion). And he's always reluctant to cast that second or third spell, because who knows if there's going to be another battle later where he'll need it more? The fighter or the paladin, meanwhile, or heck, even the monk, can just keep on hitting things.

As soon as he gets 8th level, he no longer needs to worry about spells per day. Why? Simple... Rope Trick, rest up eight hours, then come back completely refreshed, full of reality-bending godness.

Before then, yes he does have to take how many spells he has left into consideration, but considering an 'average' 4 fights/day, most Wizards of 3rd level of higher can eat every encounter per day and not have to worry significantly about lack of spells.

[Bosh]

Also druids are stupid good right from the beginning since they get a powerful animal companion from the get-go.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

well thats not true, you can get a acceptable offence out of a monk, and yes, barbarians will usualy do more damage, thats not a big thing, if build proberly they can even in some cases outdamage casters, and monks can do a lot of things barbarians cant, it all balance out in the end.
There really isn't anything a monk can do, though.


yes if you try to play a monk like a barbarian, with less armor and no weapon he will suck, thats because he isnt a barbarian, he is a monk.
and he has a lot of abilities that sounds cool, and yes timeless body, tongue of soon and moon isnt very effective, so what, the rest of the abilities are all good, greater flurry, diamond soul, diamond body and so on.
Immunity to poisons, disease, and a very gimp SR that any caster without a PENALTY to their casting stat mod will pretty much ignore. Oh no... what ever shall I do...


as for ac, you have to run a very very lowpowered campaign, or roll really bad, if a set of plate mail would give a better armor class.

Umm... and how exactly are you getting a +17 which you can get from +5 Mithral Fullplate with a Dex of 16? You'd need some pretty freeking insane stats to match that. Even if you could, that would mean both your dex and wis are over 20, and your strength probably sucks, so you won't be dishing out hardly any damage. Since you're a melee class, and really don't have much else to do, this means you can't really do anything. Like I said, you can say 'no' to resistable effects usually, but you can't really do much after it.

Case in point:
level 1 Barbarian vs level 1 Monk. Barbarian has a Greatsword. Barbarian will probably beat the monk. Why? Monk can't do anything to the barbarian. With D12 hit die, the barbarian is going to shrug off the 1d6+ str attacks, dishing out 2d6+1.5*str. You're *NOT* going to be able to stun the Barb, nor are you going to be able to grapple with him since he's almost certainly got a far superior strength score. The monk's only advantage is that he got both dex and wis to AC and the Barb can't afford decent armor yet. Of course, the Barb has a higher attack bonus due to higher BAB and Strength to offset this. Basically, the barbarian needs to land one blow on the monk to win, the monk needs two or more to win.

level 5 Monk vs level 5 Barbarian. Barbarian wtfpwnzorz the monk. Now he's got Power Attack, although he doesn't use it much. The Monk will be a little bit of trouble to hit, so he won't risk it. However, he's still doing 2d6+str*1.5. Now, though, he's got enough money to grab some Breastplate to make their AC about even. Monk would need both Dex and Wis of 18 to match the Barbarian's Dex of 16 in Breastplate. Monk's BAB is only +3 vs the Barbarian's +5, the Barbarian's Strength is going to be a LOT higher, particularly in Rage, so the Barbarian is going to hit more frequently. A lot more frequently. You're still not going to be able to stun or trip or disarm the Barbarian.

Level 10 Monk vs Level 10 Barbarian. It's not even a contest anymore. Barbarian now has Power Attack, Shock Trooper, and Mithral Full Plate. Monk is going to get one-rounded when the Barbarian dumps his full BAB into Power Attack, dropping his AC by 10 to do it, and doing something over 100 damage with an attack bonus so high he can't possibly miss the monk save on a natural 1. If he's a Lion Barbarian Variant, then he gets to Pounce and make both of his attacks, spelling certain doom. If the monk runs, he gets charged and pwned. If the monk closes, he gets smacked and pwned. He has no real options. Either way, he won't be able to dish out enough damage to the Barbarian to stop him, and none of his tricks will work.

at higher levels, it just favors the Barbarian even more. By the time Monk gets Perfect Body, the Barbarian is pissing magic items out in the toilet, so the DR is not an issue. Power Attack + Shock Trooper + Leap Attack = one dead monk.

Monk is just pwned by Barbarian. But wait! What about vs other classes?

vs Rogue:
Barbarian totally pwns him. Improved Uncanny Dodge, rogue cannot sneak attack him unless he's 4 levels higher. This negates most of the Rogue's damage potential. Unless the Rogue can manage to UMD something with a Will save, he's toast.
Monk might or might not win. If Rogue can get sneak attacks off, monk is in serious trouble. if Rogue stays 'doggo' and continues to snip without being able to present a target, monk might be in serious trouble. Likewise, without SA, monk generally does more damage, and Rogues don't have the nifty Fort save or Str that a raging barbarian does. Monk's best bet is to close, grapple, and do unarmed damage every round with a contested grapple check.

vs Paladin/Fighter
Barbarian will 'hulk smash' down on his opponent. Shouldn't have troubles hitting. He'll be doing more damage and has more hit points than his opponent. The Paladin can't afford to spend a round to heal up, because the Barbarian will continue beating down, and that's a race a Paladin can't win.
Monk, on the other hand, is screwed. Both have high fort saves, Paladin has Cha to saves on top of it. So forget Stunning Fist. Trips and Disarms... monk is at a disadvantage still. And because the opponent is in full plate, monk is going to have a hard time landing a hit.

vs caster
Barbarian is screwed. Will save or suck. Vs a Wizard it's either Sleep (for 1-4th level), or Hold Monster (for 5th +). High level arcane casters can just totally embarass him with Forcecage + Cloudkill and hurl taunts at the barbarian while it chokes to death on guarenteed Con damage every round. vs Cleric... Hold Person is only a 2nd level spell. Vs Druid... once he gets Wild Shape, he's the only caster who CAN go toe-to-toe with a raging barbarian and win.
Monk is also screwed, but not as badly. Let's face it, nothing can stop a properly prepared wizard. Wizard drops down a Solid/Acid Fog. That slows the Monk down a few rounds, negates all the monk's advantages, and gives the Wizard enough time to start leveling down some serious AE mayhem. Sooner or later, Monk is eventually going to fail a save and fall over. Monk scores better here, but still won't win.

[Telonius]

well thats not true, you can get a acceptable offence out of a monk, and yes, barbarians will usualy do more damage, thats not a big thing, if build proberly they can even in some cases outdamage casters, and monks can do a lot of things barbarians cant, it all balance out in the end.

yes if you try to play a monk like a barbarian, with less armor and no weapon he will suck, thats because he isnt a barbarian, he is a monk.
and he has a lot of abilities that sounds cool, and yes timeless body, tongue of soon and moon isnt very effective, so what, the rest of the abilities are all good, greater flurry, diamond soul, diamond body and so on.

as for ac, you have to run a very very lowpowered campaign, or roll really bad, if a set of plate mail would give a better armor class.

Optimized casters generally aren't putting out much damage. Check out TLN's thread on the subject.

Don't get me wrong, I love playing monk-like characters. My favorite was a VoP monk. But mechanically, they are inferior to a Fighter with enchanted gauntlets. The math has been done, the monk loses. He is not a front-line fighter. With lower AC (yes, the monk has lower AC than a half-decent fighter), low-ish hit points, and a nasty case of MAD, you cannot keep up with front-liners like Fighters, Barbarians, or even Paladins. The best use for a Monk is to do a few things: flank with the Rogue, get Zen archery and be ranged support, disarm foes when you can, help with scouting duties. This does not translate into great combat prowess.

[Dausuul]

As soon as he gets 8th level, he no longer needs to worry about spells per day. Why? Simple... Rope Trick, rest up eight hours, then come back completely refreshed, full of reality-bending godness.

It's not quite that easy. For one thing, the wizard may be on a time-sensitive mission. For another, rope trick is far from being a secure hiding place. Anything that can see invisible stuff can spot the portal and climb right in after you. And if you start abusing rope trick like this while dungeon crawling, you'd better believe your DM is going to send something after you that can sense invisible things, just to keep you on your toes.

It's when the wizard gets the ability to cast teleport twice a day that it starts becoming seriously difficult to force him into the textbook 4 encounters. And once he gets mind blank, forget it.

[Arbitrarity]

Which is definately why you can only enter rope trick by the rope, and climbing 30 feet of air is easy when the rope is pulled up.

[tainsouvra]

Which is definately why you can only enter rope trick by the rope, and climbing 30 feet of air is easy when the rope is pulled up. Hey, don't underestimate the sheer number of constantly-invisible-detecting flying CR8 creatures :smalltongue:

[Morty]

Does anyone even use Rope Trick? This spell is mind-achingly dumb even for D&D standards.

[Arbitrarity]

That can pull ropes out of extradimensional spaces, seeing as the entire idea of rope trick is that you need to use the rope. There isn't anything in the spell that even implies you can enter without the rope. It says that there's a "window" on the material plane. That's all. It's invisible, and there's nothing about permeability. Furthermore, recognition of the window is not guarenteed.

[MountainKing]

There really isn't anything a monk can do, though.

Your entire argument (at least concerning monks and rogues) can be thwarted completely by anyone who thinks outside the box and gives the monk or rogue even a 12 in Charisma and any number of ranks in Bluff. You're also almost willingly ignoring the fact that this entire thing relies on rolling dice; that barbarian, while more likely to succeed his Fort save, is still susceptible to Stunning Fist, not to mention the variety of feats like it that monks got in Complete Warrior. Add in skill tricks like Spot the Weak Point and it doesn't even matter anymore; you've got a dead barbarian on your hands.

Nevermind that race doesn't even come into play in your theory, nor do feats from PHB II or EPH. I've built monks that at ECL 14 that are able to thrown down a ridiculous amount of damage (Psychic Fist, Fiery Fist, Fist of Iron, ect.), and still have an AC that's in the low 30s.

[Arbitrarity]

*is angered by argument of giving MONKS charisma and bluff*

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Let's make the monk even more MAD than before, and watch as he burns cross-class ranks. Let's give them UMD, so they can use spells on the barbarian! Let's... wait.

When you try and pull social arguments, or having a class use a cross-class skill to win a fight, you can bet another class does it better. Take a bard. Take glibness. Use the epic usage (of bluff), tell the barbarian you cast a water breathing spell, so he can go swimming, as he's pretty hot. (Glub, glub, glub).

[MountainKing]

Dude, bards rock and I will not argue against you. However, I refuse to rise to the bait of "someone else can do it better". That, sir, is not the bloody point, and I'm sure that you know it. D&D is a roleplaying game, first and foremost; yeah, there's going to be a class or combo that does what you're trying to do better than you. It doesn't matter what you are or what you're doing, there is some way to find something that does it better. No contest.

However, there is a distinct difference between being able to have something in a character for roleplaying reasons, and still being able to kill off Timmy Powergamer's character when he gets snarky, and trying to out-do Timmy Powergamer. When two munchkins collide at table, there is nothing left in their wake but tears, blood, and crushed Cheetos.

Think of the Cheetos... *tear*

[Saph]

Also, Saph, isn't level 7 the threshold for 'real ultimate power' for druids?

Druids get something great at every level from 5 to 9, really. 5th-level means Wild Shape. 6th-level means Natural Spell. 7th-level means fourth-level spells and more Wild Shape. 8th-level means Large Wild Shape. And 9th-level means fifth-level spells (Large Elementals own).

- Saph

[SITB]

So...

How are they balanced with Melee-ers again?

[Arbitrarity]

Dude, bards rock and I will not argue against you. However, I refuse to rise to the bait of "someone else can do it better". That, sir, is not the bloody point, and I'm sure that you know it. D&D is a roleplaying game, first and foremost; yeah, there's going to be a class or combo that does what you're trying to do better than you. It doesn't matter what you are or what you're doing, there is some way to find something that does it better. No contest.

However, there is a distinct difference between being able to have something in a character for roleplaying reasons, and still being able to kill off Timmy Powergamer's character when he gets snarky, and trying to out-do Timmy Powergamer. When two munchkins collide at table, there is nothing left in their wake but tears, blood, and crushed Cheetos.

Think of the Cheetos... *tear*

The equivalent, in effectiveness, of a monk (whose flavor can be duplicated through a class acting 'ascetic', a swordsage, or various other combinations, thereby having roughly equivalent roleplay value), using bluff (and raising charisma, incidentally, which makes him even less effective as a combatant. Also a cross-class skill, for worseness), is like playing a warlock.

Furthermore, there's a difference between optimization compared to regulairity, and regulairity compared to ANTI-optimization. Claiming a character deliberately designed to be utterly worthless is OK, because everyone else is a powergaming munchkin, is ridiculous. Claiming your monk, who is owned by the barbarian in melee, is good because he can bluff (worse than anything with non-cross class ranks, including a sorceror), is akin to why the Mystic Theurge is a generally worthless class. Unless you have a trick to help it, you just suck at everything, which is why bards often get a bad rap.

Actually, I have an awesome bard somewhere, but that's only because he's smart, and everyone else seems to have weak characters.

[tainsouvra]

I refuse to rise to the bait of "someone else can do it better". That, sir, is not the bloody point, and I'm sure that you know it. Indeed it is not, but look at this another way--if the tactic you have for the Monk relies on adding yet another key attribute on a MAD class and a putting his points into cross-class skills, it is not a reasonable Monk build. You are, in effect, trying to turn your Monk into something he's not because even a half-baked Bard stands a much better chance than a Monk. This indicates that the Monk is screwed, because the only Monk who stands a chance is one that wants to be something other than a Monk.

[PaladinBoy]

It's not quite that easy. For one thing, the wizard may be on a time-sensitive mission. For another, rope trick is far from being a secure hiding place. Anything that can see invisible stuff can spot the portal and climb right in after you. And if you start abusing rope trick like this while dungeon crawling, you'd better believe your DM is going to send something after you that can sense invisible things, just to keep you on your toes.

It's when the wizard gets the ability to cast teleport twice a day that it starts becoming seriously difficult to force him into the textbook 4 encounters. And once he gets mind blank, forget it.

I agree wholeheartedly. I also think that many missions make retreating with teleport impractical, usually due to a time limit or something that needs protecting. On top of that, many DMs will give you hooks and send you on such missions if you repeatedly escape to replenish spells with teleport.


And, in general, it would be more efficent for the Wizard to drop down a Slow on the critters, reducing them to EITHER a single move action OR a single attack, negating charges and the like, than a Haste.

Slow can also fail, unlike haste. It also requires the wizard to be within 50 feet at 5th level - if it fails, you get to deal with a charge. Unless you have a tank in between you and the enemy..........


Of course, the Wizard could also drop down something like Acid Fog or Cloudkill to completely obliterate them without needing a meat shield.

Acid fog is not an instant kill; it will deal actually very little damage and give you more time to prepare for combat. And blasting into the fog will burn through your spells per day; you most likely wouldn't be able to handle 4 encounters per day. Which will be a problem if you can't use one of the various tricks in your arsenal to retreat for whatever reason.

Cloudkill is better in that it can be an instant kill, but when you get it at 9th level, you'll have better things to use against 3 HD mooks. You might fight something with 5 or 6 HD, but they get a Fort. save. Anything else can get out of the cloud in 1 round, with their combat abilities unaffected except for losing some HP. Actually, that might not even be true, if you roll a 1.

Good spells, but hardly instant death. They do become more powerful combined with forcecage. But you don't get that until 13th level. And, interestingly enough, their effectiveness increases when you have a meat shield to help.

[lord_khaine]

There really isn't anything a monk can do, though
wrong, there are lots of things a monk can do, from killing things to surviving long enough to do so.


Immunity to poisons, disease, and a very gimp SR that any caster without a PENALTY to their casting stat mod will pretty much ignore. Oh no... what ever shall I do...


well for a start you could read the rules on spell resistance again, your caster stat mod doesnt help you penetrate spell resistance.
poison does come by often enough to make the immunity worth getting, and you apperently ignored greater flurry, proberly the greatest ability a pure monk gets.
to get bac to spell resistance, there are lots of monsters with some very nasty spelllike abilities, but their caster lv is usualy not higher than the monks lv, and in the case of several of those opponents they will mostly have a lower caster lv, meaning more than 50% chance of resisting.


Umm... and how exactly are you getting a +17 which you can get from +5 Mithral Fullplate with a Dex of 16? You'd need some pretty freeking insane stats to match that. Even if you could, that would mean both your dex and wis are over 20, and your strength probably sucks, so you won't be dishing out hardly any damage. Since you're a melee class, and really don't have much else to do, this means you can't really do anything. Like I said, you can say 'no' to resistable effects usually, but you can't really do much after it.

thats +8 armor, +5 enchantment and +3 dex = +16
and well you have just spend 36k on a armor, so if we give the monk the same potion of gold, and invest in +3 bracers, +2 ring of protection, +2 ring force shield and +2 amulet of natural armor we end up with +9, +3 for dex and lets just assume +3 as well for wisdom, for a grand total of +15, as well as a much better touch ac.

i could go though all your so called case in points, and prove that they are worthless rubish were you play both sides with the purpose of making the monk lose, thats really not proving anything besides one of my first points, that if you try and play the monk like a barbarian he will suck.

ahh ok, at lv 1 the monk can and will outgrapple the barbarian.
assuming 16 str, +4 rage he will have a grand bonus of +6 grapple bonus.
assuming the monk has 16 str, he will have +7 with imrpoved grapple, and more important, he will have 2 attempts to start the grapple though flurry.
once in a grapple the barbarian is done for, he cant use his sword, and the monk is slowly squesing the life out of him (ok not that slowly).

at lv 5 the monk can still grapple the barbarian, since there is no law that says he has to have a higher str score.
the Barbarians grapple bonus has risen to +10, while the monks are also at +10, this means the monk still wins grapple, due to 2 attemps vs 1.
and while the barbarian took power attack, the monk has taken ability focus, stunning fist, meaning that he actualy can stun him now as well.

at lv 10 it really isnt a contest anymore... for the monk!
since he has much higher movement at this lv, he can stay out of range and pester the barbarian with a sling, until he runs out of rage, whereafter he runs in and grapple the barbarian to death again.

i think this better illistrates my point about that when you are running both sides of a conflict yourself you can pretty much get the result you deside.
but, more importantly, D&D is a team game, meaning that who can beat who doesnt really prove anything, since i have yet to hear of a campaign where all you ever encounteret was either monks or barbarians.

in other words, whats important is if you have skills that allows you to help solve whatever problems you might encounter on you way.
and since you are so happy for barbarians, i though i would ask your this, what do you think would happen if your lv 5 barbarian ran into a lv 1 kobold sorcerer with char 14 and a charm person spell?
you have a base save of +1, and the dc is 13, try and do the math.

[Fax Celestis]

...you know, I thought this thread was about "Tiers of D&D", not "Let's Argue About Monks Yet Another Time."

[MountainKing]

Indeed it is not, but look at this another way--if the tactic you have for the Monk relies on adding yet another key attribute on a MAD class and a putting his points into cross-class skills, it is not a reasonable Monk build. You are, in effect, trying to turn your Monk into something he's not because even a half-baked Bard stands a much better chance than a Monk. This indicates that the Monk is screwed, because the only Monk who stands a chance is one that wants to be something other than a Monk.

I disagree entirely with both your point and the point above you (which are, realistically, saying the same thing), because my reasoning behind it is simple. I personally don't feel that using cross-class skills makes a character worthless; far from it. My reasoning for that is my own, and will likely be disputed, so I'll present to you a simpler argument.

No barbarian build worth it's meaty, damage dealing salt, give more than two rats' arses about Wisdom and Intelligence. Charisma I find is actually alright to give to a barbarian (Intimidate checks, Kiai Shout/Greater Kiai Shout, Intimidating Rage), but Wisdom serves a barbarian for little more than Spot/Listen checks, which it does for anyone.

Now, roll Sense Motive.

[Arbitrarity]

...you know, I thought this thread was about "Tiers of D&D", not "Let's Argue About Monks Yet Another Time."

A point, Fax. I think I'll leave the dead monk alone now. Kicking it is redundant, and unnecessarily cruel.

Poor monk. He though he had perfection, and instead, was killed while on horseback, then violated in many innovative ways.

[Indon]

Immunity to poisons, disease, and a very gimp SR that any caster without a PENALTY to their casting stat mod will pretty much ignore. Oh no... what ever shall I do...


I thought SR was overcome with a caster level check?

I'm pretty sure caster level checks don't include a bonus from any stat, to include primary casting stat.

Rather, the Monk's SR (and, by extention, all SR) is weak because of the existence of so many spells that don't allow for SR, and the existence of Assay Spell Resistance.

And as for D&D power-levels in general, it's honestly not an issue I've ever seen in practice in my games, and they've ranged a pretty wide level range over the last few years. So, meh.


...you know, I thought this thread was about "Tiers of D&D", not "Let's Argue About Monks Yet Another Time."

Well, when discussing power levels, if an individual should find it neccessary to try to emphasize their opinion that the monk is weaker than, say, the Samurai, someone might take issue with that.

And should multiple individuals try it, then it's on.

[Fax Celestis]

"On" like yesterday's coffee: cold and bitter.

[tainsouvra]

I disagree entirely with both your point and the point above you (which are, realistically, saying the same thing), because my reasoning behind it is simple. I personally don't feel that using cross-class skills makes a character worthless; far from it. My reasoning for that is my own, and will likely be disputed, so I'll present to you a simpler argument. If you know your reasoning will be disputed, and refuse to present it, please do not mention it at all. Smoke and mirrors don't belong in an open discussion.

No barbarian build worth it's meaty, damage dealing salt, give more than two rats' arses about Wisdom and Intelligence. Charisma I find is actually alright to give to a barbarian (Intimidate checks, Kiai Shout/Greater Kiai Shout, Intimidating Rage), but Wisdom serves a barbarian for little more than Spot/Listen checks, which it does for anyone.

Now, roll Sense Motive. In other words, if you specifically make a Monk, knowing it's normally not very effective against Barbarians, then specifically make him rely on skills and attributes that are cross-class for the Monk, then you might be able to win a fight against that Barbarian, assuming he did not also make the character to counter yours.

Can I emphasize "pointless comparison" any more heavily? Because this is a perfect example of an old optimization fallacy--"my character specifically optimized to fight a specific opponent who isn't optimized to fight me". Those are generally dismissed out of hand, simply because it's silly to compare with that level of inequality.


"Let's Argue About Monks Yet Another Time." The problem with dead horses is that it's perfectly acceptable to put a garland over what's left of its neck and drag it out into the town square. Pointing out that it's dead won't convince the owner that he no longer has a champion racehorse, nor will it make the smell go away.

[Indon]

"On" like yesterday's coffee: cold and bitter.

It's been reheated way too many times to be just yesterday's coffee.

But, heck, should people admit that a monk is a fairly solid character class whose biggest flaw is it lacks a specialty (moreso even than the similarly maligned bard) thus making it a poor addition as anything but a fifth character in a party, we could probably move on. But with exaggerating comments like "Yeah, the monk is absolutely worthless", etc.? It's just dealing in bad faith.

[Fax Celestis]

The problem with dead horses is that it's perfectly acceptable to put a garland over what's left of its neck and drag it out into the town square. Pointing out that it's dead won't convince the owner that he no longer has a champion racehorse, nor will it make the smell go away.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/deadhorse.gif

[tainsouvra]

a poor addition as anything but a fifth wheel in a party, [...]
"Yeah, the monk is absolutely worthless", etc. Quoting the two key phrases here.

I do hope that you realize the irony of your statement. In case it's truly a coincidence, allow me to point out that the phrase "fifth wheel" is an idiom that means "useless, out of place, or unnecessary". If you're saying that a Monk is a fifth wheel, you're saying he's worthless, as that's what that term means.

I don't consider Monks worthless, for the record, but you might want to consider your own statements a moment :smallwink:

[Indon]

Quoting the two key phrases here.


Well, you learn something new every day. I've changed my original text to more accurately convey my position.

[Thoughtbot360]

You know, there IS such a thing as monk chesse (http://www.nuklearpower.com/redmage25.php).

Behold:


If you follow this formula, your monk will be able charge from 320 feet away, and deliver a flying kick which will do 2d12 + 40 points of damage and leave the target stunned for one round, and nauseated and unable to move for the next. I’m assuming your monk is 15th level. It’s not impossible to make this work at lower levels, you probably just won’t have the same range or damage. It’ll still be impressive though.

Spells needed:
Cast Divine Wisdom, empowered, at the beginning of the day. This will give 6 points of Wisdom. DW is from Relics and Rituals; the spell is not necessary, but very useful, since WIS adds to both stun DC and the monk's AC.

Essential items:
Potions of True Strike
Monk's Belt (for Haste)
Sandals of the Tiger (from S&F) with layered Boots of Striding and Springing. (This second power will cost you double because it is added to a slotted item (see the DMG), but since the power costs all of 1000 gp for a mage to create, you'll end up striding for 2000 gp. The best deal in the game). Ki Straps (from Sword and Fist)

Feats required:
Pain Touch
Power Attack

This is how it all breaks down:

Round 1: The monk hastes himself (monk's belt)
Round1 partial: The monk drinks a potion of true strike.

Round 2: The monk launches a 320 foot flying kick. Her base move is 80; the striding makes it 160. Doubled (for a charge), this is 320.
The flying kick (based on the Sandals) does double damage, so 1d12 + 10-15 (power attack) + 5 (strength bonus) * 2 = 2d12 + 40.

But the real fun is in the stun. Save DC is 10 + half monk's level (7 or 8) + wisdom bonus (5 at least, see Divine Wisdom), + 5 (Ki straps). Our monk, who started with an 18 wisdom (raised to 24 by the DW), delivers a stun with a DC of 10 + 8 + 7 (wis) + 5 = 30.

When they're stunned, they're out of combat for 2 rounds, because of the pain touch feat. What's great about this tactic is that you can basically do it once every round, since your save DC is 30 for the stuns. The extra damage and distance for the charge is neat, but what really hurts is having a monk keep half of the opposition stunned / nauseated during a fight.

Also note that anyone who fails that 30 DC save is vulnerable to sneak attack damage from rogues. Have your rogue delay until just after the monk goes for maximum Destroying the DM’s Campaign Effect.

Well, I think this was made on 3.0 edition, so there might be something I'm missing here, but thats pretty impressive

[Indon]

Well, I think this was made on 3.0 edition, so there might be something I'm missing here, but thats pretty impressive

Well, that particular combo doesn't work in 3.5 anymore, I don't think, but there certainly still are other ways to cheese up a monk.

In fact, various levels of character optimization completely muddy the waters of any standard class power, in practice. Varied campaign environments have a similar effect (For instance, in an anti-undead campaign, Turn Undead is much more potent than it is normally considered to be, and Sneak Attack is less potent) as well.

[tainsouvra]

You know, there IS such a thing as monk chesse (http://www.nuklearpower.com/redmage25.php). I got a kick out of that, hehe.

[MountainKing]

If you know your reasoning will be disputed, and refuse to present it, please do not mention it at all. Smoke and mirrors don't belong in an open discussion.

Because this is a perfect example of an old optimization fallacy--"my character specifically optimized to fight a specific opponent who isn't optimized to fight me". Those are generally dismissed out of hand, simply because it's silly to compare with that level of inequality.


My reason for giving characters cross-class ranks in skills is entirely flavor based, and since this is a discussion about mechanics, there's no point in introducing why I feel the way I feel (and I might add that I don't have to rationalize my feelings to you or anyone).

That aside, since when is Bluff only useful against barbarians, particularly at low level? Your argument is entirely flawed by the assumption that I would only use it on my barbarian opponent, when in reality a 1st level character can make a great deal of use out of even a relatively weak bonus to Bluff checks.

[Zim]

When dealing with relative power levels,one also must take into account the character's dependance on level-appropriate wealth.

A 1st level non spellcaster with 1000 gp worth of gear is crazy happy (MW armour and weapons...yay!), but that 1000 gp does not go as far at 12th level (I need a magic adamantine good aligned left-hand corkscrew to kill this guy!).

Meanwhile, a 12th level cleric, druid, wizard or sorcerer can still get by with a spell book (free spells only), component pouch, a holy symbol and a Plain Wooden Stick (tm). The utility granted by full caster progression helps to mitigate wealth shortages and gives the spellcaster a clear edge over the non-caster.

Of course, the real Tier 1 characters come from a group of players and characters that work TOGETHER and whose abilities compliment each other. Just my crazy opinion, YMMV. :smalltongue:

[tainsouvra]

My reason for giving characters cross-class ranks in skills is entirely flavor based, and since this is a discussion about mechanics, there's no point in introducing why I feel the way I feel (and I might add that I don't have to rationalize my feelings to you or anyone). Umm...I was more reminding you of a common-sense approach--if you don't want to talk about it, don't talk about it. If you want to talk about it, talk about it. I don't think that's an unusual approach to take when posting on a public forum. Saying "I think X but I don't want to discuss it" on a discussion forum is just plain silly.

If you don't want to talk about it, just don't talk about it.


That aside, since when is Bluff only useful against barbarians, particularly at low level? Your argument is entirely flawed by the assumption that I would only use it on my barbarian opponent, when in reality a 1st level character can make a great deal of use out of even a relatively weak bonus to Bluff checks. That assumption was not made, I was saying that you had a character who relied on added MAD and a cross-class skill to overcome an opponent that is presumed to not be doing equivalent things. You are still relying on the "my character specifically optimized to fight a specific opponent who isn't optimized to fight me" catagory of optimization, which really isn't a good approach to take. If you aren't familiar with how that works, I will happily explain it for you, I've only avoided doing so far because I don't want to sound like I'm patronizing you.

[MountainKing]

What would help a lot is an explaination of the meaning of the term "MAD", because I'm reading it as mutually assured destruction, and it's not making entirely much sense. I still don't see why it's so terrible to give a monk Charisma and Bluff, especially if one can rationalize it with roleplaying.

[Gralamin]

What would help a lot is an explaination of the meaning of the term "MAD", because I'm reading it as mutually assured destruction, and it's not making entirely much sense. I still don't see why it's so terrible to give a monk Charisma and Bluff, especially if one can rationalize it with roleplaying.

Multiple Ability disorder, as in Needing Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom.

[MeklorIlavator]

What would help a lot is an explaination of the meaning of the term "MAD", because I'm reading it as mutually assured destruction, and it's not making entirely much sense. I still don't see why it's so terrible to give a monk Charisma and Bluff, especially if one can rationalize it with roleplaying.

Multiple Attribute Dependency. Most non-primary spellcasters have it to some degree, the worst offender being the Monk(Str, Dex, Con, Wis). Your build would add a 5th stat to that, making a strained character even more strained if he want to cover his bases.

[Fax Celestis]

What would help a lot is an explaination of the meaning of the term "MAD", because I'm reading it as mutually assured destruction, and it's not making entirely much sense. I still don't see why it's so terrible to give a monk Charisma and Bluff, especially if one can rationalize it with roleplaying.

Multiple Attribute Dependency. A Monk needs a high Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom in order to be as effective as a SAD (Single Attribute Dependent) class such as Wizard or Sorceror, or even a lesser MAD class--such as a Ranger, who needs Str/Dex, Con, and Wis.

[Chronos]

MAD = Multiple Ability Dependance. A monk would like to have high Strength, Dex, Wisdom, and Constitution, but with most character generation methods, it's difficult or impossible to get four different ability scores high, so the monk has to sacrifice something. If he also wants to have high Charisma for some reason, then he's going to have to sacrifice even more.

[Fax Celestis]

Multiple Attribute Dependency. Most non-primary spellcasters have it to some degree, the worst offender being the Monk(Str, Dex, Con, Wis). Your build would add a 5th stat to that, making a strained character even more strained if he want to cover his bases.

Paladins are pretty bad too, needing Str/Con/Wis/Cha.

[MountainKing]

I would hold that it still isn't a problem for a monk, however, especially considering the possibility of rolled stats. The idea that the attributes make the character is ridiculous to me.

[Gralamin]

Multiple Attribute Dependency. A Monk needs a high Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom in order to be as effective as a SAD (Single Attribute Dependent) class such as Wizard or Sorceror, or even a lesser MAD class--such as a Ranger, who needs Str/Dex, Con, and Wis.

Huh. I've always though it was Multiple Ability Disorder. Either way works, and means the same thing.

[MeklorIlavator]

I would hold that it still isn't a problem for a monk, however, especially considering the possibility of rolled stats. The idea that the attributes make the character is ridiculous to me.

Make a monk with one 18 and 5 10's, and compare it to a Wizard/Cleric/Rouge/Barbarian/druid/ranger with the same stats. Stats aren't everything, but they are a part.

Oh, and thank you, Fax. I was going to post a paladin as another example, but I wasn't sure if it needed wisdom.

[Fax Celestis]

I would hold that it still isn't a problem for a monk, however, especially considering the possibility of rolled stats. The idea that the attributes make the character is ridiculous to me.

...you think a 12 is a good score, don't you?

[Tengu]

I would hold that it still isn't a problem for a monk, however, especially considering the possibility of rolled stats. The idea that the attributes make the character is ridiculous to me.

This is a discussion about crunch, not fluff. And in crunch, attributes do make the character.

As for monks... well, while they are clearly (though apparently, not for everyone) underpowered, there's a simple way of fixing them. It's called Unarmed Variant Swordsage.

[Deepblue706]

...you think a 12 is a good score, don't you?

It's good in Hackmaster!!!

Of course, that's only because it's 3d6...

But, yeah, compare an elite-array Monk to any other elite-array class. I'm...fairly positive that it'd be among the worst choices.

[MountainKing]

...you think a 12 is a good score, don't you?

It's better than a 10. I've had a lot of encounters where +1 would have made the difference between success and failure.

[Otto-Sieve]

I say if you want to discuss monks and their melee role discuss it here (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=899983),not here. :smallannoyed:

This thread is about ranking the classes in power, not Barb v. Monk.
Sure if you throw more classes into the mix it would be fine, but let's not just pick on the monk here, this is about all the classes, so include them.

[Deepblue706]

It's better than a 10. I've had a lot of encounters where +1 would have made the difference between success and failure.

+1 does make a difference, but there's a reason why in point-buy, the higher you go, the more each point begins to cost. A +1 by itself means very little. A +1 with more +1s attached to it can be useful.

A 10 will imply no natural talent in a field, and if that's where you're standing, you're likely not going to be very effective. Sometimes, when you're training peasantfolk to help fight off orc raiders, a set of 10s is all you can hope for. But, that's very different from what you should readily rely on when you have a choice about the matter. For an adventuring group, you want everyone to be at their peak in their chosen specialty - and if they're split in their disciplines, you need them to still be fairly effective in what they do. With MAD, this becomes very difficult.

[Greenfaun]

Well, I'm gonna reply to the OP and not to the two pages of rehashed monk argument:

There's a deeper set of tiers to the DnD classes than just power level, something that has to do with game design philosophy. I admit my theory still needs some work, but basically my tiers would be:

High-Fantasy:
Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Bard

Low-Fantasy:
Rogue
Fighter
(Barbarian)
(Paladin)
(Ranger)

Especially screwed by a double standard:
Monk

Let me explain. There's a fundamental difference between the classes that can do impossible things right off the bat (high-fantasy) and the ones who are limited to a vaguely realistic model of medieval combat (low-fantasy).

Barbarians, paladins and rangers are in parentheses because they eventually gain access to impossible things at high levels, whereas (not counting magic items!) rogues and fighters never do. They're stuck in the real world, while the casters get to tell the laws of physics to sit down and shut up.

Monks get singled out and reamed because of the tension between the two design philosophies. The designers seemed to want a high-fantasy concept for monks, but they also intentionally limited the monk to damage consistent with real hand-to-hand combat (at least for the first few levels) and the high-fantasy powers they give the monk never approach the effectiveness of spells. Instead of starting weak and getting uber like casters, or starting strong and getting weak like melee-ers, they start weak, stay weak and then get scorn heaped upon them on forums like this one. It's a hard-knock life.

Please note that I'm not talking about balance, although I think this directly effects balance. I'm talking about some classes being limited by realism while others aren't. It's not even about the divide between melee classes and casters, because they later added Duskblades and the ToB classes, which are clearly in the High-fantasy tier.

Actually, that brings up another point- whatever the power-level, all the new base classes I can think of other than the samurai and the scout are in the high-fantasy tier. Magic and superhuman abilities are at the fingertips of practically everyone, except the fighter and rogue.

Anyway, does anyone else think this is a problem? Not that I know what to do about it, it just seems, I dunno, inelegant.

[tainsouvra]

I would hold that it still isn't a problem for a monk, however, especially considering the possibility of rolled stats. The idea that the attributes make the character is ridiculous to me. If you're talking about designing characters to be in competition, it's very relevant--in fact, it's a make-or-break factor. If you play just to have fun, then no problem, that's what most of us do...but that's simply not the same approach you take when discussing balance or competition. Neither works that way--stats, skill allocations, feat choices, equipment prices, and combat tactics are what matters in such a discussion--not what's passable or what's fun, that's another topic entirely.

This is such a discussion...and honestly, if optimization seems ridiculous to you, why discuss it at all when there are countless threads about other topics? Why debate optimization with people who like talking about optimization when you don't know a whole lot about it and find the whole subject ridiculous?


Anyway, does anyone else think this is a problem? Not that I know what to do about it, it just seems, I dunno, inelegant. Actually, that's an interesting approach, and it does relate back to power level in many cases since the "high fantasy" crowd gets to ignore more limiting factors. I'll have to think about that one a while :smallcool:

[horseboy]

Make a monk with one 18 and 5 10's, and compare it to a Wizard/Cleric/Rouge/Barbarian/druid/ranger with the same stats. Stats aren't everything, but they are a part.

Oh, and thank you, Fax. I was going to post a paladin as another example, but I wasn't sure if it needed wisdom.

They have 4 level spells, so they only really need a 14. All their spells are heals & buffs, so it's not like they've got to worry about save DC's. It would be easy enough to "park" it at 10, then Magic Mart a +4, leaving them fine. It'd give you a bonus 1 & 2nd level spell.
Str and Cha are the main two.

[horseboy]

Of course, the real Tier 1 characters come from a group of players and characters that work TOGETHER and whose abilities compliment each other. Just my crazy opinion, YMMV. :smalltongue:

I REALLY want to quote this for truth. I'll agree with most everything on this thread, and yet, my LG group is a fighter 9, Mystic Thruge 10, Rage Mage 8 and and a dread commando 10. We will break any mod in record time.

[ArmorArmadillo]

It's worth mentioning that tiers assume optimization.

A well optimized fighter can outclass an average sorcerer.

The Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are largely considered overpowered because of the people who know how to get a lot out of those classes.

Also, optimized clerics who focus on buffs and healing tend to make everyone in the party better so there "tier" isn't necessarily a matter of being better than others, but being very useful.

[Arbitrarity]

It's worth mentioning that tiers assume optimization.

A well optimized fighter can outclass an average sorcerer.

The Wizard, Cleric, and Druid are largely considered overpowered because of the people who know how to get a lot out of those classes.



QFT. According to some paradigms, all classes are balanced, and optimizers misuse them. Optimization is key to most aspects of "tiers" working at all, and tiers show more potential than actual gameplay, depending on your knowledge.

Although at higher levels, wizards still win :smallbiggrin:

[ArmorArmadillo]

...you think a 12 is a good score, don't you?

It's better than most people give it credit for...
I generally work on 25 point buys, so I consider that a decent score.

I feel like players often start out rolling stats, and they see players get really great arrays like 18 15 16 13 15 12 and think that's the norm, and that an array like 16 13 8 12 10 11 is really weak, when in fact it's very decent from an objective sense.

[Bosh]

Saying that Monks don't suck because they can use bluff to solve problems is like saying that Barbarians are great because they can take ranks of various knowledge skills. There's nothing about monks that make them good at bluffing, quite the opposite in fact since they're so horrifically MAD.

Monks aren't useless but there's pretty much nothing they can do that a druid can't do better. They're down there on the bottom of the stack with fighters, this doesn't mean that either can't be fun or useful, but powerful they are not...

And as far as the the "D&D is a TEAM" arguement. Well a party of 1 druid, 1 wizard, 1 cleric and one sorcerer will be better at everything than a party of one wizard, one cleric, one rogue and one fighter.

For power rankings I'd go:


First
Druid
Cleric
Wizard
Sorcerer

Second
Barbarian
Bard Rogue

Third
Fighter
Ranger
Paladin

Forth
Monk

[Arbitrarity]

Sadly, there are too many excellent classes to make a "excellent" party with less than around 6 people. Artificer, Archivist, Beguiler, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, are needed for total coverage :smallbiggrin:

[Fax Celestis]

...and a Spellthief to borrow from them all.

[Bleen]

MAD = Multiple Ability Dependance. A monk would like to have high Strength, Dex, Wisdom, and Constitution, but with most character generation methods, it's difficult or impossible to get four different ability scores high, so the monk has to sacrifice something. If he also wants to have high Charisma for some reason, then he's going to have to sacrifice even more.
(I'M BEING CONTROVERSIAL AS MY SECOND POST. WHAT.)

This is where I'm horribly, horribly confused, so someone enlighten me.

Why, pray tell, does a Monk need all four of those ability scores?
He needs Wisdom for AC, since he can't wear armor. Understandable.
He needs Dexterity for AC, because his Wisdom bonus alone will probably never be enough.
He needs Constitution for HP. Then again, who doesn't? This ability doesn't need to be higher than anyone else's would be, so I find the point moot.
He does need Strength for his damage. He does not need this stat for his attack bonus, because he can take the Weapon Finesse feat since unarmed strike is a light weapon. He needs Strength to carry things, but I can't see a Monk carrying much in the first place.

A Monk with really bad rolls could live off, what, Wisdom and Dexterity? Then Con, then Str, then whatever else.

He wouldn't be "Optimal" but I don't see him terribly sucking any more than another melee class with only two good abilities.

Yes, a Monk with 1 18 and 5 10's will suck. Bad. So will a lot of other things, though. He won't win in a straight brawl, but a Fighter won't often win a will save against an angry caster, either.

Other than that, generally: Casters suck, then they become godly. Melee classes are godly, then they suck because the Casters' got power levels over 9000. Or, repeating what everone else said, etc.

My two cents.

[Fax Celestis]

(I'M BEING CONTROVERSIAL AS MY SECOND POST. WHAT.)

This is where I'm horribly, horribly confused, so someone enlighten me.

Why, pray tell, does a Monk need all four of those ability scores?
He needs Wisdom for AC, since he can't wear armor. Understandable.
He needs Dexterity for AC, because his Wisdom bonus alone will probably never be enough.
He needs Constitution for HP. Then again, who doesn't? This ability doesn't need to be higher than anyone else's would be, so I find the point moot.
He does need Strength for his damage. He does not need this stat for his attack bonus, because he can take the Weapon Finesse feat since unarmed strike is a light weapon. He needs Strength to carry things, but I can't see a Monk carrying much in the first place.

A Monk with really bad rolls could live off, what, Wisdom and Dexterity? Then Con, then Str, then whatever else.

He wouldn't be "Optimal" but I don't see him terribly sucking any more than another melee class with only two good abilities.

Yes, a Monk with 1 18 and 5 10's will suck. Bad. So will a lot of other things, though. He won't win in a straight brawl, but a Fighter won't often win a will save against an angry caster, either.

Other than that, generally: Casters suck, then they become godly. Melee classes are godly, then they suck because the Casters' got power levels over 9000. Or, repeating what everone else said, etc.

My two cents.

He needs those four scores for a variety of reasons. Wis and Dex you pretty much got down. Weapon Finesse does make up partially for lower Str, but there's the fact that the monk will already be putting out worse damage output than anyone else due to the fact that his fists are not enchantable. Str helps overcome both this and his lower BAB without feat expenditure (which he can't take until level 3, due to it's BAB +1 req, mind you). Further, he has a d8 HD, which makes him moderately more fragile than other frontliners. This means he needs Con to make up for it. The monk can also use Con to augment his Fort save. Despite his having all good saves, being a survivor means you need both the ability to take the hit, and the ability to shrug them off--HP and a high Fort save show this.

[kjones]

(I'M BEING CONTROVERSIAL AS MY SECOND POST. WHAT.)

This is where I'm horribly, horribly confused, so someone enlighten me.

Why, pray tell, does a Monk need all four of those ability scores?
He needs Wisdom for AC, since he can't wear armor. Understandable.
He needs Dexterity for AC, because his Wisdom bonus alone will probably never be enough.
He needs Constitution for HP. Then again, who doesn't? This ability doesn't need to be higher than anyone else's would be, so I find the point moot.
He does need Strength for his damage. He does not need this stat for his attack bonus, because he can take the Weapon Finesse feat since unarmed strike is a light weapon. He needs Strength to carry things, but I can't see a Monk carrying much in the first place.

A Monk with really bad rolls could live off, what, Wisdom and Dexterity? Then Con, then Str, then whatever else.

He wouldn't be "Optimal" but I don't see him terribly sucking any more than another melee class with only two good abilities.

Yes, a Monk with 1 18 and 5 10's will suck. Bad. So will a lot of other things, though. He won't win in a straight brawl, but a Fighter won't often win a will save against an angry caster, either.

Other than that, generally: Casters suck, then they become godly. Melee classes are godly, then they suck because the Casters' got power levels over 9000. Or, repeating what everone else said, etc.

My two cents.

Ok, you're not wrong, but here's the problem. A fighter can get by with Strength and Constitution; Dex won't matter as much once he's got full plate. A monk cannot wear armor, so for him to have an AC that's viable for the front lines he needs a good Dex and a good Wis. Furthermore, since his HD are only d8, he'll need Constitution more than the fighter. Finally, he needs Strength to beef up his piddling unarmed damage.

So, say you're using some array that has two good stats and the rest are mediocre. A Fighter can put them into Strength and Constitution, and he'll have a good character. A Monk would have to put them into Wisdom and Dexterity, and his character will be weaker than the Fighter overall.

Edit: Fax-Ninja'd.

The other problem is, you can make a good Druid with a single high stat: Wisdom. Charisma would be nice too, but once the Druid gets wild shape, he no longer needs to worry about physical stats.

Now THAT's unbalanced.

[Arbitrarity]

Actually, wildshape was erratad so druids need con, as polymorph CON replacement doesn't change hp's.

Now, you can drop strength if you wanna invest 3 feats (or a dip level, at first, preferably) into getting dex to damage (shadow blade). But that's also ToB, and some don't like that. And if you have shadow blade, why aren't you playing an unarmed swordsage!?

[tainsouvra]

Why, pray tell, does a Monk need all four of those ability scores?
[...]
He needs Constitution for HP. Then again, who doesn't? This ability doesn't need to be higher than anyone else's would be, so I find the point moot. Ah, but he very much does need more than others! You see, the Monk is a d8 hit die class that must be in melee combat in order to use most of his class features. This means he needs to make sure he has a decent Con score, at least as good as a Fighter's (if not better!) or he risks being completely unsuitable for play--he wouldn't be able to survive long enough to actually overcome an opponent. Con is definitely an attribute a Monk needs to watch.
He does need Strength for his damage. He does not need this stat for his attack bonus, because he can take the Weapon Finesse feat since unarmed strike is a light weapon. He needs Strength to carry things, but I can't see a Monk carrying much in the first place. However, if he wishes to use available class features like Improved Trip, he needs a Str score that matches his opponent, or he is likely to lose the opposed roll. Additionally, a Str bonus to damage can be a pretty big deal when practically all of your damage is coming from attacks that can utilize it and your opponents are almost certain to be doing more damage than you without it.

I might not make it a #1 priority stat, but I would definitely want a bonus here, and honestly I'd consider it a good #2 stat after Wisdom, and would be sorely tempted to bump it to first.


He wouldn't be "Optimal" but I don't see him terribly sucking any more than another melee class with only two good abilities.

Yes, a Monk with 1 18 and 5 10's will suck. Bad. So will a lot of other things, though. He won't win in a straight brawl, but a Fighter won't often win a will save against an angry caster, either. Here's the problem: a Fighter with an 18 and the rest 10's will be a viable opponent--he'll lack a lot of perks and not be as good as a character with more bonuses, but he is completely suitable as a melee combatant. A Monk with an 18 and the rest 10's will be slaughtered, and isn't really suitable as a melee combatant...he even stands a decent chance of losing to a similarly-stated Warrior, an NPC class.

Let me put this another way...what does each class generally require in order to be an effective combatant?
.............**Fighter**.....................**Mon k**
High: ......... Str ........................Wis, Dex-or-Str
Passable: ... Con ...................... Con, Str-or-Dex
Non-penalty: Dex

If a Fighter has one good stat, one ok stat, and one non-penalty, he can be a completely viable fighter. For a Monk to make the same claim, he needs two good stats and two ok stats as a minimum. There's a significant inflation in the number of attribute bonuses required, meaning he is dependent on having multiple attributes (MAD).

[Krellen]

This isn't on the topic, but I think this idea of MAD begs a question: while the MAD classes may suffer under "normal" rules (and we're assuming point buy is normal here; at my tables die rolls produce much better stats than the elite array), who benefits more from multiple high attributes: the single-stat caster classes or the MAD classes?

Who's better off: a Fighter with all 18s, or a Monk with all 18s?

[Bleen]

Okay, you win, the monk has MAD and is, quite possibly, underpowered compared to the other melee-oriented character classes.

I still find that they have positive attributes that can contribute to a group, given that they manage to fulfill the ever-lofty ability requirements to be reasonably powerful. But then again, I'm biased and all that and dislike playing a lot of the core classes.

Fight Spell
>Run Item

[tainsouvra]

Krellen,

Really, both starting with all 18's would only delay the onset of MAD and reduce its sting...reduce in decreasingly significant amounts, in fact. MAD isn't just about starting stats, it's also about stat bonuses from spells/gear/levels/etc.

Using your example, the Fighter with all 18's would be better off once they both got a few levels and gear started to enter the equation--a fighter who just gets strength-bonus items can spend the rest of his money/slots on other gear, while a Monk who wanted to keep his multiple attributes at the same level as the Fighter's Str is going to have to burn up more of his money/slots on raising those attributes.

Even without magic, level advancement will allow the Fighter to raise his base Str score to 23 by level 20...but it won't let a Monk have 4 23's.

MAD is a career-long affliction :smallwink:

[Fax Celestis]

Okay, you win, the monk has MAD and is, quite possibly, underpowered compared to the other melee-oriented character classes.

I still find that they have positive attributes that can contribute to a group, given that they manage to fulfill the ever-lofty ability requirements to be reasonably powerful. But then again, I'm biased and all that and dislike playing a lot of the core classes.

Entirely granted. They can contribute. It's just easier for other classes to contribute in the same ways that a monk can.

[Krellen]

Really, both starting with all 18's would only delay the onset of MAD and reduce its sting...reduce in decreasingly significant amounts, in fact. MAD isn't just about starting stats, it's also about stat bonuses from spells/gear/etc.
Monks, however, while arguably being more dependant on magic gear, have a couple key savings fighters don't: they don't need to buy armour and weapons. At low levels, this difference doesn't really tilt in the Monk's favour, but once the Fighter starts getting things past +5s, the Monk starts to restore the balance, even if he's spending more on +stat items than the Fighter.

While the Monk isn't going to do the damage of the Fighter, I'm relatively certain from experience - he'll have a higher AC and significantly higher saves than the Fighter.

[tainsouvra]

Monks, however, while arguably being more dependant on magic gear, have a couple key savings fighters don't: they don't need to buy armour and weapons. Wait wait wait...your monks don't get enchanted versions of their special monk weapons? Monks have enough equipment problems, denying them a weapon progression just adds to them. :smalleek:

[Orzel]

The tiers should be based on how many roles the class can fill decently for the party.

Tier 1 (almost every role)-Full casters
Wiz, Sorc, Cleric, Druid

Tier 2 (a couple of jobs)- Skill monkeys and Partial Casters
Bard, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin

Tier 3 (good for 1 or 2 things)- Full BABers
Barb, Fighter

Tier 4 (barely 1 thing right)- None of the above
Monk

[Josh the Aspie]

Okay. Bottom line, different classes are better at different things.

From the experience of my local game group, which has seen multiple successful monks, and the advice I've been given by some really experienced RPGA players, the monk is a skirmisher, similar to how one should play a melee ranger, or a melee scout.

The monk also makes a great mage-killer. Why? Well they have the ability of the rogue to tumble past front lines, they have evasion and great saves to avoid damage from spells when the mage tries to shake them. They also have more speed than a barbarian, letting them get around or through the mooks better, and they can go in and out more quickly. Once a monk is face to face with the mage, the mage is basically screwed. And if he calls in the mooks to come help, then they've got to deal with the other party members.

All you have to do is get the monk there, then keep the monk with the caster using a readied action that involves five-foot stepping after the mage and attacking him when the mage five-foot steps back away and casts.

What you don't want to do is have a monk try to stand toe to toe with a physically based big bad like a dragon.

I've tried stand and flurry before when other people in my group, more suited to 'toe to toe' with the big bad just plain old decided not to risk it and threw me forewards. It didn't work then, I doubt it will work in the future after I catch up to them in levels. What has worked is toe-to-toeing with a mage behind the lines, and also skirmish fighting.

The monk is also an excellent warrior to just drop into various locations to make sure the rogue stays in flank.

Basically, if your group fights like a bunch of individuals, the monk is horrid. If you fight using okay, or good small unit tactics, and the monk is a team player, he enhances all of the other front line fighters on the field.

The monk can also be useful out of combat if you give him diplo, or other non-combat skills.

I've also heard of multiple feat combinations that can give the monk the ability to both move, and flurry. I can't remember them off hand though.

If you only have 4 people in the group, I'd go with an arcanist, a divine caster, a tank monkey, and a ranged fighting rogue. 5 or 6 characters? You have more freedom to add to the mix, and improve on your small unit tactics.

As for enchanted monk weapons vrs non-enchanted:

Monks fists go up in damage dice over time, effectively granting them the +1 to damage each time you go from d6 to d8, ect, or more. The monk also gets the ability to overcome multiple kinds of DR just with his fists. The weapons are good for bypassing material based DR such as cold iron or silver, and adding to the monk's to hit, yes, but unlike the fighter, the continuing enchantment of weapons is not strictly necessary. Further, items exist specifically for enhancing a monk's unarmed attacks like you were enchanting the weapon, thus leading to an even faster increase in damage. Granted, they start out with lower damage (D6, instead of d8 for a longsword, or 2d6 for a greatsword).

Monks aren't always the best choice, but neither are they always the worst.

And I seem to recall that for a long time bards held the reputation for being the most useless class ever because "anything they can do, someone can do better" until people started seeing those people that used bards in ways that make them highly useful, and even powerful.

[tainsouvra]

Monks fists go up in damage dice over time, effectively granting them the +1 to damage each time you go from d6 to d8, ect, or more. The monk also gets the ability to overcome multiple kinds of DR just with his fists. The increases in effectiveness lag significantly behind those of weapons appropriate for his level, though. They help offset the difference, but it's an attempt to fill a gap, not an advantage.
The weapons are good for bypassing material based DR such as cold iron or silver, and adding to the monk's to hit, yes, but unlike the fighter, the continuing enchantment of weapons is not strictly necessary. The Monk is a melee-based mid-BAB class. The bolded portion is so important, I'm not sure how I can emphasize enough that it is not something to gloss over. A Monk is already lagging behind his competition in attack bonuses, voluntarily skipping more attack bonus seems like pure folly. A Monk should really be looking for bonuses to hit.
Further, items exist specifically for enhancing a monk's unarmed attacks like you were enchanting the weapon, thus leading to an even faster increase in damage. Granted, they start out with lower damage (D6, instead of d8 for a longsword, or 2d6 for a greatsword). Assuming your DM is allowing whichever book those are in, yes. If they are availabile, mechanically they are enchanted weapons of the "unarmed" type, and thus fall into the category I was discussing--definitely a good allocation of the Monk's funds, and heartily recommended...really, anything with a per-hit damage addition and/or a bonus chance to hit helps the Monk considerably.
And I seem to recall that for a long time bards held the reputation for being the most useless class ever because "anything they can do, someone can do better" until people started seeing those people that used bards in ways that make them highly useful, and even powerful. In a previous edition, Bards really were that bad, and earned that reputation. The reputation has faded somewhat with 3/3.5, which only makes sense given the improvements the class has received. The Bard reputation change isn't so much about people finding a use for an unfairly-maligned class as it is about a class simply being buffed and opinions changing to reflect the crunch change.

If in 4.0, Monks get a major buff but still get mocked for a couple months/years due to a persistent reputation, then it'll be equivalent to Bards. Until then, the comparison doesn't apply to the Monk, who currently earns his reputation.

...on a bit of a different subject...
All you have to do is get the monk there, then keep the monk with the caster using a readied action that involves five-foot stepping after the mage and attacking him when the mage five-foot steps back away and casts. What the heck are your enemy casters doing that's allowing this tactic to neutralize them? This sounds like a bad trade-off compared to grappling, flurrying, etc...way easier for the mage to win if you keep using that tactic :smallconfused:

[Tengu]

In a previous edition, Bards really were that bad, and earned that reputation. The reputation has faded somewhat with 3/3.5, which only makes sense given the improvements the class has received. The Bard reputation change isn't so much about people finding a use for an unfairly-maligned class as it is about a class simply being buffed and opinions changing to reflect the crunch change.


Really? I thought that bards were awesome in AD&D, since they had more hit points than wizards and leveled much faster (ah, the joyful absurdity of different exp charts for different classes!), therefore gaining access to better spells much faster.

Bards in 3.x, while not as bad as people actually depict them, are not that much of a hot stuff - NWN2 has a good bard, since there the class also gains marshal-style auras.

[Josh the Aspie]

The increases in effectiveness lag significantly behind those of weapons appropriate for his level, though. They help offset the difference, but it's an attempt to fill a gap, not an advantage. The Monk is a melee-based mid-BAB class. The bolded portion is so important, I'm not sure how I can emphasize enough that it is not something to gloss over. A Monk is already lagging behind his competition in attack bonuses, voluntarily skipping more attack bonus seems like pure folly. A Monk should really be looking for bonuses to hit. Assuming your DM is allowing whichever book those are in, yes. If they are availabile, mechanically they are enchanted weapons of the "unarmed" type, and thus fall into the category I was discussing--definitely a good allocation of the Monk's funds, and heartily recommended...really, anything with a per-hit damage addition and/or a bonus chance to hit helps the Monk considerably.

And they aren't in all campaigns, including not in all campaigns I play monk in. In fact, in one campaign that they aren't allowed in, I play 2 monks. However this is partially due to some incredibly nice prestige classes that capitalize on some of the strengths of the monk, and eliminate some of their weaknesses, ones that I really want to give a try.

However in those campaigns where they are allowed, you get damage progression based on dice, plus you can enchant your attacks. There are other items that enhance the damage dice even further. I do believe that the unarmed attack boosters take up a boot, glove, or belt slot (or all of them, if you find ones that will stack due to un-named bonuses, or different named ones).



In a previous edition, Bards really were that bad, and earned that reputation. The reputation has faded somewhat with 3/3.5, which only makes sense given the improvements the class has received. The Bard reputation change isn't so much about people finding a use for an unfairly-maligned class as it is about a class simply being buffed and opinions changing to reflect the crunch change.

If in 4.0, Monks get a major buff but still get mocked for a couple months/years due to a persistent reputation, then it'll be equivalent to Bards. Until then, the comparison doesn't apply to the Monk, who currently earns his reputation.


No, bards had that reputation based on their 3.0 and 3.5 stats as well. Heck, even people that had never played previous editions quickly came to that conclusion.



...on a bit of a different subject... What the heck are your enemy casters doing that's allowing this tactic to neutralize them? This sounds like a bad trade-off compared to grappling, flurrying, etc...way easier for the mage to win if you keep using that tactic :smallconfused:

That's just one tactic among many that you can do. It has the advantage over flurry in that you can disrupt their spell, and the benefit over grapple that you don't expose yourself as much to the enemy's flunkies... but yes, flurry and grapple are also very valid options. It just depends on the build. A monk not built specifically to grapple isn't going to be the best in a grapple. And while flurry is always a valid option, it's even more so once you get high enough in level to reduce your flurry penalties.

The basic premise of the above technique is to use damage to cause the concentration check, rather than grapple to force a concentration check, and require them to use spells without somatic components. It's best used when moving into your opponent's square would provoke multiple AoO (until such a time as it doesn't), you haven't yet added the necessary grapple feats to your list of feats yet, or you're facing an over-sized caster of some kind.

It's also one of the simpler tactics that people who haven't played monks can understand without having to delve into various monk builds and feat combinations. The OP did want a relatively simple explanation that this is a side-conversation too, if I recall.

[tainsouvra]

Really? I thought that bards were awesome in AD&D, since they had more hit points than wizards and leveled much faster (ah, the joyful absurdity of different exp charts for different classes!), therefore gaining access to better spells much faster. It was maligned primarily for being a Rogue that lacked the Thief's skill choices and Backstab, instead getting a limited Wizard spell progression--limited both in advancing more slowly and never reaching the highest levels. Levelling faster wouldn't actually result in getting most of your spells sooner, IIRC, because you had to be a higher level to get them...I'd have to dig out the books and double-check the experience charts to see if there was any point the Bard was ahead, but I don't recall one.

I liked them as well, mostly for personal amusement, but they were mechanically underwhelming--completely out-Rogued by the Thief and out-maged by the Wizard.


No, bards had that reputation based on their 3.0 and 3.5 stats as well. Heck, even people that had never played previous editions quickly came to that conclusion. The 3.0 Bard was a bit weaker than the 3.5 one, and the 3.5 one isn't incredibly impressive (although, IMO, balanced), so it's true that they wouldn't have a stellar reputation based on that...but I maintain that the 2nd edition Bard is what really gave the class the "thief without skills or backstab, wizard without spells" reputation, primarily because it was true.

AD&D-2E Bards were a joke--not in the sense that people use "a joke" to mean anything that's underpowered, but honestly something that playing would cause your friends to laugh--in many circles. The lack of a level cap was one of their few saving graces, in theory, but games didn't tend to run to where it would become relevant.


some incredibly nice prestige classes that capitalize on some of the strengths of the monk, and eliminate some of their weaknesses, ones that I really want to give a try. What are they? I'd like to check them out, and possibly encourage my players to try them if they make Monks.

[I_Got_This_Name]

The tiers, as I understand them, and justification:

Tier 1: Godlike.
See the classes in my sig. Add Archivist, Psion, and Wizard.

These are your 9-level casters with expansive lists. More rules have been written for any one of them than for all other classes combined. Since every rule adds something new they can do, and there's at least one exploitable loophole in every book (and more that only show up when you combine them), they can do the most. The Beguiler is a bit of an oddity on this tier, as it is above the Dread Necromancer and Warmage, also built on the same principle. This is because it uses, almost entirely, win-button spells.

These classes are usually versatile enough to fill two of the four standard party roles (a Wizard can have a Wand of Knock in one hand and a Wand of Summon Monster I to disarm most traps with in the other and usurp the rogue's role, whereas a Beguiler is built as a rogue, but can usurp the wizard's role as wincaster, at least when enemies aren't immune; a Cleric or Druid can tank. An archivist with domain spells, or an artificer, can easily be both healer and batman)

Tier 2: Primary
Barbarian, Duskblade, Ranger, Rogue, Scout, Spellthief (move this to tier 1 if you're Fax and/or can borrow from tier 1s), Psychic Warrior, all of the Tome of Battle classes, the Binder and Shadowcaster. Throw on the Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Dread Necromancer, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Wilder, and Wu Jen for good measure.

These are your workhorse classes; they're only tanks or skillmonkeys (one niche per class) but they do it well, oftentimes better than niche invaders, or their batman, and they do it decently (but doing batman well is tier 1). You might have some Tier 1s that do more spectacular things, but it's the barbarian, duskblade, or warblade (or crusader) that's holding the line round-by-round; the ranger, rogue, scout, swordsage, or even spellthief (when they're not borrowing from the Tier 1s) that's scouting and dealing damage, and so on. The Binder is versatile, and capable of adapting to any role as necessary, although, with their CON dependence and decent hit die, fairly suited to standing on the front line.

The Shadowcaster, Favored Soul, Spirit Shaman, Sorcerer, Dread Necromancer, and Wilder are the nine-level casters on this tier. While mysteries cannot be used as often as spells, they are, occasionally, more powerful than spells of their level (admittedly, dispelling is 4th). The Sorcerer and Favored Soul don't have the strategic versatility of the wizard or cleric, and cannot make up for this with round-by-round versatility; the Spirit Shaman lacks the tanking ability of the Druid. The Dread Necromancer is a niche caster, like the beguiler, and its niche includes its fair share of win buttons, but it's not quite as powerful as the beguiler. The asian casters are here due to the weakness of their spell lists; the Wu Jen would be quite powerful if it could cast spells from outside of PHB and CArc. The Wilder is on this list only for its resemblance to the sorcerer; I have little experience with this class.

The Soulknife may also belong here; I don't know where to put it. I could see moving the Barbarian down to tier 3, just for its inability to match a Warblade in actual circumstances (in idealized circumstances, a Barbarian outdamages a Warblade; when the enemy starts trying to shut people down, the Warblade keeps going, and the Barbarian gets shut down; still, a Shock Trooper Leap Attacking Lion Totem Barbarian can't be shut down by being forced to move, which is the #1 way to weaken enemy full attackers).

Tier 3:
The Bard, Knight, Paladin, Hexblade, other half-casters (except the Ranger), Ninja, Warmage, Truenamer, Warlock, and the like.

Admittedly, the Bard can be an amazing powergamed class. Each of these classes needs something of an explanation:
The Bard requires optimization to make work; otherwise, you're just a support character. A well-tuned bard, with another tier 2 in front of them, might function on tier 2.
The Knight can't use tactics; for most of the knight's abilities to work, the knight has to be fighting one-on-one. It's a fairly decent "protect the casters" class, but, ultimately, it's relegated to a bodyguard role; a Crusader can protect the casters just as well, and still dish out damage and heal itself.
The Paladin is simply underpowered; it takes an underpowered base (fighter), pays heavily for its ability to cast (which isn't very good), and has some semi-decent class features frontloaded into the first five levels. The Hexblade is just a mirror image of the Paladin. The Ranger gets above this with its ability to sneak around
The Ninja gets put on this tier because it's like the rogue, but, when it doesn't get surprise or win initiative, it has to expend a uses/day ability to sneak attack, instead of just flanking, and can have its ability to sneak attack negated by a 2nd-level spell. Admittedly, rogues can't flank for long. They also have MAD that the rogue doesn't. You can build a fair rogue on 18/10/10/10/10/10, if you put the 18 in dex; intelligence or constitution (to offset the HP loss from the rogue taking a full attack whenever flanking) are good second stats. A ninja needs dexterity and wisdom, with intelligence as a good third (hit points are less important when you can turn invisible, so long as it works. Of course, see invisible is a 2nd-level spell, but, when the enemy has that, the ninja is useless, and so should probably sit out the fight. That's why he's tier 3).
The Warmage is the last of the single-school casters. It is certainly the best damage caster in the game, and quite possibly the best area-damage class in the game, if not all-around damage class. It gets on this list because it can't do anything else, and, well, damage (alone) sucks.

The Truenamer and Warlock just aren't very good; they don't need to worry about resources on a standard dungeon excursion, but the Truenamer's spells fail half the time, and the Warlock's spells suck. I'd consider moving them down to tier 4.

I can't think of what else belongs on this tier.

Tier Four:
Fighter, Healer, Marshal, and Swashbuckler.

These classes are often nigh-useless outside of combat, and are easily rendered useless inside of combat. The Swashbuckler is three levels long, and the Fighter's distinctive ability is to complete feat trees early (Whirlwind Attack takes five feats to get. Fighters get that at level 4. Everyone else waits for level 9-12 for it, if they have the patience). Having lots of feat trees doesn't help that much, though, as feats are subpar anyway.

The Healer is a subpar cleric knock-off without what makes it a good class.

The Marshal is a dip class used to arbitrarily double your charisma modifier on the Diplomancer build. It's flavored as a commander, but you just get passive aura bonuses which make your team marginally more effective; a wizard casting spells can do the same thing, and make the enemy less effective. The Marshal is also expected to melee (since it's not doing anything else), or at least shoot a bow, but a fight between it and a monk, or an unbuffed cleric, is up in the air; plus, being the obvious source of the aura bonuses (from having to talk to project them) makes you a target, which means you shouldn't melee.

Tier Five:
Monk, Samurai

The Monk has a bunch of distinctive abilities, but can't bring them to bear in a way that's vaguely useful; oftentimes using one prohibits using the others (see: fast movement and full attack abilities); further, it has brilliantly useful abilities for toe-to-toe combat where you trade full attacks, and then nothing that lets it take those full attacks. The Samurai is a TWF class (subpar without bonus damage) without bonus damage, but with some fear abilities arbitarily stuck on. It doesn't even TWF as well as a fighter does.

NPC classes get stuck on Tiers 4 and 5, mostly on 5 (The Adept has some unique hybrid casting, rendered obsolete by anyone else, but particularly the Artificer; it might be a 4. The Aristocrat is like a Marshal without auras). However, if you're grading a class on its ability to work as advertised, the tiers don't change much for PC classes (PC classes are supposed to be best-of-the-best types; thus, that's what they're graded on), but the NPC classes all end up in high tiers; I'd put the commoner as tier 1, as it does it's job too well, just like the PC classes there. Nobody is as hopeless as the D&D commoner class, just like how nobody should be as powerful as the D&D Wizard.

[lord_khaine]

seems whenever we discuss monks, i have to point out a few details, like that gauntlets can both be enchantet, and still allows you to use your full monk unarmed damage, as well as flurry.

besides that, you can make a decent monk with just good str+wis, and a acceptable con, though to make a good monk you need to roll your starts and be lucky, since it does hurt to ignore dex to much.

[Telonius]

seems whenever we discuss monks, i have to point out a few details, like that gauntlets can both be enchantet, and still allows you to use your full monk unarmed damage, as well as flurry.

Yes, you can flurry with an enchanted gauntlet if you're willing to either suffer the -4 nonproficiency penalty or spend a feat on proficiency - neither of which are very good options. Unlike fighters, monks don't have feats to throw around.

[Overlard]

Yes, you can flurry with an enchanted gauntlet if you're willing to either suffer the -4 nonproficiency penalty or spend a feat on proficiency - neither of which are very good options. Unlike fighters, monks don't have feats to throw around.
I didn't think you could flurry with gauntlets? I thought that as they weren't on the monk weapon list, it couldn't be done. And they didn't work with monk progression either? I'm fairly sure I read that over at wizards...

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi everyone,

fascinating that once in a while this debate re-merges time and again. I am still working on a core monk build that tries to put an end to these endless "monk sucks" posts. Small hint: the following statement


The Monk is a melee-based mid-BAB class.

completely misses what a monk is about.

Next hint: monk MAD is a myth. ALL classes make use of ability scores in all respects. It is only some of their class abilites (which often also point towards their specialisation in play) that BENEFIT more from higher abilities than other classes.
For the monk, this is Wisdom, due to the special AC ability and the stunning fist attack. Nothing more. Nothing less.
In combat, a multitude of abilities, class features or tactics can get you to success. Some use spells, then raising their necessary stat as high as possible. Some use agressive melee (STR), some use defensive melee (CON, DEX), some use ranged (DEX). No MAD anywhere.

Finally, on the tiers of classes. The phenomenon that so many would rank full spellcasters way up above everyone else is easily explained by the trouble that so many avoid to apply fully the rules associated with the drawbacks of spellcasting:
- dependence on an outside source for all but bard and sorcerer (spellbook, deities, beliefs)
- dependence on ability to gauge the future spellcasting requirements for non-spontaneous casters
- vulnerability to be able to re-learn spells (or devote a lot of efforts and spell slots to protect yourself).
- dependence on line of effect
- dependence on line of sight (human casters at night?/in a dungeon with no light? Oopsey...)
- dependence on material components in many cases (and XP in some) which reduces the wealth available for items (item creation feats can more than equate this, but cost feats and likewise XP)
- dependence on sound (silence spell anyone?)
- vulnerability to counter-magic and anti-magic (seriously, a stupid 6th level spell can shut down almost all of a spellcaster's class abilities, no save, no SR and it is rarely in issue)
Finally, almost 99% of all spells are non-permanent. Which means they are cast, and the effect fades away by itself, unlike feats, skills and most class abilities of non-casting classes. Do not get me wrong. This IS great. But in combat, many temporary effects will be very vulnerable the moment the encounter drags out. And an intelligent opponent (in particular those with spellcraft ranks which everyone should have in a magic-heavy campaign) will do exactly that.

- Giacomo

[Krellen]

This idea that gauntlets need a proficiency is ridiculous. Gauntlets are treated as unarmed strikes - are monks suddenly non-proficient in unarmed strikes?

[Tengu]

the following statement
completely misses what a monk is about.


Do tell then, what a monk is about and what is the party role that it fills, without being outperformed in it by another class.

[Alyorbase]

Since DnD is more to me about having fun playing whatever character you want to play, I'm gonna throw this out there. Monks are good at higher levels, especially as a grappler. Throw Dodge, Mobility, and Spring Attack with monk movement into the mix, and you have a grappler that can clear the map and basically choose which target he wants to take out of the combat...granted he is still very much MAD, but it allows you to focus more on str and maybe shave a little off of dex con and wis. Just my opinion.

But I will agree that monks are underpowered compared to everything that you have to invest into them. I'd like to see monks get a little bit of an upgrade...maybe something similar to Martial Artist in the d20 Modern setting.

[Artemician]

Do tell then, what a monk is about and what is the party role that it fills, without being outperformed in it by another class.

Oh boy.. here we go again. Not another monks are weak/no they ain't debate.

I can say, quite frankly, that I am sick of seeing these things. They just seem to crop up every week or so.

Could we just get back to the original topic of class tiers already?>

[Josh the Aspie]

What are they? I'd like to check them out, and possibly encourage my players to try them if they make Monks.

They're from Living Arcanis. The best monk prestige classes, in my opinion, are any of the Monk Prestige class for Elori (custom race with 5 varients), The Val (custom race) family of Val'Tensen, and the one for Ssressen (custom race).

It's kind of hard to get your hands on the player's handbook, and the only race that is statistically identical to classic D&D is human.

Instead of elves, you have "Elorri" who are actually elemental by nature. There are 4 prestige classes, 1 for each classically western element.

Ssressen are a race of lizard folk, so if you have any lizard folk monks that one would be incredibly easy to modify.

The Val'Tensen one, on the other hand, should be the easiest one to port over. It's basically a form of sword-monk, and is made for a sub-race of humans, but should be usable my any race in D&D if you alter the entry requirements.

[Tengu]

Oh boy.. here we go again. Not another monks are weak/no they ain't debate.

I can say, quite frankly, that I am sick of seeing these things. They just seem to crop up every week or so.

Could we just get back to the original topic of class tiers already?>

I didn't start it. Heck, I'd rather stay on-topic too, but it's hard not to respond to a thinly veiled "I think monks are awesome for a reason I'm not going to tell you, and if you disagree you're stupid" post.

[MountainKing]

All I have left to say is that I'm really shocked and amazed that nobody has bothered to mention Amulet of Mighty Fists, which gives a bonus to hit and damage for unarmed and natural attacks, though parading a fighter around with a +5 Longsword of Badass is just plain acceptable.

[Lucky]

All I have left to say is that I'm really shocked and amazed that nobody has bothered to mention Amulet of Mighty Fists, which gives a bonus to hit and damage for unarmed and natural attacks, though parading a fighter around with a +5 Longsword of Badass is just plain acceptable.That's because it costs 3 times what that of a similar Monk-weapon would cost.

[selfcritical]

All I have left to say is that I'm really shocked and amazed that nobody has bothered to mention Amulet of Mighty Fists, which gives a bonus to hit and damage for unarmed and natural attacks, though parading a fighter around with a +5 Longsword of Badass is just plain acceptable.

The amulets are more expensive and less effective then a decked out magic sword. This is not a point in favor of the monk

[Arbitrarity]

Only thing I can recommend, and it's a pain to get, is a permanencied (get an NPC caster, or a scroll) CL 20 Greater Magic fang, and a Greater Mighty wallop. But one of those amounts to DM fiat, and the other is a splatbook(RoTD).

Of course, 12d8 fists make things go splat :smallbiggrin:

And what fighter gets a +5 sword of badassness? They get a +1 keen ghost touch (etc) sword, which they have the wizard use an arcane reach chain greater magic weapon on. They can include the monk in that, if they want.

[Telonius]

This idea that gauntlets need a proficiency is ridiculous. Gauntlets are treated as unarmed strikes - are monks suddenly non-proficient in unarmed strikes?

The information is taken from the FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) at the Wizards site.


Can a monk treat an attack with a gauntlet as an
unarmed strike?

A monk could wear such an item and treat it as an unarmed strike (since the Player’s Handbook says that “a strike with a gauntlet is . . . considered an unarmed attack”), although the damage dealt by the gauntlet would always be considered lethal damage (as noted in the gauntlet entry) and the monk would suffer a nonproficiency penalty (since the gauntlet is a simple weapon). The monk could even use gauntlet attacks as part of a flurry of blows.

[Arbitrarity]

Come to think of it, monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes. They're a simple weapon, and monks don't have simple weapon proficiency, like commoners. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT: Yeah, well :smallbiggrin: . Someone had to say it.

[Telonius]

Now that's just piling on. :smallbiggrin:

[Sir Giacomo]

Luckily, the flurry of blows ability provides enough material even by the RAW to conclude that a monk - even if she does not have simple weapon proficiency - is apparently considered not to have a -4 penalty to regular unarmed attacks.

- Giaocmo

[Arbitrarity]

I don't see that in flurry of blows. I see that it gives a reduced AB with you attacks, which applies to flurryable weapons. Nothing about proficiency. But then again, no one concieves of such a stupid argument as a lack of proficiency anyways, because it so clearly contradicts RAI.

:smallwink:

[Sir Giacomo]

Yep, of course it's odd in the first place :smallsmile: - I read somewhere that WoTC did a misprint somewhere. In the flurry of blows section which also lists unarmed strike it says it gives you penalties to hit (-2 at first, then -1, then none at greater flurry). These are included in the table on attack bonuses for the flurry ability, so it is straightforward to conclude that no penalty is associated with unarmed strike (since unarmed strike is supposed to be the primary flurry attack method as suggested by the sentence "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons...").

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Actually, best bet on intent is the PHB example text, which doesn't take -4 to hit. But we know how reliable WoTC examples are...

[tarbrush]

It strikes me as one of the many examples of silly omissions that wizards considers too trivial to correct.

On the other hand, I swear I've read somewhere that you can't flurry with a gauntlet because it's not a monk weapon weapon. Might've been the sage though.

[Telonius]

That wouldn't surprise me, I know the question was debated back and forth for quite a while before it made its way into the official FAQ.

[Dan_Hemmens]

This got missed in the Monk argument, and I think it's very, very interesting, so I'm picking it up and running with it.


Well, I'm gonna reply to the OP and not to the two pages of rehashed monk argument:

There's a deeper set of tiers to the DnD classes than just power level, something that has to do with game design philosophy. I admit my theory still needs some work, but basically my tiers would be:

High-Fantasy:
Wizard
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Bard

Low-Fantasy:
Rogue
Fighter
(Barbarian)
(Paladin)
(Ranger)

Especially screwed by a double standard:
Monk


I've noticed a similar phenomenon myself, not just in D&D, but in most games.

The general rule seems to be that magic-users are way overpowered, because non-magic users are limited to realism. It's true in virtually any game I can think of.

<discussion excised>


Please note that I'm not talking about balance, although I think this directly effects balance. I'm talking about some classes being limited by realism while others aren't. It's not even about the divide between melee classes and casters, because they later added Duskblades and the ToB classes, which are clearly in the High-fantasy tier.

<more excision>


Anyway, does anyone else think this is a problem? Not that I know what to do about it, it just seems, I dunno, inelegant.

As I say, I've noticed the same thing myself, and I think it's a huge problem.

The big issue, I think, is that in any game it's just way, way, way easier for the designers to think of cool, extreme powers for magic users than for them to think of cool, extreme powers for non-magic users. Ultimately a 20th level fighter is still doing almost exactly the same things he was doing at level one. Sure he takes longer to fall over, and he's hitting faster, and he's using a +5 Shocking Burst Greatsword instead of a greatsword, but he still has to walk home from the dungeon while his Wizard friend can teleport.

[MountainKing]

That's because it costs 3 times what that of a similar Monk-weapon would cost.

Cost is moot at this point; monks are not buying the same equipment that other classes need to help them get by, such as Cloak of Resistance, shields, ect.

[Telonius]

Cost is moot at this point; monks are not buying the same equipment that other classes need to help them get by, such as Cloak of Resistance, shields, ect.

Monks aren't buying that stuff, because they are buying more expensive equipment, such as bracers of armor, enchantments to both their gauntlets and their standard Monk weapons (instead of just a greatsword), multiple ability-enhancing items to make up for their MAD, etc.

[tainsouvra]

Small hint: the following statement
The Monk is a melee-based mid-BAB class.
completely misses what a monk is about. I note that you completely fail to give an alternative or any evidence against my claim. :smallamused:
Next hint: monk MAD is a myth. ALL classes make use of ability scores in all respects. I'm sorry, but you need a way better argument than this, because right now your credibility is exactly zero:
A Barbarian's primary job is melee combatant. He is able to complete this primary job even if he has a large penalty to Int and Cha, and is only slightly hampered if he has a penalty to Wis. That's half of his stats that he is already independent of, so the idea that "all classes use all ability scores in all respects" is utterly nonsensical and frankly implies that you don't understand the point of MAD.

MAD is about needing multiple good ability scores in order to perform your role well.


All I have left to say is that I'm really shocked and amazed that nobody has bothered to mention Amulet of Mighty Fists, which gives a bonus to hit and damage for unarmed and natural attacks, though parading a fighter around with a +5 Longsword of Badass is just plain acceptable.
[...]
Cost is moot at this point; monks are not buying the same equipment that other classes need to help them get by, such as Cloak of Resistance, shields, ect. The point at hand was that equipment costs made it difficult for the Monk to keep up--it's not moot, it's the core of the argument. The item you're mentioning costs more than the sword you use for comparison, which means that you're making the point for us--Monks are getting screwed here. Monks do need different equipment, but the equipment they need in order to not fall behind is more expensive.


Monks aren't buying that stuff, because they are buying more expensive equipment, such as bracers of armor, enchantments to both their gauntlets and their standard Monk weapons (instead of just a greatsword), multiple ability-enhancing items to make up for their MAD, etc. Exactly--Monks need different stuff, and but it costs more, so equipment is actually another mark against them.


Oh boy.. here we go again. Not another monks are weak/no they ain't debate.

I can say, quite frankly, that I am sick of seeing these things. They just seem to crop up every week or so.

Could we just get back to the original topic of class tiers already? The main problem with that is that the Monk debate isn't entirely off-topic.

someone:
Let's make tiers of something.
1- X
2- Y
3- Z

someone else
Z isn't that bad.

...and then, discussion takes off. You really can't discuss tiers without discussing placement in tiers :smallsmile:

[MountainKing]

But they make up for it by not having to buy other equipment; this argument can go round and round, but every time I've made a monk build and compared its cost to a fighter build, they're equally effective and have similar costs.

Regardless, everyone who's said that this isn't meant for discussing "olol munkz suxx" vs "no wei! munkz roxx!", and as such, I'm withdrawing from that aspect of this thread.

[Arbitrarity]

Amulet of natural weapons? Forgot what it's from, but it gives natural weapons enhancement like a regular weapon. You can add flaming, etc as well.

[tainsouvra]

But they make up for it by not having to buy other equipment; this argument can go round and round, but every time I've made a monk build and compared its cost to a fighter build, they're equally effective and have similar costs. No, they don't come out ahead here...shall we start another thread to beat the "Monk equipment" dead horse individually? Give a specified amount of gold, gear your Monk with that amount, then let the board give you Fighters' and Barbarians' gear using the same amount of gold. See who ends up with better shiny things?

As they say, shall we put our gp where our mouth is?

[Sir Giacomo]

I note that you completely fail to give an alternative or any evidence against my claim. :smallamused: I'm sorry, but you need a way better argument than this, because right now your credibility is exactly zero:

...we will see, oh yes, we will see...:smallbiggrin: (sounds of continuous character optimising in the background...)


A Barbarian's primary job is melee combatant. He is able to complete this primary job even if he has a large penalty to Int and Cha, and is only slightly hampered if he has a penalty to Wis. That's half of his stats that he is already independent of, so the idea that "all classes use all ability scores in all respects" is utterly nonsensical and frankly implies that you don't understand the point of MAD.

IF (and that is a big IF) you wish to make the monk a melee combatant like the barbarian, do then the same as the barbarian. Raise STR, that's it. Where is the MAD? The barbarian has the added benefit of having rage, the monk has the added benefit of improved grapple/flurry.
Say both have elite arrays which they put in the exact same way:
STR 15, CON 14, DEX 13, INT 10, WIS 12, CHR 8. How is the monk at a MAD disadvantage here? Note that AC plays no role in grappling...and at high levels, the monk's AC bonus should equate the breastplate the barabarian has.
On the contrary, thanks to still mind and full will save progression, the monk is better at avoiding those (in particular at low levels) pesky will save spell attacks; while the barbarian would maybe have to think about putting a higher stat of his elite array to protect against this fairly common attack.


The point at hand was that equipment costs made it difficult for the Monk to keep up--it's not moot, it's the core of the argument. The item you're mentioning costs more than the sword you use for comparison, which means that you're making the point for us--Monks are getting screwed here. Monks do need different equipment, but the equipment they need in order to not fall behind is more expensive.

Exactly--Monks need different stuff, and but it costs more, so equipment is actually another mark against them.


And there is the 2nd monk myth, right after the MAD one. :smallsigh:
The monk has a lot of special/extraordinary abilities that will make it unnecessary for him to ever buy the following:
- various ways of overcoming of damage reductions with his unarmed attacks
- touch AC bonus
- evasion/improved evasion (the latter not even replicable with an item in core)
- immunity to poison
- various movement enhancers (move bonus, abundant step, etheralness)
- great saves that others will have painstakingly try to equate with feats or items
- Spell resistance
- immunity to disease
- (self-)healing capability
- tongues ability
- plus, he could reserve the belt slot for a STR enhancer, not the monk's belt which is highly benefitting to other classes.

Repent o monk disbelivers! :smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

[lord_khaine]

I didn't start it. Heck, I'd rather stay on-topic too, but it's hard not to respond to a thinly veiled "I think monks are awesome for a reason I'm not going to tell you, and if you disagree you're stupid" post

its hard not to respond to a "i think monks suck" but all the reasons i post just shows i have no idea about how to play a monk proberly.

and i have postet monk builds before that showed they could stand out for themself, given a equal potion of gold.

and no, amulet of mighty fist is a trap, monks need gear just as much as other classes, and compared to fx a +1 holy gauntlet a +3 amulet just suck to much.

lastly, this isnt a game of beat the other classes tainsouvra, its a game of beat the monsters down, if given gold and xp, are YOU ready to put your gold in your mouth, and face down a bunch of random monsters, knowning it might include such annoying things as a will save?

really, most of those who complains about monks are like a druid in a cold iron chainmail, complaining about how his class sucks.

[Telonius]

...we will see, oh yes, we will see...:smallbiggrin: (sounds of continuous character optimising in the background...)



IF (and that is a big IF) you wish to make the monk a melee combatant like the barbarian, do then the same as the barbarian. Raise STR, that's it. Where is the MAD? The barbarian has the added benefit of having rage, the monk has the added benefit of improved grapple/flurry.


- Giacomo

If the Monk's main role is not melee combatant, what is it?

EDIT: My personal answer to that question was posted back earlier in this thread: flanking partner for the rogue, Zen Archer, scouting duties, and tactical annoyances like disarming when practical. Monks just aren't made to be front-line melee combatants, and it takes about 50 pounds of gouda to make them into one.

EDIT2: Regarding grappling. AC does affect a grapple - specifically, Touch AC. If the attacker fails on the touch attempt, the grapple fails.

The Barbarian has a higher BAB than the Monk, which *does* affect grapple checks. The monk does indeed start with a better grapple than the Barbarian (assuming a normal full attack, and the fact that the monk chose Improved Grapple rather than Stunning Fist as the first-level bonus feat). Monk's bonus would be 4 (imp grapple) + 0 (BAB) + 2 (str) = 6. Barbarian's would be 1 (BAB) + 2 (STR) + 2 (strength from rage) = 5. But at level 5, the monk's lower BAB catches up to him, and he ties the barbarian. It's downhill from there. Grappling (which is supposed to be the monk's thing) is gimped because of that lower BAB. For the monk to even have a chance of keeping up at low levels, the frontliner has to graciously not take Improved Grapple.

That's not to say that a Monk is a terrible grappler. Against anything but a full-BAB character, he's effective (assuming he can actually get to them to grapple). If he actually gets next to a wizard and grapples him, the wizard is screwed. (Which is why the wizard, being a good little batman, is hovering above the ground, or has cast Grease or Black Tentacles to impede the monk's movement - but that's another topic).

[tainsouvra]

...we will see, oh yes, we will see...:smallbiggrin: (sounds of continuous character optimising in the background...) I get a real kick out of taking something reputed for underperforming and optimizing something sweet out of it, let us know when you have something impressive. It'll be fun.
IF (and that is a big IF) you wish to make the monk a melee combatant like the barbarian, do then the same as the barbarian. Raise STR, that's it. Where is the MAD? The barbarian has the added benefit of having rage, the monk has the added benefit of improved grapple/flurry. The barbarian has the added benefit of having rage, better attack bonuses, more hit points, and with the use of a single feat becomes a better grappler. The Monk has flurry and a free feat, and needs to pump much more Str than the Barbarian (ouch) and more Con (double ouch) if he wants to make up those two attributes I added in there. So, to tango with the Barbarian, he needs significantly more Str and a bit more Con than the Barb has...just throwing that out there for you to consider, because I think there's something about ability score dependency in there, somewhere :smallwink:


On the contrary, thanks to still mind and full will save progression, the monk is better at avoiding those (in particular at low levels) pesky will save spell attacks; while the barbarian would maybe have to think about putting a higher stat of his elite array to protect against this fairly common attack. I wouldn't count Still Mind in favor of the Monk, actually, given that it's a +2 and Indomitable Will is a +4 against the same spells. That's actually something that helps the Barbarian end of the deal. The Monk's full save progression is nicer than the Barbarian's bonus to Will when nobody knows combat is about to start, but let's not forget the rage bonus exists either, as it provides the Barbarian with a better save than you'd expect once initiative rolls.

I personally still give the advantage to the Monk, but it's a smallish one. Will is definitely not a major weakness on the Barbarian side of the fence, despite his base progression--he actually does better than other front-liners due to getting (depending on his level) anywhere from a +2 to a +8 over his base from class features.


And there is the 2nd monk myth, right after the MAD one. :smallsigh:
The monk has a lot of special/extraordinary abilities that will make it unnecessary for him to ever buy the following:
[snip] I like those features, but I suspect you are overvaluing them given that spellcasting is presumed to be available in D&D. The Monk excels at being self-contained, and as such I love using them for NPC's, but in a PC party much of that list is devalued or redundant.


lastly, this isnt a game of beat the other classes tainsouvra, its a game of beat the monsters down, if given gold and xp, are YOU ready to put your gold in your mouth, and face down a bunch of random monsters, knowning it might include such annoying things as a will save? If that was a joke, I apologize for taking you seriously. You do realize this thread is about "the 'tiers' of DnD", and thus comparing the relative power of PC classes is the entire point of the thread, don't you?
really, most of those who complains about monks are like a druid in a cold iron chainmail, complaining about how his class sucks. Back up your claim?


For the monk to even have a chance of keeping up at low levels, the frontliner has to graciously not take Improved Grapple. A Barbarian who spends that one feat to get Improved Grapple can be a real monster at it, too. It can be a pretty mean thing to have a raging Barbarian simply crush the life out of his opponent, fun against those NPC swordsmen :smallamused:

[Zim]

A Barbarian who spends that one feat to get Improved Grapple can be a real monster at it, too. It can be a pretty mean thing to have a raging Barbarian simply crush the life out of his opponent, fun against those NPC swordsmen :smallamused:

In the campaign that I DM (Age of Worms, with a twist), one player has a minotaur grapple specialist. He's still paying off his Savage Species progression but has a +20 (:smalleek: !) to his grapple check!

Granted, his lack of feats and HD make him rather vulnerable compared to other 6th level characters, but I'd face him against a LA 0 monk of same ECL in melee any day of the week.

Kinda a one trick pony though; he's useless in anything but a combat situation. The challenge for me is changing the encounters in the campaign arc so that key baddies don't insta-die when strangled by the angry cow monster. :smallsmile:

[Telonius]

Wait till you get a little further into the campaign. The Vampires won't mind the grappling a bit.

[Tengu]

I've noticed a similar phenomenon myself, not just in D&D, but in most games.

The general rule seems to be that magic-users are way overpowered, because non-magic users are limited to realism. It's true in virtually any game I can think of.


It's also interesting that games where magic and non-magic is balanced usually are considered to have at least a slight anime feel (which people usually mean in a negative way) - Exalted, DND with ToB, Earthdawn... It's as if they wanted to have non-casters balanced with casters, while still retaining a realistic feel - which, unless magic is very weak in your world, is simply not possible.

[LordLocke]

The best use for a monk is to hand him a haversack full of various knick-knacks and have him use his awesome move speed to be a field medic so someone who's actually useful (like the Cleric) doesn't have to break combat to save a life.

... what? I'm half-kidding.

Only half though. The fact is, the Monk requires more equipment then WBL allows just to catch up to other frontliners on the field of combat, outside super-specialization that basically means the monk will be really good at one thing (like grappling) while being pretty crummy at most else. It's best to find ways to put the monk to good use being a mobile menace- and a haversack full of goodies is a good start. Heck, it even makes sense, since the one thing a Monk is really, really good at is staying alive. What good is being the guy who can't die if you can't DO anything with it except... well, not die.

[Morty]

It's also interesting that games where magic and non-magic is balanced usually are considered to have at least a slight anime feel (which people usually mean in a negative way) - Exalted, DND with ToB, Earthdawn... It's as if they wanted to have non-casters balanced with casters, while still retaining a realistic feel - which, unless magic is very weak in your world, is simply not possible.

What exactly do you mean by "anime feel"? I'm not familiar with Exalted and Earthdawn and only vaguely with ToB, so I can't tell.
And anyway, it's perfectly possible to have casters and non-casters balanced while still having high magic and non-anime feel. Of course, it means that non-casters on high levels(or whatever system uses) are going to perform quite extraordinary feats.
Of course, it's even better to play a world/setting where magic doesn't flow everywhere and casters can't do anything they please with one standard action if they're sufficently powerful.
As for the monk, the class is just silly. Focusing on fist fighting in heroic, medieval-based setting? Killing dragon -or any bigger and/or nonhumanoid opponent- with sword looks heroic, killing dragon with fists and kicks looks ridiculous.

[Tengu]

What exactly do you mean by "anime feel"? I'm not familiar with Exalted and Earthdawn and only vaguely with ToB, so I can't tell.
And anyway, it's perfectly possible to have casters and non-casters balanced while still having high magic and non-anime feel. Of course, it means that non-casters on high levels(or whatever system uses) are going to perform quite extraordinary feats.

I wonder myself what people mean by that. Most systems where melee types can do more than auto-attack are bound to be called "lolx anime spiky-haired samurai moving at the speed of lightxorz!!1one!1" sooner or later, mostly due to those extraordinary feats. It seems that most people don't know any other sources with powerful non-mages (and don't know a lot of anime too, by the way).

[Krellen]

The information is taken from the FAQ (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) at the Wizards site.
I know what the FAQ says. I think it's a ridiculously stupid claim - perhaps one of the silliest things WotC has ever written. Ruling that a gauntlet is a separate "weapon" from an unarmed strike, but that it is in all ways exactly like an unarmed strike save for doing lethal damage, is patently absurd. Either it does it's own 1d3 lethal damage and isn't really an unarmed strike, or it's an unarmed strike and WotC dropped the ball.

In other words, I firmly believe they are wrong, and botched their interpretation of the RAW.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I wonder myself what people mean by that. Most systems where melee types can do more than auto-attack are bound to be called "lolx anime spiky-haired samurai moving at the speed of lightxorz!!1one!1" sooner or later, mostly due to those extraordinary feats. It seems that most people don't know any other sources with powerful non-mages (and don't know a lot of anime too, by the way).

People tend to use "anime" as a catch all for "pretty much anything which originates east of Berlin". Hell I've heard Weapons of the Gods described as "anime" (because, y'know, China and Japan are practically the same country).

So "anime" might well actually mean "wuxia".

I think it *is* true that "western" traditions are less inclined to allow people to perform pseudo-magical effects with pure martial skill. A lot of what counts as a "martial art" in anime or a kung fu movie would count as "magic" in a more mainstream western fantasy.

[lord_khaine]

If that was a joke, I apologize for taking you seriously. You do realize this thread is about "the 'tiers' of DnD", and thus comparing the relative power of PC classes is the entire point of the thread, don't you
i am serious, this isnt an arena game, who can beat up who in a 1vs1 fight doesnt say anything about how effective that class will be in a regular d&d session.


The barbarian has the added benefit of having rage, better attack bonuses, more hit points, and with the use of a single feat becomes a better grappler. The Monk has flurry and a free feat, and needs to pump much more Str than the Barbarian (ouch) and more Con (double ouch) if he wants to make up those two attributes I added in there. So, to tango with the Barbarian, he needs significantly more Str and a bit more Con than the Barb has...just throwing that out there for you to consider, because I think there's something about ability score dependency in there, somewhere


actualy the barbarian have to take 2 feats, for the sole purpose of being able to outgrapple a monk, since his unarmed damage is only 1d3+str this will in just about all other situations be a total waste of feats.
besides that flurry greats a very big advantage when it comes to getting people into a grapple.


Back up your claim?
ok, i see a lot of people igoring things like getting a enchantet gauntlet for the monk, with the excuse of it costing a feat, or putting highest stats in dex and wis, then wondering why the monk doesnt do any damage.
and lastly thinking a medium BAB somehow prevents the monk from winning a grapple with a full BAB class, despite the difference imrpoved grapple makes.


Grappling (which is supposed to be the monk's thing) is gimped because of that lower BAB. For the monk to even have a chance of keeping up at low levels, the frontliner has to graciously not take Improved Grapple.

well the case is that allmost the only reason someone could have for wasting 2 feats on improved grapple is so they would be able to outgrapple a monk, else its a complete waste of feats.
so its not "graciously not taking improved grapple", its desiding not to design a char around beating grappler monks.
and actualy improved grapple will put the monk 1 point down compared to a full bab class at lv 20, and because of greater flurry the monk will still win the grapple.


Only half though. The fact is, the Monk requires more equipment then WBL allows just to catch up to other frontliners on the field of combat, outside super-specialization that basically means the monk will be really good at one thing (like grappling) while being pretty crummy at most else. It's best to find ways to put the monk to good use being a mobile menace- and a haversack full of goodies is a good start. Heck, it even makes sense, since the one thing a Monk is really, really good at is staying alive. What good is being the guy who can't die if you can't DO anything with it except... well, not die

actualy if you shop smart the monk does not need more gear than other melee guys, and its possibel to make your monk focused on grappling, tripping stunning and beating on casters at lv 6.
a human monk will have 4 feats, spend them on improved grapple, ability focus stunning fist and mage slayer, then pick up improved trip and stunning fist with your bonus feat, and spend the last feat on whatever you feal like.

[Telonius]

I know what the FAQ says. I think it's a ridiculously stupid claim - perhaps one of the silliest things WotC has ever written. Ruling that a gauntlet is a separate "weapon" from an unarmed strike, but that it is in all ways exactly like an unarmed strike save for doing lethal damage, is patently absurd. Either it does it's own 1d3 lethal damage and isn't really an unarmed strike, or it's an unarmed strike and WotC dropped the ball.

In other words, I firmly believe they are wrong, and botched their interpretation of the RAW.

I happen to agree - but that's the official ruling. (Didn't mean to sound patronizing, I just wasn't sure if you were directing your previous post at me, Lord Khaine, or Wizards).

On that note, an addition to Tier 4:
Wizards. But only the spooky kind that live near the coast.

[tainsouvra]

And anyway, it's perfectly possible to have casters and non-casters balanced while still having high magic and non-anime feel. Of course, it means that non-casters on high levels(or whatever system uses) are going to perform quite extraordinary feats. Extraordinary feats of ability performed by nonmagical character is what some claim is "too anime", though, and I think that's what he was referring to :smallsmile:


i am serious, this isnt an arena game, who can beat up who in a 1vs1 fight doesnt say anything about how effective that class will be in a regular d&d session. Except, of course, that it very much does--anything you face that has class levels, and many things will in most campaigns, makes inter-class balance a very important concern. There is every possibility that, over the course of a campaign, that exact situation can arise. To ignore it because "this isn't an arena game" is pure folly, and ignores the greater part of class balance.
actualy the barbarian have to take 2 feats, for the sole purpose of being able to outgrapple a monk First, you're right that it's two feats in many cases rather than one, and I apologize for the confusion. Focusing on your main point here, however, that isn't the sole purpose--in fact I commented on a practical use in the same post you're quoting :smallannoyed:
ok, i see a lot of people igoring things like getting a enchantet gauntlet for the monk, with the excuse of it costing a feat, or putting highest stats in dex and wis, then wondering why the monk doesnt do any damage. Follow the numbers, lord_khaine. It doesn't play out the way you think it does, to put it lightly.

and lastly thinking a medium BAB somehow prevents the monk from winning a grapple with a full BAB class, despite the difference imrpoved grapple makes. Improved Grapple gives a +4 to the checks and lets you avoid the attack of opportunity for initiating the grapple...that's all it does. At higher levels, the BAB difference between a full- and a mid-BAB class alone is more than 4 points. Again, follow the numbers, they won't add up the way you claim. The Monk stands a good chance of losing these opposed checks.
actualy if you shop smart the monk does not need more gear than other melee guys My offer of a competitive Monk equipment thread is extended to you as well. That claim has been made often, but rarely has evidence been given.

[Kurald Galain]

I think we're going to need a new rule for this. Maybe this'll get my name next to Stormwind and Oberoni's :smalltongue:


Whenever you discuss the merit of monks, buddha kills a catfish.

Please, think of the catfish!

[Rachel Lorelei]

Monks should just take Weapon Proficiency(Catfish). Save us the trouble.

***

Extraordinary feats performed by non-spellcasters are too anime?

Haven't these people ever read any mythology? Greek, Indian, Norse, Egyptian, Russian, Scandinavian, whatever?

I doubt that Achilles, a Viking hero, or a mighty bogatyr would appreciate being dismissed as a spiky-neon-haired giant-eyed prettyboy...

[tainsouvra]

Monks should just take Weapon Proficiency(Catfish). I am now tempted to arm a monk with a fish sometime. I'd still have him use unarmed attacks and only strike with it when humorously appropriate, but oh the fun. FISHTOTHEFACE!

[Lucky]

My offer of a competitive Monk equipment thread is extended to you as well.I fully support this idea. I've seen a lot of talk, but without hard proof to back it up, the argument's rather weak.


I am now tempted to arm a monk with a fish sometime. I'd still have him use unarmed attacks and only strike with it when humorously appropriate, but oh the fun. FISHTOTHEFACE!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMKCLyhBBwI

[horseboy]

Extraordinary feats performed by non-spellcasters are too anime?

Haven't these people ever read any mythology? Greek, Indian, Norse, Egyptian, Russian, Scandinavian, whatever?

I doubt that Achilles, a Viking hero, or a mighty bogatyr would appreciate being dismissed as a spiky-neon-haired giant-eyed prettyboy...

And given that ED is set in the far past in the area immediately East of the Black Sea, doubt the cossacks would be that happy about it either.

In all those years I've been playing it never occurred to me. However, I could see how having a 900# warrior guy made of rock who is capable of levitating himself would remind someone overly sensitive to DBZ references of "anime." Course if they'd read all the source material.....

[lord_khaine]

Except, of course, that it very much does--anything you face that has class levels, and many things will in most campaigns, makes inter-class balance a very important concern. There is every possibility that, over the course of a campaign, that exact situation can arise. To ignore it because "this isn't an arena game" is pure folly, and ignores the greater part of class balance

actualy its usualy a pretty big task of giving something more than a few class lvs, and at least my experience is it happens very rarely, even less often is a 1 on 1 battle like the 1 you are suggesting.


First, you're right that it's two feats in many cases rather than one, and I apologize for the confusion. Focusing on your main point here, however, that isn't the sole purpose--in fact I commented on a practical use in the same post you're quoting

and and as i said later its very unpractical for a barbarian, who have even less feats than a monk.


Follow the numbers, lord_khaine. It doesn't play out the way you think it does, to put it lightly.

im not just following the numbers, im playing them, and i have first hand experience that says they add up, can you say the same?


Improved Grapple gives a +4 to the checks and lets you avoid the attack of opportunity for initiating the grapple...that's all it does. At higher levels, the BAB difference between a full- and a mid-BAB class alone is more than 4 points. Again, follow the numbers, they won't add up the way you claim. The Monk stands a good chance of losing these opposed checks.
yes as i have said in my last post, at lv 17 the full BAB class will have 1
more point than the monk with improved grapple, until then the monk will have an equal or better bonus.
thats so far a 5% difference, but flurry of blows give the monk 1-2 additional attempts at making that check, meaning in the he will get a hold.


My offer of a competitive Monk equipment thread is extended to you as well. That claim has been made often, but rarely has evidence been given
actualy this one is kinda hard to understand, what exactly do you want me do to, write a guide about how to gear up a monk?

btw

I fully support this idea. I've seen a lot of talk, but without hard proof to back it up, the argument's rather weak.
i could say the same here, i havent seen any hard proof either

[Arbitrarity]

Must resist...

Ring of Freedom Of Movement. Buy it. Love it. Sleep with it (being worn, duh!).

[tainsouvra]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMKCLyhBBwI :smallbiggrin: thanks!


actualy its usualy a pretty big task of giving something more than a few class lvs, and at least my experience is it happens very rarely, even less often is a 1 on 1 battle like the 1 you are suggesting. If you primarily fight monsters, and without class levels, then yeah that works fine. If you ever fight NPC's of any other sort, as with most campaigns, then class balance of that sort matters. If you never fight things with class levels, your DM is seriously going easy on you, and I'm not sure if that's really applicable to a balance discussion. Anyone looks good in the minor league :smalltongue:
and and as i said later its very unpractical for a barbarian, who have even less feats than a monk. You realize you're saying it's unpractical when, a post or two under mine, someone talked about the character who was doing it and doing well, right? Your claim has been debunked before you even made it.
im not just following the numbers, im playing them, and i have first hand experience that says they add up, can you say the same? Of course my firsthand experience doesn't say they add up--it says they don't. Additionally, I have followed the numbers, which is kind of a smart thing to do when you're talking about class balance. You're aware of the difference between "anecdote" and "proof", right?
yes as i have said in my last post, at lv 17 the full BAB class will have 1
more point than the monk with improved grapple, until then the monk will have an equal or better bonus.
thats so far a 5% difference, but flurry of blows give the monk 1-2 additional attempts at making that check, meaning in the he will get a hold. Let me reemphasize something you missed:
"the BAB difference between a full- and a mid-BAB class alone is more than 4 points"
...in other words, the Monk is behind before we even start considering other factors. Given the points raised earlier about gear, MAD, etc, it's only going to get worse in most cases.
actualy this one is kinda hard to understand, what exactly do you want me do to, write a guide about how to gear up a monk? Please read the rest of the equipment-values discussion. You appear to be coming into the end of a discussion and really need to know what's already been said if you're supposed to be debating the issue.
i could say the same here, i havent seen any hard proof either There's evidence already given earlier in this very thread. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.

[Tengu]

Extraordinary feats performed by non-spellcasters are too anime?

Haven't these people ever read any mythology? Greek, Indian, Norse, Egyptian, Russian, Scandinavian, whatever?

I doubt that Achilles, a Viking hero, or a mighty bogatyr would appreciate being dismissed as a spiky-neon-haired giant-eyed prettyboy...

Exactly what I meant. Characters in mythologies pull out all kinds of crazy stuff, some of them even not due to divine blood or possessing a magical artifact, but simply being badass.

Also, I'd love if this actually happened:
Potential New Player: "So, your game has a heavy anime feel to it, right?"
Game Master: "Indeed, we have cyber implants, the net accessible through a direct input to your brain, a world ruled by authoritarian governments, and the game is full of moral, philosophical and religious influences."
PNP: "..."
GM: "What, never seen Ghost in the Shell?"

[Bassetking]

Ok, Giancomo.

You build your Ultimate Monk. Build the single most amazing, super-formed, be-all and end-all ultra-monk you can concoct at level 10.

I will build Three other builds.

One build of my choosing.

One strict melee build.

One strict caster build.

For both the Melee and Caster builds, I will be constucting them around their archetypal intentions. This means that my melee build won't be focused on diplomacy and Use Magic Device. My Caster build will not be focused on a Wildshaped Celestial Direbear, nor will it be focused on a clerical melee-buffsuite.

I place NO (0) restrictions on your Monk build.

If you beat ANY ONE of these three different builds in straight up combat, I will cede your point. You'll play your monk, I'll play my creations. We'll get an impartial party to DM, and see who comes out on top.

[Jack Mann]

I'll DM. Sure. Why not.

Standard 28 point buy, standard wealth by level. Speaking of level, do either of you gents have a preference? I was thinking level ten for a nice mid-line, but if you want to go higher or lower, I have no objections.

EDIT: Also, books. I'm thinking either core only or all books allowed. These are the most popular sets allowed, in my experience, after "whatever the DM has available to him). Since I have access to virtually any book, thanks to my friends' and my own collections, it comes out to the same thing. I'll let Sir Giacomo choose, since I think it's going to be much more important for him than Basset.

Obviously, of course, things like Pun-Pun or infinite damage builds are out, no matter how legal they are. Not that I think either of you will try it, but I wanted that on the record.

[Matthew]

You know I used to really dislike Monks as being totally wrong for Medieval European Inspired Fantasy and I was never all that convinced that they were a reasonable interpretation of an Medieval Oriental Inspired Fantasy archetype, but the more I see people hating on them for being weak, the more I have found my stone heart melting...

[Fax Celestis]

You know I used to really dislike Monks as being totally wrong for Medieval European Inspired Fantasy and I was never all that convinced that they were a reasonable interpretation of an Medieval Oriental Inspired Fantasy archetype, but the more I see people hating on them for being weak, the more I have found my stone heart melting...

At least it's not for the Samurai.

[horseboy]

Exactly what I meant. Characters in mythologies pull out all kinds of crazy stuff, some of them even not due to divine blood or possessing a magical artifact, but simply being badass.

Also, I'd love if this actually happened:
Potential New Player: "So, your game has a heavy anime feel to it, right?"
Game Master: "Indeed, we have cyber implants, the net accessible through a direct input to your brain, a world ruled by authoritarian governments, and the game is full of moral, philosophical and religious influences."
PNP: "..."
GM: "What, never seen Ghost in the Shell?"
:smallamused:
Well, GitS is the first thing I thought of when reading SR4. In fact I thought of it BEFORE I thought of regular SR. But I won't go into that here. :smallannoyed:

[Matthew]

At least it's not for the Samurai.

Oh, I warmed up to them ages ago (though I still hate that stupid Dwarf Samurai picture). Nah, once I considered the potential of having a Complete Warrior Samurai Cohort named Miyamoto Musashi or some variation thereof, I was sold on that Base Class...

[Rachel Lorelei]

I'll DM. Sure. Why not.

Standard 28 point buy, standard wealth by level. Speaking of level, do either of you gents have a preference? I was thinking level ten for a nice mid-line, but if you want to go higher or lower, I have no objections.


I recommend that one-use items cost five or ten times as much--after all, the character who uses them on a regular basis expends far more on them than they will over one fight.

[Jack Mann]

Sounds reasonable. We'll go with ten times the cost.

[tainsouvra]

I recommend that one-use items cost five or ten times as much--after all, the character who uses them on a regular basis expends far more on them than they will over one fight. Indeed. At a minimum, use the "one-shot dungeon" rule when buying equipment, since this single-encounter is a much more dramatic case of the same issue. That rule, listed on page 199 of the DMG, is that...
If you're playing a one-shot random dungeon, one-use items cost 5 times their normal price and charged items have 1/5 as many charges.
...but you may consider making them 10x and 1/10, or even further limiting them, since this is much less than a single dungeon--it's a single encounter.

Naturally, since this is Bassetking and Giancomo's stage, they can determine what they feel is balanced, but that's my own personal recommendation to keep things reasonable.

Edit: Jack Mann's made his call on it.

[silvadel]

Actually I prefer the classes from Arcana Evolved. It does balance things quite a bit better.

[Ulzgoroth]

So "anime" might well actually mean "wuxia".

I think it *is* true that "western" traditions are less inclined to allow people to perform pseudo-magical effects with pure martial skill. A lot of what counts as a "martial art" in anime or a kung fu movie would count as "magic" in a more mainstream western fantasy.
Yes, thank you. I think (without having much grasp of 'wuxia' as a fantasy type) that you've hit things perfectly.

...I'm on the western fantasy side of that. If you're telling physics to sit down and shut up it's magic, not 'martial skill'.

[Jack Mann]

So, not a big fan of western mythology, then?

[Rachel Lorelei]

...but, like Jack points out, western myths and stories have "mundane" people making physics sit down and shut up on a very regular basis.

[Ulzgoroth]

So I've noticed it said before. While I'm certainly not that big a fan of mythology, western or otherwise, I've never caught that point followed by an actual mythological example of someone doing normally 'magical' feats by martial prowess.

...yes, I'm begging for a knowledge-beating. But I'll probably learn something, at least.

[Bosh]

...but, like Jack points out, western myths and stories have "mundane" people making physics sit down and shut up on a very regular basis.

Such as? I'm honestly curious. In Greek myths the people doing that have divine blood and in most of the Norse myths the stuff that people do is fairly mundane. I'm not familiar with other Western myths...

[Jack Mann]

Fionn mac Cumhaill, a warrior of Irish mythology, dug up a piece of Ireland to throw at an enemy. He missed. The clump of land became the Isle of Man, a "pebble" became Rockall, and the hole became Lough Neagh, a lake.

[Rachel Lorelei]

So I've noticed it said before. While I'm certainly not that big a fan of mythology, western or otherwise, I've never caught that point followed by an actual mythological example of someone doing normally 'magical' feats by martial prowess.

...yes, I'm begging for a knowledge-beating. But I'll probably learn something, at least.

Let's take Cuchulainn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuchulainn). Wikipedia's got a bunch of his feats.

The Salmon Leap:
The Salmon Leap enabled Cúchulainn to jump high into the air. During the "Championship of Ulster" Cúchulainn defeated a giant using the salmon leap followed by a sword strike to the head.

That's certainly physics-defying. He jumps high enough to hit a giant many times as tall as a man in the head... and it definitely looks like the Sudden Leap maneuver from Tome of Battle to me.

The Feat of Nine:
Cúchulainn's feat of nine involved suspending nine like items in the air so that none of them touched each other or hit the ground. He has performed the feat of nine with knives, spears, and apples (the feat is called "The Apple Feat" when apples are used). During the "The Cattle Raid of Cooley" Cúchulainn was caught off guard while practicing "The Apple Feat" by Cur, son of Daltach, who was sneaking up on Cúchulainn to make his attack. As soon as Cúchulainn saw Cur he threw the apple that was in his hand at the time through Cur's forehead knocking an apple-sized piece brain out the back of his skull.

That could be a fancy way of describing really good juggling (juggling nine spears? want to try it?)... but he throws an apple through someone's head. An apple. Apples are vastly softer than skulls.

He throws the Gae Bulg, his spear, with his toes.

"The Three Thunder Feats" include, apparently, him decimating an army.

From a site about his boyhood deeds:
Away he went then, taking with him his hurly of brass, his bail of silver, his throwing javelin, and his toy spear; with which equipment he fell to shortening the way for himself. He did it thus: with his hurly he would strike the ball and drive it a great distance; then he pelted the hurly after it, and drove it just as far again; then he threw his javelin, lastly the spear. Which done, he would make a playful rush after them all, pick up the hurly, the ball and the javelin, while, before the spear’s tip could touch the earth, he had caught the missile by the other end.


“The whole of them assailed Cu Chulainn, and simultaneously sent their hurlies at his head; he, however, parried all the hundred and fifty and was unharmed. The same with the balls, which he fended off with fists, fore-arms, and palms alone. Their thrice fifty toy spears he received in his little shield, and still was unhurt.

There are plenty more. All that doesn't seem a little physics-defying to you?


Edit: as for greek myths, I don't see how being of divine blood cancels out the fact that their great deeds weren't "magic". Being of divine blood was what made them, well, "PCs" (in many but not all cases).

[horseboy]

A lot of the folk lore from America has been lost, but two fairly common ones being John Henry and Paul Bunion. One was faster/stronger than a machine, one was a giant. There's all manner of various cowboys doing things like "riding lightning", being raised by wolves. Then there's American comic books. The modern form of mythology.

Edit: Oh yea, Galahad's strength depended on what time of day it was. At noon he was as strong as Hercules. Orlando's skin was so strong that he wore armour only for show.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Paul Bunyan: the original Chuck Norris.

[horseboy]

Paul Bunyan: the original Chuck Norris.

LOL! What makes you think Paul Bunyan ISN'T Chuck Norris. :smallbiggrin:

[Rachel Lorelei]

LOL! What makes you think Paul Bunyan ISN'T Chuck Norris. :smallbiggrin:

Paul Bunyan is much, much cooler.

[Ulzgoroth]

Fionn mac Cumhaill, a warrior of Irish mythology, dug up a piece of Ireland to throw at an enemy. He missed. The clump of land became the Isle of Man, a "pebble" became Rockall, and the hole became Lough Neagh, a lake.
So...other than lifting more than any human or most medium-sized D&D characters ever could, what part of this is magical? Unless the material grew in flight, which isn't entirely clear from your description. That would be magical, but kind of falls under creation myth random weirdness...


The Salmon Leap:

That's certainly physics-defying. He jumps high enough to hit a giant many times as tall as a man in the head... and it definitely looks like the Sudden Leap maneuver from Tome of Battle to me.
I don't actually think that looks much like sudden leap (something else from the same school, though)...nor physics defying, within a physics that permits arbitrarily strong beings without change in size. Which was already part of the repertoire of the 'mundane' fantasy types. A lot of fantasy doesn't have people jumping 10 feet straight up, but a lot of fantasy doesn't have people capable of bench-pressing dragons too.


The Feat of Nine:

That could be a fancy way of describing really good juggling (juggling nine spears? want to try it?)... but he throws an apple through someone's head. An apple. Apples are vastly softer than skulls.
Lead isn't all that hard either. Superhuman, but I don't see physics being hurt except in terms of his sheer armpower, and perhaps somewhat inaccurate description of ballistic weapon effects.:smalltongue:


He throws the Gae Bulg, his spear, with his toes.
So he's a monkey...Um, that's pretty weird, but not at all magical. Being able to hit anything with it would be superhuman, but easily within 'extended mundanity'.


"The Three Thunder Feats" include, apparently, him decimating an army.
Heck, and a fighter couldn't? Cleave! They don't detail how he did it, except that he used spear and sword, and left a very messy battlefield.

So: He throws things, he throws things accurately so that things he hits move where he wants them to, and he runs fast enough to get ahead of a spear he threw. Um...so? No, no human could do that, but it makes perfect sense for an augmented human.

As for the deflection...impressive? Yes. Unbalanced? Sure. Supernatural? meh (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#infiniteDeflection)


Edit: as for greek myths, I don't see how being of divine blood cancels out the fact that their great deeds weren't "magic". Being of divine blood was what made them, well, "PCs" (in many but not all cases).
It grants cover if they do something too spell-like, though. What examples do you like?

[Jack Mann]

Okay, turn it around. What parts of the extraordinary maneuvers from ToB (which is pretty much everything in diamond mind, iron heart, setting sun, stone dragon, tiger claw, and white raven) are physics defying in a way that those abilities aren't?

[Rachel Lorelei]

Ulz... you're essentially saying that "that's not magic, if you assume it can be normal." Many of those things defy physics just as surely as any magic does. If a character can jump that high because they're just that good, why can't they walk on water or air because they're just that good, or step through shadows because they're just that good? You're saying "it's not magic if you assume it's not magic".

Characters in Western myths and stories do things that are just as impossible as what Wuxia characters do. The Tome of Battle fits them as much as it does anime.

[Morty]

What Cuchulainn does doesn't defy the laws of physics. Human could technically do this if s/he was ten times as strong/fast/tough as normal, and heroes tend to be like that. Now, if some hero were flying or something alike, that would be supernatural, but juggling spears, jumping great distances and decimating an army are "just" extraordinary.
BTW, throwing spear with toes is just dumb. Plus, in the version of legen I've heard, gae bolga was unstoppable spear thrust Cuchulainn learned.

[Jack Mann]

The gae bulg was both the name of his spear, and the unstoppable thrust he used it for. And again, how does any of this differ from the extraordinary maneuvers martial adepts get? I'm not going to argue about the supernatural ones (those are supposed to be magical), but how is setting sun, for example, somehow not acceptable when Cuchulainn's and Fionn's abilities are?

[Rachel Lorelei]

What Cuchulainn does doesn't defy the laws of physics. Human could technically do this if s/he was ten times as strong/fast/tough as normal
But humans CAN'T be that strong/fast/tough. It's the law of physics. Heck, even if they were, they still couldn't throw an island; manipulating large objects is difficult in ways that have little to nothing to do with strength.


, and heroes tend to be like that. Now, if some hero were flying or something alike, that would be supernatural, but juggling spears, jumping great distances and decimating an army are "just" extraordinary.
BTW, throwing spear with toes is just dumb. Plus, in the version of legen I've heard, gae bolga was unstoppable spear thrust Cuchulainn learned.

I could just as easily say that "if a hero was ten times less dense, he could fly", or "if he could propel himself with willpower, he could fly". This isn't any more impossible than throwing an island. Wuxia characters who fly do so, almost always, explicitly without magic. They are simply capable of stepping on air, just like Cuchulainn is simply capable of his various feats.

What's more, take a look at the Norse gods. Thor drinks half of the ocean, and arm-wrestles Death. He is capable of this because he's a god, sure, but he's not using any magic--he can just do it. He's Just That Good. Being a god might help make you that good, but Thor isn't using magic--which other gods do.

The difference between "nonmagical feat" and "magical feat" is really in how you justify it.

[Sir Giacomo]

Ok, Giancomo.

You build your Ultimate Monk. Build the single most amazing, super-formed, be-all and end-all ultra-monk you can concoct at level 10.

I will build Three other builds.

One build of my choosing.

One strict melee build.

One strict caster build.

For both the Melee and Caster builds, I will be constucting them around their archetypal intentions. This means that my melee build won't be focused on diplomacy and Use Magic Device. My Caster build will not be focused on a Wildshaped Celestial Direbear, nor will it be focused on a clerical melee-buffsuite.

I place NO (0) restrictions on your Monk build.

If you beat ANY ONE of these three different builds in straight up combat, I will cede your point. You'll play your monk, I'll play my creations. We'll get an impartial party to DM, and see who comes out on top.


OK. Challenge accepted.
Some issues:
- let us say level 11 instead of 10 (since I currently work on a monk description with examples for levels 1, 6, 11, 16 and 20). But if you have your level 10s already available, I'll do a level 10 one.
- the rules should be core; I, for once, do not have all books available, and I guess it makes much better grounds for common discussion and rules knowledge for the majority of posters here.
- your melee, caster and "own" build should be pure base classes, to keep in line with the arguments of this thread (although it may be argued that a monk's disadvantage vs, say, a fighter or cleric is that he does not gain as much from prestige classes in core).
- there is a certain kind of disadvantage involved for me since you know you are going up against a straight level 10/11 monk with your builds (with to me unknown classes). But that should be OK for the purpose of this duel - likely your builds will also be able to do their usual party contribution stuff (since you intend to build theim around their archetypical functions).



I'll DM. Sure. Why not.

Standard 28 point buy, standard wealth by level. Speaking of level, do either of you gents have a preference? I was thinking level ten for a nice mid-line, but if you want to go higher or lower, I have no objections.

EDIT: Also, books. I'm thinking either core only or all books allowed. These are the most popular sets allowed, in my experience, after "whatever the DM has available to him). Since I have access to virtually any book, thanks to my friends' and my own collections, it comes out to the same thing. I'll let Sir Giacomo choose, since I think it's going to be much more important for him than Basset.

Obviously, of course, things like Pun-Pun or infinite damage builds are out, no matter how legal they are. Not that I think either of you will try it, but I wanted that on the record.

Well, thanks to you Jack Mann to DM for us. But it is quite funny you suppose such a duel (which was not even suggested by me...) is more important for me who only occasionally opposes the widespread opinion here that monks suck. Probably the sheer number of often quite emotional "monks suck" posts speaks volumes in this respect...:smallsmile:

How should we go about this - there are some threads in this forum devoted for online gameplay and/or duels- maybe we can use those.

We could use a standard 100X100 foot arena, empty. Or a larger area with ruins, wilderness etc. Whatever.

Standard wealth should be OK. X.P. may be set above the level, so that spellcasters can create some items if they like (in case they took the necessary feats).
One-off items like potions, scrolls, what have you can have 5x or 10x the price as suggested by Rachel Lorelei.

I leave to Bassetking to choose how many buff rounds should be allowed - but probably it is realistic to start with no pre-buff rounds (as if encountering each other somewhere in a dungeon/wilderness without prior knowledge); with spellcasters of course having the longer-term buffs (the hour/lvl kind and up) on. Leaving the arena/teleporting outside the arena/leaving for other planes/extradimensional spaces should constitute a defeat.

Let me know what you think about the rules/duel details and we can than start PMing the builds, separate rules questions etc.

- Giacomo

[Jack Mann]

That all sounds all right. I'd argue that the pure-class restriction is necessary, but I don't think it will make a huge difference. I'm sure that his builds will not be built around monk-crushing.

1,000 XP for crafting, then, if Basset wants to use it. No custom items. If it's not in the DMG, I don't want to hear about it. Also, no candle of invocation or dust of dryness crap. This is a test of the classes, not broken items.

Leaving the arena does constitute a defeat. However, things like etherealness within the arena are allowed. Ceiling of the arena will be at 100'.

When the time comes, I'll make a thread in one of the three gaming boards. Alpha, say. Actions will be PMed to me, and I'll post the results.

And I did not mean that the duel is more important to you. Simply that the restriction to core or to splatbooks would impact you more than Basset. Besides, it's the right of the challenged to choose the weapons in the duel.

[lord_khaine]

If you primarily fight monsters, and without class levels, then yeah that works fine. If you ever fight NPC's of any other sort, as with most campaigns, then class balance of that sort matters. If you never fight things with class levels, your DM is seriously going easy on you, and I'm not sure if that's really applicable to a balance discussion. Anyone looks good in the minor league

sorry, but fighting npc or things with many class lvs isnt in itself harder in any way than just fighting monsters of a equal challenge rating, who might have a lv or 2.


You realize you're saying it's unpractical when, a post or two under mine, someone talked about the character who was doing it and doing well, right? Your claim has been debunked before you even made it.

if you did not notice it first time, that post refered to a minotaur, who happend to have a few lvs in barbarian, we are discussing pure classes here, that had nothing to do with my claim.


Let me reemphasize something you missed:
"the BAB difference between a full- and a mid-BAB class alone is more than 4 points"
...in other words, the Monk is behind before we even start considering other factors. Given the points raised earlier about gear, MAD, etc, it's only going to get worse in most cases.

the BAB difference does not rise above 4 before lv 17, in other words, 80% of the levels the monk is equal or ahead with his bonus.
and there isnt any kinds of gear a monk need that other melee classes can do without, so i dont see what gear thing is about.
MAD just means that when you then roll good stats you can use them that much better, and because flurry improves with lvs its only going to get better.


Please read the rest of the equipment-values discussion. You appear to be coming into the end of a discussion and really need to know what's already been said if you're supposed to be debating the issue

i have read the entire tread, and not seen any decent reasons for this "equipment issue" thats suddenly poppet up besides some wild claims about having to buy amults of mighty fist.


There's evidence already given earlier in this very thread. If you haven't seen it, you haven't been looking.
no, there hasnt been any evidence yet, maybe there has been a claim or 2 i have ignored because it was to crazy to be taken seriously.

[lord_khaine]

its more my feel that core only is an advantage for Sir Giacomo, monks dont get that much interesting things besides prestice classes outside of core, compared to what both power attackers full BAB classes and casters get.

for that matter, monks have both hide and move silent as class skills, would it not be fair for them to have a chance to use them?

[Jack Mann]

The problems of class balance come up in several different scenarios.

1) Two classes in the same party can fill the same group. Classic example would be fighter and cleric. Past level seven or so, the cleric is just better at fighting than the fighter. The fighter is relegated to a background role.

2) Encounters with monsters. At high levels, fighters have a much greater difficulty contributing in combat because their abilities don't stack up well against the monsters' abilities, while other classes, like the wizard or the druid, can still do pretty well. When there's a wide power gulf, it can be difficult to challenge the wizard and druid while not killing the fighter, and challenging the fighter without having the wizard and druid walk right over whatever it is.

3) Encounters with NPCs. A 17th level fighter just isn't as big a challenge as a 17th level wizard, unless the DM plays the wizard very poorly.

EDIT:

its more my feel that core only is an advantage for Sir Giacomo, monks dont get that much interesting things besides prestice classes outside of core, compared to what both power attackers full BAB classes and casters get.

Exactly why the restriction is more important to him than it is to Basset. Going outside of core hurts him a lot more than it helps him.


for that matter, monks have both hide and move silent as class skills, would it not be fair for them to have a chance to use them?

Sir Giacomo was the one who suggested an empty arena. Other than that, where do you see a restriction on hiding and moving silently?

Also, as it just occurred to me, both parties must use average HP.

[Ulzgoroth]

Okay, turn it around. What parts of the extraordinary maneuvers from ToB (which is pretty much everything in diamond mind, iron heart, setting sun, stone dragon, tiger claw, and white raven) are physics defying in a way that those abilities aren't?
Dancing Blade Form, if you abuse it on purpose...reaching over 5 feet with your bare hands, as a halfling? (no problem if you don't try to break it)
Iron Heart Endurance possibly...nothing stopping you from using it at -9 hp if you're conscious...but let that go to avoid the great HP debate.
Lightning Throw, almost certainly...the main effect is a stretch, but the guaranteed weapon return is just off.
Ballista Throw, only in that it doesn't path well...I'm pretty sure you can throw someone directly through a dragon lengthwise with it, doing only 6d6 to target and dragon.
The X Bones attacks. You get DR intermittently from what? If they just gave you DR briefly, rather than requiring an attack to do it, I wouldn't be bothered...
Claw at the Moon/Death from Above/Feral Death Blow/Soaring Raptor Strike: Not that you couldn't do what they entail, but I don't understand the benefit of the jumping.
Clarion Call/Order Forged from Chaos/Tactical Strike/War Master's Charge/White Raven Tactics, and probably a couple others...I don't care how awesome you are, really I don't...you cannot cause other people to move faster than their normal capabilities by yelling at them a lot.

I left out the schools you didn't list, but within the 'non-magic' schools it's not really very much. Did you think it would be?

Ulz... you're essentially saying that "that's not magic, if you assume it can be normal." Many of those things defy physics just as surely as any magic does. If a character can jump that high because they're just that good, why can't they walk on water or air because they're just that good, or step through shadows because they're just that good? You're saying "it's not magic if you assume it's not magic".

Characters in Western myths and stories do things that are just as impossible as what Wuxia characters do. The Tome of Battle fits them as much as it does anime.
...Assuming I'm a ToB-hater? Not quite.

The feats you listed are essentially simple extrapolations from what real people can do, ramping up their structural strength, muscle power, and reflexes to levels that may, in some cases, be physically impossible (rather than just physiologically). Walking on water, or running anyway...there's a lizard that does that. That one isn't impossible, you just need quick enough feet. Walking on air, on the other hand, really hasn't got a basis in anything a mundane creature can do. Stepping through shadows likewise. Flying by willpower, same.

If there were an 'olympic hovering' event, where people floated a couple millimeters off the ground for a few seconds with no outside assistance, then flying by willpower would be as mundane as chucking an apple through someone's skull.

Throwing the island does have problems with materials falling apart. I put that down to faulty geology on the part of the mythmakers rather than deliberate violation of possibility, though (that is, as far as they knew it was just an extrapolation of chucking a dirt clod). I'm a bit more worried about how you miss someone when throwing an object the size of a city...

As for Thor...I'm sorry, when gods start doing things, I'm not going to worry about how that would work without magic.

[lord_khaine]

Sir Giacomo was the one who suggested an empty arena. Other than that, where do you see a restriction on hiding and moving silently?

in the place where there isnt really anything to hide behind :smalltongue:

[Reel On, Love]

This thing is making me finally unlurk. I'm on the anti-monk side, but anyway--this sort of thing is always better with more cases. Giacomo, up to running more than one instance of a fight? I've whipped up a melee type I'm PMing to Jack, so I'm ready for that one whenever you are.

And, uh... I WILL CRUSH YOU, GRAAAAGH.

[Sir Giacomo]

@Reel On, Love: Bring them on...:smallsmile:


That all sounds all right. I'd argue that the pure-class restriction is necessary, but I don't think it will make a huge difference. I'm sure that his builds will not be built around monk-crushing.

Yep, I guess so, too. For instance, a barbarian devoted to grappling will be also able to use this ability vs other things (monsters, spellcasters, whatever). Although as Arbitrarity has brought up further up, a simple ring of freedom of movement at high levels will make grapple useless without resorting to some tricks, so I guess that Basset King's melee type will not be completely about grappling :smallcool:


1,000 XP for crafting, then, if Basset wants to use it. No custom items. If it's not in the DMG, I don't want to hear about it. Also, no candle of invocation or dust of dryness crap. This is a test of the classes, not broken items.

Yep. Complete agreement.



Leaving the arena does constitute a defeat. However, things like etherealness within the arena are allowed. Ceiling of the arena will be at 100'.

So, the arena is a 100ftx100ftx100ft cube? OK. I guess, if both opponents start in opposite corners, that would mean they are 140ft apart in the beginning?


When the time comes, I'll make a thread in one of the three gaming boards. Alpha, say. Actions will be PMed to me, and I'll post the results.

OK.


And I did not mean that the duel is more important to you. Simply that the restriction to core or to splatbooks would impact you more than Basset. Besides, it's the right of the challenged to choose the weapons in the duel.


You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Apologies that I misread...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Reel On, Love]

@Reel On, Love: Bring them on...:smallsmile:


Yeah, OK. You know druids can summon elephants at level 11, right?

[Sir Giacomo]

Hmmm...a druid is going to be tough one...

- Giacomo

[Calsan]

On the supernatural/humanly posible thing.

You do realise that the point was that the supernatural things martial artists in Eastern/anime/manga are in fact 80-99% fiction and simply not humanly posible. It's called fiction for a reason.

The things that happen in myths are certainly debatable for the simple fact that they are myths instead of legends which you people seem to confuse. Myths are stories with no basis of thruth after a long time. Legends do have a core of thruth but are often embalished.

Myths are fiction all the same. Or a realy old story that nobody realy remembers who wrote it. Of course somethings are weird and not posible if you use science.

The point was I think that the diffrence of things Western stories and Eastern stories are mute cause we have the same kinds of weird stuff happing on "supernatural" level.

[Kurald Galain]

Heck, and a fighter couldn't? Cleave! They don't detail how he did it, except that he used spear and sword, and left a very messy battlefield.
So Ulzgoroth, you're saying that Cuchulainn has boobies?

[Josh the Aspie]

At this point, I will simply mention that the place where the monk works best is in small units tactics.

Would I want to play a monk in a campaign with a healing cleric with 10 strength, a rogue, and a wizard? Heck no. I'd choose a barbarian, fighter, or ranger.

On the other hand, if we're playing a party with all four of the above characters, pluss a bard, and there's room for a 6th? That's when you bring in the monk. The monks abilities specifically make him a good choice to complement the abilities of the tank and the rouge.

In a party, any of your abilities aren't just your own. Your job is to come together as a group, and aid each other. At higher levels the tank doesn't do nearly as well. So what? His job, at higher levels, is to protect the mage. Just like at lower levels, the mage's job is to support the tank. The fact that the tank isn't used to playing support due to being the one -being- supported at low levels just makes it more likely that the tank is going to whine.

The monk's job is always, and always will be support. And that's, generally speaking, one of the reasons that I can enjoy playing monk. Because I get that, and I have long been about 'supporting the team'. I'm just getting better at it. And as I get better at it, my monk becomes more, and more effective.

Edit: I suppose this means that I agree that a monk is not on the same teir as a wizard, or the other full casters, maybe not even second teir. However I do feel that a monk doesn't belong all the way down there on a "These classes totally suck" teir with peasants and experts. A monk makes a great '6th character' the same way a bard makes a great '5th character'. In a group with a competant tank and a competant rogue, and the casting it needs, I'd rather see a monk than a second tank or second rogue.

[Tengu]

You do realise that the point was that the supernatural things martial artists in Eastern/anime/manga are in fact 80-99% fiction and simply not humanly posible. It's called fiction for a reason.


Re...really? B,but... *goes cry to a corner*

[Zim]

In a party, any of your abilities aren't just your own. Your job is to come together as a group, and aid each other.

QFT.

In the campaign that I'm a player in (yes, a DM and a Player. Wonders never cease :smallbiggrin: ), our front line combat guys were a barbarian and a monk weretiger (same guy who plays the minotaur IMC).

The Bbn had lots of hit points, but boop for AC and the Monk had a high AC and low HP. This meant that the Bbn did some serious hurt in the first round or two and then got knocked out, leaving the kitty monk to hold his own in the front lines.

Sure, you couldn't hit the monk, but he couldn't hit you either! Eventually, the outnumbered monk went down from sheer probability, thus leaving third and fourth line characters to get mixed into melee just to survive. Let me tell you, a second level kobold artificer is NOT the best person to get stuck in a grapple with the BBEG! :smalleek:

That being said, I can say from experience that a monk (even a weretiger with crazy good ability scores), is no substitute for a front line tank. They are just too fragile and their low attack bonus gives the attacking badguys an edge in that they can last longer and do more harm to the PC's.

When the player that was the Bbn left the gaming group, the party was left in serious peril in melee. That is why (when my artificer left the group due to a major ethical disagreement) I have replaced my character with a half-orc druid.

The animal companion, decent armour and full progression spells (esp. Shillelagh since front line combat is inevitable) will help to bolster the party in melee and fill in some other gaps in the party. Can he replace the barbarian and artificer roles completely? No, but a good all-rounder like the druid strengthens the party as a whole a lot more than another monk or lower-tier character ever could. The real challenge will be not to out shine the rest of the party (warlock, bard, cleric/wizard multiclass and monk -talk about a bunch of low teirs, eh?) and ignoring the call of CoDzilla.

Anecdotal evidence supporting to the discussion at hand? Mad ramblings? Maybe a bit of both.:smallwink:

[PirateMonk]

Edit: Oh yea, Galahad's strength depended on what time of day it was. At noon he was as strong as Hercules. Orlando's skin was so strong that he wore armour only for show.

Gawain, actually, IIRC.

[Indon]

I'mma try _very_ hard to not talk about the ongoing Monk discussion, and instead address the main point.

I think all this barely-on-topic discussion elucidates one thing: We need more than one indicator of class power.

I propose these:

-Ease of Use
The amount of knowledge it takes to play a character effectively in a campaign (or, alternately, the effectiveness of a D&D 'newbie' playing the class. Druids, for instance, are very high Ease of Use, Wizards are probably about average, and more obscure classes would often be lower.

-Potential for optimization
How powerful/useful/whatever you can make a class with a bunch of books and a dire intent. This, I think, is the metric most people are talking about. Wizards and other full casters are at the top of this, etc. I take issue that the monk is near the bottom; I think they're solidly in the same range as most other melee, along with rogues and fighters.

-Capability for Specialization
How much the class gravitates towards a niche, and how many niches could be filled completely by a single character. This, I feel, is the primary factor as to why many consider the likes of monks and bards to be very weak; simply, the ability to do multiple things so-so is considered less valuable than the ability to do one thing really really good.

So, a couple examples:
Wizard:
Ease: Medium
Optimization: Very High
Specialization: High

Druid:
Ease: Very High
Optimization: High
Specialization: Very High

Rogue:
Ease: Medium
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: High

Fighter:
Ease: High
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: Med

Monk:
Ease: Med-Low (Possibly Medium)
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: Low

...well, okay, one thing on monk: 1 level of Lion Totem (variant) Barbarian provides both proficiency with Gauntlets and Pounce.

[Zim]

Good ideas Indon. I would argue that the druid would rank poorly on ease of use though. There are wild shapes to calculate, spells to select and track, nature's allies to control and an animal companion to account for. Accounting for a fighter is much easier by far.

[Indon]

Good ideas Indon. I would argue that the druid would rank poorly on ease of use though. There are wild shapes to calculate, spells to select and track, nature's allies to control and an animal companion to account for. Accounting for a fighter is much easier by far.

Hmm, you know, you may have a point there. I just went more by the fact that my group gives new players Druids so they don't really have to understand optimization very much to keep up with us, but I perhaps underestimated the amount of bookkeeping help we offer with such players.

[Dan_Hemmens]

What's more, take a look at the Norse gods. Thor drinks half of the ocean, and arm-wrestles Death. He is capable of this because he's a god, sure, but he's not using any magic--he can just do it. He's Just That Good. Being a god might help make you that good, but Thor isn't using magic--which other gods do.

Again, I think it's interesting to note that a lot of people *do* tend to define those sorts of feats as "magical".

The basic issue is that everybody draws the line in different places. When Loki disguises himself as a horse is he "shapeshifting by magic" or is he "just that good" at disguising himself? Different people will answer differently (I take the "just that good" option myself).


The difference between "nonmagical feat" and "magical feat" is really in how you justify it.

The difference between a nonmagical feat and a magical feat is how you define "magic". Unfortunately D&D tends to define magic in quite strict terms. Hell, even Damage Reduction is - IIRC - explicitly "magical".

[Indon]

The difference between a nonmagical feat and a magical feat is how you define "magic". Unfortunately D&D tends to define magic in quite strict terms. Hell, even Damage Reduction is - IIRC - explicitly "magical".

I'm pretty sure some DR, such as the Barbarian's, is exceptional.

[mudbunny]

The difference between a nonmagical feat and a magical feat is how you define "magic". Unfortunately D&D tends to define magic in quite strict terms. Hell, even Damage Reduction is - IIRC - explicitly "magical".

Most of it is magical, however, there are several (Vampire is one frex) where it is defined in the entry as supernatural.

[Artemician]

I find it strange, that in a World where Druids turn into octopi, Wizards routinely break entropy, and Fighters somehow manage to attack a guy 5 feet away with armour spikes, people find ToB wierd.

Everything in the ToB is frankly, nothing spectacularly flashy to speak of. Maneuvers got nothin' on spells. Oh.. so you can walk on air. Big deal, I can fly. Oh hey, you can hit people 10 feet away with a 2 foot rapier. Well, I have extendable 15 feet long arms. Beat that.

If you're really concerned with realism so much.. I would advise a switch to something more suited for it.

[Krellen]

Actually, most DR is Exceptional - which is to say, explicitly non-magical. All DR based on materials - /silver or /cold iron, for instance - is Exceptional, as is the Barbarian's "typeless" DR. The only "magical" DRs are the alignment/magic ones - which is to say the ones that cannot be overcome save by magic. Adamantine, alchemical silver and cold iron aren't magic, so DRs that can be bypassed by them are in turn non-magical.

[Blue Paladin]

Gawain, actually, IIRC.Correct; Gawain, the Hawk of May, is the one who became (super-)stronger the higher the sun rose in the sky.


Dancing Blade Form, if you abuse it on purpose...reaching over 5 feet with your bare hands, as a halfling? (no problem if you don't try to break it)Easy. It is called Dancing Blade; the Small (or even Tiny :P) martial adept lunges so skillfully that he reaches an extra 5'.

Iron Heart Endurance possibly...nothing stopping you from using it at -9 hp if you're conscious...but let that go to avoid the great HP debate.Second wind? Surge of adrenaline?

Lightning Throw, almost certainly...the main effect is a stretch, but the guaranteed weapon return is just off.When Captain America throws his mighty shield...

Ballista Throw, only in that it doesn't path well...I'm pretty sure you can throw someone directly through a dragon lengthwise with it, doing only 6d6 to target and dragon.He hits the dragon and then caroms up, bouncing over the rest of the dragon, ending in his final square.

The X Bones attacks. You get DR intermittently from what? If they just gave you DR briefly, rather than requiring an attack to do it, I wouldn't be bothered...I wish youtube weren't blocked at my workplace... Shaolin monk kiais and suddenly is immune to groin attacks. This is obviously broken in D&D, so the duration was reduced to a single round, entirely for balance purposes.

Claw at the Moon/Death from Above/Feral Death Blow/Soaring Raptor Strike: Not that you couldn't do what they entail, but I don't understand the benefit of the jumping.Not a fan of the jump kick then?

Clarion Call/Order Forged from Chaos/Tactical Strike/War Master's Charge/White Raven Tactics, and probably a couple others...I don't care how awesome you are, really I don't...you cannot cause other people to move faster than their normal capabilities by yelling at them a lot.Countless drill sergeants and platoon leaders over hundreds if not thousands of years disagree with you.


Hell, even Damage Reduction is - IIRC - explicitly "magical".Supernatural DR is supernatural (e.g. Balor's DR). Mundane DR is extraordinary (e.g. Barbarian DR). As far as I've seen, they're pretty good about separating the two. Supernatural DR tends to be the X/(law/good/magic). Extraordinary DR tends to be X/- style, with the occasional X/(special material) or X/(damage type) thrown in for fun.

wow, multi-ninja'd!

[Zim]

(WARNING! I'm about to get a little tongue in cheek here!)

I think there should be a new EPIC or Divine feat: Just That Good(JtG for short). Character can, as an extraordinary ability, tell the laws of physics to siddown an' shuddup at will. Add that feat to your Chuck Norris build! Or is it Chuck Norris that feat? :smallbiggrin:

The problem when dealing with myths about gods and RW legends and trying to explain them in game terms (nevermind modern science) is that they were not created with the D&D system in mind. Very inconsiderate of those ancient people, I know, but they went and did it anyway!

Legends are just stories with generations of embellishment tacked on until the characters become these larger than life god-like beings (sometimes the gods themselves). For all we know the legend of King Arthur was just some dude with an oddly-shaped table and Thor was a fella with explosive gas and a bad temper. Neither are particularly magical (esp. the gas :smalltongue: ), but were the seed upon which a greater legend grew from.

Creation myths, along with a lot of folklore, are primative cultures' way of explaining extraordinary happenings and phenomina in thier lives, without the benefit of modern day scientific knowledge. Trying to separate what is magic from what is just extraordinary is a futile excercise. Like Caslan said, it's just fiction.

[PirateMonk]

Correct; Gawain, the Hawk of May, is the one who became (super-)stronger the higher the sun rose in the sky.

YAY! I won!

:biggrin: :biggrin:


I'mma try _very_ hard to not talk about the ongoing Monk discussion, and instead address the main point.

I think all this barely-on-topic discussion elucidates one thing: We need more than one indicator of class power.

I propose these:

-Ease of Use
The amount of knowledge it takes to play a character effectively in a campaign (or, alternately, the effectiveness of a D&D 'newbie' playing the class. Druids, for instance, are very high Ease of Use, Wizards are probably about average, and more obscure classes would often be lower.

-Potential for optimization
How powerful/useful/whatever you can make a class with a bunch of books and a dire intent. This, I think, is the metric most people are talking about. Wizards and other full casters are at the top of this, etc. I take issue that the monk is near the bottom; I think they're solidly in the same range as most other melee, along with rogues and fighters.

-Capability for Specialization
How much the class gravitates towards a niche, and how many niches could be filled completely by a single character. This, I feel, is the primary factor as to why many consider the likes of monks and bards to be very weak; simply, the ability to do multiple things so-so is considered less valuable than the ability to do one thing really really good.

So, a couple examples:
Wizard:
Ease: Medium
Optimization: Very High
Specialization: High

Druid:
Ease: Very High
Optimization: High
Specialization: Very High

Rogue:
Ease: Medium
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: High

Fighter:
Ease: High
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: Med

Monk:
Ease: Med-Low (Possibly Medium)
Optimization: Medium
Specialization: Low

...well, okay, one thing on monk: 1 level of Lion Totem (variant) Barbarian provides both proficiency with Gauntlets and Pounce.

What exactly do you mean by "specialization"?

Also, as for Druid ease: most of the spells and the feat you need to make an effective Druid are fairly obvious. In play, keeping track of everything gets a little challenging, but for building the character, optimization is easy.

[Indon]

What exactly do you mean by "specialization"?


Hmm... I guess another way to term it would be "irreplacibility". It kinda presumes that you don't want/need more than one individual specialized into any given function (probably to cover all the bases with your party).

A Druid can perform multiple functions, and oftentimes better than other classes can do it. They're stellar at this.

A rogue has a solid function which not many classes can fulfill without being, essentially, a similar class, so they've got it pretty good in that area.

A fighter has a solid function, too, but tons of varied character classes can do it (namely, combat) and some can even do it better, so they aren't quite so hot.

A monk has a veritable grab bag of functionality, but almost everything they can do, some other class can do it better, so they're definitely out of luck in that regard.



Also, as for Druid ease: most of the spells and the feat you need to make an effective Druid are fairly obvious. In play, keeping track of everything gets a little challenging, but for building the character, optimization is easy.

I'd say 'ease of use' really covers both character building and character management.

[Telonius]

With the Druid, the difficulty of use comes in the form of "Summon Nature's Ally." Zookeepers have to keep track of the Druid, the Companion, and whatever else they summon. While this is very powerful, and experienced players don't have a problem with it, it can be pretty intimidating to newbies.

I remember the first time I looked at that class. It went something like this. "Okay, turns into a bear, that's cool. Can channel magic into ... summon nature's ally. Which gives ... hold on .. what page is that? .. Monster manual, what... :smallconfused: ? Holy cow, there's like seventeen pages of that stuff ... screw that."

[Indon]

With the Druid, the difficulty of use comes in the form of "Summon Nature's Ally." Zookeepers have to keep track of the Druid, the Companion, and whatever else they summon. While this is very powerful, and experienced players don't have a problem with it, it can be pretty intimidating to newbies.

I remember the first time I looked at that class. It went something like this. "Okay, turns into a bear, that's cool. Can channel magic into ... summon nature's ally. Which gives ... hold on .. what page is that? .. Monster manual, what... :smallconfused: ? Holy cow, there's like seventeen pages of that stuff ... screw that."

But you don't really _need_ all of that to contribute as a Druid.

You could go around casting Call Lightning and attacking with your animal companion and do a decent contribution (well, at appropriate levels. Substitute level-appropriate spells for Call Lightning).

[Telonius]

Yeah, there's definitely other stuff that a Druid can do to help. But then that gets into why Druids are in Tier 1 to begin with. Melee, summoning, and full casting options are all on the table. Having that much choice can make it more difficult to manage all your options. Kinda like Superman. He can pound the snot out of somebody a dozen different ways, but which way would be most efficient in this situation? With something like a Fighter, your general strategy is pretty clear: hit with pointy stick. (There's still the question of how hard to hit, which thing to hit, etc). I agree that building an effective druid is generally pretty easy, but gameplay can be tough.

[Indon]

Well, that's what my "Ease of play" measurement is all about. You can contribute as a Druid just by blasting a bit and having a wolf. You can contribute as a Fighter just by charging in and wailing on things. Both have high ease of use, though the Druid is _way_ more optimizable.

[Ulzgoroth]

Easy. It is called Dancing Blade; the Small (or even Tiny :P) martial adept lunges so skillfully that he reaches an extra 5'.
Reaches more than the length of his entire body, plus arm, plus weapon? No explanation that involves laying a toe outside your official square is acceptable, because it works just fine even if you're entirely surrounded by acid or something of the kind.

Second wind? Surge of adrenaline?
Causing you to no longer be critically injured and weakening every time you take an action? No, you need a bit more than a second wind for that...

When Captain America throws his mighty shield...
Besides the meaninglessness of that to me, I may as well clarify. You can fling your dagger 40 feet down a well. With water in it. And it comes back to your hand. After pureeing any small life forms in the well that don't have evasion and make a reflex save.

He hits the dragon and then caroms up, bouncing over the rest of the dragon, ending in his final square.
I thought this through a bit better than that. The dragon is squeezing through a narrow passage towards you. To get behind it, your projectile either passes through the dragon, or passes through solid rock. There is no clear path around it.

Actually, I think I misjudge...in that case the dragon blocks line of effect, so the line stops at the dragon and the projectile lands in front of it. Probably all good then.

I wish youtube weren't blocked at my workplace... Shaolin monk kiais and suddenly is immune to groin attacks. This is obviously broken in D&D, so the duration was reduced to a single round, entirely for balance purposes.
I noted that my actual objection was to the demand for a successful attack as part of the manuever, not the maneuver granting DR, didn't I?

Not a fan of the jump kick then?
Should I be? Also, we are not exactly kicking here. Most of the time, anyway.

Oh, I have to pull Death from Above from that list. Its only severe problem is the flat DC 20 jump check to jump over absolutely any foe.

Countless drill sergeants and platoon leaders over hundreds if not thousands of years disagree with you.
Without having a drill sergeant handy, I rather doubt they actually believe that their voices cause people to do things that were physically impossible for them to do otherwise. Things that they wouldn't do otherwise, certainly, but that isn't at all what's happening with a War Master's Charge. You are somehow granting people a free full-round action with your non-magical voice alone.

[Morty]

And again, how does any of this differ from the extraordinary maneuvers martial adepts get? I'm not going to argue about the supernatural ones (those are supposed to be magical), but how is setting sun, for example, somehow not acceptable when Cuchulainn's and Fionn's abilities are?

I'm not talking about ToB here. I don't use ToB, I don't care about it, not because I find it too "anime"(whatever that'd mean) or supernatural but because I don't like mechanics of it. What I meant was, heroes even while doing extraordinary feats doesn't defy laws of physics in the way spellcasters do. And anyway as far as I know, Cuchulainn was likely son of a god.


But humans CAN'T be that strong/fast/tough. It's the law of physics. Heck, even if they were, they still couldn't throw an island; manipulating large objects is difficult in ways that have little to nothing to do with strength.

I'm not talking about throwing islands. Throwing an island is blatantly superhuman, but, say, slaying a dragon or decimating an army is "merely" heroic. It's a fine line, actually.


What's more, take a look at the Norse gods. Thor drinks half of the ocean, and arm-wrestles Death. He is capable of this because he's a god, sure, but he's not using any magic--he can just do it. He's Just That Good. Being a god might help make you that good, but Thor isn't using magic--which other gods do.

But he's a god. D&D characters -core meleers, ToBers, whatever- are still mere mortals, even on high levels. The level of "he's good enough to do it" is significantly higher, even if he's wrestling Death only by his muscles.


I could just as easily say that "if a hero was ten times less dense, he could fly", or "if he could propel himself with willpower, he could fly". This isn't any more impossible than throwing an island. Wuxia characters who fly do so, almost always, explicitly without magic. They are simply capable of stepping on air, just like Cuchulainn is simply capable of his various feats.

As far as I know, Cuchulainn was said to be son of god. So was, say, Hercules and Achilles. And I agree that throwing an island is beyond "extraordinary", but not all things heroes do are.


The difference between "nonmagical feat" and "magical feat" is really in how you justify it.

Apparently. The way I see it, if someone does something that seems completely beyond human capabilities- it's supernatural. And D&D, even ToB, seems to more or less agree with me. Unless you find some teleportation or flying that isn't supernatual ability- not counting wings of course.
Also, I repeat: just because cleric is better than fighter at melee combat doesn't make figher underpowered. On high levels yes, meleers are left behind. But in 7-10 range they do just fine, and it's clerics' fault that they overshado them.

[internerdj]

Interesting discussion of mythological heroes and the supernatural. Several martial arts traditions carry either "advanced knowledge" or rituals that are said to afterwards give the person the ability to do things that are clearly supernatural like turn invisible or take a gunshot or teleport. One of the potential histories of lycanthropy is the viking warrior who would take a mind altering drug, wear animal skins, and believe they became that animal.

[Tengu]

I'm not talking about ToB here. I don't use ToB, I don't care about it, not because I find it too "anime"(whatever that'd mean) or supernatural but because I don't like mechanics of it.

Do you think that in DND, witchers could be represented by swordsages? I think it would work quite nicely - light armor, wisdom powering up abilities... you'd just have to pick specific maneuvers from specific schools.

[Morty]

Do you think that in DND, witchers could be represented by swordsages? I think it would work quite nicely - light armor, wisdom powering up abilities... you'd just have to pick specific maneuvers from specific schools.

For all I know about swordsages, they indeed seem to fit witchers better than any of the core meleers -who tend to go "Thog smash"- with their light armor, Wis to AC, manuevers and so on. The only problem is 3/4 BAB. So for someone who finds ToB manuever mechanics edible, Swordsages seem to represent witchers just fine. But I generally find witchers to be impossible to translate into D&D, as they weren't just awesomely good warriors swordsages are, but specifically bred and trained mutants. Swordsages are balanced with Warblades and on low levels with core meleers, while witchers were just plainly better at fighting than normal humans. Also, you'd have to find some way to finesse greatsword or bastard sword.

[Ulzgoroth]

...without the faintest idea what you're talking about, wouldn't that be a swordsage with an LA race, then?

[Josh the Aspie]

By the way, I'm not sure where the monk part of the discussion went, but I'd just like to point out the nifty items of the "Monk's Array" from the Magic Item Compendium. It's one of the set. Specifically, I really think that people need to look at the Kama from the set. ^_^ So sweeeet for monks.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi Josh the Aspie,

thx a lot; the monk duels are currently being prepared...unfortunately foolish me :smalltongue: asked for a core only duel...where the monk will not have to combat x rulebooks and celerities and whatevers as well...:smallcool:

- Giacomo

[lord_khaine]

you are thinking about that kama that does damage like your unarmed attacks?
after it became possibel to use enchantet gauntlets that items isnt so good anymore.

[elliott20]

"tiers"? we're using fighting game lingo to describe D&D now?

[Winterwind]

...without the faintest idea what you're talking about, wouldn't that be a swordsage with an LA race, then?What they are talking about is this here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Witcher).

While I have read only two of the short stories (in the original magazine where they appeared as a matter of fact, a gift from my mother), and none of the books (a shortcoming I plan on correcting as soon as I have more time again), and not being well versed in D&D, going by what I learned about D&D in these forums I would suppose they were rather a Prestige Class - they are much too powerful for level 1 characters.
Well, that, or Level Adjustment.

[Josh the Aspie]

you are thinking about that kama that does damage like your unarmed attacks?
after it became possibel to use enchantet gauntlets that items isnt so good anymore.

So when did it "become" possible to do so like that?

I personally like the other items as well, so I'm of the opinion that wielding that weapon in order to get the benefits of the set is an okay thing to do.

[lord_khaine]

i have no idea "when" it became possible, but the reason why it is possibel is that its mentioned in the FAQ thread.

[Josh the Aspie]

I went and looked at the Wizards FAQ. In my opinion, the ability to avoid that -4 non-proficiency penalty would be worth a bit of extra cost to a monk that doesn't have a second class that grants the proficiency.

Also, while it does say that you can flurry because it is considered an unarmed strike... further down it says that a gauntlet isn't listed as a special monk weapon, and thus isn't as versatile as an unarmed strike...

How can something not be as versatile as it's self?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

I recommend that you ignore the meaningless and/or RAW/self contradicting entries of the FAQ. :smallwink:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

You know I used to really dislike Monks as being totally wrong for Medieval European Inspired Fantasy and I was never all that convinced that they were a reasonable interpretation of an Medieval Oriental Inspired Fantasy archetype, but the more I see people hating on them for being weak, the more I have found my stone heart melting...

Well Matthew, we all know that your monks are inspired by Brother Tuck and that it always rains in your fantasy setting, just like in good ol' Britain. :smalltongue:


On a related note; the monk has lost 2 out of 2 battles (level 10) in the Battle of the Core Classes so far. (Once against the Bard.)

[Charity]

Yeah hows that going? it has been ... forever since it started, the guy I bet on got banned, I'm sure through impatience :smallwink:

*Looks out of the window at the grey skies above and sighs*

Rule -1 for D&D
Regardless of how awful a class is someone will think it's cool and play one.

I'm with you Matthew, Wail on those puny monks!

[Sir Giacomo]

Yeah hows that going? it has been ... forever since it started, the guy I bet on got banned, I'm sure through impatience :smallwink:

What? Reel on Love has been banished from the boards? Well, and here I was thinking up strategies not only able to beat the meeler zilla cleric, the wizard/sorcerer, but also a druid with his animal companion. But Basset King promised a third "special" build which might well be a druid. Guess whatever can survive vs a druid should also do OK vs other classes.

My build is almost done, guess Basset King's BIG 3 are also quite far.

- Giacomo

[Reel On, Love]

What? Reel on Love has been banished from the boards? Well, and here I was thinking up strategies not only able to beat the meeler zilla cleric, the wizard/sorcerer, but also a druid with his animal companion. But Basset King promised a third "special" build which might well be a druid. Guess whatever can survive vs a druid should also do OK vs other classes.

My build is almost done, guess Basset King's BIG 3 are also quite far.

- Giacomo

Banned? WTF. No, I haven't been banned. Why would you think that? I think Wossname was talking about someone else.

I've got your builds right here.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Yeah hows that going? it has been ... forever since it started, the guy I bet on got banned, I'm sure through impatience :smallwink:


Very slowly.

I am currently running two battles and unfortunately a lot of my co-DMs have been bailing on me.

The whole fog of war aspect does slow things down a bit.

[Kurald Galain]

Where can I find all these battles? Or is the core classes battle a secret because it may give away stuff for future battles?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Where can I find all these battles? Or is the core classes battle a secret because it may give away stuff for future battles?

The plan was to have made "storyfied" accounts of the battles available (so as not to give away too much information about tactics and builds), but the scribe has also left it seems. :smallsigh: :smalltongue:

Full battle reports will be made available after the event is completed.

[Reel On, Love]

Anyway, Giacomo--I've finished up my builds and sent them to Jack. By and large, they're not set up for duels but make perfectly viable adventurers that just happen to be able to chop a monk into small pieces and eat him.

[Matthew]

Well Matthew, we all know that your monks are inspired by Brother Tuck and that it always rains in your fantasy setting, just like in good ol' Britain. :smalltongue:

Heh, heh. That's really a trait of Northern Britain; incidently, it's been raining here for the last two days fairly solidly...


On a related note; the monk has lost 2 out of 2 battles (level 10) in the Battle of the Core Classes so far. (Once against the Bard.)

I don't think he's being played properly, I bet he's relying on the Monk's Class Features...


*Looks out of the window at the grey skies above and sighs*

Rule -1 for D&D
Regardless of how awful a class is someone will think it's cool and play one.

I'm with you Matthew, Wail on those puny monks!

There's only one Base Class I would like to see do better than the Monk and that's the Complete Warrior Samurai. In fact, once all this Core Class Challenge nonesense is done with, you can count me in with a Complete Warrior Samurai :smallbiggrin:

[Charity]

Mate, I'm not putting money on you.

You might as well blind him in one eye and cut off a leg...

[Matthew]

I'm gonna name him Miyamoto Mushashi, how can I possibly lose?

[Kurald Galain]

So has this monk battle started yet? What forum is it in, if any?

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi,

for those interested, the monk duels have started here:

vs a druid by Reel on, Love
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54238

and vs a ?? by Basset King
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54237

- Giacomo

PS: sorry, don't know the code for creating links :smallsmile:

[Bassetking]

Hi,

for those interested, the monk duels have started here:

vs a druid by Reel on, Love
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54238

and vs a ?? by Basset King
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54237

- Giacomo

PS: sorry, don't know the code for creating links :smallsmile:

Vs. a ?? indeed. :smallbiggrin:

[Arbitrarity]

Those combats seem remarkably similar :smallconfused: