A Treatise on Monks: Why the Monk is the Most Powerful Mundane Class in 3.5 D&D [Archive]

Sleven

2019-10-17, 09:42 PM

Preamble:

:smallsigh::smallsigh::smallsigh:

This started as something I wanted to do for a while, was continuously encouraged to do, but just never seemed to have found the time to do.

Then I saw the community tier list pop up again yesterday while in transit and it reminded me of all the ridiculous assumptions and assessments that have been made of the class recently and over the years. It reminded me why I had been meaning to write something like this in the first place. So I decided to see what I could do in an hour or two of my free time. This thread is the result. Consider it a handbook, or whatever.

https://i.imgur.com/JtjdNsM.jpg?1

Misconceptions:

Since it's the most recent and salient example demonstrating that people either don't understand the monk on a fundamental level, don't understand the mechanics of the game that it does objectively better than other classes, or are blatantly misrepresenting facts, I'm going to use the blurb from the thread to kick things off. The description for why it got placed an entire tier below classes like Fighter and Barbarian contains many of the commonly floated misconceptions about the class that have come up over the years, so it's a good starting point.

Bear in mind I disagree wholeheartedly with the tier list's rankings and the reasons behind them. If you think what someone who's first starting to play 3.5 would do has any bearing on a class's power, then we never will agree. In light of that, I'm keeping the discussion of this treatise to the facts of the monk as a class relative to its competitors (other mundane classes), not as a player of any particular skill level would play it. If the "standard" for barbarian has become one who takes the Lion Spiritual Totem ACF, the Wolf Tribal Totem ACF, and the Whirling Frenzy rage variant, why wouldn't the standard monk be one who takes options like Shadow Blend, Holy Strike, and Invisible Fist? In the course of playing the monk many times over the years, I've changed more than a few minds about the class. So, who knows, maybe I'll change yours too.

Let's start with a misconception about the class from the thread that influences the very way people think about approaching the monk: class role. An interesting excerpt for the previously mentioned tier list:

Thirdly, you’re meant to be a melee fighter, but your damage output sucks and you can’t tank worth beans either, so what are you even doing?"

First of all, the presumption that a class must fill any one role in a particular way is laughably inane and myopic to the exploration of classes and their potential for diversity. Yet I've seen this argument in far more places than just the tier list. The idea that you--as a melee fighter--must be held to the same style and standards as a crusader is absurd. Even Fighters and Barbarians don't have to build to go into the front lines and trade blows, and to assume they would or fail at "their job" is asinine. Monks are just different. How a monk approaches survivability will never be the same as a Fighter or Barbarian simply by virtue of differences in class features. To name a few of the the basic areas where monks compare survivability-wise:

Monks have d8 hit dice. That means 1 less average hit point per level than a fighter and 2 less average hit points per level than a barbarian. Not much.
Monks have lower AC, but significantly higher touch AC than their fellow mundanes.
Monks have higher saving throw bonuses across the board.
Monks have faster movement on the battlefield for the majority of their career.
Monks have better skills that are directly related to character longevity in terms of: Detection (Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive vs the barbarian's Listen only), Mobility (Balance, Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble vs the fighter and barbarian's Tumble or Ride, since they can't have both), and Monster Knowledge (arcana and religion vs none).
Etc.

And that's just one vector. There are plenty of others including use of resources (which can also impact survivability), damage output, control, etc.

So I'm not going to talk about the monk in terms of the fact that it must do one thing one way. No, I'm going to discuss it on the merit of its class features and let you decide how they stack up relative to what's provided to other classes, and what you want to use them all for. To keep things brief, I'll be sticking to some of the better (or more notable, but not necessarily as well-known) class features and support the monk has. There are still plenty of others you can do cool things with, but I think the ones I'll be discussing are sufficient in debunking the myth that monk sucks.

Monk Guide:

WHAT MAKES A MONK (BUILDING BLOCKS):

1) Unarmed Strike (the most powerful D&D weapon ever printed)

2) Alternative Class Features (mine are better than yours) and Class Features (still better here too) aka Monk is more than a 2 level class

3) Feats (or the feat, Mantis Leap, aka the 7th level capstone, and its supporting cast)

4) Martial Arts (you mean Dodge can be used for something?)

5) The Myth of MAD (why embracing madness is a more efficient use of resources--and your sanity)

6) Items (cuff links for your fisticuffs)

1) UNARMED STRIKE

This section is actually fairly simple. As bludgeoning weapons with the highest base damage in the game while simultaneously counting as both natural and manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes have the highest potential damage of any weapon in 3.5 (and the most versatility to boot). Period.

Easy to Buff: spells like Mighty Wallop and Greater Mighty Wallop are buffs monks get to enjoy on top of size increases and item increases. Just remember that WotC explicitly tells us to apply all of this in the most beneficial order.

Item Support: you can buff your fists with your necklace slot, bracer slot, hands slot, etc. Think having a +10 weapon is good but prohibitively expensive? Monks can get +10 worth of enhancements for roughly half the price by spreading it out across 3 item slots, and they're by no means limited to that. Ring slots, feet slots, and other slots can be used to increase damage dice, multipliers, and more. A monk can almost always afford something that will help his unarmed strike between each adventure.

Works with Any Attack or Maneuver: Can it trip? Yes. Can it disarm? Yes. Grapple? Yes again. Etc. No matter what you're trying to do mundane attack-wise, an unarmed strike can do it. With the right modifications, it can even be fired from a bow.

Cannot Be Taken From You: Any part of your body can be used as an unarmed strike. This means you can do whatever you want with your hands during combat (a bigger deal than most people realize) or even take the forms of creatures with no limbs and still have your attack form available to you. Furthermore, an unarmed strike cannot be disarmed, sundered, or pick-pocketed.

Let's take a quick look at how its damage dice scale before moving on:
The main break point for unarmed damage is 2d6, but 2d8 and 2d10 provide significant increases to damage as well. Let's look at the traditional scaling of this weapon:

2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6 -> 8d6 -> 12d6 -> 16d6 -> 24d6 -> 32d6 -> 48d6 -> 64d6 -> 96d6 -> 128d6 -> Etc.

(this is corroborated by books like Eberron Campaign Setting p.54 for feats like Improved Natural Attack)

And identically for any 2d8 damage. 2d10 damage skips ahead to 4d8 after the first increase, per the Rules Compendium, then continues along the same pattern.

This means that with only 1 spell, a monk's weapon can easily be doing 16d8 damage. That's like punching someone with a caster level 16 Bombardment (an 8th level spell), you get at least 5 of these and there is no save for half. Your move barbarian.

2) ALTERNATIVE CLASS FEATURES AND CLASS FEATURES

Shadow Blend: at 7th level monks achieve a superpower unlike any other. Total concealment. Always active, should you desire, and only bested by daylight.

What this does? According to the Rules Compendium, a creature with total concealment is always considered hidden. Also according to the Rules Compendium an enemy is considered flat-footed against any hidden attacks. That means 1) you no longer care about hide checks; 2) all your attacks against an opponent are made against their flat-footed AC with a +2 bonus.

What else does it do? 50% miss chance if they correctly guess your square (12.5% chance if you're attacking from melee without reach), you cannot be targeted by targeted spells, and your opponent gets no attacks of opportunity against you. The biggest one is obviously the inability to be targeted with targeted spells. It means you no longer have to worry about some chump trying to use dispel magic on your buffstack or using maze as an easy way to dismiss your presence.

Invisible Fist: Invisibility as an immediate action at 2nd level and Blink as an immediate action at 9th level. The invisibility lasts only a round, but the blink can be kept up continuously by the time you get it.

First off, at level 2 if they can't detect you, this is action denial on par with party favorites like Abrupt Jaunt and Wings of Cover. It also represents an increase in your chance to hit (+2 + attacking vs flat-footed AC). Meanwhile, blink provides coverage for an area martials are traditionally weak in: transdimensional combat. Not only is this a miss chance, it's also a means of being able to interact with things on the ethereal plane. In a dungeon, it's a way to bypass walls, doors, and traps with everyone's favorite game: how many times in a row can my coin flip land on heads. With just 16 Wis, this one stays up permanently.

Wild Shape: If you don't like your feats, you can trade them for a slightly delayed version of the druid's most powerful (non-spellcasting) class feature instead. Monks also make much better use of it in melee combat since they can use their significantly more powerful unarmed strikes as a primary weapon and all of their natural weapons as a secondary.

Martial Monk: Feat requirements are for chumps like barbarians and fighters. Let's grab the fighter's capstone feat (Weapon Supremacy) at level 1, just to show 'em the monk don't play.

Holy Monk: Ever felt like going down the Awesome Smite route? What about taking Travel Devotion or Law Devotion and actually being able to use it during every encounter without having to take a cleric dip? Yep, monk can do that too for the cost of only 2 feats.

Diamond Soul and Purity of Body: I had to include at least one of my favorite core monk tricks: turning yourself into a biological weapon. Immunity to poison and disease means you can dunk yourself in whatever and apply it via contact and/or injury at no risk to yourself. With flurry of blows that's a lot of ability damage or conditions.

And More!: I'll be honest, the first two alone are enough to put the monk far ahead of its mundane compatriots. The others help, but there are even more (like adding 1d6 damage to each of your attacks instead of ki strike (magic) to help even the damage gap between you and barbarians in the early levels). There's a reason I left out Decisive Strike, and we'll get to that soon.

3) FEATS or THE Feat: Mantis Leap (and its supporting cast):

If you thought level 7 was a monk capstone because of its continuous total concealment, then you'd be right. But there's also another little known secret from 3.0 that is exclusive to monks (of 7th level), that is: the feat from Sword & Fist known as Mantis Leap.

Designate an opponent who is within the maximum distance you can reach with a successful Jump check. Make a normal Jump check; if your check is successful, you can make a normal charge attack against the opponent you designated as part of the same action. If your charge attack is successful, you inflict normal damage, plus your Strength modifier multiplied by 2.

As part of the same action required to make a jump check? Are you certain you'd like to allow me to do that Wizards of the Coast? I mean, after all...

Action
None. A Jump check is included in your movement, so it is part of a move action.

So we can jump all we want during a move action as long as we keep making the check and we still have movement left? Okay. And if I take this feat each one of those jumps ends in a charge so long as it puts me in range to attack someone? I hear monks have a lot of movement. Let's remind ourselves not to trade away that class feature...

But wait, there's more! What if we could pounce? Oh, we can? Barbarian + Chaos Monk, right? Naw, nothing that complex, just a couple skill points in Knowledge (local) and a feat: Lion Tribe Warrior.

You may make a full attack with a single light weapon as part of a charge action. If you have light weapons in both hands, you can instead strike with each weapon once, following the normal rules for fighting with two weapons.

This couldn't possibly be better than 5x shadow pounce, could it? Yes, it is, and yes, it can. Remember that monks can use flurry of blows whenever they can full attack.

You're probably thinking, great trick buck-o. But we all just started flying and you can't jump while flying. Well you'd be incorrect, again. Air Walk allows for mid-air jumping. If it's relevant to you, there's even a Tome of Battle stance that gives you continuous Air Walk known as Balance on the Sky. Enjoy.

Better yet, you can combine this with actual flight to switch between the two as needed. I'm partial to the feathered wings graft, as it really is one of the few items that allows mundane characters to somewhat keep up in the wealth department.

I'm done now, right? This Mantis Leap stuff couldn't possibly get any better, could it? Well, let me tell you about the feat Sun School. It creates potential for a not actually infinite attack loop (as long as you don't roll a 1). Inexorable Progress of Dawn allows you to push your foe back 5ft and lets you move forward 5ft. What happens if you decide to make that 5ft of movement with a jump? Oh, that's right, you get another charge attack. It's clobbering time!

In case you wanted to crank things up another notch, buff yourself with Sadism or a friend with Masochism. Hell, feel free to use this to start making sacrifice checks. That has to be the reason they gave you Knowledge (religion), right?

But wait, there's more! Okay... I'll stop for now. We have other things to talk about after all.

4) MARTIAL ARTS:

These are why my fighter builds tend to look more like monk builds. Because let's face it, some of these are actually worth all the feats you need to dump into their requirements. Which ones are those? Let's talk.

Word Given Form: Insane for all the same reasons the Shadow Blend alternative class feature was, except even more so, because nothing overcomes it. Expeditious Dodge and Desert Wind Dodge are nice and easy ways to give the middle finger to that dodge restriction. But even if your DM rules to now allow it to work for anything other than Dodge targets designated in the traditional vanilla feat sense, there are still plenty of ways to get multiples, one of which is another martial arts style you got for free in the process of qualifying for Word Given Form.

Temerad Mastery: self explanatory, get a second target. Since you can change dodge targets for free during any action (including immediate actions), two should be plenty (you also may start to see the synergy with class abilities like Invisible Fist). Target any casters and switch to your current attack target as needed. If you've been reading my treatise, they'll die in one punch, then you'll just pick another one, make a jump check, kill them, etc.

Ninja (Rokugan): if your DM allows "OA Samurai" they might as well allow "Rokugan Ninja." It has about the same officiality, especially since samurai was explicitly updated in Complete Warrior--but whatever. This lets you split your dodge bonus among as many targets as you want. Take Midnight Dodge or Shou Disciple and enjoy yourself.

There are even more, including another martial arts style with no limit on targets, but this section is growing tiresome to write, especially since Expeditious and Desert Wind dodge will probably work at your table. Figure it out yourself.

Broken Fist Mastery I-II: 1/2 your character level as a bonus to trip, but at a heavy cost. If you can afford the feats for it and are doing a trip build (or Setting Sun build), this could potentially be worth it. Don't forget that Broken Fist Mastery I also gave you another +4 bonus to trip, and using Passive Way to qualify for Whirlwind Attack could have also given you another +4. When your damage is based on how badly you beat them with a trip check (Setting Sun), or you absolutely must be able to throw down a tarrasque, this is one way to do it.

5) THE MYTH OF M.A.D.

Somehow, somewhere the community decided it was bad to be mad. Maybe it was Dr. Seuss, maybe it was group-think on the loose. Either way, it's not mathematically supported. Ability score increases get increasingly more expensive in both point-buys and for items that provide bonuses to them. Mundanes of all kind are encouraged to invest in at least two attributes: 1) their primary attack attribute; 2) secondary defense attributes. The rest of their points tend to go into qualifying for feats (most commonly the 13-15 range for Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, or Intelligence to get started down a certain feat chain) or get dumped into Wisdom to increase a lagging saving throw. Unless a mundane goes for a particularly high single ability score, there tend to be points left over for such expenditures and more total bonuses. In these instances in particular, having multiple abilities that benefit your character is actually a good thing.

Even in situations where they aren't afforded such luxuries, Monks have less pressure on their tertiary ability scores by virtue of being able to ignore feat prerequisites and less pressure on their saving throws by virtue of having high saves across the board. This allows them to get away with minimal scores in key places that are often considered "secondary" attributes, such as Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom. Furthermore, as level increases, monks become increasingly independent of having to invest in Strength. As previously mentioned, unarmed strike scales for monks with minimal effort, so you don't really have to invest a lot in Strength either.

This leaves monks with a greater wealth of options when it comes to distributing ability scores, while still allowing them to benefit from boosts to most of the primary, secondary, and tertiary abilities, which (as previously mentioned) get cheaper as you spread costs. To put things into perspective, for the cost of a single +4 item, a monk can buy 3 +2 items. Scaling things up, it costs 4,000 gold more than buying a second +4 item to go from a +4 bonus to a +6. This means your typical "mad" character can benefit from +10 (or +5 to modifiers) total bonuses for the same price that it costs a "sad" character to benefit from +6 (or +3 to modifiers). That's a 40% cost saving. And for a monk, those all attribute to relevant combat stats.

Ability scores also shouldn't be thought of conventionally for a monk, as they have skills and class features that allow them to get around the necessity of high statistics in certain areas. Similar to higher levels and class features obviating the need for a high strength score, monks at mid and low levels can invest in stealth or class feature lines of defense in lieu of AC, nullifying a potential weak spot until they can shore it up with efficient gold expenditure.

6) ITEMS (cuff links for your fisticuffs)

Items do a better job supporting a monk's unarmed strike than any other attack form out there. They can also help you qualify for martial arts styles by providing free feats. And since we just talked about it, it's cheaper for you to support a few different ability scores than it is to try and feed one big one. That being said, items are a huge rabbit hole, so I'm not going to go through all of them, just ones that get a few of the ideas previously discussed across.

Mantis Leap Boosters:

Gloryborn weapons/armor: you'll always be charging with Mantis Leap, so you might as well take advantage of this.

Bracers of Majere: make an extra attack with every Mantis Leap you end in a flurry of blows.

Sandals of the Tiger's Leap: don't let your Valorous weapon enhancement feel cold or lonely, give it a multiplier menage a trois.

Unarmed Strike:

Ectoplasmic Fist: another increase to your damage dice.

Fanged Ring: and another one.

Necklace of Natural Attack: enhancements to this apply to your fists.

Bracers of Striking: enhancements to this also apply to your fists.

Gauntlets or Ward Cestus or Battlefists, etc.: enhancements to these also apply to your fists.

You can also add weapon crystals to any of the last three. Yet another reason why I was not joking about the monk having a ridiculous weapon.

Free Feats for Martial Arts, PrCs, etc.:

Golden Dancing Pegleg graft: a pirate monk? Does it even get anymore meme than that?

Silverhelm of the Guardian

Belt of Endurance: you wanted to qualify for Fist of the Forest to increase your unarmed damage, didn't you?

Unique Monk Stuff:

Obi of the White Lotus Master: miss chance that can't be overcome by anything.

How to Shoot Your Fist:

Scorpion Kama: throw in Sizing and Morphing to turn the thing into a bow. You're now shooting your unarmed strike damage. Throw in the Aptitude enhancement and take Unorthodox Flurry to flurry of blows with your fist bow.

But shhhh, monk has to suck. So let's discuss it like it has to play like a fighter.

Sleven

2019-10-17, 09:43 PM

Reserved in case of future entries (not likely).

Sleven

2019-10-17, 09:45 PM

I'll take a second reserve if I want to add links.

Here's a post that emeraldstreak made me aware of that articulates a few of the points I made in an alternative fasion:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?280619-Monks/page13&p=15183972#post15183972

Afghanistan

2019-10-17, 10:03 PM

Works with Any Attack or Maneuver: Can it trip? Yes. Can it disarm? Yes. Grapple? Yes again. Etc. No matter what you're trying to do mundane attack-wise, an unarmed strike can do it. With the right modifications, it can even be fired from a bow.

https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/Mazinger_punch_8493.jpg

AthasianWarlock

2019-10-17, 10:25 PM

Karl Aegis

2019-10-17, 11:08 PM

Going into melee with a monk is a pitfall.

Rhyltran

2019-10-17, 11:08 PM

You know what I really like? That you mentioned that given how easy size increases you don't need to invest in a lot of strength. This is true. In my monk/fist of the forest/bear warrior my only strength increases came from my brown bear form. I started the game with 18 STR and never actually raised it. In brown bear form I ended up with 37/37/37/32/27/22 flurry at 16d8+17. This is before buffs, potions, and activated "items."

I also didn't optimize as hard as I could, this was a character from an actual game. Could easily be higher than that. Could easily accomplish more but it was in line with the group's optimization level.

Falontani

2019-10-17, 11:14 PM

Alright Sleven. I'm not going to attempt to argue here on most things. In fact I'm going to bring up two things only.
1) A charge attack requires ten ft of movement. Even with Mantis Leap allowing you to count jumps as charges, I do not see it rescinding that requirement.
2) even with things like pounce, Flurry of Blows =/= Full Attack Action. A full attack action is a specific full round action that you may undertake. Flurry of Blows is another such action. Pounce allows you to make a full attack action at the end of a charge, which means you may not flurry of blows.

With both of those out of the way:

Unarmed Strikes are indeed one of the most powerful attack forms, but are usually the most expensive to get there. Either through build resources, gold, or a combination of the two. As a seventh level monk it is as simple as a single feat and a belt to reach some of the best without much more investment, so you are correct here.

Many of these alternate class features are powerful. I do like invisible fist a lot and see it a good amount. Wild Monk is new to me, however barred in many games that I am a part of, as well as competitions on these boards.

Mantis Leap is an unconverted 3.0 feat with shaky wording that I know I personally would rule differently. I doubt any dm that I know would allow it to be used how you intend it to be used. However unlike a lot of shaky wordings people use, I can see how it could be eschewed to mean what you believe it to, and can understand why others would as well.

Rhyltran

2019-10-17, 11:23 PM

Falontani

2019-10-17, 11:38 PM

While you are right about pounce do note travel devotion does allow you to move and flurry. Not to mention with unarmed damage optimization deleting enemies on a pounce even without flurry is possible.

Yup, I'm not arguing that monk isn't strong enough to be t4. It has a high ceiling, but an incredibly low floor.

StevenC21

2019-10-18, 12:07 AM

Most mundane classes can pull off these types of things.

And did you seriously just try to finagle MADness into a good thing? It isn't. Period.

Saintheart

2019-10-18, 12:15 AM

5) THE MYTH OF M.A.D.
Furthermore, as level increases, monks become increasingly independent of having to invest in Strength. As previously mentioned, unarmed strike scales for monks with minimal effort, so you don't really have to invest a lot in Strength either.

Indeed if you take Intuitive Attack (BoED), you don't need to invest in STR for attack bonus purposes at all. An unarmed strike is classed in the SRD itself as a simple weapon, to which the feat applies and allows you to sub in WIS for STR. Did we also mention Intuitive Attack is a Fighter bonus feat which Martial Monk can take advantage of?

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 01:00 AM

Most mundane classes can pull off these types of things.

And did you seriously just try to finagle MADness into a good thing? It isn't. Period.

Being MAD isn't a good thing but the monk isn't as MAD as people think. You can easily mitigate most of the madness with feats, items, acf, prestige options, and more. It really isn't that big of a deal.

Gnaeus

2019-10-18, 01:16 AM

{Scrubbed}

Just because you disagree with how tiering works doesn’t change anything. Not everyone plays characters at high op. And a vanilla barbarian or fighter beats a vanilla monk pretty badly. Actually an optimized one is way better than your suggestions also. But any PC class can be melee viable with sufficient optimization (and pulling stuff from 3.0 and exemplars of evil is absolutely as obscure as it gets. Martial monk is Dragon content. That’s not comparable to unearthed arcana barbarians at all). T5 doesn’t mean you can’t create a viable melee character. It means that it is easy to fail to create a viable melee character (check) and that doing so requires a level of optimization that would be way easier with other options (check) wouldn’t fly at many tables (check) needs specific stuff you can’t create (check) and obscure sources that may not be in play (supercheck)

Guide suggests that good saves allow monk to tank Dex, Con and Wis. “This allows them to get away with minimal scores in key places that are often considered "secondary" attributes, such as Constitution, Dexterity, or Wisdom” Without good dex your AC sucks and half of those supposedly useful skills suck, and evasion needs you to be making saves to be useful. Without good wis the other half of those skills suck, your AC sucks worse, and stunning fist becomes useless. Without good con you are farther behind the HP game than you already were. Moreover, those good saves were supposed to be a key to survivability and you just tossed that away by dumping stats. The difference between good and bad saves is only 4 points at level 10. Everything else is just irrelevant. Wandering into melee as a monk without good dex, con, wis is just suicide.

{Scrubbed} [U]narmed strike. Can you cast mighty wallop? No. Can you make any of that specialist gear? No. You can hope for a permissive DM and team support, the hallmark of a weak class. The barbarian is reasonably likely to acquire a decent 2 handed weapon. You need a bunch of specific stuff you can’t create. You can trip or grapple with it, but you talked a lot about dumping strength and your bab is weak so you can’t really do that well either. Intuitive attack doesn’t help a trip/grapple. Also, there is a lot of stuff in game you just don’t want to punch, and throwing your fists is ridiculous. Almost as silly as the kung fu bear idea you also endorse when discussing wildshape. Druids are decent melee combatants because they have a ton of self buffs you can’t get, not because most games think they can do a bunch of unarmed strikes combined with claw claw bite.

{Scrubbed} [M]onk skills. Int is tertiary on a mad class, so you can’t even take them all. You lack key skills (like listen and search) to be a decent scout. And you say you don’t need dex or wis which all your good skills are based on.

A game permissive enough to allow rules {Scrubbed} like this was won by wizards before you cracked the spine on exemplars of evil.

MaxiDuRaritry

2019-10-18, 01:17 AM

Being MAD isn't a good thing but the monk isn't as MAD as people think. You can easily mitigate most of the madness with feats, items, acf, prestige options, and more. It really isn't that big of a deal.So if you spend all of your character resources in mitigating the monk's crippling weaknesses, it suddenly becomes awesome?

Make the monk great again?

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 01:31 AM

So if you spend all of your character resources in mitigating the monk's crippling weaknesses, it suddenly becomes awesome?

Make the monk great again?

I don't think that means what you think it means.

All of your resources? Absolutely not. I never said all of the above is needed. You can use a few here and there. The options to decrease how MAD a class isn't hard. As for gnaeus, items, racial modifiers, feats, and more can shore up weaknesses. There are plenty of ways to increase dexterity as well if you truly desire it. Including items. It is a small investment when by level 20 you have 760,000 WBL. Most of the items are relatively cheap. There are rules as well for combining magical items as well as the ability to make your own custom ones. Even if you forego those rules you still end up with 760,000 by the end of the game. Also listen is a class skill. Unlike the OP I am not claiming monk is the best martial but it is certainly not as weak as people make it out to be. I also find it funny when people claim it can't scout. I used it for that role in an actual game. Gnaeus also keeps mentioning INT is tertiary and thus can't take all the useful class skills. Carmendine and/or kung fu genius would like to have a word with you.

Gnaeus

2019-10-18, 01:50 AM

As for gnaeus, items, racial modifiers, feats, and more can shore up weaknesses. There are plenty of ways to increase dexterity as well if you truly desire it. Including items. It is a small investment when by level 20 you have 760,000 WBL.

Of course you can. Is monk unplayable? No. Is it among the weakest classes in the game? Yes. Can I pull out all the opti fu and make a kickass samurai? With a lot less odd sources and spotty rules than OP. Truenamer? Hell, with magic mart assumed and all possible sources and a caster throwing buffs you can’t provide yourself optimizing skill checks is a cinch. Every feat, every item that is fixing a weakness is one you don’t have to do something else. Why is warblade T3 and fighter on the 4/5 border? With 760,000 gp, magic mart all sources I can make a great fighter. One that performs more than competently. Can I do it with random drop treasure? Ehhhh? Maybe? With luck? Warblade? Easy. It has a lot less weaknesses to fix.

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 02:03 AM

Of course you can. Is monk unplayable? No. Is it among the weakest classes in the game? Yes. Can I pull out all the opti fu and make a kickass samurai? With a lot less odd sources and spotty rules than OP. Truenamer? Hell, with magic mart assumed and all possible sources optimizing skill checks is a cinch. Every feat, every item that is fixing a weakness is one you don’t have to do something else. Why is warblade T3 and fighter on the 4/5 border? With 760,000 gp, magic mart all sources I can make a great fighter. One that performs more than competently. Can I do it with random drop treasure? Ehhhh? Maybe? With luck? Warblade? Easy. It has a lot less weaknesses to fix.

Never said monk is on the level or above warblade. Yet fighter is considered above monk. Yet it isn't. Again, I would take a monk over a fighter equal optimization on the table. Racials can take care of a lot. Heck whisper gnome isn't the best race for this but it is a common race given cursory looks online. The race alone will allow you to be a moderately skilled scout with little investment in dex. Even suppose 4 maxed skills. Hide, move silently, spot, and listen. This is literally if you have no int bonus. Again, custom items sure can allow most classes to be amazing but monk doesn't require that much effort. Again, outside acf you can easily go carmendine, improved natural attack, and really whatever. Assuming literally zero magical items the fighter has a greatsword or glaive or spiked chain and the monk has topped out on 4d8 damage + strength. Fighter has lower class skills and less versatility. A monk has more useful skills out of the gate and movrment to put them to good use. It isn't even a contest. One of the worst classes? Please it is far superior to the likes of samurai that doesn't even have useful features or synergy. Once you bring in items and acf the monk has useful features there. Chaos monk + invisible fist together fix much of the monks problems. Trading crappy features for better ones. Wild shape monk alone craps on many other martials. I have always seen monk based on the chasis mediocre but not bad or terrible as other people view them. Though the beauty of 3.5.. anything can be amazing with the right know how.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-10-18, 02:13 AM

Gonna have to echo the chorus here, man.

I love playing a monk as much as anyone but the class itself doesn't give you much beyond a solid platform to build off of with your gear.

A lot of the criticisms are -way- overblown (seriously, 3-5 points of difference from an ability mod is the difference between a skill being good and useful vs sucking to the point of useless?) but they're not entirely invalid.

The class' abilities don't synergize particularly well by default and while you can trade them away most of those trades aren't spectacular. You've highlighted pretty much all the best ones here.

They -are- MAD. It probably only means a couple points difference in the long-term but a couple points here and there add up. You really need to either mitigate it in some way or accept it and let your features lag a little compared to where they could be.

Biggest nail in the coffin though; virtually everything but unarmed strike and fast movement are defensive. Defenses are only half the equation.

You can make a perfectly viable character out of a monk. Doesn't change the fact you've got to work harder to do so than with most other classes.

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 02:15 AM

So I have played with Sleven a few years and this guy earlier this year wanted everyone to play "tier 3 characters only" and he rolled in with a monk at level 4 or 5 and was doing over 70 damage a round. I also DMed a game where at level 7 or so he would kill everything in one attack.

Neat. Counter-argument: so?

I like Monks. I'm pigeonholed into being "the Monk guy" in my own group (though I play Pathfinder rather than 3.5). Monks are incredibly fun to play and almost unmatched in the versatility of build they can present.

But the first step to enjoying Monk is understanding Monk, and the fact of the matter is that Monk sucks; building a Monk is all about taking weaknesses and shoring them up before focusing on strengths, because their strengths also suck and their weaknesses are nigh-crippling.

The list of "Monk strengths" in the OP is self-evident enough for this:

Monks have d8 hit dice. That means 1 less average hit point per level than a fighter and 2 less average hit points per level than a barbarian. Not much.
Monks have lower AC, but significantly higher touch AC than their fellow mundanes.
Monks have higher saving throw bonuses across the board.
Monks have faster movement on the battlefield for the majority of their career.
Monks have better skills that are directly related to character longevity in terms of: Detection (Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive vs the barbarian's Listen only), Mobility (Balance, Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble vs the fighter and barbarian's Tumble or Ride, since they can't have both), and Monster Knowledge (arcana and religion vs none).
Etc.

Monks have a d8 HD. yes, this isn't "much" worse; but it IS worse.

They have a lower AC, but a higher touch AC...so? 90% of all attacks you'll be taking are against regular or flatfooted AC; neither of which your Monk abilities are conducive to increasing.

Monks do have better saves (with the caveat that in PF instead of 3.5 this is not true, as Barbarians have bonkers save bonuses).

Monks do have faster movement; however this is largely irrelevant, as mobility is heavily discouraged by the game.

I won't comment much on skills, as my experience with 3.5 is limited, but I'll go out on a limb and say that nobody plays a Monk to be a skillmonkey any more than they play a Fighter or Barbarian.

In a list of 5 supposed strengths, they really only have one unequivocal benefit over other classes. The post damns itself from early on if the premise is that Monks are strong inherently.

CAN Monks be strong? Absolutely, but it's not a function of the class itself. Anything and everything can be optimized, even otherwise weak options. That you can think of ways for a Monk to potentially outshine X doesn't much matter, even before figuring out that you can most likely figure out how to make an optimized build for X that blows your optimized Monk out of the water too if you're a "specialist" in X class.

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 02:16 AM

Kurald Galain

2019-10-18, 02:26 AM

My view is monk is a mediocre chasis like the Fighter. It isn't terrible on the level of Samurai.

Did someone say Samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?66567-A-strong-Samurai-build)? :smallamused:

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 02:29 AM

Did someone say Samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?66567-A-strong-Samurai-build)? :smallamused:

Haha. You seem to view Samurai the way I view monks. As someone who always wanted to like the Samurai it is late. Will give it a read and pm you tomorrow if you don't mind.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-10-18, 02:37 AM

Curious about this kelb do you think the monk is below Fighter or about the same level? The OP and I don't agree. My view is monk is a mediocre chasis like the Fighter. It isn't terrible on the level of Samurai. I do not argue that monk is good. Never claimed that. I do argue with the idea that it is one of the worst classes.

I'd put the fighter ahead of the monk by a decent margin. Not so much that they don't belong in the same tier but certainly enough to matter.

Definitely better than CW's samurai still. That isn't much of a bar though and you can still make a competent character even with that hot mess. You've basically got to go to NPC non-casters to get any lower.

ShurikVch

2019-10-18, 03:44 AM

In light of that, I'm keeping the discussion of this treatise to the facts of the monk as a class relative to its competitors (other mundane classes), not as a player of any particular skill level would play it.Stop right there!
If you meant "mundane" as "non-magical" (rather than as "boring"), then Monk isn't "mundane", and never was "mundane":
Ki Strike? Su!
Wholeness of Body? Su!
Diamond Body? Su!
Abundant Step? Su!
Quivering Palm? Su!
Empty Body? Su!
Shadow Blend? Su!
Invisible Fist? Su!
Wild Shape? Su!
Turn Undead? Su!So, as we can see, Monk is a mage!
(One of the lamest mages in the whole game!)
Thus, competitors would be Psychic Warrior and Sworsage (or, if Core-only, then... Ranger?)

Khedrac

2019-10-18, 05:58 AM

For this to be a useable guide on how to make monks viable, it needs to give sources.
Not all of us (especially those who don't know how to make monks viable) know where most of the ACFs you quoted come from.

I am not against ACFs, in fact I actively try to get the group I play with to try taking the things, but it's a lot easier to take in your suggestions if you give sources rather than expecting us to go and look up where things come from every other line of your guide.

So, please re-work this into a load a serious advice on the different ways of how to make monks more effective - I would love to play a useful monk, but I have seen too many fails and I don't know how to do it. Also please remember to cover the monk across all levels - a character who is effectively dead weight until level 7 is unlikely to reach level 7 to be come awesome if the campaign starts at level 1...

And two rules queries:
The ability to jump as part of a charge does not negate the movement limitations for a round (obligatory OOTS link (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0176.html)) so Mantis leap allows the monk to attack kung-fu film style in mid air, finishing the jump the next round after attacking the opponent (cool, but not over-powered) it does not allow extra movement in a round.
As for natural attack size increase effects, in my experience nearly all of them include the clause "one size larger than you actually are" which means they don't stack. If you are saying that the monk can easily count as 4 or 5 times larger you need to specify how.

In short, please work on this guide - it could be brilliant, but currently it just serves to start rules debate.

Sutr

2019-10-18, 06:23 AM

Here to agree with the original post and Khedrac. The monk gets stronger from things people assume are obscure sources. Maybe if this got turned into more of a guide and an argument at the same time it would help. Doing a level by level breakdown of the posibilities ranking the alternates might be a good idea, willing to help this weekend pm me. I think this thread was started to not derail the new tier system thread as monk was taking over.

Telonius

2019-10-18, 07:05 AM

Never said monk is on the level or above warblade.

Why the Monk is the Most Powerful Mundane Class in 3.5 D&D

Unless you're counting ToB classes as "not mundane?"

pabelfly

2019-10-18, 07:06 AM

It is a small investment when by level 20 you have 760,000 WBL. Most of the items are relatively cheap.

The problems with this: one, most people don't play to level 20. Second, you're spending those resources in the early and mid-game when you really need that money for a whole bunch of helpful items, and having to spend part of that money to just slightly alleviate your MAD issues is not helpful. Other martials get to spend the same money, and many aren't stuck with Monk's MAD issues.

Aotrs Commander

2019-10-18, 08:16 AM

I suppose it is worth noting that MAD factors less depending on the PC's starting stats - if you're not using 3.5's default stat system and running something like base 8, 30-36 points, point-for-point, you can easily afford to have a good couple of 18s and some spare. (And not worry about any diminishing returns1.

(And that it doesn't really make the SADs significantly better, since by definition, their one and only stat can't get any better.)

So, as usual, precise environment does have an effect.

1Frankly, I suspect 3.x's insistence on trying to make a purely linear scale have a nonlinear cost was principally to maintain a bit of a sacred cow to keep the AD&D grognards swtiching over happy that you couldn't just pick high stats because high stats were supposed to be "rare" because of the legacy of rolling for stats (same as the multiclassing restictions). I have never used them myself; when we stopped rolling for stats, we started using point-for-point without a second thought.

Gnaeus

2019-10-18, 08:56 AM

. Gnaeus also keeps mentioning INT is tertiary and thus can't take all the useful class skills. Carmendine and/or kung fu genius would like to have a word with you.

1. Two more highly obscure sources.
2. I don’t think they really improve monk that much. Yes they absolutely have a place in certain builds. Far from worthless. But you are already struggling to be viable. You dump a first level feat that would have helped you do stuff. You trade one dump stat (int) for another (wis). And your wisdom is still a key stat if you want to scout and for Will saves and both of those were supposed to be strengths.

Racials can take care of a lot. Heck whisper gnome isn't the best race for this but it is a common race given cursory looks online. The race alone will allow you to be a moderately skilled scout with little investment in dex.

Again, we are spending resources just to trade problems. Yeah, whisper gnome monk is a good scout. But small size, low strength, -1 feat (compared with default human) all put you behind in actually contributing. You have basically relegated yourself to being nothing but a scout for several levels. And every actual skill monkey is still better than you.

Imagine you combine these. You use Carmendine/KFG. You now have 6 skill points per level from a 14 int. Whisper Gnome fixes your dumped wisdom. You are actually 2 feats and 1 skill point behind a human expert with 10 int. He does more damage (for a while) with a better skill list. You will beat the expert by mid level. You need multiple levels to beat expert.

Racials can take care of a lot. Heck whisper gnome isn't the best race for this but it is a common race given cursory looks online. The race alone will allow you to be a moderately skilled scout with little investment in dex.

How much is fighter actually considered above monk tho? Tier thread 4.49 v. 4.7. If it matters in the discussion my vote put fighter in T5 with monk. I wouldn’t say either class is as good as mediocre. I do think fighter is easier to optimize with relatively common sources.

Gear is expected to be available to players and this is said in the DMG and SpC. Monks who can't get an item of mighty wallop can buy oils if it comes to that, and some builds will be able to UMD it. I'm sure there are sleeker methods.

The DMG never says you can get the exact rare gear you want. You need to compare classes across a range of common play. Some games have magic mart. Some don’t. Some give less than WBL. High tier classes are gear independent. Low tier ones aren’t. Really low ones want custom gear like an item of mighty wallop. Did I mention how strong truenamer is with custom skill items? I don’t think it’s a selling point for the class..... I assume a fighter will have a magic weapon and magic armor. I don’t assume he will have an adamantine spiked chain of X and Y that he found on the shelf in a shop.

Oh Hi there UMD. Let’s add another critical off class skill based on another tertiary stat.

Definitely better than CW's samurai still. That isn't much of a bar though and you can still make a competent character even with that hot mess. You've basically got to go to NPC non-casters to get any lower.

Im actually seriously not sure it is. I mean I agree that samurai is a hot mess. But we’ve all seen the fear lockdown build. And I’d rather play that than this. And it uses less odd sources. To be sure I don’t think most Samurai look like that. But I don’t think most monks look like this either. Either way it’s more a comparison of a set of highly optimized choices than a class.

Red Fel

2019-10-18, 09:33 AM

I'd like to start at the end, if I may.

But shhhh, monk has to suck. So let's discuss it like it has to play like a fighter.

This here looks like you're angling for a fight. You can say you disagree with a popular opinion - a lot of people do - without offering antagonistic language.

But, hey, you want to play Michael Keaton in that one scene in Batman? Let's play Michael Keaton in that one scene in Batman.

Here's the bottom line. Yes, you are correct: With enough optimization, almost any class can be made extraordinary. It is possible, with a lot of skill-boosting gear, to make a Truenamer impressive. So yes, you can make a pretty powerful Monk with the right tools.

But.

There's a difference between the inherent power and versatility of a class - that is, using the class as written, with common or "core" feats or spells or abilities, without over-reliance on gear or party buffs - and the optimized power and versatility of a class - that is, after you've thrown the kitchen sink and a graduate thesis' worth of work and research at it.

A Wizard is powerful from go, because it has access to basically all the spells and effects, including - again, right there in the PHB - some of the most gamebreaking abilities. And I'm not just talking about things like Gate or Wish, I'm talking about abilities like flight, invisibility, and force damage. That's hard-baked into the class.

But we're not talking about casters. Fine. Let's compare with other non-caster melees, then.

The Barbarian, I think we can all agree, wins by raw numbers. He can take more hits, he can do more damage, and he doesn't need feats or obscure books to do it. There's splat support for him if you need it, but give him a +5 axe, invest in STR and CON, and he's basically done. Easy and effective.

The Fighter doesn't have the same numbers, but thanks to Fighter feats, he at least has some versatility in how he hits things with his sword. (He's still hitting things with his sword, though; that's not quite as versatile.) Point is, even in the core books, but also in common splat, there's a lot of stuff for Fighters.

Then we get to the Monk. And here we have the problem. One: MAD is not a good thing no matter how you spin it. A Barbarian relies on STR and CON, done. A Fighter may rely differently depending on his build - STR is common, but maybe he trades CON for DEX. But a Monk? He needs everything. STR for damage, DEX for AC, WIS for AC (and some abilities, but we'll get to that), CON to soak hits. Maybe he takes a feat to trade one ability dependency for another, but he still needs a lot. And yes, you can solve this with equipment or buffs, but at a certain point you've exceeded what one character is expected to provide for himself, and invented an entire party for the sole purpose of making him functional.

But what about class features? Well, the Barbarian and Fighter have very limited lists compared to the Monk. Barbarian basically has Rage and some soaking abilities. But they're bread and butter, they're great. Fighter has feats as a class feature - feats are not a class feature - but again, you have room to build with those. A Monk? A Monk has feats as well - which again, are not a class feature - from a finite list. He has unarmed strike, and we've discussed that - it is a useful, powerful, versatile weapon, but unlike the kind you can buy in stores, it is extremely dependent on optimization to reach high levels of effectiveness. You need a specific accessory in order to add any enhancements other than "magic Lawful adamantine" to your unarmed strikes, or a buffing party member - and as I've said, having a Cleric in the party is also not a class feature. Aside from that, he gets a bunch of immunities and random or 1/day powers - situationally useful, but more a hodgepodge of neat gimmicks than a cohesive class structure.

Say what you will about the Barbarian, but you know exactly what his class features are for.

Back to the point. The thesis of your post, in essence, is that the Monk, for all of its failings, can be fixed. With high optimization, it can be made into something awesome. And that is entirely true.

But there's this fallacy - I forget what the name of it is - which holds that if it can be fixed, it isn't broken. And that's a fallacy, as I mentioned, because if it wasn't broken, you wouldn't need to fix it. Where it comes into play here is that the Monk, as-written and out-of-the-box, sucks. Very simply, and objectively, it sucks. It sucks on its own merits, it sucks compared to other non-casters, and it most certainly sucks compared to casters. As you point out, it can be fixed. It can be improved. It can be optimized.

That doesn't make it a powerful class. That doesn't make it strong, and it doesn't erase its problems. It just means that, with the right knowledge and a permissive DM, you can make up for its failings in a big way.

In short: You propose that the Monk is a powerful class because optimization can make a powerful build. I counter that optimization can make anything a powerful build; the Monk is no exception. And thus the measure is not an optimized Monk, but an out-of-the-box Monk.

And that Monk sucks. As you snarkily observed in the quote above.

Rhyltran

2019-10-18, 09:35 AM

Unless you're counting ToB classes as "not mundane?"

I am not the author of this thread.

Silvercrys

2019-10-18, 10:35 AM

Okay, there's a lot of focus in the OP on making the Monk hit high damage numbers and survive combat (mostly by being invisible). With a bit about how the Monk has a decent skill list for scouting.

But I don't think anyone is saying that the Monk can't hit damage numbers or fill the party scout role with a bit of opti-fu.

The problem is that you have to apply much less opti-fu to get similar results with other "martial" classes like Barbarian and Fighter, and that you don't have the skill list or skill points of the Rogue.

To get the Barbarian over those numbers, you need three 3.5 splatbooks from the most popular/generic official splatbook line: Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, and Complete Champion Fighters need the Barbarian dip or another source of pounce (or Travel Devotion), but they have a better chassis overall because they have d10 HD and full BAB. The Monk trades both of those for 2 skill points per level and has fewer combat feats even if you get the Martial Monk ACF.

And as far as scouting, yeah, Monks make decent scouts. They're actually pretty good ninjas with all the ACFs and stuff applied. But Rogues have Sneak Attack and Use Magic Device so they can pretend to be a Wizard, and 4 more skill points per level, and can afford some light Int investment since they only need Dex for AC/Init/Attack rolls and Con for HP.

Monks have an awful chassis and bad class features. ACFs make up for the latter but you're still playing a d8 3/4ths bab class that needs 5 ability scores because they only get 4 skill points per level. You can pump their numbers with a bunch of ACFs, specific items, and party buffs to make them decent in combat, but the tiers aren't only about combat effectiveness. You're basically useless in social situations or at actual dungeon exploration since you lack Trapfinding, unless your DM lets you bypass skill rolls through role-playing (which is pretty common but also a houserule and a pretty terrible one in my opinion).

NNescio

2019-10-18, 10:46 AM

(...)
But there's this fallacy - I forget what the name of it is - which holds that if it can be fixed, it isn't broken. And that's a fallacy, as I mentioned, because if it wasn't broken, you wouldn't need to fix it. Where it comes into play here is that the Monk, as-written and out-of-the-box, sucks. Very simply, and objectively, it sucks. It sucks on its own merits, it sucks compared to other non-casters, and it most certainly sucks compared to casters. As you point out, it can be fixed. It can be improved. It can be optimized.

(...)

I think you're thinking of Oberoni, though strictly speaking as originally conceived it applies to DMs Rule Zeroing a problem away (AKA "there's no problem with this rule/mechanic because the DM can fix it") instead of player action.

That said, the Oberoni Fallacy and the broader group of "there's no problem because there's a workaround" fallacies are basically just subsets of ignoratio elenchi.

("Ignorance of refutation", or more colloquially "ignoring the issue", "irrelevant conclusion", or "missing the point").

emeraldstreak

2019-10-18, 11:11 AM

Time for Mato's enduring quote:

Each forum has some type of theme or hobby. GitP's type is noob, and it's hobby is Monk bashing.

Psyren

2019-10-18, 11:17 AM

Come on guys, it's not like he's using partially-charged wands :smallbiggrin:

@OP: I don't think 3.0 sources are something you can assume will be allowed (or at the very least, allowed unchanged) in every campaign.

Calthropstu

2019-10-18, 12:07 PM

Kurald Galain

2019-10-18, 12:16 PM

Pf monks have FAR better options. I have had 2 monks play in games I ran. Both were absurdly difficult to eliminate. One pumped his ac into the stratosphere and drew enemy attacks while the other turned his entire body into sand and flurried against touch ac.

Absolutely.

It is well-known (except in this forum :smallamused: ) that Pathfinder's monk and especially it's unchained monk fixes all the common issues with 3.5's monk. Even aside of all the archetypes, just that it gets full BAB and native Pounce is a big deal.

Gnaeus

2019-10-18, 12:28 PM

Absolutely.

It is well-known (except in this forum :smallamused: ) that Pathfinder's monk and especially it's unchained monk fixes all the common issues with 3.5's monk. Even aside of all the archetypes, just that it gets full BAB and native Pounce is a big deal.

Yeah I’d put the unchained monk pretty firmly T4. I’d also concede that some very good archetypes are available in more common sources as well as PFSRD. I’m not sure that qingong/hungry ghost is T3. But I’m not sure it isn’t.

Pf monks have FAR better options. I have had 2 monks play in games I ran. Both were absurdly difficult to eliminate. One pumped his ac into the stratosphere and drew enemy attacks while the other turned his entire body into sand and flurried against touch ac.

I watched this monk build in a tournament that was based around flipping people into other squares prone to generate multiple AOOs per attack. I’m not sure how well it would have worked against giant monsters but against humanoids and in a group with other melee it was brutal.

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 12:51 PM

I watched this monk build in a tournament that was based around flipping people into other squares prone to generate multiple AOOs per attack. I’m not sure how well it would have worked against giant monsters but against humanoids and in a group with other melee it was brutal.

I'm assuming it involved Ki Throw, so not very well, sadly; Ki Throw keys off a Trip attempt, and Trip is one of the Combat Maneuvers that is hard-locked into a certain size range. If the creature is too big (or flies, or has too many legs, or has too FEW legs, or...) it doesn't work.

If you're consistently fighting enemies Large or smaller and have at least one other companion with a decent Dex and Combat Reflexes though, you can get some **** done. Ki Throw, Greater Trip AoO, Elephant Stomp, throw in something weird like (unnerfed) Wolf Style, etc. and you'r ein business.

Absolutely.

It is well-known (except in this forum :smallamused: ) that Pathfinder's monk and especially it's unchained monk fixes all the common issues with 3.5's monk. Even aside of all the archetypes, just that it gets full BAB and native Pounce is a big deal.

The Unchained Monk is pretty solid, but I hate it. There's a bunch of niggling little things about it that just BOTHERS me.

Dimers

2019-10-18, 01:00 PM

Indeed if you take Intuitive Attack (BoED), you don't need to invest in STR for attack bonus purposes at all. An unarmed strike is classed in the SRD itself as a simple weapon, to which the feat applies and allows you to sub in WIS for STR. Did we also mention Intuitive Attack is a Fighter bonus feat which Martial Monk can take advantage of?

You mean that Exalted feat that you lose irrevocably if you ever perform an evil act?

Snark aside, spending feats is spending feats. A different class doesn't have to spend feats to be good at what it's supposed to do.

It's not an insult to monk characters or players to say the class is poor.

Peelee

2019-10-18, 01:02 PM

I'm assuming it involved Ki Throw, so not very well, sadly; Ki Throw keys off a Trip attempt, and Trip is one of the Combat Maneuvers that is hard-locked into a certain size range. If the creature is too big (or flies, or has too many legs, or has too FEW legs, or...) it doesn't work.

If you're consistently fighting enemies Large or smaller and have at least one other companion with a decent Dex and Combat Reflexes though, you can get some **** done. Ki Throw, Greater Trip AoO, Elephant Stomp, throw in something weird like (unnerfed) Wolf Style, etc. and you'r ein business.

The Unchained Monk is pretty solid, but I hate it. There's a bunch of niggling little things about it that just BOTHERS me.

I actually have a Monk vampire statted out to throw in the next campaign I run. He'll be pretty tricky, because he's specifically built for humanoid crowd control and multi-opponent combat (and his role in the story fits that to a T as well. It'll be interesting to see if the players pick up on it*). He'd be terrible as part of a party himself, because those skills and abilities would not translate at all.

*if they even figure out he's a vampire to begin with. Vamp abilities actually map pretty well to fooling someone they're a werewolf, if properly planned. :smallamused:

ETA: Because on re-read I didn't phrase it well enough, he's going to be an NPC for the players to fight.

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 01:15 PM

I actually have a Monk vampire statted out to throw in the next campaign I run. He'll be pretty tricky, because he's specifically built for humanoid crowd control and multi-opponent combat (and his role in the story fits that to a T as well. It'll be interesting to see if the players pick up on it*). He'd be terrible as part of a party himself, because those skills and abilities would not translate at all.

*if they even figure out he's a vampire to begin with. Vamp abilities actually map pretty well to fooling someone they're a werewolf, if properly planned. :smallamused:

ETA: Because on re-read I didn't phrase it well enough, he's going to be an NPC for the players to fight.

In my Elder Scrolls game I statted out a Monk Stellar Vampire (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/stellar-vampire-cr-2/) (one of the last remnants of the Ayleid race) that should have put up a hell of a fight. He rolled a 1 on Initiative and nearly died.

I kind of almost feel bad about what happened next, because he fled into the treasure room, and the party, assuming he'd left out some secret back way (there was none) took their sweet time going back there. On opening one of the doors he blasted a player with a Greater Circlet of Blasting, crit with the ray, and took them from full HP to dead in a single blast.

On the bright side they killed it afterward and got a lot of sweet loot out of the deal.

That is actually one of the least successful stories I have of an NPC Monk boss; in one game I threw in a Flowing Monk as the leader of a dojo the PCs (members of a criminal organization) were sent to assassinate. Master Chen is still an infamous name in my games since the two players that took him on (the sorceress was knocked unconscious by some of his ninja students with sleep poison) were melee based fighters, and couldn't lay a finger on him.

Long story short: Monk NPCs are fun.

Peelee

2019-10-18, 01:34 PM

In my Elder Scrolls game I statted out a Monk Stellar Vampire (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/monster-listings/templates/stellar-vampire-cr-2/) (one of the last remnants of the Ayleid race) that should have put up a hell of a fight. He rolled a 1 on Initiative and nearly died.

I kind of almost feel bad about what happened next, because he fled into the treasure room, and the party, assuming he'd left out some secret back way (there was none) took their sweet time going back there. On opening one of the doors he blasted a player with a Greater Circlet of Blasting, crit with the ray, and took them from full HP to dead in a single blast.

On the bright side they killed it afterward and got a lot of sweet loot out of the deal.

That is actually one of the least successful stories I have of an NPC Monk boss; in one game I threw in a Flowing Monk as the leader of a dojo the PCs (members of a criminal organization) were sent to assassinate. Master Chen is still an infamous name in my games since the two players that took him on (the sorceress was knocked unconscious by some of his ninja students with sleep poison) were melee based fighters, and couldn't lay a finger on him.

Long story short: Monk NPCs are fun.

I'm so excited for that fight. The players will ****ing hate him. Melee attack and miss? He gets an AOO. Melee and hit? AOO. If he does more than 10 damage, the defender is knocked prone. He can attack while prone without penalty. If he does any damage, he can start a grapple as a free action, and can attack at no penalty while grappling.

Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Improved Evasion, Deflect Arrows... ranged attacks have issues as well. And then the vampire and monk standard abilities

I'm really excited for that fight. :smallwink:

Troacctid

2019-10-18, 01:46 PM

Unarmed strikes are worse than weapons. They have lower base damage and are more expensive to enhance.

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 01:52 PM

I'm so excited for that fight. The players will ****ing hate him. Melee attack and miss? He gets an AOO. Melee and hit? AOO. If he does more than 10 damage, the defender is knocked prone. He can attack while prone without penalty. If he does any damage, he can start a grapple as a free action, and can attack at no penalty while grappling.

Dodge, Lightning Reflexes, Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Improved Evasion, Deflect Arrows... ranged attacks have issues as well. And then the vampire and monk standard abilities

I'm really excited for that fight. :smallwink:

Just remember most of the fun of playing a Monk comes from being descriptive with your attacks.

He doesn't just trip the player and then AoO him; he "sweeps your leg out from under you, then swiftly axe kicks your falling body into the floor, cracking the earth beneath you".

Psyren

2019-10-18, 02:10 PM

The Unchained Monk is pretty solid, but I hate it. There's a bunch of niggling little things about it that just BOTHERS me.

I think the only problems I have with it are:

- no backwards compatibility with existing archetypes (I believe a couple of third parties have fixed this one)
- weak will save (all three should have been strong, but if they truly insisted on a weak save I would have chosen Fort, all their immunities and resistances cover for it anyway.)

Everything else I consider to be an upgrade - better HD, no need to recalculate your BAB every time you flurry, proficiency with all monk weapons (finally), the style strikes, native qinggong powers, the whole package.

Unarmed strikes are worse than weapons. They have lower base damage and are more expensive to enhance.

But they also can't be disarmed or sundered, you can take them into otherwise socially unacceptable places, they can be used with your hands full or while keeping them unoccupied for other reasons etc. So I would say they have pros and cons like any other weapon.

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 02:33 PM

NNescio

2019-10-18, 02:36 PM

Just remember most of the fun of playing a Monk comes from being descriptive with your attacks.

He doesn't just trip the player and then AoO him; he "sweeps your leg out from under you, then swiftly axe kicks your falling body into the floor, cracking the earth beneath you".

I prefer "Monkey Steals the Peach".

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 02:39 PM

I prefer "Monkey Steals the Peach".

That's a Drunken Master specific move!

Or Monkey Style.

AvatarVecna

2019-10-18, 02:44 PM

So, AFAICT, the OP's claim about "most powerful mundane" amounts to "can be better than barbarian and fighter", which is perhaps a bit more defensible claim than the clickbait they went with. I also think it's weird that they end the whole post with "but no let's just pretend that monk isn't competing with anybody except the big beefy fighter boys shhhhh" except...yeah that's what your whole post seems to be doing? I'm not seeing a lot of comparisons to Rogues or ToB or spell-less paladins/rangers, it's just "herp derp fighter bad".

Monks have lower AC, but significantly higher touch AC than their fellow mundanes.

So, I just went through the MM doing a count of how many monsters actually target Touch AC (any that had combat SLAs/PLAs were assumed to target Touch with those - I didn't actually check, but let's just give it to the monk).

CR
Total
Touch
Percentage

1/10
2
0
0.000%

1/8
2
0
0.000%

1/6
4
0
0.000%

1/4
8
0
0.000%

1/3
7
0
0.000%

1/2
24
1
4.166%

1
44
6
13.636%

2
48
5
10.4%

3
69
9
13.043%

4
44
4
9.091%

5
49
9
18.367%

6
27
6
22.222%

7
48
12
25.000%

8
34
16
47.059%

9
30
12
40.000%

10
17
10
58.824%

11
26
10
38.462%

12
14
7
50.000%

13
14
12
85.714%

14
12
8
66.666%

15
7
6
85.714%

16
11
10
90.909%

17
7
6
85.714%

18
7
7
100.000%

19
8
8
100.000%

20
9
8
88.888%

21
8
8
100.000%

22
5
5
100.000%

23
7
7
100.000%

24
4
4
100.000%

25
4
4
100.000%

26
2
2
100.000%

27
1
1
100.000%

Now that table is a bit misleading - that's not the percentage of monsters where Touch AC being good is guaranteed to come up, it's just the percentage of monsters where it's potentially capable of coming up. Outside of certain selections of creatures (incorporeals, a few corporeal undead, casting-focused monsters, and a few others like stirges), they might have the option to target Touch AC, but it's not their first or even second choice
- this list would look very different past CR 10 if dragons and high-CR outsiders capable of casting/SLAs stuck to the melee attacks and save-provoking AoEs they're built around instead, for example. But even this list, pretty heavily weighted in the favor of people with high Touch AC, doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know: low levels and low-mid levels are dominated by meleers, mid-levels sees some casters sneaking in more and more frequently, and past CL 13 basically every monster has some kind of casting access as the game turns to rocket tag and AC (Touch or otherwise) more or less ceases to matter. High Touch AC is nice, but it's not some huge advantage over your fellow mundanes unless the DM is pushing the kinds of monsters that primarily/exclusively target Touch.

Monks have better skills that are directly related to character longevity in terms of: Detection (Spot, Listen, and Sense Motive vs the barbarian's Listen only), Mobility (Balance, Hide, Move Silently, and Tumble vs the fighter and barbarian's Tumble or Ride, since they can't have both), and Monster Knowledge (arcana and religion vs none).
[/LIST]

So, here's the thing about class skill lists: they don't really matter that much, because much like HP, nobody really gets enough of them for the difference to matter. In this one quote here, you've listed 9 class skills as if just having them on your list is good enough for them to be relevant, but let's be real: you're not taking even half that many. Oh you wanna make a good scout out of monk? Sure, you could do it: the four primary scout skills (Hide, Listen, Move Silently, Spot), definitely Jump because of what else is here in this guide, and then...hmm. That's 5, and you get 4 from class. Let's cheat and assume you're human, so each skill beyond those 5 requires a point of Int mod. So now we have some options: Balance, Climb, Sense Motive, Swim, and Tumble. Surely you're not putting a 20 in Int, especially since you're Human, so at least one of those is either getting ditched entirely or isn't be leveled appropriately. More likely, you've maybe got a 14 Int (that feels...on the high side of reasonable, but sure), so maybe you go for Sense Motive (so you have something to do in social situations) and Tumble (for the balance/jump synergy and the combat applications). That leaves you with Balance, Climb, and Swim neglected, and while good Dex can make up for no Balance, no Climb and Swim is gonna be problematic on occasion, at least until you can get a friendly mage to gift you with a climb/swim speed.

1) Unarmed Strike (the most powerful D&D weapon ever printed)

Unarmed Strike for the monk is a one or two feat investment, depending on interpretation/how persnickety your DM is. Monks don't gain proficiency via their class (although it's arguable that it's a natural weapon and you're auto-proficient), but then you need Weapon Finesse unless you're adding Str to the list of attributes you need to be good. Based on your later point about becoming increasingly independent of Str, I can only assume you intend to take Weapon Finesse at some point (even though part of the same point is about you saying you don't need to focus Dex as hard as, say, the Rogue does).

This means that with only 1 spell, a monk's weapon can easily be doing 16d8 damage. That's like punching someone with a caster level 16 Bombardment (an 8th level spell), you get at least 5 of these and there is no save for half. Your move barbarian.

There's enough wrong here that it really needs to be unpacked. Yes, 1 spell can raise the size of your weapon 1 size per 4 CL, to a maximum of Colossal size (which is 4 steps up from Medium). So if you started with 2d10, it would get stopped at 12d8 - not bad, but certainly worse. Except actually it's not "with only one spell" unless you're already a Monk 20 - if you're lower than Monk 20, you're probably using Superior Unarmed Strike (feat) and a Monk's Belt (13k) to make up 9 levels...and at Monk 11, you probably don't have a friend casting even a CL 16 Greater Mighty Wallop, nor can you afford an item of it (it'd be 48k, which is basically the rest of your money). Probably the easiest way to pull this off quickly is with Improved Natural Attack, Superior Unarmed Strike, and a CL 12 Greater Mighty Wallop - right around when rocket tag is taking off for basically everybody anyway.

Shadow Blend: at 7th level monks achieve a superpower unlike any other. Total concealment. Always active, should you desire, and only bested by daylight.

What this does? According to the Rules Compendium, a creature with total concealment is always considered hidden. Also according to the Rules Compendium an enemy is considered flat-footed against any hidden attacks. That means 1) you no longer care about hide checks; 2) all your attacks against an opponent are made against their flat-footed AC with a +2 bonus.

This is objectively incorrect.

TOTAL CONCEALMENT
If you have line of effect (see page 80) to a target but not line of sight (see page 81), that target is considered to have total concealment from you. You can’t attack an opponent that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think that foe occupies. You can’t make attacks of opportunity against an opponent that has total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies.

Miss Chance
A successful attack into a square occupied by an enemy that has total concealment has a 50% miss chance.

You're probably misinterpreting the "usually" in the next quote...

Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty) You need cover or concealment to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually obviates the need for a Hide check, since nobody can see you anyway. Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you.

...to mean that you're effectively invisible out in the open without need for a Hide check, regardless of special senses or whatnot. And while that broad of an interpretation isn't necessarily invalid, it's just as valid to say that a tower shield granting you total cover can thus also auto-hide you, making you effectively invisible and granting you total concealment by proxy. So even if we agree that this works the way you're describing for Monks, it works even better for fighters as early as level 1 (since they also get full cover benefits against targeting and AoEs). And that's a version of the trick that doesn't require setting-specific web enhancement ACFs to work, it works in core with no fuss.

...which is another point I wanted to bring up, since you did first: yes, total concealment protects your buff-stack from targeted dispels, but not area dispels (so you're still probably losing at least one, and TBH I'm not sure if I'd put more than two or three spells buffing my friends regardless of what class they are - unless I'm pulling some persistomancy to buff us all up with a dozen spells for the day, there's just not time for so much buffing before the combat's over). Total Cover prevents line of effect as well as line of sight, so it helps more in this regard.

Invisible Fist: Invisibility as an immediate action at 2nd level and Blink as an immediate action at 9th level. The invisibility lasts only a round, but the blink can be kept up continuously by the time you get it.

Just pointing this out because I feel it's actually a really good point. Invisibility for 1 round per 3 rounds starting at level 2 is some solid defense, as is essentially continuous Blink at lvl 9 onward. Although if you're combining this with the Dark Moon Disciple, it looks like AoEs are gonna be your bane, since they don't care about invisibility/total concealment, and you've given up your evasion. Of course if you can get even basic evasion from another source (rogue dip, ring, etc), this gets much better again.

Wild Shape: If you don't like your feats, you can trade them for a slightly delayed version of the druid's most powerful (non-spellcasting) class feature instead. Monks also make much better use of it in melee combat since they can use their significantly more powerful unarmed strikes as a primary weapon and all of their natural weapons as a secondary.

AFAICT, you lose your Unarmed Strike when you Wild Shape. That's not to say that Wild Shaping holds no advantages for a monk, just that it can be problematic. Oh and taking this puts an additional tax on any items that prove vital to your fighting style. Beyond that, the only potential issue is the obscurity of the source, but that's small potatoes.

Martial Monk: Feat requirements are for chumps like barbarians and fighters. Let's grab the fighter's capstone feat (Weapon Supremacy) at level 1, just to show 'em the monk don't play.

Abusing poorly-worded mechanics to defend your interpretation is certainly nothing new in theorycrafting discussions, but it's on of the things here that gives the impression of "this is for theorycrafting not actual play" that most of the OP doesn't give off.

Holy Monk: Ever felt like going down the Awesome Smite route? What about taking Travel Devotion or Law Devotion and actually being able to use it during every encounter without having to take a cleric dip? Yep, monk can do that too for the cost of only 2 feats.

Another solid call-out, I feel. Giving monks at least theoretical access to the wide pool of Turn Undead fueled shenanigans seems pretty solid. I'll probably work this into one of my more frequently used builds (a Monk/cleric/divine fist using DMM Persist to be awesome).

Diamond Soul and Purity of Body: I had to include at least one of my favorite core monk tricks: turning yourself into a biological weapon. Immunity to poison and disease means you can dunk yourself in whatever and apply it via contact and/or injury at no risk to yourself. With flurry of blows that's a lot of ability damage or conditions.

No risk to yourself, some risk to your allies...but ehhhhh that's still pretty neat.

3) FEATS or THE Feat: Mantis Leap (and its supporting cast):

If you thought level 7 was a monk capstone because of its continuous total concealment, then you'd be right. But there's also another little known secret from 3.0 that is exclusive to monks (of 7th level), that is: the feat from Sword & Fist known as Mantis Leap.

As part of the same action required to make a jump check? Are you certain you'd like to allow me to do that Wizards of the Coast? I mean, after all...

So we can jump all we want during a move action as long as we keep making the check and we still have movement left? Okay. And if I take this feat each one of those jumps ends in a charge so long as it puts me in range to attack someone? I hear monks have a lot of movement. Let's remind ourselves not to trade away that class feature...

But wait, there's more! What if we could pounce? Oh, we can? Barbarian + Chaos Monk, right? Naw, nothing that complex, just a couple skill points in Knowledge (local) and a feat: Lion Tribe Warrior.

Let's ignore for a moment the two feats (one 3.0, one frickin' Shining South) and 4 cross-class skill point investment this is costing you, because that's small potatoes compared to a bigger problem going on here. I see this crop up now and then in charop discussions, and I'm gonna call it "The Desperate Munchkin". The Desperate Munchkin is when somebody, as part of the same trick, in one part appeals to RAW to avoid shaky RAI, and in another part appeals to RAI to avoid shaky RAW, in order to make the trick work. The Desperate Munchkin is bad charop because it's not about consistent ruling, it's about ruling in favor of the trick regardless of whether RAW or RAI individually would say it's kosher.

In this particular example, if we interpret these rules with fair RAI, then Mantis Leap lets you make a Jump check as part of a charge to deal extra damage equal to your Str mod, and Lion Tribe Warrior lets you full attack on a charge while using a light weapon. That seems like a pretty fair RAI on how these are supposed to work, and they end up with pounce - not nearly as good as the thing you've argued for, but certainly not awful.

...alternatively, if we interpret by strict RAW with no room for reasonable interpretation, then Mantis Leap is a charge attack for every 5 ft of movement you can squeeze in that involves a jump...except that's where the trick stops, because while Mantis Leap lets you make a charge attack as part of the Jump action, you're not actually taking the charge action (a specific Standard Action), and Lion Tribe Warrior triggers as part of the Charge action.

These are the two consistent interpretations: one where you get a single pounce-charge, and one where you get one attack per 5 ft of jump-charge movement you can pull off, but they cannot be combined to get a pounce-charge per 10 ft of jump-charge movement. Arriving at that conclusion requires wielding RAW and RAI at each other whenever favorable. It's not consistent, so it's not gonna fly in theorycrafting or at any table.

(This also ruins the Sun School combo later, since the infinite hit combo requires you to get two attacks per charge with Mantis Leap, when you can only get one.)

Crake

2019-10-18, 03:59 PM

Stop right there!
If you meant "mundane" as "non-magical" (rather than as "boring"), then Monk isn't "mundane", and never was "mundane":
Ki Strike? Su!
Wholeness of Body? Su!
Diamond Body? Su!
Abundant Step? Su!
Quivering Palm? Su!
Empty Body? Su!
Shadow Blend? Su!
Invisible Fist? Su!
Wild Shape? Su!
Turn Undead? Su!So, as we can see, Monk is a mage!
(One of the lamest mages in the whole game!)
Thus, competitors would be Psychic Warrior and Sworsage (or, if Core-only, then... Ranger?)

I was pretty much coming here to say this :smalltongue:

Monks are most certainly not mundane, in the non-magical sense.

zfs

2019-10-18, 04:07 PM

The ToB classes get a suite of abilities that operate somewhat like spells when it comes to learning and preparing them, that are demarcated into 9 levels of power, and a decent number of those abilities are supernatural. I know some argue they're mundane, but come on - they're not mundane in the way we'd say a fighter is mundane.

Of course, the Monk also gets a lot of (Su) abilities, but I think it has a stronger case to be called mundane. In which case, you're not trying to beat the fighter - if you want the title of "best mundane," your competition is Rogue, then Barbarian, and then to a lesser extent Scout.

Maat Mons

2019-10-18, 04:08 PM

I don't really have a coherent position here, this is just all the random stuff that occurred to me as I read this thread.

I'm not seeing anything on page 54 of Eberron Campaign Setting about weapon damage and size.

There's also a pretty big RAW hurdle to using Greater Mighty Wallop on unarmed strikes. Unarmed Strikes explicitly deal damage based on the size of the monk. Greater Mighty Wallop doesn't increase the effective size of the monk. It changes the effective size of the weapon, which isn't the determining factor in damage in this case.

Oriental Adventures was published by Wizards of the Coast. Rokugan was published by Alderac Entertainment Group. That is not the same "officiality."

If you're going to advocate pulling from non-Wizards books, you should be touting the emmide (Holy Order of Stars, p31).

If you want to throw your fists, the usual option is Blood Wind. Sacred Path of Wee Jas gives a Monk +15 to UMD, if you want, but it'd actually be far less resource intensive to take Planar Touchstone with Catalogs of Enlightenment for the Magic Domain ability. Also, Drunken Master is a Monk PrC that innately gives you the ability to deal unarmed damage at range.

A lot of this seems to be more about unarmed strikes than Monk specifically. I guess we can ignore the fact that there are better ways to max out unarmed damage than to play a straight Monk. But unarmed strike has the really annoying problem that it only starts being good at high level. Actually, that's kind of a thing with Monks in general. You have to wait a while before you can really start pulling in good numbers.

While we're on the subject of delayed gratification, I'm surprised you didn't advocate for hopping over to an accelerated time plane the moment you get Timeless Body.

It may be worth noting that Buddhist Monk (Dragon 358, p84) gets Intuitive Attack without needing to be exalted.

One option I've considered is trading all the class features that say they can't be used in armor for ACFs that don't say that. And then just wear armor. This may require a dip in another class. It eliminates the need for Dex and Wis. Well, not all the needs for Wis, but I guess you can keep trading class features until you don't have any other uses for it left.

Every time I consider building a Monk, I wind up designing a Monk 1 / STP Erudite 19. Assuming the DM allows unarmed strikes to benefit from Greater Mighty Wallop, the STP Erudite has innate access. Tashalatora gets full Monk damage easily. Putting the Skillful property on a Necklace of Natural Attacks gives 3/4 attack bonus. And there are 3 different feats to key AC off of Int. (And Inertial Armor gives me better AC than the heaviest armor before I add my main casting stat.)

Then I look at what I've created, and realize that it isn't until level 16 that casting Greater Mighty Wallop on my fists is better than casting it on a warmace. Then I consider how few of the games I've played in ever got to level 16. Finally, I sigh and re-shelve the idea. It would be a super-awesome character. It would be everything I ever wanted out of a Monk and more. And maybe I'll get to play it... someday, in a game that starts at higher levels, or seems really likely to get there soon... and is run by a DM that doesn't mind me pulling a bunch of stuff he's never heard of from books he's never read.

Actually, that's how basically every cool idea I come up with turns out. So not specifically a Monk problem.

Aotrs Commander

2019-10-18, 04:10 PM

I think the only problems I have with it are:

- no backwards compatibility with existing archetypes (I believe a couple of third parties have fixed this one)
- weak will save (all three should have been strong, but if they truly insisted on a weak save I would have chosen Fort, all their immunities and resistances cover for it anyway.)

Everything else I consider to be an upgrade - better HD, no need to recalculate your BAB every time you flurry, proficiency with all monk weapons (finally), the style strikes, native qinggong powers, the whole package.

I yoinked a a fair bit of Unchained (the Ki stuff) for my PF/3.5 hybrid, but I didn't give them the style strikes or many new weapon proficiencies (or PF's improved Stunning Fist abilities, but I did make that a ki power). On the other hand, I kept Wholeness of Body (but it now heals quarter hit points for 2 ki as a move 4 ki for a swift, at 14th heals half), and the old Diamond Body, Diamond Soul, Timeless Body, Tongue of the sun and moon (both being somehwat token abilities, coming at the same time as the more useful ones) and added Ki metabolism and Flawless Mind and a new ability which effectively lets them convert ki to stunning fist uses and vise versa at 17th as part of their regular progression (and a bit of juggling of levels, to ensure no dead ones). They also get larger list of class feats to chose from, since they have all the options from 3.5, often with a revision up (Ki Blast, lookin' at you...) I also kept 3.5's all-Good saves and my version of Flurry that we've been using for a while. It still has the penalties of the 3.5 version (but y'know, make me an arguement...) but critically, gives them the bonus attacks when they make a STANDARD or full-attack action (and explictly says you can use TWF with flurry). So the 3.Aotrs monk alone can explictly walk up to someone and punch them in the face two-three times. (Or teleport, using 2 ki points with Abundant step plus the addition +2 to let them take the rest of their actions afterwards1.)

So, I reckon, different, but not terribly worse.

(Tryin' to strike something of a balance between "PF toys and making it so when I adapt PF1 adventure paths later, I don't have to rebuild everything quite as completely" and "making too many changes to the existing characters again." (Already had some complaints about gettign riid of Use Rope...!) So some of PF's standard class features I've been making ACFs (and/or archtypes) and stuff.)

I mean, my first pass at monk ages ago for the low Epic party was to switch to full BAB and improve the higher level abilities a little bit, PF just had some better ideas in the end; but I can't argue that I didn't think baseline 3.5 monk rather needed some help; it and fighter were the first couple of classes I took a stab at.

1Since I was only just this upgrade like "Pathfinder, really, nerfing Dimension Door so you can't take any actions after it, I don't kn- wait, that comes from 3.5?! Ooops. We bin doin' that wrong..."

The Viscount

2019-10-18, 04:18 PM

Gloryborn weapons/armor: you'll always be charging with Mantis Leap, so you might as well take advantage of this.

Monks aren't proficient with armor, and wearing armor turns off a number of their class features.
I find it odd that you encourage making use of gloryborn weapons when the rest of your guide reads like it is written with the assumption that you'll be using unarmed strikes only, if not the Scorpion Kama.
Given that these are materials you make the items out of, they're significantly harder to replicate than special properties on a necklace.

I'm surprised there's no Leap Attack in your build with all the jumping you're doing.

Since the question has been raised and you've mentioned ToB maneuvers and feats: When you say mundane classes are you excluding warblade?

Sewercop

2019-10-18, 04:21 PM

Troacctid

2019-10-18, 04:25 PM

Kelb_Panthera

2019-10-18, 04:36 PM

Im actually seriously not sure it is. I mean I agree that samurai is a hot mess. But we’ve all seen the fear lockdown build. And I’d rather play that than this. And it uses less odd sources. To be sure I don’t think most Samurai look like that. But I don’t think most monks look like this either. Either way it’s more a comparison of a set of highly optimized choices than a class.

Samurai gives you EWP katana, quick draw, a slow progression TWF, a mediocre smite, and some weak-sauce fear options. That's it. It has it's d10 hd and full bab which is nice but hardly the difference between awesome and suck. That's barely better than the NPC warrior class, all in all. It also got basically no splat support other than stuff that was meant for paladins and rangers that incidentally functions for them too.

Monk, on the other hand, gets a unique weapon with great potential for free, what amounts to a fast-progression TWF which -can- be stacked with actual TWF*, enough healing that he esentially does have the daily staying power of a d12 HD as long as he doesn't need it all at once, the speed to tumble or stealth much faster than other skirmishers, a decent touch ac, and a few other defensive and utility features. It also got -way- more splat support.

They're at the bottom of their tier, no doubt, but I think their starting packages are similar in quality and the monk definitely has the higher ceiling.

*can doesn't mean should and the ability to TWF with your fists is debated but always struck me as perfectly reasonable.

EDIT to remove double-post:

The ToB classes get a suite of abilities that operate somewhat like spells when it comes to learning and preparing them, that are demarcated into 9 levels of power, and a decent number of those abilities are supernatural. I know some argue they're mundane, but come on - they're not mundane in the way we'd say a fighter is mundane.

Actually, all of the maneuvers that are SU are swordsage maneuvers. There's a couple in devoted spirit that probably ought to be SU but aren't labeled as such. The other 5 schools are wholly non-magical. Some of the feats of martial prowess they represent is far beyond reality but that's rather the point of playing a high-level character.

The way they're presented in the mechanics is superficially similar to how spells, powers, mysteries, and utterances are written up but that doesn't make them magic anymore than the fact invocations, soulmelds, and vestiges don't use that format make them non-magical.

Martial arts both in the east and the west had a penchant for using flowery language to describe even basic techniques. Having all your special moves named is perfectly in keeping with martial arts tradtion.

A warblade is no less non-magical than a fighter or barbarian. They've just got different mechanics.

(still hate the term "mundane" for describing non-casters.)

Really? Can you name one supernatural warblade maneuver? Just one.

Burning brand picked up through martial study. :smalltongue:

Gnaeus

2019-10-18, 05:08 PM

Samurai gives you EWP katana, quick draw, a slow progression TWF, a mediocre smite, and some weak-sauce fear options. That's it. It has it's d10 hd and full bab which is nice but hardly the difference between awesome and suck. That's barely better than the NPC warrior class, all in all. It also got basically no splat support other than stuff that was meant for paladins and rangers that incidentally functions for them too.

Monk, on the other hand, gets a unique weapon with great potential for free, what amounts to a fast-progression TWF which -can- be stacked with actual TWF*, enough healing that he esentially does have the daily staying power of a d12 HD as long as he doesn't need it all at once, the speed to tumble or stealth much faster than other skirmishers, a decent touch ac, and a few other defensive and utility features. It also got -way- more splat support.

They're at the bottom of their tier, no doubt, but I think their starting packages are similar in quality and the monk definitely has the higher ceiling.

*can doesn't mean should and the ability to TWF with your fists is debated but always struck me as perfectly reasonable.

I still think samurai lockdown build (https://www.myth-weavers.com/sheet.html?id=529142) is easier and better than anything listed here. But neither is a good example of the class so....

But they also can't be disarmed or sundered, you can take them into otherwise socially unacceptable places, they can be used with your hands full or while keeping them unoccupied for other reasons etc. So I would say they have pros and cons like any other weapon.

Not that I think sundering is a major problem, but it is way easier to sunder the bracers or necklace than a fighter’s weapon. It’s AC 10+dex+siz versus am opposed attack roll and damage against a chunk of likely adamantine. Again, barely an issue. But I don’t think “what happens if I fight a sunder guy” comes out to the monk’s favor.

zfs

2019-10-18, 05:25 PM

Actually, all of the maneuvers that are SU are swordsage maneuvers. There's a couple in devoted spirit that probably ought to be SU but aren't labeled as such. The other 5 schools are wholly non-magical. Some of the feats of martial prowess they represent is far beyond reality but that's rather the point of playing a high-level character.

The way they're presented in the mechanics is superficially similar to how spells, powers, mysteries, and utterances are written up but that doesn't make them magic anymore than the fact invocations, soulmelds, and vestiges don't use that format make them non-magical.

Martial arts both in the east and the west had a penchant for using flowery language to describe even basic techniques. Having all your special moves named is perfectly in keeping with martial arts tradtion.

A warblade is no less non-magical than a fighter or barbarian. They've just got different mechanics.

But vestiges do use that format - 8 levels instead of 9 isn't exactly changing the formula that much. If you consider a Warblade mundane and a Monk magical simply because it gets some (Su) abilities, it just proves that the distinction is worthless. Why is Wholeness of Body (Su) and Iron Heart Endurance is (Ex)? What about Quivering Palm vs. Feral Death Blow? They're both save or dies caused by hitting someone. Like you said, all the Devoted Spirit healing stuff - there's really no good reason it's (Ex) instead of (Su). I guess the one core Monk thing that no Initiator can do, to my knowledge, is turn ethereal. (I don't remember if any can get SR, but that's tagged (Ex) for the Monk)

"Far beyond reality" is kind of the point - when people say you can't make hyper mundanes, it's exactly because people start to freak out when you call teleporting flavored as super speed mundane.

Besides, every single other sub-system in the game that acts even remotely like Initiators is considered non-mundane - even something as relatively low powered as auras. Swordsage is clearly magical if it's using some Shadow Hand, Crusader literally gets to use Heal as a Cleric of their level, so Warblade is the only one you can really argue. I'll amend my earlier statement - Monk doesn't have a better case for being called mundane. But I think wherever you categorize Monk is where Warblade belongs.

Though, arguing against my own point, Knight gets one ability that verges on the magical (Loyal Beyond Death - yes, it's flavored as just being so committed that you refuse to let negative hit points kill you, but a guy in armor tanking 8 or 9 rounds of dragon breath just because he's so friggin honorable seems hard to call mundane), and Knight is absolutely a mundane class IMO.

AvatarVecna

2019-10-18, 05:25 PM

This doesn't seem like a viable interpretation. The feat says the charge attack is made as part of the same action as the Jump check. That's pretty clear cut.

There are potential ambiguities, like whether making a "normal" charge attack means it still has to be 10ft minimum.

The feat is kind of ridiculous, but that's more of an argument for banning it than for completely changing it around and claiming that the complete mechanical change is simply "fair RAI".

You're making "a normal charge attack". Is there really a basis for calling that different? It's the same argument as whether you can flurry with pounce.

Appreciate your post in general though.

I mean more in a "Rules As Intended" reading, less about interpreting the text on its own without outside influence, or more figuring out what the balanced way of using it would be (since balancing it against existing feats is almost certainly what the designers were trying to do, they just did it poorly). "+Str mod damage on a charge" can maybe be seen as balanced against "+2 damage on all attacks" (weapon focus), and we see the same concept done slightly more coherently in Leap Attack (+100% PA damage on a charge), although that one also turned out to be exploitable. Similarly, a reasonable reading of Lion Totem Warrior would allow you to make that full attack anytime you were charging, even if you didn't happen to be taking the explicit "charge action" the feat technically requires by RAW.

...but if we're gonna use a strict reading of Mantis Leap, it's only fair to use a strict reading of Lion Totem Warrior...and LTW only triggers when you take the Charge Action; indeed, the whole point of the strict reading of Mantis Leap is charging without spending a standard to take the Charge Action. By a strict reading, these feats are flat-out incompatible.

Now, if I were DMing and a player brought this combo to me, I might be willing to bend the rules a teeny tiny bit and let them Jump as part of a charge for +Str mod damage on every attack in the pounce - certainly noncasters deserve nice things, pounce is definitely one of those nice things they deserve to have, and bit of extra damage is fine. Heck, it's a two feat investment on a monk, and a charge can normally be done as a standard action (albeit with reduced movement involved, and that's usually only if you're limited to just one standard a turn at the time, but ehhhh): depending on how high-power the game was, and how otherwise optimized they were compared to the party, I might be willing to interpret it as getting a double-Str-mod charge-pounce as a move action. That's hardly too OP, and it makes mobility that much more valuable. But that's neither how I think the designers intended Mantis Leap to work, nor is that how I think these two feats interact under a strict reading, and that's more the point I'm making:

If you're making an argument that, at one point, requires you to throw designer intent and balance design under the bus in order for a strict interpretation of the text to give you a powerful thing, only to then later argue that combining that first RAW-only reading with a "come on you're being too nitpicky over the letter of the rule" interpretation of another mechanic, your argument is flawed. You're not interpreting solely on RAW, nor solely on good sense, you're interpreting with an eye towards "whichever way I need to interpret this particular interaction to get the result I want".

It happens not infrequently, unfortunately. People find a neat technical bit of RAW, but combining it with something they wanna combine it with leads to "if you're gonna be technical about the first thing, I can be technical about the second thing", which...well yeah it's kinda passive-aggressive way to respond, but the argument that follows (namely, "follow the rules even though they don't really make sense" immediately followed by "ignore the rules because they don't make sense") isn't that mature either. :smalltongue:

Quertus

2019-10-18, 05:46 PM

I'd like to start at the end, if I may.

This here looks like you're angling for a fight. You can say you disagree with a popular opinion - a lot of people do - without offering antagonistic language.

But, hey, you want to play Michael Keaton in that one scene in Batman? Let's play Michael Keaton in that one scene in Batman.

Here's the bottom line. Yes, you are correct: With enough optimization, almost any class can be made extraordinary. It is possible, with a lot of skill-boosting gear, to make a Truenamer impressive. So yes, you can make a pretty powerful Monk with the right tools.

But.

There's a difference between the inherent power and versatility of a class - that is, using the class as written, with common or "core" feats or spells or abilities, without over-reliance on gear or party buffs - and the optimized power and versatility of a class - that is, after you've thrown the kitchen sink and a graduate thesis' worth of work and research at it.

A Wizard is powerful from go, because it has access to basically all the spells and effects, including - again, right there in the PHB - some of the most gamebreaking abilities. And I'm not just talking about things like Gate or Wish, I'm talking about abilities like flight, invisibility, and force damage. That's hard-baked into the class.

But we're not talking about casters. Fine. Let's compare with other non-caster melees, then.

The Barbarian, I think we can all agree, wins by raw numbers. He can take more hits, he can do more damage, and he doesn't need feats or obscure books to do it. There's splat support for him if you need it, but give him a +5 axe, invest in STR and CON, and he's basically done. Easy and effective.

The Fighter doesn't have the same numbers, but thanks to Fighter feats, he at least has some versatility in how he hits things with his sword. (He's still hitting things with his sword, though; that's not quite as versatile.) Point is, even in the core books, but also in common splat, there's a lot of stuff for Fighters.

Then we get to the Monk. And here we have the problem. One: MAD is not a good thing no matter how you spin it. A Barbarian relies on STR and CON, done. A Fighter may rely differently depending on his build - STR is common, but maybe he trades CON for DEX. But a Monk? He needs everything. STR for damage, DEX for AC, WIS for AC (and some abilities, but we'll get to that), CON to soak hits. Maybe he takes a feat to trade one ability dependency for another, but he still needs a lot. And yes, you can solve this with equipment or buffs, but at a certain point you've exceeded what one character is expected to provide for himself, and invented an entire party for the sole purpose of making him functional.

But what about class features? Well, the Barbarian and Fighter have very limited lists compared to the Monk. Barbarian basically has Rage and some soaking abilities. But they're bread and butter, they're great. Fighter has feats as a class feature - feats are not a class feature - but again, you have room to build with those. A Monk? A Monk has feats as well - which again, are not a class feature - from a finite list. He has unarmed strike, and we've discussed that - it is a useful, powerful, versatile weapon, but unlike the kind you can buy in stores, it is extremely dependent on optimization to reach high levels of effectiveness. You need a specific accessory in order to add any enhancements other than "magic Lawful adamantine" to your unarmed strikes, or a buffing party member - and as I've said, having a Cleric in the party is also not a class feature. Aside from that, he gets a bunch of immunities and random or 1/day powers - situationally useful, but more a hodgepodge of neat gimmicks than a cohesive class structure.

Say what you will about the Barbarian, but you know exactly what his class features are for.

Back to the point. The thesis of your post, in essence, is that the Monk, for all of its failings, can be fixed. With high optimization, it can be made into something awesome. And that is entirely true.

But there's this fallacy - I forget what the name of it is - which holds that if it can be fixed, it isn't broken. And that's a fallacy, as I mentioned, because if it wasn't broken, you wouldn't need to fix it. Where it comes into play here is that the Monk, as-written and out-of-the-box, sucks. Very simply, and objectively, it sucks. It sucks on its own merits, it sucks compared to other non-casters, and it most certainly sucks compared to casters. As you point out, it can be fixed. It can be improved. It can be optimized.

That doesn't make it a powerful class. That doesn't make it strong, and it doesn't erase its problems. It just means that, with the right knowledge and a permissive DM, you can make up for its failings in a big way.

In short: You propose that the Monk is a powerful class because optimization can make a powerful build. I counter that optimization can make anything a powerful build; the Monk is no exception. And thus the measure is not an optimized Monk, but an out-of-the-box Monk.

And that Monk sucks. As you snarkily observed in the quote above.

It just feels so right, somehow, to be playing devil's advocate here.

MAD is bad? OK, but Monk isn't just multiple attribute dependent, it's also multiple attribute advantaged. Say, for simplicity, that the entire party is Paragon humans (+15 to all stats, iirc) - would you rather get Dex to AC, or Dex + Wis to AC? Suppose you're trying to boost AC, and can either purchase gear and/or a party member can craft it for you - would you rather spend 36k for a +3, or 32k for a +4? Or, if there's no wealth, them suppose that the entire party goes Vow of Poverty - who is going to benefit from the VoP stat boosts more: the MAA Monk, or the Sad Fighter? And being advantages by more stats makes the character a better buffs target, and better suited to utilizing random treasure. As those examples hopefully illustrate, there are many ways in which the Monk's "MAD" status isn't as bad as people tend to think.

Monk isn't great "out of the box"? OK, but, out of the box, can't a Monk deal with (by counting as magical weapons, stealthing past, running away from, etc) far more foes than the Fighter or Barbarian?

Optimization? Let's not forget that, if we go in with a 2e mindset, the minimum intelligence to play a 2e Wizard was, iirc, 9. Someone could walk into 3e with that mindset - or convert their totally valid 2e Wizard with its completely random, whatever they happened to find spells to 3e - and be nowhere near the level of capability or competence people just assume from a Tier 1 class. And, if they cannot assume items or shops, by level 20 that Wizard should be able to cast whatever random 4th level spells it happens to have, if they put every level up stat boost into Int. So, if the Tier list isn't supposed to look at an optimized version of the character, why does it seem to evaluate optimized characters?

OK, I think that's enough devil's advocate for now.

@OP: I don't think 3.0 sources are something you can assume will be allowed (or at the very least, allowed unchanged) in every campaign.

But, by RAW, is not all 3.0 content that was not reprinted inherently a part of 3.5? :smallconfused:

zfs

2019-10-18, 05:50 PM

I'll relent a bit - I still don't think Warblades are mundane, but I retract my assertion that Monk has any real case for being tagged as mundane. They don't get a suite of tiered abilities the way most magical classes do, but they do get native access to, IMO, clearly magical feats like self-healing, invisibility, and etherealness.

Monk is only mundane if you're using the term as an artful way to say underpowered - but Divine Minds are magical, and they stink.

AvatarVecna

2019-10-18, 06:01 PM

Monk is only mundane if you're using the term as an artful way to say underpowered.

Supremely quotable.

Kelb_Panthera

2019-10-18, 06:58 PM

But vestiges do use that format - 8 levels instead of 9 isn't exactly changing the formula that much.

They have levels but they're not limited by per day or known vestige restrictions. Invocations all have spell level equivalencies assigned to them too. Neither is quite the same even in expression on the class tables as traditional vancian casting.

But in any case, this is just picking nits.

If you consider a Warblade mundane and a Monk magical simply because it gets some (Su) abilities, it just proves that the distinction is worthless.

That's not the distinction I usually make anyway. I distinguish between casters, partial-casters, and non-casters in one demention and caster, skirmisher, and warrior in the other. No character beyond level 7 or so deserves to be called "mundane," regardless of class.

That said, there's no denying that the game itself makes a distinction between extraordinary but non-magical abilities and things that are supernatural; like spells, most auras, and those features of the monk. If you want to play the guy who has -no- inherent magical abilites, then that distinction matters and you might consider shou-disciple as a means of stepping up your enemy-fisting game.

Why is Wholeness of Body (Su) and Iron Heart Endurance is (Ex)? What about Quivering Palm vs. Feral Death Blow? They're both save or dies caused by hitting someone.

Because they are. There's more than one way to do most things in this game. HPs aren't exactly just meat points so there's plenty of room, fluff wise, for non-magical HP restoration. As for the latter, there's hitting really hard and setting up a peculiar, unnatural resonance in the other guy's chest. Not everything that is "essentially" the same is actually exactly the same in either fluff or mechanics else there would be a -lot- less material in the system ovreall.

Like you said, all the Devoted Spirit healing stuff - there's really no good reason it's (Ex) instead of (Su). I guess the one core Monk thing that no Initiator can do, to my knowledge, is turn ethereal. (I don't remember if any can get SR, but that's tagged (Ex) for the Monk)

I didn't actually bring up the healing stuff; just the discipline. The lower level healing strikes are okay as-is, IMO, but the strike of righteous vitality is a bit ridiculous as a non-magical feat (I hit the enemy so hard that my blind ally can see again?) and the four auras explicitly make you freakin' glow with aligned energies that they tap. A shadow hand maneuver (explicitly SU) allows you to turn incorporeal but, no, there's no maneuver to go full-on ethereal.

"Far beyond reality" is kind of the point - when people say you can't make hyper mundanes, it's exactly because people start to freak out when you call teleporting flavored as super speed mundane.

Except that's not the flavor. The shadow hand teleports are marked with the [teleportion] tag. They're blocked by the same things that block other teleportation effects. They allow you to bypass a barrier as long as it has a hole in it of at least a sqaure foot. The flavor is that you bend the power of shadow to move yourself from one place to another instantly. They're one of the maneuvers that -should- be tagged as SU because of the effect and the existing fluff, not because something that was fluffed and functioned differently can't be EX.

Besides, every single other sub-system in the game that acts even remotely like Initiators is considered non-mundane - even something as relatively low powered as auras.

Marshal auras are EX. The overwhelming majority of maneuvers are simply basic martial feats turned up a bit; big damage, big speed, great battlefield awareness, and morale manipulation. Some clearly cross the line into simply impossible without tapping supernatural forces. Most of the latter are properly tagged as SU but a few aren't. The book's design editing has issues.

Swordsage is clearly magical if it's using some Shadow Hand,

Yeah, no argument there. Standing on air plainly isn't a natural phenomenon.

Crusader literally gets to use Heal as a Cleric of their level,

It's a stretch until righetous vitality. Alchemy is also non-magical and can generate preternatural healing too though.

so Warblade is the only one you can really argue.

I'd not only argue that's true but that it's actually harder to argue the reverse.

I'll amend my earlier statement - Monk doesn't have a better case for being called mundane. But I think wherever you categorize Monk is where Warblade belongs.

Nah. Entirely non-magical warrior vs mildly magical skirmisher. About all they have in common is that their primary offensive option is to hit things and that neither casts spells.

Though, arguing against my own point, Knight gets one ability that verges on the magical (Loyal Beyond Death - yes, it's flavored as just being so committed that you refuse to let negative hit points kill you, but a guy in armor tanking 8 or 9 rounds of dragon breath just because he's so friggin honorable seems hard to call mundane), and Knight is absolutely a mundane class IMO.

You can get that a lot earlier with the frenzied berserker's deathless frenzy; too angry to die.

Psyren

2019-10-18, 07:03 PM

But, by RAW, is not all 3.0 content that was not reprinted inherently a part of 3.5? :smallconfused:

"This revision is compatible with all existing products, and those products can be used with the revision with only minor adjustments."

I don't view "compatible with" and "can be used" as guarantees, and even if they were, the GM gets to decide what the "adjustments" (even if minor) get to be.

AvatarVecna

2019-10-18, 07:33 PM

We're not using a strict or rules-lawyered reading of Mantis Leap. We're using the default reading. The "other reading" is literally a wholesale revision of the feat that you made up.

It seems more likely that the designer was simply not thinking monks would have pounce.

You're using a reading of the feat that basically requires you to pretend the designers were absolutely fine with the monk making like 12 charge attacks as a move action. The "wholesale revision I made up" isn't necessarily worth a feat, but pretending that the RAW reading is designer intent isn't really arguing in good faith. Whatever the feat was supposed to be, it was not supposed to be what the OP, and you, and I, agree that it is by RAW, and that's more the distinction I'm drawing. What was the intended result? I've stated what I think it is, and you seem to disagree. But more to the point, it's definitely not "you get one charge per square of movement during your move action". Mantis Leap working the way the OP purports requires a strict reading, because any reading or interpretation that goes beyond "this is how it literally works according to the rules" wanders into "this is how it should work", and any "how it should work" interpretation isn't going to end with "you should get a dozen charge attacks per move action from a single feat". I think if I took this to the DMs I've run with, a couple would probably accept the RAW cuz that's how their games were about far sillier things, but most would be like "WotC failing at basic English again, that's clearly not how they intended that to work" and would rule differently.

But if we're going to be persnickety about the exact wording of things, then while yes it's a reasonable interpretation of the rules to let different mechanics that revolve around charging to play nice with each other...the letter of the rule is that using the Mantis Leap feat is "taking the Jump action" and having a charge attack as a result, while Lion Totem Warrior only triggers when you take the charge action - not "when you attack on a charge", not "when you attack somebody at the end of a charge", "when you take the chargen action". Is that an overly-technical RAW reading of the feat, absolutely, but the OP started it. If they want a fair, reasonable ruling on LTW, they're gonna get one on Mantis Leap too. If they want a RAW reading on Mantis Leap, they're gonna get one on LTW too. Doing otherwise is just arguing "come onnnnnnn let it work the way I want it to".

EDIT: It'd be entirely different if Mantis Leap read something like "you may take a Charge Action as 5 ft of movement in your move action if you can make an easy Jump check". It wouldn't be balanced, but it'd be explicit. If LTW read "whenever you make a charge attack, you can instead make a full attack", it'd be entirely different situation. Not necessarily balanced, but it'd be explicit.

Sleven

2019-10-18, 09:03 PM

First of all, thanks for all the support. Even the hate mail and death threats I've been receiving are truly appreciated. Now to dig in here a bit, since I won't have much time tonight before I head out:

even with things like pounce, Flurry of Blows =/= Full Attack Action

We must have different copies of the PHB.

A monk must use a full attack action (see page 143) to strike with a flurry of blows.

A charge attack requires ten ft of movement. Even with Mantis Leap allowing you to count jumps as charges, I do not see it rescinding that requirement.

Or the feat requires precisely what it says it does because specific trumps general.

but are usually the most expensive to get there.

Clearly you didn't read the section addressing how and why it's cheaper. I suspect this will be a pattern for a number of posts about a variety of sections...

Most mundane classes can pull off these types of things.

And did you seriously just try to finagle MADness into a good thing? It isn't. Period.

Sweeping, unsupported statements are a standard I like to hold myself to as well.

It means that it is easy to fail to create a viable melee character (check) and that doing so requires a level of optimization that would be way easier with other options (check) wouldn’t fly at many tables (check) needs specific stuff you can’t create (check) and obscure sources that may not be in play (supercheck)

Clearly you missed the stated purpose of my post. And martials getting worse with limited sources is a surprise to precisely no one. WotC actually expects you to buy their products and use them, otherwise they wouldn't refer to them so much.

Guide suggests that good saves allow monk to [...]

I applaud your ability to take something out of context and run with it for a whole paragraph while throwing around red herrings.

Can you cast mighty wallop? No. Can you make any of that specialist gear? No. You can hope for a permissive DM and team support, the hallmark of a weak class.

So you're going with, "No one actually follows the MIC's guidelines on available items or wealth," as your argument?

and throwing your fists is ridiculous. Almost as silly as the kung fu bear idea you also endorse when discussing wildshape.

I don't find it ridiculous to discuss a fantasy character concept when talking about playing a fantasy game. Why do you?

You can make a perfectly viable character out of a monk. Doesn't change the fact you've got to work harder to do so than with most other classes.

All mundane classes have to work harder, but for a monk putting in that work results in a more resource efficient mundane. It costs other classes ~5 feats to get a more restrictive form of total concealment, and 27,000 gp + a ring slot to get Blink (which they can't even do as an immediate action). When you start viewing these things in aggregate, it's quite easy to see how the monk is superior to a fighter, barbarian, rogue, etc.

The list of "Monk strengths" in the OP

Another excerpt taken out of context. Yea, sure, that's a list of "strengths", not a presentation of the ways in which a monk is different to make the point that they should be played differently.

That you can think of ways for a Monk to potentially outshine X doesn't much matter, even before figuring out that you can most likely figure out how to make an optimized build for X that blows your optimized Monk out of the water too if you're a "specialist" in X class.

Okay then, show me an example of a fighter, barbarian, rogue, or etc. that has class abilities on par with the ability to: ignore targeted spells, not having to make Hide checks, always attacking vs flat-footed AC, etc.

@OP: What do you think of Decisive Strike and its related builds?

At really low levels, if you want to play an AoO tripper, it can be okay. But typically, other classes do this playstyle better. If you do the math on flurry of blows, it actually increases your chances of hitting by granting you a second attack. It's something like a 5% increase vs the average enemy AC at level one. Flurry only gets better from there.

I'd put the fighter ahead of the monk by a decent margin. Not so much that they don't belong in the same tier but certainly enough to matter.

You could try articulating that in a way that uses actual class features (like Dungeoncrasher) as an example and putting them head-to-head with what the monk gets. Otherwise you're just contributing to the same he-said-she-said comments this thread is increasingly littered with.

Stop right there!
If you meant "mundane" as "non-magical" (rather than as "boring"), then Monk isn't "mundane", and never was "mundane"

Some of the better fighter ACFs (like Eldritch Juggernaut) are also (Su). So I think you know what I mean and are just being contrarian ;)

For this to be a useable guide on how to make monks viable, it needs to give sources.

I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but I wrote this in about an hour off the top of my head with a limited amount of time. So I really have no desire to go back and cite all my sources. If someone posts them I'll gladly add them to one of the reserved posts though.

For this to be a useable guide on how to make monks viable

Nor is this thread about "making" monks viable. It's about them being viable. Words choices influence thoughts, or whatever.

So, please re-work this into a load a serious advice

I never take myself or this game seriously.

Also, as stated, this gives you the tools. It's up to you to decide how to use them for your own ends in a manner you find most fun and/or rewarding.

Also please remember to cover the monk across all levels

I addressed the benefits of flurry at level 1 earlier. At level 2 you can completely negate attacks or provide a significant miss chance every few rounds while further increasing your chances to hit (see Invisible Fist). At level 3 you get to add another d6 damage to your attacks. Things like that? They're in there. Most people have the same issues for the first 3 levels or so, and there are a lot of different solutions offered by various D&D communities for those.

The ability to jump as part of a charge does not negate the movement limitations for a round (obligatory OOTS link) so Mantis leap allows the monk to attack kung-fu film style in mid air, finishing the jump the next round after attacking the opponent (cool, but not over-powered) it does not allow extra movement in a round.

Mantis Leap gives you a charge attack at the end of a Jump, it is not dependent on jumping as part of a charge.

As for natural attack size increase effects, in my experience nearly all of them include the clause "one size larger than you actually are" which means they don't stack.

Weapons can undergo size increases independent of the creature wielding them, and size increases from different sources stack.

Doing a level by level breakdown of the posibilities ranking the alternates might be a good idea, willing to help this weekend pm me. I think this thread was started to not derail the new tier system thread as monk was taking over.

If you want to use this to create something more comprehensive, feel free to. But I really don't have the capacity to continue dedicating time to this thread.

Also, no, I haven't even looked past the first few posts of the thread. This thread is to do something I was asked to do a while ago: debunk the monk myth.

The thesis of your post, in essence, is that the Monk, for all of its failings, can be fixed.

That was my thesis? Sounds more like your interpretation of it. I don't see taking an available ACF as a fix or form of high optimization.

See, the thing your post (and many of the others') fail to address is a discussion of actually class features. The barbarian is assumed to be better than the monk because it can hit harder at a few levels. The fact that it's susceptible to charms, greases, and other glaring weaknesses the monk is equipped to handle much more gracefully never gets brought up. If you can articulate why that is, you'll understand why I have a hard time seeing any of these as arguments in good faith or free of bias.

And thus the measure is not an optimized Monk, but an out-of-the-box Monk.

So what you're saying is you don't want to discuss the premise of my post.

Time for Mato's enduring quote

Haha. I see where Mato's coming from. That post actually contains a good articulation of a few of the things brought up in my own. I'll link it in the third post.

I don't think 3.0 sources are something you can assume will be allowed (or at the very least, allowed unchanged) in every campaign.

I addressed this earlier, but a lot of 3.5 material references 3.0 sources. I think it's pretty clear WotC intended a mix of the two in typical play.

You mean that Exalted feat that you lose irrevocably if you ever perform an evil act?

It's a bonus feat for monks. They care nothing about requirements.

A different class doesn't have to spend feats to be good at what it's supposed to do.

Like a spellcaster? Because otherwise, you'd be hard-pressed to build a good sneak rogue without Darkstalker or fighter without Power Attack (or whatever feats your attack style demands), etc.

Unarmed strikes are worse than weapons.

At levels 1 and 2? Sure. But there's also the 0 gp quarterstaff for that.

I also think it's weird that they end the whole post with "but no let's just pretend that monk isn't competing with anybody except the big beefy fighter boys shhhhh" except...yeah that's what your whole post seems to be doing? I'm not seeing a lot of comparisons to Rogues or ToB or spell-less paladins/rangers, it's just "herp derp fighter bad".

Sure, if you think turning invisible, not having to make hide checks, bypassing dungeon obstacles, and throwing around fistfuls of damage dice has nothing to do with a rogue or any of the other classes.

You're probably misinterpreting the "usually" in the next quote...

If you read the skill section in the PHB (for the base rule the RC is referring to), the "usually" is directly referencing the benefits provided by invisibility (+20 hide), not other forms of total concealment.

Although if you're combining this with the Dark Moon Disciple, it looks like AoEs are gonna be your bane, since they don't care about invisibility/total concealment, and you've given up your evasion.

You can retrain class features.

AFAICT, you lose your Unarmed Strike when you Wild Shape.

You retain class features per the rules of Alternate Form, so no.

I'm gonna call it "The Desperate Munchkin"

And I'm going to call this "The Desperate Nitpick", whereby one tries desperately to interpret something in the most obtuse manner possible to debunk it, inserts an obligatory "RAI" somewhere in the post, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that it's only one possible source of an ability that can be obtained from any number of different places.

My first thought was the return of Mr.G himself. Again...

Really? A Giacomo comparison? :smallannoyed:

Rynjin

2019-10-18, 09:34 PM

Another excerpt taken out of context. Yea, sure, that's a list of "strengths", not a presentation of the ways in which a monk is different to make the point that they should be played differently.

Potato potahtoe. If it's a list of ways the class should be played differently, the implication is that these are a list of reasons why you would want to play the class differently. What's the killer app?

Okay then, show me an example of a fighter, barbarian, rogue, or etc. that has class abilities on par with the ability to: ignore targeted spells, not having to make Hide checks, always attacking vs flat-footed AC, etc.

Can't. Don't play 3.5, and I'm not a Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, etc. specialist in Pathfinder either.

Not particularly relevant since just because one poster can't do it doesn't mean another person can't.

Also not relevant because the goal isn't to find a character that can do the same things; that kind of defeats the purpose of them being different classes. The 'challenge' such as it is is finding a character that can achieve 'better' in the same broad metrics.

For example, attacking Flatfooted AC sounds good on paper, but in practice is of dubious relevance; much of the bestiary has 20 Dex or below, meaning there's very little benefit to getting that FF AC as your primary attack target. Taken by that metric you're essentially saying a +5 to attack rolls is impressive.

I don't need to be a Fighter specialist to note that Fighters get an inherent +5 bonus to attacks over the Monk just by existing, so in the best case you're just closing a gap that only exists because you chose Monk.

Hence "building a Monk is all about taking weaknesses and shoring them up before focusing on strengths" being an important statement to note from the same post you 'took out of context' for this reply.

TotallyNotEvil

2019-10-18, 09:39 PM

Monk with the right ACFs and feats is pretty nice, I agree.

But the whole "I can make five full attacks using a move action through a particular reading of this obscure 3.0 feat" is kind of souring the thing for me.

I'm pretty sure the feat is meant to allow you to essentially bypass charge restrictions such as difficult terrain by adding a jump check. That's it.

The whole "whoops, guess that's free Pounces for me" is firmly and strictly in TO territory, if that.

Goaty14

2019-10-18, 11:17 PM

So, as we can see, Monk is a mage!

Quotable without context :smallwink:

Dimers

2019-10-19, 01:23 AM

Sir/ma'am/mx, your health and welfare are not being threatened, just your positions in a magical-elf-games discussion. If you feel otherwise, it'd be in your interest to take a few minutes to breathe deeply and chant "People On The Internet Will Be Wrong No Matter What I Do." For lo, there is no more universal truth.

((Intuitive Strike i))s a bonus feat for monks. They care nothing about requirements.

So they can take the feat, awesome. And then they can lose its benefit by committing one evil act.

Karl Aegis

2019-10-19, 01:38 AM

You could just take Holy Monk with Zen Archery, Travel Devotion and Rapid Shot. You don't particularly need dexterity once you get Improved Evasion or constitution if you're not particularly close to anything. Take Deflect Arrows as your second level feat and you have most defenses an archer would want. Get strength for damage and wisdom for to-hit and you're golden. Not as apparent MAD at least. Be one of them elves that get +2 dex and longbow proficiency so you only need 3 points to raise your dexterity to 11 for rapid shot.

Saintheart

2019-10-19, 02:37 AM

So they can take the feat, awesome. And then they can lose its benefit by committing one evil act.

If he does so "willingly and wilfully." That's the BoED wording, and by definition more lenient than the Paladin's code of conduct, which you seem to be mistaking it for. Let's not overstate the restrictions on the feat - leaving aside that alignment restrictions are at best questionable whether or not they factor into the tier rating of a given class.

Maat Mons

2019-10-19, 03:01 AM

Barbarian's not actually a slouch on saves. Fortitude is obvious, since you get a good base progression and your Con is boosted while Raging. Will, looks bad, but the +4 morale bonus when Raging goes a fair way towards negating the 6 point difference between a good and bad save. Then there's the other +4 bonus from Indomitable Will. True, that one only works against Enchantment effects, but that's a pretty big subset of Will saves anyway.

Furthermore, Barbarians can take Steadfast Determination. I mean, anyone can take Steadfast Determination, and it's good for many sorts of characters. But substituting Con in place of Wis on Will saves is even better for Barbarians because their Cons are going to be at +8 while raging. And they can also get the prerequisite feat, Endurance, as a bonus feat if they're willing to lose Improved Uncanny Dodge, which helps lower the needed investment.

Best of all, if you use the Devil's Luck ACF (Dragon 349, p91), Barbarian gives a +5 luck bonus to all saving throws.

Barbarian

Fort = 12 (base) + 5 (Devil's Luck) + 4 (extra Con from Rage) = 21
Ref = 6 (base) + 5 (Devil's Luck) = 11
Will = 6 (base) + 5 (Devil's Luck) + 4 (direct bonus from Rage) = 15 (+4 vs Enchantment, +4 due to extra Con from Rage if you took Steadfast Determination)

Monk

Fort = 12 (base) = 12 (and immune to disease and poison)
Ref = 12 (base) = 12 (and Improved Evasion)
Will = 12 (base) = 12 (+2 vs. Enchantment)

Khedrac

2019-10-19, 03:13 AM

I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but I wrote this in about an hour off the top of my head with a limited amount of time. So I really have no desire to go back and cite all my sources. If someone posts them I'll gladly add them to one of the reserved posts though.

Nor is this thread about "making" monks viable. It's about them being viable. Words choices influence thoughts, or whatever.
I never take myself or this game seriously.

Also, as stated, this gives you the tools. It's up to you to decide how to use them for your own ends in a manner you find most fun and/or rewarding.
OK deal me out of this thread. The OP has just stated that it is not a guide on how to play monks so that they are effective, it's a thought exercise they wrote in a hurry (which makes it look like click-bait).

They also simultaniously say that monks are viable and the thread "gives you the tools" - well if you need to use the tools then monks are not automatically viable and it is a guide to making them viable, which the OP denies. Given this failure of logic I don't think there is anything for those of us who would like to play an effective monk to learn here and we should leave it to those who like the rules discussions.

Oh yes - on the jump point I obviously mis-understood what the OP was trying to say, which again says there needs to be better clarity if this is to be a guide, but since it isn't then never mind.

Psyren

2019-10-19, 04:16 AM

I addressed this earlier, but a lot of 3.5 material references 3.0 sources. I think it's pretty clear WotC intended a mix of the two in typical play.

About the only thing we can safely assume for "typical play" is material that is first-party to the edition you're playing - and not even all of that (e.g. setting-specific stuff from that edition isn't necessarily "typical.") The player doesn't get to guarantee the specific sources that are allowed or the "minor adjustments" that will be made to their 3.0 contents; ultimately it's a different edition, which does put it on a different category, assumed-sources-for-optimization-wise.

First of all, thanks for all the support. Even the hate mail and death threats I've been receiving are truly appreciated.

Uh... what? :smalleek:

AvatarVecna

2019-10-19, 04:58 AM

Sweeping, unsupported statements are a standard I like to hold myself to as well.

Clearly.

So you're going with, "No one actually follows the MIC's guidelines on available items or wealth," as your argument?

Part of my first post actually addressed this, but I guess I can go over it again. Firstly, yes, Greater Mighty Wallop is a fantastic way of massively upgrading the damage of bludgeoning weapons, of which unarmed strikes are... *checks notes* ...the only known example, apparently, and thus this is only available to a single class (namely, the monk). But then also, Greater Mighty Wallop is capped at upgrading whatever you've got to Colossal; sure, even if we're applying everything in the most favorable order, that spell is definitely being applied first, but if you're a Medium monk that means GMW can only upgrade your weapon 4 sizes. It's possible what you more meant in the OP was "somebody casts Greater Mighty Wallop on you, then casts Mighty Wallop on you, and this is totally kosher stacking", which while I certainly agree they should stack, I could also see an argument that they're a bit too close to "same source" for some tables. That's not the death of this particular concept (lord knows there's enough ways to increase effective weapon size), just the kind of caution guides might give people ala "this might not fly at all tables so come prepared with arguments or be ready to back down" kinda way.

(Of course that's if GMW can upgrade unarmed strike at all; I vaguely recall somebody making an argument up-thread that GMW upgrades effective weapon size, but that unarmed damage is based on creature size. Buuuuuuut I feel like that argument wouldn't fly at most tables so ehhhhhh.)

The OP also kinda assumes you're applying this to somebody who already has 2d10. Earliest that's happening is level 11, if you have both a monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike (13k and a feat respectively), but then you're also spending either an ally's slots or more of your own money on getting this spell all the time. If you're acquiring this with your own money, probably your best bet is picking up a 1/day CL 16 command word item of GMW (17280 gp, and it gets plenty of duration so 1/day is enough) and a continuous item of Mighty Wallop (continuous since it only lasts 1 minute/CL, so this ends up at 4000 gp). That's more than half your money at WBL 11, which is already having some competition between boosting unarmed attack bonuses and your attributes (at least according to other parts of this guide). I guess you could save 4000 gp by taking Improved Natural Attack feat instead, but depends on how much you think that feat is worth? Eh. It's much easier to mooch slots off your friends than to dig into your pocketbooks for spell effects - yeah, WBL puts the power in your hands, but there's always that opportunity cost...those gold pieces have a lot of competition for their attention.

(At least until late-game where gold flows like water, but " get really good once I have tons of money to throw at solving my problems" isn't a great argument either. Honestly even level 11 is only just getting in under the wire on joining the rocket-tag game.)

I never take myself or this game seriously.

Clearly.

If you want to use this to create something more comprehensive, feel free to. But I really don't have the capacity to continue dedicating time to this thread.

Also, no, I haven't even looked past the first few posts of the thread. This thread is to do something I was asked to do a while ago: debunk the monk myth.

Probably my favorite summary of the thread.

If you read the skill section in the PHB (for the base rule the RC is referring to), the "usually" is directly referencing the benefits provided by invisibility (+20 hide), not other forms of total concealment.

My post was responding to your claim that "total concealment equals automatic success on Hide checks", which I couldn't find any rules supporting. I found that invisibility can be construed as "you count as hidden by default", in that people need to roll Spot vs your Hide +20/30/40 to notice/detect/pinpoint you, but while being invisible gives you total concealment, having total concealment doesn't make you invisible. Dark Moon Disciple doesn't give you continuous invisibility, it gives you total concealment, and you seem to be purporting that this means you're auto-hidden regardless of circumstances, so I was trying to puzzle out why you might think that. But hey since you're responding to things, maybe you could explain the thought process behind it? I'm not optimistic about that, but eh.

You can retrain class features.

This is one of the places I wasn't actually really complaining, though? I think Invisible Fist is a pretty solid trade - evasion/improved evasion is pretty good, but reliable Invisibility and Blink are pretty great too. Was just commenting on the trade, but the more I've thought about it...I think continuous Blink is a pretty good substitution for Improved Evasion; unless you're facing an enemy throwing transdimensional blasts around, you've got a 50% chance of taking no damage, a...probably 30+% chance of taking half damage, and a probably 20-% chance of taking full damage? With a good enough Ref save, continuous Blink is a good substitute for full evasion (and helps against more than just AoEs besides).

You retain class features per the rules of Alternate Form, so no.

Oh you absolutely retain class features! You retain the "Unarmed Strike" class feature, which grants you the "Improved Unarmed Strike" feat, let's you make attacks with the Unarmed Strike natural weapon even when your hands are full (via the use of feet, knees, and so on), and lets you treat your unarmed strike natural weapon as both natural and manufactured for the purposes of effects that enhance such weapons. You retain the "Flurry Of Blows" class feature, which lets you make extra attacks during a full attack with your unarmed strike natural weapon (or other monk weapons, but you're probably using unarmed strike 99% of the time). You retain the "Ki Strike" class feature (well, if you kept it), which makes your unarmed strike natural weapon count as magic, and then lawful, and then adamantine.

You have all these class features that enhance your unarmed strike natural weapon, all of which you get to keep under the Alternate Form rules. You know what you don't get to keep? The natural weapons of your original form. Like unarmed strike.

And I'm going to call this "The Desperate Nitpick", whereby one tries desperately to interpret something in the most obtuse manner possible to debunk it, inserts an obligatory "RAI" somewhere in the post, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that it's only one possible source of an ability that can be obtained from any number of different places.

BESTIAL CHARGE

Prerequisite
Base attack bonus +4, wild shape class feature

Benefit
This feat allows the use of three tactical maneuvers, each of which requires that you attempt a charge attack in the round immediately following your shift into animal form using wild shape. If you have the Swift Wild Shape feat (page 62), you can attempt the charge in the same round as you change forms.

Pouncing Charge: You can make a full attack after you charge, as if you had the pounce ability (MM 313). If the animal form you have assumed normally has the pounce ability, your bonus on attack rolls when charging increases to +3.

Striking Charge: For the purpose of this charge attack only, you gain an extra 5 feet of reach by suddenly striking forward with your head and neck. You must assume a serpentine animal form to employ this maneuver.

Twisting Charge: You can change direction during a charge, as long as you move at least 10 feet both before and after you turn. You must assume an animal form with four or more legs to employ this maneuver.

The third benefit doesn't play as well with Mantis Leap, and even the first two only work in the round immediately following transformation, so that's one round of pounce-charging per day at lvl 6 (and more later). Oh and it requires you to be wildshaped, so no unarmed strike natural weapon.

CATFOLK POUNCE

Prerequisite
Catfolk, Dex 13

Benefit
If you use the charge action against a flatfooted opponent, you can make a full attack at the end of a charge.

"charge action"

DIRE CHARGE

Prerequisite
Improved Initiative (PH)

Benefit
If you charge a foe during the first round of combat (or the surprise round, if you are allowed to act in it), you can make a full attack against the opponent you charge.

Oof. I mean yeah it'd work, but also...epic feat, only lasts for one round per combat...oh and it has to be in the first round (or the surprise round), or it doesn't work. I mean, it might be available more often than Lion's Pounce would be for a Monk 21 but that seems like a low bar compared to what we're looking for.

LION'S CHARGE (Ranger 2, Druid 3)

This spell grants you the pounce special ability (MM 313), allowing you to make a full attack at the end of a charge.

Pounce ability would be kosher, but the swift action cost and 1 round duration mean that basically the only way to make this viable is to build it as a continuous effect in an item, which would cost 120k gp...not exactly easy all-day pounce. Any other version of it in an item is going to be available once per round at most.

LION'S POUNCE

Prerequisite
Ability to wild shape

Benefit
When you charge, you may spend a wild shape as a free action to make a full attack at the end of the charge.

Potentially workable - doesn't require you to be wildshaped to use, just uses Wild Shape to fuel it - but even at high levels you don't exactly get a ton of uses per day. This isn't really viable long-term as pounce-fuel even if you go straight Monk 20.

[spoiler=Expanded Psionics Handbook pg 125]PSIONIC LION'S CHARGE (Psychic Warrior 2)

You gain the powerful charging ability of a lion. When you charge, you can make a full attack in the same round.

You can manifest this power with an instant thought, quickly enough to gain the benefit of the power as you charge. Manifesting the power is a swift action You cannot manifest this power when it isn’t your turn.[/quote]

Requires the expenditure of power points, but you can probably build it into an item. However, it's an instantaneous power that affects a charge taking place during the same round, and takes a swift action to activate by default; even built into an item to avoid the PP cost, it'll have to be use-activate, and the action economy will still mean you can only end up benefiting from this once per round. This won't really combo with Mantis Leap for what you're trying to do.

SNOW TIGER BERSERKER

Prerequisite
ability to rage, Dexterity 13, membership in the Snow Tiger berserker lodge (see Chapter 10: Rashemen). REGION: Rashemen,

Benefit
You may make a full attack as part of a charge action, but only if you are armed with a light weapon. (If you have light weapons in both hands, you may strike with both under the normal rules for fighting with two weapons.) NORMAL: Characters without this feat may make only one attack as part of a charge action.

"Charge action"

SPIRIT LION TOTEM

Regal and intimidating, the powerful lion is a symbol of nobility among the races of the wild. By selecting him as your spiritual totem, you gain the pounce ability (MM 313).

Almost certainly your best bet by far. You don't lose features for breaking alignment (except rage on barbarian), although MCing out of Monk into barbarian means no more monk. Depending on how you feel about that, you might think that Monk 7/Barbarian 1 is ideal, or Barbarian 1/Monk 7 is ideal. Either way, if you're playing it from 1st lvl, RPing a change to alignment within that timeframe might be rough, so best to do this if you're able to start past the level where the class change occurred. Oh and it's small potatoes overall but if you go Barbarian 1/Monk 7, you're illiterate until you spend a couple points solving that, if you care.

Also very generally: because Pounce is viable, there's a number of Wild Shape/Polymorph/Shapechange/etc forms that are also viable, but basically any option along those lines is going to take away your unarmed strike and only rarely give it back in the new form. This doesn't ruin the combo by any stretch of the imagination, it just means the final result is a bit less capable than one might think. Wild Monk gets enough duration at lvl 6 (albeit from 1 use) to have pounce in a lot of fights (provided they don't get knocked out of wild shape), and while I've yet to check, I'm sure there's a Small or Medium animal that gets pounce somewher in 3.5 so this is kosher. Would definitely be better with extra uses in case you get forced out though, so springing for a few extra levels is advisable if this is how the DM is reading things.

Long story short, most methods of pounce-ish mechanics end up either not playing well with RAW Mantis Leap, being a fairly significant investment, or just can't be used frequently enough to make an enormous difference. The two general exceptions are the classic Barbarian dip (which has some fluff issues you'll need to work out either in-play or in the backstory) or going Wild Monk and finding a form with good Pounce (although that one's dependent on Drag Mag being allowed, and doesn't play well with stuff boosting unarmed strike, but it works with Mantis Leap well enough AFAICT). You could probably do it with similar buffs from an ally (Polymorph and Shapechange being the classics), but then pulling off shenanigans with Polymorph/Shapechange isn't exactly the end of the world. I still think you're gonna have a rough time getting that reading of Mantis Leap accepted at tables, but at least within RAW there are potential ways to combine it with pounce (not ways without problems, but certainly ways with fewer problems than most others).

ShurikVch

2019-10-19, 05:29 AM

Some of the better fighter ACFs (like Eldritch Juggernaut) are also (Su). So I think you know what I mean and are just being contrarian ;)Never before I heard about the Eldritch Juggernaut.
So, let's see...
Dragon #355?
Dang, it's so bad I wouldn't take it if it was completely free!
I mean - this SR would stop buffs and in-combat healing too.
Also, 18th level? Who ever care about 18th level? (Especially for single-class Fighter)

The best ACF fro Fighter are Dungeon Crasher and Zhentarim Soldier - both are good enough to push the Fighter up a tier (but not two tiers - if you take them both).
Stealthy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighter) and Thug (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#fighterVariantThug) variants are popular too.
And none of them are supernatural in the slightest!

But you missing the point there: ACF is Alternative Class Feature - you can be Fighter without taking it. Poking Fighter for possibility of having supernatural ACF does make no more sense than pointing Fighter can take Bind Vestige feat (or undergo Dragonborn's Rite of Rebirth and gain Breath Weapon).
Meanwhile, Monk's (Su) are hardwired into the class itself, and even ACFs and substitution levels are mostly either don't touch supernatural CF, or giving in exchange something equally supernatural (AFAIK, the sole exception is Halfling Monk - loses Wholeness of Body for Size Matters Not)

Sutr

2019-10-19, 07:55 AM

Oh you absolutely retain class features! You retain the "Unarmed Strike" class feature, which grants you the "Improved Unarmed Strike" feat, let's you make attacks with the Unarmed Strike natural weapon even when your hands are full (via the use of feet, knees, and so on), and lets you treat your unarmed strike natural weapon as both natural and manufactured for the purposes of effects that enhance such weapons. You retain the "Flurry Of Blows" class feature, which lets you make extra attacks during a full attack with your unarmed strike natural weapon (or other monk weapons, but you're probably using unarmed strike 99% of the time). You retain the "Ki Strike" class feature (well, if you kept it), which makes your unarmed strike natural weapon count as magic, and then lawful, and then adamantine.

You have all these class features that enhance your unarmed strike natural weapon, all of which you get to keep under the Alternate Form rules. You know what you don't get to keep? The natural weapons of your original form. Like unarmed strike.

HUH?

SRD?
Unarmed Strike
A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike.

Note I think we are talking about dragon material with wild shape monk, but I've never heard this argument. Is it that if the creature in the monster manual doesn't have unarmed strike listed when you wildshape into it you can't unarmed strike? The SRD seems to say that you get an unarmed strike from being a character. Or is it that the new form has a different unarmed strike that isn't yours? Just trying to make sure I'm understanding that correctly.

The Viscount

2019-10-19, 10:18 AM

Anyone have a source on class feature retraining?
Is it like feat retraining where you just retroactively make a different choice?

Troacctid

2019-10-19, 10:28 AM

Total concealment specifically blocks line of sight, so yes, you are invisible to them. It "usually" obviates Hide checks in the same way that invisibility only "usually" obviates Hide checks (cf. +20 bonus for invisibility).

total concealment. Attacks against a target with total concealment have a 50% miss chance. Total concealment blocks line of sight.
And you keep your unarmed strikes in wild shape. Even if you argue that you lose your normal body's natural weapons, you keep your class features and can apply them to your new body's natural weapons, including its unarmed strikes.

Anyone have a source on class feature retraining?
Is it like feat retraining where you just retroactively make a different choice?
PH2.

Vaern

2019-10-19, 11:16 AM

You have all these class features that enhance your unarmed strike natural weapon, all of which you get to keep under the Alternate Form rules. You know what you don't get to keep? The natural weapons of your original form. Like unarmed strike.

There's a bit of a flaw in this argument, mainly that Unarmed Strike is not a natural weapon. It's a form of unarmed attack, which means that it is an attack made with neither a manufactured nor natural weapon. A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for effects that enhance natural weapons, but it does not become a natural weapon any more than it becomes a manufactured weapon.

The Rules Compendium is full of entries containing text such as "attacks with unarmed strikes and natural weapons..." and "Unarmed strikes or natural weapons..." and "Unarmed and natural attacks..." which reinforces that the two are distinctly different forms of attacks. It contains separate entries for unarmed attacks and natural weapons right next to each other, including a bit about "armed" unarmed attacks which calls out a monk's unarmed strikes in particular, further emphasizing that the two are distinctly different from each other. The section on natural weapons also has a bit about unarmed attacks which reads as follows:

A creature that has a natural weapon, such as a claw or slam, is considered armed. It can make unarmed attacks, but can't use its natural weapon as unarmed attacks, nor can it apply abilities that affect only unarmed attacks to its natural weapons.

Ki strike says that it applies to unarmed attacks, not unarmed strikes. Because an ability that affects only unarmed attacks can not be applied to natural weapons, a monk's unarmed strike would not benefit from ki strike if it was truly a natural weapon. So, at this point, you can either accept that a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, or you can go on a rant about how dysfunctional monks are now that they can't use their ki strike ability with the unarmed strikes that they aren't proficient with.

A monk who is wild shaped into the form of a bear, as a random example, would retain his class features including unarmed strike damage. He would be unable to use his enhanced unarmed damage or ki strike with any of his new form's natural weapons (bite and claws). He would, however, be able to make unarmed attacks with parts of its body that are not natural weapons, such as a headbutt or simply an open-paw slap across the face, which would allow him to use his Unarmed Strike damage and Ki Strike abilities. He would even be able to use Flurry of Blows using these unarmed strikes but, because his claws and bite are neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon he would be ubale to incorporate these attacks into the flurry.

JNAProductions

2019-10-19, 11:17 AM

Question: What happens if you apply the same level of splat-diving and optimization to a Fighter? Or Barbarian? Or [INSERT OTHER MARTIAL CLASS HERE]?

Because the tier list doesn't say "Monks are T5, therefore they must always suck no matter what you do."

Aotrs Commander

2019-10-19, 11:26 AM

A monk who is wild shaped into the form of a bear, as a random example, would retain his class features including unarmed strike damage. He would be unable to use his enhanced unarmed damage or ki strike with any of his new form's natural weapons (bite and claws). He would, however, be able to make unarmed attacks with parts of its body that are not natural weapons, such as a headbutt or simply an open-paw slap across the face, which would allow him to use his Unarmed Strike damage and Ki Strike abilities. He would even be able to use Flurry of Blows using these unarmed strikes but, because his claws and bite are neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon he would be ubale to incorporate these attacks into the flurry.

And let's be fair, a Bear That Knows Fung Fu is waaaay cooler than one that doesn't.

Or matial arts from a dirty great big eagle or something (https://youtu.be/1A4axkN3J8I?t=59).

(See also, Crane Style while being Actual Crane...)

Personally, though, I have always had more of a preferences fo Ninja Dragons.

Go on. Imagine Jackie Chan or Bruce Lee (appropriately) in dragon form, doing all their usual cool stuff but as a hundred-foot winged killing machine and tell me that isn't the coolest mental image you have had today.

AvatarVecna

2019-10-19, 11:41 AM

So, at this point, you can either accept that a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, or you can go on a rant about how dysfunctional monks are now that they can't use their ki strike ability with the unarmed strikes that they aren't proficient with.

See, it made sense to me that unarmed strike must be a natural weapon by default, and that the monk class features were letting you apply manufactured weapon buffs to unarmed strike even though it's definitely not manufactured, and that as part of Alternate Form you lose your existing natural weapons.

(It also kinda made IC sense - does your martial arts training really translate that well into a new body shape you're not as familiar with?)

But the rules you've quoted seem to make a good argument that unarmed strike are neither truly natural weapon nor manufactured by default, but some unstated third category? This makes it work with its class features, and I suppose if it's tied to "existing as a character" rather than "having your normal form", then you'll still have it when you change, but Unarmed Strike not being a natural weapon makes weirdness elsewhere (albeit in a very technical sense that nobody would care about). Namely, that AFAICT...yeah, monks aren't proficient in Unarmed Strike? If it was a natural weapon, then even though it's not mentioned in class features, all creatures are auto-proficient in their natural weapons, but if it's not a natural weapon, and it's not a noted weapon proficiency in the monk's class features...it's weird. I mean I don't think any table would take "monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike" seriously no matter how RAW it apparently is, and it doesn't prevent it from working with your class features I think?

EDIT: Unless there's also some tucked-away rule stating that characters are auto-proficient in unarmed strike?

Vaern

2019-10-19, 12:14 PM

See, it made sense to me that unarmed strike must be a natural weapon by default, and that the monk class features were letting you apply manufactured weapon buffs to unarmed strike even though it's definitely not manufactured, and that as part of Alternate Form you lose your existing natural weapons.

(It also kinda made IC sense - does your martial arts training really translate that well into a new body shape you're not as familiar with?)

But the rules you've quoted seem to make a good argument that unarmed strike are neither truly natural weapon nor manufactured by default, but some unstated third category? This makes it work with its class features, and I suppose if it's tied to "existing as a character" rather than "having your normal form", then you'll still have it when you change, but Unarmed Strike not being a natural weapon makes weirdness elsewhere (albeit in a very technical sense that nobody would care about). Namely, that AFAICT...yeah, monks aren't proficient in Unarmed Strike? If it was a natural weapon, then even though it's not mentioned in class features, all creatures are auto-proficient in their natural weapons, but if it's not a natural weapon, and it's not a noted weapon proficiency in the monk's class features...it's weird. I mean I don't think any table would take "monks aren't proficient with unarmed strike" seriously no matter how RAW it apparently is, and it doesn't prevent it from working with your class features I think?

EDIT: Unless there's also some tucked-away rule stating that characters are auto-proficient in unarmed strike?
Unarmed strikes are called unarmed because they're made without a weapon of any kind, natural or otherwise. They're separate from manufactured weapons and natural weapons because they are not weapons, but rather a form of attack made without one. So maybe the normal rules of weapon proficiency simply do not apply to an unarmed attack because it is, by definition, not a weapon.
The descriptions for feats such as Weapon Focus read, "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat." This seems to imply that, while it can be treated as a weapon for the purpose of feats and such, unarmed strike is not actually a type of weapon at all.

Mr Adventurer

2019-10-19, 12:47 PM

Rynjin

2019-10-19, 01:25 PM

I've never understood the idea of Kung Fu bears or dragons or whatever being cool. The whole point of that kind of conception of martial arts is to turn the human body into a weapon. The moment you apply it to another body, it stops making sense visually (since the body looks different and usually awkward making the kind of moves martial arts use in popular media) and conceptually, since those bodies typically have their own natural weapons to begin with. The best I've seen is done for comedy.

Many Chinese martial arts are based off the movements of animals in the first place, so it's not as weird as you might think.

The animal styles of Kung Fu aren't named that on a whim; they were initially conceived by watching the movements of a Snake, or Crane, or Tiger and mimicking them as best as possible in the human form.

The goofy one is Dragon, because D&D dragons are western style dragons, while Dragon style Kung Fu is mimicking the (imagined) "serpent with claws" motions of an eastern dragon. It doesn't fit because the body type is completely wrong.

Psyren

2019-10-19, 01:58 PM

The goofy one is Dragon, because D&D dragons are western style dragons, while Dragon style Kung Fu is mimicking the (imagined) "serpent with claws" motions of an eastern dragon. It doesn't fit because the body type is completely wrong.

D&D(/PF) has both, and in fact the dragons that are typically found in and around the Wutai (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Wutai) areas of D&D settings that monks are assumed to originate from are explicitly the eastern kind, so it still makes sense.

Blue Jay

2019-10-19, 05:22 PM

Re AvatarVecna and charging:
Your interpretation is reliant on the idea that making a "charge attack" as mentioned in Mantis Leap only means making an attack that resembles the attack made as part of a charge. You can't consistently claim that making a charge and taking a charge action are different, because as per RC a charge is defined by its action ("a charge is a special full-round action...").

Unfortunately, pounce is defined as "When a creature with this special attack makes a charge...".

So under your reading you have to exclude everything that doesn't include the words "charge attack". Pounce alone won't suffice.

Your reading is also dubious from the start given that charge is listed under "special attacks". In line with which, IIRC, "charge attack" is used as a metonym for charge elsewhere.

I agree that AvatarVecna's argument about "charge action"-vs-"charge attack" is not exactly working.

However, AV's initial point (that Sleven's Mantis Leap takes advantage of RAW by applying the wording from 3.0 to the action economy of 3.5) seems spot-on to me. Most people assume 3.0 content that wasn't updated gets automatically ported whole-cloth into 3.5, but this is not codified anywhere in the rules and frankly doesn't make a lot of sense. The 3.5 PHB does make a claim of backwards-compatibility, but it also says adjustments and updates will be necessary. And there are many, many places where rules wording needs to be massively overhauled in order to translate 3.0 wording into 3.5 wording.

I never played 3.0, but this thread inspired me to look back at the action-economy rules. One of the curious things about 3.0 action economy is that movement was generally treated as part of another action, and not an action on its own: so, a "standard action" was defined as "moving your speed and doing something else." A "move-equivalent action" was also part of a standard action. And then, there were "partial actions," which were like standard actions, except without the movement, or with reduced movement options; you generally only took a partial action in situations where you weren't allowed a standard action (surprise round, Readying, etc).

Jump checks are one of the few instances I know of where this paradigm was transferred over across the 3.5 revision: Jump checks are not considered a separate action (in either version of 3rd edition), but are taken as part of another action. But, Sleven missed a very important implication there: since a Jump check is not an action, any references to "an action" in the rules text are not referring to a Jump check, but to the action of which the Jump check is a part.

So, when Mantis Leap says "make a normal charge as part of the same action," the action it's referring to is not the Jump check. The action it refers to is the action of which the Jump check was a part. And with 3.0 action-economy, that action could only be a standard action or a partial action, because those were the only types of actions that could include a Jump check. Well, I guess double-move and run actions could technically allow a Jump check, too.

But with 3.5 action economy, movement is treated as an independent action. So, if you're into willfully obtuse readings for the sake of powergaming, you could argue that Mantis Leap allows you to make a charge attack as part of a move action in 3.5. And with a little optimization (e.g. the Sudden Leap maneuver), you could turn that move action into a swift action or something, which would probably put you on questionable ground when it came to comparing monks to other classes.

But regardless, you can't really interpret Mantis Leap to give you a pounce attack at the end of every Jump check, the way Sleven did, because a Jump check is not an action. And I really think AvatarVecna's original interpretation is the most appropriate: the only thing Mantis Leap did in 3.0 is let you bypass obstacles that would have prevented you from making a charge attack, and any honest translation to 3.5 mechanics would reflect this.

Karl Aegis

2019-10-19, 10:51 PM

Do note that a vanilla monk with Hold the Line and Knock-Down, a quarterstaff and Steadfast Boots (a 5th level item) will absolutely dunk on a Mantis Leap monk, but only if that Mantis Leap monk is using the interpretation that Mantis Leap is a full-round charge action. Mantis Leap doesn't say it is a full-round charge action, though, so it offers a way to bypass weapons specifically readied against a charge, but you lose out on pounce-like abilities.

Blue Jay

2019-10-20, 09:42 AM

Interesting, I didn't know the terms changed between versions.

But I don't get your argument for Sleven's tactic failing. No one thinks the charge is being taken as part of a nonaction. Rather, because jumping is a nonaction, you can jump multiple times during a move action and hence make multiple charges as part of that action.

Well, Mantis Leap doesn't give you permission to make multiple charge attacks in an action. In simple terms, Mantis Leap doesn't give you a one-to-one ratio of attacks to Jump checks: it gives you a one-to-one ratio of attacks to actions. And, if you read it with the 3.0 action economy in mind, it doesn't even give you any extra actions at all: it just gives you a different way to use the actions you are already allowed.

Remember that, in the 3.0 action economy, you can already do multiple things as part of the same "action." So, in the 3.0 paradigm, the phrase "as part of the same action" was not generally understood to be an action-economy enhancer: it was just understood to be referring to the standard action economy, which is "one movement and one other activity per action." With that mind, there's nothing in the wording of Mantis Leap that implies that the charge attack doesn't count as the "other activity" part of your action.

It wasn't until after the 3.5 revision that the phrase "as part of the same action" was taken to mean that you get to perform extra activities for free.

Also remember that 3.0 was updated to 3.5 specifically because a lot of the rules paradigms were unclear and confusing to a lot of players, so whenever you come across 3.0 content that looks remarkably permissive, you should probably approach it with a lot of caution, and assume that it's not actually giving you what you think it is.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 01:08 PM

Many Chinese martial arts are based off the movements of animals in the first place, so it's not as weird as you might think.

Is the idea of a tiger doing king fu by itself weird? Only a little. It’s more the idea of the tiger doing Kung fu while also fighting like a tiger. It’s the claw/claw/bite/rake/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt while standing on one paw.

There’s also the issue of bigger rule ramifications. Yes it’s nice for a small subsection of monks, more if you assume buffs. But the folks it’s really going to help are druids, and to a slightly lesser extent gishes. Because even if you assume it as a selling point for monk, it’s better on monk1/Druid 19, or Druid 20 with a feat, or wizard 7 Polymorphed with a feat, or the Druid’s animal companion with a feat. Improved unarmed strike has no prerequisites, and is itself a prerequisite for improved grapple which melee druids and their companions want anyway.

Rhyltran

2019-10-20, 01:57 PM

Is the idea of a tiger doing king fu by itself weird? Only a little. It’s more the idea of the tiger doing Kung fu while also fighting like a tiger. It’s the claw/claw/bite/rake/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt while standing on one paw.

There’s also the issue of bigger rule ramifications. Yes it’s nice for a small subsection of monks, more if you assume buffs. But the folks it’s really going to help are druids, and to a slightly lesser extent gishes. Because even if you assume it as a selling point for monk, it’s better on monk1/Druid 19, or Druid 20 with a feat, or wizard 7 Polymorphed with a feat, or the Druid’s animal companion with a feat. Improved unarmed strike has no prerequisites, and is itself a prerequisite for improved grapple which melee druids and their companions want anyway.

Personally the way I roleplayed it with my Monk Bear Warrior is smashing enemies with open paws, slamming into them with my body, and smashing them with my head. I didn't describe round house kicks, jump kicks, etc in bear form cartoon style. Just striking in unprotected areas, utilizing my character's intelligent knowledge of where and how to hit to inflict maximum damage, and aiming to break and crush bones/important organs. A lot less ridiculous.More on "If I had the physicality of a bear how would my monk fight?" and bears might be able to rear up on hind legs but they're not doing a jump kick. That doesn't mean martial strikes can't apply.

Rynjin

2019-10-20, 02:12 PM

Is the idea of a tiger doing king fu by itself weird? Only a little. It’s more the idea of the tiger doing Kung fu while also fighting like a tiger. It’s the claw/claw/bite/rake/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt while standing on one paw.

I think the image in your head is wrong. The tiger only does Kung Fu insofar as it is the BASIS for a Kung Fu style. It doesn't "stand on one paw"; that's ridiculous. Here's a quick image check for you:

The master sweeps the leg of his foe, and slams both palms into their chest. The enemy soars through the air, crashing to the ground with the wind knocked out of him. The master is not done, swiftly running to the fallen opponent and laying into him with a series of swift punches; he is finished with a dual palm rake across his chest, tearing the flesh open. The battle lasts only a few seconds; whoever this was never stood a chance.

The tiger leaps from the shadows, batting at its hapless human prey. The force of the muscular cat's blow sends the man into a nearby tree, winding him. In an instant the tiger is on him, pouncing on the fallen man and savagely mauling him with one claw swipe after another. It is over in an instant, the man's last sight the tiger feasting on his entrails.

Functionally these actions are the same; sweep the leg, Ki Throw the opponent away from you, run to them, and beat the **** out of them while they're down. Visually they are different.

There’s also the issue of bigger rule ramifications. Yes it’s nice for a small subsection of monks, more if you assume buffs. But the folks it’s really going to help are druids, and to a slightly lesser extent gishes. Because even if you assume it as a selling point for monk, it’s better on monk1/Druid 19, or Druid 20 with a feat, or wizard 7 Polymorphed with a feat, or the Druid’s animal companion with a feat. Improved unarmed strike has no prerequisites, and is itself a prerequisite for improved grapple which melee druids and their companions want anyway.

Maybe I don't really get the complaint since this is the default rule in Pathfinder? The Monk/Druid multiclass is FUN certainly, and can get some huge damage dice, but it's not really burning down the house. Especially since Feral Combat Training can let you cut out the middle man and Flurry with a Natural Attack of your choice anyway.

The Conqueror Ooze is a classic example. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pz40&page=1?The-Conquerer-Ooze) Sadly the "Way of the Angry Bear: Bear Fisted Fighting" no longer works due to Paizo FAQing away size increases and virtual size increases to damage stacking, but it's still a fun concept.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 04:03 PM

Functionally these actions are the same; sweep the leg, Ki Throw the opponent away from you, run to them, and beat the **** out of them while they're down. Visually they are different.

I’m not saying the animal can’t do the thing. I’m saying it can’t use both animal fighting and human martial arts at the same time.

Maybe I don't really get the complaint since this is the default rule in Pathfinder? The Monk/Druid multiclass is FUN certainly, and can get some huge damage dice, but it's not really burning down the house. Especially since Feral Combat Training can let you cut out the middle man and Flurry with a Natural Attack of your choice anyway.

The Conqueror Ooze is a classic example. (https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pz40&page=1?The-Conquerer-Ooze) Sadly the "Way of the Angry Bear: Bear Fisted Fighting" no longer works due to Paizo FAQing away size increases and virtual size increases to damage stacking, but it's still a fun concept.

That’s a big overstatement. When I review, I see a blog post by Buhlman about animals using manufactured weapons and a bunch of threads with pages of arguments, with a strong contender being “rules don’t say, grey area, devs dont seem to like it but don’t want feat by feat rulings ask your DM” Which, curiously, is pretty close to my opinion. Another answer seems to be “RAW you can probably do it in PFS, but if you walk into the wrong table you will immediately alienate DMs and players.” Some tables yes. Some no. I don’t think I even disagree with the devs (assuming that is their position and I disagree with the PF devs A LOT) in the sense that if you asked me as DM if it was legal id be thinking about table factors like how over the top that game was, as well as how bizarre your forms were. What I specifically don’t think, in PF or 3.5, is that it is a thing that should be assumed to be viable at generic table, for purposes of class ranking in abstract.

Re feral combat training, there are lots of ways to get natural attacks. I would argue in favor of a monk with powers that gave him a bite and claw attacks being able to use kicks. Thats a ton different from saying a wolf can stand bipedally and do karate. Or that I could use my human karate if you turned me into a wolf. Or a dolphin.

And of course, let’s not forget that the PF Druid is way way nerfed as a melee beastie from 3.5 Druid. A tyrannosaurus with +6 strength from beast shape that can kick someone isnt as game breaking as a 40 strength tyrannosaurus with bite of the weretiger doing the same thing.

Rynjin

2019-10-20, 04:37 PM

I’m not saying the animal can’t do the thing. I’m saying it can’t use both animal fighting and human martial arts at the same time.

My point is that it doesn't need to; doing both is redundant.

That’s a big overstatement. When I review, I see a blog post by Buhlman about animals using manufactured weapons and a bunch of threads with pages of arguments, with a strong contender being “rules don’t say, grey area, devs dont seem to like it but don’t want feat by feat rulings ask your DM” Which, curiously, is pretty close to my opinion. Another answer seems to be “RAW you can probably do it in PFS, but if you walk into the wrong table you will immediately alienate DMs and players.” Some tables yes. Some no. I don’t think I even disagree with the devs (assuming that is their position and I disagree with the PF devs A LOT) in the sense that if you asked me as DM if it was legal id be thinking about table factors like how over the top that game was, as well as how bizarre your forms were. What I specifically don’t think, in PF or 3.5, is that it is a thing that should be assumed to be viable at generic table, for purposes of class ranking in abstract.

I mean it's not a gray area at all. ANY creature can make an unarmed strike, though most don't NEED to as they have separate natural weapons. Whether it's allowed at your specific table or not (and it is certainly allowed in PFS) isn't relevant to the discussion we're having right now about it just being a legal option.

Re feral combat training, there are lots of ways to get natural attacks. I would argue in favor of a monk with powers that gave him a bite and claw attacks being able to use kicks. Thats a ton different from saying a wolf can stand bipedally and do karate. Or that I could use my human karate if you turned me into a wolf. Or a dolphin.

What's your obsession with assuming animals contort into unnatural shapes to make unarmed strikes? A wolf can make a headbutt just as easily as a man. As a reminder an unarmed strike can be made with ANY part of the body. There's even a FAQ to this effect:

As written, the text isn't as clear as it could be. Because magic fang requires the caster to select a specific natural attack to affect, you could interpret that to mean you have to do the same thing for each body part you want to enhance with the spell (fist, elbow, kick, knee, headbutt, and so on).
However, there's no game mechanic specifying what body part a monk has to use to make an unarmed strike (other than if the monk is holding an object with his hands, he probably can't use that hand to make an unarmed strike), so a monk could just pick a body part to enhance with the spell and always use that body part, especially as the 12/4/2012 revised ruling for flurry of blows allows a monk to flurry with the same weapon (in this case, an unarmed strike) for all flurry attacks.
This means there is no game mechanical reason to require magic fang and similar spells to specify one body part for an enhanced unarmed strike. Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.
The text of magic fang will be updated slightly in the next Core Rulebook update to take this ruling into account.

And of course, let’s not forget that the PF Druid is way way nerfed as a melee beastie from 3.5 Druid. A tyrannosaurus with +6 strength from beast shape that can kick someone isnt as game breaking as a 40 strength tyrannosaurus with bite of the weretiger doing the same thing.

How is it broken for the 40 strength T-rex to kick someone when it already has a primary bite attack that does 1.5x Str?

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 05:05 PM

I mean it's not a gray area at all. ANY creature can make an unarmed strike, though most don't NEED to as they have separate natural weapons. Whether it's allowed at your specific table or not (and it is certainly allowed in PFS) isn't relevant to the discussion we're having right now about it just being a legal option.

Selling walls of salt is a legal option. Planar bonding 50 outsiders before the dungeon crawl is a legal option. What is or is not likely to be allowed is absolutely relevant to how we compare classes.

What's your obsession with assuming animals contort into unnatural shapes to make unarmed strikes? A wolf can make a headbutt just as easily as a man. As a reminder an unarmed strike can be made with ANY part of the body. There's even a FAQ to this effect:

So you are going with bite/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt and saying that makes sense as a martial art. Saying that a man who learns jujutsu could turn into a wolf and apply that as a quadruped in the form of headbutts. Ok.

How is it broken for the 40 strength T-rex to kick someone when it already has a primary bite attack that does 1.5x Str?

Because a TRex that can do freaking Kung fu with a whole bunch of iterative attacks is pretty obviously better by more than a muggle than one who can’t? You can’t simultaneously argue that turning into an animal with wildshape from an obscure source and then doing martial arts is good for the monk, without also recognizing that it is better for the Druid who gets wildshape in core and a trillion available buffs and an actual animal companion who can now also do karate.

Rynjin

2019-10-20, 05:42 PM

Selling walls of salt is a legal option. Planar bonding 50 outsiders before the dungeon crawl is a legal option. What is or is not likely to be allowed is absolutely relevant to how we compare classes.

I have never played at a table where this would be disallowed, and I've played with quite a lot of GMs over the years. You're making mountains out of molehills.

So you are going with bite/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt/headbutt and saying that makes sense as a martial art. Saying that a man who learns jujutsu could turn into a wolf and apply that as a quadruped in the form of headbutts. Ok.

Ah, we're going with the "each new post is a chance to simply ignore the posts that came before" argumentation strategy. I think we're done here, there's no point in attempting to have a discussion with you.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 05:50 PM

I have never played at a table where this would be disallowed, and I've played with quite a lot of GMs over the years. You're making mountains out of molehills.

I certainly have. I’ve also played at tables where you would lose credibility with the DM just for making the argument. I’ve played in a ton of games where I would be embarrassed to ask if the bear can do Kung Fu

Ah, we're going with the "each new post is a chance to simply ignore the posts that came before" argumentation strategy. I think we're done here, there's no point in attempting to have a discussion with you.

Funny, that was exactly what I thought when you popped up with “the wolf can make a headbutt just as easily as a man” which seemed to directly refute your former argument. Because clearly all the wolf can do is headbutt. And bite headbutt headbutt isn’t martial arts.

Rynjin

2019-10-20, 06:08 PM

In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, re-read my above post about the equivalence, but not identical-ness about a Tiger Style Kung Fu user's way of fighting and an actual tiger.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 06:13 PM

In the interest of giving you the benefit of the doubt, re-read my above post about the equivalence, but not identical-ness about a Tiger Style Kung Fu user's way of fighting and an actual tiger.

Yes, and I answered that point. And I still disagree with it. Because it still doesn’t answer how a human doing animal style Kung fu gives a bunch of extra attacks to a tiger using all its limbs pouncing like a cat. But then, when I asked how a wolf does Kung fu you talked about how well a wolf can headbutt. Which again, is not a martial art.

The Insanity

2019-10-20, 06:18 PM

Which again, is not a martial art.
Why not? gghkkbvf

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 06:31 PM

Why not? gghkkbvf

Ok. Show me the MMA match that consists solely of headbutts. What style is that? I’ve got my black belt. I’m completely unfamiliar with the animal technique that involves me on all 4s doing a flurry of headbutts.

Rynjin

2019-10-20, 06:44 PM

Yes, and I answered that point. And I still disagree with it. Because it still doesn’t answer how a human doing animal style Kung fu gives a bunch of extra attacks to a tiger using all its limbs pouncing like a cat. But then, when I asked how a wolf does Kung fu you talked about how well a wolf can headbutt. Which again, is not a martial art.

Headbutt, body check, bite, trip, slam paws down while the opponent is down (or up; ever seen a wolf or dog pounce on someone who's standing up to drive them down and tear their throat out), worry (aka Grapple and damage), etc., etc.

It only takes a modicum of imagination and knowledge about how animals hunt.

The Insanity

2019-10-20, 06:45 PM

Ok. Show me the MMA match that consists solely of headbutts. What style is that? I’ve got my black belt. I’m completely unfamiliar with the animal technique that involves me on all 4s doing a flurry of headbutts.
Burmese Boxing.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 07:00 PM

Burmese Boxing.

Is a whole lot more than a flurry of headbutts. Would also be completely impossible to perform as a wolf. It’s the art of 9 limbs. Full of knee strikes, elbow strikes. Punches. Kicks. Not the art of 1. Show me a professional Burmese boxing match that is nothing but headbutts. Show me a professional Burmese boxing match that involves a string of headbutts from all 4s. You can’t.

Red Fel

2019-10-20, 07:10 PM

So, wait. I'm confused.

I get the "no animal attacks purely with headbutts" argument. That makes sense. And I get the "no martial art consists purely of headbutts" argument. That also makes sense.

But, just because I'm confused... Are we arguing that a Monk can't fight exclusively with headbutts as unarmed strikes? Because I'm pretty sure he explicitly can, even if it has no real-world animal or martial art analogue. Is that what we're now debating?

Also, am I the only one chuckling at just how many times the word "butt" is showing up on this page? Just me?

The Insanity

2019-10-20, 07:22 PM

Is a whole lot more than a flurry of headbutts. Would also be completely impossible to perform as a wolf. It’s the art of 9 limbs. Full of knee strikes, elbow strikes. Punches. Kicks. Not the art of 1. Show me a professional Burmese boxing match that is nothing but headbutts. Show me a professional Burmese boxing match that involves a string of headbutts from all 4s. You can’t.
Who said anything about just using flurries of headbutts or doing them on all fours? That's either a strawman or moving the goaposts. Not sure which.

PoeticallyPsyco

2019-10-20, 07:59 PM

Monk has some of the best ACFs in the game, and when utilized well can make for an incredibly effective stealth character/precision damage character (though doing the latter well admittedly requires multiclassing and/or Dragon Magazine content). Their stealth abilities are enough to push them easily into T4, and I could see an argument for T3, since hard-to-counter permanent stealth also makes them at least decent at combat and other challenges.

Tier is determined by ability to solve problems, and I once saw The Demonweb Pits presented as a good example of a mid-level adventure that would make clear the limitations of martial characters versus casters in this respect. Based on the admittedly not very thorough flip through the module, a monk build I was working on at the time (http://bit.ly/2kfZ3rs)* could solo every single encounter I looked at, at the appropriate level, without items. Not particularly difficultly, either.

*Well, at those levels it was all Monk save one level of Rogue. It later returned to Rogue and dipped Warblade, but that's irrelevant for this anecdote.

Gnaeus

2019-10-20, 09:02 PM

Who said anything about just using flurries of headbutts or doing them on all fours? That's either a strawman or moving the goaposts. Not sure which.

That’s the point. Whether or not a wolf or other quadruped can use improved unarmed strike. Responding to the argument “the wolf can headbutt. Or a fish or snake or bat or anything else.

Rhyltran

2019-10-20, 11:01 PM

That’s the point. Whether or not a wolf or other quadruped can use improved unarmed strike. Responding to the argument “the wolf can headbutt. Or a fish or snake or bat or anything else.

You can unarmed strike with a headbutt. Open paws. Your shoulder. Hip check and more. Again, focusing on doing bludgeon damage vs ripping with claws. A declawed bear can still easily pummel a man to death even without biting. The sheer size and strength would make it more than possible. A monk's fist in game by in game mechanics eventually dishes out more damage per punch than a great sword. Logic no longer need apply. Especially when we get into the realm og size stacking. A bear striking with an open paw at the size of a colossus creature is not something you can compare irl fighting to.

Blue Jay

2019-10-20, 11:55 PM

Can you give a source/example?

No, not really: it's mostly just a matter of reading around and piecing together how they phrase things. For example, when a feat or other ability lets you make extra attacks or perform more activities than an action normally allows, it specifically calls them out as "extra attacks" or "extra actions" or something like that. See the haste spell from the 3.0 PHB, or the Expert Tactician and Multitasking feats from Sword and Fist for a few examples. Mantis Leap doesn't follow this pattern at all, which is the first clue for me that it probably isn't meant to be letting you perform additional actions, above and beyond your normal allotment.

The 3.0 SRD (http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html) is available online. Unfortunately, it's broken up into multiple .rft files and is generally a nuisance to work with, so maybe this html version (http://www.dragon.ee/30srd/) would be more palatable.

Also, I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but I'm not entirely sure it's fair of you to put me in the position of having to defend my argument here. I feel like "you can make 8 or 9 charge attacks in a single move action with just one feat" is such an outlandish claim that the burden of proof surely has to be on the guy who thinks it's legitimate, not on the guy who's arguing against it.

By the way, what were the 3.0 rules for charges?

They're quite similar to the 3.5 rules, but there are some odd disagreements between the online SRD and the actual* 3.0 PHB (specifically, the SRD calls it a full-around action, while the PHB calls it a standard action).

*I say "actual PHB," but it's actually a PDF that some guy gave me, so I can't be entirely sure it's not unaltered.

Charge

[Full][AoO: No]

Description: The character must move before attacking, not after. The character must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double base speed. All movement must be in a straight line, with no backing up allowed. The charge stops as soon as the character threatens the target. A character can't run past the target and attack from another direction.

After moving, the character may make a single melee attack or a bull rush. The character gets a +2 bonus on the attack roll. The character also suffers a -2 penalty to AC for 1 round.
A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

A target can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges by using the ready action against receiving a charge. A weapon of this type deals double damage if the readied attack is successful.

Charging is a special standard action that allows you to move more than your speed and attack during the action. However, it carries tight restrictions on how you can move.

Movement during a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet and may move up to double your speed. All movement must be in a straight line, with no backing up allowed. You must stop as soon as you are within striking range of your target. You can’t run past him and attack from another direction.

Attacking: After moving, you may make a single melee attack. Since you can use the momentum of the charge in your favor, you get a +2 bonus on the attack roll. Since a charge is impossible without a bit of recklessness, you also suffer a –2 penalty to your AC for 1 round.

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

Lances and Charge Attacks: A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

Weapons Readied against a Charge: Spears, tridents, and certain other piercing weapons deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.

Also, the various PHB blurbs on partial actions give repeated, oblique references to a "partial charge action," but I can't find anywhere where they actually explain how that works. This, I think, seems to be the root of some of Mantis Leap's clarity issues. It seems like the designers intended to allow charge attacks to be performed as different action types, which made it difficult for the writer of Mantis Leap to say anything more specific than "as part of the same action." I think it's abundantly clear, though, that the action referred to is whatever action it takes to move and make a charge attack.

But, there's still not a lot of clarity (at least for a relative newcomer to 3.0 rules, like me), because in other places in the rules, they say "X takes a standard action," when it seems like they really mean "you can move and do X as a standard action," so it's almost like movement isn't considered an action or even part of an action at all. For example, the section for Escape Artist says this for escaping a grapple:

"You can make an Escape Artist check opposed by your enemy’s grapple check to get out of a grapple or out of a pinned condition (so that you’re just being grappled). Doing so is a standard action, so if you escape the grapple you can move in the same round."

So, it seems like they just didn't have a clear and consistent way of defining movement's place in the action economy. But I think it's safe to say that "as part of the same action" in Mantis Leap means "you perform this activity alongside the jumping movement, and that's your action for this round."

Gnaeus

2019-10-22, 11:02 AM

You can unarmed strike with a headbutt. Open paws. Your shoulder. Hip check and more. Again, focusing on doing bludgeon damage vs ripping with claws. A declawed bear can still easily pummel a man to death even without biting. The sheer size and strength would make it more than possible. A monk's fist in game by in game mechanics eventually dishes out more damage per punch than a great sword. Logic no longer need apply. Especially when we get into the realm og size stacking. A bear striking with an open paw at the size of a colossus creature is not something you can compare irl fighting to.

It probably could. It probably couldn’t while simultaneously claw claw biting. And a bear, which can at least stand bipedally, is your best case. A wolf probably couldn’t. Or a badger. Or a bat Or a dolphin. Rules of the game Unarmed Strikes part 2 says you have to use a primary limb, which prevents that limb from being used to make attacks. I’m not debating whether Skip’s commentary is RAW or whatever. I’m saying it’s not going to fly at a lot of tables and isn’t a good way to evaluate class power by assuming it just works.

Logic no longer need apply, eh? A valid admission. I will rebut that many tables feel more desire for logic, or something like a medieval feel, SHOULD apply, and I’ve known a lot of games in which a Kung fu bear is quite definitely a bridge too far, and in which arguing logic need not apply not only won’t give you the Kung fu bear, it will irreparably mark you in the eyes of the DM as a munchkin and weaken your next argument. In a highly cinematic game, sure, stand on that RAW. Otherwise YMMV

Gnaeus

2019-10-22, 11:35 AM

There are about 10,000 things in D&D that are going to mess with a medieval Europe simulation, but weren't dancing bears and trained fighting bears totally a thing?

Dancing bears? Yes. If by dancing you mean a bear that could stumble around in a dress.

Trained fighting bears? Also yes, in the sense that if you take out a bear’s claws and fangs and then punch it in the face it will still attempt to defend itself. Not in the sense of a bear in possession of its natural weapons being trained to headbutt or knee strike.

Rynjin

2019-10-22, 01:03 PM

Dancing bears? Yes. If by dancing you mean a bear that could stumble around in a dress.

Trained fighting bears? Also yes, in the sense that if you take out a bear’s claws and fangs and then punch it in the face it will still attempt to defend itself. Not in the sense of a bear in possession of its natural weapons being trained to headbutt or knee strike.

Which takes it to the same logical extreme as "Yes, swords existed, but their wielder couldn't cut through an elephant in a single strike with them".

Congratulations, you've argued yourself into your own strawman being logical.

Gnaeus

2019-10-22, 01:19 PM

Which takes it to the same logical extreme as "Yes, swords existed, but their wielder couldn't cut through an elephant in a single strike with them".

Congratulations, you've argued yourself into your own strawman being logical.

What does that even mean? I’ve said, multiple times, that a bear can’t be making unarmed strikes while it is fighting like a bear. Those didn’t. The rules article I cited said an animal needs primary limbs to strike but can’t make it’s normal attacks with those limbs. Those crippled animals weren’t claw/claw/biting with an unarmed strike, let alone multiples. And again, you are talking about a bear, which can actually stand bipedally. I have no argument against a monk in bear form, although not all forms, forgoing natural attacks to make unarmed strikes. There are no examples of which I am aware of dogs, chickens, or any of the other animals we tortured using unarmed strikes.

RegalKain

2019-10-22, 10:10 PM

I just want to start off by saying, I don't really have a horse/dog (What is the saying again?) in this fight, as I either exclusively use Jiriku's Rework, or more likely, tell people don't play Mundanes from 3.5/Pathfinder, use Spheres of Might instead at my games, but I did want to weigh in a bit on the discussion.

Especially because of my immense disdain for the Tier List, and how this board often approaches Class balance.

A Wizard is powerful from go, because it has access to basically all the spells and effects, including - again, right there in the PHB - some of the most gamebreaking abilities. And I'm not just talking about things like Gate or Wish, I'm talking about abilities like flight, invisibility, and force damage. That's hard-baked into the class.
This is entirely true, but this in and of itself is an inherent power game/ meta game look at things, which I don't think a lot of people realize, or think about when they "tier" a class. I have a bit over 10 years of experience now in 3.5/PF almost all of which is a DM (I desperately want to play a game, but no one ever DMS :'( ) and the shear number of blaster casters I've seen would make most people on this board spontaneously combust I feel like. Most Casters I've run for, without a very heavy-hand in helping them, play 100% for damage. "Why take Grease? IT'd be easier to just do damage and kill them, Grease is a waste of a spell." And sure, I'll happily explain how crowd control can do amazing things, but in my experience, the majority of players, pick spells for damage and flashy stuff, not useful utility stuff.

Again, I don't dis agree with what you're saying, but "optimizing" spell choice, is 100% a thing that people on this board assumes is natural, and in my experience it almost never is with new players who aren't being coached heavily.

The Barbarian, I think we can all agree, wins by raw numbers. He can take more hits, he can do more damage, and he doesn't need feats or obscure books to do it. There's splat support for him if you need it, but give him a +5 axe, invest in STR and CON, and he's basically done. Easy and effective.
This is again something I agree with, as someone who enjoys playing non-casters, (Especially using Spheres of Might) it's very, very difficult to "mess up" a Barbarian, that said, again, the tier list assumes optimization 100%, which is why threads like this one, and many of the arguments that crop up "Well you can optimize ANYTHING to be good" sure, and the Tier list is assuming optimization for everything that is in Tier 1, and a very amount of optimization, but when people optimize another class they are called out on it in many cases.

Edit: I just want to also point out, I completely understand what I think was your original point, in that you need 0 Splatbooks to make a Wizard Tier 1/2 with ease, I just wanted to point out that Wizards being Tier 1 are because of immense optimization and game knowledge.

Then we get to the Monk. And here we have the problem. One: MAD is not a good thing no matter how you spin it. A Barbarian relies on STR and CON, done. A Fighter may rely differently depending on his build - STR is common, but maybe he trades CON for DEX. But a Monk? He needs everything. STR for damage, DEX for AC, WIS for AC (and some abilities, but we'll get to that), CON to soak hits. Maybe he takes a feat to trade one ability dependency for another, but he still needs a lot. And yes, you can solve this with equipment or buffs, but at a certain point you've exceeded what one character is expected to provide for himself, and invented an entire party for the sole purpose of making him functional.

I feel like, not only do you make a really good point here, but this is also a very important note as a DM, Monks are traps for new players, it's much, much easier to look at a Monk's skills and make a character that is going to fail at level 6 or 7, then it is to make a Barbarian, or Fighter that will fail at equal levels. I think that is my issue with vanilla monk, and most especially with MAD characters in general, that people see class features that key off of an Ability score and assume the player has to have a high score there, which is a trap in and of itself, the Monk just high lights this.

This is also the reason I've seen a lot of Fighters, and Barbarians with 14+ INT. "But I get more skill points with a high INT."

Say what you will about the Barbarian, but you know exactly what his class features are for.
Fun aside note, during my first year or two of 3.5/PF when I wasn't a DM (And thus hadn't dedicated hundreds if not thousands of hours to the research of this accursed hobby.) I hated Barbarians for the same reason I hated Casters, daily limits on things. My first few sessions were with overly brutal DMs who would throw 5-10 encounters at a party before we could rest, and I saw every Caster, or daily limit character as a glaring weakness that the rest of us were forced to carry. I wasn't experienced enough to understand that my DM was just a sadist, who didn't warn their party.

In short: You propose that the Monk is a powerful class because optimization can make a powerful build. I counter that optimization can make anything a powerful build; the Monk is no exception. And thus the measure is not an optimized Monk, but an out-of-the-box Monk.

I touched on this in the earlier responses, the Tier list, and I feel as though most of the people on this forum, just assume Wizards are always Tier 1 because we have such an exhaustive amount of game knowledge as to know what spells to pick, every Wizard I've ever seen posted on this forum is optimized, sometimes extremely so in spell selection, if not in the entire build. And I fear it's made for some assumptions that in practice aren't always true.

While I don't agree with a lot of the rulings the OP might do (All infinite loops, or near infinite loops at my table get a DMG thrown at you.) I was under the impression, that the origination of this thread, was not being happy where the Monk falls in the Tier list, and optimizing it to such a point as to bring it to the same/near same Tier as other Mundane characters, a lot of the push back, seems to be against so much optimization, despite the fact that many of the other characters on that Tier list, are also highly optimized.

If you look at the game from a pure munchkin power game perspective, yes, Monks are pretty horribly comparatively to most other classes. In actual play, they stack up about the same as any other Mundane. (I've yet to meet a new player who has never done pen and paper before, who is willing to look at 4+ books to create a single level 5 character.)

What does that even mean? I’ve said, multiple times, that a bear can’t be making unarmed strikes while it is fighting like a bear. Those didn’t. The rules article I cited said an animal needs primary limbs to strike but can’t make it’s normal attacks with those limbs. Those crippled animals weren’t claw/claw/biting with an unarmed strike, let alone multiples. And again, you are talking about a bear, which can actually stand bipedally. I have no argument against a monk in bear form, although not all forms, forgoing natural attacks to make unarmed strikes. There are no examples of which I am aware of dogs, chickens, or any of the other animals we tortured using unarmed strikes.

This whole side discussion is extremely amusing to me, because my first thought when it started was. "Have you never seen Kung Fu Panda? Hello?" Though I realize that's probably not a good example to use, that said...

Bears, have no slam attack, but bears in the wild, will absolutely use their weight to throw prey into a wall if they cannot swipe at it, or bite it, in fact, the vast majority of large animals will do this, by all intentions it's a slam attack, which the bear doesn't have, thus it's an unarmed strike. Boars only have a Gore attack, but even if the tusks don't get you (The gore part) being rammed by a large, very strong animal, moving very fast, can still fracture or break your legs, this again would be a slam attack in 3.5 terms, but because the Boar has no Slam attack, it's an unarmed strike. Dogs only have a bite attack, but if you are ever on your back and a wild dog is on you, it will not only Bite, but also try to "dig" at your flesh, doing some pretty serious damage, despite not having "Claw" attacks, in 3.5 terms, that's an Unarmed Strike.

So while they may not be as flexible as Kung Fu Panda, animals can, will and often do, employ other means of harming their target then just using their "natural weapons", they use anything and everything they can, because ultimately, if they are ever in a fight, it's a fight to not die.

Edit: Spelling.

Dimers

2019-10-22, 10:49 PM

I touched on this in the earlier responses, the Tier list, and I feel as though most of the people on this forum, just assume Wizards are always Tier 1 because we have such an exhaustive amount of game knowledge as to know what spells to pick, every Wizard I've ever seen posted on this forum is optimized, sometimes extremely so in spell selection ...

The point is that the class does have the tools available. Once you get to the point where builds exist, you're no longer talking about the tier system, you're talking about optimization level or maybe absolute power level. Fighter ranks low no matter how many excellent fighter builds you might see, because what the class itself gives you is junk. Wizards rank high even when individual wizard builds are terrible, because the class gives you the tools, whether or not you end up using them.

I was under the impression, that the origination of this thread, was not being happy where the Monk falls in the Tier list, and optimizing it to such a point as to bring it to the same/near same Tier as other Mundane characters ...

The monk has that Tier List position because of the inherent abilities of the class. If you build around it and make something workable, that's not the class, that's the build. Just as if you built anti-optimally with a high-tier class. Take, for example, a wizard who dumps Int and never tries to learn spells. There's basically nothing they could do as well as an off-the-rack truenamer. Does that mean wizard sucks or truenamer rocks? No, it's just the build.

/tiersystemmeaningrant

That said, Sleven wasn't saying "monks are high tier", just "monks should be rated higher than other noncasters". I sympathize; I used to feel the same way, and I don't build a monk half as well as Sleven. But neither white-room analysis nor actual play seems to support the argument. Individual builds can be good. The monk class isn't.

Mordaedil

2019-10-23, 05:39 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with a fighter having 13+ Intelligence; If they are grabbing Combat Expertise/Improved Combat Expertise.

Being able to trade BAB for AC can be a life-saver in certain situations.

RegalKain

2019-10-23, 01:09 PM

The point is that the class does have the tools available. Once you get to the point where builds exist, you're no longer talking about the tier system, you're talking about optimization level or maybe absolute power level. Fighter ranks low no matter how many excellent fighter builds you might see, because what the class itself gives you is junk. Wizards rank high even when individual wizard builds are terrible, because the class gives you the tools, whether or not you end up using them.

....A build is a collection of the tools you have available, sorted in such a way as to be as viable as possible. That's optimization. A Wizard who takes no CC, and almost exclusively focuses on Blaster Caster, isn't that much further ahead then a Fighter or Barbarian, while I certainly understand that they CAN do far more, it means that while they have an Optimization ceiling of Tier 1, but a floor that's quite low as well. I guess I just don't agree with this line of reasoning. "The Wizard is Tier 1 because of what you CAN do with them." Meanwhile, mundanes are lower Tier because of what you can't, which is generally how it goes. The entire tier list is based off the assumption there is optimization and a good build, that's my point. A Wizard will never be Tier 1 if they never take many forms of Crowd Control, SoD, SoS, Gate, Binding tricks etc. If all they take is blaster stuff, their Tier falls drastically.

The monk has that Tier List position because of the inherent abilities of the class. If you build around it and make something workable, that's not the class, that's the build. Just as if you built anti-optimally with a high-tier class. Take, for example, a wizard who dumps Int and never tries to learn spells. There's basically nothing they could do as well as an off-the-rack truenamer. Does that mean wizard sucks or truenamer rocks? No, it's just the build.

The build is 100% the class, the inherent abilities of a Wizard is Cast Spells, if you don't optimize those choices, you are not a Tier 1 character, period. The Tier system only works because optimization is assumed for casters, but people frown on it for non-casters, that's my issue with it. A Blaster caster will never be Tier 1, Wizards are capable of it yes, but a Blaster Caster is not a Tier 1 caster. In the case of Casters, the build is the Tiering system, but again, it's frowned on when you break the game and optimize for the sake of a non-caster.

Dimers

2019-10-23, 07:53 PM

"The Wizard is Tier 1 because of what you CAN do with them." Meanwhile, mundanes are lower Tier because of what you can't, which is generally how it goes.

Right, the fighter class can't charm people or CC or turn invisible or fly, the wizard class can, that's why the classes are in different tiers. Wizards can be built to accomplish the same thing fighters can, but fighters can't be built to accomplish everything a wizard could be built to do.

~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~

Overall it looks like you're saying that only builds can be judged, never classes. And while that's an understandable perspective, it's not what most of the Playground is talking about when we talk about tiers.

Look at it this way. Judging the class is a different category than judging a particular build. Just like judging a build is different from judging a specific player's use of it. If you give me a wizard build with all the tricks, good ACFs, good items, good spell picks, I'll be like 'help, I don't know how to drive this thing," it won't be effective in my hands. That doesn't mean a tricked-out wizard build is bad. And individual builds being bad don't make a class bad.

What matters for tier rating (in the Playground's shared vocabulary) is what tools the class's own abilities grant. Not any particular arrangement of those tools, and definitely not what your buddy Joe can do with that particular arrangement of tools. Just whether or not the tools exist in-class.

The build is 100% the class, the inherent abilities of a Wizard is Cast Spells, if you don't optimize those choices, you are not a Tier 1 character, period.

So, what I'm saying is, "Tier 1" isn't a term to apply to a character at all, there's no such thing as a "Tier ##" character. How about "You're not a character who can be quite helpful in all situations"? Or even "You're building/playing lower than your class's Tier".

Sleven

2019-10-23, 09:27 PM

Can't.

Okay, so you admit to making an unfounded claim.

I don't need to be a Fighter specialist to note that Fighters get an inherent +5 bonus to attacks over the Monk just by existing, so in the best case you're just closing a gap that only exists because you chose Monk.

To-hit bonusers are only one benefit of it. You're also forgetting that the monk has an extra attack over the fighter at most levels and that attacks from total concealment receive another +2 bonus. To say nothing of all the other benefits it provides being vastly more powerful than a +5 to hit, that (by your own admission) was already made up for.

Sir/ma'am/mx, your health and welfare are not being threatened

Some people have no sense of humor.

Barbarian's not actually a slouch on saves.

This is the kind of discussion that needs to be had. So first of all: thank you for a reasoned post.

I have always taken barbarian bonuses and ACFs into consideration when assessing the various mundanes. I feel it's fair to say these abilities are not without tradeoffs and most of them come online so late it's not fair to assume they're always part of the discussion.

Take for example Devil's Luck. The first +1 bonus doesn't happen until level 7, the second at 10. By this time the monk has already been avoiding most saves entirely and still has better base saves. These are the most crucial levels for saving throws, because a character hasn't necessarily been able to invest in them enough to shore up any weaknesses.

Steadfast Determination + Endurance is indeed a great feat combination for a barbarian, but it's also a feat tax holding back the barbarian from other options that would increase encounter versatility (something a monk gets by default). For example: taking it as your 6th level feat (assuming you used Horse Totem or Wasteland Barbarian to get Endurance for free) prevents you from taking something like Shocktrooper at the earliest possible level.

Let's also not forget that Indomitable Will doesn't happen until level 14 and will almost always be traded for Fearsome Gaze or Whirling Frenzy (build depending). The same can be said for the constitution bonus and Whirling Frenzy.

The same tradeoff occurs when deciding to go for Steadfast Determination. A barbarian has to give up a fear option or extra attack and evasion to get the most out of it (to retain the constitution bonus from Rage). At lower levels I don't see that as something every barbarian is willing to do. Or if they are, they lose out to the monk on damage a lot sooner, while still not fully compensating for the saves difference for the first half of their career.

OK deal me out of this thread.

{Scrubbed}

Firstly, yes, Greater Mighty Wallop is a fantastic way of massively upgrading the damage of bludgeoning weapons

Other bludgeoning weapons can't benefit from weapon enhancement bonuses placed on multiple, separate sources to reduce costs. So this feels like an attempt to distract from the larger point by focusing on one aspect of the reason UAS is better than, say, a Greathammer.

As far as scaling goes (which I'll just assume you're trying to discuss), it scales enough for its respective levels. Particularly if you take its attack options into consideration (Holy Strike @3, Mantis Leap @7-9, etc.).

Clearly.
[...]
Clearly.

Am I supposed to feel bad about enjoying myself? Or insulted by your lack of approval?

having total concealment doesn't make you invisible

It obviates the need for a hide check in the same way someone more than 5ft from you in a fog cloud doesn't have to make a hide check.

Looks like the forum community beat me to the punch addressing the rest of your post. @Elves: I too was going to reference a charge being a special full-round action.

Question: What happens if you apply the same level of splat-diving and optimization to a Fighter? Or Barbarian? Or ?

That's the comparison point for the purpose of this thread, but so far only Maat Mons seems to want to discuss that. I would welcome others who think applying ACFs and class specific (or synergistic) feats can create something better with a fighter, rogue, barbarian, or even a warblade if you don't think you're able to with the other core classes.

the action of which the Jump check is a part.

Correct. And as long as you can make the check, you can jump as many times as you like up to the limits of your movement.

the action it's referring to is not the Jump check

Incorrect. Because none/not an action is listed as an action.

And in case you thought any of this changed between the 3.0 to 3.5 update:

Not an Action: Some activities are not even considered free actions. They literally don’t take any time at all to do and are considered an inherent part of doing something else.

The distance you jump when making a Jump check, for example, is part of your movement.

It didn't.

I never thought I'd have to crack open my copy of the 3.0 PHB again, but here we are.

No, not really

{Scrubbed}

tell people don't play Mundanes from 3.5

Why? They're plenty fun and more than capable of handling CR appropriate challenges.

the tier list assumes optimization 100%

Actually, it doesn't. I'm of the opinion it uses "unoptimized" and "core" as an excuse to rate classes lower than they should be--or more often than not: as an excuse for lack of creativity and/or class knowledge to use the classes in a unique manner suitable to their strengths.

Monk is actually strong when you play it like a monk (much stronger than fighter, rogue, barbarian, etc.).

Hexblade is actually strong when you play it like a hexblade (much stronger than the noncasters like fighter and marshal that it somehow manages to get rated lower than).

The monk class isn't.

Most of the power discussed that places a monk uniquely above other non-casters are alternate [i]class features. Which is why this is a presentation of the monk, not any particular build(s).