PDA

View Full Version : Suckitude of Monks



Pages : [1] 2

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 12:09 AM
It seems to be that the general consensus is that Monks are the weakest of the classes in the PHB.

My question is this: If Monks had full HD BAB or (not and) d10HD would they be good-enough, too good, or still underpowered?

For reasons of balance consider this:

It should be balanced to work well with (but not outshine) it's party members and provide usefulness in the roll it's meant to fill.

Balancing (power-wise) against CoDzilla and Batman is a bit much while balancing against a Fighter might not be enough.

MisterSaturnine
2007-11-11, 12:21 AM
Judging from what I've heard, full BAB would be more helpful. But also judging from what I've heard, it wouldn't be enough--most of their abilities are too little, too late. Not that useful, don't mix, or just don't come often enough at the level it's offered.

But I've never actually played, so take that with a grain of salt.

Oh, and your title has inspired me. Just as a group of crows is a murder, and a group of geese is a flock, I shall forever refer to a bunch of our favorite underpowered friends as "a suckitude of monks." :smallwink:

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 12:21 AM
The problem isn't BAB or HD type. Those are fine. The problems lie with things like conflicting class features: flurry vs. fast movement for example.

If you want a fast fix for monk, w/o ToB, here it is:

Flurry of Blows is a standard action.
A monk deals his unarmed damage with all special monk weapons, instead of just with unarmed strikes.

ocato
2007-11-11, 12:21 AM
*checks phase of the moon* Is it Monk week again?

Honestly, if Monks had full BaB and (I know you said or) a d10 hit dice, they'd still be just below fighters in strength, and fighters are notoriously not very powerful. They could scrap a little better, trip and grapple a little better, but over all they wouldn't be big damage throwers really. It's sad, but Monks are in desperate need of a gimmick.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-11-11, 12:31 AM
I've designed a remake of the monk incorporating the change to full BAB you suggest, along with some other changes, and I personally think it's a stronger class for it, probably somewhere between the Fighter and the Rogue in strength. You can find it here (http://faxcelestis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=87#p544).

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 12:34 AM
Yes, a group of monks is known as a suckitude.

So basically what I'm hearing is that the Monk class is too hopelessly broken (in a bad way) to fix with minor fixes.

Alternatively to that, Skjaldbakka (holy mouthful, Batman Wizard) came up with a fairly simple solution. What do people think of that?
Does it make up for
most of their abilities are too little, too late. Not that useful, don't mix, or just don't come often enough at the level it's offered. and
It's sad, but Monks are in desperate need of a gimmick.?

EDIT: Oh, I'll look at that class you linked

VerdugoExplode
2007-11-11, 12:37 AM
The best solution is to make an unarmed swordsage, specializing in setting sun, stone dragone and other schools which, while mimicking a monks tendencies towards fisticuffs and grappling, will make the character a force to be reckoned with. Take superior unarmed strike and you're good to go.

ocato
2007-11-11, 12:38 AM
Those are definitely steps in the right direction. One of the Monk's biggest problems is the inability to scale damage with equipment like other classes do. If the Monk was dual-wielding magical sais, disarming fighters/barbarians and dealing his full unarmed damage, flurrying his blows, etc, I think that would make for a melee character that could be effective. Of course, I'd still think that full BaB is pretty much a necessary addition.

MisterSaturnine
2007-11-11, 12:42 AM
I wish I could say. Alas, I am somewhat of a parrot. I cannot form many opinions of my own (as I am unqualified to do so), and so simply regurgitate what other people say.

But hey, any boost is a step in the right direction.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 01:09 AM
Yes, a group of monks is known as a suckitude.

So basically what I'm hearing is that the Monk class is too hopelessly broken (in a bad way) to fix with minor fixes.

Alternatively to that, Skjaldbakka (holy mouthful, Batman Wizard) came up with a fairly simple solution. What do people think of that?


They certainly don't hurt. Between being able to move and attack better than a Fighter and having better access to magic weaponry, it'd do a lot. The monk special weapons pretty much all suck, but it'd still be nice. That set of changes would at least pull the Monk out of that hole he's living in with the CW Samurai, and that might be all that's needed to make him work for a lower-powered playing group.

Edit: Actually, a two-handed quarterstaff flurry with the unarmed damage progression would be pretty nice.

AslanCross
2007-11-11, 03:21 AM
Another problem of the Monk is its MAD. Many other base classes have MAD, but they're able to pull it off due to their class features. (Duskblade, for example). The Monk has MAD but benefits so little from its ability scores because they're often spread too thin.

Also, lol @ "A sucktitude of monks"

Temp
2007-11-11, 03:31 AM
Another problem of the Monk is its MAD. Many other base classes have MAD, but they're able to pull it off due to their class features. (Duskblade, for example). The Monk has MAD but benefits so little from its ability scores because they're often spread too thin. Boosting Base Attack and HP would definitely help ease the need for good strength and constitution scores, as would giving variant Stunning Fists (different saves, different effects... as long as Stunning Fist stays useful, damage doesn't really matter). Also, allowing a monk to treat Unarmed Strikes/Monk weapons as a size category or two larger for the purposes of Disarm would actually make the weapons somewhat worthwhile.

Funkyodor
2007-11-11, 04:30 AM
Weapon size does not matter for Trip, only creature sizes matter. As to Monk changes.

- Making Flurry a standard action is a good idea, or giving them access to a Flurry Charge style feat or a Dual Strike style feat etc.
- Changing disease resistance to a blanket all diseases, same with poisons.
- Adding a tiny change to their lvl 20 ability would make it apply more often. Make it 10/magic and chaotic so an opponent needs to have a magic and Anarchic weapon to overcome DR.
- Having their self heal scale with WIS along with level like the paladin lay on hands would be cool as would having their +2 save versus enchantmet spells, so instead of +2 it would be double WIS vs enchantments.
- Changing Quivering Palm so it is 1 week after a Successful application, or daily if failed.
- Making Empty Body (Ethereal state) or Abundant Step (Dimention Door) a swift action would be cool.

All of the above are just tweaks of existing class features.

Edit: Added
- Tweak Amulet of Mighty Fists to scale like standard magic weapon costs instead of "Magic Weapon" Spell cost. Or allow the Monks Belt to be enchanted like a magic weapon, because it allows any wearer to strike like a lvl 5 monk so it could be classified as a weapon, even though it is a belt.
- Make the Sai a normal sized weapon instead of a light weapon
- Hmm... What if you also changed their Defensive Bonus to also be an Offensive bonus when unarmored and unencumbered (+1 at lvl 5 thru +4 at lvl 20). So it kinda keeps them close to full BaB but not at full BaB. And by tweaking the fluff to be mastery of insight blah, blah, blah Def bonus gained through leveling applies to Attack. This keeps their number of attacks down slightly when not flurrying while keeping their BaB almost at Full.

Temp
2007-11-11, 04:42 AM
- Changing disease resistance to a blanket all diseases, same with poisons.
- Adding a tiny change to their lvl 20 ability would make it apply more often. Make it 10/magic and chaotic so an opponent needs to have a magic and Anarchic weapon to overcome DR.
- Having their self heal scale with WIS along with level like the paladin lay on hands would be cool as would having their +2 save versus enchantmet spells, so instead of +2 it would be double WIS vs enchantments.I'm not sure why they'd need more defensive abilities. They're already a strong defensive class; finding something to actually do in combat is their problem.

The extra-attack-any-time could help that out.


Weapon size does not matter for Trip
Right you are. I'll just be editting that then.

daggaz
2007-11-11, 04:50 AM
1. Full BaB
2. Pounce at level seven or eight or so..
3. Fix their weapons to match their fists

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 05:15 AM
Give them spellcasting ability.


oh, wait a minute :smallbiggrin:

Falrin
2007-11-11, 06:23 AM
Full BaB.

D8 HD.


Fighting Styles: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#monkVariantFightingSty les)

Make Unarmed Strikes a "+ x Bonus Dice" for all monk weapons.

Threat Unarmed as 1-handed weapon, later 2-handed.

Give bonus to grapple, trip, disarm, ...

Get more movement related abilities. (Ex. Airwalk 2 rounds for half movement rate, slow fall 1 round for half movement rate, ...)

Flurry a standard action or Pounce.

'Imediate Strike' x/day strike with an unarmed strike as an imidiate action.

Emperor Demonking
2007-11-11, 06:24 AM
Treating them as one size up might help.

UserClone
2007-11-11, 06:43 AM
You mean like a Goliath Monk? weird...:smalltongue:

Goumindong
2007-11-11, 07:02 AM
Just full BAB would be really helpfull with the PHB alternate class feature. It might be enough, especially with Immediate strike/boost abilities and extra movement abilities cherry picked from the Tome of Battle.

Grynning
2007-11-11, 07:16 AM
My fix for the Monk:

New Feat: William Shatner Double-Fist Strike
You clasp your hands together and form a single lethal weapon from your two arms.
As a free action, you may activate this feat to treat Unarmed Strike as a two-handed weapon for one round. While using this feat, you also gain a +2 Enhancement Bonus and an additional +2D6 points of damage against creatures with the Humanoid (Klingon) subtype. Those Klingon bastards. They killed your son.

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-11, 07:37 AM
Isn't that the "Van-Daam Slam"?

Grynning
2007-11-11, 07:44 AM
Hey, Bill Shatner did it first, so it gets to bear his name. Original Series FTW.

In all seriousness, it seems to be universally agreed that you can't fix the monk without house-ruling it to the point that it's significantly different from the original class (or playing a different class entirely, for the Swordsage fans), so why bother worrying about it anymore? If you really want to play a monk, optimize your feat choices, invest in items that up your unarmed damage, and consider multi-classing or PrC'ing in such a way that keeps your kung-fu flava but makes you slightly more viable offensively. That's about all there is to it, IMO.

Lord Zentei
2007-11-11, 08:35 AM
The problems with the Monk are not the HD and BAB: the cleric and the druid have the same HD and BAB, and they are considered very respectable in melee, when combined with their full caster powers (of course, CoDzilla is overpowered, but a middle ground needs to be found between the two). The problems are as follows:

1) Multiple Attribute Disorder. This is the most important one.
2) Contradictory and feeble special abilities.
3) Weakness compared with fighters in Grapple, Trip and Disarm, i.e. things where the Monk is supposed to shine.
4) Pointless Monk weapons. Least important, since unarmed attacks are perfectly spiffy, but still annoying.


I had written up a Monk MK2 to deal with these issues, but I can't find it at the moment... For now, some of the solutions included:

1) They get to use their Wisdom modifier instead of their Strength modifier for all melee attack and damage rolls, thus eliminating MAD (this way, they'll be reliant on Dexterity and Wisdom, and to a lesser extent on Constitution; this isn't terribly bad).
2) They get to use their "once per day" powers (Wis modifier) times per day (i.e. once per significant encounter or thereabouts), and once per week becomes once per day (Quivering Palm). Flurry of blows is a standard action, as Skjaldbakka suggested above.
3) They don't count their unarmed attacks as "light weapons" when making grapple, trip or disarm attacks, thus the mid-level BAB is not penalized further with the -4 penalty.
4) Rather than the usual unarmed attack damage, they get bonus damage equal to their (Monk level / 2) + 2 to monk weapon attacks and unarmed attacks. Thus, a 1st level monk deals 1d3 + 2 damage with an unarmed attack, while a 20th level monk deals 1d3 + 12 damage.

Theodoxus
2007-11-11, 11:12 AM
With power creep, the monk has become completely out moded. A simple solution would be to grant them inspiration points ala Factotum, and they're good to go.

I would still probably improve some of their abilities beyond that... FoB as a standard action would probably singlehandedly increase their combat capability up to that of the rogue. Then being able to use their per day abilites in a per encounter fashion would make anyone thinking about playing a melee class seriously consider the monk.

Monks are great fluff, nearly as much as a Paladin... but their crunch... ick.

Temp
2007-11-11, 11:15 AM
With power creep, the monk has become completely out moded.
No, they came that way.

If anything, power creep has made a Monk more playable by covering some of his problems (Sun School, Stunning Fist variants, X to Y feats)

Stam
2007-11-11, 11:24 AM
Quick fix for me would be full BAB and the flurry-as-SA option, as listed above (not granting a full attack as a SA, but granting two attacks at a -2 until 5th, at a -1 until 9th, and then three attacks as a SA at Monk 11th).

I'd possibly limit this to something that specifically rules out cheese like a Monk/Scout. But otherwise, I'd either suggest the PC build themselves a PrC that fit their monk flavour, or multiclass. (Carmendine Monk + Ascetic Monk + Rogue levels ftw!)

Theodoxus
2007-11-11, 12:19 PM
Quick fix for me would be full BAB and the flurry-as-SA option, as listed above (not granting a full attack as a SA, but granting two attacks at a -2 until 5th, at a -1 until 9th, and then three attacks as a SA at Monk 11th).

So, something along the lines of this?

Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make two attacks as a standard action at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, as does any other attack made that round. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. When making a full attack action, a monk may use flurry of blows as part of their routine, adding the flurry, at full base attack bonus, to their normal number of attacks based on their BAB. When using flurry... [rest remains unchanged]

It's a smidge more powerful at lower levels than the standard monk - three attacks as a full round attack, but I think that helps rather than hurts

Theo

lord_khaine
2007-11-11, 12:25 PM
bahh, the suckiness of monks are greatly overrated.

-MAD isnt so big a issue when you are rolling your stats (though it might restrict you a little in when you can play a monk)
-using magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter is only a singel feat or dip away ( magic gauntletts ftw! )
-there isnt a weakness in grapple and trip, improved grapple feat compensates for lower BAB up until level 17, where it really doesnt matter anymore, and trip is only depending on str, where bab isnt a issue at all.

still 1 fix i do think is long due is the use of light armor like a swordsage.

The Glyphstone
2007-11-11, 12:32 PM
bahh, the suckiness of monks are greatly overrated.

-MAD isnt so big a issue when you are rolling your stats (though it might restrict you a little in when you can play a monk)


That's actually a good point, and one thing that makes MAD a bigger issue - these discussions happen online, where point-buy is far more widely used.



-using magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter is only a singel feat or dip away ( magic gauntletts ftw! )

Aren't monks not proficient in gauntlets, or something stupid like that?



-there isnt a weakness in grapple and trip, improved grapple feat compensates for lower BAB up until level 17, where it really doesnt matter anymore, and trip is only depending on str, where bab isnt a issue at all.

Can't speak for Trip - but grapple becomes a lot worse at Lvl 7/8, not 17, when the casters get access to Freedom of Movement.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 12:32 PM
bahh, the suckiness of monks are greatly overrated.
Yes, we know YOU like them, but that doesn't raise them above their bottom tier.



-MAD isnt so big a issue when you are rolling your stats (though it might restrict you a little in when you can play a monk)
False. It's only not so big an issue if you somehow roll consistently high. That is, either use a rolling method that comes far above the usual averages, or be extremely lucky, or cheat.



-using magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter is only a singel feat or dip away ( magic gauntletts ftw! )
False. Two words: power attack.



-there isnt a weakness in grapple and trip, improved grapple feat compensates for lower BAB up until level 17, where it really doesnt matter anymore, and trip is only depending on str, where bab isnt a issue at all.

False. Grapple isn't all that useful against many high-CR monsters, and high-CR characters can easily immunize themselves against it. And BAB certainly is an issue with tripping, because you can't trip what you can't hit.

You score zero out of three. Incidentally, so does the monk.

ZeroNumerous
2007-11-11, 12:34 PM
That's actually a good point, and one thing that makes MAD a bigger issue - these discussions happen online, where point-buy is far more widely used.

Ironically enough, a Monk benefits better from point-buy than rolling. Roll nothing higher than a 14 and a monk is dead. But with Point-Buy he can specialize in Dex and Wis to at least survive level 1 - 3.

Temp
2007-11-11, 12:53 PM
Ironically enough, a Monk benefits better from point-buy than rolling. Roll nothing higher than a 14 and a monk is dead. But with Point-Buy he can specialize in Dex and Wis to at least survive level 1 - 3.I think the point is that unless you do roll high stats you aren't going to play a Monk.

And if you do get the equivalent of 32+ Point Buy, anything's a viable option.


-there isnt a weakness in grapple and trip, improved grapple feat compensates for lower BAB up until level 17, where it really doesnt matter anymore, and trip is only depending on str, where bab isnt a issue at all.But the Monk is still the worst choice for a grapple or trip-based character because they get no support for these styles beyond those feats [which are available to everyone else].

Fighters have less MAD (and thus higher stregth), better Base Attack, and more feats to improve their grappling/tripping.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 12:56 PM
Aren't there fatigue and endurance rules in 3rd edition?

There were in 2nd. All you needed to do was actually look them up. Using those rules you could easily apply fatigue to warriors who decked themselves out in heavy gear. By so many turns in combat they could become too tired to fight.

This balances out in the favor of Monks since they usually wear nothing.

Temp
2007-11-11, 01:01 PM
There were in 2nd. All you needed to do was actually look them up. Using those rules you could easily apply fatigue to warriors who decked themselves out in heavy gear. By so many turns in combat they could become too tired to fight.Gimping everybody else is not the answer. The heavily armored characters have troubles enough already.


*Beside the Cleric; he doesn't count

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 01:03 PM
There are, but they're generally concerned with long-duration activities; you can fatigue yourself by marching too long or, notably, by trying to sleep in heavy armor. There's nothing on fatiguing yourself in combat that I can recall except for the aftereffects of a Barbarian Rage.

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 01:12 PM
I've always thought that monks should be able to apply their Wis modifier to all combat rolls (attack, damage, trips, grapples etc). The emphasis of the class is on perfection of the self and they already gain an insight bonus to their AC from Wis, having it apply to everything else would make a lot of sense.

Plus tripping and grappling might actually become useful for the beleagured monk.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 01:17 PM
There are, but they're generally concerned with long-duration activities; you can fatigue yourself by marching too long or, notably, by trying to sleep in heavy armor. There's nothing on fatiguing yourself in combat that I can recall except for the aftereffects of a Barbarian Rage.

Point is, it all adds up. I mean if you're in combat for over 10 minutes swinging around a 10 pound sword while being decked out in 250 pounds of heavy armor, then you're gonna start getting some major endurance issues (just as if you had been exerting yourself by running at x3 speed).

Also, to the other poster, it isn't gimping someone if you're using the rules as they are written. The fact so many people refuse to use Encumbrance rules only strengthens the class imbalances. The concept of encumbrance and fatigue was designed as part of the balancing system, that's why it's not smart to always build a fighter in full plate mail.

Temp
2007-11-11, 01:31 PM
Also, to the other poster, it isn't gimping someone if you're using the rules as they are written. The fact so many people refuse to use Encumbrance rules only strengthens the class imbalances. The concept of encumbrance and fatigue was designed as part of the balancing system, that's why it's not smart to always build a fighter in full plate mail.

'Fraid not, sweety.

Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#encumbrancebyArmor)

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 01:32 PM
Point is, it all adds up. I mean if you're in combat for over 10 minutes swinging around a 10 pound sword while being decked out in 250 pounds of heavy armor, then you're gonna start getting some major endurance issues (just as if you had been exerting yourself by running at x3 speed).

Also, to the other poster, it isn't gimping someone if you're using the rules as they are written. The fact so many people refuse to use Encumbrance rules only strengthens the class imbalances. The concept of encumbrance and fatigue was designed as part of the balancing system, that's why it's not smart to always build a fighter in full plate mail.

Ten minutes at ten rounds a minute is over a hundred continuous rounds of fighting. This is, to put it simply, not a common occurrence. Full plate weighs only 50 pounds; a greatsword is another 8. That's within the 'Light Load' category for a character of 14 Str, let alone one who actually focuses on Strength. If it weren't for the rule that heavy armor is equivalently restricting to a heavy load, the full plate fighter wouldn't be burdened at all by his armor. Note that that is restricting, not encumbering- he can walk around in that all day without any trouble, although it will prevent him from getting a decent night's sleep if he tries to go to bed in it. Really, people ignore the Encumbrance rules because they're generally very forgiving. You won't run afoul of them unless you've deliberately sunken your Strength or you've been pack-ratting stuff.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:12 PM
bahh, the suckiness of monks are greatly overrated.

I think you meant overstated. :smallsmile:


-MAD isnt so big a issue when you are rolling your stats (though it might restrict you a little in when you can play a monk)

Only if you choose what character you're going to play after you roll for stats.


-using magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter is only a singel feat or dip away ( magic gauntletts ftw! )

It doesn't work that way. An attack with magic gauntlets counts as an armed attack - it is not, repeat not, an unarmed strike. You might as well just use the Monk weapons if you're going to be attacking with magic gauntlets; it's the same effect.


-there isnt a weakness in grapple and trip, improved grapple feat compensates for lower BAB up until level 17, where it really doesnt matter anymore, and trip is only depending on str, where bab isnt a issue at all.

[3/4 BAB + Improved Grapple] < [Full BAB + Improved Grapple].

Trip does still require a melee touch attack to hit. That's not always a 95% chance of success, especially with 3/4 BAB.


still 1 fix i do think is long due is the use of light armor like a swordsage.

Isn't that completely against the concept of the Monk?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:27 PM
'Fraid not, sweety.

Link (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/carryingCapacity.htm#encumbrancebyArmor)

I asked if they got rid of the fatigue rules since 2nd edition. The answer was they are still in there. All you did was quote the basic encumbrance rules you didn't even quote the fatigue rules.

Next time, would it bother you too much to actually read what you quote before you quote anything?

thanks.

:pimp slaps Temp:

Now either the fatigue rules are still in this system (probably found in the DM guide), or they got rid of them.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:30 PM
I asked if they got rid of the fatigue rules since 2nd edition. The answer was they are still in there. All you did was quote the basic encumbrance rules you didn't even quote the fatigue rules.

Next time, would it bother you too much to actually read what you quote before you quote anything?

thanks.

:pimp slaps Temp:

Now either the fatigue rules are still in this system (probably found in the DM guide), or they got rid of them.

Temp linked to the Encumbrance rules because they don't do what you said that they do. You explicitly mentioned that people don't use the Encumbrance rules in the quoted section of his post.

:backhand bitchslizaps DoG:

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:32 PM
Ten minutes at ten rounds a minute is over a hundred continuous rounds of fighting. This is, to put it simply, not a common occurrence. Full plate weighs only 50 pounds; a greatsword is another 8. That's within the 'Light Load' category for a character of 14 Str, let alone one who actually focuses on Strength. If it weren't for the rule that heavy armor is equivalently restricting to a heavy load, the full plate fighter wouldn't be burdened at all by his armor. Note that that is restricting, not encumbering- he can walk around in that all day without any trouble, although it will prevent him from getting a decent night's sleep if he tries to go to bed in it. Really, people ignore the Encumbrance rules because they're generally very forgiving. You won't run afoul of them unless you've deliberately sunken your Strength or you've been pack-ratting stuff.

Fighting, running, punching...

Fatigue/Exhaustion rules were more or less cumulative. You don't automatically recover constitution after being fatigued when the previous battle comes to an end. It keeps adding up as you fail your saves/con checks, until you actually have a chance to rest fully (such as making camp).

Unless of course these rules were abandoned in 3rd edition.

That's why I asked if these rules still existed. If they don't then the whole concept of encumbrance is broken.

I've never seen a person not use encumbrance because it was meaningless. Every time I've ever seen someone whine and moan about encumbrance was because they know they'd get screwed to the wall with their own massive equipment list that even Heracles can't carry.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:36 PM
Temp linked to the Encumbrance rules because they don't do what you said that they do.

:backhand bitchslizaps DoG:

LOL actually he only quoted the basic encumbrance rules concerning weight carried.

He did not quote any fatigue rules.

Fatigue/exhaustion rules aren't ever found in the same section as basic encumbrance.

I was told that these rules still exist, now either they exist, or they don't. If they don't then I was told wrong, and you can clearly see this in this thread, providing you actually find it within yourself to read the line of comments.

If they exist, then that's how they work. If they don't exist then WoTC abandoned them. I could care less if they do or don't exist, I'm just trying to give some assistance to dealing with the situation. But if you keep pressing the issue then I request you provide me with the full DM guide so I can read and find out if they still exist or not.

:ripes JaxGaret's head off and spits down his neck for refusing to read before he posts:

Zincorium
2007-11-11, 02:36 PM
Now either the fatigue rules are still in this system (probably found in the DM guide), or they got rid of them.

Brilliant reasoning there, holmes.

There are fatigue categories, reachable through either prolonged physical activity (force-marching, etc.) or the afteraffects of certain abilities like barbarian rage. The effects are in the glossary in the back of the PHB.

The thing is, those don't apply in combat for a reason. The fighters we're talking about are legendary in strength and stamina. They are Beowulf swimming for seven nights in full mail with a sword in one hand and fighting off sea monsters.

Real combatants who were trained to fight in armor and with heavy weapons did not lose their edge in combat unless it dragged on for quite some time. The heroes in D&D are supposed to be leagues ahead of them. Five minutes is 50 rounds in D&D, and I can't recall any combat I've seen that lasted even half that without an opportunity to rest.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:38 PM
Fighting, running, punching...

Fatigue/Exhaustion rules were more or less cumulative. You don't automatically recover constitution after being fatigued when the previous battle comes to an end. It keeps adding up as you fail your saves/con checks, until you actually have a chance to rest fully (such as making camp).

Unless of course these rules were abandoned in 3rd edition.

That's why I asked if these rules still existed. If they don't then the whole concept of encumbrance is broken.

I've never seen a person not use encumbrance because it was meaningless. Every time I've ever seen someone whine and moan about encumbrance was because they know they'd get screwed to the wall with their own massive equipment list that even Heracles can't carry.

Here are the rules for activities that cause your character to become fatigued/exhausted: Overland Hustle (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#overlandHustle) and Forced March (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/movement.htm#forcedMarch).

Note that both of those take hours to set in; combat lasting a couple of minutes won't fatigue a character. And they only deal very small amounts of nonlethal damage, which, once healed, removes the fatigued condition.

Temp
2007-11-11, 02:38 PM
Unless of course these rules were abandoned in 3rd edition.That's really the sort of thing you should look into before using as an argument in a rules debate.


He did not quote any fatigue rules.

You're right; there were no rules about Encumberance-based Fatigue. Funny, that.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:44 PM
Brilliant reasoning there, holmes.

What the hell do you expect me to say? I asked an outright question and it appears that I got a bullplop answer. Seriously some of you people need to get off your high horse.


There are fatigue categories, reachable through either prolonged physical activity (force-marching, etc.) or the afteraffects of certain abilities like barbarian rage. The effects are in the glossary in the back of the PHB.

Being in combat lugging around heavy equipment used to count as prolonged physical activity. If combat is now specifically excluded then it's specifically excluded. The way the rules used to read was any amount of prolonged exertion using encumbrance as a guideline for the fatigue/exhaustion checks.



The thing is, those don't apply in combat for a reason. The fighters we're talking about are legendary in strength and stamina. They are Beowulf swimming for seven nights in full mail with a sword in one hand and fighting off sea monsters.

If they no longer apply in combat then they no longer apply. But they sure as hell applied in combat in 2nd edition.

I can see a massive abuse of the rules right there of players arguing when they are and aren't in combat.


Real combatants who were trained to fight in armor and with heavy weapons did not lose their edge in combat unless it dragged on for quite some time.

Real combatants would only fight for at most 8-10 minutes per day. The French didn't lose at Agencort because they just wanted to sit down and have some tea. They became exhausted, and so many of the heavily armored men became so exhausted they couldn't get up after falling down. Their strength was so sapped the mud created a suction, and they wound up getting trampled into the muck.

It is a literal joke that anyone would ever believe such a ridiculous lie that you wouldn't become fatigued from fighting in 100-300 pounds worth of armor for as little as 10 minutes.


The heroes in D&D are supposed to be leagues ahead of them. Five minutes is 50 rounds in D&D, and I can't recall any combat I've seen that lasted even half that without an opportunity to rest.

Then you never played caves of chaos then.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:45 PM
That's really the sort of thing you should look into before using as an argument in a rules debate.

I asked if they were in the rules, or are you too blind to see my first post?



You're right; there were no rules based on Encumberance-based Fatigue. Funny, that.

if there were they wouldn't have been in the section you quoted in the first place, Einstein.

Temp
2007-11-11, 02:45 PM
Real combatants would only fight for at most 8-10 minutes per day. The French didn't lose at Agencort because they just wanted to sit down and have some tea. They became exhausted, and so many of the heavily armored men became so exhausted they couldn't get up after falling down. Their strength was so sapped the mud created a suction, and they wound up getting trampled into the muck.
Real combatants couldn't fly either.


if there were they wouldn't have been in the section you quoted in the first place, EinsteinOf course! Only a fool would place Encumberance rules in the Encumberance section. What was I thinking?


I asked if they were in the rules, or are you too blind to see my first post?I see one post where you state 2nd edition rules. I also see your second post where you say they also apply to 3.5.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:47 PM
Real combatants couldn't fly either.

Yes, they could.

It's a little known game called: Prisoner Toss or "No wait, don't pull that lever, my hand's tied to this rooooooooooooooo---.."

Ne0
2007-11-11, 02:47 PM
Real combatants couldn't fly either.

Normal fighters can't, either I believe. At least not without the help of some spell caster. (Or an item made by a spell caster)

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:47 PM
LOL actually he only quoted the basic encumbrance rules concerning weight carried.

He did not quote any fatigue rules.

Fatigue/exhaustion rules aren't ever found in the same section as basic encumbrance.

I was told that these rules still exist, now either they exist, or they don't. If they don't then I was told wrong, and you can clearly see this in this thread, providing you actually find it within yourself to read the line of comments.

If they exist, then that's how they work. If they don't exist then WoTC abandoned them. I could care less if they do or don't exist, I'm just trying to give some assistance to dealing with the situation. But if you keep pressing the issue then I request you provide me with the full DM guide so I can read and find out if they still exist or not.

:ripes JaxGaret's head off and spits down his neck for refusing to read before he posts:

Here you go: D&D 3.5 SRD, which includes all of the rules of the DMG, updated with errata, and is free, online, for you to read at your leisure at any time, instead of just posting whatever nonsense you think should be the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/).

Encumbrance has nothing to do with Fatigue. That is the point. If you read the encumbrance rules and they don't mention fatigue - ding ding ding! - then they have nothing to do with each other.

Geez.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:48 PM
Of course! Only a fool would place Encumberance rules in the Encumberance section. What was I thinking?

Encumbrance and Fatigue are usually found in sections between Player Handbook and Dungeonmaster. Fatigue/Exhaustion especially rare to be found all in one spot when discussing various other skills and abilities.

I've noticed that despite claims by people such as yourself, 3rd edition remains almost as bad with rule organization/cross referencing as 2nd edition was.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 02:52 PM
Here you go: D&D 3.5 SRD, which includes all of the rules of the DMG, updated with errata, and is free, online, for you to read at your leisure at any time, instead of just posting whatever nonsense you think should be the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/).

Encumbrance has nothing to do with Fatigue. That is the point. If you read the encumbrance rules and they don't mention fatigue - ding ding ding! - then they have nothing to do with each other.

Geez.

As I said before, although I realize it is with great difficulty that you attempt to read what anyone has written, those were the rules in 2nd edition, rules I did not make up.

I asked if those same rules are in 3rd, I was told they were. The fact they're not does not put the fault on my shoulders.

And as far as your opion goes, I actually try to read people's posts and try to read the threads before I respond. You have not begun to demonstrate that simple task. So I leave you with this motivational poster:


http://members.aol.com/dalbozofgurth/startrek/bleach_opinion.jpg

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:53 PM
I asked if they got rid of the fatigue rules since 2nd edition. The answer was they are still in there. All you did was quote the basic encumbrance rules you didn't even quote the fatigue rules.

Next time, would it bother you too much to actually read what you quote before you quote anything?

thanks.

:pimp slaps Temp:

Now either the fatigue rules are still in this system (probably found in the DM guide), or they got rid of them.

This is your original post with the bad attitude. All Temp said was "Fraid not, sweety" and you jumped down their throat. This is why everyone is jumping all over you - these boards are supposed to be friendly, not pimpslappingfests.

Also, I've said it before a thousand times: D&D does not equal realism.

Temp
2007-11-11, 02:53 PM
Normal fighters can't, either I believe. At least not without the help of some spell caster. (Or an item made by a spell caster)Right, but the point is that the game isn't realistic. A High level Fighter can survive hundreds of arrow wounds too, that may have been a better example.


I've noticed that despite claims by people such as yourself, 3rd edition remains almost as bad with rule organization/cross referencing as 2nd edition was.When did anyone state 3.5 was well organized? The SRD actually is, but that has very little to do with WotC.


Encumbrance and Fatigue are usually found in sections between Player Handbook and Dungeonmaster. Fatigue/Exhaustion especially rare to be found all in one spot when discussing various other skills and abilities.The SRD groups almost all core rules material and does so with a fairly good job of organization. If it isn't an iconic monster, a Wealth-by-level table or a Level advancement table, it's there.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 02:56 PM
As I said before, although I realize it is with great difficulty that you attempt to read what anyone has written, those were the rules in 2nd edition, rules I did not make up.

I asked if those same rules are in 3rd, I was told they were. The fact they're not does not put the fault on my shoulders.

Who said they were? Where? The only post I see that addressed it is this one:


There are, but they're generally concerned with long-duration activities; you can fatigue yourself by marching too long or, notably, by trying to sleep in heavy armor. There's nothing on fatiguing yourself in combat that I can recall except for the aftereffects of a Barbarian Rage.

And that's very explicit in saying that combat does not induce fatigue.



And as far as your opion goes, I actually try to read people's posts and try to read the threads before I respond. You have not begun to demonstrate that simple task. So I leave you with this motivational poster:


http://members.aol.com/dalbozofgurth/startrek/bleach_opinion.jpg

Okay. Same to you.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 02:58 PM
As I said before, although I realize it is with great difficulty that you attempt to read what anyone has written, those were the rules in 2nd edition, rules I did not make up.

I asked if those same rules are in 3rd, I was told they were. The fact they're not does not put the fault on my shoulders.

Hmm. I'm paging through a 2nd Ed Player's Handbook, and the only fatigue/exhaustion rules I've seen are in relation to forced marches or the optional Running rules, which is exactly the same place they are in 3rd Edition. Encumbrance doesn't have any relation to it either- the effect of encumbrance is to reduce your movement speed, which is the same thing it does in 3rd. There's a DMG around here somewhere, if I have to check that one, but so far it looks like you did actually make up exhaustion rules for fighting too long.

Temp
2007-11-11, 02:59 PM
You asked if it was a rule, I posted a link saying it wasn't.

...Therefore my opinion isn't valid?


[edit:]Less so even than someone who doesn't bother to learn the rules of the game in question?

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 03:01 PM
This is your original post with the bad attitude. All Temp said was "Fraid not, sweety" and you jumped down their throat. This is why everyone is jumping all over you - these boards are supposed to be friendly, not pimpslappingfests.

I was perfectly calm and nice and trying to offer a simple and possible solution, until I got that punk answer from someone who refused to actually read a post before he responded.

When someone mouths off like that, I could care less who they are. Calling someone "sweetie" is a punk answer from someone mouthing off.


Also, I've said it before a thousand times: D&D does not equal realism.

Someone is trying to find a way to balance out this horribly imbalanced game system, buddy, and all I did was give a possible solution with the question mark of whether or not it was still in this game system. I was just relating how it was balanced out in 2nd edition. You don't have to use it, but likewise, you also don't have to smart off to me for offering a suggestion.

Maybe when you've grown up and become more mature and actually learn that mouthing off, is a quick way to earn spiteful retort, you and people like Temp stop doing it.

Now, if all you're going to do is mouth off like temp, then you can take that motivational poster as my response to any and all attitude I receive from you now and in the future.

Dalboz of Gurth
2007-11-11, 03:03 PM
You asked if it was a rule, I posted a link saying it wasn't.

...Therefore my opinion isn't valid?

No, pal. You called me sweetie in a very sardonic reply to a simple suggestion.



[edit:]Less so even than someone who doesn't bother to learn the rules of the game in question?

And that edit of yours is a prime example of your punked up attitude.

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 03:12 PM
I was perfectly calm and nice and trying to offer a simple and possible solution, until I got that punk answer from someone who refused to actually read a post before he responded.

When someone mouths off like that, I could care less who they are. Calling someone "sweetie" is a punk answer from someone mouthing off.



Someone is trying to find a way to balance out this horribly imbalanced game system, buddy, and all I did was give a possible solution with the question mark of whether or not it was still in this game system. I was just relating how it was balanced out in 2nd edition. You don't have to use it, but likewise, you also don't have to smart off to me for offering a suggestion.

Maybe when you've grown up and become more mature and actually learn that mouthing off, is a quick way to earn spiteful retort, you and people like Temp stop doing it.

Now, if all you're going to do is mouth off like temp, then you can take that motivational poster as my response to any and all attitude I receive from you now and in the future.

Yeah, you're right. Emote pimpslapping someone on an internet board for saying the word "sweety" to you is the height of maturity.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-11, 03:15 PM
Sorry to dungeoncrash your party, guys, but could you continue this argument through PM? It's absolutely OOC.


And, BTW, no, 3.5ed doesn't have any rules for in-combat fatigue, other than the kind that a barbarian or Frenzied Berserker suffers. In 3.5ed, only fatigue or exhaustion because of long term efforts are applied.

Darkxarth
2007-11-11, 03:19 PM
Back on topic...

Monks. Suckitude. Discuss. :smalltongue:

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 03:20 PM
Sorry to dungeoncrash your party, guys, but could you continue this argument through PM? It's absolutely OOC.


And, BTW, no, 3.5ed doesn't have any rules for in-combat fatigue, other than the kind that a barbarian or Frenzied Berserker suffers. In 3.5ed, only fatigue or exhaustion because of long term efforts are applied.

And after a check through the PHB and DMG, to the best of my knowledge neither does 2nd Edition. The only references I've found are for forced marches, continual running, and the Endurance non-weapon proficiency, which says 'you can perform continual strenuous physical activity twice as long before you have to start rolling for exhaustion.' Nowhere that I can see does it actually say what constitutes continual strenuous physical activity, nor how long the normal period you can do such activity is. It's all up to the DM to decide if he wants to call for Con checks or saves vs. whatever, no rule.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 04:10 PM
OK guys, don't make me fix the Monk, take levels in it, and Flurry of Blows Pimp Slap all of you as a standard action.

^It's a joke, either laugh, ignore it, or PM me about how much you hate me.

Anyway I've pretty much gotten my answer and that is that the Monk needs more of a fix than simply better BAB.

I've been wanting to make a Wis based non-spellcaster class for a while, but haven't really figured out what to make it. Perhaps a Monk fix is the answer...

JaxGaret
2007-11-11, 04:15 PM
OK guys, don't make me fix the Monk, take levels in it, and Flurry of Blows Pimp Slap all of you as a standard action.

Oh noes!


^It's a joke, either laugh, ignore it, or PM me about how much you hate me.

What if I just silently grimace? :smallsmile:


Anyway I've pretty much gotten my answer and that is that the Monk needs more of a fix than simply better BAB.

Yeah, pretty much. It's got multiple broken aspects.


I've been wanting to make a Wis based non-spellcaster class for a while, but haven't really figured out what to make it. Perhaps a Monk fix is the answer...

You could make a variant Ranger with more abilities based off of Wisdom. The Ranger is a much better starting point than the Monk.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 04:23 PM
You could make a variant Ranger with more abilities based off of Wisdom. The Ranger is a much better starting point than the Monk.

I'm not sure how you'd do that without emphasizing the spellcasting much more heavily. There isn't a lot in the basic Ranger concepts that says Wisdom to me; it's handy for the skills it boosts, but other than that the stat isn't especially relevant to the 'wilderness warrior' archetype that the Ranger is intended to represent.

/I'm probably wrong. Somebody tell me how I'm wrong now, please.

lord_khaine
2007-11-11, 04:34 PM
Yes, we know YOU like them, but that doesn't raise them above their bottom tier

and we also know YOU dont like them, that doesnt place them in the bottom tier either.



-MAD isnt so big a issue when you are rolling your stats (though it might restrict you a little in when you can play a monk)
False. It's only not so big an issue if you somehow roll consistently high. That is, either use a rolling method that comes far above the usual averages, or be extremely lucky, or cheat.


wrong, the standart 4d6 is enough to make a monk that can stand up to the rest of the party most of the time.



-using magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter is only a singel feat or dip away ( magic gauntletts ftw! )
False. Two words: power attack

learn to read my post, i said able to use magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter, not able to outdamage the fighter.


False. Grapple isn't all that useful against many high-CR monsters, and high-CR characters can easily immunize themselves against it. And BAB certainly is an issue with tripping, because you can't trip what you can't hit

wrong, unless your gm only sends singel opponents of huge+ size, grapple is a usefull option that will regularly come up. yes freedom of movement does negate it, but that option isnt availeble for everyone you encounter.
and since trip is a touch attack, then its really not a issue whereever you have that +1 to hit per 4 levels or not, very few opponents have a touch ac thats worth mentioning.


You score zero out of three. Incidentally, so does the monk.


your attempt at humor fails, like your post.

Temp
2007-11-11, 04:37 PM
So you take the Ranger.

You start by ditching the Spells Ranger-y abilities (Animal Companion, Tracking, Weapon Styles), Adding Wisdom to everything (AC, Saving Throws) and giving Enhanced Speed.
Then drop Weapon Proficiencies, Medium Armor and Shields for The MonkSwordsage AC and Monk Weapons/Unarmed Strike.
Drop Favored Enemy for Stunning Fist.
Give Stunning Fist options--Hitting a different save, knocking enemies backward, tripping enemies, disarming enemies, dealing ability damage--as the Monk Progresses.
Give Monks proficiency with Gauntlets, let those deliver Stunning Fist Attacks.


I think that would likely be enough to make it a capable class.


learn to read my post, i said able to use magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter, not able to outdamage the fighter.But the Fighter is Two-Handed Power Attacking with equally magical weapons. Unless the Monk can match that, he isn't on equal footing.

Catch
2007-11-11, 04:49 PM
wrong, the standart 4d6 is enough to make a monk that can stand up to the rest of the party most of the time.

The standard 4d6 is random. With a normal distribution--the elite array of (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)--you can't sufficiently satisfy the monk's MAD. Say you toss the 15 into Dex, the 14 into Wis and the 13 and 12 into Str and Con respectively. Your to-hit is lousy, your hit points are mediocre, and you have few skill points. On the plus side... your AC is decent.

Show me how that "keeps up" with the rest of the party.



learn to read my post, i said able to use magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter, not able to outdamage the fighter.

Using magic weapons removes one of the Monk's integral class features--unarmed damage. By pouring your gold into a magic weapon to keep up, you're basically doing the same thing as the fighter, yet worse, considering you can't Power Attack efficiently or hit as often. That makes me ask a very pressing question: Why are you playing a Monk in the first place?



wrong, unless your gm only sends singel opponents of huge+ size, grapple is a usefull option that will regularly come up. yes freedom of movement does negate it, but that option isnt availeble for everyone you encounter.
and since trip is a touch attack, then its really not a issue whereever you have that +1 to hit per 4 levels or not, very few opponents have a touch ac thats worth mentioning.

Consider all the monsters in the MM that are bigger than Medium and have a better to-hit and Strength mod than you. You can't trip a Dragon, even if you can hit it.

Consider all the monsters in the MM that want to grapple you. The nasties that can constrict or swallow you whole. Do you really want to wrestle with something that would very much like to eat you?

Consider that most spellcasters won't be within your reach. You can't grapple, trip or otherwise affect a flying Wizard.

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 04:54 PM
Monks as a whole need a couple of changes to get anywhere near the other classes in playability.

Skills
Skill points per level need to be upped to 6 or even 8. With the kind of distribution you have to do with a 32 point buy or a 4d6b3 roll there's a damn good chance that your monk isn't going to have a good Int score.

At the very least a monk needs high ranks in listen, spot, sense motive and jump, to say nothing of the other skills that would make them better used in a party. As it is monks fall far behind the rest of the class when it comes to skills.

Combat
Back to my original post, 3.5 markets monks as a great class to do all of those nifty combat maneuvors that they crammed into the combat section of the PHB, but without giving them leeway from MAD problems.

A level 6 fighter with 20 Str or a rogue with 20 Dex after items will have a +5 chance to resist trip attempts. A 6th level monk with Improved trip goes for a trip attack and has maybe 14 Str, giving him a +6 bonus. Yeah, he can beat them by 1, wooo.

Plus if he fails the trip attempt then the the fighter or rogue can try to trip him, at a +5 bonus for the fighter and anywhere between a 0 to +3 bonus for the rogue. Improved Trip says, "You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent." but doesn't give that bonus to resisting checks. So with RAW, if the monk screws up his trip chance, then has to resist the opponent's free trip check with his +2 or +3 Dex bonus. Then there's the fact that the fighter just keeps getting stronger, and the rogue keeps getting quicker while the monk only gets wiser.

But that's not all. With the moderate BAB and low strength of most monks Improved Grapple becomes useless past level 7. Freedom of Movement for spellcasters, high BAB classes are at least on par with the monks bonus, and rogues and bards have decent ranks in the Escape Artist.

As for Improved Disarm? Hahaha, no. Even with the feat monks still take the -4 penalty for using a light weapon, aka unarmed strike. And the roll is an attack roll too, not an ability one, so the monk is further penalized by his moderate progression. Since high BAB front-liners are the main target for this maneuver, being a monk and taking this feat renders your character completely useless, unless you use a quarterstaff to do it, but then you loose out on your unarmed damage progression for the rest of the round.

Now, most DM's would rule Improved Trip as utterly stupid and give them +4 to all trip checks (Improved Grapple gives +4 to all grapple checks, so why not). Not much can be done about grapple and some might rule the light weapon penalty for disarming monks. I think there are two main ways to solves the problems of all three combat abilities.

One, monks can choose to treat their unarmed strike as a regular or a light weapon.

Two, monks apply their Wis bonus to all disarm, grapple and trip checks instead of their Str or Dex.

This would actually give monks a reason to take those feats. The above trip example would be modified so that the monk (probably wis 18 Wis after items) would have a +8 bonus both to attempt trips and to resist them, making the feat actually usable.

Feats

I only have one addendum, I think that monks should receive Improved Toughness at 1st level as an extra bonus feat. As a monk advances the knowledge and control they have over their own body grow to supernatural levels, so why shouldn't they become hardier as well? With MAD monks already start with a low-to-mid Con score, so it wouldn't drastically affect their combat abilities, just make them a bit more reasonable.



Those are the biggest changes that I can think of that would actually give them a chance when stacked up against other classes. I know that there are cases where my above examples don't apply, that monks can smack a dagger out of a wizard's hand with relative ease. I have a big problem though that a generic fighter who isn't evn optimized for grappling is just as good as a monk past the 7th level mark.

Whoa, that took a while to type. Keep tossing out ideas everyone! :smallbiggrin:

Temp
2007-11-11, 05:00 PM
Now, most DM's would rule Improved Trip as utterly stupid and give them +4 to all trip checks (Improved Grapple gives +4 to all grapple checks, so why not). Actually, Improved Trip already does this. It's the best of the "Improved ___s."


I only have one addendum, I think that monks should receive Improved Toughness at 1st level as an extra bonus feat. As a monk advances the knowledge and control they have over their own body grow to supernatural levels, so why shouldn't they become hardier as well? With MAD monks already start with a low-to-mid Con score, so it wouldn't drastically affect their combat abilities, just make them a bit more reasonable.Boosting them to d10 or d12 HD would do the same thing, but provide one less number to track.


Two, monks apply their Wis bonus to all disarm, grapple and trip checks instead of their Str or Dex.
Not a bad idea; Monks need everything they can scrounge to fight MAD.

lord_khaine
2007-11-11, 05:03 PM
I think you meant overstated
hmm, well i think most people got the general message.


Only if you choose what character you're going to play after you roll for stats
yeah, thats one of the things i find fun with rolling your stats, and no matter how bad you roll, you can allways make a druid or wizard without dragging the group down.


It doesn't work that way. An attack with magic gauntlets counts as an armed attack - it is not, repeat not, an unarmed strike. You might as well just use the Monk weapons if you're going to be attacking with magic gauntlets; it's the same effect.

actualy the FAQ explains that not only is a gauntlett a unarmed strike that gets your monk unarmed damage bonus, you can also flurry with it.


[3/4 BAB + Improved Grapple] < [Full BAB + Improved Grapple].

Trip does still require a melee touch attack to hit. That's not always a 95% chance of success, especially with 3/4 BAB

well firstly i have trouble imagening anyone with full bab who gets any advantage for wasting 2 feats on improved grapple, besides making the monk look bad.
and whats important is how many full bab opponents you will run into with your monk, not how high the teoretic grapple score of a fighter with improved grapple is.

still, assuming level 9, with equal str and improved grapple, monk would have 2 30% chances to get a hold, + 1 5% chance, that adds up to a 54% chance of getting a hold and doing damage equal to a unarmed strike.
and unless the opponent has a weapon that can be used in a grapple, then he will have to waste a round trying to break lose, with a 65% chance of doing so.

if the full bab opponent did not have improved grapple, then the chance of getting a hold would be 2 50% chances and 1 25% chance, adding up to some 80%, where the opponent only have a 40% chance to break lose.

the math here was a bit rushed, and there might be a few 5% errors, but it should be somewhat correct.

as for trip, well even with a full bab there isnt allways a 95% chance of hitting with a touch attack.


Isn't that completely against the concept of the Monk?


well its mostly that it would make it a lot easyer playing a monk, and after swordsages got light armor +wis bonus i found it ridicuolus that monks didnt.

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 05:09 PM
Actually, Improved Trip already does this. It's the best of the "Improved ___s."

Boosting them to d10 or d12 HD would do the same thing, but provide one less number to track.


Not a bad idea; Monks need everything they can scrounge to fight MAD.

I thought so too, but the actual wording only gives the bonus to checks made for tripping your opponent, not for resisting trips. Stupid but true.

Yeah, I didn't quite think the Improved Toughness through, with the lowish Con that most Monks have d10 would make more sense.

tyckspoon
2007-11-11, 05:20 PM
well firstly i have trouble imagening anyone with full bab who gets any advantage for wasting 2 feats on improved grapple, besides making the monk look bad.
and whats important is how many full bab opponents you will run into with your monk, not how high the teoretic grapple score of a fighter with improved grapple is.

Like.. anybody else who wants to try a grapple-based fighter? And do it better because they've got full BAB and don't have to worry about raising their Wis and Dex instead of their Str? Yeah, those people get absolutely no advantage from taking Improved Grapple.

Dragons, Outsiders, and Magical Beasts all advance their BAB as a Fighter. Fey and Undead use the Wizard advancement. Everything else uses the Cleric advancement, same as the Monk. Most of them are both larger and stronger than the Monk. Who exactly is he going to be grappling? The best the bonus from Improved Grapple can do is equal out the size bonus for one category.

Temp
2007-11-11, 05:20 PM
I thought so too, but the actual wording only gives the bonus to checks made for tripping your opponent, not for resisting trips. Stupid but true.Ah, I must have misread your post.

Improved Sunder, Overrun and Disarm all have that failing. Even though it does make sense, extending it to opposing Trips probably wouldn't change much.

lord_khaine
2007-11-11, 05:27 PM
The standard 4d6 is random. With a normal distribution--the elite array of (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8)--you can't sufficiently satisfy the monk's MAD. Say you toss the 15 into Dex, the 14 into Wis and the 13 and 12 into Str and Con respectively. Your to-hit is lousy, your hit points are mediocre, and you have few skill points. On the plus side... your AC is decent.

Show me how that "keeps up" with the rest of the party

if i rolled that poorly but still wantet a monk i would put the 15 in str, the 14 in wis and the 13 in con, then grab ability focus stunning fist, and improved grapple, while taking stunning fist as the monk bonus feat.
that way at level 1 i would have a +6 grapple bonus and a stunning fist dc of 14, giving some decent options in combat.


Using magic weapons removes one of the Monk's integral class features--unarmed damage. By pouring your gold into a magic weapon to keep up, you're basically doing the same thing as the fighter, yet worse, considering you can't Power Attack efficiently or hit as often. That makes me ask a very pressing question: Why are you playing a Monk in the first place
using magic gauntlets gives you a magic weapon with the base damage of your unarmed strike, as well as a chance to breach damage reduction with types like good or silver.
why im playing a monk? usualy because i like the speed and having 3 good saves, my last gm used a lot of save or suck effects.


Consider all the monsters in the MM that are bigger than Medium and have a better to-hit and Strength mod than you. You can't trip a Dragon, even if you can hit it.

Consider all the monsters in the MM that want to grapple you. The nasties that can constrict or swallow you whole. Do you really want to wrestle with something that would very much like to eat you?

Consider that most spellcasters won't be within your reach. You can't grapple, trip or otherwise affect a flying Wizard.

well a dragon is also just about the bane of a monk, and unless its a small one i would usualy try and focus on its eventual minions instead.
besides that, a potion of enlarge is only 50 gold, lasts for an entire battle and should bumb your grapple bonus to a point where you can get a hold on most opponets you should be facing, especaly if you are fighting more than 1 opponent.

and well, against those opponents who also uses grapple a monk isnt worse of than others melee chars, since he can still continue making attacks with a -4 penalty, those who uses a medium or larger weapon have to break free before they can attack.

as for spellcasters, either you have to get a hold on them before they start flying, or else you have to get some boots of flying (just 16K).
and besides, its not like all spellcasters you will face is going to be flying around.

Kami2awa
2007-11-11, 05:31 PM
I've always thought a monk/wizard or monk/sorcerer'd be a cool character, particularly an evil one.

Wait! Come back!

I know it'd be a weak character. And I don't care. I want a calm, implacable figure with a thin, 3-foot long moustache in a kimono robe who can alternately throw dark magic around or leap 70 feet to kick you in the head. And I want him to be the arch enemy of this guy:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52048

ZeroNumerous
2007-11-11, 05:32 PM
Like.. anybody else who wants to try a grapple-based fighter? And do it better because they've got full BAB and don't have to worry about raising their Wis and Dex instead of their Str? Yeah, those people get absolutely no advantage from taking Improved Grapple.

Reaping Mauler. :smallbiggrin:

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 05:46 PM
using magic gauntlets gives you a magic weapon with the base damage of your unarmed strike, as well as a chance to breach damage reduction with types like good or silver.


The only problem with using gauntlets is that they're a simple weapon that monks don't have proficiency with. Unless you want to multiclass or take the simple weapon proficiency feat, you'll be taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty for it.

When used for damage, RAW-wise, gauntlets do count as an unarmed strike, but that strikes me as going a bit too far.

No offense but if I was DM'ing and a player wanted to deck-out his monk with cold iron or alchemical silver gauntlets but otherwise be unarmored, I'd apply the monk penalty to armor against him.

Rachel Lorelei
2007-11-11, 05:52 PM
No offense but if I was DM'ing and a player wanted to deck-out his monk with cold iron or alchemical silver gauntlets but otherwise be unarmored, I'd apply the monk penalty to armor against him.

Why would you do that? It's not how the rules work. You'd be changing the rules to make monks worse.

That's like poking the CWarrior Samurai in the eye.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 06:04 PM
Yes, a group of monks is known as a suckitude.

Do they enjoy a nice bowl of Suckatash?

Catch
2007-11-11, 06:18 PM
@lord_khaine:

So you're saying that in order to play a monk, you need higher than average stats. Also, you're still behind in HP, to-hit and, in this case AC. You have to waste feats and gold to gain what normal classes could do.

Now, I'm aware that there are ways to tune-up a Monk to compete with other classes, yet the fact remains that a Monk out-of-the-box is an inferior class. You do less damage and provide less to a party and have to do more work to have the same effect as another class. The only attribute the Monk boasts is a decent defense and not dying doesn't make you an effective character--it makes you a sack of meat.

Basically, the Monk fares well against medium humanoids with low to-hit, no spellcasting and low AC. So as long as your DM is throwing commoners at you, the Monk is super-badass.

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 06:23 PM
Why would you do that? It's not how the rules work. You'd be changing the rules to make monks worse.

That's like poking the CWarrior Samurai in the eye.

I'm all for making monks better, but using gauntlets really blurs the rules for their unarmed damage and flurry of blows. It just doesn't sit with the class in my opinion.

If you use the arguement that RAW-wise there's nothing that prevents a monk from doing this (which is true), then I counter that there's nothing RAW-wise that would keep a Sorceror from wearing gauntlets all the time, even though logically that would definitely interfere with spells that have a somatic component.

It's just a really Batman thing to do, keeping a set of magical +1 or +2 magical gauntlets for each and every kind of damage reduction. It makes a lot more sense to keep a quarterstaff that has a good enchantment around than going with gauntlets.

Freelance Henchman
2007-11-11, 06:28 PM
It makes a lot more sense to keep a quarterstaff that has a good enchantment around than going with gauntlets.

By the way, is there anything in the rules that a staff *has* to be made of wood? I mean can you make an adamantium staff, a cold iron staff or whatever? Maybe not a massive one, just one that is covered in the material to breach DR.

horseboy
2007-11-11, 06:39 PM
By the way, is there anything in the rules that a staff *has* to be made of wood? I mean can you make an adamantium staff, a cold iron staff or whatever? Maybe not a massive one, just one that is covered in the material to breach DR.

Hell, bind one end in cold iron and the other in adamantium. BOOM! Problem solved with one weapon.

Freelance Henchman
2007-11-11, 06:45 PM
Hell, bind one end in cold iron and the other in adamantium. BOOM! Problem solved with one weapon.

That would be rather useful. And the Monk could Flurry with it.

Temp
2007-11-11, 06:56 PM
I'm all for making monks better, but using gauntlets really blurs the rules for their unarmed damage and flurry of blows. It just doesn't sit with the class in my opinion.If they aren't metal, though? Fabric gauntlets would work with the concept, not impact damage and give the Monk a slight boost.

And wouldn't brass knuckles be as appropriate as sai for a Monk? (I really don't know, but I think I remember something about them being used alongside each other)

The Monk has other problems though, so this wouldn't be imbalancing at all.

And I wouldn't say there's a problem with a Wizad carrying around a few +2 weapons; if he wants to blow his moneys/XP that way, fine.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 07:03 PM
If they no longer apply in combat then they no longer apply. But they sure as hell applied in combat in 2nd edition.
Really? What book is that in?


Real combatants would only fight for at most 8-10 minutes per day.
Um, no. Imagine learning swordplay if you could only train for 10 minutes per day...


fighting in 100-300 pounds worth of armor for as little as 10 minutes.
Three hundred pounds of armor? Ha ha ha ha! For a more realistic figure, try fifty.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 07:09 PM
and we also know YOU dont like them, that doesnt place them in the bottom tier either.
False, you don't know that, you're assuming. See, the thing is, you have opinions on your side, I have facts on mine.


wrong, the standart 4d6 is enough to make a monk that can stand up to the rest of the party most of the time.
False again, 4d6 standard gives you the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which does not allow you to make a decent monk. For that matter, even a monk with straight 18s cannot stand up to the rest of the party period.


learn to read my post, i said able to use magic weapons on a equal footing with the fighter, not able to outdamage the fighter.
False again. Learn to read the rules, please? Using magic weapons on an equal footage means having similar attack bonuses and similar damage. The monk is way behind in both.


wrong, unless your gm only sends singel opponents of huge+ size, grapple is a usefull option that will regularly come up.
False yet again (wow, zero out of four so far). Look in the MM and see how many opponents are larger (doesn't have to be huge) and have a better strength than the monk. Oh yeah, and that MAD gives you less strength than the fighter, and that 3/4 BAB is going to suck.


its really not a issue whereever you have that +1 to hit per 4 levels
+5 to hit is not an issue? Wow, your math skills are astounding.


your attempt at humor fails, like your post.
I'm being serious here, actually. Let's see, your score in the last post was zero out of six, that's not really an improvement now. I think you really need to read up on several of those D&D rules you think you know.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-11, 07:22 PM
Back on topic of fixing the monk...

It has been proven in related threads that an unarmed fighter effectively out-monks the monk. Fighters are supposed to be generic, and you should be able to re-fluff them from anything between Conan, D'Artagnan, Li Mu-bai, and then some.

The monk has a rather large bunch of abilities, but most of those aren't particularly relevant most of the time (e.g. get your fighter a Ring of Feather Fall and you no longer need the 20th-level slow fall ability). So let's start from the fighter and add some feats to make him more monk-ish. And yes, I'm aware that the fighter isn't a particularly strong class either.

Unarmed Mastery (feat, can be taken as fighter bonus feat)
Requires: BAB +3
Effect: When attacking unarmed, you can make one additional attack at your best attack bonus, and you add one-third your BAB to the damage done.

Celerity (feat, can be taken as fighter bonus feat)
Requires: BAB +1
Effect: While not wearing armor, you add +1 to your armor class, and +10 to your movement rate.

Improved Celerity (feat, can be taken as fighter bonus feat)
Requires: Celerity
Effect: While not wearing armor, you add an additional +2 to your armor class, and an additional +20 to your movement rate.

Hardened by battle (feat, can be taken as fighter bonus feat)
Requires: Fighter level 4th
Effect: Pick either Reflex or Will. For all your fighter levels, that saving throw uses the "high" progression rather than the "low" one. You may take this feat twice, one for each save.

Starbuck_II
2007-11-11, 08:02 PM
If you use the arguement that RAW-wise there's nothing that prevents a monk from doing this (which is true), then I counter that there's nothing RAW-wise that would keep a Sorceror from wearing gauntlets all the time, even though logically that would definitely interfere with spells that have a somatic component.


Nope. Sorcerors can wear guantlets. Only armor that has ASF gives ASF. Guantlets do not habe a listed ASF. So they give 0%.
Thus, Sorcerors can wear them.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 08:02 PM
That's a very good idea.

The fighter can already be made into an unarmed combatant, but creating new Fighter Bonus Feats that mimic some of the iconic Monk abilities is a good idea. They can't over-shadow the rest of the Fighter Bonus Feats though (improving them is a whole different story).

On thing you did (create a string of feats that get progressively better) is something that combats the Fighter's weakness. As I understand it a lot of the Fighter's weakness at high levels is due to the fact that feats stay the same as far as power goes and what's good at 1st level isn't as good at 20th.

Also on the subject of feats the William Shatner 2-hand slam already exists as a feat in D&D. I believe it's called Hammer Fist. I can't remember were I read it (ToB?)

Stam
2007-11-11, 08:33 PM
*sigh*

Bracers of Striking. Magic of Faerun.

These bracers are enchantable as a double bludgeoning weapon, and convey their bonus to Unarmed Strike.

Done. The monk has a way of enchanting his fists, with inbuilt TWF-style penalty for the flurry ability, at a noticably lower cost than the Amulet of Mighty Fists.

Hammer Fist feat is also Faerun, in Races of Faerun. Dwarf-specific, it lets you add 1.5x Str bonus to your unarmed attacks, but removes the Flurry option when you choose to do so. No mention made of Power Attack benefit.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-11, 08:44 PM
I would say that, given it being a two-handed attack, Power Attack works with it as it works with any other two-handed attack.

Darkantra
2007-11-11, 11:38 PM
Nope. Sorcerors can wear guantlets. Only armor that has ASF gives ASF. Guantlets do not habe a listed ASF. So they give 0%.
Thus, Sorcerors can wear them.

I know, I was using it as a comparison for what should work logically, and to show that RAW can be abused. Wearing metal gauntlets and then trying to make complex signs with your hands and arms would be really hard, but with RAW a sorceror can do that without fear.

I'm not trying to get a catgirl killed here, but I'm just pointing out that having a monk wear gauntlets for the sole purpose of overcomming damage reduction would break one of the only fair drawbacks to the class. With the right feat selection it's not even that much of a drawback.

Monks can naturally bypass four different kinds of damage reduction by 16th level, and with Versatile Unarmed Strike (PHB II) they can bypass slashing and piercing DR as well. With 6 different DR bypasses in an undisarmable and undispellable weapon, that leaves only good, evil, chaos, cold iron, and silver. For those a handy specially made quarterstaff or kama will do the trick.


By the way, is there anything in the rules that a staff *has* to be made of wood? I mean can you make an adamantium staff, a cold iron staff or whatever? Maybe not a massive one, just one that is covered in the material to breach DR.


Hell, bind one end in cold iron and the other in adamantium. BOOM! Problem solved with one weapon.

The special materials section states that quarterstaves can't be made of special metals.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialMaterials.htm
Historically though you could make a case for the ends to be capped.


If they aren't metal, though? Fabric gauntlets would work with the concept, not impact damage and give the Monk a slight boost.

And wouldn't brass knuckles be as appropriate as sai for a Monk? (I really don't know, but I think I remember something about them being used alongside each other)

The Monk has other problems though, so this wouldn't be imbalancing at all.

And I wouldn't say there's a problem with a Wizad carrying around a few +2 weapons; if he wants to blow his moneys/XP that way, fine.

I'd be all for fabric gauntlets, gloves or bracers that give magical bonuses to attack and damage, I just don't like the idea of being able to overcome one of the only purposeful and quite fair drawbacks to the class when there's already a fair work-around in place. Though we all agree that there are way too many drawbacks anyways, I think that this one is valid.

Leon
2007-11-12, 12:23 AM
*checks phase of the moon* Is it Monk week again?


Every week is monk week

Deisan
2007-11-12, 05:50 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned, I didn't want to look through all the posts...

What is a Monk? A Monk is a warrior-priest. Warrior-PRIEST. Give them a weak spell progression, like a bard, and give them healing spells and defensive oriented spells. They should not for any reason recieve damaging spells.

It makes perfect sense and it's damned easy to impliment. Give me back my 2nd edition monk!

DruchiiConversion
2007-11-12, 06:36 AM
Every week is monk week

Don't you mean... Every Monk is Weak Monk?

Oh, how I crack myself up... :smalltongue:

Freelance Henchman
2007-11-12, 07:12 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned, I didn't want to look through all the posts...

What is a Monk? A Monk is a warrior-priest. Warrior-PRIEST. Give them a weak spell progression, like a bard, and give them healing spells and defensive oriented spells. They should not for any reason recieve damaging spells.

It makes perfect sense and it's damned easy to impliment. Give me back my 2nd edition monk!

Since they have terrible MAD, the various stat-enhancing spells like Bull's Strength etc. would be very good for them to have. Maybe give them a spell that enhances STR, WIS and DEX all at once, but that only works when unarmored.Full BAB progression also seems near-vital for them.

Khanderas
2007-11-12, 08:01 AM
I agree, full BAB to begin with. Monks are hand-to-hand combatants focusing on excelling the connection mind-body. Why they progress at 3/4 makes no sense and I feel noone really objecs to hem having it.
Why should a lawful focused fighter have less skill at hitting things then "GRRR me smash" Barbarians ? (Disclaimer: not all barbarians are hulking stupid muscle-monsters, please dont dismember me.).

Stunning fist = Ki/Chi strike of sorts. Versitilify it abit, say use a stunning attempt to bypass any DR (Instead of a strike that overloads the nerves, it is focused to a drillshaped flash), or breaking bones with a calle strike (I mean RL martial artists break bricks and stuff), broken bones brings penalties to speed, BAB and such. Not all the way off most of the time (say FORT save, fail by 10 or more = broken, 9 and less = cracked).

Quivering palm 1/week ? I say per day, not specifically to beef the monk class, but so you would actually dare to USE it.

The Dim Door monk ability. Perhaps let you do attacks on arrival. Problebly not full attack but still. You see a monk running up at you real fast, but not fast enough to not run under the falling portcullis, you smile. Monk disappears and smacks you but good.
In game it would be something like
"the monk uses his dimensiondoor ability and appears behind you. Your turn."
"I cast forcecage"
"Gratulations the monk is now trapped, finish him now or in a couple of hours ?"
This is not the same because of the way turns work. If someone you see just vanishes you will be suprised especially if there is no castingtime/gestures to give the ability away. I feel its ok since it is a class ability, not a spell so it need to apply to the spell Dimension door.

There, either this is too much, too little, both or wrong. Flame away.

Stam
2007-11-12, 08:01 AM
Not sure if it's been mentioned, I didn't want to look through all the posts...

What is a Monk? A Monk is a warrior-priest. Warrior-PRIEST. Give them a weak spell progression, like a bard, and give them healing spells and defensive oriented spells. They should not for any reason recieve damaging spells.

It makes perfect sense and it's damned easy to impliment. Give me back my 2nd edition monk!

This exists. Sacred Fist PrC, in Complete Divine. Choose your casting flavor, tack on a handful of Monk levels, then whoom - you're a CoDzilla who uses his fists.

Grynning
2007-11-12, 08:43 AM
Khanderas: There's a lot of feats in CWar (or OA) that do a lot of the things you mention - various ways to modify Stunning Fist, Sun School for the attack after Dimension Door thing. Maybe throwing the monk a few extra bonus feats would help.
I like the idea that someone presented of adding Wisdom bonus to attacks and damage, that would be a nice balanced way of powering up the monk and decrease the pain of MAD somewhat.
Anyways, if they put the monk in 4th at all, maybe they'll get more love. But given the way 4th ed. mechanics seem to be going, they'll probably end up a re-flavored Fighter of some kind (I seem to remember a comment in a WotC article saying that the new Psions are "Wizards with a paint job," so it's not hard to imagine they'll be doing the same thing with other classes).

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 09:07 AM
The only problem with using gauntlets is that they're a simple weapon that monks don't have proficiency with. Unless you want to multiclass or take the simple weapon proficiency feat, you'll be taking a -4 non-proficiency penalty for it.

When used for damage, RAW-wise, gauntlets do count as an unarmed strike, but that strikes me as going a bit too far.

No offense but if I was DM'ing and a player wanted to deck-out his monk with cold iron or alchemical silver gauntlets but otherwise be unarmored, I'd apply the monk penalty to armor against him.

In this situation the FAQ is wrong.

Its wrong because well, it itself says its wrong

And its wrong because the specific texts always overrules tables. And the specific text says "[b]This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets."

It doesnt matter if it has a seperate entry. Composite longbows have seperate entries and they do not require special proficiency because the text says they are treated as longbows. So it is the same with gauntlets.

Gauntlets are also not armor, just as you do not penalize your monks AC if he puts on gauntlets of ogre strength, you would not penalize your monks AC if he were to put on gauntlets of "dont do anything"

Grynning
2007-11-12, 09:18 AM
Of course, that brings up the question as to whether gauntlets should be able to be enhanced as weapons. If they're not armor, then they can't be enhanced as armor. If using them is the same as using an unarmed attack, they're not technically weapons either. You mention Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which are Wondrous Items. With a few exceptions, things go in the wondrous item category because they are *not* weapons (Mattock of the Titans or whatever it's called is the only one I can think of that is both a weapon and a wondrous item).
If you're using the gauntlet/brass knuckle thingies just for the special material to bypass DR, I suppose that would work, but by RAW I'm really not sure you can enchant a gauntlet as a weapon (spiked gauntlets maybe, but those are definitely listed as weapons and therefore would not benefit from monk unarmed strike damage). If I'm wrong and there are examples in published material, let me know.

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 09:19 AM
I'm not trying to get a catgirl killed here, but I'm just pointing out that having a monk wear gauntlets for the sole purpose of overcomming damage reduction would break one of the only fair drawbacks to the class. With the right feat selection it's not even that much of a drawback.


It also means they cant wear magical items on their hands, which is more than a fare trade off.

As for redesigning the monk:
What monks should not be able to use any magical item slots aside from weapons, instead gaining bonuses increasing by level and abilities.

E.G.[may or may not be balanced]

Monk gains his wisdom modifier as an enhancement bonus to all physical abilities. And then he gains enhancement bonuses to wisdom at certian levels.

Now add ToB progression for a select few disciplines with a very limited prep and recovery system.

Then make his special abilities burn stun attempts instead of being 1/day and you would be golden.

Monk loses all class features if he does not donate 3/4 of his wealth to charity or wears any items in his item slots.

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 09:20 AM
Of course, that brings up the question as to whether gauntlets should be able to be enhanced as weapons. If they're not armor, then they can't be enhanced as armor. If using them is the same as using an unarmed attack, they're not technically weapons either. You mention Gauntlets of Ogre Power, which are Wondrous Items. With a few exceptions, things go in the wondrous item category because they are *not* weapons (Mattock of the Titans or whatever it's called is the only one I can think of that is both a weapon and a wondrous item).
If you're using the gauntlet/brass knuckle thingies just for the special material to bypass DR, I suppose that would work, but by RAW I'm really not sure you can enchant a gauntlet as a weapon (spiked gauntlets maybe, but those are definitely listed as weapons and therefore would not benefit from monk unarmed strike damage). If I'm wrong and there are examples in published material, let me know.

They are listed as weapons, i dont see why not. If you hit something and are wearing gauntlets of ogre power it performs just as if you hit them with +0 gauntlets.

lord_khaine
2007-11-12, 09:23 AM
False, you don't know that, you're assuming. See, the thing is, you have opinions on your side, I have facts on mine

you have made your oppinion clear several times on this subject, im not assuming anything, and what you have isnt fact, its just another opinion on the same set of rules we use.


False again, 4d6 standard gives you the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) which does not allow you to make a decent monk.
no, 4d6 gives you 4d6 on each ability score, thats the whole idea of rolling stats, the result isnt fixed.


For that matter, even a monk with straight 18s cannot stand up to the rest of the party period
that might be your opinion, but it doesnt really prove anything.


False again. Learn to read the rules, please? Using magic weapons on an equal footage means having similar attack bonuses and similar damage. The monk is way behind in both.

do pay attention here, using magic weapons on a equal footing means not having to pay 3 times the cost of a simular weapon that monks using amulets of mighty fist pay.
as for attack bonus and damage, the monk isnt as far behind as you make them, and has other skills that compensates for it.


False yet again (wow, zero out of four so far). Look in the MM and see how many opponents are larger (doesn't have to be huge) and have a better strength than the monk. Oh yeah, and that MAD gives you less strength than the fighter, and that 3/4 BAB is going to suck
if you could bother to actualy read some of the other posts i made, then i have allready shown how flurry of blows compensates for having a lesser grapple bonus, and that size large is only a 50gp potion away.
besides those opponents dont have improved grapple, that compensates for a lesser bab.
besides that if you havent understod it yet, rolling stats means you isnt forced to have a lesser str score than a fighter, i would be happy to repeat it a few times again if you didnt cach it the first time.


+5 to hit is not an issue? Wow, your math skills are astounding
its not +5 to hit before level 17, and i would wish i could say the same thing about your math skills, unfortunately they are a bit lacking.


I'm being serious here, actually. Let's see, your score in the last post was zero out of six, that's not really an improvement now. I think you really need to read up on several of those D&D rules you think you know
ohh.. if you actualy were serious, then might i recomend you a easyer game than d&d? if you have trouble getting some of the basic rules then i think it would be smarter to start with something like HeroQuest.

if you insist on continuing to participate in this discussion, then please read up on the system we are using, here is a link to the rules
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html

Grynning
2007-11-12, 09:24 AM
Goum: So give all monks a nerfed Vow of Poverty, is what you're saying? I don't know, that seems a bit much. Remember monks are supposed to represent a broad range of fantasy martial artists, and a lot of martial arts masters weren't really into being poor as a rule (watch a lot of Chinese films, you'll notice that many of the (fictional) Kung Fu badasses run their schools for the money and prestige, just as a lot of real martial artists do today). Not saying it's a bad idea for individual characters (VoP monks are cool flavor-wise, if not necessarily from an optimization standpoint) but I think that's changing the class a little too much.

Goumindong
2007-11-12, 09:50 AM
Goum: So give all monks a nerfed Vow of Poverty, is what you're saying? I don't know, that seems a bit much. Remember monks are supposed to represent a broad range of fantasy martial artists, and a lot of martial arts masters weren't really into being poor as a rule (watch a lot of Chinese films, you'll notice that many of the (fictional) Kung Fu badasses run their schools for the money and prestige, just as a lot of real martial artists do today). Not saying it's a bad idea for individual characters (VoP monks are cool flavor-wise, if not necessarily from an optimization standpoint) but I think that's changing the class a little too much.

Bonuses would have to be taylored to the be balanced in line with wealth levels.

The wealth restriction is so that they dont just buy non-slotted items up like Ioun stones or disposable items.

Fictional Kung-Fu badasses dont wear cloaks, or even shirts usually. Fictional kung-fu that use non-monk weapons are actually fighters. Just because its Chinese doesnt mean its kung-fu monk.

That being said, the restriction on wealth is only so monks dont load up on disposable items and get all the benefits of not wearing slotted items with none of the drawbacks of having to spend cash to get those benefits.

Grynning
2007-11-12, 10:13 AM
I am only using Chinese films as an example, but where do you get the idea that all martial artists have to run around half-naked?
I would have to say that most martial arts movies and literature do *not* feature a shirtless protagonist, Bruce Lee (and his modern heir Tony Jaa) are the only two that I can think of off hand that are frequently bare-chested. Going back to Kung Fu films as my baseline, most of the time the fighters are wearing traditional clothing depending on their social standing (fancy silk shirts for rich guys, simple outfits for commoners, etc). And they frequently wear jewelry, bracers, boots, etc., so I can't imagine why similar characters in D&D would want to not have magic versions of these when they are available so readily in most campaigns.

Edit: BTW, just to clarify once more, I am not saying that all D&D monks are Chinese Kung Fu movie characters. I am saying that kind of character is one example of how a D&D monk could be played, and it wouldn't make sense to not have items for them.

Freelance Henchman
2007-11-12, 10:18 AM
So it's not entirely clear yet what the Monk is even supposed to BE? Other than "Fights unarmored and unarmed"?

Grynning
2007-11-12, 10:29 AM
I think it's fairly clear - monks represent disciplined unarmed fighters, the kind of people that spend a significant portion of their life training in a martial arts style and looking to perfect themselves. While they may train with weapons, they do not require them to hold their own in fight, relying on fists and feet. The D&D monk seems to be for the most part inspired by the tradition of the Shao Lin in China and certain Japanese fighting orders. However, the class can represent a broad range of characters.
For instance, Tony Jaa's character in Ong-Bak, the Thai Warrior is a great example of how I think a D&D Monk would act and fight. Pai Mei (from Kill Bill Vol. 2) is a great Lawful Neutral/Evil type monk. The Native American character from Brotherhood of the Wolf (can't remember his name) has a lot of Monk/Ranger hybrid qualities.
Just a few examples of what I think of when I think of "Fantasy Monk."

Of course we could get into the RL definition of the word, but that would be Dausuul's Fallacy in action.

Huduvudu
2007-11-12, 10:38 AM
Like.. anybody else who wants to try a grapple-based fighter? And do it better because they've got full BAB and don't have to worry about raising their Wis and Dex instead of their Str? Yeah, those people get absolutely no advantage from taking Improved Grapple.


Well, from the perspective of a grapple-based Fighter now, I can say that the incentive to use grappling at lower levels before pursuing more beneficial feats or classes (Reaping Mauler, Earth's Embrace, Scorpion's Grasp, Stone Monkey) generally loses to more lethal damage, being that low-level encounters seem like a race to to outdamage the opponents and not die.

The Intuitive Attack feat from BoED allows you to use your WIS modifier in place of your STR modifier as a bonus on your attacks. It's neat and can be taken as a feat very early on, but that it only benefits attack rolls does amplify the trouble a Monk sometimes seems to have doing damage.

Having just finished playing a Monk in a mid/high level campaign, I think a lot of Monk versatility relies on feats, variants builds, and prestige classes. That's a double-edged sword, in my opinion. Monks are beautiful for the variety that they offer, but I think the choices you make are very evident. I can't speak from a completely unbiased position, though, as the magic items we had in our later levels (15) seemed to make my character shine a lot better than he would have otherwise -- after all, isn't the general consensus that Monks start off well and progressively get weaker?

Grynning
2007-11-12, 10:43 AM
I think the general consensus is that all melee characters start off well and get progressively weaker, and Monks are the worst of the melee characters due to low BAB, MAD, and non-synergistic class features, as discussed extensively over the last few pages.

Huduvudu
2007-11-12, 11:03 AM
That's valid. A lot of the Monk abilities seem restricted to obscure circumstances, as the odds of having to slide down the side of a mountain covered in poisonous vines and rusty nails with the unfortunate side effect of temporarily aging anyone nearby seem rather small.

For some reason I keep wanting to refer back to Feats, which logically should be more of a Fighter problem, not a Monk one. I find the various schools to be neat ideas, but the Feat progression really seems unbalanced somehow. Rationally it makes sense that certain styles have a focus in different areas, but it seems like the progression towards attaining a worthwhile Feat or Prestige Class is a committed process that you have to see coming many levels in advance, and is kind of detrimenta in that way.

To their defense, I don't think most Monks have to worry about the weapon mastery Feats with steep prerequisites which I presume Fighters generally pursue. Browsing through Feat lists, it doesn't seem like there's a lot there for melee classes in higher levels, outside of a little versatility with weapon types or styles. That's coming from an uneducated perspective, though. Personally it seems as though the philosophy of the melee classes is that you need to find a niche, be it a Feat, Prestige Class, or alternate class, and get out.

Azerian Kelimon
2007-11-12, 11:05 AM
Actually, the spec tree is quite subpar. The whole thing is mostly a wasste of feats, and they're better spent elsewhere.

Freelance Henchman
2007-11-12, 11:17 AM
Maybe Monks would be better off as a PrC for Fighters rather than a whole base class? Requirements could be e.g. Improved Unarmed Strike etc. and Wis > 14, and he could be allowed to wear up to light armor (or only Padded) and still would add his Wisdom to AC (or possibly restricted like the Duelist, i.e. add Wis bonus or Duelist-level to AC, whichever is lower). Gets high BAB and all high saves, and fighter bonus feats as well as some extras every X levels.

Telonius
2007-11-12, 11:43 AM
Browsing through Feat lists, it doesn't seem like there's a lot there for melee classes in higher levels, outside of a little versatility with weapon types or styles. That's coming from an uneducated perspective, though. Personally it seems as though the philosophy of the melee classes is that you need to find a niche, be it a Feat, Prestige Class, or alternate class, and get out.

I'd say you hit the nail on the head there. There are two exceptions that come to mind: Barbarian and Rogue. (Yeah, I know, Rogues aren't really supposed to be melee). Personally I think these are the two best-designed classes in 3.5. Both give the player a reason to stay in the class for a full 20 (or 19, in the case of Rogue) levels. But this is due to class features, not feats or BAB bumps. The abilities either make things you can do, better (Rage bonuses and Sneak Attack bonus dice), or give you new things to do that make sense for what you're already doing (Rogue Special abilities).

Monk tries to do that, too, giving you class features at each level. But where Barbarian and Rogue's abilities synergize with the other class abilities (Evasion with reflex save and Uncanny Dodge, Indomitable will to shore up the Will loss from Rage), the Monk's class features don't really go together all that well. Some of them overlap in function (Abundant Step and Empty Self), some of them come out of nowhere (Tongue of Sun and Moon), some practically never come up mechanically (Timeless Body), some are overkill (+60 movement - are you trying to get separated from the party and ganged up on by eight monsters?), some are meaningless by the time you get them (you're probably going to make your save by the time you get Diamond Body), and some don't work well with each other (fast movement and flurry).

Mr. Moogle
2007-11-12, 01:11 PM
[Scrubbed] when will you people learn that monks are not underpowered but they fill a much needed roll in most partys.
For instance...
1. Their good saves make them effective against casters of all kind (not to mention the fact that their special AC bonuses apply against touch spells).
2. They move faster than the rest of the party making them better forerunners that can scout areas ahead.
3. Greater Magic Fang +5 FTW

Huduvudu
2007-11-12, 01:15 PM
I still don't know that I'd play anything else for more than a campaign before inevitably crawling back.

Zincorium
2007-11-12, 01:47 PM
[Scrubbed] when will you people learn that monks are not underpowered but they fill a much needed roll in most partys.

When it's actually true. And it'd help if you weren't telling us bluntly to shuffle off the mortal coil.



For instance...
1. Their good saves make them effective against casters of all kind (not to mention the fact that their special AC bonuses apply against touch spells).
2. They move faster than the rest of the party making them better forerunners that can scout areas ahead.
3. Greater Magic Fang +5 FTW

1. They have good base saves, but their fortitude saves still aren't going to be all that good. Because you don't have the points for a nice, high con score. And fortitude helps with things like disintegration. Paladins, and similar things like hexblade, may well have higher saves overall due to the large bonus. And the really bad stuff doesn't allow a save anyway.

2. Can you deal with the things you encounter on your own? If not, you're not helping, and if yes, then there's no need to scout. Scrying is best for not putting people in harm's way.

3. 'Yes, mr druid, can you, instead of casting spells on yourself and thus on your animal companion simultaneously, cast them on me?' It's one thing to benefit from another player's casting. It's another to require them to cast spells on you all the time for you to be worth a darn.

Telonius
2007-11-12, 01:53 PM
[Scrubbed] when will you people learn that monks are not underpowered but they fill a much needed roll in most partys.
For instance...
1. Their good saves make them effective against casters of all kind (not to mention the fact that their special AC bonuses apply against touch spells).
2. They move faster than the rest of the party making them better forerunners that can scout areas ahead.
3. Greater Magic Fang +5 FTW

1. No, it doesn't (yes, that's true).
2. Very true! The Monk's scouting ability is one of the often-overlooked aspects of the class. Their usually-high wisdom bonus can make them a better scout (spot, listen) than a Rogue. They'll also never have an armor check penalty to hide or move silently.
3. ... needs someone to cast it at Druid 20 to make it +5 permanently. 3rd level spell, with 1500XP cost, so (20*30)+(1500*5)= (600+7500) = 8100.

From the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellcastingAndServices):

If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available.



In addition, not every town or village has a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast any spell. In general, you must travel to a small town (or larger settlement) to be reasonably assured of finding a spellcaster capable of casting 1st-level spells, a large town for 2nd-level spells, a small city for 3rd- or 4th-level spells, a large city for 5th- or 6th-level spells, and a metropolis for 7th- or 8th-level spells. Even a metropolis isn’t guaranteed to have a local spellcaster able to cast 9th-level spells.



So you have to find a Level 20 Druid living in a metropolis (good luck), and having the DM ignore the usual 3000gp limit, to get a +5 permanencied.

That's not to say that you can't get a lower bonus permanencied before that, of course. But a +5 Greater Magic Fang isn't exactly easy to come by.

Temp
2007-11-12, 02:15 PM
What I don't understand is the idea that anyone suggesting fixes for the Monk class would "hate" the Monk class.

But the Abundant Step feature? Replacing that with the Horizon Walker's Dimension Door every 1d4 rounds thing would boost it enough for it to actually see some use.

I'm not particularly fond of Monks having Abundant Step in the first place, but if they get it, it might as well be worth taking.

Artanis
2007-11-12, 04:43 PM
I really liked the idea somebody had of making Wisdom apply to more stuff. Making the Monk use Dexterity for attack rolls and Wisdom for damage (or just Wis for both) would at least take Strength out of the MAD equation.


Another thing that might help is changing Abundant Step so that instead of Dimension Door, it becomes Psionic Lion's Charge (with more uses per day). That'd keep the "move supernaturally fast" feel of the ability, but make it more useful both by letting them use it more and letting it be used in conjunction with a Flurry.


Finally, in addition to letting them use enchanted Gauntlets with their attacks, it might help to let Monks enchant their clothing as though it were armor. It wouldn't necessarily be armor, but at least it could get some of the nifty bonuses that enchanted armor grants. ...incidentally, Warforged can already do this.

ZeroNumerous
2007-11-12, 07:19 PM
1. Their good saves make them effective against casters of all kind (not to mention the fact that their special AC bonuses apply against touch spells).

True Strike + Maximized Ray of Enfeeblement. Look at that, the monk is now down to (at best) 2 STR.

True Strike + Ray of Exhaustion. Our little 2 STR monk is down to 0. And that was being generous.

By the same basis, this problem is present to practically any fighter-based character. Particularly bad since Ray of Exhaustion automatically causes Exhaustion when used twice in a row, save or no.


2. They move faster than the rest of the party making them better forerunners that can scout areas ahead.

This is about the only part of your statement that's true, primarily because it runs the risk of the monk dying. His death benefits the party as a whole because then the player can roll up something useful.


3. Greater Magic Fang +5 FTW

Why, pray tell, would any druid was a spell slot on a Monk?


This exists. Sacred Fist PrC, in Complete Divine. Choose your casting flavor, tack on a handful of Monk levels, then whoom - you're a CoDzilla who uses his fists.

Ironically enough: You never need to dip Monk for Sacred Fist. Enlightened Fist(Arcane version) does need a monk dip though.

Dode
2007-11-12, 07:36 PM
[Scrubbed] when will you people learn that monks are not underpowered but they fill a much needed roll in most partys.
For instance...
1. Their good saves make them effective against casters of all kind (not to mention the fact that their special AC bonuses apply against touch spells).
2. They move faster than the rest of the party making them better forerunners that can scout areas ahead.
3. Greater Magic Fang +5 FTW
1: Except for the litany of spells that don't offer saves. Then the Monk is as worthless as a "counter-caster" as it is at everything else.
2: But nowhere near the stat, stealth or speed bonus to scouting that a wild shaped, non-MAD druid has. Plus the druid can cast spells as well as having equal BAB to the Monk.
3: Again, that would be more useful on the Druid that cast it. Or a Barbarian with Improved Unarmed Strike.

Zincorium
2007-11-12, 07:53 PM
Y'know, I just realized I missed the major point I should have brought up in regards to Mr. Moogle's post.

Monks having a role: not really. They can't heal worth diddly. They have neither trapfinding nor the skillpoints to be a good skillmonkey. No spellcasting. Can't attack at range with any real effect. Worse at battle control than a fighter making half an effort. And they aren't good enough in melee to make replacing a fighter or barbarian a reasonable choice.

So, why not change the class a bit and give them one?

Roland St. Jude
2007-11-12, 08:56 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please dial back the rude comments. Thank you.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-12, 09:43 PM
Oh, the Monk has a role - it's just that most do not recognize it, the Monk is a lot harder to min/max well than is a full caster, every new book comes out with new, nifty, not-always-balanced choices for full casters, and it's much easier to re-tool a full caster for a new set of options than it is to re-tool a monk (a Wizard can just scribe or research a new spell; a Cleric or Druid just prepares it the next day - a Monk has to level to get a new feat... or use the PHB 2 retraining rules, if available).

The Monk is a spellcaster counter - provided the spellcaster doesn't have a good "get out of grapple, no-action" card, such as a Ring of Freedom of Movement, or an appropriet Contingency (things that come into play roughly around 11th or 12th - where Full Casters tend to be the top of the hill anyway). If you compare the DMG NPC Monk to the DMG NPC Wizard by level, at most of them, the DMG NPC Monk has about a 50/50 chance of saving vs. the DMG NPC Wizard's best spell. Likewise, the DMG NPC Monk's Touch AC has about a 50/50 chance of avoiding the DMG NPC Wizard's touch attacks. That 3rd level DMG NPC Monk has a touch AC of 13 - and that 3rd level DMG NPC Wizard has a touch attack of +3 ranged (needs a 10 or better - 55% of Wizard hitting). That 10th level DMG NPC Monk has a touch AC of 19; that 10th level DMG NPC Wizard has a ranged attack bonus of +8 (needs an 11 or better, barring a Quickened True Strike or some such, for a 50% chance of hitting). There's a bit of variance on it, but with the low (and, theoretically, even) optimization, fixed stat-array used for the DMG NPC's, the Monk is actually a pretty effective spellcaster counter.

The Monk class is a lot less subject to powergaming than is the Wizard, though.

Dode
2007-11-13, 12:48 AM
The Monk is a spellcaster counter - provided the spellcaster doesn't have a good "get out of grapple, no-action" card, such as a Ring of Freedom of Movement, or an appropriet Contingency (things that come into play roughly around 11th or 12th - where Full Casters tend to be the top of the hill anyway). Or Dimension Door. Or Quicken spells. Or Still Spells. Or cast long-duration spells in advance. Etc.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 01:42 AM
The Monk is a spellcaster counter - provided the spellcaster doesn't have a good "get out of grapple, no-action" card

Or True Strike
Or Glitter Dust
Or Web
Or Blindness/Deafness
Or Spider Climb
Or Levitate
Or Spectral hand[attack bonus +2]
Or Bull Strength[attack bonus +2 again]
Or Ray of Enfeeblement
Or Blur
Or Phantom Steed and a decent ride score.
Or Ray of Exhaustion
Or Displacement
Or Stonskin
Or Black Tentacles[CL +8 grapple check == greater than monk, no SR, no spell resistance]
Or Cloudkill

I mean, right off the bat its just going to be "Quickened True Strike, Ray of Exhaustion. Even if you save you cant charge or run." Now if you are farther than 30 feet away its game over.

Yea, monks who sneak up on unsuspecting wizards will beat them. So will fighers, and so will rogues, and so will bards, and so will [insert nearly any class here].

But those classes have a much better chance. For instance a bard at level 10 that sneaks up on a wizard tosses him a couple of DC 30 will saves to beat or get smacked with a suggestion.

Something like "The constable is after you, im your friend, ill keep all your stuff safe while you make your escape" is pretty nasty. And so is "here, drink some apple juice". Or "I'm your long lost brother". Or "your tired, take a nice long nap". Or my personal favorite when dealing with wizards any variation on "You dont want to cast spells today" or "you forgot to prepare any spells today".

Skjaldbakka
2007-11-13, 01:54 AM
Finally, in addition to letting them use enchanted Gauntlets with their attacks, it might help to let Monks enchant their clothing as though it were armor.

Monks can already use enchanted gauntlets, RAW. They are at no disadvantage while doing so, either. At least at no more disadvantage than they are using unarmed strikes, because unarmed strikes and guantlets are the same proficiency.

Khanderas
2007-11-13, 02:56 AM
Oh, the Monk has a role - it's just that most do not recognize it, the Monk is a lot harder to min/max well than is a full caster, every new book comes out with new, nifty, not-always-balanced choices for full casters, and it's much easier to re-tool a full caster for a new set of options than it is to re-tool a monk (a Wizard can just scribe or research a new spell; a Cleric or Druid just prepares it the next day - a Monk has to level to get a new feat... or use the PHB 2 retraining rules, if available).

The Monk is a spellcaster counter - provided the spellcaster doesn't have a good "get out of grapple, no-action" card, such as a Ring of Freedom of Movement, or an appropriet Contingency (things that come into play roughly around 11th or 12th - where Full Casters tend to be the top of the hill anyway). If you compare the DMG NPC Monk to the DMG NPC Wizard by level, at most of them, the DMG NPC Monk has about a 50/50 chance of saving vs. the DMG NPC Wizard's best spell. Likewise, the DMG NPC Monk's Touch AC has about a 50/50 chance of avoiding the DMG NPC Wizard's touch attacks. That 3rd level DMG NPC Monk has a touch AC of 13 - and that 3rd level DMG NPC Wizard has a touch attack of +3 ranged (needs a 10 or better - 55% of Wizard hitting). That 10th level DMG NPC Monk has a touch AC of 19; that 10th level DMG NPC Wizard has a ranged attack bonus of +8 (needs an 11 or better, barring a Quickened True Strike or some such, for a 50% chance of hitting). There's a bit of variance on it, but with the low (and, theoretically, even) optimization, fixed stat-array used for the DMG NPC's, the Monk is actually a pretty effective spellcaster counter.

The Monk class is a lot less subject to powergaming than is the Wizard, though.
I buy that, I do. But ever since Wizards stopped doing fireball-damage and went into ability score damage it is no longer true. Now it is problebly the Rogue who fill the wizard killing slot (sneak in, steal component pouch, ring of freedom of movement and all the rest then strike with an attack, possibly within a silencefield/AMF). EDIT: Yes I know all wizards got contingencies and whatnot to negate all this. All hail The Batman, present and forever Overlord. /edit.

Magic is flashy and intresting, so that is what the splatbooks often focus on. Handwaving the cost of buffs and other spells breaks it somewhat. What breaks it the most though is spells that interact with other spells in ways they really shouldn't (for balance), see celerity, foresight, timestop, forcecage. Also some spells that is just stunningly powered (that dex draining/damaging frostspell that 1shots dragons).

... But I still say we begin with full BAB. Then change the stunning fist attempts to a "Chi/ki pool" usable for Stunning fist attack, DR bypass, elemental enhancement (fists of FLAMING fury :smallamused: ), recharge the daily Abundant Step (with a 10 minute meditation so monks dont turn into Nightcrawler), short term physical statbuff (that is Str Dex or Con) or temporary hitpoints.
Oh and also fullattack able after an Abundant Step. ("I move really fast, so fast I actually teleport up to the wizard" Wizard: "I forcecage you and take a break for tea, I'll finish him off later")

I'm not even gonna suggest what is sane in that list or when to get what. I just listed things I thought would be cool and thematically fitting.

Helgraf
2007-11-13, 03:57 AM
It is a literal joke that anyone would ever believe such a ridiculous lie that you wouldn't become fatigued from fighting in 100-300 pounds worth of armor for as little as 10 minutes.


Funnily enough, even in full plate plus a tower shield, which is the most weight for armour you can get in 3.x (either one), you don't hit even 100 pounds of armor. Add in weapons and _maybe_ - depending on which ones and how many you choose - you'll exceed 100 lbs.

So, the bit about 100-300 pounds of armor doesn't apply here.

Helgraf
2007-11-13, 04:11 AM
Like.. anybody else who wants to try a grapple-based fighter? And do it better because they've got full BAB and don't have to worry about raising their Wis and Dex instead of their Str? Yeah, those people get absolutely no advantage from taking Improved Grapple.

Dragons, Outsiders, and Magical Beasts all advance their BAB as a Fighter. Fey and Undead use the Wizard advancement. Everything else uses the Cleric advancement, same as the Monk. Most of them are both larger and stronger than the Monk. Who exactly is he going to be grappling? The best the bonus from Improved Grapple can do is equal out the size bonus for one category.

If you're going to waste your time trying to grapple things two size categories or more larger than you, yeah, IG isn't going to help you much. It does, however, make a significant difference in the odds calculations versus other medium critters and evens the size-based playing field against size large.

All of this said, yes, the Fighter will be a better Grappler than the Monk in most cases. But if you want dedicated grappling, there's no reason _not_ to take Improved Grapple. Another good idea, since you're probably going to be part of a party is have that wizard cast enlarge person on you. Then you're up a size category, with the associated increase in grapple capability.

Or play a Half-Giant Monk or Fighter. +1 LA, for powerful build. Add Improved Grapple to this. You effectely count as Large, get another +4 grapple bonus (so you're now on par with a Huge creature in terms of pure size modifiers); and if the wizard enlarges you, bam, you are Large, counting as Huge, with a +4 bonus on top of that, and another +1 from the Strength increase.

If you want to play grapple games, it's all about optimization.

Level 1 Half-Giant Fighter w/ Improved Grapple, Enlarged by L2 Wizard buddy.
Assume 'elite' array for simplicity with Str 17 (15 base, +2 race) (19 after spell)
BAB +1. Size: Large via spell (counts as Huge, via Powerful Build)
Grapple: +1 (BAB) +8 (effective size) +4 (Improved Grapple) +4 Str

Grapple score while spell is in effect: +17

That's at second level. Now, without the help of a party wizard or potion or the like, admittedly, it drops down to "only" a +12 grapple bonus.

Rowanomicon
2007-11-13, 04:46 AM
Cleaver Wrestler (Feat) reduces the penalties for Grappling opponents larger than you. That would be killer in combination with Powerful Build (I know it works well with Battle Jumper).

Armads
2007-11-13, 05:04 AM
The main point of a monk level in a grapple build is to save feats (and also reduce the need for Dex 13) and get a decent damage unarmed strike (1d6, as opposed to 1d3). 1 level is very useful, but the heaviest armor possible should be worn, no matter your dexterity, since in a grapple, your AC is horrible (You get a -5 dex penalty to AC while grappling, according to the Rules Compendium excerpt) and the point of AC while grappling is just to reduce the amount of power attack they get against you.

Darkantra
2007-11-13, 05:21 AM
Level 1 Half-Giant Fighter w/ Improved Grapple, Enlarged by L2 Wizard buddy.
Assume 'elite' array for simplicity with Str 17 (15 base, +2 race) (19 after spell)
BAB +1. Size: Large via spell (counts as Huge, via Powerful Build)
Grapple: +1 (BAB) +8 (effective size) +4 (Improved Grapple) +4 Str

Grapple score while spell is in effect: +17

That's at second level. Now, without the help of a party wizard or potion or the like, admittedly, it drops down to "only" a +12 grapple bonus.

Aha, I have played this one through before good sir! I started a thread a while ago for the exact purpose of building a character who could out-grapple giants and golems, and could by ECL 10.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60698

I was going for a spiked armor wearing death machine but some of the builds had terrifyingly high grapple mods at ECL 10.

As for monks I did up a few changes to their abilities based on what we've been talking about.

Introspection (Ex):
Monks train not only their bodies to perfection, but also the minds control over the body. They may not be as lithe as a thief or as strong as a warrior but their superior level of control enables them to reach heights of skill unmatched by other classes

A monk applies their Wis bonus (if any) to their attack bonus and AC, and gains an additional +1 bonus to AC at 5th level and every five levels thereafter. The AC bonuses are applicable for touch attacks and even when the monk is caught flat-footed.

In addition the monk can apply their Wis bonus to the following combat maneuvers, Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip instead of the regular Str or Dex modifiers, if they so choose.

This bonus does not apply if the monk is wearing any armor or shields or is carrying a medium or heavy load.

Wholeness of Body (Su):
At 7th level a monk can focus on their wounds and force broken bone and torn muscle back into place through sheer will. They can heal a number of point of damage equal to their monk level multiplied by their Wisdom bonus (minimum 1). In order to do this though they must take a full round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. If an opponent damages them with an attack of oportunity then the monk must succeed on a DC 10 + damage dealt concentration check or else fail their healing. A failed attempt does not use up points from their healing pool. They can only use this ability on themselves, and can spread the amount over several uses.

Panther's Strike (Ex):
At 8th level monks can charge into melee with several opening strikes in a brief flurry. Whenever a monk takes the charge action, at the end when they would normally make a single attack against an opponent they can take a full attack instead.

This ability cannot be used in conjunction with the flurry of blows class ability, or if the monk wears medium or heavy armors, shields, or carries a medium or heavy load.

Extrospection (Ex): By 10th level the monk's awareness extends outwards from their body and they can detect even minute changes within this area. The monk gains Blindsense out to 30 ft. At 18th level the monk's awareness has reached perfection. A mental image of all that enter their Extrospection range forms in their mind, allowing them to strike at foes unseen or those who try to hide from their regular sight. The monk gains Blindsight out to 30 ft.

Abundant Step (Su):
At 12th level a monk can shunt their body through space by expending a portion of their mental focus into an extreme effort of will. This ability functions as if using the spell dimension door at a caster level equal to 1/2 their monk level but only once per meditation. By meditating for 10 minutes and succeeding on a DC 20 concentration check or by resting for 8 hours, the monk can regain their focus.

Quivering Palm (Su):
At 15th level a monk can implant a portion of his will into another creature's body. If the monk chooses to focus on that portion of their self then they can forcibly kill the creature through the supernatural connection between the two of them. Quivering Palm can be used once per day, and the monk must announce that they are using it before making the attack roll. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be affected by this technique.

Otherwise if a monk succesfully strikes and deals damage to a creature then the Quivering Palm is successful. The monk can then attempt to kill the creature within a number of days equal to their class level. Only one creature can be affected by the monks Quivering Palm at any time. Once the monk wills the portion of their essence to kill the creature it must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC = 10 + 1/2 monk level + Wis modifier) or die. If the save is successful then nothing happens.


Monks usually have low Int scores and are crippled in their skill selection, so they should get 6 points as a base, at least. I stayed away from giving them added damage from their Wisdom score since monks have a decent unarmed progression anyways. Adding the Wis bonus to attacks eliminates the need for a full BAB progression but doesn't break combat.

Adding the concentration checks actually gives monks a reason to take ranks in that skill and fits with the class' flavour. The Pounce-like ability gives a good reason for their increased base speed and isn't overpowered with the negation of using flurry of blows. FoB could easily be worked into the pounce with an extra feat.

If I had to axe something, anything, from this class it would be tongue of the sun and moon. There's absolutely no reason for it and it feels like it was tossed in to make up for a monks lack of other abilities.

It might be a good idea for monks to gain good and evil ki strike based on their alignment. Neutral monks could pick one or the other, kind of like how neutral clerics can pick to turn or rebuke undead.

Khanderas
2007-11-13, 05:40 AM
(arrow pointing up) ^

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I don't know anything about good or evil ki though. You mean monks would have to pick from wholeness of body (good, healing ki) or quivering palm (evil, desctructive ki) ?

Also, bonus for incorporating Concentration checks. A monk needs his medication meditation afterall.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 07:25 AM
Or Dimension Door
Prior to a Quickened Dimension Door (8th level spell slot) he's still lost his turn. Even with a Quickened Dimension Door, Wizard has STILL lost his turn (as you can't act afterwards). You actually need a Quickened Teleport to not be shut down by this method - which is a 9th level spell.

. Or Quicken spells.
Earliest you get anything worthwhile is 9th, with... 1st level spells (which don't do much). You get 2nd level spells Quickened at 11th ... which is about the point I mentioned that Monk's stop working as a spellcaster counter anyway.

If you use a Quickened True Strike and a standard action spell, prior to 11th, you're burning one of your highest level spell slots and two of your spells on one character. Monk works as a party member (there's other people for the Wizard to worry about, too) in a dungeon environment (where Jump and Climb get the Monk to the Wizard fairly readily).

Or Still Spells.
Great, now he can cast at -1 spell level ... assuming he prepared for it (Core, Sorcerers can't do this, as the spells are limited to one standard action in a grapple - which also means a Cleric can't do this with a spontaneous Inflict) ... assuming they don't need any material or focus components that he doesn't already have in hand ... assuming he passes the DC 20 + spell Level concentration check ... and casts defensively so that the Monk's AoO in the grapple doesn't disrupt (another concentration check). Wizard is still not doing as well as he hoped, and if there's anyone else around (rest of the party) Mr. Wizard's in trouble, as he's focusing solely on the Monk.

Or cast long-duration spells in advance. Etc.
Yeah... he can use... what?
Mage Armor (oh, doesn't affect touch AC to stop the grapple).
Protection From Law (1 minute/level - Wizard has to know, in advance, that the Monk's coming, and approximately when. Doable, but dicy ... and really only gives +2 AC for the Wizard).
Obscuring Mist (1 minute/level - again, requires foreknowledge, but this one works both ways, too)
Web (10 min/level, but a lot less nasty when cast in advance - and when cast in advance, has the same issues as Obscuring Mist in that it works both ways)
Mirror Image (1 minute/level - again)
Invisibility (and Sphere): 1 min/level, and expires if you actually do much.
Alter Self (10 min/level, so good for a buff, commonly thought one of the most broken core spells of it's level, and still doesn't improve your grapple check or touch AC noticeably).
Spider Climb (10 min./level) - this one's pretty decent, as long as the Wizard has decent control over the terrain. Climb and Jump are both class skills for the Monk, so Mr. Monk still has a very good shot at Mr. Wizard in a dungeon environment.
Phantom Steed: Lasts 1 hour/level, so it's good for casting in advance. However, it can't fly continuously until 14th, it's "horse-like" so it's Large (and ill-suited to a dungeon environment), and it forces Concentration checks if you're using it to it's fullest.
Heroism: 10 min/level, so castable in advance - and it gives... +2 on attack rolls, saves, and skill checks. Doesn't improve his spellcasting much, except for making touch attacks on the Monk. A grapple check technically isn't an attack roll, so it doesn't even help there - additionally, using a grapple check to get out of a grapple still costs an action, so he's shut down that round.
Gaseous Form: 2 min/level (not as bad as some, but you still need to know roughly when your quarry will arrive) and prevents most spellcasting.
Stoneskin - eh, it's only DR 10 for a 4th level spell. Not going to stop the grapple, although will help with concentration check issues inside it somewhat.
Resilient Sphere: Hardly a good buff.
Enlarge Person: 1 min/level, again.
Okay, at 5th level spells, he's finally got Overland Flight and Prying Eyes .... but Prying Eyes can be spotted and slain before they can report, while Overland Flight is only useful if you've got a really good ceiling (Monk's get Jump, Climb, and a big bonus to Jump from their speed).
6th level spells I'll ignore, because I mentioned the Wizard starts winning with this at around 11th or 12th.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 07:53 AM
Why does the dimension door need to be quickened? Its a standard action verbal only spell. A 10th level wizard/sorcerer will travel 800 feet. Unless the monk can get back there and still have a standard action left he is done for.

The monk gets close, gets the grapple in, does do any damage because he only has one attack when moving. The wizard dimension doors away. The monk tries to get close or runs away, the wizard kills the monk.

Plenty of others are much better at killing wizards.

Dode
2007-11-13, 08:15 AM
Prior to a Quickened Dimension Door (8th level spell slot) he's still lost his turn. Even with a Quickened Dimension Door, Wizard has STILL lost his turn (as you can't act afterwards). You actually need a Quickened Teleport to not be shut down by this method - which is a 9th level spell. Why bother Quickening it? It defeats a successful grapple immediently (no somatic components), has a range of 680 ft. minimum (good luck, Monky) and as you said, he can't take an action after it anyway?


Earliest you get anything worthwhile is 9th, with... 1st level spells (which don't do much). You get 2nd level spells Quickened at 11th ... which is about the point I mentioned that Monk's stop working as a spellcaster counter anyway. So already Monks are useless at their "specialty" by the halfway point. Okay.


Mr. Wizard's in trouble, as he's focusing solely on the Monk. Mr. Wizard kind of has it coming if he doesn't have a decent Concentration score or have flight going in this silly hypothetical scenario of yours.



Invisibility (and Sphere): 1 min/level, and expires if you actually do much. It lets you cast all of this fine list of spells you posted and thensome that are of low-duration without worry of interference. Get a Blink going and go ethereal, then mop up the Monk while thinking of an excoriating lecture for his party for not doing their job.

lord_khaine
2007-11-13, 08:51 AM
the idea is that you first stun the wizard with stunning fist, and then pin him down so he cant use spells with verbal components.
i wont claim its foolproof in any way, but it still has at least a chance of working.

Catch
2007-11-13, 08:55 AM
the idea is that you first stun the wizard with stunning fist, and then pin him down so he cant use spells with verbal components.
i wont claim its foolproof in any way, but it still has at least a chance of working.

Assuming he's not flying out your reach, assuming you can get to him past Walls of X, minions and allies, assuming he doesn't have Freedom of Movement on...

Etc. Too many ifs.

Indon
2007-11-13, 12:02 PM
Monks are pretty well-balanced with the rest of the core non-casters... which is to say, that they're pathetically weak and any party with a Wizard in it means they should commit suicide around level 12 and reroll a level 5 Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Yougettheidea to be useful.

Like any noncaster class, you can optimize a monk to be able to solo a small subset of high-CR encounters. Like any noncaster class, when faced against unoptimized, ill-played opponents they can shine. Like (almost) any noncaster class, if there are no casters in the party they can even sometimes show off outside of combat.

If you wanted to balance Monks with - if not put them a little bit at the upper end of - the noncaster classes, pretty much any single small-mid change would do. Full BAB, OR fewer multiclassing and alignment restrictions, OR simple weapon proficiency, OR the ability to wear light armor without losing class features, OR being able to make 2-handed unarmed attacks... and so on. Just one of that sort of change puts the Monk on par with or superior to the Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin/Ranger.

If you give the Monk a large set of that sort of changes, well, they're still weaker than most casters, but at least they're almost competitive with Blade Magic casters.

Artanis
2007-11-13, 12:05 PM
Monks can already use enchanted gauntlets, RAW. They are at no disadvantage while doing so, either. At least at no more disadvantage than they are using unarmed strikes, because unarmed strikes and guantlets are the same proficiency.
Well...yeah. I was mostly trying to emphasize the "let them get armor enchantments" bit :smallwink:

Darkantra
2007-11-13, 12:32 PM
(arrow pointing up) ^

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I don't know anything about good or evil ki though. You mean monks would have to pick from wholeness of body (good, healing ki) or quivering palm (evil, desctructive ki) ?

Also, bonus for incorporating Concentration checks. A monk needs his medication meditation afterall.

I was thinking about adding to the kinds of damage reduction that a monk can bypass with their unarmed strike. So good monks gain the Good ability for their unarmed strike and evil ones get Evil. Neutral ones can just choose between the two, ala neutral cleric with turning or rebuking

Also, concentration for the flavour win :smallbiggrin:

Ossian
2007-11-13, 12:56 PM
There is also another characteristic that you want to factor before demoting the monks to cleaning the more poweful pcs' latrines. Monks have, sometimes, a neat campaign advantage over most other classes. If you campaign is low magic, or perhaps is set in a place wgere magic is frowned upon. If your campaign is a it more swashbucklin, and does not involve beating down the BBEG (because maybe it's Gidorah sized), or maybe it has fewer dungeon crawls many espionage situations, if it's set in a town and most of what happens is kung fu with the other gangs thugs. If you want to be a bit less equipment-addicted, monks are great.

"I do 1d8+2 with my sword, monk dude"
"yeah, me too [disarms and gets the weapon] I do 1d8+2 with your sword, but I can also di it bare handed [crushes a tile with a punch]. Moreover, You have to strip naked before you can even see the emperor vice vice secretary. I just need my body"

Often PCs get captured, and deprived of their equipment , and the DM is almost encouraged to give them a fair chance to get it back WITHOUT compromising the mission they are running (who wants to give up the +5 longsword of cold? conveniently locked a room just a few prison blocks away from the PCs cell!)

Sometimes it is just weird to go around in full plate and longsword and shield, while the monk can simply use his robes, and an innocent looking periapt of wisdom (easily concealed, by the way), and perhaps some equally innocent looking gloves, boots, capes, rings or belts (provided he does not look like a "p.i.m.p." monk with all that jewelry on). Just as easily concealed are the small monks' signature weapons, terrific for infiltrations.

Granted, nobody sends the Yakuza ninjas to take trolls down, but who do you send to sneak into the Emperor's palace? the monk! fast movement is an asset, and so is the slightly higher number of skill points. Not that I'd pit a monk with any tank fighter, but still, they are pretty good in some campaigns. Only bards and sorcerers enjoy a similar freedom from equipment!

O.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 01:11 PM
Introspection (Ex):
In addition the monk can apply their Wis bonus to the following combat maneuvers, Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip instead of the regular Str or Dex modifiers, if they so choose.
That's a good idea. This reduces some MADness off the monk. He is not supposed to out-damage the barbarian in the first place, this instead allows him to do combat control.




Wholeness of Body (Su):
Okay. Some details please - free action or standard? Attack of opportunity or no? DC 20 is a rather difficult check, though; you're effectively forcing all monks to max out concentration ranks.



Abundant Step (Su):
This makes it per-encounter rather than per-day, no? How about giving monky a free "regular" dimdoor every (10 - wis mod) rounds, and a "dimdoor plus immediate attack" with this focus you suggest?



If I had to axe something, anything, from this class it would be tongue of the sun and moon.
Seconded. Also, the entire "slow fall" line could be reduced to "starting from 5th level, the monk can use Feather Fall three times per day", or something like that.

Stam
2007-11-13, 03:07 PM
"I do 1d8+2 with my sword, monk dude"
"yeah, me too [disarms and gets the weapon] I do 1d8+2 with your sword, but I can also di it bare handed [crushes a tile with a punch]. Moreover, You have to strip naked before you can even see the emperor vice vice secretary. I just need my body"

Often PCs get captured, and deprived of their equipment , and the DM is almost encouraged to give them a fair chance to get it back WITHOUT compromising the mission they are running (who wants to give up the +5 longsword of cold? conveniently locked a room just a few prison blocks away from the PCs cell!)

Sometimes it is just weird to go around in full plate and longsword and shield, while the monk can simply use his robes, and an innocent looking periapt of wisdom (easily concealed, by the way), and perhaps some equally innocent looking gloves, boots, capes, rings or belts (provided he does not look like a "p.i.m.p." monk with all that jewelry on). Just as easily concealed are the small monks' signature weapons, terrific for infiltrations.
This is currently about the only situation where the monk outshines the rest of the party. It is, as a result, fairly in the minority. Capture situations where they're left in their skivvies are not fun for the PCs who've spent weeks building up their equipment hoards, and as a result they whine far too much.

There's gotta be a better way for monks to shine than wait for that once-in-a-campaign opportunity.

Lance
2007-11-13, 03:39 PM
I'm only coming in on the tail end of this conversation, so some of what I'm about to say may have already been mentioned.

Personally, I think monks definitely do NOT suck. They just have a different role in the party than a straight up fighter.

A combination I find that works *very* well is if a monk takes one level in wizard or sorcerer. Yes, the monk is temporarily delaying an increase in fighting ability, however the one arcane spellcaster level gives the monk access to the spells Mage Armor and Shield. Imagine Dex Bonus + Wis Bonus + 4 Armor Bonus + 4 Shield Bonus to AC. On top of that, it counts against incorporeal touch attacks and blocks magic missiles.

If the monk takes dodge and mobility on top of that, and has at least five ranks in tumble, a monk's AC can shoot through the roof. No, monks don't necessarily do the damage a fighter does, but a Monk can definitely act much more tactically in combat, maneuvering around the battlefield to where (s)he is most needed at any given point in time. Add to that the much better touch AC and Will saving throws, Monks shine in combats against incorporeal undead, spellcasters and creatures with mental attacks where fighters would be completely vulnerable (or perhaps even a liability if charmed or controlled).

Finishing off with the added speed and the lack of armor check penalty, monks are a lot more useful outside of combat situations than fighters, making them more three-dimensional (and IMHO more fun to play) than fighters.

And if you add on the Tattooed Monk prestige class, which gives abilities like DR and shadowwalking, monks can be just as customized as fighters.

<Phew!..> And that's my 2 cp worth.

Indon
2007-11-13, 03:44 PM
This is currently about the only situation where the monk outshines the rest of the party. It is, as a result, fairly in the minority. Capture situations where they're left in their skivvies are not fun for the PCs who've spent weeks building up their equipment hoards, and as a result they whine far too much.

There's gotta be a better way for monks to shine than wait for that once-in-a-campaign opportunity.

Some campaigns can be far more than that.

The Fighter for instance, pretty much can not fit in with a stealth group (rogues, rangers, casters, etc). The monk can.

The monk, unlike such as the rogue, can retain his modest combat effectiveness in campaigns focused on exotic creature types such as undead, though he still does far better against humanoids than against, say, dragons.

Though, generally analysis of class strength is independent of campaign setting, because there's almost no campaign setting information in the core books.

Zincorium
2007-11-13, 04:15 PM
I'm only coming in on the tail end of this conversation, so some of what I'm about to say may have already been mentioned.

Personally, I think monks definitely do NOT suck. They just have a different role in the party than a straight up fighter.

Seriously people, any time you tell us that the monk does have a role, tell us what it is. Otherwise you're just wasting pixels.


A combination I find that works *very* well is if a monk takes one level in wizard or sorcerer. Yes, the monk is temporarily delaying an increase in fighting ability, however the one arcane spellcaster level gives the monk access to the spells Mage Armor and Shield. Imagine Dex Bonus + Wis Bonus + 4 Armor Bonus + 4 Shield Bonus to AC. On top of that, it counts against incorporeal touch attacks and blocks magic missiles.

The AC bonuses are temporary, last for very short periods of time, cannot be cast while retaining stealth, and take time away from hitting things to buff yourself. They also add additional stats to your MAD.


If the monk takes dodge and mobility on top of that, and has at least five ranks in tumble, a monk's AC can shoot through the roof.

Dodge sucks. Badly. And mobility is pointless if you're tumbling. And neither mobility or tumbling actually affects your AC.


No, monks don't necessarily do the damage a fighter does, but a Monk can definitely act much more tactically in combat, maneuvering around the battlefield to where (s)he is most needed at any given point in time.

This would be an excellent point if the monk could do much once they are there. Fighter lockdown builds benefit from mobility, scout builds benefit from mobility.

Monks lose an entire class feature if they don't stand in one spot.


Add to that the much better touch AC and Will saving throws, Monks shine in combats against incorporeal undead, spellcasters and creatures with mental attacks where fighters would be completely vulnerable (or perhaps even a liability if charmed or controlled).

Point. But 'doesn't suck against certain monsters' is not a valid character role.


Finishing off with the added speed and the lack of armor check penalty, monks are a lot more useful outside of combat situations than fighters, making them more three-dimensional (and IMHO more fun to play) than fighters.

First off, the monk is not just competing against fighters. They are competing against every melee class, because they have no place in the party other than hitting things.

Second, if you can't play a fighter three dimensional, that is a personal problem, because other people most certainly can. It has nothing to do with monks. Except, perhaps, that because they are so cliche it's hard not to play them right.


And if you add on the Tattooed Monk prestige class, which gives abilities like DR and shadowwalking, monks can be just as customized as fighters.

<Phew!..> And that's my 2 cp worth.

...And prestige classes can be used with any class to make them more customizable. Tattooed monk is not special enough to make monks good overall.

Not to rag on you, specifically, but these simply aren't good arguments for leaving the monk as-is.

Ossian
2007-11-13, 04:16 PM
Some campaigns can be far more than that.

The Fighter for instance, pretty much can not fit in with a stealth group (rogues, rangers, casters, etc). The monk can.

The monk, unlike such as the rogue, can retain his modest combat effectiveness in campaigns focused on exotic creature types such as undead, though he still does far better against humanoids than against, say, dragons.

Though, generally analysis of class strength is independent of campaign setting, because there's almost no campaign setting information in the core books.

Yep, you're right, no core description. In fact, most sourcebooks seem to be meant to provide alternative approaches to what (also) seems to be the 'implicit setting' (that's a bit audacious of me to say). i.e., stat boosting spells, heavy dependance on armors and fighters that are enar untouchable and deal tons of damage with wizards stopping time and casting meteor swarms. It is fair though, since the game is Dungoens and Dragons, i.e. crawl thrpough the dungeon and kill dragons, loot and build your equipment/character accordingly.

Yet, referring to what other posters have stated, saying that monks suck per se is debatable. Fair enough, mechanics-wise there is not much that I can say to couter the statement. Whatever monks can do, other characters can do better without losing their other class features. This works on the assumption of the compact, relatively big and alchemically balanced party.

My position (that is, defending monks) works pretty much only story wise. I mean, of course netrunners in cyberpunk suck compared to solos, since most of the time you're supposed to be popping rounds in punks' skulls, not hacking the computer system (always had netrunners NPCs, no player ever wanted to have one). And why shuld you take a Noble or a Soldier over any jedi class?

Anyway, this (http://swrpg.wikispaces.com/Crossovers)is a treat that gigerstreak prepared. My way of saying that SOME monks do kic***s.

Goku for the win!

O.

Indon
2007-11-13, 04:24 PM
This would be an excellent point if the monk could do much once they are there. Fighter lockdown builds benefit from mobility, scout builds benefit from mobility.


Monks are awesome at gear-sundering-oriented strategies, but sundering is a rarely-used mechanic because it's not easy to repair magical equipment.

But if you had a sadistic DM, he could drop you into an encounter that absolutely destroys your pocketbook, using a monk.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 04:46 PM
Monks are awesome at gear-sundering-oriented strategies,

Well, except for the part where their BAB is rather low, and they lack the strength and power attack to do enough damage to sunder anything worth sundering.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 05:00 PM
Why bother Quickening it? It defeats a successful grapple immediently (no somatic components), has a range of 680 ft. minimum (good luck, Monky) and as you said, he can't take an action after it anyway?

Because the round you cast it, you're not doing anything offensive - and the Monk is designed for a party environment. Okay; you got away ... at the cost of a spell slot ... having done no damage to anyone ... at no cost of any daily resources to the Monk. You were countered that round unless you do something else, too.

If this is a long-term arena, monk just hides. You've got a -68 to your Spot check if you go that far. Good luck, wizzer.

If this is a dungeon, Mr. Wizzer has lost both line of sight and line of effect. Monk waits a bit and tries again after a random, longish interval.

Sure, the Wizard escapes... but he doesn't accomplish anything of note in the doing (other than having met the monk to bring the scrying check down to normal).


So already Monks are useless at their "specialty" by the halfway point. Okay.

Name a non-casting class (also excluding casting cognates, such as the Tome Of Battle classes or the Expanded Psionics Handbook classes) that can reliably take down a prepared and paranoid Wizard after, oh, 12th level or so. Why are you demanding this of the Monk?



Mr. Wizard kind of has it coming if he doesn't have a decent Concentration score or have flight going
If all you're doing is getting out of the grapple, you've expended your combat action, and the concentration check (while it gets you out of the grapple) did not win you much - it just stopped you from losing horribly, at the cost of one of the most valuable D&D resources: Combat actions.

In a dungeon, you've got a ceiling to worry about - and the Monk can both Jump and Climb, as they are class skills.

in this silly hypothetical scenario of yours.

Yes, because a party barging in on a Wizard BBEG in a dungeon lair NEVER happens in Dungeons and Dragons! Especially not before level 11! How silly of me. How incredibly hypothetical to think that a Monk has a role to play in such an encounter.


It lets you cast all of this fine list of spells you posted and thensome that are of low-duration without worry of interference. Get a Blink going and go ethereal, then mop up the Monk while thinking of an excoriating lecture for his party for not doing their job.
Oh, I get it - we have a disconnect - I'm thinking of "Monk role" in terms of "as a member of a party" - you appear to be thinking of "Monk role" in terms of "as a solo challenge for a party"

Yeah, Monk CR doesn't work very well when the Monk's going solo. Neither does Fighter CR.

Or True Strike
Takes a round, unless you can Quicken it, which means the Wizard is a minimum of 9th to pull this off. Even if he does, this means the Wizard is spending all of his actions doing something to the Monk - and the Monk is designed for use in a party environment.


Or Glitter Dust
Permits a save. 50/50 chance, give or take.


Or Web
Permits a save. This one has the added benefit of giving the Monk Cover or even Total Cover from your spells.


Or Blindness/Deafness
Permits a save.


Or Spider Climb
Monk is designed for a dungeon environment - you've got a low cieling - and the Monk has both Climb and Jump, plus a speed boost to increase Jump speed.


Or Levitate
Dungeon environment again - low cieling, and the Monk has Jump as a class skill, plus a speed boost which increases his Jump check.


Or Spectral hand[attack bonus +2]
Congrats - you've spent an action on a 1 min/level spell to have a 10% better chance of hitting the Monk. Unless you have a very good idea of when he's coming, this is going to be a combat action. It also reduces your current HP.


Or Bull Strength[attack bonus +2 again]
Only on melee attacks - ranged requires dex. Again, though, with 1 min/level, you're generally going to be spending a combat action on this.


Or Ray of Enfeeblement
Requires a touch attack.


Or Blur
Gives just a 20% miss chance (less, if the Monk has Blind-Fighting), and at 1 minute per level, you'll need a very good idea of when the Monk is coming by.


Or Phantom Steed and a decent ride score.
Don't forget Concentration; don't forget that the thing has almost no HP (7+caster level); don't forget that Ride is not a class skill for Wizards. Don't forget that the classes are designed for a dungeon environment, which isn't well suited for Large creatures such as horses.


Or Ray of Exhaustion
Touch attack, again.


Or Displacement
At 1 round/level, this is a combat action spell. You're self-buffing, you're countered (for that round, at least) - and it's only a 50% miss chance (25%, with Blind Fighting).


Or Stonskin
What, DR 10? All it'll help with is actual damage, for those concentration checks vs. damage. And it costs you 250 gp a pop, and it wears out pretty fast. Lasts long enough to be somewhat useful, though.


Or Black Tentacles[CL +8 grapple check == greater than monk, no SR, no spell resistance]
Incidentally, tends to make the top three for most powerful spells of it's level, Core. This *one* has potential of being significant to the Monk while not keeping the Wizard tied up dealing with the Monk... if the Wizard wins initiative.


Or Cloudkill

Fort half on 1d4 Con damage. This'll take a while to actually hurt the Monk beyond the point where he can hurt you - and it's a standard action spell - at one minute/level, you're spending your combat option on something that'll take effect later - if the monk doesn't simply leave the piddly 20-foot spread (remember, dungeon environment - if there's somewhere for the poor Fort-save Wizard to stand, there's clear space inside one move action for the Monk).


I mean, right off the bat its just going to be "Quickened True Strike, Ray of Exhaustion. Even if you save you cant charge or run." Now if you are farther than 30 feet away its game over.
More than that, actually - you can't reasonably get a Quickened True Strike off until 9th level - at which point the Monk has a move of 50 or 60, not 30. And you're spending all your actions focusing just on the Monk (both Swift and Standard) when the classes are designed for a party environment.



Yea, monks who sneak up on unsuspecting wizards will beat them. So will fighers, and so will rogues, and so will bards, and so will [insert nearly any class here].

I called him a Wizard counter, not a wizard killer. D&D is designed for a party environment. If you take something that's likely to survive anything you throw at it (barring third-party sources, cheesy stuff, and the like) while forcing a target to deal with *just him* for the target's actions, that target is countered (at least for that round) as I'm using the term. Someone else can take the kill - that's not the monk's job.


But those classes have a much better chance. For instance a bard at level 10 that sneaks up on a wizard tosses him a couple of DC 30 will saves to beat or get smacked with a suggestion.

Something like "The constable is after you, im your friend, ill keep all your stuff safe while you make your escape" is pretty nasty. And so is "here, drink some apple juice". Or "I'm your long lost brother". Or "your tired, take a nice long nap". Or my personal favorite when dealing with wizards any variation on "You dont want to cast spells today" or "you forgot to prepare any spells today".

Funny, but....
1) Two saving throws (one vs. Fascination, one vs. Suggestion) although the DC = Skill Check is absurdly good.
2) Nearby dangers completely negate it (by way of negating the required Fascination).
3) I don't need to compare the Monk to anyone else.


I buy that, I do. But ever since Wizards stopped doing fireball-damage and went into ability score damage it is no longer true. Now it is problebly the Rogue who fill the wizard killing slot (sneak in, steal component pouch, ring of freedom of movement and all the rest then strike with an attack, possibly within a silencefield/AMF). EDIT: Yes I know all wizards got contingencies and whatnot to negate all this. All hail The Batman, present and forever Overlord. /edit.

Magic is flashy and intresting, so that is what the splatbooks often focus on. Handwaving the cost of buffs and other spells breaks it somewhat. What breaks it the most though is spells that interact with other spells in ways they really shouldn't (for balance), see celerity, foresight, timestop, forcecage. Also some spells that is just stunningly powered (that dex draining/damaging frostspell that 1shots dragons).

Yep. And if you'll note:
Celerity and Shivering Touch: Both non-core. I mentioned how additional books tend to give Full Casters new, not-necessarily-balanced options, that a Full Caster can fairly readily get, while any non-full caster gets a lot less love, and any love they do get is harder to obtain. This one is an issue with the additional books, not the classes themselves.

Likewise, as I mentioned, the Wizard's a lot easier to Min-Max or Powergame than is the Monk. Short of turning the Monk into a caster of some stripe (such as the Tome of Battle Swordsage, or the Psionic Fist from the Expanded Psionics Handbook), this is unlikely to change. Sure, you can power the Monk up with various house-rules ... but the Wizard is going to power up faster and more readily with WotC published suppliments.

Indon
2007-11-13, 05:18 PM
Well, except for the part where their BAB is rather low, and they lack the strength and power attack to do enough damage to sunder anything worth sundering.

You only need to beat a BAB contest for sundering weapons.

Spell component pouches, holy symbols, rings, amulets, belts, boots, helmets, bracers, vestments (which aren't armor), cloaks, iown stones, and so on, do not require such a check, and probably have less health and hardness than weapons or armor do, anyway.

Mind that armor is an explicit equipment slot and that anything that isn't in that slot (or a weapon, such as gauntlets), so anything in any other slot, is fair game.

It's the difficulty of repairing magical items once you've broken them that makes sundering a poor option, not the inability to destroy almost any magic item.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 05:33 PM
You only need to beat a BAB contest for sundering weapons.
Yes, but you also need to hit whatever you're aiming at. Which includes size bonuses (most items are diminutive or smaller).
Then it helps to have enough spellcraft ranks to determine which item you should hit in the first place (which is not a monk class skill, and neither is Detect Magic).
Then you need to surpass its hardness (which starts at 10 for metal; most campaigns don't run at 16th level so you it's unlikely the monk has adamantine strike).
Then if the item is magical it gets a saving throw.
Then if the item was a component pouch or holy symbol, any caster worth his salt will have a spare.

And after all that your attack had better do something more useful than mildly inconvenience your opponent. Because let's face it, having a low-to-moderate chance of depriving an opponent of one item per round is not a viable combat strategy.

"Sundering" is simply not a practical combat role. And if it were, most other classes would do it better than the monk.

Indon
2007-11-13, 05:49 PM
Yes, but you also need to hit whatever you're aiming at. Which includes size bonuses (most items are diminutive or smaller).

10+Size Bonus+Wearer's Dex Modifier. A target with 14 Dex will have a maximum of 20 AC for his smallest possible item (Small - +1, Tiny - +2, Diminutive - +4, Fine - +8).



Then it helps to have enough spellcraft ranks to determine which item you should hit in the first place (which is not a monk class skill, and neither is Detect Magic).


Aside from the fact that many magical items have runes and glowiness and junk blatantly on it, I'm going to borrow a page from the optimization-is-in-character crowd by saying that it doesn't take much intelligence to know that someone wearing a girdle in combat is probably wearing it for magic, not for fashion.



Then you need to surpass its hardness (which starts at 10 for metal; most campaigns don't run at 16th level so you it's unlikely the monk has adamantine strike).


That's really not hard by the time you get to 5'th level or so, when the monk's combat prowess in other fields actually starts to lag behind other classes. Improved Sunder alone grants +4 damage. Heck, with Adamantine Gauntlets (and of course, one feat spent on proficiency), you could break pretty much anything pretty early.



Then if the item is magical it gets a saving throw.


Please cite the part of the RAW which says that magic items get to save against physical damage?



Then if the item was a component pouch or holy symbol, any caster worth his salt will have a spare.


Which is also sunderable, and takes a move action to draw (unless the caster has Quick Draw), if it's handy on them. Longer if it's in their pack.



And after all that your attack had better do something more useful than mildly inconvenience your opponent. Because let's face it, having a low-to-moderate chance of depriving an opponent of one item per round is not a viable combat strategy.


Multiple items per round, if you can pounce or otherwise get a full attack. Even then, magical items are each pretty potent things.



"Sundering" is simply not a practical combat role. And if it were, most other classes would do it better than the monk.

Sundering isn't a practical combat role, but due to reasons I've mentioned, not the ones you have (note my responses above). And if it were, most other classes wouldn't get enough attacks to do it better than the monk.

Sundering involves hitting low-to-medium AC's, dealing moderate damage, and doing it as many times as you can. That's what the Monk does in combat.

Kurald Galain
2007-11-13, 06:12 PM
Okay, hitting a worn item is surprisingly easy. However...


Aside from the fact that many magical items have runes and glowiness and junk blatantly on it,
The point is not "will whatever you hit be magical" (because on a reasonably high level character, it will be) but "will whatever you hit be critical to the functioning of the character wearing it". Sundering the fighter's Ring of Sustenance is not going to win the combat for you.

Unless, of course, the aim of the combat is not to defeat the opponent but to rid him of magical items, which sounds more like a DM fiat ploy to deal with monty hauls.


Improved Sunder alone grants +4 damage.
According to the SRD that's a +4 to hit, not to damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedSunder)


Please cite the part of the RAW which says that magic items get to save against physical damage?
The section on smashing items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm).



Which is also sunderable, and takes a move action to draw (unless the caster has Quick Draw), if it's handy on them.
To my knowledge quick draw is for items you wield. Sure, if it's in his backpack the caster is screwed (or has to resort to spells without material components). But if I can hang one component pouch on my belt, or holy symbol around my neck, why not two or three? A scene from The Mummy comes to mind.


Multiple items per round, if you can pounce or otherwise get a full attack.
Let's not get into the arms race, okay? Yes, if the monk gets to pounce, he may get more attacks, but if the target gets to fly or dimension door or be a reach-tripper or whatnot, he may get less.


And if it were, most other classes wouldn't get enough attacks to do it better than the monk.
I wasn't talking about more attacks, but more damage (or Dispel Magic + Shatter combos). Full attacks are pretty rare as it is.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 06:20 PM
The section on smashing items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm).
Umm... I'm fairly sure that's where you look for when you are using spells with saves (such as Fireball or Lightning Bolt) against magic items, not for use with physical damage.

Or, to put it another way, what's the save, save DC, and type of save to avoid damage from a sword swing?

Indon
2007-11-13, 06:26 PM
The point is not "will whatever you hit be magical" (because on a reasonably high level character, it will be) but "will whatever you hit be critical to the functioning of the character wearing it". Sundering the fighter's Ring of Sustenance is not going to win the combat for you.


Knowing what items produce various effects, in general, is pretty easy. While it may take ranks of Knowledge(Arcana) or whatever to know that that Fighter is indeed wearing a Belt of Giant's Strength, it doesn't take ranks to know that strength enchants are generally on belts or gauntlets, and it's way easier to break the belt.



According to the SRD that's a +4 to hit, not to damage. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#improvedSunder)

Well, that really makes it easy to hit. That might call for some Power Attack action (which is a prereq for Improved Sunder, anyway), at least on tougher items such as, say, Bracers of Armor (which would be one of the few items to benefit from an enhancement bonus for additional hardness and hit points).



The section on smashing items (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/exploration.htm).


<Response reserved for when I can actually look at the site>



To my knowledge quick draw is for items you wield. Sure, if it's in his backpack the caster is screwed (or has to resort to spells without material components). But if I can hang one component pouch on my belt, or holy symbol around my neck, why not two or three? A scene from The Mummy comes to mind.

If they're all right there in your face, then they're all sunderable.



Let's not get into the arms race, okay? Yes, if the monk gets to pounce, he may get more attacks, but if the target gets to fly or dimension door or be a reach-tripper or whatnot, he may get less.


The fact that meleers can never hit casters is not a weakness of monks; it is a weakness of all meleers.

I wonder if that one Knockdown feat applies to if you deal 10 damage to one of the targets' items, as well?



I wasn't talking about more attacks, but more damage (or Dispel Magic + Shatter combos). Full attacks are pretty rare as it is.

So long as you can break it, more damage is irrelevant.

And that magic can out-do something a non-caster class can do is unsurprising.

Armads
2007-11-13, 06:44 PM
Permits a save. 50/50 chance, give or take.

It's quite funny how you assume that 50% chances mean that the monk is always going to make it. If a quickened glitterdust followed by a regular glitterdust is cast, then the monk probably won't make the save and it will get screwed horribly. It affects the whole enemy party and basically makes them all useless (except for the cleric and the druid, who may also fail the save, since they have 2 chances to fail).

Also, touch attacks are not a problem for the wizard because of the Quickened Truestrike.



Takes a round, unless you can Quicken it, which means the Wizard is a minimum of 9th to pull this off. Even if he does, this means the Wizard is spending all of his actions doing something to the Monk - and the Monk is designed for use in a party environment.

In a party, the wizard will probably order the fighter to go grapple the monk into submission. Or the fighter will stand right next to the monk, full attack, power attacking for max once the monk is grappled and kill the monk.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 07:08 PM
It's quite funny how you assume that 50% chances mean that the monk is always going to make it.
No, just that it puts it back to a dice game, rather than effectively no-save winning that Wizards are normally assumed to do. And the Wizard has two things to beat: 1) Monk's Initiative, and 2) Monk's saves. Fail to beat either, and the Monk can start right in on denial of offensive actions for the Wizard. A Monk really only needs to beat one of the two to put a Wizard in a tight spot (well, plus stuff needed to start a grapple...).

If a quickened glitterdust followed by a regular glitterdust is cast, then the monk probably won't make the save and it will get screwed horribly.
Actually, if you can Quicken a Glitterdust, you've got 6th level spells available - which means you're 11th, where Monk as a counter to a Wizard breaks down anyway. Plus, if you're using 2nd level spells where 6th level spells are available, the save is much easier for the Monk of similar level (a 3rd level Monk's base saves are +3 all around (before stats, items, and so on); an 11th level Monk's base saves are +7 all around (before stats, items, and so on)). So when managing the casting twice, you're actually looking at something in the neighborhood of 50% that the Monk passes both saves.

It affects the whole enemy party and basically makes them all useless (except for the cleric and the druid, who may also fail the save, since they have 2 chances to fail).

Yeah, the Fighter and Rogue will have the same issues with a full caster past level 11 that all actual non-casters will have with a full caster past level 11. Your point?


Also, touch attacks are not a problem for the wizard because of the Quickened Truestrike.

Yep. Any anything requiring a touch attack is spending the entirety of your actions on the Monk - and *most* touch attack spells (core, anyway) are not going to actually kill the target - so now the Wizard has expended all of this round's actions doing things that will have no lasting harm to the Monk... while the rest of the party is pounding on the Wizard.


In a party, the wizard will probably order the fighter to go grapple the monk into submission. Or the fighter will stand right next to the monk, full attack, power attacking for max once the monk is grappled and kill the monk.
Odd - you seem to have the exact same disconnect as did Dode; you appear to be viewing things in the context of a Monk not being a member of the party, but as a challenge for the party to overcome. As my point is that a Monk does have a useful role in a party, you're not addressing my point at all in this.

Armads
2007-11-13, 07:20 PM
I was actually saying that in a wizard BBEG fight, the wizard will order his fighter minion to squish the monk. So, for the BBEG, the Monk IS a challenge to be overcome. Of course, the BBEG will probably die, being important for plot and all (and the party having a wizard), but if the monk tries to grapple the wizard into oblivion, the BBEG's minions will just crush him.

The monk isn't an effective wizard counter at level 5 because the wizard can fly: unless they're in a dungeon, where the wizard (probably higher level than the monk) casts Sleet Storm or Evards Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility and then kills the party with wall spells or enervation.

Kaelik
2007-11-13, 07:39 PM
So long as you can break it, more damage is irrelevant.

And that magic can out-do something a non-caster class can do is unsurprising.

I think his point is that even ignoring Disjunction a Wizard can destroy things better then a Monk. This is because with Chain Spell he can destroy 1 item per caster level in two rounds pretty easily which at level 10 makes him as efficient as a level 20 Monk.

And even better he could Chain Dispel and, given the short nature of most fights, it could be over for the enemy in question before their items start working, and you then can actually gain loot, unlike a Monk.

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 07:41 PM
I was actually saying that in a wizard BBEG fight, the wizard will order his fighter minion to squish the monk. So, for the BBEG, the Monk IS a challenge to be overcome. Of course, the BBEG will probably die, being important for plot and all (and the party having a wizard), but if the monk tries to grapple the wizard into oblivion, the BBEG's minions will just crush him.

Yes... but if the Monk's grappling the Wizard, and Minions are pounding on the Monk, the Monk has (at a very great personal cost) negated the actions of both Wizard and Wizard's minions for that round - which means the rest of the party is completely unopposed (for that round). I don't know about you, but I think that an unopposed Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue (or a reasonably sized subset thereof) can do LOT in one round when nobody's fighting back.


The monk isn't an effective wizard counter at level 5 because the wizard can fly: unless they're in a dungeon
Funny how the name of the game includes "Dungeons" right in the title, isn't it? Might that suggest that a significant portion of the game includes them?

, where the wizard (probably higher level than the monk) casts Sleet Storm or Evards Black Tentacles or Greater Invisibility and then kills the party with wall spells or enervation.
If there's such a discrepancy that the Wizard BBEG can actually do that, then it's TPK whether the Monk is there or not, and you have a bad DM.

If the Monk gets the action, and things aren't heavily slated in the BBEG's favor by way of pre-buffs, then the Monk can really crimp the style of a Wizard or Sorcerer very effectively.

Kompera
2007-11-13, 08:10 PM
Oh, and your title has inspired me. Just as a group of crows is a murder, and a group of geese is a flock, I shall forever refer to a bunch of our favorite underpowered friends as "a suckitude of monks." :smallwink:Isn't that a gaggle of geese?

Monks have three primary issues:
Lower offensive combat effectiveness than any other primary melee class;
D8 HP in a melee class without spell backup;
Multiple Attribute Dependency

Fix those three points and you'll fix the class.

Frakbox
2007-11-13, 08:15 PM
what I've found in playing monks is that while they are awesome, they don't get awesome until higher levels. Then again at early levels most of the classes are weak in there own respective ways.

I myself prefer to play with classes with with high skill points llike Bards Rogues or the occasional Ranger.

Vva70
2007-11-13, 08:52 PM
Does a monk contribute something to a party? Yes.

Is all or part of a monk's contribution something that is unlikely to be duplicated by a single other character? Maybe.

Is a monk mechanically on-par with some of the more well-balanced characters (ToB, XPH, and generally things that are better than the fighter and worse than the cleric)? No.

Is there good reason to play a monk, ever? YES!!! Play whatever you will have the most fun with! If you like the monk as-is, play it! Too many people seem to get mixed up and think that those who are arguing against the monk's current state of balance have something against the monk, or feel that it should never be played.

The monk is underpowered. That does not mean that the monk is without flavor or lacking in all mechanical contribution. That just means that the monk should have been designed better. Playing a monk is not an optimized choice, but who said that all characters had to be optimized? In an optimization-light game, with blaster wizards and band-aid clerics and single-class fighters, a monk is going to do okay. In a moderately optimized game, a monk will probably fall behind without paying more attention to optimization than the rest of the party. In a heavily optimized game, a monk may well be significantly behind the power level of the party. Regardless, if monk is what you enjoy, play it. Just recognize what the power level is going to be.

I recommend that anyone who wants to play a monk at least consider an unarmed swordsage (if ToB is available). But that's just because I enjoy optimization (though I'm not always terribly good at it).

To all those who are trying to demonstrate a monk's party contribution, I acknowledge that the monk can contribute something. I'm not at this point going to argue one way or the other on the exact nature of that contribution. But I am curious as to whether or not you believe that the monk is well designed in its current state. If balance is somewhere above the fighter, and somewhere below the cleric, is the monk balanced? Of course, feel free to disagree with me on where to define "balanced," but I like the realm where people can do amazing and powerful things without breaking the universe in two. :smallwink:

I do not believe the monk is balanced. But that does not mean that I believe monks should not be played.

Armads
2007-11-13, 09:00 PM
If there's such a discrepancy that the Wizard BBEG can actually do that, then it's TPK whether the Monk is there or not, and you have a bad DM.


So a 2 level gap between a wizard BBEG is entirely unrealistic?



Yes... but if the Monk's grappling the Wizard, and Minions are pounding on the Monk, the Monk has (at a very great personal cost) negated the actions of both Wizard and Wizard's minions for that round - which means the rest of the party is completely unopposed (for that round). I don't know about you, but I think that an unopposed Wizard, Cleric, Fighter, and Rogue (or a reasonably sized subset thereof) can do LOT in one round when nobody's fighting back.

The fighter kills the monk in 1 round, and then the wizard takes his actions normally.



Funny how the name of the game includes "Dungeons" right in the title, isn't it? Might that suggest that a significant portion of the game includes them?

So the monk is only a good wizard counter between levels 1-8, and where there's a ceiling of at most 8ft (vertical reach of medium creatures). That shows that the monk isn't really very good at his 'specialization', since he can only do so for 8 levels (and by level 7, he's toast), and requires an 8ft ceiling to help him? And when he grapples, he is totally at the mercy of everything else around him?

Jack_Simth
2007-11-13, 09:59 PM
So a 2 level gap between a wizard BBEG is entirely unrealistic?

Actually, I was referring to the part where you hand-wave the rest of the party into oblivion based on just the actions of the just the Wizard BBEG. If the DM is unleashing unstoppable fatal type stuff on the entire party, he's not doing the job very well.


The fighter kills the monk in 1 round, and then the wizard takes his actions normally.
Not generally - while a d8 Hit Die isn't da bomb, it's unlikely he'll be one-rounded unless the DM's trying to play Uberman for minions - which gets back to the "bad DM" issue.


So the monk is only a good wizard counter between levels 1-8, and where there's a ceiling of at most 8ft (vertical reach of medium creatures).
Yeah... you've completely missed where I've mentioned that Jump and Climb are class skills for Monks? Sure, the Monk has an 8-foot verticle reach.... and with the +4 bonus for each 10 feet above 30 that is given in the Jump skill, that 5th level Monk can actually do 15 foot ceilings without too much difficulty (seriously - 8 ranks and a 40 foot move makes for a jump Modifier of +12, before any strength bonus - rolling a 5, that gives him a 17, or a 4 foot high jump. Tack on his verticle reach of 8 feet, and you're looking at hitting things 12 feet up; as a small or Medium creature takes up a full five-foot square, he's only mildly disadvantaged on a strike against someone up at the ceiling).

That shows that the monk isn't really very good at his 'specialization', since he can only do so for 8 levels (and by level 7, he's toast), and requires an 8ft ceiling to help him?
Err... "can only do so for 8 levels" but is "toast" by level 7? You appear to have math issues in the above. Seriously. Monks don't normally start at level 0 to squeeze 8 levels in to a 1-7 progression.

Mr. Monk actually remains fairly effective at it until the rings of Freedom of Movement and Contingent Dimension Door strategies start kicking in, around 11th or 12th, with 6th level spells.

And when he grapples, he is totally at the mercy of everything else around him?
*shrug* so's everybody. Including the Wizard - which is the point.

Armads
2007-11-13, 10:30 PM
Err... "can only do so for 8 levels" but is "toast" by level 7? You appear to have math issues in the above. Seriously. Monks don't normally start at level 0 to squeeze 8 levels in to a 1-7 progression.

You said that monks start to fail at their job by level 9. I meant that they are already doomed by level 7.



Not generally - while a d8 Hit Die isn't da bomb, it's unlikely he'll be one-rounded unless the DM's trying to play Uberman for minions - which gets back to the "bad DM" issue.

The fighter can just power attack for max and kill the monk with a full attack, since you're grappling and thus your AC is horrible. A typical monk will have 36 hp at level 5 (assuming +2 con mod). A full attack from a level 4 fighter with a +1 greatsword and a haste buff and weapon specialization, power attacking for 2 (not even maximum) deals (assuming str 14) 2d6+10 and gets 2 attacks. 4d6+20 reduces the monk to 2 hp on average, and the wizard attacking the monk in a grapple kills him off - or he buffs the fighter with bull's strength and lets the fighter kill the monk in 1 full attack. The fighter isn't even "Uber-manned" - It costs the wizard 1 long-duration buff (greater magic weapon) and 1 short-term buff - easily cast at the first round of combat.



Mr. Monk actually remains fairly effective at it until the rings of Freedom of Movement and Contingent Dimension Door strategies start kicking in, around 11th or 12th, with 6th level spells.

He's gone once Greater Invisibility is castable, since he has no way of detecting invisible creatures. This is a problem with pretty much all noncasters.



Actually, I was referring to the part where you hand-wave the rest of the party into oblivion based on just the actions of the just the Wizard BBEG. If the DM is unleashing unstoppable fatal type stuff on the entire party, he's not doing the job very well.

Okay. But if the monk has to sacrifice himself at level 5 to kill the BBEG, it's quite sad, isn't it? There's really no point in playing a character to be cannon fodder everytime there's an important fight, is there?

Dode
2007-11-13, 10:31 PM
Because the round you cast it, you're not doing anything offensive - and the Monk is designed for a party environment. Okay; you got away ... at the cost of a spell slot ... having done no damage to anyone ... at no cost of any daily resources to the Monk. You were countered that round unless you do something else, too.

If this is a long-term arena, monk just hides. You've got a -68 to your Spot check if you go that far. Good luck, wizzer.

If this is a dungeon, Mr. Wizzer has lost both line of sight and line of effect. Monk waits a bit and tries again after a random, longish interval.

Sure, the Wizard escapes... but he doesn't accomplish anything of note in the doing (other than having met the monk to bring the scrying check down to normal).Why would he care if the Monk hides? He's the most worthless member of the party and the Wizard can just smash the rest of the Monk's party while he wastes all of his rounds hiding and not doing anything offensive.

Also, it's more time for the Wizard to cast whatever he wants, and the entire premise of your "countercaster" argument is the Wizard is 'ambushed' and doesn't have any of his non-all day spells/buffs on him.


Name a non-casting class (also excluding casting cognates, such as the Tome Of Battle classes or the Expanded Psionics Handbook classes) that can reliably take down a prepared and paranoid Wizard after, oh, 12th level or so. Why are you demanding this of the Monk? Because you made the ridiculous claim that the Monk and the Monk alone is a "countercaster specialist", not the other classes. I'm just pointing out that if that's true, the Monk sucks at it's specialty.

If all you're doing is getting out of the grapple, you've expended your combat action, and the concentration check (while it gets you out of the grapple) did not win you much - it just stopped you from losing horribly, at the cost of one of the most valuable D&D resources: Combat actions. So what you're saying is, at it's best, assuming an unprepared Wizard, a Monk could stalemate a Wizard for one round before teleporting to somewhere advantageous and getting fully prepared and/or in an advantageous position.


In a dungeon, you've got a ceiling to worry about - and the Monk can both Jump and Climb, as they are class skills. That's not really a worry, unless the Wizard is playing a meatshield who's taking on an entire party in a 5' foot corridor. 15 ft. a round with the inability to charge isn't very threatening to someone who can fly in 3 dimensions at quadruple that rate.


Yes, because a party barging in on a Wizard BBEG in a dungeon lair NEVER happens in Dungeons and Dragons! Especially not before level 11! How silly of me. How incredibly hypothetical to think that a Monk has a role to play in such an encounter. Oh that happens quite a bit. Of course, the BBEG nearly always has minions guarding it against being fought in melee. And these guards likely have actual weapons and BAB, so it's up to the rest of the party to cleave their way to get a shot at the BBEG, because the Monk isn't a "melee enemy specialist". But let's assume that this Wizard was enjoying a private moment and sent the guards away.

1: The "Counter-Spellcaster" moves to immobilize the spellcaster in a devastating armlock
2: BBEG teleports out of the Counter-Spellcaster's armlock into another room. wherein it gathers its minions and buff the everliving crap out of them and himself, then head back into the room.
3: The Monk's role was just fulfilled.

Mr. Moogle
2007-11-13, 10:34 PM
3. 'Yes, mr druid, can you, instead of casting spells on yourself and thus on your animal companion simultaneously, cast them on me?' It's one thing to benefit from another player's casting. It's another to require them to cast spells on you all the time for you to be worth a darn.

What about Permanant GMF+5

Helgraf
2007-11-13, 10:54 PM
Cleaver Wrestler (Feat) reduces the penalties for Grappling opponents larger than you. That would be killer in combination with Powerful Build (I know it works well with Battle Jumper).

Actually, sadly no, this does not work.

Clever Wrestler gives you the bonus on defense only - ie only to avoid being grappled or to escape a grapple or pin.

It could have been great. But they nerfed it at birth.

Goumindong
2007-11-13, 11:05 PM
The monks touch AC in a grapple is 0. He is being willingly touched. If a wizard casts a touch spell and the monk attempts to grapple him, he gets discharged upon.

ed: i like how you say displacement is "only 50% miss chance, no big deal" and go on to say "the wizard only has a 50/50 chance to hit me with this save or lose spell"

Darkantra
2007-11-14, 12:03 AM
I completely forgot about the blindsense ability for my longer post a few pages back.

Extrospection (Ex): By 10th level the monk's awareness extends outwards from their body and they can detect even minute changes within this area. The monk gains Blindsense out to 30 ft. At 18th level the monk's awareness has sharpened so that a mental image of all that enter their Extrospection range forms in their mind. The monk gains Blindsight out to 30 ft.

I'll also change my Fullness of Body rework so that it takes a full-round action to use and provokes AoO, but doesn't require a concentration check unless they get hit. If they do get hit then the monk must make a DC 10 + damage dealt concentration check in order to heal themselves, failure doesn't lose the amount of damage you were trying to heal from your pool

Rowanomicon
2007-11-14, 02:31 AM
Actually, sadly no, this does not work.

Clever Wrestler gives you the bonus on defense only - ie only to avoid being grappled or to escape a grapple or pin.

It could have been great. But they nerfed it at birth.

Really? Crap. :smalleek: No one tell me DM please...:smallredface:

Jeez, even working the way I thought it worked only made it a decent feat. Working the way it actually works makes it pretty crappy.

Khanderas
2007-11-14, 04:01 AM
Wow, alot of new posts on this thread today, sadly it stopped being about things that the monk can do good or should be able to do and once again degraded to how wizards win the game again. Exceptions apply, specifically Darkantra but also a few others and those posts are far more intresting then once again rehashing how Wizards can fly and Monks can only jump. Again.

In a dungeoncrawl, where the way to overcome fights is to get the other guys Health to 0, before splatbooks removed any limitations to what magic can do the monk is not a bad choice.
Why are they not anymore ? Because of this inane obsession ROLE players have about optimisation. In a computorgame yeah, then getting the "right" skills and min-maxing makes sense, in a tabletop, not so much, if the players buff up on insane abilities the DM has to as well. Focus derailed from plot and net gain in the powerstructure, nil.

Since anything pubished is fair game to pick up (apparantly) yes Wizards got alot of more options. Options that makes sense in the "game world" is ignored on forums like this, and builds that makes no sense as long as you get physical benefits from it (like membership in 5 cults, 2 wizardly orders, 2 outsider alliances, polymorphed to a half-troll half-red dragon, who started out with 20 Int, 5 con, 3 cha, 16 wis, 3 str, 3 dex (before polymorphing it away naturally), also a favored soul, the overgods favorite pet and Elmisters prized student).


The goal, too often, is to grab a PrC as soon as possible unless it costs you casterlevels.:smallannoyed:
I am sure people don't always PLAY it like this (and kill dragons during the day and Tarrasques on weekends), but the forum discussions always drift this way.

I would much rather read and discuss what can be done on the Monk class, to make it better mechanically and also more fun. Things like meditate to get Abundant Step back. Mechanically better without going overpowered, check. Lets the Monk willing to use it for more then escape the first forcecage, check. Makes sense fluffwise, you bet. More fun, I sure think so.

I am sick of reading how spell X does this and that better or smashes Monks and mountains with the right metamagic feat/rods and PrC. We all know how it works, either a spell does it better, or someone develops a spell and now there is a spell that does it better and the Wizard has it.

Khanderas
2007-11-14, 04:23 AM
Shorter, not so ranty version.

Don't say Monks suck because they can't do X

Do say Monks cant do X, should they ? And if they should, could it be something like Y ?

Don't say Monks suck because a wizard can use spellcombo X+Y+Z. Everyone falls before the batman wizard. Even planets and gods and in some cases universes.

Do... um, avoid doing the above.:smallbiggrin:

Kaelik
2007-11-14, 05:16 AM
In a dungeoncrawl, where the way to overcome fights is to get the other guys Health to 0, before splatbooks removed any limitations to what magic can do the monk is not a bad choice.

A) The way to win fights in 3.5 has never been to reduce the guy to health 0. At high levels it's to force status conditions, at low levels it's to bring them to -1 (and in some rare cases -10.)


(like membership in 5 cults, 2 wizardly orders, 2 outsider alliances, polymorphed to a half-troll half-red dragon, who started out with 20 Int, 5 con, 3 cha, 16 wis, 3 str, 3 dex (before polymorphing it away naturally), also a favored soul, the overgods favorite pet and Elmisters prized student).

I understand that you are upset about your thread being turned into OMGWTFWIZARDPWNZALL!! But no need to exaggerate. PrCs are designed so that with only rare exceptions you never need to enter any order to take levels in it. Most any mage, no matter how min-maxed is only going to need to be in one Wizard order to hit seven or eight PrCs. And that's because levels are about getting abilities, not about pretending to be part of some organization.

And don't even get me started on Polymorph, no one in any thread I've ever read has suggested that a Wizard should use that kind of cheese, because we avoid making the game pointless. So please, there are plenty of real criticisms to try before resulting to accusations of things no one has ever said.


The goal, too often, is to grab a PrC as soon as possible unless it costs you casterlevels. I am sure people don't always PLAY it like this

Yes. People always play that way. Because gaining a level as spells is not only less powerful, but also less fun then gaining a level of spells and an ability. In my group, we always try to PrC our casters immediately. Sometimes (when we aren't at maximum levels of optimization-fu) we even lose caster levels, just to PrC. Ask yourself this: What is more fun? "I'm a more powerful Wizard." or "I'm a Wizard that specializes in/can do/can do better then anyone X."


I am sick of reading how spell X does this and that better or smashes Monks and mountains with the right metamagic feat/rods and PrC. We all know how it works, either a spell does it better, or someone develops a spell and now there is a spell that does it better and the Wizard has it.

All you need to do if you want to talk about the Monk (and not the Wizard) is not let anyone claim that a Monk is a caster counter. Or that their role is countering casters. Or that they are awesome cause they kill Wizards. If no one says any of those things, Wizards will never be mentioned.

Of course then someone will say something about Disarming and you'll have the same issue with a Fighter.

If you want a thread to be about Monk fixes, you need your first post to be this:

"The Monk is useless. I want to fix it. If you think the Monk is fine/awesome/useful/has a role/not the crappiest PC class other then Samurai please go to another thread."

Grynning
2007-11-14, 05:58 AM
Just as a reminder, the Original Post was worded very similarly to that. In fact, it was specified that we are NOT trying to balance the monk against Wizards or CoDZilla:


It seems to be that the general consensus is that Monks are the weakest of the classes in the PHB.

My question is this: If Monks had full HD BAB or (not and) d10HD would they be good-enough, too good, or still underpowered?

For reasons of balance consider this:

It should be balanced to work well with (but not outshine) it's party members and provide usefulness in the roll it's meant to fill.

Balancing (power-wise) against CoDzilla and Batman is a bit much while balancing against a Fighter might not be enough.

So let's get back to interesting ideas to fix monks, and I agree with Khan, everyone is sick of hearing about wizards. We know they always win.

Kaelik
2007-11-14, 06:14 AM
Just as a reminder, the Original Post was worded very similarly to that. In fact, it was specified that we are NOT trying to balance the monk against Wizards or CoDZilla:

If it was worded that way then the people he should be mad at are the people claiming monks are good.

It doesn't matter what we are trying to balance them against, because the second someone says "Monks are teh uber! They kill Wizards!" you can guarantee that someone is going to correct them on that point. (You can also guarantee they've been corrected before, and that they won't change their mind this time, and that it will start once more the endless Monk vs Wizard debate.)

lord_khaine
2007-11-14, 08:54 AM
The monks touch AC in a grapple is 0. He is being willingly touched. If a wizard casts a touch spell and the monk attempts to grapple him, he gets discharged upon.

no the monks touch ac in a grapple is the same as it has allways been, the only thing that changes is that the wizard has a -4 penalty to hit for being in a grapple.


If it was worded that way then the people he should be mad at are the people claiming monks are good
most people here doesnt claim monks are good, just that they isnt as bad as a lot of people make them out to be.

Goumindong
2007-11-14, 09:30 AM
no the monks touch ac in a grapple is the same as it has allways been, the only thing that changes is that the wizard has a -4 penalty to hit for being in a grapple.


The point is that it doesnt matter what his AC, he is willingly being touched. The wizard doesnt have to make an attack roll, he is not pinned.

Think of it this way. Does the wizard need to make a touch attack roll to make a grapple check against an opponent he is in a grapple with?

If no[and it is no], the touch AC of the opponent against a touch spell is effectivly zero. The wizard cannot fail to touch the enemy. Just like if you cast a touch spell and shake a guys hand, it doesnt matter you didnt make an attack roll, the spell works.

Khanderas
2007-11-15, 03:14 AM
Dimensiondoor out of a grapple is fine by me.
Ranged touch attacks when grappled is not, ranged touch attacks means to take aim, point your finger at a target in sight/range/line of effect and say "pow, finger o death".

As for spelldeliver by touchattack when about to get grappled, its not guaranteed you will plant your glowing hand on the grappler. Chances are high, but not guaranteed. I would say something like, if the other guy wins the grapplecheck by 10 or more, he isnt getting hit, 1-9 he does get hit but grapples anyway and failing the check he would get hit.
(This due to the fact the caster isnt full-body charged, only his hand or other applicable extremity)

-----------------------------------------

A Monk got fast movement, tumble, no weak saves, always armed (with his FISTS, dun dun duun) and at higher levels 1/week (proposed 1/day) save or die, Abundant step 1/day (proposed to be rechargable outside combat), limited self-heal.
To me that says the Monk should be able to run past the mooks, target a behind-the-lines attacker and at best take him out but atleast keep it occupied. Behind the lines here are casters obviously, but also ranged attackers (archers) and healers.

Should the Monk be this guy ? If he should, is he that guy ? If he isn't and he should, what can be done to make him so ?
Do Monks have another role ? (note: saying Monks got no role except to die and re-roll doesn't count. I got that joke covered. )

I like the concept and frankly I got nothing better to do :smallbiggrin:

lord_khaine
2007-11-15, 04:15 AM
The point is that it doesnt matter what his AC, he is willingly being touched. The wizard doesnt have to make an attack roll, he is not pinned.

Think of it this way. Does the wizard need to make a touch attack roll to make a grapple check against an opponent he is in a grapple with?

If no[and it is no], the touch AC of the opponent against a touch spell is effectivly zero. The wizard cannot fail to touch the enemy. Just like if you cast a touch spell and shake a guys hand, it doesnt matter you didnt make an attack roll, the spell works

this oppinin isnt suportet by the rules, there is nothing that says you automaticaly hits with touch attacks in a grapple, you are trying to apply logic to d&d here.

the rules for touch attacks says you make a attack roll against the opponents touch ac, while the rules for grapple says you can make melee attacks at a -4 penalty if you are using a light, natural or unarmed attack, where the touch spell comes in under the last catagori.

Calsan
2007-11-15, 06:35 AM
First off, people said that in 3.0 edition that monks were seriously overpowered, so Wizards tried to fix that and make a slightly weaker version (in some ways improved version in my eyes).

They were badasses and I have see it playing in a 3.0 game, killing off things in one round.

Now people complain they are to weak and try to fix a MAD character, don't you think that monks should be MAD characters?
I mean they train in a monastery all/most of their lives and aren't better then
a avarage bumkin that crawled out of a mudhole with a sword in their hands and decent str and con score? Think again.

People shouldn't compare things solo, but within a party. If the DM is a min/maxer ok, they have a slight disadvantage. But if the DM is any good he takes every role in the party seriously, then they are on par with any class. I know this has been said but still. They are maybe to specialist characters. Like the Ranger or Paladin for instance (aren't those a bit MAD too?)

And party members not boosting other party members (Druids/wizards/clerics mostly)? Why is he/she in a party then? The goal is to work together right? Not to outshine every party member all the time.

And counter minions of wizards? Tumble (class skill last time I checked) over said melee combatant and go straight to wizard. I'm betting Monks have a better ini then wizards and heavy fighters most of the time so should get a good hit in. (Power attack is an option for Monks too :P) And don't disregard gear for monks too, Spiderclimb? pffft a slippers of spider climb should deal with that (combined with Jump that's just icing on the cake). Tentacles that grip you? What about a ring of free movement for the monk? that should counter most of the battlefield control spells. Fly? well a potion isn't expansive. Any adventurer should be prepared for such things anyways.

Goumindong
2007-11-15, 06:47 AM
this oppinin isnt suportet by the rules, there is nothing that says you automaticaly hits with touch attacks in a grapple, you are trying to apply logic to d&d here.

the rules for touch attacks says you make a attack roll against the opponents touch ac, while the rules for grapple says you can make melee attacks at a -4 penalty if you are using a light, natural or unarmed attack, where the touch spell comes in under the last catagori.

A touch attack is not an unarmed attack. It is actually an armed attack.

But If you can make a grapple check you do not need to check for touch.

Indon
2007-11-15, 09:38 AM
I think his point is that even ignoring Disjunction a Wizard can destroy things better then a Monk. This is because with Chain Spell he can destroy 1 item per caster level in two rounds pretty easily which at level 10 makes him as efficient as a level 20 Monk.

And even better he could Chain Dispel and, given the short nature of most fights, it could be over for the enemy in question before their items start working, and you then can actually gain loot, unlike a Monk.

Yeah, so?

A Wizard and a Cleric can, between the two of them, obsolete every skill a Rogue can provide (the Cleric needs to be included to find traps). The Rogue isn't even considered a very weak class, either.

Spellcasters can out-do non-spellcasters at any possible role, often without using high-level spells. Saying, "Well, a Wizard can do it better" is absolutely meaningless, because there is nothing a Wizard can not do better... well, except for the things a Cleric or Druid can.

Edit:

The point is that it doesnt matter what his AC, he is willingly being touched. The wizard doesnt have to make an attack roll, he is not pinned.

Think of it this way. Does the wizard need to make a touch attack roll to make a grapple check against an opponent he is in a grapple with?

If no[and it is no], the touch AC of the opponent against a touch spell is effectivly zero. The wizard cannot fail to touch the enemy. Just like if you cast a touch spell and shake a guys hand, it doesnt matter you didnt make an attack roll, the spell works.

Sounds great. So how many times per round does Touch of Golden Ice (a permanent touch attack) hit a target that an Exalted PC is grappling?

Kurald Galain
2007-11-15, 10:05 AM
First off, people said that in 3.0 edition that monks were seriously overpowered, so Wizards tried to fix that and make a slightly weaker version (in some ways improved version in my eyes).

Really? What changes, then? Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I don't see any big differences (they get evasion a level later, it accomodates for new DR rules, and they have a few extra options for feats now). If anything the 3.5 monk seems slightly stronger.

People still say in 3.5 edition that monks are seriously powerful. But saying something doesn't make it true. Since there don't seem to be any big changes, I'd say those people were just as wrong in 3.0 as they are in now.

I think it makes sense for a monk (and most other classes) to be a MAD character, but it is an unfortunate consequence of 3.5E rules is that it seriously hampers a character. Sure, a good DM will compensate for a bad class. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly not a bad class, as written.

Oh, and a ring of free movement hardly counters most of the battlefield control spells. Only a handful, actually. It won't work against, for instance, a fog cloud, or a wall of force.

Falrin
2007-11-15, 10:18 AM
Sorry for interupting the discussion, but I had a worry last night about altering monks.

Everybody keeps saying: Give them full BaB, maybe even higher HD and make stunning a standard action.

is it me or does this just make the monk a very sweet dipping class?

+3 on all saves
+2 BaB
+2d6 hp (2d8? 2d10??)

Improved unarmed strike.
Stunning fist/improved grapple
Combat Reflexes/Deflect Arrows

Evasion

If your Wis is high enough you get
Wis to AC (but unarmored)
2 x Day Flurry of blow.


I'm imagening a melee, TWF Rogue using flurry (as a standard action) to get some nasty sneaks in.

Or just a fighter bumping up his saves (+3!)

Indon
2007-11-15, 10:21 AM
Really? What changes, then? Comparing the 3.0 and 3.5 versions, I don't see any big differences (they get evasion a level later, it accomodates for new DR rules, and they have a few extra options for feats now). If anything the 3.5 monk seems slightly stronger.


If I recall, it was something about how attack actions worked. You could essentially Flurry all the time, or somesuch.

Flurry's interaction when multiclassing also seemed ambiguous, from what I remember. You might've been able to get more than 5 attacks from a multiclassed monk.

lord_khaine
2007-11-15, 10:24 AM
A touch attack is not an unarmed attack. It is actually an armed attack.

But If you can make a grapple check you do not need to check for touch

ahh well, actualy its a Armed” Unarmed Attacks, according to the SRD, under combat actions, and yes a grapple check should proberly allow it as well, though i think the attack with a -4 penalty would have a bigger chance of succes.

Calsan
2007-11-15, 10:48 AM
Oh, and a ring of free movement hardly counters most of the battlefield control spells. Only a handful, actually. It won't work against, for instance, a fog cloud, or a wall of force.

Should have been more specific, I meant spells that hamper movement, one of the main advantages of being a monk is having improved mobility (not feat). So maintaining mobility is paramount. I understand that Wall of force is movement impairing spell though, but noting short of dispelling it could counter it. And it impairs the caster and PC alike. Fog Cloud is only a visibility thing if I remember correctly, a feat like Blind fight should take care of that, besides the monks movement is not impaired by it.


I think it makes sense for a monk (and most other classes) to be a MAD character, but it is an unfortunate consequence of 3.5E rules is that it seriously hampers a character. Sure, a good DM will compensate for a bad class. But that doesn't mean it's suddenly not a bad class, as written.

Where are people basing this bad class on? MAD/BAB/HP? I can't do such and such with the class? This is not a bad class, this is having min/max problems with the monk, if you don't have a DM where min/max is a necessity than these "bad" qualities are mute. But I know the min/maxers have their right to play too, but name any concept and give min/maxer core, and he/she will find a way to make a broken character.

The monk is good at what it suppose to do, being a light mobile melee class, using flanking and smart combat options the class provides, in short a striker, to use the new game slang.

This discussion amuses me to no end though, I keep reading such and such is broken or over/underpowered. But isn't any class supposily balanced against other the classes? Balance is a hard thing, tweak one thing and you have to tweak another and so on.

Then again nothing the existence of powerful magic makes most things mute, but such is the system we have to live with.

Remember this game is written by people and people make mistakes, but they try to do the best they can.

Indon
2007-11-15, 10:57 AM
Where are people basing this bad class on? MAD/BAB/HP? I can't do such and such with the class? This is not a bad class, this is having min/max problems with the monk, if you don't have a DM where min/max is a necessity than these "bad" qualities are mute. But I know the min/maxers have their right to play too, but name any concept and give min/maxer core, and he/she will find a way to make a broken character.


Well, the Monk does have min-maxing problems; heavy alignment, equipment, and multiclassing restrictions, namely.

Telonius
2007-11-15, 11:05 AM
Sorry for interupting the discussion, but I had a worry last night about altering monks.

Everybody keeps saying: Give them full BaB, maybe even higher HD and make stunning a standard action.

is it me or does this just make the monk a very sweet dipping class?

+3 on all saves
+2 BaB
+2d6 hp (2d8? 2d10??)

Improved unarmed strike.
Stunning fist/improved grapple
Combat Reflexes/Deflect Arrows

Evasion

If your Wis is high enough you get
Wis to AC (but unarmored)
2 x Day Flurry of blow.


I'm imagening a melee, TWF Rogue using flurry (as a standard action) to get some nasty sneaks in.

Or just a fighter bumping up his saves (+3!)

Right off the bat, there's the Lawful requirement. Rogue would need to flurry using a kama, sai, or siangham, in order to use Weapon Finesse on them. All of those are d6 damage, but they have criticals at x2, not 18-20x2 like the rapier. Unless he invested quite a few monk levels, Rogue's going to be attacking at -2/-2. And - very importantly - the Rogue has to be unarmored to pull this off. You'll have the same money problem a full Monk has, with Bracers of Armor costing more than regular enchantable armor.

That said ... Stunning Fist. Rogue is dual-wielding kamas, kicks the guy in the head to stun him. If it succeeds, the target loses dex to AC. Nasty, nasty sneak attacks will follow. Skill selection on the Monk - not great, but Rogue would be using some of that stuff anyway (Tumble, Hide, Move Silently) so it's not a wasted level for skill points. d8 instead of d6 HD. The saves are a major plus.

So yeah, it's not a useless dip for the Rogue. (Rogue19/Anything1 is better than Rogue20). However, the Rogue would still want to take Monk as their second or third class level, if they take it. The reason: skill points. If you take Monk at first level, that's a minimum of 16 skill points that are gone forever. So making Monk have full BAB wouldn't really give Rogues all that much more of a reason to take Monk at 1st. It becomes one melee choice among others (Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Paladin...) at 2nd.

There's not a clear-cut winner among those choices, in my opinion. If you take Monk, yeah, you get the saves; but you don't get the proficiencies that the others do. If you get Barbarian, yeah you can rage, but what feats? Ranger, good skills, proficiencies, free feat; but what about that oh-so-deadly will save? Paladin, do you really want to have a holy stick for the rest of your career? Fighter, great feat selection and hitpoints, but terrible skills. Monk, cool synergies and great saves, but what happened to the weapon proficiencies? So there would be pluses and minuses to each (Ranger probably pulling ahead slightly). This seems pretty balanced to me.

EDIT: Contrast that to the current situation. The monk is the clear loser for melee at second level. The lack of BAB torpedoes the choice - Rogue's stuck at +0 BAB for two levels, unless you use fractional BAB.

Frosty
2007-11-15, 12:13 PM
So if the DM makes the fights easy, then the Monk is a-o-k. Sure....

Calsan
2007-11-15, 01:20 PM
So if the DM makes the fights easy, then the Monk is a-o-k. Sure....

Did I type that? I can't seem to recall that I typed that. All I said that if min/max isn't a must, then the monk is a great class.

Killing a party or player is easy, keeping them alive while you still aren't pulling your punches i.e. challenging them is hard. But if you don't have time to min/max monsters all the time and just use monsters straight out the MM or other sources at the right EL then a monk can be a great asset to party survival or character survival. People also tend to forget there are other possibilities then an empty room/battlefield when considering a class. Give a monk a "obstacle" course and he leaves the fighters/wizards lumbering for breath behind.

Calsan
2007-11-15, 01:30 PM
Double post please ignore

Calsan
2007-11-15, 01:34 PM
Well, the Monk does have min-maxing problems; heavy alignment, equipment, and multiclassing restrictions, namely.

Heavy alignment, equipment and multiclassing?
Are those in the way of min/maxing?

Alignment is flavor in most cases that's a non issue.

Equipment?
That's is as much an issue for fighters and all most every other class that's out there, that's fault of the whole game not just the monk.

Multiclassing? There are plenty of PrC out there that circumvent that, plus is it against the law to change a few rules in the game? I'd like to point out rule 0

Kaelik
2007-11-15, 02:00 PM
Give a monk a "obstacle" course and he leaves the fighters/wizards lumbering for breath behind.

Really? The Wizard flying 120ft per round through walls is left in the dust?


Fog Cloud is only a visibility thing if I remember correctly, a feat like Blind fight should take care of that, besides the monks movement is not impaired by it.

You might want to reread the rules on movement. Because you can't see, you can only move 5ft a round. And Freedom of Movement doesn't help you since the rule is based on not being able to see the floor.


But isn't any class supposily balanced against other the classes?

No, which is kinda the point. Monks aren't balanced against anything and Wizards are more powerful then most everything. That's why people say things are over/under powered. Because they are.


Alignment is flavor in most cases that's a non issue.

Except when you have to be lawful to be a Monk, and you have to be chaotic to be many other classes (Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, whatever.)


Equipment?
That's is as much an issue for fighters and all most every other class that's out there, that's fault of the whole game not just the monk.

No, that's the point. Monks can't use some of the most valuable equipment, and need to spend more for comparable protection then a fighter. They also can't use a THW so they can't deal as much damage as a fighter or barbarian.


Multiclassing? There are plenty of PrC out there that circumvent that, plus is it against the law to change a few rules in the game? I'd like to point out rule 0

So in other words we should change the Monk class to make it better? Weren't you just arguing against the people that were trying to do that?

DivineBriliance
2007-11-15, 02:18 PM
If you don't have any supplement then monks suck, but if you do then there useful. take for example Book of Exalted Deeds feat called Vow of poverty witch increases there strength but only at the cost of no items, magic items or money, witch is nothing to a monk. All a monk needs is his fists. Ge gets so many bonuses that its really kinda cheap.....

Kyeudo
2007-11-15, 02:23 PM
Heavy alignment, equipment and multiclassing?
Are those in the way of min/maxing?


Yes. The more restraints on your build, the fewer builds that are possible. The fewer builds possible, the less likely that any one of those builds is a good build, thus the fewer good builds availible.



Alignment is flavor in most cases that's a non issue.


Plenty of classes and PrCs have alignment restrictions. For example, Barbarian needs a non-Lawful alignment to be able to rage, so Monks can't dip into the class for rage bonuses or pounce (from Spirit Lion Totem substitution), which would be a nice bonus to the flurrying monk.

Other classes have similar problems.



Equipment?
That's is as much an issue for fighters and all most every other class that's out there, that's fault of the whole game not just the monk.


Monks have conflicts between the items that help them the most. For example: Amulet of Natural Armor, Amulet of Health, Amulet of Mighty Fists, and Periapt of Wisdom all use the Amulet slot, and each one helps the monk in some way he wants. The fighter? He just has to pick between the Amulet of Natural Armor and Amulet of Health.



Multiclassing? There are plenty of PrC out there that circumvent that, plus is it against the law to change a few rules in the game? I'd like to point out rule 0

Don't. In an online debate, pointing out rule zero is just commiting the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you can change the rules doesn't mean the origional rule was balanced.


If you don't have any supplement then monks suck, but if you do then there useful. take for example Book of Exalted Deeds feat called Vow of poverty witch increases there strength but only at the cost of no items, magic items or money, witch is nothing to a monk. All a monk needs is his fists. Ge gets so many bonuses that its really kinda cheap.....

VoP sucks past a certain level, because the bonuses from VoP are outweighed by the bonuses you would have from your normal gear. Monks are more item dependant that a wizard or a psion, so in the end VoP still hurts.

mostlyharmful
2007-11-15, 02:26 PM
If you don't have any supplement then monks suck, but if you do then there useful. take for example Book of Exalted Deeds feat called Vow of poverty witch increases there strength but only at the cost of no items, magic items or money, witch is nothing to a monk. All a monk needs is his fists. Ge gets so many bonuses that its really kinda cheap.....

Actually a monk needs more magic items to stay vaguely competative, where a melee PC can just buy armour and a big stonking weapon, with maybe a belt of strengh and a cloak of resistance the monk needs to up their AC every which way to keep up which is bracers, ring, amulet, and buy the belt to up damage from pitiful to small, and buy varius magic weapons to overcome DR since they can't do wnough with any one weapon to just blast through it. And sneaky stuff if they want to stealth. Their MAD means they have to buy LOTS more stat boosters and after all that they still lag everywhere but speed.

And the VoP is a trap, without flight you get your ass handed to you faster than if you tried to slap Batman. You also miss out on the versatility of a wide range of equipment, just a hat of disguise is almost as useful as Flight and its only one of dozens of things you can pull out of your WBL bag.

Telonius
2007-11-15, 02:39 PM
Except when you have to be lawful to be a Monk, and you have to be chaotic to be many other classes (Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, whatever.)


Nitpick, but Rogues can be any alignment. The general argument holds, though. Barbarian, Warlock, Bard, and certain flavors of Cleric are off-limits to Monk multiclassers (if the Monk wants to maintain alignment).

Kyeudo
2007-11-15, 02:42 PM
Nitpick: Lawful Evil is a viable Warlock alignment, just not a typical PC alignment.

Indon
2007-11-15, 02:54 PM
VoP sucks past a certain level, because the bonuses from VoP are outweighed by the bonuses you would have from your normal gear. Monks are more item dependant that a wizard or a psion, so in the end VoP still hurts.

Monks (and other D&D characters) are not so much gear-dependent, as they are magical-effects dependent (because magic is so potent). A Monk with a Wizard friend to cast Persistent Fly in the morning on them every day (right after casting it on himself, of course) is just fine with VoP, and in fact it gets rid of a lot of their annoying item-related restrictions, even though it itself is a restrictive solution.

Edit: And it's way better, wealth-wise, to have VoP than it does to have WBL (moreso for the monk, who can not take base armor but must take all of his armor bonus in enhancement flavor), but that's mostly due to very high enhancement bonuses to armor and stats.

Calsan
2007-11-15, 05:39 PM
Really? The Wizard flying 120ft per round through walls is left in the dust?

I give you that one, lets just say the batman wizard trumps all.



You might want to reread the rules on movement. Because you can't see, you can only move 5ft a round. And Freedom of Movement doesn't help you since the rule is based on not being able to see the floor.

Wait what? You mean all those blind people can't run, I'm sorry, doesn't make sense. Just that if you are walking in the dark/fog and you can't see things before you ok, but not being able to move more then 5 feet that's just not right. I'd like to point out page 163 of the PHP


Hampered Movement: Difficult terrain, obstacles or poor visiblitity can hamper movement. When movement is hampered each square moved into usually counts as two squares, effectively reducing the distance that a character can cover in a move

No 5 feet there, just reducing speed and what do you know the monk has improved speed. Though I admit my previous mistake of not being hampered at all. I didn't have my PHB on hand to check on everything.



No, which is kinda the point. Monks aren't balanced against anything and Wizards are more powerful then most everything. That's why people say things are over/under powered. Because they are.

Yes yes, wizards trump all, but wizards have one crucial flaw, in an anti magic or a field of silence they are weakened.




No, that's the point. Monks can't use some of the most valuable equipment, and need to spend more for comparable protection then a fighter. They also can't use a THW so they can't deal as much damage as a fighter or barbarian.

I'd like to point out that monks aren't suppose to be tanks nor the main damage dealers (wizards are the damage dealers originally and still are)
They function best as fast and light melee skirmishers. Get in get out.


Monks have conflicts between the items that help them the most. For example: Amulet of Natural Armor, Amulet of Health, Amulet of Mighty Fists, and Periapt of Wisdom all use the Amulet slot, and each one helps the monk in some way he wants. The fighter? He just has to pick between the Amulet of Natural Armor and Amulet of Health.


There are more body slots then the amulet and you have rules on creating your own magic items as a DM. But If you only use the RAW, I can see your point, unless you use from the top of my head, ion stones, which before you point it out can be snatched, but amulets can be snatched too, though slightly more difficult. Besides there is such a thing as buff spells or potions, even if they don't last as long as you would like too.



So in other words we should change the Monk class to make it better? Weren't you just arguing against the people that were trying to do that?



Don't. In an online debate, pointing out rule zero is just commiting the Oberoni Fallacy. Just because you can change the rules doesn't mean the origional rule was balanced.

Noted, but there are still enough options of the monk to multiclass and benifit, basic or PrC wise even with the lawful restriction. PrC aren't mend to be taken by everyone anyways. It's possible mostly but still it's not the best way.

As a final note I also like to point out this little tidbit from the PHB page 40:

Role: The monk functions best as an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into and out of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees. She also makes an excellent scout particularly if she focuses her skill selection on stealth

I'm just trying to say don't make the monk what it isn't, mainly a tank or prime damage dealer. I'd say use monks the same way you use rogues/rangers/bards in combat as light and fast combatants.

Woot Spitum
2007-11-15, 06:08 PM
And the problems inherant within the monk class are thus explained in the class description. Hit-and-Run fighting is probably the worst option in combat in D&D. The attack of opportunity system alone nerfs it like crazy (people get free hits on you when you move around them).

Goumindong
2007-11-15, 07:07 PM
ahh well, actualy its a Armed” Unarmed Attacks, according to the SRD, under combat actions, and yes a grapple check should proberly allow it as well, though i think the attack with a -4 penalty would have a bigger chance of succes.

You are misunderstanding.

It is a requirement that you are touching to be able to make a grapple check. You can deal unarmed damage via a grapple check.

But if you can make a grapple check, then you are touching for the purpose of a touch spell that discharges on touch. Just like you dont have to make a touch attack to deal damage when on fire in a grapple, you dont need to make the touch attack to discharge a touch spell.

Shatteredtower
2007-11-15, 09:36 PM
But if you can make a grapple check, then you are touching for the purpose of a touch spell that discharges on touch.No, you aren't. The touch still requires an attack roll. If it didn't, a wizard couldn't move after casting a touch spell without discharging it unless flight was an option, because you'd be touching something.

On page 141 of the PHB, the rules state: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."

A touch attack is not triggered by an opponent touching you. It is not triggered by prolonged contact with the opponent. It requires that you succeed on an attack roll made to deliver the touch attack.

As counterintuitive as it might seem, you can scale a wall without losing the charge on a touch spell, so long as you make no attack roll against the wall. Likewise, you can administer a potion to a dying comrade without discharging a touch spell you're holding for later use -- you can automatically touch a friend to use the spell, but that doesn't mean you must do so.

Woot Spitum
2007-11-15, 10:09 PM
No, you aren't. The touch still requires an attack roll. If it didn't, a wizard couldn't move after casting a touch spell without discharging it unless flight was an option, because you'd be touching something.

On page 141 of the PHB, the rules state: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."

A touch attack is not triggered by an opponent touching you. It is not triggered by prolonged contact with the opponent. It requires that you succeed on an attack roll made to deliver the touch attack.

As counterintuitive as it might seem, you can scale a wall without losing the charge on a touch spell, so long as you make no attack roll against the wall. Likewise, you can administer a potion to a dying comrade without discharging a touch spell you're holding for later use -- you can automatically touch a friend to use the spell, but that doesn't mean you must do so.

It's common sense. If you are being grappled, you are already touching whoever grapples you. True, the books don't explicitly state this. But consider this: No where in the monk's class description does it state that a monk is proficient with his own unarmed strike. He gets Improved Unarmed Strike, but this neither requires nor grants proficiency in unarmed strike. Unarmed Strike counts as a simple weapon, but monks are not proficient in all simple weapons, just the ones on their list. The list does not contain Unarmed Strike.:smallannoyed:

Shatteredtower
2007-11-15, 11:02 PM
It's common sense.It's common sense that you are touching the floor when you walk as well, but that doesn't prevent you from holding the charge, walking ten feet, and delivering the touch spell.


If you are being grappled, you are already touching whoever grapples you.No. You are in contact with the person grappling you. That's not always the same thing, which is why an attack roll is required. Otherwise, by that same common sense, your touch attack should be triggered by anyone that strikes you with an unarmed strike -- including another touch spell. It's not, which means that a touch attack requires something more than mere contact.

Goumindong
2007-11-15, 11:05 PM
No, you aren't. The touch still requires an attack roll. If it didn't, a wizard couldn't move after casting a touch spell without discharging it unless flight was an option, because you'd be touching something.

On page 141 of the PHB, the rules state: "You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll."

A touch attack is not triggered by an opponent touching you. It is not triggered by prolonged contact with the opponent. It requires that you succeed on an attack roll made to deliver the touch attack.

As counterintuitive as it might seem, you can scale a wall without losing the charge on a touch spell, so long as you make no attack roll against the wall. Likewise, you can administer a potion to a dying comrade without discharging a touch spell you're holding for later use -- you can automatically touch a friend to use the spell, but that doesn't mean you must do so.

On your attack you make a grapple check. Boom you are automatically touching them since you are allowed to make the grapple check.

Why are you touching them? Because the rules explicitly allow you to make the grapple check. Which would otherwise require a touch attack roll.

Why do you not need to make the touch attack roll? Because it requires no effort to discharge the spell.

The discharge is at will when touching something. Being touched is different. But if you can make the grapple check, you can touch them.

Darkantra
2007-11-15, 11:40 PM
It's common sense. If you are being grappled, you are already touching whoever grapples you. True, the books don't explicitly state this. But consider this: No where in the monk's class description does it state that a monk is proficient with his own unarmed strike. He gets Improved Unarmed Strike, but this neither requires nor grants proficiency in unarmed strike. Unarmed Strike counts as a simple weapon, but monks are not proficient in all simple weapons, just the ones on their list. The list does not contain Unarmed Strike.:smallannoyed:

True, this is one of those things that is just blantantly common sense that was probably glossed over when the PHB was written. As for acually casting the spell the caster has to make a DC 20+spell level concentration check or lose the spell. If the spell requires a component or focus it takes a full-round-action to retrieve (factoring this in even if most games don't pay strict attention to components or foci). After that the spell cannot take more than a standard action to cast and cannot have a somatic component.

Unless an enemy wizard or cleric has prepared a ton of still spells and has Eschew Materials, they'd spend at least one round trying to get their component, that is if you haven't already pinned them and taken their component pouch. After what is essentially a full round of you damaging them with strikes they finally get to cast their spell, and even at mid to high levels there still a decent chance of them failing to spell.

Shatteredtower
2007-11-16, 12:03 AM
On your attack you make a grapple check. Boom you are automatically touching them since you are allowed to make the grapple check.Only if you successfully make the attack roll.

No success, no meaningful touch.

Kyeudo
2007-11-16, 12:19 AM
Yes yes, wizards trump all, but wizards have one crucial flaw, in an anti magic or a field of silence they are weakened.


This is barely a problem. Antimagic Fields are small, used mostly as a defense against spells rather than to attack a Wizard. Wizards, however, have nifty low level tricks to get around them, like the Orb line of spells. Silence only stops spells with a verbal component, which still tends to leave a wizard with something he can use against you, and only if the centerpoint of the Silence is close enough.



I'd like to point out that monks aren't suppose to be tanks nor the main damage dealers (wizards are the damage dealers originally and still are)
They function best as fast and light melee skirmishers. Get in get out.


Which means they don't function at all. There is no mechanical benefit from running in as a monk, hitting someone for a round, then running away. You give your opponent more chances to shoot at you that way. You're better off going in and staying in, and the monk doesn't have the staying power to stay in.



There are more body slots then the amulet and you have rules on creating your own magic items as a DM. But If you only use the RAW, I can see your point, unless you use from the top of my head, ion stones, which before you point it out can be snatched, but amulets can be snatched too, though slightly more difficult. Besides there is such a thing as buff spells or potions, even if they don't last as long as you would like too.


I'm pointing out a monk's equipment issues. He needs the boosting effects that so many magic items give, but so many of them occupy the same body slot. Look at Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Gloves of Dexterity. Look at a Belt of Giant Strength and a Monk's Belt.

As for Ioun Stones, they only go so far. One +2 Wis Ioun stone is better than nothing, but I'd rather have a Periapt of Wisdom, except I've got more pressing needs for my Amulet slot.

Buff Spells shouldn't ever be needed to make a non-casting class good. No one balanced the Fighter on the idea that he would always go into Combat with a Greater Magic Vestment and a Greater Magic Weapon in effect, so why should the Monk be balanced that way. Potions shouldn't be something you need every fight, they should be something saved for a boss fight or unusual circumstances.

As for creating new ones, you are again commiting the Oberoni Fallacy. I can make new types of magic items to cater to the monk, but I shouldn't need to. The monk should already be balanced.



Noted, but there are still enough options of the monk to multiclass and benifit, basic or PrC wise even with the lawful restriction. PrC aren't mend to be taken by everyone anyways. It's possible mostly but still it's not the best way.


From an optimization standpoint, the only people who don't always PrC out of a class are Clerics and Druids, and that's only in a Core Only game.
From a more normal standpoint, I will agree that not everyone will PrC or multiclass, but the Monk is hard pressed to class out for solid benefits with out incredibly specialized classes.



I'm just trying to say don't make the monk what it isn't, mainly a tank or prime damage dealer. I'd say use monks the same way you use rogues/rangers/bards in combat as light and fast combatants.

Rogues flank and deal massive damage through two-weapon fighting. Rangers target their favored enemies first, then assist the main tank with flanking, unless they are the main tank. Bards sing, cast spells, and mostly try to avoid getting hit. There is no similarity between these fighting styles.

Monks may have been intended to be a high mobility combatant, but his actual class features focus on staying put and hitting the guy next to him, once he gets into place.

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 03:12 AM
When you are charged with a touch attack spell, you do not go full body glowing. Your hand or other extremity of your choice gets the charge. You can choose to use it or not, otherwise if a caster charges up some "touch of death" spell, you push his buddy into the caster and problem solved :)
(or pick up a rock and say "catch". I kid ofcourse, it doesn't quite work that way).

Point is grapple isnt just grabbing hold of someones leg to stop them from running away. I personally know atleast five ways to keep someone grappled without touching that glowy hand of death and I have not even looked. Comparing a martial artist vs a bookworm (with a gun of sorts) I'm sure I have not thought of half of the ways.
(Example because there will be people who want examples. Put the other guy chest down, one arm straight out. Place your knee on his elbow, in such a way he needs to lift his elbow to bend it. If the guy lying down can find a way to touch you with a finger I owe you a cookie. If you question how to get a guy into that position without him cooperating, I direct you to compare caster - martial artist in terms of physical buffness. Trust me when I say it can be done.)

Another point is, that while a touchspell will hurt if it hits, it is still one hit from a spell, and barring someone with magical buffs, Monks is one of the better ones to such such a thing up due to the good saves. Once the Monk sucks the spell up, the grapple is on.

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 03:46 AM
Monks may have been intended to be a high mobility combatant, but his actual class features focus on staying put and hitting the guy next to him, once he gets into place.
Now we are cooking... Idea: Monks should be high mobility combatant, but fails due to flurry being full attack only (and possibly other monk specialities wont work while on the move).
Should they and how could they ?

Kyeudo
2007-11-16, 03:51 AM
Simplest fix to the monk class I can think of: Give Monks more actions than normal characters, like an extra move or standard action. Make it part of the higher level Flurry of Blows benefits, and then they will get back to booking it around the battlefield.

Best Solution out there: Play a swordsage and specialize in Setting Sun. Call yourself a monk.

Goumindong
2007-11-16, 04:39 AM
Point is grapple isnt just grabbing hold of someones leg to stop them from running away. I personally know atleast five ways to keep someone grappled without touching that glowy hand of death and I have not even looked. Comparing a martial artist vs a bookworm (with a gun of sorts) I'm sure I have not thought of half of the ways.

No, you know of 5 ways to pin someone. You do not know of 5 ways of grappling someone. There is a large difference.

Calsan
2007-11-16, 04:41 AM
This is barely a problem. Antimagic Fields are small, used mostly as a defense against spells rather than to attack a Wizard. Wizards, however, have nifty low level tricks to get around them, like the Orb line of spells. Silence only stops spells with a verbal component, which still tends to leave a wizard with something he can use against you, and only if the centerpoint of the Silence is close enough.

Orbs aren't affected by anti magic fields? Didn't know that. Is this true?
And I said weakened not completely taken out.


Which means they don't function at all. There is no mechanical benefit from running in as a monk, hitting someone for a round, then running away. You give your opponent more chances to shoot at you that way. You're better off going in and staying in, and the monk doesn't have the staying power to stay in.

There are feats that give you armor class against Attack of opportunities, mobility for instance. Staying power isn't the main thing for monks they are meant to disable a opponent so the other damage dealers/tanks can move in. Then assist the damage dealer/tank with flanking.


I'm pointing out a monk's equipment issues. He needs the boosting effects that so many magic items give, but so many of them occupy the same body slot. Look at Gauntlets of Ogre Power and Gloves of Dexterity. Look at a Belt of Giant Strength and a Monk's Belt.

As for Ioun Stones, they only go so far. One +2 Wis Ioun stone is better than nothing, but I'd rather have a Periapt of Wisdom, except I've got more pressing needs for my Amulet slot.

Buff Spells shouldn't ever be needed to make a non-casting class good. No one balanced the Fighter on the idea that he would always go into Combat with a Greater Magic Vestment and a Greater Magic Weapon in effect, so why should the Monk be balanced that way. Potions shouldn't be something you need every fight, they should be something saved for a boss fight or unusual circumstances.


He only needs equipment from a min/max standpoint, if you run a more casual game more equipment is good, but not needed. Min/maxing things is fun for a select few who play the game (mostly forum goers ;) ).

I'd also like to point out that the monk isn't a solo class, neither is any other class for that matter. They are all based on the party structure. Buff spells are a crucial part of the party structure, You don't need as much equipment if you have a party to support you with spells. Potions are to be saved, but not every fight you are in you need your permanent items either, unless you are playing a very high powered game. That said I have played in high powered games, even in a game that we had to use 8th level Gestalth characters with equipment better suited for level 3. We had some difficulty, but I know the DM wasn't pulling punches.


From an optimization standpoint, the only people who don't always PrC out of a class are Clerics and Druids, and that's only in a Core Only game.
From a more normal standpoint, I will agree that not everyone will PrC or multiclass, but the Monk is hard pressed to class out for solid benefits with out incredibly specialized classes.


I could point out that the monk in it self is a highly specialized character/archetype (which are most PrCs)


Rogues flank and deal massive damage through two-weapon fighting. Rangers target their favored enemies first, then assist the main tank with flanking, unless they are the main tank. Bards sing, cast spells, and mostly try to avoid getting hit. There is no similarity between these fighting styles.

Monks may have been intended to be a high mobility combatant, but his actual class features focus on staying put and hitting the guy next to him, once he gets into place.

Rogues need a feat to use two-weapon fighting it's not inherent to the class.
Can they use their sneak attack every round then? The suprise round ok. The first round the fighters need to close in to flank with the rogue first and then only rogues can use sneak attacks. But rogues are also in combat light melee combatants, one solid hit and they are down and out. Rangers aren't tanks either, they are more Medium melee fighters or archers, doing good damage, but ultimately fall short with tanking, unless supported by a cleric/druid *gasp*.
Ok, Bards are jack of all traits including combat, they have a multitude of self buff spells and offensive capabilities.

Goumindong
2007-11-16, 04:56 AM
Only if you successfully make the attack roll.

No success, no meaningful touch.

You already have. You can roll a grapple check. The rules explicitly say you can roll a grapple check. The requirement to roll a grapple check is making a touch attack.

lord_khaine
2007-11-16, 05:02 AM
yes but there is a difference betveen you touching someone with your spell and someone grapping on to you, for a start if they are grapping then they are the ones making the touch attack.

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 05:03 AM
No, you know of 5 ways to pin someone. You do not know of 5 ways of grappling someone. There is a large difference.
Then i do not know what the D&D version of grappling is because I see no difference. If I was a Monk and my job was to keep some caster down by grappling he would be pinned. I would not cling to his leg like a monkey.

I am not saying the Monk would not be in danger of the touch attack, I'm saying its neither an automatic miss or an automatic hit. Starting the grapple/pinning involves some risk, but it is a heck of a lot less risk then letting the caster run around unopposed.

If there is a RL counterpart to say, shocking grasp, it would be a guy with a knife. Getting him to the ground is the dangerous part, but once pinned correctly the knife is not an issue. In RL I would run from the guy with the knife, and you should too, but casters in D&D are even worse when they got distance.

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 05:06 AM
No, you know of 5 ways to pin someone. You do not know of 5 ways of grappling someone. There is a large difference.
Then i do not know what the D&D version of grappling is because I see no difference. If I was a Monk and my job was to keep some caster down by grappling he would be pinned. I would not cling to his leg like a monkey.

I am not saying the Monk would not be in danger of the touch attack, I'm saying its neither an automatic miss or an automatic hit. Starting the grapple/pinning involves some risk, but it is a heck of a lot less risk then letting the caster run around unopposed.

If there is a RL counterpart to say, shocking grasp, it would be a guy with a knife. Getting him to the ground is the dangerous part, but once pinned correctly the knife is not an issue. In RL I would run from the guy with the knife, and you should too, but casters in D&D are even worse when they got distance.

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 05:07 AM
No, you know of 5 ways to pin someone. You do not know of 5 ways of grappling someone. There is a large difference.
Then i do not know what the D&D version of grappling is because I see no difference. If I was a Monk and my job was to keep some caster down by grappling he would be pinned. I would not cling to his leg like a monkey.

I am not saying the Monk would not be in danger of the touch attack, I'm saying its neither an automatic miss or an automatic hit. Starting the grapple/pinning involves some risk, but it is a heck of a lot less risk then letting the caster run around unopposed.

If there is a RL counterpart to say, shocking grasp, it would be a guy with a knife. Getting him to the ground is the dangerous part, but once pinned correctly the knife is not an issue. In RL I would run from the guy with the knife, and you should too, but casters in D&D are even worse when they got distance.

Goumindong
2007-11-16, 06:08 AM
The DnD version i am refering to has rules for grappling and pining and doing it in one round requires more than one attack for a round.

Goumindong
2007-11-16, 06:09 AM
yes but there is a difference betveen you touching someone with your spell and someone grapping on to you, for a start if they are grapping then they are the ones making the touch attack.

Irrelevent if you can make the grapple check.

Snadgeros
2007-11-16, 09:47 AM
I've said it before and I'll say it again, monks aren't THAT bad. Yes, their attacking capabilities are not as great, but that balances out with their ridiculous movement speed and high saves and SR. Not to mention other cool abilities they get that are MILDLY (but not always) useful.

There are two things that need to be fixed though: flurry of blows and quivering palm. The fix for flurry is simple, make it a standard action. This would both make the ability useful and give them a true combat role (guerilla warfare) especially if they're smart and take spring attack. They already get dodge and mobility for free if their ability scores are even half-decent. Monk runs in, flurries the opponent (more hits, but less at less attack bonus), maybe throws a stunning fist in there, and runs back out. A 20th level would be able to do this repeatedly from 45 ft away.

Quivering palm is fine the way it is given its one-hit kill abilities, but the whole "once per week" thing cripples it. Change it so it's "can only be used SUCCESSFULLY once per week." That way an unlucky roll won't screw you over for 7 days.

Other than that, I feel that a monk's ability to avoid damage makes up for his inability to deal as much damage as fighters and barbarians. Give him a cloak of resistance and he'll be untouchable!

Khanderas
2007-11-16, 09:48 AM
Why is it so important if a touch spell zaps you or not ?
Monks got nice saves, decent HD and MAD or not, they should have alittle con bonus. Spell hits, Monk continues to live (I should very well hope atleast) and grapple is a fact.
Or the Monk could stay adjacent to the caster and ready actions to interrupt real spellcasting. A Monk should be able to dodge out of the touchspell.


I'm still more intrested in what is the Monks role, is he good at it and if not what does he need to be viable and fun ?

Ulzgoroth
2007-11-16, 10:20 AM
It matters because there are no-save or lose spells that depend on a touch attack. Irresistible dance, at least.

Armads
2007-11-16, 10:33 AM
Or the Monk could stay adjacent to the caster and ready actions to interrupt real spellcasting. A Monk should be able to dodge out of the touchspell.

The problem is that the monk will have a hard time getting up close to the spellcaster, especially if the spellcaster is flying.


There are two things that need to be fixed though: flurry of blows and quivering palm. The fix for flurry is simple, make it a standard action. This would both make the ability useful and give them a true combat role (guerilla warfare) especially if they're smart and take spring attack. They already get dodge and mobility for free if their ability scores are even half-decent. Monk runs in, flurries the opponent (more hits, but less at less attack bonus), maybe throws a stunning fist in there, and runs back out. A 20th level monk would be able to do this repeatedly from 45 ft away.

You can't actually do that, even if flurry was made into a standard action. Spring attack lets you move, whack and move with the attack action.

Quivering Palm should be 1/day or 2/day or even 3/day. 1/week is just too limited, considering that it's no better than a finger of death (it's weaker, actually, since it requires a melee attack to hit while finger of death can be done at range).

Snadgeros
2007-11-16, 11:58 AM
The problem is that the monk will have a hard time getting up close to the spellcaster, especially if the spellcaster is flying.



You can't actually do that, even if flurry was made into a standard action. Spring attack lets you move, whack and move with the attack action.

Quivering Palm should be 1/day or 2/day or even 3/day. 1/week is just too limited, considering that it's no better than a finger of death (it's weaker, actually, since it requires a melee attack to hit while finger of death can be done at range).

Spring attack lets you move before AND after attacks, so you could run in, do any non-full round attack (such as a standard flurry) and run back out, so long as the total movement is less than or equal to your max movement. Combine this with mobility and tumble and you have a viable and effective strategy. Should the enemy close in and attack you afterwards (45 movement or greater) then he's just giving you a free flurry and a chance to move out 90 ft. next turn.

I'm not even going to go into how so many spells are broken, including stuff like finger of death. Anything that can cause insta-death needs to be SEVERELY limited. The symbol of death being the WORST of them. Any DM that puts one of those ANYWHERE in his campaign deserves to have a symbol of death used on him.

Goumindong
2007-11-16, 12:20 PM
Spring attack lets you attack, it does not let you perform a standard action.

Bounding assault will let you get a second iterative attack in a sneak attack[against the same target if you want too], but you need bab 12, so that is late in coming for a monk and they cant pick up the third iterative attack with rapid assault

KoDT69
2007-11-16, 12:38 PM
In my current campaign I am DMing I introduced a bunch of fixes for the monk to see how he panned out. Keep in mind there was a fully optimized Cleric with Time and Travel domains and a fully optimized 2H fighter battlefield controller build too. The arcane caster was Bard/Sorc and horribly sub-par but that's a whole different issue. Here are the changes I gave the monk for the campaign:

Full BaB
Substituted all monk related abilities to be based on WIS or DEX only to remove the MAD (double one score for the AC bonus even)
A bonus feat at 1st and every 3rd level
Abundant Step as a swift action
A special Jump ability of 2ft per skill check as a move action (he could jump like 50-70ft as a move action in any direction, even up!)
An extra d6 of untyped damage to each attack

End result:
He still sucked hard. His damage was still sub-par with magic items and increased to 24 STR. He got hit a lot and was unable to even do 30% of the damage of the fighter. He was still useless except as a scout and even that was limited. He died off in last night's game and won't be coming back by player choice.

I liked the idea of the monk class at first, but even with major fixing, he still has no real role and can't meaningfully contribute compared to the other classes. I really wanted to report better results. Monks will no longer be allowed in my game as they are a proven liability to the rest of the group. :smallfrown:

tyckspoon
2007-11-16, 12:51 PM
Full BaB
Substituted all monk related abilities to be based on WIS or DEX only to remove the MAD (double one score for the AC bonus even)
A bonus feat at 1st and every 3rd level
Abundant Step as a swift action
A special Jump ability of 2ft per skill check as a move action (he could jump like 50-70ft as a move action in any direction, even up!)
An extra d6 of untyped damage to each attack

End result:


I'm not surprised the Monk was still well behind in damage. None of these fixes really help with the reasons he's not good at damage output- notably, you didn't give him any way to compete with 2 handed Power Attacking, either by giving him some way to make his attacks count as 2 handed or by making it easier to Flurry (swift Abundant Step is nice, but unless you changed it, it still doesn't let you do anything after using it- it's based on Dimension Door. And it needs to be usable more than 1/day for best application.)

KoDT69
2007-11-16, 01:34 PM
I was allowing an Abundant Step as a swift action with a full attack in the same round. It just never seemed to matter as much. Even if he double-fisted it for the bonuses, he had no crit threat range like the fighter. He also didn't have any anything even like Weapon Specialization, sub-optimal, but it stacks up nonetheless.

tyckspoon
2007-11-16, 04:18 PM
Huh. Swift-action dimdooring into a full attack should have at least let him keep up with the Fighter, especially if he makes the first attack of that full attack a Stunning Fist (no reason not to. Monks get lots of uses.) What'd the Fighter's build look like? I can't imagine him outpacing that altered Monk that badly unless he was doing a Shocktrooper/Leap Attack deathcharger thing.

Crit range isn't all that important unless you've got lots of effects that proc on a crit, but if the Monk really wants it he can take Improved Critical (unarmed strike) to get 19-20/x2. The bonus feats you gave him would make it easy to pick up.

Kaelik
2007-11-16, 04:55 PM
Huh. Swift-action dimdooring into a full attack should have at least let him keep up with the Fighter, especially if he makes the first attack of that full attack a Stunning Fist (no reason not to. Monks get lots of uses.) What'd the Fighter's build look like? I can't imagine him outpacing that altered Monk that badly unless he was doing a Shocktrooper/Leap Attack deathcharger thing.

The problem would be that he gets one attack like that a day. Everything else is back to being a crappy Monk who runs really fast, but can never get a Full Attack except against things he really doesn't want to full attack him back.

Not sucking once a day isn't all that great.

Temp
2007-11-16, 04:59 PM
Not sucking once a day isn't all that great.Not sucking once every d4 rounds might be worthwhile... it'd be a quick and sloppy fix, but by no means unbalancing.

VerdugoExplode
2007-11-16, 05:00 PM
The problem would be that he gets one attack like that a day. Everything else is back to being a crappy Monk who runs really fast, but can never get a Full Attack except against things he really doesn't want to full attack him back.

Not sucking once a day isn't all that great.

So, if the monk is effective only once a day, that means he is only half as effective as a broken watch, which is at least useful twice a day. Man, monks need some serious help don't they?

Woot Spitum
2007-11-16, 05:01 PM
Unless you have sneak attack dice, it is nearly impossible to do significant damage in melee without a big strength score. Especially without power attack. I've played as a monk before, and the experience sticks out in my mind as running around missing enemies most of the time. The few times I hit, I did almost no damage. My AC was okay, but not as good as that of a fighter in full plate. The monk sucks because it can't really hurt enemies that badly, which gives them little reason to attack the monk. Being above-average at avoiding damage doesn't mean much if there is little reason for anyone to attack you.