PDA

View Full Version : Monks



Pages : [1] 2

Icewalker
2008-01-02, 03:52 AM
I never fully realized how bad monks are...I heard everybody talking, and never really looked into it...

I just statted up a level one human monk using the non-elite array for an NPC in an adventure...and it amounts to pretty much the same thing as a commoner with a small mace. Except with better saves, and a DC 11 stunning fist 1/day.

So, regardless of higher levels, first level monks really suck. I understand now!

It could probably lose to a commoner with a heavy mace. :smalleek:

Cuddly
2008-01-02, 03:58 AM
That, my friend, is MAD. Use the elite array; it will look a little better.

Armads
2008-01-02, 04:03 AM
Everything is weak and fragile at level 1. Even the barbarian, which is a powerhouse at level 1, might still get downed by a level 1 orc warrior with a greataxe.

Also, first level bards are worse, although higher level bards are quite good.

But you're right that monks suck - which I'm sure many people will come and try to correct me soon.

Talic
2008-01-02, 05:50 AM
Yup. A 1st level barbarian can be dropped by a particularly lucky orc with a greataxe.

Even standard array damage is 1d12+1/x3 crit.

Longsword is also deadly at this range, with 1D8+1 19-20/x2.

You're looking at high end or 13 and 9, respectively, with crits averaging 23 damage and 11 damage, respectively.

Greatsword is sick as well, at 2d6+1 19-20/x2

High of 13 damage still, but better crit chance than the Greataxe, and an average crit damage of 16... Enough to drop a max HP barbarian with an 18 con.

Low level games are more lethal.

holywhippet
2008-01-02, 06:04 AM
Monks get better as they gain levels. Faster base speed, special feats and the best saving throws of all classes. Just don't make the mistake of thinking they are a straight up fighter class. They can do fairly well in hand to hand, but their speed also lets them act as a skirmisher - ie. hit and run tactics.

mabriss lethe
2008-01-02, 06:09 AM
I've been noodling an idea for a monk "fix" not much of one mind you, but use the essense invocations of a warlock as a guide, to create a series of at will abilities that a monk can apply to one attack per round. most of them would still only be useful against foes with appropriate anatomies.

Very rough outline below, this is just where my thinking is carrying me at the moment. Maybe give it a requirement similar to sneak attack, but....shrugs. it's 6 in the morning. time for a quick nap before work.

Level 1 Cheap shot: In addition to normal unarmed damage, target succeeds on a fort save or is sickened for one minute. sickened creatures are immune to further cheap shots.

Level 6 Eye rake: succeed on a fort save or be blinded for one round.

Level 11 Head shot: Suceed on a fort save or be confused for 1 rd

Level 16 Greater Cheap shot, as cheap shot, but nauseated instead of sickened.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 07:39 AM
Monks get better as they gain levels. Faster base speed, special feats and the best saving throws of all classes. Just don't make the mistake of thinking they are a straight up fighter class. They can do fairly well in hand to hand, but their speed also lets them act as a skirmisher - ie. hit and run tactics.
hit and run works fine if your playing solo, if there are more players who can't hit and run like you can, the tactic is negated.


I've been noodling an idea for a monk "fix" not much of one mind you, but use the essense invocations of a warlock as a guide, to create a series of at will abilities that a monk can apply to one attack per round. most of them would still only be useful against foes with appropriate anatomies.

Very rough outline below, this is just where my thinking is carrying me at the moment. Maybe give it a requirement similar to sneak attack, but....shrugs. it's 6 in the morning. time for a quick nap before work.

Level 1 Cheap shot: In addition to normal unarmed damage, target succeeds on a fort save or is sickened for one minute. sickened creatures are immune to further cheap shots.

Level 6 Eye rake: succeed on a fort save or be blinded for one round.

Level 11 Head shot: Suceed on a fort save or be confused for 1 rd

Level 16 Greater Cheap shot, as cheap shot, but nauseated instead of sickened.
Besides the effect it might have, I don't think the flavour fits the monk.

ShneekeyTheLost
2008-01-02, 08:48 AM
I've been noodling an idea for a monk "fix" not much of one mind you, but use the essense invocations of a warlock as a guide, to create a series of at will abilities that a monk can apply to one attack per round. most of them would still only be useful against foes with appropriate anatomies.

There is a very simple fix to the monk. It's called the Swordsage.

I am trying to 'fix' the caster classes using an incantation system, however, so you may want to try and check that out.

new1965
2008-01-02, 09:52 AM
Most of the problems people seem to have with monks can be addressed by selecting a different Weapon School like the Krabi-Krabong which gives you the following as Monk Weapons and proficiency with Long Sword

Club
Quaterstaff,
short Sword
Spear and Short Spear

You can do Flurry of Blows with them

Put Ki Focus on the weapon and you can do stunning attack, ki strike, and quivering palm, as well as the Stunning Fist feat through them as well

If your DM will allow it, take Unarmored Defense ProficiencY feat from Swash Buckling Adventures to boost your AC on top of the bonuses your Mpnk levels and Wisdom give you

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 10:00 AM
Most of the problems people seem to have with monks can be addressed by selecting a different Weapon School like the Krabi-Krabong which gives you the following as Monk Weapons and proficiency with Long Sword

Club
Quaterstaff,
short Sword
Spear and Short Spear

You can do Flurry of Blows with them

Put Ki Focus on the weapon and you can do stunning attack, ki strike, and quivering palm, as well as the Stunning Fist feat through them as well

You still have MAD. You still have the fundamental contradiction of abilities based on movement coupled with a primary attack option that requires you to stand still. On top of that, you now have an entire class feature (your improved Unarmed Strike damage) going to waste.

new1965
2008-01-02, 10:29 AM
You still have MAD. You still have the fundamental contradiction of abilities based on movement coupled with a primary attack option that requires you to stand still. On top of that, you now have an entire class feature (your improved Unarmed Strike damage) going to waste.

No one ever said you had to use the Monk Weapon exclusively.. Monks can alternate between unarmed strikes and monk weapons (even in the midst of a Flurry of Blows) freely . Changing the monk weapons just gives players a whole different range of options when it comes customizing the character with weapons to overcome damage reduction and the like

A monk with Spring attack to take advantage of his movement and some ranks in tumble can become effective . And if he gets caught face to face with someone one, he can bash/slice them to bit with flurry of blows

Alyosha
2008-01-02, 10:44 AM
I like the Monk. I've been a martial artist most of my life, so I like the idea of a nimble athletic warrior who uses his body as a weapon.

But the more I think about it, the more I agree that Wizards didn't do the Monk justice.

Ultimately the only thing I think I absolutely would not change is the Unarmed Damage scaling, the class speed increase, and the good saves across the board. I also appreciate adding the WIS mod to AC because it plays to a monk's wisdom in fighting and awareness of his own body and his opponent's.

I don't understand why Monks get 3/4 BAB. As a person who trains in unarmed combat, (and do it rigorously), I don't see why monks would be less likely to hit an opponent than a fighter or a barbarian would. I would think that Monks would be more likely to hit since so much of martial arts requires precise strikes to the body in order to trap, disarm, etc.

I also don't like it that monks rely on 3-4 stats to be effective. You need STR for hitting and damage, DEX for your AC, CON so you can take a hit (maybe), and WIS for AC and Stunning Fist (if you take the Stunning Fist ability at all).

I am working on my own version of the Monk based on my own experience in martial arts and based in some of the martial arts movies/television shows I have seen (for a more fantasy spin on the class).

I'm still working out class abilities and how they should be granted level to level, but I think I can get the gist of it out there.

In martial arts, breathing is key. When you attack, you breathe in and then out when you strike. In a more mythical setting, your breathing influences your ki. It's this kind of thing that makes you good at martial arts. To reference Avatar: The Last Airbender, General Iroh says, "True strength comes from the breath, not from the muscles." This can be true in many styles of martial arts--especially in the "softer" forms like Tai Chi or Judo.

Wizards kind of plays to this with Ki Strike, the +WIS to AC, and the Stunning Fist DC, but after that it stops.

In my Monk abilities, I include the option for a Monk to substitute his WIS mod in place of STR or DEX for attack rolls and damage rolls (for ranged weapons the +WIS to damage still only applies to thrown weapons and slings).

I also try to play to the styles of martial arts--there are class trees kind of like Dual Wielding Rangers and Archery Rangers, only with hard styles (punching and kicking) and soft styles (grapples and throws).

I also give my Monk the ability to meditate for X rounds equal to their class level to to gain a +1 or +2 bonus per round. At first they get AC, Attack, and Skill bonuses, but later on I scale it up to include bonuses on saves, and at a higher level, You can add Damage Reduction or Spell Resistance.

I also think that Monks got screwed on feats. Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack are all nice for skirmishing, and there are some decent feats tied into the Stunning Fist feat, but there is little out there that would make a Monk really work.

Is there any open source material on the Swordsage? Or if there isn't an online source, could I get the title of the book so I can find it?

Theli
2008-01-02, 11:13 AM
*shrugs* What's so bad about entire class features going to waste? Some of the best classes in the game have something like that. They're called familiars. :/

new1965
2008-01-02, 11:18 AM
I
I don't understand why Monks get 3/4 BAB. As a person who trains in unarmed combat, (and do it rigorously), I don't see why monks would be less likely to hit an opponent than a fighter or a barbarian would. I would think that Monks would be more likely to hit since so much of martial arts requires precise strikes to the body in order to trap, disarm, etc.


Some of the Monk fighting styles alternatives give you additional bonuses on the defensive end

for instance Cobra Strike gives you a +2 bonus to AC using the Dodge feat.
Hand and Foot gives you bonuses against Bull Rush and Trip

With the monk you don't really need to worry about the strength bonus as much as your unarmed damage goes up by level anyway and their unarmed strikes can be enchanted like a manufactured weapon.

kamikasei
2008-01-02, 11:21 AM
*shrugs* What's so bad about entire class features going to waste? Some of the best classes in the game have something like that. They're called familiars. :/

You know, I had actually been going to add a line to the effect that "you are not a druid, and cannot afford to ignore one class feature because your others are just that good".

Arbitrarity
2008-01-02, 11:23 AM
Alyosha: You're looking for the Tome of Battle. Make sure to use the Unarmed variant (loses armor proficiency, gains monk unarmed strike progression). And if you want to keep the monk Ex, (primarily, seeing as current monk can dimension door, go ethereal, etc.) stay away from Shadow Hand and Desert Wind schools.

Thinker
2008-01-02, 11:30 AM
Some of the Monk fighting styles alternatives give you additional bonuses on the defensive end

for instance Cobra Strike gives you a +2 bonus to AC using the Dodge feat.
Hand and Foot gives you bonuses against Bull Rush and Trip

With the monk you don't really need to worry about the strength bonus as much as your unarmed damage goes up by level anyway and their unarmed strikes can be enchanted like a manufactured weapon.

So what role does the monk perform that is not inferior in most ways to someone else performing that job? What combination of its abilities make it worthwhile instead of just having some other class do it?

Telonius
2008-01-02, 11:42 AM
So what role does the monk perform that is not inferior in most ways to someone else performing that job? What combination of its abilities make it worthwhile instead of just having some other class do it?

Well, as far as I can tell the Monk's role is to create fan interest by provoking thousands of threads on internet forums. It's technically inferior to the Wizard in this regard (Wizard can beat x!). But the Wizard threads are due to the power of the class; Monk threads are due to lack of power. If it weren't for Monk, what low-powered class would they post about? Samurai is a possibility, but its weaknesses are so obvious that there would be essentially no argument. So yes, I would say that the Monk fits its niche uniquely well. :smallbiggrin:

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-02, 11:53 AM
If you want a NPC who can survive fighting the BBEG easily and don't want your players thinking, why doesn't he deal with it. Them monk is your guy.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-01-02, 11:58 AM
I've never had a problem playing a monk and having fun as well as being useful to the party. Once I killed a wyvern with a crossbow. That wasn't a non-sequitor, I was playing a 6th level monk.

They read poorly but play well, as evidenced by the fact that nobody ever posts their experience with the monk class in these countless monk-bashing threads.

Thinker
2008-01-02, 12:06 PM
I've never had a problem playing a monk and having fun as well as being useful to the party. Once I killed a wyvern with a crossbow. That wasn't a non-sequitor, I was playing a 6th level monk.

They read poorly but play well, as evidenced by the fact that nobody ever posts their experience with the monk class in these countless monk-bashing threads.

Specific examples don't really prove anything. Get enough specific examples together and you might have something. Monks do little else other than survive and outlast. Great if your party is all warlocks and monks. I'm glad you killed an idiotic wyvern with a crossbow. I assume the rest of the party stood by and did nothing the whole time while the wyvern stood still waiting to die?

new1965
2008-01-02, 12:19 PM
So what role does the monk perform that is not inferior in most ways to someone else performing that job? What combination of its abilities make it worthwhile instead of just having some other class do it?

Thats the thing. the way i see the monk, it isn't a "speciality" class. Its a jack of all trades.

Need to fight in melee? the unarmed strike bonus, Ki strike, quivering palm and flurry of blows come in darn handy. Plus you can never be totally unarmed. Get Spring attack and some ranks of tumble and you can plague the enemy on the battle field

Need to scout ahead? a movement of +60, improved evasion, and the good saving throws are sweet. And if those stairs give way under you, slow fall is great. If you want to fight dirty... Be a Chaos monk with Monastic Training(I think thats it) and get a level of rogue . YOu get flurry of blows AND sneak attack damage (I forgot the sidewinder monk..You get flurry of blows AND sneak attack. By level 20 you can get a flurry a blows attack that does 2d10+5d6 per blow I think and poisoned fangs)

Fighting spellcasters? Spell resistance 23 at level 13 as a class feature ain't bad and you get Still mind to boot

Injured? Well the monk can heal himself or if you use one of the class variants, heal others

Its not the strongest class in any one role but it makes an very effective "5th character"

Telonius
2008-01-02, 12:28 PM
I've personally played a Half-drow VoP monk/tattooed monk from levels 1-18. I almost always play for the role first, optimization second; and I had great fun with the character. It was one of my two favorite to play.

Despite my enjoyment of the role, the build was mechanically awful. It was only by DM fiat that he was able to contribute much in the higher levels. (DM changed the VoP rule to allow "any feat" instead of "any exalted feat" after I exhausted the useful Exalted feats).

The particular problems:
- Fighting anything that was larger than Medium-sized. It was easy to get up to them, but hard to hit them. Low-ish hitpoints made getting up next to the big thing not a very good idea.
- Useless Stunning Fist. In 18 levels of play, I was never able to successfully Stunning Fist anything; and not for lack of trying. (Granted it was an undead-heavy campaign).
- Low damage output. Even when not fighting bigger things, the lower BAB made it harder for me to hit higher-AC'd foes.

However, some good points about the mechanics:
- Rogue's Best Friend. My high movement and Tumble check allowed me to easily flank with our party Rogue.
- No worries about archery. I think our DM stopped throwing archers at us about halfway through the campaign. My standard operating procedure was to rush up and disarm them quickly, which nearly always succeeded. Melee weapons were a different story...
- Survivability/saves. I literally pulled companions out of burning buildings on a couple of different occasions. In 18 levels, I didn't die once.

To sum up, the Monk I used was not a character that was very useful for damaging your enemies directly, nor was it particularly useful against casters. It was useful for giving a few nifty little tactical bonuses to your friends, negating a few tactical advantages for your enemies, and not dying. Which is approximately the consensus of the Boards on the usefulness of Monks.

EDIT: Forgot to mention another good point regarding archery ... deflect arrows meant that a readied action against me didn't help the archers at all. This hadn't occurred to me before, but if the Monk were billed as an Anti-Archer instead of an Anti-Caster, it would be a lot closer to truth in advertising.

marjan
2008-01-02, 12:36 PM
*shrugs* What's so bad about entire class features going to waste? Some of the best classes in the game have something like that. They're called familiars. :/

You realy don't know what familiars are capable of. If you think that familiars are waste read this (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=875062).

Thinker
2008-01-02, 12:54 PM
Thats the thing. the way i see the monk, it isn't a "speciality" class. Its a jack of all trades.
It fails at being a jack of all trades. A jack of all trades should be desired in a party and in this case, it isn't.



Need to fight in melee? the unarmed strike bonus, Ki strike, quivering palm and flurry of blows come in darn handy. Plus you can never be totally unarmed. Get Spring attack and some ranks of tumble and you can plague the enemy on the battle field
There are so many things wrong with this statement that I'm not sure where to start. Unarmed strike bonus does far less damage than any other class designed to be useful in melee. The abilities based on saves will fail often because the monk cannot afford to have much higher than a middle wisdom. Not being unarmed may be a perk, but everyone gets the same perk with the investment of a locked gauntlet. Spring Attack and Tumble are completely counter-intuitive to flurry. Flurry requires a full attack and thus cannot be used with those.

The monk has too few HP to survive an attack in melee, even with the generally higher AC. So many creatures are going to hit very frequently at higher levels that the AC doesn't matter, ways to completely negate attacks are better, i.e. miss chance.



Need to scout ahead? a movement of +60, improved evasion, and the good saving throws are sweet. And if those stairs give way under you, slow fall is great.
Yay! I can scout, but can't disarm traps. I can't afford to pump skills because I have to worry about so many other stats besides intelligence. Skill monkeys are better suited as scouts since they have skills.


If you want to fight dirty... Be a Chaos monk with Monastic Training(I think thats it) and get a level of rogue . YOu get flurry of blows AND sneak attack damage (I forgot the sidewinder monk..You get flurry of blows AND sneak attack. By level 20 you can get a flurry a blows attack that does 2d10+5d6 per blow I think and poisoned fangs)
So you're thinking 28.5 damage per attack at level 20 is a lot? I fail to see it. A straight fighter could do more without batting an eye. That's about on par with archer damage, which is generally bad.



Fighting spellcasters? Spell resistance 23 at level 13 as a class feature ain't bad and you get Still mind to boot
Caster level is the easiest thing in DnD to boost. There are spells that don't allow spell-resistance or saves. There are also spells that boost the CL check to overcome SR as a swift action (meaning they cast it and then cast their spell). Generally opponents are higher level than the party, meaning they have a higher CL to begin with.



Injured? Well the monk can heal himself or if you use one of the class variants, heal others
Most people can find some easy way to heal. Wand of Cure Light Wounds does the trick and so many classes can use it that its a moot point: Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, Rogues, Bards, Druids, etc.


Its not the strongest class in any one role but it makes an very effective "5th character"
I would rather have a very effective "5th character" that actually does something. If you are missing a role to be filled, pick a class that actually fills that role. If all roles are filled, team up with one of the others.

new1965
2008-01-02, 01:21 PM
Monks are NOT slug it out melee fighters.. they are skirmishers (it even says so int the class description) Played right, it doesnt matter that much if he doesn't have a Fighters HP as you are supposed to be mobile .Spring Attack and tumble are to avoid getting hit. Besides a d8 is fair HD and I cant remember the name but theres a variation that gets a D10.

its not counter intuitive to flurry of blows
(just because I can hit a baseball doesn't mean I cant throw or catch either). You can fight in more than one style. Ever see a Bruce lee movie when hes going from enemy to enemy and then stops in front of 1 and hits him a dozen times?

and yes.. 28.5 is a lot of damage when you consider that number is without magic assistance or feats and its 5 attacks if using flurry of blows.. if they all hit that 142pts of damage.



If you are missing a role to be filled, pick a class that actually fills that role. If all roles are filled, team up with one of the others.

Isnt that the definition of what a "5th character" is supposed to do?
I said it wasn't a primary role filler , but a 5th character that assists the others

Telonius
2008-01-02, 01:34 PM
and yes.. 28.5 is a lot of damage when you consider that number is without magic assistance or feats and its 5 attacks if using flurry of blows.. if they all hit that 142pts of damage.


If they all hit, that means your level 20 character is flanking something with an AC of about 12.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-01-02, 01:45 PM
Specific examples don't really prove anything. Get enough specific examples together and you might have something. Monks do little else other than survive and outlast. Great if your party is all warlocks and monks. I'm glad you killed an idiotic wyvern with a crossbow. I assume the rest of the party stood by and did nothing the whole time while the wyvern stood still waiting to die?

No, but their combined efforts didn't equal mine.

Later on we stormed a hobgoblin fortress and cleared them out room by room. When we were confronted by spellcasters, I tumbled past their minions and negated their ability to harm us by grappling them. When we fought hordes of low-level hobgoblins, I tumbled to the exit, and thanks to my decent combat abilities and the Combat Reflexes feat, none of them could get past me to warn the rest of the complex about us.

Earlier on we were confronted by this huge-ass hound archon that wouldn't let us past because a long-dead spellcaster had struck a bargain with it to guard the valley. I tumbled past it and ran off, waving my arms and screaming at the top of my lungs. It teleported towards me and hit me with its greatsword for like 30+ damage, and even though the eldritch disciple popped me with a healing blast, I still had to surrender and allow it to drag me back to the valley entrance. This didn't accomplish anything, but nobody else could do anything either and it was funny as hell.

I challenge -you- (all of you) to come up with examples of times you played a monk and didn't have fun because you were too underpowered. Specific examples don't prove anything, but neither does number-crunching and strategy generalizations, since they have little or nothing to do with how the game is played.

Talya
2008-01-02, 01:45 PM
I don't like the swordsage as a fix to the monk. In fact, I love the flavor of the existing monk, it just needs work.


Here's what I'd change.

BAB: Return to the 3.0 iterative attacks for monks - +15/+12/+9/+6/+3 (While I'm tempted to make it a standard +20/+15/+10/+5, i prefer the insane number of attacks for flavor.)

Flurry of Blows: now a free action that adds 1 or 2 attacks (depending on your monk level) at your full BAB to whatever attack you are making in a round (standard or full.)

Automatic enhancement bonus to unarmed attack: +1 at levels 3, 7, 11, 15 and 19. Ability to add other enhancement abilities, such as "Flaming," "Keen," etc. at similar costs to weapons that receive them.

Reduce MAD: Wisdom can replace strength to-hit and damage, if it is higher

Bonus Feats: At every level where a monk gets a choice of two bonus feats, they get both feats.

Skills: Boost to 6+int.

Telonius
2008-01-02, 02:05 PM
No, but their combined efforts didn't equal mine.

Later on we stormed a hobgoblin fortress and cleared them out room by room. When we were confronted by spellcasters, I tumbled past their minions and negated their ability to harm us by grappling them. When we fought hordes of low-level hobgoblins, I tumbled to the exit, and thanks to my decent combat abilities and the Combat Reflexes feat, none of them could get past me to warn the rest of the complex about us.

Earlier on we were confronted by this huge-ass hound archon that wouldn't let us past because a long-dead spellcaster had struck a bargain with it to guard the valley. I tumbled past it and ran off, waving my arms and screaming at the top of my lungs. It teleported towards me and hit me with its greatsword for like 30+ damage, and even though the eldritch disciple popped me with a healing blast, I still had to surrender and allow it to drag me back to the valley entrance. This didn't accomplish anything, but nobody else could do anything either and it was funny as hell.

I challenge -you- (all of you) to come up with examples of times you played a monk and didn't have fun because you were too underpowered. Specific examples don't prove anything, but neither does number-crunching and strategy generalizations, since they have little or nothing to do with how the game is played.

Fighting a bunch of vampires. They're immune to stunning (not that it was very useful anyway). Fast healing negated most of the damage I did to it. Grappling it would have been ... unwise. Couldn't disarm it (it wasn't armed); couldn't trip it (my poor BAB); couldn't hurt it. Didn't have Holy on my unarmed strike yet. Flanking would have done no good, as they're immune to the rogue's sneak attack anwyay. I basically did full defense the entire combat. Not fun, at all.

Fighting a Dragon. High AC meant I couldn't hit it. Not trippable, not grapple-able, not disarm-able. Best I did was flank it and fight defensively. Again, not fun.

new1965
2008-01-02, 02:07 PM
If they all hit, that means your level 20 character is flanking something with an AC of about 12.

Were you being sarcastic?


Outside of the first attack. the monks attack bonuses at 20 lvl are equal to or better than the fighters and you get 1 more attack using flurry

fighter +20/+15/+10/+5
monk flurry of blows +15/+15/+15/+10/+5

The first shot has a 25% less chance to hit but the third 1 has a 50% greater chance to hit

new1965
2008-01-02, 02:24 PM
Fighting a bunch of vampires. They're immune to stunning (not that it was very useful anyway). Fast healing negated most of the damage I did to it. Grappling it would have been ... unwise. Couldn't disarm it (it wasn't armed); couldn't trip it (my poor BAB); couldn't hurt it. Didn't have Holy on my unarmed strike yet. Flanking would have done no good, as they're immune to the rogue's sneak attack anwyay. I basically did full defense the entire combat. Not fun, at all.

Fighting a Dragon. High AC meant I couldn't hit it. Not trippable, not grapple-able, not disarm-able. Best I did was flank it and fight defensively. Again, not fun.

We happen to be fighting a bunch of undead now and since our DM decided that based on the rules a monks unarmed strikes could be permanently enchanted like any weapon, our monk has 1 energy type for each extremity
( flaming/electrical/cold/acid dont ask me how he eats or anything). Since Monks get their full attack even if their hands aren't free, he can get his full attacks in with with the most appropriate energy type. Hes running all over the place and things are currently eating acid and flaming damage on top of his unarmed damage of 2d8+ whatever his strength bonus is and his Armbands of might (hes level 12 but hes got a monk belt).

Kurald Galain
2008-01-02, 02:26 PM
Ah, there we go again.


Thats the thing. the way i see the monk, it isn't a "speciality" class. Its a jack of all trades.
... and master of none.
Need to fight in melee? You can't do that very well; you should have played a barbarian, paladin, or druid.
Need to scout ahead? You can't do that very well either; you should have played a rogue, druid, or wizard.
Fighting spellcasters? That's just laughable, spellcasters will wipe the floor with you, using no-save no-SR spells.
Injured? Well, you can heal yourself for a bit, but this just means the enemies will ignore you while they take out the actual threats.

Its not the strongest class in any one role and it makes an almost completely ineffective "5th character"



The first shot has a 25% less chance to hit but the third 1 has a 50% greater chance to hit
Except that in actual combat, you don't get to make full attacks all that often. And except that less MADness really does make the fighter a better hitter.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-02, 02:28 PM
We happen to be fighting a bunch of undead now and since our DM decided that based on the rules a monks unarmed strikes could be permanently enchanted like any weapon, our monk has 1 energy type for each extremity
Yes, exactly. The point is that the monk needs houseruling (like this) or DM fiat to be effective - you're making our point for us.

Telonius
2008-01-02, 02:32 PM
Were you being sarcastic?


Outside of the first attack. the monks attack bonuses at 20 lvl are equal to or better than the fighters and you get 1 more attack using flurry

fighter +20/+15/+10/+5
monk flurry of blows +15/+15/+15/+10/+5

The first shot has a 25% less chance to hit but the third 1 has a 50% greater chance to hit

Well, let's work it out.

An average roll is 10.5; let's call that an 11. Now, depending on whether or not you have the Exalted feat that lets you use Wis instead of Str for attacks, you may have better or worse MAD. Let's figure about a 24 (all told) for whichever attacking stat you use, so +7. You're flanking, so +2.

11 (roll) +5 (to hit) + 7 (stat) + 2 (flank) = 25. (Maximum result 34, minimum result 15). You have a 50% or greater chance of hitting something with an AC of 24 or lower with your fifth attack. You are guaranteed a hit on anything other than a 1 for something whose AC is 15 or lower. Anything with AC of 34 or above, you need a 20 to hit it with your fifth attack.

Compare this to the sorts of creatures you will likely be facing at level 20.

CR 20 creatures:
Black Dragon Wyrm: AC 39, 459 HP
Ancient Brass Dragon: AC 38, 387 HP
Very Old Bronze Dragon: AC 37, 375 HP
Very Old Copper Dragon: AC 36, 362 HP
Balor: AC 35, 290 HP
Pit Fiend: AC 40, 225 HP
Old Red Dragon: AC 33, 378 HP
Old Silver Dragon: AC 35, 350HP
The Tarrasque: AC 35, 858 HP

You need a 20 to connect on the fifth attack for everything but the Red Dragon. You will not kill a single one of the monsters by HP damage (though they may fail their massive damage saves, except for Big T).

new1965
2008-01-02, 02:38 PM
Yes, exactly. The point is that the monk needs houseruling (like this) or DM fiat to be effective - you're making our point for us.

Its actually not much of a house ruling... its just vague as hell in the PHB and needed the DM's ok

It says that a monks unarmed strikes can be treated as as a manufactured weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that improve weapons. The rally question was whether or not it would be dispelled permanently in an anti-magic field or just suppressed like a magic weapon

horseboy
2008-01-02, 02:47 PM
I don't understand why Monks get 3/4 BAB. As a person who trains in unarmed combat, (and do it rigorously), I don't see why monks would be less likely to hit an opponent than a fighter or a barbarian would. I would think that Monks would be more likely to hit since so much of martial arts requires precise strikes to the body in order to trap, disarm, etc.

Oh yeah, because so much of sword fighting is swinging wildly, hoping someone walks into it. :smallfrown:


If it weren't for Monk, what low-powered class would they post about? Samurai is a possibility, but its weaknesses are so obvious that there would be essentially no argument. So yes, I would say that the Monk fits its niche uniquely well. :smallbiggrin:

The fighter, duh. He's next on the pecking order.

new1965
2008-01-02, 02:47 PM
11 (roll) +5 (to hit) + 7 (stat) + 2 (flank) = 25. (Maximum result 34, minimum result 15). You have a 50% or greater chance of hitting something with an AC of 24 or lower with your fifth attack.

That was my point. you said the monk would have to flanking an AC of 12... and is why I asked if you were being sarcastic

Telonius
2008-01-02, 02:50 PM
I'm afraid it is very much a houserule, and the rules are not vague on it. It is one of the big drawbacks of being a monk.


Craft Magic Arms And Armor [Item Creation]
Prerequisite
Caster level 5th.

Benefit
You can create any magic weapon, armor, or shield whose prerequisites you meet. Enhancing a weapon, suit of armor, or shield takes one day for each 1,000 gp in the price of its magical features. To enhance a weapon, suit of armor, or shield, you must spend 1/25 of its features’ total price in XP and use up raw materials costing one-half of this total price.

The weapon, armor, or shield to be enhanced must be a masterwork item that you provide. Its cost is not included in the above cost.

You can also mend a broken magic weapon, suit of armor, or shield if it is one that you could make. Doing so costs half the XP, half the raw materials, and half the time it would take to craft that item in the first place.



Masterwork Weapons
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls.

You can’t add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill). The masterwork quality adds 300 gp to the cost of a normal weapon (or 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition). Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal increase (+600 gp).



Can a monk get her unarmed strike enhanced as a
magic weapon?

No. Even a magic gauntlet or spiked gauntlet isn’t the ideal
answer, since these aren’t listed as special monk weapons (and
therefore aren’t as versatile as unarmed strikes).
The amulet of mighty fists (Dungeon Master’s Guide, 246)
grants the wearer an enhancement bonus on unarmed and
natural weapon attacks, which would include the monk’s
unarmed strike.

playswithfire
2008-01-02, 02:51 PM
You need a 20 to connect on the fifth attack for everything but the Red Dragon.

As does the fighter on his fourth, unless we're saying the fighter has better than 24 str, which i grant may be likely. Assuming even attack stats (let's assume monk has intuitive attack), then the difference in their capabilities (15/15/15/10/5 vs 20/15/10/5 boils down to the one attack at +20 vs the two attacks at +15

Using the AC 40 as a target and +7 to stat, the fighter has a 40 percent chance to do one hit for .4 hits on the differing attacks and the monk has a 2.25 percent chance of hitting twice and a 25.5 percent chance of hitting once for a total of .3 hits so the fighter gets .1 more hits on average per full attack than the monk in this situation; obviously varies with to hit stat and target AC

I like monks, but I realize they have issues. Just thought I'd chip in with some math

Also, scorpion kama = excellent

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-02, 02:52 PM
Could a warforged have a masterwork fist?

new1965
2008-01-02, 02:53 PM
Except that in actual combat, you don't get to make full attacks all that often. And except that less MADness really does make the fighter a better hitter.

Thats odd as our monk seems to get his full attacks in frequently.

Of course, he plays decoy a lot and stays 10 feet ahead of the enemy chasing him with his high movement. When he turns the corner , my barbarian with combat reflexes is waiting there in ambush with an AoO. Whatever was chasing the monk usually stops to face my barbarian since he did damage and the monk takes a 5ft step and unleashes his full attack

horseboy
2008-01-02, 02:55 PM
As does the fighter on his fourth, unless we're saying the fighter has better than 24 str, which i grant may be likely. Assuming even attack stats (let's assume monk has intuitive attack), then the difference in their capabilities (15/15/15/10/5 vs 20/15/10/5 boils down to the one attack at +20 vs the two attacks at +15

Using the AC 40 as a target and +7 to stat, the fighter has a 40 percent chance to do one hit for .4 hits on the differing attacks and the monk has a 2.25 percent chance of hitting twice and a 25.5 percent chance of hitting once for a total of .3 hits so the fighter gets .1 more hits on average per full attack than the monk in this situation; obviously varies with to hit stat and target AC

I like monks, but I realize they have issues. Just thought I'd chip in with some math

Also, scorpion kama = excellent
This is also assuming, of course, that full attack is an option.

Arbitrarity
2008-01-02, 02:58 PM
As does the fighter on his fourth, unless we're saying the fighter has better than 24 str, which i grant may be likely. Assuming even attack stats (let's assume monk has intuitive attack), then the difference in their capabilities (15/15/15/10/5 vs 20/15/10/5 boils down to the one attack at +20 vs the two attacks at +15



Greater than 24 strength at level 20? Easy. Elite array gets 26, assuming you boost STR and get a +6 item. 38 is plausible, though not probable. (18 base, 4 race, 5 level, 5 tome, 6 item)

Telonius
2008-01-02, 03:02 PM
As does the fighter on his fourth, unless we're saying the fighter has better than 24 str, which i grant may be likely. Assuming even attack stats (let's assume monk has intuitive attack), then the difference in their capabilities (15/15/15/10/5 vs 20/15/10/5 boils down to the one attack at +20 vs the two attacks at +15

Using the AC 40 as a target and +7 to stat, the fighter has a 40 percent chance to do one hit for .4 hits on the differing attacks and the monk has a 2.25 percent chance of hitting twice and a 25.5 percent chance of hitting once for a total of .3 hits so the fighter gets .1 more hits on average per full attack than the monk in this situation; obviously varies with to hit stat and target AC

I like monks, but I realize they have issues. Just thought I'd chip in with some math

Also, scorpion kama = excellent

You should also figure in a +5 weapon to the fighter's total; by 20th level he's likely to have one. I'm not familiar with the Sidewinder Monk's abilities - does the sneak attack only apply to unarmed strikes, to all monk weapons, to all weapons? (Either way, it's a variant from Dragon Magazine rather than a core class that's pulling this off).

playswithfire
2008-01-02, 03:04 PM
Greater than 24 strength at level 20? Easy. Elite array gets 26, assuming you boost STR and get a +6 item. 38 is plausible, though not probable. (18 base, 4 race, 5 level, 5 tome, 6 item)

And a monk can do the same with wisdom, I would think, though maybe not +4 from race. Anyway, I was just bored and wanted to do math

Personally, I'd like them to make a 3.5 (or I guess 4.0) Shiba Protector, as No Thought is great, but generally not allowed as 3.0. Swordsage (yeah, I like the maneuvers; probably like swordsage better than monk) / Shiba Protector with Shadow Blade and Weapon Finesse = DEX and WIS to AC, attack and damage; good times (no kama though)


You should also figure in a +5 weapon to the fighter's total; by 20th level he's likely to have one.

And I'll make my scorpion kama +5 or get amulet of natural attacks +5 to keep the gap the same

Meh; at higher target ACs, the full BAB classes beat the monk more and more; that's a given (all other modifiers being equal)

new1965
2008-01-02, 03:05 PM
I'm afraid it is very much a houserule, and the rules are not vague on it. It is one of the big drawbacks of being a monk.

You are definitely right and our monk is gonna be pissed

hmmm.... with a regular gauntlet, you are still considered unarmed. so would the monks unarmed strike bonus work with it?

horseboy
2008-01-02, 03:08 PM
You are definitely right and our monk is gonna be pissed

hmmm.... with a regular gauntlet, you are still considered unarmed. so would the monks unarmed strike bonus work with it?

If they spend a feat gaining proficiency.

new1965
2008-01-02, 03:16 PM
You should also figure in a +5 weapon to the fighter's total; by 20th level he's likely to have one. I'm not familiar with the Sidewinder Monk's abilities - does the sneak attack only apply to unarmed strikes, to all monk weapons, to all weapons? (Either way, it's a variant from Dragon Magazine rather than a core class that's pulling this off).

I honestly cant remember as its the DM's copy of dragon and Id rather not go strictly by the crib sheet on Crystal Keep but its PROBABLY at least monk weapons so you could add the +5 there as well.

And hey... its still a monk whether its core or not. If the topic was restricted to just core monks, id probably have a lot less to say in this thread.

Thinker
2008-01-02, 03:19 PM
Thats odd as our monk seems to get his full attacks in frequently.

Of course, he plays decoy a lot and stays 10 feet ahead of the enemy chasing him with his high movement. When he turns the corner , my barbarian with combat reflexes is waiting there in ambush with an AoO. Whatever was chasing the monk usually stops to face my barbarian since he did damage and the monk takes a 5ft step and unleashes his full attack

So the monsters in your group are retarded and are pulled like an MMO? Wow, I guess we can see why they're not so bad in your games. Doing 38.5 damage per attack (including +5 enhancements and 20 strength) is still not impressive. Let's look at a barbarian: Str 37 [15 base + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 item + 5 tome + 4 rage] is +13. Add 20 BAB, a +5 enhancement bonus, and +2 flanking. You get +40 to hit. He can power attack for a lot and still hit so he can deal plenty of damage per round, forcing massive damage saves and actually hurting the opponents.

How does your monk handle flying enemies, anyway?



I honestly cant remember as its the DM's copy of dragon and Id rather not go strictly by the crib sheet on Crystal Keep but its PROBABLY at least monk weapons so you could add the +5 there as well.

And hey... its still a monk whether its core or not. If the topic was restricted to just core monks, id probably have a lot less to say in this thread.

If its not core how is the monk still competing at anything? It is made of fail and suck.

new1965
2008-01-02, 03:29 PM
If they spend a feat gaining proficiency.

I'm not too sure abut that as Im not talking about the spiked gauntlet...

listed on the weapon chart in the unarmed attack category along with unarmed strike is Gauntlet.

Sounds like it could be argued that Improved Unarmed Strike SHOULD cover it. And if it does, you could get it masterwork and enchanted and keep your unarmed strike bonus

horseboy
2008-01-02, 03:36 PM
I'm not too sure abut that as Im not talking about the spiked gauntlet...

listed on the weapon chart in the unarmed attack category along with unarmed strike is Gauntlet.

Sounds like it could be argued that Improved Unarmed Strike SHOULD cover it. And if it does, you could get it masterwork and enchanted and keep your unarmed strike bonus

Monks are not automatically proficient with all simple weapons. He'd have to burn a feat to be proficient in gauntlet. It's in the FAQ.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 03:43 PM
I challenge -you- (all of you) to come up with examples of times you played a monk and didn't have fun because you were too underpowered. Specific examples don't prove anything, but neither does number-crunching and strategy generalizations, since they have little or nothing to do with how the game is played.

Well, I can't offer you exactly what you want, I've never played a monk myself, but I have been in a party with one once, we had lots of fun, but the monk died horribly.

new1965
2008-01-02, 03:45 PM
So the monsters in your group are retarded and are pulled like an MMO? Wow, I guess we can see why they're not so bad in your games. Doing 38.5 damage per attack (including +5 enhancements and 20 strength) is still not impressive. Let's look at a barbarian: Str 37 [15 base + 2 racial + 5 levels + 6 item + 5 tome + 4 rage] is +13. Add 20 BAB, a +5 enhancement bonus, and +2 flanking. You get +40 to hit. He can power attack for a lot and still hit so he can deal plenty of damage per round, forcing massive damage saves and actually hurting the opponents.

How does your monk handle flying enemies, anyway?




If its not core how is the monk still competing at anything? It is made of fail and suck.

If most creatures in the game weren't stupid, the characters would be killed outright in most low to mid level campaigns. In real life a party of first level adventrues would walk into a goblin village and get piled on by the whole village at the same time.

The decoy tactic doesn't work on everything buts its good against zombies and stuff like that

All the number I've been quoting have been without racial benefits or magic items (except when i was stalking strictly about magic items and the monk of course). I could just as readily picked a race with a strength bonus, taken power attack and used and enchanted spear to boost the numbers and a level of Raging monk. but thats more number crunching than I am willing to do while im working..

Who is competing? Its a game and the purpose is to have fun, not compete. All Im saying than monks can be effective and (i cant believe im saying this) core isnt everything in some cases

BTW.. he uses his light crossbow for flying enemies

Wordmiser
2008-01-02, 03:46 PM
The Monk does have a niche--It's obvioulsy intended to be the Mage-killer.

It has a problem, though--It sucks.

To fix it, I would second the "give it a Full Base Attack and turn the extra Flurry Attacks into a Swift Action which doesn't kill Power Attack" group, also adding Abundant Step as an at-will ability as a Standard Action at fifth level, Move action at tenth level and as a Swift Action at fifteenth level. Cut out the "no further actions this round" thing as well.

Thinker
2008-01-02, 03:49 PM
All the number I've been quoting have been without racial benefits or magic items (except when i was stalking strictly about magic items and the monk of course). I could just as readily picked a race with a strength bonus, taken power attack and used and enchanted spear to boost the numbers and a level of Raging monk. but thats more number crunching than I am willing to do while im working..

Who is competing? Its a game and the purpose is to have fun, not compete. All Im saying than monks can be effective and (i cant believe im saying this) core isnt everything in some cases

BTW.. he uses his light crossbow for flying enemies

I didn't mean compete as in a direct competition with other players so much as a term for how does he stay viable? How does he contribute? You could take the spear and proficiency for it to help not suck, but then why not play something that gets those for free? If you're not using monk abilities then you're not comparing the monk. So you do 4 damage to flying enemies? Hold the phone! Monks are bad at everything they do whether you like it or not. With DM help they can contribute, but it requires stupid enemies or massive buffs that are against the spirit and words of the rules.

new1965
2008-01-02, 03:54 PM
I didn't mean compete as in a direct competition with other players so much as a term for how does he stay viable? How does he contribute? You could take the spear and proficiency for it to help not suck, but then why not play something that gets those for free? If you're not using monk abilities then you're not comparing the monk. So you do 4 damage to flying enemies? Hold the phone! Monks are bad at everything they do whether you like it or not. With DM help they can contribute, but it requires stupid enemies or massive buffs that are against the spirit and words of the rules.

As I said in a previous post... the monk can get those for free and use it as a monk weapon to use flurry of blows, and channel their ki based abilities with Ki focus

Thinker
2008-01-02, 04:03 PM
As I said in a previous post... the monk can get those for free and use it as a monk weapon to use flurry of blows, and channel their ki based abilities with Ki focus

The monk still doesn't have the BAB to spare Power Attacking for much, doesn't have the wisdom to make the ki based abilities effective, or the chance to full attack very often. I don't see why its difficult to grasp so I will stop trying to help. If you want to continue replying about this it will be with yourself.

new1965
2008-01-02, 04:18 PM
Monks are not automatically proficient with all simple weapons. He'd have to burn a feat to be proficient in gauntlet. It's in the FAQ.

Well that makes zero sense as I doubt most people would say that a monk wearing gauntlets of ogre power couldn't use flurry of blows but it IS in the FAQ

I limits his "swiss army knife" preparedness somewhat but still doesnt keep him from being useful

Talya
2008-01-02, 04:23 PM
Well that makes zero sense as I doubt most people would say that a monk wearing gauntlets of ogre power couldn't use flurry of blows

Gauntlets of Ogre Power are wondrous items, not weapons. They don't affect unarmed strike at all, apart from the strength bonus.

horseboy
2008-01-02, 04:26 PM
Well that makes zero sense as I doubt most people would say that a monk wearing gauntlets of ogre power couldn't use flurry of blows but it IS in the FAQ

I limits his "swiss army knife" preparedness somewhat but still doesn't keep him from being useful

And that is the root problem of the monk. No internal synergy. He can do a little of several things, but can't do any one thing well enough to be proud, well, except maybe for shouting "Believe it!" :smallwink:

new1965
2008-01-02, 04:28 PM
The monk still doesn't have the BAB to spare Power Attacking for much, doesn't have the wisdom to make the ki based abilities effective, or the chance to full attack very often. I don't see why its difficult to grasp so I will stop trying to help. If you want to continue replying about this it will be with yourself.

You weren't trying to help, you were trying to make a point that i dont agree with.

The monk is NOT the best melee fighter, skill monkey, etc.. and I said repeatedly said he isnt. What I did say was he can do a little bit of multiple roles and that makes him useful and effective. It about what role you are wiling to play in the party.

Set things up so the barbarian is in flanking position? Done
Get rid of the archers? No Problem
Bad guy getting away? Have the monk run him down and grapple him

If you don't want to play an assisting role, that fine.. DON'T . But to say that monks are useless or "suck" just isn't accurate

new1965
2008-01-02, 04:35 PM
Gauntlets of Ogre Power are wondrous items, not weapons. They don't affect unarmed strike at all, apart from the strength bonus.

I know... but i used that example because the gauntlets of ogre power are still gauntlets so why would they NOT effect flurry but another set would. I supposed they could saying that the regular gauntlets are much heavier and screw up the technique

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 04:41 PM
You weren't trying to help, you were trying to make a point that i dont agree with.

Actually, he is trying to help, he's trying to help you see the flaws in the monk class.


The monk is NOT the best melee fighter, skill monkey, etc.. and I said repeatedly said he isnt. What I did say was he can do a little bit of multiple roles and that makes him useful and effective. It about what role you are wiling to play in the party.

I'd really like for this to be true but it just isn't, I've seen this debate often enough by now to know that.



Set things up so the barbarian is in flanking position? Done
Get rid of the archers? No Problem
Bad guy getting away? Have the monk run him down and grapple him

1)you got that one, now hope you won't get a full attack in your face the next round of whoever your flanking, or perhaps enemies close to him.
2) I'm willing to believe you can get rid of one archer with grappling, but if the archers play it smart and use terrain to their advantage then they can probably get some arrows in you before you reach them and most archers are decent combatants too, I'm not sure if this is a "no problem".
3)Not if he's large or bigger.
Not if he has freedom of movement
Not if he can fly, teleport, whatever.



If you don't want to play an assisting role, that fine.. DON'T . But to say that monks are useless or "suck" just isn't accurate
The sad truth is that it is accurate.

@Thinker: there will always be someone to carry on this debate:smallwink: .

new1965
2008-01-02, 04:48 PM
And that is the root problem of the monk. No internal synergy. He can do a little of several things, but can't do any one thing well enough to be proud, well, except maybe for shouting "Believe it!" :smallwink:

Glad you said it too..
He can do a little of several things( some of the important to playing the game) but I think thats enough to make the class useful.

With that said.. i would NOT recommend using the Monk as the lead warrior or Expert. Thats not the classes strength

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-02, 04:49 PM
The sad truth is that it is accurate.

Actually it is a little exaggerated. The monk certainly "suck" in comparison with most classes, but they are hardly useless! You never know when you need, say a paperweight....

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 05:02 PM
Actually it is a little exaggerated. The monk certainly "suck" in comparison with most classes, but they are hardly useless! You never know when you need, say a paperweight....

I can't believe that I missed that one:smallbiggrin: .

It's also not the worst class there is, a commoner is worse at least, I'm not entirely sure about the rest of the NPC classes.....:smalltongue:

new1965
2008-01-02, 05:07 PM
Actually, he is trying to help, he's trying to help you see the flaws in the monk class.

I'd really like for this to be true but it just isn't, I've seen this debate often enough by now to know that.


1)you got that one, now hope you won't get a full attack in your face the next round of whoever your flanking, or perhaps enemies close to him.
2) I'm willing to believe you can get rid of one archer with grappling, but if the archers play it smart and use terrain to their advantage then they can probably get some arrows in you before you reach them and most archers are decent combatants too, I'm not sure if this is a "no problem".
3)Not if he's large or bigger.
Not if he has freedom of movement
Not if he can fly, teleport, whatever.


The sad truth is that it is accurate.

@Thinker: there will always be someone to carry on this debate:smallwink: .

Did i ever say the class didn't have flaws? I just keep saying its not useless and does not automatically "suck"

Take Deflect arrows as your bonus feat and the archer become less of an issue. isnt there a seat that lets your throw them back even?

Spring Attack and Mobility and tumble help you get in, do your damage and keep from getting overwhelmed

Each of the feats mentioned above are totally in the right "spirit" of the class

Anyone trying to grapple a creature larger than them would have that issue so thats not a "monk" problem. The same is true for flying or teleporting for most of the martial classes. Play a Goliath or large monk and you can deal with large creatures if you want to grapple them but thats pigeonholing the character

Raroy
2008-01-02, 05:22 PM
Monks can run really fast. With the run feat they retain their AC bonus. At third level they can go at 200ft At 18th they could run at 450ft. Thats......somewhat useful. Or do I not understand the rules somehow.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 05:25 PM
Did i ever say the class didn't have flaws? I just keep saying its not useless and does not automatically "suck"

Take Deflect arrows as your bonus feat and the archer become less of an issue. isnt there a seat that lets your throw them back even?

Spring Attack and Mobility and tumble help you get in, do your damage and keep from getting overwhelmed

Each of the feats mentioned above are totally in the right "spirit" of the class

Anyone trying to grapple a creature larger than them would have that issue so thats not a "monk" problem. The same is true for flying or teleporting for most of the martial classes. Play a Goliath or large monk and you can deal with large creatures if you want to grapple them but thats pigeonholing the character
Deflect arrow blocks one whole arrow per round, useful at level 2, not at level 10.
Dodge, mobility and spring attack cost you three feats, and then all you can do is move in flank, ready action, attack once and get out of there, assuming the other character gets a go before the monster can, I actually believe a monk can tumble safely out of there. It's simply not very impressive

If a class has so many flaws that it is among the top 3 worst classes in the game then I think we can safely say that it sucks, if not what does suck?

about the grapple thing: you are correct, not that it changes anything for the monk, but its true that grappling is not a viable strategy at higher levels for any class.

horseboy
2008-01-02, 05:30 PM
Glad you said it too..
He can do a little of several things( some of the important to playing the game) but I think thats enough to make the class useful.

With that said.. i would NOT recommend using the Monk as the lead warrior or Expert. Thats not the classes strength

That's just it, it has no major strengths, just as it has no major weakness. No highs to compensate for th lows. It's the class equivalent of Kansas. (No disrespect to Kansans, it's just a really flat state)

It fights as well as an un-buffed cleric.
It can't hit and run in the same turn.
It can charge far, but can't do anything when it gets there.
There's several things (like the gauntlet) that were just largely overlooked due to poor play testing.
It can sneak, and spot, but not find traps until it trips them.
It can go with the bard, and back up his story.
In short, that's all it's good for: Go with the other guy, so he's not alone. We all know what happens when you wander off on your own in a game. The monk's whole purpose is to keep it from happening. You're not a member of the team, you're a hanger-on.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 05:38 PM
Monks can run really fast. With the run feat they retain their AC bonus. At third level they can go at 200ft At 18th they could run at 450ft. Thats......somewhat useful. Or do I not understand the rules somehow.

(30+60)*4=360 right? how does the monk get 5x running speed?
further more I seem to remember you always loose you dex bonus while running, but I'm not sure.
The problem is: what do you do when you get there?
you rushed ahead so your on your own, you'll probebly get slaughtered.

new1965
2008-01-02, 05:53 PM
That's just it, it has no major strengths, just as it has no major weakness. No highs to compensate for th lows. It's the class equivalent of Kansas. (No disrespect to Kansans, it's just a really flat state)

It fights as well as an un-buffed cleric.
It can't hit and run in the same turn.
It can charge far, but can't do anything when it gets there.
There's several things (like the gauntlet) that were just largely overlooked due to poor play testing.
It can sneak, and spot, but not find traps until it trips them.
It can go with the bard, and back up his story.
In short, that's all it's good for: Go with the other guy, so he's not alone. We all know what happens when you wander off on your own in a game. The monk's whole purpose is to keep it from happening. You're not a member of the team, you're a hanger-on.

Im going to amaze everyone and agree with almost everything you said but the last part

He is a member of the team. He's good backup (remember what i said about the 5th character?) . He can go with the rogue and watch his back and (if you use one of the variants) do as much damage as the rogue.
He can maneuver enemies so that the barbarian can get in the killing blow

and so on

If you are willing to play a support role, you can get a lot of fun out of it because in our group the DM has a bad habit of putting us in situations where we have to split up. Also... a monk with a bag full of healing potions is REAL handy if you are getting your but kicked. The movement and durability has made it so that there has been more than one case where the monk dragging a paralyzed or dying character to safety, saved that character's life

new1965
2008-01-02, 05:56 PM
(30+60)*4=360 right? how does the monk get 5x running speed?
further more I seem to remember you always loose you dex bonus while running, but I'm not sure.
The problem is: what do you do when you get there?
you rushed ahead so your on your own, you'll probebly get slaughtered.

With the run feat that Raroy mentioned you get 5x and dont lose the dex bonus

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-02, 06:08 PM
With the run feat that Raroy mentioned you get 5x and dont lose the dex bonus

Right, missed that one, though I fail to see why you'd want to waste a feat to run even faster. Especially since your movement is cut down to 90 ft if you encounter difficult terrain.

TheThan
2008-01-02, 06:33 PM
I’ve found that the scout’s skirmish ability fits well with the monk’s flurry of blows ability. In fact I made a prestige class called the Caporia warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53471&highlight=Capoeira) based around the idea.
I’ve also realized that the stunning fist ability is great fuel for other abilities. I’ve designed a class called the http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32000&highlight=Prizefighter]Prizefighter[/url]that uses the monk’s daily stunning fist attempts to power other abilities. These classes help bring the power of a monk up quite a bit and help make it a viable class at least to start with.

Frosty
2008-01-02, 07:14 PM
For a 5th party member, why not take a Bard instead?

mostlyharmful
2008-01-02, 07:27 PM
For a 5th party member, why not take a Bard instead?

Because then you're useful in all situations and shine in several. How then are you to highlight how awesome your team-mates are by standing next to them and sucking ass:smallbiggrin:

fendrin
2008-01-02, 08:22 PM
For a 5th party member, why not take a Bard instead?

The bard is like a slow, weak, squishy monk that gets a few weak spells.

Monks are good jack-of-all-trades on the melee side.
Bards are good jack-of-all-trades on the spellcasting side.

Bards have the advantage that all spellcasting has over all melee.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-02, 08:40 PM
Im going to amaze everyone and agree with almost everything you said...

Oh no, new1965!

You should not give in to monk-haters so easily...after all the good resistance you put up...let me assist you in bringing horseboy back to rules reality :smallbiggrin:



It fights as well as an un-buffed cleric.

No, the monk fights better. He has more attacks, more (fighting feats) and much better defenses.
And the best part about it: most of the nice buffs of the cleric, the monk can have too!:smallcool:


It can't hit and run in the same turn.

Oh yes, he can. Spring attack. Or flyby attack. All core.


It can charge far, but can't do anything when it gets there.

With pounce, he can do quite a lot (flurry, flurry and grapple pin). Without pounce, he can focus on a big hit with stunning fist and quivering palm. Or a simple low-level touch spell attack.
Of course, with his monk weapon the quarterstaff he can also use power attack.


There's several things (like the gauntlet) that were just largely overlooked due to poor play testing.

Well, somehow this poor play testing led to a remarkably balanced core game. Play more often, check the rules, and you'll see for yourself!


It can sneak, and spot, but not find traps until it trips them.

Why should the monk be able to?


It can go with the bard, and back up his story.
In short, that's all it's good for: Go with the other guy, so he's not alone.

Funnily, the monk is possibly with the exception of a very high level sorcerer the most independent of all character classes.

To the OP:
Similar to the arcane caster classes and the rogue and bard, the monk may be weak for direct combat at the beginning - although he has better AC and higher hps than them. Try to specialise first in grappling; for instance the monk is the only character capable of pinning a character at 1st level in 1 round due to flurry attack.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-02, 08:45 PM
Oh yes, he can. Spring attack. Or flyby attack. All core.

.... since when do monks fly?


And isn't Spring Attack regarded as a waste of feats?



most of the nice buffs of the cleric, the monk can have too!

Did monks get the ability to cast spells when I wasn't looking?


Well, somehow this poor play testing led to a remarkably balanced core game.

I'm sure on some planet, DnD 3.5e core is balanced and your statement would therefore make sense, but the fatal flaw in your argument is that this is Earth.

Frosty
2008-01-02, 09:05 PM
The Monk, like any other class that gets skillpoints, can pump up UMD to the point where he can reliably mimic a caster with magic items and scrolls. That is how Monks manage to keep up.

It's overall a more expensive option than others, and it requires knowledge typically beyond the casual player, but it can be done.

PirateMonk
2008-01-02, 09:36 PM
Did monks get the ability to cast spells when I wasn't looking?

No, it's just that all play balance is apparently based around casters never being "stupid egotists" and noncasters have expensive magic items.

Solo
2008-01-02, 09:39 PM
No, it's just that all play balance is apparently based around casters never being "stupid egotists" and noncasters have expensive magic items.

Well that sounds entirely reasonable.

Trenelus
2008-01-02, 10:19 PM
In one of the Forgotten Realms book (I fail to remember which one) there was in the magic item list a gauntlet, which could be enchanted as an weapon and monk could use it's enchants with his unarmed strike and flurry. As an down side, it had to be enchanted as double weapon, same enchants twice, making it really expencive when compaired to regural magic weapons.

Theli
2008-01-02, 10:27 PM
@Thinker: there will always be someone to carry on this debate:smallwink: .

One might perhaps suggest that the ready supply of people who would argue for the capability of having fun as a monk would mean that they aren't totally useless in a decent number of campaigns being run.

It seems that it takes a certain amount of "education" to accept that the monk could use a better ability set, at the very least.

As for being one of "the top 3 worst classes", SOME classes have to be. Otherwise there would be no class that was worse than another. That seems more like a question of degrees there.

But then, that's where the education comes in. There is a certain set of criteria that people online judge the classes, and other elements, of DnD by. So give these people some time. They'll be jaded by the powergaming ways of other online players soon enough.

Cuddly
2008-01-02, 10:33 PM
I've played extensively with 3 monks, and they were always subpar characters, Though... they were all 3.0, that may have had something to do with it. Two-handed power attack was houseruled to do 2 for 1 damage.

One was a core Drow LA1/Monk 10, while I was a half-fiend halfling LA3/rogue2/paladin of tyranny6 with a lance and a fiendish pig. LAs were from 3.0.

Despite having 2 HD less than the Drow Monk, I moved faster than he did (good in an outdoor campaign), did more damage, hit more often, could take more hits, and had a higher AC. Our climbing abilities were about on par, though he could tumble better. I didn't need to tumble better, since I had ride-by attack. Skill wise, we were about on par for usefulness. My knowledge skills made up for his sight advantage in agility and mobility. He spent most of his time leaping around and being ineffective.

Another, low level campaign (level 1-8), I played a half-orc barbarian with a human monk. He thought he was hot stuff, but he was also ineffective. He hit less frequently. His spring attack was pretty much useless- he'd run forward, swing (usually miss), then run back. When he did hit, it was always for very little. The rest of the party would then just charge, power attack, and cleave through mooks. We were a big party, so we often fought large numbers of opponents. Me and the prc samurai with supreme cleave did the most damage by far. In 1v1 battle with the monk, my barbarian couldn't move as fast, so spring attack would have almost been a nuisance, save for the fact I could charge him every round and hit much harder than he could.

Lastly, I played in a very high power ECL 10-14 campaign, and the monk/drunken master was the weakest character by a long shot. He had low AC, and no damage out put. The human fighter 10-14 (no multiclass) flat out had more HP, did more damage, and hit more often. The monk would flurry, landing maybe one 1d12+str+some magic damage, then get creamed with a 100+ damage full attack. The fighter, otoh, regularly dished out ~100 damage/round.

We also had a cohort barb1/fighter4/warforged juggernaught5/bear warrior X who outshone the monk in virtually every battle (though I think there may actually be alignment issues with that build). His mastr, a psion/thrallherd, did massive amounts of damage with psionic disintegrate to construct and undead, while psionically dominating hoards of everything else. The monk in no way could compete with those two.

I played a wizard5/MotAO5(6?)/loremaster1/archmage X, with an artificer cohort. We also, needless to say, dominated. The artificer used buff spells from wands, while the mage laid down control spells. Either character on its own contributed more to any given situation- the vast array of spells at the wizard's disposal allowed him to do anything the monk could do, and many things the monk couldn't. The numerous skills of the artificer, coupled with the buffs he put on the party and magic item crafting, led him to do more damage, indirectly, than the monk ever did.

This particular campaign was mostly ship based combat in narrow corridors, against opponents with an ECL of around 12. We often fought multiple level 10 gith casters and mind flayers with CR10-14 melee lackeys. The monk, of course, could contribute little to these fights.

Mind you, this was all 3.0, so you could regard this anecdotal evidence as worthless, and I would tend to agree. Another major issue was the sort of person who is drawn to the monk- they have an idea of a character that freaks out and does backflips, doesn't need many material possessions (ie, low char wealth), and think that the monk is a good class. If you're tricked into thinking a monk is powerful just by looking at its core abilities (no UMD tricks, bottles of smoke, and other retarded stuff), then you're also likely to be the sort of person that prepares maximized fireballs and not get what's so great about a druid. The sort of people monks attract are wannabe optimizers that don't know how to optimize- if they had an eye for optimization, they wouldn't have chose the monk.

Idea Man
2008-01-02, 11:56 PM
I think there's a small misunderstanding about spring attack. The feat itself is not subpar, the prerequisite (dodge) is. Spring attack, used properly, can be very effective. The objective is to a: avoid attacks of opportunity, and b: not be standing next to the enemy after you're done moving (the second benefit being optional, if you don't want to go away).

The benefits of (a) are pretty obvious, and extra handy for fighting reach opponents. The monk has the extra advantage of improved speed, so the feat is still useful for moving away at higher levels from the gargantuan and colossal beasts you're likely to face. The benefits of (b) is straightforward enough: I'm not next to the big, bad beasty. Most things that hit hard enough to be a problem do so more than once, but only in a full attack. Spring attack denies them that benefit.

So the problem lies specifically with the monk, in the damage area of combat. He's a light combatant compared to the dedicated, weapon-weilding warrior-types, especially the two-handers. It's not that his damage is insignificant, it just possible to do so much more within another class's framework, without trying. I would like to point out that sundering or disarming is not used often enough, and is a partial balancing factor.

Monks are, at best, a support fighter and an opportunist. At worst, a burden to the useful people in the party and a boring day gaming. Only for experienced players, who don't need the limelight to have fun.

horseboy
2008-01-03, 12:04 AM
Oh no, new1965!

You should not give in to monk-haters so easily...after all the good resistance you put up...let me assist you in bringing horseboy back to rules reality :smallbiggrin: Why am I doing this? I really know better....


No, the monk fights better. He has more attacks,Same BAB, same attacks, unless he stands still for a round.
more (fighting feats)That depends on how it's built.
and much better defenses.Nope. We've been over this before. If he munchkins till next tomorrow, he'll be able to match the clerics full plate and shield.


And the best part about it: most of the nice buffs of the cleric, the monk can have too!:smallcool: At the mercy of someone else, and at the expense of cures for the party.

Oh yes, he can. Spring attack. Or flyby attack. All core.A core race that flies? I didn't know windlings were in d20. If they Spring attack they get to slap something once. That's not going to do anything effective.

With pounce, he can do quite a lot (flurry, flurry and grapple pin). Without pounce, he can focus on a big hit with stunning fist and quivering palm. Or a simple low-level touch spell attack.Sure, if he's a creature, or if we're going outside of core and he dips into that barbarian variant or you pull out some archaic Dragon article.

Of course, with his monk weapon the quarterstaff he can also use power attack. I'm not sure why you'd want to power attack with a double weapon, but you have fun with all that whiffing he does without the BAB to back it up.

Well, somehow this poor play testing led to a remarkably balanced core game. Play more often, check the rules, and you'll see for yourself!If I didn't know you were serious, that would be sooo funny.

Why should the monk be able to?"Wow, there's this wire coming off the door. Too bad WotC decided that only certain classes should know what that means." Trapfinding is an incredibly stupid mechanic designed to force you to have certain classes and for no good reason.

Funnily, the monk is possibly with the exception of a very high level sorcerer the most independent of all character classes.No. That's your opinion. In the months you've been going on about them, you've yet to "show" how they're any more independent than a commoner with a hired magic-user to back him up.


To the OP:
Similar to the arcane caster classes and the rogue and bard, the monk may be weak for direct combat at the beginning - although he has better AC and higher hps than them. Try to specialise first in grappling; for instance the monk is the only character capable of pinning a character at 1st level in 1 round due to flurry attack.
Grappling is cute and all, but by the time he can be said to be good at it (not just can do it, but should be able to do it reliably) most of the things he's going to be going up against he's not going to be able to grapple the large/flying/ethereal/super strong critters.

tyckspoon
2008-01-03, 12:30 AM
The benefits of (a) are pretty obvious, and extra handy for fighting reach opponents. The monk has the extra advantage of improved speed, so the feat is still useful for moving away at higher levels from the gargantuan and colossal beasts you're likely to face. The benefits of (b) is straightforward enough: I'm not next to the big, bad beasty. Most things that hit hard enough to be a problem do so more than once, but only in a full attack. Spring attack denies them that benefit.


Only for the ones without Pounce. It's far more common among monsters than players (well, it was before Complete Champion.) Or the ones that don't have nasty spell-like abilities they could use instead. Or the ones that don't have another member of the party nearer to them that they could decide to smack instead.


I would like to point out that sundering or disarming is not used often enough, and is a partial balancing factor.


And I feel bound to point out that between locked gauntlets and the HP and hardness bonuses for magic weapons, it's near impossible to disarm or sunder somebody who doesn't want to be disarmed or have their weapon sundered. You could still try for charging up to a caster and sundering their focus or component pouch, if they're crazy enough to have them in open sight, but that's hardly balancing the monk against a superior melee character.

Idea Man
2008-01-03, 01:54 AM
Only for the ones without Pounce. It's far more common among monsters than players (well, it was before Complete Champion.) Or the ones that don't have nasty spell-like abilities they could use instead. Or the ones that don't have another member of the party nearer to them that they could decide to smack instead.


Oh, I'm familiar with pounce. I don't have Complete Champion (yet), but I didn't think there were so many creatures that would warrant mentioning it. Spell-like abilities is a good point, but any creature dangerous enough to flatten the monk with a full attack is likely to have at least a respectable concentration skill. Besides, if it does have a useful spell-like ability, the monk either doesn't know ("What is this 'knowledge' skill you keep mentioning?"), thinks the thing is more dangerous in melee, or stays, and takes his chances. He can still avoid AoO by moving five more feet parallel to his opponent, after all.

What you say is true, but a good tactic that can be thwarted does not become a bad one unless everybody can thwart it, or it no longer provides any benefit.



And I feel bound to point out that between locked gauntlets and the HP and hardness bonuses for magic weapons, it's near impossible to disarm or sunder somebody who doesn't want to be disarmed or have their weapon sundered. You could still try for charging up to a caster and sundering their focus or component pouch, if they're crazy enough to have them in open sight, but that's hardly balancing the monk against a superior melee character.

You've actually had someone take locked gauntlets?!? :smalleek: Whoa, talk about paranoid! I'd grapple that guy. :smallamused:

Anyway, the improvement to hardness/HP only applies to enhancement bonuses, not the cool add-ons that make weapons cooler. The +1 keen, flaming, holy, giantbane, thundering, viscious, spell storing greatsword still only has hardness 12 and 20 hit points (yes, I know most people go for a bit higher plus weapon, but exaggeration helps make the point). Your enemies are scaling up their damage capacity to "keep you challenged", so they're as capable of breaking your stuff at low levels as high. Adamantine helps, but that goes both ways. If they use adamantine weapons on your non-adamantine stuff, it'll be like cutting tissue paper.

While I can't say I've ever tried going after a component pouch, I'd have to imagine it's "in the open", at least enough to make use of it as a free action. Tucked under your shirt is a little... awkward. I would think. Magic tricks abound for dimensional access, but then you can sunder those darn things, right?

Again, I'm not saying a monk is balanced with a proper melee warrior. He's second tier at best, when played by someone who knows what he's doing. You want to test your best fighter against my best monk, I promise I'll bleed all over you. :smalltongue:

Also, in case there is confusion, I'm not suggesting the monk is doing any sundering, whatsoever. They suck at sundering, even at their best. I'm assuming bad guys are the opponents, which will sometimes include sunderers. Strong guys have few tricks to work with, and bull rush and overrun are lame.

tyckspoon
2008-01-03, 02:15 AM
Anyway, the improvement to hardness/HP only applies to enhancement bonuses, not the cool add-ons that make weapons cooler. The +1 keen, flaming, holy, giantbane, thundering, viscious, spell storing greatsword still only has hardness 12 and 20 hit points (yes, I know most people go for a bit higher plus weapon, but exaggeration helps make the point). Your enemies are scaling up their damage capacity to "keep you challenged", so they're as capable of breaking your stuff at low levels as high. Adamantine helps, but that goes both ways. If they use adamantine weapons on your non-adamantine stuff, it'll be like cutting tissue paper.


Greater Magic Weapon for an effective + whatever weapon- it's the reason those +1 swords of +9 enhancements exist. Hardness 20 and 55/60 hp for your typical sword gets you safety from adamantine and a healthy cushion of HP against things that aren't completely ignoring the hardness. Assuming you didn't have your own sword made from adamantine to start with, of course.


You've actually had someone take locked gauntlets?!? Whoa, talk about paranoid! I'd grapple that guy.

Heh. Well, no, they mostly get forgotten about. Their existence does mean disarming tends to be a one-use trick against a PC, however; the gauntlets are likely to get remembered after the first (or maybe second) time somebody has his weapon Greased out of his hands or has an opponent rip it loose (bonus style points if it's some variety of giant who proceeds to dual-wield the disarmed warrior to death with his own sword.)

Idea Man
2008-01-03, 02:27 AM
Doesn't adamantine ignore hardness 20? So, the only thing stopping adamantine is enchanted adamantine? At that stage, it's barbarian vs. barbarian (or some great, colossal monstrosity), first to top out his damage wins. More or less, what I already said.

Sure, greater magic weapon is a great stopgap, but if you're a dedicated straight melee type, you probably have to use an oil for that (I suppose paladins are the exception here). Only useful for encounters you know are coming. I'm assuming we're not using "party" resources to achieve this. One class'es merits vs. another, right?

Darkantra
2008-01-03, 02:29 AM
I'm going to go ahead and skip two pages because I just realized that I forgot to put the garbage out... but I thought that I'd share a variant set of monk abilities that I made in another thread. All the monk needs is a bit of tweaking, not a full workaround.


Skills:
Monks have the same skill selection, but gain 6 points per level instead of 4.

Introspection (Ex): (Replaces AC Bonus)
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, Grapple, Overrun and Trip instead of the regular Str or Dex modifiers and gain a +1 bonus to those maneuvers every four levels. A monk’s unarmed strike can be considered a light weapon, or a regular weapon.

These bonuses do not apply if the monk is wearing any armor or shields or is carrying a medium or heavy load.

Wholeness of Body (Su): (Reworked)
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 points of damage equal to their monk level multiplied by their Wisdom bonus (minimum 1, therefore a 9th level Monk with 18 Wis would have 36 points of healing in their pool). 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): (New)
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 armor, shields, or carries a medium or heavy load.

Extrospection (Ex): (New)
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): (Reworked)
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): (Reworked)
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. The monks Quivering Palm can affect only one creature 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.



These changes help the monk out with MAD, give them a reasonable chance to be a skill monkey, make them more effective as a disruptive combatant (which is what they were designed for), and give them a bit more playability with their other abilities.

Oh, and monks shouldn't get Tongue of the Sun and Moon. It's one of the most confusing class abilities I've ever seen, it's like the designers knew that they had just made a sub-par class and tossed that in as a way to even things out :smallconfused:. Which it doesn't.

Anyways, as always I'd like feedback, suggestions, the usual stuff.

Idea Man
2008-01-03, 02:37 AM
I'd replace Tounge of the Sun and Moon with Skill Mastery. It's something they'd actually have, eventually.

tyckspoon
2008-01-03, 02:48 AM
Doesn't adamantine ignore hardness 20? So, the only thing stopping adamantine is enchanted adamantine? At that stage, it's barbarian vs. barbarian (or some great, colossal monstrosity), first to top out his damage wins. More or less, what I already said.

Sure, greater magic weapon is a great stopgap, but if you're a dedicated straight melee type, you probably have to use an oil for that (I suppose paladins are the exception here). Only useful for encounters you know are coming. I'm assuming we're not using "party" resources to achieve this. One class'es merits vs. another, right?

Hardness less than 20; the lack of 'or equal to' is mathematically quite important. This is one of the rules where the D&D rules actually do something modestly realistic; adamantine can't cleave itself (although it's really fantastic that it can cut straight through absolutely anything lesser.)

For the GMW, I admit I was thinking more of having a party member, presumably the Wizard, provide it; does it count as coming from the meleer's own resources if he pays for the entirety of the spell slot by way of a 3rd level Pearl of Power and a Lesser Rod of Extend, if needed to ensure full day coverage? I usually don't buy the 'have a caster give you all the buffs you need' argument, but I make an exception for Magic Vestments and (Greater) Magic Weapon because they're so long lasting that they can be cast at the start of the day and not need to be recast, and they're incredibly cost efficient (21,000 gets you 2 3rd-level Pearls of Power and one Lesser Rod of Extend; that's far and away a better deal than buying base enchantment bonuses on weapons and armor, especially if you dual wield or have expendable ammunition to worry about.)

Idea Man
2008-01-03, 03:18 AM
Hardness less than 20; the lack of 'or equal to' is mathematically quite important. This is one of the rules where the D&D rules actually do something modestly realistic; adamantine can't cleave itself (although it's really fantastic that it can cut straight through absolutely anything lesser.)

Ahh, my bad. I'm being sloppy. Quite right, adamantine won't cut itself or a +5 steel weapon. Lord save you if you chose greatclub, though. :smalltongue:


For the GMW, I admit I was thinking more of having a party member, presumably the Wizard, provide it; does it count as coming from the meleer's own resources if he pays for the entirety of the spell slot by way of a 3rd level Pearl of Power and a Lesser Rod of Extend, if needed to ensure full day coverage? I usually don't buy the 'have a caster give you all the buffs you need' argument, but I make an exception for Magic Vestments and (Greater) Magic Weapon because they're so long lasting that they can be cast at the start of the day and not need to be recast, and they're incredibly cost efficient (21,000 gets you 2 3rd-level Pearls of Power and one Lesser Rod of Extend; that's far and away a better deal than buying base enchantment bonuses on weapons and armor, especially if you dual wield or have expendable ammunition to worry about.)

Yes, technically it is. No, I don't think it counts because he needs the wizard to pull it off. Besides, that implies a twentieth-level buddy for the adamantine-cleave-resistance issue. Before that, the wizard could do the same for a monk, too. Let's keep it to class resources, not party. It's a more pure discussion.
Very practical use of simple magic items, though, and it let's the wizard use the extra use of the Lesser Extend rod for a spell of his own (assuming you don't have a shield).

Armads
2008-01-03, 03:19 AM
No, the monk fights better. He has more attacks, more (fighting feats) and much better defenses.
And the best part about it: most of the nice buffs of the cleric, the monk can have too!:smallcool:
Oh yes, he can. Spring attack. Or flyby attack. All core.

You don't have more attacks because you are using Spring Attack? Also, cleric-mooch isn't a reason why classes are balanced. After all, a supply of scrolls, the cleric's the same as an Expert - except that the Expert has better class skills! Does that mean that the cleric's balanced with the Expert?



With pounce, he can do quite a lot (flurry, flurry and grapple pin). Without pounce, he can focus on a big hit with stunning fist and quivering palm. Or a simple low-level touch spell attack.
Of course, with his monk weapon the quarterstaff he can also use power attack.

Is this a monk or a Complete Champion barbarian or a touch-spell focused wizard? Also, when flurrying with a quarterstaff, you don't get 1.5x str bonus to damage, even if you 2 hand it.




Well, somehow this poor play testing led to a remarkably balanced core game. Play more often, check the rules, and you'll see for yourself!


That's my line.



Funnily, the monk is possibly with the exception of a very high level sorcerer the most independent of all character classes.

And you said he can attack with a low-level spell effect? Am I missing a spells block on the monk table?



Similar to the arcane caster classes and the rogue and bard, the monk may be weak for direct combat at the beginning - although he has better AC and higher hps than them. Try to specialise first in grappling; for instance the monk is the only character capable of pinning a character at 1st level in 1 round due to flurry attack.

He won't hit with his flurry attack, since -2 at level 1 is huge. And specializing at grappling sucks because you can't 'unspecialize'. And grappling at level 1 is basically the same as commiting suicide, because you have a huge AC penalty while grappling, and you won't survive blows.

Solo
2008-01-03, 03:32 AM
With pounce, he can do quite a lot (flurry, flurry and grapple pin). Without pounce, he can focus on a big hit with stunning fist and quivering palm. Or a simple low-level touch spell attack.


Question: How does monk gain Pounce?

Taking a dip in Lion Totem Barbarian is the best way, but do consider that you either have to stop leveling in Monk after taking a level in barbarian? Or, if you start as a Barbarian, you'll have to undergo an alignment shift (please justify said alignment shift) in order to be a Monk?

And did the Monk get spell casting abilities when I wasn't looking?


Of course, with his monk weapon the quarterstaff he can also use power attack

And miss, due to medium BAB, MAD, and Power Attack penalties.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-03, 04:00 AM
First of all, @Solo

Answer to all of your questions: items. UMD if necessary. You probably know what I mean by that.

Well, the same fallacies still hold, even when hard evidence is held in front of some posters...sigh...


Why am I doing this? I really know better....

I still have hope. I wonder how you'll react once every single of your arguments again gets shot down easily.


Same BAB, same attacks, unless he stands still for a round.

Non-core you can get pounce easily. With morph also in core (you know, the "broken" spell...). And an "unless" would still qualify as superiority in combat, wouldn't it?:smallsmile:
That, plus the ability to deliver spc. attacks that the cleric lacks (stun, quivering palm).



That depends on how it's built.

Nope. The combat feats are superior in any imaginable build. The monk gets four bonus feats the cleric does not have (although he could take two domains with bonus feats, but never match the monk's).


Nope. We've been over this before. If he munchkins till next tomorrow, he'll be able to match the clerics full plate and shield.

First of all, a full plate and shield makes you quite vulnerable to touch spells and STR reducing effects (plus, it reduces your movement and gives you skill penalties).
Second, I of course referred to "defense", not just AC. The monk has better saves, better 24/7 immunities and spell resistance than the cleric. No way arguing around that.


At the mercy of someone else, and at the expense of cures for the party.

Npc spellcasting or items.


A core race that flies? I didn't know windlings were in d20.

Items...seriously, do I have to explain the core rules to you?


If they Spring attack they get to slap something once. That's not going to do anything effective.

It is if the opponent can not hit back properly.


Sure, if he's a creature, or if we're going outside of core and he dips into that barbarian variant or you pull out some archaic Dragon article.

This one I do not understand. There is not even need to go outside core for all the stuff I mentioned.


I'm not sure why you'd want to power attack with a double weapon, but you have fun with all that whiffing he does without the BAB to back it up.

The double weapon also happens to be a two-handed weapon for that nice 2:1 ratio. Get divine power and you're set. Note though that the power attack is simply an option for the monk, not really the best feat to take.


If I didn't know you were serious, that would be sooo funny.

Well, your many rules misperceptions so far sound rather funny to me. Before criticising others ignoring their years of hard work, I would in your place really, really check the rules first. Mistakes may be still in the game, but none that you have mentioned.


"Wow, there's this wire coming off the door. Too bad WotC decided that only certain classes should know what that means." Trapfinding is an incredibly stupid mechanic designed to force you to have certain classes and for no good reason.

er...like turning undead? Do you think that it is inherently wrong in the game that there are some classes who can do stuff which others don't? Hmmm. Interesting notion. Or is it rather that you hate that spellcasters cannot replicate ALL class abilities with their spells? Or maybe you do not like the balance part of it all?


No. That's your opinion. In the months you've been going on about them, you've yet to "show" how they're any more independent than a commoner with a hired magic-user to back him up.

They can get by nicely without even npc casting. To be able to use their abilities to the full as intended by the rules, though, (including spellcasters buffing their non-casting comrades), outside spell buffs are necessary to make them balanced vs the spellcasting of their enemies somtimes.


Grappling is cute and all, but by the time he can be said to be good at it (not just can do it, but should be able to do it reliably) most of the things he's going to be going up against he's not going to be able to grapple the large/flying/ethereal/super strong critters.

At which time the grappling tactics will no longer be used (or until AMF is available).

Now Armads...


You don't have more attacks because you are using Spring Attack? Also, cleric-mooch isn't a reason why classes are balanced. After all, a supply of scrolls, the cleric's the same as an Expert - except that the Expert has better class skills! Does that mean that the cleric's balanced with the Expert?

Double standard alarm!:smallbiggrin:
To take spring attack or not was irrelevant for the point that horseboy made at that point.
The expert (or related) commoner argument is pure polemics and you know it. Look at the expert. Look at the monk. What class do you think is stronger? Honestly. Some spells simpy synergise best with the monk class abilities. The expert outside his skills has NO class abilities.


Is this a monk or a Complete Champion barbarian or a touch-spell focused wizard? Also, when flurrying with a quarterstaff, you don't get 1.5x str bonus to damage, even if you 2 hand it.

It is a monk. And you know it.
The 1.5 str bonus is not the issue, the issue was whether power attack can be useful for a monk. That was shown. The staff itself may have that disadvantage in the hands of the monk, but also other advantages (say, synergy with the monk's improved disarm feat. The flurry description could even be interpreted in a way that the staff can be used with weapon finesse by a monk in a flurry).



And you said he can attack with a low-level spell effect? Am I missing a spells block on the monk table?

Sigh. Cast touch spell from item. Hold charge. Deliver touch spell in attack.


He won't hit with his flurry attack, since -2 at level 1 is huge. And specializing at grappling sucks because you can't 'unspecialize'. And grappling at level 1 is basically the same as commiting suicide, because you have a huge AC penalty while grappling, and you won't survive blows.

You realise that at first level a STR 16 monk will have a +1/+1 TOUCH attack roll, do you (the touch attack roll is the roll that ignores all armour)? That is a far cry from "won't hit". If anything, due to his two attack rolls, his chance is much better than anyone else's to get into a grapple. Which is the whole point.
And why again are you assuming that the monk will use grapple when it is stupid? (i.e. when he is outnumbered)?

- Giacomo

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-03, 04:36 AM
You realise that at first level a STR 16 monk will have a +1/+1 TOUCH attack roll, do you (the touch attack roll is the roll that ignores all armour)? That is a far cry from "won't hit". If anything, due to his two attack rolls, his chance is much better than anyone else's to get into a grapple. Which is the whole point.
And why again are you assuming that the monk will use grapple when it is stupid? (i.e. when he is outnumbered)?

- Giacomo

You really lost me here, how does a lvl 1 character get acses to a double touch attack(dex+deflection still count iirc)? And +1/+1 isn't really that impressive.

Edit: for comparison
you have +3 on a normal attack, so does an wolf animal companion on that level, and it gets a free trip attempt.
A two-weapon fighter(sub par) who's fighting with a short and a long sword can get +2/+2 without breaking a sweat(16 str+1BaB)

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-03, 07:17 AM
You really lost me here, how does a lvl 1 character get acses to a double touch attack

With flurried grapple.


(dex+deflection still count iirc)?

deflection bonus is quite rare at 1st level. DEX is an issue, but not when you're flat-footed.


And +1/+1 isn't really that impressive.

For a touch attack possible 24/7 at first level, it is.


Edit: for comparison
you have +3 on a normal attack, so does an wolf animal companion on that level, and it gets a free trip attempt.

Yes, on a normal attack. But I was arguing from the point of view of grappling, where the monk can shine at 1st level already (remember, the OP wondered about where a monk can be useful at 1st level). For instance, the wolf has a grapple mod of +2, while the STR 16 monk has a check of +7 already. That, plus the wolf's touch AC of 12 means likely with the flurried grapple that the monk can establish a grapple in 1 round.


A two-weapon fighter(sub par) who's fighting with a short and a long sword can get +2/+2 without breaking a sweat(16 str+1BaB)

Yes, that is sub par. First of all, that fighter will also need a DEX of 15 to get the feat (not that easy for some 1st level characters). And then, two weapon fighting is more of an option for the rogue who increases his sneak chance.
Finally, I did not argue in terms of "only the monk can get off two attacks/round at level 1"; only that the monk is the only one to do it with grapple.

- Giacomo

fendrin
2008-01-03, 04:14 PM
Giacomo is right about the flurried grapple allowing the monk to be the only class that can pin in one round.

Furthermore, nothing says you have to maintain the grapple after the first attack. Also, nothing says you can't use your flurry to grapple, release, then grapple a second opponent. If you grapple-then-release twice, a monk can out damage a first level fighter, even a greatsword weilder.

Let me explain that last comment, seeing otherwise people will really get on my case about it.

Assuming elite array, full attack available, against a typical orc warrior as presented in the Monster Manual.
A grappling monk will of course put str as one of the highest two stats (so either a 15 or a 14). The fighter would of course do the same. Both then have a str mod of +2.

The monk makes a flurried grapple attack at +0 (needing a 10+ to hit the touch AC of 10). The monk then has a +7 grapple check against the orc's +4. Assuming a success, the monk deals 1d6+2 damage.
The monk then releases the orc and does it again for a second 1d6+2 damage.
Monk Total Damage: 2d6+4
The fighter makes a single attack with their greatsword at +3 (needing a 10+ to hit the orc's AC of 13) for 2d6+3
Fighter Total Damage: 2d6+3

Also, the monk could conceivably use this technique to take out multiple orcs, which the fighter can not (or at least not without spending 2 feats on).

If people really want me to do a break down of average damage, with and/or without power attack, I will do so. (My money is on the fighter doing more damage on average, which is how it should be.)

Solo
2008-01-03, 10:02 PM
Well, the same fallacies still hold, even when hard evidence is held in front of some posters...sigh...

...

I still have hope. I wonder how you'll react once every single of your arguments again gets shot down easily.



Caution, captain! Irony levels in this thread are dangerously high!



Look, why should the monk be forced to become a pseudo caster to be as effective as real casters? Why can't he just be a monk and do kung fu stuff?

horseboy
2008-01-03, 11:42 PM
First of all, @Solo

Answer to all of your questions: items. UMD if necessary. You probably know what I mean by that.

Well, the same fallacies still hold, even when hard evidence is held in front of some posters...sigh...
There is not "hard evidence" only sophistry.



I still have hope. I wonder how you'll react once every single of your arguments again gets shot down easily.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment."



Non-core you can get pounce easily. But aren't you one of those people that proclaim that core is balanced, it's pulling things from outside of core that disrupts the "integrity" of the system?
With morph also in core (you know, the "broken" spell...).So now the wizard has to not only buff the monk, but has to put skill points into a little used skill so he can know which animal to properly shape you into to give you their special attack? Two more questions:
1) Is the wizard in your games every allowed to play his own character, or is he always played by the monk player?
2) Why waste it on monk when the rogue can add sneak attack dice to it and be more effective?


And an "unless" would still qualify as superiority in combat, wouldn't it?:smallsmile:If the monk stood still so he could get his flurry in, then he's not being a "hit and run" specialist. He's being a tank, and he can't tank.

That, plus the ability to deliver spc. attacks that the cleric lacks (stun,Hold person
quivering palm).Any save or die, and far more often.



Nope. The combat feats are superior in any imaginable build. The monk gets four bonus feats the cleric does not have (although he could take two domains with bonus feats, but never match the monk's).
4 bonus feats of dubious quality is not "superior in any imaginable build."



First of all, a full plate and shield makes you quite vulnerable to touch spells and STR reducing effects No more so than not having armour.
(plus, it reduces your movement and gives you skill penalties).Predominately.

Second, I of course referred to "defense", not just AC. The monk has better saves, A better save, fort and will are on the same progression.

better 24/7 immunitiesYes, the monk can not be poisoned himself, or the cleric can cast neutralize poison on the poisonous thing and the whole party is saved. The monk needed that ability why?
and spell resistance than the cleric. No way arguing around that.Yes, he has a pittance of spell resistance. He needs something.


Npc spellcasting or items.And said NPC's are just following you around all the time giving you these spells when you need them why?

Items...seriously, do I have to explain the core rules to you?Well, would like you to explain where you're seeing fly-by attack, is it on page 90 or 91 of the PHB?


It is if the opponent can not hit back properly.And if all you're doing is running around all willie-nillie, trying to slap him and missing, why would he attack you in the first place? It's not that he "can't" do it. It's that it's rarely worth doing.


This one I do not understand. There is not even need to go outside core for all the stuff I mentioned.But didn't you just earlier in this very post just say:
Non-core you can get pounce easily. Yup, you sure did.


Note though that the power attack is simply an option for the monk, not really the best feat to take.And here is why the monk comes in last. Melee barely hangs on by the power attack feat. The power attack feat is "not really the best feat to take" for a monk. This is why monks lag so far behind.

Well, your many rules misperceptions so far sound rather funny to me. Before criticizing others ignoring their years of hard work, I would in your place really, really check the rules first. Mistakes may be still in the game, but none that you have mentioned.WotC? Hard work? BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA!
Okay, now that is funny.




er...like turning undead? Straw man. You're trying to compare the ability of a thinking individual not being able to follow a wire to a supernatural ability. You may want to find a different analogy.

Do you think that it is inherently wrong in the game that there are some classes who can do stuff which others don't? Hmmm. Interesting notion. It's not that some can do something that others can't, it's that there's no logical reason for trap finding to be there other than sloppy, heavy handed mechanics, trying to pigeon hole characters.
Or is it rather that you hate that spellcasters cannot replicate ALL class abilities with their spells? Or maybe you do not like the balance part of it all?No, it's because I'm not a WotC fanboi. They don't get to skate by on brand love with me. They have to earn my respect. 3.x fails.


They can get by nicely without even npc casting. To be able to use their abilities to the full as intended by the rules, though, (including spellcasters buffing their non-casting comrades), outside spell buffs are necessary to make them balanced vs the spellcasting of their enemies sometimes.Translation: "Yes, the class works well on it's own, but really only works when I'm a hanger on to someone else." This is the dichotomy of monks that people don't like. It's supposed to be good on it's own, but falls completely flat on it's face when it tries to do what it's supposed to. Relying on other classes to pick them up and put them on their shoulders to carry on.


At which time the grappling tactics will no longer be used (or until AMF is available).And the build is useless.



Double standard alarm!:smallbiggrin:
To take spring attack or not was irrelevant for the point that horseboy made at that point.
The expert (or related) commoner argument is pure polemics and you know it. Look at the expert. Look at the monk. What class do you think is stronger? Honestly. Some spells simply synergies best with the monk class abilities. The expert outside his skills has NO class abilities.Stronger or more useful? Cause, I would rank the expert as more useful, and so do you, since you use experts with flurry to try and defend monks in these threads.

Skipping fanciful notions[quote]
You realise that at first level a STR 16 monk will have a +1/+1 TOUCH attack roll, do you (the touch attack roll is the roll that ignores all armour)? That is a far cry from "won't hit". If anything, due to his two attack rolls, his chance is much better than anyone else's to get into a grapple. Which is the whole point.
And why again are you assuming that the monk will use grapple when it is stupid? (i.e. when he is outnumbered)?
- Giacomo
But if the monk puts his 16 in STR, then that means his stunning fist is going to be next to useless, his AC might even wind up worse than the mage's, and his HP's are going to be weak and he might even have a penalty to his precious UMD score.

Darkantra
2008-01-04, 12:06 AM
Giacomo is right about the flurried grapple allowing the monk to be the only class that can pin in one round.

Furthermore, nothing says you have to maintain the grapple after the first attack. Also, nothing says you can't use your flurry to grapple, release, then grapple a second opponent. If you grapple-then-release twice, a monk can out damage a first level fighter, even a greatsword weilder.

Let me explain that last comment, seeing otherwise people will really get on my case about it.

Assuming elite array, full attack available, against a typical orc warrior as presented in the Monster Manual.
A grappling monk will of course put str as one of the highest two stats (so either a 15 or a 14). The fighter would of course do the same. Both then have a str mod of +2.

The monk makes a flurried grapple attack at +0 (needing a 10+ to hit the touch AC of 10). The monk then has a +7 grapple check against the orc's +4. Assuming a success, the monk deals 1d6+2 damage.
The monk then releases the orc and does it again for a second 1d6+2 damage.
Monk Total Damage: 2d6+4
The fighter makes a single attack with their greatsword at +3 (needing a 10+ to hit the orc's AC of 13) for 2d6+3
Fighter Total Damage: 2d6+3

Also, the monk could conceivably use this technique to take out multiple orcs, which the fighter can not (or at least not without spending 2 feats on).

If people really want me to do a break down of average damage, with and/or without cleave, I will do so. (My money is on the fighter doing more damage on average, which is how it should be.)



I'm a bit leery with that combo. It falls flat on it's face (strangely :smallwink:, a phrase that is always used in association with D&D monks) when used against any full and some 3/4 BAB classes in the 7-8 level range and to begin with it requires the monk to succeed with 2 rolls before they can deal damage. Also, the monk isn't even the best grappling class at 1st level.

A 1st level human psychic warrior can easily out-grapple a 1st level monk. Expansion, Grip of Iron, a +2 modifier to strength with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple as feats gives him a +15 modifier for grappling vs the monks +6. I do know that psychic warriors aren't core but if you want a grapple build, look there instead.

marjan
2008-01-04, 12:57 AM
A 1st level human psychic warrior can easily out-grapple a 1st level monk. Expansion, Grip of Iron, a +2 modifier to strength with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple as feats gives him a +15 modifier for grappling vs the monks +6. I do know that psychic warriors aren't core but if you want a grapple build, look there instead.

Where do you get PPs to manifest those at first level?

Darkantra
2008-01-04, 01:22 AM
Where do you get PPs to manifest those at first level?

Ah sorry, I thought that 14-15 Wis would net you 2 PPs at 1st level, but they only get 1 in that case. That'll teach me for not looking at my books :smalltongue:.

Anyways, the psychic warrior could still manifest one of those powers, and even when the power runs it's course they still have even modifiers, +6.

Armads
2008-01-04, 01:56 AM
You realise that at first level a STR 16 monk will have a +1/+1 TOUCH attack roll, do you (the touch attack roll is the roll that ignores all armour)? That is a far cry from "won't hit". If anything, due to his two attack rolls, his chance is much better than anyone else's to get into a grapple. Which is the whole point.
And why again are you assuming that the monk will use grapple when it is stupid? (i.e. when he is outnumbered)?


So? NPC goblins have a touch AC of 12. That's less than a 50% chance to hit (you get 2 tries, but do full attacks even happen at level 1?). Also, with Str 16, your AC/Hp is going to suffer.



Nope. The combat feats are superior in any imaginable build. The monk gets four bonus feats the cleric does not have (although he could take two domains with bonus feats, but never match the monk's).

OMG STUNNING FIST/IMP GRAPPLE + IMP DISARM/TRIP + IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE + COMBAT REFLEXES/DEFLECT ARROWS > Any other imaginable build?

What??? Power Attack + Improved Bull Rush + Shock Trooper + Leap Attack totally crushes that.



The expert (or related) commoner argument is pure polemics and you know it. Look at the expert. Look at the monk. What class do you think is stronger? Honestly. Some spells simpy synergise best with the monk class abilities. The expert outside his skills has NO class abilities.

Umm? The expert's class abilities ARE his skills. You're just ignoring one class's abilities and emphasising another's (which aren't that great. Most of your monk arguments rely on magic items and NPC buffs, rather than using monk class abilities)



Second, I of course referred to "defense", not just AC. The monk has better saves, better 24/7 immunities and spell resistance than the cleric. No way arguing around that.


Cleric has a better fortitude and will save (since he has less MAD, and more cash to spend on Cloaks of resistance, though this statement doesn't hold true at level 20, where everyone gets piles of gold), and reflex saves aren't very important once you get a good amount of hp (since reflex doesn't have many Save-or-dies).

Also, clerics get better 24/7 immunities. Immunity to disease and poison < Mind Blank (add an amulet of proof against poison if you really worry about failing a DC 20 save against poison). Spell resistance can be acquired via, guess what, the spell called SPELL RESISTANCE - which incidentally gives more SR than the monk's ability. Or Spell Immunity, which is even better (at least at lower levels, anyway).



This one I do not understand. There is not even need to go outside core for all the stuff I mentioned.


You need to go outside core to get Pounce as a monk, don't you?



Items

If you need items to be competitive, think of other classes (more specifically, spellcasters), who DONT need to buy the same items (except maybe the fighter) to be competitive.

NPC casters don't roam everywhere searching for monks to buff, also.

Example:
Magical Weapon: Greater Magic Weapon/Fang. 4th level, lasts for a day.
Cloak of Resistance: Greater Resistance (non core, but gives even more bonus to saves than a cloak of resistance). Otherwise, he just buys it. He still saves money from buying a weapon anyway.
Magical Armor: Magic Vestment
Spell Storing Ring: Just cast the spell yourself.
Stat Boosters: Cast it, or buy the item if you really need a +2 to a stat for 36k.

They also counter the lack of spell slots by charging up a rod of absorption.

@fendrin: The fighter can use his feats to take stuff like Weapon focus, which is good at level 1.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 04:24 AM
Thanks, Fendrin!

I guess this answers the OP's initial concern.

As for what Armads and horseboy wrote - that was pretty much useless. Starting to twist what I wrote to not admit you're wrong...that is really something.

But I'll try to correct the worst.



So now the wizard has to not only buff the monk, but has to put skill points into a little used skill so he can know which animal to properly shape you into to give you their special attack?

Yes. Same as a non-caster who has to take a feat or a skill to get something achieved. Spellcasting is a "player gets all served on a silver platter" in your games maybe, and you may like it this way, but it is not in the rules. Sorry to wake you up to rules reality.


Two more questions:
1) Is the wizard in your games every allowed to play his own character, or is he always played by the monk player?

Cute.


2) Why waste it on monk when the rogue can add sneak attack dice to it and be more effective?

You mean the sneak attack that is more difficult to deliver in a large/huge form? Or do you wish to send the rogue to his death with his d6 hp in melee combat? Pls. It has already been shown in a different thread that the monk makes most use out of polymorph. You may still refuse to accept that, but it is not fair just maintaining stuff here as if it has never been discussed. Heck, in core it is even the only class which at 20th level can also change through morph into outsiders.


If the monk stood still so he could get his flurry in, then he's not being a "hit and run" specialist. He's being a tank, and he can't tank.

No, with better movement and great defenses he sure cannot (:smallamused: )


Hold person

Ah, you are comparing a ranged spell to combat ability that was originally discussed? Wow. And for your information: hold person allows a SR, stun does not.


4 bonus feats of dubious quality is not "superior in any imaginable build."

You can call those feats whatever you like, it could be even feats that do "monk can add +1 to grapple 1/year", it would still be superior to all bonus combat feats the cleric gets (zero).


A better save, fort and will are on the same progression.

Which adds up to: better saves! And who is doing sophistry here?


Yes, the monk can not be poisoned himself, or the cleric can cast neutralize poison on the poisonous thing and the whole party is saved. The monk needed that ability why?

Hints: cleric needs time to cast spell on non-resistant characters. Poison already had a damaging effect before cleric cast neutralise poison. Cleric may even not have spell prepared/ready.


Yes, he has a pittance of spell resistance. He needs something.

Yes, the highest SR available to core non-epic characters is truly a pittance.:smallamused: (and I do not wish to include the temporary, dispellable 1min/lvl cleric spell resistance spell here)


And said NPC's are just following you around all the time giving you these spells when you need them why?

Who ever said that the npcs are "following around" all the time? Not me. You invent stuff to not admit that you are wrong. Has no character you ever played ever bought a spellcasting from an npc? I may do it in new, unusual ways you have not yet thought about- but why then go through the roof about it?


Well, would like you to explain where you're seeing fly-by attack, is it on page 90 or 91 of the PHB?

It is in the Monster Manual. You know, the book wizards get to learn what their summoned pals do.


And if all you're doing is running around all willie-nillie, trying to slap him and missing, why would he attack you in the first place? It's not that he "can't" do it. It's that it's rarely worth doing.

I think that is the most useless part of your comment, but it has strong contenders :smallsmile:


But didn't you just earlier in this very post just say: (TAKES QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT) Yup, you sure did.

I only argue non-core when someone brings up non-core. Pounce can be easily also taken in core through polymorph that you likely hate for this reason.


And here is why the monk comes in last. Melee barely hangs on by the power attack feat. The power attack feat is "not really the best feat to take" for a monk. This is why monks lag so far behind.

But the monk fights differently. You may have noticed the different class description and abilities compared to the full BAB classes...I cannot help you, though, if you have not figured it out by now. What you want is a monk that uses the same tactics as, say, the barbarian or fighter. And strangely enough, the monk "comes in last" in this comparison! Wow, what an insight!


WotC? Hard work? BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHA!
Okay, now that is funny.

It is.



Straw man. You're trying to compare the ability of a thinking individual not being able to follow a wire to a supernatural ability. You may want to find a different analogy.

No, it is just fine. You simply do not like it, which is different.


They have to earn my respect. 3.x fails.

Oh, they do not have to earn your respect. The mere fact that we are discussing THEIR innovation here shows already some grudging respect you have and that 3.x did not "fail".:smallsmile:


Translation: "Yes, the class works well on it's own, but really only works when I'm a hanger on to someone else." This is the dichotomy of monks that people don't like. It's supposed to be good on it's own, but falls completely flat on it's face when it tries to do what it's supposed to. Relying on other classes to pick them up and put them on their shoulders to carry on.

What is the monk supposed to do in your opinion?


And the build is useless.

I know it is hard to accept that a single AMF spell brings down your notion of complete "CASTER RULES" down like a house of cards. Everything that brings that down is of "course" useless. To casters. Not for the monk.


Stronger or more useful? Cause, I would rank the expert as more useful, and so do you, since you use experts with flurry to try and defend monks in these threads.

Experts with flurry? Where have I ever used that? Or do you mean in a metaphorical sense? That I defend monks which can be considered as mere experts with flurry? You should write more clearly lest occasional readers think "Giacomo? That strange guy who believes there is an expert class in the core rules with flurry?"
Hmmm. Are 2 skill points/level and free choice of class skills superior to all the monk class abilities? (thinks for a second) No.


But if the monk puts his 16 in STR, then that means his stunning fist is going to be next to useless, his AC might even wind up worse than the mage's, and his HP's are going to be weak and he might even have a penalty to his precious UMD score.

Yes, life is full of tough choices, isn't it? Ahh...the MAD myth...my favourite monk myth.
Because, you know, fighters just LOVE those ability penalities/weaker stats in other abilities when they put a 16 in STR! As do rogues, barbarians or what have you.


So? NPC goblins have a touch AC of 12. That's less than a 50% chance to hit (you get 2 tries, but do full attacks even happen at level 1?). Also, with Str 16, your AC/Hp is going to suffer.

And what is the chance to hit for other classes when they try to grapple? The full BAB maybe have an advantage, but they only have 1 attempt...as for STR 16 and AC/hp suffering...see above.


OMG STUNNING FIST/IMP GRAPPLE + IMP DISARM/TRIP + IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE + COMBAT REFLEXES/DEFLECT ARROWS > Any other imaginable build?

OMG I MADE ARMADS USE CAPITAL LETTERS! Seriously, you are not saying that those feats are the weakest in the game, are you? They are among the best.


What??? Power Attack + Improved Bull Rush + Shock Trooper + Leap Attack totally crushes that.

Ah, a short foray into non-core material, but no problem. You see, comparing those feats to other feats was never the issue. Horseboy's great idea was to say that the cleric is the same in combat as the monk due to the 3/4 BAB. Which I then mildly corrected pointing out the bonus feats a monk has. As I already said, it does not matter what those combat bonus feats are- they merely need to exist to create superiority in combat for the monk. OF COURSE the cleric then can use buff spells (which the monk as we all now know also has access to for decisive battles), but featwise the cleric is always behind the monk, no way aguing around that.


Umm? The expert's class abilities ARE his skills. You're just ignoring one class's abilities and emphasising another's (which aren't that great. Most of your monk arguments rely on magic items and NPC buffs, rather than using monk class abilities)

Read. The. Class. Descriptions. Of. Both. Classes. I do not think it makes sense for me to keep listing the many monk class abilities anymore.


Cleric has a better fortitude and will save (since he has less MAD, and more cash to spend on Cloaks of resistance, though this statement doesn't hold true at level 20, where everyone gets piles of gold), and reflex saves aren't very important once you get a good amount of hp (since reflex doesn't have many Save-or-dies).

Oh, the reflex save spells are quite deadly. It's all the area spells which are quite useful since you can foil the targeted spells more easily with concealment. But you are apparently still full of the logic ninja holy scriptures which state "thou shallst not cast damage spells".
The cleric does not have a better fortitude and will save, since
- the monk has more cash to spend since his class abilities already cover many magic items that he no longer needs.
- WIS is quite often the main stat of the monk as well
The cleric COULD get ahead for a while with craft magic items, but at higher levels the monk can get even with the main bonus to spells: ability scores and resistance bonuses.
OK, for this reason I'll adjust my original comment to: the monk is ahead in BASE saves.


Also, clerics get better 24/7 immunities. Immunity to disease and poison < Mind Blank (add an amulet of proof against poison if you really worry about failing a DC 20 save against poison). Spell resistance can be acquired via, guess what, the spell called SPELL RESISTANCE - which incidentally gives more SR than the monk's ability. Or Spell Immunity, which is even better (at least at lower levels, anyway).

Mind blank is not a cleric spell, only of the protection domain - which only a fraction of clerics will have. Spell resistance is a 1min/lvl buff, so quite unreliable (and can be countered/dispelled). Spell immunity is confined to some spells out of the hundreds that could go against you. An periapt of proof against poison occupies the prescious slot around your neck and costs 27,000, so likely only available from levels 13 or so.
Interesting, isn't it, to see how easily all those "cleric power" notions can be put back into perspective?:smallamused:


You need to go outside core to get Pounce as a monk, don't you?

I do not need to. Only in games that somehow houserule polymorph effects away.


If you need items to be competitive, think of other classes (more specifically, spellcasters), who DONT need to buy the same items (except maybe the fighter) to be competitive.

sigh. Non casters have no spells, but items which can emulate spells. Spellcasters have spells, but no way as much non-spell abilities to survive. So they get spells to emulate part of those abilities.
What is so difficult to understand about this basic balance system? You may not like it, even I do not like all of it, but it is there.


NPC casters don't roam everywhere searching for monks to buff, also.

Which is why wands and spell storing devices and scrolls and potions come in so handy. And to the npcs you go for longer-lasting spells or divination or healing.
Ah, and of course the best, which you of course hate: pc friends buffing their non-casting comrades!



Example:
Magical Weapon: Greater Magic Weapon/Fang. 4th level, lasts for a day.
Cloak of Resistance: Greater Resistance (non core, but gives even more bonus to saves than a cloak of resistance). Otherwise, he just buys it. He still saves money from buying a weapon anyway.
Magical Armor: Magic Vestment
Spell Storing Ring: Just cast the spell yourself.
Stat Boosters: Cast it, or buy the item if you really need a +2 to a stat for 36k.

Er...yes. The npc spellcaster is not of great interest to a spellcaster who can already cast those spells. Your point being?
If you just make one mental step further: This actually means that the service of npc spellcasting is disproportionately more useful to the non-casting classes.


They also counter the lack of spell slots by charging up a rod of absorption.

Yep, that is quite good.


@fendrin: The fighter can use his feats to take stuff like Weapon focus, which is good at level 1.

Yes, but still can not emulate the grapple flurry trick.

- Giacomo

Talic
2008-01-04, 04:51 AM
Giacomo is right about the flurried grapple allowing the monk to be the only class that can pin in one round.

Furthermore, nothing says you have to maintain the grapple after the first attack. Also, nothing says you can't use your flurry to grapple, release, then grapple a second opponent. If you grapple-then-release twice, a monk can out damage a first level fighter, even a greatsword weilder.

Let me explain that last comment, seeing otherwise people will really get on my case about it.

Assuming elite array, full attack available, against a typical orc warrior as presented in the Monster Manual.
A grappling monk will of course put str as one of the highest two stats (so either a 15 or a 14). The fighter would of course do the same. Both then have a str mod of +2.

The monk makes a flurried grapple attack at +0 (needing a 10+ to hit the touch AC of 10). The monk then has a +7 grapple check against the orc's +4. Assuming a success, the monk deals 1d6+2 damage.
The monk then releases the orc and does it again for a second 1d6+2 damage.
Monk Total Damage: 2d6+4
The fighter makes a single attack with their greatsword at +3 (needing a 10+ to hit the orc's AC of 13) for 2d6+3
Fighter Total Damage: 2d6+3

Also, the monk could conceivably use this technique to take out multiple orcs, which the fighter can not (or at least not without spending 2 feats on).

If people really want me to do a break down of average damage, with and/or without cleave, I will do so. (My money is on the fighter doing more damage on average, which is how it should be.)

Fallacy. You do not deal damage upon successfully entering a grapple. You may deal damage with a grapple check once you are in a grapple, but the rules for entering a grapple are thus:

Attacker declares a grapple attempt, provokes attack of opportunity.
If AoO hits, grapple fails, otherwise...
Attacker makes melee touch attack.
If touch attack misses, grapple fails, otherwise...
Attacker and defender make opposed grapple checks.
If defender wins grapple check, grapple fails, otherwise...
Attacker moves into defender's square. The two are now grappling.

Now, with flurry, the monk could then use a grapple check to deal damage, at 1D6+2. But that's neither here nor there.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 06:51 AM
Fallacy. You do not deal damage upon successfully entering a grapple.

? Noone has maintained this. A phantom fallacy?:smallamused:


You may deal damage with a grapple check once you are in a grapple, but the rules for entering a grapple are thus:

Attacker declares a grapple attempt, provokes attack of opportunity.
If AoO hits, grapple fails, otherwise...

Improved grapple feat is assumed in the above scenarios.


Attacker makes melee touch attack.
If touch attack misses, grapple fails, otherwise...

Addressed in the above scenarios. The double touch attack is which puts the monk ahead.


Attacker and defender make opposed grapple checks.
If defender wins grapple check, grapple fails, otherwise...

Against someone with the improved grapple feat, it is hard to win a grapple at that level.


Attacker moves into defender's square. The two are now grappling.

Yes. But where is the problem?


Now, with flurry, the monk could then use a grapple check to deal damage, at 1D6+2. But that's neither here nor there.

On the damage thing: I think that the greatsword fighter will do more damage than a grappling monk, so fendrin is wrong in this aspect. But the issue was where a monk could shine at first level, and grappling is where he shines and can do stuff that noone else can.
The greatsword fighter, for instance, will have a problem vs well-armoured foes - the grappling monk not. Conversely, the greatsword fighter with weapon focus, cleave and power attack can take on two foes at once, which is a problem for the grappling monk.

- Giacomo

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-04, 07:29 AM
Horseboy; As the monk sucks group says that cleric's buffing monks are less heals for the party, it seems wierd that you thinkm its ok for the cleric to cast detect poisons and neutralise poisons, which the monk can prevent.


The thing about monks is that they work solo or as a team. They don't work solo in a team, but why should they. Monk are flanking buddies, block the enemies and a few more, what can the fighter/barbarian do?

Talic
2008-01-04, 07:53 AM
? Noone has maintained this. A phantom fallacy?:smallamused:

If you read Fendrin's post, which I was responding to, he did. On a double grapple/release, with no attacks, he assumed the monk dealt 2d6+4 damage total.



Improved grapple feat is assumed in the above scenarios.

Feat choice isn't a class ability. I was listing the rules in core. Feat selection will modifiy those rules where appropriate.



Addressed in the above scenarios. The double touch attack is which puts the monk ahead.

Nope. The touch attack will deal no damage. The act of initiating a grapple does not damage.
The double touch attack, as listed above, will do exactly 0 damage. Further, it assumes a scenario where the monk chose improved grapple and the opponent did not.


Against someone with the improved grapple feat, it is hard to win a grapple at that level.

The orc, even without it, has a 34% chance. Certainly not out of the question, though the monk does have a 2 to 1 advantage... In the grapple, provided he started in full attack range for the flurry, and was not previously brained for more than his HP by a greatsword.



Yes. But where is the problem?

Where the poster assumed that 1d6+2 damage was dealt by this exchange.


On the damage thing: I think that the greatsword fighter will do more damage than a grappling monk, so fendrin is wrong in this aspect. But the issue was where a monk could shine at first level, and grappling is where he shines and can do stuff that noone else can.

Yes, the monk's disadvantages are least pronounced at level 1. Thus, he has the greatest chance of competency at this level.


The greatsword fighter, for instance, will have a problem vs well-armoured foes - the grappling monk not. Conversely, the greatsword fighter with weapon focus, cleave and power attack can take on two foes at once, which is a problem for the grappling monk.

Agreed, on both points, though small, high dex foes will give the monk more problems than the fighter. AC from size, dex, and deflection bonuses will be more easily overcome by the fighter, as they factor into touch AC as well.
[/QUOTE]

I have a proposal to lay all this to rest. Giacomo, since you seem to be championing the monk, create one. Stat array 18/18/16/16/14/14. Superior stat array.

I would like someone else to create a cleric, level 20, on a 32 point build.

A third person should create a wizard or sorceror, level 20, on a 32 point build.

A fourth person for running the creature challenges.

Allowable sources are core only. I will set up a series of challenges, without foreknowledge of any of the characters. Each character will choose all class abilities where applicable choices are to be made, including spells, bonus feat selection, and the like. WBL will be in effect, and allowed from any items in the DMG or PHB. If you choose to imbue an item with a spell that you are unable to cast, assume the cost is that of an NPC casting. Any spell with an experience point cost is prohibited, unless you've cast it yourself. If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The rules are thus.

1) No PvP. While you may interfere with other PCs indirectly, you may not attack a pc, or anything controlled by a pc, including items in possession. This applies to anything you control as well, so no summoning critters to attack PC's. For purposes of attack, it refers to anything that would break an invisibility spell. Attacks, including trip, overrun, and the like, are barred. Any harmful spell that includes a player in its AoE are barred. All creatures and objects under your control are similarly limited. Final judgement on whether or not attacks are allowed will be ruled by myself.

2) Encounters will be varied, and challenges will be diverse. Come prepared for a wide assortment of challenges.

3) You may have a full spell preparation. You will not have foreknowledge of the challenges prior to doing this.

4) There will be a creature challenge, run by a volunteer.

5) There will be at least 1 AMF or dead magic zone. It will be of a scope that requires the PC accomplish a goal inside of it.

6) Leadership is not allowed, nor are the services of NPC's, beyond pre-game casting into items. No hiring an army.


Sound fair?

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-04, 07:56 AM
Feat choice isn't a class ability. I was listing the rules in core. Feat selection will modifiy those rules where appropriate.

It is when your a monk, fighter or wizard.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 08:08 AM
Feat choice isn't a class ability. I was listing the rules in core. Feat selection will modifiy those rules where appropriate.

It is when your a monk, fighter or wizard.

The ability to choose bonus feats is a class ability for some classes, having chosen certain feats in those slots is not.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-04, 08:29 AM
Talic, I really like your idea, it was about time something like this happened, if Sir Giacomo agrees then you should make a separate recruiting topic.
I'd love to help myself, but I don't have the experience or knowledge to do such a challenge with a lvl 20 character.

BTW you should also allow a druid if whoever will be playing wants to play it and you should state clear multiclassing/prcing rules

Kesnit
2008-01-04, 08:50 AM
doesn't have the wisdom to make the ki based abilities effective,

If you Monk lacks the WIS, it's because you didn't give it to him.

One major way to reduce MAD to to reduce DEX and then pump those points into WIS. It still ups your AC, and ups the DC of your Stunning Fist. Your Reflex save is good, so you aren't losing too much.

No, Monks are not good at "stand in place and punch." They are good at "tumble back to the archer/mage that is harassing your melee types and disarm/stun them." They can tumble across and give your Rogue a flanking bonus, which allows SA damage.

As others have said, they can heal themselves. And sure, others could heal them, too, but that means 2 characters are out of the battle for a round. (The Monk, who if they are to the point of healing themselves, probably isn't in a state to still be fighting, and the character doing the healing.) It also saves the healing spells for characters who CAN'T do it themselves. (Like your poor Fighter caught in the mob.)

Many people have pointed out that Monks need houseruling to be effective, but that can go both ways. For example, my DM requires characters to pay their new level * 1000 steel (we play Dragonlance) to level up. My kender Rogue dreams of another +1 short sword (he duel wields), but the money to buy it was spent leveling him. A monk's damage capability goes up no matter what the DM does about finances.

No, a Monk is never going to replace a Fighter or a Rogue. But they can support other classes to allow those classes to do what they do best.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 08:57 AM
No, Monks are not good at "stand in place and punch." They are good at "tumble back to the archer/mage that is harassing your melee types and disarm/stun them." They can tumble across and give your Rogue a flanking bonus, which allows SA damage.

So would you agree then that Flurry of Blows is basically pointless, if the monk's niche is in not getting full attacks?


Many people have pointed out that Monks need houseruling to be effective, but that can go both ways. For example, my DM requires characters to pay their new level * 1000 steel (we play Dragonlance) to level up. My kender Rogue dreams of another +1 short sword (he duel wields), but the money to buy it was spent leveling him. A monk's damage capability goes up no matter what the DM does about finances.

That doesn't really make any sense. The DM there is playing with a houserule. Under this houserule, most classes are penalized, but monks don't feel it. That's not a counterexample to "monks require houseruling to be effective".

Solo
2008-01-04, 09:00 AM
I
I have a proposal to lay all this to rest. Giacomo, since you seem to be championing the monk, create one. Stat array 18/18/16/16/14/14. Superior stat array.

I would like someone else to create a cleric, level 20, on a 32 point build.

A third person should create a wizard or sorceror, level 20, on a 32 point build.

A fourth person for running the creature challenges.

Allowable sources are core only. I will set up a series of challenges, without foreknowledge of any of the characters. Each character will choose all class abilities where applicable choices are to be made, including spells, bonus feat selection, and the like. WBL will be in effect, and allowed from any items in the DMG or PHB. If you choose to imbue an item with a spell that you are unable to cast, assume the cost is that of an NPC casting. Any spell with an experience point cost is prohibited, unless you've cast it yourself. If you are a wizard and want additional spells on your list, buy the scrolls.

The rules are thus.

1) No PvP. While you may interfere with other PCs indirectly, you may not attack a pc, or anything controlled by a pc, including items in possession. This applies to anything you control as well, so no summoning critters to attack PC's. For purposes of attack, it refers to anything that would break an invisibility spell. Attacks, including trip, overrun, and the like, are barred. Any harmful spell that includes a player in its AoE are barred. All creatures and objects under your control are similarly limited. Final judgement on whether or not attacks are allowed will be ruled by myself.

2) Encounters will be varied, and challenges will be diverse. Come prepared for a wide assortment of challenges.

3) You may have a full spell preparation. You will not have foreknowledge of the challenges prior to doing this.

4) There will be a creature challenge, run by a volunteer.

5) There will be at least 1 AMF or dead magic zone. It will be of a scope that requires the PC accomplish a goal inside of it.

6) Leadership is not allowed, nor are the services of NPC's, beyond pre-game casting into items. No hiring an army.

Sound fair?

What level?

I'm up for either a cleric, wizard, or sorcerer.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-04, 09:03 AM
^ He said level 20.

Solo
2008-01-04, 09:04 AM
Sweetness.

Ne0
2008-01-04, 09:08 AM
Umm...Talic, you might want to stay within melee classes. The discussion is not 'monks are the best class', it's 'monks do not suck'. No melee class can beat a CoDzilla or a batman. How about rogue, fighter and monk?

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-04, 09:11 AM
Why level 20? Level 20 has the problem of hugely inflated WBL. I'd suggest, again, 15 or so to be more representative of high-level play.

Kesnit
2008-01-04, 09:12 AM
So would you agree then that Flurry of Blows is basically pointless, if the monk's niche is in not getting full attacks?

No. I meant that Monks are at a disadvantage when surrounded by a mob because they have less HP than a Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian. They can get a full attack one round, then move elsewhere and not get a full attack, then get another full attack.


That doesn't really make any sense. The DM there is playing with a houserule. Under this houserule, most classes are penalized, but monks don't feel it. That's not a counterexample to "monks require houseruling to be effective".

The houserules others were bringing up were ones designed specifically to benefit a Monk. I was pointing out a houserule that gimps everyone - and makes Monks powerful (when so many people think they aren't).

In medium- to high-magic settings with unlimited splat books, Monks are at a disadvantage. But when ToB isn't allowed and the +2/+3 weapons and armor and belts of giant strength/agility are unaffordable, Monks become a lot more useful.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 09:23 AM
In medium- to high-magic settings with unlimited splat books, Monks are at a disadvantage. But when ToB isn't allowed and the +2/+3 weapons and armor and belts of giant strength/agility are unaffordable, Monks become a lot more useful.

Having access to +X weapons at the appropriate level isn't a matter of "unlimited splatbooks", it's the default assumption of the core game. In essence what you're saying is "if it's houseruled that other classes have a harder time getting the tools they rely on, monks will become relatively stronger". Which is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether they're any good without houseruling designed to selectively strengthen them or selectively weaken others.

Solo
2008-01-04, 09:28 AM
Why level 20? Level 20 has the problem of hugely inflated WBL. I'd suggest, again, 15 or so to be more representative of high-level play.

What is WBL for level 20 again? Can't be that high.... or do I remember incorrectly?

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-04, 09:29 AM
Having access to +X weapons at the appropriate level isn't a matter of "unlimited splatbooks", it's the default assumption of the core game. In essence what you're saying is "if it's houseruled that other classes have a harder time getting the tools they rely on, monks will become relatively stronger". Which is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether they're any good without houseruling designed to selectively strengthen them or selectively weaken others.

Also, isn't it assumed that Monks will need to buy special monk gloves and such later on, which are invariably more expensive than the equivalent normal weapon? Or armor bracers and such which cost loads more than the equivalent armor+shield.

fendrin
2008-01-04, 09:49 AM
I'm a bit leery with that combo. It falls flat on it's face (strangely :smallwink:, a phrase that is always used in association with D&D monks) when used against any full and some 3/4 BAB classes in the 7-8 level range and to begin with it requires the monk to succeed with 2 rolls before they can deal damage. Also, the monk isn't even the best grappling class at 1st level.
The OP was talking about level 1, my example was level 1.
On the other hand, I had a character once who played a grappling monk from levels 6 to 8, and had no difficulty whatsoever. Granted, I was using some non-core material, and he made very sound mechanical choices to optimize it. At one point he grappled a dragon.


A 1st level human psychic warrior can easily out-grapple a 1st level monk. Expansion, Grip of Iron, a +2 modifier to strength with Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Grapple as feats gives him a +15 modifier for grappling vs the monks +6. I do know that psychic warriors aren't core but if you want a grapple build, look there instead.Expansion and Grip of Iron are only 1 round/level. That makes the grappling PsyWar a one-shot, brief contender. Then it is back to being inferior, because it can't flurry.


Fallacy. You do not deal damage upon successfully entering a grapple.

Incorrect.



Starting a Grapple

To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).

Step 1
Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2.

Step 2
Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target. If you fail to hit the target, the grapple attempt fails. If you succeed, proceed to Step 3.

Step 3
Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action.

If you succeed, you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike.

If you lose, you fail to start the grapple. You automatically lose an attempt to hold if the target is two or more size categories larger than you are.

In case of a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to break the tie.

Step 4
Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space. (This movement is free and doesn’t count as part of your movement in the round.)

Moving, as normal, provokes attacks of opportunity from threatening opponents, but not from your target.

If you can’t move into your target’s space, you can’t maintain the grapple and must immediately let go of the target. To grapple again, you must begin at Step 1.

Note the bold, red portion. It happens in step 3, which is the free action grapple check. Step 4 is the optional "maintain" step, in which you move into the opponent's square.


@fendrin: The fighter can use his feats to take stuff like Weapon focus, which is good at level 1.

The monk still gets his level 1 feat as well. Weapon Focus is a good choice for monks as well, arguably better for the monk than for the fighter, as the monk can rely on always using unarmed strikes.


Why level 20? Level 20 has the problem of hugely inflated WBL. I'd suggest, again, 15 or so to be more representative of high-level play.

Why high level at all? The OP was about level 1. Set up a level 1 challenge and I'll take on all (core) comers.

Solo
2008-01-04, 09:50 AM
Mmm... I'm up for level one as well.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-04, 09:53 AM
I'd do a level 1 core barbarian, if we want a fellow meleer.

Solo
2008-01-04, 09:56 AM
I've got a lvl 20 Sorcerer (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511) ready. I can make a lvl 1 character easily if need be.

Kesnit
2008-01-04, 10:09 AM
Having access to +X weapons at the appropriate level isn't a matter of "unlimited splatbooks",

By "unlimited splatbooks," I was refering to ToB, though I have seen other builds using various books that people have said do a Monk's "job" better than a Monk.


it's the default assumption of the core game. In essence what you're saying is "if it's houseruled that other classes have a harder time getting the tools they rely on, monks will become relatively stronger". Which is true, but irrelevant to the question of whether they're any good without houseruling designed to selectively strengthen them or selectively weaken others.

Not really.

Equiping a character with WBL requires a lot of compromise until you get to high levels. Saying "Well, a STR 26 Half-Orc Barbarian/Frenzied Berzerker with a +2 Flaming Shocking Greatsword can outdamage a Monk of the same level," is no doubt true, but the question comes up "Can your Barbarian/Frenzied Berzerker afford that sword? Or, if it can afford the sword, can it afford armor, strength boosting gear, constitution boosting gear, and healing potions?" (I aknowledge the sword - it costs the entire WBL for a 9th level character - is an extreme example, but it makes the point.)

Monks are a lot less dependent on equiptment. For the cost of the sword I mentioned above, a Monk can raise their AB, damage, AC, Stunning Fist DC, and Will save by 2 each (+4 Belt of Giant Strength and +4 Perapt of Wisdom.) All the Barbarian does is raise their AB by 2 and damage by an average of about 8, with no change to AC, saves, and extra effects.

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-04, 10:20 AM
Monks are a lot less dependent on equiptment.

I could swear this was debunked countless times, for example somewhere in
this age-old thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45165&highlight=monks).

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 10:22 AM
By "unlimited splatbooks," I was refering to ToB, though I have seen other builds using various books that people have said do a Monk's "job" better than a Monk.

Okay. People were saying monks sucked before ToB came along, and still say they suck compared to non-ToB classes, though. In any case, this has nothing to do with the affordability of equipment. Please recognize that the "medium-to-high magic setting" you say works against monks is the default assumption of the game.


Not really.

Equiping a character with WBL requires a lot of compromise until you get to high levels. Saying "Well, a STR 26 Half-Orc Barbarian/Frenzied Berzerker with a +2 Flaming Shocking Greatsword can outdamage a Monk of the same level," is no doubt true, but the question comes up "Can your Barbarian/Frenzied Berzerker afford that sword? Or, if it can afford the sword, can it afford armor, strength boosting gear, constitution boosting gear, and healing potions?" (I aknowledge the sword - it costs the entire WBL for a 9th level character - is an extreme example, but it makes the point.)

Monks are a lot less dependent on equiptment. For the cost of the sword I mentioned above, a Monk can raise their AB, damage, AC, Stunning Fist DC, and Will save by 2 each (+4 Belt of Giant Strength and +4 Perapt of Wisdom.) All the Barbarian does is raise their AB by 2 and damage by an average of about 8, with no change to AC, saves, and extra effects.

But this has nothing to do with the example you gave. In that example, characters had to divert WBL into the act of leveling itself, and thus were behind WBL on their weapons. This is a houserule. If you find it makes monks relatively stronger in a game where it's present, that does not make monks less weak in a core game without it, because it is a houserule. It obviously does not serves as a counterexample to "you need houserules to make monks effective".

I should also point out that you're creating something of a strawman there in claiming, more or less, that any build presented as better than an equal-level monk is in fact cheating on WBL. The argument is not that a barbarian with a greataxe costing all his gold is better than his monk buddy, it's that a barbarian with sensibly-spent WBL as per the guidelines in the core game is.

Jayabalard
2008-01-04, 10:25 AM
Having access to +X weapons at the appropriate level isn't a matter of "unlimited splatbooks", it's the default assumption of the core game. as long as you're playing with medium or high magic...

lots of people play D&D with low magic; it's not very good at it, and there are many systems that do it better, but people still do it.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 10:32 AM
as long as you're playing with medium or high magic...

lots of people play D&D with low magic; it's not very good at it, and there are many systems that do it better, but people still do it.

Because mid- to high-magic is the default assumption, as I said. If you play low-magic, balance will be affected. This might make monks more or less relatively capable, but doesn't change how capable they are under the game's defaults.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-04, 11:20 AM
Umm...Talic, you might want to stay within melee classes. The discussion is not 'monks are the best class', it's 'monks do not suck'. No melee class can beat a CoDzilla or a batman. How about rogue, fighter and monk?

Also, you should probably rule out Diplomancy and Polymorph, and possibly UMD as a whole - otherwise it becomes a contest of "who can emulate the casters best".

And also, this needs some restriction on one-use or charged items, otherwise a certain person is going to spend 20% of his WBL on things that only work in one encounter.

Also also also, one person's common tactic is deliberately blinding the entire party so as to cancel out the fact that the other characters are more effective; this should arguably count as PvP.

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-04, 11:33 AM
Also also also, one person's common tactic is deliberately blinding the entire party so as to cancel out the fact that the other characters are more effective; this should arguably count as PvP.

See this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3368225&highlight=bottle+optimized+party#post3368225) for details.

Kesnit
2008-01-04, 11:51 AM
Okay. People were saying monks sucked before ToB came along, and still say they suck compared to non-ToB classes, though.

If you try to make them into a Fighter or a Rogue, yes, they suck. If you play up to their advantages (saves, SR, speed, high damage and AC with less required equipment), they do fine.


I should also point out that you're creating something of a strawman there in claiming, more or less, that any build presented as better than an equal-level monk is in fact cheating on WBL.

I never said the Barbarian is cheating on WBL or that the Monk is not. I said Monks can make better use of their WBL because the can focus on fewer items.

The Barbarian needs a weapon, armor, something to boost strength and constitution, and healing potions (for those times where the cleric can't get to you. Most healing spells are touch, after all).

The Monk can get by with strength and wisdom boosters, meaning he can put more into those items. (Say, a +4 Perapt of Wisdom instead of a +2.)

The Barbarian has to spread his WBL out to cover more things, meaning no one thing he can buy is as effective as something the Monk can buy.

But again, trying to make a Monk play like a Barbarian is going to make the Monk very underpowered.

Also, I should admit that I am looking at this at lower levels (never having played a Monk above 15, and with a different DM than I am with now). Perhaps at higher levels, Monks do suck.

fendrin
2008-01-04, 11:56 AM
See this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3368225&highlight=bottle+optimized+party#post3368225) for details.

All the more reason to hold this at level 1 instead of high level. Too much other stuff at high level. It becomes about tweaking the system rather than the core capability of the class.

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 12:01 PM
I never said the Barbarian is cheating on WBL or that the Monk is not. I said Monks can make better use of their WBL because the can focus on fewer items.

You went from saying that Monks do better in a game where everyone has reduced WBL, to saying that when people put together builds to highlight the weakness of monks that they give themselves items they can't or can only barely afford under normal WBL. Now apparently you're saying that entirely reasonable equipment buys under WBL for both monk and Class X result in balanced characters. Which of these three claims do you want to actually defend?


If you try to make them into a Fighter or a Rogue, yes, they suck. If you play up to their advantages (saves, SR, speed, high damage and AC with less required equipment), they do fine.

...

The Barbarian needs a weapon, armor, something to boost strength and constitution, and healing potions (for those times where the cleric can't get to you. Most healing spells are touch, after all).

The Monk can get by with strength and wisdom boosters, meaning he can put more into those items. (Say, a +4 Perapt of Wisdom instead of a +2.)

The Barbarian has to spread his WBL out to cover more things, meaning no one thing he can buy is as effective as something the Monk can buy.

But again, trying to make a Monk play like a Barbarian is going to make the Monk very underpowered.

Also, I should admit that I am looking at this at lower levels (never having played a Monk above 15, and with a different DM than I am with now). Perhaps at higher levels, Monks do suck.

Okay, so you seem to have totally abandoned the WBL issue except to say that monks can make better use of theirs via stat boosters and the like. This is a separate claim from the one I initially took issue with and I have no interest in contesting it as it's the same one that's been thrashed out on these boards umpteen times.

My beef with your original example was that you were citing a houserule which weakened all classes, but monk less than others, as an example of how you didn't need houserules to make monks effective. If you're no longer trying to defend that example, can I take it you recognize it as invalid?

new1965
2008-01-04, 12:03 PM
Oh no, new1965!

You should not give in to monk-haters so easily...after all the good resistance you put up..:smallbiggrin:


Oh I didnt give up.

It just clicked that the monk-haters simply refuse to see the difference between a character class not being optimal for the way THEY want to play the game and not being useful at all. Their mobility makes skirmishing and support are the monks best roles and not as the "straight" fighter that they keep making comparisons to. Even the 4 way fight that was planned later is almost predestined to be a straight up fight

Once I realized that there was no way to have a real discussion with them on the topic, I went on to more interesting things

kamikasei
2008-01-04, 12:10 PM
It just clicked that the monk-haters simply refuse to see the difference between a character class not being optimal for the way THEY want to play the game and not being useful at all. Their mobility makes skirmishing and support are the monks best roles and not as the "straight" fighter that they keep making comparisons to. Even the 4 way fight that was planned later is almost predestined to be a straight up fight

This is misleading.

If a class is to be worthwhile it should fit in to an adventuring party. If it's supposed to get in to melee then it will be compared to Fighters and Rogues. Whatever its "style" if it can't do the job of damaging or disabling opponents, bypassing hazards, or protecting the rest of the party as well as either of those then it doesn't really have much of a niche. If it has a "style" that makes it good at something outside of the encounters that are at the heart of play then it has to tread very carefully to avoid being annoying as hell to the rest of the players for being useless when they're together and soaking up play time going off on its own.

Ne0
2008-01-04, 12:34 PM
This is misleading.

If a class is to be worthwhile it should fit in to an adventuring party. If it's supposed to get in to melee then it will be compared to Fighters and Rogues. Whatever its "style" if it can't do the job of damaging or disabling opponents, bypassing hazards, or protecting the rest of the party as well as either of those then it doesn't really have much of a niche. If it has a "style" that makes it good at something outside of the encounters that are at the heart of play then it has to tread very carefully to avoid being annoying as hell to the rest of the players for being useless when they're together and soaking up play time going off on its own.

I've found the 'monks with class' article a good description on the monk's abilities. The monk doesn't have a niche, but it's a pretty good choice for a 5th party member - well, apart from an extra wizard or cleric, but having some diversity in the party is nice in RP.
A monk can partially be a:
- Scout (good movement, saves, spot and listen as class skills)
- A combat supporter (SF, FoB)
- A source of healing (Wholeness of body and healing as a class skill helps when the opponent suddenly grows intelligent and drops your cleric's hit points below zero)
- A flanking pal (Tumble)
- A helping hand for your arcane caster or archer when the enemy gets too close (movement)

And then, there's a good deal of handy non-combat abilities, such as the tongue of the sun and moon. Although I'll admit that after 13th level, there's not much good stuff left.

new1965
2008-01-04, 12:37 PM
This is misleading.

If a class is to be worthwhile it should fit in to an adventuring party. If it's supposed to get in to melee then it will be compared to Fighters and Rogues. Whatever its "style" if it can't do the job of damaging or disabling opponents, bypassing hazards, or protecting the rest of the party as well as either of those then it doesn't really have much of a niche. If it has a "style" that makes it good at something outside of the encounters that are at the heart of play then it has to tread very carefully to avoid being annoying as hell to the rest of the players for being useless when they're together and soaking up play time going off on its own.

You made my point for me. Thats they way YOU play and see other contributions as useless.

Scouting ahead, setting up enemies for others, generally being a pain to the enemy in combat by skirmishing/flanking and not getting killed in the process are easily equally important to me

One of our monks best moments was when he snuck into town and got a couple of guards to chase him after a brief tussle. He ran past a nearby guard station screaming like a lunatic and got some of them to follow him as well. They couldn't catch him and he ran to a bottle neck where the wizard was waiting and she fireballed the guards in one shot.

The monk didnt do a SINGLE thing that you mentioned but still contributed, made the upcoming combats for the other character easier, and added to a very FUN moment to the campaign

new1965
2008-01-04, 12:40 PM
The monk doesn't have a niche, but it's a pretty good choice for a 5th party member - well, apart from an extra wizard or cleric, but having some diversity in the party is nice in RP.

Thanks... i had been saying that same thing exact thing for a while . Nice to know that someone gets it

Kurald Galain
2008-01-04, 12:57 PM
If you play up to their advantages (saves, SR, speed, high damage and AC with less required equipment), they do fine.
"High damage" is not an advantage of the monk (he is outdamaged by every single other melee class), and nor is "with less equipment".


The Barbarian needs a weapon, armor, something to boost strength and constitution, and healing potions (for those times where the cleric can't get to you. Most healing spells are touch, after all).

The Monk can get by with strength and wisdom boosters, meaning he can put more into those items. (Say, a +4 Perapt of Wisdom instead of a +2.)
It's amazing how that statement is almost completely backwards. The barbarian needs to boost strength, and that's basically all, as he already has a good fort save and great hit dice. The monk, on the other hand, must boost strength and dex to be effective in combat, con to make up for his subpar hit die, and wis to use his class abilities. Ironically, most "pro-monk" people suggest that a monk also needs many skill points (hence, high int) and want it to use charisma skills. That means, what, 80-point buy?



But again, trying to make a Monk play like a Barbarian is going to make the Monk very underpowered.
Precisely. It boggles the mind, then, why people keep asserting the monk is good at frontlining, doing damage, or killing caster types, all of which are the barbarian's job, and all of which the monk does an extremely poor job at.



It just clicked that the monk-haters simply refuse to see the difference between a character class not being optimal for the way THEY want to play the game and not being useful at all.
It's also amazing how that statement is completely backwards. There's a handful of people who like playing monks and claim, based on their liking it, that it is therefore a strong class. The whole debate is a matter of opinion ("i liek monks!!1!!") vs fact ("monks are mechanically the weakest PHB class").



Their mobility makes skirmishing and support are the monks best roles and not as the "straight" fighter that they keep making comparisons to.
Mobility means no full attacks.
"Support" means, what, being a flanking buddy? Any class can do that.



A monk can partially be a:
- Scout (good movement, saves, spot and listen as class skills)
Unfortunately, rogues, druids, rangers and wizards all make better scouts.



- A combat supporter (SF, FoB)
Unfortunately, bards, clerics, rogues and warlocks all make better combat supporters.



- A source of healing (Wholeness of body and healing as a class skill helps when the opponent suddenly grows intelligent and drops your cleric's hit points below zero)
That is total nonsense. Wholeness of body only works on yourself, and the heal skill doesn't do much other than stabilize. Compare this to rangers, paladins, druids, clerics, and bards, all of which can actually heal.



- A flanking pal (Tumble)
Yeah, every commoner and their pet dog can be a flanking pal.



- A helping hand for your arcane caster or archer when the enemy gets too close (movement)
Any decent caster can take care of himself better than that monk - and any decent archer has a back up weapon. Drop bow, quickdraw sword, hit enemy.



And then, there's a good deal of handy non-combat abilities, such as the tongue of the sun and moon.
Unfortunately, that single ability is the full extent of their "handy" non-combat abilities. And it's level thirteen, while comprehend languages is available many levels earlier.

So yeah, a monk is about as useful as a "fifth man" as an Expert. Of course, having more people is always better than having fewer people, but instead of using a monk one could, you know, use a class that can actually make a meaningful contribution.

Ne0
2008-01-04, 01:04 PM
Note that most of the classes you've named can not best the monk at all things. Apart from a wizard, but you can practically replicate ANY class if you just look for the right spells.
And a commoner doesn't have tumble on his class list, nor can he, oh, dimension door once per day.

Solo
2008-01-04, 01:11 PM
Note that most of the classes you've named can not best the monk at all things. Apart from a wizard, but you can practically replicate ANY class if you just look for the right spells.
And a commoner doesn't have tumble on his class list, nor can he, oh, dimension door once per day.

Well, if the commoner took levels in Human Paragon and maxed out UMD....


Umm...Talic, you might want to stay within melee classes. The discussion is not 'monks are the best class', it's 'monks do not suck'. No melee class can beat a CoDzilla or a batman. How about rogue, fighter and monk?

Nah, core's remarkably balanced, remember?

Kurald Galain
2008-01-04, 01:21 PM
Note that most of the classes you've named can not best the monk at all things. Apart from a wizard, but you can practically replicate ANY class if you just look for the right spells.
Okay, let me paraphrase that, "rogues, druids, rangers and wizards all make better scouts" ''while simultaneously being a better combatant, both prime and support, than the monk''.

"bards, clerics, rogues and warlocks all make better combat supporters" ''while simultaneously being a better attackers AS WELL AS scouts, than the monk''.

That "healing" argument was irrelevant since monks can't actually heal in any meaningful way.


And a commoner doesn't have tumble on his class list, nor can he, oh, dimension door once per day.
But the expert can.
I agree that the monk is a better flank buddy than the commoner. But every other PHB class is a better flank buddy than the monk, because they can be productive in combat in more ways than just flanking. If the best thing you can say about a class is that it's "better than a commoner", that's pretty much the definition of a sucky class.

horseboy
2008-01-04, 01:22 PM
As for what Armads and horseboy wrote - that was pretty much useless. Starting to twist what I wrote to not admit you're wrong...that is really something.

But I'll try to correct the worst.
I really feel the need to quote Samuel L Jackson, but the quote wouldn't pass the profanity filter.



Yes. Same as a non-caster who has to take a feat or a skill to get something achieved. Spellcasting is a "player gets all served on a silver platter" in your games maybe, and you may like it this way, but it is not in the rules. Sorry to wake you up to rules reality.You completely miss the point. The point is not that the magic-user has to take Knowledge: Nature to use polymorph effectively. It's that the magic-user has to be built to make the monk useful. You're no longer playing your concept. You're playing Brain to the monk's Inspector Gadget.


You mean the sneak attack that is more difficult to deliver in a large/huge form? Or do you wish to send the rogue to his death with his d6 hp in melee combat? Pls. It has already been shown in a different thread that the monk makes most use out of polymorph. You may still refuse to accept that, but it is not fair just maintaining stuff here as if it has never been discussed. Heck, in core it is even the only class which at 20th level can also change through morph into outsiders.I don't remember anything being settled about that. I know you rambled on about it, but nobody believed you.


No, with better movement and great defenses he sure cannot (:smallamused: )Better movement won't let him flurry. And he only has medium to average defenses against a great sword.


Ah, you are comparing a ranged spell to combat ability that was originally discussed? Wow. And for your information: hold person allows a SR, stun does not.Yes, the SR takes the place of the touch attack. One of the few times that shows some pretense to a balance.


You can call those feats whatever you like, it could be even feats that do "monk can add +1 to grapple 1/year", it would still be superior to all bonus combat feats the cleric gets (zero).Yes, monks get bonus feats. However, they're of questionable use, especially to a cleric. As you yourself point out each class plays differently. The cleric with his feats are still more effective than the monk, even with his bonus feats.


Which adds up to: better saves! And who is doing sophistry here?Gia, saves is plural. Save is singular. "Better saves" implies that it is better in multiple areas, which it is not. It has "a better [reflex] save." Once again, Samuel L Jackson quote.


Hints: cleric needs time to cast spell on non-resistant characters. Poison already had a damaging effect before cleric cast neutralize poison. Cleric may even not have spell prepared/ready.

Horseboy; As the monk sucks group says that cleric's buffing monks are less heals for the party, it seems weird that you think its okay for the cleric to cast detect poisons and neutralize poisons, which the monk can prevent.I'll grab you both at once. The cleric doesn't cast Neutralize poison on the person after they've been poisoned, he casts it on the thing that's poisonous. You know, like the "giant, scaly beast with venom dripping from it's fangs."


Yes, the highest SR available to core non-epic characters is truly a pittance.:smallamused: (and I do not wish to include the temporary, dispellable 1min/lvl cleric spell resistance spell here)Not going into spells, but it does beg the question, just how useful in a day to day sort of function is it? Given how easy SR is to bypass at 15th level from anything "level appropriate" you'd face. If it was that useful then people would say it's useful.


Who ever said that the npcs are "following around" all the time? Not me. You invent stuff to not admit that you are wrong. In order for you to always have the spells you need when you need it for the monk to be anything more than a flank buddy, then your caster has to follow him around.


Has no character you ever played ever bought a spellcasting from an npc?No.

I may do it in new, unusual ways you have not yet thought about- but why then go through the roof about it?Because you're saying this class is so great, but in order for it to be even useful it's got to have all this support from all the other classes. Yes, if you jump through all these counter-intuitive, convoluted hoops, you can get some use out of the monk. With less effort, you can turn a magic-user into Batman and be even stronger. The effort to reward ratio just isn't there.


I think that is the most useless part of your comment, but it has strong contenders :smallsmile: It is also a summation of your stance. It's as equally silly.


I only argue non-core when someone brings up non-core. Pounce can be easily also taken in core through polymorph that you likely hate for this reason.It's not what I think of polymorph thats valid, it's what the DM thinks of polymorph that counts.


But the monk fights differently. You may have noticed the different class description and abilities compared to the full BAB classes...I cannot help you, though, if you have not figured it out by now. What you want is a monk that uses the same tactics as, say, the barbarian or fighter. And strangely enough, the monk "comes in last" in this comparison! Wow, what an insight!What I would want for/from the monk is for a valid tactic. "I run up, slap it, then bravely run away." is not a valid tactic. Changing flurry to a standard action instead of a full round action would be a great start. However, that would mean that your precious WotC screwed up yet again, and we can't have that now, eh?


No, it is just fine. You simply do not like it, which is different.Wow, just wow. It's painful how much logic eludes you.


Oh, they do not have to earn your respect. The mere fact that we are discussing THEIR innovation here shows already some grudging respect you have and that 3.x did not "fail".:smallsmile: So, in your world, discussing how badly somebody screwed up shows "grudging respect"? Let's hope for your sake your boss agrees.


What is the monk supposed to do in your opinion?Play a better system.Kit'et'eretck Vastral Jiltra Sesslakai
K'stulaami Tail Dancer Circle: 4
Height: 5'11" Weight: 190 Age: 20 Eyes: Blue

Physical Description: Thin build, Single Crested. His main coloration is a Russet reddish-gold with sky blue spots.

DEX: 16 7/d12 * Defenses: Armour: Weight Movement:
STR: 16 7/d12 * Physical: 9 Physical: 6 Lift : 160 Combat: 32
TOU: 15 6/d10 Spell: 9 Mystic: 5 Carry: 320 Full: 64
PER: 11 5/d8 Socal: 11
WIL: 10 5/d8 Unconscious: 54 Death: 66 Wound: 10
CHA: 16 7/d12 * Initiative: 5/d8 Blood: 4

Racial: Karma: Current: 25 Max 25 Dice: d6
Tail Attack d12

Circle 1
Acrobatic Strike: Disc 4/7/11 d10+d8 Strain: 1
Karma Ritual: 4
Melee Weapon: Disc Action 4/7/11 d10+d8
Gliding: Disc 4/7/11 d10+d8
Unarmed Combat: Disc Action 4/7/11 d10+d8
Avoid Blow: 4/7/11 d10+d8 Strain: 1
Circle 2
Durability: 4
Maneuver: Action 4/7/11 d1+d8
Taunt 4/7/11 d10+d8
Circle 3
Tail Dance: Disc 4/7/11 d10+d8 Strain: 1
Air Dance: 4/7/9 d8+d6 Strain: 1
Circle 4
Tail Weaving: Disc 4/7/11 d10+d8
Winning Smile 4/7/11 d10+d8

Skills:
Botany: 1/5/6 d10
Climbing: 2/7/9 d8+d6
Etiquette: 2/7/9 d8+d6
Flirting: 2/7/9 d8+d6
Flower Arrangement 3/7/10 d10+d6 (Artisan)
Politics: 1/5/6 d10
Read/Write Language: 1/5/6 d10 (Thoralic)
Speak Language: 3/5/9 d8+d6 (Thoralic, T'skrang, K'stulaami)
Swimming: 1/7/8 2d6
Conversation: 1/7/8 2d6





I know it is hard to accept that a single AMF spell brings down your notion of complete "CASTER RULES" down like a house of cards. Everything that brings that down is of "course" useless. To casters. Not for the monk.I was talking about grappling. Really, how are you going to be grappling dragons, giants, ghosts things that go ethereal at will and other level appropriate encounters? Grappling is tripping's "special" little brother. I've been through these.


Experts with flurry? Where have I ever used that? Or do you mean in a metaphorical sense? That I defend monks which can be considered as mere experts with flurry? You should write more clearly lest occasional readers think "Giacomo? That strange guy who believes there is an expert class in the core rules with flurry?"Yeah, I should have been more clear for those that are just now tuning in. Giacomo's monks always involve maxed out cross-classed ranks in Spellcraft, Use Magical Device and similar skills. Then talks about how after using said skills he flurries. If you could find a feat that gave flurry to an expert you'd have a better Giacomo's monk than Giacomo's monk.

Hmmm. Are 2 skill points/level and free choice of class skills superior to all the monk class abilities? (thinks for a second) No.Superior, possibly not in their narrowly defined areas. Is the expert more useful in more areas of play than monk? Oh yes.


Yes, life is full of tough choices, isn't it? Ahh...the MAD myth...my favorite monk myth.Yes, MAD is just a myth for Schroeder's monk.

Because, you know, fighters just LOVE those ability penalties/weaker stats in other abilities when they put a 16 in STR! As do rogues, barbarians or what have you.And fighters and barbarians aren't trying to be a wizard through their cross-classed UMD skill. So, yeah the board is replete with threads about them dumping CHA stat.


Ah, a short foray into non-core material, but no problem. You see, comparing those feats to other feats was never the issue. Horseboy's great idea was to say that the cleric is the same in combat as the monk due to the 3/4 BAB. Which I then mildly corrected pointing out the bonus feats a monk has. As I already said, it does not matter what those combat bonus feats are- they merely need to exist to create superiority in combat for the monk. OF COURSE the cleric then can use buff spells (which the monk as we all now know also has access to for decisive battles), but featwise the cleric is always behind the monk, no way aguing around that.
The point is that those feats are only of questionable use for so many levels. Afterwards, they're just taking up space on the character sheet.


The cleric does not have a better fortitude and will save, since
- the monk has more cash to spend since his class abilities already cover many magic items that he no longer needs.LOL!


- WIS is quite often the main stat of the monk as well.Too bad he spent his 16 on STR instead of WIS, or is this Schroedinger's Monk again?

The cleric COULD get ahead for a while with craft magic items, but at higher levels the monk can get even with the main bonus to spells: ability scores and resistance bonuses.
OK, for this reason I'll adjust my original comment to: the monk is ahead in a BASE saves.
Fixed that for you.


sigh. Non casters have no spells, but items which can emulate spells. Spellcasters have spells, but no way as much non-spell abilities to survive. So they get spells to emulate part of those abilities.
What is so difficult to understand about this basic balance system? You may not like it, even I do not like all of it, but it is there.Because if that was the intent to the balance, then all classes would have UMD as a class skill.


Which is why wands and spell storing devices and scrolls and potions come in so handy. See above.


The thing about monks is that they work solo or as a team. They don't work solo in a team, but why should they.If they can't work solo in a team, then how do they work solo? It's not that everything needs to work solo, but that everyone needs to be able to pull their own weight. The monk doesn't really do that. He HAS to be held on the rest of the party's shoulders so that he can do anything.

Monk are flanking buddies, block the enemies and a few more, what can the fighter/barbarian do?
Power attack, range trip, carry the treasure chest. The fighter/Barb isn't in much better shape. They're more useful in lower levels, and arguably for a couple of levels more than the monk, then, well, you're just kinda there.

Solo
2008-01-04, 01:30 PM
SG, how is monk MAD a myth?

He needs Str, for melee, Dex for AC, Wis for AC and DC (and charging), and Con for HP.

That's four stats, five if you include Int for more skill points.

Or does he just pimp himself up with magic items?

Ne0
2008-01-04, 01:40 PM
Okay, let me paraphrase that, "rogues, druids, rangers and wizards all make better scouts" ''while simultaneously being a better combatant, both prime and support, than the monk''.

"bards, clerics, rogues and warlocks all make better combat supporters" ''while simultaneously being a better attackers AS WELL AS scouts, than the monk''.

Yeah, at high levels, where casting=win. At 3rd, level? Not so much...The rogue is a better scout, because that's his niche (Trap sense and such). And at those levels, casters that haven't been seriously optimised can also have it's weak points (HP, for instance).



But the expert can.

Yay, he's got tumble (UMD aside, because 'he found scroll with spell X on it is a bit of a misleading argument)...With a d6 hitdie, and one good save? Well, the monk can at least say he's more durable...

I agree that the monk is a better flank buddy than the commoner. But every other PHB class is a better flank buddy than the monk, because they can be productive in combat in more ways than just flanking. If the best thing you can say about a class is that it's "better than a commoner", that's pretty much the definition of a sucky class.

So a summary of our discussion:
Kurald: Commoners are better flankers than monks.
Ne0: No, they're not.
Kural: Yeah, but that's a ridiculous argument. Is that the best thing you can say?

@ Solo:
It's probably not the best remedy, but when I'm low on stats, I take intuitive attack, and pump my Wis and Con, and perhaps a bit Dex. And actually, now I think about it, having two stats to pump instead of 1 for AC, makes magic items cost lower. For instance:
Gloves of dexterity +6: 36,000 gp
Gloves of dexterity +4 + Periapt of Wisdom +4: 32,000 gp
So 4,000 gp to spare, for an extra +2 to AC. Not bad, I'd say, but I'm not an extensive optimiser. :smallsmile:

horseboy
2008-01-04, 01:49 PM
SG, how is monk MAD a myth?

He needs Str, for melee, Dex for AC, Wis for AC and DC (and charging), and Con for HP.

That's four stats, five if you include Int for more skill points.

Or does he just pimp himself up with magic items?

You left out CHA for UMD and Diplomancy.

Ne0
2008-01-04, 01:52 PM
You left out CHA for UMD and Diplomancy.

Usually, there's other people around for that. You could just as well say that a fighter needs to pump those. Just because Diplomacy is a class skill, doesn't mean it has to be maxed out.

Solo
2008-01-04, 01:53 PM
You left out CHA for UMD and Diplomancy.

Most monks don't invest in UMD.... unless they're Giacomio's Monk with item dependency and a magic habit.

new1965
2008-01-04, 02:00 PM
"
It's also amazing how that statement is completely backwards. There's a handful of people who like playing monks and claim, based on their liking it, that it is therefore a strong class. The whole debate is a matter of opinion ("i liek monks!!1!!") vs fact ("monks are mechanically the weakest PHB class").


What is amazing to me is that you cant see thats NOT the point of contention

They are useful but not in the way you like to role play the game.Notice it's ROLE play there and not roll play. Maybe that makes the a weak class for you but it does not make that true for someone that plays differently.

It seems that you think that doing massive amounts of damage and springing traps are the only ways a non-spell caster can be truly useful. However other players can get just as much satisfaction contributing in other ways that a monk can do (and do them satisfactorily as has been shown)and have fun with the flavor the monk adds while doing it. You just don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that the things you say that "anyone" can do can be equally entertaining if ROLE played right and frees up the other classes to do the things they specialize at.

Is the monk the BEST class for doing some of those individual things? Never said they were but I am talking about using the monk in actually PLAYING the game and enjoying it and not just discussing the mechanics of it. You don't HAVE to do max damage every time you strike a blow . For a lot of us, its just as satisfying to trip an enemy and watch him fall down the stairs, disarming the archer that was going to shoot the barbarian in the back, or keeping the minions off the wizards back while shes doing whats shes best at and those are things that the numbers just dont reflect

Solo
2008-01-04, 02:02 PM
So you play monks for the "coolness" factor?

Ne0
2008-01-04, 02:12 PM
Wasn't there someone who said that rule 0 was "Have fun"?

And I think a more proper question would be "So you play monks for the fluff and roleplaying opportunities?"

Solo
2008-01-04, 02:19 PM
Rule 0 is "the DM is always right", but your general sediment is correct.

That being said, people seem to find it easier to have fun if their class wasn't badly designed.

Or at least that's how I look at it.

I mean, how many people play Sharn Skymages?



Anyways, I don't recall people saying that you can't have fun with monks (though I haven't had the stomach to go over the entire thread), but I have heard people saying the monk is not well designed, which I find to be in keeping with my experiences.

new1965
2008-01-04, 02:22 PM
So you play monks for the "coolness" factor?
No.. i think you misunderstood what I meant by flavor

When I think PHB barbarian.. I can pretty much only visualize a "Conan" style character. Its the way i see the class (and i role play him like that) and is what I feel he's best at. That may be my shortcoming

When I think Monk, hes the resident martial artist and I can visualize the character with more ways to role play him. There more "flavor" for me to work with

flavor does not necessary = cool. It just give me more options to role play the character with

Ne0
2008-01-04, 02:25 PM
Rule 0 is "the DM is always right", but your general sediment is correct.

That being said, people seem to find it easier to have fun if their class wasn't badly designed.

Or at least that's how I look at it.

I mean, how many people play Sharn Skymages?

That's probably because barely any campaigns occur in Sharn. :smallbiggrin:

And apparently, you're wrong, because there are quite a lot of people who play monks.

Morty
2008-01-04, 02:32 PM
And apparently, you're wrong, because there are quite a lot of people who play monks.

It doesn't make monk strong class mechanics-wise.

Solo
2008-01-04, 02:32 PM
And apparently, you're wrong, because there are quite a lot of people who play monks.

That's only because Monks aren't nearly as bad as Sharn Skymages.

The worse the class is, the less people play it. Monk, to me, is bad but playable.




No.. i think you misunderstood what I meant by flavor

When I think PHB barbarian.. I can pretty much only visualize a "Conan" style character. Its the way i see the class (and i role play him like that) and is what I feel he's best at. That may be my shortcoming



You can't visualize a barbarian as a fighter who taps into righteous fury* in order to defeat his enemies?

I'm tempted to bring up my current Barbarian, who partially subverted the stereotype of a big, muscular brawler by taking 6 ranks in Craft: Poetry a) to tell the tales of his tribal ancestors and heroes, such as Visheen the Virile, and b) because it made people at the gaming table go "...what?"

*fueled by the power of friendship, justice, and compassion, a clean burning, environmentally friendly, renewable natural energy source

Ne0
2008-01-04, 02:36 PM
It doesn't make monk strong class mechanics-wise.

Nope, but I didn't say that.

And that came out a bit harder than I meant to, Solo. Sorry for that. :smallwink:

Solo
2008-01-04, 02:38 PM
Nope, but I didn't say that.

And that came out a bit harder than I meant to, Solo. Sorry for that. :smallwink:

You apology is accepted, as are money orders, credit cards, and personal checks.

Indon
2008-01-04, 02:39 PM
So what role does the monk perform that is not inferior in most ways to someone else performing that job? What combination of its abilities make it worthwhile instead of just having some other class do it?

I think this is of paramount importance in this thread, though it seems rather unaddressed.

We can't use replacability as a guide on if a class is useful. The fact is, a (not quite 'any', but close) reasonably optimized full caster can render any non-full caster utterly obsolete.

Why do we play them, then? For the same reason we'd want to play the monk; because character power isn't everything.

'But if you don't make a strong character, you're just monster fodder!' you say. Well, we're back to making all full casters again, 'cause they have all the strength too. And the versatility. And really any concievable mechanical advantage.

But we don't all play wizards/clerics/druids/whatever exclusively, so clearly none of those arguments work in practice.

It seems that the only power concern is one of relative power; just so long as none of the members of your party completely outshine any of the others, you're just fine. Granted, this means you pretty much can't play any non-caster class alongside any reasonably optimized wizard, or any other full caster, but it seems in a party with a Warlock, Scout, and let's toss in a Crusader ('cause the Paladin is completely worthless and replacable with the ToB, don'tyouknow, and you'd need to be a fool to play one :P ), the Monk fits in pretty well.

Yes, that party might have trouble on some encounters. People might even take damage. So?

Telonius
2008-01-04, 02:43 PM
Wasn't there someone who said that rule 0 was "Have fun"?

And I think a more proper question would be "So you play monks for the fluff and roleplaying opportunities?"

My monk character was terrifically fun to play - but that was because of the character, not because of the mechanics. If I make another unarmed combatant, for a 3.5 game, it will be a Fighter specialized in unarmed strike. I'll give him a headband and a pair of pajamas, call him a Monk, and nobody in the gaming world will know the difference.

Morty
2008-01-04, 02:45 PM
But we don't all play wizards/clerics/druids/whatever exclusively, so clearly none of those arguments work in practice.

Yeah, great, but monk is weak when compared to core non-casters as well. So it's not caster/non-caster argument.

Indon
2008-01-04, 02:51 PM
Yeah, great, but monk is weak when compared to core non-casters as well. So it's not caster/non-caster argument.

Yeah, it's a power argument.

But clearly, power doesn't matter... otherwise, we'd go where we could get more of it.

Edit: So, "Don't play this character because it is mechanically weak" is evidentially not a consequential argument, because since we play characters who are mechanically weak - being any non-caster, clearly we don't care.

Ne0
2008-01-04, 02:51 PM
I think what Indon was trying to say is that if we all wanted to be powerhouses, we'd go wizard/druid/cleric, since it's been proven that they beat all other classes. So 'the monk has weak mechanics' doesn't work out in practice.

new1965
2008-01-04, 02:52 PM
You can't visualize a barbarian as a fighter who taps into righteous fury* in order to defeat his enemies?


For me... a fighter who taps into his righteous fury is just that: a fighter w/rage

The way I see it, barbarians get rage as a class feature not from an ability to focus their anger to help them right a wrong. They get it as they get SO insanely angry that they temporarily go into a "blood haze" and snap. Without a feat (and I'm not even sure about it then) you cant just turn rage off. Its a loss of higher reasoning and control as shown by the inability to use intelligence ,dex or charisma based skills.

Is all about role playing choices and staying true to the class ..if i want to play a fighter who draws power from his righteous fury... i wouldn't start with a barbarian because of his higher hit points. It would just feels like it would be stripping the barbarian of what makes him a barbarian.

horseboy
2008-01-04, 02:53 PM
If I make another unarmed combatant, for a 3.5 game, it will be a Fighter specialized in unarmed strike. I'll give him a headband and a pair of pajamas, call him a Monk, and nobody in the gaming world will know the difference.

I'll Second that.


I think what Indon was trying to say is that if we all wanted to be powerhouses, we'd go wizard/druid/cleric, since it's been proven that they beat all other classes. So 'the monk has weak mechanics' doesn't work out in practice.

I'd say it's not that "the monk has weak mechanics" so much as "the monk has muddled mechanics." 1) I like the alliteration more. 2) The monk's problems aren't just that they're weak, but that they lack any focus or synergy. Which is ironic on so many levels.

Morty
2008-01-04, 02:56 PM
Yeah, it's a power argument.

But clearly, power doesn't matter... otherwise, we'd go where we could get more of it.

Yes, it is a power argument because, in case you haven't noticed, this is a thread about monk's power. Also, some people want to play martial arts character, and be as useful as the rest of the team. They can't use a monk -a default choice for such a concept- because monks suck.


So 'the monk has weak mechanics' doesn't work out in practice.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But this thread is about monk's power as a class.

HidaTsuzua
2008-01-04, 03:08 PM
Or I could play a cleric of kung fu with some domains. I could say all sorts of wise things and use my "ki" to pwn/heal stuff in the face which I focus every morning during my exercise. Heck I could wonder the countryside helping people like some sort of Chaotic character like that one TV show.

Though I would have religious overtones. And who's heard of a monk with religious overtones?

Solo
2008-01-04, 03:15 PM
That would never fly. It would be too awesome.

Telonius
2008-01-04, 03:59 PM
Or I could play a cleric of kung fu with some domains. I could say all sorts of wise things and use my "ki" to pwn/heal stuff in the face which I focus every morning during my exercise. Heck I could wonder the countryside helping people like some sort of Chaotic character like that one TV show.

Though I would have religious overtones. And who's heard of a monk with religious overtones?

Well, you can be a cleric of a cause. "Kung Fu" is as good of a cause as any, I guess.

Domains: Good, Protection, Strength, Travel.

New domain: Kung Fu
Granted power: Gain the Monk's ability to make unarmed strikes even when your hands are full.
1: Endure Elements
2: Bull's Strength
3: Remove Disease
4: Tongues
5: Righteous Might
6: Heal
7: Ethereal Jaunt
8: Holy Aura
9: Astral Projection

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-04, 04:00 PM
That would never fly. It would be too awesome.

But would you be a bad enough dude to rescue the President?

Solo
2008-01-04, 04:18 PM
But would you be a bad enough dude to rescue the President?

For great justice.


In America.

Indon
2008-01-04, 04:23 PM
I'd say it's not that "the monk has weak mechanics" so much as "the monk has muddled mechanics." 1) I like the alliteration more. 2) The monk's problems aren't just that they're weak, but that they lack any focus or synergy. Which is ironic on so many levels.

I think you have a point with the synergy (and indeed, this is something you see with a lot of classes; Scout Skirmish comes to mind as well), but I disagree on the 'focus'.

I think the game has a place for generalist characters. (And no, if the character does something better than any other class, then they're a specialist with a laundry list of other abilities, not a generalist)

fendrin
2008-01-04, 05:06 PM
My monk character was terrifically fun to play - but that was because of the character, not because of the mechanics. If I make another unarmed combatant, for a 3.5 game, it will be a Fighter specialized in unarmed strike. I'll give him a headband and a pair of pajamas, call him a Monk, and nobody in the gaming world will know the difference.
Go right ahead. You'll probably be a better melee fighter (after a few levels, anyway). Unlike a character of the monk class, though, you will be lacking in speed, skills, AC (if you are just wearing a gi/pajamas), 2 good saves and some nifty, if not always useful, special abilities.

I think of it this way: a real world martial artist would be a D&D fighter. A D&D monk is somethings else- more like a wuxia hero.


I'd say it's not that "the monk has weak mechanics" so much as "the monk has muddled mechanics." 1) I like the alliteration more. 2) The monk's problems aren't just that they're weak, but that they lack any focus or synergy. Which is ironic on so many levels.
This I agree with 100%. Honestly, they could have been better made. However, I do not think they are quite as bad as many people say.

Of course, the last two monks I played were not pure monks at all.
1) a LN hobgoblin ranger 1/monk 3/law incarnate 2 that could flurry with his 'evil' 'intelligent' purple longsword (I love Eberron), and
2) a NG Half-orc barbarian 2/ex-monk 3 (and yes, he went through 2 alignment shifts... part of his backstory, completely DM approved and not used for cheesiness). He was a quarterstaff master, using Flurry, TWF, Power Attack, and Combat Expertise as needed depending on the situation. (high point-buy. 34, I think. 18 str and the Barb lvls gave him some more AB to play with the feats). He was built with the idea of being an utter failure at living up to the expectations of the cultures he was in. Low con for a barbarian, so he was viewed as a failure in the orc tribe he was born into, low wis for a monk, so he um, wrecked the place a few times as he got his anger under control (ie as his alignment shifted from N to L)... of course, given the high point buy, 'low' was 12 or so.

Both were a lot of fun. Both could skirmish well, move well, and even tank(though not as well as a true tank). The first was very monk like in his attitude (albeit 'addicted' to his sword), and the second.. well, was a monastic failure (though he didn't quite realize that he had failed to maintain his Lawful alignment, and thus never used his 1/day, short-duration rage).

Funny thing is, though neither look particularly optimized, they were quite useful in combat, in no small part because of their flexibility. The monk has that flexibility built in. I augmented it (Incarnum with #1, feat use with #2), but a straight monk has it too. That flexibility is the monk's true strength over a fighter (who, despite the hype about their feats giving them flexibility, are typically only good at combat).

Indon
2008-01-04, 05:40 PM
Oh, and as for having fun when playing a monk, I once ended up breaking three limbs with a monk in a single session. That wasn't fun (at the time, it's a hilarious story though!).

Of course, that might have been due to running a critical-miss houserule. Making a lot of attacks do not mesh well with critical misses, and I have a similar (and equally amusing) story involving a two-weapon fighter.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 06:43 PM
hmmm...

Talic's offer for a lvl 20 contest in several challenges he sets is tempting. Will think on it, but the effort likely is a bit much here...(currently in another of his threads I am thinking on a monk of 15th level in houseruled core - without morph, diplomacy, and leadership - who could take on an ancient white dragon).
A 1st level character contest would be much less effort, but likely also a bit dependent on luck. Hmmm. Maybe some level of 2-10 (where most posters play their characters) when the usual monk hater group would be unanimous about monk suckage? You can discuss.

On to horseboy...



You completely miss the point. The point is not that the magic-user has to take Knowledge: Nature to use polymorph effectively. It's that the magic-user has to be built to make the monk useful. You're no longer playing your concept. You're playing Brain to the monk's Inspector Gadget.

And this is where I believe you miss the point. The game is a group game. People come together, choose what they play and then somehow a group/teamwork is expected to happen. Either through the iconic group - rogue, fighter, cleric, wizard - or any other combination.
Some spells like enlarge, haste, bull's strength simply cry "cast them on your comrades to improve overall group survival chances". The rules are based on the notion of teamplay - or else noone would play a wizard or sorcerer from level 1 because they simply could not survive if the others in their group behaved egoistically as well.
But instead you seem to prefer the egoistic brain version of a caster. Why, I wonder?


I don't remember anything being settled about that. I know you rambled on about it, but nobody believed you.

Not nobody. Some believed. And even if I "rambled" you cannot pretend as if the issue was never discussed or the notion of "monk is useless" never challenged. The 7 (!) pages of this thread speaks volumes in this respect.


Better movement won't let him flurry.

Hmm. By this logic, a fighter's ability to use a greatsword is useless since it inhibits him from using a shield (another fighter ability) or a composite longbow (another fighter ability). You see, sometimes you cannot use great abilities at once. In this case, with the help of a great buff you could - but of course never with a wizard in a group who believes that he can make more use of polymorph than a monk.


And he only has medium to average defenses against a great sword.

Yes. But I referred to the overall defensive qualities of the monk, which are great.


Yes, the SR takes the place of the touch attack. One of the few times that shows some pretense to a balance.

Thanks for admitting that.


Yes, monks get bonus feats. However, they're of questionable use, especially to a cleric. As you yourself point out each class plays differently. The cleric with his feats are still more effective than the monk, even with his bonus feats.

Thanks for admitting that the monk gets more feats than a cleric. That was all that was needed. All else is once again opinion, where we apparently differ.


Gia, saves is plural. Save is singular. "Better saves" implies that it is better in multiple areas, which it is not. It has "a better [reflex] save." Once again, Samuel L Jackson quote.

Plural term is correct here since I did not say "all saves are better" but the abstract "saves" are better. And they are. Since saves are fort+refl+will (and I did not even include the "save" bonuses like enhancement bonus, poison immunity, disease immunity since you correctly also suggested that a cleric likely has better focused items. Base saves it is henceforth.)


I'll grab you both at once. The cleric doesn't cast Neutralize poison on the person after they've been poisoned, he casts it on the thing that's poisonous. You know, like the "giant, scaly beast with venom dripping from it's fangs."

You know, the giant scaly xy thing that gets a will save and needs to be touched? Great application of neutralise poison spell. What strange tactics are you advocating here? No, the monk's immunity is safer by far.


Not going into spells, but it does beg the question, just how useful in a day to day sort of function is it? Given how easy SR is to bypass at 15th level from anything "level appropriate" you'd face. If it was that useful then people would say it's useful.

So far the only one maintaining that the SR of the monk is puny is you. Think on it. The mantle of spell resistance or other armour enhancers with SR are how expensive, 90,000 gp? And they give LESS spell resistance than the monk offers at 13th level. That is how valuable the system conveys the ability is. And it truly is.
Not always encounters are with npc spellcasters maxed to kingdom come with their spell levels or who happen to have just used their 10mins/day beads of karma.
There are many, many spellcasting monsters (like an ancient white dragon :smallcool: ) whose spellcasting level is inferior to the monk's level, but whose CR or HD are much greater.


In order for you to always have the spells you need when you need it for the monk to be anything more than a flank buddy, then your caster has to follow him around.

No. Wands of xy are there in case of stingy pc casters (or for backup). Provides access to ALL level 1-4 spells. 50 charges should be enough for all decisive encounters of an adventuring life.


No.
Because you're saying this class is so great, but in order for it to be even useful it's got to have all this support from all the other classes.

Group games sometimes base their rules on this, I guess.


Yes, if you jump through all these counter-intuitive, convoluted hoops, you can get some use out of the monk.

Thanks for calling my ideas counter-intuitive (because you have not thought of them yet, which I take as a compliment), convoluted hoops (because they disprove your points).
And did you actually say that the monk is not useless? YES! Another small progress made. But the road ahead still looks stony...:smallamused:


With less effort, you can turn a magic-user into Batman and be even stronger. The effort to reward ratio just isn't there.

Hmmm. That is actually true. But in a different way than you think. You see, most DMs apparently do not challenge the casters or "Batman" strong enough (one of the things I found out is that many monk haters believe they receive their spells back in the morning automatically). So basically the problem is not with easier maxing fu of Batman, but with few enough DMs who know how to counter Batman. From what I read in the 3.5 rules (for instance, the UMD availability to all part, "ex-sections", spell master feat and spellcasting rules) it appeared quite obvious to me. Hmmm...I could compile the stuff I have already posted in various threads into one thread...hmmm...sounds like a good idea.


It is also a summation of your stance. It's as equally silly.

Neenah, neenah.


It's not what I think of polymorph thats valid, it's what the DM thinks of polymorph that counts.

And to what hypthetical DM are you referring to? Likely not the DM of the core rules where - guess what? Polymorph is all perfectly legal, can have non-casters as targets, can be even cast by non-casters and can be made permanent on non-casters.
Ah, but you likely wish to devalue all tactics that non-casters do with polymorph as "broken". While at the same time praising the druid for going zilla with an ability which lasts much longer than morph and has broadly the same effect (balanced by less forms available for the longer duration).


What I would want for/from the monk is for a valid tactic. "I run up, slap it, then bravely run away." is not a valid tactic.

Yes, because you somehow wish to make the monk into a fighter variant, which he is not. And I know - you think a monk running/tumbling away to control an encounter is "fleeing", but a caster using teleporting magic is "tactically retreating".


Changing flurry to a standard action instead of a full round action would be a great start. However, that would mean that your precious WotC screwed up yet again, and we can't have that now, eh?

Hmmm. Why is it that the monk can already flurry and move with the help of pounce (through morph in the core rules, other ways outside)? Could it be you screwed up with such a blatant oversight?


Wow, just wow. It's painful how much logic eludes you.
So, in your world, discussing how badly somebody screwed up shows "grudging respect"? Let's hope for your sake your boss agrees.

You mean, if this boss sits down with me for hours to discuss my mistakes it shows that he wants to fire me?


Play a better system.

Apart from a strange non-descript collection of numbers and terms you put in a spoiler, what is this system?


I was talking about grappling. Really, how are you going to be grappling dragons, giants, ghosts things that go ethereal at will and other level appropriate encounters? Grappling is tripping's "special" little brother. I've been through these.

Hmm- but you do realise that there are ways to tackle even the big things? Polymorph is a way, but since you think it is broken, that's out. Hmm. After eliminating that part of core, what can we do? Ghosts could be grappled by a monk who goes etheral himself at high levels. Hmmm. What else? Monks could reach large size, improved grapple and quite high STR if necessary. Will think on non-morph ways to grapple biggies, but the difficulty to grapple and trip the big ones may have something to do with...balance?
Meanwhile, the 95% other, non-huge encounters and spellcasters (the monk niche) can be grappled.


Yeah, I should have been more clear for those that are just now tuning in. Giacomo's monks always involve maxed out cross-classed ranks in Spellcraft, Use Magical Device and similar skills. Then talks about how after using said skills he flurries.

Well...after a second glance at the monk's class abilities, it may be quite an intuition to assume that it is designed to fight caster classes. Why is it then strange to you that I give the monk all the stuff he needs to do that task better?
Spellcraft is great for fighting casters because you know what they are doing and can react tactically.
UMD gives access to the magekiller spell AMF.
Diplomacy is a great overall skill and can help you get cheaper npc spellcasting or information (ah but OMG it can turn every hostile npc or monster friendly for maxed diplomancers in 1 round at DC 45...that is...broken!
Rules reality check:"...in SOME SITUATIONS...as a FULL ROUND ACTION..."- have fun doing that to a dragon that charges you. It is so useful to check the rules once in a while, even for the so-called "broken" stuff...)


If you could find a feat that gave flurry to an expert you'd have a better Giacomo's monk than Giacomo's monk.Superior, possibly not in their narrowly defined areas. Is the expert more useful in more areas of play than monk? Oh yes.

Hmmm. Let me see. First of all, unfortunately no spell or feat (in particular not in core) can emulate a greater flurry. That's set.
Second. No feat or spell grants an extraordinary enhancement to movement. Third. Neither to extraordinary tongues, spell resistance 24/7, quivering palm...need I go on?
Stop those stupid polemics and comparisons with npc classes, will you? Pls. It is as useless as you think a monk is:smallsmile:


Yes, MAD is just a myth for Schroeder's monk.

Schroeder? Like the term invented for wizards who strangely always have the right spells prepared for all situations? Interesting to apply that to a monk who allegedly never can change his tactics once his feats and skills are set.
But MAD...I love to repeat it: if you think that only a monk wishes to have nice abilities, while fighters and clerics after having put their highest stat where they think it is most important just LOVE taking penalties or lesser stats in their other abilities, you astonish me without end.


And fighters and barbarians aren't trying to be a wizard through their cross-classed UMD skill. So, yeah the board is replete with threads about them dumping CHA stat.

But fighters and barbarians should get UMD, because it is so highly useful and in your campaigns will never be helped by their spellcasting comrades :smallsmile: (and small hint: you can have a UMD skill even with a CHR penalty! It works! Since for many items and scrolls, retries will be just fine. CLW anyone?).



Too bad he spent his 16 on STR instead of WIS, or is this Schroedinger's Monk again?

Why does the monk need both 16 in STR and WIS again and others don't?


Fixed that for you.

What a very annoying habit, to edit into others' texts, once you cannot back your point with facts.


Because if that was the intent to the balance, then all classes would have UMD as a class skill.

No. If it was the intent to the balance that only casters ever would be able to use magic, the rules would not offer so many avenues to non-casters. If all had UMD as class skill, though, it would make the caster classes too weak and rob them of their speciality (beside the fluff problems that all would be able to inherently use magic items).


- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-04, 06:51 PM
Talic's offer for a lvl 20 contest in several challenges he sets is tempting. Will think on it, but the effort likely is a bit much here...(currently in another of his threads I am thinking on a monk of 15th level in houseruled core - without morph, diplomacy, and leadership - who could take on an ancient white dragon).
A 1st level character contest would be much less effort, but likely also a bit dependent on luck. Hmmm. Maybe some level of 2-10 (where most posters play their characters) when the usual monk hater group would be unanimous about monk suckage? You can discuss.


And I will be up for any of those as well. Perhaps I shall be amazed.


Now, I would like you to answer something.

Your proposed monk build would have severe MAD would it not?

STR and CON for melee

DEX and WIS for AC

WIS for DC

and finally CHA for UMD.

Where are you getting all these stats, and how do you avoid MAD?

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 06:53 PM
And I will be up for any of those as well.

Solo, I am starting to like you...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-04, 06:57 PM
Solo, I am starting to like you...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Contrary to popular belief, there is enough of me to go around.

Now scroll up a tad and answer my question about MAD.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-04, 06:58 PM
I really feel the need to quote Samuel L Jackson, but the quote wouldn't pass the profanity filter.

Surprisingly enough, whenever you said this throughout your post, I always thought of the 'path of the righteous man' from Pulp Fiction. :smallconfused: :smallamused:

Also, I would be willing to help with any contest. A wilder might help avoid any issues of batmanning ...

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 07:01 PM
Your proposed monk build would have severe MAD would it not?

STR and CON for melee

DEX and WIS for AC

WIS for DC

and finally CHA for UMD.

Where are you getting all these stats, and how do you avoid MAD?

Or do you pull a Red Mage and engage int eh sacred ritual of stat swapping when you need it?

Similar to a druid or cleric, a monk can have STR and maybe DEX as dump stats if he intends to use UMD and polymorph. But that is not helping much in lvls 1-6.
Similar to other characters, the monk should focus on either being a dextrous combatant (with possibly ranged fighting an otpion and higher initiative and movement skills) or STR-focused (i.e. in the monk's case grappling).
Then, you do not need that high CON since the monk is more focused on special tactics that do not involve much fighting in the front and taking hits. UMD can also cover that a bit (e.g. wand of blinking).
Then, INT should be 14 max. This gives 6-7 skill pts per level, enough for most purposes. If human, 12 INT can also be enough (since you can also get improved trip without INT 13).
Now WIS maybe should be the highest stat for most builds (meaning the second highest either going to DEX or STR, depending on the overall tactics).
CHR then is just a crusting on the cake. Monk class skills Perform and Diplomacy are based on CHR and are maybe in some instances useful (perform, for some magic items), or helpful for social situations. And, of course UMD. But you do not need such a higher CHR to start with for most applications since you can retry out-of-combat spell items quite easily.
So the highest goes to WIS, then DEX or STR, INT should be 12 min, and put the rest on CON, CHR and STR or DEX.
Pretty much the same as for all other classes (with different preferences there, of course).
Variations are also possible (i.e. a low WIS-monk or highest CHR score monk).

Hope that clarified it a bit.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-04, 07:10 PM
Why is it that I get the feeling a monk made in such a fashion is going to have... problems and issues?

Either you focus on melee and run into trouble because of low AC and HP, or you focus on ranged attacks and... encounter great difficulty when enemy casters throw out one of the protection from projectile spells.

Theli
2008-01-04, 07:44 PM
Heh, Giacomo... I don't agree with everything you say but...

I AM a fan of the lesser used, more subtle, elements of DnD, which you tend to bring out in spades. So it's very entertaining. Thanks for the dialogue.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-04, 08:02 PM
And this is where I believe you miss the point. The game is a group game. People come together, choose what they play and then somehow a group/teamwork is expected to happen. Either through the iconic group - rogue, fighter, cleric, wizard - or any other combination.
Some spells like enlarge, haste, bull's strength simply cry "cast them on your comrades to improve overall group survival chances". The rules are based on the notion of teamplay - or else noone would play a wizard or sorcerer from level 1 because they simply could not survive if the others in their group behaved egoistically as well.
But instead you seem to prefer the egoistic brain version of a caster. Why, I wonder?
Giacomo, nobody has ever suggested that you shouldn't cast spells like Haste. However, there's a big difference between casting Haste in combat and using all of your fourth-level spell slots on a SINGLE party member. One is good teamwork AND highly effective. The other is your monk sucking up other characters' resources because he's not effective on his own.

A wizard or sorcerer at level 1 contributes to the group (who can't actually "protect him", walking around them is easy) without them devoting multiple daily resources to letting him. Planting your guisarme-wielding tripper in front of the wizard is one thing--it's the (less-efficient) equivalent of using Arcane Reached Irresistible Dance on the Marilith and letting the melee characters have at.
The character you've described requires constant resource investment. Those spell slots could be but to better use, and generally are; you have neither the right of "teamwork" (it's not teamwork, it's Everyone Does Whatever Giacomo Wants) nor of efficiency to those spell slots. Some buffs? Yes. I play perfectly reasonable spellcasters, and I'm happy to spare my allies Magic Vestment, Mass Conviction, Freedom of Movement, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. when they need it. I'm not happy to get a monk come begging for another Divine Power for his ring just so he can function in melee.


Hmm. By this logic, a fighter's ability to use a greatsword is useless since it inhibits him from using a shield (another fighter ability) or a composite longbow (another fighter ability). You see, sometimes you cannot use great abilities at once. In this case, with the help of a great buff you could - but of course never with a wizard in a group who believes that he can make more use of polymorph than a monk.
If those were major class features, you'd have a point, but as is, you don't. The point is, mobility and flurry are both major selling points of a monk... and you're not using one when you're using the other.
Oh, and the fighter's "ability to use a shield" IS useless at high levels (greatswords are that much better, Animated Shields exist), and his ability to use a longbow almost so (a high-STR fighter will have a low ranged AB/damage and no bow feats).

The wizard believes that the Fighter or (Divine Power, Righteous Might casting) cleric could make better use of the buff... either that, or he believes that the spell is too overpowered for gameplay and the DM agrees.



Plural term is correct here since I did not say "all saves are better" but the abstract "saves" are better. And they are. Since saves are fort+refl+will (and I did not even include the "save" bonuses like enhancement bonus, poison immunity, disease immunity since you correctly also suggested that a cleric likely has better focused items. Base saves it is henceforth.)
You seem to love phrasing things in exaggerated ways. Only the monk's Reflex save, the least important save, is better--the cleric has a slightly better Fort save because he can have a higher CON (not needing DEX or CHA like your monk does) and has a higher Will save because he raises WIS more than the monk (it being a casting stat), overall. Plus, he can afford cloaks of resistance more easily than the monk, who has a crapton of stuff on his to-buy list and not enough money to buy it with (until 20th level).



So far the only one maintaining that the SR of the monk is puny is you. Think on it. The mantle of spell resistance or other armour enhancers with SR are how expensive, 90,000 gp? And they give LESS spell resistance than the monk offers at 13th level. That is how valuable the system conveys the ability is. And it truly is.
Not always encounters are with npc spellcasters maxed to kingdom come with their spell levels or who happen to have just used their 10mins/day beads of karma.
The SR is indeed a very nice defensive property. Not that nice, though--especially since enemy spellcasters typically have a higher level than the party.


There are many, many spellcasting monsters (like an ancient white dragon :smallcool: ) whose spellcasting level is inferior to the monk's level, but whose CR or HD are much greater.
...and those monsters aren't very likely to target you with spells.



No. Wands of xy are there in case of stingy pc casters (or for backup). Provides access to ALL level 1-4 spells. 50 charges should be enough for all decisive encounters of an adventuring life.
But... you can't only use them in "decisive" encounters. You need those buffs, or you can't risk going into melee, because without expensive consumable items, your character can't do his job. Other characters, I'd like to note, CAN do their jobs without consumable items and CAN only "break glass in case of boss"--that's normal gameplay, in fact. The character you're describing requires them. That should tell you about the relative strength of the class.

And in those decisive encounters, you're spending the first two to four rounds of combat not doing anything. One round should be the maximum.



Group games sometimes base their rules on this, I guess.
No, the monk requires a completely unreasonable amount of support from everyone else. You're asking for, what, 40 spell levels over a day's encounters?! I don't know how games are played in Everyone Does What Giacomo's Monk Tells Them land, but I have never seen players act the way you're suggesting they should, and they're right not to.


Thanks for calling my ideas counter-intuitive (because you have not thought of them yet, which I take as a compliment), convoluted hoops (because they disprove your points).
And did you actually say that the monk is not useless? YES! Another small progress made. But the road ahead still looks stony...:smallamused:
No, your ideas are counter-intuitive because they run completely counter to how monks are intended to be played ("everyone is meant to cross-class Use Magic Device to be useful" is a pure invention of yours, and not reflected in the class design or anything the designers have ever said) and how parties behave (everyone in the party doing their best to keep the monk useful makes no sense, effectiveness-wise or player-fun-wise).

Of course the monk isn't useless--even a commoner with Wealth-by-Level wouldn't be useless. Having another person there is always better than not. But his usefulness is roughly on par with good NPC classes, the Adept or the Expert (who can pick up UMD as a class skill and focus on it, as well as any other skill the party needs, i.e. Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc).



Hmmm. That is actually true. But in a different way than you think. You see, most DMs apparently do not challenge the casters or "Batman" strong enough (one of the things I found out is that many monk haters believe they receive their spells back in the morning automatically). So basically the problem is not with easier maxing fu of Batman, but with few enough DMs who know how to counter Batman. From what I read in the 3.5 rules (for instance, the UMD availability to all part, "ex-sections", spell master feat and spellcasting rules) it appeared quite obvious to me. Hmmm...I could compile the stuff I have already posted in various threads into one thread...hmmm...sounds like a good idea.
Frankly, spellcasters do get their spells back almost automatically. The system assumes this (are you seriously suggesting the ex-Cleric section is there because PC clerics are meant to "fall" on a regular basis? Are you playing the same game as the rest of us), and the structure of campaigns assumes this. How is it, exactly, that my adventuring party is supposed to be attacked every morning, without fail? Who's going to do it? How is it that despite all of my precautions, my spellbook is going to disappear once every X sections? How is it, that even though the cleric is doing everything according to his god's philosophy, he's going to be denied his spells? These are ridiculous statements, and if you're reaching that far to nerf the casters, you might as well just actually devise a nerf--the best and easiest is removing and altering specific spells--rather than base every campaign around a premise that allows the adventuring party to be constantly hounded by enemies who never let them rest.


And to what hypthetical DM are you referring to? Likely not the DM of the core rules where - guess what? Polymorph is all perfectly legal, can have non-casters as targets, can be even cast by non-casters and can be made permanent on non-casters.
Ah, but you likely wish to devalue all tactics that non-casters do with polymorph as "broken". While at the same time praising the druid for going zilla with an ability which lasts much longer than morph and has broadly the same effect (balanced by less forms available for the longer duration).
Wild Shape forms are a lot less powerful than Polymorph... and Wild Shape IS notoriously overpowered; it's just not broken.

Of course we devalue Polymorph as broken. It IS broken. Even WotC has admitted that it's broken, and too broken to fix without redoing it entirely.

Again: if your character has to have Polymorph to be useful in melee combat, he's miles behind the rest, who don't (and who jump from average or good to ridiculous rather than from crappy to good via Polymorph). Even if you were right about the Monk getting more out of polymorph (and that's not true--everyone has their own synergies with it).



Yes, because you somehow wish to make the monk into a fighter variant, which he is not. And I know - you think a monk running/tumbling away to control an encounter is "fleeing", but a caster using teleporting magic is "tactically retreating".
The monk isn't a Fighter variant. The monk isn't anything. That's part of the problem--he's no good at anything, he doesn't bring much to the party beyond Spot/Listen checks (the party already has scouts).

Spellcasters don't actually teleport away without their whole party except in theoretical solo challenges. Your monk has to use hit-and-run tactics... while the party is in a stand-up fight. The fight's over before he gets many hits in.


Hmmm. Why is it that the monk can already flurry and move with the help of pounce (through morph in the core rules, other ways outside)? Could it be you screwed up with such a blatant oversight?
No, it's because you're perhaps the only person who doesn't consider Polymorph broken and plays with it. What's more, because your monk can't be polymorphed for every fight, or even most fights. Burning a 4th-level wand charge on every encounter is totally unpalatable (and the character you suggest, set up for UMD, is useless in combat *without* Polymorph; I have no idea what you do before you can afford 21,000 gp after basic items for a wand);


Hmm- but you do realise that there are ways to tackle even the big things? Polymorph is a way, but since you think it is broken, that's out. Hmm. After eliminating that part of core, what can we do? Ghosts could be grappled by a monk who goes etheral himself at high levels. Hmmm. What else? Monks could reach large size, improved grapple and quite high STR if necessary. Will think on non-morph ways to grapple biggies, but the difficulty to grapple and trip the big ones may have something to do with...balance?
Meanwhile, the 95% other, non-huge encounters and spellcasters (the monk niche) can be grappled.
Grappling becomes mostly an infeasible tactic at high levels. Do you really want to grapple a pit fiend, a dragon, a marilith, even a stone giant? Spellcasters have to be reached and start having effects like Freedom of Movement; monsters are going to be bigger and stronger and have more BAB than you (from having more Hit Dice). Grappling starts out okay and gets useless, unless your campaign consists almost entirely of humanoids.
Also, what stat does your monk dump to get that high STR? Dex? Wis? Con?


Well...after a second glance at the monk's class abilities, it may be quite an intuition to assume that it is designed to fight caster classes. Why is it then strange to you that I give the monk all the stuff he needs to do that task better?
Spellcraft is great for fighting casters because you know what they are doing and can react tactically.
UMD gives access to the magekiller spell AMF.
Diplomacy is a great overall skill and can help you get cheaper npc spellcasting or information (ah but OMG it can turn every hostile npc or monster friendly for maxed diplomancers in 1 round at DC 45...that is...broken!
Rules reality check:"...in SOME SITUATIONS...as a FULL ROUND ACTION..."- have fun doing that to a dragon that charges you. It is so useful to check the rules once in a while, even for the so-called "broken" stuff...)
AMF is only a magekiller if you can put it up before the mage gets a turn. Otherwise, the wizard gets away and you can't follow (without turning off your AMF, thus having wasted it). Again, most of us don't play in games where the PCs always surprise their enemies, and I suspect that if you were honest about it, you'd admit that you don't, either.



Hmmm. Let me see. First of all, unfortunately no spell or feat (in particular not in core) can emulate a greater flurry. That's set.
Second. No feat or spell grants an extraordinary enhancement to movement. Third. Neither to extraordinary tongues, spell resistance 24/7, quivering palm...need I go on?
Stop those stupid polemics and comparisons with npc classes, will you? Pls. It is as useless as you think a monk is:smallsmile:
Why would you even mention "extraordinary Tongues"? How many times in your gaming career have you had to speak to a creature you can't understand inside an Antimagic Field? That's about the most outlandish scenario I can think of.
Quivering Palm can't be *directly* emulated, but it's also not very good. Any number of save-or-die spells do what it does but better and more often.

The monk's movement enhancement is also really not that useful in campaigns. I mean, what do you do with it? Spring Attack? Obviously not, Spring Attacking is a very weak tactic. Catch up to the flying demon? Probably not, it teleports at will, and is generally better in melee than you anyway. Scout? I guess... except scouts shouldn't get too far away from the party.


But MAD...I love to repeat it: if you think that only a monk wishes to have nice abilities, while fighters and clerics after having put their highest stat where they think it is most important just LOVE taking penalties or lesser stats in their other abilities, you astonish me without end.
There's a huge difference there.
Sure, the fighter would like a higher WIS to boost his Will save by a couple of points, but he doesn't need it the way the monk needs it, because the monk's AC and Stunning Fist DCs are based off of it. The Fighter doesn't need a Dex above 12-13, while the monk needs it because without it, his AC is low. The Fighter doesn't need an INT above 13 (or 8, if you're not taking the Expertise-prereq feats), while the monk needs at least a 14 (if human) so he can get all the skills you're talking about (Hide/MS, Spot/Listen, Tumble, cross-classed UMD: that's already 7 SP/level; fon't monks Jump, too? Whoop, that's 18 INT, 16 INT as a human, to get all those).
The monk needs STR for damage output (and grappling, if you want to go that route), DEX for AC, CON to fight, WIS for more AC (16 DEX/16 WIS is more AC than 10 DEX/18 WIS)... and CHA, if you're playing it, for UMD.
How would you allocate a 28-point-buy? A 32-point-buy? 14s a
Meanwhile, the Fighter needs a high STR, a CON of 14+, and maybe an INT of 13. After that, bonuses are nice but superfluous. The monk has far more need for every stat (I'd say except CHA, but you use CHA) except STR and CON (but he can't usually afford as high a CON).

You already know this, I think. It's disingenuous to pretend that monks don't require more good ability scores than other classes, just like Paladins require Charisma on top of what the Fighter needs.


But fighters and barbarians should get UMD, because it is so highly useful and in your campaigns will never be helped by their spellcasting comrades :smallsmile: (and small hint: you can have a UMD skill even with a CHR penalty! It works! Since for many items and scrolls, retries will be just fine. CLW anyone?).
Fighters and barbarians get helped by their spellcasting comrades. Spells like Enlarge Person at low levels, Haste, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, etc. do get cast.
They get helped because they don't require 40 spell levels a day (and more; those are just the ones you want for your rings). I've already said this a few times: the monk you describe requires too much from his allies. It's neither efficient nor reasonable for them to give in.


Why does the monk need both 16 in STR and WIS again and others don't?
Uh, because the monk needs WIS for AC and stunning fist DCs, which other characters don't? The fighter needs STR for damage; so does the monk. The fighter needs 12 or 13 DEX and he doesn't *need* WIS, he'll take what he can get.

Darkantra
2008-01-04, 08:18 PM
Sir Giacomo, I don't have much time for a long post so I'll keep it simple. While I like idea that WotC had when they created the monk class, it just isn't balanced against other classes. There are avenues in which the class shines and others in which they are useful in a group, but that does not negate the fact that at their basics they are a weak class.

I do agree with you that their feat selection is good and that it gives them a lot of latitude, and that with proper optimization they can be good at a given task. Their problem is that for a class that was designed to be a combat maneuver expert (trip, grapple, etc.) they just aren't given enough to make them more effective in that role than a fighter who takes the same feats.

I'll make a longer post with everything that I mean later on but my break's done.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 10:08 PM
OK Rachel, best you put your many criticisms of my views here, and we can then concentrate on builds in the white dragon vs monk thread....


Giacomo, nobody has ever suggested that you shouldn't cast spells like Haste. However, there's a big difference between casting Haste in combat and using all of your fourth-level spell slots on a SINGLE party member. One is good teamwork AND highly effective. The other is your monk sucking up other characters' resources because he's not effective on his own.

WHERE did I ever suggest that a pc spellcaster should devote ALL his fourth level slots for a monk's divine power - a spell that disproportionately is useful to the monk? The only thing I maintained is that pc casters can REGULARLY refill a ring of spell storing for the monk. For the rest of the key encounters, a cheap wand of divine power is just fine.
You later accuse me of exaggerating but what you did here is completely unfair.


A wizard or sorcerer at level 1 contributes to the group (who can't actually "protect him", walking around them is easy) without them devoting multiple daily resources to letting him.

WHAT? You mean risking your neck for the low-level arcane casters is much less valuable than giving a 4th level slot once per day to a monk at later levels? What game are YOU playing, I wonder? Double standards galore.


Planting your guisarme-wielding tripper in front of the wizard is one thing--it's the (less-efficient) equivalent of using Arcane Reached Irresistible Dance on the Marilith and letting the melee characters have at.
The character you've described requires constant resource investment.

More unfairness. I have already replied in the other thread that I only used this buff parade because somehow the OP thought it wise to ban use of wands for monks. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to focus so much on a one-hit wonder.


Those spell slots could be but to better use, and generally are; you have neither the right of "teamwork" (it's not teamwork, it's Everyone Does Whatever Giacomo Wants) nor of efficiency to those spell slots. Some buffs? Yes. I play perfectly reasonable spellcasters, and I'm happy to spare my allies Magic Vestment, Mass Conviction, Freedom of Movement, Greater Magic Weapon, etc. when they need it. I'm not happy to get a monk come begging for another Divine Power for his ring just so he can function in melee.

Begging? Yes, let your caster come begging at lvl 1 when he is weak for protection. This is ridiculous.


If those were major class features, you'd have a point, but as is, you don't. The point is, mobility and flurry are both major selling points of a monk... and you're not using one when you're using the other.
Oh, and the fighter's "ability to use a shield" IS useless at high levels (greatswords are that much better, Animated Shields exist), and his ability to use a longbow almost so (a high-STR fighter will have a low ranged AB/damage and no bow feats).

?? The mightiest ranged weapon of the core game is useless for a STR-focused fighter at high levels? You do realise that bows can be made to get the ultra-high STR bonuses to damage? That with 6 attacks per round can be a real kicker. Ah but yes, as a true caster fan you have apparently no idea how high-level non caster characters can be built efficiently.
And you may wish to check my prvs posts - pounce combines flurry and movement, can be done with morph in core. Ah now...but morph is broken, bad spell, gives noncasters a chance, must be put out of discussion in Rachel-fits-rules-to-her-perception land...:smallamused:


The wizard believes that the Fighter or (Divine Power, Righteous Might casting) cleric could make better use of the buff... either that, or he believes that the spell is too overpowered for gameplay and the DM agrees.

The wizard may believe that, but he is then simply wrong. Let us see...who gets most out of a divine power
- a fighter (already has full BAB)?
- a cleric (who cannot do is main task: spellcasting when he melees)
- or a monk?


You seem to love phrasing things in exaggerated ways.

You seem to return the favour manyfold, while you have yet to show any exaggerations of mine.


Only the monk's Reflex save, the least important save, is better--the cleric has a slightly better Fort save because he can have a higher CON (not needing DEX or CHA like your monk does) and has a higher Will save because he raises WIS more than the monk (it being a casting stat), overall. Plus, he can afford cloaks of resistance more easily than the monk, who has a crapton of stuff on his to-buy list and not enough money to buy it with (until 20th level).

Why do monk haters go so far as to try even to talk around the clearly numerically obvious advantage of a monk in base saves? And what does this tell about the validity of their arguments?


The SR is indeed a very nice defensive property. Not that nice, though--especially since enemy spellcasters typically have a higher level than the party.

Er...this is tantamount to saying your party in its encounters at higher levels will typically run into a lone spellcaster who has a higher level than the party? Odd game.


...and those monsters aren't very likely to target you with spells.

Why shouldn't they? Do the pcs carry glowing signs over their heads saying "higher level than you WITH SR, stupid monster! Do not attack with hold monster spell!"


But... you can't only use them in "decisive" encounters. You need those buffs, or you can't risk going into melee, because without expensive consumable items, your character can't do his job. Other characters, I'd like to note, CAN do their jobs without consumable items and CAN only "break glass in case of boss"--that's normal gameplay, in fact. The character you're describing requires them. That should tell you about the relative strength of the class.

What makes you think a monk cannot survive without divine power? A class designed for defensive fighting? First of all, tumbling and better move allow the monk to avoid losing a lot of hp (as his evasion and save and SR and immunities). Then, a monk can be easily built to have AC comparable to a fighter, with the advantage of higher touch AC and less vulnerability to STR loss and skill penalties.


And in those decisive encounters, you're spending the first two to four rounds of combat not doing anything. One round should be the maximum.

Well, if you have superior movement like the monk, plus a good combo of stealthiness and high spot/listen, it is not entirely unlikely that the monk has enough time to buff to his heart's content.


No, the monk requires a completely unreasonable amount of support from everyone else. You're asking for, what, 40 spell levels over a day's encounters?! I don't know how games are played in Everyone Does What Giacomo's Monk Tells Them land, but I have never seen players act the way you're suggesting they should, and they're right not to.

If only everyone did what the Giacomo monk would advise like teamplay, they would be much better off. But pls, feel free to return to egoistic logicninja land.


No, your ideas are counter-intuitive because they run completely counter to how monks are intended to be played ("everyone is meant to cross-class Use Magic Device to be useful" is a pure invention of yours, and not reflected in the class design or anything the designers have ever said) and how parties behave (everyone in the party doing their best to keep the monk useful makes no sense, effectiveness-wise or player-fun-wise).

Once again: the monk is good for fighting spellcasters. This has been repeatedly posted all over the boards. Why then is it so hard to swallow that I give him the appropriate skills to do that job better? Why go through the roof if a non-caster uses cross-class UMD?


Of course the monk isn't useless--even a commoner with Wealth-by-Level wouldn't be useless. Having another person there is always better than not. But his usefulness is roughly on par with good NPC classes, the Adept or the Expert (who can pick up UMD as a class skill and focus on it, as well as any other skill the party needs, i.e. Diplomacy, Sense Motive, etc).

Now you completely lost all recognition I had for some of your good suggestions on the white dragon tactics and my monk build. Why do you join in this strange polemic choir of Kurald Galain, Armads and horseboy that a monk is roughly the same (or worse) than an npc class? It devalues any valid points of potential monk weakness that you could make (yes, of course I would admit that monk has weaknesses- only that overall it is balanced). In fact, statements like these catapult you out of this discussion presto.


Frankly, spellcasters do get their spells back almost automatically. The system assumes this

No, it does not. They did not write "spellcasters get back their spells automatically" but inserted things like "same hour every day uninterrupted prayer" or "after having rested for 8 hours, plus x". And inserted spells like rope trick and MMM. Do you think the designers did that for a joke? Incredible.


(are you seriously suggesting the ex-Cleric section is there because PC clerics are meant to "fall" on a regular basis?

Why always these exaggerations? I NEVER said that this should happen on a "regular" basis. Only that the RISK that it COULD happen should occur over levels 1-20, enough to matter and to balance the game. Why ignore those entries altogether and then whine about class imbalance. It may be difficult to accept the balancing factors in the game because maybe they are difficult to implement or difficult to include in the atmosphere, but ignore them? Why?


Are you playing the same game as the rest of us),

No, I am not, and I am grateful. Because the way you describe it casters do as they please and monks suck because in your campaigns you have never seen a monk played to full potential.


and the structure of campaigns assumes this. How is it, exactly, that my adventuring party is supposed to be attacked every morning, without fail?

It's called: adventure. Risk. Non-stupid BBEGs. Random encounters. Take your pick. And again exaggeration alarm going off: I never said anything about EVERY morning, only (once again) that there is a RISK that this occurs. And this RISK eats up spellcaster resources and keeps the game full of suspense.


Who's going to do it? How is it that despite all of my precautions, my spellbook is going to disappear once every X sections?

The more precautions you take (say, taking the abhorred spell mastery feat), the less likely it is that your caster will be knocked out completely magically.


How is it, that even though the cleric is doing everything according to his god's philosophy, he's going to be denied his spells?

Hmmm- then he should be fine. Have I ever said anything else?


These are ridiculous statements, and if you're reaching that far to nerf the casters, you might as well just actually devise a nerf--the best and easiest is removing and altering specific spells--rather than base every campaign around a premise that allows the adventuring party to be constantly hounded by enemies who never let them rest.

You call nerf what I call balance and which is even in the rules, to boost. Houserule those caster disadvantages away all you like, but then do not come here to the boards maintaining that by the core rules casters are uber and monks suck.


Wild Shape forms are a lot less powerful than Polymorph... and Wild Shape IS notoriously overpowered; it's just not broken.

Yeah, a lot less powerful. And threads abound called "Druidzilla beats fighter hands down" or "Outgrapple the monk as a bear druid". Yeah, really a lot less powerful and up 24/7.


Of course we devalue Polymorph as broken. It IS broken. Even WotC has admitted that it's broken, and too broken to fix without redoing it entirely.

Could you please point to the part where WotC has officially admitted that and why? The core rules apparently remained unchanged.


Again: if your character has to have Polymorph to be useful in melee combat, he's miles behind the rest, who don't (and who jump from average or good to ridiculous rather than from crappy to good via Polymorph). Even if you were right about the Monk getting more out of polymorph (and that's not true--everyone has their own synergies with it).

Oh, the monk does not "have" to have polymorph. He's also fine with rightous might, or enlarge, or divine power. A wand of enlarge, for instance. Funny item, at only 750 gp. You can take maybe 5 of those and then you are really set for lvls 1-20.
And the monk simply has the best synergies with polymorph. As a crusting on the cake of being an unarmed combat specialist which benefit him even in cloaker or giant spider form, he can turn into outsiders of up to 15 HD at level 20. Great, eh?


The monk isn't a Fighter variant. The monk isn't anything. That's part of the problem--he's no good at anything, he doesn't bring much to the party beyond Spot/Listen checks (the party already has scouts).

Again, exaggeration. Plus you contradict yourself saying elsewhere that the monk should not be considered useless. You do not really think that the only unique and useful ability of the monk is spot/listen checks, are you?
- he can scout faster than anyone else
- he can get most melee attacks
- he is the only one able to pin at first level (check what this thread originally was about)
etc.


Spellcasters don't actually teleport away without their whole party except in theoretical solo challenges. Your monk has to use hit-and-run tactics... while the party is in a stand-up fight. The fight's over before he gets many hits in.

You know why the monk is the only viable tank of all core classes? Because of the movement and good defenses. He can force opponents to attack him, and if they do not want to, he attacks them again. Repeat.
There is a lot more to combat than mere damage dealing.


No, it's because you're perhaps the only person who doesn't consider Polymorph broken and plays with it. What's more, because your monk can't be polymorphed for every fight, or even most fights. Burning a 4th-level wand charge on every encounter is totally unpalatable (and the character you suggest, set up for UMD, is useless in combat *without* Polymorph; I have no idea what you do before you can afford 21,000 gp after basic items for a wand);

Repitition of what was already said.


Grappling becomes mostly an infeasible tactic at high levels. Do you really want to grapple a pit fiend, a dragon, a marilith, even a stone giant? Spellcasters have to be reached and start having effects like Freedom of Movement; monsters are going to be bigger and stronger and have more BAB than you (from having more Hit Dice). Grappling starts out okay and gets useless, unless your campaign consists almost entirely of humanoids.

You mean humanoids, those who are usually the highest level casters in the game? Of course grappling huge creatures where AMF does not reduce them to size is stupid. The monk cannot do everything - this is the department of the fighter and barbarian. The monk can negate such a creature's fighting power though by keeping it occupied.


Also, what stat does your monk dump to get that high STR? Dex? Wis? Con?

And what stat does a fighter or rogue or barbarian dump after devoting the highest stat to the favourite ability?


AMF is only a magekiller if you can put it up before the mage gets a turn. Otherwise, the wizard gets away and you can't follow (without turning off your AMF, thus having wasted it). Again, most of us don't play in games where the PCs always surprise their enemies, and I suspect that if you were honest about it, you'd admit that you don't, either.

Wait...are you suggesting that opponents can actually suprise the pcs? Great! This is what I meant by spellcasters not automatically regaining their spells...:smallsmile:
Apart from that, it is not a question of surprise but of won initiative. Monk wins initiative, is within 120ft of caster, moves there, activates AMF.
Or better yet (another suggestion I once made) monk falls on caster, both are prone, monk activates AMF, caster cannot get away since standing up from prone triggers AoO.


Why would you even mention "extraordinary Tongues"? How many times in your gaming career have you had to speak to a creature you can't understand inside an Antimagic Field? That's about the most outlandish scenario I can think of.

Hmmm. True. That would be really extremely rare. Let us just say tongues is a useful ability and leave it at that.


Quivering Palm can't be *directly* emulated, but it's also not very good. Any number of save-or-die spells do what it does but better and more often.

Yep. And many of them also need to overcome SR. And the quivering palm is like a free action additional save-or-die/suck when delivered together with a stunning fist.


The monk's movement enhancement is also really not that useful in campaigns. I mean, what do you do with it? Spring Attack? Obviously not, Spring Attacking is a very weak tactic. Catch up to the flying demon? Probably not, it teleports at will, and is generally better in melee than you anyway. Scout? I guess... except scouts shouldn't get too far away from the party.

Flying and flyby attack are nice with a monk.


There's a huge difference there.
Sure, the fighter would like a higher WIS to boost his Will save by a couple of points, but he doesn't need it the way the monk needs it, because the monk's AC and Stunning Fist DCs are based off of it.

Yes, but they are also there without any WIS bonus. So it's useful, but not necessary. But truth to tell, normally I would also put WIS as the highest stat for a monk. Or DEX. But that is just personal liking.


The Fighter doesn't need a Dex above 12-13, while the monk needs it because without it, his AC is low.

Some items later may help overcome AC for a class that is designed for AC not mattering as much as for a fighter, anyway (hint: grapple).


The Fighter doesn't need an INT above 13 (or 8, if you're not taking the Expertise-prereq feats), while the monk needs at least a 14 (if human) so he can get all the skills you're talking about (Hide/MS, Spot/Listen, Tumble, cross-classed UMD: that's already 7 SP/level; fon't monks Jump, too? Whoop, that's 18 INT, 16 INT as a human, to get all those).

1) so you say a fighter should not have any skills?
2) the monk even can get INT-feats without having the INT
3) and once again, exaggeration. I never talked about getting maxed all the skills you indicated up there. You probably have discerned as much from my lvl 20 monk build in the dragon thread. Why then being dishonest now?


The monk needs STR for damage output (and grappling, if you want to go that route), DEX for AC, CON to fight, WIS for more AC (16 DEX/16 WIS is more AC than 10 DEX/18 WIS)... and CHA, if you're playing it, for UMD.
How would you allocate a 28-point-buy? A 32-point-buy? 14s a
Meanwhile, the Fighter needs a high STR, a CON of 14+, and maybe an INT of 13. After that, bonuses are nice but superfluous. The monk has far more need for every stat (I'd say except CHA, but you use CHA) except STR and CON (but he can't usually afford as high a CON).

See above my response to Solo. This should answer your question.


You already know this, I think. It's disingenuous to pretend that monks don't require more good ability scores than other classes, just like Paladins require Charisma on top of what the Fighter needs.

No, it is not. All charactes want to have as many high ability scores as possible to help them.
Funnily, the only ones that REALLY need them to get their abilities to work are casters (for casting the respective spell levels) and in some instances fighters who take feats with ability requirements (and all who take them and do not get them as bonus feats like the monk in some cases).



Fighters and barbarians get helped by their spellcasting comrades. Spells like Enlarge Person at low levels, Haste, Greater Magic Weapon, Magic Vestment, etc. do get cast.
They get helped because they don't require 40 spell levels a day (and more; those are just the ones you want for your rings). I've already said this a few times: the monk you describe requires too much from his allies. It's neither efficient nor reasonable for them to give in.

You mean, a monk would never get helped because you deem him unworthy of your spell slots?
Even IF the monk were the worst class ever designed, if someone in your group wishes to play that character, would you then make his playing life miserable or would you help him? Your choice.
As for the oddity of 40 spell levels per day (for the monk running into a dragon every day), see above.



Uh, because the monk needs WIS for AC and stunning fist DCs, which other characters don't? The fighter needs STR for damage; so does the monk. The fighter needs 12 or 13 DEX and he doesn't *need* WIS, he'll take what he can get.

The fighter with the weak will save and spot/listen not as class skills will not need WIS, sure. The first you even admitted above yourself.

Well, responding to all the same fallacies all over again is exhausting and work starts again on Monday. I'll better concentrate on builds. Level 15 monk anti-white-dragon build first, then maybe a build for the Solo/talic monk/sorcerer/cleric/xy challenge, and then we'll see.
Builds are better to illustrate what I mean, I guess.

- Giacomo

Solo
2008-01-04, 10:10 PM
evel 15 monk anti-white-dragon build first, then maybe a build for the solo/talic monk/sorcerer/cleric/xy challenge, and then we'll see.
Builds are better to illustrate what I mean, I guess.


Why is my name in lower case?:smallannoyed:


You sow the seeds of your stabbity demise. :smalltongue:

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-04, 10:16 PM
Why is my name in lower case?:smallannoyed:


You sow the seeds of your stabbity demise. :smalltongue:

Oh no! I ask your forgiveness and my transgression will be corrected immediately...

- Giacomo

Armads
2008-01-05, 12:26 AM
WHERE did I ever suggest that a pc spellcaster should devote ALL his fourth level slots for a monk's divine power - a spell that disproportionately is useful to the monk? The only thing I maintained is that pc casters can REGULARLY refill a ring of spell storing for the monk. For the rest of the key encounters, a cheap wand of divine power is just fine.
You later accuse me of exaggerating but what you did here is completely unfair.

Umm, if the Monk dumps Str and Dex, won't he have to rely on a Polymorph buff every combat encounter? And won't he use a Divine Power every encounter? If there are 4 encounters per day, that's 32 spell levels every day. It also causes the cleric/wizard to prepare 4 polymorphs/divine powers. Using every single 4th level spell slot the wizard gets before bonus slots is a lot, isn't it?

Also, wands of divine power aren't that cheap. Around level 11, it's a third of your WBL. If you want Polymorph too, you've used 2/3rds of your WBL.



WHAT? You mean risking your neck for the low-level arcane casters is much less valuable than giving a 4th level slot once per day to a monk at later levels? What game are YOU playing, I wonder? Double standards galore.

Umm, at lower levels, arcane spellcasters stay away from the fray. They don't actually take damage, because they stand around 80ft away and thunk with a crossbow from outside of charge range. And the arcane spellcaster may even need to risk his neck to save the monk if the monk gets struck. And the divine spellcaster will have to spend his healing spells on the meatshield, not the arcane spellcaster, isn't it?



More unfairness. I have already replied in the other thread that I only used this buff parade because somehow the OP thought it wise to ban use of wands for monks. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to focus so much on a one-hit wonder.

The challenge was about making the CLASS shine, not making a combination of magic items shine (also, how do you get a wand of holy sword? Do NPC Paladins actually take Craft Wand as a feat?)



Begging? Yes, let your caster come begging at lvl 1 when he is weak for protection. This is ridiculous.

At level 1, the monk has to beg for healing spells too, doesn't he?



?? The mightiest ranged weapon of the core game is useless for a STR-focused fighter at high levels? You do realise that bows can be made to get the ultra-high STR bonuses to damage? That with 6 attacks per round can be a real kicker. Ah but yes, as a true caster fan you have apparently no idea how high-level non caster characters can be built efficiently.

And you realise how Dexterity is needed for ranged attack rolls, and a Str-focused fighter will probably be wearing heavy armor?



And you may wish to check my prvs posts - pounce combines flurry and movement, can be done with morph in core. Ah now...but morph is broken, bad spell, gives noncasters a chance, must be put out of discussion in Rachel-fits-rules-to-her-perception land...:smallamused:

Polymorph is broken. Period. Even WotC admits that, having squirreled Polymorph out of ALL core monster's SLAs via errata. And there's no way a 4th level spell could give a +13 to natural armor, huge size, and other treant benefits and still be balanced, could it?



The wizard may believe that, but he is then simply wrong. Let us see...who gets most out of a divine power
- a fighter (already has full BAB)?
- a cleric (who cannot do is main task: spellcasting when he melees)
- or a monk?

She's referring to Polymorph, I think.



Why do monk haters go so far as to try even to talk around the clearly numerically obvious advantage of a monk in base saves? And what does this tell about the validity of their arguments?

Your monk's fortitude save is weaker than that of a cleric's, since you yourself said that "So the highest goes to WIS, then DEX or STR, INT should be 12 min, and put the rest on CON, CHR and STR or DEX." Which means you won't have as much con as a cleric, who will probably go Wis>Con>Str>The Rest



Er...this is tantamount to saying your party in its encounters at higher levels will typically run into a lone spellcaster who has a higher level than the party? Odd game.

It can be called the BBEG, y'know? A Lich, maybe?



Why shouldn't they? Do the pcs carry glowing signs over their heads saying "higher level than you WITH SR, stupid monster! Do not attack with hold monster spell!"



What makes you think a monk cannot survive without divine power? A class designed for defensive fighting? First of all, tumbling and better move allow the monk to avoid losing a lot of hp (as his evasion and save and SR and immunities). Then, a monk can be easily built to have AC comparable to a fighter, with the advantage of higher touch AC and less vulnerability to STR loss and skill penalties.

OMG I can survive well! Well, my answer to that is, So what? Being able to survive is a good thing, but if the monk can't contribute (beyond flanking and aid another), isn't he just sucking up xp and gold?




Well, if you have superior movement like the monk, plus a good combo of stealthiness and high spot/listen, it is not entirely unlikely that the monk has enough time to buff to his heart's content.

So you meet a random encounter (a dragon in a field, maybe), and then the monks hides and buffs. Do you think the dragon's going to wait? Do you think the party's going to wait?



If only everyone did what the Giacomo monk would advise like teamplay, they would be much better off. But pls, feel free to return to egoistic logicninja land.

Your definition of teamplay is "All spellcasters must donate their spells to the monk and let him dominate encounters, otherwise he's being egoistical".

Question: A spellcaster has 2 choices in any encounter - Buff the monk with Polymorph, and let him attack the monster, then cast Heal after the fight (this assumes the monk wins). Alternatively, he could cast Slay Living/Hold Monster and end the encounter (assuming the monster fails it's save - but if the monk can beat the monster, the save-or-die should work too). One uses a 4th level slot + 6th level slot, while the other uses a 5th level slot. Which is better? Is the spellcaster being egoistical, having saved the monk from the risk of death, while saving his own spell slots?



Once again: the monk is good for fighting spellcasters. This has been repeatedly posted all over the boards. Why then is it so hard to swallow that I give him the appropriate skills to do that job better? Why go through the roof if a non-caster uses cross-class UMD?

Repeatedly posting something doesn't make something true. If you post "I am a genius" 500 times, does that make it true?



Now you completely lost all recognition I had for some of your good suggestions on the white dragon tactics and my monk build. Why do you join in this strange polemic choir of Kurald Galain, Armads and horseboy that a monk is roughly the same (or worse) than an npc class? It devalues any valid points of potential monk weakness that you could make (yes, of course I would admit that monk has weaknesses- only that overall it is balanced). In fact, statements like these catapult you out of this discussion presto.

Why do you keep insisting "MONKS ARE BALANCED SPELLCASTER MOOCH BALANCES MONKS EVERYTHING ELSE IS A FALLACY"



No, it does not. They did not write "spellcasters get back their spells automatically" but inserted things like "same hour every day uninterrupted prayer" or "after having rested for 8 hours, plus x". And inserted spells like rope trick and MMM. Do you think the designers did that for a joke? Incredible.

One Word. Sorcerers.

Even so, there's nothing stopping a wizard from regaining his spells, unless the DM says "A rabid squirrel attacks you everytime you're preparing your spells. You fail to prepare your spells." If spellcasters are prevented from preparing their spells, isn't it obvious that it's DM Fiat just nerfing spellcasters?



Why always these exaggerations? I NEVER said that this should happen on a "regular" basis. Only that the RISK that it COULD happen should occur over levels 1-20, enough to matter and to balance the game. Why ignore those entries altogether and then whine about class imbalance. It may be difficult to accept the balancing factors in the game because maybe they are difficult to implement or difficult to include in the atmosphere, but ignore them? Why?

Spellcasters are balanced because 1/20/whatever % of the time, they might not be able to cast spells and are utterly useless? There's no 'middle ground', where they are useful but not game breaking.



No, I am not, and I am grateful. Because the way you describe it casters do as they please and monks suck because in your campaigns you have never seen a monk played to full potential.

Have you? Have you even played a real game of Dnd, where a spellcaster PC cast every spell on your whim?


Again, exaggeration. Plus you contradict yourself saying elsewhere that the monk should not be considered useless. You do not really think that the only unique and useful ability of the monk is spot/listen checks, are you?
- he can scout faster than anyone else
- he can get most melee attacks
- he is the only one able to pin at first level (check what this thread originally was about)
etc.

The wizard scouts faster (because he moves faster via Phantom Steed). The rogue makes the most out of having more attacks (and he only has 1 more attack than the fighter, and much less attack bonus). And Pinning at level 1 isn't very important.



You know why the monk is the only viable tank of all core classes? Because of the movement and good defenses. He can force opponents to attack him, and if they do not want to, he attacks them again. Repeat.
There is a lot more to combat than mere damage dealing.

He can't force people to attack him.



You mean humanoids, those who are usually the highest level casters in the game? Of course grappling huge creatures where AMF does not reduce them to size is stupid. The monk cannot do everything - this is the department of the fighter and barbarian. The monk can negate such a creature's fighting power though by keeping it occupied.

How? You don't have special "you must attack me" abilities, like the Knight has.



And what stat does a fighter or rogue or barbarian dump after devoting the highest stat to the favourite ability?

Charisma, maybe?



Wait...are you suggesting that opponents can actually suprise the pcs? Great! This is what I meant by spellcasters not automatically regaining their spells...:smallsmile:
Apart from that, it is not a question of surprise but of won initiative. Monk wins initiative, is within 120ft of caster, moves there, activates AMF.
Or better yet (another suggestion I once made) monk falls on caster, both are prone, monk activates AMF, caster cannot get away since standing up from prone triggers AoO.

Why does Monk win initiative? Why is the caster not flying and having the necessary precautions against AMF? On a side note, you never had any counters to the Flying Invisible Sculpted AMF wizard.



Hmmm. True. That would be really extremely rare. Let us just say tongues is a useful ability and leave it at that.

It's useful, but it's also a low-level spell. Waiting 10+ levels to get it is not worth it.



Yep. And many of them also need to overcome SR. And the quivering palm is like a free action additional save-or-die/suck when delivered together with a stunning fist.

Except that it's 1/week. If it were 1/day, I could see more use out of it.



Flying and flyby attack are nice with a monk.

It's nice with pretty much everybody.



Some items later may help overcome AC for a class that is designed for AC not mattering as much as for a fighter, anyway (hint: grapple).

So? Not everything grapples with a touch attack.



1) so you say a fighter should not have any skills?
2) the monk even can get INT-feats without having the INT
3) and once again, exaggeration. I never talked about getting maxed all the skills you indicated up there. You probably have discerned as much from my lvl 20 monk build in the dragon thread. Why then being dishonest now?

Fighters can have skills, but they don't really need them.



No, it is not. All charactes want to have as many high ability scores as possible to help them.
Funnily, the only ones that REALLY need them to get their abilities to work are casters (for casting the respective spell levels) and in some instances fighters who take feats with ability requirements (and all who take them and do not get them as bonus feats like the monk in some cases).

But high mental ability scores benefit casters disproportionately (Monks get 3-5 points of AC from having high wis, casters get all their class features for having high mental stat)



You mean, a monk would never get helped because you deem him unworthy of your spell slots?

Yup. If I were a wizard, I'd rather cast Enlarge Person on the reach-weapon wielding fighter.



Even IF the monk were the worst class ever designed, if someone in your group wishes to play that character, would you then make his playing life miserable or would you help him? Your choice.

Appeal to Pity. Fallacy.



The fighter with the weak will save and spot/listen not as class skills will not need WIS, sure. The first you even admitted above yourself.

Crystal of Mind-shielding, Mind Blank item (if one exists), something like that. Fighters are the kings of gold burning at high levels. Or maybe Steadfast Determination to add Con to Will instead of Wis.

Idea Man
2008-01-05, 01:12 AM
Technically, if a wizard has 4 base fourth level slots, why not cast them for the monk? He's got plenty more spells to go around, higher and lower, and he'll still have his bonus spells to play with. He could even memorize three, leave a slot open, then memorize an appropriately useful spell later if he needs to, whether it be polymorph or not.

This is not an endorsement for monks. This is a statement about wizards having power to burn, and they shouldn't worry about using some up. It would balance the game some more if they did so more often (metamagic and magical gear reduce the need considerably, the higher level you go).

Please continue.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-05, 02:13 AM
WHERE did I ever suggest that a pc spellcaster should devote ALL his fourth level slots for a monk's divine power - a spell that disproportionately is useful to the monk? The only thing I maintained is that pc casters can REGULARLY refill a ring of spell storing for the monk. For the rest of the key encounters, a cheap wand of divine power is just fine.
You later accuse me of exaggerating but what you did here is completely unfair.
Divine Power isn't disproportionately useful to the monk. It's useful to any 3/4 BAB character; I'd say it's most useful to the Rogue, who gets massive damage with each attack.
How regularly is "regularly", then? One a day, maybe, instead of the Greater Magic Weapon you'd otherwise get. You were suggesting the PC spellcaster refill the ring after every fight, which is four times a day.


WHAT? You mean risking your neck for the low-level arcane casters is much less valuable than giving a 4th level slot once per day to a monk at later levels? What game are YOU playing, I wonder? Double standards galore.
Once a day is fine. Four times a day isn't.
It IS less valuable, in terms of consumed resources. The fighter standing in front of the wizard isn't doing anything special--he'd be fighting the enemy anyway.


More unfairness. I have already replied in the other thread that I only used this buff parade because somehow the OP thought it wise to ban use of wands for monks. Otherwise it would not have been necessary to focus so much on a one-hit wonder.
Use of wands at a high level one-shot is one thing. Buying and using those wands in play is another. When do you buy your Wand of Divine Power? How can you afford it before level 12 or so? What do you do until then? What are you NOT buying that other characters will have? 20k isn't much at level 20. Constantly using 20k wands from level 12 on really adds up.


Begging? Yes, let your caster come begging at lvl 1 when he is weak for protection. This is ridiculous.
At level 1, casters can take care of themselves. Four encounters a day rarely happens at level 1 (even the fighter's HP can't take it) and the caster is either providing (at this point VERY valuable) healing or using things like Color Spray. The caster isn't begging for protection--much less begging for daily resources. Well, he's begging for heals, but so's everyone at level 1.

The point there, which you seem to have missed, was this: spellcasters have lots of demands on their spell slots, both by effectiveness' needs and by the party. Every Divine Power the cleric feeds you is a Death Ward, Greater magic Weapon, or Freedom of Movement someone else isn't getting and an offensive or utility spell that isn't getting cast.


?? The mightiest ranged weapon of the core game is useless for a STR-focused fighter at high levels? You do realise that bows can be made to get the ultra-high STR bonuses to damage? That with 6 attacks per round can be a real kicker. Ah but yes, as a true caster fan you have apparently no idea how high-level non caster characters can be built efficiently.
I build very efficient non-casters, thank you. And what my high level fighters invest in is the ability to close with the enemy. Of course, I prefer Tome of Battle characters both for balance and for fun, so it's a moot point.


And you may wish to check my prvs posts - pounce combines flurry and movement, can be done with morph in core. Ah now...but morph is broken, bad spell, gives noncasters a chance, must be put out of discussion in Rachel-fits-rules-to-her-perception land...:smallamused:
Giacomo, you can't possibly be insisting that Polymorph is fine and balanced against fourth or even fifth or sixth level spells, can you? Compare it with Righteous Might. Heck, compare it with any other buff.

Polymorph lets you do things like give someone +10-20 STR and Natural Armor, plus natural attacks. Do you really not see why that's completely disproportionate? On top of that it grants movement modes, can be suited to the situation with every casting, and more (Sorcerer polymorphing into a Choker and getting CHA-based (Ex) attacks? Mm-hmm).

I am perfectly okay with things that improve melee characters, although I do prefer it when those things aren't someone else's spell slots. I love the Tome of Battle. I'm not okay with Polymorph for the same reason I'm not okay with Celerity, the Planar Shepherd, etc: it's completely broken. Of course it makes monks good at melee--it could make a CWar Samurai good at melee! The spell is just that good.

And taking that into account: what does having to use Polymorph--the most broken buff in the game--to do your job have to say about your class?


The wizard may believe that, but he is then simply wrong. Let us see...who gets most out of a divine power
- a fighter (already has full BAB)?
- a cleric (who cannot do is main task: spellcasting when he melees)
- or a monk?
The Rogue. But of those, the cleric, who can proceed to cast other personal spells and have a higher damage output and take more punishment thank the monk (and let's not forget a higher AC).


You seem to return the favour manyfold, while you have yet to show any exaggerations of mine.
I'm not going to trade little sniping remarks with you. The "tongues in an AMF" thing was a very clear example; so is insisting that a cleric should lose his power repeatedly in a campaign, and that that's a source of balance (when you yourself admit a cleric who follows his god--so, any decently RPed one--would never have that issue). The monk save thing is a good example, where you're obviously trying to inflate the monk advantage by calling it a sweeping "better saves" to discuss the fact that the advantage is not significant, since only one save is better and it's the least important one (and the other two may well be worse than the cleric's).


Why do monk haters go so far as to try even to talk around the clearly numerically obvious advantage of a monk in base saves? And what does this tell about the validity of their arguments?
Giacomo, when someone disagrees with you, it's not because they're doing mental leaps to try to avoid some great and obvious truth.
In this case, it's because the way you state "monks have better saves!" vastly exaggerates their actual advantage... which exists only when it comes to Reflex saves, which are the least important kind when compared to the Fort/Will Strong classes (which are ). You are trying to give the impression that this is a major upside. It's not. This is a constant behavior pattern of yours--it's the way you bring out things like "clerics can lose their spellcasting!" as a significant disadvantage and "you get Tongues! Tongues in an AMF! It's AMAZING!" as a strong point. (Who cares about tongues? Communication is only a scroll that you've been keeping in your pack for the last five levels away, and a party speaks like ten languages between them if they diversify a bit. I wouldn't even bother getting it Permanencied.)
You've been called on it before, and you need to stop doing it. When you're talking about something minor or situational. I don't point out that "the cleric can cast five hundred different spells! That's five hundred things the monk can't do without a cash expenditure and a shopping trip!" because most of those 500 (or however many it is) spells aren't any good.



Er...this is tantamount to saying your party in its encounters at higher levels will typically run into a lone spellcaster who has a higher level than the party? Odd game.
A lone spellcaster with mook minions, typically. Monster SLAs are cast at a CL of their HD, which is typically a lot more than yours. Non-boss-y humanoid spellcasters will tend to be about the same level.


Why shouldn't they? Do the pcs carry glowing signs over their heads saying "higher level than you WITH SR, stupid monster! Do not attack with hold monster spell!"
No... but that dragon has centuries if not millenia of experience in using its spells. It's bound to have figured out that it's offensive spellcasting is not exactly its forté.


What makes you think a monk cannot survive without divine power? A class designed for defensive fighting? First of all, tumbling and better move allow the monk to avoid losing a lot of hp (as his evasion and save and SR and immunities). Then, a monk can be easily built to have AC comparable to a fighter, with the advantage of higher touch AC and less vulnerability to STR loss and skill penalties.
How can you build a monk with an AC comparable to a fighter when he just spent his gold on wands and scrolls?
Even if your monk can survive--by tumbling away and moving out of combat--why does the party want a guy whose major contribution is tumbling away? You either can't survive or can't fight until you can throw up expensive buffs.


Well, if you have superior movement like the monk, plus a good combo of stealthiness and high spot/listen, it is not entirely unlikely that the monk has enough time to buff to his heart's content.
Not entirely unlikely that he does sometimes, no. But it IS unlikely that he does most of the time, or even often.
It's not like you need an *exceptional* Spot/Listen to notice monsters who aren't hiding from you. And yet, despite playing in parties with Scouts and Rogues, I find that most fights don't start with us buffing up, then walking a couple of rounds and surprising some monsters.


If only everyone did what the Giacomo monk would advise like teamplay, they would be much better off. But pls, feel free to return to egoistic logicninja land.
You seem very insistent on the spellcasters giving *your monk* a lot of buffs. Not anyone else in the party--your monk. You're not just not contributing without help, you're insisting that resources go to helping you specifically. Now that's egotistical and selfish.
Spellcasters should act, overall, efficiently. If the Fighter benefits more from Enlarge Person (and given that reach + control is the stronger kind of Fighter, he generally does) than the Monk (you'll note, BTW, that your DEX-high, STR-low monk actually loses 2 AB from Enlarge Person: one for the size and one for the DEX decrease. You lose 2 AC, too. Are you really, really sure you want it?), and he does, then the Fighter should get it. The wizard shouldn't memorize Greater Heroism, because he can do much more effective things with his actions.


Once again: the monk is good for fighting spellcasters. This has been repeatedly posted all over the boards. Why then is it so hard to swallow that I give him the appropriate skills to do that job better? Why go through the roof if a non-caster uses cross-class UMD?
Because "fighting spellcasters" is not a party role. It's a small fraction of what you do. Take the Red Hand of Doom module: there are spellcasters every so often--a CR 6 boss sorcerer who throws lightning bolts, a boss cleric who buffs and fights, some minor spellcasters who buff their allies mostly--but they're not the optimized kind a party can't run up to and smack around. But "being better at not being killed by spellcasters" isn't much of an advantage if you're not contributing when it comes to other stuff. I had a monk in my group when I went through the module. He... didn't die, thanks to a Luminous Armor spell a day. But he didn't exactly contribute much, either, despite trying things like grappling, tripping, and Stunning Fist. A character should be good at fighting all kinds of enemies and still be able to handle a spellcaster encounter (at least for long enough for his spellcaster allies to overcome it). The fighter's a lot better at fighting mundane enemies than the monk, and a lot worse at fighting spellcaster enemies... but that means that while the fighter has a some gaping weaknesses, they come up less often than the monk's. (The core Fighter still doesn't make a very good frontline melee character, but that's the fault of powerful melee monsters compared to the fighter's ability. The


Now you completely lost all recognition I had for some of your good suggestions on the white dragon tactics and my monk build. Why do you join in this strange polemic choir of Kurald Galain, Armads and horseboy that a monk is roughly the same (or worse) than an npc class? It devalues any valid points of potential monk weakness that you could make (yes, of course I would admit that monk has weaknesses- only that overall it is balanced). In fact, statements like these catapult you out of this discussion presto.
The monk is roughly the same as the Adept because the Adept gets its own spellcasting, and can contribute (if a little awkwardly) at most levels; the Expert plays skillmonkey almost as well as the bard does and can really focus on UMD, since he doesn't have many other things to devote resources to. He can spot and listen, do some Knowledge-ing, take Diplomacy, etc. An optimized Expert seems like he'd contribute as much as a monk at most levels... especially since you're talking about a monk who can't even fight without burning through 4th-level wands or, worse yet, relying on Polymorph.


No, it does not. They did not write "spellcasters get back their spells automatically" but inserted things like "same hour every day uninterrupted prayer" or "after having rested for 8 hours, plus x". And inserted spells like rope trick and MMM. Do you think the designers did that for a joke? Incredible.
No, I think the designers did that to get the party to rest. I'm not sure where you're getting "and therefore the party's rest should be disrupted every other night (or however often) regardless of whether it makes sense given their situation or not."


Why always these exaggerations? I NEVER said that this should happen on a "regular" basis. Only that the RISK that it COULD happen should occur over levels 1-20, enough to matter and to balance the game. Why ignore those entries altogether and then whine about class imbalance. It may be difficult to accept the balancing factors in the game because maybe they are difficult to implement or difficult to include in the atmosphere, but ignore them? Why?
Ignore them... because they're 1) difficult to implement, 2) difficult to include in the atmosphere, 3) downright silly when they happen often "sorry, Billy the Wiz, you wake up without your spellbook again. High Level O'Malley, the Rogue Who Goes Around Stealing Mid-Level Wizards' Spellbooks Out Of Their Bags Of Holding In The Night, must have taken it." "We're in a Rope Trick surrounded by an Alarm in the middle of a desert!" "The ways of High Level O'Malley are inscrutable."


No, I am not, and I am grateful. Because the way you describe it casters do as they please and monks suck because in your campaigns you have never seen a monk played to full potential.
From what you've said so far, it honestly seems that that "full potential" involves not contributing in fights until you can buy a wand of the most broken spell in the game and use it every encounter (the low-STR, UMD-focused monk and Polymorph), burning through cash, or a wand of a different spell and still not contribute much (a monk who hasn't been focusing on melee combat won't suddenly become great at it just because of the Divine Power effect. Better than he was, but not particularily good).
At the level when you can afford Rings of Spell Storing and blow 4th-level wand charges every encounter and have flight and etc etc, the spellcasters probably have things like, oh, Shapechange. Sorcerer-Nymph? KTHX. Choker-Wizard? Sure! Any of dozens of powerful supernatural and extraordinary abilities as soon as they're called for? Indeed. Force-dragon (or something else, if the ELH isn't an extension of core) druid and his bigger-force-dragon pouncing companion? Of course. Then the time stops are flying and spells are being maximized and empowered at once with rods and your pouncing monk isn't looking very good by comparison to the wizard who spends a spell slot from range and makes the enemy dance helplessly from five rounds or strips the enemy's buffs and then inflicts hundreds of points of damage with ranged touches, in one round, from 300 feet away.


It's called: adventure. Risk. Non-stupid BBEGs. Random encounters. Take your pick. And again exaggeration alarm going off: I never said anything about EVERY morning, only (once again) that there is a RISK that this occurs. And this RISK eats up spellcaster resources and keeps the game full of suspense.
The more precautions you take (say, taking the abhorred spell mastery feat), the less likely it is that your caster will be knocked out completely magically.
Hmmm- then he should be fine. Have I ever said anything else?
I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue that any cleric should lose his powers occasionally, because that's what makes them balanced.

You need to think this through. You seem to be of the opinion that there needs to be some nebulous risk that's not enough to be completely ridiculous and make no sense in the game, i.e. High Level O'Malley, but present enough to rob casters of their resources on a regular enough basis that it compensates for their greater power.

How often in a campaign do you think a cleric of some adventurer-appropriate PHB god (like Pelor or Kord) who's engaging in typical adventurer behavior should be losing access to his powers? For how long? Does this balance their overall power?

How often should be the wizard be losing his spellbook? For how long? How? I'm finding it very difficult to imagine a situation in which the spellbook actually goes missing. Who'd want to take it? Random thieves who want to sell it, enough to mess with a wizard (and his adventurer buddies) but not enough to slit his throat, and can climb into the wizard's Rope Trick? The BBEG or an agent, which will walk up to a party (who is keeping watch), get the wizard's Bag of Holding from under his clothing, take the spellbook out, and take it, but won't coup de grace the wizard (and everyone else)? What about after the first time, when the wizard starts hiding it better, putting a couple of traps on it, etc? (If it happens once a campaign, how is that balance?)
Why would whatever scenario you come up with happen in my game, where the PCs are a group of mercenaries assaulting a fort? Or are taking jobs as they come from? Or are the followers of a religious order, striking out on holy quests? Or stopping a demon lord's agents from opening a yawning gate into the Abyss?



You call nerf what I call balance and which is even in the rules, to boost. Houserule those caster disadvantages away all you like, but then do not come here to the boards maintaining that by the core rules casters are uber and monks suck.
I'm not houseruling anything away, I'm saying they don't happen in real games, and they don't happen because it wouldn't make any SENSE for them to happen 99% of the time.


Yeah, a lot less powerful. And threads abound called "Druidzilla beats fighter hands down" or "Outgrapple the monk as a bear druid". Yeah, really a lot less powerful and up 24/7.
If the druid didn't have his spellcasting--just Wild Shape and an animal companion--he would be underpowered. I would not want to play that class. (Outgrappling your monk, who doesn't prioritize STR at all, is easy, BTW.)

The druid is so powerful because he has an Animal Companion and spellcasting and Wild Shape, and the synergies between and within those and other class features (animal companion + spontaneous summoning + Animal Growth; Wall of Thorns plus ranged spells; Entangle plus not being affected by it himself; etc)


Could you please point to the part where WotC has officially admitted that and why? The core rules apparently remained unchanged.
It was discussed in [url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dd/20060216a]this R&D article (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/chuul.htm), which I have tracked down because I am a GOOGLE WIZARD.
There's also plenty of direct evidence in the number of errata the spell has gone through, and the way they replaced it entirely with a [Polymorph] spell type/template and specific spells that let you turn into specific creatures, and lose your class features while you do it in the PHBII, CMage, and other books.
The reason the core rules remain unchanged is because WotC has never altered them for balance reasons. They just don't do that, ever--and it's NOT because the game is perfectly balanced. (And the core rules are changing with the new edition, one might say--and you'd better believe 4E isn't going to have Polymorph or Shapechange!)


Oh, the monk does not "have" to have polymorph. He's also fine with rightous might, or enlarge, or divine power. A wand of enlarge, for instance. Funny item, at only 750 gp. You can take maybe 5 of those and then you are really set for lvls 1-20.
How's he getting Righteous Might? That doesn't even come in wand form. Scrolls? Because the wands weren't expensive enough.
A Wand of Enlarge only costs 750 gp... but can you actually, you know, *activate* it at level, say, 5? Your UMD is, what, +10? You've got a 50% chance of getting it on the first round, a 75% chance (50% + half of 50%) of having it done by the end of the second... so two rounds just to apply your Enlarge, at that level. That's not a great investment. And how's your melee contribution look after the Enlarge at level 5, anyway, with you focusing on UMD and WIS/DEX?


And the monk simply has the best synergies with polymorph. As a crusting on the cake of being an unarmed combat specialist which benefit him even in cloaker or giant spider form, he can turn into outsiders of up to 15 HD at level 20. Great, eh?
The monk does NOT have the best synergies. This has been extensively discussed before. The rogue gets tons of natural attacks for sneak attack (and tons of Natural Armor, so he CAN stay in melee without being afraid). The Fighter gets humanoid--not the creature type--forms with increased strength, huge reach (15' reach + enlarge potion + reach weapon = 40' reach... combined with battlefield control), and natural attacks to add to his weapon attacks, the Barbarian gets to stack his rage with the form and lose his low AC, the Paladin who gets Polymorphed as often as your monk does just focuses on Charisma for massive saves, turning, and smiting...

Everyone benefits massively from Polymorph. But even if the monk did get more out of it, going from 2 to 8 still isn't as good as going from 5 to 10, so to speak.


Again, exaggeration. Plus you contradict yourself saying elsewhere that the monk should not be considered useless. You do not really think that the only unique and useful ability of the monk is spot/listen checks, are you?
- he can scout faster than anyone else
- he can get most melee attacks
- he is the only one able to pin at first level (check what this thread originally was about)
etc.

"He can get the most melee attacks"... and whiff a lot. It doesn't matter how many attacks you're making, it matters what your average damage is, and the monk is definitely not near the top of the pile, there.
"He can scout faster"... great, but that's not very helpful.
"The only one able to pin at first level" is a crappy ability. Grappling is bad at level 1, because +6 vs. +2 is still a solid chance to fail each check, and because your AC hits rock bottom (and if you're focusing on STR, what IS your first level AC". What good is being able to pin at first level, anyway? Wouldn't it be better to do some damage? The monk definitely isn't any GOOD at first level. His Flurry blows (ha, ha), and he's either raising STR OR DEX. If it's the latter he has no Weapon Finesse yet so his AB is terrible, and if it's the former his AC is terrible (and his AB still isn't great; +1/+1 isn't exactly impressive, the TWFing Fighter is doing better than that, and TWFing Fighters also aren't impressive. A first level monk has a low AB, low AC, and unremarkable damage.


You know why the monk is the only viable tank of all core classes? Because of the movement and good defenses. He can force opponents to attack him, and if they do not want to, he attacks them again. Repeat.
There is a lot more to combat than mere damage dealing.
Without a good *offense*, why do they *care* if the monk is attacking them? How does he *force* opponents to attack him? A high movement speed doesn't make a tank, it makes a runner. A high movement speed won't prevent enemies from going around you--a high-Strength fighter with a reach weapon and a tripping focus (who is going to trip better than the monk), though... he might. The barbarian tanks by rushing ahead and hitting hard. As a monk, you're a *terrible* tank: if you focus on defense, it's hard for them to hurt you, so they won't bother until they're done with everyone else, since you can't hurt *them*, either.. and if you focus on offense, you get splattered.


You mean humanoids, those who are usually the highest level casters in the game? Of course grappling huge creatures where AMF does not reduce them to size is stupid. The monk cannot do everything - this is the department of the fighter and barbarian. The monk can negate such a creature's fighting power though by keeping it occupied.
How does the monk keep it occupied? What makes it focus on him rather than the rest of his party? I'd think the creature would be focusing on the spellcasters (most powerful offense) first, and maybe the melee *threats* after.

High-level humanoid casters know all about vulnerability to grapple, and take steps to avoid it. Steps like Freedom of Movement, not letting you touch them, Dimension Door, and so on.


And what stat does a fighter or rogue or barbarian dump after devoting the highest stat to the favourite ability?
CHA, INT or WIS depending, DEX to 12 for the fighter (the barbarian dumps INT instead). The Rogue dumps STR, might keep CON at 12, can dump CHA, and depending on the party doesn't need to raise INT overmuch.



Wait...are you suggesting that opponents can actually suprise the pcs? Great! This is what I meant by spellcasters not automatically regaining their spells...:smallsmile:
No, it's not. What I mean is that many--most, really--fights start without either side having the opportunity to buff ahead of time. You've yet to say what it is that disrupts the party's rest so often that it's a regular issue. HOW does this happen, when the party takes precautions (like setting watch, Rope Trick, resting in secure locations, i.e. dungeon rooms with barred doors)? Every morning there just happens to be a monster that stumbles across the camp? This just isn't something you can do with most campaigns.

So tell me, what exactly disrupts parties' rest at various levels? How does it get past the precautions the party takes for this? If the BBEG can disrupt the party's rest, why doesn't he just crush them?


Apart from that, it is not a question of surprise but of won initiative. Monk wins initiative, is within 120ft of caster, moves there, activates AMF.
Or better yet (another suggestion I once made) monk falls on caster, both are prone, monk activates AMF, caster cannot get away since standing up from prone triggers AoO.
The monk falls on the spellcaster? That doesn't knock the spellcaster prone, unless I'm missing a rule. The monk is also hardly guaranteed to win initiative.
If the monk moves over and activates an AMF, the spellcaster moves out of the AMF and gets himself to safety. That's the thing; if you use your standard action to put an AMF up, you can't use it to keep the spellcaster inside.



Hmmm. True. That would be really extremely rare. Let us just say tongues is a useful ability and leave it at that.
Tongues is a *very occasionally* useful ability, which you can get by pulling out your Tongues scroll, or having one party member know the language in question (four plus people, each with a couple of languages on average), or a telepathic connection that bypasses language (as so many do), or permanencied Tongues, or...
This ability does not add anything remotely useful or relevant to the party. Tongues isn't necessarily even a once per campaign thing, it's generally rarer.



Yep. And many of them also need to overcome SR. And the quivering palm is like a free action additional save-or-die/suck when delivered together with a stunning fist.
Surely you're not arguing that Quivering Palm is BETTER? It's a lot easier to be immune to it (crit immunity does it), it's once per WEEK as opposed to multiple times per day... so what if it doesn't need to overcome SR? It needs to hit, and that tends to be at least as hard. Save-or-lose/die spells are vastly better than Quivering Palm, and having it or not having it wouldn't make more than the most minor of impacts on the monk's power level. Quivering Palm is almost as negligible as the Tongues ability. If you want something hit with save-or-dies, have the spellcasters do it. If I make a monk, one of the last things on my mind is a once-per-week mediocre save-or-die.


Flying and flyby attack are nice with a monk.
Why is Flyby Attack nice for a monk? It just means you're only making 1 attack.


Yes, but they are also there without any WIS bonus. So it's useful, but not necessary. But truth to tell, normally I would also put WIS as the highest stat for a monk. Or DEX. But that is just personal liking.
"Useful, but not necessary"? No, it IS necessary. I've never seen a monk without a 14+ WIS (assuming he had the stats to spare), precisely because WIS is so important to them.


Some items later may help overcome AC for a class that is designed for AC not mattering as much as for a fighter, anyway (hint: grapple).
"Some items later may help with AC, and AC is less important because you're grappling".

This is why you need to consider what you're saying as a whole, rather than dismiss it piece by piece. This is why I'm asking you for specifics, like items at level 15 (before you can afford all items ever made like at 20), how you'd distribute a 28- and 32-point buy (the two most common), etc.

Because what items are going to help with AC? The ones you can't afford, because you were too busy buying wands of Divine Power and other spells[/i]?

Also, grappling does NOT mean you don't need AC. Grappling with an already-low AC is just an invitation for the monster's friend to rip your guts out. But you have bigger problems than these. How do you survive to the level were you can buy lots of items to raise your AC when you don't have high AC or HP to survive *to* that level--by never actually getting into melee, and thereby being nothing but a drain on party resources for the first half of your career?
And why are you talking about grappling to compensate for your low AC when you said that you would raise DEX and WIS, not STR, for a monk? Without STR, I don't care if you have Improved Grapple or not--you've got 3/4 BAB, low Strength, and Medium size; your grappling sucks. Even Enlarge doesn't compensate. The Ogre gets +12 just incidentally, and does a lot more damage in the grapple than you do. You don't want to grapple it.



1) so you say a fighter should not have any skills?
2) the monk even can get INT-feats without having the INT
3) and once again, exaggeration. I never talked about getting maxed all the skills you indicated up there. You probably have discerned as much from my lvl 20 monk build in the dragon thread. Why then being dishonest now?
Skills aren't important to the fighter, no. If he rolled all good stats or has a huge point buy, sure, he can raise INT, but otherwise he just needs a 13 at most.
The monk can get Improved Trip or Disarm without having 13 INT. This is totally irrelevant! He needs the INT for skills.
It's not exaggeration--you *have* mentioned all these skills at one time or another. Hide/Move Silently and Spot/Listen are mentioned whenever you talk about the monk being a scout, Tumble has been mentioned repeatedly, UMD is the focus of your character, and while you haven't mentioned Jump in this thread you've certainly talked about how great it is and how the monk should max it out before.



See above my response to Solo. This should answer your question.
It doesn't, because my question is what you'd do with 28 and 32 point buys.




No, it is not. All charactes want to have as many high ability scores as possible to help them.
That's nice. Not all characters want them the same amount. The Paladin obviously want every stat the Fighter wants, plus Charisma. Similarily, the monk wants more stats. You should have begun noticing this yourself! Your monk doesn't have a high Strength? Then everything you've said about grappling and tripping is totally invalidated.


Funnily, the only ones that REALLY need them to get their abilities to work are casters (for casting the respective spell levels) and in some instances fighters who take feats with ability requirements (and all who take them and do not get them as bonus feats like the monk in some cases).
Casters are the least multi-stat-dependant. Wizards need INT, and an OK DEX and CON (18 INT, 14 CON, 14 DEX, 8 everything else is a very solid wizard... and a 28 Point Buy. Most other characters can't afford an 18.) The Druid just takes 18 WIS and 16 CON, with two points to raise Charisma (or something) to 10.

Or let's take the Elite Array: a fighter puts the 15 in STR, the 14 in CON, the 13 in INT, the 12 in DEX, the 10 in WIS, and the 8 in CHA. With the 28-PB he has 16 STR, 14 CON, 13 DEX, 13 INT, 10 WIS, 8 CHA.


The monk, going off of what you said. Int should be 12 MIN, highest in WIS, then DEX or STR--you prefer DEX--then the rest in CON and CHA.
Elite Array: 15 WIS, 14 DEX, 13 CON, 12 INT, 10 STR, 8 CHA.
28 PB: 16 WIS, 14 DEX, 12 CON, 12 INT, 10 STR, 10 CHA (or 12 STR/8 CHA).

The 28-PB fighter is fine. The lack of, say, 14 WIS just means that his Will save is a couple of points lower--he gets too many feats anyway, he'll pick up Iron Will later (since you don't make as many Will saves early on) and his Will save will never be good, in core. The fighter can do his job.

The 28-PB monk has an AB of +0 or +1 at level 1, and even when he takes Weapon Finesse at 3 it becomes a mere +4/5 (+2 or 3/+2 or 3 Flurry). His AC at level 1 is 15, and he's got 9 HP... and he doesn't know Color Spray, either.

Meanwhile, the 28-PB fighter has an AB of +4 or 5 (WEapon Focus?) at level 1, for 1d8+3, has an AC of 17 or 18 (armor and heavy shield), and 12 HP. He will continue raising STR as he levels up, and buy +2 DEX and CON item shortly after he gets a +4 STR item (and +4 DEX/CON a while after he gets a +6 STR item). He will be able to perform as advertised.




You mean, a monk would never get helped because you deem him unworthy of your spell slots?
Even IF the monk were the worst class ever designed, if someone in your group wishes to play that character, would you then make his playing life miserable or would you help him? Your choice.
As for the oddity of 40 spell levels per day (for the monk running into a dragon every day), see above.
I'd rather his experience were miserable than mine were.

If you're not using many spell levels a day, then why are you talking constantly about getting so many buffs from your allies? Just what spells do you expect the wizard and cleric to cast on you and how many times a day?


The fighter with the weak will save and spot/listen not as class skills will not need WIS, sure. The first you even admitted above yourself.
No, he doesn't. He's not going to have a high Spot/Listen regardless, nor a high Will save; the difference between 10 and 14 WIS is a couple of points. It's not worth degrading his combat ability for.


Well, responding to all the same fallacies all over again is exhausting and work starts again on Monday. I'll better concentrate on builds. Level 15 monk anti-white-dragon build first, then maybe a build for the Solo/talic monk/sorcerer/cleric/xy challenge, and then we'll see.
Builds are better to illustrate what I mean, I guess.

- Giacomo

Forget about the white dragon for a moment; "solo this above-CR challenge" rarely leads to a character that resembles play no matter the class. I'd like to see a monk build, with items (and track consumables if you can, please--if you've used 3 wands of Divine Power by level 15 (a wand might last you two or three levels, maybe), that's different from just buying one then), at levels, say, 1, 5, 10, and 15. 28-point-buy. The kind you'd expect to play.
I think you'll find that you CAN'T, in fact, grapple and trip and have a high AC and items that mitigate your inabilities and a bunch of expensive wands. And I want you to tell me what exactly it is you do in combat.

Kurald Galain
2008-01-05, 03:54 AM
And so we're back to square one, with Giacomonk once again restating his opinion that essentially boils down to "monks are balanced because they can turn into pun-pun and/or seduce the DM just as easily as any other class."

The last thread ended when someone asked him a dozen questions like "do you really play that way?" which he declined to answer. I believe, then, that the answer is that people are arguing for the sake of argument, and in actuality nobody really plays that way.

Rachel Lorelei
2008-01-05, 05:45 AM
The last thread ended when someone asked him a dozen questions like "do you really play that way?" which he declined to answer. I believe, then, that the answer is that people are arguing for the sake of argument, and in actuality nobody really plays that way.

I can believe that. I find it pretty incredible to think that someone might tell a cleric player "your god's ticked off, no spells for you" out of a sense of game balance, or that the party gets harassed while resting every two or three or whatever times. If that's Giacomo's D&D experience, it's certainly very different from all of mine.

Freelance Henchman
2008-01-05, 06:45 AM
Thought experiment: The group has not one, but *two* Monks, as well as one Wizard and one Cleric. Now things get a bit stretched, because suddenly the Cleric needs to prepare 8 Divine Powers and the Wizard 8 Bull's Strengths, if I understand Giacomo's scheme correctly. Can this group still work somewhat effectively by buying more consumables, or is this getting tight? And no access/mooching off NPC casters!

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-05, 10:45 AM
High Level O'Malley, the Rogue Who Goes Around Stealing Mid-Level Wizards' Spellbooks Out Of Their Bags Of Holding In The Night, must have taken it." "We're in a Rope Trick surrounded by an Alarm in the middle of a desert!" "The ways of High Level O'Malley are inscrutable."


I am so totally statting this character out. Problem is, he'd probably end up as a wizard. :smallbiggrin:

Also, Giacomo, since when is 'logicninja' a term of abuse?

fendrin
2008-01-05, 11:10 AM
My interpretation is that the problems you are all talking about are from one of two things:

1) Trying to make the monk function as a tank. They are not a tank, they are a generalist.

2) The weakness all melee characters suffer above low-mid levels.

Combine these and you will have to resort to all sorts of craziness to keep up.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-05, 01:37 PM
I am so totally statting this character out. Problem is, he'd probably end up as a wizard. :smallbiggrin:


It all makes sense now! There is a high level (dragon?)wizard on the loose who is too much of a cheapskate to buy anything himself, but because he wants to own every spell in existence he goes(or teleports) around the world and steals spellbooks form other wizards, he doesn't kill them offcource, he keeps them alive so he can steal from them again!

horseboy
2008-01-06, 12:23 AM
Most of this has already been addressed, so I'll go with what I haven't seen.
hmmm...

You know, the giant scaly xy thing that gets a will save and needs to be touched? Great application of neutralise poison spell. What strange tactics are you advocating here? No, the monk's immunity is safer by far.A way that the entire party is safe, rather than just one person. You know, "group" tactics.



And to what hypthetical DM are you referring to? Likely not the DM of the core rules where - guess what? Polymorph is all perfectly legal, can have non-casters as targets, can be even cast by non-casters and can be made permanent on non-casters.
Ah, but you likely wish to devalue all tactics that non-casters do with polymorph as "broken". While at the same time praising the druid for going zilla with an ability which lasts much longer than morph and has broadly the same effect (balanced by less forms available for the longer duration). WotC. I'm a Living Greyhawk player. WotC makes all choices about what can and can not be used in play. Guess what? Polymorph is ban. Here's some (http://www.wizards.com/rpga/downloads/LGCS_597_v7-5.zip) links (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/welcome). (The second is the main page, click on Living Greyhawk Campaign Standards. Down load the PDF. Go to page 33. That's the beginning of the "Closed spells". Those are spells that WotC will NOT allow in their own games. Go to the far right column. Second and third spells listed. Polymorph and Polymorph any object. Both are ban, both are not even allowed for writer's who are creating modules. (Those get a cross next to them) WotC won't let me use polymorph. If polymorph is so vital to a monk's abilities, then 1) Why isn't it a class ability. 2) Why wouldn't they make an allowance for the monk?


Hmmm. Why is it that the monk can already flurry and move with the help of pounce (through morph in the core rules, other ways outside)? Could it be you screwed up with such a blatant oversight?Nope, it's a WotC ruling.


You mean, if this boss sits down with me for hours to discuss my mistakes it shows that he wants to fire me? Well, if he has to spends hours discussing your mistakes odds are VERY high you're going to be fired soon.


Apart from a strange non-descript collection of numbers and terms you put in a spoiler, what is this system?Earthdawn.



Well...after a second glance at the monk's class abilities, it may be quite an intuition to assume that it is designed to fight caster classes. Why is it then strange to you that I give the monk all the stuff he needs to do that task better?
Spellcraft is great for fighting casters because you know what they are doing and can react tactically.
UMD gives access to the magekiller spell AMF.Because in a well built, decently balanced system a character doesn't have to fight the rule set to do what his class is supposed to do.


Second. No feat or spell grants an extraordinary enhancement to movement.No, but a 1 level dip into barbarian will do that and be more useful.
Third. Neither to extraordinary tongues,Tongues can be permanencied.


Schroeder? Like the term invented for wizards who strangely always have the right spells prepared for all situations? Interesting to apply that to a monk who allegedly never can change his tactics once his feats and skills are set.
But MAD...I love to repeat it: if you think that only a monk wishes to have nice abilities, while fighters and clerics after having put their highest stat where they think it is most important just LOVE taking penalties or lesser stats in their other abilities, you astonish me without end. Actually, it's quite appropriate for a Giacomonk. As somehow, he's got a 16 in both wisdom and str. My fighter build was 16/14/11/13/10/10. How does the Giacomonk use that?




Why does the monk need both 16 in STR and WIS again and others don't?
You're the one saying it has a 16 whenever it grapples and a 16 any time AC or a will save comes up. Does my fighter NEED another 16? Not really. Sure it could be nice, to the point that I bought +2 dex gloves. Sure a higher Con might be nice, but since I'm reach combat control I don't get hit often enough to warrant the outlay.

Solo
2008-01-06, 03:14 AM
Why do you join in this strange polemic choir of Kurald Galain, Armads and horseboy that a monk is roughly the same (or worse) than an npc class?

How come I'm not on the list?


Ahem, anyways, how 'bout that character creation random monster encounter challenge? Is the offer still up?



If only everyone did what the Giacomo monk would advise like teamplay, they would be much better off. But pls, feel free to return to egoistic logicninja land.

If by "teamplay" you mean "pamper one very special party member" then yeah.

You may want to check out my sig, btw.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-06, 05:07 AM
What your forgetting is that a level 17 monk can choose to get an extra +3 to all mental stats, if built at 17+

Wordmiser
2008-01-06, 05:13 AM
My interpretation is that the problems you are all talking about are from one of two things:

1) Trying to make the monk function as a tank. They are not a tank, they are a generalist.

No. The Monk class is the most specialized of any in the game: It's a Mage-killer. It is a combat class designed to fight a single type of enemy.

It has all the counters that the game designers thought would be enough to challenge the Wizard and Sorcerer in direct combat: Saves, SR, Fort-targeting attacks, Grappling ability, Mobility options and Astronomical Touch AC.

So how is it a generalist, if I may ask? It has 4 skill points per level and a weak skill list (probably to compensate for its inability to independantly stand up against the other melee classes in direct combat). That is the only feature of the class that isn't designed to combat one very specific enemy.

Inyssius Tor
2008-01-06, 05:45 AM
The wizard may believe that, but he is then simply wrong. Let us see...who gets most out of a divine power
- a cleric (who cannot do is main task: spellcasting when he melees)

Wait a minute. So, with that wand of Divine Power, your ideal monk wastes the first turn of basically every encounter buffing himself? Don't you routinely argue that the Cleric and Druid are made a lot weaker by needing to spend a round self-buffing in order to melee effectively?

I may be addled with sleep deprivation, so feel free to dismiss what I'm trying to say with one reasonable ad hominem. You've spent a long time dwelling on the one weakness of Druids, though, and now you appear to be ignoring it when it visits the flawless Giacomonk.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 06:03 AM
How come I'm not on the list?

You don't fit on ANY list. We had to make a whole new list for you to be placed in:

~~
Solo
~~
:smallwink:


No. The Monk class is the most specialized of any in the game: It's a Mage-killer. It is a combat class designed to fight a single type of enemy.


What? No, it's not! They monk may have a slightly better chance to take out spellcasters, but with the ridiculous 'no save, no SR' spells, that's utterly useless. The monk IS a generalist, meant to do a series of other roles, not quite as good as the class that's meant for that role, but good enough to fill it up if the party lacks this class, or to aid these classes.

Xefas
2008-01-06, 07:13 AM
Well, I've spent my morning reading this entire thread, and so I think I'm sufficiently qualified now to throw my opinion into the maelstrom.

Monks are garbage [scrubbed]

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-06, 09:37 AM
Careful Xephas, Giacomo will soon be along to demonstrate that he's not mad, he can't be, he's got a wisdom of 16! :smalltongue:


What your forgetting is that a level 17 monk can choose to get an extra +3 to all mental stats, if built at 17+

But will die within, on average, 11 years, if human. That's not just an RP thing - that's imminent death.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 09:41 AM
But will die within, on average, 11 years, if human. That's not just an RP thing - that's imminent death.

So far, "monks are fun to RP" hasn't been accepted as a good reason to play them, so that's moot.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-06, 09:44 AM
So far, "monks are fun to RP" hasn't been accepted as a good reason to play them, so that's moot.

Yeah, but even without RP, it's not unusual for a campaign, or set of campaigns, to run over 11 years.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 09:46 AM
Really? I've never played any that lasted over 2 years.

But I can't see where EDK gets this from. SRD states that Venerable is -3 to phtscal stats, and +1 to mental stats.

And your age limit doesn't seem to be fitting either (note: I'm reading the SRD here, since I don't feel like looking for the right page in my PHB):
Max human age is 70+2d20 years. That's an average of 91 years.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-06, 10:01 AM
Really? I've never played any that lasted over 2 years.

But I can't see where EDK gets this from. SRD states that Venerable is -3 to phtscal stats, and +1 to mental stats.

And your age limit doesn't seem to be fitting either (note: I'm reading the SRD here, since I don't feel like looking for the right page in my PHB):
Max human age is 70+2d20 years. That's an average of 91 years.

It's 2d20? Serves me right that I didn't look it up.

Anyway, EDK got it from

Middle-aged - Str:-1 Dex:-1 Con:-1 Int:+1 Wis:+1 Cha:+1
Old - Str:-2 Dex:-2 Con:-2 Int:+1 Wis:+1 Cha:+1
Venerable - Str:-3 Dex:-3 Con:-3 Int:+1 Wis:+1 Cha:+1

Total - Str:-6 Dex:-6 Con:-6 Int:+3 Wis:+3 Cha:+3

Ne0
2008-01-06, 10:09 AM
Total - Str:-6 Dex:-6 Con:-6 Int:+3 Wis:+3 Cha:+3

Whoops. I always thought that those things didn't stack - that just the physical penalties grew over time. :smallbiggrin:

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-06, 10:41 AM
Druids and monks can in theory get +3 to mental stats yes, but this is a very doubtful practise, I don't think any DM will give you more then +1, or maybe +2 if you also take the -1 on physical stats. In the case of the druid you might argue that losing some physical stats is worth it, but for the monk those are 3 important stat in trade for 1 important stat, not really worth it if you ask me.

Unless you can find some sort of time acceleration method just for your character, it just isn't going to work.

Ne0
2008-01-06, 11:11 AM
Druids and monks can in theory get +3 to mental stats yes, but this is a very doubtful practise, I don't think any DM will give you more then +1, or maybe +2 if you also take the -1 on physical stats. In the case of the druid you might argue that losing some physical stats is worth it, but for the monk those are 3 important stat in trade for 1 important stat, not really worth it if you ask me.

What trade? We're assuming the monk starts at a high enough level. And I've often found strength not worth it if you don't have really high stats. That's my first dump stat, after cha and int - although I never let the latter one drop too much.

fendrin
2008-01-06, 11:47 AM
No. The Monk class is the most specialized of any in the game: It's a Mage-killer. It is a combat class designed to fight a single type of enemy.

It has all the counters that the game designers thought would be enough to challenge the Wizard and Sorcerer in direct combat: Saves, SR, Fort-targeting attacks, Grappling ability, Mobility options and Astronomical Touch AC.

So how is it a generalist, if I may ask? It has 4 skill points per level and a weak skill list (probably to compensate for its inability to independantly stand up against the other melee classes in direct combat). That is the only feature of the class that isn't designed to combat one very specific enemy.

Funny, my PHB doesn't mention mage-killing in the monk description. It does mention monks being "opportunistic combatants" and "excellent scouts" in the 'role' section.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-06, 12:41 PM
Hi,

sorry to Horseboy Rachel Lorelei and Armads (and Solo if he so dearly wishes to be on that list :smallbiggrin: ) - it will take some time to reply to all of your comments, which I currently do nto have.

My level 15 monk taking on an ancient white is almost ready. I am tempted to post it here, instead of the original thread...hmm will think on it.

Ah, one of the fanmails I'll try to answer, since it is so simple:


Wait a minute. So, with that wand of Divine Power, your ideal monk wastes the first turn of basically every encounter buffing himself? Don't you routinely argue that the Cleric and Druid are made a lot weaker by needing to spend a round self-buffing in order to melee effectively?

I may be addled with sleep deprivation, so feel free to dismiss what I'm trying to say with one reasonable ad hominem. You've spent a long time dwelling on the one weakness of Druids, though, and now you appear to be ignoring it when it visits the flawless Giacomonk.

Cleric and Druid are not made a lot weaker by spending a round of self-buffing in order to melee effectively.
Their problem is to devote their spellpower and risk their necks regularly in melee.
This I would not even advocate for the monk. Cleric, druid and monk all have d8 hits. This is not enough to survive for long in the first ranks continuously.

A monk will NOT use a wand of divine power in every encounter (although so many posters opposing my views here try to interpret my words this way to make me look MAD :smallbiggrin: ). He will use it when it is useful, much like the cleric or druid should do.
There is a time to risk going into melee trading full attacks and there is one when it is not a good idea.
A wand with 50 charges should well cover this for the 50 occasions in levels 1-20 for the monk. (ah, and as for te 21,000 gold price - you can get the 1-4 effects at lower levels if you get a wand with fewer charges. 5 holy swords for just 2,100 - it's a bargain! Or 1 divine power casting available already at 2nd level? Oh nos! :smallsmile: )

- Giacomo

PS @Armads: it is actually a quite good idea for a paladin to create a wand of holy sword or with any of his spells, since he has so few of them to cast per day.
But that is not the point. The wand description in the DMG says that a wand can contain all 1-4 lvl spells. ALL.
So it can contain animal growth (ranger 4), legend lore (bard 6) etc.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-06, 01:30 PM
What trade? We're assuming the monk starts at a high enough level. And I've often found strength not worth it if you don't have really high stats. That's my first dump stat, after cha and int - although I never let the latter one drop too much.
Your assuming a monk 17 or druid 15 makes it to the appropriate level and then waits till it's venerable. Doing that however is very unrealistic, quite probably not what was intended with a mostly flavour ability, overpowered in the with druids and perhaps in the case of a monk as well.
I don't think there is any DM that would allow it either, if a DM would allow anything at all it would be the difference in one aging catagory, which gives you +1 to all your mental stats or if you chose to start middle aged +2 to mental -1 to physical, that's what I'm talking about.
Even if you dump strength starting middle age would still be doubtful practise for a monk.



But that is not the point. The wand description in the DMG says that a wand can contain all 1-4 lvl spells. ALL.
So it can contain animal growth (ranger 4), legend lore (bard 6) etc.
Small, yet amusing mistake, it's sor/wiz 6 and bard 4 so it does go into a wand.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-06, 01:58 PM
Small, yet amusing mistake, it's sor/wiz 6 and bard 4 so it does go into a wand.

Ah, yes, typo - thanks for noticing.

One more thing on the zilla and wands: a monk going into melee with divine power and his extra feats (and more attacks) can be more devastating than a clericzilla. That, plus the spell ranged tactics given up by the zilla cleric makes the buff for the monk relatively more useful.

- Giacomo

Xefas
2008-01-06, 07:01 PM
Careful Xephas, Giacomo will soon be along to demonstrate that he's not mad, he can't be, he's got a wisdom of 16! :smalltongue:

Yeah, about that; I want to apologize to Giacomo. I meant the "insult" in jest, as I was simply trying to insinuate that believing in the underdog monk was so ridiculous as to be deviant behavior. I found it kind of humorous at the time, but now I realize it was wrong of me to use a personal attack to try to be funny.

I'm sincerely sorry; please accept my apologies, Giacomo.

Wordmiser
2008-01-07, 12:17 AM
Funny, my PHB doesn't mention mage-killing in the monk description. It does mention monks being "opportunistic combatants" and "excellent scouts" in the 'role' section.Funny, that.

After all, the class descriptions do tend to better describe the mechanics of D&D better than the sections which actually discuss the mechanics. That's why Samurai are as strong in combat as Fighters and are strong choices for the "party face" role.

new1965
2008-01-07, 09:20 AM
Yeah, but even without RP, it's not unusual for a campaign, or set of campaigns, to run over 11 years.

Are you talking real time or game time?

I mean im in game thats been running for about 7-8 years. However as far as the characters are concerned, its been less that 2 years (probably closer to 1 year) to get to Level 12

Indon
2008-01-07, 10:05 AM
I'd say that the Monk is a natural caster-killer. Of course, any reasonably optimized full caster can never die to anything but one of their ilk, so it's somewhat inapplicable... unless you look at magic-using classes which were made to be balanced with other classes.

I'd say that the Monk is pretty useful against the likes of the Binder, Truenamer, and even the Warlock (in both the both-have-flight and the eldritch blast vs. crossbow fight scenarios, though obviously better in the former).

Since we can assume that classes like those more match Wizards' intent for the caster classes, I think we can fairly say that Monks were intended to be anti-caster... it's just that magic turned out to be too potent with any reasonable amount of optimization.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-07, 12:07 PM
Your assuming a monk 17 or druid 15 makes it to the appropriate level and then waits till it's venerable. Doing that however is very unrealistic, quite probably not what was intended with a mostly flavour ability, overpowered in the with druids and perhaps in the case of a monk as well.
I don't think there is any DM that would allow it either, if a DM would allow anything at all it would be the difference in one aging catagory, which gives you +1 to all your mental stats or if you chose to start middle aged +2 to mental -1 to physical, that's what I'm talking about.
Even if you dump strength starting middle age would still be doubtful practise for a monk.
.

Is your first agument its unrealistic for a monk to get old?
So your argument is monks are rubbish if the DM gimps them.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-07, 12:53 PM
Is your first agument its unrealistic for a monk to get old?
So your argument is monks are rubbish if the DM gimps them.

You mean not giving a character a free +3 to all mental stats is gimping them? I beg to differ, imagine what druids would be like!

My argument is that it is unrealistic for a monk to get VERY old at exact the the time he needs it and then continue to adventure like nothing happened. This also has nothing to do with the monk, it has to do with every class with Timeless body.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-07, 01:16 PM
So wizards aren't powerful as sorcerers can cast the same spells?

Why would it be the exact time?

All that happened to him is that he became stronger.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-07, 01:41 PM
So wizards aren't powerful as sorcerers can cast the same spells?

Why would it be the exact time?

All that happened to him is that he became stronger.

.....I knew you weren't the brightest of the bunch but this beats it all, I don't get were you get all these strange conclusions from, I never said anything like that. Also he didn't just "get stronger", he got much, much older.


I'll give you some situations now, consider them carefully.
situation one:
A monk starts under level 17, when he hits level 17 he waits a very long time to get venerable so that he won't miss any skill points from the INT bonus and then happily continues adventuring.
Is this realistic?

Situation two:
A monk starts at level 17+ and takes all the ageing bonuses and none of the penalties, this means the character has first somehow achieved level 17, then sat on his lazy ass until he was venerable and continued adventuring for some reason.
How realistic is this?

and finally:
A player tries to convince a DM to allow one of the above situations for his next character.
How likely do you think the DM is to allow this?

As a side note: I think even Sir Giacomo would agree just giving a monk/druid +3 to all mental stats for free is not what was intended with that ability.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-07, 01:49 PM
This also has nothing to do with the monk, it has to do with every class with Timeless body.

Your saying the timeless body doesn't change the power of monks as other classes have it.

And how did the age affect him at all?

Are monks not able to protect a villiage from something below where he would get xp?

Situation 2 could make sense if you added a reason.


I'm allowed to think seperately from Sir Giacomo. Wizards were meat to be blasters, that doesn't mean they can't be anything else.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-07, 02:00 PM
This also has nothing to do with the monk, it has to do with every class with Timeless body.

Your saying the timeless body doesn't change the power of monks as other classes have it.

And how did the age affect him at all?

Are monks not able to protect a villiage from something below where he would get xp?

Situation 2 could make sense if you added a reason.


I'm allowed to think seperately from Sir Giacomo. Wizards were meat to be blasters, that doesn't mean they can't be anything else.

I asked you to consider it carefully, not to post a reply as soon as possible:smallmad: .

Now point by point
1) True, that's what I said
2) I never said such a thing, learn how to read.
3) the +3 mental stats comes from his age does it not?
4) irrelevant
5) It would have to be a very good reason and then it would still be munchkinnery
6) Ofcource, but Sir Giacomo is the one who often tries to use minor abilities to great effect,this is sort of what you are trying to do, hence the reference. The strange conclusion is your own.
7)(The comment about wizards) Nice excuse to abuse everything ever posted, this however doesn't make you right, nor is it a viable argument.

Emperor Demonking
2008-01-07, 02:09 PM
If it changed the power of monks it'd have to have something to do with monks. +3 to wisdom obviously affects monks their has to be a reason for why you don't think it counts.

So to phrase it better apart from the mental improvement how does age affect monks.

Its another of the many reasons you could say the level 17 monk is possible.

Using their abilities is being a munchkin?


7) Why isn't it relevant?

Frosty
2008-01-07, 02:29 PM
The wizard believes that the Fighter or (Divine Power, Righteous Might casting) cleric could make better use of the buff... either that, or he believes that the spell is too overpowered for gameplay and the DM agrees.



Actually, that is the crux of the matter i tried to ask in my other thread: Who benefits the most when properly buffed? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68510)

However, Giacomo did not answer :(

If the Monk is indeed one of the more optimal choices to fill the role of combat monster after being buffed (assuming no polymorph, since I never allow that spell in my games. I also have a tendency to nerf Wildshape), then why not? But if quite a few other fighting classes can still do it better even after all the buffs, then perhaps it's time to look at the monk some more.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-07, 02:38 PM
If it changed the power of monks it'd have to have something to do with monks. +3 to wisdom obviously affects monks their has to be a reason for why you don't think it counts.

So to phrase it better apart from the mental improvement how does age affect monks.

Its another of the many reasons you could say the level 17 monk is possible.

Using their abilities is being a munchkin?


7) Why isn't it relevant?
Again
1) Using this ability like this is unfair whether the monk is balanced or not, that's why I said it had nothing to do with the monk. The +3 definitively effects monks(and druids as well for that matter), it just that I'm not talking about that because my point it that the ability it being abused, not who getting the profit.

2) bellow level 17, the same way as it effects everybody else, you get penalties and bonuses for getting into another age category.
At higher a levels, it gives just gives you the bonuses, however as an RP thing an old character will definitely behave different. Also if you plan on waiting at level 17, the campaign will likely be finished long before you've stopped waiting. Does that answer you question?

3) How does protecting a village(I assume you're talking about that) and gaining XP from that protect you from ageing penalties?

4) using their abilities in this way is munchkinnery, as a rule of the thumb, if no DM would ever allow it in a non-let's-powergame-our-asses-off game, it qualifies as munchkin territory.

7) The creators might or might not have intended a wizard to be a blaster and a wizard is definitely overpowered(if well played), so you can say that design has made more than a few mistakes. This however has no effect on using an ability in a way that's theoretically possible, but unrealistic and unfair in real play.

horseboy
2008-01-07, 02:46 PM
Actually, that is the crux of the matter i tried to ask in my other thread: Who benefits the most when properly buffed? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68510)

However, Giacomo did not answer :(

If the Monk is indeed one of the more optimal choices to fill the role of combat monster after being buffed (assuming no polymorph, since I never allow that spell in my games. I also have a tendency to nerf Wildshape), then why not? But if quite a few other fighting classes can still do it better even after all the buffs, then perhaps it's time to look at the monk some more.

I would think the amount of hoops one has to jump through to get buffs like divine power and righteous might speaks volumes about who they're intended target is. If WotC had intended for classes like rogues and monks (let alone druids) to have buffs like righteous might and divine power, then the cleric would be able to cast it on them directly. No spell storing or UMD shenanigans required.

fendrin
2008-01-07, 02:59 PM
.....I knew you weren't the brightest of the bunch
Hey now, personal attacks are uncalled for and a great way to not be taken seriously.

I'll give you some situations now, consider them carefully.
situation one:
A monk starts under level 17, when he hits level 17 he waits a very long time to get venerable so that he won't miss any skill points from the INT bonus and then happily continues adventuring.
Is this realistic?
Not very realistic, but then again, nothing at level 17 is.


Situation two:
A monk starts at level 17+ and takes all the ageing bonuses and none of the penalties, this means the character has first somehow achieved level 17, then sat on his lazy ass until he was venerable and continued adventuring for some reason.
How realistic is this?
When put that way, no. But it is perfectly reasonable for adventurers (even high level ones) to retire (and only fight in defense of the village, monastery, etc, whcih is what Emperor Demonking was saying), or for the monk to be imprisoned for many years, or lots of other reasons to not be able to gain exp. Maybe the monk was in a coma. All perfectly reasonable, especially if the monk hits 17 (or higher) at the end of a campaign, and a new campaign starts many (game world) years into the future.


and finally:
A player tries to convince a DM to allow one of the above situations for his next character.
How likely do you think the DM is to allow this?

Sadly enough, I've seen it happen. With a druid. :smalleek:

Worira
2008-01-07, 03:19 PM
Yeah, a monk chilling out in a, you know, monastery for most of his life isn't really that farfetched.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-07, 03:28 PM
Yeah, a monk chilling out in a, you know, monastery for most of his life isn't really that farfetched.

Yeah, but said monk reaching 17th level just kicking around the cloisters is, so we've got the vision of a guy that has the determination and luck to reach high level suddenly sit down and twiddle their thumbs for a few decades or centuries depending on their race. Sure it can happen, but it seems very very improbable, even for a character that reaches high level. Now a monk of that level that gets reincarnated is something I could easily get behind, this gets even more believable for druids.:smallfrown:

Indon
2008-01-07, 03:32 PM
Yeah, but said monk reaching 17th level just kicking around the cloisters is, so we've got the vision of a guy that has the determination and luck to reach high level suddenly sit down and twiddle their thumbs for a few decades or centuries depending on their race. Sure it can happen, but it seems very very improbable, even for a character that reaches high level. Now a monk of that level that gets reincarnated is something I could easily get behind, this gets even more believable for druids.:smallfrown:

A monk of that level would _found_ a monastery. Years later, after the monastery is well-established, he may take to wandering the world again.

mostlyharmful
2008-01-07, 03:37 PM
A monk of that level would _found_ a monastery. Years later, after the monastery is well-established, he may take to wandering the world again.

Sounds like a challenging activity to me... you'd need a high level monk that doesn't do anything exceptional or arduous. Like sit quietly in a cell meditating. Founding a new organization and monk academy, possibly in a challenging environment, tutoring new monks to competance and then exceptionalness, intergrating it into the local econonmy and power structure and ensuring it has enough wealth and goodwill to support it could take some doing.

Worira
2008-01-07, 03:40 PM
Yes, but that's the point. If he didn't get XP for doing it, he'd be at 17th level until venerable.

Fenix_of_Doom
2008-01-07, 03:51 PM
A monk of that level would _found_ a monastery. Years later, after the monastery is well-established, he may take to wandering the world again.

Right, a monk just happened to found a monastery at the right level, waited until he was REALLY old, he could have 2 years yet to live(then again as elf he could have 400 years yet to live) and decided to take one last trip to fight evil. Leaving behind a monastery he founded and his many pupils.
Theoretically possible? Sure.
Default assumption? Definitely not! Which was kind of the point.

Sir Giacomo
2008-01-07, 06:40 PM
Hi again,

@Xefas: apology accepted (although whatever you typed got already scrubbed by the moderator, so no harm done to me).


Actually, that is the crux of the matter i tried to ask in my other thread: Who benefits the most when properly buffed? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68510)

However, Giacomo did not answer :(

Sorry! I overlooked your thread. But I`ll try to answer now.


If the Monk is indeed one of the more optimal choices to fill the role of combat monster after being buffed (assuming no polymorph, since I never allow that spell in my games. I also have a tendency to nerf Wildshape), then why not? But if quite a few other fighting classes can still do it better even after all the buffs, then perhaps it's time to look at the monk some more.

Ok, leaving aside polymorph (which imo is a good example of a buff benefitting the monk most), I would overall not say that any non-caster class makes generally best use of buffs. All can benefit, although from to a different extent from different buffs.
Some 1-4 level buffs which can be thus accessed via wands (and fighter and barbarian are almost identical in that respect):

Divine power-
helps the 3/4 classes monk and rogue most. Monk makes more out of it due to many STR-related combat styles, rogue can get the handy UMD easier (and use reliably the approrpriate wand earlier, although divine power really starts to shine for the monk from level 16 or so where it also gives an extra maximum attack)

Enlarge
helps fighter and monk most, although a rogue could also benefit from being able to do a sneak from 10ft away (but better get a reach weapon for that and do not pay for it with DEX and hide penalties)
Fighter arguably due to higher mastery of reach weapons gets more use out of enlarge, in particular since his weapons and armour grow with the spell!

Improved Invisibility
Rogue superbuff. Hands down. Invisibility is enough for a monk who also has move silently and can then make a better scout than even the rogue due to higher movement.

Freedom of Movement
helps all, but rogue most since they do not have that much of a grapple score and that full-round escape artist check is not really THAT great an escape option (free of grapple, 5ft step. Opponent full attacks again, grapples. Continue. Yawn).

Blink
helps all, but most I am inclined to say the monk whose niche (among others) is to be a pain in the xxx of opponents. Helps greatly vs targeted spells, although not a well as invisibiltiy in that regard (but is not negated by see invisibility in that respect)

Mage Armour
Monk. The others have other armour bonus sources (armour) already

Shield
Monk. The others may have shields bonus sources (shields) already.

etc

- Giacomo

PS @horseboy: one of the major misperceptions you show imo is to say that devoting a fraction of your skill points cross class to UMD is jumping through "hoops" to get access to personal buffs or buffs for backing up the buffing task of the spellcasters. Heck, 1-3 level self buffs are even available easily via potions for all.
Giving UMD as class skill to all or making personal buffs to buffs for all would empower the non-caster classes likely too much.
Edit PPS: for those interested at what a monk at 15th level can do in combat, check out my attempt to do a core monk build to take on an ancient white dragon (CR 18) here:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68095&page=4

Frosty
2008-01-07, 06:58 PM
So really, what you're saying is that whether you want a Monk, a Fighter, a Rogue, or some other martial class really depends on what role you wish for that party member to fulfill? It looks like different classes benefit from different buffs.

Now the question is: What role SHOULD the monk fulfull? Fighter or Knight or Crusader seems to do battle-field control better. Barbarian dominates straight damage. Mage Killer? A Knight or a Fighter with some speed enhancements, a spiked chain, and the Mage-Slayer feats probably is probably better than the Monk.

Light skirmisher...I never really understood the concept of a light skirmisher. WHY? What exactly does a light skirmisher do for the group? I mean, running around and not getting hurt is great...but what does it do to help?

new1965
2008-01-07, 08:21 PM
Right, a monk just happened to found a monastery at the right level, waited until he was REALLY old, he could have 2 years yet to live(then again as elf he could have 400 years yet to live) and decided to take one last trip to fight evil. Leaving behind a monastery he founded and his many pupils.
Theoretically possible? Sure.
Default assumption? Definitely not! Which was kind of the point.

The real Shaolin temple (yeah... its real and not just a movie invention) was destroyed by the ruling government at the time. Kung fu was outlawed as were the monks and they were made fugitives.

So if the REAL monks of all ages were forced out of their temple, why couldn't a DnD monk

BTW... The real monks used their techniques as a form as exercise and to defend the temples from robbers and the likes

Gorbash
2008-01-07, 08:30 PM
Becuase DnD isn't REAL?

Indon
2008-01-08, 08:54 AM
Now the question is: What role SHOULD the monk fulfull? Fighter or Knight or Crusader seems to do battle-field control better. Barbarian dominates straight damage. Mage Killer? A Knight or a Fighter with some speed enhancements, a spiked chain, and the Mage-Slayer feats probably is probably better than the Monk.

There's no reason why every class should be a specialist.

This isn't some MMO where if your class doesn't fill a niche better than any other, you don't get to come on the raid for the phat lootz.