Who benefits the most when properly buffed?

[Frosty]

One argument in favor of having a monk in the party is that he can actually become a more terrifying combat monster than other classes, assuming they all receive the same buffs.

Now, given the assumption that there are no polymorph effects (I ban those from my games), would you say the above statement holds true? Is it really better to have a monk in your party and buff him than to have say...a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin or Warblade or Crusader or a Swordsage be buffed?

[Talic]

One argument in favor of having a monk in the party is that he can actually become a more terrifying combat monster than other classes, assuming they all receive the same buffs.

Now, given the assumption that there are no polymorph effects (I ban those from my games), would you say the above statement holds true? Is it really better to have a monk in your party and buff him than to have say...a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin or Warblade or Crusader or a Swordsage be buffed?

By "no polymorph effects", do you include Wild Shape?

Because if not, then druid is the best to buff.

After that, Barbarian and fighter.

With a lot of spells and such, monk can be effective (mage armor, cat's grace, owl's wisdom = +8AC), but it takes too much to be viable.

[Bag_of_Holding]

Hmm, with Divine Power, Righteous Might and Necrotic Empowerment (LM), a cleric is a tremendous force to be reckoned with. Also, when buffed up equally (assuming the monk and other classes can use scrolls to do some personal buffing) a monk can become very powerful given the buff included Giant Size (a Wu Jen 7th level spell) with CL of 20 or higher.

[kamikasei]

Well, what argument do the people who make this claim offer?

[Rachel Lorelei]

Most all front-line classes benefit from buffing equally. The problem is, you never have all the buffs that you'd like to.

[Caewil]

The best buffs are personal only. So, the onewho benefits the most when properly buffed is the buffer himself.

[marjan]

There are Bracers of Spell Sharing for casting buffs with personal range on others. How much someone benefits from buffs depends largely on the type of buff. A monk would benefit more from Divine Power than the fighter would for example.

[Talic]

There are Bracers of Spell Sharing for casting buffs with personal range on others. How much someone benefits from buffs depends largely on the type of buff. A monk would benefit more from Divine Power than the fighter would for example.

And a wizard would benefit more than either, numerically.

But the wizard isn't as able to take advantage of it. Nor is monk.

Keep in mind, the monk does not get full BAB. The bonuses that benefit a monk more only serve to bring the monk up to the fighter's level. They don't allow him to surpass a fighter. The other benefits that monks receive do not make up for the lack of HP or feats that fighters get.

[kamikasei]

Keep in mind, the monk does not get full BAB. The bonuses that benefit a monk more only serve to bring the monk up to the fighter's level. They don't allow him to surpass a fighter. The other benefits that monks receive do not make up for the lack of HP or feats that fighters get.

I think the idea is that certain buffs provide one benefit to both classes, and also bring the monk up to the fighter's level while doing nothing additional for the fighter, such as Divine Power. At a guess, the argument is that a monk who's been patched up to full BAB and otherwise had his weak spots filled in is stronger than a fighter due to his other abilities.

But I haven't seen that argument actually made in that way, so I ask the OP, could we have some example of this argument and how the claim is actually backed up?

[Talic]

I think the idea is that certain buffs provide one benefit to both classes, and also bring the monk up to the fighter's level while doing nothing additional for the fighter, such as Divine Power. At a guess, the argument is that a monk who's been patched up to full BAB and otherwise had his weak spots filled in is stronger than a fighter due to his other abilities.

But I haven't seen that argument actually made in that way, so I ask the OP, could we have some example of this argument and how the claim is actually backed up?

Buffs benefit a monk more, true. Just like a Ring of evasion benefits a Fighter more than a monk.

The buffs don't make the monk more effective than the fighter, however. Not even close.

[marjan]

I'm not saying that monk with Divine Power cast on him is better than fighter. But he isn't whole lot worse than the fighter with proper buffs. Having to buff monk in order for him to perform well is one of the reasons why monk isn't very good class. And wizard won't benefit much from Divine Power unless he also uses polymorph or something similar and even then it is not wise for him to take full advantage of it by going into melee due to his low HP.

[kamikasei]

I'm not saying that monk with Divine Power cast on him is better than fighter. But he isn't whole lot worse than the fighter with proper buffs.

Apparently someone's saying it.


One argument in favor of having a monk in the party is that he can actually become a more terrifying combat monster than other classes, assuming they all receive the same buffs.

[mostlyharmful]

Druid, why buff only one team member when I can buff two (companion being almost as good as a monk at mid levels and better at lower, once you factor in long term buffs) and be a frickn BEAR aswel. Plus I can do it myself without mooching, contribute even without the short term buffs (Surprise round, endurance run, etc...). Same BAB, more synergistic class features, full casting, no MAD, automatic sharing with companion, a better skill list and the same number of skill points all mean a druid needs less buffs, is able to provide more buffs both for themselves and for others in the party, and gets more use out of each casting.

[Keld Denar]

I think that most fighter mutt breeds are gonna get the most bang for the buff buck. Moreso than a cleric even. The name of the game is 2handed power attack, feat multipliers on power attack, and additional attacks.

Full BAB: OK, with the presence of Divine Power, both classes can have full BAB, this is important, because to really cap out damage, you need to be able to full PA (dump your entire BAB) and still be able to hit reliably. Divine Power brings a cleric BAB up to that of a fighter, and gives a +6 ENHANCEMENT bonus to STR, something any self-respecting fighter should already have. Outcome: tie

Feats: Any good fighter mutt is gonna have at least 2 levels of fighter, if not 4. There is almost no reason not to, for any reason. DMM clericzillas are already investing 3-4 of their 7-8 feats on their little persist trick, which bumps the fighter mutt out 5-6 feats ahead of the cleric. While the cleric has some pretty potent buffs, they are not a substitute for the numbers that power attacking multipliers stack up to. Things like Leap Attack, Heedless Charge, and Battle Jump, then Combat Brute, Karmic Strike, or Robilar's Gambit put the fighter lightyears ahead of the cleric. Most fighter mutts also include 1 or more levels of barbarian, from which they gain str and con to partialy match up to a clerics Righteous Might. Slap on an Enlarge and a Stoneskin, and most of the benefits are the same.

Extra Attacks: Fighters have more ways to gain extra attacks than a cleric. Disregarding pounce from a LT barb dip (which is the highest damage increase) and haste (available to both). Any fighter using a Spiked Chain (common) or 2handing a double weapon (using only 1 end) can get a level of EWM for Flurry of Strikes. Any fighter who invests his feats in MWM and uses a slashing weapon can also gain Slashing Furry. These extra attacks with PA and all the multipliers on it are what makes the fighter the bloody red blender of doom. A cleric just can't match up to this without multiclassing which loses caster levels and violating the number 1 rule of optimization.

There, thats why a cleric will never be able to match a fighter mutt type class in shear damage output. The arithmetic bonuses from cleric just don't stack up to the geometric bonuses that the fighter can have available to him.

And monks still suck, because they can't make the most of 2hand PA with flurry. And don't give me no quarterstaff bullcrap. In a flurry, a quarterstaff is a 1handed weapon.

[Thinker]

Through buffing the monk can be brought up to the level of other meleers, but it requires more resources to do so. Its easier to throw a buff over to the fighter than two or three to the monk.

[kamikasei]

Through buffing the monk can be brought up to the level of other meleers, but it requires more resources to do so. Its easier to throw a buff over to the fighter than two or three to the monk.

I suspect the thing to do, if we want to test the OP's question, is to stat up a generic Fighter and Monk, compile a list of Standard Combat Buffs, apply B to A, and see who comes out ahead.

People are throwing around these generic assertions but no one has really provided evidence to back up either position yet, barring the observation that a monk can be improved more in one obvious area (BAB) which nonetheless only removes a disadvantage without directly granting an edge.

[Keld Denar]

I suspect the thing to do, if we want to test the OP's question, is to stat up a generic Fighter and Monk, compile a list of Standard Combat Buffs, apply B to A, and see who comes out ahead.

People are throwing around these generic assertions but no one has really provided evidence to back up either position yet, barring the observation that a monk can be improved more in one obvious area (BAB) which nonetheless only removes a disadvantage without directly granting an edge.

Read my post...A monk can't flurry AND use 2handed PA. That alone puts the monk way behind the fighter. The fighter has more BAB (this more maximum PA), gets 2-1 return on his PA, and prioritizes STR more since he is less MAD, thus increasing damage and chance to hit while PAing. A monk has lower BAB (for lower PA damage), 1-1 PA when flurrying (just to keep up with the number of attacks a fighter gets), and puts ability points in Wisdom for class abilities that doesn't go to Str or Dex. With buffs, a monks damage increases at a 1-1 basis. With buffs, a fighters damage increases at a 2-1 basis. A decisive striker monk with Karmic Strike, Robilar's Gambit, and Defensive Sweep (see archerpwr's Lockdown 2.0 build over on Gleemax) might come close to a standard fighter mutt, but then again, he IS the standard melee mut more than a "monk" is.

2handed PA IS the be-all end-all of 3.5 melee damage output. To say otherwise is a lie. A monk can either do it worse than a fighter due to BAB, or can't do it at all combined with flurry. No Flurry from a straight monk will even match a 2hand PA fighter full attack with the same buffs, especially since the fighter can get flurry himself from EWM (many do) which can be used with a 2hander for EVEN MORE DAMAGE. Add in things like Leap Attack (fighter mutts have lots more feats to invest than monks) and the fighter pulls even further ahead. Every buff you give the monk, the fighter can get an as good or (most often) greater return on investment on it than him. EVERY BUFF.

[horseboy]

Druid, why buff only one team member when I can buff two (companion being almost as good as a monk at mid levels and better at lower, once you factor in long term buffs) and be a frickn BEAR aswel. Just go with the constrictor. Monk in a tube! :smallwink:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Best use of a monk? As a single-level dip for a wild-shaping druid. He gets flurry of blows, improved grapple, and WIS TO AC! If you are building a druid to melee as a giant monster, the aditional +12 to AC at level 20 can be a huge benefit.

[ZeroNumerous]

Best use of a monk? As a single-level dip for a wild-shaping druid.

Don't forget Cardemine Monk and Wizard..

..Oh wait, Cardemine Monk doesn't require Monk levels to take. You just need a monk's belt then. Heck, a monk's belt with a wildling clasp covers the druid too! Hurry for an item removing an entire class!

[Frosty]

Mostly I am getting everyone's opinion on the argument that I believe Sir Guacomo makes often. His monk examples uses a *lot* of buffs, and many times, with all those buffs, the monk can be decently effective. The question is really whether the party would be better off with the 4th party member being someone else other than a monk assuming the role to be filled is primarily non-caster (i.e, archery or melee style)

[Talya]

2handed PA IS the be-all end-all of 3.5 melee damage output. To say otherwise is a lie.


I really disagree with this. If you can comfortably use power-attack in amounts that make that much difference, the DM needs to pit you against opponents with higher AC.

For instance, if you face an opponent that you will hit on a roll of 13 or higher, one point of power attack reduces the number of hits you will get by 13%, but only boosts your damage by +4, at most, which is likely to be far less than 13% of your damage on a given hit. (This is worse for iterative attacks, too.)

That all changes if you take that feat that lets power attack come off your armor class rather than your attack bonus, mind you. So long as you are ready to take what's coming to you afterward...

[LordLocke]

1. Druid
2. PsyWar
3. Cleric

All due to the extremely useful 'Range: Personal' buffs they get on top of what anyone else can give them.

After that, depends on what you need. A well-buffed monk might as well be unkillable... but that fully-buffed Rogue just got renamed 'Death from Above.' That said, a Rogue can probably be fully-buffed in more ways to be useful in more scenarios then any other class... well, at least, anyone without a slew of great Range: Personal spells.

[F.L.]

In war or battle, consider the following. Offensive tactics amplify defensive strategy, and defensive tactics amplify offensive strategy.

This makes sense when you consider the machine gun and the tank. The machine gun is an offensive tactic. It amplifies the lethality of the battlefield. After its introduction, the MG was used in WWI, which was a drawn out stalemate, from defensive strategy.

Alternately, the tank is a defensive tactic. It reduces the lethality of combat for the tank crew. Tanks normally serve to punch through defensive structures, an offensive strategy.

The primary list of buffs are defensive in nature. They make the most difference when applied to an offensive character. So, the PA monster fighter can use them well (by applying miss chances and DR to an enemy's counterattack to offset the AC sacrifice), as can any character with abilities of 1 standard action = X enemy creatures out of combat. The problem with applying these buffs to a defensive character such as the monk, is that the defenses sometimes don't stack, an adversary will concentrate on the biggest threat to itself, ignoring smaller threats (concentrate on the 150 damage source as opposed to the 30 damage source), and that the total difference is negligable; if you reduce the hit chance on the monk from 10 to 5%, that's not big, but if you can take the fighter from 30 to 10%, that's big.

[Frosty]

Well, let's assume that there is some way to get those personal range spells casted on the monk (via items of spellstoring perhaps? Or some sort of magical pearl that can hold spells) or perhaps there is a houserule saying that spells like Divine Power are now touch-range spells (which I am seriously considering to even the playing fields a bit)

And Talya, I am not implying Core only, so there are ways (Shock Trooper mianly) to not dump to-hit. That said, there are disadvantages to having rock-bottom AC, but at least you'll kill that one annoying enemy first.

[Indon]

Well, most categories of buffs are debatable, but Monks generally benefit more from size increases than other classes, especially at higher levels.

This is because as damage dice increase, the increase to those dice from size increases as well. 2-H Power Attack, however, not only has lower size benefits but can actually become comparatively weaker with size increases because of the high ratio of +hit for damage.

[Rachel Lorelei]

I really disagree with this. If you can comfortably use power-attack in amounts that make that much difference, the DM needs to pit you against opponents with higher AC.

For instance, if you face an opponent that you will hit on a roll of 13 or higher, one point of power attack reduces the number of hits you will get by 13%, but only boosts your damage by +4, at most, which is likely to be far less than 13% of your damage on a given hit. (This is worse for iterative attacks, too.)

That all changes if you take that feat that lets power attack come off your armor class rather than your attack bonus, mind you. So long as you are ready to take what's coming to you afterward...

Talya, D&D statistics Don't Work That Way. If you Power Attack for one (so long as you hit on something between a 3 and 19, inclusive), you reduce your chance of hitting by 5%--1 out of 20 (i.e. there's one number you won't hit on that you would've hit on). If Power Attacking for X adds more damage than than X*5% of your total damage, it's a good idea. Iterative attacks play with this a bit.

Incidentally, this also means that the higher your normal damage, the worse an idea Power Attack is.

[Keld Denar]

I really disagree with this. If you can comfortably use power-attack in amounts that make that much difference, the DM needs to pit you against opponents with higher AC.

For instance, if you face an opponent that you will hit on a roll of 13 or higher, one point of power attack reduces the number of hits you will get by 13%, but only boosts your damage by +4, at most, which is likely to be far less than 13% of your damage on a given hit. (This is worse for iterative attacks, too.)

That all changes if you take that feat that lets power attack come off your armor class rather than your attack bonus, mind you. So long as you are ready to take what's coming to you afterward...

At higher levels with the presence of so many buffs, a fully buffed fighter should seldom PA for less than his full BAB. I run a level 15 fighter type with a 14 BAB in Living Greyhawk at average party level 14-16. In the group I run with, I can almost always count on the following buffs:
GMW +4 grants +3 hit on top of my +1 weapon (untyped)
Recitation +3 hit because I worship the same diety as my cleric (luck)
Bardsong +5 - +3 bardsong with Insp Boost and Badge of Valor (moral)
Haste from boots +1 (haste)

That's a +12 to hit from 4 buffs (one personal). More buffs would could be stackable, but those are the ones I'm gonna go with.

14 BAB +1 weapon +3 feats +10 str (16 str, 3 level bumps, +1 tomb, +6 belt, +4 rage) +1 Ioun Stone and a situational +2 vs evil outsiders (bane)

Thats a +29 unbuffed to hit, or a +41 to hit while buffed. The absolute highest AC thing I've ever faught was a Cornugun with Unholy Aura, somewhere around AC 38-40 which requires you to tighten the reins on PA a little, but you can still PA for 5ish. Most things have an AC around 28 though. +41 is absolutely wasted vs something with an AC in that range. Power Attacking for full BAB brings this down to +27, and flurry of strikes brings it down to +25/+25/+25/+20/+15 on a full attack, with all Karmic Strikes made at +25 (up to 4).

So the primary attacks hit on average with a 3 or greater on a D20. Even the final iterative hits on a 13+ which is pretty favorable.

Damage per hit is 2d4 +15 str, +4 feats, +4 GMW +5 bardsong, +28 PA, for average 66 before situational things like 2d6 sneak attack or 1d6 caster bane or 1-2d6 sacred or 1d6 truedeath or 2d6 evil outsider bane come into play. If 4 of 5 attacks hit, that's 264 damage per round on the full attack which at APL 16 will come close to killing any one thing, or killing 2 smaller things (including an extra attack from cleave, thats another 66 damage), counter attacks bring in another ~3 attacks in for another 198 damage.

If you want to tweak your damage to the highest statistical averages, go to google and search for "Power Attack Calculators." One published by Ken Jenks is of particular quality.

Keep in mind, this build is hardly optimal. Its built more around survivability (occult slayer and rogue levels) to be able to handle most situations that are presented. It still cranks out damage primarily due to buffs boosting +hit and power attack. It doesn't use Shock Trooper (too feat intensive) or Leap Attack (banned in LG), or Lion Totem Barb (banned in LG) or Frenzied Berzerker (banned in LG), but if it did, it would do FAR MORE damage per round than it does. PA and PA multipliers ARE the be-all end-all of D&D damage dealing. Nothing comes close short of the things you find on the campaign smashers thread over on the Char-Op boards, and most of those use PA too.

[JaxGaret]

The best buffs are generally party buffs - Haste, Heroes' Feast, Mass X, etc.

That said, I think the character that would benefit most from single-target buffs is the top damage dealer in the party - usually either the Ubercharger or the TWF Rogue or the Pounce Druid.

[Curmudgeon]

Talya, D&D statistics Don't Work That Way. If you Power Attack for one (so long as you hit on something between a 3 and 19, inclusive), you reduce your chance of hitting by 5%--1 out of 20 (i.e. there's one number you won't hit on that you would've hit on). You're wrong about this. D&D statistics work like any other statistics, and Talya is entirely correct.

Power Attacking for +1 doesn't reduce your chance of hitting by 5%, ever. You can never hit on more than 19 numbers of the d20 roll. Reducing that number to 18 is a difference of 1/19, or 5.26%; or if you'd still hit on anything but a rolled 1 the reduction is 0%. If you can only hit on rolled 13-20 (8 numbers), changing that to 14-20 (7 numbers) is a reduction of 1/8, or 12.5%, in the chance of you hitting on each attack roll.

Using the extremes of your statement (3 and 19), Power Attacking for +1 will reduce the chance of hitting by 5.88% (from 3+ to 4+) or by 50% (from 19+ to 20 only).

[Rachel Lorelei]

Using the extremes of your statement (3 and 19), Power Attacking for +1 will reduce the chance of hitting by 5.88% (from 3+ to 4+) or by 50% (from 19+ to 20 only).

While that's true...
You're twice as likely to miss on any given swing if you go from hitting on a 19 to hitting on a 20. However, over the course of 20 die rolls (assuming a perfect distribution), you will hit 5% of the time rather than 10% of the time. If you go from hitting on an 18+ to hitting on a 19+, you're hitting 10% of the time rather than 15% of the time. That sure looks like an overall reduction of 5% to me.

When your chance to hit goes from 10% to 5%, yeah, it gets halved. But your average damage is [Chance to hit] * [damage per hit].

[Keld Denar]

Everytime you bring up real life statistics in a D&D world, god kills one of those guys who goes door to door to collect data for the National Census....

On second thought, please bring up statistics in D&D more often.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Everytime you bring up real life statistics in a D&D world, god kills one of those guys who goes door to door to collect data for the National Census....

On second thought, please bring up statistics in D&D more often.

Because... when you roll dice while playing D&D, statistics cease to apply?

[Keld Denar]

Because... when you roll dice while playing D&D, statistics cease to apply?

Why not? Physics does the same thing when you start casting spells....

Oops, now we've lost a catgirl and a survey dude....

[sikyon]

While that's true...
You're twice as likely to miss on any given swing if you go from hitting on a 19 to hitting on a 20. However, over the course of 20 die rolls (assuming a perfect distribution), you will hit 5% of the time rather than 10% of the time. If you go from hitting on an 18+ to hitting on a 19+, you're hitting 10% of the time rather than 15% of the time. That sure looks like an overall reduction of 5% to me.

When your chance to hit goes from 10% to 5%, yeah, it gets halved. But your average damage is [Chance to hit] * [damage per hit].

Yeah, what you are missing is that [Chance to hit] * [damage per hit] = [total damage], which is the only thing we care about. If the old [chance to hit] = 10% and the new [chance to hit] = 5%, that's not a 5% reduction in [total damage], that's a 50% reduction in [total damage]. Try it.

[Rachel Lorelei]

Yeah, what you are missing is that [Chance to hit] * [damage per hit] = [total damage], which is the only thing we care about. If the old [chance to hit] = 10% and the new [chance to hit] = 5%, that's not a 5% reduction in [total damage], that's a 50% reduction in [total damage]. Try it.

...um. Right. *facepalm*

[JaxGaret]

I think the average to-hit reduction per point of power attack is just about 10%.