Monks... any good? [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

lord_khaine

2008-03-23, 06:00 PM

Which is all nice and great if it weren't for the fact that a large portion of the Monster manual consists of big huge creatures with low touch AC that turn every, grapple and trip attempt against them (especially by a Monk) into a tripped/dead Monk
and thats why my monks stock up on enlarge potions, that makes it possible to trip or grapple even huge creatures.

Why does everyone in this forum do this? Not Schroedinger's caster, Every caster. All of them. They all have something prepared/know to beat a Monk, because most useful spells beat a Monk.

that really depends on what you considder useful, for there are a great many spells that are both very usefull, but also not very good against a monk.

[But he also put his highest stat:

Into Dex: For AC and Weapon Finesse to reduce MAD.
Into Wis: For AC and Stunning Fist DC (which he took instead of Grapple) so he could stun the Wizard who for some reason doesn't cast spells.
Into Con: To have the HP to stand up fight without getting instantly crushed.
Into Int: Because he's a skill monkey
Into Cha: Because he's the party face and UMDs Polymorph.

Now whenever anyone suggests anything the Monk is bad at, we have to be told that's his primary stat. Who's really playing Schroedinger here?

(I'm not saying you have expressed all these points of view, just that they have all been expressed, and it gets annoying. If anyone wants, I will build the "Batman" Wizard to have something to base off of, just like Solo built Ozymandius. But I get frustrated when every single argument is countered by, "That's his highest stat!")
/QUOTE]
well for a start i am assuming you generate your stats by the standart way of rolling some dice, that way the monk can have as good a str as the fighter, without sacrificing any of the other skills in any significant degree.
and i have allways put argued with str as the highest stat.

[QUOTE]Actually, if you go with a Barbarian variant you can get a flat +4 on top of the usual, you can also get Rage which helps considerably, both in check and damage
yeah but there i was talking about the fighter, and at this level a barbarian will only have 1 rage that will not last for long.

First of all, it would be 1d4. Or he could do 1d6+Str with a much higher Str, and that's once again assuming you win the check, which the Fighter or Barbarian is more likely to do.

since the monk will have 2 attempts for every one attempt his opponent gets, then the monk will actualy win more checks than his opponent.
assuming just the 1 point bab difference then the fighter will win 60% of his one check, while the monk will win 40% of his 2 checks, for 80% wins.

1) They all know the spell, because there is no reason not to.
2) It can last all day at level 9 when you extend it, or level 7 if you have a rod.

ok what spell are we actualy talking about here, is it one of those crazy spell compendium spells?
and even so he has to waste both a spell known and a spellslot from his highest level just to be guardet against monk stuns.

As for the Stone? You do realize we are talking about the level where Monks get SR right? Not level 5. Did you check for the cheaper Ring in the MIC that does the same thing?
yes i know when monks get SR, even so that stone is still very expensive, and so far i have only seen a very few casters get one before level 17.

lord_khaine

2008-03-23, 06:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquillion
But, um, when did this thread fall back into a wizard vs. monk fight again? I thought we were discussing whether or not the monk has a useful role in the game. Fighting PC wizards in structured one-on-one duels where you burn a noticable chunk of your WBL on each fight is not a useful role.

Because someone manipulated it in that direction for his own amusement.

and thats the monk versus wizard/sorcerer prepared to fight the monk is a waste of time, since all the other core classes who is not a full caster would be just as screwed if not more.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 06:13 PM

See the DMG pages I provided above. And if you can sell them, why not buy them?
And we already PMed extensively about it, so no need to bring it up again.

- Giacomo

Yes, there is a need, because your argument boils down to "it doesn't SAY I can't". The pages say that if you've used some of your wand you can still sell it.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ANY WAND IS AVAILIBLE IN ANY QUANTITY OF CHARGES. You can sell... and You can find as loot... DOES NOT mean that you can buy it anywhere with an appropriate GP limit.

You can buy what's listed in the DMG and whatever other books you're using. That's it.

The rules aside, it is completely unbelievable that--even in a Magic-Mart-having economy--they don't just have whatever wand you want, they have it in each # of charges from 1 to 50.

I need to bring it up again because apparently your monk HAS to buy partially-charged wands throughout his WHOLE CAREER to survive... and he can't do that. You've never done it in a game, Giacomo, and neither has anyone else... because you can't.

Solo

2008-03-23, 06:23 PM

OK, Solo, in that case I'd call it an emergency and until that swarm has found the monk, he will have his alter self up, attacking the wizard and grappling him into oblivion.

First you have to catch up to the wizard. He has a head start on you, and you can only ascend at half speed. He might very well use the powers of geometry to outrun you.

Good luck.

What would the wizard do, though, if the DM would not allow this alter self cheese?
Levitate and cast spells of doom.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 06:57 PM

Solo

2008-03-23, 07:05 PM

Your anger at this whole thing looks highly desperate in defending some ideology-like conviction that the monk sucks, no matter what level, and no matter how much evidence is waved in front of you.
Be very careful of calling the kettle black, SG.

Zincorium

2008-03-23, 07:07 PM

Giacomo- have you ever heard of the psychological term 'projection'?

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 07:21 PM

First you have to catch up to the wizard. He has a head start on you, and you can only ascend at half speed. He might very well use the powers of geometry to outrun you.

Good luck.

I thought the maneuverabiltiy was (perfect). So no penalty to charge 120 ft moving up. And since the wizard tried his swarm tactics, he's not outside charge range. If a concealment is up, charge is not possible, but 60ft move will do the trick.
But let's leave the cheese in the fridge now, OK?:smallbiggrin:

Levitate and cast spells of doom.

A classic. But highly static. And no longer the AC to avoid those pesky missile attacks. You'll have to do better than that to prove superiority vs a monk at that levels.

But maybe it is better now to return to comparing the monk to barbarian, rogue and fighter? Or even ranger (since I posted further up that rogue/ranger have some similarities in their role)

Ah, and btw -would you and Zincorium agree with Reel on, Love, that you cannot buy partially charged wands? In fact, would anyone here agree with Reel on, Love on this?

- Giacomo

Solo

2008-03-23, 07:25 PM

A classic. But highly static. And no longer the AC to avoid those pesky missile attacks. You'll have to do better than that to prove superiority vs a monk at that levels.

Oh noes, a 1d2 shuriken. I'm shaking in my boots.

Ah, and btw -would you and Zincorium agree with Reel on, Love, that you cannot buy partially charged wands? In fact, would anyone here agree with Reel on, Love on this?

Logically, I would expect you could buy something at the magical equivalent of a Hudsons, but this is DnD we're talking about here, where you can craft infinite quarterstaffs in half an hour and a ten foot pole costs more than a 10 foot ladder....

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 07:28 PM

Oh, Reel On, Love.

Seriously. You expect the pcs to be able to sell the stuff, but not buy it? Even though the rules provide everything you need for it?

Following scenario: characters sell the 10-charge wand they found. Could they then buy it back (after second thoughts)? By your odd interpretation of the rules, they could not. And why again would the one bought it, not be able to use some charges, and then also sell it. Who would then be the buyer?
Market means just that. For every seller, there is a buyer. Otherwise it does not work.
They can sell it. They could then buy THIS SPECIFIC WAND back, *if* the person they sold it to is willing to part with it again (he'd probably want to get some profit out of it).

If they found something and sold it, obviously it's still in the town. But if they found a 40-charge wand of Doom, that DOES NOT magically make a 10-charge wand of Alter Self aavailible. Those partially-charged wands have to come from somewhere--namely, people who used them and then sold them.
And nobody sells USEFUL partially charged wands. What, the wizard who had the wand used 40 charges happily, and just decided he wouldn't use the remaining 10?
And he just *happened* to sell it in the town you *happen* to be in, and the wand just *happened* to have exactly as many charges as you wanted at that point? Even in a Magic-Supermarket economy that's completely nonsensical.

Remember, you can't "order" a partially charged wand and have it be crafted. That's impossible. So basically, if you want a wand of X with Y charges, you have to hope that someone used exactly 50-Y charges of a wand of X and sold it right where you are. The odds of this are NOT 100%. Or even 10%.

Where do these one- and ten-charge wands come from, Giacomo? Who is this adventuring party that buys whatever wand you want, uses it, and then sells it to the shop you're about to go into with as many charges left as you want?

Why would scrolls even exist if one-charge wands were availible?

He does not NEED partially charged-wands at all to survive. The only period where it matters is levels 2-3, after that he could live happily with fully charged wands from level 1 up. It just adds flexibility (and improves the UMD chances) to have more wands.
And why should he gimp himself?
No, he REALLY COULDN'T. Fully charged wands are prohibilitively expensive. First-level spells? Sure. But a 2nd-level wand is 4,500 gp. You can't afford that much *spare change* until level, what, 8? 9? You have items to buy. Third and fourth level wands are appropriately more expensive. And you're using a lot of them. And you have to use them to compete.
This is why people want you to make a build: because then you'd see the limitations of WBL. When you have 13,000 gp in wealth, gotten a bit at a time, you can't afford to spend it on wands--not without suffering the loss of important gear.

Your anger at this whole thing looks highly desperate in defending some ideology-like conviction that the monk sucks, no matter what level, and no matter how much evidence is waved in front of you. Even without UMD (as I have shown already above), the monk IS (to use the thread's expression) "any good."
And he can fill greatly any role that the PHB intends, and more (my favourite being an anti-caster fighter).

- Giacomo
No, you haven't shown that. You've shown some numbers that are effectively meaningless, because they don't even take AC into account--neither the Monk's (STR-based monks have a pretty low AC until very high levels), nor the monsters'. Making an STR-based monk that trades hits with stone giants? It's a bad idea.

I'm angry because you make offhanded, wrong assumptions, like "I can buy a wand with any number charges" or "I will always know in advance when a fight starts and get to buff up first", and refuse to acknowledge that. Again: have you EVER found a DM that lets you buy single- and ten-charge wands? No. Because it's not in the rules and it makes no sense.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 07:30 PM

Oh noes, a 1d2 shuriken. I'm shaking in my boots.

Actually a crossbow, similar to your previous tactics, is enough (has slightly better to hit with it). Advantage monk Again.

Logically, I would expect you could buy something at the magical equivalent of a Hudsons, but this is DnD we're talking about here, where you can craft infinite quarterstaffs in half an hour and a ten foot pole costs more than a 10 foot ladder....

I take this as you agreeing with me on the partially charged wands. Good.

- Giacomo

Solo

2008-03-23, 07:34 PM

Actually a crossbow, similar to your previous tactics, is enough (has slightly better to hit with it). Advantage monk Again.

The monk, or the wizard with Mage Armor/Shield/Mirror Image/Blur?

Oh, right, the monk. Because he spends all his wealth on magical items, while the wizard obviously doesn't.

I take this as you agreeing with me on the partially charged wands. Good.

- Giacomo
Take not what has not been given.

I'm saying I'd houserule it in, but it would be a common sense houserule, just like I'd prevent someoen from crafting 5000 quarter staffs in half an hour. I'm not prepared to say whether it would be RAW or not.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 07:37 PM

Take not what has not been given.

I'm saying I'd houserule it in, but it would be a common sense houserule, just like I'd prevent someoen from crafting 5000 quarter staffs in half an hour. I'm not prepared to say whether it would be RAW or not.
It's not common sense at all, Solo. See above. Wands of any spell are availible because you can pay someone to make them. You can't pay someone to make a half-charged wands; it's explicitly impossible. You have to hope that someone used 50-[number of charges you want] charges and then sold their wand to the place you're shopping at. That's not very likely.

Solo

2008-03-23, 07:38 PM

Interesting.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 07:40 PM

For reference:

To create a magic wand, a character needs a small supply of materials, the most obvious being a baton or the pieces of the wand to be assembled. The cost for the materials is subsumed in the cost for creating the wand—375 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster. Wands are always fully charged (50 charges) when created.

Indon

2008-03-23, 07:42 PM

Where do these one- and ten-charge wands come from, Giacomo? Who is this adventuring party that buys whatever wand you want, uses it, and then sells it to the shop you're about to go into with as many charges left as you want?

They probably work down the street from the magic shop with the Wizard/Cleric(/Psion, outside of Core) who can cast every spell(/Power) required to be able to create a magic item at any caster level required.

Edit: Actually, Warlock/Psion would probably work better.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 07:43 PM

They probably work down the street from the magic shop with the Wizard(/Psion, outside of Core) who can cast every spell(/Power) required to be able to create a magic item at any caster level required.

Edit: Actually, Warlock/Psion would probably work better.

See above. It's impossible to create a partially-charged wand. You want Gloves of Dexterity +2, pay 4000 gp and wait four days; you want a 20-charge Wand of Mirror Image, hope that someone used 30 charges and then sold theirs.

Collin152

2008-03-23, 07:44 PM

Indon

2008-03-23, 07:46 PM

See above. It's impossible to create a partially-charged wand. You want Gloves of Dexterity +2, pay 4000 gp and wait four days; you want a 20-charge Wand of Mirror Image, hope that someone used 30 charges and then sold theirs.

If you can find a level 8 Wizard who knows Cat's Grace and sells magic items in just any town, you can find used magical equipment.

I'm not saying it isn't a silly assumption - it is. But it's no sillier than the assumptions in the rest of the magic item and wealth-by-level system.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 07:49 PM

Why would scrolls even exist if one-charge wands were availible?

That's actually a good question. Well, for a start you can store metamagic effects into scrolls, but not into wands. Scrolls can also be created by pcs earler than wands (feat requirements). Then, wands only hold spells up to 4th level.
But apart from that, yes, wands are superior in level 1-4 spells. A jackpot for non-caster classes.

No, you haven't shown that. You've shown some numbers that are effectively meaningless, because they don't even take AC into account--neither the Monk's (STR-based monks have a pretty low AC until very high levels), nor the monsters'. Making an STR-based monk that trades hits with stone giants? It's a bad idea.

No, at level 16 it's a good idea, since the monk sneaks up, kills them in one round. With misc bonuses normal for that level, the monk build above does take AC into account. There is no denying that. You cannot maintain fighter x or barbarian y or rogue z will do their full-round attack at that level and beat the monk at that game. That was shown (even against an orc commoner with pc wbl :smallbiggrin: ).
Now, how often a full attack can come up at that level, or whether putting some resources into such a tactics is a good idea at all is an entirely different matter.

I'm angry because you make offhanded, wrong assumptions, like "I can buy a wand with any number charges" or "I will always know in advance when a fight starts and get to buff up first", and refuse to acknowledge that. Again: have you EVER found a DM that lets you buy single- and ten-charge wands? No. Because it's not in the rules and it makes no sense.

Strawmen galore.
Abstracting from your issue with the partially charged wands: where did I make any wrong assumptions?
I never said "I will always no in advance when a fight starts..." Only that with 10 uses of a strong buff spell, the monk likely saves that up ahead of combats he CAN predict (say, because he spots/listens with his class skills the opponents before they even notice him?). In other situations, he will use different tactics.

And about this single charge thing: see Solo's opinion on this. Actually I rarely ever played in a campaign where you can buy magic items. But in those rare occasions, this would never have been an issue - of course you would be able to buy it to your heart's content.

Will go to bed now...

- Giacomo

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 07:50 PM

If you can find a level 8 Wizard who knows Cat's Grace and sells magic items in just any town, you can find used magical equipment.

I'm not saying it isn't a silly assumption - it is. But it's no sillier than the assumptions in the rest of the magic item and wealth-by-level system.

Stat-boosters are common items. They don't get used up. Merchants might have them or be able to get them even if there isn't someone there who can make them. If the town is small, it'll have a GP limit lower than that of the gloves. It's reasonable enough to say that you can find gloves when you're looking for gloves. It's not nearly as reasonable to say you can find single-charge wands of anything.

This isn't just "used magical equipment", it's "consumable magical equipment, with a specific percentage already consumed".

Solo

2008-03-23, 07:51 PM

And about this single charge thing: see Solo's opinion on this. Actually I rarely ever played in a campaign where you can buy magic items. But in those rare occasions, this would never have been an issue - of course you would be able to buy it to your heart's content.

By Raw, wands are always created fully charged. You'd ahve to be lucky to happen across a partially charged one for sale in Ye Olde Magik Shoppe.

Collin
5400 gold.

I'd invest in things like Expeditious Retreat, Blur, Shield, Grease, Levitate etc, non-level dependent buff spells. And maybe a Scorching Ray and Summon Swarm or two. The total should be somewhat less than the WBL.

level 1 spells

TSx2
Ex. Ret. x2
Blur x2
Shieldx2
Greasex2
250 gold

Levitatex2
SRx2
SS x2
Invisibility x2
2000 gold

Wand of magic missile: CL 3 2250

I have used up 5000 gp, with 400 left over

Mabye I'll buy a few more first level scrolls or something. Like Magic Missile.

horseboy

2008-03-23, 07:57 PM

I don´t get it guys. Pardon me, if I am slow, but I just don´t get it. Are you playin a roleplaying game, or a game of dungeon crawling monster killers? They're discussing D&D, if you want to role play, a role playing game would work better. :smallwink:

Where do these one- and ten-charge wands come from, Giacomo? magicBay :smallamused:

I veto the name "Northern Fistbrawler" as it is not cool enough to contain two of the three words from the following list: Fist, North, Star. Actually, I'm not even sure if it's cool enough to merit the use of "of the". As a substitute I offer "Wrasslor".

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 07:58 PM

Giamoco, I request a favor.
Take the wealth for the ECl we're debating here (four, isn't it?) and say what magic items the Monk has bought in this hypothetical situation. mind you, items as found listed in the DMG.
Solo, a favor.
Do likewise.
This should make things a little less unclear.
It won't, but somebody has to ask.

4th level monk (5,400, max 1/4 going to a single item as suggested by DMG p. 199):
Assuming the monk is part of an adventuring group:
1,000 pearl of power level 1 (likely for getting mage armour at 4th level)
1,000 cloak of resistance +1
Rest 3,400 go to wands emulating the following effects
Enlarge (750, full)
Ray of Enfeeblement (750, full)
CLW (750, full)
Misc (partially charged):
Obscuring Mist, Bull's Strength, Shocking Grasp, whatever I can't think of right now because I'm tired.

- Giacomo

Solo

2008-03-23, 08:00 PM

4th level monk (5,400, max 1/4 going to a single item as suggested by DMG p. 199):
Assuming the monk is part of an adventuring group:
1,000 pearl of power level 1 (likely for getting mage armour at 4th level)
1,000 cloak of resistance +1
Rest 3,400 go to wands emulating the following effects
Enlarge (750, full)
Ray of Enfeeblement (750, full)
CLW (750, full)
Misc (partially charged):
Obscuring Mist, Bull's Strength, Shocking Grasp, whatever I can't think of right now because I'm tired.
- Giacomo

Pearl of Power: This seemingly normal pearl of average size and luster is a potent aid to all spellcasters who prepare spells (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins, and wizards). Once per day on command, a pearl of power enables the possessor to recall any one spell that she had prepared and then cast. The spell is then prepared again, just as if it had not been cast. The spell must be of a particular level, depending on the pearl. Different pearls exist for recalling one spell per day of each level from 1st through 9th and for the recall of two spells per day (each of a different level, 6th or lower).

I wasn't aware that monks could prepare spells.

And I think that without houserules, you can't just go and buy a wand partially charged, of the flavor you desire. it's not going to happen regularly enough that you can count on getting one.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-23, 08:01 PM

By Raw, wands are always created fully charged. You'd ahve to be lucky to happen across a partially charged one for sale in Ye Olde Magik Shoppe.

Luckily the DMG (p.137) provides a way to measure this "luck" :smallbiggrin: (GP limit by town size).

Good night now. Oh lord_khaine, please jump in for me to defend the noble cause of monks.

- Giacomo

quiet1mi

2008-03-23, 08:02 PM

i find it interesting how the argument has shifted off of the main topic and on to wands...

as for buying partially charged wands... it is up to the DM...

*ducks and Covers*

Reel On, Love

2008-03-23, 08:02 PM

That's actually a good question. Well, for a start you can store metamagic effects into scrolls, but not into wands. Scrolls can also be created by pcs earler than wands (feat requirements). Then, wands only hold spells up to 4th level.
But apart from that, yes, wands are superior in level 1-4 spells. A jackpot for non-caster classes.
You can make metamagic wands. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm - "Charm Person, heightened".
The idea that you can replace scrolls of level 1-4 spells with wands of level 1-4 spells, and that's how it's intended to be and how it works in any campaign.

No, at level 16 it's a good idea, since the monk sneaks up, kills them in one round. With misc bonuses normal for that level, the monk build above does take AC into account. There is no denying that. You cannot maintain fighter x or barbarian y or rogue z will do their full-round attack at that level and beat the monk at that game. That was shown (even against an orc commoner with pc wbl :smallbiggrin: ).
Now, how often a full attack can come up at that level, or whether putting some resources into such a tactics is a good idea at all is an entirely different matter.
No, the monk does NOT sneak up and kill them in one round. Most likely, the giants and the PCs encounter each other and roll initiative. You do not get to know about all your fights ahead of time.

I don't see AC accounted for anywhere. I see you assuming you'll sneak up, get a full attack on both of them, and land every hit. Actually, I just looked Stone Giants up--they've got AC 25. With +7 AB from STR, 16 BAB, +1 haste, -1 AB size, and let's say +4 fists (Greater Magic Weapon), your AB is 27. So your top-Ab attacks hit... but the last one will miss almost half the time. However, it's also noteable that STONE GIANTS ARE CR 8. Wiping a couple out at level 16 is unimpressive... and yet, you're resorting to a stored Divine Power for it? Let's look at CR 16 monsters. Planetar? AC 32. Hound Archon Hero? 30. Old black dragon? 32+ (it can cast Mage Armor). Horned Devil (much more likely to fight one than a Hound Archon Hero)? 35. Nightwalker? 32. Only the Greater Stone Golem has 27, and it has .
Meanwhile, WITHOUT the Divine Power, your AB is 23 (I'll assume a +6 STR item; 20 without it). Which means you're missing these monsters about half the time, on your highest-BAB attacks, as soon as you've used that Divine Power up.
So you need two rounds of buffing and one of the cleric's daily 4th level slots (he already gave you a Greater Magic Weapon from one. He also needs it for his own Divine Powers, for Death Ward, for Freedom of Movement... what makes you think you get that Divine Power on a regular basis, again?).

You also seem to assume that your monk has whatever he needs. He's got a high DEX... except for examples in which he needs to hit hard or grapple, in which case he cranks STR instead. Make a build. Have fun spending your level 5, 10, etc WBL without partial-charge wands. Have fun deciding whether you want to grapple or have AC.

BTW, about your Ring of Spell Storing: games don't work that way. WHO is refilling this ring before every fight? Are you going to tell us about how your monk is good because he took Leadership and got a cleric?
It's also 50,000 gp. ECL 16 WBL is 260k. What didn't you buy? Did you really buy a Ring of Spell Storing ahead of a Freedom of Movement, ahead of AC boosters, etc? The Ring rarely sees play, precisely because there are other, more important items that you need first... and because good luck getting it refilled every fight?

Strawmen galore.
Abstracting from your issue with the partially charged wands: where did I make any wrong assumptions?
I never said "I will always no in advance when a fight starts..." Only that with 10 uses of a strong buff spell, the monk likely saves that up ahead of combats he CAN predict (say, because he spots/listens with his class skills the opponents before they even notice him?). In other situations, he will use different tactics.
The combats he's going to need the buff are not always or even usually going to be the same as the ones he sees coming. Most encounters start without preparation rounds on either side.
Different tactics like what? Grappling? Right, because he took Improved Grapple despite taking a high Dex and Weapon Finesse (it's that or get splattered)... oops. Throwing shuriken that he either can't hit with (low Dex) or can't do any damage with (low STR)? Woooo.

And about this single charge thing: see Solo's opinion on this. Actually I rarely ever played in a campaign where you can buy magic items. But in those rare occasions, this would never have been an issue - of course you would be able to buy it to your heart's content.

Will go to bed now...

- Giacomo
This would almost always be an issue. It's a stupid DM who lets you buy one-charge wands of anything (again: why do level 1-4 scrolls even *exist*?). Again, HOW does the shop you stop at just HAPPEN to have as many 1-charge wands as you want? Did some group of adventurers buy 30 wands, use 49 charges from each, and sell the remainder?

MeklorIlavator

2008-03-23, 08:04 PM

Also, about pearls of power, they only save a caster a slot if he was going to prepare that spell anyways, and if he doesn't want to then your out of luck. It seems to me that a lot of builds assume that the caster will want to prepare those certain spells.

gnomas

2008-03-23, 08:13 PM

Solo

2008-03-23, 08:20 PM

people, this thread is way too far off topic! every reply i think of brings us back to this: regardless of magic item rules and pvp vs wizards at certain ecl etc, we are supposed to be finding out if the monk is a good class! and pvp is not a meassur eof that! especially when most DMs i know outlaw it

Ok, back to the point.

To wit:

Monks are mechanically inferior. Proof of this can be found in the fact that they are MAD, have no strong point, and have abilities that don't synchronize well with the role of the class, whatever it was intended to be.

That is all. I'll let someone else deliver the closing statement for the monks and then go back to my homework.

gnomas

2008-03-23, 08:24 PM

there we go, now we wait for the inevitable oposing argument...

oh and speaking of homework, i must go now

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 10:00 PM

hello all I have come to ask the blunt question...

what purpose do monk serve in a campaign and what advantages do they have over other classes?

when ever I dm and there is a monk in the party i can not help but feel sorry for it is always doing the least amount of damage, and their skills are done better by rouges...

so my question is other than a chance for role playing and having the ability to deal damage in grapple or making disarm not an issue for you why play a monk?

People are going to tell you monks suck and provide all sorts've evidence that other groups do things better, according to the numbers.

Half of it shouldn't count, because it has more to do with the was Spell casters are generally overpowered in comparison to the other members of a party.

By that logic, people should only play pure casters.

However, it is only used to prove the *weakness* of monk's in Monk vs. other things threads, whereases in other balance threads its used to prove the *power* of Casters.

Minmaxers, part of the other half hate the unit because it isn't made for pure number crunching.

This relates to the third point

The other half of the points are mostly valid in theory.

However, I have found that, even with DM's that actively try to make Monk's useless, I tend to be quite successful with them. Fast movement and high rates of Disarmed sunder can be quite useful, as can the high saves, init, and skill monkeying. Mind you, like paladins or other multi ability classes, they have their problems.

Solo

2008-03-23, 10:23 PM

It's nice that you don't die, but what do you do for the party? Avoiding personal death isn't exactly a pivotal party role.

Sundering is nice, but many monsters don't have weapons you can sunder.

streakster

2008-03-23, 10:28 PM

I hope this hasn't been linked yet, but here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71085&highlight=lycanthromancer)is true path to monk power.

Collin152

2008-03-23, 10:36 PM

It's nice that you don't die, but what do you do for the party? Avoiding personal death isn't exactly a pivotal party role.

Sundering is nice, but many monsters don't have weapons you can sunder.

We need rules for sundering a monster's teeth right out of their heads.

Solo

2008-03-23, 10:38 PM

We need rules for sundering a monster's teeth right out of their heads.

I support this.

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 10:43 PM

It's nice that you don't die, but what do you do for the party?

Ever sunder spell components? Spellbooks?

I did a little of a few things. Combat-wise, I was anti-caster, or general subduing/preemtive stoppage. I was good at hit and run, I did a share of rescuing party members whom were weakened.

I took out a couple BBEG's in different campains (one where the guy tried to build to stop me from being effective).

out side of combat, I made a decent connection point for various NPC's, did a little good for negotiations and such. A little healing, nonmagical of course.

I did a lot of break the door down combat. Literally. I heard someone in next room, I managed to knock a door down.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-23, 10:53 PM

Ever sunder spell components? Spellbooks?I've never met a wizard above 6th level who kept his spellbook in this dimension, and even if you do Sunder it (and a BoH doesn't TPK you for it), how does that help anything?
Also, Components are 15 GP. I'm statting up a Sorceress right now who has 4, including 2 in a Handy Haversack. Have fun sundering them, that BBEG will slaughter you while you do so.

Solo

2008-03-23, 10:57 PM

Ever sunder spell components? Spellbooks?
In combat, the caster's spell book isn't needed because he's casting spells at you.

Out of combat anyone can destroy a spellbook. Hint, it involves fire.

Now, I'm not clear on this, but how does one go about sundering spell components? Or do you mean spell component pouches?

Does your combat go something like this?

Wizard: "This marble is my material component for the spell!"

Monk: "I run up to him and sunder the marble!"

I did a little of a few things.

I think you mean "I did a few things. the way you have it written, makes it sound like you were useless.

Combat-wise, I was anti-caster, or general subduing/preemtive stoppage. I was good at hit and run, I did a share of rescuing party members whom were weakened.

Ok, as you have actual experience with monks, something neither I nor SG have, would you be able tot ell me how well a member of another class would be able to do in that role?

I took out a couple BBEG's in different campains (one where the guy tried to build to stop me from being effective).

So what was this BBEG like?

out side of combat, I made a decent connection point for various NPC's, did a little good for negotiations and such. A little healing, nonmagical of course.

How well would they have done if you had played another charcter?

I did a lot of break the door down combat. Literally. I heard someone in next room, I managed to knock a door down.

The door to the next room, correct?:smallsmile:

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-03-23, 11:02 PM

and thats why my monks stock up on enlarge potions, that makes it possible to trip or grapple even huge creatures.

Let me rephrase that, "Big HUGE creatures (the size category) with Higher Str then your Monk."

well for a start i am assuming you generate your stats by the standart way of rolling some dice,

You assume incorrectly, but all the same, that means
1) His AC is worse
2) His HP is worse
3) His Stunning Fist DCs are rather pathetic past level 10 against most enemies.
4) He doesn't have 6 skill points per level
5) He sure as hell doesn't UMD wands.

I greatly appreciate your candor, consistency, intelligence, and actual existing Monk build. You are 4/4 over Giamoco.

since the monk will have 2 attempts for every one attempt his opponent gets, then the monk will actualy win more checks than his opponent.
assuming just the 1 point bab difference then the fighter will win 60% of his one check, while the monk will win 40% of his 2 checks, for 80% wins.

Everyone can be good at something when they are facing someone bad at it, But when you are facing something good at grappling you will have 0 successes to the Barbarians few (or sufficiently optimized, many).

I am also consider more then 1st level, since a game is made of more then that. If I just wanted to build characters that were awesome at first level all my characters would be Spiked Chain fighters doing 2d4+6 damage twice a round.

ok what spell are we actualy talking about here, is it one of those crazy spell compendium spells?
and even so he has to waste both a spell known and a spellslot from his highest level just to be guardet against monk stuns.

1) Yes it is one of those "crazy spell compendium spells" that are exactly like those "crazy PHB spells."
2) That's why Wizards have infinite spells known and plenty of spells to cast.
3) Not to be guarded against monk stuns, this is the thing I pointed out earlier, This is to be guarded against, crits/stuns/SA/Poison/Disease

Solo

2008-03-23, 11:04 PM

and thats why my monks stock up on enlarge potions, that makes it possible to trip or grapple even huge creatures.
i thought we already determined that you cannot have Potions of Enlarge Person?

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 11:16 PM

In combat, the caster's spell book isn't needed because he's casting spells at you.

Out of combat anyone can destroy a spellbook. Hint, it involves fire.

Now, I'm not clear on this, but how does one go about sundering spell components? Or do you mean spell component pouches?

Does your combat go something like this?

Wizard: "This marble is my material component for the spell!"

Monk: "I run up to him and sunder the marble!"

Actually, its more like

Roll for init. I win.

DM "You see a wizard. He's getting ready to take action against you" (heavily edited)

"I run up and sunder any pouches I see him reaching for."

DM: "****"

I think you mean "I did a few things. the way you have it written, makes it sound like you were useless.

Yea. I realized that later. I just meant I didn't have 1 and only 1 role.

Ok, as you have actual experience with monks, something neither I nor SG have, would you be able tot ell me how well a member of another class would be able to do in that role?

Which role? Getting injured party members OUT OF COMBAT? Monk is best without the use of magic. With magic, a spell caster wins at anything, so I don't like that comparison.

Anti-wizard? Short of Spellcaster, a monk can be one of the most useful, in my experience. they tend to do the best in the event their equiptment fails, which happens alot against well constructed casters (at least for me) Good natural saves help too.

Early strikes/preemtive a Rogue can do better, if built properly and played right.

Subduing: Short of casters or special equiptment, monks are best I've seen at this

BTW, is it really a good idea to be only using theory to decide if the monk is good, since you admit not playing one?

So what was this BBEG like?
Which one? ONe was an awakened paragon rustmonster something or other, another (the one I think your talkinga about) was a Beholder Something/Spell Addict/Beholdermage. Specialized in summoning spells and equipment/ matter destruction. I think he planned to annihilate a 10 foot chunk of the world a day or something. It was Long time ago.

How well would they have done if you had played another charcter?

A combat based character? A ranger would've provided as good anonymity in rp ops and healing, or a cleric (arguably not as combat based, but really it is) many of the similar RP ops. monks tend to get less of a rep than paladins and clerics, so people were more open with me that way. Easier to trust someone who's not likely to start yelling smite at you and all that

As far as warrior types go, they represent the best honest negotiation opportunities universally. Less of a threat to most people

The door to the next room, correct?:smallsmile:

Maybe. :smallwink:

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-23, 11:21 PM

Actually, its more like

Roll for init. I win.

DM "You see a wizard. He's getting ready to take action against you" (heavily edited)

"I run up and sunder any pouches I see him reaching for."

DM: "****"Again, component pouches are 15 GP. 15! Your DM may have played Int 20 Wizards like they had an Int of 2, but by Level 3, they should have enough cash to afford a backup.(I assume the BBEG was past Level 2) Again, I grab 4 as a standard.

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 11:24 PM

Again, component pouches are 15 GP. 15! Your DM may have played Int 20 Wizards like they had an Int of 2, but by Level 3, they should have enough cash to afford a backup.(I assume the BBEG was past Level 2) Again, I grab 4 as a standard.

Yea. Multiple attacks.

And not all the wizards I killed or did that to were BBEG's. Most were in other encounters.

Solo

2008-03-23, 11:24 PM

BTW, is it really a good idea to be only using theory to decide if the monk is good, since you admit not playing one?
Good idea. Let's ask Giacomo this as well.:smallbiggrin:

I don't ahve a problem with it myself, though I like hearing from people with experience.

Which role? Getting injured party members OUT OF COMBAT? Monk is best without the use of magic. With magic, a spell caster wins at anything, so I don't like that comparison.
Barbarians would do well too, I imagine.

Collin152

2008-03-23, 11:25 PM

Yea. Multiple attacks.

You can do all that in one turn?
Because, you know, that wizard is totally going to let you stand next to him while he's casting spells.

Solo

2008-03-23, 11:26 PM

You can do all that in one turn?
Because, you know, that wizard is totally going to let you stand next to him while he's casting spells.

Wizards are too weak to 5 ft step away.

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 11:31 PM

Wizards are too weak to 5 ft step away.

Multiple attacks before he gets a chance to, yea.

Solo

2008-03-23, 11:33 PM

Multiple attacks before he gets a chance to, yea.

Wait... you go up to a caster as a move action, sunder his pouch with a standard action... how do you manage to hit him as he moves away?

Collin152

2008-03-23, 11:35 PM

Multiple attacks before he gets a chance to, yea.

You can't do multiple attacks after moving.
And he's, once again, not just going to stand there.

turkishproverb

2008-03-23, 11:38 PM

You can't do multiple attacks after moving.
And he's, once again, not just going to stand there.

Sigh. Is there anything else about the post you care to discuss? As I said, doing in spell components is most often used against non BBEG.

Collin152

2008-03-23, 11:42 PM

Sigh. Is there anything else about the post you care to discuss? As I said, doing in spell components is most often used against non BBEG.

I may or may not get to those points later. You still haven't disabled these spellcasters, as you still haven't shown how you can break all these spell componant pouches.
Also, I thought only weapons and shields could be sundered, given it involves an opposed attack roll? But maybe I'm just confused on that point. It doesn't really matter.

quiet1mi

2008-03-23, 11:43 PM

i have just read http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71085&highlight=lycanthromancer

and I must say I now know what a monk is good for.... thank you everyone for showing me that i have opened Pandora's box by posting my original question... i promise never to mention the words Monk and role in the same post ever again....

now when one of my players plays a monk I will reassure him of what he can do to help the party (primarily:stay alive and stay mobile)

Solo

2008-03-23, 11:44 PM

Sigh. Is there anything else about the post you care to discuss? As I said, doing in spell components is most often used against non BBEG.

He's just pointing something out.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:10 AM

I may or may not get to those points later. You still haven't disabled these spellcasters, as you still haven't shown how you can break all these spell componant pouches.
Also, I thought only weapons and shields could be sundered, given it involves an opposed attack roll? But maybe I'm just confused on that point. It doesn't really matter.

Sigh. not all of them are high level, not all of them are wizards. lots've things to do with sundering don't mean just the 1 time. Holy symbols, etc. Any good DM will usually rule that a non-high level wizard didn't expect such and action, and if you seriously think EVERY SINGLE wizard is going to have multiple Component pouches, you ain't thinking clearly. At all.

And any object can be sundered as per item destruction.

BTW: Ever play a monk colin152? Solo's admitted he hasn't.

P.S. SOLO: I know what he's doing. but ignoring everything in favor of one part of a post is unfair and kind've self defeating (Ok, so he's unreliable at instantly completely disabling M spells).

horseboy

2008-03-24, 12:10 AM

BTW, is it really a good idea to be only using theory to decide if the monk is good, since you admit not playing one? Good idea. Let's ask Giacomo this as well.:smallbiggrin:

I don't ahve a problem with it myself, though I like hearing from people with experience.True, I'm interested to hear how someone with XP with monks solves theoretical problems like how a monk hits a dragon. I had to take a 3 level dip into rogue for that thread.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:14 AM

True, I'm interested to hear how someone with XP with monks solves theoretical problems like how a monk hits a dragon. I had to take a 3 level dip into rogue for that thread.

Dragon? Usually I was either really beefed or we had already formed a plan that involved me ferrying people into and out of combat for healing purposes/handling underlings etc when I faced an actual DRAGON.

Thats the fun thing about D&D. Its almost always a MULTIPLE CHARACTER GAME. So you can switch to support role once in a while.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:20 AM

Barbarians would do well too, I imagine.

Not as well as you think, they're slower, more inclined (in pure RP terms) to just keep attacking, and have lower saves in some areas, meaning if not on attack greater risk of damage.

But they aren't bad, I"ll give you that.

Solo

2008-03-24, 12:21 AM

BTW: Ever play a monk colin152? Solo's admitted he hasn't.

Keep in mind that we can't play every class out there. I have also never played a Fighter, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, or a bunch of other classes.

Not as well as you think, they're slower,

Barbarians get fast movement too.

more inclined (in pure RP terms) to just keep attacking,

? Any reasonably intelligent person, and many dumb ones, will help a fallen ally.

Perhaps we play barbarians differently, but I don't think that just because a man is a hulking war machine that we would disregard his companions safety.

Being part of a tribe would, on the contrary, teach a barbarian the importance of taking care of ones own.

But that's just me.

and have lower saves in some areas, meaning if not on attack greater risk of damage.

Lower Will saves, definitely (Although Protection from X works wonders to solve this problem) The reflex save thing isn't a big deal, as they usually have enough HP in the face of a Fireball to shrug it off.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:25 AM

Keep in mind that we can't play every class out there. I have also never played a Fighter, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, or a bunch of other classes.

yea, but man in glass house and all that. I've played alot of classes. I don't comment nearly this harshly about any I haven't (Xcept 4th edition, but everyone is only speculating there)

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:25 AM

Ok, in order to try to quell some of this, allow me to point a couple things out.

1st: How does the monk deal with casters who Eschew Materials?

2nd: Monks aren't viewed weak because they can't do anything better than a caster. Monks are viewed as weak because they do most things worse than NON casters.

Here's a few basic builds:

Human Monk: Level 1: Grapp Lerr

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 8
Wis 14
Cha 8

Feats: Improved Grapple, 1 other.
HP: 9, AC: 14. Stats are designed to maximize Grapple Ability, and provide decent AC and HP. This build will be ok at grapples (whereas other melee classes will kill the CR 1 creatures in one hit by melee). This build cannot effectively skill monkey or face.

Compare vs Party role: tank:

Human Barbarian 1

Str 18
Dex 14
Con 16
Int 8
Wis 8
Cha 8

Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus
Chain Shirt Armor.
HP:15
This build swings a rather impressive +8 to hit in combat, damage potential at 2d6+9, which drops any CR 1 base creature in D&D. Will at least match the monk in close quarters effectiveness. Damage output will usually result in dealing with threats in 1 round vs 2. Alternately, build could go with imp unarmed strike and imp grapple to outdo the monk's checks by +3, resulting in about a 66% chance to win grapples in direct opposition. Barbarian also has a slight movement edge.

Human Monk build 2: Tall Ker

Str 8
Dex 14
Con 10
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 18

Feats: Skill focus: Diplomacy, 1 other.

Not qualifying for Weapon Finesse yet cripples this build in combat, however, it can swing an impressive +10 to diplomacy. the +7 to bluff, and +6 to hide and move silent will be needed if fights break out, to keep the monk alive though. This monk cannot grapple, or do much in melee actually. Invest in shuriken, and javelins.

Compare VS:

Rogue 1:

Str 10
Dex 14
Con 10
Int 14
Wis 8
Cha 18

Leather armor.
Skill Focus: Diplomacy, 1 other

Also designed for non-combat sessions, but this one has a bit more survivability. more likely to hit, extra damage with sneak attack, and the ability to deal more damage at range make this a slightly more effective combat class, while maintaining the same diplo bonus, and more skill points for other skills. Edge: Rogue.

As monks don't have a speed boost at level 1, opportunistic striker doesn't seem to work so well, when other classes (barbarian) have superior movement.

Note, of the 3 main roles suggested here (Face, grapple melee, opportunistic), at level 1, one is nonviable due to inferior movement, and two can be matched or outdone in their areas while maintaining better abilities in non focus areas.

This shows, at level 1, in core, a weakness in the monk class. No matter where he goes in the party to find a home, someone else is already there, doing the job just as competently, if not better (and maintaining better abilities in tertiary areas).

Collin152

2008-03-24, 12:27 AM

BTW: Ever play a monk colin152? Solo's admitted he hasn't.

Have I said anything monk-specific?

Solo

2008-03-24, 12:28 AM

I have a question: If you need to subdue something, couldn't you just have the barbarian smack that something with the flat of his sword?

horseboy

2008-03-24, 12:31 AM

Thats the fun thing about D&D. Its almost always a MULTIPLE CHARACTER GAME. So you can switch to support role once in a while.Or another problem of support classes in D&D, they don't really work well. :smallamused:

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:39 AM

Collin: Your arging for why monks suck. I'd say that's reason enough to ask.

Solo: 1 THey also carry more equptment, so tend to get slowed down more easily. 2: Yea, but "warrior people" are more inclined to see someone as a battle casualty or their job to be to fight. Like i said INCLINED not goign to 3: Yea, you could. Unless David Argall says he didn't really use the flat of his sword (lol.)

As I said, on theoretical terms, the monk isn't as good. I ADMITTED THAT. I just went on to say that in PRACTICE it was a lot better than given credit for.

TALIC: Ever play a monk? IF not, please don't go statting out nonexistent characters and saying "HAHA" as it illustrates the point I was making earlier. Furthermore like I said, stats are a factor. SO is build. SO is non-theoretical PLAY.

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:40 AM

I have a question: If you need to subdue something, couldn't you just have the barbarian smack that something with the flat of his sword?

Barb gets -4 to hit. Better to have the rogue draw out the critter's AoO with mobility, then provide a flanking bonus to the barb while he grapples it and punches it to sleep. In fairness, the monk could fill in for the rogue equally well here.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:41 AM

Or another problem of support classes in D&D, they don't really work well. :smallamused:

Tell that to the cleric. :smalltongue:

Seriously though, they work better than you seem to think. At least for me.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 12:43 AM

Clerics do better by not supporting. That's pretty mucht he problem; If you're good at supporting, you could do /better/ doing other things, and if you're not good at supporting, well...

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:43 AM

TALIC: Ever play a monk? IF not, please don't go statting out nonexistent characters and saying "HAHA" as it illustrates the point I was making earlier. Furthermore like I said, stats are a factor. SO is build. SO is non-theoretical PLAY.

Yes. I have. Several, actually. I've built AC tank monks, and grapple specialist monks. While I haven't built a face monk, the basics of the role and class apply. Need charisma, need some dex and wis next. Rather than dismiss the arguement on the grounds that the person CAN'T have a point on the off chance they haven't played a monk (bad assumption here, I've played every base class in Core D&D), why don't you address the solid arguements the builds present? Or build a few yourself, to counter the claim.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 12:43 AM

Barb gets -4 to hit. Better to have the rogue draw out the critter's AoO with mobility, then provide a flanking bonus to the barb while he grapples it and punches it to sleep. In fairness, the monk could fill in for the rogue equally well here.

LOl. Thanks for the admission.

As to your other posts, I've never said that given the same stats a monk is superior. Just that IN PLAY it works. Very flexible. Less reliance on equipment, etc. I won't ask you for the stats for better than monk units, because I know they exist. But the answer to the question of are monks ANY GOOD, is not an instant NO NONONONNO DARNED YOU NO!!! :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: Like some people seem to think.

Aquillion

2008-03-24, 12:44 AM

Also, I thought only weapons and shields could be sundered, given it involves an opposed attack roll? But maybe I'm just confused on that point. It doesn't really matter.The rules for other objects are different:

Sundering a Carried or Worn Object
You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. A spell component pouch would range from a Tiny to a Fine object depending on whether you go by its size or weight (I can't imagine it's more than six inches in any direction). Since the weight guidelines are specifically only for creatures that are "roughly as dense as a regular animal", spell component pouches are probably fine. In any case, their AC would range from 18 to 12 + the dex mod of the person carrying it, depending on what you think their size is. (Don't look at me, I didn't write the rules.)

However, they only cost 5 gp and weigh 2 pounds. So a wizard worried about it being sundered could easily carry two or three, and probably will if the tactic is used with any frequency in your world... hinging your strategy on destroying a cheap, fairly lightweight, easily-available and readily-replacible object is probably not a good idea.

Solo

2008-03-24, 12:44 AM

Barb gets -4 to hit. Better to have the rogue draw out the critter's AoO with mobility, then provide a flanking bonus to the barb while he grapples it and punches it to sleep. In fairness, the monk could fill in for the rogue equally well here.
Even with -4 to hit, the Barb. is a full BaB class who focuses on Strength. Taking the penalty, he will probably still have a good/decent AB.

Depends on level, though.

Solo: 1 THey also carry more equptment, so tend to get slowed down more easily.
Handy Haversack:smallbiggrin:
I love that item.

2: Yea, but "warrior people" are more inclined to see someone as a battle casualty or their job to be to fight. Like i said INCLINED not goign to
This really does depend on the individual player's interpretation of a "warrior guy", and has nothing to do with the class, or how people in general play it

3: Yea, you could. Unless David Argall says he didn't really use the flat of his sword (lol.)
Good times.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-24, 12:47 AM

For the record, I've played a couple of monks.

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:50 AM

LOl. Thanks for the admission.

Yes, the admission that a monk can dodge punches equally well to a rogue is hardly a end all to the debate.

The big problem with statting out monks is that Wisdom = Armor. While other classes get gold to buy their armor, monks need to use stats. Gold is more plentiful than stats, which are in limited quantity.

Monks can get rather impressive AC. A jermlaine, for instance, could have an AC 28, 29 vs 1 enemy, 32-33 from mobility in some cases. Damage will suck, but non core, that's a level 1 monk. Not hittable, but easily ignored in a fight. Core, 20-21 is about the best you'll do, with dodge and small size, and an dex/wis of +5/+4 (32 point build minimum in both cases).

But the damage isn't there. The threat that causes enemies to try to hit that AC isn't there.

tyckspoon

2008-03-24, 12:51 AM

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:54 AM

LOl. Thanks for the admission.

As to your other posts, I've never said that given the same stats a monk is superior. Just that IN PLAY it works. Very flexible. Less reliance on equipment, etc. I won't ask you for the stats for better than monk units, because I know they exist. But the answer to the question of are monks ANY GOOD, is not an instant NO NONONONNO DARNED YOU NO!!! :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: :smallfurious: Like some people seem to think.

Well, good is relative. When everyone else is better, they're the worst. If you get $5 in the mail, and everyone else gets $50, you could say you did GOOD, yes. But when everyone else fared better, you, by default, fared worst.

Talic

2008-03-24, 12:57 AM

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 01:02 AM

Yes, the admission that a monk can dodge punches equally well to a rogue is hardly a end all to the debate.

The big problem with statting out monks is that Wisdom = Armor. While other classes get gold to buy their armor, monks need to use stats. Gold is more plentiful than stats, which are in limited quantity.

Monks can get rather impressive AC. A jermlaine, for instance, could have an AC 28, 29 vs 1 enemy, 32-33 from mobility in some cases. Damage will suck, but non core, that's a level 1 monk. Not hittable, but easily ignored in a fight. Core, 20-21 is about the best you'll do, with dodge and small size, and an dex/wis of +5/+4 (32 point build minimum in both cases).

But the damage isn't there. The threat that causes enemies to try to hit that AC isn't there.

I ddin't mean it was an end all. It's just that usually anti-MOnk people won't say anything pro monk even if you threaten their character sheets.

You know, It sounds like your saying a DM should be metagaming and using OOC knowledge to decide who creatures attack. Tell me I'm worng here.

You can't even always tell a monk is a monk by appearance, much less the threat level.

And like i said, monks are surprisingly useful at early levels for being near untouchable. Ever walk through a group of goblins to get an item. :smalltongue:

Rutee

2008-03-24, 01:04 AM

You know, It sounds like your saying a DM should be metagaming and using OOC knowledge to decide who creatures attack. Tell me I'm worng here.
Given the vast gulf DnD as a system enforces between tactics and RP, sure, why not.

You can't even always tell a monk is a monk by appearance, much less the threat level.
I can't tell the person with no armor who's punching/kicking/using Monk Weapons is a Monk?

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 01:08 AM

Although personally I don't have a problem with minion/regular encounter spellcasters only carrying one component pouch or focus item. They're not supposed to be that much of a challenge, in the default mode of the game; I would save the extra backup items for an encounter you particularly want to make not be ended so easily. If your group plays in a more oppositional DM tactics vs. Player tactics style, tho, by all means have every cleric wearing a necklace strung with wooden symbols.

QFT.

TALIC: As to your response to the above, explain how every single Magic user in your world justifies having multiple holy symbols ready for use without pulling them out of packs, given that someone breaking their item would logically not be the usual mode of attack, much less how they are all mysteriously avalable without taking time to unpack items. How do you justify people who are supposed to consider specific bonds with items having 6 of them?

Given the vast gulf DnD as a system enforces between tactics and RP, sure, why not.

Because its cheating. Its like your character using OOC knowledge. Same fairness for players and DM's NPC's in that regard.

I can't tell the person with no armor who's punching/kicking/using Monk Weapons is a Monk?

SO, your saying a creature won't fight back against a monk? I think you've just increased it's threat level drastically.

Besides that, alot of a monks usefulness can be in first strike actions. I would think you'd not be sure of what he was before his attacking started.

Well, good is relative. When everyone else is better, they're the worst. If you get $5 in the mail, and everyone else gets $50, you could say you did GOOD, yes. But when everyone else fared better, you, by default, fared worst.

IT is more like getting $8 an hour at a job you love, or $9 an hour at a job you don't like nearly as much. Its not THAT big a difference in usefullness, and it can have other benifits.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 01:27 AM

TALIC: As to your response to the above, explain how every single Magic user in your world justifies having multiple holy symbols ready for use without pulling them out of packs, given that someone breaking their item would logically not be the usual mode of attack, much less how they are all mysteriously available without taking time to unpack items. How do you justify people who are supposed to consider specific bonds with items having 6 of them?Depends on the Cleric, but I've seen real-world priests wearing multiple crosses, so I'd say it's pretty standard.
Although personally I don't have a problem with minion/regular encounter spellcasters only carrying one component pouch or focus item. They're not supposed to be that much of a challenge, in the default mode of the game; I would save the extra backup items for an encounter you particularly want to make not be ended so easily. If your group plays in a more oppositional DM tactics vs. Player tactics style, tho, by all means have every cleric wearing a necklace strung with wooden symbols.It's not oppositional, it's just smart. They wield the powers of magic to reshape reality, and don't shell out an extra 5 bucks for a backup? I'm just saying, I have an Int of 12 and I think it's a good idea to carry around 2 things that will allow you to teleport in case something happens to the first one.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 01:37 AM

Depends on the Cleric, but I've seen real-world priests wearing multiple crosses, so I'd say it's pretty standard.

That means it happens, not that it's standard. There IS a difference.

It's not oppositional, it's just smart. They wield the powers of magic to reshape reality, and don't shell out an extra 5 bucks for a backup? I'm just saying, I have an Int of 12 and I think it's a good idea to carry around 2 things that will allow you to teleport in case something happens to the first one.

Only if the character had seen it happen or heard of it enough to consider it a viable risk. otherwise you'd probably need more experience to truly REALIZE how bad it is for you. Much in the same way that someone isn't necessarily going to see the purpose of a prenup, regardless of intelligence, until a friend of their gets screwed in a divorce, by which time they may be married.

Because 1: Its more of a wisdom thing.

and 2: its more of an experience thing.

tyckspoon

2008-03-24, 01:40 AM

They wield the powers of magic to reshape reality, and don't shell out an extra 5 bucks for a backup? I'm just saying, I have an Int of 12 and I think it's a good idea to carry around 2 things that will allow you to teleport in case something happens to the first one.

Under the base assumptions of the game? No, they don't. Keep in mind the base assumption of the game is that PCs will have a fairly easy time with equal-CR encounters. This was an assumption that was, as far as anybody knows, also playtested with a distinctly under-optimized group: a blasty wizard, a cleric that focused on healing mid-battle, a rogue, and a fighter. If you run encounters that actually effectively use all the tricks they could against that kind of party, you will do nasty, nasty things to the party.

So... like I said. In the default mode of the game, the one the rules had in mind when they were written and tested, spellcasters don't carry redundant focuses or materials pouches. The majority of encounters aren't meant to provide the kind of challenge that level of intelligence creates.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 01:42 AM

Because its cheating. Its like your character using OOC knowledge. Same fairness for players and DM's NPC's in that regard.
Sunderring a components pouch wasn't OOC knowledge? Particularly one that isn't out in plain view? Your entire tactics are predicated on a level of metaknowledge. You suddenly expect me to 'play fair'?

SO, your saying a creature won't fight back against a monk? I think you've just increased it's threat level drastically.
Being ignored as a target until last doesn't suddenly raise your threat level. I don't think anyone would seriously leave an attacking monk alone if they were the only valid targets; Eventually, they'll roll 20s and do damage. But why focus on the lowest damage, 'hardest to kill' (I'll take you at your word, but I'm going to keep it in mind what I'm doing) target? That's just bad tactics.

Besides that, alot of a monks usefulness can be in first strike actions. I would think you'd not be sure of what he was before his attacking started.
You complain about OOC knowledge and using it as a base for actions; Why then does this monk come out of the blue to beat up my caster for no apparent reason?

In a world full of demons, dragons, casters, and yes, monks, why should my caster, unless she's drunk on hubris, take anything as a less then credible threat, to the point of letting them wander up to her while clearly angry at her?

IT is more like getting $8 an hour at a job you love, or $9 an hour at a job you don't like nearly as much. Its not THAT big a difference in usefullness, and it can have other benifits.

It's more like 8 bucks an hour at a job you don't mind, vs. 50k a year salary, plus benefits, + Vacation time, + Dental.

So... like I said. In the default mode of the game, the one the rules had in mind when they were written and tested, spellcasters don't carry redundant focuses or materials pouches. The majority of encounters aren't meant to provide the kind of challenge that level of intelligence creates.
Oh I'll definitely agree with that. But these sorts of tactics weren't also taken into consideration in writing the encounters.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 01:50 AM

Under the base assumptions of the game? No, they don't. Keep in mind the base assumption of the game is that PCs will have a fairly easy time with equal-CR encounters. This was an assumption that was, as far as anybody knows, also playtested with a distinctly under-optimized group: a blasty wizard, a cleric that focused on healing mid-battle, a rogue, and a fighter. If you run encounters that actually effectively use all the tricks they could against that kind of party, you will do nasty, nasty things to the party.

So... like I said. In the default mode of the game, the one the rules had in mind when they were written and tested, spellcasters don't carry redundant focuses or materials pouches. The majority of encounters aren't meant to provide the kind of challenge that level of intelligence creates.So if the encounter is nerfed the monk is useful? :smallconfused: I fail to see how that supports your case.

@Turkishproverb: It's more like 5gp insurance for your spellcasting ability. Yeah, some people won't get it, but most will, and the few that actually use it will be thankful they did. Keep in mind, by level 5 most NPC's have 50 GP worth of pocket change, you're seriously telling me you don't expect them to go "Huh, if I ever lose my sack of random *** that lets me make reality my ***, it might be good to have a backup"? Especially an 18 Int caster? Unless they have 5 wis, I seriously doubt they're that stupid.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 01:53 AM

Sunderring a components pouch wasn't OOC knowledge? Particularly one that isn't out in plain view? Your entire tactics are predicated on a level of metaknowledge. You suddenly expect me to 'play fair'?

none of MY monks did that unless I had viable proof they would know what a SCP was useful for. Having monsters attack players reguardless of what they know IN UNIVERSE would.

and you did say "sure why not" in response to whether or not a NPC should be using OOC knowledge. I think I had a fair point.

Being ignored as a target until last doesn't suddenly raise your threat level. I don't think anyone would seriously leave an attacking monk alone if they were the only valid targets; Eventually, they'll roll 20s and do damage. But why focus on the lowest damage, 'hardest to kill' (I'll take you at your word, but I'm going to keep it in mind what I'm doing) target? That's just bad tactics.

SO, then they do pay attention to the monk? You just said they don't. That means the monk can do much unimpeded, because the DM isn't following NPC Knowledge rules.

You complain about OOC knowledge and using it as a base for actions; Why then does this monk come out of the blue to beat up my caster for no apparent reason?

1: Casters are generally easier to spot than monks in a group. therefore 2: if you know someone is a caster, your likely to attack them at the beginning of an encounter

In a world full of demons, dragons, casters, and yes, monks, why should my caster, unless she's drunk on hubris, take anything as a less then credible threat, to the point of letting them wander up to her while clearly angry at her?

why does my monk have to be angry? are you thinking about barbarians?

and wander up? Its called winning init and RUNNING up.

It's more like 8 bucks an hour at a job you don't mind, vs. 50k a year salary, plus benefits, + Vacation time, + Dental.

Bull. Overstating your point doesn't do you favors.

Oh I'll definitely agree with that. But these sorts of tactics weren't also taken into consideration in writing the encounters.

Yea, bu their also not designed to be gamebreaking. like the 7 holy symbol rule.

So if the encounter is nerfed the monk is useful? :smallconfused: I fail to see how that supports your case.

@Turkishproverb: It's more like 5gp insurance for your spellcasting ability. Yeah, some people won't get it, but most will, and the few that actually use it will be thankful they did. Keep in mind, by level 5 most NPC's have 50 GP worth of pocket change, you're seriously telling me you don't expect them to go "Huh, if I ever lose my sack of random *** that lets me make reality my ***, it might be good to have a backup"? Especially an 18 Int caster? Unless they have 5 wis, I seriously doubt they're that stupid.

Have one often? Yes. Need at minimum of a 6 wis to know to? No. I"d say a 11 or even 10 at level 3 or 4 could figure it out, but even that might be pushing it. Odds it would be equipped at all time are a little lower. more likely it would be the same place people keep armor repair stuff.

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 02:01 AM

1: Casters are generally easier to spot than monks in a group. therefore 2: if you know someone is a caster, your likely to attack them at the beginning of an encounter.

Really? All my casters have attempted to avoid being easily identified as such (thus avoiding such attentions) by dressing as either

commoners/tradesmen
rogues
monks (the ultimate way to be ignored by metagamers!)

The last actually worked in a group vs group pvp session (pbp). The opposing group saw my wizard with the kamas and obvious monk garb, and completely ignored him in the first round of combat (and thought I might have used a one-shot item, so didn't attack me the second round either). Boy, did that cost them.

tyckspoon

2008-03-24, 02:04 AM

So if the encounter is nerfed the monk is useful? I fail to see how that supports your case.

Basically, yes. So are Fighters, Soulknives, and most of the other weak classes. That's why they turned out weak; the game was tested assuming nerfed encounters (and nerfed players, for the stronger classes.) I don't recall stating that the monk could stand up to strong classes. I'm just disputing the argument that enemy spellcasters should universally carry redundant components or focuses. Player spellcasters definitely should, but D&D is founded on the assumption that the people and things you fight generally won't be quite as good as you are. If they were, they'd be higher CR. I have nothing against having a deliberately tougher fight created by having the opponent wizard have multiple component bags or carry around his stuff in a little adamantine box or whatever. It's just that that wizard who acts intelligently (along with the probable better selection and application of his spells) will be at least a higher encounter level and probably a higher CR, which are the game's tools for reflecting a more difficult enemy.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 02:04 AM

Really? All my casters have attempted to avoid being easily identified as such (thus avoiding such attentions) by dressing as either

commoners/tradesmen
rogues
monks (the ultimate way to be ignored by metagamers!)

The last actually worked in a group vs group pvp session (pbp). The opposing group saw my wizard with the kamas and obvious monk garb, and completely ignored him in the first round of combat (and thought I might have used a one-shot item, so didn't attack me the second round either). Boy, did that cost them.

Yea, and when a Wizard was dressed like that, and didn't have anything that seemed to identify them as a caster, i usually ended up not goign for hte sunder.

For that matter, there are a few times I tried to sunder a Monks (useless) holy symbol, only to have it backfire when we got into a matrix-style close combat fight.

BTW: Funny story.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 02:08 AM

Yea, and when a Wizard was dressed like that, and didn't have anything that seemed to identify them as a caster, i usually ended up not goign for hte sunder.

For that matter, there are a few times I tried to sunder a Monks (useless) holy symbol, only to have it backfire when we got into a matrix-style close combat fight.

BTW: Funny story.Someone here posted a story about the time their Cleric failed a Turn Undead roll, so the Rogue made a bluff check with his amulet to imitate. The Wight, thinking it was outnumbered by Clerics, fled the scene. :smallcool:

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 02:10 AM

Someone here posted a story about the time their Cleric failed a Turn Undead roll, so the Rogue made a bluff check with his amulet to imitate. The Wight, thinking it was outnumbered by Clerics, fled the scene. :smallcool:

That's a good one.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 02:14 AM

none of MY monks did that unless I had viable proof they would know what a SCP was useful for. Having monsters attack players reguardless of what they know IN UNIVERSE would.
No no, don't try that. You were positting it as a tactic. I don't care what your Monks did in-game in the past, unless it's directly germane to the discussion; You were deliberately using OOC knowledge to posit a theoretical tactic, therefore, whether your past monks would do this is immaterial.

and you did say "sure why not" in response to whether or not a NPC should be using OOC knowledge. I think I had a fair point.
Yeah, because your tactics are predicated on OOC knowledge.
Because A, then B
You can't then turn around and claim you're doing A because of B.

SO, then they do pay attention to the monk? You just said they don't. That means the monk can do much unimpeded, because the DM isn't following NPC Knowledge rules.
There are no NPC knowledge rules. There's OOC social contracts. That's it. Bringing in a tactic that you know only works because NPCs are taken as idiots is a breach of that social contract. You lose protection that you would normally gain under it. Same as I lose that sort of protection by deliberately optimizing a caster knowing full well what they're capable of.

1: Casters are generally easier to spot than monks in a group. therefore 2: if you know someone is a caster, your likely to attack them at the beginning of an encounter
No, in a group of adventurers or combatants, a caster is /exactly/ as easy to spot as a Monk. Man in a dress? Probably a caster. Man with no armor walking around with Man in a Dress and Two Men that are as walking juggernauts? Probably a Monk. Just because he's inconspicuous in a crowd doesn't make a Monk suddenly inconspicuous when traveling with companions.

why does my monk have to be angry? are you thinking about barbarians?

and wander up? Its called winning init and RUNNING up.
Orly? That's not the characterization you displayed at all. You characterized as casually walking up with no reason to attack whatsoever. And winning Init and Running up means you get one attack, not a full attack.

Bull. Overstating your point doesn't do you favors.
That's pretty much what an optimized caster looks like, compared to melee. I don't write the system, mercifully; I wouldn't want my name on something that utterly without balance. I just comment on it.

Yea, bu their also not designed to be gamebreaking. like the 7 holy symbol rule.
That's what I mean by OOC social contract; You don't use an obviously gamebreaking (when used on idiot NPCs not played to their intelligence score) tactic, they don't produce obviously game breaking tactics (By being played to their intelligence score) to use on you.

Talic

2008-03-24, 02:17 AM

I ddin't mean it was an end all. It's just that usually anti-MOnk people won't say anything pro monk even if you threaten their character sheets.

You know, It sounds like your saying a DM should be metagaming and using OOC knowledge to decide who creatures attack. Tell me I'm worng here.

You can't even always tell a monk is a monk by appearance, much less the threat level.

True. However, if you have a choice between a unarmed fit human, or a massively muscled brute holding a greatsword, most people are going to recognize the opponent with the sword as the more dangerous. That's not meta. That's common sense. In order to get the creature to then regard him as a threat, the monk must do something to justify it. This is the area where that whole "monks are low key and non-threatening" works AGAINST the monk.

And like i said, monks are surprisingly useful at early levels for being near untouchable. Ever walk through a group of goblins to get an item. :smalltongue:
Wrong. Once you get into groups that number higher than 10, AC isn't as important as HP. Numbers of attacks will get hits. I recall a level 6 fighter who charged a platoon of orcs with heavy crossbows, in ready firing position. The orcs only had a +2 to hit, and the fighter had an AC21. Still, he was reduced to -8 in one round. As the great Joseph Stalin once said, Quantity has a Quality all its own.

TALIC: As to your response to the above, explain how every single Magic user in your world justifies having multiple holy symbols ready for use without pulling them out of packs, given that someone breaking their item would logically not be the usual mode of attack, much less how they are all mysteriously avalable without taking time to unpack items. How do you justify people who are supposed to consider specific bonds with items having 6 of them?
Clerics don't have bonds with items. They have bonds with deities. That's probably your misunderstanding here. Now that it's corrected, shall we move on?

I ddin't mean it was an end all. It's just that usually anti-MOnk people won't say anything pro monk even if you threaten their character sheets.

You know, It sounds like your saying a DM should be metagaming and using OOC knowledge to decide who creatures attack. Tell me I'm worng here.

You can't even always tell a monk is a monk by appearance, much less the threat level.

True. However, if you have a choice between a unarmed fit human, or a massively muscled brute holding a greatsword, most people are going to recognize the opponent with the sword as the more dangerous. That's not meta. That's common sense. In order to get the creature to then regard him as a threat, the monk must do something to justify it. This is the area where that whole "monks are low key and non-threatening" works AGAINST the monk.

SO, your saying a creature won't fight back against a monk? I think you've just increased it's threat level drastically.
I'm saying that if given a choice between the thing that hit one of its friends, and the thing that cleft another friend in twain, which one is going to be prioritized?

Besides that, alot of a monks usefulness can be in first strike actions. I would think you'd not be sure of what he was before his attacking started.
But I can think that "diplomat", "escortee", or "Caravan member" would be as likely as "mostly inoffensive AC tank".

IT is more like getting $8 an hour at a job you love, or $9 an hour at a job you don't like nearly as much. Its not THAT big a difference in usefullness, and it can have other benifits. Hardly. The issue of preference is one that can be debated in fluffy opinion happy fun time unicorn threads. This is an issue where we are looking at what can a monk do, and do other party roles fill that better? Yes, they do, in all instances. Thus, the monk is LESS good than any other class.

Now that preference is seperated from this, as preference varies widely from person to person, we are left with this. Based on details of the class that are universally true, is it competitive?
No.
Without the preference, it's just, "would you rather make $8 an hour or $9 an hour?"

Personal preference may influence that choice, but it's just that. Personal. I.E. myself, who doesn't particularly care for monks, but loves barbarians or rogues, have the choice of the $8 job that's blah, or the $9 job I like. And that's why preference must be seperated. Because it's opinion, and not fact.

And the fact of the matter is, in every system, core, non core, what have you, monk is sub-optimal. Moreso than other non-caster classes.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 02:24 AM

No, in a group of adventurers or combatants, a caster is /exactly/ as easy to spot as a Monk. Man in a dress? Probably a caster. Man with no armor walking around with Man in a Dress and Two Men that are as walking juggernauts? Probably a Monk. Just because he's inconspicuous in a crowd doesn't make a Monk suddenly inconspicuous when traveling with companions.Nitpick:I don't run my casters in Robes unless they're Robes of Archmagi or the like. A)Most don't like the implications, B)It makes them look like a threat, which none of them would do willingly, and C)Robes are darn hard to move in. All of this adds up to the fact that my caster probably looks like a monk. :smallwink:

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 02:30 AM

No no, don't try that. You were positting it as a tactic. I don't care what your Monks did in-game in the past, unless it's directly germane to the discussion; You were deliberately using OOC knowledge to posit a theoretical tactic, therefore, whether your past monks would do this is immaterial.

Yeah, because your tactics are predicated on OOC knowledge.
Because A, then B
You can't then turn around and claim you're doing A because of B.

Sure I can. IT is called either A: Observing your caster in group or B: having ranks in knowledge arcana or spellcraft, implying the guy would know something about that.

Its not OOC. Deal with it.

There are no NPC knowledge rules. There's OOC social contracts. That's it. Bringing in a tactic that you know only works because NPCs are taken as idiots is a breach of that social contract. You lose protection that you would normally gain under it. Same as I lose that sort of protection by deliberately optimizing a caster knowing full well what they're capable of.

For the last time, a guy not having 6 SCP readied is not making him an idiot. It makes him realistic.

And NPC's use the same character knowledge rules, at least until 4th edition.

No, in a group of adventurers or combatants, a caster is /exactly/ as easy to spot as a Monk. Man in a dress? Probably a caster. Man with no armor walking around with Man in a Dress and Two Men that are as walking juggernauts? Probably a Monk. Just because he's inconspicuous in a crowd doesn't make a Monk suddenly inconspicuous when traveling with companions.

NOt really. MOnk dress tends to look alot like caster dress when in "cloistered look" and when not, many monks, even in the real world, wear laity dress outside of a manastary, or immidiate monastic work.

Orly? That's not the characterization you displayed at all. You characterized as casually walking up with no reason to attack whatsoever. And winning Init and Running up means you get one attack, not a full attack.

Don't even go there. we both know how combat works from a mechanics standpoint. if you didint' think that was what I was talking about, you should have.

That's pretty much what an optimized caster looks like, compared to melee. I don't write the system, mercifully; I wouldn't want my name on something that utterly without balance. I just comment on it.

Ah, so its back to casters vs everything else. See my origional point 1, and if your not prepared to debate from another point, I really have nothing more to say to you on the subject.

That's what I mean by OOC social contract; You don't use an obviously gamebreaking (when used on idiot NPCs not played to their intelligence score) tactic, they don't produce obviously game breaking tactics (By being played to their intelligence score) to use on you.

Yea, or you don't assume NPC's are metagaming any more than you should be.

I'm afraid you don't get what playing to intelligence score actually means. Frankly, its more metagaming for a character who's got no reason to suspect active sundering to have multiples of these things prepared.

True. However, if you have a choice between a unarmed fit human, or a massively muscled brute holding a greatsword, most people are going to recognize the opponent with the sword as the more dangerous. That's not meta. That's common sense. In order to get the creature to then regard him as a threat, the monk must do something to justify it. This is the area where that whole "monks are low key and non-threatening" works AGAINST the monk.

Considering guys without visable weapons are often casters in adventuring groups? You'd be surpised. Besides, you seem to think everyone knows monks are made to break SCP in game, so wouldn't they rush the guy that looks like he's nto there to hack, but for a specific reason?

Wrong. Once you get into groups that number higher than 10, AC isn't as important as HP. Numbers of attacks will get hits. I recall a level 6 fighter who charged a platoon of orcs with heavy crossbows, in ready firing position. The orcs only had a +2 to hit, and the fighter had an AC21. Still, he was reduced to -8 in one round. As the great Joseph Stalin once said, Quantity has a Quality all its own.

I don't know, I've survived as level 1 going through groups of 15 goblins to grab something and run with a monk.

Clerics don't have bonds with items. They have bonds with deities. That's probably your misunderstanding here. Now that it's corrected, shall we move on?

NO, i mean from a RP standpoint, people often claim there Cleric does. ANd it still fails to answer how they'd think to have multiples redied unless EVERYONE in your world combat sunders

True. However, if you have a choice between a unarmed fit human, or a massively muscled brute holding a greatsword, most people are going to recognize the opponent with the sword as the more dangerous. That's not meta. That's common sense. In order to get the creature to then regard him as a threat, the monk must do something to justify it. This is the area where that whole "monks are low key and non-threatening" works AGAINST the monk.
I'm saying that if given a choice between the thing that hit one of its friends, and the thing that cleft another friend in twain, which one is going to be prioritized?
But I can think that "diplomat", "escortee", or "Caravan member" would be as likely as "mostly inoffensive AC tank".

diplomat: Time to make some money kidnapping/time to get the guy and start a war etc.

escortee/caravan member: get him before he retireves his sword.

Hardly. The issue of preference is one that can be debated in fluffy opinion happy fun time unicorn threads. This is an issue where we are looking at what can a monk do, and do other party roles fill that better? Yes, they do, in all instances. Thus, the monk is LESS good than any other class.

Now that preference is seperated from this, as preference varies widely from person to person, we are left with this. Based on details of the class that are universally true, is it competitive?
No.
Without the preference, it's just, "would you rather make $8 an hour or $9 an hour?"

Personal preference may influence that choice, but it's just that. Personal. I.E. myself, who doesn't particularly care for monks, but loves barbarians or rogues, have the choice of the $8 job that's blah, or the $9 job I like. And that's why preference must be seperated. Because it's opinion, and not fact.

My point was that it wasn't the 5vs 50 you were pushing so hard.

Talic

2008-03-24, 02:42 AM

For the last time, a guy not having 6 SCP readied is not making him an idiot. It makes him realistic.

First, exaggeration doesn't help your case. Nobody but you has mentioned half dozens. I believe your highball number was 7?

That said, a caster is as capable as anyone of recognizing a potential weak link. If said link can be protected with a very minor amount of gold, then it makes a certain degree of sense to do it, if you are in any way, shape, or form cautious. Most wizards who gain levels (rather than death counts), are somewhat cautious. Same with many other caster classes.

Sundering may be about as rare as energy drain. Does that mean that no cleric should ever prepare death ward? :smallamused:

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 02:48 AM

Sigh.

First, exaggeration doesn't help your case. Nobody but you has mentioned half dozens. I believe your highball number was 7?

SOmeone made a comment about not expecting clerics with a neck full of wooden holy symbols. i was echoing htat.

That said, a caster is as capable as anyone of recognizing a potential weak link. If said link can be protected with a very minor amount of gold, then it makes a certain degree of sense to do it, if you are in any way, shape, or form cautious. Most wizards who gain levels (rather than death counts), are somewhat cautious. Same with many other caster classes.

Like I said, they'd probably Have one, but not many, and would probably not have it equipped.

Assuming they would just know is odd. I imagine they'd have to forget it during battle, or have it sundered once. Or hear about it happening.

Sundering may be about as rare as energy drain. Does that mean that no cleric should ever prepare death ward? :smallamused:

Probably rarer, and it means fewer would have a second one prepared.

Kind've like a cleric not ALWAYS having death ward prepared, much less not having multiple versions of it prepped

Talic

2008-03-24, 02:51 AM

Considering guys without visable weapons are often casters in adventuring groups? You'd be surpised. Besides, you seem to think everyone knows monks are made to break SCP in game, so wouldn't they rush the guy that looks like he's nto there to hack, but for a specific reason?
Bears will have a great grasp on that point, to be sure. Characters without visible weapons in peak physical condition? Less commonly casters. :smallamused:

I don't know, I've survived as level 1 going through groups of 15 goblins to grab something and run with a monk.
Thank you for claiming it's possible. I never said otherwise. PROBABLE, that's the issue.

NO, i mean from a RP standpoint, people often claim there Cleric does. ANd it still fails to answer how they'd think to have multiples redied unless EVERYONE in your world combat sunders
But that's not part of the class. So that point can be tossed out as irrelevant. As for everyone sundering? Should we only prepare a defense against magic is EVERYONE casts?

diplomat: Time to make some money kidnapping/time to get the guy and start a war etc.
Obstacle: 3 guys with bows in hand and one with a greatsword. Deal with them quickly, and the rest of the caravan can be captured.

escortee/caravan member: get him before he retireves his sword.
Above point. People without swords are less threatening than people with them. Your bandits will die often if they beat on the little girls while allowing the dire tigers to eat them.

My point was that it wasn't the 5vs 50 you were pushing so hard.
Actually, it was 20 orcs, I think. Goes to show how dumb reckless charges usually are.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 02:54 AM

@turk: I just expect 2, which is all that's needed for the Wiz to kill you since you've been kind enough to move to close range.
And I never said they were getting it to prep against Sundering. The number of things that Sunder is fairly low. They got it because it's one of their links with arcane power, so having a backup is a good idea.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 03:03 AM

Bears will have a great grasp on that point, to be sure. Characters without visible weapons in peak physical condition? Less commonly casters. :smallamused:

Your forgetting monk weapons, brass knuckles (still counts as unarmed) and carrying a weapon you don't use.

And in the "robes" physical condition is harder to discern.

Thank you for claiming it's possible. I never said otherwise. PROBABLE, that's the issue.

Yea, and I've encountered the occasional guy that carried more than 1 SCP. Just as that freaking Beholder used NO material components. IT can be dealt with.

The idea it would be a useless tactic to go after it is different. ITs the same thing

But that's not part of the class. So that point can be tossed out as irrelevant. As for everyone sundering? Should we only prepare a defense against magic is EVERYONE casts?

NO, but the odds everyone will always be prepped for these things is insanely low.

Obstacle: 3 guys with bows in hand and one with a greatsword. Deal with them quickly, and the rest of the caravan can be captured.

Gives the other guy time to attack at will. Good for the monk.

Above point. People without swords are less threatening than people with them. Your bandits will die often if they beat on the little girls while allowing the dire tigers to eat them.

Your kind've defeating yourself on the don't exadurate contest.

Actually, it was 20 orcs, I think. Goes to show how dumb reckless charges usually are.

I was referring to the monks are $5 and everyone else is $50 thing

Talic

2008-03-24, 03:05 AM

SOmeone made a comment about not expecting clerics with a neck full of wooden holy symbols. i was echoing htat.
And so you assume everyone who states the fact that monks are sub-optimal thinks that? Tsk tsk.

Like I said, they'd probably Have one, but not many, and would probably not have it equipped.
Odd, if I'm getting something to be a backup, I'm going to keep it in a hidden, but accessible location. After all, in any situation where it's needed, it's needed immediately.

Assuming they would just know is odd. I imagine they'd have to forget it during battle, or have it sundered once. Or hear about it happening.
The average man learns from his mistakes. The wise man, from others. The smart man figures out the potential risks before he goes into battle.
When the consequences for that mistake are death, then by your logic, almost nobody would know.

Probably rarer, and it means fewer would have a second one prepared.
Assume a town setting, and I'd say likely about equal, if not more common.

Kind've like a cleric not ALWAYS having death ward prepared, much less not having multiple versions of it prepped
I've just realized that I could come up with the perfect arguement, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a level 20 monk couldn't beat an ECL 2 caster in a barfight without magic, and even then, if all that were true, you'd argue. You're arguing to argue, because you LIKE the class. NOT because it's effective, because you've already ADMITTED it's not as effective (with your $8 and $9 job analogy). Thus, regardless of any other arguement you bring up, any other point you make, you've already conceded monks don't hit as well as barbarians, or skill as well as rogues.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 03:08 AM

Reel On, Love

2008-03-24, 03:09 AM

So, if its not prepped for IN COMBAT DESTRUCTION, what makes you think they would have it on hand invariably?

The fact that retrieving anything from your Handy Haversack is a move action.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 03:12 AM

The fact that retrieving anything from your Handy Haversack is a move action.Alternatively, it's in their pocket, or on their belt next to their belt pouches and money pouch.

Talic

2008-03-24, 03:15 AM

Your forgetting monk weapons, brass knuckles (still counts as unarmed) and carrying a weapon you don't use.

And in the "robes" physical condition is harder to discern.
Hardly. Watch a trained martial artist walk across a room. Watch a librarian. The poise and stance and a number of other conditions are easy to tell, for anyone with any combat experience.

Yea, and I've encountered the occasional guy that carried more than 1 SCP. Just as that freaking Beholder used NO material components. IT can be dealt with. I'd say that most characters with high intelligence will act it. You say they won't. Oddly enough, I feel I'm on good footing here.

NO, but the odds everyone will always be prepped for these things is insanely low.
See above.

Gives the other guy time to attack at will. Good for the monk.
And defeats the purpose of the high AC. Either the monk if an offensive threat, in which case he dies quick, or he isn't, in which case those rounds won't matter.

Your kind've defeating yourself on the don't exadurate contest.
Proves a point though. You're arguing against attacking known threats in favor of possible ones. That's lunacy.

I was referring to the monks are $5 and everyone else is $50 thing
You were correcting it. Your analogy interprets as, "the gulf between the two isn't so wide, it's rather small, and I like monks more." Regardless of what it was in reference to, you yourself called monks $8 compared to everyone else's $9 (admittedly, caster's $25). Rather than try to weasel your way out of your own words, how's about you bow up like a man and accept them?

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 03:15 AM

And so you assume everyone who states the fact that monks are sub-optimal thinks that? Tsk tsk.

I've just realized that I could come up with the perfect arguement, showing beyond a shadow of a doubt that a level 20 monk couldn't beat an ECL 2 caster in a barfight without magic, and even then, if all that were true, you'd argue. You're arguing to argue, because you LIKE the class. NOT because it's effective, because you've already ADMITTED it's not as effective (with your $8 and $9 job analogy). Thus, regardless of any other arguement you bring up, any other point you make, you've already conceded monks don't hit as well as barbarians, or skill as well as rogues.

Erm. You don'[t really get to talk here.

I conceded they weren't as min-maxed. I went on to explain why that didn't mean they sucked. YOu guys went nuts, I defended.

Odd, if I'm getting something to be a backup, I'm going to keep it in a hidden, but accessible location. After all, in any situation where it's needed, it's needed immediately.

So, your saying they would expect to need a backup mid combat (IE see it getting sundered) or not (IE: Have it in safekeeping elsewhere)

The average man learns from his mistakes. The wise man, from others. The smart man figures out the potential risks before he goes into battle.
When the consequences for that mistake are death, then by your logic, almost nobody would know.

unless it were common knowledge or they had read/heard/sdtudied about it, which was my point.

Assume a town setting, and I'd say likely about equal, if not more common.

ah, but more situational, you get a better chance of these things working out under specific circumstances. Fir instance, in a town setting, the guy is more likely to be close to safe harbor and not think he'd need it right away.

EDIT: Talic, I don't think I can argue with you more. The union will get mad.

BRAINNSS!

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 03:28 AM

Hardly. Watch a trained martial artist walk across a room. Watch a librarian. The poise and stance and a number of other conditions are easy to tell, for anyone with any combat experience.

Yea. That i concede. Then again. MOnk's often move a little different than either IRL. Still, good point. (wait, you said i wouldn never admit a good point)

I'd say that most characters with high intelligence will act it. You say they won't. Oddly enough, I feel I'm on good footing here.
See above.

This is a matter of personal opinion. I'm not sure we should go much farther with this, as it is entering idea freeze territory

And defeats the purpose of the high AC. Either the monk if an offensive threat, in which case he dies quick, or he isn't, in which case those rounds won't matter.Proves a point though. You're arguing against attacking known threats in favor of possible ones. That's lunacy.

IT is possible to have good offence and defence. especially with a monk.

You were correcting it. Your analogy interprets as, "the gulf between the two isn't so wide, it's rather small, and I like monks more." Regardless of what it was in reference to, you yourself called monks $8 compared to everyone else's $9 (admittedly, caster's $25). Rather than try to weasel your way out of your own words, how's about you bow up like a man and accept them?

actually, the I like monks more isn't accurate, but otherwise your close, I was saying the gulf isn't so wide, and most of the fault also exist with other non casters. I was saying they were playable, just not minmaxed like everything else.

Talic

2008-03-24, 03:57 AM

I conceded they weren't as min-maxed. I went on to explain why that didn't mean they sucked. YOu guys went nuts, I defended.

They're not as min-maxed? So they aren't as optimizable, then. In other words, they cannot be made as competitive.

Anything monks could strive to do, another class will do better, or equally, while being better at other things. Thus, the only reasonable arguement to play a monk is that you like it. As personal preference has no relation to the quality of the class, that can be summarily dismissed.

I think that's the arguement. Game, set, match. Thank you for coming, exits are to the right, and if anyone finds the keys to a White Mercedes, please turn them in to Lost and Found. Thank you, and good night.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 03:59 AM

They're not as min-maxed? So they aren't as optimizable, then. In other words, they cannot be made as competitive.

Anything monks could strive to do, another class will do better, or equally, while being better at other things. Thus, the only reasonable arguement to play a monk is that you like it. As personal preference has no relation to the quality of the class, that can be summarily dismissed.

I think that's the arguement. Game, set, match. Thank you for coming, exits are to the right, and if anyone finds the keys to a White Mercedes, please turn them in to Lost and Found. Thank you, and good night.

YOu know what? If your not going to seriously debate, why are you here?

Competitive implies players working against eachother.

And furthermore, if you can't accept not everyone is a powergamer, and that someone can "keep up" with a monk, I feel sorry for you.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 04:07 AM

Sure I can. IT is called either A: Observing your caster in group or B: having ranks in knowledge arcana or spellcraft, implying the guy would know something about that.

Its not OOC. Deal with it.
Oh ko? Doing things ICly (Most particularly B, but in part A) for an express OOC purpose, no matter how good your justification IC, qualifies as OOC.

A wise player understands this, and does not consider an OOC motivation to be inherently bad, but rather, seeks to rate an OOC motivation based on what it is. After all, even if you behave in a perfectly IC manner, that's only because you OOCly value behaving in a perfectly IC manner.

Regardless, between the two of us, only one of us actually cares about whether the knowledge was OOC to begin with, and that's you; I'm far more concerned with the social contract, in this regard.

For the last time, a guy not having 6 SCP readied is not making him an idiot. It makes him realistic.

And NPC's use the same character knowledge rules, at least until 4th edition.
You really don't get it, do you? There are effectively no rules. Ever. Not in 3rd edition, not in 4th edition. In fact, find for me right now the rule that says there's no metagaming; I suspect you'll find that difficult to do as DnD is hack n' slash. In fact, the tiny section in the DMG that says what Metagaming is (And how it can hurt a game, not how it's disallowed) implicitly allows metagaming, provided that the metagaming is couched through proper IC thinking (The listed example; 'There must be a way to disable a trap, because the people who built it wouldn't have gone without one" is, in OOC truth, /exactly/ as accurate as "There must be a way to disable the trap, because the DM wouldn't make an unbeatable trap.")

On a different note that doesn't rely on you understanding the finer points of the OOC/IC static blur (Because it's sure as hell not a line, as you're adequately demonstrating for me), if it's 'realistic' for it to occur to your monk that an SCP can be destroyed, it's 'realistic' for it to occur to spellcasters that their SCPs can be destroyed. In fact, if it's realistic for it to occur to your monk at all, it's realistic to assume he wasn't the first to try it, and that most knowledgeable or experienced spellcasters have fought at least one person who tried it.

NOt really. MOnk dress tends to look alot like caster dress when in "cloistered look" and when not, many monks, even in the real world, wear laity dress outside of a manastary, or immidiate monastic work.
Laity dress? As in, that of a lay person, or commoner? Which would pretty much go back to my point of "The well toned person in normal people's clothing with the Caster and the two armored juggernauts? Probably a monk"

Granted, they could dress like casters, but that makes them quite conspicuous in a crowd.

Don't even go there. we both know how combat works from a mechanics standpoint. if you didint' think that was what I was talking about, you should have.
I know how combat works. You appeared to be using the 'inconspicuousness' of monks as a point to prove they could get into melee range without drawing attention.

Incidentally, since no one else seems to have poked at this, when did Monks get a major init advantage? It's going to just be Dex Mod vs. Dex Mod, class-wise, so why are you auto-assuming the Monk wins? Sure, they value dex more, but the difference at lower levels will hardly be enough to ensure monk victory, and at higher levels, aren't there spells that grant +Init?

Ah, so its back to casters vs everything else. See my origional point 1, and if your not prepared to debate from another point, I really have nothing more to say to you on the subject.
What 'original point 1'? And what are you babbling about? I'm not debating casters vs. everyone else. It's not germane to the debate at hand. I was making a quip about /why/ I wouldn't want to be the system designer. A continuation of the "Don't look at me, I'm not the one who made this" stock comment.

Yea, or you don't assume NPC's are metagaming any more than you should be.[/quote]
Correction: You don't assume NPCs are metagaming any more then you are. Which you consistently have been, even if you list IC reasons to care.

I'm afraid you don't get what playing to intelligence score actually means. Frankly, its more metagaming for a character who's got no reason to suspect active sundering to have multiples of these things prepared.
So it's metagaming when the guy who lives or dies by the spell component bag recognizes his weakness, but the other guy who couldn't possibly have a vested interest as large as the spellcaster's figuring out this weakness and exploiting it, that's not metagaming? My dear child, your definitions of metagaming and OOC knowledge are flawed. However, I can't really blame you, as most people simply don't examine the subject in depth.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 04:09 AM

And furthermore, if you can't accept not everyone is a powergamer, and that someone can "keep up" with a monk, I feel sorry for you.

Unless you are optimising, you can't keep up while using a monk. Giacomo even says that you need to abuse spells that are widely regarded as overpowered to be effective.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 04:16 AM

This is what I get for going in trying to be decent about things.

You know what?

Screw it.

You guys keep acting like i'm being unreasonable by not stating "MONKS ARE WORTHESS IN EVERY WAY" in as big letters as possible.

Sorry. I don't play that way.

Rutee

2008-03-24, 04:22 AM

By "That way" do you mean the false belief that you play more IC then us, or that you don't consider a class to be significantly weaker even when it is? Because I've still made more Monks then any other class; I just did so with no illusions on relative ability.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 04:23 AM

This is what I get for going in trying to be decent about things. Screw it.

You guys keep acting like i'm being unreasonably, by not stating "MONKS ARE WORTHESS" in as big letters as possible.

Sorry. I don't play that way.Monks aren't worthless, but they are the least-powerful class in core. Does that mean you can't enjoy playing them? No. It just means that if you do so in a competently-played party, the other party members (and possibly NPC adepts) might as well be singing "Anything You Can Do". The problem is people like SG, who claim Monks are balanced against Druids through UMD cheese and Leadership. That's who I debate.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 04:29 AM

I'd like the echo the few posters above me. Monks aren't worthless, I just get annoyed when people try to say that they're as powerful as the other classes, when they're clearly not.

turkishproverb

2008-03-24, 04:31 AM

Sigh. I keep coming back to deal with this stuff.

Last time in this thread.

Nebo: I never said equal, I said useful.

Sstoopidtallkid: Same to you as to Nebo

Rutee: Sorry. I don't have much respect for a gaming style that can't tell the difference between IC behavior and OOC behavior.

Good Day.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 04:37 AM

Hi, turkishproverb,

glad another monk supporter made it into this thread - during (my) night you valiantly defended vs the "monk sucks" fraction.

The fact that you have collected valuable experience as contributing with your monk as an anti-caster is very interesting. Unfortunately, some still doubt.

Ah, and btw, I have both played a monk and seen a monk played by others. Many of my ideas came from some initial experiences where a friend of mine played a monk in a very weak way. He did not even have improved grapple...and constantly forgot to use his stunning fist attack :smallbiggrin: But when he once grappled an enemy spelluser, completely shutting him down (the AoO did no good to the spellcaster since he was not proficient in unarmed attack), I realised there was something about the class that I had overlooked...I was able to learn. Will you also be, o "monk sucks" fraction?

Now, a good interim summary of this thread:

Ok, back to the point.

To wit:

Monks are mechanically inferior. Proof of this can be found in the fact that they are MAD, have no strong point, and have abilities that don't synchronize well with the role of the class, whatever it was intended to be.

That is all. I'll let someone else deliver the closing statement for the monks and then go back to my homework.

And as I have proven above already with details instead of merely tossing around nice expressions,
1) the monk does not have MAD (no more than any other class). Heck, throw everything on STR like the orc commoner (ending up with STR 40) and you have a viable party warrior (note he does not need high INT to get improved trip at 6th level).
2) they have strong points no one can emulate in core (best at grappling, a great low-level combat tactics, best at speedy stealth, best at doing damage at high levels with full attack flurry)

As to whether their abilities do not synchronise with the suggested PHB roles (scout, opportunist combatant, spy, infiltrator, assassin), well the evidence speaks so loud, you appear to be deaf

1) class skills move silently/hide/listen/spot plus the 4 skill points necessary to raise them (all roles- it's great to have a surprise round, which so far Solo has brought up no wizard methods against at low levels)
2) dimension door (all roles)
3) high grappling damage and bonus feats conducive for grappling (assassin, opportunist combatant)
4) movement enhancement (all roles)
5) etheralness (spy, scout, infiltrator, assassin)
6) tongues (spy, infiltrator)
7) spell resistance and high saves (spy, infiltrator, assassin - helps vs magical detection)
ach...you get the idea, don't you?:smallsmile:

While you may say that somehow these abilities are inferior to what other classes can do to fill their roles (they are not), or that some abilities come in very late in their career (in fact they are nicely and evenly spread) you cannot outright deny them to make a "monk sucks" claim.

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 04:40 AM

Sigh. I keep coming back to deal with this crap.

Nebo: I never said equal, I said useful.

Sstoopidtallkid: Same to you.

Rutee: Sorry. I don't have much respect for a gaming style that can't tell the difference between IC behavior and OOC behavior.Useful is relative. If you brought along a Warrior, he'd be useful, too. If there's another class that does your job better than you, then why not re-fluff them? If you want to play a skillmonkey, pick up a Rogue, say he grew up in a Monastery, and call Sneak Attack "Martial Training". Or play a Ranger with a non-AC variant. Or an Unarmed Swordsage. Fluff is mutable, so why play a class that is weaker from the start?

Edit:@Giacomo: What order would you prioritize a Monk's stats? Until I know the basics of how you build the class it'll be harder for me to prove you wrong.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 04:43 AM

Monks aren't worthless, but they are the least-powerful class in core. Does that mean you can't enjoy playing them? No. It just means that if you do so in a competently-played party, the other party members (and possibly NPC adepts) might as well be singing "Anything You Can Do". The problem is people like SG, who claim Monks are balanced against Druids through UMD cheese and Leadership. That's who I debate.

By all means, continue debating!
Note that that points I made in my previous post do not even need "UMD cheese" (what a great laugh to call cross-class skill raising cheese) and leadership.

As for monks being the least powerful class in core, just look up my post above where I compared the rogue and ranger directly to the monk. There was nothing in there to back up your claim (and before you ask, yes, this does not prove that the monk is superior to rogue or ranger. Simply that it is balanced).

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 04:49 AM

How would you place stats, before I continue?

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 04:51 AM

By all means, continue debating!
Note that that points I made in my previous post do not even need "UMD cheese" (what a great laugh to call cross-class skill raising cheese) and leadership.

Sigh. Would you say that a wizard who focused solely on using Alter Self/Polymorph and various other buffs, taking feats like Power Attack/Cleave/etc, so that they could do all their fighting in melee, was being played like a wizard?

What about a barbarian who cross-classed and pumped UMD to act as the group's main healer, neglecting melee combat? Is that playing them at all like they were meant to be?

Really, that's what your monks seem like to most of us.

Skjaldbakka

2008-03-24, 04:53 AM

2) they have strong points no one can emulate in core (best at grappling, a great low-level combat tactics, best at speedy stealth, best at doing damage at high levels with full attack flurry)

I'll give you the speedy stealth, but getting improved grapple as a bonus feat does not a superior grappler make. You know, fighter also gets Improved Grapple as a bonus feat, and has a full BAB, and has no reason to prioritize dexterity or wisdom, thus making it very likely his strength is higher than the monk grappler's. But even if they are even (there is no reason whatsoever to suspect the monk of having a higher strength than the fighter of similar build), the fighter has a better BAB, and is thus more likely to succeed than the monk.

Not that grappling is a great combat strategy to start with. The notion that the monk is the better damage dealer at high levels is just ludicrous. Power Attack beats multiple attacks. The monk can't compete there for the same reasons a two-weapon fighter can't compete there. You don't get to use your flurry of blows in the same round that you move into melee. You can still hit really hard with power attack and a two-handed weapon.

Comparatively speaking, the full BAB class gets 10 free damage on the monk, while attacking at the same to-hit bonus, even if all stats are equal. That 5 extra to-hit easily translates into 10 damage with power attack. The monk can't compete there, due to lack of BAB. He could try to play the same game, two-handing a staff, but he stays 10 damage behind whenever he has to move.

Two things the monk really needs is the ability to flurry as a standard action, and 2 more skill points per level. But I already posted the changes I use for monks that make them work better, and at least have an edge. Not necessarily an edge that makes them superior or even equal to any other real class, but at least an edge.

As for being the least powerful class, I disagree. I would rather play a monk than a CW samurai, Soulknife, Truenamer, Warrior, Expert, or Aristocrat.

Of course, when I want to play a monk, I play a monk, and then discreetly write the words "rogue" "improved unarmed strike" and "weapon finesse" on my character sheet, and then say I'm playing a monk.

Sometimes I'll write "psychic rogue". That only works if you pick your powers carefully - lots of psychic rogue powers don't really fit a 'monk'.

Hardly. Watch a trained martial artist walk across a room. Watch a librarian. The poise and stance and a number of other conditions are easy to tell, for anyone with any combat experience.

Heh, I resemble that remark! I'm a librarian that studies martial arts. :smalltongue: :smallcool:

lord_khaine

2008-03-24, 05:02 AM

Let me rephrase that, "Big HUGE creatures (the size category) with Higher Str then your Monk."

well in the case were they are huge, then the feats improved trip and improved grapple makes up for the difference in size, and even if there is a slight difference in str, then it does not mean that the monk cant succed, since rolling 2d20 means the outcome will have a lot of variation.

and in those very few cases where the creature is both a lot bigger and a lot stronger, then the monk isnt as bad off as a rogue facing undeads, he can still just tumble over to it and start hitting it.

You assume incorrectly, but all the same, that means
1) His AC is worse
2) His HP is worse
3) His Stunning Fist DCs are rather pathetic past level 10 against most enemies.
4) He doesn't have 6 skill points per level
5) He sure as hell doesn't UMD wands.

i meant that im arguing from the standart character generation
method of 4d6, since thats the way i have been making my monks.
as for the rest i dont understand your point, though i would like to point out that the feat ability focus; stunning fist and even a basic wisdom score of fx 12+2 ench will give a dc of 19, thats still effective if you target a weak save.
also i have newer argued the use of UMD wands.

Everyone can be good at something when they are facing someone bad at it, But when you are facing something good at grappling you will have 0 successes to the Barbarians few (or sufficiently optimized, many).

I am also consider more then 1st level, since a game is made of more then that. If I just wanted to build characters that were awesome at first level all my characters would be Spiked Chain fighters doing 2d4+6 damage twice a round.

well yes ok, a raging barbarian with those 2 feats would have a 70% chance while he was using his 1 rage for that day, while the monk would have 2 at 30%, for a complete score of 60%, and would do around the same in damage.

still this is hardly relevant, since first of all its just about only a barbarian who have wasted 2 feats on this that can competet here, and since we are not discussing a wrestling mach, but what the monk can contribute, then the monk doesnt need to beat the barbarian in wrestling, just either keep him occupied, and be happy he is wasting time grappling when he could be power attacking people with a greataxe.
then when the monks friends have beaten his friends they can come and chop him up as well.

and im usualy not considering first level at all, this comperison will stay true up to level 5, when the bab dif will increase by one, and also it was you who brought this up with a level 3 barb to start with.

1) Yes it is one of those "crazy spell compendium spells" that are exactly like those "crazy PHB spells."
2) That's why Wizards have infinite spells known and plenty of spells to cast.
3) Not to be guarded against monk stuns, this is the thing I pointed out earlier, This is to be guarded against, crits/stuns/SA/Poison/Disease

you still didnt mention what spell you are using, and at least in core there isnt really anything to help you there.
and even though wizards have infinitive spells know, they are still limited by both gold and their ability to find the spells in question.

i thought we already determined that you cannot have Potions of Enlarge Person?

why not? they are even listet under potions in the SRD.
yes you cant use them at level 20, imo that hardly matters since at that point the casters have been owning the game the last 3 levels anyway.

Aquillion

2008-03-24, 05:07 AM

However, they only cost 5 gp and weigh 2 pounds. So a wizard worried about it being sundered could easily carry two or three, and probably will if the tactic is used with any frequency in your world... hinging your strategy on destroying a cheap, fairly lightweight, easily-available and readily-replacible object is probably not a good idea.If we could get back to this for a moment, now that I've had time to think, I have a few more comments...

First, how do you know that every wizard you encounter will keep all his spell components in a pouch, and not, say, on his pockets throughout his robe? (Yes, the rules only let him assume that they're in a pouch, because the rules are stupid. But your character doesn't know the rules.) How do you normally recognize that pouch? Most wizards are going to be carrying lots of things. How can you pick out the one thing containing his spell components? I suppose you could observe him pulling a component from it

You somehow magically 'know' that he's required to keep all his components in the same place -- in fact, all I pointed out above is that technically, he isn't. Why on earth would any sane wizard put all of his vital magic components in a single easily-damaged spot? When dealing with inexpensive or easily-obtained components, why wouldn't he have backups for the important spells scattered over his person, in addition to the main pouch (or pouches)? This isn't even a matter of combat, now that I think about it -- what if you lose that pouch?

There's one additional factor to consider here:

Smashing an Object
...
Generally, you can smash an object only with a bludgeoning or slashing weapon.ie not barehanded. While a monk's unarmed attacks count as weapons for many purposes, I'm fairly sure this isn't one of them... you can't sunder unarmed, and will have to use a weapon.

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 05:11 AM

well yes ok, a raging barbarian with those 2 feats would have a 70% chance while he was using his 1 rage for that day, while the monk would have 2 at 30%, for a complete score of 60%, and would do around the same in damage.For a complete score of 49%, not 60. Percentiles stack oddly, and you generally have to know how to add them.

As for everything else, I'm still waiting to hear how he places his Ability scores.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:13 AM

And now, on to my favourite monk debating opponent...:smallsmile:

You can make metamagic wands. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wands.htm - "Charm Person, heightened".
The idea that you can replace scrolls of level 1-4 spells with wands of level 1-4 spells, and that's how it's intended to be and how it works in any campaign.

Well, true. Wands can even be metamagicked. Great. Now that really makes wands for level 1-4 spells vastly superior, since the UMD check needed is lower. The only thing going for using them are casters who can scribe them for cheaper money, I think.
Well...actually even IF you would houserule to be able to buy wands only fully charged, it would mean wands are vastly superior. Note that the key wands for the level 4 monk above (enlarge, CLW, ray of enfeeblement) are all fully charged.

No, the monk does NOT sneak up and kill them in one round. Most likely, the giants and the PCs encounter each other and roll initiative. You do not get to know about all your fights ahead of time.

Yes, that is what you get when you ignore the stealth part of the monk. But the game is not balanced this way, if you ignore parts of the rules.

I don't see AC accounted for anywhere. I see you assuming you'll sneak up, get a full attack on both of them, and land every hit. Actually, I just looked Stone Giants up--they've got AC 25. With +7 AB from STR, 16 BAB, +1 haste, -1 AB size, and let's say +4 fists (Greater Magic Weapon), your AB is 27. So your top-Ab attacks hit... but the last one will miss almost half the time. However, it's also noteable that STONE GIANTS ARE CR 8.

Well, what to make of a post like that. "AC is unaccounted for". wait..."ah, yes, most of your attacks will hit..."....but...but...(struggles for way to not admit being wrong)..."Stone giants are CR 8!" (when reading through my earlier posts you will be able to notice that I said exactly that. The stone giants never were my example, they were an example to ridicule the monk, and as all those ridiculous ridiculing attempts, failed.)

Wiping a couple out at level 16 is unimpressive... and yet, you're resorting to a stored Divine Power for it? Let's look at CR 16 monsters. Planetar? AC 32. Hound Archon Hero? 30. Old black dragon? 32+ (it can cast Mage Armor). Horned Devil (much more likely to fight one than a Hound Archon Hero)? 35. Nightwalker? 32. Only the Greater Stone Golem has 27, and it has .
Meanwhile, WITHOUT the Divine Power, your AB is 23 (I'll assume a +6 STR item; 20 without it). Which means you're missing these monsters about half the time, on your highest-BAB attacks, as soon as you've used that Divine Power up.

Don't you remember that in one of Talic's challenges I once presented a level 16 (or was it even 15?) monk to bring down a CR 18 white dragon? And most of these opponents you mentioned do not even have freedom of movements effects up, so in 1:1 combat they would be merely grappled to death (note that their touch AC is much, much lower).
Or, they could try to endure the 7-10 full attack, plus stunning fist save, plus quivering palm save...
The monk may be hard-rpessed at those levels to defeat spellcasters (all non-caster classes are), but the usual monster manual opponents of same CR rating are not a problem, I daresay.

So you need two rounds of buffing and one of the cleric's daily 4th level slots (he already gave you a Greater Magic Weapon from one. He also needs it for his own Divine Powers, for Death Ward, for Freedom of Movement... what makes you think you get that Divine Power on a regular basis, again?).

What is this nonsense about not being able to get divine power at that level?
- wand of divine power, costs 21,000 (fully charged, just for you)
- ring of spell storing. Ask party cleric to cast one (ONE!!) of his fouth level slots inside. If that cleric is extremely stingy, get a pearl of power for 16,000 to let him have is way.

You also seem to assume that your monk has whatever he needs. He's got a high DEX... except for examples in which he needs to hit hard or grapple, in which case he cranks STR instead. Make a build. Have fun spending your level 5, 10, etc WBL without partial-charge wands. Have fun deciding whether you want to grapple or have AC.

Once again: take a STR 40 Orc and you're set. While I like my characters more versatile, there is nothing arguing against focusing a monk on a single stat, either.

BTW, about your Ring of Spell Storing: games don't work that way.

You know that I, too, do not usually play in campaigns where you can buy all the magic items you need. We already settled this, I believe. No need to bring that up again.
What is at issue here, is to talk about balance the way the core rules are written. And wbl with magic item trading is part of that, like it or not. If you want to change that, you need to houserule-adjust the whole system to keep the game balanced.

WHO is refilling this ring before every fight? Are you going to tell us about how your monk is good because he took Leadership and got a cleric?

Repitition of what you already stated. See my answer above. Buying the spell from an npc to cast into the ring costs a mere 280 gp. If you do not want diplomacy checks to ever change that sum, that's OK. You could also bring your pearl of power to the 7th level npc cleric for that casting - then it's for free.

It's also 50,000 gp. ECL 16 WBL is 260k. What didn't you buy? Did you really buy a Ring of Spell Storing ahead of a Freedom of Movement, ahead of AC boosters, etc? The Ring rarely sees play, precisely because there are other, more important items that you need first... and because good luck getting it refilled every fight?

Well, either buy the ring or a wand of divine power, depending on how your character is built. And a monk with the best magical defenses and best grappling ability does not need a ring of freedom of movement as much as do the other classes.

The combats he's going to need the buff are not always or even usually going to be the same as the ones he sees coming. Most encounters start without preparation rounds on either side.

Which makes using a wand or a ring incurring no AoO so highly useful (you can even use them while grappling).

Different tactics like what? Grappling? Right, because he took Improved Grapple despite taking a high Dex and Weapon Finesse (it's that or get splattered)... oops. Throwing shuriken that he either can't hit with (low Dex) or can't do any damage with (low STR)? Woooo.

Where did you get that notion from that I would ALWAYS take high DEX for a monk? Or use shuriken except for in special circumstances? The above example used a focus on STR. You should not fight monk windmills here - but the fact that you do illustrates that you have no real evidence to back up your "monk sucks" claim.:smallsmile:

This would almost always be an issue. It's a stupid DM who lets you buy one-charge wands of anything (again: why do level 1-4 scrolls even *exist*?).

You mean, like a DM who never let caster drawbacks to allow a role to play in the campaign?:smallbiggrin:
Seriously now, I do see the logic of the level 1-4 scrolls. Probably as a houserule I would also consider this to not allow fractions to be bought. To make you happy, I will see what I can do in my monk build to be released some time over the next days to not include any wand fractions.
Why do some clearly weaker spells exist for the same level? I do not know this. Maybe it is part of the games rules to challenge and reward those who learn more and more about the game :smallsmile:

Again, HOW does the shop you stop at just HAPPEN to have as many 1-charge wands as you want? Did some group of adventurers buy 30 wands, use 49 charges from each, and sell the remainder?

It follows the same mechanics as for all other magic items. There is no way to dinstinguish how that shop can carry a ring of freedom of movement for 40,000 or a quarterstaff +1 for 2,300. The only way to notice scarcity as per the DMG rules is the price (which also shows how big the city needs to be to buy it). And wands are apparently assumed to be a very cheap way to produce 1-4 level effects. In my view, to give access to magic for everyone.

- Giacomo

Talic

2008-03-24, 05:16 AM

YOu know what? If your not going to seriously debate, why are you here?
I am. If you're not going to concede when you've lost, why are you?

Competitive implies players working against eachother.
Every time a player chooses what class to be, there's a competition. He/she can only choose 1 to start with. If only looking at universally true aspects of the class, it's behind in every category.

Further, competition isn't always man vs man. Sometimes it's man vs environment. I.E. against what the DM throws against you. The monk, due to the mechanical limitations of not being able to optimize as well, is less able to prepare for that. Thus, he is more ill prepared there. Quibbling over semantics won't change the truth. And the truth is, regardless of the margin by which it is, the monk is inferior in every single aspect of its class at low levels... With the possible exception of AC.

And furthermore, if you can't accept not everyone is a powergamer, and that someone can "keep up" with a monk, I feel sorry for you.
Optimize does not equal powergame. Wanting to be effective does not make one a bad person. Munchkinry is bad. Examples are using a pixie and a cure spell to get infinite damage, or a poorly worded template to gain +60 to all physical stats at level 7. Using feats and abilities to meet a theme, and meet it effectively, that's good. That's showing thought and planning, while not attempting to abuse rules. There is a difference.

Again, if you LIKE low power, unoptimized games, that's your choice, and nobody can begrudge you that. That doesn't change the FACT that monks are less effective.

Skjaldbakka

2008-03-24, 05:16 AM

The real problem with monk, in my opinion, is that the rogue can do its job better than it. At least its job as I see it, which is to be stealthy, acrobatic, and do good damage with unarmed strikes. Sneak Attack + IUS does better than monk unarmed damage progression does. Monks do not have the skill points to take the mobility skills and the stealth skills. The only thing the rogue is lacking when trying to be a monk is a high movement rate.

Sure, he needs armor, but armor scales equally with the monk's AC bonus, unless the PCs are poor for their level. And even if they are, armor enhancements are cheaper than wisdom enhancements.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:19 AM

How would you place stats, before I continue?

It's a secret. But a hint: it's hidden somewhere in my posts above.:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:22 AM

Sigh. Would you say that a wizard who focused solely on using Alter Self/Polymorph and various other buffs, taking feats like Power Attack/Cleave/etc, so that they could do all their fighting in melee, was being played like a wizard?

What about a barbarian who cross-classed and pumped UMD to act as the group's main healer, neglecting melee combat? Is that playing them at all like they were meant to be?

Really, that's what your monks seem like to most of us.

Sigh.
It is because you apparently do not wish to see that the magic use I suggest for the monk ENHANCES his roles, and does not completely change the roles or ignore his class abilities. Please read my above posts again, in particular the first posts of this day (where I summarised the abilities that are conducive to his PHB roles. Magic simply enhance that). I hope it will get clearer then.

Seriously. Getting higher BAB, higher STR, faster/flying movement, lowering opponent STR scores for better grapple, getting concealment from his ranged attack foes - all of this is not "changing" the role of the monk.

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 05:22 AM

Giacomo, I'm still waiting on how you plan to place ability scores. Until I at least an idea, I'm debating with Schroedinger over here. :smallwink:

Although, I still have to point out that diplomacy is hideously, hideously broken, and any DM who allows it deserves what he gets. Remember my +60 diplomancer that can make enemies his slaves without even rolling, even in an antimagic field? Diplomacy doesn't deserve to exist, and is one of the reasons I think WotC is run by a bunch of incompetents.

Edit@SG:It's not on this page, and as all of your other posts are more than 2 pages back and the forum is running slow, would you mind re-posting the stats, as I missed them.

Skjaldbakka

2008-03-24, 05:28 AM

Seriously. Getting higher BAB, higher STR, faster/flying movement, lowering opponent STR scores for better grapple, getting concealment from his ranged attack foes - all of this is not "changing" the role of the monk.

- Giacomo

It is however, not part of the class. UMD is cross-class for the monk. Charisma is an unusual priority for a monk, as non of his class features use it. A Barbarian or Fighter with Improved Grapple could put cross-class ranks in UMD just as easily as a monk, and would still have the Higher BAB, which is really important for grappling.

The Barbarian in rage is going to have a higher strength, as well, even if the monk is prioritizing strength. Since Grappling is at best a situational tactic, that puts the barbarian with UMD head and shoulders above the monk with UMD.

This is why saying "monk takes UMD and uses wands of X" doesn't actually work as a defence for monk. The monk is no better at doing that than any other class. Heck, a paladin could decide he wanted to do grappling and UMD, and he has a justification for a good charisma to back it up.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:36 AM

I'll give you the speedy stealth, but getting improved grapple as a bonus feat does not a superior grappler make. You know, fighter also gets Improved Grapple as a bonus feat, and has a full BAB, and has no reason to prioritize dexterity or wisdom, thus making it very likely his strength is higher than the monk grappler's. But even if they are even (there is no reason whatsoever to suspect the monk of having a higher strength than the fighter of similar build), the fighter has a better BAB, and is thus more likely to succeed than the monk.

Now why does this tell me you have not read all of my above posts? (or lord_khaines, for that matter).
The fighter can never compete with the monk in terms of grappling, and this also the reason why he would normally hesitate to pour two of his feats into this fighting technique at all.
BAB advantage (which can be easily overcome by the divine power effect) is not all there is to grappling:
1) no. of grappling attempts
2) grappling damage
3) options for using light weapons in grapple, such as unarmed strike attacks with stunning fist, some DMs may even interpret the grappling unarmed damge to also allow the stunning fist effect alongside it)
And in all of those other categories, the monk outshines the fighter. Or the barbarian.
There is no way arguing around that.

Not that grappling is a great combat strategy to start with.

It is EXACTLY a great combat strategy to start with. At low levels, before the huge+ size monsters and freedom of movement appear, it just rocks.

The notion that the monk is the better damage dealer at high levels is just ludicrous. Power Attack beats multiple attacks. The monk can't compete there for the same reasons a two-weapon fighter can't compete there.

But, as has been shown already, the monk beats even the power attacking barbarian with his divine power flurries.

You don't get to use your flurry of blows in the same round that you move into melee. You can still hit really hard with power attack and a two-handed weapon.

You could use a mount (unfortunately, the pounce ability via morph is hidden in the cheese storage).

Comparatively speaking, the full BAB class gets 10 free damage on the monk, while attacking at the same to-hit bonus, even if all stats are equal. That 5 extra to-hit easily translates into 10 damage with power attack. The monk can't compete there, due to lack of BAB. He could try to play the same game, two-handing a staff, but he stays 10 damage behind whenever he has to move.

Which is why divine power, a mere 4th level spell at high levels, makes overcoming the BAB difference so easy.:smallsmile: Ah...balance...

Two things the monk really needs is the ability to flurry as a standard action, and 2 more skill points per level. But I already posted the changes I use for monks that make them work better, and at least have an edge. Not necessarily an edge that makes them superior or even equal to any other real class, but at least an edge.

Nope. Flurry as standard action would make it overpowered. And skill points? Don't know what difference that would make.
And you are telling me you change the monk class in such a way to still remain inferior in your opinion? What use is that? Oh my...

As for being the least powerful class, I disagree. I would rather play a monk than a CW samurai, Soulknife, Truenamer, Warrior, Expert, or Aristocrat.

Funniiiiieh.:smallbiggrin:

Of course, when I want to play a monk, I play a monk, and then discreetly write the words "rogue" "improved unarmed strike" and "weapon finesse" on my character sheet, and then say I'm playing a monk.

Yep. Do kung fu that way. Oh wait, the rogue does 1d3 plus STR non-lethal damage. Or uses two of his prescious feats to jack that up. Hmmm...does not look like very monkish to me.

Sometimes I'll write "psychic rogue". That only works if you pick your powers carefully - lots of psychic rogue powers don't really fit a 'monk'.

Don't know no psionics rules.

Back to work now.

- Giacomo

lord_khaine

2008-03-24, 05:36 AM

Lower Will saves, definitely (Although Protection from X works wonders to solve this problem) The reflex save thing isn't a big deal, as they usually have enough HP in the face of a Fireball to shrug it off.

remember there is a awfull lot of spells and effects that target willsave, but where PFE doesnt help, fear comes to mind.
also there are things that target ref save that does a lot more damage like fx a dragon, or that gets you stuck, like fx resilient sphere.

to talics monster post.
1) better than most noncasters i belive, either grapple and pin, or use stunning fist.

2) if grapp lerr sinks into ability focus, stunning fist then he will have a start dc of 15, thats pretty decent at level 1, and he will also still be able to take CR 1 creatures in a singel hit.
but he can also pretty effectively disable tougher opponents of medium size, without giving up much of his offensive power.

as for the barbarian, it looks like you are assuming he is raging all the time, when he will only have 1 use at this level.
also though he can waste some feats to be able to beat the monks grapple score, then as i have mentioned a few times before, the monk will have 2 attempts for each 1 he makes.

i wont comment the talker build as i have newer made one myself, but i will say having sense motive as a class skill and positive wisdom can be a great help in social settings.

For a complete score of 49%, not 60. Percentiles stack oddly, and you generally have to know how to add them.

As for everything else, I'm still waiting to hear how he places his Ability
no, for the monk also have the chance to win 2 checks in a row, thats why its 60%.
as for the last part im not quite sure about what you mean, but i place highest rolled in str, and then put the rest in wis, con and dex.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:41 AM

Edit@SG:It's not on this page, and as all of your other posts are more than 2 pages back and the forum is running slow, would you mind re-posting the stats, as I missed them.

OK, just for you: the above 16th level 360 dmg/round build used the following starting stats for 28 point buy (human)
STR 14, DEX 14, CON 10, INT 14, WIS 14, CHR 10

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 05:44 AM

It is however, not part of the class. UMD is cross-class for the monk. Charisma is an unusual priority for a monk, as non of his class features use it. A Barbarian or Fighter with Improved Grapple could put cross-class ranks in UMD just as easily as a monk, and would still have the Higher BAB, which is really important for grappling.

No, they won't. Divine power only raises BAB to full BAB, not beyond. But yes, barbarians and fighters may also wish to raise UMD to emulate some spells that are useful for them.
And CHR needs not be a priority for the monk to raise UMD.

The Barbarian in rage is going to have a higher strength, as well, even if the monk is prioritizing strength. Since Grappling is at best a situational tactic, that puts the barbarian with UMD head and shoulders above the monk with UMD.

Nope.

This is why saying "monk takes UMD and uses wands of X" doesn't actually work as a defence for monk. The monk is no better at doing that than any other class. Heck, a paladin could decide he wanted to do grappling and UMD, and he has a justification for a good charisma to back it up.

Yes, the paladin would be great with UMD. But he can alreay use wands of all of his spells, so can also go quite some way without it.

As for divine power, however, the monk makes more use out of it than the full BAB classes. That's the whole point of it.

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 05:53 AM

no, for the monk also have the chance to win 2 checks in a row, thats why its 60%.
as for the last part im not quite sure about what you mean, but i place highest rolled in str, and then put the rest in wis, con and dex.2 checks, at 30% each, adds up to 49% chance of success. Your way, he would be guaranteed to succeed if he rolled 4 checks, mine he'd only have a ~=75.99% chance. (Do not question my statistics-fu. 3.0 in Stat 335)

OK, just for you: the above 16th level 360 dmg/round build used the following starting stats for 28 point buy (human)
STR 14, DEX 14, CON 10, INT 14, WIS 14, CHR 10
So he had a +11 mod to his UMD? How exactly is he using those wands again? And how is he surviving in melee with d8 HD and no Con mod? And he's nowhere near as good a grappler as a fighter who took a passing interest in the ability. (Full BaB, better Str, better HP, more attacks)

Skjaldbakka

2008-03-24, 05:54 AM

Really? Last time I checked, Divine Power wasn't on the monk's list of class features. UMD isn't on his list of class skills either.

The rogue, btw, is doing 1d3+Xd6 sneak attack. You do remember your own comments about stealth being a factor? Sneak Attack does better damage than monk unarmed damage progression. True, some things are immune to sneak attack, but rogues have UMD as a class skill. It is easier for them to use all of the strategies you have your monk using. There are spells that allow you to sneak attack plants, undead, constructs- maybe oozes, but I'm not sure about that. Of course, oozes aren't typically monk-friendly anyway.

how much Int do you plan on having, btw? UMD, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Balance, Jump, Climb, Spot, Listen- all of these are important skills. That's 9. So, a rogue with a 12 int. Or a monk with a 20 Int. Huh, fancy that. A monk ought to be able to take all the mobility skills (the fact it can't is why I give it extra skill points) and stealth, and perception. You want him to take UMD as well?

That leaves you with 3 + int skills, unless you are spreading yourself thin. Stealth skills are opposed, so if you don't have those maxxed out, you aren't a stealthy character. Perception skills- also opposed. It sure is embarassing when the monk gets surprised. That is 5 skills right there, all that need to be maxxed to be a UMDing monk, and you don't even have tumble, which is how you are planning to get to the soft targets, isn't it? Takes a 12 int to pull that off, 10 for a human. Thats 2-4 pts, right there.

Ah, you and your delusions of balance. Why don't you step up to the plate and defend the CW samurai, soulknife, and truenamer. Or for that matter, explain how the fighter is supposed to hold up to a druid (who gets a fighter as a class feature, and can turn into a melee monstrosity, and can cast spells). The fighter can't compete in core. Not with the druid.

Also- even though your claim of monks being the high damage dealers is bunk, if its true, how can you call the game balanced? Monks aren't supposed to be the big damage dealers.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 06:03 AM

Really? Last time I checked, Divine Power wasn't on the monk's list of class features. UMD isn't on his list of class skills either.

But...why then do wizards sometimes use potions of CLW? It's an ability not on their class list either.
Strange notion.

[QUOTE=Skjaldbakka;4096269]The rogue, btw, is doing 1d3+Xd6 sneak attack. You do remember your own comments about stealth being a factor? Sneak Attack does better damage than monk unarmed damage progression.

It's probably comparable, in particular since the monk's damage applies more often. But it's not comparable if the rogue uses simply his unarmed damage. But I'll grant you that: you COULD do a kung-fu like rogue who has a monk's belt around level 11 to do more damage. But what about the levels before that?

True, some things are immune to sneak attack, but rogues have UMD as a class skill. It is easier for them to use all of the strategies you have your monk using. There are spells that allow you to sneak attack plants, undead, constructs- maybe oozes, but I'm not sure about that. Of course, oozes aren't typically monk-friendly anyway.

Not in core, unfortunately no ways to sneak the creatures you listed. But yes, the rogue has UMD as class skill - an advantage he desperately needs to be balanced with the monk given my comparison way above.

how much Int do you plan on having, btw? UMD, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Balance, Jump, Climb, Spot, Listen- all of these are important skills. That's 9. So, a rogue with a 12 int. Or a monk with a 20 Int. Huh, fancy that. A monk ought to be able to take all the mobility skills (the fact it can't is why I give it extra skill points) and stealth, and perception. You want him to take UMD as well?
That leaves you with 3 + int skills, unless you are spreading yourself thin. Stealth skills are opposed, so if you don't have those maxxed out, you aren't a stealthy character. Perception skills- also opposed. It sure is embarassing when the monk gets surprised. That is 5 skills right there, all that need to be maxxed to be a UMDing monk, and you don't even have tumble, which is how you are planning to get to the soft targets, isn't it? Takes a 12 int to pull that off, 10 for a human. Thats 2-4 pts, right there.

2Ought to"? "Important" skills? The monk is not a rogue. But he can be a scout. Which uses much less skills.

Ah, you and your delusions of balance. Why don't you step up to the plate and defend the CW samurai, soulknife, and truenamer.

Why should I? These are non-core classes, apparently badly designed at that. I am only arguing balance in core.

Or for that matter, explain how the fighter is supposed to hold up to a druid (who gets a fighter as a class feature, and can turn into a melee monstrosity, and can cast spells). The fighter can't compete in core. Not with the druid.

Ah, the usual "animal companion=fighter" fallacy. The druid is admittedly a hard nut. Debating about why I still see fighter as balanced vs the druid would be another thread, though (consuming time I do not have).

Also- even though your claim of monks being the high damage dealers is bunk, if its true, how can you call the game balanced? Monks aren't supposed to be the big damage dealers.

"Aren't supposed to". Well, well. First, you criticise that monks suck, and then I show a way how they don't and then you say it's not their role (hint: the PHB roles of assassin, opportunist combatant say nothing about a damage cap).

- Giacomo

Talic

2008-03-24, 06:04 AM

Now why does this tell me you have not read all of my above posts? (or lord_khaines, for that matter).
The fighter can never compete with the monk in terms of grappling, and this also the reason why he would normally hesitate to pour two of his feats into this fighting technique at all.
BAB advantage (which can be easily overcome by the divine power effect) is not all there is to grappling:
1) no. of grappling attempts

With a lower chance of success

2) grappling damage

With a lower chance of success

3) options for using light weapons in grapple, such as unarmed strike attacks with stunning fist, some DMs may even interpret the grappling unarmed damge to also allow the stunning fist effect alongside it)

Then the DM would be interpreting rules against RAW. Fighters can use light weapons in grapple too, such as spiked armor.

And in all of those other categories, the monk outshines the fighter. Or the barbarian.

While the monk loads up on divine power, pearl of power, and the like, the UMD barbarian gets a scroll of shapechange. Barbarian wins.

There is no way arguing around that.

Unless you use your own weapons against you, as above.

It is EXACTLY a great combat strategy to start with. At low levels, before the huge+ size monsters and freedom of movement appear, it just rocks.

Size mods make grappling risky at level 4 or so. By level 6, the monk charges and grapples the brown bear, and it responds by eating him. Or, if you prefer, in multi opponent combat, the other black bear eats the monk while he's denied his dex. Point is, grappling is situational at best, and as levels progress, gets more and more situational, and the monk's AC also begins to fall way behind the CR's attack bonus.

But, as has been shown already, the monk beats even the power attacking barbarian with his divine power flurries.
Show me where in the monk SRD entry allows any form of Divine power. And the monk won't beat the divine power bard if he's build correctly, in either average damage OR max damage. I'll post proof in a bit, core only, since you seem to be chronically allergic with anything not listed in those first three books.

You could use a mount (unfortunately, the pounce ability via morph is hidden in the cheese storage).
There are other ways to get it.

Which is why divine power, a mere 4th level spell at high levels, makes overcoming the BAB difference so easy.:smallsmile: Ah...balance...
Interesting, you borrow cleric features, assume rogues help you disguise, and yet, the class is still balanced. What would fit better instead of balance above is "theft".

Nope. Flurry as standard action would make it overpowered. And skill points? Don't know what difference that would make.Proof to come on this fallacy.

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 06:21 AM

Which is why divine power, a mere 4th level spell at high levels, makes overcoming the BAB difference so easy.:smallsmile: Ah...balance...

You know, for someone who suggests that monks ought to "wait out" the buffs of enemies, you place an incredible amount of reliance on a buff that lasts 7 you rounds, and usually takes more than one round to reapply. What's to stop enemies from waiting out YOUR buffs? Please don't say that the monk will just catch them; once flying enemies enter the picture, there are plenty that can outpace the monk.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 06:22 AM

Hmmm, it starts to get repetitive, although the "monk suckage" fraction uses fascinatingly different variations of the tune to avoid admitting they have been proven wrong...

With a lower chance of success

With a lower chance of success

You do realise that expected damage=damage dealt*chance of success? If you lack in the one, but more than make up for it in the other (including more attempts), then you can be considered a better grappler.
And since most fighter and barbarian players realise that and rather go for weapon tactics (in particular at lower levels), they will also have a lower chance of success until level 16 (due to +4 improved grapple advantage ofthe monk), at which point a divine power effect kicks in.

Then the DM would be interpreting rules against RAW. Fighters can use light weapons in grapple too, such as spiked armor.

They can, but without stunning fist.

While the monk loads up on divine power, pearl of power, and the like, the UMD barbarian gets a scroll of shapechange. Barbarian wins.

Yep. A spell considered broken (and necessitating a by +17 higher UMD check) is all that is left in your arsenal to defend your position. You're getting desperate.

Unless you use your own weapons against you, as above.

?

Size mods make grappling risky at level 4 or so. By level 6, the monk charges and grapples the brown bear, and it responds by eating him.

Hmmm. A reality check for you: at level 6, the monk has a grapple modifier of +4 (BAB) +2 (STR base, lord_khaine's preference will be more like +4), +5 (Enlarge spell), +4 (improved grapple). That's a +15 total. Vs the brown bear's +16. Meanwhile, the monk can use two grapple attempts at only +14/+14 and even do more damage with each won attempt (with improved nat. attack feat 3d6+3, vs the bear's 1d8+8). Looks like advantage monk.
But since it's an animal, it can be easily outmaneouvred, so you do not even need to fight it most of the times.

Or, if you prefer, in multi opponent combat, the other black bear eats the monk while he's denied his dex. Point is, grappling is situational at best, and as levels progress, gets more and more situational, and the monk's AC also begins to fall way behind the CR's attack bonus.

And where are the others in the adventuring group in this scenario? This whole thread is about "can the monk CONTRIBUTE", not how he can consistently solo equal CR encounters.

Show me where in the monk SRD entry allows any form of Divine power.

Er...ring of spell storing? UMD cross-class?

And the monk won't beat the divine power bard if he's build correctly, in either average damage OR max damage.

In melee?

I'll post proof in a bit, core only, since you seem to be chronically allergic with anything not listed in those first three books.

Yes, because going to splatbook xy intended not for balance, but for fun and certain playing styles (plus making money for WoTC) proves nothing about core balance.

There are other ways to get it.
Interesting, you borrow cleric features, assume rogues help you disguise, and yet, the class is still balanced. What would fit better instead of balance above is "theft".
Proof to come on this fallacy.

Waiting for it. What you consider "borrowing" is actually teamplay. But the monk can get along just fine also by himself with just his wbl, as I have shown repeatedly.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 06:29 AM

You know, for someone who suggests that monks ought to "wait out" the buffs of enemies, you place an incredible amount of reliance on a buff that lasts 7 you rounds, and usually takes more than one round to reapply. What's to stop enemies from waiting out YOUR buffs? Please don't say that the monk will just catch them; once flying enemies enter the picture, there are plenty that can outpace the monk.

Well, for a start, the divine power of the level 16 monk scenario vs the stone gianst is used in the surprise round, then the monk wins initiative. No "waiting out" for opponents there.
By level 16, the monk will likely also be able to fly.

But generelly, yes, you are correct. As soon as enemies somehow realise that the monk has a certain spell effect going on (difficult to tell from the use of a wand or ring), they can try to withdraw. Waiting out buffs is a viable tactics for everyone.
Unfortunately, this is difficult vs the monk with his higher move.

- Giacomo

Freelance Henchman

2008-03-24, 06:38 AM

Hmmm, it starts to get repetitive, although the "monk suckage" fraction uses fascinatingly different variations of the tune to avoid admitting they have been proven wrong...

And you keep rolling off the same old spiel over and over again. There have been literally dozens of threads (just search for "Monk" in thread names, you will find oodles of these) where you post the same arguments unendingly, and others rip them to shreds. The "Anti Monk Fraction" as you call it only stops posting because they realize at some point that you aren't listening anyway.

Also, though I commend your always civil tone, you really come off as rather smug very often. Please, don't let this thread devolve into the mess all the others have turned into and actually post a fully statted out Monk build that does all those things you claim it can do.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 06:49 AM

And you keep rolling off the same old spiel over and over again. There have been literally dozens of threads (just search for "Monk" in thread names, you will find oodles of these) where you post the same arguments unendingly, and others rip them to shreds. The "Anti Monk Fraction" as you call it only stops posting because they realize at some point that you aren't listening anyway.

So, although in other monk threads and this one I continue piling up evidence (and the threads get so long because I DO listen) that the monk is not "useless", and that he can contribute, you would consider all of that unvalid?
I have the feeling that some posters stop opposing my view, because they cannot come up with any more arguments. And instead of openly declaring - hey, now that is a great idea to use for monks- or -hmmm, I may have been wrong, monks CAN actually contribute when looking more closely at the rules - well, instead of posting this, they simply stop. Some die-hards come here again and bring up the same old fallacies all over again.

Check it for yourself in this thread: "monk suckage" supporters will bring up brown bears allegedly outgrappling a monk, a 3rd level wizard "winning" consistently vs a monk he is at a disadvantage in terms of even going first, orc commoners outdamaging monks, Stone giants beating them death, notions that they cannot (then: should not) outgrapplefighters and barbarians, and I prove them all wrong - and what do I get?
Simply the same old fallacies repeated.

Also, though I commend your always civil tone, you really come off as rather smug very often. Please, don't let this thread devolve into the mess all the others have turned into and actually post a fully statted out Monk build that does all those things you claim it can do.

Well, that advice I shall heed.

- Giacomo

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 06:58 AM

Well, for a start, the divine power of the level 16 monk scenario vs the stone gianst is used in the surprise round, then the monk wins initiative. No "waiting out" for opponents there.
By level 16, the monk will likely also be able to fly.

But generelly, yes, you are correct. As soon as enemies somehow realise that the monk has a certain spell effect going on (difficult to tell from the use of a wand or ring), they can try to withdraw. Waiting out buffs is a viable tactics for everyone.
Unfortunately, this is difficult vs the monk with his higher move.

- Giacomo

There seem to be a few problems with that: the surprise round is never guaranteed; attempting to buff during it causes noise/movement, and is not guaranteed to work; you still only have 7 rounds. As far as I can tell, a monk's speed increase doesn't extend to spell-given flight.

Enemies can also dispell your buffs, and rather easily due to the low caster level. A cleric/druid/wizard's buffs are much less vulnerable to dispelling.

Also, though I commend your always civil tone,

I wish to second this. Politeness is all too rare online.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 07:00 AM

So, although in other monk threads and this one I continue piling up evidence (and the threads get so long because I DO listen) that the monk is not "useless", and that he can contribute, you would consider all of that unvalid?

You sound like a broken record. Your 'evidence' is just listing the monks lackluster class features over and over again and telling us how a monk can cross class UMD (because really, everyone can do that) to offset the suck.

I have the feeling that some posters stop opposing my view, because they cannot come up with any more arguments. And instead of openly declaring - hey, now that is a great idea to use for monks- or -hmmm, I may have been wrong, monks CAN actually contribute when looking more closely at the rules - well, instead of posting this, they simply stop. Some die-hards come here again and bring up the same old fallacies all over again.

Again, your 'great uses for monks' aren't that great. Everything a monk can do, some one else can do better. People stop posting because you can't see that. It's like trying to move a wall by walking into it over and over again; of course you're going to get sick of it and move on.

Check it for yourself in this thread: "monk suckage" supporters will bring up brown bears allegedly outgrappling a monk, a 3rd level wizard "winning" consistently vs a monk he is at a disadvantage in terms of even going first, orc commoners outdamaging monks, Stone giants beating them death, notions that they cannot (then: should not) outgrapplefighters and barbarians, and I prove them all wrong - and what do I get?
Simply the same old fallacies repeated.

You haven't proven any of this wrong! All you do is say it's wrong with no evidence to back yourself up. Post something solid, already.

Until you come up with something credible and worth listening to, you're going on my ignore list. Note: If you're still arguing for monks, this won't actually happen.

Freelance Henchman

2008-03-24, 07:02 AM

So, although in other monk threads and this one I continue piling up evidence (and the threads get so long because I DO listen) that the monk is not "useless", and that he can contribute, you would consider all of that unvalid?

YES, because there IS NO EVIDENCE. All your build suggestions seem to center around "Schroedinger's stats" where the Monk magically has a high ability score in whatever is needed in the current situation, on abusing things like Polymorph that turn ANYTHING into something formidable, and lastly on somehow appropriating abilities of other classes, like Divine Power and high level spells cast from crazy expensive scrolls ALL THE TIME, FOR EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER. I've been following these threads for a while now, and these 3 "strategies" crop up all the time, plus some others minor "tips" that were frankly rather ludicrous as well.

But nothing you have claimed so far has ever shown that the Monk (or more appropriately the Northern Fistbrawler :smallamused: ) is actually really good at anything in particular using just his silly class abilities.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:09 AM

There seem to be a few problems with that: the surprise round is never guaranteed;

nor is a grapple check by a high STR character guaranteed. Nor will a spell cast with saving throw always succeed. But some class abilities enhance it. Which is all that matters here.

attempting to buff during it causes noise/movement,

no, not from a ring. From a wand it's a command word which you cannot recognise with spellcraft.

and is not guaranteed to work;

at that level it is with UMD. With a ring of spell storing, definitely.

you still only have 7 rounds.

7 rounds of 360 damage each does not sound like a bad investment, not even for a singly cleric in the group.

As far as I can tell, a monk's speed increase doesn't extend to spell-given flight.

It does. It counts for all movement modes. It's an enhancement bonus.
Now, a big question: will this insight lead you to correct your former "monk suckage" impression? Or is that not enough yet? Or will you ignore it?

Enemies can also dispell your buffs, and rather easily due to the low caster level. A cleric/druid/wizard's buffs are much less vulnerable to dispelling.

Yes, they can. But the melee opponents (our example pair of stone giants?) likely not. Plus, they lose a round doing so, in which they could have done real damage to the monk. In that round then the monk has contributed by 1) doing massive damage 2) forcing the opponent to use his action to debuff (not put out of combat, simply debuff the monk) and thus 3) opens up actions for the others in the group.
Read: Contributing.

I wish to second this. Politeness is all too rare online.

Seconded.

- Giacomo

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 07:09 AM

Actually Giacomo is correct as far as the direct Monk competition (fighters and barbs) is concerned. Optimized the right way, Monk gets huge damage figures while retaining saves and mobility advantage over fighter/barbarian.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:11 AM

You sound like a broken record. Your 'evidence' is just listing the monks lackluster class features over and over again and telling us how a monk can cross class UMD (because really, everyone can do that) to offset the suck.

Prove your point.

Again, your 'great uses for monks' aren't that great. Everything a monk can do, some one else can do better. People stop posting because you can't see that. It's like trying to move a wall by walking into it over and over again; of course you're going to get sick of it and move on.

Prove your point.

You haven't proven any of this wrong! All you do is say it's wrong with no evidence to back yourself up. Post something solid, already.

Prove your point.

Until you come up with something credible and worth listening to, you're going on my ignore list. Note: If you're still arguing for monks, this won't actually happen.

Prove your point.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:12 AM

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 07:17 AM

It does. It counts for all movement modes. It's an enhancement bonus.

According to WotC, it doesn't. See Stormwrack entry for Monk, where it says you can choose to apply your movement bonus to your swim speed, I emphasize this part, instead of your land speed.

Unless you believe swimming is totally a different category and monks should get to apply it to their fly speed, gained through magical means, no less, because that's the only way they can compete.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:17 AM

YES, because there IS NO EVIDENCE. All your build suggestions seem to center around "Schroedinger's stats" where the Monk magically has a high ability score in whatever is needed in the current situation,

Did you miss my posts above? I even provided example 28-pt buy.

on abusing things like Polymorph that turn ANYTHING into something formidable,

That's old hat. No more morphing here (well, Solo brought up an alter self use granting +15 AC and 60ft perfect flying at 4th level, but that was not really serious, I daresay).

and lastly on somehow appropriating abilities of other classes, like Divine Power and high level spells cast from crazy expensive scrolls ALL THE TIME, FOR EVERY SINGLE ENCOUNTER.

Read the thread please before making claims like this. I do not know how often I already wrote "wand of divine power" or "ring of spell storing with divine power".
Similarly, I never maintained this stuff will be used for EVERY encounter. Otherwise the monk would be stronger than the fighter or barbarian as a class (since as emeraldstreak has correctly pointed out, the monk has all his great defenses and abilities on top of his impressive maximum melee damage output). And that was never my opinion. The classes in core are balanced.

I've been following these threads for a while now, and these 3 "strategies" crop up all the time, plus some others minor "tips" that were frankly rather ludicrous as well.

What "3" strategies do you refer to?

But nothing you have claimed so far has ever shown that the Monk (or more appropriately the Northern Fistbrawler :smallamused: ) is actually really good at anything in particular using just his silly class abilities.

What is silly about SR, best move in the game, best base saves, immunity to poison, etheralness, tongues etc.? I'd love you to back up your claim with hard evidence.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:20 AM

According to WotC, it doesn't. See Stormwrack entry for Monk, where it says you can choose to apply your movement bonus to your swim speed, I emphasize this part, instead of your land speed.

Unless you believe swimming is totally a different category and monks should get to apply it to their fly speed, gained through magical means, no less, because that's the only way they can compete.

Swimming is different since the monk as a humanoid has a special rule (the swim skill, modifying the movement similar to moving silently) to determine his movement. If he were in a different form (or, say, an aquatic elf), then the swimming movement is determined differently (there is base swimming speed different from the swim skill), and the movement bonus is on top of that.

- Giacomo

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 07:22 AM

Prove your point.

What a childish post. My points have been proven, backed up and agreed upon by the majority of posters in a multitude of threads. You have, what, two people who think the same way as you do?

Prove your point.

My point here is that your arguments don't change or improve in any way. You just keep on saying the same thing over and over. Repetition doesn't make you right, it makes you sound like you can't think of any good arguments.

Prove your point.

This one is easy to prove. Where is your monk build that can do all of the things you claim?

Prove your point.

That one didn't even make sense. I would have been more impressed if you'd said 'So's your face'

Ozymandias

2008-03-24, 07:26 AM

Freelance Henchman

2008-03-24, 07:28 AM

The classes in core are balanced.

Wha!? :smalleek:

What is silly about SR, best move in the game, best base saves, immunity to poison, etheralness, tongues etc.? I'd love you to back up your claim with hard evidence.

I won't waste my time simply restating what has been said over and over again, and NO it has never been refuted by anything you said. It's pretty clear that you will never be truly convinced no matter how many people (most of which know far more about the rules than I do) present their arguments, that much is clear from every single previous Monk thread.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:34 AM

To be honest, whether a Monk can be competitive or not isn't necessarily the issue; if the Monk were 'balanced' in Core, as you claim, it probably wouldn't require the convoluted Spell-Storing/Cross-Class UMD/Buff Reliance that are such a big part of your builds. Most people here who have played monks say they're weak - that anecdotal evidence is more compelling than all the "that monk should have had divine power wands" in the world.

Sigh. UMD is not even necessary. See my above example level 16 monk. Or the monk taking on a brown bear at level 6.

UMD is just an idea to make life harder for some opponents (including spellcasters), and get easier and faster access to some key monk buffs.

Buff reliance? ALL classes buff. In particular the batman wizard, to even survive. There is no reason to demand that one class (the monk) should be able to soldier on without buffs while his comrades buff to kingdom come and back.
What strange notions of how to compare classes you have.

Anecdotal evidence of monks played in campaigns where they do not get the items they want, spellcasters never face any problems of spell recovery, monks never being buffed by anyone does not count as showing that the core rules make the monk underpowered.

- Giacomo

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 07:37 AM

My points have been proven, backed up and agreed upon by the majority of posters in a multitude of threads. You have, what, two people who think the same way as you do?

The "majority" used to believe the world is flat, didn't it?

I prefer opinions that are either

1) based on facts

or

2) at the very least come from a credible source, credible here being a person with vast experience in DnD class optimization and balance

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:38 AM

What a childish post. My points have been proven, backed up and agreed upon by the majority of posters in a multitude of threads. You have, what, two people who think the same way as you do?

So...you let your discussions be done by others? Great way to discuss. A bit too easy, don't you think?

Please. Prove to me, in your own words, why the monk sucks in core.

My point here is that your arguments don't change or improve in any way. You just keep on saying the same thing over and over.

Yes, it's tiring, isn't it. A metaphor: as long as some maintain that 2+2=5, I'll try to correct their ways.

- Giacomo

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 07:38 AM

Anecdotal evidence of monks played in campaigns where they do not get the items they want, spellcasters never face any problems of spell recovery, monks never being buffed by anyone does not count as showing that the core rules make the monk underpowered.

Yes it does. How are you to say that a monk is good in practice if there is evidence to the contrary. All you're telling us is that monks are good in theory. The proof is in the pudding.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:40 AM

I won't waste my time simply restating what has been said over and over again, and NO it has never been refuted by anything you said. It's pretty clear that you will never be truly convinced no matter how many people (most of which know far more about the rules than I do) present their arguments, that much is clear from every single previous Monk thread.

What part exactly of what I wrote above:

Check it for yourself in this thread: "monk suckage" supporters will bring up brown bears allegedly outgrappling a monk, a 3rd level wizard "winning" consistently vs a monk he is at a disadvantage in terms of even going first, orc commoners outdamaging monks, Stone giants beating them death, notions that they cannot (then: should not) outgrapplefighters and barbarians, and I prove them all wrong - and what do I get?
Simply the same old fallacies repeated.

did you miss?

- Giacomo

The Professor

2008-03-24, 07:42 AM

I say we all just play Swordsages instead.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 07:42 AM

Yes it does. How are you to say that a monk is good in practice if there is evidence to the contrary. All you're telling us is that monks are good in theory. The proof is in the pudding.

Ah, now that is something new. Instead of looking what is theoretically possible, you wish me to collect the gaming experience of all involved.

Well some "monk suckage" proponents like Solo admitted they have never even played a monk. Apart from that, I definitely prefer the theoretic discussion since so many play in homebrew houseruled worlds that it will not yield any particular insight about whether by the core rules alone the monk is inferior or not.

- Giacomo

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 07:43 AM

Swimming is different since the monk as a humanoid has a special rule (the swim skill, modifying the movement similar to moving silently) to determine his movement. If he were in a different form (or, say, an aquatic elf), then the swimming movement is determined differently (there is base swimming speed different from the swim skill), and the movement bonus is on top of that.

And how does it help your argument that the given example is an aquatic creature, therefore already possessed of a natural swim speed?

Yes, it's tiring, isn't it. A metaphor: as long as some maintain that 2+2=5, I'll try to correct their ways.

I played a monk. I played a lot of monks. I'd like to think I optimized them to a good degree. I still found them weak (the only monk I did find strong had 5 levels of cleric compared to the 1 level in monk - and I did not even optimize the cleric part).

So, while correcting those who claim 2 + 2 = 5, do not claim 2 + 2 = 6, when there is evidence that 2 + 2 = 4.

Solo

2008-03-24, 07:49 AM

Well some "monk suckage" proponents like Solo admitted they have never even played a monk.

Don't need to be an apple farmer to know a rotten apple when I see it.

I'm curious, SG. You claim to have disproven us with facts, yet I see no character sheet. With all the time devoted to your cause, I am surprised you could not set aside some time to make an actual build.

Couldn't take longer than all the replies you've made, and would settle some questions once and for all.

You can make an actual build, correct?

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 07:50 AM

no, not from a ring. From a wand it's a command word which you cannot recognise with spellcraft.

But you can hear it. Command words have to be spoken aloud clearly, no whispering.

at that level it is with UMD. With a ring of spell storing, definitely.

Again, the Ring of Spell Storing is not a sure thing. As people have mentioned, the party cleric may not agree to continually refill your ring; getting an NPC or cohort cleric to do that job is relying on the DM's generosity.

It does. It counts for all movement modes. It's an enhancement bonus.
Now, a big question: will this insight lead you to correct your former "monk suckage" impression? Or is that not enough yet? Or will you ignore it?

I think you are incorrect. And it would not cause me to change my mind about the monk; fast movement does not a competent class make.

Yes, they can. But the melee opponents (our example pair of stone giants?) likely not. Plus, they lose a round doing so, in which they could have done real damage to the monk. In that round then the monk has contributed by 1) doing massive damage 2) forcing the opponent to use his action to debuff (not put out of combat, simply debuff the monk) and thus 3) opens up actions for the others in the group.
Read: Contributing.

A group of enemies with a spellcaster can dispel the monk or remove him from combat (Forcecage/Fogs/Web/etc) for several rounds, while their melee remains unhindered. At best, you have paid a very expensive price to get an enemy's attention for a round if your buff gets dispelled.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 07:53 AM

So...you let your discussions be done by others? Great way to discuss. A bit too easy, don't you think?

If you bothered to read my posts, you would know that I have made many arguments. I was pointing out that the majority of people agree with me.

Please. Prove to me, in your own words, why the monk sucks in core.

OK.

Monks have too low a BAB to be an effective melee combatant, when that's what they are supposed to be effective at. Power attack is at a low ratio and you need all the to hit bonuses you can get, which makes it a poor choice.

Monks have MAD. They need Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. (Schrodinger's Monk needs all 6 stats) Monks have unsynergistic class features; flurry of blows and speed boosts.

Low damage. Even with INA, a monk's damage output is low. Everyone knows that most of a character's damage comes from other sources, not the original damage dice.

Monks get some nice class features, but everything they can do can be replicated by another class at an earlier level and more effectively.
Quivering Palm? Finger of Death. - More than once a week for other classes
Slow Fall? Feather Fall. - Feather fall doesn't require you to be next to a wall
Wholeness of Body? Healing spells - Heals other people, too
Tongue of the Sun and Moon - Tounges
Empty Body - Spells
Diamond Soul - Spell Resistance (the spell)

Ozymandias

2008-03-24, 07:56 AM

Sigh. UMD is not even necessary. See my above example level 16 monk. Or the monk taking on a brown bear at level 6.

Congratulations, that's a 7th level Druid's animal companion. But the core classes are balanced, right?

UMD is just an idea to make life harder for some opponents (including spellcasters), and get easier and faster access to some key monk buffs.

I'll concede the point but I hold that to be self-sufficient is much more difficult for a Monk than other classes.

Buff reliance? ALL classes buff. In particular the batman wizard, to even survive. There is no reason to demand that one class (the monk) should be able to soldier on without buffs while his comrades buff to kingdom come and back.
What strange notions of how to compare classes you have.

Firstly, batman wizards buff themselves, principally at the beginning of the day. All classes use buffs, right, but most classes don't rely on them to be effective. Generally, party buffs are either specialized combos or powerful, tangible effects that are clearly worth the resource expenditure - thus, Haste is often worth it, because it can easily turn the tide of a battle, while, say, Greater Magic Fang is a Druid devoting one of his spells to making the monk not suck.

Anecdotal evidence of monks played in campaigns where they do not get the items they want, spellcasters never face any problems of spell recovery, monks never being buffed by anyone does not count as showing that the core rules make the monk underpowered.

- Giacomo

It actually does. You see, the fact that core permits a daily allotment of wizard buffs, arbitrary denial to the wizard class his or her only class feature, and tailor-made Frankenstein-esque magic item repertoires doesn't mean that the game is balanced - Wizards are meant to recover their spells every day, Monks are meant to be a relatively self-sufficient class (at least as much as a wizard or rogue), and magic items are meant to be generally restricted, and the rules are meant to be balanced. Do you see what I'm getting at, here?

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 07:57 AM

So the anti-monkers best argument is cleric/druid/wizard is better than Monk?

Well, doh, it's DnD 3.5. How about comparing Monks to fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues, bards first?

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 08:02 AM

So the anti-monkers best argument is cleric/druid/wizard is better than Monk?

Well, doh, it's DnD 3.5. How about comparing Monks to fighters, barbarians, paladins, rangers, rogues, bards first?

No. Have you actually read this thread? Please, do a bit of reading instead of making uninformed comments like that.

lord_khaine

2008-03-24, 08:03 AM

2 checks, at 30% each, adds up to 49% chance of success. Your way, he would be guaranteed to succeed if he rolled 4 checks, mine he'd only have a ~=75.99% chance. (Do not question my statistics-fu. 3.0 in Stat 335)

no, the checks would ad up to 60%, because im talking about the average number of succes in a round, not the probability of getting a singel succes in a round.

With a lower chance of success
yes, but enough attempts at low chance will beat 1 attempt at a high one.

While the monk loads up on divine power, pearl of power, and the like, the UMD barbarian gets a scroll of shapechange. Barbarian wins.

should we considder here that divine power is level 4, while shapechange is level 9?

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 08:07 AM

I'm curious, SG. You claim to have disproven us with facts, yet I see no character sheet. With all the time devoted to your cause, I am surprised you could not set aside some time to make an actual build.
Couldn't take longer than all the replies you've made, and would settle some questions once and for all.

And where are your lower level sorcerer builds? But as I've already stated several times: wait for some days for the build.
Do not tell me what kind of posts to make now.

You can make an actual build, correct?

Hmmm...look through this board. You will notice some builds of mine. Putting that into question here is quite bad style.

- Giacomo

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 08:16 AM

No. Have you actually read this thread? Please, do a bit of reading instead of making uninformed comments like that.

Oh, but I've done my share of reading.

I've read dozens of threads about monks, I've build monks for arenas, challenges, gauntlets, theoretical optimization, campaings, stand-alone adventures.

And I've learned that 93.6% of the anti-monk arguments are ignorant newbie chaff.

Including yours.

Talic

2008-03-24, 08:21 AM

You do realise that expected damage=damage dealt*chance of success? If you lack in the one, but more than make up for it in the other (including more attempts), then you can be considered a better grappler.

Assume average creature hp is 20.

1 grappler, 10% chance of success, deals 300 damage if he hits.

Another, 100% chance of success, deals 20.

1st grappler, by your math, is 50% better. Why is the 2nd killing 10 times the enemies?

Point is, your numbers don't take into account overkill, and a variety of other things. For example, if the barb can reliably win grapple 60% of the time, he's not going to be pinned. He won't need to grapple to damage, if he has a good strength, and may just opt for the -4 to hit for punching/stabbing.

That said, average damage*chance of success is a good place to start.

Here's a barb build, level 14. Equipment thrown together without too much thought, as is the build. Designed to fight in an unconventional style, but then, most of the unusual fighters do.

Crouching Tiger:

Orc Weretiger Barb 6 (Afflicted)
6d8 + 6d12 + 72 (162 hp) - enraged (182)

BAB +10/+5

Tiger Form (Huge) - Pot of enlarge person, rage
Str 50
Dex 18
Con 30
Int 6
Wis 8
Cha 6

Iron Will
Power Attack
Improved Natural Attack (Claw)
Improved Natural Attack (Bite)
Multiattack

150k Equipment:
Chain Shirt +1, Wild 16,250
Belt of Giant Strength +6, 36,000
Manual of Strength +1 27,500
Amulet of Mighty Fists +2 24,000
Boots of Speed 12,000
Enlarge Person x5 1,250

8,650 Gold left over for whatever.

Class abilities:
Fast movement, Illiteracy, Rage 2x/day (11 round)
Improved Uncanny dodge, Trap Sense +2

Race abilities:
Darkvision 60 feet, Light Sensitivity
Low Light Vision, Scent
DR 5/Silver
+2 nat armor all forms
Pounce, Improved grab, Rake (animal form)

Full attack on pounce (large): 2 claws +31 (1d8+21), Bite +29 (2D6+11), 2 Rakes +31 (1d8+11)

With Power attack: 2 claws +21 (1d8+31), Bite +19 (2d6+21), 2 Rakes +21 (1d8+21)

Assuming all hit, total damage is 4d8+2d6+115. Average 145.5.

Enlarged:
With power attack: 2 claws +22 (2d6+32), Bite +20 (3d6+22), 2 rakes +22 (2d6+22)

Assuming all hit, damage is: 11d6+130.
Average: 168.5

Grapple mod: +33
When huge: +38

Needs 1 standard action to enlarge. Would spend most of his time in Tiger form. Towns are overrated. Only enters them to barter for things he wants.

And yes, Potions of enlarge person do work when he's in tiger form.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 08:31 AM

If your group plays in a more oppositional DM tactics vs. Player tactics style, tho, by all means have every cleric wearing a necklace strung with wooden symbols.

Well, the sitting pope, Benedict XVI, has, at my count, no less than three, on official occasions four, objects on his person that would certainly be holy symbols enough to count. If his entire temporal authority was vested in them, and people kept running up to him trying to smash them, I suspect he'd have a lot more.

Also, Giacomo - when they say 'make a character build', they mean a full one, like you'd submit for a PbP game. Go to myth-weavers, or something.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 08:36 AM

Assume average creature hp is 20.

1 grappler, 10% chance of success, deals 300 damage if he hits.

Another, 100% chance of success, deals 20.

1st grappler, by your math, is 50% better. Why is the 2nd killing 10 times the enemies?

Point is, your numbers don't take into account overkill, and a variety of other things. For example, if the barb can reliably win grapple 60% of the time, he's not going to be pinned. He won't need to grapple to damage, if he has a good strength, and may just opt for the -4 to hit for punching/stabbing.

Do you realise that a barbarian's iterative attacks will mean at higher levels, he is at a successively higher disadvantage vs the monk whose iterative attacks are in part at his highest grapple bonus (flurry)?
Then, a monk is not built to take on many smaller foes. That is a clear fighter domain, thanks to his many feats.
A monk COULD try this with a decent DEX, spiked chain martial weapon proficiency and his combat reflexes bonus feat. For instance, the monk by lord_khaine in a level 20 contest elsewhere does it.
But a fighter can do it better.

That said, average damage*chance of success is a good place to start.

Here's a barb build, level 14. Equipment thrown together without too much thought, as is the build. Designed to fight in an unconventional style, but then, most of the unusual fighters do.

Crouching Tiger:
Orc Weretiger Barb 6 (Afflicted)

You do not really use a +3 LA creature here (to make it level 14, you could then have 11 levels of barbarian, not just 6)*, do you? Well, you did your work in vain - that does not prove anything about what a class can do. Or the pixie monk is around the corner, unattackable by your weretiger.
Or wait...
...better yet, you just opened up the way for a monk to use his flurry with his (vastly superior) move, plus give him huge size with a simple enlarge effect. And all his monk goodies preserved (SR, saves etc). While your barbarian gave up his big thing: using two-handed weapon with power attack. Thank you!:smallyuk:

Ah, sometimes these threads are really rewarding...pot of enlarge person - will I ever recover?:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

*EDIT: just noticed how the LA works (I guess the weretiger allows even only level 5 barbarian for a level 14 character). Sorry!
Anyhow, this makes the example even worse - since the creature is the dominant part, not the class.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 08:39 AM

Well, the sitting pope, Benedict XVI, has, at my count, no less than three, on official occasions four, objects on his person that would certainly be holy symbols enough to count. If his entire temporal authority was vested in them, and people kept running up to him trying to smash them, I suspect he'd have a lot more.

That was just great. LOL.

Also, Giacomo - when they say 'make a character build', they mean a full one, like you'd submit for a PbP game. Go to myth-weavers, or something.

The build is not planned in character sheet form yet, will think about it.

- Giacomo

Sstoopidtallkid

2008-03-24, 08:40 AM

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 08:45 AM

That was just great. LOL.

There's more. Check out the numbers of holy symbols carried by these dudes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ac/EcumenicalPatriarchBartholomewI.jpg/398px-EcumenicalPatriarchBartholomewI.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c5/Patrijarh_Pavle.jpghttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/Patriarch_Ilia_II_of_Georgia.jpg

Evidently someone has been trying to sunder Orthodox icons.

The build is not planned in character sheet form yet, will think about it.

Please do. Even if I consider him/her to be the mewling, abberant, illegitimate child of the grappler barbarian and the archivist, I must confess that I have a soft spot for the Giacomonk :smallwink:.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 08:48 AM

Oh, but I've done my share of reading.

I've read dozens of threads about monks, I've build monks for arenas, challenges, gauntlets, theoretical optimization, campaings, stand-alone adventures.

And I've learned that 93.6% of the anti-monk arguments are ignorant newbie chaff.

Including yours.

If you had actually done your share of reading, you would have read the many comparisons of monks to all of the classes, not just the casters. I'm well aware that monks can be optimised to do fairly well, but not compared to what can be done with other classes.

What is it about my arguments that's chaff to you, hm? That last comment was just your attempt to grow claws and fight back. So I say again: Read the anti-monk arguments in this thread, actually read them and come back with something better than an arbitrary statistic that you pulled from God-knows-where.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 08:50 AM

and come back with something better than an arbitrary statistic that you pulled from God-knows-where.

No, it's scientific fact. In a properly weighted, accurate and fair survey, 974 out of 1041 arguments were found lacking. :smallwink:

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 08:52 AM

No, it's scientific fact. In a properly weighted, accurate and fair survey, 974 out of 1041 arguments were found lacking. :smallwink:

And as my Statistical Methodology instructor says, 76.2% of all statistics are made up on the spot. :smallwink: :smalltongue:

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 08:59 AM

1:The odds of at least one success on 2 30% chances is 49%. You take the odds of it not happening, multiply them, and that's the final chance. You don't simply add the possibilities together, that would mean you had a 100% chance of rolling a 20 if you roll d20 20 times.

Yes, you are correct, I simplified a bit too much in that respect. There is never a 100% chance that it will work (only with sufficient bonus to automatically make the check). It is quite rare, though, I daresay that the monk will not get his wand buffs off at lower levels.

2: Beating a Brown Bear at level 6 is small potatoes. Any number of 2nd level spells can render the bear useless, or just levitate. I personally prefer Deep Slumber, but that's just because I like Necromancy specialists with scythes. :smallcool:.

Yes, the monk showed he is not pawned at grappling by the best grappling monster of that level (well, CR 6 maxes at +17 for Ettin and Girrallon, and the Annis Hag at +18 is the best - the monk will have to get a bull's strength then...:smallsmile: ), and now it's small potatoes. That's the way to discuss.:smallconfused:
The monk just moves silently/hides from the brown bear and he does not need to fight it, either.

3: The wizard is buffed early in the morning, and spends one round buffing themselves/the party during combat (2 for a boss fight or one with a bunch of mooks who will last a while). Your monk is spending several buffs, in-combat, from wands that he has to cast 3 times. There is a difference.

Er...what spells ecactly are cast by the 3rd level wizard in the morning that buff him all day? And if you mean the higher levels, the monk then has the UMD modifier necessary to do the buffs safely he needs.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:01 AM

Please do. Even if I consider him/her to be the mewling, abberant, illegitimate child of the grappler barbarian and the archivist, I must confess that I have a soft spot for the Giacomonk :smallwink:.

That's actually quite a nice wording, quite appropriate for the monk I have in mind...

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:09 AM

Crouching Tiger:

Orc Weretiger Barb 6 (Afflicted)

After having recovered from laughing about what this build tried to prove for now, let me see one more thing, Talic: this idea is actually really great. My next character will likely be a weretiger monk (in case the campaign starts at level 4, and the DM allows it).

It's going to be simply awesome, thanks for your idea! (no irony here).

- Giacomo

EDIT: unfortunately the boots of speed won't fit. But the monk does not really need it with such a form.
EDIT2: arg, this comes from venturing outside the PHB races...the LA is added to the HD to determine ECL. So, it's even 9 levels lost....Still, not that bad maybe...

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 09:20 AM

Alright, let's look for a random ignorant post by anti-monker...

here's one! Oh, it's by you Nebo...no matter, let's discuss it.

Monks have too low a BAB to be an effective melee combatant, when that's what they are supposed to be effective at. Power attack is at a low ratio and you need all the to hit bonuses you can get, which makes it a poor choice.

What monks lack in BAB they make in number and damage of attacks.

Monks have MAD. They need Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. (Schrodinger's Monk needs all 6 stats)

And a good fighter will need str, dex, con, and int. Rangers aren't much better. Don't get me started on Paladins.

Monks have unsynergistic class features; flurry of blows and speed boosts.

On the contrary, those two are highly synergetic after some tweaking (not that you would know what to tweak)

Low damage. Even with INA, a monk's damage output is low. Everyone knows that most of a character's damage comes from other sources, not the original damage dice.

LOL

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. Monk damage is huge and comes exactly from optimizing her base damage dice.

Monks get some nice class features, but everything they can do can be replicated by another class at an earlier level and more effectively.
Quivering Palm? Finger of Death. - More than once a week for other classes
Slow Fall? Feather Fall. - Feather fall doesn't require you to be next to a wall
Wholeness of Body? Healing spells - Heals other people, too
Tongue of the Sun and Moon - Tounges
Empty Body - Spells
Diamond Soul - Spell Resistance (the spell)

You only list spells.

Yes, spells are the power in DnD 3.5.

Which doesn't change the fact the Monk is about as good as her direct competition: fighters and barbarians; and comparable to paladins and melee rangers/rogues. Outside core, monk is hardly worse than the majority of noncaster classes and probably better than many of them.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-24, 09:21 AM

It is quite rare, though, I daresay that the monk will not get his wand buffs off at lower levels.
False, if you do the math.

The monk just moves silently/hides from the brown bear and he does not need to fight it, either.
So he runs away.

And if you mean the higher levels, the monk then has the UMD modifier necessary to do the buffs safely he needs.
Again false, if you do the math. It is well known that to be effective as a monk, you need to use as much unlike a monk as possible - but even if you put your points in int and cha to use UMD (thus making you an ineffective combatant), you won't be able to reliably use wands until level 18 or so. Most campaigns end way before level 18.

Kurald Galain

2008-03-24, 09:28 AM

Alright, let's look for a random ignorant post by anti-monker...
Pot, meet kettle.

What monks lack in BAB they make in number and damage of attacks.
False, if you do the math. Their damage is low, their number of attacks insufficient to make up the difference.

And a good fighter will need str, dex, con, and int. Rangers aren't much better. Don't get me started on Paladins.
False, in all three cases. Fighters don't need dex or int. Rangers and paladins work very well with 25-point buy.

On the contrary, those two are highly synergetic after some tweaking (not that you would know what to tweak)
Nonsense. Plus, the fact that you're using ad hominems really proves that you don't have an argument.

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. Monk damage is huge and comes exactly from optimizing her base damage dice.
Again, false, if you do the math. Simply asserting something does not constitute proof; a level-20 monk (2d10) does only 4 more points of "base die" damage on average than a greatsword (2d6) which is easily affordable by a first-level fighter.

Which doesn't change the fact the Monk is about as good as her direct competition: fighters and barbarians; and comparable to paladins and melee rangers/rogues.
Nonsense. Yes, fighters are notoriously underpowered and only slightly better than monks; but do check the damage output on a good rogue or barbarian. Out of core, it gets worse quickly with e.g. barbarian pounce and many sneak attack enhancers.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:30 AM

False, if you do the math.

Nope. In combat, it's less likely, outside combat it's very likely.

So he runs away.

You cannot run while moving silently. Ah wait, that's not what you meant. It's the usual double standard:
- wizard uses fly to prevent bear attack ==> rains death from above
- monk uses stealth to prevent bear attack ==> fleeing. Losing encounter.
Yawn.:smallcool:

Again false, if you do the math. It is well known that to be effective as a monk, you need to use as much unlike a monk as possible

THAT is well-known? Where? The best strawman in a long while.

- but even if you put your points in int and cha to use UMD (thus making you an ineffective combatant), you won't be able to reliably use wands until level 18 or so. Most campaigns end way before level 18.

CHR 10. Circlet of persuasion. Masterwork item. UMD skill focus. Magical apitude. Cross-class max. +4 CHR boost somewhere way before level 18.
Let's say level 11:
+7 (skill)
+2 (CHR buff, or use heroism effect buff)
+3 (competence)
+2 (circumstance)
+5 (feats)
+19 total.

Guess what. You are WRONG. (oh nos!)

As for putting points into INT, check out emeraldstreak's post.

- Giacomo

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 09:30 AM

Alright, let's look for a random ignorant post by anti-monker...

here's one! Oh, it's by you Nebo...no matter, let's discuss it.

What monks lack in BAB they make in number and damage of attacks.

Attacks that have low damage that have a hell of a time getting around damage reduction. Yeah, gotta love those ineffectual flurries.

And a good fighter will need str, dex, con, and int. Rangers aren't much better. Don't get me started on Paladins.

You just listed two other weak classes. Congratulations.

On the contrary, those two are highly synergetic after some tweaking (not that you would know what to tweak)

By all means, tell me what to tweak to get a full attack on a charge with a monk. Sure you can use a Barbarian dip to get pounce, but that's not really a monk, is it? Maybe manifest hustle? Still not a monk. Travel Devotion is another way to do it, but you need cleric levels to get it more than once a day. Don't you dare presume that I can't optimise, that is the path of defeat.

You couldn't be more wrong on that one. Monk damage is huge and comes exactly from optimizing her base damage dice.

It's nothing compared to what you can get from power attack. I know that monks can be optimised to do lots of damage. So can other classes, and they can do it better.

Which doesn't change the fact the Monk is about as good as her direct competition: fighters and barbarians; and comparable to paladins and melee rangers/rogues. Outside core, monk is hardly worse than the majority of noncaster classes and probably better than many of them.

Post a monk build that is comparable to another melee combatant outside of core and I will post one that is better.

Chronicled

2008-03-24, 09:30 AM

Alright, let's look for a random ignorant post by anti-monker...

here's one! Oh, it's by you Nebo...no matter, let's discuss it.

Whereas debating 3.5 balance issues with Sir Giacomo can get wearisome, as mentioned last page he is a courteous debater. You would do well to take a page from his book.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 09:31 AM

I offer a suggestion, as to build-making.

Seeing as I am woefully underexperienced compared to the many participating in this discussion, I suggest that I make the opponent for the monk to face, whatever level you people may wish to choose. That way, no one can say that the non-monk side has optimized, and even if the monk side CHOOSES to optimize to the best of their ability, a win for the non-monks will render this discussion virtually over.

A Giacomo monk vs. A typical build

Sound fun?

Kurald Galain

2008-03-24, 09:33 AM

Guess what. You are WRONG. (oh nos!)

Well, since you put it so eloquently - guess what. You are WRONG, and have been consistently and repeatedly proven wrong in similar threads for about a full year now. Full points for persistency, zero points for result.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:36 AM

Please emeraldstreak, I cannot resist...if I may?

Attacks that have low damage that have a hell of a time getting around damage reduction. Yeah, gotta love those ineffectual flurries.

Damage reduction? You mean like adamantine, the monk cuts through like butter?

You just listed two other weak classes. Congratulations.

Ah, so the monk by now is at least on par with those classes? Great! You're making progress.:smallsmile:

By all means, tell me what to tweak to get a full attack on a charge with a monk. Sure you can use a Barbarian dip to get pounce, but that's not really a monk, is it? Maybe manifest hustle? Still not a monk. Travel Devotion is another way to do it, but you need cleric levels to get it more than once a day. Don't you dare presume that I can't optimise, that is the path of defeat.

In core: get a mount. Or use the morhping cheese.

It's nothing compared to what you can get from power attack. I know that monks can be optimised to do lots of damage. So can other classes, and they can do it better.

Nope. Shown above already somewhere in the mid-section of this thread. But continue to ignore it, if you like.

Post a monk build that is comparable to another melee combatant outside of core and I will post one that is better.

Actually, I'd like to see a version by emeraldstreak at one point or another - until then, get your popcorn ready for mine...:smallcool:

- Giacomo

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 09:36 AM

Whereas debating 3.5 balance issues with Sir Giacomo can get wearisome, as mentioned last page he is a courteous debater. You would do well to take a page from his book.

I agree fully. While I disagree with Giacomo on almost everything, he's been very polite the whole time. I respect that.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:38 AM

Kurald Galain

2008-03-24, 09:38 AM

I agree fully. While I disagree with Giacomo on almost everything, he's been very polite the whole time. I respect that.

...well, except for the few threads involving him that got locked because they turned into flame wars...

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 09:38 AM

Damage reduction? You mean like adamantine, the monk cuts through like butter?

No, like versus slashing, good, evil, silver, cold iron...

You know, the ones that are common.

Hell, even versus chaos and piercing.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:39 AM

Well, since you put it so eloquently - guess what. You are WRONG, and have been consistently and repeatedly proven wrong in similar threads for about a full year now. Full points for persistency, zero points for result.

Do I even need to comment on this? Ah, too late, I already did. Darn!:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 09:39 AM

Damage reduction? You mean like adamantine, the monk cuts through like butter?

No, I mean like Evil.

Ah, so the monk by now is at least on par with those classes? Great! You're making progress.:smallsmile:

Deliberate misinterpretation, a good argument does not make. The monk is weaker than those weak classes.

Nope. Shown above already somewhere in the mid-section of this thread. But continue to ignore it, if you like.

That example was lackluster.

Actually, I'd like to see a version by emeraldstreak at one point or another - until then, get your popcorn ready for mine...:smallcool:

Me too. I'd like to see what he can come up with.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 09:40 AM

[Scrubbed]
Anyhow, you may try to do a build of whatever level you choose and have a look yourself how it compares to the monk build I intend.

- Giacomo

I do not intend to look at your build. That alone defeats the purpose of the challenge.

You may look at my post history, if you'd like. Just because I have posted a lot does not mean they were meaningful or as verbose as any of the debaters here.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:41 AM

No, like versus slashing, good, evil, silver, cold iron...

You know, the ones that are common.

Hell, even versus chaos and piercing.

luckily the monk can also flurry with weapons. Or use cold iron/silver gauntlets and still have his high unarmed damage dice. Or he could just grapple the poor critter with the damage reduction. If it has a low grapple, it will still lose eventually. But lord_khaine has more experience than I do on this tactics...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:43 AM

...well, except for the few threads involving him that got locked because they turned into flame wars...

...hmmm. I never once received a warning from the moderators so far. So why, then, were the threads locked down, I wonder?

Although I would not deny that, if I had not put up continued opposition, the threads would not have been locked down. So in a way, I have been responsible.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

Kurald Galain

2008-03-24, 09:46 AM

CHR 10. Circlet of persuasion. Masterwork item. UMD skill focus. Magical apitude. Cross-class max. +4 CHR boost somewhere way before level 18.
Let's say level 11:
Oh yeah, so you're intent on being upstaged by the Expert NPC class, again? If you're spending 50% of your feats not on being a monk, but on boosting UMD, you're already making my point for me, that to be effective you have to be as much unlike a monk as possible.

(and, ironically, your idea needs a cha buff in order to do UMD well, and also needs to do UMD well in order to get that cha buff :smallsmile: )

If the point is that "monks need UMD in order to do well", it automatically follows that any class that is better at UMD is going to be better than the monk. That includes rogues, warlocks, any partial or full caster class (since they don't need UMD to get magical effects) and the expert. But don't worry, the monk is still stronger than a commoner.

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 09:47 AM

Or use cold iron/silver gauntlets and still have his high unarmed damage dice.

You know, the jury's still out on that one. Basing tactics on questionable rulings such as that one is not helping your case any.

And when you flurry with weapons, you lose a great deal of base damage, which you claim is so important.

And grappling? Most monsters have better base attack bonus and better Strength than the monk, who has 3 / 4 B.A.B. and mediocre strength assuming point buy.

And... umm...

OK, I did defend against all your points, didn't I?

The defense rests, your honor.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 09:47 AM

luckily the monk can also flurry with weapons. Or use cold iron/silver gauntlets and still have his high unarmed damage dice. Or he could just grapple the poor critter with the damage reduction. If it has a low grapple, it will still lose eventually. But lord_khaine has more experience than I do on this tactics...:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

The unarmed damage die are not high, Giacomo.
Please, the monk base damage die are paltry in compared to the amount of monk damage that doesn't come out of the monk's damage die.
Being a monk advocate, surely you see this by now.

SamTheCleric

2008-03-24, 09:51 AM

I always want to play a monk... and then I'll spend a few hours building one just the way I like it... realize it wouldnt work and scrap it.

The closest I came to "liking" a monk to play was a Monk/Ranger (Ascetic Hunter)/ Sacred Fist...

With only 2 levels of monk you only lose out on 1 BAB, get unarmed progression... and spell casting...

But that's not really a monk. Monk itself (core only, including feats) fails at life.

Talic

2008-03-24, 09:53 AM

...hmmm. I never once received a warning from the moderators so far. So why, then, were the threads locked down, I wonder?

Although I would not deny that, if I had not put up continued opposition, the threads would not have been locked down. So in a way, I have been responsible.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

I think part of this is that so many people get frustrated with your repeated inability to see the basic truth of the matter. You talk about monk as if it can out fight barbarians, outhide rogues, outcast wizards, out shapeshift druids... All at the same time.

All while stating that any book that isn't core isn't good enough, as if the only books Wizards ever made without blemish are the 3 core books, and every subsequent book is the devil.

I think I shall start calling this the HOG, or Holy Order of Giacomo. It bears far more in common with religion than fact, as most of the beliefs outlined in it are supported by faith and not proof.

Talic

2008-03-24, 09:55 AM

You know, the jury's still out on that one. Basing tactics on questionable rulings such as that one is not helping your case any.

Jury's not out on Monk damage with gauntlets. That's pretty well RAW. What the jury's out on is flurry with said gauntlet, with most rules sources indicating no.

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 09:59 AM

Oh yeah, so you're intent on being upstaged by the Expert NPC class, again? If you're spending 50% of your feats not on being a monk, but on boosting UMD, you're already making my point for me, that to be effective you have to be as much unlike a monk as possible.

Do you make this stuff up out of thin air to avoid admitting you are wrong? A monk of 11th level spends only 50% of his LEVEL feats (the stuff ALL classes get and are not dependent on his class) on this variant I proposed. His class feats already deliver most of what he needs. And 1/4 of his skill points (not counting INT or human race) is not that much until that level (afterwards the monk is free to spend his full points on other stuff).
Ah, and I wondered how long it would take you get the expert npc class comparison out of the dusted cellar of monk suckage claims. Needless to say it's still irrelevant.

(and, ironically, your idea needs a cha buff in order to do UMD well, and also needs to do UMD well in order to get that cha buff :smallsmile: )

Hm. Cloak of CHR +4 maybe? And what is so ironic about using UMD to improve using UMD?
It's so easy. Try it: "I have been wrong, Giacomo".

If the point is that "monks need UMD in order to do well", it automatically follows that any class that is better at UMD is going to be better than the monk. That includes rogues, warlocks, any partial or full caster class (since they don't need UMD to get magical effects) and the expert. But don't worry, the monk is still stronger than a commoner.

What do you do with UMD? Once you answer that question, you'll know why a monk makes use of UMD better than others for the purpose of improving what he already does well.

- Giacomo

The Rose Dragon

2008-03-24, 10:01 AM

"I have been wrong, Giacomo".

So you admit to yourself that you're wrong? Cause you still don't have any proof that a monkish monk is useful.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 10:04 AM

What do you do with UMD? Once you answer that question, you'll know why a monk makes use of UMD better than others for the purpose of improving what he already does well.

- Giacomo

Oh, but that logic is flawed, good sir!

The rogue makes use of UMD to to hide well, as they already do!
And warlocks can use UMD to improve their Ranged Touch attacks, which they already do well!
While casters don't NEED UMD to improve spellcasting, their spells provide the same benefits as UMD, and they do it well too!

Surely the monk is not solely the UMD-whore.

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:06 AM

{Scrubbed}

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 10:08 AM

Well, Mr. Orc in the playground, is this an attempt to be overly modest or a bait? :smallbiggrin:
- Giacomo

Er, Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) regarding post counts, people, forum rules.

More like a random noob (you) meets an undefeated Great Renown champion of the CoCo and a dozen other DnD arenas (me).

I do arenas and optimization gauntlets against players 10 times your understanding of DnD. You might want not to dismiss things I say outright.

Naw, I just speak the truth, whether people like it or not.

Wow! You are really tough and cool! And obviously much more wise than anyone here!

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 10:09 AM

Self Praise

Emerald, surely if you wish for your opinions to matter, you'd provide mechanical and theoretical facts to the table, rather than praise that you are better than us, and by being better, immediately right?

No need to start a flame war, good sirs.

Also, even with your overly optimized builds, you do not say HOW the monk manages to best them. Perhaps that is the first step?

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 10:09 AM

I think part of this is that so many people get frustrated with your repeated inability to see the basic truth of the matter. You talk about monk as if it can out fight barbarians, outhide rogues, outcast wizards, out shapeshift druids... All at the same time.

Wrong. All I'm saying is he can keep up with them. Do you really think I believe a monk able to do more damage for 7 rounds in a day is stronger consistently at sheer damage output than the barbarian at level 16? It only illustrates that, yes, the monk is versatile and yes, he can contribute. But I never heap contempt on any class like you do on the monk (and thus implicitly, on all who think playing a monk is a good idea because they believe what he does helps the group).

All while stating that any book that isn't core isn't good enough, as if the only books Wizards ever made without blemish are the 3 core books, and every subsequent book is the devil.

I never said that. I only said that beyond core, it's impossible preserve the balance, since saying what companions (and there is no separate WoTC monk companion btw) are used is highly arbitrary and depends on taste.

I think I shall start calling this the HOG, or Holy Order of Giacomo. It bears far more in common with religion than fact, as most of the beliefs outlined in it are supported by faith and not proof.

Please read this thread again. Read how many posters in essence simply say "monk sucks because I say so/"it has been proven x times", while some others (including me) actually provide numbers and rules clarifications.
The best example is Kurald Galain's recent UMD reality denial, or your posting of a weretiger barbarian to show that class is better than the monk. THAT is what I would call clinging to some outdated belief so desperately, it is starting to become funny.
Come on, Talic, you are currently DMing a highly entertaining level 20 adventure with a monk and a barbarian. Abstracting from the enlarge person potion error, do you really think the monk contributes less there than the barbarian so far?

- Giacomo

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:11 AM

Emerald, surely if you wish for your opinions to matter, you'd provide mechanical and theoretical facts to the table, rather than praise that you are better than us, and by being better, immediately right?

No need to start a flame war, good sirs.

Also, even with your overly optimized builds, you do not say HOW the monk manages to best them. Perhaps that is the first step?

Of course, I'm all for it.

A little fighter v barbarian v monk gauntlet perhaps?

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 10:12 AM

Er, Forum Rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1) regarding post counts, people, forum rules.

OK, well said. I'll calm down now. Sorry about getting a bit more uppity in the recent posts.

- Giacomo

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 10:16 AM

OK, well said. I'll calm down now. Sorry about getting a bit more uppity in the recent posts.

- Giacomo

Nah, just trying to keep the debate unlocked. Also, as I've said before, note the interesting paradox when you try to bring up the rules in any way -

Please refrain from chastising other posters over breaking the rules, especially concerning minor things.

In other words, it's impossible to bring them up, and, having done so, I'm breaking the rules. But if you want to call me on it? Why, guess what you have to do to actually carry that out ... :smalltongue:

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 10:20 AM

Of course, I'm all for it.

A little fighter v barbarian v monk gauntlet perhaps?

No thanks, you're a much better builder than I am.

I did suggest my aid in the monk vs. whatever debate a few pages back, however. Just for a 'sense of mediocre player' feel to keep things in perspectice.

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 10:21 AM

More like a random noob (you) meets an undefeated Great Renown champion of the CoCo and a dozen other DnD arenas (me).

I do arenas and optimization gauntlets against players 10 times your understanding of DnD. You might want not to dismiss things I say outright.

Naw, I just speak the truth, whether people like it or not.

2d10 is the base damage dice..."base" being the key word here, newbie.

Really?

You think?

Wow, that's amazing.

I obviously had no idea how to build a lion totem whirling frenzy dragonborn water orc barbarian or a BoED divine minion melee rogue.

And I absolutely did not consider them or similarly powerful barb and rogue builds when I said the monk can hold her own against them :smallwink:

You just lost all credibility. You come in here and start insulting people and telling everyone how good you think you are and you expect us to respect your opinion? Hell no, that's just a good way to get your posts reported, which I just did.

Reel On, Love

2008-03-24, 10:27 AM

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 10:34 AM

Riiiiight. I'm sure emeraldstreak is a VASTLY better character builder and has a MUCH finer understanding of how D&D works and how to make strong characters than those of us who hang out at the CO boards.

Eyeroll.

I would love to see emeraldstreak's contributions to the CO boards. You have nothing on the people who post there, especially Ro,L.

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:34 AM

Attacks that have low damage that have a hell of a time getting around damage reduction. Yeah, gotta love those ineffectual flurries.

{Scrubbed}

By all means, tell me what to tweak to get a full attack on a charge with a monk. Sure you can use a Barbarian dip to get pounce, but that's not really a monk, is it? Maybe manifest hustle? Still not a monk. Travel Devotion is another way to do it, but you need cleric levels to get it more than once a day. Don't you dare presume that I can't optimise, that is the path of defeat.

No dips. And as I said, higher speed actually makes those ways to move and full attack better.

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:36 AM

You just lost all credibility. You come in here and start insulting people and telling everyone how good you think you are and you expect us to respect your opinion? Hell no, that's just a good way to get your posts reported, which I just did.

{Scrubbed}

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 10:38 AM

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 10:39 AM

Sounds like someone feelings got hurt, heh

If all you're going to do is try to start a flame war, you can leave. We don't need you here.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 10:40 AM

Wow. You really have no clue what amount of damage per hit we're talking about here, do you?

DR is still DR, a DR that can be easily avoided in other circumstances.

Also, how can he have a clue? You have not posted anything concrete.

Illiterate Scribe

2008-03-24, 10:44 AM

Well emeraldstreak,

could you post a build here somewere? Or at least what key rules you are using. And if it's outside core I can imagine many posters here will show you what kinds of barbarians, fighters, rangers and rogues are possible with rules companion xy also available.

What would you say about my further up level 16 human monk 360 damage/round (for 7 rounds) excercise?

- Giacomo

Meh, Giacomo, you doth mock too much. Also, on the subject of 'xy rules companion', I was looking at my 'Magic of Incarnum' copy, and I'm sure that there is some nifty stuff in there that could, in a non-borked way, help your monk, without recourse to spells or items. Airstep sandals, for example, could take care of your flying needs, whereas there's a ton of grappling aids.

Sounds like someone feelings got hurt, heh

Oh, wow, so tough as well. You're really impressive.

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:44 AM

Nebo_

2008-03-24, 10:49 AM

Well then, you can post an optimized monk build too.

Take your best shot, champ!

Haha, I don't think you know who you're talking to.

Chosen_of_Vecna

2008-03-24, 10:50 AM

1) As regards Giamoco's insufferable smugness/politeness:

Personally, I'd trade rudeness for him being less smug all the time. It doesn't help that almost every one of his posts either insists that everyone who disagrees with him is deluding themselves and ignoring how totally right he is or just flat out demanding that other people acquiesce to his inherent correctness.

2) Now that we have established that Gia starts with a 14 Dex and the Khaine focuses on Str then Wis, then Con then Dex with rolls there are some conclusions to be made.

a) On 28 PB a Standard Human Wizard has the same dex, and the same or better Init (since many Wizard guides mention Improved Initiative as a good feat). He also has the same average HP as a Monk thanks to his 14 Con Compared to 10.

Standard Build:
8
14
14
18
8
8

b) With the same PB values, A halfling has better Dex/Init as does a Grey Elf Wizard. Though the Wizard has to settle for 1HP less then the Monk per HD.

c) With rolls, a comparable Wizard against Khaine's Monk is clearly going to put their highest stat into Int, so that and the Monks Str cancel out.

The Wizard then focuses on Con-Dex, or Dex-Con compared to Wis-Con-Dex

Either way the Wizard ends up with better Init.

Now that we finally have some type of representation of Monk stats, can we please never again bring up the fallacy that the Monk has any kind of Initiative advantage versus a Wizard?

And though Lord Khaine may continue to address the frailties of Wizards, I would advise you not to Giamoco. And watch for that Fort save, wouldn't want you to get Finger of Deathed.

emeraldstreak

2008-03-24, 10:58 AM

Well emeraldstreak,

could you post a build here somewere? Or at least what key rules you are using. And if it's outside core I can imagine many posters here will show you what kinds of barbarians, fighters, rangers and rogues are possible with rules companion xy also available.

What would you say about my further up level 16 human monk 360 damage/round (for 7 rounds) excercise?

- Giacomo

I think your build is on the right way.

As I said, I'd love to do a barb - fighter - monk gauntlet of some kind here.

Obviously, I will present monk builds, but I may also present barb or fighter builds in interest of fairness. In my opinion any balanced argument requires the posters to consider being in the shoes of the opposite side. For instance, this thread would have had a lot more weight had the anti-monkers posted a few top monk builds, to show they too understand the monk.

Signmaker

2008-03-24, 11:01 AM

I think your build is on the right way.

As I said, I'd love to do a barb - fighter - monk gauntlet of some kind here.

Obviously, I will present monk builds, but I may also present barb or fighter builds in interest of fairness. In my opinion any balanced argument requires the posters to consider being in the shoes of the opposite side. For instance, this thread would have had a lot more weight had the anti-monkers posted a few top monk builds, to show they too understand the monk.

Unfortunately, my only monk builds as of late are Monk/Fighters that are drunk and happen to be boxing champions, so I can't really talk.

With all due respect, though, some builds can't make a show here. Fighters would decimate the monk if, say, the fighter was an ubercharger.

Which then raises the question, how optimized are the build going to be? Splatbook-exploitation level, or just general "Home Depot-You can do it, we can help" kind?

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 11:01 AM

a) On 28 PB a Standard Human Wizard has the same dex, and the same or better Init (since many Wizard guides mention Improved Initiative as a good feat). He also has the same average HP as a Monk thanks to his 14 Con Compared to 10.

Standard Build:
8
14
14
18
8
8

b) With the same PB values, A halfling has better Dex/Init as does a Grey Elf Wizard. Though the Wizard has to settle for 1HP less then the Monk per

Jumping in here. You'll notice above that I assumed a wizard will have about the same Init modifier. What counts more, though, is who will surprise who in this scenario.
Your wizard with WIS mod of -1 will hardly have a chance to notice that monk sneaking up on him at lower levels. At 17th level there is the foresight spell, but before that?

Now that we finally have some type of representation of Monk stats, can we please never again bring up the fallacy that the Monk has any kind of Initiative advantage versus a Wizard?

Well, I cannot answer for lord_khaine's build, but I would not exactly consider taking a certain race to show that the wizard always has higher Initiative than the monk (in particular since it yields only +1 advantage on a d20 roll). Both likely take DEX 14, both likely improved initiative, both can be halfling or elf. Draw. Only that the monk has the surprise likely on his side.

- Giacomo

Sir Giacomo

2008-03-24, 11:05 AM

I think your build is on the right way..

Thanks!

In my opinion any balanced argument requires the posters to consider being in the shoes of the opposite side. For instance, this thread would have had a lot more weight had the anti-monkers posted a few top monk builds, to show they too understand the monk.

Now THAT is what I would consider a great idea. Often "anti-monkers" said they tried so hard and they failed. They should just post their sucky attempts here and the two of us will open a "monk build clinic".:smallcool: You take the outside core part, I'll take the core builds and repair them.

- Giacomo

Arbitrarity

2008-03-24, 11:16 AM

Hm. Can we add an expert to the gauntlet, or would he be too devastating?

Also, in, or out of core monk for the optimization bit?

Reel On, Love

2008-03-24, 11:20 AM

Well, true. Wands can even be metamagicked. Great. Now that really makes wands for level 1-4 spells vastly superior, since the UMD check needed is lower. The only thing going for using them are casters who can scribe them for cheaper money, I think.
Well...actually even IF you would houserule to be able to buy wands only fully charged, it would mean wands are vastly superior. Note that the key wands for the level 4 monk above (enlarge, CLW, ray of enfeeblement) are all fully charged.
Casters can craft wands, too. Fully-charged wands are not superior to scrolls, because they're such a big investment for the most part. 4,500 gp is a lot, and you just can't afford to plunk that down at low levels or every few levels--
I'm not sure why your level 4 monk has a wand of Ray of Enfeeblement. Does he plan to stand around failing his UMD check for a round or two while pointing it at the opponent?
I'm also not sure why he has a wand of CLW. That's what clerics are for. Parties buy a wand with pooled funds.
Enlarge is the obvious choice, and it helps... but you're going to need it every fight. You'll blow through that wand before level 6 or 7.

Yes, that is what you get when you ignore the stealth part of the monk. But the game is not balanced this way, if you ignore parts of the rules.
Maybe you didn't notice this, Gia, but most parties have stealth. Rogues are perfectly viable scouts (they sure can afford those stealth-boosting items more than monks can--they buy them instead of Periapts of WIS or Boots of Giant Strength).
And yet, despite most parties having scouting and stealth... most encounters STILL start without one side getting time to prepare.

You DO NOT get to say that if we don't assume that you can always spend a bunch of rounds prepping when you want to spend a bunch of rounds prepping, we're not following the rules. That is manifestly ridiculous.

Well, what to make of a post like that. "AC is unaccounted for". wait..."ah, yes, most of your attacks will hit..."....but...but...(struggles for way to not admit being wrong)..."Stone giants are CR 8!" (when reading through my earlier posts you will be able to notice that I said exactly that. The stone giants never were my example, they were an example to ridicule the monk, and as all those ridiculous ridiculing attempts, failed.)
WOOOO, condescenscion!
You were still assuming that *every* attack would hit... when you had one that would miss 25% and another that would miss 50% of the time.

Don't you remember that in one of Talic's challenges I once presented a level 16 (or was it even 15?) monk to bring down a CR 18 white dragon? And most of these opponents you mentioned do not even have freedom of movements effects up, so in 1:1 combat they would be merely grappled to death (note that their touch AC is much, much lower).
Or, they could try to endure the 7-10 full attack, plus stunning fist save, plus quivering palm save...
The monk may be hard-rpessed at those levels to defeat spellcasters (all non-caster classes are), but the usual monster manual opponents of same CR rating are not a problem, I daresay.
You presented a monk to bring down a dragon... by spending a long time buffing and then using a crossbow. A Warrior could have done pretty much the same thing. Your build didn't impress anyone, because it required setting up round after round of short-term buffs (and you had no counter to the dragon... you know... *waiting your buffs out*, like you're so fond of suggesting *one* member of a *party* do to his opponents). I guess that means Warriors are viable, too?

And now you're suggesting that you're going to grapple things to death as your main strategy. At level 16. Really.
The planetar, unbuffed (Righteous Might?) has +25 grapple... and SLAs like Power Word Stun. And Cleric 17 spellcasting (including Implosion against your 10-CON monk). But then, Planetars are notoriously overpowered as enemies.
The Old black dragon has +42 grapple before buffs. I think it wins.
The Horned Devil has +29... and TELEPORT AT WILL. Oh, and good luck making the Fort save vs. its chain stun with your 10 CON. (10 CON! Seriously, 10 CON?)
The Greater Stone Golem has +52 grapple. Bet you wish you'd bought that Ring of Freedom of Movement instead of that Ring of Spell Storing now.
The Nightwalker, with a +34, is probably the most grappleable.

CR 17? The Aboleth Mage spellcasts, the Marilith has +29, lots of attacks, and (oops) *teleport at will*, the Formian Queen (as if it mattered--man, has anyone EVER fought one of these? Seriously, I don't think this monster has ever been used) spellcasts, the Frost Giant Jarl has +33, +35 after Bull's Strength (there we go, might be able to get that one)...

CR 18 is a bunch of dragons and the +45 Nightcrawler.

...so, yeah--you might wanna rethink this whole grappling strategy.

What is this nonsense about not being able to get divine power at that level?
- wand of divine power, costs 21,000 (fully charged, just for you)
- ring of spell storing. Ask party cleric to cast one (ONE!!) of his fouth level slots inside. If that cleric is extremely stingy, get a pearl of power for 16,000 to let him have is way.
One of his slots means you get it ONCE per day. But you NEED it FOUR times a day.
And yes, you'd better get that pearl (that ring is effectively 66k out of 260,000 gp now--again, what are you NOT buying that everyone else is), because the cleric is ALREADY giving you a 4th level slot for GMW--and the Fighter needs one, too. And he needs to prep Death Ward and Freedom of Movement. And let's not forget Divine Power for himself, since he doesn't want to just sit things out.

A wand starts to be affordable at that level... but here's something you haven't answered: when did you first get that wand, Giacomo? How many wands have you already gone through? Divine power is so very important to you--and yet, somehow, you magically never use it except on this *one* encounter? No, you'd need it all the time. You'd have blown through 50 charges by level 16. Maybe 100 or 150. That's in line with real consumables expenditure, and raises the cost to that of several wands.
And speaking of several wands, your character has been using more than just the wand of Divine Power. What other wands has he been spending money on?
This is what makes it obvious you haven't ever tried to pull this in a real game: you'd realize it's a lot more expensive than buying a single wand at a high level when you've needed that wand all along.

Once again: take a STR 40 Orc and you're set. While I like my characters more versatile, there is nothing arguing against focusing a monk on a single stat, either.
YES, there is! What's that orc's AC? It's crap. He'll grapple or attack one creature and another will tear him to shreds. (Your proposed monk had a 10 CON by the way, which is AWFUL for a melee character. He'd die. Fast. Seriously, 10 CON? That's not OK for -anyone-.)

You know that I, too, do not usually play in campaigns where you can buy all the magic items you need. We already settled this, I believe. No need to bring that up again.
What is at issue here, is to talk about balance the way the core rules are written. And wbl with magic item trading is part of that, like it or not. If you want to change that, you need to houserule-adjust the whole system to keep the game balanced.
Magic item trading? Yes. Feel free to buy.

Repitition of what you already stated. See my answer above. Buying the spell from an npc to cast into the ring costs a mere 280 gp. If you do not want diplomacy checks to ever change that sum, that's OK. You could also bring your pearl of power to the 7th level npc cleric for that casting - then it's for free.
Buying the spell from an NPC costs a "mere" 280 GP... but if you do it 4 times a day every day, that's suddenly over 1000 GP a day on top of your ring.
Also, *where do you get this NPC*? Adventurers ADVENTURE, Giacomo. EVEN IN a city adventure, you can't necessarily just buy whatever spell you want between fights (which might take place in, say, different parts of the same complex, or outside a building and then inside, or etc). And if you're in a dungeon or in the wilderness... like you are most of the time... then what?

Well, either buy the ring or a wand of divine power, depending on how your character is built. And a monk with the best magical defenses and best grappling ability does not need a ring of freedom of movement as much as do the other classes.
Against really big strong things (that outgrapple even a grapple specialist), and against the movement-limiting spells and abilities out there, he *does* need a Ring of FoM. Everyone needs that thing. It's delicious cake.

Where did you get that notion from that I would ALWAYS take high DEX for a monk? Or use shuriken except for in special circumstances? The above example used a focus on STR. You should not fight monk windmills here - but the fact that you do illustrates that you have no real evidence to back up your "monk sucks" claim.:smallsmile:
I got that notion from you always talking about high-DEX monks, and from high-STR monks having a low AC (coupled with that low CON score, that means death) right up until they can start spending level 19-20 WBL on it. This is why people want to see actual builds (and not "my STR is X therefore I do X damage to anything"). Seriously, build a strength monk if you think they're better--level 16 if you like, and then what he'd have looked like at levels, say, 5 and 10. Not to buy 5 buffs and then one-shot a sitting-duck dragon, to function in a party.
That should be easy; start from the lowest level and then up the character several levels.
I'll be interested in how many wands he's burned through between 10 and 16, too.

You mean, like a DM who never let caster drawbacks to allow a role to play in the campaign?:smallbiggrin:
No. Part of the arguments against your "caster drawbacks" is that... much like buying 1-charge wands... it makes NO SENSE for the cleric to constantly lose his spells despite serving his deity, or the wizard's spellbook to disappear every week (from inside his Rope Trick, in which the party keeps watch). Your "caster drawbacks" are by and large things that just plain don't make sense.

Seriously now, I do see the logic of the level 1-4 scrolls. Probably as a houserule I would also consider this to not allow fractions to be bought. To make you happy, I will see what I can do in my monk build to be released some time over the next days to not include any wand fractions.
Why do some clearly weaker spells exist for the same level? I do not know this. Maybe it is part of the games rules to challenge and reward those who learn more and more about the game :smallsmile:
Not allowing you to buy any partially charged wands you want is NOT a house rule. It's the RAW. When you go to buy a wand, you can get someone to craft one for you or you can pick from the DMG list (or other book list). That's RAW. You can also ask your DM, "do there happen to be any partially used wands?" He might roll some dice and pick #of charges and spell at random, or just make a couple up... or say no.

Not including any wand fractions will be a good start in getting me to take your build seriously.
If you were to actually account for wand use throughout adventuring--a wand every, say, three levels, for wands you use almost every encounter, seems pretty reasonable--in your expenditures, then I might even respect what you're doing here.

It follows the same mechanics as for all other magic items. There is no way to dinstinguish how that shop can carry a ring of freedom of movement for 40,000 or a quarterstaff +1 for 2,300. The only way to notice scarcity as per the DMG rules is the price (which also shows how big the city needs to be to buy it). And wands are apparently assumed to be a very cheap way to produce 1-4 level effects. In my view, to give access to magic for everyone.

- Giacomo
Wands are NOT assumed to be a cheap way. They are assumed to be an EXPENSIVE way. They cost a lot of money for a reason.
The "shop" isn't so much a shop--you can, in a city of a (pretty big!) size--find someone who's willing to sell you a Freedom of Movement. You can handwave away that it might take them a few days to get it shipped in, for convenience's sake.
You can't find someone who's willing to sell you a 10-charge wand of Divine Power, because where do they get it? YOU CAN'T MAKE ONE OF THESE. You are being 50 times as specific as PCs who just want a specific item. There's a big step between being able to hunt down a Belt of Strength and being able to buy 50 1-charge wands.

Partially charged wands don't make sense, and AREN'T RAW.