Monks... any good?

[quiet1mi]

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?

[DrizztFan24]

It has been shown in an optimization build thread that the only thing the monk can do better than anyone else is nab the dead bodies of your comerades for ressurection and high tail it back to the closest healer.
beyond that they can't really hit too well or do a whole lot of damage without some homebrewing

[JBento]

Actually, you pretty much hit the mark, except the Monk isn't taht good at Disarming either...

Oh, when the get in over their heads (which is pretty much every time) they can ran away faster than everyone else. Oh, wait, no they don't, cause the spellcasters get Terleport and Plane Shift...

[JBento]

Actually, you pretty much hit the mark, except the Monk isn't taht good at Disarming either...

Oh, when the get in over their heads (which is pretty much every time) they can ran away faster than everyone else. Oh, wait, no they don't, cause the spellcasters get Terleport and Plane Shift...

[SoD]

No.

This, put simpley.

[Indon]

If you're running a pretty high-powered, combat oriented group, your monk may well feel left out - optimization can take your monk player a good distance, if he knows how, but ultimately his alignment, multiclassing, and equipment restrictions will have him falling behind if group power level continues to increase.

[sonofzeal]

It has been shown in an optimization build thread that the only thing the monk can do better than anyone else is nab the dead bodies of your comerades for ressurection and high tail it back to the closest healer.
beyond that they can't really hit too well or do a whole lot of damage without some homebrewing
This, more or less. Their offense is weak, but at higher levels their defence is second to none among the base classes. I mean, what other class gets three good saves, a static boost to AC, and SR? They even get a 1/day dimension door to get out of Forcecages and Solid Fogs. They get everything Fighter-types wish they had on defence... but lose out on offense. Even with massive Flurry with pumped Unarmed Strike damage, Monks just can't compete with good martial builds in damage output, and their survivability is less useful because they lack options to draw enemy's fire towards them.

On the plus side, as DrizztFan said, there's pretty good odds they'll still be standing after the rest of the party has keeled over, and with any luck can pick up the pieces (literally in some cases) and get the party rez'd to avoid a TPK. Oh, and they make pretty decent scout types.

[RTGoodman]

Well, SoD wins this thread. :smalltongue:


In general, Monks generally aren't very good. Their class features are either [1] not that great ("Hey! I can speak to squirrels!"); [2] don't work with other class feature ("I'm good at being fast and stuff, but I have to stand still to use my signature ability, Flurry of Blow!"); or [3] are too little or too late ("DR 10/magic at 20th level? SR 30 at 20th level? I quit!").

To me, a Monk seemingly has no real role to play - he can't hit like a Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin, can't heal or buff others, can't cast arcane spells or control battlefields, and doesn't have the right skills to be a great skill-monkey. His only real purposes are either as an anti-caster (high saves and mediocre SR) or single-combat shutting people down (with Grapple and such); unfortunately, neither tactic is great, and the Monk just doesn't get enough good stuff to do them better than anyone else.

Really, there isn't a real reason to play one besides for flavor. I mean, I think the Monk is a terrible class, but I like the fluff and it fits well with certain characters. People will soon arrive to tell you how much better the unarmed Swordsage from Tome of Battle is for filling in the "Monk" idea, and I used to think they were beating a dead horse; of course, the more I read and get into ToB, the more I see they're pretty much right. If you're into Monks, it's worth checking out.

[Swooper]

I'd like to point out Monks are good at one thing.

They make excellent prostitutes. Immune to Disease and Flurry of Blows, anyone? :smallamused:

[Frosty]

What if you gave Monks full BAB and a bonus feat every other level? Would that fix them?

[Zincorium]

What if you gave Monks full BAB and a bonus feat every other level? Would that fix them?

Essentially combine them with fighters? It would put them fairly well up there, at least. Kill the soulknife and take it's stuff as well (altering it a bit so it works together) and I think we'd have a cool class.

[Person_Man]

There is nothing that Monks do best. However, they can fill several roles (scout, secondary melee, mobile support, ranged support) in a modest fashion.

If you're in a small and/or weak group, Monks can shine, because they can do so many different things.

If you're in a non-optimized run of the mill group, they're certainly playable, though you'll often find yourself on the weak end of the party. For example, if there's a Rogue in the group, you won't be that great of a scout because you lack trapfinding. If there's a Psychic Warrior, you'll always play second fiddle in melee combat and mobility. If there's a dedicated archer or ranged blaster in the group, you'll be pretty useless as ranged support.

If you're in an optimized group, its very hard for any Monk to keep up. But its possible, depending on what books you have, and how far the optimized group goes.

Also, this thread or something like it comes up once a week or more on the various forums. Despite their weak crunch, monks are popular, and are supported by a good number of feats, prestige classes, and alternate abilities. So dig into the forums or ask more specific questions, and you'll probably find what you want.

[Adumbration]

And make it so that the monk can use enchanted gloves/gauntlets. Make them effectively bludgeoning weapons, call it a day.

[sonofzeal]

What if you gave Monks full BAB and a bonus feat every other level? Would that fix them?
Full BAB would be very nice, and would make Flurry much more powerful. I like Shinton's idea here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75428) (obviously, since I've been helping). It's more monk-ish than ToB and seems quite fun. It's still in its early stages though.

[SoD]

Adding a Doctor Who reference:

Dalek: You are superiour in only one aspect!
Monk: And what is that?
Dalek: You are better at dying!

[quiet1mi]

I'd like to point out Monks are good at one thing.

They make excellent prostitutes. Immune to Disease and Flurry of Blows, anyone? :smallamused:

reading this post completely made my day better :smallsmile:

[Renegade Paladin]

With the right feats, they can clean up. I'm running a game in which the monk pulled out all the stops. The real show stopper is a feat he picked up (I forget the name, but someone will probably be able to place it) that essentially gives Stunning Fist an area effect and leaves the victims nauseated for a second round after the stunning wears off; he's put whole troop formations out of commission. (Granted, said troop formation should have killed him on the first round, but I mistakenly decided to pull the last sword blow so as not to kill him in the first round of his first combat.)

[Saph]

You know, it's funny. A good few years ago, I used to hang out on the Monte Cook boards - this was back in 3.0. The posters there thought monks were pretty good, but I could never see why. I started a thread on it once and got a bunch of answers along the lines of "monks rock!" I still never really saw it, and eventually gave up asking.

Mind you, I was also one of only two people on those boards who thought that a 20th-level Bard would have a chance against a 20th-level Barbarian. Things change . . .

- Saph

[Frosty]

Essentially combine them with fighters? It would put them fairly well up there, at least. Kill the soulknife and take it's stuff as well (altering it a bit so it works together) and I think we'd have a cool class.

Yes, basically the two weakest PHB classes get gestalted into one, and also gets rid of alignment/multiclass restrictions.

[Stycotl]

i've played houserule games where the monk got full bab and a couple of extra abilities that made its flurry usable on a standard attack. that made it decent. i've played others where the monk received some martial maneuvers from the tob. that also made it doable, but the swordsage fills the same nitch with slight variations. then i came up with my own monk, ditched flurry, since it only (generally) works on a full attack, when the monk is supposed to be a movement machine, and gave it spring attack-type progression with multiple strikes. that one so far has been the funnest of the variants i've done, though that one is also still be tested, tweaked, and rethought.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72833

[Indon]

You know, it's funny. A good few years ago, I used to hang out on the Monte Cook boards - this was back in 3.0. The posters there thought monks were pretty good, but I could never see why.

Well, in 3.0, a Monk 19/Fighter 1 could run up to you and attack for, I think... 16/13/10/7/4/1, base. Maybe a Monk 18/Fighter 2. And the way Monk unarmed strike worked back then I do believe it worked seamlessly with TWF.

The Monk's power dropped a lot when full attacks became full round actions, because the Monk had such a good full attack. They didn't much reduce the potency of the full attack itself, though.

[Frosty]

So...one level dip into Cleric with Travel and Undeath domains, and take Travel Devotion?

[Admiral Squish]

Actually, I stumbled across an actually good monk build. A warforged with battlefists and basic plating, or better plating if your DM will swing it. You're not really wearing armor, but you get +2, and it can be enchanted as any other armor. Battlefists put your damage up by a size-category, and can also be enchanted. You take a little hit to wisdom, but that can be made up for with a single item. So, the equivalent of a human monk, with armor, better con and some good weapon damage for 7000g total.

There. Have your monk, and use it too.

[Mr. Friendly]

There was a reasonably effective build running around our group for a while, I never played it so I can't tell you what exactly was involved - maybe someone else knows;

Essentially though, it revolves around Decicive Strike from PH2 (class sub for Flurry) and, I think a sub from RotD or DM that let's you do some sort of scaling acid damage. In our games through this combo the Monks were hitting for something like 10 or 12d6 around 10th level or so....

[holywhippet]

I think a monks best use would be as a henchman. For actual fighting they can be somewhat effective as an anti-spellcaster type. Just tumble past the meat shields and hit the caster with a stunning blow. Otherwise, have them either provide flanking or deliver healing potions. You could also have them throw alchemists fire etc.

[Indon]

So...one level dip into Cleric with Travel and Undeath domains, and take Travel Devotion?

That'd be a pretty big help for the Monk, but the uses are limited per-day.

[Frosty]

A monk with 8 Cha and the Undeath domain will have 6 Turn attempts. That's enough for 3 extra uses of Travel devotion per day for a total of 4 uses a day. That's enough for 4 encounters. Each fight should last no longer than 1 minute or else something is wrong. If DM loves lots of encounters, take Extra Turning again, and have 6 total uses per day.

[Chronos]

The Monk's power dropped a lot when full attacks became full round actions, because the Monk had such a good full attack. They didn't much reduce the potency of the full attack itself, though.No it didn't, because monks weren't around for that change. Full attack was a full-round action in 3.0, too, and monks didn't exist in 2nd (at least, not in the core rules). The monk from 2nd edition Oriental Adventures or whatever was probably better than the 3.x monk, but I'm not sure we're still comparing apples to apples there.

[horseboy]

That'd be a pretty big help for the Monk, but the uses are limited per-day.You could go with Catfolk and the Catfolk Pounce Feat.

[Skjaldbakka]

Ai, ai ai, this again.

My monk fix:

Flurry of Blows is a Standard Action
6+int skills/level
Gloves/cloth wraps are allowed as enchanted weapons
Quivering Palm and Abundant Step are both 1per wisdom modifier per day (same pool)
Monks gain an airwalk ability at first level. It works identically to the Travel Domain power, except with the airwalk spell, instead of the freedom of movement spell.
Monks add their wisdom modifier to hit and damage with unarmed strikes and special monk weapons, starting when they get Ki strike (magic).

[Frosty]

You could go with Catfolk and the Catfolk Pounce Feat.

eww. Only against flatfooted? No thanks.

[Icewalker]

I'd like to say that I was never fully sure why the monk sucked so much. Recently for my campaign I statted up a first level monk as an enemy at one part. Used the non-elite array. He would probably have lost to a level 1 commoner with a large mace.

8 hp, +0 hit, 10 AC, 1d4 damage.
vs
4 hp, +0 hit, 10 AC, 1d8 damage.

Give the commoner armor, and the monk almost certainly loses...

[tyckspoon]

It doesn't help that you apparently made the Monk Small. At first level the dropped damage die actually means something, especially with the flat non-elite stat array. The Monk is a little better off if he's Medium, since he has more numbers he can roll that drop the Commoner than the Commoner can roll to drop the Monk. Although it *still* shows the Monk sucking- a PC class shouldn't be anywhere near that close to the designated suck NPC class.

[Skjaldbakka]

The commoner is no more proficient with armor than the monk is. Since the monk has no wisdom modifier, he has no more reason not to wear armor than the commoner. The monk also has the advantage of being proficient with multiple weapons, which it has every reason to use at low level (or arguably at any level).

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

No it didn't, because monks weren't around for that change. Full attack was a full-round action in 3.0, too, and monks didn't exist in 2nd (at least, not in the core rules). The monk from 2nd edition Oriental Adventures or whatever was probably better than the 3.x monk, but I'm not sure we're still comparing apples to apples there.

There was a 2nd edition Monk, and he did have tons of attacks, so the change did screw him over.

In fact the Second Edition Monk is in many ways very similar to the 3rd edition one, he had all the same abilities, but in a system that made them actually worthwhile, and in fact, overpowered.

Magic Resistance was a flat % chance of spell failing, so Monks that got a 42% chance of Spell Resist at level 15 actually had a 42% of any caster failing, and 50 something at higher levels. Compare that to an Assay Resistance and an Ioun Stone for automatic success, or Just the penetration feats, or the no SR spells that are much more useful in 3rd.

A Monk had as many attacks as a single weapon fighter, but they were then permanently under the effect of haste as well (they couldn't be hasted though) this gave them more attacks, like Flurry of Blows, and Enhancement speed bonus, back when those things actually synergized together.

Their fists became +X weapons (like Soulknife) instead of just bypassing DR.

One huge difference was that as they leveled they gained immunity to multiple status conditions, and then the Perfect Self ability, actually increased damage and HP instead of just changing type.

So they got all the same things, but better.

[dman11235]

The monk can be used to good effect as a frontliner, but only if you minimize actual monk levels. As a dip of up to 6 levels (typically 2), it can be quite a powerhouse. I've made many a build that has focused on high AC/defense, damage, combos (spellcasting/monk, etc). Even made one that is pretty much unkillable. The problem: the most monk levels out of any of these: 5. And that's because I haven't figured out a good way to lower that to 4 or 2. Just as a point of proof, AC 60+ at 20, damage of 16d8+str+wis+dex, saves through the roof, attack bonus of BAB+str or dex or wis+wis. Without the level in Shiba Protector get rid of wis to attack and damage. The unkillable: AC 70+, high HP (high con), fast healing, insane saves (25+ ref, fort and will 35+), evasion, mettle, and decent attack/damage (not as much as the other, around 6d8+str (which is 52)).

Otherwise it can be used in a dip for AoO focused builds (decisive strike, PHBII). Gestalt stuff. But straight monk inherently fails.

[KoDT69]

The unkillable: AC 70+, high HP (high con), fast healing, insane saves (25+ ref, fort and will 35+), evasion, mettle, and decent attack/damage (not as much as the other, around 6d8+str (which is 52)).

In a reasonably powered game, Monk is completely horrible. You need to have 52 in your ability scores to make it shine at anything... But then at that, the other classes have the same high scores as well, so it might still be a poor choice. I definitely would not call that Monk "unkillable". He's just been facing too low CR enemies. A ton of those epic monsters will make the Monk player cry.

I absolutely hate dealing with the Monk class. I've tried using every fix, ignoring certain rules to give them advantages, adding skill points, anything that's been suggested really. With everything considered the Monk player in my current campaign leapt up into a dragon's mouth to commit PC suicide so he could try a good character. Sad when you're willing to play up a character for 6 levels and by that time you're ready to kill it yourself...

[Thanatos 51-50]

Monks aren't bad. They're not the horrednusly broken full casters, but they aren't BAD.

Lets point out a couple of gripes that are usually leveled at the Monk:
3/4 Base Attack Bonus:
Not actually that bad of a problem. Thats the same BAB as a Rogue. No-one complains about Rogues not hitting the enemy.
Flurry of Blows sucks:
Simple answer: Don't use it until the pnealty goes away.
Oh, they're MAD, I tell you, MAD!:
Yeah, they do have a bit of Multiple Ability Dependancy. Weapon Finesse your unarmed strikes, and you cut down on the MAD by one stat down to two. Easy fix.
Most classes usually are a bit MAD - and thats actaully the reason casters are a wee bit broken, IMHO, they can focus on just one stat for all their boosting needs.
Fighters need CON, STR, and DEX.
Rogues need INT and either DEX, CHA, or WIS, depending on your build, he may need STR, too, making him just as MAD as the Monk. Rogues are generally considered the one of the best "balanced" classes out there, at least from what I see floating on these boards.
Bards need CHA and one or two other stats such as DEX/STR or DEX/INT, depending on any skillmonkey-ing.
Paladins are super-MAD with their STR, DEX, CON, WIS, and CHA focus.

The more MAD you get, the less a character becomes viable, if you're worried about MADness, just don't take a character with poor rolls and make them a Paladin. Or monk.

Hey, guess what? The Monk has plenty of shiney bonuses, too!
Tounge of the Sun and Moon is quite beautiful, talking to everything means you can, well... talk to anything! Squirrls chattering incessiantly about those orcs that just rode by? Those orcs that rode by talking about battle plans? You can understand them! That makes you a prime source of information for your party! Especially if you have a poor, poor, crippled Wizard (Seriously, no spontaneous casting?), which will mkake him into the God of all Wizarding Arcane Doom, because he can prepare.
Fast Movement can, as previously mentioned, extract you from a bad situation with the remains of your buddies, but it also means you can out-sneak the rogue. Yes, Out-Sneak Rogues. Hide and Move Silently are class skills for your "poor, poor" monk. You move faster than the rogue, and presumably, sneak just as well. You move at half speed while sneaking. Do you see the stealth-cheese here, or do I have to point it out to you more plainly? Just as quiet, just as deadly, much, much faster. Monks make ideal assassians.
Lets talk about unarmed strikes, now. Being able to contribute to the party stark-aked is defnatly nothing but a perk. Not only does it allow you nifty VoP without too much of a penalty, it also means that you're always at full strength. Always. If you're not one for the VoP, then get yourselfed inked. Try to convince your DM to let you enchant your unarmed strikes with nifty tatoos, or dip into Kensai to magic yourself up.

Is he an optimal God-thing? No, the monk isn't an opitmal God-thing, but he can be fun! Thats right, fun! Remember that? the whole reason you started to play in the first place?

I like monks, almost as much as I like Rogues. They're awesome.

[Arbitrarity]

One useful trick for optimizing monks is the ROTD? spell "Greater Mighty Wallop".

At 16'th level, you can now have monks (with monk's belt, or superior unarmed strike), along with a wizard using a 3'rd level slot, for hrs/level (Which seems like feasible buffing to me) who deals 12d8 (54 average damage)/hit. Grab Snap Kick, for two attacks on a charge or standard attack, for pain :smalltongue:

When you increase size category of damage on 2d10 fists, it becomes messy.

[Zincorium]

Thanatos: Way to handwave/ignore everything that might be a problem.

A monk is worse than a rogue because the rogue has a useful role, that no one else in core can fill without blowing a lot of spell slots, that exists alongside their combat ability.

Monks don't. There is nothing a monk can do, including fight without equipment, that another class cannot do better. This is why monks have a problem.

You also show a poor understanding of VoP's benefits as opposed to drawbacks. Monks, or any non-spellcaster with Vop, generally end up having to ask for spells to be cast on them all the time, and that gets old fast.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Maybe I just see things in a different light.
You may have noticed my severe dislike of casters from the previous post alone.
There are only three (other) classes I see that fight without equipment decently:
Bards who sing.
Clerics who cast spells alot.
and Sorcerors.

I full admit to less-than-full understanding of the Vow of Poverty. Why should you have to ask for a caster to buff you up, anyway? It should be done anyway, quickly, and when needed. No asking required. Stupid greedy casters.

[Azerian Kelimon]

Oi, just cut the monk defense now. Everyone here knows monks suck via mathematical evidence, and defending them only makes you look sucky yourself. For your own good, I'd recommend you stop now, before you generate a gigantic flamewar. We all know how this ends.

[MeklorIlavator]

Maybe I just see things in a different light.
You may have noticed my severe dislike of casters from the previous post alone.
There are only three (other) classes I see that fight without equipment decently:
Bards who sing.
Clerics who cast spells alot.
and Sorcerors.

I full admit to less-than-full understanding of the Vow of Poverty. Why should you have to ask for a caster to buff you up, anyway? It should be done anyway, quickly, and when needed. No asking required. Stupid greedy casters.
Add Druid to that list and you would be closer.

And as for giving buff spells, most monk arguments seem to assume at least 1/3 of the casters spells go toward you, so its more like greedy, greedy monks.


And how does weapon finesse cut down their Mad? They still need Str for damage. So now instead of high Str, Mid Dex, High Wis, High Con, Mid Int, and Low Cha we have Mid Str, High Dex, High Wis, Mid Int, Low Cha. NOt that much of a change there.

[Arbitrarity]

Lessee, long terms buffs my monks want...

GMF, permanent, or 1/day. Or GMW. I can buy a pearl of power, as the spell is good for animal companion/wildshape, or GMW for anyone using weapons. No cost to casters, really.

Greater Mighty Wallop, 3rd level spell, 1/day. Pearl of power won't help, but when it's really useful, I hope you can share 1 slot per day. After all, doesn't the Warblade get your GMW? +43 average damage/hit > +5 to hit/damage.

[Zincorium]

Thanatos, a druid will usually devastate a monk in one-on-one combat, without a single piece of gear, due to wildshape, very powerful personal buffs, and their animal companion. Add to that the fact that druids are incredibly useful in utility roles, especially but not only in natural settings, and can heal almost as well as clerics, and the fact that a druid wins in combat becomes just the icing on a very delicious cake.

What VoP means for the other people in the party is that the monk, outside of a few racial abilities, has absolutely no means of flying, longe range teleporting, going ethereal, and many other situations that adventurers typically encounter. They also can't buy their own healing potions.

A monk with equipment, on the other hand, can satisfy many of these needs on their own, and still have the full combat prowess of a monk who has taken vow of poverty. It also opens up Arbitrary's option of lending them a pearl of power you bought to make up for the spell slot, which is just good for everyone all around.

Lastly, you're assuming that the casters are of the same mind that you are, I.E. the spells they have are better spent on buffing you. They may disagree, and there are certainly many good reasons for them to do so... like a barbarian or ranger in the party that gives more bang for the buck.

Lastly, dumping strength to use weapon finesse (which, since you can't take it until level 3, means you suck even worse than normal the first two levels) also means your damage goes down. And while the dice you use for damage might be fairly large, if you don't have anything added onto it, it generally sucks pretty bad. Monks need strength.

[Frosty]

Not to mention, Druids can use Vow of Poverty as well.

[Indon]

Oi, just cut the monk defense now. Everyone here knows monks suck via mathematical evidence, and defending them only makes you look sucky yourself. For your own good, I'd recommend you stop now, before you generate a gigantic flamewar. We all know how this ends.

Well, everyone here knows Monks are weaker than casters and harder to optimize than most noncasters. Many people here think that monks suck because of that.

And Intuitive Attack (Book of Exalted Deeds, Add wis to attack instead of str, req's +1 BAB) is better for a monk than Weapon Finesse is.

[quiet1mi]

thank you all who have contributed to the conversation i greatly appreciate it...
from what i gather is while monks are a fun class for a RP gamer... to a power gamer you are being left behind in your ability to contribute

and of course my favorite part of this discussion...


I'd like to point out Monks are good at one thing.

They make excellent prostitutes. Immune to Disease and Flurry of Blows, anyone? :smallamused:

[Reel On, Love]

thank you all who have contributed to the conversation i greatly appreciate it...
from what i gather is while monks are a fun class for a RP gamer... to a power gamer you are being left behind in your ability to contribute

and of course my favorite part of this discussion...

How are monks "a fun class for a RP gamer"? Monks are not inherently more roleplayable than any other class. In fact, if anything, they're more stereotyped, and the alignment restriction means you have leeway.

[Rutee]

Wouldn't every class be fun for an RP Gamer? I don't think he means they're more fun, just fun.

[Thanatos 51-50]

I forgot druids.
I forgot druids even existed, due to me never having the slightist desire to play one.

I'll repeat this:
I'm not a fan of magic, I am am a fan of under-optimized characters. Really, I love playing under-optimized characters, they're fun in an odd way.
I tend not to think of buffs except in "need to fly" situations. Magic, spells, and such have always been never-use-unless-absolutely-nessecary to me. Even playing videogames (re: I use the ADEPT in Mass Effect as a gunslinger. The only point where I use skills in such games are when they're presented as alternative attacks, not magic <IE: "Thats alot of mooks, I'm going to use that one sweeping crowd control attack I picked up last level">)

I'm also temporaily detached from my books - so I couldn't look up alternatives to Weapon Finesse nor the specifics of VoP.

[Zincorium]

Thanatos... WTF.

Characters being fun has little to nothing to do with optimization except in terms of options and survivability. If you have no options, the game becomes boring. If you don't have survivability, you don't get to play your character anymore.

If you actually can't or don't have fun with optimized characters, that isn't a good thing. It's bad. It means that if a group is optimized, and have to deal with very dangerous challenges, then someone is going to have less fun no matter what you do.

Being unable to have fun because of a character's mechanics is never, ever good. It doesn't matter whether you can't deal with the top or can't deal with the bottom.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Thanatos... WTF.

Characters being fun has little to nothing to do with optimization except in terms of options and survivability. If you have no options, the game becomes boring. If you don't have survivability, you don't get to play your character anymore.

If you actually can't or don't have fun with optimized characters, that isn't a good thing. It's bad. It means that if a group is optimized, and have to deal with very dangerous challenges, then someone is going to have less fun no matter what you do.

Being unable to have fun because of a character's mechanics is never, ever good. It doesn't matter whether you can't deal with the top or can't deal with the bottom.


I like my fantasy gritty. :smallamused:

[Mojo_Rat]

In general theres nothing wrong with Monks they are a fun class to play with lots of abilities. The problem Ultimately is power shift in the game and optimization.

No one in our group really optimizes and as a result Monks have ben active and Fun. We have a level 10 half-orc monk with a grappling theme whos doing 2d6+1d12+6 once he gets the pin which against alot of things so far has been pretty quickly though it wont work on everything.

Its never been a real issue.

[lord_khaine]

Oi, just cut the monk defense now. Everyone here knows monks suck via mathematical evidence, and defending them only makes you look sucky yourself. For your own good, I'd recommend you stop now, before you generate a gigantic flamewar. We all know how this ends.

nothing has been proven mathematicaly yet, there has just been a lot of arguing about this point, that has not been settled in any way yet.

[MeklorIlavator]

I like my fantasy gritty. :smallamused:

The above statement makes no sense. What is gritty about being suboptimal on purpose? Plus, what specific part about Zincorium is non-gritty? Please, if you must quote someone, make your response at least somewhat related to what you're quoting.

[horseboy]

I like my fantasy gritty. :smallamused:
Then why are you playing D&D? :smallconfused:

[tyckspoon]

I like my fantasy gritty. :smallamused:

Where's my dead horse whip.. oh, here we go.

D&D ain't the game for you, d00d.

[Indon]

The above statement makes no sense. What is gritty about being suboptimal on purpose?

I think he might mean dangerous - compare the number of times Gandalf's life was in danger versus Frodo, for instance. Or, heck, even Bilbo.

Low-power adventuring is entirely possible in D&D, and the Monk is among the many classes that fits into it (alongside most of the other noncasters, and one or two of the Tome of Magic casters).

[MeklorIlavator]

I think he might mean dangerous - compare the number of times Gandalf's life was in danger versus Frodo, for instance. Or, heck, even Bilbo.

Low-power adventuring is entirely possible in D&D, and the Monk is among the many classes that fits into it (alongside most of the other noncasters, and one or two of the Tome of Magic casters).

If what you want is dangerous, just use stronger enemies. To use your example, Gandalf was challenged by the Witch King and the Balorg, and the only reason we didn't see more enemies on this level is that the rest of the party would have died pretty much instantly against them.

[Chronicled]

I like my fantasy gritty. :smallamused:

I think you mean to say "I like my characters ineffective."

And hey, if that's the case, the monk ought to fit you perfectly.

[dman11235]

I'd like to point out that my nearly unkillable build was 28 PB. Yeah. Also focused on strength. Gotta love con 34 at 20. Build was a mongrelfolk monk 3/barbarian 2/Fist of the Forest (auto-makes the monk viable again!) 3/Bear Warrior 5/Warshaper 4/something with mettle (I used Witchslayer because vancian casting was disallowed for the campaign).

And as for the people claiming that we think the monk is underpowered because they don't stack up to full casters: No, that's not why. At least, that's not why I view them as underpowered. They are less powerful than a barbarian or a ranger (ranger is one of the most balanced classes in 3.5). It's a little less powerful than the fighter. It's a poorly designed class, with no real reason to take it past level 7 (monk's belt+SUS+Monk's Tattoo+monk 7=level 20 for damage), and little reason to take it past 2 (evasion). A strictly better build than monk 20 is monk 2/psychic warrior 20 with Tashalatora. The abilities tend to work against each other (FoB and fast movement?). They are fluff an item independent class, but crunch you need to buy lotsa stuff to make yourself viable, especially in the AC department and attack department. At level 20 unless you do something big to your damage out put you will be well behind any other melee combatant (yes, even with 4d8 with INA: that's an average of 18, while the barbarian doing 2d6+25 is doing, well, 25+some. And he has magic weapon enhancements, you don't).

If you manage to do something big to your damage and AC, you are likely not straight monk anymore. FotF is the best PrC for monks, other than possibly Shiba Protector and Psychic Warrior with Tashalatora. FotF increases you AC by a lot, and gives you a nice damage boost over 3 levels. Shiba Protector gives you wis to attack and damage. In addition to your normal stuff. PsyWar gives you a lot of powers and some bonus feats. Powers that can greatly increase atack, damage, and AC, which are the main point at which the monk is lacking.

[Chronicled]

PsyWar gives you a lot of powers and some bonus feats. Powers that can greatly increase atack, damage, and AC, which are the main point at which the monk is lacking.

Most of the time, going straight Psychic Warrior is the far better option.

Psychic Fist is also a good monk PrC, as (similar to multiclassing psychic warrior) it supplies power points and useful abilities.

[Sir Giacomo]

A monk is worse than a rogue because the rogue has a useful role, that no one else in core can fill without blowing a lot of spell slots, that exists alongside their combat ability.

Monks don't. There is nothing a monk can do, including fight without equipment, that another class cannot do better. This is why monks have a problem.


Monk in core having no role? This catches my attention...:smallsmile:

Letussee...what does the monk do best, unchallenged, in core?

- Grappling (what they lack in BAB, they more than make up via higher damage, more attacks, and broadly more options in grapple like stunning fist, quivering palm. At the higher levels where BAB difference matters more, monks can get access to divine power effects). For similar reasons, they are the best at unarmed fighting in general.
- moving (their movement bonus eventually puts them ahead of all others, since they can also get flying magic via items)
- scouting (like the rogue and ranger, they get the great combo of spot/listen/move silently/hide as class skills. Combined with the higher movement, this makes them the best scout for fast missions or incognito missions at high levels where magic concealment can be detected and seen through easily. They do not even need a disguise skill to remain unsuspicious)

Funnily enough, the PHB in the role description also seems to lean towards this direction with the following text...(italics emphasis mine)
PHB, p. 40:"Role: The monk functions best as an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into andout of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees. She also makes an excellent scout, particularly if shefocuses her skill selection on stealth."
And also right in the beginning of the monk section:
p. 39: "They train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor.[...] Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators and assassins."

So, to summarise, what roles does the PHB suggest?
Opportunistic combatant,
scout,
unarmed&unarmoured warriors,
spies,
and assassins.

Do the above three areas where they excel contribute to these roles? Yes. (note that a monk could make an excellent "James Bond meets Fantasy" spy via adding diplomacy to his stealth skills raised. Note also that this does not even include the typical maxing idea to make a monk a magehunter in core, since that is more campaign-specific).
Their class abilities even give them great entry potential into prestige classes that reinforce these roles:
assassin, shadowdancer, blackguard, dragon disciple (via a level dip in assassin) and even arcane archer (if an elf, via assassin level dip).

Frankly, I do not see any problems here for enjoying to play monks and having them keep up technically with the other classes, from level 1 - in a core game.
Beyond core, it massively depends on what supplements are used.

- Giacomo

[Nebo_]

Monk in core having no role? This catches my attention...:smallsmile:

Letussee...what does the monk do best, unchallenged, in core?

- Grappling (what they lack in BAB, they more than make up via higher damage, more attacks, and broadly more options in grapple like stunning fist, quivering palm. At the higher levels where BAB difference matters more, monks can get access to divine power effects). For similar reasons, they are the best at unarmed fighting in general.
- moving (their movement bonus eventually puts them ahead of all others, since they can also get flying magic via items)
- scouting (like the rogue and ranger, they get the great combo of spot/listen/move silently/hide as class skills. Combined with the higher movement, this makes them the best scout for fast missions or incognito missions at high levels where magic concealment can be detected and seen through easily. They do not even need a disguise skill to remain unsuspicious)

Funnily enough, the PHB in the role description also seems to lean towards this direction with the following text...(italics emphasis mine)
PHB, p. 40:"Role: The monk functions best as an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into andout of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees. She also makes an excellent scout, particularly if shefocuses her skill selection on stealth."
And also right in the beginning of the monk section:
p. 39: "They train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor.[...] Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators and assassins."

So, to summarise, what roles does the PHB suggest?
Opportunistic combatant,
scout,
unarmed&unarmoured warriors,
spies,
and assassins.

Do the above three areas where they excel contribute to these roles? Yes. (note that a monk could make an excellent "James Bond meets Fantasy" spy via adding diplomacy to his stealth skills raised. Note also that this does not even include the typical maxing idea to make a monk a magehunter in core, since that is more campaign-specific).
Their class abilities even give them great entry potential into prestige classes that reinforce these roles:
assassin, shadowdancer, blackguard, dragon disciple (via a level dip in assassin) and even arcane archer (if an elf, via assassin level dip).

Frankly, I do not see any problems here for enjoying to play monks and having them keep up technically with the other classes, from level 1 - in a core game.
Beyond core, it massively depends on what supplements are used.

- Giacomo

I won't try to convince you otherwise, because you seem to be one of those people who will fight to the bitter end long after it's clear that you're wrong, but in case anyone gets the wrong idea monks aren't actually good any of these roles, they are merely adequate, at best.

[Sir Giacomo]

...but, you may say, these roles could maybe in core also be fulfilled by other classes, say the rogue or ranger (OK, probably excepting the unarmed/unarmoured fighting part).

Since these classes are the closest to the monk (due to similar stealth skill choices), let us do a short class comparison.

First, the directlycomparable basics that are up in the game permanently.
BAB
1. Ranger, 2. Monk & Rogue
No. of attacks
1. Monk (flurry), 2. Ranger (BAB) 3. Rogue
Damage per attack
see below (too complicated to compare directly)
Hps
1. Ranger & Monk, 2. Rogue
AC
1. Monk 2. Ranger & Rogue (it is close, but the monk's AC bonus stacks with a mage armour effect, while ranger and rogue are stuck forever with a mithral medium armour bonus at best)
Skills (no. of points and skill range)
1. Rogue 2. Ranger 3. Monk
Base saves
1. Monk 2. Ranger 3. Rogue
Move
1. Monk 2. Ranger (has spells to enhance movement, but only slightly ahead of Rogue) 3. Rogue
No. of bonus feats
1. Ranger (8) 2. Rogue (6) 3. Monk (5) (note that ranger and monk have limited choices only, but they receive the extra feats quite early in their career. Martial weapon proficiency, light armour proficiency and shield proficiency count as 1 bonus feat each)

Now, an interim result before delving into the highly class-speficic abilities of the three core classes.

Ranger:3 1st, 5 2nd
Rogue: 1 1st, 5 2nd, 1 3rd
Monk: 5 1st, 2 3rd

This looks like a broadly balanced picture, although the rogue is lagging somewhat the shine apart from skills. Still, this assumes the same weight of importance (for instance, 2 AC advantage may be not enough to equal 4 less skill points per level for the monk vs the rogue). But let us continue...

Special abilities in excess of the above:
All three classes get evasion (ranger much later than monk and rogue, but that should not matter much)

Apart from this:
Ranger: Favoured enemy (5 total), Animal Companion (at half druid level), Woodland stride, Swift tracker, camouflage, hide in plain sight. Plus, of course, Ranger spells.

Rogue: sneak attack, trapfinding, uncanny dodge, improved uncanny dodge (and potentially up to four special abilities taken instead of bonus feats above, putting him behind the monk then: crippling strike, defensive roll, improved evasion , opportunist, skill mastery, slippery mind)

Monk: still mind, ki strike (magic, lawful, adamantine), slow fall, purity of body (immune to diseases), wholeness of body (heal 2x level as hp/day), improved evasion, diamond body (immunity to disease), abundant step (dim door 1/day), diamond soul (spell resistance), quivering palm, timeless body (no ageing penalties), tongues, etheral jaunt (level rounds/day), perfect self.

Again, the rogue is somewhat lacking in my eyes - but all of these abilities of the three classes are so disparate, that they are hard to compare. These abilities APPEAR to push the classes towards the following stealth variants:
- ranger: stealthy with missiles and outdoors
- rogue: stealthy based in cities and vs traps and in melee
- monk: stealthy in melee and vs magic-wielding foes

The damage output, then, is fairly similar.
Ranger: favoured enemy damage is added to missile attacks (whose number can be quite high)
Rogue: sneak damage is added in most instances to otherwise meagere weapon damage
Monk: damage die progression of unarmed attacks with larger size and improved natural attack feat can push damage quite high (per flurried attacks)

Why then the hate for monks?

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

I won't try to convince you otherwise, because you seem to be one of those people who will fight to the bitter end long after it's clear that you're wrong, but in case anyone gets the wrong idea monks aren't actually good any of these roles, they are merely adequate, at best.

Yes, I get a lot of these kind of answers, but none actually proving the "long after it's clear" bit. Which is a bit frustrating.

- Giacomo

EDIT: you may start by pointing out to me where it gets clear from the special abilities I listed above that the monk is completely inferior to ranger or rogue

[Nebo_]

Why then the hate for monks?

I don't hate monks, I actually like the whole premise, but they just aren't very good.

I looked at the comparison of the AC, Saves, Attacks, movement speed etc. and that looked ok. Then I got to the section where you clumped all the class features together. Monk class features look nice on paper, but when you put them in play, they really aren't that useful or cohesive. I've played a monk in a game where none of the other characters were optimised and it still sucked.

Like I said, I'm not trying to convince you that monks aren't good because I know you love them so. If you don't know exactly what you're doing with a monk and optimising it quite a bit, you will fall behind.


Yes, I get a lot of these kind of answers, but none actually proving the "long after it's clear" bit. Which is a bit frustrating.

Clearly, you have a different idea as to what is good to most other people. What you might consider a useful party member, another person will consider a dead weight. It depends on the level of optimisation in a game, but in general monks are on the weak side.

[Anukuta]

IMO Monks are Mid to End level classes and are severely underpowered in the lower 10 levels.

One player (although experienced at playing) couldn't get anything done with the bald-headed hero (leveled around 1-5). In an other campaign, the other player kept his reigns on the monk throughout the whole story(and self-suckiness) and got him up to level 12. He progressively climbed over our main fighter (Samurai. Obviously this was an oriental type-campaign).
---
In terms of sheer maneuverability, strength and damage dealing. The monk is frankly impressive since it doesn't rely on gear at all to do do anything it does. In situations where you are captured and/or you magic is somehow meddled (creatures with high SR for example), the Monk can really plow through and shine on it's own.
---
Since gear gives it more penalties than help, it doens't have the added protection or help that most other classes completely depend on and build up on as they level.You really have to deal and survive through the fact that at lower levels it's underpowered.

I personally wouldn't start any lower level campaign as a monk, it'd just be a HUGE pain to play as one (no points in the self-gratify department). But if you start anything close to lvl 10 or more, it's highly playable and gets much more interesting as it levels.

[Sir Giacomo]

Then take a look at the rogue. Its major special ability, sneak attack, is there to actually be able to keep up with monk and ranger in combat (including damage output).

This leaves the rest of fairly meagre special abilities to compare vs the monk's many abilities. To be fair, let us say that the 4 more skill points and better skill range (including that skill gem, UMD) should be included here. This then would balance it out - but conclude from it that these skill points and a bit of trap sense and uncanny dodge trump the monk's many extra abilities? This does not make much sense to me.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

IMO Monks are Mid to End level classes and are severely underpowered in the lower 10 levels.


In a way, this is also my impression - although I would not say that monks are underpowered in the lower 10 levels. Their power curve is rising similar to spellcasters at the higher levels (if not by as much, balanced by their higher resilience at lower levels).

In the low levels, monk can contribute quite well in combat with grappling, until the freedom of movement spell can turn up more and more from levels 7.

- Giacomo

[dman11235]

Monks in core (not counting the XPH for those who do) try but fail to fill the 5th man slot. They try to be versatile combatants and scouts. However, they only have medium BAB added in with heavy MAD and contradictory abilities (FoB and fast movement). Also, they don't have the skills to be a scout. If you put points into int (enough to be an effective scout) you will fail at wis, dex, and con. You need at least 6 skills maxed for effective scouting: hide/MS, listen/spot (that's the monk's 4), and then the basic skills you need to work (tumble for this type of combatant, sense motive, etc.), which you can get down to 2 if you really tried. This compounds the problem of attack bonus. Now, if you say it's fine to have a lower attack bonus, well, good for you. I personally like hitting. Because of your MAD, you are likely going to have a lower attack bonus than a rogue of your level. A TWF rogue of your level. And the rogue does far more damage than you with each hit. But that's not a fair comparison, since the rogue isn't really a 5th man slot class, it's a skillmonkey class. 5th man slot classes are druid, ranger, monk, and bard in core. You can add in the other three casters if you have non-core as well. Of those four, the monk is by far the worst at it. Bards do more damage through Inspire Courage and thus can do more damage themselves, especially with spells, and have a bigger and better skill selection, and many more points/level as they can afford to put points into int. And they can fill the scout role. Ranger: by far better scouts. Bigger and better skill selection, and actually has enough skill points to support the role and do what scouts typically do on the side. Also they are better combatants, dealing more damage or better damage. By this I mean they have a much higher attack bonus and weapon enhancement like wounding mean that even an archer at least matches the monk's per hit damage, if not exceeds it. Druids: They're druids. Need I say more?

As for grappling, they are not good at it. Medium BAB hurts it, and who cares if you do a good amount of damage if you can't hit and succeed on the grapple checks? Also, a fighter even in core only can do a better job: IUS, Imp Grap, wp focus chain. Done. He has a much higher chance at grappling and does similar damage. The fact that he can afford to put points into str mean a lot. The monk can't.

If you bring in non-core it's all over. And then non-core options that are actually good for a monk divert them away from the 5th man slot and more towards the front liner slot. Not a tank slot mind you, a damage slot. He doesn't qualify for a tank unless he can force others to attack him in some way.

[Chronicled]

IMO Monks are Mid to End level classes and are severely underpowered in the lower 10 levels.

One player (although experienced at playing) couldn't get anything done with the bald-headed hero (leveled around 1-5). In an other campaign, the other player kept his reigns on the monk throughout the whole story(and self-suckiness) and got him up to level 12. He progressively climbed over our main fighter (Samurai. Obviously this was an oriental type-campaign).

:smallamused: Wow. The monk prevailed over what is widely considered to be the worst class ever printed by WotC. (Only the Soulknife can come close to being as bad as the Samurai. But guess who usually comes next? It starts with "M" and ends with "onk.")


In terms of sheer maneuverability, strength and damage dealing. The monk is frankly impressive since it doesn't rely on gear at all to do do anything it does. In situations where you are captured and/or you magic is somehow meddled (creatures with high SR for example), the Monk can really plow through and shine on it's own.

Since gear gives it more penalties than help, it doens't have the added protection or help that most other classes completely depend on and build up on as they level.You really have to deal and survive through the fact that at lower levels it's underpowered.

If you read through the threads where monk power has been discussed (and I recommend not doing it, they're a real pain), monks have been shown to be extremely gear dependant to be effective at all. Gear doesn't penalize a monk; certain types of gear aren't usable, but monks need things like flight, stat/armor/attack/damage boosters, and the like even more than many other classes.


I personally wouldn't start any lower level campaign as a monk, it'd just be a HUGE pain to play as one (no points in the self-gratify department). But if you start anything close to lvl 10 or more, it's highly playable and gets much more interesting as it levels.

All non-spellcasters get less playable compared to casters as the game progresses. The monk especially.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi dman11235,

I'll answer only the more concrete points you made, not to the opinion that you based them on. By proving these concrete points wrong, I hope you will see more potential in the monk.


Also, they don't have the skills to be a scout. If you put points into int (enough to be an effective scout) you will fail at wis, dex, and con. You need at least 6 skills maxed for effective scouting: hide/MS, listen/spot (that's the monk's 4), and then the basic skills you need to work (tumble for this type of combatant, sense motive, etc.), which you can get down to 2 if you really tried.

Why again do you need sense motive as a scout? And if you want to have tumble and have no INT bonus, just take the human race.


Because of your MAD, you are likely going to have a lower attack bonus than a rogue of your level. A TWF rogue of your level.

A TWF rogue of that level will need a by 4 higher stat in either STR or DEX to equal the eventually no-penalty flurry of a monk. I somehow do not think that likely.


And the rogue does far more damage than you with each hit.

No. The rogue will not always be able to add sneak damage to all attacks, while the monk by 11th level (when the rogue adds 6d6) with a monk's belt, improved natural attack and enlarged will do 4d8 base damage per hit, possibly adding stunned fist effects with it (that actually can help the rogue hit more often with sneak). And VERY likely the STR damage added to the monk's hits will be higher than the rogue's.


But that's not a fair comparison, since the rogue isn't really a 5th man slot class, it's a skillmonkey class.

These "5th man slot" notions are not really useful imo. You might say that the monk belongs to those classes meant as varying themes of the wizard/rogue/fighter/cleric original DD quartet.


Bards do more damage through Inspire Courage and thus can do more damage themselves, especially with spells, and have a bigger and better skill selection, and many more points/level as they can afford to put points into int. And they can fill the scout role.

Bards are great, but not at equaling the ranger/rogue/monk in damage output by themselves (though they raise the group's output considerably). They do not have spot as class skill, so they are somewhat lacking as scouts (though they can make up for it with spells).


Ranger: by far better scouts. Bigger and better skill selection, and actually has enough skill points to support the role and do what scouts typically do on the side.

Like sense motive you suggested? (which rangers do not get as class skill :smallsmile: )


Also they are better combatants, dealing more damage or better damage. By this I mean they have a much higher attack bonus and weapon enhancement like wounding mean that even an archer at least matches the monk's per hit damage, if not exceeds it.

Monks also can get enhancement bonuses on their fists (since they count as manufactured weapons), get gauntlets doing their unarmed damage for special weapon enhancements like wounding - which happens to be one enhancement rangers cannot get for their bows.


As for grappling, they are not good at it. Medium BAB hurts it, and who cares if you do a good amount of damage if you can't hit and succeed on the grapple checks? Also, a fighter even in core only can do a better job: IUS, Imp Grap, wp focus chain. Done. He has a much higher chance at grappling and does similar damage. The fact that he can afford to put points into str mean a lot. The monk can't.

A monk can put as much into STR as he likes. And will suffer the same as the fighter for neglecting other stats.
The fighter, meanwhile, might wish to sink two feats into improved grappling (weapon focus will not help him here). But he will always be behind the monk in terms of damage output in the grapple, as well as no. of grappling attempts.
And as soon as the monk gets access to divine power effects at higher levels, the BAB advantage of the fighter is gone completely.


If you bring in non-core it's all over. And then non-core options that are actually good for a monk divert them away from the 5th man slot and more towards the front liner slot. Not a tank slot mind you, a damage slot. He doesn't qualify for a tank unless he can force others to attack him in some way.

Non-core it's too complicated I daresay to put into question any class (except maybe the samurai class from CW...:smallamused: )

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

If you read through the threads where monk power has been discussed (and I recommend not doing it, they're a real pain), monks have been shown to be extremely gear dependant to be effective at all.

Please. Prove it yourself. That would be something I'd like to see.

Allow me to give the proof for the opposite for a start. Items other classes need to equal the 24/7 special defenses, plus extraordinary/special abilities of the monk:
- items to jack up saves (including +2 vs enhancement spells)
- items to provide immunity to disease and poison
- items to provide spell resistance
- items to provide dimension door ability 1/day
- items to provide ability to go etheral
- items to give you 24/7 tongues
- items to give you some cushion vs falls
- items to give you bonus to touch AC
- items to heal yourself

Can't think of any more right now.


Gear doesn't penalize a monk; certain types of gear aren't usable, but monks need things like flight, stat/armor/attack/damage boosters, and the like even more than many other classes.


Why exacly does a monk need flying items more than a fighter? Or stat boosters more than a barbarian?*

- Giacomo

*EDIT: ah, noticed a potential reason: the bow proficiency of fighter and barbarian are superior here. Still, the monk could simply also get it (or be an elf) to use missile attacks

[Chronicled]

A monk can put as much into STR as he likes. And will suffer the same as the fighter for neglecting other stats.
The fighter, meanwhile, might wish to sink two feats into improved grappling (weapon focus will not help him here). But he will always be behind the monk in terms of damage output in the grapple, as well as no. of grappling attempts.
And as soon as the monk gets access to divine power effects at higher levels, the BAB advantage of the fighter is gone completely.

A fighter doesn't suffer from heavily pumping Str. A monk needs 1 additional stat (Wis), better Con (to make up for the d8 HD), and better Dex (to make up for no heavy armor).

Why would a fighter want improved grappling? Grappling tends to be a weak option, more and more so as levels progress.

And how is the monk getting divine power "effects?" Please tell me this isn't a Giamonk UMD/Diplomacy/cheese build. Because when the fighter gets Righteous Might effects (UMD fighter), he'll be outperforming the monk there too.


Please. Prove it yourself. That would be something I'd like to see.

Allow me to give the proof for the opposite for a start. Items other classes need to equal the 24/7 special defenses, plus extraordinary/special abilities of the monk:
- items to jack up saves (including +2 vs enhancement spells)
- items to provide immunity to disease and poison
- items to provide spell resistance
- items to provide dimension door ability 1/day
- items to provide ability to go etheral
- items to give you 24/7 tongues
- items to give you some cushion vs falls
- items to give you bonus to touch AC
- items to heal yourself

Can't think of any more right now.

Most of those abilities are superfluous for effectiveness. Does a fighter need a 24/7 tongues item? No.

From that, what every class needs: save boosters, touch AC. Spell resistance is very nice defensively. Healing is not required for every class, especially if self-only and at a low amount. Disease and poisons can be handled with good saves... or a cleric's spells. Travel/escape abilities can be given in any number of ways.


Why exacly does a monk need flying items more than a fighter? Or stat boosters more than a barbarian?*

*EDIT: ah, noticed a potential reason: the bow proficiency of fighter and barbarian are superior here. Still, the monk could simply also get it (or be an elf) to use missile attacks

My reasoning for the flight comment is that with melee damage as its primary offense, the copious amounts of flying enemies, and the inability to cast spells, the monk needs flying items more than a wizard/sorcerer/archery ranger/cleric/druid/bard/paladin (due to mount). That constitutes "many" classes. (Shall we keep it core this time around? I don't mind either way.)

Stat boosters are needed more as a monk has more MAD than other classes.

[Anukuta]

All of the monks damage and abilities are completely and utterly unreliant on gear.

If you stripped (naked) any level monk and any level of any other class. The monk would almost invariably win (I say almost because I've considered the Shifter druid in the soupe).

All other classes are gear dependant (spell component or otherwise) and the monk's abilities center have the best saves, resistance and evasive abilities of all classes. They also have no need for any material objects to deal any of their damage if they wish.

*That* is what makes a monk special.
--------
Although they have a medium attack base, you also have to consider that players playing a monk will most likely take feats or use magical weapons (from the limited list they can use with flurry) to compensate for this. They gain more attacks in their full-attack options with lesser penalties and at lower levels than any other class. All this without having to sacrifice so many of their feats choices to do so.
--------
As soon as you give spell components to that spellcaster, or that magical weapon to the so-and-so martial class it becomes an *if* at lower levels, an *maybe* at the mid-ways and a *probably* in the higher levels that the monk can defeat it with the same gearing-up oppertunity.

I see monks as incredible mage killers at higher levels with their SR, incredible saves, ability to dimension door and become ethereal(passing shields that are not made of force), quivering palm (Fortitude was never a spell-caster's thing) and grabbing abilities... especially with their unarmed attack damage so high.

[Sir Giacomo]

A fighter doesn't suffer from heavily pumping Str. A monk needs 1 additional stat (Wis), better Con (to make up for the d8 HD), and better Dex (to make up for no heavy armor).

Yes, a monk would need that, if he wished to emulate a fighter. But he is not a fighter, he is a monk (see above for the PHB suggested roles).


Why would a fighter want improved grappling? Grappling tends to be a weak option, more and more so as levels progress.

At lower levels, grappling is actualyl quite powerful. At higher levels, vs freedom of movement you can also have countermeasures (AMF comes to mind, but this is expensive). Luckily, at higher levels, a monk can also start to trade full attacks with melee opponents, so grappling is not really needed that much anymore.


And how is the monk getting divine power "effects?" Please tell me this isn't a Giamonk UMD/Diplomacy/cheese build. Because when the fighter gets Righteous Might effects (UMD fighter), he'll be outperforming the monk there too.

Without UMD, a monk can use a ring of spell storing. With UMD, monk and fighter can use the same buffs (inculding rightuous might scrolls), but divine power will not benefit the fighter as much.
And since when exactly is taking a skill cross-class considered "cheese"?:smallamused:

- Giacomo

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

All of the monks damage and abilities are completely and utterly unreliant on gear.

Monks are completely and utterly reliant on gear because without all the various boosts from it, they can't actually hit anything in combat.


If you stripped (naked) any level monk and any level of any other class. The monk would almost invariably win (I say almost because I've considered the Shifter druid in the soupe).

Any Druid of any Race/Any grapple based melee combatant/Any Sorcerer/Any Psion/Any Wizard if he can start with spells prepared-All of these can beat a Monk naked every single time. Plenty of other classes have a good chance.

And just give a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Paladin/Psychic Warrior a single non-Masterwork weapon and add them to the list. Give your Monk 50gp worth of items and see if he can take a Spiked Chain Tripper.


As soon as you give spell components to that spellcaster, or that magical weapon to the so-and-so martial class it becomes an *if* at lower levels, an *maybe* at the mid-ways and a *probably* in the higher levels that the monk can defeat it with the same gearing-up oppertunity.

HAHAHAHA! You are rich. You play a Monk with full WBL, I'll play a Wizard with encounter wealth only. Name a level. See how that goes.


I see monks as incredible mage killers at higher levels with their SR, incredible saves, ability to dimension door and become ethereal(passing shields that are not made of force), quivering palm (Fortitude was never a spell-caster's thing) and grabbing abilities... especially with their unarmed attack damage so high.

I see Monks as incredibly useless at higher levels with their easily overcome SR, lackluster saves in everything but Will, ability to DD and become Ethereal only 1/day, And using Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm with lackluster DCs when everything is already immune to stunning and death effects, Grappling when Freedom of movement and DD are around. Especially when they can't even reach most enemies, can't hit most ACs and have difficulty with some Touch ACs even.

[Talic]

Monk in core having no role? This catches my attention...:smallsmile:

Letussee...what does the monk do best, unchallenged, in core?

- Grappling (what they lack in BAB, they more than make up via higher damage, more attacks, and broadly more options in grapple like stunning fist, quivering palm. At the higher levels where BAB difference matters more, monks can get access to divine power effects). For similar reasons, they are the best at unarmed fighting in general.
Level 1: Orc Barbarian, 22 Strength 14 Dex. VS. Human Monk, 16 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Wis. Grapple mods (assuming both were going for a grapple theme: Barb: 1(bab)+4(feat)+8(str in rage) = 13. Monk: 4(feat) + 3 (Str) = 7. Barb beats monk in grapple around 80% of the time.
Hit bonus: Barb: +9 vs AC 16. Monk: +3 vs AC 12. Edge: Barbarian hits better.
Damage: Barb: 1d3+8 (nonlethal) vs HP 8. Monk: Damage 1d6+3 vs HP 12-14. Note that the monk's MAX damage is equal to the Barb's min damage.
In short, the only thing a monk has is flurry. That's it. At higher levels, every other class has access to the same divine buffs. Difference is, they have better optimization options. The Barb can go for frenzied berzerker/bear warrior, along with buffs.


- moving (their movement bonus eventually puts them ahead of all others, since they can also get flying magic via items)

Look at the barbarian above. At 1st level? Barbs have better movement. By the time monk movement becomes significant, additional movement options make most ground movement less than optimal.


- scouting (like the rogue and ranger, they get the great combo of spot/listen/move silently/hide as class skills. Combined with the higher movement, this makes them the best scout for fast missions or incognito missions at high levels where magic concealment can be detected and seen through easily. They do not even need a disguise skill to remain unsuspicious)
Why yes, they do. "What's that unarmored guy doing in Grushnak's Heavy Cav Regiment?" "What's the guy in robes doing at the Imperial Ball?" "Hey, isn't that the guy that tags along with those heroes who foiled lord Xantar's plans last month?"


Funnily enough, the PHB in the role description also seems to lean towards this direction with the following text...(italics emphasis mine)
PHB, p. 40:"Role: The monk functions best as an opportunistic combatant, using her speed to get into andout of combat quickly rather than engaging in prolonged melees. She also makes an excellent scout, particularly if shefocuses her skill selection on stealth."
And also right in the beginning of the monk section:
p. 39: "They train themselves to be versatile warriors skilled at fighting without weapons or armor.[...] Evil monks make ideal spies, infiltrators and assassins."

So, to summarise, what roles does the PHB suggest?
Opportunistic combatant,
scout,
unarmed&unarmoured warriors,
spies,
and assassins.
Flurry and stand and fight tactics don't hold up in combat. "Opportunistic" means "avoid the tough stuff". Either that or, "Let the fighter handle that one, you go beat up the 9 year old girl". Your call. Monks look for opportunities. The rest of the melee classes MAKE them.


Do the above three areas where they excel contribute to these roles? Yes. (note that a monk could make an excellent "James Bond meets Fantasy" spy via adding diplomacy to his stealth skills raised. Note also that this does not even include the typical maxing idea to make a monk a magehunter in core, since that is more campaign-specific).
Their class abilities even give them great entry potential into prestige classes that reinforce these roles:
assassin, shadowdancer, blackguard, dragon disciple (via a level dip in assassin) and even arcane archer (if an elf, via assassin level dip).
And is still outshined in those areas by the rogue... who isn't really all that MAD. Dex, moderate int and con, or int and Cha, depending on the route you're going. Dragon disciple is easier to enter by any full BAB class + sorceror. As for adding diplomacy? Now we need: dex, some str, wis, int (for all those skills), and cha (for effective diplomacy). That makes Con, oddly enough, the dump stat?


Frankly, I do not see any problems here for enjoying to play monks and having them keep up technically with the other classes, from level 1 - in a core game.And that is because you don't look at the numbers.


Beyond core, it massively depends on what supplements are used.

- Giacomo
Note, the orc build above was entirely core. Orc from MM, Barb from PHb, Imp Grapple from PHb. If ya really want to contest monk grappling effectiveness.. There's an arena in the Play by post forums. Give it a shot. :)

[Thanatos 51-50]

Lets counter your retort a bit:

Monks are completely and utterly reliant on gear because without all the various boosts from it, they can't actually hit anything in combat.
Oh, really? How so? I can't help but look at rogues and note that nobody bemoans their supposed lack of ability to hit thing. They have the same BAB as monks, no?

Any Druid of any Race/Any grapple based melee combatant/Any Sorcerer/Any Psion/Any Wizard if he can start with spells prepared-All of these can beat a Monk naked every single time. Plenty of other classes have a good chance.
"Naked" implies "lacks spell components". Sure, you can go ahead and take the "Eschew Components" feat and NOW your component-hogging casters are able to get their game on. I acknowledge that there are plenty of spells without material components. Low level druids get their backsides handed to them - they can't wildshape yet. Also note that your measly little 1d3 subdual damage (maybe lethal, if you take the feat) isn't going to stand up to a first level monk's 1d6 lethal damage. And we'll ignore that monks take significantly less feats to reach the same level of proficency as a non-Monk.

And just give a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Paladin/Psychic Warrior a single non-Masterwork weapon and add them to the list. Give your Monk 50gp worth of items and see if he can take a Spiked Chain Tripper.
I'm going to let your character have their mundane, non-masterwork weapon and throw them into this hypothetical duel, even though it violates the "stripped naked" policy. But hey, you just gave me 50 gp worth of gear! You know what I'm buying for this one-time encounter with 50 gold? Shurikiens, plenty of them, and maybe a ten-foot pole. The former to give me a thrown weapon you're highly unlikely to use back at me, the latter for acrobatics work to soften you up whilst staying out of reach. If I'm feeling frugal, I'm grabing a (free) quarterstaff, instead.
Oh, lets not forget that you're still not armored.
And this is without mentioning that you're spiked chain tripper only deal 2d4 damage, constantly. My monk's UNARMED damage goes up every level. Its not long before he is matching, and then surpasing you in damage, Hey, he even matches your short-sword master at first level.

HAHAHAHA! You are rich. You play a Monk with full WBL, I'll play a Wizard with encounter wealth only. Name a level. See how that goes. I'm neither framiliar
with WBL nor Encounter wealth, so I'll decline comment

I see Monks as incredibly useless at higher levels with their easily overcome SR, lackluster saves in everything but Will, ability to DD and become Ethereal only 1/day, And using Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm with lackluster DCs when everything is already immune to stunning and death effects, Grappling when Freedom of movement and DD are around. Especially when they can't even reach most enemies, can't hit most ACs and have difficulty with some Touch ACs even.
Human Wizards aren't immune to stunning or death effects without being Schrodenger's Mage. Evil humans are the archtypical BBEG. I like pitting players against human/elf/half-elf/dwarf/halfling/gnome/et. cetera NPCs. Better stories that way. Once a day is enough for our little hypothetical duel encounter above, and useful as a trick to pull out of one's hat when the going gets rough.

[Anukuta]

Monks are completely and utterly reliant on gear because without all the various boosts from it, they can't actually hit anything in combat.

I said 'aren't'.

You're not going to convince me that between a naked monk and a naked fighter. The monk isn't going to pummel that fighter like he was a cream puff.

Of course Monks will use magical items and the such. 'every' class will. When you look at it though, the monk suffers the least from being stripped of items than any other class except perhaps the druid. (That is: being able to damage it's ennemies and/or survive being hit by a monster while wearing no gear)



I see Monks as incredibly useless at higher levels with their easily overcome SR, lackluster saves in everything but Will, ability to DD and become Ethereal only 1/day, And using Stunning Fist and Quivering Palm with lackluster DCs when everything is already immune to stunning and death effects, Grappling when Freedom of movement and DD are around. Especially when they can't even reach most enemies, can't hit most ACs and have difficulty with some Touch ACs even.

I wouldn't think that 30 SR at level 20 is such a bad thing. That would mean a lvl 20 caster would have to roll 10 (50:50 chance) unless they have spell penetration feats. I don't think that's laughable at all.

Didn't I mention that Quivering Palm is a Fortitude save? Oh! YEAH! I forgot Spellcasters are supposed to have such HUGE base fortitude that a Monk shouldn't dream of using their 1/2 their level +10 +Wis mod DC INSTA-death attacks..... against the guy with probably no Constitutional modifiers...

Lackluster saves in anything but will?.... Have you read the monks' saves progression at all?

[Attilargh]

I have one question I must ask you:

Do your games regularly feature fights in the nude?

[Thanatos 51-50]

I have one question I must ask you:

Do your games regularly feature fights in the nude?

Just because I wasn't a Boy Scout doesn't mean my characters can't be!
<Translation for the unware - the Boy Scout's Motto is "Always prepared">


Didn't I mention that Quivering Palm is a Fortitude save? Oh! YEAH! I forgot Spellcasters are supposed to have such HUGE base fortitude that a Monk shouldn't dream of using their 1/2 their level +10 +Wis mod DC INSTA-death attacks..... against the guy with probably no Constitutional modifiers...

Its not JUST a fortitude save, its holding a non-caster's life for ransom!
Also, at lower-levels, its a plausible Bluff Check.

[Anukuta]

I have one question I must ask you:

Do your games regularly feature fights in the nude?

lol

no but there where instances of us getting captured and thrown in dungeons without anything but simple cloths on our backs.

[Sir Giacomo]

And the one by one downshooting of anti-monk comments continues...strange that no-one ever admits of being wrong, they just stop posting...


Level 1: Orc Barbarian, 22 Strength 14 Dex. VS. Human Monk, 16 Str, 16 Dex, 16 Wis. Grapple mods (assuming both were going for a grapple theme: Barb: 1(bab)+4(feat)+8(str in rage) = 13. Monk: 4(feat) + 3 (Str) = 7. Barb beats monk in grapple around 80% of the time.

And this comparison is flawed for several reasons
1) a half-orc barbarian level 1 cannot even get improved grapple (which needs two feats). So a true comparison for grappling would be two half-orcs with identical strength (why the different ability focus here?), one monk, one barbarian each trying to grapple. The monk then not only has a higher grappling mod (by +1, by +3 once the barbarian has used up his rage for the day), but also does higher (at his option lethal/non-lethal) damage and can have double the grapple attempts (being able to pin in one round, which the barbarian cannot do). Monk beats barbarian most of the time.
2) In 2nd level it gets temporarily worse, since the barbarian will likely focus his money on armour and weapon, while the monk can get some enlarge effects (potion or wand).
3) And the barbarian would really have to think twice before taking improved unarmed strike and grapple, since at higher levels these are much less useful to him, because he has so much less damage output with it (he is stuck with 1d3; only if he takes a monk's belt he can get 1d8 base vs the monk's maximum 2d10 base then by level 15).


Hit bonus: Barb: +9 vs AC 16. Monk: +3 vs AC 12. Edge: Barbarian hits better.

Vs touch AC (which is what matters for grapple) yes, but it is not that significant. Barbarian has +1 BAB and STR (1/day boosted with rage), monk has +0 BAB and STR for hitting touch AC. Taking -2 to hit, the monk even has two chances vs the barbarian's one chance. Depends on the opponent.


Damage: Barb: 1d3+8 (nonlethal) vs HP 8. Monk: Damage 1d6+3 vs HP 12-14. Note that the monk's MAX damage is equal to the Barb's min damage.
In short, the only thing a monk has is flurry. That's it.

Over the course of the levels, the barbarian gets a STR boost more often, while the monk gets much higher base damage AND flurry. The barbarian should not try to compete in damage output vs the monk unarmed, because he would lose. Instead, he should get two-handed weapons and use power attack to get higher damage output than the monk.


At higher levels, every other class has access to the same divine buffs. Difference is, they have better optimization options. The Barb can go for frenzied berzerker/bear warrior, along with buffs.

Outside core, maybe there are better prestige classes for barbarian than for them monk, inside core not. And as you said, every class has access to the same divine buffs, only that divine power benefits the 3/4 BAB classes more.


Look at the barbarian above. At 1st level? Barbs have better movement. By the time monk movement becomes significant, additional movement options make most ground movement less than optimal.

Only that the enhancement bonus to move counts for all kinds of movement.


Why yes, they do. "What's that unarmored guy doing in Grushnak's Heavy Cav Regiment?" "What's the guy in robes doing at the Imperial Ball?" "Hey, isn't that the guy that tags along with those heroes who foiled lord Xantar's plans last month?"

Yes- in some cases disguise would be handy. This does not neuter the role of a scout. Maybe the rogue could disguise the monk as a horse (the monk is as fast as one at certain levels)...:smallsmile:
And even IF he is spotted in the instances you named, the monk can move/tumble away faster than a rogue and hide again around the corner.


Flurry and stand and fight tactics don't hold up in combat. "Opportunistic" means "avoid the tough stuff". Either that or, "Let the fighter handle that one, you go beat up the 9 year old girl". Your call. Monks look for opportunities. The rest of the melee classes MAKE them.

How again? Like the funny thing the Chosen_of_Vecna suggested by letting a spiked chain tripping fighter go against a tumbling monk in core?
Anyhow, how a monk contributes compared to a barbarian is currently DMed by you at level 20 in a different thread, so it is interesting you bring this up here.


And is still outshined in those areas by the rogue... who isn't really all that MAD. Dex, moderate int and con, or int and Cha, depending on the route you're going.

The monk is definitely not outshined by the rogue in terms of getting into prestige classes in core.


Dragon disciple is easier to enter by any full BAB class + sorceror.

How again without access to knowledge-arcane and the 1 sorcerer level dip only giving 2 +x skill points?


As for adding diplomacy? Now we need: dex, some str, wis, int (for all those skills), and cha (for effective diplomacy). That makes Con, oddly enough, the dump stat?

Do you need a high ability to raise a class skill, or any skill for that matter? Last time I checked the PHB there were no such restrictions in there. In case the monk player wants to make a James Bond-like Fantasy character, CHR will likely be high. This means other abilities then are lower.


And that is because you don't look at the numbers.

What numbers? I suggest you read again my point-by-point listing of ranger, rogue and monk above.


Note, the orc build above was entirely core. Orc from MM, Barb from PHb, Imp Grapple from PHb. If ya really want to contest monk grappling effectiveness.. There's an arena in the Play by post forums. Give it a shot. :)

There are no better characters in the core game than monks to do grappling. This is a fact, easily verifiable in the rules.

- Giacomo

[Anukuta]

2 attacks. The first with a good chance to hit, the second with a moderate chance to hit and both will do a chunk of damage

or

4 attacks. 3 have a moderate chance to hit and the 4rth has a low chance to hit and will each do 2/3rds of the damage of the afore-mentioned chunk every time they lands.
-----------------------------------------------
Let's say the 'Chunk' is the nice odd number 3.
Don't you think 4x possible 2s are better than 2x possible 3s?
Consider also that you have twice as many chances of getting a critical with 4 attacks than 2 attacks.

Luck is the factor here. And we can't possibly calculate it's implications.

What are your opinions on this? Better to have more attacks with 'slightly less' chances to hit than normal (normal being; Fighter or Barbarian normal). Or less attacks with 'normal chances' of hitting?

[Sir Giacomo]

What are your opinions on this? Better to have more attacks with 'slightly less' chances to hit than normal (normal being; Fighter or Barbarian normal). Or less attacks with 'normal chances' of hitting?

Normally, having a higher to hit bonus is better than having more attacks, since there usually are not that many opportunities to do full attacks in the game.
To do full attacks more often in core, try the following:
1) use missile attacks
2) use reach (magic and/or with weapons)
3) use pounce (via morphing possibilities, considered by some as akin to a milk-based product)
4) use a mount (and let it do the moving)

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Odd, Giamoco has said something I agree with.

This is unlikely to continue.

[Zincorium]

Giacomo, it's not surprising that people stop posting. After a while, the walls of text, the utterly alien priorities and assumptions you and several other people make (yay! I'm better because I can fight naked!) just drive people nuts.

The rogue comparison should be clearly apples and oranges- the monk cannot replace a rogue. Can the rogue replace the monk? Possibly, but there's no need to, the rogue has a clear out of combat role and any in-combat ability is a bonus. A rogue who can conceal their armor (celestial chain is really nice for this) or wear bracers is more capable than a monk in any social encounter without gimping himself for combat, and a bard just blows anyone else out of the water in that arena.

Secondly, the only reasons the monk could be considered good in a grapple is the fact that they get improved grapple as a bonus feat and they have higher dice, although often not higher average damage, in a grapple. They have no other inbuilt advantage.

One of these advantages can be duplicated by anyone with two feats to spend (like fighters), and the monk has no further feat to take to continue the imbalance, and the other is reliant on successfully grappling in the first place.

However, the BAB differential cannot be made up, nor can the monk put points and resources into strength at the cost of everything else. A fighter can. A wisdom/int/cha of 8, dex of 12, con of 14, and a pumped strength score is perfectly reasonable for a fighter, but a monk with those scores is at a severe disadvantage. Add in the barbarian class and rage, there's no question about who can get strength the highest with a playable character. Notice that this strength also applies to damage.

@Anukuta:

The 'thrown naked into a dungeon' is such a cliche, hackneyed, and downright bad storytelling device you should seriously be ashamed for using it past your first 6 months of the game or the age of 12, whichever comes first.

Furthermore, it's entirely artificial. If I run a game where all of the monsters do damage to people hitting them with unarmed strikes (there are several in the MM), thus crippling the monk even more than usual, does that prove something? The two situations are the same degree of meaningful.

A monk, without ability enhancements, bracers of armor, and all the other niceties (your fortitude save is probably a weak point, even if it's a 'good' save) is at a huge disadvantage compared to anyone else with gear, including another monk. The only class which can reliably operate with 0 magic items, and is now overpowered because they don't have to, is druid. That's because wildshape was made powerful enough to compensate for it's lack.

[Chronicled]

And the one by one downshooting of anti-monk comments continues...strange that no-one ever admits of being wrong, they just stop posting...

Strange that some of us have other things to do in life other than sit on this thread and spout fallacious comments? Or strange that it gets tiring to post about how mechanics actually work in D&D, only to get three people jumping the post with "nuh-uh!"?

Giacomo, your statements, while I believe them to be incorrect, are generally thoughtful. Yet all throughout this thread there are statements like the following:


And this is without mentioning that you're [sic] spiked chain tripper only deal 2d4 damage, constantly. My monk's UNARMED damage goes up every level. Its not long before he is matching, and then surpassing you in damage

It's obvious that this is an inexperienced remark, since those who have played a few games of D&D quickly see that it is the Str bonus and Power Attack bonus that cause the majority of damage in D&D, not base weapon damage. Yet, there are numerous comments like the one above, and spending time rebutting them all is extremely time-consuming. I don't mind spending the time for some 1 on 1 debating; I simply cannot keep up with 3 people responding. I'm not a fast typer.

I've tried playing a monk several different ways (normal, Sacred Fist, etc), and even with a full BAB was unable to keep up in a game with moderately optimized characters like a barbarian and cleric--and I'd crafted a pretty mean monk, taking advice from your posts as well as those on gleemax. Despite highly optimizing it, I was doing a poor job compared to other party members.

I do hope that people realize it's not that I (or most monk-bashers) hate the class concept; we just hate what WotC did with it. Giacomo, you ought to take a look at the Factotum class in Dungeonscape if you have the opportunity. It seems like it fits your idea of what a monk should be--jack of all trades, master of none--and apparently it's a blast to play (I'm trying to get one into a game now).

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Oh, really? How so? I can't help but look at rogues and note that nobody bemoans their supposed lack of ability to hit thing. They have the same BAB as monks, no?

1) Rogues attack Flat-footed AC. If they are attacking normal AC it doesn't even matter if they hit, since they won't do any damage.

2) Nobody disputes that Rogues can hit opponents, but nobody is claiming that they can hit opponents without magic weapons and other enhancements. It was claimed that this is true for a Monk.


"Naked" implies "lacks spell components". Sure, you can go ahead and take the "Eschew Components" feat and NOW your component-hogging casters are able to get their game on. I acknowledge that there are plenty of spells without material components.

So after admitting that any caster could take a single feat to negate the entirety of the Monks benefits, and acknowledging that any caster can use an assortment of no component spells your point is what exactly?

Casters beat Monks naked.

Not that this is even an issue because casters come with free ways to keep their components no matter what the situation.


Low level druids get their backsides handed to them - they can't wildshape yet.

Low Level Druids have spells. Like entangle which pretty much defeats Monks on it's own. Or Aspect of the Wolf, which turns them into a Wolf exactly like Wildshape, making them an even match for the Monk in combat. That's not to mention things like picking up any old stick, calling it a staff and casting shillelagh on it. Or the fact that level 1-4 is less then a fourth of the level range.

And don't forget that the Druid has an animal companion who is a challenge for the Monk all on his own. Monk versus Wolf? Toss up, my money's on the wolf. Monk versus Riding Dog at level 1? Riding Dog is favored.

Companions have more HP, higher to hit and damage, and similar HP to a Monk at that level, and that's not even counting the Druid. GG Monk.

And level past five and suddenly the Druid is a giant killing machine even without casting spells or using his companion.

It's not a question of if the Druid can beat a monk naked, it's which way he wants to.


Also note that your measly little 1d3 subdual damage (maybe lethal, if you take the feat) isn't going to stand up to a first level monk's 1d6 lethal damage. And we'll ignore that monks take significantly less feats to reach the same level of proficency as a non-Monk.

You do realize that:

1) Do I need to explain that the game has 20 levels and that you are only addressing maybe the first two?

2) A Level 3 Grapple Fighter or Barbarian has Improved Grapple and Improved Unarmed Strike in addition to better BAB, Better Str, and some other bonuses to grapple that you will never see as a Monk. But it doesn't even matter because once they get you in a grapple (on the first round) you'll never win in a grapple check, and you'll never even get to deal damage again.


I'm going to let your character have their mundane, non-masterwork weapon and throw them into this hypothetical duel, even though it violates the "stripped naked" policy. But hey, you just gave me 50 gp worth of gear! You know what I'm buying for this one-time encounter with 50 gold? Shurikiens, plenty of them, and maybe a ten-foot pole. The former to give me a thrown weapon you're highly unlikely to use back at me, the latter for acrobatics work to soften you up whilst staying out of reach. If I'm feeling frugal, I'm grabing a (free) quarterstaff, instead.

So you are going to get off one single thrown attack, or maybe a flurry, that does almost no damage before I get to take my turn, charge you, and kill you? Who cares?


Oh, lets not forget that you're still not armored.

And I don't need to be, since you won't last two rounds and I still have a higher likelyhood to hit then you.


And this is without mentioning that you're spiked chain tripper only deal 2d4 damage, constantly. My monk's UNARMED damage goes up every level. Its not long before he is matching, and then surpasing you in damage, Hey, he even matches your short-sword master at first level.

You mean 2d4+6 twice a round at level 1? Since average damage is greater then you HP and he's likely going to get 2 attack I'm not so worried about the fact that you could bring me down in 5-6 rounds.

Well that and you'll be prone at the beginning of each turn.

Or I could use a Charger that does more damage in a dingle round then you have HP.


Human Wizards aren't immune to stunning or death effects without being Schrodenger's Mage.

Actually, they are. Because they are Wizards, and Wizards get spells that make them immune to Stunning and Death attacks. You don't need to be Schroedinger's anything (do you know why they are called Schroedinger's?) to cast a single spell once a day, since it lasts all day.


Once a day is enough for our little hypothetical duel encounter above, and useful as a trick to pull out of one's hat when the going gets rough.

Once a day is useless when every single opponent can counter any benefit you gain. Standard action teleport 1/day when your opponents have it at will? Or a 4th level slot which they have 6 of? It only takes a standard action to immobilize you, why would once a day forcing them to do it again help?

[Solo]

And the one by one downshooting of anti-monk comments continues...strange that no-one ever admits of being wrong, they just stop posting...


It could just be that they have grown tired of you and have put you to the bottom of their priorities list, as a sort of lost cause.

Obstinacy does not equal superiority.



Oh, lets not forget that you're still not armored.

Alter Self, baby. Be an Outsider (via feat or race) and turn into a Dwarven Ancestor for +18 NA. at level 3.

Then, you cast Scintillating Scales (SpC, Sor/Wiz lvl 2) to turn your NA AC into Deflection AC and proceed to win the game by taunting melee types and dancing around singing "Can't touch this".



A monk, without ability enhancements, bracers of armor, and all the other niceties (your fortitude save is probably a weak point, even if it's a 'good' save) is at a huge disadvantage compared to anyone else with gear, including another monk. The only class which can reliably operate with 0 magic items, and is now overpowered because they don't have to, is druid. That's because wildshape was made powerful enough to compensate for it's lack.

A sorcerer with the right spell and feat selection would do well. (Ozymandias (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511&sid=ee5f0265724c7c28e9d74222c8df3d4b), anyone?)

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo, it's not surprising that people stop posting. After a while, the walls of text, the utterly alien priorities and assumptions you and several other people make (yay! I'm better because I can fight naked!) just drive people nuts.

I actually cannot understand that you are driven nuts, except maybe because you do not like being shown wrong.
How can the assumption that occasionally the PCs will lose (part of) their equipment be "alien"? And the monk is not the only class that is not that equipment-dependent. There are also the spontaneous casters with V/S spells, as well as the druid with wildshape.


The rogue comparison should be clearly apples and oranges- the monk cannot replace a rogue.

I never maintained this. The monk can take the party role as a scout, which leaves the rogue to focus his skills on completely different things.


Can the rogue replace the monk? Possibly, but there's no need to, the rogue has a clear out of combat role and any in-combat ability is a bonus. A rogue who can conceal their armor (celestial chain is really nice for this) or wear bracers is more capable than a monk in any social encounter without gimping himself for combat, and a bard just blows anyone else out of the water in that arena.

I never maintained that monks are better than bards or rogues in social situations. Only that diplomacy helps them in their scout role.


Secondly, the only reasons the monk could be considered good in a grapple is the fact that they get improved grapple as a bonus feat and they have higher dice, although often not higher average damage, in a grapple. They have no other inbuilt advantage.

More attacks. Often higher average damage. BAB disadvantage easily equated at higher levels. What is so difficult to accept about that in the noble quest for monk suckage?:smallamused:


One of these advantages can be duplicated by anyone with two feats to spend (like fighters), and the monk has no further feat to take to continue the imbalance, and the other is reliant on successfully grappling in the first place.

???


However, the BAB differential cannot be made up,

Divine power. Mage's Transformation.


nor can the monk put points and resources into strength at the cost of everything else. A fighter can. A wisdom/int/cha of 8, dex of 12, con of 14, and a pumped strength score is perfectly reasonable for a fighter, but a monk with those scores is at a severe disadvantage.

Let us see. A fighter with WIS of 8 will be great cannon fodder for any will save based attacks. INT 8 means he cannot get access to some good feats (besides reducing his skill poinst per level to ONE!). CHA of 8 - well, that is not too much of a disadvantage (similar for a monk), except for those who want to later be some sort of fighter/leader (without any religious aspects like a paladin).


Add in the barbarian class and rage, there's no question about who can get strength the highest with a playable character. Notice that this strength also applies to damage.

What defines "playable" character in your eyes? But anyhow, yes - the barbarian has the highest STR, helping him in his niche: to do damage. But grappling he loses vs the monk, even after taking improved unarmed strike and improved grapple. And it is not even necessary that the monk uses his superior move to wait until the rage is over and then attacks the fatigued barabarian.
I hope Anakuta does not mind if I reply to some of the following remarks...


@Anukuta:
The 'thrown naked into a dungeon' is such a cliche, hackneyed, and downright bad storytelling device you should seriously be ashamed for using it past your first 6 months of the game or the age of 12, whichever comes first.

Try reading a fantasy novel once in a while. There is one called "Lord of the Rings" where some characters get captured quite often. But of course, that is cliche...:smallsmile:


Furthermore, it's entirely artificial. If I run a game where all of the monsters do damage to people hitting them with unarmed strikes (there are several in the MM), thus crippling the monk even more than usual, does that prove something? The two situations are the same degree of meaningful.

For the monk optimised to grapple, there are actually only few monsters in the league up to huge that could outgrapple/outdamage him in a grapple for his respective levels. If I would play a monk in your group I guess you would be in for some surprises.


A monk, without ability enhancements, bracers of armor, and all the other niceties (your fortitude save is probably a weak point, even if it's a 'good' save) is at a huge disadvantage compared to anyone else with gear, including another monk. The only class which can reliably operate with 0 magic items, and is now overpowered because they don't have to, is druid. That's because wildshape was made powerful enough to compensate for it's lack.

Any class without items is inferior to any class with items, including the druid. Wbl, like it or not, is such a big balancing factor in the game (apparently they intend to change that in 4th editition, which is not such a bad idea considering so many wish to ignore wbl).
The fortitude save of the monk is not his "weak point" even with no CON bonus, since he gets either immune to most fort-based saving throw situations (poison, disease), or his touch AC is high enough to dodge negative energy ray attacks (which btw are stopped entirely by a death ward at the higher levels they start to become a threat).

- Giacomo

[Aquillion]

Monks aren't bad. They're not the horrednusly broken full casters, but they aren't BAD.No, monks are objectively weaker than even the non-casters. They're just not very good.


Lets point out a couple of gripes that are usually leveled at the Monk:
3/4 Base Attack Bonus:
Not actually that bad of a problem. Thats the same BAB as a Rogue. No-one complains about Rogues not hitting the enemy.Rogues aren't intended as fighters, primarily. They have many more skill points, many more useful skills, and many more useful abilities outside of combat than a monk; their combat abilities are secondary.

Oh, but wait, they do have a combat ability that is overwhelmingly better than anything the Monk ever gets. They've got Sneak Attack, which, if used properly, adds vastly more damage than the monk is going to get from their flurry + big fist dice, and it works fine on a standard-action attack without any special optimization.


Flurry of Blows sucks:
Simple answer: Don't use it until the pnealty goes away.The penalty isn't why Flurry of Blows sucks (at least, not the only reason.) Flurry of Blows sucks because you need to make a full attack to use it, and that negates the monk's only other decent ability (their speed), since they can't move and flurry in the same round. It also means that (unlike, say, the Rogue's vastly superior sneak attack, mentioned above) the Monk is much less likely to get chances to use their flurry, except when the enemy is standing still / immobilized (which means that the enemy is either confident of easily squishing them, or the party has already won anyway.)


Oh, they're MAD, I tell you, MAD!:
Yeah, they do have a bit of Multiple Ability Dependancy. Weapon Finesse your unarmed strikes, and you cut down on the MAD by one stat down to two. Easy fix.If you don't mind doing no damage, of course. Monks need strength. This is non-optional and non-negotiable; their sole advantage in combat is extra attacks (again, hard-to-get extra attacks that only show up on a full attack, but still, extra attacks), and they can't combine it with weapons. They absolutely need every damage bonus they can get, and 99% of the time that means they'll need to optimize str. Weapon Finesse doesn't help with that at all.


Most classes usually are a bit MAD - and thats actaully the reason casters are a wee bit broken, IMHO, they can focus on just one stat for all their boosting needs.

Fighters need CON, STR, and DEX.Totally untrue. Depending on your fighter build, you can usually ignore or partially-ignore DEX, since armor is going to limit your bonus from it anyway.

Rogues need INT and either DEX, CHA, or WIS, depending on your build, he may need STR, too, making him just as MAD as the Monk. Rogues are generally considered the one of the best "balanced" classes out there, at least from what I see floating on these boards.The key here is that a rogue doesn't actually need all of this. Yes, you can make a cha-focused diplomacy / UMD rogue, or a dex-focused skill/dodging/ranged rogue (remember, unlike a monk, they're not really dependant on STR for damage thanks to sneak attack), but you don't need to do all of those things in one build. Most rogues don't depend on int as long as they can avoid getting a penalty, since they already have plenty of skill points... a decent rogue build can do fine with two really good stats (usually CON and something else) and a few decent ones.


Bards need CHA and one or two other stats such as DEX/STR or DEX/INT, depending on any skillmonkey-ing.Again, a bard doesn't need to do all their things at once -- there are multiple possible roles for the class, and they can choose one to focus on while using the others as fallbacks in a pinch.


Paladins are super-MAD with their STR, DEX, CON, WIS, and CHA focus.This one most people do agree with... but even here, a Paladin can be at least decent in melee combat with just STR and CON. A monk can't, since they need at least one other stat for AC.

A monk, by comparison, has exactly one role, melee combat. They need more good stats than any other class to be good at it. And when you get those stats, all you have is an adequate melee fighter... unlike (say) a Rogue or a Paladin, who would be an adequate ranged / melee fighter who has other useful things they can do, too.

Oh, yes, you were arguing that the monk has some useful things of his own, right? Let's see...

Hey, guess what? The Monk has plenty of shiney bonuses, too!
Tounge of the Sun and Moon is quite beautiful, talking to everything means you can, well... talk to anything! Squirrls chattering incessiantly about those orcs that just rode by? Those orcs that rode by talking about battle plans? You can understand them! That makes you a prime source of information for your party! Especially if you have a poor, poor, crippled Wizard (Seriously, no spontaneous casting?), which will mkake him into the God of all Wizarding Arcane Doom, because he can prepare.
You get this ability at 17th level (!). It emulates a 1st-level druid spell. Even if you prefer to pretend that druids don't exist, it also emulates a 1st-level ranger spell (in other words, they get it at 4th level.) It's even a 3rd level bard spell. What, you don't think they'll have the spell on hand? Sure, you're probably right... but a scroll of speak with animals costs 525 gp, which is nothing by level, uh, 17 (!!). Given how rarely it comes up, if your party is really worried about talking to squirrels, they can buy the scroll.

(This assumes you're actually going to still be adventuring near animals at level 17, which is, um, usually pretty unlikely.)


Fast Movement can, as previously mentioned, extract you from a bad situation with the remains of your buddies, but it also means you can out-sneak the rogue. Yes, Out-Sneak Rogues. Hide and Move Silently are class skills for your "poor, poor" monk. You move faster than the rogue, and presumably, sneak just as well. You move at half speed while sneaking. Do you see the stealth-cheese here, or do I have to point it out to you more plainly? Just as quiet, just as deadly, much, much faster. Monks make ideal assassians.Except for the whole 'doing anything when they get there' bit. If you want them to leap out and yell 'gotcha!', then sure, they're ideal.


Lets talk about unarmed strikes, now. Being able to contribute to the party stark-aked is defnatly nothing but a perk. Not only does it allow you nifty VoP without too much of a penalty, it also means that you're always at full strength. Always. If you're not one for the VoP, then get yourselfed inked. Try to convince your DM to let you enchant your unarmed strikes with nifty tatoos, or dip into Kensai to magic yourself up.VoP is absolutely crippling to a monk, even moreso than many other classes. It is not a good feat anyway, but for a monk (who has so many basic things they need to do with magical items) it isn't a realistic option.


Is he an optimal God-thing? No, the monk isn't an opitmal God-thing, but he can be fun! Thats right, fun! Remember that? the whole reason you started to play in the first place?

I like monks, almost as much as I like Rogues. They're awesome.Fun is subjective, and I'll grant that people can enjoy all sorts of things... but while I'll certainly accept that you find the background of playing a monk fun (the idea of martial arts, hidden temples, fists of fury, kicking swords out of your opponents' hands, running up the walls, wire-fighting as if you can fly, jump-kicks and so on), I would strongly argue that there is nothing particularly fun in the monk's mechanics.

To me, a fun class is something interesting. It gives you options and things to do. A Psiwar is not particularly overpowered (low power points and 3/4 BAB keep the class from dominating in general), but they're extremely fun to play... you can do all sorts of fun tricks, you can always get where the action is, you usually have an option up your sleeve as long as you don't burn all your power points, etc. An unarmed swordsage is interesting for the same reason. You've always got something to contribute, and have lots of options in most situations.

Monks? You move. You flurry. You have a few 1/day abilities that are going to be weaker than what most of the rest of the party does all day (and, yes, even weaker than magical items available at that level, so we're not just talking full casters now.) Where's the flying drop-kick? Where's the running up walls, the wire-fighting, the spectacular disarms, the secret fist techniques, the seven-palm lotus poison fist or whatever? Monks don't just fail in terms of power; they fail at the most basic design level, at being what they're supposed to be. They're like a wizard with no spells, or a fighter who can't fight. They can (barely) roll around on the floor in an undignified grapple, though their low BAB means they aren't even particularly good at that.

Monks are not monks. Period. If the class had been released in a splatbook under the name 'Northern Fistbrawler', with everything else about it exactly the same, and the unarmed swordsage released under the name 'Monk', nobody would even remotely consider that 'Northern Fistbrawler' to be a useful class; nobody would defend it, or talk about it representing a 'monk' or like it at all. But because WotC slapped a 'monk' label on that Northern Fistbrawler, people keep wanting to like it, and argue that you can't be a real monk unless you've got those Northern Fistbrawler levels under your belt.

Well, forget it. The Northern Fistbrawler's problems go way beyond balance or power; the Northern Fistbrawler's problem is that it is not a monk.

(And I think I'm going to call it "Northern Fistbrawler" whenever it comes up again. It's really a much better name for the class, overall, seeing as how the unarmed swordsage makes a better traditional monk.)


There are no better characters in the core game than monks to do grappling. This is a fact, easily verifiable in the rules.Druid.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I said 'aren't'.

I quoted what you said. I corrected it beneath the quote.


You're not going to convince me that between a naked monk and a naked fighter. The monk isn't going to pummel that fighter like he was a cream puff.

If the naked Fighter is a Grapple based character he will win. If he is a charger and can pick up a nearby stick and call it a club (that's in the rules by the way) he will win. If neither of those is the case, then the Monk has a chance. But no one can actually get in that situation anyway.


Of course Monks will use magical items and the such. 'every' class will. When you look at it though, the monk suffers the least from being stripped of items than any other class except perhaps the druid. (That is: being able to damage it's ennemies and/or survive being hit by a monster while wearing no gear)

I named 4 classes and one fighter build (though there are others, like the Dungeonscape Bullrush Fighter) that do much better then a Monk when stripped of items, and four more classes that are more productive after picking up the nearest blunt object, or taking the sword off of the nearest dead guard.


I wouldn't think that 30 SR at level 20 is such a bad thing. That would mean a lvl 20 caster would have to roll 10 (50:50 chance) unless they have spell penetration feats. I don't think that's laughable at all.

Except that:

1) In core, there are so few decent feats that every spellcaster has Penetration and Greater Penetration. And every caster everywhere has an Orange Ioun Stone, meaning they now have a 75% chance of effecting you.

2) In most games the Spell Compendium is allowed, which brings in Assay Resistance, for an automatic success against the Monks SR.

3) In all games everywhere, a Spellcaster has an assortment of SR: No spells that allow them to neutralize or defeat a Monk without even rolling against his SR.

4) Because SR is important and most dangerous enemies have more of it then a Monk (who by the way, is not a dangerous enemy) Spellcasters know how to deal with, and always make sure they are prepared for, SR enemies.


Didn't I mention that Quivering Palm is a Fortitude save? Oh! YEAH! I forgot Spellcasters are supposed to have such HUGE base fortitude that a Monk shouldn't dream of using their 1/2 their level +10 +Wis mod DC INSTA-death attacks..... against the guy with probably no Constitutional modifiers...

1) No Constitutional modifiers? Even ignoring that Constitutional isn't the word you are looking for, you do realize that Con is the second most important stat for casters? You may have no Con mod, but trust me, we do.

2) You mean those Clerics with the same progression as you and better Con? Or the Druids with even better Con?

3) Immunity is better then a good save.

4) You get this once a WEEK! And anyone is supposed to care?

5) What if you enemy isn't a caster (or God forbid, one of those casters with a good fort save) but he's still stronger then you, faster then you, has more Hp then you, does more damage then you, has better AC then you do, and he can teleport at will, and he can stun you with no save?

Meet my friend the Balor, casters laugh at him and kill him all the time, you on the other hand, just run. Not that it helps, did I mention the faster than you + teleport at will?


Lackluster saves in anything but will?.... Have you read the monks' saves progression at all?

Do you realize that +2 at level one means nothing and that +12 at level 20 also means nothing? Those ability scores are also important, and since you are spreading yourself thin, you are going to be susceptible to Fort saves or Reflex saves depending on your build. And you are always susceptible to the multitude of no-save effects.

Plus the caster can find out which by zapping you from a 100ft away while flying/invisible/and blinking.

[Wizardzo]

I would have to say the only way to play a Monk to it's fullest extent is to

Wield duel Kamas with +D6 damage enchantments. Or at least weapons that

You can still use Flurry of Blows and has a damage + to it. With a combo like

that, monks can really dish it out. Especially when all 3 attacks hit.

[Solo]

How the Wizard escapes Grapple, and more!


tep 1:

Take the Otherwordly feat at character creation. (Or play as a lesser Tiefling or something) You are counted as an Outsider, with all benefits, such as Martial Weapons Proficiency

Step 2: At 5th level, cast Alter Self to turn into an Outsider, such as the Dwarven Ancestor, 5HD, +18 Natural Armor AC.

Step 3: If that isn't enough, Cast Scintillating Scales (Sor/Wiz level 2, Spell Compendium) so that your Natural Armor bonus is now a Deflection bonus to AC.

This makes your AC 28 without any other modifiers such as Dex. or Mage Armor.

Your touch as will be 28 without factoring in your Dex modifier.

Your flatfooted AC will be 28 without accounting for things like Mage Armor.

With a decent dex and Mage Armor, you will have an AC of at least 33. At level 5, with two spells*. Would the Monk care to start a grapple?**

Step 4: Walk up to your enemy and cast Shivering Touch (Sor/Wiz level 3, Frostburn) for 3d6 Dex damage. This lowers their AC and touch AC, so they are easier to hit.

Step 5: Cast the nastiest touch spells you can get your hands on, such as Enervation, Vampiric Touch, Ghoul Stench, etc. Your allies will be in awe of your ability to walk up to enemies, touch them, and remain unharmed.

Step 6: ???

Step 7: Profit.

Rinse and repeat until all enemies are dead.




* Mage Armor has a duration of 1 hour/caster level. At level 5, it will last 5 hours. I assume that it was cast in advance.


** If there is no time for this combo, such as being surprised, cast Invisibility first and then buff the hell up. Or cast Alter Self into a Ravid (3HD, +15 NA, fly 60 ft, perfect) and fly out of the Monk's reach, then cast Scintillating Scales for a slightly lesser Deflection bonus.

[Indon]

Man, I love these threads. Not for the discussion itself, no, but to examine what the priorities ultimately are for people who are gaming.

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks. The monk is overwhelmingly loved by people who don't care about that, or even are simply unaware of the style of play in which every other class is expected to be optimized better than the monk can readily be. Someone's opinion of the Monk is very much a good measure of what they want from their game.

Edit: No doubt someone will respond as if I said it were a perfect measure, so I'll make the disclaimer now that it isn't - I'm sure I've met someone in the past who didn't like the monk for some other reason, maybe they didn't fire enough energy blasts or something. But I can honestly say I no longer remember any such circumstances.

[Anukuta]

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks.

Amen to that.

[Chronicled]

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks watching the rest of the party do almost everything better than you gets old really fast.

Fixed that for you.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks.

So based on the fact that some people explain to others that Monks are inferior you have gathered:

1) Anyone who calls the Monk an inferior class automatically hates them, and never plays as them.

2) Anyone who hates the Monk only hates it because they hate it's weakness, not because they hate the idea of someones Chi giving them magical powers. (How then do you rationalize these peoples hatred of ToB, the supposed ROXOR of melee optimization?)

3) The Monk is "Universally beloved" by people who don't care about power curve, despite the fact that everyone who has defended the Monk (before you) in this thread has claimed that it is equal or superior in power to other classes.

And

4) Even if they haven't said something, apparently everyone who doesn't care about power MUST love the Monk, because the only reason to not love the Monk is because it is weak.

On an unrelated note:


No doubt someone will respond as if I said it were a perfect measure, so I'll make the disclaimer now that it isn't - I'm sure I've met someone in the past who didn't like the monk for some other reason, maybe they didn't fire enough energy blasts or something. But I can honestly say I no longer remember any such circumstances.

So you aren't accusing everyone who hates the Monk of being a terrible roleplayer, only everyone who has pointed out Monk deficiencies in this thread. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think it really matters to those of us in this thread, you know, the ones you just insulted.

[Sir Giacomo]

How the Wizard escapes Grapple, and more!
[Step 1-7]


Excellent ideas! However, the only thing it illustrates is that outside core, things can get unbalanced quite quickly, not that the monk class has no uses in core.
Plus, a monk could get those high touch AC also vs ray and touch attacks outside core.
Plus, a monk with AMF up or pierce magical protection feat (don't know if I worded that correctly) cuts through those defenses like butter.
Plus, a monk likely gets the surprise round vs the wizard, due to being stealthier (until the much, much higher levels with foresight spells etc). And I somehow doubt that these non-core spells last longer than one encounter.
Plus, a 2nd level spell to gain +18 to AC? Well, here I thought you were allergic to cheese...:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Plus, a monk could get those high touch AC also vs ray and touch attacks outside core.
Plus, a monk with AMF up or pierce magical protection feat (don't know if I worded that correctly) cuts through those defenses like butter.

The point is that the wizard gets this at level 5, level 3 if he's willing to use the 3 HD Ravid (+15 NA, fly 60 ft perfect).

How is the monk going to counter something with +15 deflection AC alone at level 3?

[Talya]

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks.



This is a big part. All classes need to be optimized to a certain degree...the monk is an ecclectic scattering of unsynergized abillities that is nearly impossible to optimize. But that's not the main problem.

Here's what a monk needs to be viable, in order of importance:

Removal of MAD. Ideally, the monk would add wisdom to hit and damage (in addition to their normal modifiers.)

Perfect Self needs to be a low level ability that adds new DR types as they level up.

Ability to enchant their body as weapons, up to the normal +10 total bonus (including special abilities) of any weapon, without using up an item slot. All the better if this is a natural process of levelling up, like Kensai, Samurai (OA version), or an "Ancestral Relic" (BoED). Ki strike also needs to let monks treat their natural weapons as any material they designate (full round action to "attune" probably) for the purpose of breaking DR. Alternately, a monk should be able to do their full unarmed damage with any special monk weapon they weild.

More favorable BAB chart. (I'm actually partial to going with 3.0's 15/12/9/6/3 over full 20/15/10/5, but either works.) This is in addition to flurry.

Monks should get ALL the bonus feats that they get choices to take from levels 1-6.

More uses of special abilities: Quivering Palm should be once per day. Abundant Step should be once per 4 monk levels (3 at 12, 4 at 16, 5 at 20) per day. Wholeness of Body should be Monk Level * Wisdom Modifier.


These few changes would keep the existing monk flavor but make them far more balanced, as a pure melee. Sure, they still wouldn't be kicking everyone else's collective ass, but they'd be useful.

[Indon]

So based on the fact that some people explain to others that Monks are inferior you have gathered:
The monk is not a mechanically strong class - in your eyes, this makes it inferior.


1) Anyone who calls the Monk an inferior class automatically hates them, and never plays as them.
Nah. I'm not much of a fan of psionics, but I could see myself playing a Psion. There are many degrees of dislike that do not prevent prospective character enjoyment.


2) Anyone who hates the Monk only hates it because they hate it's weakness, not because they hate the idea of someones Chi giving them magical powers.
You have a very good point! There seems an entire demographic of people who don't like monks who I imagine probably just don't come into threads like this. How silly of me to have neglected them.


(How then do you rationalize these peoples hatred of ToB, the supposed ROXOR of melee optimization?)
Weaving Butterfly Hurricane! *attacks* (Yes I know that's not a maneuver name)

Alternately, they might not be fond of the ToB for the reason I'm not fond of it, because it seems like a cheap cop of the spell system rather than a genuine attempt at creating balanced melee classes. But I digress.


3) The Monk is "Universally beloved" by people who don't care about power curve, despite the fact that everyone who has defended the Monk (before you) in this thread has claimed that it is equal or superior in power to other classes.
There's no better way to be unaware of the monk's lack of power than to be apathetic in regards to how to make a powerful character in D&D.


4) Even if they haven't said something, apparently everyone who doesn't care about power MUST love the Monk, because the only reason to not love the Monk is because it is weak.
There's a lot of Monk love out there.


So you aren't accusing everyone who hates the Monk of being a terrible roleplayer, only everyone who has pointed out Monk deficiencies in this thread. Thanks for the clarification. I don't think it really matters to those of us in this thread, you know, the ones you just insulted.
That's called the stormwind fallacy, I do believe. You can prioritize character power in your games and still roleplay just fine. So how am I insulting anyone?

[Sir Giacomo]

Strange that some of us have other things to do in life other than sit on this thread and spout fallacious comments? Or strange that it gets tiring to post about how mechanics actually work in D&D, only to get three people jumping the post with "nuh-uh!"?


I must admit that I also in other threads did no longer comment on other posters' more detailed posts - it is simply a matter of capacity somtimes. It may be so also for other posters.
But what I simply cannot believe is that in detail I already proved so many monk fallacies wrong, and they continue popping up again and again.
I admit sense motive as part of scout role is a new one (but it's even a monk class ability).
But typical fallacies are things like MAD, monks suck at grapple, monks have lousy abilities (SR does not help them) etc etc.


I've tried playing a monk several different ways (normal, Sacred Fist, etc), and even with a full BAB was unable to keep up in a game with moderately optimized characters like a barbarian and cleric--and I'd crafted a pretty mean monk, taking advice from your posts as well as those on gleemax. Despite highly optimizing it, I was doing a poor job compared to other party members.

Why, I wonder?
Now do not get me wrong- it is likely not your fault. The way classes come across mightily depends on the individual DM's style and campaign. For instance, a monk's belt item is quite important for a monk from mid-levels. Also the natural attack feats in the monster manual. Some DM's may not allow this, or make it difficult to obtain magic items. At the same time, they may let clerics always get back spells automatically overnight, and have barbarians never attacked after their rage (or being hit more often due to their lower AC). All of this deviates from the balance intended by the rules, but I have come to realise that many posters here play in campaigns like this.
Of course, a monk will be at a disadvantage in these situations.


I do hope that people realize it's not that I (or most monk-bashers) hate the class concept; we just hate what WotC did with it. Giacomo, you ought to take a look at the Factotum class in Dungeonscape if you have the opportunity. It seems like it fits your idea of what a monk should be--jack of all trades, master of none--and apparently it's a blast to play (I'm trying to get one into a game now).

Outside core, there are many variants to achieve exactly the kind of character you wish to do. In core (which is way more balanced), you can similarly reach what you want to do.
Want to be a kung-fu master without supernatural stuff? Play a fighter with the appropriate feats. Want to be a kung-fu master of mythical properties? Play a monk. Want to be a kung-fu master with spellpowers? Play a druid or cleric with the appropraite feats. Mix them in multiclasses however you like.

It's all balanced.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

The monk is not a mechanically strong class - in your eyes, this makes it inferior.

As a class, yes.

[Talya]

Outside core, there are many variants to achieve exactly the kind of character you wish to do. In core (which is way more balanced), you can similarly reach what you want to do.

Which game system are we discussing again? Because 3.5 is least balanced in core. Add all the material in splat books and it gets much better.

[Indon]

Which game system are we discussing again? Because 3.5 is least balanced in core. Add all the material in splat books and it gets much better.

Is it better balanced outside of core because... everyone can now break the game with character build choices? :P

[Aquillion]

The reason people do not like the Monk is that the Monk is a noncaster class without any easy optimization gimmicks. The monk is overwhelmingly loved by people who don't care about that, or even are simply unaware of the style of play in which every other class is expected to be optimized better than the monk can readily be. Someone's opinion of the Monk is very much a good measure of what they want from their game.Completely wrong. Everyone has said, over and over, what they find wrong with the Northern Fistbrawler: They don't think it has any useful role in a normal party. The 'traditional' roles (which are not necessarily represented in an 'optimized' party, but tend to be there to some degree) are: Decent, full-BAB melee classes are supposed to stand on the frontlines and do the heavy damage with powerful weapons; arcanists blast, control, and buff/debuff; divine casters heal, buff, and sometimes fight; and skill-monkies contribute good damage and vital skills outside of combat.

Northern Fistbrawlers are no good at any of that. They're mediocre skill monkies, they're not very good on the front lines, and they have some generally useless out-of-combat abilities. Remember, I'm not talking optimization here; even just looking at the flat numbers, with no other considerations, its BAB is too low to be a frontline fighter, especially with unarmed attacks that can't ever compete with a decently-enchanted, non-optimized weapon. It trails both bards and rogues very badly in both skills and skillpoints. And everything else it has is just... weak.

This isn't a matter of optimization or weak-vs-strong, it is a matter of Northern Fistbrawlers being no good at anything. You can't seriously argue that Northern Fistbrawler players don't try to optimize; the only people who seriously defend the Northern Fistbrawler inevitably post extended, absurd discourses into how the Northern Fistbrawler is powerful because it can cast Divine Power and learn UMD.

But the people criticizing the Northern Fistbrawler aren't so much concerned with the overall lack of power class suffers from as the lack of specific power; the class simply has nothing it is good at.

The Northern Fistbrawler is popular with one kind of person, and one kind of person only: People who want to be a 'monk', and are confused by the fact that a printing error placed the Northern Fistbrawler in the PHB under that title. Once you realize that is more properly an obsure splatbook class, it makes a lot more sense.

[Talya]

Is it better balanced outside of core because... everyone can now break the game with character build choices? :P

You can't break the game by moving the power of the least mechanically strong classes up closer to the power of the most mechanically strong classes. Splatbooks just make a few otherwise completely useless classes somewhat useful on occasion. They don't do much to boost the classes already at the top of the power curve.

[lord_khaine]

Secondly, the only reasons the monk could be considered good in a grapple is the fact that they get improved grapple as a bonus feat and they have higher dice, although often not higher average damage, in a grapple. They have no other inbuilt advantage.

One of these advantages can be duplicated by anyone with two feats to spend (like fighters), and the monk has no further feat to take to continue the imbalance, and the other is reliant on successfully grappling in the first place.

However, the BAB differential cannot be made up, nor can the monk put points and resources into strength at the cost of everything else. A fighter can. A wisdom/int/cha of 8, dex of 12, con of 14, and a pumped strength score is perfectly reasonable for a fighter, but a monk with those scores is at a severe disadvantage. Add in the barbarian class and rage, there's no question about who can get strength the highest with a playable character. Notice that this strength also applies to damage.


besides a druid then at the top of my head i really cant think of a base class that would do more damage than a monk in a grapple, and if you think improved grapple as a bonus feat is the biggest advantage for a monk there, then you are mistaken.
flurry of blows is a huge advantage that allows a monk to make more grapple attempts at their full bab, this gives a huge statistical bonus to establish a hold.
also the advantage of bab is blown up, its only a +1 difference for each 4 levels, unless improved grapple is actualy taken, then it will take 16 levels before the bab diff will even this out.


2) Nobody disputes that Rogues can hit opponents, but nobody is claiming that they can hit opponents without magic weapons and other enhancements. It was claimed that this is true for a Monk.

in quite a few cases monks have the option of either using trip or grapple attacks, and thereby taget the touch ac.


So after admitting that any caster could take a single feat to negate the entirety of the Monks benefits, and acknowledging that any caster can use an assortment of no component spells your point is what exactly?

Casters beat Monks naked.

Not that this is even an issue because casters come with free ways to keep their components no matter what the situation.

yeah noone beats schrodingers caster, thats hardly a surprise, but a monk can still give a unprepared caster a nasty surprise.


2) A Level 3 Grapple Fighter or Barbarian has Improved Grapple and Improved Unarmed Strike in addition to better BAB, Better Str, and some other bonuses to grapple that you will never see as a Monk. But it doesn't even matter because once they get you in a grapple (on the first round) you'll never win in a grapple check, and you'll never even get to deal damage again.

the level 3 grapple fighter has 1 more point of bab, and he would only have higher str in the case where you use point buy, when you roll your stat the monk is free to assign top roll to str.
and as for "some other bonuses to grapple that a monk will newer see", then its proberly because there isnt any that will make a difference.
so when they then are in a grapple, then the fighter will have 1 higher grapple score, and do 1d3+str while the monk will have 2 attacks that each does 1d6+str, there can be no doubt that the monk would win this.


Actually, they are. Because they are Wizards, and Wizards get spells that make them immune to Stunning and Death attacks. You don't need to be Schroedinger's anything (do you know why they are called Schroedinger's?) to cast a single spell once a day, since it lasts all day.
but this still only affect that small % of wizards who both know this spell, and
have cast it for that day, and for that matter it would take quite a while before you are high enough level for it to last all day.


Oh, but wait, they do have a combat ability that is overwhelmingly better than anything the Monk ever gets. They've got Sneak Attack, which, if used properly, adds vastly more damage than the monk is going to get from their flurry + big fist dice, and it works fine on a standard-action attack without any special optimization.

its also a bit harder to pull off.


If you don't mind doing no damage, of course. Monks need strength. This is non-optional and non-negotiable; their sole advantage in combat is extra attacks (again, hard-to-get extra attacks that only show up on a full attack, but still, extra attacks), and they can't combine it with weapons. They absolutely need every damage bonus they can get, and 99% of the time that means they'll need to optimize str. Weapon Finesse doesn't help with that at all.

i agree 100%


A monk, by comparison, has exactly one role, melee combat
i disagree here, they have both scouting skills, and social skills in the form of sense motive ( and usualy a good wis score)


(And I think I'm going to call it "Northern Fistbrawler" whenever it comes up again. It's really a much better name for the class, overall, seeing as how the unarmed swordsage makes a better traditional monk.)

i think its a bit unfair of you to compare a phb noncaster with a ToB class :smallsmile:


1) In core, there are so few decent feats that every spellcaster has Penetration and Greater Penetration. And every caster everywhere has an Orange Ioun Stone, meaning they now have a 75% chance of effecting you.

2) In most games the Spell Compendium is allowed, which brings in Assay Resistance, for an automatic success against the Monks SR.

3) In all games everywhere, a Spellcaster has an assortment of SR: No spells that allow them to neutralize or defeat a Monk without even rolling against his SR.

4) Because SR is important and most dangerous enemies have more of it then a Monk (who by the way, is not a dangerous enemy) Spellcasters know how to deal with, and always make sure they are prepared for, SR enemies.

there are lots of other feats for casters, and there are lots of monster casters as well, who does not have neither SP nor a ion stone, actualy i have seen very few casters with the orange ion stone as well, and would challenge you to come with some proof that every caster has one.

as for the SC bit, i dont know of any games that allow that book, and even then you would actualy have to both know and memorise assay resistance.

lastly, since i suspect its very rare that a full caster would actualy sit down and prepare spells for defeating a monk, then there is a decent chance he has allready used whatever spell was suposed to work against the monk.

and honstely Solo, i fail to see the relevance of a build taking advance of one of the most broken classes, to of the most broken spells and one of the most broken creature types, that build would be effective against just about anything.

[Arbitrarity]

Ah, I just realized something.

Monk: 3.5's Bard.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

But typical fallacies are things like MAD, monks suck at grappleThey don't suck, the problem is that A) Grapple is defeated by most things easily after level 10, either through size or spells, and B) fighters have much better grapple checks. Even ignoring BaB, fighters can afford a much higher strength, and so are more likely to win grapple checks. Anything you can do to improve your grapple check, so can the fighter, and he starts off better.
monks have lousy abilities (SR does not help them) etc etc.The problem is that SR is usually easily overcome in a core game because there is nothing better to spend your feats on than a couple of Spell Penetration feats. Alternatively, a No-Save, No-SR spell is a vital part of any spell list, and a monk, like everyone else, has no defense against it.
At the same time, they may let clerics always get back spells automatically overnightThe way it's presented by the RAW? Yes, if the cleric breaks his deity's tenets, he should lose spellcasting, but that should not be common, as a player who's not an idiot knows what the tenents are and avoids breaking them.
and have barbarians never attacked after their rage (or being hit more often due to their lower AC).Of course Barbarians are attacked after a rage, but since they probably started with a good Con mod, I doubt the battle lasted that long. One side or the other should have won within 4 rounds, so Fatigue doesn't really enter into it.
All of this deviates from the balance intended by the rules, but I have come to realize that many posters here play in campaigns like this.You're the one who regularly has invisible rogues sneak past the party's Alarm spells, sentries, and wardings to steal the Wizard's spellbook without just Coup-de-Grasing them. I think I prefer my campaign.

[Solo]

Ah, I just realized something.

Monk: 3.5's Bard.

Except the Char-op boards have found ways of making a Bard (very) useful.

Have they done the same for monks?


and honstely Solo, i fail to see the relevance of a build taking advance of one of the most broken classes, to of the most broken spells and one of the most broken creature types, that build would be effective against just about anything.

Wouldn't work well against a wizard with a fort or reflex save or X spell. Blindness/Deafness comes to mind.

[Arbitrarity]

When I say "3.5's Bard", I mean the stereotype bard as it was seen in prior editions. That is, wholly useless and too diverse to be particularly useful.

And yes, I have heard of crazy stuff like trumpet-using Song of the Heart (whatever that MIC item was) Words of Creation-wielding bards of +10 inspire courage at level 8'ish. Of course, I don't get to use this, and using BOED and ECS together like that isn't great, but I think that is theroetically possible, if I recall my sources properly.

And now, I realize the power of the 5 bard team. (How was I supposed to know that you could get +65d6 elemental damage on all attacks for each of them?)

[The Rose Dragon]

Forget that. Diplomancer, if I recall correctly, can make several enemies fanatic in a full round. And it's a bard.

[Indon]

They don't think it has any useful role in a normal party.
Why? Because it's not powerful enough to outdo other classes at something. It's very much a matter of weak-vs-strong. Everything you say to support your argument is talking about the monk's mechanical strength compared to other classes, and your derision towards the class is a direct result of the class' lack of strength.

No, not everyone plays like Giacomo. In fact, I daresay that his style of play is even rarer than the degree of optimization expected on these forums on a regular basis.

All of its' flavor and abilities are just fine for a monk class - its' issue is power. You can try to mask that as "it doesn't have a role," but we all know that if the Monk were more mechanically powerful it would have such a role - monk fixes do not involve 'giving the monk a role', but instead simply make the class more powerful.

[Greenfaun]

And the one by one downshooting of anti-monk comments continues...strange that no-one ever admits of being wrong, they just stop posting...

Oh man, this is hilarious. And also kinda sad.

[Attilargh]

Indon's comment about Monk's features fitting the class reminded me, would someone mind explaining why the Northern Fistbrawler can talk to squirrels?

[Solo]

No, not everyone plays like Giacomo. In fact, I daresay that his style of play is even rarer than the degree of optimization expected on these forums on a regular basis.

No shooting yourself in the foot?

[Chronicled]

Why? Because it's not powerful enough to outdo other classes at something. It's very much a matter of weak-vs-strong. Everything you say to support your argument is talking about the monk's mechanical strength compared to other classes, and your derision towards the class is a direct result of the class' lack of strength.

No, not everyone plays like Giacomo. In fact, I daresay that his style of play is even rarer than the degree of optimization expected on these forums on a regular basis.

All of its' flavor and abilities are just fine for a monk class - its' issue is power. You can try to mask that as "it doesn't have a role," but we all know that if the Monk were more mechanically powerful it would have such a role - monk fixes do not involve 'giving the monk a role', but instead simply make the class more powerful.

...

It doesn't have a role because it's not good enough in any one area to excel there. It needs to be more mechanically powerful at doing a key party role. If the current "sum worth" of its abilities were focused into doing one of its expected roles as well as other classes can, it would be a fine class.

[tyckspoon]

Indon's comment about Monk's features fitting the class reminded me, would someone mind explaining why the Northern Fistbrawler can talk to squirrels?

Oh, well, when it was still the Monk it was just one of those vaguely mystical things it got to do for getting more in tune with the essential nature of.. uh, nature, or something. There's no reason for the Northern Fistbrawler to do it that I can think of. :smalltongue:

[Indon]

If the current "sum worth" of its abilities were focused into doing one of its expected roles as well as other classes can, it would be a fine class.

Show me a monk fix that does that. Shouldn't be hard, right? There's a monk fix thread on the first page of the forum right alongside this one.

Or would any such fix no longer be considered a monk anymore (for instance, a class focused on being an unarmed combatant without spiritually-based powers certainly wouldn't be called a monk), leading us just about right back to the issue being raw power.

[Solo]

Show me a monk fix that does that. Shouldn't be hard, right? There's a monk fix thread on the first page of the forum right alongside this one.

Or would any such fix no longer be considered a monk anymore (for instance, a class focused on being an unarmed combatant without spiritually-based powers certainly wouldn't be called a monk), leading us just about right back to the issue being raw power.

What is a "monk"? What does something have to do in order for it to be classed as a "monk"?

What is your definition of "monk", and why do you define it as such?

[Morty]

If there is one thing the monk does well, it's spawning threads. Seriously. The monk has got more threads dedicated to him than all other classes lumped together, with an exception of wizard. So fear not, a monk has got one thing no other class have.

[dman11235]

I'm going to make an observation here.

Most people who think the monk is a powerful class don't like ToB and psionics, and think that the people who don't think the monk is a powerful class hate the monk.

Most people who think the monk is not a powerful class like the ToB and psionics and actually like the monk class, just think it was not done well at all.

Note: I don't really like ToB, but I do like psionics, and I think the monk is a weak class and is very poorly designed. I also love the monk idea.

[Indon]

What is a "monk"? What does something have to do in order for it to be classed as a "monk"?

What is your definition of "monk", and why do you define it as such?

A martial artist with abilities similar to those portrayed in eastern culture, or in western culture modeled after the same thing.

I'd say a good early model of the monk might exist in the form of the Monkey King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_King), though class lines generally get blurred a bit in mythology.

More contemporary models can, of course, be found in various animes.

[Spiryt]

I'm going to make an observation here.



I don't have ToB, but from what I know I'm undecided about it. I don't like psionic. I think monk is weak. I find monk concept rather dumb.

Such observations are just generalizations :smalltongue:

[tyckspoon]

I'm going to make an observation here.

Most people who think the monk is a powerful class don't like ToB and psionics, and think that the people who don't think the monk is a powerful class hate the monk.


It's been my experience with these threads that 'people who think the monk is powerful' are more often people who have never sat down and done or been shown the math themselves. They go 'Flurry! Three attacks at highest BAB doing 2d10! Neat!" and then forget to stop and compare it to a monster's AC and HP or the damage another melee class might be getting out of two-handing something with a high Strength bonus.

[MeklorIlavator]

Or played Neverwinter Nights. In that game casters suck, and monks were actually pretty good, especially since you could find cloves with weapon enchantments. Plus, power attack played by 3.0 rules(I believe it does in the new one, too), so it was a lot less useful than it might have been.

[Solo]

SG, I have been thinking.

Where is your monk build? Can you show us a character sheet?

I built Ozymandias (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511) due to criticism about "not always being able to have the right spells". To counter the argument, I provided solid proof that it was infact possible to have a caster with a fixed spell list that could always cast something useful when attacked.

As a sorcerer is inferior to a wizard, Ozymandias's wizard counterpart, a "Batman" wizard, would probably be more powerful.

I think you should make a concrete core build to provide us of some solid proof of your claims.

[The Rose Dragon]

You know which was the most powerful class in NWN?

Bard. No, seriously. You took that barbarian with you, and sang your way across the game. Nothing could stop you unless you were really unlucky.

[lord_khaine]

Wouldn't work well against a wizard with a fort or reflex save or X spell. Blindness/Deafness comes to mind.

yeah, and thats why i said just about anything, instead of anything.


Why? Because it's not powerful enough to outdo other classes at something. It's very much a matter of weak-vs-strong. Everything you say to support your argument is talking about the monk's mechanical strength compared to other classes, and your derision towards the class is a direct result of the class' lack of strength.


well a part of whats being argued is the scale of that mechanical strength

[Solo]

yeah, and thats why i said just about anything, instead of anything.

an what does it prove?

"It proves that I am obscenely rich."

[tyckspoon]

Or played Neverwinter Nights. In that game casters suck, and monks were actually pretty good, especially since you could find cloves with weapon enchantments. Plus, power attack played by 3.0 rules(I believe it does in the new one, too), so it was a lot less useful than it might have been.

Oh gods yes. NWN really makes you appreciate that movement bonus.

[MeklorIlavator]

You know which was the most powerful class in NWN?

Bard. No, seriously. You took that barbarian with you, and sang your way across the game. Nothing could stop you unless you were really unlucky.

Oh, I usually took the bard companion, except in the last dungeon where I used the barbarian to that we could double team the enemy.

[Collin152]

SG, I have been thinking.

Where is your monk build? Can you show us a character sheet?

I built Ozymandias (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511) due to criticism about "not always being able to have the right spells". To counter the argument, I provided solid proof that it was infact possible to have a caster with a fixed spell list that could always cast something useful when attacked.

As a sorcerer is inferior to a wizard, Ozymandias's wizard counterpart, a "Batman" wizard, would probably be more powerful.

I think you should make a concrete core build to provide us of some solid proof of your claims.

This argument is too logical to not agree with.
I second Solo's proposition.

[lord_khaine]

I'm going to make an observation here.

Most people who think the monk is a powerful class don't like ToB and psionics, and think that the people who don't think the monk is a powerful class hate the monk.

i love both psionics and ToB, but then again, i have newer claimed the monk is powerfull, just that its more powerfull ( or less weak) than a lot of people make it out to be.


It's been my experience with these threads that 'people who think the monk is powerful' are more often people who have never sat down and done or been shown the math themselves. They go 'Flurry! Three attacks at highest BAB doing 2d10! Neat!" and then forget to stop and compare it to a monster's AC and HP or the damage another melee class might be getting out of two-handing something with a high Strength bonus

i have actualy sat down and considered those numbers, though my monk were doing 4d8 base damage, and i came to the conclusion that given equal gear the monk would be doing damage within the same order of magnitude, and i also noted that the monk could do more than just move&hit.


as for the effective monk build, im ready to make a proper one, when the monk challenge moves on to the level 15 test, the level 20 version Torc (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=7780) ran into a minor problem, when i forgot a level 20 monk cant use potions of enlarge.

[Chronicled]

A martial artist with abilities similar to those portrayed in eastern culture, or in western culture modeled after the same thing.

I'd say a good early model of the monk might exist in the form of the Monkey King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_King), though class lines generally get blurred a bit in mythology.

More contemporary models can, of course, be found in various animes.

So what you're saying is that your idea of a monk is... the unarmed swordsage.

[Aquillion]

Indon's comment about Monk's features fitting the class reminded me, would someone mind explaining why the Northern Fistbrawler can talk to squirrels?

This is simple! While the sourcebooks gave the wrong fluff by mistake, the Northern Fistbrawelers are actually an elite law-enforcement group from a rough, barbaric northern kingdom; they are the kingdom's main source of civilization. (Hence, a lawful alignment) Because the kingdom is so rough, they train to get many immunities, and even train in a few supernatural abilities (such as their abundant step, which they use to appear behind criminals when apprehending them.) One of the most feared abilities that they use to apprehend criminals is their Quivering Fistbrawler Palm, which they can use to kill someone days after striking them -- obviously, an ability intended for a badass, rough-and-tumble law-enforcement group! The greatest of northern fistbrawlers are so badass in their pursuit of crime that they become almost ageless and ethereal. And, yes, the kingdom is so uncivilized that they eventually learn to talk to animals, since those are often the only reliable witnesses to a crime. All their other abilities (grappling, etc) are obviously likewise suitable to law enforcement in a rough area.

And why the relatively low BAB? Easy. They're not a marital class, and don't focus on being able to fight equal opponents (the way, say, a monk would). Instead, they focus on fighting low-level criminal scum without endangering anyone nearby.

...this (the real background for the class we're discussing, sadly omitted by that misprint) is, I think, a much better fit to the Fistbrawler's abilities than the mistaken assumption that they're some sort of typical wuxia monk--after all, monks rarely talk to animals, rarely have the ability to teleport, only occasionally have something approximating quivering palm, almost always age into powerful but withered-looking bald old men, and so on.

A few of those abilities might appear in a few monks, but arguing that the Fistbrawler makes a good monk simply on that is absurd -- obviously, it makes no sense for every single monk to get such curiously specific abilities when one of the most basic, essential staples of monks in general is the concept that of broadly-divergent schools and styles of martial arts, in combination with many different 'secret techniques' known to each. The failure to represent this is the most clear and obvious reason why the Fistbrawler can never really be considered a monk.


Why? Because it's not powerful enough to outdo other classes at something. It's very much a matter of weak-vs-strong. Everything you say to support your argument is talking about the monk's mechanical strength compared to other classes, and your derision towards the class is a direct result of the class' lack of strength.

No, not everyone plays like Giacomo. In fact, I daresay that his style of play is even rarer than the degree of optimization expected on these forums on a regular basis.

All of its' flavor and abilities are just fine for a monk class - its' issue is power. You can try to mask that as "it doesn't have a role," but we all know that if the Monk were more mechanically powerful it would have such a role - monk fixes do not involve 'giving the monk a role', but instead simply make the class more powerful.Obviously, if it was given 20 BAB and fighter bonus feats it would be able to fulfill a melee role; if it was given 8 skill points and the rogue skillset (plus trapfinding etc) it would be an alright skill monkey. If it were given the mechanical power to fulfill a role, yes, it would by definition have a role; and so, as you've said, every fix for the Fistbrawler involves giving it a role. I think we're in agreement on that -- people want to give the Fistbrawler a role.

The comparisons with the baseline classes for various roles are brought up only to highlight the fact that the Fistbraweler cannot (and, to all appearances, was never intended to) effectively fulfill these roles, even in comparison with the generally-considered balanced or underpowered classes of rogue or fighter. You're free to invent any role you want for the Fistbraweler ('corpse-dragger' or 'porter' is popular), but the point is that its abilities do not support any useful role in a traditional party -- it isn't that they're weak at one specific thing, it is that they are not competent at anything. The comparison to other (unoptimized) classes is done only to show a basic baseline for competence.

In that respect, yes, it is about abilities; but it isn't about power. I have nothing against playing an unoptimized rogue, even though they are not generally very powerful, because I know that I will still have a "role" in the party -- there will be things for me to do that will contribute helpfully. As a Fistbrawler, this is flatly not true.

You have (perhaps unintentionally) made an extremely nasty accusation against a broad group of people (virtually everyone here outside a small handful, in fact), claiming that they are all obsessed with 'optimization', and that they are 'deriding' the Fistbrawler solely for its lack of power. I am saying that that is flatly not true; the Fistbrawler's problem isn't that it is mechanically weak (though, admittedly, it is), but because, as a result of that weakness, they have nothing useful to contribute to even a basically-competent, unoptimized party of (say) basher/healer/caster/sneaker. There are classes that have invented new and useful roles somewhat outside the basic ones (psiwar and swordsage come to mind, both of which embody Wuxia quite well and either of which could be easily adapted into a vastly more suitable monk than the poor Fistbrawler), and there are classes that are not powerful but are nonetheless fun due to their overall ability to contribute somewhat (Warlocks, say), but the Fistbrawler itself is a failure.

(And as I've noted above, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Fistbrawler's law-enforcement powers are particularly suitable for a monk. The lack of differing 'schools' of martial arts and individual sets of techniques that can differ between characters makes it extremely obvious that the Fistbrawler is a poor class to try and adapt into a 'monk'; I cannot understand why people are constantly attempting to do so. The near-complete lack of any complicated wire-fighting ability is another strike against them, as is their extremely poor disarming abilities, their oddly limited weapon selection--both Wuxia and real-world monks would not have been so limited, the lack of the sort of 'sixth sense' monks are often shown having -- really, trapfinding would fit -- and so on. And the ability that halts aging is particularly stupid and unfit for a monk -- what could be more 'monk' than the bald ancient-looking man with incredible abilities? That capstone ability that the Fistbrawlers get is almost aggressively hostile to the concept of monks, almost as if WotC wanted to be sure nobody mistook this class for anything but the Fistbrawler it is.)

[Solo]

as for the effective monk build, im ready to make a proper one, when the monk challenge moves on to the level 15 test, the level 20 version Torc (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=7780) ran into a minor problem, when i forgot a level 20 monk cant use potions of enlarge.

I really want to see Giacomo's monk build

[Talya]

Everything you say to support your argument is talking about the monk's mechanical strength compared to other classes

That is the only factor in "balance." Saying the monk doesn't suck because you don't care about mechanical strength is kinda silly. It's like saying the monk doesn't suck because you don't care if it sucks. The fact is, that unless you are using random rolls, and the monk's player roll's four 18's while nobody else rolls more than 1 stat over 12, the monk is an inferior combatant at every single level.

Now, not all mechanical strength is combat related, and shouldn't be. The rogue is an excellent class, despite being a mediocre combatant.

[tyckspoon]

This is simple! While the sourcebooks gave the wrong fluff by mistake, the Northern Fistbrawelers are actually an elite law-enforcement group from a rough, barbaric northern kingdom; they are the kingdom's main source of civilization. (Hence, a lawful alignment) Because the kingdom is so rough, they train to get many immunities, and even train in a few supernatural abilities (such as their abundant step, which they use to appear behind criminals when apprehending them.) One of the most feared abilities that they use to apprehend criminals is their Quivering Fistbrawler Palm, which they can use to kill someone days after striking them -- obviously, an ability intended for a badass, rough-and-tumble law-enforcement group! The greatest of northern fistbrawlers are so badass in their pursuit of crime that they become almost ageless and ethereal. And, yes, the kingdom is so uncivilized that they eventually learn to talk to animals, since those are often the only reliable witnesses to a crime. All their other abilities (grappling, etc) are obviously likewise suitable to law enforcement in a rough area....


:smallbiggrin: Marry me.

[Chronicled]

Aquillion, you rock at life.

[Attilargh]

:smallbiggrin: Marry me.
Oi! I was about to say that! Now there is but one option: We must kung fu fight!

[Collin152]

Oi! I was about to say that! Now there is but one option: We must kung fu fight!

Now boys, we can settle this like real men.
Whoever can take the most Tylenol PM wins!

[Zincorium]

Giacomo-

What would convince you monks are underpowered compared to where they should be? Under what criteria would a monk's failure to perform well dissuade you from it's defense?

I would be convinced that monks are perfectly fine, as is, if it can be mathematically, or at least practically under controlled circumstances, demonstrated that a monk, using class skills and class abilities only, would fill one of the classic roles (tank, skillmonkey, healer, blaster) better than any of the core classes with which similar amounts of optimization has been performed.

I am fairly certain that if this can be shown to be clearly true, and in as bias-free as possible situations, then NO ONE will continue to disagree with you.

[GammaPaladin]

the level 20 version Torc ran into a minor problem, when i forgot a level 20 monk cant use potions of enlarge.
He can, however, use wondrous items that grant the Giant Size effect.

Just saying.

If you're only allowed core... Tattoos of expansion are covered by the SRD.

[Chronicled]

He can, however, use wondrous items that grant the Giant Size effect.

Just saying.

If you're only allowed core... Tattoos of expansion are covered by the SRD.

Good call! And he could have 20 of those on at once (which, incidentally, is how many potions he bought). Ret-con, anyone?

[Aquillion]

If you're only allowed core... Tattoos of expansion are covered by the SRD.That's not a good idea, because of this:


The manifester level for a standard psionic tattoo is the minimum manifester level needed to manifest the power (unless otherwise specified).In other words, one round of enlargement. And it takes a standard action to activate.

And using custom magic items really isn't fair, since those are subject to DM call.

[GammaPaladin]

The "Unless otherwise specified" bit leaves it up for discussion somewhat, since there are no standard tattoos defined (And therefore nothing to be "otherwise specified", one can read it as saying that when creating a custom tattoo (And again, there ARE no standard ones outlined, so they're all custom) the manifester level can be increased if desired...

[tyckspoon]

The "Unless otherwise specified" bit leaves it up for discussion somewhat, since there are no standard tattoos defined (And therefore nothing to be "otherwise specified", one can read it as saying that when creating a custom tattoo (And again, there ARE no standard ones outlined, so they're all custom) the manifester level can be increased if desired...

Increasing the caster level is a standard option for just about every other expendable magic item; I can't imagine a reason it would be different for psionic tattoos. Although in the specific case of Expansion I would be angling to be allowed to have it scribed with the 'last ten minutes' augment option instead of just increasing the manifester level.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

in quite a few cases monks have the option of either using trip or grapple attacks, and thereby taget the touch ac.

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.


yeah noone beats schrodingers caster, thats hardly a surprise, but a monk can still give a unprepared caster a nasty surprise.

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.


the level 3 grapple fighter has 1 more point of bab, and he would only have higher str in the case where you use point buy, when you roll your stat the monk is free to assign top roll to str.

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!")


and as for "some other bonuses to grapple that a monk will newer see", then its proberly because there isnt any that will make a difference.

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.


so when they then are in a grapple, then the fighter will have 1 higher grapple score, and do 1d3+str while the monk will have 2 attacks that each does 1d6+str, there can be no doubt that the monk would win this.

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.


but this still only affect that small % of wizards who both know this spell, and have cast it for that day, and for that matter it would take quite a while before you are high enough level for it to last all day.

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.


there are lots of other feats for casters, and there are lots of monster casters as well, who does not have neither SP nor a ion stone, actualy i have seen very few casters with the orange ion stone as well, and would challenge you to come with some proof that every caster has one.

Not in Core there aren't. SR is a to hit role for casters, only where each point matters more, there is no reason not to take, especially with maybe 5 other feats even worth taking as a caster in core.

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?


as for the SC bit, i dont know of any games that allow that book, and even then you would actualy have to both know and memorise assay resistance.

Once again, yes you would need to memorize and know Assay Resistance. And everyone does it. Do you know why? Because it's good. Better then good. Awesome. Why does every discussion about caster come down to:

"This is my Spell list every day when I wake up:X, Y, Z."

"Nobody ever memorizes those! All Wizards memorize nothing but Fireball!"


lastly, since i suspect its very rare that a full caster would actualy sit down and prepare spells for defeating a monk, then there is a decent chance he has allready used whatever spell was suposed to work against the monk.

You misunderstand, nobody ever prepares spells to beat a Monk because they don't need to. It just so happens that whatever you prepare, half of it beats Monks.

People who don't play Casters seem to be under the mistaken assumption that Wizards spellbooks contain things like:

Spell 1: Protect self from Monk
Spell 2: Protect Self from Golem
Spell 3: Prepare Monk to be defeated
Spell 4: Prepare Golem to be defeated
Spell 5: Kill Monk

A Wizard's spellbook really looks something like this:

Spell 1: Protect self from Fighter/Monk/Golem/Orc/Tarrasque/Rogue/Spells 5, 6, 7, and sometimes 4
Spell 2: Neutralize Undead/Monk/Golem/Rogue/Orc/Fighter, hamper Wizard slightly
Spell 3: Kill Undead/Most Golems/Rogue
Spell 4: Kill Tarrasque/Fighter/Orc/Rogue 40% chance against Wizard (unless protected)/Monk
Spell 5: Kill Everyone, easily preventable by proper spells
Spell 6: Neutralize same as 2, but AoE, and only 75% (or a hundred with Assay) against Monk.

[Talic]

And the one by one downshooting of anti-monk comments continues...strange that no-one ever admits of being wrong, they just stop posting...
Actually, when I stop posting, it will be because I am bored.



And this comparison is flawed for several reasons
1) a half-orc barbarian level 1 cannot even get improved grapple (which needs two feats). So a true comparison for grappling would be two half-orcs with identical strength (why the different ability focus here?), one monk, one barbarian each trying to grapple. The monk then not only has a higher grappling mod (by +1, by +3 once the barbarian has used up his rage for the day), but also does higher (at his option lethal/non-lethal) damage and can have double the grapple attempts (being able to pin in one round, which the barbarian cannot do). Monk beats barbarian most of the time.

Assuming 1 flaw, yes, the barb can. Further, it's orc, not half orc. Ability differences are, sensibly, because monks need dex and wisdom. Barbarians can get by with a lower score in each. Barbarians will typically wear ARMOR, which makes up for the lower AC somewhat (Example above, I'd give him a chain shirt, and armor spike it when available). Because if the monk wants to out grapple the barbarian, out defend the fighter, and out skill the rogue, as you suggest, he needs more points in more skills. Note, I gave the monk 30 points, barbarian? 22. That's why the ability focus. Barb can slap a chain shirt on. Monk can't, without gimping himself. You focus on flurry of blows as a mitigating factor, without accounting for lack of armor as another.


2) In 2nd level it gets temporarily worse, since the barbarian will likely focus his money on armour and weapon, while the monk can get some enlarge effects (potion or wand).

He should already have armor and a weapon. Characters DO get starting wealth, ya know? At second level, the barbarian will have, after a 100gp armor, and a 320gp masterwork weapon, 470gp free, by WBL. Plenty for a potion of enlarge. ;)
[QUOTE=Sir Giacomo;4089097]
3) And the barbarian would really have to think twice before taking improved unarmed strike and grapple, since at higher levels these are much less useful to him, because he has so much less damage output with it (he is stuck with 1d3; only if he takes a monk's belt he can get 1d8 base vs the monk's maximum 2d10 base then by level 15).
[QUOTE=Sir Giacomo;4089097]Armor spikes. Nuff said. Also, look at the bear warrior PrC, which is the way I'd likely take a Barb. Monk? Probably Fist of the Forest. Both are out of core, but Armor spikes aren't. Also, while monk gets addl dice, barb continues to skyrocket strength, power attack, and the like, resulting in extra static damage.
[QUOTE=Sir Giacomo;4089097]Vs touch AC (which is what matters for grapple) yes, but it is not that significant. Barbarian has +1 BAB and STR (1/day boosted with rage), monk has +0 BAB and STR for hitting touch AC. Taking -2 to hit, the monk even has two chances vs the barbarian's one chance. Depends on the opponent.Provided you shirk your dex and wisdom, making your character have a very poor survivability.


Over the course of the levels, the barbarian gets a STR boost more often, while the monk gets much higher base damage AND flurry. The barbarian should not try to compete in damage output vs the monk unarmed, because he would lose. Instead, he should get two-handed weapons and use power attack to get higher damage output than the monk.Again, test it out. Bet ya 9 times out of ten, barb beats monk. And further, barbarian WOULD get higher damage output than the monk, every time. Because, in the situation you describe, a monk with a 14 dex, and a 10 wis, I'll take the -4 to hit, and brain the monk in the face with a fist in grapple.
Outside core, maybe there are better prestige classes for barbarian than for them monk, inside core not. And as you said, every class has access to the same divine buffs, only that divine power benefits the 3/4 BAB classes more.What, by giving them something everyone else already has? :smallamused:
Only that the enhancement bonus to move counts for all kinds of movement.That the monk doesn't get?
Yes- in some cases disguise would be handy. This does not neuter the role of a scout. Maybe the rogue could disguise the monk as a horse (the monk is as fast as one at certain levels)...:smallsmile: So, let me get this straight. The cleric buffs you, the rogue disguises you, and yet, you still outperform these classes? If by "outperform", you really mean, "are dependent on to function", then I agree.
And even IF he is spotted in the instances you named, the monk can move/tumble away faster than a rogue and hide again around the corner.Who wouldn't have been spotted, because he had the sense to disguise. Nothing quite makes up for not failing. So, while the monk tumbles around the corner, the rogue enjoys bad party food and listens to the bad guys shamelessly reveal the plot. Fair trade, I'd say.
How again? Like the funny thing the Chosen_of_Vecna suggested by letting a spiked chain tripping fighter go against a tumbling monk in core?I don't speak for him. I speak for me. Let's not muddle your different debates.

Anyhow, how a monk contributes compared to a barbarian is currently DMed by you at level 20 in a different thread, so it is interesting you bring this up here.And thus far, on a damage and effectiveness output, the monk has been trailing.
The monk is definitely not outshined by the rogue in terms of getting into prestige classes in core.
And he hits as well, and harder than, a barbarian. :smallamused:
How again without access to knowledge-arcane and the 1 sorcerer level dip only giving 2 +x skill points?Some of those many feats the fighter has, free up base feats for things like Open Mind, for one. Oh, and skills can be taken cross class. I wouldn't DO it, but it's a build. Dragon Disciple can be accessed at level 5. Just not by monk.
Do you need a high ability to raise a class skill, or any skill for that matter? Last time I checked the PHB there were no such restrictions in there. In case the monk player wants to make a James Bond-like Fantasy character, CHR will likely be high. This means other abilities then are lower.Ah, so in that case, the monk WON'T out grapple the barbarian. INTERESTING. Schrodinger's monk.

What numbers? I suggest you read again my point-by-point listing of ranger, rogue and monk above.Why? I have no need to re-read what I feel is incorrect.

There are no better characters in the core game than monks to do grappling. This is a fact, easily verifiable in the rules.As long as you ignore playability of the character, sure.

[Dr Bwaa]

For what it's worth (I haven't read the whole thread yet):

The rumors to monks being nearly unkillable is true. Over the last couple days I ran the Tomb of Horrors for a couple of my friends. One started as a lvl 12 monk, and the other as an arcane trickster, both very smart people with a lot of experience as DMs and as players (but never done the Tomb before). The monk lived until the gem in the pillared room, where his high WIS turned out to be much worse than it was good. In comparison, the AT (and various other chars that player had with them) were killed off a total of eleven times by then, along with the sorc and favored soul of the other player who joined for a while (also at lvl 12). His favorite feat that he'd taken: Ki blast (don't remember where it's from); lets you shoot a ranged touch attack 60 feet that does 3d6+WIS as a full-round action (charge it as move, shoot as std.).

[Solo]

Good call! And he could have 20 of those on at once (which, incidentally, is how many potions he bought). Ret-con, anyone?

Psionics isn't core.

[Collin152]

Psionics isn't core.

Saints be praised for that.

[MeklorIlavator]

I don't think that ToH makes a good comparison, as it tends to be worse for the forward scout than anyone else. Can you give examples of some of the deaths?

Oh, and assay resistance is in the complete arcane as well, and Most campaigns allow that book(well, besides the Io7V).

[dman11235]

Monks can be unkillable monsters...if you do it right. It is however impossible to do core only, since your AC is low, and your saves are low (12 at 20+con/dex/wis+5 is only 17+ability, which will be lower than it can be) and your HP is on the lower side. This is of course if you don't focus on these aspects, and want to actually do damage. If you max dex/wis/con, then you can get a respectable AC (a little less than the fighter/cleric/paladin, and a good bit less than the druid), decent HP (less than the barb/fighter/cleric/druid, about the same as the ranger), and nice saves (if you do it right: around 25 each, more for reflex, and maybe a little less for fort). The trade off for mediocrity in this aspect: low damage and few skills. Bring in non-core and you can actually excel in this area. Fist of the Forest for a high AC. And you can add in more PrCs and feats to actually be good at damage and attack bonus as well. Note that this involves minimizing actual monk levels to be better. That indicates an inherent problem with the class.

EDIT: Why the hate towards the SpC? It's a compendium of spells. Most of them are from previous books. And most of them have been updated if they needed it. Next thing you'll be praising the CPsi for being a beacon of good class design and good fixes. And also hate towards the MiC. No easy to understand crafting rules allowed!

[Chronicled]

Psionics isn't core.

The things I say when I'm tired... :smallsigh:


Saints be praised for that.

:smallfrown:

[Sir Giacomo]

SG, I have been thinking.

Where is your monk build? Can you show us a character sheet?

I built Ozymandias (http://www.thetangledweb.net/addon.php?addon=Profiler&page=view_char&cid=4511) due to criticism about "not always being able to have the right spells". To counter the argument, I provided solid proof that it was infact possible to have a caster with a fixed spell list that could always cast something useful when attacked.

As a sorcerer is inferior to a wizard, Ozymandias's wizard counterpart, a "Batman" wizard, would probably be more powerful.

I think you should make a concrete core build to provide us of some solid proof of your claims.

Well, I shall rise to that challenge - will post something akin to your sorcerer's guide over the course of the next days.
What you have done, though, is provide a core level 20 character and a general (albeit highly amusing and entertaining) guide - it is hard to see how this is proving that a sorcerer may "always be able to have the right spells". A level 20 character is hardly "solid proof" for anything concerning balance.
In your sorcerer guide thread I asked you already about providing some lower-level examples for your core sorcerer build, so you might wish to post some lower-level examples there, or how you would choose your spells at what level to even survive to level 20.

Most specifically, I would be interested in knowing when you see the sorcerer as being consistently superior to the monk. From level 1? Level 3/4? (and to answer the question how a monk can overcome +18 deflection AC at level 3 that is up for 3 minutes: WAIT for three minutes!)
Level 6 (when fly is available for the sorcerer)?
Level 20?

- Giacomo

PS: as an hors d'oevre for all who think a monk is a complete melee failure, think about a monk at 16th level with just the improved natural attack feat, a divine power effect (let's assume no Giamonk- so from a 50,000 ring of spell storing), large size (plenty of ways to achieve that, even for longer times at that level), boots of speed and a monk's belt. The divine power is the only ahead-of-combat buff (OK, plus the free haste activation of the boots).
This yields 7 attacks (4!! of which are at the highest attack bonus opposed to the full BAB's 2 in those cases, and with similar "to hit" to full BAB classes who will have to deduct even for their power attack), 6d8 base damage each, +STR (base at that level may be 16, +6 enhance from divine power, +2 size for 24 total), or a grand total of
42d8 damage +49 if all hit. At level 16. Vs ALL opponents (not just those who are favored enemy, have no critical immunity or whatever- the only exceptions are incorporal creatures. Whip out your bane-undead, ghost touch +1 staff then and flurry as well).
Add to this the usual enhancement, morale or whatever bonuses around at that level and the possible criticals which multiply the base damage, too.

[Nebo_]

Most specifically, I would be interested in knowing when you see the sorcerer as being consistently superior to the monk. From level 1? Level 3/4? (and to answer the question how a monk can overcome +18 deflection AC at level 3 that is up for 3 minutes: WAIT for three minutes!)

Three minutes is 30 rounds. That's freaking AGES.



PS: as an hors d'oevre for all who think a monk is a complete melee failure, think about a monk at 16th level with just the improved natural attack feat, a divine power effect (let's assume no Giamonk- so from a 50,000 ring of spell storing), large size (plenty of ways to achieve that, even for longer times at that level), boots of speed and a monk's belt. The divine power is the only ahead-of-combat buff (OK, plus the free haste activation of the boots).
This yields 7 attacks (4!! of which are at the highest attack bonus opposed to the full BAB's 2 in those cases, and with similar "to hit" to full BAB classes who will have to deduct even for their power attack), 6d8 base damage each, +STR (base at that level may be 16, +6 enhance from divine power, +2 size for 24 total), or a grand total of
42d8 damage +49 if all hit. At level 16. Vs ALL opponents (not just those who are favored enemy, have no critical immunity or whatever- the only exceptions are incorporal creatures. Whip out your bane-undead, ghost touch +1 staff then and flurry as well).
Add to this the usual enhancement, morale or whatever bonuses around at that level and the possible criticals which multiply the base damage, too.


Compare that to what a competent melee character can do. Giving out arbitrary large numbers with no context is a ridiculous way of making a point. Try something a monk can do on his own; this is about monks, not cleric spells.

[Dr Bwaa]

Re: ToH stuff:
Yes, I know ToH is not really a valid comparison. I was just offering it up as an example of monks being neigh-unkillable. Most of the character deaths were from failed saves, inability to combat things effectively, and the like. This monk was wearing nothing but an iron pot tied to his groin for a whole session and still only succumbed to bad luck (no-save TPK :smalleek: )

Re: general monk:
I never, ever, ever build a monk, or know anyone who builds a monk, without Improved Natural Attack. It's core, it's awesome, and it makes them do an awful lot more damage when combined with magical growth/monks' belt/etc. A must-have (at lvl 6).

However, even then, doing any real damage on par with other melee characters at high levels is very difficult (as Nebo_ pointed out). This is made worse by the fact that (I believe) the monk's belt does not continue to help you at level 20 (because, if I remember correctly, Epic Monk does not continue to have damage increases, etc), which sucks.

My overall answer on "Are monks any good?" is the following:
Yes, but you're going to have to optimize pretty well to keep up with a relatively-unoptimized party. In a party where everyone is twinkin' out to the max, you're going to feel left out (although, at lvl 20, some scrolls of Alter Self become so broken it's silly, since you're an Outsider (but then again, by level 21, the mage can create Universes at will, so hey))

[Talya]

My level 14 sorceress could fight a 14 monk in melee, without a single offensive spell, and kick his poor little ass.

Edit: She could not easily do the same to a level 14 fighter, ranger, paladin, etc.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

PS: as an hors d'oevre for all who think a monk is a complete melee failure, think about a monk at 16th level with just the improved natural attack feat, a divine power effect (let's assume no Giamonk- so from a 50,000 ring of spell storing), large size (plenty of ways to achieve that, even for longer times at that level), boots of speed and a monk's belt. The divine power is the only ahead-of-combat buff (OK, plus the free haste activation of the boots).
This yields 7 attacks (4!! of which are at the highest attack bonus opposed to the full BAB's 2 in those cases, and with similar "to hit" to full BAB classes who will have to deduct even for their power attack), 6d8 base damage each, +STR (base at that level may be 16, +6 enhance from divine power, +2 size for 24 total), or a grand total of
42d8 damage +49 if all hit. At level 16. Vs ALL opponents (not just those who are favored enemy, have no critical immunity or whatever- the only exceptions are incorporal creatures. Whip out your bane-undead, ghost touch +1 staff then and flurry as well).
Add to this the usual enhancement, morale or whatever bonuses around at that level and the possible criticals which multiply the base damage, too.

So level 16? When the Fighter has:
Power Attack/Shocktrooper/Leap Attack/Battle Jump/Karmic Strike/Robilar's Gamit/Combat Brute/Elusive Target and some other feats?

So he's doing (1d6+73)X2 on one attack at his highest AB if he wakes up naked in the forest and grabs the nearest stick. With the following round consisting of a series of AoOs and a full attack each doing 1d6+73.

Notice the minimum damage of his first charge is more then the average damage of your first four attacks.

Add in items, or God forbid, buffs, and then just cry.

EDIT: Also, we all know that Monk 20 is worse then Rogue 20 because it actively hurts his ability to buff himself, so why not this:

Cleric 1/Monk X. You delay all your usual Monkishness by one level, not that big a deal. In return you get to Spell Complete all Cleric Spells, including Divine Power. It's certainly a lot better then Monk 20 (of course, so is a Cleric 10/Monk 10 and a Cleric 20, so maybe that's a lessen, if you want to cast Cleric buffs on yourself every fight you should be a Cleric.)

[Solo]

Most specifically, I would be interested in knowing when you see the sorcerer as being consistently superior to the monk. From level 1? Level 3/4? (and to answer the question how a monk can overcome +18 deflection AC at level 3 that is up for 3 minutes: WAIT for three minutes!)

So, while the untouchable wizard is raining down magical death upon you, your solution is to wait until his protection wears off?

That sounds like a bad idea.

[Rutee]

He could try using that superior monk Sir Robin-ing, perhaps?

[Solo]

He could try using that superior monk Sir Robin-ing, perhaps?
At level 3, even if he waited for the Scintillating Scales to wear off, he'd still have to contend with the wizard having flight via Alter Self for 27 more minutes.

But then again, I guess this is what the monk's superior movement speed is for?

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

At level 3, even if he waited for the Scintillating Scales to wear off, he'd still have to contend with the wizard having flight via Alter Self for 27 more minutes.

But then again, I guess this is what the monk's superior movement speed is for?

That's what Sir Robining means: Running away from every challenge, the one thing Monks are really good at.

[Arbitrarity]

*unarmed swordsage snap-kicks monk*
Boom, 24d8 over 2 attacks. That was difficult.
*Unarmed TWF swordsage pouncing charges monk and Raging Mongooses, while snap kicking and hasted*

That's 8 full BAB, 2 -5, 2 -10. Oh noes.
If all hit, that's 144d8+11.5*str. +enhancement, if applicable (yay, GMW). Versus anything that's vulnerable to being punched to death. Maybe grab versatile unarmed strike?

I get the impression greater mighty wallop breaks monks.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=987182

Interesting that the build there has 2 levels of monk. It's not good for much else, of course, but two-punching a 10 ft cube of adamantine seems like enough to me.

[Sir Giacomo]

Oh my,

I realised the usual denial would set in, but this?

1) my 16th level monk example was not meant to show that other classes could not achieve similar feats, but simply what kind of damage a monk could achieve in melee.

2) coming to think of it- no. Actually, out of the top of my head I cannot think of any class that can do over 200 damage in a round in core in melee at 16th level as my above monk example. The number of attacks at full BAB with the highest base damage in the game is simply unbeatable. A 16h level barbarian with raged STR 34 and enlarged two-handed sword comes not even close.*
Your swordsages, scillinating colours and shocktroopers all only show one thing: who can whip out the companion with the most broken stuff.
But this does not illustrate that core is unbalanced, nor that the monk is not a valid, useful class in core. Talyas boastful claim for a level 14 sorcerer to own a same level monk in melee sounds interesting (in particular the "not being able to do the same vs paladins, rangers or fighters" part). But somehow I suspect that a) the used trick is wishful thinking once again and b) it uses non-core material.

3) The 3rd level wizard "raining death" on a 3rd level monk for 30 rounds is so odd that once again I have to wonder what kind of game you are playing.
That wizard has already used up 2 of his 2nd level spells (in ONE encounter of his four for the day to boost). Now he has his first level spells left and likely 1 2nd level spell. Let us assume for a while that the wizard had two rounds to cast his spells in peace (highly unrealistic, in the first round of casting the wizard still has his low touch AC and is thus highly vulnerable to a grapple). Let us also assume that the monk did not realise what spells were being cast. Monk attacks, fails as if a strange invisible barrier is stopping him.
All melee characters (including the monk) then would withdraw. It then depends on the situation what would happen next. Possibly the wizard can enhance his movement with expeditious retreat (there goes another spell), keeping the opponent in range of his charm person (2nd 1st level spell used) or whatever. Anyhow, of all melee classes (excepting the paladin), the monk has the best chance to survive the coming spell onslaught. He could even in a typical dungeon confined space take one move out of sight and then use one move to hide. The wizard has no spot skill, so he could not defeat the monk this way.

Well, well. But I'd love to see Talya's 14th level melee sorcerer!

- Giacomo

EDIT @Nebo: ah, you listed one of my favourite monk (or even non-caster) fallacies: buffs do not show anything the class itself does. Yes, wbl and buffs are horrible, aren't they? :smallamused:
Funnily, the monk is one of those classes who gets from his class abilities already stuff other non-casters have to get via magic items to keep up with the caster classes.
Like it or not, wbl is a balancing factor in the game, as are spells that you can also cast on others and that are great for buffing.
In essence, it would have been sufficient to just say: sheesh Giacomo, did not think about divine power benefitting the monk so much - yes, you were correct.
*EDIT 2: just noticed that a two-weapon fighting rogue with divine power and sneaks at level 16 could also do some quite hefty damage. But if the above monk also took the two-weapon fighting route...he would have enough feats to spare...

[Arbitrarity]

Giamoco, your lack of innovation disturbs me.

Also, requesting all attacks to hit is silly. Can we check your to hit?

Finally, if you want only melee (No Harm, for example, or, say... empowered disintegrate, which is 210), then I'll get on it. I can use the monster manual. Huzzah.

How about a polymorphed hydra rogue? It's so very oldschool. Is 108d6 enough, all at full BAB? Just replace divine power with polymorph. :smalltongue:
It's... "core".

How about an orc cleric with strength buffed to 48? (Divine favor, divine power, strength domain, righteous might, 18 initial, +4 racial) Full BAB, hasted, for a tasty 40/40/35/30/25 2d6+52 (power attack for 8). Admittedly, his casting is godawful, but that's OK. He's melee. It's also 1 round, and eats buffs, but that's also OK :smallbiggrin:

How about the paired set of dire tigers? +30/30 2d6+17, and +24 3d6+11 +29/29 2d4+11, as well as +31/31 2d4+19 +26 2d6+12 +30/30 2d4+12 (+4 str item, animal growth) is 10 attacks for about 203 average damage.
Oh, maybe throw in an SNA 8 beforehand, just so you can also have 1d4+1 Huge dire bears (+23/23 2d6+14 +17 4d6+9 per bear)

Oh, you also haven't defined your magical source of large size. Righteous might? Prehaps enlarge person? You need those buffs, or you lose 14d8 (63 average damage) of your precious damage dice.

[Talic]

Oh my,

I realised the usual denial would set in, but this?
Overwhelmed by it? Yeah, us too.


1) my 16th level monk example was not meant to show that other classes could not achieve similar feats, but simply what kind of damage a monk could achieve in melee.

Again, however, out of context. IF the monk begins a round in melee range. IF the monk full attacks. Now, at level 16, a monk that moved into melee against a couple, say, stone giants, well, that monk is going to be considerably low on HP. If he has any.


2) coming to think of it- no. Actually, out of the top of my head I cannot think of any class that can do over 200 damage in a round in core in melee at 16th as my above monk example. The number of attacks at full BAB with the highest base damage in the game is simply unbeatable. A 16h level barbarian with raged STR 34 and enlarged two-handed sword comes not even close. Your swordsages, scillinating colours and shocktroopers all only show one thing: who can whip out the companion with the most broken stuff.
But this does not illustrate that core is unbalanced, nor that the monk is not a valid, useful class in core. Talyas boastful claim for a level 14 sorcerer to own a same level monk in melee sounds interesting (in particular the "not being able to do the same vs paladins, rangers or fighters" part). But somehow I suspect that a) the used trick is wishful thinking once again and b) it uses non-core material.

A well played monk, at any level, has a chance to beat a sorceror. A well played sorceror, at any level, will beat a monk. Take Talya above. Forcecage, Forcecage again after the Abundant step, cloudkill. Done. Garnish with a few damage spells that don't rely on Ref saves, to speed the process along.
If you prefer non core, Quickened avasculate (via rod of quicken), Power word: kill. Works on anyone under 200 hp.


3) The 3rd level wizard "raining death" on a 3rd level monk for 30 rounds is so odd that once again I have to wonder what kind of game you are playing.
That wizard has already used up 2 of his 2nd level spells (in ONE encounter of his four for the day to boost).
Use what you need. Equal monk to equal sorceror/wizard, each faces an encounter that an entire party would find balanced. Thus, the use of more than 25% is somewhat understood. :smallamused:
Second, an 18 int wiz has 2 spells per day at level 2. Unless he specializes, then it's 3. So let's go, Alter self for fly, glitterdust, something else. For level 1? Magic missile x3 and something else. 6d4+6 (mag missiles only) yields an average of 21 damage. Assuming the monk has a +2 con modifier, max 1st hp, and average after that, he's at 2 hp. And observed characters can't hide.

Now he has his first level spells left and likely 1 2nd level spell. Let us assume for a while that the wizard had two rounds to cast his spells in peace (highly unrealistic, in the first round of casting the wizard still has his low touch AC and is thus highly vulnerable to a grapple). Let us also assume that the monk did not realise what spells were being cast. Monk attacks, fails as if a strange invisible barrier is stopping him.
All melee characters (including the monk) then would withdraw. It then depends on the situation what would happen next. Possibly the wizard can enhance his movement with expeditious retreat (there goes another spell), keeping the opponent in range of his charm person (2nd 1st level spell used) or whatever. Anyhow, of all melee classes (excepting the paladin), the monk has the best chance to survive the coming spell onslaught. He could even in a typical dungeon confined space take one move out of sight and then use one move to hide. The wizard has no spot skill, so he could not defeat the monk this way.Assume that the 2 start aware of each other, first. If monk wins initiative, sorc will gamble on a glitterdust or somesuch. If sorc wins initiative, Alter self to fly, and it's game over. Monk flees, wiz wins encounter, by forcing opponent to flee.

Well, well. But I'd love to see Talya's 14th level melee sorcerer!

- Giacomo

EDIT @Nebo: ah, you listed one of my favourite monk (or even non-caster) fallacies: buffs do not show anything the class itself does. Yes, wbl and buffs are horrible, aren't they? :smallamused:
Funnily, the monk is one of those classes who gets from his class abilities already stuff other non-casters have to get via magic items to keep up with the caster classes.
Like it or not, wbl is a balancing factor in the game, as are spells that you can also cast on others and that are great for buffing. and WBL is a factor. However, unless you plan on purchasing those spells from an NPC you convinced to cast them on you in combat, you're trying to get freebies. That's not part of balance.

In essence, it would have been sufficient to just say: sheesh Giacomo, did not think about divine power benefitting the monk so much - yes, you were correct.Were we in bizarro world, where "correct" = "wrong", then yes, I'd completely agree to that. Please note: Patting yourself on the back doesn't make you right. Nor does it mean anyone else agrees with you. It just means you may have a slight closed mind, and a slight overdeveloped ego.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giamoco, your lack of innovation disturbs me.

Well, you your suggestions are hardly inspiring, I daresay...although I liked the STR 48 of the orc below...


Also, requesting all attacks to hit is silly. Can we check your to hit?

+16 BAB, +7 STR, +1 haste, so a total of +24/+24/+24/+24/+19/+14/+9. So yes, the monk will hit more often than the STR 34 barbarian at +29/+29/+24/+19/+14. Ah, and I completely forgot that the monk can add stunning fist and quivering palm at considerable DCs to the damage dealt in the round.


Finally, if you want only melee (No Harm, for example, or, say... empowered disintegrate, which is 210), then I'll get on it. I can use the monster manual. Huzzah.

Huzzah, disintegrate has to 1) hit the touch AC and 2) grants a fortitude save and 3) SR applies. Otherwise 5d6 damage only or nothing. Better luck next time.


How about a polymorphed hydra rogue? It's so very oldschool. Is 108d6 enough, all at full BAB? Just replace divine power with polymorph. :smalltongue:
It's... "core".

Be my guest, but I have somehow the feeling that hardly anyone around here will see any proof in anything involved with the polymorph spell:smallsmile: . Ah, and btw. the hydra monk can do similar horrors (and be faster than the 20ft base move rogue)


How about an orc cleric with strength buffed to 48? (Divine favor, divine power, strength domain, righteous might, 18 initial, +4 racial) Full BAB, hasted, for a tasty 40/40/35/30/25 2d6+52 (power attack for 8). Admittedly, his casting is godawful, but that's OK. He's melee. It's also 1 round, and eats buffs, but that's also OK :smallbiggrin:

Ah, orc it is? OK, add also the +4 racial STR bonus to the monk above.
Then, that orc uses one more buff round to get the righteous might.
Then, with such a focused maxing, let us turn the above monk into a true melee monster and have him devote three more of his feats into the two-weapon-fighting tree for
+24/+24/+24/+24/+24/+19/+19/+14/+14/+9
10 attacks. Total 60d8+90 (and note that any extra damage, like using a 2nd roudn buff as well for a holy weapon for +5 and 2d6 holy damage will skyrocket the damage further). Looks like the extremely maxed orc cleric did his godawful casting in vain. And the fun part is that the orc cleric could also use the two-weapon fighting tree, but would lose the two-handed fighting in the process. Plus, the orc is truly a 1-round wonder, while the monk's divine power at least lasts 7 rounds.

Come on guys! Even if some of you somehow came up with a more maxed melee damage output - isn't this enough already to show the monk does NOT suck? 360 damage per round at level 16 in CORE? What else should the monk do to convince you?

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Wow, -16 to hit comparatively impresses me so much. If I accounted for that, on CR appropriate monsters, let's see the +9 hit something? Assuming you roll 20's on everything fails.

That's 360 average damage, which is fairly good. Actually, the cleric does BETTER. When you accound for the tohit difference, and go maximum power attack, the cleric does 375 average damage. Oh. And also has +8 more to hit, none of this "+9" junk.

I like how for both examples, we use tons of 1/day abilities, just to peak that damage a little more. We also do nothing for prior rounds, assume monsters that do not move, and use non-PHB feats. We also assume that we can hit AC 27 (the lowest in the monster manual for CR 16) with +9 to hit. Easily.

We need someone to make an e-peen joke. It's too appropriate.

[Sir Giacomo]

Again, however, out of context. IF the monk begins a round in melee range. IF the monk full attacks. Now, at level 16, a monk that moved into melee against a couple, say, stone giants, well, that monk is going to be considerably low on HP. If he has any.

2 Stone giants? At level 16? A threat to a monk? You must be joking. They are killed by the above monk in 1 round.


A well played monk, at any level, has a chance to beat a sorceror. A well played sorceror, at any level, will beat a monk.

Now THAT, at long last, is something I full-heartedly agree to! Welcome to the "monk is balanced class in core" camp.


Take Talya above. Forcecage, Forcecage again after the Abundant step, cloudkill. Done. Garnish with a few damage spells that don't rely on Ref saves, to speed the process along.

Talya said the sorcerer would do it in melee, without any offensive spell.


If you prefer non core, Quickened avasculate (via rod of quicken), Power word: kill. Works on anyone under 200 hp.

You'll probably know by now that I do not prefer non core to make a point about how balanced the game is. It's quite simple: the core rules are a stand-alone game. Beyond that, nothing is designed with balance in mind, but with game options that may or may not be used, depending on taste, for fun.


Use what you need. Equal monk to equal sorceror/wizard, each faces an encounter that an entire party would find balanced. Thus, the use of more than 25% is somewhat understood. :smallamused:
Second, an 18 int wiz has 2 spells per day at level 2. Unless he specializes, then it's 3. So let's go, Alter self for fly, glitterdust, something else. For level 1? Magic missile x3 and something else. 6d4+6 (mag missiles only) yields an average of 21 damage. Assuming the monk has a +2 con modifier, max 1st hp, and average after that, he's at 2 hp.

So the wizard with all of his spells has achieved the following against 1 foe: nigh untouchable for 30 rounds (either via flying -not possible in core with alter self btw - or via the high touch AC), 21 damage and has a glitterdust left (and some other 1st level spell). Where is the ownage vs the monk here? The monk sips a healing potion and is ready to go for the remaining 3 encounters. The wizard? er...not so much.


And observed characters can't hide.

I never maintained that. I said, first on your turn in a dungeon move out of sight (around a corner, say), then use 2nd move action to hide.


Assume that the 2 start aware of each other, first. If monk wins initiative, sorc will gamble on a glitterdust or somesuch.

He cannot gamble on the glitter dust if he loses initiative, he will be grappled to death at that level.


If sorc wins initiative, Alter self to fly, and it's game over. Monk flees, wiz wins encounter, by forcing opponent to flee.

Two things on this strange "fleeing" double standard perception on these boards:
1) moving around a corner to hide is not "fleeing". It is forcing the game of the monk (or rogue) on the wizard, not the other way round. The monk remains near and a threat.
2) One of the prevalent double standards around here is that whenever casters are using flying spells to move away to safety it is "raining death from above". When a monk uses superior move to control the encounter it is "fleeing". Do you really think the non-casting classes and non-caster opponents cannot do anything vs flying opponents?
And before someone shouts again "Wind Wall", please remember that the wall has to rest on the ground, thus is not usable while flying.


and WBL is a factor. However, unless you plan on purchasing those spells from an NPC you convinced to cast them on you in combat, you're trying to get freebies. That's not part of balance.

Where again did I say that the above example monk gets "freebies"? He has a ring of spell storing with divine power, that is all. He can pay 280 gold to an npc to refill it (hardly earth-shaking cash at level 16), or get it from a fellow pc cleric. You may wish to potray the great (by now 360 damage) monk melee performance in such a way to make it look as if it is based only on this monk being able to diplomacy someone into aid/takerisks/help/protect to get the divine power cheaper. But this is not even necessary.


Were we in bizarro world, where "correct" = "wrong", then yes, I'd completely agree to that. Please note: Patting yourself on the back doesn't make you right. Nor does it mean anyone else agrees with you. It just means you may have a slight closed mind, and a slight overdeveloped ego.

Now what is this about? Nebo_ basically said "But you used Divine Power. It proves nothing." in order to avoid to admit being proven wrong. What kind of argument is that?

- Giacomo

[Solo]

SG, if the fact that an opponent ignores you means that you have won, then I have won.

You have not responded to my posts where I asked you to build a monk, nor have you responded to my question of how your 3rd level monk deals with a wizard who can fly with +15 NA for thirty minutes aside from waiting it out, something guaranteed to get your monk killed.

Even if the wizard runs out of spells (entirely possible at level 3), most wizards will invest in a cross bow and bolts. Your monk may have good AC, but the wizard will roll a lot of hits in thirty minutes. Your monk may move fast, but a Ravid has a movement of fly 60.


Granted, the Alter Self cheese is broken, but it's core.

Ravids? Core.

Alter Self? Core

Playing as an Outsider? Core, look under Planetouched in the Monster Manual.

The LA would mean that the wizard would have to be at CL 4 to pull off the trick, but a level 4 monk will be equally as helpless.


Bringing in expansion material just makes it more broken.


Now THAT, at long last, is something I full-heartedly agree to! Welcome to the "monk is balanced class in core" camp.

Just because you stand a chance against Bruce Lee in unarmed combat does not mean that you are "balanced" against the Bruce.

[Arbitrarity]

Hm...

+23/23/18/13/8 1d8+56

Commoner. Gotta love em.

Now, can I get more?

Yes.
24/24/19/14/9 3d6+59. (whee, 347.5 average). Now.. can I boost that just a touch more? (Yes, I spent 210K on items so far. And?).

Meh, grab elemental enhancements.
24/24/19/14/9
3d6+59 + 1d6 fire + 1d6 cold + 1d6 electricity.

There! 400 average damage with a 16'th level commoner using WBL. With 18K remaining. (admittedly, he lacks totally disproportionate elemental boost gains, but that's OK. He hasn't used 4 feats)

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Come on guys! Even if some of you somehow came up with a more maxed melee damage output - isn't this enough already to show the monk does NOT suck? 360 damage per round at level 16 in CORE? What else should the monk do to convince you?

Do it without two rounds of buffing, getting adjacent to the target, and then dieing because his AC/HP is crap, since he spent the vast majority of his WBL on Str/Rings of Spellstoring/Various enlarge effects and having other people buff him thus neglecting his sub-par HP/AC. It would also be nice if he could do it with a higher attack rating then +24 since that's not really sufficient at that level. Quantity does not make up for Quality.

Also note those "considerable" DCs are going to be largely inconsequential. Because he isn't going to have much Wisdom when he spends all his points and Wealth on Strength.

Seriously, you should consider the possibilities of a 1 lvl Cleric dip. It costs you one level of Monk progression, but gives you the ability (without even having to use UMD) to spell complete all Cleric items, such as:

Wand of Divine Power since it is so essential.
Scrolls of Righteous Might/Divine Power/Freedom of Movement/Anything else you want.
Wand of Divine Favor, doesn't cost much, can be pretty useful if you know combat is coming. Either 750gp for 50 fights at +1 AB and damage or a lot more for +3.

Of course it's still better to dip something with UMD, then run it up and get a Staff of all these spells. UMD your CL up to the roof and call it a night.

[Sir Giacomo]

Wow, -16 to hit comparatively impresses me so much. If I accounted for that, on CR appropriate monsters, let's see the +9 hit something? Assuming you roll 20's on everything fails.

That's 360 average damage, which is fairly good. Actually, the cleric does BETTER. When you accound for the tohit difference, and go maximum power attack, the cleric does 375 average damage. Oh. And also has +8 more to hit, none of this "+9" junk.

You do realise that using this full power attack to just bartely pass by the monk in damage (who, as I mentioned, will disproportionately make use with his 5 more attacks of any extra damage dice) means the orc cleric now has only his first two attacks equaling those of the monk, where as the other 8 attacks of the monk hit better?


I like how for both examples, we use tons of 1/day abilities, just to peak that damage a little more. We also do nothing for prior rounds, assume monsters that do not move, and use non-PHB feats. We also assume that we can hit AC 27 (the lowest in the monster manual for CR 16) with +9 to hit. Easily.

Well, at level 16 the above monk can use the extra buffing round for a holy sword effect (+5 enhance), will likely have some morale and competence bonuses going on (throw in another +3 to hit). Ah, just noticed your orc cleric also already used a luck buff to get to the same point -that trick can be done via the ring of spell storing as well (there one 1st level slot still free).
So yes, even the puny +9 attacks have a good chance to hit.
And the one who really used a 1/day hit wonder is the orc cleric with the strength power granting +16 to STR. Not the monk. And you know it.


We need someone to make an e-peen joke. It's too appropriate.

? Don't understand. Please explain. But if you mean that you admit that the monk does not suck in melee, be welcome!

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

It's because we're both waving around dumb numbers with no particular reasons, in support of our cause. Worse, they aren't well supported, and they are (or so the joke goes) a form of "compensation".

[Solo]

You seem to be getting a little desperate, SG.


And you still haven't responded to my previous post. I understand if you are busy being the sole voice on your side, but I am curious as to how your monk plans on surviving combat with a core Planetouched wizard who can fly for thirty minutes at ECL4, +15 NA, fly speed 60 ft, with magical spells of death, scrolls, and a crossbow for when those run out.


Also, if I may ask, why don't you just show us a monk build as definitive proof that you can in fact make a monk that doesn't suck?


It's because we're both waving around dumb numbers with no particular reasons, in support of our cause. Worse, they aren't well supported, and they are (or so the joke goes) a form of "compensation".

All the more reason for SG to make a monk build.

[Indon]

So what you're saying is that your idea of a monk is... the unarmed swordsage.

Well, the monkey king had better mobility than that, and also wasn't a caster class ripoff, but was instead something with some degree of novelty.

But hey, if the Monk isn't powerful enough for you, there's no reason for you not to use a more powerful class and just call it whatever you like. Get what you want out of your game, from your game.


They're not a marital class, and don't focus on being able to fight equal opponents (the way, say, a monk would). Instead, they focus on fighting low-level criminal scum without endangering anyone nearby.
Just admit you don't like the monk because you don't think it's powerful enough, and that you would much rather prefer a class with more mechanical power like the Swordsage. Then use it. No, it's not necessary to make paragraph after paragraph of witty mockery of a class because it's mechanically weak.

As an aside, I think the Monk would make for an awesome marital class.


after all, monks rarely talk to animals, rarely have the ability to teleport, only occasionally have something approximating quivering palm, and so on.

A monk given all of the abilities that monks manifest in fiction would be Wizard-like in scope of abilities and power. (So of course, you can feel free to reflavor the Wizard into a monk and then use it as such) Any actual Monk implementation would not have all of the powers Monks get.

Various disciplines can be described rather easily as prestige classes, though there's the problem of there being no real barriers to classes or abilities generally found in D&D - no doubt secret techniques with actual barriers for entry would be considered most feeble and disliked as a result.


That is the only factor in "balance." Saying the monk doesn't suck because you don't care about mechanical strength is kinda silly. It's like saying the monk doesn't suck because you don't care if it sucks.

No doubt you think it silly - you appear to consider relative class power to be the only factor involved in class quality. I view proper criteria as being, for instance, mechanical and descriptive innovation.

[Reel On, Love]

I think it's funny that Gia assumes his monks will crank DEX because he likes Weapon Finesse and not getting killed, but will crank STR becuase they like grappling and damage. Which is it? You've got to pick one.

[The Rose Dragon]

As an aside, I think the Monk would make for an awesome marital class.

Monks do it with their fists.

No, wait, monks do it with every part of their body. :smallwink:

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

I think it's funny that Gia assumes his monks will crank DEX because he likes Weapon Finesse and not getting killed, but will crank STR becuase they like grappling and damage. Which is it? You've got to pick one.

But they also have considerable Stunning Fist DCs from their maxxed out Wisdom!

And they have enough HP to survive a pummeling from two Stone Giants from Maxxed Constitution!

Don't forget all their skill points! And James Bond like Charisma!

[Indon]

No, wait, monks do it with every part of their body. :smallwink:

And can do it faster in a grapple during a full action.

[Sir Giacomo]

Do it without two rounds of buffing, getting adjacent to the target, and then dieing because his AC/HP is crap, since he spent the vast majority of his WBL on Str/Rings of Spellstoring/Various enlarge effects and having other people buff him thus neglecting his sub-par HP/AC. It would also be nice if he could do it with a higher attack rating then +24 since that's not really sufficient at that level. Quantity does not make up for Quality.

Now...I do not quite get it...are you talking about your orc cleric?:smallbiggrin:
But concerning the monk
- used only one round of buff (standard action without AoO, the holy weapon was an extra). So no problem getting off in combat.
- no other people buffed him. The buff is cast by himself. The cleric gets it form his deity. The monk bought it or got it from the pc cleric's deity indirectly. It sophistics to make a big point about it. The enlarge can come from the same ring. Same mechanics (would then entail a 2nd round, though lasts longer). Or bought like an item as permanencie'd status before.
- Hp and AC do not matter here, but I have the suspicion the hp is not far behind the orc who focused all of his ability points on STR and WIS (to even get off the spells he cast). Definitely not the AC.


Also note those "considerable" DCs are going to be largely inconsequential. Because he isn't going to have much Wisdom when he spends all his points and Wealth on Strength.

You mean like your orc did?:smallbiggrin:
And you do not spend "points" on wealth. Where does this strange rule come from?
Items benefit the monk, and some items and buffs simply synergise better with him than with other classes (like the divine power buff).


Seriously, you should consider the possibilities of a 1 lvl Cleric dip. It costs you one level of Monk progression, but gives you the ability (without even having to use UMD) to spell complete all Cleric items, such as:

Wand of Divine Power since it is so essential.
Scrolls of Righteous Might/Divine Power/Freedom of Movement/Anything else you want.
Wand of Divine Favor, doesn't cost much, can be pretty useful if you know combat is coming. Either 750gp for 50 fights at +1 AB and damage or a lot more for +3.

That's actually a good idea, but I think in this thread multiclassing is not really the issue.


Of course it's still better to dip something with UMD, then run it up and get a Staff of all these spells. UMD your CL up to the roof and call it a night.

Hmmm...could be too expensive. After all, the wbl is also there to get items like monk's belt, gloves of DEX, and periapt of WIS....:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

I think it's funny that Gia assumes his monks will crank DEX because he likes Weapon Finesse and not getting killed, but will crank STR becuase they like grappling and damage. Which is it? You've got to pick one.

But...I did, didn't I? The above example monk had (modestly) focused on STR (STR of 16 at level 16). Of course, you can also build DEX-based monks.

- Giaocmo

[Attilargh]

And you do not spend "points" on wealth. Where does this strange rule come from?
"Points and wealth on Strength", note.

[Arbitrarity]

Hey, I'm the one with the orc cleric :smallbiggrin:

I need to switch avatars.

[Solo]

Sir Giacomo, you must have missed my previous posts. Allow me to restate my points.

I understand if you are busy being the sole voice on your side, but I am curious as to how your monk plans on surviving combat with a core Planetouched wizard who can fly for thirty minutes at ECL4, +15 NA, fly speed 60 ft, with magical spells of death, scrolls, and a crossbow for when those run out.


Also, if I may ask, why don't you just show us a monk build as definitive proof that you can in fact make a monk that doesn't suck?

[TRM]

I'd like to point out Monks are good at one thing.

They make excellent prostitutes. Immune to Disease and Flurry of Blows, anyone? :smallamused:
My thoughts were more along the lines of:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/23/shhhhideis128507715680312500.jpg

and
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/23/monksrbalanced128507736997343750.jpg

The management would like to apologize for the interruption, we now return you to your regularly scheduled monk balance debate.

[Arbitrarity]

My thoughts were more along the lines of:
http://images.icanhascheezburger.com/completestore/2008/3/23/shhhhideis128507715680312500.jpg

The management would like to apologize for the interruption, we now return you to your regularly scheduled monk balance debate.

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f306/WmV337/1_free_internet.jpg

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Now...I do not quite get it...are you talking about your orc cleric?:smallbiggrin:

You mean like your orc did?:smallbiggrin:

Please actually read the names of the posters, or I am going to change my avatar to the same as yours and go around posting retarded comments about Monks just to confuse you.

EDIT: On review this came out wrong, I am not calling your comments retarded, I just meant that I would post strange comments (different then what you post) to confuse you. It is not a serious threat, or an insult, just an attempt to have you understand my dislike of being attributed with things that I did not say or suggest[/EDIT]

I don't like being attribute for things that have nothing to do with me.


But concerning the monk
- used only one round of buff (standard action without AoO, the holy weapon was an extra). So no problem getting off in combat.

And an Enlarge effect, which is a second buff. And if Permancied would be easily (and often) dispelled, in addition to costing tons of cash as you level up, eating up much of WBL.


- no other people buffed him. The buff is cast by himself. The cleric gets it form his deity. The monk bought it or got it from the pc cleric's deity indirectly. It sophistics to make a big point about it. The enlarge can come from the same ring. Same mechanics (would then entail a 2nd round, though lasts longer). Or bought like an item as permanencie'd status before.

It doesn't matter what you say about the buffing, if you regularly rely on someone else to provide you with a spell, you rely on them. And you are asking for Divine Power 4 times a day, so unless you have four rings of Spell Storing you are reliant on another PC giving you a considerable supply of their spells.


- Hp and AC do not matter here, but I have the suspicion the hp is not far behind the orc who focused all of his ability points on STR and WIS (to even get off the spells he cast). Definitely not the AC.

Once again, not talking about the Orc, was never talking about the Orc. My concern is that in ending your turn adjacent to two Giants, you are then going to take HP damage in excess of your HP before you get off the full attack needed to down them. Death is not fun. Not to mention, as I said, I don't like your to hit chances.


And you do not spend "points" on wealth. Where does this strange rule come from?
Items benefit the monk, and some items and buffs simply synergise better with him than with other classes (like the divine power buff).

I am well aware of the way Items work, please read more carefully. I said that you spent your Wealth on Str and to hit, instead of AC/HP.

I also showed you a way of doing almost 150 damage using a Fighter on a single charge attack while wielding only a free club and having no magic items. This has the advantage of being done without subjecting oneself to a round of full attacks by your opponents and being easily increased considerably by the addition of items.

However if you really want Core max damage, and not needing to suffer a Full attack or two to get it, try a Paladin Mounted Charge. Keep in mind that anywhere your enlarged Monk fits, the Horse is likely to fit as well, and has comparable movement speed.

[Sir Giacomo]

SG, if the fact that an opponent ignores you means that you have won, then I have won.

Solo, please. There is even a typical example just going on. "monk sucks - can't do anything in melee". (me: posts 360damage/round at level 16). "ach, that's silly anyhow...throwing around numbers....you use divine power, not a class skill...". It gets tiring...


You have not responded to my posts where I asked you to build a monk, nor have you responded to my question of how your 3rd level monk deals with a wizard who can fly with +15 NA for thirty minutes aside from waiting it out, something guaranteed to get your monk killed.

But I did, above.
The monk guide will take some days, but it will come.
The wizard cannot fly at 3rd level with +15 NA for several reasons:
- with alter self he can either take a flying race, or a +15 NA race, not both
- in core the whole thing is not possible.
- the deflection bonus (to thwart the grappling threat in the non-flying form) lasts 30 rounds, and as a showed above a simple move, hide is enough to neuter the spell for its duration.


Granted, the Alter Self cheese is broken, but it's core.
Ravids? Core.

Alter Self? Core

Playing as an Outsider? Core, look under Planetouched in the Monster Manual.

The LA would mean that the wizard would have to be at CL 4 to pull off the trick, but a level 4 monk will be equally as helpless.

Luckily, in core it is not as broken. You can get the ravids, but it costs you +1 LA to get planetouched and THOU SHALLST NOT SACRIFICE CASTER LEVELS! At 3rd level an aasimar wizard would thus not even have alter self up.
And what prevents the monk to be planetouched as well and use a wand of alter self? Now both can fly. Duh. Plus, the monk will over the course of his career get all his nice movement enhancements ontop of the 60ft perfect fly speed.
Thanks for the hint!

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Did SG just spend 4.5K out of 5.4 on a single item?

Yes. He did. :smallyuk:
Did he just put 3 ranks in UMD?
Yes. He did.

Did he just make a DC 20 UMD check with that?
Yes. He did.
:smalleek:

[Sir Giacomo]

Please actually read the names of the posters, or I am going to change my avatar to the same as yours and go around posting retarded comments about Monks just to confuse you.

EDIT: On review this came out wrong, I am not calling your comments retarded, I just meant that I would post strange comments (different then what you post) to confuse you. It is not a serious threat, or an insult, just an attempt to have you understand my dislike of being attributed with things that I did not say or suggest[/EDIT]

I don't like being attribute for things that have nothing to do with me.

AIEEH. HUGE sorry, I really confused you. Shows me to start getting to that monk build Solo covets and also get some real life work done.


And an Enlarge effect, which is a second buff. And if Permancied would be easily (and often) dispelled, in addition to costing tons of cash as you level up, eating up much of WBL.

True. It would be normally better to use enlarge in that 2nd buff round (or not at all, it is critical for grappling, not for normal unarmed melee when able to tumble through AoO through opponents' larger reach).


It doesn't matter what you say about the buffing, if you regularly rely on someone else to provide you with a spell, you rely on them. And you are asking for Divine Power 4 times a day, so unless you have four rings of Spell Storing you are reliant on another PC giving you a considerable supply of their spells.

Considerable at that level only if the monk truyl would come 4 times per day to get those divine powers. The Giamonk (UMD) can help a lot by using a wand of divine power at that level.


Once again, not talking about the Orc, was never talking about the Orc. My concern is that in ending your turn adjacent to two Giants, you are then going to take HP damage in excess of your HP before you get off the full attack needed to down them. Death is not fun. Not to mention, as I said, I don't like your to hit chances.

Add the usual extra to hit at that level, and you are looking at around +30 for the highest attacks. Enough to hit giants most of the time. Then, the monk could move in fighting defensively (+3 AC) which at those levels could protect him from all but the highest attacks of the giants. The damage from those two attacks can be survived easily at that level. Add to this the possibility that the monk could sneak up on those two giants to get into full attack position (likely he can use his surprise round to get close them and then wins initiative. His full attack damage hits them before they can hit back).


I am well aware of the way Items work, please read more carefully. I said that you spent your Wealth on Str and to hit, instead of AC/HP.

Ah, OK. Sorry - misread that as well. The wbl spent for the example monk at 16th level was less than a third, though (50,000 for the ring containing the divine power, 13,500 for the monk's belt, 3000 or so for the permanencied enlarge).


I also showed you a way of doing almost 150 damage using a Fighter on a single charge attack while wielding only a free club and having no magic items. This has the advantage of being done without subjecting oneself to a round of full attacks by your opponents and being easily increased considerably by the addition of items.

Can't remember right now- wasn't this the usual shocktrooper combo charger build outside core? And note that a charge ends adjacent to your foe who will retaliate with full attack to your one charge attack.
Anyhow, I am usually talking about balance in core, since outside core it's hardly discussable what is balanced and what not.


However if you really want Core max damage, and not needing to suffer a Full attack or two to get it, try a Paladin Mounted Charge. Keep in mind that anywhere your enlarged Monk fits, the Horse is likely to fit as well, and has comparable movement speed.

Yes, the mounted charger can be quite devastating. But will the mount be present always, including in a dungeon setting? And I doubt the level 16 paladin in core will get even close to 360 damage in one round with one hit.

- Giacomo

[Aquillion]

Did SG just spend 4.5K out of 5.4 on a single item?

Yes. He did. :smallyuk:
Did he just put 3 ranks in UMD?
Yes. He did.

Did he just make a DC 20 UMD check with that?
Yes. He did.
:smalleek:Well, to be fair, he has maxed charisma.

[Sir Giacomo]

Did SG just spend 4.5K out of 5.4 on a single item?

Yes. He did. :smallyuk:
Did he just put 3 ranks in UMD?
Yes. He did.

Did he just make a DC 20 UMD check with that?
Yes. He did.
:smalleek:

Glad to expain the UMD mechanics to you:

Spend any fractions you like on a 2nd level spell wand. Say, 10 uses cost you 900 gp. Best, get 2 5-use wands for 450 gp each (the reason will become soon apparent).
Alter Self is a 10 min/lvl spell. So it lasts 30 minutes cast from the lowest power level wand available.
30 minutes ahead of an encounter sound like quite a lot of rounds to try the UMD until the alter self is activated. And if you happen to roll a "1" on one wand, use the other. The monk can use both his hands for two wands, since he can kick/fight with the rest of his body.

In the duel vs the 3rd level Aasimar wizard, the 3rd level Aasimar monk may even get up the alter self after combat started. Wizard flies, tries to hit monk with crossbow (vs the Aasimar monk's higer WIS AC), monk has plenty of time to get the UMD up.

Ah, and the UMD modifier of this example would be a bit higher, since Aasimar get a CHR bonus :smallbiggrin: Not to mention the possible use of a skill focus - UMD feat, meaning every third round on average the monk will be able to activate the alter self.

- Giacomo

[Ossian]

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? Perhaps the mechanics did not put the monks on pair with the other classes, but if you reduce D&D to maxed out damages and roles in a party (namely 1st and 2nd melee, blaster and scouter)...well, I guess there is no intelligent way of finishing that sentence.

So, this and this and this classes suck, and who would take a fighter beyond level 6 because otherwise Mike, the guy that plays the wiyard will always be more uber than me....

Besides, where is all this suckitude exactly? I know very few people who use core only characters. A monk around 9th level, with some shintao monk (oriental adventures) and some kensai (CW, focus on unarmed attacks) can be pretty awesome. Add that you can flavor it with a level or two of ranger (urban ranger) or barbarian (streetfighter version) streetfighter or fighter (for a couple of extra feats) and there you have some force to be reckoned with.
I could be influenced by having seen Tony Jaa´s The Protector but a guy who deals the same damage of a two handed swords with his kicks is bound to be cool.


Sure, if the world is good only for fighters who deal 1d10+100x2x3x5 with uber attack, power freakness and the speacial "I win" feat. I mean, that looks a lot like we are talking about the "Bastard" manga setting, instead of classic fantasy D&D.

Uh, well, sorry if that came across as then rant of a drunkard or a crotchety old man. It´s got to be the flu :smalleek:


O.

[Solo]

Luckily, in core it is not as broken. You can get the ravids, but it costs you +1 LA to get planetouched and THOU SHALLST NOT SACRIFICE CASTER LEVELS!
Although TLN notes that some people consider the abuse potential worth it.



At 3rd level an aasimar wizard would thus not even have alter self up.
You are confused.

The Aasimar has 3 levels in wizard, but is an ECL 4 character. This has been clarified in my subsequent posts.



And what prevents the monk to be planetouched as well and use a wand of alter self? Now both can fly. Duh. Plus, the monk will over the course of his career get all his nice movement enhancements ontop of the 60ft perfect fly speed.



Where are you getting the money and the skills to UMD a wand of Alter Self?

The Wand costs 4.5 K. What is your WBL for a 4th level character again? If you are using an Aasimar, you'd be a level 3 character. What is the WBL for a level 3 character?

You need to reliably hit a DC 20 UMD check.

How do you get the skill modifier to do this, and what are your stats?

After assigning feats, stats, skill points, will you be able to do anything else than counter this specific Wizard tactic?

[Sir Giacomo]

The wizard cannot fly at 3rd level with +15 NA for several reasons:
- with alter self he can either take a flying race, or a +15 NA race, not both


Solo- I just noticed: the ravid DOES get both - natural armour AND flying! Incredible alter self use for the monk! Thanks a lot for THAT hint.

- Giacomo

[Morty]

Solo- I just noticed: the ravid DOES get both - natural armour AND flying! Incredible alter self use for the monk! Thanks a lot for THAT hint.


I see you haven't given up trying to prove that the monk is strong because he can use cross-class skills to read expensive scrolls designed for other classes and not utilizing his own monkish abilities.

[Arbitrarity]

Yeah, I can't seem to pull more than about average 174 (against evil only. -39 if not evil) damage off a single hit. But it is at +30(-5 if not evil) or so. It also has mobility.

Anyone can improve on this?

EDIT: My orc commoner on the opposite page, using 16'th level WBL, outdamages you, SG.

[Sir Giacomo]

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? Perhaps the mechanics did not put the monks on pair with the other classes, but if you reduce D&D to maxed out damages and roles in a party (namely 1st and 2nd melee, blaster and scouter)...well, I guess there is no intelligent way of finishing that sentence.

(...)

Uh, well, sorry if that came across as then rant of a drunkard or a crotchety old man. It´s got to be the flu :smalleek:


no problem. See, the thread is about the technical properties of the monk class. If taken out of the PHB, is it able to compete technically with the other classes in terms of rules-based-mechanics contributions to the game?

It's not about the roleplaying properties of the monk class. Although I must say, it is highly specific and does not invite as many roleplaying possibilities as the much more modifiable/variable fighter or sorcerer class (where you get to pick from a list like 90% of their class abilities).

- Giacomo

[Solo]

I see you haven't given up trying to prove that the monk is strong because he can use cross-class skills to read expensive scrolls designed for other classes and not utilizing his own monkish abilities.

In other words, the best way for a monk to stay competitive is to be a caster.

[Sir Giacomo]

EDIT: My orc commoner on the opposite page, using 16'th level WBL, outdamages you, SG.

Where did that commoner get +59 damage per hit from?

- Giacomo

[The Rose Dragon]

In other words, the best way for a monk to stay competitive is to be a caster.

And this is why we measure awesomeness in units of Solos. :smalltongue:

[Sir Giacomo]

In other words, the best way for a monk to stay competitive is to be a caster.

No, it's to use magic. The stuff that's also inside a +1 sword, or a potion of CLW.

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Strength, outside ring of spell storing buffing, and twohanded power attack.

Also, more strength. And greater magic weapon.

[Sir Giacomo]

Strength, outside ring of spell storing buffing, and twohanded power attack.

Also, more strength. And greater magic weapon.

Care to list the numbers in detail? Because the commoner has no longer STR 48 like the 1-round wonder cleric.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

No, it's to use magic. The stuff that's also inside a +1 sword, or a potion of CLW.

- Giacomo

You aren't casting anything when you use a masterwork weapon.


Giacomo, if you say you can have a plnetouched monk use Alter Self cheese, I ask you

1. A third level monk (ECL 4) has the WBL of a third level character. What is his WBL, and how much of it does he spend on a wand?

2. After using feats, assigning skills and stats, can you do anything else other than counter this specific wizard tactic?

3. Wizards do it without magical gear. Would you care to guess what would happen if a wizard used magic items on top of his spells, which he gets for free?

[Sir Giacomo]

You aren't casting anything when you use a masterwork weapon.

Yes, but you are casting haste as free action from boots of speed, items widely suggested on these boards for non-caster characters. So what is the problem here?
Bad monk. Bad, bad monk. Uses spells supposedly only for the casters. Very bad.:smallamused:

Tell me, Solo. Who makes more use out of the Ravid form from alter self? The wizard or the monk?

- Giacomo

[Arbitrarity]

Orc commoner 16

Strength 18 (+4 racial, +4 righteous might, +6 divine power, +4 inherent +4 levels) (40)
Everything else: Unimportant. He doesn't care.

Greater Magic weapon (CL 20) on +1 flaming, frost, shocking greatsword.

Voila. Power attack for 16 (full BAB, divine power), and you get +15 (strength mod) +5 (GMW) -1 (size) +1 haste... I must have accidentally cheated on the to-hit.
Alas, my math seems off today. Damage, however:
+22 (2 handed, strength*1.5) +32 (power attack) +5 (item). +59.

Greatsword is enlarged, so 3d6. The effects are 3d6 elemental.

Two rings of spell storing. 1 tome of strength +4. One +4 equivalent weapon. Boots of haste.

Of course, he can't hit anything with full power attack. But he's a freakin commoner.

[MeklorIlavator]

Yes, but you are casting haste as free action from boots of speed, items widely suggested on these boards for non-caster characters. So what is the problem here?
Bad monk. Bad, bad monk. Uses spells supposedly only for the casters. Very bad.:smallamused:
- Giacomo

Well, saying a class is well designed, but proving it only by making builds were a majority of the builds effectiveness comes from emulating class features of another class seems less than rational.

[Morty]

Yes, but you are casting haste as free action from boots of speed, items widely suggested on these boards for non-caster characters. So what is the problem here?

The problem is, Boots Of Speed aren't scrolls who are designed to be used by caster and you don't blow half of your WBL on them and then fail half of your UMD checks anyway.


Tell me, Solo. Who makes more use out of the Ravid form from alter self? The wizard or the monk?


I'm not Solo, but I'll answer: the wizard, as he doesn't have to max out cross-class skills and spend tons of gold to use this spell.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo, if you say you can have a plnetouched monk use Alter Self cheese, I ask you

1. A third level monk (ECL 4) has the WBL of a third level character. What is his WBL, and how much of it does he spend on a wand?

Does an ECL 4 character only get wbl for his character level? Would be new to me.
On the wand: see above. 900 gold would be enough for 10 uses.


2. After using feats, assigning skills and stats, can you do anything else other than counter this specific wizard tactic?

Hmmm. Let me see. With +15 AC, the monk will be a quite formidable melee fighter. And he still has his stealth skills, so he could fill the scout role. Ah, and he can fly. He can even also use, at higher attack bonus, the crossbow tactics of the wizard.


3. Wizards do it without magical gear. Would you care to guess what would happen if a wizard used magic items on top of his spells, which he gets for free?

Well, that is for you to suggest. You see, the problem is that many magic items emulate spells. Spells that spellcasters can already cast. So the more wbl gets granted, they get less marginal utilty out of it compared to the non-spellcasters. And at 4th level, the items available for the wizard are not exactly earth-shattering for our scenario. Care to suggest some?

- Giacomo

[Solo]

I approve, M0rt.

[AmberVael]

Tell me, Solo. Who makes more use out of the Ravid form from alter self? The wizard or the monk?

- Giacomo

The wizard, because he/she can do it multiple times per day without using any of his/her gold (or, if working outside of core, even a class level), while the monk has to spend skill points and regular amounts of gold.
On top of that, improved aerial maneuverability, in general, will be more useful to the wizard who wants to stay out of combat. While it is true that monks will need flying to be able to deal with some encounters, for a wizard it is useful for even more encounters as it allows him/her to stay out of reach.
The natural armor bonus is good for them both, however.

[Solo]

Does an ECL 4 character only get wbl for his character level? Would be new to me.
On the wand: see above. 900 gold would be enough for 10 uses.

How in the RAW do you buy a wand with ten charges?

Furthermore, as you fail a third of them, if you keep using this tactic, you're going to have to consume a lot of wands... pricy pricy.


Hmmm. Let me see. With +15 AC, the monk will be a quite formidable melee fighter. And he still has his stealth skills, so he could fill the scout role. Ah, and he can fly. He can even also use, at higher attack bonus, the crossbow tactics of the wizard.

You only have a wand of ten charges, a third of which you will fail. I'd not call that a reliable source of power.



Well, that is for you to suggest. You see, the problem is that many magic items emulate spells. Spells that spellcasters can already cast. So the more wbl gets granted, they get less marginal utilty out of it compared to the non-spellcasters. And at 4th level, the items available for the wizard are not exactly earth-shattering for our scenario. Care to suggest some?

For a wizard?

Scrolls, scrolls, wand, scrolls, etc. Cast spells all day long to overcome your only limitation.

[Sir Giacomo]

Of course, he can't hit anything with full power attack. But he's a freakin commoner.

That's a very indirect way of saying that your commoner, likewise, does not trump the monk's damage output - but thanks!:smallbiggrin:

- Giaocmo

[Solo]

That's a very indirect way of saying that your commoner, likewise, does not trump the monk's damage output - but thanks!:smallbiggrin:

- Giaocmo

And the monk, he can hit something?

[AmberVael]

And the monk, he can hit something?

Sure! I can prove it! Now just stand still, close your eyes, and put your hands on top of your head... :smalltongue:

[Sir Giacomo]

How in the RAW do you buy a wand with ten charges?

DMG pp. 199, 214-215.


Furthermore, as you fail a third of them, if you keep using this tactic, you're going to have to consume a lot of wands... pricy pricy.

That's the beauty of it. You fail your check, the charge is not used up.


You only have a wand of ten charges, a third of which you will fail. I'd not call that a reliable source of power.

All 10 charges will eventually be used. That's 10 encounters (300 Minutes). Not too bad boost, I daresay.


For a wizard?

Scrolls, scrolls, wand, scrolls, etc. Cast spells all day long to overcome your only limitation.

And this all of a sudden costs the sorcerer/wizard no resources? Double standard alarm going off again.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

And the monk, he can hit something?

+24 without enhancement, morale bonuses look solid to me.
+0 (enhancement bonus included) does not.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

+24 without enhancement, morale bonuses look solid to me.

What is the AC of a monster at that ECL?

How much of that bonus comes from strength, and what happens to your other stats if you put too much into strength?

If you finesse, how much damage do you do now that you do not focus in strength?




All 10 charges will eventually be used. That's 10 encounters (300 Minutes). Not too bad boost, I daresay.

And the enemies will wait while you fail a third of your checks.

Sure.


By the way, you know those rogues that steal a wizard's spell book while he's sleeping, and disrupt the cleric's meditation time?

How come they never bother your monk?

Even though he is swimming in magical gear?

You know, the valuable kind?




And this all of a sudden costs the sorcerer/wizard no resources? Double standard alarm going off again.

- Giacomo

Alarm bells are sounding over here too.

You said to recommend items for wizards at level 3, and I did.

Why ask me to recommend items if you're going to jump on me for recommending items?


I deduce that you were either baiting me, suffered a memory lapse, or have Multiple Personality Syndrome.

Have a nice day :smalltongue:

[Aquillion]

DMG pp. 199, 214-215.



That's the beauty of it. You fail your check, the charge is not used up.



All 10 charges will eventually be used. That's 10 encounters (300 Minutes). Not too bad boost, I daresay.


[quote]
And this all of a sudden costs the sorcerer/wizard no resources? Double standard alarm going off again.What? You asked him what consumable magic items are available for a wizard (after he made fun of you burning so many items while assuming the wizard won't do the same), so he told you. Unlike your monk, though, (who is totally and completely dependant on the 10 charges he spent nearly all his WBL on), those scrolls are just an emergency fallback for the wizard if they've wasted all their relevent spells (or didn't prepare any relevent spells) and something else comes up. They don't have to use them on every single encounter.

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.

[Solo]

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.:smallamused:

[Sir Giacomo]

What is the AC of a monster at that ECL?

It was posted above that it usually starts at AC 27.


How much of that bonus comes from strength, and what happens to your other stats if you put too much into strength?

Well, if you read my post above again you will find I assumed a STR score of 16 at 16th level. 14 start, 2 stat gains. This leaves 2 stat gains and plenty of other point buy for other stuff.


If you finesse, how much damage do you do now that you do not focus in strength?

The monk above does not finesse.


And the enemies will wait while you fail a third of your checks.

Sure.

As I already explained: 30 minutes buff duration means you can cast it way ahead of combat (and try it until it is up. 3 rounds of time is not that critical ahead of encounters in most instances). In combat, the monk can use it without AoO. In the example scenario of going vs the wizard, he could get it up in 3 rounds while the wizard does: 1st round alter self, 2nd round fly up and crossbow shooting (1d8 damage), 2nd round crossbow shooting (1d8 damage). Or some of his remaining magic missile spells.
The monk has good defenses, even at that level. And can move.


By the way, you know those rogues that steal a wizard's spell book while he's sleeping, and disrupt the cleric's meditation time?

How come they never bother your monk?

Because neither stealing something of him nor preventing him from sleeping will shut down 100% of his class abilities. So they could bother him, but it would not be as useful to them (if the DM plays opponents intelligently). You usually target the weaknesses of your opponents.


Alarm bells are sounding over here too.

You said to recommend items for wizards at level 3, and I did.
Why ask me to recommend items if you're going to jump on me for recommending items?

I deduce that you were either baiting me, suffered a memory lapse, or have Multiple Personality Syndrome.

But...you criticised me for using charged items and then you propose the same for your caster. This is typical double standard.


Have a nice day :smalltongue:

I will, and nice day to you, too, Sir. Probably we should continue this controversy once both you and me have posted monk and sorcerer builds discernible in their development from levels 1-20.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

But...you criticised me for using charged items and then you propose the same for your caster. This is typical double standard.

You need those items. I don't.

You depend on that which is not your own. A wizard doesn't.

Note that I only proposed them after you said for me to list things.

What was I supposed to do? Not list items?

What would you have had me say instead? Give the wizard a nice hat?


Because neither stealing something of him nor preventing him from sleeping will shut down 100% of his class abilities.

All of your monk's "class abilities" depend on magic items.



As I already explained: 30 minutes buff duration means you can cast it way ahead of combat (and try it until it is up. 3 rounds of time is not that critical ahead of encounters in most instances). In combat, the monk can use it without AoO. In the example scenario of going vs the wizard, he could get it up in 3 rounds while the wizard does: 1st round alter self, 2nd round fly up and crossbow shooting (1d8 damage), 2nd round crossbow shooting (1d8 damage). Or some of his remaining magic missile spells.
The monk has good defenses, even at that level. And can move.

You will always know when a fight is going to happen 30 rounds ahead of time? Really now?

3 rounds time in combat is not a lot of time? Hello? That's enough time for you to be flanked and ganked.

Seriously...

[Sir Giacomo]

[What? You asked him what consumable magic items are available for a wizard (after he made fun of you burning so many items while assuming the wizard won't do the same), so he told you.

I asked him to list items, not consumable items. Great that he made fun of me using consumable items and then lists the same for wizards.


Unlike your monk, though, (who is totally and completely dependant on the 10 charges he spent nearly all his WBL on), those scrolls are just an emergency fallback for the wizard if they've wasted all their relevent spells (or didn't prepare any relevent spells) and something else comes up. They don't have to use them on every single encounter.

What makes you think that the monk uses those items in every encounter? Similarly, they re also an emergency fallback. At level 4, there are not that many monsters the monk cannot overcome with usual grapple tactics, nor are there many monsters that fly and could not be brought done with some good crossbow shots.


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.

Well, so far it still remains to be shown why a monk fails at contributing to the party in the roles I listed way up above.
By now I even showed that at level 16 it is at least on par with other melee classes in terms of sheer damage output.
That he is also likely also able to better take on any caster at that level than any melee class is just crusting on the cake.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Oh, and about the builds? Ozymandias' spells were designed to be effective at the level he gets them and stay effective*.

To play Ozymandias, go to the prescribed spell list in the character notes, and pick the ones available to you at a certain level, and apply as needed.


What makes you think that the monk uses those items in every encounter? Similarly, they re also an emergency fallback.

Why does your emergency fallback plan include items that you can't use reliably?


*Obviously, spells like Dispel Magic are replaced by their Greater versions.

[Sir Giacomo]

You need those items. I don't.

? Huh? Where does that get from all of a sudden? Why again does the monk NEED alter self as badly as the wizard to even stay alive at those levels?
I only said above that if the wizard can try spell cheese, the monk can as well and make even more use out of it.
Otherwise, the in the alter selfing wizard scenario the following normally assures the monk has a good balanced chance:
- surprise round. Here the monk is ahead due to his stealth skills and higher spot/listen
- initiative. Here both are about on par, possibly the wizard slightly ahead.
- wizard casts, turns into strange-looking creature flies up.
- monk moves away behind cover/concealment (ahh..the uses of a much cheaper obscuring mist wand) and hides
Draw. And ONLY if the wizard manages to go fist. Otherwise he's toast.


You depend on that which is not your own. A wizard doesn't.

That statement is priceless. It is an utterly strange way to view how the game works.
Tell me, where again does the wizard get his scrolls and spells from that exceed his 2 spells gained per level?


Note that I only proposed them after you said for me to list things.

Yes, but I did not criticise you for proposing any items, but said it's double standard to criticise me for listing consumable items and then you use them yourself.


What was I supposed to do? Not list items?

Nope. But avoiding criticising me before for suggesting consumable items would have been consistent. Indeed the best items for wizards are scrolls and wands at those levels. Rods to enhance spellcasting without spell level penalty later.


What would you have had me say instead? Give the wizard a nice hat?

A hat of disguise actually works wonders at those levels...:smallbiggrin:


All of your monk's "class abilities" depend on magic items.

Nope. The move enhancement bonus works with or without magic. The flurry works with or without magic. It simply makes good use of magic. As your wizards and sorcerers do.
Another typical double standard is that you say something like this above sentence, and at the same time believe it's 100% the wizard's magic to grant you the AC +15 and flying speed. It is not. It was your starting race (albeit indirectly).


You will always know when a fight is going to happen 30 rounds ahead of time?

No. So the alter self ahead of combat will only be activated when the monk is fairly certain to enter a decisive combat soon.


3 rounds time in combat is not a lot of time? Hello? That's enough time for you to be flanked and ganked.

If the wizard brought some buddies, yes. But then it's no longer a fair challenge. In a duel, the wizard wastes a lot of his daily spellpower to even have a chance vs the monk at that level. And a simple obscuring mist effect shuts down most of what the wizard can do at that level.


Seriously...

Yep.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

? Huh? Where does that get from all of a sudden? Why again does the monk NEED alter self as badly as the wizard to even stay alive at those levels?

No, I'm talking about the need to use magical items.



I only said above that if the wizard can try spell cheese, the monk can as well and make even more use out of it.

The monk has to put so much effort into keeping up with something that simple.

I'm sure it doesn't mean the monk is weaker.




That statement is priceless. It is an utterly strange way to view how the game works.
Tell me, where again does the wizard get his scrolls and spells from that exceed his 2 spells gained per level?
I'm sorry, I don't play wizards, but don't they get Scribe Scroll at level one, as a bonus feat?

Don't they also get the ability to research their own spells?


Yes, but I did not criticise you for proposing any items, but said it's double standard to criticise me for listing consumable items and then you use them yourself.
I fail to see your problem, as do others.

Your monk is forced to spend money on consumables. A wizard is not.


Nope. The move enhancement bonus works with or without magic. The flurry works with or without magic.

Notice the quotation marks. This indicates sarcasm. I am pointing out that the monk of yours has an excessive dependence on magic items to remain effective, as you put it.




No. So the alter self ahead of combat will only be activated when the monk is fairly certain to enter a decisive combat soon.
So it only works some of the time, as opposed to the hypothetical wizard, who casts it on the first round of combat without the 33% chance of faliure.



If the wizard brought some buddies, yes. But then it's no longer a fair challenge.
Wizards can summon things, you know.

But anyways, I was talking about a game encounter, not a PvP encounter. You don't give your enemies three rounds of advantage in a game.

Heck, you shouldn't even do it in PvP.

It's just a bad idea.

[Arbitrarity]

Wow, Giamoco only has 33% chance of failure?

So.. lesee. That's +14, which means... 3 ranks, up to 5 from feats, and a maximum +6 charisma modifier...

Nope, it's more than that, Solo. Otherwise he's an old monk, spending all his feats to improve UMD.

[Sir Giacomo]

No, I'm talking about the need to use magical items.

Ah, OK. Then you criticise the wbl rule to balance things. Which is a far cry from saying that a monk is underpowered.
A monk is not underpowered because he uses magic to negate the magic defenses of an enemy spellcaster.
And it appears it is this balancing mechanic of the game that you have difficulty with.


The monk has to put so much effort into keeping up with something that simple.

Wait...who has to win initiative and avoid getting surprised to even survive at those levels? The monk or the wizard (or sorcerer)? Even an arch-sorcerer-fan like you cannot deny this.


I'm sorry, I don't play wizards, but don't they get Scribe Scroll at level one, as a bonus feat?

Hmmm. I could have sworn they need money to scribe scrolls. And buy scrolls from someone else to learn new spells.


Don't they also get the ability to research their own spells?

Yes. Which also costs money. And uses resources "not their own". Or...wait...yes, it is "their own" resources. Because they have bought them. Just like the monk bought his wands.


I fail to see your problem, as do others.

Can't be helped then.

Your monk is forced to spend money on consumables. A wizard is not.[/QUOTE]

? But didn't you suggest that the wizard* gets consumables for emergencies? An emergency is what I would call "forced".


Notice the quotation marks. This indicates sarcasm. I am pointing out that the monk of yours has an excessive dependence on magic items to remain effective, as you put it.

Depends on the situation. Vs a foe in melee, he is effective, but gets improved by magic.
Vs a flying foe or foe behind a magical barrier, it would be good to have some magic to overcome it. At higher levels, with dimension door and etheralness he can do quite a lot, even without items (contrary to all other non-caster classes).


So it only works some of the time, as opposed to the hypothetical wizard, who casts it on the first round of combat without the 33% chance of faliure.

It works just fine when you know that a combat is coming up, outside of combat. That is enough for 10 key combats that you know of in advance. Meanwhile, the wizard can cast it 3 times/day (but has no more 2nd level spells then).


Wizards can summon things, you know.

But anyways, I was talking about a game encounter, not a PvP encounter. You don't give your enemies three rounds of advantage in a game.

Heck, you shouldn't even do it in PvP.

It's just a bad idea.

OK, for the record...who needs 3 rounds here? The monk or your example wizard?
Monk: UMD 3 rounds.
Wizard: alter self (1st round), summon monster (2nd round), direct attack (3rd round). In this third roudn the monsters also attack. But...they last only 3 rounds, and are level 1 monsters (and only if you are lucky not to roll a "1" in numbers summoned).
And all of this assumes that the wizard was not surprised (monk advantage here) and won initiative.

OK, I'll try a completely different approach: how is the wizard at 3rd level overcoming an opponent with concealment up (say, by a 2,000 gp horn of fog or wand of obscuring mist or simply using the dark to hide around the corner)?

- Giacomo

*EDIT: confounded wizard and monk.:smalltongue:

[tyckspoon]

OK, I'll try a completely different approach: how is the wizard at 3rd level overcoming an opponent with concealment up (say, by a 2,000 gp horn of fog or wand of obscuring mist or simply using the dark to hide around the corner)?

- Giacomo

*EDIT: confounded wizard and monk.:smalltongue:

By ignoring him, I should think. Concealment goes two ways, after all- if your monk wants to spend his time standing in the middle of impenetrable fog, he has just as much trouble doing anything to the spellcaster as the spellcaster has doing anything to him (more, probably- the spellcaster at least has options like sending summoned minions into the concealed area.)

[Solo]

Wait...who has to win initiative and avoid getting surprised to even survive at those levels? /QUOTE]
Everyone?

[QUOTE]Hmmm. I could have sworn they need money to scribe scrolls. And buy scrolls from someone else to learn new spells.



Yes. Which also costs money. And uses resources "not their own"..

Are you saying that because the wizard has to spend money developing the spell, the magic is not his own?


Even assuming that were true, you have to consider that the Monk has to depend on items made by others.

The wizard makes his own magic items.

You don't need money per se, just "components" that cost something. A wizard could also go get the components by himself. (They have to come from somewhere)


But didn't you suggest that the monk gets consumables for emergencies? An emergency is what I would call "forced".

No, I said it seemed odd how your emergency consumables can't be used reliably.


Vs a foe in melee, he is effective, but gets improved by magic.

Not my area of expertise; I'm going to leave this to someone else.


t higher levels, with dimension door and etheralness he can do quite a lot, even without items (contrary to all other non-caster classes).
If by "quite a lot" you mean "once per day Dimension Dooring"

Etheralness is better, but guess who gets it before you?

Even better, guess who gets to use Forcecage when you get to use Etheralness.


OK, for the record...who needs 3 rounds here? The monk or your example wizard?
Monk: UMD 3 rounds.
Wizard: alter self (1st round), summon monster (2nd round), direct attack (3rd round). In this third roudn the monsters also attack. But...they last only 3 rounds, and are level 1 monsters (and only if you are lucky not to roll a "1" in numbers summoned).
And all of this assumes that the wizard was not surprised (monk advantage here) and won initiative.

Again, I was referring to the fact that in PvP, giving the enemy 3 rounds is a bad idea. The summon monster reference was because I am snarky.

Anyways,

Monk: 3 rounds
Wizard: Alter Self, become unreachable, (1) Do whatever (x) Win (x+1)



OK, I'll try a completely different approach: how is the wizard at 3rd level overcoming an opponent with concealment up (say, by a 2,000 gp horn of fog or wand of obscuring mist or simply using the dark to hide around the corner)?
Magic Missile, which seems to be popular, works as long as you can see the target.

Blindness/Deafness, Sleep, Glitterdust and etc don't need a target.

Summon Swarm attacks everything in the space it occupies. Lasts for concentration +2 rounds.

Gust of Wind and a light spell of the appropriate level will counter, but those are unlikely to be had prepared for that day. Maybe a scroll?

Wait until the concealment goes away. He can't do anything on the ground, or attack with ranged weapons.

Fly overhead and urinate.


ps. As I have dinner, then Chinese homework and Hall Council afterwards, I am leaving the debate to other people until I get back.

[Sir Giacomo]

By ignoring him, I should think. Concealment goes two ways, after all- if your monk wants to spend his time standing in the middle of impenetrable fog, he has just as much trouble doing anything to the spellcaster as the spellcaster has doing anything to him (more, probably- the spellcaster at least has options like sending summoned minions into the concealed area.)

Hmmm. True. Basically, the concealment is a "reset button" in case the encounter goes against the monk (as in- no surprise on his side, and initiative not won/alter self casting not prevented). So the minimum result for the monk in this case is a draw, or (in case of faster reaction and/or surprise) a win. That sounds good enough to me.

Summoned minions do not last long enough, in particular not at those levels. And are too weak most of the time.

Maybe it is time to talk about other issues than a hypothetical encounter of an aasimar wizard and a monk at ECL 4.

- Giacomo

[gnomas]

just my 2cp here, but:

the sorc/wiz does not need magic items to function

giacomo, if your monk needs magic items to work at all (not well, at all) then there is no point continuing to defend him. if he does not then stop dragging items into this and prove the monk does not suck some other way

[Sir Giacomo]

Everyone?

Now that is a somewhat too flattering generalisation. The answer is of course: the d4 classes with no armour.



Are you saying that because the wizard has to spend money developing the spell, the magic is not his own?

Read what I said above. Either you can spend money to make something your own in the game, or you cannot. But saying one class gets it and the other not is inconsistent.


Even assuming that were true, you have to consider that the Monk has to depend on items made by others.

The wizard makes his own magic items.


You don't need money per se, just "components" that cost something. A wizard could also go get the components by himself. (They have to come from somewhere)

Yes, the wizard can make magic items. So what? He still has to buy the materials for it. Only the V,S magic truly comes from within himself. But this is merely sophistics, as I said alreay dozens of posts above.
The game balance assumes everyone gets wbl items. Get over it.


No, I said it seemed odd how your emergency consumables can't be used reliably.

True. Let us say, the emergency to use charged items and scrolls for a 3rd level monk comes up much less often than that for a wizard (who only has what, 4 2nd and 3 3rd level spells to last through the entire day?).


Not my area of expertise; I'm going to leave this to someone else.

? Overcoming magic defenses is not your expertise? Then whose is?:smallsmile:


If by "quite a lot" you mean "once per day Dimension Dooring"

Etheralness is better, but guess who gets it before you?


Even better, guess who gets to use Forcecage when you get to use Etheralness.

And guess who has items before that to negate all of it? This is the way the game balance works. For every tactics, there is a countertactics. Both for casters and non-casters. Including monks.



Again, I was referring to the fact that in PvP, giving the enemy 3 rounds is a bad idea. The summon monster reference was because I am snarky.

Anyways,

Monk: 3 rounds
Wizard: Alter Self, become unreachable, (1) Do whatever (x) Win (x+1)

You forgot: round 0 - avoid being surprise (advantage monk). Round 1: win intitiative (50% chance).
If any of these two instances the wizard slips, he loses.
And of course the Win (x+1) part is highly uncertain, because...


Magic Missile, which seems to be popular, works as long as you can see the target.

Obscuring mist provides total concealment from 10ft away. And the kick about hiding is that you do not know where someone is to target.


Blindness/Deafness, Sleep, Glitterdust and etc don't need a target.

Blindnesss/deafness needs a target. Sleep and glitterdust are area effects, but in a 20ft radius obscuring mist you must be quite lucky to hit the monk with your precious spells (who has moved silently 15ft after bringing up the mist).


Summon Swarm attacks everything in the space it occupies. Lasts for concentration +2 rounds.

Yes, but useless, if you do not know what square.


Gust of Wind and a light spell of the appropriate level will counter, but those are unlikely to be had prepared for that day. Maybe a scroll?

Light is a good idea vs hide only brought about by darkness, but useless otherwise. Gust of Wind is there at level 5 when the monk has new gimmicks. And if you use that expensive scroll, a wand can simply bring up the concealment again.


Wait until the concealment goes away. He can't do anything on the ground, or attack with ranged weapons.

How many bolts does the wizard have?:smallsmile: Truestrike would help, though. With a ray of enfeeblement...hmmm...still no match winner here (only burning away more spells).


Fly overhead and urinate.

LOL. But you don't know which square...


ps. As I have dinner, then Chinese homework and Hall Council afterwards, I am leaving the debate to other people until I get back.

OK, enjoy!

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

just my 2cp here, but:

the sorc/wiz does not need magic items to function

He does, when his spells run out (which happens quickly at lower levels). And he makes great use of rods and some other items lateron in his career (like being able to quicken spells of level 6& up).


giacomo, if your monk needs magic items to work at all (not well, at all) then there is no point continuing to defend him. if he does not then stop dragging items into this and prove the monk does not suck some other way

OK, also for you.
WBL IS ASSUMED TO BE PART OF THE BALANCE IN THE GAME. (DMG, p. 135)

It's no use at all to discuss classes in campaigns where they do not get any magic items, but the casters can wield magic without problems. That might be a very nice homebrew campaign variant, but IT IS NOT THE GAME ASSUMED BY THE CORE RULES.

Some spells look even MADE for non-caster classes like:
- blink, improved invisbility for the rogue
- divine power for the monk and rogue
- rightous might for all melee combat classes
- flying for all
- haste
- AMF
- enlarge for melee fighter (in particular spiked chain fighters)
etc.

Having said that, of all non-caster classes, the monk gets the most magical abilities and is THE ONLY non-caster base class that eventually can fly (via using etheralness) or get out of a force cage (with dimension door).

So either, with your notion of how important items should be for classes, ignore the wbl, resulting in caster uberness - but also then that the monk being the best of all non-caster classes.
Or you accept wbl is part of the balance, then the monk makes use of it like anyone else. Some items and magic synergise better with his class abilities than with those of other classes, that's all.

- Giacomo

EDIT:
giacomo, if your monk needs magic items to work at all (not well, at all)
care also please to explain why you think that possibly doing 10 attacks per round at level 16 for likely more than 300 damge/round is working "not well"? Compared to the other non-caster classes?

[tyckspoon]

Summon Swarm:

If no living creatures are within its area, the swarm attacks or pursues the nearest creature as best it can.

Bats: Blindsense, 20 ft.
Rats: Scent.
Spiders: Tremorsense, 30ft.

If the swarm isn't placed in the right space to start, the swarm just needs to detect the monk and chase him down. Bats and spiders can do that easily, and are probably the best option since they're small enough to have weapon immunity.

[Sir Giacomo]

Summon Swarm:


Bats: Blindsense, 20 ft.
Rats: Scent.
Spiders: Tremorsense, 30ft.

If the swarm isn't placed in the right space to start, the swarm just needs to detect the monk and chase him down. Bats and spiders can do that easily, and are probably the best option since they're small enough to have weapon immunity.

That's actually quite good, but either limited in use or also dangerous for the wizard.
In the case of spiders - those move more slowly than the monk, so he could evade them. In the case of bats, if the monk has moved further away than the close range of the wizard, he will get attacked for at least 2 rounds by the bats. Classic own goal.
But the summon swarm/concealment combo (a wizard casting invisiblity before) is quite good, I must say! Not a matchwinner, but a good tactics.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

True. Let us say, the emergency to use charged items and scrolls for a 3rd level monk comes up much less often than that for a wizard (who only has what, 4 2nd and 3 3rd level spells to last through the entire day?).

That sounds like enough spells to handle the day for me.



Sleep and glitterdust are area effects, but in a 20ft radius obscuring mist you must be quite lucky to hit the monk with your precious spells (who has moved silently 15ft after bringing up the mist).
This is why I think Summon Swarm is the best spell for this situation.


Yes, but useless, if you do not know what square.

The spell description would indicate otherwise.



How many bolts does the wizard have?

Who's talking about the wizard? I'm talking about the monk trying to attack back while hiding in his little obscuring mist


Obscuring mist provides total concealment from 10ft away. And the kick about hiding is that you do not know where someone is to target.

So float ten feet above him, urinate, then MM him.


This is the way the game balance works. For every tactics, there is a countertactics. Both for casters and non-casters. Including monks.


However, you fail to realize that some counter tactics are expensive, hard to pull off, or unlikely to be utilized.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Some spells look even MADE for non-caster classes like:
- blink, improved invisbility for the rogue

Little Pet Peeve I have, no such spell as improved invisibility exists.


care also please to explain why you think that possibly doing 10 attacks per round at level 16 for likely more than 300 damge/round is working "not well"? Compared to the other non-caster classes?

Well my guess is because that was with several different item effects and spells, and he said without magic items.

Also there's the fact that you aren't likely to do 300 damage against any ECL 16 creature with those attacks.

Also could you please stat out a Build, keeping in mind at what level you start using expendable items and how much you spend on them as you level so that you can realize that you don't actually have the cash to spend 250gp on a NPC to cast Divine Power once a day (even though you apparently assume you are going to have this every encounter) for 3 days per level, for 8 levels before level 16.

[Morty]

WBL IS ASSUMED TO BE PART OF THE BALANCE IN THE GAME. (DMG, p. 135)

It's no use at all to discuss classes in campaigns where they do not get any magic items, but the casters can wield magic without problems. That might be a very nice homebrew campaign variant, but IT IS NOT THE GAME ASSUMED BY THE CORE RULES.

Exquisite. Note, however, that casters have got acces to as much gold as noncasters. So if noncasters, monks in particular, need magic toys to get onto caster's level, a caster with items will still topple them. QED.



- blink, improved invisbility for the rogue
- divine power for the monk and rogue
- rightous might for all melee combat classes
- flying for all
- haste
- AMF
- enlarge for melee fighter (in particular spiked chain fighters)
etc.

All of those can be used by casting classes with far better effect and without burning half of their gold on scrolls they might fail to use. 'Sides, where are they getting those scrolls from? Does every town in your gaming sessions have shops with unlimited number of scrolls?