Monk question

[bibliophile]

Hello all, my name is bibliophile and I'm a noob. I understand the rules, but my knowledge is academic, not first hand. That is, I read the rules but have little experience in actually playing DnD. Thus this question; why is the monk bad?

[Starsinger]

You just opened up a can of worms...

But in short, because their primary ability (flurry of blows) and their increased mobility conflict. They require decent/good stats in 4/6 stats (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom) and work well with a decent/good Intelligence as well. In order to use your good unarmed damage, you generally have to give up having an enhancement bonus (which as we all know is good, an extra +1-5 to hit isn't bad by any means).

[Sir Giacomo]

Check out the "monk myths" section in my guide link below.

- Giacomo

[Stupendous_Man]

that up there is good evidcnce that monks are 'bad'

edit: nice timing, gia, lol

[AmberVael]

Hello all, my name is bibliophile and I'm a noob. I understand the rules, but my knowledge is academic, not first hand. That is, I read the rules but have little experience in actually playing DnD. Thus this question; why is the monk bad?

The problem with monks is not so much that they're terrible, but that they do a lot of things and none of them well. They have abilities geared towards melee combat- but lack the damage dealing and attack bonus capabilities of combat classes. They have skills- but not enough of them. They have unarmored/unarmed combat prowess- but it doesn't scale well. They have supernatural abilities- but they're limited in use and generally not very effective.

DnD is built around a party system, with each member of the party contributing in a certain way to make a cohesive and effective whole. The monk has no niche, and thus is very out of place, having a hard time contributing when every other class outshines him in each aspect. The other classes may not be as well rounded, but to a certain degree you don't WANT well rounded characters (because it defeats the purpose of having a party).

If you assume four players, where does the monk fit? A fighter or barbarian can out fight him, a rogue can out stealth and out assassin him, a cleric or druid can ALSO out fight him AND have the ability to buff and heal the party, the wizard provides utilities, battle field control, and direct combat spells that the monk can't hope to compete with.
There isn't a place for the monk that isn't taken (and done better) by another class. It's just unneccessary and useless to have a monk when everyone else contributes in their own way twice as effectively.

[Spiryt]

Beacuse he's punching the earth elementals.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

you generally have to give up having an enhancement bonus (which as we all know is good, an extra +1-5 to hit isn't bad by any means).

I thought it was more the actual enchantments you give up, those 1-5 to hit/damage can be taken care of by the casters greater magic weapon at most levels/

[Signmaker]

3.5 doesn't exactly provide a place for 'well-rounded' characters. A monk can do a LOT of things, don't get me wrong, but the second they focus on particular aspects, they get outshined by the 'archetype' classes. You want to be a skillmonkey? Rogue is better known for it. You want to support? Spells are simply more effective. The monk is a fifth wheel, and the most effective way to include it in a four-person party is to force the other three persons to change their standard tactics to incorporate the roundness of the monk.

As Giacomo has shown (though ruling issues exist, one can note the effort he's put in to it), the monk is a decent grappler because A. Flurry B. Unarmed Damage (truly, one of the few places where it is key) and C. A decent grapple check. However, grappling is NOT a typical tactic on the player side, simply because through years of field practice, research, and common sense, there are far better means to incapacitate a foe. While YES, the monk can contribute by grappling, the party is then forced to break out of their comfort 'win' zone to try and incorporate this tactic in to their skill set.

In my personal opinion, the monk does not belong in a party comprised of core classes. In order to fully contribute, the monk has to be grouped with other atypical classes, which in their own quirky ways, try to help. I would love to see a Hexblade(Fixed Version)/Beguiler/Monk/Favored Soul party, just to see how they'd fit together.

[Starsinger]

I thought it was more the actual enchantments you give up, those 1-5 to hit/damage can be taken care of by the casters greater magic weapon at most levels/

Don't monks need Greater Wild Fang since their fists are natural weapons?

[Emperor Tippy]

Don't monks need Greater Wild Fang since their fists are natural weapons?
They count as either depending on what is more advantageous at the time.

And the problem is really that they can't get other enchantments.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Don't monks need Greater Wild Fang since their fists are natural weapons?

No,
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

The fact that magic fang also works is pure bonus.

[Starsinger]

Ahh shiny. It's been a while since I've really thought about 3.5, but I'm sure that's apparent..

[Pollip]

I'd like to add, mostly to the original poster, that just because a class is less powerful than another, it is not necessarily less fun to play than another.

I've had a great time playing monks before, knowing full well that they were a 'weak' class.

I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, I just feel like something redeeming needs to be said about the weaker classes. They have to put up with enough crap as it is.

[Ganurath]

Simple solution to the Monk enchanted weapon thing: Gauntlets.

As for the monk being bad, I've played one and didn't really get it. Granted, it can't commit singularly to any role just as well as any other class, but it can cover melee and stealth partially, allowing it to fit into the same niche as a ranger. Here's an example of a party where the monk is effective:

{table]Class|Melee|Stealth|Buff|Utility
Monk|x|x||
Beguiler||x||x
Paladin|x||x|
Bard|||x|x[/table]

It looks bizarre, but it's suprisingly effective and allows for plenty of RP opportunities.

[Rashmi]

Here's an example of a party where the monk is effective:

{table]Class|Melee|Stealth|Buff|Utility
Monk|x|x||
Beguiler||x||x
Paladin|x||x|
Bard|||x|x[/table]

It looks bizarre, but it's suprisingly effective and allows for plenty of RP opportunities.

The table is missing the most important part: Able to kick ass: Monk, no, Beguiler, yes, Paladin, no, Bard, no (unless crazy dumpster diving is done).

Yes in a crap party, the Monk is on the level with other crap classes.

But if you actually want to not suck you replace the Monk with a Druid, the Paladin with a Cleric, and the Bard with a Wizard. They all still do the same things, but then the whole party is good instead of just one character.

[Spiryt]

The table is missing the most important part: Able to kick ass: Monk, no, Beguiler, yes, Paladin, no, Bard, no (unless crazy dumpster diving is done).

Yes in a crap party, the Monk is on the level with other crap classes.

But if you actually want to not suck you replace the Monk with a Druid, the Paladin with a Cleric, and the Bard with a Wizard. They all still do the same things, but then the whole party is good instead of just one character.

And then replace them all with wizards or artificers anyway. :smalltongue:

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Wasn't it decided the best party is 2 Wizards, CoDzilla, and either a Factotum or a Beguiler?

[Fenix_of_Doom]

Simple solution to the Monk enchanted weapon thing: Gauntlets.

I'm not sure what your suggesting, but this is not a good not a simple solution.
there are two ways of solving this problem:
1 house rule a monk(or better yet: everybody) can enchant his unarmed strike as though it was a weapon.
2 house rule monks can flurry with gauntlets and are proficient with them and still deal their unarmed strike damage of course circumventing relevant rules issue with a monk using gauntlets(you'll still look ridiculous though).



{table]Class|Melee|Stealth|Buff|Utility
Monk|x|x||
Beguiler||x||x
Paladin|x||x|
Bard|||x|x[/table]

It looks bizarre, but it's suprisingly effective and allows for plenty of RP opportunities.

cue claims a ranger can do this better.
anyway I have a better party for the monk:
Adept
Samurai
Soulknife
Monk

[Sstoopidtallkid]

cue claims a ranger can do this better.
anyway I have a better party for the monk:
Adept
Samurai
Soulknife
MonkIsn't the Adept a bit overpowering for that party, though? I mean, it is a caster with one of the best spell lists in the game, especially at early levels.

[Penguinizer]

I'd replace the samurai with a commoner. It'd be a lot better at everything.

[monty]

I'd replace the samurai with a commoner. It'd be a lot better at everything.

Make sure to give it Skill Focus: Basketweaving. Underwater basketweaving if you're really cheesing it out.

[kamikasei]

I'd replace the samurai with a commoner. It'd be a lot better at everything.

Nah. Commoner, lacking armor proficiencies, doesn't have the means to make a really solid paperweight.

[Rashmi]

And then replace them all with wizards or artificers anyway. :smalltongue:

Or no, Druids are the best melee combatants at every level, instead of being crap until level X where a Wizard can compare (through getting Divine Power).

Clerics are the best buffers, Archivists a contestable second depending on level.

Wizard's are great, but you only really need one, and your second is actually overkill unless you go Incantatrix and that only comes into play about level 10.

Artificers are just generally annoying, they require more bookwork then even the most intensive Wizard, and they aren't even much better, if better at all.

Ultimately you have four roles:

Awesome caster man, Skill Dude, Melee Combatant, Party buffer.

While you can operate without any given role, it is nice to have all of them. And skill dude/Party buffer need to be able to do something in combat as well.

For Skill dude you can have a Factotum/Rogue/Beguiler/Cloistered Cleric in that order for how well they perform the role. All of those classes are competent enough in combat when built right, so any of those works.

Party Buffer is Cleric/Archivist/Wizard in that order with some variance depending on level. All three are great in combat.

Awesome Caster man (who is also responsible for all the scrying/teleporting/plane shifting ect) can be done by Archivist/Wizard/Cleric/Druid in that order. Of course these are all Combat monsters.

Melee is done by Druid/Cleric/Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue, but Wizards are actually better then everything but Druids after level 12 if they build for it.

So it's easy to see why the Fighter and Barbarian rarely show up.

My ideal party is:

Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Rogue, but all of these things can be juggled around quite well.

[Eldritch_Ent]

Among other things, 3/4ths BAB and a list of abilities that don't really DO anything, or even synergize well with itself, as well as being the most MAD core class.

Also, Giacamo's monk guide is considered rather poor. (Note the 2000+ Comments in it are more or less people pointing out the problems with his guide.) I'd recommend this guy's monk guide instead; you should be able to find it in this link-
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4064404#post4064404
If not it should be somewhere on the WOTC forums.

[monty]

Try the Char Op forums. They should be able to cheese out anything, even a monk.

[Spiryt]

stuff

My comment was sarcastic, dude. It's not the point if it's better to have a Druid of another Batman, it's about nonsense of playing stuff just to be "optimal".

[xelliea]

i my mind they are useless, until they hit 6th level because they have no armour and hardly any wepons but at 15+ level they are....... devestating

[ericgrau]

Most people completely ignore the special attack rules and the skill rules. The monk's main class abilities are special attacks and mobility skills w/ speed. The monk is very weak at dealing damage and receiving it in return.

Details:

If you actually use the monk's class abilities instead of forcing him to be a dumb fighter, everything synergizes beautifully. You use the monk's speed together with his mobility skills to quickly reach a soft target behind the enemy's front line. You keep him from getting away with one of the monk's low level special attacks, then you get full attack flurries. You can flurry with monk weapons and unarmed strikes, which both boost special attacks one way or another. The disabled enemy can't hurt you much, or else you can quickly run away if needed. Not coincidentally, his defensive abilities help against back line foes: archers and casters vs. deflect arrows, SR, saves, touch AC and dimension door. It might not seem like enough against the "uber casters" but compared to other non-casters his SR alone puts him miles ahead.

OTOH the monk seems to be designed to severely penalize anyone who doesn't utilize his features. His damage is lower and his BAB is lower, so without special attack bonuses mentioned above he's screwed. His AC is low, so he'll get pounded if he didn't disable his target or at least select a backliner with poor melee capabilities. His other defenses likewise do little against melee baddies. Using your mobility to zip from place to place instead of getting to the back-line and staying there denies you your flurry. Yeah, you can fix one of these with 100% of your treasure, but then the rest will suffer more. In fact, after reading the rules carefully (no offense to everyone who hasn't), it borders on moronic to use a flurry to deal unarmed strike damage only. You could get the same unarmed strike damage and special attacks at the same time, for no additional cost.

[monty]

i my mind they are useless, until they hit 6th level because they have no armour and hardly any wepons but at 15+ level they are....... devestating

Huh? Compare it to other core classes at level 15.

Barbarian - better.
Bard - better.
Cleric - much better.
Druid - do I even need to go there?
Fighter - better with proper feat choice.
Paladin - better.
Ranger - better.
Rogue - better.
Sorcerer - much better.
Wizard - Batman. Enough said.

[Spiryt]

i my mind they are useless, until they hit 6th level because they have no armour and hardly any wepons but at 15+ level they are....... devestating

What's so devastating about 15th level monk?

[Green-Shirt Q]

I always thought that monks were one of the best classes.

I really liked not needing to pay for weapons and armour and using my abilities infinite times a day. Plus not aging was a definite bonus.

The only problem is that Monks tend to take longer then the other classes to get really good, but once they do, they can be the best around!

[Covered In Bees]

I always thought that monks were one of the best classes.

I really liked not needing to pay for weapons and armour
You need to pay for AC boosters instead of armor. Not paying for weapons means you'll have a hard time hitting (no enhancement bonus) and have lower damage.


and using my abilities infinite times a day.
Stunning fist is limited-use.


Plus not aging was a definite bonus.
How many campaigns last long enough for this to come up?


The only problem is that Monks tend to take longer then the other classes to get really good, but once they do, they can be the best around!
"The best around"? No, not even close. That'd be druids. Or clerics. Or wizards.

[monty]

The only problem is that Monks tend to take longer then the other classes to get really good, but once they do, they can be the best around!

Clearly, you've spent too much time playing samurai and truenamers.

[kamikasei]

Don't take this the wrong way, the_Q, you just happened to provide an excellent illustration of a point I was going to make.


I always thought that monks were one of the best classes.

I really liked not needing to pay for weapons and armour and using my abilities infinite times a day. Plus not aging was a definite bonus.

The only problem is that Monks tend to take longer then the other classes to get really good, but once they do, they can be the best around!

This, I think, is a large part of why people are so vehement on the "monks suck!" front.

Because frequently, people express the opinion above. And others feel the need to disabuse them of their misconceptions.

I recall there being a glut of "ZOMG warlocks are so overpowered!" arguments on the boards when I first joined, and it was the same thing. Few would care about the fact that monks or warlocks (or samurai or truenamers or...) are underpowered - hey, there have to be a few such unless there's perfect balance, right? - except that such classes seem perversely to draw accusations of broken overpoweredness right to them.

Which is not to say that monks don't suck, of course...

[Green-Shirt Q]

Clearly, you've spent too much time playing samurai and truenamers.

I am afraid I haven't heard of those classes.

[fractic]

I am afraid I haven't heard of those classes.

They are generaly considered to be at the very bottom of the power scale, much like the monk. The samurai is basically a fighter with the bonus feats prepicked and picked badly. The truenamer is a caster who casts based on skill checks. But without cheese the checks get too hard to make.

[AslanCross]

Simple solution to the Monk enchanted weapon thing: Gauntlets.



Simple problem: Monks aren't proficient with gauntlets. (They don't have blanket simple weapon proficiency.)

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Simple problem: Monks aren't proficient with gauntlets. (They don't have blanket simple weapon proficiency.)Beyond that, they can't Flurry with a gauntlet. And wearing them takes up the same slot as the Bracers of Natural Armor. Essentially, if you want to play a Monk, just go with an Unarmed Swordsage. Much better at everything.

[BizzaroStormy]

Even then, wouldn't the monk be limited to the 1d4 on the gauntlet? As for ability scores, you can spend a couple feats (if you have them) to cut STR out of the equation completely. Taking Weapon finesse will give you your DEX bonus to hit instead of STR. And taking Intuitive Attack allows you to apply your WIS to your unarmed attack damage instead of STR. If you're doing point buy, this allows to to allocate more points into DEX and WIS.

For instnace. Lets say our lv 1 human monk has 16 DEX and WIS, and 10 in everything else, and has also taken the two feats mentioned above.

This would mean that he has an AC of 16 (pretty good) Attack of +3 (again, pretty good for a monk) and deals 1d6+3 damage per hit.

[monty]

Even then, wouldn't the monk be limited to the 1d4 on the gauntlet? As for ability scores, you can spend a couple feats (if you have them) to cut STR out of the equation completely. Taking Weapon finesse will give you your DEX bonus to hit instead of STR. And taking Intuitive Attack allows you to apply your WIS to your unarmed attack damage instead of STR. If you're doing point buy, this allows to to allocate more points into DEX and WIS.

Intuitive Attack affects attack rolls, not damage.

[BizzaroStormy]

Hmm...guess I was wrong then. Nevermind.

[kamikasei]

Intuitive Attack affects attack rolls, not damage.

You could go with Intuitive Attack for Wis to attack, plus Shadow Blade for Dex to damage (though this requires you to take Martial Study, too). Or, Shadow Blade plus Weapon Finesse lets you focus on Dex alone, though you'll still need Wis for AC.

[AmberVael]

You could go with Intuitive Attack for Wis to attack, plus Shadow Blade for Dex to damage (though this requires you to take Martial Study, too). Or, Shadow Blade plus Weapon Finesse lets you focus on Dex alone, though you'll still need Wis for AC.

You need Martial Stance as well. Three feats is a bit much, in my opinion... if you want Shadow Blade that much, take a level or two of Swordsage and then get the feat.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Swordsage and Monk AC bonuses stack? I haven't found anything indicating that they don't, but nothing that they do either, and I'd be inclined to say that they don't.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Take a couple levels of monk, a couple of swordsage then go with Shadow Sun ninja

[kamikasei]

You need Martial Stance as well. Three feats is a bit much, in my opinion... if you want Shadow Blade that much, take a level or two of Swordsage and then get the feat.

Oh yeah, I was forgetting the wording of the feat. Better to take a single level of Swordsage to get the maneuver and stance all at once.


Out of curiosity, does anyone know if Swordsage and Monk AC bonuses stack? I haven't found anything indicating that they don't, but nothing that they do either, and I'd be inclined to say that they don't.

They're both unnamed bonuses, right? And they clearly come from different sources. I'd think they should stack, as with the various tricks for getting Cha to saves several times over (what is it, Paladin/Blackguard/Hexblade?).

[Rashmi]

They're both unnamed bonuses, right? And they clearly come from different sources. I'd think they should stack, as with the various tricks for getting Cha to saves several times over (what is it, Paladin/Blackguard/Hexblade?).

They would stack if it were possible to get them at the same time, however, the Swordsage ability specifically says: [gain the ability] when wearing light armor.

So you can't actually gain the AC and the Monk AC at the same time.

[fractic]

They would stack if it were possible to get them at the same time, however, the Swordsage ability specifically says: [gain the ability] when wearing light armor.

So you can't actually gain the AC and the Monk AC at the same time.

You're right about that :smalleek: That's really strange. Especially since unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency and thus the ability to use their AC bonus.

[ColonelFuster]

Once again, a simple post has turned into an optimization thread....

[Spiryt]

Once again, a simple post about monk has turned into an optimization thread....

That really explains everything, you see. Or doesn't explain at all. Anyway, it's a fact.

[AmberVael]

They would stack if it were possible to get them at the same time, however, the Swordsage ability specifically says: [gain the ability] when wearing light armor.

So you can't actually gain the AC and the Monk AC at the same time.

...that's... really strange. You know, I'd always misread it and thought it was 'no heavier than light armor' or something.

[Covered In Bees]

You're right about that :smalleek: That's really strange. Especially since unarmed swordsages lose their armor proficiency and thus the ability to use their AC bonus.

Unarmed swordsages can still wear light armor without proficiency. A mithral chain shirt, for example, can be worn without proficiency with exactly zero downsides or penalties.

[fractic]

Unarmed swordsages can still wear light armor without proficiency. A mithral chain shirt, for example, can be worn without proficiency with exactly zero downsides or penalties.

True but that's rather expensive. All that for a silly oversight by WOTC.

[Covered In Bees]

True but that's rather expensive. All that for a silly oversight by WOTC.

Normal leather armor is the same way. So is masterwork studded leather.

[Te'Shen]

Try the Char Op forums. They should be able to cheese out anything, even a monk.I am reminded of of someone saying that with a decent amount of optimization, the monk works rather well... to which someone else responded that with the same level of optimization, a wizard is the Second Coming of BatJesus.

[monty]

I am reminded of of someone saying that with a decent amount of optimization, the monk works rather well... to which someone else responded that with the same level of optimization, a wizard is the Second Coming of BatJesus.

And a sufficiently optimized druid...that's a campaign-ender right there.

As the saying goes:
If you kill one man, you're a murderer.
If you kill a thousand men, you're a hero.
If you kill all the men and still have spell slots open, you're a druid.

[XenoGeno]

Gauntlet
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack. The cost and weight given are for a single gauntlet. Medium and heavy armors (except breastplate) come with gauntlets.

So, yes, you can use enchanted gauntlets with unarmed damage, flurry of blows, etc. A spiked gauntlet, no. But plain old gauntlets are fine.

And bracers of armor don't take up the same slot as gauntlets; gauntlets use the hand slot, bracers the arm slot.

[ColonelFuster]

@Spiryt: Duly noted.

[Knaight]

They are generaly considered to be at the very bottom of the power scale, much like the monk. The samurai is basically a fighter with the bonus feats prepicked and picked badly. The truenamer is a caster who casts based on skill checks. But without cheese the checks get too hard to make.

This is, of course by people who don't play soulknives. Its like being a fighter, but you automatically get the weapon. Which compensates for reduced BAB, so you have the same attack bonus as an unarmed fighter, but you don't get as many attacks. Oh and you might be able to do a bit of extra damage or ability damage in the first round, or by sacrificing a standard action. Oh and you bonus feats don't really factor in. Basically a wizard casting greater magic weapon on a rogue causes the rogue to totally eclipse them. More than they already do.

[ericgrau]

Lol @ 2nd coming of batjesus, even though I don't really see it.

To OP: Simple answer is that people in internet forums tend to exaggerate. In real games there usually isn't too much problem even when people play monks poorly. And even though a poorly played monk gets hurt more than another class played poorly. People on the internet just like to exagerate differences, focus on spectacular things, and ignore less flashy things.

Heck, I've even played in a low munchkin game where the two most powerful (and fairly equal powered) players were a paladin and a wizard. They were experienced players, but they used none of the "OMG YOU MUST DO THIS AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUBOPTIMAL!" tricks you see on internet forums.

Even if you ignore all my char op tips, at least remember one:
Never ever ever do an unarmed strike by itself when playing a monk unless you must; you can combine it with a special attack (grapple or stunning fist) for free!

[FMArthur]

Short list of problems with Monks:
-Overly dependent on too many ability scores being high
-Weak attacks, poor base attack, and no way to even them out with magical weapons
-You can take away from an already low attack roll to give yourself one more? Your damage isn't even high enough to matter if you hit
-Lots of class abilities that focus on self-preservation, instead of teamwork. It's great that it can be difficult to hit you, and you run really fast, but why would the enemy care about hitting you? It's like they're fighting a mosquito and a crowd of dire bears. "There was a Monk in that battle? I didn't even notice..."
-A lot of classes just do most of the Monk's roles better. The Factotum does it single-handedly, and the unarmed Swordsage variant is basically Wizards' way of apologizing for the core Monk.
-Cannot immediately become a Drunken Master, and is unlikely to excell enough in the barfights to qualify, anyway

[Talic]

Grapple is a whole nother bag of worms. It provides you with about as many vulnerabilities as it takes away, and at higher levels (indeed, starting at CR 5), becomes less and less viable as large size, rake, poison use, high HD, and the like combine to grapple checks and damage that outpace any character. Even a 28 strength permanently enlarged bull strength'd level 6 orc monk (vs a CR 5 dire lion in solo grapple)... Yes, that one was tested, and rake did it.

Bottom line... Grappling is a questionable tactic, at best, and stunning fist is practically useless on the following:
Animals (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Constructs (immune to stun)
Dragon (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with very high HD)
Elemental (immune to stun)
Giant (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Humanoid (Fort based classes)
Magical Beast (Good fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Monstrous humanoid (Fort based classes)
Ooze (immune to stun)
Outsider (Strong Fort save, high HD)
Plant (immune to stunning)
Undead (immune to stunning)
Vermin (strong fort save, combined with very high HD and generally high con)

Can be effective on:
Aberrations (poor fort save)
Fey (poor fort save)
Humanoid (non fort based classes)
Monstrous humanoid (non fort based classes)

So, by this, we see 2 types that are actually vulnerable to Stunning fist, and another 2 that can be, based on class.

We see 6 creature types resistant to stun, by virtue of a strong Fort save, with 2 more that can be, based on class.

We see another 4 types that are out and out immune to stun, rendering that ability totally useless.

Thus, stunning fist is a questionable tactic, at best.


EDIT: Also, note that the most veteran players will generally not rely on the "optimal" builds, choosing instead to try something new and different.

[kamikasei]

They would stack if it were possible to get them at the same time, however, the Swordsage ability specifically says: [gain the ability] when wearing light armor.

So you can't actually gain the AC and the Monk AC at the same time.

Huh. Like others, my eyes had managed to automatically read right past that. On the other hand, being as there's no errata for the book and it's the same page that gives us "x6 at first level", I'm pretty comfortable treating it as an oversight/typo and continuing to read it as I had been.

[BizzaroStormy]

They would stack if it were possible to get them at the same time, however, the Swordsage ability specifically says: [gain the ability] when wearing light armor.

So you can't actually gain the AC and the Monk AC at the same time.

Yes you can...Monk's Belt.

[Kiara LeSabre]

In fairness, though, bards got a bad rap in this thread. If you use the right splatbooks and plan them carefully, bards can become pretty much brokenly good, too.

Not so much monks. Sorry. :smallfrown:

[kamikasei]

Yes you can...Monk's Belt.

A Monk's Belt still requires you to be unarmored.

[Fenix_of_Doom]

So, yes, you can use enchanted gauntlets with unarmed damage, flurry of blows, etc. A spiked gauntlet, no. But plain old gauntlets are fine.



When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham).

do you see a gauntlet there? i do not, so that means no flurry, also you hit at -4 now unless you spend a feat on simple weapon proficiency.

On the adept comments: we assume the adept is just the heal bot of course, with a party like that you'll need it.




If you actually use the monk's class abilities instead of forcing him to be a dumb fighter, everything synergizes beautifully. You use the monk's speed together with his mobility skills to quickly reach a soft target behind the enemy's front line.
What if there isn't a soft target? and which special attacks that you keep talking about should you be using?

[Sir Giacomo]

Ah, Talic, my favourite doubter of monks...:smallbiggrin:


Grapple is a whole nother bag of worms. It provides you with about as many vulnerabilities as it takes away, and at higher levels (indeed, starting at CR 5), becomes less and less viable as large size, rake, poison use, high HD, and the like combine to grapple checks and damage that outpace any character. Even a 28 strength permanently enlarged bull strength'd level 6 orc monk (vs a CR 5 dire lion in solo grapple)... Yes, that one was tested, and rake did it.

Yes, and I played the (STR 26 btw) orc monk. Who overcame easily a CR 5 cloaker (note the will save attacks!) and a CR 5 troll in a row before succumbing to the dire lion.
The big question is: does the rake ability make the whole grappling combat tactics useless?
Well, it is like asking: there are a couple of creatures with damage reduction xy out there. Is it then useless to do weapon combat? No, of course not, since you can counter those problems as well.
Basically, most creatures that have rake are animals and can be outsmarted easily (example 50gp potion of hide from animals). And at 6th level, the monk can start to even outrun most of the animals out there. Simply don't grapple those; most other creatures until around CR 8 can still be overcome well.
Furthermore, the monk had such a high damage output (6d6+16 per round when flurrying successfully)- he would have likely won vs the dire lion trading simply full attacks (Grappling from the monk, the dire lion responding with rake and claw attacks). Unfortunately, I underestimated said damage output and resorted to pinning tactics which did not really work in that case.


Bottom line... Grappling is a questionable tactic, at best, and stunning fist is practically useless on the following:
Animals (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Constructs (immune to stun)
Dragon (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with very high HD)
Elemental (immune to stun)
Giant (Strong Fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Humanoid (Fort based classes)
Magical Beast (Good fort save and generally high Con, combined with high HD)
Monstrous humanoid (Fort based classes)
Ooze (immune to stun)
Outsider (Strong Fort save, high HD)
Plant (immune to stunning)
Undead (immune to stunning)
Vermin (strong fort save, combined with very high HD and generally high con)

Can be effective on:
Aberrations (poor fort save)
Fey (poor fort save)
Humanoid (non fort based classes)
Monstrous humanoid (non fort based classes)

So, by this, we see 2 types that are actually vulnerable to Stunning fist, and another 2 that can be, based on class.

We see 6 creature types resistant to stun, by virtue of a strong Fort save, with 2 more that can be, based on class.

We see another 4 types that are out and out immune to stun, rendering that ability totally useless.Thus, stunning fist is a questionable tactic, at best.

Which is why I advocate taking improved grapple as a bonus feat first, and stunning fist later at 12th level for a monk - since stunning fist is an excellent bonus attack that comes ontop of what you already do - and at 12th level you immediately do already quite a few/day, as opposed to lower levels. But it is not helping your whole monk combat tactics at lower levels as improved grapple does.

Plus, Talic, you should not forget that those high-Fort-save creatures out there will have to save every round the monk hits. Say, the combat lasts for three rounds, the BBEG dragon is bound to roll low in one of those cases. Even getting 5% chance of overcoming a BBEG per round (that is a "1" rolled) can be more than what some other attacks offer.

Plusplus, it should not be forgotten that improved grapple and stunning fist are not the only combat tactics available for the monk - it's like saying a fighter only attacks with a greatsword and is hosed in a grapple, when the enemy flies away or is hidden.
- The monk, thanks to his flurry, can have a very high damage output in high levels in a full attack.
- bonus feats like improved trip or improved disarm, plus his great move and tumble can provide him with quite good battlefield control ability (even without needing to have the big requisites for it, so he can focus on STR and have INT 6 as a half-orc and still do improved trip tactics).
- at 15th level, he gets quivering palm.

But in case you like to find out more about what a monk can do already in core, I suggest you follow the link in my sig.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

Ah, and I also noticed something when paging through my copy of the Tome of Battle...
...I often wondered why so many suggested simply playing a swordsage instead of a monk. Apparently, the "ADAPTATION" suggestion on p. 20 was interpreted literally which just gives the swordsage unarmed strike progression ONTOP of what the swordsage already does.
Well, first of all the lines after that suggest that the swordsage can also be made into an arcane type of that class - but the description how to do it is similarly vague.
Apparently, the "ADAPTATION" text is just a suggestion how to go about giving the swordsage different flair. But in no way I would take it literally.
There are too many things left open to just add unarmed strike progression and be done with it, because
- how is the AC bonus of the swordsage treated?
- what use is the "sense magic" ability for (also fluffwise)
- the swordsage does not have "knowledge religion" as a class skill- so what kind of monkish flair would that be?
- does "unarmed strike progression" just mean damage, or also the flurry of blows, or what exactly?

In total, I do not see great argument here for making the monk automatically "useless" by the RAW due to the swordsage class - although the ToB apparently suggests you can homebrew the swordsage class to provide the ToB world with a "monkish" character (apart from suggesting how to include in that world an "arcanish" combat character).

Ach, Nebo, the irony!:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

[WitchSlayer]

Bards are really the ones who get bashed and don't deserve it. While the wizard is Batman, the sorcerer is Robin, the druid is Superman, and the cleric is Martian Manhunter, the poor old bard is Aquaman. Frequently made fun of but doesn't really deserve it.

[Spiryt]

Plus, Talic, you should not forget that those high-Fort-save creatures out there will have to save every round the monk hits. Say, the combat lasts for three rounds, the BBEG dragon is bound to roll low in one of those cases. Even getting 5% chance of overcoming a BBEG per round (that is a "1" rolled) can be more than what some other attacks offer.


A monk who selects this feat may attempt a stunning attack a number of times per day equal to her monk level,

Not very many. Also:


and no more than once per round

Monk entry in "Special" doesn't change it.




- at 15th level, he gets quivering palm.

- Giacomo

Lamest ability ever. Seriously, none of my players even wanted to play a monk, but I anyone did, I would at leat change it to once/day.

[olentu]

Ah, and I also noticed something when paging through my copy of the Tome of Battle...
...I often wondered why so many suggested simply playing a swordsage instead of a monk. Apparently, the "ADAPTATION" suggestion on p. 20 was interpreted literally which just gives the swordsage unarmed strike progression ONTOP of what the swordsage already does.

I will note that the adaptation says to give the swordsage the monk's unarmed strike progression and also to remove the light armor proficiency. So rather then just getting the monk's unarmed strike progression in addition to what is normally gotten it is traded for light armor proficiency.

[Covered In Bees]

Apparently, the "ADAPTATION" suggestion on p. 20 was interpreted literally which just gives the swordsage unarmed strike progression ONTOP of what the swordsage already does.
They give up Light Armor Proficiency. Because of the inherent disadvantages of unarmed strikes, getting the monk's unarmed strike progression isn't a big deal!


Well, first of all the lines after that suggest that the swordsage can also be made into an arcane type of that class - but the description how to do it is similarly vague.
No, that one is totally incomplete. The unarmed swordsage is done and easy--give the monk's unarmed damage progression and proficiency (i.e. Imp Unarmed Srike).


But in no way I would take it literally.
Your loss.


There are too many things left open to just add unarmed strike progression and be done with it, because
- how is the AC bonus of the swordsage treated?
The same way it's always treated.


- what use is the "sense magic" ability for (also fluffwise)
For identifying some magic things. Fluffwise, because of their insight into various things (the reason monks get Knowledge: Arcana). Monks have various random magical abilities ("talk to anything, lol"), too.


- the swordsage does not have "knowledge religion" as a class skill- so what kind of monkish flair would that be?
This is hilarious since I've never seen you metnion taking Knowledge: Religion cross-class. It's an oddball skill for martial-arts monks, and certainly their flavor is NOT dependent on it.


- does "unarmed strike progression" just mean damage, or also the flurry of blows, or what exactly?
It means the proficiency and damage progression. Flurry of Blows is a class feature.


In total, I do not see great argument here for making the monk automatically "useless" by the RAW due to the swordsage class - although the ToB apparently suggests you can homebrew the swordsage class to provide the ToB world with a "monkish" character (apart from suggesting how to include in that world an "arcanish" combat character).
The swordsage class fits a martial-artist monk's fluff better, and is a vastly better, more well-rounded, role-having, and more fun to play class.

[Spiryt]

- the swordsage does not have "knowledge religion" as a class skill- so what kind of monkish flair would that be?

- Giacomo

You mean that swordsage can't be good monk cause he doesn't have it :smallconfused:?

I thought that Giamonk is anyway spending his skill points on UMD, Spot, Listen, and all other stuff.

[Talic]

The big question is: does the rake ability make the whole grappling combat tactics useless?
No, nor did I say it did. I did however, point out that as CR advances, a higher and higher percentage of creatures gain grapple abilities that outpace the PC grapple mods, even with magical enhancement on top of magical enhancement.

Well, it is like asking: there are a couple of creatures with damage reduction xy out there. Is it then useless to do weapon combat? No, of course not, since you can counter those problems as well.See above. DR doesn't outpace a PC's ability to deal damage. Therein lies your fallacy.

Basically, most creatures that have rake are animals and can be outsmarted easily (example 50gp potion of hide from animals). And at 6th level, the monk can start to even outrun most of the animals out there. Simply don't grapple those; most other creatures until around CR 8 can still be overcome well.
Furthermore, the monk had such a high damage output (6d6+16 per round when flurrying successfully)- he would have likely won vs the dire lion trading simply full attacks (Grappling from the monk, the dire lion responding with rake and claw attacks). Unfortunately, I underestimated said damage output and resorted to pinning tactics which did not really work in that case.Vs a dire lion's 3d6+13, and greater chance to succesfully hit (higher AC and attack bonus... Indeed, it hit most of its attacks on a 2 or better), combined with higher HP. The battle, were it to go to all out damage, was essentially a coin toss. Damage output must be balanced by accuracy and endurance, to complete that equation. The lion won two of those categories by a wide (+50% or greater) margin. You won the other by a wide margin.

Which is why I advocate taking improved grapple as a bonus feat first, and stunning fist later at 12th level for a monk - since stunning fist is an excellent bonus attack that comes ontop of what you already do - and at 12th level you immediately do already quite a few/day, as opposed to lower levels. But it is not helping your whole monk combat tactics at lower levels as improved grapple does. Excellent, in that over 75% of the monster types out there are resistant or immune to it? In that only 1 in 7 types, and rare ones at that, are truly vulnerable to it? That qualifies as a "situational at best" ability in my book.

Plus, Talic, you should not forget that those high-Fort-save creatures out there will have to save every round the monk hits. Say, the combat lasts for three rounds, the BBEG dragon is bound to roll low in one of those cases. Even getting 5% chance of overcoming a BBEG per round (that is a "1" rolled) can be more than what some other attacks offer. Vs the 50% life in the first round of an ubercharger. Or the greater range at which any caster can levy those forced saves. Even so, a stun is a suck effect, not a lose effect. Yes, it makes combat much easier, but it won't win. Now, let's say that the dragon has a 5% chance to fail any round the monk hits, and for whatever reason, the monk has a 75% hit chance. That's a weighted 3.75% chance. If the fight ends on round 3, then there is a 10.83% chance of that ability having an impact. Meanwhile, the monk is out those, which are a limited use ability. The suggestion of using these against a critter strong against them? Not as "excellent" as originally stated. Gotta hand it to your way with words though.

Plusplus, it should not be forgotten that improved grapple and stunning fist are not the only combat tactics available for the monk - it's like saying a fighter only attacks with a greatsword and is hosed in a grapple, when the enemy flies away or is hidden.
- The monk, thanks to his flurry, can have a very high damage output in high levels in a full attack.Combined with a relatively low defensive side, yields a glass cannon.

- bonus feats like improved trip or improved disarm, plus his great move and tumble can provide him with quite good battlefield control ability (even without needing to have the big requisites for it, so he can focus on STR and have INT 6 as a half-orc and still do improved trip tactics).Improved trip is outpaced at roughly the same rate as grapple, and by mostly the same creature types (size, strength). Disarm is also situational, and is reliant on opponents who need to hold things to be effective. Further, it's opposed by checks which also outpace generally, at the same rate (size, BAB, strength) in the CR system. Thus, situational at best.

So far, you've presented a plethora of abilities that require conditions that are less and less common as you advance in levels. Thus, as you go from 1 to 20, these abilities will actually become less and less effective, rather than the converse.


- at 15th level, he gets quivering palm.
Opposed by fort, which has the exact same weaknesses as Stunning fist. Further, several creature types are outright immune to it. Again, situational. Anyone with any of 4 creature types, 1 subtype, or an immunity to crits is immune. Anyone with a high fort save is next to immune to this once a week ability.

But in case you like to find out more about what a monk can do already in core, I suggest you follow the link in my sig.
I followed that. A long time ago. It amused me, I'll admit, your idle ramblings.

[Talic]

- the swordsage does not have "knowledge religion" as a class skill- so what kind of monkish flair would that be?


Also, to be fair, peruse the link in his sig, please. Note how many of his example builds use this skill that's so important to monkish flair.

0.

[Sir Giacomo]

You mean that swordsage can't be good monk cause he doesn't have it :smallconfused:?

I thought that Giamonk is anyway spending his skill points on UMD, Spot, Listen, and all other stuff.

Yep, the Giamonk did not raise know-religion. It's a particular kind of monk build. When the ToB says, though: here, you can turn this easily into a monkish whole CLASS, then I'm suprised that it should just get improved unarmed strike progression and that's it. My point is that the suggestion given there should be seen as a suggestion, not a RAW swordsage monkish variant class.

- Giacomo

[Talic]

Yep, the Giamonk did not raise know-religion. It's a particular kind of monk build. When the ToB says, though: here, you can turn this easily into a monkish whole CLASS, then I'm suprised that it should just get improved unarmed strike progression and that's it. My point is that the suggestion given there should be seen as a suggestion, not a RAW swordsage monkish variant class.

- Giacomo

Because it won't be exact. Rather than focus on feats such as imp grapple and trip, that lose effectiveness as CR advances, it focuses on a more fluid style of maneuvers that allow for greater variety between characters, and provide a martial arts feel to the class. If a skill or two is left at the wayside, well, it's supposed to be similar, not Identical. If it were identical, it would be too below par to include in the ToB book.

EDIT: By the way, if a suggestion is in a Rule book, on the alteration of a class, then it's known as a "variant class". The variant swordsage is a way to upgrade many subpar aspects of the monk, which revolved mostly around abilities that are more trade off than upgrade, and abilities that are situational at best. Maneuvers, on a whole, are situational at worst, and devastating at best. Take the Level 1 initiator in punishing stance, with an maneuver that gives +1d6 damage. Now take an 18 str human. That human is swinging 3d6+4 damage, at level 1, with no additional items or buffs. Alternately, on tougher foes, use the +4 to hit maneuvers, and get a +8, rather than a +4 to hit, at a still respectable 2d6+4. Or perhaps grant yourself concealment and turn off punishing stance, if the foe is especially dangerous. The concept is flexibility and more useful abilities that vary, and that get better as you do.

You'll note that the most core tenet of the monk, lack of UMD as a class skill(so that your calculations on advancing it to +19 as fast as possible are unaffected) remains unchanged. Surely, with such reliance on a cross class skill in your Giamonk build, you'll not begrudge the Swordsage variant a few cross-class ranks to maintain the "feel" of the religious monk.

[Sir Giacomo]

No, nor did I say it did. I did however, point out that as CR advances, a higher and higher percentage of creatures gain grapple abilities that outpace the PC grapple mods, even with magical enhancement on top of magical enhancement.

I sense hope...because that is what I have been saying for a long time as well: grappling is good for low-mid levels, and then its advantages decrease. I remember I said something like level 8 so that grappling is good, but less so beyond...

See above. DR doesn't outpace a PC's ability to deal damage. Therein lies your fallacy.

But DR impairs it IN SOME CASES. Just like rake makes grappling dangerous IN SOME CASES. Not seeing the parallels is wherein lies your fallacy.

Vs a dire lion's 3d6+13, and greater chance to succesfully hit (higher AC and attack bonus... Indeed, it hit most of its attacks on a 2 or better), combined with higher HP. The battle, were it to go to all out damage, was essentially a coin toss. Damage output must be balanced by accuracy and endurance, to complete that equation. The lion won two of those categories by a wide (+50% or greater) margin. You won the other by a wide margin.

Yep, it would have been essentially a coin toss. And other core lvl 6 characters having to overcome a cloaker and troll in grappling before will encounter similar problems vs a dire lion.
Overall, your problem is you say "grappling is not really good" (also at low levels) by pointing out SOME INSTANCES where it is not good to do it. But the opponents that happen to be difficult to grapple also happen to be easily overcome with other methods.
Or would wizards only prepare spells that hurt some opponents, but not others?
Similarly, the monk grapples some opponents, directly attacks others, evades the next, and outruns the last after surviving some traps on the way. And before you cry "running away- what about his group?" he can also do these things in group-friendly/teamwork ways. It has been discussed at length already.

Excellent, in that over 75% of the monster types out there are resistant or immune to it? In that only 1 in 7 types, and rare ones at that, are truly vulnerable to it? That qualifies as a "situational at best" ability in my book. Vs the 50% life in the first round of an ubercharger. Or the greater range at which any caster can levy those forced saves. Even so, a stun is a suck effect, not a lose effect. Yes, it makes combat much easier, but it won't win. Now, let's say that the dragon has a 5% chance to fail any round the monk hits, and for whatever reason, the monk has a 75% hit chance. That's a weighted 3.75% chance. If the fight ends on round 3, then there is a 10.83% chance of that ability having an impact. Meanwhile, the monk is out those, which are a limited use ability. The suggestion of using these against a critter strong against them? Not as "excellent" as originally stated. Gotta hand it to your way with words though.

And I am continuously baffled by the way you try to portray an advantage as something that does not matter. If the ONLY thing the monk would do in those melee attacks would be to stun, then yes, I'd concede you have a point. But that stunning fist - even vs high fort save opponents - always comes ONTOP of what the monk does, anyway. In the guide you find so amusing I once listed that the monk at 15th level in a decisive strike vs a BBEG and with flyby attack can put no less than 5 (FIVE!) fort save attacks all in one (stun, massive damage, poison, touch spell effect and quivering palm). Those are quite a few rolls to make to avoid rolling a "1".

Combined with a relatively low defensive side, yields a glass cannon.

You keep ignoring the possibilities of blind-fighting and concealment, grappling (-4 to attack) and the high movement/stealth capabilities of the monk. Ah, and also the solid AC of the monk itself. A STR-focused monk enlarged with mage armour up will be in the same league as a STR-focused enlarged barbarian (surpassing the latter even in case he rages).

Improved trip is outpaced at roughly the same rate as grapple, and by mostly the same creature types (size, strength). Disarm is also situational, and is reliant on opponents who need to hold things to be effective. Further, it's opposed by checks which also outpace generally, at the same rate (size, BAB, strength) in the CR system. Thus, situational at best.

Yes, like all combat tactics.

So far, you've presented a plethora of abilities that require conditions that are less and less common as you advance in levels. Thus, as you go from 1 to 20, these abilities will actually become less and less effective, rather than the converse.

Well, said combat tactics will also evolve as you level up.
Grappling in AMF never grows old...addding multiple save-or-X into one attack is nice...I just enjoy the sounds of the many dice involved for making high-level flurry attacks with 6d8 base damage each...ah, the beauty of being able to partially charge outside true seeing range...etc.

Opposed by fort, which has the exact same weaknesses as Stunning fist. Further, several creature types are outright immune to it. Again, situational. Anyone with any of 4 creature types, 1 subtype, or an immunity to crits is immune. Anyone with a high fort save is next to immune to this once a week ability.

Yep. Wait- power word, stun is a stupid spell. Why? Because some opponents are immune to it! And it is only close range and targeted, to boost (hello eversmoking bottle). How useless. :smallamused:

I followed that. A long time ago. It amused me, I'll admit, your idle ramblings.

You followed. You criticised. You erred. You failed.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Spiryt]

Yep. Wait- power word, stun is a stupid spell. Why? Because some opponents are immune to it! And it is only close range and targeted, to boost (hello eversmoking bottle). How useless. :smallamused:


Giacomo. Power word stun have low chances of failing when cast. 60 feet isn't exactly fist range. It can last even 8 rounds (not counting 16, cause most opponents at this level would have more than 50 HP), not 1. It require targeting, but it doesn't require hitting at which certain classes, as Monk are poor at.

If you try to be smug, at least find good argument please.

[Talic]

I sense hope...because that is what I have been saying for a long time as well: grappling is good for low-mid levels, and then its advantages decrease. I remember I said something like level 8 so that grappling is good, but less so beyond...Glad that you see the increasing weakness as you progress in one of the monk feats you suggest.

But DR impairs it IN SOME CASES. Just like rake makes grappling dangerous IN SOME CASES. Not seeing the parallels is wherein lies your fallacy.The parallel is imperfect, that's why. DR 5, 10, 15? Barely slow a 75 damage hit. Most forms of DR are also commonly overcome (a simple magic weapon suffices for many). Rake, however, is a credible threat. The other reasons grapple becomes less effective still stand.

Yep, it would have been essentially a coin toss. And other core lvl 6 characters having to overcome a cloaker and troll in grappling before will encounter similar problems vs a dire lion.
Overall, your problem is you say "grappling is not really good" (also at low levels) by pointing out SOME INSTANCES where it is not good to do it. But the opponents that happen to be difficult to grapple also happen to be easily overcome with other methods.I didn't say it wasn't good. I said it was situational. Which means that generally, it's not reliable enough to be lauded as a highly effective ability. Situationally effective, perhaps.

Or would wizards only prepare spells that hurt some opponents, but not others?Which brings me to the other point. All of a monk's abilities target the same save. Fort. This means that there is an entire class of creatures that the monk, no matter how he tries, is weak against, when it comes to those "add on abilities". Those also tend to be creatures that are resistant to trip, grapple, and disarm.

Similarly, the monk grapples some opponents, directly attacks others, evades the next, and outruns the last after surviving some traps on the way. And before you cry "running away- what about his group?" he can also do these things in group-friendly/teamwork ways. It has been discussed at length already.And not shown, to my satisfaction. Rarely will running benefit the party, unless you have a guaranteed method of getting it to follow you. Harder to do in most cases than you'd think.

And I am continuously baffled by the way you try to portray an advantage as something that does not matter. If the ONLY thing the monk would do in those melee attacks would be to stun, then yes, I'd concede you have a point. But that stunning fist - even vs high fort save opponents - always comes ONTOP of what the monk does, anyway. In the guide you find so amusing I once listed that the monk at 15th level in a decisive strike vs a BBEG and with flyby attack can put no less than 5 (FIVE!) fort save attacks all in one (stun, massive damage, poison, touch spell effect and quivering palm). Those are quite a few rolls to make to avoid rolling a "1".Unless you have any of the following: Poison immunity, stun immunity, immunity to death from massive damage, immunity to death effects. Most BBEG's will have at least a couple of these. Not to mention that one feat (steadfast determination) completely nerfs that whole outlook.

You keep ignoring the possibilities of blind-fighting and concealment, grappling (-4 to attack) and the high movement/stealth capabilities of the monk. Ah, and also the solid AC of the monk itself. A STR-focused monk enlarged with mage armour up will be in the same league as a STR-focused enlarged barbarian (surpassing the latter even in case he rages).Grapple - admitted by you to be weaker at high levels.
concealment - situational, easily negated, also available to enemy.
blind-fighting - also available to enemy.
high movement - not available when grapple is effective, bypassable, less effective in protecting party members, or keeping them from being overwhelmed.
stealth - dependent on concealment or cover, negated by several sensory abilities that are not very uncommon.

Yes, like all combat tactics.Wrong. Charge + massive damage hit with a reach weapon is situational on an opponent that can be hit.
Stand Still/Reach combat is situational on creatures without high tumble (every creature in the MM) or high reflex saves.
The above situationals are rare, and STAY rare. Unlike Trip. Grapple. Disarm. Which are defeated more and more easily at higher levels.

Well, said combat tactics will also evolve as you level up.
Grappling in AMF never grows old...addding multiple save-or-X into one attack is nice...I just enjoy the sounds of the many dice involved for making high-level flurry attacks with 6d8 base damage each...ah, the beauty of being able to partially charge outside true seeing range...etc.Grappling in AMF is defeated by every MM entry that beats monks in grapple at high levels... and more easily, to boot. Multiple Save or X with the same resist, and pretty much the same list of immune creatures. High base damage dice rapidly outpaced by higher static damage from other classes. Partial charges are not commonly available (if you aren't prevented from taking full round actions, you may not take one) and is easily prevented by any number of abilities. Basically, you're giving a list of 100 crappy abilities, and hoping that throwing them all together in one grab bag will allow one to get through. It's the goblin mentality. It fails there too.

Yep. Wait- power word, stun is a stupid spell. Why? Because some opponents are immune to it! And it is only close range and targeted, to boost (hello eversmoking bottle). How useless. :smallamused:And is available to casters several times a day, without impinging on the wizard's ability to prepare abilities that are effective to the things that ARE immune to it. Such as disintigrate. Further, it allows no save, has better range than a stunning fist... need I go on?

You followed. You criticised. You erred. You failed.Your opinion, and not shared by many.

[Covered In Bees]

Yep. Wait- power word, stun is a stupid spell. Why? Because some opponents are immune to it! And it is only close range and targeted, to boost (hello eversmoking bottle).

Yes. Power Word: Stun once per week would be a stupid class ability.

[Leewei]

On the brighter side for our much-maligned monk, permanency and greater magic fang both cast at 20th level are considerably cheaper than an Amulet of Mighty Fists (+5).

[fractic]

On the brighter side for our much-maligned monk, permanency and greater magic fang both cast at 20th level are considerably cheaper than an Amulet of Mighty Fists (+5).

And also much more prone to being dispelled.

[Sir Giacomo]

Basically, you're giving a list of 100 crappy abilities, and hoping that throwing them all together in one grab bag will allow one to get through. It's the goblin mentality.

OK, Talic, since the grappling test you initiated so far failed to convince you despite the monk is ahead there, please go ahead, pick any monster out of the MM 1 and I'll tell you how the joker monk at the level of the creature's CR is going to beat it.
EDIT: I'll show both how the monk would take it by himself, and how he would try to synergise with a party (say, rogue/wizard/cleric) to do it.

- Giacomo

[Talic]

OK, Talic, since the grappling test you initiated so far failed to convince you despite the monk is ahead there, please go ahead, pick any monster out of the MM 1 and I'll tell you how the joker monk at the level of the creature's CR is going to beat it.
EDIT: I'll show both how the monk would take it by himself, and how he would try to synergise with a party (say, rogue/wizard/cleric) to do it.

- Giacomo

Any telling me how it'll do so is different from actually doing so. That said, if you really want to do that, I'll choose Dragon, Blue, Great Wyrm. Assume diplomancy not viable. CR 25. Go for it.

As for grappling:
That said, the grappling test showed that the monk, when designed solely around grapple, can do so. You yourself have said that grappling ceases to be effective after level 8. At which point it would be getting rid of that permanent enlarge for a more temorary on demand one, so that you could continue to, you know, utilize the monk's "superior stealth skills" (Read: Inferior to a rogue).

Now, I'll not deny that a monk could very well stealth as well as a rogue... However, if it did, it wouldn't be grappling anywhere near as well as the barbarian/fighter.

I mean, let's start with a halfling, permanent reduce person, skill focus in hide and move silent, Stealthy feat, and, say, level 6. 23 dex, due to 18 base, +1 level gain, +2 size, and racial mods. Now we have:

Hide: +9 (rank) +6 (stat) +5 (feat), +8 (size), +2 Mw item = +31 hide
MS: +9 (rank) +6 (stat) +5 (feat), +2 (Racial), +2 Mw item = +25 MS

Now, at a distance of 30 feet, the above rogue is making snipe attacks at a +14 to hide. So long as cover/concealment is maintained, rogue is in good shape.

Now, take a monk that can grapple well (for the low levels), and still get off that level of stealth while performing offensive actions (halfling could easily be using a sling for 1d2 + 3d6 -1 (assuming a base str of 12, -2 racial, -2 size) every round, while maintaining stealth. At level 6.

[Lappy9000]

I'd say that, while monks are not what I'd call a great class, a DM should recognize this and work it into their campaign, making sure to give the monk character equal chances to shine just like everyone else. Long as everyone's having a good time, it shouldn't matter what class someone picks. Ranger/Bard/Rogue/Barbarian party? Excellent, go for it.

Remember, there's other ways to have fun in Dungeons & Dragons aside from completely optimizing every character/party to 110% OMGBatmanAwesomeness :smallwink:

[Morty]

I'd say that, while monks are not what I'd call a great class, a DM should recognize this and work it into their campaign, making sure to give the monk character equal chances to shine just like everyone else. Long as everyone's having a good time, it shouldn't matter what class someone picks. Ranger/Bard/Rogue/Barbarian party? Excellent, go for it.


And how exactly are you planning on "giving the monk chance to shine" without distrupting the story?

[fractic]

You could make encounters in which the monks strong points can be used. For example putting a (very much non-batman) caster behind the lines in diffucult terrain or on an elevation.

[Spiryt]

I'd say that, while monks are not what I'd call a great class, a DM should recognize this and work it into their campaign, making sure to give the monk character equal chances to shine just like everyone else. Long as everyone's having a good time, it shouldn't matter what class someone picks. Ranger/Bard/Rogue/Barbarian party? Excellent, go for it.

Remember, there's other ways to have fun in Dungeons & Dragons aside from completely optimizing every character/party to 110% OMGBatmanAwesomeness :smallwink:

That's rather obvious, and right for every class. Every problem should have solutions in witch Bard can shine as well as Cleric/Rogue or Barbarian/Monk/Paladin/Puppies Executor.

The problem is that it's sometimes it can be really hard to find a way to make certain character shine.

And anyway, the thread is about reasons of Monks badness, not about how to DM out of them.

[Lappy9000]

And anyway, the thread is about reasons of Monks badness, not about how to DM out of them.

I apologize.

[XenoGeno]

do you see a gauntlet there? i do not, so that means no flurry, also you hit at -4 now unless you spend a feat on simple weapon proficiency.

Did you not read the section of the SRD I posted? A gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Look for yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) See what section of the table a gauntlet is listed under? The only kind of gauntlet you can't use for this is a spiked gauntlet, as that is not considered an unarmed strike. So, per RAW this works. Now if you as a DM were to rule it doesn't... well, that's your choice, but do Monks really need to be made even weaker?

[Talic]

Did you not read the section of the SRD I posted? A gauntlet is an unarmed strike. Look for yourself. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#tableWeapons) See what section of the table a gauntlet is listed under? The only kind of gauntlet you can't use for this is a spiked gauntlet, as that is not considered an unarmed strike. So, per RAW this works. Now if you as a DM were to rule it doesn't... well, that's your choice, but do Monks really need to be made even weaker?

Unarmed Attack does not equal unarmed Strike. A slam attack is an unarmed attack. It is not an unarmed strike. A gauntlet is a weapon. It is a simple weapon, listed as a simple weapon. If you are attempting to use a simple weapon without proficiency, you incur a -4 penalty.

A gauntlet is a weapon. If you are attempting to use a gauntlet with a monk, you may not flurry, as a gauntlet is not a listed monk weapon.

[Spiryt]

I apologize.

Well, there's nothing to apologize for :smalltongue:

I was just saying that the fact that Monk can be DM to glory doesn't really change anything.

[playswithfire]

Since Savage Species, don't all monk's get the Necklace of Natural Weapons (or something like that) that let's them enhance their unarmed strike like any other weapon, or is that just me?

[XenoGeno]

Unarmed Attack does not equal unarmed Strike. A slam attack is an unarmed attack. It is not an unarmed strike. A gauntlet is a weapon. It is a simple weapon, listed as a simple weapon. If you are attempting to use a simple weapon without proficiency, you incur a -4 penalty.

A gauntlet is a weapon. If you are attempting to use a gauntlet with a monk, you may not flurry, as a gauntlet is not a listed monk weapon.


You're wrong (for starters, slams are natural attacks, therefore considered armed, therefore don't provoke AoOs). Moreover, the rules provide no distinction between Unarmed Attack and Unarmed Strike (unless you have a link to where there are definitions for Unarmed Attacks and Unarmed Strikes? I'll admit, it's possible I missed it, but after scouring the SRD, it seems unlikely).

Also, if you're logic about proficiency is correct, well then...



Weapon and Armor Proficiency
Monks are proficient with club, crossbow (light or heavy), dagger, handaxe, javelin, kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, siangham, and sling.

Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes or attacks. Therefore, they're going to be taking -4 whenever they attack. Now, we all know this isn't true. Let's take another quote from the SRD, one that I've posted before...


This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

Here Unarmed Attack and Unarmed Strike are used interchangably; they must be, or these sentences would not make sense. After all, if they are different, then an attack with a gauntlet would let your Unarmed Strike deal lethal damage... except that a gauntlet is an Unarmed Attack, which means you can't make an Unarmed Strike with them. :smallconfused: So why would there be that first sentence? Unless gauntlets can be used as Unarmed Strikes. Which they can.


Here's my logic, and I assure you, it is quite sound.

The premises:
A)Monks are proficient with their unarmed attacks, and can use them for various monk abilities, such as flurry of blows.
B)Gauntlets are considered unarmed attacks.

The conclusion:
C)Monks are proficient in gauntlets, and can use them for various monk abilities, such as flurry of blows.

[FMArthur]

Does this same thread repeat itself in regular cycles in this forum?

[fractic]

Does this same thread repeat itself in regular cycles in this forum?

Yes. Work is in progress to make a calender based on this.

[Stupendous_Man]

Monks aren't proficient with unarmed strikes or attacks. Therefore, they're going to be taking -4 whenever they attack. Now, we all know this isn't true.

and monks don't get improved unarmed strike as a bonus feat.

[XenoGeno]

Benefit
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

IUS doesn't grant proficiency with unarmed strikes.


EDIT: And besides, I was pointing out how someone else's logic is flawed. So my comments are by his logic. OF COURSE monks actually have proficiency with unarmed strikes.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Yes. Work is in progress to make a calender based on this.

By my estimation, the calendar says that teh end is near

[ericgrau]

At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat

Someone gave some highly situational examples of when the monk can't easily use his free (doesn't require any additional action whatsoever) stunning fist and/or grapple. That's nice, but there are plenty of other times when it does work. Especially against the backline enemies that the monk is supposed to fight, seeing how the monk can reach the backline so easily and choose any targets he wants. So again, if you play a monk, don't hit with an unarmed strike without taking advantage of the free bonus stuff.

[Stupendous_Man]

tumbling past a fighter to get clsoe to a caster in te back can cause 3 problems.

1. you're on your own.
2. the caster could whack you with some nasty magic. probably will happen.
3. fighter charges and hit your weak point for MASSIVE DAMAGE!


and abbout unarmed strike, isnt everyone proficient with unarmed strike? could you find the rules for unarmed strike and quote them?

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Grappling is fine at low levels, before the monks poor BAB and MAD really hurt, though a Barbarian or summoner can probably accomplish the same thing better. But by level 8, most enemies are larger than you, with high strength, good natural attacks, and high BAB. Those that aren't are generally either fliers or spellcasters. Grappling a flier is a whole can of worms, and spellcasters usually have a defense against that anyways.

Stunning Fist suffers from similar problems. Monk's MAD makes it hard to pump the save DC to the same level as a spellcaster, Fort saves are generally the strongest saves for enemies, and many creature types are outright immune to stunning. At low levels, it's got half a shot at working some of the time, but before long, the defenses have far outpaced it.

[ericgrau]

Actually starting right at level 1 the monk's flurry puts him at a -3 compared to a full BAB class. From levels 1 to 12 he's still at a -3; it doesn't go down. See for yourself in the class description. He has a +4 from improved grapple, extra attacks to make up for the penalty and his unarmed damage repeatedly comes for free with the grapple, a 2nd advantage other classes don't have. They do get unarmed damage when they initiate or continue a grapple, but it's, what, 1d3? Or they can use a light weapon at a -4 penalty, putting their AB and usually their damage behind the monk.

Right at level 13, when his AB starts declining compared to a full BAB class, the monk gets SR. Even without any special attacks and just unarmed damage, the SR alone is enough to give the monk a better chance against a caster than any other non-caster. Though that may be a relative scale.

Plus that's kinda like saying, "Why cast a quickened spell when even a sorceror can cast higher level spells?" Dude, it's free, doesn't take up any time, just use it.

[Kurald Galain]

Does this same thread repeat itself in regular cycles in this forum?

Yes. It's surprising it isn't stickied already (then again, the past four or five iterations got locked).

Have some popcorn.

[Spiryt]

Yes. It's surprising it isn't stickied already (then again, the past four or five iterations got locked).

Have some popcorn.

Then maybe stick it and lock it ?

[ericgrau]

Yes. It's surprising it isn't stickied already (then again, the past four or five iterations got locked).

Have some popcorn.

Really? Y'know, the topic did smell of lockable material. Maybe I should just step out now and not even bother with a controversial debate. Neither side ever learns anything different in those things.

[Sir Giacomo]

Any telling me how it'll do so is different from actually doing so. That said, if you really want to do that, I'll choose Dragon, Blue, Great Wyrm. Assume diplomancy not viable. CR 25. Go for it.


Hmm, a good one - care to choose anything non-epic? If you insist, I can do it, but somehow I doubt it illustrates anything for people wishing to play a monk at a level relevant for 0.01% of their gaming time. Ah, and in case I forgot above...I'd like to keep it core.

- Giacomo

[Turcano]

Yes. It's surprising it isn't stickied already (then again, the past four or five iterations got locked).

Have some popcorn.

If people read stickies, there wouldn't be some genius posting that they figured out Vaarsuvius' gender every two weeks. That's what monks are: the "V's Gender" of the d20 board.

[Kurald Galain]

If people read stickies, there wouldn't be some genius posting that they figured out Vaarsuvius' gender every two weeks. That's what monks are: the "V's Gender" of the d20 board.

To be fair, there isn't a "V's gender" sticky either, it's just hidden somewhere under "the repeated threads FAQ", despite being way more repeating than most other things mentioned there. I vote for stickying the Samurai Guide in my sig :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, we could put together a monk FAQ... "aren't monks good in combat?" "yes, except that every class with full-BAB, buff spells, or sneak attack does it better - oops, that's every other class in the PHB".
"but aren't they very fast?" "yes, but that's going to be irrelevant in most combats anyway, unless you consider running away a good strategy"
"but they are so good without equipment!!" "no, that would be the druid or sorcerer; and how frequently do you expect to be without equipment anyway?"
"but they are so good at using magical stuff!" "that's contradicting the previous statement; also yes, except that every class with spells, UMD as a class skill, charisma synergy, or less MAD so they have skill points left does it better - oops, that's every other class in the PHB again"
"but can't they hinder the rest of the party into ineffectiveness in order to steal the spotlight?" "yes, if you don't mind the rest of the party killing your sorry donkey"...

Fun times. Have some more popcorn.

[Stupendous_Man]

Hmm, a good one - care to choose anything non-epic? If you insist, I can do it, but somehow I doubt it illustrates anything for people wishing to play a monk at a level relevant for 0.01% of their gaming time. Ah, and in case I forgot above...I'd like to keep it core.

- Giacomo

tons and tons of magical items aren't relevant to most people's gaming epxeriences either

[Mushroom Ninja]

Wait a minute... aren't you flatfooted while grappling? Doesn't that mean that while a monk is grappling the enemy rogue gets easy sneak attacks? Or the enemy fighter gets free power attack fodder?

[Morty]

Wait a minute... aren't you flatfooted while grappling? Doesn't that mean that while a monk is grappling the enemy rogue gets easy sneak attacks? Or the enemy fighter gets free power attack fodder?

Yep. That's why grappling while useful isn't a good thing to design your character's combat capabilities around.

[Mushroom Ninja]

My problem with grappling is that it only affects one enemy and leaves you weakened. Yes you may be able to completely own an enemy in single combat, but two? Not so much.

[Spiryt]

My problem with grappling is that it only affects one enemy and leaves you weakened. Yes you may be able to completely own an enemy in single combat, but two? Not so much.

Well, you can grab multiple opponets, but then the math is going to be....

[Kurald Galain]

My problem with grappling is that it only affects one enemy and leaves you weakened. Yes you may be able to completely own an enemy in single combat, but two? Not so much.

Oh, it is a pretty bad strategy. Luckily the monks are the best at using this bad strategy, except for fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins, wizards, clerics, sorcerers and druids. But being almost the best at a bad strategy is pretty awesome, isn't it?

[Saph]

Yes. It's surprising it isn't stickied already (then again, the past four or five iterations got locked).

Have some popcorn.

It feels like there's someone out there reanimating the argument every time it's killed.

Just when the forum thinks the Undying Monk Thread has finally been slain, in a distant IP, someone throws the switch and the reanimated horror lurches to life once more, complete with shouts of "It's alive! It's ALIVE!! Hahaha!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

- Saph

[Sir Giacomo]

Oh, it is a pretty bad strategy. Luckily the monks are the best at using this bad strategy, except for fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins, wizards, clerics, sorcerers and druids. But being almost the best at a bad strategy is pretty awesome, isn't it?

{Scrubbed}

[Mushroom Ninja]

It feels like there's someone out there reanimating the argument every time it's killed.

Just when the forum thinks the Undying Monk Thread has finally been slain, in a distant IP, someone throws the switch and the reanimated horror lurches to life once more, complete with shouts of "It's alive! It's ALIVE!! Hahaha!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

- Saph

http://i513.photobucket.com/albums/t338/MushroomNinja/monkcard.jpg
There we go!

[Sir Giacomo]

But yeah, we could put together a monk FAQ...

There is already one. Check my sig.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

Wait a minute... aren't you flatfooted while grappling? Doesn't that mean that while a monk is grappling the enemy rogue gets easy sneak attacks? Or the enemy fighter gets free power attack fodder?

No, you lose your DEX bonus. Which is bad for a monk grappling when an enemy rogue is present. Good for the monk when a rogue in his own party is present.

Your choice as to whether to think the glass is half full or half empty.

- Giacomo

[Spiryt]

{Scrubbed}

When people give you solid facts, you ignore them. You ignored my humble facts few times for example.
So what's the point of giving them?

[monty]

There is already one. Check my sig.

- Giacomo

{Scrubbed}

[LordOkubo]

OK, Talic, since the grappling test you initiated so far failed to convince you despite the monk is ahead there, please go ahead, pick any monster out of the MM 1 and I'll tell you how the joker monk at the level of the creature's CR is going to beat it.
EDIT: I'll show both how the monk would take it by himself, and how he would try to synergise with a party (say, rogue/wizard/cleric) to do it.

So does Talic get special treatment with this or can anyone do that?

[ColonelFuster]

Monks are just about as good as anything, when you take 5 levels of another class to back you up (and then use a monk's belt to up your monkeyness.) Although it sounds totally lame, it works. 5 levels of cleric for the healing? 5 levels of wizard for the fireball (or should I say Kamehameha wave)? Take 5 levels of paladin for smite evil and a mount, maybe. How about ROGUE. For what you really want: ninja-ness. Or, there's always the five levels of fighter that you can use to get new feats, and weapon spec.

@Giamoco: I don't really think a knightly knight like you should listen to Kurald after that Samurai article... the first thing I did when I got on the forums was PM him about it. Still not changed, I see.:smallannoyed:

@Saph: huh. didn't know it was that prevalent....

[Sir Giacomo]

It feels like there's someone out there reanimating the argument every time it's killed.

Just when the forum thinks the Undying Monk Thread has finally been slain, in a distant IP, someone throws the switch and the reanimated horror lurches to life once more, complete with shouts of "It's alive! It's ALIVE!! Hahaha!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!"

- Saph

You see Saph, after surfing a bit of other forums (including WoTC boards), I have come to realise that there is a certain group of DD 3.5 posters in the internet who believe in absolute caster superiority and nothing, not even hard facts, can persuade them otherwise. The typical "monk sucks" is just an, albeit extreme, form of this view. They put forward their case eloquently mostly to newbs on the boards, who like to play non-casters and tell them "aawww, but your fighter is worse than a druid's animal companion- forget about playing that" or "forget monk, play swordsage (i.e. buy another book), that's soooo much more powerful (=better)" or "core rules are unbalanced, get xy splat book" etc.

Believe it or not, I started lurking these boards because I believed Bears with Lasers was incredibly funny and knowledgeable about the game. How I laughed about those strange posters believing they could get anywhere with a monk or fighter build. Ha!
But then Bears with Lasers did something odd. Polemically, he maintained that in the core rules a fighter had NO chance at all to even overcome a balor. This struck me as a bit odd. So I went and built a typical core archer at level 20 (the CR of a balor) who could take the critter out without sweat in 1 round. What happened? Denial, foremost of Bears with Lasers, later from others (after he got banned or lost interest without admitting he was wrong; whatever came first).
Since then, I have come to slowly realise that the core rules are way more balanced than many people give it credit. And that some posters have a preset idea about how the game works in favour of casters.

Luckily, some other, way more experienced players than I am are also opposing the strange view of caster uberness (also on the WoTC boards). And sometimes, yes, this will take a 70-pages long thread. Because the same fallacies and rules misperceptions get repeated over and over again. I can do it for the monk. I can do it for a fighter vs animal companion thread. I can do that for a wizard spell thread. No problem.

Some posters, like (I guess) ericgrau and lord_khaine do not wish to dedicate the time and energy to explain how the game rules are really meant to work to some who enjoy more some flimsy spell combos and ridiculing other posters' builds. And I can understand them.
But at times, I just do not like to give in to constant errors and wrong conclusions.

In the meantime, look forward to the Beating Batman Part II - Batman's Dark Secrets thread.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

So does Talic get special treatment with this or can anyone do that?

Anyone. But please non-epic and core. Otherwise it's a bit of a race for who whips out the best splatbook and xy epic feat.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

When people give you solid facts, you ignore them. You ignored my humble facts few times for example.
So what's the point of giving them?

Pls list them again.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

@Giamoco: I don't really think a knightly knight like you should listen to Kurald after that Samurai article... the first thing I did when I got on the forums was PM him about it. Still not changed, I see.:smallannoyed:


Well, in all honesty, the samurai article WAS funny.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

You mean the locked, 69-page monstrosity?

The first three posts are just fine.

- Giacomo

[monty]

Quintuple post? Impressive.

[Spiryt]

My activity in those "monk wars" is sporadic, and I only sometimes point out some things, so recalling exact cases isn't possible now.

So one recent example now.



Not very many. Also:
Monk entry in "Special" doesn't change it.

Lamest ability ever. Seriously, none of my players even wanted to play a monk, but I anyone did, I would at leat change it to once/day.


My post. It would be rather troublesome to sensibly edit it now, so just click on th arrow, and read.

In short it's the proof that your tactic of stunning BBEG by forcing him to roll "1" eventually won't work.

[Mushroom Ninja]

Alright, I'd like to see a battle between a monk and a CR 11 Elder air elemental.

[Talic]

Hmm, a good one - care to choose anything non-epic? If you insist, I can do it, but somehow I doubt it illustrates anything for people wishing to play a monk at a level relevant for 0.01% of their gaming time. Ah, and in case I forgot above...I'd like to keep it core.

- Giacomo

No, you stated any monster in the MM1. I think a Great Wyrm Blue is fair enough, especially since a blue dragon gains access to epic material around, oh, say, CR 14.

Your specific request betrayed you here. "Any monster in the MM1" does leave it open to creatures that have a CR higher than 20. So, go for it. No saying "you can pick anything" and then saying, "no wait, anything but that".

[LordOkubo]

Anyone. But please non-epic and core. Otherwise it's a bit of a race for who whips out the best splatbook and xy epic feat.

Well I don't agree about the splat books being more crazy then core, but you are the one performing the challenge, so I will do that.

I have a few challenges, CR 5/7/8/10, confined to one creature because normally you would have a party. I figure if you beat half of them then you are a decent character.

Personally I'm a bit skeptical, but we'll see. Do you want me to make a thread for it? Probably don't want to derail this one too much.

Just present your builds for those levels when you can, I know it might take a while, I'll cut you some slack there.

[Spiryt]

Also,


Giacomo. Power word stun have low chances of failing when cast. 60 feet isn't exactly fist range. It can last even 8 rounds (not counting 16, cause most opponents at this level would have more than 50 HP), not 1. It require targeting, but it doesn't require hitting at which certain classes, as Monk are poor at.



about superiority of Power Word Stunn compared to Stunning Fist, which you were doubting.

[Talic]

Well I don't agree about the splat books being more crazy then core, but you are the one performing the challenge, so I will do that.

I have a few challenges, CR 5/7/8/10, confined to one creature because normally you would have a party. I figure if you beat half of them then you are a decent character.

Personally I'm a bit skeptical, but we'll see. Do you want me to make a thread for it? Probably don't want to derail this one too much.

Just present your builds for those levels when you can, I know it might take a while, I'll cut you some slack there.

No, he's the one issuing the challenge. And if he'd like to have any rules for advancing beyond ECL 20, I'd suggest he accept the following terms. I believe that is the custom, is it not? One throws the gauntlet, the other sets the terms?

Mine is core with 2 additions.

Each player may choose 1 and only 1 non core source, provided it is WotC published, and D&D 3.5 approved.

[LordOkubo]

No, he's the one issuing the challenge. And if he'd like to have any rules for advancing beyond ECL 20, I'd suggest he accept the following terms. I believe that is the custom, is it not? One throws the gauntlet, the other sets the terms?

Mine is core with 2 additions.

Each player may choose 1 and only 1 non core source, provided it is WotC published, and D&D 3.5 approved.

Well I'm taking advantage of this to have fun more then anything, so it's not as big a concern for me. Though I am curious to see how he would deal with these challenges.

Two things Giamoco:

1) I'm choosing these as some of what I see as the "hardest" challenges for a Monk in the MM, be forwarned.

2) I'm not using any class levels or advanced HD or templates of any kind, but I was wondering if you would object to choosing different feats or spells (Staying Core of course) that the monster might have? I think that it's such a common occurrence and not to unbalancing anyway that it might be fine. But I could go either way.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

There is already one. Check my sig.

I think it might be considered slightly biased. :smallamused:

And if I remember correctly you failed to make it clear that
- FoB in grapple is not allowed under a strict interpretation of RAW (although it is a reasonable house rule and possibly even RAI).
- Monk's are not proficient with gauntlets (although it is a reasonable house rule to allows a monk to enhance say some hand and feet wraps (unless of course you think the monk is already balanced under RAW, in which case that might be considered a little broken :smallamused:).
- Allowing the purchase of partially charged wands require a lot of DM goodwill and possibly unrestricted access to Sigil, City of Brass and Dis).

[FMArthur]

The worst part about that thread was not that it was 69 pages long; that would normally only take a person a full day to read. It's that in the "Beating Batman", every post is like a full-blown essay. It would take you no fewer than three or four days of straight reading to get through it. It's a mess that you can't get any useful information out of, from what I've seen.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

The worst part about that thread was not that it was 69 pages long; that would normally only take a person a full day to read. It's that in the "Beating Batman", every post is like a full-blown essay. It would take you no fewer than three or four days of straight reading to get through it. It's a mess that you can't get any useful information out of, from what I've seen.

You could always give it a second chance and read it again and see if that helps. :smalltongue:
(I think some of the posts might be redundant, which should make skimming them faster as soon as you learn to identify them :smallwink:)

[Gorbash]

In the meantime, look forward to the Beating Batman Part II - Batman's Dark Secrets thread.

{Scrubbed}

[Signmaker]

I think it might be considered slightly biased. :smallamused:

And if I remember correctly you failed to make it clear that
- FoB in grapple is not allowed under a strict interpretation of RAW (although it is a reasonable house rule and possibly even RAI).
- Monk's are not proficient with gauntlets (although it is a reasonable house rule to allows a monk to enhance say some hand and feet wraps (unless of course you think the monk is already balanced under RAW, in which case that might be considered a little broken :smallamused:).
- Allowing the purchase of partially charged wands require a lot of DM goodwill and possibly unrestricted access to Sigil, City of Brass and Dis).

Hooraaaaayyy bandaged fists!
Now, while you're here Silv, Gauntlets vs Flurry ruling, plx? Someone brought it up, and is adamant in his belief. Problem is, I don't know if he's right. :smalltongue:

[Eldritch_Ent]

The first three posts are just fine.

- Giacomo

I think the other 69 pages might disagree... In fact, the other 69 pages are people disagreeing.

Also, for the love of Boccob will you please stop posting multiple posts to the same thread in rapid succession and just add your posts together using the edit button? It's really annoying.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Hooraaaaayyy bandaged fists!
Now, while you're here Silv, Gauntlets vs Flurry ruling, plx? Someone brought it up, and is adamant in his belief. Problem is, I don't know if he's right. :smalltongue:

Gauntlet's are not special monk weapons, so they cannot be used in a flurry of blows.

[Vexxation]

OK, Talic, since the grappling test you initiated so far failed to convince you despite the monk is ahead there, please go ahead, pick any monster out of the MM 1 and I'll tell you how the joker monk at the level of the creature's CR is going to beat it.
EDIT: I'll show both how the monk would take it by himself, and how he would try to synergise with a party (say, rogue/wizard/cleric) to do it.

Remember, Giacomo, CR is based around a party of four taking on the beast, not a party of one. It would be silly to pit a level 8 monk against a CR 8 enemy. Instead, said level 8 monk should perhaps face a CR 6 enemy, to make up for lacking the other members. Just saying.

Also, Methinks the illustrious Sheriff of Moddingham might show up if this debate about Giacomo's "guide" continues.

[vicente408]

I think the other 69 pages might disagree... In fact, the other 69 pages are people disagreeing.

Also, for the love of Boccob will you please stop posting multiple posts to the same thread in rapid succession and just add your posts together using the edit button? It's really annoying.

Flurry of Posts.

[monty]

Flurry of Posts.

It's a special Giacomonk ability. Quantity over quality, I suppose.

[AlterForm]

Anyone. But please non-epic and core. Otherwise it's a bit of a race for who whips out the best splatbook and xy epic feat.

- Giacomo

Tarrasque?

[LordOkubo]

Tarrasque?

Fly plus Crossbow X infinity.

[Prophaniti]

Ok, I've played a monk multiple times and they're really not as bad as people say, in practice. Just like wizards are not as powerful as people say, in practice. The disparity is certainly there, and exploitable, but in most of your gaming groups few will go to the effort, and even fewer will be big enough jerks to make your character irrelevant with it. That said, I currently use various monk fixes when I wish to run one now, and they are more fun than the 3.5 RAW version. Monks have the same kind of niche to fill as any of the mixed classes, such as bard or paladin, and I've definitely done my share of the party workload, both in and out of combat.

Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read on gaming forums. While the discussions of brokeness may be factually correct, the problems will simply not come up anywhere near as often as they'll claim. I've said it before and I'll say it again, wizards have yet to dominate one of my games, and monks have yet to be made useless.

[LordOkubo]

Remember, Giacomo, CR is based around a party of four taking on the beast, not a party of one. It would be silly to pit a level 8 monk against a CR 8 enemy. Instead, said level 8 monk should perhaps face a CR 6 enemy, to make up for lacking the other members. Just saying.

But a level 8 Monk is also a CR 8 enemy, so it should be equal to the challenges proposed to it. If it can win half of them, then it's decent. (Of course, using that rubric, it should also win half the time against a Level 4 party, or any other CR 8 encounters, even should they include multiple enemies).

[monty]

But a level 8 Monk is also a CR 8 enemy, so it should be equal to the challenges proposed to it. If it can win half of them, then it's decent. (Of course, using that rubric, it should also win half the time against a Level 4 party, or any other CR 8 encounters, even should they include multiple enemies).

Isn't the CR the level of a 4-man party that would defeat it using 25% of their resources, on average? An equal CR means it's a 50-50 chance of either side winning, so two balanced characters of equal CR should each win 50% of the time.

[LordOkubo]

Isn't the CR the level of a 4-man party that would defeat it using 25% of their resources, on average? An equal CR means it's a 50-50 chance of either side winning, so two balanced characters of equal CR should each win 50% of the time.

Actually it's 20% of the party resources, but I think that 5% is action advantage mostly. Possibly versatility. Anyway, that's exactly my point that they should each win half of the time. So if a Monk loses to all four of my challenges then it probably isn't the equivalent of another CR X creature in general.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please follow the Forum Rules and avoid: 1) insulting each other in any manner; 2) trolling by posting things that serve to increase the hostility; or 3) dragging excess baggage from the prior thread to this one. Also, please don't try to moderate each other, by bemoaning the existence of this thread or the length of prior threads.

[Turcano]

Ooh! How's about an iron golem?

[Covered In Bees]

What happened? Denial, foremost of Bears with Lasers, later from others (after he got banned or lost interest without admitting he was wrong; whatever came first).

Yeah, I read that thread.

Didn't your archer need consumeable items, a surprise round, and a very specific situation (have to be more than 120' away from a sitting-duck Balor)? That's not very convincing.

If that's how you always prove your points, I'm not surprised you're arguing alone against the whole forum.

[Leewei]

And also much more prone to being dispelled.

Wow, has this thread gone on some. A permanency'd greater magic fang can indeed be dispelled -- by someone of higher level than the caster of the permanency spell. Even at level 10 or so, the 20th-level-enchanted fists are affordable given wealth-by-level. This means you have several levels of not being particularly concerned with running into a bad guy that pops off greater dispel magic prior to a fight. At later levels, mordenkainen's disjunction screws everyone over anyhow.

[Covered In Bees]

Anyone who uses Disjunction should be court-martialed.

[tyckspoon]

Wow, has this thread gone on some. A permanency'd greater magic fang can indeed be dispelled -- by someone of higher level than the caster of the permanency spell. Even at level 10 or so, the 20th-level-enchanted fists are affordable given wealth-by-level. This means you have several levels of not being particularly concerned with running into a bad guy that pops off greater dispel magic prior to a fight. At later levels, mordenkainen's disjunction screws everyone over anyhow.

Only spells the caster Permanencies on himself have that protection. Spells on other creatures, objects, or areas can be dispelled as usual. And simple wealth by level isn't the same thing as availability (funny how often monk suggestions stumble on that one)- Permanency on a Greater Magic Fang costs 1,500 xp. Which means having it cast as a hired spell costs an extra 7,500 gp at the standard rate of 1 xp/5 gp. Which makes it run afoul of this little note:

If the additional costs put the spell’s total cost above 3,000 gp, that spell is not generally available. ... so it is at least strongly suggested that you cannot get somebody to burn that much xp for you for mere cash. And that's ignoring, for the moment, the difficulties involved in finding two different high-level casters to provide for you both a caster-level 20 Greater Magic Fang and a caster-level 20 Permanency (which you want for dispelling resistance. Could go lower, make it actually probable you can at least find somebody who can cast that Permanency.)

[Occasional Sage]

*peek*

Wow. Nobody's been banned because of this thread, yet? Well, it's still early.

Is anybody in this thread, on either side, aware that Duty Calls (http://xkcd.com/386/) them to this discussion?

[monty]

*peek*

Wow. Nobody's been banned because of this thread, yet? Well, it's still early.

Is anybody in this thread, on either side, aware that Duty Calls (http://xkcd.com/386/) them to this discussion?

Naturally. Isn't that how all of these threads work?

[AlterForm]

*peek*

Wow. Nobody's been banned because of this thread, yet? Well, it's still early.

Is anybody in this thread, on either side, aware that Duty Calls (http://xkcd.com/386/) them to this discussion?

Half the time, that's why I join a discussion. Wait, I meant a "discussion." :smallwink:

[Talic]

Meh, I'm here because I enjoy being right, and it's easy here.

[Kurald Galain]

Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read on gaming forums. While the discussions of brokeness may be factually correct, the problems will simply not come up anywhere near as often as they'll claim. I've said it before and I'll say it again, wizards have yet to dominate one of my games, and monks have yet to be made useless.

Oh, absolutely. That's called "good DM'ing".

However, good DM'ing will also not allow for such things as crippling your own party in order to be more effective yourself, or buying single-charge wands instead of scrolls because they're cheaper, or giving you a surprise round and three free buffing rounds each combat.

Ah, we should all switch to 4E because, whatever other problems it solves, retains or creates, it doesn't have monks :smalltongue:

[Saph]

You see Saph, after surfing a bit of other forums (including WoTC boards), I have come to realise that there is a certain group of DD 3.5 posters in the internet who believe in absolute caster superiority and nothing, not even hard facts, can persuade them otherwise. The typical "monk sucks" is just an, albeit extreme, form of this view. They put forward their case eloquently mostly to newbs on the boards, who like to play non-casters and tell them "aawww, but your fighter is worse than a druid's animal companion- forget about playing that" or "forget monk, play swordsage (i.e. buy another book), that's soooo much more powerful (=better)" or "core rules are unbalanced, get xy splat book" etc.

(snip)

Okay, here's the thing. Yes, it is true that some posters massively overrate the power of casters and massively underrate the power of melee classes. And yes, it is true that they can get a bit annoying. And yes, it's also true that with enough work it's possible to make a monk who's fun to play and can contribute adequately in an average party.

The thing is, though, with the same amount of work, you can make any other class much better. It's not that it's impossible, it's just that it's an awful lot of work for very little return, especially if you consider that for much less effort you could just buy/borrow/beg a copy of Tome of Battle and make a Swordsage. And the thing is (having played a Swordsage), they're awsome and flexible even without going to much effort to build them.

Swordsages are just more fun. That's the real problem.

- Saph

[Signmaker]

Okay, here's the thing. Yes, it is true that some posters massively overrate the power of casters and massively underrate the power of melee classes. And yes, it is true that they can get a bit annoying. And yes, it's also true that with enough work it's possible to make a monk who's fun to play and can contribute adequately in an average party.

The thing is, though, with the same amount of work, you can make any other class much better. It's not that it's impossible, it's just that it's an awful lot of work for very little return, especially if you consider that for much less effort you could just buy/borrow/beg a copy of Tome of Battle and make a Swordsage. And the thing is (having played a Swordsage), they're awsome and flexible even without going to much effort to build them.

Swordsages are just more fun. That's the real problem.

- Saph

Agreed. It takes, what, 10 minutes to draw up a core wizard? In which 5 of those minutes is really "Should I take this awesome spell, this not-as-awesome spell, or this really cool-looking but weak spell just for kicks?"

Monks, as Giacomo has proven, take far more time and effort to create, if you want the job done right. Frankly put, a monk quickly drawn up by the average player will sufffer from MAD. They won't think to jump to UMD buffs. They won't try to specialize in H/MS while using an eversmoking bottle. They will try to be well-rounded, because that's what they immediately see in the class. Flurry? Oh, gotta make sure you have okay Str. Wisdom goes to AC and Stunning Fist?! Really! =O Gotta have some Wis then. Oh wait, gotta have some Dex or Con too! Am I right in at least understanding this much of monks?

In comparison, Paladins suffer from similar creation issues, but not to the same extent. A glance over at the feat section discovers Spirited Charge, which, combined with a lance and the Pally mount, gasp! There's no wishy-washiness in rules interpretations there. A paladin clearly realizes the need for Cha, which alleviates the strain on other ability scores for saves. Str is obviously needed, and not so much Dex if you're going to be tanking it with armor. What emerges from the flames is a paladin with high saves, decent HP (as much as a monk, at least), and a plan for high damage, the second they get a mount. And this is just the most straightforward attempt in core. Even IF you consider monks to be at paladin level (I don't mind if you do), the level of 'effort' and 'time' required to shape the two greatly differs. And really, why waste your time crafting needlessly complicated character sheets? I sure, uh..... 'don't'. :smallconfused:

[Griffin131]

Yes, and I played the (STR 26 btw) orc monk.
Question:

Can your STR 26 Orc make use of the rest of your guide? IE use UMD for maximum effectiveness, not concentrate on grapple your entire career, etc. etc.

If not, why is taking a grapple optimized monk into a grapple challenge a relevant test? Anyone can take a character optimized for a situation and do well in it. Its a true test of a class to be unoptimized and do well.

What I've seen is you say "Oh Grappling? No problem, I have a 26 str orc monk build. UMD? Well, this human can make use of questionable rules (partial charge wands) and be semi-effective. Scouting? Noone needs trap sense or anything like that -- I have awesome saves! Melee combatant? Well, the orc is pretty good at that!" You havn't shown that your standard suggested build (that you posted in your thread) is viable in all the situations it should be, according to you. When thrown into a grapple challenge, you rebuilt your character to be viable in that challenge. Thats ridonkulous imo.

[Darrin]

Gauntlet's are not special monk weapons, so they cannot be used in a flurry of blows.

This can be fixed with the Unorthodox Flurry feat (Dragon Compendium, p. 109). Lets you choose one light weapon to be treated as a monk weapon, including Flurry.

As for the "not proficient with Guantlets" problem... most monks multiclass into something with better weapon proficiencies. If going hardcore naked monk... Simple Weapon Proficiency would work, but you might be hard-pressed to find a less sexy feat pick. Somewhat more optimal... go Planer Monk at level 5 to pick up Knowledge/Planes, then pick up Planar Touchstone at 6th. Using Catalogues of Enlightenment, pick a deity with Spiked Gauntlet as a favored weapon, and you can take the War domain for Weapon Proficiency: Gauntlet (the non-spiked version should count the same as a spiked version) and Weapon Focus... again, not entirely sexy feats, but two-for-one isn't a bad deal. Even better, the deity doesn't need to have the War domain in his portfolio. (Oh, look... Tsolorandril has spiked chain as a favored weapon? And the kusari-gama from the DMG is a light one-handed spiked chain? Unorthodox Flurry rides again!)

The flurry/movement problem can be fixed with feats, too. Lion Tribe Warrior is easiest to pick up, but there's also Snow Tiger Berserker (w/ raging monk variant in Dragon #310), and if you need something non-FR then Shape Soulmeld + Open Least Chakra (Sphynx Claws) gives you full pounce with natural weapons. Another somewhat scary possibility would be Wild Monk (Dragon #325), which turns you into Druidzilla without the spells. Also fixes the "what about rake?" problem: wildshape into something with rake.

So... with a little creativity and the right feats, you can mitigate most of the "suckage" of monks. And it's been mentioned in other threads but not this one yet... there is one role in which the monk is unsurpassed by any of the other base classes: corpse retrieval. With high saves, fast movement, and low damage = low threat, monks have very high survivability, and are most likely to live through a TPK. Hopefully Resurrections-R-US offers a group discount...

[The Glyphstone]

Dragon magazine is not exactly famous for its well-playtested and balanced feats.

On the other hand, it gave us Chicken Infested, which is enough to make up for any number of balance flaws within its other creations.:smallbiggrin:

[Aquillion]

3.5 doesn't exactly provide a place for 'well-rounded' characters. A monk can do a LOT of things, don't get me wrong, but the second they focus on particular aspects, they get outshined by the 'archetype' classes.That isn't quite true. There are classes that do the 'jack of all trades' bit well. Druids and clerics are the obvious examples, but I'll skim over them because they're full-casters.

Even then, bards make a pretty good jack of all trades. They have slightly less skill points than a rogue, sure, but (aside from disable device and search, where the rogue gets special abilities to help them) the bard is basically as good as a rogue at the skills they choose to focus in. They can completely replace a rogue under many circumstances, and even under others they can provide useful support. Likewise, their spell selection and shots per day are limited, but it's still enough to provide some magical backup to the full casters in a fight. And outside of core, Bards also get a number of good feats and PRCs if they want to specialize more.

But more than that, bards do have a useful role. With several reasons to max charisma, the skills and skill points to take every Cha skill, and a few nice abilities to back up social situations (core Bardic Music isn't great, but you can use it to influence people and so forth without provoking suspicion, unlike spellcasting), bards make better party faces than almost everyone else.

Likewise, rogues are pretty good jacks of all trades, too -- they can do decent damage with sneak attack, they get the widest variety of skills in core (only a few classes beat them outside it, even), and they can emulate magic with UMD.

And of course there's other classes like the Factotum and Chameleon...

The monk just isn't that good at being a jack of all trades. Unlike the rogue or Factotum, their class features don't add enough damage to make them good at ranged or melee fighting. They don't get enough skill points or skills to compete with the Bard, nevermind the Rogue. And... that's it. The Gaimonk aside, they don't really get anything to help them contribute magical support. If magic, skills, and weapons are the three pillars of the game, the monk has already failed completely at one of them -- how can they be a jack of all trades with that?

The Bard is very good at skills, all right at magic for a non-full-caster, and weak at melee/ranged (at least in core; some options for melee exist outside this.)

The Rogue is quite decent at melee/ranged (within Sneak Attack's limitations), excellent at skills, and can contribute magic in a pinch.

The later-generation Jack of All trade classes (Chameleon and Factotum) are good at all three.

Heck, while they're not overwhelming at their secondary roles, a ranger at least has some magic, some skills, and some utility without giving up full BAB at all. Rangers aren't considered a particularly overwhelming class, but compare that to a Monk and see what it gets you.

(And, while I left them out: Clerics are overwhelming at magic, can be very good at melee, and can be pretty decent at handling 'skill' situations using magic; Druids have strong magic, powerful melee, and a couple of extra skills on top of having a very wide range of magical/wild abilities that can frequently substitute for skills.)

The monk... is only so-so at melee, only so-so at skills, and has no magical ability whatsoever. There's lots of things you can try to view them as, but as a jack-of-all-trades they pretty clearly fail completely.

And as soon as you go outside core and start optimizing it gets worse, much worse, because now they have to compete for the Jack of all Trades crown with the Chameleon and Factotum, not to mention bards who can actually become decent at melee or turn into highly-skilled full casters, beguilers who can combine magic with skills, ToB classes that overwhelm the monk in every way imaginable, CoDzillas that can dominate everyone (not that they couldn't do that already in core, but now they can do it by a whole higher order of magnitude), and all sorts of other things.

Yes, you can optimize a monk to an extent to try and make it more balanced. But it isn't a particularly easy class to optimize (despite needing it much more than most others) -- you don't have spells to select, your bonus feats and other special features are limited to a very small selection, you don't have any 'open-ended' class features like wildshape or an animal companion, and aside from that you're stuck looking for a way to multiclass/PRC out as fast as possible... into PRCs that, even at their best, aren't that great when compared to the PRCs available to most other classes.

[LordOkubo]

I counter your dipping into Dragon Magazine and half a hundred books with a DMM Persist Cleric.

[Signmaker]

That isn't quite true. There are classes that do the 'jack of all trades' bit well. Druids and clerics are the obvious examples, but I'll skim over them because they're full-casters.

Ah. True. Of course, the classes you've provided can fit quite well as a 4th member. The monk, at best, is a 5th.

[Prophaniti]

Oh, absolutely. That's called "good DM'ing".

However, good DM'ing will also not allow for such things as crippling your own party in order to be more effective yourself, or buying single-charge wands instead of scrolls because they're cheaper, or giving you a surprise round and three free buffing rounds each combat.To clarify: By "My games" I was also referring to games in which I was a player, including a handful where I played a monk.


Ah, we should all switch to 4E because, whatever other problems it solves, retains or creates, it doesn't have monks :smalltongue:
Well, that would be in keeping with the spirit of 4e: If it's broke, don't fix it. Just remove it.:smalltongue:

[Starbuck_II]

Ok, I've played a monk multiple times and they're really not as bad as people say, in practice. Just like wizards are not as powerful as people say, in practice. The disparity is certainly there, and exploitable, but in most of your gaming groups few will go to the effort, and even fewer will be big enough jerks to make your character irrelevant with it. That said, I currently use various monk fixes when I wish to run one now, and they are more fun than the 3.5 RAW version. Monks have the same kind of niche to fill as any of the mixed classes, such as bard or paladin, and I've definitely done my share of the party workload, both in and out of combat.

Bottom line: Don't believe everything you read on gaming forums. While the discussions of brokeness may be factually correct, the problems will simply not come up anywhere near as often as they'll claim. I've said it before and I'll say it again, wizards have yet to dominate one of my games, and monks have yet to be made useless.

Wait, so you conclude that the monk isn't broken because you used a Monk fix.
Isn't that like saying the sink wasdn't broken because you hired a repair man?

Yes, it may not be broken now for you. But that means it was broken because that you had to fix it.

[Sir Giacomo]

No, you stated any monster in the MM1. I think a Great Wyrm Blue is fair enough, especially since a blue dragon gains access to epic material around, oh, say, CR 14.

Your specific request betrayed you here. "Any monster in the MM1" does leave it open to creatures that have a CR higher than 20. So, go for it. No saying "you can pick anything" and then saying, "no wait, anything but that".

Hmmmm. Will think on it. To boldly go...:smallsmile:
Unfortunately, I'll be on vacation for two weeks, so this and the other (more useful, non-epic) CR questions can wait. Maybe we start a different thread even?

Maybe, in the meantime you wish to prepare the level 16 duel of the joker monk vs a Batman build of Emperor Tippy?

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

I think it might be considered slightly biased. :smallamused:

As you now definitely turn out to be :smalltongue:

And if I remember correctly you failed to make it clear that
- FoB in grapple is not allowed under a strict interpretation of RAW (although it is a reasonable house rule and possibly even RAI).

Well, the monk class description ("modified BAB") and the grapple rules are clear enough for me. For those who still doubt, luckily the FAQ has the answer ("grapple to your heart's content")

- Monk's are not proficient with gauntlets (although it is a reasonable house rule to allows a monk to enhance say some hand and feet wraps (unless of course you think the monk is already balanced under RAW, in which case that might be considered a little broken :smallamused:).

The joker monk never made use of gauntlets and sidestepped the issue with greater magic fang/weapon or holy sword buffs.
I guess the issue of being not explicitly able to use gauntlets is simply a designer oversight (the weapon table btw lists it below the unarmed strike category, in which monks ARE proficient). But overall it does not really matter that much, since the monk can have enhancement bonuses via buffs on his fists, anyhow.

- Allowing the purchase of partially charged wands require a lot of DM goodwill and possibly unrestricted access to Sigil, City of Brass and Dis).

No, not goodwill for partially charged wands specifically. You yourself said that DMG p. 199 holds for characters created above level 1.
And DURING a campaign, the only goodwill involved is to let players buy magical items at all. Once you allow that (as envisioned by the DMG), then there is no reason to assume that it is easier to buy a ring of freedom of movement than a 17-charge enlarge wand. since the only differentiation of availability is through PRICE.

The big uproar vs the partially charged wands is still difficult for me to understand. It is such a simple means to give non-casters more flexibility and get them out of any perceived shortcomings and vulnerabilities vs magic and casters.
And before someone says again: but why are scrolls there? I say:
- scrolls can be created at lower levels
- scrolls are the big source of additional spells for wizard spellcasters
- scrolls can contain level 1-9 spells, not only 1-4

- Giacomo

[Stupendous_Man]

Well, the monk class description ("modified BAB") and the grapple rules are clear enough for me. For those who still doubt, luckily the FAQ has the answer ("grapple to your heart's content")
im a noob, but i know the faq has contradictied itself... so no mmmkay?



The big uproar vs the partially charged wands is still difficult for me to understand. It is such a simple means to give non-casters more flexibility and get them out of any perceived shortcomings and vulnerabilities vs magic and casters.
cause dnd doesn't work that way

[Covered In Bees]

No, not goodwill for partially charged wands specifically. You yourself said that DMG p. 199 holds for characters created above level 1.
And DURING a campaign, the only goodwill involved is to let players buy magical items at all. Once you allow that (as envisioned by the DMG), then there is no reason to assume that it is easier to buy a ring of freedom of movement than a 17-charge enlarge wand. since the only differentiation of availability is through PRICE.
Are. You. KIDDING?

There is no reason to assume...?
How about the fact that there are plenty of spellcasters who can MAKE a ring of freedom of movement? You can sit down and craft one.
You CAN'T make a 17-charge enlarge wand. Where do all these people who use 33 charges exactly and then sell their wand in your town specifically come from? Who are they? Why would you POSSIBLY assume they exist, and they always drop off whatever wand with whatever number of charges you want? This is so ridiculous, I'm having a hard time articulating it.

You can try and use RAW as an excuse to have 1-charge wands at character creation. It's obviously NOT RAI, since it's pretty clear it's meant to represent a character who bought/found a full wand and has been using it.
But RAW absolutely doesn't allow you to buy wands with however many charges you want. It's not RAI, either. If they wanted you to be able to do that, they would have said it flat out in the wands section, or


The big uproar vs the partially charged wands is still difficult for me to understand. It is such a simple means to give non-casters more flexibility and get them out of any perceived shortcomings and vulnerabilities vs magic and casters.
And before someone says again: but why are scrolls there? I say:
- scrolls can be created at lower levels
- scrolls are the big source of additional spells for wizard spellcasters
- scrolls can contain level 1-9 spells, not only 1-4

- Giacomo
Nevertheless, one-shot wands totally make level 1-4 scrolls useless. It's OBVIOUSLY not RAI (or RAW) for players to have access. It is RAI (and RAW).

It's not a means to give *non*-casters more flexibility, since casters are overwhelmingly the ones who make use of wands. It breaks things when you buy a Black Tentacles charge and hit a low-level BBEG with it.

I don't know why you have a hard time accepting this. I've played in dozens of games where we could buy pretty much whatever, but never once were we allowed to buy whatever partially charged wands we wanted. Most of us never bothered to try, because it was so obvious.

This big uproar? It's because it's such an obviously nonsensical idea, and yet you can't seem to grasp that you are the only one who plays this way. I have NO idea what your DM is thinking, or why he can't interpret the rules in a sensible manner. Please, understand that your game is nothing like most games.

[Stupendous_Man]

Please, understand that your game is nothing like most games.

on a side note, i think that's why giacomp's guide isn't a good guide, youc an't use it in mos tgames

batman guide? yeah, ive seen it fit into my game well (not totally optimized wizard, but he's pretty good)

sorcerer guide? i could see it fitting in cause it's basically the batman guide modified a bit for sorcerers

warlock handbook? totally cool.

monk guide? you'd ahve to convince the dm to give yout ons of magic items and stuff and use some unusual rules....

so its ab ad guide also because you can't use it....

[monty]

I agree with your post, but please proofread it next time, and put the spaces in the right place. That was a pain to read.

[Stupendous_Man]

Yes sir. Is it better now?

-------------------------------------------------------

On a side note, my dearest Giacomo, I fear that is the reason why your guide is not considered on par with many other guides, both on GitP and WotC Char Op forums. It cannot be utilized in the average DnD game.

For example, the much lauded "Guide to Being Batman" contains advice easily applicable to most DnD games that do not feature a vindictive DM who sets out to ruin the magic system as a way of compensating for his inadequacies in real life.

I have seen it happen in my current real life DnD game.

The same can be said for Solo's Sorcerer Guide, which, while I have never seen it in action first hand, would probably be easily applied to a game due to its similar (derivative?) nature to the Batman guide. (Seriously, he couldn't even have been bothered to come up with his own spell list...)

Just to throw out a non-GitP example, Thinblade's Warlock Handbook has advice and builds that are, once again, easily integrated into many different styles of games.

Your guide does not meet these standards, and therefore, has a critical failing. After all, your playstyle not only demands an abundant cornucopia of magical items and ambiguous and/or faulty interpretations of the rules.

And sometimes, when your interpretations of the rules are correct, they exploit a 'loophole' in the system, which DMs may not allow. (Polymorph is an obvious example. My insufficient familiarity with DnD outside of classes I have personally played and researched thoroughly prevents me from listing more examples offhand. Apologies)

This, I believe your guide to fail at achieving its stated goal at being an easy to use guide to playing monks properly.

Yours in DnD,

Stupendous Man

Defender of Freedom, Advocate of Liberty, etc, etc.

ps. Any thoughts on that Night Hag Heart Stone?

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

As you now definitely turn out to be :smalltongue:

And if I remember correctly you failed to make it clear that
- FoB in grapple is not allowed under a strict interpretation of RAW (although it is a reasonable house rule and possibly even RAI).

Well, the monk class description ("modified BAB") and the grapple rules are clear enough for me. For those who still doubt, luckily the FAQ has the answer ("grapple to your heart's content")

Modified BAB <> BAB

The FAQ is not very precise, but if it wishes to extend FoB to grapple checks and not just to grapple attempts it is making a very good suggestion for a house rule and possibly testifies to RAI.


- Monk's are not proficient with gauntlets (although it is a reasonable house rule to allows a monk to enhance say some hand and feet wraps (unless of course you think the monk is already balanced under RAW, in which case that might be considered a little broken :smallamused:).

The joker monk never made use of gauntlets and sidestepped the issue with greater magic fang/weapon or holy sword buffs.
I guess the issue of being not explicitly able to use gauntlets is simply a designer oversight (the weapon table btw lists it below the unarmed strike category, in which monks ARE proficient). But overall it does not really matter that much, since the monk can have enhancement bonuses via buffs on his fists, anyhow.


The point of my post was not to discredit your Joker monk tactics or even discuss them. Rather, I was challenging the implied claim of universal application of your attempted guide.

Whether the RAW on gauntlets are designer oversight is likewise irrelevant. You can explain why the RAW should be different etc., but to avoid accusation of being biased and to not discredit the other suggestions your make I would suggest that you present the RAW as it is rather than your version of how you think it should be.


- Allowing the purchase of partially charged wands require a lot of DM goodwill and possibly unrestricted access to Sigil, City of Brass and Dis).

No, not goodwill for partially charged wands specifically. You yourself said that DMG p. 199 holds for characters created above level 1.
And DURING a campaign, the only goodwill involved is to let players buy magical items at all. Once you allow that (as envisioned by the DMG), then there is no reason to assume that it is easier to buy a ring of freedom of movement than a 17-charge enlarge wand. since the only differentiation of availability is through PRICE.


That is not correct. It requires more than allowing magic items, it requires that the DM allows custom magic items (that would have to be traded under unreasonable assumptions and in an magnitude that breaks verisimilitude). The items you request cannot even be commissioned from Magic Item Creators Inc.


The big uproar vs the partially charged wands is still difficult for me to understand. It is such a simple means to give non-casters more flexibility and get them out of any perceived shortcomings and vulnerabilities vs magic and casters.
And before someone says again: but why are scrolls there? I say:
- scrolls can be created at lower levels
- scrolls are the big source of additional spells for wizard spellcasters
- scrolls can contain level 1-9 spells, not only 1-4

Balance issues aside, it is unreasonable, break verisimilitude and is against the RAI.

[Sir Giacomo]

Meh, I'm here because I enjoy being right, and it's easy here.

Oh Talic...it may be here (since you did not bring up anything new yet), but not in the joker monk thread where, I guess, the title of the poster with the most rules mistakes easily went to you.

Highlights:
You believed that
- the joker monk would only be able to safely activate a wand with UMD at level 20, not before
- touch spells discharge whenever you touch with any part of your body anything
- grappling needs free hands
- for that matter, most monk abilities need free hands
- enlarged characters with DEX 14 would retain the improved grapple feat
- there are no wands with spells of personal range
- non-casters can produce acid flasks themselves
etc.

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

Are. You. KIDDING?

There is no reason to assume...?
How about the fact that there are plenty of spellcasters who can MAKE a ring of freedom of movement? You can sit down and craft one.


And where do you get your materials from?

- Giacomo

[Stupendous_Man]

has giacomo been keeping track of his own mistakes aswell? :smallwink:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

so we need a seventh level clerc wiht forge ring

Caster level is not a requirement.

Gold, the feat and access to the spell is all there is needed.

[Sir Giacomo]

on a side note, i think that's why giacomp's guide isn't a good guide, youc an't use it in mos tgames

batman guide? yeah, ive seen it fit into my game well (not totally optimized wizard, but he's pretty good)

sorcerer guide? i could see it fitting in cause it's basically the batman guide modified a bit for sorcerers

warlock handbook? totally cool.

monk guide? you'd ahve to convince the dm to give yout ons of magic items and stuff and use some unusual rules....

so its ab ad guide also because you can't use it....

Let me see, if I get this logic right.
So, the way you describe it likely the monk player will have less power, and the caster player more.
Why on earth should then a DM not allow partially charged wands?

I mean, he is supposed to smile on the caster casting invisibility to his heart's content and the non-casters not having faerie fire, see invisibility and all the other stuff out there to put the power of invisibility into perspective?

Non-casters not being able to access with the ease envisioned by the rules the great use of enlarge?

- Giacomo

[LordOkubo]

As you now definitely turn out to be.

This is uncalled for. I see no evidence anywhere that Silvanos is in any way biased. All he did was point out the Raw in a couple places, if disagreeing with you on anything automatically makes you think they are biased, then you are the one with a problem.


And if I remember correctly you failed to make it clear that
- FoB in grapple is not allowed under a strict interpretation of RAW (although it is a reasonable house rule and possibly even RAI).

Well, the monk class description ("modified BAB") and the grapple rules are clear enough for me. For those who still doubt, luckily the FAQ has the answer ("grapple to your heart's content")

But Modified BAB is not the same as BAB, and the FAQ doesn't clarify it. It just says that you may initiated a Grapple with those BABs.

Now you could Flurry attack using the -4 penalty in a grapple for sure, but whether or not you can use the damaging grapple option in a flurry is at least highly questionable, and in my opinion points towards no. I'd still allow it as DM probably, but that doesn't really change the rules.


- Monk's are not proficient with gauntlets (although it is a reasonable house rule to allows a monk to enhance say some hand and feet wraps (unless of course you think the monk is already balanced under RAW, in which case that might be considered a little broken :smallamused:).

The joker monk never made use of gauntlets and sidestepped the issue with greater magic fang/weapon or holy sword buffs.
I guess the issue of being not explicitly able to use gauntlets is simply a designer oversight (the weapon table btw lists it below the unarmed strike category, in which monks ARE proficient). But overall it does not really matter that much, since the monk can have enhancement bonuses via buffs on his fists, anyhow.

This is addressing someone else's suggestion, not always about you.


- Allowing the purchase of partially charged wands require a lot of DM goodwill and possibly unrestricted access to Sigil, City of Brass and Dis).

No, not goodwill for partially charged wands specifically. You yourself said that DMG p. 199 holds for characters created above level 1.
And DURING a campaign, the only goodwill involved is to let players buy magical items at all. Once you allow that (as envisioned by the DMG), then there is no reason to assume that it is easier to buy a ring of freedom of movement than a 17-charge enlarge wand. since the only differentiation of availability is through PRICE.

This is just wrong. The other way the DMG determines what can be bought is based on that thing being an actual item in the DMG. Since "partially charged wands" are not items separate from real wands, you wouldn't be able to buy them.

[Stupendous_Man]

Let me see, if I get this logic right.
So, the way you describe it likely the monk player will have less power, and the caster player more.
Why on earth should then a DM not allow partially charged wands?
if he did, it would be a hourserule.

i do not thing hoursuels should be brought into mechanical discussions



This is uncalled for. I see no evidence anywhere that Silvanos is in any way biased. All he did was point out the Raw in a couple places, if disagreeing with you on anything automatically makes you think they are biased, then you are the one with a problem.

perahps the problem is that giacomo is biased?

[only1doug]

And where do you get your materials from?

- Giacomo

<blink>

<Blink>


OK, now you've completely confused me, so no magic items exist because no one can make them because there are no materials?

I'd Buy my Masterworked ring from a jeweler, there are rules for making those...

making a ring (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm#creatingRings) of freedom of movement (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#freedomofMovement) requires a ring and a spellcaster and a source of heat
...there's no rules for making 1 shot wands

Doug

[Sir Giacomo]

has giacomo been keeping track of his own mistakes aswell? :smallwink:

Yep, I once argued that a grapple check with equal results on both side would be decided by the higher STR modifier, not the higher grapple modifier (re-roll if equal). Can't think of any more right now, although I am sure there were some in the 69 page thread (among those were some when I confused posters).
Ah, and in case you wondered why the thread was so long - those who criticised the build asked to get answers to all of their issues.

- Giacomo

[Morty]

I realize that I'm doing the equivalent of putting my foot into a meat grinder here, but I have a question, Giacomo: have you actually ever played monk in a way you present in a real session with a real adventure?

[monty]

Caster level is not a requirement.

Gold, the feat and access to the spell is all there is needed.

Since it's a 4th level spell, you'd need CL 7 anyway (well, unless you had a feat that gave negative effective CL or something). Still doesn't change the fact that it'd be easier to come by than a used wand of a particular spell.

[Stupendous_Man]

Yep, I once argued that a grapple check with equal results on both side would be decided by the higher STR modifier, not the higher grapple modifier (re-roll if equal). Can't think of any more right now, although I am sure there were some in the 69 page thread (among those were some when I confused posters).
Ah, and in case you wondered why the thread was so long - those who criticised the build asked to get answers to all of their issues.

- Giacomo

its easier to keep track of when others are wrong than yourself, eh? :smallwink:


but how can yoiu say talc was easily the psoter with most misconceptiosn..... if you don't know your own score? :smallconfused:

[Sir Giacomo]

Caster level is not a requirement.

Gold, the feat and access to the spell is all there is needed.

Hmm- I thought the caster level is one of the requirements. Plus, you need to be 12th level to have the forge ring feat.

- Giacomo

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Since it's a 4th level spell, you'd need CL 7 anyway (well, unless you had a feat that gave negative effective CL or something). Still doesn't change the fact that it'd be easier to come by than a used wand of a particular spell.

Access is enough, so a partially charged wand with spell should do it....

However, Forge Ring requires CL 12 to take.


In any case the point was not about how easy it is to get the ring and how unlikely it is to get the wand, I just wanted to point out that the listed CL is not a requirement in item creation.

[Covered In Bees]

And where do you get your materials from?

- Giacomo

The incredibly generic "X gp of material components"? The same incredibly generic X gp of material components you make all magic items with? I buy'em in a big city. You know, because they can be collected, they don't have to be made with 50 charges and then have someone use exactly 33 of those, and drop the rest off in the specific town I happen to be in.

I buy the actual ring that will be enchanted in a high-class elven jewelry store.

[monty]

Hmm- I thought the caster level is one of the requirements. Plus, you need to be 12th level to have the forge ring feat.

- Giacomo

Ok, so you need a 12th level cleric. Big deal. If casters are so common that people are tossing used wands all over the place, it can't be that hard to find a high level cleric.

[monty]

Access is enough, so a partially charged wand with spell should do it....

Oh yeah, forgot about that. Well, in this dream world of arbitrary quantities of partially charged wands of every spell in existence, that should make the ring even easier to come by.

[Sir Giacomo]

its easier to keep track of when others are wrong than yourself, eh? :smallwink:


but how can yoiu say talc was easily the psoter with most misconceptiosn..... if you don't know your own score? :smallconfused:

Ah, sophistics, I see...
...well I said I GUESS that Talic would be the poster with most mistakes...but I did no statistical analysis on the subject.

Btw, your ideas about a guide able to fit into various settings - if you consider magic items as not really buyable in a campaign, how then can you think that wizard guids based on the notion that a wizard gets to choose more spells than his 2/level are any good?
And, btw, the joker monk BUILD was only a third of the guide - the rest went to general tactic suggestions, what you can do with monk abilities, other build ideas and links.
And even if you believe the (partial) wand idea is bad, you can still use the joker monk guide and replace UMD and the UMD skill focus feat with something else (diplomacy maybe? Or get a different race like half-orc?). And just use the wand budget for other items.
In case you cannot buy any items at all and they just get to you randomly, you get at least also some idea as to what items would be fitting best for the monk.

Will go to bed now. May post again tomorrow before holidays time.

- Giacomo

[Covered In Bees]

Let me see, if I get this logic right.
So, the way you describe it likely the monk player will have less power, and the caster player more.
Why on earth should then a DM not allow partially charged wands?
Because it's completely, totally ridiculous. If the GM wants to fix the Monk class or the Wizard spell list, he should just DO it. He shouldn't do his best to twist and misinterpret the existing rules regardless of logic.

Or he should try 4E.


Non-casters not being able to access with the ease envisioned by the rules the great use of enlarge?

- Giacomo
The "ease envisioned by the rules" is potions, or friendly spellcasters.

The rules do not envision everybody using wands, much less partially charged wands. The very idea is ridiculous. If the designers wanted that, they'd have given everybody UMD as a class skill, or as an automatic ability, or just allowed everyone to use wands freely.

[Deth Muncher]

Yep, I once argued that a grapple check with equal results on both side would be decided by the higher STR modifier, not the higher grapple modifier (re-roll if equal). Can't think of any more right now, although I am sure there were some in the 69 page thread (among those were some when I confused posters).
Ah, and in case you wondered why the thread was so long - those who criticised the build asked to get answers to all of their issues.

- Giacomo

Giacomo, as far as I know, Solo only made one mistake about what kind of attack roll you used to initiate grapple, and you gave him hell for it and wouldn't stop bringing it up.

Also, don't take this as a directly flame-kindling thing, but rather a defense for a friend of mine.

[Stupendous_Man]

if you consider magic items as not really buyable in a campaign, how then can you think that wizard guids based on the notion that a wizard gets to choose more spells than his 2/level are any good?

our current campaign has a batman wizard with very few spells in his spellbook.

he's awsome.

[only1doug]

never in all my years of playing (and i'm not gonna mention how many years that is but there are plenty of them) have i ever seen a party sell a partially charged wand.


Doug

[Sir Giacomo]

The incredibly generic "X gp of material components"? The same incredibly generic X gp of material components you make all magic items with? I buy'em in a big city. You know, because they can be collected, they don't have to be made with 50 charges and then have someone use exactly 33 of those, and drop the rest off in the specific town I happen to be in.

I buy the actual ring that will be enchanted in a high-class elven jewelry store.

So instead of buying a ring you buy the materials for it - which are still 100 times more expensive than the partially charged wand which miraculously in the big city is not available, while the magic store is full of phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon and what have you that you need for forging the ring.
And that follows exactly what kind of logic?

And the most amusing thing about it all is that you have nothing against pcs being able to SELL partially charged wands they find. So basically you do not assume a "magic-mart" but a "magic-wasteyard" where all partially charged items miraculouly go, never to reappear again. Hilarious!:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

[Sir Giacomo]

never in all my years of playing (and i'm not gonna mention how many years that is but there are plenty of them) have i ever seen a party sell a partially charged wand.


Doug

Never in all my years of playing have I ever seen a wyrm blue dragon (CR 25). But it is part of the rules.

- Giacomo

[monty]

Btw, your ideas about a guide able to fit into various settings - if you consider magic items as not really buyable in a campaign, how then can you think that wizard guids based on the notion that a wizard gets to choose more spells than his 2/level are any good?

Collaborate with the cleric/druid/bard/sorcerer/whatever to make scrolls of whatever and then copy them? Or else just deal with it because even that limited spellcasting is still better than a monk.

[Stupendous_Man]

while the magic store is full of phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon and what have you that you need for forging the ring.
And that follows exactly what kind of logic?
are those actual spell components?

were they not SRD martial or soemthing? i've never seen them...

[Covered In Bees]

Btw, your ideas about a guide able to fit into various settings - if you consider magic items as not really buyable in a campaign, how then can you think that wizard guids based on the notion that a wizard gets to choose more spells than his 2/level are any good?
There exist a feat and a substitution level which totally obviate the need to ever buy any spells at all, basically.
Magic items are buyable in most campaigns. Partially charged wands are only buyable in YOUR campaigns, because your DM apparently doesn't care about what the rules say *or* what makes sense.


And even if you believe the (partial) wand idea is bad, you can still use the joker monk guide and replace UMD and the UMD skill focus feat with something else (diplomacy maybe? Or get a different race like half-orc?). And just use the wand budget for other items.
Do it yourself. The result: hardcore, uncensored sucking. Without a steady supply of partially charged wands of whatever you want, your monk is dead in the water as soon as he needs spells higher than first-level, which no one's been complaining about. Nobody cares about Enlarge, it's easily obtainable. 5-charge wands of Divine Power? Yeah, right.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo, as far as I know, Solo only made one mistake about what kind of attack roll you used to initiate grapple, and you gave him hell for it and wouldn't stop bringing it up.

Also, don't take this as a directly flame-kindling thing, but rather a defense for a friend of mine.

And to avoid any flame-kindling on my side, I full-heartedly admitted my mistake, plus the irony that I had reproached him for a similar mistake (OK, somewhat different, but whatever) only a couple of weeks before.

- Giacomo

[monty]

So instead of buying a ring you buy the materials for it - which are still 100 times more expensive than the partially charged wand which miraculously in the big city is not available, while the magic store is full of phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon and what have you that you need for forging the ring.
And that follows exactly what kind of logic?

Who says the materials are so uncommon? The rules just say "X gp worth of materials," which could easily be X gp worth of coal that is then magically transformed into whatever through the item creation process.


And the most amusing thing about it all is that you have nothing against pcs being able to SELL partially charged wands they find. So basically you do not assume a "magic-mart" but a "magic-wasteyard" where all partially charged items miraculouly go, never to reappear again. Hilarious!:smallbiggrin:

- Giacomo

And what makes you so certain that some other PC will just happen to sell exactly the wand you need with exactly the right number of charges remaining? How many wand-dumping adventurers are there in this world of yours?

[Tormsskull]

I have read through a bit of the Monk thread that Giacomo made, and while I am not sure it has convinced anyone that Monks are on the level with "batman" wizards, it was a highly useful thread both for providing ideas to pump up monks, and because it resulted in certain obnoxious posters going bye bye.

As I am seeing other posters starting to act the same way, it will be interesting to see if he can add more banned posters to his resume.

*tip of the hat*

[Sir Giacomo]

This is uncalled for. I see no evidence anywhere that Silvanos is in any way biased. All he did was point out the Raw in a couple places, if disagreeing with you on anything automatically makes you think they are biased, then you are the one with a problem.

Well, imo Lord_Silvanos made his opinion quite clear.

But Modified BAB is not the same as BAB, and the FAQ doesn't clarify it. It just says that you may initiated a Grapple with those BABs.Now you could Flurry attack using the -4 penalty in a grapple for sure, but whether or not you can use the damaging grapple option in a flurry is at least highly questionable, and in my opinion points towards no. I'd still allow it as DM probably, but that doesn't really change the rules.

No, the answer in the FAQ ("grapple to her heart's content") is provided to the direct question whether you can flurry grapple CHECKS. There is nothing to misunderstand here.

This is addressing someone else's suggestion, not always about you.

But Lord Silvanos directly addressed me in that point as well. So please do not make it appear as if I am trying to grab attention here.

This is just wrong. The other way the DMG determines what can be bought is based on that thing being an actual item in the DMG. Since "partially charged wands" are not items separate from real wands, you wouldn't be able to buy them.

I wonder then why the DMG provides fully-detailed rules on what prices partially wands have compared to fully charged wands. And it is explicilty said that you normally find paritally charged wands in treasure. This sounds like "actual item" to me.

But will definitely go to bed now...:smallcool:

- Giacomo

[Stupendous_Man]

I have read through a bit of the Monk thread that Giacomo made, and while I am not sure it has convinced anyone that Monks are on the level with "batman" wizards, it was a highly useful thread both for providing ideas to pump up monks, and because it resulted in certain obnoxious posters going bye bye.

As I am seeing other posters starting to act the same way, it will be interesting to see if he can add more banned posters to his resume.

*tip of the hat*

is that kind of sediment... appropriate?


No, the answer in the FAQ ("grapple to her heart's content") is provided to the direct question whether you can flurry grapple CHECKS. There is nothing to misunderstand here.

what do you say i do when i see the faq giving two different and contradictorry answers to the same question?

[Covered In Bees]

So instead of buying a ring you buy the materials for it - which are still 100 times more expensive than the partially charged wand which miraculously in the big city is not available, while the magic store is full of phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon and what have you that you need for forging the ring.
And that follows exactly what kind of logic?
Do you even realize that you just made all of that up? Like, completely. Out of whole cloth. The rules very intentionally do NOT require phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon, et cetera. They require "X GP's worth of components". The components are intentionally generic. If they wanted to involve specific components, they had their chance (and they do this with some spells, which require oddball and often expensive Focuses).


And the most amusing thing about it all is that you have nothing against pcs being able to SELL partially charged wands they find. So basically you do not assume a "magic-mart" but a "magic-wasteyard" where all partially charged items miraculouly go, never to reappear again. Hilarious!:smallbiggrin:
If they find it (on a goblin cleric, say) and sell it? They can come back and buy it again, probably. How does this translate into them being able to buy ANY partially charged wand with ANY number of charges? You know that the 44-charge Wand of Bless exists, because a goblin cleric used 3 charges, then the PCs killed him, took the wand, and sold it. It will remain in the possession of whoever the PCs sold it to (unless you decide that someone else then bought it, as the DM). You will not be able to get a 44-charge wand of Bless in any city you come across.

So: where did this 17-charge Wand of Enlarge Person come from? Who used 33 charges and sold it? Why didn't they just use the other 17? What are the odds of these people always leaving their wands, with the exact number of charges that you wanted left, in every city you're visiting?




I wonder then why the DMG provides fully-detailed rules on what prices partially wands have compared to fully charged wands. And it is explicilty said that you normally find paritally charged wands in treasure. This sounds like "actual item" to me.

But will definitely go to bed now...:smallcool:

- Giacomo
Because NPC spellcasters sometimes have wands, and sometimes they use a couple of charges before you kill them, and then you need to know how much they're worth.

The DMG does not say you can buy any wand with the exact number of charges you want.

[Morty]

Alright, Giacomo, since you intentionally or not ignored my question, I ask it again: have you ever played a monk you describe in your guide in a real campaign?

[Sir Giacomo]

Can't resist...


Who says the materials are so uncommon? The rules just say "X gp worth of materials," which could easily be X gp worth of coal that is then magically transformed into whatever through the item creation process.

Well, 20.000 gp of coal- where exactly in the DMG does it say that is common? Nowhere.
The only thing you can go by is to see whether that town is big enough for that kind of item. A DM is free to houserule, of course, that the individual materials count separately.


And what makes you so certain that some other PC will just happen to sell exactly the wand you need with exactly the right number of charges remaining? How many wand-dumping adventurers are there in this world of yours?

And what makes you so certain that some other pc /npc will sell exactly the materials you need with exactly the right amount?
Well, the only thing the DMG advises is how common the materials and items are BASED ON THEIR PRICE. All DMs can houserule what items are more or less common, but that is the only common ground we have, I fear.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo

[Stupendous_Man]

Do you even realize that you just made all of that up? Like, completely. Out of whole cloth. The rules very intentionally do NOT require phoenix feathers, tears of the dire whale, diamonds from the moon, et cetera. They require "X GP's worth of components". The components are intentionally generic. If they wanted to involve specific components, they had their chance (and they do this with some spells, which require oddball and often expensive Focuses).

so there are no official components for making items?

nice!

[Sir Giacomo]

Alright, Giacomo, since you intentionally or not ignored my question, I ask it again: have you ever played a monk you describe in your guide in a real campaign?

Never did. It's a new idea. :smallcool:

- Giacomo

[LordOkubo]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4690428#post4690428

Gia challenge thread, please stay out of it unless you have a specific challenge for him, are him, and preferably, already know who is going to DM that challenge.

As for buying the materials to make a Ring, you can just buy 20,000gp worth of grass in one GP sections, so actually you can buy it at even the smallest thorp (well 1000 different thorps, or 50 different small towns, but you get the picture.)

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

But Lord Silvanos directly addressed me in that point as well. So please do not make it appear as if I am trying to grab attention here.

I addressed you because your guide does not acknowledge the items I listed.

I invite you to respond to my post and perhaps correct any errors you may have made.

[monty]

Well, 20.000 gp of coal- where exactly in the DMG does it say that is common? Nowhere.
The only thing you can go by is to see whether that town is big enough for that kind of item. A DM is free to houserule, of course, that the individual materials count separately.

The materials are generic for a reason. It is assumed that they are commonly available.


And what makes you so certain that some other pc /npc will sell exactly the materials you need with exactly the right amount?
Well, the only thing the DMG advises is how common the materials and items are BASED ON THEIR PRICE. All DMs can houserule what items are more or less common, but that is the only common ground we have, I fear.:smallsmile:

Because those materials are deliberately vague. Again, you have to assume they are common, just like you have to assume that a spell component pouch has arbitrary quantities of non-costly components (yay Chicken Infested!). Keeping track of exact quantities (whether it's the precise amount of guano in your pouch or the relative scarcity of crafting components that are not specifically listed) is not a part of the rules. You still haven't answered the question - where are all these coincidentally perfect wands coming from?

[Covered In Bees]

Can't resist...
And what makes you so certain that some other pc /npc will sell exactly the materials you need with exactly the right amount?
Well, the only thing the DMG advises is how common the materials and items are BASED ON THEIR PRICE. All DMs can houserule what items are more or less common, but that is the only common ground we have, I fear.:smallsmile:

- Giacomo
Giacomo, YOU MADE THE IDEA OF RARE COMPONENTS FOR ITEM CREATION UP. This is not how the game works. The components are intentionally non-specific and generic, and it's only in your game that getting them is apparently difficult.

Please, PLEASE stop assuming that all of D&D works the way your wacky, barely-using-the-rules, "you can get X wand with Y charges anywhere, but magic item creation requires dire whale tears" D&D game works. In fact, I roll to disbelieve that your game, or ANY game, works this way. I'm calling your bluff. Does this REALLY apply in the games you play? Or are you just, as I suspect, making it up?

I also notice how you TOTALLY AVOID the question of where those wands come from. The components are there because there's a major demand, since all magic items are made with them. But you have no answer to the wand question. Why? Because you KNOW how ridiculous it is. You have to know. There's no way to avoid it. So you dance around the issue, trying to pretend that magic rings are made out of dire whale tears.

The rules intentionally assume you can make whatever magic items you want.
They intentionally do not assume you can get whatever partially charged wand you want.
This isn't an accident. This isn't a quirk. This is how the rules work. Stop looking for any loophole you can use to twist them in order to avoid justifying your ridiculous idea of another adventuring party leaving the path you follow littered with 5-charge wnads of whatever you like.



I wonder then why the DMG provides fully-detailed rules on what prices partially wands have compared to fully charged wands. And it is explicilty said that you normally find paritally charged wands in treasure. This sounds like "actual item" to me.

But will definitely go to bed now...:smallcool:

- Giacomo
Because sometimes enemy spellcasters use a couple of charges before you kill'em and you need to know how much the thing is worth. This translates into "you can find any wand with any number of charges" only in your imagination.

[only1doug]

Never in all my years of playing have I ever seen a wyrm blue dragon (CR 25). But it is part of the rules.

- Giacomo

But partially charged wands at vendors aren't...

there is no pricing guide for them and your assumption that they would be priced at a equivalent fraction of the fully charged price is based on conjecture. edit: my error, there is

If i were GMing and my players wanted to buy a partially charged wand he'd have to be lucky to find one, if he wanted to buy one with a specific number of charges... well, he MIGHT win the lottery ...Once.

Doug

[monty]

So you dance around the issue, trying to pretend that magic rings are made out of dire whale tears.

Can I sig that, please?

[LordOkubo]

I have read through a bit of the Monk thread that Giacomo made, and while I am not sure it has convinced anyone that Monks are on the level with "batman" wizards, it was a highly useful thread both for providing ideas to pump up monks, and because it resulted in certain obnoxious posters going bye bye.

As I am seeing other posters starting to act the same way, it will be interesting to see if he can add more banned posters to his resume.

*tip of the hat*

Maybe if some other posters, who did not before act in a certain way, now do so in threads with Giamoco only. Perhaps that a better method of not having that attitude would be simply to have Giamoco not post these things instead of wishing for him to make people start acting in a way they previously did not, and then get them banned.

I believe that provoking people into response that then get them banned is called trolling, and it is odd that you would say that you support trolling.

[Covered In Bees]

Never did. It's a new idea. :smallcool:

- Giacomo

I KNEW IT. I freaking knew it. He's never played one... and he never will, because it doesn't work in any game. If he thinks otherwise, I defy him to actually do it.


Giacomo, what could POSSIBLY have possessed you to write a guide about something YOU HAVE NO PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE WITH? I'm guessing that LogicNinja played quite a number of wizards before he wrote his guide. I know the CharOp people who make guides have experience with the class in question.

It's like a guide to jogging written by someone with no legs.


Can I sig that, please?
Sure.

[Thinker]

I have read through a bit of the Monk thread that Giacomo made, and while I am not sure it has convinced anyone that Monks are on the level with "batman" wizards, it was a highly useful thread both for providing ideas to pump up monks, and because it resulted in certain obnoxious posters going bye bye.

As I am seeing other posters starting to act the same way, it will be interesting to see if he can add more banned posters to his resume.

*tip of the hat*

Where do you get this stuff? Every banning makes the forum a little less lively and a little less interesting. Using posts as clique-warfare is unhealthy for the community as a whole. I'd much rather have a system where rules violations result in only mod-approved posts for a limited time.

[Thinker]

It's like a guide to jogging written by someone with no legs.


Sure.

You could also compare it to Body Mass Index. BMI was invented by someone with no practical knowledge of diets, eating habits, or exercise. I prefer my idea because I came up with it. :smallcool:

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Maybe if some other posters, who did not before act in a certain way, now do so in threads with Giamoco only. Perhaps that a better method of not having that attitude would be simply to have Giamoco not post these things instead of wishing for him to make people start acting in a way they previously did not, and then get them banned.

It is always sad when otherwise contributing posters are lost to the flames because some issue or other posters gets the better of them. :smallsigh:
However, if anyone feels that they are so provoked that they can only respond in a way that may earn them an infraction/warning they should learn to stay out of threads with that topic or simply block the poster they have an issue with. :smallfrown:



It's like a guide to jogging written by someone with no legs.

I assure you that I could write such a guide were I so inclined. :smalltongue:

[LordOkubo]

It is always sad when otherwise contributing posters are lost to the flames because some issue or other posters gets the better of them. :smallsigh:
However, if anyone feels that they are so provoked that they can only respond in a way that may earn them an infraction/warning they should learn to stay out of threads with that topic or simply block the poster they have an issue with. :smallfrown:

I am not saying that it excuses their behavior, it just seems odd that someone would advocate posters who had never before acted in such a way getting banned because they were that way about one subject.

[Griffin131]

Never did. It's a new idea.
False. I've said before that I've tried it, and it didn't work out. You're the first to assume it would work based on some loose interpretations of rules, and tout it enough that you were pressured for a guide. Which is made of fail, imo.


No, the answer in the FAQ ("grapple to her heart's content") is provided to the direct question whether you can flurry grapple CHECKS. There is nothing to misunderstand here.
Since you continue to misunderstand the FAQ, let me quote the relevant question.


Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks
during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks?
What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat
maneuvers?
As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s
special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry),
the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of
a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple
to her heart’s content.
She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use
special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which
requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move
action).
Note the question. The one asking about special combat maneuvers. Is the check you perform inside a grapple a special combat maneuver? Lets find out!

From the SRD - Combat - Special Attacks

Aid another Grant an ally a +2 bonus on attacks or AC
Bull rush Push an opponent back 5 feet or more
Charge Move up to twice your speed and attack with a +2 bonus
Disarm Knock a weapon from your opponent’s hands, or grab a worn item
Feint Negate your opponent’s Dex bonus to AC
Grapple Wrestle with an opponent
Mounted Combat Fight while riding your steed
Overrun Plow past or over an opponent as you move
Sunder Strike an opponent’s weapon or shield
Throw splash weapon Throw container of dangerous liquid at target
Trip Trip an opponent
Turn (rebuke) undead Channel positive (or negative) energy to turn away (or awe) undead
Two-weapon fighting Fight with a weapon in each hand
Grapple is listed! Lets see what the Grapple Special Attack is defined as!

Grapple Checks

Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:

Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier
Hmmm... no reference to base attack bonus there. Okay, so that portion cannot be what the FAQ referenced. Lets keep looking!

Starting a Grapple

To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses).
Oh look! It says right there that you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times! And the FAQ clarifies that flurry of blows works here! Perfect!
A further glance shows this:

If You’re Grappling

When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.
Seperate section - because this is not part of the Grapple Special Attack, it cannot be what the FAQ was referencing. Sorry.

[Morty]

Never did. It's a new idea. :smallcool:

- Giacomo

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

In other words, you're arguing for an idea you've never tried out in practice.

[Tormsskull]

It is always sad when otherwise contributing posters are lost to the flames because some issue or other posters gets the better of them. :smallsigh:

This is true. I guess I just find it funny that when I have (occasionally) had to report people for their conduct, it ends up being the same people that got banned as a result. IMO, if they can't learn to control themselves, the playground is better off without them.



I am not saying that it excuses their behavior, it just seems odd that someone would advocate posters who had never before acted in such a way getting banned because they were that way about one subject.


Never before acted in such a way? Are you kidding? Do you know how difficult it is to get banned from gitp? Say what you want about the rules, the mods, what have you, but they are very forgiving in their allocation of infractions. The people who were banned as a result of the thread did not come as any great suprise to most of us.

[Covered In Bees]

http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/img/facepalm.jpeg

In other words, you're arguing for an idea you've never tried out in practice.

Don't even. There aren't enough facepalms in the world.

[LordOkubo]

Never before acted in such a way? Are you kidding? Do you know how difficult it is to get banned from gitp? Say what you want about the rules, the mods, what have you, but they are very forgiving in their allocation of infractions. The people who were banned as a result of the thread did not come as any great suprise to most of us.

But you said specifically that you saw people starting to act this way that hadn't before, how does that mesh with your apparent claim that all these people are people who commonly flame?

[Leewei]

Only spells the caster Permanencies on himself have that protection. Spells on other creatures, objects, or areas can be dispelled as usual.
...well I'll be darned. Never noticed this, but the SRD backs you up nicely here. Even so, consider that the DC is 31, it'd pretty much require a greater dispel magic to have a shot at knocking it down. Targeted dispels are rarely employed in a fight. Area dispels can be mitigated with a few junk buffs at CL21. Not very reasonable at level 10, of course, but reasonably accomplished at CL16+ (Prayer Bead of Karma, Ioun Stone).


And simple wealth by level isn't the same thing as availability. *snip supporting text*
Also true, however I submit the spell combination would still be substantially easier to find than an Amulet of Mighty Fists+5.

[Tormsskull]

But you said specifically that you saw people starting to act this way that hadn't before, how does that mesh with your apparent claim that all these people are people who commonly flame?

I don't recall claiming that. The "all these people" in your above quote referred to those posters already banned. Therefore there is no "mesh". Maybe I misunderstood your question?

[Talic]

Oh Talic...it may be here (since you did not bring up anything new yet), but not in the joker monk thread where, I guess, the title of the poster with the most rules mistakes easily went to you.

Highlights:
You believed that
- the joker monk would only be able to safely activate a wand with UMD at level 20, not before
- touch spells discharge whenever you touch with any part of your body anything
- grappling needs free hands
- for that matter, most monk abilities need free hands
- enlarged characters with DEX 14 would retain the improved grapple feat
- there are no wands with spells of personal range
- non-casters can produce acid flasks themselves
etc.

- Giacomo
I'd appreciate if you kept this thread with this thread as much as possible, please. That said, I believe that my original wand use estimate assumed a reasonable investment of feats, skills, and the like, rather than max skills, several feats, unlisted MW tools, etc. And even then, I believe my original estimate of wands was level 14, 11 at the earliest.

Grappling needs, according to RAW, appendages which can grab. Interpretation of whether feet can adequately do that is up to individual DM's.

I don't believe that I mentioned most monk abilities needing free hands. Indeed, tongue of the sun and moon requires hearing and speech, and fast movement requires legs (for the most part). My issues aren't primarily with hands, it's with the actions it takes to draw the right scroll or wand for each fight, assuming you have it, by use of partially charged wands, which Silvanas already agreed is not RAW, or RAI.

Dex 14 characters when enlarged DO retain the Improved Grapple feat. They may lose the use of it, if dex drops to 12 or lower, but they retain the feat itself. And dex 14 characters can easily be dex 15 at level 4.


To clarify, easy to be right is not the same as never wrong. I admit when I'm wrong. We're just trying to get you to admit that every post you've made in this thread advocating that "guide" of yours as an actual general monk guide, rather than as a highly specific and situational build, requiring modifications of RAW, use of universal abilities generally regarded as game breaking (UMD), and, as you yourself have stated, a specific build that is not universally applicable.

Guides are univsally applicable. Your build does not offer insight into how to take various classes of foe, rather, restricts itself to one major class. It doesn't provide much in the way of insights on various ways to build the monk, instead focusing on a very specific build.

The batman guide? You can specialize in 8 different schools of magic, or none, and build a batman. You can take any of a wide number of PrC's, themes, and abilities, and still have batman. It's a method of spell selection primarily, and tactic education, that allows for engaging many types of foe in a party setting. It uses nothing of the wizard class other than the primary class feature (spellcasting). Any class that keeps that (and the cardinal rule of full casting indicates that these are best) is compatible with batman. THAT is why it's a guide.

That's why yours isn't. Despite what you've tried to indicate here. It's a build. It also spreads misinformation concerning general monk abilities (flurry, etc). That's a cardinal violation of guides.

[Prophaniti]

Wait, so you conclude that the monk isn't broken because you used a Monk fix.
Isn't that like saying the sink wasdn't broken because you hired a repair man?

Yes, it may not be broken now for you. But that means it was broken because that you had to fix it.
See, I knew someone would latch on to that without reading it in context. I used a RAW monk for 3 seperate campaigns and was never rendered useless. Even in the one with the Half-Celestial Half-Ogre (what was our DM thinking?!) I use the two monk fixes (a better term would be variants) that I like because I like them, just like I use variants for other classes, including wizard. So, no, I don't conclude the monk is not broken because I use a fix. I used the RAW monk and concluded he's not broken, then used variants because I like to mix things up and try different classes. since I long ago ran through all of the base classes, and don't usually multiclass, I started using variants. Yes, I do enjoy the variants more than the RAW monk, but that's true of every single class that I've yet tried a variant for.

[Talic]

Never did. It's a new idea. :smallcool:

- Giacomo

So, you take an untested idea, a hypothesis, if you will, and you present it as fact?

I believe such an concept was put forth in the middle ages. It led to people thinking that maggots spontaneously appeared on rotting meat.

It wasn't 'til an experiment involving cheesecloth centuries later that showed that, no, it was insects landing and laying eggs.

Still see no problem with presenting hypotheses as fact?

[monty]

No offense, but you're about the fourth person to mention that.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

No offense, but you're about the fourth person to mention that.

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:

[only1doug]

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:

Pssst this is a monk thread. Everything must be repeated again and again... :smallamused:


(sorry, couldn't resist, failed my will save)

[FMArthur]

*munches popcorn*

So basically, Sir Giacomo, you wrote so many long posts (and argued for almost 70 pages) of logically questionable theory that has never seen real experience, and it's supposed to be a guide for Monk players?

Let's say for a moment that you're right about it. About everything. It is still completely useless, because nobody believes it. Think about the implications of that. Players who read your guide can take their Joker Monk characters to their respective DMs, and have them turned aside or argue for a month on interpretations of RAI. It's not usable, because nobody would allow this stuff without substantial and overwhelming proof of legality, which your guide is unfortunately lacking, or at least is lacking to the pages upon pages of posters disagreeing with it.

What do you suppose the chances are of any normal DM simultaneously allowing all of your ideas at once is? There is no application here, if the majority of the people you might play with will believe that your explanations are inadequate. D&D is not a one-player game; you have to get people to agree with you on what you can do in the game.

[Kurald Galain]

So basically, Sir Giacomo, you wrote so many long posts (and argued for almost 70 pages) of logically questionable theory that has never seen real experience, and it's supposed to be a guide for Monk players?
Yep. This was three or four identical threads back. He tends to ignore such questions, but eventually he admitted that he had never played any such monks ever, and indeed didn't D&D all that often either. That's what makes this thread so funny - it's like a virgin writing the kama sutra.


Question:

Can your STR 26 Orc make use of the rest of your guide?
Well, no. It's an obvious Schrodinger. Heck, that orc can't even be played in a regular campaign (because permanencied enlarge spells are mightily inconvenient both in towns and dungeons, not commonly available, and shut down by a single dispel magic).

Likewise, his UMD-based gonk is completely unplayable until level 12 or so, which is the point where he can reliably pass his UMD checks (depending on how you define "reliable" and on whether you're guaranteed 3-4 buffing rounds at the beginning of every single combat), which is a point that SG conveniently ignores.


So anyway. Does Paizo's Pathfinder have a monk yet? Is it any good?

[LordOkubo]

See, I knew someone would latch on to that without reading it in context. I used a RAW monk for 3 seperate campaigns and was never rendered useless. Even in the one with the Half-Celestial Half-Ogre (what was our DM thinking?!) I use the two monk fixes (a better term would be variants) that I like because I like them, just like I use variants for other classes, including wizard. So, no, I don't conclude the monk is not broken because I use a fix. I used the RAW monk and concluded he's not broken, then used variants because I like to mix things up and try different classes. since I long ago ran through all of the base classes, and don't usually multiclass, I started using variants. Yes, I do enjoy the variants more than the RAW monk, but that's true of every single class that I've yet tried a variant for.

1) Unless those "variants" are WotC published, then they are fixes. I could claim to be playing a "variant" Fighter with full casting in addition to feats, all good saves, d20HD, and Wis to AC, Cha to saves, and a Save DC for his spells based on Str (and Bite of the Werewhatever as a first level spell with a duration of 24 hours). That doesn't mean anything.

2) Was the Half Ogre Half Celestial the Monk? I can see why your Monk didn't feel out of place with a Half Ogre Half Celestial in the party, since that character by definition is 3-4 levels behind a real character.

[Prophaniti]

No, that abberant abomination (my pet-name for him) was a fighter. I was running a human monk (RAW, not core, but no third-party stuff) in that one. Actually, I died in that one in a really funny way. We got to a room full of orcs with a big chief in the middle. I got first turn and though I forget exactly what I did (some kind of tumbled flying kick charge or something) with my speed and tumble skill I was able to immediately close with him and deliver a devastating charge critical hit. I was quite shocked when the DM informed me that the orc was not quite dead, and in fact looked very angry. He was next initiative and proceeded to chop me in half with a critical power attack (I watched him roll the dice). So, yeah... I was torn between sadness, anger, and awe.

The abberant abomination just ran around dealing really high damage and almost dying all the time, giving the impression of a big angry eggshell armed with a sledgehammer.

[Guyr Adamantine]

Never did. It's a new idea.:smallcool:

- Giacomo

I'm the sixth to do it, but I will be brief:

I can't believe anyone took you seriously.

I don't think anyone will ever do again.

{Scrubbed}