PDA

View Full Version : Monks



Xenogears
2008-09-01, 02:08 AM
Well I was on another thread and whenever I mentioned the word Monk everyone acted like it was the biggest joke ever to use a monk. I asked someone to explain why monks were so bad and he said to either make a thread or search. First I searched and found that half the people out there say that the Monk is a broken incredibly powerful class and that the other half seem to think that no one should ever play a monk for any reason. And neither side feels the need to explain why they think the way they do. So now not only do I not know WHY a monk apparently sucks I no longer even know if that is a general consensus. So the point of this thread is for all of you to tell me wether or not a monk sucks and for gods sake give reasons.

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 02:15 AM
I think it depends completely on HOW you play the Monk. I've never seen a Monk who could match a well-made armed fighter-type in a slugfest, not that its impossible though, but there's no class (well, if we don't include psionics) that can match a Monk's mobility. So, for hit and run, snatch the artifact, dash in and grapple the caster...Monks are great. For stand on the front lines and hit those enemies...I've never been impressed.

That's my take on it.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 02:15 AM
Have we not had a monk thread this week yet?

Ok, I'll try and run through all the reasons monks are considered a bad joke as a class as fast as I can:

1) MAD - Multiple Attribute Dependency, in case ya don't know. Monks have to have 3 to 4 stats be really high (Str, Dex, Con, Wis) to be any good. That's tough to do.

2) Flurry of Blows vs. all the other monk stuff - Monks have a bunch of mobility oriented powers and available bonus feats. The problem is that FoB requires a full attack action to use, so you can't use it in any round that you move.

3) Frontline melee with 3/4 BAB, low to decent AC, and low damage. Nuff said.

4) Useless abilities like tongue of the sun and moon, Quivering Palm (once a WEEK? Really?), etc.

5) Anything that makes a monk useful at high levels also makes a commoner useful.

EDIT: Oh yeah, forgot the main problem:

6) Monks have no real party role. They can do a few things, but everyone else can do them better. Rogues stealth and steal better, Rangers, Fighters, Barbarians, buffed Clerics etc. hit stuff harder, casters are, well, casters and do whatever the hell they want. Monks really can't do anything to help out the party, they're just sort of along for the ride.

Kyeudo
2008-09-01, 02:22 AM
It's basicly that the Monk gets a bunch of class abilities that don't work together, has all sorts of item slot conflicts between items he wants to use, and is MAD across the board.

Monk can be a useful class, but only in conjunction with another class, particularly the psionic classes. A monk dip can be incredibly useful for a psion or psychic warrior with access to Secrets of Sarlonna.

Xenogears
2008-09-01, 02:23 AM
1) MAD - Multiple Attribute Dependency, in case ya don't know. Monks have to have 3 to 4 stats be really high (Str, Dex, Con, Wis) to be any good. That's tough to do.
2) Flurry of Blows vs. all the other monk stuff - Monks have a bunch of mobility oriented powers and available bonus feats. The problem is that FoB requires a full attack action to use, so you can't use it in any round that you move.
3) Frontline melee without 3/4 BAB, low to decent AC, and low, low damage. Nuff said.
4) Useless abilities like tongue of the sun and moon, Quivering Palm (once a WEEK? Really?), etc.
5) Anything that makes a monk useful at high levels also makes a commoner useful.

Okay I get the first two. The third one. Well I never thought they did low damage. By the end of it they are doing 1d20 without any alterations. Most melee weapons don't do half that. My monks usually have a fairly high AC actually... Better than any other class I've done unless I went full out on Full Plate and even then sometimes.
The fourth. Okay quivering palm is bad. Tongue of the sun and moons can help for more roleplaying scenarios. Of course a wizard can just cast tongues.
The fifth. Well. It's so vague that it is meaningless.

Kyeudo
2008-09-01, 02:26 AM
Okay I get the first two. The third one. Well I never thought they did low damage. By the end of it they are doing 1d20 without any alterations. Most melee weapons don't do half that. My monks usually have a fairly high AC actually... Better than any other class I've done unless I went full out on Full Plate and even then sometimes.
The fourth. Okay quivering palm is bad. Tongue of the sun and moons can help for more roleplaying scenarios. Of course a wizard can just cast tongues.
The fifth. Well. It's so vague that it is meaningless.

Most damage doesn't come from your weapon. It comes from your strength bonus, enhancement bonus, weapon enhancements, and feats like power attack. Guess what monks don't use much? All of the above.

A monk optimized for AC can have retardedly high AC, but then he can't hit anything. The opposite is true as well. Attack optimized monks have crap AC.

His 5th point is that UMD cheese and most other worthwhile skill checks can all be performed by a commoner.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 02:27 AM
On number 5, it's an example of what I said in my clarifying edit/#6.

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 02:29 AM
1d20 base damage was a lot before additional sourcebooks started coming out. Now there's a ton of material, a lot of it spells, that can boost a weapon's damage into the stratosphere and not nearly as much for unarmed attacks.

BobVosh
2008-09-01, 02:30 AM
What does a monk do that isn't done better by another core class? Now what PrCs are really good...and are for monks?

Talic
2008-09-01, 02:33 AM
Monk is a class created by choosing a couple esoteric spells here and there

(poison immunity, increased movement, tongues, armor spell) and turning them into a class.

The down side, the only spell you'd really want to use all the time is a 1/week spell.

Most of the monk's key abilities can be given to anyone with a few spells.

ZekeArgo
2008-09-01, 02:34 AM
My monks usually have a fairly high AC actually... Better than any other class I've done unless I went full out on Full Plate and even then sometimes.

Heh, a rogue with an animated shield with +1 defending shield spikes and +1 defending armor spikes, hit with a split greater enchant weapon and magic vestment will easily surpass anyone's AC, and will have killer touch AC to boot. For even more power *and* defenses, make it a small-size swordsage .

Grynning
2008-09-01, 02:39 AM
1d20 base damage was a lot before additional sourcebooks started coming out. Now there's a ton of material, a lot of it spells, that can boost a weapon's damage into the stratosphere and not nearly as much for unarmed attacks.

We're still just talking about Core, mi amigo.

Let's look at a high level monk, with say, an 18 strength (generous, since a monk usually won't be able to get it that high, but whatever).

He punches with all his might. He does 1d20+9 damage (assuming Greater Magic Weapon/Fang for a +5 enhancement bonus). Average damage is 20 or so.

Full BAB character with the same strength, and say, a Greataxe. Does 1D12+6 damage, average damage 13. Monk looks pretty good, until you remember that the full BAB character is doing this amount of damage at LEVEL ONE without power attack or any enhancements.

Xenogears
2008-09-01, 02:41 AM
Okay well I can see that monks aren't great but by the reactions of other people I was expecting something worse than "they can do a bunch of things but not as good as the experts." Plus if everyone gets locked in an AMF Jail they are going to be happy for the monk then. I always figured that monks were the best class against casters actually. They have all good saves (and as was stated as a detriment they need to get most of their stats atleast marginally good) so they are likely to make almost all their saves and (although it does make them less likely to hit) they can have insane AC. So that means no ray spells either. And no I am not even going to try restarting the melee vs caster debate. Just saying that monks resist spells a lot better than rogues or fighters.

Also although they have lower BAB and STR if they do enter a grapple they will really wail on you. Especially if you use a permenant enlarge person (although it lowers your AC and DEX it offsets the low BAB when it comes to a grapple) and Empty Hand Mastery. Then you can do 3d8 damage plus Str per attack. So atleast they can Wrestle.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 02:49 AM
Also although they have lower BAB and STR if they do enter a grapple they will really wail on you. Especially if you use a permenant enlarge person (although it lowers your AC and DEX it offsets the low BAB when it comes to a grapple) and Empty Hand Mastery. Then you can do 3d8 damage plus Str per attack. So atleast they can Wrestle.

Enlarge Person makes ANYONE good at grappling - and a full BAB character with the feat will still be better (Druid beats them all with wildshape). This is why people hate monk threads: those who like playing them try to find ways to make them good, and then those who know that they're terrible just start shooting them down. It kinda makes me feel like a bully :smallyuk:

If you enjoy playing your monk, that's great. Have fun, that's the point of the game after all. Just understand that on boards where people are trying to make optimized builds, monk will rarely show up, because it is probably the least powerful class in the PhB.

BobVosh
2008-09-01, 02:57 AM
If you enjoy playing your monk, that's great. Have fun, that's the point of the game after all. Just understand that on boards where people are trying to make optimized builds, monk will rarely show up, because it is probably the least powerful class in the PhB.

Unless they are trying for silly ac builds. But then they take one level of monk, and are done with it.

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 04:08 AM
All that said, I've seen some effective monks in the past, not in an arena-style fight but as part of a large party.

I've seen a dwarven monk wielding a magical quarter staff + Haste + Enlarge Person + Brambles + Great Magical Wallop + Lion's Charge + a good number of other buffs be insanely effective at killing things behind enemy lines. Earlier, it was said that any class could take on the role of a monk with the right spells and that's true enough to an extent but, in this case at least, those spells spent on mobility could be diverted to damage boosting spells. Of course, in the same campaign there was a half-elf monk who...well, was a good deal worse than anything described in this thread even when fully buffed.

It's like Grynning said, "If you enjoy playing your monk, that's great. Have fun, that's the point of the game after all." Monk is still a worthwhile class even if it's a difficult to pull off and doesn't optimize well.

bosssmiley
2008-09-01, 04:21 AM
♪♫ Anything Monks can do Rogues can do better /
Rogues can do anything better than you ♫♪ :smalltongue:

What's the purpose of a D&D monk? All fluff aside he's a hit-and-run light skirmisher. The Rogue does that job better, with added trap-finding and 'public face of the party' goodness.

The monk is fun and flavourful; but even with fun prestige classes like Drunken Master, Tattooed Monk or Fist of Zuiken it's no power player's option.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 04:53 AM
Plus if everyone gets locked in an AMF Jail they are going to be happy for the monk then.
Which happens exactly never in most campaigns. And anyway, if you're stuck in AMF jail you're going to be happy with the rogue, because monks can't pick locks (and rogues deal more damage thanks to sneak attacks).



I always figured that monks were the best class against casters actually.
Yeah, that's what it looks like on paper. Turns out that in practice, they are completely ineffective against casters. Aside from the existence of no-save no-SR spells, note that being able to survive stuff isn't useful unless you can also do something against your enemy.



Also although they have lower BAB and STR if they do enter a grapple they will really wail on you.
The problem with grappling is that it's an ineffective tactic. The problem with grappling monks is that any full-BAB melee character makes a better grappler.


Especially if you use a permenant enlarge person
Permanent enlarge is (1) inconvenient in any town or city, (2) very inconvenient in any dungeon, and (3) taken down by a single Dispel Magic. That makes it a waste of money in actual play.

Overall, monks make for an excellent n00b filter: they have all sorts of things that look nice in the player's handbook, and are nigh useless in actual gameplay.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 04:59 AM
but there's no class (well, if we don't include psionics) that can match a Monk's mobility.
Sure there is. It's called Dimension Door.



So, for hit and run, snatch the artifact, dash in and grapple the caster...
You can't grapple a caster because of Freedom of Movement. Or Fly. Or Invisibility.


Well I never thought they did low damage. By the end of it they are doing 1d20 without any alterations. Most melee weapons don't do half that.
No, but most melee characters add a bunch to that because of power attack, higher strength, weapon enhancements that you can't put on your fists, favored enemies, sneak attack, and so forth. Plus they hit more often because they have better BAB.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 05:00 AM
Okay I get the first two. The third one. Well I never thought they did low damage. By the end of it they are doing 1d20 without any alterations. Most melee weapons don't do half that. My monks usually have a fairly high AC actually... Better than any other class I've done unless I went full out on Full Plate and even then sometimes.

1d20 + weak Str bonus VS 1d10 + 1.5 x huge Str bonus + massive PA. Then you factor in the fact that the monk's AB is at least 5 points lower by level 20 (more, with a lack of magic weapons and a worse Str), and the actual average damage per round is way lower.

The 1d20 is an illusion. It's never been good - not even with just the PHB. A Power Attacking Fighter with a two-handed weapon beats monk damage. (Just using the level-based difference in ABs for PA, he's dealing 1d10+10 against the Monk's 1d20, before any other bonuses. With modest Strengths of, say, 24 both, that's 1d10+20 vs. 1d20+7, or 25.5 vs. 17.5)


How high can a monk's AC get, anyway? You can easily make a WBL-legal Duelist with AC in the high 70s by level 20. I suppose a lot of the same tricks would work, admittedly (but the Swashbuckler/Fighter/Something/Duelist has the advantage of Int synergizing for damage and AC, and a bucketload of feats for stuff like Robilar's Gambit, and good magic weapons).


As for AMF... yeah, the last time I dropped my PCs in an AMF (epic-level druid and monk), against a bone ooze, the monk died first, the druid made it out alive. About half of the monk's abilities are (Su).

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 05:12 AM
What's this talk about 1d20? Level 20 Monk-damage in 3.5 is 2d10...

Anyways, as has already been said, a straight Monk sucks for the mentioned reasons. However, Monk does have one redeeming quality: It's an incredible two-level dip! You get high saves, decent HD, 3 feats, evasion increased unarmed damage, Flurry of Blows, Wis to AC, etc. all from one-two levels. So Monk is even better than Fighter as a dip class.

Outside that, Monk really needs Prestige Classes to work. Sacred Fist is a great class for example - Cleric casting - 3 suddenly means the Monk is a competent combatant and Tashalatora allows any Psionic class to "multiclass" in Monk. Also, Unarmed Swordsage/Shadow Sun Ninja both kick ass, as does Shou Disciple. So the Monk itself sucks, but it can often be worth it to dip the class, get Monkish abilities combined with casting/manifesting/martial maneuvers, or going for the level 20 Unarmed Damage (because of size increases - it's the largest core damage in the game, so if you have lots of size increases available, you want to apply them to it Fist of the Forests 3+Improved Natural Attack+Enlarge Person+Empty Hand Mastery = Colossal Damage Dice). So stuff around Monk doesn't suck, it's just the Monk-class. And even it has the redeeming feature of having great two first levels (it's the remaining 18 levels that's the problem).

JellyPooga
2008-09-01, 05:13 AM
I'm True Neutral on the Monk debate...

True: Monks can't stand up to any other class for sheer power (Fighters fight better, Rogues stealth better, etc.)

True: Monks have a range of abilities; they can fight better than a (non-cheesed) Wizard, they can stealth better than a Fighter and they can do weird stuff better than a (non-UMD-cheesed) Rogue

Therefore, like the Bard, they fill no particular role, but can stand in if the specialist is not around...to the powergamer/optimiser this means that Monks aren't worth playing...to anyone else it just means that they're a generalist class rather than a specialist class. Sure D&D supposedly promotes the specialist (if you think of D&D as purely about the combat), but it does not make the generalist worthless by any means...that's my opinion anyway

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 05:22 AM
Therefore, like the Bard, they fill no particular role, but can stand in if the specialist is not around...

The differences being that (1) the bard does have a particular role, i.e. party face; and (2) the bard is actually competent in standing in for other roles.

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 05:29 AM
The primary issue with that is that really, what good are they?

What good is a frontliner who can't hit the opponents? Why would the opponents care? Int 10 opponents would just walk past him after they notice he poses no danger and finish him off later.

What good is a tank who can't take hits? He has a mediocre AC and quite low HP - he'd rather not be taking hits. And yet, if he wants to fulfill one of those secondary roles of his, that's where he needs to be. If he does manage to ramp up his AC to level comparable to other classes, the above problem is compounded even further - then he's even less likely to hit (due to spending his resources on AC) and thus even more likely to be ignored.

What good is a scout who can't find traps? All good to be scouting ahead, but since he just plain is completely unable to find traps (as in, without Trapfinding, no roll is going to allow him to find them), he really can't afford to do that since if there are traps around, he is going to trigger them (nice alarm, nice animated monster, nice crashing dungeon, etc.).


So the real problem is that he's so bad at all those things that he cannot really do any of them. Bard is the opposite - he's actually good at multiple things, not to even mention how he makes the whole party more efficient. Specialists are great at what they do, generalists are supposed to be good at multiple things, but Monk is bad at multiple things. That's the primary problem.

If they could do multiple things decently, nobody would complain. I mean, nobody's complaining about the Bard either (or the Factotum for that matter). As it stands though, the problem is that they can't really do anything decently.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 05:29 AM
What's this talk about 1d20? Level 20 Monk-damage in 3.5 is 2d10...

Well, it's a bit unreasonable to expect anyone to remember specifics of a class so rarely used... :smallredface:

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 05:40 AM
Sure there is. It's called Dimension Door.

A Monk has Dimension Door, abet limited. A Monk also has Tumble and the highest base move in the game. So, yes, the caster with dimension door (often me) is left using standard actions to get around while the Monk has unlimited mobility. I'm a big fan of Dimension Door and Teleport and, honestly, I've never played a Monk but I have been in enough campaigns with Monks to believe that they have the best base mobility of any core class (but not a nomad psion with Inconstant Location up :smallbiggrin: ). Why is it such a sour point to say that Monks are good at something? As was pointed out, they aren't good at the things that would make their mobility more useful in a broader sense.


You can't grapple a caster because of Freedom of Movement. Or Fly. Or Invisibility.

Yes and every single caster in every single campaign will always have one of those three spells up, or any number of other spells, which completely negates the possibly of a Monk EVER grappling a caster. Come on, yes, it can be countered but so can a fighter smacking something with a sword.

I don't think that Monks are the best class and I think I'm being convinced that they are the weakest base class but they are not an utterly worthless character choice.

BobVosh
2008-09-01, 05:52 AM
Yes and every single caster in every single campaign will always have one of those three spells up, or any number of other spells, which completely negates the possibly of a Monk EVER grappling a caster. Come on, yes, it can be countered but so can a fighter smacking something with a sword.

I don't think that Monks are the best class and I think I'm being convinced that they are the weakest base class but they are not an utterly worthless character choice.

Dimm door can be used in a grapple. Then they cast swift fly. Or still spell and whatever they want to get away. Or abrupt jaunt (or whatever that conjuration specialist ability from PHB2 is.)

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 05:56 AM
Dimm door can be used in a grapple. Then they cast swift fly. Or still spell and whatever they want to get away. Or abrupt jaunt (or whatever that conjuration specialist ability from PHB2 is.)

All essential "mobility" spells (teleport, dimension door) can be cast while grappling (with a DC 20 Concentration check), since they've got no somatic component. So can a few "win" spells, like Otto's irresistible dance and wail of the banshee.

The whole "run around and grapple the caster" idea is a bit silly, though, since the reason you have to run around is because the caster, being smart, is protected by something big and tough... that is almost certainly close enough to the caster to come over and step on you when you grapple the caster.

And wizards and other casters do a much, much better job at shutting down casters anyway. Feeblemind, any save-or-die or save-or-lose...

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 06:23 AM
Yes, we get the point that casters are awesome. I think most people who have played the game beyond level 1 know that. I also think most people have killed casters in a campaign. I know I have. I'm not arguing that casters aren't awesome because I think that casters are awesome too. I enjoy playing casters and I think that they are swell. I don't think that the fact that they are swell means that the other classes are worthless. If it did, we'd be seeing a lot more all caster parties.

Yes, Wizards can do everyone else's job better than them. See the "Why does everyone think spellcasters destroy martial classes?" for a nauseating amount of evidence to this fact. But casters have a limited amount of spells a day and a wise caster won't do things themselves that someone else in the party can do for them...often better and more efficiently with just a few buff spells. A Rogue buffed up with stealth spells is better at sneaking than a Wizard buffed up with the same stealth spells. A Monk buffed up with mobility boosting spells will be faster than a Wizard buffed up with mobility boosting spells.

It's silly to grapple a caster? It could be argued then that it's silly to grapple anyone who might have a boot of teleportation or any semi-useful magical item on them...which is practically everyone. There are counters to practically everything in this game, does that mean that a barbarian should never try to hit a monster with its axe because it might have some buff up that negates physical damage? The fact that something can possibly be countered doesn't make that action worthless or beyond consideration. Sneak Attack isn't trash because it can be negated. You don't need to point out all the spells that would allow a caster to pwn a Monk, there are a lot and it would take you a long time to list them all; just prove to me that a Monk is an utterly worthless character class that can never be useful on the basis of its class abilities.

I don't think you can because can because I've been in campaigns where Monks were useful. They may be the weakest core class but they are not worthless. I don't understand why this 'amazing caster pwns the monk in every situation ever' discussion is migrating here. Yes, a caster can counter everything a monk or any other non-caster class might do if that was their aim when they were preparing for that battle. The versatility and power of the caster classes doesn't make the Monk class worthless.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 06:35 AM
It's silly to grapple a caster? It could be argued then that it's silly to grapple anyone who might have a boot of teleportation or any semi-useful magical item on them...which is practically everyone. There are counters to practically everything in this game, does that mean that a barbarian should never try to hit a monster with its axe because it might have some buff up that negates physical damage?

You're missing the point, which is that "hitting things with an axe" is an effective strategy (as is "sneak attacking"), whereas "grappling things" is not. The point isn't that both can be negated - everything can be negated. The point is that one is much, much more useful in practice than the other.

Gavin Sage
2008-09-01, 07:01 AM
The real problem.... Monks can't be optimized well enough to meet the internet standards.

How many newbs come in here thinking Monks are awesome after they've played a Monk who was nearly invincible. Because with good saves, spell resistence, evasion, and good AC potential they hold up rather well when you are fighting monsters that say throw fireballs at you instead of throwing death spells and solid fog at you. I've played that, and its fun when Lightning Lizards are throwing damage around to everyone but you. Oh and when you attack a monster it attacks back and doesn't back up ten feet, so getting off full attacks isn't terribly hard. In those kinds of games, Monk do just fine.

Against Batman dancing all over the map, not a chance.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-01, 07:09 AM
Look, Monkey Grip is synonomous to Monk.

They are both suck mechanically, but they are "really cool" so people want to use them.

Ossian
2008-09-01, 07:22 AM
My 2 coppers.

It is really that simple. If you want to rolepla a Martial Artist, play a monk. If you want to kill things, steal things, cast things or heal things or give orders to things, play something else.

If the world as I know it today was an rpg I would try to play a Navy Seal, not a monk. Why? Because a navy seal kills more, and can kill monks.

On the other hands, monks do kung fu. If you asked bruce lee if he thought he was better than a guy with a full plate and greatsword trained to kill wearing the former and swinging the latter, he would have told you "you are a fruitcake".

So, this for fluff and RPG. What about numbers? Look, they can be severed only so much from one another. Look at it this way. Monks wear no armor, use no weapon and stll fare pretty well.

But the world, I hear you say, is ALL populated by groups of 4 to 6 people who do only on thing: enter dungeons to kill what is inside. Some of them are metal clad and some others blast hills away with aecane magic. Yeah, that is what they do. You know kung fu? Good for you, but cleaning a dungeon is not your job. If you go unarmed and in a pijiama in a dungeon where you know that the average squatting bastard is 10 feet tall, 2000 punds heavy and breaths fire, you just went with a knife to a gunfight.

I love monks, and I have not houseruled a single line about them, if not by getting rid o the "cannot multiclass and continue the monk evel progression". That limits my players and makes no sense. Now it is "they can multiclass and keep leveling up in mnk unless I say differently". I love them how they are because this is D&D, a wannabe medieval setting, not "The fist of the North Star" roleplay game.

Monk do not depend on equipment, they can be arrested, stripped naked, cast into a dungeon with only their pants on, and still have their full complement of abilities. They have good saves, good speed and the best number of atacks in the book. Their undarmed damage is just great. They are, thus, the perfect characters for solo campaigns. In fact, how many swordsmen or wizards do you recall in movies and telefilms? Close to Zero.
How many martial artists? The list is just too long.

"But they only mown down mooks and the occasional kung fu big boss".

Yes, they do, because they are martial artists, not butchers. Dungeon crawling monster killers are just not on the same tier. They are uber specialized in the so called "roles" (tanker, caster, blaster, skill monkey, batman and all the stuff that makes me shudder in horror).

"But IMMA NOOB! I wantz to kill thingz"

Fair enough. Pick a tank fighter and start butchering. Also because stacking 9 feats and spending 50.000 GP in the "ring of being a monk 20" puts you on pair with monks (which, ironically, can be achieved by any monk with a "ring of being ").

O.

PS
Oh, yeah, flurry of blows. Despite what I said on Fist of the North Star, FOB, the way I read it, was more or less though to be something like this: Hiaku Retzu Ken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz3jYkZMqqA)
Do you see Ken using his full movement speed?


EDIT: to Ryuan below :smallbiggrin:
Agreed, he can. He just runs breaking the sound barrier through hordes of mooks, hitting each 4 times and only when he stops at other end of their lin, still facing away from them (but with a close up on his face) they go kaboom. Things is, he does not do that in the example I linked, which is what I wanted to use as a description the FOB rule [I]as intended . My bad, I should have been more specific.

Arakune
2008-09-01, 07:42 AM
My 2 coppers.
Oh, yeah, flurry of blows. Despite what I said on Fist of the North Star, FOB, the way I read it, was more or less though to be something like this: Hiaku Retzu Ken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz3jYkZMqqA)
Do you see Ken using his full movement speed?

He can. Especially when he use his Ujouhyakuretsuken, an air attack. Or his tons of others attacks that he use much more frequently, THEN use it.

And his death attack is not 1/week. (Well, it is, since it's an anime/manga and you see it once a week, but not in the history).

new1965
2008-09-01, 07:48 AM
All essential "mobility" spells (teleport, dimension door) can be cast while grappling (with a DC 20 Concentration check), since they've got no somatic component. So can a few "win" spells, like Otto's irresistible dance and wail of the banshee.
..

Did my group read the grapple rules and just ASSUME that they included chokes and houserule it ? because everytime we grapple a spell caster, we've done the
"wrapped my hands around his throat and try to squeeze until his eye pop out" or "I clamp my hand over his mouth" to take care of the verbal spell component

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 08:00 AM
Did my group read the grapple rules and just ASSUME that they included chokes and houserule it ? because everytime we grapple a spell caster, we've done the
"wrapped my hands around his throat and try to squeeze until his eye pop out" or "I clamp my hand over his mouth" to take care of the verbal spell component

That's the Pin-part. Grapple is the part where you're struggling and without multiple iteratives (meaning full attack), you can't do iteratives on the first round of Grapple.

Ossian: It seems like you're saying "Monks don't belong in dungeons, but let's send them there anyways!" which just makes no sense whatsoever. And the reason for the "large" number of kung fu heroes in movies is because they're a genre of their own.

That has nothing to do with their "solo-capabilities" or anything else. It's simply a matter of movie genres and thanks to oriental influence, kung fu spawning its own.

Ossian
2008-09-01, 08:08 AM
That's the Pin-part. Grapple is the part where you're struggling and without multiple iteratives (meaning full attack), you can't do iteratives on the first round of Grapple.

Ossian: It seems like you're saying "Monks don't belong in dungeons, but let's send them there anyways!" which just makes no sense whatsoever. And the reason for the "large" number of kung fu heroes in movies is because they're a genre of their own.

That has nothing to do with their "solo-capabilities" or anything else. It's simply a matter of movie genres and thanks to oriental influence, kung fu spawning its own.

Just a couple of clarifications (and honest questions). Probably the post got out of my hands, I don't know. Still, while I agree on "don't belong to dungoens" I don't get the "let us send them there anyway". I hope you can tell me (also editing your post, it is ok for me :) ) where I implied this flaw.

Anyway, more seriously, monks are excellent solo adventurers. This is because solo adventures focus a bit more heavily on roleplay and a bit less on killing stuff. They have a good skill range, fight decently, can be characterized in many ways, with different styles, and embody perfectly the stereotype of the lonely hero walking the Earth, meeting people, getting into adventures. A perfect character with an especially good trait for DMs: they are vulnerable. It is always hilarious to try and arrest a group of 5 level 6 fighters in full armor with "only" 12 level 1 warriors from the local militia.

Anyway, I feel like it is had, at least for myself, to get rid of the "wuxia" feeling. But again, this is D&D. It was written to be the province of sir Lancelot and merlin the Wizard, not for Kane. Naturally, the fluff plays against the last. I see them as good solos exactly because they bear no weapons and walk the earth on their quests, to perfection, justice, revenge, forgetting the past and whatehaveyou.

Gotta go.

O.

new1965
2008-09-01, 08:26 AM
That's the Pin-part. Grapple is the part where you're struggling and without multiple iteratives (meaning full attack), you can't do iteratives on the first round of Grapple.

We tend to fight tactically rather than do straight up "hack and slash". We have enough people with teleport abilities so we can teleport/dimensional jaunt /shadow jump/etc.. some or all party of 8 and "hopefully" get a surprise round to start the grapple in. (a rogue with levels of mole is handy for making peepholes so people can see where they are going) If we win initiative, the spell caster can be pinned before he has a chance to do anything

only1doug
2008-09-01, 08:30 AM
origin of the PC's spoiler

Belkar talking his way into the group instead of the monk, made him cry about how bad his class was.


Monks are viewed as a less than optimal class because of the various drawbacks they have, you can still have fun playing them but they just aren't as good as many of the other classes.

I'd play one in my group as i'm viewed as the optomiser, I just can't resist tweaking a build to give it that little more power.
(so if i played a monk i'd be brought more into balance with the rest of the group who don't tweak quite as well)

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-01, 08:31 AM
We tend to fight tactically rather than do straight up "hack and slash". We have enough people with teleport abilities so we can teleport/dimensional jaunt /shadow jump/etc.. some or all party of 8 and "hopefully" get a surprise round to start the grapple in. (a rogue with levels of mole is handy for making peepholes so people can see where they are going) If we win initiative, the spell caster can be pinned before he has a chance to do anything

i dont' know that much about grappling, but i thought you had to grapple someone first,then pin them the next round?

Bosh
2008-09-01, 08:31 AM
What makes monks even worse is that the things that they're the best at are crap in group settings.

-Monks have mobility and can hit and run thanks to superior speed, however unless the rest of the party has awesome mobility as well the monk can hit and then when he runs he leaves the rest of his party to get smacked around.

-Monks are good at not getting killed but this isn't that good in a group setting since smart critters will just ignore the monk and focus on the rest of the party.

A lot of people don't get this, same goes with some people in my play group who don't realize that warlocks suck despite being able to do hit and run well. Basically the only think that monks are really good at is being a lone survivor of an otherwise TPK.

However some things that can help monks in practice:
-High ability scores across the board, many GMs are generous this way.
-Dirt poor characters, many GMs are cheap in this way.
-Casters with crap for tactics, many GMs play all arcane casters as if they were Warmages and all divine casters as if they were Healers.

If the above three all apply, monks aren't half bad.

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-01, 08:33 AM
A lot of people don't get this, same goes with some people in my play group who don't realize that warlocks suck despite being able to do hit and run well.
i hear hellfire glaivelocks suck less.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 08:37 AM
-Dirt poor characters, many GMs are cheap in this way.

That's another of the common fallacies. The way the monk class is written and fluffed, you'd think that it's a good class to run without equipment. Turns out that it's not. In part because of it's MADness, and in part because it has so many weaknesses to compensate for, it is probably the most equipment-needy class in the player's handbook.

If you want a character that's effective without equipment (or, indeed, one that is still functional if stripped and thrown into a dungeon) the classes to go to are sorcerer, rogue, and druid - not monk at all.

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-01, 08:44 AM
don't sorcerers get a circumstance bonus to cha. when doing it naked?

streakster
2008-09-01, 08:46 AM
This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71085&highlight=monk+guide) sums up my opinion on Monks pretty well. One of the best design analyses ever done for the Monk class.

If you really want the playground's opinion, we've done this before. Here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75472&highlight=monk+guide), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69048&highlight=monk+guide), here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=67665&highlight=monk+guide), and finally, here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58513&highlight=monk+guide). These are just a few choice ones. There are hundreds, if not thousands of these threads.

You want a simple fix? Use K and Frank's Monk instead. It's a way better designed class whether you thinks Monks are powerful enough or not.

PS - Oh, who wants to bet on the thread's ending? I'm predicting 50 pages of bickering, ending in a lock.

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 08:50 AM
We tend to fight tactically rather than do straight up "hack and slash". We have enough people with teleport abilities so we can teleport/dimensional jaunt /shadow jump/etc.. some or all party of 8 and "hopefully" get a surprise round to start the grapple in. (a rogue with levels of mole is handy for making peepholes so people can see where they are going) If we win initiative, the spell caster can be pinned before he has a chance to do anything

Oh, it's very true that if you do manage to get a surprise round and win initiative, you're golden. But that's too many "if"s to rely on. Also, since we're talking about a spellcaster, that whole plan runs the danger of hitting an Anticipate Teleport, giving them the surprise instead along with a 3-turn preparation time. Grappling is possible, but hardly reliable as a plan since it needs many things falling in place to work out.

Ossian: It seemed like you said "Monks have no business being in Dungeons" and then go on to say how there're Monks in your games. Does that not imply that those Monks are doing just that?

Ossian
2008-09-01, 09:04 AM
Oh, it's very true that if you do manage to get a surprise round and win initiative, you're golden. But that's too many "if"s to rely on. Also, since we're talking about a spellcaster, that whole plan runs the danger of hitting an Anticipate Teleport, giving them the surprise instead along with a 3-turn preparation time. Grappling is possible, but hardly reliable as a plan since it needs many things falling in place to work out.

Ossian: It seemed like you said "Monks have no business being in Dungeons" and then go on to say how there're Monks in your games. Does that not imply that those Monks are doing just that?


All right, now that is more clear. Well, this is slightly OT, but I guess I can toss in this last 2 bits for clarity. There are not so many (actually, none at all save for very important plot reasons) dungeons in my game. Also because I have a monk as one of the 4 PCs (a rogue fighter 6/2, a wizard bard (7/1), a Duskblade (8) and a Monk 7/Planar Ranger 2/Kensai 1) in a relatively low power group (but tons of fun)

O.

new1965
2008-09-01, 09:07 AM
i dont' know that much about grappling, but i thought you had to grapple someone first,then pin them the next round?

That why i mentioned the surprise round.. the unaware individual doesn't get to act in that round and that's when you start the grapple. The pin happens when happens according to initiative in the next round

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 09:22 AM
That why i mentioned the surprise round.. the unaware individual doesn't get to act in that round and that's when you start the grapple. The pin happens when happens according to initiative in the next round

Going back to the quote of "everything monks can do, rogues can do better", it would seem that if you have a surprise round and initiative, the more effective strategy would be to skewer the low-HP caster with a few well-placed sneak attacks, than to hold him down for awhile. Death is so much harder to escape from than a grapple, and it can be done from a moderate range away, and it doesn't require the rogue to do nothing for the entire fight to keep the caster out.

new1965
2008-09-01, 09:23 AM
Oh, it's very true that if you do manage to get a surprise round and win initiative, you're golden. But that's too many "if"s to rely on. Also, since we're talking about a spellcaster, that whole plan runs the danger of hitting an Anticipate Teleport, giving them the surprise instead along with a 3-turn preparation time. Grappling is possible, but hardly reliable as a plan since it needs many things falling in place to work out.



Oh its not a strict "plan" , its just an option in our attack strategy which can be pretty varied.

The players character are actually balanced enough to split into two 4 man parties. If need be, one party attacks the Spell caster or main threat directly while the rest deals with the minions or handles whatever else needs to be done

Barbarian/ranger, cleric, Rogue/mole, Monk and Fighter/Rogue, Wizard, Rogue/ShadowDancer, Scout

new1965
2008-09-01, 09:29 AM
Going back to the quote of "everything monks can do, rogues can do better", it would seem that if you have a surprise round and initiative, the more effective strategy would be to skewer the low-HP caster with a few well-placed sneak attacks, than to hold him down for awhile. Death is so much harder to escape from than a grapple, and it can be done from a moderate range away, and it doesn't require the rogue to do nothing for the entire fight to keep the caster out.

If you want to play like that.. of course. But there has been as many times as not where we needed to bring the person to the authorities or interrogate them so death is not the first option

Flickerdart
2008-09-01, 09:39 AM
If you want to play like that.. of course. But there has been as many times as not where we needed to bring the person to the authorities or interrogate them so death is not the first option
Death is cheap in D&D. If the authorities want them alive so much, they pony up a cleric and 5000GP.

RebelRogue
2008-09-01, 09:40 AM
After all this "monks suck" talk, I thought a bit about monks the other day...

I think about monks as one who causes status effects rather than one who deals a lot of damage. Stunning, grappling, tripping, disarming are what the class is supposed to do rather than outright kill (you have party members for that). One particular build I thought looked decent was reducing MAD by taking Intuituive Strike, and after that focusing on Stunning Fist seems like an obvious choice. Wisdom is now the primary stat you need (although Dex helps too) as it gives you both to hit bonus, AC and Stun DC bonusses. Adding a sai and Improved disarm seemed a good ideas as it depends on to hit rather than Strength for Tripping. At higher levels, you may add Freezing the Lifeblood, spell resistance is nice (as much as people try to convince you otherwise it will be inconvenient for casters!) and so is Ki Strike (Adamantium). Quivering palm is still a bit of a joke, though.

Is this an übercheese-destroy-everything-build? Not at all, bit I'd say it'd be playable at least!

fractic
2008-09-01, 09:42 AM
Death is cheap in D&D. If the authorities want them alive so much, they pony up a cleric and 5000GP.

They won't come back from the dead to be tried you know. You can't revive someone unless they are willing to cooperate.

Flickerdart
2008-09-01, 09:47 AM
They won't come back from the dead to be tried you know. You can't revive someone unless they are willing to cooperate.
Speak With Dead doesn't even cost the 5000GP, and they can't lie that way.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-01, 09:51 AM
After all this "monks suck" talk, I thought a bit about monks the other day...

I think about monks as one who causes status effects rather than one who deals a lot of damage.

Stunning, grappling, tripping, disarming are what the class is supposed to do rather than outright kill (you have party members for that). One particular build I thought looked decent was reducing MAD by taking Intuituive Strike, and after that focusing on Stunning Fist seems like an obvious choice. Wisdom is now the primary stat you need (although Dex helps too) as it gives you both to hit bonus, AC and Stun DC bonusses.

Adding a sai and Improved disarm seemed a good ideas as it depends on to hit rather than Strength for Tripping. At higher levels, you may add Freezing the Lifeblood, spell resistance is nice (as much as people try to convince you otherwise it will be inconvenient for casters!) and so is Ki Strike (Adamantium). Quivering palm is still a bit of a joke, though.

Is this an übercheese-destroy-everything-build? Not at all, bit I'd say it'd be playable at least!

Did you know Sais suck for disarming? You'd be better off using a Quarterstaff sadly (remember light weapons have a penalty to disarm; while 2 handed get a bonus).

Sais don't even have a large enough bonus to compensate for the penalty: -4 +2 =-2. That sucks.
You'd better off using a one handed or 2 handed weapon.

Um, By the time you get SR, anyone your level can pass on a what 5?

I agree that Stunning Fist is nice (stun disarms foes since they drop whatever they are holding).

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-01, 09:56 AM
If you want to play like that.. of course. But there has been as many times as not where we needed to bring the person to the authorities or interrogate them so death is not the first option

How about you just buy a sap, or possibly a merciful weapon? That should take care of any caster that you could reasonably take alive.

RebelRogue
2008-09-01, 10:08 AM
Did you know Sais suck for disarming? You'd be better off using a Quarterstaff sadly (remember light weapons have a penalty to disarm; while 2 handed get a bonus).

Sais don't even have a large enough bonus to compensate for the penalty: -4 +2 =-2. That sucks.
You'd better off using a one handed or 2 handed weapon.

Um, By the time you get SR, anyone your level can pass on a what 5?

I agree that Stunning Fist is nice (stun disarms foes since they drop whatever they are holding).
Forgo about the light/twohanded stuff... Ok, I'd liked the sai better for style. And SR is certainly not reliable, but still good (not to mention my Will save rocks!) However, the primary feature of the build will be the Stunning Fist.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 10:24 AM
Wow, this blew up while I was asleep...sigh...

Ok, back to shooting down things that might make monks good:

Seems the discussion has reached Stunning Fist. An ability NOT exclusive to monks, and that would again be better if performed by another class with higher BAB or other abilities like SA or maneuvers. Saying that Stunning Fist makes Monks good is like saying Swashbucklers are good because they get Weapon Finesse for free (not that I think Swashbucklers are bad, mind you, but the point is that anyone with decent Wis can take the feat, and do it better than the monk).

RebelRogue
2008-09-01, 10:28 AM
My point wasn't "this is the ultimate Stunning Fist build, like EVAH!", but "this seems playable and potentially fun".

new1965
2008-09-01, 10:30 AM
How about you just buy a sap, or possibly a merciful weapon? That should take care of any caster that you could reasonably take alive.

The rogues have saps but don't use the much .

There are definitely other ways to do it but for our characters personalities and storyline, our tactics work best.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 10:37 AM
There are definitely other ways to do it but for our characters personalities and storyline, our tactics work best.

Again, people are defending monks based on the fact that people play them in their groups and seem to be ok.

Let me reiterate: those of us who are making anti-monk posts are not doing so because we don't think anyone likes them or plays them. We are all too aware that a lot of people do. We make anti-monk posts because we are into optimized or at least semi-optimized characters, and it is not really possible to optimize a monk. Most of the character related threads on this board are along the lines of "Optimize my ___" or "Make class ____ beat a wizard" and such. Monks are terribad mechanically, and therefore are useless in such discussions.

new1965
2008-09-01, 10:45 AM
Death is cheap in D&D. If the authorities want them alive so much, they pony up a cleric and 5000GP.

Not in our campaigns..

we just had a particularly NASTY adventure and after having to get the fighter resurrected and the barbarian surviving a 160 fall because on a trap, we went back with vengeance on our minds and destroyed everything and trashed the building

because of the amount of devastation we did, the nearby city is now MORE afraid of us than the threat we were protecting them from and there are currently council meetings going on to decide what to do with us.

I need to note that the DM gives us as much xp for successfully resolving a situation in a diplomatic/ non-lethal manner as we would have received if we killed everyone

Grynning
2008-09-01, 10:54 AM
Not in our campaigns..
....
I need to note that the DM gives us as much xp for successfully resolving a situation in a diplomatic/ non-lethal manner as we would have received if we killed everyone

And how, exactly, do monks help resolve things in a diplomatic and non-lethal manner? With their dazzling charisma...oh wait, no...by dealing non-lethal damage...oh wait, rogue is better at that...

By teaching martial arts classes to the bad guys' kids so that the next generation grows up with more discipline and goal-oriented problem solving philosophies?

new1965
2008-09-01, 10:57 AM
Again, people are defending monks based on the fact that people play them in their groups and seem to be ok.

Let me reiterate: those of us who are making anti-monk posts are not doing so because we don't think anyone likes them or plays them. We are all too aware that a lot of people do. We make anti-monk posts because we are into optimized or at least semi-optimized characters, and it is not really possible to optimize a monk. Most of the character related threads on this board are along the lines of "Optimize my ___" or "Make class ____ beat a wizard" and such. Monks are terribad mechanically, and therefore are useless in such discussions.

All I'm doing is pointing out that there's more than one playing style and if you aren't playing in a strictly "hack and slash" campaign or worrying about optimizing your characters but are more focused on letting your characters grow organically and the story telling aspect of the game, there's a viable spot for the monk. There may not be for the optimizers campaigns, but that's not every players focus.

Ifni
2008-09-01, 11:02 AM
I agree with the MAD issues and the problem that Flurry of Blows doesn't work well as the primary attack ability for what's meant to be a mobile class. The focus on mobility in their writeup is a newbie trap, unless you want your monk to be unhittable but also useless: I've watched Dex-based weapon-finessing spring-attacking halfling monks in action, and it's really quite sad ("I hit AC 28 for 1d4-1 damage! Make a DC 18 Fort save!" GM: "Okay." *rolls* "Not a 1.") Unless you boost your save DCs very high, fort-save-based Stunning Fists are hard to stick past the lowest levels, against most monsters.

There are some buffs that work really well for monks - the biggest one probably being Greater Mighty Wallop on their fists (the weapon damage table scales very well with size, once you get base damage high enough). Greater Mighty Wallop is kind of a silly spell, though (if it's allowed, it basically means nobody ever fights with a non-bludgeoning weapon ever again). Greater Magic Weapon on their fists should be a given at mid-high levels though, unless the party has no casters.

I have played with one very effective monk, in a campaign that used 28pt buy and standard wealth by level. He also distributed his stats somewhat suboptimally on purpose, for backstory reasons: he had Str 16 Dex 14 Con 14 Int 14 Wis 8 Cha 8 before racial modifiers, and then played a half-orc (so he had Str 18 at the start, Str 24-26 in the L12-15 range). He ignored Stunning Fist, went for Improved Grapple + Combat Reflexes + Improved Trip (and carried a reach tripping weapon at all times, which helped compensate for his dreadful AC), and at L12 was a monk 12 with no PrCs or multiclassing. It worked in part because his wife played a cleric (she was a fiend-hunter for her church, the monk was her church-appointed bodyguard), so he could be assured of getting basic buffs like Greater Magic Weapon, and they could tag-team casters efficiently with grapple + silence (cast on the monk), or greater dispel + grapple + silence at higher levels. At higher levels he used Abundant Step in combination with the Sun School feat from Complete Warrior to get a free attack after teleporting, which he usually spent to grapple or trip the monster. Once PHB2 came out, he took the Delay Potion feat and bought a bunch of potions of Enlarge Person: when going into a dangerous situation, he would swig one and Delay it, then activate it as a swift action when needed. I watched him grapple a Huge dracolich and a Large weretiger warshaper (in hybrid form) at about fourteenth level.

Grapple is not a useless tactic: it locks down one enemy when done right. Yes, when you're solo it's often not a good idea, but in a normal adventuring party, PCs tend to have the advantage of numbers. The point of grapple is to allow your party members to beat up the bad guy while preventing him from retaliating.

My favorite example of caster lockdown with grapple was when we were fighting a buffed ur-priest and her two hydra-golem allies, in a L14 game. The ur-priest had L9 spells and pretty decent save DCs (DC 26 Implosion is the one I remember). We needed to take the ur-priest alive (she was an innocent child who had been kidnapped and subjected to mind control in a time-accelerated plane). The sequence of events went like this (we'd cast Mass Fly before jumping through the portal into this encounter):
(1) Wizard: casts Bands of Steel at Ur-Priest. She is not immobilized OR entangled. Wizard yells, "Freedom of Movement!"
(2) Bard: heightened Glitterdust on Ur-Priest and one golem: golem fails its save, Ur-Priest passes.
(3) Sorcerer: targeted Greater Dispel on Ur-Priest, quickened sculpted Glitterdust on Ur-Priest + golems. Second golem fails and is blind, Ur-Priest can still see.
(4) Monk: activates ring of silent spells (swift action, 20ft silence field centered on user), uses Abundant Step to appear next to flying Ur-Priest, uses Sun School free attack to grapple Ur-Priest.

After that it was pretty much all over bar the shouting. (The other two PCs were a rogue, who came in and whacked the grappled Ur-Priest with a sap, and the aforementioned cleric, who cast Righteous Wrath of the Faithful.)

I agree monks are an underpowered class with some serious design flaws, but they're not so bad that you can't play a decent character with one. It helps a LOT if you get some support from the other party members, and I find it sad that the mobile Dex-based monk is in my experience mostly a trap.

Flickerdart
2008-09-01, 11:03 AM
Not in our campaigns..

we just had a particularly NASTY adventure and after having to get the fighter resurrected and the barbarian surviving a 160 fall because on a trap, we went back with vengeance on our minds and destroyed everything and trashed the building

because of the amount of devastation we did, the nearby city is now MORE afraid of us than the threat we were protecting them from and there are currently council meetings going on to decide what to do with us.

I need to note that the DM gives us as much xp for successfully resolving a situation in a diplomatic/ non-lethal manner as we would have received if we killed everyone
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. That guy back there who reminded me they won't come back unless willing made a better point, faster, and Speak with Dead still bypasses that.

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 11:11 AM
*Ur-Priest example*

1) Based on what you said the Ur-Priest had a Wisdom of +7, which is terrible at level 14 since at least 3 of that should be from item. Meaning a base Wisdom at level 1 of 15. The Elite Array isn't.

2) Replace the above Monk with any Fighter/Barbarian/Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue that also took levels in Shadow Sun Ninja. Accomplishes the same thing, only better.

3) How on Earth did the Monk grapple a buffed up Ur-Priest? Divine Power alone beats the Monk.

4) A Greater Dispel actually dispelled any of the Ur-Priests buffs? Much less the one you needed dispelled? If you weren't playing with a houserule on dispels then your GM cheated for you.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 11:14 AM
Someone build a Grapple-focused monk. I'll build a grapple-focused Druid. I guarantee mine will be better. It's a poor tactic, and any class with full BAB, or Summon spells, can do it better.

new1965
2008-09-01, 11:16 AM
And how, exactly, do monks help resolve things in a diplomatic and non-lethal manner? With their dazzling charisma...oh wait, no...by dealing non-lethal damage...oh wait, rogue is better at that...

By teaching martial arts classes to the bad guys' kids so that the next generation grows up with more discipline and goal-oriented problem solving philosophies?

Our characters exist in the campaign as just more than just walking stat sheets and thats when the "fluff" comes in

Our monk is part of the diplomatic team (with the cleric) because its easier for an unarmed monk to get a meeting with the town/city council than a fighter bristling with weapons as monks are respected for their wisdom and not perceived as the most obvious threat. Also.. tongue of sun and moon comes in handy for diplomatic situations when a translator is needed.

Beside.. its just as entertaining for our players to watch the monk player explain to the barbarian why cutting the ogre mages hands and tongue off isnt a good idea as it is to just kill the it

Grynning
2008-09-01, 11:21 AM
Role-playing is great, I love good RP'ing, but that's not what this discussion is about - it's about game mechanics. Mechanically, the Monk is not good at anything.

On a forum like this, everyone is going to come from different groups, have different role-playing experiences, etc. The only common ground on which we have to discuss the merits of the class is the rules. Role-playing, houserules, DM calls, etc. do not factor in to such discussions as they are an "x-factor," an unquantifiable variable. Bringing up such things in a discussion of mechanics is like bringing up God in a discussion of physical science - no one can disprove the influence of it, nor can they prove it, so it must be excluded.

streakster
2008-09-01, 11:21 AM
Our characters exist in the campaign as just more than just walking stat sheets and thats when the "fluff" comes in

Our monk is part of the diplomatic team (with the cleric) because its easier for an unarmed monk to get a meeting with the town/city council than a fighter bristling with weapons as monks are respected for their wisdom and not perceived as the most obvious threat. Also.. tongue of sun and moon comes in handy for diplomatic situations when a translator is needed.

Beside.. its just as entertaining for our players to watch the monk player explain to the barbarian why cutting the ogre mages hands and tongue off isnt a good idea as it is to just kill the it


So, the monk is useful at diplomacy - because you say he is (fluff). Also, he has a the benefit of a 2nd level Bard spell.

Wow. I'm speechless.

new1965
2008-09-01, 11:23 AM
I'm not sure what that has to do with what I said. That guy back there who reminded me they won't come back unless willing made a better point, faster, and Speak with Dead still bypasses that.

It has to do with the potential problems that can be caused by killing things when there other options. (Plus.. it doesn't cost much to capture someone for info and both our rogues are played in a way that they are totally concerned about the parties profit margin.)

only1doug
2008-09-01, 11:23 AM
Our characters exist in the campaign as just more than just walking stat sheets and thats when the "fluff" comes in

Our monk is part of the diplomatic team (with the cleric) because its easier for an unarmed monk to get a meeting with the town/city council than a fighter bristling with weapons as monks are respected for their wisdom and not perceived as the most obvious any kind of threat. Also.. tongue of sun and moon comes in handy for diplomatic situations when a translator is needed.

Beside.. its just as entertaining for our players to watch the monk player explain to the barbarian why cutting the ogre mages hands and tongue off isnt a good idea as it is to just kill the it

Fixed that for you.

Flickerdart
2008-09-01, 11:25 AM
It has to do with the potential problems that can be caused by killing things when there other options. (Plus.. it doesn't cost much to capture someone for info and both our rogues are played in a way that they are totally concerned about the parties profit margin.)
Speak with Dead doesn't cost anything. Since clerics automatically know all spells they can cast, you don't even have to buy the scroll.

AgentPaper
2008-09-01, 11:31 AM
Since it seems generally agreed that the monk is the worst class mechanically, (fluff stuff is cool, though) want to make this thread useful and come up with a simple, but effective, fix for the monk? My idea is to allow a monk to get an additional stat point every second level, instead of every fourth. From a rules standpoint, it would be a feature that gives an additional point at second level, and every fourth level after that. Since it's generally agreed that monks need high stats to be good, this seems a reasonable ability to give them, and works in fluff, since monks train their bodies to such a degree. Thoughts?

fractic
2008-09-01, 11:32 AM
Since it seems generally agreed that the monk is the worst class mechanically, (fluff stuff is cool, though) want to make this thread useful and come up with a simple, but effective, fix for the monk? My idea is to allow a monk to get an additional stat point every second level, instead of every fourth. From a rules standpoint, it would be a feature that gives an additional point at second level, and every fourth level after that. Since it's generally agreed that monks need high stats to be good, this seems a reasonable ability to give them, and works in fluff, since monks train their bodies to such a degree. Thoughts?

They'd get a little better of course. But just a teeny tiny bit better. Here's a fix: play an unarmed swordsage.

streakster
2008-09-01, 11:33 AM
Since it seems generally agreed that the monk is the worst class mechanically, (fluff stuff is cool, though) want to make this thread useful and come up with a simple, but effective, fix for the monk? My idea is to allow a monk to get an additional stat point every second level, instead of every fourth. From a rules standpoint, it would be a feature that gives an additional point at second level, and every fourth level after that. Since it's generally agreed that monks need high stats to be good, this seems a reasonable ability to give them, and works in fluff, since monks train their bodies to such a degree. Thoughts?

Frank and K fixed the monk class. Theirs is great, if you want to try it.

As for stats, I dunno. Might do for a quick and dirty fix.

sonofzeal
2008-09-01, 11:34 AM
Role-playing is great, I love good RP'ing, but that's not what this discussion is about - it's about game mechanics. Mechanically, the Monk is not good at anything.
No, the Monk is very very good at surviving, possibly the hardest class to kill in the game straight out of the box. A Wizard can roast you six ways from sunday, but if you ever caught one with its pants down, or in an AMF, a Rogue could slaughter him in under a round. Monks can't do much of anything useful, but they've got strong resistance to anything. A Fighter will have slightly more hp and slightly more AC, but the Monk is close on both counts, has way more impressive Ref and Will, SR, DR, Dimension Door for tight spots, a variety of immunities, and gets all of that 24/7, indefinitelly. Even the Clerid/Druid/Wizard needs to spend time resting and prepping, and can potentially be caught without their buffs up.

That said.... you can't take a championship with a tie. You've got to WIN to make something of yourself, and Monks are seriously shortchanged on that front. D&D is very biased towards high-offence builds; they're more effective, more fun, and seem cooler. While it's reasurring to have the longest life expectancy in the group, if you can't actually overcome obstacles then you're not helping.

new1965
2008-09-01, 11:34 AM
Role-playing is great, I love good RP'ing, but that's not what this discussion is about - it's about game mechanics. Mechanically, the Monk is not good at anything. .


Look back at the original post. The OP wanted reasons about what worked and didn't work for a monk. and didnt say he just wanted the mechanics and there can be SO MUCH more to the game than just that but many of the optimizer just want to talk about their mechanics and don't seem to get that their experience isn't the only one that can be had

Ideally, the conversation should have probably gone as follows

"If you are playing an optimized campaign, monks are at best good for a 5th party member as the can play a supporting role and stay alive easily. However, if you are playing in a role playing/non-hack and slash focused group, things are bit different and the monk has a better role"

Grynning
2008-09-01, 11:41 AM
"If you are playing an optimized campaign, monks are at best good for a 5th party member as the can play a supporting role and stay alive easily. However, if you are playing in a role playing/non-hack and slash focused group, things are bit different and the monk has a better role"

The point of my post was that "role-playing" and "non-hack and slash" gameplay are unaffected by mechanics, and therefore have no bearing on whether a class is good or not compared to any other.

new1965
2008-09-01, 11:58 AM
The point of my post was that "role-playing" and "non-hack and slash" gameplay are unaffected by mechanics, and therefore have no bearing on whether a class is good or not compared to any other.

And you missed my point... that mechanics is NOT the only thing of import depending on the style of play that's going to determine the viability of a class in a particular campaign

Grynning
2008-09-01, 12:12 PM
In a free-form, non-combat oriented campaign, ANY class is viable. However, on these boards, when people are talking about character building, you should expect that people will base their arguments around mechanics, as those are the only quantifiable things that everyone can reference. Play style is infinitely variable; as long as everyone is playing 3.5 D&D, the mechanics don't change. The OP started this thread because he was bringing up monks in character building thread and people mentioned that monks were crap, and he didn't understand why. I think that we've more than adequately explained it.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 12:16 PM
Did my group read the grapple rules and just ASSUME that they included chokes and houserule it ? because everytime we grapple a spell caster, we've done the
"wrapped my hands around his throat and try to squeeze until his eye pop out" or "I clamp my hand over his mouth" to take care of the verbal spell component

Yeah, you played it wrong. According to the rules, you need to pin someone to prevent them from speaking.

It's all kinda irrelevant, since monks aren't good at grappling. You want a tag-team of an enlarged fighter (maybe with Improved Grapple) or a druid, and a rogue. If you need them alive, use a sap.

Fixing the monk is a lot like fixing the fighter: use the ToB. Unarmed Swordsage and Warblade.

new1965
2008-09-01, 12:17 PM
Since it seems generally agreed that the monk is the worst class mechanically, (fluff stuff is cool, though) want to make this thread useful and come up with a simple, but effective, fix for the monk? My idea is to allow a monk to get an additional stat point every second level, instead of every fourth. From a rules standpoint, it would be a feature that gives an additional point at second level, and every fourth level after that. Since it's generally agreed that monks need high stats to be good, this seems a reasonable ability to give them, and works in fluff, since monks train their bodies to such a degree. Thoughts?

If you want to smooth them out some mechanically and keep it in line with the fluff, why not have their dexterity (or maybe constitution) increase along with the AC bonus to reflect their training and add Weapon finesse to the Bonus Feats list

Ifni
2008-09-01, 12:19 PM
1) Based on what you said the Ur-Priest had a Wisdom of +7, which is terrible at level 14 since at least 3 of that should be from item. Meaning a base Wisdom at level 1 of 15. The Elite Array isn't.

Elite Array is the standard method for generating NPC stats: using better stats incurs a CR bump. Even if she'd started with Wis 18, would it have mattered? It would've been DC 27 instead of 26, on a spell she never got to cast.

Note also that NPC wealth is rather limited. If she'd been L14 she would've had 45000gp to spend: a +6 periapt takes up most of that. As it is, she was actually a L16 Ur-Theurge, with L13 sorcerer casting and ninth-level Ur-Priest spells at CL 16 (yes, she would be more optimized as a Sublime Ur-Theurge, but again, it would hardly have mattered). That means she has 77000gp to spend, and yes, she spent half her allowed cash on her periapt +6. (Hmm... checking her equipment list, she actually went way over budget, she's spent about 130000. She doesn't have craft feats, either. Oh well, I guess being the favored emissary of an ancient evil that's trying to kill the gods has some benefits...)


2) Replace the above Monk with any Fighter/Barbarian/Druid/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue that also took levels in Shadow Sun Ninja. Accomplishes the same thing, only better.

*shrugs* The monk did what was needed.

If you're using Tome of Battle, I've heard Unarmed Swordsage makes a decent monk fix, too. This campaign didn't use Tome of Battle, though.


3) How on Earth did the Monk grapple a buffed up Ur-Priest? Divine Power alone beats the Monk.

Not really: she was a caster, not a melee cleric, her base Strength was 8. She did have a Divine Power prepared (I have her spell list, but don't know what buffs she cast before the fight) - I guess either my dispel stripped it, or the monk's massive Strength advantage won out.


4) A Greater Dispel actually dispelled any of the Ur-Priests buffs? Much less the one you needed dispelled? If you weren't playing with a houserule on dispels then your GM cheated for you.

I rolled in the open. She didn't own a bead of karma or ring of enduring arcana, because (a) they would have taken her significantly over the NPC wealth limit (more than she already was, grrr), and (b) that would've meant the party ended up with a strand of prayer beads and ring of enduring arcana. So I was rolling against CL 16, at CL 18 (because, being a PC, my sorcerer DOES have CL-boosting items, and is also a Wild Mage who got a decent roll). I took down half her buffs, which is about average.

My point is not that monks are a particularly powerful class: I don't think they are. My point is that they're not ineffective, if you build them right - they CAN contribute in level-appropriate combats - and at least before Tome of Battle (which I'm not that familiar with), they have tricks that the other martial classes have trouble replicating. That said, I've heard enough good things about Tome of Battle that if I was running a campaign and someone wanted to play a monk, I'd probably point them at ToB and the Unarmed Swordsage.

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:20 PM
Yeah, you played it wrong. According to the rules, you need to pin someone to prevent them from speaking.


Actually speaking isn't listed among the actions you can take while grappling therefor you can't. RAW is silly like that.

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 12:21 PM
Then again, under Pin it states "at player's option, you can prevent the pinned character from speaking", which kinda implies that you can do it otherwise.

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:25 PM
Then again, under Pin it states "at player's option, you can prevent the pinned character from speaking", which kinda implies that you can do it otherwise.

It nowhere mentions that you can't do summersaults while being grappled...

new1965
2008-09-01, 12:25 PM
In a free-form, non-combat oriented campaign, ANY class is viable. However, on these boards, when people are talking about character building, you should expect that people will base their arguments around mechanics, as those are the only quantifiable things that everyone can reference. Play style is infinitely variable; as long as everyone is playing 3.5 D&D, the mechanics don't change. The OP started this thread because he was bringing up monks in character building thread and people mentioned that monks were crap, and he didn't understand why. I think that we've more than adequately explained it.

At least we are on the same page now.. I wasn't denying the mechanical issues if you optimize or are interested in dealing massive damage while playing a monk but it sounded as if the OP wasn't strictly about the mechanics of the character and that was the reason for his confusion. If you only talk mechanics, you are only showing one side of the coin in many situations

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:27 PM
At least we are on the same page now.. I wasn't denying the mechanical issues if you optimize or are interested in dealing massive damage while playing a monk but it sounded as if the OP wasn't strictly about the mechanics of the character and that was the reason for his confusion. If you only talk mechanics, you are only showing one side of the coin in many situations

But mechanics are the only real difference between classes. While we are showing only one side of the coin the other side doesn't distinguish between classes.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-09-01, 12:28 PM
Actually speaking isn't listed among the actions you can take while grappling therefor you can't. RAW is silly like that.

Yeah, no. You can only stop someone from speaking when you've got them pinned. Inductive reasoning suggests, quite reasonably, that this means you can talk just fine when you're not pinned.

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 12:29 PM
It nowhere mentions that you can't do summersaults while being grappled...

Actually, since you can move the Grapple and it doesn't prevent Tumbling while at it, there are rules for summersaulting while being grappled. Anyways, my point is that when a negation of X exists, X is kinda implied too.

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:30 PM
Actually, since you can move the Grapple and it doesn't prevent Tumbling while at it, there are rules for summersaulting while being grappled. Anyways, my point is that when a negation of X exists, X is kinda implied too.

Implied only applies to RAI not RAW.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 12:30 PM
If you want to smooth them out some mechanically and keep it in line with the fluff, why not have their dexterity (or maybe constitution) increase along with the AC bonus to reflect their training and add Weapon finesse to the Bonus Feats list

While unarmed swordsage and some of the other fixes on these boards are probably better, here's what I would suggest - Make them full BAB, and replace Flurry of Blows with the ability to Power Attack with your unarmed strike. You can re-fluff the power attacking as hitting lots of times in rapid succession.

Make them able to apply their Wisdom bonus to grapple checks, trip attempts, disarms, etc.

Give them the ability to enhance their fists as magic weapons in the same manner as a Kensai or an OA samurai.

Eldariel
2008-09-01, 12:30 PM
RAW doesn't work like that.

EDIT: Or it does, but it doesn't really matter.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-01, 12:30 PM
Our characters exist in the campaign as just more than just walking stat sheets and thats when the "fluff" comes in

Our monk is part of the diplomatic team (with the cleric) because its easier for an unarmed monk to get a meeting with the town/city council than a fighter bristling with weapons as monks are respected for their wisdom and not perceived as the most obvious threat. Also.. tongue of sun and moon comes in handy for diplomatic situations when a translator is needed.

Beside.. its just as entertaining for our players to watch the monk player explain to the barbarian why cutting the ogre mages hands and tongue off isnt a good idea as it is to just kill the itSorcerer. Does it better, and is effective at other stuff. Bard. Does it better, and helps the party. Rogue. Does it better, and is profitable for the party. Seriously, why is that Monk any use at all, that another class wouldn't be better?

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 12:40 PM
*Stuff*

1) Ur-Priest. At level 16? With a CL of 16? Are you smoking? Even a very very basic Ur-Priest like Sorcerer 4/Savage Bard 1/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theruge 8/Sorcerer 1 has an Ur-Preist CL of 17 without any items. Make that last level a Archmage or Sublime Chord and you are talking about CL 19-29 without items.

Why would you purposefully use Ur-Priest if you were going to gimp it?

2) 8000gp for both those items. I'm pretty sure most any decent caster can make room for them.

3) No one cares if the Monk's job is "Grapple the stupidest character alive." I can cast Enlarge Person on a level 1 Commoner Follower and have him due just as good a job.

new1965
2008-09-01, 12:42 PM
But mechanics are the only real difference between classes. While we are showing only one side of the coin the other side doesn't distinguish between classes.

Thats what the "fluff" is for, to give your characters life beyond the mechanics.

My half-orc barbarian is keeping a VERY low profile in Incarnum because of the racial tension between orcs and elves and the fact that as a barbarian the chances of him getting into a fight are HIGH. That has nothing to do with mechanics but it would be a different situation if he was a half-orc fighter and had more self control and came from a "civilized" land

If you concentrate on the role playing.. there's a LOT of difference between the classes

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:44 PM
Thats what the "fluff" is for, to give your characters life beyond the mechanics.

My half-orc barbarian is keeping a VERY low profile in Incarnum because of the racial tension between orcs and elves and the fact that as a barbarian the chances of him getting into a fight are HIGH. That has nothing to do with mechanics but it would be a different situation if he was a half-orc fighter and had more self control and came from a "civilized" land

If you concentrate on the role playing.. there's a LOT of difference between the classes

Except that fluff can be completely seperated from the mechanics. You can play a barbarian and call him a monk if you want. I'll admid to racial prejudice but races aren't classes.

new1965
2008-09-01, 12:51 PM
Except that fluff can be completely seperated from the mechanics. You can play a barbarian and call him a monk if you want. I'll admid to racial prejudice but races aren't classes.

Of course mechanics can be seperated
I didnt say the races were classes I only used the characters race to represent a potential catalyst
Barbarians are from uncivilized lands by description and a fighter is more likely to have a modicum of self control. The same half orc with the same stats could have very different outcomes depending on class if someone spilled a drink on him at the local tavern. That's where the role playing comes in

fractic
2008-09-01, 12:57 PM
Of course mechanics can be seperated
I didnt say the races were classes I only used the characters race to represent a potential catalyst
Barbarians are from uncivilized lands by description and a fighter is more likely to have a modicum of self control. The same half orc with the same stats could have very different outcomes depending on class if someone spilled a drink on him at the local tavern. That's where the role playing comes in

But neither the fighter or the barbarian is inherantly superior to the other. They are both equally suited to roleplay. Which again makes the only mechanics contribute to the usefulness of the class.

new1965
2008-09-01, 01:14 PM
But neither the fighter or the barbarian is inherantly superior to the other. They are both equally suited to roleplay. Which again makes the only mechanics contribute to the usefulness of the class.

Im not talking about mechanical superiority of class over another, Im talking about how that class fits into the campaign universe if you role play it out and that effects the usefulness of the class in certain situations.

An armed fighter getting info from a small shop keeper would be intimidating without even trying but a monk or cleric would have an easier time based on the reputation of the classes

However that same fighter would have an EASIER time that the monk would getting info from the soldiers in the barracks as they are "brothers in arms".

The characters can affect NPC's starting attitudes when doing intimidate/ diplomacy checks, how closely they are being watched by the town guard..

Sure you can ignore all that stuff if you choose but i think you'd be missing out on the true flavor of the game

fractic
2008-09-01, 01:19 PM
Im not talking about mechanical superiority of class over another, Im talking about how that class fits into the campaign universe if you role play it out and that effects the usefulness of the class in certain situations.

But that's what the topic is about. Why are monks less usefull?



An armed fighter getting info from a small shop keeper would be intimidating without even trying but a monk or cleric would have an easier time based on the reputation of the classes

Except that classes are mostly an out of character concept and the shopkeeper can only differentiate between the fighter and monk because the fighter is wearing armor and a weapon. And between the fighter and the monk he could only differntiate if the cleric's gear is adorned with holy symbols.



However that same fighter would have an EASIER time that the monk would getting info from the soldiers in the barracks as they are "brothers in arms".


That depends on the character's background not on his class




The characters can affect NPC's starting attitudes when doing intimidate/ diplomacy checks, how closely they are being watched by the town guard..


Intimidate and diplomacy are mechanics not fluff.



Sure you can ignore all that stuff if you choose but i think you'd be missing out on the true flavor of the game

The examples you gave don't have anything to do with what class you are. Only with what items you carry around really.

warmachine
2008-09-01, 01:23 PM
I've seen a Monk played well because the player abused every splat book he could get whilst the rest of us still used core. This still didn't help with another problem with Monk. At around 10th, the monsters often have DR/cold iron, DR/silver or DR/adamantine as well as energy and spell resistances. The melee warriors and archers use the appropriate swords and arrows whilst the Monk's damage barely exceeds DR.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-01, 01:32 PM
While unarmed swordsage and some of the other fixes on these boards are probably better, here's what I would suggest - Make them full BAB, and replace Flurry of Blows with the ability to Power Attack with your unarmed strike. You can re-fluff the power attacking as hitting lots of times in rapid succession.

Make them able to apply their Wisdom bonus to grapple checks, trip attempts, disarms, etc.

Give them the ability to enhance their fists as magic weapons in the same manner as a Kensai or an OA samurai.

You can power attack with unarmed strike, but only as a one handed weapon: What is required is PA as a 2 handed to make Monk as good as a Fighter.

Grynning
2008-09-01, 01:43 PM
You can power attack with unarmed strike, but only as a one handed weapon: What is required is PA as a 2 handed to make Monk as good as a Fighter.

That is what I meant, actually, thanks.

new1965
2008-09-01, 01:44 PM
What you are calling "out of character" stuff is exactly what im talking about

Clerics have an aura in line with their deity . Role Played a cleric of an evil deity trying to be nice with someone would be like having a conversation with Charles Manson.. no matter what he says.. you are going to have the creeps if its fully role played

Monks are following their spiritual path and have a rep for being lawful and disciplined

The fighter getting along with better with soldiers is not just background but a matter of how personal interactions work. You just get along better with people that understand why you do what you do

finally the starting point for diplomacy/intimidate check is set by the DM and can be effected by all the stuff i mentioned


Its got less to do with what the characters are carrying, than it does with the way OTHERS react to them

Grynning
2008-09-01, 01:47 PM
All of the things you are bringing up are NOT mechanical. They can be explained with character background and re-fluffing.

If I want my Fighter/Rogue to be lawful and from a monastic background, and even to call himself a monk, I can.

Class selection in D&D does not really affect how you role-play the character, unless your DM is making you adhere to the stereotypes of the class, which is LIMITING role playing, not encouraging it.

fractic
2008-09-01, 01:47 PM
stuff

I don't even agree to all that but it still doesn't make any one class inherantly better for roleplaying just different. And if you want to play a monk because of the fluff you can just play an orderly and meditative fighter/barbarian/rogue/any other martial class.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-01, 01:54 PM
Monks are following their spiritual path and have a rep for being lawful and disciplined

Unfortunately, it is impossible for the average citizen to distinguish a rogue or a sorcerer from a monk.

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 02:01 PM
Unfortunately, it is impossible for the average citizen to distinguish a rogue or a sorcerer from a monk.

You mean fortunately right? :smallwink:

new1965
2008-09-01, 02:05 PM
I don't even agree to all that but it still doesn't make any one class inherantly better for roleplaying just different. And if you want to play a monk because of the fluff you can just play an orderly and meditative fighter/barbarian/rogue/any other martial class.

You keep getting stuck on this "inherently better" thing when i've been saying its also situational if you role play

Character personalities and interests lead them to be better suited to some classes than other.. In another post i mentioned characters growing organically and this is one part of that...An orderly meditative barbarian or rogue would be acting against their chaotic nature and probably wouldnt choose that life for themselves

The fluff can be separated from the mechanics but its a big part of the role playing and that causes difference in the classes in different situations

fractic
2008-09-01, 02:13 PM
You keep getting stuck on this "inherently better" thing when i've been saying its also situational if you role play


I'm getting stuck on that because that's what this topic is about. Talking about roleplaying says absolutely nothing about how useful a monk is.



Character personalities and interests lead them to be better suited to some classes than other.. In another post i mentioned characters growing organically and this is one part of that...An orderly meditative barbarian or rogue would be acting against their chaotic nature and probably wouldnt choose that life for themselves


Ok maybe not a barbarian but alignment restrictions are generally silly. Lawful barbarians make perfect sense



The fluff can be separated from the mechanics but its a big part of the role playing and that causes difference in the classes in different situations

But the fluff should be what you want for your character, not what's the stereotype for the class.

new1965
2008-09-01, 02:17 PM
Unfortunately, it is impossible for the average citizen to distinguish a rogue or a sorcerer from a monk.

Not counting the rogue's armor, that's true.. That why sorcerer is a decent class for gathering information by charming people, rogues can slick-talk people if they can keep from casing the joint for something to steal/escape routes/etc...

However just being a sorcerer or rogue isn't going to effect most NPCs starting reaction to them before they say a word if they don't know the character before hand.

Unless of course the are talking with another rogue who notices that hes talking to another profession by noticing the thieves tools on the rogues belt or the sorcerer is talking to other magic users . In those cases, they'd have a situational advantage

new1965
2008-09-01, 02:22 PM
I'm getting stuck on that because that's what this topic is about. Talking about roleplaying says absolutely nothing about how useful a monk is.


Of course it does if you are in a role play heavy campaign which ive been saying all along. The fluff, alignment and the stuff that you said is silly become important

fractic
2008-09-01, 02:24 PM
Of course it does if you are in a role play heavy campaign which ive been saying all along. The fluff, alignment and the stuff that you said is silly become important

Sure it does but there is nothing about the monk class that uniquely tied to that class. That's the entire point. Roleplaying is not a reason to play a monk (or any other class).

Grynning
2008-09-01, 02:25 PM
Of course it does if you are in a role play heavy campaign which ive been saying all along. The fluff, alignment and the stuff that you said is silly become important

None of which HAS to be determined by your class. Again, you're thinking of class as a pigeonhole or stereotype for someone to role-play. We're talking about class as a set of mechanical benefits, completely separate from the character concept and other role-playing concerns.

Philistine
2008-09-01, 02:47 PM
Of course it does if you are in a role play heavy campaign which ive been saying all along. The fluff, alignment and the stuff that you said is silly become important
Dude - what?

The conversation is not and has never been about RP-heavy campaigns. The OP asked why monks are considered weak, which is a mechanical question. Responding that monks have cool fluff is missing the point of the entire discussion, which is, again, of weaknesses in the monk's mechanics.

Also: noone has said that fluff or alignment are "silly." They have said that these things are independent of the class's mechanics. That is, they have no impact on mechanics, and mechanics have no impact on them. So you can strip the fluff off a monk and use it for a character that is mechanically a fighter, or a cleric, or a paladin, or a rogue, or an unarmed swordsage, or what have you. Because it doesn't matter - there is no necessary connection between "monk fluff" and the (poorly-designed) mechanics of WotC's 3.x "monk class."

new1965
2008-09-01, 02:51 PM
None of which HAS to be determined by your class. Again, you're thinking of class as a pigeonhole or stereotype for someone to role-play. We're talking about class as a set of mechanical benefits, completely separate from the character concept and other role-playing concerns.

Im not expecting either of you to agree with me but heres the last im going to say on the subject...

A class in a role playing heavy campaign can MORE than just mechanical concerns. It can also include the characters life and personality that lead him to that class because most of the time, they aren't born to that class

Lets stay you start with a studious person. His studies may lead him to be a wizard if his interest is the arcane, it could lead him to be a fighter or sword sage if they were interested in military history or a dusk blade if both. Id even go for bard or monk. However its NOT going to cause them to wake up one day and decide to be a barbarian.

Organically grown characters start with the characters personality, flows into a good class for that personality and branches out from there.

Its not pigeonholing the characters, its taking into consideration ALL the aspects of the characters personality and not just the mechanics of the class.

new1965
2008-09-01, 02:56 PM
Dude - what?

The conversation is not and has never been about RP-heavy campaigns. The OP asked why monks are considered weak, which is a mechanical question. Responding that monks have cool fluff is missing the point of the entire discussion, which is, again, of weaknesses in the monk's mechanics.


He didny say anything about monks being weak.. the question was "Why are monks considered bad" and thats a totally different question as the arent bad in a RP heavy campaign. Most of the people are only addressing the mechanics while im pointing out theres another side thats being over looked

fractic
2008-09-01, 02:57 PM
Organically grown characters start with the characters personality, flows into a good class for that personality and branches out from there.

Its not pigeonholing the characters, its taking into consideration ALL the aspects of the characters personality and not just the mechanics of the class.

Just no.

Good character design starts with a fluff concept and a mechanics concept. If you have a class which you want to take because you like the fluff or mechanics but not the other then you work with your DM to find a way to change the fluff/mechanics of a class.

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 03:34 PM
Im not expecting either of you to agree with me but heres the last im going to say on the subject...

A class in a role playing heavy campaign can MORE than just mechanical concerns. It can also include the characters life and personality that lead him to that class because most of the time, they aren't born to that class

Lets stay you start with a studious person. His studies may lead him to be a wizard if his interest is the arcane, it could lead him to be a fighter or sword sage if they were interested in military history or a dusk blade if both. Id even go for bard or monk. However its NOT going to cause them to wake up one day and decide to be a barbarian.

Organically grown characters start with the characters personality, flows into a good class for that personality and branches out from there.

Its not pigeonholing the characters, its taking into consideration ALL the aspects of the characters personality and not just the mechanics of the class.

Yes, and his studiousness could lead to him becoming a Monk who's mechanical levels are Rogue 20. Because there is nothing stopping someone from taking all Rogue levels and still being a "Monk" in fluff. Which is why no one cares about your Monk fluff defense.

Bassetking
2008-09-01, 05:24 PM
What you are calling "out of character" stuff is exactly what im talking about

Clerics have an aura in line with their deity . Role Played a cleric of an evil deity trying to be nice with someone would be like having a conversation with Charles Manson.. no matter what he says.. you are going to have the creeps if its fully role played

Only, no. My character, my personality, has noooooothing toooooo doooooo with my class.



Monks are following their spiritual path and have a rep for being lawful and disciplined.

Right, there's not any kind of literary tradition for unruly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kung_Fu_Hustle) or undisciplined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Drunken_Master) monks, at all...



The fighter getting along with better with soldiers is not just background but a matter of how personal interactions work. You just get along better with people that understand why you do what you do

... What part of "Hitting things, with other things, until the first things stop moving." allows you to have deep, personal background interactions with people who just... "Understand" what you do why you do. By this logic, Lumberjacks, Blacksmiths, Knocker-men, Carpenters, Baseball players, and Demolition Derby Drivers have some form of deep, abiding brotherhood.

Moving on!



finally the starting point for diplomacy/intimidate check is set by the DM and can be effected by all the stuff i mentioned

Which matters exactly Bupkus as it pertains to the interaction. If I said "The Monk gets a big fudgy sundae in my game, every time he visits his temple, so it's awesome to play monks!" It would have as much actual bearing on this conversation. Non-mechanical, non-rule, non-pertinent. "Oh, the Fighter can't make that diplomacy check, because the Royal Order of Pony Snugglers hate people that own tower-shields, but the Archivist can make the check, because they like the pictures of ponies in his books." Is not a reason for, or against, either Fighters or Archivists. All it does is make me wonder why on earth you think that the Royal Order of Pony Snugglers has any impact on any gaming discussion other than what occurs on your home table.



Its got less to do with what the characters are carrying, than it does with the way OTHERS react to them

Which, say it with me now, has little or nothing to do with what class they are playing. If, in your games, at your table, Kings hold big birthday parties for monks, which feature not one, but TWO clowns, and shun Wizards because once, when he was seven, a wizard spoiled the King's big Kindergarten Field Trip; fantastic. This doesn't help, in any way, to determine the efficacy of either of the classes. It doesn't do anything to establish a baseline level of rules-supported help being provided by a certain class, as opposed to another. It doesn't do anything to establish a maximum level of potential party contribution.

All it does is help tie the issue more firmly in knots.


Im not expecting either of you to agree with me but heres the last im going to say on the subject...

A class in a role playing heavy campaign can MORE than just mechanical concerns. It can also include the characters life and personality that lead him to that class because most of the time, they aren't born to that class

What, really? It might not be that the character's personality and life may involve, in some way, his class, but that, by and large, his daily life is not devoted solely to the class which they practice? How many Bakers have you met that are entirely, totally, and wholly defined by the fact that they are a baker? How many Garbage-truck-drivers have you known that have a life and personality that have led her to drive a garbage truck? Here's one probably closer to home. How many professional Students do you know that do nothing, think nothing, act upon nothing that does not in every action and motion, describe them as a professional student?



Lets stay you start with a studious person.

Oh, yes. Lets.



His studies may lead him to be a wizard if his interest is the arcane, it could lead him to be a fighter or sword sage if they were interested in military history or a dusk blade if both. Id even go for bard or monk. However its NOT going to cause them to wake up one day and decide to be a barbarian.

OH, REALLY?

Skandar Hallsdin, born 1132, left Waterdeep University yesterday, having torn the door of his dorm-room, and beaten his Evocation teacher into an unrecognizeable mush. "Damndest thing I've ever seen," said one student. "Guy came in for class, looking ragged as all hell, like he hadn't slept for a week or two. Guy stands up right in the middle of the 'Grid-placement and you: A beginners guide to fireballs' lecture, screams 'It's all nonsense! Nonsense! I've wasted fifteen years of my life studying gibberish and it's all for nothing! RWWWWAAAGGHHHH!' Stood up, threw his chair through the wall, then bounded off out of the classroom."

A wholly reasonable and, dare I say, "Organic" reason as to why an erudite and scholarly individual might take a level of Barbarian.

Class does not. DOES NOT. Define. Character.



Organically grown characters start with the characters personality, flows into a good class for that personality and branches out from there.

Its not pigeonholing the characters, its taking into consideration ALL the aspects of the characters personality and not just the mechanics of the class.

I think I'll let Dr. Perry Cox handle this one...
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY)

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-01, 05:33 PM
Class does not. DOES NOT. Define. Character.


Very well said! I've played hotheaded wizards and thoughtful fighters.

holywhippet
2008-09-01, 06:20 PM
Very well said! I've played hotheaded wizards and thoughtful fighters.

True, but the PHB generally suggests that certain classes attract certain personalities/alignments. Monks for example are trying to master self discipline and control over their own body. For that reason they tend towards lawful behaviour because its what they are trying to achieve.

Wizards also have to study hard in order to advance in their class. Someone who sits around drinking and brawling isn't learning magical spells.

Mechanically you can have your character behave however you want, but some DMs might start giving you penalties for alignment violations.

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-01, 06:22 PM
True, but the PHB generally suggests that certain classes attract certain personalities/alignments. Monks for example are trying to master self discipline and control over their own body. For that reason they tend towards lawful behaviour because its what they are trying to achieve.

Wizards also have to study hard in order to advance in their class. Someone who sits around drinking and brawling isn't learning magical spells.

Mechanically you can have your character behave however you want, but some DMs might start giving you penalties for alignment violations.

wizards have no alignment restrictions.

fractic
2008-09-01, 06:29 PM
True, but the PHB generally suggests that certain classes attract certain personalities/alignments. Monks for example are trying to master self discipline and control over their own body. For that reason they tend towards lawful behaviour because its what they are trying to achieve.


Highlighted the important part



Wizards also have to study hard in order to advance in their class. Someone who sits around drinking and brawling isn't learning magical spells.


No they don't have to at all, they only have to kill monsters:smallwink:. It's up to you to decide how your wizard learns spells. Maybe he's just gifted and picks up spells at a glance.

Bassetking
2008-09-01, 06:39 PM
True, but the PHB generally suggests that certain classes attract certain personalities/alignments.

Stressed the vitally important clause, there.



Monks for example are trying to master self discipline and control over their own body. For that reason they tend towards lawful behaviour because its what they are trying to achieve.

Maybe yours is. Mine just really, really likes breaking things with his face.



Wizards also have to study hard in order to advance in their class. Someone who sits around drinking and brawling isn't learning magical spells.

There's nothing that says "I MUST" study hard. Maybe my mage is a slacker? Maybe he's arcanely enlightened by the lubricating presence of hooch? Maybe he specalizes in enchantment and transmutation, and likes luring people into bar-fights just to polymorph himself and clean the floor?



Mechanically you can have your character behave however you want, but some DMs might start giving you penalties for alignment violations.

Only if you violate the alignment requirements of the class; that only applies to Paladins, Monks, Barbarians, and Bards.

Kaihaku
2008-09-01, 06:44 PM
Honestly, the reason I've never played a Monk has everything to do with the flavor and nothing to do with the mechanics. I think most experienced players could see the unbalanced and weird mechanics of a Monk as a challenge, you've played everything else now make a Monk that doesn't suck... It is possible. (Give a Monk the Mage Slayer feats and a Polearm, kicking counts as unarmed strike so suddenly they threaten everything in 10 ft.) For me personally, the stereotypical you must be lawful and raised in a monastery turns me off. Monk is the most limited class in regards to background, sure you might be able to write up some long-winded background about how you weren't raised in a monastery but still... It's a bit depressing because I like Martial Artists in media just not Monks as WotC wrote them up.

streakster
2008-09-01, 07:02 PM
Honestly, the reason I've never played a Monk has everything to do with the flavor and nothing to do with the mechanics. I think most experienced players could see the unbalanced and weird mechanics of a Monk as a challenge, you've played everything else now make a Monk that doesn't suck... It is possible. (Give a Monk the Mage Slayer feats and a Polearm, kicking counts as unarmed strike so suddenly they threaten everything in 10 ft.) For me personally, the stereotypical you must be lawful and raised in a monastery turns me off. Monk is the most limited class in regards to background, sure you might be able to write up some long-winded background about how you weren't raised in a monastery but still... It's a bit depressing because I like Martial Artists in media just not Monks as WotC wrote them up.

Play Frank and K's version. It's a great representation of an actual fantasy martial artist.

Graymayre
2008-09-01, 07:23 PM
Play Frank and K's version. It's a great representation of an actual fantasy martial artist.

Can I have a link to it Streakster?

streakster
2008-09-01, 07:25 PM
Here you are. http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=9483486&postcount=3

I like all of their work, actually, so the whole thing's worth a read.

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 07:47 PM
Why not Link to the actual documents? IE the gaming Den?

streakster
2008-09-01, 07:53 PM
Why not Link to the actual documents? IE the gaming Den?

Hmm?

That was the first place I saw it. Where's this Den of Gaming?

Akimbo
2008-09-01, 07:59 PM
Right Here. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453)

Griffin131
2008-09-01, 08:48 PM
He didny say anything about monks being weak.. the question was "Why are monks considered bad" and thats a totally different question as the arent bad in a RP heavy campaign. Most of the people are only addressing the mechanics while im pointing out theres another side thats being over looked

What makes monks a better class for roleplaying than say... Fighters?

So if monks offer similar roleplay opportunities, but are worse mechanically... wouldnt that make them bad?

1 (for RP) + 0 for mechanics [monk], versus 1 (for RP) + 1 for mechanics [fighter] which one is better? And worse than average by definition is bad.

emeraldstreak
2008-09-02, 01:47 AM
He didny say anything about monks being weak.. the question was "Why are monks considered bad" and thats a totally different question...

because

1. It took a long time for the community to find out how to optimize monk damage

2. The average community member values hit points more than saves, and AC more than touch AC (cause: handholding DMs)

that's why the monk is considered weak even when compared to fellow noncasters like the fighter

Starbuck_II
2008-09-02, 06:00 AM
What makes monks a better class for roleplaying than say... Fighters?

So if monks offer similar roleplay opportunities, but are worse mechanically... wouldnt that make them bad?

1 (for RP) + 0 for mechanics [monk], versus 1 (for RP) + 1 for mechanics [fighter] which one is better? And worse than average by definition is bad.

You'd think that, but some people think bad mechanically = +1 RP. I've never agreed but there it is.

So Fighter get +1 RP + 1 Mechanics +1 for being weaker at high levels=3 vs. Monk gets +1 RP + 0 Mechanics +2 for being weaker at all levels =3
So there are equal in that view.

Griffin131
2008-09-02, 07:07 AM
You'd think that, but some people think bad mechanically = +1 RP. I've never agreed but there it is.

So Fighter get +1 RP + 1 Mechanics +1 for being weaker at high levels=3 vs. Monk gets +1 RP + 0 Mechanics +2 for being weaker at all levels =3
So there are equal in that view.

So Wizards are +1 RP +2 Mechanics +0 for being strong all the time?

I finally understand!

busterswd
2008-09-02, 07:21 AM
because

1. It took a long time for the community to find out how to optimize monk damage

2. The average community member values hit points more than saves, and AC more than touch AC (cause: handholding DMs)

that's why the monk is considered weak even when compared to fellow noncasters like the fighter

Ha, at least read the first page of the thread before you post a response.

1. Whatever the monk can do, another class does better, assuming equal conditions.

2. The monk must choose between survivability without offensive utility, or offensive utility in on the front lines without the means (HP and armor) to survive due to stat spread. Choosing between quick death or tough but useless isn't very appealing.

3. A well optimized monk pales in comparison to any other well optimized class. You can be competent with a monk, but you would've done better as a fighter (see 1, especially the part about equal conditions).


In short, the conclusion was that it's not impossible to succeed as a monk, but it's virtually impossible to surpass or even equal another class given equal amounts of wealth/optimization.

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 08:36 PM
He didny say anything about monks being weak.. the question was "Why are monks considered bad" and thats a totally different question as the arent bad in a RP heavy campaign. Most of the people are only addressing the mechanics while im pointing out theres another side thats being over looked

Actually I don't care about the RP elements. I can basically create any backstory I want for any race or class and in almost every case I can give the same backstory to just about any class/race variation. So I don't think any class has any more potential for RP than any other. Except the ones that have alignment restrictions. Ironically like the monk.

Not to sound rude of course. In fact if you want to debate the RP benefits of being a monk then feel free to do so. I'm just saying that the Mechanics were exactly what I was asking about. So the other people are right in ignoring the RP side of things. Also in most groups I've played in then it is more about screwing around and killing stuff than complicated backstories and intricated plots.

I've pretty much determined that the only thing Monk's are better at than anyone else is wrestling (note: I do not mean Grappling. Actual Wrestling. Like the sport. They aren't too likely to allow a Druid to turn into a bear before a match or allow a fighter to use a weapon). So I shall create a Monk that exists only to become both the world's greatest proffesional wrestler (and he will look just like Zangief) and have a second identity as someone who get's hired to break people out of jail by being arrested and busting out with from the inside. Both are things that a Monk does best (assuming the jailers take spell components bags or have AMF's.)

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-02, 08:45 PM
Barbarian or Unarmed Swordsage does it better, as does a buffed Cleric. :smalltongue:

Arbitrarity
2008-09-02, 08:46 PM
Does it count as wrestling if you flip out and kill your opponent, or is that UFC? Because I have a frenzied berzerker who might disagree with your assertion (specifically, a goliath).

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 09:04 PM
Barbarian or Unarmed Swordsage does it better, as does a buffed Cleric. :smalltongue:

Not sure about the first two (although the barbarian would still deal only 1d3 unarmed damage even if he hits a lot better. So he would have to have massive STR boost to do much damage compared to a Monk) but normally a judge won't let a cleric buff himself before a fight. Sort of against the rules usually. I mean some tournement's might allow it but usually they are supposed to be tests of strength so magic would be out. Don't know anything about Unarmed Swordsages.

Also to the other poster then yes killing is usually against the rules in a wrestling match.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-02, 09:10 PM
Not sure about the first two (although the barbarian would still deal only 1d3 unarmed damage even if he hits a lot better. So he would have to have massive STR boost to do much damage compared to a Monk) but normally a judge won't let a cleric buff himself before a fight. Sort of against the rules usually. I mean some tournement's might allow it but usually they are supposed to be tests of strength so magic would be out. Don't know anything about Unarmed Swordsages.

Also to the other poster then yes killing is usually against the rules in a wrestling match.

Unarmed Swordsage is a variant that gives a swordsage the unarmed damage of a monk in exchange for some things that I don't remember right now. Your Maneuver and stance progression remains unchanged, however, which definitely makes it better.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-02, 09:13 PM
Not sure about the first two (although the barbarian would still deal only 1d3 unarmed damage even if he hits a lot better. So he would have to have massive STR boost to do much damage compared to a Monk) but normally a judge won't let a cleric buff himself before a fight. Sort of against the rules usually. I mean some tournement's might allow it but usually they are supposed to be tests of strength so magic would be out. Don't know anything about Unarmed Swordsages.

Also to the other poster then yes killing is usually against the rules in a wrestling match.Not before, during. That's why you take DMM Quicken, and fluff it as a "Divine Infusion of Strength".

And the Barbarian takes Martial Study and deals massive damage even if it's only +1d3.

Actually, a Warblade is better at it, too.

Xenogears
2008-09-02, 10:14 PM
Not before, during. That's why you take DMM Quicken, and fluff it as a "Divine Infusion of Strength".
And the Barbarian takes Martial Study and deals massive damage even if it's only +1d3.
Actually, a Warblade is better at it, too.

Ummmm the problem wasn't the Cleric doing it before the match. It was using magic in a contest of strength. That would be the DnD equivalent of taking Steroids.

But the barbarian either has to take Improved unarmed strike or take a penalty for doing subdual. Also he has to work at being good at wrestling. A monk just has to be a monk. Not that I'm an expert on most DnD books outside of a couple non-core books. Hell I've never even looked through a 3.5 PHB or DMG.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-03, 12:25 AM
Ummmm the problem wasn't the Cleric doing it before the match. It was using magic in a contest of strength. That would be the DnD equivalent of taking Steroids.So you're banning god from the matches? I'm sure Kord will really like that.
But the barbarian either has to take Improved unarmed strike or take a penalty for doing subdual. Also he has to work at being good at wrestling. A monk just has to be a monk. Not that I'm an expert on most DnD books outside of a couple non-core books. Hell I've never even looked through a 3.5 PHB or DMG.Tome of Battle. He takes IUS, Imp. Grapple, and Martial Study for a couple of the "Massive Damage" Stone Dragon stances. He Rages, grapples the Monk, deals major damage, kills it. Or he's a Goliath with the ACF that lets him enlarge when he Rages, grapples the Monk, and kills it. Or he's a grapple-focused Warblade. Or he's a Scout/Barbarian with Pounce and Imp. Skirmish who runs at the Monk, grapples it, then Skirmish's it to death.

The problem is that anything the Monk can do, I can make a character to do better, and what the Monk does isn't that good in the first place.

Kaihaku
2008-09-03, 12:32 AM
Can you make a character that runs better than a Monk? :smalltongue:

I played in a homebrew campaign where most of the world's couriers were monks, that seemed to work pretty well for most deliveries. For extreme wealth and artifacts, sure teleport, but are you really to have mages teleporting door to door?

Stupendous_Man
2008-09-03, 12:36 AM
Can you make a character that runs better than a Monk? :smalltongue:


http://mcurrent.name/200px-Cec_logo.gif
............

Xenogears
2008-09-03, 12:41 AM
So you're banning god from the matches? I'm sure Kord will really like that.

Yes while Kord coming down to grant a strength bonus to his cleric is one thing. A cleric using a spell to give himself strength is another. To make things simpler the entire wrestling match will take place in an AMF. So no magical enhancements whatsoever be they items, spells, or anything else magical in nature.


Tome of Battle. He takes IUS, Imp. Grapple, and Martial Study for a couple of the "Massive Damage" Stone Dragon stances. He Rages, grapples the Monk, deals major damage, kills it. Or he's a Goliath with the ACF that lets him enlarge when he Rages, grapples the Monk, and kills it. Or he's a grapple-focused Warblade. Or he's a Scout/Barbarian with Pounce and Imp. Skirmish who runs at the Monk, grapples it, then Skirmish's it to death.The problem is that anything the Monk can do, I can make a character to do better, and what the Monk does isn't that good in the first place.

Didn't I already tell someone else that you don't kill people in wrestling matches? Not that I doubt that overpowerd characters can oh so easily do subduel instead.

Eldariel
2008-09-03, 05:26 AM
Fine, make a Barbarian with IUS, Improved Grapple and later on, Power Attack (Extra Rage too if necessary), Rage, Grapple and profit. The point is that even though the Monk would deal slightly more damage (in spite of its MAD) vs. a singleclassed Barbarian not using Superior Unarmed Strike or similars, the Barbarian's opposed rolls would be so high that the Monk would probably be forced to resort to actual attacks instead, which carry the -4 penalty (but are still more likely to work). Either way though, comparable damage (from the pure, raw Str-modifiers), comparable AC while Raging (if we're assuming that the Barbarian is wearing armor as per normal - its Monks class feature not to use armor), much higher base Grapple check (full BAB and extreme Str) and much more HP (d12s instead of d8s, more points to afford on Con due to the lack of importance of Wis, +4 Con from Rage) means that it won't really even be close. Without armor on the Barbarian's part, it gets much closer, but there's still little preventing the Barbarian from simply Pinning the Monk.