Ascetic Rogue / Ascetic Stalker

[CatPeeler]

Has anyone had any experience using these feats, or a combination of both?

[Hefty Lefty]

I haven't, but they sound lame. I mean, who plays a Rogue/Monk?

[CatPeeler]

Someone who'd like to synergize unarmed attacks with sneak damage?

[JaronK]

Generally, an unarmed varient Swordsage will do the trick better than any Monk/Rogue or Monk/Ninja combination.

JaronK

[Person_Man]

They both suck, as do most other hybrid helper feats. There are a couple of exceptions though, mostly found in the Complete Scoundrel.

The current best Skill Monkey base classes I'm aware of are the Swordsage, as Jaron suggests, the Beguiler, or the Psychic Rogue. I've heard the Factotum is pretty good as well, though I've never seen one played.

What is it that you want to do with your PC, anyway?

[SurlySeraph]

I don't know Ascetic Stalker. Is it ranger-based or what? If so, I have a character who needs it. What book is it in?

[JaronK]

It's actually for Ninja/Monk hybrids. Combining two of the weakest base classes yeilds predicatable results.

JaronK

[ghost_warlock]

I've had some success with Ascetic Rogue when I used it for a villain NPC in a campaign I ran a while ago, but it was assisted by a homebrew monk/rogue PrC.

[CatPeeler]

The idea I was kicking around was to try and replicate a martial art centered around pressure-point strikes....think the "five-point exploding heart technique" from Kill Bill, and you'll be on the right page.

Full monk damage paired with 10 dice of sneak attack at level 20 is nothing to sneeze at, either. Throw in a little pain touch/freezing the lifeblood for flavor, etc.

One of the things I'd like to work out is the balancing point between monk and rogue levels. On one hand, taking enough monk levels to reduce/remove the flurry hit penalties would also garner several nice monk perks, but the tradeoff is losing up to half of the sneak damage that a monk1/rogue19 would get.

Another thing is whether it's worth adding ninja levels to boost ki strike and abilities, add sudden strike dice, and get poison use. With the two ascetic feats I could mix all three and still benefit from full monk unarmed damage, but knowing where the sweet spot is for all three would be nice.

[AtomicKitKat]

Monk/Rogue is pretty good. Combining the Monk's larger number of attacks with the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage. Works out slightly better for both sides(Rogue needs more hits to deliver the SA, Monk needs more damage).

[Person_Man]

The idea I was kicking around was to try and replicate a martial art centered around pressure-point strikes....think the "five-point exploding heart technique" from Kill Bill, and you'll be on the right page.

Full monk damage paired with 10 dice of sneak attack at level 20 is nothing to sneeze at, either. Throw in a little pain touch/freezing the lifeblood for flavor, etc.

One of the things I'd like to work out is the balancing point between monk and rogue levels. On one hand, taking enough monk levels to reduce/remove the flurry hit penalties would also garner several nice monk perks, but the tradeoff is losing up to half of the sneak damage that a monk1/rogue19 would get.

Another thing is whether it's worth adding ninja levels to boost ki strike and abilities, add sudden strike dice, and get poison use. With the two ascetic feats I could mix all three and still benefit from full monk unarmed damage, but knowing where the sweet spot is for all three would be nice.

Touch of Golden Ice and Freezing the Lifeblood are both good feats. But Freezing the Lifeblood depends on Stunning Fist uses. So if you want to use it regularly, you'll have to stay a strait Monk, or go into a PrC that grants more uses (Enlightened Fist is the only one I know about - quite a good PrC at high levels, but has some serious problems at mid levels). There is no feat I know of that clears up this problem, nor should there be, in my opinion. Stunning Fist is the only good thing about being a Monk, there's no reason to give it away to anyone else.

There's no need for Sneak Attack if you successfully use Freezing the Lifeblood on someone. If they're paralyzed, you can Coup de Grace them. Just have a decent *4 crit weapon on hand, and maybe Death Blow (Comp Adv, allows you to Coup de Grace as a standard action).

But if you're just going for martial arts coolness, then it sounds like a Swordsage with a good combo is what you'll enjoy.

[Overlard]

I haven't, but they sound lame. I mean, who plays a Rogue/Monk?

The guy who wants to flurry with his sneak-attacking shuriken of wounding. So... me.

[Person_Man]

The guy who wants to flurry with his sneak-attacking shuriken of wounding. So... me.

Um, the Ascetic Rogue feat lets your levels stack for unarmed damage, and it increases the Save DC of your Stunning Fist by 2 when your Stunning attack is a Sneak Attack. It has nothing to do with your ability to Sneak Attack or Flurry.

But if you want lots of ranged attacks, you'll get more by using the ranged feat tree then you will with Flurry.

A Monk 11/Rogue 9 will have full Flurry and 5d6 Sneak Attack. Your attack routine will be +14/+14/+14/+9/+4.

A Rogue 3/Swash 17 with the Daring Outlaw (levels stack for Sneak Attack) will have 10d6 Sneak Attack. Using Greater Manyshot, your attack routine will be (penalties included) +11/+11/+11/+11 as a STANDARD ACTION, or you can use a full round action with Rapidshot and fire off +17/+17/+12/+7/+2. Either way, you'll end up with much more damage, because your Sneak Attack is twice as big. You're getting just as many attacks. Plus you can use a magic bow AND magic arrows. So your Monk is just using his Shuriken of Wounding +whatever, I'm using my Bow of Wounding Flaming Frost Bane, and arrows +whatever. And you have to buy your ammo over and over again. I just get my bow enchanted once to do the same thing, and have a friend cast Greater Magic Weapon on my arrows.

Heck, even a strait Rogue 19/Fighter 1 with the ranged combat tree would statistically deal more damage.

And both of those are weak ranged combat builds. If you were using a Cleric Archer with the right buff spells, you'd get even better damage.

So again, there's no reason to play a Rogue/Monk.

[Draz74]

It's actually for Ninja/Monk hybrids. Combining two of the weakest base classes yeilds predicatable results.

JaronK

The real question, though, in terms of judging the Feat, is: Can a well-built Ascetic Stalker Monk/Ninja be better than just a straight Ninja or straight Monk?

... I don't personally know the answer.

[JaronK]

The real question, though, in terms of judging the Feat, is: Can a well-built Ascetic Stalker Monk/Ninja be better than just a straight Ninja or straight Monk?

... I don't personally know the answer.

I've tried, and it didn't work. I just ended up with a Ninja that had even fewer hitpoints. It was pretty lame.

Seriously, an Unarmed Swordsage Varient does the ninja/martial arts master thing massively better.

JaronK

[Fax Celestis]

I wonder how a Rogue 3/Scout 3/Ranger 14 with Swift Tracker and Swift Ambusher would do...

Hm.

+9d6 SA, +4d6/+4 AC Skirmish, 4 Favored Enemies, BAB +16, TWF tree for free. Hm. Might be some merit there, particularly if one were to take Spring Attack/Rapid Blitz/Bounding Assault.

[Person_Man]

I wonder how a Rogue 3/Scout 3/Ranger 14 with Swift Tracker and Swift Ambusher would do...

Hm.

+9d6 SA, +4d6/+4 AC Skirmish, 4 Favored Enemies, BAB +16, TWF tree for free. Hm. Might be some merit there, particularly if one were to take Spring Attack/Rapid Blitz/Bounding Assault.

There's no need to waste so many feats on Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack->Bounding Assault->Rapid Blitz. Rangers get Lion's Charge as a second level spell. A Wildshape Ranger could also turn into any number of forms with Pounce.

Otherwise, I think it'd be a decent build. Screwed against Undead/Constructs/etc, but a solid Skill Monkey with decent damage output.

[The Great Skenardo]

I'm actually playing as a Monk/Rogue currently. It seems to be going pretty well; you can make an excellent assassin or agent when you have bluff/diplomacy as class skills, never wear any weapons or armor and have as much acrobatic synergy as there is. In straight-up knock-down fight, you'll do no better than a monk or a rogue, but the potential for sneakiness is what's really appealing. For flavor, I took up the Versiatile Unarmed Strike feat, so now I can actually decapitate people by kicking them hard enough

[Overlard]

So again, there's no reason to play a Rogue/Monk.

Yes, there is. Because it's fun.

I love the swordsage, I'm about to play a rogue/swashbuckler who specialises in meleeing & throwing knives. The rogue/monk was fun as he was surprisingly versatile in combat (of course it helps that I rolled very well for his stats). He was sneak attacking, damaging con, tripping & disarming as the situation called for, making life easier for his allies and generally making life hell for any "big bads" that we came across. The only time I felt useless was when we were fighting a golem which was shrugging off everything I threw at it. It wasn't an optimised build, but he pulled the party's fat out of the fire again and again, so much so that the DM got kind of vindictive and made a couple of enemies optimised to try and take him out in the final session of the campaign, and he still wiped the floor with them. I'm not saying I wasn't lucky, but it was a tough campaign, and despite his non-optimised status, he mostly waltzed through it. And the theme and mechanics of it were fun. He's probably my second favourite character I've played, the first being a beguiler who has the DM tearing his hair out every week (but that's mostly due to the stuff I pull each week - silenced objects being dropped into enemy spellcaster's spell component pouches while I'm invisible, suggesting the big bad's bodyguard go visit his ailing mother, sleight of handing the enemy cleric's holy symbol off of him just before the battle starts etc.)

There might be "better" builds, but that doesn't make a better character. And this is coming from someone who's often accused of powergaming. Ascetic rogue does exactly what it's supposed to - makes the rogue/monk character better at what he does. It doesn't matter if you can get superior effects by taking class X with feat Y; if something fits your concept, go with it.

[BardicDuelist]

Bravo, Overlard.

For a pure powergaming concept, there is no reason to play anything that is not a full caster (though some ToB stuff can come pretty close).

The thing is is that many people would love to play characters who are not optimal (in fact, even the PHB says that some players may enjoy playing handicapped characters).

Most people do not powergame, and prefer to play characters based on flavor.

In that case, yes the rogue/monk can be very fun to play (though the whole lawful thing can be rough sometimes considering what you can be capable of). They do lend themselves rather well to each other.

[Charity]

Bravo, Overlard.

For a pure powergaming concept, there is no reason to play anything that is not a full caster (though some ToB stuff can come pretty close).

The thing is is that many people would love to play characters who are not optimal (in fact, even the PHB says that some players may enjoy playing handicapped characters).

Most people do not powergame, and prefer to play characters based on flavor.

In that case, yes the rogue/monk can be very fun to play (though the whole lawful thing can be rough sometimes considering what you can be capable of). They do lend themselves rather well to each other.

Will we ever wade through this mire?
Why does writing monk at the top of the page make me a better role-player?

Hang on

yup I'm begining to get it

[Overlard]

Will we ever wade through this mire?
Why does writing monk at the top of the page make me a better role-player?

Hang on

yup I'm begining to get it

It's not about being a better roleplayer. It's about realising that more powerful =/= a better character.

[Quietus]

There's no need to waste so many feats on Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack->Bounding Assault->Rapid Blitz. Rangers get Lion's Charge as a second level spell. A Wildshape Ranger could also turn into any number of forms with Pounce.

Otherwise, I think it'd be a decent build. Screwed against Undead/Constructs/etc, but a solid Skill Monkey with decent damage output.

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, Swift Tracker (or whichever the rogue/ranger one is) makes it so that if <un-sneak-attackable target type> is one of your favored enemies, you can sneak attack them, does it not?

So a swift ambushing ranger/rogue who REALLY hates <type>, but also has it in for Constructs, Plants, and Undead, can sneak attack anything they like.

[Person_Man]

There might be "better" builds, but that doesn't make a better character.

There aren't "better" builds then a Rogue/Monk. There are better builds. Notice the lack of snarky quotation marks. There is nothing a Rogue/Monk does that numerous other builds can't do better.

Your character concept could be exactly the same. You could be the same race. You could have the same backstory. You could have the same personality. You could interact with the other players and NPCs in the same way. You could choose whatever feats, Skills, and magic items you wanted to match the combat style of what you enjoy. Your roleplaying experience would be just as fulfilling, because there is no roleplaying difference between

But you'd clearly be mechanically stronger. Because you're mechanically stronger, the DM would have to throw a stronger encounters at your group. He'd also have to throw a greater variety of encounters at you, because the standard group of Evil humanoids that charge toward you would be to weak, so he has to use magic, psychic enemies, ToB maneuvers, flying enemies, invisible enemies, and other fantastic creatures which could kill a Rogue/Monk in one turn.

Thus the roleplaying aspect would be the same, but the crunch part of the game would be better. Playing a weak build doesn't make a better character. Playing a strong build doesn't make a better character. But playing a strong build makes combat better.

I fully accept that you and others have probably had a fun time playing Rogue/Monks in your games. But defending Rogue/Monks as a build choice is like defending living in Newark. Yes, you could live there and have a good time, and maybe there's only one shooting a week on your block. But New York is 10 miles to the east. And even if you don't have the money for that, Hoboken much cleaner, has more to do, and its even still in NJ. There's no reason to live in Newark. And there's no reason to play a Rogue/Monk.

[Overlard]

Playing a weak build doesn't make a better character. Playing a strong build doesn't make a better character. But playing a strong build makes combat better.

No, it makes combat easier. There's a difference.

And there's no reason to play a Rogue/Monk.

Of course there is. Just because you can't see why someone would want the combination of abilities that being a rogue/monk gives you, it doesn't mean there are none. If you go along the route you are, there's no reason to play anything but wizards, artificiers and archivists, as they're mechanically stronger and leave almost everything in the dust. But not everyone wants to play those. People want to play different classes and different combinations - to try new things and see how they work.

Because you're mechanically stronger, the DM would have to throw a stronger encounters at your group. He'd also have to throw a greater variety of encounters at you, because the standard group of Evil humanoids that charge toward you would be to weak, so he has to use magic, psychic enemies, ToB maneuvers, flying enemies, invisible enemies, and other fantastic creatures which could kill a Rogue/Monk in one turn.

What terrible logic. If your DM is limited in what he throws at you because of what you play, then he's not a very good DM. That rogue/monk I played did go up against a warblade of 2 levels higher than himself. And won. He went up against psions, some nasty aberration thing from another dimension, a black dragon, a shadow dragon, some weird stat-draining fey thing whose name escapes me and a bucketful of weird and entertaining monsters, as well as the normal evil humanoids you seem to think such a character must be limited to. And he did very well against them all (except that golem).

Power creep is not always a good thing. Just because you're killing monsters with a higher CR than recommended, that doesn't mean you're having a better game, or more fun than other people. It just means you're playing a higher-powered game. You might as well say there's no point playing with 24 point buy, because you can kill things so much better with 32 point.

[Renegade Paladin]

I've never used any of the Ascetic feats except Ascetic Knight, and that was for an NPC build that hasn't been used yet. Devoted Tracker rocks, though, because your mount/animal companion wins.

And please, spare me the lecture about how it's not really all that powerful. I know and I don't care, now go powerbuild someone else's game.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, Ascetic Knight + Serenity is a decent mix. I'm playing one now.

[Counterspin]

Renegade Paladin : Getting angry in advance of what makes you angry. That's a new record, even for the internet.

But you could play a swordsage and have the exact same fluff as a monk rogue, short trapfinding, and you would be mechanically viable. If you like to play mechanically bad characters, that's fine, but I don't think it's the majority stance. Most people would like to effective combat because it is so often the core of a D&D game.

[Charity]

1.

Has anyone had any experience using these feats, or a combination of both?

2.

Someone who'd like to synergize unarmed attacks with sneak damage?

3.

The idea I was kicking around was to try and replicate a martial art centered around pressure-point strikes....think the "five-point exploding heart technique" from Kill Bill, and you'll be on the right page.

Full monk damage paired with 10 dice of sneak attack at level 20 is nothing to sneeze at, either. Throw in a little pain touch/freezing the lifeblood for flavor, etc.

One of the things I'd like to work out is the balancing point between monk and rogue levels. On one hand, taking enough monk levels to reduce/remove the flurry hit penalties would also garner several nice monk perks, but the tradeoff is losing up to half of the sneak damage that a monk1/rogue19 would get.

Another thing is whether it's worth adding ninja levels to boost ki strike and abilities, add sudden strike dice, and get poison use. With the two ascetic feats I could mix all three and still benefit from full monk unarmed damage, but knowing where the sweet spot is for all three would be nice.

This Is what the OP wants, It looks like crunch advice for a loose concept to me.
What is this for?

I've never used any of the Ascetic feats except Ascetic Knight, and that was for an NPC build that hasn't been used yet. Devoted Tracker rocks, though, because your mount/animal companion wins.

And please, spare me the lecture about how it's not really all that powerful. I know and I don't care, now go powerbuild someone else's game.

You admit you don't meet 1, you offer no advice for 2 or 3.
Perhaps your agenda in this thread could be seen as the antagonistic one, what do you think?

[Alveanerle]

I wonder how a Rogue 3/Scout 3/Ranger 14 with Swift Tracker and Swift Ambusher would do...

Hm.

+9d6 SA, +4d6/+4 AC Skirmish, 4 Favored Enemies, BAB +16, TWF tree for free. Hm. Might be some merit there, particularly if one were to take Spring Attack/Rapid Blitz/Bounding Assault.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but:

1# You mean "Swift Hunter", not "Swift Tracker", right?

2# Reading the Swift Ambusher feat description i came to the conclusion that the outcome bonus sneak attack damage of your build would be only +2d6. The feat description mentions stacking of different class levels for the purpose of calculating skirmish damage and qualification for ambush feats only - i did not find a word there mentioning increasing Sneak Attack damage for classes affected by this feat.