New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 19 of 69 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324252627282944 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 570 of 2047
  1. - Top - End - #541
    Banned
     
    Solo's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    *stab*

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Illiterate Scribe View Post
    Well, wait till the results (of the playtest) come in ...
    I hope you all are ready to be dazzled by THE VEIDT METHOD!

  2. - Top - End - #542
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Illiterate Scribe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dat Shoggoth

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    No, Gene Ray disparaged the ONENESS WORD BASTARD EVIL of his opposition.

  3. - Top - End - #543
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talic View Post
    This last one seems to be your way of taking it to absurdity.
    Yes, yes it is.

    I included it to show how absurd interpretations can get if you do not look at any context.

    Spoiler
    Show


    I'm going to cherish this, because it's one of the few times I have where you're wrong. Under the combat section of the SRD states that you can take free actions while performing other actions. It then says you way speak at any time, even if it is not your turn. The grapple text does not contradict that. In fact, in two points, casting (wherein you may use spells with verbal components, which means that by default, you have the capacity to speak), and pinning (where it states that your opponent may render you unable to speak, showing that, before that point, you were not unable to speak), it infers that it's allowed. By not listing it, it shows that it is not an action that is limited by your base attack bonus, as free actions so rarely are.
    Now, I do not disagree with you and if anyone were to ask me if speaking during a grapple was allowed I would answer yes. (And I probably would not even mention that it does not appear on the list of allowed actions, because it is blatantly obvious.)

    However, the speak description does not say that you can always speak. If you for some reason is prevented from speaking obviously you cannot speak.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Speak

    In general, speaking is a free action that you can perform even when it isn’t your turn.
    And then grappling does not list free actions as a possibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    If You’re Grappling

    When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions.
    Or even worse in the Rules Compendium.

    Quote Originally Posted by RC, page 60
    Regardless of who started the grapple, while you’re grappling, you can perform only the following maneuvers.
    We have inferred that this does not include speaking, but you might meet someone who would insist on a different literal interpretation of RAW. That person would of course be wrong, which was my point with listing the absurdity in the first place.



    By this, it seems that the flurry of blows would work with attacks, wherein you take a -4 to hit and make an attack, as the ability does infer that you can full attack with it, and that is an attack. You could maybe even argue that the grabpple check to deal damage qualifies as an attack. However, other checks, including moving the grapple, pinning, escaping a pin, and the like, don't follow that line of reasoning, and would seem both not allowed by the wording of flurry of blows, nor allowed by the text of grapple.
    Such a hybrid does not make much sense.
    Either you base the number of grapple checks allowed on the number of attacks that could normally be made during a full-attack (excluding natural weapon attacks, TWF and MWF)
    OR
    you go by the strict RAW reading that says grapple checks equal to number of attacks derived from BAB only, whether you are FoB'ing with Haste.

    Sorry if I get pleasure in this. It's so rare that I have a solid, cogent argument against you, Silvanos.
    I am always happy to be a source of pleasure, but then I am sure I have made other posts that would make you squeal of joy if you are so inclined.

    May I suggest that you make a collection (Instant Pleasure Collection?) of all my errors, so you can read them over and over again while laughing at my incompetence?
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  4. - Top - End - #544
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    for a start i dont think you get to ad your unarmed damage damage to the damage of the armor spike, so it stays at just 1d6+5.
    As stated, you were wrong about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    now if the figher has taken a potion of enlarge, and wasted a feat on weapon specalisation, then his damage would end up at 1d8+7, for a average of 11.5
    That makes it ~13 damage average.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    assuming 3 points of difference in grapple scores, his first attack would hit 65% of the time, and the second one 40% of the time, that would give a DPR of 12.075
    You do realize that grapple scores mean diddly when youre attacking in a grapple, right? The section that says "Attack your opponent" mentions nothing about grapple checks.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    the monk is also enlarget, and he has taken improved natural attack, ending up with 3d8+5, average 18.5
    he hits tvice at 35%, and one at 10%, for a DPR of 14.8
    Assuming you have an 18 str - as said before. Good luck with your high saves now, because thats the only way Gia's monk beat my Will save - he had a higher Wis. Plus, youre probably pinned, so cant damage me anyway.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    well, level 11 is also where the monk gets a third attack at full BAB from grapple, and imo just getting the fighter into a grapple is a victory for the monk, since it means he wont be using a 2handet weapon, something that would make him do a lot more damage than his armor spikes can do.
    Right, so you engaging me in normal melee, and making me attack you to defeat you is a worse option than grappling me and making me pin and attack you to defeat you... why?

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    yes the figher has a lot more feat, but the monk does get quite a few bonus feats of his own, and can even ignore the prerequisites on them.
    that means he will get the usefull combination of combat reflexes and improved trip.
    If you'll look, so did my grapple+umd fighter.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    yes he will proberly do a bit less damage than a fighter, but as i have said several times before, then its something i belive is compensated by greater speed, better skills and better saves.
    and keeping the saves up wont impair the AC.
    They will if you have to sacrifice for strength... unless youre buying items to beef AC and saves up - which is possible, just not within the "constraints" that Gia put out.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    better skills yes, the monk also have evasion, the superior damage of the rogue is very situational, and if first the rogue gets flanked then i think his attackers not getting any bonus is a small comfort.
    and as long as the saves have been kept up, then the monk has some sort of trapfinding skills as well.
    Grappling isnt situational, but sneak attack is. GJ! And simply eating every trap you see isnt a good means of scouting - traps typically make noise, rendering your stealthyness entirely moot.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    well when i considder grappling, then its often to deny a enemy some of his damage, by making sure he cant use his weapon, or to force him to stop attacking someone, like fx a rogue or a unbuffed wizard.
    The former I can see... the latter doesnt exist, so not sure how you could grapple it.

    Quote Originally Posted by lord_khaine View Post
    When the RAW doesnt make sense, then i will start to considder if its a mistake, and someone else did come with the explanation that its proberly cut&paste error from 3.0, where potions of enlarge was more expensive.
    when you also compared it to the price guidelines of potions, then i find enough justification to continue buying my potions at 50 gp.
    Houserules are worthless in considering how viable a class is.

  5. - Top - End - #545
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    [QUOTE=Lord_Silvanos;4344958]
    Q: Can I initiate Maneuvers in a Grapple?
    A: No.
    Doesn't specific text trump general?

  6. - Top - End - #546

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    [QUOTE=Rutee;4345371]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Silvanos View Post

    Doesn't specific text trump general?
    Yes, but no maneuver specifies that.

  7. - Top - End - #547
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Silvanos View Post

    Doesn't specific text trump general?
    Could you quote the specific text or give a page reference then, please?
    Last edited by Lord Lorac Silvanos; 2008-05-20 at 07:24 AM.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  8. - Top - End - #548
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    You're the one who mentioned maneuvers that are for use in a grapple, not I. The thought just occurs to me, "If the move says it works in a grapple, doesn't it work, period"? By the logic you seem to be using, Freedom of Movement says that you can't be grappled, but that doesn't trump the grapple rules.

  9. - Top - End - #549

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    You're the one who mentioned maneuvers that are for use in a grapple, not I. The thought just occurs to me, "If the move says it works in a grapple, doesn't it work, period"? By the logic you seem to be using, Freedom of Movement says that you can't be grappled, but that doesn't trump the grapple rules.
    See, there are no maneuvers that say they can be initiated in a grapple, which is what differentiates them from FoM.

  10. - Top - End - #550
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Then why would it be positted that "Even if a maneuver says it can be used in a grapple, it can't be"?

  11. - Top - End - #551

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Then why would it be positted that "Even if a maneuver says it can be used in a grapple, it can't be"?
    Because probably someone thought of using Iron Heart Surge or another boost to come out on top. Since a boost is a swift action, it had to be ruled up.

  12. - Top - End - #552
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    You're the one who mentioned maneuvers that are for use in a grapple, not I. The thought just occurs to me, "If the move says it works in a grapple, doesn't it work, period"?
    I cannot recall any general text that says "Maneuvers can be initiated in a grapple".

    I cannot recall any maneuver that says "I can be initiated in a grapple". (That would be a specific rule that trumps the general rules, for that maneuver.)

    However, there are specific grapple stances, but they could be initiated out of grapple, so that does not prove anything.

    By the logic you seem to be using, Freedom of Movement says that you can't be grappled, but that doesn't trump the grapple rules.
    You must have misunderstood something I said or made your own assumptions along the way.
    Last edited by Lord Lorac Silvanos; 2008-05-20 at 07:38 AM. Reason: "used" replaced by "initiated" to avoid confusion.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  13. - Top - End - #553
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The sunny South
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Silvanos View Post
    I am always happy to be a source of pleasure, but then I am sure I have made other posts that would make you squeal of joy if you are so inclined.

    May I suggest that you make a collection (Instant Pleasure Collection?) of all my errors, so you can read them over and over again while laughing at my incompetence?
    I got popcorn

    I fear it might not have a run time sufficient to open the bag... can you loop it?

    We luvs ya really Silv
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly View Post
    I am now going to begin blaming everything that goes wrong on Charity. Just for gits and shiggles. And not even just things on the forums. Summer! Charity!

  14. - Top - End - #554
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    No, I misunderstood nothing. You posited that a maneuver that was designed to be used in a grapple wouldn't be usable in a grapple, if we accepted the list as all inclusive.

    Interpreting the list of actions in a grapple to be all exhaustive would not only spell trouble for martial adepts, who would not be able to use maneuvers in a grapple (not even those designed to be used in a grapple), but it would also be contradicting itself, since speaking does not appear on the list.
    I questioned whether or not the common belief was that specific rules trump general, under the understanding that there were in fact maneuvers that said they could be used in a grapple, as that was the position you posited. Perhaps I quoted the wrong text, but I focused on a position you stated. You could argue that designing the move to work in a grapple doesn't necessarily mean they included text that allowed it, but as that wasn't a specific exception..
    Last edited by Rutee; 2008-05-20 at 07:50 AM.

  15. - Top - End - #555
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    No, I misunderstood nothing. You posited that a maneuver that was designed to be used in a grapple wouldn't be usable in a grapple, if we accepted the list as all inclusive.



    I questioned whether or not the common belief was that specific rules trump general, under the understanding that there were in fact maneuvers that said they could be used in a grapple, as that was the position you posited. Perhaps I quoted the wrong text, but I focused on a position you stated. You could argue that designing the move to work in a grapple doesn't necessarily mean they included text that allowed it, but as that wasn't a specific exception..
    The duality of the use of used, both as used as initiated is what lead to this misunderstanding.

    I should have been more careful with the wording in my initial post, but since we talked about actions I thought it would have been clear, (then again the use of maneuvers in a grapple was not the main point).


    Quote Originally Posted by Charity View Post
    can you loop it?
    It might be dangerous. We would not want anyone to contract a brain aneurysm from too much pleasure...
    (See the Hyenas in Roger Rabbit for a reference case)
    Last edited by Lord Lorac Silvanos; 2008-05-20 at 08:08 AM.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  16. - Top - End - #556
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    The sunny South
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    No, I misunderstood nothing.
    It burns!


    Just to see if one can quote in white.

    Silvanos now I am imagining that scene from scanners.

    Apparantly not


    pop goes the weasel
    Last edited by Charity; 2008-05-20 at 08:34 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilly View Post
    I am now going to begin blaming everything that goes wrong on Charity. Just for gits and shiggles. And not even just things on the forums. Summer! Charity!

  17. - Top - End - #557
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Charity View Post
    Silvanos now I am imagining that scene from scanners.
    An Illithid community favourite I might add.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  18. - Top - End - #558
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Animefunkmaster's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Grappling does not explicitly say "You may execute a full attack action".
    However it only limits it in regards to fighting with two weapons, and in rules of the game it clearly shows a full attack action with natural weapons (perhaps I did not make it clear, I was attempting to illustrate that a full attack action in a grapple is possible and it is even in the 'rules of the game' section of the wotc site).

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Check the wording on FoB: It explicitly requires you to use a Full Attack Action. It says if you have multiple natural weapons (FoB isn't a natural weapon; It's a Class Feature/Special Attack that grants additional attacks with a natural weapon)
    I disagree with some of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows.
    First of all this is not a special action, or a special attack (This does not say: Flurry of blows is a full round action, this says it is used in conjunction with a full attack action). This is an extra attack when using a full attack action.

    A full attack action is a full round action described as the following (under full round actions in the srd):

    Quote Originally Posted by srd
    Full Attack

    If you get more than one attack per round because your base attack bonus is high enough, because you fight with two weapons or a double weapon or for some special reason you must use a full-round action to get your additional attacks. You do not need to specify the targets of your attacks ahead of time. You can see how the earlier attacks turn out before assigning the later ones.
    Again, since the grapple rules do not limit one from making a full attack action (in this regard) when using the 'Attack Your Opponent' option, I do not see what the trouble is. Something just dawned on me, if anyone is trying to argue that you can make multiple actions in a grapple (actions that are listed as attack actions) based on flurry of blows extra attack, they are mistaken. Those actions are specifically BAB only, however Attack Your Opponent does not hinder you from making a full attack aside from using two weapon fighting

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    And they would ignore the crusader because...?
    I think I am missing your logic. No one is ignoring the Crusader, that was just a simple example. I am simply saying that moving an enemy in a grapple/pin is a good source of AoOs, and a reasonable tactic for a monk. Since you can only move at half speed, the more movement speed you have, the more distance, the more AoOs (you could drag them around the party and let everyone get a whack at them, especially the rogues). I am just saying the speed bonus does have some synergy with grappling.
    Last edited by Animefunkmaster; 2008-05-20 at 08:55 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #559
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Animefunkmaster View Post
    However it only limits it in regards to fighting with two weapons, and in rules of the game it clearly shows a full attack action with natural weapons (perhaps I did not make it clear, I was attempting to illustrate that a full attack action in a grapple is possible and it is even in the 'rules of the game' section of the wotc site).
    The RotG article is not up to date on this subject (at best). You may only use one natural weapon in a grapple just like you cannot use TWF or MWF.
    If this was not clear from the PHB, it has been clarified by the RC and possibly the FAQ.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  20. - Top - End - #560
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Animefunkmaster's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Silvanos View Post
    Q: Can I initiate Maneuvers in a Grapple?
    A: No.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wotc FAQ
    Can a martial adept (Tome of Battle) initiate a
    maneuver or change a stance while grappling? While
    pinned?
    The grapple rules provide a list of actions available to a
    grappling character, but it’s obviously not an exhaustive list.
    (It
    doesn’t, for example, mention “speaking” as an option.) It’s
    really intended more as a description of how grappling alters
    many normal actions available to characters (such as attacking
    and moving). Thus, the DM must apply a bit of his own
    common sense when adjudicating any grapple situation.
    Any maneuver that involves an attack may be used while
    grappling, as long as it’s made with an unarmed strike, natural
    weapon, or light weapon against another character you are
    grappling (PHB 156).
    It’s easiest to rule that other maneuvers and stances can be
    initiated normally while grappling unless something intrinsic to
    the maneuver indicates otherwise. (For example, a maneuver
    that requires movement can’t normally be initiated while in a
    grapple because the grappling character can’t move freely.)
    Many maneuvers and stances are designed for use by grappling
    characters, and it seems counterintuitive to restrict those
    options. A grappling character is somewhat limited in his
    physical mobility, but to prevent him from initiating a
    maneuver or stance seems unreasonably limiting.
    The Sage strongly recommends that a pinned character not
    be allowed to initiate a maneuver or stance. The rules clearly
    state that “to initiate a maneuver or stance, you must be able to
    move” (Tome of Battle, page 38), which suggests that a pinned
    character shouldn’t be able to accomplish this.
    From the FAQ.
    Last edited by Animefunkmaster; 2008-05-20 at 08:53 AM.

  21. - Top - End - #561
    Banned
     
    Rutee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Look at your SRD section for a moment. Notice the wording;


    "<Specific Exceptions>. But you may take a full round action to get your extra attacks"
    It does not read
    "You may take a full attack action as normal, except for <Specific Exceptions>"

    This is significant because the second bit of supporting text is more elegant, shorter, /and/ more permissive. While WotC's standard of writing is hardly the most excellent on the planet (One can hardly blame them, as they have a lot of product), that seems a bit more likely to me as the RAW.

    I disagree with some of this.
    If FoB is a natural weapon, perhaps you can tell me what it's specific damage is? (It isn't, it's an attack adder)

  22. - Top - End - #562
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: FoB in a grapple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Animefunkmaster View Post
    From the FAQ.
    Yes, you are quoting me a bit out of context so it may be hard to see, but that was more or less the point I was trying to make.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  23. - Top - End - #563
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Animefunkmaster's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    Look at your SRD section for a moment. Notice the wording;

    "<Specific Exceptions>. But you may take a full round action to get your extra attacks"
    It does not read
    "You may take a full attack action as normal, except for <Specific Exceptions>"
    I agree with this. It actually doesn't specify what type of action you may take, just that you can't use two weapon fighting and can't attack with multiple natural attacks (Silvanos is indeed correct, FAQ clarifies the natural attack, and I did quote that just to illustrate your point to those who may have not have seen it). Since there isn't specific text limiting full attack actions nor granting them, this gray area is left to the decision of the dm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rutee View Post
    If FoB is a natural weapon, perhaps you can tell me what it's specific damage is? (It isn't, it's an attack adder)
    I am not entirely sure what you are getting at, with Flurry of Blows being a natural weapon. But it is an extra attack when making a full attack action. It doesn't grant an extra action in a grapple because the text specifically uses the words Base Attack Bonus (although I think we are all in agreement if it just allowed these actions to be performed as an attack action).

    Quote Originally Posted by srd
    she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round.
    Grapple lets you fight with unarmed strikes, light weapons, and natural attacks. Your unarmed strike is one of these and a light monk weapon would also qualify. So, Flurry of blows may be used in a grapple (assuming your dm lets you take a full attack action under the "attack your opponent" option) with light monk weapons or unarmed strike.
    Last edited by Animefunkmaster; 2008-05-20 at 09:17 AM.

  24. - Top - End - #564
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    The rules explicitly say you can use multiple attacks in a grapple. It says "(at a successively lower base attack bonus)" but this explanation is also used for multiple attacks in other places. The rules don't give an explicit method nor the action (full-round, standard, w/e) required to get multiple attacks during a grapple, so I'd have to presume a full attack action. Or a standard action to get a single attack, as normal. Furthermore, the grapple rules explicitly prohibit fighting with two weapons, and the need to even do such implies that someone might otherwise use two-weapon fighting to gain an extra attack during a grapple. So most likely flurry of blows, haste, etc., etc. may be used for an extra attack, just like any full attack.

    I am gonna have to agree that the guide is pretty weak. I mean, the monk is good at hitting the baddies' back row, true. But the guide is rather disorganized and seems more like a mish-mosh of ideas than anything. This thread's page-count probably has more to do with the title, which often attracts teen angst. Not the kind of people you want to be discussing with.

  25. - Top - End - #565
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    DC area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Not really, the length has to do with the fact that the thread puts forward many flawed ideas, which many have pointed out, and yet the author stands by them. In fact, if you look at almost any of the longer posts, they are either someone poking holes in the theory, or the author attempting to respond to them. Also, many are posting snarky replies because this is not the first time the author has proposed this idea, and many are tired of his opinions, as they grow wearisome, especially since he seem unable to admit he was wrong.

  26. - Top - End - #566
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Aha, now I can move fairly clearly.

    Flurry of Blows requires a full attack action. You cannot preform a "Full attack action" in a grapple. You may preform an attack action, or multiple attack actions, at lower BAB each. Not a full attack action. Therefore, flurry cannot be used in a grapple.

  27. - Top - End - #567
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Animefunkmaster's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbitrarity View Post
    You cannot preform a "Full attack action" in a grapple. You may preform an attack action, or multiple attack actions, at lower BAB each. Not a full attack action.
    Sight your source. This is the debate I was having a few posts up. The rules do not make it clear whether you can make a full attack action or a single attack action under the "Attack you Opponent" section except that it prohibits twf and attacking with multiple Natural Attacks. Since there isn't enough raw one way or another (the multiple actions at a lower bab is in regards to actions specifically said to be attack actions when in a grapple), it seems the resident dm must step in and make a decision whether someone may make a full attack action under the "attack your opponent" option (I think we are all in agreement that yes, he should be able to. Much the same way haste should work).

  28. - Top - End - #568
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    And hi again,

    first of all, sorry - I'll not be able to answer all of your posts or comment on them. Repeat your posts (please do not PM, my box could overflow...) in as short and most easily-answerable way possible.

    Currently I identify two major issues brought up against the Joker concept:

    1) The use of UMD.
    You know my position. It should be left to gametesting to see whether it is really so useless/inefficient as many of you maintain. In my view it is a typical, almost hysterical reaction of wizard fans when someone enters their turf. "I cast invisbility and who needs the rogue/scout/whoever". "See me use xy and an octupus (!?) familiar and be a better grappler than the monk". But the monk or other non-caster all of a sudden also using spells? "OH NOS! SACRILEGE!"
    This is really ridiculous. Note: the casters are CASTERS. Not MAGIC MONOPOLISTS. EVeryone can use magic in the DD3.5 universe. And it is made available also with magic items (and UMD for access to scrolls and wands). Learn to live with it or play a different game and houserule.

    Some more remarks:
    Allegedly I say that the monk makes greater use of magic items (courtesy Kurald Galain for spreading yet another half-truth). The point of course is that I believe that the monk makes best use of SOME spells, while other classes could make best use of OTHER spells.
    I still do not get Talic's calculations on wbl. There is a simple table in the DMG p. 135; everyone on the optimisation boards uses that as a guideline. It is suggested by the DMG as a basis for balance and power level. So what is the problem here?

    2) That grapple thing.
    Well, even Lord Silvanos struggling to get the ruling right here? Wow, I am impressed. But it is quite simple imo. Just to summarise:

    From the FAQ, p.20:
    Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks
    during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks?
    What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat
    maneuvers?

    As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s
    special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry),
    the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of
    a normal attack
    . She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple
    to her heart’s content.

    She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use
    special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which
    requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move
    action).

    Now what this shows me again is two things:
    a) The monk makes the best grappler in the game (as I said) and
    b) Some posters here go "the monk SUUUUUCKS" without even knowing how grappling works (and here I was to believe that noone would surpass Solo's belief that for grappling you have to do a normal melee attack roll, revealed after he maintained for pages in another thread that grappling is not really a great tactics). Funny indeed.
    My hunch, though, is somehow, that the doubters will remain unconvinced.

    Now on to two longer posts which I believe raised various very good criticism and suggestions - although I do not agree with all of them.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    I have a vague memory that you're actually right that the monk can use Flurry in a grapple, but I can't find where the rules actually allow it. Could you point me to a quote?
    See above.

    The scout/skill monkey role? Hmmm.

    Well - skill monkey role would take it too far. The monk DOES have quite a few skills to choose from and specialise in case of a skill-poor party, but he makes a great scout.

    Some of the arguments against you are being iterated in a very sloppy, repetitive, poorly-explained way; yes. They are tossed about as "obvious" statements with no evidence to back them up. But you do the same thing ... a lot, honestly. The Flurry & Grapple question above is one example, and it's even an example where I think you're ultimately right, but I still say your "evidence" for it that you've posted so far is rather shaky.

    Well - I would be surprised, if by now in this thread or even in the guide I would not have made any mistakes. The problem is the "sloppy, repetitive, poorly-explained" comments so far (and I would add: often not even funny) failed to pinpoint some real issues. But I think you raise some good ones in the next sections.

    Well, you're ignoring the part where people were saying, all along, "A PvP fight is not really going to settle the question." And the part where you only had a chance in the Balor fight because you went with an archer, which is universally accepted as one of the stronger options for a Core-only fighter. Being able to make an OK archer does not redeem some of the other weak aspects of a Core Fighter.

    It does not redeem them, true. It only shows where the strengths of the fighter class are and what he can do best: doing combat that is feat-intensive and then be awesome in it.
    An archer also makes a good anti-caster, since many of the good attacking spells are close or medium range. But it's highly setting-specific.

    You're right, that was lame to do without permission and without taking the time to put your writing in ideal format.

    AT LONG LAST! You, Sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. Btw, though, that thread appears to die a well-deserved, lukewarm death.

    Now I think you're jumping to conclusions. Some of us are quite upset that casters are stronger than non-casters in 3e, because we like playing non-casters.

    As much as I like to believe that - why then this often emotional reactions? There is even right now another thread sprung up here by Vael with the sole purpose to make fun of mine.
    This is not the reaction of a player who desperately looks around within the existing rules and to ideas of others to see what can be done about a class he likes to play. It is about making fun of people who like to play that class imo.

    This is the "shaky" evidence I referred to earlier ...

    Hope I remedied it now (see above, again).

    (Edited to demonstrate what I assume this statement was claiming.) More shakiness. Can you back this claim up with statistics, for those of us who aren't sure whether it's true and don't want to do the math?

    Sure.
    It is the faster iterative reduction for the fighter's grapple checks which gives the monk a good pin chance even unbuffed.
    Say, at level 10 which often is used as an example so far:
    Monk has grapple check of +14/+14/+9. Fighter has +17/+12. (same STR is assumed).
    The fighter will likely start the pin, if it's his turn first for full grapple round. If it's the monk's turn, though...
    +14/+14/+9 vs +17 means the monk has to beat on average a score of 27, which is a 32% in the first case (a tie going with 30% prob to the monk), a 31% in the second case and a 7% in the last. This yields around (too lazy to use calclus, so out of my head): 0.32+(0.31*0,68)+(0.32*0.06)=0.56 = 56% chance of monk pinning the fighter.
    Now, this chance to pin rises dramatically the moment the monk buffs while the fighter will not - this is likely imo because the monk is far superior in the hide/spot game.

    Hmmm. Typical Fighters and Barbarians have significantly higher STR than your Monk build. (They don't need WIS and CON as badly, mind you.) And a dedicated Barbarian grappling build will have lots of damage on his grapple attacks via magic Spiked Armor.

    True. However, where are the advantages of the monk?
    - the spiked armour added damage only applies in the initial grapple check (read the armour spike description). When another starts the grapple, the armour spike no longer applies.
    - the barbarian can get fatigued after his STR rage. And even with the rage until higher level, he only gets +2 more
    - the monk gets improved grapple as a bonus feat without prerequisites. This is golden for enlarge effects, since fighters and barbarians need to have a starting DEX of 15 not to lose the feat when enlarged.
    - the monk has higher base damage which stacks greatly with size increases and the monk's belt. Meanwhile, until level 11 (when the monk's belt is avaiable), the barbarian and fighter when enlarged only do 1d3! base.

    More too-quickly-explained "evidence." Still, I agree with this point ... IF it's a Monk build with a high AC. Which yours most certainly is NOT. Lots of traps attack you with attack rolls, you know.

    Now that is a good point. Hmmm. Lord Khaine's build has better combat stats and less skills and no UMD - that is where the idea of simply triggering traps is based on.
    Will avoid trap triggering with the Joker monk!

    Traditionally the "skill monkey role" of the party values trapmonkeying much more than speed. I don't know if it should. Probably extremely campaign-dependent. But if you're trying to present the Monk as viably filling the "Rogue" role of the party, you'll have to start by attacking these more fundamental assumptions about what that role in the party is supposed to do.

    Yep, it's tricky. The monk, rogue and ranger all are the stealthy classes in the game, with their respective combat ways to make use of stealthinesss (grapple, sneak, missile).
    While the rogue can find traps and do more skills, the ranger is best outdoors, the monk is best to combat and survive casters. So it depends on what the group expects.

    Assuming you can find them in divine form. Yes, they are divine spells, but the SRD seems to place them in the category of "scrolls that you should assume will be found in arcane form, since finding a high-level Cleric making/selling scrolls and having the specific Domain you need is pretty rare." Totally depends on how lenient your DM is with "magic shops," and I think most DMs will fall in the "not lenient enough" category.

    The rules also assume that divine casters can fall and thus there is an atonement spell. It is the basis on which we all argue - otherwise balance and build ideas make hardly sense, if we simply assume "in this campaign you cannot buy magic items" or "in this campaign, casters do not have access to metamagic feats".
    The spells exist in arcane and divine versions, they are available in wands and scrolls (the tables given are only random treasure tables). So the only guideline is the availabiltiy according to city size and gold piece value.

    His tacit point was: And yet, with all the hundreds of Fighter builds out there, you rarely see one utilizing this UMD ability. If it were really such a great strategy, wouldn't you think it would have caught on by now?

    Hmmm. The same goes for pun-pun or the funny word and the wish builds. Basically, at one point or another, someone will come up with the idea. The astounding thing is that on the one hand quite a few comment: ah of course the monk will be powerful with UMD, since it's so ultra-powerful, and on the other no-one really thought about using in a build cross-class for a non-caster combatant before. Which WAS the case with morph or diplomancer builds.

    Again, you need to read between the lines and attack more fundamental underlying assumptions that are differences between your opinion and others' experiences. People who are arguing with you don't seem to think that, playing D&D, you usually get good enough "encounter control" to be able to spend a couple rounds buffing just before a fight. (I don't, btw, understand why they can't just say that to avoid repeating the same old arguments.)
    So a lot of your build rests on this. How well does maxed H/MS/Spot/Listen actually allow you to be aware of fights before they start, and control when they start? I think it should work pretty well ... and yet my own experience matches the common opinion better. I don't understand the discrepency between theory and practice on this point, and I would appreciate if anyone can explain it to me. It would make my stealthy characters more effective.


    Yes - that is exactly the point and the one thing to discuss, not whether tactics to withdraw at the right time are viable or not.
    Will the skillset of stealthy characters give them advantages in actual play as envisioned by the rules?
    Well, unfortunately once again the playing scene appears to be dominated by a style of play where a party rushes in to meet the opponents in open battle (with the scout at best clearing away traps before, hence the rogue preference).
    A consequence could also be that hardly any DMs appear to bother about spot and listen checks of the opponents which alerts them way before that the 20ft move dwarf clanks into their direction. Similarly, they will harass a monk player for "taking too long to buff" while he can easily in 1-2 rounds of extra buffs catch up with them due to higher move.
    As Reel On, Love, put it further up: he hardly has any experience with encounters as having surprise on either side. So of course he discards a stealth strategy as irrelevant!
    Maybe it is also influenced by tabletop play where many simply cannot afford the sheer space of combat area to simulate a dungeon or hall that is 100s of feet long.
    (hence, btw, also a possbile explanation for the old fallacy about archery being inferior combat tactics - in a group I once played the archer never actually got to pepper the enemy with arrows since the rooms were so small that immediately melee started and the enemies got cover.)

    People's experience also seems to indicate that they rarely face monsters of below their party's level. If they're fighting 3-5 monsters at the same time, those monsters are usually about the same CR as the party level. If they are fighting a solo encounter, it's usually 2-3 higher CR than the party level.
    This seems to run contrary to your assumptions about what CRs of monsters you will be expected to grapple with your Monk build. If you want people to respect your grappling ability, you have to convince them that you will indeed be facing the CR of monsters that you expect.


    Now this is a very insightful observation. Yes, this may be the case - many posters, in particular the wizard fans apparently play in groups with much higher CR monsters thrown at them for their level.
    The reasons are probably twofold:
    1) they play most of the time outside the core rules, with the latest brand new super xy spell or z feat combo and thus the normal CR standards may break down. Hence also their reluctance to argue in terms of core builds (in particular when discussing balance and maintaining allegedly the core rules are even more broken than everything else, ah the irony!).
    2) another point is one I often made already on these boards in that play is often geared towards fitting the caster players' whims and them being touched only with soft gloves by their DMs (because in particular the arcane casters are so fragile, so there is rather only binary threat to them: dead or 100% nicely alive and winning).
    The true extent of how completely they have distanced themselves from what the core rules actually assume imo was shown to me when Reel On, Love once posted that a simple invisibiltiy/flying/enervation combo was enough to win consistently vs all CR7-9 encounters (which I proved easily not to be the case, since almost all of these CR monsters have access to flying, concealment spells, offensive spells of their own, missile attack, OR the clear advantage in terms of stealth and being able to surprise).

    Nobody is going to be dumb enough, after using Escape Artist, to try to just walk away from you, and let you grapple them again. They'll Tumble, or (if they have a high Touch AC and Mobility) just walk away from you and you'll miss them when you try to re-grapple, or they'll just whack you, or they'll cast a spell (with Defensive Casting). So downplaying Escape Artist as completely useless is not an argument most people agree with.

    Well, with the tumble method you outlined you only prevent the AoO, not the fact that the monk simply uses a move on his turn and grapples again (doing damage). And mind you, not many classes or even creatures have high enough tumble to avoid the AoO.
    So basically the monk (or any grappler) moves and does damage every round, while the rogue/whoever uses escape artist and moves. Looks like a losing game to me.
    Believe me. I tried, and I had to learn it the hard way with a rogue I once played.

    You also seem to assume that most opponents will have the same Reach as you, or lesser reach when you're Enlarged. This is a bad assumption to have so universally. Lots of enemy melee NPCs will have reach weapons. (Yes, I know you have a spiked chain, but flurry, grapple, and a lot of your other tricks don't work with it.) Lots of monsters are big enough to have natural reach. If you get Enlarged, so do the NPCs ... and the monsters might still be bigger than you, quite likely.

    The problem is that enemies with reach weapons and even natural reach attack will not hurt the monk who simply tumbles and then attacks.
    Vs enemies with reach weapons (even the super spiked chain fighters), the monk simply tumbles close to the weapon wielder and grapples. The reach weapon (which is never a light weapon) has just gone useless.
    And some of even the large monsters that are quadrupeds have only a reach of 5ft.

    I've seen quite a few STR-based melee builds with Dex 15. They like their Combat Reflexes-based AoOs.
    Or they could have 13, and be Enlarged by some other process (Righteous Might, or being a Half-Giant ...)


    Good find! Yes, righteous might does not give a DEX penalty - but it's much, much more expensive and only available to non-UMDers at level 15 with rings of spell storing.

    Most dungeons have lowish ceilings. Especially the parts of them that are trapped, like doorways. And not all traps are triggered by pressure plates on the floor. And how is your party going to follow you after you bypass a trap by jumping past it?

    Good point. But it's still an advantage. Most traps have ways to be switched off- might be just on the other side of that chasm...
    And low ceilings btw mean the caster defense of flying around is not that safe anymore...

    If I recall correctly, a number of those ways were rather controversial, and led to their own Monk-debate threads. Like whether magical gauntlets were a good solution.

    Yep. That gauntlet thing. Lord Silanos has some good ruling on this, including some quotes from all kinds of rules sources.
    I guess it was that you cannot flurry with gauntlets since they are a subgroup of unarmed attacks, but not unarmed strikes. It should be fulrriable by RAI, but the FAQ explicitly forbade it. Still, at least you do the great monk unarmed damage with gauntlets, although you are not automatically proficient with them.
    To sidestep the issue, I put up the idea of holy sword wands and pearl of power for enhancement bonus before.

    Again, there seems to be a fundamental difference between your experience and others'. In this case, it's "how much of a problem is it when a character wastes a round or two buffing himself before he can be effective at fighting?" And most people seem to think it's a big problem. You don't seem to ... or you're relying on "encounter timing control" (as I talked about earlier) even more than I thought.

    Yes. What many want to try to look incredible this way is that you do not need that high of a UMD to make already great use of it. Magic is cheap - that''s I guess what enrages the wizard fans most. They hate the UMD skill, like the diplomacy skill that can even solve encounters without magic.

    By the way, I haven't seen you respond to the Table of Expendable Wealth that got posted. It seemed like a very interesting argument to me, and you seem to be recommending spending a lot more on UMD-items than that Table would allow you to use.

    I did by now. It's nonsense in my view. DMG p. 135 is all you need, and all the maxing boards so far used. Talic's calculations would actually allow the monk more consumable items (and at the same time he tries to somehow limit the monk to that added amount to construct some argument against my build out of thin air), but I guess that is not needed.

    I don't remember that. Core only? In one round, move and flurry? I don't think that's possible, shuriken/sai attacks aside.

    The methods I listed are (not necessarily in this order)
    1) Mount moves, monk flurries
    2) Intelligent item dim doors, monk flurries
    3) Fellow PC caster dim doors, monk flurries
    4) morph and pounce (not used due to suspicions of cheese, but that is apparently what the rules assumed would make the flurry viable for the monk to combine with his great move)

    14 is fine, for a secondary stat at Level 1. But you don't have any score above 14, and you can't afford to keep boosting all of the stats that are important to a Monk.

    This monk is supposed to be broadly good at a number of things and fulfill thus various of the PHB monk roles. The area where he is more "specialised" in is defeating casters.

    Dimension Door. Escape Artist (& Tumble).

    You still need to make a concentration check, even with dimension door to escape a grapple. And dimension door did not help you AVOID the grapple - you still took the damage from it. Escape artist and tumble: see above.

    I think he was talking about after Level 8, when you're supposed to be doing something besides grapple.

    And as I outlined in the build, after level 8 is where overall tactics change and grapple becomes less and less of an option (although vs casters it's alive and kicking, in particular when AMF is around).

    You're going to burn 700 gp on a Scroll of Divine Power every battle after Level 8?

    Not at levels 8-13 (except in very rare unusual circumstances). But 14& up? Why not? And it is not 700 gp for a scroll, but rather 450 per wand use

    Or not? That's one thing that's confused me about your guide all along. In what percentage of battles are you expecting to have which buffs, more or less?

    In almost all of them. It starts with enlarge, then probably also some kind of bless (with bead), and/or ability buffs, heroism, and eventually stuff like holy sword and divine power.

    AC 23 at Level 10 is in no way "high." It's pretty low.

    Yes, have to do something about that with buffs or some other great idea. Level 10 is still a "stealth" level, though. And with full defense, the monk can at least tumble through enemy ranks at AC 29...

    ... since it didn't care about Balance, Climb, Jump, ...

    Balance is overrated - I still do not know what this whole grease spell issue is about. Reflex save, monk then can jump out of area (or, I guess to a 5ft step as a full-round action). Losing the DEX bonus is tough, but will there always be a rogue around to help the wizard? Similarly, if there is a rogue on the monk's side, it appears much better imo (flank, stun, grapple - the rogue and monk make the best team imo).
    Climb - yes, that's a bit lacking. Probably I'm hoping for fly coming up eventually. Hmmm. Will think on that.
    Jump. Is already in. Big time (thanks also to move and tumbling synergy).

    Well, Draz74, thanks for the comments, looking forward to more of them.
    And now Turcano:

    Quote Originally Posted by Turcano View Post
    If you want constructive criticism with a minimum of snark, I'll take a shot at it.
    The main, overarching problem with your build is that you're biting off way more than you can chew. You're trying to fill three or four roles (depending on whether you count scouting and trapfinding as one or two roles), none of which the monk was really built for, and so the build is subpar at all of them. Jacks-of-all-trades are not where it's at in D&D. This is reflected in your starting stats: four 14s is suboptimal no matter what class you're playing.

    The problem is: the moment this build starts to specialise, it will take power away from its purpose to make life difficult for casters (say, it will become stronger but dumber and thus have less skills and ways to get UMD, Spellcraft AND the stealth four skills set). But definitely there are variants of this (like one following the lord_khaine school). Will post some soon into the guide way up.

    Grappling isn't the best idea for monks in the first place (yes, I know, it's one of the monk's combat styles, but remember that rangers get two-weapon fighting as a combat style); you have a medium attack bonus and mediocre Strength, so anything your size or bigger with a higher strength score is probably going to out-grapple you. Grappling is a two-way street, and you really don't want to be on the receiving end of it. Also, I have no idea where you got the idea that flurry of blows translates to multiple grapple checks; flurry of blows is a full attack action, not separate standard actions (otherwise you could flurry and move in the same turn), and initiating a grapple check of any kind is a standard action.

    See above. And the original guide. At levels 1-8 it is a good tactics.

    Scouting really isn't the monk's forte, either. Unless you boost your Intelligence and thereby hamstring some other needed stat, you simply don't have enough skill points to go around. Movement speed is only necessary if you're running away, and that's something you really shouldn't be doing as a scout (not being detected in the first place should be your primary goal).

    If scouting is not the monk's forte, whose is? Movement speed is essential for running away, getting cover, concealment, controlling the encounter and actually coming back fast enough.

    The monk is really not made to handle traps, either. You don't have class skills for dealing with traps, or class features (which even the barbarian has), so your only options for dealing with a trap is to either set them off deliberately and pray that your saves or touch AC get you through, or to bypass the trap (assuming you know it's even there) in a way that screws the rest of your party (unless the trapmaker was kind enough to leave a shutoff switch on the other side).

    Yes, the trap"triggering" part is not that good for the monk, I admit that. At least not for the monk I posted. Others can be built easily to do that.

    And the monk's use of UMD... well, you're outclassed by an expert half your level. And you're spending way too much money for your magic items, especially when they go fizzle (which they will, because your UMD isn't high enough for the majority of the game). And if you can only afford to buff yourself every other or every third encounter... well, I don't have to tell you how that's going end.

    You fail to see various issues:
    1) You only need UMD of +19 for the wand buffs. So, the expert getting a higher bonus is not that much of an issue. He gets it faster, though (but does not have as many feats as the monk to spare, though)
    2) The expert does not have class abilities to speak of to synergise as well with the buffs.
    3) The magic items will not "go fizzle". They are not consumed when you fail to use them. You can try as often as you like until it activates (only on a "1" you have to wait a day, so best get a spare one).
    4) The build can buff every encounter. (once again: 140 until level 10, so 1000 first level spell castings until then).

    In essence, you're trying to make the monk into something it isn't. The monk is supposed to be an opportunistic fighter, providing flanking and other support where it is needed; this is why the monk has movement speed bonuses and high defense. You're trying to make him into half-brawler, half-rogue, and the results aren't pretty.

    In your eyes maybe. He does exactly what you wish it to have (and more besides):
    - he is an opportunistic fighter
    - he can provide flanking
    - he can provide all kinds of support (from backup spellcasting, backup spellcraft, all the way to scouting and useful items boosting everyone's spells on occasions)

    Well, once again enough for now.

    - Giacomo
    Last edited by Sir Giacomo; 2008-05-20 at 05:14 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #569
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Yeah, that falls solidly in TLDR territory. But then, you didn't bring anything new to the table in your last dozen posts either.

    I wonder if you use the same strategy on your DM - keep repeating yourself in the hopes that he'll give in after the 100th time and give you some bonus item?
    Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish class.

    "I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums. I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that." -- ChubbyRain
    Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!

  30. - Top - End - #570
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Frosty's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2006

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    I don't remember that. Core only? In one round, move and flurry? I don't think that's possible, shuriken/sai attacks aside.

    The methods I listed are (not necessarily in this order)
    1) Mount moves, monk flurries
    2) Intelligent item dim doors, monk flurries
    3) Fellow PC caster dim doors, monk flurries
    4) morph and pounce (not used due to suspicions of cheese, but that is apparently what the rules assumed would make the flurry viable for the monk to combine with his great move)
    I have issues with this. Getting an Intelligent item is highly dependent on the DM and the campaign. Not reliable. A fellow PC typically has better things to do than the use a spell to Dim Door you around. Besides, this means the caster is now also right next to the enemy, at the front lines!! As for a mount, do you know the rules for mounted fighting? You can't do a full-attack or flurry if your mount moves more than 5ft. You don't have enough "time" because even though it's your mount moving, it still takes up your time so you don't have time to make a lot of attacks.

    Outside of Core, you should take Travel Devotion to be able to move as a Swift action for a certain amount of time per day.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •