# The Monk's Hit Dice Should Be a d8! [Rant]



## Creamsteak (Jul 27, 2002)

If you have EVER played a monk, then you can understand my opinion. Every other class that is expected to perform in melee combat at least sparcely during thier career -has at least a d8 for a hit die.

The psionic warrior isn't that far from a Monk if played a certain way. They have a d8.

Clerics, of all things, have a d8 hit die. They can cast miracle at some point. Why would a monk have a lower hit die? Wouldn't a monastic lawful neutral religions monks be expected to defend the clerics?

Sorcerers have the same hit die as a Monk. How many sorcerer's are expected to fight at close quarters?

The Monk gets some ranged weapons, but the monk doesn't get improved abilities with any ranged weapons.

So why then would a DM I know force Monks to play with a d6 hit die, claiming that Monk's get more class abilities and are broken?


----------



## nameless (Jul 27, 2002)

Chill out, there's two good reasons to not get worked up over this:

1. Monks suck, and there is really no good reason to play one, ever.

2. Monks do in fact get a d8 hit die.

-nameless


----------



## rounser (Jul 27, 2002)

> So why then would a DM I know force Monks to play with a d6 hit die, claiming that Monk's get more class abilities and are broken?



Because he doesn't understand how much power that the fighter classes, rogues and clerics get from merely having access to magical weapons and armour?  Maybe you should explain his oversight to him.


----------



## nsruf (Jul 27, 2002)

Creamsteak, to get this straight: you are talking about house rules here, right? By the PHB, a monk has a d8 HD and a sorcerer a d4.

But IMO you are right to complain about giving the monk only a d6. Half of the supposedly "overpowered" monk class abilities only serve to make up for their equipment restrictions and of the remaining ones, many are passive (resistancs, etc.) and really don't turn them into combat monsters. The best chance a monk has against a fighter of similar level wearing heavy armor is to run away, because the fighter is too slow to ever catch him


----------



## The Forsaken One (Jul 27, 2002)

Quickling lich monk, that guy will  have killed any fighter before he ever saw him comming =]

(That is actually my backup char in the IR aftermath  Lich Monks Hahahahaha, total ownage with paralysing touch)


----------



## Bonedagger (Jul 27, 2002)

creamsteak said:
			
		

> *So why then would a DM I know force Monks to play with a d6 hit die, claiming that Monk's get more class abilities and are broken? *





A Monk scared him as a kid?


----------



## Darkness (Jul 27, 2002)

Suggestion: Tell him to sends lots of monks (with d6 for hit dice) against your party from now on, and also to take note on how well they perform (measured against other classes).

edit - Or, better yet, tell him to just make up a couple monks and do some test fights against some creatures or characters of other classes...


----------



## Gargoyle (Jul 27, 2002)

creamsteak said:
			
		

> *If you have EVER played a monk, then you can understand my opinion. Every other class that is expected to perform in melee combat at least sparcely during thier career -has at least a d8 for a hit die.
> 
> The psionic warrior isn't that far from a Monk if played a certain way. They have a d8.
> 
> ...




Because your DM is basing his opinion on the numbers he sees on paper instead the months of playtesting done by WOTC.


----------



## Lady Dragon (Jul 27, 2002)

Your DM is also not considering that most of the monk's best abilities come at later levels. Maybe he just doesn't like the class and is trying to disuade players from choosing them.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Jul 27, 2002)

Or it could be that in that particular campaign monks would be overpowered. I know that in my two campaigns, where magic items, especially magic armor are rare, the innate abilities of a monk would be overpowered.


----------



## Victim (Jul 27, 2002)

Sadly, even with the "by the book" d8 HD for monks, the monk in my game (high level) has been anything but overpowered.  Attacks at +20/+17/+14/+11, damage at 1d12 +5. It's less than inspiring. And then there are his special abilities, the Unstunning Blow, and the Flurry of Misses. 

Ask your DM to test the monk against other classes in actual combat.

Or, don't play one. Monks suck. Be a psychic warrior with unarmed feats and powers instead.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 27, 2002)

creamsteak said:
			
		

> *So why then would a DM I know force Monks to play with a d6 hit die, claiming that Monk's get more class abilities and are broken? *




Because I guarantee he's never used it in play or seen it used in play. Tell him to actually see it in play first before making a knee-jerk reaction. Either that or find another DM.


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Jul 27, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *1. Monks suck, and there is really no good reason to play one, ever.
> 
> -nameless *




I'm afraid, sir, you are smoking weed. On the battlefield, a monk's high movement rate, superb saving throws, and spell resistance make him an excellent spellcaster-killer. And they are decent second-line tanks. Plus it's fun to say "Haii-yah!!"


----------



## Zarrock God of Evil (Jul 27, 2002)

We have a monk player IMC and his performances for the group are quite stunning (no pun intended). A cleverly played monk with lots of rank in Balance, Tumble and Jump is a terror on the battlefield simply because of their superior movement. I think the monk class is just right as it is....


----------



## Miho (Jul 27, 2002)

There's nothing wrong with monks!!

I've been playing one for over a year and she's great. Admitedly they're not too hot on lower levels, but once they start getting the better feats and increased movement speed they're fantastic to play. Loads of fun, and especially useful when everyone is asleep with no armour or weapons and the group gets ambushed.  No strapping on plate mail for me!


----------



## nameless (Jul 27, 2002)

Since I made a sweeping comment on monk's suckiness, I'll explain it. The most commonly cited reasons to play a monk are mobility and defense against magic. 

1. Mobility is just plain bunk once the Fly spell comes into the campaign. Fly is just as quick as all but the highest level of Monk, and the Monk stands no chance against a flying opponent with ranged attacks. It's not hard to get a hold of a magic item which grants flight as well.

2. They do in fact have good defense against magic... but defense doesn't win the game by itself and the combat system favors the attacker over the defender. A monk has good SR, once he gets it, but with the availability of spell penetration and various other tricks, a spellcaster will eventually harass the monk to death.

3. I say that the monk's strengths can be duplicated by magic items, but the monk can't do the opposite? True. A monk can't use magic weapons, magic armor, can't add SR, and a few other things. Their natural abilities already have all of that. If you really want to use all of that junk anyways, you're playing a neutered fighter. So why not play a fighter/barb/ranger and take advantage of better HD, BAB, and weapon selection.

4. Monks are severely hampered by multiple attribute dependency. They are melee fighters, so they need strength. Their AC is based solely on their Dex and Wis, so these should be high; a few of the monk's specials also rely on Wis. They have low HP, so they need a decent Con to be on the front line. They also want that Con for a good Fort save. Cha and Int can be dumps, but Monks have good skills, so Int is useful. This means the the character that you need to sacrifice some of the strengths because they rely on different things.

5. I almost forgot this. Paladins whose primary or secondary stat is Charisma have better saves than monks. They also get the good weapons and armor that monks can't use, in addition to some cool divine abilities and spells.

6. Monastic life is by definition, secluded. When creating a character concept, most Monks need extenuating circumstances to go adventuring. It's difficult to integrate a Monk into the group in-character

There are a few good points: Monks have a very high touch AC; hard to hit them with incorporeal attacks and with rays. The incorporeal thing is a two-way street though, since they also can't hit incorporeal easily. Flurry of Blows (statistically superior in 99% of situations to normal attack) gives you the full strength mod to your vitrual off hand.

I think that sums up my objections to the monk.

-nameless


----------



## Dr. Zoom (Jul 27, 2002)

After all the analysis, the reason someone plays a monk is because they have a blast playing a monk.  They may not have the best numbers in everything, but they are loads of fun.  I have a player in the game I run who has a 7th level monk, and he says it is the most fun character he has played in a long time.  That says it all, at least for me.


----------



## Klaatu B. Nikto (Jul 27, 2002)

Dr. Zoom said:
			
		

> *After all the analysis, the reason someone plays a monk is because they have a blast playing a monk.  They may not have the best numbers in everything, but they are loads of fun.  I have a player in the game I run who has a 7th level monk, and he says it is the most fun character he has played in a long time.  That says it all, at least for me. *




Heck yeah!

When I rolled up a replacement for my dead PC in a party full of mostly tanks and a couple of spell chuckas, I went the weirdest route I could think of.

What if Jackie Chan was in D&D? 
*cue Kung Fu-ish music*
Enter the Halfling!

Brother Peldin Thistlefoot of the Black Lotus Order was technically my first 3rd Edition character and he was merely a halfling monk. Sure he wasn't a combat wombat like the rest of the party but he wasn't meant to be. 

I had more fun pulling off stunts that would make Jackie Chan proud. At first the rest of the party thought 'WTF?!' but after seeing him in action, they changed their minds quick.

Every monk was Kung Fu fighting.... the halfling was fast as lightning... In fact it was a lil bit frightening.... 


Klaatu


----------



## Miho (Jul 27, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *6. Monastic life is by definition, secluded. When creating a character concept, most Monks need extenuating circumstances to go adventuring. It's difficult to integrate a Monk into the group in-character
> 
> -nameless *




Hmm.. can't agree with that. Whilst this would be true of some monks it is very easy to come up with a reason for them to be adventuring - in order to better themselves. Monks don't all have to be vow of silence in abject poverty types. Use your imagination! They are supposed to undertake spiritual journey's for gods sake. There's nothing saying they have to do it from their bedrooms.

At the end of the day you choose a character that will be fun to play. As Dr. Zoom says - Monks are fun! How else do you get to impress the group with kung foo style antics


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 27, 2002)

Your DM is a yahoo, Creamie. 

Monks are sweet because they're rather untouchable. They've got staying power. And they don't need magical trinkets to do it.

A paladin only has better saves at low levels with a good Cha. Monks can still oust them at higher levels, especially with a few stat-boosting items of their own.

They get lots of attacks...lots and lots...and they're virtually immune to sundering. 

A flying wizard is no big deal, because by the time you're facing one of those, you should be able to fly, too.

Basically, Monks are rather unstoppable. That alone makes them a threat. They can't really dish out a whole lot, but they can take it, no problem.

Honestly, the stats are fairly prioritized:

Wisdom
Dexterity
Str/Con
Anything Else

Certainly, a class like the Psion or Psychic Warrior is even more dependant on having all ability scores being decent.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 28, 2002)

Monks can dish out good damage as long as you got one of two things either that magic item in sword and fist that makes your unarmed attacks magical weapons or a druid in the party.  One player had 1/2 orc 18str monk, who had +3 magic fists with those ki straps things so his stunning blow rocked, and those sandles that let you drop a big does of damage with a charge/mixed with striding and sprining, a +4str boost item, and a monks belt, and a couple minor defensive items.  1d10+9 isn't bad damage, and while they get mid bab, they get lots of attacks, andmid bab at the low to mid levels is only negligbly worse than fighter bab.  

At 10th level with flurry of blows he was doing +15/+15/+13/+11 for 1d10+9 each the 1st blow was usually a stunning blow at a 24dc.  The fighter was 11th at the time and hitting at +22/17/12 for 1d8+12 each.  All in all the fighter dished out more damage like he should but the monk wasn't a slouch in comparison.  The stunning blow part helped a lot especially the rouge was bow focussed and if anyone got stunned they usually got wasted.


----------



## Hejdun (Jul 28, 2002)

> One player had 1/2 orc 18str monk, who had *+3 magic fists*




If you are talking about Ki Strike, then that +3 doesn't add to hit or damage, it only applies when striking creatures with DR.


----------



## tarchon (Jul 28, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *Since I made a sweeping comment on monk's suckiness, I'll explain it. The most commonly cited reasons to play a monk are mobility and defense against magic.
> 
> 1. Mobility is just plain bunk once the Fly spell comes into the campaign. Fly is just as quick as all but the highest level of Monk, and the Monk stands no chance against a flying opponent with ranged attacks. It's not hard to get a hold of a magic item which grants flight as well.
> *




In your campaign, they're forbidden from using ranged weapons or something?  They're no worse off than other non spellcasters there.  A monk is perfectly capable of shooting a crossbow or throwing a javelin as well.  Secondly - and I don't know why I have to point this out - not all opponents fly and have ranged attacks, even when the Fly spell is available in the campaign.  And just because something isn't useful in that one condition doesn't mean that it's useless in *all* conditions.  

In the vast majority of combats where there are at least some non-flying opponents, mobility is extremely useful.  Monks also have godawful jumping ability so at high levels (and especially with magic aid) they can even intercept unwary flyers with a leap-n-stun or leap-n-grapple attack.  They can often outrun flying opponents too (2x90 move from Fly doesn't beat 4x50); they can hide; they can even go to Total Defense and use their good saves, Evasion, and such to allow them draw off spell attacks harmlessly.

I usually play our party monk when the regular player is away, and it sounds to me like you've just never played one.  They are extremely effective in combat, melee especially, and the high saves (plus the healing, various immunities, and [Imp.] Evasion) really do make them much less vulnerable than most characters, not only to spells but to other odd things like slippery surfaces, poisons, and assorted special attacks.  When a monster lays out most of the party with some stench attack, it's going to be the monk who snorts with derision and whomps it silly.  Vampire dominated the fighter and the barbarian?  Not likely the monk.

I saw some other guy deriding the stun attack too - I can't even count how many times that's saved our party's bacon.  Sure, it doesn't work every time, but it's not supposed to be a sure-fire monster killer.  Even if it works half the time, that's level/2 times per day that an opponent loses his action, and when, incidentally, a rogue fighting with the monk will get in a sneak attack.  It's very, very nice.

I will say that the monk is not a class for people with little tactical imagination - if your idea of tactics is "run up and hit it," this is not the class for you (I recommend Barbarian for that), but if you can juggle the enormous list of special abilities and use them when it's appropriate, it can do a lot.

To be sure the class has some weaknesses, but it wouldn't be balanced otherwise.  One thing that really frustrates monks is proximity special attacks (great heat, cold, or acid, for example), but again that's the way it's supposed to be.  There have to be some disadvantages for balance, but disadvantages in some situations don't negate advantages in other situations.  Missing this idea seems to be where people usually run aground with "class X is broken/useless/sucks/etc," and that's certainly the case here.  

Monastic life is also not "secluded by definition.  "  It is non-secular by definition; it requires separateness from secular life, not necessarily from other people (otherwise they would live alone in caves, not monasteries - hermits live alone in caves).  Buddhist monastic orders don't necessarily require seclusion, and the itinerant Buddhist monk is a stock character in traditional Chinese folklore, one that strongly contributed to this character concept.


----------



## nameless (Jul 28, 2002)

It looks like I'm the only Monk-basher around... so I'll not dig a hole I can't climb out of....

When I say Monks suck (which I firmly believe to be true), being fun to play is not all-inclusive in that statement. It can be plenty of fun to play a character who sucks with style )). Monks have plenty of style, but generally little substance. If you like running on tightropes, doing backflips down buildings and climbing sideways ropes, then a Monk can be plenty of fun. I'm more pragmatic. Flight is cheap, and rather low-level. It is pretty much the end-all-be-all to movement options (My point with the Monk was that his super-enhanced speed means squat when he's using the Fly 90 from a Fly spell). 

Also, when using non-core items, balance can go right out the window. An amulet of greater magic fang may sound like a good idea, but it removes the biggest class disadvantage to Monks at virtually no cost. It would be like an item that allowed Wizards to cast spells without losing them from memory. Anyways, not all non-core stuff is bad (and not all core stuff is good); I just tend to be wary of magical effects with no other precedent.

-nameless


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Jul 28, 2002)

You're entitled to your opinion, but I have to rebutt it with gusto! You seem to think that monks not having magic weapons - and relying wholly on their innate ki strikes - is the norm. It's not; there's not reason a monk can't have a +2 kama or +3 nunchuka to whip out for those times that damage reduction comes into play. Monks are hardcore; they are perfectly balanced as per core rules against the fighter. By your statements, my impression is that you think that if a power does not directly relate to combat utility (damage dealt or AC), it sucks, and thus, monks "suck." I wish we could make you see that monks are great because they are generalists, good for those situations that trouble your average melee character. Like an earlier rebutter posted, sure, you're not cranking damage like a fighter, but when spells are slinging and Will saves are coming, it's the monk that is going to carry the day while the fighter stands there drooling and _held_. Not to mention, in the end game, monks get more attacks per round than any other character class (5 base + 1 flurry + 1 hasted), and they're doing d20 damage per blow. Hardly in the realm of "suck."


----------



## Vaxalon (Jul 28, 2002)

As has already been posted, monks aren't front-line damage-dealers.

Where a monk REALLY shines is attacking wizards.  Their saves shrug off most effects, and evasion helps avoid the rest.  They can deflect the odd arrow here and there, and with a decent tumble score they can ignore the front-line fighters and go straight for the spellcasters.


----------



## Zarrock God of Evil (Jul 28, 2002)

Vaxalon said:
			
		

> *As has already been posted, monks aren't front-line damage-dealers.
> 
> Where a monk REALLY shines is attacking wizards.  Their saves shrug off most effects, and evasion helps avoid the rest.  They can deflect the odd arrow here and there, and with a decent tumble score they can ignore the front-line fighters and go straight for the spellcasters. *




When playing really tactically, the monks ability to maneuver himself easily into position for flanking and other supportive action - often tumbling easily through threatened squares and avoiding attacks of opportunity - is a huge boon to any party....

-Zarrock


----------



## nameless (Jul 28, 2002)

My point isn't necessarily that monks are walking nerf fotballs, just that their role is served better by other classes or multiclasses. Rogues also get tumble, and Sneak Attacks are definitely effective against wizards. A Rogue also gets the invaluable ability to Find and Disarm traps. Rogues and Monks in fact have a very similar level of mobility (I of course go back to the Fly spell for this). Heck, even a Wizard can use summon monster spells to bring some flankers into the fray. Assuming the goal of a character is to support the party, a specialized character is more effective than a general one. That's the pitfall of the bard, too. In those rare situations where teamwork is out of the question, then the Monk shines. In the more common ones where everyone pulls their weight, Monks and Bards are a little too diluted to match up to the four "Core" core classes.

-nameless


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 28, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *My point isn't necessarily that monks are walking nerf fotballs, just that their role is served better by other classes or multiclasses. Rogues also get tumble, and Sneak Attacks are definitely effective against wizards. A Rogue also gets the invaluable ability to Find and Disarm traps. Rogues and Monks in fact have a very similar level of mobility (I of course go back to the Fly spell for this). Heck, even a Wizard can use summon monster spells to bring some flankers into the fray. Assuming the goal of a character is to support the party, a specialized character is more effective than a general one. That's the pitfall of the bard, too. In those rare situations where teamwork is out of the question, then the Monk shines. In the more common ones where everyone pulls their weight, Monks and Bards are a little too diluted to match up to the four "Core" core classes.
> 
> -nameless *




You're assuming the fly spell is available.  It isn't always.  Some groups don't have arcane casters, or have arcane casters without the fly spell.  And it's not necessarily "cheap."  I know a huge number of DMs, myself included, who don't allow PCs to buy just any magic they want.  Furthermore, sometimes a single spell isn't enough, or the caster must focus on other spells during the fight, or the battle is taking place in a dungeon or other location where flying isn't an option, or the caster simply doesn't have tie to reach the monk before he has to move, or...

And so forth.

Rogues don't have the saves of monks, or (usually) the AC.  Rogues don't have the capability to deal out the same amount of damage in all circumstances, and they don't always get to sneak attack.  You don't always have the option of summoning monsters; again, not every arcane caster has those spells.  We recently just finished up a campaign that got to 13th level, and at no point did the sorcerer ever pick up any summoning spells, or fly.  None of them were ever appropriate to a) the character, or b) what she needed at the time.

Plus, the whole point is that the monk can do all this _without_ aid from spellcasters, leaving resources available for other stuff.  Wizards have spells that can often do more damage in one round than a fighter, but you don't normally see people using that as an argument that fighters are unnecessary.

You're trying to convince us that monks are useless by focusing on _specific circumstances_ where they're useless.  But you could do the same for any of the classes, even the basics light fighter and wizard, with the right examples.

Heck, even the bard shines in the right situations (although I'll admit I've never myself encountered one of them).


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 29, 2002)

*Bah, monks are kewl!*

Fly is REALLY unimportant. Not only is it expensive and/or spell-consuming to have an entire party flying, it's just plain silly. We're a very flight-phobic party in my group, since the three times someone has flown in-game, it ended badly for someone (most often the bad guy, but we learn from examples).

1) Evil necromancer tries flying away from party; PC mage casts successful Dispel = evil mage go splat.
2) PC mage tries flying up to get a better perspective on a battle, Gnoll ranger opponent brings him down with a crit on a longbow.
3) Monster tries to do a fly-by on the party, my Azer monk leaps onto his back and subsequently trounces him.

Flight means nothing with 100-foot jumps from an Azer monk with Boots of Striding and Springing


----------



## apsuman (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: Bah, monks are kewl!*



			
				Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *1) Evil necromancer tries flying away from party; PC mage casts successful Dispel = evil mage go splat.
> *




I thought that dispell would cause the fly spell to end and then the feather fall effect would kick in.

If I am right, the mage should not have gone splat.

g!


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jul 29, 2002)

I think the poster has an earlier edition version of _fly_ in mind. A lot of spells changed in 3e, which sometimes surprised me when I read the new version of the spell - _fly_ was one of those.


----------



## Henry (Jul 29, 2002)

True - a dispelled fly spell still means the caster floats gently to the ground.

Also, fly is good, but it can't help you break the sound barrier.  A 20th level monk with boots of striding and springing and all necessary accoutrements can move at something like - what? - 1700 feet per round?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 29, 2002)

Sorry, my bad--the example with the dispelled Fly was back in 2nd Ed., but just before we switched.

But the other examples still count, dammit!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 29, 2002)

creamsteak,

To answer your question, it is most likely that your DM is counting special abilities and has not a clue how the disadvantages play out.  Monks are noticeably underpowered until approximately 7th level.

It is also possible he is right.  A monk who can stack up _really_ high stats can be a DM nightmare in a way a raging barbarian never will be.  But that will never be the case for a campaign that stays reasonably close to the three core books in balance.

The monk is the most stat intensive character class in the PHB.  That is a liability in most campaigns.  It is a real boost in a few.


On the general point of railing against monks:

Monks are no substitute for a Fighter or a Barbarian or two in the party.  But the mobility can be a huge boon for tactically savvy parties, and the opposite for the foolish.

My experience is that if the DM cracks open the OA monks are brutally effective against weaker foes, but they just don't have the staying power one-on-one with the big boys.  The answer is teamwork.  For example, the synergy between Stunning Fists and Sneak Attack is _amazing_.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 29, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *My point isn't necessarily that monks are walking nerf fotballs, just that their role is served better by other classes or multiclasses. Rogues also get tumble, and Sneak Attacks are definitely effective against wizards.*




Only with time or help. If Joe Rogue tumbles through the enemy front lines to get to Evil Wizard, he only gets to sneak attack EW if EW is deprived of his Dex bonus or flanked. JR can't flank EW by himself, and getting EW flatfooted beyond round 1 is tough. THe only way the rogue can do it by himself is to feint (Bluff) then attack. Barring _boots of speed_ or help from an arcane spellcaster, JR needs two rounds to do that, which gives EW a whole action to do something to remove the problem rogue. And JR's Fort and Will saves are poor.

The monk, OTOH, can tumble in, spring attack, stun the wizard (poor Fort saves!), and tumble out, and has better saves to defend against those pesky _holds_ and _disintegrates_ (never mind spell resistance at higher levels).

OTOH, it can be tough to play a monk effectively. I think playing a monk requires a bit more thought (especially with regards to tactics) than playing a fighter or rogue. The campaign where I played a monk is on hiatus; while playing, though, we didn't get past 5th level, and we faced all of one enemy arcane spellcaster in play. So I had to work to feel like I was contributing -- mostly, I tumbled around to try to setup flanking situations so the rogues could get sneak attack damage or the barbarian could get flanking bonuses (so she'd hit and deal her party-best damage, despite the player's bad dice rolls). It got to the point in a couple of fights that all I did was tumble and Aid Another. But I had fun, and the other players had fun.

As for the original poster: your GM is goofy.


----------



## CRG (Jul 29, 2002)

'course if you want rocking monk saves and the ability to use better ranged weapons...

Take a level in Paladin first!


----------



## Morose (Jul 29, 2002)

After seeing Monks in play in both high and low powered settings our group no longer tries to make them viable.  If you have fun playing one, that's great.  By all means continue.  But Monks are inferior to the core classes in all but the most specialized circumstances.  This goes for Bards as well.  Things get even worse for them if access to magic items (particular stat enhancing items) is limited.  DnD is about roleplaying, so no class is completely unviable, but if you are looking to be "powerful" in a game mechanics sense, being a Monk will probably let you down.  Say what you will... I've been playing this edition since it's introduction and have seen a lot of this class in action.  I will stand by the opinion that they are underpowered.  Why your GM would weaken them further is completely beyond me.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Jul 29, 2002)

IMC, we have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue/mage, and a dwarf monk.  Granted, he had really high stats, but he was the best combatant in the game, pretty much.  The only reason for this was that the DM gave him some +1 'wolverine'-like claws, which added 1d6+1 to his damage and gave him a +1 to hit.  

Something that simple can make the monk a viable combat-machine, IMO.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 29, 2002)

I know this topic has been beaten to death, but the fact remains that the "generalist" classes (monks, bards, multiclasses, rangers) never look too good when compared to the more specialized classes.  When a class has the ability to be REALLY good at one thing (a favorite example is the wizard with high save DCs, but the bag-of-rats fighter and the bbn/frenzied berserker uber-ragers are good examples as well), it's easy to max that thing into what appears to be a guaranteed winning tactic. A class that's pretty good in a number of situations but exceptional in few, OTOH, tends to look worse on paper.

In short: I think monks are perfectly capable of holding their own with other classes. Inversely, any DM who thinks that monks are overpowered enough to warrant a lower hit die is just wack. My suggestion: Print this topic and show it to him. Maybe he'll change his mind!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 30, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *IMC, we have a fighter, a cleric, a rogue/mage, and a dwarf monk.  Granted, he had really high stats, but he was the best combatant in the game, pretty much.  The only reason for this was that the DM gave him some +1 'wolverine'-like claws, which added 1d6+1 to his damage and gave him a +1 to hit.
> 
> Something that simple can make the monk a viable combat-machine, IMO. *




Something like that can make most characters a viable combat-machine.

To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that low level monks are weak when stacked up against any other core class.


----------



## Zerovoid (Jul 30, 2002)

I don't understand why anyone has ever thought a monk was good, even on paper.  Their abilities are all trivial compared to spells that a wizard and cleric could use to buff the monk.  d20 damage?  Don't make me laugh.  The fighter or even the rogue will have a magic sword that does just as much damage, and hits more.  Especially if you factor in that the fighter could have power attack for free, and then use their BAB advantage to get even more damage compared to a monk.

If I ever played a monk, I'd be a half orc to maximize my damage potential.  I'd put my stats in this order:
Str, Wis, Con, Dex, Int, Cha.
I'd always get mage armor from the mage, and get that permanent magic fang thing from S+F.  Even then I doubt that my armor class and damage would be as good as a rogues.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 30, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *True - a dispelled fly spell still means the caster floats gently to the ground.*




Not in my game! _Dispelled_ magic means the magic is _dispelled_, not that the spell has ended.  Grumble grumble.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 30, 2002)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> *I don't understand why anyone has ever thought a monk was good, even on paper.  Their abilities are all trivial compared to spells that a wizard and cleric could use to buff the monk.  d20 damage?  Don't make me laugh.  The fighter or even the rogue will have a magic sword that does just as much damage, and hits more.  Especially if you factor in that the fighter could have power attack for free, and then use their BAB advantage to get even more damage compared to a monk.
> 
> If I ever played a monk, I'd be a half orc to maximize my damage potential.  I'd put my stats in this order:
> Str, Wis, Con, Dex, Int, Cha.
> I'd always get mage armor from the mage, and get that permanent magic fang thing from S+F.  Even then I doubt that my armor class and damage would be as good as a rogues. *




OK, I've got a question for you. What is better, the ability to cause damage or the ability to avoid damage?

Fighters excel at causing damage, large numbers of attacks with powerful weapons soon equal victory over foes.

However, monks are unparalleled at avoiding damage - Improved Evasion, high base touch AC, amazing speed. They create an environment where they can continue to cause their (admittedly lower) damage over a longer period of time. 

Really, it's 2 avenues to the same goal, victory in combat. I don't think either one is more important than the other.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 30, 2002)

I attacked my group with advanced wraiths the other week. Everyone had a touch AC between 12 and 20 - except for the monk. His was AC 33.

Yeah, I think monks are just fine!


----------



## Wolf72 (Jul 30, 2002)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Not in my game! Dispelled magic means the magic is dispelled, not that the spell has ended.  Grumble grumble. *




hey new guy , I like your style! You should like ... ya know ... DM at tourny's and stuff.


----------



## coyote6 (Jul 30, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.
> *




Heh. I think my monk had the best stats in the group, including three stats at 16+, but I still spent the vast majority of my time running around helping others. Leading the league in assists, but certainly not points scored, as it were. The rogue/ranger with the wacky stats (highest stat: Wisdom) did more damage. 



			
				Wolf72 said:
			
		

> *hey new guy , I like your style! You should like ... ya know ... DM at tourny's and stuff. *




Hey, let's not get carried away here. He needs seasoning. Maybe after he's got a couple of games under his belt. Maybe.


----------



## Zerovoid (Jul 30, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK, I've got a question for you. What is better, the ability to cause damage or the ability to avoid damage?
> 
> ...




Causing damage, without a doubt.  What does it matter how long you can stay alive if you can't affect your foes?  More importantly, what does it matter how long you can stay alive, if your enemies can kill your friends?

In a balanced adventuring party, there will always be a better target than the monk.  It doesn't matter than they can't dominate the monk, because they'll dominate the fighter instead.  It doesn't matter if the monk has improved evasion, because the fireballs will kill the wizard.  Your goal is to get everyone in the party through the fight alive, but DnD has is so heavily weighted towards offense that the only practical way to do this is to kill your enemies quickly.

And, I doubt the monk's defensive abilities.  The ability to count wisdom as AC is worth +4 at most.  Exactly the same as the rogue's chain shirt.  Alot less than the fighter's plate mail.


----------



## Enkhidu (Jul 30, 2002)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Causing damage, without a doubt.  What does it matter how long you can stay alive if you can't affect your foes?  More importantly, what does it matter how long you can stay alive, if your enemies can kill your friends?
> 
> ...




I have to agree with you in that fact that I don't think a monk has a place in a small (4 person or less) party.  I strongly believe that monks are individually balanced with the other classes, but don't "play well with others" as well. Too many of their (admittedly powerful) abilities can not be used to directly aid another character (like buffing, healing, etc). However, you would be hard pressed to find a better 5th man, as the monk's unique abilities can come in quite handy in larger groups (I suggest reading the recent posts in Piratecat's Story Hour for some examples of this).

By the way, I've got to say that a monk's touch AC is where they really shine - that Wisdom bonus is as good as any light armor out there (or the equivelant of magic armor when buffed with the appropriate 2nd level spell). That, combined with a monk's improved evasion (which with his high REF save will negate quite a bit of spell damage), allows him to be the best overall defensive character in the game.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 30, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Something like that can make most characters a viable combat-machine.
> 
> ...





I think the opposite is true more often.  I've seen countless people whine about how poor a combatant the monk is and then I find out they put a 12 in str.  Well gee ya mean when you give your damage dealing stat a relatively low priority you don't do much damage.  The monks I've made put str as their 1st and highest attribute then went wis, then dex, then con, then int then chr.  My damage was still less than a fighter at most levels but not by a ton.  And the only powerful magic items were stat boosts that every class gains, and gloves of magic fangs which while not core, one should of been and two could of been made by just asking your local druid to make somethig lie that for you and then the dm comes up with a cost.

  Also the big lim everyone talks about with multi stat dependency ends up being a boon at higher levels.  Why cause while my wis may start at 14 I can get an item and boost it to 20.  Most classes don't get much from boosting stats except for the standard benies for their core stat.  str more damage and more hits, int more skill points higher dc etc.  The monk gains concreate class specific benefits from multiple stats which are easily boosted by items and or spells.


----------



## Jordan (Jul 30, 2002)

I have to jump in on the side that says the monk isn't all that. I played a monk briefly in a side adventure that my group played while taking a break from our main campaign. We started at 10th level with a fairly high point buy. The monk would routinely lag behind the party's (archer) fighter and the party's cleric (with a couple of persistent spells) in terms of combat performance. I can't remember if I had the best AC in the group or not; it was pretty good when I was mage armored by the party sorcerer, but the cleric with magic full plate and a magic large steel shield might have been better.

Here are my observations about the monk.

Pros:

Excellent AC vs. touch attacks, pretty good AC overall
Good saves
Improved evasion
Mobility came in handy sometimes

Cons:

Total attack bonus was considerably lower than the other fighting members of the party; I was missing all the time against enemies the other party members didn't have much trouble hitting.
Damage was really low compared to the other party members
Mobility often wasn't useful since a lot of the time getting too far out in front of the rest of the party is basically suicide

Basically the monk had a lot of good defensive abilities, but he wasn't really much help to the party in combat. Most of the time it was almost as if we had a 3 person party in terms of offense. And this was with a high point buy; a monk on a 25-28 point buy would really suck IMO.

Compared to the rogue I played in our regular campaign, the monk just wasn't very good. My rogue can do tremendous amounts of damage to anything he can sneak attack, and really isn't that bad a fighter even when he can't. Given the choice, I'd always pick a rogue over a monk, based off my experience with the two classes.

-Jordan


----------



## Creamsteak (Jul 30, 2002)

Funny...

Theres a Jordan in my games that played a Monk and found himself lagging behind -and he normally plays a rogue.


----------



## Jordan (Jul 30, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *However, you would be hard pressed to find a better 5th man, as the monk's unique abilities can come in quite handy in larger groups *




I disagree. Assuming the party already has the basic four classes, I think another fighter type, or cleric, or arcane caster (wizard or sorcerer, whichever one the party didn't already have) would all make better choices for a 5th man than a monk would. As Zerovoid noted, 3E is very heavily weighted towards offense. There are many monsters that cause damage way out of proportion to their hit points and CR in 3E (orcs, ettins, and girallons being just a few examples). Also, there are many instant death or near instant death attacks in 3E (finger of death or disintegrate on a wizard or rogue, paralysis attack or spell requiring Will save on fighter followed up by coup de grace). What this adds up to is that if you're fighting powerful foes and you can't kill them quickly, you are probably going to lose. So what you look for in an additional party member is either the ability to deal damage and/or instant kill attacks quickly, or the ability to repair damage and protect the party against instant kill attacks. A monk doesn't bring either of these things to the table.

Also, any group of foes that's being played intelligently will very quickly realize two things when they're fighting a party that includes a monk:

a) It's very difficult to hurt the monk, and more importantly

b) The monk isn't doing very much to hurt them.

Thus, they'll ignore the monk for the most part and focus on the other party members. So much for the monk's defensive abilities being a factor.

Really, the only way I think the monk could be a good class would be as a solo adventurer. Then their defensive abilities would really have a chance to shine. But since D&D is mostly a party-based game, I don't think the monk is a very good class. Not to mention the solo monk would have to survive the low levels - without a companion to mage armor him, a 1st level monk on a standard point buy probably isn't going to have a very good AC, and one hit from an orc could easily drop him (there's that 3E favoring offense game mechanic again).


----------



## Jordan (Jul 30, 2002)

creamsteak said:
			
		

> *Funny...
> 
> Theres a Jordan in my games that played a Monk and found himself lagging behind -and he normally plays a rogue. *




Ha! Small world. Jordan's not my real name, though - it was my rogue character's name.


----------



## Xarlen (Jul 30, 2002)

First of all, to the fella who thinks that Fly is like a sports drink you down before a basket ball game, I must ask, WHERE are all these orcs, goblins, giants, abberations, winter wolves, undead (Sans vampires and liches), etc, getting Fly? Are there sorcerors for hire that just pop down Fly spells on every creature? Some Wizard out there who feels the need to become a level 1 wizard since he spent all his XP making fly potions? 

That's like saying why use two weapon fighting, when you have Haste? Why Hide when you have Invisibility? Disarm Traps when you have Teleport? The point is, that you Don't always have them, that they're Not comparable, and you need a Spellcaster. A spellcaster who can be pretty much obliterated pretty soon, or needs those spell slots for Other things. Equally, A Fly spell, or other spells can be DISPELLED. For every fly you can cast, I can cast a dispel. You watch an Area Dispel start dropping characters like flies.

Next, I got to ask, WHY are you trying to Dish out damage with the monk? *Especially* a spellcaster. You _*Grapple*_. Let's see that wizard cast his Disintegrates while you have him in a choke hold, steadily doing unarmed damage. Say you're fighting Big Nasty monsters? Stun 'em (They're big nasty monsters, and most (Sans fiends, undead and dragons) have bad will saves. So, Stun them, then grapple. Since you can use a light weapon in a grapple, stun them again the next round, and keep grappling. While you're holding them down, your Rogue buddy is gutting the sucker. 

The first time my party delt with a monk, in the First Round, he did 30 damage to the wizard and stunned him. He nearly Poisoned him with a magical item, but the wizard saved. The next round, he disarmed the Ranger/Fighter's longsword, and stepped back to let his flunkies take care of it while he scaled a wall and got out of there. 

As for Mobility not being useful, apparently, you have not come up against monsters you want to get away from. If I'm a monk, I am blessing my fast movement and Spring Attack. If you've ever fought a Remorhaz, Purple Worm, creatures with Swallow Whole, monsters that can Dish out the damage, and critters that can drain you, I want to Run in, smack them, and get the Heck outta there. Not stand there like a target, and keep on hitting it, obviously getting the monster's attention. And, hey, Look at THAT, you're immune to poison. So even if that purple worm stings you... Ahahaha.

Let's face it, the monk is not the combat master that is the Fighter. However, that's what the fighter's Job is. Fight. That's what he's made to do. That's why he's horrible at other things. Monks can actually be used in roleplaying, AND can be a second line fighter. Not comparing to the fighter? How about protecting your party wizard? Deflect any arrow that comes near him, smack around any target that rushes up, and that wizard will gladly give you a Mage Armor.

And, after being harrassed by monsters with little rest, getting ambushed, dealing with traps, guerilla tactics, etc, surviving is what's important, and Not dealing the most damage. Besides, a lot of classes, when they're Prepared, they can whoop you, or stand up to your assault. However, when dealig with a Monk, you can surprise him, and if he survives (I doubt he fails his save, or is hit by a sneak attack), then you're about to get your butt kickd. 

And, look at the monk from an enemy stand point. Cleric and Wizard are memorizing their spells, barbarian and fighter go take a leak. The monk swoops in, stunning fist/Kills the wizard in one fell smack. then lays into the cleric. Here come Fighter and Barbarian? BOOM! They're eating the monk's dust because he just went off at 90' a round. Or, heck, he could've just ran far enough to let the barbarian get close, turn around, stun him, la into him, then repeat the process to the Figher.

It's all in how you play your character, and what you're fighting. Rogues are not grand in combat if they can't get their sneak attack on. Ask a rogue how useful he feels against a golem, or undead. A wizard has to deal with Defense or offense, and you have any idea how many Nasty monsters have SR and Powerful saves? A fighter is Will-save bait and isn't good out of combat. Does this mean they 'suck', and are 'broken'? 

No. It just means that the Monk is to combat as the Bard is to Roleplaying. The monk has a lot of different qualities from other classes. He can heal himself, avoid damage, and still lay a decent smack down.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 30, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *At 10th level with flurry of blows he was doing +15/+15/+13/+11 for 1d10+9 each the 1st blow was usually a stunning blow at a 24dc.  The fighter was 11th at the time and hitting at +22/17/12 for 1d8+12 each.  All in all the fighter dished out more damage like he should but the monk wasn't a slouch in comparison.  The stunning blow part helped a lot especially the rouge was bow focussed and if anyone got stunned they usually got wasted.*




You were misusing the stunning blow ability. The monk's stunning blow is a supernatural ability, and unless noted otherwise, supernatural abilities require a standard action to use. Stunning blow does not note otherwise. You cannot make multiple attacks in the same round you use your stunning blow ability. Sorry.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 30, 2002)

*Re: Bah, monks are kewl!*



			
				Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *1) Evil necromancer tries flying away from party; PC mage casts successful Dispel = evil mage go splat.*





When a _Fly_ spell ends, the creature affected floats to the ground safely. This is detailed in the spell description.


----------



## nameless (Jul 30, 2002)

I don't want to back down on the Fly spell. If the orcs, winter wolves, zombies etc. don't Fly, and I do, then the fight just got a whole lot easier. If that half-dragon griffon is after me, and I can't Fly, there's a chance I'll die. Movement doesn't really get high enough to outdistance other classes until higher (9+) levels. You can bet that I'm gonna have Wings of Flying, Winged Boots, or Celestial Armor by then, so I can be airborne at least during battle. You spent 6 levels as a Monk and nabbed Boots of S&S (for 6,000 gp) to get your 100 ft. ground movement. I spent 12,000 gp, and got whatever classes I wanted to move 90' in the air. I can still fly in a 10x10 corridor with the Fly spell, since it doesn't give me actual wings. There is no drawback, only superior mobility.

My point isn't that flight is so common as to make other things worthless (though it is )... it's that flight is too good to not get ASAP. It means that non-flying opponents fight purely on my terms. If they don't have ranged weapons, they can't even fight back against my Longbow/Hold Monster/Polymorph/whatever. And try grappling that Wizard when he's flying 150 feet overhead. Try using an dispel when no two combatants are within 50 feet of each other. Try disarming a bulette. You're not a versatile as you think. When the monster has a high attack bonus, your low AC (compared to the platemail fighter and cleric and the polymorphed + shielded wizard) means he's gonna lay a smackdown on you; he might even power attack. Those big beasties tend to have high Fort saves, too. Say goodbye to stunning fist. Even if you take that beating, you'll barely dent the thing with your medium attack bonus and relatively low damage (if you full attack the thing, you're mincemeat). At least the rogue can tumble into flanking position and deal some big damage with that one shot before he gets a smackdown laid on him. The Monk will get that same smackdown, and not have accomplished much in the process.

-nameless


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Jul 30, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *Something like that can make most characters a viable combat-machine.
> 
> To my knowledge, every single person who has come here with tales of overpowered monks in real life play, when pressed for details, always present characters with three or more stats of 16+ rolled and/or very potent magic items.
> 
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that low level monks are weak when stacked up against any other core class. *




You misinterpreted my point.  I wasn't trying to say that I think the monk is a powerful character class, quite the opposite, in fact.  I was simply pointing out that, the goal of D&D generally being that all involved have fun, any DM can remedy the inherant weakness of a monk by giving said player a few special items.

Is this unbalanced?  I doubt it, seeing how many people agree that the monk is inherantly weak to begin with.  If I get a new player who's really psyched to play a monk, sure I'll give him a few extra items to make him decent in combat.  It is just a game after all.


----------



## Zog (Jul 30, 2002)

Stunning attack is a special ability, akin to a feat.  In fact, it is an improved version of a feat.  And feats can be used with multiple attacks.  You can trip, disarm, sunder in your three attacks if you wish.  You can also trip, stunning blow, disarm, if you wish.

If stunning blow could not be used with iterative attacks, there would be no need for the statement that "you can only make one per round".

Although, the save is fortitude (not will, if memory serves) - which makes it rather tough for those big tough monsters.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 30, 2002)

I think Xarlen made the points that needed to be made.
To those who pointed out that Fly ends in a Featherfall, thank you, but see above, I admitted it had been 2nd Ed. (my mistake); however, I'm with Piratecat on the dispelling Fly issue: the spell is *gone*, not ended. And I don't care what the rules say in this case, I'd rule 0 it as a DM.

Zerovoid: Please show me this legendary weapon that does 1d20 damage per hit. And why is it that you would allow fighters to get huge enchantments on their swords that monks can't get on their fists???

Causing damage *is* important, but uh, if you can't hit the monk, how are you damaging him?  With Spring Attack and high movement, most creatures have to double-move to reach the monk in the first place. And the monk doesn't need to Spring Attack a spellcaster, he grapples as Xarlen mentioned. Sure, the wizard can cast Let Go of Me if he likes  

"Stunning Attack: The monk can use this ability once per round, but no more than once per level per day. The monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll (thus, a missed attack roll ruins the attempt). A foe struck by the monk is forced to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + one-half the monk's level + Wisdom modifier). In addition to receiving normal damage, If the saving throw fails, the opponent is stunned for 1 round. The stunning attack is a supernatural ability."

Where does it say you can't use it with multiple attacks?  

And nameless, while I agree with your Disarm comment, if everything flies, it gets boring quick--I know from experience. And your flying wizard (or whatever) can still be grappled by a jumping monk with a simple ring of Jump and/or Expeditious Retreat and/or Boots of S&S (which cost only 2,500 BTW).

Finally, let's not forget that the wizard has to get the spell off in the first place, and that even if he does, the monk's archer friend (or some surrogate character) can bring the offending spellcaster down if necessary.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jul 30, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You misinterpreted my point.  I wasn't trying to say that I think the monk is a powerful character class, quite the opposite, in fact.  I was simply pointing out that, the goal of D&D generally being that all involved have fun, any DM can remedy the inherant weakness of a monk by giving said player a few special items.
> 
> Is this unbalanced?  I doubt it, seeing how many people agree that the monk is inherantly weak to begin with.  If I get a new player who's really psyched to play a monk, sure I'll give him a few extra items to make him decent in combat.  It is just a game after all. *




True.

I generally agree with this tact.  I think some of the "problem monks" occured because a conscientious DM noticed how the low level monk utterly sucked.  They start to beef up a bit at higher levels.

The monk makes an excellent 6th party member.  Another spellcaster or any grunt makes a better 5th member.  A second cleric would be my first choice.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 30, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *"Stunning Attack: The monk can use this ability once per round, but no more than once per level per day. The monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll (thus, a missed attack roll ruins the attempt). A foe struck by the monk is forced to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + one-half the monk's level + Wisdom modifier). In addition to receiving normal damage, If the saving throw fails, the opponent is stunned for 1 round. The stunning attack is a supernatural ability."
> 
> Where does it say you can't use it with multiple attacks?  *





Here (from the SRD):



> _Use supernatural ability [Standard][AoO: No]
> 
> Using a supernatural ability is usually a standard action (unless defined otherwise by the ability description). Its use cannot be disrupted, does not require concentration, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity._





Stunning Attack is a supernatural ability. It follows the rules for supernatural abilities. You must use a standard action to use it. Making multiple attacks requires a full action, but since you used your standard action to use your Stunning Fist ability, you cannot make a full attack.


----------



## Telor (Jul 30, 2002)

*The group really dictates the beauty of the monk*

My group has played since August '01.
Our initial group was a monk/psion; druid; cleric; sorcerer; rogue.
On the monk's second death, the player decided to quit the game. Not totally out of frustration, but obviously the 2nd death was the last straw.

Anyway, he did not focus on jumping, grappling, or any other sort of specialty moves. He frequently used stunning attack and flurry of blows. The player, for whatever reason, consistantly sucked at rolling so we found that flurry of blows was worse at the table than it is statistically.

He was our primary fighter. Without a high AC and without the augmentation of using +1 weapons (screw the DR... he could've used the +1 to hit and the +1 to damage) he hit back a lot less than he got hit. (If the 'monk' weapons weren't d6 I think they would be much better.)

When he and the rogue teamed up, they did wonders except for one problem... their massive movement gave them the ability to get too far away from the cleric (Cures and heals are touch spells people). Both of his deaths resulted because the cleric could not make it to him in time.

He didn't use his psion abilities often enough (thus making himself essentially half as high in levels as the rest of the group). This subject has nothing to do with the monk in and of itself.

Without a big burly bodyguard (ftr or brb) and without tactical foresight the monk does indeed suck. 

All of this changes once he gets in the mid-high levels. He obviously achieves a different characer status.

And about Bards, I haven't encountered anyone who chose to play one in the few years I've played 3e.... that says more than enough to me.

-Telor


----------



## SpikeyFreak (Jul 30, 2002)

> Zerovoid: Please show me this legendary weapon that does 1d20 damage per hit. And why is it that you would allow fighters to get huge enchantments on their swords that monks can't get on their fists???




And how do you enchant monks fists?

You do realize that Magic Fang is the only way to do that in the core rules, don't you?

--Interested Spikey


----------



## Xarlen (Jul 30, 2002)

You can't have enchanted gloves? They have Gloves of Dex, Gauntlets of Str, but there's no one in all existance who thought of Brass Knuckles +1? In Magic of Faerun, they have some Bracers that effect Unarmed attacks, allowing for enchantment purposes. Besides, like it's been pointed out, does it really mess you up that bad, that you can't get a +1 Sure Striking Kama, if you keep coming up against Damage Reduction critters?

You cannot disarm a bulette. But you can't sunder it, either. You can't dispel it. Or Turn it. So, what have we learned? Every class's abilities are not useful in every situation, against every adversary. 

As for fighting a bulette, if I'm a fighter type, I want to GET AWAY. Bulettes, and other Big Ugly Damage Dealing nasties are very dangerous up front, but defenseless at range. Casting fly (Heh) or running away (The monk has this in spades) and bombarding the sucker is, IMHO, a better tactic then standing up there, and trying to power attack it to death, while sustaining all those painful attacks. 

Sure, Dispel may not reach everything if it's 50' feet away, but neither can that wizard fireball, lightning bolt, or other area effects. That's why there's a Targeted dispel. Even moreso, if Flight is such a powerful thing in your campaign, then why aren't there more villians with wizard allies ready to counterspell a flight? Has Fly suddenly become the next Haste? 

No, you can't compare the fighter to the monk in some situations, but neither can you do it the other way. When facing a big ugly monster, the Fighter is what you need. But what about creatures with spell like abilities? Saves that range from Fort to Ref to Will? Sure, the fighter MAY withstand a poison or drain attack, but that Domination, or Breath weapon could be the death of him. What about Incorperal creatures? Ranged Touch attacks? 

A fighter can beat things up, and is resistant to physical stuff. A monk can walk through a dungeon with Draining creatures, Traps, and Spellcasters, likely is he to survive, compared to a fighter. Even moreso, that Fighter can't heal himself when he REALLY needs it.


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Jul 31, 2002)

I just want to pop in to point out that, as someone else already said, it's damn fun to say HI-YAH!

Monks have style.  Monks are cool.  They may not be the most powerful characters ever, but they're cool.

Especially if you have access to some of the optional stuff in OA.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Jul 31, 2002)

SpikeyFreak said:
			
		

> *
> 
> And how do you enchant monks fists?
> 
> ...




Enchanting items, even items not on the initial list is in the dmg, and is assumed to be something players can do. Inventing new uber weapons isn't, though I suppose someone oculd invent an increase damage die enchantment.  But an amulet that constantly manifest a certain spell is a much, much easier concept to deal with.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

Sorry, but a monk's stunning attack is a virtual feat, and as such, since it follows the rules of the feat itself, is not subject to the supernatural ability rule.



> Stunning Fist [General]
> Prerequisites: Dex 13+, Improved Unarmed Strike, Wis 13+, base attack bonus +8 or higher.
> 
> Benefit: Declare that the character is using the feat before making an attack roll (thus, a missed attack roll ruins the attempt). It forces a foe damaged by the character's unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + one-half the character's level + Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normally. If the defender fails his saving throw, he is stunned for 1 round (until just before the character's next action). A stunned character can’t act and loses any Dexterity bonus to Armor Class. Attackers get a +2 bonus on attack rolls against a stunned opponent. The character may attempt a stunning attack once per day for every four levels attained, and *no more than once per round.*




The emphasis is added by me, but this really proves my point.

Zerovoid: On the issue of enchanting fists, I believe a couple of posters above have answered quite well. And if that's not enough, look at the items in Sword and Fist, there's plenty there to help the monk whup some behind.
No class has the same inherent damage potential past level 12 or so. And AC? Whenever we had a monk in the party, he had the best AC at low-levels, and at high levels, he had the speed and mobility to avoid getting hit.

Are people allowing their characters to start with full plate at level 1??? It usually takes us a while to get that high.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 31, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but a monk's stunning attack is a virtual feat, and as such, since it follows the rules of the feat itself, is not subject to the supernatural ability rule.*




No, it has to follow the rules for supernatural abilities, since the text of the PHB explicitly _states_ that it is a supernatural ability. Even if a _feat_ grants you a supernatural ability, use of that ability still has to follow the rules for supernatural abilities.

And the part you highlighted _doesn't_ prove your point. It actually works _against_ you, since it limits the use of stunning fist to no more than once per round, just like the rules for the use of supernatual abilities do. In other words, the explicit text of the _feat_ backs up the supernatual ability limitations. The text _does not_ back up the position that it is able to circumvent those limitations.

Perhaps if you could show some quote to back up your "it is a feat so it doesn't have to follow the supernatural ability rules", you might have a point. Otherwise you are just making crap up.


----------



## Carnifex (Jul 31, 2002)

Storm Raven - you are missing the point og why he emphasised the once per round limitation. That indicates that, were that limitation not explicitly stated, the monk could use it more than once per round - ie, he could use multiple attacks and make all of them stunning attacks.

Also, here's something else to consider - Gauntlets. They count in all ways as unarmed attacks except they deal normal damage rather than subdual, otherwise using all the qualities of the characters unarmed attacks, so the monk's special rules fully apply (unless this has been errata'd somewhere). They can also be enchanted, so you can have +5 defender gauntlets of speed.

High level monks are, of course, terrors, as I proved with my spring-attacking dwarven monk/arcanopath against numerous spellcasters and even fighters


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 31, 2002)

Carnifex said:
			
		

> *Storm Raven - you are missing the point og why he emphasised the once per round limitation. That indicates that, were that limitation not explicitly stated, the monk could use it more than once per round - ie, he could use multiple attacks and make all of them stunning attacks.*





Not necessarily. I regard it as clarification: reminding you in the text that you can only use it once per round _just like all other supernatural abilities_. Since the highlighted text _doesn't_ contradict the rules regarding the use of supernatural abilities, and indeed supports them, quoting it as support for the position that it somehow means that those rules don't apply is nonsensical.



> *Also, here's something else to consider - Gauntlets. They count in all ways as unarmed attacks except they deal normal damage rather than subdual, otherwise using all the qualities of the characters unarmed attacks, so the monk's special rules fully apply (unless this has been errata'd somewhere). They can also be enchanted, so you can have +5 defender gauntlets of speed.*





For what it is worth, the Sage has opined that the use of gauntlets interferes with the monk's ability to use their unarmed attack bonuses. This is in the D&D FAQ, page 22.


----------



## Carnifex (Jul 31, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> For what it is worth, the Sage has opined that the use of gauntlets interferes with the monk's ability to use their unarmed attack bonuses. This is in the D&D FAQ, page 22. *




Okay, thanks  I thought it had probably be e'd somewhere. I've only ever used the tactic once myself anyway, and that was in a friends campaign that was totally over-the-top in power levels - one of the players was a half-dragon half-celestial paladin  so checking whether or not any rulings had been made that would disallow my defender gauntlets +4 was not at the top of my priorities list


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

No, it's been stated over and over that feats are in fact extraordinary abilities. If the monk's ability is a supernatural one (which I agree with), it remains a virtual feat, which would supersede the standard action for a supernatural ability. Why the heck would the non-monk version of the ability be better, when all other virtual feats the monk gets are better???

Carnifex, you were right, that *was* the reason for the emphasis I added.

And Storm Raven: I believe the Sage said that BLADED gauntlets interfered with unarmed combat. Are you telling me that a monk can't wear Gloves of Dexterity because it would impede his abilities? What about his kicks, his feet aren't gloved! And for that matter, do Boots of Striding and Springing impede a monk's kicks?  Come on, just think about it for a second.

Even if that were the case, there's still the fact that you could make an amulet of Greater Magic Fang, useable 3/day, for a trivial amount at higher levels. That's despite the fact that there are much simpler solutions, like not being unfair to the monk by not giving him magical monk weapons.


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm going to have to back up Storm Raven. The text explicitly states that 1) stunning blow is a supernatural ability, 2) supernatural abilities require a standard action to activate unless specifically cited otherwise, and 3) stunning blow does not specifically cite otherwise. 

My monk's player has emailed the Sage for clarification on this debate. If we get a response, I'll post it here to settle the issue once and for all.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 31, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *No, it's been stated over and over that feats are in fact extraordinary abilities. If the monk's ability is a supernatural one (which I agree with), it remains a virtual feat, which would supersede the standard action for a supernatural ability. Why the heck would the non-monk version of the ability be better, when all other virtual feats the monk gets are better???*





It states it is a supernatural ability. That makes it a supernatural ability. Do you really need this to be explained to you?

In addition, if a feat gives you a supernatural or spelllike ability, you follow the rules for supernatural or spell like abilities. Access to _the feat_ remains extraordinary, but access to supernatural or spell like powers granted by the feat is limited by the rules for supernatural or spell like abilities.

For example: Innate Spell allows you to cast a spell as a spell like ability. Do you think it would make sense that using this would be treated as an extraordinary ability? Or a spell like ability?



> *And Storm Raven: I believe the Sage said that BLADED gauntlets interfered with unarmed combat. Are you telling me that a monk can't wear Gloves of Dexterity because it would impede his abilities? What about his kicks, his feet aren't gloved! And for that matter, do Boots of Striding and Springing impede a monk's kicks?  Come on, just think about it for a second.*





Nope, the statement in the FAQ applies to plain old gauntlets. Explicitly. Like I said: the D&D FAQ, Page 22. It is available on the Wizards.com website. You could have checked this in about thirty seconds. Instead you chose to guess and you guessed wrongly. Why don't you actually go and _read_ the sources you are discussing before opining on them?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

You know, I would have checked, but the fact is that I can't open ZIP files at work. So I couldn't. And I can't. So if you want to prove something, you're going to have to post, because otherwise, your word is as unsubstantiated as mine.

If the Sage did say that about gauntlets(I have no way of checking), he messed up. WITHOUT QUOTING HIM SPECIFICALLY, can you tell me why Gloves of Dex, or Gloves or Missile Snaring, would impede a monk's attack? If it's only gauntlets, then you could make gloves that help the monk's attack, or bracers. It doesn't matter. On the same note, do boots hinder a monk's ability?

Explain to me again why the non-monk version of the Stunning Attack would be better than the monk version, because you didn't the first time. You're not actually justifying anything by comparing to metamagic feats or Innate Spell, which explicitly states that it makes a spell (which cannot BE extraordinary) a spell-like ability (which is not supernatural).

And you said yourself that a supernatural ability CAN be used differently than as a standard action. Since Stunning Blow is a virtual feat, it follows the feat's example, for which we HAVE a precedent, instead of the standard supernatural ability's. You're guessing as much as I am there.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 31, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *You know, I would have checked, but the fact is that I can't open ZIP files at work. So I couldn't. And I can't. So if you want to prove something, you're going to have to post, because otherwise, your word is as unsubstantiated as mine.*





Ah. "I can't check the source so I will talk anyway". How cute.



> *If the Sage did say that about gauntlets(I have no way of checking), he messed up. WITHOUT QUOTING HIM SPECIFICALLY, can you tell me why Gloves of Dex, or Gloves or Missile Snaring, would impede a monk's attack? If it's only gauntlets, then you could make gloves that help the monk's attack, or bracers. It doesn't matter. On the same note, do boots hinder a monk's ability?*





Why would I have to do it without quoting him directly? From the FAQ:



> _*Question: Are gauntlets and spiked gauntlets considered weapons? Could a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets attack and still apply her unarmed attack bonus and unarmed damage? Could the monk use her class abilities that require successful unarmed strikes, such as her stun ability, while wearing gauntlets? How much damage would a monk wearing a pair of gauntlets deal? If the gauntlets had an enhancement bonus (such as a +2 enhancement bonus) or a special ability (such as flaming burst), would a monk wearing these gauntlets gain any benefit? Can gauntlets even have weapon enhancement bonuses or weapon special abilities?*
> Answer: Both gauntlets and spiked gauntlets are weapons (that' why they are both listed on Table 7Œ4 in the Player's Handbook). A pair of gauntlets or spiked gauntlets can be magically
> enhanced, just as any other weapon can. Although a nonmonk wearing a pair of gauntlets is still considered unarmed (see the next two questions), a monk wearing gauntlets is using a weapon. A monk cannot use any of her special unarmed attack abilities (unarmed damage, stunning attack, and so on) when using a weapon. A monk can use her unarmed attack rate with a special monk weapon, but gauntlets are not a special monk weapon. A monk wearing gauntlets does not provoke attacks of opportunity when striking an armed foe with gauntlets. The monk deals the same damage as any other character of her size (1d3 points of damage for a Medium-size character). The monk would get the benefits of any magical properties the gauntlets might have._







> *Explain to me again why the non-monk version of the Stunning Attack would be better than the monk version, because you didn't the first time. You're not actually justifying anything by comparing to metamagic feats or Innate Spell, which explicitly states that it makes a spell (which cannot BE extraordinary) a spell-like ability (which is not supernatural).*





So, the fact that the text of the monk's ability _says_ that it is a supernatural ability isn't enough? Perhaps you need to rethink your position. The monk's stunning blow ability is a supernatural ability. This is plain and simple as the black and white text of the PHB. That you can't figure this out tells me that you are having trouble reading.



> *And you said yourself that a supernatural ability CAN be used differently than as a standard action.*





No. I didn't. Stop making things up as you go. It doesn't help you.



> *Since Stunning Blow is a virtual feat, it follows the feat's example, for which we HAVE a precedent, instead of the standard supernatural ability's. You're guessing as much as I am there.*




No. The monk's ability follows the text of the ability. Perhaps learning to read more closely would help you out here?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

Alright, now you're just being rude. Obviously the concept that a company network might block certain downloads is beyond you. 

Look a few posts above, you posted this:



> You were misusing the stunning blow ability. The monk's stunning blow is a supernatural ability, and *unless noted otherwise*, supernatural abilities require a standard action to use.




The emphasis  is, admittedly, added by me, but you can't deny that you wrote this. And yet you just did.

So, based on this, my reasoning is that:

a) The monk's Stunning Blow is a supernatural ability (I already admitted to this earlier, if you'll notice; why attack my ability to read if you miss obvious statements like that?).
b) As you said, a supernatural ability usually requires a standard action.
c) However, since the feat which the supernatural ability emulates does not, in fact, require a standard action since it is an extraordinary ability (the feat's text states nowhere that it is supernatural), neither does the virtual feat that is the monk's ability.

You may disagree, but hey, I've stated my arguments, and yours, so far, are based on your own interpretation, just like mine are.

As for your point about the gauntlet, I agree (isn't that fantastic?) insofar as the WEAPON that is a gauntlet cannot be used adequately by a monk. I had always argued that the wondrous item gauntlets and gloves were not subject to this, although for some reason you felt necessary to correct me! My question to you (which you still haven't answered, by the way), was why wondrous items would impede the monk's abilities. I never said bladed gauntlets or the weapon-version of gauntlets should be useable by monks--but Gauntlets of Ogre Power should.

I really don't see why you're being so condescending. Is this your way of proving your point?  

And just because I'm not one to leave you hanging with unanswered questions, the reason I asked you to tell me without quoting the Sage was to see the logical reasoning behind your argument; from what I've seen, so far you have only relied on another's judgement.

Common sense dictates that (if only for balance reasons) monks should not be hindered by common magic items like gloves and boots, but apparently this is unsatisfactory for you.

And if you must insist that I'm lying about not being able to look up the FAQ myself, well, I hope it's a comforting thought for you.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 31, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *So, based on this, my reasoning is that:
> 
> a) The monk's Stunning Blow is a supernatural ability (I already admitted to this earlier, if you'll notice; why attack my ability to read if you miss obvious statements like that?).
> b) As you said, a supernatural ability usually requires a standard action.
> c) However, since the feat which the supernatural ability emulates does not, in fact, require a standard action since it is an extraordinary ability (the feat's text states nowhere that it is supernatural), neither does the virtual feat that is the monk's ability.*





Of course, the _monk's_ text _does_ state that it is a supernatural ability, and _doesn't_ state that it is used differently from normal supernatural abilities.

So your logic train derails right there. Your argument makes no sense.



> *You may disagree, but hey, I've stated my arguments, and yours, so far, are based on your own interpretation, just like mine are.*





Since your arguments have no actual basis in the text of the rules, we can safely discard them as being uninformed and irrelevant.



> *As for your point about the gauntlet, I agree (isn't that fantastic?) insofar as the WEAPON that is a gauntlet cannot be used adequately by a monk. I had always argued that the wondrous item gauntlets and gloves were not subject to this, although for some reason you felt necessary to correct me! My question to you (which you still haven't answered, by the way), was why wondrous items would impede the monk's abilities.*





Because they are weapons. This is not a hard concept to get. And yet you seem to think it is.



> *I never said bladed gauntlets or the weapon-version of gauntlets should be useable by monks--but Gauntlets of Ogre Power should.*





Gauntlets of Ogre Power are _gauntlets_, just like any other set. Weapons, just like the ones listed in the PHB.



> *I really don't see why you're being so condescending. Is this your way of proving your point?  *





I'm being condescending because you are acting like a three year old. You don't read the books. You don't know the rules. Yet you keep saying that your completely incorrect application of them is actually correct. Someone acting that foolish deserves condescension.



> *And just because I'm not one to leave you hanging with unanswered questions, the reason I asked you to tell me without quoting the Sage was to see the logical reasoning behind your argument; from what I've seen, so far you have only relied on another's judgement.*





Someone asked a _rules related question_. One that doesn't require judgment, just a reading of the rules. I referred to the primary source of clarification of the rules. That is what one usually does when confronted by people asking rules questions: one consluts the books and text. One does not, as you like to do, make stuff up as you go.



> *Common sense dictates that (if only for balance reasons) monks should not be hindered by common magic items like gloves and boots, but apparently this is unsatisfactory for you.*





Gloves are not weapons. Boots are not weapons. Gauntlets are. Perhaps you need to actually read the books before you try to form arguments.



> *And if you must insist that I'm lying about not being able to look up the FAQ myself, well, I hope it's a comforting thought for you.  *




I didn't say that. I said that the fact that you didn't (whether or not your couldn't) check your facts before you decided to opine and then decided to make uninformed statements was worthy of derision.

You _should_ have waited until you could check your facts before trying to talk on the subject. You would look far less silly.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 31, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My question to you (which you still haven't answered, by the way), was why wondrous items would impede the monk's abilities. I never said bladed gauntlets or the weapon-version of gauntlets should be useable by monks--but Gauntlets of Ogre Power should.
> 
> *




Gauntlets are weapons and they appear under the weapons category of PH.  Typically, they also are piece of armor though in the game there's no AC modifier.  The description of the Gauntlets of Ogre Power is they are made of hard leather with metal studs running along the back of the hand.  That's why monks can't use them.

Gloves are simply a piece of clothing and are not a weapon nor armor.  Monks can use these freely.


----------



## Henry (Jul 31, 2002)

Zerovoid said:
			
		

> *Causing damage, without a doubt.  What does it matter how long you can stay alive if you can't affect your foes?  More importantly, what does it matter how long you can stay alive, if your enemies can kill your friends?
> *




Two words: paralysis magic.

Ask a fighter to make a will save: helpless fighter.

Ask a monk to make a will save: living, and still threatening, monk.

It's the same reason why I always say a wizard's first spell prepped at third level is NOT fireball -- it's dispel magic.

The ugliest combat machine in the world will still fall to one simple will-affecting spell. That's why defense is jsut as viable strategy as offense. A monk most certainly does have teeth - he is not a helpless comabtant. But combine his abilities with the fact he is able to stay on the field of battle longer, and you have quite the viable fighter. Three campaigns of having two or more monks in a party have taught me this.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

If that is in fact the case, then Gauntlets of Ogre Power need to be changed to gloves so as to not interfere with a monk's ability. That's ridiculous.

Storm Raven, common sense should take over where the rules are concerned. If the monk's ability, by the rules, is worse than a feat which is a poor man's imitation of that ability, then it needs to be fixed.

I bow to your knowledge of the rules, but knowing the rules doesn't mean you use them well. I find your interpretation extremely rigid, and I don't see the need to cripple the monk by using your version of Stunning Blow. Your opinions are based on the same text I've read, I just choose to interpret it differently. And however right you feel you are, this is MY choice, not yours.

I saw the gauntlet weapon and the gauntlet wondrous item as two different things, which, in retrospect, is probably wrong. Fine.

I've read the books as well, by the way. Apparently not agreeing with you is a sign of immaturity, despite the fact that the _ad hominem_ comments all came from you. TiQuinn responded courteously at least, for which I thank him.


----------



## TroyXavier (Aug 9, 2002)

Well you could always go with a belt of giant strength.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 9, 2002)

Hey, when monks were first introduced to D&D (in Blackmoor) they only had d4 HD! 1d4 at 1st level for a fighting type doesn't lend survivability!

You kids don't know you're born <big smiley!>


</joke>


----------



## hong (Aug 9, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, the _monk's_ text _does_ state that it is a supernatural ability, and _doesn't_ state that it is used differently from normal supernatural abilities.
> 
> So your logic train derails right there. Your argument makes no sense.
> [/b]




Actually, the PHB p.39 states "a monk has the ability to stun a creature damaged by her unarmed attacks". This is a pretty clear statement that the stunning attack is delivered by means of an attack or full attack action, as opposed to needing a separate action to activate.

Think of smite. Smiting is also a supernatural ability, which is delivered via an attack.

As for gauntlets of ogre power, they're just an item granting a +2 enhancement bonus to Str taking up a particular item slot. There's nothing wrong with having an identical item taking up a different slot: +2 amulet of Str, or +2 vest of Str, for instance. You could even have +2 boots of Str, although the connection between footwear and strength is a bit harder to make.


----------



## Liquide (Nov 27, 2002)

Not to be extremely rude or anything lads, but Storm Raven is correct on this one.

Stunning Attack is a Supernatural Ability and therefore takes 1 Standard Action to utilize.



> _Orignially posted by hong_
> Actually, the PHB p.39 states "a monk has the ability to stun a creature damaged by her unarmed attacks". This is a pretty clear statement that the stunning attack is delivered by means of an attack or full attack action, as opposed to needing a separate action to activate.




This above statement never tells us that this particular *Supernatural Ability* is used in any other way then any other *Supernatural Ability* it just tells us HOW we areallowed to use it, in this case it is used through an unarmed attack.

It can never be used more then once per round (as with any other supernatural ability), the only exception to the rules about supernatural abilites we can find is that is has to be used with an unarmed attack.

And until this has been clarified or errata:ed the rules say in essence this:

You can make a Stunning Attack in junction with an Unarmed Attack, but it takes one Standard action to perform this attack. So Stunning Attack cannot be used in junction with a Full Attack nor with a Flurry of blows. And this is due to the fact that Stunning Attack is a Supernatural Ability, and a Supernatural Ability always takes one Standard Action to use unless noted otherwise (in this case there are no such notes on otherwise).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Nov 27, 2002)

This problem was also braught up with the Monk's speed.

The monk's speed is supernatural, and yet doesn't take a standard action to use. You don't activate monk speed and then use it -- it is continuously in use (but dispelable).

If I remember correctly, the Sage said basically that a supernatural ability that affects an action works when taking that action. A monk's speed is that fast whenever they move. A monk's stunning is possible during any attack that damages a foe.

Also, if you do maintain that it takes a standard action to use Stunning Fist, it causes some problems with that statement... the monk can stun enemies damaged by their unarmed attack....does that mean that the monk has to first hit them with a punch and *then* (and only then) can they opt to stun? And how long is that? When they heal that, are they no longer "damaged," and so cannot be stunned, or does the fact of damaging last indefinately, so that if the monk meets them years later they can stun them?

Had to pop in on that.


----------



## Balgus (Nov 27, 2002)

yeah- i played a monk at mid levels (8-10) and he was the most fun i ever had.  Not only did his feats reflect his training, but I did not care for numbers when it came down to raw damage.

The saves were fun too.  Telling casters "HAH! ya missed again" and then not being able to hit the caster is just funny....

movement and class abilities made it really fun to play.


----------



## Sanackranib (Nov 27, 2002)

*monk d8 HD . . .*

why not just make them d12 they already get everything else. all saves are favored, unarmed counts as armes, dex + wis for ac, cant be caught flatfooted, increased mv, etc, etc etc. this is already the most broken and disruptive class why not go ahead and finish it off    .    .    .   Good Grief enough about the "monk" already!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

Let's grab that description of the Monk's ability again, shall we?

*Stunning Attack:* _The monk can use this ability once per round, but no more than once per level per day. The monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll (thus, a missed attack roll ruins the attempt). A foe struck by the monk is forced to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + one-half the monk's level + Wisdom modifier). In addition to receiving normal damage, If the saving throw fails, the opponent is stunned for 1 round. The stunning attack is a supernatural ability. _

The important wording is this: "the monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll".

It's a little clearer in the feat: "Declare that the character is using the feat before making an attack roll".

Surely this implies that you can use the stunning ability before _any_ attack roll (even an AoO?), in a manner similar to a grapple or trip?

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

Incidentally...

*Ki Strike:* _At 10th level, a monk's unarmed attack is empowered with ki. The unarmed strike damage from such an attack can deal damage to a creature with damage reduction as if the blow were made with a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus. Ki strike is a supernatural ability. _

Does this mean that the monk must use Ki Strike as a standard action as well?

Cheers!


----------



## Liquide (Nov 27, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Incidentally...
> 
> Ki Strike: At 10th level, a monk's unarmed attack is empowered with ki. The unarmed strike damage from such an attack can deal damage to a creature with damage reduction as if the blow were made with a weapon with a +1 enhancement bonus. Ki strike is a supernatural ability.
> 
> ...




FAQ nor Errata covers this so the answer is quite simple:
Until we have a diffrent official ruling the Stunning Attack and Ki Strike follows the rules for Supernatural Abilities since there is nothing in their description that says otherwise, and in this case it means that both Stuninng Attack and Ki Strike takes a Standard Action to perform.

*Side-note:* It doesn't say anywhere in its description that it empowers all and any of the Monks attacks, so by the rules it would require a standard action to use Ki Strike. (until we get an official ruling)


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

Another consequence of this is that because Ki Strike is a standard action, the poor monk can only make ONE ATTACK PER ROUND with it.

Also, Ki Strike and Stunning Attack may not be combined.

Do you begin to see where I'm going?

Cheers!


----------



## Liquide (Nov 27, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Another consequence of this is that because Ki Strike is a standard action (per the absolute idiot's ruling), the poor monk can only make ONE ATTACK PER ROUND with it.
> 
> Also, Ki Strike and Stunning Attack may not be combined.
> 
> ...




1. Nope I'm not an idiot and I usually do not like to be called one either, so an apology would be in order.

2. Stunning Attack can still affect someone even if it cannot deal damage just a note for you.

3. No, I do not see where we are going since I only proclaim what the rules say, and until we get another ruling the rules is what we play the game after. Still the game is meant to be fun so you can always rule 0 what you feel is off the scale but think of why you rule 0 it. If a rule doesn't fit your group you usually change it, but then you don't play by the rules, you play by a tweaked ruleset  and I just state what the rules with no tweaking say and for that I would appriciate NOT to be called an absolute idiot.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

My apologies; I was just going to edit that out.

I understand why you suggested that ruling.

Cheers!


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

> 2. Stunning Attack can still affect someone even if it cannot deal damage just a note for you.




Um... I really must have missed that.

I'm almost 100% sure you have to damage the opponent for the stunning attack to work.

*Damage Reduction* _Whenever damage reduction completely negates the damage from an attack, it also negates most special effects that accompany the attack. Damage reduction does not negate touch attacks, energy damage dealt along with an attack, or energy drains. Nor does it affect poisons or diseases delivered by inhalation, ingestion, or contact. Attacks that deal no damage because of the target’s damage reduction do not disrupt spells._

Cheers!


----------



## Liquide (Nov 27, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *My apologies; I was just going to edit that out.
> 
> I understand why you suggested that ruling.
> 
> Cheers! *




Apology accepted, still I don't suggest rulings right now I quote them as they appear in the manual to 3e (e.g. PHB + MM +DMG + Errata + FAQ) 

Still the Movement Speed of a 9th level Monk is Supernatural Ability but is not considered a Standard Action to perform (discussed in the FAQ), but no rulings on Stunning Attacks and Ki Strike so therefore I just go by the rules that say:




> _From the SRD_
> SPECIAL ABILITIES
> Special abilities are extraordinary, spell-like, or supernatural.
> 
> ...




And neither Stunning Attack nor Ki Strike says that it is an exception to this rule, and therefore use their default action type.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 27, 2002)

I think the implication is very clear from the "announce before you make the attack roll" wording - it is an additional ability that is added to an attack.

Consider also:
*Diamond Body:* _At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poison of all kinds. Diamond body is a supernatural ability._

So this also must be activated? 

Cheers!


----------



## Liquide (Nov 28, 2002)

> _from the SRD_
> *DAMAGE REDUCTION*
> Some magic creatures have the supernatural ability to instantly heal damage from weapons or to ignore blows altogether as though they were invulnerable.
> 
> ...




note this line: *Magical attacks and energy attacks (even mundane fire) ignore damage reduction.*

Then read this:



> _from the SRD_
> *Supernatural Abilities (Su):* Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field).  A supernatural ability’s effect can be dispelled if the duration is longer than instantaneous, but a supernatural ability is not subject to counterspells.  Supernatural abilities have a default action type of Standard Action.




Now compare these two lines:
*Magical attacks and energy attacks (even mundane fire) ignore damage reduction.*
*Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. *

There you go lad


----------



## Liquide (Nov 28, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *I think the implication is very clear from the "announce before you make the attack roll" wording - it is an additional ability that is added to an attack.
> 
> Consider also:
> Diamond Body: At 11th level, a monk gains immunity to poison of all kinds. Diamond body is a supernatural ability.
> ...




In theory yes but then again one might rule it has a duration of permanent so it really only has to be activated once. Actually correction, since it is a permanent supernatural ability it can be dispelled so it would in theory take one standard action to activate it again if it was dispelled


----------



## MerricB (Nov 28, 2002)

Can I go with the "it's not a magical attack" defence? 

Cheers!


----------



## Liquide (Nov 28, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Can I go with the "it's not a magical attack" defence?
> 
> Cheers! *




Not really Since its title is Stunning Attack(Su) refering to it as an attack that is Supernatural and therefore the Effects of Stunning Attack (the Stunning not the damage is Magical) and therefore negates DR.


----------



## MerricB (Nov 28, 2002)

So a 1st-level monk can stun a ghost?

No... immune to crits. Do we have an alive incorporeal creature?

Cheers!


----------



## Gargoyle (Nov 28, 2002)

From Dragon 301, Sage Advice:

"Although supernatural abilities usually require a standard action to use, a few of them do not. Hide in plain sight, for example, works just like any other use of the Hide skill, so you use it as a move action or as part of a move action.
A monks's supernatural speed works any time the monk moves. In general,whenever a supernatural ability changes the way one of the user's actions works, it works just like the action it modifies. " 

Stunning attack clearly changes the way the monk's attack action works, and thus does not require a standard action.  Of course, I'm not the sage, so if you want an official ruling on a specific supernatural ability in the game you'll have to e-mail him at thesage@wizards.com.


----------



## Gargoyle (Nov 28, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *Can I go with the "it's not a magical attack" defence?
> 
> Cheers! *




Actually, I would agree that a stunning attack is not a magical attack.  The attack itself is not magical, because the damage caused by the unarmed strike is normal damage.  Even a monk with ki strike or a barbarian with a sword +1 causes normal damage, not magical damage.  Otherwise ki strike +1 or a sword +1 would negate all damage reduction, not just DR +1/# .  When they talk about magical attacks, they mean spells and other magical effects where the damage is magical, like a magic missle or an ice storm.   Granted, I don't think this is well defined, but I do not think adding a stunning effect to your attack makes it a magical attack.

The stunning effect itself may be magical, but all that really means is that it is negated in anti-magic fields, etc.  

Again, I'm not the sage, so if all you're interested in is an official ruling, I'd ask him.


----------



## Jeph (Nov 28, 2002)

Monks rock because munchkins turn them into Shiba Protectors, and then get as high a Wisdom as possable.

For those who don't know, the Shiba Protector applies their Wis mod to Atk and damage, AT FIRST LEVEL. So, Monk with dex 30, Wis 30, finesse unarmed, applies their dex to attack and AC, and their wisd to attack, damage and ac. Reduces the stat dependancy to 2. 

And they can perform kung-fu. Everyone likes kung-fu.


----------



## Gargoyle (Nov 28, 2002)

Jeph said:
			
		

> *Monks rock because munchkins turn them into Shiba Protectors, and then get as high a Wisdom as possable.
> 
> For those who don't know, the Shiba Protector applies their Wis mod to Atk and damage, AT FIRST LEVEL. So, Monk with dex 30, Wis 30, finesse unarmed, applies their dex to attack and AC, and their wisd to attack, damage and ac. Reduces the stat dependancy to 2.
> 
> And they can perform kung-fu. Everyone likes kung-fu. *




Er, yeah, and they'll cut your head off without even thinking twice about it!


----------



## Gargoyle (Nov 28, 2002)

Maybe a moderator can move this into the Rules forum, since this ancient thread seems to have been awakened in order to discuss specific rules.


----------



## hong (Nov 28, 2002)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> *From Dragon 301, Sage Advice:
> 
> "Although supernatural abilities usually require a standard action to use, a few of them do not. Hide in plain sight, for example, works just like any other use of the Hide skill, so you use it as a move action or as part of a move action.
> A monks's supernatural speed works any time the monk moves. In general,whenever a supernatural ability changes the way one of the user's actions works, it works just like the action it modifies. "
> ...




Exactly. "A monk has the ability to stun a creature damaged by her unarmed attacks". I don't see how you can read that as anything other than a special that works on top of her regular unarmed attacks. Incidentally, since it explicitly mentions damaging the target, this also addresses the issue of whether stunning works against DR.


----------



## mooby (Nov 30, 2002)

nameless said:
			
		

> *
> 1. Monks suck, and there is really no good reason to play one, ever.
> *





Sounds like this guys DM sucks, not monks


----------



## Grim (Dec 2, 2002)

Those quotes from the SRD are from the beginning of the DMG, and I that the writer intended it to apply like this:

Some supernatural abilities are what are classified in the MM as "special attacks." They require an action, etc. An antimagic field negates them.

Some supernatural abilities are what are classifed in the MM as "special qualities." They are always "on," unless dispelled/anti-magic fielded/etc. And some of them have a certain number of uses/day.

So dimond body is a special quality. It is always on, etc. so is a monks speed, ki strike, etc. That takes care of that.

Stunning fist, IMHO, is a special attack. The monk *always* has it as an option, unless he uses its "charges/day". Just like a minotaurs "charage attack" special attack, it can be used within any attack action. Its description says it can be used once per round, and up to a monks level per day. So that means it can be used with at most one attack/ round, even with multiple attacks from BAB, and even with haste/etc.

 This is just me going out on a limb here, but i would assume from its description that as long as you declare it, you can use "stunning fist" in conjunction with any atttack role (ie, your one attack in a standard action, or ANY ONE of the attacks in a full round attack action, or as an AOO, or even (if possible) with the rogue's oppertunist ability, etc) , as long as you declare it.

If thats against the "rules," well, rule zero. Or just do what my players do. Never tell me that there is a "problem" in the first place. Dont ask, dont tell...

We actually had a monk in the group once who claimed that these "gloves with pointy things attached from sword and fist" did one point extra damage when he used them. And we believed him. He never really abused them, and the group was pretty evenly matched powerwise, so it didnt matter.


----------



## Skullfyre (Dec 2, 2002)

Klaatu B. Nikto said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Every monk was Kung Fu fighting.... the halfling was fast as lightning... In fact it was a lil bit frightening....
> ...




New movies at theatres this week and this week only

"Crouching Tiger Hidden Halfing"
"Lethal Halfling"
"Enter the Halfling"


----------



## Wolfspider (Dec 2, 2002)

Jeph said:
			
		

> *Monks rock because munchkins turn them into Shiba Protectors, and then get as high a Wisdom as possable.
> 
> For those who don't know, the Shiba Protector applies their Wis mod to Atk and damage, AT FIRST LEVEL. So, Monk with dex 30, Wis 30, finesse unarmed, applies their dex to attack and AC, and their wisd to attack, damage and ac. Reduces the stat dependancy to 2.
> 
> And they can perform kung-fu. Everyone likes kung-fu. *




Where do I find this "Shiba Protector"?


----------



## starkad (Dec 2, 2002)

Skullfyre said:
			
		

> *
> 
> New movies at theatres this week and this week only
> 
> ...




Anyone else spew their pepsi when they read 'enter the halfling'?

All I could think of was midget porn...


----------



## Skullfyre (Dec 2, 2002)

starkad said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Anyone else spew their pepsi when they read 'enter the halfling'?
> 
> All I could think of was midget porn... *





Come to think of it I never even thought of it that way.


----------



## Simulacrum (Dec 2, 2002)

I didn't read the whole thread, but with over  a year as 3e DM I see the situation quite clear.
Monks are cool, especially in campaigns where you can drop the multiclass restrictions.
They got cool saves and nice features. But running and tumbling through the battlefield to snatch the enemy wizard behind the lines is ridicolous. In a pretty balanced and challanging campaign the monk will NEVER make it to the wizard NEVER. If if he succedes chances are that he is not even able to kill the wizard without help. 
If played with fair 32 point buy from DMG calculate hit points through avarage--> any fighter kills the monk in any given level.
Monks are exellent teamplayers but when it get hairy and they are alone they blow big chunks.
Monks are perfect in many situations, because they give the party a very stable basis, a man for every situation, but he is for sure no overpowered smiter who can clear the situation by himself.
Monks need the d8 hit die or they would be minced meat in 3 out of 4 battles.
Even a hasted Monk is hardly a real threat in higher levels, I know our kick ass Monk in our group gets hurt badly everytime it gets rough, often so bad he is unable to participate any longer in the fights.
Best example: The kick ass lvl 10 Monk meets the BBEG Fighter level 10 in a chaotic situation that favours the enemy slightly over the party (like it should be in a worthy challange)...
No matter how hard he will hit the BBEG he will hit him twice or thrice as hard 100%, often with a chance to kill him in round two with a bit of luck.
Monks have good overall defense, but no match to one or more truly comat oriented sods.
Our Monk gets literaly hacked to pieces by 2 lvl 5 Fighters.


----------



## Zhure (Dec 2, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where do I find this "Shiba Protector"? *




Oriental Adventures. It's a Phoenix Clan PrC.

Greg


----------



## maddman75 (Dec 2, 2002)

Gargoyle, I'm glad you found that sage ruling.  Agree with it totally.

On the monk using gauntlets of ogre power, I'd allow it.  Granted, by a strict reading of the rules, they should be disallowed.  But the gauntlets have no abilities combat wise.  The fact that they are gauntlets is just flavor text -- it shouldn't get in the way of an item being available to the monk.  Gloves, bracelets, or anything else 'of ogre power' would work just as well.


----------



## Simulacrum (Dec 2, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Two words: paralysis magic.
> 
> ...




thats why every self respecting fighter should a) take at least a short trip to self improvement (take a level of Monk and abandon the class after that)
b) the first two feats taken should be Iron will and Luck of Heroes out of the FRCS. Those three things pump up the saves above needed levels  Very fitting when playing in more eastern settings where mental strength is valued highly in the warrior caste.


----------



## Christian (Dec 2, 2002)

And yet another thread rises from the grave to stalk the boards and eat the brains of the living ...


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Dec 2, 2002)

Ooh! Ooh!  Let's talk about how Rangers are broken!


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 2, 2002)

Ah, yes because it is so much better when someone starts a new thread abouth the same exact thing.  At least this way, people don't have to re-hash all their old arguments.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Exactly. "A monk has the ability to stun a creature damaged by her unarmed attacks". I don't see how you can read that as anything other than a special that works on top of her regular unarmed attacks. Incidentally, since it explicitly mentions damaging the target, this also addresses the issue of whether stunning works against DR. *




There are other attack effects that are delivered on top of normal attacks that cannot be used with a full attack option. The damage bonus from Dirty Fighting for example.

Why is it difficult to grasp that making a Stunning Attack requires you to make a single attack and use the supernatural ability as part of that single attack? Saying "it is part of an attack" does not negate the fact that it is a supernatural ability.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2002)

MerricB said:
			
		

> *The important wording is this: "the monk must declare she is using a stun attack before making the attack roll".*




And this proves what? How is this any kind of evidence that you can make a full attack action and combine it with use of the Stunning Fist ability? You need to declare you are using it before you make the attack roll. This does not mean that it can be part of a full attack sequence.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

I'm going with The Sage's ruling about supernatural abilities applying to actions

IceBear


----------



## Delgar (Dec 2, 2002)

Basically if you decide that a monk, must activiate the SU as a standard action, he then only has a move equivalent action left (unless of course he's hasted). Therefore, the monk could only attack every other round. That seems a little silly. I think people are doing way too much rules lawyering and not using enough common sense.

But that's just my opinion.

Delgar


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

Delgar said:
			
		

> *Basically if you decide that a monk, must activiate the SU as a standard action, he then only has a move equivalent action left (unless of course he's hasted). Therefore, the monk could only attack every other round. That seems a little silly. I think people are doing way too much rules lawyering and not using enough common sense.
> 
> But that's just my opinion.
> 
> Delgar *




Actually (this is not to be mean just to state opinions) common sense as good as it sometimes is usually creates the best house-rules we will ever see out there.

The problem here however is to determine if the Stunning Attack is an exception to the rules of Supernatural Abilities (there is nothing in the rules nor description that says otherwise).

So even if the case is that the monk has to use a Standard action to make a Stunning Attack YOU can still rule 0 it  , we just want to make sure what it does BY THE RULES.

But remember, roleplaying is to please everyone. If it doesn't fit your style of play Change it.

But then again, don't change anything that aint broke aswell


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

To me, a stunning fist is modifying an attack action and thus, it is part of the attack action instead of a seperate action in and of itself.

If the monk could shoot magic missles out of his fist as a supernatural ability, then that is an action in and of itself, and thus would take an action to activate.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *To me, a stunning fist is modifying an attack action and thus, it is part of the attack action instead of a seperate action in and of itself.
> 
> If the monk could shoot magic missles out of his fist as a supernatural ability, then that is an action in and of itself, and thus would take an action to activate.
> 
> IceBear *




OK let me take this back at you then 
Ki Strike I can go with changes a Monks attack so there I can allow it as an exception to the Supernatural Abilities takes a Standard Action to use.

But what is the diffrence of delivering a Stunning Effect from Delivering a Magic Missle effect in mechanics, please tell me 

I cannot see any diffrence in mechanics actually, still Ki Strike differs a lot more and I can understand it as an exception to the Standard Action rule.

Oh and please do not try and read any tone in this post/text since I'm not trying to be mean nor sarcastic, I just try to look at what the rules say.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 2, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually (this is not to be mean just to state opinions) common sense as good as it sometimes is usually creates the best house-rules we will ever see out there.
> 
> ...




And by the rules it is part of the monks attack.  A SU ability clearly by the rules isn't always a standard aciton to activate.  Which ones aren't a standard aciotn well the ones specifically mentioned and the ones that are part of an action.(It's in the FAQ)  

This one is part of an action and hence not a standard aciton to activate, it activates as part of the monks attack.  I's not necessarry to house rule it, in fact making it a standard aciotn to activate would be the rule 0. 

 In this case you would use common sense to determine what type of SU ability it was and if it was the type that fell into the standard aciotn category(the general rule) or one if its exceptions(the type that activates as part of an aciton) the flaovr text imples shows it would fall into the excpetion category.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Dec 2, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> One for the dark lord who sits upon his dark throne in the land of Renton where the Shadow lies... *




Hey Liquide- Not to be overly nit-picky, but...

Microsoft is in Redmond, not Renton.  Boeing does have a factory in Renton (but will probably be closing it sometime in the furture, now that the have moved to Chicago...


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey Liquide- Not to be overly nit-picky, but...
> 
> Microsoft is in Redmond, not Renton.  Boeing does have a factory in Renton (but will probably be closing it sometime in the furture, now that the have moved to Chicago...  *




Sorry lad, it is not written by me but I'll change it.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK let me take this back at you then
> Ki Strike I can go with changes a Monks attack so there I can allow it as an exception to the Supernatural Abilities takes a Standard Action to use.
> ...




I know, I'm being friendly too and just debating for debating.

For me, delivering a stunning fist is that it is an enhancement to the normal attack.  It is related to the attack's success, and if the attack is successful then the enhancement takes effect.

Having the ability to create a magic missle is a seperate and distinct ability.  It is not tied to anything else.  If the magic missle attack was only delievered with the punch, the I'd see it as part of the attack action.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I know, I'm being friendly too and just debating for debating.
> 
> ...




OK matter of opinion then nothing else  , I did send of a question to the sage about this last week (early Thursday morning to be exact). So soon we can have an official ruling about this.

I also asked for all the monks abilities and how Dispelling affected her Supernatural Abilities (since you can dispell any Supernatural ability that has a duration longer then instantenous). So hopefully we can have a clarification in 1-2 weeks.

But back on diffrence in opinion until then, I see the stunning attack as an attack on its own and not an augmentation of the Monks natural ability to deal damage (through its unarmed strikes), the Ki Strike however I see as an ability that changes how the monk attacks works (the argument about it earlier in this thread was just argumentation really).

Stunning attack doesn't really change how all the monk attacks work it is limited to a certain amount of uses per day while Ki strike for example has no such limitation.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

I agree -it's a difference of opinion thing.  I can see a Stunning attack as a completely seperate thing too.  I'm more in favor of the "part of an attack" thing, but I could see it as it's own action like you do.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *I agree -it's a difference of opinion thing.  I can see a Stunning attack as a completely seperate thing too.  I'm more in favor of the "part of an attack" thing, but I could see it as it's own action like you do.
> 
> IceBear *




Well we can agree to disagree at least  , and ranting this any longer between just us two cannot really do any good. So fellas please chip in your opinions aswell 'til we get an official ruling on this and see who got it right (and closest to what wording the sage actually will use).

And always nice to have a friendly argument aswell, any person I feel I can be mad at one second and then take a pint of 'ol black Guinness with afterwards and laugh at the whole argument is the winner in my eyes. So Icebear hope I'll have a pint with you some day.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Dec 2, 2002)

I've gotta say, the whole Su thing is kind of silly for two reasons:

1.  Why would it say in the PHB that "the monk can use this ability once per round" if a stunning attack had to be a standard action?  Wouldn't that be superfluous?

2.  By these rules, it pays for a monk to pick up the Stunning Fist feat just so she can use it during her full attack option.   That's just silly.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Actually, now that I've thought of it some more, I agree with you on the Stunning Fist.  I think it's it's own attack action.  You can only use it once per round anyway, so it's not like you have 5 attacks which could all be stunning attacks.  In that circumstance, everyone would make the first attack as a stunning attack, and if successful, get bonuses to the next four.

It makes sense that the monk gathers his ki and then strikes with one powerful blow to stun.

IceBear

PS I'll take you up on that Guiness


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Actually, now that I've thought of it some more, I agree with you on the Stunning Fist.  I think it's it's own attack action.  You can only use it once per round anyway, so it's not like you have 5 attacks which could all be stunning attacks.  In that circumstance, everyone would make the first attack as a stunning attack, and if successful, get bonuses to the next four.
> 
> It makes sense that the monk gathers his ki and then strikes with one powerful blow to stun.
> 
> ...




he he 
I'm not here to change your opinion on this topic nor do I want to have followers (and you ruin a perfect argumentation session aswell  ).

Still it might be my opion that is wrong and your initial opinion that will be rules as correct by the sage aswell, I just state why I see it one way by the rules. 

Nice to see that I have found another chap that likes Guinness as much as I do aswell (we should meet half-way in Iceland just to grab that pint for the sake of it  ).

Still we'll see who's right and who's not in a while


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Well, if we take my original interpretation, the monk can take a full round attack action and declare the first to be a stunning attack and then gain the benefits of the stun for the remainder of the attacks.  The more I think of it, the more it *feels* like it should be just the one attack.

The other abilites, no, I don't think requires an action to activate, but this one does seem to be a "seperate" ability.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *Well, if we take my original interpretation, the monk can take a full round attack action and declare the first to be a stunning attack and then gain the benefits of the stun for the remainder of the attacks.  The more I think of it, the more it *feels* like it should be just the one attack.
> 
> The other abilites, no, I don't think requires an action to activate, but this one does seem to be a "seperate" ability.
> 
> IceBear *




Oh my, dunno why it feels odd to have converted someone to my point of view, but welcome to the ranks though 

Still we'll see if we are correct or not when the sage replies to my mail.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Keep in mind, that I only feel that way about stunning fist.  I still think that most of the other supernatural abilities don't require a standard action.

If it wasn't explicitly limited to once per round I might think otherwise, but since it is only once per round it seems to imply that this is different than a normal attack enhancement.

As to whatever the Sage responds with, it's no biggie as I could see it either way.  It's nice to know what the offical thought is though.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

IceBear said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Keep in mind, that I only feel that way about stunning fist.  I still think that most of the other supernatural abilities don't require a standard action.
> 
> ...




OK at least we have met an agreement (even though I'm a bit suprised you gave in and ended a perfectly nice argumentation session  ).

Still I'm a bit curious about how the sage will reply aswell (and any way works but as you said, the official position is always nice to know)


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Well, I only joined this five posts ago   Honestly, I just started thinking about the only once per round thing and it didn't seem to "fit" with a supernatural ability that was used as part of another action.

Maybe you're thinking I'm someone else?

IceBear


----------



## Technik4 (Dec 2, 2002)

*If..*

If stunning attack is actually a standard action and not part of an attack sequence (and I've just read through this thread, I can see both sides) then at very least it opens a new thing to make house rules for 

Technik

My suggestions: http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32270


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

I don't really see that big of a deal if it's used either way.  Certainly not enough to make a house rule for it.

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

Well I can agree with IceBear here, no big deal how it is used really. We just discuss how it SHOULD be used by the rules in a nice argumentative way, that and the fact that we do not have an official answer yet makes this argumentation fun.

And for people making House Rules just for speculation out on how an ability works, well it kinda honors the cause but is not needed at this point (since we have no official ruling yet).

Nice to see you chip in though mate.


----------



## Delgar (Dec 2, 2002)

Like I said if your going to rules lawyer it.

If stunning attack is a SU, and you have to activate it as a standard action. You can no longer take your attack action, unless your hasted. Because activating a supernatural ability is a standard action. Therefore a monk, could not activate it's supernatural ability and attack in the same round.

So, by saying you have to activate it and allowing the monk to attack your house ruling it anyway. Your giving the monk an extra standard action in a round.

The fact that it says you can only use it once a round and the fact that the stunning fist feat is better, seems to point in the direction that the INTENTION of the rule was that it could just be used as part of an attack sequence. I think people are trying to make things more complicated than they seem. Of course until it's written in stone, in an erratta or FAQ, rules lawyers will rule the day.

Delgar


----------



## Technik4 (Dec 2, 2002)

I guess I should clarify. I can see the ability being used either way, but clearly it is less powerful if it can only be used by itself with one attack. Hence the feats. I would even say if it becomes a standard action to use it needs some internal boosting to become what it was (or is as the case may be). Certainly I could see adding WIS to the attack roll because as it stands now, using a stunning attack isnt an "all or nothing" gambit, ie- if used with a flurry of blows, you still get some damage in. 

In summation, either way works, but the standard action way is underpowered (imo).

Technik


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Delgar said:
			
		

> *Like I said if your going to rules lawyer it.
> 
> If stunning attack is a SU, and you have to activate it as a standard action. You can no longer take your attack action, unless your hasted. Because activating a supernatural ability is a standard action. Therefore a monk, could not activate it's supernatural ability and attack in the same round.
> 
> ...




Hmmmm - I didn't realize that it didn't let you take the action in the same round (I was treating it as a move-eq action, sorry).  If that's the case, then I go back to my original stance and rule that it's a part of the attack action (like I said, I could see it either way, but didn't realize that this way was turning a stunning fist into a 2 round process).

IceBear


----------



## Liquide (Dec 2, 2002)

> _from the SRD_
> *
> Supernatural Abilities (Su): Supernatural abilities are magical but not spell-like. Supernatural abilities are not subject to spell resistance and do not function in areas where magic is suppressed or negated (such as an antimagic field).  A supernatural ability’s effect can be dispelled if the duration is longer than instantaneous, but a supernatural ability is not subject to counterspells.  Supernatural abilities have a default action type of Standard Action.
> Abilities use their default action types unless they indicate otherwise.
> *




Stunning Attack(Su) <-- No Questions there

Lets see it is an attack that allows you to Stun an enemy and takes one standard action to perform, I can not see how you get it to that it takes one standard action to "empower" the attack.

How I read it, it takes a Standard Action to perform the attack.

Please explain Delgar where in the rules it says that a (Su) ability takes one Standard Action to prepare and then release it the round after.

on a note a dragons breath weapon is (Su) aswell for some references and does not work this way.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 2, 2002)

Man, I'm tired today and can't think for myself 

Yeah, that's what I was thinking when I switched to Liquide's opinion.  Basically using the stunning fist was one action that allowed one attack with it.

With that interpretation, it's not a big deal.  I spend one round stunning the guy, and the next I take my full attack action (yes, I know he's not stunned anymore).

If I allow it as part of the "normal" attack action, then it becomes slightly more powerful as I could stun and then followup with more attacks in the same round when he's stunned.

Couldn't really care one way or the other.

IceBear


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 2, 2002)

Lucius Foxhound said:
			
		

> *1.  Why would it say in the PHB that "the monk can use this ability once per round" if a stunning attack had to be a standard action?  Wouldn't that be superfluous?*




There are a number of places where the specifics of a rule are restated in a redundant fashion. Assuming that because a general rule is stated specifically in one place does not necessarily imply that the general rule would not apply otherwise.


----------



## jontherev (Dec 3, 2002)

I agree with Delgar.  A monk is a stun specialist imo.  Some lame fighter with the SF feat performing a stun attack and 5 follow-up attacks in the same round while his fellow monk is stuck with just one just does NOT sit right with me...nevermind what the rules say that seems to open this up to interpretation.  Monks already suck enough in combat without this maiming.  You say it's not a big deal?!?  I beg to differ, especially at higher levels when that monk is missing many attacks for a (usually) pitiful chance of stunning his foe (due to low dc, high saves, and low attack bonus in comparison to other meleeists).  This ruling pretty much either relegates the monk to never using Stunning Fist (except perhaps at very low levels) or practically requiring the monk tumble or Spring Attack away so he's not ripped to shreds.  Unless he gets lucky and HITS and also STUNS his foe.  Plus, he never gets the benefit of a stunned foe unless he's hasted (directly I mean...of course he benefits indirectly from his buddy fighter taking out that stunned orc).

IME, successful stun attempts are too few for this ruling to be balanced.  Now, if you have Ki Straps and a +6 Wis enhancement, placing all level-ups on your Wisdom, and an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5, Weapon Focus Unarmed, an Ioun Stone, a Bard friend...you get my drift.  As someone said before, many moons ago, and which I've since stolen, we replaced the Flurry of Blows with Flurry of Misses...for good reason.  YMMV and probably does.

Oh yeah...the above was all simply IMHO.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 3, 2002)

Ah, yes, if a fighter can do this and followup with multiple attacks then a monk should too.  Like I said, I can see both sides of this, so this, to me, is just the proof I needed to determine if it was it's own action or part of an attack action 

IceBear


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 3, 2002)

http://pub17.ezboard.com/fseankreynoldsboardsfrm7.showMessage?topicID=135.topic

The stunning blow isn't actually an action, it's a modifier to an existing action (an attack).

As per the rules, it's limited to once per round, but that's not because it requires a standard action to start


----------



## maddman75 (Dec 3, 2002)

Well, I'm in the 'enhances his attack' camp.  

But I'll predict that the Sage will side with liquide, as he uniformly rules for Whatever Would Screw The Players .


----------



## hong (Dec 3, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> There are other attack effects that are delivered on top of normal attacks that cannot be used with a full attack option. The damage bonus from Dirty Fighting for example.*




Which makes the condition of use explicit, IIRC. There is no such explicit prohibition for the stunning attack.



> *Saying "it is part of an attack" does not negate the fact that it is a supernatural ability. *




Did anyone claim it isn't a supernatural ability?


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Dec 3, 2002)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> *But I'll predict that the Sage will side with liquide, as he uniformly rules for Whatever Would Screw The Players . *




That's funny... so does my DM!


----------



## hong (Dec 3, 2002)

Liquide said:
			
		

> *
> 
> OK let me take this back at you then
> Ki Strike I can go with changes a Monks attack so there I can allow it as an exception to the Supernatural Abilities takes a Standard Action to use.
> ...




Exactly the same difference between using Ki strike and casting a magic missile.

The wording for stunning attacks makes explicit mention of making unarmed strikes. If SA was a separate action, there would be no need to make this reference. It would instead have said something like "the monk can stun opponents; make an attack roll, if you hit, the opponent must save or be stunned".


----------



## Deset Gled (Dec 3, 2002)

Some comments about the monk class in general (though possibly a bit late):

One of the things that I really dislike about the monk class is that (by the core rules) it offers practically no room for personalization.  The monks abilities work well if you like playing the exact monk that WotC made.  But if you want to do things that are a bit different, you're only choice is to use stuff beyond the core rules.  Because of this, there are places where they do well, and places where they suck, but the character doesn't get to make descisions about what situations those are.  Conversely, other classes are highly specializable (fighter feats, wizard specialization, cleric domains, etc).

Also, it always apeared to me that the monk is based from the same frame as the cleric (variations on priests from 2e), rather than being based off the fighters frame, which would seem to me to make a lot more sense.  I think that a lot of the problems that some people see with monk is because they want a martial artist that's a warrior, not a worshipper.  To this, I highly recommend Beyond Monks (again.  I should ask them for payment for it sometime).  The martial artist class they provide is much closer to the fighter class than the core monk.  Of course, in doing so, they give up some of the "really cool" monk abilities.

My current character is a martial artist that's based around the Flip Kick and Perfect Reflex feats.  The basic fighting style I imagine is running around enemies in circles, kicking them in the shins.  A nice side effect is that I can, in theory, make more than 4 attacks in a round and still take the total defence action.  Both fun and effective, but unfortunately doesn't really start to work until around level 9 (which I'm not).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Dec 3, 2002)

Check out the D20 Mordern SRD. They have cool martial arts feats, but I haven't taken a good look at their Martial Artist class yet.


----------



## Storm Raven (Dec 3, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *The wording for stunning attacks makes explicit mention of making unarmed strikes. If SA was a separate action, there would be no need to make this reference. It would instead have said something like "the monk can stun opponents; make an attack roll, if you hit, the opponent must save or be stunned".*




That wording would allow a monk who was armed to make a Stunning Attack. The wording in the PHB illustrates the fact that he must make an unarmed attack to stun his opponent. This does not mean that it is different from a standard supernatural ability.


----------



## IceBear (Dec 3, 2002)

Well, given that a fighter could take a feat and perform a stunning attack as part of a full round attack, then it doesn't make sense not to allow the monk as well.  Thus, stunning attack, in my campaign is a supernatural ability that enhances an attack action and is not a standard action in an of itself.  Given that there are supernatural abilities that don't take a standard action to activate, and the fact that there is a feat that would be more poweful if you didn't rule this way, to rule against it just seems to be anti-monk 

IceBear


----------



## hong (Dec 3, 2002)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That wording would allow a monk who was armed to make a Stunning Attack.*




Fine, add the "unarmed" requirement somewhere in there. The point remains.


----------



## Corwin (Dec 3, 2002)

I'll have to remember, next time I run my game, to have my monsters "activate" any DR they may have before they are attacked...

 

I can't believe this is a real debate. Though it *is* entertaining, I must say.

Now then...

I play a monk currently. I went the strong/trip specialist route. I have Great Throw from OA. I love this feat. I just wish my DM would quit throwing large (and bigger) creatures at us exclusively. It's really cramping my style. Against anything I can't throw, I'm practically useless. We just fought a dragon and my best contributions were to give the others flanking bonuses.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Dec 3, 2002)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> *Check out the D20 Mordern SRD. They have cool martial arts feats, but I haven't taken a good look at their Martial Artist class yet. *




Spycraft has some kick butt martial art feats as well.  I am trying to desgn my marital artis class to replace the monk(who while I think is balanced I also think is boring)  I might check out d20 modern as well for inspiration.


----------



## Gizzard (Dec 3, 2002)

> We just fought a dragon and my best contributions were to give the others flanking bonuses.




Welcome to the wonderful world of being a Monk.  "Hmmm, the monsters got DR and its stronger than me?  I...um...grab a healing potion and ready an action to give it to one of the real fighters if he gets hurt."  ;-)  Actually, I made about 5 different puny contributions to my fight with the dragon; I was a damage sponge for some of those scary multiple attacks, I sucked up some AoOs so that other characters could maneuver more freely, I applied the Heal skill to a fallen character, I passed around Healing potions, I distracted the Dragon into using the Breath Weapon on me once.  Yeah, thats about it.  Oh, well, I fought for a round or two.  Probably did 3 points of damage after the DR took effect.  And gave that precious +2 Flank bonus to a Barbarian who was probably +11 to start.  Blah.  

As for the Stunning Attack debate, can you imagine how useless this ability would be if you had to give up your multiple attacks for it?  As it is, its already extremely marginal due to many big monsters having a good CON and hence a good Fort save.  I just throw the Stun into the mix because it is free; even though I generally expect it to fail at least it doesnt cost me anything.  If I had to choose to use it instead of multiple attacks, it would never get used.  Of course, "special" abilities that never get used are the Monk's forte.  "Look at me, I can Deflect Arrows on a 19 or 20".  Used exactly twice up to 6th level.


----------



## Stalker0 (Dec 3, 2002)

I forgot to quote what liquidus had qutoed about supernatural abilities, but the last line of it says.

Abilities use their normal action type unless indicated otherwise.

That along with all my common sense puts me on the side that the stun is just part of the attack, and not a standard action.


----------



## Lucius Foxhound (Dec 3, 2002)

I'm in the process of making up a 9th level Monk... based on the information on this thread, I've decided to make a Elven 8th Monk/1st Wizard.  I figure the 1st level Wizard spells will buff up my AC (Shield/Mage Armor)... but more importantly, it allows my Monk to use wands of fireball or lightning bolt when needed. I think that this one level of Wizard will give my monk some options that he wouldn't ordinarily have... plus, he's got a kick-ass Will Save now! 

So his Wizard level plus all his monk abilities should make him pretty formidable...


----------



## jontherev (Dec 4, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Welcome to the wonderful world of being a Monk.  "Hmmm, the monsters got DR and its stronger than me?  I...um...grab a healing potion and ready an action to give it to one of the real fighters if he gets hurt."  ;-)  Actually, I made about 5 different puny contributions to my fight with the dragon; I was a damage sponge for some of those scary multiple attacks, I sucked up some AoOs so that other characters could maneuver more freely, I applied the Heal skill to a fallen character, I passed around Healing potions, I distracted the Dragon into using the Breath Weapon on me once.  Yeah, thats about it.  Oh, well, I fought for a round or two.  Probably did 3 points of damage after the DR took effect.  And gave that precious +2 Flank bonus to a Barbarian who was probably +11 to start.  Blah.
> 
> As for the Stunning Attack debate, can you imagine how useless this ability would be if you had to give up your multiple attacks for it?  As it is, its already extremely marginal due to many big monsters having a good CON and hence a good Fort save.  I just throw the Stun into the mix because it is free; even though I generally expect it to fail at least it doesnt cost me anything.  If I had to choose to use it instead of multiple attacks, it would never get used.  Of course, "special" abilities that never get used are the Monk's forte.  "Look at me, I can Deflect Arrows on a 19 or 20".  Used exactly twice up to 6th level. *




I agree with you up until the last comment.  DA is actually quite nice as a freebie.  The DC is fixed at 20+magical bonus, so it gets more useful as you level up.  Plus monks tend to have good dex bonuses and good saves.  At 6th level, you should have maybe a +7 Reflex save?  You should be deflecting most arrows on a 13 or 14, once per round.  At 20th level, against a +5 arrow it's quite possible that you may only fail on a 1.  Of course, that's only 1 attack, but one is better than none.


----------

