# What's Up With The Monk?



## mattcolville (Jul 30, 2002)

I'm noticing two things about the two monks in my game.

A: They suck. This seems primarily due to the fact that they just can't dish out that much damage. Their special abilities are cool, but they're kinda passive. They mostly work along the lines of "it's hard to screw them." 

B: They suck. This seems in part due to the fact that, without magic, the Monk can't do much against A: incorporeal undead, B: creatures that need magic weapons to hit them. Eventually, the Monk can hit things that require magic, but it's at 10th level. They're right now fighting things like Stone Golems and Shadows that require magic weapons.

Ok, so the first question the party has about your new character. "Are you a front line combatant?" They ask this because they've lost many characters to the fact that they're a party of 6 with 1, often no, fighter /ranger /paladin /barbarian and it makes the going tough. If the answer is no, they want to know "Then what good are you?"

Thief: I'm the thief
Bard: I can buff everyone pretty well. Oh, and I've got a wide array of other useful abilities; some thief, some sorcerer, and I'm handy with a rapier.
Mage: I'm the Mage
Cleric: I'm the Cleric

Monk: I don't use weapons. No, I don't cast spells. Or heal people. Or disarm traps or do anything else particularly well.

Two things made me start thinking about this; obviously the fact that two of my players are running Monks is half of it. The other half is that another player is a Fighter 1/Forsaker 4. He can already hit things as though he weapons were +2. WTF? 

Anyone else think this is wonky? Is there something we're not doing right?


----------



## Olive (Jul 30, 2002)

I'm having my first experiences with a monk at the moment and the player is facing some of the same qualms... basically that he can't hit anything very well, or take the damage he needs to take.

also tho, i've heard lots of people say that they regard the forsaker as totally overpowered, so maybe the problem isn't that monks suck, but that forsakers should suck more!


----------



## alsih2o (Jul 30, 2002)

i think you are applying a more traditional mindset to a monk oriented party.

 with 2 monks, are you handing out +1 nunchukas( or staves? or other funky monky weapons?) at the same rate as +1 swords?

 if balanced by the g.m. it is my opinion that the monk can be just as badbutted as most.

 (edit: a-they suck, b:they suck...that IS funny imo)


----------



## Crothian (Jul 30, 2002)

Many people can't seem to play a good monk.  THey have great skill selection.  They do seem to need higher attributes.  

Personally, the monk in my last game was a better fighter then the barbarian.  THe sheer number of attacks garunteed he hit every round.  THe great saves made him fearless, and the abilities are great.


----------



## Zerovoid (Jul 30, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *Two things made me start thinking about this; obviously the fact that two of my players are running Monks is half of it. The other half is that another player is a Fighter 1/Forsaker 4. He can already hit things as though he weapons were +2. WTF?
> *




How can you be a Fighter1/Forsaker4?  Forsaker needs Lightning Reflexes, Great Fortitude, and Iron Will, and none of those are on the fighter bonus feat list.


----------



## Romotre (Jul 30, 2002)

I don't think monks suck. Try some OA n' such feats. Improved grabble, expert tactiain, defensive throw, choke hold. Or maybe some old fasioned feats like spring attack.  Try some magic items from sword & fist like the amulet that enchants a monks fists, or ki straps (+5 stunning DC). I have a house rule that allow monks to take fighter levels and have the base attack granted from them to stack with unarmed bab, but they have to give up all the weapon and armor profs. this bab will never grant them extra attack though. not that monks would want them (the profs), but it still means they can't get the cool monk/prestige class abilitiies until later.


----------



## Avatar_V (Jul 30, 2002)

*The inerty object*

LoL, the monk in the game I DM is a halfling with an incredible dex, great hide/ms and poor spot. He calls himself 'The inert object'. Nothing can hit him; he can hit nothing, Nothing can see him; he can see nothing. It's pretty funny. Personally, I think it's not terribly unbalanced. Sure the fighter dishes out some massive damage, but how many times has the cleric had to rush to yank bolts out of the fighter's chest just hps away from -10? Many. Meanwhile the monk stays happily out of the way tossing his shurikens doing a nice steady trickle of sure damage.


----------



## Hejdun (Jul 30, 2002)

My party will likely agree with you.  Their opinion is that as a monk is a front line fighter, they have:

1. Bad attack bonus.
2. Bad damage.
3. Bad AC (Unless you have lots of magic)
4. Bad hit points.
5. Are VERY stat dependant.

At higher levels their abilities kind of ease the pain, but at levels lower than 10, it's pure agony.


----------



## CRG (Jul 30, 2002)

I like the monk.  I have one complaint that is easily remedied via house rules, though.

They can't use staves or other weapons with their unarmed rate.  Sure, I can see that you want to limit the list to as few items as possible - they are going to get wicked numbers of attacks.

However, I think what it really accomplished is making everyone think that monks *MUST* use unarmed attacks ALWAYS.  There is nothing saying that your monk has to get his furious flurry on every critter.  And frankly, with the monk's maneuverability and dodge-tumble survivability, you can get most places quickly and easily.  With spring attack, you can get to most places, attack once and then leave again without much problem.

So, I think the biggest drawback to the monk is that wacky-no-one-else-can-do-this-unarmed thing that makes alot of monk players think I-can't-use-any-weapon.  Simply not true.

And not to go even more heretical, but TECHNICALLY a mithril buckler (with no arcane spell failure percentage) DOES NOT impact their special abilities or the wisdom-based armor.  Also, TECHNICALLY if your wisdom + class AC bonus is not very high, there is nothing saying that decent leather armor (with a relatively low arcane spell failure) couldn't be used.

Just don't think you must ONLY do unarmed...


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Jul 30, 2002)

The monk in my OA campaign is doing fine. Keep in mind that monk weapons exist to circumvent the ki strike problem. There is no reason why a 6th level monk can't keep a +1 kama handy in case he needs to penetrate damage reduction.

It's been said before - monks shine at higher levels. The guy in my game is going to become a tattooed monk (a PrC from OA), and looking at his feat progression (improved grapple/earth's embrace/etc) and his tatto selections (wasp/tiger/dragon/lion/scorpion), he's going to kick some butt. Not like a fighter, no, but he will be shutting some people down. The player is a tactical genius and I've seen him play a monk before. His old monk was absurdly cool; I can't wait to watch the new one blossom. 

I remember when, at 4th level or so, a bad guy inside a border fort had leapt upon a hippogriff and begun to take off into the sky, escaping our party. This guy's monk sprinted to the wall, bounded it in a single leap, charged up to the hippogriff, springboarded himself off a wagon, caught air, and *tackled the guy off the flying horse*. It was one of the coolest moves I have yet seen in D&D, and nobody but a smart player running a monk could have done it at 4th level.


----------



## Victim (Jul 30, 2002)

Why on earth could no one else have done it? All it would require would be a high Jump check with a decent attack bonus, something that Barbarians, Fighters, etc. can all easily get. Hell, even a wizard or sorcerer, aided by the Jump spell, could reach the bad guy. And, of course, a Psychic Warrior can do far sicker jumps than the Monk.

And there is no way a 1st level Fighter can take Forsaker at 2nd. The Saving Throw feats aren't on the list of bonus feats.


----------



## Squire James (Jul 30, 2002)

Heh.  All of a sudden that Drunken Master doesn't look all that unfair anymore, does it?

I know Monks need 2 things:

1.  Some way for Wisdom to benefit offense as well as defense.  I currently favor a feat (Zen Hands?) that allows the Wisdom bonus to be added to unarmed damage instead of Strength.   That would cut one score out of the Ability Dependency loop, for one thing.  Maybe some monk-oriented PrC can let someone "stack it up" like Order of Bow Initiates can do with Zen Archery.

2.  Non-moronic weapon options.  The "monk weapons" are basically the worst weapons in the game!  I currently favor allowing monks to use their unarmed damage base with "monk weapons".  Swinging around a weapon that does a base of 1d6 damage and basic x2 crit isn't quite so insane if the monk at least has prospects of doing 1d8 or 1d10 with it later.  I don't think I've seen a martial arts movie yet where the fighters started doing LESS damage because they picked up a pair of 'chucks!  I mean, sheesh, Jackie Chan woulda NEVER made it as a D&D character (he'd still have to cajole the DM to make "ladder" a monk weapon, but I digress)!


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 30, 2002)

Hmmm...some good ideas here. First, glad someone pointed out the Forsaker thing. The character's dead anyway, but it's still nice to know.

I think that allowing a monk to use his Wisdom bonus to ad to ATK and DMG and (a problem I have) allowing them to affect creatures that can only be affected by plus X weapons up to their Wisdom would be pretty cool. Might superpower them, but I tend to prefer my players be Superpowered than Underpowered. I'll have to think about it.


----------



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

monks are fine.  If you want the monk th be a front line fighter put your best stat in str.  Don't put a 12 there and then whine that the fighter does way more damage.  

  Two magic fang is your friend hire a dang druid to make you an amulet of magic fang for gods sake.  The rules for them are in sword and fist.  This isn't really a brillian idea, the monk in my group asked for them before sword and fist, I gave it too him apparently at a cheaper price than sword and fist recomends.

needing multiple stats can be bad, but all those benefits you gain from those stats are great when you get object of wisdom, and then boost you other stats for the standard benies.  If in a point buy you actually luck out because with multiple small bonus stats you get multiple benefits. For example 25 point buy.  1/2 orc 16 str, 14 dex, 14 wis 9 int, 6 chr, 12 con.  I get a decent str, and a good ac since my wiz and dex add too it, and low prime for my stun attack oh boo-hoo.  lets say I have  a small amount of money a +2 wis/+2 dex in two items equalls 8,000gp and gives +2 to ac if I wanted a +2 just from dex like those single stat dependent weaklings it would be a +4 item and cost 16,000gp.  Those 8,000 I save help me buy bracers of armor, or amulet of magic fang, or whatever.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 30, 2002)

Yes, PHB Monks generally suck at combat.  I have a 5th level Monk with pretty good stats (equivalent to a 40+ point point-buy!) like 15 STR, 18 DEX, 17 WIS and he's not at all a damage machine like either the Fighter or the Barbarian.   Exactly why has been covered in similar threads before, but basically I get two swings at +3/+3 and do 1d8+2 damage for every hit.  Its just not in the same league as what a Barbarian or Fighter can do at 5th level.

The Monk does have a nice selection of skills, but they dont have a huge amount of "party synergy".  For instance, if a Rogue uses Disarm to fix a trap or open a chest, the whole party cheers.  But if the Monk uses Balance or Jump to get across a difficult bridge, the rest of the party still has to cross behind him using their own pathetic Balance.  

The Monk gets good saves, which again dont help the party as a whole.  (Wouldnt we all rather that the enemy spellcaster Dominate the Monk rather than the Barbarian?  Yes, indeedy!)  He gets good movement, which is actually a good tactical advantage; though when your Barbarian is +11 to hit he doenst really need you to help him get another +2 Flanking Bonus.  

Some people say that OA or S&F helps things out; I'd tend to believe that.  (It certainly cant hurt to have more Feats available; although one of the reasons the Fighter gets good rapidly is because she can choose her Feats while the Monk is getting Deflect Arrows and Still Mind.)  FRCS helps a bit by having Monk organizations that allow limited multiclassing; though I think its a sad commentary on the state of the Monk that one way to make your Monk better is by taking your next level in anything other than Monk.  ;-)


----------



## Acmite (Jul 30, 2002)

CRG said:
			
		

> *
> And not to go even more heretical, but TECHNICALLY a mithril buckler (with no arcane spell failure percentage) DOES NOT impact their special abilities or the wisdom-based armor.  Also, TECHNICALLY if your wisdom + class AC bonus is not very high, there is nothing saying that decent leather armor (with a relatively low arcane spell failure) couldn't be used.
> 
> Just don't think you must ONLY do unarmed... *




PHB, 1st printing, p. 39, 1st column, 2nd-last paragraph: "A monk's special skills all require freedom of movement.  When wearing armour, a monk loses her AC bonus for Wisdom, AC bonus for class and level, favorable multiple unarmed attacks per round, and heightened movement."

Technically, according to the rules as written (and I believe the spirit of the rules), a monk cannot wear any armour and still add her Wisdom bonus to AC.  Nor can she use her unarmed BAB (even with monk weapons).  Arcane spell failure (and armour check penalty) have no real bearing on any of the monk's "core" abilities save skills (tumble, balance, etc).


----------



## CRG (Jul 30, 2002)

Yep.  Like I said - my comments were nigh heretical.

(1) A shield is not armor, if you want to get picky.  

(2) If you're willing to screw the Wisdom and Class based AC bonuses, you can suit up in light armor.  At low levels, these bonuses may not amount to anything or if you want to do damage and pump strength you can keep your wisdom low and wear armor.  The arcane spell failure applies to things like evasion, etc.  At low levels you're not going that fast anyway, so again, a trick to stay livable until you progress higher.

And, regardless of spirit or letter of the law, there's nothing saying you can't just take proficiency and use a bow.  Or a spear.  Or a sword.

The key to the post was more to remind people that, whereas unarmed attacks are cool and YES, I do agree it would be nice for them to get the unarmed attack rate with more than just the weapons listed, there is nothing that says in the rules "since you can do unarmed combat, you must".  You can pick up weapons.

As far as the post about barbarians and fighters being able to jump as well as monk, I'm not so sure.  The monk isn't limited by her height, etc. on distance and can jump at all sorts of wierd angles (vertical and horizontal).


----------



## Maldur (Jul 30, 2002)

The monk in our party is very usefull in a fight, even with low damage.

Harrasing the enemy, granting flanking bonusses, using improved trips to put the enemy down. Using stun to make enemies defenseless and disarming them.

And with a simple bull strenght from the wiz he can even dish out some damage.


----------



## rounser (Jul 30, 2002)

> A shield is not armor, if you want to get picky.



Why perpetuate this myth?  Haven't a couple of the core designers already stated that they intended shields to be considered armor?  Looks distinctly like you're trying to exploit an unintended loophole, really.


----------



## CRG (Jul 30, 2002)

Like I said, I was being extremely picky and nigh-heretical.   

The main points is that - YES monks are good unarmed but that does not mean you must ALWAYS use unarmed combat.  Suit up to protect yourself.  Use weapons when you need to.  So you run into something with DR and your DM hasn't blessed you with the perfect weapon that gives you great magical bonuses and allows you to use your unarmed attack rate?  So what, use a dagger or a spear!

Not trying to be a pain, but any class is going to suck if you pigeon-hole yourself.  The monk is a very survivable class and respectable in combat, but in no way is it supposed to be able to go up against all foes and put the beat-down on them with your bare fists.  

And in any event, so what if it is armor?  So you loose some abilities while you wear it at lower levels to stay alive...what's the deal?  Its like expecting the ranger to always dual-wield just because he can, or for the barbarian to never-ever get proficiency in or wear heavy armor because he looses some class features.  Sure, they are useful.  Its also like expecting every cleric to have a high charisma to turn lots of undead - how many clerics slack off in that department?  Is it unheard of?


----------



## arwink (Jul 30, 2002)

My  players went for about a year with only a monk and a cleric/rogue as their frontline fighters, and they just about murdered the monks player when he stopped playing the monk and started playing a fighter.

The monk's skill is not doing massive damage in combat, it's tactical combat and doing lots of little bits of damage.  Basically, the cleric/rogue and the monk were an all pupose tumbling and flanking machine, chasing down opponents and hammering them mercilessly.  Stunning Fist, with a few potions of wisdom, pretty much detered any spellcasters they came up against, and they weren't afraid of using a magical kama or even dagger when it was necessary.

Monk's are good in team with other characters, although they do tend to be less effective when being relied upon as the parties sole combatent.


----------



## Lord Vangarel (Jul 30, 2002)

We have an NPC Monk in our campaign after a player abandoned his monk saying he'd never play one again. I wanted to prove that the monk is a viable character and so far I'm sad to say it isn't. One change I'm considering is to make ki strike once every 4 levels so 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. This is because one of the reasons imo for playing a monk is the unarmed attacks but while most other characters will have +1 or +2 magic weapons the monk still can't hit the damage reduction creatures.


----------



## Zarrock God of Evil (Jul 30, 2002)

In the RttToEE campaign we've been playing the monk has been the strongest character BY FAR until this point. Beware these minor spoilers:
*
*
*
**
*
*
**
*
*
*
The cultists in town used lots of subterfuge and stealth in their dealing with their party. Druid was easy game alone in the grove - no chance of escape. The barbarian was charmed trying to rescue the druid. The monk easily escaped and made all his saves on the way out of the mill (where the druid was kept). During a hectic horse and wagon chase to the moathouse the monk really shone. Tumbling from cart to cart, engaging enemies off-balance, deflecting arrows and being the only survivor when the villains cart crashed mercilessly into a big rock after one of the horses was shot to death. 

Against the Dragon, only a few of the party were still standing after the battle - among them the monk who had taken a lot of damage - but nothing compared to the fighter and paladin (who were both disabled). Monks ability to get out of the way of breath weapons and spell effects while still acting up-front and lightening the damage load of the fighters is terrific.

In the Moathouse Dungeon, the ghouls and ghasts ambushed the weakened party and paralyzed most of them. Only the extreme mobility and good saves of the monk and quick thinking of the remaining sorcerer saved the party from being annihilated. Still, two characters were lost to Coup-de-Graces....

Funny thing is: I rolled up an NPC monk before these adventures (levels 1-3) to show that the monk was a viable class. I didn't know before-hand that one of the players was dying to play the monk. So I decided to go with two monks in the group for the first series of adventures. My NPC monk never really shone - he did a fair job but nothing more - while the PC Monk was leading the group performance-wise from the beginning. Depends on the person playing the monk IMO...


----------



## Eccles (Jul 30, 2002)

*More in the defence of the monk*

Are you guys kidding? The monk has more kudos than any other class! The guy practically plays himself! He comes complete with an attitude and style of fighting. You even get to do the silly voices, and how many times do you get to face up to a red dragon, confident in the knowledge that you might escape a full flaming breath unscathed, and tell it "my chi is superior!"?

They're fast and funny. Played right they can fill in for anyone except the spellcasters. At higher levels they self-heal to a degree, taking the weight off the cleric. 

OK, they can run across the thin rope and leave the rest of the party behind. But of course they can also do that _carrying another rope_, and thus let the rest of the party get across fairly safely. Heck, that chasm? They could probably jump it!

The flurry of blows is wicked (once you've spent several hours getting your maths right), and although personally I only managed to get about 1 stunning blow in 5 to work (not my fault, the DC was in the 20s, but the DM kept getting lucky), when it worked, I was doing wicked damage with the liberal use of improved trip, and leaving a stunned, prone wounded villain on the floor for the barbarian to slice into a dozen tiny pieces. A villain who couldn't attack and would have to spend valuable time getting up in 2 rounds time!

And all this without mentioning the excellent saves, high manoeverability and massive mage-killing potential...

The monk rocks, damn it!


----------



## S'mon (Jul 30, 2002)

Monks are the preferred class in my lowish-magic game; they don't have the awesome destructive power of a single-classed wizard or sorcerer, but they're very good at _staying alive!_  One thing my players did was start their monks at 4th level multi-classed - one with a level of Fighter, the other with Rogue & Sorcerer.  The Sorcerer level wasn't much use but Rogue (sneak Attack!) and Fighter (weapon proficiencies!) levels have been very handy.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 30, 2002)

Want to be less stat dependant? Put all you got in Wis and Dex then take Weapon Finesse (unarmed). With 18 Wis and Dex, a 1st level monk has an AC of 19, far better than a 1st level fighter in scale+shield. He will be adding +4 to his attacks (+2/+2 with flurry). A 1st level human monk could even add Weapon Focus (unarmed). Or maybe Improved Initiative (which goes up to +8), attacking and stunning flat-footed foes. Or he could pick up Dodge and Mobility, which paves the way for a Spring Attack at 3rd level. With a rogue in the group, there's even more reason to pick up Dodge and Mobility. Not only your AC against one foe goes to 20 (24 vs. AoO for moving), you flank him easily, and the 1st level rogue then gets his sneak in with every attack.

The point on monk weapons is well-made. If your game has monks, it's only logical that you make magical monk weapons available. A monk that doesn't comission a +1 kama at 3rd level or so just isn't being very wise...


----------



## Kugar (Jul 30, 2002)

Or...
Give all monks the Heroic Powers feat from 4CtF, and pick a sub-set of powers that they can choose from.  As the monks go up in level, they can donate money to charity - creating a gp deficit needed to buy cool powers with Hero Points (from 4 Color to Fantasy - Natural 20 Press pg 39). That should give them the sort of super-powered monk most people look for.


----------



## Storminator (Jul 30, 2002)

Monks providing flanking for a fighter or barbarian is pretty trivial. A monk providing flanking for a rogue adds a lot of lethality.

Monks can sneak. Put ranks in MS & hide, and the monk and the rogue take out sentries all day long. Try that in half plate. 

The monk's place in the group is harder to find than other classes, but it's there.

PS


----------



## Psion (Jul 30, 2002)

Funny, normally the complaint is that monks are too powerful. Then someone else complains they are tepid. Good implication to me that all is right...

At any rate, I would agree that Monks depend a lot on a fairly good set of stats... 14+ in strength, dex, con, and wis is highly desirable. However, the monk in our game is very competent, and oft times even aggravating (villains running away to return another day? fuggitaboutit!)

I run games where stealth and mobility can be important. In this sort of environment, the monk is very strong. You run a straight up bash-fest, I wouldn't be surprised if the monk starts playing second fiddle to fighters and barbarians.

Then, it often falls in the PCs hands to decide how they approach challenges, so much of the responsibility falls in the players' laps.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 30, 2002)

Klaus said:
			
		

> *Want to be less stat dependant? Put all you got in Wis and Dex then take Weapon Finesse (unarmed). With 18 Wis and Dex, a 1st level monk has an AC of 19, far better than a 1st level fighter in scale+shield. He will be adding +4 to his attacks (+2/+2 with flurry). A 1st level human monk could even add Weapon Focus (unarmed). *



No, they can't. Both weapon finesse and weapon focus have BAB +1 as a prerequisite, so the monk can't take either until level 3 and the second would have to wait for level 6.


----------



## hong (Jul 30, 2002)

The problem with the monk isn't that it's over- or under-powered, or that it's unbalanced. The problem is that the class abilities, while individually they have roots in the martial arts genre, don't come together to produce a result that's always in line with player expectations.

Consider kung-fu and karate action movie heroes like Bruce, Jackie, Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh. What do these people do? They kick butt. They may go about it in a variety of ways, ranging from the comical to the morally ambiguous, but the common thread is that they get into big stand-up fights, and they win.

The D&D monk isn't like that. If you get into stand-up fights, you generally lose, because you don't have the BAB, AC or hit points for the task. Kicking butt in physical combat is the fighter's schtick. The monk's schtick is the invulnerability/mage-killing thing, and while that's useful, it may not be what the monk's player had in mind. Hence the variety of alt.monks ("martial artists") which try to boost the character's buttkicking power without making it overpowering into the bargain.


Hong "need I mention this one?" Ooi


----------



## Psion (Jul 30, 2002)

> If you get into stand-up fights, you generally lose,




I dunno... that describes the protagonist in a LOT of martial arts flicks I have seen. 

Anyway, I sort of get where you are going. For me, what I find troubling about the monk is that it is a rather specific archetype that forms the only basis for all unarmed martial arts action. I find this somewhat troubling. You can try to create more generic martial artists by multiclassing monks, but things like alignment requirements and the (often ignored) multiclass restrictions combine to make such characters problematic.

In more martial arts oriented games, I use the "Beyond Monks" martial artist, (or dispense with d20 and use the HERO system, BID.)


----------



## hong (Jul 30, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I dunno... that describes the protagonist in a LOT of martial arts flicks I have seen.
> *




Well, they lose when it's dramatically appropriate. Mind you, this also describes most non-martial arts action flicks. 



> *
> Anyway, I sort of get where you are going. For me, what I find troubling about the monk is that it is a rather specific archetype that forms the only basis for all unarmed martial arts action. I find this somewhat troubling. You can try to create more generic martial artists by multiclassing monks, but things like alignment requirements and the (often ignored) multiclass restrictions combine to make such characters problematic.
> *




Yeah, they shouldn't have put so much effort into trying to recreate the 1E monk. A more generic "unarmed and unarmoured" class would have been ideal, with the 1E monk possibly being turned into a prestige class.



> *
> In more martial arts oriented games, I use the "Beyond Monks" martial artist, (or dispense with d20 and use the HERO system, BID.) *




Beyond Monks isn't bad at all, true.

What I was trying to achieve with my effort was something that's like a cross between that, and the fighter -- ie you can fight with bare hands, but you can also use swords, spears, staffs, or whatever else you deem appropriate for your character. All of these have featured in martial arts movies. Basically I consider the defining features of the martial artist -- what makes it different from just a fighter -- as the acrobatics and lack of armour, even more so than the unarmed fighting.


Hong "plus I can make Jedi with it" Ooi


----------



## Rashak Mani (Jul 30, 2002)

Pros and Cons of the Monk:

Cons:

12 Str = Low damage, so get real STR please
Good stats very necessary 
HPs a little lower than fighters
Magic items to boost attack and damage more expensiv
Less feats than real fighters.

Pros:

High AC against touch attacks
Multiple attacks
STUN !  
Tumble... etc...
Great for Flanking (not much good if you dont have a rogue to take advantage of that)
High Saves = Survivablity vs Mages/Magic

   Overall the greatest problem is that the Monk doesnt fill a Niche (tank usually)... and 3rd Ed has made the balanced group much more important than before. Good Str and Wis make for much more deadly monks.  Therefore I suggest doing like we do... boost WIS and STR with clerics spells.  The stun becomes absurd and AC skyrockets. Stunning a Dire Bear is no mean feat... saved my Barbarian Dwarf.

   Is your group balanced ?  Tank, Mage, Cleric and Rogue already ? Then go ahead and have a monk... One of the classes missing ?  Suggest you reconsider monkying around. Everyone is tired of Monks that survive combat but dont help in combat.

   With a good rogue and a good fighter in the group the monk can help boost the combat prowess of the group by taking out mages and flanking tough creatures.  When incorporeal undead attack the monks high AC doesnt depend on armor and he can keep those shadows at bay.  

    Monks just have to be worked a little to make them more useful. Remember they arent fighters and they arent rogues.... get damage boosting equip and feats.


----------



## Macbrea (Jul 30, 2002)

We have a monk in our party that is quite funny.  The DM set up an nights worth of encounters for us dealing with it being a full moon and a bunch of the citzens turning into werewolves all about town.  Ten werewolves in all.  The monk and the bard were in the tavern and the rest of us were at our houses about town. 

Suddenly, one of the citzens started changing into a werewolf.  The monk leaped across the room and improved grappled the werewolf, then next round choke holded him.  Then corpe de grace him before the rest of the bar could respond.  He leaped up and decided to run to the town guard.

Along, the way he encounted the rest of the werewolves about 2 to 3 at a time.  By the end of it he had wiped the lot out with the same series of attack.  We just kind of watched as he crossed town.  The set up stuff was pretty much finished completely in an hour of our monk crossing the town.  The gamemaster had no real choice but to award the 8th level monk experience for killing off 10 werewolves by himself.


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 30, 2002)

Macbrea said:
			
		

> *We have a monk in our party that is quite funny.  The DM set up an nights worth of encounters for us dealing with it being a full moon and a bunch of the citzens turning into werewolves all about town.  Ten werewolves in all.  The monk and the bard were in the tavern and the rest of us were at our houses about town.
> 
> Suddenly, one of the citzens started changing into a werewolf.  The monk leaped across the room and improved grappled the werewolf, then next round choke holded him.  Then corpe de grace him before the rest of the bar could respond.  He leaped up and decided to run to the town guard.
> 
> Along, the way he encounted the rest of the werewolves about 2 to 3 at a time.  By the end of it he had wiped the lot out with the same series of attack.  We just kind of watched as he crossed town.  The set up stuff was pretty much finished completely in an hour of our monk crossing the town.  The gamemaster had no real choice but to award the 8th level monk experience for killing off 10 werewolves by himself. *




LMAO that is classic! Great story!


----------



## Dr Midnight (Jul 30, 2002)

What's the deal with the monk? I mean, why not just buy a gun and put your time to better use? And what's with the hair? They either shave it ALL off... or only halfway back. Is it because they can't see the backs of their heads in the mirrors? Can you not see that you still have a half a head full of hair? Don't get me started on their little shoes. Those things have NO arch protection.


----------



## Zog (Jul 30, 2002)

A previous poster wrote that his 5th level monk had a base attack of +2/+2.

On the other hand, a monk I played up to level 6 (with 1st level in rogue) had a base attack of +9 or +7/+7.
Damage d6 +2, flanking 2d6+2 (if sneak attack applies)
AC of 19, 20 w/dodge.  

Magic items: A +1 mace, a +1 ring of deflection, ring of jumping.
Solid skills: +18 hide, +43 jump, +14 tumble, etc.

Really good stats - but I rolled them, and seeing how good they were, decided to play the monk.  

As a halfling, with a dex of 20, str and wis of 14, weapon finesse unarmed - he was darn effective.
The one fight in which my character was less than effective was the one-on-one fight with the hill giant.  That, um, that didn't quite work very well....  

It is difficult to make an effective monk - you really, really need great stats to start with.  Some good magic items, the right feat combos, and you can hold your own.  If the party spellcasters toss a few buff spells your way, you are ready to ruin some critter's day.  
It is, unfortunately, very easy to make a mediocre monk, who is simply less than useful.  Monk, like bards, can be very effective if played well.  And a waste of space if built poorly.  Both of them round out a party of the 4 basic classes very well - but neither stand well as a replacement.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 30, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *I'm noticing two things about the two monks in my game.
> 
> A: They suck. This seems primarily due to the fact that they just can't dish out that much damage. Their special abilities are cool, but they're kinda passive. They mostly work along the lines of "it's hard to screw them."
> 
> *




What kind of strength does the monk character have?  If it's low, well of course, he's not going to do large amounts of damage!  You're also skipping over the fact that at early levels, the flurry of blows allows the monk to make an extra attack on a full round action that fighters do not have.  Yes, the attacks are at a -2, however, statistically, it's better to have the extra attack than to have a bonus to a single attack.



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> B: They suck. This seems in part due to the fact that, without magic, the Monk can't do much against A: incorporeal undead, B: creatures that need magic weapons to hit them. Eventually, the Monk can hit things that require magic, but it's at 10th level. They're right now fighting things like Stone Golems and Shadows that require magic weapons.
> 
> *




The fighter can't hit these things either.......unless you give him a magic weapon.

The monk can't hit these things..........unless you give him a magic weapon.  (or he's 10th level...)



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, so the first question the party has about your new character. "Are you a front line combatant?" They ask this because they've lost many characters to the fact that they're a party of 6 with 1, often no, fighter /ranger /paladin /barbarian and it makes the going tough. If the answer is no, they want to know "Then what good are you?"
> 
> ...




Yeah, your mage and cleric better have a little bit more to say for themselves than _"I'm the mage....I fire magic missile at the darkness!  heh, heh!"_ or _"I'm the cleric.....I heal people."_

When they come up against the stone golem, why isn't the mage or the cleric casting magic weapon, magic fang, or greater magic weapon on the monk?  Why aren't they giving everyone enhancement spells like Bull's Strength and Endurance before battles?  It doesn't sound like they're exactly helping matters much.

The monk is as viable a character as any other, but if he's not going to be given the same opportunities as other characters...(wow, that's the 20th magic hoard we've found and still no magical kama???)...or if the party isn't going to back him up, well then ANY character in that situation is going to do badly.


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Jul 30, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Consider kung-fu and karate action movie heroes like Bruce, Jackie, Chow Yun-Fat and Michelle Yeoh. What do these people do? They kick butt. *




Thats because they have been doing it for years, so are probably higher level.  I dunno what HKAT movies you have been watching, but the ones I watch those guys RARELY hit substantially.

Think about it, Jacky runs up, smacks a guy 40 times in a second, then steps back.  The bad guy growls at Jacky and steps up to riposte.  Hey, thats just like my Monk!  I Flurry of Blows, don't hit crap, and look cool!  Plus all the leaping and tumbling, Monks are pretty spot on.  If they were more fighter types in the DnD sense all we would see is Jacky moving up and dropping guys in a single blow.  And thats no fun


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Jul 30, 2002)

A few game sessions ago I put the party up against a 6th Monk and 6th Sorcerer and a bunch of cannon fodder (the party was taking control of the ship the _Storm Rider_ in the city of Scant).  The party tore thru the connon fodder as expected and they went after the Sorcerer (thinking that was their biggest threat).  The Monk with a +2 Kama faced off against the party's toughest characters.  They didn't land a hand on him.  He managed to move around too fast and  then got away before the party could gang up on him because they realized that he was the bigger threat.  He kept leaping from the ship to the dock and tumbled past the party.  This then allowed the Sorcerer to get away and now I have recurring villians.  They still haven't forgot about that Monk running circles around them which I'm about to use against them again, to their surprise! Muhaha...    

I agree the if monks are to be used in a campaign then the DM must give them the magical items to be effective, just like every other class.  If the fighter and rogue types have magical weapons and the spell casters have magical equipment then it only makes sense that the monk should have some too.  Just my MO.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Jul 30, 2002)

CRG said:
			
		

> *(1) A shield is not armor, if you want to get picky.*




Actually, in D&D, it is... it's defined as a type of armor, provides an armor bonus to AC, and is on the armor chart.

Oh, and by the way... how did you come up with your username?  (I'm curious because of our similarity.)


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 30, 2002)

The main problem with the Monk is that it's difficult to put the class's weird abilities and immunities to effective use.

Here are some rather high level characters that our group is using that make some of the Monk's problems manifest.  The characters are 15th level with 35 point buy for stats and standard equipment (200k).

Ran: Halfling Ranger 1, Rogue 14.  Atts: +21/+21/+16/+16/+11.  Damage: 1d4+3 + (1d6+1 electric) and 7d6 sneak attack.  AC 29.  HP 79.  F: +13 R: +21 W: +11 Ring of Blinking

Orion:  Human Monk 15.  Atts: (flurry) +15/+15/+12/+9/+6  Dmg: 1d12+5.  AC 29.  HP 108.  F: +16 R: +16 W: +18  Cloak of Major Displacement, Mighty Fist item +2  

Practically, both ACs are 33, because both characters can haste themselves.  

Without sneak attacking, Ran only does about one point less per hit than Orion.  A rogue that is denied sneak attack damage isn't exactly the person you want around in a fight.  And here we have a Monk whose damage is almost that bad (a Bull's STR on the halfling makes up the difference) and will hit less often.

Sure, a Stunning Attack is an excellent tool for the whole team, because both the rogue and monk have Expert Tactician.  However, since the stunning attack has to be called in advance on one of the monk's attacks, and since each attack has a rather low chance to hit, the Stunning Blow attack will probably fail, even without taking the Fort save into consideration.




> *Want to be less stat dependant? Put all you got in Wis and Dex then take Weapon Finesse (unarmed). With 18 Wis and Dex, a 1st level monk has an AC of 19, far better than a 1st level fighter in scale+shield. He will be adding +4 to his attacks (+2/+2 with flurry). A 1st level human monk could even add Weapon Focus (unarmed). Or maybe Improved Initiative (which goes up to +8), attacking and stunning flat-footed foes. Or he could pick up Dodge and Mobility, which paves the way for a Spring Attack at 3rd level. With a rogue in the group, there's even more reason to pick up Dodge and Mobility. Not only your AC against one foe goes to 20 (24 vs. AoO for moving), you flank him easily, and the 1st level rogue then gets his sneak in with every attack.
> 
> The point on monk weapons is well-made. If your game has monks, it's only logical that you make magical monk weapons available. A monk that doesn't comission a +1 kama at 3rd level or so just isn't being very wise... *





Somehow, I don't see a character that requires TWO 18s as stat independent.  And, as others have pointed out, Monks don't qualify for either Focus or Finess at level 1, and can't take Spring Attack until level 6 at best since it requires +4 base attack.  That simple +1 kama will probably require all the Monk's money at level 3 as well.  He'd be better off commisioning a Pearl of Power for the wizard who casts Mage Armor.

Summon Monster 1 also provides flanking, and can appear next to someone, bypassing movement altogether. 


I much prefer Psychic Warriors to Monks.  First of all, Psi Wars have much greater flexibility because they get bonus feats and can select their own powers.  Also, they can use weapons fairly effectively like most martial artist archetypes.  They can also use powers like Deep Impact or Unavoidable Strike to actually hit things.  Sure, they don't have poison immunity, SR, or great saves.  However, most of the time, people interested in playing Monks aren't interested in killing the awesome wizard killer but crappy combatant.


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: What's Up With The Monk?*



			
				TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You need a Druid to cast the Magic Fang spells.  I usually don't see people playing Druids, how about you?  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to think that the wizard or cleric might be making magic weapons, but not a nifty +2 or +3 mighty fist amulet for the monk.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: What's Up With The Monk?*



			
				Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You need a Druid to cast the Magic Fang spells.  I usually don't see people playing Druids, how about you?  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to think that the wizard or cleric might be making magic weapons, but not a nifty +2 or +3 mighty fist amulet for the monk. *




Oops, I'm wrong about magic fang.  Point stands for casting magic weapon or gtr. magic weapon, however.  If the monk can't hit monsters with damage reduction, then the party can boost his abilities with bull's str or enlarge, or better yet, cast one of the two magic weapon spells.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 30, 2002)

> I run games where stealth and mobility can be important. In this sort of environment, the monk is very strong.




These are two great abilities of a Monk.  But, unless your Monk is of a race with Darkvision then stealth is useless underground because of light issues.  Our group has run through the standard module series (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury) and though I put points into Hide and Move Silent I really havent had much chance to be the party scout.

Mobility is nice; though RP considerations constrain you here.  I took the Bushido code from OA as a guide for what my character believes - and that means that you lose honor if you flee from a fight.  At least I can tumble around and attack from the most advantageous spot; but, as anyone will tell you, a Monk is not intended to go toe-to-toe with big angry creatures like Trolls.  Regen 5 will teach you quickly how little damage a Monk actually does turn by turn.  :-(



> A previous poster wrote that his 5th level monk had a base attack of +2/+2.  On the other hand, a monk I played up to level 6 (with 1st level in rogue) had a base attack of +9 or +7/+7.




Hmmm, at 5th level I am +5 or +3/+3 on a Flurry.  Thats with a BAB of 3 and a STR bonus of +2.  

Can you break down your +9?  Even if you are Rogue1/Monk 6 your BAB is still 4 so you'd need 5 points of plusses to get +9.

Not that it matters a lot; our half-orc Barbarian is +11 with his non-magic Great Axe at 5th level.  Thats +5 BAB, +5 STR, +1 Focus.  No buffs, no magic.  A Monk is not going to get close to that level of prowess - and he is not meant to - as his starting BAB of zero implies.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 30, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: What's Up With The Monk?*



			
				Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You need a Druid to cast the Magic Fang spells.  I usually don't see people playing Druids, how about you?  Therefore, it's not unreasonable to think that the wizard or cleric might be making magic weapons, but not a nifty +2 or +3 mighty fist amulet for the monk. *



In my campaign, the druid is probably the character who does the most damage on the baddies. Well, more specifically it's the druid's huge dire badger who does the damage, but it's still the druid's fault.


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 31, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *monks are fine.  If you want the monk th be a front line fighter put your best stat in str.  Don't put a 12 there and then whine that the fighter does way more damage.   *




Don't mistake my meaning. The problem was brought to light by the need of a front line fighter, but the Monk's deficiency in this regard isn't the problem I see.

The problem I see is that the Monks don't excel at *anything*. There is no niche the Monk fills.

I'm leaning toward giving the Monk a new special ability, like so:

Power Of The Will
At 3rd level a Monk may add up to +1 of his Wisdom Bonus to his attacks and damage, and may attack creatures with his bare hands that require +1 weapons if his Wisdom bonus is at least +1

Then at 6th, and 9th levels, increase this bonus to 2, and 3. This would certainly remove my "what the hell good is being able to bypass DR 5/+1 at 10th level when anything that's GOT DR has at least +2 by then. Shadows have the +1 thing and they're CR 3. 

I think the Monk needs too many stats to do well in the first place. Consolidating these under Wisdom would be good. Monk needs high STR to fight, high DEX to get AC and high WIS to power up his special abilities. I think I can fix that.


----------



## ForceUser (Jul 31, 2002)

Again, you're assuming the monk is unarmed. Big assumption. No reason why a monk can't use a +2 kama at 10th level to circumvent that +2 DR. Suggest to your monks that they buy magic weapons and use them as the need arises.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 31, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The problem I see is that the Monks don't excel at *anything*. There is no niche the Monk fills.
> 
> *




They have evasion, fast movement, good saving throws, ability to survive falls, immunity from diseases, etc., etc.

They excel at handling a number of different threats, and being very self-reliant, moreso than the fighter who has less skills and poorer saves.

They excel at moving behind the enemy very quickly and interrupting/incapacitating spellcasters.

I think you're looking at the classes too generically.


----------



## isirga eth (Jul 31, 2002)

*I did the math...*

Inspired by this very concern with the monk's usefulness, I Brian Van Hoosed the rules and made combat probability charts for fighters, rangers, barbarians and monks. Using a typical member of each class at low and high levels, I put them against each other and mathematically calculated their exact chances to hit each other, and the speed with which they won the fight.

Math doesn't lie. And math said that Multiple attacks are a heckuva advantage.

Even with a reduced BAB, the monk made mincemeat out of the other guys because he was making five attacks for every three the others made, at almost the same damage rate. In the end, the monk did MORE average damage than the other guys (not MUCH more, but more anyway).

Now; of course players are not expected to fight each other, and the real issue is whether a class is fun to play AGAINST the monsters...

So I Brian Van Hoosed the rules again, this time cracking and deconstructing the class design rules. Averaging skill points, feats, BAB, hp, special powers, saves and even class limitations, the Monk class is BY FAR the most powerful out there, even counting its obvious drawbacks. 

Mathematical, scientific conclusion: Monks are not only useful, they are over-the-top. 

Of course, if you see your games as an endless series of powerful monster bashing, the monk is weaker than the wizard or fighter - but gaming is much more than that. Even power gaming requires your character to be powerful in something ELSE besides hack & slash. The monk rules in this sense, and I mathematically confirmed that he CAN fight. 

So don't you worry - your monk's cool. Just give him time.

And by the way, the ranger (also considered to be weaker by some) is also mathematically more powerful than other classes.

Power Play munchkin tip: Make a first-level ranger and then be a monk for the rest of your life. Not even a fighter will get that many special powers. Besides, you get a monk who can actually USE a magic sword without a problem, which offsets the weapon use penalties. Also, monk multiclassing penalties do not apply if you change FROM ranger TO monk. Finally, I found no rule forbidding the two-weapon and ambidexterity feats to be used with an UNARMED ATTACK in the off-hand, which results in a very cool combo at lower levels.

Or better yet, if you really feel like munchkining around, start out as a sorcerer and then become a monk at 4th level... jedi knight, anyone?


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 31, 2002)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> *Again, you're assuming the monk is unarmed. Big assumption. No reason why a monk can't use a +2 kama at 10th level to circumvent that +2 DR. Suggest to your monks that they buy magic weapons and use them as the need arises. *




I am assuming the Monk is unarmed. For a couple of reasons.

When I think of Monks, I think "character that excels at unarmed fighting." Maybe you don't. But you can't excel at unarmed fighting and require a magic weapon to be effective.

On the issue of Magic exotic weapons.

1st; I'm not running an Oriental game. Nor am I running a game in which there's an obvious place for Oriental characters to be from. Yet the Monk is one of the base classes. This was, I feel, a mistake since the monk makes no sense whatsoever in the classical European Fantasy melieu.

2nd; Any exotic eastern weapons would therefore be super rare.

3rd: putting *magic* exotic weapons in my game would break suspension of disbelief. There's *no* way the players could possibly get *themselves* to believe the item had come up for any reason other than; 'The GM knows the Monk needs magic.' That's too munchkin for me. Too much metagame thought. It needs to at least be remotely possible that the item was there, regardless of who was in the party.

But my main complaint is that I think of Monks as characters who *should* excel at Unarmed combat. That's their shtick. Should a Monk be able to do as much damage as a fighter? No. Should they trade in some of that potential for the ability to deliver the damage unarmed? Sure.


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 31, 2002)

TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They have evasion, fast movement, good saving throws, ability to survive falls, immunity from diseases, etc., etc.*




These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, theif, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'

But you can't do that with the monk. They don't shine at anything except having weird abilities.



			
				TiQuinn said:
			
		

> *
> They excel at handling a number of different threats, and being very self-reliant, moreso than the fighter who has less skills and poorer saves.
> 
> They excel at moving behind the enemy very quickly and interrupting/incapacitating spellcasters. *




Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.

I think it's possible to take the Monk and, without compromising his Monky-ness, make him about as good a fighter as a ranger. Which is to say; not as bad-ass as a pure fighter, but pretty good and someone who can sub for a fighter if you don't have one. Without the Monks ability to be *something* both unique and effective, I see the class as lacking.


----------



## Corinth (Jul 31, 2002)

Would it help if the monk could use any of his class-based melee weapons with his unarmed BAB?


----------



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

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> These are two great abilities of a Monk.  But, unless your Monk is of a race with Darkvision then stealth is useless underground because of light issues.  Our group has run through the standard module series (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury) and though I put points into Hide and Move Silent I really havent had much chance to be the party scout.
> 
> ...




Lets see +4 bab, str 18 maybe even 20 if 1/2 orc = +8-+9 3rd level take weapon focus unarmed strike for +9-+10 or if flurry of blows +7-+8.  Add in a str boost item and bang even more +to hit.  again we return to my point.  Don't whine about lack of combat effectiveness when the core melle combat stat is your 3rd priority in stat distrribution.    Sure the barbarians and fighters will still usually do more damage, but the difference won't be oh he hits o with +11 for 1d12+7 and I hit on +3/+3 for 1d6+2.  Instead it will be he hits with +11 for 1d12+7 and I hit for +8/+8 for 1d6+5.  Barb is still better but the monk doesn't look like a sucker now though.  And the monk gains a much wider range of special abilities and funcitonal class skills.  

  The bab of a monk is worse yes, but until high levels we are talking about a difference of 1-3 which means basically no real difference.  If I was making a front line monk then my highest stat would be in str and every level based stat increase would go to str.  Would the fihgters still be better at front line fighting, yes but that is all they could do.  I'd be an adequate substitute in front line fighting and have a wide range of other abilities to fall back on.  In all honesty I think the fighter sucks because he is so fighting focused in any but the most hack and slash games he has a lot of twiddling his thumb time.  So play a monk and be a decent front line fighter and a solid out of combat player.


----------



## Henry (Jul 31, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, thief, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'
> 
> But you can't do that with the monk. They don't shine at anything except having weird abilities.*





Matt, I believe you are missing the point here: no class has ALL of these things at the same time. And for one class to have them all, they are GOING to shine. In numerous games I have played, Monks excelled at being "special forces" to the fighter's "grunt front line." No mere fighter can dodge effectively in and out of combat as the monk can - a rogue doesn't pack the punch of a monk unless sneak-attacking, and no other class can evade damage as effectively as a lightly armored monk.




> *
> Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.
> *




On the contrary, if a rogue and monk have equal levels of magic, the monk will be slightly more effective in mobile skirmishes, because a monk's powers are independent of the ability to get sneak attacks, and they will have (due to the wisdom AC ability of the monk) slightly better armor class to deal with counterattacks.



> *
> I think it's possible to take the Monk and, without compromising his Monky-ness, make him about as good a fighter as a ranger. Which is to say; not as bad-ass as a pure fighter, but pretty good and someone who can sub for a fighter if you don't have one. Without the Monks ability to be *something* both unique and effective, I see the class as lacking. *




I will say one thing: in a party without a fighter-type, a cleric-type, a rogue-type, and a wizard-type, ANY of the other classes will be forced into role they are unsuited for. A bard in a party of nothing but bards cannot shine; a wizard in a party of druids cannot shine as well. a party must be well-balanced in order for the other classes to  show off their abilities. Note that the same arguments made here about a monk also have by other posters applied to a bard: "he's too weak", "he's not a rogue," "he's a healre wanna-be" etc. All this misses the point that as the role they are suited for, that of mobile melee combat, monks are fantastic.

As for monks being traditionally unarmed, I take disagreement with you. Precedent in history and legend has been set for whole orders of monks who are built around armed combat - the kama and nunchaku sprang from martial variants of common farm tools orginally, anyway! Hwa Rang Do, for instance, offers training in over ONE HUNDRED weapons. Finally, keep in mind that the grand-daddy of D&D monks, the 1978 AD&D Monk, was a weapon master. They did improved damage with melee weapons, due to their extensive physical body knowledge. So, the precedent was there in D&D, even from the beginning.

(I had a friend of mine who favorite character to play in 1st edition AD&D was a monk with a halberd - it was his trademark! Anytime he was allowed to play a monk, he would do so - and along comes the 5'5" asian monk with his European-bladed halberd. )


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: I did the math...*



			
				isirga eth said:
			
		

> *Inspired by this very concern with the monk's usefulness, I Brian Van Hoosed the rules and made combat probability charts for fighters, rangers, barbarians and monks. Using a typical member of each class at low and high levels, I put them against each other and mathematically calculated their exact chances to hit each other, and the speed with which they won the fight.
> 
> Math doesn't lie. And math said that Multiple attacks are a heckuva advantage.
> 
> *




I'm curious as how you came to your conclusions.  Perhaps you can post some numbers, or abbreviated versions of the characters you used.


----------



## isirga eth (Jul 31, 2002)

*let's see...*

Edit: FORGET this stupid post, uploaded by mistake


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 31, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> These are all things had by other classes. When you think of what a well rounded party needs, does Monk fall into your core 4? I can say; 'fighter, theif, mage, cleric.' And if someone wants to play a Barbarian, ranger, or Paladin, think 'Ok, he's the fighter.' Sorcerer? 'Ok, he's the mage.' Druid? 'Ok, he's the cleric.' Bard; 'Jack of all trades.'
> 
> *




Ranger?  Paladin?  Barbarian?  Sorry....if it's just a four person game we're talking about, they're second fiddle to the fighter.  You don't want to give up all those feats.  Might as well play a fighter.

Sorcerer...sure.  Just don't play a wizard.  They don't get enough spells and they die when there's not enough fighters around to protect them.

Druid?  In place of Cleric?  Sorry....useless in a dungeon.  Needs to memorize healing spells instead of trading for them.

Bard?  In a four person group?  Fuhgeddaboutit.  That'd be a waste.

So I guess you're just stuck with Fighter, Sorcerer, Thief, and Cleric.

I'm being a tad facetious, but I think you're glossing over some of the drawbacks other classes have when relegated strictly to a four person group.



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Being self reliant isn't much of a virtue in a game designed for 4 players. They're no more useful at 'moving behind the enemy and disrupting spellcasters' than a rogue. In fact, since the rogue gets evasion also, but the Monk never gets sneak attack, the rogue is rather better at this, I think.
> 
> *




Rogues don't receive the bonus movement rate or the jumping prowess of a monk.   Monks can also withstand more damage than a rogue, in the chance that someone does get an AoO on them as they move past them.  Rogues are great....unless they can't get their sneak attack.  There are plenty of circumstances that will prevent rogues from using that ability.

You mention the bard as being useful for his jack of all trades capabilities, and I personally think the Monk fits this category even better.  They have good fighting ability, good staying power (saves, HP, AC, evasion), and fast movement.  They get multiple attacks faster than other classes....right from 1st level if they use their flurry of blows ability.  They have access to weapons that allow them to use their unarmed BAB.  They get good number of skill points per level with a nice assortment of class skills.  

I think the monk is a very viable option.  Yes, you can point to various other classes that have this ability or that ability, but the monk brings these together into one package.  Yes, they can't hit creatures that need damage reduction until 10th level, but as I pointed out, neither can a fighter.  A fighter needs a magical weapon.  Well, monks can get magical weapons also....and still use their unarmed attack bonus.  In the games that I've been in, monk PCs have been awesome....able to hold their own on the front line, chase down spellcasters or rogues trying to run away, and withstand magic attacks far better than their fighter counterparts.


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 31, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *Would it help if the monk could use any of his class-based melee weapons with his unarmed BAB? *




It might. I've thought about that, but I'm at work and don't have my book here so I can't run the numbers on it.


----------



## isirga eth (Jul 31, 2002)

*let's see...*

I'll try to remember; I don't keep the notes.

I used the same stat set for the four characters. I think it was:

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 10

One of the characters was a Strength oriented fighter, with the following starting feats: Exotic wpn (Bastard sword), Wpn Focus (Same) and Improved initiative.

The second was a two-weapon oriented guy, with Focus on rapier, ambidexterity and two-weapon fighting.

The third was a barbarian with power attack and cleave.

Finally, I created a monk with Improved initiative and focus (unarmed).

I made three versions of each character: one 1st-level, one 4th-level and one 9th-level. At 4th level I gave both fighters weapon specialization; the tough guy got power attack and cleave, and I gave the two-weapon guy expertise and focus on short sword.
By 9th level I had given them Improved critical with their respective weapons (one for the tough guy and two for the ambidex guy, but the tough guy got great cleave to compensate).

The barbarian got focus (greatsword), Improved critical and great cleave.

Myt method was this: I pit each of the four characters against their same level counterparts, substracting their armor classes from their respective attack bonuses. This gave me a percentage chance of hitting for each person. Assuming the combat lasted 20 rounds, it allowed me to calculate a figure of (hits per 20 rounds), easily convertible to damage per round, taking Str and specialization bonuses into account. I used the improved critical chance as a percentage of double (or triple) damage hits. This method showed me that multiple attacks were a VERY big advantage, as demonstrated by the following example:

a. Assume our fighter (let's call him Regdar) has a total Atk bonus of +7, with d8+4 dmg. Assume his enemy has an AC of 16. 

b. You need a 9 in the d20 to hit AC 16 with a +7 bonus, right? that means you hit on a 9 or better, which in a d20 is a 60% to hit (9-20 = 12 figures, times 5% = 60%) every round.

c. 60% to hit per round translates into .6 hits per round.

d. d8 + 4 dmg gives us an average of 8.5 dmg per hit.

e. At .6 hits per round, Regdar is dealing an average of (8.5 x .6 = 5.1, round down to) 5 hit points per round.

f. Now, assume our monk (let's pick a name at random, uhhh... what about Ember), at the same level, has a total attack bonus of +4/+4 (two attacks), with d8+2, against the same opponent. 

g. Ember's chance to hit is 15% less than Regdar's, but it gets computed TWICE, so we have 45% + 45% (90%),  for an exact average of .9 hits per round. 

h. d8+2 (Ember's damage) has an average of 6.5 dmg per round, which is LESS than Regdar's damage. But it gets multiplied by a higher factor (.9), with a net average result of SIX damage points per round.

i. So Ember deals more damage, even when BOTH her bab and damage are lower than regdar's. 

Since a Str samage bonus, which is not random, is worth almost as much as multiple attacks, the method gave the barbarian more damage per round when he was under the effects of rage, but he couldn't just beat the damage per round a d10-dmg-dealing, five-time-hitting, 9th level monk. 

Hope this helped.

And I'm not even mentioning OA or S&F feats... 

nor, as I said before, the OTHER monk advantages


----------



## rounser (Jul 31, 2002)

> Hope this helped.



You didn't mention the inclusion of magical equipment.  I think your math would be _very_ different if you gave the non-monks the magic armour and weaponry they would have.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Jul 31, 2002)

*It's how it's presented*



			
				mattcolville said:
			
		

> I1st; I'm not running an Oriental game. Nor am I running a game in which there's an obvious place for Oriental characters to be from. Yet the Monk is one of the *base classes*. This was, I feel, a mistake since the monk makes no sense whatsoever in the classical European Fantasy melieu.




Edit Quote:  Emphasis on Base Class is mine.

Concering the 'Exotic' Weapons/Items for the monk:

Matt because the Monk is considered a *base class* the fantasy game intertwines the Oriental nor European Fantasies.  If you want realism in your European Fantasy Based campaign then just exclude the Monk class period.  IMO because the Monk class is a *base class* then it's weapons may be exotic for every other character but they are not for the monk class.  In effect a sword may be a martial weapon and usable by a fighter but not the wizard (unless an elf).  So no one else can use a Kama without the Exotic Weapon Feat, a Sorerer can't use a Long Sword without Martial Weapon Feat.  If you include Monks in your campaign then include items for it.

Let me give you an example from Greyhawk, the Scarlet Brotherhood is known for its Monks, they lead their country.  They are a Suel people.  The SB also sends out its people (Monks included) on all sorts of missions and not all of its people survive so 'lost' items are going to be out there.  In the Greyhawk world there is a spinter group of the Scarlet Brotherhood (with psionic powers no less) formed a school in Onnwal for training both monks and psions/psychic warriors  and a PrC (see Dragon #281).  So there should be plenty of monk items in the Eastern Flanaess.

Keoland though has a large population of Oeridians the nobility is mostly Suel and its possible that there are Monk schools there as well.  So Monk weapons could be found in the Western Flanaess as well.  All without suspending disbelief  (IMO at least  ).

Of course the above 2 paragraphs are implying that monks in Greyhawk are all Suloise.  That is not the case at all in Greyhawk.  The Baklunish Goddess Xan Yae has monk followers.  The favored weapons for her clergy are the Falchion, and monk weapons.   To me at least that implies that there are monks in the Baklunish nations on Oerth as well and thus monk items.  

It really all depends on how you present the Monk class in your campaign.  If you only want them to come from one area in your campaign and that area is not where you are having your campaign then of course there won't be any items for them.  Everyone has a different view of the character classes.  IMC it is almost impossible for a PC to be a Barbarian, it just does not fit into the 'campaign' I'm running.  It seems that you are having a difficult time having Monks in yours.

Concerning the aspeck of Monks being unable to hit certain creatures that have Damage Reduction and need a '+' weapon then just lower the Ki Strike as someone else suggested.

Sorry for being so long winded... er... typed.    Just my 2 cp's on the subject.


----------



## Gizzard (Jul 31, 2002)

> Finally, I created a monk with Improved initiative and focus (unarmed).




OK, but the first level version of your Monk cant actually use Weapon Focus since it requires a BAB=1.  ;-)  I also didnt catch what you gave the Monk as you levelled him up.



> I used the same stat set for the four characters. I think it was:




Well, you gave everyone a Monk stat base, which is already slanting the results in one direction.  Whats the Fighter going to do with a 14 WIS?  Take those same points, make the Fighter 18 STR and give it a spin then.  One huge advantage the warrior types have in combat is that they can focus their stats much better than a Monk.



> Lets see +4 bab, str 18 maybe even 20 if 1/2 orc = +8-+9 3rd level take weapon focus unarmed strike for +9-+10 or if flurry of blows +7-+8.




Sure, you could do this.  But why would you?  If you were going down this path wouldnt you rather just be a Barbarian or a Fighter?  "Hi.  I am a Monk.  I put all my points in STR so I can do damage.  So I'm not very good at my Monk abilities.  You know, I was thinking of wearing armor since my AC is about 12."  ;-)  



> And the monk gains a much wider range of special abilities and functional class skills.




Theres no way that the Monks special abilities are so cool that they make you want to be a Monk above any other class.  Has anyone ever used "Deflect Arrows" successfully (I'm oh-for-two so far)?  "Purity of Body"- I dont ever get a non-magical disease again.  Whee.  Versus say, "Rage" or "Uncanny Dodge".  Or choosing your Feats as a Fighter.  Nope, I think the Monks special abilities are a *disadvantage* compared to the mainline fighter classes. 

I'll grant that Monks Skills are much much better than the fighters, but is that the big advantage of being a Monk?  A Rogue is a second-tier combatant also, but if you want Skills then go Rogue by all means; he gets a lot more Skill points, access to a lot of vital skills like Disable Device *and* access to every single useful Skill the Monk gets


----------



## XCorvis (Jul 31, 2002)

I'm sure someone has pointed this out already but I'm going to do it again - DR doesn't mean squat when you're stunned, tripped or disarmed. Let the Monk do the fancy footwork and disable opponents and have the fighter and rogue swoop in to do the heavy damage.


----------



## malichai (Jul 31, 2002)

Stunned/prone opponent's no longer have any DR?


----------



## arwink (Jul 31, 2002)

Sure, but the also become easier to hit.  Once that happens, you just stand back and let the party members with power attack go to work.


----------



## Jordan (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: let's see...*



			
				isirga eth said:
			
		

> I'll try to remember; I don't keep the notes.
> 
> I used the same stat set for the four characters. I think it was:
> 
> ...




As has been pointed out, having the fighters take a 14 Wis is automatically handicapping them from the start. If the fighter's going to go the full plate route, a 14 Dex is a waste too. But for the sake of argument, we'll use these stats (maybe the fighter wanted a better Will save, or something).



> a. Assume our fighter (let's call him Regdar) has a total Atk bonus of +7, with d8+4 dmg. Assume his enemy has an AC of 16.




These must be the 4th level characters, right? A 4th level fighter gets 5,400 gp to spend on gear. A +1 weapon only costs 2,000 gp, and it's probably going to be one of the fighter's highest priorities, so it's pretty safe to assume the fighter will have a +1 sword. So that makes his chance to hit +8 (+4 BAB, +2 Str, +1 focus, +1 sword)



> c. 60% to hit per round translates into .6 hits per round.




65% chance, or .65 hits per round.



> d. d8 + 4 dmg gives us an average of 8.5 dmg per hit.




d8 + 5 damage (+2 str +2 specialization +1 sword) gives average 9.5 damage per hit.



> e. At .6 hits per round, Regdar is dealing an average of (8.5 x .6 = 5.1, round down to) 5 hit points per round.




At .65 hits per round, Regdar deals an average of (9.5 x .65 = 6.175) about 6.2 points per round.



> f. Now, assume our monk (let's pick a name at random, uhhh... what about Ember), at the same level, has a total attack bonus of +4/+4 (two attacks), with d8+2, against the same opponent.




Okay, Ember has +3 BAB +2 Str and +1 focus, -2 for flurry, for +4/+4. Damage is d8+2.



> g. Ember's chance to hit is 15% less than Regdar's, but it gets computed TWICE, so we have 45% + 45% (90%),  for an exact average of .9 hits per round.
> 
> h. d8+2 (Ember's damage) has an average of 6.5 dmg per round, which is LESS than Regdar's damage. But it gets multiplied by a higher factor (.9), with a net average result of SIX damage points per round.




Ember does an average of 6.5 points per hit. Hitting an average of .9 times per round gives us an average of 5.85 points per round. Slightly less than the fighter.

Now here's a few other things to consider.

First, a monk can only flurry when they make a full attack action. Regdar, being a fighter with only one attack, doesn't have to worry about this. His average damage is always the same. But when Ember has to move either before or after attacking (which is going to happen a significant amount of the time, most likely), her damage drops to about 3.6 points per round.

Second, AC. Regdar probably would have bought some magic armor to go along with his magic sword. Let's give him a +1 breastplate and a +1 large steel shield (total cost about 2250 gp, he still has money left over even after buying the sword). That gives him an AC of 21 (+6 armor +2 dex +3 shield). Say Ember bought a ring of protection +1. That makes her AC 15 (+2 dex +2 wis +1 deflection). Even when buffed by mage armor for an AC of 19, it's still not as good as the fighter's.

Third, as enemy AC increases, the monk's effectiveness drops off compared to the fighter, until you reach the point where both of them can only hit on a natural 20. But how often does that happen?

Look at an enemy with a 21 AC. Regdar has a 40% chance to hit. So does Ember (two 20% chances, again if she can use the full attack action). They have exactly the same chance to hit, but Regdar does an average of 3 points more per hit.

The disparity will only increase as the characters go up in level, since the fighter can acquire more powerful magic weapons and armor, and the monk can't. Magic weapons provide all sorts of things, bonuses to hit and damage, extra elemental damage, keen edge (the best critical a monk can ever get unarmed is 19-20/x2; a fighter could end up with 15-20/x2 for a longsword, or 18-20/x3 for a greataxe), etc., that the monk simply can't match with unarmed attacks.

To sum up, a fighter will always have the advantage over a monk in terms of offense (unless the characters are stripped of equipment, which should be a fairly rare occurence). A monk *may* have the advantage in terms of defense, but since 3E is a party-based game, it favors offense over defense. Even if your enemies can't hurt your character, if you can't kill them quickly, they'll kill your party members instead. This is why I don't think the monk is very effective.


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Jul 31, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *When I think of Monks, I think "character that excels at unarmed fighting." Maybe you don't. But you can't excel at unarmed fighting and require a magic weapon to be effective.*




Matt, you should conceive of monks as versatile combatants, not unarmed combatants. That's paradigm shift numero uno. There are several monk weapons that monks are allowed to use with their unarmed attack rate. Second, any masterwork weapon a character possesses he can take to spellcaster and get it enchanted as per core rules. If you're playing D&D "by-the-book," then you as DM need to allow for that. Sure, I agree, magic exotic weapons aren't dropping off trees, but if a character has cash, time, and availability, don't disallow them the opportunity to get that weapon enchanted. 

Versatile. Not unarmed. Versatile. Paradigm shift


----------



## mattcolville (Jul 31, 2002)

ForceUser@Home said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Matt, you should conceive of monks as versatile combatants, not unarmed combatants. That's paradigm shift numero uno. There are several monk weapons that monks are allowed to use with their unarmed attack rate. Second, any masterwork weapon a character possesses he can take to spellcaster and get it enchanted as per core rules. If you're playing D&D "by-the-book," then you as DM need to allow for that. Sure, I agree, magic exotic weapons aren't dropping off trees, but if a character has cash, time, and availability, don't disallow them the opportunity to get that weapon enchanted.
> 
> Versatile. Not unarmed. Versatile. Paradigm shift  *




Ok, I'm working on it. My Monk players aren't complaining about their characters. . .ok, one of them complained when he was totally useless during one encounter, but that's not the classes fault. It's *everyone else* who's complaining because they think 1/3rd of the party is useless.

So I'm just going to add Quarterstaff, Shortspear, and Javelin to the list of special monk weapons that they can use with their unarmed attack bonus and # of attacks. And remind them that they can have magic weapons *made* for $$$ in sufficiently large cities.

I think the Quarterstaff/Shortspear/Javelin solution (all simple weapons) is good since I'm basically saying "I'm not running an Oriental game, here are some equivalents."


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 31, 2002)

Monks are the ultimate decoy...

Send Mr. Flying Fists of Fury into a dangerous situation dressed in robes and wearing a pointy cap and maybe even with a long pretty stick in their hands....

Then, let the rest of the world waste turns forcing the Monk to save over and over again.

Then, bring in Mr. "I get charmed so often I may as well be on the other team" fighter. Y'know, *after* they've wasted all their charming and/or disintegrates on the Monk. Heck, have the monk fight defensively, and see if even the sword-swingin' yobbos in the enemy party can come close to touching him. He doesn't have to deal out damage. He can piss off people and get them to attack him without ever raising a fist. Maybe taking AoO's, disarming, if they'd like.

Depending on what you want to suck outta the opposition, send in the Monk looking like a wizard (for disintegrates, poisons, and the like) or looking like a fighter (for charms, illusions, and brain-frying)...a low-level illusion spell should be enough for some cheap armor.

The thing is, with a monk, getting the fists flying shouldn't be option #1. It should be plan B, when the monsters come to you. Allow them to spend their energy while you sit there, take it, and ask for some more.

You'd be surprised how effective a monk could be at drawing attacks away from the more vulnerable members of the party. 

Even against big, tough monster types. Since most monster types generally fit into the "Combat Machine"/"Magic Beastie"/"Buffer"/"Sneaky One" motif as well, it works fairly well. Monks are as good at killin' mind flayers as they are at killin' wizards.

The thing to remember is that a Monk isn't supposed to be in the ranks of the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger. They aren't the "combat machine." They come closest to the Cleric and the Rogue in their type...the "secondary striker," the "sneaky one," the "buffer." And in this role the Monk is fairly effective. They're great decoys, superb movers, and good at doing things that other classes can already do well...just like the Cleric and the Rogue.

Really. Sneak attacks? Pheh. Fighters can do more, more often. Turning Undead? Whoop-dee-doo. Healing? Yay. I can be everybody else's HP-pimp.

Clerics and rogues both make for decent backup fighters, and that's what monks do too.


----------



## hong (Jul 31, 2002)

ForceUser@Home said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Matt, you should conceive of monks as versatile combatants, not unarmed combatants. That's paradigm shift numero uno. *




Why "should" he conceive of monks as anything other than what he wants them to be? Why should one paradigm be considered more worthy than any other paradigm out there?

Matt has made it quite clear that the monk doesn't fit the concept he has of them. This indicates that there's a problem, but the problem is with the class, not him. The rules are there to facilitate an enjoyable game, and if the rules get in the way, to hell with the rules. It doesn't matter if other people can have fun with the monk as-is, no-one's asking them to change the way they play their game.

Heck, _I_ don't like the monk. That has nothing to do with whether the monk can fill a useful role in the party. It has to do with how that role isn't the role I _want_ the monk to fill.



> *There are several monk weapons that monks are allowed to use with their unarmed attack rate. Second, any masterwork weapon a character possesses he can take to spellcaster and get it enchanted as per core rules. *




Many of the monk abilities are tailored around unarmed combat. Their damage dice increase by stacks, and their stunning attacks (and related attacks, eg the ones in OA) require unarmed strikes. If what you're saying is that the monk routinely needs to use something other than unarmed strikes to make an impact in combat, that's an implicit admission that the monk class needs work.


----------



## hong (Jul 31, 2002)

Roland Delacroix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Thats because they have been doing it for years, so are probably higher level.  *




This is a problem when you try to translate the martial arts stuff into a game, especially when it's encrusted with decades of myth and hoo-ha about the fantastic stunts that martial artists can do. Ideally, you want a character that can do most of these stunts, but that brings the problem of shadowing everyone else.

True, a 6th level monk could kick the butt of any 1st level character, whether it's a fighter, barb or whatnot. The problem is that not many adventures pit 6th level PCs against big groups of 1st level mooks, and when they do, the 6th level fighter and barb STILL plow through them faster than the monk.



> *
> Think about it, Jacky runs up, smacks a guy 40 times in a second, then steps back.  The bad guy growls at Jacky and steps up to riposte.  Hey, thats just like my Monk!  I Flurry of Blows, don't hit crap, and look cool!  Plus all the leaping and tumbling, Monks are pretty spot on.  If they were more fighter types in the DnD sense all we would see is Jacky moving up and dropping guys in a single blow.  And thats no fun   *




Jackie is a comic relief monk. He's the kender of monks. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with kender monks, but not all monks are kender. Jet Li is not a kender, and neither was Bruce Lee.


----------



## Left-handed Hummingbird (Jul 31, 2002)

Ah...

This thread is pure nostalgia.


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Jul 31, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why "should" he conceive of monks as anything other than what he wants them to be? Why should one paradigm be considered more worthy than any other paradigm out there?
> 
> Matt has made it quite clear that the monk doesn't fit the concept he has of them. This indicates that there's a problem, but the problem is with the class, not him. The rules are there to facilitate an enjoyable game, and if the rules get in the way, to hell with the rules. It doesn't matter if other people can have fun with the monk as-is, no-one's asking them to change the way they play their game.*



 Point. My assumption here is that he's trying to make it work conceptually without house-ruling it to hell.



> *Heck, _I_ don't like the monk. That has nothing to do with whether the monk can fill a useful role in the party. It has to do with how that role isn't the role I _want_ the monk to fill.
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the monk abilities are tailored around unarmed combat. Their damage dice increase by stacks, and their stunning attacks (and related attacks, eg the ones in OA) require unarmed strikes. If what you're saying is that the monk routinely needs to use something other than unarmed strikes to make an impact in combat, that's an implicit admission that the monk class needs work. *




The cool thing about flurry of blows is when holding a monk weapon you can choose to divide up your flurry however you want between armed & unarmed attacks. If your foe doesn't have that troublesome DR, open up on him. If he does, and your ki isn't yet sufficient, use the weapon. Simple. 

A route my DM allows is worth considering: allow the monk to enchant his own body as a magic weapon. Treat this as a non-slot item, meaning it costs double normal price. The monk player in that campaign got his right fist enchanted as a +1 holy weapon. It was pretty cool. Alternately - assuming you want to stay with the official monk - let your players use the tattooed monk PrC from OA. One of the tattoos that class can take gives the monk DR equal to 2 for each tattoo he he possesses/Con. Meaning if the monk has one tattoo and a 14 Con, his DR is 2/+2. When the monk has five tattoos, his innate DR is 10/+2. This circumvents a foe's DR. If the monk gets a +Con items, the "+" rises accordingly. It's a sweet ability.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

The DR issue is an irrelevant one, because if the monk is the only one stuck without the ability to damage the creature, one of two things is happening:

a) The party's spellcasters are handing the buffs unequally, giving them only to the fighters, or
b) You're not doing your job as a DM properly, giving only non-monk equipment as treasure. If there's one monk in your world, there are going to be others. Where are those amulets of mighty fists? Or better yet, amulets of sure striking? Why are the warriors getting magic swords and armour while the monk gets nothing?

The other option you have is fixing the ridiculous notion that monks aren't trained to use quarterstaffs and spears to their fullest potential.

But the argument that strikes me the most in this thread is that monks can't do damage unarmed! I'd love to see whose fighter can attack as many times a round with a weapon that does a d12 damage! Or, better yet, d20! A monk's offensive capabilities are right up there with the fighters' if he's built correctly. What stats are you using, all 12s?

The point is that you can't just hand out powerful items only to the non-monk characters. Compare all those characters without their special items, and the monk slaps them all silly without breaking a sweat.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 31, 2002)

Funny, some guys still assume that fighters and other persons get more magic items than monks...

And who said that a sorcerer is better than a wizard for a 4 player group? Playing to much Diablo2, eh? Ah, you call it D&D? 

_This was not meant to hurt anyones feelings but should be funny...._

I simply wanted to add: Monks don't suck. Neither they are overpowered. I saw many badly designed monks yet, but some of these examples here only showed that the posters didn't have much experience how to built monks effectively.

Sure, a monk needs good stats. But then, who does not? Even a fighter should have Int 13 for expertise. That's not a problem if you only play with 40points pb chars, but it's a real problem if you use 25 points.

And the monk usually is easier to buff for spellcasters than a fighter. Mage armour and the monk will be a good tank. Cat's grace and he will hit as hell (if he is dex oriented). Stunning fist is not only good against wizards but may rock against fighters too. And as soon as the monk has his multiple unarmed attacks, he will start to grapple enemy fighters and dish out his usual unarmed damage while grappling. Just one AoO will not stop him. But this will disturb the barbarians greataxe!


----------



## Zog (Jul 31, 2002)

Gizzard asked for a breakdown of the BAB of the monk I mentioned.  1 rog/5 Monk = Bab of 3.  20 Dex, +1 size as he is a puny halfling, weapon finesse unarmed.  = +9.  Also why his damage was only d6 at level 5, instead of d8.  But hey, if he flanks something living, thats 2d6 +2, 2d6+2 at +9/+9 - and thats just skippy - for a puny halfling.

And an armor class of 18 without any magic.     Sorry - but this character really makes me happy.  Just the image of the harmless little unarmed halfling kicking monster butt.  


The folks doing calculations of fighter vs. monk - if you give the fighter a +1 sword, give the monk a +1 bracer of armor.  Give the fighter +1 armor, give the monk a ring of deflection +1.  Give the fighter a str stat bonus item, give the monk a dex stat bonus item (which helps both AC, and to Hit, with weapon finesse).
 The fighter has a certain amount of items per level - weapons and armor, generally.  So does the monk - don't consider one without the other.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 31, 2002)

Darklone said:
			
		

> *Funny, some guys still assume that fighters and other persons get more magic items than monks...
> 
> And who said that a sorcerer is better than a wizard for a 4 player group? Playing to much Diablo2, eh? Ah, you call it D&D?
> 
> *




Actually, that was me, and I was being more than a little sarcastic when I made the comment.   

I think monks do get fewer items than others classes, which is both the fault of the DM (who doesn't include any magical monk weapons) as well as the party (who doesn't craft any items for monks to use).

It seems the monk is the red-headed stepchild of D&D.


----------



## TiQuinn (Jul 31, 2002)

On a somewhat related note, does anyone think it would be particularly unbalancing if a monk were allowed to multiclass without restriction, as with Rokugan?  Why would one particular setting would allow players to alternate between Monk and another class, whereas core rules disallow it?

For that matter, would it be terribly unbalancing to remove this restriction from paladins as well?


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 31, 2002)

However, an Amulet of Mighty Fists costs THREE TIMES the amount of a similar +1 Sword/Axe/Hammer. A fighter can "buy" a +5 weapon for about the same cost as the monk can "buy" a +3 Amulet. And, the amulet takes up a slot. Also, considering the amulet of mighty fists isn't core D&D...

And actually, an AoO will stop a monk trying to grapple, assuming it hits.

Also, many of the fighter's "Will save problems" can be negated by a simple Protection from Evil spell.

The reason a monk needs high stats are because they need high Wisdom for AC and cool abilities, high Dex for AC, high Strength for hitting and damaging, a decent Con for hit points, and a decent Int for skill points, for Tumble, Jump, Listen, etc. Fighters need high Str and Con, decent Dex and Int (in case they want Whirlwind attack), and a decent Wis. If they don't want Whirlwind/Expertise, they can drop the Int; it's not like they get good skills anyway.

And while a monk may benefit from great maneuverability, the fly spell, a staple for most groups, gives the same speed as a high level monk, and infinite jumping power (kind of). Makes the monk look kind of foolish for concentrating so much on movement, eh?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

Actually, no, it doesn't. Cast Dispel Magic on all those characters, and the monk is STILL as mobile. Take away their equipment, and the monk is STILL as mobile.

The Amulet of Mighty Fists is the least item that could help a monk. Give him an item that casts Magic Weapon (or its Greater counterpart) three times per day. Not that expensive.

And I don't allow my players to buy magic items, so having the monk FIND an Amulet of Mighty Fists (say, on the corpse of an enemy monk) is really not a problem.

Monk Tattoos, from Magic of Faerûn...those are cool 
They don't help immensely, but they still rock. And instead of the Amulet of Mighty Fists, make up a new item called the Amulet of Sure Striking, and give it the Sure Striking enhancement. It'll cost a lot less than a fighter's +5 weapon, won't give the enhancement bonus, but WILL go through DR. Problem solved.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jul 31, 2002)

*Re: It's how it's presented*



			
				Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> *Concering the 'Exotic' Weapons/Items for the monk:
> 
> Matt because the Monk is considered a base class the fantasy game intertwines the Oriental nor European Fantasies.  If you want realism in your European Fantasy Based campaign then just exclude the Monk class period.  IMO because the Monk class is a base class then it's weapons may be exotic for every other character but they are not for the monk class.  In effect a sword may be a martial weapon and usable by a fighter but not the wizard (unless an elf).  So no one else can use a Kama without the Exotic Weapon Feat, a Sorerer can't use a Long Sword without Martial Weapon Feat.  If you include Monks in your campaign then include items for it.*




Note that there are a couple of monk weapons on the 'Common Melee weapons' list in the DMG. I don't think that's an accident.

FWIW, Matt, I think that your solution - giving the monk access to 'western' weapons that can be used with their abilities - is probably the best one for your game.  (I personally think it's ridiculous that monks can't use their better attack rate with a quarterstaff anyway.)

J


----------



## Hakkenshi (Jul 31, 2002)

> FWIW, Matt, I think that your solution - giving the monk access to 'western' weapons that can be used with their abilities - is probably the best one for your game. (I personally think it's ridiculous that monks can't use their better attack rate with a quarterstaff anyway.)




I second that. Long live the kung-fu fighting Benedictine monks! 

But seriously, the bo and the naginata are both weapons used heavily by Oriental monks. Why were quarterstaves and spears excluded from the monk weapon list???


----------



## Talath (Jul 31, 2002)

Dr Midnight said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the funnies spiel I've heard in monthes!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 1, 2002)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *However, an Amulet of Mighty Fists costs THREE TIMES the amount of a similar +1 Sword/Axe/Hammer. A fighter can "buy" a +5 weapon for about the same cost as the monk can "buy" a +3 Amulet. And, the amulet takes up a slot. Also, considering the amulet of mighty fists isn't core D&D...
> 
> *




Sorry the core rules include rules for creating brand new never seen before magic items.  So saying amulets of magic fists aren't core is bunk IMO.  They do cost a lot, though I'd likely see a monk with just that for magic weapons, while I'd virtually never see a fighter with just one magic weapon.  He'd likely have one magic weapon mellee a magic weapon backup and a ranged magic weapon.  A monk can and will fit his role with just one magic attack booster a fighter wont.  And considering it applies to all his natural attacks this is a powerful item.


----------



## Phowett (Aug 1, 2002)

I don't see anything wrong with the Monk yet. The monk that I had played did as much damage as our group's fighter did and hit just as often. And my +2 Nunchakus really helped me out when I faced those undead.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

OK, heres a totally different angle on this thing.

When I played a Wizard under 2E, I always felt like I had something useful to do.  Even when I was first level and had one friggen spell.  I'd save my daily spell and try and use it judiciously to the parties best advantage.  Then after that, I could fall back secondary tricks like ducking in and out of combat to trying to take some pressure off the fighters.  Or using a Sling or handful of Darts.  As I grew in levels, my options got more and more diverse; it seemed like the ability to do something interesting with the character was constantly expanding.

But, up to 5th level as a Monk, I feel like I seldom have anything useful to do.  I am pretty Tank-y with Mage Armor on, so again, I can take pressure off the real fighters by distracting less intelligent monsters.  Whee.  And my contribution of a couple points of damage here and there is never a bad thing.  Whee.  I can Tumble everywhere and provide Flanking bonuses or get in a position to protect squishy mages.  Useful, maybe even heroic in the right circumstances.  I have cool skills and special abilities that others do not (mostly because we have no Rogue).  Ok then.  Is that all there is to this character?

I think this sums up what mattcolville was originally getting at.  A Monk can do a lot of vaguely useful things, but where is something Heroic for him to do?  

A Barbarian will go toe-to-toe with a Troll and win; a Cleric will bring a shattered party back to full health; a Wizard will cast an array of useful or deadly spells.  A Thief will disarm a Trap, and more than occassionally deal out the sort of Sneak Attack damage that a Monk can only dream of.  

So, why would you want to play a Monk over the mainline character classes?  Or more to the point, if you are adventuring with two Monks will you always be frowning and wishing that one was a Fighter and the other a Rogue instead?


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

> And my +2 Nunchakus really helped me out when I faced those undead.




OK, is it my imagination or is everyone who is enjoying being a Monk a lot higher level than 5th?

People talking about getting d12 or d20 damage (12th level, 16th level), Improved Tripping their opponents (6th level) or using Ki Strike (10th level).  Or, carrying a +2 Nunchaku or an Amulet that would cost more than my entire party has seen in their adventuring careers.  

I cant debate whether a Monk is useful at high levels; I havent tried it.  But I can tell you whats special about the Monk at low levels - he sucks even more than the Bard.  (Actually, now that the Bard has healing spells, the Monk sucks *much* more than the Bard. ;-)


----------



## hong (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *The other option you have is fixing the ridiculous notion that monks aren't trained to use quarterstaffs and spears to their fullest potential.*




They're not, unless you mean via multiclassing.



> *But the argument that strikes me the most in this thread is that monks can't do damage unarmed! I'd love to see whose fighter can attack as many times a round with a weapon that does a d12 damage! Or, better yet, d20! A monk's offensive capabilities are right up there with the fighters' if he's built correctly. What stats are you using, all 12s?
> *




By the time the monk is doing d12+4 or d20+5 damage, the fighter can be doing 4d6+20, and will probably have a better attack bonus to boot. In terms of raw damage-dealing potential, the fighter is nearly always going to come out in front. As has been stated, the monk's schtick isn't in terms of physical combat, any more than it is the rogue's or wizard's.


----------



## hong (Aug 1, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> I cant debate whether a Monk is useful at high levels; I havent tried it.  But I can tell you whats special about the Monk at low levels - he sucks even more than the Bard.  (Actually, now that the Bard has healing spells, the Monk sucks *much* more than the Bard. ;-) *




Hee hee. Hey, at least it's better than the 1E monk -- where you were FORCED to have AC 10 and deal 1d4 damage at 1st level, regardless of your actual stats....


----------



## Kesh (Aug 1, 2002)

Next time I play a monk, I intend on having two items crafted for him once he can afford them:

_Fang Gloves_ - Gloves which grant _Greater Magic Fang_ X times per day.

_Iron Shirt_ - An old staple of martial arts fiction, it's a fine silk shirt that is enchanted to act as armor.

Solves a few problems right there.


----------



## Darklone (Aug 1, 2002)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *And actually, an AoO will stop a monk trying to grapple, assuming it hits....
> 
> ... Makes the monk look kind of foolish for concentrating so much on movement, eh? *




Actually no. You can make as many grapple attempts as your BAB allows you attacks. Thus a monk with +4/+1 for unarmed attacks may try to grapple an enemy twice per round and only the first one may be spoiled by an AoO. The only danger may be the rogue friend of the grappled foe.

About the monks movement: Be imaginative. Use it. You can do many things with it that won't help a flier. Besides... dispelling fly should let the enemy DROP at once


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Hong, what I meant is that quarterstaves and spears aren't monk weapons. And that's just messed up.

Also, 4d6+20 assumes that the fighter has a lawful, chaotic, holy, unholy or elemental weapon, all effects that could just as well be added to a monk's fists.

If you say 2d6+20 for the fighter, he's using a greatsword and only has 4 attacks. A monk with Flurry of Blows is doing 1d20+5 (using your example) with *6* attacks. Without going into mathematical discussions, it still looks pretty good.

And why the HECK does the monk have to equal the fighter at fighting??? The fighter is SUPPOSED to be the best; people would cry bloody murder if he wasn't. The point is that the monk is ALMOST as good, and he can easily have better AC, does in fact have incredibly superior mobility, SR, Dimension Door, immunity to poison, etc. etc. But the fighter needs items (or spells) to get these abilities, at least a few of which (you must admit) are rather desirable.

And you would totally waste a good fighter by trying to equal the monk at grappling, THE single most underused ability.


----------



## dravot (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *And you would totally waste a good fighter by trying to equal the monk at grappling, THE single most underused ability. *




Can someone please explain how/why a monk is so good at grappling?  I'm not seeing it.

The monk I play in our beta campaign only has a 12 STR, so an opposed grapple check doesn't look very likely to me.

(then again, for some reason, the grapple rules have always eluded me)


----------



## hong (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Hong, what I meant is that quarterstaves and spears aren't monk weapons. And that's just messed up.*




Well, since this thread is basically about how the monk is messed up....



> *
> Also, 4d6+20 assumes that the fighter has a lawful, chaotic, holy, unholy or elemental weapon, all effects that could just as well be added to a monk's fists.*




Since when has it been possible to enchant the monk's fists?

Also: frost shock greatsword = 4d6.
Frost shock holy greatsword = 6d6.
Etcetera.



> *If you say 2d6+20 for the fighter, he's using a greatsword and only has 4 attacks. A monk with Flurry of Blows is doing 1d20+5 (using your example) with *6* attacks. Without going into mathematical discussions, it still looks pretty good.*




With, as I said, most likely a lower attack bonus than the fighter. That's especially the case when you consider the fighter will probably have higher Str than the monk, not just a better BAB. And a monk who stands there to do a full attack on someone is vulnerable to a full attack back. In general, this is Not Good; monks usually don't have the AC or hit points to stand there and take it.



> *And why the HECK does the monk have to equal the fighter at fighting??? *




You tell me. You're the one who brought up the damage dice thing in the first place.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Well, I may not have been clear, Hong. What I mean is that for someone who is seen as so vastly inferior to a fighter, the monk isn't. He's quite close to being as good. Everyone seems hell-bent on crippling him.


1) I only brought up the damage dice because I was seeing a lot of "the monk sucks at damage" talk. Sorry if that wasn't clear, my bad. For someone who ISN'T a fighter, the monk does fairly well at imitating it.

2) Why can't you give a monk a ring of Lawful Holy Flaming Burst Fists??? The rules are essentially limited only by your imagination. If you give a fighter a fighter weapon, give a monk a monk weapon, THEN compare.

3) In every campaign I've played in and run, the monk had a higher AC than the entire party, until they got to mid-levels, where he was easily on par with the best AC. I may be playing it differently...

4) Yes, you're right, the thread IS about how the monk is messed up, but, IMHO (and bear in mind it IS only an opinion ), that's only because he's never given sufficient support to make him the great class he actually is. Have any character with inferior item support from the DM, and that character will be underpowered. The monk just happens to be the best at surviving without those items; doesn't mean he's going to EXCEL without them.

Give the monk a chance; all it takes is equal-opportunity DMing 

PS: About the low BAB, if you're going to put a low stat in Strength, you had better Weapon Finesse your unarmed strike before complaining you can't hit. But I'm sure everyone knew that


----------



## Darklone (Aug 1, 2002)

dravot said:
			
		

> *Can someone please explain how/why a monk is so good at grappling?  I'm not seeing it.*




If your BAB grants you several attacks, you can use each of them as a grapple attempt. Assuming a full attack action, even with low strength you should be able to grapple someone with a little luck.

Or like a monk in my group did once: Start with a stunning fist at the enemies fighter (he rolled bad for the save... but that happens more often than you could think after reading this thread), second attack was a trip followed by a Improved trip bash, next attack was grapple. Sure he had not a big chance to grapple his opponent, but without the magical modifiers to hit, grapple checks can always be won if you roll high and the enemy low.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

I totally agree, Darklone, that's exactly what I'm talking about: using the monk's full potential. Although I've been told that apparently Stunning Fist is a standard action  

Personally, whatever the rules say, that will never be the case in my group. It's just not as fun that way


----------



## Glamdring (Aug 1, 2002)

Of course the monks in your group are going to be useless when you throw monsters at them that make monks useless.  I ran a campaign in Waterdeep and my friend played a very good monk character.  Why?  Because a city-based campaign doesn't usually have shadows and golems walking the streets.  Besides, characters far below 10th level shouldn't expect to be able to vanquish golems with ease, and the party cleric should be handling the shadows, not the monk.  Monks (along with a great many character classes) should be included in a game that is tailored for every class.  If your players are asking, "Are you a front-line fighter," then maybe you should suggest that your new gamers make front-line fighters.  If you allow them to play monks, bards, and druids, and you plan on throwing golems and moderately powerful undead at them, it shouldn't be a surprise that they feel weak.  A campaign that is centered around heavy combat should include heavy combatants.  You can run a great game with monks, bards, mages and clerics.  It's up to the DM to make it fun and believable.


----------



## Henry (Aug 1, 2002)

Low, high, it makes not difference. The Monk is still capable and useful at any of these levels.

Consider the standard 1st level monk with 25 point buy:

S---14
D---14
C---12
I----10
W--14
CH---9


Melee Attack +2, 1d6+2 dmg

AC 14 (15 with dodge)
hp 10

Feat: Dodge

Saves:
Fort +3
Refl +4
Will +4

Skills:
Jump +6
Tumble +6
Heal +6
Climb +6

This is still a quite respectable character, and against typical 1st level enemies faced by a party (humanoids, lvl 1 humans, etc.) he will do quite well. Even at this, he has a better AC than anyone in the party (except perhaps for a fighter in scale and a high dex.) With a little assistance from the party, as all good parties should do, he can be even more powerful. For example, the party wizard adds mage armor to him, and he becomes AC 18 (19 to dodge), and quite the candidate to jump into melee at opportune times in order to assist the party rogue or the party fighter. He also can stabilize the wounded, and go physical places where heavier armored party members cannot, alongside the rogue.

Is he as equally strong as the fighter in toe to toe? No.
Is he a use of magics? No.
Can he sneak attack? No.
Can he heal others with magic? No.

HOWEVER,

Can the Fighter tumble into and out of combat? No. Not unless he's wearing light armor, which a 1st level ftr is unlikely to have.
Can the Cleric avoid attacks of opportunity? No. Again, he faces problems similar to the fighter.
Can the Druid use a stunning blow? No.
Can the Rogue evade a fireball? No. Not at first level. 
Can the Fighter subdue an opponent as quickly and effectively as a monk, without killing them? No. A fighter will take AT LEAST a -4 penalty, unless using a sap or special weapon.


The monk has his own strengths, and those are geared toward mobile combat, and defense.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2002)

Henry,

You are going to need a better example than that.  That character is worthless.  Compare him to the 1st level 25 pt. Rogue.  The  Rogue has the same AC, much more damage when he can flank, and vastly better skills, for the cost of 2 HPs.

Here is the telling question: If you were playing in a balanced campaign (roleplaying and combat, urban and wilderness and dungeon) and you were playing one of the 4 iconic PCs (fighter, cleric, wiz, rogue), who would you WANT as a fifth PC?  The monk would be my 11th choice out of the 11 PHB classes.  Every other class is more useful to the party IMO.

So maybe those players who have monks that somehow survive to 10th level are now having fun, but from the metagame angle your "useful" defensive skills often mean your fellow PCs have to do more heavy lifting and taking more personal risks to get the job done than if you chose a more effective career path.

I noticed that a lot of examples of useful monks in this thread *assume* that someone will cast Mage Armor or Magic Fang or both on the monk.  In my book if a character _requires_ precious magical resources from other PCs to do their job that is damning evidence something is wrong with the character.  Every other character class in the PHB can do their job competently without help.  Why can't the monk?  Hmm?


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

I agree with Ridley's Cohort.  Not Ridley, mind you, just his cohort.  

Also, when making point-buy example characters, I suggest making them with 32 point-buy, since polls on this site have shown that the vast majority of groups use that character creation system, and an even greater number of those who use point-buy use 32-points.

I would post a(n unbiased) side-by-side analysis of a 32-pt.-buy human monk alongside a 32-pt.-buy human rogue or fighter (or fighter/rogue!), but I'm at work.  Anyone else want to?


----------



## apsuman (Aug 1, 2002)

IMHO,

Until a monk can do measureably more damage with his hands, I would suggest attacking with monk weapons.

Also, unless the WIS is 18 or so, I would seriously consider using leather armor through level 5.  You only lose the fast movement.

After level 5 go with no armor.

Monks need to go after items that improve their stats, but that's a no brainer.

Either finding or commissioning the necessary weapons is also crucial.  You still get the more favorable attacks with the monk weapons.  If you had a Kama +1 you would be doing on average the same damage as an unarmed monk of level 7, plus you get the +1 to hit.

If you had a Kama +2, you would be doing the same average damage (albeit with less range) as an unarmed level 11 monk, and of course you would hit 10% better, or more often, heck! you get the +2 to hit.

And a +3 kama is as good on average) as an unarmed level 15 monk.


At level 6, if you have the STR, improved trip is good -- use it.  You can trip with a touch attack, and if you win the opposed STR checks, you still get that attack at +4 since the defender if prone.

So, whoever wanted advise for lower level monks, there you go.

g!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *I agree with Ridley's Cohort.  Not Ridley, mind you, just his cohort.
> 
> 
> I would post a(n unbiased) side-by-side analysis of a 32-pt.-buy human monk alongside a 32-pt.-buy human rogue or fighter (or fighter/rogue!), but I'm at work.  Anyone else want to? *




If you were blessed with a visit with the Dimpled One, I am sure you would change your tune.

32 pts.

*Human Rogue 1* 
14 Str
14 Con      
16 Dex
12 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
8 HPs, AC 15, +2 to hit melee, +3 to hit ranged, d6+2 (short sword), +1d6 for sneak attack
40 Skill Points
2 Feats: Improved Initiative, Combat Reflexes?
+2 Fort, +5 Refl, +1 Will
Initiative +7

*Human Monk 1* 
14 Str
14 Con      
14 Dex
10 Int
16 Wis
10 Cha
10 HPs, AC 15 (16 w/ Dodge), +2 to hit melee or +0/+0 for flurry, +2 to hit ranged, d6+2 (fists), 1 Stun Attack (DC13)
16 Skill Points
2 Feats: Dodge?, Mobility? (going for Spring Attack)
+4 Fort, +4 Refl, +5 Will
Initiative +2

The first thing to notice is that the Rogue is vastly superior outside of combat.  The Rogue has 2 1/2 times as many skill points to work with.

So the monk should be able to distinguish himself in combat, right?  The monk just isn't any better than the Rogue.  The Rogue has an excellent chance of getting off a sneak attack at the start.  He can also tumble in just as well or better than the monk.  The monk's only real advantage is the savings thows are useful if some starts throwing spells at you.

Notice that I have not really minmaxed the Rogue.  I could make him a Halfling and he could scout with a +12 Hide, and plink at enemies from range with a light cross bow with a +5 to hit, d6 damage.  Such a Rogue is also likely to get a sneak attack both during surprise and the 1st round of combat.  Handy that.


----------



## Carnifex (Aug 1, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Or, carrying a +2 Nunchaku or an Amulet that would cost more than my entire party has seen in their adventuring careers.
> *




Why on earth do you have to be high level to get a +2 Nunchaku? In a standard money-and-magic rich D&D campaign, getting the 8,000 to commission one of these would admittedly not be a cheap option for low-level characters, but would quickly come within a characters reach.

And, if you do have a campaign where it is incredibly hard for a monk to get a +2 nunchaku, then your fighter will be equaklly useless against creatures with DR as the monk, unless he is somehow getting the resources for a +2 weapon when the monk isnt' - which would be more than a little unfair on the monk. It's be said before and I'll say it again - many complaints about the monk can be resolved easily just by using magical monk weapons. D6 damage ain't great but its on average only 1 point less than a fighter would inflict with a longsword - it's not *that* bad.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *... +3 to hit ranged...
> 
> ...
> 
> I could make him a Halfling and he could ... plink at enemies from range with a light cross bow with a +5 to hit, d6 damage.*




How does he get an extra +2 with a crossbow?  Don't halflings only get that bonus with thrown weapons?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How does he get an extra +2 with a crossbow?  Don't halflings only get that bonus with thrown weapons? *




+1 for the extra Dex.  +1 for Small size.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Ah, yes.  Stupid me.  I'm pretty dang convinced the the monk _does_ suck at this point, and I'm convinced that they probably _are_ worse than bards, at least rules-wise.  I guess most likely the vast majority of gamers probably want them to suck a little, myself included.

The idea of an unarmed kung-fu master being able to best an armed and able combatant (all other things being equal) is, frankly, a little ridiculous.  Even in a fantasy world.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2002)

Carnifex said:
			
		

> *
> And, if you do have a campaign where it is incredibly hard for a monk to get a +2 nunchaku, then your fighter will be equaklly useless against creatures with DR as the monk, unless he is somehow getting the resources for a +2 weapon when the monk isnt' - which would be more than a little unfair on the monk. It's be said before and I'll say it again - many complaints about the monk can be resolved easily just by using magical monk weapons. D6 damage ain't great but its on average only 1 point less than a fighter would inflict with a longsword - it's not that bad. *




You are not likely to have the 8000 gp cash for a +2 weapon until 7th or 8th level unless you sell all your worldly possessions.  In the meantime, Magic Weapon and GMW are more more easily available than Magic Fang or GMF.  You can't count of a Druid being handy.

Honestly, though, I do not think the DR issue is a big deal for monks.  The big picture issue is that fighter types have much better access to good quality weapons, and they will consistently deal out more damage, even the Rangers and Paladins.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 1, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Ah, yes.  Stupid me.  I'm pretty dang convinced the the monk does suck at this point, and I'm convinced that they probably are worse than bards, at least rules-wise.  I guess most likely the vast majority of gamers probably want them to suck a little, myself included.
> 
> The idea of an unarmed kung-fu master being able to best an armed and able combatant (all other things being equal) is, frankly, a little ridiculous.  Even in a fantasy world. *




I actually think monks are decent once they reach ~10th level.  Mobility is nothing to sneeze at, good saves are useful magic starts coming fast and furious at you, and the immunities/defenses are quickly adding up.

They do suck completely for levels 1 through 5, IMO.

The real problem is their main contribution _to the party_ is measured by their grunt fighting ability.  Maybe they are fun to play, maybe not.  But they are not necessarily a good deal to the other members of the party.

The one thing that monks do very well at is stunning to set up easy sneak attacks.  OTOH, it would be easy enough to build a barbarian, rogue, or barbarian/rogue who could set up a flank attack.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort, I see your points, but so far you've taken two different classes and pointed out how the monk is inferior to each.

But the monk is better than either at other things. A first-level rogue, for example, has neither Evasion nor Stunning Blow, the latter of which is a great boon to any starting party, much as the buff spells that help a monk are.

A first-level fighter is begging for a sleep spell, unless he's an Elf (but that advantage works for any class). And unless he spends all his first-level feats, the fighter can't attack twice in one round, and he definitely moves much less.

I hope you're not serious about the standard ranger being comparable, despite the free feats, and the paladin's power tapers off after the early levels, while a monk has a steady growth throughout.

Yes, a rogue and a monk ought to have comparable ACs at first level, but your rogue does NOT, in fact, deal more damage once Flurry of Blows comes into effect. Also, a monk is more likely to survive that initial hit.

And most of the groups with whom I play MUCH prefer a druid over anyone but a cleric. So they're more of a staple than arcane spellcasters for us, and MF and GMF are not that rare.

Wolfen Priest,


> The idea of an unarmed kung-fu master being able to best an armed and able combatant (all other things being equal) is, frankly, a little ridiculous. Even in a fantasy world.



I can't say I understand this. The Shaolin monks were vastly superior to any army of their time before guns came into play.

Thinking that monks have to be unarmed is the first problem, thinking they can't be deadly unarmed is the second. In D&D or the real world.

And as Carnifex keeps repeating, characters only have to compare in the broadest of terms. They don't have to be mathematically even. But if you cripple monks by only handing out equipment they can't use, then blame only yourself if they suck.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Well, here's a proposition (and if no one takes it up I will do so myself when I get home): make a 32 point-buy monk (any race) at 10th level (or 12th or some other fairly arbitrary but high level) and equip him from the DMG with the amount of starting cash available to that level-character.  Then do the same for a fighter (any race).  

So, the class abilities, stat bonuses, and (perhaps most relevant to this discussion) magic items will all be taken into account.  It will settle (hopefully) the following dispute/question:  is the monk's need for better stats compensated by his _lack of need_ for magical weaponry?  

In other words, since the monk presumably won't have to shell out the bucks for armor and weapons (although this may still be in doubt, according to some), he could therefore buy other, more valuable things (or just _more_ things), and thus get more for his money, so to speak.

Anyone willing to go through all that?  If not, I'll do it when I get home and post my results here.  Although that's not to say there couldn't be numerous other "submissions."


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

> Why on earth do you have to be high level to get a +2 Nunchaku? In a standard money-and-magic rich D&D campaign, getting the 8,000 to commission one of these would admittedly not be a cheap option for low-level characters, but would quickly come within a characters reach.




Well, like I said in a very early post in this thread, I am running through the standard module series.  (So, the treasure there should be well balanced for what the designers intended.)  As the Monk, I probably have the most money leftover of anyone, but right now (5th level) I have about 800 GP, not 8000 GP.  I might commission (another) masterwork Nunchaku (the first one was eaten by an ooze), but at this point it hardly seems worth it.    

Our group is pretty low magic, but if you look in the DMG p52 it has a "standard" NPC Monk, with equipment appropriate for various levels.  Under weapons it says:

Kama (Melee): Masterwork (1st-2nd), +1 (3rd-9th), +2 (10th-13th), +3 (14th-16th), +4 (17th), +5 (18th-20th).

So they are figuring 10+ level for a +2 weapon.  Assuming that they are being conservative for NPCs; what is a fair level for a PC to get a +2 weapon?  8th?  Thats still high-level in my book.

I'm seriously curious about this; if you are enjoying playing a Monk - what level are you?  Did you play him all the way up (ie, did you start at first level?)


----------



## Acmite (Aug 1, 2002)

Kesh said:
			
		

> *Next time I play a monk, I intend on having two items crafted for him once he can afford them:
> 
> Fang Gloves - Gloves which grant Greater Magic Fang X times per day.
> 
> ...




If you have a shirt that is enchanted to act as armour, isn't that essentially armour?

If I was running a game, I wouldn't allow it.  Heck, I'm not even a 100% sure where I stand on Bracers of Armour (right now I'd be willing to allow it).


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Wolfen Priest, I think I might be up to the challenge, despite the fact that I believe it's useless to compare two characters like that straight up. Campaigns, other party members...these things alter what you should do with your char. However, I won't back down here, I think it's a good idea.

You wanna do the fighter, and leave the monk up to me?

And by DMG, you mean I can use the rules for creating items, right? Because let's face it, without those rules, the DMG's item section is a monk-hating piece of rehashed 2nd Ed. stuff.

10th-level it is. I look forward to seeing your fighter


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Acmite, if mages can cast with Bracers of Armour on, a monk can fight with a silk shirt that has a magical armour bonus. There's a Ring of Mage Armour in Sword and Fist which is basically made for a monk.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Wolfen Priest, I think I might be up to the challenge, despite the fact that I believe it's useless to compare two characters like that straight up. Campaigns, other party members...these things alter what you should do with your char. However, I won't back down here, I think it's a good idea.
> 
> You wanna do the fighter, and leave the monk up to me?
> 
> ...




Yes, I'll make the 10th-level fighter then.  As far as creating items, yeah, I guess you can make items as per the DMG, but you have to pay full price for them, obviously (not half, as though a wizard made them for you).  And make sure to list out the prices paid for each item, because that could easily be screwed up if you are making more-or-less unique items.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

I can see you've dealt with this before ;-)


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *I can see you've dealt with this before ;-) *




Heh, actually the only time I've ever done this is making higher starting-level characters for a real campaign, and then, I really didn't min-max him that much (plus he was only 5th level).


----------



## apsuman (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 10th-level it is. I look forward to seeing your fighter  *




No, not 10th level.   Ok, 10th level.

g!


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

> 10th-level it is. I look forward to seeing your fighter




How about 5th level?  ;-)  

It might be possible to make a non-suckful Monk at 10th, but for a lot of campaigns thats nine long, dull levels of suckage.  

Actually, here, I'll just post my Monk for comparison.  One thing to note is that I made him at the beginning of 3E and didn't min-max him; I just picked a bunch of Feats and Skills that sounded "Monk-ly".  The Skills worked out fine, the Feats are ... um ... sub-optimal.  

Monk: Lo Fan    Race:Human
Level: 5

STR:15  DEX:18  CON:13  INT:10  WIS:16  CHA:9

HPS:37   AC:18 (flat:14, touch:18)  INIT:+8
SAVES: 
Ref +8 (w/Evasion)
Fort +5 
Will +7 (+9 w/Still Mind)

Unarmed               +5   1d8+2
Flurry                  +3/+3 1d8+2,1d8+2
Dagger+1              +6    1d4+3
Dagger(throw)      +7    1d4

Specials: Stunning Attack (5x @ DC15), Fast Move (40'), Flurry, Evasion, Deflect Arrows, Still Mind, Monk Weapon Proficient, Slow Fall (20'), Purity of Body, Unarmed Strike, AC Bonus.

Feats: Combat Reflexes, Improved Initiative, Dodge

Skills: Balance +12, Climb +9, Jump +9, Move Silent +10, Tumble +14, Hide +10, Listen +5


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Ok, so here's a quick attempt:
(notice I could have left Charisma and Intelligence at 8, but min/maxing that much annoys me) 

Human Monk 10

STR 12
DEX 18 (2 increases)
CON 12
INT 10
WIS 16
CHA 10

Using average +1 for HP, that would be 60 hp (correct me if I'm wrong)
AC: 19 (20 with Dodge)
Speed: 120'
Miss Chance: 20%

Saves:
FORT +8
REF +11
WILL +10

Feats:
Dodge
Mobility
Spring Attack
Weapon Finesse (unarmed)
Blind-Fight

Abilities:
Unarmed Strike
Stunning Attack (11/day at DC 18)
Flurry of Blows
Evasion
Deflect Arrows
Still Mind
Slow Fall (50')
Purity of Body
Improved Trip
Wholeness of Body
Leap of the Clouds
Improved Evasion
Ki Strike (+1)

Skills (trained only, of course):
Jump +26 (13 ranks/56 skill points)
Tumble +19 (26/56)
Climb +5 (30/56)
Hide +17 (43/56)
Move Silently +17 (56/56)

Attack:
+11/+8/+5 (+9/+9/+6/+3 w/Flurry of Blows)
Damage:
1d10+1

Items:
Boots of Striding and Springing (2.5k)
Monk's Belt (9k)
Minor Cloak of Displacement (25k)
Gloves of Rust (as Gauntlet) (11.5k)

= 48,000 gp, with 1,000 pocket change.

I didn't strive to make him particularly broken in this case, just fun.
And that's the point, right?


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, not 10th level.   Ok, 10th level.
> 
> g! *




We could go to 10th level, then it wouldn't be a big deal to take him to like 15th after that, really.  Just a few more feats, skills, items, and one stat boost.  I don't know, I suppose we could star over with items, assuming a 'fresh' total amount of accumulated wealth.  Whatever.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 1, 2002)

Bah, I can't imagine not having fun with a monk.
Gizzard, I may be missing something, but what's sucky about your monk again?

Apart from the fact that apparently the only magic item you have really isn't suited to a monk?


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 1, 2002)

Hakkenshi, I was expecting you to give him a ring of mage armor.    Also, I would at least give him an 8 CHA, and then give him a 14 STR.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

> Apart from the fact that apparently the only magic item you have really isn't suited to a monk?




Well, the Nunchaku that I wheedled out of the DM was randomly eaten by an ooze.  ;-)  Imagine the dishonor of losing the weapon that my temple gave me. :-(



> Gizzard, I may be missing something, but what's sucky about your monk again?




His biggest problem is that he's not at all a good fighter compared to the Barbarian or the TWF Fighter.  In combat he can run around and help people, or he can tie up a single unintelligent monster with his high AC, but other party members start asking "Um, wouldnt it be better if you were a Fighter and could kill stuff instead of distracting it until one of the real fighters has time to deal with it?"  The Monk absolutely cannot deal with Regen 5 or DR 5, not to mention DR 2/20!  

His skills and specials are kind of cool, but they mostly help him and not the party ("DM: Its a jet of rushing water!  Everyone make a Balance check!"  "Monk: I made mine by 10 points!" "DM: Anyone else?  Anyone?"  "Monk: I start climbing down the ledge to find my companions. :-(")  This is as opposed to a Rogue who has lots of useful skills that help the entire party.

<edit>
Which is not to say I havent had some fun with him; I have taken to Tumbling or Jumping into combat and then asking the DM to rule on whether I looked "cool" doing it.  And I almost always look cool.  But,  frankly I'm not an effective character.


----------



## Carnifex (Aug 1, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, like I said in a very early post in this thread, I am running through the standard module series.  (So, the treasure there should be well balanced for what the designers intended.)  As the Monk, I probably have the most money leftover of anyone, but right now (5th level) I have about 800 GP, not 8000 GP.  I might commission (another) masterwork Nunchaku (the first one was eaten by an ooze), but at this point it hardly seems worth it.
> 
> ...




I don't have much time right now so I can't give an in-depth answer to this, but I'll just say: If you check the tables in the DMG of the appropriate level of wealth for a PC of a given level (rather than the NPC equipment levels, which are much lower) you should find that that magic monk weapon shouldn't be too hard to get...


----------



## Henry (Aug 1, 2002)

Tales of high-level monks, while useful, aren't germane to the original intent of the thread, which was comparing lower to mid-level monks to other classes. (Although how someone got a Fighter1/Forsaker 4 is amazing to me! )

Ridley's Cohort:
Furthermore, I am sorry that you think the character sucks. Apparently every single point I made in the post was glossed over by "this character is worthless." In what way is he worthless?? He is the EQUAL of a 1st level rogue in terms of versatility on a battlefield, and has more defensive skills, to boot.

1st level rogue, 25 point buy.

S--10
D--15
C--12
I--14
W--8
CH--13

AC 14 (leather armor)

Saves:
fort +1
refl +4
will -1

sneak attack +1d6

Skills:
tumble +6
among others

This character cannot use evasion, cannot stun opponents, cannot use the healing skill effectively, has less hit points than the monk, and has an AC that cannot stack with an armor bonus. He has ONE competent save - one daze cantrip will affect him on average. They can tumble very well - but so can the monk. Plus, he doesn't hit as often, nor does he do the average damage of a monk (except on a sneak attack, where exceeds the monk's damage). He has other skills, sure - but so does the monk. In fact, his skills make up for what the monk can do, that he cannot.

How does this make a monk "useless." I would prefer a cogent reasoning (as I gave above), than just a "he sucks" post. 

BTW, in regards to the sharing of capabilites among party members (re: a mage casting mage armor on him): this kind of thing is EXPECTED in a normal party. AS I SAID, the monk ain't gettin' a freebie. He is putting his mobile little butt on the line doing things that the mage cannot and should not do. Similarly, the monk (and the fighter) help the rogue get his sneak attacks in - very rarely in my experience does a rogue sneak attack unaided.

There is no need for any class to be superior - just equivalent. If you are going to rate a class's effectiveness by the x-point-xx damage they do in a round, you are setting a poor standard. It's just not supportable to make a claim that monks of low level are categorically worthless, as I demonstrated above.

BTW, who would I choose as a 5th party wheel? Any class at all - every one of the 11 base classes has something to recommend it. If you wish to choose solely on damage dealing, or on massive skill points, then that's your decision. But there is plenty to recommend a monk of any level as a viable party member, as well as just being fun to play.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 1, 2002)

From my limited experience, I didnt really feel outclassed at 1st level.  At 3rd level I definitely did (its at 4th you get the extra attribute point and the d8 damage dice) and I still do (though to a lesser extent) at 5th level.  So I'd suggest that first level comparison isnt the best.



> How does this make a monk "useless." I would prefer a cogent reasoning (as I gave above), than just a "he sucks" post.




Well, the thing about comparing the Rogue and the Monk in fighting ability and coming away saying "the Monk is slightly better here" in combat misses the point that I feel:

If the Rogue does something useful in combat the party is impressed:  He's added value to his existence.  If he screws up, he can always say, "Hey!  Who opens the chests, baby?"  His primary function isnt combat; his Sneak Attack is just gravy.

If the Monk does something useful in combat people say, "You did your job.  Good work."  But when the other Fighter classes outshine him in combat people say, "So why do we have a Monk again?"  The Monk is not that good at his primary ability and his secondary abilities arent party-oriented enough to make people care.  "OK, Mr I-Have-Good-Saves-and-a-High-AC, we'll all cheer for you when you are the last man standing after a Fireball.  Good luck."


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 2, 2002)

*My monk-slaughterer:*

Ok, here is my 10th (half-orc) fighter made using 32-point buy:

initial (unmodified) stats:
STR 22 (+2 from levelling)... with items, it’s actually 26 
DEX 12
CON 16
INT 6
WIS 10
CHA 6

Saves:
Fort: +10
Ref: +4
Will: +3

Skills (13 points):
climb +17 (with modified STR modifier)
ride +7 (with DEX modifier)

Feats:
Power Attack, Cleave, Great Cleave, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (spiked chain), Weapon Focus (spiked chain), Weapon Specialization (spiked chain), Improved Critical, Sunder, Blind Fighting

Magic Items (had 49,000 gp to spend):
_+3 full plate_ 			-10,500 gp
_+1 holy, flaming spiked chain_	-18,325 gp
_boots of speed_			-8,000 gp
_+4 belt of giant strength_		-16,000 gp
_ioun stone (dusty rose prism)_	-4,000 gp

remaining gold: 825 gp

*BAB* (with spiked chain): +20/+15 _(+20/+15/+20 while hasted with boots)_

*damage* (with spiked chain): 2d4+1d6+11{avg = 19.5 per hit}, (2d4+3d6+11 vs.
evil enemies {avg = 26.5 per hit}), crit x2 (19-20)

Hit points (based on average hit die +.5 per level, as indicated): 90

AC: 23

Now, it’s overkill, yes, of course.  However, I really don’t think you could even make a monk this effective, using just the core rules.  I’m not saying that this fighter could slaughter almost any 10th level monk (that really doesn’t even need to be said, does it?); I’m saying I would rather have this fighter in my party than a similarly created monk.


----------



## Hejdun (Aug 2, 2002)

> Using average +1 for HP, that would be 60 hp (correct me if I'm wrong)




Using max at first, then 4.5 a level (average on a d8). you'd end up with 58.  Minor difference though.



> Boots of Striding and Springing (2.5k)




Errata'd to 6,000gp.  Again, minor stuff.



> +4 belt of giant strength -16,000 gp
> gauntlets of ogre power (+2) -4,000 gp




Those don't stack.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 2, 2002)

That was my objection in the first place, one that was never satisfactorily addressed.

What is that thing the Monk does, that's both A: needed and B: something only he can do?

Still don't know what that thing is. When the chips are down, and everyone's fighting for their lives (which is to say, we're playing D&D) the Monks often get looks from the other players like "Jesus, is that all you can do?"

Which is not the same as "you're useless." It's "you're not useful *enough*." The only other class that gets this is the Bard, but we recently had a very effective bard in the group, and we changed our minds. I'm just curious as to when we're going to do the same thing with the Monk and it looks like the answer is "never."

I've added Quarterstaff, Longspear, and Javelin, all simple weapons, to the list of weapons the Monk can use with his unarmed ATK bonus and number of attacks. These should probably have been there in the first place, since relying on oriental weapons is something you should only have to do in an oriental game.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 2, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> How does this make a monk "useless." I would prefer a cogent reasoning (as I gave above), than just a "he sucks" post. *




Fair enough.

A low level monk has very, very little to offer the party except melee fighting skills.  And he is not noticeably better in that role than a similarly constructed rogue, if better at all.  +1d6 (or +2d6) damage is a big balancing factor.  The rogue however is likely to be the superior scout, superior archer, and have a pile of other skills.  Don't discount the value of ranged attacks!  Both the rogue and monk are relatively soft in the AC and HPs, so it is likely they will need to retreat from any heavy brawling and pull out the crossbow.

Stunning Fist is an excellent ability at medium or higher levels.  It is very minor at low levels because the limited number of uses per day and the high probability of misses, especially if you Flurry.  Saves are useful, but they aren't such a big deal at low levels (though they can be critical at higher levels).

The fact that I can even plausibly argue that rogues fight as well is quite damning to monks, even if you disagree with my analysis.  Melee fighting is a secondary skill to many rogues; it is a primary function for monks.  Dare we take a look at a cleric or paladin for comparison?  Or a barbarian?


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 2, 2002)

Hejdun said:
			
		

> *Those don't stack. *




Ok, I edited it, and changed it to a dusty rose ioun stone (+1 deflection bonus to AC).  So now he is only +20/+15/+20 to hit while hasted, and his AC rises to 23.

In essence, he would still take out the monk with about 3 hits (and he would still be 100% likely to hit him at least twice every round), on average, while the monk probably wouldn't even scratch the fighter (averaging only 6.5 points of damage on a hit, which would only happen 40% of the time on his _best attack_, against 90 hit-points).  It's really no comparison whatsoever.  That's my point.

Which character would you rather have in your party, _if the goal was to gain experience points_?


----------



## Hejdun (Aug 2, 2002)

I'm just pointing out minor mistakes 

Likes this one:



> I've added Quarterstaff, Longspear, and Javelin, all simple weapons




Longspears aren't simple weapons 

In order for a monk to be effective, they HAVE to do more than fight.  Monks just aren't (and never will be) on par with paladins, fighters, rangers, or barbarians at fighting.  Therefore, in order for a monk to be as effective in a party setting, they have to do something other than fight.  Ok, well, monks might fight a little better than a ranger, but that's not the point.


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 2, 2002)

Monks are a lot like bards.  (And yes I know some of you think they suck too...) They're specialized, and they're most useful in large parties that already have the major classes covered.  They're good for rounding out a party, but won't replace a fighter, cleric, wizard, or rogue.   

When monks have the advantage:

- In civilized areas where weapons are banned or uncommon.  (Not a common D&D setting!)

- Against creatures without damage reduction.

- In wide open areas where their mobility is useful.  

- Against lots of low AC creatures.  

- Against spellcasters.

I like to think of them as the special forces of the party.  They can get behind enemy lines and take out leaders and spellcasters, but can't soak up or deal out the damage like a fighter.  

Some advice  on playing a monk:

- If you're playing a monk in a party with only a few members, try not to be a substitute fighter.  You'll be much more effective as a substitute rogue.   If there are no fighter types, consider playing one instead, then multiclassing into monk later (it could be an interesting roleplaying experience to have such a career change.)  

- Don't disdain using magic weapons.  You need to hit more often and need to get past damage reduction.

- Learn to realize when damage reduction is causing your blows to have no effect.  Switch to a magic weapon, or grapple with such a creature instead so that your friends can finish it off easier.

- The monk's biggest problem is not hitting often enough and not hitting hard enough.  If you use unarmed attacks, you don't hit often enough, but do cause good damage, unless facing damage reduction.  If you use magic weapons, you hit more often, but do less damage at higher levels.  
  My advice is to do one of two things:  Either start with a high Strength and keep improving it through magic items and when gaining levels, or go with a high Dexterity and take Weapon Finesse: Unarmed Strike, then Weapon Finesse: <Insert monk weapon here>.  Each path works well for a monk.  Make Wisdom your second most important stat in any case.  

If you're DMing a group with a monk, I would suggest making sure that the monk has something useful to do.  They're great at surviving traps, volleys of arrows, and spells.  Good challenges for them include hordes of low AC / low hit point enemies for them to use flurry of blows on (good for fighters with Cleave too),  enemy spellcasters hiding behind lines of troops, and encounters where weapons aren't allowed or available.  Also, make sure they can get magical weapons just as easily as the other members of the party, and that if you throw high damage reduction creatures at them, that there are other enemies that they can fight effectively.  (I actually made this mistake last weekend, but the monk improvised and bullrushed the lead villain off the deck of the ship with a flying kick, turned out to be quite cool.)

Monks are hard to play, and create some challenges for the DM, but if they fit into your campaign world (and they don't always fit!) then I think they're balanced and fun.  They're just not as easy to deal with as the other classes, and really should be used to round out a larger party, not as a fighter substitute.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Which character would you rather have in your party, if the goal was to gain experience points? *




Either one, since they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

The monk doesn't have the sheer combat power of the fighter, but he also doesn't have the brain of a turnip or a Will save that's going to cause him to drop like panties on prom night. 

It's all gonna come down to party composition. 

As designed, the fighter is great against nasty beasties. He can get stuck in against brawling monsters and more than hold his own.  Get some enemy spellcasters in the mix though, and, without proper support, he's very likely f'ed. 

The monk sample character, meanwhile, lacks the sheer stopping power of the sample fighter. He can, however, get across the entire battlefield in about .5 seconds and put a hurt on the spellcaster that's just itching to drop a Dominate Person or Hold Person on the fighter. He also makes a great partner for a party rogue, since he can set up flanking maneuvers with ease and has more than respectable scores in Move Silently and Hide. 


Now, as to the question of whether the monk class does what it was supposed to do.

I think it does, but I don't think that what it does is what it should have been designed to do in the first place.

I think that there is simultaneously too much and not enough "asian" flavor, for lack of a better term. Many of the monk's abilities are clearly inspired by HK movies and the whole eastern unarmed ass kicker archetype, but the class comes across as more of a survivalist than it does a Kain/Bruce/Jackie/Jet/Shaolin composite. 

I think a problem a lot of players and DMs have with the class is that it brings to mind images of Shaolin warriors kicking and punching their way through legions of hapless opponents without really giving you the tools to do it. 

In other words, it does its job well, but it does the wrong job. 

-Patrick Younts


----------



## apsuman (Aug 2, 2002)

help!

What is the wealth level for a tenth level character, and more importantly, where do you find this information?


thx,

g!


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> If you have a shirt that is enchanted to act as armour, isn't that essentially armour?*




A silk shirt with an armour bonus to AC would essentially be bracers of armour occupying a different item slot. No big deal there. You don't even need an item made for you, just a cleric who can cast magic vestment when needed.



> *If I was running a game, I wouldn't allow it.  Heck, I'm not even a 100% sure where I stand on Bracers of Armour (right now I'd be willing to allow it). *




The consensus for the longest time in the Rules forum has been that bracers don't count as "worn armour".


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Arcane Runes Press said:
			
		

> *
> I think that there is simultaneously too much and not enough "asian" flavor, for lack of a better term. Many of the monk's abilities are clearly inspired by HK movies and the whole eastern unarmed ass kicker archetype, but the class comes across as more of a survivalist than it does a Kain/Bruce/Jackie/Jet/Shaolin composite.
> 
> I think a problem a lot of players and DMs have with the class is that it brings to mind images of Shaolin warriors kicking and punching their way through legions of hapless opponents without really giving you the tools to do it.
> ...




YES! This is exactly the point I made before. Whatever the monk does well, it isn't what a lot of people want it to do.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 2, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A silk shirt with an armour bonus to AC would essentially be bracers of armour occupying a different item slot. No big deal there. You don't even need an item made for you, just a cleric who can cast magic vestment when needed.
> 
> ...




I agree that looking at the shirt as an alterante slot for bracers of armour makes sense, but I'm still not sure I'd allow it.  It just _ feels _ wrong.

I know the consensus has been to allow bracers of armour (I even participated in some of those debates 1.5 years ago on the side of allowing them), but since I'm not currently running a game (I hope to be starting up a game in the next few months) I haven't made my final decision.  I'd probably allow it, but I haven't 100% made up my mind.


----------



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

couple points one the fighter displayed on this page would get owned by any monk built with any degree of efficiency.  hide/sneak are brutal skills in one on one fights, spring attack and great movement make these skills even more brutal.  weapons may be cool but if your stunned even once your weapons are dropped, and that nice movement rate likely means your weapons are long gone before you get to move again.

All of which proves that one on one fights prove nada.  If people want to prove the fighter is a better fighter than the monk, I just say well duh.  Is the fighter so much a better fighter that the monks other abilities don't make up the difference?  Not even clsoe if anything the fighter needs a boost.

Which class would I want in a party.  99% of the time I'd prefer a monk if I was the one shaping the party.  Why because a fighter is an absolute and compleate gimp in every situation that can't be solved with his sword.  And his lack of all skills useful generally means the party gets in a ton more fights than I'd prefer.  My favorite part composition of 4 is rogue/druid/ranger/monk.  decent fighting, decent magic, and fantastic stealth.  I'd accept a wiz/sor if they were oriented towards illusion magic.

monk to hit/damage at 10th level can easily be +13/+13/+10/+7(+15/+12+9 if you don't flurry) for 1d10+8 great nope, but adequate yep.  And that's all the monk should be adequate at fighting, he gets a cool special ability every level, had 4 skill points with a cool selection of class skill, d8 hp, and all good saves.  If he fought as good as the fighter the fighter would suck more than he already does.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 2, 2002)

> The monk doesn't have the sheer combat power of the fighter, but he also doesn't have the brain of a turnip or a Will save that's going to cause him to drop like panties on prom night.




This is just starting to become a problem now at my level (5th) so I understand what you are saying.  But what happens when the Barbarian gets Dominated?  He comes over and kicks the Monks butt!  It doesn't matter that I could have saved against that spell, every intelligent monster knows not to cast on the Monk.  Not that it matters either way; if all saves were equal would anyone pick the Monk to Dominate?  No, because you would rather control any of other party members instead.  



> He can, however, get across the entire battlefield in about .5 seconds and put a hurt on the spellcaster that's just itching to drop a Dominate Person or Hold Person on the fighter.




OK, everyone is, as far as I can tell, talking about some high-level Monks.  At 5th, I cannot get across the battlefield any faster than the Barbarian (40').  One more level and then I'll be able to do something no one else can do - move 50'.  But its been a long slog to that point.



> Monks are a lot like bards. (And yes I know some of you think they suck too...)




I think Bards rock.  They are actually decent at a bunch of different stuff.  At first and second levels, the Bard seemed iffy; but now she is starting to  rack up both Clerical and Arcane spells; she's not as good as a specialist at anything, but she is a generalist in almost everything.  She gives a constant flow of contribution to the party: a Song to help during combat, a couple shots with the Short Bow, maybe a Magic Missile or a Daze and then some Cure Lights afterwards.  I like Bards.

The Monk, on the other hand, is not as good as a specialist in his main area (fighting) and he's not got much skill as a generalist.  ("Can you cast Arcane spells?  No?  How about Divine?  No?  Then you must be able to Disarm this Trap.  No?!  What is it that you do then?  You "Balance"?  You "Deflect Arrows"?  Is that supposed to help the party in some way???")  The Bard shows how a good generalist can be made in 3E and points up how shallow the Monks abilities as a "jack-of-all trades" are.



> one the fighter displayed on this page would get owned by any monk built with any degree of efficiency.




I dont see the weakness.  You talk about stunning, but I dont think you can count on that with Fort+10 and AC 23.  You talk about movement, but the Fighter has Boots of Speed; I dont think you are going to hit & run him as much as you think.  And hiding and sneaking (which means no great movement rate),well, I think that Fighter can afford to take a couple good hits from the Monk - whereas the Monk cannot say the same thing.

Of course, 10th level Monks arent my specialty.  But I will tell you who owns who between a 5th level Fighter and a 5th level Monk.  ;-)

Anyway, do you think you can post a Monk thats significantly better than Hakkenshi's?  I'd be curious to see it; I thought Hakkenshi hit the high points even if he didnt tune as thoroughly as Wolfen Priest.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 2, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree that looking at the shirt as an alterante slot for bracers of armour makes sense, but I'm still not sure I'd allow it.  It just  feels  wrong.
> 
> I know the consensus has been to allow bracers of armour (I even participated in some of those debates 1.5 years ago on the side of allowing them), but since I'm not currently running a game (I hope to be starting up a game in the next few months) I haven't made my final decision.  I'd probably allow it, but I haven't 100% made up my mind. *




Would you disallow a wizard casting Mage Armor on a monk, then?  It's the same thing!  All 'bracers of armor' do is give you a permanenced 'mage armor' effect of variable strength, that's where the 'armor' bit comes in, because it's an armor bonus rather than a deflection bonus (or whatever).   As has been pointed out, a shirt of (mage) armor can and should be treated exactly the same as bracers.
BTW re 'magic vestment', this appears to be a slightly inferior solution since the Enhancement bonus it grants doesn't appear to be effective vs incorporeal opponents, unlike bracers of armor or a mage armor spell.  Otherwise it's a good idea.  'Armor' for the purposes of Monk abilities means the stuff in the Equipment section that grants (non-magical) Armor bonuses, eg padded armor, shields, chainmail etc, not spells and magic that grant 'armor' bonuses.  They're called 'armor' bonuses because they don't stack with the Armor bonuses from equipment.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 2, 2002)

The monks in my game are great at wading through hordes of mooks like Bruce Lee & co, combined with their evasive and stealth abilities they're powerful characters despite lacking the massive destructive power of a Sorcerer or great cleaving Fighter.  The only opponents they've had trouble with are big monsters with high DR; my game is somewhat magic poor but still they both have +2 weapons at 9th level and can handle most appropriate CRS, that they couldn't beat an Iron Devil (from CC2)was based S&S had incorrectly altered its CR.


----------



## Fenes 2 (Aug 2, 2002)

I have to add that, even though I said it before, IMC a monk would be horribly overpowered. It is low magic, with many social challenges, and not a whole lot of combat - often only one main fight per adventure, if at all. Many fights happen at inopportune times, like during a ball, or during a nightly assault on an inn, or on the market. Many adventures also require infiltration or disguise skills.


----------



## Darklone (Aug 2, 2002)

One of my groups got bashed by a similar fighter to that guy up there in the thread after another big battle... 

The groups monk covered the retreat then. He used expertise and fighting defensively on a rope bridge to block the fighter (pl, hit him more often with his many attacks than he got hit for more damage and simply waved goodbye and walked home after he bought enough time for his group to escape. 

If this would have been a fighter, he could have cut the bridge and died gloriously together with the enemy.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, Wolfen Priest, I'll admit my monk would probably get owned (as someone said) by your fighter.

But of course that's not the point, nor is gaining experience 

Would I have fun playing my monk? Definitely.
Without trashing your design (as I said, it's very effective), I wouldn't have fun grunting in the background as a boorish and idiotic Half-Orc.

Rings of Mage Armour aren't in the DMG, and I chose to go with standard items. Please note that whatever non-magical metal items you own are actually dust now. God, I love Gauntlets of Rust 

Best item design in the DMG! Heh heh heh.
Thanks for the kind words Gizzard, I hope you have fun with the monk, I always do (it's my MPC, Most-Played-Class, by far).

I think Arcane Runes Press (that seems impersonal ) got it right: it's perfectly fine to expect the monk to perform well in most situations, but it's unfair to expect him to outclass everyone (which no one wants anyway).

Well, it's been fun!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

Oh, and Wolfen Priest, you spent 7,000 gp too many. Just a detail.

Bards rule too!


----------



## Henry (Aug 2, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *The fact that I can even plausibly argue that rogues fight as well is quite damning to monks, even if you disagree with my analysis.  Melee fighting is a secondary skill to many rogues; it is a primary function for monks.  Dare we take a look at a cleric or paladin for comparison?  Or a barbarian? *




I won't take the Cleric comparison with ANY other character - those jokers are so loaded it's amazing - but the loading is intentional there.

I do see Hong's point - a monk does not fulfill a role that many people want him to fulfill. The only two points I wish to make are that a monk is not useless compared to the other base classes, and that there is precedent scattered throughout history and legend for the monk's abilities. I myself do feel that more weapons that could be used for unarmed attacks could have been included - and that in truth, an ability that could allow a monk weapon slightly better base damage as well as UAB at higher level would have been welcome. But I can speak from personal experience to say that monks have been quite popular and enjoyable in our campaigns - just as they have not been as enjoyable in yours.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 2, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *couple points one the fighter displayed on this page would get owned by any monk built with any degree of efficiency.  hide/sneak are brutal skills in one on one fights, spring attack and great movement make these skills even more brutal.  weapons may be cool but if your stunned even once your weapons are dropped, and that nice movement rate likely means your weapons are long gone before you get to move again.
> *




Well, to address this issue, we were limited to 32-point-buy, which is the main reason why I disagree with you.  Also, there were two feats I had this gruntish brute take that were pretty much optional (and needless); I could've taken (and indeed thought about taking) the feat Great Fortitude instead of Sunder, in which case his Fort save would be +12.  Not likely to be stunned, really.

Second, The whole reason I gave him spiked chain was so that spring attack wouldn't work.  The monk (indeed _any_ monk) would run up for a spring attack, and *boom*: AoO at +20.  That's an automatic hit (vs. his [dodge enhanced] AC of 20).  Two more of those and the monk is likely dead.

Hakkenshi, yes, I see I did spend _way_ too much money on his equipment!  I don't know how I let that slip through, but I made the guy in about five minutes or so before I started entering him into this thread.  In any case, I guess what I would do is 'shrink' his weapon to simply a _+1 holy spiked chain_.  Maybe that's what I thought I did; I don't remember.   

And second, (and more importantly), I agree with you Hakkenshi that I too would not really want to play that fighter.  A big dumb jerk with a 6 INT and 6 CHA.  Pretty lame, no doubt.  But still, I would prefer to play a character that was at least marginally effective, if at all possible.

I guess my overall point/opinion here is that I think the monk needs an overhaul.  An upgrade.  I think they should give him an official redesign to make him _almost_ as good as a fighter, or, optionally, better at some other things.  But I have no idea what I would change.  Perhaps more skill points?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, I'm sure you know my opinion on the monk's status already, so I don't need to tell you I think he's fine.

HOWEVER, I will agree that he could be reworked. If I were to remake the monk, he would not get SR, nor become an outsider (that's for a prestige class to do, if at all), nor would he be able to heal himself or Dimension Door. In exchange for these (pretty powerful) abilities, I'd probably have him:

a) deal bonus damage based on Wisdom;

b) add Wisdom bonus to attack rolls;

c) count as one size larger, then two sizes larger in combat for purposes of tripping, disarming, grappling, etc.;

d) get more monk weapons (shortspear, quarterstaff, longspear, javelin, maybe even a bow);

e) get the psionic feat Up the Wall despite not having the prerequisites.

Bear in mind these are quickly thought up and written, and I may be way off base, but I'm certain this would fit my idea of the monk much better.

I'd like to see others redesign the monk in a few quick changes. Post your own ideas!


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 2, 2002)

Well, I've been thinking about this topic for a while - over the 2 threads that it covered - and I'm beginning to think that we're all looking at this the wrong way.

To me, putting different core classes up against one another - especially one with very different abilities - is similar to playing rock-paper-scissors. As has been shown, a fighter can beat a monk (we'll call the fighter rock), the monk can beat a wizard (magic resistant scissors cuts paper), while a wizard can beat a fighter (paper covers low will save rock).

When you put a monk up against a fighter in a straightforward fight, the fighter will more often than not win. After all, fighters fight. If monks were supposed to fight as well as fighters, _they_ would be called fighters as well. 

But monks aren't fighters - they are survival specialists. They survive against all kinds of foes, and in all sorts of dangerous situations. They may not always win a fight, but are very capable of "running away to fight another day."

Monks fill their role in a party, but that role isn't necessarily to fight. It might be to be cleanup crew, or be point man (they are very good at this because of their saves and movement rates), or be an ace in the hole against spellcasters, but it's not to take the role of the brick, or the meat shield.


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> I guess my overall point/opinion here is that I think the monk needs an overhaul.  An upgrade.  I think they should give him an official redesign to make him almost as good as a fighter, or, optionally, better at some other things.  But I have no idea what I would change.  Perhaps more skill points? *




Right, here we go again. 

I've already mentioned in this thread that I have a martial artist class on my D&D page, but it got lost in the flood of posts.

Here's an executive summary of what it's about. First the statement of purpose: the martial artist is about _unarmoured combat_. This is what distinguishes the class from the fighter, and the rogue, and any other class. If you're habitually wearing chainmail or full plate, then even if you're jumping around with boots of striding and springing or a ring of jumping, you're not a martial artist.

This is distinct to the martial artist from Chainmail Bikini's Beyond Monks pdf, which defines the martial artist's niche as _unarmed_ combat.

The class and feats are here:
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ma_feats.htm

I'm in the process of submitting this to Asgard magazine, with a few revisions I've been planning to do for some time. This will include a reworked treatment of martial arts schools, plus new prestige classes (of course) and mastery abilities.

If anyone has any suggestions on what they'd like to see in this article, or any changes they'd like to see for the class, speak up now or forever hold your peace.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

I had already seen your martial artist, hong (I was one of those few who DIDN'T miss reading it in the posting frenzy  ), but to me, it's too much of a fighter with unarmed combat feats. Which is fine, really, because as it is right now, it's next to impossible to build a good pugilist.

The feats I have more trouble with, for reasons I don't fully understand myself. I wish I could explain it better, but they just don't feel right to me. That being said, if they work in your games, then your system is fine.

The thing with the monk is that I like the idea of a more mystical fighter, while the martial artist is more pragmatic. I think that's why WotC chose to call it a monk in the first place instead of a martial artist. I think your class ought to be ADDED alongside the monk, which could be the supernatural variant more along the lines of WotC's version.


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *I had already seen your martial artist, hong (I was one of those few who DIDN'T miss reading it in the posting frenzy  ), but to me, it's too much of a fighter with unarmed combat feats. Which is fine, really, because as it is right now, it's next to impossible to build a good pugilist.*




Hmm. Are you sure that was MY martial artist you were looking at? I haven't got that many unarmed combat feats at all -- in fact, looking over the list, there are exactly 3 out of 25-odd that require Improved Unarmed Strike.



> *The thing with the monk is that I like the idea of a more mystical fighter, while the martial artist is more pragmatic. I think that's why WotC chose to call it a monk in the first place instead of a martial artist. I think your class ought to be ADDED alongside the monk, which could be the supernatural variant more along the lines of WotC's version. *




Bingo! I have no problems with the mystical mumbo-jumbo at all, in fact, I'm all for it. The martial arts schools and PrCs I've written up so far for Asgard tend to be like this.

What I was trying to avoid was more feats that try to emulate specific maneuvers or combat techniques. IMO, D&D combat is too abstract to handle that level of detail. Better to go for the mystical stuff, which also gives you a lot more room to make things up as you go.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

> Hmm. Are you sure that was MY martial artist you were looking at? I haven't got that many unarmed combat feats at all -- in fact, looking over the list, there are exactly 3 out of 25-odd that require Improved Unarmed Strike.




Sorry, I meant bonus feats in general. Yes, you're right there's a wide variety of feats you allow in your list, and it allows for a bow-wielding martial artist, which is always to the good.

I really can't say I'm a big fan of having bonus feats as special abilities. I guess that's why I'm not crazy about playing a fighter 

Uncanny Dodge, of course, is where I entirely agree with you. Makes sense for a martial artist (and even for a monk).

And I think that if I had one thing to change about the monk, it's that it depends too much on physical stats to depict an old mountain hermit who defeats powerful opponents by the strength of his Ki. Although, at venerable age, he's likely to have high AC, he won't be taking anyone down quickly, and his HP will have suffered a bit.

Still, I think this can't be resolved very easily, which is why I stick with the standard monk


----------



## apsuman (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, to address this issue, we were limited to 32-point-buy, which is the main reason why I disagree with you.  Also, there were two feats I had this gruntish brute take that were pretty much optional (and needless); I could've taken (and indeed thought about taking) the feat Great Fortitude instead of Sunder, in which case his Fort save would be +12.  Not likely to be stunned, really.
> 
> ...




I thought that spring attack would ignore AOO, or is it because he leaves one threatened area 10' away and moves to another, 5' away?

g!


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry, I meant bonus feats in general. Yes, you're right there's a wide variety of feats you allow in your list, and it allows for a bow-wielding martial artist, which is always to the good.
> 
> ...




Well, I'm a big fan of bonus feats, because they allow lots of flexibility. If I was designing 3.1E or 4E, I'd make all the classes have bonus feats like the fighter, but with different sets of feats to choose from. Right now the fighter is extremely customisable, but you can't really say that about the barbarian or paladin, or even the cleric and sorc.



> *
> Uncanny Dodge, of course, is where I entirely agree with you. Makes sense for a martial artist (and even for a monk).*




Yep, I don't know why they left that out. (Well, I do know why; it's because they were trying to recreate the 1E monk. But I digress.  )



> *
> And I think that if I had one thing to change about the monk, it's that it depends too much on physical stats to depict an old mountain hermit who defeats powerful opponents by the strength of his Ki. Although, at venerable age, he's likely to have high AC, he won't be taking anyone down quickly, and his HP will have suffered a bit.
> 
> Still, I think this can't be resolved very easily, which is why I stick with the standard monk  *




True, the martial artist will still need better stats on average than a fighter. What I've done to address this issue is to make feats that swap around attribute bonuses so that low stats don't matter so much. Consider Weapon Finesse, which lets you add your Dex bonus to attacks instead of Str. There are a couple of feats that let you use Wis instead of Str for damage, or Wis instead of Con for hit points and Fort saves. You could make more along these lines.

And because I'm perfectly happy with the quasi-mystical thing, I don't have to torture myself thinking up "realistic" rationales for these feats.


----------



## Arcane Runes Press (Aug 2, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> a) deal bonus damage based on Wisdom;
> 
> ...




If you can, check out Mongoose's Quintessential Monk.

I wrote it and it should be out (I think) at GenCon.

Many of the things you list as desirable for the monk are things that I included in the manuscript, either as alternative class progressions, feats, or prestige classes.

There are new weapons and LOTS of new uses for existing skills. 

Patrick Y.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Second, The whole reason I gave him spiked chain was so that spring attack wouldn't work.  The monk (indeed any monk) would run up for a spring attack, and boom: AoO at +20.  That's an automatic hit (vs. his [dodge enhanced] AC of 20).  Two more of those and the monk is likely dead.
> *




Umm...  No.

Just because you have a reach weapon changes nothing. As the feat explicitly states: "Moving in this way does not provoke an attack of opportunity from the defender the character attacks."

There are no exceptions for reach weapons or anything else. After all, what good would the feat be if a simple Ogre could still nail you with his fists (they have reach too) when you used it?

Or even worse, a dragon? Or anything with ridiculously long reach? There would be no point to the feat. Reach weapons don't give you AoOs against those with Spring Attack. 

I still think your fighter would win in the long run, though... but I also don't think one-on-one fights prove anything.


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *
> Or even worse, a dragon? Or anything with ridiculously long reach? There would be no point to the feat. Reach weapons don't give you AoOs against those with Spring Attack.
> *




Note: readied attacks work wonders against annoying guys who bounce around all over the place, even if they have Spring Attack.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 2, 2002)

Oh, and the house rule we use...

The Monk AC Bonus +1 is the highest damage reduction the monk can penetrate with his fists.

So at 1st level, a monk can beat DR +x/+1.  At fifth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+2. At tenth level, the monk can beat DR +x/+3. At fifteenth, the monk can now get past DR of +x/+4. And at 20th level, the monk can get around DR +x/+5.  This ONLY affects damage reduction.

The Ki Strike is altered to be an actual + to fists. Thus, at tenth level, all of the monk's unarmed attacks are made as a +1 weapon, to hit and to damage.

So far, it has worked pretty well. It also means that a monk can almost always damage the creatures that the party runs into -- sometimes better than anyone else in the party.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 2, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *Note: readied attacks work wonders against annoying guys who bounce around all over the place, even if they have Spring Attack. *




Readied actions, yes. AoOs because you use a reach weapon, as Wolfen Priest said? No.

A readied action to trip has always been my favorite defense against those with Spring Attack.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 2, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Umm...  No.
> 
> ...




Ok, well, in that case, I wouldn't even give him the spiked chain but rather a greatsword; thus the crit range would be 17-20 and damage would be (on average) 2 points higher.

But technically, I guess (if no AoO are allowed) the monk could just spring attack the crap out of the fighter until he's dead, assuming he gets all his attacks in.  But even with this actuality, couldn't the fighter just ready an action to hit the monk when he 'passes?'  Otherwise, it seems kind of ridiculous that the monk would just sort of buzz by him like a jet fighter, the fighter completely unable to catch (and therefore) harm him.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *But technically, I guess (if no AoO are allowed) the monk could just spring attack the crap out of the fighter until he's dead, assuming he gets all his attacks in.  But even with this actuality, couldn't the fighter just ready an action to hit the monk when he 'passes?'*




Of course you can.

And, with that strength, I'd say you have a VERY good chance with a Trip Attack -- making the monk get up the next round and giving you some nice prone bonuses in the meantime.

Like I said before -- I don't think a monk could beat the fighter you designed. As I also said -- I don't think it proves much, either. The fighter only has one trick: fighting. If the monk could beat him in a straight-up fight, that would be ridiculous.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 2, 2002)

hong said:
			
		

> *
> Well, I'm a big fan of bonus feats, because they allow lots of flexibility. If I was designing 3.1E or 4E, I'd make all the classes have bonus feats like the fighter, but with different sets of feats to choose from. Right now the fighter is extremely customisable, but you can't really say that about the barbarian or paladin, or even the cleric and sorc.*




Couldn't agree more.

My biggest complaints about, say, the Ranger and Paladin is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with playing them as is, but they are unnecessarily focussed and inflexible.  TWF doesn't fit some outdoorsmen and some campaigns.  Cure Disease doesn't fit some LG gods.


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> My biggest complaints about, say, the Ranger and Paladin is not that there is necessarily anything wrong with playing them as is, but they are unnecessarily focussed and inflexible.  TWF doesn't fit some outdoorsmen and some campaigns.  Cure Disease doesn't fit some LG gods. *




Yep. This is (one reason) why I prefer the shaman and samurai classes in OA, to the PHB cleric and paladin. Instead of being relatively inflexible, both the shaman and samurai feature lots of bonus feat slots that you can use however you like. And you can easily transfer them over to another setting, just by changing the pool of bonus feats and doing a bit of tweaking.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 2, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *
> I do see Hong's point - a monk does not fulfill a role that many people want him to fulfill. ...  But I can speak from personal experience to say that monks have been quite popular and enjoyable in our campaigns - just as they have not been as enjoyable in yours. *




Monks actually seem pretty popular among the campaigns I have been in.  Fun or no, I do not think low level monks pull their weight.  High level monks are pretty good: their layers of defense and mobility are very valuable when combat is fluid and magic common.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

wolff96, I really like your house rule, and I'd definitely add it to my list of modifications to make for the monk.

Wolfen Priest, ready your action all you like, you still have a 20% miss chance on my monk 

And no, as pointed out by wolff96, it STILL proves nothing.

As for the customizability of feats, I find that feats fail to impress after a while. Class abilities should out-feat the feats. They should be to feats what feats are to skills. Spellcasting is one such ability, Rage is another. If I'm playing a monk, I don't WANT the fighter to be able to out-jump, out-evade, and out-everything me because he has feats that give him my class abilities.

That leads to a classless system which, IMHO, ruins the out-of-game individuality of characters.

Now, a special ability progression like the rogue's is the ultimate system. You have CLASS-SPECIFIC abilities, but one rogue might have entirely different ones than another. If that is in fact what you propose, then I'm all for it. Just not the "feat-based character"...that's just insipid for me.


----------



## hong (Aug 2, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> As for the customizability of feats, I find that feats fail to impress after a while. Class abilities should out-feat the feats. *




Perhaps in that case, you should think of bonus feat slots _as_ class abilities.



> *They should be to feats what feats are to skills. Spellcasting is one such ability, Rage is another. If I'm playing a monk, I don't WANT the fighter to be able to out-jump, out-evade, and out-everything me because he has feats that give him my class abilities.
> *




That's why I said that each class would have their own pool of bonus feats. If you don't want the fighter out-jumping your monk, you don't give the fighter feats to let him do it. And note that under the current system, there's nothing stopping the fighter from getting a ring of jumping, or boots of striding and springing, and doing the "bounce around the battlefield" thing himself.

Whether or not the underlying progression of 1 feat per 3 levels continues is something to be worked out if and when I actually get employed to work on 3.1E. 



> *That leads to a classless system which, IMHO, ruins the out-of-game individuality of characters.*




Nobody is suggesting a classless system AFAIK, least of all me.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

I guess we have different definitions of feats 
In my mind, a feat either helps a class with its special abilities, enhances one or some of the character's stats, or allows for higher use of a skill.

A special ability is more unique, I guess.

Of course I'd have to actually see your D&D 3.1e before having an opinion on it


----------



## apsuman (Aug 2, 2002)

I think too many people are trying to focus on all of the monk's abilities too much.  For example either you decide to have a stunning attack that is big enough to threaten the fighter types , in which case you need the wisdom of solomon, OR you settle for a weaker stunning attack, (where are those rogues?) and boost other things.

I have a few ideas on "different" types of monks.

Human monk
Str 18 (22 w/belt)
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 14 (2 stat increases)
Cha 8


HP 58
AC 
10
+2 (monk)
+2 (dex)
+2 (wis)
+2 (Bracers)
+1 (dodge)

Feats: Power Attack, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Cleave

+1 flaming shock Nunchaku 

Bab +7/+4/+1
(+14/+11/+8 with Nunchaku)

Stunning attack at +13 DC of 17

Damage: (nunchaku) 3d6 + 7, average 17.5 

+1 flaming shock Nunchaku 18,302 gp
Boots of speed 8,000 gp
belt of giant Str +4 16,000 gp
Bracers of AC +2 4,000 gp
Cloak of Elvenkind 2,000 gp

Skills
65 skill points
balance +8 +2 dex = +10
tumble +10 +2 dex = +12
climb +4 +6 str= +10
listen +10 +2 wis = +12
jump +10 + 6 str = +16
hide +10 +2 dex + 10 cloak = +22
move silent +13 +2 dex = +15

At the cost of a little AC and a lower DC on the Stunning attack. he has a much better str, better to hit and damage.

I don't like one trick ponies, but it bears pointing out that this guy can Spring Attack in, (improve) trip you with a -4 power attack, and then get an attack on you (at only +14)  for 3d6+11 damage (avg 21.5) and still pring attack out of there.

Even without using spring attack or the power attack, simply engaging in melee, a trip attack even if the first one misses, if the second one hits, then you have two attacks at +15/+12 against a prone target, for an avg of 17.5 each time.

g!


----------



## takyris (Aug 2, 2002)

One side note, to the guy who made the half-orc with the Intelligence of 6...

If the monk stood there and toe-to-toe'd with you, you'd crush him like a flea.  In an arena combat situation, you would rock.  But in the wild, where the monk could do anything creative involving the environment, I as the DM would quickly start asking for Intelligence checks if you weren't playing his tactics at that intelligence level.  With an Int of 6, all your character can do is attack.  Melee attacks and ranged attacks.  That's about it.

In a one-on-one "fight", your character would angrily follow the monk out onto the rope bridge and then howl in frustration as the monk cut the ropes.  Your character would stop for the pile of bird seed with the anvil hanging over it.  Your character would charge into a solid rock wall that had been painted to look like a hole with the word "MUNK" written above it with an arrow pointing at the fake hole.  And he would not learn from that experience.

Heck, a monk with spring attack could run out, tie your guy's shoelaces together, and then run away, and you'd be hopping up and down because you hadn't mastered the concept of laces and the cleric who tied your shoeleaces for you was back at the inn waiting to see how your one-on-one fight went.

So maybe you've just been playing an Int 6 character with a more lenient DM.  Because 3 is only barely more intelligent than a bear, and 6 ain't a whole lot better.

-Tacky


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 2, 2002)

> The groups monk covered the retreat then. He used expertise and fighting defensively on a rope bridge to block the fighter




Sounds like a job for Bull Rush.  Wouldnt it be great if you could push people a little sideways instead of just straight back?  That would teach little wussy Monks to stand in the way of a big burly Fighter on a narrow rope bridge.  ;-)  

Overrun should work too, probably even better.



> Well, I've been thinking about this topic for a while - over the 2 threads that it covered ...




Has it only been 2 threads?  I've seen these threads ever since I became a Monk.  I think "2 years" is closer to correct than "2 threads".  ;-)  

One thing that does fascinate me is that each thread definitely has its own personality.  



> I have a few ideas on "different" types of monks.




One thing that bugs me about these high-STR Monks is that they have even less Monk flavor than regular Monks.  I look at that guy and think - could I make a Barbarian who does this same trick just as well?  Give him the rocket Boots and the Spring Attack feat chain, then use his base 40' move to bounce in and out of combat.  (Of course, the Barbarian would probably rather just stick in combat and dish out damage.) 

Still, when people are arguing (sensibly, I think) that a good way to make a Monk is to ignore his two prime attributes and not worry about losing out on the basic Monk abilities - well, I think that shows better than anything that there is something seriously wrong with the Monk as-is.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 2, 2002)

Interesting monk, apsuman.  In fact, in addition to all that, take the fact that I totally miscalculated my fighter's equipment.  I'll redo it when I get home, but I'm willing to bet that by a simple fight demonstration, the monk _would_ indeed be the equal of the fighter, mainly because the fighter has to "waste" so much money on armor.

All this really goes to show the validity of my initial query: the monk's need for stats is probably made up for (if not more than made up for) by his 'lack of need' for armor.  When I re-edit the fighter, we can run them through a mock combat scenario; it looks to me like the monk can indeed stand up to the fighter in a straight up 10th-level fight...

... Which should really end this whole discussion.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 2, 2002)

> So maybe you've just been playing an Int 6 character with a more lenient DM. Because 3 is only barely more intelligent than a bear, and 6 ain't a whole lot better.




Have you ever tried to tie a Bears shoelaces together?  I dont think the results would be pretty, and I dont think the Monk would fare much better against the Barbarian.  ;-)

Seriously though, the PHB shows a Troll as the iconic INT 6 monster.  A Troll isnt much good at puzzles or algebra, but one thing he is good at is fighting. 

I'd only start reminding the player to play dumb if the situation were changing rapidly, beyond the grasp of his feeble processing powers.  But anything that involves people hitting other people is what he's good at.  Team tactics are within his grasp (wolves make their livings off the team, and they're probably on par with the bear) so you arent likely to fool him with hit-and-run or anything tactical.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 2, 2002)

Well sure, Gizzard, if you want a big brawler. But he shouldn't have monk abilities, or call himself a monk (at least not a good one).

You shouldn't try to make a fighter or a barbarian out of a monk, although in the case of the fighter, you could multiclass.

The only thing Strength should be useful for in the case of a monk is Jump and Climb checks (and maybe Swim). But as was mentioned, items do this much better.

As for the monk apsuman made, he's more damage-oriented, but where trip attacks are concerned, in my group, if a character has Weapon Finesse (unarmed), he uses his Dex modifier for all those attacks: grappling, tripping, etc. It's assumed that his style of martial arts relies more on precision than force.

I find Strength is really a lesser stat for the monks we use.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 2, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Interesting monk, apsuman.  In fact, in addition to all that,
> *



Thank you.



> *
> take the fact that I totally miscalculated my fighter's equipment.  I'll redo it when I get home, but I'm willing to bet that by a simple fight demonstration, the monk would indeed be the equal of the fighter, mainly because the fighter has to "waste" so much money on armor.
> 
> All this really goes to show the validity of my initial query: the monk's need for stats is probably made up for (if not more than made up for) by his 'lack of need' for armor.  When I re-edit the fighter, we can run them through a mock combat scenario; it looks to me like the monk can indeed stand up to the fighter in a straight up 10th-level fight...
> ...




I would hope not, this thread seems to have a concensus that the fighter should indeed be a better fighter than the monk.  I was trying to point out really two things:

1.  Many people try to make a monk that is optimized for ALL of his abilities, and achieve one that succeeds at NONE of them (at least not well).  And, by deciding on the type of monk you want, you can make a monk that does just that.

2.  By going "against type" you can have a very fun character.

A high str monk like I have is a better fighter (but not as good as a fighter)
A high Int monk is a better scout (but not as good as a rogue).
A high Wis monk is a stunning fool.
A high Dex monk should probably finesse his unarmed combat but will excel at many of his skills.

Personally, I think the quaterstaff should be considered a monk weapon (isn't that what the monk has in her right hand in the PHB?).  If it were, then with the above monk take expertise, improved disarm, power attack, sunder, and improved initiative.  Equip with a +3 quater staff.

Your attacks would be trip and then disarm your opponents (a quater staff being a large weapon helps esp. against one handed medium size weapons).  When they draw a new weapon you take the AOO, if they try to pick up the weapon, take the AOO. If you want to make them mad, sunder the weapon (you will do better if they are prone or not a fighter type).  

Alternatively, if you really want to make things chaotic, trip, disarm, then attack the unattended weapon.   I dare say most opponents would want to get their weapon which would draw an AOO, if they got it before you did, then they would have used a MEA, if they attack prone then they have a -4 to hit, if they stand on the round they pick up the weapon they get no attack.  So you can lather, rinse, and repeat.

An unattended weapon has an AC of 5 + it's size modifier.  A long sword +3 would have an AC of 5, Hardness of 13 and 8 hit points.  


but, that's just my idea.

g!


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 3, 2002)

> A high Wis monk is a stunning fool.




I think this comment is all too appropriate.  ;-)


----------



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

I was going to make a monk like aspumens to show that they could be competent fighters, and in anything but gladitorial pit fights might own the fighter shown in the above thread.  I would of made a combo boots item of striding and springing/elven kind as well though and maybe a monks belt instead of boots of speed, and change other items to different slot duplicates..  And while ready attack works wonders, you have to see the person for your readied aciton to work.  With a monks movement especially when fighting some guy in full plate he can easily make an attack, get out of sight hide and then attack again, maybe next time wait a minute or two, anytime the fighter is stunned maybe drop a full attack, or make off with the dropped weapons the fighter leaves behind when stunned.

Again in a straight up fight, the fighter will and should win.  But the fighter can't back up the rouge in stealth missions/ and still hang in the thick of a mellee fight, the fighter can't chat up npcs with diplomacy, can't tumble in to avoid attack of opportunity and many other cool tactics.  I've always said the fighter actually sucks, he may be the best in his field but he sucks so bad at everything else he either needs more skills or should be even better in a fight.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 3, 2002)

THE MONK SUCKS BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS A FIGHTER!

....except, he's not supposed to.

The monk isn't supposed to be a good stand-up fighter. The monk doesn't fill the fighter's niche the way the Ranger or the Paladin or the Barbarian can.

The monk fills a similar niche to a Rogue or a Cleric. A backup party member.

It's just that a Rogue and Cleric can both do things that a Monk can't do. 

What can a Monk do that no other class can do? Survive.

A monk makes the perfect patsy.

...they could be anything. Put a sword in their hands and give them an illusory suit of armor. Or make them wear robes and put a pointy hat on their head. Or make them wear a mask and behave all sneaky-like. While the enemies waste their ammo on the Monk, the rest of the party can be safe.

A monk makes a perfect first rank. Send 'em out, do what you can, have the bad guys waste their energy, and then send 'em back to guard the other wusses.

You think a Rogue can do that? They get braught down with the first wave. A cleric? Yeah, like *they're* doing any significant damage. A Fighter? Right, with all that armor? A Ranger? He can't move fast enough. . Barbarian? Well, sure if you want everything to know you're coming. Wizard/Sorc/Bard? Forgetaboutit. 

They're backup for anything but healing and massive damage, too


----------



## apsuman (Aug 5, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Still, when people are arguing (sensibly, I think) that a good way to make a Monk is to ignore his two prime attributes and not worry about losing out on the basic Monk abilities - well, I think that shows better than anything that there is something seriously wrong with the Monk as-is. *




Well, no.

It has been my experience that PC monks tend to try to max out DEX and WIS to max out effective monk abilities, but fail because they completely ignore other attributes.

IF you were trying to decide to put a (relatively) high score into DEX, you get AC and if you weapon finesse a +to BAB.  However, if you were to put that score into INT and a lesser score into DEx, you lose only 1 or 2 points of AC but get a buttload of skill points.  You could probably have more monk like skills (including the DEX based ones) maxed out and higher than if you had the scores the other way around.

If stunning is very important to you put a high score in WIS, if you are not going to stun often, then put a good score into WIS for the AC, and place that other score into STR, INT, or CON where it might do you more good more often.

g!


----------



## apsuman (Aug 5, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> One thing that bugs me about these high-STR Monks is that they have even less Monk flavor than regular Monks.  I look at that guy and think - could I make a Barbarian who does this same trick just as well?  Give him the rocket Boots and the Spring Attack feat chain, then use his base 40' move to bounce in and out of combat.  (Of course, the Barbarian would probably rather just stick in combat and dish out damage.)
> *




Well, yes and no.

I was trying to pick a situation where with the standard monk abilities would allow you to do some things that were "un-monkly".

The barbarian woud have to spend a feat (improved trip) that the monk gets for free.  Also, it would imply that your barbarian is not using one of his best abilities, rage.  Also, the high HP of the barbarian suit them to stand there in the fight.

Finally, I listed the monk skills, he coud have hidden and ran out from nowhere to attack his opponent.  Somethin ght barbarian would not have done as well.

g!


----------



## MeepoTheMighty (Aug 5, 2002)

takyris said:
			
		

> * With an Int of 6, all your character can do is attack.  Melee attacks and ranged attacks.  That's about it.
> 
> In a one-on-one "fight", your character would angrily follow the monk out onto the rope bridge and then howl in frustration as the monk cut the ropes.  Your character would stop for the pile of bird seed with the anvil hanging over it.  Your character would charge into a solid rock wall that had been painted to look like a hole with the word "MUNK" written above it with an arrow pointing at the fake hole.  And he would not learn from that experience.
> 
> ...





Hehe that's hilarious - consider it quoted for my sig


----------



## Orco42 (Aug 5, 2002)

Olive said:
			
		

> *
> also tho, i've heard lots of people say that they regard the forsaker as totally overpowered, so maybe the problem isn't that monks suck, but that forsakers should suck more! *




Actually it is the opposite. Forsakers are very underpowered. When I first saw it I thought it was great (and I still love the idea) but then I made a drow forsaker to test it.

You would think a drow forsker would be great, it does have an amazing SR. For a while it is very good but once the party gets to mid-high (12-15) levels they start feeling the pain of no magic items.

By the time you get to epic levels... uggg.... you'd be better of going with an epic commoner.


As for monks I would go with a monk/psi-warrior.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 5, 2002)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *THE MONK SUCKS BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS A FIGHTER!
> *




I'm the guy who started this thread, and I've never said anything like this. Monks suck because they don't excel at anything critical to the party's success. 

Also, what the hell are they doing in the core rules? They belong in the oriental book, unless Wizards swaps out the picture of what'shername and replaces it with Friar Tuck. . .in which case I'd still be saying WTF? but for different reasons.


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 5, 2002)

Remember that the rather poor 15th level monk that I used as an example above?

Well, the problem wasn't with the Monk class.  I redesigned him, and he's now pretty good.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 6, 2002)

I would argue that survival is pretty crucial to a party's success.

*someone* is going to have to gather what gold they can and run back and get everyone raised.

*someone* is going to have to act as a main target while the weaklings do what they excel at.

*someone* is going to have to take the brunt of the enemy forces and still be able to get away when needed.

Survival is useful in a lot of situations. Even survival of one person.

If your party flees, the Monk can guard your flank.

Someone's unconcious body laying accross the room? GO MONK! 

There's nobody else I would send into a dangerous situation first. 

The Monk: the pioneer and the buttguard of the core classes.

(also, I'm pretty sure *someone* said the monk sucked because he wasn't a good fighter. The "I can't do anything party-useful" is more valid, but still, they *can*. )


----------



## Villano (Aug 6, 2002)

*My Experience*

When 3E came out, I thought that the monk was the coolest class.  Unfortunately, one of the classes big weaknesses came out when I tried to create one.  I mostly play in point buy games, and the monk needs high scores in too any abilities.  It was a choice of good attacks and low AC or vice versa.

I ended up playing clerics, fighters, samurai, and rangers (at least with them, you only need 1 or 2 high stats).

Eventually, I join an online RttTotEE game.  It only lasted a short time.  We never made it past the dragon at the moathouse before the DM quit.  

Anyway, the game was 4th level and very high point buy, so I ended up with 14 str, 18 dex, and 18 wis.  Plus I was a halfling, so I had an AC bonus.  I took dodge and moblity, figuring that I should make myself harder to hit since I didn't have that great of HP.

The result?  Nobody could hit me, but I couldn't hit anything either.  I could only delay attacks until a fighter or whatever would show up and finish off the enemy.  I was reduced to mage bodyguard and was bored out of my mind.

In retrospect, I should have ditched my mobility and taken a weapon finesse (although it still wouldn't have helped against damage reduction).  

IMO, monks need a specialty.  They can't deal damage or cast spells, open locks, socialize, or heal, and if you need someone sneaky, you're better off with a rogue.  

The problem is finding out what that specialty should be.  Perhaps focusing on their ki may be the, well, key.  Either give the monk a selection of bonus feats, like Ki Shout, or allow them to focus their ki power so many times a day for certain effects (healing, ability boosts, and, at later levels, possibly energy attacks). 

Oh, well, just a suggestion.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 6, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> Again in a straight up fight, the fighter will and should win.  But the fighter can't back up the rouge in stealth missions/ and still hang in the thick of a mellee fight, the fighter can't chat up npcs with diplomacy, can't tumble in to avoid attack of opportunity and many other cool tactics.  *




At low levels, a balanced rogue character can do all those things _better_ than a monk.  The HP difference will be effectively nonexistent if the rogue pumps up his Con and leaves the Wis at 10 (if you are using point).

Consider:

1st level Monk (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
14 Con
12 Int
16 Wis
8 Cha
10 HPs

1st level Rogue (32 pts.)
14 Str
14 Dex
16 Con
12 Int
12 Wis
10 Cha
9 HPs

The only notable edge the monk has in saving throws.  The Rogue will equal or outclass him at everything else.

From a purely coldblooded minmaxing metagame perspective, playing a low level monk is a selfish choice because your defensive advantages mostly help you while your weak offense definitely hurts everyone.

Defense minded-characters can work well, but they usually do not help the party as a whole unless they fit into a clearcut niche.  A heavy armored grunt is easy to work with, frex.

Contrast the monk with the real utility class: the ranger.  The ranger has good offense, good skills and scouting ability, give him a wand of CLW and some scrolls and he is a backup spellcaster/healer.  The ranger can do it all.  He is just a little soft on defense (AC weak, saves are okay) but he has HPs.


----------



## Hikaru (Aug 6, 2002)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *THE MONK SUCKS BECAUSE HE CAN'T DO AS MUCH DAMAGE AS A FIGHTER!
> 
> ....except, he's not supposed to.
> *




But a Sacred Fist can. 

Sacred Fist are better than Monks in many ways: better HD, BAB, damages... They don't have the speed of a Monk, nor the good For saves and several other abilities, but they've got evasion, Blindsight (which is a mix of tremor sens, scent...), can wear light armor...


----------



## Olive (Aug 6, 2002)

Orco42 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Actually it is the opposite. Forsakers are very underpowered. When I first saw it I thought it was great (and I still love the idea) but then I made a drow forsaker to test it.
> 
> ...




i'd actually probably agree. after posting that i went and looked at my copy of MotW, and you're gonna need all of that stuff in a game where the DM is giving out magic as recommended by the DMG...

Also, just a quick note, people keep mentioning that the quarterstaff should be a monk weapon. well, using OA rules it is. I personally think that the OA rules make monks make more sense as I understand them... but they don't get spears AFAIK, which is wierd considering all the longspear use i see in martial arts films...


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 6, 2002)

*Re: My Experience*



			
				Villano said:
			
		

> *When 3E came out, I thought that the monk was the coolest class.  Unfortunately, one of the classes big weaknesses came out when I tried to create one.  I mostly play in point buy games, and the monk needs high scores in too any abilities.  It was a choice of good attacks and low AC or vice versa.
> 
> . *




actually in the core point buy with higher stats costing more the monk is one of the better choices.  Under even 25 point buy you can make a decent many above average stat character, and the monk gain extra bennies for each of those stats.  While one stat characters are motivated to foolishly spend extra points in stats past 14 even though the bonus doesn't increase inline with the cost, monks have a good rules mechanic reason to bump up str,dex,con,wis so they never seem to fall into that trap.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 6, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> At low levels, a balanced rogue character can do all those things better than a monk.  The HP difference will be effectively nonexistent if the rogue pumps up his Con and leaves the Wis at 10 (if you are using point).
> 
> ...




I almost never use the rogue in class balance discussions because he is signifigantly better than most other classes.  I think the monk is perfectly balanced with the fighter/ranger/barb/bard/and low level arcane casters. Divine casters are always too powerful, and so is an effectively built rogue.  As you pointed out the rogue can sorta hang in a fight, and yet still rules in out of combat and utility purposes.  Considering his edge in skills he should be more online with the wiz/sor in fighting techniques, but nope he sometimes even outdoes the fighters.(I don't like nerfing classes so I'm more for boosting the skills of other classes so they are more able to function in out of combat scenarios)  But I digress, for the monk I completly disagree with the idea that defense is a selfish choice.  If anything not having defense is the selfesh choice as you frequently don't contribute as you stare slack jawed in a hold spell, or you draw resources from the party in heals and disels so you can contribute and fullfill your role in the party.

Further more at low levels a wiz/sor is almost as good at fighting as a monk, or even a fighter.  Because they all suck massively.  Low levels basically only prove that yes they all do suck at fighting and the difference of suckage isn't that much yet.  Levels do make the suckage spread increase until fighters don't suck and actually rock and wiz/sor still do suck.  But level 1-1 comparisons virtually mean nothing because at that level you really don't see much of a differnce in any classes combat skills.


----------



## Gargoyle (Aug 6, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I almost never use the rogue in class balance discussions because he is signifigantly better than most other classes.  I*




Hey! Let's not turn this "The monk got the shaft" thread into a "the rogue is broken" thread!


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 6, 2002)

> Divine casters are always too powerful, and so is an effectively built rogue.




Hmmm, maybe this is why we disagree.  I think the Monk sucks and you think the Monk is just right and everyone else is overpowered.  ;-)

<edit to add content>

Actually, I agree with Shard that 1st level comparisons are not the best; everyone sucks more or less equally.  As I said in a post long long ago (and far far away), I really felt outclassed at third level.  By 5th, I have a much needed d8 damage dice (what other fighter type uses a d6 weapon for his first 3 levels!) and my more useful Skills are starting to get enough points in them that I can rely on them.  

But still, I think that at 5th the Barbarian and Fighter are much much better in combat.  And thats why the other party members keep looking askance at the Monk.  "Why arent you a Fighter?", they think when I distract a monster instead of just killing it.  

As enemy spellcasters become more and more of a threat, my narrow special ability to destroy them will be more appreciated.  But for now, this Monk is looking for some sort of role to fill.


----------



## hong (Aug 6, 2002)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> *I would argue that survival is pretty crucial to a party's success.
> 
> *someone* is going to have to gather what gold they can and run back and get everyone raised.
> 
> ...




You will note that the examples you give are either supporting-cast functions (the meatshield) or irrelevant in most sessions, unless the party has suffered a near-TPK. If what you want is a character to perform such supporting-cast functions, you should hire an NPC to do them; just like hiring a cleric rather than forcing someone to be the party medic.

This just gets back to the point made earlier: whatever it is that the monk does well, it isn't what a lot of PLAYERS want the monk to do. Being nothing more than a meatshield or errand boy is not conducive to spotlight time, which is perhaps the single most important concern in a cooperative pursuit like roleplaying. That's the problem the monk has.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 6, 2002)

I happen to think that monks are very fun to play.

If you have one and are not having fun then you are doing SOMETHING wrong.

However, there are times in a monk's advancement that he shines a little more brightly.  Level 1-5 are tough, but they are tough for a sorcerer too.  Improved Trip and d8 damage help.

Earlier when someone propsed a comparison at level 10 I said no for a reason, basically I think that is one of those spots where the monk shines a little less.  Personally, I like level 13, where you get SR, but that's just me.

Although they are less dependant upon it, magic items are a necessity for all classes, and the DMG was not really chock full of monk magic.  Also, Feats can make the class, and spring attack is not the only way to go.

g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 6, 2002)

What cracks me up is that all the monk detractors seem bent on comparing the monk to every other class. Sure, all those others can each INDIVIDUALLY do something the monk does better, but there's always two or three other things a monk can still outdo them in.

If you're expecting the monk to be the ultimate fighter, the ultimate sneak AND the ultimate meatshield, then yes, you're right to say he doesn't fulfill your expectations. But then you've got the wrong expectations in the first place, so don't complain. The monk does better in those situations than anyone but the classes specialized in them, which is no mean feat.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 6, 2002)

I have played a monk in the past, and as a DM I have tried to find ways to make them effective as a point for the world.  Here is what I have learned.

When I played the monk, I tried to leverage my AC and be the party decoy.  Sometimes it worked, but most times the monsters just ignored me after a couple of rounds.  I died at level 5 to a t-rex.  That lack of hit points means that I fell in one hit.  No, I didn't go the spring attack rout, but I don't think you would have to.  I kinda had fun playing this character, but the rest of the party thought I was kinda useless.

As for trying to make monks usfull in my game, I can only say that trip and especially grappling are made for monks.  When a monk can use his d8, d10, or d12 damage in hand to hand but a fighter is stuck without his greatsword, it is a beautiful thing.  The problem is that the average monk won't beat a fighter of the same level, due to BAB and the fighters greater focus on strength.  This doesn't mean that grapling won't work against those annoying clerics, rouges, and especially wizards.  But in dangerous situations, what wizard doesn't fly?

My take on monks is that they try for too many abilities, and don't manage to pull off any very well.  A *well made, well played*  monk can be a great asset, but it is so much easier to play a fighter if you want to fight or a rouge if you want to sneak.  Monk, like bard, takes some real tallent to pull off.

If you want to try to "fix" the monk, make them better at what they do better than almost every one else.  Let them add wis bonus to grapple checks, and/or increase BAB for graple to fighter levels.  This means they have a good chance against a fighter, and will maul most every one else.  Not huge damage (fighter) but they shut oppenents down and finish them off.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 6, 2002)

Where does this line about monks not being able to do damage keep coming from?

Monks get some very big dice at high levels and they get a lot of swings. Honestly, monks are much less dependent on Str to do damage than most classes. 

I also don't see where the complaint about hit points comes from. D8 statistically is not much worse than the d10 that the fighters use. If you have a high CON then the exact die roll matters even less. 

I do admit that monks are probably the most stat dependent class in the PHB. Paladins are pretty bad too but at least they can wear armor and shaft dex. Monks can only afford to shaft Cha safely. They need strength to help them hit more than for the damage (the die itself is so large at high levels it generates more of the damage on average than the Str bonus does). Magic weapons help with the hit problem but the monk tends to use obscure weapons that are rarely ever found. 

The monk needs dex to NOT get hit since they can't make effective use of armor. Wis is probably the monk's most important stat, both to help not get hit and because it helps the DC against the monk's other abilities (such as stunning blow). 

They also need Int because they get too few skill points and of course everybody needs some Con. 

I do agree that the monk has problems. Most of these are trivial and easily house-ruled. 

First, the monk has WAY too few skill points. 6+Int would be better. The monk is the second most skill-dependent class after the rogue and it's 4+int skill points is too low for them to have many of the skills they need at levels that they need them.

Second, the monk's Ki Strike (or whatever it is called) that allows them to strike creatures that need magic weapons is too feeble. It is too low and comes in too late. By the time a monk can breach +1 every warrior-type in the party probably has +2 weapons. If I remember correctly, the monk doesn't even get the hit or damage bonuses from it. This can however be remedied with monk-weapons (which are all pretty bad and hard to find to boot). I also allow monks to enchant brass knuckles so that they do their barehanded damage WITH the enhancements from the knuckles (i.e. the knuckles do not have a damage die, you use the die from your fist.)

Third, the monk's SR is lame. I wouldn't object to the fact that you get it so late if it weren't for the fact that the SR is so low.  By the time you get it it is too weak to do much for you and there is no way to boost it through abilities or feats. 

Fourth, the monk has no way to boost the DC of his abilities wihtout boosting his stats. Couple this with feeble DCs and you can see why most of the monk abilities that affect others never work. This is easily remedied by adding feats that help.

Honestly, while I do agree that the monk should not be in the PHB (it should be in OA where the rules do it justice), most of the monk's problems come from the fact that the players running them play them so badly. Monk is the single most poorly played class that I have ever seen. I have seen more monks run up to the big bad thing and get splattered than I'd care to name. 

Monks should not play like fighters. They are not  fighters any more than a rogue is a fighter. If the rogue goes toe to toe with a golem he will probably die, yet no one whines that rogues are weak. 

The monk is a spec-ops guy. He is not a shock trooper. The monk uses his stealth and skills to get close to high-value, soft targets (usually mages and priests) and takes them out. His abilities are almost tailor made to be able to disable spellcasters. He has good saves, evasion, high speed and does significant damage. He is also a compentent spy and infiltrator. Basically the perfect spec-ops guy. If players learn to use the monk properly its abilities do shine (as much as the PHB allows anyway). If you want to go toe-to-toe with a giant or a golem, play a  fighter. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 6, 2002)

I think the peculiar thing about the monk is they interesting abilities that scale up pretty well, and they seemed designed with an archaic "delayed gratification" model.  In other words, you are supposed to suffer at low levels because your abilities become quite powerful at high level.

My observation is that low level monks flat out suck, medium level monks are okay, high level monks are quite good.  Other classes have frontloading issues, this one is backloaded.


----------



## Hejdun (Aug 6, 2002)

> Monks get some very big dice at high levels and they get a lot of swings. Honestly, monks are much less dependent on Str to do damage than most classes.




Without a good strength score, you'll end up doing maybe 1d20+5 damage a hit, which isn't that good at level 20.  Compared to a fighter's possible 3d6+16, your damage sucks.



> I also don't see where the complaint about hit points comes from. D8 statistically is not much worse than the d10 that the fighters use. If you have a high CON then the exact die roll matters even less.




This is where stat dependancy comes in.  After giving your highest stats to Wis and Dex (and possibly Str), your Con will most likely be average, if that.  Whereas a fighter can afford to pump Con, you can't.  That means your hit points suffer more than the d8 reflects.



> I do admit that monks are probably the most stat dependent class in the PHB.




This, IMHO, is what absolutely kills the monk.  Their stat dependancy makes them neutered unless you are playing in a campaign that allows high stats (like 5d6 drop two, or 40 point point buy, etc.).



> First, the monk has WAY too few skill points. 6+Int would be better. The monk is the second most skill-dependent class after the rogue and it's 4+int skill points is too low for them to have many of the skills they need at levels that they need them.




I really don't think this is a problem.  There are several other classes that deserve 6 skill points a level more than a monk.



> Second, the monk's Ki Strike (or whatever it is called) that allows them to strike creatures that need magic weapons is too feeble. It is too low and comes in too late. By the time a monk can breach +1 every warrior-type in the party probably has +2 weapons. If I remember correctly, the monk doesn't even get the hit or damage bonuses from it. This can however be remedied with monk-weapons (which are all pretty bad and hard to find to boot). I also allow monks to enchant brass knuckles so that they do their barehanded damage WITH the enhancements from the knuckles (i.e. the knuckles do not have a damage die, you use the die from your fist.)




Agreed, Ki Strike blows.  And the magical weapon equivelant for a monk costs THREE TIMES as much as a magical weapon.

[qupte]Third, the monk's SR is lame. I wouldn't object to the fact that you get it so late if it weren't for the fact that the SR is so low. By the time you get it it is too weak to do much for you and there is no way to boost it through abilities or feats. [/quote]

IIRC, a monk's SR is 10+level, which means you'll be able to ignore 45% of the spells flung at you by an equal level mage.  That's hardly shabby.



> Fourth, the monk has no way to boost the DC of his abilities wihtout boosting his stats. Couple this with feeble DCs and you can see why most of the monk abilities that affect others never work. This is easily remedied by adding feats that help.




KI STRAPS!  Best thing for monks since... well, I can't think of anything, but they are good.



> Monks should not play like fighters. They are not fighters any more than a rogue is a fighter. If the rogue goes toe to toe with a golem he will probably die, yet no one whines that rogues are weak.




But rogues have damage protential that monks don't have.



> The monk is a spec-ops guy. He is not a shock trooper. The monk uses his stealth and skills to get close to high-value, soft targets (usually mages and priests) and takes them out. His abilities are almost tailor made to be able to disable spellcasters. He has good saves, evasion, high speed and does significant damage. He is also a compentent spy and infiltrator. Basically the perfect spec-ops guy. If players learn to use the monk properly its abilities do shine (as much as the PHB allows anyway). If you want to go toe-to-toe with a giant or a golem, play a fighter.




But the thing is, in a typical DnD campaign, the niche that the monk fills just doesn't help out the party that much.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 6, 2002)

Hejdun explained all the reasoning I used for my original post.  The monk as "special ops" is a nifty idea, but it takes a lot of experience and effort to make it really pay off.  As for level, I am not too concerned with high level monks, because it is so boring getting there.

The monk seems specifically designed for those places where a fighter/rogue is screwed.  If all characters are stipped naked, the monk slauters.  How often does this happen?  Same for capture, high propery damage, or very low magic situations.  Sneaking around and taking out the back line is specialized rogue.  If you don't have one of these rogues, then the monk is good.  The designers seem to be filling in cracks with this class, but games normally just ignore those kinds of cracks anyway.

I can think of 20 situations that the monk is the BEST choice.  But these just won't come up, at least not regularly in any game I have ever run or played.  That is why monks suck.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 6, 2002)

> My observation is that low level monks flat out suck, medium level monks are okay, high level monks are quite good. Other classes have frontloading issues, this one is backloaded.




OK, perfect.  Does anyone disagree with this?  

People seem to be talking about all different levels of Monks (and Monk equipment! And non-PHB Monks!) as if they were all the same.  Please specify the *kind* of Monk you think doesnt suck if you are defending Monks.  ;-)



> The monk uses his stealth and skills to get close to high-value, soft targets (usually mages and priests) and takes them out. His abilities are almost tailor made to be able to disable spellcasters. He has good saves, evasion, high speed and does significant damage. He is also a compentent spy and infiltrator. Basically the perfect spec-ops guy. If players learn to use the monk properly its abilities do shine




Sure, Mage-killing is what a high-level Monk is good at.  Does this role make sense for a Monk under 6th level?  Nope.  The Monk doesnt have any better speed than the Barbarian at this point, and low-level mages arent as comparatively dangerous as high-level mages anyway.  By the time I run across the open field at 40' speed, a low level mage has exhausted his 3 best spells.

I also disagree that a Priest is a "soft" target that a Monk can take out.  The BAB, STR bonus, AC and HPs tend to be roughly equal between the two classes.  I think everyone agrees that Cleric is a very strong class under 3E; I expect a fight against a Cleric to be a pitched battle.  

As for being an infiltrator; this works if you are above ground in daylight or have Darkvision.  If you dont have Darkvision, you will not be performing this role well.  This really constrains what a Human Monk can do, for instance.  As a practical matter, if "spy" is one of the Monks main abilities then people have to take a non-Human race in order to make it useful.  (And they also have to play in a campaign where spying is useful, which is not always the case either.)

Basically, I agree that the Monk (especially the high-level Monk) has a role to play.  It may be a narrow role and a little monotonous, but at least the rest of the party wont look at him and think, "What is it that you do again?"  "I kill the Wizard before he kills you all."  "OK, thats a good thing, carry on." 

But, so many of the Monks special abilities are narrowly focused like that; 9/10s of the time I am just a bad Fighter.  And the one time in 10 that I get to do something useful is not enough to carry my weight.


----------



## Femerus the Gnecro (Aug 6, 2002)

Regardless of the monk's somewhat arse-heavy level mentality, I still think that taking one level of monk can greatly enhance several classes.

This assumes that your DM has house ruled that silly 'no multiclassing' restriction.  

Though this might be somewhat meta, just think about it for a moment.  

Taking 1 level of monk gets you:  

+2 on ALL saves
d8 hit die
improved unarmed strike (no weapon?  punch 'em in the face!)
wis and dex to ac (better for wizards/sorcerers)
two natural weapons that deal 1d6 damage each
yet more weapon proficiencies
Evasion (!)
Stunning Attack
Flurry of Blows

To me... that's a HUGE amount of abilities for one level.  Imagine a monk/wizard.  More than average HD, higher saves all around, natural weapons, monk fighting abilities, and EVASION!  How many wizards have died because they were on the recieving end of a fireball, or a lightning bolt, or a retributive strike?  

Monks are far from being a weak class, IMO.  They just aren't utilized properly.

-F


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 6, 2002)

Femerus the Gnecro said:
			
		

> *
> Monks are far from being a weak class, IMO.  They just aren't utilized properly.
> *




Unless you campaign in the World of Lake Wobegon, one of the character classes is likely to be below average.  Believe or not, special ops with regular inspections by metal detectors is a pretty narrow niche.

Most of those abilities you list off just aren't that helpful, except Evasion, unless you are a druid who likes to brawl.  Should a wizard give up a high level spell for in order to slap someone for d6?  I don't think so.

Taking one level of barbarian, paladin, ranger, rogue, or cleric also greatly enhance most classes.  Nothing special about the monk there.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 7, 2002)

Well of course Evasion is pointless 

As is the Wisdom bonus to AC, which would be a boon to any spellcaster who chose to invest in a high Will Save, or even the bonus speed.

And hey, let's not forget the best saves, bar none. Yep, that's pretty terrible.

Come on. Metagaming aside, the monk is THE class in which to take a single level. I despise this idea, but Evasion alone is well worth it.

I don't think the monk sucks at any level, and from my experience with the class so far (about six monks ranging all over the level chart since the beginning of 3e), it works just fine.

That being said, I did mention I'd change a few things if it were up to me. Since I'm not a designer, it's not, and I won't 

There can't be a perfect class, folks!

PS: Not sure about this, but couldn't a spellcaster combine a touch spell with Stunning Attack? Unless you interpret the Stunning Attack ability as being only useable as a standard action (which I don't), it should be feasible, and useful at low levels. Just an idle thought...


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

I have often considered on level of monk for the abilities.  However, that only makes the FIRST LEVEL good, much like ranger.  And in most of the cases where I considered it, I decided on advance the other, PRIMARY class, unless I really wanted/needed the saves and evasion.

As for how well monks combo with spell casters: it could be interesting, but over all I would want more spells.  Combo with fighter and the armor is in your way.  Combo with barbarian, and you alignment smaks you.  Rangers would be the only decent choice, but they are another class that gets all their tricks at first level.  On top of that, the ranger doesn't bring anything to the table, except a BAB that doesn't stack with the unarmed BAB.

Single class, at low levels, I think monks suck.  I also don't see them multiclassing well.  Is there something obvious I am missing?


----------



## Villano (Aug 7, 2002)

*Re: Re: My Experience*



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> actually in the core point buy with higher stats costing more the monk is one of the better choices.  Under even 25 point buy you can make a decent many above average stat character, and the monk gain extra bennies for each of those stats.  While one stat characters are motivated to foolishly spend extra points in stats past 14 even though the bonus doesn't increase inline with the cost, monks have a good rules mechanic reason to bump up str,dex,con,wis so they never seem to fall into that trap. *






It isn't foolish for a one stat PC to put his extra points into one ability since, well, he only needs that one ability.  After all, most fighters don't need, say, a 14 in cha (or even a 10 in most cases).

I think that most people agree that monks have to spread themselves thinner than most. Granted, cha isn't really necessary, but everything else is.

The big sticking point for me is the AC.  In most of the point buy games I've been in, the best I could have done had I chosen to be a monk is 14 or 15.      

And while the people who suggest that the monk is a great character to fill in for an absent rogue are correct, most people would rather just play the rogue.

Like I said before, the monk is missing a niche.  Granted, there are a few people who have offered possibilites, but the fact that no one can agree on one (or even if there is one) kind of proves that there isn't.  After all, everyone agrees on the role of the fighter, ranger, mage, rogue, etc. immediately.

True, as some have pointed out, the monk is good at more things than any other class.  The problem is that he isn't great at one thing.  And, let's face it, people want to play heroes, and heroes are great, not merely "good".


----------



## Hopping Vampire (Aug 7, 2002)

My opinion is , Ranger is the weakest class. They have a weak armor selection AND they have very weak spells. to get the best out of your monk, i suggest using the skills n feats martial arts system (ww.sleepingimperium.rpghost.com). this gives monks alot of the advantages they need.


----------



## Tyrion (Aug 7, 2002)

I'm thinking of implementing a house rule for Monks: every four levels, starting at level 2, they get an unnamed bonus to one ability score...a total of 5 extra points after 18 levels. This will have a few advantages: it fits with the concept of a Monk (ie. mastery and continous improvement of mind and body), decreases the suffering from their dependence on too many ability scores, and allows customization (Want skills? Go INT. Damage? STR. And so on).

It might be a bit overpowered though. What do you think?


----------



## hong (Aug 7, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The monk seems specifically designed for those places where a fighter/rouge is screwed. *



*rogue*




> *Sneaking around and taking out the back line is specialized rouge.*



*rogue*




> * If you don't have one of these rouges, then the monk is good. *



*rogue*


Sorry.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

so I can't spell.  At least I was consistant


----------



## Will (Aug 7, 2002)

I've been grimacing at 'rouge' for a week now. Thanks. 

Tzarevitch:
"damage on average than the Str bonus does). Magic weapons help with the hit problem but the monk tends to use obscure weapons that are rarely ever found. "

I've heard this from a variety of sources. Uh. What?

DMG 'common melee' table for magic weapons lists kama, nunchaku, and siangham, each at about 4%. So you are as likely to find a kama as a dagger.

Um. How is that rare? Monk weapons are about 1 in 8 of found weapons.

I have the feeling most people house rule this, or rarely use monks as NPCs. If so, well.. that's hardly a fair complaint.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Will said:
			
		

> *I've been grimacing at 'rouge' for a week now. Thanks.
> 
> Tzarevitch:
> "damage on average than the Str bonus does). Magic weapons help with the hit problem but the monk tends to use obscure weapons that are rarely ever found. "
> ...




I have to agree that when you don't like monks as a GM, you don't tend to put in monk weapons.  However, I have been rolling all the treasure for my game for a while now.  There has only been one monk weapon.

Why don't we talk about monks at range for a moment.  Shurikens are the crappiest weapon in the game, unless you find a good loophole for them, like sneak attack before errata.  Monk's really lack at range, and they can't always jump.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 7, 2002)

shuriken "loophole" = poison. They are the best poison delivery system bar none. Of course, that was one of their main uses IRL 

If I wanted to make a fighting monk (because the party didn't have a main fighter) I'd max out my Str and secondly Con. I'd leave Int, Wis and Cha at average (possibly push Int up to 13 so I could get Expertise). Since it is a party game I'd rely on my wizard friend to cast Mage Armour on me (until I got bracers of armour) or my cleric friend to cast magic vestment on my clothes. I'd also get my cleric friend to cast shield of faith on me for the deflection bonus to AC until I get a ring of deflection.

Basically, if my monk was to be the main front line fighter, protecting the magic using classes, then I'd rely upon their help for AC and buffing spells rather than pinning my hopes on a high Dex and Wis. This kind of monk can easily sacrifice Wisdom, at 1st level with a 12 dex he could be AC 17 (+4 from mage armour, +2 from shield of faith), with his 18 Str which he gets to add to all his flurries fully (yah boo sucks to the rangers!) He can attack once at +4 for 1d6+4, or twice for +2/+2 for 1d6+4 each. He might have 11-12 hp at 1st level (depending upon where his Con sits in the 16-18 league). He would be perfectly able to discharge his role in the party should he so desire. Thats what I'd do in the situation.

(as a DM, the monk-based characters have tended to have high survivability through having the highest AC of all in a magic-item poor world such as I run. In a game in which I play the monk probably does more damage than anyone other than the strong dwarf with the 2H sword and easily holds her own with the other fighters in the front line. Not everyones experience, clearly, but it has certainly worked for some!)

Cheers


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> *shuriken "loophole" = poison. They are the best poison delivery system bar none. Of course, that was one of their main uses IRL
> 
> (as a DM, the monk-based characters have tended to have high survivability through having the highest AC of all in a magic-item poor world such as I run. In a game in which I play the monk probably does more damage than anyone other than the strong dwarf with the 2H sword and easily holds her own with the other fighters in the front line. Not everyones experience, clearly, but it has certainly worked for some!)
> 
> Cheers *




First, it seems a bit strange that "Lawful" class would use poison, but it does work out well.  I guess it depends on local laws and how you define alignment.

Second, it seems you have found one of those situations where the monk thrives: low magic items.  If all the other fighters had +3 weapons, would the situation change?  Monks benefit from not being so item dependant.  This turns around when the monk is around of lot of items that they can't really use.

"Wow, that is a really nifty Magic Mirthral Mercural Greatsword, but I'll never be able to use it."


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 7, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *What cracks me up is that all the monk detractors seem bent on comparing the monk to every other class. *




What cracks me up is people who willfully ignore what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing the Monk to the other classes except insofar as the other classes each contribute to the success of the party. Monks don't. I don't care that Fighters are better at dishing out damage, and Clerics are better at healing. I care that Monks aren't that good at anything. They're not even particularly good at being Monk-like. 

I don't mean to be a weenie-head, and I've been absent from a lot of the discussion (because, even though no other board I'm on does this, it seems that I can't use IE on the Mac to browse ENWorld and get the board to refresh properly, but I'm posting from my PC now) but I think I see two places in D&D where the designers catered to fans, giving them what they want *knowing* they were providing less than useful choices.

Half-orcs and Monks.

People want to play Half Orcs and Monks, and the 3E team put them in. They probably thought about how to balance them out against the other choices, make them *as* useful as the other races and classes. Then they decide "Hey, we don't have to balance them, if players want to play them, they'll play them."

So Monks are different than all the other classes in that they perform no useful function. As I said earlier, it's not a case of them being useless, it's a case of them not being useful *enough*. But they can do *neat* things and players like neat stuff.

Monk aren't unarmed combat masters. I think they should be, but they're not. Monks don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. They belong in an oriental game, which D&D is not.

My two cents, YMMV


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 7, 2002)

*(slightly OT)*

One of the main reasons I gave the half-orc fighter an INT of only 6, was because no matter how low a PC's INT is, the character always gets at least one skill point per level.  It's interesting how little this matters for a fighter with only 2 skill points.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 7, 2002)

Will said:
			
		

> *
> I have the feeling most people house rule this, or rarely use monks as NPCs. If so, well.. that's hardly a fair complaint. *




It's a fair complaint. In my game, there *is* no orient. There's no place for oriental characters or weapons to be from. No kamas. . .anywhere. Nor should I have to presume that there is. WotC decided to stick in a class that's based on an entirely different melieu than the rest of the book. That's not my fault, nor do I feel I should be punished for it by having to change my game to accomodate such decisions. There's no psionics in my game either.

Both psionics and the orient have their own books, and all the things (save one!) that belong in there, are in there, and not in the core book.

Monks and the orient belong in the orient book, just like psionics belong in the psionics book.


----------



## Tzarevitch (Aug 7, 2002)

Will said:
			
		

> *I've been grimacing at 'rouge' for a week now. Thanks.
> 
> Tzarevitch:
> "damage on average than the Str bonus does). Magic weapons help with the hit problem but the monk tends to use obscure weapons that are rarely ever found. "
> ...




I think it is a fair complaint. Your argument assumes that every treasure you run into is totally random treasure rolled straight out of the DMG. Most treasure is not that random. Unless you play 1e-style, treasure tends to be specific to the environment and the setting. 

Treasure you find tends to be the stuff that the person or people who owned it could use. If you are playing in a non-oriental setting, only monks every really use those weapons because they aren't terribly effective for anyone else. 

If you are looting through an ancient dwarven ruin for example you will usually find dwarven weapons (axes, swords, hammers etc.) Unless your DM is kind puts bizarre stuff in there (by rolling totally randomly) or you run in to the dwarven monk dojo, you won't find many nunchaku or anything remotely resembling a monk weapon (which is why I allow monks to use quarterstaves with their unarmed attack rate). 

The problem is that a monk only gets much benefit out of a small category of exotic weapons and those same weapons are some of the least useful weapons for anyone else (they frequently require exotic weapon prof and are low damage to boot.) Because these weapons are so minimally useful to anyone else they are almost never made made for anyone other than a monk for his own use, or BY a monk for his own use (or use of his monk friends). 

Add to this the fact that monks don't NEED to use magic weapons (and can frequently do more damage without them), and the fact that monk is a fairly rare class to start with, you will find VERY few monk weapons in circulation unless the DM chooses to make a purely random roll of the table. To date, I have never played with a DM that rolls randomly and keeps items that don't make sense for their location or owner. 

The PHB monk class is very dependent on the DMG tables for useful weapons. If you are playing in a setting where magic items aren't that common you will be lucky to ever find enchanted monk weapons. 

Tzarevitch


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 7, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *I happen to think that monks are very fun to play.
> 
> If you have one and are not having fun then you are doing SOMETHING wrong.
> g! *




I have two players playing Monks. They have fun. They'd have more fun, though, if their characters were as useful as the rest of the party.

But they're working on it. They're going to try and buy Amulets of Mighty Fists and I let them use Shortspears, Quarterstaffs, and Javelins with their UA bonus and # of attacks.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 7, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First, it seems a bit strange that "Lawful" class would use poison, but it does work out well.  I guess it depends on local laws and how you define alignment.*




Clearly we define alignment differently, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how using poison would be unlawful (in terms of alignment, not legality).

I certainly don't see poison as being particularly "neutral" or chaotic.

I could see the argument (and disagree with it) for poison being "evil", but I'm really at a loss here.  Can you explain your reasoning?


----------



## Acmite (Aug 7, 2002)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have two players playing Monks. They have fun. They'd have more fun, though, if their characters were as useful as the rest of the party.
> 
> But they're working on it. They're going to try and buy Amulets of Mighty Fists and I let them use Shortspears, Quarterstaffs, and Javelins with their UA bonus and # of attacks. *




By the sounds of it, that might be enough to make them happier.  This sounds strange, but maybe let them use a spiked chain with their unarmed BAB and # of attacks?

I don't like the weapon, but it does offer reach, which is something the monk really lacks.  They'd still have to take the proficiency in it, of course.

Just a wild, off-the-cuff suggestion....


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 7, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Clearly we define alignment differently, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how using poison would be unlawful (in terms of alignment, not legality).
> 
> ...




I think he just means that since (in most campaigns) poison is bought on the black market, it's probably illegal, and therefore unlawful to use it.  Just a guess.

Personally, I can't see any better way to define the law vs. chaos axis than by what is considered legal/illegal.  Which reflects order versus disorder.  Thus, using poison is disorderly...?  Sort of like hitting below the belt perhaps.  I don't know!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Tzarevitch said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think it is a fair complaint. Your argument assumes that every treasure you run into is totally random treasure rolled straight out of the DMG. Most treasure is not that random. Unless you play 1e-style, treasure tends to be specific to the environment and the setting.
> 
> ...




You can always explain why an item is there.  Maybe the enemy was interested in being a monk at one time.  Maybe it is a trophy.  Maybe it's the spoils of war that haven't been sold off.  This doesn't fix the problem of the monk weapons sucking, it just makes them more common.  My last monk had a Kama +3 keen, and the fighter STILL outclassed me with a piddly +1.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2002)

I find this poison is unlawful thing a little dubious.

I can see why for a particular character why it would be against their code of conduct or honor. But at the same time, I could see an order of monks who hold a philosophy that "the spider can fell the mighty beast", and are given to crafting poison.

I don't think that the local law is necessarily indicative of what the monk would do unless the monk or his order is beholden to the local authorities. IMO, lawfulness is a deep respect for SOME order or authority, not a particular order or authority.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 7, 2002)

Basically what I'm saying is poison is dishonorable.  If everyone used poison, you'd have chaos (pronounced CHOWSE ).  However, it's really no more _evil_ than using a weapon; either way, your trying to destroy your enemy.

But using poision (it could at least be argued) is pretty chaotic in that it disrupts the "order" of honorable combat.

However, I don't think poision would be a problem for a monk to use (but nor do I think that using it will add much to the monk class); I'm just playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Christian (Aug 7, 2002)

Well ... (digs old books out of closet) ... In the AD&D Player's Handbook, the chart shows that monks might be able to use poison, but can't use flaming oil. So, that should settle it!

Can't use flaming oil? Why the heck ... never mind, just forget I even came by.

(Can't use flaming oil?  )


----------



## Christian (Aug 7, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *What cracks me up is that all the monk detractors seem bent on comparing the monk to every other class. *




That d20 unarmed attack sure pales in comparison to a 10d6 fireball! Why would anyone play a monk instead of a sorcerer! 

I played a monk up to 6th level in my current campaign, until he succumbed to a death attack a few sessions ago. Paying for an NPC cleric to cast _Raise Dead_ was within our financial capabilities-but sadly, that's insufficient to bring back a character killed that way ... 

I had a lot of fun, and I didn't feel useless or overshadowed at all. And I think that the other players felt the same way-I learned last week that the part has started a 'Resurrect Zanthater' fund.  I'm trying to find a justification for my new halfling sorcerer to contribute to it in spite of not having any idea who 'Zanthater' was.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 7, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *(Can't use flaming oil?  ) *




Excuse me, but hasn't anyone ever seen _Drunken Master_ with Jackie Chan?  At the end, flaming oil becomes his specialty!  Great movie, BTW.


----------



## Christian (Aug 7, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Excuse me, but hasn't anyone ever seen Drunken Master with Jackie Chan?  At the end, flaming oil becomes his specialty!  Great movie, BTW. *




I guess E. Gary Gygax hadn't, anyway.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *Basically what I'm saying is poison is dishonorable.  If everyone used poison, you'd have chaos (pronounced CHOWSE ).  However, it's really no more _evil_ than using a weapon; either way, your trying to destroy your enemy.
> 
> But using poision (it could at least be argued) is pretty chaotic in that it disrupts the "order" of honorable combat.
> 
> However, I don't think poision would be a problem for a monk to use (but nor do I think that using it will add much to the monk class); I'm just playing devil's advocate. *




The fact is that poisoning is against the law in every sort of civilized world.  To quote Enemies and Allies



> Poison is coward's weapon, and only the worst sort would use it.  I'll have a shipment in next week, but get here early as it goes fast.




This goes against any conventional honor or law.  That is why I don't think it would work in concept for a monk, unless he is evil and his dojo sanctions it.  The "Order of the Spider" sounds distinctly evil.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2002)

> *
> This goes against any conventional honor or law.
> *




Monks don't exactly fit my definition of "conventional".

Further, backpedaling to the notion of honor, what makes poison seem "dishonorable" to me would be two similarly equipped warriors, one of which secretly smears venom on his blade to tip the scales, without his opponent knowing or having the benefit of the same advantage. That's sneaky and treacherous, that's the sort of thing that the "poison is dishonorable" thing springs from.

Now, if you are talking about the mosswalkers of the emerald swamp, known for using tree frog poison on their shuriken, that seems entirely kosher to me. Chances are that their opponent isn't using shuriken -- and if they are, they are probably also poisoned.

After all, monks also get move silently and hide, which are also things your typical armored knight would consider "dishonorable." But playing a monk as if he had the same code of honor that a knight would have isn't the essence of lawful. It's stupid -- it'll just get him creamed.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 7, 2002)

> I played a monk up to 6th level in my current campaign, until he succumbed to a death attack a few sessions ago....I had a lot of fun, and I didn't feel useless or overshadowed at all.




Hmmm, OK, this I am interested in.  You and Zog are the only two people in this thread to feel useful as low level Monks (sorry if I missed someone).  

Can you tell about your experiences; 1) what was your party makeup, 2) were you a straight PHB Monk or did you include items/feats from other sources, 3) did you have a high or low magic campaign? (Its probably easiest to list your items here so its clear.)

My 5th level Monk is listed earlier in this thread for reference.



> But playing a monk as if he had the same code of honor that a knight would have isn't the essence of lawful. It's stupid -- it'll just get him creamed.




This is interesting - I wonder what a good "Monk's Code" would be?   I used the Bushido code from OA as my starting point, but you are right; its intended for Knights (Samurai) and it just gets a Monk killed.  "Its dishonorable to leave a fight."  "Its dishonorable to lose a fight."  "Its dishonorable not to accept a challenge."  Huh.  Well, at least, "It is honorable to die bravely in battle," which is fortunate since thats what the poor Monk will be doing if he follows that Code too closely.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Monks don't exactly fit my definition of "conventional".
> 
> ...




Playing a monk like a knight is sucide, but poison is still a less than lawful thing to do, or at least less than good.  The only class that gets any ability that deals with poison is assassin, which requires evil.  

Any game can be run any way, and YMMV, but it seems that the publishers have seen poison use as non-legal, non-good.  This is where my problem comes from.


----------



## Christian (Aug 7, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> * Hmmm, OK, this I am interested in.  You and Zog are the only two people in this thread to feel useful as low level Monks (sorry if I missed someone).
> 
> Can you tell about your experiences; 1) what was your party makeup, 2) were you a straight PHB Monk or did you include items/feats from other sources, 3) did you have a high or low magic campaign? (Its probably easiest to list your items here so its clear.)*




Well, let's see ... 1) The other members of the group were a cleric, a druid, and a gnoll fighter/adept (or something-I was never quite clear on that). We've had other characters drift through-there's a rogue/wizard and a barbarian in the group now, but they were lower level (as is the gnoll due to that pesky ECL thing). Ol' Z was stuck as a primary front-line combatant, which didn't really match the monk forte very well. (See my sig for an example ...)

2) Basically straight PHB. The DM rolled in the OA monk options for feat substitution, which I used at 6th level to get Spring Attack and (replacing Improved Trip) Expertise. Also, he added quarterstaff as a monk weapon ... which helped with ...

3) Average. At 6th level, Z. had some potions, some magic boots of unknown powers, and his handy-dandy magic quarterstaff. The Staff of Spirits was a poor cousin of an Undead Bane weapon-+1 hit and damage, +1d6 damage vs. undead. Overall, probaby a bit magic-light.

Overall, it worked pretty well. The druid and cleric had effective buffing spells for him (Barkskin, [Greater] Magic Fang, Bull's Strength) and the large healing quotient in the group helped make up for his poor hit points. He also had rolled very good stats Not incredible, but enough to have very good Str, Dex, and Wis, so decent AC + good damage rolls. Low Con and d8 hit die kept him from mixing it up as much as I would have liked-but he dealt out a _lot_ of punishment to the opposition. And as long as he stayed close to the cleric for periodic _Cure Serious Wounds_ he could keep dishing it out for quite a while.

The DM used a fair number of magical/trap threats rather than straight combat, which helped highlight the advantages of the good saves and Evasion ability. (When we were Rogueless, he'd scout ahead and set off traps.  ) And in particular, enemy spellcasters-the lack of which often leaves the opposition underpowered in combat-were very vulnerable to him early on. This had just started to get harder in the sessions before his untimely demise, as they started flying away, the cowards!  Missile combat is definitely a problem, and the good mobility is limited to the ground (and maybe a bit higher, as an insufficiently high _Levitator_ found out once).


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Playing a monk like a knight is sucide, but poison is still a less than lawful thing to do, or at least less than good.  The only class that gets any ability that deals with poison is assassin, which requires evil. *




You are stuck on old 1e and 2e definitions. Like things like class/level restrictions, there is a good reason many nonsensical bits of the system were left behind.

Why is poison evil? It kills people? So do fireballs and swords. Just as with those items, in the realm of D&D, it's not the tool that is evil, it is the actions and intentions behind the use of those tools.

Of course assassins are evil. They kill people for _money_. And poison is a convenient way to kill well protected targets with guile. But just because it is a good tool for assassins does not make it "evil."

And to show a clear counterexample, the _poison_ spell does not have an evil descriptor. A good divine spellcaster can use it. The protector of the sacred glade can call upon the power of the snake spirit to defend the glade from being overrun by evil... no prob!

So much for good evil. Now to law.

First, the SRD section on law. Law implies "trustworthiness". Okay, good enough. That plays into what I was saying about the sneaky knight a while back... secretly poisoning his enemy does not show trustworthiness or honor.

But if you are a monk who lives close to nature and your monastery is in danger of being overrun by barbaric hordes, it's not the same situation. Plain shuriken are not a weapon you use against charging hordes. There is no guile there. The monks can and will use whatever means necessary to defend themselves.

It is a typical assumption that a lawful character like a monk or paladin lives by a code that would prohibit certain activities that are looked down upon by the essence of the code. And I would expect for a paladin, poison would be one of them. But for a monk? Not necessarily.

All that a monk's lawful state implies is a life of rigor, living their life by certain strict tenets. Those tenets may or may not include anything referring to poison. Their code is much more likely to concern themselves with diet, touching dead creatures, and which way they sit when they eat.

There is NOTHING implicit about poison that should be considered to be inhenerntly evil or chaotic.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 7, 2002)

Christian,

Good stats help the monk out enormously.  Low level monks have very severe suckage when using 30 or fewer points for stats.

Most character classes are functional with 2 decent stats.  A monk needs 4.  That cuts both ways.

Monks are quite effective is you roll excellect stats.  They are weak if your stats are average.


----------



## Christian (Aug 7, 2002)

RC-I'm sure you're right, and that's a very good point. I wouldn't have even considered playing a monk without the kinds of rolls I got. In fact, the cause & effect works both ways-when I saw the rolls, I though, "Hey, that would work for a monk! Let's try it!"

Let's see ... (mumblety-mumble) ... You'd need 41 point-buy to get his stats. (!!) 39 if you made him an elf or if you didn't care between a 10 and an 8 Charisma.  (37 with both-still well above anything you'll see in a point-buy campaign.) And the 12 Con was still a real pain-he'd have done much better with a 14, but I didn't have one to give him.

Str, Dex, Con, Wis, all crucial for a monk. Makes life difficult in character creation, unless you're rolling & roll well ...


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 7, 2002)

I think the main weakness people see with the monk is that they insist on using point buy 

Seriously though, unless there are SEVERE restrictions needed in our campaigns, my group and I never use point buy. I think it's a stupid system that creates entirely too many Half-Orc fighters with Int and Cha of 6. I don't believe in point buy, but of course that's just me. And my group 

I'm 100% with Psion on the poison issue. I'd like to know how paralytic and sleep-inducing poisons would be so morally abhorrent to a monk. Picture this: if a monk is willing to take potions, buff spells, or even drink massive quantities of alcohol (yes, I saw Drunken Master ) to give himself an advantage over opponents, why then is poison an issue? Why is it that you can use Stunning Fist (which stuns) but not stunning poisons???

(Oh, and Psion, I may have to steal your mosswalkers of the great swamp idea )

Now just as an example, I have played an Azer monk in a 7-player gladiator campaign, starting out at class level 2 while others were level 6. And I NEVER was truly overshadowed, despite my lower damage, HP and level. In fact, thanks to my Evasion ability I was one of the sole survivors of a battle involving a large number of Shocker Lizards


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 7, 2002)

> What cracks me up is people who willfully ignore what I'm talking about. I'm not comparing the Monk to the other classes except insofar as the other classes each contribute to the success of the party. Monks don't. I don't care that Fighters are better at dishing out damage, and Clerics are better at healing. I care that Monks aren't that good at anything. They're not even particularly good at being Monk-like.




Sorry mattcolville, that wasn't specifically aimed at you. What I meant is that I saw a lot of messages along the lines of "the rogue can do this, the fighter can do this, the barbarian can do this, and the monk isn't as good at those things."

Which of course is ridiculous.

However, I do think that this



> Monk aren't unarmed combat masters. I think they should be, but they're not. Monks don't belong in a medieval fantasy game. They belong in an oriental game, which D&D is not.




is hogwash (no offense), mainly because I don't agree with two points here:

1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.

2) That D&D is a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game to be sure, but comparing to the Middle-Ages (unless you're specifically running a MA game) isn't quite right. After all, druids and barbarians don't necessarily belong in all of medieval Earth.

And of course, if I wanted to be technical, during the MA, the Orient *did*, in fact, exist. Just not in the same part of the world.


----------



## mattcolville (Aug 7, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> However, I do think that this is hogwash (no offense), mainly because I don't agree with two points here:
> 
> 1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.*




That's not an argument. I'm the only person in my family that can do Bessel Functions. . .that doesn't mean I'm a master of it. "They can do it better than anyone else" and "they're really really good at it" aren't the same thing.



			
				Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *2) That D&D is a medieval fantasy game. It's a fantasy game to be sure, but comparing to the Middle-Ages (unless you're specifically running a MA game) isn't quite right. After all, druids and barbarians don't necessarily belong in all of medieval Earth.*




You can disagree all you want, but 'Medieval Fantasy' is the brand strategy of D&D. I was told, in a big meeting at WotC, that if a product wasn't Medieval (then given a definition) *and* fantasy (then given a definition) that it didn't belong in D&D. Of course, two months later, the psionicist's handbook came out, so that was clearly bunk.

But the point is, if you had to choose "which book does the Monk belong in, the Generic Fantasy Core Book, or the Oriental Book" you'd pick the Oriental book every time. And any argument made to the contrary could just as easily apply to the Samurai or the Shukenja.

The designers put it in there *in spite* of the fact that it didn't belong. Monks, Bards, Half-Orcs, these are some of the sacred cows of D&D. Things everyone wanted from 1st ed. that were done wierdly or badly. Monks and Half-Orcs show this in their presentation. Monks hang out at the fringes of the 'functionality' meter while Half-Orcs are designed to be Barbarians. While they encourage you to do other things with it, you're going very strongly against the design when you make a Half-Orc wizard.



			
				Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *And of course, if I wanted to be technical, during the MA, the Orient *did*, in fact, exist. Just not in the same part of the world.*




Again, by which argument, Samurai should be in the PHB.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 7, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You are stuck on old 1e and 2e definitions. Like things like class/level restrictions, there is a good reason many nonsensical bits of the system were left behind.
> 
> ...




Poison isn't really what this thread was about, but if a monk can do it, a fighter can do it just as well.  This is only one _possible_ loophole with monks at range.

The reason why poison has always been considered dishonorable and evil, by every civilized culture, is that it allows an oppent to kill you without showing any prowess, exactly what the monk is against.  The poison spell you mention is availible to all clerics and druids, and they have no restiction to lawful.  The lack of "evil" in the descripter means little.  In any case, they must touch the monster they are facing, and in such show their honor as well as the power of their diety.  Unless the PC made the poison, it is something external, also out of concept for most all monk concepts.

For the record, I don't like 2e, and I never played 1e.  I am going strickly off 3e alignment.  Aligiment is always a big issue to argue about, so there doesn't seem to be much point in this line much further.  I think we understand the other's point, but neither are going to change our minds.


----------



## Psion (Aug 7, 2002)

> *
> Poison isn't really what this thread was about, but if a monk can do it, a fighter can do it just as well.
> *




Did I ever say anything to the contrary?

A fighter can do it IF their ethics allow them too... likewise the monk. My point is only that there is no "alignment" to poison.


> *
> he poison spell you mention is availible to all clerics and druids, and they have no restiction to lawful.
> *




I certainly never implied it was inherently lawful either, so I don't know the point of this part. In fact that statement drives home my position... that poison is not assigned an inherent alignment per the D&D system.



> *
> Unless the PC made the poison, it is something external, also out of concept for most all monk concepts.
> *




Who said he didn't? The theoretical monks I purported would do such a thing.

However, the implication that "external" is a requirement is, again, an attempt by you to pidgeonhole monks.

As for what is "in concept" for monks, I think that is entirely a GM call. I think there are several realms in which it can be in concept for a monk:

- A monkish warrior type character teach using finesse, patience and skill to gain an advantage over brute strength. That can include using poisons and drugs. Perfectly in concept.
- Martial arts styles are often conceived as emulating certain creatures. An order whose art from snakes or spiders could use venom as one of their attacks.

So if you think that poison is clearly out of concept for monks, I think you aren't considering all the possibilities.



> *
> I think we understand the other's point, but neither are going to change our minds.*




I'm not trying to convince you how to handle it in your game. I can perfectly see how a given game, the codes of honor would find such things abhorrent. My only point is that there is nothing about the game -- not one thing beyond your personal feelings on the issue -- to make it compulsory.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 7, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 1) That monks are not the masters of unarmed combat. Name one class that does better. If you use Trip and Grapple to their full effect, there's none that come close.*




Barbarian.  Fighter.  

With better strength and BAB, they are very effective at Grapple and Trip if they spend a feat or two.  They also can pick up a reach trip weapon.

They can pick up unarmed combat feat if they really want.  With higher strength their damage with fists is about the same as a monk when we look at low level characters.  Subdual vs. normal damage usually is not a big deal: when your enemies are unconscious, you have won.

Ranger maybe.  TWF is the same as flurry when unarmed.  Pick up Unarmed Fighting and a good strength.  Having a better BAB helps a bit.

I am being a little tongue in cheek, but I think you assertion "there's none that come close" is actually open to challenge.  It is quite possible to challenge a monk unarmed: grapple him, choke him unconscious.  A strong, raging barbarian has a reasonable chance of winning with no feats to back him up.  Not great, but it is quite possible if the barbarian successfully starts the grapple.  He will have a +1 or +2 BAB advantage and probably a +4 or +5 or better Str mod advantage when raging.  The barbarian will win an opposed grapple check 75% of the time, and he has twice the HPs.  The monk has the edge, but it is not nearly as big of one as you might think.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 8, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *Oh, and the house rule we use...
> 
> The Monk AC Bonus +1 is the highest damage reduction the monk can penetrate with his fists.
> 
> ...




This seems to address the need of low-level monks to have a niche.  Not only do they kill mages, but they are also great for killing gargoyles!

What kind of bonus is the Ki Strike?  (i.e. what does it stack with?)


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

> Barbarian. Fighter.
> 
> With better strength and BAB, they are very effective at Grapple and Trip if they spend a feat or two. They also can pick up a reach trip weapon.
> 
> ...




That's silly. No one says the fighter is the undisputed master of armed combat at level one: he's just starting out. Start at higher levels, such as around level 12 or 16, and you'll see that the monk is much better at grappling, including the Escape Artist skill that barbs don't have as a class skill. And real damage makes one HELL of a difference if you're fighting anything that's immune to subdual (I can only imagine your unarmed fighter trying to choke a golem "Why won't you DIE?!").

Oh yeah, and I'd love to see the combat character that has a higher touch AC than the monk. You can't without magical items, which, if evenly spread out as they should be, benefit the monk as well.



> That's not an argument. I'm the only person in my family that can do Bessel Functions. . .that doesn't mean I'm a master of it. "They can do it better than anyone else" and "they're really really good at it" aren't the same thing.




I'm curious to know to whom you're comparing the monk to make him seem so ineffectual. A rogue is the only other character that has a similar (possibly better) chance of *escaping* a grapple, and little chance of engaging in one. When a monk is grappling a character for several times 1d10, 1d12, or even 1d20+ damage in a round, I don't see what there is to complain considering that the target character is tied up as well.

The monk is definitely the best of the base classes at unarmed combat. I don't think anything in the system really goes against this.

If you're not happy with the monk's performance, try picking up Improved Grapple in OA, which is a WotC book too, after all. Or any of the other feats in there.

Oh, and as they are in the PHB, I don't see why the base classes couldn't be Oriental. Just change what weapons you use, how you dress, and voilà! It's not like OA substantially changes the classes that much.


----------



## Zerovoid (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's silly. No one says the fighter is the undisputed master of armed combat at level one: he's just starting out. Start at higher levels, such as around level 12 or 16, and you'll see that the monk is much better at grappling, including the Escape Artist skill that barbs don't have as a class skill. And real damage makes one HELL of a difference if you're fighting anything that's immune to subdual (I can only imagine your unarmed fighter trying to choke a golem "Why won't you DIE?!").
> 
> ...




But, as people have said, a fighter has better BAB than the monk, and probably better strength.  So, the monk will usually fail their grapple checks against these guys.  How then is the monk a better grappler?

This is the same problem I have with the monk having Improved Trip, etc...  They are worse than the fighter classes, because they don't have a good BAB.

Instead of getting alot of attacks that will have a hard time hitting, and don't stack properly with normal BAB when multiclassing, why didn't the designers just give them a fighter type BAB progression?


----------



## Psion (Aug 8, 2002)

> *
> But, as people have said, a fighter has better BAB than the monk, and probably better strength. So, the monk will usually fail their grapple checks against these guys. How then is the monk a better grappler?
> *




I can think of a few ways.

First, grapple checks are touch attacks. A monk will more than likely have a much higher AC against grapple checks, because they are likely to have a higher dex, and add wisdom and monk bonuses too. The figther might actually be worse off if he is wearing armor due to dex limitations.

Second, a monk inflicts REAL damage in unarmed combat and can (IIRC) use their faster iterative attacks.

Third, escape artist is a class skill for monks.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Beats me, since I'm not one of the designers 

Personally, I think the Unarmed Base Attack Bonus is the silliest thing they've thought of. They could have simply given the monk a -2 (or even -4) penalty when using non-monk weapons.

As for the grappling thing, I still think a monk with Weapon Finesse unarmed makes a very comparable grapple check versus whatever fighter. On top of that, he has the only way of dealing actual damage with a grapple check, and it quickly becomes much, much more. Using OA is a sure way to have monks be all that they can be D), since most feats in that book are specifically designed for the class.

HOWEVER, I still think the monk works, and frequent in-game experiences have proven this for me. As I've said, on the other hand, I would have made the monk differently. Here is my idea of a less wacky monk:




> Fort    Ref     Will
> Level   BAB             Save  Save  Save    Special
> -----   ------------      ----    ----    ----        -------
> 1       +1                 +2      +2      +2      Unarmed Strike,
> ...




Feel free to tell me what you think. I've tried to make the monk less spread out, and more "combat effective", which seems to be the gist of everyone's beef with the monk. More to the point, I've made it so that the shriveled 150 year-old monk standing on top of a mountain has a chance of actually being better than the young whippersnapper who comes to challenge him.

Of course, because of Timeless Body, the old guy wouldn't be so shriveled, but...


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Psion said:
			
		

> *
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...




Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying what I have to try to keep monks down.  I want them to be just a viable as any other class.  My qualms about monks and poison come from the three places: the lawful alignment requirement of the monk class, all the historical groups the monk is based on, and how the monk described in the PH.

The law says poison is illegal.  Lawfull alignment means not wanting to creat chaos.  Using poison would lead to this chaos in any civilized region.

Monks are based on groups like the Shao Lin monks.  The tenants of these monks said that use of poison was not allowed.  Monks aren't based on the historical ninja, who favor poison.

Monks adventure to prove and better themselves.  Use of poison does not prove your prowess or your courage.  Poison does not better you.

This is all IMHO.  We obviously view the use of poison and how monks in general work.  I think this will be last post on the poison issue.  I think your concept of a poison using monk almost fits a LE monk, but not entirely for the reasons above.  It is an interesting question, but not really on the point that monks still suck by and large at low levels.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Ok, I have a challenge for all you monk lovers out there.  I am running a game in a home brew low magic world.  The PCs are most likely going to be trying to raid a catacomb.  If some one can post a monk 7 using only core book and splat books, stanard money, I may change my idea.  I think my players will slauter it, but I want to see if you people are on to something here.  This challenge is for a monk without OA feats.  I obviously don't play monks well, so post tatics if you could.

The party is a centar ranger/fighter 4, human wiz 6, human bard/barbiarian/rogue/royal explorer 6, monk/fighter 5, human rogue 5.  

I can post the results of the fight after the next game session, on the 17th.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> HOWEVER, I still think the monk works, and frequent in-game experiences have proven this for me. As I've said, on the other hand, I would have made the monk differently. Here is my idea of a less wacky monk:
> 
> ...




I think the switch to a complete fighter BAB puts the monk a little over the top, but that might be a good thing   Removing the SR is hard loss to high level monks, but they can get items just the same as fighters.  Overall, by giving them many more abilites than a fighter of the same level, I think it is too much.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 8, 2002)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *What kind of bonus is the Ki Strike?  (i.e. what does it stack with?) *




Sorry I didn't notice your question earlier.

The Ki Strike bonus is a weapon enhancement bonus. As such, it doesn't stack with Magic Fang, Greater Magic Fang, Magic Weapon, or Greater Magic Weapon.

If you cast (for example) Greater Magic Fang on the monk with a caster level 15, then the monk makes all attacks with +5 attack/damage until the spell runs out.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sorry I didn't notice your question earlier.
> 
> ...




Ki strike only allows you to strike as if you had a magic weapon, not an actual bonus to hit and damage, right?


----------



## Psion (Aug 8, 2002)

> *
> The law says poison is illegal.
> *




Again: whose law? The order and regimen the monk follows may have NOTHING to do with what the local magistrate is concerned with.

Further, most ancient legal systems probably wouldn't distinguish between killing via poison and weapons. If those are tool you are not supposed to have or use, or that you use in comission of a crime, it would treat you the same. I am not aware of any historical "poison purges" that would give it the same status you seem to claim it has.



> *
> Lawfull alignment means not wanting to creat chaos. Using poison would lead to this chaos in any civilized region*




You claim not to be a big follower of 1e/2e alignment systems, but this is blatantly 1e/2e thinking. Once again, 3e, unlike 1e/2e, doesn't assign alignment to mere objects, and doesn't revolve around the hackneyed "creates chaos" sorts of arguments. The 3e alignment definitions revolve entirely around defining a character and their system of beleifs and values, not any of this "creates chaos" garbage you would have seen in the pages of a double digit issue of dragon.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Ki Strike does NOT give an actual enhancement bonus.

LokiDR, your points are well taken, and interesting. The only reason I had added fighter BAB was that it seemed the general idea of most monk detractors (in that the monk does not fight well enough).

I had also shown that class to my friends, and they said it was slightly underpowered because of the lack of SR and Improved Evasion. I countered by adding Mettle and fighter BAB.

Would you say the class would be balanced if it used standard monk unarmed BAB?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Oh, and as for your 7th-level monk, I did post a 10th-level one earlier in this thread, just downgrade it 3 levels if you wish. One thing I definitely would change against a party would be to give him an item that grants the Up the Wall feat at will to a nonpsionic. God, I love that feat!

Your party might really beat the monk, but they'd sure as hell remember that fight 

PS: What's their level, BTW?


----------



## Margaiaman (Aug 8, 2002)

*On the subject of Poison*

Don't forget, there are other prestige classes that use poison also.  I know the gladiator is one (no alignment in the prerequisites) and so does the deepwood sniper (again no pre-conceived alignment for the class).

Just thought I'd through that in as an interesting observation.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Ok, I have a challenge for all you monk lovers out there.  I am running a game in a home brew low magic world.  The PCs are most likely going to be trying to raid a catacomb.  If some one can post a monk 7 using only core book and splat books, stanard money, I may change my idea.  I think my players will slauter it, but I want to see if you people are on to something here.  This challenge is for a monk without OA feats.  I obviously don't play monks well, so post tatics if you could.
> 
> The party is a centar ranger/fighter 4, human wiz 6, human bard/barbiarian/rogue/royal explorer 6, monk/fighter 5, human rogue 5.
> 
> I can post the results of the fight after the next game session, on the 17th. *




Level 7 monk, using point buy?  Do we roll 4d6, drop the lowest?

g!


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> I'm curious to know to whom you're comparing the monk to make him seem so ineffectual. A rogue is the only other character that has a similar (possibly better) chance of *escaping* a grapple, and little chance of engaging in one. When a monk is grappling a character for several times 1d10, 1d12, or even 1d20+ damage in a round, I don't see what there is to complain considering that the target character is tied up as well.
> 
> The monk is definitely the best of the base classes at unarmed combat. I don't think anything in the system really goes against this.*




YOU used the grapple rules as an example of the monk excellence.  I am pointing out that Barbarians and Fighters who choose that path are comparable at unarmed combat to a monk, sometimes better, sometimes worse, just by spending a feat or two.

By the time a monk can roll d12 for damage a similar level fighter or barbarian is going to defeat him in an opposing grapple 75%-90% of the time based on BAB and Str differences, as well as having 50%-100% more hit points.  Who cares if the monk is averaging more damage when he connects?  It doesn't matter in the long run.

Monk touch AC?  These guys will have +15 or better with their bare hands.  I don't think there will be a problem getting the touch, although the AoO the monk gets when grappling begins might be.  Of course, that AoO can be avoided by spending a feat or two.

Subdual damage is almost always sufficient and it is quite rare to need to fight unarmed.  It is rarer still to need to do so against DR or other weird defenses.  When would that happen?  I am at a tea party and the golems invade?  I think I will just pick up a table and use it as an improvised two-handed weapon and have someone cast Magic Weapon on it.

A monk who spends precious skill points on Escape Artist is implicitly accepting the role of party baggage.  He has a number of actually useful skills to buy and scant points to do it with.  Ever hear of Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Climb and Jump?  Any PC of mine who finds out the monk is a superior escape artist is going to look for excuses to get that character kicked out of the party...


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Level 7 monk, using point buy?  Do we roll 4d6, drop the lowest?
> 
> g! *




Sorry about that.  Use 30 points to buy stats.  I had PCs re-roll stats if they were really high, so I don't want to make really high powered NPCs.

I just might take up the suggestion of using the level 10 monk, deleveled.  As for the Up The Wall feat for non-psionics, I don't want to slant the whole game in favor of this NPC.  If it can be done by published magic items though, I'm all for it.  

For me, the question here is whether a mid level monk can kick butt and otherwise be effective foil for the PCs _without house-ruling_.  I don't mean he has to run in and mow them down.  But this monk should at least be able to do something to deter the PCs from moving forward.  If monk is as cool as some say it is, then this should be a very interesting fight.  I am guessing he will just die.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

> A monk who spends precious skill points on Escape Artist is implicitly accepting the role of party baggage. He has a number of actually useful skills to buy and scant points to do it with. Ever hear of Listen, Hide, Move Silently, Tumble, Climb and Jump? Any PC of mine who finds out the monk is a superior escape artist is going to look for excuses to get that character kicked out of the party...




Sure, in some twisted powergaming party that doesn't let people play what they want. Having a group where each character is a perfect complement to the others is unrealistic enough to strain even MY suspension of disbelief.

Yes, I have heard of those skills, but since I usually put a high score in Int, I never lack for skill points, and Escape Artist is one of the foremost on my list of skills.

As a matter of fact, the monk who uses Escape Artist is avoiding being a liability by not getting swallowed by every hungry creature that comes by. He also has better chances of freeing himself, then his comrades if he escapes bonds should the party get captured.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 8, 2002)

Is it going to be one 7th monk against 5 characters (in which one has at least one monk leve)?  Just curious if you're asking for a 5 on 1 fight or is he supposed to have some support?


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Ki strike only allows you to strike as if you had a magic weapon, not an actual bonus to hit and damage, right? *






> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi_
> *Ki Strike does NOT give an actual enhancement bonus.*




These are both correct.

Cheiromancer and I were discussing HOUSE RULES for how to make monks more effective using the Ki Strike as an actual enhancement bonus.

One of the DMs I play under uses this houserule, with the Monk AC Bonus + 1 being the highest Damage Resistance that the monk can bypass.

Didn't mean to confuse anyone.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Alaric_Prympax's question is a good one. Tactics vary greatly if it's 5-on-1. If that is the case, I'd say:

1) No grappling; you'll get ganged up on and killed.
2) Tripping is good; it takes an action to get up, and Improved Trip makes you able to still deal damage.
3) If possible, use shuriken with stunning or paralytic poison from a distance, obviously on the weaker-looking members (as a foil for the characters, is he evil?).
4) Spring Attack a LOT, combine with Improved Trip.
5) Tumble is a must (but then you knew that, of course ).
6) Depending on which items you choose to keep (and IF you choose to use my version of the monk), Gloves of Rust on non-magical weapons and armour is lots of fun 
(The only house-rule I'd add to that is that IMC we said that the Mending spell repairs rusted armour; we didn't want PCs to lose that precious scale mail at such low levels of wealth).
7) Surprise, surprise, surprise; with his movement, and with Hide and Move Silently, this is almost a given, but it's worth mentioning.

I'll add more suggestions if I think of any. Good luck!


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sure, in some twisted powergaming party that doesn't let people play what they want. Having a group where each character is a perfect complement to the others is unrealistic enough to strain even MY suspension of disbelief.
> 
> ...




Yeah, what Hakkenshi said.  

I treat Int as the second or third most important stat for every one of my characters.  I need those skill points!  A lot of skill points adds much more _role_ playing to the characters in the games that I DM or am a PC.  And no one in my group tells another what skills a character should take.  Believe it or not we had a 4th Rogue (10 Int) that had no skill ranks in Search! I'm not kidding, but after one adventure when he set off every trap (they weren't lethal) he maxed it out his next level up; but *no one* told him he *had* to put skill points in Search.  The Rogue was not their character.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Well, wolff96, you'll notice I used your house rule in my write-up of the monk, above. I'll give you the credit here, since I forgot it then 

It IS a very good idea.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> *Is it going to be one 7th monk against 5 characters (in which one has at least one monk leve)?  Just curious if you're asking for a 5 on 1 fight or is he supposed to have some support? *




A CR 7 (7th level monk) is supposed to be a challenge for the party of APL ~5.  I have no illusions of a CR 7 beating the party over all, but if they are weakend from earlier encounters (some very annoying constuct versions of arrow hawks) this monk should be able to take on or two down.  I would call that a success.


----------



## Villano (Aug 8, 2002)

First, I have to say that I don't understand the debate of poison versus lawful alignment.  I could see people arguing good vs evil, but the opposite of lawful isn't illegal, but chaotic.  You don't mean to tell me that a lawful evil character can't use poison?

Now, since others have suggested it, here's my take on how to "fix" the monk.

First, I'd do away with the alignment restrictions.  I'm still trying to figure out the concept of a lawful drunken master.

I'd also consider getting rid of the multi-classing restricitons.

Next, while I'd keep the BAB at its current state, I'd open up the list of monk weapons.  All simple weapons should be allowed, as well as several martial ones (short and longsword, but not greatsword, for example).  

Now, as to the common low AC problem, I'd allow the monk to use light armor and shields.  I've seen kung-fu movies with monks wearing a little armor or using shields, so I don't believe it's out of line.

Now, as to how the use of armor would work with the wis bonus to AC, my take would be to take a cue from the Iaijutsu Master from OA.  Allow the wis bonus, but only when not wearing armor.  It might seem a little unbalanced to some, but remember that the armor use would eliminate the need for the AC bonus of the class, which would be dropped.

Also, the ability to wear armor would mean that most players wouldn't pump up their wis to such high levels, instead focusing on either their str or dex.  

Next, I'd do away with flurry of blows and the unarmed BAB, and simply grant the monk two-weapon fighting for free at first level.

I'd also open the class up to maximum customization.  OA already allows monks to swap out certain class abilities in favor of certain feats.  What I would do is follow the example of the Inkyo in Rokugan and make all of the abilities bonus feats.  

Like the Inkyo (and fighter), these feats would be true bonus feats selected from a list and not a choice between an ability and a feat (this would allow the monk to focus on being a weapon user, unarmed fighter, or grappler, or try for a martial arts mastery found in OA).

Stunning attack, deflect arrows, improved trip, and quivering palm all exist as feats in the PHB, OA, or Rokugan.  Also, slow fall can be dropped in favor of the option of taking the break fall feat from Spycraft.

Now, I'd address the much needed niche of the monk.  Since the monk is all about mastery of the mind and body, I'd continue to allow monks their SR.  Also, I'd not only allow them to keep their bonus against enchantments, but give them an equal bonus against illusions, as well (although, off-hand, I can't recall if illusion are covered in SR).

Finally, continuing with the concept of the monk's niche, I'd eliminate timeless body, tongue of the sun and moon, leap of the clouds, empty body, and perfect self and instead allow the monks access to a select number of spell at higher levels, much like the ranger does now.

These spells could only be cast upon themselves and also would be limited to physical and mental enhancements, such as jump, bull strength, spider climb, undetectable alignment, mind blank, etc..

This would allow the monk to perform superhuman feats of body and mind and simulate the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon style of martial artist.

Now, while the spells would allow the monk a wider range of abilities, they would be limited in uses per day, as well as which ones they choose to use (much like spells, you may end up regretting taking jump, but not mind blank that day).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> Sure, in some twisted powergaming party that doesn't let people play what they want. Having a group where each character is a perfect complement to the others is unrealistic enough to strain even MY suspension of disbelief.
> 
> Yes, I have heard of those skills, but since I usually put a high score in Int, I never lack for skill points, and Escape Artist is one of the foremost on my list of skills.
> ...




If you don't have a good Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, then your assertion that monks are better at even unarmed combat than a Fighter or Barbarian is laughable.  Yes, _laughable_.

It is nice to know you play a monk with a high Str, Dex, Con, Wis *AND INT*.  Clearly I have nothing to teach you about powergaming.  I can't compete with your loaded dice.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

Whoa...I *really* don't agree with that.
Spells, I've found, seem to be D&D's answer to "How do I balance this class?", like they are for the ranger and paladin.

Adding a worse Flurry of Blows doesn't really do much, does it?
The Inkyo is only good in Rokugan, if Void exists. Otherwise, he's a crappier monk. Void makes him good, but without it, he makes an expert look overpowered.

If you think about it, the monk is already all about Crouching Tiger: he has Leap of the Clouds, can fall any distance, and moves at insane speeds. That's pretty good.

Spells...spells I really can't think of as a good thing for the monk.

My problem with Diamond Soul, Empty Body, Wholeness of Body and Tongue of Sun and Moon is that I have no clue where they come from, and why they're supposed to fit the monk.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR:

Here's what I would suggest, with some tactics noted. This is using the 30pt. buy you wanted, with the point from levelling up going into Strength.

Also, note that at 8th level this character would go from doing 1d8 + 1 damage to 1d10 + 2; you've caught him at a breakpoint. His unarmed attack bonus would similarly go up by 2; one from levelling and one from the STR increase.

The statistics for the potions are not included in the stat block, as they haven't been consumed yet. I used standard NPC wealth for a 7th level character (7,200gp) for his equipment.

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

Test Case the Monk

Medium-Size Male Human Monk 7
Hit Dice: 7d8 + 14 (45 hp)
Initiative: +3 (+3 Dex)
Speed: 50 ft.
AC: 20 (+3 Dex, +3 Wis, +1 Mnk, +2 Armor, +1 Natural Armor)
Attacks: +7/+2 monk; or +8 Shuriken.
Damage: 1d8 + 1 fist; or 1 Shuriken.
Face/Reach: 5ft. by 5ft./5ft.
Special Attacks: Stunning Fist, Improved Trip
Special Qualities: Evasion, Still Mind, Purity of Body, Wholeness of Body, Leap of the Clouds
Saves: Fort +7, Ref +8, Will +8
Str 13, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 8

Skills: Balance +13, Hide +10, Jump +12, Listen +9, Move Silently +10, Tumble +13.

Feats: 	[Deflect arrows], Dodge, [Improved trip], [Improved Unarmed Strike], Mobility, Spring Attack, [Stunning fist], Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike.

Equipment: Bracers of Armor +2, Amulet of Natural Armor +1, Potion of Endurance, Potion of Cat’s Grace, Potion of Bull’s Strength, Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds.

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

Tactics: Hit and Run. Use Trip attacks with Improved Trip where possible, bouncing away again using Spring Attack if at all possible. Use greater mobility and Balance to lead the fight someplace with broken floors, rubble, whatever, that will limit PC movement and force balance checks.

Between Wholeness of Body (14 HP) and the Potion of Cure Moderate Wounds (2d8 +3), the monk has access to some nice healing. Using potions to enhance ability scores should be a first priority – either by hearing the party approach or by hiding and using the potions after the start of the fight.

If he hears the party (or wins initiative) I would play a waiting game, stalking the party and hitting them – especially any weaker looking types – alone if possible. Good examples would be if the mage hangs back or if the rogue scouts ahead. Above all else: do not let yourself be flanked. Tumble and use the movement rate to avoid the possibility. Using double-moves and (if necessary) running, a character in heavy armor will never catch you.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Alaric_Prympax's question is a good one. Tactics vary greatly if it's 5-on-1. If that is the case, I'd say:
> 
> 1) No grappling; you'll get ganged up on and killed.
> *




I kinda figured that one.  That and the grappling rules are kinda annoying 



> *
> 2) Tripping is good; it takes an action to get up, and Improved Trip makes you able to still deal damage.
> *




Downed opponents are good, unless allies are attacking ranged.  Also, what stops the PC from getting up, and taking a shot?  Most of the players use ranged weapons of one sort or another.



> *
> 3) If possible, use shuriken with stunning or paralytic poison from a distance, obviously on the weaker-looking members (as a foil for the characters, is he evil?).
> *




I was thinking LN.  He is protecting an item, not really going after the PCs.  His motivation would be something like "My family has protected this place for generations, and I will use the skills I learned at the dojo to defend it."



> *
> 4) Spring Attack a LOT, combine with Improved Trip.
> *




Once again, if he trips one, and then moves on, he doesn't really do anything.  The PCs might get annoyed, but he isn't really being effective.



> *
> 5) Tumble is a must (but then you knew that, of course ).
> *




Oh ya.  Tumble is the speedy character's best friend.



> *
> 6) Depending on which items you choose to keep (and IF you choose to use my version of the monk), Gloves of Rust on non-magical weapons and armour is lots of fun
> (The only house-rule I'd add to that is that IMC we said that the Mending spell repairs rusted armour; we didn't want PCs to lose that precious scale mail at such low levels of wealth).
> *




Gloves of rust could be really obnoxious if they used any heavy armor.  The party uniform seems to be mirthral shirt.



> *
> 7) Surprise, surprise, surprise; with his movement, and with Hide and Move Silently, this is almost a given, but it's worth mentioning.
> 
> I'll add more suggestions if I think of any. Good luck! *




Ok, so if he can get out of sight, he can hide again.  Then when he attacks out of hiding he denies dex bonus?  But if he spring attacks, lets just say, won't they see him comming and get dex back?

Overall, thanks for the suggestions.  I am starting to look forward to this fight.


----------



## Villano (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Whoa...I *really* don't agree with that.
> Spells, I've found, seem to be D&D's answer to "How do I balance this class?", like they are for the ranger and paladin.*




Well, the spell idea was to try to come up with a way of showing a temporary ability boost without simple granting a +whatever/so many times a day (ala rage).

Actually, calling them "extaordinary" or "supernatural" abilites instead of spells would be better.  

*Adding a worse Flurry of Blows doesn't really do much, does it?*[/QUOTE]

What it does is give the PC the option of using a "flurry" with a weapon.  

*The Inkyo is only good in Rokugan, if Void exists. Otherwise, he's a crappier monk. Void makes him good, but without it, he makes an expert look overpowered.*[/QUOTE]

Well, I just used the Inkyo as an example of monk abilities as feats.  Void wouldn't come into play.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort_
> If you don't have a good Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, then your assertion that monks are better at even unarmed combat than a Fighter or Barbarian is laughable. Yes, laughable.
> 
> It is nice to know you play a monk with a high Str, Dex, Con, Wis AND INT. Clearly I have nothing to teach you about powergaming. I can't compete with your loaded dice.




Glad I got a laugh out of you. To answer this ridiculous claim, I'll tell you that in fact I usually make monks with low Strength and Con, so you don't need to bother with useless accusations of cheating (or whatever).

A monk with high Dex and Weapon Finesse, as I've stated, has no problems hitting things unless your bad luck is of legendary proportions. In that case, I advise you not to leave your house.

And since we *do* roll our stats, not everyone plays a Half-Orc barbarian with 20 Str and 16 Con but 6 in Int and Cha. That's my major beef with point buy; it makes for ridiculously uneven characters for players who insist on catering only to their main stats.

Your barbarian and fighter still can't deal anything but subdual. There are spells that protect against that entirely, and I think one of them is something like 2nd level. And whatever their level, they will still deal the same base damage unarmed. This is hardly impressive. One-on-one they would still win, but this isn't PvP, if you hadn't noticed. Grappling is incredibly useful in a number situations, and without magic items or buffs, the monk is the hands-down damage-dealer there.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Downed opponents are good, unless allies are attacking ranged.  Also, what stops the PC from getting up, and taking a shot?  Most of the players use ranged weapons of one sort or another.
> 
> Once again, if he trips one, and then moves on, he doesn't really do anything.  The PCs might get annoyed, but he isn't really being effective.*




Hmmm...  It kind of sounds like, from your comments, you are unfamiliar with Improved Trip.



> _From the SRD:_
> *If the character trips an opponent in melee combat, the character immediately gets a melee attack against that opponent as if the character hadn’t used the character's attack for the trip attempt.*




In other words, dash in, trip the PC, get the free attack at (Full Attack Bonus + 4) for a prone opponent, then dash out. The PC then has to waste a move-equivalent action to get up again -- no full attacks from that character, and it will really mess up anyone using a crossbow since they have to waste an extra round on the reload.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR, remember that Improved Trip gives the monk a free attack on the downed person. That is CONSIDERABLE.

By hiding, I meant he gets the drop on them. If he can Spring Attack Stunning Fist the party spellcaster, then (hopefully) Improved Trip someone the next round, he's doing OK. If they use a lot of ranged, get him in close and break bows if you must 

Villano, I understand what you mean now. However, one of the monk prestige classes in OA gets buffs a certain amount of times per day, no? Would you be borrowing from that?

I still disagree with you, but I see where you're going with it, and it is logical. My idea of the monk is very different though. And this is where what hong said comes into play: everyone has a different idea of what the monk should do. Hence, problem.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *LokiDR:
> 
> Here's what I would suggest, with some tactics noted.
> 
> ...




This looks like a well designed character, he has been logged for future use   If he isn't mowed down in the first few rounds, it looks like he could do some real damage.  I think that this situation does give him a bit too much leverage of hide and move silently, but there is no perfect test.  I do notice that your tatics might work better if this was a rogue


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hmmm...  It kind of sounds like, from your comments, you are unfamiliar with Improved Trip.
> 
> ...




My bad.  I should remember my alternative combat manuevers better than that.  It is a good thing that I read up on ablities before I use them in game.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Once again, if he trips one, and then moves on, he doesn't really do anything.  The PCs might get annoyed, but he isn't really being effective.
> *




Yeah, but improved trip allows him to make another "free" attack at the same BAB.  So he could spring in trip, then attack a prone target at +4 to his BAB and then spring out.

g!


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *...My problem with Diamond Soul, Empty Body, Wholeness of Body and Tongue of Sun and Moon is that I have no clue where they come from, and why they're supposed to fit the monk. *




Chalk up these level based powers to being holdovers from 1st Ed. With the Monk - because there really wasn't a 2nd Ed version of the class - a lot of things came directly out of 1st Ed (at least in spirit).

By the way, for those who think that the monk should be able to be a front line fighter, one house rule can make it possible.

In 1st Ed, monks got bonus damage when using weapons (+1/2 a point per level). To update that, you can simply give monks bonus damage (possibly 1 every 3 levels, so as not to make it outrageous) as an Extraordinary Ability. 

I'm not sure which type of bonus it would fall under, maybe competence or inherent, but I would probably say that it would only apply to the exotic "monk" weapons.

What do you think?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

You could always say they get their Wisdom modifier to damage rolls with them, which is what I did in my version of the monk on the previous page. Of course, this ability did come at a high level (maybe too high).

I think this is one carryover from 1st Ed. (which I never played) that could have been left behind. Those abilities don't really suit the monk.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *You could always say they get their Wisdom modifier to damage rolls with them, which is what I did in my version of the monk on the previous page. Of course, this ability did come at a high level (maybe too high).
> 
> I think this is one carryover from 1st Ed. (which I never played) that could have been left behind. Those abilities don't really suit the monk. *




Agreed.  The monk doesn't need another column for more special abilites, they have the most already 

Is is just me, or are there a lot of special rules around the monk?  Special version of BAB and unarmed damage.  Were they just added in late, or was the system not designed for them?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> Glad I got a laugh out of you. To answer this ridiculous claim, I'll tell you that in fact I usually make monks with low Strength and Con, so you don't need to bother with useless accusations of cheating (or whatever).
> 
> A monk with high Dex and Weapon Finesse, as I've stated, has no problems hitting things unless your bad luck is of legendary proportions. In that case, I advise you not to leave your house.




Fair enough.  That can work.

But low Str does not make for much of a trip attack or grapple unless you are squaring off against a wizard or commoner.  I thought you were bragging about these options for monks?




> And since we *do* roll our stats, not everyone plays a Half-Orc barbarian with 20 Str and 16 Con but 6 in Int and Cha. That's my major beef with point buy; it makes for ridiculously uneven characters for players who insist on catering only to their main stats.




Don't assume I was thinking of anything of the kind.  Since you brought up d12 damage as some decisive edge, you have you expect you can be matched up against, say, a human with a starting 16 Str, +3 for level stat increases, +3 for an item or potion or spell.  That is a +6 mod vs. your +1 or +2.  Plus his BAB is +3 higher than yours, for a net +8 in the grapple or trip check.  He will win the opposed check ~80% of the time.

Your d12 +2 damage is averaging 9 points.  His d3 + 6 averages 8 points.  Is that an edge you want to brag about?  

I haven't even considered half-orcs or raging yet.

That is an unremarkable human fighter I could build with 25 pts., without notable minmaxing and NPC wealth -- a run of the mill cohort for an Evil Wizard.




> Your barbarian and fighter still can't deal anything but subdual. There are spells that protect against that entirely, and I think one of them is something like 2nd level. And whatever their level, they will still deal the same base damage unarmed. This is hardly impressive. One-on-one they would still win, but this isn't PvP, if you hadn't noticed. Grappling is incredibly useful in a number situations, and without magic items or buffs, the monk is the hands-down damage-dealer there. [/B]




I am not necessarily thinking player vs. player.  I am debunking the myth that the monk is some kind of unique example of unarmed excellence.  Monks don't truly "own" that niche.  Other classes are competitive if they spend a feat or two.

You will run into a lot of fighterish humanoid henchmen over your career, and subdual will do the job.  Humanoids are actually vastly more likely in circumstances you are lacking for weapons.  Weird creatures usually just chop you up and eat you, not capture you and tie you up.  Nor are they common at social events where swords are impolite.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

I think that 7th level monk is dead meat against those 5 PCs of 5thish level.  Spring Attack will hardly help unless he can surprise them over and over again; 2 or 3 of them will ready actions and hammer him to oblivion.

What you need is Spring Attack and Hold the Line (Combat Reflexes as prereq).  That will cause havoc with readied charges.  But he couldn't get that until 9th level.  CR will also help a bit if they try to gang up on him.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am not necessarily thinking player vs. player.  I am debunking the myth that the monk is some kind of unique example of unarmed excellence.  Monks don't truly "own" that niche.  Other classes are competitive if they spend a feat or two.
> 
> You will run into a lot of fighterish humanoid henchmen over your career, and subdual will do the job.  Humanoids are actually vastly more likely in circumstances you are lacking for weapons.  Weird creatures usually just chop you up and eat you, not capture you and tie you up. *




This line of conversation has also stayed on the human vs. human realm.  What about a troll, trained a fighter to graple?  they get claw damage, and it is all subdual to them.  Likewise, a human fighter grappling could use enchanted daggers. 1d4+some numbe of d6s+str > 1d12+lower str.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

> Weird creatures usually just chop you up and eat you, not capture you and tie you up.




I find it interesting that you should mention this, since it's exactly one of my reasons for taking Escape Artist. There are a LOT of things that can try to swallow you, or constrict you, both of which are generally perceived as bad by the target.

I don't see a problem with Weapon Finesse allowing a character to Trip and grapple using Dex. It is, after all, a matter of Dexterity (Aikido, anyone?).

And again, you're spending a feat or two with your fighter or barbarian to go outside his area of expertise to TRY and catch up with the monk. You won't be grappling anything that's immune to subdual, that's for sure.



> Don't assume I was thinking of anything of the kind. Since you brought up d12 damage as some decisive edge, you have you expect you can be matched up against, say, a human with a starting 16 Str, +3 for level stat increases, +3 for an item or potion or spell. That is a +6 mod vs. your +1 or +2. Plus his BAB is +3 higher than yours, for a net +8 in the grapple or trip check.




I really wish you'd stop making these unfair comparisons where one characters gets a buff spell, potion or item the other one doesn't. It doesn't make sense. You have to compare on even grounds. Would I compare a 32-point buy monk to your 25-point buy fighter? No. So don't do it with magic either.

Doing subdual damage constantly won't be of much help in the long run. Make any fighter you like that uses only unarmed damage, I'll make a monk of the same level. Which will be more useful to a party? Guess, but I'll tell you right now that the fighter is so much dead weight.

And while this "run-of-the-mill" cohort of the evil wizard is attacking the party, I'd go for the evil wizard, dammit!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *I think that 7th level monk is dead meat against those 5 PCs of 5thish level.  Spring Attack will hardly help unless he can surprise them over and over again; 2 or 3 of them will ready actions and hammer him to oblivion.
> 
> What you need is Spring Attack and Hold the Line (Combat Reflexes as prereq).  That will cause havoc with readied charges.  But he couldn't get that until 9th level.  CR will also help a bit if they try to gang up on him. *




Where is "Hold the Line" again?  And what do you mean CR will help if they gang up?  If the PCs gang up on the monk?

As for the monk winning, I don't think any one here believes he will win.  The question is if the fight is challenging.  I agree that the PCs will hammer him into oblivion.  But if he manages to take a few down, I will be impressed.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 8, 2002)

> This line of conversation has also stayed on the human vs. human realm. What about a troll, trained a fighter to graple? they get claw damage, and it is all subdual to them. Likewise, a human fighter grappling could use enchanted daggers. 1d4+some numbe of d6s+str > 1d12+lower str.




Hey, this is true, but again, the monk will be pretty high level by the time that Troll has one level of fighter (if they're on even footing). And if you give the human fighter a magical dagger in a comparison, give the monk magical brass knuckles or enchanted gloves.

Otherwise the comparison is pointless, since it's one-sided.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *And since we *do* roll our stats, not everyone plays a Half-Orc barbarian with 20 Str and 16 Con but 6 in Int and Cha. That's my major beef with point buy; it makes for ridiculously uneven characters for players who insist on catering only to their main stats.*




To respond to this (as it has been said twice now), neither I nor anyone I've ever played with has made any character as twinked as that fighter I just made (with a 6 INT and 6 CHA).  In fact, every character I've played in the last 2 years has been significantly UNDER-maximized.

In defense of point-buy, I think it gives players more control over the type of character they make.  I've yet to see it actually abused.  In fact, I would argue that point-buy actually _prevents_ players from playing characters with idiot-intelligence and or lowlife-personalities (i.e., I know of no one who likes to play these kind of characters, and that doesn't change regardless of using point-buy).

I was simply making such a character to illustrate the *rules* advantage of not having to rely on so many attributes, as does the monk.  Further, anyone could do the same thing to a monk, giving him only a 6 for CHA.  It's not something exclusive to fighters by any means.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hey, this is true, but again, the monk will be pretty high level by the time that Troll has one level of fighter (if they're on even footing). And if you give the human fighter a magical dagger in a comparison, give the monk magical brass knuckles or enchanted gloves.
> 
> Otherwise the comparison is pointless, since it's one-sided. *




A troll is CR5.  Could the monk that was just post a while ago face a troll with two levels of fighter?

As for magic items, I have always been talking about the core books and splat books.  You always could add new items, but you can also add new abilties to the class.  What _published_ materials are there to really help the monk?  I say monks, as the published material in D&D stand, suck for this reason.  Maybe brass knuckles should be added for monks, but since they aren't don't say it isn't fair.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 8, 2002)

> As a matter of fact, the monk who uses Escape Artist is avoiding being a liability by not getting swallowed by every hungry creature that comes by. He also has better chances of freeing himself, then his comrades if he escapes bonds should the party get captured.




That niche is pretty specialized; again like many of the Monks "useful" abilities.  I personally didnt take Escape Artist; though considering the number of times I've been engulfed by and Ooze or an angry Construct while performing my semi-scouting role, maybe I should have.  Still, Escape Artist is opposed by the opponent Grapple check and most creatures that Grapple you have a big STR bonus.   You'll be spending several of your Ranks just to get an even break against the sort of creatures that will grab you.



> What about a troll, trained a fighter to graple? they get claw damage, and it is all subdual to them.




Ugh, yes.  You dont have to train them, they have the Improved Grab right?  They just grab your poor little Monk and start squeezing until he pops.  

A Troll is really a nightmare for a low level Monk; a big burly creature with Regen 5.  

In some senses, the Troll is just the extreme of what Ridley has been saying about the Monk not being the uncontested "best" grappler -- any big creature with high STR and high HP may not be as *optimized* for grappling as a Monk, but he is roughly as effective.

I dont think there's really an arguement here; are people saying its a good idea to run up and grapple a Barbarian?  Grappling is for wussies like Sorcerers who cant fight back.  ;-)


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 8, 2002)

> I think that 7th level monk is dead meat against those 5 PCs of 5thish level.




I wonder if it would be more balanced to have the PCs fight some sort of Monk order; 5 Monks of 5th level or so?

I still suspect they'd get rolled fast because 1) the Monks wouldnt have the flexibility the party has, 2) Monks suck.  ;-)


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> ...
> 
> I dont think there's really an arguement here; are people saying its a good idea to run up and grapple a Barbarian?  Grappling is for wussies like Sorcerers who cant fight back.  ;-) *




Hakkenshi seems to believe that monks are the king of grapplers, which is where my comments come from.  As far a going after the "wussies", I would expect them to fly up as soo as they got the chance.


----------



## Christian (Aug 8, 2002)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> *Here's what I would suggest, with some tactics noted. This is using the 30pt. buy you wanted, with the point from levelling up going into Strength.
> 
> Also, note that at 8th level this character would go from doing 1d8 + 1 damage to 1d10 + 2; you've caught him at a breakpoint. His unarmed attack bonus would similarly go up by 2; one from levelling and one from the STR increase.
> 
> ...




Some small tweaks as alternatives, and expanding on some points (and answering some later objections):

Attributes: I'd consider switching 1-2 points of Dex, Con, or Wis into Strength. Giving up 1 point of AC or 7 hit points for +1 to hit and damage on each unarmed attack and a better chance to successfully Trip opponents is a positive trade, IMO.

Items: 
The friendly neighboorhood druid who made that Amulet of Natural Armor for him might have been better persuaded to make a couple of potions of Greater Magic Fang (at caster level 6, for a +2 enhancement) instead. (Not listed on the standard potion chart, but obviously it's a core item.) As with the stat-boosting potions, this should be downed at the first sign of trouble-duration is hours, not rounds or minutes.

Tactics:
This guy would obviously be familiar with the layout of the catacombs-use it! His biggest weakness will always be ranged attacks; he should choose his battlefield so that, after his spring attack, he's around a corner or somesuch, if possible.

If he can't do that, he has one primary target: the wizard. Everyone else has to make attack rolls and risk his Deflect Arrows against their ranged attacks. The wizard is much more dangerous (despite the monk's good saves). Also, the wizard will have a poor Fortitude save-take advantage of that by using Stunning Fist before he springs away.

Along the lines of the 'broken floors' suggestion, obstacles will be the monk's friends. Pits and/or barricades that he can leap, ladders & staircases, narrow spaces-all of these slow pursuit and spread out the enemies, both of which will enhance his ability to use hit & run tactics.

Finally, if he's ever stuck (hopefully briefly) in one spot & is using full attacks, here's a good rule of thumb about when to use Flurry of Blows: use Flurry of Blows. The math has been posted in the past on this forum, but the upshot is that flurrying is nearly always at least as good, and often better, than making the normal attacks. It's usually best in the heat of combat not to try to think too much about it, but just to focus on taking down the opposition & fighting your way out of the corner you're in.


----------



## Zog (Aug 8, 2002)

Just a note as for the posted monk - 

His BAB is actually 7/4 - using the improved iterative attacks monks get.  Or 5/5/2 with flurry.

If he used weapon finesse instead of focus, it would increase by another 1 - focus gives his a +1, dex 16 = +3 vs str 13 = +1.


For equipment did you really spend all of the cash?  I don't recall prices,but you seem a bit light - make it bracers of AC 1, drop a potion or two, and add Item of +2 dex.  Which gives him the same AC, but another +1 to hit with finesse.  (I don't recall the price of AC +2 bracers - 4k is the cost for gloves of dex +2, potion of endurance is 500 I think...)   If there is money left over, try something like a potion of darkvision - make the party drop/loose light sources.  Or a ring of jumping if there is rough terrain or any small crevasses that could be avoided to aid in those hit and run tactics.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that you should mention this, since it's exactly one of my reasons for taking Escape Artist. There are a LOT of things that can try to swallow you, or constrict you, both of which are generally perceived as bad by the target.




I find it interesting you keep mentioning escape artist.  It isn't useful at all against grappling attacks unless you spend a lot of points on it.  It is a great skill for a rogue, pretty iffy for a monk, IMO.  If monks were indeed superior unarmed and grappling combatants it seems like you would be paying a premium for redundant abilities.




> And again, you're spending a feat or two with your fighter or barbarian to go outside his area of expertise to TRY and catch up with the monk. You won't be grappling anything that's immune to subdual, that's for sure.




Of course not.  I plan on using my sword.  The unarmed feats are in case...gremlins invade the princess' debutante ball or somesuch.  Try and catch up?  I think I have succeeded.




> I really wish you'd stop making these unfair comparisons where one characters gets a buff spell, potion or item the other one doesn't. It doesn't make sense. You have to compare on even grounds. Would I compare a 32-point buy monk to your 25-point buy fighter? No. So don't do it with magic either.




Unfair?  Nonsense.  

Str is the usual primary stat for fighters and barbarians.  It is perfectly fair to assume they put great effort into pumping it up.  It would be silly for _you_ to assume the monk's Str increases much over the same period; your monk is spending cash on Wis and Dex and probably Con.  Granted, the monk's Str could be higher, but on the balance a 22 Str for a 12thish level fighter is conservative.  I could very easily justify a higher value washing away the effect of whatever Str increase you think the monk should have had, making your complaint moot.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> I still suspect they'd get rolled fast because 1) the Monks wouldnt have the flexibility the party has, 2) Monks suck.  ;-) *




Monks at 7th level are playable as PCs because of the synergy of Stun with sneak attacks, and other good teamwork tactics.  Alone he is pretty hopeless.

Hmm...maybe you should add a handful of 3rd level rogues, monks, and rogue/monks to help this NPC out?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Zog said:
			
		

> *Just a note as for the posted monk -
> 
> His BAB is actually 7/4 - using the improved iterative attacks monks get.  Or 5/5/2 with flurry.
> 
> ...




The weapon finesse and bab are a good call.  But how far are the monk likers here going to max out this NPC?  I would wish he could shadow the PCs by wall, or had more range (slippers of spider climb, boots of striding and sprining) but if you keep optimizing this character you will find something to kill the party with.  The question is about a general monk, not a super-duper min-max monk.


----------



## Christian (Aug 8, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *Str is the usual primary stat for fighters and barbarians.  It is perfectly fair to assume they put great effort into pumping it up.  It would be silly for you to assume the monk's Str increases much over the same period; your monk is spending cash on Wis and Dex and probably Con.  *




Maybe some monks do that ... my monk's highest attribute was Strength, I put his 4th level attribute point into it and was planning to but the subsequent bonus points there as well. If you're wanting an effective combat monk, there's no better choice ... I think most players don't do that because (a) they're overwhelmed by the thought of the monk's low AC, and (b) the monk 'image' doesn't include 'big muscular guy'. But the fact is, monks get lots of attacks, and the flurry of blows compares favorably to 2WF in that the full strength bonus applies to the extra attack. This makes strength _more_ useful to combat monks than to fighter-types.

IMHO, of course. But also IME-ol' Zanthater sometimes shocked the other PC's (and even the DM) with the amount of damage he could deal out. 3d8+9 is pretty significant at 6th level-and happened considerably more often than the fighter critical hitting with his battleaxe.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 8, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Monks at 7th level are playable as PCs because of the synergy of Stun with sneak attacks, and other good teamwork tactics.  Alone he is pretty hopeless.
> 
> Hmm...maybe you should add a handful of 3rd level rogues, monks, and rogue/monks to help this NPC out? *




One more time, this is not mean to kill the PCs.  One lvl 7 monk is a CR 7.  If this challenges the party, maybe I will change my stance that monks suck.  Watching 5 monks who are set up, know the terrain, and optimized kill my hapless party wouldn't be a fair test, IMO.

I asked the followers of this thread if they could create a monk to challenge the party.  Adding rogues just makes the rogues look good and make the monk a support character, which is why they suck.  This monk is alone to show if monks can hold their own in a difficult situation (not a direct brawl).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 8, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> One more time, this is not mean to kill the PCs.  One lvl 7 monk is a CR 7.  If this challenges the party, maybe I will change my stance that monks suck.  Watching 5 monks who are set up, know the terrain, and optimized kill my hapless party wouldn't be a fair test, IMO.
> 
> I asked the followers of this thread if they could create a monk to challenge the party.  Adding rogues just makes the rogues look good and make the monk a support character, which is why they suck.  This monk is alone to show if monks can hold their own in a difficult situation (not a direct brawl). *




Yeah.  Good points.

I somehow suspect the monk will prove less of a problem that a CR 7 Hill Giant would to the same party.  Giving the monk a significant edge based on knowledge of a favorable terrain also would make this an EL 8, to my view.


----------



## wolff96 (Aug 8, 2002)

For the monk posted earlier...  He's not really all that min-maxed. You could make him a lot meaner.

The +7/+4 is a good catch. I'm too used to statting up people on the normal attack progression, I guess...  

As to the BAB -- yes, he would be a bit tougher if you swap out the Weapon Focus for Weapon Finesse. Since I can't count (I was thinking he got TWO stat increases, though at 7 he gets only one),  I was intending to have a 14 STR. Since that dropped down, Weapon Finesse is a better choice.

As to the potions, I just took a relatively standard suite for a monk. Replacing one potion with a potion of Greater Magic Fang would be a good idea.

I set out to post a pretty "normal" monk. I didn't want to really min-max it; after all, any class will look good in specific situations if you really go all out to make it good in that one instance.


----------



## Guilt Puppy (Aug 8, 2002)

Replying to the topic of the thread (as opposed to the eight pages of circular arguments), in my experience monks are every bit as effective and useful as any other class, all things considered.

In combat: Not as effective as the fighter-types. Monks are not fighter types. What they do have, however, is enough protection (saving throws, healing, adequate hit die, et cetera) to _survive_ on the front lines while still doing something. Can't say the same for rogues, who have to be careful and try to get in a few sneak attacks, or arcane casters, who just have to fly the hell out of there.

For sneaking/stealth: Not as effective as rogues. Again, they're not supposed to be. They can, however, maintain stealth alongside the rogues, and sneak on in to places where fighters, clerics, et cetera would never be able to go. And when they do run into traps and whatnot, they have evasion, and they have good saves all around. They can handle it.

For exploring/adventuring: Enough class skills to move around in tough terrain. Spot and Listen aren't class skills, but they should have a high wisdom, so they'll stand a chance at those checks.

And on... The point is, monks aren't a class that does one particular thing well -- rather, they're designed to be really damned versatile, and end up being at minor assets in any given situation. Further, they don't really have a weak point (as they're well-protected by their saves, and have a far lower reliance on items than any other class), so you know that whatever situation your party ends up in, the monk's always going to be able to contribute something.

Of course, this is all abstract. In the game I'm running, it's about what I see. All things considered, the monk has been the party's most effective player: They've yet to run into a situation where he's really failed to contribute.

In their current adventure, the party has been trying to gather information about a cult of evil monks. They've found this to be a particularly difficult task: Monks are tough bastards, their spellcasters can do little against them, it's hard to catch them by surprise... There's really not much you can do to gain the upper hand against them. What's worse, once you get into combat with them, one is always sure to escape, and there's not much you can do about it.


----------



## Villano (Aug 8, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Villano, I understand what you mean now. However, one of the monk prestige classes in OA gets buffs a certain amount of times per day, no? Would you be borrowing from that?
> 
> I still disagree with you, but I see where you're going with it, and it is logical. My idea of the monk is very different though. And this is where what hong said comes into play: everyone has a different idea of what the monk should do. Hence, problem. *





I had to look through my copy of OA twice to find the monk PrC you were referring to, the Shintao Monk and his Touch Of The Void Dragon ability (1d4+1 to 1 ability score 1 hr/level, once per day).

No, although similar to what I had in mind, I wasn't influenced by it (the fact is, since I'm not playing a monk in the current Rokugan game I'm in, I haven't read anything of the monk PrCs since I got the book...I'm a samurai, btw).

Truthfully, my idea is more expansive.  Not just stat boosts, but spider climb and such.  I just wanted to create a monk that can do the sort of wire-fu that Jet Li and the like can.  I don't think that this is out of line or too powerful since the party may have a barbarian who's eventually stronger than a giant.  

Now, as to address the problem of different ideas of what a monk should be.  Quite frankly, that's why I'd go with the bonus feats instead of a set of special abilities.  This way you can customize your monk to what you'd like.  You can go for stealth or power, weapons or grappling.

This would also simulate the different styles of martial arts.  No one would confuse wushu with judo.  If no two martial art styles are the same, then why are all monks?

3E gives you the choice with fighters to make a heavily armored, battle axe weilding tank, an archer, or a finessed swashbuckler.  I just think that the same option should exist for monks.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2002)

First of all, listen is a class skill.

Second, I think the monk is fine as is, I too would add stuff if given the chance (but I think my list is much much shorter thanmost I have seen here).

Third, I accept the challenge.  A lone (that means no henchmen) level 7 monk to challenge a party of 5 th level PCs.  The only question is:  do I equip him as a PC or as an NPC?


g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> ......
> 
> Now, as to address the problem of different ideas of what a monk should be.  Quite frankly, that's why I'd go with the bonus feats instead of a set of special abilities.  This way you can customize your monk to what you'd like.  You can go for stealth or power, weapons or grappling.
> ...




I would much agree with a more customizable monk.  But I also don't think that many of the standard spells work well for the monk.  Spider climb, probably.  Haste, maybe.  anything evoke? no.  illussion: not really.  Maybe a host of new spells, or paladin spells cross over.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 9, 2002)

The only problem I see with that encounter is that ANY level 7 character would be fairly easy for a level 5 party to destroy. I've yet to see a situation where WotC's incredibly illogical NPC level-to-CR conversion works, and even with the handicap you've given the character, it's to be expected that he would lose (so would a level 7 barb, IMHO, but that's beside the point).

Likewise, I would never expect a level 5 (or level 7) character to take on a Troll.



> Unfair? Nonsense.
> 
> Str is the usual primary stat for fighters and barbarians. It is perfectly fair to assume they put great effort into pumping it up. It would be silly for you to assume the monk's Str increases much over the same period; your monk is spending cash on Wis and Dex and probably Con. Granted, the monk's Str could be higher, but on the balance a 22 Str for a 12thish level fighter is conservative. I could very easily justify a higher value washing away the effect of whatever Str increase you think the monk should have had, making your complaint moot.




No, it was unfair in that you said the barbarian had a further bonus from a buff spell or potion, but you forgot to give the monk one. That makes a difference too.

I guess it's pointless to argue now. If you believe the monk sucks that adamantly, I don't expect to convince you at this point 

Which is fine really. Leaves more monks for me to play!

But as for the important point here, namely the upcoming encounter, I strongly suggest that a character's level never, EVER be considered equivalent to his CR. I think Ridley's Cohort is right in that a Hill Giant is a more likely CR 7.

I think maybe two or three level 5 monks would prove a more accurate CR 7, and even then I'd find it low-challenge. If a level 5 party is normally able to take on a CR 5 without trouble, why is a level 5 character considered to be that same power level? It just doesn't make sense.

PS: One last point I forgot to mention: I don't believe that monks are the "kings of grapplers" when compared to monsters! Monsters are an entirely different matter. Now if you make a Balor monk...


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *First of all, listen is a class skill.
> 
> Second, I think the monk is fine as is, I too would add stuff if given the chance (but I think my list is much much shorter thanmost I have seen here).
> 
> ...




yes, listen is class skill, but he probably just made a simple mistake.

As for your assertion that a monk is a perfectly viable class as is: we shall see.  I have a fealing the monk previously posted will get slautered by the party in my game.  If you have any ideas on this, feal free to post them.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *The only problem I see with that encounter is that ANY level 7 character would be fairly easy for a level 5 party to destroy. I've yet to see a situation where WotC's incredibly illogical NPC level-to-CR conversion works, and even with the handicap you've given the character, it's to be expected that he would lose (so would a level 7 barb, IMHO, but that's beside the point).
> 
> Likewise, I would never expect a level 5 (or level 7) character to take on a Troll.
> 
> ...




Any class, at level 7, should be a fight the PCs will win but with some costs.  If monk is really as good as you say he is, then a monk lvl 7 should be able to inflict some real damage, just like a lvl 7 barbarian would, before dropping or running.  The hill giant they just fought leveled every character that didn't die.  That was a good challenge.  The point of the CR system isn't to kill players, it is to challenge them.

This is not a debate of the CR system.  I can think of several classes, at level 7, that could challenge the party.  Wizard had just gotten 4th level spells.  Ditto cleric.  Fighters, well, fight, and from the rest of this thread they do it better than monks.  Barbarians are just damage machines.  Rogue could sneak them to death.  What can a monk do?  Other have said hit and fade, so we shall see.  

If you don't think this a fair test, tell me.  Who knows, maybe I'll wonder down to GenCon and see if I can't recruit a few volenteers to test this theory.  But I planning the formal test for my next game session on the 17th.


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

*Trolling for feedback*

On that note . . . 

Would anyone here be interested in seeing a monk class that was forbidden from using magic items (or having beneficial spells cast on him)? 

I've always hated two things about the 3E monk. The first was that they should preferably be bodybuilders . . . the 1E monk didn't apply his Strength damage bonus to melee strikes, and as stupid as that sounds, it was neat. 

Doesn't work like that in 3E, obviously -- gotta have the muscles to be useful.

The second thing is the fact that a monk needs to load up on magic items -- ESPECIALLY Bracers of Armor -- to be useful. My vision of the monk isn't someone that needs his Amulet of Natural Armor and Belt of the Monk and Boots of Striding and Springing and Belt of Giant Strength and etc. etc. etc. in order to be effective for his level. 

This is, in a word, silly. Yes, it's very 3E . . . but just doesn't have that monkly feel, y'know? 

If you're interested, lemme know, and I'll send you a couple .rtf files. Looking for feedback, but it's not in an ideal format to post here.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 9, 2002)

monk 7th level.  human. 30 point buy, 4th level increase str.

  str 16(18) dex 14 con 14 int 12 wis 14(16) chr 8.
  HP 49  AC 15(16)  AB +12/9 or flurry +10/+10/+7, stunning blow fort save DC 16(mage meat)(AB assumes uses potion magic fang)  movement  80 or 100 now with striding springing? damage 1d8+7.
  feats doge, mobility, spring attack, improved initiative.
  skills hide/sneak +12/+12 tumble/escape artist +10/+10 jump+10/ rest skills not important for the fight.
  items potion greater magic fang +3, gloves of str+2, boots sriding springing combined elven kind, cloak elven kind, amulet +2 wis.  

  tactics are simple its his terain so he sets up the ambushes, unless the party can spot or listen in the 30's he gets surprise, he spring attacks gets out of sight then hides.  He follows party until guard dropped(no more apparent readied acitons) wash and repeat.  If there are traps like pit traps in the place he does a spring attack and leads the party to the trap, hopefully leaping over it before the party comes around the corner.  If he is still in sight they will likely be so frustrated by now that they will charge without looking for traps.
   If the party is in the pit trap the mage who likely is in the back and not charging ahead is now likely dead.  One stun and flurry later=ouch.


Someone more knowledgeable of grapple maybe can answer this.  Monk surprise round moves in for spring attack makes a grapple is it a full attack or not if only make one attempt, and not full bab attempt.  If you grapple someone can you move with them.  IOW could the monk jump in grab the mage and jump out in the surprise round.  It's just a guess but I bet the party would follow the monk if he was dragging the wiz around by the ankles.  If it is a full attack so can't be used with spring attack, anytime the monk rolls really well on initiative in the surprise round he might go for it anyways ciunting on getting 2 round sof acitons before the party moves to save him.


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *monk 7th level.  human. 30 point buy, 4th level increase str.
> 
> str 16(18) dex 14 con 14 int 12 wis 14(16) chr 8.
> HP 49  AC 15(16)  AB +12/9 or flurry +10/+10/+7, stunning blow fort save DC 16(mage meat)(AB assumes uses potion magic fang)  movement  80 or 100 now with striding springing? damage 1d8+7.
> ...




Is it just me, or could you give the exact same (cheaty) collection of magic items to a barbarian and have him do far, far more damage? Sure, the Hide skill checks will be a few points lower, but the damage will be 2d6+10 (assume a Potion of Bull's Strength gives him +4 to strength, and he starts at 18, with a +1 Greatsword). 

d8+7 vs 2d6+10. Attack bonus of the barbarian will be better, too. And he'll have an AC that's at least as good. 

And he doesn't need to drink a 1350gp potion to do the job. 

Yeah, that's one rockin' monk you have there. 

Incidentally, how did you buy all that crap?
You have 19k to spend.

Amulet Wisdom: 4k
Gloves Strength: 4k
Boots Striding: 6.5k
Potion Fang +3: 1,350gp
Cloak, Boots: 4k

You're over.


(My proposed buy for 7th level barb, ability raise into Str)
Str 18, Con 14, Dex 14, Int 10, Wis 11, Chr 8)

+1 Greatsword for 2k
Potion of Bull's Strength for 300gp
Cloak Elvenkind: 2k
Boots: 6.5k

Save 7k for a rainy day. (Something to help with saves?)

Assuming I get a +4 on the potion, my attack bonus and damage is going to kick the monk's sorry ass. My AC is as good, my hp are far better. The only place I'm losing is having only half the ranks in Tumble and Hide . . . but those are hardly going to be as crucial.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *monk 7th level.  human. 30 point buy, 4th level increase str.
> 
> str 16(18) dex 14 con 14 int 12 wis 14(16) chr 8.
> HP 49  AC 15(16)  AB +12/9 or flurry +10/+10/+7, stunning blow fort save DC 16(mage meat)(AB assumes uses potion magic fang)  movement  80 or 100 now with striding springing? damage 1d8+7.
> ...




I am with forrester here.  I think you are pushing it.  

First, items.  The "gloves +2 str" should be "gauntlets of ogre power", but it is just a name.  Next, you assume you can combine magic effects on items.  This is the same as the magic brass knuckles idea.  If it isn't published, then it is not available.  That asside, the second power is double price (Tome and Blood, pg 79, **note).  Also, potion of magic fang isn't really published, but I don't want to nitpick too much.  After all, this monk is obviously friends with the elves.

The full spread:

potion greater magic fang +3,                         1350
gloves of str+2,                                               4000
boots sriding springing combined elven kind, 10500 (6.5K + 2K*2)
cloak elven kind,                                               2000
amulet +2 wis.                                                 4000

total cost: 21,850.  With that much, I could hire a much higher level mercenary and kill all the PCs.  wolff96 made what looked like a fleshed out monk on 7200, the proper amount for an NPC of that level.  At the very most, the PC total of 19000 is the top.

Next, lets talk skills.  You claim to ignore "anything not important".  So this monk will ignore any advance scout the PCs send out?  He obviously is only trying to beat things up.  Remember, he is only trying to protect an item, not kill.  A bard in his place might try to scare the PCs away, but only chose what a monk can do worse than a fighter: fight.

As far as your resulting skill totals, you obviously didn't figure in the cloak and boots of elvenkind.  Strange, as you figured the _temperary_ potion effects into the attack.  I think listen, diplomacy, and swim could all be applied here.  Hell, you might get funky and use profession: sieg engineer.

His move is 100 or 50.  I have no idea where 80 came from.  With the boots, it is 100.

Your tatics section is also lacking.  In a catacomb, is there always a place to hide?  With the dead bodies?  His hide results are 23+, not 30+.  His average is over 30, but that doesn't mean too much.  How would this character use pit traps?  Jump over them, then taunt the opposition?  How is he going to deal with ranged characters?  What kind of terrain would he use? How?

Overall, you tried to make a combat monster that should be a rogue by his tatics.  Why make him a monk?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the grapple question, you can not spring attack in a surprize round because you don't have a full action, you have a partial action.  Also, I am fairly certain you can not move while grappling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A general comment, Mr. O'Glase.  Please use puctuation.  If you are asking a question, end the question with "?".  Please place periods at the ends of each of your thoughts.  I had a hard time understanding your questions.

None of this response is intended to be mean, only to constructively point out flaws.


----------



## Johno (Aug 9, 2002)

My experience as a DM with the monk: 

The rest of the party was a Cleric of Obad-Hai, a Rogue, and a Ranger/Barbarian, and a Wizard. 

The monk was very cool, often scouting ahead together with the rogue, providing him with a certain amount of backup should he get involved in a fight ahead of the rest. Both Tumbled around the battlefield causing much havoc.

I don't think the monk ever felt "useless". His high mobility enabled him to take advantage when distant enemies were _held_.

Both the monk and the rogue complained about lack of Strength.  Both were a highly efficient team.

The most useless character was the Ranger/Barbarian. 

This was until about 5th level, when they suffered almost TPK; only the rogue survived. The monk failed a _Hold Person_ save and suffered the ignoble CDG death in the Moathouse (RttTEE). His failed save was probably the linch pin in what was the collapse of the party as an effective fighting force. 

We used a 32 point buy.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 9, 2002)

> Is it just me, or could you give the exact same (cheaty) collection of magic items to a barbarian and have him do far, far more damage?




I had the same thought.  Its not the Monk thats cool here; its any character with 18STR, magic Boots and Spring Attack.  

Not to say that the Monk doesnt have advantages here; but a lot of them aren't exactly back-breaking.  Monk moves 100', Barbarian moves 80'.  Whee.  Tumble is cross-class for the Barbarian.  OK.  And so on.  So is it the Monk being cool or the Boots being cool?

I guess we'd find out the answer when the party kills the Monk and takes his Boots.  ;-)



> The only problem I see with that encounter is that ANY level 7 character would be fairly easy for a level 5 party to destroy.




I agree with this.  

I suggested 5 level 5 Monks; which is (I think) CR9+; probably too much if you dont want it to be a climactic do-or-die fight.  Three level 5 Monks is CR7+; I bet they would be a little more durable than the lone level 7'er.  

Still, at level 5 the movement is unexceptional (40') and all the goodies that Monk fans seem to love are not yet available (Improved Trip etc.)   

Perhaps two level 6 Monks at CR8?  I really really dont think that two level 6 Monks can pose much of a threat; but I guess that extends to most classes.  Its sort of separate from the issue of Monks sucking.  (Which they still do. ;-)


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 9, 2002)

Yes, my entire point on the question of the encounter was a level 7 character is a poor CR 7.

Have any level 7 character solo a Hill Giant, and the odds are generally in favour of the Giant. A character is generally not able to beat an encounter of a level equal to his own alone. It's extreme luck if he wins. My group and I tested many level 4 characters in single combat against a Minotaur, for example. Then a Carrion Crawler. Unless a spellcaster gets initiative, he's toast; if he does, he has about a 1-in-3 chance, I figure. Maybe less. And since your odds of winning decrease with the number of opponents...

Still, I'd love to see someone make a level 5 character that can take down a Troll all by his lonesome 

I find that the best way to challenge my group is to have many lower-level opponents; otherwise, they gang up and bash. Two level 6 monks would make for a more challenging battle (depending on party status--you said they were injured already?).

And finally, yes, Boots of Striding and Springing benefit EVERYONE fairly equally, since more movement = good. Ki Straps are a much more monk-oriented item, and very useful at lower levels.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2002)

I will make three monks, take your pick, or better yet throw them against your party individually.

I will equip them as PCs with 19,000gp of stuff. (unless someone tells me different).

g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I had the same thought.  Its not the Monk thats cool here; its any character with 18STR, magic Boots and Spring Attack.
> 
> ...




Hmm, I seem to be out voted on the subject of how many monks to use.  This is kinda funny, as it is my game , but maybe I'll change my mind yet.  Here is my thinking:

If the monk class is viable as a fun class in D&D, I believe there are some points the class needs, same as any class.  The first and formost is "ability to be heroic".  Without this, no class can be generally considered fun.  Even in Tome and Blood, when talking about spell selection, they say you could be very usefull to the party with spells like teleport, but that just wouldn't be much fun.

The reason I originally said 1 level 7 monk is to answer the question: are monk's just support characters?  A pair of monks are just supporting each other, and only shows that monks work well in groups.  To be fun, I think the monk needs to be able to stand alone first.  A cleric, wizard, or rogue all could.  Even a bard could do a passable job in this case.  What can a lone monk do?

I know that a well played group of any 5 5th level characters would kill most of the PCs, because the NPCs can be min-maxed for this situation, I can make sure they work together, and they are set for the PCs.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Yes, my entire point on the question of the encounter was a level 7 character is a poor CR 7.
> 
> Have any level 7 character solo a Hill Giant, and the odds are generally in favour of the Giant. A character is generally not able to beat an encounter of a level equal to his own alone. It's extreme luck if he wins. My group and I tested many level 4 characters in single combat against a Minotaur, for example. Then a Carrion Crawler. Unless a spellcaster gets initiative, he's toast; if he does, he has about a 1-in-3 chance, I figure. Maybe less. And since your odds of winning decrease with the number of opponents...
> 
> ...




A CR7 means an even challenge for a *party* of 7th level.  This has nothing to do with a character at level X in a one-on-one with a monster of CR X.  Could the hill giant sneak into a camp and steal an item undected?  D&D isn't always about combat.  A rogue that keeps sneak attacking the party could do just as much damage as the hill giant (maybe more), just in a different way.

CR is not Character Level Equivilant.  It is a Challenge Rating.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 9, 2002)

> A CR7 means an even challenge for a party of 7th level. This has nothing to do with a character at level X in a one-on-one with a monster of CR X. Could the hill giant sneak into a camp and steal an item undected? D&D isn't always about combat. A rogue that keeps sneak attacking the party could do just as much damage as the hill giant (maybe more), just in a different way.
> 
> CR is not Character Level Equivilant. It is a Challenge Rating.




My point exactly, which is why I think a level 7 monk should not be considered CR 7. A CR 7 creature should be on a relatively equal basis with another CR 7 creature, which a single character never is.


----------



## Hejdun (Aug 9, 2002)

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> On the grapple question, you can not spring attack in a surprize round because you don't have a full action, you have a partial action. Also, I am fairly certain you can not move while grappling.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> A general comment, Mr. O'Glase. Please use puctuation. If you are asking a question, end the question with "?". Please place periods at the ends of each of your thoughts. I had a hard time understanding your questions.




I don't know about you, but I've seen far worse spelling and punctuation (or lack there-of) on the internet before.  I personally had no trouble understanding what he was saying.  If you are going to nit pick about English, that's a fairly odd example, in my not-so-humble opinion.  I would personally save my breath for the people who post like this:

"hel0 guyz this iz my 1firstest post and i wanna know do u think this feat over powerz the otherz plz respond yo"


----------



## Cheiromancer (Aug 9, 2002)

I think it is well worth the time to pay attention to grammar and spelling. At least if you want people to pay attention to you.

There are, as a matter of fact, some posters on these boards whom I routinely ignore because their grammar and spelling is atrocious.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *The party is a centar ranger/fighter 4, human wiz 6, human bard/barbiarian/rogue/royal explorer 6, monk/fighter 5, human rogue 5.  *




I've got a few of questions concerning this party, sorry if any of these seem stupid:

1.  Is this a 5th level party?  Although I see a 4th level character I see two 6th characters along with two 5th level characters.

2.  I thought CR's were based for 4 member parties?  I see 5 here. 

3.  Not that it matters much (except in feats and skill points) but what race is the monk/fighter 5 (or did I miss that in a post somewhere)?

Or am I just being stupid/ignorant concerning CR's here?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> *I think it is well worth the time to pay attention to grammar and spelling. At least if you want people to pay attention to you.
> 
> There are, as a matter of fact, some posters on these boards whom I routinely ignore because their grammar and spelling is atrocious. *




It's not the worse, but I was on a role nitpicking, so I just kinda spilled over.  There were some good comments and thoughts in the post (boots of elven striding and springing) so I didn't want to ignore it.  Also, it is important to know that you are doing something wrong so you can fix it.  (see "rouge" post a few pages back)


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> My point exactly, which is why I think a level 7 monk should not be considered CR 7. A CR 7 creature should be on a relatively equal basis with another CR 7 creature, which a single character never is. *




What the two do to the party should be on relatively equal basis.  There are other CR7 monsters that aren't nearly as good at smashing as the hill giant, but they still challenge the party in a relatively similar mannor.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Alaric_Prympax said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I've got a few of questions concerning this party, sorry if any of these seem stupid:
> 
> ...



The average is 5.2 for the whole party.  Since the lvl 4 is a human reincarnated as a centar, maybe I should raise the average a bit.  But, yes, this is a "5th level party", APL 5


> *
> 2.  I thought CR's were based for 4 member parties?  I see 5 here.
> *



As the CR system was explained to me, it is based on a 4-7 member group.  That was the standard size in the "offical" campaigns of Living City and Living Greyhawk.


> *
> 3.  Not that it matters much (except in feats and skill points) but what race is the monk/fighter 5 (or did I miss that in a post somewhere)?
> *



I don't think it matters much, but he is human.  For the record, that player doesn't think much of monks either.


> *
> Or am I just being stupid/ignorant concerning CR's here?
> *



I am starting to think no one here understands the CR system the same.  I think I understand it, but others seem to disagree


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A CR7 means an even challenge for a party of 7th level.  This has nothing to do with a character at level X in a one-on-one with a monster of CR X.  Could the hill giant sneak into a camp and steal an item undected?  D&D isn't always about combat.  A rogue that keeps sneak attacking the party could do just as much damage as the hill giant (maybe more), just in a different way.
> 
> CR is not Character Level Equivilant.  It is a Challenge Rating. *




In a word, "No". 

Also, "No, no, no, and no." 

A CR7 is *not* an even challenge for a 7th level party. It is a challenge that is supposed to consume approximately one quarter of the party's resources. 

In essence, CR *is* roughly "Character level equivalent" in terms of strength.

This means that yes, combat-oriented characters of 7th level should be able to take on a Hill Giant. Luckily, they CAN. 

I will put up the 7th level fighter/barbarian mix character of a player in my campaign against a Hill Giant any day of the week. After raging and a potion of Bull's Strength he's got about +16 to hit and is doing about 23 points of damage a swing, not to mention about 70hp of his own. I think Mr. Hill Giant is going to be given a run for his money. 

A 7th level mage can get off a Hold or Charm Monster to take care of the problem, or cast Fly and then blast his target with Enervates or summoned monsters. 

A 7th level combat cleric/meat shield might be able to hold his own, but he'd have a tougher time. But he's not "meant" to do well alone. 

Ditto for Mr. Troll; I'd put a well-equipped 5th level fighter (who carries around a few flasks of Alchemist's Fire) against a Troll, and expect (narrow) victory about half the time. 

The CR system works, people.


----------



## Villano (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I would much agree with a more customizable monk.  But I also don't think that many of the standard spells work well for the monk.  Spider climb, probably.  Haste, maybe.  anything evoke? no.  illussion: not really.  Maybe a host of new spells, or paladin spells cross over. *




Well, since the "supernatural" abilites of a monk wouldn't come into play until higher levels, you wouldn't need that many of them.  The monk's spell list would be about equal in length to the ranger and paladin.

Just off-hand, I can think of bull strength, cat's grace, haste, feather fall, jump, freedom of movement, spider climb, and pass without a trace. 

Magic fang seems like a natural.

You can add air walk for a true Tsui Hark wire-fu effect.  Blur might possibly work, too.

And don't forget about physical enhancement spells that are aimed at durability and endurance, such as endure elements, negative energy protection, and resistance.

Since the monk can heal his own wounds, regenerate might be a good, high-level spell.

There are also a lot of spells which would work very well with the monk's enhanced mental abilities.  Darkvision, screen, nondection, undectable alignment, true seeing, and see invisibility.  Invisibility to undead might work, too.

And, since monks are known for their unarmed combat, a few touch attack spells would work really nice.  Ghoul touch seems in line with other monk paralyzing feats and abilities found in the PHB and OA.

I think if you go through the spell list in the PHB, it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a good, ranger-length list.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Villano said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Well, since the "supernatural" abilites of a monk wouldn't come into play until higher levels, you wouldn't need that many of them.  The monk's spell list would be about equal in length to the ranger and paladin.
> 
> ...




All good spells, that work well with the monk.  I guess I was a bit hasty, thinking of only flashy mage-type stuff.  I don't think that spells are a great rout though for customizing.  High level monks tend to be pretty jiggy already.  If you did go with spells, some of the higher level stuff should be spells.  Also, I don't think of monks using material components.

Having a series of feats for higher level abilities would be a better rout, so you don't suppercharge the monk.

On a side note: has anyone ever tried a monk sorrcer, specializing in the things a monk does but with some magic?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In a word, "No".
> 
> ...




I did not mean even as in "kills the party 50% of the time".  I meant an encounter that the PCs wouldn't just blow off (5 goblins) or get TPKed by (great wrym red dragon).  You are right on with the "use 1/4 of the parties resources."

In my personal experience a brute monster is better than the average brute PC in terms of head to head, but YMMV.  The PC will tend to use tatics to level the playing field though.  A min-maxed PC is a much different story.

I only was trying to say that the CR 7 and the Lvl 7 will do roughly the same amount of damage to the party.  Or would, if monks didn't suck.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> In a word, "No".
> 
> ...




I agree - as per the DMG, a 7th level character-class NPC is CR 7, ie about equal a threat as a CR 7 hill giant (give or take about 25%, the 'graininess' of the CR system).  I've seen a 7th level Sorcerer PC haste up and take down a hill giant akmost single handed, it's certainly possible.  Of course some MM CRs are a bit low - I raised ogres to CR 3 and (eventually) Ettins to CR 6 for my lowish-magic game, equally Succubi at CR 9 are too high, I lowered them to CR 7, same as erinyes.  But in principle it stands.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree - as per the DMG, a 7th level character-class NPC is CR 7, ie about equal a threat as a CR 7 hill giant (give or take about 25%, the 'graininess' of the CR system).  I've seen a 7th level Sorcerer PC haste up and take down a hill giant akmost single handed, it's certainly possible.  Of course some MM CRs are a bit low - I raised ogres to CR 3 and (eventually) Ettins to CR 6 for my lowish-magic game, equally Succubi at CR 9 are too high, I lowered them to CR 7, same as erinyes.  But in principle it stands. *




Ok, so do you think a 7th level monk could face a hill giant?


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, so do you think a 7th level monk could face a hill giant? *




With spring attack, boots of striding and springing, maxed out Tumble, and a wide open space?

You bet.  It would just take him a _ long _ time.

Unless Hill Giants have some method of healing themsleves I can't remember.....


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Oops!  You asked if a monk could *  face  * a Hill Giant.  Definitely!

And my post above refers to his chances of defeating said Hill Giant.

Edited to add bold and italics


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, so do you think a 7th level monk could face a hill giant? *




Being without books here, if you post the stats for the hill giant, I will try to answer that question.

Without that I would have to say "maybe".

g!


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

I can't get the formatting to work properly (ug, sometimes the SRD makes me grumpy), so here's the link.

You'll have to scroll down to the Giant part.

SRD Hill Giant


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 9, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> With spring attack, boots of striding and springing, maxed out Tumble, and a wide open space?
> 
> ...




LOL.

First of all, the hill giant will know to ready an action once you pulled that trick on him once.  Second of all, he stands a good chance of killing you with thrown rocks without even bothering to use tactics.

Your 7th level monk averages 43 HPs with a 14 Con.  You will drop on the 3rd or 4th boulder.  That can happen on round 2 if he rolls well.  You are dead on the 3rd or 4th round if his luck is average.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> With spring attack, boots of striding and springing, maxed out Tumble, and a wide open space?
> 
> ...




I would think the giant would crush the monk with thrown rocks, or charge attack.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> LOL.
> 
> ...






The Giant can ready an action all he wants!  The monk (of all the classes, IMO), can take advantage of uneven terrrain to make it more difficult for the giant to target and hit him.  Plus, the monk can fight defensively and maybe "expertisely", which, while it will reduce his chances of hitting, will greatly reduce his chances of getting hit.

I think a smart player (or better yet, a smart character) can defeat this Hill Giant.  It may not be easy, but I think he can do it.

Another option would be Shot on the Run and Zen Archery if required with a Longbow (if proficient).

In a 1-on-1 fight with a Giant, the monk's heightened mobility would be a huge asset.   If there are wooded areas, the monk would be able to duck in and out of the brush to attack the giant from a place where he cannot launch boulders, etc.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now I know you don't know what you are talking about.  The giant has +16 to hit, at 2d6+10.  The giant is going to hit you if you spring attack.  The giant is goining to hurt you more than you hurt him.  The giant has more hp than you, by over 100%.  You are clearly out matched in melee.

In missle combat, the monk more than sucks.  A bow would require a diffent class or elf.  You sure aren't going to use shuriken   If you fire a bow, the giant has rocks.  He hits better, has more range, does more damage, and has more HP to soak your hits.  The giant wins this as well.  

(edit) There is no way for a straight monk to do Zen Archary, Shot on the Run, and have bow proficiency.

It doesn't look like the beating the giant with your monk would be hard, it looks impossible.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Thank you for the offhand insult.   It's nice to know how you respond to differing opinions.  Which is what this is.  A different opinion.  Since I refernced the stat block, clearly I know what teh giant is capable of, so your ignorant comment about me "not knowing what I'm talking about" is clearly incorrect.

Anyway...

A Hill Giant has an Int of 6.  An average monk will have a higher intelligence.  Given the monk's high mobility, the ability to escape if necessary, the fact that a monk does NOT "suck" at ranged weapons, if required, and the higher intelligence, I think a smart character and/or player should be able to defeat a Hill Giant in single combat.

The Monk is not a fighter.  Don't play him like one.  Use the monk's strengths like mobility and stealth.  Use terrrain to your advantage.  Retreat, hide, and attack again.  Play a war of attrition.  Fight a guerrila battle.

If all your monks are dumbasses, then yeah, you have no chance.  If you play a monk correctly, instead of a fighter who can punch, I still maintain you can beat a Hill Giant.

I welcome any intelligent, constructive comments.


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *
> The Monk is not a fighter.  Don't play him like one.  Use the monk's strengths like mobility and stealth.  Use terrrain to your advantage.  Retreat, hide, and attack again.  Play a war of attrition.  Fight a guerrila battle.
> 
> If all your monks are dumbasses, then yeah, you have no chance.  If you play a monk correctly, instead of a fighter who can punch, I still maintain you can beat a Hill Giant.
> ...




Comment #1: Spring attack w/Boots of Cheat is about a lame as you can get. Again, a Barbarian with this combo could whup the Hill Giant in about half the time . . . or he could just walk up to him and beat the crap out of him. 

Your monk is going to take *FOREVER* to kill this guy! Even when you hit, you're doing a lousy 12pts of damage, on average, and you're not hitting all the time. The Hill Giant is going to make mincemeat out of you with readied actions . . yes, I suppose you can cower and hide during that time. 

How long do you want to take to kill this guy, anyway? Ten minutes? Twenty? An hour? That's not very realistic. 

Comment #2: Most people don't want to play a monk because they'd like to play a guerilla warrior who prefers wussy tactics. Going by the rules, yes, a monk profits most when he uses such tactics, especially if he is wearing Boots of Cheat. 

But I know when I say "Monk!" most people don't think of someone who runs up, hits someone, and then runs away. 

Unfortunately, that's pretty much the only way a 3E monk can survive unless he's got a 40pt buy.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2002)

Without weighing in on the who insulted whom and when part of this discussion.

I would say that the only way the monk could win was with spring attack.

The monk has some advantages here.  

First, mobility.
Second, the Hill Giant has an Int of 6.


But the Hill giant's abilities are exactly counter to what the monk class does best.  The size difference makes trip and grapple attacks worthless.  The rocks ame deflect arrows useless.

I do not want these tests of monks to come down just to magic items,   But with spring attack, a ring of invisibility would allow a monk to run in attack, and run out, reactivate the ring, rinse, repeat.

But sine that tactic strikes me (maybe not you) as against the sprit of the discussion I would have to say that the numbers just favor the hill giant too much.

g!


----------



## Corinth (Aug 9, 2002)

If most players aren't willing to do what it takes to get the job done, then they deserve what they get for resorting to stupid tactics.  A monk vs. a hill giant should open with shuriken coated with poison that drains a physical stat.  A loss in any of those areas will improve the monk's odds considerably.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, so do you think a 7th level monk could face a hill giant? *




Well, yes.  If the Monk was a PC and was played like he was a hill giant - go up and bash face to face - the giant would squelch him, naturally.  But monks have a lot of advantages over hill giants, they can outwit, outsmart and outrun them, wear them down with hit & fade tactics, and so on.  The monks in my game never seemed underpowered - quite the opposite, most people IMC think they're overpowered, and that the fighters, barbarians, paladins & rangers are the 'weak' classes because they lack all those special powers.  Personally I find that monks are well-balanced; they can't do as much damage as fast as some other characters, but they are VERY good at doing more damage than they suffer, and surviving to fight another day - which in the long run is what counts.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2002)

A few potions/scrolls spells on the monk - as one would expect for a 7th level PC,going by core rules - he can fly out of reach of the giant, stoneskinned, probably improved invisible, and plink it with pebbles until it drops dead.  Of course, any other class can do this too.  A monk is clearly not optimised vs hill giants.  Neither is a rogue, given a 1-1 fight.  If you want to heroically kill giants in single combat, dwarf fighters or barbarians are pretty good.

Now, personally I would have assigned hill giants a CR higher than 7, I like low magic games and the CRs seem set for high magic, but given their severe limitations, not MUCH higher.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 9, 2002)

You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably _true_); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.

Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, _rules-related_ evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people.  Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.


----------



## Enkhidu (Aug 9, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people.  Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.  *




I think one of the problems is that the monk has a lot of "intangibles" that rely heavily on tactics. The synergy created by many of the monk abilities does actually pack more of a punch than the numbers seem to indicate (but then again the numbers can't really account for that synergy).


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people.  Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.  *




You would presumably admit that monks are good at not dying, due to great saves, movement, immunities, evasion abilities, etc?

In a tough game like mine, this means monks don't die as much as other characters.  So they live longer, get more XP, and get to high levels while the Fighters keep dying like flies.

The Monk players always seemed happy about this...


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *If most players aren't willing to do what it takes to get the job done, then they deserve what they get for resorting to stupid tactics.  A monk vs. a hill giant should open with shuriken coated with poison that drains a physical stat.  A loss in any of those areas will improve the monk's odds considerably. *




Hell yeah! MAKE that Giant make those Fort saves!

That'll show him!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Enkhidu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I think one of the problems is that the monk has a lot of "intangibles" that rely heavily on tactics. The synergy created by many of the monk abilities does actually pack more of a punch than the numbers seem to indicate (but then again the numbers can't really account for that synergy). *




But, you can measure synergy, there is a bonus for that  

In reality, you might have a point.  That is why I want to run a monk against a group of unsuspecting players and see how it pans out.  If the monk is just doing a specialized rogue job, maybe you could see that.  If a monk-on-party encounter shows the monk mixing it up in hand to hand and kicking butt, I will revise my views.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Comment #1: Spring attack w/Boots of Cheat is about a lame as you can get. Again, a Barbarian with this combo could whup the Hill Giant in about half the time . . . or he could just walk up to him and beat the crap out of him.
> 
> ...




I agree with damn near everything you said, Forrester.  But, the Monk does have a reasonable chance to beat a Hill Giant if they do it this way.  Would it be fun to play out with a group of players bored out of their minds since only the DM and the Monk's player are doing anything?  Nope.  But if a monk had to do it, he could.  

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Corinth said:
			
		

> *If most players aren't willing to do what it takes to get the job done, then they deserve what they get for resorting to stupid tactics.  A monk vs. a hill giant should open with shuriken coated with poison that drains a physical stat.  A loss in any of those areas will improve the monk's odds considerably. *




Agreed, although not about the poison.

If you want to get the job done, do what you can to get the job done.  The monk excels at guerrila tactics, so in a situation like this he should use the best tactical option he has.  Which is, as Forrester called it "wussy tactics", but it works.

And I don't think it unrealistic for a monk to spend an hour or two frustrating and killing the stupid giant.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 9, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hell yeah! MAKE that Giant make those Fort saves!
> 
> ...




LOL!


----------



## Forrester (Aug 9, 2002)

An hour or two battle *is* unrealistic. This giant probably has buddies around . . . he'll probably start calling for them. What happens to the monk then? 

Let's also consider what happens when our buddy the Giant starts hustling away (taking a bunch of double-moves -- and his movement speed is 40'). 

The monk is going to have a tough time keeping up AND still use his move-equivalent to hide, no? 

Let's say the giant is just getting sick of the monk . . . and the monk is bravely cowering behind a rock 40' away. 

The giant takes a double-move away (80'). Now the monk can't attack, because he's 120' away. What does he do? 

He can close some of the way and hide again, but the Giant can just keep moving. 

He can eventually try to work his way around the giant to head him off at the pass, but not while hiding very well. And after the first couple of hits, the giant can change direction every once in awhile. 

I just don't see this working -- what's worse is that it has 0% chance of working without the Boots of Cheat. And when a character class's effectiveness in so many situations is 100% dependent on having a broken magic item, it doesn't bode well for the character class.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 9, 2002)

Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant.  The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.

I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win.  A technical win but a win nonetheless.

YMMV

g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Acmite said:
			
		

> *Thank you for the offhand insult.   It's nice to know how you respond to differing opinions.  Which is what this is.  A different opinion.  Since I refernced the stat block, clearly I know what teh giant is capable of, so your ignorant comment about me "not knowing what I'm talking about" is clearly incorrect.
> 
> Anyway...
> 
> ...




First, I was only commenting on your lack of complete thought on the subject.  The tatics you described were monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk spring attacks.  If you said "Fight a guerrila battle" in the first place, I think it would have been more clear.  Then it is monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk waits ten minutes.  I don't believe you said the latter.

Second, you could not do the number of ranged feats you were talking about.  In a simple matter of the rules, you were wrong.  Not a huge deal, but combined with your other comments, it seemed more not-thought-out.

Third, do you have fun playing a character that has to use very large amounts of time to defeat a powerful enemy?  I know not all characters are half-orc barbarians, but the time you are talking about does seem quite large in proportion.  If this is fun for you, then I understand why you think monks don't suck.  But I am pretty sure a clever rogue could do the same, and much faster.

I hope you consider this "intelligent, constructive comments".


----------



## Christian (Aug 9, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *Comment #1: Spring attack w/Boots of Cheat is about a lame as you can get. Again, a Barbarian with this combo could whup the Hill Giant in about half the time . . . or he could just walk up to him and beat the crap out of him.
> 
> Your monk is going to take *FOREVER* to kill this guy! Even when you hit, you're doing a lousy 12pts of damage, on average, and you're not hitting all the time. The Hill Giant is going to make mincemeat out of you with readied actions . . yes, I suppose you can cower and hide during that time.
> 
> ...




Re comment #1:
Killing hill giants hand-to-hand is a fighter's or barbarian's job. My party ran into a hill giant once. My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts. His Intelligence was 13, not 3.

Re comment #2:
See my .sig. 

Seriously, if you're saying the monk sucks because he's not as good in stand-up combat as a fighter or barbarian, then I suggest you go play a fighter or barbarian. Monks need to use different tactics and have different strengths. It really sucks for the barbarian when the hill giant had an arcane spellcasting ally hiding behind him-that high Fort save doesn't help much on the DC40 save on the hill giant's coup-de-grace after he misses the Will save vs. Hold Person.

Another quote from my game:
DM: "You can't keep making those Will saves all day."
Me: "Maybe not. But I bet I'll make them for long enough ..."

I suppose there's an image carried over from the kung-fu-ninjas-of-death-type movies that people think the monk should exemplify. He doesn't, not by any means. But a thoughtful player can find what he's good at and make him a valuable member of a party.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant.  The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.
> 
> I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win.  A technical win but a win nonetheless.
> 
> ...




LOL.  Acctually a good point.  If think monks are annoying, what must the monk's targets think.


----------



## Christian (Aug 9, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *You know, I hate to say it, but every comment I've seen so far that claims "monks are weak" is backed up by a lot of rules-related data (i.e., something demonstrably and measurably true); Almost all (if not 100%) of those saying, "No, no, the monk is actually a very powerful class" don't seem to have anything concrete to back it up.
> 
> Anecdotal evidence versus raw, uncut, rules-related evidence just doesn't hold up to the light of reason, people.  Thus, we can pretty much conclude that the monk does indeed suck.  *




All I can work by is my experience. And all of the rules-based arguments I've seen are, in fact, true. My monk wouldn't have wanted to tangle with a hill giant on his own under any circumstances. (Even if he'd had 'boots of cheat'. Although if you have issues with a core magic item. go take it up with the designers. I don't think that they're overpowered with the errated price, though, myself.)

Monks work best as support characters, that's true. They're not quite as bad as bards that way. But that doesn't mean either class isn't fun to play, nor that either class is ineffective! There are situations that arise with reasonable frequency where the monk is the right class for the job; and in between those situations, the monk makes an effective backup fighter, backup scout, or just a character with good speed & tumbling ability to set up flanks for the rogue. Sure, a fighter or rogue could be designed to do either of those things just as well-but then you wouldn't have a monk to cover you in those occasional situations where nobody else will do. The day the monk tumbles through the enemy lines and stuns their wizard just before he would have cast the Fireball that would have finished your side's arcane caster, then finishes him off with a flurry of blows before he gets to go again-that's a day you'll always remember.


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 9, 2002)

If we are willing to "bend the rules" for argument's sake enough to let the monk spring attack, run off and hide, wait ten minutes, rinse, repeat, (without giving the giant any chance to watch him to see where he's hiding in this "open area" they're supposedly fighting in), then we can "bend the rules" enough to let the giant stand there like a big (but patient) idiot, readying an action the whole time, until the monk comes back around the bend once more, and let him simply smash the monk in the face.

It's just not realistic that a monk would be able to do this (guerilla warfare crap), since the giant also has a very good movement rate, and, if the monk is so well-hidden, then he wouldn't be able to know where the giant is!  The giant could just as easily run around the bend and stand there waiting.  Any DM who would allow a monk to wear down and kill a giant like this might as well retire, IMO.  I honestly don't think any single DM would actually allow a monk PC to actually pull that off.

The giant would ready an action and simply slaughter the monk, proving, once more, that we _still_ haven't identified the actual *strengths* of the monk class, short of saving throws (and thus general survivability),  in which case you might as well sit home and smoke your pipe, ala Bilbo Baggins.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Re comment #1:
> Killing hill giants hand-to-hand is a fighter's or barbarian's job. My party ran into a hill giant once. My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts. His Intelligence was 13, not 3.
> ...




The line that started this was



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I agree - as per the DMG, a 7th level character-class NPC is CR 7, ie about equal a threat as a CR 7 hill giant (give or take about 25%, the 'graininess' of the CR system).  I've seen a 7th level Sorcerer PC haste up and take down a hill giant akmost single handed, it's certainly possible.  Of course some MM CRs are a bit low - I raised ogres to CR 3 and (eventually) Ettins to CR 6 for my lowish-magic game, equally Succubi at CR 9 are too high, I lowered them to CR 7, same as erinyes.  But in principle it stands. *




I was only trying to refute one point of a "monks are good" argument"  That is why I asked if S'mon thought the lvl 7 monk could take on the hill giant.  The overall response seems to be: not unless he was really cheap about it.

So the question still stands: what do monks do that is fun and would make them not suck?  

Note: not getting dead isn't really fun.  If you get higher level than your comrades, the challenges should be targeted at the average of the party.  If you need to be high than the rest of the party to have fun, what is that saying?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 9, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant.  The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.
> 
> I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win.  A technical win but a win nonetheless.
> *




Fair enough.  Likewise if the Hill Giant is still standing after 10 minutes that may well count as a defeat for the monk.  Depends on the circumstances.

Hit & fade, hide & seek tactics are an option for the monk, but they are not adequate unless the DM plays the Hill Giant with a 1 Int.  

The Hill Giant only has to hit the monk 3 or 4 times to win.  The monk needs to hit the Hill Giant 10 to 20 times, depending on combination of weapons he chooses.

That is just too wide a spread.  Even if the monk maximizes his Hide, the Hill Giant still has a 20% of Spotting him.  One bad roll and the monk is half dead.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 9, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> All I can work by is my experience. And all of the rules-based arguments I've seen are, in fact, true. My monk wouldn't have wanted to tangle with a hill giant on his own under any circumstances. (Even if he'd had 'boots of cheat'. Although if you have issues with a core magic item. go take it up with the designers. I don't think that they're overpowered with the errated price, though, myself.)
> 
> Monks work best as support characters, that's true. They're not quite as bad as bards that way. But that doesn't mean either class isn't fun to play, nor that either class is ineffective! There are situations that arise with reasonable frequency where the monk is the right class for the job; and in between those situations, the monk makes an effective backup fighter, backup scout, or just a character with good speed & tumbling ability to set up flanks for the rogue. Sure, a fighter or rogue could be designed to do either of those things just as well-but then you wouldn't have a monk to cover you in those occasional situations where nobody else will do. The day the monk tumbles through the enemy lines and stuns their wizard just before he would have cast the Fireball that would have finished your side's arcane caster, then finishes him off with a flurry of blows before he gets to go again-that's a day you'll always remember. *




True, there are times that the monk really shines.  But mages fly.  Support is good.  That is why there are hirelings.  I can not see the "monk friendly" situations comming up often, which puts you at support.  Is that fun?


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 10, 2002)

> My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts...Monks need to use different tactics and have different strengths.




Well, this might just come back to what the late, lamented Hong said about Monks - "Whatever it is that they do it, it doesnt seem to be what most people want them to do."

I didnt take any bow feats because I didnt think of a Monk as a crossbow archer.  (If it had been a short bow, I might have felt a little more positive about it.  Maybe thats just me.)  

And, sure, plinking away with the crossbow is going to be a more effective tactic than getting your face punched in by a Giant, but basically your contribution to the fight is a d8+0 of damage every two rounds (assuming you dont ever miss!)   Your party is going to have to be very understanding in order to consider this "contributing".  Tactics like this are why other party members start looking at the Monk and asking "Why are you even here?  "  



> You would presumably admit that monks are good at not dying, due to great saves, movement, immunities, evasion abilities, etc?




But they are good at dying because of low HPs.  ;-)  This is the crux of the arguement that Monks cant stand toe-to-toe with big monsters.  Which is to say "When the fight gets tough, the Monk...runs away and pulls out a crossbow?"  

I've gone negative my fair share of times; basically if you are scouting, you are vulnerable to being surprised by a power oriented monster.  A power monster usually only needs two rounds to kill a Monk so - bang - "DM: You are surprised, no DEX, he hits you twice.  Take 28.  Roll Init.  He wins, he goes first, you are still flatfooted.  One hit, take 19.  Your turn, what do you do?  Oh, you are dead already?  Oh.  OK.  Well then....um."

And this isnt even considering the case where you tactically have to stand and fight.  If there are three Trolls and only two real Fighters, the party expects the Monk to step up and occupy the third Troll.  

Again, it comes back to expectations - the Monk might not be particularly suited for a toe-to-toe fighting role, but since he isnt particularly suited for anything else, the rest of the party will expect him to contribute in whatever way he can best.  And in this case, thats stepping up and sucking up two rounds of punishment from a creature that he has absolutely no chance against.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 10, 2002)

The one thing I have noticed monks are very good up at the is thrashing soft targets.  High mobility, a large number of weak iterative attacks, and OA feats like Improved Grapple make the monk exceptionally efficient at it; the fodder can't run away and they can only gang up on the monk if he lets them -- usually to their regret.

Sadly, beating up mooks is rarely an urgent priority with respect to party survival, while standing toe-to-toe with the Hill Giant often is.  And every PC is capable of picking on mooks, even if the monk happens to be a lot better at it.

I am not going to get too enthusiastic about a class that is particularly good at something about as demanding as taking out the trash.


----------



## Christian (Aug 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *True, there are times that the monk really shines.  But mages fly.  Support is good.  That is why there are hirelings.  I can not see the "monk friendly" situations comming up often, which puts you at support.  Is that fun? *




Sometimes. And IME, the "monk friendly" situations have come up fairly regularly. I don't think it was the DM throwing me bones, either-he mostly uses published adventures (with some tweaking, usually, but not that much).



			
				Gizzard said:
			
		

> * I've gone negative my fair share of times; basically if you are scouting, you are vulnerable to being surprised by a power oriented monster.  A power monster usually only needs two rounds to kill a Monk so - bang - "DM: You are surprised, no DEX, he hits you twice.  Take 28.  Roll Init.  He wins, he goes first, you are still flatfooted.  *




Indeed. My monk had Alertness and maxed out his Listen skill, but this was still a real problem. Sometimes I thought Improved Initiative might have been a better choice. Both would have been best of all for this, naturally, but you don't exactly have spare feats ...

I found it very effective to scout under _Invisibility_. It's a lot easier to move silently than to effectively hide while moving. But again, you need a magic item, supply of potions, or an arcane caster for an ally.

Oddly, when the character finally died, it wasn't from this-it was from an opposing spellcaster rolling a 20 on his melee touch attack to score on his Death domain power. And then rolling something absurd on his d6's. All the Expertise in the world can't save you from that ... although even then, more hit points would have helped. (Never let the cleric talk you out of keeping you maxed out when you're playing a monk ...)


----------



## Christian (Aug 10, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *The one thing I have noticed monks are very good up at the is thrashing soft targets.  High mobility, a large number of weak iterative attacks, and OA feats like Improved Grapple make the monk exceptionally efficient at it; the fodder can't run away and they can only gang up on the monk if he lets them -- usually to their regret.
> 
> Sadly, beating up mooks is rarely an urgent priority with respect to party survival, while standing toe-to-toe with the Hill Giant often is.  And every PC is capable of picking on mooks, even if the monk happens to be a lot better at it.*




No, not mooks. (The barbarian with the Cleave feat has always been better at that.)

Wizards & sorcerers. When you're a wizard, if you see a fighter/barbarian type charging you, hit him with a Will save spell. If it's a cleric, try one with a Reflex save. When it's a monk, hope you have a Fly prepared so you can escape. And hope you get it off before she gets there, because you may not get a second chance.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 10, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Is it just me, or could you give the exact same (cheaty) collection of magic items to a barbarian and have him do far, far more damage? Sure, the Hide skill checks will be a few points lower, but the damage will be 2d6+10 (assume a Potion of Bull's Strength gives him +4 to strength, and he starts at 18, with a +1 Greatsword).
> 
> ...




Nope it wouldn't be better to have a barbarian.  Hide and sneak are core skills for a single pc class to be able to effective do anything to the party.  As for the costs of items oops I went of a smidge.  Fine make it a potion of bulls str, and a potion of whatever that lame wisdom spell is.   As for boots of cheat, yeah good for you, you don't like a core item.  If you hadn't noticed there was a centaur in the PC group, with that kind of mobility boots of cheat are just evening the odds.  

  Situation 1 my monk attacks the party.  Ok Mr. Wizard you take 12 points of damage you see a fleeting shape turn the corner.  Roll initiative, by the time you turn the corner your selves you don't see anyone.
   Or heck if you just want to do good damage, ok mr wiz you take 12 points of damage make a fort save, you failed ah geez, ok lets see roll initiative but your stunned so you can't do anything.  BOP/ZANG/ZOW this guys is grappling you and crushing you bones.  You take another 36 points of damage oh your dead.  The monk quietly drags off your body not letting it fall, and sneaks off.  Silence +stun+decent grappling can mean an unaware party when someone is getting pounded. This can work especially well if the monk can set up any kind of distraction.  

  Situation 2 your barb, oh mr ranger-or rogue you see and hear a barb coming for you guys roll initiative.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I am with forrester here.  I think you are pushing it.
> 
> ...




The rules for combo items are in the dmg, so it's about as core as you could get.  The rules for potions are in the PH, they are like wands and scrolls, you don't need a specific one in the DMG.  

Move 80 or 100 I didn't have my book in front of me so I coudn't remember the monks base speed at that level.

Tactics lacking, yeah with all the detailed maps we got I sjould of come up with somehting better than the monk decides the ambush sites cause he knows the terrain.

Spring attack can be done in surprise round it's called a partial charge.  I haven't seen any rule precluding movement and grappling.

spelling/grammar: stuff it, this is a casual hobby board.  I'm not about to get anal here, that's what you do at school and work.


----------



## Roland Delacroix (Aug 10, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> spelling/grammar: stuff it, this is a casual hobby board.  I'm not about to get anal here, that's what you do at school and work. *




hrd two mak a pnt whn pepple cont understan yu noo nede to bee a jeyk


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 10, 2002)

Roland Delacroix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> hrd two mak a pnt whn pepple cont understan yu noo nede to bee a jeyk *




LOL.  well said (and spelled  )


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 10, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Sometimes. And IME, the "monk friendly" situations have come up fairly regularly. I don't think it was the DM throwing me bones, either-he mostly uses published adventures (with some tweaking, usually, but not that much).
> *




Ok, this look promising.  If you see these situations come up regularly, how so?  What is the campaign setting?  Any specific encounters/specific modules?  I don't them comming up, but I am not in the pro-monk camp.  I still wonder if there is something I am missing.

By the by, it is a most interesting death for a monk: to magic.  But that gets everyone.  Was it memorable character?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 10, 2002)

First, I would like to say that you may be taking this a little to personally Shard.  I am not calling you stupid, I am trying to point out inconsistancies.  I _want_ monks to be cool, I just don't see it working out.  I personally have to see it work out by only using items as they appear.  If you apply rules meant for expanding the material (combining items), you are making the campaign more friendly to monks.  That is fine.  How do they fair without any expanding of what is published?  Maybe the fault is in the published material, but that is what we are working in.



			
				Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The rules for combo items are in the dmg, so it's about as core as you could get.  The rules for potions are in the PH, they are like wands and scrolls, you don't need a specific one in the DMG.
> *




I consider the items in the DMG to be the "commonly availible" items.  Others might be more rare (cost more).  The comment was just a nitpick.  All the rest of my comments assume you have them.  

Also, I found the rules for combining items in Tome and Blood.  What page is it in the DMG?  Did I just glance by it?



> *Move 80 or 100 I didn't have my book in front of me so I coudn't remember the monks base speed at that level.
> *




A technical nitpick.  Because the monk class is explained in the online SRD, I assumed you would use this source.  It just wasn't helping your case.



> *Tactics lacking, yeah with all the detailed maps we got I sjould of come up with somehting better than the monk decides the ambush sites cause he knows the terrain.
> *




Your tatics assumed I already knew how to play a killer monk.  I don't know monk that well.  You don't make be believe that monk is cooler by saying "its simple."  I didn't need tatcial maps, but a few round by round examples would have been nice.  I think wolff96 did a good explanation.



> *Spring attack can be done in surprise round it's called a partial charge.  I haven't seen any rule precluding movement and grappling.
> *




My bad.  I spaced on the partial charge. (hey, we all have our days)  But even a partial charge puts your monk right next to the party as a whole.  Do you expect the wizard to be alone?  And contrary to a later post, I don't see you dragging off the wizard quitly, but who knows?



> *spelling/grammar: stuff it, this is a casual hobby board.  I'm not about to get anal here, that's what you do at school and work. *




If I am going to debate an issue, I have to be able to understand the oppsition.  I don't care about text book grammar or spelling.  All I ask to be able to understand your thoughts with a minimum of effort.  Casual means ignore it if it too much work.  Again, it was just not helping you out (you seem to have changed at least a bit since then, which might say something)

Overall, you obviously put lots of effort into the monk, and he does seem cool.  I just can't reason putting this bit-too-minmaxed character against my party.  I hope you understand.  It would not be a fair test of monks in general.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 10, 2002)

> And IME, the "monk friendly" situations have come up fairly regularly. I don't think it was the DM throwing me bones, either-he mostly uses published adventures (




Our group ran the main WotC adventure line (Sunless Citadel, Forge of Fury); there was only one place where I think the Monk has a chance to do something vital that no one else can do as well.  Unfortunately, its also very brutal; one mis-step means instant death for Our Hero.  (I survived, whew!)

Tangent: I notice that the treasure distribution in these two modules isnt particularly Monk-friendly; possibly another sign that the Monk wasnt given as much consideration as the basic Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party.  

I also have Freeport, which I am expecting to run after we finish FoF.  I dont see it being particularly Monk-friendly either; though perhaps more so than the WotC stuff just because its not such a dungeon crawl.



> Sometimes I thought Improved Initiative might have been a better choice.




Nah, its not.  ;-)  I took Improved Init, but it is really a two edged sword.  Getting to move first is great when you know whats going on, but very risky in the first couple rounds when you may not know the tactical situation entirely.   One of my near-death experiences was rushing into a group of "mooks" to lay the Monkly smackdown on them, only to find out that they had a big ham-fisted buddy standing just outside my range of vision.  Drat.  



> I found it very effective to scout under Invisibility.




Mmm, yes, that would be very nice.  Unfortunately, at 5th level our Sorcerer only has very limited number of those to hand out.  

Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others.  "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha.  Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(."


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 10, 2002)

> Tangent: I notice that the treasure distribution in these two modules isnt particularly Monk-friendly; possibly another sign that the Monk wasnt given as much consideration as the basic Fighter-Cleric-Wizard-Rogue party.




I definitely agree with you here. I ran those adventures and found it to be that way as well. Which is why I was encouraging DMs to better support their monks with magical items. Otherwise, you ARE gonna get monks that suck.



> Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others. "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha. Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(."




Another good point, but our party never came to this conclusion. I guess your mileage may vary. The other way you might see this is that the buffs could be used to compensate for some weaknesses. If the barbarian hits steadily but the monk doesn't, it might be more useful to boost the monk attack by a few points. Twice the amount of hits is always a good thing. And if the monk uses Weapon Finesse, you're also making him harder to hit, which contributes to party survival.



> I consider the items in the DMG to be the "commonly availible" items. Others might be more rare (cost more). The comment was just a nitpick. All the rest of my comments assume you have them.
> 
> Also, I found the rules for combining items in Tome and Blood. What page is it in the DMG? Did I just glance by it?




I think pages 242-243 (including sidebar) are what you're looking for. The rules are somewhat iffy on certain things, but they work.

I think both sides of the argument are getting good points here. I'm definitely seeing what the monk-haters dislike. I've never experienced that sort of thing, but hey, that's just me.

I've noticed that the CR discussion always assumes the characters are well-prepared for the encounter. Run a standard fighter of level 5 without a source of fire or acid against a Troll (you don't always KNOW you're gonna meet one), and he's gonna lose. How many Rends can he take???

Likewise for the barb against the Giant. What if the barb's already used up his potion? CRs look great on paper, but when you run into a situation in-game (where conditions are usually less than ideal), the level 7 character is most likely to get moshed.

That is why I say this: CRs work (up until Epic-level play) if you have a full party of 4. As soon as you start adding or subtracting characters, it goes all to heck. And a single character will probably bite it one-on-one. That 4th-level caster against a Carrion Crawler needs to either roll max damage on spells, get Shield off in the first round, or be prepared to be eaten. Too many Fort saves against certain death there.

And, of course, there is the fact that the dice decide everything in all these cases anyway


----------



## Acmite (Aug 10, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Fair enough.  Likewise if the Hill Giant is still standing after 10 minutes that may well count as a defeat for the monk.  Depends on the circumstances.
> 
> ...




Keep in mind that the Monk (and all PC classes) are CR = Level partly because they are balanced by wealth.

This means that the monk is likely able to heal himself to some degree between attacks (ie: potion of CLW, CMW, or something).

A standard Hill Giant likely does not have this option.  I aluded to this above, but somehow it slipped through the cracks.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 10, 2002)

Wolfen Priest said:
			
		

> *If we are willing to "bend the rules" for argument's sake enough to let the monk spring attack, run off and hide, wait ten minutes, rinse, repeat, (without giving the giant any chance to watch him to see where he's hiding in this "open area" they're supposedly fighting in), then we can "bend the rules" enough to let the giant stand there like a big (but patient) idiot, readying an action the whole time, until the monk comes back around the bend once more, and let him simply smash the monk in the face.
> 
> It's just not realistic that a monk would be able to do this (guerilla warfare crap), since the giant also has a very good movement rate, and, if the monk is so well-hidden, then he wouldn't be able to know where the giant is!  The giant could just as easily run around the bend and stand there waiting.  Any DM who would allow a monk to wear down and kill a giant like this might as well retire, IMO.  I honestly don't think any single DM would actually allow a monk PC to actually pull that off.
> *




How is using a strike-retreat attack pattern "bending the rules"?

The "open area" was...umm...clarified to have some sort of terrain, like a wooded area, or foothills, or something.  One of the arguments myself and others made was that the monk would be able to use terrain to his advantage more so than the other base classes with his higher movement.  The only other class than can use terrain as well as the monk (IMO) is the druid.

I have a feeling we are so far apart on this argument that we may never come to an agreement.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 10, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First, I was only commenting on your lack of complete thought on the subject.  The tatics you described were monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk spring attacks.  If you said "Fight a guerrila battle" in the first place, I think it would have been more clear.  Then it is monk spring attacks, giant stands stupidly, monk waits ten minutes.  I don't believe you said the latter.*




I'm sorry I wasn't more clear.  The Giant doesn't necessarily have to stand there immobile.  My guess is, the stupid giant would think the monk gone, and go about his business.  Well, at least until the second attack. 

My point is, guerrila tactics tend to be very effective when you have a small mobile force versus a stronger, slower force.  In a situation like this, it is probably the monk's only option.



> Second, you could not do the number of ranged feats you were talking about.  In a simple matter of the rules, you were wrong.  Not a huge deal, but combined with your other comments, it seemed more not-thought-out.




My bad.  I didn't think that through when I was posting.  Possibly because I was already thinking guerrila tactics, so the monk didn't necessarily need the "Shot-on-the-Run" * feat *, just similar tactics.  Move, shoot.  Reapeat.



> Third, do you have fun playing a character that has to use very large amounts of time to defeat a powerful enemy?  I know not all characters are half-orc barbarians, but the time you are talking about does seem quite large in proportion.  If this is fun for you, then I understand why you think monks don't suck.  But I am pretty sure a clever rogue could do the same, and much faster.




I think monks are fun, actually.  I think they have many more interesting combat options available to them than any other non-spellcasting class (and by this I mean primary spellcasters), save maybe the druid.

And, this discussion I thought revolved around a more tactical exploration of the monk's ability to defeat a lone hill Giant, not how much fun it would be to do so.  The backstory I was using for this encounter was basically along the lines of the monk thinking, "I * have * to defeat this giant or my friends die.  How do I do it?".

In any other situation, an average monk would probably just retreat.  There has to be a strong reason for the monk to spend the time to defeat this giant.



> I hope you consider this "intelligent, constructive comments". [/B]




I do.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 10, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Re comment #1:
> Killing hill giants hand-to-hand is a fighter's or barbarian's job. My party ran into a hill giant once. My monk PC stayed back & peppered him with crossbow bolts. His Intelligence was 13, not 3.
> ...





Amen, brother.  Amen.


----------



## Acmite (Aug 10, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *Without going back and reading the challenge posted, I believe that the poasted asked if anyone would put a monk up against a hill giant.  The proposition was created this way because according to CR "rules" a monk 7 is CR7 and a hill giant is CR 7.
> 
> I contend that the challenge rating system is not designed to kill an opponent but to beat a challenge, and if the hill giant retreats, or runs away, then I would count that as a win.  A technical win but a win nonetheless.
> 
> ...




I'd agree with that.  It's all about overcoming the challenge, not pummeling it into a very fine paste.


----------



## Villano (Aug 10, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Tangent: There is something somewhat self-reinforcing about the Monk sucking; once the party reaches consensus that the Monk sucks, it becomes much harder to wheedle Buffs out of the others.  "Monk: If you cast Bulls Strength on me, I will be able to do damage in combat." "Barbarian: Ha.  Cast it on me and I will crush even the mightiest foe like a grape!" "Sorcerer: Sorry Monk, the Barbarian can hit better than you." "Monk: I suck :-(." *




I know just what you're talking about!  In the online RttTotEE game I played, the damn druid refused to cast magic fang on me.  He was "saving it".  

The thing is we were 4th level, so it wasn't like he was going to go wild shape and use it on himself.  The only thing I can think of is that he wanted to use it on a summoned animal.

And it's pretty sad when the monk rates lower than a dire rat.

I ended up getting into a fight with something with DR (I can't recall what it was exactly), and I hit it several times (I even flurried it), but didn't cause a single point of damage.  

What really irritates me is that all this happened as I was playing "mage bodyguard".  I'm covering the spellcasters' butts and they won't cast any spells for me.  

I got my revenge when one of the mages (sadly not the druid) got wiped out by the dragon.  One hit.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 10, 2002)

> I know just what you're talking about! In the online RttTotEE game I played, the damn druid refused to cast magic fang on me. He was "saving it".
> 
> The thing is we were 4th level, so it wasn't like he was going to go wild shape and use it on himself. The only thing I can think of is that he wanted to use it on a summoned animal.
> 
> ...




Ouch. That's pretty bad, but then (and I mean no offense) that was some pretty terrible teamwork on the druid's part, ESPECIALLY given your "mage bodyguard" role.


----------



## Christian (Aug 10, 2002)

I'm not going to try to quote anybody here ... too many responses & I have to get to a game (new campaign-first time DMing D&D3-wish me luck!).

I don't know what modules the DM was running-I didn't recognize them & I didn't try to find out. Definitely none of the WOTC 'core' adventure line, though. Setting was homebrew, average magic level.

I never had trouble getting a Magic Fang or a Bull's Strength. WRT the latter, we even had fighter-types in the party; I successfully sold the cleric on the argument that since I had more attacks, the spell would get more total use. A valid one, I think.

We often didn't have an arcane spellcaster in the party. Nor a rogue. I made a point of keeping a potion of invisibility or two on hand.

And one more thing to add ... aside from the ressurrection fund the group started, one of the players is talking about playing a monk in my new campaign. A half-orc. I think my position on strength as the core monk attribute has been taken to heart.


----------



## Villano (Aug 10, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ouch. That's pretty bad, but then (and I mean no offense) that was some pretty terrible teamwork on the druid's part, ESPECIALLY given your "mage bodyguard" role. *




Bad teamwork was really the hallmark of that group.  The monk (me), half-orc fighter, cleric, 2nd ranger, and rogue all worked well together, but the spellcasters and the original ranger all simply looked out for themselves.

The first ranger said in no uncertain terms that he wasn't going to "carry" anyone.  Now, this wasn't in character, it was the player saying that.  He got into an argument with the fighter (I think) and quit the game.

The spellcasters all thought like fighters and chose defensive spells to protect themselves and went in with fireballs blasting.  Part of the reason we ran into the dragon was that no one wanted to cast invisibility on either me or the rogue to scout the area.

The cleric didn't use any spells on anyone else except heal, but his domain was war, so pumping himself up and charging into battle himself made sense (and he had a 16 or 18 str, so he was effective both to hit and damage), so I didn't hold it against him.

However, nothing eventualy mattered because, after only 3 or so rounds with the dragon, the DM quit, stating that he was "bored".  

All in all, a pretty crappy experience.  Only half the people involved were serious, the rest just wanted to kill as many things by themselves as they could.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 10, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> But they are good at dying because of low HPs.  ;-)  *





You need high stats to be a good monk.  Their d8 gives them the same hp as a cleric, and once the wizard casts Mage Armor on them they have much better ACs.  I agree that a 25-pt Monk is weaker than a 25-pt Fighter, I disagree that a 50-pt Monk is weaker than a 50-pt Fighter.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 10, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> No, not mooks. (The barbarian with the Cleave feat has always been better at that.)
> 
> Wizards & sorcerers. When you're a wizard, if you see a fighter/barbarian type charging you, hit him with a Will save spell. If it's a cleric, try one with a Reflex save. When it's a monk, hope you have a Fly prepared so you can escape. And hope you get it off before she gets there, because you may not get a second chance. *




A monk can go in to take out the mooks, find that he's losing, and escape.  When the barbarian or fighter go in to take out the mooks and find they're losing, they die - at least that's been my experience.  Barbarians in particular seem to die like flies.


----------



## ForceUser@Home (Aug 10, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A monk can go in to take out the mooks, find that he's losing, and escape.  When the barbarian or fighter go in to take out the mooks and find they're losing, they die - at least that's been my experience.  Barbarians in particular seem to die like flies. *




Barbarians have low, low AC, especially when raging. If a person's going to go full barbarian, he needs to concentrate on items and feats that buff their hit points, followed by AC. I think the barb's whole gig is "yeah, I'm taking a lot of damage, but I'm going to kill you before you kill me."


----------



## TroyXavier (Aug 10, 2002)

Rogues and Monks work really well together.  A friend of mine and I double-teamed our opponents like that, the other party members sometimes never got a chance to hit.

That AC is a killer for Barbarians.  One of my other friends couldn't stay alive for his life due to that problem(and he is not a great HP roller).  He finally bulked his AC up to where it was finally difficult for most enemies to hit him.  Before that, he was always in trouble of dropping.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 10, 2002)

> I know just what you're talking about! In the online RttTotEE game I played, the damn druid refused to cast magic fang on me. He was "saving it".




Thats pretty weak.  

A tangent to that thought: a lot of people have mentioned specific Spells (Magic Fang) or Items (Boots of Striding) that they feel really help the Monk.  For a lot of different reasons, these things may not be available in a given campaign; especially a low-magic campaign.  

So, do people think the Monk is more dependent on Buffs and Items than other classes?



> Barbarians have low, low AC, especially when raging.




We have to be careful to specify what level we are talking about.  

Chain Shirt and a good DEX means that our 5th level Barbarian is AC17.  The Monk and the TWF Fighter are AC18, I think the Cleric might be even slightly higher since he has a Shield.  The Barbarian is very comparable to everyone else at 5th, though I can see that AC is going to be a problem for him in the future.  But for now, I'd rather have 57HP with 17AC (or 67 HP with 15AC raging) than 37HP with 18AC like the Monk.



> I agree that a 25-pt Monk is weaker than a 25-pt Fighter, I disagree that a 50-pt Monk is weaker than a 50-pt Fighter.




We used the 4d6 method to roll up our characters; it comes out to be about a 40 point buy; so thats where my experience is.  

Given that though, I dont think that more points is going to make the Monk better than a Fighter.  Since every stat is much more useful in 3E, its not like the Fighter will have his extra points go to waste.  If nothing else, he can dump them all in INT and start cross-classing into Monk skills.  Or dump them into WIS just to improve his Will Save.  I think you'd have to go over 50-pts before the Monk starts to close ground.   Certainly, 40-pts is not enough.

Of course, I am thinking of low-level Monks here, since thats what the original question was about.  High-level Monks might be a different story.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 10, 2002)

The two very successful Monk PCs in my game, who definitely overshadowed similar-level fighters, had very high stats - one had both WIS & DEX 18 and with Evasion & Mage Armor could get his AC ridiculously high, I think 32 was the most... this being as a FTR1/MNK6 or similar.  Meanwhile the Barbarian was AC 17 or so.  The 1e Monk required extremely high stats.  In 3e you can be a Monk without good stats, you just can't be a _good_ Monk (or Paladin) without good stats...


----------



## S'mon (Aug 10, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *The two very successful Monk PCs in my game, who definitely overshadowed similar-level fighters, had very high stats - one had both WIS & DEX 18 and with Evasion  *




Expertise not Evasion, sorry.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 10, 2002)

> The backstory I was using for this encounter was basically along the lines of the monk thinking, "I have to defeat this giant or my friends die. How do I do it?".




The problem with the Monk's hit and run tactics are that he's not occupying an area.  His foe is free to move around and do whatever he was planning to; and the Monk cant prevent him from doing it.  A Barbarian can stand toe-to-toe and say, "Giant, you fight me here and we will see who walks away."  He occupies the area, if you see what I mean.  

I cant think of many situations where you can save your friends with hit-and-run tactics.  But these two scenarios do leap to mind; I think they show why you have to be able to occupy area:

1)  The Giant has your friends in his bag and he's taking them back to camp to CDG them and cook them.   

2) You are on watch.  The Giant charges into your camp and only you stand between him and the squishy, sleeping but valuable Wizard.

-edit-

I think LokiDR's 7th level Monk will run into the same problem.  He is supposed to be guarding something; but he can't really stand and guard.  He can harrass, but unless his harrassment blossoms into an actual threat, the party will just continue about their business looting his temple.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2002)

When a monk has to destroy a giant to save his friends, what does he do?

Runs in, grabs the body, runs out. goes back to town and gets them raised.

Monks Don't Kill Stuff. They stop people from getting killed.

Barbarians kill stuff. Fighters kill stuff. Druids, sorcerers, wizards kill stuff.

Clerics don't kill stuff...what would a Cleric do in the same situation (assuming his prayed-for spells are buffs like they should be)? Rogues don't kill stuff...what would a Rogue do in the same situation? How about a spellcaster without a big damage spell? How about a Bard?

None of these classes would be very effective in the situation. Having a monk stand guard is like having a Rogue stand guard...neither can exactly stay in one place while the Barbarian wails down upon them.

If you're going to use a monk, you may as well use them for what they're actually good at -- harassing players.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 11, 2002)

Roland Delacroix said:
			
		

> *
> 
> hrd two mak a pnt whn pepple cont understan yu noo nede to bee a jeyk *




that was almost funny.

  Gee and if my posts were anywhewre near that bad you might have a point.  Looking back at them though if people can't undersatand them, I think we are looking at a reading comprehension problem and not  a typing/spelling/grammar problem.  And I'm only a jerk when poeple deserve it.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 11, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *First, I would like to say that you may be taking this a little to personally Shard.  I am not calling you stupid, I am trying to point out inconsistancies.  I want monks to be cool, I just don't see it working out.  I personally have to see it work out by only using items as they appear.  If you apply rules meant for expanding the material (combining items), you are making the campaign more friendly to monks.  That is fine.  How do they fair without any expanding of what is published?  Maybe the fault is in the published material, but that is what we are working in.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't remember which page the combo items is in the dmg, probably one of the behind the curtain sections.  I don't have the dmg here.  Personally though I don't consider it in any way an expansion on the rules.  I would actually look at attempts to keep the items to those specifically listed as a narrowing of the rules.

I'm sure it is in the SRD the monks speed that is, but I think saying 80 or 100 movment was more than clear enough and in no way weakened my case.  If you think it does I think you are trying too hard to find flaws in any pro-monk argument.

Partial charge with a move of 100 and spring attack can put you a very long way from the party.  Lets say he sneaks up to within 20' of the party.  presumedly he picks a location where he can hit and run a good distance in a straight line, like an intersection.  This line should probably be at some kind of angle so after the hit the run puts him out of a direct line of fire.  And also considering it is indoors would very likely either put him out of visable range(torches, darkvision etc) or out of line of sight like a pillar or corner.  He then can rehide at basically no penalty.  This wont work much, I figure two runs until the party is savy.  Time one compleate surprise, time 2 they eventually figure he left and just gave them a parting shot.  time 3 the party tries to make it look like their guard is dropped to lure him in with their readied actions.  Time 3 is where he leads them into a trap of somekind.  If you want to use all his skill points give him points in craft trapmaking.  He can also make different style attempts in try 3.  For example throw a  bunch of smokesticks, and thunderstones at the party. (maybe that's a set trap)  If anyone foolishly stumbles out on their own, especially a weak mage type he moves in for the kill.

And no I don't think it is likely he can drag the mage off quietly.  But stunning blow's only pre-req seems to be unarmed damage caused.  A surprise grapple could cause damage, and a stun.  I'd allow players to try and grapple for damage, while doing something like grabbing the opponents mouth to keep them quiet.  I'd put big penalties on the sneak checks, but I think it could be done.  It seems to be a very apprpriate action considering what we see in movies and read in books.  And if stunned druing the grapple attempt how much noise will the mage make.  Now obviosuly the person targeted couldn't be in the sight if other members, but the rear guard(cleric?) could be targetd with less chance of success.  If you could get the party to follow the monk with his high movement, and knowledge of the terain he likely could loop around the party and come in on whoever is trailing behind and this might actually be the wiz/sor types who want to hang in the back.


I don't feel the monk is a bit too min-maxed.  He is a  combat oriented monk sure, but if you throw one of these non combat monks at the party with a 12 str you don't prove that monks suck at fighting.  All you prove is a melle combabtant with a 12 str sucks at fighting.  Stats are absurdly important for any class.  If you ant a monk to hang in a mellee fight he has to have a good str, otherwise he is just dead weight.  If you are looking for other things in a monk go ahead and put a 12 in str.  Furthermore I'd say this monk was very un-min/maxed in some areas, like stats.  One bad stat the rest were 12,14,14,14,15 at the start.  All very good stats though not the virtually needed 18's of 2nd edition fame.  Which is why for the monk I don't think multistat dependency is such a problem, a 14 is a  good stat, 12s are decent.  If you want to focus in something though like unarmed combat you should boost the appropriate stat.

And by the way I don't necessarily think the monk shouldn't be changed.  I just don't think he sucks.  I hate the design concept of a very rigid special ability progression, incredibly booring.  After playing one monk it almost feels like you've seen them all.  Sure feats and skills can be different, but gods there are so many things the same it is booring as heck.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 11, 2002)

> The two very successful Monk PCs in my game, who definitely overshadowed similar-level fighters, had very high stats - one had both WIS & DEX 18 and with [Expertise] & Mage Armor could get his AC ridiculously high, I think 32 was the most... this being as a FTR1/MNK6 or similar.




Why did they overshadow similar-level Fighters?  I'm curious since I see the opposite in my games.  

On the topic of Expertise: Expertise is difficult for a Monk to take since it requires INT 13 and the poor Monks stats are already stretched very thin.  Feat slots are another area that the Monk is stretched thin in; especially if you hope to get the Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack chain going.  

And this is what you get with it (using the posted Monk7 from earlier in the thread) , you could go from +7/+4 (or +5/+5/+2) with AC20 to +2/-1 (or +0/+0/-3) with AC25.  (Is this the way it works, can I go negative on my to-hits?!)  It's certainly a tradeoff; the Monk may have a high AC but he has given up any offensive power he may have had to do it.

Of course, if I just go Total Defense I go to AC26 (with the Tumble synergy bonus.  Every Monk takes Tumble, so this is almost a freebie.)  Sure, I dont get to attack, but I'm not sure that +2/-1 at level 7 is really attacking either.  ;-)  

Do you think Expertise helped your Monks a lot?


----------



## Forrester (Aug 11, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> Partial charge with a move of 100 and spring attack can put you a very long way from the party.  *




Did partial charge and Spring Attack become a combo when I wasn't looking?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Why did they overshadow similar-level Fighters?  I'm curious since I see the opposite in my games.
> 
> Do you think Expertise helped your Monks a lot? *




Overshadowing fighters - well, I run a lower magic game, although I generally use the standard reward tables for treasure gained, I won't start off new PCs with the standard amount of magic gear, they only get an amount equal to a standard reward for an encounter of their level, eg 2100gp for a 6th level character.  Monks are actually much _less_ reliant on gear than fighters are, so that favours monks.  In general self-reliant classes like monks and sorcerers seem to be favoured in my game.  Because the fighters and barbarians die, and the monks don't (and resurrection isn't available), the magic items gained through play end up in the hands of the monks, making them more powerful.  
Also, both Monk PCs started out at 4th level as multiclassed PCs, and monks seem to gain a _lot_ from having a Rogue or Fighter level - sneak-attacking Monk is _deadly_ combined with Unarmed Attacks & Flurry of Blows!

Expertise - only 1 of the Monks had the Int for this, when used it made her almost unkillable, they defeated a 7-head hydra at 7th level and it needed '20' to hit her, didn't touch her once.  After that I had to limit it and kept a close eye on her use of it, unlike Dodge which I generally allow to be 'always in play' vs the first attack suffered, making it a desirable feat.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 11, 2002)

> Did partial charge and Spring Attack become a combo when I wasn't looking?




I guess so. It's perfectly valid. You can use Spring Attack like the Ride-by Attack feat--I had emailed the Sage about that very same thing.



> Chain Shirt and a good DEX means that our 5th level Barbarian is AC17. The Monk and the TWF Fighter are AC18, I think the Cleric might be even slightly higher since he has a Shield. The Barbarian is very comparable to everyone else at 5th, though I can see that AC is going to be a problem for him in the future. But for now, I'd rather have 57HP with 17AC (or 67 HP with 15AC raging) than 37HP with 18AC like the Monk.




Well, I'd rather have the higher AC, myself. Let the barbarian take the hits instead, that's what he's for. 

Dodge actually brings the monk's AC to 19 when it counts. And expertise is much better than fighting defensively, unless you have enough ranks to get the superior bonus in OA.



> A tangent to that thought: a lot of people have mentioned specific Spells (Magic Fang) or Items (Boots of Striding) that they feel really help the Monk. For a lot of different reasons, these things may not be available in a given campaign; especially a low-magic campaign.




Absolutely. Those are just some of the general favourites for a monk. If I am making up a monk from scratch with choice of equipment, I would tend to get the Boots of S&S, since they're a great benefit. Sometimes, though, I'll take Boots of Elvenkind instead, since they're also quite good. Monk's belt is also a pretty clear choice, as are the Ki Straps in S&F. But you're right, it's only ideal, it doesn't come up all the time.



> I don't feel the monk is a bit too min-maxed. He is a combat oriented monk sure, but if you throw one of these non combat monks at the party with a 12 str you don't prove that monks suck at fighting. All you prove is a melle combabtant with a 12 str sucks at fighting. Stats are absurdly important for any class. If you ant a monk to hang in a mellee fight he has to have a good str, otherwise he is just dead weight. If you are looking for other things in a monk go ahead and put a 12 in str. Furthermore I'd say this monk was very un-min/maxed in some areas, like stats. One bad stat the rest were 12,14,14,14,15 at the start. All very good stats though not the virtually needed 18's of 2nd edition fame. Which is why for the monk I don't think multistat dependency is such a problem, a 14 is a good stat, 12s are decent. If you want to focus in something though like unarmed combat you should boost the appropriate stat.




I find this very interesting, although for me the "appropriate" stat is Dex. It would indeed be funny to throw a barb or a fighter with a Str of 12 at the party 

You know, logically a fighter is not much freer with his stats than a monk. He needs high Con, high Str, preferably high Dex and Int for the best feats. If he doesn't want to be Dominate-bait, he had better have a Wisdom bonus to Will saves.

The same goes for the barb. High Str and Con to be sure, high Dex so that AC won't be TOTALLY ridiculous when he rages. Int really isn't an issue as much as for the fighter, since I'm not sure he could use those feats while raging, but the Will saves had better be good, for the sake of the party.



> 2) You are on watch. The Giant charges into your camp and only you stand between him and the squishy, sleeping but valuable Wizard.




I don't want to read too much that isn't there, but I think one of the problems is always perceiving some classes as "more valuable". IMC we usually see every member as having the same value (in-game), since, in the game, they're all living beings.

On top of that, in this scenario there are many options open to the monk:
1) he could have heard the Giant coming and woken his friends (Listen as a class skill and Wisdom bonus; I think he would have heard the Giant);
2) he could have heard the Giant coming and gone to distract after kicking the fighter or mage awake;
3) assuming he was dozing off and did not hear the Giant coming, he could divert its attention from the camp (I would say a Giant would go for the annoyance first and foremost), or even take one hit for the wizard ("Owww! You owe me big time, mage!") since the wizard will most likely be grateful for a lifesaver (sleeping wizard = dead meat).


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 11, 2002)

> Also, both Monk PCs started out at 4th level as multiclassed PCs, and monks seem to gain a _lot_ from having a Rogue or Fighter level - sneak-attacking Monk is _deadly_ combined with Unarmed Attacks & Flurry of Blows!




Just out of curiosity (not trashing the players or the characters), how did they justify the multiclassing in-game?

Comboing classes is often tricky storywise.


----------



## Forrester (Aug 11, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I guess so. It's perfectly valid. You can use Spring Attack like the Ride-by Attack feat--I had emailed the Sage about that very same thing.
> 
> *




Wow, that's really dumb. Is that in a FAQ somewhere, or just in a random Sage email? 

Does Spring Attack magically invalidate the "entire move must be in a straight line" clause of Charge? Why not, right? I mean, it's Spring Attack!


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 11, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Wow, that's really dumb. Is that in a FAQ somewhere, or just in a random Sage email?
> 
> Does Spring Attack magically invalidate the "entire move must be in a straight line" clause of Charge? Why not, right? I mean, it's Spring Attack! *




I can't see why it's dumb.  Spring attack is just move/attack/move.  You get both movement and an attack in a partial charge.  So it works for me.  And no it doesn't change the entire move must be in a straight line clause.(which means if you want to get out of sight with the partial charge/spring attack you have to be selective in how/where you use this)  Some didn't like it because charge mentions you end your movement at the attack.  That was clarified, when people asked that they were just letting people know that the standard rules of move+attack were still there charge didn't give you spring attack for free.  But if you did purchase spring attack then yes you could charge and partial charge with it.  

  Personally I think not allowing it would be dumb.  Someone just spent 3 feats on the ability to move/attack/move.  Not allowing them to use it during a partial charge, makes an already mediocre feat kinda weak.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Aug 11, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> I find this very interesting, although for me the "appropriate" stat is Dex. It would indeed be funny to throw a barb or a fighter with a Str of 12 at the party
> ...




I think anytime a class gives extra benefits to a stat beyond the norm(con=hp) people instinctively say that's a prime stat I need an 18 to make a decent character.  With the monk he is a combatant so he has the standard norm primes, +wisdom.  So everyone says I need a whole bunch of 18's to be a good monk.  And quite frankly that's crap.  A 14 gives you a good boost, add stat increase items you may gain over levels and you get a +5 bonus.  2+5's =+10 so with a starting 14/14 in dex/wis you can end up with a+10 to ac just from stats.  I think that's fairly cool.  Also as I mentioned before in the standard point buy min/max wise you don't want to purchase much past 14 anyways because the cost becomes prohibitive.  If you want an 18 it costs 16 points, in a 25 point but how much does that leave the fighter now that he's all bad with an 18 str.  He can't even get the rest of his stats to 10.  Oh I can see the list of feats he has with those stats, power attack, and even more power attack.  On 25 point buy a monk could have these stats: 14,14,10,12,14,9.(S,D,C,I,W,CH)  combat monster nope, but still good stats for a generalist which is what the monk is as written.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Just out of curiosity (not trashing the players or the characters), how did they justify the multiclassing in-game?
> 
> Comboing classes is often tricky storywise. *




Both were trained in the Ways of Crane, an oriental-type exotic Order that teaches combat, stealth and sorcerous arts as well as zen-type mysticism.  The Fighter Monk was a Guardian of Crane's Palace, a type of soldier-monk.  The multi-classing was all before the start of the campaign, so no problem IMO.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 12, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't remember which page the combo items is in the dmg, probably one of the behind the curtain sections.  I don't have the dmg here.  Personally though I don't consider it in any way an expansion on the rules.  I would actually look at attempts to keep the items to those specifically listed as a narrowing of the rules.*




Already answered by another poster: p243, "Behind the Scences" sidebar.  I have never used this, but appearently it is common in other games.  Fair enough.  But now you are telling me that in a general campaign, you tracked down an elven wizard, paid him the money, and think this is prefectly normal?  Lots of settings make this really hard.  You are not going to find these boots in a random treasure.  I am not being too limited in my thinking, you are trying to find the absolute best for your monk, which doesn't work in a general case.  If you could craft them yourself, fine.  How can you justify j-random monk having these boots?



> *I'm sure it is in the SRD the monks speed that is, but I think saying 80 or 100 movment was more than clear enough and in no way weakened my case.  If you think it does I think you are trying too hard to find flaws in any pro-monk argument.*




You were wrong, I pointed it out.  The more simple mistakes you make, the weak your overall case gets.



> *Partial charge with a move of 100 and spring attack can put you a very long way from the party.  Lets say he sneaks up to within 20' of the party.  presumedly he picks a location where he can hit and run a good distance in a straight line, like an intersection.  This line should probably be at some kind of angle so after the hit the run puts him out of a direct line of fire.  And also considering it is indoors would very likely either put him out of visable range(torches, darkvision etc) or out of line of sight like a pillar or corner.  He then can rehide at basically no penalty.  This wont work much, I figure two runs until the party is savy.  Time one compleate surprise, time 2 they eventually figure he left and just gave them a parting shot.  time 3 the party tries to make it look like their guard is dropped to lure him in with their readied actions.  Time 3 is where he leads them into a trap of somekind.  If you want to use all his skill points give him points in craft trapmaking.  He can also make different style attempts in try 3.  For example throw a  bunch of smokesticks, and thunderstones at the party. (maybe that's a set trap)  If anyone foolishly stumbles out on their own, especially a weak mage type he moves in for the kill.*




Now you are finally giving me the tatics I asked for in the first place.  You didn't mention smoke sticks or thunderstones in your original equipment list, but they are pretty cheap.  I do see a few problems with you partial charge theory though.  You have to move in a straight line.  This means the party gets to shoot at you, if they win initive.  Now to the question of light.  Your monk was human, so how are you moving around?  Don't even try to tell me you "know the terain" because people trip over stuff in their own houses all the time, and this is a presumablely decent sized catacomb.  I see you falling down and making more noise, not hiding. 

You are simply countering any specific point I make about problems with you monk by amending your monk more and more.  Didn't you think of this before you posted the monk?



> *And no I don't think it is likely he can drag the mage off quietly.  But stunning blow's only pre-req seems to be unarmed damage caused.  A surprise grapple could cause damage, and a stun.  I'd allow players to try and grapple for damage, while doing something like grabbing the opponents mouth to keep them quiet.  I'd put big penalties on the sneak checks, but I think it could be done.  It seems to be a very apprpriate action considering what we see in movies and read in books.  And if stunned druing the grapple attempt how much noise will the mage make.  Now obviosuly the person targeted couldn't be in the sight if other members, but the rear guard(cleric?) could be targetd with less chance of success.  If you could get the party to follow the monk with his high movement, and knowledge of the terain he likely could loop around the party and come in on whoever is trailing behind and this might actually be the wiz/sor types who want to hang in the back.*




I don't play horror games.  The person in the back is not picked off that easily.  There is no cleric in the posted (and reposted) party.  Your tatic might work, if you explained it this way in the first place, but I don't think you can charge in, grapple, stun, carry target off, and move out of sight on a partial action.  The rules I will use to back this up are on page 137 of the PH, grappling.  You must make an attack _while grappling_ to do one of the following....  This seems to say that your first attack is just grabbing them, the next attack is damaging them.  Problem: you only have one attack.  Also, you must _escape_ the pin before taking a move.  No dragging away in partial charge, or really in a full attack.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 12, 2002)

Shard O'Glase said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I can't see why it's dumb.  Spring attack is just move/attack/move.  You get both movement and an attack in a partial charge.  So it works for me.  And no it doesn't change the entire move must be in a straight line clause.(which means if you want to get out of sight with the partial charge/spring attack you have to be selective in how/where you use this)  Some didn't like it because charge mentions you end your movement at the attack.  That was clarified, when people asked that they were just letting people know that the standard rules of move+attack were still there charge didn't give you spring attack for free.  But if you did purchase spring attack then yes you could charge and partial charge with it.
> 
> Personally I think not allowing it would be dumb.  Someone just spent 3 feats on the ability to move/attack/move.  Not allowing them to use it during a partial charge, makes an already mediocre feat kinda weak. *




I don't think that spring attack is mediocre.  I think the discussion on this thread should have proved that.  A straight charge: sure, I can see that, but you had better win initive next round or be prepared to be hit.  Partial charge+spring attack is kinda nifty, but I don't think it is amazing.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 12, 2002)

Ok, I have seen only one monk discussed here in any kind of detail: the hit and fade monk.  Dogde, mobility, spring attack, and the infamous "boots of cheat" better know as striding and springing.

Is that the one thing that monks do?  If you take other feat progressions, are you just stupid?  I'll buy that this might be non-sucky character at 3th-9th level.  It has yet be seen (upcoming fight) but it could be cool.

If any one has any other ideas about how to make a cool monk without the afore mentioned feat string, try posting that.  Or is this just the "exception that proves the rule"?


----------



## Christian (Aug 12, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Ok, I have seen only one monk discussed here in any kind of detail: the hit and fade monk.  Dogde, mobility, spring attack, and the infamous "boots of cheat" better know as striding and springing.
> 
> Is that the one thing that monks do?  If you take other feat progressions, are you just stupid?  I'll buy that this might be non-sucky character at 3th-9th level.  It has yet be seen (upcoming fight) but it could be cool.
> 
> If any one has any other ideas about how to make a cool monk without the afore mentioned feat string, try posting that.  Or is this just the "exception that proves the rule"? *




That type of monk is probably the most effective battle-monk. There are other types of monks, but they're less suited for hand-to-hand than for other roles (eg. scout or sniper). If you like a stand-up beat 'em down damage-sucking melee character, play a fighter or barbarian.

Oh, and BTW-if you want to complain about other people extending the core rules to make their monks better, I recommend you drop your 'boots of cheat' comment. It's a core item, the price has been fixed in the errata, and when you complain about them you sound childish. I'm not going to complain about how much more effective the fighter is with his stacking armor bonuses from his magic armor and shield; please don't complain about how much more effective the monk is with her boots of striding and springing. Yes, the magic items are directly aimed at improving their strongest point. Everyone has something like that, and the monk fewer than most. Deal.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 12, 2002)

> Is {Spring Attack} the one thing that monks do? If you take other feat progressions, are you just stupid? I'll buy that this might be non-sucky character at 3th-9th level.




Well, since it take 3 Feats (Dodge->Mobility->Spring Attack) and a +4 BAB you cant get it below 6th level.  Not that that matters; Spring Attack is a lot less useful when your Base Move is 30' or 40'.

So, dont worry, even if Spring Attack rocks, you can still count on sucking until at least 6th level.  ;-)  Maybe longer if you chose some of the other Feats people have suggested like Weapon Finesse, Expertise or Improved Initative instead of going directly up the Spring Attack Feat chain. 

Actually, I'm not convinced that a Spring Attack Monk is all that cool.  Perhaps I misunderstand the rules here, but since multiple attacks are a full round action, a Spring Attack Monk can only slap his foe once and then scamper away.  He cant Flurry, so he's looking at running up and doing d8+STR damage at 7th level.  (Grabbing Wizards and running away seems right out, just the Encumbrance issues should kill this idea.)  So is d8+STR damage every 3-5 rounds a threat to an average party facing a CR7 monster?  

And, I still think that an effective fighter in a party setting has to be able to hold his ground.  Like it or not, the Wizards and Clerics need a meat shield to cover for them; you cant just flit around the battlefield leaping and running and hiding, no matter how cool Spring Attack is as a tactic.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 12, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That type of monk is probably the most effective battle-monk. There are other types of monks, but they're less suited for hand-to-hand than for other roles (eg. scout or sniper). If you like a stand-up beat 'em down damage-sucking melee character, play a fighter or barbarian.
> 
> Oh, and BTW-if you want to complain about other people extending the core rules to make their monks better, I recommend you drop your 'boots of cheat' comment. It's a core item, the price has been fixed in the errata, and when you complain about them you sound childish. I'm not going to complain about how much more effective the fighter is with his stacking armor bonuses from his magic armor and shield; please don't complain about how much more effective the monk is with her boots of striding and springing. Yes, the magic items are directly aimed at improving their strongest point. Everyone has something like that, and the monk fewer than most. Deal. *




"Boots of Cheat" was a joke.  I should have added a smile or two, but that was how it was intended.  You have to admit, a number of portions of this discussion have been childish.

Now for monks.  With the listed feats and magic item, could a rogue or barbarian do a better job?  What would a monk hold over a rogue acting as a scout or sniper?  In the case of the speedy monk, you have a slight movement advantage over a barbarian, and far less damage, less hit points, and potentially less AC (more magic vs higher stats)

What are your advantages over the ranger as a sniper?  The ranger has a better selection of weapons.  

I am still looking for something that monk outshines others at.  Does the slight mobility of the monk over barb show a clear advantage?


----------



## Forrester (Aug 12, 2002)

Christian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That type of monk is probably the most effective battle-monk. There are other types of monks, but they're less suited for hand-to-hand than for other roles (eg. scout or sniper). If you like a stand-up beat 'em down damage-sucking melee character, play a fighter or barbarian.
> 
> Oh, and BTW-if you want to complain about other people extending the core rules to make their monks better, I recommend you drop your 'boots of cheat' comment. It's a core item, the price has been fixed in the errata, and when you complain about them you sound childish. I'm not going to complain about how much more effective the fighter is with his stacking armor bonuses from his magic armor and shield; please don't complain about how much more effective the monk is with her boots of striding and springing. Yes, the magic items are directly aimed at improving their strongest point. Everyone has something like that, and the monk fewer than most. Deal. *




Bitch moan, bitch moan. 

I was the one who coined the "Boots of Cheat" expression, and I stick to it. The boots are still underpriced. 

Just face it -- the monk you described is pretty much WORTHLESS without the Boots. 

Don't pretend it's Just Another Piece Of Equipment.

A Barbarian with a +2 sword instead of a +1 sword isn't worthless -- that's a 6k difference. 

A Fighter with a +1 shield instead of a +3 shield isn't worthless -- that's an 8k difference. 

A Cleric with a +2 Pearl of Wisdom instead of a +4 Pearl of Wisdom isn't worthless -- that's a 12k difference.

But a Monk without Boots of Striding and Springing who gets involved in almost any combat against a reasonably strong foe . . . well, he may not be worthless, but he's pretty damn close. 

Until he dies horribly, of course. Then he's completely worthless.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Ok, 

After an iffy net connection, I have finally come up with my first (with possible alternatives to follow) level 7 monk.

But first, some explanation...

30 point by, every feat and magic item comes from the phb and dmg.

I wanted to really play with the possibilies, at one time I had a monk with expertise, power attack, improved disarm, sunder, a belt of giant str, and his fav weapon was a quaterstaff (a non-monk weapon).  His tactic was to trip, disarm or sunder your weapons.  But bowing to the logic of the thread, a barbarian could do the same thing, so I decided on something a little more... expected.

I did not want them to be slaves to a single magic item, if so, I would have chosen boots of striding and springing.  

I chose human for the extra feat and skill points.  It made the 10 Int easier to handle.  Also, I thought of switching the STR with the WIS and taking weapon finesse, but from early on in this thread I said that people should not try to max just dex and wis, so I followed my own advise here.  The attribute bonus at level 4 would have gone into either STR or DEX (one of them started at 15).

Also, unlike the 6 CHR and 6 INT fighter (or was it a barbarian?), i tried to make a character I would like to play and imagine I would make over the course of 7 levels.

Finally, I tried to make a monk that would be the protector of the catacomb and chose items accordingly, I did not try to maximize his versus a party of 5.  Other wise I would have chosen 4 beads of force for my magic items.

Feel free to inspect and correct my math.

Zo, level 7 human monk.

Str 16
Dex 16
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 14
Cha 8

HP 42

AC : 10 + 3 dex + 2 wis + 1 monk  = 16
17  w/Dodge
20 Hasted
21 hasted w/dodge

BAB +5/+2
AAB +5 +3 str +1 magic kama = +9
+9/+6 or +7/+7/+4 with flurry


Feats: Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, power attack

Saves: Fort +6 Ref +8 Will +7

Skills:

Skill points : 50
Listen : 9 + 2     = +11
Tumble : 10 + 3     = +12  
Jump :  5 +3     = +8
Hide : 9 +3     = +12
Move Silent : 10 +3     = +13 
Climb : 5 + 3     = +10
Swim : 2 + 3     = +5


Items:
Kama +1 : 2302 gp
Cloak of Arachnia: 6000 gp
Brooch of Shielding : 1500 gp
Monk's Belt: 9000
2 potions of Cure light wounds : 100 gp
1 potion of jumping : 50 gp

total : 18952 gp

Tactics: 

The cloak and the brooch provide protection from two spells that might otherwise put a quick stop to the monk.

The Cloak will cast a web as per the spell once per day.  This would effectively hold fast the entire party, or at least slow them considerably (-2 to their attacks AND -4 to thier DEX).  The cloak allows half speed movement in the web for the wearer.  

Using the haste from the belt, simply engaging the casters in the web first is probably the best bet.  At -2 to thier AC and -2 to their BAB, casters would be beaten in short order.  The kama would do 1d6+1+3 (str) for an average of 7.5 per hit.  A level 6 wizard with a 14 con and a toad familiar would have on average, 34 HP, that's five hits.  Depending on how you would rule, using the improved trip to trip them in the web (if possible) then prone they would be +4 easier to hit, combined with a power attack, they meet their end sooner.  

There might be some real benefit to using improved trip on everyone he can reach.  Simply spring in, trip them, then get a free smack, then spring out.  Getting up would be a feat in and of itself inside a web, and they would still not have moved from their start spot.

Without the web, this guy would stay behind the group, try to be silent and hide, pick the best time, run in and attack, placing himself at the point where he would be attacked by the fewest number.  The extra partial action makes that stunning attempt easier to attempt.  Engage for a few rounds, then as HP are dropping, evade then heal himself, and take potions, then come back.  Primary targets should be wizards, and/or clerics.  Taking out the cleric first might be the easiest way to cripple the party, but it should be harder than taking out the wizard.

I chose the magic items I did for a few reasons.  First, I wanted to protect my character from a few spells that can really hurt a monk, magic missle, and web.  Second, the best advantage of the monk is the mobility, putting others in a web while being able to move about it really helps keep the distace from the barbarian and fighter while allowing access to the wizard and cleric.  The haste option from the belt allows that necessary partial action to do so many useful things, like take that extra attack or step back.

After this monk is picked apart (which I am sure it will be) I will post alternatives.


g!


----------



## Forrester (Aug 12, 2002)

Apsuman -- that's a good build, I must say. I can't help but wonder whether I'd rather have a fighter or barbarian with the cloak in that situation, though. The monk isn't going to stand up for very long against any fighter who happens to be standing next to one of the mages (not unlikely) who can take a 5' step and get next to the monk (also not entirely unlikely). 

A 5th level fighter with a 30 point buy would (if I were making him) have an 18 strength and a +1 weapon and Weapon Specialization, do 2d6+9 points per hit, and have an attack bonus of +11. The monk's going to be in trouble. 

Still, more interesting than the Spring Attack monkey .

Worth pointing out, though, that the Reflex save for the Web is going to be DC13, right? Need a 12 Int to cast Web, so +1 for Int, +2 for spell, base DC10. 

With a DC13 save, at least half the spellcasters (assuming they have a good Dex) will save, the party rogue will probably save, and half the fighters will save. The Monk might manage to get off a Flurry and then retreat (solely because of the Haste effect), but probably not more than once before he has to worry a bunch about readied actions.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *Apsuman -- that's a good build, I must say. I can't help but wonder whether I'd rather have a fighter or barbarian with the cloak in that situation, though. The monk isn't going to stand up for very long against any fighter who happens to be standing next to one of the mages (not unlikely) who can take a 5' step and get next to the monk (also not entirely unlikely).
> 
> A 5th level fighter with a 30 point buy would (if I were making him) have an 18 strength and a +1 weapon and Weapon Specialization, do 2d6+9 points per hit, and have an attack bonus of +11. The monk's going to be in trouble.
> 
> Still, more interesting than the Spring Attack monkey . *




Fair enought but if the fighter or barbarian had the cloak it would cost them some good item somewhere, armor, weapon, shield, something.

Maybe the biggest advantage is that the monk is just a much better shopper.

Seriously tho, you could take the same monk, give him a belt of Giant Str +4, and we could play tripping games.

g!


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *Apsuman -- that's a good build, I must say. I can't help but wonder whether I'd rather have a fighter or barbarian with the cloak in that situation, though. The monk isn't going to stand up for very long against any fighter who happens to be standing next to one of the mages (not unlikely) who can take a 5' step and get next to the monk (also not entirely unlikely).
> 
> A 5th level fighter with a 30 point buy would (if I were making him) have an 18 strength and a +1 weapon and Weapon Specialization, do 2d6+9 points per hit, and have an attack bonus of +11. The monk's going to be in trouble.
> 
> ...




Yeah, low DC but if you succeed you are free but still stuck in place.  If you move you get stuck and have to make DC 20 STR checks.

The fighter can ready and action.  But... (correct my mistakes here), assume the monk has a better initiative.  Now the fight has already started, the fighter readies and action to hit the monk if he comes close.  The monk moves in, readied action goes off, then the monk flurries for +7/+7/+2, and takes his partial action attacking again at +7,  The next round starts and the monk gets to go first, flurry for +7/+7/+2,  and takes his partial to move away.  Trading 6 attacks for 1 is a trade I would take every day.

Your fighter with the +11 to attack, 18 STr, +1 longsword hits my monk 55% of the time for d8+5 or 9.5 hp of damge.  55% * 9.5 is ~ 5 hp of damage pre round.

My monk hits your AC 21 (high enough?) FTR 35% at +7 and 10% at +2 with a kama +1 for 1d6+4 or 7.5 hp.  O average i have 35% * 7.5 +35% * 7.5 +35% * 7.5+35% * 7.5 + 35% * 7.5 +10% * 7.5 + 10% * 7.5 = ~ 14 hp.

The monk can heal himself and repeat this process.  If the FTR takes a potion, then he has no more readied action to present the monk from springing in.

If the fighter decides to chase the monk then he gets ensnared in the web, has -2 to hit and a -4 to DEX making it simultaneously harder for him to hit the monk but easier to be hit.

g!


----------



## Forrester (Aug 12, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The fighter can ready and action.  But... (correct my mistakes here), assume the monk has a better initiative.  Now the fight has already started, the fighter readies and action to hit the monk if he comes close.  The monk moves in, readied action goes off, then the monk flurries for +7/+7/+2, and takes his partial action attacking again at +7,  The next round starts and the monk gets to go first, flurry for +7/+7/+2,  and takes his partial to move away.  Trading 6 attacks for 1 is a trade I would take every day.
> *




Won't work that way. The fighter's effective initiative becomes one better than the monks due to his readied action; this means that when the next round starts, the fighter gets to go first. You're trading 6 attacks for two.

And you are assuming that the spellcaster with Haste memorized (Grease is also helpful in this situation, and you'll just pray that he doesn't have Dispel Magic memorized or on a scroll) didn't make his saving throw . . . if he did, and can buff up the fighter (who probably has around 50hp), and you're in trouble. 

Actually -- just had a thought. Correct me if I'm wrong . . . but people stuck in a web, *even* if they fail their save, can still cast spells, right? They just have to make a not-too-difficult concentration check (assuming they maxed ranks it in). 

Meaning that even if they failed their saving throw against the Web, you have to worry about Dispel Magic, or Haste on the fighter, or Grease on the fighter to help him move through the web, or whatever. Don't think it's going to work. If the monk had a better AC (21, *with* Haste, isn't very good for a 7th level character who gets into combat) he'd be better off.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Won't work that way. The fighter's effective initiative becomes one better than the monks due to his readied action; this means that when the next round starts, the fighter gets to go first. You're trading 6 attacks for two.
> 
> ...




Yes, the concentration check is 15.

I do not want this to boil down to a debate about the value of the web spell.  Merely wanted to make a monk that would be a challenge to this party of level 5.2 adventurers in a catacomb.

I will get away from the web spell in just a sec.  In general, many would make the save, some would not, but everyone would be hampered by the webs until it was gone.  The monk could simply attack the last guy in line (or the first).  Everyone that wanted to help would have to wade through the web and that would be slow going.  

Instead of taking the first or last guy in line, take out the mage if he can reach him.  The DM would have to decide on how effective unstuck people could attack in the web, being "next" to a person might not make attacking any easier.

I forgot the party makeup, assume a ftr, a barbarian, a wizard, a cleric, and a ... rogue.  In a line there has to be an easy(er) target to attack.

perhaps the best target at the time would be the cleric, or the rogue.

A bull rush would work well here, because everyone you moved any at all would be entangled.

grappling entagled targers would be fun   They would have the penalties and you would not.

I did not want to go through every permutation of what you can do with the cloak of arachnid.  What I did want to do is make a level 7 monk that would be a challenge to the party.  Everyone (well, at least me) expects the party to win, just like they would win if attacked by a level 7 fighter, or barbarian, or bard, or rogue, or cleric.

The killer item is not the cloak but the belt, the haste allows a lot of things to happen.  Also, the kama was chosen to overcome DR, lose the kama and the belt, replace them with a circlet of blasting (minor), a potion of haste, and a bead of force.  The bead does 5d6 and failed saves lock you in wall of force prisons.  The circlet does 3d8 against one target once per day.  those two items alone could take out the wizard before melee even starts.

A CR 7 should take 25% of a party of 4 level 7 characters resources.  I think a party of 5 with an average level of 5.2 plus the centaur character are pretty close to that level of power.  So, seeing if my monk takes 20-25% of their resources would be the test.

g!


----------



## Wolfen Priest (Aug 12, 2002)

[No message]


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Meaning that even if they failed their saving throw against the Web, you have to worry about Dispel Magic, or Haste on the fighter, or Grease on the fighter to help him move through the web, or whatever. Don't think it's going to work. If the monk had a better AC (21, *with* Haste, isn't very good for a 7th level character who gets into combat) he'd be better off. *




That would be a very liberal (imho) interpretation of the GREASE spell.

As for the AC, true.  But, I did not optimize the monk for this fight.  A potion of haste is what, 750 gp?  (is there erratta?)  For the cost of the belt, the monk could get  a ring of protection +1, an amulet of natural armor +1,  bracers of armor +1, and either gloves of DEX or a pearl of WIS +2, making his AC 20 without haste, having higher skills.  If he were to scrimp on ther other items he could have a potion or two of haste, so a AC of 24, while hasted.



g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 12, 2002)

S'mon, your campaign sounds pretty cool 

Back to the debate, though, I don't think I've focused on Spring Attack with every monk I've had due to the incredible usefulness of Tumble. Granted, it won't get me away from the opponent again, but attacks of opportunity are all but inexistent, at least.

And I think I've only had the Boots of Cheat () once on a monk. They're great, but the Sandals in S&F that allow you to perform a jumping charge attack for double damage are almost as good if you have Spring Attack. Flying Fists of Fury, baby 



> Wow, that's really dumb. Is that in a FAQ somewhere, or just in a random Sage email?
> 
> Does Spring Attack magically invalidate the "entire move must be in a straight line" clause of Charge? Why not, right? I mean, it's Spring Attack!




In my case, it was a pretty random email, yeah 
Can't say I'm crazy about emailing the Sage, either. Bruce Cordell is MUCH more flexible and fun to communicate with.

Now without further digression, I don't know what's dumb about it... IMC we never ruled that a charge had to be a head-on collision, that you could instead charge to an adjacent square. In this way, you can really use Spring Attack a bit like jousting: just run on afterward. But you DO have to do it in a straight line.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 12, 2002)

I like the sample Monk; I think he is very interesting and creative.  I'm not sure he's that powerful compared to the basic classes - as other people have said, a lot of his power resides in the fact that he's a hasted web-slinger rather than a Monk.  But at least he is cool.



> . The monk moves in, readied action goes off, then the monk flurries for +7/+7/+2, and takes his partial action attacking again at +7, The next round starts and the monk gets to go first, flurry for +7/+7/+2, and takes his partial to move away. Trading 6 attacks for 1 is a trade I would take every day.




Was I wrong about the Flurry being a full-round action?  

(Or does Haste or Spring Attack somehow negate this limitation?)  It ends up being the same thing except you dont get the extra partial action attack (which it doesnt look like you are counting anyway) and you have to re-arrange when you take your partial Move actions.   

The distinction is important for cases where the Monk isnt Hasted.  Its also interesting to note that Spring Attack isnt doing that much work here; it just allows the Monk to avoid an AoA when he moves away after the second Flurry.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 12, 2002)

> The distinction is important for cases where the Monk isnt Hasted. Its also interesting to note that Spring Attack isnt doing that much work here; it just allows the Monk to avoid an AoA when he moves away after the second Flurry.




...when he could have, in fact, simply Tumbled away. I agree.

Yes, Flurry is a full-round action, and the most useful combo would probably be to partial charge a character using Spring Attack (you've just used a partial action) and continue through to a tougher character on whom to use the entire Flurry.

Use the partial charge on the arcane spellcaster with a Stunning Fist, then Flurry a tougher PC to whittle him down. Hopefully you win Initiative, partial charging away again while clotheslining someone 

It's a risky tactic, but fun.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 12, 2002)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> *I like the sample Monk; I think he is very interesting and creative.  I'm not sure he's that powerful compared to the basic classes - as other people have said, a lot of his power resides in the fact that he's a hasted web-slinger rather than a Monk.  But at least he is cool.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Nope, you got it right.

I gave him Spring attack because I think it would really help this character in most normal situations.

The post you quoted was an example I gave in response to the "readied actions" offered by Forrester.  In that example, he just waded in and stayed there -- note I asked people to correct me and with the fighter getting not just one attack but two, it might not be such a good idea.

However, if he could get to a mage (since he can move and the other are having a hard time moving) he could wade in there and just attack and stay for a round or two.

g!


----------



## S'mon (Aug 12, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *S'mon, your campaign sounds pretty cool
> 
> *




Thanks - you can find the saga of the monks Chin Li, Renegade Guardian of Crane's Palace, and Cedric Quezada at:
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Dungeon/5955/Borderlands.htm

Note that they were the two only PCS from the group who survived that campaign!  For much of it the sorcerer Drake was the most powerful PC, he was a level or so higher, but when the Sh*t hit the fan it was the monks who escaped to fight another day, and win.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *Ok,
> 
> After an iffy net connection, I have finally come up with my first (with possible alternatives to follow) level 7 monk.
> 
> ...




I have no intention of picking your character apart .  

Here are few observations though, on how your character sheds light on the monk class.  First, you chose a monk centered item, the monk belt.  This means that there must be some use for monk centered items.  Secondly, you are using you the monks mobility in a new way, incorporating web.  You could easily move through the whole web without a problem.  The magic kama is a nice touch, proving that monks don't need to use their fists.

I do see a few holes, some have already been mentioned.  First: fire.  Without web, you are back to a not so good fighter, and the web is removed prety easily.  Next, the DC is pretty low to avoid web.  Third, you can get away, but +12 is much narrower margin to hide by (most of the PCs have ranks in spot).  Haste may well even the odds, and I would definately put this monk as better than the one posted by wolff96, but then you spent 1.5 times more money.

My bet on this monk: the party takes a casulty, the monk runs, the monk gets slautered when he comes back.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> A CR 7 should take 25% of a party of 4 level 7 characters resources.  I think a party of 5 with an average level of 5.2 plus the centaur character are pretty close to that level of power.  So, seeing if my monk takes 20-25% of their resources would be the test.
> 
> g! *




This is a CR 7 (higher maybe for not having NPC listed money) against an APL 5.2 party.  If the party only uses 20-25% of its resources, this is a failed challenge.  The party should use 35-50%, I would think, based on the difference between the APL and the CR.  This does not even figure in the fact that the monk knows (and will use) the terain to his advantage.  I expect this fight to be hard for the PCs, but win-able.  If they just shrug off the monk, I will still believe that monks are weak.


----------



## misttar (Aug 13, 2002)

Something that I have really noticed in the campaigns that I have either been in or close friends have been in, the monk is the MASTER of one thing survival.

This means that in a game where characters are generally not going to die alot, this strength just isn't that important.  But in some campaigns, characters drop like flies.  This is where monks really shine.

I really noticed this when talking to a friend that believes that monks are actually WAY to powerful.  After talking to him I noticed one really important thing about the campaign that he was in.  They averaged a character death every 3-4 encounters. They usually got in about 6-8 encounters per session, so they had a character death or two every timed they played.  Now even with the fact that they had good access to resurrection magics, this means that the non-monks where out of the game alot more often.

Funny thing is, the worst combat character was the one that just HAD to play a Half-orc barbarian.  So far he has died thirteen times in that campaign, died four times in one session.  Sure he could deal out 3 times the damage in a round.  But that didn't mean squat when you where out of alot of the combats all together.

If it matters, the other classes in this game:

Fighter/Duelist (super AC man)
Mage/Monk (super Magicly AC man)
Barbain/Frenzyed Berserker (Death magnet)
Monk/1st level mage
Cleric War/Destruction Domains
Wizard/Arcane Order/Incantrix


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 13, 2002)

misttar said:
			
		

> *Something that I have really noticed in the campaigns that I have either been in or close friends have been in, the monk is the MASTER of one thing survival.
> 
> This means that in a game where characters are generally not going to die alot, this strength just isn't that important.  But in some campaigns, characters drop like flies.  This is where monks really shine.*




Sure, I know that monks are playable when you get up in levels.  

But surviving is not necessarily helpful to the other PCs in the party.  The barbarian death magnet might well have been killed a lot less often if he had a couple buddies who were actually dish out some damage to take some pressure off him.  I note you had _three_ defensive minded characters in the party.  No wonder the barbarian died so often...he was carrying the lion's share of the risk.  That is obvious from the party makeup.

If I were playing the Barbarian, I would have given up on that character and played a rogue or archer.  Those monks may not have looked so good then.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

I think this only reinforces the point that monks only really shine in a few situations that most of us don't run into often.  High death and over the top challenges call for a character who can run away.  Monk rocks.

Still, you have to be levels above every one else to be just as effective, is it really a good class?  I personally don't like high death games, so YMMV.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have no intention of picking your character apart .
> 
> ...




Ok, I chose the monk's belt for two reasons.  First there are some individuals that would call other items cheats.  The monk's belt has two uses for a monk, first one extra stunning attack a day , whoopie-do, and 10 consecutive rounds of haste.  Which takes me to the second reason, it was the haste I was going for.  I did not want to have a bunch of one use items, that seemed would ruin the flavoer of the challenge.  Otherwise just fill up a bunch of potions of haste.  Basically, I was trying to make a completely playable monk.

The feats I chose do not match the magic items exactly, I think this mimics the rate and type of magic items normal characters gather.  Also, as I stated, for the monk's belt I could have purchased, bracers of armor +1, an amulet of natural armor +1, a ring of protection +1, and either gloves of DEX or a pearl of WIS +2.  This would have resulted in a +4 to my AC and extra skill points for well used skills.  Clearly this monk was not optimized for the encounter, for the catacombs, or for individual combat.

To continue, sure fire is a problem, it's also free damage for me.  The web slows down everyone so much that the monk gets to pick where to fight.  The guy with the torch might just be the one to go after first.  Also, web is very useful, if you make the save and fighter types with a dex of mod of +1 will have a total of  +3 to save against the web at DC 13.  So half the time they would fail.  That removed the immediate threat of half the fighter types.  But even if you make your save you are still surrounded by webs.  Simple movement requires you to be entangled.  If you made your save the monk could bull rush you into more web.  I would DM that attacking the monk in the web would entangle your character.  I think it would be a hoot to grapple an opponent in the web while you were free to move.

The only reason the kama is there is because the designers made it impossible for the monk to damage DR creatures, really +1 at level 10!  But really the kama takes away 2000 gold that could really have been used elsewhere.  I think this clearly demonstrates that this monk is not optimized.

And, as for the money, I asked twice if I should equip this character as a PC or as an NPC.  Hearing no answer, I spent the 19000 gp suggested byt the DMG for a PC.

g!


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 13, 2002)

> The barbarian death magnet might well have been killed a lot less often if he had a couple buddies who were actually dish out some damage to take some pressure off him.




Actually, most of the characters in that party should be able to take a turn in the front line.  Most notably the Fighter/Duelist, but even the War/Destruction Cleric is probably optimized for fighting rather than healing.  

I dont know why the Barbarian would get killed a lot more than anyone else; with a 40' move he has a fair amount of mobility.  Perhaps it was a RP thing, "Krusk stay in front line until all foes are smashed!"  

Tangent: One of my favorite things about our partys half-Orc Barbarian is that he RPs both the bravery and cowardice of his Orc half.  When then are going well, he's up in the front lines hacking, slashing and gloating.  But if the situation looks anything but rosy he's calling for Healing and he's keeping an eye on his escape route.  ;-)


----------



## apsuman (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> This is a CR 7 (higher maybe for not having NPC listed money) against an APL 5.2 party.  If the party only uses 20-25% of its resources, this is a failed challenge.  The party should use 35-50%, I would think, based on the difference between the APL and the CR.  This does not even figure in the fact that the monk knows (and will use) the terain to his advantage.  I expect this fight to be hard for the PCs, but win-able.  If they just shrug off the monk, I will still believe that monks are weak. *




The party in question has 5 members, and I always thought that the CR was "designed" (guesstimated is a better word) for a party of 4.  Adding in a fifth character opens up many doors for the party.  And their levels are 5,5,5,6,6 but the Centaur is more of a benefit than and hinderance, I would think that alone is worth another level.

Anyway, I expect the party to win.  I would expect the party to win if I designed a 7th level barbarian, or bard, or fighter, or rogue, etc.  The difference is that I think the monk could also survive this encounter, because when it is really bad he has the mobility to get out of there, everyone else is slow enough to be tracked down and killed.  Viola! a recurring villian.

g!


----------



## apsuman (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *I think this only reinforces the point that monks only really shine in a few situations that most of us don't run into often.  High death and over the top challenges call for a character who can run away.  Monk rocks.
> 
> *




How do you think this reinforces that the monk only does well in certain circumstances?  Other than a wizard who at level seven can cast that same web spell from afar and the pelt the party with cones of cold, lighning bolts, acid arrows, while flying above them, what level 7 character would be effective against this party/challenge?

g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 13, 2002)

> I dont know why the Barbarian would get killed a lot more than anyone else; with a 40' move he has a fair amount of mobility. Perhaps it was a RP thing, "Krusk stay in front line until all foes are smashed!"
> 
> Tangent: One of my favorite things about our partys half-Orc Barbarian is that he RPs both the bravery and cowardice of his Orc half. When then are going well, he's up in the front lines hacking, slashing and gloating. But if the situation looks anything but rosy he's calling for Healing and he's keeping an eye on his escape route. ;-)




Which is the way Half-Orc Barbarians SHOULD be played 




> The party in question has 5 members, and I always thought that the CR was "designed" (guesstimated is a better word) for a party of 4. Adding in a fifth character opens up many doors for the party. And their levels are 5,5,5,6,6 but the Centaur is more of a benefit than and hinderance, I would think that alone is worth another level.
> 
> Anyway, I expect the party to win. I would expect the party to win if I designed a 7th level barbarian, or bard, or fighter, or rogue, etc. The difference is that I think the monk could also survive this encounter, because when it is really bad he has the mobility to get out of there, everyone else is slow enough to be tracked down and killed. Viola! a recurring villian.




Yep. And yep  And the Curst Monk recurring villain I had IMC was one of the most annoying (read: feared and appreciated) baddies I've run.
But unfortunately, the CR system goes down the drain when:
a) you add or subtract characters from the party, or
b) you try to make a level X character a CR X.
In my experience, there is NO WAY the latter will work. When we try it in our games, whether I DM or not, the NPC has to be at least four, if not five levels above the party to present a credible threat on his own. Unless you count sword swings as "party resources", it never adds up to enough of a challenge. Which is why templates are your friends 

The party with whom I tested this most thoroughly included:
Elven Fighter 7/Sorcerer 1/Arcane Archer 4
Human Enchanter 8/Loremaster 4
Half-Orc Barbarian 5/Druid 4 (died a lot in the more extreme "tests" )
Elven Bard 6/Fighter 2/Duelist 4

...with a couple of other PCs that came and went for the "extra party member tests".

As a point of interest, the Half-Orc eventually got reincarnated as a boar (IIRC), which he tried adventuring as until his untimely death at the hands (tusks?) of another boar.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort_
> But surviving is not necessarily helpful to the other PCs in the party. The barbarian death magnet might well have been killed a lot less often if he had a couple buddies who were actually dish out some damage to take some pressure off him. I note you had three defensive minded characters in the party. No wonder the barbarian died so often...he was carrying the lion's share of the risk. That is obvious from the party makeup.




I personally take survival to be very helpful to the party, although not to the exclusion of everything else, which I take to be your point--correct me if I'm wrong.

However, it's a barbarian's job, so to speak, to be a death magnet. The monk is good to take some of the heat off by drawing attention (and attacks) to himself. Even if the barbarian is a threat, taking out the admittedly weaker supporting ally is not a bad choice. But the monk is not the easiest target to hit.

On a side note: why is it that a lot of people complain about the monk's HD while no one complains about the cleric's? Most clerics I see are fighters in disguise! (cue _Transformers_ music )

(back to the point) And although it's an easily reversible position, the best offence is a strong defence, so the other "defensive" characters in the abovementioned party must have been pretty good at drawing fire, which in turn helps offensively. A duelist is usually no slouch in the damage department from what I've seen, but he's a defensive monster if built right. A barbarian, on the other hand, is mostly a hard-hitting damage sponge begging for a squeeze.

And that's how it should be. But they're not exactly likely to die of old age either


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Ok, I chose the monk's belt for two reasons.  First there are some individuals that would call other items cheats.  The monk's belt has two uses for a monk, first one extra stunning attack a day , whoopie-do, and 10 consecutive rounds of haste.  Which takes me to the second reason, it was the haste I was going for.  I did not want to have a bunch of one use items, that seemed would ruin the flavoer of the challenge.  Otherwise just fill up a bunch of potions of haste.  Basically, I was trying to make a completely playable monk.
> 
> ...




You made some good choices.  I wouldn't mind playing this character   The monk belt, like the boots, were put in the game intentially and you used them to the best of your ability.  You have proved that, even under just core rules and splat books, there are things this monk does that no others can.  And yes, any way you can get a renewable haste, it is a good thing.

The gold isn't bad, just one major reason that your monk is better than the earlier posted one.  Every one seems interested in 19000, so who am I to argue?  Besides, treasure goes to the party unless you wipe them out 

I still don't know that this monk really proves in general that monks don't suck, but I think it would be a better trial.  If you don't mind, I think I will have the PCs face him in a few days.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> How do you think this reinforces that the monk only does well in certain circumstances?  Other than a wizard who at level seven can cast that same web spell from afar and the pelt the party with cones of cold, lighning bolts, acid arrows, while flying above them, what level 7 character would be effective against this party/challenge?
> 
> g! *




I made the comment based on another person experience about why a monk is cool.  He said the monk survives, so the monk is cool.  I say: needing to run away shouldn't be your top priority.  It doesn't come up much in any of the games I am involved in.  A situation that does not come up often.  The comment you replied to had nothing to do with the party vs level 7 monk.


----------



## Forrester (Aug 13, 2002)

I like the monk, and I think he might be effective if the fighter fails his save, but I'm not sure that he does something that no other class can. 

A Barbarian with said cloak and a potion of Speed (or Boots of Speed) can do pretty much the same thing. Of course, he has to worry a lot more than the monk does about the cleric getting a Hold Person off 

On a completely different note, I've recently posted my Brand New Monk Class (don't you know, everyone has one!) over in House Rules, under "Monkly Feats". Main difference between my guy and other monks is that mine is forbidden from using magic items (!). 

Also, he can punch through walls at some point. Just like all monks should be able to. 

Looking for feedback, in case you're bored.


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 13, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I personally take survival to be very helpful to the party, although not to the exclusion of everything else, which I take to be your point--correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> ...




Clerics can have better HP than Monks because they can usually afford a better Con score.  Also, clerics will often bump their own Con with Endurance.  Usually, if they drop, the party's healing ability drops dramaticly, so it's often a good idea for the cleric to cast the spell on himself so he can stay conscious.  

Defensive ability only matters if you get attacked.  If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount, it's not really going to matter if he has a 100 AC and a cloak of displament.  Enemies are going to ignore him and attack actual dangerous people.  Dangerous people or easily killed people are going to be bigger targets.  If the Monk is going to be impossible to take out, and an annoyance rather than a threat, then he's not exactly going to be the #1 target.  So between attacking the hard to hit monk that doesn't hit often or hard, or the raging barbarian that's so easy to hit one can power attack, most enemies are going to attack the barbarian.

Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard.  My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation.  Guess what?  Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts.  The best defense means your friends get attacked instead.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I made the comment based on another person experience about why a monk is cool.  He said the monk survives, so the monk is cool.  I say: needing to run away shouldn't be your top priority.  It doesn't come up much in any of the games I am involved in.  A situation that does not come up often.  *




DMG pg 102 - in the typical campaign, 5% of Encounters should be 'Overpowering' - +5 or more CR to the party and only survivable by running away, while 15% should be 'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option.

IMO therefore games where the PCs never need to run away are just as variant from core 3e as are games where PCs need to run away all the time (a la CoC).


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 13, 2002)

> Clerics can have better HP than Monks because they can usually afford a better Con score. Also, clerics will often bump their own Con with Endurance. Usually, if they drop, the party's healing ability drops dramaticly, so it's often a good idea for the cleric to cast the spell on himself so he can stay conscious.
> 
> Defensive ability only matters if you get attacked. If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount, it's not really going to matter if he has a 100 AC and a cloak of displament. Enemies are going to ignore him and attack actual dangerous people. Dangerous people or easily killed people are going to be bigger targets. If the Monk is going to be impossible to take out, and an annoyance rather than a threat, then he's not exactly going to be the #1 target. So between attacking the hard to hit monk that doesn't hit often or hard, or the raging barbarian that's so easy to hit one can power attack, most enemies are going to attack the barbarian.
> 
> Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard. My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation. Guess what? Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts. The best defense means your friends get attacked instead.




...and then you drag their singed asses back to town. The logic behind your cleric not getting the Finger of Death, Lightning Bolts, etc., is that every DM metagames. Knowing that a PC has a bunch of protections, the DM will generally try to thwart the PC by not targeting those strengths.

BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. How do the monsters know who can do what, who has what protections??? As a DM, if I know that the Egoist in the PC party can manifest Acid Touch as a free action with no problems, I STILL will make a grappling monster attack him if it seems more logical in-game. And creatures don't KNOW the PCs AC either, so they don't immediately know who's harder to hit. By the time they do, the creatures ought to be dead already.

Having a monk jump around annoyingly should be enough to draw the attention of stupider monsters. It's a reflex to get rid of annoyances almost as much as it is to get rid of sources of pain.

Anyway, as to your story, what did the wizard do afterward? Die horribly at your hands, most likely, which is fine considering he had enough time to cast so many spells.

And let's face it, a monk with those buffs is as well-protected as your cleric, hits more, and moves much better.

As for this,


> If Monk runs up, flurries, and misses with every attack, or hits once for a pathetic amount,




all I can say is stop rolling 1s. Seriously, I have NEVER seen a monk hit less than 2 times out of 3, unless it was a session of terrible luck for everyone--by which I mean ALL rolls of less than 10.

(edit) Oh, and for the record, we don't tend to run away much either, but then we've learned that that leads to casualties. There ARE consequences to foolish recklessness, after all. We just live with the fact that we have to make new characters


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 13, 2002)

Hammerhead said:
			
		

> *
> Once upon a time, our group fought an evil wizard.  My cleric had Deathward, 26 SR, immunity to lightning bolt, magic missile, and enervation.  Guess what?  Our wizard ate the Finger of Death, and the sorcerer and barbarian died to lightning bolts.  The best defense means your friends get attacked instead. *




..which is exactly my point about the barbarian dying because the monks are weak.  Except you stated more clearly.

We discovered that same lesson the hard way with Improved Invisibility against giants.  While on paper keeping the Wizard safe and giving the archer/rogue all those sneak attacks was a great move, the net effect was the giants attacked the targets they could actually hit and one PC was dropping unconscious per round.

A great defense for one or two characters actually made our party weaker because it encouraged the enemy to squash an individual vulnerable PC instead of spreading the damage around in the more natural way.

The same is likely to happen with any party with one single melee Damage Machine.  The opposition will usually squash the barbarian and ignore those "effective"  bouncing monks.

People bragging about how their monk lived while all their comrades kept dying is the main problem with the class I have been arguing about all along.  That is a symptom the monk may not be pulling his own weight, not a point to brag about.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

S'mon said:
			
		

> *
> 
> DMG pg 102 - in the typical campaign, 5% of Encounters should be 'Overpowering' - +5 or more CR to the party and only survivable by running away, while 15% should be 'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option.
> 
> IMO therefore games where the PCs never need to run away are just as variant from core 3e as are games where PCs need to run away all the time (a la CoC). *




DMG pg 102?  I will have to read that section more carefully, and use it against my players.  For the record, I didn't say "never run", I said "doesn't come up often"

Two points arise from what you have said, besides more problems for my PCs   First, if only 5% of encounters are supposed to be absolute run-away encounters, how does optimizing for this 5% make monk any better?  You have only put a statistic on how little this really should come up.  Even with the other 15%, you are only looking at 1/5 of the encounters, not all of which you should run from.  That still isn't a large margin.

Second, on a related note, by what you have quoted, the lvl 7 monk vs the party at APL 5 should be "'Very Difficult', +1 to +4 CR to the party - possibly winnable by a full strength party, but retreat may often be the best option."  No one yet has believed that any of monks posted will get the party to leave the catacombs.  Do you think any level 7 monk would?


----------



## Hammerhead (Aug 13, 2002)

Okay, so the Monk flurries, and hits twice, doing 2d12+10.  Often that will be less 20 for Stoneskin or Inertial Barrier.  The fighter type hits twice 4d4+26 and threatens on 12 to 20, or does some other really mean damage.  Stoneskin, while still having a signifcant effect, doesn't completely destroy his damage.  If I'm choosing between a hard target that doesn't do much, or a guy that hits twice as hard and is easier to it, I think I'll choose the damaging, easy to hit guy.

Or you can make the Monk focus more on strength and thus damage dealing.  However, except in really high stat games, his Dex will suffer.  Then he's easier to hit and loses that great defense aspect to the class, especially since he can't wear armor.  

Regarding my little anecdote:  Evil wizard guy was scrying us as we buffed, and our group had 1 rank in Scry at the time, IIRC.  So he saw all the spells I cast.  Also, multiple Abjuration effects on the same person create a shimmering in the air that can be noticed with a relatively easy Spot check.  But, yes, those spells eventually came in handy because my cleric was the only one that could see Evil Wizard Guy, and because my Flamestrike provoked an ice storm and cone of cold - that my SR defeated.  But for a (mistaken, IMHO) interpretation of an effect, he would have died faster to my other spells.  And a Monk would have been rather poor in that situation.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> DMG pg 102?  I will have to read that section more carefully, and use it against my players.  For the record, I didn't say "never run", I said "doesn't come up often"
> 
> ...




Would ANY level 7 character?

Possibly a wizard.

I would say that the "real" level of the party would be something closer to 6.4-6.7, in part because of their numbers, and in part because of the centaur.

But, then again, I am wrong often.

g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 13, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Would ANY level 7 character?
> 
> ...




The centaur was reincarnated and only has the stat boosts, and they lack a cleric (they buy and go through healing potions by the case).  One or more people don't show up on a regular basis.  I wouldn't put the party above 6.  A single hill giant would stomp them pretty good  

What I am saying is that your math shows the monk should be something the party should consider running from, by the math you quoted.  I don't see that.  This is why I think the monk is weak.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 13, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> DMG pg 102?  I will have to read that section more carefully, and use it against my players.  For the record, I didn't say "never run", I said "doesn't come up often"
> 
> ...




If you want my opinion, the party with numbers & levels as posted is more a strong lvl 6 or weak lvl 7 party anyway, so one wouldn't expect a lone level 7 monk to defeat them in the sense of forcing a retreat.  If I were running the battle and wanted to hurt the PCs I'd combine the monk with some orcs or whatever for distraction.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 14, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The centaur was reincarnated and only has the stat boosts, and they lack a cleric (they buy and go through healing potions by the case).  One or more people don't show up on a regular basis.  I wouldn't put the party above 6.  A single hill giant would stomp them pretty good
> 
> What I am saying is that your math shows the monk should be something the party should consider running from, by the math you quoted.  I don't see that.  This is why I think the monk is weak. *




I do not have my MM, but the centaur should have the stat boost (what stats and how many?), extra movement, an improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled.  Heck, you even get to introduce the tactic of engaging opponents in melee while someone riding you gets to pepper them with missle fire, or even lance attacks.

I do not like the CR system I think it breaks down easily and often.  I asked a question twice now, what level seven character equipped as a PC would be a challege to this group?  even if one person does not show up?  even if they had to buy the case of cure potions instead of that cloak of resistance to bad things?

I think only a wizard.  Anyone they can engage in combat (excluding flying opponents) should be beaten without much danger.

g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 14, 2002)

apsuman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I do not have my MM, but the centaur should have the stat boost (what stats and how many?), extra movement, an improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled.  Heck, you even get to introduce the tactic of engaging opponents in melee while someone riding you gets to pepper them with missle fire, or even lance attacks.
> 
> ...




Reincarnate gives stat boosts and gross physical qualities.  If you are lacking a MM where you are (or the PH for reincarnate), try http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html  The centar has only 4 level, and is new to his form.  And the "improbably high boost to being tripped, bull rushed, or grappled" is only the extra 2 legs and +8 strengh.  He is only at 20 or 22, as he was a finess fighter.  The centaur can be avoided, as all the tactical discussions here have pointed out.

Now to the question of CR.  I do not think the CR system is amazingly good, but it has it's supporters.  It is the only published technical means to compare threats to a party.  The published material says the monk is CR 7, the party is APL 5 (where does it say "based on party of 4"?) and the challenge is +2 over the party level.  The published material calls this a very difficult encounter, one that the party should potentially run from.  This is all published, without any situational modifiers.  The situation favors the monk, who can use the local terain and confound the PCs.  

As to your other question, who else besides a wizard could challenge the party, I will say this.  Sorcerer could if wizard could.  This seems redudant.  Ok, a rogue, repeatedly sniping with sneak attack, could use the terain even more.  A cleric could cause havoc with summoned monsters, then move in armored and ready to beat the PCs down while he was buffed up.  A barbarian wouldn't give them a chance to run, but could definately do some real damage.  Druids have animals, and that could be a scary horde.

I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task.  I proposed the challenge in the first place because monk was at the bottom of my list.  I want those who like monks to show me how they have advantages over others.  Every thing that has been proposed, save "not dying" is something that another class better.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 14, 2002)

Whatever buffs you give the level 7 character, a level 5 party (especially with 5 members) will slaughter him unless the scale you keep for equipping PCs and NPCs is really skewed. An extra party member is an extra set of actions. Average party level means nothing there. Think about it: have a 10-person party all at level 5, and that's a party averaging level 5. They'll take any CR of less than 9 or 10 apart.

And the CR system IS based around a party of 4 characters, although I don't have a specific reference for you. Read the CR section in the DMG, I guess.



> _Originally posted by Ridley's Cohort_
> People bragging about how their monk lived while all their comrades kept dying is the main problem with the class I have been arguing about all along. That is a symptom the monk may not be pulling his own weight, not a point to brag about.




Well, that or the characters who die aren't built as well, and aren't pulling THEIR own weight. Survival is pretty essential to the game, and a barbarian (or fighter, or whatever other class) who can't tell when a battle is lost and retreat is the best option is asking for it. If the monk cannot hit at all, odds are the rogue can't either, nor the cleric. You're then catering almost solely to offensive spellcasters and brute strength fighters, who should not take up so much game space.

And if the monk never hits, your dice are cursed somehow. The odds are on his side, if anything at least for the number of attacks. And once he gets damage in, it's quite respectable, if not what a barbarian or fighter would do.

Hammerhead, if the fighter has items that give him a threat of 12-20 and +13 damage to each attack, but the monk has nothing remotely comparable, the DM's at fault, not the monk. As has been stated, there are many rules that permit the addition of similar items for unarmed strikes, and you can always rule 0 if you must. It's not needed, but you can.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by LokiDR_
> I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task. I proposed the challenge in the first place because monk was at the bottom of my list. I want those who like monks to show me how they have advantages over others. Every thing that has been proposed, save "not dying" is something that another class better.




As for the last part, that's as may be, but the monk does ALL those things.

He is still the master of unaided mobility. Add a mobility-enhancing spell, and it's just more so. Mobility is not to be underestimated, even by the Fly-abusers (which remains one of the silliest things I've heard).

He can still fight quite decently, with acceptable damage, more than acceptable number of attacks, alright BAB, and some in-built special combat abilities for which he needs no feats.

He can sneak around just fine, as well as a rogue, in fact.

He also has a ton of class skills, for which you admittedly have to "sacrifice"  a stat to Int if you want to take advantage of them.

He has what is probably the best higher-level class progression, tied with the Druid (who's a high-level disaster waiting to happen on the poor wee monsters). SR, lots of resistances, becoming an outsider (a good if double-edged sword), Dimension Door, d20 damage, etc.

So yes, many classes can do certain things the monk does better, but he does all of them. The comparison to a bard would be good if the bard didn't rely on spellcasting so much for his power. I've seen bards become deadly opponents at high levels, and they weren't benchwarmers earlier, either. But that's a debate for another day, and another thread


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 14, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Well, that or the characters who die aren't built as well, and aren't pulling THEIR own weight. Survival is pretty essential to the game, and a barbarian (or fighter, or whatever other class) who can't tell when a battle is lost and retreat is the best option is asking for it. If the monk cannot hit at all, odds are the rogue can't either, nor the cleric. You're then catering almost solely to offensive spellcasters and brute strength fighters, who should not take up so much game space. *




If you have one offensive-minded and many defensive-minded characters in the party, it is predictable that the offensive-minded character will die much more often unless you exercise truly masterful teamwork.

It is my observation that naively super-stacking on defenses for a specific character often hurts the party as a whole because attacks are simply directed at more vulnerable teammates.  If the opposition is encouraged to focus all attacks on the one or two most vulnerable PCs, you will have dead PCs; it really doesn't matter how the lightning rod PCs are built or played.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 14, 2002)

> It is my observation that naively super-stacking on defenses for a specific character often hurts the party as a whole because attacks are simply directed at more vulnerable teammates. If the opposition is encouraged to focus all attacks on the one or two most vulnerable PCs, you will have dead PCs; it really doesn't matter how the lightning rod PCs are built or played.




Again, I have to question the wisdom of having creatures automatically know which characters are harder to hit by the numbers. A Purple Worm shouldn't be able to tell your cleric's AC is bumped through the roof. A Dragon might. An elven wizard might. An intelligent humanoid, sure. But any mindless (golems, certain undead), animalistic (dire animals, dinosaurs) or simple-minded creature (characters with an Int score of 6 or less) should not be able to tell off-hand.

It would be perfectly reasonable for an Int 6 Half-Orc (or Orc, or whatever) to believe he's fighting godly beings that cannot be hit (supposing he never connects). Most opponents (look through the MM!) should NOT realize what's going on and automatically attack the low-AC guys.

Remember that you're also making it so that players think their planning was useless. Sure, he's protected, but does he feel it was useful if he's not attacked? No. So, because the game is also about having the players feeling rewarded, I sometimes "sacrifice" an opportunity by attacking a character who's well-prepared for it, because his character took the time. If the protected character is always thwarted, he won't really enjoy himself.

For instance, last week I had a Devil use his whip to try and entangle (and subsequently) grapple a PC, a 23rd-level Egoist, knowing full well that the frail-seeming Kuresh (from If Thoughts Could Kill) was a likely target for the Devil, but had, in fact, a temporary Strength modifier of something like +25.

That being said, I'm not a big proponent of "super-stacking" either. I think there's a time for everything, and buffing yourself straight through three rounds of combat with people bleeding and dying around you is stupid.

And with that, I think I've gone far enough afield of the topic


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 14, 2002)

> Again, I have to question the wisdom of having creatures automatically know which characters are harder to hit by the numbers.




How many times have you read in a module something like:

_Tactics: The monsters will attack; targetting spellcasters and dangerous combatants first._ 

Pretty standard tactics for intelligent monsters; actually pretty standard tactics for most parties as well.  I wouldnt give my monsters a precise idea of the strengths and immunities of a party (which was your original (correct IMHO!) point), but they should be able to recognize general classes of characters like "spellcasters" and "dangerous combatants". 

Of course, this bring up this point - how often have you seen something like this:

_Tactics: The monsters will attack, seeking to quickly neutralize any supporting characters like Bards and Monks before turning their attention to Spellcasters and Fighters._ 

Not so often, I will bet.  And I think that speaks volumes about these classes.  It also is a partial explanation for why certain classes are more "survivable" than others.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 14, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Reincarnate gives stat boosts and gross physical qualities...
> *




Only +8, and he's only at 20 or 22 ,yeah silly silly me.

I have +8 to STR, +4 to DEX, +4 to CON,  +2 Natural Armor, and 50 Speed.  

Finesse or not this guy would be a monster (no pun intended) to go upagianst.

The monk gets improved trip for free, but using it against his guy would be impossible, +4 for exta legs, and the STR is now through the roof.  Monk are good at grapple, but not against this guy.  Monks are good at movement, but not against this guy.  Monks could bull rush weaker opponents, but not this guy.

*



			Now to the question of CR.  I do not think the CR system is amazingly good, but it has it's supporters.
		
Click to expand...


*
The average level of the party is 5.2, and if you don't think that +8 to STR, +4 to Dex, +4 to Con, and 50 speed aren't worth _AT LEAST_ one level, then we have more to disagree about.

*



			As to your other question, who else besides a wizard could challenge the party, I will say this.  Sorcerer could if wizard could.  This seems redudant.  Ok, a rogue, repeatedly sniping with sneak attack, could use the terain even more.  A cleric could cause havoc with summoned monsters, then move in armored and ready to beat the PCs down while he was buffed up.  A barbarian wouldn't give them a chance to run, but could definately do some real damage.  Druids have animals, and that could be a scary horde.
		
Click to expand...


*
The reference about +1 is actually a range of +1  to +4.  That +1 I think would have areal impact when the party is level 5 and the challenge is a level 6 wizard.  Fireballs, Fly, and that extra feat as an advantage are all big thing from level 5 to level 6.

However for a party of level 12, a level 14 wizard might not be that much of a challenge, or a level 15, or16 wizard.

Sure a sorcerer might also be a challenge, but at level 7 wizards have 4th level spells, Sorcers do not.  Sorcerers have not make their own magic items.  Sorcerers do not have many spells to fill in their level 3 slots.  Dispel, Fly, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, pick two.

You other example are not very well formed.  A sniping rogue would/should be found easily, and then dispatched quickly.  Fighter and barbarian are better challeged one-on-one, imho.  More than one-on-one would have the numbers carrying the day.

*



			I personally see most any other class as being better suited to this task.
		
Click to expand...


*
Really?  How many more rounds would a fighter/barbarian/bard/druid/rogue last than the monk after they are spotted?



g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 14, 2002)

> Tactics: The monsters will attack; targetting spellcasters and dangerous combatants first.




Yes, you're absolutely right. What I was criticizing (and, unless I'm mistaken, you were in agreement) is the idea that a monster would not attack a buffed-out spellcaster because it would know his AC is too high (or that he's too protected). Very illogical.

That's like saying a Behir would not use its lightning bolt against a character with lightning resistance. Bull.

For that matter, even a wizard can make false assumptions. For example, let's assume a wizard figures out that he can target a monk, a rogue, a wizard and a barbarian. Let's see this in-game:

- The wizard deduces at a glance that the monk is too nimble to strike easily with the bolt (Evasion and high Reflex save); this makes sense.
- The wizard also guesses the rogue is a difficult target (despite the fact that rogues should not be easily recognized, but I digress); this is still alright.
- The wizard sees that the other wizard is frail, and while he isn't clumsy, probably isn't up to dodging something as quick as a lightning bolt; why not?
- The barbarian is a lumbering hulk, and an easy target, but the wizard believes the walking mountain can take it, and prefers to let a fighter cohort take care of him.

However, what the wizard doesn't know (also in-game), is that:

- The monk, while agile, has been cursed by Boots of Everdancing, which he believes to be Boots of Striding and Springing; the lightning bolt which he would have thought to easily avoid would in fact have blasted him.
- The rogue focused on fighting skills, and only has a 12 Dex. More to the point, he's only taken one level of rogue and many of fighter, meaning he doesn't have Evasion.
- The wizard has an SR of 25, and has just found a Ring of Universal Elemental Resistance 30.
- The barbarian min/maxed his high stat to Strength, leaving him with a Con of 10 (but his huge muscles make him LOOK big), he's used up his Rage for the day, and he rolled substantially less than average on HP at every level, leaving him with less total HP than the rogue.

These examples are extreme, but they're all possible, and alter conditions drastically. The opponents should have no way of knowing these things, either.


----------



## Numion (Aug 14, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Yes, you're absolutely right. What I was criticizing (and, unless I'm mistaken, you were in agreement) is the idea that a monster would not attack a buffed-out spellcaster because it would know his AC is too high (or that he's too protected). Very illogical.
> *




I don't know. Why would a monster with an ounce of int attack a wizard with mirror images up, since he'll miss most of the time? Why not beat the crap out of the fighter type who he'll hit?

It all depends on the situation. As a DM I usually avoid having monsters do things that result in nothing, if they could reasonable anticipate that fact in-game.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 14, 2002)

But how would the monster KNOW that he's going to miss. Remember, to someone who doesn't know how magic works, or to someone whose intelligence is insufficient to understand that it's being used, it's just not there.

A dinosaur might conceivably charge each Mirror Image down, believing it to be the character. Your point that certain monsters could reasonably figure some things out is correct, but most creatures couldn't. And monsters, just like characters, should sometimes try useless things; player defences are there for a reason, and it feels good for a player to have chosen his defences correctly. It shouldn't ALWAYS be that way either, but it's more even.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 14, 2002)

Of course the bad guys need to figure what to do or not to do with in-game knowledge.

--If they miss an attack with a roll sufficient to hit AC 33, they will figure out who not to attack again.

--If one PC is springing back and forth, dishing out a whopping 9 points of damage while the barbarian up front is dishing out 50, it is pretty obvious who needs to be taken care of first.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

> --If they miss an attack with a roll sufficient to hit AC 33, they will figure out who not to attack again.
> 
> --If one PC is springing back and forth, dishing out a whopping 9 points of damage while the barbarian up front is dishing out 50, it is pretty obvious who needs to be taken care of first.




On top of the obvious fact that AC 33 would be a very relative number (obviously at higher levels it's a piteously low roll), there are two things to take into account:

1) Only an INTELLIGENT creature would deduce this. Some animals, vermin, undead, constructs, etc. certainly would not. How the hell would a Golem reason like that?? Or a Gelatinous Cube???

2) What you believe to be a telling blow might just miss (as in your example); would you then abandon the attack entirely? What if you were facing an entire buffed-up party? Past a certain level, you certainly will. Do you just stop attacking and let them kill you because you can't hit them and they surround you?

Now as for your second example, again you're exaggerating. By the time the Barbarian does 50 points of damage per round steadily, the monk can do so as well. Consider a Half-Orc Fighter with a Greataxe, and a Str of 24 (with items). With Weapon Spec, and let's say a +3 flaming axe, he deals 1d12 + 15 + 1d6. He needs at least two attacks to do 50 points, but for that equipment he should be higher than just level 6. So let's make him level 12. He can then quite conceivably deal 75 points of damage a round, more with Power Attack. But he's probably wearing Heavy Armour, bringing his speed down to 20'. Still, he attacks at +23/+18/+13, mostly likely easily hitting at least with the first two. Not many creatures have ACs that high at a CR 12.

Now, the Human monk (let's say), with a Dex of 22 (again, with items). He now deals 1d12 damage with (let's give him a 12 Str) a +1 damage. Now that's not much, especially with the magical axe, so let's give him an equivalent item, +3 Flaming Fists of Fury (which are special ninja gloves--not gauntlets!--with a flaming enchantment). There's still a +11 damage difference. With Weapon Finesse, this monk attacks at +18/+15/+12 (with a possible +1 for Weapon Focus if he's taken it). Say he flurries, he then attacks at +16/+16/+13/+10, which is perfectly respectable, dealing approximately 14-15 points of damage per hit. That's acceptable, and he'll most likely hit at least twice per round.

If the monk had had 22 Str instead of Dex (a probable but not altogether attractive scenario IMO), he would deal about 20 points per attack instead, not far from the fighter's 25. The monk is then a tolerable damage-dealer (certainly better than most clerics!), only falling truly short in terms of critical hits. There's no reason he has to equal the fighter. But he's not far. When they hit level 16, the monk is much closer still.

If the monk had Monk Tattoos, from Magic of Faerûn, he'd do 1d20+9+1d6 damage at level 12 compared to the fighter's 1d12+15+1d6. Not bad after all. Granted, he may be a little over-budget (not sure), but it was only a hypothesis.

Now on top of this quite acceptable fighting ability, the monk moves 3.5 times the speed of the fighter, can heal himself spontaneously if needed, is immune to poison, and can Dimension Door out of a tight spot--or INTO one, to help friends. If one of the characters was hard-pressed by a foe, and the other started 70' out (a possible scenario), the monk would be there the same round with an attack to spare, while the fighter would have to all-out run, and THEN walk 10 more feet.

So yeah, your fighter deals more damage--but that's all he can do. In that armour, he drowns if he falls in water, while even the most hydrophobic monk stays afloat (ok, maybe not, but you get my drift). If your fighter is swallowed, chances are his Greataxe won't help; the monk's backup +1 kama is fine, though.

Just to point out that the damage difference doesn't have to be so large, and the monk can handle himself quite well otherwise. "Pulling your own weight" can mean a lot of things, and often it only involves surviving to help your friends. You can't help them fight if you're Held, Dominated, or dead. And the fighter better hope that the Dragon who breathes fire on him is young, otherwise he's a walking s'more


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> 
> As for the last part, that's as may be, but the monk does ALL those things.
> 
> He is still the master of unaided mobility. Add a mobility-enhancing spell, and it's just more so. Mobility is not to be underestimated, even by the Fly-abusers (which remains one of the silliest things I've heard).*




Wizards who do not leave combat, by fly or other means, die.  You mobility sees to that.  I will agree that monks are the king of high land speed.  How much does that help you?  It could be nice, but are your combats that large?  I have never worried about having more mobility, and I tend to play halflings and armored clerics.  I don't see you mobility as that useful.  Can you think of specific encounters where it helped you?  Point in case, you still can't move to hit targets 160' up.



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> He can still fight quite decently, with acceptable damage, more than acceptable number of attacks, alright BAB, and some in-built special combat abilities for which he needs no feats.*




decent, acceptable, alright, some.  These are the words you used to describe the monks abilities.  Monks have the largest number of abilities in the game.  Why, then, do they still come out as mediocre?  Monk should be very cool with that number of abilites, but all of my experiences are that they are bouncing buffoons untill they get higher level abilities like SR and d20 damage.  It seems most of the abilities are aimed at being "flavor" that just doesn't come up on a regular basis.



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> He can sneak around just fine, as well as a rogue, in fact.*




So can a ranger.  Rangers can use bows.  There are lots of good feats for bows.  I don't mean the monk can't do it.  I mean other classes get a lot more out of it.



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> He also has a ton of class skills, for which you admittedly have to "sacrifice"  a stat to Int if you want to take advantage of them.*




Ok, this I will give you.  The skill points are a nice boost, but 4 vs 2 isn't that amazing.  Ranger gets as many skill points as monk, and have an exclusive skill to choose from.  Monk are again, decent but not that well off.



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> He has what is probably the best higher-level class progression, tied with the Druid (who's a high-level disaster waiting to happen on the poor wee monsters). SR, lots of resistances, becoming an outsider (a good if double-edged sword), Dimension Door, d20 damage, etc.*




I had thought the high level question died long ago.  Well, it is a long thread.  By the time you hit the "nice" abilites, you had to suffer through a lot.  I would have gotten sick of it before that.



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> So yes, many classes can do certain things the monk does better, but he does all of them. The comparison to a bard would be good if the bard didn't rely on spellcasting so much for his power. I've seen bards become deadly opponents at high levels, and they weren't benchwarmers earlier, either. But that's a debate for another day, and another thread  *




Everything the monk class does, some one does better, except mobility and not dying.  Monks really are annoying clowns, bouncing around and not doing terribly much.  Every thing they do is decent.  So you are in the backup for half the party??  What the heck is that about?  If this game is supposed to be fun, shouldn't you be the best at SOMETHING that the party uses regularly?

As for bards, I may just have to start a thread on those too.  I have fealing the bard likers will win though.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

> As for bards, I may just have to start a thread on those too. I have fealing the bard likers will win though.




What, you mean you're not one of those??? 
You just dislike everything, don't you 



> Everything the monk class does, some one does better, except mobility and not dying. Monks really are annoying clowns, bouncing around and not doing terribly much. Every thing they do is decent. So you are in the backup for half the party?? What the heck is that about? If this game is supposed to be fun, shouldn't you be the best at SOMETHING that the party uses regularly?




I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but if all you're looking for is to be better than the others at something, maybe you should play solo games. Against no NPCs.

Being best at doing a lot of things just plain well is a perfectly valid strength. And you failed to acknowledge that the monk is not necessarily "second" at sneaking, nor at overcoming obstacles without outside help: he is the best. The rogue and ranger can be EQUAL at stealth, but they probably won't be better (not until Skill Mastery, at least).

In dungeons (which are admittedly a large part of the game), monks are generally the best scouts, since they're awesome trap-springers and can move faster.

They have important item-based advantages, one of the foremost being that a Disintegrate spell aimed at a weapon won't cripple them (see the thread on "Blowing up items"). That tough fighter everyone's set on comparing the monk to is often more of a liability than anyone else due to the ease with which he can be disposed of using spells or psionics (a favourite of mine is using the Time Hop psychic power). Or Sunder.

So sure, the monk is "only" GOOD at a lot of things. But versatility is also a big issue, or else no one would play a wizard instead of a sorcerer (or vice-versa, depending on your side of that argument). And hey, if you're everyone's backup, that means they depend on you, and that's a GOOD things


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> 
> Only +8, and he's only at 20 or 22 ,yeah silly silly me.
> 
> ...




The monk tatics mentioned also wouldn't work on a hill giant, and probably not a ogre or troll either.  Eliminating some tatic for one person is something you live with.  The fireball happy mage cast cone of cold on the red dragon, the fireball he has maxxed out.  Whining about the centaur doesn't prove that the test is unfair.  So he matches your speed, a flying wizard exceeds it.  Suck it up and don't grapple him.  If one centaur ruins a monk, they are even crappier than I thought.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> The average level of the party is 5.2, and if you don't think that +8 to STR, +4 to Dex, +4 to Con, and 50 speed aren't worth AT LEAST one level, then we have more to disagree about.*




Fine, give the cenaur +2 ECL.  That still puts the party at 3 level 6s and 2 level 5s.  The average is BELOW 6!  I think you are just trying to make excuses for this test failing before it even happens.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> The reference about +1 is actually a range of +1  to +4.  That +1 I think would have areal impact when the party is level 5 and the challenge is a level 6 wizard.  Fireballs, Fly, and that extra feat as an advantage are all big thing from level 5 to level 6.
> 
> However for a party of level 12, a level 14 wizard might not be that much of a challenge, or a level 15, or16 wizard. *




One more time.  The discussion here is about a CR 7 on APL 5 unless you are talking about the CR system in general, and then you are in the wrong thread.  Maybe I should check to see if there were one of those threads too.  I fail to see the relavance of level 12, 14, 15, and 16 characters.  If you wish to provide different secnarios, be my guest.  

CRs were not meant to be second guessed on every encounter.  I don't believe they are perfect, but they make a prediction about how the fight will come out.  Something solid, not just guess work.  If you can show by rules, besides rule 0, that this calculation is wrong, I will happily withdraw my argument.  But don't just wine that CR doesn't work.  I have come up with stories and theories to counter yours, come up with rules that counter my rules.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> Sure a sorcerer might also be a challenge, but at level 7 wizards have 4th level spells, Sorcers do not.  Sorcerers have not make their own magic items.  Sorcerers do not have many spells to fill in their level 3 slots.  Dispel, Fly, Lightning Bolt, Fireball, pick two. *




you forgot haste   haste, invis out of sight of the party.  move up and fireball then invis again.  Wash, Rinse, Repeat.  MM for the rougues, some summoned cannon fodder for the fighters still up, and I will have every buff I can by the time they get to me.  Who needs 4th level spells   Cheap, yes, but I imagine that is how the wizard would do it.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> You other example are not very well formed.  A sniping rogue would/should be found easily, and then dispatched quickly.  Fighter and barbarian are better challeged one-on-one, imho.  More than one-on-one would have the numbers carrying the day. *




Hey, monk isn't the only one that can run, especially in his own catacombs.    Add the fact that the rouge can open with a fireball by use magic device and does +4d6 damage on every sneak attack.  A barbarian, in a 5' wide spriral hallway, could take at least a few of them, unless they have presise shot and are just behind the first character.  Number probably would win, but there has NEVER been question of that.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> Really?  How many more rounds would a fighter/barbarian/bard/druid/rogue last than the monk after they are spotted?
> 
> 
> ...




Long enough to deal 35 to 50% losses on the party or get away.  I say they would all do it better than the monk.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

For the record, Soldarin's ECL Generator lists the Centaur as being ECL +5, and it's generally more lenient than WotC's listings.

So you're way off-base on the ECLs.

And your vaunted fighter or barbarian is gonna go down HARD against that party. I grant you that a mage would be tougher to approach easily, but he'd be toast within less than a round of 5 PCs attacking him. Haste doesn't guarantee him initiative on the round following his surprise round. Losing initiative for him = going to the meat grinder.

Please, could you explain the logic behind your "APL"? I don't get it. Because a 10-character party of level 5 characters is most assuredly APL 5, but they'll massacre even normally overpowering challenges for a level 5 party.

A 5-character screws the CR system to heck. It's based off a 4-PC party, and one of your PCs is an ECL 9! Recalculate the whole thing. That you would miss these essential factors is really making me wonder whether any test you've had with the monk has been valid


----------



## Forrester (Aug 15, 2002)

I have to agree -- the centaur alone is going to kick the ass of any 7th level fighter-type that shows up. Who in the hell let him into the party? 

He's also going to make mincemeat of the monk's Web, of course, but I don't see ANY 7th level guy being a challenge against this party . . . not with a freakin' centaur. 

Maybe a wizard who can Charm Monster the centaur . . . that's about it.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> 
> What, you mean you're not one of those???
> You just dislike everything, don't you *




Actually, I like bards, but I would want to get a second opinion.  I wouldn't want to become positive



> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but if all you're looking for is to be better than the others at something, maybe you should play solo games. Against no NPCs.
> 
> Being best at doing a lot of things just plain well is a perfectly valid strength. And you failed to acknowledge that the monk is not necessarily "second" at sneaking, nor at overcoming obstacles without outside help: he is the best. The rogue and ranger can be EQUAL at stealth, but they probably won't be better (not until Skill Mastery, at least).
> ...




I don't mean my character must be the best compared to the world.  But top in the party would be nice.    I would think, though, that every person needs to feel usefull to the party, which means something to excel at.

So you say monk is great scout, and I say.....damn, he is.  Speed, mobility, defense, and stealth to make it all work together.  I would still want a rogue for traps, but monk does make one good scout.  I wish I had come to this realization when I was playing one.  That only uses a small amount of the special abilites of the monk class, though.  Why are all the other abilities hanging around?

I still don't like your comparisons to fighter though.  If I used sunder and distingrate on my party all the time, or had them. used on me, I would get not happy in a hurry.  This is a classic monk friendly scenario.

I do not frown on versitility.  I just want every class to have something they can really do.  This is why expert is an NPC class.  They will not find a group of skills that beats the skill set and special abilities of another class.

I see the scout monk as using the spring attack tatic in combat.  I will buy that this is a decent character (now).  What else is monk good for?  Fighter could go reach, special manuevers like trip, range, two weapon, or two handed.  Rouge could be melee sneak attacker or a ranged sneak attacker.  Are there any other paths for the monk?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *For the record, Soldarin's ECL Generator lists the Centaur as being ECL +5, and it's generally more lenient than WotC's listings.
> 
> So you're way off-base on the ECLs.
> 
> ...




HE IS NOT A NATURAL CENTAUR!!!  IT WAS A REINCARNATE.  He gets a stats, 2 AC, and move 50.  He DOES NOT get the 4hd, +3 BAB, Wepon Focus (hoof) or the racial skills.  +5 ECL is more than large IT IS INSANE.

I have ask before for where it says the CR system is based on a 4 character party.  WHERE?  the offical campaign allowed 4 to 7!!  I have rules and precident to back me up.  Where did you get off?

Also, by the rules, reincarnate dose not change ECL of the creature.  Show me errta.  +2 is more than the rules call for.

As for your homebrew CR calculators, it is a mute point.  This is a discussion of a situation under core rules and splat books.  Your CR calculator is not a valid arguement, even if you did use it correctly.

I am sorry if I sound angry, but you have repeated mistakes over and over.  This was never supposed to be about CR.  If the monk takes a decent chunk out of the party, it will be a success.  No one ever really thought the monk would win, or any other class.  I have repeated this over and over and I am tired of saying it.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

I happen to think that CR matters a great deal in this discussion. You can't possibly hope any 7th-level to do appreciable damage to a party with a Centaur (reincarnated or not). I'd say he's still at least two levels higher than he should be. No, ECL does not change for a reincarnated character. But you have to bear in mind that reincarnating as a Centaur is MUCH more powerful than reincarnating as a Human! At least two levels' worth, maybe more since, as you said, there's no counterbalancing penalty.

And Soldarin's Calculator, while homebrew, is vastly superior to any published source of ECL. If you read it, you'll see.



> A monster of CR 5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th-level characters. /.../ Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs. /.../ Nonetheless, XP *awards* depend on the group's average level.




Pages 100-101 of the DMG, under the heading CHALLENGE RATINGS AND ENCOUNTER LEVELS. The emphasis is mine. I think that's where you may have taken the APL idea, but I could be wrong. Either way, there's your actual reference.

Better yet, from page 12 of the Monster Manual, under Challenge Rating:



> This is the average level of a party of adventurers for which one creature would make an encounter of moderate difficulty. Assume a party of four fresh characters /.../ Given reasonable luck, the party should be able to win the encounter with some damage but no casualties.




Now you said your characters aren't fresh, but the fact that they're closer to being a level 6 party balances that.

And anyway, logically it was the only possible way of seeing it. How exactly did you expect a CR 7 to be able to take on more characters just because the book says it can take on level 7 characters?

Back to the monk. I think one of the problems I'm seeing is that you want "builds" of monk. But the scout monk isn't a build--he's a standard, out-of-the-PHB monk. He does all the other I mentioned too. That's a SINGLE character. You just put skill points in Hide and Move Silently as well as Tumble. Have him carry a crossbow (which he's proficient in), or better yet, as someone mentioned, poisoned shuriken (make it a paralysis- or sleep-inducing poison). You could also equip him with a bunch of those nifty alchemical items the PHB has. With a bagfull of Thunderstones, Tanglefoot bags, Alchemist's fire and caltrops, he becomes a great low-level ninja. And don't tell me that incapacitating the enemy is useless!

I think even in your encounter, that level 7 monk could use such items with efficiency. Have him slick a section of the floor with oil, then set it ablaze as a surprise action. Granted, this works for any class, but a ninja-like monk would DEFINITELY use that sort of tactic. Chuck a Thunderstone or two, then a Tanglefoot bag, and maybe he doesn't need to worry quite so much. I used such tactics against a party of a similar level with a Halfling rogue to even the odds, and it worked very well. Dice rolls matter a lot, but then they always do.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 15, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The monk tatics mentioned also wouldn't work on a hill giant, and probably not a ogre or troll either.  Eliminating some tatic for one person is something you live with.  The fireball happy mage cast cone of cold on the red dragon, the fireball he has maxxed out.  Whining about the centaur doesn't prove that the test is unfair.  So he matches your speed, a flying wizard exceeds it.  Suck it up and don't grapple him.  If one centaur ruins a monk, they are even crappier than I thought.
> 
> *




Monk do well against other PC types.  This monk has a 16 STR because I wanted him to get a belt of Giant STR ( I later ruled it out) so that he could challenge a fighter with a grapple/bull rush/trip.  When fighting a centaur you must use different tactics, which is fine.



> *
> Fine, give the cenaur +2 ECL.  That still puts the party at 3 level 6s and 2 level 5s.  The average is BELOW 6!  I think you are just trying to make excuses for this test failing before it even happens.
> *




It also means that the average level of the party is actually higher than 5.2 ...



> *
> One more time.  The discussion here is about a CR 7 on APL 5 unless you are talking about the CR system in general, and then you are in the wrong thread.  Maybe I should check to see if there were one of those threads too.  I fail to see the relavance of level 12, 14, 15, and 16 characters.  If you wish to provide different secnarios, be my guest.
> *




some one pulled a quote about what would be a challenge to a party, and it said something like +1 to +4 levels above would this level of challenge, and +5 to something else would this type of challenge, etc.

With that quote in mind, I was saying that depending on the party level, a +1 level challenger might not be much of a challenge.  FOR EXAMPLE, if you had a party of 4 level 1 characters, a level 2 barbarian or fighter probably is a BIG challenge.

If you had a party of level 5 characters and they faced a level six wizard, that would be a a tough challenge because the wizard would have firebell/lightning bolt/haste, an extra feat they the party members do not have, more magic items, etc.

So, my inference is that this party of five, with two people at level 6 (including a wizard) and one that is a centaur with those benefits, is closer to being a level 6+ party and will be less challenged by a level 7 opponent than a level 5 party facing a level 6 opponent.

Basically, the relative threat of a character being one level higher diminishes as the party gains levels.



> *
> 
> CRs were not meant to be second guessed on every encounter.  I don't believe they are perfect, but they make a prediction about how the fight will come out.  Something solid, not just guess work.  If you can show by rules, besides rule 0, that this calculation is wrong, I will happily withdraw my argument.  But don't just wine that CR doesn't work.  I have come up with stories and theories to counter yours, come up with rules that counter my rules.
> *




I think Hak has done the work on this...



> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Imp. Invis (level 4 right?) would be more efficient.

And this is a fine strategy, however, I tried to exclude level 7 wizards because of their arsenal of spells.  

But since you mentioned it... As soon as you cast fireball, everyone will be after you.  If you cast summons first then you can stay invisible, but if creatues just start showing up, someone (the party wizard) will figure out what is going on, adn they shoudlbe looking for you.  If you cast summons while invisible, you will stay that way, but lose full round actions due to the casting times.  You only have so many second level spell slot, so repeated invisibility would take away some of your buffing spells of that level.

Parties should be equipeed to handle invisible opponets.  Now, flying invisible opponents are another thing altogether. 



> *
> 
> 
> Hey, monk isn't the only one that can run, especially in his own catacombs.    Add the fact that the rouge can open with a fireball by use magic device and does +4d6 damage on every sneak attack.  A barbarian, in a 5' wide spriral hallway, could take at least a few of them, unless they have presise shot and are just behind the first character.  Number probably would win, but there has NEVER been question of that.
> ...




But rogues do not get sneak attacks every round.  They can not sneak quickly, they have to be in melee or in 30' range to do the sneak attack damage, the barbarian could close that distace quickly.

And as for Fighter/Barbarian types I would thing that as soon as they showed up the parties front line fighters would just engage him, 2-to-1 and he would not last long.




> *
> 
> 
> Long enough to deal 35 to 50% losses on the party or get away.  I say they would all do it better than the monk. *




You really think that a Barbarian would be able to run in and kill a third to half of the party?  I would be really really surprized.  Same with a fighter, ranger, bard, and cleric.  Druids might do this job better but should still be beaten back pretty quickly.

Which is my point I think the monk would make a fine adversary to this party for a challenge and would do as well, or perhaps better than any other class except the wizard.

If the monk is just killed/beaten/subdued/captured as fast as any other class then it shows that they are just as good (or bad) as any other class.

g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *I happen to think that CR matters a great deal in this discussion. You can't possibly hope any 7th-level to do appreciable damage to a party with a Centaur (reincarnated or not). I'd say he's still at least two levels higher than he should be. No, ECL does not change for a reincarnated character. But you have to bear in mind that reincarnating as a Centaur is MUCH more powerful than reincarnating as a Human! At least two levels' worth, maybe more since, as you said, there's no counterbalancing penalty.
> 
> And Soldarin's Calculator, while homebrew, is vastly superior to any published source of ECL. If you read it, you'll see.
> 
> ...




First, thank you for the tatical advice.  I wanted to know how people used monks to be efficient.  I don't think that incapcitating is useless, far from it.  

My only point here has been that a level 7 monk, with time to prepare, should be able to do some noticable damage to party, the same way a hill giant would do some noticable damage.  I could not see how a monk was going to pull this off, and thought that the party would just blow him off.  This would have shown that monks just don't have the umph for combat at this level, which does weaken the whole class as a good portion of D&D is combat.  I realized the combat didn't have to be "run up and fight".  It could be any tatics the monk wanted to do.  I wanted to see what tatics would work since I don't what monks do.

As for "builds"  you are right.  Personality is a big difference between characters, but I can make a rogue that ignores pick lock, disable device, and even search and still be a viable character.  The skills mention are still good, and other characters would take them up.  If these choices don't really exsist for the monk, i.e. you should always use skill points on tumble, move silent, and hide and should always use your leveling feats for spring attack, then I would call the class poorly designed.  In that case, they didn't really design a class, but a character without a personality.

Some feats are bad to take with a given fighter.  Most feats seem bad to take with the monk.  I want to know if this really is the case, or are there other "builds" for monk that are more than just pale shadows of a diffent class doing the same thing.  An example would be a monk with a crossbow.  You are no more effective with that bow than a cleric, and the cleric has spells.  You have range, so movement is a lot less of a question.  How can a monk with a crossbow be considered "good"?  I agree, it might be prudent to carry one, but to focus on the crossbow seems...weak.  Crossbow is only a really good choice for a rogue for the sneak attack.

As for CR, your CR calculator, ECL, APL, and the fight, a few quick thoughts.  Ok, reincarnated centar is a boost.  I will give you that.  But isn't it ballance at least by knowing the terain and having control of it?  Also, the monk I think I am going to use is kitted as a character, not an NPC, so there is more to favor the monk.  Finally, the monk got a good deal of thought and disscussion, which should make him deadlier.  If it was another class, I would see the character doing a lot of damage.  I didn't think the monk could do anything.  I have slowly changed my mind on that.  I don't see the CR discussion as being anything more than way to show through the rules that the monk shouldn't suck in the encounter.  As for the calculator, I have nothing against it, just wasn't offical.  This discussion has pointed out several holes in game where monks are concerned, why would this be any diffenent?

Well, the fight is in few days, so the proof will be coming.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

You're definitely correct that a monk who focuses on the crossbow is weak. He's not only weak, he's also using an infinitesimal part of his skills, including movement abilities, as you rightly pointed out. But the crossbow is useful in certain cases, and it helps to be prepared. I think the monk's strength is certainly that he doesn't need to focus exclusively on anything to be good at it. A monk who focuses on unarmed combat but also on stealth is easily accomplished. In fact, it's sort of the base class.

Your point about the feats and skills is a good one too. Maybe the monk's chief weakness is that he generally is a close copy of other monks, never mind what feats and skills he's taken, because the class has so many abilities in-built. A rogue is not necessarily like another rogue, but a monk is usually like another monk. The changes are more subtle, and perhaps less important.

However, I have rarely, if ever, taken Spring Attack with a monk. And since only one of the half-dozen or so monks I've played was a ninja-like character, the others didn't focus as much on stealth. I've played a diplomat-pacifist Human monk and a grappling Vanara monk, for example (loads of fun, but ironically died grappling two dire monkeys to save the party; good news is that it worked, since the battered party slaughtered them while they was trading blows with my character).

I find that the feats in OA *really* make a difference in flavour, and certainly make the monk a better grappler 

At this point, though, I'm just concerned that pitting a 7th-level monk, no matter how prepared he is, against a party like the one you describe won't resolve the issue in a satisfactory manner. Well, as you said, we'll see. If you have the opportunity to, take a neutral party (like another, uninvolved gamer friend) and run a practice match to get used to the tactics. I guarantee that can only help.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 15, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> On top of the obvious fact that AC 33 would be a very relative number (obviously at higher levels it's a piteously low roll), there are two things to take into account:
> 
> ...




The most dangerous opponents are almost always intelligent for exactly the reason there is no sure fire method of manipulating them.  BTW, monks don't look so hot against oozes or golems either, even with ki strike.

You are under the mistaken impression that a barbarian or fighter needs to be high level to dish out 50 pts. of damage per round.  Not true at all.  It is quite plausible to do so at 8th or 9th level if you remember criticals.  The _springing_ monk will be doing something like d10+4 damage per round, if that.  At that kind of damage differential the monk is just a gnat that can be safely ignored, at least for the next few rounds.

Held or Dominated is a problem for typical grunts.  Of course one can wonder whether anyone would bother tossing one of those spells at a monk even if they had the worst saves in the world.

Dragon breathe is really a joke from the fighter's POV, BTW.  A little fire sure beats being ripped from limb to limb by its claws.


For all my griping about the Monk class I think it is an interesting class that is not too difficult to fix with minor tweaks.  But the first step is to actually recognize its weaknesses.  One of my DMs did the following: boosted unarmed BAB to fighter progression (but kept the old values for weapons), used high point buy (lets the monk get decent values in all "must have" stats), and cracked open the OA (gives the monk some interesting tactics that other classes cannot easily replicate).  This might be too potent at very high levels, but we will cross that bridge when we come to it.  Low-mediums level monks are useful with notable strengths and weaknesses.

Hey, it's been fun hashing over thing with you, Hakkenshi!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

> Hey, it's been fun hashing over thing with you, Hakkenshi!




Likewise 

I did get some pretty good ideas out of that.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 15, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> Finally, the monk got a good deal of thought and disscussion, which should make him deadlier.  If it was another class, I would see the character doing a lot of damage.  I didn't think the monk could do anything.  I have slowly changed my mind on that.  I don't see the CR discussion as being anything more than way to show through the rules that the monk shouldn't suck in the encounter.  As for the calculator, I have nothing against it, just wasn't offical.  This discussion has pointed out several holes in game where monks are concerned, why would this be any diffenent?
> *




True, there was thought and discussion, but I did not make the monk just for this party, I tried to make a monk that I would want to play in general, one that would be fun to play.

An optimized monk would have a few beads of force, no magic weapon, potions or other one-shot ways to make haste, and bracers or armor, gloves of dex, a ring of prot, amulet of nat. armor, ring of jumping, and a few other things.

g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

Certainly for this type of encounter, any character's odds are improved by stacking up on one-shot items. That gives greater variety, costs less, and is generally better. Plus it doesn't give your characters a bunch of good magic items 

Potion of Haste + Necklace of Missiles = 2 Fireballs in a surprise round, unless I'm mistaken. Pretty nasty.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> 
> Monk do well against other PC types.  This monk has a 16 STR because I wanted him to get a belt of Giant STR ( I later ruled it out) so that he could challenge a fighter with a grapple/bull rush/trip.  When fighting a centaur you must use different tactics, which is fine.
> 
> It also means that the average level of the party is actually higher than 5.2 ... *




+2 ECL for a reincarnate as a centaur seems about right, as there are some nice stat boosts.  That still only puts the party at APL 5.6  Up, but not amazingly so.  Since you knew there was a centaure, you probably weren't going to try tripping him any way.  In another case, it might have been really interesting.  I am glad you went for the general case though.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> some one pulled a quote about what would be a challenge to a party, and it said something like +1 to +4 levels above would this level of challenge, and +5 to something else would this type of challenge, etc.
> 
> With that quote in mind, I was saying that depending on the party level, a +1 level challenger might not be much of a challenge.  FOR EXAMPLE, if you had a party of 4 level 1 characters, a level 2 barbarian or fighter probably is a BIG challenge.
> ...




True, there is less of threat at higher levels, since the difference is pretty minute by that point.  But this is low to mid level.  I would have to guess this is where the rule was aimed at.  If it only works on 1st level characters, why write the rule?  I also don't think the difference is THAT dependant on where the break is.  Your wiz 6 vs APL 5 party would probably favor the wizard more if the wiz had 4th level spells, as you comments below indicate...



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> Imp. Invis (level 4 right?) would be more efficient.
> 
> And this is a fine strategy, however, I tried to exclude level 7 wizards because of their arsenal of spells.
> ...




and there is no reason the sorceror couldn't be flying and invisible.  Fireballs could be scrolls bought from other sources.  And I find a lot of parties are not equiped to handle invis oppnents well enough.  Improved invis would be nice, but I think you can do a lot a damage without it.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> But rogues do not get sneak attacks every round.  They can not sneak quickly, they have to be in melee or in 30' range to do the sneak attack damage, the barbarian could close that distace quickly.
> 
> And as for Fighter/Barbarian types I would thing that as soon as they showed up the parties front line fighters would just engage him, 2-to-1 and he would not last long.  *




The barbarian would have a good chance if they couldn't gang up, like a 5' wide tunel.  The sneak attacks would have to be set up well, like an arrow ally.  Neither of these options are really availible to the monk.



> _Originally posted by apsuman _*
> You really think that a Barbarian would be able to run in and kill a third to half of the party?  I would be really really surprized.  Same with a fighter, ranger, bard, and cleric.  Druids might do this job better but should still be beaten back pretty quickly.
> 
> Which is my point I think the monk would make a fine adversary to this party for a challenge and would do as well, or perhaps better than any other class except the wizard.
> ...




I don't think the barbarian would kill 1/3 to 1/2 the party.  I do think he could take 1/3 to 1/2 of the parties total hp, as new oppents step up to him.

I guess, to be fair, I should perform this test on the party multiple times and see if they all kind of suck.  So, where was that lvl 10 barbarian some one posted   If you don't think this isn't a perfect test, I say....ok.  it isn't.  It should say something about monk abilities though, and that is what I am interested in more than anything else.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

Now if you made the MONK flying and invisible...THAT would be funny


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Now if you made the MONK flying and invisible...THAT would be funny  *




Monk, ivisible stalker with a mage friend?  Ooo, that just sounds fun.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 15, 2002)

I think the word you're looking for is "EVIL".
Still, "fun" fits the bill almost as well 

By the by, remember to keep us posted when the fight actually happens. I'm curious.


----------



## Scion (Aug 15, 2002)

*ecounter level and such*

hopefully this will help, should have posted earlier but I figured someone else would.. anyway

dmg page 100 challenge ratings and encounter levels

this is pretty close to one of the arguments, it says here that challenge ratings are based on parties of four characters, I know it says it elsewhere, but this one quote should fix that problem

it also says that groups of more characters would take on equal challenge ratings much easier

on page 101 of the dmg there is a chart, lets come from the point of view of the happy go lucky monk guarding the whatever place shall we? 

monk comes across the party, it averages out as basically a 6th level part ( 2 x 5, 2 x 6, 1 x 7) (*imho +8 str, +4 con, +4 dex, +2 natural, increased move, resistance to a lot of special attacks would be +3 levels, then again, +8 str is pretty much equal to +2)
anyway though, tangent

going with the chart he sees 5 characters roughly 6th level average.. moving over this encounter is roughly EL 11.. so, if he had three other people just like him to make a 7th level party they would still be under by 4 levels.. in other words, overpowering for a party of himself, and EXTREMELY! impossible for one.. any non-spellcasting character who did this battle would be lucky to get through 2 rounds, max.. the spellcasters have more tricks so are harder to judge

so just from this it seems that he doesnt have a chance to scare them off, nor would said barbarian, fighter, paladin, ranger, rogue.. whatever, it is just too far above there level

now, if you are able to change terrain to his own purposes then yes, anyone could beat this party off, even a single level 1 kobold.. that isnt the point

unless you take drastic measures for terrain he will have no chance, no non-spellcaster would, the challenge before them is a good challenge (potentially have to run away) for your group vs four 7th level npcs.. putting pc gear on him helps a little, but not even enough to make him count as two people, let alone 4

hope that helps ;/ its not a question of how much damage will be done, its a question of whether it will even take 2 rounds to completely decimate said 'guardian' without changing the entire environment to suit this 'guardian'


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *I think the word you're looking for is "EVIL".
> Still, "fun" fits the bill almost as well
> 
> By the by, remember to keep us posted when the fight actually happens. I'm curious. *




Evil is fun   And don't worry about posting the results, I am just as curious what the reaction will be as to what the outcome itself is.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

Scion, I think you have missed the point.  You are quit correct that the monk doesn't really stand a chance of winning.  Nothing ~CR 7 would.  Every one agrees on that.

Now to the question of how long it would take to go down.  A hill giant has lots of HP and could stand punishment for a while.  Does the hill giant have a chance against, from his point of view, a CR 11?  Not even close.

A CR at your parties level is supposed to consume 20~25% of your resources.  An encounter at +1 to +4 your APL is supposed to be "very difficult" and something you should consider running from.  I don't have a DMG, and these are not in the SRD as far as I can tell, but the pages of these facts have been posted before.  A full strength party APL should be able to maul a hill giant, but maybe they shouldn't risk the loss of life.

The monk's prospective is not an issue here.  If I was the PC, put into that position, I would run.  NPCs, for one reason or another don't.  The odds are very stacked in favor of the party.  Now the question remains: will the monk be able to take a bite out of them before he goes down or runs?  If he can't do anything, maybe he really isn't a CR7, or maybe the monk class is weak on combat (which it is).  It was a fairly standard kind of situation for the monk, one that he isn't perfect for, but might be ok at.  The barbarian would take a much bigger chunk out the PCs I think.

As for terrain, the monk knows it, could add simple traps in out the way places.  He can pick the size of corridor to attack in.  He can head them off.  He can lead them off to get lost.  All of these make him more deadly.  He can't just collapse the ceiling on the PCs, since he is supposed to guard the catacombs, but there are many other things he can do.

If the monk is slautered easily, which I don't see as likely, he was either badly designed for his class or his class is holding him back.  That is why the monk fight was a decent test, better than monk vs hill giant.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 15, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> True, there is less of threat at higher levels, since the difference is pretty minute by that point.  But this is low to mid level.  I would have to guess this is where the rule was aimed at.  If it only works on 1st level characters, why write the rule?  I also don't think the difference is THAT dependant on where the break is.  Your wiz 6 vs APL 5 party would probably favor the wizard more if the wiz had 4th level spells, as you comments below indicate...
> *




I will try again, at certain levels, having an opponet that is one level higher will be a big challenge.  It will depend up on the character, the character concept, and the level of the party.

I have used higher parites to illustrate my point (apparnetly badly).

at level 1, a level 2 ftr/bar is a BIG challenge.

at level 5, a level 6 wiz (but not a sor, imho) is a BIG challenge.

for this party of level x.2, no character of level seven will be a big challenge except maybe a wizard, imho.

*



			and there is no reason the sorceror couldn't be flying and invisible.  Fireballs could be scrolls bought from other sources.  And I find a lot of parties are not equiped to handle invis oppnents well enough.  Improved invis would be nice, but I think you can do a lot a damage without it.
		
Click to expand...


*
Not many can handle invisiblity well, true.  But they should and it is their fault if they don't.

Imp. Invisible, being a 4th level spell is available to level 7 wizards but not sorcerers, and using it would make for an even more dangerous wizard.

But invisiblity does not make invulnerability.  Casting darkness and relying the feat blind fighting might be the best option for the party.


*



			The barbarian would have a good chance if they couldn't gang up, like a 5' wide tunel.  The sneak attacks would have to be set up well, like an arrow ally.  Neither of these options are really availible to the monk.
		
Click to expand...


*
True choosing the terrain would make a difference for the fight.

But nobody else could set up arrow alley and have the sneak attack damage.

Nobody else gets rage.

Nobody else gets the fighter feats.

Everybody is different.


g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 15, 2002)

apsuman, you opinion is a good thing to know.  You don't like the CR system, and think it is uneven.  Fair enough.  Is it so uneven that a wizard is off the scale from a fighter?  That would be huge hole in the game, if true.

As for the barbarian, rogue and fighter using their abilities, that is what they are supposed to do.  What abilities does the monk have that help him to win?  Only mobility really.  Can that add a big advantage to this fight for the monk?  I don't think so, but YMMV.

I think I will have to add a barbarian encounter later just compare who was more effective.  None of class would win, not even wizard IMHO, but how much they dish out before they go down is important, and I still say that most of the other classes would be more effective than the monk.  Any of them should damage the party.  If the monk fails to damage the party in a significant way, I will call the test a fail for the monk.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

> apsuman, you opinion is a good thing to know. You don't like the CR system, and think it is uneven. Fair enough. Is it so uneven that a wizard is off the scale from a fighter? That would be huge hole in the game, if true.




Oh, the wizard is indubitably more difficult. I should think there's no need to point that out.

From levels 1 to 10 (more or less), the fighter has good odds of winning a one-on-one fight, and the lower the level, the better they are.

From level 10 onward, it's a spellcaster's game. They're all getting more powerful spells both on the offence and on the defence. A hasted high-level wizard spells death for almost any fighter, even one of 3 or 4 levels higher (maybe more). I'd say a level 15 wizard is easily capable of taking down a level 20 fighter given the right spells. A sorcerer has to have chosen well. A psion as well, but for some reason, I find high-level psions (edit: post-ITCK psions, that is) much better than high-level sorcerers. A druid or cleric is probably as dangerous as the wizard. At epic levels, the druid is the champ.

To get back to the encounter: the monk's tactical knowledge should put him ahead of the barbarian. Unless you're going for very much against type, the barbarian is not a thinker, and should pretty much count only on surprise and strength to carry the day. The monk should count on speed, stealth and cunning. On top of that, he probably KNOWS he's going down, whereas the barbarian probably is more blissfully ignorant.

Just remember to let the party rest before facing the barbarian 

PS: on a useless self-promoting note, if you're curious, the link in my sig leads to illustrations of two of my monk characters (the two lower ones), Chishikiji the Vanara pacifist grappler-monk, and Kwan of the Flaming Death, the Azer wannabe drunken master whose dream was shattered when he discovered that his body instantly metabolizes alcohol


----------



## Scion (Aug 16, 2002)

LokiDR, hey there 

no, I didnt misinterpret, more along the lines of not always being able to get across what I mean

what I tried to say a few times was that any non-main spellcasting class will stand a chance of hurting them for 20%

none, without grabbing a few very specific magic items or picking up terrain in such a way as to fix things for them..

but if you do that then even a level 1 kobold who is missing an arm, leg, and an eye could still go through and kick the pc's butts.. that isnt the point of the game

but still, take any of the main fighting classes and have them get into combat with the party, if the party is reasonably balanced (as it seems it is for a 6th level party) then AT BEST they should live to their second attack, but I wouldnt even put even money on that happening..

5 characters at this level vs someone who is only slightly stronger than one of their own members will get slaughtered (which is given) but also do maybe 10% loss to the party.. most of that comes from just having surprise

just tried to show with the chart that if you wanted to actually live long enough to see something you would probably have to up your guys level by 3 or 4.. note that this should still not kill anyone unless one person gets hammered with no party support and/or lucky dice rolls on your part..

luck aside however, try uping the defenders levels by a couple, and compare it at that point 

otherwise, the 6 second slaughter wont show anything.. no matter what the guys class is (non-spellcaster)

sorry about the caps, dont know how to italicize..lol

**as a little note, I think that the monk makes a really good backup to any other member.. which, if nothing else, leads to less situations where one party member goes out alone and gets killed, that helps everyone  **


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

Ya, wizards are more powerfull, but I still kinda wish it wasn't that way.  What is a poor high level rogue to do?

Other than that, I would say you have a very low opinions of barbarians.  Usually not rocket scientists, they do what they do well, and what they do is combat.  I would call a barbarian who didn't have some decent tatical sense is dead meat.  Barbarians may not be able to read, but they get more skill points than fighters, wizards, sorrcerors or clerics.  The barbarian that doesn't have at least as good grasp on the battlefield as the monk is not worth playing.  Knowing when to rage and when not to is the best path to victory.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 16, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *Ya, wizards are more powerfull, but I still kinda wish it wasn't that way.  What is a poor high level rogue to do?
> 
> Other than that, I would say you have a very low opinions of barbarians.  Usually not rocket scientists, they do what they do well, and what they do is combat.  I would call a barbarian who didn't have some decent tatical sense is dead meat.  Barbarians may not be able to read, but they get more skill points than fighters, wizards, sorrcerors or clerics.  The barbarian that doesn't have at least as good grasp on the battlefield as the monk is not worth playing.  Knowing when to rage and when not to is the best path to victory. *




I do not really have a problem with the CR system, I think it is as good as it can get without being overly complex.  It's the KISS principle.

My only point is that there are key point or times in the system (as there are in many systems) that it either A) does not work, or B) does not work well.

When the wizard gets those extra "money" spells at level 6, and then at 7, he become a real powerhouse.  It takes other classes a few levels to "catch up".

g!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

> Other than that, I would say you have a very low opinions of barbarians. Usually not rocket scientists, they do what they do well, and what they do is combat. I would call a barbarian who didn't have some decent tatical sense is dead meat. Barbarians may not be able to read, but they get more skill points than fighters, wizards, sorrcerors or clerics. The barbarian that doesn't have at least as good grasp on the battlefield as the monk is not worth playing. Knowing when to rage and when not to is the best path to victory.




Absolutely, but as soon as they Rage, that tactical sense should go out the window. And they should Rage 

I agree that the high-level is unfairly skewed toward spellcasters. Just don't sell rogues short. Doing +7d6-10d6 on each sneak attack is pretty good, and it surpasses the wizard's damage potential. Instant death spells re-tip the scales in his favour. Special abilities (IMO the coolest thing about rogues) make it almost even. Not quite, but close enough to not be absurd.

The thing is that if even ONE of your characters is actually level 6 (not by using ECL), the battle is over before it began; his number of attacks is doubled. And that is a huge balancing factor. I'd say that for every character who has more than one attack because of BAB, raise the necessary CR of the NPC opponent by one. Because that's ONE enemy taking TWICE the hits suddenly.

apsuman, I think fighter-types gain enormous benefits around level 6 as well. And monk gains a few good abilities too. The additional attack based on BAB is a HUGE jump. You pretty much double your damage potential. The gamebreaking spells for the wizard appear at level 5 (Haste) and 7 (Improved Invis., Stoneskin).


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> The thing is that if even ONE of your characters is actually level 6 (not by using ECL), the battle is over before it began; his number of attacks is doubled. And that is a huge balancing factor. I'd say that for every character who has more than one attack because of BAB, raise the necessary CR of the NPC opponent by one. Because that's ONE enemy taking TWICE the hits suddenly.
> 
> apsuman, I think fighter-types gain enormous benefits around level 6 as well. And monk gains a few good abilities too. The additional attack based on BAB is a HUGE jump. You pretty much double your damage potential. The gamebreaking spells for the wizard appear at level 5 (Haste), 7 (Improved Invis.) and 9 (Stoneskin). *




I think your comment on level 6 characters is a bit misplaced.  I think what you meant was a BAB of 6.  This is only possible for the purely fighter types, and every character except the wizard and rogue has multiclassed.  I also agree that an extra attack is very nice, but it can hardly be considered as important enought to warrent a recalculation of EL.  What about two weapon fighting?  That is -2 on all attacks instead of -5 on a second attack.  If a second attack was that powerful, the two weapon fighter should just slauter other characters about his level.  I don't see this, so I have to assume it is not that big of a deal.

I still don't understand why you believe wiz 6 is so good.  Wiz 4 to wiz 5 is amazing, since the third level spells are the real powershouses at low level.  Wiz 6 to wiz 7 give improved invis, which is a nice spell.  What is at 6?  

As for the other spells you mentioned, stoneskin is just not that amazing.  First, wiz 7 not wiz 9, as it is a 4th level spell.  Second, it is DR 10/+5.  A sure-striking weapon goes right through.  Third, at only 10 points per hit, a fighter or barbarian can still hurt you through it.  Forth, at 10 minutes per level, this isn't something you can cast at the begining of the dungeon as a precast.  Fifth, the cost of 250 gp of gem dust per casting make it rather expensive and that dust adds up pretty quickly.  I would much rather have haste than stoneskin.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

You're definitely right, and I'll have to go over my post to check if I really said that level 6 was a good one for wizards, 'cause I don't think it is 

Level 5 is DEFINITELY the split-off point for arcane power. Haste is the reason for it. No question about that.

I think that Stoneskin is definitely good in conjunction with other boosts. It's better to have than not, although I grant you that its effectiveness drops by a lot against NPCs. It's good against monsters though. And if it's only level 4 (my bad), that makes it even better.

And as for the extra attack, it's powerful enough that you need two feats to do it with only a minor penalty. That's fairly substantial. But an extra attack granted by BAB is still a lot better than TWF. Full Str mod applied to it, no penalties... And of course, for a fighter using TWF, level 6 means a THIRD attack. That's very good again.

Then again, with the multiclassing you've mentioned, level 6 DOES mean less than it would to a single-class, unless they reach level 2 or 3 rogue as one of their classes


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Hakkenshi _*
> 
> And as for the extra attack, it's powerful enough that you need two feats to do it with only a minor penalty. That's fairly substantial. But an extra attack granted by BAB is still a lot better than TWF. Full Str mod applied to it, no penalties... And of course, for a fighter using TWF, level 6 means a THIRD attack. That's very good again.
> 
> Then again, with the multiclassing you've mentioned, level 6 DOES mean less than it would to a single-class, unless they reach level 2 or 3 rogue as one of their classes  *




-5 is a significant penalty, 25% chance of fairure.  -2 is only a 10% chance of failure.  Full vs half strength bonus is likely to only be 2 or 3 points at best.  Should EL calculations be changed if there is a TWF fighter on the party below 6?  I just don't see this.  I see the CR system as more continuous.  Maybe we should continue this line in the new thread, http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20937

as for your other comment, I don't get this.  How does level 2 or 3 of rogue really help you when you hit level 6?  Rogue doesn't have a fighter BAB, so you won't get a second attack.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

Level 2 or 3 of rogue always help, since you get Evasion on the first and +1d6 sneak attack and Uncanny Dodge on the latter 

No, I don't think that TWF should specifically count for more, but in many cases it does at lower levels. Against many squishies, it counts. You kill an extra one per turn, and if you have Cleave on top of that...

But the extra attack granted by BAB can also give 1.5 x Strength mod. if you're using a two-handed weapon. And that makes a difference. Let's say (using only an example) that your Centaur can attack twice with 22 Strength (is that what you said?), and that he has a Greatsword: that's 4d6 + 18 potential damage in a round over 2d6 +9. If he's Large, he could even use a Huge Greatsword for 2d8 +9 per attack. The extra attack is an incredibly boost.

There are a lot of things to consider when attributing CRs at those levels, since levels 5-7 probably contain the largest changes for most classes.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

More attacks at a lower BAB, evasion...Sounds like a level of monk to me


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

Ex-ACTLY. Now you're getting it 

Evasion is IMO the most useful ability there is, with Uncanny Dodge not too far behind (Leap of the Clouds is cool too).

And dang you, dang you straight to heck for making the five-hundredth post!


----------



## apsuman (Aug 16, 2002)

I don't really have much to add here, I just wanted to say that this is the long thread I have evermanaged to continue to contribute to.

But, while I am here, I will weigh in on the face that level 5 for wizards is BIG, level 6 for fighters because of the extra feat and the extra attack is also BIG.


g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *Ex-ACTLY. Now you're getting it
> 
> Evasion is IMO the most useful ability there is, with Uncanny Dodge not too far behind (Leap of the Clouds is cool too).
> 
> And dang you, dang you straight to heck for making the five-hundredth post!  *




Leap of the Clouds?  Bah, I can get that with a wussy 1st level spell, or those boots we don't talk about any more.

As post number 500, all I can say is


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

Woooo...we HAVE gone far afield here.

I think the point I was originally trying to make is that the barbarian shouldn't get much better results than the monk, since eventually his tactic will sort of have to be "charge in, Rage, try n' kill stuff."

Not saying barbarians are bad. I think I'd play one before a fighter. It's just that having any character under those circumstances would be über-iffy, not just a monk. Hell, why not try with a bard? 

I say the bard takes them all on


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 16, 2002)

You know, I was going to start a thread: Bard or Monk: Who sucks more?  Now I am thinking that "and the bard laughs last" would be a better title.

What page was that barbarian on, anyway?  I need to some mad deleveling by Sunday


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 16, 2002)

I think it was a fighter, not a barbarian, and it's probably around page 5 or so.

And I said Leap of the Clouds was cool, not broken, not the best ability either. Just cool. No need for an item or a spell, but you have it. It's one of those abilities that you would never need to remove for balance purposes, because it does almost nothing except be its funky self. It's only really useful combined with a monk's high Spd, anyway.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

The monk fight was last night, for any one still reading this line, and it was doozy.  I nearly TPK the party by semi-bastardly ruling, so I don't know if this means the monk was a success or not.  In the end, the monk was killed by 5th level monk/ftr in more or less single combat.







This is the map of the room the PCs fought the monk in.  The black squares are impassible space.  The X marks are for 30' pit traps, the "t" is for trap door in ceiling, which is how the monk got here ahead of the party, and the S and "ST   AIR" both mean stairs, with the lower starirs being down and the upper stair being how the PCs enter.

For simple sake of reference, here again is the killing monk.  Thanks again apsuman.


> Zo, level 7 human monk.
> 
> Str 16
> Dex 16
> ...




Now with all that set up, here is how the fight went.  The room is dimmly lit, since I didn't want to deal with lighting.  The monk is waiting at the south end of the center row, hiding.  When the PCs enter and begin to spread, he uses the web.  Most every one execpt for the wizard and bard make their save.  Monk rolled middle of the order in inititive.

Without a fairly boring round by round description, here is what happened.  Most of the people try to get out of the web, the monk/ftr to the left as you see the map, and the rogue to the right.  The centaur tried to move straight up the middle.  No one got out the first round, so the monk went in after the best target he could get, since the wizard was invisible.  Wizard tries to break out and fails.  

The monk on centaur section last a round or as the rogue and monk/ftr move around to flank: right throught the pit traps.  The rogue makes his ref save to avoid the pit.  The PC mnk/ftr falls.  The NPC monk now moves back to deal with the rogue.  The wizard manages to start casting spells at this point, starting with haste and then a magic missle, which obviously fizzels.

Now, here is the scary part.  The wizard remembers that web is flamable.  So he is go to try to hit the centaur with a fireball, hoping the centaur can soak it and the monk will fail his save.  This would be like trying to fire a fireball through an arrow slit, right?  So I told him he would have to hit.  He made the ranged touch, so I rolled for the concealment of the web: 92.  That isn't below 50, so the fireball goes off prematurely and decimates the party.  Sentaur goes down, bard goes down, the party's riding dog goes down and the wizard dies outright.  Was this too mean?

Anyway, there monk give the party the option to leave, and the PC mnk/ftr finally gets out of the pit.  This starts the dual of the mnk/ftr and the monk.  Ironic?  The mnk/ftr is using a katana, whose d10 damage is beating the crap out of the d6.  The level difference only gave the monk a few more hp on the PC.  The monk tried spring attack-hide, but eventually had to go after the party, and he lost a good chunk of HP to a sneak attack.  The PC mnk/ftr then got to finish him off.

As for resources used: most characters did not start the combat at full.  In the course of this encounter, the bard lost 21 of 24 max hp, wiz lost 34 of 29 and died, centaur lost 26 of 32 max.  The mnk/ftr, who started at max hp, lost 45 of 39 max hp.  The riding dog lost 34 of 25 hp (yes, the dog is special)  The only thing that the rogue used was 2 bullets.  Overall, the party went through all the cure light potions they had left, which was 7 or 8.

Final result: the haste was not as much of an advantage as it could have been.  The mobility was amazingly effective, as was the spring attack.  I think that really killed the party was the misplaced fireball.  If the miss chance had suceeded, only the centaure and monk would have been effected.  The monk probably would have made the save, but it would have made the web a more or less non-issue.

Ok, that's enough.  Tell me your thoughts, if you are still reading.


----------



## apsuman (Aug 19, 2002)

still reading...

I must have checked this thread something like 6 times between the 17th and now.

So, what is your final decision... was the monk effective?


g!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Bottom line:  a barbarian probably would have done more damage but would not have lasted nearly as long.  The monk was effective.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

Well, depending on how you interpret the Web spell, your ruling was fine or way off. Since I personally believe the spell has to really fill up the area with gunk to be that useful, I think it was fine. Did you warn the wizard's player that his line of sight was obstructed? If you did, no problem.

Yes, the Fireball decided the outcome most decisively 

However, as they say, them's the breaks. That's why most of the time trying to figure out the outcome of a fight is impossible. If you judge only by the outcome, the monk is über-broken 

When you wrote that the monk was doing d6 damage, was that a typo? 'Cause a level 7 monk is supposed to do d8, and level 8 does d10. Ah, a single level more 

You know, I just thought of a "fix" for the monk with this situation. Instead of scaling the damage dealt by a die type, what about a class bonus (like the AC bonus) that rises by level, much less drastically? Keep the base die of d6, but add damage using the same bonus as a high saving throw (i.e. +2 at level 1, to +12 at level 20). That way a basic level 20 monk does d6+12(plus whatever bonuses), which is a better average than d20. And the monk is suddenly a better fighter for it, despite still having only d6 for damage.

Also, there would now be a reason for using monk weapons, since the bonus damage would apply to those as well. What do you think?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

The d6 damage came from using the +1 kama.  Kamas are d6 damage, right?

As for the monk damage bonus, would it work for monk weapons or would it be like enchanted fists?  That is interesting question itself.  How about letting the monk improve his fists the way that a samurai improves his deisho (sp?) and keep the d6 damage.  That would allow for customized monk (monk of the flamming fist?) and keep the ability outside the broken.  Have them pay just 40 expericence per 1000 of enchantment or just make it an auto bonus.  How about "enchanting" each hand differently?  Fear the monk of fire and ice!


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

I was thinking more along the lines of a competence (or insight) bonus myself, but you could also do the enchanted fists thing in a more mystical campaign.

Oh, and yes, it would count for monk weapons too.


----------



## Zog (Aug 19, 2002)

Interesting fight.

If I recall correctly, Web gives an additional concealment factor for each 5 feet.  So, if there was 20 feet of web between the wizard and his target, that would be 9/10s, more or less an arrow slit of narrow opening.  Interesting - hadn't thought of this, but I don't really see a problem with the ruling.

Did the monk use his stunning attack vs. the monk fighter?  If he landed a single stunning blow, the monk fgt drops his katana, and loses an action.  Pickup is a Move Eq., draws an AOO.  

If you did have the monk only dealing d6 dam, then I would say the fight is a definate win for Mr. Monk - sounds like a few extra points of damage would have decided it in favor of the monk.  You didn't give the play by play, but if the monk could get to the wounded bard, he should have taken him out too.  

But - youy didn't want a TPK!  Just a test of the effective monk - and the answer seems to be, yep, he held his own!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Aug 19, 2002)

I like that idea. It seems to me very unfair that the monk can't improve his unarmed attacks at high levels without paying ridiculous amounts of money (I'm talking about the Amulet of Enchanted Fists or something from SwordandFist). The price for that is 3x the amount for a weapon of similar 'plus'.

Surely a monk should be allowed to improve his unarmed attacks the same way a fighter can improve his best weapon? I like the idea of a monk with flaming hands, or maybe even something really outlandish like a ranged attack! So long as you put a returning enchantment on it - wow! It's Dhalsim from Streetfighter!

Yeah, Bracers of Unarmed Fighting +5 Shocking Burst Throwing Returning! Streetfighter attacks ahoy!


----------



## Forrester (Aug 19, 2002)

Well, throwing pits in to the equation made it even tougher on the party -- not really a fair test in any event. I mean, the terrain wasn't just special, it was uniquely bad for the party. 

Your ruling was correct, but I probably would have warned the wizard about what was coming. You got him on a little rules trick. Not much of a test when the party implodes on itself .


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Tallarn said:
			
		

> *I like that idea. It seems to me very unfair that the monk can't improve his unarmed attacks at high levels without paying ridiculous amounts of money (I'm talking about the Amulet of Enchanted Fists or something from SwordandFist). The price for that is 3x the amount for a weapon of similar 'plus'.
> 
> Surely a monk should be allowed to improve his unarmed attacks the same way a fighter can improve his best weapon? I like the idea of a monk with flaming hands, or maybe even something really outlandish like a ranged attack! So long as you put a returning enchantment on it - wow! It's Dhalsim from Streetfighter!
> 
> Yeah, Bracers of Unarmed Fighting +5 Shocking Burst Throwing Returning! Streetfighter attacks ahoy! *




LOL.  is the monk's belt the "thousand hand slap"?


----------



## apsuman (Aug 19, 2002)

The kama was +1 and I bought it just so that there would be a way to overcome DR.

So, although the hand damage would be d8, the +1 averaged it out the same, and hit more often.


g!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Aug 19, 2002)

Combine a good jump check with an unarmed attack and I'm fairly sure you could choose to describe it as pretty much any SF2 attack! Guile's Somersault Kick, Chun Li's Spinning Bird Kick, even E. Honda's Flying Head Butt. There'll all there.

maybe that's how I should describe my next monk's attacks, eh?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 19, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *
> Ok, that's enough.  Tell me your thoughts, if you are still reading. *




Your ruling on the Fireball makes no sense to me.  Concealment does not block line of effect.  The wizard can normally just point in a direction and specify a range without making a roll.  I believe you are confusing concealment with cover.  The Web spell will not block the Fireball.

Bottom line: Pit trap works.  Monk gets snot beaten out of him.  Some PCs get nuked because of questionable ruling on spell.

[Oops!  Correction posted below...]


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

Although that really begs the question of how the flaming fist monk can shake anyone's hand...

And Street Fighter-type combat is the LAST thing I would want for my monks. Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Chow Yun Fat (in CTHD), those are the fighters I would like a monk character to emulate.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

> Your ruling on the Fireball makes no sense to me. Concealment does not block line of effect. The wizard can normally just point in a direction and specify a range without making a roll. I believe you are confusing concealment with cover. The Web spell will not block the Fireball.




Considering that the Fireball spell projects a tiny bead of energy to the target to deliver the explosive payload, if it were to hit the strands of a Web spell, the bead would explode. In this case, cover is essentially provided by the spell. If the rules don't say so, LokiDR took the more logical route, so I don't see what's wrong with that.

Aiming a dime-sized bead through a roomful of gunk would be extremely hard, IMO.

From the SRD:



> The character points a finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point (an early impact results in an early detonation). If the character attempts to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, the character must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.




Nowhere does it state that only cover can be struck. Web does in fact create a "material body", so if a spellcaster missed due to concealment, he would hit the Web, thus triggering the spell. No big trouble interpreting that from the text of the spell...


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 19, 2002)

My mistake.

Web does indeed provide cover: _The web provides one-quarter cover for every 5 feet of the substance between the character and an opponent—one-half cover for 10 feet of web, three-quarters for 15 feet, and total cover for 20 feet or more._

So some kind of ranged touch attack roll would appropriate.

 

Dumb wizard.  Dumb me.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Forrester said:
			
		

> *Well, throwing pits in to the equation made it even tougher on the party -- not really a fair test in any event. I mean, the terrain wasn't just special, it was uniquely bad for the party.
> 
> Your ruling was correct, but I probably would have warned the wizard about what was coming. You got him on a little rules trick. Not much of a test when the party implodes on itself . *




Two people in the party started the fight invisible and they maxed out the buff spells.  Also, the party had a centaur   I said before it happened that I thought it would be about a fair fight, and I have to stand by that.

I do agree that the fireball is what really took the party down, so the numbers are inflated.  I think the PCs action was a good idea (it was the first fireball he ever cast, BTW ).  I am pretty sure that he knew that there was a chance of this backfiring, as it were 

As for the terrain, there were 3 pits.  The pits were not hard to find (DC 10) if the party had searched.  The pits were not right in front of the door, and could easilly be jumped, if they were located or the PCs guessed after the first one.  It wasn't every 5' there was a bladed pendulum.  Honestly, do you think the terrain was that bad?


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *My mistake.
> 
> Web does indeed provide cover: The web provides one-quarter cover for every 5 feet of the substance between the character and an opponent—one-half cover for 10 feet of web, three-quarters for 15 feet, and total cover for 20 feet or more.
> 
> ...




He made the ranged touch with flying colors.  I just figured he would have to get through everything to land the fireball.  If this was Enervation, that would be a ranged touch and concealment miss chance.  I didn't say it was a perfect rulling, but I think it wasn't the worst.  And he did have some warning.


----------



## Alaric_Prympax (Aug 19, 2002)

LokiDR said:
			
		

> *(it was the first fireball he ever cast, BTW ).  I am pretty sure that he knew that there was a chance of this backfiring, as it were  *





... and last too.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Funny thing is, he joined an invoker guild.  Do you think he'll want his membership revoked?


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

Well, as long as the test was a success, I believe that means my job here is done.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 19, 2002)

OK, I hope I'm not just seeing what I expect to see (its a Monk related Rorsasch test!) but did the Monk really do anything here?



> This starts the duel of the mnk/ftr and the monk. Ironic? The mnk/ftr is using a katana, whose d10 damage is beating the crap out of the d6. The level difference only gave the monk a few more hp on the PC. The monk tried spring attack-hide, but eventually had to go after the party, and he lost a good chunk of HP to a sneak attack. The PC mnk/ftr then got to finish him off.




It seems this is the first "real" thing that happens; does the Monk do any damage to the party before they Fireball themselves?  How much of that damage at the end was done by the Monk, vs how much was done by the Pits or the Fireball?

Although, on the flip-side, how did a level 5 Mnk/Ftr outfight a Mnk7?  The Mnk/Ftr should only swing once with a katana, while the Mnk7 should get three swings with the Flurry, right?  I'd expect the Mnk7 to put out more damage toe-to-toe or to avoid the counterstrike altogther if he was Spring-Attacking.  

I think its worth noting that the Mnk7 seemed to be hanging in there for a while, but as soon as he decides he has to "go after the party" he gets smashed.  

But in any case, it sounds like a very exciting combat.  (Certainly I expect the Centaur to have a little chat with the Wizard if the Wizard gets raised.  "And you hoped I could suck up the damage from a Fireball?  If you ever do anything like that again, you little two-legged freak....")


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

> It seems this is the first "real" thing that happens; does the Monk do any damage to the party before they Fireball themselves? How much of that damage at the end was done by the Monk, vs how much was done by the Pits or the Fireball?




Does it matter? The ENCOUNTER was lethal for more than a character. In the end, you could put a lame Kobold in front a 20th-level party to bait into stepping into The Mother of All Traps which kills a couple of them; has the Kobold been effective? Hell, yes.

The monk NPC got the PCs into a position where they had to screw themselves over. That's pretty damn effective. Maybe too much 

However, in retrospect I admit that I am perplexed that the mnk/ftr defeated the monk NPC. Gizzard's right on that one...


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Gizzard _*
> ...
> It seems this is the first "real" thing that happens; does the Monk do any damage to the party before they Fireball themselves?  How much of that damage at the end was done by the Monk, vs how much was done by the Pits or the Fireball?
> 
> ...




The funny part was the centaur (reincarnated human) just drank a potion of alter self to get into the catacomb.  After the number of times he has died, I would believe he would just be happy he lived.

As for what the monk did, I can only really tell you what he didn't.  He didn't act like a barbarian.  His mobility, especially with the web, made him cool.  The burning of the web spell is what killed the wiz in the end, not his own fireball.  I would like to think of this as the monk manipulating the party by use of combat skills and movement.

The reason I wanted the monk to go after them was to show human fault: arrogence.  From an out of game perspective, I just didn't want to deal with them comming back with artillery.  Maybe the terrain was a little too mean, maybe the traps too much, maybe I ruled bad on the web.  I wasn't going to screw them perminately for some harsh DMing.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> ....
> 
> However, in retrospect I admit that I am perplexed that the mnk/ftr defeated the monk NPC. Gizzard's right on that one... *




That comes from the monks tatics.  The monk/ftr went up the stairs, the monk readied to do a partial charge.  The mnk/ftr chugs a cure lite, the monk chugs a cure lite.  In the end, the mnk/ftr had a lot more cure lites to use, as he drank the whole parties supply (7 or 8) while the monk only had 2, plus his 14 natual healing.  The centaur did some damage befor he went down, so the monk only had 14 when it was done to mnk/ftr and monk.  2 levels or not, the mnk/ftr only needed one good shot to take him down.  Monk hits, mnk/ftr hits for max damage and the monk drops his kama.  Monk takes one last swing and the mnk/ftr puts him really down (-7).  Make a bit more sense?  The party softened the monk up enough to allow this.

And yes, it was an exciting battle.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 19, 2002)

Ah, okay, that does indeed make more sense. That amount of detail is important


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

hey, I was getting writers cramp


----------



## greymarch (Aug 19, 2002)

My gaming group has had high level monks, low level monks, demi-human monks, and even tatooed monks and shintao monks, and the one common problem for all of them has been their to hit rolls.  Monks have a poor to hit bonus; they cannot hit anyone!  Otherwise, monks kick butt.  They SR, evasion, good saving throws, massive damage dice, lots of attacks, good armor class.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 19, 2002)

greymarch said:
			
		

> *My gaming group has had high level monks, low level monks, demi-human monks, and even tatooed monks and shintao monks, and the one common problem for all of them has been their to hit rolls.  Monks have a poor to hit bonus; they cannot hit anyone!  Otherwise, monks kick butt.  They SR, evasion, good saving throws, massive damage dice, lots of attacks, good armor class. *




To review that past 13 pages:
SR is high level, isn't it boring until then?
Evasion is good, but rogues get it too.
Saves and Armor: what good is a well defended target if he does nothing useful 
Massive damage dice don't come till high level.  Barbarian has d12 at first.
Lot of attacks: sure on full attack.  Check math previous in this thread for real damage dished out.

Bottom line:  Monks are not fighters, any more than rogues are.  A monk who charges into combat like a fighter is going to die.  The class supports other uses pretty well, like scouting.  The class is pretty veristile but not customizable.  A good monk player can find good uses for their skills.  A person who is just starting is better off with a barbarian.


----------



## greymarch (Aug 20, 2002)

A monk is a warrior, just like a fighter.  Hell, they have their own special book, Swords and Fist, and are included with fighters in that book.


----------



## Villano (Aug 20, 2002)

*Final Rundown*

Just for the record, what was the damage inflicted by the monk vs. the fireball and traps?  Just a rough figure.  I want to see if a 7th level monk is better or worse than a 5th level wizard (one who can cast web and fireball).


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

The fireball hit for 26.  Every person in the web that also got fireballed took 8 from the buring web.  Both rolls were very good (6d6 fireball, max on burning web), so I guess a level 5 wizard would have been almost as effective.  The wizard would have been turned into swiss cheese pretty quickly by the centaur.  You never can predict the dice


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

greymarch said:
			
		

> *A monk is a warrior, just like a fighter.  Hell, they have their own special book, Swords and Fist, and are included with fighters in that book. *




Monk vs barbarian of same level: monk loses more often than not.  Monk vs fighter, same result.  This has been discussed here extensively.  The monk simply can not stand in a toe to toe fight with the straight fighter classes.  If you think that is the monk's job, you are missing their BAB progression, class skills, and movement.  If you don't believe me, read the rest of this thread.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 20, 2002)

> The fireball hit for 26. Every person in the web that also got fireballed took 8 from the buring web.




OK, so the Fireball is by far and away the most dangerous thing that happened.  It killed two party members (assuming the dog counts as a member.)  

People who made their saves took 21; thats the Bard.  The Centaur must have made his save, then taken 5 from the Monk since he lost 26 of 32.  (I thought the Centaur went down?  Did he get a potion?  Is 26 of 32 correct?)

I guess the Mnk/Ftr did not get hit by the Fireball.  He took d6 from the Pit assuming he used Tumble and Slow Fall.  The rest of the 45 damage is due to the enemy Monk.  Is this correct?  

So the Monk did 45+5-d6 or just less than 50 points in the fight?  Thats not too bad.  Not as good as the Fireball, but not too bad either.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

The centaur had been wounded by a previous fight, and was at 10 under full.  The mnk/ftr doesn't have slow fall as he is only monk 2.  The pit did minimal damage, I think about 7.  So about 50 for the monk sounds a little high, but in the right ball park.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

I'm fully prepared to admit that a monk shouldn't stand toe-to-toe trading hits with a fighter or barbarian (I hope not too many of you lost characters testing this   ), but I really can't understand the "unability to hit" complaint. I have NEVER seen this happen consistently unless the player was having a very unlucky streak.

Still, around fifty points of damage WITHOUT counting the Fireball (which was, after all, part of the encounter somehow) is pretty darn good. Given the outcome of the fight, I think we should all be glad the monk doesn't perform any better!


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

I am not ready to jump on the monk loving bandwagon quite yet.  I saw the monk do a passable job, primarily due to items (cloak) but also due to abilities like movement.  I am ready to say that monks, as a blanket statement, don't suck unless they are badly played/designed.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

> I am ready to say that monks, as a blanket statement, don't suck unless they are badly played/designed.




That's good enough for me. 

I still think spellcasters (especially clerics) are too powerful in the long run. I just think monks are in general a class with great potential, which is seldom used to its fullest effect.

And for the record (out of the blue), if I was playing monk and the party found Boots of Cheat (as they are now called  ), I'd much rather the Full Plate-wearing Spd 20' Fighter wear them, so he can take the heat off my character


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *
> 
> That's good enough for me.
> 
> ...




I think that wizards can be much more dangerous than clerics, since they have the offensive punch.  I am still not seeing this great effect of your though.  Given the chance, I would change the monk class BAB in a heart beat.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

> I think that wizards can be much more dangerous than clerics, since they have the offensive punch. I am still not seeing this great effect of your though. Given the chance, I would change the monk class BAB in a heart beat.




I think that Harm and Implosion are pretty destructive, but the debate isn't wizards versus clerics (or at least it shouldn't be, here of all places).

If you change the monk BAB to fighter, you make the class broken. Period.

If you change other things, it can be balanced, but as it is giving it fighter BAB makes it way overpowered. That's like giving a rogue fighter BAB and d8 HD. Way too good. I'm still not convinced rogues aren't one of the best classes, and (for me at least  ) the same goes for monks. But YMMV (and it does, apparently ).


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

If you want to look at implosion, you also have acces to miracle.  You could just use that  

In a combat, the rogue gets a whole lot of sneak attack.  The monk larger damage dice.  I would think if you really wanted the monk to out-shine the rogue in combat (which seems to be what people wanted/expected of the class) you should give them better BAB.  This would have to change the unarmed BAB for extra attacks, but that isn't such a bad thing, IMO.  I would just want the monk to live up to the fighter role they seem to be stuck in.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

I guess I have no problem with it because I don't see it as being stuck in a fighter role. But then I'm not most people


----------



## Villano (Aug 20, 2002)

Through this little experiment, we've seen that the monk can do a respectable amount of damage.    

Now, how well did he do on the other 2 aspects of combat, hitting and avoiding being hit?  Both topics have been mentioned as complaints with the class (low BAB, and low AC due to its dependence on stats instead of armor).

So, did he miss more often than he connected?  And did he get taken down after only 2 or 3 hits?

BTW, is Regdar still on these boards?  I'm surprised that we've had 14 pages of discussion on whether or not the monk is a good class and he hasn't popped in once to say, "Be a fighter."


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

The monk was missing better than 50% of the time, despite the fact that he had +9 to hit.  I didn't use flurry, because I thought I would miss even worse.  The fighter hit on 11+ when the monk was doging him, so that was exactly 50%.  In this case, the fighter was 2 levels lower than the monk and was hitting slightly better (another argument for fighter BAB I guess)


----------



## Voneth (Aug 20, 2002)

Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down. *




That is exactly what I tried to do when I played a monk.  It has also been discussed in this thread.  The tatic fails when you fight enemies strong enough to out-right kill you (damn T-Rex).  It also fails if your comrads are ever effective, since even animals will fight the things hurting it before the guy just jumping around.  If you can't really threaten some one but your comrads do, your comrads will die.  Surviability is not all some claim it is.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

See, now I don't understand how the mnk/ftr could have had better to hit (this is monk 4/ftr 1, right?), since the monk's level should have added at least enough BAB to EQUAL him, plus the extra (lower) attack that the PC doesn't get, but that can still hit. It doesn't make sense.


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

Hakkenshi said:
			
		

> *See, now I don't understand how the mnk/ftr could have had better to hit (this is monk 4/ftr 1, right?), since the monk's level should have added at least enough BAB to EQUAL him, plus the extra (lower) attack that the PC doesn't get, but that can still hit. It doesn't make sense. *




The fighter I was refering to was the centaur, with 20 str, weapon focus, and 4 BAB.  The mnk/ftr in the party is 2/3.  I think he also has weapon focus, 16+ normal str, +1 weapon, and was buffed before the combat.  I was not considering the additional attack, which could have been a major advantage, given time.  

Why is it surprizing the traditional fighter, with a party to back him up, outclasses the monk toe to toe on damage?  Wouldn't that just be expected?


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Aug 20, 2002)

Voneth said:
			
		

> *Actualy to not be hit and tie up other combants is a valid tactic. My 1st level Living Arcanis Psy Warrior is learning that lesson well. I can't hit much in combat yet, but he manages to move in a tie up other opponets with the hope that someone will heal him when his hit points go down. *




This tactic is good in theory but extremely difficult to implement in practice unless you are willing to stand still where the opposition can hit you.  Standing your ground is not a problem for a barbarian, fighter, psywarrior, paladin, or even a cleric, but it is a poor choice for a monk.

Where the monk excels at the distraction technique is when they can tumble through lines and harass a spellcaster.  That is sure a fun role when you can get it, but it doesn't really address what you are supposed during those other 9 of 10 combats.  Note that some clerics are quite capable of taking a monk apart single-handedly.


----------



## Hakkenshi (Aug 20, 2002)

No, it's expected and not at all surprising, but that the mnk/ftr would do so well DOES surprise me. Against a monk 7 he shouldn't really stand a chance, although buffs do, of course, make a great difference.

So the mnk 2/ftr 3 would have had +9 to hit (buffs notwithstanding), correct?

The monk 7 should have had at least +9/+6 to hit (again, buffs notwithstanding). +5 Unarmed BAB, +3 from Strength (Str16, right?), +1 kama, and then the other possible bonuses from buffs.

Normally, I'd certainly give the odds to the monk in this case...
Even with a Flurry, that's +7/+7/+4, which is far from bad against a level 5 character. Meh, whatever, I must be missing something.




> Note that some clerics are quite capable of taking a monk apart single-handedly.




That's a well-placed "some", since the opposite is also true


----------



## LokiDR (Aug 20, 2002)

I don't think you are missing anything, Hakkenshi.  The monk didn't have any buffs to hit, as he spent money on other things.  The +10 or so at d10+5 beat the +9 attack at 1d6+4.  The monk's extra attacks reduced his to hit enought that it didn't really matter, flurry or not.

I feel this isn't a huge problem for the monk.  The mnk/ftr had to use a lot to beat him, and the monk would have won if it was just those two.


----------



## Gizzard (Aug 21, 2002)

> I didn't use flurry, because I thought I would miss even worse.




You do better in almost every case to just go ahead and Flurry, though it gets worse the more attacks you get.  If I've done the math right (in my head) the break-even for a Monk with two regular attacks is when he needs an (unmodified) 16 to hit.  Everything less its better to Flurry.  This should hold for all two-attack Monks, which is levels 6-9.  

No Monk thread would be complete without this discussion.  ;-)


----------



## Emirikol (Jan 17, 2004)

Gizzard said:
			
		

> You do better in almost every case to just go ahead and Flurry.




What about weapon use with a spiked chain (exotic weapon feat)?

jh


----------



## RithTheAwakener (Jan 18, 2004)

Well. I have no idea if this has been discussed already, cause I didnt read all 23 pages of this post.

I believe a monk could take on a fighter any day. Monks have great Disarm and Trip attacks, and could easily disable a fighter, taking a huge advantage over fighters. I'd play a monk over a fighter any day, except at low lvls, like 4 and below.


----------



## takyris (Jan 18, 2004)

The thread!  It's *alive!!!!*  And it says that I posted in it!

So, now that it's, uh, a year and a few months since this started, how do folks feel about the 3.5 monk?  I'm playing a 25-point-buy Paladin2/Monk3 right now, and I don't feel that multiclass paladin/monks are overpowered, but that's at least partially because 25-point-buy characters got the shaft and I was stuck with Int as my dump stat. 

But they have Spot as a class skill now, the monk attack stuff is easier to figure out, and they have a few more options in terms of flexibility.  If you try to tank with a monk, you're liable to get killed, but the same situation applies if you try to tank with a 3.5 Rogue... the key is to play to their strengths.  My pallymonk is a decent Big-Bad Distractor.  He tumbles past the mooks and proceeds to start nickel-and-diming the big bad monster, who stops doing awful ranged stuff to the party and starts trying to whomp on me -- at which point I go on full defense, get a massive AC bonus, and tie up the monster for long enough for my buddy the single-class paladin to get up close and start whacking it.  I can even take five-foot steps while doing so, to let the party rogue start flanking stuff.

It's certainly not the most glorious PC role of all time, but it *is* useful -- and as the first PC I've gotten to play in years (instead of DMing), I'm lovin' it.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jan 18, 2004)

Wow.  It's not often that you see a thread resurrected that's been dead for nearly a year and a half.


----------



## Scion (Jan 18, 2004)

With the appropriate feats and 3rd party options he can be the ultimate running, bouncing, movement god with a few cool powers along the way.

I like them  havent gotten to see the 3.5 version in action though, but it looks like they improved it a little.

So why, after so long, are a lot of people apparently still getting updates about this thread? there are some threads I posted to and have 'never' gotten told about them being updated even though I was signed up for it.. and this one keeps on going forever? lol


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 18, 2004)

Emirikol said:
			
		

> What about weapon use with a spiked chain (exotic weapon feat)?
> 
> jh




Good lord. Why in God's name did you bump this? Aieeeee!  

A polite rule of thumb is: only bump old threads when you have something really good and interesting to ask.


----------



## Nifft (Jan 18, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> So, now that it's, uh, a year and a few months since this started, how do folks feel about the 3.5 monk?  I'm playing a 25-point-buy Paladin2/Monk3 right now, and I don't feel that multiclass paladin/monks are overpowered, but that's at least partially because 25-point-buy characters got the shaft and I was stuck with Int as my dump stat.




There's a Monk4/Paladin4/FGP1 in my current game -- check out the Follower of the Golden Path on my web site, below -- and he's an interesting character, not overpowered but not too horribly underpowered either. His saves are _insane_.

 -- N


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 18, 2004)

THE MONK IS NOT A FRONT LINE FIGHTER!

His role in the party is to not die. Not to dish out damage, or to eradicate traps, or to heal. He just lives through it.

If you're going to make the monk a front line fighter, you're going to be dissapointed. Don't try it. Instead, make them dex-monkey scamperers who can add a bit of punch, or add a bit of scout, and either way  be able to scamper back holding the corpses of the rest of the party and not die himself.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jan 19, 2004)

Up until the recent unpleasantness with the Demon-Crocodile Grappling Underwater incident, the 3.5e Monk in the group I play in was extremely useful. She had an excellent ability to take on mooks, due to several attacks and good speed, and could also get round the side of the enemy to start picking out the spellcasters and disabling them.

We'd also acquired a Ioun stone with a Heal spell in it...Monks make great last ditch battle medics with such items.

As far as I'm concerned, so long as you don't try to:

a) Go toe to toe with stuff bigger and nastier than you are
b) Complain that you never stun anything when all you try to stun is things with high Fort saves and 
c) Accept the straight fighter types will always do a lot more damage than you each round

then the Monk is an extremely useful character class.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jan 19, 2004)

takyris said:
			
		

> The thread!  It's *alive!!!!*  And it says that I posted in it!
> 
> So, now that it's, uh, a year and a few months since this started, how do folks feel about the 3.5 monk?  I'm playing a 25-point-buy Paladin2/Monk3 right now, and I don't feel that multiclass paladin/monks are overpowered, but that's at least partially because 25-point-buy characters got the shaft and I was stuck with Int as my dump stat.




That sounds like a truely horrible multiclass combo to me, especially in a low point buy game.  But if you are having fun you must be doing something really right.  My hat is off to you.

I pity the Beholder that runs into you.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jan 19, 2004)

rounser said:
			
		

> Why perpetuate this myth?  Haven't a couple of the core designers already stated that they intended shields to be considered armor?  Looks distinctly like you're trying to exploit an unintended loophole, really.




There is no loop-hole.

AC Bonus (Ex): "...she losses this bonues when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a *shield*..."


----------



## Felon (Jan 19, 2004)

Having the monk's unarmed damage die increase as the monk gains levels creates an awkward curve in the monk's combat effectiveness. A house rule I've implemented for monks is to simply keep their unarmed strike damage fixed at 1d6. Instead, at 4th level (when their unarmed damage would normally increase to 1d8), they're allowed to add their Wisdom modifier to damage with both unarmed strikes and monk weapons--basically anything they can use flurry of blows with. 

In addition to eliminating the weird power curve, keeping unarmed strike damage consistent offers a couple of other benefits. First, monks with mediocre Strength scores, say 12 or 13, become much more viable (and those are the sort of numbers many players are left with after tending to Dex and Wis). 

Secondly, with an unarmed strike doing the same damage as most monk weapons, it's not the clear-cut optimal choice. He can opt to specialize in either unarmed strikes, where he can take advantage of unarmed strike feats (q.v. The Complete Warrior) or he can focuse on monk weapons, which grants more options in terms of magical weapon properties and weapons made of special materials.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 19, 2004)

Liquidsabre said:
			
		

> There is no loop-hole.
> 
> AC Bonus (Ex): "...she losses this bonues when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a *shield*..."




Now travel back in time to July 2002, and try and find that wording in the book.

... given that that's when the post you replied to was written... 

-Hyp.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jan 19, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Now travel back in time to July 2002, and try and find that wording in the book.
> 
> ... given that that's when the post you replied to was written...
> 
> -Hyp.




Holy-time-travel Batman!


----------

