# Issues with Summon Monster/Summon Nature's Ally (2004 Thread)



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

Let me describe the situation:

I play in this weekly game that's a pretty typical D&D game.  The party consists, currently, of my character, a sixth level monk who is fairly twinked out for combat, a fifth level druid, a fifth level bard and a sixth level sorcerer.  The druid has summon monster I & II and the druid, obviously, has wide access to summon nature's ally spells.  Our characters are pretty beefy.

The last session the sorcerer's player wasn't there.  We went on without him.  So it was my monk, the bard and druid.

The party is in a village.  There was some role-playing stuff that is largely irrelevant to this discussion.  Then the village was attacked by a hill giant.  Well, since we're heroes we give out our battle cry and attack.  Adventuring is our core business, one might say.

During the fight, I rolled typically well.  Given the AC of the giants, 20, and that I was at +10 or +11 to hit, I hit about half the time, including two stunning blows.  Natch, none of the stunning blows worked against the good Fort save, high Con giant, but I had to try.  Equally obviously, I did not try to use my improved trip on the giant -- bigger *and* stronger.  Better just to deal damage, I figured.

So, to emphasize, I was doing pretty normal in the fight.

Enter the now fifth level druid.  She's got two third level spells, due to high Wis.  So, she summons a dire wolf.

As many hit points.  Hits more often.  Hits harder.

Then she summons a LION.  Lion pounces -- FIVE ATTACKS.

Naturally, her animal companion is in the fight, too.  As many hit points, same AC, almost as good to hit and damage.

The fight goes on.  We put down one giant.  Another appears.  Add in two dire badgers.

See me: feeling useless.  The dire wolf and the lion damn well ruled that fight -- the wolf could fairly consistently trip the giants, too.  So not only was it doing more damage than my monk, the think was better at tripping than my monk!  Good lord, and that lion!  It pounced the second giant and did something like thirty-five or forty points of damage in one turn!  The druid's menagerie did well over sixty points of damage in one turn to the second giant.

I was pretty seriously bummed out.  The druid is able to summon critters that are simply better at fighting than my character -- and she can keep summoning them.  And it only gets worse from here.  I dread summon nature's ally IV -- I looked at those critters and what they'll do in terms of damage compared to a seventh or eighth level monk.  It is simply not pretty.

So, like, is my monk irrelevant to the game or am I and the GM missing something?


----------



## EPRock (Apr 7, 2004)

> I was pretty seriously bummed out. The druid is able to summon critters that are simply better at fighting than my character -- and she can keep summoning them. And it only gets worse from here. I dread summon nature's ally IV -- I looked at those critters and what they'll do in terms of damage compared to a seventh or eighth level monk. It is simply not pretty.
> 
> So, like, is my monk irrelevant to the game or am I and the GM missing something?




There are many things which makes your monk more unique than the wolf, or summoned monsters.

Summoned Monsters take 1 full round to summon, a good arrow can disrupt the casting of the spell, Dispel Magic can dispel the summoned monsters and voila no one else is there. As a monk you do get some choices on your feat progression, and your feats should be based towards your stat placement.

If it is a problem there are a multitude of ways to prevent the druid from casting the spell, being shot with a ranged weapon, being attacked in melee, spells, counterspell, many things can cancel out spellcasters.

Summoned monsters last for one round per level. That means that monsters can retreat for a few rounds and then poof the damage machine is gone.


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 7, 2004)

You're a monk.

Monks aren't killing machines by a long shot.


----------



## WCrawford (Apr 7, 2004)

Ok, let me get this right. You have a party consisting of 3 characters (since one was MIA for the night) with an average level of a bit more than 5. You are facing 2 CR 7 creatures and you complain that the Druid is keeping you alive?

Did you want all the hits from the giants to fall on you, the lightly armored Monk?

Look, summoned creatures from Summon Nature's Ally or Summons Monster Spells are around for only 1 round/level of the caster. They are there to absorb hits that would otherwise go to party members. They are there to put the bad guys down faster.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 7, 2004)

I'm going to have to agree with the other posters... You are trying to shine out of your element. You are a 2nd string melee guy trying to compete with the Druid's main ability.

Monks do alot of different things well... you just don't excel in any one thing.  

YMMV


Mike


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 7, 2004)

Suddenly, the evil cleric that guided the giants to the village appears. Protected by protection from magic, he laughs at the summoned animals and prepares to finish off the weakened party. You run across the battle field and smack him once in the face, stunning him. 

Before he gets to move again, you've killed him single-handedly. 

Every class has its place. The 'new' druid is an effective character, but it is far from overwhelming in power.


----------



## Scion (Apr 7, 2004)

Pick up a 3.5 monks belt and improved natural attack, if you havent already.

Mainly the monks job is to support whatever is going on, anything that someone is doing you should be able to help with. The ultimate fallback guy 

As for making your character 'better' than the animals, he should be by default with equipment. Your ac should still be better, animals generally have a pretty low ac, your attacks should probably hit about the same though since your str will tend to be lower.

Try to get some buff spells from your compatriots, this will help you greatly. Barkskin, bulls strength, owls wisdom, whatever. Anything that they put on you for the day will wind up being better than summoning any one of those animals anyway.

Hope it goes well!

Oh, and if you are playing 3.0 definately try to get the 3.5 monks belt, if you are playing 3.5 get the buffs changed back to 3.0 versions! they just suck for everything in 3.5, whereas the old ones can still actually be good for you.


----------



## Wolffenjugend (Apr 7, 2004)

Why weren't you grappling and/or stunning? Ok, ok, they were giants. But in most situations you should be able to do both to great effect.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 7, 2004)

And of course, one magic circle and none of those summons can hurt anything.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> You're a monk.
> 
> Monks aren't killing machines by a long shot.




It would have been the same way with a fighter.  In some ways worse because a fighter in heavy gear would have been staggering around from fight to fight -- those animals found it damn easy to charge the 100 feet from us to them (so did my monk, BTW) which is something that a fighter would not have been able to do.  A fighter would have literally missed out on two rounds of the fight, given its structure -- a fair bit of running around -- and the fight was only five rounds!

Also, since I am considering changing characters I have statted out a sixth level fighter with gear.  The fighter would have done roughly the same damage as the monk, had an attack score two better and a two better AC.  This would have been offset by the fact the monk's multiple attacks would create a far more likely chance of the monk hitting (at least hitting these giants) -- the fighter would have had a seventy-two percent chance of landing a blow whereas my monk had a seventy-five percent chance of landing a blow and a much better chance of landing two blows.

So, in this particular fight a fighter would have simply been less useful in melee than my monk.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

WCrawford said:
			
		

> Ok, let me get this right. You have a party consisting of 3 characters (since one was MIA for the night) with an average level of a bit more than 5. You are facing 2 CR 7 creatures and you complain that the Druid is keeping you alive?
> 
> Did you want all the hits from the giants to fall on you, the lightly armored Monk?
> 
> Look, summoned creatures from Summon Nature's Ally or Summons Monster Spells are around for only 1 round/level of the caster. They are there to absorb hits that would otherwise go to party members. They are there to put the bad guys down faster.




I am far more worried about my character being wholly irrelevant to fights.  I mean, this fight simply did not require my character's presence.  Not at *all*.  I am not playing this game to merely be a fancy accessory to the druid and sorcerer.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> I'm going to have to agree with the other posters... You are trying to shine out of your element. You are a 2nd string melee guy trying to compete with the Druid's main ability.
> 
> Monks do alot of different things well... you just don't excel in any one thing.




What is a monk's element, then?

Seriously, the druid is also a "second string melee character" -- except this second string melee character is better at melee (transforming into, let's say, a lion or a brown bear) and has excellent spellcasting abilities.

Seriously, its looking as though my character has no legitimate place in this party.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 7, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I am far more worried about my character being wholly irrelevant to fights. I mean, this fight simply did not require my character's presence. Not at *all*. I am not playing this game to merely be a fancy accessory to the druid and sorcerer.



Sure... for this fight you weren't needed. But if your DM throws a summoner at your party next, from a distance, you'll be the one dealing with the caster, and the others will have to deal with the summoned creatures. 

The only problem I see with your situation... you are trying to fill the prime melee combatant roll with a 2nd string fighter (not the class). 

And the Monk doesn't really come into his own until later levels... YMMV


Mike


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Pick up a 3.5 monks belt and improved natural attack, if you havent already.
> 
> Mainly the monks job is to support whatever is going on, anything that someone is doing you should be able to help with. The ultimate fallback guy
> 
> ...




A monk's belt is 13,000gp.  My character is sixth level and my GM takes seriously the whole "amount of treasure we're supposed to have" thing.  I got nothing like the cash to afford a monk's belt.  I doubt my GM will let me get improved natural attack, though with that and a monk's belt there would obviously be some improvement in damage capability.  ;p

And, I don't feel like the fallback guy -- nor has the character, to this point, been a fallback guy.  And its not just that my character is of lessened effectiveness vis-a-vis the spellcasters, but that he was really wholly useless and barring a preponderance of situations like described above with the giants protected by magic or whatever (which I suspect will annoy my GM that she must contrive situations to make my character as vaguely useful as the other characters) it is that my character is largely <I>useless</i>.  I mean, by the book, those giants -- at CR 7 -- should have wiped the floor with a party of three averaging just above CR 5.  And the druid wiped out TWO of them.  Easily.  I was just there for the ride.  Hell, the druid didn't even bother to get her hands bloody in the fight.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Sure... for this fight you weren't needed. But if your DM throws a summoner at your party next, from a distance, you'll be the one dealing with the caster, and the others will have to deal with the summoned creatures.
> 
> The only problem I see with your situation... you are trying to fill the prime melee combatant roll with a 2nd string fighter (not the class).
> 
> ...




Excepting, of course, that druids are as good at melee as monks.  And can change shapes.

Furthermore, my critique is actually that even were I playing a fighter this situation would still be there.  Like I said in another post, the sixth level fighter I statted out would have actually been <I>less</i> effective in the fight than my monk.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

Wolffenjugend said:
			
		

> Why weren't you grappling and/or stunning? Ok, ok, they were giants. But in most situations you should be able to do both to great effect.




Actually, to both of those questions the answer really is "no, not really."

Many, many things you fight at mid-level tend to be in the large catagory -- meaning they are very strong, and obviously bigger, and grappling is just a damn bad option.

As for stunning fist -- well, virtually everything has a good Fort save.  Humanoids, monstrous humanoids, outsiders, dragons, beasts, magical beasts, etc., and a lot of the things that don't have good Fort saves are wholly immune to critical hits (undead, constructs, oozes).

Pretty much the only monster catagory that has a bad Fort save are aberrations that I can think of.

Most critters are just pretty much immune to my stunning fist, alas.


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 7, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I am far more worried about my character being wholly irrelevant to fights.  I mean, this fight simply did not require my character's presence.  Not at *all*.  I am not playing this game to merely be a fancy accessory to the druid and sorcerer.




Yeah, I can understand that feeling.  I played a bard in a my first 3E campaign.

Out of probably 55+ battles over the course of the campaign, I can think of only two battles past L4 where my character's presence made any difference, and one of those involved harpies.

Wouldn't a magic circle spell hedge out the druid's summoned critters?

And why doesn't your 6th level fighter have a bow?  Regardless, it's better that the summoned monsters got hammered by the giants.  Having the summoned dire wolf die in 2-4 hits beats the hell out of a PC dying in 2-4 hits.


----------



## Scion (Apr 7, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Excepting, of course, that druids are as good at melee as monks.  And can change shapes.
> 
> Furthermore, my critique is actually that even were I playing a fighter this situation would still be there.  Like I said in another post, the sixth level fighter I statted out would have actually been <I>less</i> effective in the fight than my monk.




The fighter class, imnsho, is nearly worthless as written. He needs some major beefing up.

Druids can be first tier fighters if they want to. They are 2nd tier, at best, healers. But, with the advent of 3.5, are very good summoners. Summon natures ally isnt even as good as summon monster most of the time 

Monks are mainly 2nd tier all over the place, they are good at a great deal of things, but will rarely be the best at anything really.

You have some good combat ability, but not the best. You have some good stealth skills, on par with any other class really. You have the best defenses around, with the possible exception of AC, although you have the highest potential AC.

Check out this thread, see what you think.
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=19181

I havent reread all if it in awhile, some of it may be helpful, or not  hopefully though.

What is the gear value for 6th level? And yes, having that item and that feat would increase your damage potential very nicely, along with help your ac slightly. Nothing wrong with that. The feat is perfectly legitamate, and the item is purposefully designed for what you need it for. Sounds like a good combo to me! although it does take a lot of resources.

Talk with the dm, let him know how you are feeling, maybe you two can work something out.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 7, 2004)

OOC: CPXB, could you provide a little info on your monk? Feats? Ability Scores? Equipment?

You may want to speak to your DM about this issue. Some problems in this area arise due to DM tendencies. DMs that tend to follow the same tactics with similar creatures tend to allow some classes to shine, while limiting the effectiveness of other classes.

The monk is very well suited to getting to the back rank of enemies and dealing with a single, powerful foe. His tumble and movement make it child's play for a monk to zoom to the back row of the enemy. If the DM tends to use single creatures (1 hill giant, then another hill giant, etc ...), this advantage goes to waste.

The monk's stun attack or grapple is best used to negate an enemy spellcaster. If the DM tends to avoid enemy spellcasters, you can't get the most out of this ability.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 7, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> The fighter class, imnsho, is nearly worthless as written. He needs some major beefing up.
> 
> Druids can be first tier fighters if they want to. They are 2nd tier, at best, healers. But, with the advent of 3.5, are very good summoners. Summon natures ally isnt even as good as summon monster most of the time
> 
> ...




This post . . . speaks volumes, heh.  Thanks for the thread!

The DM is my fiancee and we live together.  She came home about forty minutes ago and we've been chatting about this stuff and we are coming to the conclusion that all the melee fighters are sorta underpowered compared to mid to high level magic using characters.

As you said, a druid can be a front tier fighter . . . and a second rate healer.  Which puts the character class far above monk, who it is generally agreed upon can't be a front tier fighter nor a front tier anything else.  That thread was pretty illuminating particularly insofar as it said that monks weren't really that good as melee characters . . . but didn't really offer an example of what they were good *at*.

Furthermore, I'd say the class is definitely sold as a melee class.  At sixth level, my monk has these class features -- three bonus feats, two of which are entirely melee oriented, monk's unarmed attack, flurry of blows and ki strike magic.  Not to mention the boost up in unarmed damage to a d8.  All of this is clearly melee related -- to be told that monks are *not* first tier melee fighters is leaving me in free fall.  I think that they *should* be at least as good in melee as, oh, barbarians.  Hell, I'd probably settle for as good in melee as rogues at this point (and will not hesitate to point out that rogues are useful all over the place other than fights, too).

I'm sorta feeling that druids get to be better fighters and then turn around and be spellcasters.  With animal companions and other special gimmicks.  

Man.  I know that this is in response to your post and I'm definitely rambling (I'm sick, I'll blame that, hehe) but I'm seriously feeling that the character class is just broken -- a steaming pile of uselessness, not even good at the relatively unimportant job of melee fighting.  A task to which the overwhelming majority of the monk's class features are devoted, I should add.

But I thought it was very illuminating that you think fighters are useless and druids can be front tier fighters *but not monks*.  

Sorry if this feels like I'm dumping on you, I'm just sorta depressed that my character is not even vaguely what I thought he would be -- and that the class, itself, doesn't seem to have a strong place in a part (being a place that simply isn't better served by characters who are better at melee and *something else* than a monk).


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

Characters who specialize are generally, by default, much stronger in d&d. They have bigger weaknesses yes, but the rest of the party is there to help shore those up.

The monk is a generalist at heart, he is pretty good at a lot of things, but excells at nothing. Well, nothing other than being able to survive. He should usually be the first one in the thick, and the last one to fall, but while there he will likely be doing the least. That is just how the character class is.

For what it does it is very good, but trying to push it outside of its comfort zone and there will be problems.

As for combat vs primary casters it is always a sticky field. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, saying which is 'better' tends to be so subjective as to be useless. Pick a spot and then it can be debated, an overall view is very difficult.

Barb? he gets great combat stuff, and a good amount of noncombat stuff. He is a pretty good class.

Ranger? 3.5 version is probably bordering on broken it is so good 

fighter? what fighter.

Druid/cleric? definate powerhouses, they can be the best at whatever they choose, but it takes all of their abilities to do so. Generally they pick one area and excel at that, as most characters do.

monk? highest defense of everyone, moderate offense. Again, they should always be the first in and last down.

To make the monk a powerhouse combatent takes chooseing the right prc's and feat choices. Along with all of your gear going towards that one thing. You will probably not, and in some ways should not, match a primary fighter type. But you will be able to hang in there.

So for suggestions? I dont know, the monk isnt a primary combatant, he is a 'I am good at just about everything, especially surviving' kind of guy. Devote your feats and money to becomeing better at whatever you want to be good at, it will take a bit of time, but you can do it eventually. Keep an eye out for prc's which give up something you dont care about and gain things that you do care about.

hope that helps


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2004)

How were your monk's ability scores generated?  Average rolls or average point buys (~25) produce rather poor monks IMO because they need so many decent stats to perform well compared to most other classes.

I'm rather surprised the summoned animals did so well against the giants.  The main drawback to most animals in combat is their relatively poor ACs.  A giant using Power Attack should have been able to crush the creatures without much effort.  And while the animals can close with opponents quickly, they don't have a way to avoid triggering attacks of opportunity when closing with the giants (whereas a monk would presumably have Tumble and/or Spring Attack).

EDIT: An example...

Druid summons dire wolf.  Dire wolf charges hill giant.  Hill giant gets AoO, uses 2 pts PA, and hits (+14 atk vs 14 AC), doing 23 damage on average.  That's a little more than half the dire wolf's HP right there.  Now, the wolf has a 60% chance of hitting and a 50% chance of tripping with a hit (both creatures are the same size & strength).  But even on the ground (-4 to hit IIRC), the hill giant only misses on a 1 or a 2 without using any PA.

Against multiple hill giants, the dire wolf shouldn't have lasted more than a round.  The lion's AC is one better but it only has 3/4 the wolf's HP, making it even more fragile.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> OOC: CPXB, could you provide a little info on your monk? Feats? Ability Scores? Equipment?
> 
> You may want to speak to your DM about this issue. Some problems in this area arise due to DM tendencies. DMs that tend to follow the same tactics with similar creatures tend to allow some classes to shine, while limiting the effectiveness of other classes.
> 
> ...




My DM and I talk a lot -- we live together and all.  We've actually talked about the tactics thing, how when she is rushed for time she'll select certain sorts of critters 'cause she doesn't have to become familiar with all their special abilities.  Which does mean that there aren't many spellcasters.  However, even many of the critters who cast spells and have lots of spell-like abilities are often quite good at saving against things.

However, in my experience so far, the monk doesn't need to penetrate the enemy lines to attack the spellcasters -- the other spellcasters are quite capable of sending their attacks through the ranks to get the spellcasters.  While, of course, grappling with a spellcaster is particularly effective, so is just killing them -- or, to the point of this particular thread, surrounding them with summoned animals also works, and much better than my monk can do it.

Anyway, here's the C-sheet:

Rashad Daktari aka Adamantine Moneybags
Mnk 6th 
Medium-sized Humanoid (Human)
Hit Dice: 6d8+12 (54 hp)
Speed: 50 ft
AC: 21 (+4 Dex, +5 Wis, +1 bracers of armor, +1 monk), flat-footed 16, touch 19
Initiative: +4 (Dex)
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+8
Attacks: Unarmed +10 (1d8+5) or sling +9 (1d4+4)
Full Attack: Unarmed +10 (1d8+5) or flurry of blows +9/+9 (1d8+5) or sling +9 (1d4+4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Flurry of blows, ki strike (magic), unarmed strike
Special Qualities: AC bonus, evasion, purity of body, slow fall (30 ft.), still mind
Saves: Fort +7, Ref +9, Will +10 
Alignment: Lawful good
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 18, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 20, Cha 13 
Skills: Balance +9/15, Climb +6/10, Diplomacy +0/3, Escape Artist +6/10, Jump +9/23, Perform +6/7, Sense Motive +9/14, Spot +9/14, Tumble +9/15
Feats: Agile Riposte, Deflect Arrows (b), Dodge, Improved Trip (b), Knockdown, Stunning Blow (DC 18, 6/day) (b), Weapon Focus (Unarmed)

Possessions: (light encumbrance 76 lbs.; current encumbrance 34 lbs.) gauntlets of ogre power, bracers of armor +1, ring of magic fang +1, periapt of wisdom +2, dagger (1 lbs.), monk's outfit (2 lbs.), backpack (2 lbs.), bedroll (5 lbs.), winter blanket (3 lbs.), bullseye lantern with continual flame (3 lbs.), hempen rope 50' (10 lbs.), 2 entertainer's outfits (8 lbs.), 360 gp

As you can see, this is actually a pretty extraordinary character.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> monk? highest defense of everyone, moderate offense. Again, they should always be the first in and last down.
> 
> To make the monk a powerhouse combatent takes chooseing the right prc's and feat choices. Along with all of your gear going towards that one thing. You will probably not, and in some ways should not, match a primary fighter type. But you will be able to hang in there.
> 
> ...




In my experience, monks don't have particularly good AC.  My monk's AC is 21.  Its pretty easy for a fighter, cleric or paladin -- any heavy armor class -- to get that good an AC.  And, on whole, the monk will have fewer hit points than either the fighter or paladin.  Hell, right now in the game I'm in the bard has roughly the same AC as my monk -- literally just one point lower.  So the notion that the monk is the last man standing just doesn't fit my experience very well.

And what everyone has said is, y'know, that the monk is a "generalist" or "second best" at things -- and I can't think of another class (other than bard, that is designed for that and has much, much greater general utility as a support character than a monk) that is designed that way.

I think I'm coming to the conclusion that monks just really have no place in D&D.  Which makes me sad 'cause I'm all about the fu.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> What is a monk's element, then?
> 
> Seriously, the druid is also a "second string melee character" -- except this second string melee character is better at melee (transforming into, let's say, a lion or a brown bear) and has excellent spellcasting abilities.
> 
> Seriously, its looking as though my character has no legitimate place in this party.



Monks are mage-killers. That is their element. They are about precision targetting, not broad damage output. Look at their abilities: fast movement, stunning fist (Fort save, a mage weakness), immune to poison, immune to disease, they can heal themselves, they have great saving throws, improved evasion, _Spell Resistance_, they can D-door...if ever there was a class designed to withstand and demolish spell casters, this is it. That's their gig. 

As a monk you should steer yourself to wasting mooks and spellcasting foes. Leave the hill giants for the fighters to tank (but flank off them). 

I play a monk. This is my approach: fighters are blunt instruments, monks are a surgeon's scalpel.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2004)

"Last man standing" isn't just about AC & hp.  The monk's saves, special abilities, speed,  maneuverability, and self-sufficiency can make them hard to take out of a fight.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> As you can see, this is actually a pretty extraordinary character.



Albeit run by someone with no concept of what tactics are.

You have only one thing that you can do. Punch people.

All your items are focussed towards... punching people.

It's the same for summoned monsters, shapeshifted druids and giants. All they do is hit people.

The difference is that a monk has the potential to be more than that. The monk can use ranged weapons for a start.

I mean honestly - who builds a combatant and then doesn't buy a single ranged weapon?

Finally - look at your skills. Balance. Jump. Climb. Tumble.

And what did you do? Ran up to the giant and pounded it.

Also note - your druid is now out of spells. By the book, you should be having around about 5 encounters a day. Druid's not looking too good now, is he?

Finally - if you'd had a slow fighter in the party... perhaps you should wait for the giant to close so everyone is in the fight? That's just a little bit of tactics for you...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

Its never a good idea to write off a class as useless because of only a single encounter.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> In my experience, monks don't have particularly good AC.  My monk's AC is 21.




Potential best ac  there is a difference.

Say you have an arcane caster, everyday they cast a mage armor on you at the beginning of the day. Now you are at 25, for a very long time. They cast cats grace on you (as it is the only enhancement you are missing) for an extra probably 2 points, now you are at 27.

27 for a 6th level character is definately not shabby!

Later on in the game you pick up some bracers of armor, get a few more items for boosting up ac in other ways, +6 item to wis and dex, and your ac can be the highest out of any other character class.

Potentials


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Albeit run by someone with no concept of what tactics are.
> 
> You have only one thing that you can do. Punch people.
> 
> ...



Uh, what?  He has a ranged weapon.







> Finally - look at your skills. Balance. Jump. Climb. Tumble.
> 
> And what did you do? Ran up to the giant and pounded it.



Yes, he obviously should have jumped onto the giant, or climbed up the giant, *then* pounded it.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

mmmm.. zen archery + that other feat that allows you to stack dex and zen archery.. and a mighty bow!

This monk will be rocking in no time


----------



## Felix (Apr 8, 2004)

I think you underestimate the power of the Monk. (I love how Star Wars-ish that sounds. )

Three favored saves
4+ skills and interesting class skills
Hooge movement bonuses
Feat selection
DR bypassageness with Ki strike
... plus many, many more!

But that's just beating a dead horse. The monk is Tactical Mobility. Always and everywhere he is Tactical Mobility. You can't see that so much at the early levels, but when his movement is upwards of 50, you feel it. So in any situation someone needs to be somewhere _now_, the monk is your man.

Tanking against Hill giants isn't your forte. And really, what's the harm with having your monk sit back and hold a conversation with the bard about the druid's animals while the druid takes care of everything. Not only would that be a neat role-playing scene, but it would teach your druid not to burn all of his spells so early, but to rely on his companions as well.

And, like the fighter, you can dish it out all day long, as long as your HPs hold up. The summoner druid can't.

[Regarding the heavy armor wearing fighter] Of course he's going to be obsolete in this kind of a fight. Put a heavy armor wearing guy in a big field, spread the enemies out and you expect him to perform? Never going to happen. His place is in dungeon hallways where he can stop up the enemy's front line. Dwarven defenders and Breach-gnomes were designed with this kind of terrain in mind. If they move outdoors, they're in serious trouble. Especially if they're fighting a monk with 90 movement. 

So, love your movement. Love your tumble. Love your saves. And love the +18 total bonuses for your abilities. Love the Tactical Mobility. 

But don't try to tank.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh, I remember what it was like to have the wrong character in the wrong party in the wrong campaign and feel useless as a result.  You have my sympathy.

Our current game (3.0) has a monk character in it, and our monk's player has had the same complaint about not really knowing what he can do to be really cool.  Since it's a 3.0 game, any time we run into something that requires a magic weapon to hit, he's basically useless.  Any time we run into something that doesn't give a damn about bludgeoning damage (it's happened a few times now), he's basically useless.  Most of the things we fight have huge Fortitude saves, so stunning blow attempts are basically useless.  And then, adding insult to injury, he's been screwed by hit point roll after hit point roll and only recently passed the _wizard's_ max HP.

Meanwhile, we've got a paladin who deals out sickening amounts of damage on every hit, and a wizard killing the sh-t out of everything that the paladin can't reach.  Compared to those two, our monk tends to look and feel a bit inferior.

What our monk has going for him is that he's basically got the best base armor class of anyone in the party; if he's trying not to be hit, odds are nothing's going to hit him.  He's the only other fairly stealthy character, so he can go up and scout with the ranger/rogue...and since they both have evasion, the wizard can count on them to hold a front line for one or two rounds while the big reflex-save area-effect spells go off.  He also routinely flanks with the ranger/rogue (granting sneak attack damage to the rogue and negating the flurry of blows penalty for him).  So while he may only provide a trickle of damage in relative terms, it's a fairly consistent trickle of damage in most fights; as long as the bad guys don't have damage resistance, he's dangerous to them.

And honestly, without him there to back her up, our ranger/rogue would be totally useless, so for the most part our monk has been most successful filling the "utility combat" role: he's not the superstar taking down the big uglies single-handed, but he's always _right there_ when he's needed most, taking the pressure off.  Between that and expanding his out-of-combat role (he's got some good feats and advantages that no one else does), and all the various buffing spells the wizard can cast on him (there are nearly twice as many spells that can help the monk than there are for any other class), he's holding up pretty well.

--
as the wizard's player, i consider it my solemn duty to find new spells to cast on the monk
ryan


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh, and I would DEFINITELY suggest you look through Oriental Adventures if you haven't already. If your DM will allow it, you can really get some nice combat feats. Could make you feel like your Monk is more useful/unique.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Apr 8, 2004)

As I'm playing a druid and have picked Augment Summoning (at a cost of 2 feats)... I can't wait to fight a melee brute.  Flyers, things with special abilities, things with DR, many intelligent opponents that use hit-and-run tactics - then I'll be using other tactics.  Foes that ambush us, can't use SNA there either.
The occasional melee brute foe such as a giant (okay, maybe ogres, we're only L3) would allow my feats to be useful.  The low AC is a problem, but I think the SNA critters will make a nice damage soak since the party has relatively little healing ability handy.  Always good to divert some attacks if possible.  But spells are limited and encounters have been frequent (something like 50 goblins in many waves before the first dawn in the campaign), so I'll be conservative with spells.
Agree with tactical movement advantage for fighter-types.  Not only is it effective, it's fun in that chess-player way.  The character I swapped out (because we needed some healing ability) was a rogue who was going to go the reach-weapon fighter route.  Light armor, tumble, combat reflexes, spring attack - would have been a neat combination.  A monk could do much the same thing,


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Albeit run by someone with no concept of what tactics are.
> 
> You have only one thing that you can do. Punch people.
> 
> ...




Musta missed that "Sling +9 (1d4+4)" bit.

And, yeah, what was he supposed to do with Balance, Jump, Climb and Tumble, again?  I mean, he took no attacks of opportunity.

Additional facts I might have skipped about the fight.  It took place on a flat place, in a town, in fact, and if my character had just run away -- or even the whole party -- two hill giants would have been smashing the village.  Which might have been tactical, but sometimes I like to role-play in my RPGs and since the town in question was my character's home town he had some motivation to prevent giants from demolishing it.

Furthermore, everyone *was* in the fight.  Bard singing and casting heal spells, and the druid, as you might have gotten if you'd read my original post, hurling animal after animal on the giants.

My tactics were fine.  Maybe you should work on your reading skills.  *eyeroll*


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Potential best ac  there is a difference.
> 
> Say you have an arcane caster, everyday they cast a mage armor on you at the beginning of the day. Now you are at 25, for a very long time. They cast cats grace on you (as it is the only enhancement you are missing) for an extra probably 2 points, now you are at 27.
> 
> ...




Actually, shield is the spell that seems to do the most for my monk, but the sorcerer wasn't there and would have been doing his own thing.  I have found that the sorcerer is generally way more interested in using room clearing fireballs than buffing my character.

I mean, sure, if the spellcasters decided that the way to go was buff my character, he could be spiffy -- but why buff my monk for a cat's grace when, instead, that druid could be summoning up a dire wolf?  In terms of tactics, it makes better sense to have the wolf out there doing damage and taking hits than to allow my character a little better AC.

Which is the boggle, from where I sit.  It makes sense for the druid to use summon nature's ally pretty much as often as she can in battle.  Its a good spell, providing both offense and defense.  While the sorcerer could certainly afford to shield me, in actual combat it makes more sense for him just to do damage, tactically speaking.  It is not the job of the other characters in the game to make my character useful; their resources are honestly better allocated elsewhere.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Oh, and I would DEFINITELY suggest you look through Oriental Adventures if you haven't already. If your DM will allow it, you can really get some nice combat feats. Could make you feel like your Monk is more useful/unique.




I have it, actually.  I was looking through it today and most of the really cool things work only against humanoids -- which we don't fight too many of in this game so far -- or are hyperspecialized situations, like doing damage in a grapple (which is basically impossible to do much of the time because the opponents are either larger and stronger or there are more of them so grappling with one prevents my C from screening the spellcasters, removing his only legitimate function in a fight).


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Brother MacLaren said:
			
		

> Agree with tactical movement advantage for fighter-types.  Not only is it effective, it's fun in that chess-player way.  The character I swapped out (because we needed some healing ability) was a rogue who was going to go the reach-weapon fighter route.  Light armor, tumble, combat reflexes, spring attack - would have been a neat combination.  A monk could do much the same thing,




Yes, a monk could, obviously.  However, then the monk is no longer a supporting character.  The monk darts in, does damage, darts out -- great for the monk and it sucks for whatever the monk is fighting because now they're trying to chase a monk around the board . . . or they're going and crushing the sorcerer and druid.  Well, the druid can just wildshape into a brown bear, heh, but the sorcerer would be in a world of hurt.

Stuff like that would just take my character away from being a support character, and relegate it to the role of doing trifling damage.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Thanks everyone for the good information!  My DM and I will talk about it and see if we can't come up with a good solution for our party.  Y'all have been helpful, except for that one guy who dogged on my tactics.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 8, 2004)

Here is a quick way to be a heavy hitter, providing your DM will allow you to return to taking Monk levels.

Take a level of Fighter and pick up Combat Reflexes.  Get a Glaive.  Glaives have reach, you can hold a glaive in one hand and switch back and forth between holding the glaive in both hands or one hand as a free action.


----------



## Brother MacLaren (Apr 8, 2004)

Another option: get some ability to enlarge yourself.  Can the sorcerer pick up enlarge person?  Maybe a wand?
Monks, with their Improved Trip, can be very effective against equally-sized opponents.  In most campaigns, equally-sized opponents are quite common (NPCs).  If for some reason your campaign has more large opponents, then you may wish to see what you can do about getting bigger yourself.  That will also give you reach (an advantage most Large animals don't get), which is especially useful if you have Combat Reflexes.
As others have said, the monk is first and foremost a mage-killer.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2004)

I must not pimp in public
I must not pimp in public
I must not pimp in public

Ah hell, I just pimped, didn't I?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 8, 2004)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Uh, what?  He has a ranged weapon.Yes, he obviously should have jumped onto the giant, or climbed up the giant, *then* pounded it.




Missed his sling, because it's not in his equipment, only on his attacks listing. And let's face it a sling is probably the worst ranged weapon he could pick.



			
				CPXB said:
			
		

> Musta missed that "Sling +9 (1d4+4)" bit.



Mostly because I looked through your gear list which has a single dagger there. Discounting that, see above. A sling is a non-choice for a ranged weapon. Throwing something like shurikens OTOH is fantastic. Two shurikens in a full round attack, or a single shuriken then single move away. Without a charge, the guy will never get to you. See below for what balance and jump do for this situation.


> And, yeah, what was he supposed to do with Balance, Jump, Climb and Tumble, again?  I mean, he took no attacks of opportunity.



You were IN a town, right? There's not much reason that the giants should have ever been able to reach you, and there should have been plenty of opportunities for you to mess with them.

Jump and climb get you places they can't go. Balance lets you run across broken ground.

Surely SOMEWHERE in the city there are bad roads.


> Additional facts I might have skipped about the fight.  It took place on a flat place, in a town, in fact, and if my character had just run away -- or even the whole party -- two hill giants would have been smashing the village.  Which might have been tactical, but sometimes I like to role-play in my RPGs and since the town in question was my character's home town he had some motivation to prevent giants from demolishing it.



A town isn't a flat place. It's on a flat place, but it's existence changes things. There's now cover, broken ground, different elevations you can get to.


> Furthermore, everyone *was* in the fight.  Bard singing and casting heal spells, and the druid, as you might have gotten if you'd read my original post, hurling animal after animal on the giants.



One of your posts said "if we'd had a fighter, he'd have never participated in the fight because he's too slow".


> My tactics were fine.  Maybe you should work on your reading skills.  *eyeroll*



Your tactics were 'run up and hit monster'. AKA non-existent. If you're competing against creatures who's sole purpose is to run at things and hit them, and you're wondering why you came off second best, then chances are your tactics are to blame.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I mean, sure, if the spellcasters decided that the way to go was buff my character, he could be spiffy -- but why buff my monk for a cat's grace when, instead, that druid could be summoning up a dire wolf?  In terms of tactics, it makes better sense to have the wolf out there doing damage and taking hits than to allow my character a little better AC.




For a single fight the summon is better, for a long term duration the buff(s) is/are better. If you only have one battle a day then spellcasters are going to shine way more than nons. If you have 20 battles in a day the spellcasters are going to wind up doing nothing for the majority. In the latter buffs are much more important, in the former not so much.

So it really depends on the battles for the day, and most days it is better to plan for long days then short days


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Your tactics were 'run up and hit monster'. AKA non-existent. If you're competing against creatures who's sole purpose is to run at things and hit them, and you're wondering why you came off second best, then chances are your tactics are to blame.




So, you actually think a good idea for a monk is to . . . let them pelt him with huge ass stones?  Hmm.  Or smash the town?  Hint: when you get into an duel of missile weaponry with a giant, *you loose*.

I think you need to return to tactics school.  It is standard tactics that when an enemy threatens developed areas to fight them on as little of that developed area as possible -- in short, to hold them off from going around town setting things on fire, knocking down things, killing innocent people.  Maybe in your world having a running fight through populated areas is a good idea.  In mine, not so good.

Not to mention that with a shuriken you can't add your strength bonus to damage.  Rashad's sling does six and a half points of damage on an average successful hit.  Not to mention that you can use anything as ammo (albeit with a small decrease in damage).  Shuriken damage just doesn't stack up to that.

Not to mention if my character tried doing this then the other characters would have just defeated the giants as they did.  My gripe is, after all, that my character was effectively irrelevant to the fight.  If my character had run up, whacked a giant and ran away . . . well, the menagerie that was summoned would have just eaten the giants as they did, anyway.

I mean, dood, our tactics were good.  They *worked*.  The group easily defeated the menace.  It was just my character was hardly a part of that.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> For a single fight the summon is better, for a long term duration the buff(s) is/are better. If you only have one battle a day then spellcasters are going to shine way more than nons. If you have 20 battles in a day the spellcasters are going to wind up doing nothing for the majority. In the latter buffs are much more important, in the former not so much.
> 
> So it really depends on the battles for the day, and most days it is better to plan for long days then short days




Ahhhhh . . . this is an interesting point.  What has not been happening is multiple fights in one day.  The magic using characters are basically trained to drop their whole wad as fast as possible, knowing they will likely have a chance to get spells back.

I will discuss it with my GM.  It's a touchy issue.  My GM prefers one big fight over lots of little ones.


----------



## evilbob (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB:  I agree with everyone who has said you cannot base an evaluation of your character off one battle.  I've seen battles where a thief in our party never got a good flank or a single sneak attack, and ended up doing ZERO damage by the time it was all over.  But he can break into shops and get into chests like nobody's business, and without him, things would be so much more difficult.  It's not all about the total damage dealt at the end of the day.

The monk in our party is not our main damage dealer, but if he can grab a quick Owl's Wisdom, he has the highest AC.  But more than that - as many have already said - he can MOVE ANYWHERE.  One time we had an enemy running like crazy for a door to escape, and the monk basically outran him without any effort - no one else could have come close to catching him.  You should be maxing tumble and then looking at the battle as a whole; where would you be benefitial this round, and how easy is it for you to be there?  In your Hill Giant example, your role should have been to provide flanking bonuses for those summoned monsters so they could hit the giants easier, followed by waiting until someone was tripped and then IMMEDIATELY running over and pelting a prone opponent.  Trying to solo was a mistake from the beginning - your role is to support and take advantage of every opening.  I have to agree with everyone else who has said that if you're unhappy with your character, you must be playing them ineffectively.  There _are_ lots of good ways to play a monk.

Also, if you're looking to beef up a monk, you should check out the Book of Exalted Deeds.  You're LG, so you could pick up Vow of Poverty - which makes a monk into a demi-god.


----------



## evilbob (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Ahhhhh . . . this is an interesting point.  What has not been happening is multiple fights in one day.  The magic using characters are basically trained to drop their whole wad as fast as possible, knowing they will likely have a chance to get spells back.
> 
> I will discuss it with my GM.  It's a touchy issue.  My GM prefers one big fight over lots of little ones.




Wow.  Ok, so there's another issue.  If the spellcasters in your party are blowing everything on one battle, then of course they are going to seem about 5 times as powerful as everyone else.  Part of the point of spellcasting is that it is severly limited by the number of times you can use it; they are basically using 5 times the "assumed" consumption of resources per battle.

That's certainly a DM balance issue.  If your characters had to fight two big battles in one day (and they didn't change their style of play) then you'd see a huge difference.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

Actually, shurikens are thrown weapons in 3.5, you only get one per attack, and you add your strength to the damage.

but since they do d2 vs the sling bullets d4... ::shrugs:: it is a tough call. getting an extra attack per round, the ability to enchant them.. it might work out in your favor eventually. d2+1 is better than d4 when you add on the plus to hit


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2004)

evilbob said:
			
		

> In your Hill Giant example, your role should have been to provide flanking bonuses for those summoned monsters so they could hit the giants easier, followed by waiting until someone was tripped and then IMMEDIATELY running over and pelting a prone opponent. Trying to solo was a mistake from the beginning - your role is to support and take advantage of every opening.



Relegating a player character to a supporting-cast role is not a solution.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

evilbob said:
			
		

> CPXB:  I agree with everyone who has said you cannot base an evaluation of your character off one battle.  I've seen battles where a thief in our party never got a good flank or a single sneak attack, and ended up doing ZERO damage by the time it was all over.  But he can break into shops and get into chests like nobody's business, and without him, things would be so much more difficult.  It's not all about the total damage dealt at the end of the day.
> 
> The monk in our party is not our main damage dealer, but if he can grab a quick Owl's Wisdom, he has the highest AC.  But more than that - as many have already said - he can MOVE ANYWHERE.  One time we had an enemy running like crazy for a door to escape, and the monk basically outran him without any effort - no one else could have come close to catching him.  You should be maxing tumble and then looking at the battle as a whole; where would you be benefitial this round, and how easy is it for you to be there?  In your Hill Giant example, your role should have been to provide flanking bonuses for those summoned monsters so they could hit the giants easier, followed by waiting until someone was tripped and then IMMEDIATELY running over and pelting a prone opponent.  Trying to solo was a mistake from the beginning - your role is to support and take advantage of every opening.  I have to agree with everyone else who has said that if you're unhappy with your character, you must be playing them ineffectively.  There _are_ lots of good ways to play a monk.
> 
> Also, if you're looking to beef up a monk, you should check out the Book of Exalted Deeds.  You're LG, so you could pick up Vow of Poverty - which makes a monk into a demi-god.




Yeah, we're going to see how it goes, but it was pretty wild the way it did go, hehe.

And my monk didn't fight the hill giant alone, by no means.  He was surrounded by the druid's critters -- animal companion and summoned animals - and we were all flanking for each other.  We covered that.  Along with the trip and pounce 'em while they were down -- it was just that the monk's damage was sort of lost in the noise.  "I do 11 points of damage this round!"  *Chloe rolls die after die*  "I do fifty-four points of damage this round!"

But, yeah, thinking about it there are good ways to play a monk.  The mobility angle has been covered enough and . . . well, Rashad can't do that because he's the group's only melee fighter.  If he fought like a monk, well, it means most of the time he just wouldn't be in the fight -- the party can't follow him onto narrow ledges over high places where he can kick ass and take names.  Heck, they couldn't even keep up.  

And if the monk runs away to seek an advantageous position, then what?  Either the monsters follow him and he faces them alone or they attack the party without Rashad.

We'll keep at it for a little while longer.  Y'all are right that it is unfair to judge by a single battle.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Relegating a player character to a supporting-cast role is not a solution.




Indeed, hehe.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Relegating a player character to a supporting-cast role is not a solution.




Some battles certain characters are in the spot light, for some others are. It depends on the time and the opponents. So for some battles some characters will be support, and for others the other characters will be.

Part of being in a team.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Actually, shurikens are thrown weapons in 3.5, you only get one per attack, and you add your strength to the damage.
> 
> but since they do d2 vs the sling bullets d4... ::shrugs:: it is a tough call. getting an extra attack per round, the ability to enchant them.. it might work out in your favor eventually. d2+1 is better than d4 when you add on the plus to hit




Ahhh!  *shakes fist at version changes*  I did not know this.  I'll take a look at it, but it seems likely to be a mostly lateral move.  Thanks for the 411.


----------



## Capellan (Apr 8, 2004)

Ways in which your monk outshines summoned animals:

- you don't take a full round spell to introduce to the melee
- you stick around for more than 30 seconds a day
- you have a better AC
- you have (the option of) ranged attacks
- you don't get nerfed by _protection from_ spells
- you ignore DR/magic
- you can tumble to provide flanking bonuses
- stunning fist: not everything has a great Fort save
- you have evasion
- you can vary your attack methods for creatures with DR/weapon or material type

As others have mentioned, you character sheet looks very 'one note': you're all about hitting things.  This is probably due to the group you're in, as you lack a 'tank'.  Your monk's being asked to fill a roll for which the class probably isn't that suited.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

If you move up to 3 or more combats per day I will expect to see your compatriots on here asking how they can keep up with the crazy monk/noncasting guys  Especially if you get the things I suggested earlier.


----------



## hong (Apr 8, 2004)

Capellan said:
			
		

> Ways in which your monk outshines summoned animals:
> 
> - you don't take a full round spell to introduce to the melee
> - you stick around for more than 30 seconds a day
> ...



In practice, these advantages simply don't come up very often. Yes, you have more options as a monk. However, these options are rarely that useful, for the issue of grabbing spotlight time: it simply doesn't appeal to lots of people to be able to run very fast or give flanking bonuses for others. That's a Baldrick job. The _animal_ should be the one giving flanking bonuses to the PC, not the other way around.

Perhaps the most useful abilities there for gaining spotlight time are ignoring DR/magic and stunning fist. However, by the time you're facing things with DR/magic, chances are everyone else will have magic weapons, so it's moot. (Remember, you're not just competing with the animals, you're also vying for spotlight time with the other PCs.) And as said, many, many monsters have good Fort saves especially at mid to high levels.

The only real combat schtick for a monk, if you don't want to be the eternal Baldrick, is to be a specialist mage-killer. But that's something that tends to come up once in a blue moon; and even then, spells like fly negate all your movement advantages vis-a-vis the other PCs.

With all good saves, SR, evasion and immunities, the monk is survivable, yes. But there's more to enjoying the game than just living through a battle. If all you wanted was to live, you might as well stay at home while the rest of the group goes into the dungeon. And besides, even a monk is not wholly self-sufficient. At high levels, you _are_ going to get hit, and eventually you _are_ going to fail a save. That's when you need your buddies to cover for you. Just because you fail fewer saves than others doesn't mean you can solo a dungeon.



> As others have mentioned, you character sheet looks very 'one note': you're all about hitting things. This is probably due to the group you're in, as you lack a 'tank'. Your monk's being asked to fill a roll for which the class probably isn't that suited.



The monk isn't really suited to _any_ role. That's the problem. If there was a tank, then he'd just be another guy overshadowing the monk.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

I must admit that Hong basically articulated my issues with the monk very, very neatly.


----------



## Corlon (Apr 8, 2004)

I didn't feel like reading the last two pages of this thread, but I figure I'll add my 2 cents in anyways    

You said that the druid summoned 2 dire badgers, a dire wolf, a lion, and maybe some other creatures in that battle...how many spells does that leave the druid for any other encounters you may have that  day?  Your  monk  used one stunning attack I think, leaving 5 left for the day.  The  monk is also more of a cool class with his ability to use slow fall and be immune to diseases (which can be useful at times,  but aren't generally everyday use things).  Specialized, monks can take down just about anything their size or smaller in grappling, and when larger creatures come, just let other people shine.  If the DM prefers using  creatures from the MM and most happen to be large, then I guess you're out of luck with the grappling, and if no spellcasters, then that's out of the question too (because grappling = cancel their spells and lets not forget the 3 high saves that protect the monk from any spell under the sun.  Also evasion).  The monk also outdoes the druid skill wise with tumble, hide, move silently, etc.  If the campaign isn't one in which these things can be used then tough luck I guess, but maybe you should talk to your DM about that.

Sorry if I've repeated anything that really didn't need repeating.

-Corlon


----------



## Spatula (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Actually, shield is the spell that seems to do the most for my monk, but the sorcerer wasn't there and would have been doing his own thing.



_Shield_ is a personal-only spell - the sorcerer can't cast it on your monk, he can only cast it on himself.


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

IMO, if you want a more kung fu-ish monk, your best bet is to take only a single level of monk and the rest fighter (or barbarian, even... , and see if the DM will allow you to take Improved Natural Weapon as a feat. Maybe some rogue levels, too.

Mnk 1 will give you the basics - special unarmed attacks, shuriken use, Wis-tied AC, and so forth. Fighter levels will give you flexibility in feats and hit points. Rogue levels will give you a number of useful things, including sneak attack damage. Winning initiative and using shuriken... fun fun.

If your DM is very flexible, recrafting the monk class might also be useful. Trade special abilities. Give up some of the cruft you don't ever plan on using, or don't find interesting, for things like sneak attack damage or bonus fighter feats. I'm thinking of UA's variant classes as a basic model.

Heck, how about a monk with some paladin stuff?

I also second looking at Vow of Poverty. One of my favorite bits of Book of Exalted Deeds.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

Geez... is there any cheese and crackers.. or only whine?

Now, lets see about this encounter. I am not sure how it happened the way you described.

Assuming you rush in for battle, you get there one or two round ahead of the Dire Wolf. So you get one or two attacks first.

First round the Wolf attacks, the Giant gets an AoO (Giants BAB is greater than AC, instahit.) Assuming a few points of Power attack, over half the hitpoints are gone.
The wolf attacks *once* and has a 50/50 chance of hitting
The giant attacks the wolf, and if power attack, kills the wolf, and tries to hit you with the second attack. Even without PA, he kills the wolf with the second attack of the round.
(you say the wolf can trip 'consistently' First, it should be dead after one round. Second, it has only a 60% hit chance, and then a 50% trip chance. If consistent is 30%.....  And the giant is almost as dangerous prone. (still hit the wolf on a 2)

Next round the lion show up, same thing (only worse). AoO does almost 60-75% of HP. Next attack will kill it. (even without PA, two attacks will be two hits, will be one dead lion)

How is the lion getting 5 attacks? Every round?  How is the lion hitting with the bite at only a +2? (that is a lot of 18's) And how in the world is getting the bite, *and* winning the grapple, *and* hitting with the rake??

And the second giant?  Why did he close at all?  If the animals were that effective, throw rocks. Kill the dumb animals. Heck, if it had been 15 seconds later, both animals would have been gone.

And even if the animals survived the first giant, the second one gets the AoO's also. And that would kill both animals.

Gee *you* would survive, because a monk can *tumble*. What a cool advantage you have. And while it is easy to hit you also... it is much harder than the insta hits against the animals. (Even prone, the giant hits on a 2 or 3)
Plus, the druid used both 3rd level spells, and 2 of the 3 second level spells. Pretty much shot the wad. What happens if another *anything* shows up?
What happens if the second giant stopped to tie his shoe, and is 30 seconds later? What happens when the attack entails sneaking somewhere? 

The druid trick is a one trick pony. It is short lived, with low AC. Same as a beginning mage with only one magic missle. When it is gone... it is gone. Monks are monks all day long. Just as useful in evening as in morning. Even if you fought the giants in the morning. The druid is just short of a spectator after that fight. (actually, I am not sure how you all were not dead... but that is another issue.)


.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Good lord, and that lion!  It pounced the second giant and did something like thirty-five or forty points of damage in one turn!




Tell the player of the druid to go buy a lotto ticket. 
*Assuming* the two +7 claws hit *and* the +2 bite hits *and* if the bite hits the Grapple check is won *and* both +7 rake attacks hit. And assuming the 4d4 and 1d8 all roll totally max. Then you get 40 points of damage.

Now, ignoring any additional benefits (from the bard, or whatever) but also ignoring needing to beat a giant on a grapple check.... that equates to a .0001875% chance of success.  So sure, I would feel inferior too if the person I was compared to could pull that off on a regular basis.

.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Geez... is there any cheese and crackers.. or only whine?
> 
> Now, lets see about this encounter. I am not sure how it happened the way you described.
> 
> ...




This must be some form of hazing, to prove I know the basics or something.  OK.

You assumed too much.  I won't correct your assumptions because, frankly, your arrogant tone doesn't inspire me to do so.  Needless to say your presumptive description of the fight is riddled with inaccuracies -- unsurprising as you were not there, and only surprising because you chose to assume so much with so little.

However, lions, when they charge can pounce.  The lion pounced twice, each time getting five attacks.  Its right there in the MM if you care to look.  The lion hit because the dire wolf had good luck knocking the giants down.

And the reason we're not dead is because of the druid's menagerie.  Covered that.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> IMO, if you want a more kung fu-ish monk, your best bet is to take only a single level of monk and the rest fighter (or barbarian, even... , and see if the DM will allow you to take Improved Natural Weapon as a feat. Maybe some rogue levels, too.
> 
> Mnk 1 will give you the basics - special unarmed attacks, shuriken use, Wis-tied AC, and so forth. Fighter levels will give you flexibility in feats and hit points. Rogue levels will give you a number of useful things, including sneak attack damage. Winning initiative and using shuriken... fun fun.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the suggestions.  The DM and I are discussing it.

Alas, we do not have the Book of Exalted Deeds and one of our friends tells us that the Vow of Poverty is sorta overpowered for monks . . . however, since my gripe is, essentially, that my monk is *underpowered* (vis-a-vis the other characters) I might want to look again, huh?


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Tell the player of the druid to go buy a lotto ticket.
> *Assuming* the two +7 claws hit *and* the +2 bite hits *and* if the bite hits the Grapple check is won *and* both +7 rake attacks hit. And assuming the 4d4 and 1d8 all roll totally max. Then you get 40 points of damage.
> 
> Now, ignoring any additional benefits (from the bard, or whatever) but also ignoring needing to beat a giant on a grapple check.... that equates to a .0001875% chance of success.  So sure, I would feel inferior too if the person I was compared to could pull that off on a regular basis.
> ...




And . . . the giant was still prone.  If you hadn't assumed and instead asked, you probably wouldn't be looking so foolish, right now.  

You also need to go check what pounce means.  Again.  The lion was also buffed, BTW.  Which, if you'd asked, you might know.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Needless to say your presumptive description of the fight is riddled with inaccuracies -- unsurprising as you were not there, and only surprising because you chose to assume so much with so little.



You have spent 3 pages talking about this.... There isn't much left to assume



> However, lions, when they charge can pounce.



Yes, they can pounce, which means that instead of being restricted to one attack (ala charge rules) they can take a full attack. This does not mean it automatically gets to rake. The rules for rake state that it needs to succeed at a bite, and a grapple check.


> The lion pounced twice, each time getting five attacks.



I will assume one pounce for each giant. Which as I understand it, means two AoO's. That is a dead lion before the second pounce. (Charge has no AoO, but movement through a threatened area does.) and the lion hits suck, see below.


> The lion hit because the dire wolf had good luck knocking the giants down.



VERY good luck, about a 9% chance of getting both of them. Plus he should have been dead from the two AoO. (granted, some of these AoO may overlap...) still have a hard time hitting see below.



> You also need to go check what pounce means. Again.



I means (again) that the lion gets to make a full attack, not just a single attack. But it still has to land the bite and grapple for the rake.



> And . . . the giant was still prone. The lion was also buffed, BTW. .



Yeah, I mentioned that it might be. So lets assume it is, you didn't mention how much, so lets assume the bard was singing so +1/+1, and a +4 because *both* giants were knocked prone. And further, lets assume it somehow survived the multiple 'instahits' the giant could unleash. And lets take 39 pts damage. With the +5 to hit and +1 damage... that brings it to a 0.17% chance (0.015% if you also factor the two trips)
And again, this ignores the grapple check that the lion would likely not win.

Every AoO or attack from the giant is going to hit. (The second attack, while prone, still hits on a 7) how are these animals surviving? 

You can gripe all you want. But the druid trick is a one shot, and they should have been fairly ineffective. While your monk would have been more useful, and for a longer period of time. But hey, complain away....

.


----------



## Camarath (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Yes, they can pounce, which means that instead of being restricted to one attack (ala charge rules) they can take a full attack. This does not mean it automatically gets to rake. The rules for rake state that it needs to succeed at a bite, and a grapple check.



From SRD under Lion.


> Pounce (Ex): If a lion charges a foe, it can make a full attack, *including two rake attacks*.


----------



## Tatsukun (Apr 8, 2004)

Monks are very good at attacking large numbers of small monsters. A monk's huge number of attacks can clean up a lot of goblins/orcs/humans/whatever. 

They lag behind when fighting one large monster, or something with DR. 

Monks do have MADD (multiple ability dependency disorder) really badly. I can really see an ability for them that allows them to add their wisdom to damage (paired with weapon finesse, they don't need strength).  

But, I think they have a great synergy with sorcerer/wizard. I ran a monk with 1 level of sorcerer, and he was a great shock troop. He could move in (a long way) and use a wand (he had one in each hand at all times). He was faster than anyone else, was nearly immune to magic (best saves, evasion). His general tactic was to sprint in, blast some people with a few shots with the wands, then tackle any mages he could find. 

At level 2, with mage armor, shield, a mage/monk with a 16 wis and a 16 dex is at AC 24. Add protection from evil (or whatever), and you get 26. 

Not bad. 

  -Tatsu


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> From SRD under Lion.




Yes, I have read that about 20 times tonight already...

First: That is simply to clarify that you are not limited to just one attack, not even just the basic 3 attacks, but can full attack on a charge without let or hinderance. It is making it abundantly clear that a lion is just as good attacking on a charge as normal. Now, if you want to make the assumption that on a charge, when you usually get fewer hits than normal, a lion not only gets its normal amount of attacks, but actually gets *more* than normal. If you want to assume that it means a lion normally needs to be holding a target to perform a rake, but not if running real fast.... I suppose you can. It doesn't match any other rules, nor any semblence of reality. But whatever.

Second: It does not change anything I did, since I didn't include it anyway.

.


----------



## Olive (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> The DM is my fiancee and we live together.  She came home about forty minutes ago and we've been chatting about this stuff and we are coming to the conclusion that all the melee fighters are sorta underpowered compared to mid to high level magic using characters.




This is simply not true. One of the great advances of 3e in general is to make fighters etc stand up at higher levels. In my game the paladin regualrly trounces the wizard in damage and hits AND the wizard is a regular _summon monster_ user. The spell casters can do some great stuff, and people often underestimate the potential damage that a druid can do but melee characters are awesome in 3/3.5. As lots of others have pointed out, _summon monster_ (and similar spells) are fun but can be shut down real quick...

But there are obviously some issues. Part of the problem is that the monk works well in conjunction with other melee characters, which is different from hong's 'reglating to a support role' IMHO. Monks are pretty flexible, and can do great things. When people describe the monk as a support character they don't mean second rate... they mean support like artilery, as in crucial and fight altering. Regardless, check out flying leap as a feat. I remember the monk PC in my campaign using that to devestating effect.

The other problem could be that the DM isn't tailoring encounters to the party. As was said above, monks are better at somethings than others, and if your DM is throwing you up against lots of single big creatures not lots of little ones, then the DM might need to consider making sure she is creating encounters that allow every character to shine. It's a game after all, and everyone should be having fun.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Camarath (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> First: That is simply to clarify that you are not limited to just one attack, not even just the basic 3 attacks, but can full attack on a charge without let or hinderance. It is making it abundantly clear that a lion is just as good attacking on a charge as normal. Now, if you want to make the assumption that on a charge, when you usually get fewer hits than normal, a lion not only gets its normal amount of attacks, but actually gets *more* than normal. If you want to assume that it means a lion normally needs to be holding a target to perform a rake, but not if running real fast.... I suppose you can. It doesn't match any other rules, nor any semblence of reality. But whatever.



From FAQ


> *How often can a tiger use its rake attack? Suppose it
> hits with its first claw attack. It can then make two rake
> attacks, right? Can it make two more rake attacks if it
> gets a hold with its other claw? And can it then make two
> ...


----------



## Thanee (Apr 8, 2004)

Olive said:
			
		

> CPXB said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It was true in 3.0, most definitely, but in 3.5 - where spellcasters have been considerably weakened and warriors beefed up a little - this doesn't hold true anymore.

Especially in the earlier levels, warriors outshine casters by far. In the higher levels, I'm pretty sure, that they will have their place still.

The monk however, I've always seen as the weakest and least "useful" class. Sure everyone can add something, but the monk just doesn't add that much.

Anyways, as others have said, if the druid expends like half her daily spells in a combat, she ought to outshine everyone else. That's completely ok. Now if you only have 1-2 encounters a day, she'll obviously do so pretty often. If you, however, have 5+ you'll see the balance setting in soon.

And summoned critters might be nice now, but at higher levels their combat usefulness is hardly compareable to that of a warrior PC. Also there are easy (1st level spell!) ways to completely stop the summoned critters from doing anything at all.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

I think the problem with monks are that people often take the class with expectations or desires that don't mesh with the class as it functions (thus my comments previously). This occurs with several classes... the simple fact is, if you want only a portion of what a class offers, your move in that direction is going to short-change the character's capabilities.

That's one huge reason I like UA's establishment of general guidelines/suggestions on modifying classes.

For example, maybe you want to be a fighter with sneak attack damage, but really don't want any other rogue attributes. Hey, swap bonus feats for sneak attack...


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> From FAQ




I stand corrected. Thanks for looking that up. I guess it even makes sense in a certain light.

It doesn't change any results of what I wrote; but it is good to get the info straight.

.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 8, 2004)

I'm glad the FAQ cleared up that lion pounce and rake confusion, I was curious about it myself.

But that being said I think most people are right in that this encounter was pretty lucky for those summons. But hey it happens. Now if this continues to happen it might be a problem, but hey just became my party's wizard takes out a BBEG with a death spell on a lucky roll doesn't mean he's necessarily the upper Badass


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> It doesn't change any results of what I wrote; but it is good to get the info straight.




How much would it change your numbers with all of those buffs and the new augmented summoning?  +4str/+4con help out quite a bit, especially with 5 attacks!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

Augmented Summing definitely helps to explain how well the animals did...but, something is still bugging me.

a) Each of those creatures takes a full round to summon

b) They only last 5 rounds each.

Well, I guess if ALL the Druid was doing was summoning, then it would work, but that just sounds like a bad tactic. If a PC in my game wastes all their spells(or most) that quickly, I'd gladly show them why NOT to.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

But if there is only one battle in a day then they have been trained _to_ do so


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> I think the problem with monks are that people often take the class with expectations or desires that don't mesh with the class as it functions (thus my comments previously). This occurs with several classes... the simple fact is, if you want only a portion of what a class offers, your move in that direction is going to short-change the character's capabilities.
> 
> That's one huge reason I like UA's establishment of general guidelines/suggestions on modifying classes.
> 
> For example, maybe you want to be a fighter with sneak attack damage, but really don't want any other rogue attributes. Hey, swap bonus feats for sneak attack...




Its actually something me and my DM are working out, this precise subject; y'know, strip away the monk of some of its class abilities and replace them with something else (I'm trying to get more feats -- as many people have pointed out, there are a fairly large number of really good monkish feats out there in the various books).


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

Sorry... but this thread is more showing problems your DM then anything inherently wrong or weak with the Monk. And I see the relationship happening here...

Maybe point out 3.5 DMG P.49 - "What's Challenging?"

Seriously, why wouldn't the Druid blow the budget when he knows it's the only encounter he'll see that day. 

Mike


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> But if there is only one battle in a day then they have been trained _to_ do so




Which is precisely what happened.  Not necessarily one a day but . . . for a while we were doing dungeon stomping sort of stuff and one of the players -- the bard -- is really timid about taking chances.  We'd get into one fight, maybe two and he'd convince us all to retire for the night to regain resources.  The DM acknowledges that they've been given an easy time with that.

However, now we're doing more urban -- I hesitate to call the village we're in urban, but there ya are -- stuff and it seems to lack verisimilitude in that situation to continually pelt us with fights.  The DM -- mostly for time and dramatic tension reasons -- prefers one big fight over many smaller fighters.  For time reasons the DM has not been doing a lot of fight tailoring, choosing "simple" powerful foes (such as high giants or packs of dire wolves) because of her hesitation when time pressured to try to figure out more complex monsters.

So, in retrospect, some of it certainly is the way things are going in the game that favor spellcasters who can dump a lot of spells in one mega-fight, knowing that there won't be a fight until they recover spells.  I still think that some of it is the monk class, maybe in particular, but maybe also melee fighters in general.  But I think me and the GM are going to work to make monks as generally useful as paladins.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Sorry... but this thread is more showing problems your DM then anything inherently wrong or weak with the Monk. And I see the relationship happening here...
> 
> Maybe point out 3.5 DMG P.49 - "What's Challenging?"
> 
> ...




I think enough other players -- far more thoughtful than I, and more experienced -- have come forward to basically agree that the monks sucks that it would be meritorious for my game to at least look at the idea that the monk is underpowered vis-a-vis the other melee fighters.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Which is precisely what happened. Not necessarily one a day but . . . for a while we were doing dungeon stomping sort of stuff and one of the players -- the bard -- is really timid about taking chances. We'd get into one fight, maybe two and he'd convince us all to retire for the night to regain resources. The DM acknowledges that they've been given an easy time with that.
> 
> However, now we're doing more urban -- I hesitate to call the village we're in urban, but there ya are -- stuff and it seems to lack verisimilitude in that situation to continually pelt us with fights. The DM -- mostly for time and dramatic tension reasons -- prefers one big fight over many smaller fighters. For time reasons the DM has not been doing a lot of fight tailoring, choosing "simple" powerful foes (such as high giants or packs of dire wolves) because of her hesitation when time pressured to try to figure out more complex monsters.
> 
> So, in retrospect, some of it certainly is the way things are going in the game that favor spellcasters who can dump a lot of spells in one mega-fight, knowing that there won't be a fight until they recover spells. I still think that some of it is the monk class, maybe in particular, but maybe also melee fighters in general. But I think me and the GM are going to work to make monks as generally useful as paladins.



But if the Dm had simply had one of the giants come from the other side of town... Same encounter... way different outcome. Sure the Druid still blows the bank on the 1st Giant, but then the Monk is the hero because he can sprint across town to harry, and lead the other away from doing any collateral damage to the villagers.

YMMV


Mike


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I think enough other players -- far more thoughtful than I, and more experienced -- have come forward to basically agree that the monks sucks that it would be meritorious for my game to at least look at the idea that the monk is underpowered vis-a-vis the other melee fighters.



But your particular frame of reference in this case isn't trying to compare with other melee fighters. You are trying to compare with spellcasters. And the spellcasters aren't being given ANY reason to save their power for later.

Mike


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

Correction.

Monks are perfect for what they do, in a regular game.

You aren't in a regular game, and you don't want what a monk (in D&D) does, at least not completely.

That's fine, but recognize it isn't the class, it's your situation.

Though admittedly, I think monks are very misleading. Everyone, glancing at the class, would assume they are essentially unarmed melee masters. Which they aren't, really, unless you engage their full abilities.

For example, simply, if mobility isn't a big deal in your game, a monk isn't as useful.


For what it's worth, I sympathize with both you and the DM. Running complex monsters can make my head friggin' explode, particularly afterwards when I realized I hadn't used X power or hadn't considered the tactical applications of Y. Or even used a power that turned out to be stupid in the encounter.

I would suggest that a barrage of foes can be just as thrilling as one big monster (witness Moria). I'd also suggest not letting PCs sleep in a dungeon or similar. (Many interrupting encounters, etc)


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> But if the Dm had simply had one of the giants come from the other side of town... Same encounter... way different outcome. Sure the Druid still blows the bank on the 1st Giant, but then the Monk is the hero because he can sprint across town to harry, and lead the other away from doing any collateral damage to the villagers.
> 
> YMMV
> 
> ...




We actually *just* discussed that.  Or something similiar.  I said, "What if the second giant hadn't come in until after five rounds had passed?"  When the dire wolf and lion had been gone -- she agreed the character of the fight would have been wholly different.

So, yeah, we're all about the agreement.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Correction.
> 
> Monks are perfect for what they do, in a regular game.
> 
> ...




One of the fellas a while ago posted a thread wherein people talked about the monk class . . . and I think that the monk class is more than just somewhat disingenuous.  I think its broken.  Many, clearly, disagree, but . . . .

Lots of people have said that monks aren't first rate melee fighters.  I say, "But a huge portion of their class features at lower levels, not to mention the escalating damage of their unarmed attacks, does lead a person to think that monks should be heavy melee fighters."  Furthermore, out of melee, they are almost entirely useless.  Oh, they have Hide and Move Silently -- well, the rogue has that, does more damage in a fight, and is useful in other ways outside of a fight (what with the opening of locks and disarming of traps).  Indeed, a monk is generally defeated by the first locked door they come across in terms of stealth.  Also, compare to ranger -- best BAB, two good saves, spells, also sneaky as hell, favored enemies, animal companions, tracking, etc.  Who would you want in a party?  A ranger -- better melee figher (or much better ranged fighter) and excellent stealth and wilderness survival skills -- or a monk who isn't as good in melee and has no outdoors skills.

But I think the real kicker is when comparing the monk to the paladin.  Paladins fight very well, have as good of saving throws with divine grace, they can cure damage and disease and they can cast some spells too boot.  Oh, and they get the wonder horse.  So, better in a fight and far more useful out of a fight.

I think it is reasonable to at the bare minimum suggest that the monk class has something wrong with it.  Of course, YMMV.  Indeed, you do seem to be getting different mileage.  

What we are going to do is go slow.  What we seem to be doing right now is going through the monk class to eliminate things that I either don't care about or seem to be non-abilities (such as the ability to be immune to normal diseases . . . how often does that come up, really?) and replace them with better stuff.  I'm still lobbying for feats.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> One of the fellas a while ago posted a thread wherein people talked about the monk class . . . and I think that the monk class is more than just somewhat disingenuous. I think its broken. Many, clearly, disagree, but . . . .
> 
> Lots of people have said that monks aren't first rate melee fighters. I say, "But a huge portion of their class features at lower levels, not to mention the escalating damage of their unarmed attacks, does lead a person to think that monks should be heavy melee fighters." Furthermore, out of melee, they are almost entirely useless. Oh, they have Hide and Move Silently -- well, the rogue has that, does more damage in a fight, and is useful in other ways outside of a fight (what with the opening of locks and disarming of traps). Indeed, a monk is generally defeated by the first locked door they come across in terms of stealth. Also, compare to ranger -- best BAB, two good saves, spells, also sneaky as hell, favored enemies, animal companions, tracking, etc. Who would you want in a party? A ranger -- better melee figher (or much better ranged fighter) and excellent stealth and wilderness survival skills -- or a monk who isn't as good in melee and has no outdoors skills.
> 
> ...



Broken = overpowered
nerfed = underpowered

You shouldn't be looking at changing the Monk... you should be looking at changing classes. The Party needs you to be a Fighter or Paladin or Barbarian... or some combination thereof.

Mike


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

Just for fun, lets look at something to strive for 

Level 8 monk (not too far off, but I dont recall how much gold they have)
d10 damage.

Monks belt. (2d6)
Improved natural weapon feat. (3d6)
Item with a few 'enlarge persons' per day. (4d6)

After that, you cant tell me you wont be doing very well for damage


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 8, 2004)

The druid uses a bunch of spells and shines in one combat. What happens if there are two combats during the day? Five combats? Ten?

All spell casting classes will appear to outshine everyone else if they only have a small number of encounters before being able to recharge their spells.

If the DM provides enough encounters during a day then your monk (and a fighter etc) will have plenty of chances to shine since the spell casting classes eventually run out of their oomph spells.

Your problem here isn't monk vs druid, it is in basing a judgement on a single encounter rather than across a typical adventure (which - like it or not - is intended to be a dungeon thrash with multiple encounters within the one day. That is what the designers "balanced" D&D 3+ for).

Cheers


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Just for fun, lets look at something to strive for
> 
> Level 8 monk (not too far off, but I dont recall how much gold they have)
> d10 damage.
> ...



27,000gp.

Mike


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

Mmm... I think what rankles, a little, is the 'stuff I don't use/like' = 'broken' attitude.

A monk makes a better scout than a rogue, and possibly even a ranger. Among other things, the good saves will get the monk out of trouble, and the speed will get him back FAST.

A ranger might have a better BAB, but the monk has more attacks. Again, this is a situational thing... singular big, melee-oriented opponents tend to require high BAB. The game can't be balanced for every DM's style, you know. Against multiple opponents, the monk is going to do better than a ranger and possibly even a fighter.

Yes, a monk can't track very well, but for overall stealth, she compares favorably.

I would disagree about the paladin. The paladin gets a boost for saves, true, but over a bunch of levels, having a high save to begin with makes a huge difference. (Though a Pal2/MnkN... mmm.) And out of combat? I disagree. The paladin has... remove disease, and probably a good intimidate. ... And that's about it. Paladins will typically have lousy skills.

I think your crisis of expectations is giving you a somewhat distorted opinion of the class. Maybe that's presumptuous of me, I'm sorry.

What's funny is that monks are so feared in _my_ group that they have been forbidden in other campaigns. Heh.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> Broken = overpowered
> nerfed = underpowered
> 
> You shouldn't be looking at changing the Monk... you should be looking at changing classes. The Party needs you to be a Fighter or Paladin or Barbarian... or some combination thereof.
> ...




I'll remember the jargon for the future.  

However, what I don't get is why shouldn't a monk be as good as a paladin or barbarian in a fight?  Especially the paladin, who has strong abilities in and out of combat -- what with making with the healing and all.

I've asked several times what function a monk serves and the most general answer has been "mage-killer."  But as Hung pointed out, that's really a once-in-a-blue-moon sort of thing; sure it happens, and its nice to have a monk around for it, but unless the DM basically designs the adventures around the monk it won't happen all that often.  Other answers have been, quite literally, stuff like "allowing the rogue to use sneak attack."  I think its fair to say that being another character's accessory is very lame.

Another answer has been that monks are very mobile.  However, that's sort of a non-answer, I think.  For a monk to use their mobility in combat requires them to effectively leave the other party members behind.  Not to mention that using the *feat* mobility essentially means getting one shot in, which totally nerfs (see, I do learn now and then ) one of the key features in the monk class -- the rapid number of melee attacks.

Really, I think the class suffers a very shoddy design.  To use one of the key class features -- their incredible mobility -- requires either leaving the party behind or disables another of their prime class traits (being flurry of blows).  And I don't think its unfair to say that a monk should be as useful in a stand up fight as a ranger or paladin -- both classes which have substantial utility out of combat, too.

I just don't think that anyone has demonstrated that a monk is as *generally* useful as a paladin, rogue or ranger would be.


----------



## evilbob (Apr 8, 2004)

> Part of the problem is that the monk works well in conjunction with other melee characters, which is different from hong's 'reglating to a support role' IMHO. Monks are pretty flexible, and can do great things. When people describe the monk as a support character they don't mean second rate... they mean support like artilery, as in crucial and fight altering.




Everyone has made some good points.  Not every character can be a fighter, but a party of 4 fighters would get slaughtered.  Having "a support role" is NOT a bad thing, nor does it have to be your only role.  A good DM can design a game so that every character's strengths are given a chance to shine.

The character classes in this game have been heavily tested for "balance," and I agree with those who maintain that they are.  If you feel your character is underpowered, then you are probably not being given / taking advantage of opportunities for playing up your strengths.  Whether that's something you need to think about or something you should talk to your DM about is germane to that situation.  In this case, it may be a little of both.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Mmm... I think what rankles, a little, is the 'stuff I don't use/like' = 'broken' attitude.
> 
> A monk makes a better scout than a rogue, and possibly even a ranger. Among other things, the good saves will get the monk out of trouble, and the speed will get him back FAST.
> 
> ...




Fair enough.  I didn't mean to rankle, and I do generally make the distinction between things I merely don't like and things that are unbalanced.  Frex, I don't *like* bards (personally) but I don't regard them as being unbalanced.

However, rangers actually have more attacks, eventually.  If they go the two weapon fighting track, combined with their higher BAB, they get more attacks, ending up with six (I believe -- in any event, at least six) by 20th level.  And most of their track they have as *many* attacks.

I strongly disagree that a monk makes a better scout than a rogue or ranger.  Rogues can overcome obstacles that stop monks (locked doors, traps) while the ranger has the ability to track things that monks don't possess.  Clearly, your mileage does vary, but rogues and rangers are the ones parties turn to again and again for the actual scouting.

A paladin's saving throws have two abilities feeding into them.  Sure, the big bonuses from good saves add up -- but when two abilities feed into a single save, ouch, that can rack up some big numbers mighty fast.  And monks get two skill points a level more than paladins . . . nice, but not earth shaking.  Plus, they are diplomacy machines if your game goes in for that sort of thing.  And they do more than cure disease -- they are pretty solid healers, too.  Not quite as good as a cleric, but IME better than druids, and healing doesn't take away any other allocated resources for paladins.  They don't have to choose at the beginning of the day whether they will take a healing spell or some other spell -- they can just heal that amount, every day.  Which is, I think, an ability of incredible utility.  Not to mention their mount and spells.  The class features a paladin has, IMO, are far more useful not only to the paladin but the party than the monk's features.

Clearly, your experience varys.  Maybe it is just a feature of how my DM runs her game, but since that's the actual scenario I find myself I'm gonna work with what I have.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 8, 2004)

Another good role for the Monk that hasn't been mentioned yet is that he is king of subdual. He can use his unarmed attacks to do subdual damage at no penalty. There must be half a dozen different kind of town adventures where it is a real advantage to be able to knock people out rather than kill them!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Not to mention that with a shuriken you can't add your strength bonus to damage.  Rashad's sling does six and a half points of damage on an average successful hit.  Not to mention that you can use anything as ammo (albeit with a small decrease in damage).  Shuriken damage just doesn't stack up to that.




It looks like you are playing 3.5e, so I have to suggest most strongly that you check out sling and shuriken again. The sling doesn't get any str bonus to damage, while the shuriken do get str bonus to damage and can be used with flurry of blows!

So you can fire one slingstone at +9 for 1d4 or two shuriken at +7 for 1d2+4 each. I know which I'd be going with! (sure keep the sling around for long range encounters, but you're never going to be doing real damage with it).

FWIW when my current PC dies or retires, the next PC I play is going to be a monk... I think I can get some fun mileage out of the class.

Cheers

p.s. my initial post repeats what some others have said... I didn't notice it was a multi-page thread when I first replied I'm afraid.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> It looks like you are playing 3.5e, so I have to suggest most strongly that you check out sling and shuriken again. The sling doesn't get any str bonus to damage, while the shuriken do get str bonus to damage and can be used with flurry of blows!
> 
> So you can fire one slingstone at +9 for 1d4 or two shuriken at +7 for 1d2+4 each. I know which I'd be going with! (sure keep the sling around for long range encounters, but you're never going to be doing real damage with it).
> 
> ...


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Everyone has made some good points.  Not every character can be a fighter, but a party of 4 fighters would get slaughtered.  Having "a support role" is NOT a bad thing, nor does it have to be your only role.  A good DM can design a game so that every character's strengths are given a chance to shine.
> 
> The character classes in this game have been heavily tested for "balance," and I agree with those who maintain that they are.  If you feel your character is underpowered, then you are probably not being given / taking advantage of opportunities for playing up your strengths.  Whether that's something you need to think about or something you should talk to your DM about is germane to that situation.  In this case, it may be a little of both.




But it just seems to both me and my DM that to make a monk shine you have to work a touch overtime at it.  Sure, situations can be contrived to make the monk more useful, but it does mean essentially twisting the meaning of verisimilitude until it squeals some (at least in the game as established).

As a very serious question -- do you know the criteria for the balance?  I mean, when the WOTC guys were playtesting and balancing the monk were they specifically saying "Oh, this is going to be a supporting character" and thus balanced it to be a supporting character?  Because I don't think the class, as read, really suggest that the class is supporting.  I think the class is pretty piss poor at supporting, actually, hehe.


----------



## Thanee (Apr 8, 2004)

There is a simple solution to your problem. If you do not like the monk, then do not play one!

There are several other classes to choose from. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

Thank you for remaining calm, CPXB. I hope I haven't come across as rude, given I know how complete disagreement on specific points can look. 

I still think monks are an often overlooked, solid scout, but you have a good point about rangers and two-weapon fighting/rapid shot.

I will admit, I'd be much happier if monks had fewer toys (specials) and good BAB. I'd say, drop Slow Fall and, oh, 5-6 other specials in exchange, and I'd be a happy camper.

The healing power of paladins is, IMO, not all that big a deal. A single guy with a CLW wand can do as much or more. That's a judgment call, but while a paladin's healing has been handy, I've never seen it play an important role in games I've run/played.

As for the mount and spells... er, again, in my experiences, those have minimal impact on a game. Spells in particular.

For what it's worth, it's not just the monk that is affected by DM choices. All classes are.

For example, the flexibility of a wizard falls flat when encounters tend to be of a specific type. Then the sorcerer becomes most useful, because she can learn the spells that are most often relevant. In a game where things vary immensely, the wizard pulls ahead.

Lots of dungeon crawls can reduce the power of rangers, druids (though not as much), and those with a mounted combat focus. In one game, I think our paladin got to use a full mounted charge twice in 2-3 realtime years.

In the same game, I'm an archer-rogue with rapidshot. Our DM throws singular, powerful opponents (because otherwise 'they die too damn fast'). This made my focus... not so useful, because rapid attacks were more likely to miss. Then I buffed outrageously (cohort wizard, bracers of archery, boost of haste 3.0, etc), and finally got nasty.

Then there's simple things like the rogues in games where nothing takes critical hits.

For every character class, there's a situation where a player is thinking his class is broken.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 8, 2004)

You're quite right about the sling of course - my eyes glazed after reading specially made composite shortbow and composite longbow 

Shuriken though. That is where the fu is


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> As a very serious question -- do you know the criteria for the balance?




The criteria for balance was pretty much "equal fun to play across 20 levels".

This doesn't mean equal ability in combat, or equal at any particular task; rather it means that as long as the DM doesn't set things up (inadvertently) to screw particular classes and ensures that everyone gets a chance to shine, then all classes can have fun.

I think that broadly speaking this is true (except for 2nd level of sorcerer )

Cheers


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> How much would it change your numbers with all of those buffs and the new augmented summoning?  +4str/+4con help out quite a bit, especially with 5 attacks!




Because I am a math geek, and trying to avoid real work....   

Assuming that the druid has spent 2 of the three feats for aug summ, and assuming the bard is doing nothing but singing to help with the attack. Then the chance gets believable. There are too many variables to make it worthwhile, but based on limited calculations, I would estimate 15-20%. If you want to factor in the chance for a successful wolf hit/trip, it gets to 5-10%

That is *half* the chance for the monk to hit *and* stun the giant. (15%)


The con bonus doesn't do much to prolong the life of the animals. They should still die to 2-3 attacks assuming average damage. Including AoO, that is one round per animal. (And not including any PA damage)


edit: removed uneccesary statement


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

One big element of balance is 'a mixture of fighting situations, several combats a day.' Actually, there's a description in the DMG... basically, a few low level encounters, some moderate ones, and then a tough capper.

It was also expected, I think, that you'd often fight multiple opponents, which is another area where a monk can shine.

Oh, and regarding mobility... mobility doesn't mean you 'leave the party behind.' It means things like getting flank quickly, or distracting an opponent while the party deals with other targets. It means getting around the cover the enemy archers are using, and so forth.

Support is a role hopefully _everyone_ engages in. A fighter getting flank with another person, that's support. Flanking an opponent with the rogue - even better.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Thank you for remaining calm, CPXB. I hope I haven't come across as rude, given I know how complete disagreement on specific points can look.
> 
> I still think monks are an often overlooked, solid scout, but you have a good point about rangers and two-weapon fighting/rapid shot.
> 
> ...




You haven't done anything to take offense.  I mean, disagreement is something I can handle.  It's a game, after all.  But you've been polite about it, which is cool with me.  

Though my posts haven't been emphasizing it -- probably because I am doing a fair bit of bellyaching and I'm in a nasty mood because of a nasty cold, hehe -- the way the DM is going to handle it is by adapting the game, some.  We were talking and she mentioned that in the CR 6 range there were some things with special abilities that would mess with the druid and sorcerer instead of the monk (in particular the game has been loaded with critters that either have good Fort saves or undead, which are immune to stunning).  She told me that given the fact that she does only intend to run one fight a session, generally, that it is fair to plan for the magicians rather than just looking at raw CR because if we're doing one fight a day, basically, it does mean that the spellcasters have zero reason not to shoot their whole wad every fight.

Furthermore, we are going to go through the monk class and cut out what we consider to be the chaff to, while keeping at game balance, give the monk more direct melee ability because, clearly, I want it.  Right now, I think we're gonna be cutting out still mind (plusses on my monk's best save? yeah, right, hehe), slow fall (nice when it comes up, but it doesn't really often come up and I'd rather just hit harder, hehe) and purity of body (also nice, but since the game is low on plagues the only diseases we encounter will be supernatural, effectively) and give me something to make up for this and make my character a more effective front line fighter 'cause that's clearly where I want to be.

So, belly aching aside, this thread has been massively useful.  So really, *to everyone*, thanks!


----------



## tensen (Apr 8, 2004)

Don't worry.. it will change quickly.   
At 9th level..  my druid looks at things the other way..  my summoned critters get crushed by the more powerful giants.. and the monk sits there flurrying away at the giant.  The advatnage is..  my critters suck up the attacks that would have put the monk down quicker.


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

Oh, something I think I forgot to mention... area dispels are your (well, the DM's) friend.

I had a player practically fill a room with summoned creatures. I despaired, then noted... hey, dispel...

ZOOP. No more summoned critters.

(Area dispel: Check against each critter in range. If they fail, POOF)

I know the DM wants to avoid spellcasters, but maybe a giant has a wand of dispel or something.


----------



## Coredump (Apr 8, 2004)

> I've asked several times what function a monk serves and the most general answer has been




For the most part (IME) the rogue is the second best... at a lot of things.

I play a rogue, when I go scouting, I often take the monk with me. He isn't as good, but pretty close, and I get back up that won't blow my cover.

When fighting, the fighters are better; but the monk sure can come close to keeping up with them.

When the will save from the (insert whatever monster) has to be made, a few of the characters make it. The monk is almost always one of those.

That firetrap is a drag, except that the monk with good save/evasion ignored it.

No one likes getting plugged by an archer, except the monk can deflect them, and move fast enough to close the distance.

The bad guy was making a break for the door. Luckily the monk was able to catch him. (grappled him to the floor)

As a thief I can tumble to the bad guy, but now I am alone. Oh wait, the monk can tumble with me... and now there are two of us, and I can also SA.

The monk likes to grapple/pin, and then I can SA. It is a great team up.

Watch out for that pit trap, oh never mind, you have slow fall.

Plus, set up situations where slow fall is useful, when trying to trap someone, or get away from someone. Roof tops are cool.

Stunning fist, DC 18... pretty useful. (even the hill giant has a 25% chance of blowing the save)

Then looking a little into the future.... you get to heal yourself. You get to automatically make certain reflex saves, and may still take no damage. Not to mention poisen immunity, dimension door, and spell resistence.



I think the monk shines on its own. It just sounds like what you *want* to play is a front line tank. That is cool, and pretty fun. But that is not the role of a monk.  

.


----------



## EPRock (Apr 8, 2004)

Because you obviously do not like your character you are playing, nothing that can be said here will be able to help you like your monk more.

My friend is playing a Monk and is now level 11. He gets 5 attacks a round dealing 1d10+4 damage, he is not capable of dealing the max possible damage like the barbarian, but he deals damage in his own way. 

He is also able to get out of there if things turn sick because he has fast movement. He now can automatically tumble around opponents to get the flank attack.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

Coredump said:
			
		

> Because I am a math geek, and trying to avoid real work....




Hey, I always like to help 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> Assuming that the druid has spent 2 of the three feats for aug summ, and assuming the bard is doing nothing but singing to help with the attack. Then the chance gets believable. There are too many variables to make it worthwhile, but based on limited calculations, I would estimate 15-20%. If you want to factor in the chance for a successful wolf hit/trip, it gets to 5-10%




Remember, the bard can sing and do other things, so singing isnt exactly a huge drawback 

With all of those bonuses thrown in it isnt terribly surprising for the guys to do a whole lot of damage, especially while flanking as well (not sure if you used that one). At that point the attacks are something like +7 base +2 feat +4 prone +2 flank +1 bard = +16. That is just about an auto hit for each of those, and since they do some pretty hefty damage (d4+7, d4+7, d4+3, d4+3, avg 30) definately gets right up there. Along with I am not sure if that damage was 'all three of the animals attacking and this is the total damage'. If so then having 3 other guys fighting with you then the single man out is bound to do less damage 

Anyway though, just rambling, always fun to crunch numbers right?


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> She told me that given the fact that she does only intend to run one fight a session, generally, that it is fair to plan for the magicians rather than just looking at raw CR because if we're doing one fight a day, basically, it does mean that the spellcasters have zero reason not to shoot their whole wad every fight.



*Note to DM:*
You might want to consider reducing the experience given to spellcasters (or any class expending all their finite powers) if you only intend to use one encounter per day. Again, see DMG. P49.

YMMV


Mike


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

This thread is terrible.



I SOOO want to play a monk, now, dammit.


----------



## evilbob (Apr 8, 2004)

> Furthermore, we are going to go through the monk class and cut out what we consider to be the chaff to, while keeping at game balance, give the monk more direct melee ability because, clearly, I want it.




Another idea would for your DM to relax multiclass restrictions and let you take some levels in fighter.  Or better yet, find a good +10 BAB PrC and take that.  There's a neat grappling PrC in Complete Warrior, and at least one or two good PrCs for monks in the BoED.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

evilbob said:
			
		

> Another idea would for your DM to relax multiclass restrictions and let you take some levels in fighter.  Or better yet, find a good +10 BAB PrC and take that.  There's a neat grappling PrC in Complete Warrior, and at least one or two good PrCs for monks in the BoED.



 Or, speaking of Complete Warrior, look at the Tattooed Monk. Very fun Monk PrC.

I guess I've just never understood the 'Monk's are crap!' arguments that float around. I've been DMing a game with a Monk, Pyschic Warrior, OA Samurai, Sorcerer, and a Cleric for a long while now, and out of all of the PCs, the Monk always sticks out and ends up being the one who makes the biggest difference in the game.


----------



## mikebr99 (Apr 8, 2004)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Or, speaking of Complete Warrior, look at the Tattooed Monk. Very fun Monk PrC.
> 
> I guess I've just never understood the 'Monk's are crap!' arguments that float around. I've been DMing a game with a Monk, Pyschic Warrior, OA Samurai, Sorcerer, and a Cleric for a long while now, and out of all of the PCs, the Monk always sticks out and ends up being the one who makes the biggest difference in the game.



whoa... then the Cleric isn't being played very well. 


Mike


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Apr 8, 2004)

mikebr99 said:
			
		

> whoa... then the Cleric isn't being played very well.
> 
> 
> Mike



 Heheh. Its a Halfling Cleric. And truthfully, ISN'T played all that well. She's more a party buffer than anything else. 

Actually, I've also run a game with a Monk, Druid, Sorcerer(completely focussed on Summoning), Paladin, and Rogue. The Monk didn't really outshine everyone, but the Sorcerer's summoned creatures were almost everywhere. They didn't take anything away from the other players, and actually helped them out to cause distractions and such. Those poor creatures just got pounded far too easily.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 8, 2004)

Let's talk about this druid for a moment.

Assuming a 6th level nonhuman druid with a wisdom above 15 and less than 20, he has 4 1st level spells, 4 2nd level spells and 3 3rd level spells. He also has 3 feats.

He used up 2 of his 3 feats in augment summoning. So, summoning is his main focus. You should keep that in mind.

He cast 2 3rd level spells and 2 2nd level spells (or perhaps just 3 3rd level spells) to summon those monsters. That is a very significant portion of his resources. In other words, he focused his efforts to reach his maximum effectiveness for a short spurt.

Let's flip around the events a bit and see what else could have occured in the battle. The following would be more likely in a game I run ...

Giant appears on the horizen and combat begins. PCs charge to the rescue as the giant lumbers towards the seemingly helpless village.

The druid goes first and begins to cast a summoning spell when the giant is close enough that the sumoned animal will egt to the giant and make a few attacks. 

The animal companion begins to charge forward to the attack. It leaps in ... and takes an AoO from the giant's club. Combat began when the PCs began to move towards the giant ... it is not flat-footed. It is very ready for combat. The giant hits the animal companion (4 or 5 HD - 24 to 30 hps?) for 2d8+10 damage. The druid gives instructions and the animal retreats, out of combat until the druid can heal it. The other option: dead animal companion.

The giants notes spellcasting, uses its wisdom of 10 and decides 'nasty spellcasters need rocks' ... drops its club and throws a rock at the druid. That is a +8 attack that does 2d6+7 damage. It has a nice long range, more than long enough to be useful against a druid casting spells with a close range. If the rock hits, the druid must make a concentration check with a DC in the mid to high 20s to finish his summon spell. Druids are not known for great ACs, especially when they use all their spells on summoning.

Meanwhile, you rush up and slap the giant, attempting a failed stun. It tries to take an AoO, but your tumble foils the attempt. Go you!

The druid, a touch wounded (14 points down of 40? hit points total) decides to try a summon again. It begins to cast another summoning spell trusting its AC and the monk at the giant's feet to keep the giant from hurling another rock. 

The giant adjusts back and hurls another rock. Smack. The druid is now down about 28 of his 40 hit points. The spell is again disrupted. The druid has wasted 2 of his most powerful spells and has nothing to show for it except 2 nasty bruises and a hurt wolf.

You, hero that you are, continue your assault. You're not doing an incredible amount of damage, but you're doing more than the druid. The druid spends this round healingitself and the animal companion with its remaining 3rd level spell - cure moderate wounds for 2d8+6 damage - about 15 each (gotta love share spell). 

The giant can finally turn on you, but has only two slams at +15 (d4+7) to use because it had to drop its club to throw the rocks. You take a hit or two, but you're still winning the fight.

The druid begins to cast a badger ... the giant hits the druid with a rock. The druid then retreats to use 1st level healing spells for a few rounds.

And so on ...

In this 'reality' , the druid is next to useless and you are the only one doing anything against this tough foe. The druid might be on these boards asking for how it can be effective when the DM keeps disrupting his summoning spells. 

The monk is a fine PC class. I've seen it played very effectively. You just need to keep your eyes out for ways to be effective ... and hope the DM doesn't tend towards tactics that minimize your usefulness.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

*points out that my problem was solved about a page back* 

You can stop selling the class.  Me and the DM made a few simple revisions based on the needs of our particular game -- such as the fact that my character *is* the primary melee fighter -- involving getting rid of six class abilities and replacing them with some feats.  The DM is aware that the creatures she selected to have fight us are part of the problem (not to mention the spellcasters being able to get away with dropping their wads all at onc); she'll work on it and has ideas.

Really.  Probably solved.

And, guys, really, thank you.  As a group y'all have been wicked helpful.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Apr 8, 2004)

IMO, 3.5 monks are easier to play than 3.0 just because you get to choose a few more specials to tailor your character.  

From experience, a low (1-5th) level monk does just fine.  At about 6th level they start running into an AC/hp wall where they have to fight using group tactics as compared to the "meat shield" tactic of barbarians and heavy-armor fighters.  Monks increase others strength while fighters just chunk into a hole for the most part.  

By 6th they should generally have decided on a style (grappler, spring-attacker, or meleer) and begun down the path.   Grapplers need high strength and feats like Closequarters Fighting and Clever Wrestling.  Springattackers are obvious tumble-bums that only get one shot in per round but do it with minimal chance of damage.  The Meleer is close to your typical fighter and really should be a dex-junky with weapon finesse (unarmed) to concentrated AC bonuses and attack bonuses in one place. 

There is a weird period from 6-10th level where the campaign's style can have a big impact on how effective the monk is.  Sometimes no big deal, others the monk gets a little weak as his BAB penalties become more evident and opponents BAB skyrocket with the addition of HD.

IMC there's a 15th level monk.  He's downright impressive.  He does a bit less damage than the scimitar-specialized dervish fighter but he can generally get more attacks by reaching a fight first.  Spells flicker off of him more than 50% of the time and his saves + evasion mean the ones that get through do little damage.  Immunity to poison has let him walk through the innards of a tendriculous while the fighter was sweating bullets and praying his Fort save didn't abandon him.  

We've learned that you generally take less damage inside a creature than outside so when the monk gets engulfed he gets to take his full attack sequence with fewer consequences.  And thanks to CQF and CW he's much harder to grapple than might be anticipated.  It still happens regularly, but he gets in a few extra licks in the process.  

On the flip side of grappling, it's a great maneuver to try on the 3rd and 4th attacks.  By dint of being a touch attack its easy to make and the BAB+strength roll doesn't care *what* attack your on.  Might as well get in a few solid hits and then try for the grab to make life easier on your friends.  

The monk does have an issue with having fewer HPs than the fighter and less AC (when the fighter uses expertise)  but he can generally get to a safe place to use his self-heal or leap to the cleric easier than the fighter can.  There's nothing like using spring-attack to hit some guy 20' infront of you and then run 60' back to get some healin' from  the cleric.


----------



## Will (Apr 8, 2004)

There is some debate about whether grapple cares what attack you're on...

Actually, what I want to try is a meleer with a glaive. Mmm. Someone steps in? AoO _and_ you have unarmed attacks...


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> *points out that my problem was solved about a page back*




Too late, the thread has a life of its own now

I think your solution is a good one. Considering the one encounter a day, your spellcasters are going to be more powerful than is normally intended, so a little beefing up for you isn't so bad.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 8, 2004)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Too late, the thread has a life of its own now
> 
> I think your solution is a good one. Considering the one encounter a day, your spellcasters are going to be more powerful than is normally intended, so a little beefing up for you isn't so bad.



The point I was making is that you may be 'solving' the wrong things. Beefing up the monk may cause other problems when encounters go another way ...


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> There is some debate about whether grapple cares what attack you're on...
> 
> Actually, what I want to try is a meleer with a glaive. Mmm. Someone steps in? AoO _and_ you have unarmed attacks...




Yeah, I'm seriously thinking about this, too.  Get the AOO, hit once with the unarmed, ninja flip away, wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## Scion (Apr 8, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'm seriously thinking about this, too.  Get the AOO, hit once with the unarmed, ninja flip away, wash, rinse, repeat.




Isnt there some feat or skill or something that allows you to move 10' with the 5' step? Maybe it is an item..hmm..

Anyway though, then they would move up, you get aoo. Trip is good. Then you full attack with your monk stuff, and then 10' step away  Eat that!


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> The point I was making is that you may be 'solving' the wrong things. Beefing up the monk may cause other problems when encounters go another way ...




Actually, we were looking through Unearthed Arcana and their suggestions on how to swap out class features for other things, in this case a few more feats.  As in, at this level, two more class feats and my C is loosing a fair bit such as the immunity to non-magical diseases, slow fall and still mind.

Somehow I don't think that two feats is gonna cause the door to swing all the way 'round, again.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 8, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Isnt there some feat or skill or something that allows you to move 10' with the 5' step? Maybe it is an item..hmm..
> 
> Anyway though, then they would move up, you get aoo. Trip is good. Then you full attack with your monk stuff, and then 10' step away  Eat that!




Dood!  That would be bombage if it was, but I don't know of one.


----------



## Sereg (Apr 9, 2004)

*Well*

What it comes down to, is this...

You're comparing arguably the strongest class in 3.5 to the weakest.  Its not gonna be pretty.   I've played monks on and off since 3.0, and almost all fail horribly.  The one's that almost kept up with other players invariably used external shots in the arm like insane stats + monstrous race, extensive third party material, or the like.   Monks synergy is all about defense, and D&D is an offensive game.  

This isn't just theoretical:  I've played at least 15+ monks from all levels, in all types of campaigns, with all GM's.  Yes, he was more valued in a campaign with lots of spellcasters.  No, he still wasn't even close to the MvP.  

I really emphasize with you here, because in my CURRENT campaign (level 15-17, Forgotten Realms, 3.5), I'm playing a monk.  I've designed him to be a battle monk, and have gone seriously all out with cheese because I know how weak melee are, let alone monks, at level 15+.   To break it down, we're talking wisdom to hit three times, wisdom to damage twice, untouchable ac, that sort of thing.  As min maxed as I could make him.    And guess what?

THE DRUID WITH BAD STATS AND NO PRCS IS EQUALLY STRONG TO STRONGER MOST BATTLES AND INFINITLY MORE USEFUL TO THE PARTY.

Really, think about that for a moment.  A UTTERLY non min-maxed druid, played by a relative newbie to D&D / RPG strategies, is at the very least equal to the most ludicriously overpowered twinked "I-am-Neo" monk WotC material could produce.

It's an uphill battle as any fighter, against a druid.  A low level monk is just laughable.  The irony here is, when you get to higher levels (14+), even a fighter who might have competed from 4-10 is going to start showing strain compared to a druid.


If you desire to continue playing a monk, I'd be happy to help you make him stronger using WotC material, but I'd counsel you to not fight an uphill battle, and change to a spellcaster or barbarian/paladin/prc'ed hybrid, and don't look back. 



Sereg


----------



## Sereg (Apr 9, 2004)

*Oh and*

I wanted to address this briefly:



> Anyways, as others have said, if the druid expends like half her daily spells in a combat, she ought to outshine everyone else. That's completely ok




No, this is NOT completely ok.  THIS, my friends, is whats wrong with D&D for fighter types.    Hello, a druid can dominate (according to this logic) two out of the three combats in a day, but its ok because he's out of spells?

Can a monk wake up and decide he is going to foregoe his (nonexistant) combat power for today in exchange for utility, problem circumventing, healing, wildshape, and a full spell list? I THINK NOT.   The double standard here is very, very stupid, and its driven driving fighting types into the hands of newbies and masochists.   

First, high level casters *don't* run out of spells, even dominating 3+ combats a day.  Secondly, even if they DID run out, its STILL not ok.  

Until my level 13 fighter can wake up and decide, hey, I think i'll scry and then transport the party to an island in the middle of the sea, and while i'm at it I'll make use of my full spell list for the day (but oh, I can't do any combat today, or maby just a little), then its ok for fighters to suck in fights as much as they do, since everyone would have the same options.

Summary:

#1 Fighter types do not fight well enough to make up their total lack of options and powers casters gain via spells.

#2 Fighter types generally have the WORST defense in the game, instead of the best. With moderate to high stats, heavy armor is a detriment, not a benefit. Furthermore, the more fighterish you get (ranger-->barb-->fighter), the WORSE your saving throws get. Fighters need the BEST defense, not the worst. Fighting is ALL they have. 

#3 Instead of dictating the outcomes of combats, fighters are rarely more than equal to, and often LESS THAN, a pure caster or hybrid in combats.


Sereg


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Dood!  That would be bombage if it was, but I don't know of one.



Oriental Adventures says that tumble may be used (DC35 I think) to adjust 10' rather than 5'. My epic rogue/barbarian does it all the time ...


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 9, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> No, this is NOT completely ok.  THIS, my friends, is whats wrong with D&D for fighter types.    Hello, a druid can dominate (according to this logic) two out of the three combats in a day, but its ok because he's out of spells?



In a good game, yes.







			
				Sereg said:
			
		

> First, high level casters *don't* run out of spells, even dominating 3+ combats a day.  Secondly, even if they DID run out, its STILL not ok.



Run completely out of spells? No. Run out of their high level spells? Yes. Those are the spells that make most of the impact. The other stuff gives them something to do, but it is rarely important in a combat.

Spellcasters start off strong and then wane in power. The melee classes tend to be balanced in power (as long as they're not helpless) throughout the adventure. If the DM runs games where the PCs never fight when low on resources, the spellcasters are relatively more powerful than the fighters. *It is up to the DM to manage this aspect of the game*. The DM needs to change the pace every once in a while if the spellcasters are dominating every combat and then resting before continuing on in the adventure.

If you're finding that your spellcasters are too powerful on a regular basis, here are a few adventure ideas that can help:

* The PCs must venture onto the demi-plane of nightmares to retrieve a lost artifact needed to stop an ancient threat that will arrive in two days. The plane may only be entered at midnight (though you can leave it anytime). The PCs will need to go to the plane and get as far as possible in their adventure before resting - once - and returning the following night. Spellcasters will need to ration their spells. Fighter types will need to pack extra healing materials. It creates a whole new dynamic adventure.

* The PCs are being hunted by a group of assassins that *knows* that resting will allow the spellcasters to regain spells. Not only will the spellcasters be low on spells by the end of the day, the assassins will pick a time when they're low on spells to launch their attack (perhaps after the PCs investigate a small dungeon that the assassins reveal to them so that the PCs will retrieve an item that they can not obtain). The assassins will hound them until either the PCs or the assassins are destroyed, making rest hard, if not impossible. A DM will have to be careful to keep this adventure fun for the spellcasters.

* A clever DM of mine had an adventure where the PCs had to collect 13 items from 13 spots across the world within 24 hours. That required almost all of our higher level spells for transporation and relocation, so we had to resort to lower level spells and relying upon the fighter types to best the guardians of the items.

* Similar to an idea above, a demon once assaulted the party with an artifact that stole their ability to sleep. Without it, they'd become, tired, then exhausted and then eventually go insane. The PCs had to track down the great monster and defeat it before they were destroyed by lack of sleep.


----------



## Camarath (Apr 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Isnt there some feat or skill or something that allows you to move 10' with the 5' step? Maybe it is an item..hmm..



Sparring Dummy of the Master from Arms and and Equipment Guide.


----------



## Sereg (Apr 9, 2004)

*jgsugden*

Those are all interesting and valid adventures, but there's a point I'd like to make here, that I believe you'll agree with me on:

When a large part of the *core* rules is only balanced through *specifically targeting it, due to being so powerful*, its not balanced.

Yes, sometimes you can have adventures with tight time constraints. MOST of the time, Rope trick and Mords Mansion, not to mention the teleport spells, mean resting is a non issue.  

Furthermore, I daresay if the caster's aren't getting spells, the melee aren't exactly going to be holding up long. Hitpoints are very, very finite things in high level D&D, and fighters lose them at alarming rates against most foes. 

The bottom line is, fighter types are limited in power, utterly reliant on casters at high levels, or on magic items produced by said casters.  Casters determine the pace of the encounter, the adventure, the game.  Casters can create reactions, rather than simply reacting to the world, and since we know offense is better than defense in D&D by a large margin, Casters therefore have the power.

Yes, you can artifically constrain that power, but that doesn't mean there isn't a balance issue in the core of the system.

Show me a wizard without a spellbook who is crippled, i'll show you a fighter without items who's not one fifteith as strong as the cleric or sorceror who also lost his items.  You can create specific situations to prove any point: My test is this.  Run a gammet of adventures of various types, not attempting to cater to any one power group (all undead when you're trying to prove rogues suck).  You'll see my issue with casters.

Sereg

ps. This isn't theoretical: Even in your examples casters held the power, and without them melee would either outright fail, or have almost no chance.  My beafs with the system come from immense gameplay under all gm's, so please don't bring out specific examples, lets talk standard adventures with core wealth, rules, magic items.  Casters vs fighters (20 bab types). Can you really claim there is any balance whatsoever?


----------



## smetzger (Apr 9, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> What it comes down to, is this...
> 
> You're comparing arguably the strongest class in 3.5 to the weakest.  Its not gonna be pretty.   I've played monks on and off since 3.0, and almost all fail horribly.  The one's that almost kept up with other players invariably used external shots in the arm like insane stats + monstrous race, extensive third party material, or the like.   Monks synergy is all about defense, and D&D is an offensive game.




Yes, I also believe the Druid is the most powerful class in 3.5.  He can shapechange, can heal, can cast decent damaging spells, has decent skill points, and has the best summoning spells.  

The summon natures ally is much more powerful than summon monster.  I run a game in which the players just turned 13th level, the Druid can now summon a greater elemental.  You say its only a CR9 critter so what.  But they have DR10/-, against a foe without spells these guys are quite capable.


----------



## Tatsukun (Apr 9, 2004)

Camarath said:
			
		

> Sparring Dummy of the Master from Arms and and Equipment Guide.




The Arms & Equipment guide has feats? Where?
I am thumbing through mine, and I don't see anything of the sort (but I'm kind-a stupid).

 -Tatsu


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

Sereg... hit points aren't an issue if you have even a few minutes downtime. Wands of CLW can easily top off a party, if need be. You don't have that option with spells.

The point is that in the normal course of play, it is expected that sometimes there is a time pressure, sometimes you can't easily rest whenever you feel like, and sometimes a horde of enemy hit you.

That's normal, and the game is designed around that.

If the only thing you do is hordes of goblins, or hit and run thieves in tunnels, or giants in open fields, or whatever, then it is not surprising that one character type will benefit.

I've seen spellcaster NPCs get torn to ribbons by nonspellcasters.


Though I will say that I think druids are one of the most powerful classes now, given a range of ability. However, they have to be played very well to make the most of that ability. In the case of CPXB, I think the advantage is partially situational, and I also suspect the DM didn't know how to fully deal with the druid.

Which is fine, I've torn my eyebrows out trying to deal with my druid (and the paladin, and the cleric, and the thief-wizard, and the wizard, and the...)

DMing is tricky.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 9, 2004)

*Sereg*

Let me put it this way: The style of the campaign is significant.

I've played with 11 different DMs since 3.0 came out (in addition to the games I've run). I can tell you with greater confidence that the issues you describe - regarding spellcasters being too strong all the time - is a factor of campaign style, not a factor of all D&D games. If the DM runs games where the PCs can rest after every battle, you have a different situation than if they can rarely rest.

I provided the examples above to help DMs see the 'other side' if they're experiencing the 'overpowered spellcaster' issues. Not as a step that neds to be taken to balance a game.

Unless they completely gut the entire spellcasting system and rebuild it from scratch, you're going to have to deal with this problem via a campaign design approach. If not, you'll suffer. It is up to you.


----------



## beaver1024 (Apr 9, 2004)

I keep seeing phrase "The DM has to tailor his campaign to make your character shine". This is hauntingly similar to the 2e mantra "Demi-humans are reviled that's why they get all their super abilites above humans. DMs need to tailor their campaigns for that".

To quote the Simpons: 
Announcer: We now return to "Knightboat: the Crime-Solving Boat".
Michael: Faster, Knightboat! We gotta catch those starfish poachers.
Knightboat: You don't have to yell, Michael, I'm all around you.
Michael: Oh, no! They're headed for land. We'll never catch them now.
Knightboat: Incorrect: look! A canal.
Homer: Go, Knightboat, go!
Bart: Oh, every week there's a canal.
Lisa: Or an inlet.
Bart: Or a fjord.
Homer: Quiet! I will not hear another word against the boat.


----------



## Majere (Apr 9, 2004)

Im currently playing a mid level mystic theurge (mage/druid).
I have the augment summoning feat too.
Ive used summon natures ally a grand total of about once. 

Summons spells take too long to cast and last too short a time in most combats ? Give up a round for 5 rounds of animal ?
The animal is going to be dead after 2 rounds of combat !
Seirously, summons animals die lie lemmings, if they dont, your DM is doing something wrong because almost every thing on the NSA list has an ac of about 16.
You were buffing the summon ? Well now your 5 round spell is going to last 4 rounds and you have spent two rounds doing nothing. 

Druids generally arent that powerful unless they have TIME. And the one thing 3.5 never gives you in combat is TIME. The same applies to all spellcasting. You need TIME to learn spells and TIME to cast spells. 
My theurge hardly ever cats ANY druid spells because mage spells are usually much the better option. There is not enough TIME.

The monk doesnt need time, he is always ready, he can always go. He can get a good initiative. TIME is on the monks side. 
IMC The fighters do the damage, they do damage over 40-50 round combats, over 5-6 combats per day. 

I also have to say Im agains rewriting a class becasue you dont like it, but if your DM is ok with that then I geuss thats ok. 

Majere


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

Actually, we really noticed the 'style changes balance' issue with City of the Spider Queen.

Without spoiling, we ended up hitting lots of opponents with SR and fire immunity or resistance. Definitely made a huge dent in our spellcasting. Fewer combat spells, but more things like Disintegrate for those hail mary efforts.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Im currently playing a mid level mystic theurge (mage/druid).
> I have the augment summoning feat too.
> Ive used summon natures ally a grand total of about once.
> 
> ...



I also play a druid. SNA is uncommonly cool, even moreso in 3.5. The point of most SNA monsters is to soak damage your allies would otherwise have to take. But there are a few other applications a clever player can use:


Summon a hippogriff to fight for you at very low levels. For a 2nd level spell, hippogriff is a lot of bang for your buck. And it flies. At mid-levels, summon a clutch of hippogriffs to harry flying, fleeing, or fast-moving foes. Each has three attacks per round, does decent damage, and is a large creature!
Provided you can speak the right languages: summon a small earth, air, or water elemental to scout ahead in the appropriate environment. Xorns are also great for scouting dungeons.
Summon a unicorn or five to heal your party during downtime. Provided your druid speaks Sylvan, in combat have your summoned unicorns each bodyguard one party member, providing them with healing, meat shield, and a constant _magic circle against evil_.
Summon a clutch of arrowhawks to fight outsiders with particularly nasty spell resistance. The arrowhawks' lightning breath is a supernatural touch attack, and thus bypasses SR. Works great on horned devils.
These uses of SNA are just off the top of my head. It's a great series of spells.


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

Oh, second thought... definitely notice this with, of course, thieves and rangers.

I know the rogue-wizard in my game is sort of grumpy when for a long time he had absolutely _no_ traps to deal with, and I had them facing lots of undead. Greeeat. At least he had the wizardry to fall back on, and some living necromancers.

Complete balance is impossible with nearly every system.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> If you desire to continue playing a monk, I'd be happy to help you make him stronger using WotC material, but I'd counsel you to not fight an uphill battle, and change to a spellcaster or barbarian/paladin/prc'ed hybrid, and don't look back.




Thank you for the offer, but me and my DM will figure it out.  I mean, just being aware this might be a problem actually will settle most of the issue for us -- we know what to do and already we have several ideas how Rashad could be buffed if he stays consistently behind the spellcasting characters in terms of overall ability.  We're not afraid to tweak -- indeed, the D&D game I run is very tweaked -- but since in my games they tend to be real magic-lite none of this has come up in my games.

If the changes in the situations and the changes to my character sheet make it sufficient to put Rashad on an equal basis with the other characters, generally, I'll be pretty happy.


----------



## Scion (Apr 9, 2004)

Tatsukun said:
			
		

> The Arms & Equipment guide has feats? Where?
> I am thumbing through mine, and I don't see anything of the sort (but I'm kind-a stupid).
> 
> -Tatsu




It is a wonderous item  no pun intended. at 30k it is a bit hard to do, but maybe someone will have one that he can rent. If some organization for monks has one, and you join the organization and pay your dues of say 1kgp/year then you have access to it and other things. It would work out all right.

Failing that, it is a pretty decent item for the monk. Ability to make that 10' step instead of a 5' step is just an incredible ability


----------



## Stormrunner (Apr 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> With all of those bonuses thrown in it isnt terribly surprising for the guys to do a whole lot of damage, especially while flanking as well (not sure if you used that one). At that point the attacks are something like +7 base +2 feat +4 prone +2 flank +1 bard = +16. That is just about an auto hit for each of those, and since they do some pretty hefty damage (d4+7, d4+7, d4+3, d4+3, avg 30) definately gets right up there. Along with I am not sure if that damage was 'all three of the animals attacking and this is the total damage'. If so then having 3 other guys fighting with you then the single man out is bound to do less damage




And don't forget the +2 for charging.  The giants are auto-hitting already, so the -2 to AC is effectively handwaved.  The lion gets to rake when it pounces, and the wolf only has one attack/round anyway, so both are better off charging every chance they get.


----------



## Jhulae (Apr 9, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Let me put it this way: The style of the campaign is significant.
> 
> I've played with 11 different DMs since 3.0 came out (in addition to the games I've run). I can tell you with greater confidence that the issues you describe - regarding spellcasters being too strong all the time - is a factor of campaign style, not a factor of all D&D games. If the DM runs games where the PCs can rest after every battle, you have a different situation than if they can rarely rest.




That's exactly right. 

In all of the campaigns I've been in with d20, the DMs roll for random encounters as the per the DMG - once per hour.  That means, theoretically, we can get hit with up to 24 encounters per day in a non-city, non-dungeon environment.  And, the DM makes the rolls each day of travel, and, since we play in FR, uses the FR encounter tables (yes, that means we can run into stuff that *way* overpowers us).

Needless to say, our spellcasters *never* blow their 'wad' on one battle, either in dungeons or outside of them.

We've never had a spellcaster *consistently* outshine any of the non-spellcasters.  Yes, in some battles, they turn the tide, in others the NSCs do.  Each class has its place.

Maybe it's our DMs.  Maybe they're just *that good* at balancing things.

No, actually it's not, considering one is pretty new.  I propose it's the other way around.

(@ Beaver) If a DM actually uses the encounter frequency from the DMG, it becomes *very* dicey for a spellcaster to use all their spells in one battle - with no 'campaign style change' needed, *if* the DM is going by the RAW.

YMMV.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Sereg... hit points aren't an issue if you have even a few minutes downtime. Wands of CLW can easily top off a party, if need be. You don't have that option with spells.



You will, eventually, run out of even wands of CLW. Even if you don't, you will eventually run the DM's patience out.

There is this myth that just because a fighter's (or a monk's) abilities are always-on, they can keep going and going like the Energizer bunny. This just isn't the case. D&D is setup so that no one class can solo a dungeon, save with extensive DM intervention; you need skills that every class contributes.

If your wiz has run out of teleports or dim doors, and you need to get to the other side of a wall, then you're stuck. If your cleric has run out of heals, and one guy is down 10 Con points from a fight with wraiths, then you're stuck. Besides which, even if your class abilities are always-on, your magic items might not be; if you've used all 10 rounds from your boots of speed, or your 1/day cape of the mountebank, then that's a major reduction in your power. Past a certain point, having always-on abilities is useless, because you're still constrained by the need for your buddies and your items to keep up.


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

I'm sorry if I overstated my case. What I meant to show is that nonspellcasters generally have more lasting power than spellcasters, not that nonspellcasters can go on infinitely.

The suggestion was made that hit points are as significant a used-up resource as spells, and I'm pretty sure this is not the case. Hit points _are_ dangerous to burn through, but it's just not in the same league.


----------



## Majere (Apr 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I also play a druid. SNA is uncommonly cool, even moreso in 3.5. The point of most SNA monsters is to soak damage your allies would otherwise have to take. But there are a few other applications a clever player can use:
> 
> 
> Summon a hippogriff to fight for you at very low levels. For a 2nd level spell, hippogriff is a lot of bang for your buck. And it flies. At mid-levels, summon a clutch of hippogriffs to harry flying, fleeing, or fast-moving foes. Each has three attacks per round, does decent damage, and is a large creature!
> ...




1) At second level SNA last 2 rounds and you give up a rounds to cast it, Id rather give up a round to cast true strike and the next round cast blinding spittle which is a much more efeective spell choice and lasts 10m/level effectively disabling any spell caster immediately.
2) Scouting !! ???
 Even at mid to high levels the things last 10 rounds at most, that mean a xorn could scout a whole 100' before it had to come back and then would have 1 round to report what it saw.. 
3) Unicorn can heal,
a 4th level spell to summon a create that can do 3 CLW and one cure moderate.. at 9th level CLW are really not worth much. And again the things only last 9 rounds in combat, if you have a party of 5 by the time you have summoned the 5th one the first one is over half used, probably out of healing spells and you have burnt all your top level spells. Hardly a game breaking tactic
Best use of unicorn is probably the magic circle vs evil

As for SR, if It has SR Ill just buff the crap out of the fighter, much better use of my spells 

Majere


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> 1) At second level SNA last 2 rounds and you give up a rounds to cast it, Id rather give up a round to cast true strike and the next round cast blinding spittle which is a much more efeective spell choice and lasts 10m/level effectively disabling any spell caster immediately.
> 2) Scouting !! ???
> Even at mid to high levels the things last 10 rounds at most, that mean a xorn could scout a whole 100' before it had to come back and then would have 1 round to report what it saw..
> 3) Unicorn can heal,
> ...



Oh, ye doubter, I'm telling you these are tactics that have worked well for me and mine. I can't help it if you choose not to believe me.


----------



## two (Apr 9, 2004)

*These do seem rather absurd*



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> In a good game, yes.Run completely out of spells? No. Run out of their high level spells? Yes. Those are the spells that make most of the impact. The other stuff gives them something to do, but it is rarely important in a combat.
> 
> Spellcasters start off strong and then wane in power. The melee classes tend to be balanced in power (as long as they're not helpless) throughout the adventure. If the DM runs games where the PCs never fight when low on resources, the spellcasters are relatively more powerful than the fighters. *It is up to the DM to manage this aspect of the game*. The DM needs to change the pace every once in a while if the spellcasters are dominating every combat and then resting before continuing on in the adventure.
> 
> ...




Sorry about the large quote.  I have to agree with a previous poster on this one:  these examples are interesting, sound fun, are creative, and are extremeley unusual.  They are tailor-made to restrain the spell casters.  That's fine.  Just be aware that they are tailor made; the campaign-style as it were is "keep the spell casters off guard, don't let them shoot their spell-wad in 1-2 combats a day."  That's great too.  

However, it's not supported by the DMG.

The DMG does not say "if you canonical party is heavy in spell casters, make sure to run more random encounters/stop them from sleeping/do more time-constraint things.  Vary the ways you do this so it does not get stale, etc."

Put it this way.  D&D should be "balanced" so that a newbie GM, with dewbie players, can throw together a party and have an adventure / campaign where spell-lobbers don't dominiate.

We EN-Worlders can do this easily, we are generally more sophisticated than the run-of-the-mill player/GM.  But, what about these run-of-the-mill players, who don't have this "meta" game information that mid-high level spellcasters need to be constrained by time factors, sleep, rushing, etc. etc. etc.?

Often spell-casters dominate.  It's that simple.  In a similar way Monks CAN shine, but require a campaign where they can do it.  So this is what we have:

To create a "fair and balanced" campaign, a new GM should remember to:

1)  Don't let spellcasters dominate by blowing all their high level spells at one time.  Think of various clever ways to do this, without making the players get annoyed by all the wandering monsters.  Sorry, there are no good examples in the core books.  But I'm sure you can figure it out.

2)  Cook up a way so that the monk's strengths (mobility, saves, grappling, etc.) are played up.

Now, do this EVERY adventure, for as long as you have a Monk/Druid/high-level caster in your group.  And have fun!  This will insure the players have fun too.

We can do this.  I can do this.  Most people can't, or don't, probably because they don't see the problem.  According to the books, a Fighter18=Wizard18=Monk18.  Swap and play.  Done.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> To create a "fair and balanced" campaign, a new GM should remember to:
> 
> 1)  Don't let spellcasters dominate by blowing all their high level spells at one time.  Think of various clever ways to do this, without making the players get annoyed by all the wandering monsters.  Sorry, there are no good examples in the core books.  But I'm sure you can figure it out.
> 
> ...



1) This is easy and doesn't require a metagame fix. To get a party spellcaster out of the habit of blowing his load in every single fight, start hitting him with multiple fights per day each time they're out on an adventure. I promise you, he'll learn to conserve his magic and use his spells strategically.

2) Easy again. Throw spellcasting bad guys at the party. For example, if you hit the group with a band of orcs, make one of them an adept or cleric.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> 2) Easy again. Throw spellcasting bad guys at the party. For example, if you hit the group with a band of orcs, make one of them an adept or cleric.



This is fine, if you're fighting orcs. IME, it's a rare campaign where the PCs are still fighting orcs by the time they're 10th level, let alone 20th. It happens in my campaign, but mine's an aberration in many ways.

Sure, you could do the same trick when fighting giants by having one of them be a wiz (a cleric will handily whomp a monk's butt). However, those 12+ monster HD and massive Con from being Large usually take some of the sting away.


----------



## two (Apr 9, 2004)

*It also forces the monk into one boring role*

So is that it?

Monk vs. spellcaster.  That's its schtick, only schtick?  So every combat needs an enemy spellcaster which the Monk can get access to (i.e. not flying or etc)? 

Combat after combat...hey look monk!  An enemy spellcaster!  What a surprise!  Can you go kill it?  Thanks.  We will deal with the rest of them.

Fun.  ?  Well, everyone's different.


----------



## Scion (Apr 9, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> So is that it?
> 
> Monk vs. spellcaster.  That's its schtick, only schtick?  So every combat needs an enemy spellcaster which the Monk can get access to (i.e. not flying or etc)?




So thats it? you are a barbarian and all you do is rage and swing your sword? 

It all depends on how you look at it, most classes have a lot of options and choices, the monk is one of these.


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

Maybe I'm weird, but I rather expect that at least 1/3 of encounters will have a spellcaster enemy of some kind.

I mean, it's a pretty significant class... particularly if you are going up against sentient opponents, I'd expect an NPC 'party' to have them. Like a PC party, spellcasters can be the cornerstone of a strong group.

So color me baffled at the derision toward the idea of including spellcasters in opposition.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm weird, but I rather expect that at least 1/3 of encounters will have a spellcaster enemy of some kind.
> 
> I mean, it's a pretty significant class... particularly if you are going up against sentient opponents, I'd expect an NPC 'party' to have them. Like a PC party, spellcasters can be the cornerstone of a strong group.
> 
> So color me baffled at the derision toward the idea of including spellcasters in opposition.



A lot of the time in D&D, you're not fighting an NPC "party". You're fighting dragons, demons, undead, monsters of various descriptions. Most of these monsters can be broadly categorised as "melee brute". Some may be able to cast spells, but they're rarely the sort of spellcasters a monk is equipped to deal with.

Like I said, the spellcaster behind a wall of meatshields is the exception, not the rule at high levels. And even then, with spells like fly and dim door at a party's disposal, it's not like the monk has a monopoly on mobility. Heck, it's a rare or stupid high-level character who _doesn't_ have the ability to fly and teleport.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

Monks are still second rank combatants, which means that when faced with melee brutes, I flank off the fighter. Better yet, I flank off the rogue. 

I'm not saying fighting casters is their only gig. Just their best gig, and the gig for which they were obviously intended. As levels progress and you face more and more spellcasting foes (wizards are far more terrifying at high levels than low), your role as a mage-killer will shine that much brighter. Also, monks are great for whupping mooks - a mook defined as a henchman, a thug, a foe meant to suck up time while the BBEG does his thing. Yes, any meleer can soak mooks, but in a fight with devils, who would you rather have fighting the lemures, and who the horned devil, the monk or the fighter? So a monk handling the lemures so the fighter can face the horned devil is fulfilling his purpose as a 2nd-rank combatant in that encounter. And once in a while, the BBEG is a wizard or sorcerer, and then the monk will shine while the fighter stands around drooling while afflicted with _confusion_ or _feeblemind_. That's just the way the classes are designed.


----------



## two (Apr 9, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> So thats it? you are a barbarian and all you do is rage and swing your sword?
> 
> It all depends on how you look at it, most classes have a lot of options and choices, the monk is one of these.




The barbarian (if he can get to a enemy spellcaster) can hack it very nicely, also can hack dragons, undead, humans, rogues, anti-paladins, paladins, ghosts, goblins, orks, giants, rocs, crocodiles, Titans, whales, etc.

See the different between a barbarian and a monk?  Barb = effective when hacking a very wide range of things.  Monk= effective when hacking a super-specialized range of things.  You can also make a muonted barbarian; a barbarian tripper/grappler; a sword-n-shield barbarian; etc.  All can be effective and fun.  Ever see a mounted monk?  Oh sorry, outside the box.  Back in, punch-n-judy, see enemy spellcaster, kill enemy spellcaster.  Go.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> The barbarian (if he can get to a enemy spellcaster) can hack it very nicely, also can hack dragons, undead, humans, rogues, anti-paladins, paladins, ghosts, goblins, orks, giants, rocs, crocodiles, Titans, whales, etc.
> 
> See the different between a barbarian and a monk?  Barb = effective when hacking a very wide range of things.  Monk= effective when hacking a super-specialized range of things.  You can also make a muonted barbarian; a barbarian tripper/grappler; a sword-n-shield barbarian; etc.  All can be effective and fun.  Ever see a mounted monk?  Oh sorry, outside the box.  Back in, punch-n-judy, see enemy spellcaster, kill enemy spellcaster.  Go.



The monk is also faster, able to heal himself, and more adept at retreating from sticky situations. I see barbarians, fighter and paladins as blunt instruments, but monks as surgical tools. As with rogues, they are skillsy characters who are situationally very cool. I don't see the issue.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

I think that it is mostly true that fighter-types, including monks, do get the shaft in D&D 3.x.  I've been reading what people say and its just true that fighter-types need spellcaster support way more than a spellcaster needs fighter support (after all, a spellcaster can just make fighter-type support -- simulacrum or golem or whatever -- or summon up such support).

I mean, I think about it this way.  Consider a naked fighter at 20th level vs. a naked sorcerer.  Start 'em 100 feet away and give the fighter init.  Round one -- fighter closes some of the distance.  Maybe he shoots some arrows, inflicts some damage.  Sorcerer's init -- Imprisonment.  The minimum save DC of the spell is 23.  The naked fighter likely has a Will save of, say, +7.  The odds are the fight is over.

Placing them right next to each other doesn't really change this much.  Sure, the fighter might hurt the wizard some before being imprisoned or mind controlled or whatever, but the sorcerer is just going to dominate this fight.

Wizards are worse.  At least as sorcerer doesn't have the flexiblity of a wizard -- with preparation there is just nothing a high level wizard can't do better than any other character class (except heal -- which is handled by a cleric, obviously . . . another spellcasting class).  Heck, the wizard would have cast a quickened dominate person spell before the imprisonment, reducing the successes of the fighter winning by a great deal.

It is not really different with clerics or druids, either.

Furthermore, in terms of adventuring, a 20th level fighter without serious support from magical community -- not just in terms of healing, but has been noted in terms of providing magical equipment -- is just useless around CR 20 creatures.  A non-equipped sorcerer or wizard still has, at least, a chance to do something to a CR 20 critter . . . or can at least escape with various teleportation spells (or similiar ilk).  The fighter against that pit fiend?  Wasted.

And, thinking, I think it is a huge flaw that the spellcasters can dominate the fight if there is only one fight a day (or, rather, more dominate).  Games that are reasonably low on combat -- or at least the sort of intense combat that three or four fights a day involves -- aren't precisely rare.  I'm having trouble thinking of a D&D game I've been in that had so little role-play or investigation that fighting was, basically, the only thing the party did.  I know such games exist -- someone mentioned rolling for wandering monsters for every hour or travel time! -- but *lots* of people don't play D&D that way.  Like I said, I don't know anyone who does and I know lots of gamers.  I think that if D&D was serious about "game balance" then there would be alternate rules or whatever so take into account games that don't have four-fights-before-resting mindsets where the players and DM would rather have one big, important fight than a bunch of fights.

I'm not dissin' on that style of play, BTW, I'm just saying that D&D doesn't provide for alternate styles of play -- which I find sort of sad because otherwise it is a very well constructed game.

But, as designed, I think that it is very, very reasonable to say that the fighter-types get the shaft.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> I'm not saying fighting casters is their only gig. Just their best gig, and the gig for which they were obviously intended.



Nonsense. The wizard-negation schtick is a role that's been _found_ for the monk (more out of a lack of any better alternative than anything else), but that's a far cry from saying it's the intention behind the class.

If anything is obvious, it's that the monk is based on the chop-socky kung fu movies from the 70s, featuring people like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Now if there's one common thread in these tales, it's that the main characters kick butt. Thus it's only reasonable that a player, without advance knowledge of the rules, might want his monk PC to do the same. Unfortunately, whatever a D&D monk does, it manifestly does not kick butt.



> As levels progress and you face more and more spellcasting foes (wizards are far more terrifying at high levels than low), your role as a mage-killer will shine that much brighter. Also, monks are great for whupping mooks - a mook defined as a henchman, a thug, a foe meant to suck up time while the BBEG does his thing. Yes, any meleer can soak mooks, but in a fight with devils, who would you rather have fighting the lemures, and who the horned devil, the monk or the fighter?



Neither. When you have a whole bunch of mooks, you drop a fireball, fire storm, or horrid wilting on them. Besides which, in terms of spotlight time, killing mooks is rarely adequate compensation for not being able to face up to the big guy IME.



> So a monk handling the lemures so the fighter can face the horned devil is fulfilling his purpose as a 2nd-rank combatant in that encounter.



Consider the possibility that a monk should not _be_ a 2nd-rank combatant in the first place.


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Like I said, the spellcaster behind a wall of meatshields is the exception, not the rule at high levels.




Um, in your experience, maybe. I'm finding the opposite. As levels increase, there are more 'mixed group' opponents, not less.

So, again, it depends on how you run the game.

As for the 'naked' argument, again, it's a matter of what you are prepared for and the situation.

I'd hate to be a naked spellcaster against a naked monk, for instance. Or a rogue.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

I'm fully with Hong about the "specialized mage-killer" thing.  What's to stop a barbarian from running up and grappling with a wizard?  They're quick, have a good BAB, generally have huge strengths that get huger when they want, have Power Attack to do a ton of damage and are better able to use it on account of their higher BAB and Str . . . so what if they get an AOO or two on their butts?  They have enormously huge numbers of hit points and damage reduction!  They can take it.

I'm, again, with Hong.  I reject the *idea* that a monk should be a second string fighter.  I think a monk should be as good as combat as a paladin, ranger or barbarian.  I think if D&D was serious about game balance with the monk, they'd've come to this decision a long time ago, themselves.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Nonsense. The wizard-negation schtick is a role that's been _found_ for the monk (more out of a lack of any better alternative than anything else), but that's a far cry from saying it's the intention behind the class.



Semantics. Whatever the origination, it is what it is.



> If anything is obvious, it's that the monk is based on the chop-socky kung fu movies from the 70s, featuring people like Jackie Chan and Bruce Lee. Now if there's one common thread in these tales, it's that the main characters kick butt. Thus it's only reasonable that a player, without advance knowledge of the rules, might want his monk PC to do the same. Unfortunately, whatever a D&D monk does, it manifestly does not kick butt.



I agree, it's definitely not the chop-suey monk from movies. But I think that's a reflection of how 3.x works in general - the light fighter gig is often a harder road to travel because of simple game mechanics. 




> Neither. When you have a whole bunch of mooks, you drop a fireball, fire storm, or horrid wilting on them. Besides which, in terms of spotlight time, killing mooks is rarely adequate compensation for not being able to face up to the big guy IME.



AE spells is certainly one way to deal with that. In such a case, the monk is then free to flank off the fighter and help whup the horned devil. He shouldn't try to tank him, though. I will agree, however, that for many people, being part of the team is less important than having your moment in the sun. I think that's a style play thing more than anything, though. IME, the guy who enjoys playing clerics will enjoy playing monks moreso than the guy who enjoys playing fighters. 




> Consider the possibility that a monk should not _be_ a 2nd-rank combatant in the first place.



I have no problem with the monk being a 2nd-ranker in the 3.x experience. It makes sense, given the AC + hp  paradigm in the game. The monk trades AC & hp for mobility and neat magical powers and a few cool combat moves (stunning fist, quivering palm, etc.). The monk is certainly not a class for everyone, and it's true that perhaps calling the class "monk" gives players the wrong impression. It's a good class for what it is, though. I think there are other game systems in which one can find greater enjoyment from the "chop-suey" monk experience, such as Feng Shui (sp?).


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 9, 2004)

Two: Once again, those were suggestions for adventures if you're finding that spellcasters are *always* sitting around with extra time to rest, and thus always enter combat at full strength. THey are some suggestions on how to approach things from another angle. 

If you run things as per the DMG (including the provisions for wandering encounters), this should not be a problem. Spellcasters that 'blow everything' quickly when wandering encounters are so frequent will soon regret their decisions to do so ...

As I said, in the dozen (or so) different style game sI've played in under 3.0 and 3.5 (not to mention all the ones dating back through 2E, 1E, Basic/Expert D&D, etc ...), this is rarely a problem I've seen. Spellcasters rarely use more than a few spells in a combat unless it is a BBEG.

Back to the original issue: 

Let's just look at a monk as a melee fighter. 

In a sense, they serve the same roll as a two weapon fighter - less damage, but more targets (so less manly 'overkill'). Although they deal less total damage than a two handed fighter, they have similar 'effective' damage (ie; damage that makes a difference in combat, not damage wasted on overkill).

Unlike a standard two weapon fighter, though, they trade accuracy (BAB) for special attack capabilities like stunning fist or super grappling. This makes them less likely to hit, but more effective (in some situations) when they do hit. Although a monk may have trouble hitting a BBEG in a certain battle, he brings to the table the possibility of effectively ending the battle (via a stun) with every attack he brings, at least versus certain foes.

To add to their combat abilities, the monk gains bonus feats, great defensive abilities (AC, evasion, immunities, etc ...), self healing, spell resistance, movement (including D-door as a supernatural ability), and a variety of other abilities that add to their effectiveness.

In the end, you may decide that the monk is weaker in combat than other classes. Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The monk can serve as a masterful scout and quality diplomat, two important noncombat activities. The greater the level of noncombat abilities possessed by the PC, the more you must diminish their combat abilities to keep them in balance. 

As a final note: I've played a lot of D&D since 3.0 came out. I've seen more than my share of monks. It isn't always obvious that they are an effective class, but I promise you that they are in most games I've seen. As for the druid ... in favorable circumstances, they are a *very* strong class, but when their Acheillies heel begins to show, they can be awfully vulnerable.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> In the end, you may decide that the monk is weaker in combat than other classes. Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The monk can serve as a masterful scout and quality diplomat, two important noncombat activities. The greater the level of noncombat abilities possessed by the PC, the more you must diminish their combat abilities to keep them in balance.
> 
> As a final note: I've played a lot of D&D since 3.0 came out. I've seen more than my share of monks. It isn't always obvious that they are an effective class, but I promise you that they are in most games I've seen. As for the druid ... in favorable circumstances, they are a *very* strong class, but when their Acheillies heel begins to show, they can be awfully vulnerable.



Right. Most fighters are tools when attack dice aren't rolling. Monks are more social characters: _tongue of the sun and moon_.

The druid's problem, of course, is low AC.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> I'd hate to be a naked spellcaster against a naked monk, for instance. Or a rogue.



At high levels, I'd hate to be a naked _anything_. The two times I died in the RttToH, it was after I got stripped of all my magic items by a blasted teleport trap....

This applies even to a monk. Without stat boosters (one of the weaknesses of the class is the dependence on multiple abilities), they will get hit, and without save boosters, they will fail their saves. They might be able to RUN AWAY, but that's hardly going to accomplish a lot, now, is it? And besides, nobody has disputed a monk's survivability. What's in dispute is their ability to compete for the spotlight.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> To add to their combat abilities, the monk gains bonus feats, great defensive abilities (AC, evasion, immunities, etc ...), self healing, spell resistance, movement (including D-door as a supernatural ability), and a variety of other abilities that add to their effectiveness.



Effectiveness != spotlight time.

The monk will live through many things that will stop a fighter dead in his tracks. This is not the issue.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Right. Most fighters are tools when attack dice aren't rolling. Monks are more social characters: _tongue of the sun and moon_.



... which is a 17th level ability. I'd hate to have to wait 17 levels just to exercise my social skills, especially when tongues has been available since 5th or 7th level for the wiz and cleric (and 4th for the bard).

Face it: the monk is basically a permanent second-stringer. You _can_ find yourself a niche in the group, but you have to work at it, and hope nobody else comes along to take it away.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Right. Most fighters are tools when attack dice aren't rolling. Monks are more social characters: _tongue of the sun and moon_.
> 
> The druid's problem, of course, is low AC.




Oooooh.  At something like eighteenth level they get to talk to people!  Tongue of the sun and moon is their first and only even vaguely social ability.

Which provides an interesting comparison -- compare both the fighting acumen and social acumen of a *paladin* to that of a monk.  The paladin will fight better and talk better.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> In the end, you may decide that the monk is weaker in combat than other classes. Fine. I disagree, but you're entitled to your opinion. The monk can serve as a masterful scout and quality diplomat, two important noncombat activities. The greater the level of noncombat abilities possessed by the PC, the more you must diminish their combat abilities to keep them in balance.
> 
> As a final note: I've played a lot of D&D since 3.0 came out. I've seen more than my share of monks. It isn't always obvious that they are an effective class, but I promise you that they are in most games I've seen. As for the druid ... in favorable circumstances, they are a *very* strong class, but when their Acheillies heel begins to show, they can be awfully vulnerable.




A masterful scout when they're eleventh level or more.  Until then, any locked door stops them.  A long time to wait to be a *scout*.

Quality diplomat?  You're actually suggesting that monks need to put a decent ability score in Charisma, too?  I guess that means they have to get good abilities scores in *everything*, now, to be a good character.  Tho', just on the face of it, the bard or paladin is going to be the character you go to in social situations -- indeed, I know in the D&D game I'm in that's precisely what happens.  "Oh, a social situation.  Send in the bard."  Its sorta their thing.  Same with paladins -- "Pally, go make that diplomacy check!"  Even sorcerers, now that Bluff is a class skill, can go pretty far -- farther than monks with their frequently abyssmal Cha scores, at any rate.

Even the langauge you use to describe monks -- "it isn't always obvious that they're effective" -- compared to finding a druid's "Achilles heel".  Monks, not obviously effective; with druids you have to find their Achilles heel.  Which I parse as -- a game has got to be specially designed to make a monk effective, and it has to be specially designed to make a druid not be effective.  I think that's a fair assessement of the situation in any event.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> A masterful scout when they're eleventh level or more. Until then, any locked door stops them.



And after they reach 11th level, _two_ locked doors will stop them!


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Oooooh.  At something like eighteenth level they get to talk to people!  Tongue of the sun and moon is their first and only even vaguely social ability.
> 
> Which provides an interesting comparison -- compare both the fighting acumen and social acumen of a *paladin* to that of a monk.  The paladin will fight better and talk better.



Actually, that ability was just to illustrate my point. Don't forget that monks have Diplomacy, Knowledge (arcana), Knowledge (religion) and Sense Motive on their class skill list. This is what makes them social characters; _tongue of the sun & monn_ is just the icing on the cake. For that matter, like the other second-rank fighters (rogues, rangers), monks have Listen and Spot on the class lists as well. 

But at this point I think I'll let this conversation be. I've made the points I want to make, and I feel like some of you guys are determined to be unsatisfied regardless of the points those of us in support of monks bring up. I am enjoying my own monk, and that's what's important to me. If you're not satisfied by the class, CPXB, my advice is to find a character concept you will enjoy and play that.


----------



## Scion (Apr 9, 2004)

While there are threads about casters being too powerful there are also threads about noncasters being too powerful.

At higher levels SR is in just about everyones bag of tricks, along with saves, high hp, and lots of other gimicks that pop up with increased power.

I have been in games where playing a high level caster meant that you were relegated to buffing and debuffing, nothing else the high level caster could do would matter in a meaningful way. Nothing like what those noncasters and their pesky attacks could do, all day long.

Where as the casters need intermitant breaks for long periods of time to get all of their abilities back, the noncasters can go for longer periods of time, and generally need shorter amounts of break time. There is a lot to be said for that.

The monk straddles both in some ways. He has a lot of good attacks (+15/+15/+15/+10/+5 is nice! and with a single feat you can turn it into +13/+13/+13/+13/+8/+3, which isnt shabby either  ), but some of his abilities only refresh everyday. But he has evasive powers all over the place.

His abilities make it hard for him to really stand out and shine in some games, and all too easy in others. I dont really see the problem, it is a very good character class for what it does, but trying to make it do something else makes it not quite as good. No surprise there.

Still, play to a characters strengths, and the dm should do as well on occasion, and their weaknesses. This has to be done to some degree for 'all' character classes no matter what they are. Some dm's find it easier for certain play styles, other find other things easier  Hope it works out.


----------



## Will (Apr 9, 2004)

Some people seem to be making no effort to understand my posts before responding, as I find myself having to back up and repeat myself or clarify points I thought were very obvious.

Maybe I'm being unclear.

In any case, I think I've made the points I wanted to make. Ciao.


----------



## Hervis (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Let me describe the situation:
> 
> I play in this weekly game that's a pretty typical D&D game.  The party consists, currently, of my character, a sixth level monk who is fairly twinked out for combat, a fifth level druid, a fifth level bard and a sixth level sorcerer.  The druid has summon monster I & II and the druid, obviously, has wide access to summon nature's ally spells.  Our characters are pretty beefy.
> 
> ...




I think the issue here is actually the makeup of the encounter.  Anytime you are fighting a small number of opponents (in this case is sounds like no more than one at a time)  the druid will become very dargerous.  Especially if he has you to keep the Giants off him long enough to summon the cavalry.  If you had been fighting a equal CR of gnolls for example (how many would that be?  8 I think) your druid would have been in more serious trouble.  Gnolls use bows.  In addition he probably would have gotten off one summon spell (maybe if they didn't shoot him) before he had a pair of 300 lb gnolls on him.  Leaving you the other 6 of course.  In this encounter, the druid's abilities don't look as strong.

Remember your roll when facing a small number of powerfull opponents.  The druid is better equiped for this situation and you should concentrate on making sure he/she has the time and space that they need to get their spells of.  When the opponents who are more susceptable to your higher number of attacks and stunning come around, your monk is really going to shine.  Also, next time you need to sneak up and disable a guard be glad you are a monk.  This is your bread and butter.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 9, 2004)

Quick comparison time:

Rashad Daktari aka Adamantine Moneybags
Mnk 6th 
Medium-sized Humanoid (Human)
Hit Dice: 6d8+12 (54 hp)
Speed: 50 ft
AC: 21 (+4 Dex, +5 Wis, +1 bracers of armor, +1 monk), flat-footed 16, touch 19
Initiative: +4 (Dex)
Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+8
Attacks: Unarmed +10 (1d8+5, crit 19-20) or masterwork sling +9 (1d4+4) or masterwork shuriken +9 (1d2+4)
Full Attack: Unarmed +10 (1d8+5, crit 19-20) or flurry of blows +9/+9 (1d8+5) or sling +9 (1d4+4) or shuriken +9 (1d2+4) or flurry of blows shuriken +8/+8 (1d2+4)
Space/Reach: 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Flurry of blows, ki strike (magic), unarmed strike 1d8
Special Qualities: AC bonus, evasion, purity of body, slow fall (30 ft.), still mind
Saves: Fort +7, Ref +9, Will +10 
Alignment: Lawful neutral
Abilities: Str 18, Dex 18, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 20, Cha 13 
Skills: Balance +9/15, Climb +6/10, Diplomacy +0/3, Escape Artist +6/10, Jump +9/23, Perform +6/7, Sense Motive +9/14, Spot +9/14, Tumble +9/15
Feats: Agile Riposte, Deflect Arrows (b), Dodge,  Improved Trip (b), Knockdown, Stunning Blow (DC 18, 6/day) (b), Weapon Focus (Unarmed)

Possessions: (light encumbrance 76 lbs.; current encumbrance 34 lbs.) gauntlets of ogre power, bracers of armor +1, ring of magic fang +1, periapt of wisdom +2, masterwork sling (1 lbs.), 10 sling bullets (10 lbs.), 20 masterwork shuriken, dagger (1 lbs.), monk's outfit (2 lbs.), backpack (2 lbs.), bedroll (5 lbs.), winter blanket (3 lbs.), bullseye lantern with continual flame (3 lbs.), silk rope 50' (1 lbs.), 2 entertainer's outfits (8 lbs.), 4079 gp

OR -- 

Pally the Paladin
Pal 6th
Medium-sized humanoid (human)
Hit Dice: 6d10 + 18 (68 hp)
Spd: 20 ft
AC: 21 (armor +9, deflection +1), flat-footed 20, touch 12
Init: +1
BAB/Grapple: +6/+11
Attacks: +1 greatsword +13 melee (1d12+8, crit 19-20) or masterwork composite bow +8 ranged (1d8+5, crit x3)
Full Attack: +1 greatsword +13/+8 (1d12+8, crit 19-20) or masterwork composite bow +8/+3 (1d8+5, crit x3)
Space/Reach: 5 ft/5 ft
Special Attacks: Smite evil 2/day, spells, turn undead
Special Qualities: Aura of courage, aura of good, detect evil, divine grace, divine health, lay on hands (30 hp/day), remove disease 1/week
Saves: Fort +13, Ref +8, Will +9
Alignment: Lawful good
Abilities: Str 20, Dex 13, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 15, Cha 20
Skills: Diplomacy +9/16, Heal +9/11, Knowledge (religion) +9/11, Ride +9/10, Sense Motive +9/11
Feats: Cleave, Mounted combat, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (greatsword)

Possessions: Gauntlets of ogre power, plate armor +1, +1 greatsword, cloak of charisma +2, ring of protection +1, masterwork composite bow (+5)

Spells: 1st -- Divine favor, Protection from Evil; caster level 3rd

**

Pally has an AC one lower -- which I could have rectified, obviously, by having Pally have a shield, obviously -- but look at the damage!  He hits more often and does, per hit, five more points of damage!  That's even before the greatsword Power Attack -- -1 to hit for +2 damage.

The fabled "multiple strike" ability of the monk is herein revealed for a lie.  At this level, Pally has the same "multiple strike" capability as Rashad.  No two-weapon fighting, nothing funny, just a straight greatsword.

OK.  Let's look at special abilities.  Oh, no!  Pally has more of them!  AND he has spells -- sure, not many, but . . . what?  He can increase his fighting ability even MORE?!  Yep.  If he has any time to prepare, +1 hit and damage that stacks with everything he's got.  Damage?  Not a problem with Pally around!  Disease?  Check it -- Disease Away!  How does this stack up to "slow fall", again?

Saves?  Pally wins out, overall.  Slightly worse at Ref and Will, much, much better at Fort.

Skills?  Check the diplomacy score!  He's one charming mo'fo', is our Pally.  Plus good support stuff like Heal.  Those two skill points a level the monk gets . . . not feeling the love from them.

On his mount, Pally is as fast as the monk!  

If I was playing this C, in the future he'd be getting a celestial lion as a special mount, BTW.  Sure, it'd cost a feat -- WORTH IT.

Seriously, I don't think anyone is going to be looking between these two characters, same level, same ability scores, same amount of money spent on loot, and seriously tell me that the monk stacks up against the paladin in either a fight or in terms of general usefulness.  If I had to decide which of these two characters I'd have in my part, it's be blindingly obvious which one I chose.

"Hmm, the paladin does more damage, can heal and remove disease, detects evil, has more hit points . . . not to mention a great paladin mount.  The monk brings to us . . . well, he's got a good Tumble score."

Paladin by a long margin, across the board.


----------



## Scion (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Paladin by a long margin, across the board.




Try a few other levels, not every class is balanced with every other at every level.

Even with that though, the monk wins out in other ways still.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 9, 2004)

Hmmm ... I must enjoy banging my head against a wall ... otherwise I'd leave this thread alone.

Monk as scout: Yes, locked doors stop him. Of course, if you run into a locked door, that is usually a good time to get the rest of the party (IMHO). Scout /= Thief. A scout finds out what you're facing before the party clambers in so that the PCs can properly prepare. Good scouts can: a.) stay hidden, b.) spot things of interest and c.) get out of a tight spot. Monks do all 3 things exceptionally well.

Monk as a diplomat: You don't need a high charisma to be a good diplomat. My epic 1/2 orc rogue/barbarian has a charisma of 8 and a diplomacy in the 20s. All it takes is acess to diplomacy a a class skill and enough skill points that you can afford to grab a few ranks in diplomacy. Beyond that, the monk often has an organization behind him that provides role playing resources, but that is purely a campaign specific aspect that can't be counted upon as a balance tool.

Monk versus paladin in combat: The monk with flurry of blows does not *always* have more attacks than the 2 handed or sword&board paladin, but he does at levels 1-5 and 8-20. But at levels 5 and 6, the paladin has the same amount. 10% of the time between levels 1 and 20. 

Similarly, the saving throw arguments go out the door at higher levels.

Now, let's look at these characters in combat. 

The paladin, like the spellcaster, can use up a lot of abilities in one combat and be incredibly effective. He has a lot of damage dealing abilities that can deal massive damage to a foe in just a few rounds. Mucho damage against certain foes, but requiring the use of resources that, once depleted, can not be used for 24 hours or until the paladin rests.

The monk, like the pure fighter or (to an extent) ranger, deals damage consistently and evenly. The monk technically has a limit on the number of stuns he may perform in a day, but that limit is pretty high. As the day progresses and the paladin's resources diminish, the monk will be relatively more and more powerful.

Plus, the stunning fist of the monk can end a combat in one round. A stunned foe without dexterity to AC will likely not survive more than 1 rd in any battle at any level unless it is a high hit point BBEG. People keep ignoring this massive advantage of the monk (which may be traded for improved grappling, though I often find it best for a monk to have both at 1st level), though it is far from meaningless. Even creatures with a very high fort save fail 5% of the time ... If you hit them with 4 or 5 attacks in a round, you get a 20 - 24% chance of stunning them. 

The BAB of the monk versus the BAB of the other melee classes: the monk falls behind. The monk trades accuracy for special abilities and a greater number of attacks. When compared to the two weapon fielding fighter/ranger, the closest comparison figure, it never falls more than effectively being 3 behind. You fall effectively 3 behind to gain a variety of special abilities. 

If you want your melee fighter to do as much damage as possible on every attack roll, monk isn't your best choice. For others, monk is a fine choice. I've seen MANY games. It is clearly evident from those games that a monk can be a vitally important PC in a party. Whether he is or isn't depends upon whether the game is structured to suit his capabilities. Most games Ive played in have been well structured to make a monk a powerful PC type. If you're playing in a different style game and the monk isn't as useful, don't think of it as a default of the class. Think of it as a facet of the campaign style.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 9, 2004)

Just to point out, tongue of the sun and moon is much better than just talking to people, you can talk to any plant or animal as well. Anything alive you can understand, just like talk with plants I would imagine.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Monk as scout: Yes, locked doors stop him. Of course, if you run into a locked door, that is usually a good time to get the rest of the party (IMHO). Scout /= Thief. A scout finds out what you're facing before the party clambers in so that the PCs can properly prepare. Good scouts can: a.) stay hidden, b.) spot things of interest and c.) get out of a tight spot. Monks do all 3 things exceptionally well.



However, a rogue does them better. Yes, even the dim door thing (items). No, the fact that items can be yoinked is not particularly relevant. If items are a good enough way of balancing spellcasters with non-spellcasters, they're good enough to balance mundanes with monks.



> Monk as a diplomat: You don't need a high charisma to be a good diplomat. My epic 1/2 orc rogue/barbarian has a charisma of 8 and a diplomacy in the 20s. All it takes is acess to diplomacy a a class skill and enough skill points that you can afford to grab a few ranks in diplomacy.



However, a bard (or a rogue!) does this better. Both classes have more skill points to burn, and a bard has social/mind control abilities out the wazoo.



> Monk versus paladin in combat: The monk with flurry of blows does not *always* have more attacks than the 2 handed or sword&board paladin, but he does at levels 1-5 and 8-20. But at levels 5 and 6, the paladin has the same amount. 10% of the time between levels 1 and 20.



I think it's been quite comprehensively proved that a monk is not a combat powerhouse.



> Similarly, the saving throw arguments go out the door at higher levels.



How so?



> Now, let's look at these characters in combat.



Must we?



> The monk, like the pure fighter or (to an extent) ranger, deals damage consistently and evenly. The monk technically has a limit on the number of stuns he may perform in a day, but that limit is pretty high. As the day progresses and the paladin's resources diminish, the monk will be relatively more and more powerful.



This really is irrelevant. In the typical D&D party, you're constrained not just by your abilities, but also by those of your party members. Whatever class you may be, you cannot solo a dungeon. This is a fundamental part of the core design philosophy of D&D, and has been since the beginning.



> Plus, the stunning fist of the monk can end a combat in one round.



So could any instakill spell. And besides, hoping for that one-in-twenty chance doesn't really amount to much of a strategy.

The point is: _whatever a monk can do, someone else can do better_. That is almost the definition of a second-stringer. Yes, in any _particular_ party, the monk may be the best there is at one _particular_ schtick. That doesn't change the fact that the monk is still the second-best choice. If someone else were to join the party that took over that schtick, the monk would become irrelevant.

Furthermore, as has been said many times, the monk is designed to emulate characters from a certain genre of fiction: kung fu movies. Characters in these movies, as a rule, kick butt. A monk, whatever schtick he may have, is almost guaranteed not to kick butt, relative to what the other party members are capable of. Therefore, although the class abilities may provide a fair simulation of the stunts the movie characters pull off, in truth it's a badly-designed class. It does not do what many monk players want it to do, unless the player (and the DM) put in a LOT of work to make the game more sympathetic to the class.


----------



## two (Apr 9, 2004)

*Part of the trouble --*

combat-wise, this has already been discussed somewhat.

Basically, give a barbarian/paladin/fighter a 2-handed weapon and have them put a reasonable amount of effort into buffing their strength and their weapon.

Done.

With 1.5 x strength bonus, power attack possibilities, etc. etc. this guy is a powerhouse.  Plus only 1 or 2 stats matter.  Have him drop the 2-handed weapon and use a bow when necessary, or sword-n-board even on occasion.  But baseline is this:  2-handed weapons are MIGHTY powerful.  A stat-heavy Monk needs to burn feats like crazy simply to catch up to the barbarian w/2-handed sword. Just to catch up! They will never be ahead; more than that, they don't really catch up either.  Plus, ranged combat is not a monk's forte, to say the least.

The problem might be 2-handed weapons.  But, maybe not. 

If/when I allow a monk into my campaign, I'll just give him fighter-like (FULL) BAB progression.  To-hit is improved, more attacks faster, etc.  Might be possible to keep up with a fighter (after spending feats to do it), which is OK given the monk's other abilities.  There, done.  My house rule.

I've never understood why monk's are worse at grappling than full-bab fighter anyway (ignoring an optional feat on the monk's part).


----------



## Darklone (Apr 9, 2004)

Ah well. Monk vs. Paladin... hehehe. Good joke. This pallypoop hasn't even Divine Might. Har.

That said: I've seen many monks doing the combat monkey. Some good, some bad. None was as worthless as many seem to think here. Going toe to toe with a fightertype is a bad idea for a monk? I've seen 5 fights (level 1-9), three were won by the monk... two of those because of Stunning Fist. I don't understand this typical "The stun works only if the opponent rolls a 1 on his saving throw" nonsense. This might be true against hillgiants... but against a comparable NPC character with a fightertype class? That guy's lucky if he has a higher than 50% chance to save against the stunning fist.

And usually the monk can choose how to start the combat because of superior mobility. Either he waits in a good defensive position (perhaps even full defense for +6 AC), or he Spring attacks with a Stunning Fist and unleashs a full attack next round.

Combine this with the mentioned one level of fighter and a glaive... and your monk will be a combatpowerhorse. Give him Enlarge Person and perhaps he does not deal as much damage as the fighter or barbarian... but he's able to keep the baddies away from his buddies while hurting them.


----------



## Spatula (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I'm fully with Hong about the "specialized mage-killer" thing.  What's to stop a barbarian from running up and grappling with a wizard?



A lack of resistance against spells that don't call for a Fort save.


----------



## allenw (Apr 9, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> If your wiz has run out of teleports or dim doors, and you need to get to the other side of a wall, then you're stuck.



  Not if you have an adamantine weapon, especially a Greatsword or Greataxe with Power Attack.


----------



## allenw (Apr 9, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Quick comparison time:
> 
> Rashad Daktari aka Adamantine Moneybags
> Mnk 6th
> ...




  I note that, in a toe-to-to fight (probably the Monk's weakest position), Rashad can Flurry, Trip Pally most of the time with the first attack, and thanks to Improved Trip *still*get two Stunning Fist attacks at Pally while he's down (at +13 to hit, due to Pally being prone).  Each attack will hit 60% of the time; each hit will Stun 20% of the time.  If Pally is stunned, he drops his weapon, takes other minuses, remains prone, and takes no counterattack.  If not, he still either needs to get back up (a move action that will invite an AoO; your DM's judgement whether it can also be a trip (with associated subsequent Improved Trip follow-up), but it can certainly be another Stunning Fist.

  That being said, I agree that Monks probably *are* weaker than some other class at everything but saves and unarmed combat, and may not be well-balanced for many campaigns.  
  However, CPXB, something I've been meaning to ask you that I haven't seen directly addressed:  are you sure that your DM was enforcing the one-full-round casting time for Summon Nature's Ally, and the Giant's AoOs against the closing animals?  If she was, then you should have had at least one round when you could attack and no animal could, followed by a round in which only the first animal could attack, and the animals should have been AoOed out of existence within a round or two.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 10, 2004)

Just one thing I run a RttToEE game.  There is not front line fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin in the party.  The Monk has been filling this role since about 8th level.    They just got to level 13.  The Monk is very effective frontline fighter and has done some memorable things.  The Monk did take one level of fighter and fights with a glaive thus having reach, and with his Combat Reflexes this means when he gets next to someone they don't get away without feeling pain.

Two buffs that have proved very effective for him are enlarge (for even more reach and bumping up his damage) and Lion's Charge which allows him to charge and flurry.  

Recently this monk stood in the middle of 4 Stone Giants and a Half-Fiend Stone Giant and took them down.

Maybe its because there is no Fighter, Barbarian, or Paladin in the group but the group is definantly not missing the absence of one of these classes.


----------



## Majere (Apr 10, 2004)

Erm hong.. have you been at the mushrooms again.
First you say that noone can solo a dungeon because that is how the game is built.
THEN you complain that the monk never gets to get his moment of totally and dominating glory. 

D&D isnt about glory, its about team play. Everytime I read a thread where someone whines that their PC isnt good enough I just feel like telling them to stop being so selfish.

Anyone who has played a high level cleric knows that 90% of the time you are just healing your ass off to keep the tank alive through the horrific damage output of the BBEG once the combat stats in earnist. 
Where is the glory in healing the fighter, but it has to be done and the party dies veryveryVERY quickly if it isnt.

Pepople complain about the "power" of high level mages, but have you SEEN the SR of highlevel mobs, or their saves ?
The last highlevel game I played in all our mages needed to roll 12+ to defeat teh LOWEST enemy SR and most of the enemy were then saving on 1s ? 
What use are you spells when they mobs are basically spell immune ?
Thats when melee people step up. No this doesnt happen every fight, it would be BAD if it did, but it happens in plenty of fights.

Stunning first is awesome, far better than sneak attack, and noone bitches about sneak attack. One game I was stuck in a corridor with a drow rogue either side of me, with single figure hp. My mage was reduced to fighting defensively as he was almost out of spells. The monks stunning fist kept one of the rogues permanently stunned, and that saved my characters life. 

Monks get lots of neat tricks and in return they give up some BAB progression. That really is all they give up, the monk attack pregression means they dont even lose iterative attacks. 

So stop bitching about the monk already.

Majere


----------



## evilbob (Apr 10, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> The point is: _whatever a monk can do, someone else can do better_. That is almost the definition of a second-stringer. Yes, in any _particular_ party, the monk may be the best there is at one _particular_ schtick. That doesn't change the fact that the monk is still the second-best choice. If someone else were to join the party that took over that schtick, the monk would become irrelevant.



...You must really hate bards, too.  They can do a jillion things, but everyone else can do one of those things much better.

And rangers.  I mean, they aren't as good at fighting as a fighter, don't have as good of a nature schtick as druids...  They must suck, too.  And I'm thinking you must hate sorcs cause wizards are better, and I'm surprised you even mentioned barbarians because even the DMG has a line about fighters doing more over the long haul.  And paladins, too - fighters fight better and clerics cast better.  So I guess my main question is, which of the 5 iconic character classes do you always play?

I agree with the others who have said that "getting your moment to shine" is not about the class itself, but about the campaign you are a part of and playing intelligently.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> D&D isnt about glory, its about team play. Everytime I read a thread where someone whines that their PC isnt good enough I just feel like telling them to stop being so selfish.



Ah, yes, because everyone _loves_ playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member.  Why, in most games, players are lined up around the block for a chance at running a second-banana character who only supports the starring cast.  Really, it's just an honor to be on the team!   

Seriously, though, most players enjoy getting a little spotlight time in.  It feels _good_ to be the superstar once in a while, to be the guy who everyone remembers after the job is done.  It's good to feel not just useful, but actually essential.  And for a lot of players, it sucks if they never get to feel that.  It can ruin a game completely.

Basically, it's not selfish to want to enjoy the game you're playing.  It might be considered a little selfish to tell the person who's not having fun to shut up and pretend he's having fun when he really isn't, though.

So lay off players who are whining about their PC not being good enough to fit in the campaign they're playing.  It's a valid complaint, it's frustrating as hell, and above all else, it really does happen.  Bitch at them if they're just whining about it without actually trying to do something to improve the situation, sure, but that hardly applies to _this_ thread, where suggestions and potential solutions have appeared on every single page.


Me, I like monks.  But I know for a fact that there are games being run out there where monks really are that much weaker than the other character classes and consequently that much less fun to play, and I'm not going to pretend that it's wrong for people who are faced with that problem to try and fix it.

--
and honestly, practically nothing is ever fixed without someone bitching about it first


----------



## Scion (Apr 10, 2004)

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, because everyone _loves_ playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member.




Of course the monk is always there to lend a hand, pretty much anything you want to do he will help you with. Someone is scouting? he is there. Someone needs help flanking? there he is. Someone is far away and needs some random item fast? there you go. And tons of others. Not only that, but he is pretty good at them all, maybe not the best all of the time, but a solid, well rounded, character.

The monk can and does stand out, but as a class he is designed in a different way that most people like to play. Nothing wrong with that either you know 

There is a guy in my current campaign who is playing a marshal. Basically he gets to do a few things here and there, but the majority of what he does is makes other people better. Everyone in the party loves him for it, and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Majere (Apr 10, 2004)

Herpes Cineplex said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, because everyone _loves_ playing the character who never stands out, never impresses anyone else, or never manages to even be the equal of any other party member.  Why, in most games, players are lined up around the block for a chance at running a second-banana character who only supports the starring cast.  Really, it's just an honor to be on the team!
> 
> Seriously, though, most players enjoy getting a little spotlight time in.  It feels _good_ to be the superstar once in a while, to be the guy who everyone remembers after the job is done.  It's good to feel not just useful, but actually essential.  And for a lot of players, it sucks if they never get to feel that.  It can ruin a game completely.
> 
> ...





Learn to contribute outside of combat.
Learn to be smart 
Learn that spotlight != doing lots of damage
One combat our 6th level party unknowingly fought a rakshasha.
Unable to hurt it in anyway at all I shouted at the fighter to grapple the beast
With two fighters and the celric all grappling the thing we managed to keep in pinne and then my rogue dived for his disguiskit and pulled out a large lump of modeling clay and with a roll of a natuaral 20 shove it down the throat. 
The rakshasha never managed to unpin itself and choked to death after a few rounds.

Any class could have done that
Any class can come up with the plan or move that saves the day
Class IS irreleevant

MAjere


----------



## evilbob (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> One combat our 6th level party unknowingly fought a rakshasha.
> Unable to hurt it in anyway at all I shouted at the fighter to grapple the beast
> With two fighters and the celric all grappling the thing we managed to keep in pinne and then my rogue dived for his disguiskit and pulled out a large lump of modeling clay and with a roll of a natuaral 20 shove it down the throat.
> The rakshasha never managed to unpin itself and choked to death after a few rounds.



...That ...is ...awesome!


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Any class could have done that
> Any class can come up with the plan or move that saves the day
> Class IS irreleevant



This thread started with a player who had a genuine problem with his character in the campaign that he was playing in.  The vast majority of the discussion has been focused on that problem and problems similar to it.

Yeah, sure, everybody is special in their very own special way.  But campaigns and gaming groups work differently for different people, and brushing off a guy's valid complaint with a thinly-veiled "I guess you're just not clever enough to find a way to be useful, you hack-and-slash loser, you" isn't cool.

As much as you may like to think otherwise, sometimes it really _is_ a problem with the character and not with the player.  When the player knows what he wants out of the game and it has been proven beyond doubt that the character he's got isn't able to provide it for him in this particular campaign, you have to admit that it makes sense to change the goddamn character, don't you?

--
well, i suppose you don't have to admit it...if you don't mind being _wrong_ 


\/\/\/\/\/ Uh...yeah, relevant _like a fox._


----------



## Majere (Apr 10, 2004)

Actually the thread started with someone asking why his monk was much less powerful than the druid.
And it was explained very well by many people that the combat and style of campeign was such that it favoured caster.
The person talked with his DM and all was resolved.

Thr thread then turned into a general whinged that monks were underpowered. To which I posted a first reply pointing out that monks really dont give up much except and perfect BABA progression.

Then hong posted that monks suck because they are only secondrate and never get the spot light. To which I replied D&D isnt about the spotlight.
I was not trying to say anyone was stupid, I was pointing out that you do not need to be a specific class to have a good ide aand be vital to a combat.
Infact its is because I believe that people on here are good enough players to think of plans like these that I didnt just say "monks are too hard for you to play, be a fighter"

My posts were fully relevent if you read the whole thread.

Majere


----------



## youspoonybard (Apr 10, 2004)

You can only attempt a stunning fist 1/round, I believe...

Hmmm.  You can now multiple times a round.

Was this the case in 3.0, or am I just making up rules?


----------



## CPXB (Apr 10, 2004)

youspoonybard said:
			
		

> You can only attempt a stunning fist 1/round, I believe...
> 
> Hmmm.  You can now multiple times a round.
> 
> Was this the case in 3.0, or am I just making up rules?




You can only stun once a round in both 3.0 and 3.5.  You can get a feat that allows you to do two stunning fists a round, but my monk doesn't have it.


----------



## allenw (Apr 10, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> You can only stun once a round in both 3.0 and 3.5.



  You're quite correct, I missed that clause.  I think Pally is still in trouble, though.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 10, 2004)

Weighing in on the issue, I fail to see how the monk could be considered a 'balanced' class because it can do many things, but not well.  Every other class in the game has something that it can excel at.  The fighter is tatically flexible with his massive feat choices, the sorcerer/wizard can bring the mighty fire, the ranger is good at both combat and woodcraft, the thief is a mighty skillmonkey able to overcome many challenges that others cannot, the paladin can lay out the mighty smite from atop his mount, the barbarian dishes damage like no other, the cleric's spells return the fallen and heal the wounded, the druid is arguably one of the most powerful classes, and even the bard cannot be outdone in social situations.  The monk can perform all these things, but not even close to the level that the other classes can.  Rather, the monk performs at a distictly lower level.  It requires a specialized situation for the monk to shine, and even then he might still be outclassed by out of the box tactics from another class.  I stand in the 'monk is not on a level field' group.  Sorry if that offends.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 10, 2004)

allenw said:
			
		

> You're quite correct, I missed that clause.  I think Pally is still in trouble, though.




Not really.  Its extremely statistically unlikely, even if the monk does dump Pally on his butt, that Pally will be stunned.  There's only a 20% chance.

More to the point, however, the monk won't be fighting Pally.  They'd be in the same group doing stuff like fighting hill giants and packs of dire wolves.  When comparing how Rashad would do vis-a-vis Pally fighting *those* foes it is clear who I'd rather have in my party.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 10, 2004)

I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can not 'stand out' in combat when faced with numerous people that say that they see it on a regular basis. In fact, this isn't worth arguing anymore. The only people still arguing that monks are too weak will not be convinced by any argument.

Good luck, all.


----------



## Gort (Apr 10, 2004)

I'm currently going through a phase of playing the more esoteric character classes. (I usually pick something very central to a party, like a fighter or a cleric or a paladin) I'd like to play a monk sometime, but up till now I've never gotten around to it. But here's a few things people haven't mentioned yet - things that my fighter experience tell me I'll love about the monk...

Touch AC! The monk has the same touch AC as his normal AC. I have a 16th level fighter with an AC of 40. His touch AC? 16. If something huge tries to grapple you, you're out of options. His grapple check will be twenty above yours, he's never gonna miss his touch attack, and even if he rolls a 1, he's got other attacks ready. Ditto tripping. Ray spells! Ray of enfeeblement and enervation don't even have saves, and both will severely neuter any fighter. I would love to have a touch AC of 40 to go with my normal AC of 40. It's hard to over-emphasise just how great having a big touch AC is.

Balance checks, moving silently, hiding, spotting stuff so you don't get stabbed in the back, all stuff a 1st level monk does better than my 16th level fighter. Even if he didn't bother to put skill ranks in it. What are my skills? Uh, climbing, jumping and swimming. All things I wouldn't need to put ranks in if it wasn't for my armour penalties. Hell, people can just blatantly lie to me and I'll believe every word they say!

Spell resistance is awesome. Especially monk spell resistance. Have you seen the pricetag on spell resistance items lately? Bloody hell!

Having a natural weapon for your main attack is great. You can be grappled and still fight. Heck, quite often you'd RATHER be grappled, so you can immobilise your foe! Oh, a rust monster! Oh wait, no metal gear to rust. Ah, a Bebilith - nope, no armour to rip open. Sunder? Not on me, mate.

Having lots of attacks is nice. Especially early on, where what you rolled is more important than what your actual bonus is. Later, when the bard is giving you +5 to hit and damage, you'll like getting it on each of your umpteen attacks, rather than four times.

I think there're better ways to look at a monk than to compare it in a damage dealing capacity to a druid, which is a very powerful damage dealer, especially in the situation you were given. I'd be in the boat with the people who say it was a very lucky druid that did all that damage with summoned animals - in my experience summoning's been pretty useless.

I would recommend to you the Defender class from Midnight if you want a Bruce Lee style monk - Full base attack bonus, and less mystic stuff, rather kung-fu stuff like disarming people when they hit you, grabbing their arm and breaking it when they miss you, all that kind of stuff. More of a front line fighter - exactly what you're looking for, in fact!


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Erm hong.. have you been at the mushrooms again.



Sigh.



> First you say that noone can solo a dungeon because that is how the game is built.



Yes.



> THEN you complain that the monk never gets to get his moment of totally and dominating glory.



No. The monk never really gets a chance to compete for spotlight time. This is a far, far cry from "total and dominating glory".



> D&D isnt about glory, its about team play.



You have a remarkable way of telling me things I already know. How many times did you rehearse this line?



> Everytime I read a thread where someone whines that their PC isnt good enough I just feel like telling them to stop being so selfish.



Yes, because D&D is really all about character building. BACK IN OLDEN TIMES I WALKED SIX MILES TO THE SCHOOL, IN THE SNOW, UPHILL, BOTH WAYS, WHICH WAS MADE ALL THE MORE REMARKABLE BECAUSE THERE IS, IN FACT, NO SNOW IN AUSTRIA. SO I HAD TO HAVE IT IMPORTED FROM AUSTRALIA, THAT'S HOW MUCH CHARACTER I BUILT.

Clue for the clueless: it is, in fact, possible for a class to be a bad design. This happens when its design precedents lead to the expectation that it should be able to do certain things, but its actual mechanics fail to deliver. This has nothing at all to do with the player, except if you think people are stupid for actually believing those precedents might have something to do with the game. In which case you should perhaps go back to playing chess.



> Anyone who has played a high level cleric knows that 90% of the time you are just healing your ass off to keep the tank alive through the horrific damage output of the BBEG once the combat stats in earnist.



Bullcrap. If you're healing in combat, and blowing off spells to do so, you're being stupid. The achilles heel of a high-level cleric is not lack of spells or healing in combat, but prep time. Without a few rounds to do the divine favour/div power/righteous might thing, a cleric is mediocre. Why do you think Persistent Spell was almost universally derided as broken?



> Where is the glory in healing the fighter, but it has to be done and the party dies veryveryVERY quickly if it isnt.



Have you somehow never noticed how the class is powered up exactly because few people want to play the party medic, and need to be bribed to do so?



> Pepople complain about the "power" of high level mages, but have you SEEN the SR of highlevel mobs, or their saves ?



The fact that one complaint may be unjustified does not imply another complaint is similarly unjustified.



> The last highlevel game I played in all our mages needed to roll 12+ to defeat teh LOWEST enemy SR and most of the enemy were then saving on 1s ?



If you insist on dropping spells that target enemies' high saves, you're again being stupid.



> What use are you spells when they mobs are basically spell immune ?



Bullcrap. I have never seen a mob of _mooks_ that were immune to high-level magic. BBEGs, maybe. Mooks? Pah.



> Thats when melee people step up. No this doesnt happen every fight, it would be BAD if it did, but it happens in plenty of fights.



And noone usually complains that melee tanks are lacking in the ability to take the spotlight. They may observe that spellcasters are better able to decide a fight in one round, but overall, tanks do quite well, thankyouverymuch. At least to the extent that being a tank is possibly the most dangerous position in a party, anyway.




> Stunning first is awesome, far better than sneak attack, and noone bitches about sneak attack.



What planet are you on?



> One game I was stuck in a corridor with a drow rogue either side of me, with single figure hp. My mage was reduced to fighting defensively as he was almost out of spells. The monks stunning fist kept one of the rogues permanently stunned, and that saved my characters life.



And this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that stunning fist is good, because you stopped immediately after that and never played D&D ever again.

Question. Why don't you play the monk, and go around saving other people's lives?



> Monks get lots of neat tricks and in return they give up some BAB progression. That really is all they give up, the monk attack pregression means they dont even lose iterative attacks.



Nonsense. Hint: multiple stat dependency. Hint 2: weapon enchantments.



> So stop bitching about the monk already.



So cease babbling about matters of which you know nothing.


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can not 'stand out' in combat when faced with numerous people that say that they see it on a regular basis.



"Stand out" is a funny thing. It's really about what you, as a player, want out of the game, and the enjoyment you derive from the things your character does.

Being able to stand out has no necessary link with being a kick-butt combatant, true. If what you want your monk to be is as a character whose main niche is outside combat, then you're likely to be happy to play a support guy in combat. You're there to give flanking and other benefits for the real tanks, run interference for the wiz, take out annoying spellcasters, etc. This is fine.

However, the fact remains that this often isn't want a monk player wants. As has been repeated ad nauseam, the monk's roots are found in characters who kick butt, and so a player is likely to want to do the same. The class, however, doesn't support that style of play. If you try standing toe-to-toe with monsters, you'll typically do pissy damage and/or get whomped. You'll notice that everyone who's said their monks stand out in combat has also said it happens by the monk NOT kicking butt, but by contributing in other ways that help OTHER people kick butt. And really, that's fine. But that's not the same as saying the monk is a class that works. Just because a workaround exists doesn't mean the class has no problems.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 10, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can not 'stand out' in combat when faced with numerous people that say that they see it on a regular basis. In fact, this isn't worth arguing anymore. The only people still arguing that monks are too weak will not be convinced by any argument.
> 
> Good luck, all.




Hmm.  I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can stand out when faced with numerous people who say they see it on a regular basis.  The only people still arguing that monks aren't weak will not be convinced by any argument.

I mean, neither side lacks for adherents.

Tho' I do agree that most folks who are still with us are basically decided.  And I think that both sides might be right.  Clearly a goodly number of people are wholly satisfied with the monk as written.  It works for their temperments in their games.  Clearly, a goodly number of people are not satisfied with it.  It doesn't work for their games or their temperments.


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 10, 2004)

Monk is a support class.

Kwai Chang Caine, the Iron Monkey, the Drunken Master, and other kung-fu heroes, who are presumably the inspiration for the class, most certainly aren't support characters.

I think part of the problem is that people who select monk because they're expecting to play a cool fighter-type are generally in for a really nasty surprise.  I'd rather have a rogue in the party than a monk, myself.


----------



## Bauglir (Apr 10, 2004)

The monk is a blunt swiss army knife..  Lots of seemingly useful abilities that might be nice if they actually worked..

For example, in a similar discussion back in 3.0, I took a level 5 monk (16 dex, wis, weapon finesse) and compared it to each and every CR 5 monster in the monster manual.  The average chance to land a successful stunning fist attack came out at around 13%.  *13%!*.  Now I appreciate that that was 3.0, and that the dynamic of a class often changes from level to level, but really I can't say I've noticed this of the monk.  Feel free to do a similar study and prove me wrong..

On another note the monk _does_ appear to be defensively strong, at high levels at least, when their AC, saves and SR really start to stack up.  But the fact is that this contributes next to nothing to the party dynamic.  It reminds me of a 'melee sorcerer' character I once made as a kind of experiment.  He took every single buff he could get (including a few custom spells - basically enhanced versions of mage armour) and would then wade into melee with a longsword.  As a result he had an extremely high incorporeal touch AC.  When the party was attacked by spectres I figured this was the perfect scenario for this character, and waded in.  The high AC worked like a charm - after missing me once or twice they decided to ignore me and killed the cleric instead.  Now if my character had been able to deal more than trifling damage then perhaps they may have considered me enough of a threat and that cleric might have survived..


----------



## Sereg (Apr 10, 2004)

*Hong,*

Have my babies. Seriously.    Logic, honest assesment and not degenerating to name calling, all rare qualities on an internet message board.   

Let me address 







> Hmm. I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can stand out when faced with numerous people who say they see it on a regular basis. The only people still arguing that monks aren't weak will not be convinced by any argument.




This statement is really illogical.  I could just as easly say "I find it odd that people are still claiming that a monk CAN stand out when numerous people, on a regular bases, say they they cannot!"   It really has nothing to do with the truth of the matter.   There IS right, there IS wrong.  Facts don't change because you wish them to, or because looked at with your right eye closed and a 90' degree angle they appear differene.   There's nothing subjective about the power gained when you add up a given class's abilities measured against generic D&D power and adentures.  You can wiffle all you want saying "my campaign this" or "played smart that", because those are utterly irrelevant issues to the core of the problem with monks. Utterly. You  might as well balance shapechange because "my player, the expert, tricked the mighty wizard into turning into a frost beast when he was in a lava tube". 

It has NO BEARING ON EITHER THE ORIGINAL POST OF THIS THREAD **OR** THE DISCUSSION OF POWER OF THE MONK CLASS HEREIN.

We're arguing monk power, you're talking about warm feelings you get.  I say 1+1 is 2, you say gee golly the number 3 makes me feel happy, in my personal experience, and i also like 4 omg!

If you can't look at things in a non biased, non subjective context, and argue logically, just don't post.  The internet is full of arguments that basically boil down to "I feel this because <insert mushy feeling> countered by but i feel THIS because of my OWN <insert equally irrelevant feelings and experiences> .    You might as well argue rain makes people happy because you are a farmer and rain in fact, makes you filled with joy.   Its totally irrelant to the overall question of how rain makes people feel, overall (the answer of course is, totally subjective and has no clear-cut answer at all).  Do you see what i'm getting at?   Now on THIS argument, there IS a clear-cut answer, if you're willing to calmly examine the facts. 


The facts of the matter are indesputable, and they are this:

1) D&D is a team based, combat game at its core.

2) Upwards of 80% of experience (thus progression) is based on COMBAT power.

3) The monk has the lowest combat power of any pure melee.

4) The monk has lower combat power than any pure spellcaster, except possibly a bard (and thats very debatable).

5) The monk is a defense based class in an offense based (and favoring) game.

6) The monks much touted "options and versatility" is absolutely NOTHING compared to full spell progression (spells from level 1 to 9). In combat and out. Period.

7) The monk is so weak offensively that its only hope to be effective is to play a largely *defensive* game, attemping to play to its (few) real strengths: See, caster killing, supporting real characters (hey, another body never hurts, but some of us think it should ACTIVELY HELP MORE THAN A SUMMONED MONSTER GIVING A FLANKING BONUS). 

8) The monk fails to warn people in advance of its true nature, thus people only realize they suck late in the game, this causes (endless) grief, player-dm houserules, and basically time wasted from enjoying gameplay.  This has occured since 3.0

9) In a four person party, often as not you can replace the monk with ANY OTHER CLASS and you will come out stronger.  If you don't see this as a flaw in the system, you probably feel shapechange is a balanced spell (see: Don't bother arguing with me over this).

10) The monk looks infinitely better on paper than it plays, so do yourself a favor, and write out a druid's spell list, assuming average wisdom, from level's 1-20.  Paste that page of paper over the druids spell progression, next to his other abilities.  Now look at the monk, preferably while seated.

11) Understand that due to variable and highly campaign dependent circumstances, a basket-weaving expert may in fact be highestly desirable and powerful. THIS DOES NOT MAK A BASKET WEAVER A BALANCED CHARACTER.   The core monk, in a standard, core game, is pathetic in combat and lackluster outside.  He's outshined and outdone by every character in the game, he has no nitche that another can't OUTPERFORM HIM IN, he's a mistake born of the Matrix and Kung-Fu Legends. He adds no flavor to a western based game, in short, he's a total and utter FAILURE.

Now, what you need to keep in mind, before you reply to this is:

I play little other than monks.  Since 3.0  In our (nearing epic) campaign, I'm playing a monk.   I love the idea behind the class, the unarmed, self sufficient wise fighter with neat powers.  With enough help from an understanding DM, anything can be made playable and fixed:  That means .

3.5 made us repay for half of what were essentially patches to the rules.  I have no problem with this.  I do, however, have a problem with them making flurry slightly better, and calling the monk quits.  

To be fair, part of the problem is not the monk: It's every single warrior class.
Every single advantage the pure warriors had from second ed was removed in third, intentionally.   Unlimited constitution based hitpoint gain? Even mages get this now.   Fighter BAB at 20 used to be more than three times as good as the cleric.  Fighter saves used to be THE BEST IN THE ENTIRE GAME. A base fighter.  They changed the power of every melee in the game, fundamentally, and the sad part is people argue the monk is balanced.  I dare say, the BARBARIAN isn't balanced, and the monk can't hold a candle to him. 

Take a look at the iconic D&D party, as an example of this:  Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter.   Guess who's by FAR the most dispensible?  Thats right, the fighter. Hell, you could replace him with a Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, hell just about any class (except an average monk or bard) is gonna do here folks.  

Honestly ask yourself, if you had to lose 1 party members skills/abilities (FOREVER) out of the Cleric / Rogue / Wizard / Fighter party, who would it be?  The fighter of course, because every other class in the game can fight, but the cleric, rogue, and wizard all have things unique to them.  Stinks, doesn't it?  Sorry for the rant, sore subject for me after 4 years of this melee-biased crap


----------



## Thanee (Apr 10, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I find it really odd that people are still claiming that a monk can not 'stand out' in combat when faced with numerous people that say that they see it on a regular basis.




I don't think anyone argues, that the monk can add something meaningful to the party, or that the monk can make a good showing in a fight.

Mostly everyone is saying, that pretty much any other class will do better than the monk in the same situation.



> The only people still arguing that monks are too weak will not be convinced by any argument.




That's just because it's the truth! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 10, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Mostly everyone is saying, that pretty much any other class will do better than the monk in the same situation.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee




The other classes will do better in a situation that plays to their strengths. The monk isn't the best at anything except unarmed combat, but he isn't the worst at anything either. A monk can contribute to combat, stealth and social encounters, and has the best defences.

How do you guys think that any other class is better in any situation?

Geoff.


----------



## Darklone (Apr 10, 2004)

I had two replacement characters (level 5) once covering the exitroute of the group who got themselves into big trouble for charging into an army headquarter (stupid idea).

The two replacement chars each held up 12 soldiers (1 officer level 4, 1 bard/herald, 10 mooks level 2-3... typical for my world without magical NPC equipment). One was a dwarven fighter in full plate with waraxe and hammer. The other one was a monk ftr1 with glaive. Both survived 4 rounds and kept the enemies at bay till the group came rushing out again... glad they didn't have to bother with more than one or two soldiers who tried to close the gate again.

Comparing a level 5 monk with a CR 5 monster will not really help. I do know that's the style of many DMs, give the group a CR = groups level monster and that's it. I prefer to send in hordes of mooks with a few selected NPCs. A balanced game should have both IMHO. 

And I think noone will insist that the monks stunning fist is useless against NPCs of the groups level. 

To that paladin monk comparison above. Sooo the paladin only has a 20% chance to fail the saving throw against stunning fist?? The class with the best Fort save? And the monk does not loose anything really important (most monks I've seen scarcely ran out of stunning fist attempts) for trying a stunning fist each round? So what's the problem with stunning fist?

We had this discussion more than once... but I think some of the quitting ones here were right. People will never understand that a weak monk is not the result of class issues but of their gamestyle. Do it like our FR high power DM and throw CR (group level)+5 monsters at the group... and your monk will be useless. So if you're unable to play a monk as kickbuttcharacter like in the movies, kick your DM or look for a "balanced" game.


----------



## Thanee (Apr 10, 2004)

Geoff Watson said:
			
		

> How do you guys think that any other class is better in any situation?




Not any situation. Speaking purely of combat here.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Diirk (Apr 10, 2004)

A well built druid could probably do better than the monk in combat, in stealth AND in social settings tho... Giving up strength and dex in a point buy system means your charisma and int can be noticeably higher which = more skill points. Druids have a good skill selection and can get huge skill bonuses from wildshaping.

Druids are probably more powerful than they should be in 3.5.


----------



## Majere (Apr 10, 2004)

"Bullcrap. If you're healing in combat, and blowing off spells to do so, you're being stupid. The achilles heel of a high-level cleric is not lack of spells or healing in combat, but prep time. Without a few rounds to do the divine favour/div power/righteous might thing, a cleric is mediocre. Why do you think Persistent Spell was almost universally derided as broken?"

Erm you seem to be not listening to me here. What you are saying is that the cleric should find time to buff himself to the 9's and then step up and be a better fighter than the fighter. That just selfish play.
Learn to buff the fighter and see how much more effective that is. And the go back to healing him


"Have you somehow never noticed how the class is powered up exactly because few people want to play the party medic, and need to be bribed to do so?"

No
Cleric is by far the most popular class in our group. Imn our party of 6 (high level game) we have 3 clerics. People in our group ENJOY being clerics, and by having more it means that only one or two of them are reduced to healing monkeys. It also means we have insane healing capacity and can fight stuff APL+ 5-10 and have no deaths.
But then again we are all team players, and not out to buff our own character to the 9's for the spotlight when we can buff someone else and its much more effective.


"The fact that one complaint may be unjustified does not imply another complaint is similarly unjustified."

No its is completely justified, high level casters will have anywhere up to 3/4 of their spells wasted due to SR or saves. Just flick through creatures with CR in the 17-20 range


"The last highlevel game I played in all our mages needed to roll 12+ to defeat teh LOWEST enemy SR and most of the enemy were then saving on 1s ?  


"If you insist on dropping spells that target enemies' high saves, you're again being stupid."

Demons,devils,dragons and deathbringes have all 3 saves in the +20 region. 
The other mob was a level 18 cleric whos saves were again in the +20 range apart from his reflex which was still +17ish


"Bullcrap. I have never seen a mob of _mooks_ that were immune to high-level magic. BBEGs, maybe. Mooks? Pah."

Drow are mooks with SR
Golems are almost totally spell immune
Those are just off the top of my head
Then you APL is 16 then a mook is anything up to CR10 and there are plenty of those with SR.


Majere


----------



## hong (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Erm you seem to be not listening to me here.



I am listening to you perfectly well. I am also finding that what you say is perfectly stupid. Not that there's anything wrong with that.



> What you are saying is that the cleric should find time to buff himself to the 9's and then step up and be a better fighter than the fighter.



Why not? Do you really think that just because D&D is a team game, that means certain classes must be relegated to support status? You really need to get out more, if that's the case.



> That just selfish play.



OH NO, MAJERE JUST CALLED ME SELFISH. I AM CUT TO THE DEATH. I MUST NOW KILL MYSELF, OR MAYBE NOT.



> Learn to buff the fighter and see how much more effective that is. And the go back to healing him



Go right ahead and cast divine favour, divine power and righteous might on the fighter. I'll be waiting.

Hmm. On second thoughts, cancel that waiting business.



> "Have you somehow never noticed how the class is powered up exactly because few people want to play the party medic, and need to be bribed to do so?"
> 
> No



What planet _are_ you on?



> Cleric is by far the most popular class in our group. Imn our party of 6 (high level game) we have 3 clerics. People in our group ENJOY being clerics, and by having more it means that only one or two of them are reduced to healing monkeys.



Right. And somehow you've failed to notice that your own words give the lie to your argument: "reduced to healing monkeys". In other words, the best part of playing a cleric is not in selflessly giving up the spotlight to everyone else, but in stepping up and laying down the smack yourself. Do you make a career out of proving other people's points for them, or is it just a hobby?



> It also means we have insane healing capacity and can fight stuff APL+ 5-10 and have no deaths.



Sure, sure. And your TEN-INCH TITANIUM PENIS is bigger than mine. Whatever.



> But then again we are all team players,



Of course you are. How convenient that you're also not playing the party medic.



> and not out to buff our own character to the 9's for the spotlight when we can buff someone else and its much more effective.



Of course you are. That's why you need 3 clerics, just to buff one guy.



> "The fact that one complaint may be unjustified does not imply another complaint is similarly unjustified."
> 
> No its is completely justified, high level casters will have anywhere up to 3/4 of their spells wasted due to SR or saves. Just flick through creatures with CR in the 17-20 range



Hello in there. Read what I wrote. Then stop arguing with yourself, before you go blind.



> "If you insist on dropping spells that target enemies' high saves, you're again being stupid."
> 
> Demons,devils,dragons and deathbringes have all 3 saves in the +20 region.
> The other mob was a level 18 cleric whos saves were again in the +20 range apart from his reflex which was still +17ish



An 18th level spellcaster can also easily have save DCs in the mid to high-20s, even after Spell Focus has been nerfed. OTOH, if you're fighting things that are APL +5-10, do not expect to have an easy time with saves. You did, of course know this. Or perhaps not, given your statements thus far.



> "Bullcrap. I have never seen a mob of _mooks_ that were immune to high-level magic. BBEGs, maybe. Mooks? Pah."
> 
> Drow are mooks with SR



SR of 11 + HD. Just because something has SR does not make it "immune to high-level magic", especially if you're talking about mook-level foes.



> Golems are almost totally spell immune



A _mob_ of golems? Now you're just trolling.



> Those are just off the top of my head



The top of your head is pointy indeed, if those are the best examples you can think of.



> Then you APL is 16 then a mook is anything up to CR10 and there are plenty of those with SR.



I'm having great difficulty parsing this sentence as anything resembling English. Care to try again?

And just because I'm nice, and want to give you another chance to respond to certain statements that were made about monks, I'll repeat them here.


Clue for the clueless: it is, in fact, possible for a class to be a bad design. This happens when its design precedents lead to the expectation that it should be able to do certain things, but its actual mechanics fail to deliver. This has nothing at all to do with the player, except if you think people are stupid for actually believing those precedents might have something to do with the game. In which case you should perhaps go back to playing chess.

Multiple stat dependency. 

Weapon enchantments.

Why don't you play the monk, and go around saving other people's lives?


----------



## Majere (Apr 10, 2004)

Hong
You are so sure you are right you cant see how wrong you are.
Ive played with selfish people, they suck.
I do selflessthings all the time, my character lay down their lives for other character repeatedly. 
Ive played clerics, done nothing but heal and been happy with a job well done. Ive been the rogue who despite totally maxed skills habitually died while scouting because the module was just that deadly. Ive been the figher who did nothing but go on full defensive while the archer behind me blew the crap out of the mooks.

And I always had fun because I was playing the game with friends. I didnt mind being a support character in combat, I contributed in making plans co ordinating people. 
I dont need the spotlight to boost my ego.
You obviously do. 

We have had characters like you in your games and they were all removed pretty quickly because for US it is a team game and never an individual game. Obviously for you every character should be trying to take their moment of glory for themselves. Im glad you enjoy that sort of game. 
But that all it is, YOUR type of game.

Majere


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 10, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Hong
> You are so sure you are right you cant see how wrong you are.
> Ive played with selfish people, they suck.
> I do selflessthings all the time, my character lay down their lives for other character repeatedly.
> ...





Majere, I think hong's point is that a character should be ABLE to OCCASIONALLY take the spotlight, and that is a good thing.  Not every time, but every now and then.  Monks generally fail in this regard.

Hong: sorry if I put the wrong words in your mouth


----------



## Darklone (Apr 10, 2004)

One "hongs hat" to Ovinomancer 

And a red nose to the DM who is not able to give the monk his spotlight now and then.


----------



## Thanee (Apr 10, 2004)

In our last campaign the monk had his spotlight once... he died. Best thing, that ever happened to him. 

j/k

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Apr 10, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> In our last campaign the monk had his spotlight once... he died. Best thing, that ever happened to him.
> 
> j/k
> 
> ...




Spotlights are hot, play with fire and you are going to be burned 

Luckily though, the monk has more than enough going for him to get an equal share of the spotlight. Some spotlights are different colors even.


----------



## Shard O'Glase (Apr 10, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> To be fair, part of the problem is not the monk: It's every single warrior class.
> Every single advantage the pure warriors had from second ed was removed in third, intentionally.   Unlimited constitution based hitpoint gain? Even mages get this now.   Fighter BAB at 20 used to be more than three times as good as the cleric.  Fighter saves used to be THE BEST IN THE ENTIRE GAME. A base fighter.  They changed the power of every melee in the game, fundamentally, and the sad part is people argue the monk is balanced.  I dare say, the BARBARIAN isn't balanced, and the monk can't hold a candle to him.
> 
> Take a look at the iconic D&D party, as an example of this:  Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter.   Guess who's by FAR the most dispensible?  Thats right, the fighter. Hell, you could replace him with a Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, hell just about any class (except an average monk or bard) is gonna do here folks.
> ...




This I somewhat agree with and have been saying for a while. And yet at the same time I complain at the nerfing of spells in 3.5.  See I say the fighter especially, and then the other fighter classes suck, and should be massivley upgraded.  The fighter the most though because all the fighter does class design wise at least is fight.  And really that's all they can do on a effective CR appropriate level, and quite frankly they don't come close to owning combat enough for them to be limited outside of a fight so much.  Monks are relatively solid outside of combat, about ranger level outside of a fight, but they don't equal the ranger in a fight.

So monks are my #2 need a fix class.  Also wierdly enough wiz/sor are high on my list of classes that need a fix.  1. 3.5 killed lots of spells either making them worthless or making them more boring than any spell should be.  2. at high levels wizards vaunted spellcasting ability gets stopped by SR, energy resistance and high saves way too often.  I've seen a ton of teams do without the wiz/sor because they don't need some of the frills like teleport or other cool utility spells, and combat wise the cleric delivers the save or dies just as good, and most classes can deliver the damage on par with the direct damage spells.  So the wizard just isn't worth it to them because they are too fragile and need protection too much for what they deliver.  Or all they want is for the wizard to be some potion of fly dispensor.


----------



## beaver1024 (Apr 11, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> Take a look at the iconic D&D party, as an example of this:  Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, Fighter.   Guess who's by FAR the most dispensible?  Thats right, the fighter. Hell, you could replace him with a Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, hell just about any class (except an average monk or bard) is gonna do here folks.




Actually you can pretty much remove both the fighter and the wizard and replace them both with the cleric/druid. The only reason why the rogue remains is because of trapfinding. I've had parties pretty much consisting of all clerics/druids or at most with 1 rogue.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 11, 2004)

heh, heh, you can tell that Hong has hung out on rec.games.frp.dnd


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 11, 2004)

Rogues can be done without thanks to the utility of arcane magic.  The damage from sneak attack can be a rather vicious thing, though; getting caught between a rogue and a proper fighter is a much more serious deal than getting caught between a monk and a proper fighter.  I'd say that bards can't out-do monks in combat, but the rest of the classes can.

The main advantage of fighters is that it's rather easy for them to get into any fighting prestige classes that have some obnoxious skill requirement.  Most other classes have to allot about half of the feats that the character will ever get into prestige requirements, should they want one.  A barbarian can choose between a feat tree or a neat PrC, except in the happy coincidence that the neat PrC requires a useful feat tree.  The fighter can qualify for a PrC and also climb a couple feat trees without breaking a sweat.

In the game I'm currently playing, I've got a druid, with the rest of the core PCs being a barbarian/shaman, a wizard, and a fighter.  My druid could easily stomp the barbarian or the wizard, but I'd have to go all-out (bull's str, bear's endurance, greater magic fang, wildshape, and animal growth is what I currently define as "all-out") to defeat the fighter, and even then it might come down to initiative.

On the opposite end of that spectrum was a monk played by an incredibly obnoxious and disruptive player who outright cheated at the table (changed his feats on the spot, had 18's across the board for stats, never missed an attack, and did maximum damage on every hit).  Even when he attacked my druid with surprise and basically got 2 free rounds of attacks, I didn't have any trouble smearing him with no further prep than wildshaping into a brown bear.

I have no idea why WotC decided that druids needed a buff.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> Rogues can be done without thanks to the utility of arcane magic.




Find traps is a divine spell 



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> In the game I'm currently playing, I've got a druid, with the rest of the core PCs being a barbarian/shaman, a wizard, and a fighter.  My druid could easily stomp the barbarian or the wizard, but I'd have to go all-out (bull's str, bear's endurance, greater magic fang, wildshape, and animal growth is what I currently define as "all-out") to defeat the fighter, and even then it might come down to initiative.




seeing as how incredibly bad I know the fighter is I'd love to know what sort of setup that he has going that he could beat you hands down  Also, I'd love to know why the barb apparently cant do anything. The wizard is all too understandable, one round of attack and he'd be completely dead. So, what does this fighter and your druid look like? feel free to pm me with it if you will! thanks!


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Find traps is a divine spell
> 
> seeing as how incredibly bad I know the fighter is I'd love to know what sort of setup that he has going that he could beat you hands down  Also, I'd love to know why the barb apparently cant do anything. The wizard is all too understandable, one round of attack and he'd be completely dead. So, what does this fighter and your druid look like? feel free to pm me with it if you will! thanks!




Traps are easy to deal with -- just have the fighter set them off and keep a wand of cure light wounds handy  

The barbarian can be handled mainly because I don't think the player really knows what he's doing.  The barbarian is a barb5/shaman 5 now, but the player almost never uses his spells, relying mainly on rage and lucky crits to carry the day.  He's certainly made some _impressive_ crits, but without real prepping we're comparable in power and with real prepping (5th level spells + wildshape vs. 3rd level spells), I blow him right out of the water.

The fighter, on the other hand...  Oh, he's certainly dependant on his equipment (what non-spellcaster isn't?), but he averages 30 damage a round without power attacking, critting, or using his two-weapon fighting.  When he fights seriously, he usually shoots up to 60 damage a round.  My druid flat-out can't kill him as quickly as he could kill me.

Granted, in a real fight between the fighter and my druid, I'd stay 100 or so ft away from him at all times (thanks to my dire wolf companion) while I blast him to death with my wand of flame strike.  Taking 15 damage a round or so from arrows beats the hell out of getting chopped in half.

My experience with fighters is that they're rather scary dudes, and you should take care to make sure that the enemy never, _ever_ Dominates them.  Granted, almost every fighter I've ever seen moved into a PrC after 8th level and got even better at killing things.   But anyways, it's fighters and fighters with PrCs that deal the heavy damage.  Where fighters get screwed isn't in their power; where they get screwed is that it's too easy for clerics and druids to play at being fighters.

But the topic here is monks, and so I'll chip in two semi-related points:

1)  Characters that aren't true spellcasters _need_ gear.  Monks are kinda weird, since some of their more notable abilities (like the increasing punch damage and Stunning Blow) are totally nullified if the monks use weaponry, and the weapons that are compatible with Flurry are kinda subpar (1d6 damage, 20/x2 for crits).

2)  There are two classes with heavy multiple stat dependencies: monks and paladins.  A monk that manages to get high across-the-board stats (by whatever means -- rolling, half-celestial, whatever) is kinda comparable to a fighter of equal level who has normal stats.  On the other hand, a paladin that manages to get high across-the-board stats is truly a magnificent beast, able to adapt well to many situations and perform excellently in them.

IMO, the closest class for comparison with the monk is the rogue, and the only real advantage that a monk has over a rogue in the general scheme of things is movement speed.  Monks might be better defensively, but you need an odd party make-up (like that one party mentioned earlier that only has a monk as the frontline) for a monk to be a priority target.  Tanks, even light tanks, aren't any good when they can just be ignored.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> Traps are easy to deal with -- just have the fighter set them off and keep a wand of cure light wounds handy




You have some very easy traps in your games I see  Some traps are there to make things impassible, hit multiple people, or simply to warn everyone that you are there. If the whole complex now knows where that you are there, and possibly where, that is the problem. Cure light wounds wont help at all!



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> The fighter, on the other hand...  Oh, he's certainly dependant on his equipment (what non-spellcaster isn't?), but he averages 30 damage a round without power attacking, critting, or using his two-weapon fighting.  When he fights seriously, he usually shoots up to 60 damage a round.  My druid flat-out can't kill him as quickly as he could kill me.




Which is all well and good, but I'd still like to see what you both have. The fighter just doesnt live up to his name without some major dm help.



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> Granted, in a real fight between the fighter and my druid, I'd stay 100 or so ft away from him at all times (thanks to my dire wolf companion) while I blast him to death with my wand of flame strike.  Taking 15 damage a round or so from arrows beats the hell out of getting chopped in half.




So the fighter is pure melee and nothing else, that starts to make more sense. But then, as the fighter is 'only' good in combat, he should be able to master both melee and ranged. Once again, not living up to 'fighter' status 

But then he could hide behind something to avoid those flame strikes, attack from cover to get some bonuses to his saves, use a simple potion of flight to take the fight to you, or any number of other things. Still though, I would expect just about any class to win vs the fighter, so this is no real surprise.



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> But the topic here is monks, and so I'll chip in two semi-related points:




As you wish of course  I'll try to reply as best I can, hopefully it will make sense (it is getting very late, and it has been a long day)



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> 1)  Characters that aren't true spellcasters _need_ gear.  Monks are kinda weird, since some of their more notable abilities (like the increasing punch damage and Stunning Blow) are totally nullified if the monks use weaponry, and the weapons that are compatible with Flurry are kinda subpar (1d6 damage, 20/x2 for crits).




Every class is 'heavily' dependent on gear. Different sorts of gear for different classes, but a class 'with' gear vs a class 'without' gear and the character with the gear should be able to win pretty much every time.

Spellcasters depend on their gear just as much as anyone else. In the case of wizards and sorcs they probably depend on their gear 'more' than most others.

Monks can penetrate a pretty wide range of DR with their base attacks anyway, so nothing to worry about there. Magic/lawful/adamantine, definately not shabby! As good or better than most equipment anyway  So the monk has a bunch of money from not having to buy a really impressive weapon.

So, while everyone needs equipment, the monk is way ahead in some areas 



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> 2)  There are two classes with heavy multiple stat dependencies: monks and paladins.  A monk that manages to get high across-the-board stats (by whatever means -- rolling, half-celestial, whatever) is kinda comparable to a fighter of equal level who has normal stats.  On the other hand, a paladin that manages to get high across-the-board stats is truly a magnificent beast, able to adapt well to many situations and perform excellently in them.




Needing multiple stats is definately a problem, but you can get by with only a couple decent ones. With as many attacks as they get, and gaining full str bonus on all of them, a medium str works out to about the same as a high str over the course of attacks. Plus it is better than the twf feat chain, much better.

So the monk is about the same with a 14str as the fighter is with a 16 str in a lot of ways. No problem there.

Plus, the belt of perfection, or whatever it is called, only costs 200k 

Still, it is a problem, but in a way it is also a bonus. Not as big as the penalty most of the time, but the monk does gain lots of stuff from pretty much every stat. Straight 14's (36 point buy, strangely this is the same as the game I am in now) makes for a very interesting and fun monk. Lose a few points here and there to drop the point buy and pick which type of monk you want to play.



			
				Epametheus said:
			
		

> IMO, the closest class for comparison with the monk is the rogue, and the only real advantage that a monk has over a rogue in the general scheme of things is movement speed.  Monks might be better defensively, but you need an odd party make-up (like that one party mentioned earlier that only has a monk as the frontline) for a monk to be a priority target.  Tanks, even light tanks, aren't any good when they can just be ignored.




monk vs rogue?  Monk has way better defensive capabilities at every level. Monk has better hp. Monk is less dependent on certain types of equipment. Sneak attack is largely irrelevant, it works now and then, but rarely. As levels increase it gets used less and less. Most creatures are either resistant or immune, the rest can become so easily.

So after sneak attack the monk is better in a number of ways. The rogue wins in breadth of skill selection, but the monks skills are pretty good anyway. The rogue can search for traps, the monk gets a list of special abilities.

The comparison isnt very straight forward, although it is interesting. Monks have their own strengths, but apparently most people just cant see them. It is an interesting demographic really 

Monks can definately shine, they just need the proper chance. But that is the same for _every_ character class so it isnt like that is special. There are threads about every class out there being too weak and others saying it is too strong. For the most part I think that the monk is done pretty well, they have a few items custom made for them (like the monks belt) that really help them out if they are going for certain build types. There are feats galore that can help them in the rest. Pick what you want the monk to be good at, within a very broad range, and you can do it. Try to be incredible at too many things and pay the consequences, just like any other character class. The monks are already 'good' at many things, and that is certainly something to be proud of, it takes very little work to excel at something within that area.


----------



## two (Apr 11, 2004)

*Point buy monk*

I forgot to mention:  anyone ever played a 25, 28, or 30- point-buy monk?

You can make any other class reasonably well on these rather common point buys; the monk is however screwed.

Str:  16 (10 points)
Dex:  16 (10 points)
Con:  12 (4 points)
Int: -
Ch: -
Wis:  12 (4 points)

This is a 28 point buyer.  Swap Strength with Wis, or Dex with Wis if desired.  Result is either a low AC (Str=16 takes a lot of points) or a decent ac (dex,wis=16) but pitiful to-hit and damage.  

In all cases, con is low, hp's low, int 8, ch 8.

It just is impossible.  ANY other class, even paladin, is easier than this.  Paladin can at least dump dex to 12 or 10!

If you ramp up the point buy to 36 or 40, your monk can be decent -- but at this point, your fellow PC's have Con=18, main stat=18, and well... it's not pretty.  A 36 or 40 point Paladin, or Fighter, or Barb is well..pretty scary.  Ditto a caster; 18 in main caster stat, high con, high dex probably.  Zoikes.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

two said:
			
		

> I forgot to mention:  anyone ever played a 25, 28, or 30- point-buy monk?




Depends on the wealth level of the campaign really, but as with any low point buy game, characters who need more than one stat at all will be more hosed that those who can get by on less 

Str 14
Dex 14
Con 14
Wis 14
Int 10
Cha 10
---
28 point buy character, nicely rounded really. (int and cha can be moved around to taste). As this character goes up in levels instead of buying a weapon they will buy stat boosters. instead of buying armor they will get bracers of armor and such. In the end it will work out about the same 

Not nearly as 'kill them all' as a guy with 18 str? well duh, that isnt the monks job anyway. The character given above will be able to do many things pretty well to well. If you are going to play a monk learn how to pick your strengths wisely, learn how to get to where you want to be with good item placement and feat choices. It can be done!

Sure it may take a bit of thinking and planning, but that certainly isnt a bad thing  Some people even enjoy that sort of thing more.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Poking my head back in, minor comment... Unless you plan on being a glaive-monk or grapple-monk, I'd stick with Str 10 and get Weapon Finesse at first level. Having high Dex is too useful for AC, whereas damage is going to escalate anyway.

25 point build:
Str 10 (2)
Dex 16 (10)
Con 13 (5)
Wis 14 (6)
Int 10 (2)
Cha 8

First point goes into Con, then everything else into Dex. Starting AC of 16. With weapon finesse, attack bonus of +3 at first level.

By 10th level, for 16k (out of a recommended 49k), the monk could have an AC of 25 (improved dex by 2, base +2 AC, items: wisdom +2, dex +2, bracer of armor +2, ring of prot +1, amulet of natural armor +1), and he'd have an attack bonus of +12 (or more, with other equipment).


----------



## Darklone (Apr 11, 2004)

High strength monks have been much more successful IME... the high dex dudes are exactly the combat wussies people here complain about. Your AC will be bad, but you can rely on Spring attacking Stunning Fists to avoid getting hit too much.

Scion: Now the fighter is weak? Who's next, the cleric? I wait for the first "My druid is so weak, the class must be broken" rant here. 

Call me stupid, give me a hat and put me in a bag, then beat it with sticks, I should have quitted this thread long ago... you guys get silly now. Teaming, I quit!


----------



## Sereg (Apr 11, 2004)

*Uhhh*



			
				Darklone said:
			
		

> Scion: Now the fighter is weak? Who's next, the cleric? I wait for the first "My druid is so weak, the class must be broken" rant here.




When was the fighter ever NOT weak? 3.0? Give me a break, are you seriously saying the fighter is a strong class?  The *fighter*.  Not fighter5/prc10/prc5.  The *fighter*.   A strong class?  I really needed the laugh I got off this.  ROFL.    Monks and Fighters, quick nerf them before three of them band together and take the job of a single Druid.

And speaking of monk stats, we really aren't actually discussing this are we? When a class needs MORE stats to be the SAME power, that makes that class *weaker*.  There's no need to debate this or give examples.  Just accept it and move on.  There's NOTHING to debate or argue.


Sereg

ps. It just hit me that fighters and monks are flipsides of the same retarded coin:  A monk DARE NOT multiclass lest he lose his few semi decent high level abilities, and a fighter who doesn't jump ship as soon as humanly possible only gets worse and worse.   Great design, good game melee.


----------



## Ogre Mage (Apr 11, 2004)

> Traps are easy to deal with -- just have the fighter set them off and keep a wand of cure light wounds handy



 Heh, I don't think our party fighter would like (or live very long) with that approach.  Especially the CON draining poison needle trap in the last module, the cloudkill trap we encountered 3 sessions back, or the enervation trap just last session.  So much for a cure light wounds wand.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Hong
> You are so sure you are right you cant see how wrong you are.
> Ive played with selfish people, they suck.
> I do selflessthings all the time, my character lay down their lives for other character repeatedly.
> ...



RIFTS PLAYER ALERT! RIFTS PLAYER ALERT!


----------



## shilsen (Apr 11, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> When was the fighter ever NOT weak? 3.0? Give me a break, are you seriously saying the fighter is a strong class?  The *fighter*.  Not fighter5/prc10/prc5.  The *fighter*.   A strong class?  I really needed the laugh I got off this.  ROFL.




I wouldn't say the fighter is among the strongest classes, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it (in 3.0 or 3e) other than being somewhat lacking in inherent flavor. Many campaigns don't cater to the class' strengths (versatility in combat, for one) but that's not a problem with the class. YMMV and obviously does.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Well, sereg, when people are being asshats, you come sit next to me and we can chat. 

Why is low-STR monk bad? You're trading maybe 3 or so points of damage per blow for 3 or so points of AC. I'd think the base monk damage, amulet of natural attacks (or whatever that thing is), and so forth would be more significant?


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Well, sereg, when people are being asshats, you come sit next to me and we can chat.
> 
> Why is low-STR monk bad? You're trading maybe 3 or so points of damage per blow for 3 or so points of AC. I'd think the base monk damage, amulet of natural attacks (or whatever that thing is), and so forth would be more significant?




Early on, though, it just sucks to have a monk without a good Str 'cause otherwise . . . well, what can the monk do?

My monk is pretty strong and his gauntlets of ogre power were one of the first things he got -- and on those merits for several levels the monk "felt" like a decent class.  (It helped that the paladin's player moved to Georgia and I didn't have him there for comparison, outstripping the monk in effectiveness constantly.)  I mean, without a decent strength, the monk can't hold their own against a single goblin, really.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say the fighter is among the strongest classes, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it (in 3.0 or 3e) other than being somewhat lacking in inherent flavor. Many campaigns don't cater to the class' strengths (versatility in combat, for one) but that's not a problem with the class. YMMV and obviously does.




The fighter just doesnt get enough feats to be as versitile as he needs to be. All of the other combat classes get a bunch of class abilities that go towards some goal. Take the ranger, he can choose either twf or ranged. After that he has a bunch of other abilities also. He can be both good at melee and ranged, while still having all sorts of things to fall back on. The fighter? If he has a 'huge' feat selection from a wide variety of sources and min/max's like crazy to get the absolute best I still havent seen one that really makes up for his devestating inability to do anything outside of combat, and, at the same time, was still pretty much the same as any other combat class anyway.

anyway though, not the right place for this debate I know ;/ sorry about that.

Still, the stat'd monk I gave above for a low point buy works fine. Decent ac, good amount of attacks and damage. The best? nope, but he isnt supposed to be. He is supposed to be a very well rounded character that can do pretty much anything that he needs to do. That is his job, be able to always have something to add, no matter what the circumstances. That is an important job indeed


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Early on, though, it just sucks to have a monk without a good Str 'cause otherwise . . . well, what can the monk do?



Heck, even later on, a monk without a good Str is sucky. Say you started with 10 Str at 1st level, and at 20th, you've increased that to 20 Str. Therefore, you do 2d10+5 = 16 on average with each hit. Meanwhile, the barbarian with the greatsword is probably doing 2d6+5 (enhancement) +15 (Str) +2d6 (holy) +1d6 (flaming) = 34 on average per hit, when raging (and he will most definitely be raging in each fight that counts). Even a sword+shield fighter is doing 1d8 +5 (enhancement) +8 (Str) +4 (WS/GWS) +2d6 (holy) +1d6 (flaming) = 32 on average, and I'm being conservative. 20 Str also means you're not going to trip or grapple anything worth mentioning. The exception might be the aforementioned wimpy mages, for what it's worth.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Still, the stat'd monk I gave above for a low point buy works fine.



For certain values of "fine", anyway.



> Decent ac, good amount of attacks and damage. The best? nope, but he isnt supposed to be. He is supposed to be a very well rounded character that can do pretty much anything that he needs to do.



... except be decent in combat, which is what the monk should be. That's what the class is supposed to represent, a combat guy. The fact that people can make up handwaves after-the-fact to shoehorn the class into a game doesn't change this.



> That is his job, be able to always have something to add, no matter what the circumstances. That is an important job indeed



For certain values of "important", anyway.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Heck, even later on, a monk without a good Str is sucky. Say you started with 10 Str at 1st level, and at 20th, you've increased that to 20 Str. Therefore, you do 2d10+5 = 16 on average with each hit. Meanwhile, the barbarian with the greatsword is probably doing 2d6+5 (enhancement) +15 (Str) +2d6 (holy) +1d6 (flaming) = 34 on average per hit, when raging (and he will most definitely be raging in each fight that counts). Even a sword+shield fighter is doing 1d8 +5 (enhancement) +8 (Str) +4 (WS/GWS) +2d6 (holy) +1d6 (flaming) = 32 on average, and I'm being conservative. 20 Str also means you're not going to trip or grapple anything worth mentioning. The exception might be the aforementioned wimpy mages, for what it's worth.




Of course, this is horrible comparison  you give the monk effectively nothing, and everyone else gets loads of magical equipment.

'1st level commoners are too strong! he beat up our 5th level party! of course he had some item that gave him infinite spell resistance, a touch ac of 100 and damage of 5d20 to any target up to 3 miles.. but it was the commoner that was the bad part!'

Sure, whatever you say.

how about we give the monk a bunch of extra equipment to make them a bit more even?

Pick up that ring which makes the wearer one size category larger, pick up a monks belt, pick up an item that casts greater magic fang a few times a day at a decent plus. Now, your barb still has a whole lot more gp in equipment, but now the monk does: 6d8 +10 (avg 37) with more attacks. Plus he has an extra 100kgp to play with. Not too shabby.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Of course, this is horrible comparison  you give the monk effectively nothing, and everyone else gets loads of magical equipment.



Stuff and nonsense.



> how about we give the monk a bunch of extra equipment to make them a bit more even?



How do you think you get that 10 Str up to 20? Play tiddlywinks?



> Pick up that ring which makes the wearer one size category larger,



What "ring that makes the wearer one size category larger"?



> pick up a monks belt,



Which doesn't affect damage.



> pick up an item that casts greater magic fang a few times a day at a decent plus.



That's the only thing that might affect damage in this situation.



> Now, your barb still has a whole lot more gp in equipment, but now the monk does: 6d8 +10 (avg 37) with more attacks. Plus he has an extra 100kgp to play with. Not too shabby.



And the barb (and anyone else) can do exactly the same thing wrt enlarge person. It's entirely irrelevant, unless you mean to say that the barb has more money left over.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

To me, all these level 20 examples and illustrations are weird.  I mean, I never have seen a game at these levels -- not just been in, never seen.  Most games, in my experience, wind up way before level 20.  To me, all these sorts of illustrations are very, very hypothetical.

Which is also another reason why I've been leery of accepting arguments about how monks become balanced at some hypothetical higher level.  In my game, the characters go up in level about once a month (which is pretty typical).  Saying that my 6th level monk is gonna be balance at level 13 is saying, y'know, "Oh, wait SEVEN MONTHS and your monk will be OK."  The level 20 examples I feel are wholly apocryphal -- a place I'll never be.  

So why the examples are interesting, I've been wondering why people focus on the really high level stuff instead of the stuff that is more commonly played -- the 1st through 10th level stuff.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> To me, all these level 20 examples and illustrations are weird.  I mean, I never have seen a game at these levels -- not just been in, never seen.  Most games, in my experience, wind up way before level 20.  To me, all these sorts of illustrations are very, very hypothetical.
> 
> Which is also another reason why I've been leery of accepting arguments about how monks become balanced at some hypothetical higher level.  In my game, the characters go up in level about once a month (which is pretty typical).  Saying that my 6th level monk is gonna be balance at level 13 is saying, y'know, "Oh, wait SEVEN MONTHS and your monk will be OK."  The level 20 examples I feel are wholly apocryphal -- a place I'll never be.
> 
> So why the examples are interesting, I've been wondering why people focus on the really high level stuff instead of the stuff that is more commonly played -- the 1st through 10th level stuff.



 The thing is that with the rate of XP gain in 3E, any long-term campaign is likely to end up in the 15-20 range before too long -- say 18 months to 2 years. Therefore, what might have seemed like an unattainable end in 2E is actually within reach, and so high-level comparisons do have some relevance to actual play.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Stuff and nonsense.




you certainly do spout a lot of drivel, why is that?



			
				hong said:
			
		

> How do you think you get that 10 Str up to 20? Play tiddlywinks?




with a lesser investment than your barb going from str X to str 30.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> Which doesn't affect damage.




Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and *unarmed damage* is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the belt lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk. This AC bonus functions just like the monk’s AC bonus.
Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, righteous might or transformation; Price 13,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.

Ahh.. so increaseing damage doesnt effect damage. I'll remember that for the future hong.



			
				hong said:
			
		

> That's the only thing that might affect damage in this situation.




other than say.. all of the other things that also effect damage. one of the two.


			
				hong said:
			
		

> And the barb (and anyone else) can do exactly the same thing wrt enlarge person. It's entirely irrelevant, unless you mean to say that the barb has more money left over.




Sure he could, but I was going by your example. he had already used up X amount of gear gp. I merely made an example that did better and had a lesser cost. Not that each of these examples couldnt be improved of course, I was merely going with the boundaries you had already in place for your barb.

Easy enough. In this example the monk wins, hands down.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> So why the examples are interesting, I've been wondering why people focus on the really high level stuff instead of the stuff that is more commonly played -- the 1st through 10th level stuff.




Strangely, my example above works at the lower levels as well, with change left over  The only thing that was level dependant was the actual damage being dealt.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> The thing is that with the rate of XP gain in 3E, any long-term campaign is likely to end up in the 15-20 range before too long -- say 18 months to 2 years. Therefore, what might have seemed like an unattainable end in 2E is actually within reach, and so high-level comparisons do have some relevance to actual play.




That's be the thing, then: IME, games don't generally last more than a year or so.  Heck, one of the GMs I know has his games generally last a semester before winding them up.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> you certainly do spout a lot of drivel, why is that?



No, Scion, just because you're wrong and I'm right doesn't make it "drivel".




> with a lesser investment than your barb going from str X to str 30.



Barb:
15 Str + 1 level + 6 enhancement + 8 mighty rage = 30.

Monk:
10 Str + 2 level + 6 enhancement + 2 inherent = 20.

Did you not notice what I said about "being conservative"? A more realistic scenario for the barb might be 15 Str + 3 level + 6 enhancement + 2 inherent + 8 mighty rage = 34. A twinked-out scenario for the barb might be 20 Str + 5 level + 6 enhancement + 5 inherent + 8 mighty rage = 44. And with the ability to rage 6 times per day, you can bet your willies that the barb will be raging for every encounter that matters.




> Belt, Monk’s: This simple rope belt, when wrapped around a character’s waist, confers great ability in unarmed combat. The wearer’s AC and *unarmed damage* is treated as a monk of five levels higher.



Did you not notice that the characters in question are 20th level?




> Ahh.. so increaseing damage doesnt effect damage. I'll remember that for the future hong.



No Scion, if you're going to steal my schtick, you're going to have to do better than that.



> Sure he could, but I was going by your example. he had already used up X amount of gear gp. I merely made an example that did better and had a lesser cost.



Unfortunately, it was nonsensical. But do try again.



> Not that each of these examples couldnt be improved of course, I was merely going with the boundaries you had already in place for your barb.



Unfortunately, you failed to comprehend them. But do try again.



> Easy enough. In this example the monk wins, hands down.



For certain values of "wins", anyway.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Strangely, my example above works at the lower levels as well, with change left over  The only thing that was level dependant was the actual damage being dealt.




Not really, I think.  I mean, before 4th level its pretty hard to get any magic gear at all -- and the gear that can be gotten . . . well, roughly none of it favors monks.  I mean, the barbarian can get his masterwork greatsword and the fighter can really escalate the armor he wears -- but I remember going through low levels and going, "My character can't get BUPKISS."  Further, at fourth level the inclination to get a spiffy weapon was a definite awkward trade-off I was aware of.  I chose not to get a masterwork weapon because at fourth level I knew my unarmed damage would make that a lateral move that just, really, wasted money.  On the other hand, the barbarian's masterwork greatsword goes straight from masterwork to being enchanted.

So, at low levels, the barbarians damage is just incredibly higher than the monk's -- he'd be doing something like 1d12+4 (bumped up to 1d12+7 if raging) and be far more likely to hit (higher BAB + masterwork weapon + higher Str [vis-a-vis the monk's weapon finesse'd Dex] . . . which is even better when the barbarian rages).

In short, I think in a high level game some of these issues I'm talking about . . . I mean, yeah, you're right.  Get a widget of magic fang +5 and a ring of flaming hands of the inferno and, sure, you might be able to kick ass (tho' I still doubt on the same level as the barbarian).  But at lower levels, you can't shore up your deficiencies at all with magic.  Which is a radical change from higher levels.


----------



## youspoonybard (Apr 11, 2004)

Hong, you're talking about inherent, right?  Or insight?


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2004)

youspoonybard said:
			
		

> Hong, you're talking about inherent, right?  Or insight?



 Oops, yeah, inherent, insight, same diff.


----------



## Scion (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Not really, I think.  I mean, before 4th level its pretty hard to get any magic gear at all -- and the gear that can be gotten . . . well, roughly none of it favors monks.




you said 1 - 10, everything I listed works at level 10, and gets smaller as levels increase.

As for the rest of your post though, sure, the barb is made to deal damage. He had better deal more than the monk!!! The monk has all sorts of other advantages, and arent made for hitting that hard. However, they can do just about as well anyway. Staves are monk weapons so early on you can have a masterwork staff and play with that. If your wisdom is really low you can wear some armor until you get enhancements for your wisdom and bracers. These are all easy things to do.

But, at lower levels and higher levels the monk gets more attacks, and has special abilities to make those attacks interesting. So the barb does d12 +7 at 4th? (pretty impressive, 18 str and all.. for that many points you can nearly have 3 othe stats covered, you will be a much better all around character.. that isnt a bad thing, no matter what hong says). you do d6+3/d6+3. Not as impressive, but you have a much greater chance each round to actually do some damage, and with less wasted damage. It doesnt matter if he does 19 points of damage to a guy with 4 hp after all. He'll be better at the big bad guy? sure, that is his emphasis, not yours. If you want big damage play the barb, if you want a whole lot of options while still being able to do decent damage the monk is a good deal.


----------



## Bauglir (Apr 11, 2004)

Is everyone just totally forgetting BAB?

My experience with the monk generally involves endless flurries of misses..

Also don't forget that the monk forgoes the bonus to hit of a magic weapon by using their natural attacks (you know the class ability) and if they DO use a monk weapon, they will be using (as has been mentioned previously) some pretty feeble weapons.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Except, of course, the monk can get amulet of mighty fists or monk's belt.


----------



## Bauglir (Apr 11, 2004)

Does the monk's belt give a bonus to hit?  I thought it just increased AC and unarmed damage.

The amulet of mighty fists is a good item, but iirc it's prohibitively expensive (triple the cost of a magic weapon I believe?)  Is there a version of it in any of the 3.5e books yet?

Regardless the low BAB is IME still going to sting.  You can't just assume a monk will hit the way you can do with a barbarian.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Well, true. Monks have a lower chance to hit. That's a trade-off with better defenses.

Really, the idea that picking the schtick of 'big tough guy with a huge sword' vs 'fast nimble guy who runs around naked,' I'd be annoyed if I was a barbarian or fighter next to a monk who was doing the same as me.


----------



## two (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Well, true. Monks have a lower chance to hit. That's a trade-off with better defenses.
> 
> Really, the idea that picking the schtick of 'big tough guy with a huge sword' vs 'fast nimble guy who runs around naked,' I'd be annoyed if I was a barbarian or fighter next to a monk who was doing the same as me.




Except you have not shown that a monk has better "defenses", particularly in point-buy-land.  

Except of course for saves.  Monks DO have nice saves.

AC?  Usually very sub-par, barring scintillating stats and high-money campaign.

Typical Level 4 Monk, with Dex=16, Wis=16 (20 point buy points) = AC 16.

Typical Level 4 Barbarian with Dex 12 + breastplate = AC=16.  (note relatively low dex here).  Point buy cost = 4.

Cheaper for the Barb to up this AC than the monk (armor bonuses are cheap).

Any other 2nd- or 1st-tier fighter class has well in excess of AC=16 at 4th level, pre-magic.  Cleric will have AC 18 with armor+shield, rogue ac=17 with chain shirt+dex, etc. etc.  Typically.

Monks have lower hitpoints too, and a monk spending 20 points on a 16 dex, 16 wis has little left over for strength and CON.  

So, very low AC, pretty low hitpoints.  Good saves and maneuverability.  This is worth giving up BAB, weapon damage, etc. ?

How does this monk have "good" defenses, barring saves?


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Um, how is it easier for the barbarian to buy up armor bonus than a monk? Bracers of armor cost exactly the same as an armor bonus to armor.

Monks have at least one more type of item that can give them AC, wisdom items. Furthermore, since they don't have a cap on Dex due to armor, they can get more of an AC benefit out of Dex items. That makes it much cheaper to improve AC as a monk than as a barbarian. (and even more so than a heavily armored fighter)


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Ok, looking at examples, the advantage monks have in number of items really only kicks in around level 8, when you can afford the minimum list of items.

Test examples: 8th level monk and 8th level barbarian, let's assume half of standard treasure is used to improve AC, and let's go with a monk with 16 Dex and 14 Wis (which I think is a little more doable) and a barbarian with Dex 12.

Standard wealth is 27k, let's use 17k.

Monk:
Has put 2 ability score points into Dex, now at Dex 18. Without items, AC is 16.
Items: 
Bracers of armor +2 (4,000)
Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4,000)
Periapt of Wisdom +2 (4,000)
Amulet of natural armor +1 (3,000 : +50% with periapt)
Ring of protection +1 (2,000)

This comes out to an AC of 22.

Barbarian:
At higher levels, mithril full plate might be a good idea, but probably not worth it yet.
+3 Breastplate (Armor +7) (9,350)
Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4,000)
Amulet of natural armor +1 (2,000)
Ring of protection +1 (2,000)

A little over, by 350. No biggie. Total AC is 20.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Well, true. Monks have a lower chance to hit. That's a trade-off with better defenses.
> 
> Really, the idea that picking the schtick of 'big tough guy with a huge sword' vs 'fast nimble guy who runs around naked,' I'd be annoyed if I was a barbarian or fighter next to a monk who was doing the same as me.




But . . . monks don't really have better defenses.  When the paladin was in my game (before the player moved) his character consistently had a better AC (and saves, after first level) than my monk!  And more hit points.

So, yeah, I think I'm falling into the camp of monks not really having better defenses than other fighter types.  Or, rather, *than* fighter types, because monks just *aren't*.  Though I think they should be.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Barbarian:
> At higher levels, mithril full plate might be a good idea, but probably not worth it yet.
> +3 Breastplate (Armor +7) (9,350)
> Gloves of Dexterity +2 (4,000)
> ...




Sorta forgetting that the barbarian also has damage reduction by this time.  One could consider that an important item of defense.  Also, the barbarian can match the monk's AC pretty easily by picking up a shield.

And of the heavy damage fighter types, barbarians have the *lowest* ACs.


----------



## two (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> Ok, looking at examples, the advantage monks have in number of items really only kicks in around level 8, when you can afford the minimum list of items.
> 
> Test examples: 8th level monk and 8th level barbarian, let's assume half of standard treasure is used to improve AC, and let's go with a monk with 16 Dex and 14 Wis (which I think is a little more doable) and a barbarian with Dex 12.
> 
> ...




You also forgot I was being "nice" and only having the barbarian "spend" 4 points, vs. the monk's outlay of 16 point-buy points (dex=16, wis=14).

To be fair, let's give the barb 16 points to work with too.  He buys a dex=18 (16 points), and leaves his wisdom at 8.

So, now the barb's AC is up 3 points (due to dex.) and his total AC is 23.  Better than the Monk's, given equal point-buy spendage.  And more flexible (add shield for more).  Touch AC is worse, granted.  Drop the barb's dex to 16, save 6 point buy points, and dump them into...whatever.  Now the barb's AC is the same as the monk's, and you have 6 more points to play with, more hitpoints, way more damage output.

Just not seeing it.

As everyone as pointed out, Barb's have the worse AC of any semi-fighting class, no doubt.


----------



## ForceUser (Apr 11, 2004)

Poking my head back in: you ought to ask your DM if you can build an ascetic monk from the Book of Exalted Deeds. A monk who takes a Vow of Poverty gains big AC boosts and damage boosts verses evil creatures. I worked one out for fun - at 20th level, with certain exalted feats such as Intuitive Attack and Holy _Ki_ Strike, he'd have a 29 Wis, a 43 AC, and be +30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+8 and 2d6 holy) on attacks. Hitting with all attacks averages out to be around 125 damage per round verses evil critters. Not too shabby considering he'd still have a junkload of other cool abilities - if you took an exalted feat called Fist of the Heavens, at 20th level this ascetic monk's stunning fist DC would be 29 (31 vs. evil). 

Anyway. That's what I'm doing with my monk.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

ForceUser said:
			
		

> Poking my head back in: you ought to ask your DM if you can build an ascetic monk from the Book of Exalted Deeds. A monk who takes a Vow of Poverty gains big AC boosts and damage boosts verses evil creatures. I worked one out for fun - at 20th level, with certain exalted feats such as Intuitive Attack and Holy _Ki_ Strike, he'd have a 29 Wis, a 43 AC, and be +30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+8 and 2d6 holy) on attacks. Hitting with all attacks averages out to be around 125 damage per round verses evil critters. Not too shabby considering he'd still have a junkload of other cool abilities - if you took an exalted feat called Fist of the Heavens, at 20th level this ascetic monk's stunning fist DC would be 29 (31 vs. evil).
> 
> Anyway. That's what I'm doing with my monk.




The DM doesn't have the book, but I've seen the Vow of Poverty stuff and . . . well, I actually like playing Rashad (aka Adamantine Moneybags, due to the invincibility of his cashflow and related issues . . . not precisely the "Vow of Poverty" sort of guy, hehe).

Me and the DM have worked things out to our mutual satisfaction.  We improved the monk's BAB to the best and we clipped some class features to add a few feats.  If it comes overpowered later on, we'll trim back some of these things.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB/two: Yes, the barbarian could have better AC with a shield or higher Dex. I was assuming that the barbarian would be focusing on the 'barbarian thang,' which works very well at two-weapon power attacks and focusing on Strength.

See, a monk is better off going weapon finesse (IMO), where Dex helps both AC and attacks. A barbarian is better off going Strength, though a little Dex is good. That's why I did the layout above.

If you ignore the focus of a character, well, you could have a wizard in full plate at 10th level, with some Dex and lots of AC enchantments. Any character can do that. The point is what pursuits fit best with the class' strengths.

And then there's the saves (and still mind) and evasion (improved by 10th) that a barbarian doesn't get, plus whatever resistance items the character has. The barbarian does have DR, true.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

Darnit. Repeat, sorry.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> CPXB/two: Yes, the barbarian could have better AC with a shield or higher Dex. I was assuming that the barbarian would be focusing on the 'barbarian thang,' which works very well at two-weapon power attacks and focusing on Strength.
> 
> See, a monk is better off going weapon finesse (IMO), where Dex helps both AC and attacks. A barbarian is better off going Strength, though a little Dex is good. That's why I did the layout above.
> 
> ...




I wasn't saying that the barbarian shouldn't play to his strengths, and I was going *with* your assumptions -- but one of the class features of the barbarian is the ability to use a shield.  Using a shield *is* one of the barbarian's strengths.  And damage reduction most CERTAINLY is defensive in nature, as applicable to straight fighting and I pointed out you left out DR out of the mix.

And if you bring up saves, its fair to bring up the barbarian's offense.  While your eighth level monk is doing around 1d8 damage, the barbarian is doing 1d12+9 points of damage -- putting something down fast is a wonderful way to avoid taking damage, and the barbarian will be putting stuff down roughly four times as fast as the monk.  *Literally four times as fast*.  Cutting down the length of time something can attack you could be construed as defensive.

Also, hit points.  Sure, the monk doesn't take as much damage from many spells due to evasion -- but the barbarian just has a huge pile of hit points that the monk doesn't have.  Not to mention uncanny dodge, which means sneak attacks won't be taking down Mr. Barbarian, no they will not -- and they do still threaten monks.

While the monk is strong compared to the barbarian in the Will department in particular, a low strength monk simply cannot remotely compare to a barbarian in a fight.  The have very modest to non-existent bonuses to defense while the barbarian is so overwhelming in offense that the fights will be much, much shorter in comparison.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

The best defence is a good offense? Do you see how tautological you are being? No _wonder_ you think certain classes are just 'better.'

And, right midstream, you use a barbarian's damage with a two handed weapon (if I read that right). Should he be using a shield or not??

Nevermind, I should have stuck with my first instinct. Ciao and good gaming.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> The best defence is a good offense? Do you see how tautological you are being? No _wonder_ you think certain classes are just 'better.'
> 
> And, right midstream, you use a barbarian's damage with a two handed weapon (if I read that right). Should he be using a shield or not??
> 
> Nevermind, I should have stuck with my first instinct. Ciao and good gaming.




If its good enough for Patton, its good enough for me.  And it isn't a tautology, it's a <I>contradiction</i> at worst.  Though I don't even think that is the case.  But, discard it.  I concede my post was not particularly well designed.

However, barbarians have plenty of defense -- damage reduction, uncanny dodge, tons of hit points, and ACs on par with monks, sheild or not.  I'd say that matches fairly nicely with a monk's improves saves and evasion.  And two-handed weapon or not -- so instead of doing 1d12+9 he does a mere 1d8+6 and is *still* doing more than twice as much damage as the monk at the same AC.  Either way, advantage: barbarian by a mile.

I mean, if it came down to a fight, I'd much rather have the barbarian dishin' out tons of damage compared to some monk doing 1d8 points of damage.  Even if the monk was getting hit 10% less of the time.

He should be using a shield as appropriate to the situation.  The CHOICE to use a shield is part of the class, as is the choice to use a one handed or two handed weapon.  Options monks don't have.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Not to mention, Will, you're bringing up the fighter type with the lowest AC of the lot.


----------



## Will (Apr 11, 2004)

CPXB, I didn't start comparing barbarians and monks.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 11, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> CPXB, I didn't start comparing barbarians and monks.




Neither did I!  The only class to which I explicitly compared the monk was paladin, pages and pages ago at this point.

However, while you did not bring up the barbarian, you entered into the discussion about it and I think it is fair to say that you didn't mention all the elements that make up a barbarian's defense.  Nor a monk's.  You started your comparison strictly on the grounds of AC -- and I think its fair to say if you're going to maximize for AC (neither of your examples included people buying magic weapons, which we all know is what people prefer to buy with their gold, hehe) it is fair to give the barbarian a shield. 

My post before last was muddied and incoherent -- my concentration was divided -- but I just don't think its fair to say that a monk's defenses are actually better than barbarians.  Either taken strictly from the POV of AC or including other defensive abilities.  The monk has better saves, evasion and still mind but the barbarian has many more hit points, uncanny dodge and damage reduction.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 12, 2004)

Dudes. 

Look. It's Easter here in the US. A day for celebration of the most important monk in history (robes, no weapons, performs a few things that seem impossible, got around, etc ...)

At least you can put off the monk bashing until tomorrow ...


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

Ooo Oo can I play ? (I only have SRD bear with me)

32 point monk buy, level 12:
Halfling "Lucky the unkillable"

Point Buy: Str: 12 Dex: 16 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10
Level 12 : Str: 10 Dex: 21 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10

Wealth: (88k)
Wand of mage armor (750)
Wand or barkskin      (4500)
Belt, Monks             (13k)
Boots of speed         (12k)
Glove of Dex +4        (16k)
Periapt of wisdom +4 (16k)
cloak of resistance +5(25k)

==Stats: Str: 10 Dex: 25 Con:14 Wis:20 Int:10 cha:40
==Ac:  10+ 4(mage armor)+2(barkskin)+7(Dex) +3(monk) +5(wis)+1(small)+1(haste from boots)+1(dodge feat) = 34 (32 touch,26 flatfooted)

Note to the above you can easily add luck and deflection, I chose to buy wands of spells so I wasnt a drain on the casters but to the above you can add a ring of deflection instead of the wands for another 1 ac.
Also not when fighting defensively the monk has enough ranks to add another 4 ac to the above. Or full defensive you can add 6, great for blocking off a wall or corridor while the spell slingers throw attacks beyond you.

== Saves: Fort: +17 Ref: +22 Will:+20

Wow .. those look respectable dont they
Plus you have:
Improved eavsion
Immune to non magical diseases
Immune to poison
Deflect Arrows

And next level you get SR..
Wow looks like your pretty magic resistant too

==HP 12d8+24   -78

Respectable, you havent boosted con at all so really not too bad. An amulet of heath might be a nice trade in if you prefer 24hp to 2ac Also balances your saves out some as you have still mind for will saves

==Attacks
+17/+17/+17/+12
2d6+0
Stunning fist DC- 21
Pretty bad but this guy was built to survive. Not do cool damage

==Feats
Iron Will,Great fortitude,Lightning reflexes
Weapon finesse, Weapon focus (Unarmed attack)

This isnt everyones cup of tea.. but hey he does a job
He is a damn good tank. 
Other buys for higher levels
- Animated shield -YET MORE AC !
- Deflection Ring  -AND MORE !
- Luckstone        - AND MORE !!

Im sure there are other builds out there if you take the time to look

Majere


----------



## Diirk (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> 32 point monk buy, level 12:
> Halfling "Lucky the unkillable"
> 
> Point Buy: Str: 12 Dex: 16 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10
> Level 12 : Str: 10 Dex: 21 Con:14 Wis:16 Int: 10 Cha:10




This doesn't add up.. you don't get 5 stat boosts between 1 and 12. Lvl 12 he'd have 19 dex, not 21. And his str would be 12, not 10...

It looks like you added racial modifiers after your point buy figures, but that would make it +4 (str), +10 (dex), +6 (con), +10 (wis), +2 (int), +2 (cha) = 34.. Whereas if you assume the point buy figures have racial mods included already it adds up to 32.

Regardless, try...
druid, level 12
Gnome

Point Buy: 10 str, 10 dex, 16 con, 13 int, 17 wis, 10 cha (including racial mods)
After Level ups: 10 str, 10 dex, 16 con, 13 int, 20 wis, 10 cha

Wild +1 Wooden Fullplate (16k) (cast ironwood once a week or so)
Animated +2 Darkwood Large Shield (16k)

AC: Shambling mound form  - 10 (base) -1 (size) +11 (natural) + 9 (armour) +4 (shield) +5 (barkskin)  (+1 from boots of speed if your DM thinks shambling mounds could use them)... 38/39. 

Plus the potential to use combat expertise which the monk can't access. The touch ac is terrible, and the saves aren't anywhere near the monks, but the damage is decent. Alternatively Dire Bear form for 3 less ac (-4 nat armour, +1 dex) and a lot more damage output. Thats 2 items.

Plus this guy gets 6th level spells, and 7th level ones next level.


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 12, 2004)

Diirk -- that's more of a reflection of druids being incredibly powerful than it is a reflection of monks being gimps.

Lucky the Unkillable does have a rather important flaw as a tank, though -- he's completely dismissible as a threat.

Tanks that aren't worth the enemy's attention aren't good tanks.


----------



## Herpes Cineplex (Apr 12, 2004)

If you don't mind my asking, Majere, what's your native language?  You have one of the weirder writing styles I've seen.

Oh, and:


			
				Majere said:
			
		

> Pretty bad but this guy was built to survive. Not do cool damage



Which is funny, because the very first post in this thread was from a player who was unhappy that, while his character was really survivable, he couldn't hit or do much damage and consequently wasn't having any fun playing that character in a fight.  And then we had pages and pages of really terminally dull analyses of the relative damage-dealing capabilities and "combat oomph" of the monk vs. the various melee classes.

And now that the stat-tweakers have moved on and are trying to put together impressive-looking monk characters on a point buy system, here comes the very thing advertised at the beginning of the thread, a monk whose main contribution in a fight is likely to be that he won't be hit, fail a saving throw, or be much of a threat to any of the bad guys.

He looks like a lovely supporting character, able to slightly enhance the performance of the characters whose actions *can* make a serious contribution to the party's success, and whose minimal intelligence and charisma mean that he will be as consistently outperformed out-of-combat as he is on the battlefield.  Very cool, but I think that particular monk-archetype horse has already been bludgeoned to death in this thread.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






So, uh...I guess this must be some more of that famous relevance you were bragging about earlier. 

--
or maybe we should just file it under "obvious, repeatedly stating the"


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

To give hong something 20th level to get his teeth into. 
Lucky thie invincible !
Halfling monk 20

Point Buy: Str: 12 Dex: 16 Con:14 Wis:16 Int:9 Cha:9
Level 20 : Str: 10 Dex: 23 Con:14 Wis:16 Int:9 Cha:9
Inc Items: Str: 16 Dex: 33 Con:16 Wis:26 Int:9 Cha:9

Wealth: (760k)
Gloves of Dexterity (+6)- 36k
Periapt of Wisdom (+6)  - 36k
Iuan Stone (+2Con)      - 8k
Belt of Strength (+6)   - 36k
Iuan Stone of ac 	- 5k 
Boots of Speed          - 12k
Bracers or armor +8     - 64k
Mantle of Faith         - 76k
Stone of luck           - 20k
Iuan stone Lavender/Gre - 40k
Wand of Barkskin (12th) - 18k
Ring of Protection +5   - 50k
Shield (animated,heavy fortification (heavy))+3,
			- 100k
Tome of Dex +4          - 110k
Tome of Wis +4          - 110k
Cloak resistance +5     - 25k

AC: 10+8(armor)+5(shield)+1(small)+1(dodge feat)+11(Dex)+8(Wis)+5(deflection)+1(insight)+1(haste)+5(Wand)+4(monk)
 = 60 (55/48)
DR 5/Evil, 10/Magic
Immune To criticals and sneak attacks
Deflect Aroows feat

Wheeeeeee.. and he can always go full defensive for an AC of 66 if he just wants to block a corridor or somesuch. Either way.. people gonna have trouble hitting this PONK!
Try getting your fighters Ac this high
Try hitting me with your fighter

Fort: +12+5+3+1+2 - +23 (Immune to poison,nonmagical diseases)
Ref : +12+5+11+1+2- +31 (With improved evasion)
Will: +12+5+8+1+2 - +28 (With slippery mind)
SR 23
Immune to all spells below 8th level (50 spell levels total)

Magic.. what magic ?
This guy has a great chance of making any save. Even an Int 33 mage will only have a DC of 32.(With School focus) for his highest DC.
So the monk saves on a 9,4 or 2 .. and the caster only has a 50% chance of breaking SR. For the mages BEST spell
Anyone else like those odds ?

HP 20d8+ 60 - 150 - respectable.. might wanna trade out 2 ac for 40 hp and +2 on the Fort save by swapping the amulet and iuan stone about. With Ac of 60 you can afford to take anywhere up to 80 more hp for the dropping of on AC and your will save. But I left it twinked to make the point

Feats
Iron Will, Great fortitude,Lightning reflexes
Weapon focus (unarmed strike),
Dodge,Weapon finesse, Shield proficiency

Attacks
+29/+29/+29/+24/+19 2d8+3
Fists are magical,Lawful,adamantine
Stunning fist DC -28

Ok so not a combat freak, but lets detwink a bit as our ac is so abusively high.. we can Drop the tome of Dex (+4) and the amulet of wis +6 (get back 146k) and buy an amulet of mightyfists for (97k) and a tome of Dex +2 (55k).
Swap lightning reflexes to improved critical
You ac drops by 4 points, new attack routine

+32/+32/+32/+27/+22 2d8+9 (19-20*2)
Firsts are Magical,Lawful,adamantine
Ac 56

Given that a fighter (Str33) might be throwing about an attack routine in the region of +37/+32/+27/+22 d8+3d6+18;your damage is about 1/2 while you have far superior ac and saves. 
Only half the damage ? Well you are twinked out far more defensively than the fighter so it seems balanced.

Monks clearly suck as I have just demonstrated.. thank you

Majere


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

1) Sorry the int and cha should have been 9, but they arent important to the rest of the thread.

2) Since when did staying alive stop being important, a large number of creatures in your MM as just that, creatures. You dont have to be a threat.. you just have to be alive and in 3-8 creatures will attack you beacause your are closest. 
Yes the BBEG might decide you are not a threat but all fighter types can be dismissed as a threat by most BBEGs simply by summoing a few mooks to stand in the way of the fighter type. 
And if you dont happen to fight ever combat in a 100*100 room but in 5' doorways the way manymany dungeons are written, then simply standing at the front gives most mobs no choice over wether they can "simply ignore you"

3) Monks are probably the most defensive and "utility" of the fighter type, as such you do less damage thats balance. But even my twinked out monk was not a million miles behind the fighter type for damage. I could probably write out some twinked out monk who did as much damage as the fighter, but I think what I put down already makes a point.
Monks are more defensive than other fighters.. if you dont like being a defensive melee'r be a barbarian.


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> Diirk -- that's more of a reflection of druids being incredibly powerful than it is a reflection of monks being gimps.




Actually most the problem with the druid comes from the wild armor which is so broken its silly. If you take away the wild armor and shield from that shambler its ac drop back to a much more mediocre 25. 
It is just my opinion, but the thing that makes wildshape broken is not so mush wildshape, but the ability to use all your quipment and so on while wildshaped. Shamblers were not written to wear fullplate and shield- that to me is where the imbalance arises.


Im sure you will disagree, but try going through a few wild shape examples and not letting the druids use any of his eq while wild shaped and it works out in a much more balanced way for me.

Majere


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 12, 2004)

Amusing enough, an equivalent fighter (or a big monster) could deal with that tank simply through improved grab.  The monk's touch AC is only a 34 or so (not a guaranteed hit, but still about 50/50), and once the grapple is started the fighter should have around a 10 pt lead over the monk in terms of the grapple check; the edge a big monster would have is even greater.  Killing an enemy through grappling is an incredibly slow process, but quite satisfying.,

Granted, most fighters (or players of fighters, rather) wouldn't actually think to try grappling the monk, but they don't realize the joy of kung-fu in spiked full plate.


----------



## Diirk (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Wheeeeeee.. and he can always go full defensive for an AC of 66 if he just wants to block a corridor or somesuch. Either way.. people gonna have trouble hitting this PONK!
> Try getting your fighters Ac this high
> Try hitting me with your fighter




Nice monk, however using that shield disables most of your monk abilities, like flurry, wis bonus to ac, etc. Oops.

And the wild armour thing... its powerful, but then again you don't get any armour special abilities, only the ac. So no fortification, ghost touch, etc. I think animated is much more broken than wild is.

The game I play is pretty restrictive on items while wildshaped, so I don't get the "all your equipment too"... Belts and necklaces are ok, but no rings, no cloaks, hats (except for ape/shambler), no boots, etc. The main result of this is that I have lots of money to spend on armour, and not much else to spend it on. Thats not really the case with most other classes


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 12, 2004)

majere said:
			
		

> Wheeeeeee.. and he can always go full defensive for an AC of 66 if he just wants to block a corridor or somesuch. Either way.. people gonna have trouble hitting this PONK!
> Try getting your fighters Ac this high
> Try hitting me with your fighter




I bull rush him out of the way, and proceed to murder the rest of the party....


----------



## Asmo (Apr 12, 2004)

Ok, someone post a fighter a lets have a fight and see who wins.
(someone did this in another thread,with a judge, quite fun ) 

Asmo


----------



## Thanee (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> To give hong something 20th level to get his teeth into.
> Lucky the invincible !
> Halfling monk 20
> 
> ...






> ...and the caster only has a 50% chance of breaking SR. For the mages BEST spell...




Are you kidding?



> SR 23




That's more like breaking SR 100% at 20th level!

Anyways, the monk should have SR 30, if I am not mistaken, that's still easily broken by a 20th level spellcaster (75% of the time, without any special goodies besides Greater Spell Penetration (a must-have at that level), usually higher)!



> Anyone else like those odds ?
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Is he immune to sonic? No?

_maximized sonic-substituted Meteor Swarm_ followed by a _quickened Power Word Kill_

We _are_ talking 20th level here, right?

The fighter will still be standing...

(To be fair, the fighter is as easily killed at that level... )

Bye
Thanee


----------



## frankthedm (Apr 12, 2004)

dire wolf is quite strong [almost too strong] for the level 3 spell and the lion pounce really goes agaist the 3e rules for attacking


----------



## smetzger (Apr 12, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> Amusing enough, an equivalent fighter (or a big monster) could deal with that tank simply through improved grab.  The monk's touch AC is only a 34 or so (not a guaranteed hit, but still about 50/50), and once the grapple is started the fighter should have around a 10 pt lead over the monk in terms of the grapple check; the edge a big monster would have is even greater.  Killing an enemy through grappling is an incredibly slow process, but quite satisfying.,
> 
> Granted, most fighters (or players of fighters, rather) wouldn't actually think to try grappling the monk, but they don't realize the joy of kung-fu in spiked full plate.




I agree, I also think the shield is out for the monk.  I would make the guy a Human, take Earths Embrace(I think thats the feat from OA that gives you ones size caegory up for grapple) and Combat Reflexes

I'll see if I can get a copy of my players Monk12/Fighter1 and post it.  He is the frontline 'fighter' for a group in RttToEE that consists of a Cleric, Druid, Rogue, Nift's Arcane Archer and the Monk.  The monk is played by a 1st time player and the character more than pulls his weight in the party and definantly gets his chance to shine.  Even when there was a Paladin in the group he got his chance to shine.


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Are you kidding?
> Is he immune to sonic? No?
> 
> _maximized sonic-substituted Meteor Swarm_ followed by a _quickened Power Word Kill_
> ...




Thats a 13th level slot.. 
Please leave splat books aside and keep to core rules because most broken stuff comes from splat books. I am probably wron here but using only PHB and DMG how did you get a 13th level slot ?
And you have to get throught the monks SR
And the monk gets a save for nothing fail for half
And the monk will be saving on a 2 vs the meteor storm .. 

So frankly I laugh at that spell 

Power kill will no longer work as the monk has more than 100 hp.
And you can PWK anyone who is a bit dented... especially mages so saying "Ha PWK" isnt much of a flaw of the class. Over half the core classes will have "low" hp and be vulnerable to a PWK once bruised.


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

Diirk said:
			
		

> Nice monk, however using that shield disables most of your monk abilities, like flurry, wis bonus to ac, etc. Oops.




Well that is open to debate
The text in the SRD (Which is all I have Im afraid) simply says unarmoured. To me that means not wearing any armor. Im not entirely sure how having something floating infront of you counts as armoured.
Would you count mage armor as armoured?
Would you count the shield spell as armoured
Rinf of force shield ? (Is that the right name ?)

It would seem a bit unfair to the monk if you did.
Maybe in the actualyl books there is a better definition of armoured, but I certainly wouldnt count an animated shield as armoured. It doesnt interfere with the monk in anyway, he isnt carrying it and it moves out of his way when he attacks.


----------



## Will (Apr 12, 2004)

Animated shields still incur all restrictions associated with shield use, except solely that you don't have to tie up a hand to wield it.

Penalties, restrictions, proficiency, all apply.


----------



## Thanee (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Thats a 13th level slot.
> Please leave splat books aside and keep to core rules because most broken stuff comes from splat books. I am probably wron here but using only PHB and DMG how did you get a 13th level slot ?




Greater Metamagic Rod of Maximize Spell / Quicken Spell (both in the DMG 3.5 and easily available to a 20th level character).



> And you have to get throught the monks SR




Correct. But that's pretty easily done.



> And the monk gets a save for nothing fail for half
> And the monk will be saving on a 2 vs the meteor storm
> So frankly I laugh at that spell




For a very short time, tho, since the spell has no save if used right. 



> And you can PWK anyone who is a bit dented... especially mages so saying "Ha PWK" isnt much of a flaw of the class. Over half the core classes will have "low" hp and be vulnerable to a PWK once bruised.




Well a 2nd _Meteor Swarm_ would do the trick, too.

And the point was to illustrate, that the fighter could survive things the monk cannot - even a highly tweaked defensive monk like yours above.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> To give hong something 20th level to get his teeth into.



Are you still here, RIFTS boy?



> Lucky thie invincible !



Lucky the useless meatshield is more like it.




> Wand of Barkskin (12th) - 18k



Are you trolling again?



> Shield (animated,heavy fortification (heavy))+3,
> - 100k



Now I KNOW you're trolling again.




> AC: 10+8(armor)+5(shield)+1(small)+1(dodge feat)+11(Dex)+8(Wis)+5(deflection)+1(insight)+1(haste)+5(Wand)+4(monk)
> = 60 (55/48)



Why do you keep harping on about survivability like it was the last word in taking the spotlight, RIFTS boy?



> Wheeeeeee.. and he can always go full defensive for an AC of 66 if he just wants to block a corridor or somesuch. Either way.. people gonna have trouble hitting this PONK!



Do you really think this is relevant to the issue, RIFTS boy?

In any case, try playing 20th level some time. Just as a blocked corridor is not a barrier for a 20th level party, it generally is also not a barrier for 20th level adversaries.



> Try getting your fighters Ac this high
> Try hitting me with your fighter



I can see it now: a 3-foot tall person standing in a corridor, yelling in a high-pitched voice, "fear me! FEEEARRR MEEE!!!"




> Fort: +12+5+3+1+2 - +23 (Immune to poison,nonmagical diseases)



Horrid wilting. 'nuff said.

Failing that, power word stun. 'nuff said.

Failing that, power word blind. 'nuff said.



> Magic.. what magic ?
> This guy has a great chance of making any save. Even an Int 33 mage will only have a DC of 32.(With School focus) for his highest DC.
> So the monk saves on a 9,4 or 2 .. and the caster only has a 50% chance of breaking SR. For the mages BEST spell
> Anyone else like those odds ?



Have you played any high-level D&D, RIFTS boy?



> HP 20d8+ 60 - 150 - respectable..



Oh dear.



> Feats
> Iron Will, Great fortitude,Lightning reflexes
> Weapon focus (unarmed strike),
> Dodge,Weapon finesse, Shield proficiency
> ...



The stunning fist DC is perhaps the only part of the build relevant to the issue of the monk's impotence in combat. However, even then, many high-CR monsters will typically have good Fort saves.



> Ok so not a combat freak,



Did you fail to notice that the prime complaint about the monk is that it is _not_ a combat freak in the first place, RIFTS boy? Why do you present a build that does nothing to solve that problem? Please don't tell me you are TROLLING, because, you know, that's MY schtick.



> but lets detwink a bit as our ac is so abusively high.. we can Drop the tome of Dex (+4) and the amulet of wis +6 (get back 146k) and buy an amulet of mightyfists for (97k) and a tome of Dex +2 (55k).
> Swap lightning reflexes to improved critical
> You ac drops by 4 points, new attack routine
> 
> +32/+32/+32/+27/+22 2d8+9 (19-20*2)



If you think this sort of damage is sufficient to solve the problem of the monk being overshadowed in combat, you're living on a different planet to me. Possibly one with cyber-knights and glitterboys.



> Given that a fighter (Str33) might be throwing about an attack routine in the region of +37/+32/+27/+22 d8+3d6+18;your damage is about 1/2 while you have far superior ac and saves.
> Only half the damage ? Well you are twinked out far more defensively than the fighter so it seems balanced.



Well, of course it seems that way to you, but that's because you have no understanding of what constitutes "balance" in the first place.



> Monks clearly suck as I have just demonstrated.. thank you



Yes, they clearly do. Thank you indeed.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

Will said:
			
		

> And, right midstream, you use a barbarian's damage with a two handed weapon (if I read that right). Should he be using a shield or not??



Buckler.

In any case, the problem with the monk is not, as had been said already, defense/survivability. The problem is spotlight time. And here, the problem relates to how many players _desire_ to gain spotlight time. In terms of what sticks in the mind or captures the imagination, offense -- the ability to kick butt and take names -- generally takes primacy over defense -- the ability to absorb punishment and keep going. People remember the time that they did 100 points of damage with a critical hit to a BBEG. They don't remember the Fort save they made the round beforehand, to survive the finger of death that the BBEG threw at them.

Now, it's true that there's no law stating people must get their jollies out of the game in this manner. You could certainly set out to create a character that could survive any threat, but also be relatively unable to harm the opposition. If that was what you truly desired for that character, you would probably derive a lot of satisfaction from all the instakill spells and effects you survived, while the tanks and other PCs kept going down. However, this tends to be the exception to the rule. Generally speaking, what correlates most to spotlight time, as individual gamers interpret it, is the ability to kick butt.

Therefore, beyond a certain point, the ability to absorb punishment usually brings less and less satisfaction to a player, if it also means a commensurate reduction in the ability to damage the opposition. For many (if not most) people, the monk has gone beyond that point, especially if you approach it as a class meant to emulate kung-fu martial artists in pop fiction.

That's not to say that you _have_ to approach it as a class meant to emulate anything, of course. If you view the monk purely in abstract terms as a collection of abilities optimised for scouting/mage killing/flexibility/etc, then all of this is irrelevant: you just create a character designed around those schticks. You'll probably not be too fussed about lack of usefulness in combat, because you get your jollies elsewhere. However, that assumes familiarity with the class mechanics and the way D&D plays out in the first place, and requires you to set aside all the background material relating to kung-fu martial artists. I don't think it's reasonable to say that everyone should have to do this, just to derive enjoyment out of playing a base class.




> Nevermind, I should have stuck with my first instinct. Ciao and good gaming.



Heh.


----------



## Scion (Apr 12, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Buckler.




SRD:
Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

So the barb wants a -1 penalty to attack and no ac bonus? Good job barb.

Monks can have plenty of spotlight time, just like anyone else. The campaign needs to be as such to allow it, just like anyone else. They have all kinds of good abilities, and trade in a bit of one sort of power for another. You dont go making a mage who has a 3 int and power attacks all of the time, they arent designed for it. In the same way you shouldnt be whining when the barbarian, whos only job is to do lots of damage, is doing more than you. Figure out what your job is supposed to be and do it, dont complain if you try to fit the square peg into the round hole.


----------



## Scion (Apr 12, 2004)

It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.

This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).

At this point the monk has a much better attack routine than the other fighter types, does equivalent damage, has a better ac, better saves, better speed, better defensive capabilities, and a cooler haircut.

but if that is what you all want then go for it, it definately seems like that will push the monk way over the top to me. Whatever floats your boat though I suppose.


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Buckler.
> 
> In any case, the problem with the monk is not, as had been said already, defense/survivability. The problem is spotlight time.
> ...
> ...




No, that is your problem hong. 
Its clear that we play the game for very different reasons. 
You play it so that other people turn to you and tell you how great you are, and how kick ass your character is.

I play it to spend time with my friends, chill out, and kill crap for fun and exp. Spotlight time is never a consideration when I build a character. Infact I always pick my character last so that I can look at the party and pick a class to give the party good balance.

I DO remeber the time I rolled a natural 20 to save vs aging 500 years.I DO remeber the time I manaed to go 5 rounds flanked by two drow rogues while on singe fugure HP and not get hit, even if all I did was survive. 

Oh Take the monk I built (If you wont allow the shield take out the shield give him a ring of force shield and a tome of dex +% and his AC is unchanged). Apart from the fact a fighter with maxed out STR and starting STR of 18 cant hit him except on a natural 20 where as the monk will hit a maxed out fighter on a 10. Yeah monks suck in combat 
The fighter will also have trouble against the stunning first dc of 28

Sure the monk might take twice as many hits, but if the enemy cant hit you that is no a problem.

As for all those 9th level spells you boasted about. How exactly is the monk doing any worse than the fighter apart from having spell resistance and better saves ?
And dont say he has less HP, because Ill ask you how you propose to hit a guy with ac 60, SR, High saves, evasion and immunity to all spells below 8th level. His touch Ac is so high even with true strike most casters cant hit him.

Monks are the most defensive melee class, and barbarians the most offensive. If you happen to think that the fact all classess dont do the same damage is broken so be it.

And please dont spout that stuff about kung-fu movies. When in those movies do you ever see bruce lee kick the ass of someone in full plate and shield with a magical flaming sword who can fly, or kick the ass of a colossal frost worm. 
If anything the movies suggest you can kick the ass of lightly armoured,humanoid, unarmed mooks in a variety of interesting ways, while the enemy somehow fail to hit you for a full 45 minutes. At other times the hero is being sneaky in a ninja type way. And LO.. isnt that what the monk does ?

Majere


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> the rest of the round.
> 
> So the barb wants a -1 penalty to attack and no ac bonus? Good job barb.



Oh, hello, Scion. Are you still here as well?



> Monks can have plenty of spotlight time, just like anyone else.



For certain definitions of "spotlight time", maybe.



> The campaign needs to be as such to allow it, just like anyone else.



You sound like a broken record. Is this intentional?



> They have all kinds of good abilities, and trade in a bit of one sort of power for another.



They get all kinds of abilities of the wrong sort, and not enough of the right sort.



> You dont go making a mage who has a 3 int and power attacks all of the time, they arent designed for it.



You also don't go making a class that clearly takes after characters who kick butt in combat, and fail to allow it to kick butt in combat.



> In the same way you shouldnt be whining when the barbarian, whos only job is to do lots of damage, is doing more than you.



Non sequitur.

YES, I KNOW MSB DOES THIS BETTER THAN ME, THANKYOUVERYMUCH.



> Figure out what your job is supposed to be and do it,



My job is to kick butt, just like archetypal kung-fu guys. If you fail to comprehend this, then clearly I will have to continue educating you.



> dont complain if you try to fit the square peg into the round hole.



If the hole is supposed to be square in the first place, I will complain all I bloody well want. Or perhaps I won't, but then I've sworn off pimping my 



Spoiler



martial artist


 for Lent.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> No, that is your problem hong.



My problem hong is well hong indeed.



> Its clear that we play the game for very different reasons.
> You play it so that other people turn to you and tell you how great you are, and how kick ass your character is.



Please to work on your ranting skills. I mean, Bendy Noulg does this better than you.



> I play it to spend time with my friends, chill out, and kill crap for fun and exp. Spotlight time is never a consideration when I build a character.



Sure, sure. You want to kill crap for fun, but you also don't care that you can't kill crap for fun.



> Infact I always pick my character last so that I can look at the party and pick a class to give the party good balance.



Whatever you say, RIFTS boy.



> I DO remeber the time I rolled a natural 20 to save vs aging 500 years.I DO remeber the time I manaed to go 5 rounds flanked by two drow rogues while on singe fugure HP and not get hit, even if all I did was survive.



But, as we have already established, you also play RIFTS. And thus you are a long, long way from being representative of normal people.



> Oh Take the monk I built



What, you mean the one that demonstrated the full extent of your cluelessness of the situation?



> (If you wont allow the shield take out the shield give him a ring of force shield and a tome of dex +% and his AC is unchanged). Apart from the fact a fighter with maxed out STR and starting STR of 18 cant hit him except on a natural 20 where as the monk will hit a maxed out fighter on a 10. Yeah monks suck in combat



Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?



> The fighter will also have trouble against the stunning first dc of 28



Finally, some hint of comprehension. It took some time, but you got there!



> Sure the monk might take twice as many hits, but if the enemy cant hit you that is no a problem.



Did you somehow fail to notice:

Horrid wilting. 'nuff said.

Power word stun. 'nuff said.

Power word kill. 'nuff said.



> As for all those 9th level spells you boasted about.



Have you ever actually read the PHB?



> How exactly is the monk doing any worse than the fighter apart from having spell resistance and better saves ?



Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability (regardless of the irrelevance of excess survivability to most people except yourself), and thus demonstrating that such survivability still has its limits goes much further to demonstrating the limits of its niche, compared to limiting the niche of the fighter.



> And dont say he has less HP,



You're funny!



> because Ill ask you how you propose to hit a guy with ac 60, SR, High saves, evasion and immunity to all spells below 8th level.



What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?



> His touch Ac is so high even with true strike most casters cant hit him.



Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy.



> Monks are the most defensive melee class, and barbarians the most offensive. If you happen to think that the fact all classess dont do the same damage is broken so be it.



You have confused "the monk is outclassed by the barbarian in offensive terms" with "the monk needs to be fully competitive with the barbarian in offensive terms". Clearly more severe application of the cluebat is needed.



> And please dont spout that stuff about kung-fu movies. When in those movies do you ever see bruce lee kick the ass of someone in full plate and shield with a magical flaming sword who can fly, or kick the ass of a colossal frost worm.



The ability to kick butt is relative to other participants in the game. D&D departs from wuxia and martial arts movies by making the opponents generally large monsters and/or characters in armour. However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party. Regardless of what the opposition is, martial artists are generally portrayed as combatants who take on a primary fighting role, and that is what people who play monks will want to do.



> If anything the movies suggest you can kick the ass of lightly armoured,humanoid, unarmed mooks in a variety of interesting ways, while the enemy somehow fail to hit you for a full 45 minutes.



Everyone, with some exceptions, can kick the ass of lightly armoured mooks. Mooks are irrelevant to the role the class.



> At other times the hero is being sneaky in a ninja type way. And LO.. isnt that what the monk does ?



Ninja == rogue.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.
> 
> This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).
> 
> ...



If you're going to increase BAB, you would also remove some of the special abilities. There have been plenty of alt.monks/martial artists floated since 3E's release (eg Beyond Monks, Quint. Monk). All of them take this route.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 12, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.
> 
> This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).
> 
> ...




I'm already aware of this and have told my DM.  I think our fix for our fix is going to be to scale back the damage a monk does at higher levels.  I mean, right now, its not a big deal -- at 7th level pretty much anyone can do 1d8 in damage.  But, yeah, eventually a monk does 2d10 damage and that's KRAY-Z and the fists are magic, lawful and adamantine.

I'm thinking that the multiple stat dependency of monks might make up for it.  In any event, every so often (at my DM's request) I'm going to update Pally the Paladin so my DM can do a comparison and she'd told me the moment Pally is obviously less useful than Adamantine Moneybags she's gonna cut some of the stuff she's generously given me.  Which is, I think, fair.

Also, I don't think we're proposing that our fixes are for everyone's game -- just that they're for OUR game.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 12, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> If you're going to increase BAB, you would also remove some of the special abilities. There have been plenty of alt.monks/martial artists floated since 3E's release (eg Beyond Monks, Quint. Monk). All of them take this route.




I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea.  I have been distinctly unimpressed by the variant martial artist core classes -- stuff like, well, yours and Midnight's defender (or whatever they call it) and what I remember from Quint. Monk.  It takes a lot in class abilities to get an unarmed fighter, in D&D, to roughly the same point an armed fighter is.  So the upshot of those alternate classes is, IMO, to once again create inferior fighters to the figher types (altho' the disparity might not be as great).


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> I'm not entirely sure that's a good idea.  I have been distinctly unimpressed by the variant martial artist core classes -- stuff like, well, yours and Midnight's defender (or whatever they call it) and what I remember from Quint. Monk.  It takes a lot in class abilities to get an unarmed fighter, in D&D, to roughly the same point an armed fighter is.  So the upshot of those alternate classes is, IMO, to once again create inferior fighters to the figher types (altho' the disparity might not be as great).



 Well, eventually you're going to run into the brick wall that is D&D's combat system. Attack and damage bonuses relate to Str, and defense doesn't scale with level: these are things that naturally mitigate against a light/no-armoured, high-Dex fighter, regardless of class. Similarly, the fact that a lot of damage potential is derived from weapon enchantments makes life hard if you want to design a viable unarmed combatant.

What you can do is shift the balance point from where it is for the monk (highly defense-oriented) to something a bit more conducive to the role of the class, and players' tastes. And besides, if you take it too far, you end up treading on the toes of the fighter. Whatever other considerations may exist, the fighter's role should still be as the name suggests: the primary fighting class in the game. Unless you intend to rejig the system completely and/or remove the fighter class, there's a limit to what can be done.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 12, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, eventually you're going to run into the brick wall that is D&D's combat system. Attack and damage bonuses relate to Str, and defense doesn't scale with level: these are things that naturally mitigate against a light/no-armoured, high-Dex fighter, regardless of class. Similarly, the fact that a lot of damage potential is derived from weapon enchantments makes life hard if you want to design a viable unarmed combatant.
> 
> What you can do is shift the balance point from where it is for the monk (highly defense-oriented) to something a bit more conducive to the role of the class, and players' tastes. And besides, if you take it too far, you end up treading on the toes of the fighter. Whatever other considerations may exist, the fighter's role should still be as the name suggests: the primary fighting class in the game. Unless you intend to rejig the system completely and/or remove the fighter class, there's a limit to what can be done.




It just seems to me that all the monk variant classes are very shy about giving enough class features to actually make going unarmed worth it offensively or defensively.  Probably to avoid people going, "Wow!  Those class features are way better than a fighters!"  Yeah.

I had this discussion with my GM.  After our tweaks, my monk had more bonus feats than a fighter of the same level would have.  I shrugged and said, "And a fighter would be wearing full plate armor, be carrying a large shield and a magic sword -- for which he would have specialization."  I said I would be more than happy to stat out a sixth level fighter for purposes of comparison, but since I had already shown her Pally the Paladin she conceded that, even with more feats, my monk was an inferior fighter to a sixth level fighter.

I think, when people are redesigning the monk, they just aren't letting the numbers speak for themselves.  They look at the list of class features it would take to make a monk as good as a paladin (not a fighter, but a paladin) and since it seemed so . . . well, large, they shied away from doing it.  Thus sorta perpetrating the problem.

I mean, I *seriously* looked at your character class.  My DM would have had precisely zero problem with me remaking Rashad as a martial artist from your page, or a Midnight defender, but I looked at what was actually being offered and went, "Huh, sort of a lateral move."


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"

Glad you actually read my post hong. The monk has a green and lavender Iuan Stone, which absorbes all spells of 8th or lower level.

No I dont care if "I" kill crap, as long as the party kills crap Im happy. I help that along in the way best suited to whatever Im playing, be that by healing people or (In the case of my rogue) just by detecting and disarming traps. My rogue is beyond useless in combat, but has a nifty +68 on hiding and +32 on search so he makes a decent scout. 
I cant remeber any game where "disabling the trap" was as cool as doing 150 damage on a crit, but it still needs doing. 

"Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability"
That is the monks niche, first man in last man out. 
LOOK AT THE CLASS. 
It is clearly far more defensive than any other melee class so how can you possibly argue it should be as offensive as well. That is clearly unbalanced, you appear to define the "balance" of a class purely by the damage is can deal, if something deals less damage then something else.. must be unbalanced !?

As as I demonstrated the monk can have an almost identical attack routine to the fighter, so he is just as likely to hit as the fighter. There are also feats for such fun shindigs as vorpal fists. Just because the monk I put down didnt bother upping his str doesnt mean I couldnt have increased his damage. However lowering the Ac of the monk is a poor option due to low HP. although, again. There are ways to take from ac and give to hp and I put in the post. If you read my post I suggested ideas that would drop the monks ac to the mid 50's (still 10 points more than the fighter and the fighter can only hit on a 20), while raising the hp to over 200. 
Maybe you didnt bother to read that ?

"What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"
Actually he has the same to hit bonuses and DRbypass as any fighter. 
He does less damage yes, but he still does a respectable amount. Infact if the creature has a few energy resistances then the monk does about 2/3 to 3/4 of the fighters damage on each hit. And that is a monk who is deliberately with a very low Str. 
An enlarged half-orc monk with a higher starting Str stat could well be doing damage almost as good as a fighters while enjoying far better speed and defences. 

"Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy."
One word
Harm
Your fighter just lost 75hp
The clerice cant touch the monk except on a natural 20. 
Not to mention the monk is a far superior fighter against undead or anything with touch attacks. Ray of enfeeblement will make a mess of your fighter, but will only hit me on a natural 20. The list does go on

"Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?"
Its entirely relevent if you are going to compare classess that I compare classes. Just because you dont have a good counter to my example doesnt make it irrelevent.

" However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party."
Here you probably have a point.
But in fantasy books mages are all powerful, wishes can do anything and so on. You never see a character shout "I wish my friends were alive again.. oh wait thats in a prohibited class for me so I can only replicate 5th level spells not 7th, erm wait a second.. I erm wish they had made their saves.. oh no I cant do that either".
D&D moved away from steriotypes quite a while ago. So Im not sure how tightly you can use them to back up any argument. 

Majere


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 12, 2004)

Don't the Ioun Stones work like a Rod of Absorption -- i.e., you need to use a Readied Action to actually absorb spells?  Okay, yeah, they do.

A cleric buffed with Divine Favor and Divine Might is more than capable of getting around the monk's touch AC, as is a wizard with Quickened True Strike spells prepped.

The trick to Meteor Swarm is to just target the 4 spheres on 1 person; the targets takes 24d6, no save.  The 24d6 area damage is just a bonus.

If your goal is to be a nuisance support character that the enemy completely ignores, you could probably do just as well as a bard.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 12, 2004)

For those complaining that monks do not hit enough, rememeber to consider that they gain 2 melee advantages in exchange for their reduced AB: Increased attacks (with the best BAB bonus) and increased base damage.

Actual 20th level monk (hasted):

Natural attacks: +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+10 - average 21) plus 1 stun attempt per round. 
AC: 39

Actual 20th level sword and shield fighter (hasted) with full specilization and flaming +5 longsword:

Longsword attack: +37/+37/+32/+27/+22 (d8+d6fire+18 - average 26).
AC: 36

Using optimal power attack versus an AC of 25 (ignoring critcals for the moment to keep things simple):
Monk PAs for 6 - 133.65 damage (plus stun & quivering)
Fighter PAs for 8 - 136 damage.

When you factor in critical hits, the edge for the fighter increases (assuming a 17-20 crit range for fighter and 19-20 crit range for the monk), but the monk is only slightly behind the highly specialized fighter. If the AC of the enemy increases dramatically, the monk falls farther behind. OTOH, if the AC drops, the monk gets farther ahead. 

The monk can be plenty effective. I've seen it many times. Beyond the numbers above, you have to figure in that the damage from the monk comes in smaller baskets in more attacks, so that when he drops a foe, he has less overblow (lost damage) and can make greater use out of a feat like great cleave in games with medium hit die foes in high level games.

I have REPEATEDLY seen monks shine in combat. Having seen it, I can (with 100% accuracy) say that it can be done under the core rules. Anyone that says that it can not happen can not speak with such authority - failing to see something does not prove that it does not exist. It just says that you have not seen it.

To summarize the entire thread:

1.) Monks can be as effective as the other melee classes. Many people have yet to see it, but many people have seen it. If people have seen it, it must be possible. If it is impossible in your game, that is a result of the way your game is run.

2.) High level spellcasters tend to be more powerful than other classes because DMs tend to make it easy for them to rest and replenish their power reserves, allowing them to run at full power at all times. If they had to ration out their power over time, those spellcasters would end up being less powerful.

3.) People hate Hong and Hong hates people.


----------



## Majere (Apr 12, 2004)

Epametheus said:
			
		

> Don't the Ioun Stones work like a Rod of Absorption -- i.e., you need to use a Readied Action to actually absorb spells?  Okay, yeah, they do.
> 
> A cleric buffed with Divine Favor and Divine Might is more than capable of getting around the monk's touch AC, as is a wizard with Quickened True Strike spells prepped.
> 
> ...




No you Dont
": This rod acts as a magnet, drawing spells or spell-like abilities into itself. The magic absorbed must be a single-target spell or a ray directed at either the character possessing the rod or her gear. The rod then nullifies the spell’s effect and stores its potential until the wielder releases this energy in the form of spells of her own. She can instantly detect a spell’s level as the rod absorbs that spell’s energy. Absorption requires no action on the part of the user if the rod is in hand at the time."

In particular read the last sentence

The touch Ac of the monk I posted is 56. A trues striking mage May have an attack bonus of 36. So he hits on a 20.The cleric with divine power has a fighters BAB,+6 for the favour. or +26. Even with an outragoues Str of 30 (For a cleric), the cleric is again hitting on a 20.
I would not call hitting on a 20, more than able to hit.

Meteor Swarm:
"If you aim a sphere at a specific creature, you may make a ranged touch attack to strike the target with the meteor. Any creature struck by one of these spheres takes 2d6 points of bludgeoning damage (no save) and receives no saving throw against the sphere’s fire damage (see below)"

We have been here, no chance you will hit the monk but on a natural 20
And it is 8d6 not 24d6 even if you use all 4. When you miss you will have a 55% chance to break spell resistance and given a starting Int of 18 maxed out to 33 with school focus the save will be Reflex 32. 
Ie the monk only fails on a 1
The monk is by far the best able to deal with meteor swarm, Id be dumping those meteors on the fihters who have crappy touch acs, and who you can reasonably expect to hit 4 times for 32d6 nosave. 

Majere
(From SRD)


----------



## Sereg (Apr 13, 2004)

*Sorry, but...*



> To summarize the entire thread:
> 
> 1.) Monks can be as effective as the other melee classes. Many people have yet to see it, but many people have seen it. If people have seen it, it must be possible. If it is impossible in your game, that is a result of the way your game is run.
> 
> 2.) High level spellcasters tend to be more powerful than other classes because DMs tend to make it easy for them to rest and replenish their power reserves, allowing them to run at full power at all times. If they had to ration out their power over time, those spellcasters would end up being less powerful.




In a distorted, biased view of the game and the facts, perhaps. In FACT, the summary of the thread is:

1)  Monks as written are the weakest of all melee combatants, and melee combatants are in fact the weakest of all class's in fights at high levels (and out of fights, incidentally).

2) High level spellcasters are far and away stronger in and out of combat than any melee, and the monk is the weakest melee, so it follows that monks are the weakest character in high level combat (and often mid and low level) combat. 



> If it is impossible in your game, that is a result of the way your game is run






> High level spellcasters tend to be more powerful than other classes because DMs tend to make it easy for them to rest and replenish their power reserves, allowing them to run at full power at all times




If you can't see what two statements add up to, I'll be happy to spell it out for you:  Casters are inherently STRONG, and require DM's actively targeting their weakness's to be balanced.  Monks are inherently WEAK, and require DM's actively catering to their strengths to be balanced.  

SEE A PROBLEM HERE?


Sereg

ps. Just hit me, in 2nd ed, fighters also were the only one's who could have Exceptional Strength (18/xx and above).  Druids innately have more str via wildshape than most fighters at almost any level but the highest. Good game.


----------



## Scion (Apr 13, 2004)

Sereg said:
			
		

> In a distorted, biased view of the game and the facts, perhaps.




so the rest of your post are your distorted, biased views? 



			
				Sereg said:
			
		

> 1)  Monks as written are the weakest of all melee combatants, and melee combatants are in fact the weakest of all class's in fights at high levels (and out of fights, incidentally).




First part? maybe, depends on the build. Second part? not even close to being true. In a properly run game the monk, and melee fighter types, and the casters all come out even. Some are better at some levels than others, but it is difficult to be even at every level across the board. So the monk has a rough time for a few levels, big deal, so does everyone. Dont try to make the monk do what he isnt supposed to, just like you dont make a 3int wizard who power attacks with his greatsword.




			
				Sereg said:
			
		

> If you can't see what two statements add up to, I'll be happy to spell it out for you:  Casters are inherently STRONG, and require DM's actively targeting their weakness's to be balanced.  Monks are inherently WEAK, and require DM's actively catering to their strengths to be balanced.




I see where they add up to, do you? Every class, if given a favoreable campaign style, will be able to be shown to be 'broken'. In some game types casters are horribly overpowered, in others no one plays them because they are so weak as to be laughable. Both of these extremes happen. Monks are great at what they do, if the player cant figure out what they do then that is the players problem, not specifically a design flaw. Sure not every class is perfect (just look at the poor, piddly fighter) but depending on the campaign style some classes will stand out.

Melee types? At standard wealth and appropriate encounters in a proper time frame and they will stand hands above those pesky casters. That is just how the game works. Dont like it? some dm's do, some dont, they will adjust things as they see fit. but they are human, and humans will make mistakes. These mistakes will make some classes better suited to the campaign than others.


If you give an unfair advantage to one type of class then the others will seem weaker in comparison. Every opponent is a high AC, high fort save(or immune), high hp, singular creature? Monks wont help much, sure, they arent designed for that guy. Every oppoenent has a high SR, high tough attack, evasion and mettle? Casters just turned into all buffers, they wont be doing anything else useful. Etc etc. Do things properly? np. Improperly? there will be an imbalance. This isnt necissarily a 'bad thing' really, it is a play style preference. But if the playstyle is the culprit dont complain too much about the base parts


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 13, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> So, you actually think a good idea for a monk is to . . . let them pelt him with huge ass stones?  Hmm.  Or smash the town?  Hint: when you get into an duel of missile weaponry with a giant, *you loose*.



Bzzt. Not even half as bad as you lose in melee.
Hill giant in melee - 2 attacks at +16 and +11, doing 2d8+10 damage a hit, power attacking for even more if your ac sucks (which it does).

Versus
Hill giant at range - 1 attack, +8 to hit, 2d6+7 damage, chances are you've got cover and he has none (assuming you've got half a brain), bringing him down to a mere +4 to hit.


> I think you need to return to tactics school.  It is standard tactics that when an enemy threatens developed areas to fight them on as little of that developed area as possible -- in short, to hold them off from going around town setting things on fire, knocking down things, killing innocent people.  Maybe in your world having a running fight through populated areas is a good idea.  In mine, not so good.



Standard tactics says that the town can take a lot more punishment than you can, unless it's made of matchsticks or something. It also says that a giant who spends his time attacking harmless buildings and peasants when he has credible threats hurting him is not a real monster, just a DM grudge made manifest.


> Not to mention that with a shuriken you can't add your strength bonus to damage.  Rashad's sling does six and a half points of damage on an average successful hit.  Not to mention that you can use anything as ammo (albeit with a small decrease in damage).  Shuriken damage just doesn't stack up to that.



Shuriken do 1d3 plus strength damage, come in lots of 50, and are a weapon that a monk can flurry.

Slings do 1d4 plus strength damage when loaded with sling bullets, and take a move equivalent action to reload after every shot.

Or perhaps you've not read 3.5? I assume that's the game that's being played.


> I mean, dood, our tactics were good.  They *worked*.  The group easily defeated the menace.  It was just my character was hardly a part of that.



No, your tactics were that your druid threw some 80-90% of their resources into two equal-cr challenges. Presumably some of the party members got thumped as well - am I right? So chalk up a few more portions of resources.

At that rate, you won't survive 5 equal cr challenges in a day, which is assumed to be a normal level of threat for an adventure.

Oh, and your comparisons between a monk and a fighter immediately fall down when you say "oh, but a fighter will get to use a good weapon and armour!". He PAYS for those things, and the money the monk doesn't spend on them can contribute to his own abilities in a commesurate fashion.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 13, 2004)

Saeviomagy said:
			
		

> Bzzt. Not even half as bad as you lose in melee.
> Hill giant in melee - 2 attacks at +16 and +11, doing 2d8+10 damage a hit, power attacking for even more if your ac sucks (which it does).
> 
> Versus
> ...




This post is intensely ignorant.  I've really tried not to just flame, but this is really just the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

"Villages are durable."  Fire, you huge, intense idiot -- FIRE.  While you might not know what it is, giants do, and more to the point my GM does.  My GM knows when you want to destroy a town, you burn it.  Or maybe the hill giants would have just gone around eating towns people.  Real heroic.  Letting your friends and family be munched because you wanted to lure the monster next to a cliff or something.  Ugh.

And if you'd read 3.5, you'd know that shuriken do 1d2 damage and have a range increment of 10 ft.  TEN FEET.  To hit the giant, I have to be close enough to be in melee combat with it, you dimwitted lardhead.  I mean, if you're going to say to the other guy that he doesn't know the rules, at least be clear on them yourself.

Your knowledge of actual tactics is wholly nonexistent.  The only way you can feel good about your tactics is likely because you're DM is either an idiot or softballs you all the time.

Furthermore, knowing the stats to every monster in the book is not tactics.  It's just cheating.  You see, I don't even know a hill giant's stats 'cause I didn't look it up because my character has no way of knowing what a hill giant's stats are.  Maybe you cheat by using out of game knowledge IC, but I respect my GM and the game to an extent that I *don't* go and check up on every monster we've fought or might fight again.

EDIT: About the resource consumption thing, birdbrain, there were three character fighting two CR 7 creatures.  The very game you purport to know everything about basically says that we should expect almost all our resources to fight them. 

And we used no potions.  One other character was lightly injured.  We *destroyed* the opposition.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 13, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> "Villages are durable."  Fire, you huge, intense idiot -- FIRE.  While you might not know what it is, giants do, and more to the point my GM does. My GM knows when you want to destroy a town, you burn it.



What, all of it? all at once?

While those heroes are shredding you?

Fire is neat and all, but it's not going to vapourise a town in 6 seconds.


> Or maybe the hill giants would have just gone around eating towns people.  Real heroic.  Letting your friends and family be munched because you wanted to lure the monster next to a cliff or something.  Ugh.



Yeah, because like I said before - the average monster has no purpose but to cause havoc, and will rather eat unarmed townspeople and crouch in a corner kindling a fire than respond to credible threats that are busy turning it into a pincushion. If that's the sort of level of game you're playing, no wonder tactics play no part.


> And if you'd read 3.5, you'd know that shuriken do 1d2 damage and have a range increment of 10 ft.  TEN FEET.  To hit the giant, I have to be close enough to be in melee combat with it, you dimwitted lardhead.  I mean, if you're going to say to the other guy that he doesn't know the rules, at least be clear on them yourself.



Once again, lack of rules knowledge comes into play.

10 feet is not the total distance that you can throw shuriken. It is the range increment. Beyond that you get a penalty, one which is relatively minor.


> Your knowledge of actual tactics is wholly nonexistent.  The only way you can feel good about your tactics is likely because you're DM is either an idiot or softballs you all the time.
> 
> Furthermore, knowing the stats to every monster in the book is not tactics.  It's just cheating.  You see, I don't even know a hill giant's stats 'cause I didn't look it up because my character has no way of knowing what a hill giant's stats are.  Maybe you cheat by using out of game knowledge IC, but I respect my GM and the game to an extent that I *don't* go and check up on every monster we've fought or might fight again.



I run the game. I kinda need to know monster stats. Of course someone who doesn't even read the sections of rulebook which are pertinent to his own character couldn't be expected to know monster stats, and indeed you're right - knowing them off by heart and working from them could probably be called cheating.

In some circumstances, however, it's prety obviously not. In this instance ranged combat depends on dex. Giants are strong, but not dextrous - this much should be obvious to the average character looking at one lurching towards him. Cover doesn't often apply in melee versus a large creature (because usually he can choose a part of himself which ignores it), while a large creature will have problems obtaining cover in a ranged fight. This is simply a fact of the world. Finally, giant's don't haul boulders around with them in neat little ammo pouches. This one's fairly obvious to even the most spot-challenged character. Also - they're unlikely to have quickdraw. This one's tied with the "not so good dex" thing.

All of which combines to form "the giant will be worse off in ranged combat than melee combat" as a credible thought to the average character, one which is backed up by the mechanics of the game.


> EDIT: About the resource consumption thing, birdbrain, there were three character fighting two CR 7 creatures.  The very game you purport to know everything about basically says that we should expect almost all our resources to fight them.



From what I understood, you had a single CR 9 encounter (2 CR 7 creatures). Demoted slightly because of intense stupidity on the part of the creatures in question.
Spells memorised are a resource.
Your druid used up essentially their entire compliment of spells in a single encounter. They basically WERE the resource which was expended.


> And we used no potions.  One other character was lightly injured.  We *destroyed* the opposition.



And one character used his entire complement of spells (or thereabouts).


----------



## CPXB (Apr 13, 2004)

Ugh, I can only imagine the horror of running with someone as dumb and uncreative as you.  I'll note some things.

Giants can have torches, too!  And they can hide, too!  Surprised?  And, yeah, doofus, houses are big enough for giants to hide behind.  I'm sure this shocks you.

And the maximum range increment of a shuriken is five increments -- fifty feet.  They charge over and whack me.  Shocker.  I'm in melee combat, again.  At the speed my character is, he can't get OUT of melee combat, either, if the GIANT chooses.  For a DM, you just don't know the rules very well, do you?  I mean, just like you didn't know that a shuriken did 1d2 points of damage.

And, yes, Virginia, they can charge you.  To use a missile weapon requires an unobstructed line of sight.  Or, alternately, while you're taking -4 to hit due to range them they could just choose to smash you into goop with rocks.

Not to mention those -2s add up might fast when you already have 45% chance of hitting within ten feet.  Thirty feet away and the odds of hitting are 25% per shuriken.  GOOD tactics.  If you want to be killed by your opposition, that is.

Or, I suppose, I could have sat back while the druid's menagerie was savaging the giants -- usefully firing into melee.  With my shurikens.  So even if I'm 20 feet away, I'm not at -6 to hit.  Yeah.  The tactics of champions, there.  Probably do more damage to the critters than the monster.  *eyeroll*

Not to mention that if you go by what it says in the DMG, with a CR 9 encounter we had only a fifty-fifty chance of winning and the odds are one of us should have died.  We won.  Easily.

You're really just looking dumber as you keep talking, you know.  It's become clear that you just don't know what you're talking about, either from the point of view of standard tactical knowledge *or* the rules.  I pity your players.

EDIT: And as a DM, it is not cheating that you know the stats for a hill giant, but that doesn't change the fact that it would have been cheating for *me* to know the stats of hill giants.  I'd bet money that your players are the sort of group that know all the numbers of all the monsters, too, and make tactical decisions based on that intimate knowledge -- which just makes them cheaters, and, from a role-play point of view (ugh, I can only imagine the horror of role-playing in your game) is not only cheating but also destroys any suspense you might have been trying to build.


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 13, 2004)

Manners CPXB, manners.  Calling Saev names when he's completely right doesn't help you at all.

Not rushing into melee with creatures 2 to 3 times bigger than you (if not more) is just common sense.  Fighters, Barbarians, and Druids that have already wildshaped into something just as big can get away with charging into melee against such creatures.

Anyone else trying to do so is just asking to get smeared; if the druid hadn't buried the giants in dire animals, your monk would have certainly died.

Your best bet going head to head with a giant would've been leading on a merry chase through town while the other PCs pick it off, using tumble to get out of its threat range and find spots in town where it has trouble reaching.  Picture your monk leaping from rooftop to rooftop, flinging shurikens all the while (yeah, a bow would beat the hell out of shurikens, but monks just have to make do).

Edit:  And I find players knowing something of what to expect from monsters to be handy.  It seriously reduces the odds of someone getting killed stupidly, and the PCs having some inkling that giants, dragons, freakish aberrations, undead, and monster dredged up from the depths of hell are really, really dangerous doesn't strike me as that much a stretch.  I've never had metagaming actually interfere with roleplaying, anyways.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 13, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Ugh, I can only imagine the horror of running with someone as dumb and uncreative as you.  I'll note some things.



Says the man who's amazing tactics are "umm, I hit it with my fist"


> Giants can have torches, too!  And they can hide, too!  Surprised?  And, yeah, doofus, houses are big enough for giants to hide behind.  I'm sure this shocks you.



If a giant walks behind a house, and doesn't come into view again, it's a pretty good bet that he's still behind the house. And torches still don't mean the entire town is ablaze in six seconds, or that peasants lack the ability to put out fires, or that the giant is being utterly stupid ignoring credible threats in order to accomplish a difficult task with no backup.


> And the maximum range increment of a shuriken is five increments -- fifty feet.  They charge over and whack me.  Shocker.  I'm in melee combat, again.  At the speed my character is, he can't get OUT of melee combat, either, if the GIANT chooses.



If you tumble out of the fight and run across broken ground, the giant will
a) have to move at half speed
b) can't charge or run
I told you this ages ago. Guess you just failed the written examination.


> For a DM, you just don't know the rules very well, do you?  I mean, just like you didn't know that a shuriken did 1d2 points of damage.



Plus strength bonus, something you're not lacking. And hands up if you were the one stuck in 3.0...


> And, yes, Virginia, they can charge you.  To use a missile weapon requires an unobstructed line of sight.  Or, alternately, while you're taking -4 to hit due to range them they could just choose to smash you into goop with rocks.



You read the stuff about broken ground, right? You know, that stuff which blocks charges, but not missile weapons?
And the giants are already taking a -8 (effectively) to hit you with their rocks, along with a -5 to damage, and a -1 to the number of attacks they can make, not to mention whatever else you can get from cover.


> Not to mention those -2s add up might fast when you already have 45% chance of hitting within ten feet.  Thirty feet away and the odds of hitting are 25% per shuriken.  GOOD tactics.  If you want to be killed by your opposition, that is.



Meanwhile their chance has fallen from about 125% to 25%. Yeah, you lost out good.


> Or, I suppose, I could have sat back while the druid's menagerie was savaging the giants -- usefully firing into melee.  With my shurikens.  So even if I'm 20 feet away, I'm not at -6 to hit.  Yeah.  The tactics of champions, there.  Probably do more damage to the critters than the monster.  *eyeroll*



Well, this is assuming that every fight you're in has morons in your party alongside you. Pick a combat style which is effective for the combat. If your opponent is weak at range, don't melee. I expect you think the CR for a colossal monstrous scorpion is horrendously low...

Oh, and I think I'd be safe to assume that you don't know the rules. Again. If  part of a target creature is more than 10 feet away from an ally, you don't take the penalty for shooting into melee. Which means that large creatures in melee can usually be targeted scot-free, unless they're absolutely swarmed.


> Not to mention that if you go by what it says in the DMG, with a CR 9 encounter we had only a fifty-fifty chance of winning and the odds are one of us should have died.  We won.  Easily.



Well, actually what you faced was closer to two CR 7 encounters. Only even lamer than that, because there was so little time between them. And then a bit lamer still, because they were played so badly.


> You're really just looking dumber as you keep talking, you know.  It's become clear that you just don't know what you're talking about, either from the point of view of standard tactical knowledge *or* the rules.  I pity your players.



Hey - who's the guy who can't even keep straight rules that have been told to him in this thread?


> EDIT: And as a DM, it is not cheating that you know the stats for a hill giant, but that doesn't change the fact that it would have been cheating for *me* to know the stats of hill giants. I'd bet money that your players are the sort of group that know all the numbers of all the monsters, too, and make tactical decisions based on that intimate knowledge -- which just makes them cheaters, and, from a role-play point of view (ugh, I can only imagine the horror of role-playing in your game) is not only cheating but also destroys any suspense you might have been trying to build.



If you think "slow ponderous hill giants are bad at ranged combat, but smash things good with their clubs" is suspense, then I really pity you.

I imagine your mystery plots are along the lines of "Who'd have guessed? The snide, hateful man with the pointy black goatee was evil after all!".


----------



## CPXB (Apr 13, 2004)

I almost responded to Sae, again, before realizing that talking to him was like teaching a pig to sing.  It wastes my time and annoys the pig.


----------



## Diirk (Apr 13, 2004)

shurikens are an option, and fire won't torch the village immediately etc but this broken ground thing annoys me. You can't just mystically conjure some up on on a whim, "Hey DM, there's some broken ground here I'm going to hide behind ok?"

And a road with a few potholes doesn't qualify imo as "broken ground"

Broken ground might be something like... a quarry. Definately an exception rather than a rule.


----------



## Bauglir (Apr 13, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> It really sounds like the thing that would fix the monk, in a lot of peoples opinion here, would be to simply change the monks BAB from medium to good.
> 
> This would allow him an attack routine of something like +20/+20/+20/+15/+10 (possibly an extra +5 at the end as well).
> 
> ...




I agree that probably would make monks too good.  It might be doable however if you strip out several of their special abilities to balance it out?  The spell resistance is very powerful, losing that would go a long way toward balancing it back up I think.


----------



## hong (Apr 13, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> "What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"
> 
> Glad you actually read my post hong.



I am always willing to give little children the benefit of my penetrating wisdom, as unto a shaft of gold in the dark night.



> The monk has a green and lavender Iuan Stone, which absorbes all spells of 8th or lower level.



And I shall start now.

1. The ioun [sic] stone only absorbs 50 spell levels, after which it's useless. Unless you are talking about a one-shot, these things run out.

2. It costs 40,000 gp a pop. Even 20th level characters will blink at splurging that sort of money on a regular basis.

3. There's nothing to stop the barb, or any other character, getting one of these ioun stones either. It is entirely irrelevant for the purpose of comparing character classes.

You DO understand what we're trying to do here, don't you?



> No I dont care if "I" kill crap, as long as the party kills crap Im happy. I help that along in the way best suited to whatever Im playing, be that by healing people or (In the case of my rogue) just by detecting and disarming traps.



How very nice of you. I'll bet you even know all the words to "Kumbaya".



> My rogue is beyond useless in combat, but has a nifty +68 on hiding and +32 on search so he makes a decent scout.



What your rogue does is a matter of profound indifference to me, and the other six billion people on the planet.



> I cant remeber any game where "disabling the trap" was as cool as doing 150 damage on a crit, but it still needs doing.



Yes, yes, your ONE-INCH TITANIUM PENIS is smaller than mine. Okay, I believe you.



> "Because you are defining a monk's niche solely in terms of survivability"
> That is the monks niche, first man in last man out.



For people who play RIFTS, certainly.



> LOOK AT THE CLASS.



YOU CAN TELL THAT'S IMPORTANT, BECAUSE MAJERE POSTED IN ALL CAPS. FEAR HIM! FEEEEAAARRR HIMMM!!!!

This kinda schtick would work better if you actually showed any sign of cognitive ability past 7th grade, you know.



> It is clearly far more defensive than any other melee class so how can you possibly argue it should be as offensive as well. That is clearly unbalanced, you appear to define the "balance" of a class purely by the damage is can deal, if something deals less damage then something else.. must be unbalanced !?



No. This one particular class is based on precedents that strongly suggest it should be able to hold its own in combat. The class fails to do this, therefore it's a badly designed class. This argument does not apply to any arbitrary class, but only this one.

Perhaps if I post in small words, it will be easier to understand.

Monk in chop-socky movies kick butt.
Monk in D&D no kick butt.
Monk do right stuff bad.
Monk do wrong stuff good.

Unfortunately there's two words with more than one syllable in there, but hopefully you should still be able get the gist of it.



> As as I demonstrated the monk can have an almost identical attack routine to the fighter, so he is just as likely to hit as the fighter.



You have demonstrated no such thing, kid. Try again.



> There are also feats for such fun shindigs as vorpal fists. Just because the monk I put down didnt bother upping his str doesnt mean I couldnt have increased his damage.



IOW: you demonstrated no such thing, as I said.



> However lowering the Ac of the monk is a poor option due to low HP.



IOW: monks are problematic in combat, as I said.



> although, again. There are ways to take from ac and give to hp and I put in the post.



IOW: your build as posted was pointless, as I said.



> If you read my post I suggested ideas that would drop the monks ac to the mid 50's (still 10 points more than the fighter and the fighter can only hit on a 20), while raising the hp to over 200.



Is this more of that funky new math I've heard about?



> Maybe you didnt bother to read that ?
> 
> "What "immunity to spells below 8th level"? And why should I care how unhittable this guy is, if he also can't hit anything worth a damn?"
> Actually he has the same to hit bonuses and DRbypass as any fighter.



Ah. This must be some new meaning of the word "same" I wasn't previously aware of.



> He does less damage yes, but he still does a respectable amount.



Well, respectable to someone who plays a rogue who's useless in combat, anyway. Meanwhile in the real world, it's 12 midnight. DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CHILDREN ARE?



> Infact if the creature has a few energy resistances then the monk does about 2/3 to 3/4 of the fighters damage on each hit. And that is a monk who is deliberately with a very low Str.



That is 1) a fraction of the damage 2) of a fighter who isn't optimised for damage output 3) in a subset of all combat situations.

You're doing well so far.



> An enlarged half-orc monk with a higher starting Str stat could well be doing damage almost as good as a fighters while enjoying far better speed and defences.



And the fighter could just as easily be enlarged as well. This is the third time you have failed to comprehend this, O dimmest of wits. But never mind, the cluebat builds character.



> "Did I mention any spells that involve touch AC? Try again, RIFTS boy."
> One word
> Harm
> Your fighter just lost 75hp
> ...



I will say, for the third time, in hopes of getting through to your tiny brain: nobody cares. The monk will live through crap that can kill lots of other people. Nobody cares. The character is not a major threat, relatively speaking, and since that is the prime driver of satisfaction for most people, the class has problems.

YOU may care that your monk has stratospheric AC and saves, but your preferences are completely irrelevant to anyone except yourself. Except maybe to demonstrate to all and sundry your inability to follow the argument presented, but that's no bad thing.



> "Why do you persist in using a metric that has no relevance to the issue except for yourself?"
> Its entirely relevent if you are going to compare classess that I compare classes.



You know, there's no shame in just admitting you don't have a clue what's going on. Really.



> Just because you dont have a good counter to my example doesnt make it irrelevent.



Clearly I will have to post in small words again.

Monk live through crap.
Only so much crap in the world.
Monk no dish out crap.
Dish out crap good.
Monk no dish out crap, so monk no good.

Comprende, RIFTS boy?



> " However, if D&D is going to do this, then the right thing to do, assuming one wants a martial artist-type in the game, is to design the class so that it retains that core theme to it, of being able to hold its own in combat. If this cannot be done, then the class should be dropped, because doing otherwise simply means people are misled as to their intended role in the party."
> Here you probably have a point.



Ah, another glimmer of understanding! It makes it all worthwhile. No, really.



> But in fantasy books mages are all powerful, wishes can do anything and so on.



Nonsense.



> You never see a character shout "I wish my friends were alive again.. oh wait thats in a prohibited class for me so I can only replicate 5th level spells not 7th, erm wait a second.. I erm wish they had made their saves.. oh no I cant do that either".



Oh dear, RIFTS boy is babbling again.



> D&D moved away from steriotypes quite a while ago. So Im not sure how tightly you can use them to back up any argument.



Please, not the "it's all chess to me" argument. Do not make me drag out the dinosaurs.


----------



## hong (Apr 13, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Actual 20th level monk (hasted):
> 
> Natural attacks: +30/+30/+30/+30/+25/+20 (2d10+10 - average 21) plus 1 stun attempt per round.
> AC: 39
> ...



1. Why only +5 flaming? If there is one no-brainer enchantment you want on a weapon, it's holy. It seems to be a requirement in a stereotypical D&D adventure that the bad guys must be Evil, and this holds more and more true the higher level you go. All the bad guys in the adventure path modules and the TSR classics are evil, and the same holds true for probably 90% of other modules out there. Even for DMs who don't use modules, I'd put money on the great majority of custom BBEGs being evil. Holy basically gives you an extra 2d6 points in those situations where you're most likely to want it.

2. Looking over the CR 20 threats in the MM, I find: balor -- AC 35. Pit fiend -- AC 40. Old red dragon -- AC 33. Black dragon wyrm -- AC 39. Or you could use a 20th level monk (AC 39), or a 20th level fighter (AC 36). It may be the case that you'll still hit these enemies with at least your first attack, but they're still a long, long way from AC 25.

3. Assuming the monk even has Power Attack is a stretch, IME, as is being able to optimise it all the time.

4. A sword-and-shield fighter is itself a build optimised for defence, so naturally the monk isn't going to look so bad compared to it. You would hope that someone building a fighter like this is intending not to get hit.




> The monk can be plenty effective. I've seen it many times. Beyond the numbers above, you have to figure in that the damage from the monk comes in smaller baskets in more attacks, so that when he drops a foe, he has less overblow (lost damage) and can make greater use out of a feat like great cleave in games with medium hit die foes in high level games.



And if it's a stretch to assume a monk has PA, it's an even greater stretch to assume they have Great Cleave.



> I have REPEATEDLY seen monks shine in combat.



Define "shine". Do you mean contributing in ways that help other people kick butt, as seems to be the case for the majority of examples posted thus far? Because I have great difficulty believing that there really are that many combat-monster monks out there.



> Having seen it, I can (with 100% accuracy) say that it can be done under the core rules. Anyone that says that it can not happen can not speak with such authority - failing to see something does not prove that it does not exist. It just says that you have not seen it.



Nobody said you couldn't do it. You just have to work pretty hard at it, and know a lot about the tricks of the ruleset and how best to use them to your advantage. It's entirely possible to become president of the US if you work hard enough. You would also be pretty silly to assume everyone can do it.




> 3.) People hate Hong and Hong hates people.



It's character building.


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 13, 2004)

The problem with giving the Monk all the fighter bennies (high BAB, extra martial arts feats), is that she will then totally overshadow the other warrior-classes.
The skills, saves, and special abilities are not worthless, even if they don't directly add to offence.

Geoff.


----------



## Will (Apr 13, 2004)

Ok. Now, why, again, does rpg.net have the bad reputation?

Yeesh.


----------



## CPXB (Apr 13, 2004)

Diirk said:
			
		

> shurikens are an option, and fire won't torch the village immediately etc but this broken ground thing annoys me. You can't just mystically conjure some up on on a whim, "Hey DM, there's some broken ground here I'm going to hide behind ok?"
> 
> And a road with a few potholes doesn't qualify imo as "broken ground"
> 
> Broken ground might be something like... a quarry. Definately an exception rather than a rule.




It was one of those things I was gonna mention, that we were fighting on a road between two fields with a few buildings nearby -- not precisely a stagaltite filled cavern.  I was also going to mention that the giants had enough cover (nearby buildings) as we did.  I particularly like the part where he said I should be able to get a clear shot at the giant unless the giant was swarmed -- which, as I pointed out originally, the giant *was*.  He had already made his decision, based on predicates from his own experiences, so continuing on about it would have been foolish.


----------



## Gort (Apr 13, 2004)

Hong has made one good point. (ain't I generous?) A two-handed swordsman will outshine any melee character for damage. This is clear. Even before power attack, the 1.5xstr and 2d6 damage will make pretty much anything hurt bad, and bonuses like holy are no-brainers. (I play a fighter in a campaign where every character is evil, and I'd put holy on my sword if I could find a way around the level loss!)

So, the monk isn't going to outshine anyone except the bard and rogue for damage. (sneak attack is just too damn unreliable - one minute it's awesome, the next it's worthless) However, I think his defensive powers and his lack of armour go a long way to balancing that out. Of course, I usually play sword and board fighters (currently a tower shielded full plater) so I place a lot of emphasis on who's still standing at the end of a combat. (Leading a party of evil characters kinda means you don't want to go down in combat, let alone be killed - you don't know whether they'll heal, resurrect, or coup-de-grace and loot you!)

Things like ray spells spoil everyone's day, unless you're a monk. Ditto grappling. Ditto tripping.

But, if you're like Hong, who loves his martial artist and kicking ass naked better than full plated and armed, here's a suggested monk class:

Same as the fighter in every way, bar: Drop all armour proficiency. Drop weapon proficiency down to monk list. Give wis bonus to AC and flurry. Sorted.

However, for all his defensive powers, I don't think the monk does too little damage. If you want more attack, you'll have to sacrifice something.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 14, 2004)

hong said:
			
		

> 1. Why only +5 flaming? If there is one no-brainer enchantment you want on a weapon, it's holy. It seems to be a requirement in a stereotypical D&D adventure that the bad guys must be Evil, and this holds more and more true the higher level you go. All the bad guys in the adventure path modules and the TSR classics are evil, and the same holds true for probably 90% of other modules out there. Even for DMs who don't use modules, I'd put money on the great majority of custom BBEGs being evil. Holy basically gives you an extra 2d6 points in those situations where you're most likely to want it.



I used the word actual for a reason. Those were real characters. In this instance, the longsword had a number of other abilities. Of course, the monk didn't even have fire going for it, though it is easy for a monk to get flame damage for his attacks via a ring of spell storing and (heightened) produce flame spells from the druid (or other tactics). And let's not forget the exhalted monk feats ...







			
				hong said:
			
		

> 2. Looking over the CR 20 threats in the MM, I find: balor -- AC 35. Pit fiend -- AC 40. Old red dragon -- AC 33. Black dragon wyrm -- AC 39. Or you could use a 20th level monk (AC 39), or a 20th level fighter (AC 36). It may be the case that you'll still hit these enemies with at least your first attack, but they're still a long, long way from AC 25.



You get 3 attacks at your best AB. Against these foes, additional spells (prayer, etc ..) would be advised. But, as I mentioned, going after high AC foes is not a strength of the monk. You're entirely correct that it lacks in that department. It makes up for it in its effectiveness against lower AC monsters. I've played in a dozen or so high level campaigns in the past two years. In each of them, ACs above 25 were reserved for powerful BBEGs. Most enemies had a lower AC. Even though the monk was not playing to his strength against those BBEGs, he was still effective.







			
				hong said:
			
		

> 3. Assuming the monk even has Power Attack is a stretch, IME, as is being able to optimise it all the time.



PA is one of the most effective feats for any melee character that can benefit from it (not light weapon folks, but everyone else). Perhaps poor feat choices play a part in your poor perception of monks?







			
				hong said:
			
		

> 4. A sword-and-shield fighter is itself a build optimised for defence, so naturally the monk isn't going to look so bad compared to it. You would hope that someone building a fighter like this is intending not to get hit.



Monk is also optimized for defense. This monk did nothing special to improve his defense. I constantly question why he hasn't done the basics to get his AC up into the 40s and play off of the strengths of the monk ... 







			
				hong said:
			
		

> And if it's a stretch to assume a monk has PA, it's an even greater stretch to assume they have Great Cleave.



I've never seen a high level monk without PA and cleave. They are very high efficiency feats for any melee character.


			
				hong said:
			
		

> Define "shine". Do you mean contributing in ways that help other people kick butt, as seems to be the case for the majority of examples posted thus far? Because I have great difficulty believing that there really are that many combat-monster monks out there.



Here is an example of shine: Our group came into the lair of a BBEG epic priest and his army of minions. The priest dropped a modified mass hold monster spell on the party. The monk and the cleric saved, the rest of the party was held. The monk proceeded to d-door close to the BBEG while the rest of the party was being tended to by the party cleric. The next round, the BBEG turned on the monk, but his spell failed to get through the monk's SR. The monk then proceeded to beat the crap out of the enemy priest for his first 3 attacks and then used his fourth attack at top BAB (he was hasted due to his boots) to quivering palm the enemy priest. The rest of the party had to resort to clean up duty.







			
				hong said:
			
		

> Nobody said you couldn't do it. You just have to work pretty hard at it, and know a lot about the tricks of the ruleset and how best to use them to your advantage. It's entirely possible to become president of the US if you work hard enough. You would also be pretty silly to assume everyone can do it.



So don't assume that fact. And at the same time, don't assume a fighter has any weapon he wants at his disposal, don't assume every cleric knows the optimum spells to use and don't assume every druid knows how to get the most bang out of his summoning and animal companion.

You've repeatedly said monk's can't compete. I'm telling you I've seen it. If I've seen it, it can be done. 

It takes *some* effort. It takes *some effort* to be effective in almost any class. You can't put your highest ability scores in charisma, constitution and intelligence and expect to be an effective monk. But, usuing just the basics of strategy and selecting the feats known to be best for melee combat, a monk is a very effective PC. 

And once again, just to stress the point, in certain styles of games, a monk can not compete. If the DM uses exclusively high AC foes, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses exclusviely foes immune to stunning, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses monsters that inflict damage if hit with a natural weapon, the monk is at a disadvantage. There are many ways to put monks at a disadvantage. If you happen to play in those games, it isn't a fault of the monk class that makes it weak.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 14, 2004)

Gort said:
			
		

> Hong has made one good point. (ain't I generous?) A two-handed swordsman will outshine any melee character for damage. This is clear. Even before power attack, the 1.5xstr and 2d6 damage will make pretty much anything hurt bad, and bonuses like holy are no-brainers. (I play a fighter in a campaign where every character is evil, and I'd put holy on my sword if I could find a way around the level loss!)



I encourage people to do a few studies. It helps to open eyes a bit to the numbers behind D&D that influenced the balance decisions.

Keep a record of effective damage per attack. Effective damage is all damage that does not result in negative hit points for your foe. For instance, if your foe has 40 hit points and you hit him twice for 30 hit points each, the first strike does 30 effective hit points of damage and the second strike does 11 effective hit points of damage (the rest putting him down to negative hit points which have virtually no effect on the game). Also keep tabs on when the damage was dealt - in full round attacks, via cleaves, etc ... 

If you compare that two handed barbarian to the two weapon ranger, you might be surprised by the results.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 14, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> It was one of those things I was gonna mention, that we were fighting on a road between two fields with a few buildings nearby -- not precisely a stagaltite filled cavern.



A field tends to qualify as broken ground, especially a tilled one. Or one filled with head-high crops. Or one filled with mud. Or...

The numbers under balance checks are for things like "uneven flagstone", "hewn stone floor" and "sloped or angled floor". If a field can't count as at least equal to those, then your balance ranks are basically a total waste of time. Swap them out for a skill that will see some use.


> I was also going to mention that the giants had enough cover (nearby buildings) as we did.  I particularly like the part where he said I should be able to get a clear shot at the giant unless the giant was swarmed -- which, as I pointed out originally, the giant *was*.



What, swarmed by two creatures? And a giant's cover tends to be something that requires he take a move action to get behind, whereas your cover is the ditch in the side of the road.







> He had already made his decision, based on predicates from his own experiences, so continuing on about it would have been foolish.



Sounds like you came up against a solid argument that you don't agree with, and are bailing because you know you've been outclassed.

Perhaps if I'd actually failed to provide counter-arguments to what you've brought up, or if you'd had a clue about half the rules you were supposed to be useing, or...

But no. Claiming I'd already made my mind up before the argument is far, far easier than either knowing what you're on about, or knowing that you're beat.


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> I used the word actual for a reason. Those were real characters. In this instance, the longsword had a number of other abilities. Of course, the monk didn't even have fire going for it, though it is easy for a monk to get flame damage for his attacks via a ring of spell storing and (heightened) produce flame spells from the druid (or other tactics).



I don't really know why a ring of spell storing is that relevant. Anyone can use one, not just the monk, so it all cancels out. Not to mention that a produce flame from a ring of spell storing lasts all of 1 minute, and gives you one attack.



> And let's not forget the exhalted monk feats ...



1. Vow of Poverty is st00pid, kthx. 2. If you want to include exalted feats, everyone else can get those too. 3. Going outside core opens up a whole can o' worms.



> You get 3 attacks at your best AB. Against these foes, additional spells (prayer, etc ..) would be advised. But, as I mentioned, going after high AC foes is not a strength of the monk. You're entirely correct that it lacks in that department. It makes up for it in its effectiveness against lower AC monsters. I've played in a dozen or so high level campaigns in the past two years. In each of them, ACs above 25 were reserved for powerful BBEGs. Most enemies had a lower AC. Even though the monk was not playing to his strength against those BBEGs, he was still effective.



And see, that's the thing: the fights against BBEGs tend to be the ones that capture the imagination, and it's those fights where the monk tends to get shaded most of all. Yes, being able to beat up mooks has its uses, but it's not the same, and besides which, everyone else (bar a few exceptions) can also beat up mooks: it's not like it's usually a tough job. As said before, everything a monk can do, someone else can probably do better. The exception might be being able to survive, but past a certain point, that just gets boring.



> PA is one of the most effective feats for any melee character that can benefit from it (not light weapon folks, but everyone else). Perhaps poor feat choices play a part in your poor perception of monks?



Monks do not exactly have a lot of feats to start with, even counting the bonus stuff they get. What you call "poor feat choices" I call "having to make compromises in organic play".



> Monk is also optimized for defense. This monk did nothing special to improve his defense. I constantly question why he hasn't done the basics to get his AC up into the 40s and play off of the strengths of the monk ...



Perhaps because he also realises that past a certain point, concentrating solely on being able to soak up the crap isn't that much fun?



> I've never seen a high level monk without PA and cleave. They are very high efficiency feats for any melee character.



Funny, I've never seen a high level monk _with_ PA and cleave. Do you play thse high-level monks all the way from 1st level, or were they made up on the spot?



> Here is an example of shine: Our group came into the lair of a BBEG epic priest and his army of minions. The priest dropped a modified mass hold monster spell on the party. The monk and the cleric saved, the rest of the party was held. The monk proceeded to d-door close to the BBEG while the rest of the party was being tended to by the party cleric. The next round, the BBEG turned on the monk, but his spell failed to get through the monk's SR. The monk then proceeded to beat the crap out of the enemy priest for his first 3 attacks and then used his fourth attack at top BAB (he was hasted due to his boots) to quivering palm the enemy priest. The rest of the party had to resort to clean up duty.



That's one anecdote, which goes completely against the bulk of evidence I've seen. First, if it was a _priest_ (cleric), you probably got lucky with the quivering palm. Second, doing a generous 18-20 points on each of 3 hits (without PA) is not "beating the crap" out of anyone. While it's true that every little bit counts, any BBEG at high levels worth his salt should be able to take that damage and keep swinging. Third, if you actually got to use PA optimally in the first round of combat, that's hardly a representative situation.



> So don't assume that fact. And at the same time, don't assume a fighter has any weapon he wants at his disposal,



IME, this assumption is met far more often than not. How many weapons do you really need?



> don't assume every cleric knows the optimum spells to use



IME, coming up with a standard MO for a cleric is not that tough -- the trick is ensuring you have enough time to get the buffs going. Even then, something as basic as quickened divine favor + righteous might can do great things for the cleric, for the cost of just one round.



> and don't assume every druid knows how to get the most bang out of his summoning and animal companion.



How hard is it to just summon stuff every battle?



> You've repeatedly said monk's can't compete. I'm telling you I've seen it. If I've seen it, it can be done.



Just because you've seen it done, doesn't mean it happens all the time or even on a regular basis.



> It takes *some* effort. It takes *some effort* to be effective in almost any class. You can't put your highest ability scores in charisma, constitution and intelligence and expect to be an effective monk. But, usuing just the basics of strategy and selecting the feats known to be best for melee combat, a monk is a very effective PC.



No. Playing a monk right entails having to modify one's strategy in a way that often runs counter to a player's intended role. You end up sniping from the sidelines, using Spring Attack to avoid getting hit, dishing out pissy damage (relatively speaking) and cleaning up mooks while the tanks take down the BBEG.

From a strict tactical point of view, there is nothing wrong with this. You take what resources you have, and you exploit them for maximum effect. However, it's generally _not_ the sort of role that is desired by people who play monks, and have visions of kicking butt and taking names. Saying that they should modify their intended playing style just to work around funky class mechanics is putting the cart before the horse.



> And once again, just to stress the point, in certain styles of games, a monk can not compete. If the DM uses exclusively high AC foes, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses exclusviely foes immune to stunning, the monk will be at a disadvantage. If the DM uses monsters that inflict damage if hit with a natural weapon, the monk is at a disadvantage. There are many ways to put monks at a disadvantage. If you happen to play in those games, it isn't a fault of the monk class that makes it weak.



However, it _is_ a fault of the monk class that it doesn't support the style of play often envisioned by those who play monks.


----------



## Majere (Apr 14, 2004)

"And see, that's the thing: the fights against BBEGs tend to be the ones that capture the imagination, and it's those fights where the monk tends to get shaded most of all. 
... The exception might be being able to survive, but past a certain point, that just gets boring."

This is Hongs real argument
NOT that monk is unbalanced
NOT that monk is unbroken
JUST that monks dont do alot of damage and HONG likes to do alot of damage. 

Hongs real argument is:
"Ooo but I watched this film and it was really cool and this one character he like, kileld everything, on his own, and then he beat up the end badguy and with a really badly dubed voice rescued the girl. I want my D&D character to be just like that."
There is nothing wrong with this style of play. It just means hong shouldnt play monks anytime soon because they dont suit his style of play. And Its is wrong to say that this is what monks are ment to do. D&D classess are distinct from anything you may have seen outside of D&D.
You going to be pissed off if you just read the dragon lance chronicals, make a wizard called raistlin, and then have to work out why you only got 2hp and 2 spells per day (You gave him low con because everyone knows raistlin is sickly). The fact that your mage is going to die every single encounter is going to piss you off no end, but that doesnt mean there is anything wrong with mage. Its just another example where a player mistakenly brings out of game expectations to the table.
Bringing out of game expectations to any game table is a good way to leave that table disappointed. 

Hong also clearly doesnt play in a game where staying alive is a big deal for his party; his clerics dont heal and his fighters are all out damage freaks. I would find it interesting to know just how many minutes the average hong character lasts. I certainly know in my style of campeign such characters would die in the first encounter or two. 
However it doesnt mean that monks are broken, just different. And variety is the spice of life and all that

Majere


----------



## CPXB (Apr 14, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> Bringing out of game expectations to any game table is a good way to leave that table disappointed.




Indeed.

It could also be said that it is a reasonably good reason to change the character class into something more fulfilling a player's expectations.  Fortunately, my DM watches a lot of kung-fu movies and largely agrees that monks should be like Fong Sai Yuk and Wong Fei-hung than the rather flaccid shadows that the standard D&D monk is.


----------



## Scion (Apr 14, 2004)

CPXB said:
			
		

> Indeed.
> 
> It could also be said that it is a reasonably good reason to change the character class into something more fulfilling a player's expectations.  Fortunately, my DM watches a lot of kung-fu movies and largely agrees that monks should be like Fong Sai Yuk and Wong Fei-hung than the rather flaccid shadows that the standard D&D monk is.




Remember, if the monk starts out fighting the other types then he is suddenly horribly overpowered. there is a fine line there somewhere.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Apr 14, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> This is Hongs real argument
> NOT that monk is unbalanced
> NOT that monk is unbroken
> JUST that monks dont do alot of damage and HONG likes to do alot of damage.
> ...




It takes some small amount of skill to directly quote someone and turn his words against him.
It take none to make them up for the same purpose.
This is poorly done and in bad taste.  Any point you were trying to make has been consumed by this childish antic.  Boo


----------



## CPXB (Apr 14, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Remember, if the monk starts out fighting the other types then he is suddenly horribly overpowered. there is a fine line there somewhere.




I fully agree.  The changes me and the DM made for our game is still under review.  I have precisely zero desire to shaft the other players out of their enjoyment of kickin' ass and taking names.  I just want to play a C that is like Fong Sai Yuk, demmit!  Hehe.


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> "And see, that's the thing: the fights against BBEGs tend to be the ones that capture the imagination, and it's those fights where the monk tends to get shaded most of all.
> ... The exception might be being able to survive, but past a certain point, that just gets boring."
> 
> This is Hongs real argument
> ...



That's the worst haiku I've ever seen.



> JUST that monks dont do alot of damage and HONG likes to do alot of damage.



To be more precise, most people like to do a lot of damage. In particular, many people who want to play monks are likely to want to do a lot of damage. I've seen precious little to indicate otherwise, certain refugees from RIFTS notwithstanding.



> Hongs real argument is:
> "Ooo but I watched this film and it was really cool and this one character he like, kileld everything, on his own, and then he beat up the end badguy and with a really badly dubed voice rescued the girl. I want my D&D character to be just like that."



D00d, you can stop bragging that your penis is smaller than mine already. I believe you, okay?



> There is nothing wrong with this style of play. It just means hong shouldnt play monks anytime soon because they dont suit his style of play. And Its is wrong to say that this is what monks are ment to do. D&D classess are distinct from anything you may have seen outside of D&D.



Ah yes the "it's all chess to me" argument. Have a picture of a dinosaur on me.







This is twaddle. While D&D may define its own genre to a great extent, it's also not wholly divorced from its roots. D&D characters may all fly and teleport at high levels, wizards may throw around fireballs and death is just a temporary inconvenience, but at heart, it's still grounded in the fantasy genre. You do not have laser rifles in the typical D&D campaign, nor spaceships, nor Abrams tanks.

Just because D&D is full of anachronisms doesn't mean it ignores convention entirely. In particular, when you have a class like the monk that is so obviously based off of a certain character archetype, talking about ignoring convention is just shorthand for justifying poor design choices.



> You going to be pissed off if you just read the dragon lance chronicals, make a wizard called raistlin, and then have to work out why you only got 2hp and 2 spells per day (You gave him low con because everyone knows raistlin is sickly). The fact that your mage is going to die every single encounter is going to piss you off no end, but that doesnt mean there is anything wrong with mage.



Irrelevant. It is left as an exercise for the reader to understand why.



> Its just another example where a player mistakenly brings out of game expectations to the table.



There is nothing "mistaken" about looking at the roles taken on by the characters who inspired a D&D class, and assuming that the class going to be designed to facilitate those roles.



> Bringing out of game expectations to any game table is a good way to leave that table disappointed.



I'll bet you say that to all the girls.



> Hong also clearly doesnt play in a game where staying alive is a big deal for his party; his clerics dont heal and his fighters are all out damage freaks. I would find it interesting to know just how many minutes the average hong character lasts. I certainly know in my style of campeign such characters would die in the first encounter or two.



Well, you know, that's what happens when you have a small penis.



> However it doesnt mean that monks are broken, just different.



Did I ever say that monks are broken?



> And variety is the spice of life and all that



No, Majere, you are not going to get a group hug.


----------



## Majere (Apr 14, 2004)

"It is left as an exercise for the reader to understand why."

I read a wonderful articule on techniques of teaching, in which a number of similar phrases were translated into lay terms. This one was translated quite simply.

"I dont understand why"

Majere


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 14, 2004)

Hong, my friend, I'm beginning to think you like to argue ...

First, I'd knock it off with the anatomy comments. When a man spends that much time talking about size, it is usually a sign that he's sensitive about his own situation ...

Second, I provided one example where a monk could shine. I can provide many more. I'm not going to waste time doing so. Maybe I'll get around to it on a storyhour thread sometime. But, please know that this was only one incident that stood out in my memory from a vast array of examples. I've seen a half dozen monks played from 1st level to 15th level and above. Every single monk was an enjoyable character for the player. My most recent monk character (which has been inactive for a few months, unfortunately) has been a blast.

Third, your arguments really took a hit in my eyes when you said you've never seen a high level monk with PA. PA is well known as the most essential melee feat in the game. *Any* melee fighter that doesn't have it is losing out. If the monks you've seen seem weak and you've never seen a monk with PA, the lack of PA is a big factor. That is like an evoker complaining that his spells don't do enough damage when he has not taken empower spell or maximize spell.

Fourth, I highly recommend you try my exercise and check out the effective damage dealt by different PCs - the total damage minus the damage that has no significant effect on the game. You'll find that a lot of these high damage two handed PCs are actually not doing as well as people think.

Finally, if you want a monk that hits as well as a fighter type, deals damage like a fighter type and generally is a fighter - try a fighter. Perhaps you'd like to go monk 12 / fighter  8 as a 20 level build as a hybrid, only 3 AB behind a pure fighter. Factoring in the flurry of blow bonuses, your effective 20th level attack is BAB +17/+17/+17/+12/+7/+2. Weapon focuses and specialization will give you the ability to hit and deal damage as you desire - Effectively giving you a +19/+19/+19/+14/+9/+4 attack routine with 9 base damage (plus magical bonuses). Your AC and special abilities will be behind those of other monks, but you don't place a high value on those anyway if you don't consider them to be adequate comensation for lost AB.

I hope that you'll take some of this as a suggestion on how to make a monk more enjoyable for you, not just as a grounds for argument. If not, I wish you luck on finding a solution that better suits your needs.


----------



## Asmo (Apr 14, 2004)

I never even considered to play a monk before this thread started, but jgsugden really makes me want to try to play one!
Good job!!

Asmo


----------



## Geoff Watson (Apr 15, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Third, your arguments really took a hit in my eyes when you said you've never seen a high level monk with PA. PA is well known as the most essential melee feat in the game. *Any* melee fighter that doesn't have it is losing out. If the monks you've seen seem weak and you've never seen a monk with PA, the lack of PA is a big factor. That is like an evoker complaining that his spells don't do enough damage when he has not taken empower spell or maximize spell.




The thing is, PA is a terrible feat, unless you are using the 3.5 version with a two-handed weapon. The main reason to take it is to get Cleave, which is a nice feat.
Even if you optimise the average damage, it doesn't add much, except in extreme situations (attacker does terrible damage to begin with, or hits on a 1 or less, etc).

Hong is good enough at maths to realise this. 

Geoff.


----------



## shilsen (Apr 15, 2004)

*Wanders into thread to get daily dose of amusement at exactly how upset people can get at the opinions of complete strangers on a messageboard.*

*Reads new posts*

*Grins to self and wanders off*


----------



## hong (Apr 15, 2004)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> Hong, my friend, I'm beginning to think you like to argue ...



I couldn't do it without all my friends. 



> First, I'd knock it off with the anatomy comments. When a man spends that much time talking about size, it is usually a sign that he's sensitive about his own situation ...



It's true, my penis is a very sensitive spot.



> Second, I provided one example where a monk could shine. I can provide many more. I'm not going to waste time doing so. Maybe I'll get around to it on a storyhour thread sometime. But, please know that this was only one incident that stood out in my memory from a vast array of examples. I've seen a half dozen monks played from 1st level to 15th level and above. Every single monk was an enjoyable character for the player. My most recent monk character (which has been inactive for a few months, unfortunately) has been a blast.



Sigh.

I never said you couldn't have fun with a monk. I said that if you want to treat a monk as a primary combatant in the party, then either you're going to be struggling, or the DM has to tailor stuff to suit. This has never been in dispute. Even your analysis supports this: with optimal PA and compared to a fighter without optimal gear, the monk still does less damage. He'll be a lot more survivable, but that's also never been in dispute.



> Third, your arguments really took a hit in my eyes when you said you've never seen a high level monk with PA. PA is well known as the most essential melee feat in the game.



Where on earth did you get that? PA is good if you have a two-handed weapon. Otherwise, it's mediocre. As Geoff said, it's useful as a stepping-stone to Cleave, but I have no idea how you get "most essential melee feat". It might be _particularly_ useful for a monk (since they usually do crappy damage and so PA is proportionately better for them), but this is not an obvious fact for someone who hasn't crunched the numbers.




> Fourth, I highly recommend you try my exercise and check out the effective damage dealt by different PCs - the total damage minus the damage that has no significant effect on the game. You'll find that a lot of these high damage two handed PCs are actually not doing as well as people think.



This is a silly metric. If you want to take down someone as fast as possible, you want to do as much damage to them as you can, and whether you do it in small or big chunks is generally a minor consideration. The only time when "effective" damage is important is when you're next to lots of enemies at once, and they're weak enough that they go down in one or two hits. IOW, you're fighting mooks. And when you're fighting mooks, feats like Cleave, Great Cleave and WWA come into play, not to mention six million boom spells. Furthermore, how likely are you to be in range of 5 or more enemies at once at high levels? That's what you need to take advantage of the monk's multiple attacks.

In fact, the mook fight IMC that comes to mind right now is the one where the barb did a x4 crit for 125 points of damage to a hapless 20 hp guy. OVERKILL is what counts for spotlight time, not nickel-and-diming people to death.



> Finally, if you want a monk that hits as well as a fighter type, deals damage like a fighter type and generally is a fighter - try a fighter. Perhaps you'd like to go monk 12 / fighter 8 as a 20 level build as a hybrid, only 3 AB behind a pure fighter. Factoring in the flurry of blow bonuses, your effective 20th level attack is BAB +17/+17/+17/+12/+7/+2. Weapon focuses and specialization will give you the ability to hit and deal damage as you desire - Effectively giving you a +19/+19/+19/+14/+9/+4 attack routine with 9 base damage (plus magical bonuses). Your AC and special abilities will be behind those of other monks, but you don't place a high value on those anyway if you don't consider them to be adequate comensation for lost AB.



The fighter/monk combo would indeed be a pretty good way of doing a combatant monk. In this situation, I'd probably amp Str and pick up a two-handed weapon, rather than relying on the measly unarmed damage. It's just a pity that you should have to multiclass to do something as basic as kick butt, and the monk multiclassing restrictions don't help either....


----------



## hong (Apr 15, 2004)

Majere said:
			
		

> "It is left as an exercise for the reader to understand why."
> 
> I read a wonderful articule on techniques of teaching, in which a number of similar phrases were translated into lay terms. This one was translated quite simply.
> 
> "I dont understand why"



No, Majere, coming up with stupid one-liners is MY schtick. Please not to STEAL MY SCHTICK.


----------



## jgsugden (Apr 15, 2004)

Hong, believe what you want. 

We both agree that a monk has trouble hitting high AC foes. You think this makes him a weak combat character, regardless of his other abilities - incapable of shining in a standard game. 

I think this cuts out one area where he doesn't shine as well as other classes, but that his awesome movement abilities (to get to foes faster), his ability to resist magic (to stay in the fight when nobody else can), and his ability to kill foes with a single melee attack (sorcerers, wizards, rogues, mind flayers, etc ...) all help him shine at other times. I've seen the shining. You, apparently, have not. 

All we can do is chalk it up to differences in campaign styles and go on.

Good luck.


----------



## rich (Apr 15, 2004)

hey everyone! I don't know how many people are still following this thread, but I found it very entertaining...
I think of the Monk class like a Ninja -- a very good spy/assassin type, but not somebody I would stack up against a Samurai...  As someone else alluded to above, I don't see a bare-footed "peasant" kicking an armored fighter and doing much damage.  On the other hand, one good hit by the Samurai and off goes the Ninja's head   Obviously, playing a spy or an assassin is more role-playing oriented than "slash and burn" gaming, and that's a choice the players/DM has to make.
IMO, certain classes are more "generally useful" than others -- Rangers, Clerics, Druids, maybe Wizards, whereas other classes are more "niche" classes -- Monks, Barbarians, Rogues, maybe Sorcerors.  The niche classes are going to be more difficult to play, which I think is OK.  Not everyone is created equally, and not all choices will lead to the same goals...  I happen to enjoy the more "useful" classes, but I have a buddy who loves playing a monk.  And that's the beauty of the game 

on another note, I'm interested in this argument about the Power Attack feat.  As a new player, I haven't been as interested in this feat, except that I wanted Cleave (which someone above mentioned and which I use much more than PA).  But I'm not much of a numbers cruncher, so I wondered if anyone could explain the pros/cons, or point me in a helpful direction...
TIA!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 15, 2004)

rich said:
			
		

> on another note, I'm interested in this argument about the Power Attack feat.  As a new player, I haven't been as interested in this feat, except that I wanted Cleave (which someone above mentioned and which I use much more than PA).  But I'm not much of a numbers cruncher, so I wondered if anyone could explain the pros/cons, or point me in a helpful direction...
> TIA!




Welcome, Rich!

You might find some of these previous long threads helpful (or at least entertaining)

Is power attack too powerful?

Problems with 3.5 Power Attack?

3.5 power attack: the designers' rationale

Power attack bonus x2 for 2 hand weps  

Power Attack!?!?!?!?!?!?

Cheers


----------



## smetzger (Apr 15, 2004)

As promised here is Bardol the frontline melee guy for my RttToEE campaign.  He has a couple of non-standard items.  But he is holding up very well in what many consider a deadly campaign.

Bardol Human Mnk 12/Ftr1; CR 13; Spd 70 ft; hp 72; AC 25(21 flat footed, 23 touch); Atk flurry +16/+16/+16/+11 dmg 3d8+1d6+3 or Glaive +13/+8 dmg 1d10+4 Sv Fort +13, Ref +13, Will +13
Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8
Skills: Balance +14, Climb +14, Escape Artist +11, Hide +12, Jump +36, Knowledge(religion) +9, Move Silently +12, Spot +19, Tumble +20
Feats: Combat Expertise, Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Improved Unarmed Strike, Improved Grapple, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus (unarmed), Improved Natural Attack

Possessions: Eyes of the Eagle, Cloak of Resistance +2, Amulet of Wisdom +2, Bracers of Armor +2, Ring of protection +2, Rinfg of Feather fall, Monks Belt, boots of striding and springing, immovable rod, Wand of Enlarge Person[someone else uses the wand on Bardol], Wand of mage Armor[someone else uses the wand on Bardol], + misc potions
Flaming Ki Straps (Turn hands into +1 weapons and add 1d6 fire damage, takes up glove slot)
Hammersphere(functions as spiritual hammer 1/day except that it does 3d6 damage)

Typical Buffs cast on Bardol:
Enlarge Person, Mage Armor, Stone Skin, Barkskin, Cat's Grace, Bull's Strength, Magic Fang, Haste, Protection from Evil, Lion's Charge

Lion's Charge allows you to charge and still make a full attack.


----------



## rich (Apr 16, 2004)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Welcome, Rich!
> 
> You might find some of these previous long threads helpful (or at least entertaining)
> 
> Cheers





thanks!


----------



## hong (Apr 16, 2004)

smetzger said:
			
		

> As promised here is Bardol the frontline melee guy for my RttToEE campaign. He has a couple of non-standard items. But he is holding up very well in what many consider a deadly campaign.
> 
> Bardol Human Mnk 12/Ftr1; CR 13; Spd 70 ft; hp 72; AC 25(21 flat footed, 23 touch); Atk flurry +16/+16/+16/+11 dmg 3d8+1d6+3 or Glaive +13/+8 dmg 1d10+4 Sv Fort +13, Ref +13, Will +13
> Str 14, Dex 18, Con 12, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8



That's... interesting. I think I've only seen one PC with a Con less than 14, and it was messy. How do you keep the character alive with Con that low? I mean, being careful is good, but there's just not much of a safety margin there.


----------



## jaults (Apr 16, 2004)

I play the cleric in this campaign...

 Either my cleric or the druid casts Bear's Endurance on him (26 more HP), he rarely gets hit (his AC is regularly 34 with buffs up and running), and we have a cleric, a druid and the monk himself for healing. Stoneskin also does wonders for soaking damage, and two of our party prepare it regularly. Oh, and for reference, the cleric has a 12 Con boosted to 14 with an item, the druid has a 13 Con, the rogue has a 13 Con boosted to 15 with an item, the archer has a 10 Con boosted to 12 with an item, and the wizard has a 16 Con.

 Again, with buffs, Bardol often has in the low-mid 20s to hit, and does a good amount of damage per hit (4d8+1d6+7 when Enlarged), and he does get something like 5 hits when hasted. For the most part, he hits with at least 3 of his 5 attacks, so he dishes out reasonable damage per round. Our other combat character is an archer, who often finishes off the foes that Bardol doesn't kill by round #2.

 While Enlarged, Bardol threatens an area out to 20 feet with his glaive, and can also attack foes close in because of his unarmed attacks. He has Combat Reflexes, so he gets a decent amount of AoOs when people engage him.

 We also have an Evoker/Elemental Savant(Cold), who does a middling amount of damage to just about everyone on the field, so Bardol and Elfaerin (the archer) don't have as much work to do.

 The druid drops Flame Strikes and Dispels with impunity, and when things get bad, summons 2 (or 3, with Spellstaff) freakin' huge (Huge, that is) Earth Elemntals. They have around 150 HP, and do, on average, 40 pts of damage a round.

 The cleric uses the vast majority of his slots on buffing the party, so he doesn't have any offensive punch (there are cheers 'round the table when Furio actually drops a foe with his mace). He always has 2 or 3 Dispel Magics ready, Dispel Evil, Greater Command, Wall of Stone and Blade Barrier round out his complement.

  Jason (Furio, Cleric 7/Auspician 6)


----------



## jaults (Apr 16, 2004)

I'd love to hear your thoughts, Hong... (how often do you hear that?!)

 Jason


----------



## Epametheus (Apr 16, 2004)

I had replied to Smetzger's post yesterday, but the board ate it  :\ 

The difference between the unbuffed monk and the buffed monk is rather impressive..  I wouldn't expect a person with only 75 HP to last even a single round on the front line at L13..  But after the buffs are factored in, that monk has effectively 200+ HP and a AC of close to 40.  A creature that could overcome adamantine DR would be bad news for him, but otherwise it's like you took a paper bag and somehow got it into the middle of a 20-inch thick titanium block.

Any L13 warrior type would kick ass with that level of buffing, honestly.  The results of three spellcasters all backing one guy are pretty damn good, as they should be.


----------



## hong (Apr 17, 2004)

jaults said:
			
		

> I'd love to hear your thoughts, Hong... (how often do you hear that?!)
> 
> Jason



Heh.

As Epametheus said, the key is in how the party members are working together to buff the monk up. Without that, his stats aren't that impressive; the saves are good as is the unarmed damage, but overall, a well-built fighter or barb could still do better at least offensively. If they also had the same buffs, it would be no contest.

More specific comments:
- The character appears to be built on 28-point buy (assuming you use point buy), which helps get around the monk's dependency on high stats. But the difference between 25 and 28 points is marginal, so this really isn't a factor.

- If you're relying on 3.5 bear's endurance, you're much braver than me! With a duration of 1 min/level, it would seem the monk is taking a big risk of not having it when he needs it; either that or you and the druid have prepped a ton of them and cast it first thing in a fight. Me, I'd just get a +2 item of Con: only 4000 gp, and it's on all day, and can't be dispelled (usually).

- The flaming ki straps are non-core, but they're a good way of dealing with the monk's lack of damage capacity. Ditto for the 1 fighter level and using a glaive.

- Lion's charge is really nice. I have seen it in action.

- Overall though, maybe the biggest point is that you _don't_ have a stereotypical tank in the party, so there's noone to steal the monk's chosen schtick. Life might become interesting if you had a fighter join the party, especially if they had a melee-oriented PrC as well.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 18, 2004)

Bardol is actually a 32 pt buy.

Ok, last nights fight found the party without many of their buff spells.  The party had penetrated fairly far into the bad guy's dungeon and then retreated to the safety of the town.  They suspected their might be retaliation and a divination spell confirmed their fears.

So, the party faced an Elder Fire Elemental, 3 Vrocks, a Chaos Beast and a 14th level Wizard.  They all teleported into the middle of the PCs.  Bardol had stone skin and haste and thats about it.  He was full attacked by the fire elemental, fluried the guy (thus taking damage himself from the elemental), Was full attacked again from the fire elemental.  At this point he was pretty hurt and Abundent Stepped 120' above the suspected location of the wizard (who was in the dark).  While falling (he has ring of feather falling).  He touches himself(no not in that way Hong) to heal, and the next round while falling he drinks a cure potion.  Upon landing on the ground the Wizard is no-where to be seen.  So, he does a 200' charge and attacks one of the Vrocks.

As a side Jason pointed out to me that they do have a frontline fighter.  Its the Druids, Riding Dog animal companion.  At 12th level I let the Druid Awaken the Dog, take leadership and by divine intervention the Dog ascended to 10th level fighter allowing the animal companion to stack with the leadership.  Fifi, has the most hit points in the party.

My point is that it is possible to have a Monk character that 'shines' in the party and is fun to play.  Bardol's obvious weaknes is his low HP.  But his strength is his mobility.  If you think Monk's are too weak, maybe just give them proficiency in all pole arms.  

I do, however, think that Druids are a bit too powerful (and not because I allowed Animal Companion to stack with Leadership).  Not sure how to fix them, but thats a debate for the House Rules forum.


----------



## 3.5newbie (Oct 15, 2005)

Hmmm . . .

It seems to me that the arguments that the monk is a flawed class are quite weak. It's going to boil down to the kind of campaign you run. Monk, with a mixed package of stealth, anti-spellcaster attack profile, multiple attacks, unarmed attacks, and comparatively weak damage:

* Will tend not to shine in a dungeon-focused campaign. Like rouges, they will come to the fore in biped-centric games; cities, ships, castles, armies. The abilty to attack without a weapon, attack multiple games, and flurry missiles v. spellcasters are all more useful against people. Those comparing a pimped-out barbarian to a naked monk might consider that good DM mix in unexpected encounters not on the player's terms. Who's better in a nightgown?

* Will thrive in low-magic campaigns. Christmas-tree campaigns favor tool users. Magic items and spells are force multiplers. The fewer there are, the better a monk's attack progression and defensive modifers look.

* Are front-loaded; after five or six levels the augementations slow. No big deal, if you have to have the most dangerous character in the room, multiclass out and develop a deadly spellcaster or augment the combat bonuses with a melee class.


----------



## Shayuri (Oct 15, 2005)

I just want to toss in here, cuz this isn't the first monk player I've seen to make this exact same comparison (monk vs druid).

One of the most effective monk builds I've ever seen was the "thief monk." This monk had Improved Disarm early on...and his mission in life was to steal wands/spell components/divine foci from enemy casters. Once he'd done that, he'd cream mooks, while the druid summons would keep the "big boys" busy. 

This combo was -unbelievably- nasty. Enemy casters would find themselves all but helpless...with the GM frantically flipping pages to see what spells they could still cast. Mooks fell like grain to his rapid-fire Flurries...and his relatively low AC and HP were protected by dire wolves and brown bear summons, who were up to the task with Augment Summons.

Note that had he not denied enemy casters their power, the summons would have been FAR less effective. Dispels, protection spells, and simply having to deal with interruptive damage during the turn of summoning makes my druid cry. 

The key is for druid and monk to work -together-. Combat isn't a contest (though I totally understand what you were saying about feeling useless). I always take a moment to give my monk buddy a long-lasting Barkskin spell, and a Cat's Grace just before the fun starts too. Those 2nd level buffs aren't too useful for summons, and they make a HEAP of difference to the monk. That translates to more effective spellcaster control, which makes my job of summoning much easier. As for wildshape, sure I can join him in the front ranks if I -have- to. But I find my powers are better used for summoning and healing/support. If someone busts through the front ranks and finds the casters...well, they're in for a nasty surprise when I wildshape...but that's the usual extent of it.

I suggest knocking heads with the party druid, and working out ways that you two can coordinate tactics...find tricks that you can play, little synnergies to take advantage of. It makes a huge difference.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 16, 2005)

hong said:
			
		

> However, it _is_ a fault of the monk class that it doesn't support the style of play often envisioned by those who play monks.




I will agree with that.  Yes, I think the Monk is a viable class.  However, it is not exactly uncommon for players to try the class and be disappointed, more so than any other class in 3.5.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 16, 2005)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> If you compare that two handed barbarian to the two weapon ranger, you might be surprised by the results.




Yeah, I noticed that "effective damage" thing when playing a 3.0 Ranger.  For all that class was indeed underpowered, the TWF was working out surprising well.  The other nice thing is the more attacks rolled means that extreme streaks of bad luck where you miss and miss and miss are much rarer -- that is a significant boost to your survivability at lower levels.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Oct 16, 2005)

3.5newbie said:
			
		

> * Will thrive in low-magic campaigns. Christmas-tree campaigns favor tool users. Magic items and spells are force multiplers. The fewer there are, the better a monk's attack progression and defensive modifers look.




It is not quite so simple.  The Monk class has severe case of MAD (Multiple Ability Disorder) which has the net effect of making their long list of weird abilities not that stupendous in actual play.  But that liability is a potential advantage if stat boosting becomes abundant.

Look for any thread of Vow of Poverty.  It is an okay feat for most classes, but quite attractive for Monks (and Paladins).

I have participated in a number of "The Monk is ruining my campaign!" threads.  In each case it was a somewhat magic rich campaign and Monk with 3 or 4 very high rolled stats.


----------



## 3.5newbie (Nov 12, 2005)

CPXB said:
			
		

> To me, all these level 20 examples and illustrations are weird.  I mean, I never have seen a game at these levels -- not just been in, never seen.  Most games, in my experience, wind up way before level 20.  To me, all these sorts of illustrations are very, very hypothetical.
> 
> Which is also another reason why I've been leery of accepting arguments about how monks become balanced at some hypothetical higher level.  In my game, the characters go up in level about once a month (which is pretty typical).  Saying that my 6th level monk is gonna be balance at level 13 is saying, y'know, "Oh, wait SEVEN MONTHS and your monk will be OK."  The level 20 examples I feel are wholly apocryphal -- a place I'll never be.
> 
> So why the examples are interesting, I've been wondering why people focus on the really high level stuff instead of the stuff that is more commonly played -- the 1st through 10th level stuff.




This is an old, old discussion, which has, perhaps, been rendered irrelevant by the new OA, but let me weigh in:

A sixth level monk with careful feat choices kicks ass. Iron Fist and Flying Kick up the damage, Improved Int. and Warrior Instinct give him the drop on his opponent. One good hit with the IF damage bonus is gonna end a lot of fights (2d8 + 2d4 + 6d6 + 6(16 str)).

Use the speed, use the Tumble and Jump skills, use your high wisdom and Listen and Spot to get surprise rounds. Be creative, be bold, don't stand there slugging with a hypothetical barbarian -- use the great martial arts feats to kill him before he gets his Greatsword out of the scabbard.


----------

