Post/Author/DateTime	Post
nonsi 01-19-06, 05:41 AM	1. Monks count as 1 size larger when it comes to Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip. This still does not mean they can use the offensive application of these maneuvers against opponents 2-sizes larger, but they may still avoid them as anyone else 1 size larger than they are. 2. For all improvement feats relevant to all the above, monks gain an additional +1 for every 5 levels gained. 3. They automatically receive 5 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble. These bonus ranks are not calculated into the skill-points limit. 4. FoB is relevant to any attack (including AoO’s, but only once in a given round). 5. Quivering Palm is replaced with a permanent Mind Blank effect.
dog45 01-19-06, 11:13 AM	Why do you feel the monk class needs to be pumped up? It's already one of the most powerful melee classes there is.
babysamurai 01-19-06, 11:38 AM	Why do you feel the monk class needs to be pumped up? It's already one of the most powerful melee classes there is. Totally...monks make me engorged.
Elemental_Master 01-19-06, 03:30 PM	1. Monks count as 1 size larger when it comes to Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip. This still does not mean they can use the offensive application of these maneuvers against opponents 2-sizes larger, but they may still avoid them as anyone else 1 size larger than they are. 2. For all improvement feats relevant to all the above, monks gain an additional +1 for every 5 levels gained. 3. They automatically receive 5 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble. These bonus ranks are not calculated into the skill-points limit. 4. FoB is relevant to any attack (including AoO’s, but only once in a given round). 5. Quivering Palm is replaced with a permanent Mind Blank effect. on a reality note number 4 is odd, 3 is over powered, and I think more bonus feats in exchange for a supernatural ability is the way to go on a monk varient
Thorak 01-19-06, 03:48 PM	Why do you feel the monk class needs to be pumped up? It's already one of the most powerful melee classes there is. Compared to sorcerors and bards, maybe. I absolutely guarantee that, given the same wealth level and point-buy, a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, or Druid would beat the unholy pants off of the monk, built for melee. I make this guarantee because I've backed it up in countless threads, and am perfectly capable of doing so again. That said, the monk doesn't need any pumping up. Its strengths lie in the magical resistances. The misconception is that the monk is intended to be any good at melee. It's not. It's intended to not be as bad as most 3/4 BAB classes, like the Bard or Rogue, though the divine casters have other obvious advantages, and to have the best magical resistance capability of any class. Melee is not a strength of the monk, by any measure that's in any way reasonable. If more than half the classes in the PHB are better at it than you, it's not a strength of yours. Stop thinking of the monk as a melee fighter. He's not. He's a skirmisher and opportunist. Tactically, he's more similar to the Rogue than to any of the full BAB classes. He doesn't need to be made more similar to those other classes, he needs people to stop trying to ram him into the wrong archetype just because they think kung fu beats everything.
nonsi 01-19-06, 04:05 PM	maybe not kung fu specifically, but I saw a demonstration in which one of the aikido high masters made a joke of 5 combatants - each in a different martial arts field and all having "DAN 6" ranking and up. notice that aikido practitioners don't try to overlap sword strikes, but against most other people they're having a party. my modification offers the monk the advantage specifically against humanoids (and a substantial advantage I do admit). when it comes to confronting large & nasty opponents (like dragons), the monk better fits in as a skirmisher or as bait, relying on his high touch attack AC, saves & resistances, while aiding the worriors of the party do what they does best - massive carvings.
heretic888 01-19-06, 04:39 PM	maybe not kung fu specifically, but I saw a demonstration in which one of the aikido high masters made a joke of 5 combatants - each in a different martial arts field and all having "DAN 6" ranking and up. It should be noted that the D&D Monk in no way, shape, or form is the same thing as an "aikido high master". Especially if you know anything about Aikido. Laterz.
nonsi 01-19-06, 04:59 PM	It should be noted that the D&D Monk in no way, shape, or form is the same thing as an "aikido high master". Especially if you know anything about Aikido. Laterz. I know. aikido high master don't teleport and are not immune to disease and poison. nevertheless, whay not allow such a role, for someone who puts his mind to it ? isn't it more interesting than going for stunning and freezing th life blood (which ridiculously fighter can gain at an earlier level) ? the system offers more than damage buildup, yer this is THE main issue on these boards. it seems like every time someone in here hints "versatility", evry other participant gets the jitters. IRL each weapon is doing what it's supposed to do. years of practice can make it do just a bit more. the main issue with combat styles & advancement is versatility - not just dominating 1 or 2 techniques, but a vast number of tricks. and not just versatile from one another, but versatility to each one. somehow, the more I read these boards, the more I get the feeling the 3.5 system has very little to offer there.
nastynate 01-19-06, 05:26 PM	maybe not kung fu specifically, but I saw a demonstration in which one of the aikido high masters made a joke of 5 combatants - each in a different martial arts field and all having "DAN 6" ranking and up. How well does the akido high master handle a fireball? RL vs. D&D is often incomparable. In D&D monks are 3/4 BAB supplimental warriors, with great special abilities, saves, and skills; they are not anything like what you saw demonstrated. Monks are mystical warriors with powers totally unlike their real world counterparts. Perfect self, diamond body, wholeness of body, none of these abilities have any basis in reality. I for one do not think monks are over-powered at all. I am more inclined to lean towards a power level that runs closer to the "middle-of-the-pack." They don't excel in any area, which forces them into the second teir of playable (but not key) characters within the party. They're alright, but there are much better melee characters, and much better skill-based characters. Their special abilities have kewlness factor, but unfortunately not much applicable use outside of combat. However I also think they are fine just as written. They may not precisely match your particular vision of what a martial artist is, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with them. Monks are just a well rounded class with few weaknesses, and that alone is reason enough to play them. Good all-around saves, and evasion are nice, and at higher levels they have excellent mobility, and durability; monks are really hard to kill. If they weren't so MAD, I'd probably play them more often. If you want to play a powerful monk there are ways to optimize them. Check out the Co Boards. It takes a little effort, but if you work at it, you can get decent results from any class. That said I have never been a fan of "fixed," classes, because it's hard enough to regulate the power levels of the classes as written. Many house-ruled changes end up far more abusable than anything WotC publishes. IRL each weapon is doing what it's supposed to do. years of practice can make it do just a bit more. the main issue with combat styles & advancement is versatility - not just dominating 1 or 2 techniques, but a vast number of tricks. and not just versatile from one another, but versatility to each one. somehow, the more I read these boards, the more I get the feeling the 3.5 system has very little to offer there. Yes, sadly it would take a far more complicated rules system to really breath life into each unique martial style. However I certainly don't want a two-hundred page manual on combat rules. And given that the basis of the game lay in the mechanics, it would still be inevitable that some particular style would rise to the top, and then (whatever that technique may be) would become the predominent style used in the game. :D
nnnnn 01-19-06, 06:06 PM	Compared to sorcerors and bards, maybe. I absolutely guarantee that, given the same wealth level and point-buy, a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, or Druid would beat the unholy pants off of the monk, built for melee. I make this guarantee because I've backed it up in countless threads, and am perfectly capable of doing so again. That said, the monk doesn't need any pumping up. Its strengths lie in the magical resistances. The misconception is that the monk is intended to be any good at melee. It's not. It's intended to not be as bad as most 3/4 BAB classes, like the Bard or Rogue, though the divine casters have other obvious advantages, and to have the best magical resistance capability of any class. Melee is not a strength of the monk, by any measure that's in any way reasonable. If more than half the classes in the PHB are better at it than you, it's not a strength of yours. Stop thinking of the monk as a melee fighter. He's not. He's a skirmisher and opportunist. Tactically, he's more similar to the Rogue than to any of the full BAB classes. He doesn't need to be made more similar to those other classes, he needs people to stop trying to ram him into the wrong archetype just because they think kung fu beats everything. There's nothing wrong with wanting a character that is like a badass kung fu master who can hold his own in combat. Obviously, many, many D&D players would like to play a monk who is not exactly what you describe it as. There's nothing wrong with that the point is to have fun. Nonsi's variant is interesting. It's a different kind of monk, it DOES more closely fit what a lot of people want, and we allknow that a full BAB is going to far. Nonsi's variant could be playable and fun. Sounds good to me. nnnn
Thorak 01-19-06, 09:29 PM	maybe not kung fu specifically, but I saw a demonstration in which one of the aikido high masters made a joke of 5 combatants - each in a different martial arts field and all having "DAN 6" ranking and up. notice that aikido practitioners don't try to overlap sword strikes, but against most other people they're having a party. My point is that I absolutely guarantee that someone who trained exclusively in weapons combat for the same length of time as this aikido master, with the same natural potential, would mop the floor with the aikido master. There's a reason all the actual combat martial arts teach weapons. Weapons are better. The unarmed stuff teaches basic principles, without having a hugely deadly tool in your hands at the time, and gives you something to fall back on when disarmed. my modification offers the monk the advantage specifically against humanoids (and a substantial advantage I do admit). when it comes to confronting large & nasty opponents (like dragons), the monk better fits in as a skirmisher or as bait, relying on his high touch attack AC, saves & resistances, while aiding the worriors of the party do what they does best - massive carvings. The monk is fine as is. You want an unarmed melee warrior, make a Fighter. I guarantee you'll do better. You want the mysticism, take a monk. Want a mix, multiclass. There's nothing wrong with wanting a character that is like a badass kung fu master who can hold his own in combat. Obviously, many, many D&D players would like to play a monk who is not exactly what you describe it as. There's nothing wrong with that the point is to have fun. True. They can take levels of Fighter or Barbarian, take Improved Unarmed Strike and possible Improved Grapple, and have a ball. There's all the kung fu glory you need. Or take a PrC that better fits their view. Heck, even dip into monk a bit for the basic training, and then progress just as a Fighter. That's why multiclassing exists. Nonsi's variant is interesting. It's a different kind of monk, it DOES more closely fit what a lot of people want, and we allknow that a full BAB is going to far. Nonsi's variant could be playable and fun. Sounds good to me. Nonsi's variant is all-out more powerful than the existing monk. Each change is in fact a power boost. To a class that was balanced before, this is absolutely unnecessary and overpowering. It's like saying you don't think Clerics are good enough, so they should get a d10 HD and full BAB.
danielinthewolvesden 01-19-06, 09:41 PM	According to the Consensus: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=369436 the Monk comes in at 17th of 30. Thus, it's a well-balanced class. With some varients in OA, and Faerun, and lots of Prc's to choose from, I see nothing to "fix". Now, maybe in your world- for flavour- you might add to the choice of "bonus feats" the Monk gets to choose from. Ok.
wolfie-kun 01-19-06, 09:45 PM	If you really, really want to make the aikido master, then make it. Don't randomly give the monk too many bonuses that he doesn't need to fit a niche he wasn't meant for (aka, 5 ranks in three different class skills). Seriously, it's not that tough to make a PrC called the Aikido Master that has the abilities you want. Give it prereqs that a monk meets instantly, and that a fighter can meet without a great deal of effort. Seriously, do that. The monk, as it is, is one of only five classes (out of eleven--kinda sad) that really does what it's supposed to do without being overpowering to the mechanics that are already in place. The monk shines quite easily where he's supposed to: he looks at the arcane caster, laughs maniacally as he dodges a fireball, and proceeds to beat said caster to a pulpy mass of flesh.
Nephlite 01-19-06, 09:52 PM	The monk is fine as is. You want an unarmed melee warrior, make a Fighter. I guarantee you'll do better. You want the mysticism, take a monk. Want a mix, multiclass. Or play the Runemaster. Fits unarmed flavor (though with simple weapon proficiency, why not pick up a weapon or two for reach). It is a decent unarmed warrior, and with spells you can buff self to be better warrior than fighter (kinda like a Cleric can). Unlike monk you must choose between starting with Wis to AC and flurry though. But eh, I go with AC over extra attack anyday. That's why multiclassing exists. Only if you remove multi-classing penalty is that viable. Nonsi's variant is all-out more powerful than the existing monk. Each change is in fact a power boost. To a class that was balanced before, this is absolutely unnecessary and overpowering. It's like saying you don't think Clerics are good enough, so they should get a d10 HD and full BAB. True Nonsi's variant would be better if written: 1. At level 4, Monks count gain +2 bonus when it comes to Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip. This bonus increases by an additional +1 for every 5 levels gained after level 5. More balanced than +4 (from size) right from start and gained at a decent level. 2. At level 2, they gain +2 bonus on Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble checks. Much more better than 5 ranks for free. 3. Quivering Palm is replaced with a permanent Mind Blank effect. I kinda like this one.
q'afuu 01-19-06, 10:08 PM	4. FoB is relevant to any attack (including AoO’s, but only once in a given round). :confused: FoB requires a full attack. You can't use it while making an AoO. I have no idea what you're going on about. ... and we allknow that a full BAB is going to far. I hope your 'all' doesn't encompass me. ;) Compared to the 5 changes in nonsi's post, giving the monk class full BAB seems less powerful a boost to me (even if I don't understand n° 4).
Nephlite 01-19-06, 10:21 PM	:confused: FoB requires a full attack. You can't use it while making an AoO. I have no idea what you're going on about. He means a flurry during an attack of opportunity even though it is normall an full round action I think. Basically monks would be able to do more than one attack during an attack of opportunity (since flurry adds at least +1 attack, greater flurry adds 2) with a penalty that goes away at level 9. I hope your 'all' doesn't encompass me. ;) Compared to the 5 changes in nonsi's post, giving the monk class full BAB seems less powerful a boost to me (even if I don't understand n° 4). full bab monk? seems strong. I'd definitely take away one of the good saves or something.
q'afuu 01-19-06, 10:32 PM	He means a flurry during an attack of opportunity even though it is normall an full round action I think. Basically monks would be able to do more than one attack during an attack of opportunity (since flurry adds at least +1 attack, greater flurry adds 2) with a penalty that goes away at level 9. I was half-hoping he meant a monk can flurry regardless of which weapon she uses. That wouldn't make a lot of sense, but at least it wouldn't be as grotesquely overpowered as allowing multiple attacks with a standard action, let alone AoOs. Spring Attack, here I come. full bab monk? seems strong. I'd definitely take away one of the good saves or something. It *is* strong. My remark came from my bewilderment that someone would think full BAB too strong while not having a similar problem with these changes. A hope that, at the very least, those changes all have the requirement that the monk must be unarmoured and not using a shield or the bonuses ar voided?
dog45 01-19-06, 11:16 PM	oh man... The monk is fine as is. You want an unarmed melee warrior, make a Fighter. I guarantee you'll do better. How is a class that doesn't focus at all in unarmed melee going to beat a class where that is the primary means of combat? I'm kinda curious. My point is that I absolutely guarantee that someone who trained exclusively in weapons combat for the same length of time as this aikido master, with the same natural potential, would mop the floor with the aikido master. There's a reason all the actual combat martial arts teach weapons. Weapons are better. The unarmed stuff teaches basic principles, without having a hugely deadly tool in your hands at the time, and gives you something to fall back on when disarmed. FYI, google steven seagal and aikido. watch some of his videos, where he teaches aikido in japan. its crazy stuff. As for why I quoted that, what do you think is going to happen when the martial artist who is trained in advanced unarmed fighting techniques disarms the weapons fighter who has "basic principles" to fall back on? Who do you think will win when the weapons fighter doesn't have his weapon? For the unarmed martial artist, he can't be disarmed. I absolutely guarantee that, given the same wealth level and point-buy, a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Cleric, or Druid would beat the unholy pants off of the monk, built for melee. I make this guarantee because I've backed it up in countless threads, and am perfectly capable of doing so again. Remove the Cleric and Druid from that list, and it's not such a one-sided fight. Of course the C.o.D. would win - they are the most powerful classes in the game, period. Check this thread out - Monk Damage (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=332596) A monk can get his unarmed damage up to 24d8. That's per hit. Can the sword your Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger wields do that much? Another thread for you to read - monk minmax creation guide (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48573) - just for your own edification.
Jaime_Wolf 01-20-06, 12:37 AM	Something you might be interested in. Taadaa The Aikido Master (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=108207) You don't even need to make it, it's already made.
Thorak 01-20-06, 02:26 AM	Only if you remove multi-classing penalty is that viable. Or if your favored class is Fighter, and that's what you multiclass. Or you're a human or half-elf. How is a class that doesn't focus at all in unarmed melee going to beat a class where that is the primary means of combat? I'm kinda curious. p Oh joy, you asked the question. Simple. I won't bore you with the math this time, I've proven it in too many other threads to bother with it again. Simply put, Flurry with a 3/4 BAB is almost, but not quite, as good as a full BAB, in a full attack, and far inferior if you ever can't get that full attack. The monk's unarmed damage is worse than a comparably leveled Fighter's weapon should be, given the standard wealth levels. The monk's AC is similarly worse than a comparably leveled Fighter's defensive gear. And the monk gets a d8 HD to the Fighter's D10. So he loses out on to-hit, damage, AC, and hit points. An unarmed Fighter only has to worry about weapon damage. If he uses enchanted gauntlets, he easily outdoes the monk. Even if he's just going bare-knuckle, he's still easily able to get 1d3+4 damage, with a +2 to hit he can boost into +6 damage. So his average unarmed damage, with power attack, is 7.5, to the monk's, at level 20, of 11. The gap is hardly all that big. And the Fighter is better at grappling, and pretty much everything else having to do with combat to boot. FYI, google steven seagal and aikido. watch some of his videos, where he teaches aikido in japan. its crazy stuff. I'll stick with the videos I've seen of the grand master of the Bujinkan. Who was a 10th dan aikido master when he left that art for the Bujinkan. Seagal is a skilled martial artist, but if you think he's anything even remotely close to the pinnacle of achievement, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. As for why I quoted that, what do you think is going to happen when the martial artist who is trained in advanced unarmed fighting techniques disarms the weapons fighter who has "basic principles" to fall back on? Who do you think will win when the weapons fighter doesn't have his weapon? For the unarmed martial artist, he can't be disarmed. How'd you disarm him? Have you any idea exactly what is involved in disarming someone, especially unarmed? You have to get inside their strike range. In other words, he's had at least one chance to kill you before you even got close enough to try and disarm. If they're equally skilled, chances are the weapon user will never get disarmed. And if he does, then he's now on even footing. Advanced unarmed techniques are, at heart, little different from weapons techniques. The motions are typically the same, and while the dynamic is changed, weapon users do train unarmed as well. Sure, I've seen a grand master take on 5 armed master students and win. I've also seen him demonstrate exactly why weapons win; they give you reach. If I can hit you before you can hit me, I win. Because I can move to keep you in that area where I can hit you but you can't hit me back. Sure, that's simplifying a great deal, but that's how the dynamic breaks down. If we start 10 feet apart, and I've got a weapon, I have the advantage. You can't close to a position to attack me without letting me take a shot at you. A monk can get his unarmed damage up to 24d8. That's per hit. Can the sword your Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, or Ranger wields do that much? Using that monk damage thread as a jumping off point, I can Metamorphose myself into a Huge treant, use Expansion for a double boost to get me to Colossal, wield a next-size-up Balanced Sizing fullblade. So my damage is now 16d8. And I can enchant my weapon. And I'm sure I'm missing something, but it's 3AM and I'm tired. So yes, my sword can do that much, if I multiclass and use specific gear like they do in that thread. Especially since I'll note that that thread also has to pump gear into getting the effective monk level to 20. My sword cost me less than almost any item they had to buy. And most of those builds require Warforged, and that you worship Bahamut, and get Gloves of the Talon as a relic. Not only wasn't I aware that Bahamut was a valid god in Eberron, but there's only supposed to be a half-dozen of each relic at any given time, and they can't just be made. So they're assuming a whole lot, and that the DM is using a homebrew world where literally anything goes. I don't have to assume any world-breaking concepts or nearly-impossible items for my 16d8, so I'm quite satisfied.
babysamurai 01-20-06, 05:19 AM	I don't have to assume any world-breaking concepts or nearly-impossible items for my 16d8, so I'm quite satisfied. Yeah, from your posts you seem like a self-satisfied kind of person.
nonsi 01-20-06, 08:22 AM	My point is that I absolutely guarantee that someone who trained exclusively in weapons combat for the same length of time as this aikido master, with the same natural potential, would mop the floor with the aikido master. the main problem is streaching unarmed damage to 2d10. Someone got just a bit too enthusiastic with the OD&D mystic and for some inexplicable this “bug” was carried on to 3.5e. I have my own concept, but you'd probably not be iterested anyway. There's a reason all the actual combat martial arts teach weapons. Weapons are better. The unarmed stuff teaches basic principles, without having a hugely deadly tool in your hands at the time, and gives you something to fall back on when disarmed. the hugely deadly tool 1st has to hit - a radically tough job when facing an aikido master. he'll probbably twist every joint in your body first. The monk is fine as is. You want an unarmed melee warrior, make a Fighter. I guarantee you'll do better. You want the mysticism, take a monk. Want a mix, multiclass. and what about bypassing DR that only the monk offers ? what's the point in developing something that would end up useless ? ever met anyone who deliberately did so ? They can take levels of Fighter or Barbarian, take Improved Unarmed Strike and possible Improved Grapple, and have a ball. There's all the kung fu glory you need. Or take a PrC that better fits their view. Heck, even dip into monk a bit for the basic training, and then progress just as a Fighter. That's why multiclassing exists. 1. that's called zigzagging, not focusing. 2. raging kung fu is an oxymoron. 3. not everyone likes the idea of PrC's. some groups cancell the concept altogether - by choice. Nonsi's variant is all-out more powerful than the existing monk. Each change is in fact a power boost. and still, even after all my modifications, it's still trailing behind the divine spell casters. this alone makes the nodifications legit. To a class that was balanced before, this is absolutely unnecessary and overpowering. It's like saying you don't think Clerics are good enough, so they should get a d10 HD and full BAB. no it's NOT. the cleric (along with the druid) is already the strongest class available.
Lofandar 01-20-06, 08:39 AM	Yeah, from your posts you seem like a self-satisfied kind of person. With a good point!
babysamurai 01-20-06, 10:15 AM	With a good point! ...being?
q'afuu 01-20-06, 12:44 PM	That a monk will need a whole load of luck if he gets into a straight fight with an equivalent fighter or barbarian (or even paladin, but that's more situational). Toting around pimped-out monk builds isn't very convincing: there are plenty pimped-out fighter and barbarian builds as well.
Thorak 01-20-06, 02:27 PM	Yeah, from your posts you seem like a self-satisfied kind of person Ahh, insult. The last refuge of those without a valid argument. the hugely deadly tool 1st has to hit - a radically tough job when facing an aikido master. he'll probbably twist every joint in your body first. He can't twist anything if he can't reach me. See the original point. Given an equally trained opponent with a sword, the aikido master is getting cut to ribbons. and what about bypassing DR that only the monk offers ? what's the point in developing something that would end up useless ? ever met anyone who deliberately did so ? So we've got DR/Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine. An Axiomatic +1 Adamantine Gauntlet does the exact same thing. Or replace Axiomatic with whatever else you'd prefer, like Holy. 1. that's called zigzagging, not focusing. 2. raging kung fu is an oxymoron. 3. not everyone likes the idea of PrC's. some groups cancell the concept altogether - by choice. 1. I thought it was called multiclassing. And that "focus" wasn't a game term, and you can easily focus on a specific character concept while multiclassing. 2. Not really. Rage doesn't mean you're uncontrolled, you're thinking of Frenzy. And there's plenty of explosive Ki work in martial arts. Kiai shouts, for one that I've experienced first-hand. Besides, I was talking more for an unarmed warrior type, not the zen monk archetype. Which is just fine by the PHB monk, as-is. 3. If you don't like PrCs, fine. Plenty of core classes to use. Just because a specific core class doesn't fit what you want doesn't make that class flawed. It's like if I want an arcane fighter. I don't complain that a Wizard isn't what I want, I multiclass with Fighter, or take levels as a Hexblade or Bard and build accordingly, or I PrC into something like Eldritch Knight. If you don't want to use any of those mechanics, that's not the system's fault. and still, even after all my modifications, it's still trailing behind the divine spell casters. this alone makes the nodifications legit. The divine spellcasters are overpowered. We don't need to bring the Monk up to their level, we need to bring them down. no it's NOT. the cleric (along with the druid) is already the strongest class available. And the monk is fine as-is. There's just as little justification for your suggested changes. He may not be already overpowered, but that's no reason to make him overpowered on purpose.
dog45 01-20-06, 02:33 PM	Thorak, as far as the steven seagal vids, I wasn't saying he was the end all be all. I just thought there were some cool videos, and hey, maybe you'd want to see them too. relax. I think the reason most people dump on monks is that the class can be as an effective melee combatant, if not better, than the other melee classes, BUT to do so requires more than just picking and choosing your feats and such as you progress. Monks require more thought and planning than the other warrior classes, but that doesn't mean they would have their unholy pants beaten off them automatically.
q'afuu 01-20-06, 04:59 PM	I think the reason most people dump on monks is that the class can be as an effective melee combatant, if not better, than the other melee classes, BUT to do so requires more than just picking and choosing your feats and such as you progress. Really, they can't. Not if you compare for all the possible melee opponents PCs might run into. Monks are peerless against casters, but for regular melee you're better off with a fighter or barbarian. The only possible situation where this doesn't apply is when the campaign is ridiculously overpowered in terms of items and stats.
nonsi 01-21-06, 09:29 AM	So we've got DR/Magic, Lawful, and Adamantine. An Axiomatic +1 Adamantine Gauntlet does the exact same thing. Or replace Axiomatic with whatever else you'd prefer, like Holy. so basically, your arguments sum up (more or less) to a single claim: It's okay that the class that's supposed to be the epitome of unarmed combat can be outgunned and overlapped on all aspects of unarmed combat with a single (and not that powerful or expensive) magical item. that doesn't quelify the monk, in your point of view, to be a reasonable candidate for improvement. in my point of view, the measuring tools of the source of such a claim need some radical tuning. 3. If you don't like PrCs, fine. Plenty of core classes to use. Just because a specific core class doesn't fit what you want doesn't make that class flawed. It's like if I want an arcane fighter. I don't complain that a Wizard isn't what I want, I multiclass with Fighter, or take levels as a Hexblade or Bard and build accordingly, or I PrC into something like Eldritch Knight. interesting. you start with "If you don't like PrCs, fine" and then finish with "or I PrC into" If you don't want to use any of those mechanics, that's not the system's fault. I don't get it. why is it so important for you to defend the system ? will you keep on doing so when 4.0e is published as well ? The divine spellcasters are overpowered. We don't need to bring the Monk up to their level, we need to bring them down. more than 50% of the writers on these boards (at least those who presented an opinion on the subject) think that the monk is among the weakest classes available. leveling it up as I suggested wouldn't overpower it. there's nothing wrong with having THE class that excells in movement overlap the multi-utility class (the rogue) in movement based skills (take any unarmed martial arts technique and you'll see just how much emphasis it has on jumps, flips, falls & balance). And the monk is fine as-is. who so ? just use overland flight and the monk is helpless against all those spells that ignore SR. There's just as little justification for your suggested changes. than you lack immagination.
Mirikon 01-21-06, 11:00 AM	So monks aren't so good against flying opponents. That's true for every last class that doesn't have spells to support it. Whoop-de-frackin-do. So there are spells out there that ignore SR. A Forcecage + Transmute Rock to Lava utterly bones a monk. Yes, we know. It does the same to pretty much anyone else, too. A high Dex and Wis Monk is next to impossible to hit, especially when you toss in any magic goodies he might have picked up, like Amulets of natural armor. You can skimp a bit on the Con, too, if you get Improved Toughness. Sure you don't do damage like a barbarian, or have as many HP. The enemy hits you not even half as much. People need to stop thinking about raw damage so much, and look at the class as a whole when determining whether something is weak or not. There is a reason you see threads on the DM boards complaining about monks all the time. It isn't because the monk causes incredible ammounts of damage. It is because of all the other things they do, which can overwhelm a DM. The monk is not the most powerful class. Not by far. However, they aren't weak, either. They are a well-balanced class, though they can be broken. Perhaps the most broken thing out of the BoED is that they allow monks to take Vow of Poverty.
Nephlite 01-21-06, 11:25 AM	Monks have jump as a class skills so they can grap/hit flying guys. I mean, with speed bonus that sunergizes well: jump is expected. Unless person like 200 feet in air: monk should have little trouble getting to them for a grapple/smack down.
Roxlimn 01-21-06, 12:04 PM	I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to make the monk into a nice melee class, but if you want to do so, I think that you should take away some of his powerful movement and resistances options.
glimeral 01-21-06, 12:29 PM	How is a class that doesn't focus at all in unarmed melee going to beat a class where that is the primary means of combat? I'm kinda curious. Are you serious... Fighters are the only class who can fully take advantage of all the monk options out there. Havent you ever seen a Grapple fighter or a stunning fist fighter before (heck you can be both and still have feats to spare). Feats like weakening touch, serpent strike, pharoahs fist, freezing the lifeblood, rapid stunning, extra stunning, etc all modify or improve upon stunning fist. Then there are feats like Jotunbrud, Improved Grapple, Deepspawn, Close Quarters Fighting, Clever Wrestling, Defensive Throw, & Karmic Strike to name a few for a grapple based fighter (the list is quite extensive though if you look through all the source material out there). And fighter is the only class ever created that can pull these off successfully. And if you want a slight boost, simply take 1 or 2 levels of monk to gain IUS, Stunning Fist/IG & Combat reflexes/Deflect Arrows for free, in addition to treating your unarmed strikes as armed weapons. Unarmed fighters trump the monk every time when it comes to combat options... Monks, well they are only better at the damage dealing (reminding me of an unarmed barbarian lolol). Heck, even a barbarian makes a better grappler than a monk does, what with their rage ability and all (granting a +4 bonus to their grapple checks @ 20th level in addition to their feats).
tiluvias99 01-21-06, 12:53 PM	Everybody is saying that because the monk isn't as good as the fighter at melee combat, it needs a boost. No. no no no no no. The wizard isn't as good at melee combat as the fighter. Does it need a boost? hell no. The rogue isn't as good at melee combat as the fighter. Does it need a boost? hell no. The monk isn't as good at melee combat as the fighter. Does it need a boost? hell no. THE WIZARD IS NOT A MELEE COMBATANT. THE ROGUE IS NOT A MELEE COMBATANT. THE MONK IS NOT A MELEE COMBATANT. Stop complaining that it isn't as good at melee as the fighter is. The fighter is better in every way, and it's meant to be. The monk is perfect in balance terms. It, with the bard, is one of the best balanced classes in the game.
glimeral 01-21-06, 02:05 PM	Oh im not saying a monk isnt worth while... A well played monk can be deadly... My previous point was in respect to someone who said that unarmed fighters are useless. Actually, of all the classes, I have the most problem with the Cleric and Druid because they are overpowered when properly buffed. People who have problems with Fighters and Monks are really missing the real power of these classes... Some potent monk combinations that instantly come to mind (with very little effort): Human Fighter 2/Monk 18: WF (longspear), Serpent Strike (ECS), Intuitive Attack (BoED), Freezing the Lifeblood (CWar), Improved Init, Rattlesnake Strike (Sandstorm), Rapid Stunning (Cwar), Death Blow (CAdv), and Heroic Surge (DL: Age of Mortals) with a +1 Ki strike Longspear & maxed out Wis. Or a variantion on the same idea: Human Scout 2/Monk 18: Intuitive Attack, Freezing the Lifeblood, Improved Init, Rattlesnake Strike, Deathblow, Heroic Surge,Up The Walls (XPH), Wild Talent (XPH) Monk 20: Jotunbrud (Races of Faerun), IUS, IG, Earths Embrace, Choke Hold (OACS),Heroic Surge,Death Blow, Intuitive Attack Any of these combinations could kill a medium or large creature in one round simply by paralysing (or KOing) the opponent then using heroic surge to take a standard action to Coupe de grace.... With a monks high wis mod in each case, the saving throws will be hard to beat against Paralysis or unconsciousness (both of which make the target helpless). Oh and did I forget to mention that due to Intuitive Attack, your Wis also counts on your attack roll in each case removing much of the exalted monks MAD (and making their Wis killer). A periapt of wisdom and you have a very nasty monk whose Wis adds to Atk, AC & Will saves. For a variation, you could also play a Halfling Monk who has the Chosen of Yondalla feat to add your wis to even more mods.
Thorak 01-21-06, 04:20 PM	so basically, your arguments sum up (more or less) to a single claim: It's okay that the class that's supposed to be the epitome of unarmed combat can be outgunned and overlapped on all aspects of unarmed combat with a single (and not that powerful or expensive) magical item. that doesn't quelify the monk, in your point of view, to be a reasonable candidate for improvement. Exactly. Because the monk gets all kinds of other abilities in exchange. If all he got was his combat abilities, then he'd be underpowered. Funny how he gets oodles of other stuff, too. in my point of view, the measuring tools of the source of such a claim need some radical tuning. I don't see why. I'm looking at the whole monk class, you're only looking at its melee abilities. Guess which of us is more likely correct on estimating its power levels, the one who takes into account everything, or the one who deliberately ignores stuff. interesting. you start with "If you don't like PrCs, fine" and then finish with "or I PrC into" Perhaps you missed that I was finishing with how I, or anyone else who plays with all the rules rather than only some, deals with the issue. If you're not using PrCs, then that's your problem. They're part of the standard rules, and they fill the void you're talking about. I don't get it. why is it so important for you to defend the system ? will you keep on doing so when 4.0e is published as well ? I'm not defending the system, so much as pointing out that your claims are baseless and wrongheaded. If they were baseless and wrongheaded in support of the system, I'd be arguing against you just the same. more than 50% of the writers on these boards (at least those who presented an opinion on the subject) think that the monk is among the weakest classes available. Provide proof of this. You're going to claim a statistical "fact", provide the evidence. Not to mention, an appeal to popularity is a damning logical fallacy, and you're embracing it like its your best friend. leveling it up as I suggested wouldn't overpower it. Since it was already balanced just fine, and your suggestion increases its strength, then yes, it would. who so ? just use overland flight and the monk is helpless against all those spells that ignore SR. Right. Because a monk can't use a magical item that grants the ability to fly. Besides, your same argument goes for every other non-spellcasting class, except they're vulnerable to all spells; they don't have SR. Which is sort of the point. than you lack immagination. I lack imagination because there's no justification for your changes? Way to ad hominem an argument by implying your deficit is somehow my fault. This has nothing to do with my imagination, nor do you have any idea of how much imagination I have. The simple fact is that the monk has all kinds of special abilities that have nothing to do with combat, so when compared to a class like the barbarian or Fighter, who are all focused on combat, they should be weaker. And they are. So they're balanced just fine. You've provided absolutely no reason why we should consider changing the class, or any reason why the class should be any better at combat. If you can't see how to build an unarmed warrior character without using only monk levels, then frankly, I'd suggest the lack of imagination lies on your part.
Disme 01-22-06, 01:39 AM	more than 50% of the writers on these boards (at least those who presented an opinion on the subject) think that the monk is among the weakest classes available. Provide proof of this. You're going to claim a statistical "fact", provide the evidence. Not to mention, an appeal to popularity is a damning logical fallacy, and you're embracing it like its your best friend. 80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Ghostwheel 01-22-06, 04:40 AM	1. Monks count as 1 size larger when it comes to Bull Rush, Disarm, Grapple, Overrun and Trip. This still does not mean they can use the offensive application of these maneuvers against opponents 2-sizes larger, but they may still avoid them as anyone else 1 size larger than they are. 2. For all improvement feats relevant to all the above, monks gain an additional +1 for every 5 levels gained. 3. They automatically receive 5 ranks in Balance, Climb, Jump and Tumble. These bonus ranks are not calculated into the skill-points limit. 4. FoB is relevant to any attack (including AoO’s, but only once in a given round). 5. Quivering Palm is replaced with a permanent Mind Blank effect. I hate to argue with your premise, but that all seems to be neither simple nor intuitive. It does look like a good goal for a Prestige Class, however, and those can be as simple or complicated as you like. As for #1&2: are you suggesting that Monks get the full +4 bonus (that a +1 size increment would give them) at 1st level, and that it scales upwards from there? Or do they gain that bonus over a certain number of levels/ #3 is just unfair. No other class gets free skill points in anything. Giving 5 free Ranks in 4 skills (2 of which have synergy bonuses, BTW) is an odd concept. The Monk has enough Skill Points to keep those Skills maxed out if he wishes. #4 (as has been pointedly stated) allows a full round action as an AoO. I hope that we can agree that is too much. #5 Replace Quivering Palm with anything, within reason, that you like. Not only is the concept of the ability absurd (even in a Fantasy setting), it is nearly impossible to pull off against an opponent of a credible threat to the Monk. :cool:
Thorak 01-22-06, 10:07 AM	Monks have jump as a class skills so they can grap/hit flying guys. I mean, with speed bonus that sunergizes well: jump is expected. Unless person like 200 feet in air: monk should have little trouble getting to them for a grapple/smack down. I just noticed this comment on checking this thread again. Uhh, no. They're better at jumping, but only if the caster is a complete idiot do they have any chance of jumping and catching them. The DC for a high jump is 4 times the height, in feet. A 20th level monk with maxxed out ranks in Jump has a +47 to their Jump checks. So, on a natural 20 on the Jump check, they can hit 67. And Jump about 16-17 feet upwards. Even with an Improved Ring of Jumping, they're only getting to about 20 feet. And the caster, casting Fly that same round, could have cast it and floated 30 feet up. And your vertical reach, for grabbing, is 8 feet. You're still 2 feet short, and that's only for the very first round he cast Fly. If he started Flying, or he has a second round, he'll easily be out of reach. Monks are amazing jumpers, no doubt. Even unenchanted, the monk just jumped easily onto a 2nd story balcony, clearing the banister. But any flying enemy who's that close is an idiot. Anything more than about 30 feet up is going to be unattainable for the monk.
Mirikon 01-22-06, 03:33 PM	Frankly, any character that doesn't have some means of ranged attack (even if it is just a wizard with his crossbow) is basically dropping the soap when anything flying comes around. Even a Monk should invest in at least a basic crossbow. If they're flying outside of crossbow range, then find cover while the wizard and cleric handle it. D&D is a team game. Every class does not need to be good at every possible challenge. As long as a party has at least one person who can help in any given situation, then it's all good.
nonsi 01-23-06, 09:49 AM	[QUOTE=Thorak]Exactly. > Because the monk gets all kinds of other abilities in exchange. yeah right. except for Quivering palm (stupid & usless ability) everything's defensive. so he's a great survivor that can't do squat. asside from combat, there's utility (rogue) and interaction (bard). need I say more ? (oh yes, he can also talk to many uncomunicative creatures - AT level 17) > I don't see why. I'm looking at the whole monk class and see what ? enlighten me please. > you're only looking at its melee abilities. I'm looking at it (since tha monk can do so many things with his body no one else can even dream of) in terms of being better than anyone else in terms of movement. Notice that I didn't change any stats blunt combat stats (hit/dmg/AC), but I see no reason why the monk shouldn't be better than anyone else in movement skills and in scuttling. he's more agile, more flesible and has much tougher limbs & joints - that's a good basis for being a movement demon. > Guess which of us is more likely correct on estimating its power levels, the > one who takes into account everything, or the one who deliberately ignores > stuff. dont need to guess (haven't changed my mind). > Perhaps you missed that I was finishing with how I, or anyone else who > plays with all the rules rather than only some, deals with the issue. an interesting thought. notice how the PHB has presented so many restrictions and to what length WotC go to bypass all those restrictions. in the end you end up with character builds that can do 16d20 (now don't get picky on the numbers) and physically bypassing magical barriers without magical aids (now let's see you explain this). > If you're not using PrCs, then that's your problem. They're part of the > standard rules, and they fill the void you're talking about. dido > I'm not defending the system, so much as pointing out that your claims are > baseless and wrongheaded. If they were baseless and wrongheaded in > support of the system, I'd be arguing against you just the same. arguing is a means to an end, try to remember that. > Provide proof of this. You're going to claim a statistical "fact", provide the evidence. I don't need to. this is the general feel I got and that's good enough for me. > Not to mention, an appeal to popularity is a damning logical fallacy, and > you're embracing it like its your best friend. "logical fallacy"... most inappropriate (you remind me of someone :) ) > Since it was already balanced just fine, and your suggestion increases its > strength, then yes, it would. my suggestion increases its possibility to actively be particularly good at something and not just passively. > Right. Because a monk can't use a magical item that grants the ability to fly. you don't build a class arround all potential magical items. you build a class to make it's contribution on its own. by the core, there isn't a single aspect in which the monk can do something better than anyone else. it's a nice side class that can't substitute anyone in anything. even a mage is better built to deal with mages (the so called monk's specialty). > Besides, your same argument goes for every other non-spellcasting class, > except they're vulnerable to all spells; they don't have SR. Which is > sort of the point. wait a minute, by your standards they all have an uninterrupted access to whatever magical items they want. the money they get from their level and there's always a sucker wizard that would be willing to volunteer his XP for their gold :pbbbtt: > I lack imagination because there's no justification for your changes? Way > to ad hominem an argument by implying your deficit is somehow my fault. you deffinately remind me of someone. if my guess is correct, English is not your native language, and enough for the wise with a hint (sound's better in my native language, sort of :D )
heretic888 01-26-06, 03:57 PM	nonsi, If I were you, I wouldn't be trying to pick apart Thorak's language skills. As the saying goes, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Laterz.
Lofandar 01-26-06, 06:26 PM	nonsi, If I were you, I wouldn't be trying to pick apart Thorak's language skills. As the saying goes, those that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Laterz. Seconded. He speaks clearly and eloquently. Even for a Canadian ;)
Lady Maedhros 01-26-06, 07:09 PM	So there are spells out there that ignore SR. A Forcecage + Transmute Rock to Lava utterly bones a monk. Yes, we know. It does the same to pretty much anyone else, too. .... actually, since monks have the ability to dimension door, a monk is not particularly bothered by a Forcecage, or any kind of "ha ha now you're stuck in a dangerous place" manouver. However i have to disagree with anyone who thinks the monk is just fine. Monks simply aren't logical or synergistic. They get free fighter feats, but don't have the BAB to back it up. They have Flurry to improve their toe-to-toe, but don't have the hit points to back it up (particularly since they can't afford to pump Con). They have movement, but unlike the scout or rogue, have no class skills to make a spring attack worth while - you can't even power attack a light weapon. Even their defensive abilities don't synergize so much as overlap. Yes, spell resistance is shiny, isn't it? Of course, considering that a level 12 monk only fails 5% of her saving throws and has Evasion for when she does, it's not as big a deal as it sounds. And don't get me started on the "defensive master" fallacy. Suffice it to say that it's a simple fact of combat that you take the least damage by killing the other guy faster, not by running around going "ha ha, you missed m- OH, :censored: !" Beyond that, at the most basic level, a monk who runs around not getting hurt, but remains as usual, unable to hurt his opposition, contributes nothing to his party. He's not a skill monkey out of combat. He's not a powerhouse in combat. He's sure as hell not the party face. Okay, maybe he can tie up an enemy spellcaster. You go look through the Monster Manual and you tell me how many humanoid spellcasters you see. Go ahead. I'll wait. Edit: I'm afraid, though, that i disagree with the OP as well, as the proposed solutions are neither simple nor intuitive. To me, the most intuitive solution is to scrap the monk class. Give his speed boosts to the ranger and write some more unarmed feats for the fighter. Make the whole Wis-to-AC thing into Armor Proficiency (Unarmored) so any fighter can take it. Voila, a better monk. You want to be a defensive master, play a Dwarven Defender. Who, by the way, will rip out your spine and beat you with it while you watch, despite the fact that he's awfully damn hard to hurt.
Thorak 01-26-06, 07:57 PM	[QUOTE=Thorak]yeah right. except for Quivering palm (stupid & usless ability) everything's defensive. so he's a great survivor that can't do squat. asside from combat, there's utility (rogue) and interaction (bard). need I say more ? (oh yes, he can also talk to many uncomunicative creatures - AT level 17) All good saves, the best movement in the game, innate SR, Dimension Door 1/day, yeah, these abilities all suck. And my good pal Sarcasm is visiting, I see. I'm looking at it (since tha monk can do so many things with his body no one else can even dream of) in terms of being better than anyone else in terms of movement. Notice that I didn't change any stats blunt combat stats (hit/dmg/AC), but I see no reason why the monk shouldn't be better than anyone else in movement skills and in scuttling. he's more agile, more flesible and has much tougher limbs & joints - that's a good basis for being a movement demon. And that's a problem on your part, because he's not more agile, flexible, or whatever than anyone else. He's infused with his Ki energy, yes, but that doesn't turn him into an acrobat. It could, but that's represented by ranks in Tumble and such. And yes, a Rogue can be better at it than you. A Rogue doesn't spend his days meditating in a monastery and learning how to use his inner Ki to hit things he normally couldn't. an interesting thought. notice how the PHB has presented so many restrictions and to what length WotC go to bypass all those restrictions. in the end you end up with character builds that can do 16d20 (now don't get picky on the numbers) and physically bypassing magical barriers without magical aids (now let's see you explain this). I don't see how this has anything to do with my comment, which only said that PrCs are part of the rules and you can't ignore them just because you don't like them, in discussing game balance and such. dido Considering I'm talking about using PrCs, and you're saying I shouldn't, I don't see your point. Of course, I'm assuming you meant "ditto", because if you didn't, you're not making any sense whatsoever. arguing is a means to an end, try to remember that. And? The means you're relying on are ridiculous. I have to conclude the ends you desire are thus equally ridiculous. Or would be better served by you using logic and reason instead of whatever it is you are. I don't need to. this is the general feel I got and that's good enough for me. For you, but noone else. "logical fallacy"... most inappropriate (you remind me of someone :) ) How is it inappropriate? You're commiting a logical fallacy. That means your argument is ridiculous. As ridiculous as me saying "My tomato is red, therefore I won the Kentucky Derby in 1942." my suggestion increases its possibility to actively be particularly good at something and not just passively. Something it isn't intended to be particularly good at, thus making it more powerful than it was and thus overbalancing the class. If it's fine now, increasing the power makes it overpowered. See how that works? try filling a glass right to the brim. Now see how much further you can fill it without it overflowing. Same difference. you don't build a class arround all potential magical items. you build a class to make it's contribution on its own. by the core, there isn't a single aspect in which the monk can do something better than anyone else. it's a nice side class that can't substitute anyone in anything. even a mage is better built to deal with mages (the so called monk's specialty). Sure there is. Resistance to magic. I guarantee a Monk is more resistant than a mage. Guarantee. And yes, you build a class around gear. Wealth is part of the balance for a reason. wait a minute, by your standards they all have an uninterrupted access to whatever magical items they want. the money they get from their level and there's always a sucker wizard that would be willing to volunteer his XP for their gold :pbbbtt: No, by my standards if you haven't found a way to fly by higher levels, you're an idiot, because too many things fly to stay so vulnerable to them. I'd rather not let the Balor fly out of range of my bow, straight up, and spend his time dropping things on me. you deffinately remind me of someone. if my guess is correct, English is not your native language, and enough for the wise with a hint (sound's better in my native language, sort of :D ) English is indeed my native language, and I'm willing to bet that even without spellchecking or proofreading, my posts are "better" English than yours. Not that I'm criticising you, but it's hypocritical of you to criticise me. That I also speak French, Latin, and Gaelic, and am perfectly willing to toss out Latin terms like "ad hominem" and know perfectly well what they mean doesn't make me in any way worse at communicating. I think that's the first time I've ever heard someone imply someone else was stupid for having a working understanding of other languages. especially when "ad hominem" is a valid logical term used in English, to boot.
Lofandar 01-26-06, 08:09 PM	Like I said, the man can articulate! I actually like the idea of the monk for certain settings only. I definitely do not think they fit the bill for every campaign, so I do find it a bit strange that they would be a core class but, I mean, they've got class. I like monks. I would like to play another monk sometime, but I do not think that there are too many non-Asian-based campaigns where they fit as written. Maybe that's my own lack of imagination showing through (I means, tweak an ability name here and there and you've still got an ascetic hermit who can kick butt when someone tries to steal his bat guano). It's hard for me to justify the existence of an unarmed combat-based monk in every setting, but they do fit some and they have a lot of history for DnD. If the flavor does not fit, why not use a fighter with access to unarmed combat feats &c., as Lady Maedhros suggested?