Why is the monk Class Defense Bonus so low??? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Why is the monk Class Defense Bonus so low??? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Bubba333
12-30-04, 01:11 PM Am I the only one who finds it odd that the monk Class Defense Bonus is so low? I would think a martial artist would have a higher rating. Any thoughts/ideas?
Scaer_Vieliss
12-30-04, 02:18 PM Doesn't the monk class get their Wis modifier to AC? To me, that is the thing which represents their martial arts talent.
rbingham2000
12-30-04, 02:55 PM Scaer Vieliss is right.

Monks already have their Wisdom bonus to AC, on top of the Dexterity bonus. To have a high Class Defense Bonus as well would be overkill.
Bluebrush
12-30-04, 02:57 PM Monks normally have an inferior AC to fighters and even barbarian.

The AC bonuses monks get makes up for this, but does not make them better than a platemail'd fighter.

In other words, it's buisness as usual.

Mind, if you take one level of fighter, paladin or cleric, you get a much higher defence bonus to use while you're monking it up.
Bubba333
12-30-04, 03:57 PM Doesn't the monk class get their Wis modifier to AC? To me, that is the thing which represents their martial arts talent.

Oh yes! How could I forget that??? Thank you so very much, that slipped my mind.
Gilean
12-31-04, 04:42 AM Because the defense bonus actually has no connection to your ability to defend yourself. It is based solely on armor proficiencies.
Bubba333
12-31-04, 05:07 AM Because the defense bonus actually has no connection to your ability to defend yourself. It is based solely on armor proficiencies.

I disagree. If that were the case your CDB wouldn't rise with your level. I think the armor proficiency bit is just a guideline. HD and the "type" of class should be taken into account as well.
sjogren
12-31-04, 07:42 AM Mind, if you take one level of fighter, paladin or cleric, you get a much higher defence bonus to use while you're monking it up.

Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense.
Fiendish Banana Golem
01-01-05, 02:26 AM Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense.

Um, hello? The class defense bonus system is meant to balance the classes that normally gain advantage from wearing heavy armor with a bonus that corresponds to both armor bonus and likely investment in magical armor, and upgrading it throughout adventuring carreers.

Hence, those with heavy armor proficiencies are given the higher defense bonus, while those who normall wear little to no armor are given lower ones.
sjogren
01-01-05, 04:25 AM Um, hello? The class defense bonus system is meant to balance the classes that normally gain advantage from wearing heavy armor with a bonus that corresponds to both armor bonus and likely investment in magical armor, and upgrading it throughout adventuring carreers.

Hence, those with heavy armor proficiencies are given the higher defense bonus, while those who normall wear little to no armor are given lower ones.
But that's exactly my point! A Ftr1/Mnk9 should have a lower class defense bonus than a Mnk10, because a Ftr1/Mnk9 isn't likely to wear a full plate even though he's proficient with it!
Bubba333
01-01-05, 04:32 AM One of the reasons I disagree with CDB being based on Armor Proficiencies is that certain classes should get a higher CDB regardless of whatever Armor Proficiencies are granted by the class. An example is the Swashbuckler base class from CW. It gains light armor at best if I remember correctly, which would give it the column "B" CDB rating. I disagree with this as the Swashbuckler is a fighting class and even more than a "standard" Fighter, its defensive style would be very much based on dodging and evading attacks, which is exactly what I see the CDB as doing.

As a DM I've also shifted the Monk and Ranger up by one column and the Druid down by one. I see Monks as being more evasive and Rangers as closer to Fighters (especially as they begin with a +1 BAB), whereas Druids are probably less combative. To me they just didn't make sense as they were, but that of course is just my game. In the end it really isn't that much of an issue as I am a Gestalt-junkie (you don't even want to know how I handle Action Points!). :D
Razoreface
01-01-05, 12:40 PM Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense.

Ditto. If you want to use class defense, borrow a SWd20 or Modern book, and match up the classes. Arcana's version is crude at best, and basically kind of dumb, primarily because you can solve your "my class bonus is too low" problems for any class by taking a level in something that had a 1/1 BAB. And we don't need a bunch of Sorc 9/Barb 1's running around.
HailSpork
01-05-05, 05:38 PM The bonus that the monk gets to AC from level progressions is meant to tie out with the magical bonuses on armor for characters of equivelent level. This is no match for a character in medium+ armor or a character with a shield, but the monk is essentially dual-wielding.

In all honesty, this ability is mostly a remnant of the original first edition monk. Aside from a pluthera of special abilities, they had a progression of attacks per round, larger dice on unarmed attack, speed (I think), and an AC of 10-(level).
JTalbain
01-09-05, 07:22 PM I think that one of the more overlooked abilities of the monk is their increased movement speed. Used properly this is more useful than a few points of AC, as it allows the monk to not get attacked at all.

For instance if a monk and a full-plated fighter are fighting, the monk can choose where and under what circumstance the battle takes place. If he can help it, he'll always be attacking from higher ground, jumping over walls, or taking cover. If he takes Spring Attack, he might even be able to move in, attack, and back off so far he's out of the fighter's charge range. The fighter might just say "the hell with it" and commence firing a ranged weapon, but the monk can have deflect arrows for free, and nullify one of those attacks. He can in this way nullify a lot of the heavily armored fighter's strengths by refusing to go toe-to-toe with him.

Mobility really is a factor in many fights in D&D, as many players have discovered when facing fast or flying opponents. The best AC in the world is no help when you can't attack in return. With the monk though, you get to do crazy things like jump off the castle wall, kick the harpy (griffin, roc, etc.), spin around and kick the other flying creature beside them, then slow fall to the bottom. It's fun to do neat stuff like that!

Wanna try something different? How about a monk with a couple levels of fighter? Then you can wear armor in exchange for your fast movement, AC bonus, and Flurry of Blows. And no one will expect you to disarm an opponent, only to use their weapon for yourself and keep the slaughter going with equal proficiency.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bubba333 12-30-04, 01:11 PM	Am I the only one who finds it odd that the monk Class Defense Bonus is so low? I would think a martial artist would have a higher rating. Any thoughts/ideas?
Scaer_Vieliss 12-30-04, 02:18 PM	Doesn't the monk class get their Wis modifier to AC? To me, that is the thing which represents their martial arts talent.
rbingham2000 12-30-04, 02:55 PM	Scaer Vieliss is right. Monks already have their Wisdom bonus to AC, on top of the Dexterity bonus. To have a high Class Defense Bonus as well would be overkill.
Bluebrush 12-30-04, 02:57 PM	Monks normally have an inferior AC to fighters and even barbarian. The AC bonuses monks get makes up for this, but does not make them better than a platemail'd fighter. In other words, it's buisness as usual. Mind, if you take one level of fighter, paladin or cleric, you get a much higher defence bonus to use while you're monking it up.
Bubba333 12-30-04, 03:57 PM	Doesn't the monk class get their Wis modifier to AC? To me, that is the thing which represents their martial arts talent. Oh yes! How could I forget that??? Thank you so very much, that slipped my mind.
Gilean 12-31-04, 04:42 AM	Because the defense bonus actually has no connection to your ability to defend yourself. It is based solely on armor proficiencies.
Bubba333 12-31-04, 05:07 AM	Because the defense bonus actually has no connection to your ability to defend yourself. It is based solely on armor proficiencies. I disagree. If that were the case your CDB wouldn't rise with your level. I think the armor proficiency bit is just a guideline. HD and the "type" of class should be taken into account as well.
sjogren 12-31-04, 07:42 AM	Mind, if you take one level of fighter, paladin or cleric, you get a much higher defence bonus to use while you're monking it up. Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense.
Fiendish Banana Golem 01-01-05, 02:26 AM	Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense. Um, hello? The class defense bonus system is meant to balance the classes that normally gain advantage from wearing heavy armor with a bonus that corresponds to both armor bonus and likely investment in magical armor, and upgrading it throughout adventuring carreers. Hence, those with heavy armor proficiencies are given the higher defense bonus, while those who normall wear little to no armor are given lower ones.
sjogren 01-01-05, 04:25 AM	Um, hello? The class defense bonus system is meant to balance the classes that normally gain advantage from wearing heavy armor with a bonus that corresponds to both armor bonus and likely investment in magical armor, and upgrading it throughout adventuring carreers. Hence, those with heavy armor proficiencies are given the higher defense bonus, while those who normall wear little to no armor are given lower ones. But that's exactly my point! A Ftr1/Mnk9 should have a lower class defense bonus than a Mnk10, because a Ftr1/Mnk9 isn't likely to wear a full plate even though he's proficient with it!
Bubba333 01-01-05, 04:32 AM	One of the reasons I disagree with CDB being based on Armor Proficiencies is that certain classes should get a higher CDB regardless of whatever Armor Proficiencies are granted by the class. An example is the Swashbuckler base class from CW. It gains light armor at best if I remember correctly, which would give it the column "B" CDB rating. I disagree with this as the Swashbuckler is a fighting class and even more than a "standard" Fighter, its defensive style would be very much based on dodging and evading attacks, which is exactly what I see the CDB as doing. As a DM I've also shifted the Monk and Ranger up by one column and the Druid down by one. I see Monks as being more evasive and Rangers as closer to Fighters (especially as they begin with a +1 BAB), whereas Druids are probably less combative. To me they just didn't make sense as they were, but that of course is just my game. In the end it really isn't that much of an issue as I am a Gestalt-junkie (you don't even want to know how I handle Action Points!). :D
Razoreface 01-01-05, 12:40 PM	Which is why the UA class defense bonus variant sucks. I think the d20 star wars rules make much more sense. Ditto. If you want to use class defense, borrow a SWd20 or Modern book, and match up the classes. Arcana's version is crude at best, and basically kind of dumb, primarily because you can solve your "my class bonus is too low" problems for any class by taking a level in something that had a 1/1 BAB. And we don't need a bunch of Sorc 9/Barb 1's running around.
HailSpork 01-05-05, 05:38 PM	The bonus that the monk gets to AC from level progressions is meant to tie out with the magical bonuses on armor for characters of equivelent level. This is no match for a character in medium+ armor or a character with a shield, but the monk is essentially dual-wielding. In all honesty, this ability is mostly a remnant of the original first edition monk. Aside from a pluthera of special abilities, they had a progression of attacks per round, larger dice on unarmed attack, speed (I think), and an AC of 10-(level).
JTalbain 01-09-05, 07:22 PM	I think that one of the more overlooked abilities of the monk is their increased movement speed. Used properly this is more useful than a few points of AC, as it allows the monk to not get attacked at all. For instance if a monk and a full-plated fighter are fighting, the monk can choose where and under what circumstance the battle takes place. If he can help it, he'll always be attacking from higher ground, jumping over walls, or taking cover. If he takes Spring Attack, he might even be able to move in, attack, and back off so far he's out of the fighter's charge range. The fighter might just say "the hell with it" and commence firing a ranged weapon, but the monk can have deflect arrows for free, and nullify one of those attacks. He can in this way nullify a lot of the heavily armored fighter's strengths by refusing to go toe-to-toe with him. Mobility really is a factor in many fights in D&D, as many players have discovered when facing fast or flying opponents. The best AC in the world is no help when you can't attack in return. With the monk though, you get to do crazy things like jump off the castle wall, kick the harpy (griffin, roc, etc.), spin around and kick the other flying creature beside them, then slow fall to the bottom. It's fun to do neat stuff like that! Wanna try something different? How about a monk with a couple levels of fighter? Then you can wear armor in exchange for your fast movement, AC bonus, and Flurry of Blows. And no one will expect you to disarm an opponent, only to use their weapon for yourself and keep the slaughter going with equal proficiency.