Does OA make Fighters better martial artists than Monks?

[DM_Matt]

The fact that all the additional marital arts options in OA are in feat form gives me the feeling that Fighters might be able to outshine Monks in martial arts. What is even more disturbing is the idea of a character who takes a level or two in monk and then pursues the fighter route for the rest of their career.

A human monk gets 8 feats + 4 set Bonus feats by L20. A human fighter gets 20 feats by 20th level. A Monk2/Fighter18 gets 19+3 set bonus feats and evasion. These differeces are huge. Many more moves, way earlier.

So what does the monk have in return? A few nifty supernatural abilities...fine. Not related to martial arts fighting, though, mostly.

Better movement...Ganted.
More attacks: No more than one until very high level. But that one additonal attack beyond that
Better Saves...Fine, but not THAT MA-related

Increased unarmed damage...This scales up slower than the Fighter's ability to get better and better enchanted gauntlets (or even just a singe guantlet). The fighter could keep adding energy damage and easily keep up. Granted, the monk can get other items, but once the stat boosters, which are less powerful than magical weapons (mostly) are taken care of, monks have feww things to do with their money on, since they dont use enchanted weapons or armor OR Spell storing devices (wands, staffs, rods, potions, scrolls). They can get the Ki Straps a little earlier, but that doesnt make that much of a difference in the long run.

Wis Bonus to AC w/o armor and a little bit of extra AC based on level. the fighter can make it up easily with a chain shirt that is gradually enchanted, and it is able to have various special abilities as well. Also, a fighter that starts out as a monk gets the wisdom bonus anyway, if that + the restrictions on max dex bonus make it better than the chain shirt. He can switch over to the armor when he get sufficiently enchanted armor.

The real issue here is that the quickly-fallen monk gets 10 MORE FEATS TO WORK WITH, not to mention the ability to properly wield any weapon at full potential and more hp.

Look at the 5 MA styles in the OA book. Assuming that the chart (and not the text) is the correct version, one can never be attained in 20 levels by a single-class monk, and tow can only be atained if said monk is human. The feats just are not there.

Besides balance, style is important as well. The PHB monk is a hard-style monk. He makes sense as a practicioner of say, Kung Fu or Karate. But if one wishes to make, for example, a Ju Jitsu monk, or another soft style art, (Throws, responses to attacks, pressure points), you need LOTS of feats.

Now lets try to construct such a monk to demonstrate my point. This will also show what the difference in numbers of feats will do. In order to reach the point of doing generally al lthe types of things that he intends to focus on, he should have:

Improved Unarmed Strike
Stunning Fist
Deflect Arrows
Falling Star Strike
Dodge
Combat Reflexes
Expertise
Improved Trip
Improved Disarm
Grappling Block
Defensive Throw
Improved Grapple

To really complete things, he should eventually get:
Expert Tactician
Great Throw
Choke Hold
Freezing the Lifeblood
Pain Touch


Now a monk would not complete the basic set her euntil 18th level as a human, or never if not.

A Monk2/Fighter6 will complete that list...thats half the time. And then they get 13 more feats by the time its over, 10 more by the time that the streight monk finishes the first list. That means completing all the mentioned feats and adding five more by the time that the 20 levels are complete.

This monk will already have Mighty Works Mastery 1 (of 2), granting a +2 AC when full attacking unarmed. With those addiitonal feats, he can get Meditation of War Mastery and The Gentle Way Mastery as well by level 20 by taking Power Attack, Fists of Iron, Iron Will, Prone Attack, and Blind Fight. He also gets free weapon focus, a supernatural immobility ability, and +2 to all pressure point DCs. By that time, his weapon and armor will have long outstripped the monk as well.

SO th eproblem is two-fold:

1. A monk that is mostly fighter will be a far better (and more interesting) martial artist than a pure monk.
2. Many fighting styles for monks just are not practical without fighter levels.

 

[Feanor Starym]

umm...
isn't the OA monk already allowed to freely multiclass?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that OA already allows free multiclassing of monks. So either you're using OA and monks can multiclass freely with fighters (thus allowing you to build the martial artist you like,) or you aren't using OA, and the monk is the best martial artist as written....

 

[Darkness]

I dunno... Monks aren't just about martial arts; they have other features as well. Fighters, on the other hand, are supposed to be the best, well, fighters in the game. (Of the base classes, at least.) So if a fighter spends all his class abilities (i.e., his bonus feats) on becoming the best martial artist around, I don't see it as a problem if he manages it. Also, fighters are not the only ones who might kick monks' asses; wizards who polymorph self into, say, a troll and then cast a few buffing spells (e.g., haste, shield, mage armor, bull's strength, cat's grace...) on themselves will be very tough contenders, too.
That is, in 3e, there usually are several ways to do something.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well-said, Darkness. Guess that's why you're a moderator.

 

[DM_Matt]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that OA already allows free multiclassing of monks. So either you're using OA and monks can multiclass freely with fighters (thus allowing you to build the martial artist you like,) or you aren't using OA, and the monk is the best martial artist as written....

Good point about the MCing...However, perhaps it is the remnant 2e part of me that says that multiclassing should not be a necessity. The fact remains that a monk will not be as good in unarmed combat as a fighter with a level or two of monk, and maybe even not than a fighter alone. You'd tihnk that Monks sohuld be the best at unarmed combat, no?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Monks, martial artists, fighters, and rogues...

Actually, I agree a lot with Darkness.

The thing is, I think that the very nature of what classes are has changed with the advent of 3e. In 2e, your class had a large part in defining your character. They were the "archtypes," and most PCs were variations of a single theme.

But in 3e, classes are no longer so central to what a PC is. They play a much, much smaller role in that definition. Instead, the classes serve as "sets" of related training. Taking a level of fighter indicates a PC who's been focusing on weapons training. Taking a level of wizard means a PC who's been studying magic. Taking a level of rogue means a PC who's been learning a lot of skills and a bit of cleverness and timing in combat.

So instead of picking a class and creating a character around that, 3e is structured to allow you to create the character, then structure the PC's classes around that.

Consider the martial artist. Rather than saying, "I'm going to be a monk, so that means I'm the best martial artist, right?" I'd be thinking like this:

I want to be the best martial artist. What classes do I need to take to get my PC to that goal?

Now if I wanted a pragmatic martial artist, who believed in force and nothing but force, I'd probably go with straight levels in fighter, taking the appropriate feats. I'd give me a hard hitting, physically dominant martial artist with an attitude.

If on the other hand I wanted to play a more mystical martial artist, I'd mix in levels of monk, or even sorcerer, to give him the "mysterious powers" to match that concept.

In essense, I don't place any importance on the name of classes anymore. I don't care what they call them, so long as the mixture gives my characters the abilities to match the concept.

 

[green slime]

The monk is not JUST about being a martial artist.

Their VASTLY better saves and far superior movement, combined with the lack of burdensome armour, mean that there is nowhere on the battlefield that they cannot get to quickly.

They also have some incredible special abilities, abilities which fighters can never have.

I have no problem with a Fighter becoming a good martial artist. It would be rather sad if he couldn't. But he will always be less mobile and lack the mental focus (improved saves, abilities) of the monk.

 

[Wolf72]

The monk is not JUST about being a martial artist.

Their VASTLY better saves and far superior movement, combined with the lack of burdensome armour, mean that there is nowhere on the battlefield that they cannot get to quickly.

They also have some incredible special abilities, abilities which fighters can never have.

I have no problem with a Fighter becoming a good martial artist. It would be rather sad if he couldn't. But he will always be less mobile and lack the mental focus (improved saves, abilities) of the monk.

good points, here's another

what about damage? PHB/OA either/or ... the only time a monk's dmg increases is with monk lvls and certain PrC's ... I think that's a big point as well.

Fighters should be awesome martial artists (weapons, ua, whatever) ... but they'll never be monks.

 

[DM_Matt]

what about damage? PHB/OA either/or ... the only time a monk's dmg increases is with monk lvls and certain PrC's ... I think that's a big point as well.

As stated above, a fighter would likely be using an enchanted guantlet. Adding energy damage types cab be done faster than the monk damage increase.