D&D 3E/3.5 (3.5) Monks and Wisdom

[Empirate]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post that, but that's not a monk, that's a cluster of min-maxing. I don't let my players do that kind of thing as they just get too powerful.

You just disqualified yourself from any debate that has Dandu in it...

More seriously, that's a monk in a way a single-classed (capitalized) Monk could never hope to be. Namely, actually capable at what the class's idea was: exotic tricks, unarmed combat, unarmored survivability. If too powerful is your problem, play Dandu's suggestion side-by-side with a single classed Bob the Barbarian w/o fancy tricks and see whose character contributes more to the party reaching its goals. Hint: there's a fair chance the winner of that contest will start with a B.

You need to differentiate between a PC's mechanical side and their characterization. It's no crime to build a character's mechanics with half a dozen classes and use ten different sourcebooks - if that's the way you can translate your imagination of the character into a mechanical representation, great. Also, powerful characters are in no way equal to uninteresting characters. If you find you as a DM can't compete with min-maxing players, either step up your game or ask them to tone it down to keep the game fun. But don't make blanket statements such as "this is too powerful, period". "This is kind of unbalanced with regard to [pertinent fact XYZ]" is more like it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You just disqualified yourself from any debate that has Dandu in it...

More seriously, that's a monk in a way a single-classed (capitalized) Monk could never hope to be. Namely, actually capable at what the class's idea was: exotic tricks, unarmed combat, unarmored survivability. If too powerful is your problem, play Dandu's suggestion side-by-side with a single classed Bob the Barbarian w/o fancy tricks and see whose character contributes more to the party reaching its goals. Hint: there's a fair chance the winner of that contest will start with a B.

You need to differentiate between a PC's mechanical side and their characterization. It's no crime to build a character's mechanics with half a dozen classes and use ten different sourcebooks - if that's the way you can translate your imagination of the character into a mechanical representation, great. Also, powerful characters are in no way equal to uninteresting characters. If you find you as a DM can't compete with min-maxing players, either step up your game or ask them to tone it down to keep the game fun. But don't make blanket statements such as "this is too powerful, period". "This is kind of unbalanced with regard to [pertinent fact XYZ]" is more like it.

1) I love monks

2) I love multiclassing

3) I agree with this statement I quoted.

Multiclassing doesn't equal overpowered. 85+% of my PCs I've 33 years in D&D are multiclassed, and only a few would be considered one of their party's top 2 most powerful members.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Strength's contribution to damage for a Monk is rather poor to be honest. Woohoo, +1 damage! I'm giving up a whole lot of other stuff just to key off Strength!

Sorry, pass. Weapon Finesse works just fine for Monks, but Intuitive Attack (Intuitive Attack - Feat - D&D Toolshop) keys your attack mod directly from Wisdom, allowing the character to become a bit more Single Attribute Dependent.

As was brought up to me a while ago, each +1 to hit effectively means at least +2 damage. Can't do damage if you can't hit after all. Even someone doing 1d3 damage gets an average +2 damage since every character has the chance to miss.

Dandu, I'm surprised you haven't mentioned Fistbeard Beardfist yet.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Strength is also important to be good at all that fancy martial artsy stuff a monk's supposed to be good at, like grappling and tripping. And Monks are also short on feats. Taking a feat that you either can't get till 3rd level (Finesse) or requires you to be pain in hte ass good (Intuitive) isn't a real solution.

 

[Tilenas]

I believe that as a monk, you need to make choices and stick by them. For me, I went for DEX/WIS, dropping STR/CON. From level 1, my monk had the highest AC in the group and the best saves, but the fewest HP and a low damage output. At level 10 with some levels of PsiFist PrC (an important reason to go for high WIS in the first place), the damage is actually comparable now. Also, you get to do nifty monky stuff, like walk on branches, grapple, transfer wounds, move and full attack, later teleport.

To reduce monk MADness, I found an arrangement with the group to let grappling be included included in weapon finesse. Now the only thing that bugs me is that darn low CON. But y'know, can't have everything.
(As a PsiFist, I could even raise CON before combat.)

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I keep reading that as PasiFist.

 

[Cyclone Duke]

Thanks for all the input. Psi anything isn't happening as we're not doing any of the psionic stuff.
Yeah part of the reason I buffed STR is that as monk there's not enough feats to go around to take weapon finesse and the wisdom=damage thing, which is a good find, thanks much.

STR is good for grappling too, which is part of the appeal. Letting the rogue sneak attack and disabling enemies.

I don't mind multiclassing in itself. I'm just worried about folks making a frankenstein monster from 50 books to break the game, min-maxing.
I let my guys use any offical 3.5 (or 3.0 with me checking if it's alright) material, and they're taking feats and such from complete X and Y. But there's something about 'my character is a buddist, one-armed, blind, ex-veteran so that means he gets 20 AC, +1 to all the stats he needs with minuses to the ones he doesn't, free tremorsense and stuff more powerful than magic items so long as he doesn't use magic items.

Like, changing the person to match the min-max feats, rather than the other way round.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For me, I went for DEX/WIS, dropping STR/CON. From level 1, my monk had the highest AC in the group and the best saves, but the fewest HP and a low damage output.

That's more or less the route I go too, with Con as my 3rd highest stat. My high Dex gets me good initiative rolls, and lets me use a variety of ranged attacks to soften up foes before they close. Sometimes, I even use a polearm to boost damage output or do Trips & other special attacks.

While its limited, I also often use Ring the Golden Bell (a feat included in DCv1) to deliver Stunning Fist attacks- with other touch attacks piggybacking- at range. Very flavorful.

 

[Dandu]

I don't mind multiclassing in itself. I'm just worried about folks making a frankenstein monster from 50 books to break the game, min-maxing.

This is a legitimate concern, but all you really need to break the game are the core books.

Basically, what I'd like to say is that it's a little shortsighted to have a kneejerk reaction to a multiclassed build and call it "OMGWEFBBQ overpowered" and not bat an eye when someone brings a Druid with Natural Spell to the table - which is a build whose class features are stronger than entire classes.

I apologize if I have misread you. My impression comes from the fact that you called it a "cluster" of minmaxing based on the fact that it used a lot of sources, and not on any actual ability the character would have had such as, say, his unarmed damage or hit points.

Anyways, back to the build. It's stronger than a regular monk, but given that the monk is really weak, I'm not sure how that's a mark against it. It's a good melee combatant that will be able to go up against what the party faces without a huge chance of dying. How it could be broken is beyond me, as you aren't doing anything the party barbarian isn't also doing.

 

[Cyclone Duke]

This is a legitimate concern, but all you really need to break the game are the core books.

Basically, what I'd like to say is that it's a little shortsighted to have a kneejerk reaction to a multiclassed build and call it "OMGWEFBBQ overpowered" and not bat an eye when someone brings a Druid with Natural Spell to the table - which is a build whose class features are stronger than entire classes.

I apologize if I have misread you. My impression comes from the fact that you called it a "cluster" of minmaxing based on the fact that it used a lot of sources, and not on any actual ability the character would have had such as, say, his unarmed damage or hit points.

Anyways, back to the build. It's stronger than a regular monk, but given that the monk is really weak, I'm not sure how that's a mark against it. It's a good melee combatant that will be able to go up against what the party faces without a huge chance of dying. How it could be broken is beyond me, as you aren't doing anything the party barbarian isn't also doing.

I guess the fact that "how to make a good monk" began with "take 3 levels of ranger" put me off. It's not as bad as it looked at a glance, thanks again for the input.

One thing about doing nothing the barb isn't doing already, the barb doesn't get to move 50ft and have free trip/grapple talents. Sure he could take them in place of his normal talents I guess but really I don't think my campaign is at a place where we are seeing big balance problems.
Everyone in our group thought our rogue was pitiful and should stay out of melee until she eviscerated a guy with a full attack with 2 crits and 3 sneak attacks in it. She's been scared of big bad enemies since she got mauled to death by a brown bear's full attack in Forge of Fury but it was good to see her show she can deal good damage.