Monks Broken or Not

[StreamOfTheSky]

I'm a warblade in my party and my friend in the monk. Knowing monks are underpowered, the DM gave him full BAB and +4 str +2 con. I'm still significantly better than him . Atleast he has a movespeed of 320 (don't ask me how).

I'll guess...3.0 version of Boots of Striding and Springing? Well, that'd get you up to 180 by level 20 as a human... If he could find some other means of doubling his speed and handily ignore the D&D multiplication rules (two doublings is x3, not x4 unless specifically called out as an exception), I could see him hitting speed 320 around level 15.

 

[HoboGod]

They both function off of your real monk levels.

If Monk's belt says that the wearer's unarmed strike is treated as a monk of five levels higher and superior unarmed strike deals unarmed strike of a monk four levels higher, it sounds like you're dealing unarmed strike of a "monk treated five levels higher" four levels higher. That would imply stacking to me. It doesn't say "you deal unarmed strike of monk whose level equals your monk levels + 4 (or 5)".

It's one of those things that could be interpreted either way. A DM who thinks monk is overpowered might say "No, those don't stack." A monk who thinks monk is too weak might say "Yes, those stack."

Effect is never defined, but here's what makes me not consider feats to be effect.

The psionic power Timeless Body does this:
"Your body ignores all harmful (and helpful) effects, beginning when you finish manifesting this power and ending at the end of your next turn. While timeless body is in effect, you are invulnerable to all attacks and powers."

If feats are effects, then you lose all your feats when under the effect of Timeless body. This seems unlikely.

Different books with different authors, so it's hard to make that connection, but I agree with you that the wording is WAY, WAY, WAY, too ill-defined. I'm an unfair DM when it comes to monk. I'll let a casual gamer mix these things as if I forgot my own stance, but fight viciously against a power gamer who wants to do the same.

 

[Dandu]

No, it's not... Monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. The end.

There is a difference between "is" and "treated as for the purpose of spells and effects". As Hobogod noted, the word is ill defined and it is left to individual DMs to figure out what it means.

For what it's worth, Skip Williams agrees with you. Then again, it's Skip Williams who's agreeing with you...

It's one of those things that could be interpreted either way. A DM who thinks monk is overpowered might say "No, those don't stack." A monk who thinks monk is too weak might say "Yes, those stack."

Even if you had them all stack, you have huge base damage dice. This isn't bad, but you won't necessarily be dealing more damage than a charging build. Some of those can get scary.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

So, would you agree that a Monk/Psion who manifests Timeless Body loses the benefits from the effects of INA?

Timeless Body sounds like a really poorly worded power. As written (as Pawsplay mentioned), you'd lose the benefit of the timeless body power itself. But yeah, I guess strictly RAW, a Monk/Psion would lose access to ALL of his feats, class features, etc...

 

[Dandu]

One of the reasons why it's so poorly worded is that "effect" isn't defined. Therefore, it's not clear whether feats are or are not "effects", hence why I think using INA for a monk is debatable by RAW.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Timeless Body sounds like a really poorly worded power.

I've been saying for years that game companies* often use imprecise wording, synonyms, contradictions, conflations and vague definitions in their rules so often that RAW is pretty much not worth considering as a way to run a game.

* WotC is the worst I know of...because D&D is the game I play the most. I've caught exemplars in every game system I've ever played, though.

 

[Dandu]

Pretty much.

Even ruling things in the monk's way doesn't really break them, though, which probably answers the OP's question pretty thoroughly.

 

[HoboGod]

Even if you had them all stack, you have huge base damage dice. This isn't bad, but you won't necessarily be dealing more damage than a charging build. Some of those can get scary.

Oh, god, no! Those chargers are scary indeed. They can break games and I venomously glare at players starting to build those pounce-happy doom cannons. When I send something at my players that's 3 levels higher than their party level, I demand they worry for their lives and start thinking about what they'd want to play next if the bleeding doesn't stop or it scores a critical hit. Instead, I begin combat by rolling a massive damage check just in case the doom cannon rolls high enough. *grumble, grumble*

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

One of the reasons why it's so poorly worded is that "effect" isn't defined. Therefore, it's not clear whether feats are or are not "effects", hence why I think using INA for a monk is debatable by RAW.

And effects not being a defined game term is why I think INA should be available. Pretty much everything is or could be an "effect." To me, saying "spells and effects" is basically saying "anything." It's no where near as badly worded as Timeless Body. Losing access to all "helpful effects"? The does that implicate?!

 

[Dandu]