Monks Broken or Not

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

I wasn't originally an optimizer/powergamer, but i have godawful luck, and hate being useless in combat or other encounters because of bad rolls. So I started finding ways to "make my own luck" or amass such a high bonus in something like say...bull rushing...that success or failure was no longer the question, only "by how much do I succeed?" (in the case of bull rush, affecting how far back I can send someone).

It really pisses me off when I see DMs treat casual gamers and power gamers differently. Most of those same DMs would never give me free rerolls when I rolled poorly. Moreso, I think precedent is important. On minor points I won't mind so much, or campaign-tailored things to make a character vision easier to work with... but either something is overpowered or it's not. You can't just hand the party sorcerer a "gun" that does 2d8 base damage, has a massive range increment, and free action reload and claim it's balanced because "she's a spellcaster, any round she uses that, she's gimping herself" (I had a DM do this very thing in a game).

/rant

 

[HoboGod]

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.

There's cheese to be had, however, when enchantments bridge the gap between full BAB and 3/4 BAB. I think the biggest thing "broken" about monk is that it has so much ambiguousness to the text. If someone breaks the game with a monk, you're hard pressed to fix it with two hours and a rule book.

 

[HoboGod]

It really pisses me off when I see DMs treat casual gamers and power gamers differently.

Yeah, on principle I'd like to agree with you, but the Baby Jesus loves slackers.

Sure, you come to game, fully prepared, put 5x more work into your character, never look twice- sometimes not once- and know exactly what you're rolling every time all the time, but the other guy doesn't argue with me when I turn him into a fish. He just flops around, gasping for air, until I turn him back. I love that guy!

 

[Drowbane]

...You can't just hand the party sorcerer a "gun" that does 2d8 base damage, has a massive range increment, and free action reload and claim it's balanced because "she's a spellcaster, any round she uses that, she's gimping herself" (I had a DM do this very thing in a game)...

This reminds me of a house rule for firearms I had back in 02:

Guns did 2d6, 2d8, or 3d6 (pistol, heavy pistol, rifle), were range-touch, had 18-20x3 crit. They were more expensive than fullplate, but ultimately that didn't matter all that much. Half the group loved them, the other half thought they were broken.

Pyrokinetists (d6 per PrC level), Disciples of Mephistopheles (4d6, range 30ft, touch), and Warlocks all came out later and out shined those "broken" gun rules.

Anyways, thanks for the memory. heh.

 

[Persiflage]

I can have a very good time playing a monk. But broken? Please. They rank somewhere between bards and rogues in terms of power.

You're dissing Rogues... Monks come out somewhere between Fighters and Bards. They're not even close to a Rogue without some really dedicated builds.

As for whether Improved Natural Attack works with monk attacks, I'm with StreamOfTheSky. Although I'm mindful of the fact that this means I'm also agreeing with Skip Williams...

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Yeah, on principle I'd like to agree with you, but the Baby Jesus loves slackers.

Sure, you come to game, fully prepared, put 5x more work into your character, never look twice- sometimes not once- and know exactly what you're rolling every time all the time,

Yeah, in other words our turns go by much faster. I definitely out of politeness try to figure out what I'm going to do before my turn comes up and get through it quickly. But who cares about that, when...

but the other guy doesn't argue with me when I turn him into a fish. He just flops around, gasping for air, until I turn him back. I love that guy!

If the guy complaining is doing so because the method you used to turn him or anyone else (do powergamers in your experience only cite the correct rules when not doing so hurts them?) into a fish was baleful polymorph (and someone spellcrafted it, so knowing isn't metagaming) and you forgot the save bonus for turning Jim into a form that could kill him on dry land, I think I'd have every right to speak up!

This reminds me of a house rule for firearms I had back in 02:

Guns did 2d6, 2d8, or 3d6 (pistol, heavy pistol, rifle), were range-touch, had 18-20x3 crit. They were more expensive than fullplate, but ultimately that didn't matter all that much. Half the group loved them, the other half thought they were broken.

Pyrokinetists (d6 per PrC level), Disciples of Mephistopheles (4d6, range 30ft, touch), and Warlocks all came out later and out shined those "broken" gun rules.

Anyways, thanks for the memory. heh.

Were there any bow archers in the party? If so, how did they feel about it?

And I'd like to know why the Warlock found it ok, when it'd take him...7 levels before he could even surpass the best gun for damage. On a single attack per turn. With his primary class feature. DoM really didn't care that he basically wasted a whole bunch of his character levels just to basically equal a mundane item anyone could pick up, or pick up with an exotic feat?

In my case, I was a thrown weapon character working towards Bloodstorm Blade, so the fact she was doing the same damage as me with no feats or class features at all and with much longer range increment...it just made me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

 

[Deset Gled]

It's debateable if Improved Natural Attack works by RAW.

[DEBATE]

Rules POV:

1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

5. Monks can take INA. The Players Handbook 2 errata states "Improved Natural Attack cannot be attained until 6th level for a monk", implicitly stating that INA can be taken once the BAB prereq is met. Since this is an official errata document, it overrides the Primary Source.

Balance POV:

A. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

B. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful for a feat. Other sources provide better alternatives.

Intent POV:

I. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

II. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons.

[/DEBATE]

I find #5 is the hardest to argue with.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

To add onto the intent and balance arguments:

For non-core games, MIC introduced an item called Strong Arm Bracers to let you use a weapon one size larger at no penalty. I think the 6000 gp price tag is well worth it compared to the value of a mid level feat. So now anyone using a manufactured weapon has the option to be able to deal plus 1 size category of damage dice. If you take away the monk's INA, you're REALLY screwing him over.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

Timeless Body and INA are both poorly written. However, I think intent, or at least a workable ruling, can probably be inferred in each case. I think defining "effect" is probably dangerous.

 

[Deset Gled]

For non-core games, MIC introduced an item called Strong Arm Bracers to let you use a weapon one size larger at no penalty. I think the 6000 gp price tag is well worth it compared to the value of a mid level feat. So now anyone using a manufactured weapon has the option to be able to deal plus 1 size category of damage dice. If you take away the monk's INA, you're REALLY screwing him over.

The Strong Arm Bracers don't offer as much of a bonus as INA, because monk's gain more damage for size than other weapons. For example, while a normal 1d6 weapon gets upgraded to 1d8 for a size increase, a monk IUS damage increases from 1d6 to 2d6. I can't explain why this is the way it is, but it obvious the monk is getting more bang for the buck than anyone else.

Also, it's worth noting that the Strong Arm Bracers are a pretty pure example of power creep. Compare the item to anything from the core. Weapon Specialization, which has hefty prereqs (only good for one weapon, requires another feat and 4 levels of Fighter), only grants a +2 bonus to damage. The SABs, OTOH, are extremely cheap and increase expected damage by 2.5 if you start with a 1d8 weapon, and by even more if you wield something better. Compared to almost anything you'll find in the core rules, the SABs are a godlike item.

Mind you, I don't think allowing INA is bad thing, but the arguments against it are so easy that half the time I think WotC designed the feat just to instigate message board wars about it.