Building a halfling monk

[MarauderX]

Remember that you can only Power Attack up to your BAB, in case that sways your opinion on the feat.

You're right... don't have the PHB in front of me, but that leads me not to take it.

Sejs: I like the sound of the Grappling Finesse feat and will have to run it by our DM for approval before using it, but that feat will allow me to almost completely ignore Str for most of the things I want to do (except damage, of course). I wasn't aiming to make a grappling monk, but it would prevent casters from stepping 5' and casting something nasty. With a halfling there is already a -1 against the PC so it was never considered a major goal to be good at wrestling.

 

[wolfen]

You can't flank with ranged attacks.

You can sneak attack with ranged attacks up to 30 feet.

 

[Sejs]

You can sneak attack with ranged attacks up to 30 feet.

Yes, you can - if they're denied their dex bonus to ac, or flanked by the rogue. Ranged weapons do not threaten an area, therefor you can't flank the opponent with them. If you had another melee weapon in hand (or .. of hand, in the case of someone with imp unarmed strike) you would threaten around you as normal, but only to the normal reach of that weapon. Certainly not out to 30 feet away.

 

[wolfen]

Yes, you can - if they're denied their dex bonus to ac, or flanked by the rogue.

I don't understand the significance of the hairs you are splitting. If I get through (or curl around) the enemies' front lines and see their backs, I'm getting a sneak attack. Whether it's a ranged attack within 30 ft, or melee, someone's gettin' an extra d6.

My point, ultimately, was that a ranged sneak attack is a viable option for a halfling rogue/monk in the above situation. If you play the character consistently, you can exploit this option. The sneak attack is not the be-all end-all, I know, but if you fight every battle trying to use it, and if you have a DM that plays fair, you probably will get rewarded for the trouble.

 

[MarauderX]

I finally got the OA book in the mail today and I flipped straight to the feats section and started reading.
Grappling Block. Coolest Feat Ever. Why? Check it out...
"Once per round when you would normally be hit by a melee weapon, you may make a special disarm attempt against your opponent." "You make an opposed attack roll...against the attack roll that hit you." and goes on to say that instead of your opponent hitting you, you disarm him. Not sure why that excites me so much, but... wow.

After all of the discussion above, it may be worthwhile to go with human to get the extra feat and be able to reach Grappling Block by 6th level. Stats would be along the lines of Str=14, Dex=14, Con=12, Int=14, Wis=16, Cha=8. Prereqs for the feat are Expertise (would help with the AC I have been to concerned with), Improved Disarm, and Combat Reflexes.

Then again, perhaps I am overreacting and should go with 'Fists of Iron' (+d4 for damage) along with Weapon Finesse and stick with the halfling.

 

[MadScientist]

You can not flank with a ranged weapon. Therefore you will never get a ranged sneak attack on someone because you flank them.

You can still sneak attack with a ranged weapon if you are within 30 ft AND the target doesn't get their dex bonus to AC for some reason. This can happen in the 1st round of combat if the target is flat-footed, if your rogue is invisable, if the target is stunned, etc. These conditions have nothing to do with flanking however.

 

[Darklone]

I don't understand the significance of the hairs you are splitting. If I get through (or curl around) the enemies' front lines and see their backs, I'm getting a sneak attack. Whether it's a ranged attack within 30 ft, or melee, someone's gettin' an extra d6.

There are no backs in D&D. They have no facing in combat. We are not splitting hairs. You don't threaten with ranged attacks, thus you don't flank, thus you don't sneak attack. Thus noone's getting an extra d6.

Thank you.

 

[wolfen]

There are no backs in D&D. They have no facing in combat. We are not splitting hairs. You don't threaten with ranged attacks, thus you don't flank, thus you don't sneak attack. Thus noone's getting an extra d6.

Thank you.

First, let me apologize for not making clear that I was referring to age-old rules not found in the 3E book...

While I accept your fundamentalist usage of the 3E rules, I find both your demeanor and your conclusion disagreeable. Let me explain.

Let's say you have an invisible attacker within 5 ft. of you, right in front of you as far as you can tell (not that it matters, says you). But here's this thing you can swing at, get a bead on in various ways, etc....but you don't get your dex bonus for AC. Why? ONLY because you don't see him.

Then, let's say a different attacker is behind you (in the real world, such a thing happens more often than invisible combatants). You don't see him. You don't know a ranged attack is heading for you. But you get your dex bonus to AC? Ridiculous. It's an obvious hole in the ruleset. I've played every edition since the game came out, and every group recognized the need to acknowledge facing.

I'm not saying your interpretation of the rules is poor, it's woefully perfect. I just think it's silly when people actually play D&D as if there were no facing during combat. It's ludicrous. Anyone who's had the slightest combat training (hand-to-hand or coordinated groups) understands the tremendous advantage of being BEHIND your target. The Maginot Line is just one entertaining example of this tactical fact.

Now, if WOTC wants to omit something as crucial as facing to make the game more simple and approachable to teenagers, great! And if rules lawyers want to pretend that most combatants do not have a front and a back, fine. They can all just trade power attack blows with big monsters. The world would be simpler if we were all Mike Tyson. Much simpler.

Meanwhile, I defend my group's employment of logical house rules.

Secondarily, not every situation requiring the loss of one's dex bonus is published. DM's have to think through unpublished situations all the time. Just 'cause it ain't published don't mean it don't happen.

Purely as an aside, it does not serve you well to use the phrase "Thank you" in that way. It communicates arrogance, not knowledge. I accept your well-trained application of the rules, but there's no need to convey superiority.

 

[Camarath]

Grappling Block. Coolest Feat Ever.

I love this feat, it can be very useful and powerful, as well as having a great aesthetic feel to it. One of my favorite characters, I have played in 3rd, made extensive use of this feat. He was a LG Psion/Monk/Shintao Monk who only dealt subdual damage (not as bad as you might think).

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Now, if WOTC wants to omit something as crucial as facing to make the game more simple and approachable to teenagers, great! And if rules lawyers want to pretend that most combatants do not have a front and a back, fine. They can all just trade power attack blows with big monsters. The world would be simpler if we were all Mike Tyson. Much simpler.

You know, there is a happy medium, here, which is neither the claim that "nobody in D&D has a back," nor "only idiots wouldn't house-rule in facing in combat."

The rule that there is no facing in combat is not meant to imply that the characters in combat have 360 degree vision. Rather, it's that your basic combatant, having a healthy respect for his own life, is going to be turning his head, dancing around in his 5' by 5' square, and otherwise not ignoring Joe with the bow over there -- or even Joe who doesn't obviously have a bow, but is within charge range. This is for the very reason that being behind someone is an advantage.

Now, if there's some reason why this particular combatant wouldn't be paying attention to Joe, then sure, it makes sense for him to be denied Dex bonus. Use your favorite euphamism ("Rule Zero," "House Rule," "GM fiat") for using common sense over strict adherence to what's in the book.

However, your implicit claim that the only reason bows don't threaten an opponent is that the rules are dumbed down for "teenagers" (who are, in my experience, more tolerant of complex rules than adult gamers) is just not right. There is a particular simulation which the game is making when it says that bows don't threaten -- specifically, that while two people on either side of a person can coordinate their attacks to hit that person while he's turned to deal with the other guy, someone thirty feet away who has to nock, draw, and fire an arrow each time he wants to "threaten" his opponent just doesn't have the same level of versatility -- nor does a melee combatant, when engaged, immediately begin ignoring everyone on the battlefield who is not within five feet of him.