Fighter vs. Monk

[Jdvn1]

Well, if you do it right, you can have a Fighter with 15 attacks. Unhasted (speed weapon). I had one with 10 attacks at 18th level.

I never said a Monk will lose to a Fighter 10 out of 10 times, but Fighters have the advantage.

 

[TheEvil]

If you do it right, a monk can get 6 hits in a round using flurry of blows. The max a fighter can do is 5. (This assumes both monk and fighter are hasted) This extra attack can easily be used to best the fighter damage.

If you roll it right, you can have a monk with more hit points than a fighter. And you can always have a higher CON.

If you purchase properly, you can have a monk with a higher AC. I had a monk with a 54 AC. Even a high level fighter can have a hard time beating that.

Just because you've never seen it, don't think it can be done. Trust me, I've done it. My 26th level Half-Ogre monk had a 54 AC, hit for +35/+35/+35/+35/+30/+25 and did 8d10+some ungodly amount of damage per hit.

Oh... And he had 350 hit points...

Could somebody post the AC, attack rate, damage and hit points for a 26th level fighter to compare this to? Having never managed higher then 13th level in a game, I would like to get a more apples to apples comparison. My experience just doesn't cover power at these levels.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, a 26th level Fighter averages (5.5*25) + (Con*26) + 10. Average 147 without Con. If he has a +2 Con (which is very low for that sort of character),then it's 199, I think. Max 312 (still with a low Con). The Half-Ogre with 350 definitely didn't roll average, though.

You might want to see the builds on the Wizards' forums, though.

 

[reveal]

Well, a 26th level Fighter averages (5.5*25) + (Con*26) + 10. Average 147 without Con. If he has a +2 Con (which is very low for that sort of character),then it's 199, I think. Max 312 (still with a low Con). The Half-Ogre with 350 definitely didn't roll average, though.

You might want to see the builds on the Wizards' forums, though.

No, I didn't. My point, though, is that monks should not be looked upon as "not on the same level" as fighters. They can be just effective, if not more effective, depending on the player building them and how they are used.

 

[Jdvn1]

Well, I also want to see how you got that damage and that AC. 8d10 damage? There's got to be some house rules or something there.

I had 15 attacks a round with +40-something to hit and I think I averaged about 45 points of damage per hit. Half-Orc,though, so +0 ECL race. And Medium size.

 

[reveal]

Well, I also want to see how you got that damage and that AC. 8d10 damage? There's got to be some house rules or something there.

I had 15 attacks a round with +40-something to hit and I think I averaged about 45 points of damage per hit. Half-Orc,though, so +0 ECL race. And Medium size.

Not a house rule. Not exactly sure how I did it, but it had something to do with potions making me larger (not permanently mind you) and the Improved Natural Attack feat in the Monster Manual which ups your damage by one step for a natural attack, of which an unarmed attack is considered, and some other stuff. It was all legal and by the book.

And don't forget the Monk adds Wisdom to AC so that helped along will all the other magic items I purcased. It's great because I don't use monk weapon so I had a lot of cash to spend on magic items.

 

[Jdvn1]

Oh, with spells. Okay. I'm thinking without spells. Yeah, I'm sure I could well exceed all that with spells.

 

[DanMcS]

Not a house rule. Not exactly sure how I did it, but it had something to do with potions making me larger (not permanently mind you) and the Improved Natural Attack feat in the Monster Manual which ups your damage by one step for a natural attack, of which an unarmed attack is considered, and some other stuff. It was all legal and by the book.

There are two house rules in the bolded sentence. Improved natural attack is a monster feat, not available to PCs without a house-rule. Unarmed strikes are not a natural attack. Claw/bite/tail slap/etc are natural attacks. No wonder you got 8d10 damage.

 

[Storyteller01]

Quite. I'm specifically thinking of a kickboxer or Savate fighter.

In truth, I'm looking at this from a DM's point of view. I've whacked Monk from my campaign world because the wire-work and other elements don't really fit the setting. I do like martial arts, though, and want to provide them as a viable option in my game.

I don't want to add another class in its place (kinda defeats the point, but new feats are fine). I'm just trying to figure out if, in fact, martial arts are nonfunctional without Monk.

Closest you could get with WotC is using those extra feats to gain the Martial Styles bonus. Not much, but the fighter can take multiple styles.

 

[reveal]

There are two house rules in the bolded sentence. Improved natural attack is a monster feat, not available to PCs without a house-rule. Unarmed strikes are not a natural attack. Claw/bite/tail slap/etc are natural attacks. No wonder you got 8d10 damage.

It all depends on who you believe. I looked it up on the WotC boards and about half were for letting the monk take it and half were against it.

But, technically, any character can take a feat from the Monster Manual as long as they meet the requirements. From the SRD: "These feats apply to abilities most commonly found amongst monsters or are related to monsters."

It doesn't specify whether or not a character can use them. You just need to meet the prereq's. As far as the monk's weapon being natural, there's no definitive ruling either way, that I know of, so I guess you could call it a house rule.