Is my 15th Level half-orc monk broken?

[Dread Polack]

My 19th level monk is doing about the same damage with Improved Natural Attack, etc... I think you're where you want to be. Sounds like you've specialized your character a bit, sacrificing the saves on your stunning fists, etc. Sounds like a perfect Half-orc Monk to me

Dread Polack

 

[Dread Polack]

My 19th level monk is doing about the same damage with Improved Natural Attack, etc... I think you're where you want to be. Sounds like you've specialized your character a bit, sacrificing the saves on your stunning fists, etc. Sounds like a perfect Half-orc Monk to me

I'd also like to suggest the Combat Reflexes + Hold the Line feat combo. I should have taken it myself, but didn't think of it until later. I got 6 AoO a round when I got Combat Reflexes, and my DM started finding ways to avoid them. If I had Hold the Line, I could've seriously hurt all the raging orc barbarians before they started pounding on me.

Dread Polack

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

INA is the only issue that I could have with the build.

Rolling stats seems to be fairly rare nowadays; at least, that's the impression I got from other posters (arguments against = self-selecting, etc). And he'd have to be awfully lucky to get +3/+4 modifiers in three or more stats by rolling.

I've never had a problem with Improved Natural Attack. It's not like it increases their damage excessively, and they're not getting 1.5x Str and 2x Power Attack in there. Monk's a weak class to begin with, and allowing them to spend a feat on INA isn't going to make them the bee's knees. And while it may not fit the precise definition of a natural weapon, it's still not unreasonable to call it one, being, ya know, an extension of the character's body and all.

Brad

 

[Tetsubo]

Okay, I am making a 15th level half-orc monk with the following feats:

combat reflexes, power attack, improved natural attack (officially allowed by D&D 3.5 rules faq), great cleave, and blind fight.

He will also have a magic item to cast enlarge self on himself, and wears a "monk's belt", which increases his unarmed damage and AC as if he were a monk 5 levels higher.

He has an 18 strength

This means he has an unarmed damage of 4d8+4 at medium size and 6d8+5 at large size. Average damage is 22 when medium and 32 when large! Is this broken?

Don't forget the spells Mighty Wollop and Greater Mighty Wollop (dumb, dumb names...) from Races of the Dragon. They up the damage to Bludgeoning weapons. MW increases the damage by one size category (without actually altering the size) and GMW increases it further based on the casters level. Very nasty for a Monk like yours or a Goliath weilding a Greathammer...

 

[Tetsubo]

Okay, I am making a 15th level half-orc monk with the following feats:

combat reflexes, power attack, improved natural attack (officially allowed by D&D 3.5 rules faq), great cleave, and blind fight.

He will also have a magic item to cast enlarge self on himself, and wears a "monk's belt", which increases his unarmed damage and AC as if he were a monk 5 levels higher.

He has an 18 strength

This means he has an unarmed damage of 4d8+4 at medium size and 6d8+5 at large size. Average damage is 22 when medium and 32 when large! Is this broken?

Another idea, have you considered the PHBII Variant Monk class ability Decisive Strike? You lose Flurry of Blows but gain a single (full round) attack that does double damage. Your Monk could be doing 12d8+10 while Large...

 

[Thanee]

Decisive Strike is really, really bad, unless you fight against creatures with DR.

Two attacks at the highest BAB already do the same damage, and the monk gets a lot more attacks at this level.

Bye
Thanee

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Rolling stats seems to be fairly rare nowadays;

Polls "prove" that, for here anyway. IME, GMs learn over time they have to use point buy.

I've never had a problem with Improved Natural Attack.

It's an unclear rule, partly because in DnD natural attacks, unarmed attacks, and manufactured weapon attacks all conflict with each other. The monk is frequently derided for doing too much damage and yet not having a high enough attack bonus. Any fixes should point in the right direction.

 

[moritheil]

I would say no, it does not break the game, based on the fact that the build relies on damage rather than, say, automatically killing any possible enemy that might be reasonably encountered, in one round. But then, my concept of normal power levels has been called into question before.

Incidentally, note that INA may be disallowed on grounds other than balance - many DMs disallow it for monks on rules grounds.

 

[Tetsubo]

Decisive Strike is really, really bad, unless you fight against creatures with DR.

Two attacks at the highest BAB already do the same damage, and the monk gets a lot more attacks at this level.

Bye
Thanee

How do you see it as "really, really bad"? You do double damage and gain a +2 to a Stunning Fist DC. You are also less likely to miss than with a Flurry of Blows.

How is that bad? I'd rather hit twice and do double damage than miss three or four times...

 

[KarinsDad]

How do you see it as "really, really bad"? You do double damage and gain a +2 to a Stunning Fist DC. You are also less likely to miss than with a Flurry of Blows.

How is that bad? I'd rather hit twice and do double damage than miss three or four times...

Say the 15th level Monk has an 80% to hit a given foe and averages 20 points per attack.

If he does Decisive Strike, he does 80% * 20 * 2 or 32 points of damage on average (i.e. 40 points if he hits, 0 points if he misses, not considering criticals).

If he does Flurry of Blows, he does:

70% * 20 + 70% * 20 + 70% * 20 + 45% * 20 + 20% * 20 = 55 average points of damage

So yes, it is typically really really bad to do Decisive Strike. Iterative attacks also allow for things like Improved Trip followed by a boatload of attacks while the opponent is prone.


Note: If he does a normal full round attack without Flurry of Blows, he does:

80% * 20 + 55% * 20 + 30% * 20 = 33 average points of damage

Even a normal full round attack can be better than Decisive Strike (but not by much).