Monks and AC

[Victim]

Fine for the Dex Monk- pass through his 20+ threatened squares- each time you vacate one, you risk a blow from the polearm or his unarmed strike. If the opponent wants to risk [ 4 AoOs + 1 regular attack; 5(7*.5 = 17.5 ] getting past the Dex monk to get to the Wiz, he's risking more than with the same manuever from the Str Monk with only 1 AoO [ 1AoO + 1 regular attack; 2(11*.7 = 15.4].

Apparently the reason your monk was doing so well is because your group didn't realize that movement provokes only once.

Emphasis is mine:

Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity
If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fair enough- that's an error on my part - it has never actually come up in game play. Few opponents facing my Dex monks have ever bypassed one after a successful strike was landed. (I'll pass along that correction, though - always read ALL of the words in the rules section, kiddies!)

OTOH, the example still holds if multiple opponents are trying bypass the Monk to mob the Wiz.

 

[Zelc]

@mvincent: I'll have to crunch the numbers later, but I suspect those are not enough to make TWF an optimal option. I know that for fighters, they need more than just their weapon damage, strength damage, and enhancement bonuses. Monks should have it worse due to their lower attack bonus, as the -2 attack penalty for TWF is worse when your chance to hit is low than when it's high. If you used to hit on a 2 or higher, that reduces it to hitting on a 4, which is 89% of your original hit rate. If you used to hit on an 18 or higher, that reduces it to hitting only on a 20, which is 33% of your original hit rate.

Any time one of my Dex Monks has gone up against more than one opponent, I have gotten somewhere near full value for my AoOs. Even in the final challenge at Dallas Gameday, my Dex Based monk was averaging more than one AoO per round, and we were only fighting 2 opponents.

In addition, I guarantee you that my warrior compatriots rather enjoyed my multiple AoOs when it reduced a whole row of foes to having HP just over one of their average blows- it made Great Cleave really pay off.

Well, perhaps if you were a Str Monk, you could have focused more damage on one target at a time and thus killed stuff faster and taken less damage. The value of an AoO is worth only what you can do with it, and a Dex Monk just can't do much with it. Maybe your friends wouldn't have looked as cool with Great Cleave, but IMO that's a lame reason to say a build's more optimal .

But for the use of the DCv1 Pole Fighter feat- which I didn't use in my example, mainly because I wasn't using flurry in it- all the feats in my Dex builds were WotC.

And as I stated, despite giving up 2LAs to the party Barbarian, my Githzerai Monk did just fine.

The problem isn't flurry, it's the non-proficiency penalty of -4 attack. It's either that, or give up reach. And perhaps your keeping up with the Barbarian is due to the way you read the AoO rules (or perhaps I'm totally off-base here).

OTOH, the example still holds if multiple opponents are trying bypass the Monk to mob the Wiz.

The problem is an enemy is equally good at ganking the Wizard at 1 HP as he is at full HP. If there's three guys after the Wizard and you get one of them down to 50% HP, then that's usually FAR better than if you just hurt them all a bit to 75% HP (the exception is if your entire party has a ton of good damaging AOE effects that won't toast your Wizard as well). Plus, the Strength Monk might actually do something like trip or grapple someone. It's not a great strategy for Monks, but they have that option.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, perhaps if you were a Str Monk, you could have focused more damage on one target at a time and thus killed stuff faster and taken less damage.

As I've already shown, sometimes that doesn't help. In my example, the Str Monk did more concentrated damage but died faster, while the Dex Monk occupied his opponents for a longer period of time.

The value of an AoO is worth only what you can do with it, and a Dex Monk just can't do much with it.

Hold the Line (CompWar, prereq Combat Reflexes and BAB+2) allows you to get an AoO against an opponent charging into an area you threaten. This is different from the AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square.

A Dex Monk with that feat could easily get the most out of his AoOs.

Maybe your friends wouldn't have looked as cool with Great Cleave, but IMO that's a lame reason to say a build's more optimal

???

I'm saying the Dex Monk's multiple AoOs sets up his partymates' Great Cleave better than the Str Monk. In the example above, each opponent (on average) the Dex Monk faced is reduced, whereas the Str Monk leaves 3 undamaged. While the Str Monk sets up the start of the GC chain better, the odds of one of the Dex Monk's buddies being able to Great Cleave the lot of them is increased.

The problem isn't flurry, it's the non-proficiency penalty of -4 attack.

There are many ways around that, including starting off with a class or choosing a race that is proficient in Martial Weapons.

Plus, the Strength Monk might actually do something like trip or grapple someone. It's not a great strategy for Monks, but they have that option.

Or the Dex monk might actually do something like set someone on fire, blind them with acid, glue them in place or use some other ranged/grenade weapon successfully...

Its a great tactic, depending on the options available in a given campaign.

 

[Zelc]

As I've already shown, sometimes that doesn't help. In my example, the Str Monk did more concentrated damage but died faster, while the Dex Monk occupied his opponents for a longer period of time.

Again, I think you made some unfair assumptions in that the Dex Monk will be taking all the hits and the Dex Monk somehow has proficiency in the Greatspear without a commensurate boon for the Str Monk. Can you show me your numbers and calculations? I'm actually not sure how you got to some of those numbers. What are the attack bonuses of everyone? What are the base ACs of everyone?

In a more normal fight, you'd actually have some allies helping you attack the same monster. In these cases, that extra damage the Str Monk has can be the difference between a monster living for one more full attack and killing it right away.

Hold the Line (CompWar, prereq Combat Reflexes and BAB+2) allows you to get an AoO against an opponent charging into an area you threaten. This is different from the AoO provoked by leaving a threatened square.

Well, that seems to be a really favorable reading of the feat to me. The "Normal" text seems to indicate that this is an extension of the AoO upon movement rule. Your reading seems to indicate that if an enemy charges past you when you have a reach weapon, you get 6 AoOs on him because the one AoO per move action limit doesn't apply (5 from HtL, one from normal movement)? There's also nothing in the text of the feat that says "this ability can only be used once per charge", you know. Even if you can justify this using RAW, I can't see any DM using this ruling.

I'm saying the Dex Monk's multiple AoOs sets up his partymates' Great Cleave better than the Str Monk. In the example above, each opponent (on average) the Dex Monk faced is reduced, whereas the Str Monk leaves 3 undamaged. While the Str Monk sets up the start of the GC chain better, the odds of one of the Dex Monk's buddies being able to Great Cleave the lot of them is increased.

Yes, but is leaving them all alive so the Fighter can Great Cleave them optimal? While they're at 50% or 25% or 1% HP, they're still full attacking and dealing full damage, and probably not to the Dex Monk either. Killing them faster means they're no longer dealing damage. Extremely simple example: 3 mooks vs. party, each mook deals 1 unit of damage per round, mooks move first. If you focus fire, they do 3, 2, and 1 damage on the rounds for a total of 6 units of damage. If you spread it out so your Fighter can Great Cleave them, they do 3, 3, 0 damage for the same amount of damage. However, in the first scenario, the Fighter could have swapped his Great Cleave (a poor feat in most cases IMO) for something much better.

There are many ways around that, including starting off with a class or choosing a race that is proficient in Martial Weapons.

Well, I don't think there's a race that has proficiency in a reach martial weapon that's worth the LA in general. If you want to dip another class, then that opens a whole can of complexity (why not just dip the 2 levels of Monk then? ). Do you want to go down that path? I'm assuming you actually want to play a full Monk and not just a battlefield controller, otherwise I'd just recommend something like a Crusader, Fighter, or Knight.

Or the Dex monk might actually do something like set someone on fire, blind them with acid, glue them in place or use some other ranged/grenade weapon successfully...

Its a great tactic, depending on the options available in a given campaign.

Other than the blinding with acid part, yes, those are great options at low levels (well, Alchemist's Fire's damage isn't exactly awesome above level 1, but the Tanglefoot Bags are certainly excellent). Costly options, especially at the levels when they're most effective, but great. So I will concede that a Dex Monk is better than a Str Monk for using alchemical items.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, I think you made some unfair assumptions in that the Dex Monk will be taking all the hits and the Dex Monk somehow has proficiency in the Greatspear without a commensurate boon for the Str Monk.

Reread my assumptions- I specifically stated that BOTH were proficient in Greatspear, both are facing the same number of opponents.

Yes, but is leaving them all alive so the Fighter can Great Cleave them optimal?

No, but with the assumptions listed, no opponent would be dropped in 1 round by either monk.

Its not optimal, but by damaging 4 opponents rather than 1, it gives the Dex Monk's warrior allies a better shot at maximizing their GC than the Str Monk's.

Your reading seems to indicate that if an enemy charges past you when you have a reach weapon, you get 6 AoOs on him because the one AoO per move action limit doesn't apply (5 from HtL, one from normal movement)? There's also nothing in the text of the feat that says "this ability can only be used once per charge", you know. Even if you can justify this using RAW, I can't see any DM using this ruling.

Barring an actual FAQ or Sage Advice ruling to the contrary, I wouldn't, nor would I expect anyone else to, rule this as being usable an unlimited number of times, though I agree there is no RAW language limiting it thus.

My reading was that a move into a threatened square is different than moving out of one, just like casting a spell would be different from moving out, but that it is similarly limited.

So, a creature entering a threatened space would trigger an AoO, and as he continues to move through the monk's threatened area, would trigger a second AoO for leaving a threatened space. If the creature continues to move through the threatened areas, he would trigger no additional AoOs by mere movement.

It is an extension of the "one AoO per move action limit," but it isn't a major one, and we are talking about a Feat, after all. Given that it has a BAB minimum and another Feat as a prereq, that modification isn't out of line.

Well, I don't think there's a race that has proficiency in a reach martial weapon that's worth the LA in general.

There are a LOT of tasty outsiders out there.

If you want to dip another class, then that opens a whole can of complexity (why not just dip the 2 levels of Monk then?

The last 2 Dex Monks I played were both multiclassed. 1 was a Ftr/Monk/Kensai, who (as I mentioned) equalled the output of the single classed Knight. The second was a Githzerai PsyWar/Monk/Lucid Cenobite (a Hyperconscious Monk PrCl that has no relevance to the damage output of the polearm). With +6Dex and +2Wis, plus spell-like abilities further enhancing his AC, he was virtually untouchable, and his Bisento was devastating.

I was designing a similar PC using an Anthro Ape from Savage Species- again, a race with +6Dex and +2Wis.

 

[Legildur]

a Githzerai PsyWar/Monk/Lucid Cenobite (a Hyperconscious Monk PrCl that has no relevance to the damage output of the polearm).... I was designing a similar PC using an Anthro Ape....

This does not resemble the D&D I know!

My main objection to the Dex based monk is when facing Damage Reduction. I see a lot of it in the games I play. Otherwise I like a lot of the synergies, but would still prefer to play a Strength based monk to deal with grappling, jumping, and climbing etc.

 

[Zelc]

Reread my assumptions- I specifically stated that BOTH were proficient in Greatspear, both are facing the same number of opponents.

Yes, but proficiency in the Greatspear is usually not optimal for the Str Monk who can't take advantage of Combat Reflexes. He'd probably get something like Improved Initiative or Improved Natural Attack instead.

No, but with the assumptions listed, no opponent would be dropped in 1 round by either monk.

Its not optimal, but by damaging 4 opponents rather than 1, it gives the Dex Monk's warrior allies a better shot at maximizing their GC than the Str Monk's.

The idea is that if your party is focus firing, then the Str Monk's extra damage may in fact result in something going down faster, which reduces the overall damage your party takes. And honestly, Great Cleave Fighters and AoE Blaster mages aren't very optimal (with the exception of campaigns with extreme amounts of weak mooks). Perhaps the Dex Monk has some synergy there, but synergy that requires suboptimal party members isn't something to really brag about.

Barring an actual FAQ or Sage Advice ruling to the contrary, I wouldn't, nor would I expect anyone else to, rule this as being usable an unlimited number of times, though I agree there is no RAW language limiting it thus.

My reading was that a move into a threatened square is different than moving out of one, just like casting a spell would be different from moving out, but that it is similarly limited.

So, a creature entering a threatened space would trigger an AoO, and as he continues to move through the monk's threatened area, would trigger a second AoO for leaving a threatened space. If the creature continues to move through the threatened areas, he would trigger no additional AoOs by mere movement.

It is an extension of the "one AoO per move action limit," but it isn't a major one, and we are talking about a Feat, after all. Given that it has a BAB minimum and another Feat as a prereq, that modification isn't out of line.

Well, I really see two options that make sense with this feat.

1) This feat simply tacks on the entering a threatened square while charging to the AoO rules for someone leaving a threatened square. Thus, you only get 1 AoO on someone charging past you.

2) This feat deems entering a threatened square while charging as something that provokes an AoO separate from all the other existing things that trigger AoOs. However, there is usually no limit on how many times someone can provoke an AoO in one round by performing the same thing multiple times (biggest exception being exiting threatened squares). In this case, it's the same thing as shooting an arrow multiple times on a full attack while threatened: you provoke an AoO every single time you enter a square while charging. Cue 6x AoOs.

Perhaps some people think it only allows 2 AoOs on a charge, but I think that's less justifiable or consistent than one of the two options above.

There are a LOT of tasty outsiders out there.

Could you give some examples? (I'm curious )

The last 2 Dex Monks I played were both multiclassed. 1 was a Ftr/Monk/Kensai, who (as I mentioned) equalled the output of the single classed Knight. The second was a Githzerai PsyWar/Monk/Lucid Cenobite (a Hyperconscious Monk PrCl that has no relevance to the damage output of the polearm). With +6Dex and +2Wis, plus spell-like abilities further enhancing his AC, he was virtually untouchable, and his Bisento was devastating.

I was designing a similar PC using an Anthro Ape from Savage Species- again, a race with +6Dex and +2Wis.

I was really hoping we could stick to straight Monks. If you want to add multiclassing, the potential things to account for really explode. For instance, I could use a Lockdown-ish build as an example of the Strength Monk's power. If your Monks are tough to kill, why are your enemies wasting time trying to kill you instead of your weaker party members? You can't prevent them from moving. I'd also like to point out that anecdotes aren't very good for establishing generalities, and Knights aren't really known for their damage output.

 

[eamon]

Just to point out, I did do some number crunching, and the monk doesn't look good. If you want a different comparison (the linked post was an unarmed strike optimized dex monk of 9th level vs. a suboptimal fighter (warforged juggernaught) - and the monk does less damage), post the details. I'm also curious about dannyalcatraz's monk builds.

The conclusion, anyhow, that dex based monk's can compete on damage with strength based monks isn't backed by numbers yet - and, when using a weapon other than the unarmed strike - I don't believe it's possible. A dex-based monk using unarmed strike can get close to a str-based monk, since a lot of damage is base damage, and since a str-monk only gains 1 extra damage per str bonus and 1 extra damage per point of BAB invested in power attack, unlike the two handed weapon wielding fighter. Regardless, they'll never even get close to a simple fighter/barbarian, let alone some optimized Bo9S build.

I also second the notion that combat reflexes isn't to the dex-based monk's advantage. You rarely get more than one AoO per round, and very rarely get more than 3, which a 14 dex monk already could take with combat reflexes. Further, a strength-based monk will be hitting dealing more damage with the AoO's he does hit - so that means that in the majority of cases, when both versions of the monk can hit equally often, the str monk gets more benefit from combat reflexes than the dex based monk - no doubt about it.

Two-Weapon Fighting is controversial in the sense that not everyone agree's it can be applied to the monk's unarmed strike. In any case (and I'd allow it), it a very suboptimal way to deal more damage, since it imposes a hefty -2 penalty on all your other attacks. Especially from 11th level onward, when a monk has greater flurry, the extra attack at full bab just doesn't compare to the -2 taken on all the other attacks. Worse yet, it penalizes all attacks - so guess what? All those great AoO's which you hope to get are less likely to hit.

If you're going to analyze a build, you realistically have to consider at least the cases of one opponent, of few opponents, and of many opponents. You'll need to consider that an AC that's beyond a certain threshold has decreasing returns, since people will simply try to hit your allies and not you.

Comparing monks when they're swarmed with opponents, and assuming all opponents try to hit the monk isn't a representative test - and even in that heavily biased test, according to dannyalcatraz (who argues that dex-based AoO monks are worth a try), the monk's perform almost equally - and from the incomplete test description, I think the str based monk could easily have done better (by, for instance, not using a greatspear).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are a LOT of tasty outsiders out there.

Could you give some examples? (I'm curious )

Every Planetouched printed in the MMs and Dragon. At one point, I was designing a setting in which Planetouched were to figure a major part- but I didn't like the overall mechanics of many of the races, so I did a campaign specific rework of them.

Still, I was easily into double digit numbers of Planetouched races before I changed my focus.

I'd also like to point out that anecdotes aren't very good for establishing generalities, and Knights aren't really known for their damage output.

While true, I reiterate that this was a comparison between a Dex Monk and a combatant who, besides having a mainstream Str-warrior build (incl. the Power Attack feat tree), had full BAB, giving him more attacks (barring FoB) and a higher probability of hitting than a Str monk.

And the same could be said of the Githzerai monk who stood alongside his Human Barbarian ally.

And honestly, Great Cleave Fighters and AoE Blaster mages aren't very optimal (with the exception of campaigns with extreme amounts of weak mooks).

???

I'd have to differ on the Great Cleave fighters, personally- especially after watching 2 of them tear down a pair of Half-Dragon T-Rexes in RttToEE (3Ed PHB & splatbooks builds only- meaning they don't get the benefit of the boosted power that tree gets in 3.5) nearly single handedly, and Goodman Games' Wizard Strategy Guide would probably disagree with you on the latter assertion.

I was really hoping we could stick to straight Monks.

I rarely build single-classed anything, sorry!

If your Monks are tough to kill, why are your enemies wasting time trying to kill you instead of your weaker party members?

It depends upon the particular situation. Typically, its one of the following:

1) Because they've seen their buddies get hacked down trying to get past them- some by the Monk, but also by the allies working with the Monk in formation so that their AoOs following the Monk's triggers someone's Cleave/Great Cleave.

2) They erroneously percieve the Monk as one of the weaker members, and don't realize their mistake until after they've engaged.

3) Space available for combat dictates who they get to fight- there is no path to the weaker members other than through the Monk and Warriors.

I think the str based monk could easily have done better (by, for instance, not using a greatspear).

Now I'm curious- how do you figure that? At 2d6, the Greatspear (or the 1d12 Bisento) does more damage than the Monk's IUC (1d10) and the weapon's reach improves the odds that he'll actually get his single AoO. Taking INA boosts his damage to 2d8, but since he threatens a smaller area, he is less likely to actually get to use his AoO at all.

the linked post was an unarmed strike optimized dex monk of 9th level vs. a suboptimal fighter (warforged juggernaught) - and the monk does less damage

You mean...Monks are not as good at fighting as warrior classes (those w/full BABs)?!

Not only am I not surprised, but I actually predicted that a Dex Monk couldn't do the same damage as an actual warrior:

Me
Were you to actually do a single combat of Dex Monk vs Ftr or even a Str Monk, I'd expect the Dex Monk to lose both fights (and I bet the Str Monk would lose to the Ftr unless he actually gets a Stunning attack in or 2).