Monks are Balanced?

[Dannyalcatraz]

One man's "paranoia" is another's "prudence."

If you could ensure yourself an absolutely safe rest- in any reality (including our own)- for a minimal cost, wouldn't you? If not, why not?

 

[Empirate]

Sorry, Greylord, but that kind of thing simply won't do in the discussion at hand. You're punishing a Wizard for making use of his class features, his abundance of low-level spell slots, his (by 10th, even more by 15th level) very likely hard-earned paranoia, which induces him to be careful in very basic ways?
You're basically saying: "you're being very careful about ambushes, so it's more likely you'll run into one! You're being exceedingly cautious about your house being broken into, so that's exactly what will happen - not despite, but because of your precautions! MUAHAHAHAHA!"

The words "Dick DM" come to mind for that already. And you're not stopping there. You're going on to imply that you'll stipulate a cautious Wizard will invariably go insane and antagonize his presumed social environment by KILLING HIS ALLIES. Who will turn on him to get revenge. Which somehow makes the Monk a dangerous challenge to the Wizard...

Sorry, but I don't follow. Maybe I'm overinterpreting, but after some very constructive arguments, your last few posts have devolved into mad blather, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Visigani]

Threads like these... they anger me. They anger me because they're chock full of people who... and I'll try to be as subtle about this as possible... but people who DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

And what are they talking about? Sure as not dungeons and dragons.

You know who "optimizes"? Players. Almost universally it's players. A DM that "optimizes" can simply say "rocks fall, everyone dies" and he "wins".

So far as I know though, D&D is a "co-op" game. It would be extremely rare for a player monk to up and attack a player wizard. In such an instance it would be the MONK strangely enough, that would have the benefit.

Why? Because unlike the strange "I'll cast all my spells and get prepped and then you run over and try to hit me" nonsense it comes down to one of two things. Either the wizard and the monk are standing next to each other in a 'discussion' that results in the desire to murder one another or one decides to actually kill the other guy and bides his time and strikes. A wizard snoozing while the monk agrees to keep watch and then the monk up and slays said wizard via... whatever. Which is probably what a monk that wanted to kill the wizard would do. He certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to go toe to toe with someone who can bend space and time at a whim. If the wizard tried the same tactic the monk at least has a few natural defenses in such an event. Tipping the scales slightly in their favor.


But none of this is here nor there.


When the Monk is "caster killing" he's not targeting an OPTIMIZED PLAYER CHARACTER... he's targeting the generic caster the DM has rolled up. As Tucker's Kobolds illustrates the DM can rape about any party they elect to relatively easily, Wizard or not. The DM wins. Consequently the DM rarely ever needs to optimize.

So, take a good hard look at the tools your player character monk has and they are excellent against many generic spellcasting NPCs.

Feh.

And that is what the monk is balanced against. Not wizards. Not clerics. Not even fighters. They are balanced against their niche in the game.

What's with people trying to turn D&D into Wow? Christ. If you desperately crave pee Ved pee that bad go play a game developed with it in mind and stop trying to use it as some warped metric to determine the validity of a character class.

 

[Empirate]

Visi, the discussion only turned into a PvP fest because advice was asked concerning a specific case: a PC Monk one-shotted a high-level NPC Wizard. The DM wanted to know how we feel about that, and what to make of it. OF COURSE he could have said the Rocks fall thing, but he opted not to do that. Instead, he's been trying to develop a better understanding of Monks as regards their ability to kill casters. Presumably so he doesn't have to turn to the rather heavy-handed Rocks fall approach.

Understanding the game better is good, neh?

 

[kitcik]

One man's "paranoia" is another's "prudence."

If you could ensure yourself an absolutely safe rest- in any reality (including our own)- for a minimal cost, wouldn't you? If not, why not?

One man's reasoned argument is another's drunken ramble.

 

[GreyLord]

AS Emp said, I'm getting a better understanding of Monks. However, as Visi said, not really into the PVP thing. I'll DM between players if they want, but normally I want reasons and backgrounds of WHY things are. Just doing something because you are metagaming and seeing a benefit from the rules without any solid reasonings normally isn't something I do DM wise, or enjoy from my players. Saying that one would want to be a Purple Knight from the Forgotten Realms campaign whilst they are in Krynn makes me go...OH REALLY???

Things that don't make sense aren't something I smile upon as a DM.

So if one has enemies that they are always hiding from...tell me exactly why they are so powerful that you need to hide from them...and that means who are they (I expect a 16th level mage wouldn't be THAT afraid of another 16th level mage...which in my book means something at least a few levels higher...something that could penetrate your home and wreck it completely before you even had time to react or something similar.

Metagaming in certain amounts I can accept, but having characters do something for nothing other than a benefit with no real good reason as to who, what, why, where, or how really doesn't jive with me particularly.

However, if two players want to go at it, I will DM between them, but I still need more than simply...we want to see who is more powerful, even if that's the truth of it.

In this instance probably one is a bad evil dude, which I'm guessing is the Wizard...and the other is the good dude. If it's the bad dude...I need backstory...or I need to fill it in if there's a lack of it.

For example, if one is always in a rope trick and never leaves...why would the good dude even go after the BBEG since the BBEG has basically already exiled themselves out of this existence?

If he has people after him when he's basically gone from this world...they must really want him bad...and if they think they can get him...may have some significantly stronger firepower then he/she does.

Overall it's interesting though with some of the ideas. For example...the Rat familiar idea...probably not something that I'd use as I can't see the strength in it.

Teleport...could be useful as an idea if the Caster has time to cast a spell.

Rope Trick could be useful in a pinch if the BBEG needs a place to hole up quickly.

Of course both rely on the Spell caster having a second to actually cast a spell first...

So I also like the thought of a ring of invisibility. Doesn't really drain his spell slots, but at the same time useful for not only hiding, but keeping oneself harder to hit at first.

 

[Dandu]

Threads like these... they anger me. They anger me because they're chock full of people who... and I'll try to be as subtle about this as possible... but people who DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I agree with your evaluation.

 

[Vegepygmy]

You also realize if you fail your DC check...your INT WILL fall to 8...right?

I love the take ten rule.

Me, too. But it only applies to skill checks, not ability checks, which is what contact other plane calls for.

Oops...my mistake.

Ability Checks and Caster Level Checks: The normal take 10 and take 20 rules apply for ability checks. Neither rule applies to caster level checks (such as when casting dispel magic or attempting to overcome spell resistance.)

 

[Dandu]

Ability Checks

Sometimes a character tries to do something to which no specific skill really applies. In these cases, you make an ability check. An ability check is a roll of 1d20 plus the appropriate ability modifier. Essentially, you’re making an untrained skill check.

 

[GreyLord]

Me, too. But it only applies to skill checks, not ability checks, which is what contact other plane calls for.

Interesting point...and controversial to a certain degree. Dandu has already pointed out that via the rules one actually can take 10 or 20 in theory.

The controversy lies in DM fiat. Take 10 in some minds is something that in the rules seems to indicate it is for normal everyday tasks...something that you probably wouldn't really need to fear of doing badly...so you simply do an average job.

You can also take 20, in this case you wouldn't want to since by the rules taking 20 assumes that you fail along the way whilst you are trying to suceed.

The bigger thing with take 10, and where it gets controversial with Contact other Plane is that you have to be free of distractions or danger. When contacting another plane...does your DM think that the threat of having your mind overwhelmed by a being who doesn't normally want to be bothered by you and could drive you insane...count as a present threat or not?

I like something I read on the Paizo boards recently...more in line with Pathfinder...but also relavant to 3.5 in this case I think...

paizo.com - Messageboards / Rules Questions / Take 10 Rules and Contact Other Plane

thanks to Mojorat

If no one who can cast the spell cannot fail taking 10 (which was established in the previous thread i think youd need an int of 6) whats the point of the check even being there?

seems to be the point is you cast the spell and you roll and hope your brain isnt turned to jello theres nothing supposed to be routine about it.

If take 10 is legit that whole section of the spell can jus tbe removed with white-out because it no longe rhas any bearing on the spell as no one can fail it.

Contact with minds far removed from your home plane
increases the probability that you will incur a decrease in
Intelligence and Charisma due to your brain being overwhelmed,
but also increases the chance of the power knowing the answer
and answering correctly.

And thanks to Eric542

Now if a panicked creature would run away from a source that they know could overwhelm their brain causing an int and cha decrease, then that source is considered a "danger". Thus exposing one's self to a source that could overwhelm one's brain qualifies as being in "immediate danger".

I just provided valid argument as to why you cannot take 10 centered upon the text of panicked. The magic of logic dictates that you either deny one of the premises or accept the conclusion when confronted with a valid argument. You seem to still deny the conclusion, therefore you must deny one of the premises.

More formally:
1) Contact other plane can overwhelm the caster's brain
2) If a panicked creature would run away from something, then it perceives it as dangerous
3) A panicked creature would run away from something that it knows can overwhelm it's brain
4) Therefore something that is known to be able to overwhelm brains is perceived as dangerous
5) If a creature perceives itself to be in danger, it cannot take 10.
6) Allowing one's self to be exposed to something that is perceived dangerous is perceived as being in danger.
7) Therefore one cannot take 10 on contact other plane.

1 and 2 are straight from the SRD. 4-6 are necessary filler to formalize the argument. 3 is my only assertion. Now you may either argue why a panicked creature would not run away from something that could overwhelm it's brain or concede the point. It is a simple motus ponen argument.

In otherwords, I think it's clear about how it SHOULD be interpreted...but in theory a DM could rule it as they want...and allow a take 10 check on Contact other plane...depending on the interpretation.

I think that's the WRONG intepretation to allow a take 10 on the spell overall...but each has their own game. Thought it controversial enough that there wasn't even a reason to reply to it at first when brought up originally (the post to which you responded to)...but your question brought up why the controversy even exists in the first place which is an interesting discussion in and of itself.