Multiple Ability Dependance and other tall tales

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

They can hit stuffloosing +2 attack bonus only alters the odds of hiting a bit.

Actually, it's +5 at 20th-level, and even more due to the mismatch of unarmed combat with magic items. I don't really care about flurry of blows (giving up something you don't have is pretty silly).

But it seems like people who want to play monks don't want to play monks, they want to play fighters with unarmed combat ability.

Isn't that what I just said?

Unfortunately, Improved Unarmed Strike really sucks, and that's not even taking into accounts magic item problems. And on top of that, light fighters just suck in DnD, and making the periapt of Wisdom take up the same slot as the amulet of mighty fists was a very ... uninspired ... move. So playing a fighter as a martial artist is a joke.

From what other people have said in this thread, it seems like the monk's niche is too small to satisfy a lot of people. It's difficult for DnD rules to turn fighters into martial artists, although I heard two people are actually trying that. I'll say it again - D20 Modern works so much better for this

 

[Altalazar]

Most definitely. There are character classes that require decent stats in two or three slots, which can be impossible do to in less than 32 point buy campaigns. Sure, you could do it, but then you'd be deactivating large swaths of class abilities, making them rather pointless (what good is a special bonus you get for, say, a high Cha as part of your class if you have so few points you can't have a high Cha without sacrificing your primary stat)?

That's why I think you need 32 point buy, minimum. (And that's what I usually do).

 

[JustaPlayer]

A lot of people would spend a feat that barbarians get few of to get armor that limits them more? In five years of gaming and reading thousands of characters of EN World and Wizards boards I can't say I've ever seen this.

Are you kidding? I got news, +10 movement is not a lot unless you are running away from something. Still, you would leave your comrads behind. If I take the feat at first level, I don't have to use Dex to boost my AC, right off the bat I can gain +3 to it. My roll play style for the class is to wear light armor, but the trade off you get for taking that feat is well worth it if you want to focus you ability boosts in Str & Con where they belong.

Now if for some reason the monk got double the bonus to AC for dex instead of the Dex + Wis, I would then say there is no problem with them needing multiple high stats. +3 in dex and +1 or 2 in wis is just not viable for much of anything. Especially when they also need Str to hit something as well.

Hit and run doesn't work very well with the mechanics. Even when doing the Hit and run a Monk without at least three good stats is more likely to be the one getting hit then doing the hitting. Also, the tumble skill is used with I move action, so flurry is out it's a full round action. So I can try for a DC 25 tumble check. I can make it at medium levels yeah, but not regularly. Then I get to try to hit them, with an attack action (one attack). Then I move out. But wait, even with +60 movement my speed would be reduced to 45, so I would have to be standing 10ft away for every guy I try this manuver on, make two checks (tumble, hit) hope my pathetic BAb will hit the guy. And if he was a Barbarian I'm hosed anyway because he'll still have enoungh movement to hit me with a swipe of his greataxe.

 

[Crothian]

Huh, so classes that get high base speeds are only good for running away and abondoining the rest of the party? I thought people used minis and battle maps and movemnt with this D&D game.

I'm just not buying that a +1 or +2 differnece takes a character from worthless to useful.

 

[JustaPlayer]

Huh, so classes that get high base speeds are only good for running away and abondoining the rest of the party? I thought people used minis and battle maps and movemnt with this D&D game.

I'm just not buying that a +1 or +2 differnece takes a character from worthless to useful.

Not quite saying that. I'm saying it's not as useful as you are making it sound. Hey, it's nice especially for jumping distances and such. It's just not the huge benifit in combat you think it is.

When saying +1 or +2, you aren't looking at the whole picture. Say I want to use flurry against a fighter. At first level I would be -3 compared to the fighter. That means I would hit a target with the same Ac 15% less of the time. Now at 20th level that increases to -5 compared to the fighter or 25%. No at fist level your fighter has an AC of 18 easy. let's say I have two good stats for Dex + Wis so I have 16. So his AC is 12.5% harder to hit than the Monks. You would think this gap would close at higher level but due to the fact that the fighter will more than likely have +5 it actaully gets wide unless I dump all ability boost into Dex or Wis. Here is the real kicker, the monk has already used two good stats for Dex and Wis. The Fighter puts his one and only good stat in Str so he is at +3 Hit/Dam, now he hits the same AC I would at 15% more. Wow, that -3 to hit compared to a fighter turned into -6 or 30% real quick. His hp are 22% higher d8 (4.5 ave) vs. d10 (5.5 ave). If he had a second good stat and placed in Con that would be even more. Monk = paste.

Yes people use maps and minis and move around in combat. Positioning for sneek attack, protecting the weak wiz/sor and such. Using move actions is not big because it just isn't going to help you on offese much (I find that trying to focus on defense is just not the way to win the combats whether fighting defsivly or hoping to counter spell it's just a bad move in the game). 5ft steps for free is the way to move around in combat. I mean you can reduce the tumble check to 15 but you have to make one enter and leaving each threatened area. and you will only get the chance for a single strike. You well still be suseptable to charges and things. When you start getting into tactics to make your character work, assume that the DM has just as good tactics as you do and it's a wash unles I'm a benevolent DM.

On a side note, I'm starting to step away from minis. I notice that people step out of character from the moment you set them on the board. The game changes from role play to war game in an instant. I never used them when younger and we used to have more fun dicribing how we moved around than just pushing a mini.

Another side note maybe using ones AOO instead of the holding the action would work better for counter spells now that I think on it. It would certainly make for more dramatic spell dules.

 

[Crothian]

A good DM can nuetralize any class's abilities. Balance is inbetween the classes, not depdant on the DM's ability to make it worthless a as dM can do that to anyone.

Monks are not frontline fighters, I've been saying that for a few pages, thanks for providing the mathimatical proof.

 

[Samuel Leming]

But it seems like people who want to play monks don't want to play monks, they want to play fighters with unarmed combat ability.

This is exactly what I've always seen when someone wants to play a monk. They usually have the picture in their heads of the warriors from some Hong Kong action flick instead of the monk as presented in the Players Handbook.

The strength of the monk is its lack of weakness and the weakness of the monk is its lack of strengths. Kind of a pseudo-zen thing there. This doesn’t help the guy who really wants to play an unarmed unarmored fighter type though. For them I’ll allow a modified version of a fighter or swashbuckler class and some homebrewed unarmed combat feats.

I believe a monk is playable if you have stats comparable to the other characters in the game, but not if what you really want is a frontline fighter.

Sam

 

[Samuel Leming]

From what other people have said in this thread, it seems like the monk's niche is too small to satisfy a lot of people. It's difficult for DnD rules to turn fighters into martial artists, although I heard two people are actually trying that.

I may be one of the people you remember that's doing that, since I remember your handle from the threads where I talked about creating homebrew feats to turn fighters into unarmed combatants.

Sam

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Are you kidding? I got news, +10 movement is not a lot unless you are running away from something.

I disagree. I went out of my way to get my DM to create a feat for my ranger to increase his speed. In D20 Modern, having a high speed is very good if you like to use melee.

Personally I think the monk's speed is way overboard, though. I'm not a big fan of all those mystical abilities.

Monks are not frontline fighters, I've been saying that for a few pages, thanks for providing the mathimatical proof.

But people want monks to be good front-line fighters. I'm surprised WotC didn't get the hint when they modified the monk for 3.5.

I may be one of the people you remember that's doing that, since I remember your handle from the threads where I talked about creating homebrew feats to turn fighters into unarmed combatants.

I knew your name looked familiar.

 

[BryonD]

I voted none. But there is some truth to it with the monk. Not enough to make an excuse though, so I stayed with none.