Unarmed Strike Signature Weapon

[Dandu]

Ah, I see a better picture, now. Our opinions are so radically different because our sense of battle in DnD is so different. In the games you play, the average monster is aware and can distinguish the subtle differences between humanoids. In all the games I play, the average monster is oblivious and can as easily distinguish the subtle differences between humanoids as humanoids can distinguish the subtle differences between insects.

Only when humanoids and exceptional monsters attack the party do they have the knowledge of which you speak.

Let me show you something. It's a list of the CR 10 monsters in core that will attack in melee.

Collsal Animated Object: 256 HP, AC 11. Will not notice an AoO for 2d6+2 damage (average 9 points), especially if the object has sufficient hardness. On the plus side, likely not smart enough to use any tactics whatsoever. Win for the Monk.
Young Adult Brass Dragon: 110 HP, AC 24. Flight, burrowing, swimming. Casts spells as a 5th level sorcerer. Highly intelligent, highly cunning. Yeah, the monk is not winning this one. About the same evaluation applies for the other two other dragons that crop up at CR 10.
9 Headed Cryohydra: 97 HP, AC 19. Fast Healing 19.
11 Headed Hydra: 118 HP, AC 21. Fast Healing 21. Hydras have 2 Int, but 10 Wis. Whether they'd be able to tell who the weaker members of the group are is something that will depend on how your DM inteprests the ability scores, but should the Hydra decide that it wants to eat the person with the least mucles behind the monk, she won't really be able to dissuade it with her AoO, or prevent it from lashing out at the wizard with the 11 attacks that the hydra gets even after moving. There's also the matter of its breath weapon...

Win for the monk?
Fire Giant: 142 HP, AC 23. 10 Int, 14 Wis. Will probably be able to make a tactical assessment of your party and decide to attack the wizard first.
Clay Golem: 90 HP, AC 22. Mindless. The monk will draw its fire well. This is a victory for the monk.
Bebelith: 150 HP, AC 22. Int 11, Wis 13. Big scary demon spider. Bad news.
Gargantuan Monsterous Scorpion: 150 HP, AC 24. Mindless. Win for the monk.
Noble Salamander: 112 hp, AC 18. Int 16, Wis 15. Will attack with stratiegery.

This leaves out several spellcasters like Rakshas, Guardian Nagas, etc, who wouldn't attack in melee, and against whom the monk would be about as useful as a cactus in a monkey's pajamas.

Ultimate point: 17 CR 10 monsters total, 11 of whom will fight in melee, four of whom are dumb enough to blindly attack people.

There is nothing exceptional about opponents being able to act strategically; they are infact quite common.

Also, it's very rare that my group fights on an open plain where walls and obstacles don't exist that hinder the movement of players and monsters in some manner, and when monsters tend to range in greater sizes, they tend to have greater hindrances.

Even indoors, unless you're fighting in a narrow tunnel, you're going to have a space next to you that someone can slip through. And if they're too large to simply bypass you like that, they have a huge bonus to Bull Rushing and can push you out of the way. Or use their Reach to attack the person behind you over your head; now, if you could only push them out of the way somehow...

The untouchable monk just a speed bump in the face of a determined attacker and doesn't contribute more than can be accomplished with one of the 2nd or 3rd level spells that provides flanking and a Wall of Force.

 

[HoboGod]

Fire Giant: 142 HP, AC 23. 10 Int, 14 Wis. Will probably be able to make a tactical assessment of your party and decide to attack the wizard first.

This is the perfect example of where I don't think we see eye-to-eye. I'm not saying your wrong, but it's a difference between the games we play. Intelligence and Wisdom have very little to do with a monster's understanding of humanity. A Fire Giant knows about Giantkind. Just because it is a sentient being, it wouldn't immediately recognize which of the two relatively puny humans is the punier, nor would it have a Jane Goodall understanding of their culture to identify a monk's robe from a wizard's robe. Just as a player, regardless of intelligence and wisdom, would need knowledge nature to identify the obscure characteristics of giants, giants would need something like knowledge local to identify the characteristics of humanoids.

This leaves out several spellcasters like Rakshas, Guardian Nagas, etc, who wouldn't attack in melee, and against whom the monk would be about as useful as a cactus in a monkey's pajamas.

These spellcasters, unless humanoid, have the same problem the Fire Giant does. Now, if you're talking about an Orc Shaman, I agree with you on the monk's usefulness, but even wizards can't kick ass every encounter.

Even indoors, unless you're fighting in a narrow tunnel, you're going to have a space next to you that someone can slip through. And if they're too large to simply bypass you like that, they have a huge bonus to Bull Rushing and can push you out of the way. Or use their Reach to attack the person behind you over your head; now, if you could only push them out of the way somehow...

The untouchable monk just a speed bump in the face of a determined attacker and doesn't contribute more than can be accomplished with one of the 2nd or 3rd level spells that provides flanking and a Wall of Force.

If the monster has to spend an action to bullrush the monk, that's a victory in my book. Combat tends not to allow any given side more than a few actions before it's over. Yeah, wizards have all sorts of utility spells that can mimic the use of another class, but they can't walk around casting wall of force everywhere they think they're gunna get ambushed.

 

[Dandu]

This is the perfect example of where I don't think we see eye-to-eye. I'm not saying your wrong, but it's a difference between the games we play. Intelligence and Wisdom have very little to do with a monster's understanding of humanity. A Fire Giant knows about Giantkind. Just because it is a sentient being, it wouldn't immediately recognize which of the two relatively puny humans is the punier, nor would it have a Jane Goodall understanding of their culture to identify a monk's robe from a wizard's robe. Just as a player, regardless of intelligence and wisdom, would need knowledge nature to identify the obscure characteristics of giants, giants would need something like knowledge local to identify the characteristics of humanoids.

Are you really saying that it is impossible for it to figure out, that one person has a strength score of 8 while the other has a strength score of 14, given that a higher strength score generally implies the possession of muscles, the size of which can be discerned visually.

These spellcasters, unless humanoid, have the same problem the Fire Giant does.

I fail to see why a reasonably intelligent creature will reliably fail to distinguish a man whose primary occupation is the arcane arts from a man whose job is to beat things up with his bare hands.

I agree with you on the monk's usefulness, but even wizards can't kick ass every encounter.

But the monk isn't kicking ass in any encounter which makes it pretty hard for him to be broken, wouldn't you say?

If the monster has to spend an action to bullrush the monk, that's a victory in my book. Combat tends not to allow any given side more than a few actions before it's over.

So the monk forces the opponent to waste one round's worth of actions - assuming the enemy doesn't just move past the monk and take an AoO for little damage, or go over his head with Reach.

How is this broken again?

Yeah, wizards have all sorts of utility spells that can mimic the use of another class, but they can't walk around casting wall of force everywhere they think they're gunna get ambushed.

By the same token, the monk can't exactly cover more than one side of the party wizard when he thinks the wizard is going to be ambushed.

 

[HoboGod]

Are you really saying that it is impossible for it to figure out, that one person has a strength score of 8 while the other has a strength score of 14, given that a higher strength score generally implies the possession of muscles, the size of which can be discerned visually.

Discerned by humanoids. From 30 ft away, I can't tell the difference between a domesticated greyhound and a prize-winning race dog.

I fail to see why a reasonably intelligent creature will reliably fail to distinguish a man whose primary occupation is the arcane arts from a man whose job is to beat things up with his bare hands.

Without any knowledge of dogs, could you immediately tell the difference between a dog trained to herd sheep and a dog trained to follow scents?

By the same token, the monk can't exactly cover more than one side of the party wizard when he thinks the wizard is going to be ambushed.

True enough, but the only effective ways of ambushing a group is from a blind spot or from the direction they're heading. It's not the responsibility of the beatstick to cover blind spots.

But the monk isn't kicking ass in any encounter which makes it pretty hard for him to be broken, wouldn't you say?

So the monk forces the opponent to waste one round's worth of actions - assuming the enemy doesn't just move past the monk and take an AoO for little damage, or go over his head with Reach.

How is this broken again?

Okay, I'm quickly getting tired of arguing this. I don't see wizards so close to front line that they are within a monster's reach and the damage dealt by AoO are significant in the long run. A beatstick controls the pace of the battle by picking off small threats or through defensive tactics, I've never played DnD without one.

Now, what's my definition of broken? A well-rounded class that does almost everything is broken. An offensive class which kills too quickly is broken. A defensive class which dies too slowly is broken. You may not agree and have a different definition of brokenness, but that's how I see it.

 

[Dandu]

Discerned by humanoids. From 30 ft away, I can't tell the difference between a domesticated greyhound and a prize-winning race dog.

If there weren't things like spot checks, Eyes of the Eagle, and Spyglasses, I would give more credence to your augment.

Without any knowledge of dogs, could you immediately tell the difference between a dog trained to herd sheep and a dog trained to follow scents?

Actually, yes. I have no actual experience with dogs, but I know that Bloodhounds, German Shepards, and other dogs you associate with the military and police are often able to follow scents, while Lassie (a collie?), those adorable dogs with tufts of hair over their eyes, and settlers herd sheep.

More pertinently, I can tell the difference between a dog that is trained to rip people's throats out (Rottweiler, pit bull) from one that is bred to be a house pet (poodle, chihuahua), ie, which one has higher strength and BAB.

Okay, I'm quickly getting tired of arguing this. I don't see wizards so close to front line that they are within a monster's reach

In indoors or close environments that tends to happen. Out of doors, not so much, but then you have to deal with the fact that the monster has much more mobility.

Monk fails either way.

and the damage dealt by AoO are significant in the long run.

In the long run... of a combat that only lasts a few rounds, according to your previous posts? ("Combat tends not to allow any given side more than a few actions before it's over.")

A beatstick controls the pace of the battle by picking off small threats or through defensive tactics, I've never played DnD without one.

The VoP monk isn't a beatstick. I postulate this based on the fact that it's not beating up anyone.

Now, what's my definition of broken? A well-rounded class that does almost everything is broken. An offensive class which kills too quickly is broken. A defensive class which dies too slowly is broken. You may not agree and have a different definition of brokenness, but that's how I see it.

How does it die too slowly?

Let's look at the CR 10 monsters again.


Collsal Animated Object: attacks with a slam at an AB of +25. This one's hitting on a 10 or higher.
Young Adult Brass Dragon: natural attacks with an AB of +19. Hits on a 16 or higher.
9 Headed Cryohydra: AB of +13, but it also gets 9 attacks every round, even on a move.
11 Headed Hydra: +16 AB, but 11 attacks every round.
Fire Giant: +20 to attack hits on a 15 or higher.
Clay Golem: +14 to attack. Will not hit except on a 20. Monk wins.
Bebelith: +19 AB.
Gargantuan Monsterous Scorpion: +21 AB, hits on an 14 or higher
Noble Salamander: +23 AB, hits on a 11 or higher.

You're not especially hard to hit. Consider: A core only rogue (with a dip in Fighter, perhaps) with 22 Dex (+6 mod), Combat Expertise, a +2 chain shirt, a +2 heavy steel shield and a Dusty Red Ioun Stone has an AC of 10+6+5+6+4+1=32 AC (touch 22, flat footed 27)

Before you ask, starting stats are STR 14, DEX 16 (increased to 19 via leveling), CON 14, INT 14, WIS 10, CHA 10. A +4 item for Dex, +4 for Con, and +4 for Strength along with the AC boosters and a +2 rapier and a +4 Cloak of Resistance is within the WBL for level 12, at 85,420 gp out of 88,000.

HP of about 92, saves are Fort +12/Ref +18/Will +8.

The rogue, assuming he had weapon finesse and a +2 weapon, would have an AB of +12/+7, have more HP due to the ability to boost it with magical items, and deal 1d8+6 damage on a hit (average 8.5) assuming no sneak attacks.

Now, is that broken?

Hell, a fighter can get +3 Full Plate, a +3 Tower Shield, a +2 Ring of Deflection, and a +1 Ioun Stone for 31 AC (Touch 13 , Flat-Footed 31) before using Combat Expertise or anything else. Throw on a Minor Cloak of Displacement and you'll find that attacks against him miss 20% of the time, which is very good on top of the AC.

This is not high optimization or an application of munchkin-fu; this is something I slapped together on the spot IN A CAVE! WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!

I bought standard equipment, went with a stereotypical build , kept my options restricted to core (and the non-broken parts of core at that), and applied basic AC boosting methods.

 

[Dandu]

Also, the exalted bonus to AC and the Mage Armor bonus do not stack. Same bonus rules. It EXPLICITLY doesn't stack, says so on page 30 end of the first paragraph.

A first level ascetic receives a +4 exalted armor bonus to his armor class.
...
This bonus does not apply to touch attacks and does not hinder incorporeal touch attacks
...
This does not stack with an armor bonus.

An invisible but tangible field of force surrounds the subject of a mage armor spell, providing a +4 armor bonus to AC.

So,

Let's tally up her AC! +8 Exalted Bonus, +4 Armor Bonus, +1 Natural Armor, +2 Deflection Untyped Bonus, +6 Wisdom Bonus, +4 Dexterity Bonus = AC 35 31, Touch 31 22, Flat-Footed 31 27.

I reiterate my previous inquiry about apples.

 

[HoboGod]

I'm going to stop arguing many of these points as I feel we're drifting further from a point of agreement. By your standards, I'll concede that the build is not broken. However, I'll hold to my opinion.

If there weren't things like spot checks, Eyes of the Eagle, and Spyglasses, I would give more credence to your augment.

Alright, let me rephrase that, even with binoculars, I couldn't tell the difference between two dogs of similar size. I'm reasonable sure if I was up close and could inspect the dog from many angles, I'd possibly have a good chance of picking which dog was stronger. Even then, I might be surprised.

Actually, yes. I have no actual experience with dogs, but I know that Bloodhounds, German Shepards, and other dogs you associate with the military and police are often able to follow scents, while Lassie (a collie?), those adorable dogs with tufts of hair over their eyes, and settlers herd sheep.

I didn't question you on experience, I questioned you on knowledge. That's exactly the kind of information that a knowledge nature check would give you. A monster would need to roll an equivalent knowledge check on humans to make the kind of rationality that pinpoints a wizard.

More pertinently, I can tell the difference between a dog that is trained to rip people's throats out (Rottweiler, pit bull) from one that is bred to be a house pet (poodle, chihuahua), ie, which one has higher strength and BAB.

And so what then tells you a pit bull isn't a house pet? Very few humanoids are bred to be wizards. An elf could easily be a fighter or a ranger, a halfling could easily be a rogue or a cleric. Perhaps by the weapons they carry one could distinguish a wizard, but that too requires a knowledge check of humanoid weaponry. A martial weapon in the hands of an ogre, I imagine, looks far more sinister than what a lawful good dwarf would carry.

You talk of ability scores like a few points will make muscles bulge and rip from their shirt. I'm a big guy, but I look way more intimidating that I truly am. Plenty of short, skinny guys who look like nothing but a bag of bones have proved themselves stronger and better fighters than I think I might be.

EDIT: Hang on, we seem to be posting at the same time, I posted based on something you corrected.

 

[Dandu]

I'm going to stop arguing many of these points as I feel we're drifting further from a point of agreement.

Then let me post something we can both agree on: You assessment of the monk's AC, and consequently, of it's abilities, was incorrect.

Now, I would be interested in hearing your opinions on the slapdash core builds I tossed out which also get rather high AC.

 

[HoboGod]

So you're right, I can't believe I missed that about it's non-stacking. Never-the-less, the high AC isn't really what's killing me. Yes, most classes with decent armor proficiency can get that high of AC. A while back, I was pretty actively reading that theoretical thread on what the highest AC could be, so I understand how building a high AC can be done rather easily. My gripe is more on the versatility which can be possessed, that this build works without armor or weapons or trump cards. It provides many bonuses which work well to more than just specializing in a specific aspect of combat. The high AC is just that point I keep going back to because it validates what most front liners will spend their fortune on so they can suck at skill checks and move slower.

However, this is an excellent time for me to stop arguing these things that bug me about VoP. You make many valid points and I will not discredit them. We differ in opinion on some level that I would likely have to spend many pages to figure out. I originally thought this to be debate of proficiency within limitation debate, then it started to look like an offense vs defense conflict, now it looks like it may head toward a functionality vs plausibility conflict. We can't seem to find common ground, so I'll thank you kindly for talking with me about this subject. The topic of debate proved quite enlightening and I shall take extensive time to reflect upon your stance so that I might develop a stronger, or different, opinion.

I would however, wish to continue the discussion of what monsters are supposed to know when ambushing a party. That is far more interesting to me, actually, and not something I actively thought about, but always made sense. I will make a new thread for it, though.