What is the best way to create effective Monk only with core rules?

[Lela]

You know, I think the Troll was an ironic choice of monsters for that example.

Guys, back off. Don't make me send you to your rooms.

 

[Corwin]

I tried to post this yesterday morning, but the boards went down in the middle of my drafting it. So, here it is, a day-and-a-half late...

Perhaps you are misunderstanding me, perhaps you just like taking shots at me.

Or maybe I don't like pompous, condescending busy-bodies who try correcting people who aren't wrong and dispense blatantly incorrect information seemingly knowing full-well that they are doing so.

You just said yourself that you knew the two points weren't the same, yet you originally made that very assertion. Are you back-pedaling now?

Regardless I'd appreciate it if you didn't simply call my opinions baseless.

Even when they are? Here was your original statement...

"Actually, Wizards of the Coast has rules that specifically apply to monks that have natural attacks or unarmed attacks that do more than a human's normal 1d3. And it works pretty much like gamecat said."

That looks pretty baseless to me. No supporting documentation. No evidence to back it up. Just a vague refernce to WotC. Worse, you now claim you knew all along that there wasn't any such ruling. You now claim you were simply saying that there were "similarities" (which there aren't, by the way). This doesn't seem to occur anywhere in the above statement.

I am capable of being wrong like everyone else.

Then just say so and don't get all condescending by posting a bunch of S&F junk that has nothing to do with your original comment.

Now if you'll allow me to repeat myself again, I said that WotC's system for dealing with monstrous monks is similar to gamecat's house rule.

No it isn't. WotC's larger monk system follows the other rules for making weapons larger (PH). Ands for scaling natural weapons for larger creatures (MM). Neither has to do with allowing monks with natural weapons to get extra damage. Otherwise, again, the troll monk in the book would do more damage for having both.

Yes, it does not factor in the claws and talons, bone ridges and dimensional hands that exist out there but if it did it would be precisely like gamecat's system which is not what I've said.

But it is. I just reposted your original comment which claimed, matter-of-factly, that gamecat's system was supported by the rules already. Incorrect.

It's similar.

It's not.

Meaning if you wanted to afford some advantage to medium sized natural weapon armed monks you could. Its foundations are in the rules and are expandable from there.

No foundations. I think I'll show you how dangerous and wrong your assumption can get when applied to a similar situation.

In the same book you use to support your claim (S&F), there is another section on Rules Variants (page 69). One of the most popular, is the Double-Handed Disarm. Basically it allows unarmed attackers the option of using both hands to grab an opponent's weapon. Normally human hands are tiny weapons so there are huge penalties to grabbing a sword. This variant allows the use of both hands to treat your unarmed disarm as a medium weapon. Follow so far? Good.

Using your "similar-equals-fair extrapolation" theory, I would like to ask if my monk could make a single attack with both hands. Doing so would change my unarmed attack from a tiny weapon to a medium weapon. My normal 18 Strength, 1st level monk damage is 1d6+4. By using both hands to attack, I should be allowed to do 2d6+6 (damage increased by 2 steps for going from Tiny to Medium and using 2 hands does x1.5 Strength). Sound fair? After all, I'm using my whole body to attack, right?

Preposterous. Just like your belief that one rule (bigger hands) equates to free extra damage for clawed punches.

I'm sorry this upsets you so but maybe you need to cut down on the caffeine a little.

No. What upsets me is that you came here and posted trash and claimed it was gospel.

Suffice it to say, I do not generally indulge in flame wars and generally apply to the following popular politically incorrect slogan.

But you will indulge in being condescending and arrogant, as you did, when you responded to me request to back up your baseless statement.

So that said, calm down if you like,

I've been calm.

bash me if you like,

I will, thanx.

but please, don't expect me to respond to your posts any further if you do.

Your prerogative.

 

[Jeremy]

Guys, back off. Don't make me send you to your rooms.

Y'know, I was just about to reply how "pretty much" is not the same as identical, and in fact, is closer to "similar" which --erk. Nevermind.

Suffice it to say, I'm not used to dealing with people so out for blood. In any case I apologize and I have added Corwin to my ignore list so that should be the end of it.

Y'know, it's kinda cosmic. There's this guy also named Corwin in Team Fortress that always got my goat. Totally inconsiderate and very argumentative and just all around full of bile and spite. I don't think this Corwin is as bad, but sheez, whomever they are naming themselves after must not be a very good example.

Back to less confrontational and flaming threads.

 

[gamecat]

Don't fight over little ol' me, boys...

 

[Corwin]

First I'd like to adress the fact that I'm sorry you felt the need to put me on your Ignore List. (Not that you will be able to read this response.)

Speaking of which, I don't even understand why people use the Ignore List feature so readily. I guess, if you were being cyber-stalked, or something, I could see why. But this is the first time we have ever had any problem with each other (or even communicated, AFAIK).

But to just toss people on there that you disagree with seems kinda like running away to me. Of course, that's just IMO. To each his/her/its own

Anyway... (in case you end up reading this after all, I'd like to continue to respond to your statements).

Y'know, I was just about to reply how "pretty much" is not the same as identical, and in fact, is closer to "similar" which --erk. Nevermind.

You never stated (in your first post) that WotC had officially ruled on something "similar" to the topic at hand. Please, go back and re-read your statement. You matter-of-factly stated that WotC had ruled that natural weapons increased monk damage. You used pretty plain English. The sentance with "pretty much" directs the reader to understand that the ruling you claim WotC had made was "similar" to gamecat's houserule (implying that his way of doing things is pretty much the way WotC says it should be). Again, this is far different than stating that being bigger was somehow related to having claws in some way. Still not a true statement.

Suffice it to say, I'm not used to dealing with people so out for blood. In any case I apologize and I have added Corwin to my ignore list so that should be the end of it.

Let's get something straight. My first response to you was far from "out for blood". You can claim victim all you like, but it's quite plain what happened. You made a false statement. That statement was designed to back up a houserule as "official". You made no effort to support your claim. I happened to know it was untrue. I called you out on it.

What happened next? You took offense to being asked to support your false claim and fired off a snide, sarcastic little retort showing further that you had no grasp of the rules at hand.

If anyone here is at fault for this little conflict, it is you. I don't claim to be innocent here, mind you. I willingly joined you on your level. But please point the finger where it belongs.

Y'know, it's kinda cosmic. There's this guy also named Corwin in Team Fortress that always got my goat. Totally inconsiderate and very argumentative and just all around full of bile and spite. I don't think this Corwin is as bad, but sheez, whomever they are naming themselves after must not be a very good example.

I don't even know what Team Fortress is. None of this is relavant, anyway. I could just as easy state that it is quite odd that the only other Jeremy I know is a nice guy. What a contrast there is between the two of you. See, still no relavance.

Ignore me all you like, just don't do it while claiming to take the high road. Hypocrisy doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Eclipsic]

Re: try this

my server is being affected by a dos attack against someone else on the network, but you may be able to get to the site:

Expected Damage Calculator

I made this a while ago. It will do calculations for average damage. It works well for monks, just run it once with the numbers for flurry, and another time without and you can make the comparison.

I toss my hat in on the side of flurry is almost always better.

Maybe I'm missing some bizarre aspect of the law of averages, but I used this attack calculator to check some averages, then changed only the critical range from 15 to 19 and got HIGHER damage averages. So you cause more damage if your critical range is 19-20 than if it's 15-20?

 

[Ferret]

Whats the best way to make an aasimar monk, with 1 level of rogue, no unarmed attack(taken as feat first level) no stunning fist and no deflect arrow, with divine grace, lay on hands, and Aura of courage. How do you Augument those abilities?

 

[angramainyu]

Corwin, Jeremy: please take your arguments somewhere else. This board is not the spot for them. Thank you.

 

[RogueJK]

Whats the best way to make an aasimar monk, with 1 level of rogue, no unarmed attack(taken as feat first level) no stunning fist and no deflect arrow, with divine grace, lay on hands, and Aura of courage. How do you Augument those abilities?

As James McMurray already stated, that's not really a monk. That's a paladin...

We'll need a bit more info thatn that. It sounds more like a rogue / paladin than a monk. What level do you want him at? Are you allowed any items? etc.

 

[Ferret]

Blind deaf and uh...uh

3(1Rogue/1Monk/1Aasimar) Levels, And yes Items allowed, I'm a little scetchy on ECL, but he can get all the stuff his level lets him have, but he weilds a katar and a Kukri, And He's be using a 37 point buy system(Gets 85 in the end)