What's Up With The Monk?

[Hakkenshi]

wolff96, I really like your house rule, and I'd definitely add it to my list of modifications to make for the monk.

Wolfen Priest, ready your action all you like, you still have a 20% miss chance on my monk

And no, as pointed out by wolff96, it STILL proves nothing.

As for the customizability of feats, I find that feats fail to impress after a while. Class abilities should out-feat the feats. They should be to feats what feats are to skills. Spellcasting is one such ability, Rage is another. If I'm playing a monk, I don't WANT the fighter to be able to out-jump, out-evade, and out-everything me because he has feats that give him my class abilities.

That leads to a classless system which, IMHO, ruins the out-of-game individuality of characters.

Now, a special ability progression like the rogue's is the ultimate system. You have CLASS-SPECIFIC abilities, but one rogue might have entirely different ones than another. If that is in fact what you propose, then I'm all for it. Just not the "feat-based character"...that's just insipid for me.

 

[hong]

As for the customizability of feats, I find that feats fail to impress after a while. Class abilities should out-feat the feats.

Perhaps in that case, you should think of bonus feat slots _as_ class abilities.

They should be to feats what feats are to skills. Spellcasting is one such ability, Rage is another. If I'm playing a monk, I don't WANT the fighter to be able to out-jump, out-evade, and out-everything me because he has feats that give him my class abilities.

That's why I said that each class would have their own pool of bonus feats. If you don't want the fighter out-jumping your monk, you don't give the fighter feats to let him do it. And note that under the current system, there's nothing stopping the fighter from getting a ring of jumping, or boots of striding and springing, and doing the "bounce around the battlefield" thing himself.

Whether or not the underlying progression of 1 feat per 3 levels continues is something to be worked out if and when I actually get employed to work on 3.1E.

That leads to a classless system which, IMHO, ruins the out-of-game individuality of characters.

Nobody is suggesting a classless system AFAIK, least of all me.

 

[Hakkenshi]

I guess we have different definitions of feats
In my mind, a feat either helps a class with its special abilities, enhances one or some of the character's stats, or allows for higher use of a skill.

A special ability is more unique, I guess.

Of course I'd have to actually see your D&D 3.1e before having an opinion on it

 

[apsuman]

I think too many people are trying to focus on all of the monk's abilities too much. For example either you decide to have a stunning attack that is big enough to threaten the fighter types , in which case you need the wisdom of solomon, OR you settle for a weaker stunning attack, (where are those rogues?) and boost other things.

I have a few ideas on "different" types of monks.

Human monk
Str 18 (22 w/belt)
Dex 14
Con 12
Int 10
Wis 14 (2 stat increases)
Cha 8


HP 58
AC
10
+2 (monk)
+2 (dex)
+2 (wis)
+2 (Bracers)
+1 (dodge)

Feats: Power Attack, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Cleave

+1 flaming shock Nunchaku

Bab +7/+4/+1
(+14/+11/+8 with Nunchaku)

Stunning attack at +13 DC of 17

Damage: (nunchaku) 3d6 + 7, average 17.5

+1 flaming shock Nunchaku 18,302 gp
Boots of speed 8,000 gp
belt of giant Str +4 16,000 gp
Bracers of AC +2 4,000 gp
Cloak of Elvenkind 2,000 gp

Skills
65 skill points
balance +8 +2 dex = +10
tumble +10 +2 dex = +12
climb +4 +6 str= +10
listen +10 +2 wis = +12
jump +10 + 6 str = +16
hide +10 +2 dex + 10 cloak = +22
move silent +13 +2 dex = +15

At the cost of a little AC and a lower DC on the Stunning attack. he has a much better str, better to hit and damage.

I don't like one trick ponies, but it bears pointing out that this guy can Spring Attack in, (improve) trip you with a -4 power attack, and then get an attack on you (at only +14) for 3d6+11 damage (avg 21.5) and still pring attack out of there.

Even without using spring attack or the power attack, simply engaging in melee, a trip attack even if the first one misses, if the second one hits, then you have two attacks at +15/+12 against a prone target, for an avg of 17.5 each time.

g!

 

[takyris]

One side note, to the guy who made the half-orc with the Intelligence of 6...

If the monk stood there and toe-to-toe'd with you, you'd crush him like a flea. In an arena combat situation, you would rock. But in the wild, where the monk could do anything creative involving the environment, I as the DM would quickly start asking for Intelligence checks if you weren't playing his tactics at that intelligence level. With an Int of 6, all your character can do is attack. Melee attacks and ranged attacks. That's about it.

In a one-on-one "fight", your character would angrily follow the monk out onto the rope bridge and then howl in frustration as the monk cut the ropes. Your character would stop for the pile of bird seed with the anvil hanging over it. Your character would charge into a solid rock wall that had been painted to look like a hole with the word "MUNK" written above it with an arrow pointing at the fake hole. And he would not learn from that experience.

Heck, a monk with spring attack could run out, tie your guy's shoelaces together, and then run away, and you'd be hopping up and down because you hadn't mastered the concept of laces and the cleric who tied your shoeleaces for you was back at the inn waiting to see how your one-on-one fight went.

So maybe you've just been playing an Int 6 character with a more lenient DM. Because 3 is only barely more intelligent than a bear, and 6 ain't a whole lot better.

-Tacky

 

[Gizzard]

The groups monk covered the retreat then. He used expertise and fighting defensively on a rope bridge to block the fighter

Sounds like a job for Bull Rush. Wouldnt it be great if you could push people a little sideways instead of just straight back? That would teach little wussy Monks to stand in the way of a big burly Fighter on a narrow rope bridge. ;-)

Overrun should work too, probably even better.

Well, I've been thinking about this topic for a while - over the 2 threads that it covered ...

Has it only been 2 threads? I've seen these threads ever since I became a Monk. I think "2 years" is closer to correct than "2 threads". ;-)

One thing that does fascinate me is that each thread definitely has its own personality.

I have a few ideas on "different" types of monks.

One thing that bugs me about these high-STR Monks is that they have even less Monk flavor than regular Monks. I look at that guy and think - could I make a Barbarian who does this same trick just as well? Give him the rocket Boots and the Spring Attack feat chain, then use his base 40' move to bounce in and out of combat. (Of course, the Barbarian would probably rather just stick in combat and dish out damage.)

Still, when people are arguing (sensibly, I think) that a good way to make a Monk is to ignore his two prime attributes and not worry about losing out on the basic Monk abilities - well, I think that shows better than anything that there is something seriously wrong with the Monk as-is.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

Interesting monk, apsuman. In fact, in addition to all that, take the fact that I totally miscalculated my fighter's equipment. I'll redo it when I get home, but I'm willing to bet that by a simple fight demonstration, the monk would indeed be the equal of the fighter, mainly because the fighter has to "waste" so much money on armor.

All this really goes to show the validity of my initial query: the monk's need for stats is probably made up for (if not more than made up for) by his 'lack of need' for armor. When I re-edit the fighter, we can run them through a mock combat scenario; it looks to me like the monk can indeed stand up to the fighter in a straight up 10th-level fight...

... Which should really end this whole discussion.

 

[Gizzard]

So maybe you've just been playing an Int 6 character with a more lenient DM. Because 3 is only barely more intelligent than a bear, and 6 ain't a whole lot better.

Have you ever tried to tie a Bears shoelaces together? I dont think the results would be pretty, and I dont think the Monk would fare much better against the Barbarian. ;-)

Seriously though, the PHB shows a Troll as the iconic INT 6 monster. A Troll isnt much good at puzzles or algebra, but one thing he is good at is fighting.

I'd only start reminding the player to play dumb if the situation were changing rapidly, beyond the grasp of his feeble processing powers. But anything that involves people hitting other people is what he's good at. Team tactics are within his grasp (wolves make their livings off the team, and they're probably on par with the bear) so you arent likely to fool him with hit-and-run or anything tactical.

 

[Hakkenshi]

Well sure, Gizzard, if you want a big brawler. But he shouldn't have monk abilities, or call himself a monk (at least not a good one).

You shouldn't try to make a fighter or a barbarian out of a monk, although in the case of the fighter, you could multiclass.

The only thing Strength should be useful for in the case of a monk is Jump and Climb checks (and maybe Swim). But as was mentioned, items do this much better.

As for the monk apsuman made, he's more damage-oriented, but where trip attacks are concerned, in my group, if a character has Weapon Finesse (unarmed), he uses his Dex modifier for all those attacks: grappling, tripping, etc. It's assumed that his style of martial arts relies more on precision than force.

I find Strength is really a lesser stat for the monks we use.

 

[apsuman]

Interesting monk, apsuman. In fact, in addition to all that,

Thank you.

take the fact that I totally miscalculated my fighter's equipment. I'll redo it when I get home, but I'm willing to bet that by a simple fight demonstration, the monk would indeed be the equal of the fighter, mainly because the fighter has to "waste" so much money on armor.

All this really goes to show the validity of my initial query: the monk's need for stats is probably made up for (if not more than made up for) by his 'lack of need' for armor. When I re-edit the fighter, we can run them through a mock combat scenario; it looks to me like the monk can indeed stand up to the fighter in a straight up 10th-level fight...

... Which should really end this whole discussion.

I would hope not, this thread seems to have a concensus that the fighter should indeed be a better fighter than the monk. I was trying to point out really two things:

1. Many people try to make a monk that is optimized for ALL of his abilities, and achieve one that succeeds at NONE of them (at least not well). And, by deciding on the type of monk you want, you can make a monk that does just that.

2. By going "against type" you can have a very fun character.

A high str monk like I have is a better fighter (but not as good as a fighter)
A high Int monk is a better scout (but not as good as a rogue).
A high Wis monk is a stunning fool.
A high Dex monk should probably finesse his unarmed combat but will excel at many of his skills.

Personally, I think the quaterstaff should be considered a monk weapon (isn't that what the monk has in her right hand in the PHB?). If it were, then with the above monk take expertise, improved disarm, power attack, sunder, and improved initiative. Equip with a +3 quater staff.

Your attacks would be trip and then disarm your opponents (a quater staff being a large weapon helps esp. against one handed medium size weapons). When they draw a new weapon you take the AOO, if they try to pick up the weapon, take the AOO. If you want to make them mad, sunder the weapon (you will do better if they are prone or not a fighter type).

Alternatively, if you really want to make things chaotic, trip, disarm, then attack the unattended weapon. I dare say most opponents would want to get their weapon which would draw an AOO, if they got it before you did, then they would have used a MEA, if they attack prone then they have a -4 to hit, if they stand on the round they pick up the weapon they get no attack. So you can lather, rinse, and repeat.

An unattended weapon has an AC of 5 + it's size modifier. A long sword +3 would have an AC of 5, Hardness of 13 and 8 hit points.


but, that's just my idea.

g!