Increasing monk BAB

[tejón]

Has anyone actually tried playing with a monk at d10 HD and full BAB?

[ItoSaithWebb]

tejón wrote:

Has anyone actually tried playing with a monk at d10 HD and full BAB?

Back in the old days of 3.5 I know plenty have but I really don't think it is needed. I had a cohort Drunken Monk of the four winds (9th level)go up against our group's fighter (11th level) and he was able to wipe the fighter out, well not wipe because we were sparring using non-lethal damage.

You just need to know the right feat builds and magic item selection.

[TriOmegaZero]

tejón wrote:

Has anyone actually tried playing with a monk at d10 HD and full BAB?

Why yes I have! :)

[tejón]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Why yes I have! :)

Oh, come on. The request for additional commentary was implied by the fact that I opened a freakin' thread. ;)

Good? Bad? Ugly?

[TriOmegaZero]

Sorry, I linked this to Kirth, but I guess he hasn't had a chance to respond. He's the one that DMed for it.

I still didn't have the stats to add a Str bonus, so damage dealing wasn't my strong suit, but I was awesome at grappling and other maneuvers. HP wasn't reallly affected thanks to some poor HD rolls. Overall, I felt more effective without really any change in power. We only played through 4th level so far, so the play testing has been pretty limited.

[Mnemaxa]

Basically, with the addition of the new combat maneuvers, there is no need for a monk to get fighter BAB. Monks are designed for two things: to be resistant to enemy powers, effects and spells, and to go where they need to be and run interference. Since they gain fighter BAB when they use combat maneuvers or full attacks, the only things that the fighter BAB would give them is access to fighter feats at lower levels, potentially breaking the class by allowing them to deal even more damage and save-or-sucks and save-or-dies than they can now.

And while most people think the average damage for 18d10+ 9 x magic+ 9 x strength (especially given the brass knuckles now) potential damage using the fighter BAB isn't spectacular (given that the first 3 attacks are at full BAB and only the last is at minimum BAB), my usual response is "what are you smoking and why aren't you sharing?" Considering that that series of attacks includes a save-or-die or save-or-suck, it's not unimpressive. And that's not even an optimized monk.

[tejón]

Right, because all fights happen at level 20 and involve two guys standing there pummeling each other. (Speaking of which, the monk usually loses that fight. Dealing damage is great, but you also have to be able to take or evade it.)

At any level, fighters can be at least as good at combat maneuvers as monks. Fighters have more hit points and higher AC. The monk's got one notable benefit in that he can cover more ground in a single round; but he doesn't get a full attack after doing so, and without that full attack, his damage blows chunks. Because of low BAB, he doesn't have competitive options to improve it (e.g. his vital strike will always be behind the curve).

These are the arguments in favor of raising monk BAB. You have outlined the ones against. Now that we've rehashed a topic that's been covered ten bajillion times, can we cease to do so? My question is whether anyone has playtested this change, and what their opinion was of the results. The theoretical underpinnings of either position are irrelevant.

[TriOmegaZero]

But we have yet to argue the finer points of giving them virtual Full BAB versus actual Full BAB!

[Ironicdisaster]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

But we have yet to argue the finer points of giving them virtual Full BAB versus actual Full BAB!

Because we don't have enough to argue about? Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of people who never even USE FoB because of all the other attack options there are that can be used after a move or a charge. The full bab monk could lose fOb and no one would care