You're better off waiting until 6th level to multiclass in if you can swing it. Pounce does very little before then unless you have a full-round action attack hiding somewhere. I don't recall anything off the top of my head fitting that bill however.
For TWF and Monk Flurries getting Pounce early allows them to get the twf attacks while moving which is a significant bonus.
While I'm not opposed to everyone having pounce I don't like dip classes as a design and Lion Totem Barbarian is clearly not balanced vs the Pathfinder methods of getting pounce. Just another example of why free use of 3.x material is somewhat sketchy.
Pounce is one of the reasons why Double Slice exists. There's more monsters then Cats that have pounce, but it is a 'racial feat' for them, it would seem.
And can you believe the original version of it was Dire Charge, Epic feat? heh.
==Aelryinth
i think this thread should be locked as well. it has devolved from the original topic several times. the original question was why there was all this monk hate. not how can we fix the monk? i beleive we can propose monk fixes in a different thread. my finger accidentally slipped and deleted my post while i was blinded by a flash of light from my mother turning the dvd player on. it gets pretty bright.
but yes, most of the creatures with pounce are feline. not all but a fairly huge portion.
i don't beleive there is a need for the pounce ability.
everyone should be entitled to both thier full movement and getting thier full rounds worth of attacks. it could remove a lot of the extra rules built around it. thus saving multiple pages worth of stat block space and many feats that would no longer be needed. i think some of the feats should be merged (like the TWF tree, the weapon finesse chain, power attack/deadly aim or weapon focus/specialization chain) and that some should just be removed (like the various skill boosters and the vital strike chain)
It's funny, but extra attacks and iteratives are actually just a different version of the class-based extra attacks that melees got in 1E and 2E. 100/75/50/25% chance to hit = 250%, or 5/2 attacks, which is what a 13th level fighter with weapon spec could get. The other iteratives are just advances meant to keep time with 3/2 attacks, 2 attacks, etc.
Take away multiple iteratives, make attacks class based, and you control damage much more nicely, and don't need the damn 'full attack' action anymore.
===Aelryinth
|
So...give the monk "pounce"?
Is that the concensus?
As someone said earlier, the monk two step is as follows (at least against low fort save types)
First round move up and stun.
Second round full attack.
Stunning fist has an equivalent save to the highest DC Wizard spells and takes the person the monk is fighting out of the game for a round if it fails.
While I wouldn't mind something like pounce for a monk, it isn't needed because it isn't a weakness.
|
I think you can kinda see where I'm' going with here!I see where you are going. It is just that you don't agree that ToB is a bad thing for the game and I do.
My 3.5 game (now 16th level) started at level 1. My allowed material was:
1) All WotC 3.0 and up including setting books (Eberron/FR) and Dragon Magazines.
2) Some select third party (including all Living Arcanis)I've always been liberal about allowed material.
I had a player start at level 1 with a Crusader, and level to 16th as Crusader. Around 14th I decided to make one change to the rules of the game. I created a vancian version of the Crusader and required he switch to it or rebuild as something else. He switched. He hated it, and switched to a controlling venerable dragonwroght(sp?) kobold sorcerer.
OP: I heard/know/etc ToB is brokenMy PC from above's Crusader wasn't broken, but it also wasn't D&D. If you wish to suggest I banned due to him being broken as a Crusader, you are attacking the problem the wrong angle. I run high level games, so most things can be called "broken". In fact, his highly optimized kobold sorcerer was more broken to an extreme in almost every way than the Crusader. I was perfectly fine with his sorcerer. Maybe you (and others) don't understand why the ToB just rubs people (that have experience with it like me) the wrong way. Not all people, because clearly those (like my Crusader PC) really loved it.
So....why not let the Crusader continue playing his Crusader as he was if he wasn't broken again? And why wait until level 14?
Because it didn't "feel right" to you?
What about his feelings on the matter?
So...give the monk "pounce"?
Is that the concensus?As someone said earlier, the monk two step is as follows (at least against low fort save types)
First round move up and stun.
Second round full attack.Stunning fist has an equivalent save to the highest DC Wizard spells and takes the person the monk is fighting out of the game for a round if it fails.
While I wouldn't mind something like pounce for a monk, it isn't needed because it isn't a weakness.
High level four wind monk HAS pounce, if you choose the "tiger" option. It's once/hour, but has an interesting option to move and perform 3 standard actions too.
And yeah, all the things people addessed are true, but what you said is true, too. The fact that monk needs help is not an excuse to play it badly. IMHO, we should look deeper in the APG too. I wonder if every combo has not been discovered yet.
You're better off waiting until 6th level to multiclass in if you can swing it. Pounce does very little before then unless you have a full-round action attack hiding somewhere. I don't recall anything off the top of my head fitting that bill however.
I prefer having the barbarian level as first character level, for a couple reasons. One is that one change of alignment (to get monk) might be OK, but two starts to stretch credibility. Another is that you don't get to roll that d12 HD, it's applied fully. And if we are actually playing the levels, the Barbarian's first-level abilities are useful.
Some might argue that selecting an ability that does nothing for five levels is metagaming. Perhaps. Which experienced player has ever made a character without looking up the class abilities? Especially druids.EDIT: I know that now, barbarians who become lawful lose their rage. Without remembering the reason, I recall being able to use it. Perhaps it was Beta (couple years ago).
I said it before, I'll say it again.
Remove the full attack action. Just let characters do a full attack as a standard action.
I said it before, I'll say it again.
Remove the full attack action. Just let characters do a full attack as a standard action.
While I could agree with you, this would lead to the problem of monsters (and NPCs) dealing HUGE amounts of damage with a Standard Action, too.
And even if we would limit it to Iterative Attacks only (as opposed to Natural Primary and/or Secondary Attacks), there are a LOT of creatures which are weapon-dependent (Giants, Monsters with class levels, most Outsiders...) and would become meat-mincers (Marilith, anyone ?...).
It's a solution which would need a total overhaul of CR to be workable.
Just my 2c.
To remove full attack, you should overhaul the system, probably. We will see in the future.
For now, try to get pounce (druid, 4 w monk, beast barbarian), full attack as a standard (fighter) or be sure your first attack it's really devastating (TH fighter, smiting paladin), or tactically useful (any class played smart) ;)
So...give the monk "pounce"?
Is that the concensus?As someone said earlier, the monk two step is as follows (at least against low fort save types)
First round move up and stun.
Second round full attack.Stunning fist has an equivalent save to the highest DC Wizard spells and takes the person the monk is fighting out of the game for a round if it fails.
While I wouldn't mind something like pounce for a monk, it isn't needed because it isn't a weakness.
It is definitely needed. They wizard has to boost one stat, so more than likely a wizard's primary stat will be higher than the monk's. There is also the fact that if something is immune/highly resistant to one of the wizards/sorcerer's spells it can choose a different spell. I notice you keep assuming an easy path to the wizard/victim, just like some wizard defenders assume an easy defense.
My PC from above's Crusader wasn't broken, but it also wasn't D&D.
How is it not D&D?
You know, sockpuppets are even funnier.
It is definitely needed. They wizard has to boost one stat, so more than likely a wizard's primary stat will be higher than the monk's. There is also the fact that if something is immune/highly resistant to one of the wizards/sorcerer's spells it can choose a different spell. I notice you keep assuming an easy path to the wizard/victim, just like some wizard defenders assume an easy defense.So...give the monk "pounce"?
Is that the concensus?As someone said earlier, the monk two step is as follows (at least against low fort save types)
First round move up and stun.
Second round full attack.Stunning fist has an equivalent save to the highest DC Wizard spells and takes the person the monk is fighting out of the game for a round if it fails.
While I wouldn't mind something like pounce for a monk, it isn't needed because it isn't a weakness.
I'd like to stay away from class comparisons. In one way or another, each class can trump another in some fashion. We're focusing on the monk here. If we need to look at other class' abilities to justify a tweak to the monk, then it may actually not be needed. Wizards and Sorcs blow crap up and control battlefields at the expense of melee damage, HP and Defense. Yes they are powerful, but if they let anyone close into melee they're f'd. Just like any other magic user in any other game system. "Well when he's 20 he can..." Whatever.
I believe a monk's role is to use his mobility to force opponents to pay attention to him to take out lesser foes or melee mezz bigger ones while the fighter focuses on the bigger nasties until he can get to the ones the monk has. He can heal himself slightly, and has the mobility to get away if he's bit off more than he can chew. This screams "off-tank" to me. Lets focus on what the role of the Monk is, and how to help it do it's job better, instead of discussing how powerful wizards are.
The point being that you sound too much like other people who have come in here, that it raises suspicion that you're someone who has made another account to troll everyone with a new face. Unfair, I know.
Nothing in what I said imples this. I only said that sockpuppets are fun :D
Fine! Now EVERYBODY is joking on his identity.
Alright, I will pretend people cannot be recognized by the way they write posts.
|
The point being that you sound too much like other people who have come in here, that it raises suspicion that you're someone who has made another account to troll everyone with a new face. Unfair, I know.
Spotted him after his 2nd post.
For all the pathfinder hate I wonder why some posters keep coming back here with sockpuppet accounts trying to convince everyone how much pathfinder sucks.
Loose your gaming circle? Bitter that no one plays 3.5/tome where you live anymore?
Oh and BTW - here is a fix you won't find in another Tome:
Capped DCs. 70% of the fix towards making casters less relevant.
Well, in any case hi Codzilla, welcome to the boards.
Hell, I'd love to be in such a group. I have yet to find one where ToB gained traction. I can usually use it, but few other players do. Of course, my current and previous groups have been fifty percent new players.I've found that openness to Tome of Battle is directly proportional with the DM's experience with the game. The more experienced he is, the more likely he is to accept it. The reverse is also true.
If you're meeting a DM for the first time, a way of asking how comfortable they are with 3.x without being rude is to ask them if they accept Tome of Battle. If they say yes, or that they do not have that book but are willing to give it a fair shake you're fine. If they say anything else particularly a flat refusal, you should probably consider a different game or playing a full spellcaster as being the guy whose shtick is "I swing my sword really hard... more than once!" isn't going to get you anywhere with such a person.
Without knowing where you live, my recommendation for you if you want a game that accepts Tome of Battle is to check out play by post forums. Most of the games won't, but you'll have enough exposure to find one that does with little difficulty.
I'd have to agree with your statement. Although, they could have exp but never got past low levels somehow. This would mar their vision.
I've found that openness to Tome of Battle is directly proportional with the DM's experience with the game. The more experienced he is, the more likely he is to accept it. The reverse is also true.
Actually, I have found the direct opposite, not necessarily with Tome of Battle specifically, but with all splatbooks in general. Older, more experienced DMs are usually very cautious about what they introduce into their games, having had painful experiences with new and poorly balanced/playtested material all the way back to 1st edition Unearthed Arcana.
A good rule of thumb, which I follow and recommend for any GM, is not to introduce anything until you've read it and are pretty sure you understand it. Don't depend on your players to know the rules and interpret them correctly.
A second recommendation is that, when you do accept new material, do so provisionally, and make sure everyone knows it is provisional. Sometimes something that sounds fine in print just doesn't work well in actual gameplay. To be fair, also sometimes things that sound ridiculously unbalanced in print turn out not to be a problem in gameplay. That's where I'm at with the APG now. I'm comfortable enough with its material to allow it in play, as written, but our group will see how things go with the new rules and make decisions as to what we want to keep and what we want to ban after messing around with it a little.
Which means +3 Heavy Fort becomes 64k gold. Granted, magic armor that was +3 and Heavy Fort would also be 64k... but it would add 3 + base armor bonus to AC, and not just 3. That means 12 AC for full plate. And you'd be better off making the armor +1 Heavy Fort (36k) and buying a PoP 3 (9k) and giving it to the Cleric to cast Magic Vestment on you. You could also simply use +5 Heavy Fort Full Plate for 100k and have +14 AC.
Now I'll grant you that's better than missing out on Heavy Fort entirely, but since his point was to claim Monks had a good AC, things that take away from that run counter to it.
Nothing stopping clerics from casting Magic Vestment on a Monk either (it works on mundane clothes after all). You're ignoring the fact that Monks gain +WIS to AC, and a bonus on top of that, plus their DEX to AC isn't restricted by armor, plus they can spend a ki point for an additional +4 AC if required.
Yes, they're MAD. And I'm not going to claim that they can match a full plate fighter completely. However, that doesn't make the claim that they have a good AC untrue. It just means they don't have as good as the best.
Which means +3 Heavy Fort becomes 64k gold. Granted, magic armor that was +3 and Heavy Fort would also be 64k... but it would add 3 + base armor bonus to AC, and not just 3. That means 12 AC for full plate. And you'd be better off making the armor +1 Heavy Fort (36k) and buying a PoP 3 (9k) and giving it to the Cleric to cast Magic Vestment on you. You could also simply use +5 Heavy Fort Full Plate for 100k and have +14 AC.
Now I'll grant you that's better than missing out on Heavy Fort entirely, but since his point was to claim Monks had a good AC, things that take away from that run counter to it.
Nothing stopping clerics from casting Magic Vestment on a Monk either (it works on mundane clothes after all). You're ignoring the fact that Monks gain +WIS to AC, and a bonus on top of that, plus their DEX to AC isn't restricted by armor, plus they can spend a ki point for an additional +4 AC if required.
Yes, they're MAD. And I'm not going to claim that they can match a full plate fighter completely. However, that doesn't make the claim that they have a good AC untrue. It just means they don't have as good as the best.
At which point the Monk gets, at most +5 AC from it... unless he has Bracers higher than +5. Then they don't stack. Given that Mage Armor does the same thing or better at any CL lower than 20, it is safe to say that Monks cannot effectively use Magic Vestment. Now I would allow it to stack, but that's a house rule. In any case to have a good AC you need to have a better AC than a full plate Fighter, and they don't even come close to that so it is a moot point.
If you say that isn't possible, well that's why AC isn't effective.
The WIS bonus to AC is an un-typed bonus, not an armor bonus.
I think he was talking about the Vestment spell not stacking with Mage ARmor spell or Bracers of Armor. I could be wrong, though.
At which point the Monk gets, at most +5 AC from it... unless he has Bracers higher than +5. Then they don't stack.
The WIS bonus to AC is an un-typed bonus, not an armor bonus.
So why would it not stack?
EDIT: Oh I see, he's talking about the vestment spell not the WIS bonus, disregard.
A monks AC bonus starts out akin to light armor but gets progressively better as they level, to a point where at high levels it rivals fullplate (assuming that the monk has an item to buff his wisdom a smidgen). As a bonus they also get all that stuff to their CMD, as well.
Monks don't need any more work on defenses...
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that the easiest fix to the monk is to allow them to use Wisdom in place of strength for their attack bonus. Previously I had advocated Wisdom bonus to damage, but I think I am going the other direction here.
The BIGGEST problem they generally face is that they are always trading off between strength and wisdom. If they had wisdom in their to-hit mechanic for attacks and combat maneuvers, they can let strength play a more secondary roll. Their damage suffers a little but, damage bonuses are a dime a dozen. To-hit bonuses are not.
This little change doesn't up their DPR that much, (it technically might lower it a little for straight up full attacks), but if gives them more synergy for the rest of their abilities. Slightly more stable defense (all the monk builds in the olympics were under par on AC), better stunning fist DCs, more Ki points with which to get extra attacks or +4 AC or various other special effects.
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that the easiest fix to the monk is to allow them to use Wisdom in place of strength for their attack bonus. Previously I had advocated Wisdom bonus to damage, but I think I am going the other direction here.
The BIGGEST problem they generally face is that they are always trading off between strength and wisdom. If they had wisdom in their to-hit mechanic for attacks and combat maneuvers, they can let strength play a more secondary roll. Their damage suffers a little but, damage bonuses are a dime a dozen. To-hit bonuses are not.
I'd probably let them use WIS in place of STR for both (and combat maneuver stuff) if I were redesigning the class -- or let them add both to both. As-is, no matter what reading any of the abilities or flavor text would tell you, the prime stat for a monk is STR by far.
(For a game I'm running with a monk, my solution was to leave the class as-is but give the monk PC what amounted to a LOT more stat points than other characters.)
Monks don't need any more work on defenses...
I would agree even early in this thread the fact that you can make a "turtle" monk was granted AC/defences seems to be an area where there is an acknowledgement that monks at least "Do alright". But much as being "only a healbot" was (somewhat) addressed for clerics. A monk who seems to bring "I can be hard to hit/hurt" produces "the hate" the thread was started for.
Which puts us back to the cyclical issues in this thread: of MAD hurts wisdom(DC) +attack roll (at 3/4 BAB if you move that round)+ a save (against what tends to be a good save or is ineffective due to monster type immunity) to the quasi-signature ability(stunning fist or its alternatives other than elemental fist which has energy resistances instead) seems to turn people off off the class
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that the easiest fix to the monk is to allow them to use Wisdom in place of strength for their attack bonus. Previously I had advocated Wisdom bonus to damage, but I think I am going the other direction here.
The BIGGEST problem they generally face is that they are always trading off between strength and wisdom. If they had wisdom in their to-hit mechanic for attacks and combat maneuvers, they can let strength play a more secondary roll. Their damage suffers a little but, damage bonuses are a dime a dozen. To-hit bonuses are not.
This little change doesn't up their DPR that much, (it technically might lower it a little for straight up full attacks), but if gives them more synergy for the rest of their abilities. Slightly more stable defense (all the monk builds in the olympics were under par on AC), better stunning fist DCs, more Ki points with which to get extra attacks or +4 AC or various other special effects.
This does seem to be the easiest as well as a most flavorful solution. It follows a line of thinking seen in the Inquisitor class where wisdom adds to a lot of "things" the class should be good at (plus initiative-whaaat)
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that the easiest fix to the monk is to allow them to use Wisdom in place of strength for their attack bonus. Previously I had advocated Wisdom bonus to damage, but I think I am going the other direction here.
The BIGGEST problem they generally face is that they are always trading off between strength and wisdom. If they had wisdom in their to-hit mechanic for attacks and combat maneuvers, they can let strength play a more secondary roll. Their damage suffers a little but, damage bonuses are a dime a dozen. To-hit bonuses are not.
I'd probably let them use WIS in place of STR for both (and combat maneuver stuff) if I were redesigning the class -- or let them add both to both. As-is, no matter what reading any of the abilities or flavor text would tell you, the prime stat for a monk is STR by far.
(For a game I'm running with a monk, my solution was to leave the class as-is but give the monk PC what amounted to a LOT more stat points than other characters.)
Agreed. But I am hesitant to fix all their problems for fear of making them too much improved. I'd much rather that the strength/wisdom divide was only slightly changed, and perhaps all changed with a feat. Kind of like clerics and selective channelling or rogues and weapon finesse. Sure those feats are so synergistic that you would be daft to pass them up, but perhaps that is something as a player you want to do, for the challenge, or for some other build.
That said, I think that the strength/wisdom divide is definitely the major flaw in the class. Too much in either direction creates a problematic flaw in your build. You either don't have enough AC or not enough hitting power. It also confuses new players who look at the monk fluff and say "Oh I get it, this class is all about WISDOM. All the classes features revolve around WISDOM." Which is something that gets thrown out when the monk's rubber hits the road.