| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have to admit though, it's better than arguing about specific posters and their debate styles, or lack thereof :P
Okay, the whole bee/butterfly metaphor debate is only proving to me that you guys can argue at length about absolutely anything. I guess I knew that, but this really seals the deal.
So happy not to disappoint! :D
I do have a question extending from the sting point. Would we rather monks could "sting" and debilitate/drain (expanding upon stun and other abilities), or for them to do hefty damage with better to hit?
I'd like the monk combat arts to be quite different to the other damage dealers personally. Drain abilities, give you status penalties as most of damage. Most of this, but not all, would be fort based, so the pure melee still would be able to counter them in all likelihood, but not without getting some negatives and the fight being dragged out (like the old kung fu battles in film).
|
It's all very well to try to ignore the relative balance of mechanics in favor of roleplay. But if you're trying to play Bruce Lee, Kenshiro, or the like, and yet you can't hit or do much damage with your Unarmed Strike, then the mechanics are fighting your concept, and interfering with your roleplay.
Good God this.
Most monk players want to play monks that live up to the image, not a deluded sap who can only talk the talk.
I do have a question extending from the sting point. Would we rather monks could "sting" and debilitate/drain (expanding upon stun and other abilities), or for them to do hefty damage with better to hit?
I'd like the monk combat arts to be quite different to the other damage dealers personally. Drain abilities, give you status penalties as most of damage. Most of this, but not all, would be fort based, so the pure melee still would be able to counter them in all likelihood, but not without getting some negatives and the fight being dragged out (like the old kung fu battles in film).
Interesting idea, let me work on it.
MA
Okay, probably too much, but how about this for a feat that truely lets you 'float like a butterfly and sting like a bee'?
You draw upon your strength of ki to temporarily debilitate your foes with precise strikes against their nerves.
Prerequisite: Dex 13, Wis 15, Ki pool class feature, Improved Unarmed Strike, Stunning Fist, Weapon Focus (Unarmed Strike), base attack bonus +10.
Benefit: Each use of this feat counts as a use of Stunning Fist for the day. You must have at least 1 point of ki remaining in your ki pool to use this feat. You may use this feat no more than once per round. You must declare that you are using this feat before you make your attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). Pain Touch forces a foe damaged by your unarmed attack to make a Fortitude saving throw (DC 10 + 1/2 your character level + your Wis modifier), in addition to dealing damage normaly. A defender who fails this saving throw suffers 1d4 points of ability damage to his Strength score. A successful saving throw reduces the ability damage to 1 point. The damage from this feat cannot reduce a foe's ability score to less than a score of 3. This damage is temporary and is automatically restored after ten minutes of rest. Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be affected by this feat.
Special: If a monk meets all other prerequisites listed, he may ignore the base attack bonus requirement in order to select this feat.
I see it as the 'nerve cluster' attack so common to many martial arts legends and tall tales. Something that weakens your opponent so that he hits less often and his blows are not as powerful.
Too much? Too meh? Let me know what you think; I'm not real good with custom feats.
Master Arminas
|
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him.
I would like to see these builds.
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
No bias there, right? Look Josh, even veteran players get tripped up (heh) by the monk. The reason being, the entire class is a dichotomy of yin vs. yang (and no, I do not believe for a moment that the designers intended something so sublime).
Example 1: Monks are strong, but not to Conan or Hercules level. They are, in myth, film, and legend, wise and agile, dextrous and balanced, cunning and strong of will. But in game, the best monk you can make (for dealing damage) is a muscle-bound imbecile with Dex and Wis of 12! That shouldn't be true, but it is.
Example 2: Much of the monk class is about agility and movement. They are faster, they have Acrobatics as a class skill, the class description in the Core Rulebook describes them as 'fleet of foot' and 'navigating the battlefield with ease'. Yet, they have a smaller chance to hit when moving. Not only do they get fewer attacks (1 vs. 8+), but their effective BAB is lower when they move. Half of the class is devoted to moving, the other half demands you stand still!
I could go on and on and on . . . but we have done that.
I will note, however, that some of the very things that you advocate are, to the best of my knowledge, against the rules of game. You can't get more than one attack on a spirited charge with flurry; not anyway legal way I know of doing it. And even if you could, since the clarification on flurry, I don't think it works the way you think it does anymore.
We don't expect or want a monk to hit like barbarian--we do expect him to hit like a monk! And just using the Core Rulebook, he can't. I would suggest friend, that you cease your speculation on whether the rest of us read the rulebooks or not. And for your information, I don't play Diablo 3 (or 2) or WoW. I have played D&D since '86, however. How long have you?
Master Arminas
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
Many of the posters that would argue against you can do the same. The difference is we want the game to be just as accessable to new players and thus very possibly weak players, which means being able to get them into a character they will love, before they know all the rules. Which typically boils down to just what's in the core rulebook. The monk is difficult to do that with because it is overly complicated.
|
|
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
I swear it's like my negative universe counterpart.
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
And another one of the elitist "you just don't know how to play this game as well as I do!" people. Why don't you go back to WoW, there's an elitist raiding guild waiting for you, I'm sure.
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
I agree to a point, and that is an issue with the monk class. You need system mastery to make one and play one well.
You also bring up a second point by saying if you have the APG. The monk is using other books to fix itself.
I also don't think you can outdamage a 2H fighter. I doubt you can even out damage a TWF fighter.
Build it or it does not exist.
Standard gold for 12th level is 108,000 gp, 25 pb, not traits.
We can go to higher levels, but the fighter only pulls away farther. 12th level is a good stopping point for many GM's anyway.
And another one of the elitist "you just don't know how to play this game as well as I do!" people. Why don't you go back to WoW, there's an elitist raiding guild waiting for you, I'm sure.I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
If I have access to Ultimate Combat, I can make a monk that can out-damage a 2H fighter in melee. If I have access to Advanced Players' Guide, I can make a monk that can kill a melee barbarian well before it can get to him. It all hinges on knowing your resources, and using them to the greatest effect. Jealous of that druid/cavalier that can kill anything within a 3 CR radius in one full-round action? Play a sohei monk, and at 6th level, you could be doing a flurry of blows in a spirited charge with a lance (or two, if your GM rules that way), making your cavalier's tiger look like a kitten.
It all boils down to knowing the game. Yes, if you just leap into playing a monk one day without any research and expect him to hit like a barbarian, you'll be disappointed. Monks, by definition, require mastery. System mastery is intrinsic to the very definition of a monk. Claims made that they're a terrible class because somebody doesn't want to read the rules ring very hollow for me. If you don't want to read, or do research, play a 2H fighter, barbarian, or blaster caster. Or better yet, go back to World of Warcraft or Diablo 3.
If he had read the thread he would have even made the "I need splat books" comment. It only proves the points I made earlier, so does his "I know the system" comment. I would still like to see this build though.
He also did not address any concerns that have been mention, once again because he skipped too many post.
I am betting he won't post that build or if he does that it won't do what he thinks it will do.
As the #4 monk cheerleader on the forum.
Monks are cool and playable.
Comparing them to the Commoner is BS.
They require "system mastery", and that's not good for a CORE class. I accept system mastery as a fact of 3.X I'm just not a fan.
The class punishes new players, to play a monk means you need to understand some very subtle rule interactions.
Splat books have made a huge difference in the class.
They hit fine, after they blow a ton of money on an AoMF. That's sux, but so do root canals and I can't avoid those either.
I really want to see a 12th level monk who out damages the THF. I can build monks better than most, this one is beyond my skill set.
I don't believe that building a monk for massive damage output is a good idea, I've made that point repeatedly. That seems to be the major hate that monk detractors cite.
I want monks to do stun like sting abilities, melee controller is fun so is debuffer.
Yes we can argue about anything, sometimes just for practice.
A bizarro world version of Mikaze is a scary idea. We must crush it.
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.
[sarcasm]...and to prove this point, Josh Spies will change every character in every game he is playing into a Commoner![/sarcasm]
Seriously, some classes ARE mechanically more powerful or less powerful than others. Monks require skill to play effectively, and are limited in scope, and that's the way the cookie crumbles. Some of us would like to see the concept's actualisation meet it's potential.
I do have a question extending from the sting point. Would we rather monks could "sting" and debilitate/drain (expanding upon stun and other abilities), or for them to do hefty damage with better to hit?
I'd like the monk combat arts to be quite different to the other damage dealers personally. Drain abilities, give you status penalties as most of damage. Most of this, but not all, would be fort based, so the pure melee still would be able to counter them in all likelihood, but not without getting some negatives and the fight being dragged out (like the old kung fu battles in film).
To an extent, I agree with this. However there are a few points that need to be made:
1) To deliver the sting, you need to be able to hit and get through DR. This is a monk's problem and it needs to be fixed.
2) Other combat classes have their thing as well, but it doesn't work on everything. So when the paladin can't smite, or the ranger isn't facing his favoured enemy, they can still hit reliably and so some damage. The monk needs to be in this playing field when his stunning fist/quivering palm/whatever doesn't work, and currently he isn't.
As the #4 monk cheerleader on the forum.
Monks are cool and playable.
Comparing them to the Commoner is BS.
They require "system mastery", and that's not good for a CORE class. I accept system mastery as a fact of 3.X I'm just not a fan.
The class punishes new players, to play a monk means you need to understand some very subtle rule interactions.
I agree.
Splat books have made a huge difference in the class.
I agree, there are a lot of cool options in the splat books if you blow the feats. Or have the feats to blow.
They hit fine, after they blow a ton of money on an AoMF. That's sux, but so do root canals and I can't avoid those either.
Clean your teeth regularly.
Seriously, this is one of the major problems the monk has, that unarmed strike both costs a great deal to enhance, and cannot be enhanced fully.
I really want to see a 12th level monk who out damages the THF. I can build monks better than most, this one is beyond my skill set.
I don't want to out-damage the guy, but I want to be within an order of magnitude of it, not just rolling dice for a few hits that barely scrape by DR.
I don't believe that building a monk for massive damage output is a good idea, I've made that point repeatedly. That seems to be the major hate that monk detractors cite.
I refer to my post above, I do not want the monk to be on the same scale as the fighter, I want him hitting and damaging on the same scale as a paladin not smiting.
I want monks to do stun like sting abilities, melee controller is fun so is debuffer.
This is true. But like the other combat classes have their thing, when they don't work they can fall back to dealing reasonable damage, while the monk is unable to do so. This is the problem I want to see fixed.
Yes we can argue about anything, sometimes just for practice.
Actually there is little to argue about. We are all monk-lovers here, some of us are just a bit more vocal about wanting to see the monk reach it's full potential.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there is little to argue about. We are all monk-lovers here, some of us are just a bit more vocal about wanting to see the monk reach it's full potential.
Yes. I actually believe that all the folks who are pointing out the flaws of the monk appear to love the monk more than most. Master Arminas, Dabbler, and others clearly love the monk and want it to grow up become a healthy class that plays nice with others; instead of a class that weighs 384 lbs. and shouts at other classes on X-Box live like it made it special or something.
I like em, want them to be good in a balanced way, not though, to simply be another high damage dealing class. That has been done, and there is a lot more to accomplish in dnd.
I hate to be so cliche and elitist, but here's the truth: There are no weak classes, only weak players.[sarcasm]...and to prove this point, Josh Spies will change every character in every game he is playing into a Commoner![/sarcasm]
Seriously, some classes ARE mechanically more powerful or less powerful than others. Monks require skill to play effectively, and are limited in scope, and that's the way the cookie crumbles. Some of us would like to see the concept's actualisation meet it's potential.
I do have a question extending from the sting point. Would we rather monks could "sting" and debilitate/drain (expanding upon stun and other abilities), or for them to do hefty damage with better to hit?
I'd like the monk combat arts to be quite different to the other damage dealers personally. Drain abilities, give you status penalties as most of damage. Most of this, but not all, would be fort based, so the pure melee still would be able to counter them in all likelihood, but not without getting some negatives and the fight being dragged out (like the old kung fu battles in film).
To an extent, I agree with this. However there are a few points that need to be made:
1) To deliver the sting, you need to be able to hit and get through DR. This is a monk's problem and it needs to be fixed.
2) Other combat classes have their thing as well, but it doesn't work on everything. So when the paladin can't smite, or the ranger isn't facing his favoured enemy, they can still hit reliably and so some damage. The monk needs to be in this playing field when his stunning fist/quivering palm/whatever doesn't work, and currently he isn't.
...As the #4 monk cheerleader on the forum.
Monks are cool and playable.
Comparing them to the Commoner is BS.
They require "system mastery", and that's not good for a CORE class. I accept system mastery as a fact of 3.X I'm just not a fan.
The class punishes new players, to play
Ah but what if their sting had very little to do with damage or DR, entirely escaping this problem. And their many combat debilitative abilities could work so well on many types, their stings were of different possible varieties and they are not just a one trick pony. The only problem being, and it would be a big problem, that most undead, constructs and oozes would become their absolute counters. Anti-ki creatures are things they cannot defeat through their martial arts.
I've seen some ideas to make them stronger (give them spec, more hp, more dpr, sneak attack) but that just seems to borrow from other classes heavily. We can do better.
The above ideas of a debilitator monk could allow more stuns or other draining attacks per day, or, the option for them to be able to lower their damage, and do these strange attacks via ki to mind and body. Expand out that stun, use what the paladin can now cure as a base.
One issue with applying conditions is that monsters get better at making saves at higher levels, and sometimes they are just immune to certain conditions.
Of course giving them some "no-save" abilities might work.
Ah but what if their sting had very little to do with damage or DR, entirely escaping this problem.
No matter what power, if it is balanced there will always be points where it will not work. A combat class NEVER escapes this problem.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know why i love monks?
They can kick ass nude.
Take a fighters armor he cries, take that great ax from the barbarian he is useless, the wizards books and components and you have a commoner with a few tricks. Naked as the day he was born a monk can hit hard, dodge blows etc almost as well as fully geared. Great for blending into a population where full plate or a giant's sword might stick out but the guy that looks like every other peasant out there will never get a second glance.....
You know why i love monks?
They can kick ass nude.
Take a fighters armor he cries, take that great ax from the barbarian he is useless, the wizards books and components and you have a commoner with a few tricks. Naked as the day he was born a monk can hit hard, dodge blows etc almost as well as fully geared. Great for blending into a population where full plate or a giant's sword might stick out but the guy that looks like every other peasant out there will never get a second glance.....
Most of these things never happen in a game so if you are saying the monk is only good for things a player might never encounter in his lifetime then sure the monk is ok.
Taking armor is unlikely and if you sunder it the fighter will just kill you.
Barbarian, actually any player should have a backup weapon.
Taking spellbooks, is nigh impossible if the GM is being realistic.
If you look at any character(wizard) I have I keep two spellcomponent pouches*, and a 2nd spellbook(which is admittedly not as good as the first one) for any strange things like falling into acid.
*Players catch on really quickly, and they will have a backup if they think the GM will go after items.
PS:A monk without a key magic item or two is not doing much butt-kicking.
I am still waiting on Josh Spies's super monk. ;)
I am too. I wonder if out-damaging a two-hander fighter means you disarm him first?
I am too. I wonder if out-damaging a two-hander fighter means you disarm him first?
That would be out damaging an unarmed fighter. ;)
I think he did some research and realized he could not do it. I figured if he was that confident, and he was called out, the build would be posted if he could do it. It would seem that he already has builds at his home so all he has to do is type them up. He would not even have to make a new monk.
You know why i love monks?
They can kick ass nude.
Take a fighters armor he cries, take that great ax from the barbarian he is useless, the wizards books and components and you have a commoner with a few tricks. Naked as the day he was born a monk can hit hard, dodge blows etc almost as well as fully geared. Great for blending into a population where full plate or a giant's sword might stick out but the guy that looks like every other peasant out there will never get a second glance.....Most of these things never happen in a game so if you are saying the monk is only good for things a player might never encounter in his lifetime then sure the monk is ok.
Taking armor is unlikely and if you sunder it the fighter will just kill you.
Barbarian, actually any player should have a backup weapon.
Taking spellbooks, is nigh impossible if the GM is being realistic.
If you look at any character(wizard) I have I keep two spellcomponent pouches*, and a 2nd spellbook(which is admittedly not as good as the first one) for any strange things like falling into acid.
This, pretty much. The monk is great at challenges that do not often occur in the party dynamic of the typical adventure. However, to be a playable option they need to be great at the challenges that a typical party does encounter.
I'm sorry for being off topic, but I just have to say that I can't read the title of this thread without hearing it as if said by Tree trunks from Adventure Time....and its kind of awesome.
|
|
This, pretty much. The monk is great at challenges that do not often occur in the party dynamic of the typical adventure. However, to be a playable option they need to be great at the challenges that a typical party does encounter.You know why i love monks?
They can kick ass nude.
Take a fighters armor he cries, take that great ax from the barbarian he is useless, the wizards books and components and you have a commoner with a few tricks. Naked as the day he was born a monk can hit hard, dodge blows etc almost as well as fully geared. Great for blending into a population where full plate or a giant's sword might stick out but the guy that looks like every other peasant out there will never get a second glance.....Most of these things never happen in a game so if you are saying the monk is only good for things a player might never encounter in his lifetime then sure the monk is ok.
Taking armor is unlikely and if you sunder it the fighter will just kill you.
Barbarian, actually any player should have a backup weapon.
Taking spellbooks, is nigh impossible if the GM is being realistic.
If you look at any character(wizard) I have I keep two spellcomponent pouches*, and a 2nd spellbook(which is admittedly not as good as the first one) for any strange things like falling into acid.
Not being a walking pile of arms and armor happens often enough in my group that it pays to not need it so much. We get ambushed at night, sucks sleeping in plate mail, we go to the fancy party and do ok actually blending. In your games these things may never happen, for us they are frequent enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Taking armor is unlikely and if you sunder it the fighter will just kill you.
Barbarian, actually any player should have a backup weapon.
Taking spellbooks, is nigh impossible if the GM is being realistic.
If you look at any character(wizard) I have I keep two spellcomponent pouches*, and a 2nd spellbook(which is admittedly not as good as the first one) for any strange things like falling into acid.
I agree with all of the above. However, I do think that the night-time ambush is not only realistic enough but also something of a trope. Since sleeping in medium or heavy armor means you'll be fatigued the next day, martials can't do so unless they "wasted" a feat on "Endurance". Rangers get the feat for free which is a nice perk (also easy access to Diehard if you like the feat) so Rangers have no issues there, and Barbarians will typically want mithrail chainmail or celestial armor (high end) for most levels (which provides reasonable protection).
Or you might just have a GM like I did once. A friend of mine and I were both playing Rangers of Eliastree from the Forgotten Realms. Eliastree's followers often get nekkid and dance around in the woods with long/great/bastard swords. When we said we were going to do so in reverence to our deity, the GM thought dancing naked was stupid, so he threw a random encounter of kobolds at us as punishment. We beat them down naked, and then resumed our revery.
|
Not being a walking pile of arms and armor happens often enough in my group that it pays to not need it so much. We get ambushed at night, sucks sleeping in plate mail, we go to the fancy party and do ok actually blending. In your games these things may never happen, for us they are frequent enough.
My armor users carry a masterwork chain shirt to sleep in. They also tend to get their armor glamered to look inconspicuous. Rare are the times when this doesn't suffice.
Not being a walking pile of arms and armor happens often enough in my group that it pays to not need it so much. We get ambushed at night, sucks sleeping in plate mail, we go to the fancy party and do ok actually blending. In your games these things may never happen, for us they are frequent enough.My armor users carry a masterwork chain shirt to sleep in. They also tend to get their armor glamered to look inconspicuous. Rare are the times when this doesn't suffice.
Same here. Armor is pretty cheap, and sleeping in light armor is entirely easy. Better to have +3-4 AC than +0 AC, right? :P
ZOMG a monk doesn't have to do that! They're uber!
ZOMG a monk doesn't have to do that! They're uber!
Doctor: "Fascinating. What does the Sarcastometer read on this?"
Assistant: "It's going off the scales!"
over 9000.
Well now we know that the monk's role in a party is not sleeping in armor. That clears everything up. He is super successful at this role. No changes are needed.
Trying to beat my previous sarcasm score...
Okay, the whole bee/butterfly metaphor debate is only proving to me that you guys can argue at length about absolutely anything. I guess I knew that, but this really seals the deal.We cannot argue about absolutely anything and you know it.
Yes we can, I've seen it happen.
Well now we know that the monk's role in a party is not sleeping in armor. That clears everything up. He is super successful at this role. No changes are needed.
Trying to beat my previous sarcasm score...
EDIT: Sorcerers do it better though! They've got the Charisma to sleep naked and look GOOD doing it. :)
Master Arminas
Crap! Caster supremacy!
Well now we know that the monk's role in a party is not sleeping in armor. That clears everything up. He is super successful at this role. No changes are needed.
Trying to beat my previous sarcasm score...
Sorcerers, witches, and wizards do it better though! :)
Master Arminas
If we're going to get into everything casters do better than martials we'll be here all day.
Not being a walking pile of arms and armor happens often enough in my group that it pays to not need it so much. We get ambushed at night, sucks sleeping in plate mail, we go to the fancy party and do ok actually blending. In your games these things may never happen, for us they are frequent enough.This, pretty much. The monk is great at challenges that do not often occur in the party dynamic of the typical adventure. However, to be a playable option they need to be great at the challenges that a typical party does encounter.You know why i love monks?
They can kick ass nude.
Take a fighters armor he cries, take that great ax from the barbarian he is useless, the wizards books and components and you have a commoner with a few tricks. Naked as the day he was born a monk can hit hard, dodge blows etc almost as well as fully geared. Great for blending into a population where full plate or a giant's sword might stick out but the guy that looks like every other peasant out there will never get a second glance.....Most of these things never happen in a game so if you are saying the monk is only good for things a player might never encounter in his lifetime then sure the monk is ok.
Taking armor is unlikely and if you sunder it the fighter will just kill you.
Barbarian, actually any player should have a backup weapon.
Taking spellbooks, is nigh impossible if the GM is being realistic.
If you look at any character(wizard) I have I keep two spellcomponent pouches*, and a 2nd spellbook(which is admittedly not as good as the first one) for any strange things like falling into acid.
Endurance feat, and glamered armor for about 2700.
PS:IIRC the endurance feat works for heavy armor also.
Not being a walking pile of arms and armor happens often enough in my group that it pays to not need it so much. We get ambushed at night, sucks sleeping in plate mail, we go to the fancy party and do ok actually blending. In your games these things may never happen, for us they are frequent enough.My armor users carry a masterwork chain shirt to sleep in.
Not a bad idea. :)
There is also the Armored Coat for those who want to sleep in comfort but still be able to put your armor on as a move action.
Turn the Silken Ceremonial Armor into a Silken Bath Robe and you don't have to worry about getting stabbed when you get out of the shower!
On monks, a friend put it this way today and I think they were on to something. Paladins get immunity to fear, and no one else gets that, monks get a range of immunities, resistances and good saves, but powergamers hate them.
Which made a lot of sense actually, you can't beef an immunity of a D&D class, you either have it or you don't. If what you are immune to doesn't come up, then it will feel wasted and weak alongside greater attack/damage/spells. Immune to disease, then poison, monk pcs can laugh at the poison of the monster or the snake, and the disease-covered undead. Then they get SR which is another spell defence in addition to the great saves.
Many of us dislike SR on PC's so we don't see it as a boon due to the fact that it blocks friendly spells also. I am well aware that it will probably block more incoming bad spells than good spells since I expect more bad guys to throws spells at me, but when I want the buff or bad status affect remover, after combat has started I really want it to work.
Now another poster in a different thread plays in a group that does not use buffs, and he brought up a game where there were no real buffing classes. Now in that case SR really has no drawback.
The immunities are a good thing. The already listed other issues are why powergamers look down on them. Personally I don't dislike the monk, but I would be willing to give up some of the defenses to make offense easier, or to get more skills and skill points.