Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

[cenghiz]

Wait wait wait a minute... I don't understand... I just decided I should do the scenario myself and started copying the numbers from Giamonk's Guide. And...

What's the masterwork item for.. err.. use magic device?

It's a fake holy symbol or a pointy hat situationally so you make the item believe that you're the right class to activate it?

So I guess Giamonk's UMD skill check at level 4 is 3(rank)-1(negative charisma modifier)+3(skill focus)+2(magical aptitude)=7, right?

I.. err.. have a sudden urge to check all the numbers in the guide for level 4.

[Signmaker]

Wait wait wait a minute... I don't understand... I just decided I should do the scenario myself and started copying the numbers from Giamonk's Guide. And...

What's the masterwork item for.. err.. use magic device?

It's a fake holy symbol or a pointy hat situationally so you make the item believe that you're the right class to activate it?

So I guess Giamonk's UMD skill check at level 4 is 3(rank)-1(negative charisma modifier)+3(skill focus)+2(magical aptitude)=7, right?

I.. err.. have a sudden urge to check all the numbers in the guide for level 4.

Yes, his UMD numbers are inaccurate by 2 due to that.
Seriously, a mundane item to enhance magic understanding on the fly is a silly thing to assume possible and cheaply obtainable.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

At 10th level, the core acid rogue does 6d6 per acid flask. A rogue cannot craft acid himself (see my last post), so you're back to 50 gp per full round attack. It is a good way of attacking, I admitted that several times already, but it is expensive and no "win" vs CR 11 creatures.
And wouldn't you think it odd that the cost of that tactics is not at all criticised, while 1st and 2nd level wands are?

1) And it is easy enough for one of the other three spellcasters in the party to craft it for him. So it's back to 16.5gp per full attack. And it is, as part of a party, very much a win versus CR 11 creatures.

2) No one criticizes your usage of 1st level spells. We criticize your complete reliance on a 4th level wand that lasts 7 rounds to be even moderately comparable to CR appropriate enemies. That and your inability to activate these wands when you need them, and the scrolls you claim to use.

So far the build assumes regular divine power use from around level 14 or so. Animal shapes is bad, bad morphing and only gets whipped out by me vs posters saying OMFG DRUIDZILLA SHAPECHANGING UBER. Scrolls of AMF should be in use around from level 12/13 or so, with increasing frequency. Vs lower-level spell users at that point, SR is a very good defense; and silence spells can also help a lot vs spellcastesr at lower levels.

That's all fine and good, but every gold you spend on AMF is a waste, because it is so easily ignored, and pointing out that you can spend 31,000gp per level to replicate what a Druid gets for free from level 6 isn't convincing anyone.

But...how? What protective spell is there that can protect a wizard of level 10 against CR 11 creatures thinking it's time to target that wizard flying by himself up in the air? What attacking spell will 100% stop them? Solid fog and black tentacles are based on the ground, so it must be a save-or die spell. Save or die for the wizard, it seems...
If you assume that the party is there to help him out - well, welcome to the club! It's the same party that helped the monk at lower levels to grapple the worst foe and then help him finishing him (or clearing the mooks away).

1) The Wizard is an offensive monster as well as one of the best defended characters in the game, it isn't about naming a single spell that will defeat every enemy, it's about being a powerful offensive force that helps defeat all enemies in 1-2 rounds.

2) Yes, the party I mention could probably have defeated every single enemy with the Wizard just replaced with a useless Commoner who stands around all day, but that doesn't mean they actually want your Monk, they still prefer the powerful and useful Wizard instead.

Well, a CR 11 flying into the air to meet the wizard will easily avoid the 30ft sneak range of a rogue, save easily vs daze (from where?), will stop dead in tracks with an AoO any charge and pins? Come on. If around level 9 grappling is no longer a great idea for a monk, why should the barbarian bother with it?
But what that flying enemy will have a hard time to avoid is the monk flying with 90ft move into its path to intercept it.

1) The Monster will have no problem avoiding the Monk, since it will take him two turns to activate the Wand of Fly, and in that time the enemy will be defeated.

2) The Wizard is smart, if the enemy is the type that can fly, he will stay close enough to the ground that attacking him puts him within range of the Rogue, if it cannot, he will fly up on his first turn and fire off his spell.

3) Save versus Daze? How about from the Wizard? Or did that not occur to you?

4) There is no AoO stopping anyone dead, and the charging Pin doesn't come from a Barbarian (who is a better grappler then a Monk) but instead from both the Druid and his Animal Companion, who both charge, full attack, rake, make a grapple check, then make a trip check, and if they succeed on both checks then the enemy is pinned beneath them both. Because the Druid can Pin much better then any Monk ever could.

Handy haversack only allows retrieval with a move action (although that does not trigger AoO, which is its big advantage). And also magic items can be sundered/destroyed. I would not call that "absolute zero risk".

1) And Quick Draw allows retrieval that was a move action to be a free action.

2) Yes items can be sundered, no that doesn't matter to the rogue because he doesn't let that happen.

? Carrying around 10 acid flasks (2 rounds ammunition) will mean 10d6 damage in case something smashes into him or risks breaking the vials (like a fall). This is nothing to shrug off for a rogue at that level, since it happens to be his (non-CON-mod) hp total, without a save.

Except that the only thing in the entire game that could cause that damage is shatter. And so if that happens it is a wasted combat action of a caster, so it's a win.

OK (I wonder what your cleric'S spell list would look like at 10th level - able to take on 4 CR 11 encounters as well in the day with a party?)

Why don't you run a playtest to see?

The blink spell description is quite clear about it. It says ATTACKS. Not melee or ranged attacks, only ATTACKS. The rules are fairly exact when they mean ranged or melee or just all attacks. So yes, the acid flasks also suffer from the 20% miss chance. Like spells and all other attacks.

And items which no longer have the Blink spell applied to them don't have that miss chance. So it doesn't matter.

The DMG acrtually advises not to slay hapless commoners in evil delight (it's in the part about "characters getting too powerful/out of control").
And you know that if you get a vastly powerful item at low level, it means your character is way more item-dependent than one usin wands of heroism, right?

1) I know it advises against that, my point is that it still happens, because it should happen, and so money buys items like a ring of blink even if it is more expensive then half WBL, because it should.

2) Rogues have other ways of getting SA, but I will admit that a Ring of Blink aids any given ranged rogue build more then any specific item helps your Monk.

Where do you get your 60d6 damage from? It's 30d6 AT BEST. At level 11, the joker monk has 4 attacks/per round each possibly doing 4d8 damage (total 16d8+20). At a lower cost with even both enlarge and heroism active. With lower to hit, admittedly, but not that much lower (his flurry nets him 3 attacks at his highest attacking level). And the cost is lower than that of the acid flasks.

Yes, your level 11 Monk has a slight advantage in total damage over a level 10 Rogue, but the rogue also does it at range with a touch attack against flat-footed enemies, compared to the Monk which must first buff, and then move adjacent to the enemy.

Also, the Acid flasks do the same amount of damage the second round that they did the first, IE 6d6.

The joker monk has a higher initiative, since your halfling DEX 20 rogue only has 4 feats at level 10 (for point blank shot, rapid shot, two-weapon fighting, improved two-weapon fighting).
The halfling rogue (+2 impr. invisibility, +1 point blank, +1 racial, +1 small size, +5 DEX, +7 BAB, -4 for rapid shot AND two-weapon fighting) at level 10 does 5 touch attacks at +13/+13/+13/+8/+8; for 6d6 damage each. Reduced to 1d6/2 damage by a simple concealment/invisbility by CR 11 opponent (no more sneak, 50% miss chance).
The enlarged/heroismed human joker monk (+2 morale, +4 STR, -1 size, +7 BAB) in a flurry does +12/+12/+7 and 3d8+4 with each hit. Vs concealed enemy, reduced to 25% miss chance and thus from 18 to around 14 avg damage per hit.
General Advantage rogue. Price advantage monk. Concealment advantage monk.
Now ,at level 11 the general advantage rogue narrows drastically (see above) since then the monk all of a sudden has 4 attacks as well and does 1d8 more damage.

1) No the Monk doesn't have init advantage, because the Rogue has Improved Init, and a much higher Dex, firstly, the real dex would probably be 24-26, not 20, that was purposefully made lower then needed to show how easy it is to hit. Also, the Rogue doesn't take TWF/ITWF, he uses his ability to take a bonus feat without meeting pre-reqs to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting. He does this of course because TWF is borked and he doesn't feel bad abusing Epic, even though he could take any Epic Feat, including Epic Spellcasting if he wanted.

2) Yes your Monk that doesn't use Divine Power is pathetic and useless to the party, yes it maybe be useful if it spent more money then the rogue.

The "and a very few feats" are already enough. It simply has no place in core rules argument.

Which is why it's a good thing this isn't a core rules argument.

How can you maintain Dragon xyz is a hyperbole and in the next paragraph say that I "hate" D&D, if I want to keep it core for balance/build discusssions? Do you think beginning players buying only the core rules "hate" D&D? Makes no sense to me.
Outside core, we basically have no argument: yes, outside core, the rules are imbalanced and casters are uber (due to many more spells to choose from vs the no. of feats and prestige classes to choose from. It's fairly simple.

That you hate D&D comes from more then just your desire to remain core, but your militant hatred of all expansions of material is evidence of that hatred.

OK, then - do you think outside core the classes are balanced? Probably not.

No I don't. I also don't think it is balanced in Core. I do think that including supplementary material makes non-full caster, non-rogues more useful to the average party then they are in core.

[Solo]

At the outset of this guide, people tossed around the following ideas and keep doing it (all disproven by the rules I quoted by now)

And have you been keeping track of how many times you've been wrong?

- that the unarmed base damage will be overcome by other weapon base damages (whereas I showed that there is no core medium weapon that does 2d10 damage or can receive similar size boosts as that of the monk)

Don't know about others, but I've been pointing out that base damage alone cannot carry you in melee; you have to have good damage from Str. too.

2d10 = 11 damage on average. I have a barbarian who does this at level 7. Thus, we can see that you need good Str in order to do damage appropriate for your level.

[Kurald Galain]

What's the masterwork item for.. err.. use magic device?

It doesn't exist, of course. This is one of several "bizarre and outlandish interpretations of obscure rules" I was talking about earlier.

"MW items exist for some skills therefore they exist for all skills" is nonsense. "MW items always have this price, even though some of them are known to have another price" is also nonsense.

[Signmaker]

It doesn't exist, of course. This is one of several "bizarre and outlandish interpretations of obscure rules" I was talking about earlier.

"MW items exist for some skills therefore they exist for all skills" is nonsense. "MW items always have this price, even though some of them are known to have another price" is also nonsense.

In his defense, "Masterwork Tool" is mentioned in the PHB, however, it's DMfiat because of ambiguity.

[quiet1mi]

In his defense, "Masterwork Tool" is mentioned in the PHB, however, it's DMfiat because of ambiguity.

If it does exist i would rule it as something like a lucky rabbits foot that allows you to blindly use magic device with a high chance of success and a lower chance of a wand blowing up in your face

I was Dreaming of what a monk can do and i finally came across it, due to their high than average saves and evasion, the wizard can cast Aoe save or suck spells with the knowledge that the monk will most likely not failing it.


you can say that a rogue can do the same because they have evasion but that will only apply to Ref based saves not will based [wis is a common dump for rogues]...

the monk on the other hand has a healthy ref and Will save so can reliably pass both [their main stats are wisdom and dexterity for AC]...

If that gets discounted then I have nothing else to say at the moment...

roles for monk so far:

flanking buddy that can reliably pass Ref and Will based AOE spells.

Can pick up fallen comrades and bring them to the group healer

*with a higher strength score:can pick up a fellow character and move them into... like with in 5ft so the fighter character can do a 5 ft step and then do full attack

can disguise himself as a commoner with out a disguise check and still function... Useful for an Rp perspective...

[cenghiz]

By the way.... Didn't anyone mention that monks have only 4+int skill points per level.. I checked from the players handbook I swear.. I had to blow the dust off, cough for five minutes, grunt for another five minutes because it was only third edition, remember the d20srd.org, but I checked. So I believe Giamonk also has a bit more skill points than he should have, starting from level 1. Maybe it wasn't intentional and Sir Giacomo forgot you pay double the price for every rank you invest in a cross-class skill.

I'm delaying the scenarios till Sir Giacomo corrects the skill points and similar mistakes and of course the masterwork nonsense...

Human... Human...

[Signmaker]

By the way.... Didn't anyone mention that monks have only 4+int skill points per level.. I checked from the players handbook I swear.. I had to blow the dust off, cough for five minutes, grunt for another five minutes because it was only third edition, remember the d20srd.org, but I checked. So I believe Giamonk also has a bit more skill points than he should have, starting from level 1. Maybe it wasn't intentional and Sir Giacomo forgot you pay double the price for every rank you invest in a cross-class skill.

I'm delaying the scenarios till Sir Giacomo corrects the skill points and similar mistakes and of course the masterwork nonsense...

He's human.

4+1+2=7 x 4 =28 skill points at first level

He's got 28 points, from what I can see.

[Talic]

By all means do.

When I get a sec or three to search forums.

Yes, by removing other abilities. This is not morph-a-monk. You get a finite list of abilities. And relying on one spell to cast another is like hiring a chauffeur to drive you around. Costs a lot more.

DOUBLE WHAT? OK, this must be some kind of test...I'm starting to get it. You are all WoTC designers in disguise trying to get out all my arguments...well, er likely not.
Anyhow, care to tell me what OTHER ABILTIES the joker monk would remove by getting a cloak +2 and using a wand of heroism? He removes/replaces OTHER ITEMS (and even Reel on, Love would agree that he could even SELL partially charged wands...). Now that is a BIG difference, wouldn' you agree?
And how again is getting a chaffeur a bad thing? Note (maybe you overlooked it): while the joker monk buffs his UMD check by +2, interestingly enough, for 80minutes the following of his ABILITIES get increased by +2 as as well: all attacks, all skill uses (remember that stealth skills he has quite high? He now has them higher) and all saves.
So, in your analogy, yes. It's a chauffeur who at the same time will protect you, serve you drinks, and generally make you better at everything you do. Heck, yes, I'd love to get that chauffeur.

Wrong. You seem to misunderstand the argument. I have a really hard time thinking that I'm being unclear, however. Point was in getting the +19 UMD to +30, which is what you need for AMF by scroll 100%. Now, unless I'm horribly mistaken, a cloak of chaisma and a heroism spell won't QUITE cover that.

The point is, the build you listed in the guide was incapable of doing the things you said it could do. This shows a flawed argument from flawed reasoning

Actually, Talic, you so far showed great perseverance in trying to prove that the joker monk is useless. In a way, I think you do better than many posters here who just jump here shouting "monk sucks", "grapple is sub-par like archery, everyone knows that" (reasons given: none), etc.
However, I am a bit worried here.

I do better because I am right. Grapple is sub-par. Archery is typically Sub-par. There are exceptions for archery, however. Things such as hulking hurler push up ranged damage to healthy (or disgusting) levels.

You make up stuff I did not post, you commit about 10 rules mistake per post you make and all of this does not somehow convince me that you can contribute anything constructive.

No, you forget what you've posted, and you misunderstand a great many portions of my post.

Pages ago you announced you would soon post a much superior monk guide. Where is that? What will it offer that can be considered new and innovative? What will it do to encourage others to play who believe monks are weak and shy away from it? Since YOU believe the monk is a weak class, guess what: you'll end up posting a weak class guide inspiring no one.

I never said the guide would be superior. I said it would be a guide. Not the rubbish that you've made, which is not a guide, but a defense of a specific build, without reasoning for why it's superior to all other monk builds.

Points to consider. 1) alchemical skill can reduce the cost of acid flasks to 1/3 listed price. There is no experience cost to create said items.

Well, that's a good idea. But...two points to consider
a) at 1/3, or 16,7 gold PER ATTACK you are still way above the key buff cost for the monk for the whole encounter (remember: 15 gold per encounter. Add 90gp from heroism and you are still below the cash the rogue burns per encounter. And if you believe a CR 11 dragon will calmly let you get within 30ft to do TWO FULL ROUND ATTACKS at it in a row, it is small wonder that you, too, believe that the party should continuously be able to take on higher CR monsters.

There are ways to remove the choice.

b) You forgot to look into PHB p.71 before making your claim. Acid can only be produced by spellcasters (craft: alchemy).

That can be fixed easily enough. While adding further synergy, oddly enough.

2) acid is one option, along with fire, and crossbow, to gain 6d6 damage at level 9. Not all need to be used in 1 fight.

Yes, but then you give up that vital advantage of the acid trick: the ranged touch attack. Ranged weapons plus sneak plus some extra oomph? Now that's new..

Alchemist's fire keeps that. and the cost isn't as prohibitive as you mistakenly overestimate it to be. Further, you assume that your gonk build uses only enlarge every fight, but then speak of UMD, Shapechange, Animal shapes, and every other spell under the sun that you like. Tell me, what's the cost of using these, along with whatever half dozen spells you need for boosting the UMD to the level it needs to be while using them?

If crossbows don't work, move to acid. If acid doesn't work, move to fire.Or craft it as you need it. Also, you won't be likely making 5 attacks a round, and if you do, you're doing 30d6 damage a round, or average damage of 105 damage per round. The fight won't last 5 rounds. That level of damage will drop most CR 13 dragons in 2 rounds.and it makes sense that the rogue, who has that class feature, has provisions for surviving within 30 feet.

Nope. Not vs a CR 13 dragon or lower-level dragons (e.g. blindsight?...). And will the rogue now do two full-round attacks or not? You can't have both (like, for instance, tumbling vs AoO AND full-attacking).

BlindSENSE for dragons, not sight. big difference.

Could you point out where I said that you believed that tumble completely stopped it. I said that what you said wasn't accurate. It didn't tell the full story. I filled that in. But thanks for making up that I'm making things up.

And you made things up that I made things up that you made things up. Or up? Whatever...

Your exact words "thanks for making things up.

I showed how I didn't. Thus, your statement was made up. Please, if you're going to do this discussion, do it seriously.

My original post referred to AoO, and it was obvious. It was not even an issue about monks, it was some aside in brackets about fighters.

However, it was still a statement that was lacking too much information to be accurate. I corrected you. The matter is settled. Drop it.

Then you didn't look at them, or your random selection is suspiciously slanted. Methinks that less than 75% of CR 11 monsters fly.
Which is what your "cross sampling" has... conveniently when arguing against a melee build.

Now THIS is a case of "no complete story". The remaining 25% may have some sort of other attacking way at range available (like...spells? Superior stealth?). Although I guess the wizard would be quite safe from the earth elemental and the stone golem (unfortunately golems often are put up as guards in confined spaces to prevent such things...).

Allow me to complete the story then... Again.

Spoiler

Show

{table=header]Creature | Flight | Note
Barbed Devil | | Scorching Ray at will (2 rays)
Dragon (blue, black, copper, gold, or green) | x | No other ranged ability
Cauchemar Nightmare | x |
Cloud Giant | | rock throwing (suboptimal attack form for giant)
Colossal Monstrous Spider | | Web shoot or jump (both very short range)
Devourer | | Short range status effect/debuff abilities
Dread Wraith | x | None
Elder Air Elemental | x | Whirlwind
Elder Earth Elemental | | None
Elder Fire Elemental | | None
Elder Water Elemental | | None
Harpy Archer (example entry) | x | Low damage Ranged capabilities
Hezrou | | Chaos hammer (low-moderate damage, alignment dependent, suboptimal attack form)
Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (example entry) | | Rock Throwing (suboptimal attack form for giant)
Retriever | | Eye Rays
Stone Golem | | None
Hydra, pyro or cryo, 10 heads | | very short range breath weapon
Troll Hunter (Example Entry) | | Low damage ranged attack
Hydra, 12 heads | | None[/table]

As we can see, 1 spell (fly or overland flight) renders 1/3 of enemies on the list useless, and another 1/3 are forced to use lesser, weaker attacks. This isn't a "incomplete information". This is "misleading information used to support incorrect view". Your "random sampling" used 60% of the flying monsters and 7% of the non-flyers. This makes it inaccurate in supporting the non-validity of melee clerics. Happy to correct it for you, though.

If you dim door and stay in the fight, you're not retreating. If you hide, you are.

A CLASSIC! Thanks for using that double standard again. It's actually one of my favourite. I see you playing rogues that never hide in combat.

In this instance, "hide" is not used to mean "use the hide skill". It is meant as "evade combat". A rogue that hides and snipes, or the like, is not retreating. A monk that hides, and does not attempt to re-engage is retreating.

The same statement applies to the converse. If a rogue attempts to hide and disengage from combat, he is retreating. This is why it is not a double standard. The same standard (whether or not the PC continues to engage the enemy) applies to all. This is why, again, you are wrong. Again, and again.

What are you referring to now? The cleric or the joker monk? Both will at least need one round to buff, but the joker monk may know more probably about an encounter coming up, giving him more time.

And likely, will know no more or less. The wizard may have the perfect set of round/level buffs up at start of fight. But not likely. Let's not concern ourselves so much with unlikely maybes. This response, if taken in context with the statement preceding it (which you seem to have difficulty doing), indicates that monks will not have more than 1 round hidden to buff. And, by your previous usage of Heroism to guarantee your wand use, that would be the buff. Thus, hiding to activate items which break hide is something that works once. Which, your statement suggested the possibility of multiple round buffs. That was untrue.

But it is rare that the monk doesn't need to spend that round buffing. It's also rare that the monk will always have surprise, as typically, the monk is intruding on others, not vice versa. This increases the chances of being ambushed.

No, this actually increases the chance of being the one to surprise for the stealthy character since even prepared opponents never know WHEN they are going to be attacked. The adventuring party has the tactical initiative advantage, so to say.

Unless you factor in traps, which retain ambush advantage over the monk, which cannot find them... Or creatures with special sensory abilities, such as blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, and the like. All of these reduce the monk's chances in core of hiding successfully long enough to engage. Tactical initiative advantage is a IRL reality which evaporates when you get to monsters that can keep invisibility up all the time, or have other ways of sensing foes.

Yes, true, with a (more expensive) improved invisbility. If the enemy (dragon, elder air elemental, demon, whatever) has some methods of bringing up own concealment or seeing invisbilitly, then that advantage is negated quickly. The monk's 4d8 unarmed damage? Not so much.

More expensive than what? Your much lauded Divine Power?? Hardly, As for seeing invisibility, yes, there is that option. However, bringing up it's own concealment will impact the rogue no more than the monk, and the monk is still having to bypass the entire AC, whereas the rogue gets to bypass armor, shield, and natural armor. Again, your expertise in telling half of a story is unmatched, and oddly enough, the half you tell is always the half that benefits your argument. Convenient, that.

However, most books include support options and monk PrC's. Show me one book that is a paladin companion, or a ranger companion.

Heroes of Valor? There is even a ranger-specific prestige class (horizon walker) in the core rules. But true, ranger and paladin are also somewhat the stepchildren.

Or Fighter, or Wizard, or Sorceror, or Cleric, or any other base class. The complete series is not designed for individual classes, but rather themes. Thus, you will not find a book designed for a specific class in 3.5.

Removed entries which are contradicted by primary source. FoB is not Base attack bonus, any more than melee attack bonus is. Both are modified to include something else.

FoB: read PHB entry pp. 40-41. And if you do not accept the FAQ, well...

I do not accept FAQ when it is contradicted by SRD. As for the entry, gaining one additional attack per round at your highest base attack bonus, the wording is identical to haste, speed weapons, and the like. Those are not allowed. By extension, these would not be either. In other words:

Flurry of blows is a special ability that grants monks extra attacks. (SRD: Flurry of Blows)
Characters may only gain extra attacks in a grapple from high base attack bonus. (SRD, Grapple)
Flurry of blows is an extra attack that is gained from another source, different than an extra attack granted by a high base attack bonus. (SRD, Flurry of Blows)
Thus, flurry of blows does not apply in a grapple.

Well, that was not a contradiction. I never said anything about grappling. That monk used normal unarmed strikes at level 9-10, which is what I have been suggesting since the first post (the guide). Within total concealment and blind-fighting, this gives him some good chances vs more enemies (including those that try to sneak or spell attack him).

And you've specifically shown all of the things that the concealment negates. All of those things, which the party also uses. Thus, this is not a good team tactic. It is a one vs. many tactic. D&D does not work this way.

I do not think acknowledge means quite what you think it does. I don't respond to everything because I'm busy.

I have the feeling that the following sentence:
"Giacomo, sorry - I think I have truly been wrong in most of my post." put at the beginning of this post (again full of errors imo), would not have meant much extra time.

But it would have been wrong. As I said, I am a busy person, moreso than usual right now. I skim the posts in this section. I do not analyze the entire thread in depth. If I don't respond to something, 90% of the time, it is because I did not read it. I don't follow this post religiously. No offense, but it is really not worth my time, which is strained enough as it. I find that it grows increasingly tiresome showing you every day how you are wrong, only to have you misinterpret, misapply, misunderstand, or outright ignore any valid argument that is levied against you, and then call for apologies or concessions when you think you find a flaw in someone else's argument (which, more often than not, is a result of your own misunderstanding of the post). Feel free to reply to this however you wish, but I will NOT be responding to any more such comments about how you want acknowledgment or concessions from me. If you feel you are right, and that is not enough for you, then it reveals a problem with your own security, and I am under no obligation to stroke anyone's ego.

Fact of the matter is, I don't care very much about any of the following:

the monk class
D&D in general
Your feelings as to what attention you think I should afford you
What concessions you feel I should make to you

I place a rather small amount of weight to all of the above entries. My real life takes priority, and my enjoyment of the game takes priority to showing you how you're wrong. This is not meant to be an insult, rather, a fix to the misunderstanding you have on my statements on how busy I am, and how I don't place enough concern over this thread to justify the level of attention you're asking for, nor do I ever intend to, nor will statements like the one you made above change that. My statements in this thread are on my time, and my terms, and if you find them unsatisfactory, you can feel free to ignore them. I won't particularly be concerned over that, either.


On a side note, now that that final misconception has been addressed, there are virtually no rules for the purchase and sale of magic items. Only value of those items. If you look at what core sourcebook you find magical items, you'll see why. Such items, while primarily intended for player use, are for DM control. The books never give a player the right to purchase anything magical, and, while they list guidelines (not rules) for the maximum value of an item available by city, the DM has sole purview over the purchase of items. As partial charge wands are impossible to make, and rely on additional actions to create them, it makes sense that they will be less common than fully charged wands. It also makes sense that if an NPC found the item good enough to use 35 charges, he'll likely find it good enough to use 15 more.

[Solo]

flanking buddy that can reliably pass Ref and Will based AOE spells.

Do you see anythign wrong with a strategy that involves casting deadly spells at an ally?

Can pick up fallen comrades and bring them to the group healer

So, a pack mule?

*with a higher strength score:can pick up a fellow character and move them into... like with in 5ft so the fighter character can do a 5 ft step and then do full attack

So he's a porter?

can disguise himself as a commoner with out a disguise check and still function... Useful for an Rp perspective...

And where does it say sorcerers and wizards have to be wearing robes, a pointy hat, and a sign that says "I CAST SPELLS!"?

[Collin152]

And where does it say sorcerers and wizards have to be wearing robes, a pointy hat, and a sign that says "I CAST SPELLS!"?

Furthermore, apparently monks must be overflowing with wands.
Now, I'm sure one would't expect a commoner to not pick up sticks and cary them around, but it gets a little silly.
Oh? He puts them away?
The fighter puts his armor and sword away. Gasp! Who is that?

[Griffin131]

Is your Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus a Base Attack Bonus?

Yes.

No. Base Attack Bonus is explicitly defined as:

A base attack bonus is an attack roll bonus derived from character class and level or creature type and Hit Dice (or combinations thereof). Base attack bonuses increase at different rates for different character classes and creature types. A second attack is gained when a base attack bonus reaches +6, a third with a base attack bonus of +11 or higher, and a fourth with a base attack bonus of +16 or higher. Base attack bonuses gained from different sources, such as when a character is a multiclass character, stack.

Flurry of Blows is defined as a modified Base Attack Bonus.

When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk.

(emphasis mine)

If you have two cogs, one is a modified cog, and one is a cog, and someone asks you for a cog, can you hand them the modified one?

Modified Base Attack Bonus != Base Attack Bonus. Why can you not understand that?

Pot, Kettle. Kettle, Pot. How ya doin.

The usual response of someone who is wrong and can't think of anything else to say.

So its okay for you to tell me I'm wrong, and to stfu and read (implied from your posts) but its not okay for me to ask when you'll admit that you're wrong?

[Laurellien]

Sir Giacomo

1) Your build relies mostly on items that can be used a finite number of times before they run out. These are almost all spell completion items such as wands and scrolls. Why is a monk (that must by these items at price) better than a cleric that can use these spells for free, buy less items (e.g. sorcerer buys divine power wand, cleric buys wizard wands) and can mimic the essential monk abilities by buying a monk's belt?

2) These items which your monk relies upon can only be reliably activated after level 12 or so, OVER HALF WAY through his adventuring career, whereas a cleric casts his spells every time, with greater ease, how is the monk better then considering this and the above?

3) Your monk buffs before combat, he must do as DP only lasts 7 rounds from a wand. He cannot be guaranteed to activate it first time, and he also uses other buffs too such as heroism. A cleric or druid can buff in one round, and a wizard can buff at the start of the day, and the barbarian, paladin, rogue, ranger and fighter need not buff. Why then is the monk better if the combat is already won (maybe not over, but won) by the other classes by the time he gets in?

4) Another thing: How can your monk reliably ensure that he gets the jump on his enemies? Buffing takes time and makes noise, and many creatures in the mm can detect the monk, and sneak themselves, and many that can't don't need to bother.

5) And yet another thing: If I was to use an expert and give him a monk's belt, wouldn't he be better than your monk at using your monk's tactics, or a rogue? or a bard? After akk, they get umd as class skills.

[Solo]

Sir Giacomo

1) Your build relies mostly on items that can be used a finite number of times before they run out. These are almost all spell completion items such as wands and scrolls. Why is a monk (that must by these items at price) better than a cleric that can use these spells for free, buy less items (e.g. sorcerer buys divine power wand, cleric buys wizard wands) and can mimic the essential monk abilities by buying a monk's belt?

You know, I've been wondering, and your post got me to thinking:

Normally, people don't build grappling clerics, but Clerics of Kord, fluff wise, seem to be the type that would take grapple feats, being that they wrestle each other and all.

How would the grappling cleric compare to the grappling monk?

5) And yet another thing: If I was to use an expert and give him a monk's belt, wouldn't he be better than your monk at using your monk's tactics, or a rogue? or a bard? After akk, they get umd as class skills.

Hehe.... I must try this with the Battledancer at some point. UMD Battle bard for the win.

[Worira]

Also, the Acid flasks do the same amount of damage the second round that they did the first, IE 6d6.

No they don't. Acid flasks don't mention anything about that at all, and alchemist's fire deals 1d6 points of damage on the second round, not the same amount.

[Eldariel]

2d10 = 11 damage on average. I have a barbarian who does this at level 7. Thus, we can see that you need good Str in order to do damage appropriate for your level.

Level 7?! A 32pb Barbarian does over this on level 1 without Rage (18 Str = +4, +6 for Two-Handed and 7 damage on average for a Greatsword = 13) or Power Attack. Even a 28pb Barbarian does 11 (Str 16). Elite Array Barbarian falls 1 point short on level 1 without Rage or Power Attack (with either, exceeds it).

[tyckspoon]

Level 7?! A 32pb Barbarian does over this on level 1 without Rage (18 Str = +4, +6 for Two-Handed and 7 damage on average for a Greatsword = 13) or Power Attack. Even a 28pb Barbarian does 11 (Str 16). Elite Array Barbarian falls 1 point short on level 1 without Rage or Power Attack (with either, exceeds it).

If you *are* willing to apply Rage and Power Attack, your static damage bonuses can hit 11 at level 1. 18 base strength, Rage to 22. +6 damage, two-hander +9, Power Attack for 1 +11. Giacomo will tell you that the Monk will always be working with at least one size-increasing effect (which is fair enough- Improved Natural Attack is pretty much impossible to prevent), so you should really be comparing to the average damage of 4d8. Which is only 18.. which your level 1 Barbarian giving his greatest effort already matches with static damage modifiers and an average damage roll. That's with 19 levels of class benefit and gear to go.

[Eldariel]

We're talking weapon damage too (heck, most of his damage is weapon damage due to the lack of Str), so Greatsword's 2d6 is a go as well. That's 7 damage on average.

[Solo]

Clarification: the barbarian could have done that at an earlier level, I just picked 7 off the top of my head.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

No they don't. Acid flasks don't mention anything about that at all, and alchemist's fire deals 1d6 points of damage on the second round, not the same amount.

And they also do 1d6 damage the first round. Does that mean that a Rogue throwing an Alchemist Fire does only 1d6 damage each round?

Or does he do 6d6 each round because of Sneak Attack. Seriously, where did you think this damage was coming from?

[Talic]

And they also do 1d6 damage the first round. Does that mean that a Rogue throwing an Alchemist Fire does only 1d6 damage each round?

Or does he do 6d6 each round because of Sneak Attack. Seriously, where did you think this damage was coming from?

I don't believe sneak attack damage in future rounds is added, without specific text showing it.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

Standard acid flasks do not even deal additional damage in the round that follows.

Acid: You can throw a flask of acid as a splash weapon. Treat this attack as a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 feet. A direct hit deals 1d6 points of acid damage. Every creature within 5 feet of the point where the acid hits takes 1 point of acid damage from the splash.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

Standard acid flasks do not even deal additional damage in the round that follows.

Well I'm talking about Alchemist fire right now.

And Talic, the point would be that SA is hitting someone in a vulnerable place and doing more damage. The rules say that you get to SA with anything that uses an attack role, and that's about it. They don't limit you to once per round, and they don't limit you to the first round of your attack. They pretty much just do SA damage on attacks.

[Lord Lorac Silvanos]

And Talic, the point would be that SA is hitting someone in a vulnerable place and doing more damage. The rules say that you get to SA with anything that uses an attack role, and that's about it. They don't limit you to once per round, and they don't limit you to the first round of your attack. They pretty much just do SA damage on attacks.

And the point is that you are not making an attack for the secondary damage that you can add any sneak attack damage to.
Alchemist's fire does exactly was it says, it does not add extra damage based on what you have done in the previous rounds.

[Signmaker]

And the point is that you are not making an attack for the secondary damage that you can add any sneak attack damage to.
Alchemist's fire does exactly was it says, it does not add extra damage based on what you have done in the previous rounds.

From a logical perspective, SA applying over a period of rounds makes no sense either. One way or another you're on fire.

[Chosen_of_Vecna]

From a logical perspective, SA applying over a period of rounds makes no sense either. One way or another you're on fire.

Logically, where you on fire causing a different amount of damage makes just as much sense the second round as it does the first. And since it definitely does cause more damage in the first, and you are burning in the same place, it would do just as much damage.

[SilverClawShift]

Logically, where you on fire causing a different amount of damage makes just as much sense the second round as it does the first. And since it definitely does cause more damage in the first, and you are burning in the same place, it would do just as much damage.

But the idea of a sneak attack is that you're completely unprepared for the attack (unable to wince or flinch away to lessen the blow or change the hits placement).

The sneak attack damage still applies, because the rogue is a complete bastard who aimed for your crotch/eyes/tender spots from your blindspot in a nasty sucker punch. The sneak attack wouldn't apply the second round, because now you're acutely aware of what the source of the damage is and can act against it. The second round is just as if anyone ELSE had hit you with alchemists fire, i.e. you know it's coming.

[Sir Giacomo]

Well hello again,

quite a few posts to answer again.

First of all: thanks, Lord_Silvanos, for jumping in to provide a ruling. I accept that - and will post sometime soon a revised equipment list variant for the 1-20 complete campaign monk. The partial wand buying Joker monk build remains valid, since it can be easily taken for starging at higher levels for existing campaings.

Spoiler

Show

Of course, Silvanos, you do realise, that the only measure of scarcity that the DMG provides is the PRICE of the item (and the rules provide the was to calculate the price for partially charged items in a LINEAR way). Why, for instance, would a magic item merchant have more likely available a ring of blinking for 27,000 gold and not a wand of 10 enlarge charges (actually the Joker monk would be also happy with a rough area around that, say 5-15), that costs only 150 gold?
Or once more appealing to your logic in a different way- what is the incentive of a merchant to BUY from the pcs a 10-charge enlarge wand IF it is so darn difficult to ever find a BUYER himself for it? The rules for proportional pricing of the wand charges do not suggest that it is exponentially more difficult to sell a wand with lower charges.
Essence: with your ruling, all other rulings concerning partially charged wands break down or are rendered illogical.
What I accept, though, it is not explicit RAW. It is clearly RAI, though.

Now replying to four of the more ardent monk-haters...

@Kurald Galain (this is again, quite easy)

Spoiler

Show

Furthermore, this thread has established that gonks are ineffective
(1) below level 12, because they can't get UMD to work reliably

But I showed they can. Once more for you: UMD wand of heroism 80 minutes outside encounter, cloak of CHR +2, and you are set for level 11. Of course, below that you can also RELIABLY UMD wands everything they need OUTSIDE COMBAT. And at 80% chance IN combat (from level 7 or so). Well, it's not exactly "unreliable".

(2) in any running campaign, because they rely on getting "starting wealth" for each level, and if starting at level X, spend too much money to end up on actual WBL for level X+1

Completely wrong. Check the build again. And the calculation I mentioned several times that by level 10 you can use 1,000 1st-level wand uses. It's more than enough.

(3) in any campaign where the DM does not allow the PCs to buy, at any time from magical item shoppes, a particular customized item that is unheard of anywhere outside gonk builds, i.e. the partially-charged wand

Yep. Like the one envisioned by the DMG and the rules. Welcome to DD3.5. Like it. Hate it. But it's RAW. And p.199 DMG is crystal clear about partially charged wands available for newly created pcs above 1st level.

(4) in any combat that does not involve the PCs surprising the enemies, and getting 2-4 rounds of buff time

Hmm. It's like saying "the wizard sucks in any combat where he cannot cast spells". Cool.
The monk has the skills and the UMD to surprise and need most of the times only 1 round of buff time directly before combat (at low levels most often an enlarge effect.)

(5) against monsters of higher CR than the average party level, because the gonk will consistenyl fail to grapple those, and

Wow, whereas other character classes can always take on higher CR than their level? This is just making things up without backing it. Chosen_of_Vecna, Talic and Griffin131 try to show it for a an acid-flask-throwing rogue with wand of greater invisibility. But they fail.
But I see your point - I have proven against all preset opinions that the monk is definitely a viable class to overcome same CR monsters (even by himself), so you need to up the ante by saying "he's still weaker...because...because (looking for most absurd reason)...the others can take on always higher CR creatuers!"

(6) when targeted by Dispel Magic

Total concealment? You know, the one provided by obscuring mist and the eversmoking bottle? No more dispel magic. But...I could swear I already have mentioned that somewhere...ah yes, in THE GUIDE.

However, in any campaign of level 12 or up, where the DM has magic item shoppes selling every custom thing the players want, hands out money above the WBL, announces all combats to the PCs a handful of rounds in advance, only uses lower-CR monsters, and doesn't use dispel against the PCs, the gonk will be a playable class. Wow, isn't that amazing!

Wow, isn't that amzaing! Only 6- wait- not blatant mistakes, but simple lies, all in ONE paragraph! All of which become immediately become apparent when reading the guide.
Once more:
- the joker monk is great already at low levels (funnily you seem to see the joker monk as good for high levels!, Thanks!)
- the build does not assume any custom item. And if you mean partially charged wands by that, a campaign from level 12 is nicely covered by the p.199 DMG rule. Thanks!
- it does not assume above WBL items (in fact, it is quite strict, for instance also following the DMG p.199 advice to only focus 25% at most on one item)
- does not assume automatic Spot and listen check successes
- has been shown already several times to be able to beat CR monsters of his level BY HIMSELF
- a DM is free to use dispels vs the pcs (only that the joker monk has so many ways against them)

@Chosen_of_Vecna

Spoiler

Show

1) And it is easy enough for one of the other three spellcasters in the party to craft it for him. So it's back to 16.5gp per full attack. And it is, as part of a party, very much a win versus CR 11 creatures.

That so? A spellcaster crafting for lower cost for the rogue? Well, in that case, the monk would like to have half price wands as well.

2) No one criticizes your usage of 1st level spells. We criticize your complete reliance on a 4th level wand that lasts 7 rounds to be even moderately comparable to CR appropriate enemies. That and your inability to activate these wands when you need them, and the scrolls you claim to use.

Well, I'm not so sure about the "usage of 1st level spells is OK for the joker monk" part. Check Kurald Galain's utter disbelief above.
Anyhow. The build does not "rely completely" on divine power.
At low levels, he does not need it yet that much (enlarge is way more important).
At high levels it can be assumed that he can churn it out for every fight that matters (say, from level 14 or so; for full 1-20 campaign with Lord_Silvanos' ruling, the joker monk can buy a wand of 50 charges at level 12 -lasting around 4 levels. Buy one again at level 16 and you're set).
Similarly, at high levels, activating the wands is a non-issue. Scrolls can be easily activated at the high levels needed outside combat because they last long enough (you can try as often as you like, until you roll a "1"). Or, in the case of AMF, the mod can be jacked up to the necessary +30, which I have already shown (will update the build for that).

That's all fine and good, but every gold you spend on AMF is a waste, because it is so easily ignored, and pointing out that you can spend 31,000gp per level to replicate what a Druid gets for free from level 6 isn't convincing anyone.

AMF is activated when it is useful and when it has a good chance to activate a lock, not when the caster is flying 100ft above you "raining death from above"
Of course AMF is not foolproof! For instance, the joker monk could be fooled by an illusion (or project image). Which in turn he might see with a true seeing effect. Heck, at these high levels, combat is not exactly easy to predict.

1) The Wizard is an offensive monster as well as one of the best defended characters in the game, it isn't about naming a single spell that will defeat every enemy, it's about being a powerful offensive force that helps defeat all enemies in 1-2 rounds.

But on the defensive side, he's not thaaaat great, at least not until much higher levels. At 9th-10th level using overland flight, that's about it - all his other protections (and I do not mean mage armour) last only mins/lvl (invisbility, say). He could also use the concealment effect that the joker monk has - but then he can not that much anymore (he hampers his targeted spell attacks).

2) Yes, the party I mention could probably have defeated every single enemy with the Wizard just replaced with a useless Commoner who stands around all day, but that doesn't mean they actually want your Monk, they still prefer the powerful and useful Wizard instead.

And this is where we differ. You believe your iconic, optimised core party of rogue, wizard, cleric, druid will be able to consistently take on higher CR encounters. I would argue that they cannot. Or that they cannot do it better than the joker monk (seriously, I do not yet know the full potential of what the joker monk with all his synergies could maybe do. I hope for more playtesting).

1) The Monster will have no problem avoiding the Monk, since it will take him two turns to activate the Wand of Fly, and in that time the enemy will be defeated.

Two turns? No, normally once every four encounters he'll need more than 1 turn. It's that simple. And since he'll likely know about the monsters before they know about him, he can activate a wand of flying in the surprise round.
That is, if he even has a wand of flying (it would eat up two thirds of his wand budget at that level with the new ruling by Lord_Silvanos). An easier approach is to hand the wizard his level 3 pearl of power and get buffed.
Of course, with a jump check of +25 when enlarged he can also reach up quite high to catch a flying monster in a dungeon.
And if the opponent is easily defeated in two rounds, then it's not necessary to use the fly spell for that occasion, anyhow. The archer can simply shoot down the poor critter.

2) The Wizard is smart, if the enemy is the type that can fly, he will stay close enough to the ground that attacking him puts him within range of the Rogue, if it cannot, he will fly up on his first turn and fire off his spell.

So you are arguing that a wizard's strenght is that others can help him in need, whereas the monk grappling is dependent on others to prevent him from being attacked by other opponents, thus making him weak?

3) Save versus Daze? How about from the Wizard? Or did that not occur to you?

Yes, only that daze is such a useless spell vs CR 11 creatures (you can only target up to 4HD humanoids), I thought it was coming from somewhere else.

4) There is no AoO stopping anyone dead, and the charging Pin doesn't come from a Barbarian (who is a better grappler then a Monk) but instead from both the Druid and his Animal Companion, who both charge, full attack, rake, make a grapple check, then make a trip check, and if they succeed on both checks then the enemy is pinned beneath them both. Because the Druid can Pin much better then any Monk ever could.

Yes, you can stop dead someone with an AoO. Trip is one. And grapple is another.
And your druid again uses morhping stuff which is frowned upon on these boards, as I have come to painfully learn
When morph is in, the joker monk has access to polymorph which beats the druid's wild shape at that level (providing him with higher STR and bigger size, say a treant). Then the druid loses as well in grapple comparison (not to mention in terms of grapple damage and number of attempts/checks).

1) And Quick Draw allows retrieval that was a move action to be a free action.

No. Quick draw allows you to retrieve an item on your body (not a backpack!) into your hand as a free action. The haversack rule overrides this.

2) Yes items can be sundered, no that doesn't matter to the rogue because he doesn't let that happen.

He does not? Well, he can certainly try. But vs a dragon full attacking the rogue bottles that hurt him so much in the first round? I don't think so. And once the bottles are hidden, they cannot be drawn as a free action.

Except that the only thing in the entire game that could cause that damage is shatter. And so if that happens it is a wasted combat action of a caster, so it's a win.

No, sunder is quite enough.


Why don't you run a playtest to see?

Well, I just love to playtest the joker monk first. But your Cleric 10th level could go vs my joker monk level 11 in a duel to see whether he can take on a CR 11 rating Although we'd need to agree on the interpretation of the rules - imo you see quite a lot of things wrong which imo in turn lead to the conclusion that level 10 characters can easily overcome CR 11 encounters.

And items which no longer have the Blink spell applied to them don't have that miss chance. So it doesn't matter.

The items do not attack, but the one who throws them. He is under the blink spell effect, and the whole blink spell description applies to him. Ask Lord_Silvanos, if you do not believe me.

1) I know it advises against that, my point is that it still happens, because it should happen, and so money buys items like a ring of blink even if it is more expensive then half WBL, because it should.

Because "it should"? Have you missed a large part of this thread trying to argue that the joker monk has problems because he'll never get a measly partially charged wand of enlarge for 150 gp? You say the joker monk relies too heavbily on a wand of divine power, whereas you get your rogue a ring of blinking as soon as possible?
No, I do not think this is a good idea for showing class powers.
Note also that the monk will get a ring of blinking in level 13 (due to the stricter wbl).

2) Rogues have other ways of getting SA, but I will admit that a Ring of Blink aids any given ranged rogue build more then any specific item helps your Monk.

Even the divine power item that ultimately adds 2 attacks at highest attack level with around 12d8+x damage?
Hmmm. You do realise that in core, sneak attack damage affects less and less creatures, the higher your level is? (either through direct immunity or through ways to counter sneak opportuinites. Blink, for instance, can be overcome with see invsibility - since you strike as an invisible creature).

Yes, your level 11 Monk has a slight advantage in total damage over a level 10 Rogue, but the rogue also does it at range with a touch attack against flat-footed enemies, compared to the Monk which must first buff, and then move adjacent to the enemy.

Well, the monk has to move within 10ft (enlarge reach). The rogue within 30ft (sneak reach). That is not thaaat different.
The touch attacks are good, but once again
- the acid attacks are more expensive, the alchemical fire attacks even doubly so (and both kinds cannot be produced by the rogue himself)
- you have 20% miss chance, or get a wand of greater invisibility (increasing your cost again)
- some opponents DO have good touch ACs. Or have some way of concealment, immediately nullifying your high damage.

Also, the Acid flasks do the same amount of damage the second round that they did the first, IE 6d6.

No they don't, or the rules would say so (but I think you accepted that since your last post now assumes the more expensive alchemical fire). And in any case, the sneak bonus damage is not added in the second round (the target is not flat-footed vs that damage).

1) No the Monk doesn't have init advantage, because the Rogue has Improved Init, and a much higher Dex, firstly, the real dex would probably be 24-26, not 20, that was purposefully made lower then needed to show how easy it is to hit. Also, the Rogue doesn't take TWF/ITWF, he uses his ability to take a bonus feat without meeting pre-reqs to take Perfect Two Weapon Fighting. He does this of course because TWF is borked and he doesn't feel bad abusing Epic, even though he could take any Epic Feat, including Epic Spellcasting if he wanted.

HARHAR. That is a good one. Taking an epic feat, in non-epic level, without any requisites. Must remember that one. There are sure some good for the monk to pick.
Seriously. The rogue's special ability does not mean you get the feat as a bonus feat WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. Or it would say so, as in the monk's case.
And again, I am astounded about the double standards of anti-monk posters who in several days did not see it fit to correct this blatant mistake.

2) Yes your Monk that doesn't use Divine Power is pathetic and useless to the party, yes it maybe be useful if it spent more money then the rogue.

Again this divine power thing. Why again should the monk be pathetic without it? It's like saying a fighter without magic weapon at those levels is pathetic. Basically, the wands are the magic "weapons" of the joker monk.
At levels 1-13 he does not even use it regularly and still contributes greatly imo. But that can actually be only shown in playtesting and duels, I think.
Your statement is too general to give any convincing 100% proof against it.

Which is why it's a good thing this isn't a core rules argument.

It isn't? Well, if you wish to comment on the joker monk build, which happens to be a CORE build, then you should stick to the core rules.

That you hate D&D comes from more then just your desire to remain core, but your militant hatred of all expansions of material is evidence of that hatred.

? I never said anything about "hating" expansions of material. I like the tome of battle, greatly enjoy the complete series (in particular complete scoundrel), and just love the spell compendium.
However, what I do not wish to do is hold an argument about what a class can do or not or how strong it is relative to others by whipping out companion xy and dragon issue z to make my point.
Plus, I think simply the core rules are still the best of the whole game.

No I don't. I also don't think it is balanced in Core. I do think that including supplementary material makes non-full caster, non-rogues more useful to the average party then they are in core.

Well- you know that I think core is roughly balanced (the classes certainly are). Outside core, maybe the classes you describe get maybe stronger because more and more powerful abilities get emulated by feats, combinations of feats, skills or items. But I know too little outside core to make any claim on that.

@Solo

Spoiler

Show

And have you been keeping track of how many times you've been wrong?

"neenah, neenah you have been wrong more often Giacomo."
No Solo, you're not getting off so easily. Do you agree to what I posted above about which monk fallacies I already disproved?
Then I'll let you know about where I believe I've been wrong so far. It was quite rare so far in this thread, believe me. (you could make it easier for me, though, by linking to my obviously wrong rules perception. They should be easy to spot since I admit them quite quickly).

Don't know about others, but I've been pointing out that base damage alone cannot carry you in melee; you have to have good damage from Str. too.

...you still do not seem to get it, and your next paragraph shows why...

2d10 = 11 damage on average. I have a barbarian who does this at level 7. Thus, we can see that you need good Str in order to do damage appropriate for your level.

Remember emeraldstreak who you made so much fun of without understanding any single thing of the point he was making?
The monk makes great use of STACKING from LARGER SIZE and items that boost his monk damage level (like the monk's belt). Since he has a higher base damage in the core game than any other medium-sized weapon, the 2d10 base damage translate to 6d8 damage from level 15 onwards. Check out the guide for the kind of damage done at lower levels.
And since he can not only do damage in combat, but also some other nasty tricks (including grapple, that is a viable tactics at levels 1-8), he will keep up quite well with the other melee classes.
Ah and yes, at level 7 the barbarian will do more damage than the monk. While the monk is stealthier and has way better defenses (in particular vs magic).

@Talic (responding only to the major bits)

Spoiler

Show

Point was in getting the +19 UMD to +30, which is what you need for AMF by scroll 100%.Now, unless I'm horribly mistaken, a cloak of chaisma and a heroism spell won't QUITE cover that.

You are horribly mistaken.
Level 19 monk. 11 ranks, +2 circumstance (MW tool), +2 synergy spellcraft, +2 synergy decipher script, +2 magical apitude feat, +3 skill focus feat, +1 luck stone, +2 morale bonus from heroism wand, +2 CHR bonus from Cloak of CHR+6, +3 competence from circlet of pesuasion. Tadaa. +30.
Will update the high-level joker monk accordingly.

Things such as hulking hurler push up ranged damage to healthy (or disgusting) levels.

Welcome to non-core country.

No, you forget what you've posted, and you misunderstand a great many portions of my post.I never said the guide would be superior. I said it would be a guide. Not the rubbish that you've made, which is not a guide, but a defense of a specific build, without reasoning for why it's superior to all other monk builds.

OK. I am eagerly awaiting it. A guide for a class made by a person who thinks that class is rubbish.

Alchemist's fire keeps that.

And has double the cost, plus suffers from the same sneak countermeasures.

and the cost isn't as prohibitive as you mistakenly overestimate it to be.

5 throws for 100gp total per round. That is, assuming 2 rounds only (and enemy dead, quite unrealistic) about 200gp per encounter, 800gp per day. Yes, way more expensive than what the joker monk consumes at those levels.

Further, you assume that your gonk build uses only enlarge every fight, but then speak of UMD, Shapechange, Animal shapes, and every other spell under the sun that you like. Tell me, what's the cost of using these, along with whatever half dozen spells you need for boosting the UMD to the level it needs to be while using them?

The morph stuff was used only for replies to morph cheese.
You can check and calculate the potential for how many spells the joker monk can cast in the guide.
Help: 1,000 1st level spells by level 10. It's enough to cover most stuff.

BlindSENSE for dragons, not sight. big difference.

Yes. Vs the sneaks. No vs the ability of the rogue to even get within the 30ft without the dragon taking countermeasures (like flying up or bringing concealment of its own).

Your exact words "thanks for making things up.
I showed how I didn't. Thus, your statement was made up. Please, if you're going to do this discussion, do it seriously.

But I do. Your words below at the end of your post (will mark them with **) actually suggest YOU do not take this discussion seriously.
That thing you refer to by now is so stale and unimportant, I am surprised you even bring it up (except for your hope that at least ONCE you may be right - but of course you are not, unless you put up, quote by quote, what each of us has said - but do not bother, it's not worth the effort).

Allow me to complete the story then... Again.

"complete". Now, that's a good laugh. Let me illucidate you on the powers of such creatures...

Barbed Devil | | Scorching Ray at will (2 rays)
That's it? What about...hold person, major image, greater teleport, unholy blight? Hmmm...could mean that flying wizard is not thaaaat safe, is he?
Dragon (blue, black, copper, gold, or green) | x | No other ranged ability
er....breath weapons? Spells? The adult black has 3rd level sorcerer casting, for instance). But it does not matter, the dragons can fly to the wizard easily.
Cauchemar Nightmare | x |
Well..it has faster flying speed than the wizard. Your point being?
Cloud Giant | | rock throwing (suboptimal attack form for giant)
But ouch how it hurts the overland flying wizard....(and no windwall to stop it...)
Colossal Monstrous Spider | | Web shoot or jump (both very short range)
Oh, in the area you encounter that spider (its lair, likely), the range of 50ft web and its reach are quite enough.
Devourer | | Short range status effect/debuff abilities
WHAT? Ray of Enfeeblement, Suggestion "come a little bit closer", confusion and SPECTRAL HAND (to make all its touch attacks usable at range). This is supposed to not hurt the wizard at range? Oh my.
Dread Wraith | x | None
It flies faster than the overlandflight wizard, and can emerge surprisingly out of solid walls. It does not even NEED ranged attacks.
Elder Air Elemental | x | Whirlwind
Yep, more than enough.
Elder Earth Elemental | | None
Yes, finally ONE opponent that the wizard can evade or "rain death from above" on.
Elder Fire Elemental | | None
Ditto.
Elder Water Elemental | | None
Read the kind of elemental again to know where it lairs. No chance for the wizard to evade.
Harpy Archer (example entry) | x | Low damage Ranged capabilities
LOW? Ach, this is a joke. It's a high-level, continuously faster flying archer with spell-like abilities. Of course it's a threat for our poor defenseless overland flying wizard.
Hezrou | | Chaos hammer (low-moderate damage, alignment dependent, suboptimal attack form)
Well, both chaos hammer and unholy blight affect all but chaotic evil wizards-not that likely. More importantly, the hezrou can reach the wizard via teleport and gaseous form.
Hill Giant Dire Wereboar (example entry) | | Rock Throwing (suboptimal attack form for giant)
Still ouchie. And difficult to protect against (remember, when flying, walls are difficult to cast, since most need a ground).
Retriever | | Eye Rays
12d6 damage as a free action at a 100ft (likely more than the wizard has as hp)? Count me in!
Stone Golem | | None
Do you truly think someone will place the golem (a wizard, most likely) where it can be outsmarted with a simple fly spell?
Hydra, pyro or cryo, 10 heads | | very short range breath weapon
And where will they be again? And what does swim speed tell you?
Troll Hunter (Example Entry) | | Low damage ranged attack
But it still hurts! OK, it can be cut down a bit with a wind wall- when the wizard keeps close enough to the ground to build that wall on, that is.
Hydra, 12 heads | | None
Swamp. Typical guardian monster with little room to outmaneouver. Yep.

As we can see, 1 spell (fly or overland flight) renders 1/3 of enemies on the list useless, and another 1/3 are forced to use lesser, weaker attacks. This isn't a "incomplete information". This is "misleading information used to support incorrect view". Your "random sampling" used 60% of the flying monsters and 7% of the non-flyers. This makes it inaccurate in supporting the non-validity of melee clerics. Happy to correct it for you, though.

As we can see, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. CR 11 encounters are tougher than you think, which apparently leads you also to the conclusion that the wizard is soooo uber, and the monk soooo useless. Also, melee clerics normally are not such a great idea, excepting in some very specific builds. An archer cleric is quite a good idea to do a combat build.

In this instance, "hide" is not used to mean "use the hide skill".
It is meant as "evade combat". A rogue that hides and snipes, or the like, is not retreating. A monk that hides, and does not attempt to re-engage is retreating.

And where exactly did I say that a monk who hid will not attempt to re-engage? That's just you making it up.

The same statement applies to the converse. If a rogue attempts to hide and disengage from combat, he is retreating. This is why it is not a double standard. The same standard (whether or not the PC continues to engage the enemy) applies to all.

OK. That's exactly my point.

This is why, again, you are wrong. Again, and again.

And this is where you misinterpret once again. Your mistake is simply that you see the monk as weak, so of course once he hides- it's for retreating!

And likely, will know no more or less. The wizard may have the perfect set of round/level buffs up at start of fight. But not likely. Let's not concern ourselves so much with unlikely maybes. This response, if taken in context with the statement preceding it (which you seem to have difficulty doing), indicates that monks will not have more than 1 round hidden to buff. And, by your previous usage of Heroism to guarantee your wand use, that would be the buff. Thus, hiding to activate items which break hide is something that works once. Which, your statement suggested the possibility of multiple round buffs. That was untrue.

Hmmm. Let me explain it this way: monk has excellent ways of noticing enemy before enemy notices him. Now...what do you think he'll do? Buff next to the enemy? Or retr...er...hide far enough to activate stuff (say, also, behind a door or hill) and then return completely buffed?
You, like some others, completely blank out the advantage that good spot and listen give to you.

Unless you factor in traps, which retain ambush advantage over the monk, which cannot find them... Or creatures with special sensory abilities, such as blindsense, tremorsense, blindsight, and the like. All of these reduce the monk's chances in core of hiding successfully long enough to engage.

All of these abilites, funnily, are 1) not present that often and 2) only extend to certain ranges, beyond which the monk may already notice the opponent. And traps? As lord_khaine has shown repeatedly, the monk is second to none (OK, maybe bards or even barbarians) to deal with traps.

Tactical initiative advantage is a IRL reality which evaporates when you get to monsters that can keep invisibility up all the time, or have other ways of sensing foes.

The only monster I know if that is likely invisbible most of the time is the pixie. Many others can do that (or use concealment besides) when they are AWARE of imminent attack.
Having a high initiative IS extremely powerful.

More expensive than what? Your much lauded Divine Power?? Hardly, As for seeing invisibility, yes, there is that option. However, bringing up it's own concealment will impact the rogue no more than the monk, and the monk is still having to bypass the entire AC, whereas the rogue gets to bypass armor, shield, and natural armor. Again, your expertise in telling half of a story is unmatched, and oddly enough, the half you tell is always the half that benefits your argument. Convenient, that.

Unfortunately for you, you do not even get half right.
Anyhow, the acidrogue/monk comparison has been done exhaustingly above already. Believe it or not. Or let's do a duel and you'll be surprised how quickly sneaks evaporate to nothing.

Or Fighter, or Wizard, or Sorceror, or Cleric, or any other base class. The complete series is not designed for individual classes, but rather themes. Thus, you will not find a book designed for a specific class in 3.5.

Hmmm....there seem to be an awful lot added to the spellusing classes, in comparison to the non-spellusing classes, wouldn't you agree?

I do not accept FAQ when it is contradicted by SRD.

Well, luckily it is not!

As for the entry, gaining one additional attack per round at your highest base attack bonus, the wording is identical to haste, speed weapons, and the like. Those are not allowed. By extension, these would not be either. In other words:

Flurry of blows is a special ability that grants monks extra attacks. (SRD: Flurry of Blows)
Characters may only gain extra attacks in a grapple from high base attack bonus. (SRD, Grapple)
Flurry of blows is an extra attack that is gained from another source, different than an extra attack granted by a high base attack bonus. (SRD, Flurry of Blows)
Thus, flurry of blows does not apply in a grapple.

No, you get this wrong. It's there already in the SRD, and the FAQ clarifies all remaining doubts there may be. The monk can flurry his grapple checks. His flurry is a modified BASE attack roll. So yes, he can flurry to his "heart's content". What is your gain in denying something as clear as that? Why do you hate the monk class so much?

And you've specifically shown all of the things that the concealment negates. All of those things, which the party also uses. Thus, this is not a good team tactic. It is a one vs. many tactic. D&D does not work this way.

Oh, but it does, since it provides so MANY ways to provide area concealment, already at low levels. There is probably one area concealment spell per spell level around, arcane or divine. So it appears to me that, yes, it is suggested it should be used in group tactics. Of course, though, not stupidly. Like the black tentacles not cast to also grapple your comrades. It requires good teamplay, though, to make FULL use of it.

**But it would have been wrong. As I said, I am a busy person, moreso than usual right now. I skim the posts in this section. I do not analyze the entire thread in depth. If I don't respond to something, 90% of the time, it is because I did not read it. I don't follow this post religiously. No offense, but it is really not worth my time, which is strained enough as it.**

Now this is really a very, very desperate way to say "Look I have been wrong all the time, I did not even read your explanations enough to back up my arguments".

I find that it grows increasingly tiresome showing you every day how you are wrong, only to have you misinterpret, misapply, misunderstand, or outright ignore any valid argument that is levied against you, and then call for apologies or concessions when you think you find a flaw in someone else's argument (which, more often than not, is a result of your own misunderstanding of the post).

No, actually, what is tiresome for you (and after your hundreds of lines to try, once again, in vain, to disprove what I say or that my monk build is "rubbish") is that you are proven wrong, again and again. And that you commit so many outstanding errors that it is fascinating that you do not post here "sorry, I was tired, I made MANY MISTAKES and I will take a good look at the guide again. And AFTER THAT I'll make some serious comments."

Feel free to reply to this however you wish, but I will NOT be responding to any more such comments about how you want acknowledgment or concessions from me. If you feel you are right, and that is not enough for you, then it reveals a problem with your own security, and I am under no obligation to stroke anyone's ego.

No, you apparently feel no obligation to admit that you have been proven wrong. Which is sad, because this way you cannot learn.

**Fact of the matter is, I don't care very much about any of the following:

the monk class
D&D in general
Your feelings as to what attention you think I should afford you
What concessions you feel I should make to you

I place a rather small amount of weight to all of the above entries. My real life takes priority, and my enjoyment of the game takes priority to showing you how you're wrong. This is not meant to be an insult, rather, a fix to the misunderstanding you have on my statements on how busy I am, and how I don't place enough concern over this thread to justify the level of attention you're asking for, nor do I ever intend to, nor will statements like the one you made above change that. My statements in this thread are on my time, and my terms, and if you find them unsatisfactory, you can feel free to ignore them. I won't particularly be concerned over that, either.**

OK, I must say - that is quite a tough statement to stomach. You come here into this thread where I invite people to comment on both some - at length described general optimisation ideas of the monk class - as well as a full level 1-20 build. And you post walls of text making wrong statements, unfounded criticisms, out-of-proportion blown arguments, wrong rules perceptions. You even participate in a playtesting for the joker monk!
And now you are trying to tell me that it's not all a big issue for you? That you do not care about the monk class (have fun guys, reading HIS planned guide)?
Well, I must say, it's up to you to continue to comment here, but I kindly ask you to see the error of your ways... It definitely is not an insult to me, although it can be seen as you insulting yourself with this.

Anyhow, arguing this way is a highly elablorate way to avoid one simple thing: to admit THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WRONG about your
- preset ideas of alleged monk class weakness and
- your first assessment and rejection of my monk build idea.

On a side note, now that that final misconception has been addressed, there are virtually no rules for the purchase and sale of magic items. Only value of those items. If you look at what core sourcebook you find magical items, you'll see why. Such items, while primarily intended for player use, are for DM control. The books never give a player the right to purchase anything magical, and, while they list guidelines (not rules) for the maximum value of an item available by city, the DM has sole purview over the purchase of items. As partial charge wands are impossible to make, and rely on additional actions to create them, it makes sense that they will be less common than fully charged wands. It also makes sense that if an NPC found the item good enough to use 35 charges, he'll likely find it good enough to use 15 more.

Side note has been dealt with by now.
Higher level characters are fair game for partial wands (DMG p.199).
Level 1-20 characters will have to buy fully charged wands.
And of course, characters can buy and sell standard magic items as they see fit. To restrict them doing it may be highly atmospheric, but deviates from the balance set by the DD3.5 rules. Do you think characters should only get random treasure which they will be never able to sell?
And of course a DM may "rule 0" a monk to only get bracers of defense and amulets of mighty fists, while around him the rogue gets the best items to optimise and synergise with his sneak and other class abilities. But this would hardly be fair.

That's it for now. Will respond to the other posts that bring up new stuff in the next post.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Do you agree to what I posted above about which monk fallacies I already disproved?
Then I'll let you know about where I believe I've been wrong so far.

I guess we won't get anywhere then because I disagree.

It was quite rare so far in this thread, believe me. (you could make it easier for me, though, by linking to my obviously wrong rules perception. They should be easy to spot since I admit them quite quickly).

Sorry, but I'm not going to do your work for you, however, if you insist on being linked to an error that you were quick to admit, I believe we could start with the phrase "characters being able to buy partially charged wands after character creation."

Remember emeraldstreak who you made so much fun of without understanding any single thing of the point he was making?

Flaming people tends to make people ignore your opinions.
Among other things.

The monk makes great use of STACKING from LARGER SIZE and items that boost his monk damage level (like the monk's belt).
Since he has a higher base damage in the core game than any other medium-sized weapon, the 2d10 base damage translate to 6d8 damage from level 15 onwards.

6d8 damage is still an average of 27 damage. Do you think this is enough at level 15?

And remember, you get this damage from buffing yourself. What's to stop a fighter from buffing himself and exceeding you in damage?

Check out the guide for the kind of damage done at lower levels.

And is it enough to be competative at lower levels, Giacomo?
Your level 3 monk does 1d8+2 damage englarged. this is an average of 6.5 points of damage. Meanwhile, a fighter's doing 2d6+4+1 damage with his greatsword, for an average of 12 damage per swing.

Also, while reading, noticed this little gem:

UMD at +9 now means the joker get off his wands with a 50% chance. Which is a solid thing

Bestow Curse
Necromancy
Level: Clr 3, Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Creature touched
Duration: Permanent
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

You place a curse on the subject. Choose one of the following three effects.

-6 decrease to an ability score (minimum 1).
-4 penalty on attack rolls, saves, ability checks, and skill checks.
Each turn, the target has a 50% chance to act normally; otherwise, it takes no action.

Do you consider someone under the effects of Bestow Curse to have a "solid chance" at acting normal?

Ah and yes, at level 7 the barbarian will do more damage than the monk.

Actually, as has been pointed out, a level 1 barbarian.
Without power attack or rage.

And a fighter outclasses you as well, it appears.

You are horribly mistaken.
Level 19 monk. 11 ranks, +2 circumstance (MW tool), +2 synergy spellcraft, +2 synergy decipher script, +2 magical apitude feat, +3 skill focus feat, +1 luck stone,+2 morale bonus from heroism wand, +2 CHR bonus from Cloak of CHR+6, +3 competence from circlet of pesuasion. Tadaa. +30.

Magic is not electricity.

1. You get a +3 bonus from a CoC +6.
2. You are spending two valuable feat slots on subpar feats.
3. To get the synergy from Decipher Script, you have to have 5 ranks in it.

The monk’s class skills (and the key ability for each skill) are Balance (Dex), Climb (Str), Concentration (Con), Craft (Int), Diplomacy (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Hide (Dex), Jump (Str), Knowledge (arcana) (Int), Knowledge (religion) (Int), Listen (Wis), Move Silently (Dex), Perform (Cha), Profession (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), Swim (Str), and Tumble (Dex).

As monks do not have Decipher Script as a class skill, that means you will have to spend 10 skill points on it.

Where are you getting these skill points? As far as I can tell, your monk gets 7 skill points per level, so you'll have to spend an entire level's worth of skill points and then some in order to get that synergy bonus from the DS.

I hope you update the high level build accordingly.