Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

[Rutee]

Talic seems to have a usable line of reasoning for a UMD tool. Of course, by the logic of "It's up ot the GM to disallow it", you can say "I wish the game was over" and succeed, with Wish. RAW isn't as useful as common sense.

There are no listings for these specific items in the RAW. But there IS a listing for MW tool, and that is what's being used. The descriptive text? It's there to satisfy plausibility, not legality.

If in your games, commoners may begin orgies of grappling to move at supersonic speeds, that's your business, but the rest of us will save pure RAW for a world of silliness.

[Talic]

Talic seems to have a usable line of reasoning for a UMD tool. Of course, by the logic of "It's up ot the GM to disallow it", you can say "I wish the game was over" and succeed, with Wish. RAW isn't as useful as common sense.


If in your games, commoners may begin orgies of grappling to move at supersonic speeds, that's your business, but the rest of us will save pure RAW for a world of silliness.

...Done yet?

Now, if we're done comparing the creation of a tool for a skill to Wish spells to end the game, commoner rail guns, and other such things, would you care to reformulate an argument based on the specifics of THIS RAW point, rather than any other abuses that might exist?

Because judging this specific point by the qualities of another is... ya know... Straw man.

EDIT: I will add this. While a world of pure RAW may be silly, a world with NO RAW is infinitely moreso. And since I hardly consider you to be the be all authority on what is and isn't acceptable in the RAW, let's stick to the common ground, the RAW, for rules debating on whether something is allowed, mmk? And if you wish to play something different in YOUR home games, that is up to you, and more power to you. But such personal changes have almost no bearing here.

I believe the subforum you're looking for is homebrew. It's a couple lines down. Have fun with that.

[Rutee]

I pointed out that this tool you have is mostly fine, didn't I? I simply attacked the reasoning "The GM has to disallow it, not 'The GM has to allow it,'" as well as "Because it is RAW, it is automatically Holy and will be allowed in all games, as well as make complete sense."

Because those happen to be filthy lies.

[Talic]

I pointed out that this tool you have is mostly fine, didn't I? I simply attacked the reasoning "The GM has to disallow it, not 'The GM has to allow it,'" as well as "Because it is RAW, it is automatically Holy and will be allowed in all games, as well as make complete sense."

Because those happen to be filthy lies.

They also happen to be things I did not say. Please restrict your comments to me to things I actually say, mmk?

EDIT: Incidentally, you pointed out that it is technically usable, and then proceeded to compare it to the commoner rail gun and the overpowered wish, with absolutely no basis, reasoning, or logic for doing so. Not quite the altruistic concession you're trying to make it out to be.

Your line of reasoning has all the logical reasoning of:

Clouds are white. Clouds are big.
Marshmallows are white. Therefore, they must be big also.


In other words, just because one thing isn't perfect in RAW (which there are logical inconsistencies, I grant you), does not mean that you can apply the argument for those things to EVERYTHING you don't like in RAW. You must provide a concrete reasoning behind each point on why it and it specifically is unbalanced, broken, or too outlandish to be believable.

And bear in mind, when discussing unbelievable, we're discussing a world where 200 foot long lizards breath fire and men in robes can turn golems into cupcakes.

[Oslecamo]

This is why you're on ignore. Fantasy /doesn't/ automatically remove all semblance of common sense for game mechanics. It removes common sense for good reasons for the story, metaphor, parable, or other related things. That was why I said "If all you have is RAW, you got nothing".

Then what I'm allowed to use? Everybody has a diferent definition of common sense. That's why we have rules. You think martial artists should make cities pop up from the ground with pure body skill. I don't. And I believe there are a lot of people who would agree with either of us.

This is why we use RAW. When the players start discussing if something's possible or not, they go to the rules, and the one who's wrong sucks it. If none of the players likes the rule, then it's time for an houserule.

I'm not alone in the UMD tool matter. There are other people wich also suport it, and there are people who say it's "nonsense".


So I ask of you, why does your definition of "common sense" it's better than ours?

We can spend the next month discussing if an UMD tool makes sense or not, or we can use RAW.

And since this is a theorotical study of the RAW monk to fight the RAW wizard, then it's kinda unfair that the monk can't use RAW to improve himself.

[Rutee]

They also happen to be things I did not say. Please restrict your comments to me to things I actually say, mmk?

It would also be within the DM's purview to alter the weight or cost of specific items, but that would be a deviation from RAW. Thus, it has no place here. I will not make any other statements about this, as it is completely irrelevant to the discussion in this thread.

As is, there is a listed cost and weight for an item that provides a +2 to a skill. It is up to the DM to disallow some skills to be used, if no common sense item can be found, or if another item exists in the book (such as Alchemy)

The crystal is made up, true. It is an idea which encompasses a descriptive or fluff reasoning for the crunch, or mechanical benefit, of using a generic tool for UMD. The ability to use it is there, unless disallowed. As this isn't a discussion of what isn't allowed in your home game, but what IS allowed by RAW. As such, you're targeting the wrong section of the rules with your arguments.

Don't you know we're recording this stuff? Sure, I exaggerated your point, but you are clearly exalting the RAW here.

In other words, just because one thing isn't perfect in RAW (which there are logical inconsistencies, I grant you), does not mean that you can apply the argument for those things to EVERYTHING you don't like in RAW. You must provide a concrete reasoning behind each point on why it and it specifically is unbalanced, broken, or too outlandish to be believable.

No, it means "It's RAW" is not sufficient qualification for believability. The onus is on you, if something within RAW doesn't seem to make sense, to explain it. Your tool was explained in such a way as to be believable. It would remain this way whether or not it was allowed by RAW or not.

And bear in mind, when discussing unbelievable, we're discussing a world where 200 foot long lizards breath fire and men in robes can turn golems into cupcakes.

It's quite a feat to be less believable then any of that, isn't it?

[Griffin131]

Don't you know we're recording this stuff? Sure, I exaggerated your point, but you are clearly exalting the RAW here.

Exaggerating his point and then claiming he actually said those things is like me saying that you believe Core 3e is 100% balanced.

[Rutee]

Perhaps you can explain to me the similarity. I've never argued that 3rd ed is balanced. He is in fact exalting the RAW as being more important then the IC justification of that RAW.

[Kurald Galain]

...so, can we get back to talking about monks, mmmyes?

[Greg]

We debated it in the group I run, and thought of a book listing various spell completion triggers. Not that having it is enough, but actually reading it from time to time. This does work on the Artificer who wanted it, as he has less time to spend on crafting items.

[Aquillion]

...so, can we get back to talking about monks, mmmyes?

Because this digression has derailed a useful and productive discussion of the monk's effectiveness?

The fact that the discussion gets derailed into things like that is indicative of what a weak class the monk is overall. A wizard or even a rogue doesn't have to depend on one debatable interpretation of a single line in the SRD to maintain their effectiveness; sure, people argue over what exactly you can (or should be able to) do with PAO or diplomacy, but even banning those things completely still leaves the classes useful.

Whereas monks have to depend on a series of debatable interpretations of the rules just to remain mildly effective, to the point where the entire thread gets derailed into it. That's not a good sign.

[Talic]

Perhaps you can explain to me the similarity. I've never argued that 3rd ed is balanced. He is in fact exalting the RAW as being more important then the IC justification of that RAW.

WRONG.

IC justification has total and complete bearing in any serious D&D game.

However, when discussing what is or isn't possible, there needs to be a common standard, as everyone's definitions of "reasonable justification" vary.

Thus, in discussions here, where many groups with many beliefs and many opinions gather, in here, RAW holds sway. It is the baseline for what is and isn't possible. If you don't like that, I'm truly sorry, but when discussing things of this nature, it remains the only fair way to remove personal opinion and bias from the topic. Your comments are so full of both as to be completely useless in a serious discussion of the topic.

In other words, this particular topic, whether the monk can or cannot do something, has nothing to do with your opinion. Now, in your games, that opinion holds much sway, as it should. But "in your games" is not sufficient basis to argue a point.

RAW is the law. Unless the law is found to be unjust, it holds sway in these parts. Thus, the onus is on YOU to show that what is in the book is wrong, and why. If you actually expect to be taken seriously in any way, shape, or form, by all means, do that. Otherwise, let it drop.

EDIT: As for the similarity, if you exaggerate my point, it is not my point any longer. It is a distorted view that you have created in an effort to make my actual view look foolish. You make the distorted, inaccurate view look foolish, and that means mine is as well, even though it is, in actuality, not my point. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi again,

wow, lots of 4E and masterwork tool discussions.
4E should not have a place here, so pls discuss it in different threads (until, that is, a 4E monk class comes up )
The masterwork tool thing is clearly set in the rules. If the monkhaters so far have overlooked it, it is strange imo to now make a big fuss about it (I even got the idea from Reel on, Love, who is known on these boards to be highly critical of my UMD builds...)

Now before suggesting some ideas how cenghiz' level 10 encounter of 7 sphinxes is going to play out, first on Solo's two issues
1) will the monk be left vastly behind in damage-dealing behind rogue, fighter and barbarian?
2) will he be able to outwrestle a cleric with the STR domain?

1) The monk can do enough damage to let him contribute roughly the same damage eventually as the fighter and the rogue, and be only a bit behind the barbarian.
The secret lies in increasing the base damage of his unarmed strike with INA feat, monk's belt and size increase(s).
At level 15, this will result in 6d8 base damage.
To illustrate what it means: 6d8 is roughly the same a rogue gets in sneak bonus damage and WILL get multiplied in a critical, whereas the rogue's damage will not.It will also apply in ALL situations, not just a sneaking situation. Since a (damage-specialising) monk usually focuses on STR, and the rogue on DEX, the higher STR bonus would match the weapon base damage the rogue has. And the monk has two more attacks per round in a flurry (note that both could take two-weapon fighting feat tree for more attacks; and the monk would apply his full STR damage bonus to the secondary weapon, not only 1/2).
For the fighter and barbarian to even match that kind of damage by the monk and rogue, they need power attack and a TH-Weapon. AND a quite large "to hit" advantage to equate the lower base weapon damage. A barbarian has his greater rage, the fighter has his feats. Both have 4 more BAB at this level (though two less no. of attacks vs the monk). So this equates around 10-20 damage in addition to their base weapon. Once the monk (or rogue) use divine power to equate the BAB disadvantage, this advantage narrows or is gone altogether (of course, the fighter, barbarian and rogue have some more money to jack up the enchantment of their weapon, but note that the monk's belt and wand of divine power are only 34,000 gold- not that much when you wish to raise your enhancement from, say, +5 to +7)
Now, of course damage output is not the only thing in combat - the fighter in particular shines here due to his many feats. But once you argue in terms of damage output alone, the monk is a far cry from weak.
At levels 1-10, when monk's belt is not yet available per the DMG wbl recommendations, fighter and barbarian are more ahead, I'd say, though, but it is at these levels that grappling is more viable and can help the monk keep contributing.
A big advantage is also that the unarmed damage applies in a grapple, where normally any opponent who grapples is confined to either his claw/hand damage (a quite low damage die, even for big monsters). This leads over to issue 2)

2) Monk vs STR-domain cleric in wrestling.
For a cleric in this case, MAD is in issue. The cleric needs STR, DEX (remember the enlarge problem?) and WIS for his spells. The monk only STR.
At 28-point buy, the following ensues:
Monk specialised in grappling can take half-orc race (since he gets unarmed strike and improved grapple as bonus feats). The cleric MUST take human to even start competing to grapple at lower levels. And of course he cannot take a STR of 18, since he needs a DEX of 15 to keep the improved grapple feat and some positive WIS. Well, he could actually do it like this (and ONLY like this):
STR 18, DEX 15, CON 8, INT 8, WIS 12, CHR 8. But then he'd only be able to cast 4th level spells with divine power in case he got a +2 WIS item by level 7. The DEX needs to be put at 15 at the start, since the stat gain has to go to WIS at level 4 to be even able to cast 3rd level spells.
The half-orc monk would still be ahead this way with his STR 20. (or the cleric could also go half-orc, and be unable to even compete in grapple until level 3). The cleric would also seriously hamper his turn undead ability this way.

Now, the advantage of the grappling cleric with the STR domain is that he gets enlarge as a (domain) spell once per day, and the STR boost for 1 round equal to his Cleric level. Meanwhile, the monk needs to devote quite a bit of his wbl for enlarge spell effects (note though, that the cleric NEEDS to buy 4,000 gold +2 WIS item).

Plus, from level 7, divine power comes up more regularly and rightuous might as well from level 9. A clear advantage to the cleric.

HOWEVER, the monk by level 9 has no more flurry penalty and one more grapple attempt than the cleric. He also has a higher grappling damage (his base die is higher).
So the monk retains imo a slight advantage - for 1 round per day, though, the cleric is ahead (due to his domain power of higher STR).
1 round.

Is that enough to abandon a great many things a cleric could otherwise do (bonus spells for higher level, a stat combination you'll not like, less hp?)

Probably not.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

For the fighter and barbarian to even match that kind of damage by the monk and rogue, they need power attack and a TH-Weapon. AND a quite large "to hit" advantage to equate the lower base weapon damage.

6d8 averages out to 27 damage.

Actually, a Fighter with a +4 Greatsword, some of the Weapon Specialization feats (+2, +4), and 25 Str(18 base +3 level increase + 4 item) deals 4+2+4+7*1.5=20.5 damage
His greatsword is a 2d6 weapon, so that's an additional 2*3.5 damage right there.
An unenlarged fighter, therefore, does 27.5 damage easily.

If enlarged like your monk he gets an additional d6 to weapon damage, and +2 to strength.
This results in and additional 3.5 + 1.5 = 5 points of damage. 32.5 points of damage total.

Power Attack has not been factored in.

To hit: 4 (Sword) +2 (WF, GWF) +7 (Str) +15 (Bab) = +28

For a cleric in this case, MAD is in issue. The cleric needs STR, DEX (remember the enlarge problem?) and WIS for his spells. The monk only STR.

And Wis for AC, and Dex for AC. Or are your grappling monks easy to hit?

[Talic]

As Solo pointed out, dice have very little to do with damage. Static damage is the primary source of damage. Thus, anytime you can get a static +5 to damage, you get more than if you got +1d8 damage.

[Solo]

And remember, Gaicomo, dice can be fickle. Your 6d8 could as easily give you 6 damage as it could give you 27, or 48.

[Sir Giacomo]

6d8 averages out to 27 damage.

Actually, a Fighter with a +4 Greatsword, some of the Weapon Specialization feats (+2, +4), and 25 Str(18 base +3 level increase + 4 item) deals 4+2+4+7*1.5=20.5 damage
His greatsword is a 2d6 weapon, so that's an additional 2*3.5 damage right there.
An unenlarged fighter, therefore, does 27.5 damage easily.

If enlarged like your monk he gets an additional d6 to weapon damage, and +2 to strength.
This results in and additional 3.5 + 1.5 = 5 points of damage. 32.5 points of damage total.

First of all, the 1.5 multiplyer only applies to the STR, not the spc. or enhance bonus. The fighter with a TH-weapon will add 1.5 of his STR bonus to the damage.
So at level 15, enlarged, he'll do:
3d6 (base) + 12 (STR bonus damage) + 4 (enhance) +4 (wp. specialisation) = 31 avg

Well, since you added the STR bonus to it, a monk specialised in damage-dealing will have a STR of exactly the same extent (note that your STR item AND the +4 weapon are more expensive than the monk's expense for monk's belt and divine power - to make up the monk adds a lvl 3 pearl of power and rod of lesser extend to receive a +3 enhancement bonus from greater magic weapon casting for 24 hours); plus the monk gets +6 enhancement vs the fighter's +4, so actually he has higher STR than the fighter).

6d8 (base) + 9 (STR bonus damage) +3 (enhance) = 39 average.

So that puts the monk ahead by +8 damage per hit.

Power Attack has not been factored in.

To hit: 4 (Sword) +2 (WF, GWF) +7 (Str) +15 (Bab) = +28

Now, let us see. The fighter is behind in damage output by 8. So he'll need to deduct with power attack already his complete BAB advantage. However, his BAB advantage is gone thanks to divine power of the monk - the only thing remaining, therefore, are the bonuses from +2 greater weapon focus (note that the monk can spend one feat to get weapon focus as well!) and the one better enhancement bonus.
So the monk stays slightly ahead in damage.

NOW factor in that the monk has TWO more attacks from flurry, AND could use feats to have two-weapon-fighting tree (that a TH-Attacking fighter or babarian could not choose), and then the monk actually outdamages the fighter by far.

This is counterbalanced by the fact that without the divine power (7 rounds only) buff, the monk is somewhat behind in damage output (though not much, he'll retain TWO more attacks at level 15, and one more for the rest of the non-epic levels).

Do you now start to see what it means to have such a high base damage AND a higher number of attacks?

And Wis for AC, and Dex for AC. Or are your grappling monks easy to hit?

AC does not matter that much in a grapple, as you well know. Plus, for the record, the 28-point buy half orc monk could well look like this:
STR 20, DEX 12, CON 10, INT 6, WIS 14, CHR 6. Nets +3 to touch AC, more than the cleric gets (with his DEX 15).
By outside attackers, both monk and cleric lose DEX bonus to AC, but the monk retains his WIS bonus to AC.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Giacomo, I have a proposal. i will build a level 6 cleric. you will use a level 6 monk. We will compare our statistics.

In order to prevent item whoring, let us suppose that these characters spent a lot of their wealth at level 5, and had only 1000-2000 remaining at the end. Thus, with the 4000 change at level 6, they have between 5000-6000 gold. Let us say 5500 gold.

What would your monk look like?

[Solo]

Do you now start to see what it means to have such a high base damage AND a higher number of attacks?

And at a lower BAB, I'd like to see those attacks hit. Or do you DP and EP while nothing bad happens to your monk?

Well, since you added the STR bonus to it, a monk specialised in damage-dealing will have a STR of exactly the same extent (note that your STR item AND the +4 weapon are more expensive than the monk's expense for monk's belt and divine power

Not at all. The fighter UMD's a scroll of GMW.

And I suppose your STR focused monk will have enough stats for Dex, Con, Wis, and be able to UMD?

First of all, the 1.5 multiplyer only applies to the STR, not the spc. or enhance bonus.

I know, that's how I calculated it. Perhaps my formatting is putting you off?

3d6 (base) + 12 (STR bonus damage) + 4 (enhance) +4 (wp. specialisation) = 31 avg

No.
GWS gets you a +4, WS gets you a +2. They stack. So 33 total.

AC does not matter that much in a grapple, as you well know.

Really? You don't want to avoid being grappled by someone/hit by someone in grapple?

Plus, for the record, the 28-point buy half orc monk could well look like this:
STR 20, DEX 12, CON 10, INT 6, WIS 14, CHR 6. Nets +3 to touch AC, more than the cleric gets (with his DEX 15).

I take it the half orc monk won't be UMDing Enlarge Person or Divine Power or anything?

Seeing as he gets 2 skill points per level and a -2 cha mod, I guess not.

That's good, I suppose. While you're UMDing on the battlefield, you could get charged for MASSIVE DAMAGE.

Now, let us see. The fighter is behind in damage output by 8. So he'll need to deduct with power attack already his complete BAB advantage. However, his BAB advantage is gone thanks to divine power of the monk - the only thing remaining, therefore, are the bonuses from +2 greater weapon focus

And so you plan to spend 2 rounds buffing?

(note that the monk can spend one feat to get weapon focus as well!) and the one better enhancement bonus.

Between the UMD aiding feats, you mean?

[Nebo_]

(until, that is, a 4E monk class comes up )

No. The 4e monk won't suck, there will be no need to argue with you about it because the designers will have learned from their past mistakes. ie, the 3.5 monk.

I'd like to add that in the comparison between Solo's fighter and Giacomo's monk the fighter is one round ahead of the monk.

First round:
Fighter charges; he may make one attack
Monk casts Enlarge Person

Second Round:
Fighter full attacks
Monk charges; he may make one attack

Continue until the encounter is over.

See how the fighter doesn't need to waste actions fail so hard it hurts?

[Solo]

No. The 4e monk won't suck, there will be no need to argue with you about it because the designers will have learned from their past mistakes. ie, the 3.5 monk.

I'd like to add that in the comparison between Solo's fighter and Giacomo's monk the fighter is one round ahead of the monk.

First round:
Fighter charges he may make one attack
Monk casts Enlarge Person

Second Round:
Fighter full attacks
Monk charges he may make one attack

No, the monk has to UMD Divine Power as well.

He gets to attack on the third round.

[Sir Giacomo]

No. The 4e monk won't suck, there will be no need to argue with you about it because the designers will have learned from their past mistakes. ie, the 3.5 monk.

I'd like to add that in the comparison between Solo's fighter and Giacomo's monk the fighter is one round ahead of the monk.

First round:
Fighter charges he may make one attack
Monk casts Enlarge Person

Second Round:
Fighter full attacks
Monk charges he may make one attack

Continue until the encounter is over.

See how the fighter doesn't need to waste actions fail so hard it hurts?

Well Nebo, this is exactly why I cannot take your posts seriously - they always oversimplify and distort the situation so as to make the most flashy, funny impression (all with the intent to ridicule the monk).

Why in your scenarion would the monk enlarge and the fighter not? How does in your scenario the monk need to charge when the fighter has already closed in to full attack?

My calculations above show the monk under certain circumstances even outdamages the fighter. In fact, the fighter should AVOID situations where the monk can flurry against him (so he should rather eiter attack from a distance, OR use some flyby attack/spring attack tactics).

- Giacomo

[Solo]

You know, Giacomo, you have spend a lot of time and resources* to slightly surpass the damage of an unoptimized fighter.

Even if you win, you still fail.

*Well, less resources if you use that half orc with 2 sp/level and -2 cha, because you won't be UMDing anything with that one.

[Sir Giacomo]

Giacomo, I have a proposal. i will build a level 6 cleric. you will use a level 6 monk. We will compare our statistics.

In order to prevent item whoring, let us suppose that these characters spent a lot of their wealth at level 5, and had only 1000-2000 remaining at the end. Thus, with the 4000 change at level 6, they have between 5000-6000 gold. Let us say 5500 gold.

What would your monk look like?

Hmmm...so after you have seen that at level 15 with the usual buffs or wbl stuff the monk is ahead now you wish to create a level 6 scenario where a caster class will get an advantage.

Hmmm.

Letussee.
Half-orc monk.
STR 23 (18 +2 racial, +2 size, +1 stat gain), DEX 12, CON 10, INT 6, WIS 10, CHR 6.
Permanently enlarged at 10th level for 3,100 gp (3,000 for permanency, 100 for enlarge)
2,325 for large magic spiked chain +1. 75 gp for mundane equipment.
AC 11 (-1 size, +1 DEX, +1 monk)
Feats: Improved Unarmed strike, Improved Grapple, ExWpProf-Spiked chain, Combat Reflexes, Blind-Fight, Improved Natural Attack, Improved Trip

Attack (with chain): +11, damage 2d6+10, trip mod: +14
Grapple: +18 (or flurry +17/+17), damage 3d6+6
Skills (maxed): Move silently, listen.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Hmmm...so after you have seen that at level 15 with the usual buffs or wbl stuff the monk is ahead now you wish to create a level 6 scenario where a caster class will get an advantage.

Actually, if you will look carefully, I posted that post at the same time as you posted you "level 15 uber monk".

As nebo will attest, I came up with the idea of a level 6 challenge an hour ago, because it was a level at which many campaigns took place at, and magic item whoring could not come into play too much.

I demand an apology.

[Nebo_]

Well Nebo, this is exactly why I cannot take your posts seriously - they always oversimplify and distort the situation so as to make the most flashy, funny impression (all with the intent to ridicule the monk).

Why in your scenarion would the monk enlarge and the fighter not? How does in your scenario the monk need to charge when the fighter has already closed in to full attack?

The Fighter does not enlarge because he is capable of doing decent damage without doing so. He still outdamages the monk.

I'll freely admit that the monk doesn't need to charge, but why wouldn't he? It's a fee +2 to attack. Moving and attacking still only gets the one attack.

My calculations above show the monk under certain circumstances even outdamages the monk.

Really? The monk out damages the monk? Incredible!

In fact, the fighter should AVOID situations where the monk can flurry against him (so he should rather eiter attack from a distance, OR use some flyby attack/spring attack tactics).

- Giacomo

You really seem to be under the impression that the two are fighting with each other. We're talking practical optimisation here, not arena fighting. You're supposed to be proving that the monk is a valuable member of the team, not a PvP monster.

[Sir Giacomo]

You know, Giacomo, you have spend a lot of time and resources* to slightly surpass the damage of an unoptimized fighter.

Even if you win, you still fail.

*Well, less resources if you use that half orc with 2 sp/level and -2 cha, because you won't be UMDing anything with that one.

Well, Solo, I must admit I hardly ever saw such a strange way of admitting that you were proven wrong. "Even if you win, you still fail" - just wow.

What kind of resources does the monk sacrifice? "unoptimized fighter" ? Yes, because he used the full 4 weapon spc feats to increase his melee damage.
And of course even a 2 skill pt/lvl monk could raise UMD ,take the two relevant feats at higher levels to get +5, and do quite well with his wbl.
The above levl 15 monk used up around 25% of his wbl to do that great damage output and 1 buff round. Yes, that's truly "a lot of time and resources".

And, btw, looking at the current level 15 joker monk build, you'll see that his damage output is not that far behind that of the level 15 half-orc STR-focused monk build.

- Giacomo

[Solo]

Well, Solo, I must admit I hardly ever saw such a strange way of admitting that you were proven wrong. "Even if you win, you still fail" - just wow.

yes, using massive amounts of resources to squeak past a low powered class can generally be considered failing.

Where's my apology?

What kind of resources does the monk sacrifice?

Skill points into UMD, money into UMD, feats into UMD....

"unoptimized fighter" ? Yes, because he used the full 4 weapon spc feats to increase his melee damage.

I have always heard that weapon specialization feats were a waste of time.

And of course even a 2 skill pt/lvl monk could raise UMD ,take the two relevant feats at higher levels to get +5, and do quite well with his wbl.

And how does this monk of yours scout and fulfil the other roles you said a monk was good at?

[quote[The above levl 15 monk used up around 25% of his wbl to do that great damage output and 1 buff round. Yes, that's truly "a lot of time and resources".[/quote]
And the fighter only has a +4 weapon.

And, btw, looking at the current level 15 joker monk build, you'll see that his damage output is not that far behind that of the level 15 half-orc STR-focused monk build.

Neither is the fighter.

Good job, after all your work, you are about at good as a run of the mill fighter.

And where's my apology?

[Sir Giacomo]

The Fighter does not enlarge because he is capable of doing decent damage without doing so. He still outdamages the monk.

Yes, continue to maintain that even will all the evidence piled up in front of you. Even Solo admitted it by now.

I'll freely admit that the monk doesn't need to charge, but why wouldn't he? It's a fee +2 to attack. Moving and attacking still only gets the one attack.

Yes, a monk can also charge. And from farther away. And from hiding (surprise round, partial charge).

Really? The monk out damages the monk? Incredible!

HA! That's really a good one Will correct that (only the monk can outdamage the monk, there is some truth to it...)

You really seem to be under the impression that the two are fighting with each other. We're talking practical optimisation here, not arena fighting. You're supposed to be proving that the monk is a valuable member of the team, not a PvP monster.

And now this "Giacomo posted a guide only intent for PvP" fallacy again. Why?

What exactly makes the monk a less valuable member of the team when he can
- do great damage
- do great combat tactics (grapple, improved disarm, flyby attack, great move)
- be the one to be left standing after devastating spell attacks to save the others?
- have items in his possession that greaty synergise with/benefit also others in the group? (wands, pearls of power)
- can be a great scout?

- Giacomo

[Nebo_]

Yes, a monk can also charge. And from farther away. And from hiding (surprise round, partial charge).

Charge in with none of your buffs?

HA! That's really a good one Will correct that (only the monk can outdamage the monk, there is some truth to it...)

Well there's a blatant lie if I ever saw one.

And now this "Giacomo posted a guide only intent for PvP" fallacy again. Why?

What exactly makes the monk a less valuable member of the team when he can
- do great damage
- do great combat tactics (grapple, improved disarm, flyby attack, great move)
- be the one to be left standing after devastating spell attacks to save the others?
- have items in his possession that greaty synergise with/benefit also others in the group? (wands, pearls of power)
- can be a great scout?

- Giacomo

I did not say that. You implied heavily that the damage comparison between a fighter and a monk was PvP. I refuted this by saying that any comparison should be done in the context of an actual game of D&D. ie, the monk and fighter are on the same side.