New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 67 of 69 FirstFirst ... 174257585960616263646566676869 LastLast
Results 1,981 to 2,010 of 2047
  1. - Top - End - #1981
    Banned
     
    Talic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    1st: Mind Blank Does not protect against Foresight. Foresight falls outside the scope of mind blank's effect. Mind blank protects whoever it's on, from being detected by divination, sure.

    Foresight doesn't detect. It doesn't warn. It gives the caster no direct knowledge of the individual. It tells the caster, essentially, "DANGER! DUCK!" OR "DANGER AHEAD".

    It in no way directly crosses the effect of Mind blank by attempting to obtain information about the protected individual.


    2nd: As has been gone over before, the DMG explicitly allows the purchase of partially charged items at character creation for characters above first level. This implies that these items are not available for purchase otherwise.

    An argument is made about internal consistency, and that not all wands get the chance to be fully used. This is true. Barring for a moment the fact that many aspects of 3.x are not internally consistent (most dealing with wealth, economy, and treasure), if we argue that we must be internally consistent, then the player wouldn't decide what those items available were. The DM would. This would require an active decision to include this item, not a passive.

    But what about the rule of assuming that any item under a certain gold piece value is available to a community of a specified size? After all, that's a rule. Ah but now we're clinging to common sense when it lets us shuck aside the implication above, and ignoring it here. I mean really, will a hamlet of 500 people have every single imaginable item valued at 1gp or less? Every single one? It's not internally consistent. Such a stance, that we allow by this rule, while ignoring solely on the basis of internal consistency above, smacks of contradiction.

    Further, does that rule apply to unique items? Items made different through circumstance? I mean, would the King's private letters to his mistress be available in the general store, as it's nothing more than a bit of ink and some parchment, valued at scarcely over a couple silver? No, by circumstances of their use, those items became something that is not in the book. Such items are not readily available.

    Similarly, the rules allow you to DERIVE a partially charged cost at character creation, to have an item tailored by circumstance, and use. The game assumes (IMO) YOUR use. I would think, for internal consistency, that it represents that you're not Joe Lv5, carbon copy, fresh off the press. Rather, it would assume you're a character that has survived and gained 4 levels, using items, finding lost, semi-used items, and the like, and those partially charged items represent that.

    However, the rules to not allow you to take these one of a kind derivitives, and treat them as standard items in the DMG. An item is a complete entry. For example:
    Quote Originally Posted by SRD"
    Boots of Speed

    As a free action, the wearer can click her boot heels together, enabling her to act as though affected by a haste spell for up to 10 rounds each day. The duration of the haste effect need not be consecutive rounds.

    Moderate transmutation; CL 10th; Craft Wondrous Item, haste; Price 12,000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
    That is an Item.

    Quote Originally Posted by SRD
    Wand of Detect magic
    Is not. Charges, and COST, are a part of what an item is. If you change that, it's no longer the item listed in the DMG or PHB. If it isn't, than it is NO LONGER SUBJJECT to the rule of "any item under a certain value can be found."

    Which is good, as it's an inconsistent rule anyway, lacking the common sense that was referred to for justifying that such items existed. And, when provided with two choices, one supported by common sense, and one opposed by it, why would one choose the one opposed? Where does this leave such items? Not included, unless the DM makes a specific ACTIVE decision to include them, on an item-by-item, case-by-case, shop-by-shop basis.

    Which means it cannot be relied on.

    Which means it is not a solid argument to base a build on.

  2. - Top - End - #1982
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere you're not
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexxation View Post
    Yeah, but drowning also sets you to 0 hp, regardless of previous state. So I'd be cautious in obeying those rules.

    Also: someone commented on a level one Flurry.

    It was comparing the monk's +1/+1 to a fighter.

    Giacomo said, paraphrased, "double the attacks, double the chance to hit."

    Now, I'm no rocket surgeon here, but I believe Flurry of Blows gives an extra attack in return for a -2 penalty on both. At level one, of course. That means:

    Flurry: +1/+1 or (1/20) + (1/20) = 2/20 = 1/10 or a 10% chance to hit AC 20.
    Non-Flurry: +3 or (3/20) = 3/20 = 15% chance to hit AC 20.

    And Giacomo would support Flurrying in this case? Seems a poor choice. Not ragging on you, man, as much as I'd like to, just pointing out to anyone else who saw it as odd.
    An unfair example, the math has been done and it is beneficial to flurry except when you need (IIRC)an 17 or 18 to hit and is equal if you need a 19 to hit.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    Just correcting ....:
    The level 20 monk STR 18 unarmed damage is 4d8 (improved natural attack).
    But wait, isn't improved natural attack part of ToB? That's non-core!
    grab the splat books and kick his ass!
    Schrödinger cat? Schrödinger wizard? Schrödinger monk?
    What's next? Schrödinger equation? HΨ=EΨ? Seriously WTF?


    The best summary of this board I've seen so far:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigs View Post
    Giantitp: The only place you can turn a discussion on D&D Economics into an argument about toxic potatoes.

  3. - Top - End - #1983
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    dman11235's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Setting the whole wand issue straight: you cannot create wands (or other charged items) with fewer than the maximum number of charges. If your DM wanted to, he could sell used wands with fewer charges. Not that this has much of an effect, since you still rely on MagicMart to do anything useful.
    My sig's Handy Haversack: Need help? Want to see what I've done? Want to see what others have done well? Check it out.

    Join the PrC creation contest!

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by DonThelonious
    ...But you have never given any bad advice as far as I have seen. Not to mention, unlike some other people I see around here, you actually know what your talking about.

    Trust dman11235.

  4. - Top - End - #1984
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Lord Lorac Silvanos's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    IPR Violation
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenix_of_Doom View Post
    But wait, isn't improved natural attack part of ToB? That's non-core!
    INA is in the MM.
    All Yours Popcorn are belongs to me truly,
    LLS

    ___________________________________
    Avatar by Ink.

  5. - Top - End - #1985
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Ralfarius's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Emperor Tippy View Post
    Just to interject a point, anyone can get a simple weapon at any time. Making a quarterstaff pop into existence is a free action and can be done with a thought.
    Then, if you line up enough peasants hands-across-Faerun style, you can get that mofo going pretty fast in 6 seconds.
    "78% of DM's admit to having started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that hasn't yet, stop fibbing."
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Festy View Post
    Thou hast exploded mine brain.
    Congrats.
    Quote Originally Posted by Face Of Evil View Post
    Oh, I can't wait to start racking up the XP for you smelly apes.

  6. - Top - End - #1986
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Emperor Tippy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Ralfarius View Post
    Then, if you line up enough peasants hands-across-Faerun style, you can get that mofo going pretty fast in 6 seconds.
    Incorrect. Different frames of reference and how the rules are written mean that while the staff travels from point A to point B in 6 seconds it is never accelerated to said velocity and thus it has next to no kinetic energy at the end.
    People who think Tippy equals win.
    Spoiler
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr View Post
    Clearly, this is because Tippy equals Win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Tippy=Win
    Quote Originally Posted by Gavinfoxx View Post
    Wow... Tippy, you equal win.
    Quote Originally Posted by Immabozo View Post
    Tippy, I knew, in the back of my mind, that you would have the answer. Why? Cause you win. That's why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mithril Leaf View Post
    Alright. I finally surrender. Tippy, you do in fact equal win. You have claimed the position of being my idol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone who shall remain anonymous
    This post contains 100% Tippy thought. May contain dangerous amounts of ludicrousness and/or awesomeness.

  7. - Top - End - #1987
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbitrarity View Post
    (...)Don't bother responding to arguments if you're going to rehash the same arguments, please. I, and anyone who has read through this thread, has seen them many times before, and I don't want to be responsible for this degenerating into a Quotefest of epic proportions.

    6 points: Party, polymorph, leadership, shroedinger's wand emporium, buffs, and information from nowhere. If you must quote, just abbreviate to "stuff about X" at least, please.
    And I will! Highly innovative summary - avoids me commenting walls of text alongside walls of text.
    But of course I'll use the occasion to repeat my arguments, since they are still valid. But I do it not just for you, but for new readers and posters in this thread who may like to have a summary of the major issues here, and how weak imo are the arguments against my joker monk approach (and the "monk is underpowered" fallacy in general).

    OK....

    1) Party
    I believe it is vastly overstated that the joker monk asking for extra time to get his buff up and receiving an occasional buff treats said party as "doormats". With the items of the joker monk build, he is even quite party friendly (pearls of power, note that his UMD skill could make him an emergency wand of CLW healer, his wands can also go to the spellcasters so they activated it safely when they run out of spells or to avoid learning that spell etc.)
    Similarly, I think that using stealth tactics in general is of key importance for the group. If, as quite a few of the posters around assume, the party normally never has a surprise round and simply rolls initiative (reminiscent of a "kick in door style of play"), then it will be in for a lot more hurt.
    Rather, I guess the typical party result that after a few encounters, they retreat because the party caster cast already all his spells - THAT is what I'd call batman treating the party as "doormat". Since everyone has to adjust their playing style to fit the most fragile party member.
    A monk scouting ahead and thus gaining extra buffing time and a surprise round for EVERYONE in the group? Not so much.

    2) Polymorph.
    Guys. You cannot be serious in maintaining that polymorph should be banned, and wildshape is OK. Whole threads evolved around the druidzilla theme in which a druid player can "dump" his STR, DEX and still be more awesome than a fighter of the same level in melee (actually, that is not the case, but still it showcases the perceived power of wildshape).
    It does not matter a iota that wildshape is written next to the druid class description, and polymorph as magic buffable for all characters in the spells and items sections. It is the final result for balance in the game that counts.
    To recap the differences:
    - polymorph allows more forms (and thus in some cases bigger size/nat.AC/STR/DEX./fly speed). But this difference is marginal, and the big advantage the ability to turn into an aberration, magical beast or dragon COULD have is the magical/supernatural abilites and defenses (and a ravid, btw, is an outsider, so is not available for polymorph forms).
    But polymorph DOES NOT GIVE THOSE ABILITIES. The big things are size, STR, DEX, AC and (possibly) flying. And it does not matter much if you are a STR 26 big nasty with +6 to nat. AC or a STR 28 nasty with +8 to nat. AC. It is the big buffing jump to those stratospheres in the first place that counts.
    - meanwhile, wildshape lasts eventually 24/7. So it is a PERMANENT buff, as opposed to the min/levl buff of polymorph. Only the 8th level polymorph any object (so available form level 15) would make polymorph also permanent - but then you're stuck with that one form - and can be dispelled, which is not possible with wildshape.

    3) Leadership.
    The joker monk build does not have leadership. Period. So please do not maintain that it is so.
    Then, in the recent pages of this thread I brought up leadership as an aspect in the following circumstances:
    When everyone with familiar, animal companion and special mount is allowed this kind of npc alongside his character, I see no reason why one should ban leadership (allowed by the RAW) for those characters in the group who would also wish to have such a companion.
    It is like this: some character classes have written into their class abilities they receive some kind of ability (like improved unarmed strike for the monk). These are FIXED abilities that the character will ultimately have.
    Then the characters can choose some of their VARIABLE abilities (feats, spells, skills, in the course of their career more and more items). And all of a sudden also a fighter could become an unarmed fighter with improved unarmed strike.
    So why then see leadership differently? Some classes get this companion fixed, some can choose it from their variable stuff. No difference.
    Any DM who would allow this feature to only some players, and not to the others, is just unfair imo.
    Now, of course those with companions could also choose leadership to get even more companions. However, for DMing practicabilty I would strongly advise that you do not end up with the four-member group bringing along hundreds of companions into the dungeon (although in some cases that may be interesting).
    And since you have to at some point establish a limit, I'd say 1 npc per party member is enough.
    To sum up: RAW it is possble everyone gets dozens of companions and hirelings, but it is not practical in most cases to allow that. And if you as a DM do not want to have ANY kind of npc in the group, the role of the familiars/mounts/animalcompanions should be severely limited to provide only the combat stuff involved (or alternative rules as per PHB II could be considered).

    4) Schroedinger's wand emporium.
    I have said it many times, and say it again here:
    - I have provided the proof that you can get all the key buffs necessary with wands (plus, with other means like party buffs or npc buffs or permanent items). I kindly ask again to check the descriptions for the respective levels on what you could do with the budget and what buffs you could get.
    - having said that, I left the wand budget flexible so that everyone could adjust it to his or her needs for a character in the respective campaign
    - lvl 6 even provided a detailed example character for a dungeon crawl. The key enlarge, obscuring mist and mage armour are all there. And, btw, the item list is x5 cost because it was for a ONE-OFF ADVENTURE!!! "Look at the charges" indeed.
    - most of what you see as "Schroedinger" stuff ignores what the monk can already do without the buffs. True, a black tentacles cast at the unsuspecting, initiative-losing joker monk left with +14 grapple without enlarge effect (he could have it permancie'd btw for just 3,100 gp at that level) can mean it's tough for him to escape the +16 grapple of black tentacles (btw he can try 3 attempts to at least get a 5ft step). But you simply ignore his high initiative modifier and his high stealth skills. So who is doing Schroedinger stuff here? You throw absolutely utterly rarest of circumstance stuff at me like this situation (opponent has still black tentacles available - how many CR 8 opponents can do that in the first place?, will be able to target the monk, will not have another target, will have had the initiative, will not have been surprised by the monk).
    But you know what? An unsuspecting, initiative-losing 8th level Batman vs CR 8 is not only grappled. He's simply dead. And not only vs the tentacle-wielding CR 8 kind. Against ANY CR 8 opponent. Does this mean that the wizard class is useless? No.

    5) Buffs.
    That the spell rules allow benefitting spells to affect others for a time tells me that buffing is OK.
    Opening more avenues to not only leave the burden of combat buffing to the spellcasters is even better.
    For instance, in the-imo-not-so-rare situation where a party can buff for a round and then enter combat, the joker monk is a great boon to the party: normally the non-casters would simply stand around, wasting an action. But this time, the monk may even opt to reamin stealthy and look for the enemy spellcaster, and uses his enlarge buff on the barbarian (who consumed all of his more costly potions long ago).
    Again: where is the problem that you have with that?
    Then, to recap
    OUTSIDE OF COMBAT: the monk can repeat as often as he like, until he gets that 80 minute heroism wand effect up, and then can may last 2-3 enounters with it in the dungeon. Better yet, thanks to his stealth skills AND GREAT MOVE he can provide both himself and the party with a higher chance that they get extra actions before combat starts. Where is the problem here? Why do you think stealth hardly matters in this game when there are THREE core classes (rogue, ranger, monk) provided with this strategic option?
    INSIDE OF COMBAT: the monk can create early on concealment with a horn o fog safely. Lateron, with an eversmoking bottle. The moment he does that, he can with two wands in hands (all his monk fighting is unimpeded by that) attempt activation (standard action, making a sound) and move silently (move action). This will usually confuse all opponents, even those who COULD pinpoint him with a good listen check despite the likely high penalties due to the high move of the monk. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM HERE?
    And the best of all is that we are talking about LIKELY activation (as in : above 50%) for most of the joker monk's low-mid-level career.
    Add to this that with party casters present, buffs could also happen in combat with the help of the monk's wands in the hands of party castesr able to safely activate it WITHOUT recoursing to their own spells learned for the day.
    I cannot imagine any more party- (and pc caster-)friendly buffing tactics than a non-caster character with UMD and pearls of power, sorry.

    6) Information from nowhere.
    To keep it short in the end:
    - stealth tactics & scouting
    - maxed spot and listen
    - high INT, higher WIS
    - diplomacy
    - knowledge arcane and spellcraft
    - fellow pc knowledge
    - divination spells in wands (legend lore anyone?)

    Will this, at long last, convince the joker monk critics? I wonder...

    - Giacomo

  8. - Top - End - #1988

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    But this time, the monk may even opt to reamin stealthy and look for the enemy spellcaster, and uses his enlarge buff on the barbarian (who consumed all of his more costly potions long ago).
    maybe the barb uses umd too?

    edit:

    monk has

    listen
    spot
    move silent
    hide
    umd
    spellcraft?
    Last edited by Stupendous_Man; 2008-07-26 at 05:37 AM.

  9. - Top - End - #1989
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere you're not
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Silvanos View Post
    INA is in the MM.
    You're right, I confused it with superior unarmed strike from ToB.
    This was however because INA is useless for a monk without a natural attack.
    Last edited by Fenix_of_Doom; 2008-07-26 at 06:00 AM.
    Schrödinger cat? Schrödinger wizard? Schrödinger monk?
    What's next? Schrödinger equation? HΨ=EΨ? Seriously WTF?


    The best summary of this board I've seen so far:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigs View Post
    Giantitp: The only place you can turn a discussion on D&D Economics into an argument about toxic potatoes.

  10. - Top - End - #1990

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    giacomo, you didn't say anything about what i said about the dm not giving a crafter enough time to craft items being like the dm not letting he monk buy his items

    you say that making items only is ok if the dm allows you to, but buying lots of magic items also works only if the dm allows you to
    Last edited by Stupendous_Man; 2008-07-26 at 06:03 AM.

  11. - Top - End - #1991
    Banned
     
    Talic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    The reason the wizard is considered an asset rather than a burden to a party is the IN combat contributions.

    Fighter going after the fire giant? Ray of enfeeblement on that giant will lessen the odds of it hitting the fighter, as well as the damage the fighter takes. This frees up the healer to do a bit more elsewhere. End Result: Synergy.

    Alternately? Hold Monster/Wall of force. That monster has a decent chance of being rendered into a nonthreat, allowing the fighter to deal with something else. Result? Synergy.

    This is because a wizard, played right, played in the batman style, is not an unstoppable combat form of doom. But he fills in all the cracks, all the chinks, handles the stuff the others can't, and helps them do what they do BETTER. In this way, the wizard makes the entire party more effective when he has a spell complement.

    The wizard is designed, in Logic Ninja's guide, to be something that directly makes every party member do what they do better. Rogues? Benefit much from their opponents having a Grease under them. Clerics? Benefit when they can devote more spells to non-healing, due to CC spells. Fighters? Benefit when enemies are made less lethal or less numerous. The wizard doesn't tell the party to take 5 while he wins. He lets the party do their job, and he does his.

    This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. LogicNinja's guide is essentially, "The wizard as a team player". And, when a wizard is like that? He is never a hindrance to a party, and is not treating the party as a "doormat". Because he's not trying to steal the show. If he has to rest, it's so he can help the party do what they do better.


    You show a grasp of the technicalities of polymorph, and not the nuances. You don't polymorph for supernatural abilities. There are numerous extraordinary attacks that non-animals have, whether it's rend (troll), massive number of attacks (hydra), or what have you. These are all abilities that animals don't get, which makes polymorph a much more flexible spell.


    Schroedinger's Blah. I listed not 10 posts prior to yours WHY limited use wands are not feasible. You argue both sides of a coin to get it, both for and against internal consistency. As for other things? It's quite possible, and plausible for you to have issues with things such as permanent enlarge. One well placed dispel magic just cost you 3k gold. There are limitations to being large, such as squeezing limitations on space, lowered AC (-2, 1 for size, 1 for dex), and more. Keeping permanent enlarge is a BAD idea. Makes you easier to hit, limits where you can go, all for what? A bit more damage, and a bonus on grappling.

    Horn of fog. 10x10 cubes are not effective concealment, ESPECIALLY when you're a 10x10 creature. Multiple rounds would have to be used to duplicate a single level 1 spell.

    As for your barbarian idea? LOL. You're trying to make the monk into a diet-batman. Logicninja's guide has the wizard as the one who can drop an enlarge on the barbarian (or a ray of enfeeblement on his foe, etc). The wizard does this without a single item, and if he needs supplementary uses, can also get the wands, and use them, without a single skill point or feat invested, simply by virtue of being a wizard. Thus, you are spending your finite resources, finite skills, and finite feats to do what the wizard does for free... And you can't imagine a better way to do it?

  12. - Top - End - #1992
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere you're not
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    1) Party
    I believe it is vastly overstated that the joker monk asking for extra time to get his buff up and receiving an occasional buff treats said party as "doormats". With the items of the joker monk build, he is even quite party friendly (pearls of power, note that his UMD skill could make him an emergency wand of CLW healer, his wands can also go to the spellcasters so they activated it safely when they run out of spells or to avoid learning that spell etc.)
    Similarly, I think that using stealth tactics in general is of key importance for the group. If, as quite a few of the posters around assume, the party normally never has a surprise round and simply rolls initiative (reminiscent of a "kick in door style of play"), then it will be in for a lot more hurt.
    Rather, I guess the typical party result that after a few encounters, they retreat because the party caster cast already all his spells - THAT is what I'd call batman treating the party as "doormat". Since everyone has to adjust their playing style to fit the most fragile party member.
    A monk scouting ahead and thus gaining extra buffing time and a surprise round for EVERYONE in the group? Not so much.
    A party indeed does retreat after a few encounters, usually 3-4 if they were of equal CR, because the wizard is low on spells, so is the cleric and the fighter is low on HP, sounds logical. Now I admit that there could be wizards with a tendency to nova, especially at lower levels but it is condescending to claim that everybody who does not agree with you plays this way.
    About scouting: it can work, it can prevent ambushes and it can deliver you surprise/preparation rounds, the problem is that you can't assume this happens, you need to be prepared in the other cases were you can't get these advantages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    2) Polymorph.
    Guys. You cannot be serious in maintaining that polymorph should be banned, and wildshape is OK. Whole threads evolved around the druidzilla theme in which a druid player can "dump" his STR, DEX and still be more awesome than a fighter of the same level in melee (actually, that is not the case, but still it showcases the perceived power of wildshape).
    It does not matter a iota that wildshape is written next to the druid class description, and polymorph as magic buffable for all characters in the spells and items sections. It is the final result for balance in the game that counts.
    To recap the differences:
    - polymorph allows more forms (and thus in some cases bigger size/nat.AC/STR/DEX./fly speed). But this difference is marginal, and the big advantage the ability to turn into an aberration, magical beast or dragon COULD have is the magical/supernatural abilites and defenses (and a ravid, btw, is an outsider, so is not available for polymorph forms).
    But polymorph DOES NOT GIVE THOSE ABILITIES. The big things are size, STR, DEX, AC and (possibly) flying. And it does not matter much if you are a STR 26 big nasty with +6 to nat. AC or a STR 28 nasty with +8 to nat. AC. It is the big buffing jump to those stratospheres in the first place that counts.
    - meanwhile, wildshape lasts eventually 24/7. So it is a PERMANENT buff, as opposed to the min/levl buff of polymorph. Only the 8th level polymorph any object (so available form level 15) would make polymorph also permanent - but then you're stuck with that one form - and can be dispelled, which is not possible with wildshape.
    Giacomo, stop making a fool out of yourself, animals are probably the weakest type to shift into and versatility is everything, the differences is not marginal.
    also Ravid is availeble if you somehow gain the outsider sub-type by being an aasimar or thiefling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    3) Leadership.
    The joker monk build does not have leadership. Period. So please do not maintain that it is so.
    Then, in the recent pages of this thread I brought up leadership as an aspect in the following circumstances:
    When everyone with familiar, animal companion and special mount is allowed this kind of npc alongside his character, I see no reason why one should ban leadership (allowed by the RAW) for those characters in the group who would also wish to have such a companion.
    It is like this: some character classes have written into their class abilities they receive some kind of ability (like improved unarmed strike for the monk). These are FIXED abilities that the character will ultimately have.
    Then the characters can choose some of their VARIABLE abilities (feats, spells, skills, in the course of their career more and more items). And all of a sudden also a fighter could become an unarmed fighter with improved unarmed strike.
    So why then see leadership differently? Some classes get this companion fixed, some can choose it from their variable stuff. No difference.
    Any DM who would allow this feature to only some players, and not to the others, is just unfair imo.
    Now, of course those with companions could also choose leadership to get even more companions. However, for DMing practicabilty I would strongly advise that you do not end up with the four-member group bringing along hundreds of companions into the dungeon (although in some cases that may be interesting).
    And since you have to at some point establish a limit, I'd say 1 npc per party member is enough.
    To sum up: RAW it is possble everyone gets dozens of companions and hirelings, but it is not practical in most cases to allow that. And if you as a DM do not want to have ANY kind of npc in the group, the role of the familiars/mounts/animalcompanions should be severely limited to provide only the combat stuff involved (or alternative rules as per PHB II could be considered).
    Leadership is in fact not available to everyone, it is a specifically only allowed if your DM agreed with it because you for example have too few PC's.
    And although it is possible to use familiars to great effect, you'll never achieve the power an extra PC with a few levels less can give you. So they are once again not equal.

    I don't feel like commenting on the rest of it.

    P.S. wands do not cost 5x as much in a one shot, they have 1/5 of the charges.
    Schrödinger cat? Schrödinger wizard? Schrödinger monk?
    What's next? Schrödinger equation? HΨ=EΨ? Seriously WTF?


    The best summary of this board I've seen so far:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigs View Post
    Giantitp: The only place you can turn a discussion on D&D Economics into an argument about toxic potatoes.

  13. - Top - End - #1993
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Talic...

    Quote Originally Posted by Talic View Post
    The reason the wizard is considered an asset rather than a burden to a party is the IN combat contributions.

    Fighter going after the fire giant? Ray of enfeeblement on that giant will lessen the odds of it hitting the fighter, as well as the damage the fighter takes. This frees up the healer to do a bit more elsewhere. End Result: Synergy.

    Alternately? Hold Monster/Wall of force. That monster has a decent chance of being rendered into a nonthreat, allowing the fighter to deal with something else. Result? Synergy.

    This is because a wizard, played right, played in the batman style, is not an unstoppable combat form of doom. But he fills in all the cracks, all the chinks, handles the stuff the others can't, and helps them do what they do BETTER. In this way, the wizard makes the entire party more effective when he has a spell complement.
    The wizard is designed, in Logic Ninja's guide, to be something that directly makes every party member do what they do better. Rogues? Benefit much from their opponents having a Grease under them. Clerics? Benefit when they can devote more spells to non-healing, due to CC spells. Fighters? Benefit when enemies are made less lethal or less numerous. The wizard doesn't tell the party to take 5 while he wins. He lets the party do their job, and he does his.
    And this is exaclty how different to a joker monk that
    - will provide many more sneaking abilities to the rogue in the group
    - will take out the opponent caster who buffed vs the party spellcaster attacks
    - will grapple a troll trying to attack the fighter tackling your example giant
    - will use UMD to provide secondary party healing buff up the cleric's healing power for the day?
    How does a wizard "let the party do their job" when he does an area spell effect, and the monk is detrimental to the party when he uses an area effect?

    This is the problem with your double standard arguing. You are pointing "Synergy" to a wizard casting ray of enfeeblement, whereas a monk using his classabilities is considered useless, not contributing, running down only his wbl whereas I showed many, many times, with rules and examples, that it is not so.

    This is the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. LogicNinja's guide is essentially, "The wizard as a team player". And, when a wizard is like that? He is never a hindrance to a party, and is not treating the party as a "doormat". Because he's not trying to steal the show. If he has to rest, it's so he can help the party do what they do better.

    WHAT? Quite a few people around use the logicninja guide to argue that wizards are uber, full of combinations there is little to do against, can take on above their level CR single-handedly, in WoTC they post annoying stuff like "guide to GOD", completely looking down on people even trying to play something non-wizardly. And you are telling me here that this will not lead to a wizard trying to steal the show?
    A lot of this thread's existence and length stems from the problem that a lot of people exactly believe THAT. That the wizard class is way better than the monk class - you said so yourself. And now said wizard is more powerful, but not stealing the show? Really.
    We are of the same opinioin when it comes to interpreting the logic ninja guide to wizards as something highly useful. But I would never conclude that this makes the monk class underpowered as you would.

    You show a grasp of the technicalities of polymorph, and not the nuances. You don't polymorph for supernatural abilities. There are numerous extraordinary attacks that non-animals have, whether it's rend (troll), massive number of attacks (hydra), or what have you. These are all abilities that animals don't get, which makes polymorph a much more flexible spell.

    Er...pounce? Rake? Poison? All available also for animal forms. And the hydra is a very special case, with massive number of attacks obtained at the expense of a low move (so how is it ever going to land its full attack? Hydras are often guardian monsters that are staying in one place, attacking everyone coming near - not a great pc adventurer option). A RAW case could even be made by a strict DM that since the ability is not listed as part of the extraordinary attack and racial abilities, the morphed creature will not get it. No, you used exactly the right word: nuances. The differences between the resulting powers those abilities bestow are only nuances. And wildshape is even around much longer, undispellable.

    Schroedinger's Blah. I listed not 10 posts prior to yours WHY limited use wands are not feasible. You argue both sides of a coin to get it, both for and against internal consistency. As for other things? It's quite possible, and plausible for you to have issues with things such as permanent enlarge. One well placed dispel magic just cost you 3k gold. There are limitations to being large, such as squeezing limitations on space, lowered AC (-2, 1 for size, 1 for dex), and more. Keeping permanent enlarge is a BAD idea. Makes you easier to hit, limits where you can go, all for what? A bit more damage, and a bonus on grappling.

    As for Schroedinger's blah:
    HAs it ever occured to you in the analysis you provide above, that when the DMG offers detailed rules on how to price partially charged wands, as opposed to the value of the king's private letters, this may have something to do with the general use in game as part of the equipment?
    As for permanencied grapple not a great idea:
    I think the instances where being large is of prohibitive disadvanatage are quite rare. Then, the risk of being targeted by a dispel magic is present, but in some cases/settings the permanencied enlarge can be of huge advantage. For instance, in the grappling contest you run and where the monk class is currently impressively showcasing its grappling power.

    Horn of fog. 10x10 cubes are not effective concealment, ESPECIALLY when you're a 10x10 creature. Multiple rounds would have to be used to duplicate a single level 1 spell.

    The Horn of Fog creates an effect similar to an obscuring mist spell in the round it is activated (20ft radius), and will then continue to create 10ft cubes in every round played afterwards (important, for instance, when the horn user moves or the fog is dispersed by wind, or the fog moves on due to the propulsion of the horn).
    SRD (bold emphasis mine): This small bugle allows its possessor to blow forth a thick cloud of heavy fog similar to that of an obscuring mist spell. The fog covers a 10-foot square next to the horn blower each round that the user continues to blow the horn; fog clouds travel 10 feet each round in a straight line from the emanation point unless blocked by something substantial such as a wall. The device makes a deep, foghorn-like noise, with the note dropping abruptly to a lower register at the end of each blast. The fog dissipates after 3 minutes. A moderate wind (11+ mph) disperses the fog in 4 rounds; a strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round.

    As for your barbarian idea? LOL. You're trying to make the monk into a diet-batman. Logicninja's guide has the wizard as the one who can drop an enlarge on the barbarian (or a ray of enfeeblement on his foe, etc). The wizard does this without a single item, and if he needs supplementary uses, can also get the wands, and use them, without a single skill point or feat invested, simply by virtue of being a wizard. Thus, you are spending your finite resources, finite skills, and finite feats to do what the wizard does for free... And you can't imagine a better way to do it?

    First of all, skills and feats are not finite, but permanent.
    Then, why will batman all of a sudden want to sacrifice the buff round and not become invisible, but rather buff the barbarian with an enlarge spell? I sense inconsistencies here. Part of the UMD joker monk tactics was developed to make non-casters not too reliant on caster buffs and here you say, but yes, of course batman will help everyone else first. Rachel Lorelei will have you for this...
    Then, the monk for instance uses stealth and thus without recourse to a spell or item does something where the wizard needs a spell (invisibility, and even only 1 min/lvl). Does this again mean the wizard is useless?
    You are scoring a lot of own goals, here.
    And maintaining that I cannot imagine a better way to make use of a wand of enlarge is just polemics.
    Basically, you are ridiculing a good idea for an ADDITIONAL WAY ON TOP OF ALL OTHERS to use the buff round only to avoid admitting that there is any good in the guide or even joker monk concept. This is really desperate.

  14. - Top - End - #1994
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Fenix_of_Doom...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fenix_of_Doom View Post
    A party indeed does retreat after a few encounters, usually 3-4 if they were of equal CR, because the wizard is low on spells, so is the cleric and the fighter is low on HP, sounds logical. Now I admit that there could be wizards with a tendency to nova, especially at lower levels but it is condescending to claim that everybody who does not agree with you plays this way.
    About scouting: it can work, it can prevent ambushes and it can deliver you surprise/preparation rounds, the problem is that you can't assume this happens, you need to be prepared in the other cases were you can't get these advantages.
    I do not assume that everyone disagreeing with me plays this way. I assume that EVERYONE plays this way: when a wizard is low on spells, it is best to retreat. But what I say is (and there is nothing condescending in there) that the way the wizard class is built, it imposes a lot of support and help from the other party members. Accepting this easily one the one hand and going through the roof for a monk using his good move and stealth to get an additional buff round on the other is inconsistent.

    Giacomo, stop making a fool out of yourself, animals are probably the weakest type to shift into and versatility is everything, the differences is not marginal.
    also Ravid is availeble if you somehow gain the outsider sub-type by being an aasimar or thiefling.


    I kindly ask you to use different expressions, e.g. "Condescending" or "make fool of yourself", in particular in light of recent bannings, should not be used here.
    Ravid remains an outsider, thanks for confirming that what I said is correct. Now you introduce getting a LA+1 or higher LA races. What kind of arguing is that? That if everyone is playing outsiders, then polymorph should be banned? OK with me. But in the normal PHB setting, banning one, should entail banning the other as well.

    Leadership is in fact not available to everyone, it is a specifically only allowed if your DM agreed with it because you for example have too few PC's.
    And although it is possible to use familiars to great effect, you'll never achieve the power an extra PC with a few levels less can give you. So they are once again not equal.


    No, on the contrary. PHB and DMG explicitly allow it. Only the DM is called for designing the npc - that desgin is entirely to him.
    But of course, basically, a DM can always houserule to play without leadership. But then balance again is an issue, as I explained.

    I don't feel like commenting on the rest of it.

    And I know why.

    P.S. wands do not cost 5x as much in a one shot, they have 1/5 of the charges.

    There is no difference- you still have to pay 5 times as much to get the same amount of charges. Which was the issue the OP had.

    And, btw, a monk can use INA since his unarmed attacks are considerd manufactured or natural for such effects. I should add this to the guide's FAQ.

    - Giacomo

  15. - Top - End - #1995
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Stupendous_Man View Post
    giacomo, you didn't say anything about what i said about the dm not giving a crafter enough time to craft items being like the dm not letting he monk buy his items

    you say that making items only is ok if the dm allows you to, but buying lots of magic items also works only if the dm allows you to
    This is because one of the prerequisites of making items is a safe place where you are undisturbed for DAYS, WEEKS or even MONTHS. I dare say that is not the default in most campaigns, where time is often of the essence (LOTR anyone? Dragonlance?).

    Whereas the act of buying a magic item (or finding one) is much shorter.

    - Giacomo

  16. - Top - End - #1996
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Stupendous_Man View Post
    maybe the barb uses umd too?
    Yes, why not?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stupendous_Man View Post
    edit:

    monk has

    listen
    spot
    move silent
    hide
    umd
    spellcraft?
    Yes.

    - Giacomo

  17. - Top - End - #1997

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    This is because one of the prerequisites of making items is a safe place where you are undisturbed for DAYS, WEEKS or even MONTHS. I dare say that is not the default in most campaigns, where time is often of the essence (LOTR anyone? Dragonlance?).

    Whereas the act of buying a magic item (or finding one) is much shorter.

    - Giacomo
    if you can find a place i daresay that is not the default in most campaigns where magic shops are not around every corner

  18. - Top - End - #1998
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    OK.

    I just had a major insight, which can maybe help also this entire discussion.

    WE ATUALLY ALL HAVE THE SAME OPINION:
    Wizards are overpowered in most campaigns, monks are underpowered in most campaigns.

    My theory (which I think have provided with a lot of proof) is that this is due to the rules being misinterpreted or ignored that
    - result in overpwered wizards (e.g. automatically regaining spells overnight, never realy targeted by opponents/monsters/npcs) and
    - underpowered monks (e.g. magic items cannot be baught, partially charged wands are a ridiculous idea, stealth tactics will not result in any noteworthy amount of surprise round/and/or buff rounds)

    The theory of many other posters is that the (core) rules are inherently flawed, so that overpowered wizards and underpowered monks are the result.

    Now, what then is the point of this dicussion? Even if the rules interpretation I provide are in the opinion of many posters not what the RAW or even RAI says (and I say they are), then what hinders you to stop playing with overpowered wizards and underpowered monks, and just use my recommendations?
    Instead of resorting to easily broken/unbalancing houseruling clearly going against like providing move and flurry to monks, nerfing wizards and taking morph, gate, and time stop from them. Etc.

    What do you think?

    - Giacomo
    Last edited by Sir Giacomo; 2008-07-26 at 08:28 AM.

  19. - Top - End - #1999

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    ummm dude?

    hourserules and champaign changes to classes and tewaks can help classes, bu that 's how a game's played, not how he class is made...


    i mean, you can make a monk better than a wizard if you have a campaign setinside a frikkin' huge antimagicfield, but that doesn't mean anything...

    using a camaign setting and dm powers to help/hinder classes doesn't help the discussion

    I dare say that is not the default in most campaigns, where time is often of the essence (LOTR anyone? Dragonlance?).
    final fantasy 1...


    anyways, you know there isn't a magial warlmart in most campains, so your monk has to spend (days weeks months?) searching for the right store with the right magic item?
    Last edited by Stupendous_Man; 2008-07-26 at 08:40 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #2000
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere you're not
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    I don't feel like commenting on the rest of it.

    And I know why.
    If you thought it was because even I grow a bit tired of this then gain 10 mind-read points, if not gain 10 failure points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    P.S. wands do not cost 5x as much in a one shot, they have 1/5 of the charges.

    There is no difference- you still have to pay 5 times as much to get the same amount of charges. Which was the issue the OP had.
    No, no it's not because often, you don't want a fully charged wand, so it in your advantage.


    On leadership, the PHB states that you should check with your DM before selecting the feat, the DMG(pg 106) states you should feel free to disallow this feat, as far as I know there is no other feat in existence that states these things.
    Schrödinger cat? Schrödinger wizard? Schrödinger monk?
    What's next? Schrödinger equation? HΨ=EΨ? Seriously WTF?


    The best summary of this board I've seen so far:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigs View Post
    Giantitp: The only place you can turn a discussion on D&D Economics into an argument about toxic potatoes.

  21. - Top - End - #2001
    Banned
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Stupendous_Man View Post
    ummm dude?

    hourserules and champaign changes to classes and tewaks can help classes, bu that 's how a game's played, not how he class is made...


    i mean, you can make a monk better than a wizard if you have a campaign setinside a frikkin' huge antimagicfield, but that doesn't mean anything...

    using a camaign setting and dm powers to help/hinder classes doesn't help the discussion
    My point entirely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stupendous_Man View Post
    anyways, you know there isn't a magial warlmart in most campains, so your monk has to spend (days weeks months?) searching for the right store with the right magic item?
    I would argue that finding a secure place undisturbed for days weeks months is much rarer in most campaigns than finding a settlement of sentient beings of up to town size for the time necessary to buy and sell something (say, your loot).

    - Giacomo
    Last edited by Sir Giacomo; 2008-07-26 at 10:01 AM.

  22. - Top - End - #2002

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    My point entirely.
    you missed the part where is aid that haivng the dm manually balance classes doesn't make them equal classes.


    I would argue that finding a secure place undisturbed for days weeks months is much rarer in most campaigns than finding a settlement of sentient beings of up to town size for the time necessary to buy and sell something (say, your loot).

    - Giacomo
    i would argue that finding a quite place is much more commen than finding magicmart in every town

    even if every town had a magic store, how do you garuntee what you want is in stock?
    Last edited by Stupendous_Man; 2008-07-26 at 10:10 AM.

  23. - Top - End - #2003
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    London
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    I would argue that finding a secure place undisturbed for days weeks months is much rarer in most campaigns than finding a settlement of sentient beings of up to town size for the time necessary to buy and sell something (say, your loot).
    And there is obviously no difference between finding a population centre with the listed GP ranges and finding one that will buy all an adventurors parties crap, at market value, with no warning and then be able to supply any item of that GP value or below, with no warning on the purchase. Oh, and any partially charged version of those items as well... Because that's far more likely than having downtime in a campaign... What???

    What you're arguing isn't that you can find a population centre, it's that every population centre is as flexible as Sigil. I know the DMG says they'll have a certain amount of cash available but assuming any and all frounter wholesale farming+fishing store with a sideline in supplying standard weapons and armour to have a safe in back with Everything you could want, as charged as you want is a bit dubious. Buy all the hoes, seed and horseblankets you want, shifting that shiney doohicky's gonna take some time.
    Last edited by mostlyharmful; 2008-07-26 at 10:21 AM.
    Give them bread and circusses and the plebs wont rise against you. Give adventurers dungeons and trapped chests and they won't waste time looking to ransack your home and kill your wife.

  24. - Top - End - #2004
    Banned
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    I don't feel like commenting on the rest of it.

    And I know why.
    This is incredibly disingenuous of you. You have on many occasions said things like, "I'm just not going to address this any more." when you were clearly wrong instead of just admitting it.

    To imply that someone can't address your points every time they get sick of arguing with a brick wall that insults them every post is pretty silly in that light.

    I mean at least everyone can see why they have grown tired of being insulted, just like we can see that you have no response to so many of the things you choose to ignore.

  25. - Top - End - #2005
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Guyr Adamantine's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Quebec(French, Mime-Free)
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    The theory of many other posters is that the (core) rules are inherently flawed, so that overpowered wizards and underpowered monks are the result.
    What you fail to realise is that while yes, wizards are overpowered, monks are an incredible example of flawed design. Their class abilities have little to no interaction, they need all characteristics in the stratosphere except Charisma and nobody has any reason to be one beyond four levels!

    What you're pointing here is that monks can beat wizards if they use tactics anybody else can use.

    EDIT: I suggest you read Treantmonk's Guide to Wizards: Being a God. You'll notice how much God Wizards are team players instead of the idiots you put them to be.
    Last edited by Guyr Adamantine; 2008-07-26 at 12:20 PM.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Strongarm Warrior: An actually worthwhile Monkey Grip-focused PrC!
    Guyr Adamantine Avatar by Tomb Raven.

  26. - Top - End - #2006
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    USA! USA! USA!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    This discussion will never end.

    Giacomo will continue to say that everyone who disagrees with him uses flawed reasoning. This, he believes, is why the wizard is viewed as more powerful than the monk. See quote:
    Quote Originally Posted by Giacomo
    My theory (which I think have provided with a lot of proof) is that this is due to the rules being misinterpreted or ignored that
    - result in overpwered wizards (e.g. automatically regaining spells overnight, never realy targeted by opponents/monsters/npcs) and
    - underpowered monks (e.g. magic items cannot be baught, partially charged wands are a ridiculous idea, stealth tactics will not result in any noteworthy amount of surprise round/and/or buff rounds)
    Now, what rules are being misinterpreted? Which are being ignored?
    If you claim that you refer to that "partially-charged wand" tripe as misinterpreted or ignored, then the discussion is deadlocked.

    See, Giacomo, the problem with your ideas, that you can pick up a wand of [spell] with [#] of charges to meet your whims, is that if you picture your average quasi-magical medieval setting, it doesn't fit in. Yes, if you can sell it, you can buy it, but only because you already sold it. You can't sell a Wand of Doom, 12 charges, and then somehow assume that you can buy a Wand of Bull's Strength, 25 charges. It breaks verisimilitude.

    However, I know, for a fact, that what I say will not sway the opinions of anyone who does not already agree with me. You see, we humans make up our minds first and then rationalize it with data. Giacomo has it in his mind that a monk can be as much an asset to the party as a wizard.

    I agree with him. I merely feel that he's going about it in the wrong way. He took a monk, and made it a secondhand wizard. And a secondhand fighter. Heck, and a secondhand rogue.

    I'm sure he'd be much better off if he'd made a build that didn't even bother using UMD.

    But, unfortunately, that's how he decided to solve the "problem" and, as both sides of the argument are as stubborn as can be, neither side wins, and the argument continues for 67 pages.

  27. - Top - End - #2007
    Banned
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Here's another thing:

    Gia handwaves away any objection to his several round buff routine using UMD checks that he doesn't even always succeed at, Claims he always has concealment, can always hide, sneak up on all opponents, run away without any consequences, no one can run away from him, ect.

    Then he claims that everyone else is using convulted rules interpretations such as: "The Wizard inside a MMM gets a full nights rest."

    And he doesn't see the irony in that claim? We are playing it wrong because WIzard's get spells like Rope Trick and Teleport that explicitly allow them to be safe for the night, but he can make a hide check at any time no matter what. (And all that other stuff that takes far too long to repeat.)

    Look at his chain of time:

    1) It is very hard to get eight hours of rest.

    2) It is very easy to find a town filled with a magic shop.

    3) It is very hard to spend a few days in that town crafting items.


    Apparently Gia has this weird belief that people get attacked every 4 hours inside a town, so no one can rest in a town, and no one can craft in a town, but people can totally show up, buy items and leave.

    If it is so hard to craft items while resting in that town, then why does that town have all those items?
    Last edited by Rashmi; 2008-07-26 at 12:16 PM.

  28. - Top - End - #2008
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Somewhere you're not
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Giacomo View Post
    OK.
    WE ATUALLY ALL HAVE THE SAME OPINION:
    Wizards are overpowered in most campaigns, monks are underpowered in most campaigns.
    I just realised you are completely wrong, you see most here think the monk is a badly designed class with little synergy in his class features and thus weak, while the wizard is badly designed because spells are too powerful and too versatile.
    Schrödinger cat? Schrödinger wizard? Schrödinger monk?
    What's next? Schrödinger equation? HΨ=EΨ? Seriously WTF?


    The best summary of this board I've seen so far:
    Quote Originally Posted by Frigs View Post
    Giantitp: The only place you can turn a discussion on D&D Economics into an argument about toxic potatoes.

  29. - Top - End - #2009

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashmi View Post
    Look at his chain of time:

    1) It is very hard to get eight hours of rest.

    2) It is very easy to find a town filled with a magic shop.

    3) It is very hard to spend a few days in that town crafting items.


    Apparently Gia has this weird belief that people get attacked every 4 hours inside a town, so no one can rest in a town, and no one can craft in a town, but people can totally show up, buy items and leave.

    If it is so hard to craft items while resting in that town, then why does that town have all those items?
    maybe the party is bieng targeted frequently, not the town people

  30. - Top - End - #2010
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Worira's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Beating Batman: Sir Giacomo's Guide to Monks

    INSIDE OF COMBAT: the monk can create early on concealment with a horn o fog safely. Lateron, with an eversmoking bottle. The moment he does that, he can with two wands in hands (all his monk fighting is unimpeded by that) attempt activation (standard action, making a sound) and move silently (move action). This will usually confuse all opponents, even those who COULD pinpoint him with a good listen check despite the likely high penalties due to the high move of the monk. WHERE IS THE PROBLEM HERE?
    Yeah, the problem with that is that your party hates you now.
    The following errors occurred with your search:

    1. This forum requires that you wait 300 seconds between searches. Please try again in 306 seconds.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •