Hope for the Monk (for any of you who still play D&D & care.

[User3]

Dragon 336 has a single worthwhile article, the important part consisting on one page and one feat.

Pressure Point Strike makes monks effective by giving them 'cure' and 'buff' effects which can be used as attack actions, as well as a number of very limited 'attack' and 'debuff' effects.

To outline:

* Requires a high level :'-(
- BAB +8
- Qi Strike (Magi)
- DEX 'n' WIS 13+
- Knowledge (arcane) 5
- IUS & Stunning Fist

* As an attack, affects only Giants, Humanoids, and Monsterous humanoids.

* Can be used (apparently) as many times per round as the character has attacks (as an attack action).

* Attack/Debuff effects activate on successful unarmed strike + [failed] (DC 10 +1/2*Character L +WIS).

* Cure/Buff functions on successful level check against cured effect's DC (if any). <- Weird mechanic!

* Gives 14/13 (depending on how you look at it) total abilities, with variable 'stunning fist' costs.
- White Tiger Array (1 SF): As an attack this is just SF (but unlimited per round and affecting only creatures as above). As a 'cure' it removes Stunned, Sickened, or Fatigued.
- Red Monkey Point (2): Paralyze 1d4 rounds/remove paralysis.
- Water Turtle Point (2): Blind/Deafen 1d4 rounds/cure Blind/Deaf (Should work on any sort, including 'natural.' Go Chinese Medicine!).
- Dragon Soul Point (3): Lowers or improves SR by 1d6+WIS for a round. Doesn't say if multiple uses stack (If it does, watch out for [temporarily] unbeatable SR monks).
- Emerald Snake Point (3): Poison, Con damage 1d4/0, DC 10+1/2L+Con, or delay poison 1d4 hours. Practically useless as an attack, because they don't bother to say that the initial Will-based Fort save doesn't apply to this one (but see above..).
- Royal Viper Point (4 Uses): Target takes 1+WIS penalty on saves vs. poison for 1d4 rounds, or cures poison.
- Celestial Dragon Point (5): Prevents use of Spells or Spell-like abilities for 1d4 rounds, or removes a condition from a spell or Spell-like as Greater Dispel Magic.

Overall, I'm really happy about this feat. Kudos to the author (Alejandro Melchor).

I don't like the limited target selection, because acupuncture point theory is based on Qi theory, which recognizes Qi as being the basis of form (and therefore being able to 'read' a creature's Qi should allow it to be pressure-pointed regardless of shape. This is a fantasy game!).
However, due to odd wording the buff/cure features are exempt from this stipulation. Booya for the RAW.

Anyway, under the right conditions every single use of the feat is worth it. Two thumbs up (and into the solar plexus)!

[Lago_AM3P]

What the fuck is that retarded bullshit?

You have to get to level 12 to get that ability? Shit, man, by the time that ability is available non-spellcasters aren't even needed anymore.

The abilities were obviously written to make a monk be able to take on a buffed cleric/druid. But my friends, that bullshit just isn't happening. Monks generally have the worst attack bonuses out of the primary fighting classes in the game. Divine spellcasters have the best AC in the game. They also have a collection of abilities that allow them to contemptuously avoid combat in all forms (especially if you're using Dragon crap).

The fact that a bottom-of-the-barrel masturbatory ability is still rendering the monk class woefully inferior to a core class only makes the weakness of a monk all the more apparent. I'm going to puke my pants.

[Neeek]

Not to mention the cripplingly low uses per day. Here's a start: Monks get Stunning Fist. Period. No use limit. They also get pounce, and a +20 speed bonus on top of what they already have. Then we can add on some sort of serious DR to make them survive long enough not to get thrashed trying to do what they are supposedly best at.

Then we could maybe begin to see a viable monk.

[Josh_Kablack]

1127189070[/unixtime]]Not to mention the cripplingly low uses per day. Here's a start: Monks get Stunning Fist. Period. No use limit.

Hey now. Once per round is plenty

They also get pounce,

Hell yes.

and a +20 speed bonus on top of what they already have.

No. That actually won't do jack after about level 5. If you're going with a flat add, it needs to scale (on top of their current scaling). Personally, I'd like to see a BBN Rage-like uses per day burst of speed ability which lets them match Expeditous retreat at level 1, Fly by level 6, Dim Door by level 8 and Teleport by level 10.

Then we can add on some sort of serious DR to make them survive long enough not to get thrashed trying to do what they are supposedly best at.

As a matter of opinon, I think serious fast healing is a better flavor choice than DR, which is already the province of the BBN

Then we could maybe begin to see a viable monk.

Or you could go the Rolemaster route to overpowering the monk by giving her a bard-like 6 level arcane spell progression with a list that focused mainly on mobility and buff spells.

[User3]

1127188600[/unixtime]]
The abilities were obviously written to make a monk be able to take on a buffed cleric/druid.

Were does that come from? To me it looks like it was obviously written to make a monk be able to do a lot of random crap in a round.

1127188600[/unixtime]]
But my friends, that bullshit just isn't happening. Monks generally have the worst attack bonuses out of the primary fighting classes in the game. Divine spellcasters have the best AC in the game. They also have a collection of abilities that allow them to contemptuously avoid combat in all forms (especially if you're using Dragon crap).

In case you didn't notice, you don't have to hit your allies for the ability to have any effect. You just make a "level check."

I guess if your goal is to hit other PCs with status effects, you're going to be dissapointed when you're targeting the two most powerful classes' best saves. But if you don't mind actually using teamwork rather than trying to kill off the other PCs, you might actually find the feat useful.

1127188600[/unixtime]]The fact that a bottom-of-the-barrel masturbatory ability is still rendering the monk class woefully inferior to a core class only makes the weakness of a monk all the more apparent. I'm going to puke my pants.

I hate to say it, but there comes a point when you should quit crying about your favorite class's shortcomings and try to make it work. If that means that at most you'll be taking 4 levels of "monk," so be it. Suck it up, and take what you can get rather then whining when the superman outclasses you.

I'm not suggesting that this feat is the K-Rad $up3r c00l yuber-1337 feat to make your monk automatically win everything.

What I am suggesting is that you take a second to look past your prejudice and see that maybe the ability to cast as many 'spells' in a round as you have attacks is worthwhile, even if those spells are fairly low-power individually.

[Neeek]

1127194054[/unixtime]]

Were does that come from? To me it looks like it was obviously written to make a monk be able to do a lot of random crap in a round.

Sure. For a round or two, maybe. Then you are out of SF uses. Which makes it kinda suck.

[PhoneLobster]

This feat might be nice at like level 5 or 6. (if it were actually remotely well written and not a large stack of poorly worded pointlessly unique mechanics).

But at the level intended with the stack of annoying pointless prerequisites. Its just going to see the monk being more confused by his now much larger variety of options by which to be totally inneffective.

This feat adds complexity, book keeping and time wasting to the monk while still keeping him locked in the nether regions of suckyness.

The only good thing about it towards helping the monk is the precedent that "maybe monks should be able to do a bunch of other stuff".

If I were actually playing a monk, and trying to use it effectively, this feat is what I would consider a bad buy.

There are already a dozen different feat chains, martial arts styles and prestige classes that act as half hearted almost power ups to monks that work better than this and do so at similar or often less cost. And most of them are conveniently in OA.

Seriously the BFG on this guy is supposed to be "disable spells for 1d4 rounds" oooh, hold me back.

[RandomCasualty]

1127189070[/unixtime]]Not to mention the cripplingly low uses per day. Here's a start: Monks get Stunning Fist. Period. No use limit. They also get pounce, and a +20 speed bonus on top of what they already have. Then we can add on some sort of serious DR to make them survive long enough not to get thrashed trying to do what they are supposedly best at.

Then we could maybe begin to see a viable monk.

First, I think we need to decide what we want a monk to actually be "best" at. Right now, their apparent specialty seems to be killing casters.

The easiest way actually to improve them at that is to give them the mage slayer ability and another ability that says nobody can 5' step away from them while threatened by them. That'd make them great at killing off casters (especially wizards).

[PhoneLobster]

Why is there this insane idea that monks beat casters the way rock beats scissors.

Pretty much anything a monk can do to a caster another class, often as not a caster, can do better.

As people have said before when no one in the party is a monk even when they go up against casters and "especially wizards" no one says "who's gonna cover for the monk".

[RandomCasualty]

1127223677[/unixtime]]Why is there this insane idea that monks beat casters the way rock beats scissors.

Well nobody thinks that monks actually do beat casters, but it seems to be their design goal (a failed design goal, but a goal nonetheless). Lots of speed, multiple attacks with low BaB, good for hitting low ACs, a fortitude based stunning attack, all good saves, SR at higher levels, high touch AC, plus the ability to dimension door out of forcecages. Based on their numbers, monks seem to be designed to tumble into the backfield and pummel the wizard hiding back there.

Really, I think it's mostly the fact that the deisgners had such a hard on for casters that they made them unbeatable. Even when you have all the best things for killing casters you'll still lose.

[PhoneLobster]

The best thing for hitting low ACs is HIGH BAB, low BAB is the best thing for MISSING low ACs.

See thats and example of the monk is anti caster fiend reasoning I don't get.

[Murtak]

multiple attacks with low BaB

low BAB is the best thing for MISSING low ACs.

I would wager RC was not claiming low BAB being superior to high BAB as you imply. To me it seems like he is stating that the whole "extra attacks at a lower to hit bonus"-deal works comparetively better against low ACs.

[RandomCasualty]

1127226091[/unixtime]]
I would wager RC was not claiming low BAB being superior to high BAB as you imply. To me it seems like he is stating that the whole "extra attacks at a lower to hit bonus"-deal works comparetively better against low ACs.

Right, the idea is that you can create characters built for attacking different things by tinkering with their number of attacks, attack bonus and damage.

A guy with a few attacks at a really high BaB is a dragon slayer. he's good at punching through heavy ACs and taking out armored targets.

Someone with a lot of attacks with a lower BaB is good agaisnt taking out lightly armored targets.

Consider this... assume two guys both with an average damage per hit of 10.

One guy has two attacks that hit 75% of the time. So that's 7.5 damage per attack, or 15 damage total.

Another guy has four attacks that hit 50% of the time. that's only 5 average damage per attack, but there are four of them, so that's 20 damage total.

That's one case where the guy with the lower BaB but more attacks does better.

[User3]

I'm against the idea of having multiple attacks in general.

Multiple attacks makes every single rogue go two-weapon fighting and is a huge factor in making octopus fu totally broken. In D&D, your third and fourth iterative attack really suck and they give out a much smaller bonus than the second one.

It slows down the game and requires a lot more math and doesn't really give any benefit other than a crude representative of a 'fast' character. Yet I didn't know squids attacked at light speed and allosaurs were complete slowpokes.

[PhoneLobster]

Perhaps there is a hypothetical point at which more attacks at lower BAB are better against a "soft target" (assuming a wizard even is one).

But fact is a fighter with low attacks and high BAB, especially levels 1 through 10 (and probably beyond) is going to have a higher damage output against pretty much anything compared to the monk.

Even a two handed weapon or sword and shield fighter is going to out do the monk and can trade in BAB for damage output through power attack (which costs them very little to obtain as a feat) essentially kicking monk ass when it comes to smashing wizards dumb enough to have no good defenses.

The monk can't pull the reverse and trade in his swishing attacks for more chance of hitting.

And this...

Lots of speed, multiple attacks with low BaB, good for hitting low ACs, a fortitude based stunning attack, all good saves, SR at higher levels, high touch AC, plus the ability to dimension door out of forcecages. Based on their numbers, monks seem to be designed to tumble into the backfield and pummel the wizard hiding back there.

Its been established that monk speed sucks. The multiple attacks don't actually equal higher damage output against low ACs. The monk fortitude based stunning attack is somewhat ass. All good saves (and even evasion) are nice but you won't last long enough in battle to care. Monk SR is ass and arrives on the scene rather late. High touch AC helps against only a fraction of spells, and monk touch AC may start higher but it advances no faster than anyone elses after that so sooner or later touch attack bonus is going to win out. And based on their numbers monks are DEFINITELY not designed to pummel the wizard in the back field because they don't have the hit points (and often also lack the AC) to survive on the wrong side of the front line fighting.

No looking at the monk I would say they were designed to be like "that martial arts fighter dude who can do the fighter role without relying on gear" which they then proceeded to punish so much for the no gear "advantage" that he no longer actually was capable of doing the fighter role in the first place.

The package of monk abilities that seems to give some folks the idea that monks are anti caster specialists (or were meant to be and failed) are so off the mark its just as likely (no, MORE likely) that its just a random hodge podge of abilities picked for flavour more than some weird specialist combat role.

No the monk was clearly intended to be a fairly standard combatant punished for his lack of reliance on gear. That was the goal and thats what they royally screwed up.

Or maybe they based him on the rogue and didn't think it was a big deal when they took away the sneak attack and the UMD.

[Josh_Kablack]

1127266895[/unixtime]]Perhaps there is a hypothetical point at which more attacks at lower BAB are better against a "soft target" (assuming a wizard even is one).

Assuming the same damage dealt (including criticals and such) through defenses (such as DR) and no other special effects (like poison) or special defenses (miss chances, remorhaz heat etc), then trading attack bonus for extra attacks is always going to be a good deal when either of these two conditions is met

1: before trading attack bonus, you needed a natural 20 to hit anyways.

2: after trading attack bonus, you still hit on a 2 or better.

[User3]

Ok, I'm a tard. I was looking at the feat from a standpoint of 'I'll have a lot of stunning fist attempts, and so can use this feat about 3/round for maybe 6 rounds," not "At 20th level I'll have 11-20 SF attempts, which translates to four total uses of the high-end abilities per day."

The monk alone still needs some boosting from the DM to remain at all competative.

Although it isn't enough to make them competative, I'd think of giving them this feat as a class feature (spread out), and giving them SFs per ROUND, not day. In a way that meshes with the new abilities granted, and with their total # of attacks per round.

[User3]

I would say that the monk's strongest point is the specialist gear that increases his unarmed combat damage. Improved Natural Attack and the Fanged Ring specifically, since anyone else can access any other tricks he might have. So thats +2 size increases on anything he does for 1 feat and a small GP investment.

Monk damage output isn't a concern since I'd say that barring outliers like the Frenzied Berzerker, those +2 size increases make up a lot of ground. The larger issue is a lack of feats, since that wonderful damage capability is best used when TWF and DoubleHit KarmicStriking.

I still say that the monk is a class that needs to be minmaxed to be truly effective (given the accelerating nature of how damage scales with size increases), but at the higher end of minmax I think its as effective as any non-casting fighting build.

mean_liar

[Username17]

Monk damage output isn't a concern since I'd say that barring outliers like the Frenzied Berzerker

So you're saying that if you whip out a couple of dubious rulings, and some obscure, class specific equipment, that the monk class might easily be as good as a non-spellcasting character made without min/maxxing in mind?

Holy crap! That's got to stop now. We can't be in a world in which monks can scrimp, save, and scam to be nearly as good at fighting as non-monk characters who manage to resist the temptation to be a frenzied berserker, charge monkey, cleric archer, or tiger druid. That's precious close to reasonable. It's time to bring back the monks and torches ruling.

-Username17

[User3]

1133402966[/unixtime]][ It's time to bring back the monks and torches ruling.

-Username17

What was that? Something about monks not being able to flurry while holding ("wielding") a torch, because it isn't a monk weapon?

[Essence]

At some point, some genius decided that a Monk's flurry did, in fact, come from different parts of his body with each strike -- and that, for some reason, the hands were the first two parts of the body to launch an attack in such a flurry. Thus, a Monk with a torch lost one attack from his unarmed progression, and a Monk with a torch in each hand lost TWO attacks from his unarmed progression.


Stupidity abounded.

[User3]

I'd actually say that a minmaxed monk can easily compete with any noncaster for damage, minmaxed or not. I just wanted to avoid a pissing contest. And yes, it involves class-specific feats and equipment. As if utilizing all the tools available is somehow a bad idea.

mean_liar

[Essence]

From whence comes the Fanged Ring?

[Fwib]

Fanged Ring: Dragon #308, p41

[User3]

1133458184[/unixtime]]I just wanted to avoid a pissing contest.

Ah, then you've come to the wrong place!

A monk, min-maxed all to hell, will still cry when placed against in a damage output contest a real min-maxed non caster (especially a charge monkey).

Being reliant on all the tools is a bad idea when not all the tools are necessarily accessible. Especially hoping that a DM lets TWFing stack with flurries when FAQs have already deemed that ridiculous (if my fuzzy memory serves me, and not some darker power).