Annoying RAW Monk problems

55 posts / 0 new
Last post
This thread is a companion thread to deal with potentially annoying monk options. Of which, there are at least a couple.
Thoughts about Dance of the Stinging Hornet(enc 13) in terms of RAW? Here's the movement technique:

Encounter      Full Discipline, Psionic
Move Action      Personal


Effect: You make an Athletics check to jump with a +5 power bonus. You are considered to have a running start. You can use the attack technique at any point during this movement.

Heart-Rending Strike(enc 27) has an identical problem:
Effect: You move your speed + 4. You can use the attack technique at any point during the movement. 


i.e. what exactly is the RAW:
1) You have the option to spend a standard action to then use the attack technique.
2) As part of the movement, you can use the attack technique without spending an additional action.
Ghostwalker, hiding behind the fact that you're hidden?  (If you're hidden, you have CA.  If you have CA, you have concealment.  If you have concealment, you can remain hidden.)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I believe the latter must be the RAW, otherwise any granting of MBAs would cease to function.

The former is probably RAI, though you have to do some wonky stuff to deal with actions within actions. Though you could make a RAI argument for the other, given the comparison to Tumbling Strike. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
The RAI is pretty straight forward: "Spend both your standard and your move to jump speed+5, and make the attack in the middle of the movement".  Phrasing that in a RAW way is a nightmare though.  And so I've got no real sense what the legit RAW is.  (I wouldn't play that outside of the RAI, personally)

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

A rogue has a minor attack+move at 17, so it is not unreasonable to think that the monk could have a move attack+move at 13, given their supposed super mobility as strikers.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Not clear why the standard action is therefore a standard, then. Kind of funny, though. A Raw way to make the monk work as a striker after everyone has been saying everything new is dead...
Literal way to make the monk work, that is
Probably just someone wanting to keep the same formatting for all the monk encounter powers.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
Well, as an annoyance, if you want to use the RAW literal method there, you'll need to poach a non-monk standard to use in encounters where you don't have an action point... or just use that standard to always drop a daily.

(Basically, I'm just trying to mention that Full Discipline will get in the way.) 

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

Well, as an annoyance, if you want to use the RAW literal method there, you'll need to poach a non-monk standard to use in encounters where you don't have an action point... or just use that standard to always drop a daily.

(Basically, I'm just trying to mention that Full Discipline will get in the way.) 



Well, yes. But if you're abusing this, you could easily have Twin Strike
The Attack Technique says Standard Action, therefore it takes a Standard Action to use.
So how do the warlord powers that forget to say "as a free action" work?

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

So how do the warlord powers that forget to say "as a free action" work?



Such as Opening Shove:

Opening Shove

You knock your foe off-balance while shouting a quick command to an ally.


At-Will        Martial, Weapon
Standard Action      Melee weapon


Target: One creature


Attack: Strength vs. Reflex


Hit: You push the target 1 square. Then choose one ally you can see. That ally either shifts a number of squares equal to your Intelligence modifier or makes a melee basic attack against the target.


 
RAW you get to use the Attack Technique as a No Action. That is in line with other powers with identical phrasing. I agree with Kilt the RAI is fairly obvious, but if you want a RAW answer I don't see a valid argument for anything else.

It being a Standard still makes sense, nothing says you have to use the power with the Movement technique, just that you can. Though it does have a nice synergy by RAW, you can move, make the attack, grab, and then end the move in the target's space if it is larger than you.
Ghostwalker, hiding behind the fact that you're hidden?  (If you're hidden, you have CA.  If you have CA, you have concealment.  If you have concealment, you can remain hidden.)



You only can have CA against certain targets - ones you're aware of. So no hiding in plain sight because you don't actually have CA against creatures you've yet to see.
If they can't see you, you're hidden from them already via total concealment (and the ability to roll a stealth check).  You maintain hidden until you complete the action that unhides you, so you end your move hidden.  Now you can see them (except any that have hidden from you, check), and so now you can have CA.  So you stay concealed, so stay hidden.

So you're vulnerable to people who can hide from you. But since most monsters don't tend to make stealth checks when walking down the hallway, you're still in pretty good shape even if you can't see something.

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

I think there's an RAW argument here that this takes the Standard Action while the Warlord powers are No Action.  In context of the Monk power, the only thing that normally prevents you from making the attack in the middle of your move is that, well, you (generally) can't make attacks in the middle of your move; you can read the text as therefore overriding that restriction only.  In the case of the Warlord powers, there are many other restrictions that would always (or nearly always) be in place at the time of use.
If they can't see you, you're hidden from them already via total concealment (and the ability to roll a stealth check).  You maintain hidden until you complete the action that unhides you, so you end your move hidden.  Now you can see them (except any that have hidden from you, check), and so now you can have CA.  So you stay concealed, so stay hidden.

So you're vulnerable to people who can hide from you. But since most monsters don't tend to make stealth checks when walking down the hallway, you're still in pretty good shape even if you can't see something.



Let's work out what's happening here:
You're walking down a brightly lit corridor and monsters are walking down the other direction towards you. They can't see you, so you have total concealment. You can't see them, so they have total concealment. Finally, you both reach a point where you can 'see' each other. Which means that total concealment goes away.

Except at this point, you don't actually have CA on them, because until they lose total concealment, you can't see them. And when they lose total concealment, so do you, at what should be the exact same moment. Which is also a point where no one has an action. So at that point in time, you don't have CA, you don't have concealment or cover, it isn't your turn, so you lose the ability to be hidden.
if I use the movement technique and move + use the attack technique as a move action / no action respectively.  Is the attack technique itself expended or just the movement technique ?  I know what the RAI is of course, but what is the RAW here ?  I'm not using the Attack Technique itself, I'm using the movement technique which allows me to make the attack of the Attack Technique during the movement.  That doesn't mean I expend the Attack Technique itself, right ? 
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

if I use the movement technique and move + use the attack technique as a move action / no action respectively.  Is the attack technique itself expended or just the movement technique ?  I know what the RAI is of course, but what is the RAW here ?  I'm not using the Attack Technique itself, I'm using the movement technique which allows me to make the attack of the Attack Technique during the movement.  That doesn't mean I expend the Attack Technique itself, right ? 



No, you're using the Move Technique, pausing that to use the Attack Technique, and then continuing the Move Technique.  So yes, you expend the Attack Technique this way.

At least, that's how I'm reading it, and I'll admit I'm not quite as savvy as some folks are with the legalese... 
if I use the movement technique and move + use the attack technique as a move action / no action respectively.  Is the attack technique itself expended or just the movement technique ?  I know what the RAI is of course, but what is the RAW here ?  I'm not using the Attack Technique itself, I'm using the movement technique which allows me to make the attack of the Attack Technique during the movement.  That doesn't mean I expend the Attack Technique itself, right ? 



No, you're using the Move Technique, pausing that to use the Attack Technique, and then continuing the Move Technique.  So yes, you expend the Attack Technique this way.

At least, that's how I'm reading it, and I'll admit I'm not quite as savvy as some folks are with the legalese... 

Correct. Saying you didn't expend it would be like saying you didn't expend an Encounter power that can be used as an MBA when the Warlord granted you an attack and you used the Encounter power in place of a normal MBA.
ok good, just making sure
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

You can use the attack technique at any point during this movement.


It says in the wording you -use- the attack so I can't read it any other way.

Wondering if it would need the standard action seems like a valid question though. There are several monsters for example that have attacks that makes the monster do two claw attacks, sometimes with an extra bite attack if both attacks hit, and I don't think anyone is reading those like it would require two standard actions.
Let's work out what's happening here:
You're walking down a brightly lit corridor and monsters are walking down the other direction towards you. They can't see you, so you have total concealment. You can't see them, so they have total concealment. Finally, you both reach a point where you can 'see' each other. Which means that total concealment goes away.

Ok.  Two options here: The monk moved to where it can see the monsters, or the monsters moved to where it can see the monk.  This doesn't happen simultaniously, actions happen in an order (and even readied actions happen in some sort of sub-action order, even if the action happens on someone else's turn).

Let's start with the case that the monk moved first.
Not Remaining Hidden: If the creature takes an action that causes it not to remain hidden, the creature retains the benefits of being hidden, such as combat advantage, until the action is resolved. The creature can’t become hidden again as part of that same action.
So I keep CA, so I keep concealment.  Because I've kept concealment, did I ever become unhidden?  If I did, I'm screwed: the bold clause keeps me from rehiding.  But when I came around the corner, there was no period of time in which I did not have combat advantage on the creature: and so there was no period of time in which I did not have concealment.

Next case: the monster moves first.  We're assuming that you're AWARE of the monster (although it has total concealment) because it didn't make a stealth check.  And we're assuming that the monster is NOT aware of you (because you did, and are dex primary, and have focused some other things into stealth)

I'm away from books, so I'm using the compendium's definition of "hidden"
When a creature is hidden from an enemy, the creature is silent and invisible to that enemy. A creature normally uses the Stealth skill to become hidden. See also invisible.

Gah.  So off to invisible
If a creature is invisible, it has several advantages against creatures that can’t see it: It has total concealment against them, it doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks from them, and they grant combat advantage to it.

And the rule you're refering to:
Able to See Target: A creature must be able to see a target to gain combat advantage against it. This rule means a blinded creature cannot have combat advantage against anyone.


Yeah, that means if the monster comes around the corner first, I'm screwed.  That's unfortunate, the SEP-form of permastealth is rather humorous.

 

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

edit: @PestilenceX

The important question here is "what rule is this line making an exception to?"  It's clear RAI - and I think at least arguably clear RAW - that the rule being excepted is the "you can't insert other actions in the middle of your move action" whereas in the other powers other rules are being excepted.
Btw, there is another power with the weird move working:
A Feather's Weight(enc 17)
I believe the latter must be the RAW, otherwise any granting of MBAs would cease to function.

Lots of them do specify free action for a reason

Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director

Yeah, that means if the monster comes around the corner first, I'm screwed.  That's unfortunate, the SEP-form of permastealth is rather humorous.

 

Superior Reflexes would seem to be of great value...

Bargle wrote:
This is CharOp. We not only assume block-of-tofu monsters, but also block-of-tofu DMs.
 

Zelink wrote:
You're already refluffing, why not refluff to something that doesn't suck?
Doesn't really help the fact that the monster still already saw you, before combat started, and when it wasn't your turn.
Keith Richmond Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
arguably clear



Haha.
I think the Bloodspear Shiv has a very analogous power:
Shifting Shank At-Will
Effect: The shiv shifts up to its speed and uses dagger once at any point during the movement. If the attack bloodies the target, the shiv uses dagger a second time against the same target as a free action.

Where Dagger is a ranged RBA.
Actually, having looked at a bunch of monsters, I'm no longer sure what RAI is for the weird monk powers. There are a lot of identically worded monster powers which would be non-functional if they required the use of an extra action.
Examples:
The tainted bat flies 6 squares and makes one melee basic attack at any point during that movement
The Blood Hawk flies 6 squares and makes a Claw Rake attack at any point during that movement.
Effect: The dune strider moves its speed +2. At any point before, during, or after the move, it uses bone longsword and obsidian short sword, making each attack against a different target. 
Effect: The peryton flies up to its fly speed and uses antler bash once at any point during the movement. 
Effect: The goblin moves up to half its speed and uses short sword once at any point during the movement. 
Effect: The displacer beast shifts up to half its speed. At any point during that movement, it uses tentacle once, or two times against different creatures.
The vrock flies up to 8 squares and makes one falchion attack at any point during that movement.

Compare against:
You can use the attack technique at any point during this movement.

There appears to be roughly 100 or so monsters that this would apply to. 
Those are generally standard actions though, right? Unless it's an elite/solo, monsters generally don't have move/minor attacks. I don't think it's inconsistent with the RAI of "attacks are standards unless otherwise specified." A standard attack with a move baked in is a lot more common than a move action with an attack baked in.

Personally I'm leaning towards the "you can do it all with a move action" interpretation, not only because the RAW doesn't refute it but also because it helps keep the monk in line with where it should be striker-wise. But I'm doubtful that it was intended to work that way.
Those are generally standard actions though, right? Unless it's an elite/solo, monsters generally don't have move/minor attacks. I don't think it's inconsistent with the RAI of "attacks are standards unless otherwise specified." A standard attack with a move baked in is a lot more common than a move action with an attack baked in.

Personally I'm leaning towards the "you can do it all with a move action" interpretation, not only because the RAW doesn't refute it but also because it helps keep the monk in line with where it should be striker-wise. But I'm doubtful that it was intended to work that way.



Generally. But the problem is that at any point in the movement is a way of specifying that you can do just that. It does give Monks roughly the same number of unusual action attacks as Rogues and Rangers, so that might make sense that they would do it intentionally.
Those are generally standard actions though, right? Unless it's an elite/solo, monsters generally don't have move/minor attacks. I don't think it's inconsistent with the RAI of "attacks are standards unless otherwise specified." A standard attack with a move baked in is a lot more common than a move action with an attack baked in.

Personally I'm leaning towards the "you can do it all with a move action" interpretation, not only because the RAW doesn't refute it but also because it helps keep the monk in line with where it should be striker-wise. But I'm doubtful that it was intended to work that way.



Generally. But the problem is that at any point in the movement is a way of specifying that you can do just that. It does give Monks roughly the same number of unusual action attacks as Rogues and Rangers, so that might make sense that they would do it intentionally.



I think kilpatds probably makes the best argument for it not being the RAI, a straight monk would have very limited uses for their standard action because of the Full Discipline rules. Either a non-Full Discipline encounter from a paragon path or a Daily. (or an MBA)
Those are generally standard actions though, right? Unless it's an elite/solo, monsters generally don't have move/minor attacks. I don't think it's inconsistent with the RAI of "attacks are standards unless otherwise specified." A standard attack with a move baked in is a lot more common than a move action with an attack baked in.

Personally I'm leaning towards the "you can do it all with a move action" interpretation, not only because the RAW doesn't refute it but also because it helps keep the monk in line with where it should be striker-wise. But I'm doubtful that it was intended to work that way.



Generally. But the problem is that at any point in the movement is a way of specifying that you can do just that. It does give Monks roughly the same number of unusual action attacks as Rogues and Rangers, so that might make sense that they would do it intentionally.



I think kilpatds probably makes the best argument for it not being the RAI, a straight monk would have very limited uses for their standard action because of the Full Discipline rules. Either a non-Full Discipline encounter from a paragon path or a Daily. (or an MBA)



I wouldn't count that for much at all - I can see someone saying, "Hey, that would be cool if they could do attacks while they moved to give them options similar to Tumbling Strike and Ranger off-hand attacks!" and then completely forgetting about the Full Discipline problem.

A straight monk may have limited usage of their standard action if this is considered a move action attack (no consumption of the standard action to use the attack technique), but there are no full-discipline dailies, so why not give the monk a way to use both a full discipline power and a daily or one of the standard action attacks granted by a theme in the same turn. By level 13 when a monk would get the first power with this wording (Dance of the Stinging Hornet), they would already have 3 dailies, assuming the 5 combat work-day, the issue as to what to do with the standard action would only come up in two of the combats.


Additionally, you can switch full disciplines when you action point. If the wording is such that you can do the move action attack, a monk could then action point and use an at-will full discipline attack technique twice doing two standard action attacks and still do a minor action movement technique (such as fallen needle) or a minor action attack power they got from a theme/power swap. Assuming a blurred strike ki-focus you could be doing 3 or 4 attacks, 2 FoB’s and moving once or twice for the nova turn. Between AP's and Dailies I don't see how we have a standard action issue.


Those are generally standard actions though, right? Unless it's an elite/solo, monsters generally don't have move/minor attacks. I don't think it's inconsistent with the RAI of "attacks are standards unless otherwise specified." A standard attack with a move baked in is a lot more common than a move action with an attack baked in.

Personally I'm leaning towards the "you can do it all with a move action" interpretation, not only because the RAW doesn't refute it but also because it helps keep the monk in line with where it should be striker-wise. But I'm doubtful that it was intended to work that way.



Generally. But the problem is that at any point in the movement is a way of specifying that you can do just that. It does give Monks roughly the same number of unusual action attacks as Rogues and Rangers, so that might make sense that they would do it intentionally.



I think kilpatds probably makes the best argument for it not being the RAI, a straight monk would have very limited uses for their standard action because of the Full Discipline rules. Either a non-Full Discipline encounter from a paragon path or a Daily. (or an MBA)



I wouldn't count that for much at all - I can see someone saying, "Hey, that would be cool if they could do attacks while they moved to give them options similar to Tumbling Strike and Ranger off-hand attacks!" and then completely forgetting about the Full Discipline problem.




I was thinking about this problem last night.  My reccomendation for the guide was going to be that if you were going to use the move action attack interpretation that you either get melee training (or similar) so you can attack with a mba or invest in getting non-monk standard attacks.  The mba is cheaper and has utility but it is a realtively weak attack whereas getting non-monk attacks can get expensive but you can pick up some nice toys.

Personally I like this idea.  It gives monks some decent attack powers but can only use them by investing in non-standard abilities and branching out.  It is not the free lunch that rangers get for instance.  HOwever I highly doubt this was what they were trying to do when making those powers.
I was thinking about this problem last night.  My reccomendation for the guide was going to be that if you were going to use the move action attack interpretation that you either get melee training (or similar) so you can attack with a mba or invest in getting non-monk standard attacks.  The mba is cheaper and has utility but it is a realtively weak attack whereas getting non-monk attacks can get expensive but you can pick up some nice toys.



I'm going to go with the RAW, but put an ETV label on the 4 of them and explain your DM may or may not go for it.

I don't think it ends up being all that complicated for them - as Desert Diver pointed out, you basically do the following:
AP Combats: Do the move power, AP: at-will, Standard at-will.
Non-AP combats: Do the move power, do a Daily or other standard attack option, either from paragon path or power swap. 
Sign In to post comments