Shou Nobunoga- Half-orc monk

[Toptomcat]

Shou Nobunoga
Lawful Neutral Male Half-orc Monk 1

HP: 11

Str: 20 +5
Dex: 13 +1
Con: 16 +3
Int: 7 -2
Wis: 16 +3
Cha: 6 -2

Roll link: invisiblecastle.com/find.py?a=show&id=895655

BAB: +0

Fort: +5
Ref: +3
Will: +5

AC: 14 (10 +1 Dex +3 Wis)

Skills:
Jump 4 ranks, +5 Str, +9 total
Spot 2 ranks, +3 Wis, +5 total
Listen 2 ranks, +3 Wis, +5 total

Feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike
Stunning Fist (1/day, DC 15)
Ability Focus (Stunning Fist)

Attacks:
Unarmed strike +5 or +3/+3 melee 1d6+5 lethal or nonlethal bludgeoning, 20/x2 crit
Quarterstaff +5 or +3/+3 melee 1d6+7 lethal bludgeoning, 20/x2 crit
Shuriken +5 or +3/+3 ranged 1d2+5 lethal piercing, 20/x2 crit, range inc 10'

Equipment:
Monk's outfit
Quarterstaff
15 shuriken
Backpack
Bedroll
Crowbar
Flint and steel
Common lamp w/ 8 pints oil
6 days' trail rations
50 foot hempen rope
2 gp
Appearence: Shou is a fearsome-looking half-orc with a terrible scar running right underneath his eyes and nearly dividing his nose into two peices- a vestige of an embarrassing and nearly lethal accident with a kama. He is six-foot-four and built to scale, with a well-toned physique visible underneath his battle-worn monk's robes.

History:
Since as long as anybody can remember, the monastaries have stood across the land, and their inhabitants have mostly kept to themselves. Despite the popular reputation of monks as fearsome martial artists, they are also, well monks; they interfere relatively little with the workings of the kingdoms and towns that lie outside the monastary walls.
One of the few ways that monastaries impact their surroundings is in their role as ersatz orphanages. Though no explicit law or custom states it, the monks will rarely turn away a baby left at their gates; in fact, it is one of the few ways the celibate monks can ensure that their monastaries do not simply age into extinction. Such it was for a young half-orc child left at the gates of the Five Pheonix Abbey, fifteen years ago. In the way of half-orcs, he matured rapidly, becoming a surprisingly focused and dedicated student of the Abbey's esoteric martial teachings. While his teachers found him too aggressive, and neglectful of his spiritual and mental studies, there was no denying his physical talents. Unfortunately, he made his talent a little too undeniable one day when he cracked open the skull of one of his teachers in basic quarterstaff sparring. The elders of the monastary, impressed by his talent but troubled by his lack of control, cast him out of the abbey with a pronouncement that was half banishment and half their blessing to go out and learn from the world
He's never looked back.

[ryngo]

Help! I'm surrounded by half-orcs. This party's table manners alone should send shivers down anyone's spine. I'm for barbecued ribs.

[Toptomcat]

Gnome ribs are tasty. ;D

[Japic]

So if TTC gets to calculate and correct other people's sheets, does that mean that other people get to check his as well?

As a DM I noticed one discrepancy with your feat selection that I wouldn't allow; however this isn't my game so it's your DM's call. I do wonder how you are using Ability Focus (monster feat) to hone a Feat instead of a special ability* like Ki Strike.

Feats do not grant you Ex, Sp or Su abilities that I've noticed. Is there something that I'm missing that allows this to happen?

*Per the SRD a Special Ability is:

Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature's descriptive text.

[Toptomcat]

The Ability Focus feat doesn't specify a special ability; it specifies a special attack, which Stunning Fist qualifies as almost inarguably. Its full text;

ABILITY FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose one of the creature’s special attacks.
Prerequisite: Special attack.
Benefit: Add +2 to the DC for all saving throws against the special attack on which the creature focuses.
Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time the creature takes the feat it applies to a different special attack.

As supporting evidence, from the D&D 3.5 FAQ:
"You can use the Ability Focus feat with pretty much anything that you can use to hurt or hinder a foe and that allows a saving throw. A short list includes the monk’s stunning attack, the assassin’s death attack, and the bard’s fascinate ability. Things that don’t allow saving throws, such as sneak attacks, aren’t affected."
www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

[Arclite]

It is core but not core for players. Its a monster feat, as Japic noted and not really acceptable for Players. Its the same as playing a goblin because they are in the core three.

[Toptomcat]

*sigh*
Are you sure? Wizards' FAQ supports my interpretation by giving specific examples of PC abilities that can be boosted by Ability Focus, and +2 on a Stunning Fist save DC isn't exactly game-breaking- and core monks are very hard up for feats that properly complement them at any rate.

It was my understanding that the 'monster feats' were placed in the MM not because they were off-limits to players, but simply because they were most useful or relevent to monsters.

[Arclite]

In the name of fun I acquiescence. You may have your monster feat ;D

Probably just make the game better any way... You'll see

[Toptomcat]

Thank you very much.

[TheZebraShakes™]

Not that it's any of my business, but I happened to look on the 20 most recent posts section cause that's what I do, and I saw this discussion.

And as much as I usually like to disagree with TTC and tell him that everything he does is Super-cheating ( ) In this case, TTC is in the right.

There is no such thing as a feat type called [MONSTER], however, there are such feat types including [GENERAL], and [METAMAGIC]. These feat types are found beside the name of the feat most commonly.

Ability Focus is a [GENERAL] feat. meaning that no speciffic rules govern them as a group (as stated in the SRD)

It is simply found within the monster section because as TTC mentioned, these feats in the monster feats section are most useful and commonly attributed to monsters, or as the SRD puts it. . .

These feats apply to abilities most commonly found amongst monsters or are related to monsters.

Most of the feats there are improving natural attack and flying type stuff, which are not feats commonly taken by your average PC, but of course, that is not to say that your PC who sprouts wings or a nifty set of fangs and claws is to be denied access to the feats simply because they are found in a monster book or in a list catagorized as "Monster feats."

It is simply a catagory of feats grouped together for ease of access so there needn't be much scouring when searching for feats for the monsters. This isn't really one of those issues where the writers are saying one thing but meaning another and we are expected to take the rules text as literally as possible to avoid confusion. Not at all. There's nothing wrong with a monk taking ability focus on his stunning fist. It is not too powerful or "broken" by any means. You're talking about a monk for Pete's sake. I'd just give him three more feats at level one to make up for that fact alone.

[Japic]

I hadn't been paying much, and had nearly forgotten my small objection. I'm glad I remembered to look back in on this.

To me this still doesn't make as much sense when you can classify almost any feat modified attack as "special". If it's supposed to be for anyone and anything that has a special attack, then why did they not include it in the standard section of the feats? The exclusion from the list of normal general feats (non monster) suggests to me that they intended it differently when it was written. I'm not here to argue though and apologize for making a ruccous. I hadn't intended to say that it was game breaking, merely that I didn't agree with it. I suppose that's my right as a person though, eh? You know what they say about opinions and a$$holes.. yah.

In any event; good luck with this character if our intrepid DM gets it running.

[TheZebraShakes™]

To me this still doesn't make as much sense when you can classify almost any feat modified attack as "special". If it's supposed to be for anyone and anything that has a special attack, then why did they not include it in the standard section of the feats?

Well how many of the base classes do you know with special attacks or supernatural abilities which work off of DCs. Having answered that, how many monsters can you list which possess the same? You get back to me on that one. (Spells don't count as they are not special attacks and already have Spell focus to help them out.)

Maybe it will make more sense now as to why the feat was listed in the monster section.

[Toptomcat]

Heh. I hope this discussion doesn't revive when I take my level 6 feat, which is in the same section.

[TheZebraShakes™]

The one thing is, which I think is more to Japic's point, and I can't answer for sure, is, do attacks such as Stunning Fist, which are solely granted by feats and are not class or racial features, count as special attacks.

We'd have to look into it and see how the game defines "special attacks" and if they are in fact attacks which are features of a class or race, then the feats which grant them would not count and could not be ability focused.

So, stunning Fist may be problematic, but there is no doubt about it that a monk should be able to take Ability focus for the Quivering Palm class feature which does work off of a DC.

But for right now, as it stands, I'm feeling too lazy to bother with looking any of that up.

[Toptomcat]

Nowhere in the rules is 'special attack' rigorously defined, but the fact that in the combat chapter Aid Another, Bull Rush, Charge, Disarm, Feint, Grapple, Overrun, Sunder, Throw splash weapon, Trip, Turn undead, and two-weapon fighting are all classed as special attacks argues for an inclusive definition, i.e. 'attacks that are special.'