Some special abilities only work on creatures smaller than themselves - perhaps that is what you're thinking of?

However, that would not apply to any of these cases, as they're not named specifically here. (Swallow Whole or Improved Grab utilize Grapple checks, but being considered Huge size for grappling purposes is not the same as being considered Huge size for Swallow Whole purposes.)

Why not? The wizard could put it into a magical headlock with solid fog or hold monste several levels ago.

Stam: No, I think I meant what Silverlocke said. I'm not sure, I'd have to check the rules again.

Artistshipper: A wizard uses magic. It can be resisted, dispelled, countered or suppressed. Extraordinary abilities are immune to all that and are supposed to work in accordance with the laws of nature.

Already changed.

Then think of it as always succeeding on the save. You get the same effect, but in a way that nobody disagrees with.

Ask Zercyll

But it does have to hit, which can be more difficult to accomplish. 3/day as an immediate action, it can disrupt two. At level 20.Actually, past a certian point, any ability might as well be called "at will". Roy can explain this bit better than I can, but it's part of a failing from Warlocks. Plus, manuvers are at-will for all intents of puroses. Swift action to regain all of them for a Warblade, Crusaders don't even use an action, and Swordsages can even recover manuvers to use multiple times in one battle.Yes I am. A spell 7 levels earlier already does this, and it is not a stunlock. They still get actions and I gave you a good example as to how they might perform their intended action anyway.

A good blow to the locomotive limbs will render them limited, whether biological, flesh and blood, or otherwise. Sickening Blow is limited to crit-vulnerable foes.

Remember that anyone in D&D past level 5 is entering into the mythic stories. Is it really hard to believe that someone who has trained his skills likely against foes much larger than himself hasn't also learned how to make them overextend themselves and fall? (trip). Perhaps they have learned the proper application of leverage to pin their opponent's arm behind their back (grapple) or wrench the weapon from their hands (disarm).

Grapple and Trip can only be done on opponents up to one size category larger than the initiator, so for the Monk to be able to use them at all against most foes, they need to be counted as being larger than they really are for these purposes.

I would hope I need no justification for Sunder, since there the Monk is only striking the weapon and it's just easier to say he counts as being Huge than saying seperately he gains a +12 bonus on this.

It's the same reason why a monk can't fly by flapping his arms really hard but a wizard could do it by casting a spell.

I think that was meant for a game balance comparison. Seriously, it does no good to say one thing is too good and is broken, then ignore something that does it better, earlier in the game.

Uhm, D&D *explicitly* lets you break the laws of physics with EX abilities.

A sufficiently high excape artist check lets you squeeze into a space smaller than your head.

You must have not read the skill in detail. Even auto-success does not render you immune to poison because it doesn't affect the Initial save. It is explicitly worded so that you cannot become immune to poison by making a skill check.

A) That is not in an official book, so it's optional content. B) It's a Supernatural ability. C) It should clarify what kind of effect it is, so it forcibly needs an errata. If I were a DM and had to adjudicate that effect, I'd make it Mind-Affecting, as it explicitly states that they're "Bolts of pure madness".

The difference between your Attack Bonus and the foe's AC is much smaller than the difference between a foe's save and the DC. As a Monk, it'll be easier for creatures to make your saves than avoid your attacks.

Spell. Which cannot be done at will, which can be resisted, etc. I've already typed up the whole list before. Fixing the Monk is all well and good, but you cannot slap spells to a class, saying they're Extraordinary and call it a day. You should take the time to look over everything and make sure it makes sense, and that you keep in mind what you're comparing. You can't say "oh, but Wizards can do this with their spells, why shouldn't the Monk be able to do it too?" and then proceed to give them at will spells that don't allow you to defend yourself against.

Also, while you indeed gave me a list of possible strategies, you conveniently failed to mention that you're still not allowing Full Round actions, because of this ability and Following Step. And when you can do it twice per round per foe 3/day, you are effectively cancelling the Move+Standard action combo. And even without that trick, it affects every single foe you threaten. Without a save. At will. And god forbid you get an item that gives your natural attacks reach, or something that increases your size. And it doesn't matter if you have to hit your foe, because almost all of your other class abilities depend on you hitting things. If you aren't putting all your resources there, you're playing this Monk wrong.

No matter how hard you hit, you should never be able to diminish the movement speed of an Adamantine Golem without the use of magic (or most Constructs, which are made of exceedingly hard and non-crippable materials). Not to mention that Plants (and some Aberrations) usually don't rely on a single set of limbs, most Elementals don't even use limbs for moving (And some are made of fire, air or water, which you cannot cripple!), and most Undead could easily ignore the crippling since they don't really feel pain (also, some Undead are incorporeal...). I did notice the part about Sickening, apologies if my post was unclear.

I understand your reasoning, but you can't handwave logic by saying that A Hero Does It. A Human Monk should not be able to Grapple (nor Pin!) a Colossal creature without the aid of magic. It is not logical, coherent or realistic.

I really don't see what's wrong with that, from a rational point of view.

No, I specifically stated I wasn't referring to the bonus, only to the other size-related aspects of the mechanics of some of the other special attacks.

Bend, not rape and break them like ragdolls. Actually, you can do that in real life, but it requires years of training and a very specific body shape.

Given that the whole problem here is that the Wizard gets to turn the laws of physics inside out from the get-go, and this is where we are attempting to push the Monk class towards in aim of improvement...

...like, what do we care that the things we're sticking on here don't make realistic sense?

Practically, even with this house rule a Monk is not going to be able to out-wrestle a Colossal being because of the disparity in Strength bonus - monsters of that size will have a Str well in excess of 30. It's more reasonable to suggest they'd be able to find appropriate leverage on something Huge in size (and even then, at the peak of this class's ability, they're only going to break even).

If it doesn't make as much sense here in Real Life yet manages to allow it to the monk to properly utilize these tactics effectively...then I say, to hell with Real Life physics. The wizard can do it and you're not crying foul - leave the poor underpowered monk alone.

Okay, from a realistic standpoint, is it feasable for a human to get into a wrestling match with a giant and have any chance? No.

From a balance perspective, Grapple/Sunder/Trip/Disarm all CEASE to be at all useful once you start fighting larger monsters because of the size difference. If there is, at all, to be any chance for any combatant to participate in such combat, they must gain the ability to effectively increase in size.

I would argue that treating them as a size larger is a bad way of phrasing it, because it gives them insane bonuses against creatures their own size, which isn't the point. Perhaps you can say that they are treated as having the same size as their opponent, up to size X?