PDA

View Full Version : Monks and Bards (Core Only!)



RndmNumGen
2011-01-11, 11:52 PM
Another Monk thread, but this one comes with a twist! See, there has been some debate between a friend and I about which one is weaker. Both are fairly generalist, "jack of all trades, master of none" type classes. What I'm trying to do here is to compare the Monk class and the Bard class, restricting material to only the PHB, DMG and MM.

I think that monks are weaker, due to the fact that they are mainly a front-liner melee class yet lack full BAB, have crazy MAD, and have poor synergy with their skills. My friend thinks that bards are weaker, because they have neither full casting nor any real competence in melee, and are even more fragile than monks. Remember, this is restricted to core.

Monk:
Pros:
Improved Unarmed
Flurry of Blows
AC Bonus
Bonus Feats
Monk Abilities(Ki Blast and Slow Fall)

Cons:
No Armor
No Shield
3/4 BAB
Insane MAD
Weight Limit
Restricted Proficiencies

Bard:
Pros:
Bardic Music
Bardic Knowledge
3/4 Casting Class
Spontaneous Spells
Good Skillpoints

Cons:
Low HP
3/4 BAB
Slight MAD
?

So what am I missing here?

mootoall
2011-01-11, 11:53 PM
Bard wins. Spells, no matter how lacking, are better than the terrible, non-synergized monk features, and Inspire Courage really makes them great buffers. Inspire Greatness is even better.


Edit: And you'll notice that, according to your pros/cons, bards are just as good at hitting as monks ...

Silva Stormrage
2011-01-11, 11:59 PM
Bard is stronger in my opinion too.

Sure the bard has 3/4 spellcasting but that is higher than 0/4 spellcasting and spellcasting is god in 3.5

Monk abilities really don't work well together (fast movement/Flurry) or are just not worth it (quivering palm, slow fall).

Bard can always buff the party with bardic music and be the party face. That is the role the bard is supposed to be in core in my opinion. Also they have access to glibness and as the latest OOTS comic proved that spell is awesome.

So yes I agree with you. Bard might lose in a 1v1 pvp fight but in an actual campaign the Bard is going to have so many options and control NPC's with charm/dominate and will just leave the monk behind.

There is a reason bard is tier 3 and monk tier 5.

Hawk7915
2011-01-12, 12:05 AM
Bard, core only or not. Why?

- Bards actually have a useful role to fulfill in the party. Monk and Bard have similar skill lists, but Bard has Charisma synergy and more skills/level, making them adequate scouts and amazing "party faces". A monk will absolutely be dumping charisma and possibly dumping Int in core, making them mediocre at best for the skillmonkey job.

- A bard's class features (spellcasting, Inspire Courage) make him better at hitting things. A monk's (Flurry, unable to use magic weapons as easily) make him worse. A monk might do more damage, have better HP, and have better AC (with a moderate-high point buy), but the bard's accuracy is worth a lot, as is his ability to fight at range, wear armor, and wield magic weapons (all things a Monk can't do, or at least can't do easily/well in core).

- Even bad spells are worth their weight in gold, and the Bard honestly gets a respectable spell list even in core. It just takes a bit of finesse: Illusions and Enchantments favor players who are creative, clever, and able to think on their feet. But even never casting a single Charm Person or Major Image, a Bard can contribute well to both a party and a campaign with Haste, Cure Light Wounds, and Glitterdust (amongst other spells).

- As you mentioned, the Monk is MAD which makes them nigh-unto unplayable at low point buys or with bad rolls. In core especially you frequently have to either have an AC in the 11-14 range so you can actually hit for damage, or have pitiful accuracy and damage output to get a 18[19 AC (which the fighter will have at level 3 or 4 with magic armor, while also having an offense), and in any case you'll end up with pretty lousy HP for a front-liner. A Bard likes having good Dexterity and Intelligence and Constitution, but honestly if you had 16/10/10/10/8/8 you could make a Bard work.

- Bard is one of only two classes with the infinitely excellent Use Magic Device as a class skill in core. FLAWLESS VICTORY.

Psyren
2011-01-12, 12:12 AM
Bards beat monks for the same reason Truenamers do (i.e. UMD as a class skill.)

RndmNumGen
2011-01-12, 12:13 AM
Yeah, that is pretty much what I thought; regardless of how weak Bard is in combat, access to even a limited selection of spells makes them significantly better.

I remember a while back I tried making a monk just to see how it played... ended up multiclassing by level 3 because I could barely do anything but grapple, and even that was getting harder.

mootoall
2011-01-12, 12:13 AM
Really, I can't see where anyone would think Monk is better ...

Going for PvP, let's look at options-

Monk:

Close distance quickly
Regular attack
Flurry of misses
Very light healing at relatively high levels

Bard:

Haste self for almost the same amount of attacks
Use a longspear for reach
Inspire Courage for self-buff
Debuff monk so he hits even less
Heal self many more times, and for many more HPs, than the monk

JeminiZero
2011-01-12, 12:15 AM
Incidentally, a Monk's AC bonus is highly variable depending on his rolls/point buy. As has been pointed out in Swordsage vs Monk threads, even with a moderate Wis of 14 and Dex of 16, a L4 Monk ends up with an AC of 15. Whereas an L4 Swordsage with a similiar stat loadout (or a L4 Bard using a Mithral Heavy Shield in lieu of the Wis bonus), can wear a chain shirt for an AC of 19.

Tvtyrant
2011-01-12, 12:16 AM
Bard, hands down. It gets armor, which the monk doesn't, it can use real weapons including longswords, which the Monk can't, and it gets casting.

Take Level 1 spells for the bard; it gets Animate Rope. Other spells are better, but lets concentrate on the rope. Assuming a fairly average dex Bard the ropes touch to hit is going to be fairly high as he will have Weapon Finesse. If he can make a single touch attack he removes -4 to Dex (harming its AC) -2 to hit (which hurts the ability to hit back) and is dropped to half speed. Thus at a low level the Bard can ruin the monk in a single turn.

Ignoring that the monk gets Mirror Image as a level 2 spell and will probably be able to smash the monk in a straight fight due to which, the Bard also gets Summon Swarm, which when using the spiders won't take any real damage from the Monk.

I could go level by level, but Bard is much, much better then Monk.

Telonius
2011-01-12, 06:27 AM
One thing the Monk does have going for it in this fight, at least at lower levels: grappling. All Bard spells have verbal components, most have somatic components, and a bunch have material components. If he manages to grapple you, and you don't have Freedom of Movement up (either from a Ring or from a spell you've cast), you're going to have some serious problems. If he grapples and you don't have both Eschew Materials and Still spell, there's not much you can cast. If he pins you, it's game over, since Bard spells can't be Silent.

Honestly, at lower levels this is probably going to come down to initiative order, and luck on saves. If they start from 40 feet away, and the Monk wins init, he'll charge and try to stun you. If he doesn't hit, you'll cast defensively (or take a 5 foot step) and try to charm him or put him to Sleep. If you win initiative, you'll try to charm him or put him to Sleep, and end the fight before it starts. If he makes the save, he'll charge and try to stun you, grappling on the next round whether or not the stun takes effect.

At higher levels, you'll have a lot more options; I'd say this is a probable Bard victory at 6, and an easy Bard victory after about level 10 or so.

Eldariel
2011-01-12, 06:44 AM
Just 'cause Bard isn't a Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer doesn't make them weak in combat. Here's a quick list of awesome goodies their spell list has:
- Grease
- Sleep
- Lesser Confusion

- Alter Self
- Glitterdust
- Pyrotechnics

- Confusion
- Dispel Magic
- Haste
- Slow

- Dimension Door
- Greater Invisibility

And so on and so forth. Add to that some divine spells (e.g. Freedom of Movement and Speak with Plants), Scrying, Glibness in all its glory, Heroes' Feast, Irresistible Dance and so on and they're really quite solid. Sure, their spells are a tad limited with regards to attacking Reflex-save and they have basically no good Fort-save attacking spells but they have some that don't offer saves and some great buffs.

Then we have Inspire Greatness which among others does ugly stuff with Polymorph. Which is cool. Then they have Use Magic Device and Diplomacy (which is pretty ridiculous with all the synergies and Cha-focus from Bard) and yeah, Glibness to go with Bluff. Inspire Heroics is far from terrible and overall, a Bard still kicks Fighter, Monk or Paladin across the countryside.


Bard excels at contributing in a party. Monk fails at contributing in a party. That's all, really.

Rasman
2011-01-12, 06:55 AM
in ALL honesty, it depends on the player and what they are optimized to do

A monk that is designed SPECIFICALLY around fighting casters isn't something to trifle with. The fact that a Monk doesn't have Full BaB doesn't really mean much, all that really is is the difference of a Monk having an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5 at 20th level.

Bards built properly can be terrifying things and that's just after they get Glibness. But they're not just Party Buff Monkey's. Built well, they can dance in and out of melee just as well as a Rogue AND save the party from social death as well. Not all characters have to be about "how quickly can I kill this" when being created.

I've played Monk's at all levels except 21+, and a few Bards at mixed levels as well, and I've never once felt gimp with either class, you just have to understand the strengths of your class and build around them, even though it requires more work out of you than other classes, but being Billy Badass just because you're playing a certain class is boring and not rewarding for me.

Frankly, class power is really a silly subject to begin with. Be more concerned with the power of play the player brings to the table, not the class because even a Half-Dragon Minotaur Fighter can die to the true terror known as "Stupid".

Eldariel
2011-01-12, 07:16 AM
A monk that is designed SPECIFICALLY around fighting casters isn't something to trifle with. The fact that a Monk doesn't have Full BaB doesn't really mean much, all that really is is the difference of a Monk having an Amulet of Mighty Fists +5 at 20th level.

...every other combat class has a +5 weapon too, just for a far cheaper price and without taking a body slot and with weapon abilities to boot. No, Amulet of Mighty Fists +5 does not bring Monk up to par with the rest. And like, what does Monk have to combat casters that nobody else does? Spell Resistance? Rather just cast the spell; it gets you useful amounts. Speed? Rather just cast a speed-boosting spell; gets you more. Overall, Monk's abilities are bad versions of spells.

Class power is relevant in the sense that I know if I build an entire party with the characters being a Wizard, a Cleric, a Rogue and a Monk, the Monk will be by far the weakest party member in spite of me being able to optimize Monks very well. The potential just isn't there for the class. Sure, if we have a bunch of players two of which are new and two of which are veterans, the veterans are like to perform better regardless of classes simply because new players are new, but many of us play in groups of veterans; it suddenly becomes very relevant there.

hawkingbird
2011-01-12, 07:36 AM
If you look at it from an abilities point of view, the Bard requires CHA. DEX is very useful, and INT almost as much (more skills). The bard's main skills use CHA and INT (knowledges).

Whereas the monk requires WIS and DEX while also wanting to max CON and STR. And the monk's skills are more focused on STR (climb, jump etc) or DEX (move silently, tumble).

In summary, the bard only relies on one ability to be awesome (e.g. walk into the palace off the street and talk the virgin princess into bed at only lvl 5...), and the monk relies on 2 or 3 thus causing him to spread the points and be mediocre, or drop one and completely lose out on an "awesome" monk feature.

Starbuck_II
2011-01-12, 08:11 AM
One thing the Monk does have going for it in this fight, at least at lower levels: grappling. All Bard spells have verbal components, most have somatic components, and a bunch have material components. If he manages to grapple you, and you don't have Freedom of Movement up (either from a Ring or from a spell you've cast), you're going to have some serious problems. If he grapples and you don't have both Eschew Materials and Still spell, there's not much you can cast. If he pins you, it's game over, since Bard spells can't be Silent.

Um, only pinning affects verbal spells.
Grappling only directly affect somatic spells (requiring a Concentration check).
You mouth is free unless Pinned.

Tyger
2011-01-12, 08:11 AM
Another thing to keep in mind, assuming this isn't a PvP arena challenge, is what the class adds to a party. The bard adds the social abilities, awesome buffing spells (Haste, Cat's Grace, Rage, etc. etc), healing spells, the sheer power of Inspire Courage, which even in Core is nice, though not devastating, combat direction spells, bardic knowledges, etc, etc, etc. The monk adds... umm.... hitting missing things with his hands and feet for about the same damage the bard does with a sword... OK, the monk adds nothing.

A properly built bard makes their party do everything so much better there is no comparison. A properly built monk does very little to help anyone, except the monster he feeds. :smallsmile:

Greenish
2011-01-12, 08:53 AM
Really, I can't see where anyone would think Monk is better ...

Going for PvP, let's look at options-And in regular play, bard plays great in a party, providing buffs for everyone. Best monk can do is aid another or flank.

[Edit]: Should've read all the replies before posting, this was pointed out several times already. :smallredface:

It just raises my heckles when people seem to imply PvP is how you determine the relative power of two classes.

lesser_minion
2011-01-12, 09:57 AM
Um, only pinning affects verbal spells.
Grappling only directly affect somatic spells (requiring a Concentration check).
You mouth is free unless Pinned.

No, he's right. Grappling affects all spells by forcing a concentration check, and it entirely prevents the use of spells with somatic, material*, or focus components*.

* This doesn't apply if you've already taken the action to prepare the material component, but I don't think that comes up enough to be worth mentioning.

On-topic, I think the monk might start out more useful -- at first level, the bard's class features amount to a very weak inspire courage 1/day and a couple of cantrips, whereas the monk is in a rare phase where it can be described as semi-competent with a straight face.

However, the bard wins hands down once you move past either 1st or 2nd level.

Mordokai
2011-01-12, 10:22 AM
I am continously amazed by the sheer assortment of options at bard disposal and those only grow bigger once you move out of core. Even in core, they can do so much... whereas monks seem to be very limited. I never played a monk and only recently started to experiment with bards, so powerwise, I can't really say, though bards certainly appear more powerful.

When it comes down to sheer versatility and fun? Bards win, hands down.

Gnaeus
2011-01-12, 10:24 AM
On-topic, I think the monk might start out more useful -- at first level, the bard's class features amount to a very weak inspire courage 1/day and a couple of cantrips, whereas the monk is in a rare phase where it can be described as semi-competent with a straight face.

However, the bard wins hands down once you move past either 1st or 2nd level.

Most people will agree that the first 2 levels of monk are pretty good. It is a valid dip in a lot of strong builds. It only fails at 3+.

The bard wins by level 2 if Diplomacy is used RAW and the bard is smart enough to max it and take all the synergy bonuses. Otherwise, they probably aren't clearly superior until they can afford some good scrolls or wands.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-12, 10:45 AM
I am continously amazed by the sheer assortment of options at bard disposal and those only grow bigger once you move out of core. Even in core, they can do so much... whereas monks seem to be very limited. I never played a monk and only recently started to experiment with bards, so powerwise, I can't really say, though bards certainly appear more powerful.

When it comes down to sheer versatility and fun? Bards win, hands down.

Monks, in their favor, get the fun prestige classes - Drunken Master, Tattooed Monk, Fist of Zuoken. Because sure, punching someone so hard they time travel into the future 1/day is weak, but it's weak and stylish.

Eldariel
2011-01-12, 10:59 AM
Monks, in their favor, get the fun prestige classes - Drunken Master, Tattooed Monk, Fist of Zuoken. Because sure, punching someone so hard they time travel into the future 1/day is weak, but it's weak and stylish.

Also, fluff-wise Monks can be all kinds of awesome. Which is why Tashalatora Psy Wars and Unarmed Swordsages are so much fun; mystical mind-over-matter kinda warriors capable of doing more damage with unarmed attacks than trained soldiers with Greatswords. That does not, unfortunately, help the class all that much.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-12, 11:04 AM
Also, fluff-wise Monks can be all kinds of awesome. Which is why Tashalatora Psy Wars and Unarmed Swordsages are so much fun; mystical mind-over-matter kinda warriors capable of doing more damage with unarmed attacks than trained soldiers with Greatswords. That does not, unfortunately, help the class all that much.

Nor did two decades worth of kung fu movies ingraining martial arts as ten thousand kinds of awesome into the collective cultural zeitgeist. No one makes action movies about bards.

Skaven
2011-01-12, 11:06 AM
Bards aren't bad at all. They're a pretty decent tier 3.

Eldariel
2011-01-12, 11:09 AM
Nor did two decades worth of kung fu movies ingraining martial arts as ten thousand kinds of awesome into the collective cultural zeitgeist. No one makes action movies about bards.

I think we're closer to half a century now. Master of the Flying Guillotine is what, from 1975? And that makes One-Armed Boxer even older. And many of the Bruce Lee movies are from 1970s. But yeah, a very fair point. Though Bards are pretty badass in folklore.

lesser_minion
2011-01-12, 11:13 AM
Nor did two decades worth of kung fu movies ingraining martial arts as ten thousand kinds of awesome into the collective cultural zeitgeist. No one makes action movies about bards.

Actually, that's more the Giant's fault than the fault of the bard or the directors -- people do make films about factotums, and until Dungeonscape, those would have been statted up either as bards or rogues.

woodenbandman
2011-01-12, 11:19 AM
No one makes action movies about bards.

Yeah, but who makes the action movies, huh?

CHECK AND MATE.

Mordokai
2011-01-12, 11:21 AM
Monks, in their favor, get the fun prestige classes - Drunken Master, Tattooed Monk, Fist of Zuoken. Because sure, punching someone so hard they time travel into the future 1/day is weak, but it's weak and stylish.

I positively adore Drunken Master PrC :smallbiggrin: Can't say much about the other two, but Drunken Master amuses me to no end.

But then bards have some fun prestige classes as well. And not just fun in fluff way, but also in power ways. Sublime Chord and the like.

I really can't say which is more fun fluff wise. Both classes have so much flavor and purely fluff wise, both are made of sheer awesome. But like I said, I have newfound love for bards that's made all the stronger because up until late, they were the most hated class in core for me :smallsmile:

Gnaeus
2011-01-12, 11:21 AM
Nor did two decades worth of kung fu movies ingraining martial arts as ten thousand kinds of awesome into the collective cultural zeitgeist. No one makes action movies about bards.

El Mariachi? Dude just wanted to play his guitar, then he had to kill a bunch of people.

The Glyphstone
2011-01-12, 11:24 AM
Yeah, but who makes the action movies, huh?

CHECK AND MATE.

And you forfeit, because we're actually playing checkers.:smallbiggrin:

Besides, the point was not that there are no bards, it's that the deluge of kung fu movies (particularly in the 70's and 80's) compared to the total lack of 'bard movies' means martial arts is far more omnipresent in pop culture than winning fights via the power of music, fueling monk popularity despite their mechanical inferiority.


El Mariachi? Dude just wanted to play his guitar, than he had to kill a bunch of people.

I....stand corrected. Someone did make an action movie about a bard...

Mordokai
2011-01-12, 11:27 AM
I....stand corrected. Someone did make an action movie about a bard...

And it was ten different kinds of awesome :smallbiggrin:

I mean, if Steve Buscemi plays in it, you gotta know it's cool.