WHY does a monk have moderate base attack bonus? [3.5]

[Teapot Salty]

Hey guys. So, the monk is supposed to be a highly trained warrior who dedicates there life to the art of war. So why is there ability to hit stuff equal to that of a thief or a musician? Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

[Hecuba]

Hey guys. So, the monk is supposed to be a highly trained warrior who dedicates there life to the art of war. So why is there ability to hit stuff equal to that of a thief or a musician? Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

Because the designers of 3rd edition overvalued both full BAB progression and the assorted monk abilities.

[Kazudo]

3.0 was Wizards of the Coast's first major foray into D&D designing, and they were pretty much taking cues from TSR. The thing is, IIRC, when they dropped the THAC0 system in favor of Base Attack Bonuses and such, they slightly overvalued certain things. I mean, this is the same group who thought that Bonus Feats are acceptable class features and use/day limited abilities would truly balance things out (or use/week a la the paladin's remove disease).

Then the UA Swordsage hit much, much later and pretty much makes it moot. It does, however, still not have full BAB.

[3drinks]

Because of the First Tenet of the "Law of WotC Hates Monks". (But even if you gave them full BAB, they still wouldn't be "playable").

[Pluto!]

Probably because the Monk has extra attacks via Flurry and high base weapon damage - two factors that WotC grossly overestimated.

I mean from their design chairs, comparing a level 4 monk and a level 4 Fighter each built with the Elite Array's 15 strength, +1 for level, the Fighter swings a masterwork longsword with +9 attack after Weapon Focus and 1d8+5 damage with Weapon Specialization, and the Monk punches twice at +4/+4 for 1d8+3 damage in a Flurry.

Against a big dumb CR 4 monster's AC (let's say a Otyugh) of maybe 17, the fighter has an expected .65×9.5=6.17 damage (not factoring crits for time's sake), and the Monk has an expected 2×.4×7.5=6 damage, which is still in the same ballpark, on top of its 20 levels of solid class features.

I think that's the sort of math the devs were doing, and I think they were afraid that anything more would be too much - even with the cesspit of weak class features that the monk came with, there were still players calling it OP or min-maxy.

And yes, I do think that's the level of optimization that was considered the baseline by the developers for most of 3e's run, even though it doesn't begin to resemble the builds or even the base assumptions you'll see on optimization forums.

[Slipperychicken]

Because BAB is the most OP thing ever, next to the monk's crazy number of attacks/round. As if the Monk needed more buffs.

[Eldariel]

Monk used to have special attack bonus where it has lower max but more iteratives. That's replaced by Flurry. Basically, the idea is Monk makes up for quality with quantity. Of course, due to the countless failings of the class, that's not the case.

[Chronos]

I think that the idea was that monks are different and exotic, and that they're just as good at fighting as more familiar classes, but that they're good at it in very different ways. Unfortunately, it didn't work out that way.

I think that this was also the idea behind the swordsage, and there, it works out much better, since they really are good at some things that fighters et al aren't.

[Tovec]

Hey guys. So, the monk is supposed to be a highly trained warrior who dedicates there life to the art of war. So why is there ability to hit stuff equal to that of a thief or a musician? Thanks, and as always, go nuts.

The philosophy goes, as I understand it, that the Monk is a Skill-based Priest. Rogues (archetypical skill-monkey) is 3/4 and cleric is 3/4, why wouldn't Monk be? The reason monks shouldn't be, of course, is that they END UP as "highly trained warrior" when they weren't originally meant to take on that role. Look at their abilities, these aren't meant to be useful in combat. They are expected to stun things and evade things. To outlast and escape, not to fight toe to toe. I think that a full BAB is the least and most minimal change that monk should have but I also understand why it started without it. Honestly that should have been corrected with 3.5 (let alone Pathfinder) but the reason it wasn't has probably to do with what happened with their flurry and unarmed damages in 3.0 more than anything.

But yeah, monks are "supposed to be" a rogue+cleric NOT a fighter. So, 3/4 instead of 4/4 :P I bet the only reason for the non-change in PF was due to the attempt to keep things backward compatible more than lack of wish to give them full BAB - thus why they have it in most ways, especially attacks/flurry.

I could be wrong, this is based primarily on conjecture but I do recall this being the original motivation though I forget the source and how valid that source is.

[madtinker]

Monk grew out of the 2nd edition thief. The designers made some gross oversights and never re-examined their basic assumptions that came with modifying the thief chassis. It can happen to any designer, not just game designers.

Monk is still a fun class to play, even with its flaws. *dodges incoming books*

[Pex]

Monk is still a fun class to play, even with its flaws. *dodges incoming books*

Last game session a player in my group (Pathfinder) said he was considering trying a monk next time a new campaign starts. The rules lawyer of our group gave a nod of approval, even exclaiming monks are awesome.

Opinions of the forums are not definitive of opinions of everyone who plays the game.

[Segev]

Monk grew out of the 2nd edition thief.

Er, no. The monk existed in 1e AD&D (and possibly earlier, but I have a 1e AD&D PHB, and the monk is in there). It was its own class all along. IT was actually the most stat-intensive class in the manner of 1e classes: you had to have 15 or more in pretty much all of the stats to have the option of entering this class.

The class is basically trying to emulate the shaolin monks. It's big draws were lots of attacks with, at the last level, 2d20 damage per attack.

[Graypairofsocks]

Another thing annoying about their BAB is that Outsider HD gains BAB as a fighter.

The Monk matches the Outsider in HD (d8) and saves, but not BAB.

[jiriku]

The concept for the monk was a jack-of-all trades characters. Full base attack progression is thematically appropriate for characters who are all about fighting, not for characters who practica fighting some of the time and do totally unrelated stuff with a lot of the rest of their time.

I think a lot of the confusion comes from players who think monk = "kung fu master who practices martial arts 16 hours a day". That kind of single-minded focus is not what the monk is about, and would be more properly modeled with a fighter focused on unarmed and unarmored combat. Now, that fact that it is entirely impossible to build an effective fighter that way is another topic entirely.... :smallbiggrin:

[Chronos]

So, what else does the monk do besides fighting? As it stands, they're really more of a jack-of-one-trade.

[eggynack]

So, what else does the monk do besides fighting? As it stands, they're really more of a jack-of-one-trade.
It might help to think of them in the context of the bard. Bards get somewhat slow casting off of a powerful list. Monks get dimension door once a day at level 12, and a worse version of feather fall as a capstone. Bards have 6+int skill points and an expansive list. Monks have... skill points... and some form of list. Bards have a pile of bardic music, with the ability to grant everyone more powerful attacks, or better skill use, or other stuff. Monks can run fast, and heal people a little, and they can talk to a bunch of creatures eventually. They're practically the same class.

[ericgrau]

Because if you want to be a pure damage dealer then play a barbarian. Flurry tripping and most flurry disarming doesn't need a great attack bonus, since the first is a touch attack and the second is super easy to pump your modifier. Having more attacks is super nice for these, and it may even be worth a further penalty for kama TWF flurry tripping. BAB is kind of nice for grappling but you already get far far more grapple damage than anyone else so it more than evens out.

Even if you give the monk full BAB and try to deal pure damage with him, you'll fall short of other classes and it'll end up a trap. I'm sure there are 9 pages to follow on how bad he is at this and all kinds of fixes and how splat book material is stronger... so I'll sneak out now.

[HereBeMonsters]

I agree with those above about why it has the moderate bonus.

Also I am curious about this but its not a big enough question to warrant its own thread. If you took a Factotum changed it to Wis over Int and added Monk's Unarmed Attack and Flurry of Blows would it make a better Skill focus monk?

[Threadnaught]

Monk is still a fun class to play, even with its flaws. *dodges incoming books*


The rules lawyer of our group gave a nod of approval, even exclaiming monks are awesome.

Yes! Because Monks are to D&D Classes as bow ties are to clothing.


Opinions of the forums are not definitive of opinions of everyone who plays the game.

Nah, the opinions in the forums are varied. Some say Monk sucks, others cheer the little guy on. I think you may be mistaking the Tier System for a popularity poll.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

I think it comes from a combination of "sounds good" and copying older editions.



Pretty good Thac0 chart>Medium BAB
Scaling Extra attacks>Flurry
Scaling Unarmed dmage>scaling unarmed damage
No weapon or armor use>Upgraded to grab bag of mediocre Asian weapons.
Cannot use flaming oil>thrown out as silly.
Can Roll a save to deflect missile attacks.>Downgraded to getting a feat for it at level 2. Not having to make a save is nice at low levels, but a single use was a bit of a nerf to high level Monks saved on a low single didgit number and might have a +1 or 2 from an item.
Stun when you passes your to hit by 5 or more>Stuns on demand from a limited pool.
Ignored all damage on a save.>Evasion. The old ability only applied to HP damage, but it also negated the damage inflicted on successful saves against things like finger of death.
Scalng AC>Scaling AC bonus.
Scaling Movement speed>Scaling Movement speed.
Choose one thief skill to have>not 2 skill points.

The problem is that back in second edition, Monk was very cool and distinctive compared to the very bland abilities of other classes while third edition tried to make all classes more interesting. In their defense Monk 20 probably seems pretty cool (inferior combat, but look at all the cool stuff they can do) compared to Fighter 20 in Core and they thought Fighter 20 was a viable choice.

Now I'm picturing a Fighter/Monk duo dungeoncrawling with bro music playing in the background.

Fighterbro Clears a room full of mooks in two rounds with Cleave, Combat Reflexes and a reach weapon.

Monkbro Climbs a wall and drops down a rope for Fighterbro.

Fighterbro does most of the heavy lifting against a tough enemy, but Monkbro is helping tumbling around and granting a flanking bonus.

Monkbro uses wholness of body to get to max HP with Fighterbro marvels at the awesomness and feels bad about his shoddily bound wounds and healing potion. Monkbro makes a perform check to cheer up Fighterbro.

MonkBro facechecks for trapped door and makes his save for 0 damage.

etc.

[madtinker]

Er, no. The monk existed in 1e AD&D (and possibly earlier, but I have a 1e AD&D PHB, and the monk is in there). It was its own class all along. IT was actually the most stat-intensive class in the manner of 1e classes: you had to have 15 or more in pretty much all of the stats to have the option of entering this class.

The class is basically trying to emulate the shaolin monks. It's big draws were lots of attacks with, at the last level, 2d20 damage per attack.

Good to know, thanks! Guess that's why you check sources.

Also, I happen to wear bow-ties almost exclusively.

[nedz]

The philosophy goes, as I understand it, that the Monk is a Skill-based Priest. Rogues (archetypical skill-monkey) is 3/4 and cleric is 3/4, why wouldn't Monk be? The reason monks shouldn't be, of course, is that they END UP as "highly trained warrior" when they weren't originally meant to take on that role. Look at their abilities, these aren't meant to be useful in combat. They are expected to stun things and evade things. To outlast and escape, not to fight toe to toe. I think that a full BAB is the least and most minimal change that monk should have but I also understand why it started without it. Honestly that should have been corrected with 3.5 (let alone Pathfinder) but the reason it wasn't has probably to do with what happened with their flurry and unarmed damages in 3.0 more than anything.

But yeah, monks are "supposed to be" a rogue+cleric NOT a fighter. So, 3/4 instead of 4/4 :P I bet the only reason for the non-change in PF was due to the attempt to keep things backward compatible more than lack of wish to give them full BAB - thus why they have it in most ways, especially attacks/flurry.

I could be wrong, this is based primarily on conjecture but I do recall this being the original motivation though I forget the source and how valid that source is.

this, more or less. Monks are Rogue type characters. They are supposed to use their high speed to sneak up on Wizards and then take them out by surprise. It doesn't quite pan out like that, but that appears to have been the intent.

[Slipperychicken]

It's so the monk won't overshadow the fighter.

Also because the Monk gets a bunch of "real" class features which are supposed to make up for the BAB.

[Tovec]

Another thing annoying about their BAB is that Outsider HD gains BAB as a fighter.

The Monk matches the Outsider in HD (d8) and saves, but not BAB.
Outsiders also have a better skill bonus, darkvision, all martial weapons, and no need to eat or sleep. Monks don't get those things either. They aren't outsiders. They gain the type but that is it. They are basically native outsiders, with only one good save, do need to eat and sleep, and so on. They're still essentially Humanoids, so, Monks are still ahead of other native outsiders.


I agree with those above about why it has the moderate bonus.

Also I am curious about this but its not a big enough question to warrant its own thread. If you took a Factotum changed it to Wis over Int and added Monk's Unarmed Attack and Flurry of Blows would it make a better Skill focus monk?

No? It would make a better skill focused character. But as I understand it the Factotum already is the best skill-focused class but I don't think the flavour fits nicely to start with. I don't think it would make a very good monk at all. The things that drew me to monk aren't present for Factotum. Mostly, "skill based" isn't the defining feature, its a perk, of a monk. Better saves are needed, better BAB (as discussed - may or may not be), bonus speed, teleportation, slow-fall, stunning fist, combat maneuvers, perfect body, etc. Honestly if I wanted to be a pure unarmed combatant there are better ways to get there too. So that isn't even vital. It is a piece but not the biggest part.

That's not to say factotum is worthless or bad in any means, but I don't think it adequately replaces the monk. In fact some things the factotum does, mostly the martial boosting stuff, could probably be incorporated into the monk and make it better - but I think the base is inherently wrong as the monk. It is like trying to graft the monk class onto the wizard, while I'm sure the wizard can equally slow-fall and even cast spells to fly, I don't think it is the same.