So why is the monk weak?

[Zincorium]

jaronK: first of all- I'm not adding in ANY feats, or ANY PrCs. Just base monk + some magic items. 29 damage a hit is fine at 20th level, it just isn't ridiculous overkill like that frenzied berskerer garbage. I have had a frenzied berserker in a party once. One ranger opponent and one frenzied berserker in the party, and the party was slaughtered by the Frenzied Berserker. The ranger wasn't touched.

Also- why can't the monk hit the wizard?

The monk can't hit the wizard because the wizard is perfectly capable of not being around for the monk to hit. The strategies have been trotted out time and time and time again. There's probably a complete summary on every single page of the forum's records. Celerity, timestop, etc. Heck, even invisibility can keep a wizard perfectly safe if the monk doesn't know the wizard is supposed to be there.

Also, why is 29 damage a hit somehow just dandy? Have you looked at what the party is facing at 20th level? A Wyrm Red Dragon is a perfectly reasonable thing for the DM to throw at the PCs. Assuming that the dragon even decides to come down to where the monk can affect it, it'll take 21 hits from the monk at AC 41 to bring the beast down by the monk beating on it. And each round, it's got a base attack of 40 and a whole bunch of attacks.

It would be suicide for the monk to subject themselves to that for even two or three rounds of mutual full attacks. So how is your monk contributing? A few points here and there while dodging wildly? That's about all you can do. At the very least the frenzied berserker you sneer at so can do enough damage to make his inevitable resurrection cost-effective after the battle.

[Fax Celestis]

The monk can't hit the wizard because the wizard is perfectly capable of not being around for the monk to hit. The strategies have been trotted out time and time and time again. There's probably a complete summary on every single page of the forum's records. Celerity, timestop, etc. Heck, even invisibility can keep a wizard perfectly safe if the monk doesn't know the wizard is supposed to be there.

Also, why is 29 damage a hit somehow just dandy? Have you looked at what the party is facing at 20th level? A Wyrm Red Dragon is a perfectly reasonable thing for the DM to throw at the PCs. Assuming that the dragon even decides to come down to where the monk can affect it, it'll take 21 hits from the monk at AC 41 to bring the beast down by the monk beating on it. And each round, it's got a base attack of 40 and a whole bunch of attacks.

It would be suicide for the monk to subject themselves to that for even two or three rounds of mutual full attacks. So how is your monk contributing? A few points here and there while dodging wildly? That's about all you can do. At the very least the frenzied berserker you sneer at so can do enough damage to make his inevitable resurrection cost-effective after the battle.

Even at lower levels, how does a monk handle a troll? Or a hydra? Or any monster--iconic or not--that has fast healing or regeneration? He doesn't.

[Indon]

Even at lower levels, how does a monk handle a troll? Or a hydra? Or any monster--iconic or not--that has fast healing or regeneration? He doesn't.

A pair of +1 Flaming Gauntlets would handle that, would it not?

Meleers require special equipment to deal with fast healers, generally.

[Dausuul]

One, magic item guidelines are guidelines, not rules, and as such are not RAW.

Two, An amulet takes up space on the body.

While this is true, the Magic Item Compendium has new rules on stacking bonuses on magic items. Most of the basic bonuses (+stats, +AC, +saves) can now be added to items in the appropriate slots, at the base cost of that bonus. So, for example, you could take a +1 amulet of mighty fists (6,000) and turn it into a +1 amulet of mighty fists/+2 periapt of wisdom/+2 amulet of health for an additional 8,000 (4,000 for the wisdom bonus and 4,000 for the constitution bonus). Total cost: 14,000 gp. And these are actual rules, not just guidelines. :smallwink:

I gather this was done because nobody ever bought anything but basic bonus items, and the designers wanted people to be able to play with the more interesting stuff.

[Arbitrarity]

The process described here applies to any sort of weapon. For example, if a monk wears a spiked gauntlet, her unarmed attacks aren't enhanced in any way, but she could use the spiked gauntlet in a two-weapon attack.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a

[Raum]

29 damage a hit is fine at 20th level A two handed fighter will probably be doing more damage from Power Attack and Strength alone than your 29 points of damage. Given a Str bonus of +8 (low at level 20) and PA of 10 (5 BAB + enough more BAB to make up the difference in Str bonuses) the fighter will do 12 damage from Str and 20 from PA for 32 damage.

And that's without adding all the other magical enhancements your build gave the monk. It's also not an average...it's less than the minimum. From a completely unoptimized pure Fighter.

Do you see why some think the monk needs some help?


Also- why can't the monk hit the wizard?
1. Fly
2. Mirror Image
3. Blur
4. Invisibility
5. Gaseous Form

Those are just a few reasonably low level defensive spells a wizard might use to keep from being hit. However, a more offensive minded wizard will probably just use Baleful Polymorph, Enervation, Disentegrate, or some other "lose" spell to take the victim out of the fight.

[endersdouble]

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070410a
I believe this is the correct interpretation--though that article is new and weird and I don't trust it (it explicitly contradicts the official FAQ vis-a-vis combining natural attacks and flurry, f'r'instance.)

[Skjaldbakka]

Hmm. . . I wil concede that a wizard can be out of reach of the monk. . . and everyone else that isn't a caster. Which is no penalty on the monk.

My build, so-called, that you are describing is TWO MAGIC ITEMS. I will now make a monk, and show you what I can do with a BUILD.

coming some time tomorrow after sleep happens. . .

[Raum]

My build, so-called, that you are describing is TWO MAGIC ITEMS. I will now make a monk, and show you what I can do with a BUILD.

coming some time tomorrow after sleep happens. . .Well if you're going to build a complete character you'll need to compare it to JaronK's Barbarian / Frenzied Berserker build...or some one else's build. What I posted was simply an illustration of why two handed weapons and Power Attack own melee combat. SA builds can come close (even surpass if limiting some of the cheesier PA builds) but they're subject to target limitations. Nothing else (sans casting) comes close. Excepting ToB builds...that's why the book was necessary.

Two weapon builds can be very effective, especially with SA or Wounding weapons. But they're very sensitive to DR, if the damage doesn't surpass it the Wounding doesn't take effect. And even when doing enough damage to overcome DR they usually end up doing less damage than an equivalent two handed combatant.

[Damionte]

You can make a Monk a passable fighter. At least against medium szed humanoid foes. They lack the ability to do much good against the bigger monsters.

The problem with monks is that the one specialty they have "Being decent mage killers" isn't a specialty your party usually needs. Many other base classes are just as good at taking them out, while still being good at something else. The Monk isn't useful enough outside of it's specialty. You could use a rogue or an Archer or another caster to take out the caster that comes up.

Another thing is most groups don't see caster opponents every session, unless you're in a specialists campaign. In a general campaign you may see a casting opponent worth worrying about maybe once or twice for every ten encounters. ...... MAYBE ! The rest of the time you have this so/so fighter.

Rogues have the same problem when undead show up. When you're not facing un-critable opponents though they're very useful in combat.

The Monk just doesn't bring enough utility to a party. Great role playign tool, but form a tactical standpoint there are better all around tools to use.

If you're in a big party though and all your other bases are covered you can afford to have a Monk. In a small 4-5 man party though, themonks is taking up a slot you need for a character that's going to make a bigger difference on a day to day basis.

As a 5th character you're much better served with a second cleric, druid warrior or a bard. or possibly a blaster if you took a utility caster, or utility caster if you took a blaster. an archer also makes a good 5th or 6th character.

Monk may fit as a 6th character. Depending on what you took for your 5th.

As a tactical choice though.. and that's really what we're talking about here, thier relative power lvl and fit within a party, they're lacking for pretty much all of the reasons stated in the thread. You can fight one or two points, and say that yes with good design you can over come this or that, but there are still too many things to overcome to make the Monk a NEEDED addition to a party.

I've been playing D&D for a looooong time and I can honestly say there have only been maybe 1 or2 occasions where i was like. "You know we could really use a MONK right about now." even then we really didn't need a monk, it just would have been neat to have one just so we can see it do what it do.

Don't get me wrong I love monks. i like thier concept I just don't like the way they've been implemented as a base class. when I play monks thier always multi classed and heavily PRC'd. A Monk 1-20 is a waste of a character sheet. We could have saved that tree.

[Fax Celestis]

I have a build or two to compare to as well, and these are bit more focused towards something the monk is actually good at: many many attacks in rapid succession.

[Skjaldbakka]

I am not comparing my build to someone's cheese frenzied berserker build. I am only using core material that was available at the time monk first started. My argument all this time is that as a base class, from the start, monk was a perfectly good class. Like I said before, new stuff has outDATED it. That doesn't make it a useless class, and certainly doesn't make it a badly done class. Compared to the other non-caster classes in PHB, it measures up just fine, although it could use more skills per level.


OMG, a monk can't deal as much DAMAGE as a fighter his level! That is all the fighter can do. The monk has more options in a fight other than play "I bet your HP runs out before mine if we stand next to each other and hit each other with sticks".

[JaronK]

The build I gave wasn't anything fancy... it's an iconic build really. But here's a basic build off the top of my head.

Orc
Barbarian 8/Fighter 2/Frenzied Berserker 10
Feats: Power Attack, Leap Attack, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Cleave, Intimidating Rage, Destructive Rage, Exotic Weapon Prof. (Spiked Chain), Combat Reflexes
Use Lion Totem Barbarian (Pounce instead of fast movement)

Rough Gear:
Mithral Chain Shirt +5
Adamantium Dastanas +1, Heavy Fortified
Keen Enfeebling Spiked Chain +5
Gloves of Dexterity +6
Ring of Protection +5
Belt of Giant Strength +6
Wings of Flying/Cloak of Resistance +5 (Combined via MIC rules)
Amulet of Natural Armour +5
Permanency: Enlarge Person
Ring of Force Shield
Iounstone +2 Con

Let's assume a 30 point buy, which is pretty reasonable, so we'll go 20 Str, 16, Dex, 16 Con, 6 Int, 6 Wis, 6 Chr (After racial mods)

That ends up at 37 Str, 20 Dex, 18 Con, 6 Int, 6 Wis, 6 Chr, when not in Frenzy or Rage (when in both, I believe his strength jumps to 49). He's got an AC of 37 (which is not bad, but we're not emphasizing AC here... he's got enough damage reduction to live a while, and he's there for actually killing things) and an attack reutine on the charge of +37/+32/+27/+22, with a 60' Fly speed and good manueverability to make sure he can deliver that charge. Saves are Fort +25, Ref +15, Will +8... yeah, spellcasters can of course smack him with anything targeting will saves, and that's a standard weakness, but he does get a bonus to will saves while raging, so that's something. Also, on average he's got 184 hitpoints.

On the charge, he of course power attacks, removing 20 AC to get +120 to damage, so those four attacks are doing 2d4+144 damage each, with a 20' reach, and of course he can cleave if it comes up. He also can make attacks of opportunity out to 20' of course. He crits on a 17-20, dealing double damage (and yes, that doubles the power attack damage), and whenever he does the target takes 1d6+2 strength damage, for added fun. Though he doesn't have improved trip, his trip modifier is +17 or so, so that's another option. When not charging, he does 2d4+24 damage per hit, plus the strength damage and crit stuff... but remember, he can start in attack range of you, then charge anyway, due to his 20' reach.

So there you go. The magic items aren't really thought out... that's just a basic deal there. But that's a respectable melee. Not great... not Druid level of power... but a rough tie with most Tome of Battle builds and certainly potent in a pinch. So, build your monk to be in the same league. I certainly wouldn't expect you to do better of course... but it should at least be vaguely comperable, or roughly in the same league as this guy, because this is not actually the most optomized melee build. It's just a solid one trick pony sort of build that can get the job done.

JaronK

[endersdouble]

I am not comparing my build to someone's cheese frenzied berserker build. I am only using core material that was available at the time monk first started. My argument all this time is that as a base class, from the start, monk was a perfectly good class. Like I said before, new stuff has outDATED it. That doesn't make it a useless class, and certainly doesn't make it a badly done class. Compared to the other non-caster classes in PHB, it measures up just fine, although it could use more skills per level.

Please stop with this nonsense about "nothing not core counts".



OMG, a monk can't deal as much DAMAGE as a fighter his level! That is all the fighter can do. The monk has more options in a fight other than play "I bet your HP runs out before mine if we stand next to each other and hit each other with sticks".
Name two. Haven't we gone over this? All these "other things" are generally either:
a. useless
b. don't work the way you think
c. easily replicated (often better) by other characters.

[Skjaldbakka]

So, core, you loose . . .

Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Intimidating and Destructive Rage, Lion Totem Barabarian, Frenzierd Berserker 10, Dastanas, enfeebling, . . .

Also, if you pull that on a DM, you can be sure to start fighting eneimies with Elusive Target. Bye Bye Power Attack.

[JaronK]

I am not comparing my build to someone's cheese frenzied berserker build. I am only using core material that was available at the time monk first started. My argument all this time is that as a base class, from the start, monk was a perfectly good class. Like I said before, new stuff has outDATED it. That doesn't make it a useless class, and certainly doesn't make it a badly done class. Compared to the other non-caster classes in PHB, it measures up just fine, although it could use more skills per level.


OMG, a monk can't deal as much DAMAGE as a fighter his level! That is all the fighter can do. The monk has more options in a fight other than play "I bet your HP runs out before mine if we stand next to each other and hit each other with sticks".

Here's the thing though: that FB build is still weaker than a Druid at close combat, for the most part. And the truth is, what can the monk really do other than the HP game? Running back and forth doesn't help, as enemies can just hold their action to smack you when you run in. In the end, a monk is just a fighter that pays more for gear, can't use power attack well, hits weaker, has fewer hitpoints, and runs fast with good saves.

And the fighter is notoriously underpowered, especially in core.

JaronK

[JaronK]

So, core, you loose . . .

Leap Attack, Shock Trooper, Intimidating and Destructive Rage, Lion Totem Barabarian, Frenzierd Berserker 10, Dastanas, enfeebling, . . .

Also, if you pull that on a DM, you can be sure to start fighting eneimies with Elusive Target. Bye Bye Power Attack.

Here's your problem: in core, I just play a Druid and win... and I don't even hit you with spells. Wildshape into Dire Ape. Cast Greater Magic Weapon. Cast Shillegleh. Cast Brambles. Wield the stick you just picked up (Quarterstaffs are free!) and it does more damage than the monk could ever hope to do, at much more strength. Problem solved. Or, if you prefer, he can wildshape into something huge, take Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, and be a better tripper than a Monk. Nothing to it.

Monks in core are even worse, as they don't have Freezing the Lifeblood or access to Kensai.

And even with Elusive Target, the FB hits harder than a monk. Power Attack is just one route to damage, but with his strength score (no MAD, yay!) he can actually hit hard.

So yes, Monks are horribly weak in core, and horribly weak out of core.

JaronK

[Skjaldbakka]

the point was conceded that the monk is not underpowered the moment advocates of the monk's weakness had to start comparing him to the druid to maintain superiority.

quoted for truth

[Fax Celestis]

quoted for truth

You tried that already. I'll kick your monk's ass with a paladin.

[JaronK]

quoted for truth

Fine, want your monk's butt kicked with a fighter... aka one of the most notoriously underpowered classes out there? It's core, it's underpowered, and if you can't beat it, you know you're in deep trouble.

JaronK

[endersdouble]

Depending on how you make your Monk, I wouldn't be surprised if I can beat him with a Bard (no guarantees on that one...but quite possible)

[JaronK]

Well, if it's a diplomancer, that wouldn't be hard, but that might count as cheating.

JaronK

[endersdouble]

Was thinking more spells, but it's a side comment anyway. Our general point still holds.

[JaronK]

Well, for those defending the monk and claiming it's unfair to use Druids or non core classes, what class do you think a monk can beat in hand to hand? Wizard doesn't count, as a Wizard can easily just spell snipe the monk (Forcecage) and can completely avoid them. Sorcerer, by the same count... though in reality either one could win that fight by gating in a Solar to fight for them.

But since a monk's specialty is hand to hand, what class would you think they could be more effective in hand to hand than? Certainly none of the melee classes, as they're all better than the monk.

This feels like a huge game of shifting goalposts.

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee." "Here's a bunch of better classes in melee."

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee, compared to only core classes." "Here's a bunch of better classes, including from core, in melee."

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee, compared to only core classes, when we only count unarmed unarmoured fighting." "Druid"

"You said Druid! We win"

JaronK

[ClericofPhwarrr]

This feels like a huge game of shifting goalposts.

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee." "Here's a bunch of better classes in melee."

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee, compared to only core classes." "Here's a bunch of better classes, including from core, in melee."

"The monk is not underpowered... they're good enough in melee, compared to only core classes, when we only count unarmed unarmoured fighting." "Druid"

"You said Druid! We win"

JaronK

My turn to quote for truth.

[Jasdoif]

Hmm. Could a monk beat a soulknife?

[JaronK]

Hmm. Could a monk beat a soulknife?

Not core, and the monk advocates have long since abandoned trying to compete outside of core, but a telling comparison. Again, the monk is compared to a known underpowered class, and it takes some effort to figure out which is better.

I think it would be close though.

JaronK

[Merlin the Tuna]

Depending on how you make your Monk, I wouldn't be surprised if I can beat him with a Bard (no guarantees on that one...but quite possible)A fair amount of this comes down to how your DM rules Fascinate. I've seen many who make it a nearly worthless ability, which is a shame because it's both totally awesome, and completely iconic of the class. If the DM lets it work when it should, nothing makes that save.

Edit: And while I'm thinking of it, in Lord Silvanos's Battle of the Core Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36559), the Bard actually did beat the Monk. And Silvanos has pretty much declared Fascinate to be irrelevant.

[Fourth Tempter]

Hmm. Could a monk beat a soulknife?

Yes.
He could also beat a Samurai, give a Hexblade a run for his money due to the Hexblade's reliance on debuffs, and is fine against a Warmage (and is about as useful as one). The monk is not the worst class in the game--that would be the aformentioned Samurai. Seriously, it is terrible.

[Rincewind]

Hey, hello. Has everyone forgotten the two words that make FRP fun? ROLE PLAYING?

Every characters' strengths and weaknesses depend on the campaign their DM decides to run. It depends on the enemies the DM throws at them.

Myself; I love the Monk class. I always encourage my best ROLE PLAYER to take the Monk class.

Having a Monk in a party always counters their instinctive Neutral Evil movements.

18 pages of crap about how monk is weak. Yeah. Sure... Well, I must say "No". The Monk isn't weak.

This shouldn't even be argued about... :smalltongue:

[ClericofPhwarrr]

Hey, hello. Has everyone forgotten the two words that make FRP fun? ROLE PLAYING?

Every characters' strengths and weaknesses depend on the campaign their DM decides to run. It depends on the enemies the DM throws at them.

Myself; I love the Monk class. I always encourage my best ROLE PLAYER to take the Monk class.

Meanwhile, we speak of mechanics. You might have missed that part.


Having a Monk in a party always counters their instinctive Neutral Evil movements.

I fail to see how this is supposed to happen. Are you suggesting it replaces those insticts with Lawful Evil ones?

[SITB]

Hey, hello. Has everyone forgotten the two words that make FRP fun? ROLE PLAYING?

Every characters' strengths and weaknesses depend on the campaign their DM decides to run. It depends on the enemies the DM throws at them.

Myself; I love the Monk class. I always encourage my best ROLE PLAYER to take the Monk class.

Having a Monk in a party always counters their instinctive Neutral Evil movements.

18 pages of crap about how monk is weak. Yeah. Sure... Well, I must say "No". The Monk isn't weak.

This shouldn't even be argued about... :smalltongue:

What does that have to do with the monk's relative strength? The argument is that monks can't contribue mechanically to the party and nearly all other classes can anything better then the monk, role playing does not enter it.

Sure the DM can always throw monsters that upon a hit of stunning fist drop dead, but that has nothing to do with the monk's strength. That's just the DM trying to help the monk player.

[Laurellien]

My turn to quote for truth.

ClericofPhwarr... get me in touch with your god I need to start worshipping him, hell maybe I'll just worship you instead.

[Laurellien]

I hear lots of people talking about how the monk is the weakest of the core classes, and seen a few brief reasons (low BAB, etc).

But prior to coming here, I had always thought that it's special abilities (ki strike, etc) somewhat balanced it out. Oh, and my DM insists it's brokenly powerful, and that just seems wrong to me.

So a slightly more detailed description of it's weaknesses would do much to appease my curiosity.

Just to remind Skjaldbakka of the original premises.

Now which of these is the monk better than?

1) barbarian
2) bard
3) cleric
4) druid
5) fighter
6) paladin
7) ranger
8) sorcerer
9) wizard

I think that it is below or on a par with bard or fighter, but both are better at their job than a monk.

[Indon]

Here's your problem: in core, I just play a Druid and win... and I don't even hit you with spells. Wildshape into Dire Ape. Cast Greater Magic Weapon. Cast Shillegleh. Cast Brambles. Wield the stick you just picked up (Quarterstaffs are free!) and it does more damage than the monk could ever hope to do, at much more strength. Problem solved. Or, if you prefer, he can wildshape into something huge, take Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, and be a better tripper than a Monk. Nothing to it.

Your problem is that you're using a class that you no doubt admit is overpowered in order to overshadow the monk. That doesn't in the least imply the monk is underpowered; just not overpowered.

And when you go outside of core, and cite the Swordsage, well, by this point we could replace the Wizard (with the artificer)... so replacability outside of core doesn't exactly imply weakness, either, now does it?

And your other examples may beat the monk in the one aspect they are specialized, and bully for them. The monk is a generalist, and beats them in a number of other things. The monk, for instance, beats the FB in the saving game, in mobility and stealth, and in not-killing-friendlies-when-you-roll-bad-will-saves (which, to be fair, almost everyone beats the FB in).

And so we go back to generalists who can't beat specialists in their own game being considered weak. Which is funny, because I'd like someone to mention a generalist class who can beat specialists in their own game, and isn't considered overpowered on these boards.

[lord_khaine]

better than at what is proberly the key question here, no classes can do everything.

and i really wont start comparing the monk to your
frenzied berserker/barbarian/fighter, since you are using 2 classes, and 1 prestige class against a pure class.

but ok, someone shoots both the monk and the frenzied berserker with a arrow, the monk takes 8 points of damage, the frenzied berserker takes 4 points of damage, frenzies and vipes the rest of the party in a singel round.

should we take a vote on who you would prefer to have in your party of those 2?

and really, stop comparing classes at lv 20, and try to see how they work in a level range they actualy might be found in inside a normal game of d&d.

[Indon]

Fine, want your monk's butt kicked with a fighter... aka one of the most notoriously underpowered classes out there? It's core, it's underpowered, and if you can't beat it, you know you're in deep trouble.

JaronK

The fighter isn't considered underpowered because it can't fight; the fighter is considered underpowered because the only thing the fighter can do is fight.

[Vik]

Here's your problem: in core, I just play a Druid and win... and I don't even hit you with spells. Wildshape into Dire Ape.Most people seem to forget that "The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with." (quote from SRD). So unless you're playing in a tropical setting, bye bye Dire Ape wildshape, and with it many shapes.


Cast Greater Magic Weapon. Cast Shillegleh. Cast Brambles. Brambles is not core. You can still cast GMW. Shillelagh is a short duration spell, so you waste 1 round to cast it. And you can't cast first GMW and then Shillelagh, so we're at 2 rounds.

[...]

Problem solved. Not so true.


Or, if you prefer, he can wildshape into something huge, take Combat Expertise and Improved Trip, and be a better tripper than a Monk. That makes more sense.

[Fourth Tempter]

Vik, "familiarity" is not defined anywhere. You are free to impose an arbitrary, ridiculous requirement, such as studying the creature for a month--but knowledge of animals is the sort of thing Knowledge: Nature checks are for.

If you insist on working with a ridiculous definition of familiarity, any given Druid can have seen a Dire Ape (and a few other choice creatures) as part of his story.

[Funkyodor]

To respond to the original question 'So why is the monk weak?', the monk is weak because not all things can be equal. When you have a system with multiple character classes, there will always be a weaker and a stronger class. The creators of the game are only 'U-mans, and can't get all things right. Then the deciding factor boils down to 'Do I want a challenge?', 'Do I have a specific character background I want to try?' or 'Do I want "Easy Mode" and play the super cheese monkey fictional character and make the DM say "ROCKS FALL YOU DIE!" in record time this go around.'

I've read alot (not all) of these pages and this sounds like some debates in Warhammer 40k. And to quote a good comeback, "When you play on planet bowling ball, where everything is flat, certain armies are superior." When you ignore role-playing when debating a role-playing character class, you really are missing something. Role-playing is a key mechanic in role-playing games. Kinda comes back to the golden rule. If you don't like the way the game plays, then change it and 'House Rule'. Want the druid to only be able to change into animals he has encountered? Want spell resistance to affect all spells, not just the ones that say 'SR? Yes'? Want the diplomacy skill difficulties to scale based on what you are trying to get them to believe? Want to restrict players so they can't PrC into a class they haven't run across? Want to restrict players so then can't change classes period? Then go for it. Else you might as well play craps and try to win some money out of the boring dice rolling game.

[Vik]

Vik, "familiarity" is not defined anywhere. You are free to impose an arbitrary, ridiculous requirement, such as studying the creature for a month--but knowledge of animals is the sort of thing Knowledge: Nature checks are for.
If you insist on working with a ridiculous definition of familiarity, any given Druid can have seen a Dire Ape (and a few other choice creatures) as part of his story. You know, when something is not defined, the fact is you have to juste take the common definition.

I know what an ape is, but I'm certainly not familiar with them. And I've seen some of them, in zoos and at tv. Having seen one is not sufficient, just as a Knowledge check is not. Now, yes you can always put it in your story. Just as I can put in my story that my character is in fact the son of a DR 20 god who will protect him.

I'm a bit tired of seeing things like "it's purely mechanical, GM has nothing to do with it", because he does. He's in charge of making sure that background stories are fine. And unless you're only playing with bought adventures, the GM is the one that set up the whole story. If you're playing a Rogue, you will complain of being underpowered if there are too much crit-immune creatures. If you're a Fighter, you'll wonder what's your role if there are only social interactions. If you're a Wizard, you won't like a game where dead magic zones are everywhere. Everybody agree with that ; yet if you put it the other way "if GM doesn't do this, then XXX is overpowered", then it's arbitrary GMing ... Sad.

[Rincewind]

This thread is the cancer that is killing D&d... :smalleek:

[Knight_Of_Twilight]

This thread is the cancer that is killing D&d... :smalleek:

Somehow I doubt that. If anything, imbalance is a disorder that can be fixed, and its just being diagnosed.

[endersdouble]

A fair amount of this comes down to how your DM rules Fascinate. I've seen many who make it a nearly worthless ability, which is a shame because it's both totally awesome, and completely iconic of the class. If the DM lets it work when it should, nothing makes that save.

Edit: And while I'm thinking of it, in Lord Silvanos's Battle of the Core Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36559), the Bard actually did beat the Monk. And Silvanos has pretty much declared Fascinate to be irrelevant.

Well, frankly, against a monk, a Bard's ability to cast--like, at all--plus UMD--very well might be enough, depending on how he rolls it.

If he ever does.

[Fourth Tempter]

You know, when something is not defined, the fact is you have to juste take the common definition.
And there are common definitions of "familiar" that mean both closely and casually acquainted. Considering that a Druid is meant to turn into animals--the ones printed in the Monster Manual, that this is the entire purpose of his class feature, I find it unlikely that the Druid is supposed to study a dire lion for a week or a month before he can do so.
Declaring that he *does*, incidentally, does not decrease power in the end--it simply creates more hoops to jump through. Hoop-jumping is annoying, but not a true obstacle.


I know what an ape is, but I'm certainly not familiar with them. And I've seen some of them, in zoos and at tv. Having seen one is not sufficient, just as a Knowledge check is not. Now, yes you can always put it in your story. Just as I can put in my story that my character is in fact the son of a DR 20 god who will protect him.
And a druid who studies nature is quite likely to be familiar with one. Just what is it that a druid has to know, do you imagine, to turn into an animal?


I'm a bit tired of seeing things like "it's purely mechanical, GM has nothing to do with it", because he does. He's in charge of making sure that background stories are fine. And unless you're only playing with bought adventures, the GM is the one that set up the whole story. If you're playing a Rogue, you will complain of being underpowered if there are too much crit-immune creatures. If you're a Fighter, you'll wonder what's your role if there are only social interactions. If you're a Wizard, you won't like a game where dead magic zones are everywhere. Everybody agree with that ; yet if you put it the other way "if GM doesn't do this, then XXX is overpowered", then it's arbitrary GMing ... Sad.
He is in charge of making sure backstories are fine... but there is some difference between saying "no, a god is not protecting you" and "no, you can not have seen a Dinonychus. Or an ape. Or a bear. Or a lion. Or a crocodile."
If the GM has to remove otherwise-reasonable Monster Manual animals to keep the Druid in line--that is a very good sign that the Druid is overpowered.
Obviously the GM can declare whatever he wishes, but a class should not rely on the GM "nerfing" its class features every single time.

[ZeroNumerous]

Monk VS Bard: Bard has spells. 'Nuff said about that one.

As for that bad comparison of Frenzied Beserker VS Monk..

I choose the Frenzied Beserker. Why? People seem to forget that you can willingly fail any save. The beserker frenzies and kills his enemies, which the class description of Frenzy states he will attack first. Once all the enemies are dead, the party Wizard hits the Beserker with Sleep/Daze/Color Spray/what-have-you. The Beserker willingly fails his save. We move on with our lives.

[Dark Tira]

Wow, some people really take their fanaticism for the Monk a bit far. I mean, I love to use the Monk but there's no way I'd argue that it isn't a weak class.

Anyway, I'd thought I'd bring up a couple of points in favor of the monk.

1) Although MAD is usually a drawback it also means that the Monk benefits more from large generalized stat gains that can be gotten from high LA Races and Templates. Not to mention that the Monk can lose its last 5 levels or so of class abilities without much of an impact.

2) A role that hasn't been mentioned yet that the Monk fulfills fairly well is that of a rearguard. The last time I partied with a monk the party ended up having to flee from a group of chaos beasts and the brave monk stayed back to hold them off. The monk kept them busy for a fair number of rounds giving the rest of us enough time to escape. The superior monk speed made it easy for him to catch up to the rest of us when he was done.
Unfortunately it wasn't a happy ending since by the time he caught up the Monk had been transformed into a chaos beast and so we had to "put him down" but that's not really the point of the story.


That being said, monks do suck overall.

[endersdouble]

Monk VS Bard: Bard has spells. 'Nuff said about that one.

As for that bad comparison of Frenzied Beserker VS Monk..

I choose the Frenzied Beserker. Why? People seem to forget that you can willingly fail any save. The beserker frenzies and kills his enemies, which the class description of Frenzy states he will attack first. Once all the enemies are dead, the party Wizard hits the Beserker with Sleep/Daze/Color Spray/what-have-you. The Beserker willingly fails his save. We move on with our lives.
Alternatively, use any of a number of good techniques to either:
a. Jack up your will save so you can make it when you need to
b. Be able to turn it off otherwise (I like Iron Heart Surge, FWIW.)

Or, you can do monstrously silly things (highly encouraged). One of these days I /will/ play the half-orc FB with Int 6 who's a NG follower of, say, Pelor, and hits people over the head with a +5 merciful greatclub.

"Sometimes me get...angry and want HIT people! But Pelor say kill friends wrong, and me like friends...so Wizard friend give me big stick that no kill people when I get angry!"

[Damionte]

Wow, some people really take their fanaticism for the Monk a bit far. I mean, I love to use the Monk but there's no way I'd argue that it isn't a weak class.

Anyway, I'd thought I'd bring up a couple of points in favor of the monk.

1) Although MAD is usually a drawback it also means that the Monk benefits more from large generalized stat gains that can be gotten from high LA Races and Templates. Not to mention that the Monk can lose its last 5 levels or so of class abilities without much of an impact.

2) A role that hasn't been mentioned yet that the Monk fulfills fairly well is that of a rearguard. The last time I partied with a monk the party ended up having to flee from a group of chaos beasts and the brave monk stayed back to hold them off. The monk kept them busy for a fair number of rounds giving the rest of us enough time to escape. The superior monk speed made it easy for him to catch up to the rest of us when he was done.
Unfortunately it wasn't a happy ending since the Monk was transformed into a chaos beast and we had to put him down but that's not really the point of the story.


That being said, monks do suck overall.

Oberservation for #2. Had that party not wasted a slot on a Monk, they probably wouldn't have needed to run away. :) Haha

[Dark Tira]

Oberservation for #2. Had that party not wasted a slot on a Monk, they probably wouldn't have needed to run away. :) Haha

Probably true, it was a halfling monk who specialized in grappling. The rest of the party was a Favored Soul, Hexblade, and Warlock. So at least he was in good company.

[ZeroNumerous]

Well with that group, I'm surprised you guys weren't killed outright.. No offense, but man that sucks.

[Fourth Tempter]

Endersgame--you are required to attack people in a frenzy, to the best of your ability; this precludes voluntarily failing saves and using Iron Heart Surge.

Besides, if one Frenzies from a trap or a ranged attack, the people nearest at hand will be one's party members, and one may crush the fragile rogue entirely before anything can occur.
The Merciful weapon is perhaps the best solution, but it is still less than ideal.

[Vik]

He is in charge of making sure backstories are fine... but there is some difference between saying "no, a god is not protecting you" and "no, you can not have seen a Dinonychus. Or an ape. Or a bear. Or a lion. Or a crocodile."How many Dinonychus, ape, lions or crocodiles did you see in your entire life, apart from the ones in zoo or tv that don't exist in DnD (well, there might be zoos, but anyway that would be something the druid would fight, and as he's the most powerful class, no one would ever build a zoo) ? Those are tropical animals. They are not meant to be encoutered in the typical DnD wilderness.


If the GM has to remove otherwise-reasonable Monster Manual animals to keep the Druid in line--that is a very good sign that the Druid is overpowered.
Obviously the GM can declare whatever he wishes, but a class should not rely on the GM "nerfing" its class features every single time. The point is, why does it have to be the GM that nerf ? The very wording of Wildshape means that the GM has to allow a shape if the druid ask so, not that he has to ban some because they are all by default available, which you seem to think. Furthermore, the most problematic animals are the ape.
Again, I don't argue over the power of the druid. But, when you have to choose because you find the wording is not quite clear, why would one choose the obviously broken way ? The familiarity thing is clearly there so that the Druid wildshape into animals of his own forest. That's enough to make it powerful.

[ZeroNumerous]

Endersgame--you are required to attack people in a frenzy, to the best of your ability; this precludes voluntarily failing saves and using Iron Heart Surge.

Nope. You're required to attack to the best of your ability. A save would be defending yourself. By RAW, you can willingly fail a save in a Frenzy, as you are attacking with your absolute best. It does not specify defending oneself. In fact, one could even argue that the FB could lose initiative, because it's not an offensive action.

Crocodile: I live in the South. Do I really need to tell you how many I've seen?

[Fax Celestis]

How many Dinonychus, ape, lions or crocodiles did you see in your entire life, apart from the ones in zoo or tv that don't exist in DnD (well, there might be zoos, but anyway that would be something the druid would fight, and as he's the most powerful class, no one would ever build a zoo) ? Those are tropical animals. They are not meant to be encoutered in the wilderness.

Tropics can be wild too, you know.

[Indon]

Well with that group, I'm surprised you guys weren't killed outright.. No offense, but man that sucks.

Actual strategy can mean the difference between a party of a Druid, Cleric, Wizard, and Sorceror and a party of a Ranger, Monk, Warlock and Warmage (I know that's not one-to-one there). Actually thinking about your objectives and resources at hand rather than pulling out the appropriate deus ex machina goes a very long way.

Plus it's more interesting.

No, needing to be creative about solving problems doesn't mean you're underpowered. If anything, it means you're at just the right power level, because you as a player get to be stimulated by the challenges your group faces rather than being able to solve everything with the same simple method.

[Fourth Tempter]

How many Dinonychus, ape, lions or crocodiles did you see in your entire life, apart from the ones in zoo or tv that don't exist in DnD (well, there might be zoos, but anyway that would be something the druid would fight, and as he's the most powerful class, no one would ever build a zoo) ? Those are tropical animals. They are not meant to be encoutered in the wilderness.
I have not seen any outside of a zoo--but then, you may note that I am not a fifth-level Druid, who is likely to.
As a matter of fact, there is an environment--"warm forests"--where Dire Apes are actively meant to be encountered. It is in no way odd for a Druid to come from such an environment or have been to one at some point.


The point is, why does it have to be the GM that nerf ? The very wording of Wildshape means that the GM has to allow a shape if the druid ask so, not that he has to ban some because they are all by default available, which you seem to think. Furthermore, the most problematic animals are the ape.
"At 5th level, a druid gains the ability to turn herself into any Small or Medium animal and back again once per day... the form chosen must be that of an animal the druid is familiar with."
Yes, I would say forms ARE availible by default, because the ability exists specifically to allow the druid to turn into the animals in the book. The DM does not, by default, dictate what one's character is and is not familiar with. In fact, a Druid can well have a Dire Ape for an Animal Companion before he gains the ability to Wild Shape, and be very closely acquainted with it because of that--and that is not something that requires DM approval any more than learning Sleep or having a horse as a mount; there is a specific list of animal companions for the Druid to choose from.

Druids are supposed to turn into apes and lions and tigers and bears. These are the combat forms they are meant to use . That is the purpose of the Wild Shape ability.
If you find yourself needing to eliminate all of the most combat-worthy animals from your world or declaring that the Druid could not possibly be familiar with one, that is a sign that there is a problem with the ability.

The ape is not the most problematic. Pouncers like lions and tigers, bruisers like bears, are all quite powerful enough.


Edited to add:


Plus it's more interesting.
...for you. Not for everyone. That is a rather absolute statement for something so much a matter of preference.

[Starbuck_II]

Nope. You're required to attack to the best of your ability. A save would be defending yourself. By RAW, you can willingly fail a save in a Frenzy, as you are attacking with your absolute best. It does not specify defending oneself. In fact, one could even argue that the FB could lose initiative, because it's not an offensive action.

Crocodile: I live in the South. Do I really need to tell you how many I've seen?

Why would choosing to fail a save versus an enemy be "to the best of your abilities"? After all,in Frenzy: allies become enemies.

[Theodoxus]

How many Dinonychus, ape, lions or crocodiles did you see in your entire life, apart from the ones in zoo or tv that don't exist in DnD (well, there might be zoos, but anyway that would be something the druid would fight, and as he's the most powerful class, no one would ever build a zoo) ? Those are tropical animals. They are not meant to be encoutered in the typical DnD wilderness.

The point is, why does it have to be the GM that nerf ? The very wording of Wildshape means that the GM has to allow a shape if the druid ask so, not that he has to ban some because they are all by default available, which you seem to think. Furthermore, the most problematic animals are the ape.
Again, I don't argue over the power of the druid. But, when you have to choose because you find the wording is not quite clear, why would one choose the obviously broken way ? The familiarity thing is clearly there so that the Druid wildshape into animals of his own forest. That's enough to make it powerful.


AND LO, DID GOD DOTH CALL UPON THEE, OH HIGHLY POWERFUL DRUIDS, AND THUS, DID HE BUT STRIKE THEE LOWLY, UNTO THINE WEAKER COMPATRIOTS WHEREFOREBY THY WILDSHAPE DOTH BECOME SHAPESHIFT AND ORDER WAS THUSLY RESTORED.

PHB II, Buy it, love it, use it. Destroy the evil vile overpoweredness that is the polymorph of DOOM and replace it with the roses that is shapeshift. (especially for the fighters in your party who decide to follow one of the more benevolent druidic deities that allow metal armor... sleep in dog form, battle in fullplate at a swift moments notice. - pure cheesy brillance, all for the cost of one lowly d8 and a few healing spells. - muahahahahaha)

[endersdouble]

AND LO, DID GOD DOTH CALL UPON THEE, OH HIGHLY POWERFUL DRUIDS, AND THUS, DID HE BUT STRIKE THEE LOWLY, UNTO THINE WEAKER COMPATRIOTS WHEREFOREBY THY WILDSHAPE DOTH BECOME SHAPESHIFT AND ORDER WAS THUSLY RESTORED.

PHB II, Buy it, love it, use it. Destroy the evil vile overpoweredness that is the polymorph of DOOM and replace it with the roses that is shapeshift. (especially for the fighters in your party who decide to follow one of the more benevolent druidic deities that allow metal armor... sleep in dog form, battle in fullplate at a swift moments notice. - pure cheesy brillance, all for the cost of one lowly d8 and a few healing spells. - muahahahahaha)
er...no. I'd rather fix wildshape than abandon it (and unlike polymorph, it's probably doable). What draws me to playing a druid (when I want to, they're not my favorite class) is the flexibility to turn into whatever I want to. Shapeshift gives you what, 4 forms by 20) (Away from books, not sure of the exact number?) It's just not the same.

Ah, I loved the time we had our druid spam wildshape to take out sentries: He'd become a sparrow/small bird, fly up into their towers, then suddenly become a grizzly bear right behind them. Must have been quite a surprise.

Of course, I loved it even more--this was part of over an hour (realtime) preparation for a nice stealthy attack on a camp. I had decided about ten minutes in that my Wis 5 Rogue would utterly blow the surprise in the first round of the attack. It ended up...awesome, perhaps the best encounter I've ever played.

[endersdouble]

Why would choosing to fail a save versus an enemy be "to the best of your abilities"? After all,in Frenzy: allies become enemies.
...no, no they don't. Read the frakking text. Yes, you may end up attacking your allies--but they are /not/ your enemies, you can still tell the difference.

And irregardless, attacking is the only thing you need to do--you can still defend yourself how you choose.

[Ulzgoroth]

Polymorph related effects, like Gate effects, beg for you to filter the MMs for sanity. If you have such effects available in your game, you have to regulate which of the possible beasts actually exist, or you get Candle of Invocation Titans. Or just natural titans, using the trick for themselves. The only form of balance the MM writers paid any attention to was CR.

Familiarity is a bad shield, because if the animal exists its certainly possible to become familiar with it, even if you aren't allowed to start that way. If the animal isn't part of any biosphere in your multiverse...that's another thing entirely.

[ZeroNumerous]

Why would choosing to fail a save versus an enemy be "to the best of your abilities"? After all,in Frenzy: allies become enemies.

Because it's defending, not attacking.

As for Indon.. None of those classes are nearly as horrific as having a Hexblade. The only thing worse than being stuck with one would be if their group included a CW Samurai. If I were in that group, I would have asked the Samurai to commit seppuku on the grounds that he is completely useless.

[Indon]

...for you. Not for everyone. That is a rather absolute statement for something so much a matter of preference.

I imagine the preference set that would make playing, say, a batman-type character (not building, but actually playing) is probably pretty rare.

Though, admittedly, I prefer playing Civilization on lower difficulty levels despite being capable of playing on higher ones, so I guess you have a point. A variety of power levels probably does serve to enrich the game, though of course playing characters on wildly varying power levels in the same party can lead to problems.

[Fax Celestis]

As I've stated prior but can't seem to locate now, here is why the monk is a weak class:
Due to his midrange BAB and lack of easily-enhanceable weaponry, the monk is a worse front line fighter than the fighter, barbarian, or paladin classes.
Due to his lack of spells, maneuvers, or any other sort of versatility in his class features--versatility in this case meaning such things as "spell slots", "readied maneuvers", and other non-specific instance class features--the monk is a one-trick pony centered around land-based mobility. In the early game, this is good. Right around midgame, though, land-based mobility is replaced by flight-mobility, and without outside assistance the monk is unable to compete in that field.
Due to his mediocre 4+Int skill points--coupled with no class features that are Int-dependent--the monk is a weaker skill-monkey than the rogue or bard, both of which get more skill points, have more generally useful skill lists, and don't have multi-attribute dependency (or have multi-attribute dependency that includes Int).
Due to his inability to wear armor, the monk is extraordinarily susceptible to sneak attacks, critical hits, and other precision damage, as he cannot acquire Fortification or Uncanny Dodge--the former due to his lack of armor, the latter due to his inability to effectively multiclass. Fortification is not the only good thing he misses out on from armor.
Due to his alignment and multiclass restrictions, the monk cannot take a good number of base or prestige classes, some of which would be remarkably good.

[Indon]

As I've stated prior but can't seem to locate now, here is why the monk is a weak class:
Due to his midrange BAB and lack of easily-enhanceable weaponry, the monk is a worse front line fighter than the fighter, barbarian, or paladin classes.

Certainly true, but if the monk was a better front-line fighter than those classes, wouldn't that make him overpowered for being an excellent fighter and then being able to do a number of other things as well?



Due to his lack of spells, maneuvers, or any other sort of versatility in his class features--versatility in this case meaning such things as "spell slots", "readied maneuvers", and other non-specific instance class features--the monk is a one-trick pony centered around land-based mobility. In the early game, this is good. Right around midgame, though, land-based mobility is replaced by flight-mobility, and without outside assistance the monk is unable to compete in that field.

That's a problem that pretty much every non-caster has. If the criteria for being underpowered are 'not a caster', that doesn't strike me as very robust criteria.



Due to his mediocre 4+Int skill points--coupled with no class features that are Int-dependent--the monk is a weaker skill-monkey than the rogue or bard, both of which get more skill points, have more generally useful skill lists, and don't have multi-attribute dependency (or have multi-attribute dependency that includes Int).

You know, I agree here. Monks should have more skill points, though their skill list itself is fairly robust. Still, a monk hardly needs to be a better skill monkey than a rogue to not be underpowered.



Due to his inability to wear armor, the monk is extraordinarily susceptible to sneak attacks, critical hits, and other precision damage, as he cannot acquire Fortification or Uncanny Dodge--the former due to his lack of armor, the latter due to his inability to effectively multiclass. Fortification is not the only good thing he misses out on from armor.

I'm pretty sure your Uncanny Dodge level is based on your levels in classes which give Uncanny Dodge, anyway. Though, inability to wear armor I'm somewhat in agreeance towards. I feel a monk should be able to wear armor and still at least maintain their offensive-oriented abilities, even if they don't start with proficiency.



Due to his alignment and multiclass restrictions, the monk cannot take a good number of base or prestige classes, some of which would be remarkably good.


Hmm. I concede. The inability to effectively multiclass is a monk-specific, significant weakness, and without it monks would be outstandingly more potent, and in a way that wouldn't just end up with people considering them overpowered instead.

[Fax Celestis]

Certainly true, but if the monk was a better front-line fighter than those classes, wouldn't that make him overpowered for being an excellent fighter and then being able to do a number of other things as well? Not exactly. The barbarian would be best at Power Attack; the fighter at battlefield control (a la spiked chain tripmonkey); and the monk would be best at precision tactical combat maneuvers.


That's a problem that pretty much every non-caster has. If the criteria for being underpowered are 'not a caster', that doesn't strike me as very robust criteria. Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, and Tome of Battle presented versatile, capable martial classes. They are, technically, "casters" in some regards, but they are fundamentally warriors.


You know, I agree here. Monks should have more skill points, though their skill list itself is fairly robust. Still, a monk hardly needs to be a better skill monkey than a rogue to not be underpowered.
They should, but they don't, which is entirely unfortunate.


I'm pretty sure your Uncanny Dodge level is based on your levels in classes which give Uncanny Dodge, anyway. Though, inability to wear armor I'm somewhat in agreeance towards. I feel a monk should be able to wear armor and still at least maintain their offensive-oriented abilities, even if they don't start with proficiency.
I also agree here. I also am of the mind that particular kinds of armor (light and light shields) shouldn't interfere with their Wis-to-AC bonus.


Hmm. I concede. The inability to effectively multiclass is a monk-specific, significant weakness, and without it monks would be outstandingly more potent, and in a way that wouldn't just end up with people considering them overpowered instead.
Exactly. If you could take five levels of monk, then grab a level of rogue before heading into thief-acrobat and not have to worry about going back to monk later, it'd be a lot more conducive to a more robust class.

[Jasdoif]

I'm pretty sure your Uncanny Dodge level is based on your levels in classes which give Uncanny Dodge, anyway.That only matters when you have Improved Uncanny Dodge and a rogue is trying to flank you. In all other cases, simply having (Improved) Uncanny Dodge is sufficient.

I've always thought it was weird that monks, with their hyper-perceptive Wisdom-to-AC, don't get Uncanny Dodge.

[JaronK]

Because it's defending, not attacking.

As for Indon.. None of those classes are nearly as horrific as having a Hexblade. The only thing worse than being stuck with one would be if their group included a CW Samurai. If I were in that group, I would have asked the Samurai to commit seppuku on the grounds that he is completely useless.

Actually Hexblades are great... but they're like Swashbucklers. They're a dip class. In the case of Hexblades, they're a four level dip class used mostly in conjunction with the Paladin of Tyranny and/or the Ur Priest. This is because the fourth level substitution from PHBII is that awesome.

Paladin of Tyranny 4/Hexblade 5/Ur Priest 1/Bone Knight 10 is nothing to sneeze at... 9th level cleric spells, though at caster level 15... but everyone near you takes -4 to saves. Paladin of Tyranny 3/Hexblade 4/Binder 8/Knight of the Sacred Seal 5 is similar, granting a -6 to saves to anyone nearby with the right vestiges.

They're also a reasonable entrance into Dragon Disciple.

But that's a complete digression.

JaronK

[Fourth Tempter]

A Paladin of Tyranny/Hexblade can help out his party spellcasters a lot. The combination of Aura of Despair and the Hexblade's "Dark Companion" Player's Handbook II substitution feature already imposes -4 to saving throws on his melee opponents; add in Focalor and another vestige via Binder, and you can raise that to -8. Ensure that the party wizard giggles with glee. "Save or..." spells without the "or"!

[JaronK]

Hehe, Ninja post FTW.

JaronK

[stainboy]

Double Bleh, I just don't understand the desire to optimize and compare relative strengths to the point of considering a class broken or weak.

To me, it's like trying to turn your Schwin into a Harley, when all your friends want to do is ride bikes around the neighborhood.


Quoted for awesomeness.


Monks have always been a strong class in the games I've run. I always either force players to go light on magic, or absolutely punish spellcasters with every dispel, cheap immunity, and crowd-control effect available. I also run a lot of fights where terrain plays a major role. Most of my games, melee classes need Balance, Tumble, Climb, and high movement rates just to get into melee range.

(Admittedly, I also house-rule Flurry of Blows, TWF, and such to work with standard attack actions, which has a lot to do with it too.)

[JaronK]

Actually, I think it's more like your friends want to cruise down the highway on their motorcycles and you pull out a moped in hopes of joining them. "Um, yeah, you're a nice guy, but get a real bike so you can keep up with us, okay?"

JaronK

[Jayabalard]

Actually, I think it's more like your friends want to cruise down the highway on their motorcycles and you pull out a moped in hopes of joining them. "Um, yeah, you're a nice guy, but get a real bike so you can keep up with us, okay?"

JaronKThose sound like some pretty shallow friends ...

[Indon]

Those sound like some pretty shallow friends ...

Some people are really into their hogs.

[Fax Celestis]

Some people are really into their hogs.

...farmers?

[Indon]

...farmers?

Only if they're small size. How much does a riding pig cost again?

[Arbitrarity]

Apply the warbeast template to it. Probably about 75 gp...

[Fax Celestis]

Only if they're small size. How much does a riding pig cost again?

Beyond that, who rides a pig?

Man, if I ever get a mount, it's gonna be something cool.

[lord_khaine]

"starts looking for stakes"

isnt it about time this tread dies? im pretty sure there hasnt been said anything new the last 5 pages...

[Damionte]

Probably true, it was a halfling monk who specialized in grappling. The rest of the party was a Favored Soul, Hexblade, and Warlock. So at least he was in good company.

A hafling monk specialised in grappling..... ! Had we been at the table during character generation and he/she had come up with that idea, I would have made him/her go sit in the corner for 20 minutes and THINK about what he/she just said. Then come back and oppologise to the rest of the party! :) LOL

[Indon]

Beyond that, who rides a pig?


Halfling monks who specialize in grappling.

And that's awesome.

[Jasdoif]

Beyond that, who rides a pig?

Man, if I ever get a mount, it's gonna be something cool.Hmm. If you were a fiendish toad with sorcerer levels (and thus got a really good roll for Charisma)...you could probably make a homunculus to use as a mount. Though acquiring one pint of your own blood might be a chore.

[Fax Celestis]

Halfling monks who specialize in grappling.

And that's awesome.

Oh, man, horrible images of making a character who's modeled after Sir Didymus from Labyrinth.

http://images.quizilla.com/R/ravensweetwater/1036520008_irdidymus2.jpg

[Skjaldbakka]

I've done that. He was a gnome knight. I named his trusty steed Didymus, but sadly, no one got the reference.


isnt it about time this tread dies? im pretty sure there hasnt been said anything new the last 5 pages...

My last word on the subject. Monk is weak because it requires a higher level of optimization than the rest of the party in order to contribute equally.


for those of you who are tired of debating the monk's value, but would like to contribute to updating and improving the monk. I started a thread along those lines. link (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2678770#post2678770)

[trebonius]

OK - first time for posting. I am going to wade in on the side of the monk class (currently my most enjoyable character) - though I am not going to argue that it it as strong a class as many others - merely that it makes an effective contribution and you do not need to feel you have let down your fellow gamers in bringing a monk to the party. For ref, my character is 8th and has a large number of good but not excellent requisites compared to other party members.

Let me state at the outset though, I do know where people come from when they deride the class. I too have suffered from the near hysterical laughter of some of my fellow players when my feeble attacks have done insignificant amounts of damage.

However, other players have actually stated how useful the character is and how it has benefitted, even saved, the party. How can the two views be reconciled?

First, through the fortunate circumstance of an early acquisition of a ring of spell storing and the party mage, I normally go into fights with shield and mage armour. Combined with other bits and pieces I have a very high AC compared to other people. I can (with 5 ranks of tumble) use defensive fighting (and soon combat expertise) to make my AC (including my touch AC) pretty excellent. Now there has been discussion on this thread about whether high AC is that special - especially when you do not hand out much/any damage. However, if you are the wall that allows the other party members to safely demonstrate their ranged awfulness, then that is a valuable role. Monk misses monster, monster misses monk is normally a good result for the party.

Second, I am the party scout. High AC, good saves, fast movement, good spot,listen and stealth skills (plus the odd useful ability e.g. evasion or being able to fall down pits without harm!) allows me to go (a little bit) ahead of the party. Ambushes have been thwarted and party killing tricks and traps detected to the extent that if my character did nothing else my scouting justify his presence in the party. It was my character who was able inform the party that the evil bad guy was a levitating mind flayer (Phew-- made my will save on that one!) that enabled the party to be prepared to take on the BBEG in optimum fashion!


Thirdly, I set things up. This can be by providing flanking bonuses, disarming people or just being able to react and put my body in the way to protect a suffering party member.


Fourthly, I have got fairly good skill points (human with a bit of int) which helps out with a range of tasks including being the party face (though that perhaps indicates how poor the others are at such matters).

Finally, buffing has made my character effective in combat. Greater magic weapon, magic vestment etc are all good and usually worthwhile casting on me rather than keeping them for curing.


OK - then to summarise - I can act as a party wall, scout and use my movement and feats in imaginative ways. I can now (with buffs) make a useful contibution to combat.

All well and good, but I freely and happily admit that a monk has its problems.

I accept that it will not hand out as much damage as a fighter. Nor should it. I do not want my monk to compete with an out an out melee specialist. I do not want full BAB.
I accept that high level spellcasters are awesome and monks will struggle to do anything to such individuals (unless they are greatly depleted in spells).

So here is my take on making things better.

First define the role. To my mind, he a combat trickster with a range of techniques to compensate for his lesser ability to hand out pure melee damage. Secondly, he is a good scout. Finally, he can play the role of the party face.

All of this points to extra feats and skill points.

I would consider a range of the following (not all - as choice in the build is an important aspect of DnD).

Greater magic weapon capabilty (probably from 4th) allowing a magical enhancement to the flurry of blows.
Greater acces to Trip/feint/disarm/imp grapple and similar feats.
Blindfight
Ability to go invisible and see invisible at the mid to high levels.
Ability to do flying leaps - like crouching tiger/hidden dragon etc - perhaps even to fly
Extra dimension door capability
Purity of body to give immunity to all disease
Enhance wholeness of body
Enhance diamond soul (level +15 might give one or two mages a nervous twitch!)
At high levels, foresight (as per the spell)

Take skills points up to 6 a level.

It is important that enhancing the monk does not cause the rogue to be overshadowed - so no trap finding or use magical device class skills etc.

Finally, you could give him spells like paladins and rangers - though with an appropriate spell list (e.g. law domain, mage armour and various perception/divination option).

In the meantime, I am going to carry on with my monk in the confident knowledge that he makes a useful and effective party member!

Have fun gaming folks!:smallsmile:

[JaronK]

Those sound like some pretty shallow friends ...

Not really. They want to go riding on the highway... if your bike only goes 30mph, why should they take you along? Why do they have to slow down to unsafe speeds just so you can try to keep up with them? Shouldn't you get a better bike, or just not come along for their rides?

That's basically the issue with monks in a party of Wizards, Warblades, and Warhulks. Monks can't keep up. Swordsages can.

JaronK

[Starbuck_II]

...no, no they don't. Read the frakking text. Yes, you may end up attacking your allies--but they are /not/ your enemies, you can still tell the difference.

And irregardless, attacking is the only thing you need to do--you can still defend yourself how you choose.

Without regard to friendship, innocence, or health?

If you can tell the difference: why are you attacking them. The only logical conclusion is you can't.

[JaronK]

Or that you're just in a berserk rage and attacking anything, but with a little help, you can be calmed down. A magical spell called, say, Calm Emotions would do exactly that, and since you don't really want to hurt them (you're just so mad you can't stop yourself on your own), you can fail your save against it.

JaronK

[Dark Tira]

A hafling monk specialised in grappling..... ! Had we been at the table during character generation and he/she had come up with that idea, I would have made him/her go sit in the corner for 20 minutes and THINK about what he/she just said. Then come back and oppologise to the rest of the party! :) LOL

Our group usually allows any character concept, no matter how wacky, and then we work together to optimize it to best fit the party.

I don't think the monk really requires fixing. The big argument seems to be that as far as a unoptimized, pick-up and play class the monk falls behind the other core classes, but seriously just about any unoptimized melee class is going to suck. I have no pity for people who can't create a character concept and make it work well. Optimization is not rocket science, it's not even high school algebra.
Also, the fact that the monk lacks a party role is only relevant if you define your party by traditional roles (though most people probably do). Good players can make just about any combination of characters work.

[JaronK]

Dark Tira: So let's see your optomized monk. The arguements have not been "unoptomized monks suck.: Rather, they've been "monks suck, even if you optomize them they don't do much." I'd like to see your monk that doesn't.

I'll get it started: Use Improved Natural Attack and Greater Mighty Whallop to get your damage up to reasonable levels.

JaronK

[Dark Tira]

Dark Tira: So let's see your optomized monk. The arguements have not been "unoptomized monks suck.: Rather, they've been "monks suck, even if you optomize them they don't do much." I'd like to see your monk that doesn't.

I'll get it started: Use Improved Natural Attack and Greater Mighty Whallop to get your damage up to reasonable levels.

JaronK

So you want a monk just optimized for damage output? Not my specialty but I can try, I usually prefer to maximize my stunning fist potential for battlefield control. Any specific level? I probably won't be able to outperform another melee class in damage but I can probably make someting that can do adequate damage for his level.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Not my specialty, I usually prefer to maximize my stunning fist potential for battlefield control. You're not controlling many battlefields with a melee-ranged/single-target/single-round stun.

[Dark Tira]

You're not controlling many battlefields with a melee-ranged/single-target/single-round stun.

If optimized, it doesn't have to be single target or stun.

[Matthew]

So, who won this Thread?

My two Copper Coins...
I can't say I think the Monk is 'underpowered' compared to the majority of Core Base Classes, he seems 'balanced' to me. Compared to the four overpowered Base Classes, Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers and Wizards, he loses like everybody else.

Personally, I like the (Flurrying) Two Handed Quarter Staff Monk for Fighter emulation...

[Laurellien]

He is underpowered. You can't just say he isn't underpowered when taken with core and then just say "but a third of core doesn't count". Also, I think that the other fighting classes have him beat, as does rogue.

[lord_khaine]

laurellion, those past 20 pages of discussion kinda deserves more than the simple statement "he is underpowered". you cant just say he is underpowered, and let that be it.

Jaronk, if you want to see a monk that doesnt suck, ill refer you to several of those postet here, they should be fully able to avoid sucking up to at least lv 15.
and btw, for compereson, i dont count that barbarian/fighter/berserker as a viable build, as we are discussing core classes, if we open up the prestige class option then we might get something like
monk4/wizard6/Jade phonix mage to whoop the berserkers butt.

and failing your saving throw on purpose, when you are angry enough at the person casting the spell to try and kill him, is a pretty fishy isue.
not to mention the problem that you can easely kill ½ your party in a singel round before anyone even gets the chance to cast a spell.

[Zincorium]

laurellion, those past 20 pages of discussion kinda deserves more than the simple statement "he is underpowered". you cant just say he is underpowered, and let that be it.


..Which is apparently why 20 pages of discussion have already passed, we're either going to agree to disagree or continue going at each others throats. As you've probably guessed, I'm opting for the latter, but don't let that stop you.



Jaronk, if you want to see a monk that doesnt suck, ill refer you to several of those postet here, they should be fully able to avoid sucking up to at least lv 15.
and btw, for compereson, i dont count that barbarian/fighter/berserker as a viable build, as we are discussing core classes, if we open up the prestige class option then we might get something like
monk4/wizard6/Jade phonix mage to whoop the berserkers butt.


The posted monks were notable not solving the problem that was espoused by the monks detractors, namely that a monk fills no purpose other than melee combat well enough to put it in that role, and for every optimization of monk for melee combat, an optimized meleer of another class can also do the same thing.

And prestige classes do matter, it's just that pretty much every PrC that continues with the monk being a MONK, rather than a 80% non-monk gish like your example, tends to be scarcely better than the monk. That the barbarian has better prestige class options than the monk, especially straight forward options like frenzied berserker, is a point against the monk, and ignoring something that will come up in most games is blatant stacking of the deck in the monk's favor.



and failing your saving throw on purpose, when you are angry enough at the person casting the spell to try and kill him, is a pretty fishy isue.
not to mention the problem that you can easely kill ½ your party in a singel round before anyone even gets the chance to cast a spell.

Or you can realize that that has absolutely nothing to do with who is more effective in combat.

[Matthew]

He is underpowered. You can't just say he isn't underpowered when taken with core and then just say "but a third of core doesn't count". Also, I think that the other fighting classes have him beat, as does rogue.
Sure you can, it's fairly well agreed that Cleric, Druid, Wizard and Sorcerer are overpowered compared to the other seven Core Classes. It's all relative.

I wouldn't be inclined to agree that the other Fighting Classes have the Monk beat. He'd have a reasonable chance in PvP with them, but that's no big deal. Monks make reasonable party Scouts and Melee combatants. I wouldn't choose one as a Primary Combatant and their lack of Ranged Attacks is troubling, but I don't see them as underpowered compared to a Fighter or Rogue.

[Indon]

laurellion, those past 20 pages of discussion kinda deserves more than the simple statement "he is underpowered". you cant just say he is underpowered, and let that be it.


I'll go a bit more specific. The monk has the Generalists' Curse, meaning that while the Monk can do multiple things, he doesn't do them better than those who specialize in them. Much like other specialists (Bard for instance), he is considered underpowered simply due to that.

As for actual, rather than percieved, weaknesses, the monk has little versatility. Their class abilities introduce significant gear restrictions (so for instance, you could not effectively have an armored unarmed fighter, or an unarmored greatsword user), and they have alignment and multiclassing restrictions which heavily reduce their ability to effectively multiclass (and thus obtain a much more diverse set of abilities).

[axraelshelm]

Beyond that, who rides a pig?

Man, if I ever get a mount, it's gonna be something cool.

Orks from warhammer does although those are boars.

[Wolf_Shade]

After going through more of the thread it appears to be a primarily numbers discussion. While those with personal opinions of the monk seem to have gone so far as to claim it useless overall, the biggest thing is that in a number crunch it is not as effective at various roles as other classes.

Based on that it seems the original question was answered in the first two posts. Either way I'm editing mine as it didn't answer the first post, only the (perceived) insinuation that a monk was completely useless, not just numerically lesser.

[Fawsto]

Monk vs. Caster = Caster over Monk.

Flurry of Blows = Flurry of Misses.

I hit KO attacks? Try using them on Constructs and Alike... BTW, probably a magic armor that protects against criticals would imunize a fighter against this effect. At least, If I DM'd the situation, I'd say so.

High AC? Let's see how much armor class he has when we glue him to the ground!

Just remember that, folowing some reality, evasion means nothing against a dragon's breath in a straight tunnel.

[PlatinumJester]

The wrong thing about monks is that an arcane spell caster can do anything that they can do.

Flurry Blows vs high level evocation spell
Wisdom + Bonus Ac vs Prismatic Wall which is a much greater defense
Fast Movement vs Phantom Steed 240 feet at level 20
Slow Fall vs Fly
Quivering Palm vs Any 9th level spell
High Saving Rolls vs greater dispel magic (since most saves are against magic)

Plus alignment restrictions, crappy prestige classes and stupid peace of mind equals one lame class. Plus they usualy get an equal share of any GP or magic items which is stupid since monks are supposed to be poor.

Still just means more kills for us useful classes which means more XP.

[Matthew]

There is no point comparing Full Casters to Non Casters. Past Level X, they win. It's the Casters that are overpowered. Non Casters all have the same problem, Full Casters.

[Dexter156]

So nearly all of the arguments used either for or against the Monk are situational or hypothetical at best. Perhaps a slightly broader perspective should be taken. I think I can safely assume that we are all comparing the Monk to other classes defining his usefulness to the party (without using the PvP argument of course). Several good points have been made to show that whatever the Monk can do, someone else probably does it better. For my argument I am going to assume that no one has any magical gear whatsoever. Even the playing field a little (and also show that the Monk is always as good as he is not being reliant of stuff).

Skills:

The Monk can sneak around just as well (if not better for speed's sake) than the Rogue or Ranger should hope to. And with access to listen/spot coupled with his high Wis score the Monk should very rarely be caught off guard. He also has access to Diplomacy making him useful out of combat as well.

Defense:

The Monk's AC ought to be sitting somewhere around the fighters at lower levels and should exceed it at higher levels. With a +4 class bonus at level 20 he's already at scale mail level without the penalties associated. Assuming his Dex matches the fighters Dex and the Monk's Wis matches the Fighters Str (for fairness sake putting all stats at 18) the monk receives +12 to AC. The fighter getting the most out of his Dex wears a chain shirt and carries a large shield putting him at +10 to AC. Keeping in mind the Monk suffers no ACP and has both hands free I would say he wins this one.

Offense:

The Monk will hit you more times than any other class. There should be no argument here. The monk's attacks do more damage than any other weapon wielded by a medium size creature at higher levels. And even at lower levels he can be played like a stealth/evasive fighter in which case a d6 or d8 doesn't seem so bad. Also, if you really wanted to, I don't see why you couldn't dropkick or overhead smash someone to gain a 2-handed strength bonus and make effective use of power attack putting you right on par with the fighter.

Abilities:

Alright, you got me here. The monks list of class abilities make him a very specialized kind of combatant. In combat he does what he does and that's all that he does, generally grappling/tripping/disarming/deflecting/distracting maneuvers or punching things...lots. Then again, when it comes to combat, what does the Barbarian do but smash liberally. What does the Rogue do but sneak attack. The Ranger is left with either 2-weapons (which the Monk does better having no off-hand) or ranged attacks. Compared to the Fighter the Monk has very little options as to how he fights so if he's not your thing, just don't play him.

Now as for the PC vs. Balor thing, I was under the impression that the whole party would pitch in a little. Does anyone else find it a little rude that they're just standing around watching to see if the Monk dies or not? Perhaps the Rogue is taking bets. Using the "PC vs. Horrible Icky CR 20 Monster" argument means you have just found a creature the Monk can't beat alone. Congrats. Chances are the other classes would have a hard time unless they were geared to fight such a creature. But now we're getting into more conditional circumstances and famed "what ifs". What if he started at X distance away, what if the Balor was having a bad day, what if there were no buffs, etc. etc. until someone changes the subject. And even then, who decides what is a fair trial and what isn't? I took a few conditional liberties with some of my above statements just to prove a point but ultimately it all comes down to the in-game scenarios and even then, everyone's got a different side of the story.

Just a comment on the monk taking on the balor alone...

The CR of monsters is designed around a 4 person party. If one party member takes on a monster, the monster should be 4 CR lower than the level of the party member. They tell you this in the DMG somewhere. So in all fairness, D&D says that a fair fight would be between a level 24 monk and a Balor, not a level 20 monk and a Balor. Kind of a big difference. I would also like to point out that monks suffer the most in "core only" campaigns. While there are some silly feats out there, there are feats that are balanced that really help the monk out.

[greenknight]

The CR of monsters is designed around a 4 person party. If one party member takes on a monster, the monster should be 4 CR lower than the level of the party member. They tell you this in the DMG somewhere. So in all fairness, D&D says that a fair fight would be between a level 24 monk and a Balor, not a level 20 monk and a Balor. Kind of a big difference. I would also like to point out that monks suffer the most in "core only" campaigns. While there are some silly feats out there, there are feats that are balanced that really help the monk out.

It's been shown fairly conclusively (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243796&postcount=388) that a 20th level Fighter can solo a Balor. In fact, any 20th level PC should be able to solo any one CR20 encounter with a high likelihood of success if the class is properly balanced against the others. Where the balance issue falls down is if a 20th level PC is too weak to solo the encounter, or so strong the character can solo multiple CR20 encounters in a single day. If a properly built 20th level Monk can't solo a CR20 Balor, then that highlights a problem with the class.

[Kurald Galain]

It's been shown fairly conclusively (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2243796&postcount=388) that a 20th level Fighter can solo a Balor.

No it hasn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2249694&postcount=397)

[greenknight]

No it hasn't. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2249694&postcount=397)

Are you trying to tell me that the Fighter couldn't defeat that Balor? Even if the Balor survived the first 1.5 rounds (which it probably would), if it hung around the Fighter would almost certainly finish it off. The Balor's best option in that scenario would be to admit defeat and teleport away.

[Arbitrarity]

Lol, contradicting yourself? Check who wrote the post :smallcool:

[greenknight]

Lol, contradicting yourself? Check who wrote the post :smallcool:

I did. And I stand by what I wrote, which was that the Fighter wouldn't be likely to beat the Balor in 1.5 rounds. I also wrote that my Cleric build could do it and more besides, later showing how that Cleric could defeat 3 CR20 encounters solo (and that includes the Tarrasque). What I'm saying here is that even though it would take more than 1.5 rounds to beat the Balor, the Fighter could solo it, although soloing a second, very different CR20 encounter that same day would probably be difficult, if were even possible.

[Deel]

Really, there is 0 point in comparing full casters to melee combatants. Full casters will always, ALWAYS win. Always. Bringing them up is pretty much a moot point as everyone already knows. This kind of thing is what lead me to being very bitter toward most fullcasters(specifically the power three) as it just gets driven further and further into the ground.

That aside, the monk, with it's 3/4 BAB and lots of lackluster abilities compared to other classes, it could use a lot of improvement toward getting to be in line with other melee combatants. First improvements would be a choice to go the spiritual or physical route, and give full BAB. I personally like this as a slightly different monk, the Martial Artist (http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/martialartist.htm), it is pretty much just a universal unarmored fighter, but would make and can be made into a much better monk if made into one. Lots of bonus feats to show training, acrobatics for wuxia style fighting(a lot of the reason people end up taking monk, I know it's why I played one before switching to swordsage), and a few useful abilities aside(Uncanny Dodge, Trap Sense, AC bonus.) Would require some tweaking of monk PrCs to let it get into them without flurry, but it's a homebrew class anyway, that's why we have houserules.

[Arbitrarity]

Ah, sorry :smallsmile: